Advertisement

Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 10, Issue 10, pp 1787–1807 | Cite as

Impact and management of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North America

  • Bernd Blossey
  • Luke C. Skinner
  • Janith Taylor
Article

Abstract

The invasion of non-indigenous plants is considered a primary threat to integrity and function of ecosystems. However, there is little quantitative or experimental evidence for ecosystem impacts of invasive species. Justifications for control are often based on potential, but not presently realized, recognized or quantified, negative impacts. Should lack of scientific certainty about impacts of non-indigenous species result in postponing measures to prevent degradation? Recently, management of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), has been criticized for (1) lack of evidence demonstrating negative impacts of L. salicaria, and (2) management using biocontrol for lack of evidence documenting the failure of conventional control methods. Although little quantitative evidence on negative impacts on native wetland biota and wetland function was available at the onset of the control program in 1985, recent work has demonstrated that the invasion of purple loosestrife into North American freshwater wetlands alters decomposition rates and nutrient cycling, leads to reductions in wetland plant diversity, reduces pollination and seed output of the native Lythrum alatum, and reduces habitat suitability for specialized wetland bird species such as black terns, least bitterns, pied-billed grebes, and marsh wrens. Conventional methods (physical, mechanical or chemical), have continuously failed to curb the spread of purple loosestrife or to provide satisfactory control. Although a number of generalist insect and bird species utilize purple loosestrife, wetland habitat specialists are excluded by encroachment of L. salicaria. We conclude that (1) negative ecosystem impacts of purple loosestrife in North America justify control of the species and that (2) detrimental effects of purple loosestrife on wetland systems and biota and the potential benefits of control outweigh potential risks associated with the introduction of biocontrol agents. Long-term experiments and monitoring programs that are in place will evaluate the impact of these insects on purple loosestrife, on wetland plant succession and other wetland biota.

biological control invasions invasive plant management Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amrine JW andStasny TA (1992) Biocontrol of multiflora rose. In: McKnight BN (ed) Biological Pollution, the Control and Impact of Invasive Exotic Species, pp 9-21. Indiana Academy of Sciences, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson MG (1995) Interaction between Lythrum salicaria and native organisms: a critical review. Environmental Management 19: 225–231Google Scholar
  3. Balogh GR andBookhout TA (1989) Purple loosestrife, Lythrum salicaria, in Ohio' Lake Erie marshes, USA. Ohio Journal of Science 89: 62–64Google Scholar
  4. Barlocher F andBiddiscombe NR (1996) Geratology and decomposition of Typha latifolia and Lythrum salicaria in a freshwater marsh. Archiv fuer Hydrobiologie 136: 309–325Google Scholar
  5. Blossey B (1993) Herbivory below ground and biological weed control: life history of a root-boring weevil on purple loosestrife. Oecologia 94: 380–387Google Scholar
  6. Blossey B (1995a) A comparison of various approaches for evaluating potential biological control agents using insects on Lythrum salicaria. Biological Control 5: 113–122Google Scholar
  7. Blossey B (1995b) Coexistence of two leaf-beetles in the same fundamental niche: distribution, adult phenology and oviposition. Oikos 74: 225–234Google Scholar
  8. Blossey B (1995c) Impact of Galerucella pusilla and G. calmariensis (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on field populations of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). In: Delfosse ES andScott RS (eds) Proceedings of the VIII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds. Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand, 2-7 February 1992, pp 27-31. DSIR/CSIRO, Melbourne, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  9. Blossey B (1999) Before, during, and after: the need for long-term monitoring in invasive plant species management. Biological Invasions 1: 301–311Google Scholar
  10. Blossey B (2001) Biological control of an invasive wetland plant: monitoring the impact of beetles introduced to control purple loosestrife. In: Rader RB,Batzer DP andWissinger S (eds) Biomonitoring and Management of North American Freshwater Wetlands. John Wiley and Sons, New York (in press)Google Scholar
  11. Blossey B andHunt T (1999) Mass rearing methods for Galerucella calmariensis and G. pusilla (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), biological control agents of Lythrum salicaria. Journal of Economic Entomology 92: 325–334Google Scholar
  12. Blossey B andKamil J (1996) What determines the increased competitive ability of invasive nonindigenous plants? In: Moran VC andHoffmann JH (eds) Proceedings of the IX International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds. University of Cape Town, Stellenbosch, South Africa, January 1999, pp 3–9Google Scholar
  13. Blossey B andNötzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive non-indigenous plants: a hypothesis. Journal of Ecology 83: 887–889Google Scholar
  14. Blossey B andSchat M (1997) Performance of Galerucella calmariensis (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on different North American populations of purple loosestrife. Environmental Entomology 26: 439–445Google Scholar
  15. Blossey B andSchroeder D (1995) Host specificity of three potential biological weed control agents attacking flowers and seeds of Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife). Biological Control 5: 47–53Google Scholar
  16. Blossey B andSkinner L (2000) Design and importance of post release monitoring. In: Spencer NR (ed) Proceedings of the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, 4-10 July 1999, pp 693-706. Bozeman, MontanaGoogle Scholar
  17. Blossey B,Malecki RA,Schroeder D andSkinner L (1996) A biological weed control programme using insects against purple loosestrife, Lythrum salicaria, in North America. In: Moran VC andHoffmann JH (eds) Proceedings of the IX International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds. University of Cape Town, Stellenbosch, South Africa, January 1996, pp 19–26Google Scholar
  18. Blossey B,Schroeder D,Hight SD andMalecki RA (1994a) Host specificity and environmental impact of the Weevil Hylobius transversovittatus, a biological control agent of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Weed Science 42: 128–133Google Scholar
  19. Blossey B,Schroeder D,Hight SD andMalecki RA (1994b) Host specificity and environmental impact of two leaf beetles (Galerucella calmariensis and G. pusilla), for the biological control of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Weed Science 42: 134–140Google Scholar
  20. Blossey B,Eberts D,Morrison E andHunt TR (2000) Mass rearing of the weevil Hylobius transversovittatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), biological control agent of Lythrum salicaria, on semiartificial diet. Journal of Economic Entomology 93: 1644–1656Google Scholar
  21. Brown B (1999) The impact of an invasive species (Lythrum salicaria) on pollination and reproduction of a native species (L. alatum). PhD thesis. Department of Biological Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OhioGoogle Scholar
  22. Brown BJ andWickstrom CE (1997) Adventitious root production and survival of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) shoot sections. Ohio Journal of Science 97: 2–4Google Scholar
  23. Corrigan J,Mackenzie DL andSimser L (1998) Field observations of non-target feeding by Galerucella calmariensis (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), an introduced biological control agent of purple loosestrife, Lythrum salicaria (Lythraceae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario 129: 99–106Google Scholar
  24. Crawley MJ (1989) The successes and failures of weed biocontrol using insects. Biocontrol News and Information 10: 213–223Google Scholar
  25. Dennill GB andDonnelly D (1991) Biological control of Acacia longifolia and related weed species (Fabaceae) in South Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 37: 115–135Google Scholar
  26. Dennill GB,Donnelly D,Stewart K andImpson FAC (1999) Insect agents used for the biological control of Australian Acacia species and Paraserianthes lophantha (Willd.) Nielsen (Fabaceae) in South Africa. African Entomology Memoir 1: 45–54Google Scholar
  27. Dennill GB,Donnelly D andChown SL (1993) Expansion of host range of a biocontrol agent Trichilogaster acaciaelongifoliae (Pteromalidae) released against the weed Acacia longifolia in South Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 43: 1–10Google Scholar
  28. Diehl JK,Holliday NJ,Lindgren CJ andRoughley RE (1997) Insects associated with purple loosestrife, Lythrum salicaria L., in southern Manitoba. Canadian Entomologist 129: 937–948Google Scholar
  29. Dovers SR andHandmer JW (1995) Ignorance, the precautionary principle, and sustainability. Ambio 24: 92–97Google Scholar
  30. Drake JA,Mooney HA,di Castri F,Groves RH,Kruger FJ,Rejmánek M andWilliamson M (1989) Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Emery SL andPerry JA (1996) Decomposition rates and phosphorous concentrations of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and cattail (Typha spp.) in fourteen Minnesota wetlands. Hydrobiologia 323: 129–138Google Scholar
  32. Gabor TS,Haagsma T andMurkin HR (1996) Wetland plant responses to varying degrees of purple loosestrife removal in southeastern Ontario, Canada. Wetlands 16: 95–98Google Scholar
  33. Gabor TS,Haagsma T,Murkin HR andArmson E (1995) Effect of triclopyr amine on purple loosestrife and non-target wetland plants in southeastern Ontario, Canada. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 33: 48–51Google Scholar
  34. Gardner SC andGrue CE (1996) Effects of Rodeo and Garlon 3A on nontarget wetland species in central Washington. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15: 441–451Google Scholar
  35. Gaudet CL andKeddy PA (1988) A comparative approach to predicting competitive ability from plant traits. Nature 334: 242–243Google Scholar
  36. Graham SG (1975) Taxonomy of the Lythraceae in the southeastern United States. SIDA 6: 80–103Google Scholar
  37. Grevstad FS (1996) Establishment of weed control agents under the influence of demographic stochasticity, environmental variability and Allee effects. In: Moran VC andHoffmann JH (eds) Proceedings of the IX International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds. Stellenbosch, South Africa, 19-26 January 1996, pp 261–267Google Scholar
  38. Grevstad FS (1999) Factors influencing the chance of population establishment: implications for release strategies in biocontrol. Ecological Applications 9: 1439–1447Google Scholar
  39. Grevstad FS andHerzig AL (1996) Quantifying the effects of distance and conspecifics on colonization: experiments and models using the loosestrife leaf beetle, Galerucella calmariensis. Oecologia 110: 60–68Google Scholar
  40. Grout JA,Levins CD andRichardson JS (1997) Decomposition rates of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and Lyngbyei' sedge (Carex lyngbyei) in the Fraser River Estuary. Estuaries 20: 96–102Google Scholar
  41. Hager HA andMcCoy KD (1998) The implications of accepting untested hypotheses: a review of the effects of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North America. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 1069–1079Google Scholar
  42. Halbert SE andVoegtlin DJ (1994) Suction trap records of Myzus lythri (Homoptera: Aphididae) associated with purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria (Myrtiflora: Lythraceae) in Idaho. Weed Technology 8: 794–796Google Scholar
  43. Haworth-Brockman MJ,Murkin HR andClay RT (1993) Effects of shallow flooding on newly established purple loosestrife seedlings. Wetlands 13: 224–227Google Scholar
  44. Hess P (1989) Historical use of the Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge by black terns, 1938-1989. Report, Montezuma NWR, Seneca Falls, New York, 4 ppGoogle Scholar
  45. Hickey JM (1997) Breeding biology and population dynamics of the black tern in Western New York. MS thesis, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 160 ppGoogle Scholar
  46. Hickey JM andMalecki RA (1997) Nest site selection of the black tern in Western New York. Colonial Waterbirds 20: 582–595Google Scholar
  47. Hight SD (1990) Available feeding niches in populations of Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) in the Northeastern United States. In: Delfosse ES (ed) Proceedings of the VII International Symposium on the Biological Control ofWeeds. Istituto Sperimentale per la Patologia Vegetale, Ministero dell'Agricoltura e delle Foreste, Rome, Italy, 6-11 March 1988, pp 269–278Google Scholar
  48. Hight SD,Blossey B,Laing J andDeClerck-Floate R (1995) Establishment of insect biological control agents from Europe against Lythrum salicaria in North America. Environmental Entomology 24: 967–977Google Scholar
  49. Howarth FG (1991) Environmental impacts of classical biological control. Annual Review of Entomology 36: 485–509Google Scholar
  50. Julien MH andGriffiths MW (1998) Biological control of weeds. A World Catalogue of Agents and Their Target Weeds, 4th edition, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
  51. Katovitch EJ,Becker RL andKinkaid BD (1996) Influence of nontarget neighbors and spray volume on retention and efficacy of triclopyr in purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Weed Science 44: 143–147Google Scholar
  52. Kruess A andTscharntke T (1994) Habitat fragmentation, species loss, and biological control. Science 264: 1581–1584Google Scholar
  53. Lindgren CJ (1997) Oviposition site preferences of Galerucella calmariensis and G. pusilla, biological control agents of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Weed Technology 11: 824–827Google Scholar
  54. Lindgren CJ,Gabor TS andMurkin HR (1998) Impact of triclopyr amine on Galerucella calmariensis L. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and a step toward integrated management of purple loosestrife, Lythrum salicaria L. Biological Control 12: 14–19Google Scholar
  55. Lor SK (2000) Population status and breeding biology of marsh birds in Western New York. MS thesis, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 135 ppGoogle Scholar
  56. Louda SM,Kendall D,Connor J andSimberloff D (1997) Ecological effects of an insect introduced for the biological control of weeds. Science 277: 1088–1090Google Scholar
  57. Macdonald IAW,Loope LL,Usher MB andHamann O (1989) Wildlife conservation and the invasion of nature reserves by introduced species: a global perspective. In: Drake JA,Mooney HA,di Castri F,Groves RH,Kruger FJ,Rejmánek M andWilliamson M (eds) Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective, pp 215-255. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Mack RN (1996) Predicting the identity and fate of plant invaders: emergent and emerging approaches. Biological Conservation 78: 107–121Google Scholar
  59. Mal TK,Lovett-Doust J andLovett-Doust L (1997) Time-dependent competitive displacement of Typha angustifolia by Lythrum salicaria. Oikos 79: 26–33Google Scholar
  60. Malecki RA andRawinski TJ (1985) New methods for controlling purple loosestrife. New York Fish and Game Journal 32: 9–19Google Scholar
  61. Malecki RA,Blossey B,Hight SD,Schroeder D,Kok LT andCoulson JR (1993) Biological control of purple loosestrife. Bioscience 43: 680–686Google Scholar
  62. Manguin S,White R,Blossey B andHight SD (1993) Genetics, taxonomy, and ecology of certain species of Galerucella (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 86: 397–410Google Scholar
  63. McAvoy TJ andKok LT (1997) Phenology of an established population of Galerucella calmariensis (1.) and G. pusilla (Duft.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on purple loosestrife, Lythrum salicaria L. (Lythraceae), in Southwest Virginia. Biological Control 9: 106–111Google Scholar
  64. McAvoy TJ andKok LT (1999) Effects of temperature on eggs, fecundity, and adult longevity of Hylobius transversovittatus Goeze (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), a biological control agents of purple loosestrife. Biological Control 15: 162–167Google Scholar
  65. McClay AS (1995) Beyond 'Before and After' experimental design and evaluation in classical weed biological control. In: Delfosse ES andScott RR (eds) Proceedings of the VIII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds. Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand, 2-7 February 1992, pp 213-219. DSIR/CSIRO, Melbourne, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  66. McEvoy PB andCoombs EM (1999) Biological control of plant invaders: regional patterns, field experiments, and structured population models. Ecological Applications 9: 387–401Google Scholar
  67. McEvoy PB andCoombs EM (2000) Why things bite back: unintended consequences of biological weed control. In: Follett PA andDuan JJ (eds) Non-Target Effects of Biological Control, pp 167-194. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  68. McFadyen REC (1988) Biological control of weeds. Annual Review of Entomology 43: 369–393Google Scholar
  69. Moody ME andMack RN (1988) Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of nascent foci. Journal of Applied Ecology 25: 1009–1021Google Scholar
  70. Nechols JR,Obrychki JJ,Tauber CA andTauber MJ (1996) Potential impact of native enemies of Galerucella spp. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) imported for biological control of purple loosestrife: a field evaluation. Biological Control 7: 60–66Google Scholar
  71. Nelson LS,Getsinger KD andFreedman JE (1996) Efficacy of triclopyr on purple loosestrife and associated wetland vegetation. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 34: 72–74Google Scholar
  72. Nötzold R,Blossey B andNewton E (1998) The influence of below ground herbivory and plant competition on growth and biomass allocation of purple loosestrife. Oecologia 113: 82–93Google Scholar
  73. Nyvall RF (1995) Fungi associated with purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in Minnesota. Mycologia 87: 501–506Google Scholar
  74. Nyvall RF andHu A (1997) Laboratory evaluation of indigenous North American fungi for biological control of purple loosestrife. Biological Control 8: 37–42Google Scholar
  75. O'Riordan T andCameron J (eds) (1994) Interpreting the Precautionary Principle. Earthscan Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  76. Pemberton RW (1995) Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in the United States: an immigrant biological control agent or an introduction of the nursery industry? American Entomologist 41: 230–232Google Scholar
  77. Piper GL (1996) Biological control of the wetlands weed purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in the Pacific northwestern United States. Hydrobiologia 340: 291–294Google Scholar
  78. Randall JM (1996) Weed control for the preservation of biological diversity. Weed Technology 10: 370–383Google Scholar
  79. Rawinski TJ andMalecki RA (1984) Ecological relationships among purple loosestrife, cattail and wildlife at the Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge. New York Fish and Game Journal 31: 81–87Google Scholar
  80. Schneider KJ andPence DM (1992) Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast. US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts, 400 ppGoogle Scholar
  81. Secord D andKareiva P (1996) Perils and pitfalls in the host specificity paradigm. Bioscience 46: 448–453Google Scholar
  82. Shamsi SRA andWhitehead FH (1974) Comparative eco-physiology of Epilobium hirsutum L. and Lythrum salicaria L. 1. General biology, distribution and germination. Journal of Ecology 62: 279–290Google Scholar
  83. Shipley B andParent M (1991) Germination response of 64 wetland species in relation to seed size, minimum time to reproduction and seedling relative growth rate. Functional Ecology 5: 111–118Google Scholar
  84. Simberloff D andStiling P (1996) How risky is biological control? Ecology 77: 1965–1974Google Scholar
  85. Skinner LC,Rendall WC andFuge EL (1994) Minnesota' Purple Loosestrife Program: History, Findings and Management Recommendations. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Special Publication 145, St Paul, Minnesota, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  86. Stamm-Katovitch EJ,Becker RL andRagsdale DW (1999) Effect of Galerucella spp. on survival of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) roots and crowns. Weed Science 47: 360–365Google Scholar
  87. Stamm-Katovitch EJ,Becker RL,Sheaffer CC andHalgerson JL (1998) Seasonal fluctuations of carbohydrate levels in roots and crowns of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Weed Science 46: 540–544Google Scholar
  88. Stein BA andFlack SR (eds) (1996) America' Least Wanted: Alien Species Invasions of US Ecosystems. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  89. Templer P,Findley S andWigand C (1998) Sediment chemistry associated with native and non-native emergent macrophytes of a Hudson River marsh ecosystem. Wetlands 18: 70–78Google Scholar
  90. Thompson DQ (1991) History of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.) biological control efforts. Natural Areas Journal 11: 148–150Google Scholar
  91. Thompson DQ, Stuckey RL and Thompson EB (1987) Spread, Impact, and Control of Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North American wetlands. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Research 2, Washington, DC, 55 ppGoogle Scholar
  92. Treberg MA and Husband BC (1999) Relationship between the abundance of Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) and plant species richness along the Bar river, Canada. Wetlands 19: 118–125Google Scholar
  93. Turner CE,Pemberton RW andRosenthal SS (1987) Host utilization of native Cirsium thistles (Asteraceae) by the introduced weevil Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in California. Environmental Entomology 16: 111–115Google Scholar
  94. US Department of Interior, National Park Service (1996) Preserving Our Natural Heritage. A Strategic Plan for Managing Invasive Nonnative Plants on National Park System Lands. National Park Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  95. Underwood AJ (1997) Environmental decision making and the precautionary principle: what does this principle mean in environmental sampling practice? Landscape and Urban Planning 37: 137–146Google Scholar
  96. US Congress Office of Technology Assessment (1993) Harmful Non-indigenous Species in the United States. OTA-F-565. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  97. USDA (1999) Reviewer' Manual for the Technical Advisory Group for Biological Control Agents of Weeds. Manuals Unit of Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), United States Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
  98. Usher MB (1988) Biological invasions of nature reserves: a search for generalizations. Biological Conservation 44: 119–135Google Scholar
  99. van der Valk AG andDavis CB (1978) The role of seed banks in the vegetation dynamics of prairie glacial marshes. Ecology 59: 322–335Google Scholar
  100. Voegtlin DJ (1995) Potential of Myzus lythri (Homoptera: Aphididae) to influence growth and development of Lythrum salicaria (Myrtiflora: Lythraceae). Environmental Entomology 24: 724–729Google Scholar
  101. Weihe PE andNeely RK (1997) The effects of shading on competition between purple loosestrife and broad-leaved cattail. Aquatic Botany 59: 127–138Google Scholar
  102. Weiher E,Wisheu IC,Keddy PA andMoore DRJ (1996) Establishment, persistence, and management implications of experimental wetland plant communities. Wetlands 16: 208–218Google Scholar
  103. Welling CH andBecker RL (1990) Seed bank dynamics of Lythrum salicaria L.: implications for control of this species in North America. Aquatic Botany 38: 303–309Google Scholar
  104. Welling CH andBecker RL (1993) Reduction of purple loosestrife establishment in Minnesota wetlands. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21: 56–64Google Scholar
  105. Whitt MB,Prince HH andCox Jr. RR (1999) Avian use of purple loosestrife dominated habitat relative to other vegetation types in a Lake Huron wetland complex. Wilson Bulletin 111: 105–114Google Scholar
  106. Wilcove DS,Rothstein D,Dubow J,Phillips A andLosos E (1998) Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48: 607–615Google Scholar
  107. Williamson M (1996) Biological Invasions. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  108. Williamson M andFitter A (1996) The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77: 1661–1666Google Scholar
  109. Willis AJ andBlossey B (1999) Benign environments do not explain the increased vigour of non-indigenous plants: a cross-continental transplant experiment. Biocontrol Science and Technology 9: 567–577Google Scholar
  110. Willis AJ,Thomas MB andLawton JH (1999) Is the increased vigor of invasive weeds explained by a trade-off between growth and herbivore resistance? Oecologia 120: 632–640Google Scholar
  111. Zwölfer H andHarris P (1984) Biology and host specificity of Rhinocyllus conicus (Froel.) (Col., Curculionidae) a successful agent for the biocontrol of the thistle Carduus nutans L. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie 97: 36–62Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernd Blossey
    • 1
  • Luke C. Skinner
    • 2
  • Janith Taylor
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Natural Resources, Fernow HallCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Ecological ServicesMinnesota Department of Natural ResourcesUSA
  3. 3.US Fish and Wildlife ServiceNewingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations