Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Co-existence Between Two Leaf-Feeding Biological Control Agents of Lantana camara Alters Their Herbivory Under Semi-field Conditions

  • Biological Control
  • Published:
Neotropical Entomology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Interaction between two biological control agents released against Lantana camara L. (sensu lato) (Verbenaceae) was studied in replicated semi-field plots. Caged plants under semi-field conditions were inoculated with Uroplata girardi Pic (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and Ophiomyia camarae Spencer (Diptera: Agromyzidae), either alone or in combination, to investigate the extent to which co-infestation of the two agents affects the reproductive capacity and growth of their host. At the end of the trial, both single and combined attacks by the two agents had no effect on stem diameter, stem height, and canopy width. However, uncaged control plants were heavily attacked by Teleonemia scrupulosa Stål (Hemiptera: Tingidae), and therefore became significantly shorter than all the caged plants in all the treatments. When confined alone, feeding damage by O. camarae resulted in higher reduction of fruit and flower biomass relative to that caused by U. girardi alone. However, when confined alone, U. girardi caused higher reductions in leaf density and fruit biomass than when combined with O. camarae. Single attack by O. camarae caused higher reduction in flower biomass than simultaneous attack by both agents. Above-ground biomass of all single and combined treatment plants were significantly lower than those of the caged control plants. Uncaged control plants exposed to heavy attack by T. scrupulosa did not produce flowers and fruits, and their above-ground biomass was significantly lower than those of caged control plants. Overall, the study showed that simultaneous attack by the two herbivores alters their herbivory, thereby affecting reproductive capacity and growth of their host.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • April V, Robertson MP, Simelane DO (2011) Interactions between Uroplata girardi (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and Ophiomyia camarae (Diptera: Agromyzidae) on their shared host Lantana camara (Verbenaceae) in South Africa. Environ Entomol 40:1121–1130. https://doi.org/10.1603/EN11027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baars J-R, Heystek F (2003) Geographical range and impact of five biocontrol agents established on Lantana camara in South Africa. BioControl 48:743–759. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026389207517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baars J-R, Neser S (1999) Past and present initiatives on the biological control of Lantana camara (Verbenaceae) in South Africa. Afr Entomol Mem 1:21–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers CJ (1983) The weed, Lantana camara L., and the insect natural enemies imported for its biological control into South Africa. J Entomol Soc South Afr 46:131–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers CJ (1987) The evaluation of three insect natural enemies for the biological control of the weed Lantana camara L. J Entomol Soc South Afr 50:15–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers CJ, Neser S (1991) Biological control of Lantana camara (Verbenaceae) in South Africa. Agric Ecosyst Environ 37:57–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(91)90139-O

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowe ML, Bourchier RS (2006) Interspecific interactions between the gall-fly Urophora affins Frfld. (Diptera: Tephritidae) and the weevil Larinuminutus Gyll. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), two biological control agents released against spotted knapweed, Centaurea stobe L. spp. micranthos. Biocontrol Sci Technol 16:417–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/09583150500532238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day MD, Wiley CJ, Playford J, Zalucki MP (2003) Lantana camara: Current Management Status and Future Prospects. ACIAR Monogr 102:3–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Denoth M, Frid L, Myers JH (2002) Multiple agents in biological control: Improving the odds? Biolog Control 24:20–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1049-9644(02)00002-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faeth SH (1985) Host leaf selection by leaf miners: interactions among three trophic levels. Ecology 66:870–875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentle CB, Diggin JA (1997) Allelopathy as a competitive strategy in persistent thickets of Lantana camara L. in three Australian forest communities. Plant Ecol 132:85–95. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009707404802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harley KLS (1969) The suitability of Octotoma scabripennis Guér. And Uroplata Girardi Pic (Col., Chrysomelidae) for the control of Lantana (Verbenaceae) in Australia. Bull Entomol Res 58:835–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heshula LUP, Hill MP (2011) The effect of Lantana camara leaf quality on the performance of Falconia intermedia. BioControl 56:925–933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-011-9359-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann JH, Moran VC (1999) A review of the agents and factors that contributed to the successful biological control of Sesbania punicea (Cav.) Benth. (Papilonaceae) in South Africa. Afr Entomol Mem 1:75–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Katembo N, Witkowski ETF, Simelane DO, Urban AJ, Byrne MJ (2020) Impact of biocontrol agents on Lantana camara in an inland area of South Africa. BioControl 65:143–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-019-09991-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louda SM, Kendall D, Connor J, Simberloff D (1997) Ecological effects of an insect introduced for the biological control of weeds. Science 277:1088–1090. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5329.1088

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Louda SM, Pemberton RW, Johnson MT, Follet PA (2003) Non-target effects - the Achilles’ heel of biological control? Retrospective analyses to reduce risk associated with biocontrol introductions. Ann Rev Entomol 48:365–396. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.48.060402.102800

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Louda SM, Rand TA, Russell FL, Arnett AE (2005) Assessment of ecological risks in weed biocontrol: input from retrospective ecological analyses. Biolog Control 35:253–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.07.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacNally RC (1983) On assessing the significance of interspecific competition to guild structure. Ecology 64:1646–1652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukwevho L, Olckers T, Simelane DO (2017) Establishment, dispersal and impact of the flower-galling mite Aceria lantanae (Acari: Trombidifrmes: Eriophyidae) on Lantana camara (Verbenaceae) in South Africa. Biolog Control 107:33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2017.01.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers JH, Higgins C, Kovacs E (1989) How many insect species are necessary for the biological control of insects? Environ Entomol 18:541–547. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/18.4.541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paynter Q, Hennecke B (2001) Competition between two biological control agents Neurostrota gunniella and Phloeospora mimosae-pigrae, and their impact on the invasive tropical shrub Mimosa pigra. Biocontrol Sci Technol 11:575–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/09583150120076139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson DE, Callaway RM (2003) Indirect effects of host-specific biological control agents. Trends Ecol Evol 18:456–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00188-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raghu S, Wilson JR, Dhileepan K (2006) Refining the process of agent selection through understanding plant demography and plant response to herbivory. Aust J Entomol 45:308–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-6055.2006.00556.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1974) Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185:27–39

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1982) The controversy over interspecific competition. Am Sci 70:586–595

    Google Scholar 

  • Seastedt TR, Knochel DG, Garmoe M, Shosky SA (2007) Interactions and effects of multiple biological control insects on diffuse and spotted knapweed in the Front Range of Colorado. Biolog Control 42:345–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2007.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simelane DO (2002) Biology and host range of Ophiomyia camarae, a biological control agent for Lantana camara in South Africa. BioControl 47:575–85. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016541809545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simelane DO (2005) Biological control of Lantana camara in South Africa: targeting a different niche with a root-feeding agent, Longitarsus sp. BioControl 50:375–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-004-1113-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simelane DO (2006) Effect of herbivory by Teleonemia scrupulosa on the performance of Longitarsus bethae on their shared host, Lantana camara. Biol control 39:385–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2006.07.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simelane DO, Phenye MS (2005) Suppression of growth and reproductive capacity of the weed Lantana camara (Verbenaceae) by Ophiomyia camarae (Diptera: Agromyzidae) and Teleonemia scrupulosa (Heteroptera: Tingidae). BioControl Sci Technol 15:153–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/09583150400016019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban AJ, Simelane DO, Retief E, Heystek F, Williams HE, Madire LG (2011) The invasive ‘Lantana camara L’. hybrid complex (Verbenaceae): a review of research into its identity and biological control in South Africa. Afr Entomol 19:315–348. https://doi.org/10.4001/003.019.0225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson GL, Delfosse ES, Spencer NR, Prosser CW, Richard RD (2000) Biological control of leafy spurge: an emerging success story. In: Spencer, N.R. (Ed.) Proceedings of the X International Symposium on Biological control of Weeds, Montana State University, Bozeman. 15-25. Montana, USA

  • Heystek F (2006) Laboratory and field host utilization by established biological control agents of Lantana camara L., in South Africa. Unpublished MSc Thesis. Rhodes University, South Africa

  • McEvoy PB, Coombs EM (1999) Why things bite back: unintended consequences of biological control of weeds. In: Follett, P. A. & Duan, J. J. (eds.) Non-target effects of Biological Control. 176-194. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4577-4_11

  • Myers JH (1985) How many insect species are necessary for successful biocontrol of weeds? In: Delfosse, E.S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on the Biological Control of Weeds, Agriculture Canada. Canadian Govt. Printing Office, Ottawa, pp. 77–82

  • StatSoft Inc. (2017) Statistica (data analysis software system), version 13.2. www.statsoft.com

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are also grateful to Dr Naweji Katembo, Mr Khethani Mawela of ARC-PHP and anonymous reviewers for providing comments on the manuscript. The authors are deeply grateful to the retired Mr M. Khadile, Mr O. Mogolane, and B. Mampholo (Tshwane University of Technology) and the late D. Lekubu (ARC-PPRI) for their technical assistance.

Funding

Research was funded by ARC-Professional Development Programme Fund and Department of Environmental Affairs, Forestry and Fisheries.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Weeds Research, ARC-Plant Health and Protection, Queenswood, South Africa

    Vuyokazi April & David O. Simelane

  2. Centre for Invasion Biology, Dept of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

    Vuyokazi April & Mark P. Robertson

Authors
  1. Vuyokazi April
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David O. Simelane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark P. Robertson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

VA: Investigation, Data curation, Formal analysis and Writing – original draft. DS: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review and editing. MR: Analysis, Supervision, Writing – review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David O. Simelane.

Additional information

Edited by Lessando Moreira Gontijo

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

April, V., Simelane, D.O. & Robertson, M.P. Co-existence Between Two Leaf-Feeding Biological Control Agents of Lantana camara Alters Their Herbivory Under Semi-field Conditions. Neotrop Entomol 50, 959–965 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-021-00909-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-021-00909-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation