Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-mzsfj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T10:15:03.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Biological Control on Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula) and Diversity of Associated Grasslands Over 14 Years

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Peter Lesica  and
Dave Hanna
Peter Lesica*
Affiliation:
Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812
Dave Hanna
Affiliation:
The Nature Conservancy, P.O. Box 825, Choteau, MT 59422
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: peter.lesica@mso.umt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using biological control agents to restore native habitats degraded by exotic plants should decrease the abundance of the invaders but should also result in a return toward preinvasion levels of native diversity. However, there are few long-term studies documenting changes in native biological diversity with the decline of an invader. We introduced a biocontrol flea beetle into three Montana grassland sites dominated by leafy spurge and monitored changes in leafy spurge abundance and frequency of associated vascular plants in 48 permanent microplots, in a 530 or 1,960 m2 macroplot immediately before and 14 yr after the release. Density and mass of leafy spurge declined 60 and 69%, respectively, over the 14 yr of the study across the three sites. Total species richness increased by 1.2 species/microplot (21%) between 1994 and 2008 across all three sites, but the increase differed among sites. Mean richness of exotic species was virtually unchanged across the three sites over the course of the study. Graminoid species richness was virtually unchanged across the three sites over the course of the study; most of the increase in diversity was due to the increase in forb richness at all three sites. Release of the biocontrol insects and a subsequent large reduction of leafy spurge were associated with an increase in native diversity after 14 yr, although causality cannot be confidently inferred from these associations because there were no controls. The increase in native diversity was small relative to the decline in leafy spurge abundance, suggesting that significant increases of native alpha diversity in semiarid grasslands may require many decades. Our results also suggest that the response to a decline of an invading species may depend on site quality and history.

Keywords

Flea beetle, Aphthona nigriscutis Foudrasleafy spurge, Euphorbia esula L.Aphthona nigriscutisspecies diversityspecies richnessNorthern Great PlainsMontanaplant invasionbiocontrolgrasslandsrestoration

Information

Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 151 - 157
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, G. L., Delfosse, E. S., Spencer, N. R., Prosser, C. W., and Richard, R. D. 2003. Lessons in developing successful invasive weed control programs. J. Range Manage 56:2–12.Google Scholar
Belcher, J. W. and Wilson, S. D. 1989. Leafy spurge and the species composition of a mixed- grass prairie. J. Range Manage 42:172–175.Google Scholar
Bottrell, D. G. 1979. Integrated Pest Management. Washington, DC Council on Environmental Quality. 120.Google Scholar
Bush, R. T., Seastedt, T. R., and Buckner, D. 2007. Plant community response to the decline of diffuse knapweed in a Colorado grassland. Ecol. Restor 25:169–174.Google Scholar
Campbell, C. L. and McAffrey, P. P. 1991. Population trends, seasonal phenology and impact of Chrysolina quadrigemina, C. hyperici (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), and Agrilus hyperici (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) associated with Hypericum perforatum in northern Idaho. Environ. Entomol 20:303–315.Google Scholar
Cole, D. N. and Landres, P. B. 1996. Threats to wilderness ecosystems: impacts and research needs. Ecol. Appl 6:168–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLoach, C. J. 1991. Past successes and current prospects in biocontrol of weeds in the United States and Canada. Nat. Areas J 11:129–142.Google Scholar
Dorn, R. D. 1984. Vascular Plants of Montana. Cheyenne, WY Mountain West Publishing. 279.Google Scholar
Gassmann, A., Schroeder, D., Maw, E., and Sommer, G. 1996. Biology, ecology and host specificity of European Aphthona spp. (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) used as biocontrol agents for leafy spurge, Euphorbia esula (Euphorbiaceae) in North America. Biol. Control 6:105–113.Google Scholar
Harris, P. 1988. Environmental impact of weed-control insects. BioScience 38:542–548.Google Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. and Norton, D. A. 1996. Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restor. Ecol 4:93–110.Google Scholar
Hoddle, M. S. 2004. Restoring balance: using exotic species to control invasive exotic species. Conserv. Biol 18:38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffaker, C. B. and Kennett, C. E. 1959. A ten-year study of vegetational changes associated with biological control of Klamath weed. J. Range Manage 12:69–82.Google Scholar
Huston, M. A. 1994. Biological Diversity. The Coexistence of Species on Changing Landscapes. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press. 681.Google Scholar
Jonsen, I. D., Bourchier, R. S., and Roland, J. 2001. The influence of matrix habitat on Aphthona flea beetle immigration to leafy spurge patches. Oecologia 127:287–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jordan, W. R., Peters, R. L., and Allen, E. B. 1988. Ecological restoration as a strategy for conserving biological diversity. Environ. Manage 12:55–72.Google Scholar
Lajeunesse, S., Sheley, R. L., Duncan, C., and Lym, R. 1999. Leafy spurge. Pages 249–260. In Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Lesica, P. and Hanna, D. 2004. Indirect effects of biological control on plant diversity vary across sites in Montana grasslands. Conserv. Biol 18:444–454.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. 1998. The biology and integrated management of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) on North Dakota rangeland. Weed Technol 12:367–373.Google Scholar
Mack, R. N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, D. M., Evans, H., Clout, M., and Bazzaz, F. A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Ecol. Appl 10:689–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press. 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFayden, R. E. 1998. Biological control of weeds. Annu. Rev. Entomol 43:369–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mico, M. A. and Shay, J. M. 2002. Effect of flea beetles (Aphthona nigriscutis) on prairie invaded by leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) in Manitoba. Great Plains Research 12:167–184.Google Scholar
Moran, V. C., Hoffman, J. H., and Zimmermenn, H. G. 2005. Biological control of invasive alien plants in South Africa: necessity, circumspection, and success. Front. Ecol. Environ 3:77–83.Google Scholar
Pemberton, R. W. 2000. Predictable risk to native plants in weed biological control. Oecologia 125:489–494.Google Scholar
Raju, M. V. S. 1985. Morphology and anatomy of leafy spurge. Pages 26–41. In Watson, A. K. Leafy Spurge. Monograph 3. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Kedzie-Webb, S., and Maxwell, B. D. 1999. 57–68. In Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR State University Press.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. 2001. Biological invasions—how are they affecting us, and what can we do about them? West. N. Am. Nat 61:308–315.Google Scholar
Stewart-Oaten, A. 1995. Rules and judgements in statistics: three examples. Ecology 76:2001–2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swaidon, L., Drlik, T., and Woo, I. 1998. Integrated control of leafy spurge. IPM Practitioner 20/7:1–11.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1982. Resource competition and community structure. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1997. Community invasibility, recruitment limitation, and grassland biodiversity. Ecology 78:81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tisdale, E. W. 1976. Vegetational responses following biological control of Hypericum perforatum in Idaho. Northwest Sci 50:61–75.Google Scholar
Wilson, S. D. and Tilman, D. 2002. Quadratic variation in old-field species richness along gradients of disturbance and nitrogen. Ecology 83:492–504.Google Scholar