BioControl

, Volume 57, Issue 2, pp 331–347 | Cite as

Tamarisk biocontrol, endangered species risk and resolution of conflict through riparian restoration

Article

Abstract

A long-standing debate between wildlife agencies and biological control researchers and practitioners concerns Diorhabda carinulata Desbrochers (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) introduced to suppress invasive Tamarix spp. (Tamaricaceae), and potential impacts of Tamarix defoliation on endangered southwestern willow flycatchers using this non-native plant as nesting habitat in some western riparian ecosystems. The conflict and ensuing legal actions are currently centered on the presence of D. carinulata within the breeding range of the flycatcher in the Virgin River watershed, which has led to APHIS termination of permits supporting the biocontrol development program and has also affected other programs to develop biocontrol agents against environmental weeds. Central to concerns over wildlife is the lack of rehabilitation of native vegetation where biocontrol is expected, so there are current and planned efforts to promote restoration of native cottonwood-willow habitat to mitigate the anticipation decline in Tamarix cover. A strategic approach to riparian restoration is outlined which could facilitate sustainable, and scientifically documented recovery of this iconic habitat type. While the results of these efforts will not be known immediately, the process which is leading to riparian restoration has brought specialists from both sides of the debate together in search of resolution via collaboration, and if successful, may allow re-initiation of the Tamarix biocontrol program attendant with habitat enhancement for wildlife species of conservation concern.

Keywords

Tamarisk Biological control Southwestern willow flycatcher Ecological restoration Riparian ecosystem Tamarix Diorhabda Coleoptera Chrysomelidae 

References

  1. Ahlers D, Moore D (2009) A review of vegetation and hydrologic parameters associated with the southwestern willow flycatcher—2002 to 2008 Elephant Butte Reservoir Delta, NM. USDI-BOR Technical Service Center, Denver, USA. http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/fish/Reports/EBR%20SWFL%20veg%20and%20hydro%20review.pdf
  2. Anderson BW, Ohmart RD (1982) Revegetation for wildlife enhancement along the lower Colorado River. Final report to USDI-BOR, Lower Colorado Region, Boulder City, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. APHIS (2010) USDA APHIS PPQ Moratorium for biological control of saltcedar. http://www.usbr.gov/uc/albuq/library/eaba/saltcedar/pdfs/2010/BeetleMemoUSDA.pdf
  4. Bateman HL, Ostoja SM (2012) Invasive woody plants affect the composition of native lizard and small mammal communities in riparian woodlands. Animal Conserv 15:(in press)Google Scholar
  5. Bateman HL, Paxton EH (2010) Saltcedar and Russian olive interactions with wildlife. In: Shafroth PB, Brown CA, Merritt DM (eds) Saltcedar and Russian olive Control Demonstration Act science assessment. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5247, pp 49–63Google Scholar
  6. Bateman HL, Dudley TL, Bean DW, Ostoja SM, Hultine KR, Kuehn MJ (2010) A river system to watch: documenting the effects of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) biocontrol in the Virgin River Valley. Ecol Restor 28:405–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bay RF, Sher AA (2008) Success of active revegetation after Tamarix removal in riparian ecosystems of the southwestern United States: a quantitative assessment of past restoration projects. Restor Ecol 16:113–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bean DW, Dudley TL, Keller JC (2007) Seasonal timing of diapause limits the effective range of Diorhabda elongata deserticola (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) as a biological control agent for tamarisk (Tamarix spp.). Environ Entomol 36:15–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bean DW, Dalin P, Dudley TL, Eberts D, Kazmer K (2012) Evolution of critical day length for diapause induction enables range expansion of Diorhabda carinulata, a biological control agent against tamarisk (Tamarix spp). Evol Appl 5:(in press)Google Scholar
  10. Bell G (1997) Ecology and management of Arundo donax, and approaches to riparian habitat restoration in Southern California. In: Brock JH, Wade M, Pysek P, Green D (eds) Plant invasions: studies from North America and Europe. Blackhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands, pp 103–113Google Scholar
  11. Busch DE, Smith SD (1993) Effects of fire on water and salinity relations of riparian woody taxa. Oecologia 94:186–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Busch DE, Smith SD (1995) Mechanisms associated with decline of woody species in riparian ecosystems of the southwestern U.S. Ecol Monogr 65:347–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cardinal SN, Paxton EH (2005) Home range, movement, and habitat use of the southwestern willow flycatcher, Roosevelt Lake, AZ—2004. USGS report to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. Center for Biological Diversity (2009) Lawsuit filed to save endangered songbird; southwestern willow flycatcher threatened by release of imported beetle. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2009/southwestern-willow-flycatcher-03-27-2009.html
  15. Clark JS, Silman M, Kern R, Macklin E, HilleRisLambers J (1999) Seed dispersal near and far: patterns across temperate and tropical forests. Ecology 80:1475–1494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cleverly JR, Smith SD, Sala A, Devitt DA (1997) Invasive capacity of Tamarix ramosissima in a Mojave Desert floodplain: the role of drought. Oecologia 111:12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cooper DJ, Andersen DC, Chimner RA (2003) Multiple pathways for woody plant establishment on floodplains at local to regional scales. J Ecol 91:182–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. D’Antonio C, Dudley T (1997) Saltcedar as an invasive component of the riparian vegetation of Coyote Creek, Anza-Borrego State Park. Final Report, California Department of Parks and Recreation, San Diego, USA, 56 pGoogle Scholar
  19. D’Antonio CM, Meyerson L (2002) Exotic species and restoration: synthesis and research needs. Restor Ecol 10:703–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dahm CN, Cleverly JR, Allred Coonrod JE, Thibault JR, Mcdonnell DE, Gilroy DJ (2002) Evapotranspiration at the land/water interface in a semi-arid drainage basin. Freshw Biol 47:831–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dalin P, Bean DW, Dudley TL, Carney VA, Eberts D, Gardner KT, Hebertson E, Jones EN, Kazmer DJ, Michels GJ, O’Meara SA, Thompson DC (2010) Seasonal adaptations to day length in ecotypes of Diorhabda spp. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) inform selection of agents against saltcedars (Tamarix spp.). Environ Entomol 39:1666–1675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. DeLoach CJ, Gerling D, Fornasari L, Sobhian R, Myartseva S, Mityaev ID, Lu QG, Tracy JL, Wang R, Wang JF, Kirk A, Pemberton RW, Chikatunov V, Jashenko RV, Johnson JE, Zeng H, Jiang SL, Liu MT, Liu AP, Cisneros J (1996) Biological control programme against saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the US: progress and problems. In: Moran VC, Hoffman JH (eds.) Proceedings of 9th international symposium on biological control of weeds, January 1996, Stellenbosch, South Africa, pp 253–260Google Scholar
  23. DeLoach CJ, Carruthers RI, Dudley TL, Eberts D, Kazmer DJ, Knutson AE, Bean DW, Knight J, Lewis PA, Milbrath LR, Tracy JL, Tomic-Carruthers N, Herr JC, Abbott G, Prestwich S, Harruff G, Everitt JH, Thompson DC, Mityaev I, Jashenko R, Li B, Sobhian R, Kirk A, Robbins TO, Delfosse ES (2004) First results for control of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the open field in the western United States. In: Cullen JM, Briese DT, Kriticos DJ, Lonsdale WM, Morin L, Scott JK (eds) Proceedings of XI international symposium on biological control on weeds, Canberra, Australia, pp 505–513Google Scholar
  24. Dudley TL, DeLoach CJ (2004) Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.), endangered species, and biological weed control—can they mix? Weed Technol 18:1542–1551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dudley TL, DeLoach CJ, Lovich J, Carruthers RI (2000) Saltcedar invasion of western riparian areas: impacts and new prospects for control. Transactions of the 65th north American wildlife and natural resources conference, March 2000, Chicago, USA, pp 345–381Google Scholar
  26. Dudley TL, DeLoach CJ, Lewis PA, Carruthers RI (2001) Cage tests and field studies indicate leaf-eating beetle may control saltcedar. Ecol Restor 19:260–261Google Scholar
  27. Dudley T, Bean D, Dalin P (2009) Failure of biocontrol, success of bioregulation? Tamarisk Coalition: Tamarisk & Russian olive research conference, Reno, USA. http://tri-river.mesacounty.us/Tamarisk2009/Dudley/Dudley.html, February 18–19, 2009
  28. Dudley T, Brooks M, Acharya K, Bean D, Conrad B, Deuser C, Drus G, Kuehn M, Kuczynska I, Hultine K, Matchett JR, Ostoja SM, Roberts S (2011) Effectiveness monitoring of springfed wetlands and riparian restoration treatments: progressive management of invasive tamarisk in the Southern Nevada region, Final Report. Project 2005-USGS-552-P, Clark County, Nevada desert conservation program. http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/Depts/dcp/Documents/Library/dcp%20reports/2011/EffectivenessOfWetlandAndRiparianRestoration_UCSB-552_Rpt_Jun2011.pdf
  29. Eckberg JR, Foster ME (2011) First account of the splendid tamarisk weevil, Coniatus splendidulus Fabricius, 1781 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Nevada. Pan-Pacific Entomol 87:51–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ehrenfeld JG (2000) Defining the limits for restoration: the need for realistic goals. Restor Ecol 8:2–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ellis LM (1995) Bird use of saltcedar and cottonwood vegetation in the Middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico. J Arid Environ 30:339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ellis LA, Stump SD, Weddle DM (2009) Southwestern willow flycatcher population and habitat response to reservoir inundation. J Wildlife Manag 73:946–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Estergard S (2008) Virgin River watershed—Utah, Arizona and Nevada comprehensive watershed analysis. US Army Corp of Engineers, Final Report. http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/PlanningCOP/Documents/news/wshed/virgin_river.pdf
  34. Federal Register (1995) Final rule determining endangered status for the southwestern willow flycatcher. USDI-FWS, 50 CFR Part 17, RIN 1018 AB97 Federal Register, vol 60, no 38, pp 10694–10715. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr2790.pdf, February 27, 1995
  35. Federal Register (2005) Designation of critical habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). USDI-FWS, 50 CFR Part 17, RIN 1018–AT88. 60886 Federal Register, vol. 70, no. 201. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-10-19/pdf/05-20144.pdf#page=1, October 19, 2005
  36. Fornasari L (1998) Biology, ethology, and impact on the host by Coniatus tamarisci (F.) (Coleoptera : Curculionidae), a natural enemy of Tamarix spp. (Tamaricaceae) in France. Biol Control 13:25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 Invas 7:747–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Graf WL (1978) Fluvial adjustments to the spread of tamarisk in the Colorado Plateau region. Geol Soc Am Bull 89:1491–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hatten JR, Paxton EH, Sogge MK (2010) Modeling the dynamic habitat and breeding population of southwestern willow flycatcher. Ecol Model 221:1674–1686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Herrera A, Dudley TL (2003) Invertebrate community reduction in response to Arundo donax invasion at Sonoma Creek. Biol Invas 5:167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Horton JS (1977) The development and perpetuation of the permanent tamarisk type in the phreatophyte zone of the Southwest. In: Johnson RR, Jones DA (tech coord), Symposium on importance, preservation, and management of riparian habitat, 9 July 1977, Tucson, USA. USDA Forest Service, GTR RM-43, Fort Collins, pp 123–127Google Scholar
  42. Howe WH, Knopf FL (1991) On the imminent decline of Rio Grande cottonwoods in central New Mexico. Southwest Nat 36:218–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hudgeons JL, Knutson AE, Heinz KM, DeLoach CJ, Dudley TL, Pattison RR, Kiniry JR (2007) Defoliation by introduced Diorhabda elongata leaf beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) reduces carbohydrate reserves and regrowth of Tamarix (Tamaricaceae). Biol Control 43:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hultine KR, Belnap J, van Riper C, Ehleringer JR, Dennison PE, Lee ME, Nagler PL, Snyder KA, Uselman SM, West JB (2010) Tamarisk biocontrol in the western United States: ecological and societal implications. Front Ecol Environ 8:467–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hunter WC, Anderson BW, Ohmart RD (1988) Use of exotic saltcedar (Tamarix chinensis) by birds in arid riparian systems. Condor 90:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kaufmann W (2005) Program for biological control of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in thirteen states: environmental assessment. USDA-APHIS Western Region, Ft. Collins, USA. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ea/downloads/salteafonsi.pdf
  47. Longland WS, Dudley TL (2008) Effects of a biological control agent on the use of saltcedar habitat by passerine birds. Gt Basin Birds 10:21–26Google Scholar
  48. Lytle DA, Merritt DM (2004) Hydrologic regimes and riparian forests: a structured population model for cottonwood. Ecology 85:2493–2503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mahoney JM, Rood SB (1998) Streamflow requirements for cottonwood seedling recruitment—an integrative model. Wetlands 18:634–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Malakoff D (1999) Plan to import exotic beetle drives some scientists wild. Science 284:1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McLeod MA, Koronkiewicz TJ (2010) Southwestern willow flycatcher surveys, demography, and ecology along the lower Colorado River and tributaries, 2009. Annual report to Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, SWCA Environ Conserv, Flagstaff, USA, 165 pGoogle Scholar
  52. Merritt DM, Poff NL (2010) Shifting dominance of riparian Populus and Tamarix along gradients of flow alteration in western North American rivers. Ecol Appl 20:135–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mortenson SG, Weisberg PJ (2010) Does river regulation increase the dominance of invasive woody species in riparian landscapes? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19:562–574Google Scholar
  54. Mount J, Krausman W, Finch DM (1996) Riparian habitat change along the Isleta-Belen reach of the Rio Grande. In: Shaw DW, Finch DM (eds) Desired future conditions for southwestern riparian ecosystems: bringing interests and concerns together. USFS General Technical Report RM-GTR-272, pp 58–61Google Scholar
  55. Newell PJ, Paxton EH, Sogge MK (2003) Survivorship and movements of southwestern willow flycatchers at Roosevelt Lake, AZ. USGS report to US Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix, USAGoogle Scholar
  56. Newman RM, Thompson DC, Richman DB (1998) Conservation strategies for the biological control of weeds. In: Barbosa P (ed) Conservation biological control. Academic Press, London, UK, pp 371–396Google Scholar
  57. Palmer MA, Menninger H, Benhardt ES (2009) River restoration, habitat heterogeneity, and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice? Freshw Biol 55:205–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pattison RR, D’Antonio CM, Dudley TL, Allander KK, Rice B (2010) Early impacts of biological control on canopy cover and water use of the invasive saltcedar tree (Tamarix spp.) in western Nevada, USA. Oecologia 165:605–616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Paxton E, Owen J, Sogge MK (1996) Southwestern willow flycatcher response to catastrophic habitat loss. USGS Colorado Plateau Research Station Report, Flagstaff, USA. http://sbsc.wr.usgs.gov/cprs/research/projects/swwf/Reports/1996_paxton_et_al.pdf
  60. Paxton EH, Sogge MK, Durst SL, Theimer TC, Hatten JR (2007) The ecology of the southwestern willow flycatcher in Central Arizona—a 10-year synthesis report. USGS Open-File Report 2007-1381Google Scholar
  61. Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC (1997) The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47:769–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rood SB, Samuelson GM, Braatne JH, Gourley CR, Hughes FMR, Mahoney JM (2005) Managing river flows to restore floodplain forests. Front Ecol Environ 3:193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sala A, Smith SD, Devitt DA (1996) Water use by Tamarix ramosissima and associated phreatophytes in a Mojave Desert floodplain. Ecol Appl 6:888–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shafroth PB, Cleverly J, Dudley TL, Stuart J, van Riper C, Weeks EP (2005) Saltcedar removal, water salvage and wildlife habitat restoration along rivers in the southwestern US. Environ Manag 35:231–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shafroth PB, Beauchamp VB, Briggs MK, Lair K, Scott ML, Sher AA (2007) Planning riparian restoration in the context of Tamarix control in western North America. Restor Ecol 16:97–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Smith L, Cristofaro M (2010) Utility of field experiments in land of origin to measure host plant specificity and potential efficacy of prospective arthropod biological control agents of weeds. Biocontrol for Natural Conference, Northampton, UK. http://biocontrolfornature.ucr.edu/pdf/smith,lincoln-utility_field_experiments_in_land_of_origin.pdf, October 3–7, 2010
  67. Sogge MK, Kus BE, Sferra SJ, Whitfield MJ (2003) Ecology and conservation of the willow flycatcher. Studies Avian Biol 26. Cooper Ornithol Soc, Camarillo, USA, 210 pGoogle Scholar
  68. Sogge MK, Sferra SJ, Paxton EH (2008) Tamarix as habitat for birds: implications for riparian restoration in the southwestern United States. Restor Ecol 16:146–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stamps J, Swaisgood RR (2007) Someplace like home: experience, habitat selection and conservation biology. Appl Anim Behav Sci 102:392–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stella JC, Battles JJ, Orr BK, McBride JR (2006a) Synchrony of seed dispersal, hydrology and local climate in a semi-arid river reach in California. Ecosystems 9:1200–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stella JC, Battles JJ, McBride JR (2006b) Restoring recruitment processes for riparian cottonwoods and willows: a field-calibrated predictive model for the lower San Joaquin Basin. Stillwater Sciences/UC Berkeley Report to CALFED Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program, Sacramento, USA. http://www.stillwatersci.com/resources/2006riprecruitbrochure.pdf
  72. Stenquist S (1999) Saltcedar biological control and the Saltcedar Consortium. Aquat Nuis Species Digest 3:20–23Google Scholar
  73. Stromberg JC, Lite SJ, Marler R, Paradzick C, Shafroth PB, Shorrock D, White JM, White MS (2007) Altered stream-flow regimes and invasive plant species: the Tamarix case. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:381–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tracy JL, Robbins TO (2009) Taxonomic revision and 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. Zootaxa 2101:1–152Google Scholar
  75. van Riper C III, Paxton KL, O’Brien C, Shafroth PB, McGrath LJ (2008) Rethinking avian response to Tamarix on the lower Colorado River: a threshold hypothesis. Restor Ecol 16:155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vincent KR, Friedman JM, Griffin ER (2009) Erosional consequence of saltcedar control. Environ Mang 44:218–227Google Scholar
  77. Whiteman KE (2006) Distribution of salt cedar (Tamarix spp. L) along an unregulated river in south-western New Mexico. J Arid Environ 64:364–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wiesenborn WD, Heydon SL (2007) Diet of southwestern willow flycatcher compared among breeding populations in different habitats. Wilson J Ornithol 119:547–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Marine Science InstituteUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.Colorado Department of AgriculturePalisade InsectaryPalisadeUSA

Personalised recommendations