High phenolic content fails to deter mesograzer consumption of Myriophyllum spicatum (Eurasian watermilfoil) in New England

Abstract

Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) is often considered one of the most aggressive macrophyte invaders in freshwater habitats throughout the USA. However, conditions leading to successful milfoil invasions are not well understood. This study sought to illuminate the role of herbivores in determining milfoil invasion success via the potential mechanisms of enemy release and biotic resistance. We determined feeding preferences of three herbivores native to the northeastern United States and measured macrophyte phenolic content, which may act as an herbivore feeding deterrent. We found that phenolic content in milfoil was more than two times higher than in the most abundant native macrophytes at our study sites, consistent with enemy release. However, laboratory feeding experiments demonstrated that milfoil phenolics did not deter amphipod (Hyalella azteca), snail (Physella sp.), or weevil (Euhrychiopsis lecontei) herbivory. Furthermore, amphipod consumption rates in our study were an order of magnitude higher than amphipod consumption rates reported in milfoil’s native range, contrary to the predictions of enemy release. Amphipods and snails from habitats invaded by milfoil consumed similar quantities of both milfoil and the low-phenolic native plant Elodea canadensis. In contrast, weevils consumed milfoil but not E. canadensis in choice experiments. Amphipods collected from milfoil-free habitats also readily consumed milfoil, and they consumed 2.5 times more milfoil than E. canadensis in a choice feeding trial. These results suggest that high phenolic levels do not prevent native herbivores from consuming invasive milfoil. Instead, native generalist grazers like amphipods and snails may limit milfoil proliferation and provide a measure of biotic resistance.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Agrawal AA, Kotanen PM, Mitchell CE, Power AG, Godsoe W, Klironomos J (2005) Enemy release? An experiment with congeneric plant pairs and diverse above- and belowground enemies. Ecology 86:2979–2989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ali MM, Soltan MA (2006) Expansion of Myriophyllum spicatum (Eurasian water milfoil) into Lake Nasser, Egypt: invasive capacity and habitat stability. Aquat Bot 84:239–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bolser RC, Hay ME, Lindquist N, Fenical W, Wilson D (1998) Chemical defenses of freshwater macrophytes against crayfish herbivory. J Chem Ecol 24:1639–1658

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boylen CW, Eichler LW, Madsen JD (1999) Loss of native aquatic plant species in a community dominated by Eurasian watermilfoil. Hydrobiologia 415:207–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Burks RL, Hensley SA, Kyle CH (2011) Quite the appetite: juvenile island apple snails (Pomacea insularum) survive consuming only exotic invasive plants. J Molluscan Stud 77:423–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Caraco NF, Cole JJ (2002) Contrasting impacts of a native and alien macrophyte on dissolved oxygen in a large river. Ecol Appl 12:1496–1509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chadwell TB, Engelhardt KAM (2008) Effects of pre-existing submersed vegetation and propagule pressure on the invasion success of Hydrilla verticillata. J Appl Ecol 45:515–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chase JM, Knight TM (2006) Effects of eutrophication and snails on Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) invasion. Biol Invasions 8:1643–1649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Colautti RI, Ricciardi A, Grigorovich IA, MacIsaac HJ (2004) Is invasion success explained by the enemy release hypothesis? Ecol Lett 7:721–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Creed RP, Sheldon SP (1994) The effect of two herbivorous insect larvae on Eurasian Watermilfoil. J Aquat Plant Manag 32:21–26

    Google Scholar 

  11. Creed RP, Sheldon SP (1995) Weevils and watermilfoil: did a North American herbivore cause the decline of an exotic plant? Ecol Appl 5:1113–1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Crooks JA (2002) Characterizing ecosystem-level consequences of biological invasions: the role of ecosystem engineers. Oikos 97:153–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fleming JP, Dibble ED (2015) Ecological mechanisms of invasion success in aquatic macrophytes. Hydrobiologia 746:23–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fornoff F, Gross EM (2014) Induced defense mechanisms in an aquatic angiosperm to insect herbivory. Oecologia 175:173–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Furstenberg-Hagg J, Zagrobelny M, Bak S (2013) Plant defense against insect herbivores. Int J Mol Sci 14:10242–10297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gallardo B, Clavero M, Sanchez MI, Vila M (2016) Global ecological impacts of invasive species in aquatic ecosystems. Glob Chang Biol 22:151–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gordon D (1998) Effects of invasive, non-indigenous plant species on ecosystem processes: lessons from Florida. Ecol Appl 8:975–989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gross E, Meyer H, Schilling G (1996) Release and ecological impact of algicidal hydrolysable polyphenols in Myriophyllum spicatum. Phytochemistry 41:133–138

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Grutters BMC, Pollux BJA, Verberk WCEP, Bakker ES (2015) Native and non-native plants provide similar refuge to invertebrate prey, but less than artificial plants. PLoS ONE 10:e0124455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Heger T, Jeschke JM (2014) The enemy release hypothesis as a hierarchy of hypotheses. Oikos 123:741–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hierro JL, Maron JL, Callaway RM (2005) A biogeographical approach to plant invasions: the importance of studying exotics in their introduced and native range. J Ecol 93:5–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jeschke JM, Aparicio LG, Haider S, Heger T, Lortie CJ, Pysek P, Strayer DL (2012) Support for major hypotheses in invasion biology is uneven and declining. NeoBiota 14:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jester LL, Bozek MA, Helsel DR, Sheldon SP (2000) Euhrychiopsis lecontei distribution, abundance, and experimental augmentations for Eurasian watermilfoil control in Wisconsin lakes. J Aquat Plant Manag 38:88–97

    Google Scholar 

  24. Joshi J, Vrieling K (2005) The enemy release and EICA hypothesis revisited: incorporating the fundamental difference between specialist and generalist herbivores. Ecol Lett 8:704–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kovalenko KE, Dibble ED (2011) Effects of invasive macrophyte on trophic diversity and position of secondary consumers. Hydrobiologia 663:167–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lemoine DG, Barrat-Segretain M-H, Roy A (2009) Morphological and chemical changes induced by herbivory in three common aquatic macrophytes. Internat Rev Hydrobiol 94:282–289

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Les D, Mehrhoff L (1999) Introduction of nonindigenous aquatic vascular plants in southern New England: a historical perspective. Biol Invasions 1:281–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Madsen JD (1998) Predicting invasion success of Eurasian watermilfoil. J Aquat Plant Manag 36:28–32

    Google Scholar 

  30. Madsen J (2005) Eurasian watermilfoil invasions and management across the United States. J Mar Educ 21:21–26

    Google Scholar 

  31. Marko MD, Newman RM, Gleason FK (2005) Chemically mediated host-plant selection by the milfoil weevil: a freshwater insect-plant interaction. J Chem Ecol 31:2857–2876

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Marko MD, Gross EM, Newman RM, Gleason FK (2008) Chemical profile of the North American native Myriophyllum sibiricum compared to the invasive M. spicatum. Aquat Bot 88:57–65

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Martin GD, Coetzee JA (2014) Competition between two aquatic macrophytes, Lagarosiphon major (Ridley) Moss (Hydrocharitaceae) and Myriophyllum spicatum Linnaeus (Halgoraceae) as influenced by substrate sediment and nutrients. Aquat Bot 114:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Martin CW, Valentine JF (2011) Impacts of a habitat-forming exotic species on estuarine structure and function: an experimental assessment of Eurasian milfoil. Estuar Coasts 34:364–372

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Martin CW, Valentine JF (2012) Eurasian watermilfoil invasion in estuaries: physical disturbance can reduce the proliferation of an aquatic nuisance species. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 449:109–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Morrison WE, Hay ME (2011) Herbivore preference for native vs. exotic plants: generalist herbivores from multiple continents prefer exotic plants that are evolutionarily naïve. PLoS ONE 6(3):e17227

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Newman RM (2004) Invited review—biological control of Eurasian watermilfoil by aquatic insects: basic insights from an applied problem. Arch Hydrobiol 159:145–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Newman RM, Biesboer DD (2000) A decline of Eurasian watermilfoil in Minnesota associated with the milfoil weevil, Euhrychiopsis lecontei. J Aquat Plant Manag 38:105–111

    Google Scholar 

  39. Newman RM, Ragsdale DW, Milles A, Oien C (2001) Overwinter habitat and the relationship of overwinter to in-lake densities of the milfoil weevil, Euhrychiopsis lecontei, a Eurasian watermilfoil biological control agent. J Aquat Plant Manag 39:63–67

    Google Scholar 

  40. Orav-Kotta H, Kotta J, Herkul K, Kotta I, Paalme T (2009) Seasonal variability in the grazing potential of the invasive amphipod Gammarus tigrinus and the native amphipod Gammarus salinus (Amphipoda: Crustacea) in the northern Baltic Sea. Biol Invasions 11:597–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Parker JD, Hay ME (2005) Biotic resistance to plant invasions? Native herbivores prefer non-native plants. Ecol Lett 8:959–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Parker JD, Burkepile DE, Hay ME (2006) Opposing effects of native and exotic herbivores on plant invasions. Science 311:1459–1461

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Prior KM, Powell THQ, Joseph AL, Hellman JJ (2015) Insights from community ecology into the role of enemy release in causing invasion success: the importance on native enemy effects. Biol Invasions 17:1283–1297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Rodriguez LF (2006) Can invasive species facilitate native species? Evidence of how, when, and why these impacts occur. Biol Invasions 8:927–939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Schultz R, Dibble E (2012) Effects of invasive macrophytes on freshwater fish and macroinvertebrate communities: the role of invasive plant traits. Hydrobiologia 684:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Sheldon SP, Creed RP (1995) Use of a native insect as a biological control for an introduced weed. Ecol Appl 5:1122–1132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Smith C, Barko J (1990) Ecology of Eurasian watermilfoil. J Aquat Plant Manag 28:55–64

    Google Scholar 

  50. Steele L, Valentine J (2015) Seagrass deterrence to mesograzer herbivory: evidence from mesocosm experiments and feeding preference trials. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 524:83–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sutter TJ, Newman RM (1997) Is predation by sunfish (Lepomis spp.) an important source of mortality for the Eurasian watermilfoil biocontrol agent Euhrychiopsis lecontei? J Freshw Ecol 12:225–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Swain T, Goldstein JL (1964) The quantitative analysis of phenolic compounds. In: Pridham JB (ed) Methods in polyphenol chemistry. MacMillan, New York, pp 131–146

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  53. Valinoti CE, Chuan-Kai J, Armitage AR (2011) Native and exotic submerged aquatic vegetation provide different nutritional and refuge values for macroinvertebrates. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 409:42–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ward DM, Newman RM (2006) Fish predation on Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) herbivores and indirect effects on macrophytes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:1049–1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E (1998) Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wilson SJ, Ricciardi A (2009) Epiphytic macroinvertebrate communities on Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and native milfoils Myriophyllum sibericum and Myriophyllum alterniflorum in eastern North America. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 66:18–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Xiong W, Yu D, Wang Q, Liu C, Wang L (2008) A snail prefers native over exotic freshwater plants: implications for the enemy release hypotheses. Freshw Biol 53:2256–2263

    Google Scholar 

  58. Zhu B, Georgian SE (2014) Interactions between invasive Eurasian watermilfoil and native water stargrass in Cayuga Lake, NY, USA. J Plant Ecol 7:499–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Jessica Michaud, Julie Bettke, Connor Trymbulak, Dan Perez, and Dale Mack assisted with specimen collection and sorting and with laboratory experiments. Dale Mack assisted with phenolic content analysis. This work was funded by a Sacred Heart University Research and Creativity Grant to LaTina Steele and a United States Geological Survey 104B Grant via the Connecticut Institute of Water Resources awarded to LaTina Steele and Michele Guidone (Primary Award #G11AP20069, Subaward #59773).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to LaTina Steele.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

All applicable institutional and/or national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Additional information

Handling Editor: Kevin Murphy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Steele, L., Ray, C. & Guidone, M. High phenolic content fails to deter mesograzer consumption of Myriophyllum spicatum (Eurasian watermilfoil) in New England. Aquat Ecol 52, 255–267 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-018-9661-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Invasive species
  • Herbivory
  • Phenolics
  • Enemy release
  • Biotic resistance