Biological Invasions

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 1935–1950 | Cite as

Similar dietary but different numerical responses to nonnative tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) by two native warblers

  • Sean M. Mahoney
  • Tad C. Theimer
  • Matthew J. Johnson
  • Jeffrey T. Foster
Original Paper


Native species can have a range of responses to nonnative introductions, from negative to positive, and understanding how and why native species respond differently to nonnatives remains an important management challenge. Based on differences and similarities in ecology and behavior, we predicted how abundance and diet of two native warblers, Lucy’s warbler (Oreothlypis luciae) and yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), would differ in habitats with different amounts of nonnative tamarisk trees and the three nonnative insects obligately dependent on tamarisk (Tamarix spp.). Specifically, we predicted that Lucy’s warblers would have similar densities across sites, yellow warbler densities would be inversely related to tamarisk cover, and both warblers, being generalist insectivores, would incorporate tamarisk biocontrol insects in their diet. Based on point counts and fecal samples at six sites along the Virgin River in the southwestern United States, we found that yellow warblers decreased in abundance with increasing tamarisk cover, while Lucy’s warbler abundance did not and that diet of the two warblers did not differ, with both species exhibiting strong selection for the nonnative tamarisk weevil (Coniatus splendidulus) and weak to no selection for the nonnative tamarisk leafhopper (Opsius stactogalus). Both warblers showed negative selection for the tamarisk beetle (Diorhabda carinulata) and its larvae, even when those insects were 10–100 times more abundant during outbreaks. Although both warblers exploited the novel food resources offered by tamarisk, with those insects contributing half or more of total prey biomass, Lucy’s warblers were better able to maintain densities in tamarisk habitats. We hypothesize this was due to the Lucy’s warbler’s ability to exploit a broader array of habitats surrounding tamarisk sites and its cavity nesting habit that buffers its nests from the higher temperatures and lower humidity of tamarisk-dominated habitat. Our results suggest that predictions based on detailed knowledge of the form and function of native and nonnative species can be used to predict native bird response to nonnatives.


Behavioral plasticity Biological control agent Tamarix spp. Salt cedar Tamarisk leaf beetle Tamarisk weevil Warbler 



We would like to acknowledge the Landscape Conservation Cooperative and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for their financial support for this project. Comments from two anonymous reviewers substantially improved this paper, we are grateful for their suggestions. We offer our sincerest gratitude to D. N. Rakestraw and Z. D. Watson for their field and lab assistance. We thank Northern Arizona University graduate students including M. C. Rotter, P. J. Motyka, I. D. Eammons, G. C. Cummins, K. E. Ironside, and J. Peiffer for reviewing earlier drafts of this manuscript, and to R. L. Hammond, T. A. Whitham, C.A. Gehring and B. J. Butterfield for their guidance with statistical analyses. This work was supported by Bureau of Reclamation and Arizona State University with Grant numbers R12AC80916 and 13-076.


  1. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26:32–46Google Scholar
  2. Anderson BW, Ohmart RD (1977) Vegetation structure and bird use in the lower Colorado River Valley. In: Johnson RR, Jones DA (ed) Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: A symposium. General Technical Report RM-166. US Forest Service, Colorado, pp 23–34Google Scholar
  3. Barber NA, Marquis RJ, Tori WP (2008) Invasive prey impacts the abundance and distribution of native predators. Ecology 89:2678–2683CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman HL, Johnson MJ (2015) Effects of biocontrol and restoration on wildlife in Southwestern riparian habitats. Report submitted to Southern Rockies and Desert Landscape Conservation CooperativeGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateman HL and Paxton EH (2010) Saltcedar and Russian olive interactions with wildlife. In: Shafroth PB, Brown CS, Merritt DM (eds) Saltcedar and Russian olive control and demonstration act science assessment, US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5247, pp 51–59Google Scholar
  6. Bateman HL, Paxton EH, Longland WS (2013) Tamarix as wildlife habitat. In: Sher A, Quigley MF (eds) Tamarix: a case study of ecological change in the American west. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 168–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bean DW, Dudley T, Hultine K (2013) Bring on the beetles! The history and impact of tamarisk biological control. In: Sher A, Quigley MF (eds) Tamarix: a case study of ecological change in the American west. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 377–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biermann GC, Sealy SG (1982) Parental feeding of nestling yellow warblers in relation to brood size and prey availability. Auk 99:332–341Google Scholar
  9. Bloodworth BR, Shafroth PB, Sher AA, Manners RB, Bean DW, Johnson MJ, Hinojosa-Heurta O (2016) Tamarisk beetle (Diorhabda spp.) in the Colorado River basin: Synthesis of an expert panel forum. Scientific and Technical Report No. 1, Colorado, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. Borror DJ, DeLong DM, Triplehorn CA, Johnson NF (2005) Borror and DeLong’s introduction to the study of insects. Thomson Brooks/Cole, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  11. Bright DE, Kondratieff BC, Norton AP (2013) First record of the splendid tamarisk weevil, Coniatus splendidulus (F.) (Coleoptera: curculionidae: Hyperinae), in Colorado, USA. Coleopts Bull 67:302–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brush T, Anderson BW, Ohmart RD (1983) Habitat selection related to resource availability among cavity-nesting birds. In: Davis JW, Goodwin GA, Ockenfeis RA (eds) Snag habitat management: Proceedings of the symposium. General Technical Report RM-99, US Forest Service, Colorado, USA 88–98Google Scholar
  13. Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L (2001) Introduction to distance sampling. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Burger JC, Patten MA, Rotenberry JT, Redak RA (1999) Foraging ecology of the California gnatcatcher deduced from fecal samples. Oecologia 120:304–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Busby DG, Sealy SG (1979) Feeding ecology of a population of nesting Yellow warblers. Can J Zool 57:1670–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carlisle JD, Holberton RL (2006) Relative efficiency of fecal versus regurgitated samples for assessing diet and the deleterious effects of tartar emetic on migratory birds. J Field Ornithol 77:126–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chew MK (2009) The monstering of tamarisk: how scientists made a plant into a problem. J Hist Biol 42:231–266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Cody ML (1974) Competition and the structure of bird communities. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  19. De Graaf RM, Tilghman NG, Anderson SH (1985) Foraging guilds of North American birds. Environ Manag 9:493–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dennison PE, Nagler PL, Hultine KR, Glenn EP, Ehleringer JR (2009) Remote monitoring of tamarisk defoliation and evapotranspiration following saltcedar leaf beetle attack. Remote Sens Environ 113:1462–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Drabu S, Chaturvedi S, Sharma A (2012) Tamarix gallica-An overview. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 5:17–19Google Scholar
  22. Dudley TL, DeLoach CJ (2004) Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.), endangered species, and biological weed control—can they mix? Weed Technol 18:1542–1551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Durst SL, Theimer TC, Paxton EH, Sogge MK (2008) Age, habitat, and yearly variation in the diet of a generalist insectivore, the southwestern willow flycatcher. Condor 110:514–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eckberg JR, Foster ME (2011) First account of the splendid tamarisk weevil, Coniatus splendidulus Fabricius, 1781 (Coleoptera: curculionidae) in Nevada. Pan-Pac Entomol 87:51–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ellis LM (1995) Bird use of saltcedar and cottonwood vegetation in the Middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico, USA. J Arid Environ 30:339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fornasari L (1998) Biology, ethology, and the impact on the host by Coniatus tamarisci (F.) (Coleoptera: curculionidae), a natural enemy of Tamarix spp. (Tamariacaceae, salcedar) in France. Biol Control 13:25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Friedman JM, Auble GT, Shafroth PB, Scott ML, Merigliano MF, Freehling MD, Griffin ER (2005) Dominance of non-native riparian trees in western USA. Biol Invasions 7:747–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frydenhall MJ (1967) Feeding ecology and territorial behavior of the Yellow warbler. Dissertation, Utah State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  29. Gavin TA, Sowls LK (1975) Avian fauna of a San Pedro Valley mesquite forest. J Ariz Acad Sci 10:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harding L (1930) The biology of Opsius stactogalus Fieber (Homoptera, Cicadellidae). J Kans Entomol Soc 3:7–22Google Scholar
  31. Hunter WC, Ohmart RD, Anderson BW (1988) Use of exotic saltcedar (Tamarix chinensis) by birds in arid riparian systems. Condor 90:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jenni L, Retimann P, Jenni-Eiermann S (1990) Recognizability of different food types in faeces and in alimentary flushes of Sylvia warblers. Ibis 132:445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kendeigh SM (1947) Bird population studies in the coniferous forest biome during a spruce budworm outbreak. Bull Dep Lands For Ontario, Canada. Div Res Biol 1:1–100Google Scholar
  34. Kleintjes PK, Dahlsten DL (1992) A comparison of three techniques for analyzing diet of plain titmouse and chestnut-backed nestling (Camparacion de tres tecnicas para analizar la utilizacion de arthropods en la dieta de pichones de Parus inomatus y P. rufescens). J Field Ornithol 63:276–285Google Scholar
  35. Knopf FL (1988) Conservation of steppe birds in North America. Ecol Conserv Grassl Birds 7:27–41 (ICBP technical publication) Google Scholar
  36. Landres PB, MacMahon JA (1980) Guilds and community organization: analysis of an oak woodland avifauna in Sonora, Mexico. Auk 97:351–365Google Scholar
  37. Lewis PA, deLoach CJ, Knutson AE, Tracy JL, To Robbin (2003) Biology of Diorhabda elongata deserticola (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), an Asian leaf beetle for biological control of saltcedars (Tamarix spp.) in the United States. Biol Control 27:101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Longland W, Dudley T (2008) Effects of a biological control agent on the use of saltcedar habitat by passerine birds. Great Basin Birds 10:21–26Google Scholar
  39. Lowther PE, Celada C, Klein NK, Rimmer CC, Spector DA (1999) Yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia). In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) Birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, 454:1–32Google Scholar
  40. Manly BFJ, McDonal LL, Thomas DL (1993) Resources selection by animals. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McArdle BH, Anderson MJ (2001) Fitting multivariate models to community data: a comment on distance-based redundancy analysis. Ecology 82:290–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Meents JK, Rice J, Anderson BW, Ohmart RD (1983) Nonlinear relationships between birds and vegetation. Ecology 64:1022–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Michalski M, Nadolski J, Marciniak B, Loga B, Banbura J (2011) Faecal analysis as a method of nestling diet determination in insectivorous birds: a case study in blue tits Cyanistes caeruleus and great tits Parus major. ACTA Ornithol 46:164–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moran PJ, DeLoach CJ, Dudley TL, Sanabria J (2009) Open field host selection and behavior by tamarisk beetles (Diorhabda spp.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in biological control of exotic saltcedars (Tamarix spp.) and risks to non-target athel (T. aphylla) and native Frankenia spp. Biol Control 50:243–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nagler PL, Glenn EP, Thompson TL, Huete A (2004) Leaf area index and normalized difference vegetation index as predictors of canopy characteristics and light interception by riparian species on the Lower Colorado River. Agric For Meteorol 125:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara R, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H (2013) Package ‘vegan’. Community ecology package, version 2Google Scholar
  47. Ortega YK, Greenwood LF, Callaway RM, Pearson DE (2014) Different responses of congeneric consumers to an exotic food resource: who gets the novel resource prize? Biol Invasions 16:1757–1767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Parrish J, Whitman M, Comings S (1994) A facilitated method for collection of fecal samples from mist–netted birds. N Am Bird Bander 19:49–51Google Scholar
  49. Pasteels JM (1993) The value of defensive compounds as taxonomic characters in the classification of leaf beetles. Biochem Syst Ecol 21:135–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Paxton EH, Theimer TC, Sogge MK (2011) Tamarisk biocontrol using tamarisk beetles: potential consequences for riparian birds in the southwestern United States. Condor 113:255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pearson DE (2009) Invasive plant architecture alters trophic interactions by changing predator abundance and behavior. Oecologia 159:549–558CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Pearson DE (2010) Trait and density mediated indirect interactions initiated by an exotic invasive plant autogenic ecosystem engineer. Am Nat 176:394–403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Pearson DE, Callaway RM (2003) Indirect effects of host-specific biological control agents. Trends Ecol Evol 18:456–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pearson DE, Callaway RM (2005) Indirect nontarget effects of host-specific biological control agents: implications for biological control. Biol Control 35:288–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pearson DE, Callaway RM (2006) Biological control agents elevate hantavirus by subsidizing mice. Ecol Lett 9:442–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pearson DE, Callaway RM (2008) Weed biocontrol insects reduce native plant recruitment through second-order apparent competition. Ecol Appl 18:1489–1500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Poulsen JG, Aebischer NJ (1995) Quantitative comparison of two methods assessing diet of nestling skylarks (Alauda arvensis). Auk 112:1070–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Puckett SL, van Riper C III (2014) Influences on the tamarisk leaf beetle (Diorhabda carinulata) on the diet of insectivorous birds along the Dolores River in southwestern Colorado. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1100 51 pGoogle Scholar
  59. Pysek P, Jarosik V, Hulme PE, Pergl J, Hejda M, Schaffner U, Villa M (2012) A global assessment of invasive plant impacts on resident species, communities and ecosystems: the interaction of impact measures, invading species’ traits and environment. Glob Change Biol 18:1725–1737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ralph CP, Nagat SE, Ralph JC (1985) Analysis of droppings to describe diets of small birds. J Field Ornithol 2:165–175Google Scholar
  61. Reynolds RT, Scott JM, Nussbaum RA (1980) A variable circular-plot method for estimating bird numbers. Condor 82:309–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rodriguez LF (2006) Can invasive species facilitate native species? Evidence of how, when, and why these impacts occur. Biol Invasions 8:927–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Roemer GW, Donlan CJ, Courchamp F (2002) Golden eagles, feral pigs, and insular carnivores: how exotic species turn native predators into prey. PNAS 99:791–796CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Rosenberg K, Cooper R (1990) Approaches to avian diet analysis. Stud Avian Biol 13:80–90Google Scholar
  65. Rosenberg KV, Ohmart RD, Hunter WC, Anderson BW (1991) Birds of the lower Colorado River valley. University of Arizona Press, ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  66. Sih A, Stamps J, Yang LH, McElreath R, Ramenofsky M (2010) Behavior as a key component of integrative biology in a human-altered world. Integr Comp Biol 50:934–944CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Smith JN, Emlen DJ, Pearson DE (2016) Linking native and invader traits explains native spider population responses to plant invasion. PLoS ONE 11:1–17Google Scholar
  68. Sol D, Griffin AS, Bartomeus I, Boyce H (2011) Exploring or avoiding novel food resources? The novelty conflict in an invasive bird. PLoS ONE 6:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stamp NE (1978) Breeding birds of riparian woodland in south-central Arizona. Condor 80:64–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stoleson SH, Shook RS, Finch DM (2000) Breeding biology of Lucy’s warbler in southwestern New Mexico. Western Birds 31:235–242Google Scholar
  71. Stromberg J (1998) Dynamics of Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and saltcedar (Tamarix chinensis) populations along the San Pedro River, Arizona. J Arid Environ 40:133–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Strong TR, Bock CE (1990) Birds species distribution patterns in riparian habitats in southeastern Arizona. Condor 92:866–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Szaro RC (1981) Bird population responses to converting chaparral to grassland and riparian habitats. Southwest Nat 26:251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. R Development Core Team (2010) The R project for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
  75. Tracy JL, Robbins TO (2009) Taxonomic revision of biogeography of the Tamarix-feeding Diorhabda elongata (Brullé, 1832) species group (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae: Galerucini) and analysis of their potential in biological control of Tamarisk. Magnolia Press, Florida, pp 1–152Google Scholar
  76. Whitmore RC (1977) Habitat partitioning in a community of passerine birds. Wilson Bull 89:253–265Google Scholar
  77. Yard HK, van Riper IIIC, Brown BT, Kearsley MJ (2004) Diets of insectivorous birds along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Condor 106:106–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zavaleta E (2000) The economic value of controlling an invasive shrub. Ambio 29:462–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sean M. Mahoney
    • 1
  • Tad C. Theimer
    • 1
  • Matthew J. Johnson
    • 2
  • Jeffrey T. Foster
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  2. 2.Colorado Plateau Research StationNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  3. 3.Department of Molecular, Cellular and Biomedical SciencesUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations