Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:52:52.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mind the gap: the delayed recovery of a population of the biological control agent Megamelus scutellaris Berg. (Hemiptera: Delphacidae) on water hyacinth after winter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2020

Benjamin E. Miller Open the ORCID record for Benjamin E. Miller [Opens in a new window] ,
Julie A. Coetzee Open the ORCID record for Julie A. Coetzee [Opens in a new window]  and
Martin P. Hill Open the ORCID record for Martin P. Hill [Opens in a new window]
Benjamin E. Miller*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Entomology, Centre for Biological Control, Rhodes University, Makhanda, PO Box 94, 6140, South Africa
Julie A. Coetzee
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, Centre for Biological Control, Rhodes University, Makhanda, PO Box 94, 6140, South Africa
Martin P. Hill
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Entomology, Centre for Biological Control, Rhodes University, Makhanda, PO Box 94, 6140, South Africa
*
Author for correspondence: Benjamin Erich Miller, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cold winter temperatures significantly affect the biological control effort against water hyacinth, Pontederia ( = Eichhornia) crassipes Mart. (Pontederiaceae), in more temperate regions around the world. The population dynamics of the planthopper Megamelus scutellaris Berg. (Hemiptera: Delphacidae), a newly released biological control agent of water hyacinth, were recorded on the Kubusi River in the Eastern Cape Province (South Africa) over 15 months to determine the population recovery post-winter. Megamelus scutellaris incurred a severe population decline at the onset of winter when the water hyacinth plants became frost damaged. The combined effect of a population bottleneck and low minimum winter temperatures (6.12°C) below the agent's lower developmental threshold (11.46°C) caused a post-winter lag in agent density increase. Subsequently, the maximum agent population density was only reached at the end of the following summer growing season which allowed the water hyacinth population to recover in the absence of any significant biological control immediately post-winter. Supplementary releases of agents from mass-reared cultures at the beginning of the growing season (spring) is suggested as a potential method of reducing the lag-period in field populations in colder areas where natural population recovery of agents is slower.

Keywords

BiocontrolplanthopperPontederia (Eichhornia) crassipesPontederiaceaepopulation dynamicsSouth Africa
Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 111 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 120 - 128
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arp, RS, Fraser, G and Hill, MP (2017) Quantifying the economic water savings benefit of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) control in the Vaalharts irrigation scheme. Water SA 43, 58–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolker, BM, Brooks, ME, Clark, CJ, Geange, SW, Poulsen, JR, Stevens, MHH and White, JS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24, 127–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burnham, KP and Anderson, DR (2002) Model Selection and Multimodel Inference. New York, NY: Springer New York.Google Scholar
Byrne, M, Hill, MP, Robertson, M, King, A, Jadhav, A, Katembo, N, Wilson, J, Brudvig, R and Fisher, J (2010) Integrated Management of Water Hyacinth in South Africa: Development of an integrated management plan for water hyacinth control, combining biological control, herbicidal control and nutrient control, tailored to the climatic regions of South Africa. Water Research Commission TT 454/10, 1–302.Google Scholar
Cilliers, CJ (1991) Biological control of water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes in South Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 37, 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cock, MJW, Day, R, Herren, H, Hill, MP, Julien, MH, Neuenschwander, P and Ogwang, J (2000) Harvesters get that sinking feeling. Biocontrol News and Information 21, 1–8.Google Scholar
Coetzee, JA (2012) Meteorological weather station data can be used in climate matching studies of biological control agents. Biocontrol Science and Technology 22, 419–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coetzee, J.A. (2013) Permission to release the planthopper, Megamelus scutellaris Berg. (Hemiptera: Delphacidae), a potential biological control agent of water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes. Release Application to the Department of Environmental Affairs, 34 pp.Google Scholar
Coetzee, JA and Hill, MP (2012) The role of eutrophication in the biological control of water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes, in South Africa. BioControl 57, 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coetzee, JA, Byrne, MJ, Hill, MP and Center, TD (2009) Should the mirid, Eccritotarsus catarinensis (Heteroptera: Miridae), be considered for release against water hyacinth in the United States of America? Biocontrol Science and Technology 19, 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coetzee, JA, Hill, MP, Byrne, MJ and Bownes, A (2011) A review of the biological control programmes on Eichhornia crassipes (C. Mart.) Solms (Pontederiaceae), Salvinia molesta DS Mitch. (Salviniaceae), Pistia stratiotes L. (Araceae), Myriophyllum aquaticum (Vell.) Verdc. (Haloragaceae) and Azolla filiculoides Lam. (Azollaceae) in South Africa. African Entomology 19, 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coetzee, J, Jones, R and Hill, M (2014) Water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes (Pontederiaceae), reduces benthic macroinvertebrate diversity in a protected subtropical lake in South Africa. Biodiversity and Conservation 23, 1319–1330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cofrancesco, A.F., Stewart, R.M. and Sanders, D.R. (1985) The impact of Neochetina eichhorniae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on waterhyacinth in Louisiana. In VI International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, 6 August 1984. Canada, Agriculture Canada, p. 525.Google Scholar
Fraser, G, Hill, M and Martin, J (2016) Economic evaluation of water loss saving due to the biological control of water hyacinth at New year's Dam, Eastern Cape province, South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science 41, 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grodowitz, MJ, Stewart, RM and Cofrancesco, AF (1991) Population dynamics of waterhyacinth and the biological control agent Neochetina Eichhorniae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) at a southeast Texas location. Environmental Entomology 20, 652–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartig (2020) DHARMa: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level / Mixed) Regression Models. R package version 0.2.7. http://florianhartig.github.io/DHARMa/.Google Scholar
Hill, MP and Cilliers, CJ (1999) A review of the arthropod natural enemies, and factors that influence their efficacy, in the biological control of water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms-Laubach (Pontederiaceae), in South Africa. African Entomology, Memoir No. 1, 103–112.Google Scholar
Hill, MP and Coetzee, JA (2017) The biological control of aquatic weeds in South Africa: current status and future challenges. Bothalia 47, e1–e12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, M.P. and Olckers, T. (2001) Biological control initiatives against water hyacinth in South Africa: constraining factors, success and new courses of action. In Second Meeting of the Global Working Group for the Biological and Integrated Control of Water Hyacinth, 9–12 October 2000, Beijing, China, ACIAR, pp. 33–36.Google Scholar
Hill, MP, Coetzee, JA and Ueckermann, C (2012) Toxic effect of herbicides used for water hyacinth control on two insects released for its biological control in South Africa. Biocontrol Science and Technology 22, 1321–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, JV, Pratt, PD, McCue, KF, Pitcairn, MJ, Moran, PJ and Madsen, JD (2017) Spatial and temporal variation of biological control agents associated with Eichhornia crassipes in the Sacramento-San Joaquin river Delta, California. Biological Control 111, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jianqing, D., Ren, W., Weidong, F. and Guoliang, Z. (2001) Water hyacinth in China: its distribution, problems and control status. In Second Meeting of the Global Working Group for the Biological and Integrated Control of Water Hyacinth, 9–12 October 2000, Beijing, China, ACIAR, pp. 29–32.Google Scholar
Julien, M.H. and Orapa, W. (1999) Successful biological control of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)in Papua New Guinea by the weevils Neochetina bruchi and Neochetina eichhorniae (Coleoptera: curculionidae). In Spencer, N.R. (ed), Proceedings of the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds. Bozeman, MT, USA: Montana State University, p. 1027.Google Scholar
Kingsolver, JG (1989) Weather and the population dynamics of insects: integrating physiological and population ecology. Physiological Zoology 62, 314–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, S., Browne, M., Boudjelas, S. and De Poorter, M. (2000) 100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species: A Selection From the Global Invasive Species Database. Auckland, New Zealand: Invasive Species Specialist Group 2017, p. 12.Google Scholar
Madsen, J.D., Luu, K.T. and Getsinger, K.D. (1993) Allocation of Biomass and Carbohydrates in Waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes): Pond-Scale Verification. Technical Report A-93–3. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Vicksburg, MS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, B and Coetzee, JA (2013) Comparisons of the thermal physiology of water hyacinth biological control agents: predicting establishment and distribution pre-and post-release. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 147, 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Midgley, JM, Hill, MP and Villet, MH (2006) The effect of water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes (Martius) SolmsLaubach (Pontederiaceae), on benthic biodiversity in two impoundments on the New Year's river, South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science 31, 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, BE, Coetzee, J and Hill, M (2019) Chlorophyll fluorometry as a method of determining the effectiveness of a biological control agent in post-release evaluations. Biocontrol Science and Technology 29, 1118–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, PJ, Pitcairn, MJ and Villegas, B (2016) First establishment of the planthopper, Megamelus scutellaris Berg, 1883 (Hemiptera: Delphacidae), released for biological control of water hyacinth in California. Pan-Pacific Entomologist 92, 32–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellegrini, MOO, Horn, CN and Almeida, RF (2018) Total evidence phylogeny of Pontederiaceae (Commelinales) sheds light on the necessity of its recircumscription and synopsis of Pontederia L. PhytoKeys 108, 25–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petela, N. (2018) Interactions between three biological control agents of water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms (Pontederiaceae): the planthopper Megamelus scutellaris Berg (Hemiptera: Delphacidae), the sap-sucking mirid Eccritotarsus eichhorniae Henry (Heteroptera: Miridae), and the weevil Neochetina eichhorniae Warner (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) (Rhodes University Masters thesis), 109 pp.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing 3.4.3.Google Scholar
Sosa, AJ, Marino De Remes Lenicov, AM, Mariani, R and Cordo, HA (2005) Life history of Megamelus scutellaris with description of immature stages (Hemiptera: Delphacidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 98, 66–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, AJ, Cordo, HA and Sacco, J (2007) Preliminary evaluation of Megamelus scutellaris Berg (Hemiptera: Delphacidae), a candidate for biological control of waterhyacinth. Biological Control 42, 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, GF, Compton, SG and Coetzee, JA (2016) Naturally occurring phytopathogens enhance biological control of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) by Megamelus scutellaris (Hemiptera: Delphacidae), even in eutrophic water. Biological Control 103, 261–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tipping, PW, Center, TD, Sosa, AJ and Dray, FA (2011) Host specificity testing and potential impact of Megamelus scutellaris (Hemiptera: Delphacidae) on water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes (Pontederiales: Pontederiaceae). Biocontrol Science and Technology 21, 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tipping, PW, Sosa, A, Pokorny, EN, Foley, J, Schmitz, DC, Lane, JS, Rodgers, L, McCloud, L, Livingston-Way, P, Cole, MS and Nichols, G (2014) Release and establishment of Megamelus scutellaris (Hemiptera: Delphacidae) on Waterhyacinth in Florida. Florida Entomologist 97, 804–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Miller et al. supplementary material

Table S1 and Figures S1-S3

Download Miller et al. supplementary material(File)
File 3.4 MB