Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:44:28.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Postrelease Evaluation of Mecinus janthinus Host Specificity, a Biological Control Agent for Invasive Toadflax (Linaria spp.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nehalem C. Breiter*
Affiliation:
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR) and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, CB 450, Boulder, CO 80309
Timothy R. Seastedt
Affiliation:
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR) and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, CB 450, Boulder, CO 80309
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Toadflax invasion into natural areas has prompted interest in weed management via biological control. The most promising biological control agent currently available for the control of Dalmatian toadflax is Mecinus janthinus, a stem-boring weevil that has been shown to significantly reduce toadflax populations. Some land managers, however, are reluctant to release approved weed biological control agents based on concerns about possible nontarget impacts. Few postrelease examinations of biocontrol impact and host specificity have been performed, despite the call for such information. This study examined the host specificity of Mecinus janthinus, postrelease, in relation to Colorado sites to provide information to managers about its relative safety as a weed biological control agent. This study employed three components: (1) greenhouse choice and no-choice experiments; (2) no-choice caged field experiments; and (3) release-site evaluation of nontarget use of native plant species where this weevil has been released and has established. Both greenhouse and field experiments failed to demonstrate nontarget use of native plant species by M. janthinus in the region where it was studied, even in no-choice starvation tests. We found no evidence of nontarget herbivory on native plants growing at toadflax sites where M. janthinus was well established. These results support the continued use of M. janthinus as a low-risk biological control agent for the management of toadflax in the Rocky Mountain Front Range.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

Albach, D. C., Meudt, H. M., and Oxelman, B. 2005. Piecing together the “new” Plantaginaceae. Am. J. Bot. 92:297315.Google Scholar
Anthony, A. 2005. Toadflax, fire, Mecinus janthinus and compensatory growth. . Bozeman, MT Montana State University. 67.Google Scholar
Balciunas, J. K. and Coombs, E. M. 2004. International code of best practices for classical biological control of weeds. Pages 106113. in Coombs, E.M., Clark, J.K., Piper, G.L., Cofrancesco, A.F. eds. Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the United States. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Barahona, M. A. and Schwarzlaender, M. 2005. Impact of the stem-mining weevil Mecinus janthinus on Dalmatian toadflax populations in Idaho. Entomological Society of America 2005 Annual Meeting. Fort Lauderdale, FL [Poster presentation].Google Scholar
Beck, K. G. 2001. Biology and management of the toadflaxes. Fort Collins, CO Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Publication 3.114.Google Scholar
Blossey, B. 2004. Monitoring in weed biological control. Pages 95105. in Coombs, E., Clark, J.K., Piper, G.L., Cofrancesco, A.F. eds. Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the United States. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, A. T. and Murray, T. A. 1998. Element stewardship abstract for Linaria genistifolia (L.) P. Miller ssp. dalmatica (L.) Maire & Petitmengin (Synonym: Linaria dalmatica (L.) P. Miller) and Linaria vulgaris P. Miller. Arlington, VA The Nature Conservancy.Google Scholar
Coombs, E. M., Schooler, S. S., and McEvoy, P. E. 2004. Nontarget impacts of biological control agents. Pages 106113. in Coombs, E.M., Clark, J.K., Piper, G.L., Cofrancesco, A.F. eds. Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the United States. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
De Clerck-Floate, R. and Miller, V. 2002. Overwintering mortality of and host attack by the stem-boring weevil, Mecinus janthinus Germar, on Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica (L.) Mill.) in western Canada. Biol. Control. 24:6574.Google Scholar
Duncan, C. A., Jachetta, J. J., and Brown, M. L. et al. 2004. Assessing the economic, environmental, and societal losses from invasive plants on rangelands and wildlands. Weed Technol. 18 (Spec. Issue: Invasive Weed Symp.) 14111416.Google Scholar
Grieshop, M. J. and Nowierski, R. M. 2002. Selected factors affecting seedling recruitment of Dalmatian toadflax. J. Range Manag. 5:612619.Google Scholar
Hansen, R. W. 2004. Biological Control of Dalmatian Toadflax. 2nd ed. Washington, DC USDA–APHIS–PPQ–CPHST. [Pamphlet].Google Scholar
Hansen, R. W. and Gassmann, A. 2002. Utilization of North American Scrophulariaceae by Mecinus janthinus, a classical biological control agent of the exotic weed Dalmatian toadflax, Linaria dalmatica. Entomological Society of America 2002 Annual Meeting. Fort Lauderdale, FL [Poster presentation].Google Scholar
Hight, S. D., Carpenter, J. E., Bloem, K. A., Bloem, S., Pemberton, R. W., and Stiling, P. 2002. Expanding geographical range of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in North America. Fla. Entomol. 85:527529.Google Scholar
Hoddle, M. S. 2004. Restoring balance: Using exotic species to control invasive exotic species. Conserv. Biol. 18:3849.Google Scholar
Jeanneret, P. and Schroeder, D. 1992. Biology and host specificity of Mecinus janthinus Germar (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), a candidate for the biological control of yellow and Dalmatian toadflax, Linaria vulgaris (L.) Mill. and Linaria dalmatica (L.) Mill. (Scrophulariaceae) in North America. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2:2534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingman, D. L. and Coulson, J. R. 1983. Guidelines for introducing foreign organisms into the United States for the biological control of weeds. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 19:5561.Google Scholar
Louda, S. M., Pemberton, R. W., Johnson, M. T., and Follett, P. A. 2003. Nontarget effects—the Achilles' heel of biological control? Retrospective analyses to reduce risk associated with biocontrol introductions. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 48:365396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Louda, S. M., Kendall, D., Connor, J., and Simberloff, D. 1997. Ecological effects of an insect introduced for the biological control of weeds. Science. 277:10881090.Google Scholar
McEvoy, P. B. and Coombs, E. M. 2000. Why things bite back: unintended consequences of biological weed control. Pages 167194. in Follett, P.A., Duan, J.J. eds. Nontarget Effects of Biological Control. Boston Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Olmstead, R. G., DePamphilis, C. W., Wolfe, A. D., Young, N. D., Elisons, W. J., and Reeves, P. A. 2001. Disintegration of the Scrophulariaceae. Am. J. Bot. 88:348361.Google Scholar
[OSMP] Open Space and Mountain Parks 2002. Integrated Pest Management Biological Control Agents Release Policy. Boulder, CO City of Boulder OSMP Department.Google Scholar
Pemberton, R. W. 2000. Predictable risk to native plants in weed biological control. Oecologia. 125:489494.Google Scholar
Schaffner, U. 2001. Host range testing of insects for biological weed control: how can it be better interpreted? Bioscience. 51:951959.Google Scholar
Vujnovic, K. and Wein, R. W. 1997. The biology of Canadian weeds: Linaria dalmatica (L.) Mill. Can. J. Plant Sci. 77:483491.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar