Search

Abstract: The goals in selecting classical biological control agents for weeds are to identify agents that will be both safe for release and effective in controlling their target plants. The release of ineffective agents should be avoided, as these add to the costs and risks of biological control without contributing to its benefits. While the principles of host-specificity testing and risk assessment for weed biological control agents have been extensively debated and refined, there has been less attention given to assessing the probable efficacy of agents prior to release. This reluctance to undertake pre-release efficacy assessment (PREA) is probably based on concerns that it will both add to the cost of screening biological control agents and introduce a risk of wrongly rejecting effective agents. We used a project simulation model to investigate the implications of using PREA as an additional filter in the agent selection process. The results suggest that, if it can be done at a lower cost than host-specificity testing, the use of PREA as the first filter can make agent selection more cost-effective than screening based on host-specificity alone. We discuss examples of PREA and potential approaches. The impact of biocontrol agents is a function of their range, abundance, and per-capita damage. While it will always be difficult to predict the post-release abundance of biological control agents from pre-release studies, some estimates of potential range can be obtained from studies of climatic adaptation. For agents that affect the vegetative growth or survival of their target weeds, experimental measurement of per-capita damage is feasible and can contribute to a reduction in the numbers of ineffective agents released. The Anna Karenina principle states that success in complex undertakings does not depend on a single factor but requires avoiding many separate causes of failure. We suggest that, in biological control of weeds, the use of agents that are not sufficiently damaging is one such cause that can be partially avoided by the use of pre-release efficacy assessment. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

More than 1180 non-native species, mostly of Palaearctic origin, have been recorded from the boreal zone of Canada, with the highest diversity on the island of Newfoundland and in the southern boreal zone of Ontario and Quebec. The non-native biota of the boreal zone (and of Canada in general) is poorly known in terms of species composition and distribution. A large proportion of species are associated with disturbed anthropogenic habitats such as urban areas, agricultural landscapes, transportation and communication corridors, and industrial developments. Natural habitats in the boreal zone have a high degree of resistance to invasion compared with those of other Canadian zones, likely owing to harsh climates, low light levels, poor soil nutrient availability, low soil pH, low productivity, and dense covering of the ground by plants, especially bryophytes. Of the relatively few non-native species that have successfully colonized the boreal zone, many decline greatly in abundance after a few years, suggesting biotic resilience. To date the boreal zone has shown the least resistance and resilience to large vertebrates (moose and white-tailed deer) translocated to islands, diseases of vertebrates, and earthworms. In general, the ecological impacts of non-native species on the boreal zone have been poorly studied, and there are few examples where such impacts are evident. Likewise, there has been little attempt to quantify the economic impacts of non-native species in either the boreal zone or in Canada as a whole. In the few cases where management measures have been implemented for highly destructive non-native species, results have been somewhat successful, especially where classical biological control measures have been implemented against insects on trees. Chemical and mechanical management measures have had only limited success in localized situations. Management resources are most effectively applied to reducing the risk of introduction. The risk to the boreal zone posed by future new non-native species is increasing with the warming climate and the fast and direct transport of goods into the boreal zone from points of origin. Five recommendations are provided to address recognized gaps concerning non-native species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. is a perennial herb indigenous to Eurasia that is now present throughout temperate regions of the world where it is considered one of the worst weeds of pastoral and agricultural systems. Classical biological control has been attempted in both North America (NA) and New Zealand (NZ). However, nearly 50years after the first agent releases there are no indications of successful control. We review the status of the five agents deliberately released for control of C. arvense in NA and NZ, plus the species unintentionally introduced, and the occurrence of insects native to NA on C. arvense. We retrospectively evaluate C. arvense as a target weed, critique the agents selected for release, and contrast the different situations in NA and NZ. In retrospect, we see justification for the agents released in NA, but it is evident that these agents would not meet the more stringent host specificity requirements necessary to be released today. The failure of the program in NA is attributed to compromised safety, and lack of impact. Non-target impacts by one of the released agents, Rhinocyllus conicus, have raised safety concerns for native thistle plants. The other released agents either failed to establish, or if established, had no impact on the weed. In contrast, the situation in NZ is quite different because there are no related native thistles (Cardueae), and thus little chance of non-target impacts. Thus far, failure in NZ is attributed to lack of effectiveness due to non-establishment, or no impact, of released agents. In the past, the same agents that were released in NA were subsequently released in NZ, without considering whether or not these were the best choices. Thus, the past failure in NZ might be due to the previous lack of a NZ-specific approach to biocontrol of thistles in general and C. arvense in particular. A new approach taking into consideration the absence of native Cardueae has resulted in the release of agents more likely to be effective, and has potentially set NZ on track towards successful biological control of C. arvense, and other thistles. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Simple Summary: Oxeye daisy, a Eurasian member of the daisy family, has become invasive in several parts of the world, including North America and Australia. We investigated whether a root-feeding moth found closely associated with oxeye daisy in Europe could be used as a biological control agent for the plant when weedy. We found that the moth could develop on 11 out of 74 plant species that we tested in laboratory conditions when it was given no choice of plants. When the moths were given a choice of food plants outdoors, we found its larvae only on the ornamentals Shasta daisy and creeping daisy. Larval feeding had no impact on the weight and number of flowers of Shasta daisy, but larval feeding and plant competition reduced both measurements for oxeye daisy. We conclude that it is safe to release the moth species because it will not affect the ornamental value of Shasta daisy or creeping daisy and because it is unlikely to harm any other economically important or native species. Based on the moth's preference for oxeye daisy, and that we expect it to contribute to the suppression of the weed, we propose its field release in North America and Australia. We evaluated the potential of the European root-feeding moth Dichrorampha aeratana as a biological control agent for the invasive weed Leucanthemum vulgare (oxeye daisy) in North America and Australia. The taxonomic proximity of the ornamental Shasta daisy (Leucanthemum × superbum) to L. vulgare and its popularity in North America made finding sufficiently host-specific biological control agents a challenge. No-choice tests conducted with 74 non-target species revealed partial or complete larval development on 11 species. In multiple-choice oviposition and larval development tests that were conducted in field cages, larvae were found on five of these, however in multiple-choice tests conducted under open-field conditions, larvae were only found on the ornamentals Shasta daisy and creeping daisy (Mauranthemum paludosum). Larval feeding by D. aeratana had no measurable impact on Shasta daisy, but larval feeding and plant competition reduced the biomass and number of flower heads of L. vulgare. We conclude that D. aeratana is a suitable biological control agent because it will not affect the ornamental value of Shasta or creeping daisies and because it is unlikely to feed on any other economically important or native species. We also expect D. aeratana to contribute to the suppression of L. vulgare populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]