Refining the process of agent selection through understanding plant demography and plant response to herbivory

Australian Journal of Entomology

Volumn 45, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 308-316

  Raghu, S ^a,c   Wilson, John R ^b   Dhileepan, K ^a  

^a The CRC for Australian Weed Management   (Australia)

^b STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY   (South Africa)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS   (United States)

Author keywords

Agent efficacy; Matrix models; Parkinsonia aculeata; Plant demography; Resistance; Susceptibility

Indexed keywords

PARKINSONIA ACULEATA;

EID: 33748930234     PISSN: 13266756     EISSN: 14406055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-6055.2006.00556.x     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. Balciunas JK. 2004. Are mono-specific agents necessarily safe? The need for pre-release assessment of probable impact of candidate biocontrol agents, with some examples. In: Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds (eds JM Cullen, DT Briese, DJ Kriticos, WM Lonsdale, L Morin & JK Scott), pp. 252-257. CSIRO Entomology, Canberra, Australia.
2. Baldwin IT. 1990. Herbivory simulations in ecological research. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5, 91-93.
3. Belsky AJ, Carson WP, Jensen C & Fox JA. 1993. Overcompensation by plants: herbivore optimization or red herring? Evolutionary Ecology 7, 109-121.
4. Blossey B & Notzold R. 1995. Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. Journal of Ecology 83, 887-889.
5. Bossdorf O, Prati D, Auge H & Schmid B. 2004. Reduced competitive ability in an invasive plant. Ecology Letters 7, 346-353.
6. Briese DT. 1996. Potential impact of the stem-boring weevil Lixus cardui on the growth and reproductive capacity of Onopordum spp. thistles. Biocontrol Science and Technology 6, 251-261.
7. Briese DT. 2000. Impact of the Onopordum capitulum weevil Larinus latus on seed production by its host plant. Journal of Applied Ecology 37, 238-246.
8. Briese DT. 2004. Weed biological control: applying science to solve seemingly intractable problems. Australian Journal of Entomology 43, 304-317.
9. Briese DT. 2006. Can an a priori strategy be developed for biological control? The case of Onopordum spp thistles in Australia. Australian Journal of Entomology 45, 317-323.
10. Briese DT & Zapater M. 2002. A strategy for the biological control of blue heliotrope (Heliotropium amplexicaule). In: Proceedings of the 13th Australian Weeds Conference (eds H Spafford Jacob, J Dodd & JH Moore), pp. 394-397. Plant Protection Society of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
11. Briese DT, Petit W, Swirepik A & Walker A. 2002a. A strategy for the biological control of Onopordum spp. thistles in south-eastern Australia. Biocontrol Science and Technology 12, 121-137.
12. Briese DT, Thomann T & Vitou J. 2002b. Studies on the ecology of crown weevil, Trichosirocalus briesei, and its impact on growth and reproduction of its host Onopordum spp. thistles. Journal of Applied Ecology 39, 688-698.
13. Briese DT, Vitou J, Boettcher S & Thomann T. 2003. Prevalence and impact of the crown fly, Botanophila spinosa, on its host thistle, Onopordum acanthium in southern France. Acta Oecologica 24, 77-86.
14. Broughton S. 2003. Effect of artificial defoliation on growth and biomass of Lantana camara L. (Verbenaceae). Plant Protection Quarterly 18, 110-115.
15. Buckley YM, Rees M, Sheppard AW & Smyth MJ. 2005. Stable coexistence of an invasive plant and biocontrol agent: a parameterized coupled plant-herbivore model. Journal of Applied Ecology 42, 70-79.
16. Caswell H. 2001. Matrix Population Models: Construction, Analysis and Interpretation, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA.
17. Crawley MJ, ed. 1997. Plant Ecology, 2nd edn. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
18. Cullen JH. 1992. Prediction and practice in biological control. In: Proceedings of the First International Weed Control Congress, Vol. 2 (ed. RG Richardson), pp. 147-150. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
19. Cullen JM. 1995. Predicting effectiveness: fact and fantasy. In: Proceedings of the VIII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds (eds ES Delfosse & RR Scott), pp. 103-109. Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
20. Day MD, Willson BW & Nahrung HF. 1999. The life history and host range of the golden lantana beetle, Charidotis pygmaea (Col. Chrysomelidae), a biological control agent for Lantana montevidensis (Verbenaceae). Biocontrol Science and Technology 9, 347-354.
21. Denoth M, Frid L & Myers JH. 2002. Multiple agents in biological control: improving the odds? Biological Control 24, 20-30.
22. Dhileepan K, Treviño M, Donnelly GP & Raghu S. 2005. Risk to nontarget plants from Charidotis auroguttata (Chrysomelidae: Coleoptera), a potential biocontrol agent for cat's claw creeper Macfadyena unguis-cati (Bignoniaceae) in Australia. Biological Control 32, 450-460.
23. Edwards PB & Brown EM. 1997. Mesoclanis seed flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) on Chrysanthemoides (Asteraceae) in South Africa: distribution, attack strategy and impact on seed production. Bulletin of Entomological Research 87, 127-135.
24. Ehler LE. 1998. Invasion biology and biological control. Biological Control 13, 127-133.
25. Foggo A. 1996. Long and short-term changes in plant growth following simulated herbivory: adaptive responses to damage? Ecological Entomology 21, 198-202.
26. Gavloski JE & Lamb RJ. 2000. Compensation by cruciferous plants is specific to the type of simulated herbivory. Environmental Entomology 29, 1273-1282.
27. Goolsby JA, van Klinken RD & Palmer WA. 2006. Maximising the contribution of native-range studies towards the identification and prioritisation of weed biocontrol agents. Australian Journal of Entomology 45, 276-286.
28. Hafliger P, Schwarzlaender M & Blossey B. 2005. Biology of Platycephala planifrons (Diptera: Chloropidae) and its potential effectiveness as biological control agent for invasive Phragmites australis in North America. Biological Control 34, 302-311.
29. Heard T, Paynter Q, Chan RR & Mira A. 2005. Malacorhinus irregularis for biological control of Mimosa pigra: host-specificity, life cycle, and establishment in Australia. Biological Control 32, 252-262.
30. Hjalten J. 2004. Simulating herbivory: problems and possibilities. In: Insects and Ecosystem Function (eds WW Weisser & E Siemann), pp. 243-256. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
31. Hjalten J, Danell K & Ericson L. 1993. Effects of simulated herbivory and intraspecific competition on the compensatory ability of birches. Ecology 74, 1136-1142.
32. Hoddle MS. 2004a. Restoring balance: using exotic species to control invasive exotic species. Conservation Biology 18, 38-49.
33. Hoddle MS. 2004b. The strength of biological control in the battle against invasive pests: a reply. Conservation Biology 18, 61-64.
34. Hokkanen H & Pimentel D. 1989. New associations in biological control: theory and practice. Canadian Entomologist 121, 829-840.
35. Howarth FG. 1991. Environmental implications of classical biological control. Annual Review of Entomology 36, 485-509.
36. Keane RM & Crawley MJ. 2002. Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17, 164-170.
37. Lehtilä K & Boalt E. 2004. The use and usefulness of artificial herbivory in plant-herbivore studies. In: Insects and Ecosystem Function (eds WW Weisser & E Siemann), pp. 257-275. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
38. Louda SM & Stiling P. 2004. The double-edged sword of biological control in conservation and restoration. Conservation Biology 18, 50-53.
39. Louda SM, Arnett AE, Rand TA & Russell FL. 2003a. Invasiveness of some biological control insects and adequacy of their ecological risk assessment and regulation. Conservation Biology 17, 73-82.
40. Louda SM, Pemberton RW, Johnson MT & Follett PA. 2003b. Nontarget effects - the Achilles' heel of biological control? Retrospective analyses to reduce risk associated with biocontrol introductions. Annual Review of Entomology 48, 365-396.
41. Louda SM, Rand TA, Arnett AE, McClay A, Shea K & McEachern AK. 2005. Evaluation of ecological risk to populations of a threatened plant from an invasive biocontrol insect. Ecological Applications 15, 234-249.
42. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M & Bazzaz FA. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10, 689-710.
43. Maron JL & Vila M. 2001. When do herbivores affect plant invasion? Evidence for the natural enemies and biotic resistance hypotheses. Oikos 95, 361-373.
44. Maron JL, Vila M & Arnason J. 2004. Loss of enemy resistance among introduced populations of St. John's Wort (Hypericum perforatum). Ecology 85, 3243-3253.
45. Marquis RJ. 1992. The selective impact of herbivores. In: Plant Resistance to Herbivores and Pathogens: Ecology, Evolution and Genetics (eds RS Fritz & EL Simms), pp. 301-325. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
46. Maywald GF, Sutherst RW & Zalucki MP. 1999. DYMEX Professional: Modelling Natural Systems. CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia.
47. McClay A & Balciunas JK. 2006. The role of pre-release efficacy assessment in selecting classical biological control agents for weeds - applying the Anna Karenina principle. Biological Control 35, 197-207.
48. McEvoy PB. 2002. Insect-plant interactions on a planet of weeds. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 104, 165-179.
49. McEvoy PB & Coombs EM. 1999. Biological control of plant invaders: regional patterns, field experiments, and structured population models. Ecological Applications 9, 387-401.
50. McEvoy PB & Coombs EM. 2000. Why things bite back: unintended consequences of biological control of weeds. In: Non-target Effects of Biological Control (eds PA Follett & JJ Duan), pp. 167-195. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
51. McFadyen REC. 1998. Biological control of weeds. Annual Review of Entomology 43, 369-393.
52. McFadyen RE. 2003. Does ecology help in the selection of biocontrol agents? In: Improving the Selection, Testing and Evaluation of Weed Biological Control Agents (eds H Spafford Jacob & DT Briese), pp. 5-9. Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management, Adelaide, Australia.
53. McLaren B. 1996. Plant-specific response to herbivory: simulated browsing of suppressed balsam fir on Isle Royale. Ecology 77, 228-235.
54. Mitchell CE & Power AG. 2003. Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421, 625-627.
55. Pimentel D, ed. 2002. Biological Invasions: Economic and Environmental Costs of Alien Plant, Animal, and Microbe Species. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
56. Pimentel D, McNair S, Janecka J et al. 2001. Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 84, 1-20.
57. Raghu S & Dhileepan K. 2005. The value of simulating herbivory in selecting effective weed biological control agents. Biological Control 34, 265-273.
58. Raghu S, Wiltshire C & Dhileepan K. 2005. Predispersal seed predation in the invasive legume Leucaena leucocephala is limited by the duration of pod retention. Austral Ecology 30, 310-318.
59. Raghu S, Dhileepan K & Treviño M. 2006. Response of an invasive liana to simulated herbivory: implications for its biological control. Acta Oecologica 29, 335-345.
60. Rebek KA & O'Neil RJ. 2005. Impact of simulated herbivory on Alliaria petiolata survival, growth, and reproduction. Biological Control 34, 284-289.
61. Rees M & Paynter Q. 1997. Biological control of broom: modelling the determinants of abundance and potential impact of introduced insect herbivores. Journal of Applied Ecology 34, 1203-1222.
62. Rogers WE & Siemann E. 2002. Effects of simulated herbivory and resource availability on native and invasive exotic tree seedlings. Basic and Applied Ecology 3, 297-307.
63. Rogers WE & Siemann E. 2003. Effects of simulated herbivory and resources on Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum, Euphorbiaceae) invasion of native coastal prairie. American Journal of Botany 90, 243-249.
64. Rogers WE & Siemann E. 2004. Invasive ecotypes tolerate herbivory more effectively than native ecotypes of the Chinese tallow tree Sapium sebiferum. Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 561-570.
65. Schooler S, Baron Z & Julien M. 2006. Effect of simulated and actual herbivory on alligator weed, Alternanthera philoxeroides, growth and reproduction. Biological Control 36, 74-79.
66. Schroeder D & Goeden RD. 1986. The search for arthropod natural enemies of introduced weeds for biological control - theory and practice. Biocontrol News and Information 7, 147-155.
67. Scott JK & Yeoh PB. 2005. Biology and host specificity of Apion miniatum (Coleoptera: Apionidae) from Israel, a potential biological control agent for Emex australis and Emex spinosa (Polygonaceae) in Australia. Biological Control 33, 20-31.
68. Shea K & Kelly D. 1998. Estimating biocontrol agent impact with matrix models: Carduus nutans in New Zealand. Ecological Applications 8, 824-832.
69. Shea K, Kelly D, Sheppard AW & Woodburn TL. 2005. Context dependent biological control of an invasive thistle. Ecology 86, 3174-3181.
70. Sheppard AW. 2003. Prioritising agents based on predicted efficacy: beyond the lottery approach. In: Improving the Selection, Testing and Evaluation of Weed Biological Control Agents (eds H Spafford Jacob & DT Briese), pp. 11-21. Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management, Adelaide, Australia.
71. Sheppard AW & Raghu S. 2005. Working at the interface of art and science: how best to select an agent for classical biological control? Biological Control 34, 233-235.
72. Sheppard AW, Cullen JM & Aeschlimann J-P. 1994. Predispersal seed predation on Carduus nutans (Asteraceae) in southern Europe. Acta Oecologica 15, 529-541.
73. Sheppard AW, Hill R, DeClerck-Floate RA et al. 2003. A global review of risk-benefit-cost analysis for the introduction of classical biological control agents against weeds: a crisis in the making? Biocontrol News and Information 24, 91N-108N.
74. Siemann E & Rogers WE. 2003. Herbivory, disease, recruitment limitation and success of alien and native tree species. Ecology 84, 1489-1505.
75. Silvertown JW & Lovett Doust J. 1993. Introduction to Plant Population Biology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK.
76. Simberloff D & Stiling P. 1996. How risky is biological control? Ecology 77, 1965-1974.
77. Strauss SY & Agrawal AA. 1999. The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14, 179-185.
78. Sullivan JJ. 2003. Density-dependent shoot-borer herbivory increases the age of first reproduction and mortality of neotropical tree saplings. Oecologia 136, 96-106.
79. Swirepik AE, Sheppard AW & Smyth MJ. 1996. Meligethes planiusculus (Nitidulidae): an inflorescence-feeding beetle of good potential for the biological control of Paterson's curse. In: Proceedings of the 11th Australian Weeds Conference (ed. RCH Shepherd), pp. 294-297. Weed Science Society of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
80. Thomas MB & Willis AJ. 1998. Biocontrol - risky but necessary? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13, 325-329.
81. Tiffin P & Inouye BD. 2000. Measuring tolerances to herbivory: accuracy and precision of estimates made using natural versus imposed damage. Evolution 54, 1024-1029.
82. Torchin ME, Lafferty KD, Dobson AP, McKenzie VJ & Kuris AM. 2003. Introduced species and their missing parasites. Nature 421, 628-630.
83. van Kleunen M, Ramponi G & Schmid B. 2004. Effects of herbivory simulated by clipping and jasmonic acid on Solidago canadensis. Basic and Applied Ecology 5, 173-181.
84. van Klinken RD. 2005. Total annual seed loss on a perennial legume through predation by insects: the importance of within-season seed and seed feeder dynamics. Austral Ecology 30, 414-425.
85. van Klinken RD & Raghu S. 2006. A scientific approach to agent selection. Australian Journal of Entomology 45, 253-258.
86. Walling LL. 2000. The myriad of plant responses to herbivores. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation 19, 195-216.
87. Welter SC. 1991. Responses of tomato to simulated and real herbivory by tobacco hornworm (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). Environmental Entomology 20, 1537-1541.
88. Welter SC & Steggall JW. 1993. Contrasting the tolerance of wild and domesticated tomatoes to herbivory: agroecological implications. Ecological Applications 3, 271-278.
89. Willis AJ, Memmott J & Forrester RI. 2000. Is there evidence for the post-invasion evolution of increased size among invasive plant species? Ecology Letters 3, 275-283.
90. Winder JA & van Emden HF. 1980. Selection of effective biological control agents from artificial defoliation/insect cage experiments. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds (ed. ES Delfosse), pp. 415-439. CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia.
91. Wirf LA. 2006a. The effect of manual defoliation and Macaria pallidata (Geometridae) herbivory on Mimosa pigra: implications for biological control. Biological Control 37, 346-353.
92. Wirf LA. 2006b. Using simulated herbivory to predict the efficacy of a biocontrol agent - the effect of manual defoliation and Macaria pallidata (Geometridae) herbivory on Mimosa pigra seedlings. Australian Journal of Entomology 45, 324-326.
93. Zalucki M & van Klinken RD. 2006. Predicting population dynamics of weed biological control agents: science or gazing into crystal balls? Australian Journal of Entomology 45, 331-344.
94. Zapater M, Bartoloni N, Perez-Camargo G & Briese DT. 2004. Natural impact of the flea-beetle, Longitarsus spp., on Heliotropum amplexicaule in Argentina and its potential for use as a biological control agent in Australia. In: Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds (eds JM Cullen, DT Briese, DJ Kriticos, WM Lonsdale, L Morin & JK Scott), pp. 208-214. CSIRO Entomology, Canberra, Australia.