Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Biological control as an invasion process: disturbance and propagule pressure affect the invasion success of Lythrum salicaria biological control agents

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

Abstract

Understanding the mechanisms behind the successful colonization and establishment of introduced species is important for both preventing the invasion of unwanted species and improving release programs for biological control agents. However, it is often not possible to determine important introduction details, such as date, number of organisms, and introduction location when examining factors affecting invasion success. Here we use biological control introduction data to assess the role of propagule pressure, disturbance, and residence time on invasion success of four herbivorous insect species introduced for the control of the invasive wetland plant, Lythrum salicaria, in the Columbia River Estuary. Two sets of field surveys determined persistence at prior release sites, colonization of new sites, and abundance within colonized sites. We quantified propagule pressure in four ways to examine the effect of different measurements. These included three measurements of introduction size (proximity to introduction site, introduction size at a local scale, and introduction size at a regional scale) and one measure of introduction number (number of introduction events in a region). Disturbance was examined along a tidal inundation gradient (distance from river mouth) and as habitat (island or mainland). Statistical models and model averaging were used to determine which factors were driving invasion success. In this study we found: (1) sparse evidence for the positive influence of propagule pressure on invasion success; (2) disturbance can negatively affect the invasion success of herbivorous insects; (3) the effects of disturbance and propagule pressure are species specific and vary among invasion stages, and (4) not all measures of propagule pressure show the same results, therefore single measures and proxies should be used cautiously.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albright MF, Harman WN, Fickbohm SS, Meehan H, Groff S, Austin T (2004) Recovery of native flora and behavioral responses by Galerucella spp. following biological control of purple loosestrife. Am Midl Nat 152(2):248–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beirne BP (1975) Biological control attempts by introductions against pest insects in the field in Canada. Can Entomol 107:225–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blossey B (1995) Coexistence of two leaf-beetles in the same fundamental niche, distribution, adult phenology, and oviposition. Oikos 74:225–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blossey B, Skinner LC, Taylor J (2001) Impact and management of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North America. Biodivers Conserv 10:1787–1807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britton-Simmons KH, Abbott KC (2008) Short- and long-term effects of disturbance and propagule pressure on a biological invasion. J Ecol 96:68–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Chawala A, Jay AD, Baptista AM, Wilkin M, Seaton C (2008) Seasonal variability and estuary-shelf interactions in circulation dynamics of a River-dominated estuary. Estuar Coasts 31:269–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chytrý M, Jarošík V, Pyšek P, Hájek O, Knollová I, Tichý L, Danihelka J (2008) Separating habitat invisibility by alien plants from the actual level of invasion. Ecology 89(6):1541–1553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ (2005) Statistics: an introduction using R. Wiley, West Sussex

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ, Kornberg H, Lawton JH, Usher MB, Southwood R, O’Connor RJ, Gibbs A (1986) The population biology of invaders (and discussion). Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 314(1167):711–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson W, Burslem DFRP, Hulme PE (2009) Factors explaining alien plant invasion success in a tropical ecosystem differ at each stage of invasion. J Ecol 97:657–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Clerck-Floate R, Wikeem B (2009) Influence of release size on establishment and impact of a root weevil for the biological control of houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale). Biol Sci Technol 19(2):169–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehnen-Schmutz K, Touza J, Perrings C, Williams M (2007) A century of the ornamental plant trade and its impact on invasion success. Divers Distrib 13:527–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denoth M, Myers JH (2005) Variable success of biological control of Lythrum salicaria in British Columbia. Biol Control 32:269–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edward E, Munishi KT, Hulme PE (2009) Relative roles of disturbance and propagule pressure on the invasion of humid tropical forest by Cordia alliodora (Boraginaceae) in Tanzania. Biotropica 41(2):171–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagan WF, Lewis MA, Neubert MG, van den Driessche P (2002) Invasion theory and biological control. Ecol Lett 5:148–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrarese E, Garono RJ (2010) Dispersal of Galerucella pusilla and G. calmariensis via passive water transport in the Columbia River Estuary. Biol Control 52(2):115–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman A, Hill J (2007) Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Grevstad FS (1999a) Experimental invasions using biological control introductions: the influence of release size on the chance of population establishment. Biol Invasions 1:313–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grevstad FS (1999b) Factors influencing the chance of population establishment: implications for release strategies in biological control. Ecol Appl 9(4):1439–1447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grevstad FS, Herzig AL (1997) Quantifying the effects of distance and conspecific on colonization: experiments and models using the loosestrife leaf beetle, Galerucella calmariensis. Oecologia 110:60–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves RH (2006) Are some weeds sleeping? Some concepts and reasons. Euphytica 148:111–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes KR, Barry SC (2008) Are there any consistent predictors of invasion success? Biol Invasions 10:483–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hylander K (2009) No increase in colonization rate of boreal bryophytes close to propagule sources. Ecology 90:160–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jeschke JM, Strayer DL (2006) Determinants of vertebrate invasion success in Europe and North America. Global Change Biol 12:1608–1619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16(4):199–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lande R (1993) Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes. Am Nat 142(6):911–927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung B, Drake JM, Lodge DM (2004) Predicting invasions: propagule pressure and the gravity of Alee effects. Ecology 85(6):1651–1660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebhold AM, Tobin PC (2008) Population ecology of insect invasions and their management. Annu Rev Entomol 53:387–408

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn T (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20(5):223–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lozon JD, Maclsaac HJ (1997) Biological invasions: are they dependent on disturbance? Environ Rev 5:131–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack RN, Simberloff D, Londsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10(3):689–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malecki RA, Blossey B, Hight SD, Schroeder D, Kok LT, Coulson JR (1993) Biological control of purple loosestrife. Bioscience 43:680–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin TG, Wintle BA, Rhodea JR, Kuhnert PM, Field SA, Low-Choy SJ, Tyre AJ, Possingham HP (2005) Zero tolerance ecology: improving ecological inference by modeling the source of zero observations. Ecol Lett 8:1235–1246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Melbourne BA, Cornell HV, Davies KF, Dugaw CJ, Elmendorf S, Freestone AL, Hall R, Harrison S, Hastings A, Holland M, Holyoak M, Lambrinos J, Moore K, Yokomizo H (2007) Invasion in a heterogeneous world: resistance, coexistence or hostile takeover? Ecol Lett 10(1):77–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Memmott J, Fowler SV, Hill RL (1998) The effect of release size on the probability of establishment of biological control agents: gorse thrips (Sericothrips staphylinus) released against gorse (Ulex europaeus) in New Zealand. Biocontrol Sci Tech 8:103–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikheyev AS, Tchingnoumba L, Henderson A, Alonso A (2008) Effect of propagule pressure on the establishment and spread of the little fire ant Wasmannia auropunctata in a Gabonese oilfield. Divers Distrib 14:301–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milton SJ, Wilson JRU, Richardson DM, Seymour CL, Dean WR, Iponga DM, Procheş Ş (2007) Invasive alien plants infiltrate bird-mediated shrub nucleation processes in arid savanna. J Ecol 95:648–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morin L, Reid AM, Sims 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):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myburgh M, Chown SL, Daniels SR, Jansen van Vuuren B (2007) Population structure, propagule pressure, and conservation biogeography in the sub-Antarctic: lessons from indigenous and invasive springtails. Divers Distrib 13:143–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pemberton RW, Liu H (2009) Marketing time predicts naturalization of horticultural plants. Ecology 90:69–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Piper GL, Coombs EM, Blossey B, McEvoy PB, Schooler SS (2004) Purple loosestrife. In: Coombs EM, Clark JK, Piper GL, Cofrancesco AF (eds) Biological control of invasive plants in the United States. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, pp 281–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyšek P, Jarošík V (2005) Residence time determines the distribution of alien plants. In: Inderjit S (ed) Invasive plants: ecological and agricultural aspects. Birkhäuser Basel, Switzerland, pp 77–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyšek P, Jarošík V, Müllerová J, Pergl J, Wild J (2008) Comparing the rate of invasion by Heracleum mantegazziam at continental, regional, and local scales. Divers Distrib 14:355–363

    Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org

  • Rouget M, Richardson DM (2003) Inferring process from pattern in plant invasions: a semimechanistic model incorporating propagule pressure and environmental factors. Am Nat 162:713–724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ruesink JL (2005) Global analysis of factors affecting the outcome of freshwater fish introductions. Conserv Biol 19(6):1883–1893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sax DF, Gaines SD (2008) Species invasions and extinction: the future of native biodiversity on islands. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:11490–11497

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schooler SS, McEvoy PB, Coombs EM (2006) Negative per capita impacts of purple loosestrife and reed canary grass on plant diversity of wetland communities. Divers Distrib 12:351–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schooler SS, McEvoy PB, Hammond P, Coombs EM (2009) Negative per capita effects of two invasive plants, Lythrum salicaria and Phalaris arundinacea, on the moth diversity of wetland communities. Bull Entomol Res 99:229–243

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shea K, Possingham HP (2000) Optimal release strategies for biological control agents: an application of stochastic dynamic programming to population management. J Appl Ecol 37:77–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes KE, Cunningham SA (2006) Predictors of recruitment for willows invading riparian environments in south-east Australia: implications for weed management. J Appl Ecol 43:909–921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittingham MJ, Swetnam RD, Wilson JD, Chamberlain DE, Freckleton RP (2005) Habitat selection by yellowhammers Emberiza citronella on lowland farmland at two spatial scales: implications for conservation management. J Appl Ecol 42(2):270–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson M, Fitter A (1996) The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77(6):1661–1666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JRU, Richardson DM, Rouget M, Procheş Ş, Amis MA, Henderson L, Thuiller W (2007) Residence time and potential range: crucial considerations in modelling plant invasions. Divers Distrib 13:11–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank J. Kooser, L. Moore, and E. Thompson for laboratory and field assistance. G. Dorsey, E. Coombs, P. McEvoy, F. Grevstad, L. Wunder, D. McLain, and M. Magruder provided valuable support and advice. Special thanks to A. Bourne, S. Burgess, and J. Dwyer for statistical advice. R. Van Klinken and three anonymous reviewers provided constructive reviews. Funding for this project was provided to S. Schooler and R. Garono by the Oregon Department of Agriculture and the Oregon State Weed Board, to A. Yeates through an Australian Postgraduate Award, and to Y. Buckley by an ARC Australian Research Fellowship (DP0771387).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia

    Alice G. Yeates & Yvonne M. Buckley

  2. CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, EcoSciences Precinct, PO Box 2583, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia

    Shon S. Schooler & Yvonne M. Buckley

  3. Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve, University of Wisconsin, P.O. Box 2000, Superior, WI, 54880, USA

    Ralph J. Garono

Authors
  1. Alice G. Yeates
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shon S. Schooler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ralph J. Garono
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yvonne M. Buckley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alice G. Yeates.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 3.

Table 3 Model averaging output for all variables present in the top model selection
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yeates, A.G., Schooler, S.S., Garono, R.J. et al. Biological control as an invasion process: disturbance and propagule pressure affect the invasion success of Lythrum salicaria biological control agents. Biol Invasions 14, 255–271 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-0060-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-0060-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation