5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.
-
date post
23-Jan-2016 -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.
![Page 1: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods= “biologically” damaging plants
![Page 2: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods= “biologically” damaging plantsBiotic constraints/enemy release hypothesis
![Page 3: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods= “biologically” damaging plantsBiotic constraints/enemy release hypothesis
If plants are invasive because they have escaped natural enemies, introducing the natural enemies should help control the invasive!
![Page 4: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition
![Page 5: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Recall Federal Plant Protection Act :
Biological control is often desirable
![Page 6: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Recall Nevada noxious weed legislation:
• Weed control analyst researches biological control options
![Page 7: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia
W. Wagner@USDA-NRCS Plants Database
![Page 8: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )
W. Wagner@USDA-NRCS Plants Database
![Page 9: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )• Introduced in 1788 with the First Fleet – dye industry• Additional introductions for forage and hedges though 1800s• Numerous species• Problem acknowledged 1870 W. Wagner@USDA-NRCS Plants Database
![Page 10: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )• Introduced in 1788 with the First Fleet – dye industry• Additional introductions for forage and hedges though 1800s• Numerous species• Problem acknowledged 1870• 1886: prickly pear destruction act• 1910: ‘Roberts Improved Pear Poison’ created – 80% sulfuric
acid, 20% arsenic – considered best weapon
![Page 11: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )• Early chemical control: fumes from boiling arsenic
Photo: © L. R. Tanner
![Page 12: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )• Early chemical control: boiling arsenic• 1912 problem rampant: begin looking for biological control
![Page 13: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )• Early chemical control: boiling arsenic• 1912 problem rampant: begin looking for biological control
Photo: © L. R. Tanner
![Page 14: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )• Early chemical control: boiling arsenic• 1912 problem rampant: begin looking for biological control• 1925, infested twenty-five million hectares in New South Wales
and Queensland. It was spreading at the rate of half a million hectares a year.
![Page 15: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )• 1926 introduction of Cactoblastis moth
Photo: © L. R. Tanner
![Page 16: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )• 1926 introduction of Cactoblastis moth• By 1932, most of the prickly pear stands had been decimated.
Photo: © L. R. Tanner
![Page 17: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )• 1926 introduction of Cactoblastis moth• By 1932, most of the prickly pear stands had been decimated
Photo: © L. R. Tanner
![Page 18: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia • Summary: spectacularly successful BUT
• Took 14 years to find biocontrol agent (1912-1926)• Some cool-climate stands remained; insect less effective
![Page 19: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia • Summary: spectacularly successful BUT
• Took 14 years to find biocontrol agent (1912-1926)• Some cool-climate stands remained; insect less effective• Opuntia aurantica becomes more problematic 1930-1950
![Page 20: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Klamath weed (Hypericum perforatum) in California
![Page 21: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Klamath weed (Hypericum perforatum) in California
• Broad-leaved, perennial herb• Introduced from Europe in 1793; reached California late 1800’s• Extremely invasive; toxic• By early 1940’s: 5 million acres of infested rangeland• Biological control in California: 1945-1950 @ $750,000 total
cost• By early 1960’s insects had reduced acreage to <1% of peak
![Page 22: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Tamarix in western US:
Photos: Bob Conrad, NAES
![Page 23: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Tamarix in western US:
• SourceL Swedhin et al. 2006 (Tamarisk Research Conference, Fort Collins CO)
• Large scale dispersal and population expansion of Diorhabda elongata in CO, NV, and UT after initial releases
• Near Moab: two release sites in 2004. In 2005, less than 2 acres of tamarisk defoliated. In 2006, 109 acres defoliated, 4.1 miles upstream from release sites and area was expanding
• Expansion of beetles from UT release sites on Colorado River into CO expected by summer 2007
![Page 24: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
![Page 25: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy
![Page 26: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• ID promising species in native range• Test for host specificity• USDA has facilities in other countries for this purpose• http://www.ars-ebcl.org/
![Page 27: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• ID promising species in native range• Test for host specificity• USDA has facilities in other countries for this purpose• http://www.ars-ebcl.org/• e.g. Montpelier, France
Photo © USDA ARS-EBCL
Current projects:Canada Thistle, Field Bindweed Giant reed, Knapweeds, Leafy Spurge, Lepidium draba, Rush Skeletonweed, Saltcedar, Swallow-worts, Yellow Starthistle
![Page 28: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• ID promising species in native range• Test for host specificity• USDA has facilities in other countries for this purpose• http://www.ars-ebcl.org/• e.g. Montpelier, France• Also Rome, Italy and Thessaloniki, Greece
Photos © USDA ARS-EBCL
![Page 29: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• Host specificity: specialists not generalists
![Page 30: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• Host specificity• Mode of action (plant part affected)
![Page 31: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• Host specificity• Mode of action (plant part affected)• Type of organism (disease, insect)
![Page 32: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• Host specificity• Mode of action (plant part affected)• Type of organism (disease, insect)• Climate requirements of organism (climate matching
for source populations and introduction sites)• e.g. some releases of Diorhabda from Texas
populations not successful at higher latitudes – couldn’t overwinter
![Page 33: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• Host specificity• Mode of action (plant part affected)• Type of organism (disease, insect)• Climate requirements of organism (climate matching for
source populations and introduction sites)• Estimated that about ½ of introduced weed bio-control
insect species establish in new location
![Page 34: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• Non-target effects
![Page 35: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• Non-target effects
• Specificity of biocontrol agent• Relatedness of flora
![Page 36: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Non-target effects – Pemberton (2000)
![Page 37: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Non-target effects
![Page 38: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
![Page 39: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
![Page 40: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
![Page 41: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
![Page 42: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
![Page 43: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
![Page 44: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
![Page 45: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Difficulty locating enemy• Non-target effects – From Pemberton (2000)
![Page 46: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Difficulty locating enemy• Non-target effects – From Pemberton (2000)
![Page 47: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
![Page 48: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
![Page 49: 5)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d2a5503460f949ff11b/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Difficulty locating enemy• Non-target effects
Most likely a problem when the invasive species has closely related plants in the invaded area