, Volume 147, Issue 2, pp 230–237 | Cite as

Persistence of invading gypsy moth populations in the United States

Population Ecology


Exotic invasive species are a mounting threat to native biodiversity, and their effects are gaining more public attention as each new species is detected. Equally important are the dynamics of exotic invasives that are previously well established. While the literature reports many examples of the ability of a newly arrived exotic invader to persist prior to detection and population growth, we focused on the persistence dynamics of an established invader, the European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) in the United States. The spread of gypsy moth is largely thought to be the result of the growth and coalescence of isolated colonies in a transition zone ahead of the generally infested area. One important question is thus the ability of these isolated colonies to persist when subject to Allee effects and inimical stochastic events. We analyzed the US gypsy moth survey data and identified isolated colonies of gypsy moth using the local indicator of spatial autocorrelation. We then determined region-specific probabilities of colony persistence given the population abundance in the previous year and its relationship to a suite of ecological factors. We observed that colonies in Wisconsin, US, were significantly more likely to persist in the following year than in other geographic regions of the transition zone, and in all regions, the abundance of preferred host tree species and land use category did not appear to influence persistence. We propose that differences in region-specific rates of persistence may be attributed to Allee effects that are differentially expressed in space, and that the inclusion of geographically varying Allee effects into colony-invasion models may provide an improved paradigm for addressing the establishment and spread of gypsy moth and other invasive exotic species.


Persistence Biological invasions Allee effects Invasive species Local indicator of spatial autocorrelation 


  1. Allee WC, Emerson AE, Park O, Park T, Schmidt KP (1949) Principles of animal ecology. WB Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen JC, Schaffer WM, Rosko D (1993) Chaos reduces species extinction by amplifying local population noise. Nature 364:229–232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Anselin L (1995) Local Indicators of Spatial Association - Lisa. Geogr Anal 27:93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger J (1990) Persistence of different-sized populations: An empirical assessment of rapid extinctions in bighorn sheep. Conserv Biol 4:91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bess HA, Spurr SH, Littlefield EW (1947) Forest site conditions and the gypsy moth. Harv For Bull 22:1–26Google Scholar
  6. Bivand R (2004) Spatial dependence: weighting schemes, statistics, and models. http://cran.r-project.org/doc/packages/spdep.pdf. (cited 15 July 2004)Google Scholar
  7. Boots B (2002) Local measures of spatial association. Ecoscience 9:168–176Google Scholar
  8. Campbell RW (1967) The analysis of numerical change in gypsy moth populations. For Sci Monogr 15:1–33Google Scholar
  9. Campbell RW (1973) Numerical behavior of a gypsy moth population system. For Sci 19:162–167Google Scholar
  10. Campbell RW, Sloan RJ, Biazak CE (1977) Sources of mortality among late instar gypsy moth (Lepidoptera : Lymantriidae) larvae in sparse populations. Environ Entomol 6:865–871Google Scholar
  11. Decision-Support System for the Slow-the-Spread Project (2005) http://da.ento.vt.edu/. Cited 6 June 2005Google Scholar
  12. Doane CC (1970) Primary pathogens and their role in development of an epizootic in gypsy moth. J Invertebr Pathol 15:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doane CC, McManus ME (eds) (1981) The gypsy moth: research toward integrated pest management. USDA Tech Bull 1584, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. Drake JM (2004) Allee effects and the risk of biological invasion. Risk Anal 24:795–802PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drake JM, Lodge DM (2004) Effects of environmental variation on extinction and establishment. Ecol Lett 7:26–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drake JM, Lodge DM (2005) Allee effects, propagule pressure and the probability of establishment: risk analysis for biological invasions. Biol Invasions (in press)Google Scholar
  17. Dwyer G, Dushoff J, Yee SH (2004) The combined effects of pathogens and predators on insect outbreaks. Nature 430:341–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Earn DJD, Rohani P, Grenfell BT (1998) Persistence, chaos and synchrony in ecology and epidemiology. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 265:7–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elkinton JS, Gould JR, Liebhold AM, Smith HR, Wallner WE (1989) Are gypsy moth populations regulated at low density? In: Wallner WE, McManus KA (eds) Lymantriidae: a comparison of features of new and old world tussock moths. USDA For Serv GTR-NE-123, Washington, pp 233–249Google Scholar
  20. Elkinton JS, Liebhold AM (1990) Population dynamics of gypsy moth in North America. Annu Rev Entomol 35:571–596Google Scholar
  21. Elkinton JS, Healy WM, Buonaccorsi JP, Boettner GH, Hazzard A, Liebhold AM, Smith HR (1996) Interactions among gypsy moths, white-footed mice, and acorns. Ecology 77:2332–2342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elkinton JS, Liebhold AM, Muzika RM (2004) Effects of alternative prey on predation by small mammals on gypsy moth pupae. Popul Ecol 46:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fagan WF (1999) Weak influences of initial conditions on metapopulation persistence times. Ecol Appl 9:1430–1438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fagan WF, Lewis MA, Neubert MG, van den Driessche P (2002) Invasion theory and biological control. Ecol Lett 5:147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Getis A, Ord JK (1996) Local spatial statistics: an overview. In: Longley P, Batty M (eds) Spatial analysis: modelling in a GIS environment. Wiley, New York, pp 261–277Google Scholar
  26. Gilbert M, Gregoire J-C, Freise JF, Heitland W (2004) Long-distance dispersal and human population density allow the prediction of invasive patterns in the horse chestnut leafminer Cameraria ohridella. J Anim Ecol 73:459–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gypsy Moth Digest (2004) USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Morgantown, WV http://na.fs.fed.us/wv/gmdigest/index.html (cited 15 July 2004)Google Scholar
  28. Hanski I (1994) A Practical Model of Metapopulation Dynamics. J Anim Ecol 63:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hanski I (1999) Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and metapopulations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos 87:209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hastings A (1996) Models of spatial spread: a synthesis. Biol Conserv 78:143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hastings A (2003) Metapopulation persistence with age-dependent disturbance or succession. Science 301:1525–1526CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Heino M, Kaitala V, Ranta E, Lindström J (1997) Synchronous dynamics and rates of extinction in spatially structured populations. P Roy Soc Lond B Biol 264:481–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hengeveld R (1988) Mechanisms of Biological Invasions. J Biogeogr 15:819–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2001) Applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones CG, Ostfeld RS, Richard MP, Schauber EM, Wolff JO (1998) Chain reactions linking acorns to gypsy moth outbreaks and Lyme disease risk. Science 279:1023–1026CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Keitt TH, Lewis MA, Holt RD (2001) Allee effects, invasion pinning, and species’ borders. Am Nat 157: 203–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Krushelnycky PD, Loope LL, Joe SM (2004) Limiting spread of a unicolonial invasive insect and characterization of seasonal patterns of range expansion. Biol Invasions 6:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leung B, Drake JM, Lodge DM (2004) Predicting invasions: Propagule pressure and the gravity of allee effects. Ecology 85:1651–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levins R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull Entomol Soc Am 15: 237–240Google Scholar
  40. Liebhold A, Bascompte J (2003) The Allee effect, stochastic dynamics and the eradication of alien species. Ecol Lett 6:133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liebhold AM, Halverson JA, Elmes GA (1992) Gypsy-moth invasion in North-America - a quantitative-analysis. J Biogeogr 19:513–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leuschner WA, Young JA, Walden SA, Ravlin FW (1996) Potential benefits of slowing the gypsy moth’s spread. South J Appl For 20: 65–73Google Scholar
  43. Lewis MA, Kareiva P (1993) Allee dynamics and the spread of invading organisms. Theoret Pop Biol 43:141–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mason CJ, McManus ML (1981) Larval dispersal of the gypsy moth. In: Doane CC, McManus ML (eds) The gypsy moth: Research toward integrated pest management. USDA Tech Bull 1584, Washington, pp 161–202Google Scholar
  45. Mayo JH, Straka TJ, Leonard DS (2003) The cost of slowing the spread of the gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). J Econ Entomol 96:1448–1454PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. McFadden MW, McManus ME (1991) An Insect out of control? The potential for spread and establishment of the gypsy moth in new forest areas in the United States. In: Baranchikov YN, Mattson WJ, Hain FP, Payne TL (eds) Forest insect guilds: patterns of interaction with host trees, GTR-NE-153. USDA Forest Service, Washington, pp 172–186Google Scholar
  47. Moilanen A, Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79:2503–2515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morin RS, Liebhold AM, Luzader ER, Lister AJ, Gottschalk KW, Twardus DB (2005) Mapping host-species abundance of three major exotic forest pests USDA research Paper NE-726, USDA Forest Service, Newtown Square, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  49. Odell TM, Mastro VC (1980) Crepuscular activity of gypsy moth adults (Lymantria dispar). Environ Entomol 9:613–617Google Scholar
  50. Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2000) Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. R Development Core Team (2004) http://www.r-project.org (cited 9 July 2004)Google Scholar
  52. Redman AM, Scriber JM (2000) Competition between the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar, and the northern tiger swallowtail, Papilio canadensis: interactions mediated by host plant chemistry, pathogens, and parasitoids. Oecologia 125:218–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rohani P, Earn DJD, Grenfell BT (1999) Opposite patterns of synchrony in sympatric disease metapopulations. Science 286:968–971CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Sample BE, Butler L, Zivkovich C, Whitmore RC, Reardon R (1996) Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner var. kurstaki and defoliation by the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (L.) (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) on native arthropods in West Virginia. Can Entomol 128:573–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. SAS Institute (1999) SAS/STAT® User’s guide, Version 8. Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  56. Schwalbe CP (1981) Disparlure-baited traps for survey and detection. In: Doane CC, McManus ML (Eds) The gypsy moth research toward integrated pest management. USDA Tech Bull 1584, Washington, pp. 542–548Google Scholar
  57. Sharov AA, Liebhold AM (1998a) Quantitative analysis of gypsy moth spread in the Central Appalachians. In: Baumgartner, et al (eds) Population and Community Ecology for Insect Management and Conservation. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 99–110Google Scholar
  58. Sharov AA, Liebhold AM (1998b) Model of slowing the spread of gypsy moth (Lepidoptera : Lymantriidae) with a barrier zone. Ecol Appl 8:1170–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sharov AA, Pijanowski BC, Liebhold AM, Gage SH (1999) What affects the rate of gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) spread: winter temperature or forest susceptibility?. Agric For Entomol 1:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sharov AA, Leonard D, Liebhold AM, Roberts EA, Dickerson W (2002) “Slow the Spread”: a national program to contain the gypsy moth. J Forest 100:30–35Google Scholar
  61. Sharov AA, Liebhold AM, Ravlin FW (1995) Prediction of gypsy-moth (Lepidoptera, Lymantriidae) mating success from pheromone trap counts. Environ Entomol 24:1239–1244Google Scholar
  62. Sharov AA, Liebhold AM, Roberts EA (1997) Correlation of counts of gypsy moths (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) in pheromone traps with landscape characteristics. Forest Sci 43:483–490Google Scholar
  63. Shea K (1998) Management of populations in conservation, harvesting and control. Trends Ecol Evol 13:371–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shigesada N, Kawasaki K (1997) Biological invasions: theory and practice. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  65. Shigesada N, Kawasaki K, Takeda Y (1995) Modeling stratified diffusion in biological invasions. Am Nat 146:229–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Smart J, Sutherland WJ, Watkinson AR, Gill JA (2004) A new means of presenting the results of logistic regression. Bull Ecol Soc Am 85: 100–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stephens PA, Sutherland WJ, Feckleton RP (1999) What is the Allee effect? Oikos 87: 185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thurber DK, McClain WR, Whitmore RC (1994) Indirect effects of gypsy-moth defoliation on nest predation. J Wildl Manage 58:493–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tobin PC, Sharov AA, Leonard DS, Roberts EA, Liebhold AM (2004) Management of the gypsy moth through a decision algorithm under the Slow-the-Spread project. Am Entomol 50:200–209Google Scholar
  70. USGS (2003) National Land Cover Data. http://landcover.usgs.gov/natllandcover.asp. (cited 9 July 2004)Google Scholar
  71. USGS (2004) North America digital elevation model. http://edcdaac.usgs.gov/gtopo30/Readme.html (cited 20 June 2004)Google Scholar
  72. Williams DW, Liebhold AM (1995) Influence of weather oil the synchrony of gypsy-moth (Lepidoptera, Lymantriidae) outbreaks in New-England. Environ Entomol 24:987–995Google Scholar
  73. With KA (2004) Assessing the risk of invasive spread in fragmented landscapes. Risk Analysis 24:803–815CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© U.S. Government 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA
  2. 2.USDA Forest ServiceNortheastern Research StationMorgantownUSA

Personalised recommendations