Economic Implications for the Biological Control of<i>Arundo donax</i>: Rio Grande Basin

Seawright, Emily K.; Rister, M. Edward; Lacewell, Ronald D.; McCorkle, Dean A.; Sturdivant, Allen W.; Yang, Chenghai; Goolsby, John A.

doi:10.3958/059.034.0403

Cited by 33 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the three year clonal expansion of sterile M. ; the majority of which produced new axial shoots each growing season. Despite overwhelming evidence of A. donax clonal spread in warm riparian or coastal freshwaters of the southwestern United States (Bell 1997;Quinn and Holt 2008;Seawright et al 2009); the numerous culms we observed, bending to the ground at the perimeter of our plots, failed to root and produce new ramets; so called layering (Boland 2006). It has been suggested that the probability of a plant becoming invasive increases with the ability to reproduce vegetatively (Kolar and Lodge 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

The thin green line: sustainable bioenergy feedstocks or invaders in waiting

Smith¹,

Allen²,

Barney

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous fast growing and highly competitive exotic crops are being selected for production of renewable bioenergy. Tolerance of poor growing conditions with minimal inputs are ideal characteristics for bioenergy feedstocks, but have attracted concern for their potential to become invasive. Miscanthus × giganteus is one of the most promising bioenergy crops in the US, but grower adoption is hindered by high establishment costs due to sterility. Newly developed fertile tetraploid M. × giganteus may streamline cultivation while reducing establishment costs. However, fertile seed dramatically increases the potential propagule pressure, and thus probability of off-site plant establishment. To empirically evaluate the invasive potential of fertile M. × giganteus in the Southeastern US, we compared fitness and spread potential relative to ten grass species comprising 19 accessions under both high and low levels of competition and disturbance. We chose species known to be invasive in the US (positive controls: Arundo donax, naturalized M. sinensis, M. sacchariflorus, Phalaris arundinacea, Sorghum halepense) and non-invasive (negative controls; Andropogon gerardii, ornamental M. sinensis, Panicum virgatum, Sorghum bicolor, Saccharum spp.). This novel design allows us to make relative comparisons of risk among species with varying invasiveness. After three years of establishment and growth in Blacksburg, Virginia, neither aboveground disturbance nor interspecific weed competition influenced fitness for fertile M. × giganteus or our positive and negative control groups. Fertile M. × giganteus produced 346% and 283% greater aboveground biomass than our positive and negative species, respectively. However, fertile M. × giganteus produced 74% fewer inflorescences m -2 than our positive controls and 7% and 51% fewer spikelets inflorescence -1 than the positive and negative control species. After 18 months of growth, we observed the vegetative and seedling spread of three of our positive control species (S. halepense, P. arundinacea, and M. sacchariflorus) Smith et al. / NeoBiota 25: 47-71 (2015) 48 into receiving areas of both high and low competition. After 24 months of growth, numerous species were observed outside the cultivated plot including fertile M. × giganteus and 50% of negative control species. Notably, in three years sterile M. × giganteus 'Illinois' and Arundo donax never moved from the cultivated plot. The addition of fertile seed appears to increase the potential for offsite movement, but within the geographic confines of our empirical evaluation, fertile M. × giganteus seedlings are more similar to native P. virgatum and were not nearly as fast growing or as competitive as our positive control S. halepense. The use of numerous species providing relative comparisons allow us to draw important conclusions which may help prepare for widespread commercialization, while providing novel methodology for ecological risk assessment of new species.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

The thin green line: sustainable bioenergy feedstocks or invaders in waiting

Smith¹,

Allen²,

Barney

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The perennial giant grass A. donax occupies hundreds of river miles and tens of thousands of hectares along the Rio Grande and its tributaries in the United States and Mexico (Yang et al, 2011), and it causes $1-5 million per year in water loss damage (Seawright et al, 2009) by consuming three times as much water as native plants (Giessow et al, 2011;Watts and Moore, 2011). Mechanical and chemical control methods cannot prevent the spread of arundo and other major invasive weeds in noncrop areas throughout their invaded ranges.…”

Section: The Critical Need For Mass Rearing Programs For Exotic Invasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mass Rearing of the Stem-Galling Wasp Tetramesa romana, a Biological Control Agent of the Invasive Weed Arundo donax

Moran

Goolsby

Racelis³

et al. 2014

Mass Production of Beneficial Organisms

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Among the species contributing most to water loss are invasive riparian plants such as Australian Acacia andEucalyptus, northern hemisphere Pinus, Asian Tamarix (saltcedar) (Nagler et al, 2008;van Wilgen et al, 2008), and European Arundo donax (giant reed) (Seawright et al, 2009). Such plants reduce water flow by clogging channels and increase water loses from evapotranspiration.…”

Section: Water From Riversmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the amount of water being lost is debated (Shafroth et al, 2005), Zavaleta (2000) estimated that losses in the western USA from effects of saltcedar on irrigation water, municipal water, hydropower, and flood control were $133-285 million/year. Similarly, Seawright et al (2009) estimated that $4.75 million worth of water could potentially be saved annually through biological control of giant reed in the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. In South Africa, plant invasion models showed that up to 58% of the nation's water could be lost if invasive plant populations went uncontrolled (van Wilgen et al, 2008), and a massive campaign ('Working for Water') was created to remove invasive trees from water courses.…”

Section: Water From Riversmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems

Carruthers²,

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Keywords: Invasive species Ecosystem function Insect pests Invasive plants Ecological restoration Biological control Natural ecosystems a b s t r a c tOf the 70 cases of classical biological control for the protection of nature found in our review, there were fewer projects against insect targets (21) than against invasive plants (49), in part, because many insect biological control projects were carried out against agricultural pests, while nearly all projects against plants targeted invasive plants in natural ecosystems. Of 21 insect projects, 81% (17) provided benefits to protection of biodiversity, while 48% (10) protected products harvested from natural systems, and 5% (1) preserved ecosystem services, with many projects contributing to more than one goal. In contrast, of the 49 projects against invasive plants, 98% (48) provided benefits to protection of biodiversity, while 47% (23) protected products, and 25% (12) preserved ecosystem services, again with many projects contributing to several goals. We classified projects into complete control (pest generally no longer important), partial control (control in some areas but not others), and ''in progress," for projects in development for which outcomes do not yet exist. For insects, of the 21 projects discussed, 62% (13) achieved complete control of the target pest, 19% (4) provided partial control, and 43% (9) are still in progress. By comparison, of the 49 invasive plant projects considered, 27% (13) achieved complete control, while 33% (16) provided partial control, and 49% (24) are still in progress. For both categories of pests, some projects' success ratings were scored twice when results varied by region. We found approximately twice as many projects directed against invasive plants than insects and that protection of biodiversity was the most frequent benefit of both insect and plant projects. Ecosystem service protection was provided in the fewest cases by either insect or plant biological control agents, but was more likely to be provided by projects directed against invasive plants, likely because of the strong effects plants exert on landscapes. Rates of complete success appeared to be higher for insect than plant targets (62% vs 27%), perhaps because most often herbivores gradually weaken, rather than outright kill, their hosts, which is not the case for natural enemies directed against pest insects. For both insect and plant biological control, nearly half of all projects reviewed were listed as currently in progress, suggesting that the use of biological control for the protection of wildlands is currently very active.

show abstract

Economic Implications for the Biological Control ofArundo donax: Rio Grande Basin

Cited by 33 publications

References 5 publications

The thin green line: sustainable bioenergy feedstocks or invaders in waiting

The thin green line: sustainable bioenergy feedstocks or invaders in waiting

Mass Rearing of the Stem-Galling Wasp Tetramesa romana, a Biological Control Agent of the Invasive Weed Arundo donax

Classical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About