Integrated weed management strategies (IWM) are being advocated and employed to control invasive plants species. In this study, we compared three management strategies (biological control alone [BC], BC with fire [BC + F], and BC with mowing [BC + M]) to determine if physical controls reduce seed production by Scotch broom and interfere with the action of the biological control agent—the Scotch broom seed weevil. We measured seed production and seed predation by the weevil at both pod and plant scale, and seed bank density over two field seasons. We found no difference in the number of seeds per pod among management strategies. However, combining management strategies (BC + M and BC + F) resulted in significant reductions in pods per plant, mature seeds per plant, and seed bank density relative to biological control alone. We did not find differences among management strategies in number of weevils per pod or proportion of seeds predated by the weevil at either pod or whole-plant scale. However, combining management strategies (BC + M and BC + F) resulted in a significant reduction in healthy mature seeds per plant relative to biological control alone. Although both integrated strategies outperformed biological control alone in reducing seed production and the seed bank, with no statistical difference between them, we propose that short-rotation prescribed fire could prove to be a more effective strategy for long-term management of Scotch broom due to its potential for slightly greater depletion of the seed bank.

When laboratory host specificity tests on weed biological control agents produce ambiguous results or are suspected of producing false-positive findings, field cage or open field tests can be used to help determine the true ecological host range of the agent. The leaf beetle Diorhabda elongata (Brullé) from Crete, imported to the United States for the control of saltcedar (Tamarix spp., Tamaricaceae), showed a low but variable ovipositional response to nontarget Frankenia spp. (Frankeniaceae) in previous laboratory tests conducted in small cages, where up to 11.4% of eggs were laid on these native plants. Results from field tests presented in this article show that no eggs were laid on Frankenia palmeri S. Watson and significantly more eggs were always laid on Tamarix ramosissima Ledebour than Frankenia salina (Molina) I. M. Johnston. Furthermore, the ovipositional response to F. salina was substantially lower than that recorded in laboratory tests. The percent of eggs laid on F. salina in field tests was 3.7 in a paired choice cage test, 4.3 in a multiple choice cage test, and 2.5 in a multiple choice open field test, suggesting that the true acceptance rate of the nontarget by D. elongata in the field will be lower than laboratory tests predicted. However, some damage was caused to F. salina by adult and larval feeding in the field, although this occurred only at the very end of the open field test, when D. elongata densities were extremely high, and all of the surrounding saltcedar had been totally defoliated. Scientific representatives from various stakeholder organizations (state, county, university, and environmental groups) viewed the open field test when in progress and reviewed the final results before advising State regulatory agencies on beetle redistribution. These test results, and the open review process, led regulators to conclude that redistribution of D. elongata in California was warranted owing to its significant ability to defoliate saltcedar, and its low rate of feeding on nontarget Frankenia spp. The introduction of D. elongata provides an interesting case study for risk assessment of a potentially efficacious weed biocontrol agent that may also be capable of using nontarget native plants.

No abstract