Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, 570:217 | Cite as

The potential for biological control of invasive alien aquatic weeds in Europe: a review

  • André Gassmann
  • Matthew J. W. Cock
  • Richard Shaw
  • Harry C. Evans
Article

Abstract

A retrospective analysis shows that invasive, alien, free-floating and emergent aquatic weeds in Europe are good targets for classical biological control, and that genus-specific chrysomelid and curculionid beetles offer the most potential. Ludwigia spp., Azolla filiculoides, Lemna minuta, Crassula helmsii and Hydrocotyle ranunculoides should be prioritised as targets. Fungal pathogens have been under-utilised as classical agents but, whilst they may have some potential against free-floating weeds, they appear to be poor candidates against submerged species, although the suitability of arthropod agents against these difficult targets still merits investigation. The use of indigenous pathogens as inundative agents (mycoherbicides) shows some promise.

Keywords

invasive alien aquatic weeds classical biological control free-floating species emergent species Curculionidae Chrysomelidae 

References

  1. Blossey, B., Casagrande, R., Tewsksbury, L., Landis, D. A., Wiedenmann, R. N., Ellis, D. R. 2001Non-target feeding of leaf-beetles introduced to control purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.)Natural Areas Journal21368377Google Scholar
  2. Buckingham, G. R. 1989 Lemnaphila scotlandae (Diptera: Ephydridae) and three of its parasites discovered in FloridaFlorida Entomologist72219221Google Scholar
  3. Cilliers, C. J., 1999. Biological control of parrot’s feather, Myriophyllum aquaticum (Vell.) Verdc. (Haloragaceae), in South Africa. In Olckers T. & M. P. Hill (eds), Biological Control of Weeds in South Africa (1990–1998). African Entomology Memoir 1: 113–118Google Scholar
  4. Cordo, H. A., C. J. DeLoach & R. Ferrer, 1982. The weevils Lixellus, Tanysphiroideus, and Cyrtobagous that feed on Hydrocotyle and Salvinia in Argentina. Coleopterists Bulletin 36: 279–286Google Scholar
  5. Crawley, M. J. 1989The successes and failures of weed biocontrol using insectsBiocontrol News and Information10213223Google Scholar
  6. Creed, R. P., Sheldon, S. P. 1995Weevils and watermilfoil: did a North American herbivore cause the decline of an exotic plant?Ecological Applications511131221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Evans, H. C. & R. H. Reeder, 2000. Fungi associated with Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth) in the upper Amazon basin and prospects for their use in biological control. In Biological and Integrated Control of Water Hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes (2001). Proceedings of the Global Working Group for the Biological Control and Integrated Control of Water Hyacinth, Beijing, China. ACIAR Proceedings No. 102: 62–70Google Scholar
  8. Evans, H. C., Greaves, M. P., Watson, A. K. 2001Fungal biocontrol agents of weedsButt, T. M.Jackson, C. W.Magan, N. eds. Fungi as Biocontrol AgentsCABI PublishingWallingford, UK169192Google Scholar
  9. Forno, I. W., Julien, M. H. 2000Success in biological control of aquatic weeds by arthropodsGurr, G.Wratten, S. eds. Biological Control: Measures of SuccessKluwer Academic PublishersAmsterdam159187Google Scholar
  10. Gassmann, A. 1995Europe as a source of biological control agents of exotic invasive weeds: status and implicationsBulletin de la société entomologique Suisse68313322Google Scholar
  11. Goettel, M. S., Hajek, A. E., Siegel, J. P., Evans, H. C. 2001Safety of fungal biocontrol agentsButt, T. M.Jackson, C. W.Magan, N. eds. Fungi as Biocontrol AgentsCABI PublishingWallingford, UK347375Google Scholar
  12. Harris, P. 1991Classical biocontrol of weeds: its definition, selection of effective agents, and administrative-political problemsCanadian Entomologist123827849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harvey, J. L., Varley, D. R. 1996Evaluation of European pathogens for the control of Myriophyllum spicatum in the USAMoran, V. C.Hoffman, J. H. eds. Proceedings of the IXth International Symposium on Biological Control of WeedsUniversity of Cape TownSouth Africa177182Google Scholar
  14. Hill, M. P., 1999. Biological control of red water fern, Azolla filiculoides Lamarck (Pteridophyta: Azollaceae), in South Africa. In Olckers, T. & M. P. Hill (eds), Biological Control of Weeds in South Africa (1990–1998). African Entomology Memoir 1: 119–124Google Scholar
  15. Hill, M. P. & C. J. Cilliers, 1999. A review of the arthropod natural enemies, and factors that influence their efficacy, in the biological control of water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes (Mart) Solms-Laubach (Pontederiaceae), in South Africa. In Olckers, T. & M. P. Hill (eds), Biological Control of Weeds in South Africa (1990–1998). African Entomology Memoir 1: 103–112Google Scholar
  16. Janes, R. A., 1995. The biology and control of Azolla filiculoides and Lemna minuta. PhD Thesis, University of Liverpool, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. Julien, M. H. 2001. Biological control of water hyacinth with arthropods: a review to 2000. In Julien, M. H., M. P. Hill, T. D. Center & Ding Jianqing (eds), Biological and integrated control of water hyacinth, Eichhornia crasssipes. Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the Global Working Group for the Biological and Integrated control of Water hyacinth, Beijing, China, 9–12 October 2000. ACIAR Proceedings 102: 8–20Google Scholar
  18. Lawton, J. H., 1990. Biological control of plants: a review of generalisations, rules, and principles using insects as agents. In Bassett, C., L. J. Whitehouse & J. A. Zabkiewicz (eds), Alternatives to the chemical control of weeds. Proc. of an Int. Conf., Rotorua, New Zealand, July 1989. Ministry of Forestry, FRI Bulletin 155Google Scholar
  19. Marohasy, J. 1996Host shifts in biological weed control: real problems, semantic difficulties or poor science?International Journal of Pest Management427175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McGregor, M. A., Bayne, D. R., Steeger, J. G., Webber, E. C., Reutebuch, E. 1996The potential for biological control of water primrose (Ludwigia grandiflora) by the water primrose flea beetle (Lyathia ludoviciana) in the Southeastern United StatesJournal of Aquatic Plant Management347476Google Scholar
  21. McFadyen, R. E. C. 1998Biological control of weedsAnnual Review of Entomology43369393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Napompeth, B., 1990. Country Report: Thailand. Biological control of weeds in Thailand. Biotrop Special Publication 38: 23–36Google Scholar
  23. Newman, R. M., Borman, M. E., Castro, S. W. 1997Developmental performance of the weevil Euhrychiopsis lecontei on native and exotic watermilfoil host plantsJournal of the North American Benthological Society16627634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pemberton, R. W. 2000Predictable risk to native plants in weed biological controlOecologia125489494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shearer, J. 1998Biological control of Hydrilla using an endemic fungal pathogenJournal of Aquatic Plant Management365456Google Scholar
  26. Tutin, T. G., V. H. Heywood, N. A. Burges, D. H. Valentine, S. M. Walters & D. A. Webb (eds), 1964. Flora Europaea, I–VGoogle Scholar
  27. Verma, U., Charrudattan, R. 1993Host range of Mycoleptodiscus terrestris, a microbial herbicide candidate for Eurasian watermilfoil, Myriophyllum spicatum Biological Control3271280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wapshere, A. J. 1974A strategy for evaluating the safety of organisms for biological weed controlAnnals of Applied Biology77201211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wapshere, A. J. 1985Effectiveness of biological control agents for weeds: present quandriesAgriculture Ecosystems & Environment13261280CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • André Gassmann
    • 1
  • Matthew J. W. Cock
    • 1
  • Richard Shaw
    • 2
  • Harry C. Evans
    • 2
  1. 1.CABI Bioscience Center SwitzerlandDelémontSwitzerland
  2. 2.CABI Bioscience UK Center (Ascot)BerkshireUK

Personalised recommendations