Advertisement

The fickle activity of a fly and a moth: variation in activity of two biocontrol agents of Chrysanthemoides monilifera

  • Kris FrenchEmail author
  • Kim Lynda Barrett
  • Evi Watts
Original Paper
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

Biocontrol agents released to control exotic pests may not have the same spatial distribution as the pest species and may therefore vary in efficacy across the exotic range. These changes in distribution are unlikely to be known until species have had time to fill all preferred niches in the invasive habitat. However, studies of post-release activity of biocontrol agents rarely assess longer-term patterns of establishment in the landscape. Comostolopsis germana and Mesoclanis polana were released to control Chrysanthemoides monilifera spp. rotundata (bitou bush) between 29 and 32 years ago. We assessed their activity in foredune and hinddune habitats of coastal beaches across the major distribution of bitou bush and experimentally assessed the effectiveness of C. germana at preventing flowering and seed set. Both biocontrol agents were found to be distributed along the 870 km of coastline, representing the core area of infestation. Tip damage by C. germana was highly variable but was consistently more effective in the foredune. Comostolopsis germana was found to reduce flower production from 15 to 59% with tip damage increasing with latitude. Mesoclanis polana did not show differences in activity with latitude and only showed a marginal increase in activity in hinddunes. Comostolopsis germana and M. polana are reducing the reproductive output of bitou bush but are unlikely to be effective as a sole management strategy particularly in warmer latitudes where more seeds are released.

Keywords

Comostolopsis germana: bitou tip moth Mesoclanis polana: bitou seed fly Dunes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the University of Wollongong for supporting this work.

Supplementary material

10530_2019_1936_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)

References

  1. Adair RJ, Scott JK (1989) The life-history and host specificity of Comostolopsis germana Prout (Lepidoptera: Geometridae), a biocontrol agent of Chrysanthemoides monilifera (Compositae). Bull Entomol Res 79:649–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barton J, Fowler SV, Gianotti AF, Winks CJ, de Beurs M, Arnold GC, Forrester G (2007) Successful biological control of mist flower (Ageratina riparia) in New Zealand: agent establishment, impact and benefits to the native flora. Biol Control 40:370–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Briese DT (2000) Classical biological control. In: Sindel B (ed) Australian weed management systems. Richardson Publishing, Melbourne, pp 161–192Google Scholar
  4. Briese DT (2004) Weed biological control: applying science to solve seemingly intractable problems. Aust J Entomol 43:304–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broennimann O, Treier UA, Muller-Scharer H, Thuiller W, Peterson AT, Guisan A (2007) Evidence of climatic niche shift during biological invasion. Ecol Lett 10:701–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clewley GD, Eschen R, Shaw RH, Wright DJ (2012) The effectiveness of classical biological control of invasive plants. J Appl Ecol 49(6):1287–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DEC (Department of Environment and Conservation) (2006) NSW threat abatement plan invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera (bitou bush and boneseed). Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), HurstvilleGoogle Scholar
  8. Dhileepan K (2002) Evaluating the effectiveness of weed biocontrol at the local scale. In: Spafford JH, Briese DT (eds) Improving the selection, testing and evaluation of weed biological control agents. CRC for Australian weed management technical series 7. Proceedings of the CRC for weed management biological control of weeds symposium and workshop. CRC for Australian Weed Management, Glen Osmond, pp 51–60Google Scholar
  9. Downey PO, Holtkamp RH, Ireson JE, Kwong RM, Swirepik AE (2007) A review of the Chrysanthemoides monilifera biological control program in Australia: 1987–2005. Plant Prot Q 22:24–32Google Scholar
  10. Edwards PB, Holtkamp RH, Adair RJ (1999) Establishment and rapid spread of bitou seed fly, Mesoclanis polana Munro (Diptera: Tephridae), in eastern Australia. Aust J Entomol 38:148–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards PB, Adair RJ, Holtkamp RH, Wanjura WJ, Bruzzese AS, Forrester RI (2009) Impact of the biological control agent Mesoclanis polana (Tephritidae) on bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata) in eastern Australia. Bull Entomol Res 99:51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ens EJ, Bremner JB, French K, Korth J (2009) Identification of volatile compounds released by roots of an invasive plant, bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera spp. rotundata), and their inhibition of native seedling growth. Biol Invasions 11:275–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. French K, Mason TJ, Sullivan N (2010) Recruitment limitation of native species in invaded coastal dune communities. Plant Ecol 212:601–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gallagher RV, Beaumont LJ, Hughes L, Leishman MR (2010) Evidence for climatic niche and biome shifts between native and novel ranges in plant species introduced to Australia. J Ecol 98:790–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ghosheh HZ (2005) Constraints in implementing biological weed control: a review. Weed Biol Manag 5:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hill RL, Wittenberg R, Gourlay AH (2001) Biology and host range of Phytomyza vitalbae and its establishment for the biological control of Clematis vitalba in New Zealand. Biocontrol Sci Technol 11:459–473.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09583150120067490 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoffmann JH, Moran VC (1992) Oviposition patterns and the supplementary role of a seed-feeding weevil, Rhyssomatus marginatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), in the biological control of a perennial leguminous weed, Sesbania punicea. Bull Entomol Res 82(343–347):343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoffmann JH, Moran VC (1998) The population dynamics of an introduced tree, Sesbania punicea, in South Africa, in response to long-term damage caused by different combinations of three species of biological control agents. Oecologia 114:343–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holtkamp RH (2002) Impact of bitou tip moth, Comostolopsis germana, on bitou bush in New South Wales. In: Spafford JH, Dodd J, Moore J (eds) 13th Australian weed conference, Perth. Plant Protection Society of WA, South Perth, pp 405–406Google Scholar
  20. Ireson JE, Gourlay AH, Kwong RM, Holloway RJ, Chatterton WS (2003) Host specificity, release, and establishment of the gorse spider mite, Tetranychus lintearius Dufour (Acarina: Tetranychidae) for the biological control of gorse, Ulex europaeus L. (Fabaceae) in Australia. Biol Control 26:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Julien M, McFadyen R, Cullen J (eds) (2012) Biological control of weeds in Australia. CSIRO Publishing, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  22. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindsay EA, French K (2004) Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. rotundata invasion alters decomposition rates in coastal areas of south-eastern Australia. For Ecol Manage 198:387–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martin GD, Coetzee JA, Weyl PSR, Parkinson MC, Hill MP (2018) Biological control of Salvinia molesta in South Africa revisited. Biol Control 125:74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mason TJ, French K, Russell KG (2007) Moderate impacts of plant invasion and management regimes in coastal hind dune seed banks. Biol Cons 134:428–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mason TJ, French K, Russell K (2012) Are competitive effects of native species on an invader mediated by water availability? J Veg Sci 23:657–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moran VC, Hoffmann JH, Zimmermann HG (2013) 100 years of biological control of invasive alien plants in South Africa: history, practice and achievements. S Afr J Sci 109:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morin L, Reid AM, Sims-Chilton NM, Buckley YM, Dhileepan K, Hastwell GT, Nordblom TL, Raghu S (2009) Review of approaches to evaluate the effectiveness of weed biological control agents. Biol Control 51:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Norambuena H, Martínez G, Carrillo R, Neira M (2007) Host specificity and establishment of Tetranychus lintearius (Acari: Tetranychidae) for biological control of gorse, Ulex europaeus (Fabaceae) in Chile. Biol Control 40:204–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Story JM, Smith L, Corn JG, White LJ (2008) Influence of seed head–attacking biological control agents on spotted knapweed reproductive potential in western Montana over a 30-year period. Environ Entomol 37:510–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stuart R, Kriticos DJ, Ash JE (2002) Modelling the biological control of bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monifera: Asteraceae) by Mesoclanis polana (Tephritidae). In: Spafford JH, Dodd J, Moore JH (eds) 13th Australian weeds conference proceedings: weeds ‘threats now and forever’. Plant Protection Society of WA, Perth, Australia, pp 591–594Google Scholar
  32. Thomas J, Leys A (2002) Strategic management of bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. rotundata (L.) T.Norl.). In: Spafford JH, Dodd J, Moore JH (eds) 13th Australian weeds conference proceedings: weeds ‘threats now and forever’. Plant Protection Society of WA, Perth, Australia, pp 586–590Google Scholar
  33. Weiss PW (1984) Seed characteristics and regeneration of some species in invaded coastal communities. Aust J Ecol 9:99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Winkler MA, Cherry H, Downey PO (2008) Bitou bush management manual: current management and control options for bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. rotundata) in Australia. Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW), SydneyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Sustainable Ecosystem SolutionsUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations