Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 1021–1031 | Cite as

Limits to biocontrol: the effects of urbanization and elevation on Bruchidius villosus and Exapion fuscirostre—two biological control agents of Cytisus scoparius

  • Robert Frederick BodeEmail author
  • Sara Grove
  • Nathan Krueger
Original Paper

Abstract

Both invasive species and their biological control agents face barriers to expansion, which provide opportunities to limit invasions or may enable target invasive species to exist in enemy-free space. A better understanding of the various barriers to the spread of insects introduced to control invasive plants will allow for more targeted release programs and potentially shorter lag times from introduction to management. In the Pacific Northwest of the United States, two seed eating beetles (Exapion fuscirostre and Bruchidius villosus) have been introduced to control the invasive plant Cytisus scoparius. These biological controls are predicted to be effective only at high rates of seed destruction, so any factors that limit their colonization or population sizes may allow C. scoparius populations to grow, leading to ecological and economic harm. In this study, we investigate relative impacts of biological control agents in relation to two barriers to insect movement: urbanization and elevation. We find that the impacts of B. villosus are not different between urban and rural sites, but that relative impacts of both biological control agents decrease with increasing elevation, a pattern consistent across 2 years of measurements. Cytisus scoparius populations experience substantial seed destruction in urban settings, strongly suggesting successful population control. The low seed destruction at high elevation sites could indicate that biological control agents are ineffective there, and that C. scoparius may exist in enemy-reduced space.

Keywords

Plant–insect interactions Urban ecosystems Elevation Invasive species 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Rebecca Tong, Danner Linhart and Emily Prall for helping in seed collection. Jennifer Andreas provided us with an early release of her biological control identification book, which helped students learn the difference between a weevil and a beetle. She also looked over an early version and provided helpful feedback. We also thank Mikala Marbach, Leslie Maya, Sheridan Menard, Catherine and Emily Pham for counting seeds in 2016. Guilia Perini, Gia Sheppard, Karlee Kawasaki and Hasley Villadelgado helped count seeds in 2017. Saint Martin’s University provided laboratory space and equipment. A special thanks to the Murdock Charitable Trust (Grant Number 2015277) for funding the elevation portion of this research.

Supplementary material

10530_2018_1882_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 kb)

References

  1. Abatzoglou JT, Rupp DE, Mote PW (2013) Seasonal climate variability and change in the pacific northwest of the United States. J Clim 27:2125–2142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreas JE (2016) Pest watch: biological control of Scotch broom, FS203E. Washington State University Extension, p 6Google Scholar
  3. Andreas JE, Wax T, Coombs EM, Gaskin J, Markin G, Sing S (2013) The scotch broom gall mite: accidental introduction to classic biological control agent? In: XIII International symposium on the biological control of weedsGoogle Scholar
  4. Andreas JE, Winston RL, Coombs EM, Miller TW, Pitcairn MJ, Randall CB, Turner S, Williams W (2017) Biology and biological control of Scotch broom and gorse. USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, West Virginia. FHTET-2017-01Google Scholar
  5. Andres LA, Hawkes RB, Rizza A (1967) Apion seed weevil introduced for biological control of Scotch broom. Calif Agric 21:13Google Scholar
  6. Bang C, Faeth SH (2011) Variation in arthropod communities in response to urbanization: seven years of arthropod monitoring in a desert city. Landsc Urban Plan 103:383–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bode RF, Gilbert A (2016) Seed predators, not herbivores, exert natural selection on Solidago spp. in an urban archipelago. Environ Entomol 45(1):150–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bode RF, Maciejewski A (2014) Herbivore biodiversity varies with patch size in an urban archipelago. Int J Insect Sci 6:49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bode RF, Tong R (2017) Pollinators exert positive selection on flower size on urban, but not rural Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius L. Link). J Plant Ecol 11:493–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bossard CC (1991) The role of habitat disturbance, seed predation and ant dispersal on establishment of the exotic shrub Cytisus scoparius in California. Am Midl Natl 126(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bossard CC, Rejmanek M (1994) Herbivory, growth, seed production, and resprouting of an exotic invasive shrub Cytisus scoparius. Biol Conserv 67(3):193–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carson BD, Landis DA (2014) Phenology and dispersal of Larinus minutus Gyllenhal and Larinus obtusus Gyllenhal (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), two biological control agents of Centaurea stoebe ssp. Micranthos (spotted knapweed) in Michigan. Biol Control 79:84–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cavallero L, Morales CL, Montero-Castano A, Gowda JH, Aizen MA (2018) Scale-dependent effects of conspecific flower availability on pollination quantity and quality in an invasive shrub. Oecologia 188:501–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Community Attributes Inc (2017) Economic impact of invasive species: Direct costs estimates and economic impacts for Washington State, pp 23-24Google Scholar
  15. Coombs EM, Isaacson DL, Hawkes RB (1995) The status of biological control of weeds in Oregon. Oregon Department of Agriculture, SalemGoogle Scholar
  16. Coombs EM, Clarke JK, Piper GL, Cofrancesco AF (2004) Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the United States. Oregon State University Press, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  17. Coombs EM, Markin GP, and Andreas J (2008) Release and Establishment of the Scotch broom seed beetle, Bruchidius villosus, in Oregon and Washington, USA. XII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds. 526-520Google Scholar
  18. Cordero RL, Torchelsen FP, Overbeck GE, Anand M (2016) Cytisus scoparius (Fabaceae) in southern Brazil—First step of an invasion process? Ann Braz Acad Sci 88(1):149–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DeWalt SJ (2006) Population dynamics and potential for biological control of an exotic invasive shrub in Hawaiian rainforests. Biol Invasions 8:1145–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dlugosch KM, Parker IM (2008) Founding events in species invasions: genetic variation, adaptive evolution, and the role of multiple introductions. Mol Ecol 17:431–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev 81:117–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Faeth SH, Kane TC (1978) Urban biogeography. City Parks as Islands for Diptera and Coleoptera. Oecologia 32(1):127–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fowler SV, Paynter Q, Hayes L, Dodd S, Groenteman R (2010) Biocontrol of weeds in New Zealand: an overview of nearly 85 years. In: Seventeenth Australasian weeds conference, pp 211–214Google Scholar
  24. Frick KE (1964) Leucoptera spartifoliella an introduced enemy of Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) in the western United States. J Econ Entomol 57(4):589–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gavini SS, Farji-Brener AG (2015) La Importancia del Color: morfos florales, tasas de visita y éxito reproductivo en el arbusto Sarothamnus scoparius. Ecol Austral 25:204–211Google Scholar
  26. Gillespie SD, Bayley J, Elle E (2017) Native bumble bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) pollinators vary in floral resource use across an invasion gradient. Can J Entomol 149:204–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grevstad FS (2006) Ten-year impacts of the biological control agents Galerucella pusilla and G. calmariensis (Coleoptera:Chrysomelidae) on Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in Central New York State. Biol Control 39:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grove S, Haubensak KA, Parker I (2012) Direct and indirect effects of allelopathy in the soil legacy of an exotic plant invasion. Plant Ecol 213:1869–1882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harman HM (1999) The effect of variability in the phenology of the reproductive stages of Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) on the synchronization of the life stages of broom seed beetle (Bruchidius villosus) in New Zealand. Biol Control 15:228–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harris P, Peschken D, Milroy J (1969) The status of biological control of the weed Hypericum perforatum in British Columbia. Can Entomol 101(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herrera-Reddy AM, Carruthers RI, Mills NJ (2012) Integrated management of Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) using biological control. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 5(1):69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hodkinson ID (2005) Terrestrial insects along elevation gradients: species and community responses to altitude. Biol Rev 80:489–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hogg BN, Smith L, Daane KM (2016) Impacts of the adventive Psyllid Arytainilla spartiophila (Hemiptera: Psyllidae) on growth of the invasive weed cytisus scoparius under controlled and field conditions in California. Environ Entomol 45(1):109–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Huffaker CB, Kennett CE (1959) A ten-year study of vegetational changes associated with biological control of Klamath weed. J Range Manag 12:69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson K, Scriber JM (1994) Geographic variation in plant allelochemicals of significance to insect herbivores. In: Ananthakrishnan TN (ed) Functional dynamics of phytophagous insects. Science Publishers, Lebanon, pp 7–31Google Scholar
  36. Julien MH (1989) Biological control of weeds worldwide: trends, rates of success and the future. Biocontrol News Inf 10:299–306Google Scholar
  37. Kang M, Buckley YM, Lowe AJ (2007) Testing the role of genetic factors across multiple independent invasions of the shrub Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius). Mol Ecol 16:4662–4673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Magda D, Gleizes B, Jarry M (2013) Maternal effect on seed survival and emergence in Cytisus scoparius: an experimental approach. Ecol Res 28:927–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Malo JE, Baonza J (2002) Are there predictable clines in plant-pollinator interactions along altitudinal gradients? The example of Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link in the Sierra de Guadarrama (Central Spain). Divers Distrib 8:365–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McCoy ED (1990) The Distribution of insects along elevational gradients. Oikos 58(3):313–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McEvoy PB, Coombs EM (1999) Biological control of plant invaders: Regional patterns, field experiments, and structured population models. Ecol Appl 9(2):387–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McEvoy PB, Cox C, Coombs EM (1991) Successful biological control of ragwort, Senecio jacobaea, by introduced insects in Oregon. Ecol Appl 1(4):430–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mkhize VS, Mhlambi N, Nanni I (2013) Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), a horticultural escapee targeted for eradication in South Africa. S Afr J Bot 86:178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mote PW, Salathe EP (2010) Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. Clim Change 102:29–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Muller-Scharer H, Schroeder D (1993) The biological control of Centaurea spp. in North America: Do insects solve the problem? Pestic Sci 37:343–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Parker IM (1996) Ecological factors affecting rates of spread in Cytisus scoparius, an invasive exotic shrub. Dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  47. Parker IM (1997) Pollinator limitation of Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom), an invasive exotic shrub. Ecology 78(5):1457–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Parker IM (2000) Invasion dynamics of Cytisus scoparius: a matrix model approach. Ecol Appl 10(3):726–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Parnell JR (1966) Observations on the population fluctuations and life histories of the we Bruchidius ater (Bruchidae) and Apion fuscirostre (Curculionidae) on broom (Sarothamnus scoparius). J Anim Ecol 35:157–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Paynter Q, Main A, Gourlay AH, Peterson PG, Fowler SV, Buckley YM (2010) Disruption of an exotic mutualism can improve management of an invasive plant: varroa mite, honeybees and biological control of Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius in New Zealand. J Appl Ecol 47:309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Paynter Q, Buckley YM, Peterson PG, Gourlay AH, Fowler SV (2015) Breaking and remaking a seed and seed predator interaction in the introduced range of Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) in New Zealand. J Ecol 104(1):1–11Google Scholar
  52. Pojar J, MacKinnon A (1994) Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone Pine Publishing, RedmondGoogle Scholar
  53. Poveda K, Martinez E, Kersch-Becker MF, Bonilla MA, Tscharntke T (2012) Landscape simplification and altitude affect biodiversity, herbivory and Andean potato yield. J Appl Ecol 49:513–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rassmann S, Pellissier L, Defossez E, Jactel H, Kunstler G (2014) Climate-driven change in plant–insect interactions along elevation gradients. Funct Ecol 28:46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  56. Redmon SG, Forrest TG, Markin GP (2000) Biology of Bruchidius villosus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on Scotch broom in North Carolina. Fla Entomol 83(3):242–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rees M, Paynter Q (1997) Biological control of Scotch broom: modelling the determinants of abundance and the potential impact of introduced insect herbivores. J Appl Ecol 34(5):1203–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rodriguez E, Peco B, Gurrea MP (2012) Effect of Scotch broom. Cytisus scoparius, pod size and patch density on Exapion fuscirostre (Coleoptera, Apionidae) seed weevil predation. Aust J Entomol 51:127–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Saari S, Richter S, Higgins M, Oberhofer M, Jennings A, Faeth SH (2016) Urbanization is not associated with increased abundance or decreased richness of terrestrial animals—dissecting the literature through meta-analysis. Urban Ecosyst 19(3):1251–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Srinivasan MP, Shenoy K, Gleeson SK (2007) Population structure of Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and its invasion impacts on the resident plant community in the grasslands of Nilgiris, India. Curr Sci 93(8):1108–1113Google Scholar
  61. Srinivasan MP, Kalita R, Gurung IK, Bhattacharjee SK, Antony PM, Krishnan S, Gleeson SK (2012) Seedling germination success and survival of the invasive shrub Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) in response to fire and experimental clipping in the montane grasslands of the Nilgiris, south India. Acta Oecol 38:41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stout J (2000) Does size matter? bumblebee behavior and the pollination of Cytisus scoparius L. (Fabaceae). Apidologie 31(1):129–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Suzuki N (2003) Significance of flower exploding pollination on the reproduction of the Scotch broom, Cytisus scoparius (Leguminosae). Ecol Res 18:523–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Swope SM, Satterthwaite WH, Parker IM (2017) Spatiotemporal variation in the strength of density dependence: implications for biocontrol of Centaurea solstitialis. Biol Invasions 19:2675–2691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Syrett P (1996) Insects for biological control of broom (Cytisus scoparius) in New Zealand. In: Shepherd RCH (ed) Proceedings of the 11th Australian weeds conference, University of Melbourne, pp 525–528Google Scholar
  66. Syrett P, Fowler SV, Coombs EM, Hosking JR, Markin GP, Paynter QE, Sheppard AW (1999) The potential for biological control of Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) (Fabaceae) and related weedy species. Biocontrol News Inf 20(1):17–34Google Scholar
  67. Tscharntke T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kruess A, Theis C (2002) Characteristics of insect populations on habitat fragments: a mini-review. Ecol Res 17:229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Saint Martin’s UniversityLaceyUSA
  2. 2.University of California, Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations