Lower resistance and higher tolerance of invasive host plants: Biocontrol agents reach high densities but exert weak control

Ecological Applications

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 729-738

  Wang, Yi ^a,b   Huang, Wei ^a,b   Siemann, Evan ^c   Zou, Jianwen ^d   Wheeler, Gregory S ^e   Carrillo, Juli ^c   Ding, Jianqing ^a  

^a Wuhan Institute of Botany Chinese Academy of Sciences   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (China)

^c RICE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d NANJING AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^e INVASIVE PLANT RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

Biological invasions; Chinese tallow tree; EICA; Gadirtha inexacta; Herbivory; Heterapoderopsis bicallosicollis; Light; Specialist; Triadica sebifera

Indexed keywords

BIOCONTROL AGENT; DICOTYLEDON; HERBIVORY; HOST PLANT; INTRODUCED SPECIES; INVASIVE SPECIES; LIGHT EFFECT; MOTH; NATIVE SPECIES; PLANT-HERBIVORE INTERACTION; POPULATION STRUCTURE; TOLERANCE;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BEETLE; BIOLOGICAL PEST CONTROL; ECOSYSTEM; EUPHORBIA; INTRODUCED SPECIES; MOTH; PHYSIOLOGY;

ANIMALS; BEETLES; ECOSYSTEM; EUPHORBIACEAE; INTRODUCED SPECIES; MOTHS; PEST CONTROL, BIOLOGICAL;

CHINA;

HEXAPODA; TRIADICA; TRIADICA SEBIFERA;

EID: 79955511595     PISSN: 10510761     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/09-2406.1     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Agrawal, A. A., J. K. Conner, and J. R. Stinchcombe. 2004. Evolution of plant resistance and tolerance to frost damage. Ecology Letters 7:1199-1208. (Pubitemid 39588353)
2. Blossey, B., and R. Nötzold. 1995. Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. Journal of Ecology 83:887-889.
3. Blumenthal, D., C. E. Mitchell, P. Pyšek, and V. Jaršík. 2009. Synergy between resource availability and pathogen release in plant invasion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106:7899-7904.
4. Bossdorf, O., H. Auge, L. Lafuma, W. E. Rogers, E. Siemann, and D. Prati. 2005. Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 144:1-11. (Pubitemid 41175367)
5. Bruce, K. A., G. N. Cameron, P. A. Harcombe, and G. Jubinsky. 1997. Introduction, impact on native habitats, and management of a woody invader, the Chinese Tallow Tree, Sapium sebiferum (L.) Roxb. Natural Areas Journal 17:255-260. (Pubitemid 28118013)
6. Calvo, D., and J. M. Molina. 2005. Fecundity-body size relationship and other reproductive aspects of Streblote panda (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 98:191-196. (Pubitemid 40478991)
7. Cano, L., J. Escarre, K. Vrieling, and F. X. Sans. 2009. Palatability to a generalist herbivore, defence and growth of invasive and native Senecio species: testing the evolution of increased competitive ability hypothesis. Oecologia 159:95-106.
8. Crawley, M. J. 1989. The successes and failures of weed biocontrol using insects. Biocontrol News and Information 19:213-223.
9. Davis, M. A., J. P. Grime, and K. Thompsom. 2000. Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. Journal of Ecology 88:528-534. (Pubitemid 30399963)
10. Denoth, M., L. Frid, and J. H. Myers. 2002. Multiple agents in biological control: improving the odds? Biological Control 24:20-30. (Pubitemid 34536367)
11. DeWalt, S. J., E. Siemann, and W. E. Rogers. 2006. Microsatellite markers for an invasive tetraploid tree, Chinese Tallow (Triadica sebifera). Molecular Ecology Notes 6:505-507. (Pubitemid 43780777)
12. Dukes, J. S., and H. A. Mooney. 1999. Does global change increase the success of biological invaders? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14:135-139. (Pubitemid 29135462)
13. Franks, S. J., P. D. Pratt, F. A. Dray, and E. L. Simms. 2004. Selection for resistance in invasive plants. Weed Technology 18:1486-1489.
14. Franks, S. J., P. D. Pratt, F. A. Dray, and E. L. Simms. 2008a. Selection of herbivory resistance and growth rate in an invasive plant. American Naturalist 171:678-691. (Pubitemid 351589850)
15. Franks, S. J., P. D. Pratt, F. A. Dray, and E. L. Simms. 2008b. No evolution of increased competitive ability or decreased allocation to defense in Melaleuca quinquenervia since release from natural enemies. Biological Invasions 10:455-466. (Pubitemid 351422010)
16. Goeden, R. D. 1983. Critique and revision of Harris' scoring system for selection of insect agents in biological control of weeds. Protection Ecology 5:287-301.
17. Harris, P. 1973. The selection of effective agents for the biological control of weeds. Canadian Entomologist 105:1495-1503.
18. Hinz, H. L., and M. Schwarzlaender. 2004. Comparing invasive plants from their native and exotic range: what can we learn for biological control? Weed Technology 18:1533-1541.
19. Honek, A. 1993. Intraspecific variation in body size and fecundity in insects a general relationship. Oikos 66:386-388.
20. Huang, W., E. Siemann, G. S. Wheeler, J. Zou, J. Carrillo, and J. Ding. 2010. Resource allocation to defense and growth are driven by different responses to generalist and specialist herbivory in an invasive plant. Journal of Ecology 98:1157-1167.
21. Hull-Sanders, H. M., R. Clare, R. H. Johnson, and G. A. Meyer. 2007. Evaluation of the evolution of increased competitive ability (EICA) hypothesis: loss of defense against generalist but not specialist herbivores. Journal of Chemical Ecology 33:781-799. (Pubitemid 46465199)
22. Hurtt, G. C., and S. W. Pacala. 1995. The consequences of recruitment limitations: reconciling chance, history and competitive differences between plants. Journal of Theoretical Biology 176:1-12. (Pubitemid 26450189)
23. Lawton, J. H. 1990. Biological control of plants: a review of generalisations, rules and principles using insects as agents. Pages 3-17 in C. Basset, L. J. Whitehouse, and J. A. Zabkiewicz, editors. Alternatives to chemical controls of weeds. FRI Bulletin 155. Ministry of Forestry, Rotorua, New Zealand.
24. Leimu, R., and J. Koricheva. 2006. A meta-analysis of tradeoffs between plant tolerance and resistance to herbivores: combining the evidence from ecological and agricultural studies. Oikos 112:1-9.
25. Lin, J., P. A. Harcombe, M. R. Fulton, and R. W. Hall. 2004. Sapling growth and survivorship as affected by light and flooding in a river floodplain forest of southeast Texas. Oecologia 139:399-407. (Pubitemid 39246709)
26. McClay, A. S., and J. K. Balciunas. 2005. The role of prerelease efficacy assessment in selecting classical biological control agents for weeds: applying the Anna Karenina principle. Biological Control 35:197-207. (Pubitemid 41618315)
27. McEvoy, P. B., and E. M. Coombs. 1999. Biological control of plant invaders: regional patterns, field experiments, and structured population models. Ecological Applications 9:387-401. (Pubitemid 29221215)
28. McFadyen, R. E. C. 1998. Biological control of weeds. Annual Review of Entomology 43:369-393.
29. McNaughton, S. J. 1983. Compensatory plant growth as a response to herbivory. Oikos 40:329-336. (Pubitemid 14273183)
30. Morin, L., A. M. Reid, N. M. Sims-Chilton, Y. M. Buckley, K. Dhileepan, G. T. Hastwell, T. L. Nordblom, and S. Raghu. 2009. Review of approaches to evaluate the effectiveness of weed biological control agents. Biological Control 51:1-15.
31. Müller-Schärer, H., U. Schaffner, and T. Steinger. 2004. Evolution in invasive plants: implications for biological control. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19:417-422. (Pubitemid 38991667)
32. Pacala, S. W., C. D. Canham, J. A. J. Silander, R. K. Kobe, and E. Ribbens. 1996. Forest models defined by field measurements: estimation, error analysis, and dynamics. Ecological Monographs 66:1-34.
33. Paige, K. N., and T. G. Whitham. 1987. Overcompensation in response to mammalian herbivory: the advantage of being eaten. American Naturalist 129:407-416.
34. Pattison, R. R., and R. N. Mack. 2008. Potential distribution of the invasive tree Triadica sebifera (Euphorbiaceae) in the United States: evaluating CLIMEX predictions with field trials. Global Change Biology 14:813-826. (Pubitemid 351425925)
35. Pattison, R. R., and R. N. Mack. 2009. Environmental constraints on the invasion of Triadica sebifera in the eastern United States: an experimental field assessment. Oecologia 158:591-602. (Pubitemid 50312866)
36. Pearson, D. E., and R. M. Callaway. 2003. Indirect effects of host-specific biological control agents. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:456-461. (Pubitemid 37007506)
37. Ridenour, W. M., J. M. Vivanco, Y. Feng, J.-I. Horiuchi, and R. M. Callaway. 2008. No evidence for trade-offs: Centaurea plants from America are better competitors and defenders. Ecological Monographs 78:369-386.
38. Rogers, W. E., and E. Siemann. 2003. Effects of simulated herbivory and resources on Chinese tallow tree (SapiumSebiferum, Euphorbiaceae) invasion of native Coastal Prairie. American Journal of Botany 90:243-249. (Pubitemid 38161909)
39. Rogers, W. E., and E. Siemann. 2004. Invasive ecotypes tolerate herbivory more effectively than native ecotypes of the Chinese tallow tree Sapium sebiferum. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:561-570. (Pubitemid 38826153)
40. Rogers, W. E., and E. Siemann. 2005. Herbivory tolerance and compensatory differences in native and invasive ecotypes of Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum). Plant Ecology 181:57-68. (Pubitemid 41666966)
41. SAS Institute. 2004. SAS 9.1. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA.
42. Shea, K., and D. Kelly. 1998. Estimating biocontrol agent impact with matrix models: Carduus nutans in New Zealand. Ecological Applications 8:824-832. (Pubitemid 28382008)
43. Siemann, E., and W. E. Rogers. 2001. Genetic differences in growth of an invasive tree species. Ecology Letters 4:514-518. (Pubitemid 33105363)
44. Siemann, E., and W. E. Rogers. 2003a. Increased competitive ability of an invasive tree may be limited by an invasive beetle. Ecological Applications 13:1503-1507. (Pubitemid 38362229)
45. Siemann, E., and W. E. Rogers. 2003b. Reduced resistance of invasive varieties of the alien tree Sapium sebiferum to a generalist herbivore. Oecologia 135:451-457. (Pubitemid 36639464)
46. Siemann, E., W. E. Rogers, and S. J. DeWalt. 2006. Rapid adaptation of insect herbivores to an invasive plant. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273:2763-2769. (Pubitemid 44671921)
47. Stowe, K. A., R. J. Marquis, C. G. Hochwender, and E. L. Simms. 2000. The evolutionary ecology of tolerance to consumer damage. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 31:565-595. (Pubitemid 32122413)
48. Strauss, S. Y., and A. A. Agrawal. 1999. Ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14:179-185. (Pubitemid 29189980)
49. Sun, Y., J. Ding, and M. Ren. 2009. Effects of simulated herbivory and resource availability on the invasive plant, Alternanthera philoxeroides in different habitats. Biological Control 48:287-293.
50. Wang, Y., J. Ding, G. S. Wheeler, M. F. Purcell, and G. Zhang. 2009. Heterapoderopsis bicallosicollis (Coleoptera: Attelabidae): a potential biological control agent for Triadica sebifera. Environmental Entomology 38:1135-1144.
51. Wapshere, A. J. 1985. Effectiveness of biological control agents for weeds: present quandaries. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 13:261-280. (Pubitemid 16280326)
52. Zhang, K., and Y. Lin. 1994. Chinese tallow. China Forest Press, Beijing, China.
53. Zou, J., W. E. Rogers, and E. Siemann. 2008a. Increased competitive ability and herbivory tolerance of the invasive plant Sapium sebiferum. Biological Invasions 10:291-302. (Pubitemid 351640151)
54. Zou, J., W. E. Rogers, and E. Siemann. 2009. Plasticity of Sapium sebiferum seedling growth to light and water resources: inter- and intraspecific comparisons. Basic and Applied Ecology 10:79-88.
55. Zou, J., E. Siemann, W. E. Rogers, and S. J. DeWalt. 2008b. Decreased resistance and increased tolerance to native herbivores of the invasive plant Sapium sebiferum. Ecography 31:663-671.