Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The fickle activity of a fly and a moth: variation in activity of two biocontrol agents of Chrysanthemoides monilifera

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biocontrol agents released to control exotic pests may not have the same spatial distribution as the pest species and may therefore vary in efficacy across the exotic range. These changes in distribution are unlikely to be known until species have had time to fill all preferred niches in the invasive habitat. However, studies of post-release activity of biocontrol agents rarely assess longer-term patterns of establishment in the landscape. Comostolopsis germana and Mesoclanis polana were released to control Chrysanthemoides monilifera spp. rotundata (bitou bush) between 29 and 32 years ago. We assessed their activity in foredune and hinddune habitats of coastal beaches across the major distribution of bitou bush and experimentally assessed the effectiveness of C. germana at preventing flowering and seed set. Both biocontrol agents were found to be distributed along the 870 km of coastline, representing the core area of infestation. Tip damage by C. germana was highly variable but was consistently more effective in the foredune. Comostolopsis germana was found to reduce flower production from 15 to 59% with tip damage increasing with latitude. Mesoclanis polana did not show differences in activity with latitude and only showed a marginal increase in activity in hinddunes. Comostolopsis germana and M. polana are reducing the reproductive output of bitou bush but are unlikely to be effective as a sole management strategy particularly in warmer latitudes where more seeds are released.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adair RJ, Scott JK (1989) The life-history and host specificity of Comostolopsis germana Prout (Lepidoptera: Geometridae), a biocontrol agent of Chrysanthemoides monilifera (Compositae). Bull Entomol Res 79:649–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton J, Fowler SV, Gianotti AF, Winks CJ, de Beurs M, Arnold GC, Forrester G (2007) Successful biological control of mist flower (Ageratina riparia) in New Zealand: agent establishment, impact and benefits to the native flora. Biol Control 40:370–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briese DT (2000) Classical biological control. In: Sindel B (ed) Australian weed management systems. Richardson Publishing, Melbourne, pp 161–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Briese DT (2004) Weed biological control: applying science to solve seemingly intractable problems. Aust J Entomol 43:304–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broennimann O, Treier UA, Muller-Scharer H, Thuiller W, Peterson AT, Guisan A (2007) Evidence of climatic niche shift during biological invasion. Ecol Lett 10:701–709

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clewley GD, Eschen R, Shaw RH, Wright DJ (2012) The effectiveness of classical biological control of invasive plants. J Appl Ecol 49(6):1287–1295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DEC (Department of Environment and Conservation) (2006) NSW threat abatement plan invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera (bitou bush and boneseed). Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), Hurstville

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhileepan K (2002) Evaluating the effectiveness of weed biocontrol at the local scale. In: Spafford JH, Briese DT (eds) Improving the selection, testing and evaluation of weed biological control agents. CRC for Australian weed management technical series 7. Proceedings of the CRC for weed management biological control of weeds symposium and workshop. CRC for Australian Weed Management, Glen Osmond, pp 51–60

  • Downey PO, Holtkamp RH, Ireson JE, Kwong RM, Swirepik AE (2007) A review of the Chrysanthemoides monilifera biological control program in Australia: 1987–2005. Plant Prot Q 22:24–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards PB, Holtkamp RH, Adair RJ (1999) Establishment and rapid spread of bitou seed fly, Mesoclanis polana Munro (Diptera: Tephridae), in eastern Australia. Aust J Entomol 38:148–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards PB, Adair RJ, Holtkamp RH, Wanjura WJ, Bruzzese AS, Forrester RI (2009) Impact of the biological control agent Mesoclanis polana (Tephritidae) on bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata) in eastern Australia. Bull Entomol Res 99:51–63

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ens EJ, Bremner JB, French K, Korth J (2009) Identification of volatile compounds released by roots of an invasive plant, bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera spp. rotundata), and their inhibition of native seedling growth. Biol Invasions 11:275–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French K, Mason TJ, Sullivan N (2010) Recruitment limitation of native species in invaded coastal dune communities. Plant Ecol 212:601–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher RV, Beaumont LJ, Hughes L, Leishman MR (2010) Evidence for climatic niche and biome shifts between native and novel ranges in plant species introduced to Australia. J Ecol 98:790–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosheh HZ (2005) Constraints in implementing biological weed control: a review. Weed Biol Manag 5:83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill RL, Wittenberg R, Gourlay AH (2001) Biology and host range of Phytomyza vitalbae and its establishment for the biological control of Clematis vitalba in New Zealand. Biocontrol Sci Technol 11:459–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/09583150120067490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann JH, Moran VC (1992) Oviposition patterns and the supplementary role of a seed-feeding weevil, Rhyssomatus marginatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), in the biological control of a perennial leguminous weed, Sesbania punicea. Bull Entomol Res 82(343–347):343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann JH, Moran VC (1998) The population dynamics of an introduced tree, Sesbania punicea, in South Africa, in response to long-term damage caused by different combinations of three species of biological control agents. Oecologia 114:343–348

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holtkamp RH (2002) Impact of bitou tip moth, Comostolopsis germana, on bitou bush in New South Wales. In: Spafford JH, Dodd J, Moore J (eds) 13th Australian weed conference, Perth. Plant Protection Society of WA, South Perth, pp 405–406

  • Ireson JE, Gourlay AH, Kwong RM, Holloway RJ, Chatterton WS (2003) Host specificity, release, and establishment of the gorse spider mite, Tetranychus lintearius Dufour (Acarina: Tetranychidae) for the biological control of gorse, Ulex europaeus L. (Fabaceae) in Australia. Biol Control 26:117–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Julien M, McFadyen R, Cullen J (eds) (2012) Biological control of weeds in Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay EA, French K (2004) Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. rotundata invasion alters decomposition rates in coastal areas of south-eastern Australia. For Ecol Manage 198:387–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin GD, Coetzee JA, Weyl PSR, Parkinson MC, Hill MP (2018) Biological control of Salvinia molesta in South Africa revisited. Biol Control 125:74–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason TJ, French K, Russell KG (2007) Moderate impacts of plant invasion and management regimes in coastal hind dune seed banks. Biol Cons 134:428–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason TJ, French K, Russell K (2012) Are competitive effects of native species on an invader mediated by water availability? J Veg Sci 23:657–666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran VC, Hoffmann JH, Zimmermann HG (2013) 100 years of biological control of invasive alien plants in South Africa: history, practice and achievements. S Afr J Sci 109:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morin L, Reid AM, Sims-Chilton NM, Buckley YM, Dhileepan K, Hastwell GT, Nordblom TL, Raghu S (2009) Review of approaches to evaluate the effectiveness of weed biological control agents. Biol Control 51:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norambuena H, Martínez G, Carrillo R, Neira M (2007) Host specificity and establishment of Tetranychus lintearius (Acari: Tetranychidae) for biological control of gorse, Ulex europaeus (Fabaceae) in Chile. Biol Control 40:204–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Story JM, Smith L, Corn JG, White LJ (2008) Influence of seed head–attacking biological control agents on spotted knapweed reproductive potential in western Montana over a 30-year period. Environ Entomol 37:510–519

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart R, Kriticos DJ, Ash JE (2002) Modelling the biological control of bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monifera: Asteraceae) by Mesoclanis polana (Tephritidae). In: Spafford JH, Dodd J, Moore JH (eds) 13th Australian weeds conference proceedings: weeds ‘threats now and forever’. Plant Protection Society of WA, Perth, Australia, pp 591–594

  • Thomas J, Leys A (2002) Strategic management of bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. rotundata (L.) T.Norl.). In: Spafford JH, Dodd J, Moore JH (eds) 13th Australian weeds conference proceedings: weeds ‘threats now and forever’. Plant Protection Society of WA, Perth, Australia, pp 586–590

  • Weiss PW (1984) Seed characteristics and regeneration of some species in invaded coastal communities. Aust J Ecol 9:99–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkler MA, Cherry H, Downey PO (2008) Bitou bush management manual: current management and control options for bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. rotundata) in Australia. Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW), Sydney

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the University of Wollongong for supporting this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Sustainable Ecosystem Solutions, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia

    Kris French, Kim Lynda Barrett & Evi Watts

Authors
  1. Kris French
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kim Lynda Barrett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Evi Watts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kris French.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

French, K., Barrett, K.L. & Watts, E. The fickle activity of a fly and a moth: variation in activity of two biocontrol agents of Chrysanthemoides monilifera. Biol Invasions 21, 1807–1815 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-01936-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-01936-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation