[APWG] Biological controls summary for maipc

Mon Dec 16 09:54:21 CST 2013

Take a look at 

 <http://www.maipc.org/MAIPC_BiocontrolWG_DRAFT_Dec14.doc>
http://www.maipc.org/MAIPC_BiocontrolWG_DRAFT_Dec14.doc 

Biological control updates with references, research contacts, and resources
for 18 Mid-Atlantic non-native terrestrial and aquatic invasive species are
available in this MAIPC Biocontrol Work Group document    One example is. 

European Water Chestnut

European water chestnut (Trapa natans) is an invasive aquatic plant native
to Europe and Asia.  It was first observed in the United States in
Massachusetts in the late 1800s.  Its current distribution is the
mid-Atlantic and northeastern U.S., with the most serious problems being
reported for the Connecticut River valley, Lake Champlain region, Hudson
River, Potomac River and the upper Delaware River (Swearingen et al. 2010).
This species can form dense floating mats, and its sharp fruits can cause
painful wounds, making control efforts a challenge.  The most promising
species for biological control is Galerucella birmanica, a leaf beetle (Ding
et al. 2006, 2007), but so far no petitions have been submitted to TAG.

Thanks to reviewer Jill Swearingen and work group members Marc Imlay
(Chair), Judy Hough-Goldstein,  Robert Tichenor,  William Bruckart, and John
Peter Thompson.  

Mid-Atlantic Invasive Plant Council
Biological Control Work Group

Motto

Biological control agents help manage invasive plants beyond where we cut,
pull and spray.

Purpose and Scope
The group will investigate biological control agents relevant to the
mid-Atlantic region and the eastern U.S., affecting aquatic and terrestrial
species and ecosystems and provide updates and status reports to the board.
We will ensure that the board is kept informed of relevant research,
concerns and approvals and provided with information needed to obtain and
use them.

Objectives
1.     Provide review and current status of research on candidate biological
control agents.
2.     Provide land managers practical up-to date information on how to
obtain and use approved biological control agents.
3.     Provide the latest information on current distribution and success of
available biological control agents in controlling target, non-native
invasive plants at the established sites.
4.     Describe potential or actual measures of damage by biological control
agents to non-target plants at these sites.

Background
Our tool kit for successful control of non-native invasive plants includes:
preventing new invasive species from coming into the United States; manually
removing established plants; treating infestations with carefully targeted
herbicides; and releasing host-specific biological control agents. 

Classical biological control involves the importation and release of
host-specific natural enemies to help regulate pest populations (Van
Driesche et al. 2010). This strategy is used to manage invasive non-native
species that lack effective natural enemies in the region where they have
been introduced. In order to avoid direct damage to non-target species,
biological control agents must be highly host specific.  Agents are brought
over after being tested for host specificity in their native range and then
tested in quarantine conditions in the United States. Protocol for
evaluating candidate plant pathogens (Berner and Bruckart 2005) is very
thorough and similar to that for development of insects and other organisms.

Safety is paramount in the use of biological control agents, particularly if
they are of foreign origin.  Agents are only approved for release if testing
indicates a very low likelihood of non-target effects, as determined by the
Technical Advisory Group for Biological Control Agents of Weeds (TAG), a
group of experts that report to USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS). Because some agents introduced into the U.S. prior to the
1980s were not completely host-specific, more value is now placed on
conservation of native species; and some of these agents would not be
approved for importation today (Van Wilgen et al. 2013). Although such
species may provide some control, we do not recommend deliberate release
where they have not yet dispersed on their own.   The safety record in the
current regulatory environment is very good, including that of both insects
(Pemberton 2000, Van Wilgen et al. 2013), and plant pathogens and other
microbials (Barton 2004, 2012; Cook et al. 1996).

Effectiveness of classical biological control can vary, but of 49 invasive
plant projects considered in a recent review (Van Driesche et al. 2010), 27%
(13) achieved complete control, 33% (16) provided partial control, and 49%
(24) were still in progress. Biological control can be dramatic, but results
often vary depending on weather and ecological conditions, which can impose
different effects on a biological control agent, the target plant, and the
competitive ability of the resident community. Suppression of a target plant
can also sometimes allow other non-native invasive plants to take over, and
therefore restoration planting may be required in some situations (Cutting
and Hough-Goldstein 2013; Lake et al. 2013).

Several invasive plant species in Mid-Atlantic natural areas (Swearingen et
al. 2010) have one or more host-specific insect species that have been
tested and approved for release, while others have had extensive studies
conducted on host-specific insects, with petitions for release submitted to
TAG, but with proposed releases still under review (TAG Petitions, 2013; see
species updates, below).  For some species, biological control agents may
already exist in the U.S. in the form of native insects and pathogens that
have adapted to the invasive species over time, or non-native species that
were accidentally introduced.  These are also included in the species
updates, below.

Work Group Members
Marc Imlay, PhD (Chair)
Conservation Biologist 
MNCPPC Prince Georges County
Park Ranger Office
Natural and Historical Resources Division
Non-native Invasive Plant Control Coordinator
(301) 442-5657 cell 
ialm at erols.com

William L. Bruckart III
Research Plant Pathologist
USDA, ARS, Foreign Disease-Weed Science Research Unit (FDWSRU)
1301 Ditto Ave.
Ft. Detrick, MD 21702
Phone: 301/619-2846
FAX: 301/619-2880
william.bruckart at ars.usda.gov

Judy Hough-Goldstein
Professor
Dept. Entomology & Wildlife Ecology
University of Delaware
531 South College Ave.
Newark DE 19716-2160
(302) 831-2529 phone
jhough at udel.edu

John Peter Thompson
Principal Investigator, Bioeconomic Policy Analyst
Chair, Prince George's County Historic Preservation Commission
President, National Agricultural Research Alliance-Beltsville
Upper Marlboro, MD
(301) 440 8404
petrus at msn.com

Robert H. Tichenor, Jr.
National Policy Manager Biological Control
USDA APHIS PPQ Plant Health Programs
4700 River Rd, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737
(301) 851-2198
 <mailto:Robert.H.Tichenor at aphis.usda.gov> Robert.H.Tichenor at aphis.usda.gov 

Reviewer

JIL SWEARINGEN
IPM and Invasive Species Coordinator
Integrated Pest Management Program

National Capital Region

Center for Urban Ecology

4598 MacArthur Blvd., N.W.
Washington DC 20007
202-339-8318

 <mailto:jil_swearingen at nps.gov> jil_swearingen at nps.gov

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20131216/b33161e2/attachment.html>