Arthropod-Plant Interactions

, Volume 11, Issue 6, pp 807–814 | Cite as

Examination of dogbane beetle (Chrysochus auratus) feeding and phenology on spreading dogbane, and considerations for biological control

  • Megan C. MacEachern-Balodis
  • Nathan S. Boyd
  • Scott N. White
  • G. Christopher Cutler
Original Paper


We carried out experiments that considered the feeding, phenology, and biocontrol potential of dogbane beetle, Chrysochus auratus, on spreading dogbane, Apocynum androsaemifolium, a native perennial weed in lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium). In no-choice host-feeding experiments, adult beetles did not feed upon common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), periwinkle (Vinca minor), wild raisin (Viburnum cassenoides), and lowbush blueberry, all plants related to spreading dogbane or found around lowbush blueberry fields. In a field experiment, significant decreases in spreading dogbane total and foliar weight occurred at a density of 16 beetles per ramet, but not at lower beetle densities. In our Nova Scotia (NS) field sites, beetles were present for 8–12 weeks, beginning in late June or early July (225–335 growing degree days, GDD). Beetle abundance peaked at 4–7 beetles/m2 and occurred at 357–577 GDD, which temporally coincides with the incidence of mature spreading dogbane plants in the field. The results suggest that although inundations of C. auratus could cause significant defoliation of spreading dogbane, natural populations of the beetle probably could not satisfactorily suppress development of this weed as a stand-alone control tactic. Conservation and augmentation of C. auratus populations should nonetheless be encouraged in integrated management programs for spreading dogbane.


Lowbush blueberry Spreading dogbane Chrysochus auratus Weed biological control Degree day models 



Financial support for this project was through a Technology Development grant from the NS Department of Agriculture in partnership with the Wild Blueberry Producers Association of NS (Grant No. DEV29-053), and through a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council CGS scholarship to MCM-B.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Ethical approval

This research did not involve human participants or unethical treatment of animals, and did not require informed consent.


  1. Bakr EM (2005) A new software for measuring leaf area, and area damaged by Tetranychus urticae Koch. J Appl Entomol 129:173–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbosa P (1998) Agroecosystems and conservation biological control. In: Barbosa P (ed) Conservation biological control. Academic Press, San Deigo, pp 39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bousquet Y (ed) (1991) Checklist of beetles of Canada and Alaska. research branch, agriculture Canada, Publication 1861/E, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  4. Crozier HL, Cutler GC (2013) Susceptibility of Chrysochus auratus, a natural enemy of spreading dogbane, to insecticides used in wild blueberry production. J Appl Entomol 138:159–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dailey PJ, Graves RC, Kingsolver JM (1978) Survey of Coleoptera collected on the common milkweed Asclepias syriaca at one site in Ohio. Coleopt Bull 32:223–229Google Scholar
  6. Dobler S, Farrell BD (1999) Host use evolution in Chrysochus milkweed beetles: evidence from behaviour, population genetics and phylogeny. Mol Ecol 8:1297–1307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dobler S, Daloze D, Pasteels JM (1998) Sequestration of plant compounds in a leaf beetle’s defensive secretion: cardenolides in Chrysochus. Chemoecology 8:111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Environment Canada. 2014. Historical climate data. Accessed 15 September 2012
  9. Jolivet P (1988) Food habits and food selection of chrysomelidae. Bionomic and evolutionary perspectives. In: Jolivet P, Petitpierre E, Hsiao TH (eds) Biology of chrysomelidae. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kulkarni SS, Dosdall LM, Willenborg CJ (2015) The role of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in weed seed consumption: a review. Weed Sci 63:355–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lapointe L, Rochefort L (2001) Weed survey of lowbush blueberry fields in Saguenay-Lac-Saint Jean, Quebec, following eight years of herbicide application. Can J Plant Sci 81:471–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lundgren JG (2009) Relationships of natural enemies and non-prey foods. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  13. McFadyen REC (1998) Biological control of weeds. Annu Rev Entomol 43:369–393CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Nietschke BS, Magarey RD, Borchert DM, Calvin DD, Jones E (2007) A developmental database to support insect phenology models. Crop Prot 26:1444–1448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nowland JL, MacDougall JI (1973) Soils of Cumberland County Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia Soil Survey 17. Agriculture CanadaGoogle Scholar
  16. Peterson MA, Dobler S, Holland J, Tantalo L, Locke S (2001) Behavioral, molecular, and morphological evidence for a hybrid zone between Chrysochus auratus and C. cobaltinus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 94:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Peterson MA, Monsen KJ, Pedersen H, McFarland T, Bearden J (2005) Direct and indirect analysis of the fitness of Chrysochus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) hybrids. Biol J Linn Soc 84:273–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sampson MG, McCully KV, Sampson DL (1990) Weeds of Eastern Canadian blueberry fields. Nova Scotia Agricultural College Bookstore, TruroGoogle Scholar
  19. SAS (2008) OnlineDoc 9.2. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  20. St. Pierre MJ, Hendrix SD, Lewis CK (2005) Dispersal ability and host-plant characteristics influence spatial population structure of monophagous beetles. Ecol Entomol 30:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Systat (2011) SigmaPlot for Windows Version 12.0. Systat Software Inc., San JoseGoogle Scholar
  22. Wallner WE (1987) Factors affecting insect population dynamics: differences between outbreak and non-outbreak species. Annu Rev Entomol 32:317–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wapshere AJ, Delfosse ES, Cullen JM (1989) Recent developments in biological control of weeds. Crop Prot 8:250–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weiss HB, West E (1921) Notes on the insects of the spreading dogbane, Apocynum androsaemifolium L., with a description of a new dogbane midge, by Dr. E.P. Felt. Can Entomol 53:146–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Williams CE (1992) Movement of the dogbane beetle, Chrysochus auratus, (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), in a patchy environment. Banisteria 1:8–10Google Scholar
  26. Wu L, Boyd NS (2012) Management of spreading dogbane (Apocynum androsaemifolium) in wild blueberry fields. Weed Tech 26:777–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wu L, Boyd NS, Cutler GC, Olson AR (2013) Spreading dogbane (Apocynum androsaemifolium) development in wild blueberry fields. Weed Sci 61:422–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yarborough DE, Marra MC (1997) Economic thresholds for weeds in wild blueberry fields. Acta Hort 446:293–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant, Food and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of AgricultureDalhousie UniversityTruroCanada
  2. 2.Gulf Coast Research and Education CenterUniversity of FloridaWimaumaUSA

Personalised recommendations