Biological control of weeds: an analysis of introductions, rates of establishment and estimates of success, worldwide

Biological control of weeds: an analysis of introductions, rates of establishment and estimates... BioControl (2018) 63:319–331 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-018-9890-8 REVIEW Biological control of weeds: an analysis of introductions, rates of establishment and estimates of success, worldwide . . . M. Schwarzlander Hariet L. Hinz R. L. Winston M. D. Day Received: 4 December 2017 / Accepted: 7 May 2018 / Published online: 31 May 2018 The Author(s) 2018 Abstract The foremost document that comprehen- 313 species, for which impact could be categorized, sively reports on biological control introductions 172 (55.0%) caused medium, variable or heavy levels against weeds—‘Biological control of weeds: a world of damage (impacts). Of all releases made through catalogue of agents and their target weeds’—has been 2012, 982 (63.2%) led to establishment. Forty-two updated and now includes all deliberate releases made releases were judged too early post-release to catego- through 2012. It includes data on 1555 intentional rize impact, leaving 940 releases for which impact releases of 468 biological control agent species used analyses were conducted. Similar to agent species, against 175 species of target weeds in 48 plant approximately half of the established releases (503 or families, in 90 countries. For 55 (31.4%) of the target 53.5%) caused medium, variable or heavy levels of weed species, only one biocontrol agent was intro- damage on the target weeds, and almost a quarter of duced. The largest number of agent species (44) was releases (225 or 23.9%) caused heavy impact. Across introduced for the biological control of Lantana all countries and regions, 65.7% of the weeds targeted camara (Verbenaceae). Three insect orders (Coleop- for biological control experienced some level of tera, Lepidoptera and Diptera) comprised about 80% control. These data indicate the value of this practice, of all biocontrol agent species released and releases on its own, or as a supplement to other methods, in the made. Of the 468 biocontrol agent species introduced, management of invasive plants. 332 (70.9%) established in at least one instance. Of the Keywords Weed biological control  Establishment rates  Impact  Success rates Handling Editors: Cliff Moran and S. Raghu M. Schwarzla ¨nder (&) University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA e-mail: markschw@uidaho.edu Introduction H. L. Hinz Naturalized species are non-native species that form CABI, Dele ´mont, Switzerland self-sustaining populations following their introduc- R. L. Winston tion into an area outside their native distribution range MIA Consulting, Shelley, Idaho, USA (Richardson et al. 2000). More than 13,000 plant species, a little less than 4% of the world’s known M. D. Day vascular flora, have become naturalized in at least one Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, region (Rejma ´nek 2015; van Kleunen et al. 2015). Mackay, Australia 123 320 M. Schwarzla ¨nder et al. Only a small proportion of naturalized plant species, Clewley et al. 2012; Culliney 2005; de Lange and van estimated at 1%, become detrimental in their intro- Wilgen 2010; Goeden 1988; Room et al. 1981; duced ranges (Williamson 1996; Williams and Fitter Suckling 2013; van Driesche et al. 2010). 1996). The invasive plants which do (namely, weeds) The first global record of CBC releases for weeds can cause significant economic damage to agriculture, was produced in the early 1980s (Julien 1982). The forestry and infrastructure (Beck et al. 2008; Pimentel publication titled ‘Biological control of weeds: a et al. 2005;Pysek et al. 2012) or threaten native world catalogue of agents and their target weeds’ biodiversity and ecosystem services (Pejchar and (henceforth ‘the catalog’) included data on the Mooney 2009;Pys ˇek et al. 2012; Vila et al. 2011), biological control agent species introduced for each all of which can ultimately impair human livelihoods targeted weed, the dates and countries of introduction (Shackleton et al. 2007). Chemical, mechanical and and measures of control efficacy. The catalog was physical control methods have been the mainstay for subsequently updated and expanded approximately the management of weeds, especially in agricultural every five years until 1998 (Julien 1987, 1992; Julien settings (Kelton and Price 2009). However, conven- and Griffiths 1998). Because the catalog data were tional control methods are not economically viable for provided by weed biocontrol researchers themselves, a prolonged time or for the management of weeds in it is considered more accurate and complete than other remote areas or on vast tracts of publically owned compilations and has become the trusted source of lands with low agricultural value (Culliney 2005; information and the principal citation for release Sheley et al. 2011). Continuing globalization and records worldwide (McFadyen 1998). Every newly- intensified international trade will result in increased published edition of the catalog has also been used to naturalization of plant species outside their native evaluate trends of control successes or failures range (van Kleunen et al. 2015) and thus exacerbate (Crawley 1989; Cullen 1995; Heimpel and Mills the problem and the need for alternative management 2017; Julien 1989; Julien et al. 1984). Assessments of solutions to control weeds. the extent of control achieved, based on the catalog, Classical biological control (CBC) is an alternative are, however, limited due to the lack of a clear method for the management of non-native weeds definition of success and the fact that data are whereby host-specific, co-evolved natural enemies subjective and variable, depending on the sources (biological control agents) from the weed’s native (McFadyen 1998). range are reunited with the invasive plant in the In 2014, following a 16-year hiatus, a new (fifth) introduced range. The aim of CBC is for introduced edition of the catalog was published (Winston et al. biological control agents to establish in their new 2014). Following the convention in previous versions, environment and increase in abundance to levels that the fifth edition comprises three major tables: (1) inflict sufficient damage to target weeds to reduce their intentional CBC introductions for weeds, (2) the use of competitiveness, reproductive output and population natural enemies, native to the area of introduction, to growth. Particularly in ecologically sensitive environ- control weeds, and (3) biocontrol agents that now ments, CBC can be a sustainable, self-perpetuating, occur in countries or regions in which they were not and effective control method for non-native weeds deliberately introduced. An additional table from (McFadyen 1998). The first documented case of CBC previous editions of the catalog, based on exotic of a weed species dates back 182 years, when the vertebrates introduced to control weeds, was not cochineal insect Dactylopius ceylonicus (Green), included but has been replaced by a new table sum- originally and mistakenly brought from Brazil to marizing the use of bioherbicides (Winston et al. 2014, India in 1795 for dye production, was intentionally Table 4). The fifth edition of the catalog has greatly moved from northern to southern India in 1836 and expanded the dataset: the number of targeted weed from India to Sri Lanka in 1865 to control Opuntia species has increased by 41% from 133 in the fourth monacantha (Willd.) Haw. (Cactaceae) (Goeden edition to 187 in the fifth, and the number of biocontrol 1988). Since 1902, when Lantana camara L. sens. agent species deliberately released has increased by lat. (Verbenaceae) was targeted for CBC in Hawaii, 34% from 357 to 479. Due to the inclusion of more the discipline has yielded some impressive outcomes detailed data, the reference section increased from in a variety of environments (Bangsund et al. 1999; 123 Biological control of weeds: an analysis… 321 1084 records in the fourth edition to 2080 references The catalog is structured by release rather than listed in the fifth edition. agent species. This is because numerous biocontrol In this paper, we provide a descriptive and numer- agent species were released in different countries/ ical analysis of CBC data derived exclusively from the regions, at various times and against different target fifth edition of the catalog (Winston et al. 2014). In weeds. Separate releases of the same biocontrol agent conformity with the accounts derived from previous species, in different regions or countries, frequently editions (Crawley 1989; Julien et al. 1984; Julien resulted in different establishment success and were 1989), we too record the number of agent species also often associated with various degrees of damage released and releases made, their establishment rates, (impact) on their target host. Consequently, we present and their success rates over time, by agent taxon and establishment and impact data for agent species and by country or region of release. releases separately. Establishment and levels of target host damage Materials and methods (impacts) by the agents Source data Data on the establishment, or otherwise, of a release were taken from Table 1 in Winston et al. (2014). Although it may sometimes take many years before a We used the information from the fifth edition of ‘‘Biological control of weeds: a world catalogue of biocontrol agent establishes, and decades before agent agents and their target weeds’’ (Winston et al. 2014)as population densities reach sufficient levels to result in the data source for this account. We identified all cases weed control, i.e., a reduction in the density and/or where a weed biocontrol agent was intentionally distribution of the target plants (McFadyen 1998), we released through to the end of 2012. Releases were strictly followed the ‘impact’ categories used in treated as separate cases when any one of the Table 1 in Winston et al. (2014) for this analysis. following conditions was met: (1) a release of the Each biocontrol release made until the end of 2012 same agent occurred in different countries, (2) a that resulted in establishment was assigned one of release of the same agent was made in the same eight impact categories: ‘none’, ‘slight’, ‘medium’, country but from a different source location, (3) a ‘heavy’, ‘variable’, ‘too early post-release’, ‘un- release of the same agent was made in the same known’, or ‘compromised’. Releases made between country from the same source location, but for a 2007 and 2012 were typically assigned as ‘too early different target weed, or (4) a release of the same agent post-release’ and are not included in the analysis of was made in the same country, but more than impacts. We were primarily interested in releases that five years apart (Winston et al. 2014). Therefore, the caused the greatest amount of damage to the target number of identified biocontrol agent releases is far weeds, thus we only report cases in the three highest greater (n = 1555) than the number of biocontrol impact categories, namely ‘variable’, ‘medium’, and agent species that were released (n = 468). ‘heavy’. Impact categorizations were initially based Previous editions of the catalog have been consid- on subjective assessments by the data contributors. ered inconsistent and subjective because of their These were subsequently reviewed by the catalog reliance on information provided by individual bio- editors and amended where necessary for consistency. Final categorizations were supported by a brief control practitioners working on different biocontrol systems, and variable because data sources ranged description of the impact status for each release. from refereed publications to unpublished observa- In general, impact categories were defined using tions (Heimpel and Mills 2017; McFadyen 1998). classifications similar to those used in previous Thus, for the fifth edition of the catalog, the editors assessments of weed biocontrol program success, addressed these issues by deconstructing all previous which are based on the need for additional/other data and repopulating several new categorical fields control methods to supplement the degree of biocon- with many more data sources. As a consequence, data trol achieved (Hoffmann 1995; McFadyen 1998). If a in the fifth edition of the catalog have been standard- biocontrol agent release resulted in heavy impact in ized (Winston et al. 2014). some countries/regions or at some sites and low or 123 322 M. Schwarzla ¨nder et al. medium impact in other countries/regions or at other regions, we defined 11 main geographic divisions. We sites, we defined this as ‘variable impact’. We defined identified the five countries, continents or regions ‘medium impact’ as a biocontrol release that resulted historically and currently most active in weed biolog- in a reduced frequency or need for other control ical control: Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand (NZ), methods. When the need for other control methods North America (NA, including Canada, the USA, was stated as greatly reduced or no longer necessary, Mexico and Central America north of the Isthmus of the release was defined as having ‘heavy impact’. To Panama) and South Africa. The remaining six geo- address impacts at the level of individual biocontrol graphic divisions included Asia, the remainder of agent species, multiple releases were combined Africa (including Ascension Island, Madagascar, (where applicable) and summarized. A biocontrol Mauritius and St. Helena), Oceania (including agent species was considered to have had variable, Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia), the Caribbean medium or heavy impact if this was true for at least Islands, South America and Eurasia (including the one of its releases in any given country or region. former Soviet Union in its post-1980 boundaries, e.g., In addition to agent impact, the catalog includes: (1) including Kazakhstan). agent-species abundance in seven categories, ‘rare’, ‘limited’, ‘moderate’, ‘high’, ‘variable’, ‘too early Biocontrol release history post-release’, and ‘unknown’, and (2) the extent of Biological control releases were tabulated in ten-year impact (to place agent impacts in a geographical context) in four categories, ‘localized’, ‘regional’, intervals with two exceptions: (1) all releases made ‘widespread throughout range’, and ‘unknown’ (Win- until 1900, regardless of when they occurred during ston et al. 2014). Categorizations were subjective the nineteenth century, were combined as one interval, decisions first made by the data providers and and (2) the most recent time interval only included subsequently edited for consistency by the catalog three years (2010–2012). editors. Estimates of weed biocontrol program successes Results The majority of studies assessing the outcomes of Introductions and releases of weed biocontrol CBC of weeds use a terminology that differentiates agents between ‘negligible’, ‘substantial’ and ‘complete’ control of the target host (Hoffmann 1995; McFadyen Since the inception of CBC of weeds until 2012, a total 1998; Klein 2011). Because these are subjective of 468 agent species were intentionally released criteria that can be influenced by a broad range of worldwide in 1555 releases for the control of 175 factors (Heimpel and Mills 2017), the biological weed species in 48 plant families (Tables 1, 2). control outcomes for individual target weed species Lantana camara was the most highly targeted weed, were assessed as follows: a target weed was consid- with 44 biocontrol agents released against it. In ered ‘controlled’ if any release against that target host contrast, for 55 target weed species (31.4%), only a in a particular country/region led to variable, medium single biocontrol agent was introduced. Of the 468 or heavy impact. This approach obviously inflated the agent species intentionally released, 76 (16.2%) spread naturally or accidentally to other countries number of weeds targeted because the same weed species may be controlled in one but not in another (Table 3 in Winston et al. 2014). The five countries/ country or region. The numbers related to degrees of regions most active in biocontrol research and releases control were summarized for each geographical include, in decreasing order, Australia, NA, South region. Africa, Hawaii and NZ. These countries/regions accounted for 77.6% of all released agent species, or Countries and geographic regions 65.1% of all releases. For these countries/regions, there was a peak of agents released in the 1990s, To relate agent species introductions, establishment followed by a continuous decline (Fig. 1a). For all rates, impacts and control estimates to countries/ other countries/regions, agent numbers peaked 123 Biological control of weeds: an analysis… 323 Table 1 Number of agent species, releases, their establishment and impact among taxonomic groups of invertebrates and fungal pathogens released for classical biological control of weeds Groups No. agent No. Establishment Impact by agent Impact by release (no. species releases species (no. and % of and % of releases, d e released (%) species, n = 313 ) n = 940 ) (%) (No. and % of (No. and % of At best Medium, Heavy Medium, a b species , releases , heavy variable, variable, n = 468 total n = 1555 total or heavy or heavy species) releases) Insects (Insecta) Beetles 193 (41.3) 696 (44.8) 136 (70.5) 463 (66.5) 45 (35.4) 78 (61.4) 125 (27.7) 266 (59.0) (Coleoptera) Caterpillars 125 (26.7) 371 (23.9) 82 (65.6) 192 (51.8) 14 (17.5) 36 (45.0) 30 (16.1) 81 (43.5) (Lepidoptera) Flies (Diptera) 56 (12.0) 172 (11.1) 39 (69.6) 106 (61.6) 5 (13.2) 17 (44.7) 8 (7.8) 31 (30.1) Bugs and scales 35 (7.5) 185 (11.9) 28 (80.0) 129 (69.7) 11 (42.3) 17 (65.4) 49 (40.8) 87 (72.5) (Hemiptera) Sawflies, galling 10 (2.1) 18 (1.2) 8 (80.0) 13 (72.2) 3 (42.9) 4 (57.1) 5 (45.5) 6 (54.5) and seed- feeding wasps (Hymenoptera) Thrips 4 (0.9) 15 (0.97) 3 (75.0) 11 (73.3) 1 (33.3) 1 (33.3) 1 (9.1) 4 (36.4) (Thysanoptera) Grasshoppers 2 (0.4) 13 (0.84) 1 (50.0) 4 (30.8) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0) 0 (0) (Orthoptera) True bugs 1 (0.2) 1 (0.06) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0) 0 (0) (Heteroptera) Mites (Acarina) 10 (2.1) 28 (1.8) 9 (90.0) 22 (78.6) 0 (0.0) 4 (66.7) 0 (0) 6 (33.3) Nematodes 2 (0.4) 5 (0.32) 1 (50.0) 2 (40.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0) 0 (0) (Nematoda) Fungal pathogens 30 (6.4) 51 (3.3) 25 (83.3) 40 (78.4) 5 (20.8) 15 (62.5) 7 (18.9) 22 (59.5) Total 468 (100) 1555 (100) 332 (70.9) 982 (63.2) 84 (26.8) 172 (55.0) 225 (23.9) 503 (53.5) Data summarized from Winston et al. (2014) Percentages calculated as the total number of biological control agent species (in a particular taxonomic group) that successfully established, divided by the total number of agent species released in that group Percentages calculated as the total number of releases (in a particular taxonomic group) that successfully established, divided by the total number of releases made in that group For definitions of variable, medium and heavy impact, see ‘‘Materials and methods’’ section Only species with at least one instance of confirmed establishment and whose impact is not categorized as ‘too early post-release’ (n = 19) were considered (see text for details) Only releases confirmed as established and whose impact is not categorized as ‘too early post-release’ (n = 42) were considered (see text for details) between the 1970s and 1990s, albeit at a much smaller Establishment of agent species scale, and were dominated by Africa in the 1970s and Asia in the 1990s (Fig. 1b), and subsequently declined Of 468 weed biocontrol agent species intentionally (Fig. 1b). Three insect orders (Coleoptera, Lepi- released, 332 (70.9%) established successfully. Of the total of 1555 intentional releases, 982 (63.2%) estab- doptera and Diptera) comprised 79.9% of all biocon- trol agent species released and 79.70% of all releases lished (Table 1). For biological control releases made prior to 1900, only 37.5% established, but after that made (Table 1). 123 324 M. Schwarzla ¨nder et al. Table 2 Number of agent species released, weeds targeted and controlled among taxonomic groups of invertebrates and fungal pathogens released for classical biological control of weeds Regions No. agent No. target No. agents % Agents No. target Percent target species weeds introduced established weeds weeds introduced per weed controlled controlled (%) Australia 202 56 3.6 67.8 39 69.6 North America 137 59 2.3 79.6 36 61.0 South Africa 103 51 2.0 69.9 38 74.5 Hawaii 87 22 4.0 67.8 13 59.1 Oceania 58 19 3.1 55.2 15 78.9 New Zealand 53 23 2.3 69.8 8 34.8 Asia 42 18 2.3 71.4 12 66.7 Africa 38 15 2.5 78.9 11 73.3 Caribbean 16 13 1.2 25.0 6 46.2 South America 14 10 1.4 64.3 3 30.0 Eurasia 10 5 2.0 40.0 0 0.0 a b c e 468 175 2.6 70.9 115 65.7 Data summarized from Winston et al. (2014) The sum of all introduced biocontrol agents across all regions (column total) equals n = 760 but includes duplicates (same species introduced in different areas) The total value is the number of all unique biocontrol agent species (n = 468) divided by the number of targeted weeds (n = 175) across all regions Percentages calculated as the total number of biological control agent species that established (n = 332), divided by the total number of agent species released (n = 468) A target weed was considered controlled in any given country or region if any release against this target in the same country or region resulted in variable, medium or heavy impact The sum of controlled target weed species across all regions (column total) equals n = 181 but includes duplicates (same target weeds successfully controlled in different countries/regions) establishment rates for releases were higher, ranging (53.5%) resulted in heavy, medium or variable from 53.7 to 76.9% (Fig. 2a). Release establishment impacts on the target weeds. Only 7.0% resulted in rates were consistent between countries/regions, with no impact at all. Of the 225 releases resulting in heavy the exception of the Caribbean and Eurasia, which had impact, 82.7% were associated with high agent notably lower release establishment rates of 35.1 and abundance. In 63.1% of heavy impact releases, the 37.5%, respectively (Fig. 2b). Biocontrol agent spe- impact was considered widespread throughout the cies establishment rates for the Caribbean and Eurasia range of the target weed. The proportion of releases were also lower at 25.0 and 40.0%, respectively with heavy impact was highest for the Caribbean, (Table 2). Of the various biocontrol agent taxa followed by Africa, Oceania, Asia and South Africa released, mites, fungal pathogens, Hymenoptera and (Fig. 3a). The numbers of releases with heavy impact Hemiptera (in that sequence) had the highest estab- were positively correlated with the numbers of estab- lishment rates at both the agent species and release lished releases among countries and regions (linear levels (Table 1). regression, r = 0.746, n =11, P = 0.008, Fig. 3b). Africa had the highest proportion of releases with Estimates of agent impacts and weed control heavy impact as a function of established releases achieved (Fig. 3b). In contrast, North America had the lowest proportion of releases with heavy impact (Fig. 3b). Of the 982 releases that established, 42 were consid- Of the 332 intentionally released agents that did ered to be too early post-release to accurately catego- establish, 19 were considered to be too early post- rize their impact. Of the 940 remaining releases, 503 release to categorize their impact. Of the 313 123 Biological control of weeds: an analysis… 325 Australia North America South Africa 90 Hawaii New Zealand -1900 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Oceania Asia Africa Carribean 12 South America Eurasia -1900 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Fig. 1 Number of new weed biological control agent species regions. The first bar in each graph represents releases made introduced per decade: a for the five most active countries and between 1850 and 1900 and the last bar in each graph represents regions, and b for the less active remaining six countries/ releases made between 2010 and 2012 remaining species, 172 caused heavy, medium or considerably lower than the average for NZ, South variable impact in at least one release, i.e., 55.0% America and the Caribbean, and none of the five (Table 1). Hemiptera, Coleoptera and fungal patho- weeds targeted for CBC in Eurasia has been controlled gens were the biocontrol agent taxa with the highest (Table 2). proportions of agent species that caused heavy impact or a combination of medium, variable and heavy impact (Table 1). Discussion Biological control agents have been intentionally released against 175 weed species, of which 115 weed Measures of weed biocontrol activity over time species (65.7%) were controlled by at least one biocontrol agent species causing at least variable or During the 16 year period between the publication of medium impact (Table 2). Ninety-three or 53.1% of the first and fourth editions of ‘Biological control of the target weeds were within three families, Aster- weeds: a world catalogue of agents and their target aceae, Cactaceae and Fabaceae (Table 3). The remain- weeds’ (Julien 1982; Julien and Griffiths 1998), the ing 82 weed species (46.9%) were distributed across number of weed species targeted for CBC increased by 45 different families. The five countries/regions with 51 (62.2%). In the 16 year period between the higher-than-average control rates were (ranked from publication of the fourth and fifth editions, the number highest to lower) Oceania, South Africa, Africa, increased by 54 weed species (40.6%) (Winston et al. Australia and Asia. In contrast, the proportions of 2014). The number of new releases increased by 625 target weed species with some control were (125.2%) between the first and fourth editions (Julien -1 No. new species released x decade 326 M. Schwarzla ¨nder et al. 100 a 60 b Africa Oceania North America 30 S. Africa Australia Asia Caribbean Hawaii New Zealand 0 50 100 150 200 250 No. releases established Fig. 3 Proportion of biological weed control releases with Fig. 2 Proportion of biological weed control releases estab- heavy impact a by region or country (? SE), and b as a function lished a by decade (± SE), with the overall mean (64.2 ± 3.2% of the number of releases established in a country or region, with SE) indicated by a line, and b by country or region (? SE) the line of best fit indicated (linear regression, r = 0.746, n = 11, P = 0.008) 1982; Julien and Griffiths 1998), but only by 431 new releases (38.3%) between 1998 and 2014, i.e., between Rhinocyllus conicus Fro ¨ lich and Larinus carlinae the fourth and fifth editions (Winston et al. 2014). The Olivier (both Curculionidae) on native Cirsium thistle lower rate of new releases can be explained by the species (Asteraceae) (Havens et al. 2012; Louda et al. decrease in new biocontrol agent species introduced 2005; Rose et al. 2005) as well as by Cactoblastis since the 1990s when 133 new species were released. cactorum (Berg) (Pyralidae) on some native Opuntia Data collection efforts continuing beyond the printing species (Cactaceae), including one threatened and of the fifth edition indicate that globally, 42 new endangered species (Stiling et al. 2004). The ensuing agents were released between 2010 and 2017. Extrap- debate caused drastic tightening of the regulatory olating from this number suggests that there may only approval process, the consequences of which have be 50 or 51 new agent species released in the been discussed in detail, along with suggested steps to 2010–2019 decade, which would be 17.2% less than enhance progress in this field of endeavor (Hinz et al. the 61 species released in the 2000s. 2014; Moran and Hoffmann 2015; Warner 2016). There are a number of factors contributing to the In Australia, the decrease in the rate of introduc- gradual decline in new biocontrol agent introductions. tions has been attributed mostly to funding cuts In the USA, the discipline has earned a negative (Palmer et al. 2014) and less to the debate about the reputation following reports of non-target attack by risks/benefits associated with CBC of weeds. For -1900 1990s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Australia 2000s North America South Africa Hawaii Oceania New Zealand Asia Africa Caribbean South America Eurasia Caribbean Africa Oceania Asia South Africa South America Australia North America Hawaii New Zealand Eurasia Percent releases established Percent releases established Percent releases with heavy impact No. releases with heavy impact Biological control of weeds: an analysis… 327 Table 3 Weeds targeted for classical biological control in respective plant families, successful control outcomes and rates of successful control Plant families No. of species with biological control Rate of successful control attempts Attempted Successful Amaranthaceae 1 1 1 Anacardiaceae 1 0 0 Apocynaceae 1 1 1 Araceae 1 1 1 Asparagaceae 1 1 1 Asteraceae 44 27 0.61 Azollaceae 1 1 1 Basellaceae 1 0 0 Bignoniaceae 2 1 0.50 Boraginaceae 5 4 0.80 Cactaceae 25 25 1 Caryophyllaceae 1 0 0 Chenopodiaceae 2 0 0 Commelinaceae 1 0 0 Convolvulaceae 5 1 0.20 Cucurbitaceae 1 1 1 Cyperaceae 1 0 0 Dioscoreaceae 1 0 0 Ericaceae 1 1 1 Euphorbiaceae 4 2 0.50 Fabaceae 23 16 0.70 Haloragaceae 1 1 1 Hydrocharitaceae 1 1 1 Hypericaceae 2 1 0.50 Lamiaceae 3 2 0.67 Loranthaceae 1 0 0 Lygodiaceae 1 0 0 Lythraceae 1 1 1 Malvaceae 2 2 1 Melastomataceae 3 2 0.67 Myricaceae 1 0 0 Myrtaceae 2 1 0.50 Orobanchaceae 3 0 0 Passifloraceae 1 1 1 Plantaginaceae 2 2 1 Poaceae 1 0 0 Polygonaceae 5 4 0.80 Pontederiaceae 1 1 1 Proteaceae 2 1 0.50 Ranunculaceae 1 0 0 Rosaceae 6 4 0.67 Rubiaceae 1 0 0 Salviniaceae 1 1 1 123 328 M. Schwarzla ¨nder et al. Table 3 continued Plant families No. of species with biological control Rate of successful control attempts Attempted Successful Scrophulariaceae 1 0 0 Solanaceae 4 3 0.75 Tamaricaceae 1 1 1 Verbenaceae 2 1 0.50 Zygophyllaceae 2 2 1 Total 175 115 65.7 Families are listed alphabetically. Data summarized from Winston et al. (2014) Africa as a whole, Asia and Oceania in particular, and Coleoptera, supporting similar findings of an there appears to be a flow-on effect, with reduced earlier analysis (Crawley 1989). capacity from Australia and elsewhere, and less funding in aid contributing to reduced CBC activities Efficacy of weed biocontrol in these regions. In contrast, rates of biological control agent introductions are relatively stable for NZ and Because the catalog is structured by releases, we South Africa, where similar numbers of agent species assessed biocontrol agent efficacy first at the release were introduced in the 1990s and the 2000s/2010s. In level and from there deduced general impact for each these countries, CBC of weeds continues to thrive and of the 468 released biocontrol agent species. For the is enjoying broad public support (Martin et al. 2018; overall success, we calculated the proportion of Hayes et al. 2013; Hill and Coetzee 2017). biological control programs that have achieved some In assessments of earlier versions of the catalog, level of control, without further qualifying that control rates of agent establishment were calculated to be level. This is contrary to how most weed biological 71%, later revised to 63% for releases made until 1980 control program reviews assess success, which fre- (Julien 1989; Julien et al. 1984). The rates of agent quently utilize the definitions proposed by Hoffmann establishment were calculated at 65% (or 63% aver- (1995) and McFadyen (1998) and that distinguish aged out over decades) for releases made until 1985 between ‘negligible’, ‘partial’, ‘substantial’ and ‘com- (Julien 1989). Other analyses of previous versions of plete’ weed control. These categories have been the catalog have stated similar rates of establishment adopted by a number of regional assessments in for releases, ranging from 52 to 61% (Heimpel and Australia (Cullen et al. 2011; McFadyen 2000), New Mills 2017) to 63% (Crawley 1989). While some Zealand (Fowler et al. 2000; Hayes et al. 2013), South analyses record a decrease in recent establishment Africa (Hill and Coetzee 2017; Hoffmann 1995; Klein rates (Crawley 1989), others speculated that rates 2011; Moran et al. 2005), and Hawaii (Gardner et al. should increase because of improved release strategies 1995). The authors of those reviews are all weed and understanding of factors facilitating establishment biocontrol experts in their respective regions, and (McFadyen 1998 and references therein). Our account because they have access to additional information not was based on a much greater number of releases, and included in the catalog, they were able to assign also confirmed agent establishment rates of 63.2%. program success ratings for each weed biocontrol The establishment rate based on the number of agent- system. Interestingly, the values reported here for the species involved was higher (70.9%). This is not percentages of target weeds controlled by countries surprising because agents released several times in and regions (Table 2) largely match those reported for different countries or regions have a higher probability Australia (Cullen et al. 2011), New Zealand (Hayes of establishing in at least some cases. Among the et al. 2013) and South Africa (Klein 2011). The overall major biocontrol agent taxa, we found that release- weed control rate of 65.7% derived from the present establishment failures were higher for species of analysis (see Table 2) is, however, much higher than Lepidoptera than for species in the Hemiptera, Diptera the 39.2% reported in Heimpel and Mills (2017). The 123 Biological control of weeds: an analysis… 329 and meticulousness that led to the publication of the first four latter analysis was based on the fourth edition of the editions of the catalog and Brad Harmon for providing catalog, which may partially explain the discrepancy. information and comments improving an earlier draft of this The proportion of releases with ‘heavy’ impact was manuscript. The contribution of Hariet Hinz was supported by highest for the Caribbean, followed by Africa, Ocea- CABI with core financial support from its member countries (see http://www.cabi.org/about-cabi/who-we-work-with/key- nia and Asia (Fig. 3a). Africa had the highest propor- donors/ for details). This is a publication of the Idaho Agricul- tion of releases with heavy impact as a function of tural Experimental Station. established releases (Fig. 3b). These results for the Caribbean, Africa and Asia can be explained by the Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http:// fact that many of the target weeds in these countries/ creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unre- regions were either cacti in the genus Opuntia,or stricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, water weeds, both are categories of weeds which are provided you give appropriate credit to the original especially amenable to biological control (Crawley author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons license, and indicate if changes were made. 1989; Hill and Coetzee 2017). In addition, many of the agents released for these targets had already proven to be successful in other countries/regions before their release into the Caribbean, Africa and Asia. References Numerous studies have demonstrated the effective- ness of CBC of weeds, both in terms of biocontrol Bangsund DA, Leistritz LF, Leitch JA (1999) Assessing eco- agent impact on the target weed as well as economic nomic impacts of biological control of weeds: the case of returns from the reduction in weed populations leafy spurge in the northern Great Plains of the United States. J Environ Manag 56(1):35–43 (Clewley et al. 2012; De Groote et al. 2003; Page Beck KG, Zimmerman K, Schardt JD, Stone J, Lukens RR, and Lacey 2006; van Wilgen et al. 2004). However, Reichard S, Randall JM, Cangelosi AA, Thompson JP more post-release studies are needed to strengthen the (2008) Invasive species defined in a policy context: rec- support for this control method, including, crucially, ommendations from the Federal Invasive Species Advisory Committee. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 1:414–421 the quantification of biocontrol impact on weed Clewley GD, Eschen R, Shaw RH, Wright DJ (2012) The densities and distributions, subsequent changes in effectiveness of classical biological control of invasive the associated vegetation community, and changes in plants. J Appl Ecol 49(6):1287–1295 economic expenditures and returns related to weed Crawley MJ (1989) The successes and failures of weed bio- management. Additional research should focus on control using insects. Biocontrol News Inf 10(3):213–223 Cullen JM (1995) Predicting effectiveness: fact and fantasy. In: how to improve establishment rates and more accu- th Delfosse ES, Scott RR (eds) Proceedings of the 8 inter- rately predict the agents that may result in heavy national symposium on biological control of weeds, impacts on the target weeds. From our analysis, p 103–109 Coleoptera and Hemiptera appear to be the biological Cullen JM, McFayden REC, Julien MH (2011) One hundred years of biological control of weeds in Australia. In: Del- control agent taxa with the highest likelihood of th fosse ES, Scott RR (eds) Proceedings of the 8 interna- success, in terms of establishment rate and in causing tional symposium on biological control of weeds, heavy impact. Other reviews have found that species p 360–367 Culliney TW (2005) Benefits of classical biological control for of weevils (Curculionidae) and leaf-beetles managing invasive plants. Crit Rev Plant Sci (Chrysomelidae), in particular, were the most effec- 24(2):131–150 tive taxa in terms of biological control of weeds De Groote H, Ajuonu O, Attignon S, Djessou R, Neuen- (Clewley et al. 2012; Crawley 1989; Heimpel and schwander P (2003) Economic impact of biological control of water hyacinth in Southern Benin. Ecol Econ Mills 2017). A quantitative analysis of biological 45:105–117 control agent taxa with regard to their efficacy as weed De Lange WJ, van Wilgen BW (2010) An economic assessment biocontrol agents is currently underway. of the contribution of biological control to the management of invasive alien plants and to the protection of ecosystem Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Richard services in South Africa. Biol Invasions 12(12):4113–4124 Reardon for his past and present support, without which the Fowler SV, Syrett P, Hill R (2000) Success and safety in the revision and production of the fifth edition of ‘Biological control biological control of environmental weeds in New Zealand. of weeds: a world catalogue of agents and their target weeds’ Aust J Ecol 25:553–562 and its follow up products would not have been possible. Gardner DE, Smith CW, Markin GP (1995) Biological control Additionally, we would like to thank Mic Julien for his foresight of alien plants in natural areas of Hawaii. In: Delfosse ES, 123 330 M. Schwarzla ¨nder et al. th Scott RR (eds) Proceedings of the 8 international sym- community in enhancing weed biological control in South posium on biological control of weeds, p 35–40 Africa. BioControl, (in press). https://doi.org/10.1007/ Goeden RD (1988) A capsule of biological control of weeds. s10526-017-9846-4 Biocontrol News Inf 9(2):55–61 McFadyen REC (1998) Biological control of weeds. Annu Rev Havens K, Jolls CL, Marik JE, Vitt P, McEachern AK, Kind D Entomol 43:369–393 (2012) Effects of a non-native biocontrol weevil, Larinus McFadyen REC (2000) Successes in biological control of th planus, and other emerging threats on populations of the weeds. In: Spencer NR (ed) Proceedings of the 10 inter- federally threatened Pitcher’s thistle, Cirsium pitcher. Biol national symposium on biological control of weeds, p 3–14 Conserv 155:202–211 Moran VC, Hoffmann JH (2015) The fourteen international Hayes L, Fowler SV, Paynter Q, Groenteman R, Peterson P, symposia on biological control of weeds, 1969–2014: Dodd S, Bellgard S (2013) Biocontrol of weeds: achieve- delegates, demographics and inferences from the debate on ments to date and future outlook. In: Dymond JR (ed) non-target effects. Biol Control 87:23–31 Ecosystem services in New Zealand—conditions and Moran VC, Hoffman JH, Zimmermann HG (2005) Biological trends. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, pp 375–385 control of invasive alien plants in South Africa: necessity, Heimpel GE, Mills NJ (2017) Biological control: ecology and circumspection, and success. Front Ecol Environ applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 3(2):71–77 Hill MP, Coetzee J (2017) The biological control of aquatic Page AR, Lacey KL (2006) Economic impact assessment of weeds in South Africa: current status and future challenges. Australian weed biological control. CRC for Australian Bothalia 47(2):a2152. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2. Weed Management Technical Series No. 10 2152 Palmer WA, McLaren D, Sheppard AW (2014) Australia’s Hinz HL, Schwarzla ¨nder M, Gassmann A, Bourchier RS (2014) present scientific capacity to progress the biological control Successes we may not have had: a retrospective analysis of of weeds. In: Impson FAC, Kleinjan CA, Hoffmann JH th selected weed biological control agents in the United (eds) Proceedings of the 13 international symposium on States. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 7(4):565–579 biological control of weeds, p 183–186 Hoffmann JH (1995) Biological control of weeds: the way Pejchar L, Mooney HA (2009) Invasive species, ecosystem forward, a South African perspective. In: BCPC sympo- services and human well-being. Trends Ecol Evol sium proceedings no. 64: weeds in a changing world, 24(9):497–504 p 77–89 Pimentel D, Zunniga R, Monison D (2005) Update on the Julien MH (1982) Biological control of weeds—a world cata- environmental and economic costs associated with alien- st logue of agents and their target weeds, 1 edn. CABI invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ International, Wallingford 52(3):273–288 Julien MH (1987) Biological control of weeds—a world cata- Pys ˇek P, Jarosik V, Hulme PE, Pergl J, Hejda M, Schaffner U, nd logue of agents and their target weeds, 2 edn. CABI Montserrat V (2012) A global assessment of invasive plant International, Wallingford impacts on resident species, communities and ecosystems: Julien MH (1989) Biological control of weeds worldwide: the interaction of impact measures, invading species’ traits trends, rates of success and the future. Biocontrol News Inf and environment. Glob Change Biol 18(5):1725–1737 10(4):299–306 Rejma ´nek M (2015) Ecology: global trends in plant natural- Julien MH (1992) Biological control of weeds—a world cata- ization. Nature 525:39–40 rd logue of agents and their target weeds, 3 edn. Oxford Richardson DM, Allsopp N, D’Antonio CM, Milton SJ, University Press, Oxford Rejma ´nek M (2000) Plant invasions—the role of mutu- Julien MH, Griffiths MW (1998) Biological control of weeds: a alisms. Biol Rev 75(1):65–93 world catalogue of agents and their target weeds. CABI Room PM, Harley KLS, Forno IW, Sands DPA (1981) Suc- International, Wallingford cessful biological control of the floating weed Salvinia. Julien MH, Kerr JD, Chan RR (1984) Biological control of Nature 294:78–80 weeds: an evaluation. Prot Ecol 7(1):3–25 Rose KE, Louda SM, Rees M (2005) Demographics and evo- Kelton JA, Price AJ (2009) Weed science and management, in lutionary impacts of native insect herbivores on Cirsium soil sciences, land cover, and land use. In: Verheye WH canescens. Ecology 86(2):453–465 (ed) Soils, plant growth and crop production, in encyclo- Shackleton CM, McGarry D, Fourie S, Gambiza J, Shackleton pedia of life support systems (EOLSS), developed under SE, Fabricius C (2007) Assessing the effects of invasive the auspices of the UNESCO. EOLSS Publishers, Oxford, alien species on rural livelihoods: case examples and a pp 76–101 framework from South Africa. Hum Ecol 35:113–127 Klein H (2011) A catalogue of insects, mites and pathogens? Sheley RL, James JJ, Rinella MJ, Blumenthal DM, DiTomaso That have been used or rejected, or are under consideration, JM (2011) Invasive plant management on anticipated for the biological control of invasive alien plants in South conservation benefits: a scientific assessment. In: Briske Africa. Afr Entomol 19(2):515–549 DD (ed) Conservation benefits of rangeland practices: Louda SM, Rand RT, Arnett AE, McClay AS, Shea K, assessment, recommendations, and knowledge gaps. Uni- McEachern AK (2005) Evaluation of ecological risk to ted States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources populations of a threatened plant from an invasive bio- Conservation Service, Washington, DC, pp 291–336 control insect. Ecol Appl 15(1):234–249 Stiling P, Moon D, Gordon D (2004) Endangered cactus Martin GD, Hill MP, Coetzee JA, Weaver KM, Hill JM (2018) restoration: mitigating the non-target effects of a biological Synergies between research organisations and the wider 123 Biological control of weeds: an analysis… 331 control agent (Cactoblastis cactorum) in Florida. Restor Council conference, Airway Heights, Washington, USA, Ecol 12:605–610 10–13 February 2014. FHTET-2016-03. USDA Forest Suckling DM (2013) Benefits from biological control of weeds Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, in New Zealand range from negligible to massive: a ret- Morgantown, p 3–12 rospective analysis. Biol Control 66:27–32 Williams M, Fitter A (1996) The varying success of invaders. van Driesche RG, Carruthers RI, Center T, Hoddle MS, Hough- Ecology 77:1661–1666 Goldstein J, Morin L, Smith L, Wagner DL, Blossey B, Williamson M (1996) Biological invasions. Chapman and Hall, Brancatini V, Casagrande R, Causton CE, Coetzee JA, London Cuda J, Ding J, Fowler SV, Frank JH, Fuester R, Goolsby J, Winston RL, Schwarzla ¨nder M, Hinz HL, Day MD, Cock MJW, Grodowitz M, Heard TA, Hill MP, Hoffmann JH, Huber J, Julien MH (2014) Biological control of weeds: a world th Julien M, Kairo MTK, Kenis M, Mason P, Medal J, catalogue of agents and their target weeds, 5 edn. Messing R, Miller R, Moore A, Neuenschwander P, FHTET-2014-04. USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Newman R, Norambuena H, Palmer WA, Pemberton R, Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown Panduro AP, Pratt PD, Rayamajhi M, Salom S, Sands D, Schooler S, Schwarzla ¨nder M, Sheppard A, Shaw R, Tip- M. Schwarzla¨nder is professor of entomology at the Univer- ping PW, van Klinken RD (2010) Classical biological sity of Idaho and investigates biocontrol in the context of control for the protection of natural ecosystems. Biol managing weeds of Eurasian origin in North America. He was Control 54:S2–S33 the chair of the symposium at the XXV International Congress van Kleunen M, Dawson W, Essl F, Pergl J, Winter M, Weber E, of Entomology (Orlando, USA) at which the papers in this Kreft H, Weigelt P, Kartesz J, Nishino M, Antonova LA, Special Issue were presented. Barcelona JF, Cabezas FJ, Cardenas D, Cardenas Toro J, Castano N, Chacon E, Chatelain C, Ebel AL, Figueiredo E, Fuentes N, Groom QJ, Henderson L, Singh I, Kupriyanov Hariet L. Hinz is the director of CABI in Switzerland as well A, Masciadri S, Meerman J, Morozova O, Moser D, as the leader of the Weed Biological Control Programme. She Nickrent DL, Patzelt A, Pelser PB, Baptiste MP, Poopath has 25 years of experience in classical biological weed control, M, Schulze M, Seebens H, Shu WS, Thomas J, Velayos M, including studies on the rearing, biology, host specificity and Wieringa JJ, Pysek P (2015) Global exchange and accu- impact of herbivorous insects. mulation of non-native plants. Nature 525:100–103 van Wilgen BW, De Wit MP, Anderson HJ, Le Maitre DC, R. L. Winston is an environmental consultant for MIA Kotze IM, Ndala S, Brown B, Rapholo MB (2004) Costs Consulting, specializing in weed biocontrol application, mon- and benefits of biological control of invasive alien plants: itoring and public outreach. She maintains the database case studies from South Africa: Working for Water. S Afr J ‘‘Biological control of weeds: a world catalogue of agents Sci 100:113–122 and their target weeds.’’ Vila M, Espinar JL, Hejda M, Hulme PE, Jaros ˇik V, Maron JL, Pergl J, Schaffner U, Sun Y, Pys ˇek P (2011) Ecological M. D. Day is a principal entomologist with the Queensland impacts of invasive alien plants: a meta-analysis of their Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. He has had 38 years effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol Lett experience in weed biological control and is currently inves- 14:702–708 tigating biocontrol of weeds of tropical American and African Warner KD (2016) Reframing the social values questions that origin, such as cacti, chromolaena, grasses, lantana, mikania underlie invasive plant conflicts: issues to consider for and mother of millions. Russian olive. In: Schwarzla ¨nder M, Gaskin JF (eds) Pro- rd ceedings of the 3 Northern Rockies Invasive Plants http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png BioControl Springer Journals

Biological control of weeds: an analysis of introductions, rates of establishment and estimates of success, worldwide

Free
13 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/biological-control-of-weeds-an-analysis-of-introductions-rates-of-VTnpRafGTt
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by The Author(s)
Subject
Life Sciences; Entomology; Plant Pathology; Agriculture; Animal Ecology; Animal Biochemistry; Behavioral Sciences
ISSN
1386-6141
eISSN
1573-8248
D.O.I.
10.1007/s10526-018-9890-8
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

BioControl (2018) 63:319–331 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-018-9890-8 REVIEW Biological control of weeds: an analysis of introductions, rates of establishment and estimates of success, worldwide . . . M. Schwarzlander Hariet L. Hinz R. L. Winston M. D. Day Received: 4 December 2017 / Accepted: 7 May 2018 / Published online: 31 May 2018 The Author(s) 2018 Abstract The foremost document that comprehen- 313 species, for which impact could be categorized, sively reports on biological control introductions 172 (55.0%) caused medium, variable or heavy levels against weeds—‘Biological control of weeds: a world of damage (impacts). Of all releases made through catalogue of agents and their target weeds’—has been 2012, 982 (63.2%) led to establishment. Forty-two updated and now includes all deliberate releases made releases were judged too early post-release to catego- through 2012. It includes data on 1555 intentional rize impact, leaving 940 releases for which impact releases of 468 biological control agent species used analyses were conducted. Similar to agent species, against 175 species of target weeds in 48 plant approximately half of the established releases (503 or families, in 90 countries. For 55 (31.4%) of the target 53.5%) caused medium, variable or heavy levels of weed species, only one biocontrol agent was intro- damage on the target weeds, and almost a quarter of duced. The largest number of agent species (44) was releases (225 or 23.9%) caused heavy impact. Across introduced for the biological control of Lantana all countries and regions, 65.7% of the weeds targeted camara (Verbenaceae). Three insect orders (Coleop- for biological control experienced some level of tera, Lepidoptera and Diptera) comprised about 80% control. These data indicate the value of this practice, of all biocontrol agent species released and releases on its own, or as a supplement to other methods, in the made. Of the 468 biocontrol agent species introduced, management of invasive plants. 332 (70.9%) established in at least one instance. Of the Keywords Weed biological control  Establishment rates  Impact  Success rates Handling Editors: Cliff Moran and S. Raghu M. Schwarzla ¨nder (&) University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA e-mail: markschw@uidaho.edu Introduction H. L. Hinz Naturalized species are non-native species that form CABI, Dele ´mont, Switzerland self-sustaining populations following their introduc- R. L. Winston tion into an area outside their native distribution range MIA Consulting, Shelley, Idaho, USA (Richardson et al. 2000). More than 13,000 plant species, a little less than 4% of the world’s known M. D. Day vascular flora, have become naturalized in at least one Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, region (Rejma ´nek 2015; van Kleunen et al. 2015). Mackay, Australia 123 320 M. Schwarzla ¨nder et al. Only a small proportion of naturalized plant species, Clewley et al. 2012; Culliney 2005; de Lange and van estimated at 1%, become detrimental in their intro- Wilgen 2010; Goeden 1988; Room et al. 1981; duced ranges (Williamson 1996; Williams and Fitter Suckling 2013; van Driesche et al. 2010). 1996). The invasive plants which do (namely, weeds) The first global record of CBC releases for weeds can cause significant economic damage to agriculture, was produced in the early 1980s (Julien 1982). The forestry and infrastructure (Beck et al. 2008; Pimentel publication titled ‘Biological control of weeds: a et al. 2005;Pysek et al. 2012) or threaten native world catalogue of agents and their target weeds’ biodiversity and ecosystem services (Pejchar and (henceforth ‘the catalog’) included data on the Mooney 2009;Pys ˇek et al. 2012; Vila et al. 2011), biological control agent species introduced for each all of which can ultimately impair human livelihoods targeted weed, the dates and countries of introduction (Shackleton et al. 2007). Chemical, mechanical and and measures of control efficacy. The catalog was physical control methods have been the mainstay for subsequently updated and expanded approximately the management of weeds, especially in agricultural every five years until 1998 (Julien 1987, 1992; Julien settings (Kelton and Price 2009). However, conven- and Griffiths 1998). Because the catalog data were tional control methods are not economically viable for provided by weed biocontrol researchers themselves, a prolonged time or for the management of weeds in it is considered more accurate and complete than other remote areas or on vast tracts of publically owned compilations and has become the trusted source of lands with low agricultural value (Culliney 2005; information and the principal citation for release Sheley et al. 2011). Continuing globalization and records worldwide (McFadyen 1998). Every newly- intensified international trade will result in increased published edition of the catalog has also been used to naturalization of plant species outside their native evaluate trends of control successes or failures range (van Kleunen et al. 2015) and thus exacerbate (Crawley 1989; Cullen 1995; Heimpel and Mills the problem and the need for alternative management 2017; Julien 1989; Julien et al. 1984). Assessments of solutions to control weeds. the extent of control achieved, based on the catalog, Classical biological control (CBC) is an alternative are, however, limited due to the lack of a clear method for the management of non-native weeds definition of success and the fact that data are whereby host-specific, co-evolved natural enemies subjective and variable, depending on the sources (biological control agents) from the weed’s native (McFadyen 1998). range are reunited with the invasive plant in the In 2014, following a 16-year hiatus, a new (fifth) introduced range. The aim of CBC is for introduced edition of the catalog was published (Winston et al. biological control agents to establish in their new 2014). Following the convention in previous versions, environment and increase in abundance to levels that the fifth edition comprises three major tables: (1) inflict sufficient damage to target weeds to reduce their intentional CBC introductions for weeds, (2) the use of competitiveness, reproductive output and population natural enemies, native to the area of introduction, to growth. Particularly in ecologically sensitive environ- control weeds, and (3) biocontrol agents that now ments, CBC can be a sustainable, self-perpetuating, occur in countries or regions in which they were not and effective control method for non-native weeds deliberately introduced. An additional table from (McFadyen 1998). The first documented case of CBC previous editions of the catalog, based on exotic of a weed species dates back 182 years, when the vertebrates introduced to control weeds, was not cochineal insect Dactylopius ceylonicus (Green), included but has been replaced by a new table sum- originally and mistakenly brought from Brazil to marizing the use of bioherbicides (Winston et al. 2014, India in 1795 for dye production, was intentionally Table 4). The fifth edition of the catalog has greatly moved from northern to southern India in 1836 and expanded the dataset: the number of targeted weed from India to Sri Lanka in 1865 to control Opuntia species has increased by 41% from 133 in the fourth monacantha (Willd.) Haw. (Cactaceae) (Goeden edition to 187 in the fifth, and the number of biocontrol 1988). Since 1902, when Lantana camara L. sens. agent species deliberately released has increased by lat. (Verbenaceae) was targeted for CBC in Hawaii, 34% from 357 to 479. Due to the inclusion of more the discipline has yielded some impressive outcomes detailed data, the reference section increased from in a variety of environments (Bangsund et al. 1999; 123 Biological control of weeds: an analysis… 321 1084 records in the fourth edition to 2080 references The catalog is structured by release rather than listed in the fifth edition. agent species. This is because numerous biocontrol In this paper, we provide a descriptive and numer- agent species were released in different countries/ ical analysis of CBC data derived exclusively from the regions, at various times and against different target fifth edition of the catalog (Winston et al. 2014). In weeds. Separate releases of the same biocontrol agent conformity with the accounts derived from previous species, in different regions or countries, frequently editions (Crawley 1989; Julien et al. 1984; Julien resulted in different establishment success and were 1989), we too record the number of agent species also often associated with various degrees of damage released and releases made, their establishment rates, (impact) on their target host. Consequently, we present and their success rates over time, by agent taxon and establishment and impact data for agent species and by country or region of release. releases separately. Establishment and levels of target host damage Materials and methods (impacts) by the agents Source data Data on the establishment, or otherwise, of a release were taken from Table 1 in Winston et al. (2014). Although it may sometimes take many years before a We used the information from the fifth edition of ‘‘Biological control of weeds: a world catalogue of biocontrol agent establishes, and decades before agent agents and their target weeds’’ (Winston et al. 2014)as population densities reach sufficient levels to result in the data source for this account. We identified all cases weed control, i.e., a reduction in the density and/or where a weed biocontrol agent was intentionally distribution of the target plants (McFadyen 1998), we released through to the end of 2012. Releases were strictly followed the ‘impact’ categories used in treated as separate cases when any one of the Table 1 in Winston et al. (2014) for this analysis. following conditions was met: (1) a release of the Each biocontrol release made until the end of 2012 same agent occurred in different countries, (2) a that resulted in establishment was assigned one of release of the same agent was made in the same eight impact categories: ‘none’, ‘slight’, ‘medium’, country but from a different source location, (3) a ‘heavy’, ‘variable’, ‘too early post-release’, ‘un- release of the same agent was made in the same known’, or ‘compromised’. Releases made between country from the same source location, but for a 2007 and 2012 were typically assigned as ‘too early different target weed, or (4) a release of the same agent post-release’ and are not included in the analysis of was made in the same country, but more than impacts. We were primarily interested in releases that five years apart (Winston et al. 2014). Therefore, the caused the greatest amount of damage to the target number of identified biocontrol agent releases is far weeds, thus we only report cases in the three highest greater (n = 1555) than the number of biocontrol impact categories, namely ‘variable’, ‘medium’, and agent species that were released (n = 468). ‘heavy’. Impact categorizations were initially based Previous editions of the catalog have been consid- on subjective assessments by the data contributors. ered inconsistent and subjective because of their These were subsequently reviewed by the catalog reliance on information provided by individual bio- editors and amended where necessary for consistency. Final categorizations were supported by a brief control practitioners working on different biocontrol systems, and variable because data sources ranged description of the impact status for each release. from refereed publications to unpublished observa- In general, impact categories were defined using tions (Heimpel and Mills 2017; McFadyen 1998). classifications similar to those used in previous Thus, for the fifth edition of the catalog, the editors assessments of weed biocontrol program success, addressed these issues by deconstructing all previous which are based on the need for additional/other data and repopulating several new categorical fields control methods to supplement the degree of biocon- with many more data sources. As a consequence, data trol achieved (Hoffmann 1995; McFadyen 1998). If a in the fifth edition of the catalog have been standard- biocontrol agent release resulted in heavy impact in ized (Winston et al. 2014). some countries/regions or at some sites and low or 123 322 M. Schwarzla ¨nder et al. medium impact in other countries/regions or at other regions, we defined 11 main geographic divisions. We sites, we defined this as ‘variable impact’. We defined identified the five countries, continents or regions ‘medium impact’ as a biocontrol release that resulted historically and currently most active in weed biolog- in a reduced frequency or need for other control ical control: Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand (NZ), methods. When the need for other control methods North America (NA, including Canada, the USA, was stated as greatly reduced or no longer necessary, Mexico and Central America north of the Isthmus of the release was defined as having ‘heavy impact’. To Panama) and South Africa. The remaining six geo- address impacts at the level of individual biocontrol graphic divisions included Asia, the remainder of agent species, multiple releases were combined Africa (including Ascension Island, Madagascar, (where applicable) and summarized. A biocontrol Mauritius and St. Helena), Oceania (including agent species was considered to have had variable, Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia), the Caribbean medium or heavy impact if this was true for at least Islands, South America and Eurasia (including the one of its releases in any given country or region. former Soviet Union in its post-1980 boundaries, e.g., In addition to agent impact, the catalog includes: (1) including Kazakhstan). agent-species abundance in seven categories, ‘rare’, ‘limited’, ‘moderate’, ‘high’, ‘variable’, ‘too early Biocontrol release history post-release’, and ‘unknown’, and (2) the extent of Biological control releases were tabulated in ten-year impact (to place agent impacts in a geographical context) in four categories, ‘localized’, ‘regional’, intervals with two exceptions: (1) all releases made ‘widespread throughout range’, and ‘unknown’ (Win- until 1900, regardless of when they occurred during ston et al. 2014). Categorizations were subjective the nineteenth century, were combined as one interval, decisions first made by the data providers and and (2) the most recent time interval only included subsequently edited for consistency by the catalog three years (2010–2012). editors. Estimates of weed biocontrol program successes Results The majority of studies assessing the outcomes of Introductions and releases of weed biocontrol CBC of weeds use a terminology that differentiates agents between ‘negligible’, ‘substantial’ and ‘complete’ control of the target host (Hoffmann 1995; McFadyen Since the inception of CBC of weeds until 2012, a total 1998; Klein 2011). Because these are subjective of 468 agent species were intentionally released criteria that can be influenced by a broad range of worldwide in 1555 releases for the control of 175 factors (Heimpel and Mills 2017), the biological weed species in 48 plant families (Tables 1, 2). control outcomes for individual target weed species Lantana camara was the most highly targeted weed, were assessed as follows: a target weed was consid- with 44 biocontrol agents released against it. In ered ‘controlled’ if any release against that target host contrast, for 55 target weed species (31.4%), only a in a particular country/region led to variable, medium single biocontrol agent was introduced. Of the 468 or heavy impact. This approach obviously inflated the agent species intentionally released, 76 (16.2%) spread naturally or accidentally to other countries number of weeds targeted because the same weed species may be controlled in one but not in another (Table 3 in Winston et al. 2014). The five countries/ country or region. The numbers related to degrees of regions most active in biocontrol research and releases control were summarized for each geographical include, in decreasing order, Australia, NA, South region. Africa, Hawaii and NZ. These countries/regions accounted for 77.6% of all released agent species, or Countries and geographic regions 65.1% of all releases. For these countries/regions, there was a peak of agents released in the 1990s, To relate agent species introductions, establishment followed by a continuous decline (Fig. 1a). For all rates, impacts and control estimates to countries/ other countries/regions, agent numbers peaked 123 Biological control of weeds: an analysis… 323 Table 1 Number of agent species, releases, their establishment and impact among taxonomic groups of invertebrates and fungal pathogens released for classical biological control of weeds Groups No. agent No. Establishment Impact by agent Impact by release (no. species releases species (no. and % of and % of releases, d e released (%) species, n = 313 ) n = 940 ) (%) (No. and % of (No. and % of At best Medium, Heavy Medium, a b species , releases , heavy variable, variable, n = 468 total n = 1555 total or heavy or heavy species) releases) Insects (Insecta) Beetles 193 (41.3) 696 (44.8) 136 (70.5) 463 (66.5) 45 (35.4) 78 (61.4) 125 (27.7) 266 (59.0) (Coleoptera) Caterpillars 125 (26.7) 371 (23.9) 82 (65.6) 192 (51.8) 14 (17.5) 36 (45.0) 30 (16.1) 81 (43.5) (Lepidoptera) Flies (Diptera) 56 (12.0) 172 (11.1) 39 (69.6) 106 (61.6) 5 (13.2) 17 (44.7) 8 (7.8) 31 (30.1) Bugs and scales 35 (7.5) 185 (11.9) 28 (80.0) 129 (69.7) 11 (42.3) 17 (65.4) 49 (40.8) 87 (72.5) (Hemiptera) Sawflies, galling 10 (2.1) 18 (1.2) 8 (80.0) 13 (72.2) 3 (42.9) 4 (57.1) 5 (45.5) 6 (54.5) and seed- feeding wasps (Hymenoptera) Thrips 4 (0.9) 15 (0.97) 3 (75.0) 11 (73.3) 1 (33.3) 1 (33.3) 1 (9.1) 4 (36.4) (Thysanoptera) Grasshoppers 2 (0.4) 13 (0.84) 1 (50.0) 4 (30.8) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0) 0 (0) (Orthoptera) True bugs 1 (0.2) 1 (0.06) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0) 0 (0) (Heteroptera) Mites (Acarina) 10 (2.1) 28 (1.8) 9 (90.0) 22 (78.6) 0 (0.0) 4 (66.7) 0 (0) 6 (33.3) Nematodes 2 (0.4) 5 (0.32) 1 (50.0) 2 (40.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0) 0 (0) (Nematoda) Fungal pathogens 30 (6.4) 51 (3.3) 25 (83.3) 40 (78.4) 5 (20.8) 15 (62.5) 7 (18.9) 22 (59.5) Total 468 (100) 1555 (100) 332 (70.9) 982 (63.2) 84 (26.8) 172 (55.0) 225 (23.9) 503 (53.5) Data summarized from Winston et al. (2014) Percentages calculated as the total number of biological control agent species (in a particular taxonomic group) that successfully established, divided by the total number of agent species released in that group Percentages calculated as the total number of releases (in a particular taxonomic group) that successfully established, divided by the total number of releases made in that group For definitions of variable, medium and heavy impact, see ‘‘Materials and methods’’ section Only species with at least one instance of confirmed establishment and whose impact is not categorized as ‘too early post-release’ (n = 19) were considered (see text for details) Only releases confirmed as established and whose impact is not categorized as ‘too early post-release’ (n = 42) were considered (see text for details) between the 1970s and 1990s, albeit at a much smaller Establishment of agent species scale, and were dominated by Africa in the 1970s and Asia in the 1990s (Fig. 1b), and subsequently declined Of 468 weed biocontrol agent species intentionally (Fig. 1b). Three insect orders (Coleoptera, Lepi- released, 332 (70.9%) established successfully. Of the total of 1555 intentional releases, 982 (63.2%) estab- doptera and Diptera) comprised 79.9% of all biocon- trol agent species released and 79.70% of all releases lished (Table 1). For biological control releases made prior to 1900, only 37.5% established, but after that made (Table 1). 123 324 M. Schwarzla ¨nder et al. Table 2 Number of agent species released, weeds targeted and controlled among taxonomic groups of invertebrates and fungal pathogens released for classical biological control of weeds Regions No. agent No. target No. agents % Agents No. target Percent target species weeds introduced established weeds weeds introduced per weed controlled controlled (%) Australia 202 56 3.6 67.8 39 69.6 North America 137 59 2.3 79.6 36 61.0 South Africa 103 51 2.0 69.9 38 74.5 Hawaii 87 22 4.0 67.8 13 59.1 Oceania 58 19 3.1 55.2 15 78.9 New Zealand 53 23 2.3 69.8 8 34.8 Asia 42 18 2.3 71.4 12 66.7 Africa 38 15 2.5 78.9 11 73.3 Caribbean 16 13 1.2 25.0 6 46.2 South America 14 10 1.4 64.3 3 30.0 Eurasia 10 5 2.0 40.0 0 0.0 a b c e 468 175 2.6 70.9 115 65.7 Data summarized from Winston et al. (2014) The sum of all introduced biocontrol agents across all regions (column total) equals n = 760 but includes duplicates (same species introduced in different areas) The total value is the number of all unique biocontrol agent species (n = 468) divided by the number of targeted weeds (n = 175) across all regions Percentages calculated as the total number of biological control agent species that established (n = 332), divided by the total number of agent species released (n = 468) A target weed was considered controlled in any given country or region if any release against this target in the same country or region resulted in variable, medium or heavy impact The sum of controlled target weed species across all regions (column total) equals n = 181 but includes duplicates (same target weeds successfully controlled in different countries/regions) establishment rates for releases were higher, ranging (53.5%) resulted in heavy, medium or variable from 53.7 to 76.9% (Fig. 2a). Release establishment impacts on the target weeds. Only 7.0% resulted in rates were consistent between countries/regions, with no impact at all. Of the 225 releases resulting in heavy the exception of the Caribbean and Eurasia, which had impact, 82.7% were associated with high agent notably lower release establishment rates of 35.1 and abundance. In 63.1% of heavy impact releases, the 37.5%, respectively (Fig. 2b). Biocontrol agent spe- impact was considered widespread throughout the cies establishment rates for the Caribbean and Eurasia range of the target weed. The proportion of releases were also lower at 25.0 and 40.0%, respectively with heavy impact was highest for the Caribbean, (Table 2). Of the various biocontrol agent taxa followed by Africa, Oceania, Asia and South Africa released, mites, fungal pathogens, Hymenoptera and (Fig. 3a). The numbers of releases with heavy impact Hemiptera (in that sequence) had the highest estab- were positively correlated with the numbers of estab- lishment rates at both the agent species and release lished releases among countries and regions (linear levels (Table 1). regression, r = 0.746, n =11, P = 0.008, Fig. 3b). Africa had the highest proportion of releases with Estimates of agent impacts and weed control heavy impact as a function of established releases achieved (Fig. 3b). In contrast, North America had the lowest proportion of releases with heavy impact (Fig. 3b). Of the 982 releases that established, 42 were consid- Of the 332 intentionally released agents that did ered to be too early post-release to accurately catego- establish, 19 were considered to be too early post- rize their impact. Of the 940 remaining releases, 503 release to categorize their impact. Of the 313 123 Biological control of weeds: an analysis… 325 Australia North America South Africa 90 Hawaii New Zealand -1900 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Oceania Asia Africa Carribean 12 South America Eurasia -1900 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Fig. 1 Number of new weed biological control agent species regions. The first bar in each graph represents releases made introduced per decade: a for the five most active countries and between 1850 and 1900 and the last bar in each graph represents regions, and b for the less active remaining six countries/ releases made between 2010 and 2012 remaining species, 172 caused heavy, medium or considerably lower than the average for NZ, South variable impact in at least one release, i.e., 55.0% America and the Caribbean, and none of the five (Table 1). Hemiptera, Coleoptera and fungal patho- weeds targeted for CBC in Eurasia has been controlled gens were the biocontrol agent taxa with the highest (Table 2). proportions of agent species that caused heavy impact or a combination of medium, variable and heavy impact (Table 1). Discussion Biological control agents have been intentionally released against 175 weed species, of which 115 weed Measures of weed biocontrol activity over time species (65.7%) were controlled by at least one biocontrol agent species causing at least variable or During the 16 year period between the publication of medium impact (Table 2). Ninety-three or 53.1% of the first and fourth editions of ‘Biological control of the target weeds were within three families, Aster- weeds: a world catalogue of agents and their target aceae, Cactaceae and Fabaceae (Table 3). The remain- weeds’ (Julien 1982; Julien and Griffiths 1998), the ing 82 weed species (46.9%) were distributed across number of weed species targeted for CBC increased by 45 different families. The five countries/regions with 51 (62.2%). In the 16 year period between the higher-than-average control rates were (ranked from publication of the fourth and fifth editions, the number highest to lower) Oceania, South Africa, Africa, increased by 54 weed species (40.6%) (Winston et al. Australia and Asia. In contrast, the proportions of 2014). The number of new releases increased by 625 target weed species with some control were (125.2%) between the first and fourth editions (Julien -1 No. new species released x decade 326 M. Schwarzla ¨nder et al. 100 a 60 b Africa Oceania North America 30 S. Africa Australia Asia Caribbean Hawaii New Zealand 0 50 100 150 200 250 No. releases established Fig. 3 Proportion of biological weed control releases with Fig. 2 Proportion of biological weed control releases estab- heavy impact a by region or country (? SE), and b as a function lished a by decade (± SE), with the overall mean (64.2 ± 3.2% of the number of releases established in a country or region, with SE) indicated by a line, and b by country or region (? SE) the line of best fit indicated (linear regression, r = 0.746, n = 11, P = 0.008) 1982; Julien and Griffiths 1998), but only by 431 new releases (38.3%) between 1998 and 2014, i.e., between Rhinocyllus conicus Fro ¨ lich and Larinus carlinae the fourth and fifth editions (Winston et al. 2014). The Olivier (both Curculionidae) on native Cirsium thistle lower rate of new releases can be explained by the species (Asteraceae) (Havens et al. 2012; Louda et al. decrease in new biocontrol agent species introduced 2005; Rose et al. 2005) as well as by Cactoblastis since the 1990s when 133 new species were released. cactorum (Berg) (Pyralidae) on some native Opuntia Data collection efforts continuing beyond the printing species (Cactaceae), including one threatened and of the fifth edition indicate that globally, 42 new endangered species (Stiling et al. 2004). The ensuing agents were released between 2010 and 2017. Extrap- debate caused drastic tightening of the regulatory olating from this number suggests that there may only approval process, the consequences of which have be 50 or 51 new agent species released in the been discussed in detail, along with suggested steps to 2010–2019 decade, which would be 17.2% less than enhance progress in this field of endeavor (Hinz et al. the 61 species released in the 2000s. 2014; Moran and Hoffmann 2015; Warner 2016). There are a number of factors contributing to the In Australia, the decrease in the rate of introduc- gradual decline in new biocontrol agent introductions. tions has been attributed mostly to funding cuts In the USA, the discipline has earned a negative (Palmer et al. 2014) and less to the debate about the reputation following reports of non-target attack by risks/benefits associated with CBC of weeds. For -1900 1990s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Australia 2000s North America South Africa Hawaii Oceania New Zealand Asia Africa Caribbean South America Eurasia Caribbean Africa Oceania Asia South Africa South America Australia North America Hawaii New Zealand Eurasia Percent releases established Percent releases established Percent releases with heavy impact No. releases with heavy impact Biological control of weeds: an analysis… 327 Table 3 Weeds targeted for classical biological control in respective plant families, successful control outcomes and rates of successful control Plant families No. of species with biological control Rate of successful control attempts Attempted Successful Amaranthaceae 1 1 1 Anacardiaceae 1 0 0 Apocynaceae 1 1 1 Araceae 1 1 1 Asparagaceae 1 1 1 Asteraceae 44 27 0.61 Azollaceae 1 1 1 Basellaceae 1 0 0 Bignoniaceae 2 1 0.50 Boraginaceae 5 4 0.80 Cactaceae 25 25 1 Caryophyllaceae 1 0 0 Chenopodiaceae 2 0 0 Commelinaceae 1 0 0 Convolvulaceae 5 1 0.20 Cucurbitaceae 1 1 1 Cyperaceae 1 0 0 Dioscoreaceae 1 0 0 Ericaceae 1 1 1 Euphorbiaceae 4 2 0.50 Fabaceae 23 16 0.70 Haloragaceae 1 1 1 Hydrocharitaceae 1 1 1 Hypericaceae 2 1 0.50 Lamiaceae 3 2 0.67 Loranthaceae 1 0 0 Lygodiaceae 1 0 0 Lythraceae 1 1 1 Malvaceae 2 2 1 Melastomataceae 3 2 0.67 Myricaceae 1 0 0 Myrtaceae 2 1 0.50 Orobanchaceae 3 0 0 Passifloraceae 1 1 1 Plantaginaceae 2 2 1 Poaceae 1 0 0 Polygonaceae 5 4 0.80 Pontederiaceae 1 1 1 Proteaceae 2 1 0.50 Ranunculaceae 1 0 0 Rosaceae 6 4 0.67 Rubiaceae 1 0 0 Salviniaceae 1 1 1 123 328 M. Schwarzla ¨nder et al. Table 3 continued Plant families No. of species with biological control Rate of successful control attempts Attempted Successful Scrophulariaceae 1 0 0 Solanaceae 4 3 0.75 Tamaricaceae 1 1 1 Verbenaceae 2 1 0.50 Zygophyllaceae 2 2 1 Total 175 115 65.7 Families are listed alphabetically. Data summarized from Winston et al. (2014) Africa as a whole, Asia and Oceania in particular, and Coleoptera, supporting similar findings of an there appears to be a flow-on effect, with reduced earlier analysis (Crawley 1989). capacity from Australia and elsewhere, and less funding in aid contributing to reduced CBC activities Efficacy of weed biocontrol in these regions. In contrast, rates of biological control agent introductions are relatively stable for NZ and Because the catalog is structured by releases, we South Africa, where similar numbers of agent species assessed biocontrol agent efficacy first at the release were introduced in the 1990s and the 2000s/2010s. In level and from there deduced general impact for each these countries, CBC of weeds continues to thrive and of the 468 released biocontrol agent species. For the is enjoying broad public support (Martin et al. 2018; overall success, we calculated the proportion of Hayes et al. 2013; Hill and Coetzee 2017). biological control programs that have achieved some In assessments of earlier versions of the catalog, level of control, without further qualifying that control rates of agent establishment were calculated to be level. This is contrary to how most weed biological 71%, later revised to 63% for releases made until 1980 control program reviews assess success, which fre- (Julien 1989; Julien et al. 1984). The rates of agent quently utilize the definitions proposed by Hoffmann establishment were calculated at 65% (or 63% aver- (1995) and McFadyen (1998) and that distinguish aged out over decades) for releases made until 1985 between ‘negligible’, ‘partial’, ‘substantial’ and ‘com- (Julien 1989). Other analyses of previous versions of plete’ weed control. These categories have been the catalog have stated similar rates of establishment adopted by a number of regional assessments in for releases, ranging from 52 to 61% (Heimpel and Australia (Cullen et al. 2011; McFadyen 2000), New Mills 2017) to 63% (Crawley 1989). While some Zealand (Fowler et al. 2000; Hayes et al. 2013), South analyses record a decrease in recent establishment Africa (Hill and Coetzee 2017; Hoffmann 1995; Klein rates (Crawley 1989), others speculated that rates 2011; Moran et al. 2005), and Hawaii (Gardner et al. should increase because of improved release strategies 1995). The authors of those reviews are all weed and understanding of factors facilitating establishment biocontrol experts in their respective regions, and (McFadyen 1998 and references therein). Our account because they have access to additional information not was based on a much greater number of releases, and included in the catalog, they were able to assign also confirmed agent establishment rates of 63.2%. program success ratings for each weed biocontrol The establishment rate based on the number of agent- system. Interestingly, the values reported here for the species involved was higher (70.9%). This is not percentages of target weeds controlled by countries surprising because agents released several times in and regions (Table 2) largely match those reported for different countries or regions have a higher probability Australia (Cullen et al. 2011), New Zealand (Hayes of establishing in at least some cases. Among the et al. 2013) and South Africa (Klein 2011). The overall major biocontrol agent taxa, we found that release- weed control rate of 65.7% derived from the present establishment failures were higher for species of analysis (see Table 2) is, however, much higher than Lepidoptera than for species in the Hemiptera, Diptera the 39.2% reported in Heimpel and Mills (2017). The 123 Biological control of weeds: an analysis… 329 and meticulousness that led to the publication of the first four latter analysis was based on the fourth edition of the editions of the catalog and Brad Harmon for providing catalog, which may partially explain the discrepancy. information and comments improving an earlier draft of this The proportion of releases with ‘heavy’ impact was manuscript. The contribution of Hariet Hinz was supported by highest for the Caribbean, followed by Africa, Ocea- CABI with core financial support from its member countries (see http://www.cabi.org/about-cabi/who-we-work-with/key- nia and Asia (Fig. 3a). Africa had the highest propor- donors/ for details). This is a publication of the Idaho Agricul- tion of releases with heavy impact as a function of tural Experimental Station. established releases (Fig. 3b). These results for the Caribbean, Africa and Asia can be explained by the Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http:// fact that many of the target weeds in these countries/ creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unre- regions were either cacti in the genus Opuntia,or stricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, water weeds, both are categories of weeds which are provided you give appropriate credit to the original especially amenable to biological control (Crawley author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons license, and indicate if changes were made. 1989; Hill and Coetzee 2017). In addition, many of the agents released for these targets had already proven to be successful in other countries/regions before their release into the Caribbean, Africa and Asia. References Numerous studies have demonstrated the effective- ness of CBC of weeds, both in terms of biocontrol Bangsund DA, Leistritz LF, Leitch JA (1999) Assessing eco- agent impact on the target weed as well as economic nomic impacts of biological control of weeds: the case of returns from the reduction in weed populations leafy spurge in the northern Great Plains of the United States. J Environ Manag 56(1):35–43 (Clewley et al. 2012; De Groote et al. 2003; Page Beck KG, Zimmerman K, Schardt JD, Stone J, Lukens RR, and Lacey 2006; van Wilgen et al. 2004). However, Reichard S, Randall JM, Cangelosi AA, Thompson JP more post-release studies are needed to strengthen the (2008) Invasive species defined in a policy context: rec- support for this control method, including, crucially, ommendations from the Federal Invasive Species Advisory Committee. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 1:414–421 the quantification of biocontrol impact on weed Clewley GD, Eschen R, Shaw RH, Wright DJ (2012) The densities and distributions, subsequent changes in effectiveness of classical biological control of invasive the associated vegetation community, and changes in plants. J Appl Ecol 49(6):1287–1295 economic expenditures and returns related to weed Crawley MJ (1989) The successes and failures of weed bio- management. Additional research should focus on control using insects. Biocontrol News Inf 10(3):213–223 Cullen JM (1995) Predicting effectiveness: fact and fantasy. In: how to improve establishment rates and more accu- th Delfosse ES, Scott RR (eds) Proceedings of the 8 inter- rately predict the agents that may result in heavy national symposium on biological control of weeds, impacts on the target weeds. From our analysis, p 103–109 Coleoptera and Hemiptera appear to be the biological Cullen JM, McFayden REC, Julien MH (2011) One hundred years of biological control of weeds in Australia. In: Del- control agent taxa with the highest likelihood of th fosse ES, Scott RR (eds) Proceedings of the 8 interna- success, in terms of establishment rate and in causing tional symposium on biological control of weeds, heavy impact. Other reviews have found that species p 360–367 Culliney TW (2005) Benefits of classical biological control for of weevils (Curculionidae) and leaf-beetles managing invasive plants. Crit Rev Plant Sci (Chrysomelidae), in particular, were the most effec- 24(2):131–150 tive taxa in terms of biological control of weeds De Groote H, Ajuonu O, Attignon S, Djessou R, Neuen- (Clewley et al. 2012; Crawley 1989; Heimpel and schwander P (2003) Economic impact of biological control of water hyacinth in Southern Benin. Ecol Econ Mills 2017). A quantitative analysis of biological 45:105–117 control agent taxa with regard to their efficacy as weed De Lange WJ, van Wilgen BW (2010) An economic assessment biocontrol agents is currently underway. of the contribution of biological control to the management of invasive alien plants and to the protection of ecosystem Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Richard services in South Africa. Biol Invasions 12(12):4113–4124 Reardon for his past and present support, without which the Fowler SV, Syrett P, Hill R (2000) Success and safety in the revision and production of the fifth edition of ‘Biological control biological control of environmental weeds in New Zealand. of weeds: a world catalogue of agents and their target weeds’ Aust J Ecol 25:553–562 and its follow up products would not have been possible. Gardner DE, Smith CW, Markin GP (1995) Biological control Additionally, we would like to thank Mic Julien for his foresight of alien plants in natural areas of Hawaii. In: Delfosse ES, 123 330 M. Schwarzla ¨nder et al. th Scott RR (eds) Proceedings of the 8 international sym- community in enhancing weed biological control in South posium on biological control of weeds, p 35–40 Africa. BioControl, (in press). https://doi.org/10.1007/ Goeden RD (1988) A capsule of biological control of weeds. s10526-017-9846-4 Biocontrol News Inf 9(2):55–61 McFadyen REC (1998) Biological control of weeds. Annu Rev Havens K, Jolls CL, Marik JE, Vitt P, McEachern AK, Kind D Entomol 43:369–393 (2012) Effects of a non-native biocontrol weevil, Larinus McFadyen REC (2000) Successes in biological control of th planus, and other emerging threats on populations of the weeds. In: Spencer NR (ed) Proceedings of the 10 inter- federally threatened Pitcher’s thistle, Cirsium pitcher. Biol national symposium on biological control of weeds, p 3–14 Conserv 155:202–211 Moran VC, Hoffmann JH (2015) The fourteen international Hayes L, Fowler SV, Paynter Q, Groenteman R, Peterson P, symposia on biological control of weeds, 1969–2014: Dodd S, Bellgard S (2013) Biocontrol of weeds: achieve- delegates, demographics and inferences from the debate on ments to date and future outlook. In: Dymond JR (ed) non-target effects. Biol Control 87:23–31 Ecosystem services in New Zealand—conditions and Moran VC, Hoffman JH, Zimmermann HG (2005) Biological trends. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, pp 375–385 control of invasive alien plants in South Africa: necessity, Heimpel GE, Mills NJ (2017) Biological control: ecology and circumspection, and success. Front Ecol Environ applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 3(2):71–77 Hill MP, Coetzee J (2017) The biological control of aquatic Page AR, Lacey KL (2006) Economic impact assessment of weeds in South Africa: current status and future challenges. Australian weed biological control. CRC for Australian Bothalia 47(2):a2152. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2. Weed Management Technical Series No. 10 2152 Palmer WA, McLaren D, Sheppard AW (2014) Australia’s Hinz HL, Schwarzla ¨nder M, Gassmann A, Bourchier RS (2014) present scientific capacity to progress the biological control Successes we may not have had: a retrospective analysis of of weeds. In: Impson FAC, Kleinjan CA, Hoffmann JH th selected weed biological control agents in the United (eds) Proceedings of the 13 international symposium on States. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 7(4):565–579 biological control of weeds, p 183–186 Hoffmann JH (1995) Biological control of weeds: the way Pejchar L, Mooney HA (2009) Invasive species, ecosystem forward, a South African perspective. In: BCPC sympo- services and human well-being. Trends Ecol Evol sium proceedings no. 64: weeds in a changing world, 24(9):497–504 p 77–89 Pimentel D, Zunniga R, Monison D (2005) Update on the Julien MH (1982) Biological control of weeds—a world cata- environmental and economic costs associated with alien- st logue of agents and their target weeds, 1 edn. CABI invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ International, Wallingford 52(3):273–288 Julien MH (1987) Biological control of weeds—a world cata- Pys ˇek P, Jarosik V, Hulme PE, Pergl J, Hejda M, Schaffner U, nd logue of agents and their target weeds, 2 edn. CABI Montserrat V (2012) A global assessment of invasive plant International, Wallingford impacts on resident species, communities and ecosystems: Julien MH (1989) Biological control of weeds worldwide: the interaction of impact measures, invading species’ traits trends, rates of success and the future. Biocontrol News Inf and environment. Glob Change Biol 18(5):1725–1737 10(4):299–306 Rejma ´nek M (2015) Ecology: global trends in plant natural- Julien MH (1992) Biological control of weeds—a world cata- ization. Nature 525:39–40 rd logue of agents and their target weeds, 3 edn. Oxford Richardson DM, Allsopp N, D’Antonio CM, Milton SJ, University Press, Oxford Rejma ´nek M (2000) Plant invasions—the role of mutu- Julien MH, Griffiths MW (1998) Biological control of weeds: a alisms. Biol Rev 75(1):65–93 world catalogue of agents and their target weeds. CABI Room PM, Harley KLS, Forno IW, Sands DPA (1981) Suc- International, Wallingford cessful biological control of the floating weed Salvinia. Julien MH, Kerr JD, Chan RR (1984) Biological control of Nature 294:78–80 weeds: an evaluation. Prot Ecol 7(1):3–25 Rose KE, Louda SM, Rees M (2005) Demographics and evo- Kelton JA, Price AJ (2009) Weed science and management, in lutionary impacts of native insect herbivores on Cirsium soil sciences, land cover, and land use. In: Verheye WH canescens. Ecology 86(2):453–465 (ed) Soils, plant growth and crop production, in encyclo- Shackleton CM, McGarry D, Fourie S, Gambiza J, Shackleton pedia of life support systems (EOLSS), developed under SE, Fabricius C (2007) Assessing the effects of invasive the auspices of the UNESCO. EOLSS Publishers, Oxford, alien species on rural livelihoods: case examples and a pp 76–101 framework from South Africa. Hum Ecol 35:113–127 Klein H (2011) A catalogue of insects, mites and pathogens? Sheley RL, James JJ, Rinella MJ, Blumenthal DM, DiTomaso That have been used or rejected, or are under consideration, JM (2011) Invasive plant management on anticipated for the biological control of invasive alien plants in South conservation benefits: a scientific assessment. In: Briske Africa. Afr Entomol 19(2):515–549 DD (ed) Conservation benefits of rangeland practices: Louda SM, Rand RT, Arnett AE, McClay AS, Shea K, assessment, recommendations, and knowledge gaps. Uni- McEachern AK (2005) Evaluation of ecological risk to ted States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources populations of a threatened plant from an invasive bio- Conservation Service, Washington, DC, pp 291–336 control insect. Ecol Appl 15(1):234–249 Stiling P, Moon D, Gordon D (2004) Endangered cactus Martin GD, Hill MP, Coetzee JA, Weaver KM, Hill JM (2018) restoration: mitigating the non-target effects of a biological Synergies between research organisations and the wider 123 Biological control of weeds: an analysis… 331 control agent (Cactoblastis cactorum) in Florida. Restor Council conference, Airway Heights, Washington, USA, Ecol 12:605–610 10–13 February 2014. FHTET-2016-03. USDA Forest Suckling DM (2013) Benefits from biological control of weeds Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, in New Zealand range from negligible to massive: a ret- Morgantown, p 3–12 rospective analysis. Biol Control 66:27–32 Williams M, Fitter A (1996) The varying success of invaders. van Driesche RG, Carruthers RI, Center T, Hoddle MS, Hough- Ecology 77:1661–1666 Goldstein J, Morin L, Smith L, Wagner DL, Blossey B, Williamson M (1996) Biological invasions. Chapman and Hall, Brancatini V, Casagrande R, Causton CE, Coetzee JA, London Cuda J, Ding J, Fowler SV, Frank JH, Fuester R, Goolsby J, Winston RL, Schwarzla ¨nder M, Hinz HL, Day MD, Cock MJW, Grodowitz M, Heard TA, Hill MP, Hoffmann JH, Huber J, Julien MH (2014) Biological control of weeds: a world th Julien M, Kairo MTK, Kenis M, Mason P, Medal J, catalogue of agents and their target weeds, 5 edn. Messing R, Miller R, Moore A, Neuenschwander P, FHTET-2014-04. USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Newman R, Norambuena H, Palmer WA, Pemberton R, Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown Panduro AP, Pratt PD, Rayamajhi M, Salom S, Sands D, Schooler S, Schwarzla ¨nder M, Sheppard A, Shaw R, Tip- M. Schwarzla¨nder is professor of entomology at the Univer- ping PW, van Klinken RD (2010) Classical biological sity of Idaho and investigates biocontrol in the context of control for the protection of natural ecosystems. Biol managing weeds of Eurasian origin in North America. He was Control 54:S2–S33 the chair of the symposium at the XXV International Congress van Kleunen M, Dawson W, Essl F, Pergl J, Winter M, Weber E, of Entomology (Orlando, USA) at which the papers in this Kreft H, Weigelt P, Kartesz J, Nishino M, Antonova LA, Special Issue were presented. Barcelona JF, Cabezas FJ, Cardenas D, Cardenas Toro J, Castano N, Chacon E, Chatelain C, Ebel AL, Figueiredo E, Fuentes N, Groom QJ, Henderson L, Singh I, Kupriyanov Hariet L. Hinz is the director of CABI in Switzerland as well A, Masciadri S, Meerman J, Morozova O, Moser D, as the leader of the Weed Biological Control Programme. She Nickrent DL, Patzelt A, Pelser PB, Baptiste MP, Poopath has 25 years of experience in classical biological weed control, M, Schulze M, Seebens H, Shu WS, Thomas J, Velayos M, including studies on the rearing, biology, host specificity and Wieringa JJ, Pysek P (2015) Global exchange and accu- impact of herbivorous insects. mulation of non-native plants. Nature 525:100–103 van Wilgen BW, De Wit MP, Anderson HJ, Le Maitre DC, R. L. Winston is an environmental consultant for MIA Kotze IM, Ndala S, Brown B, Rapholo MB (2004) Costs Consulting, specializing in weed biocontrol application, mon- and benefits of biological control of invasive alien plants: itoring and public outreach. She maintains the database case studies from South Africa: Working for Water. S Afr J ‘‘Biological control of weeds: a world catalogue of agents Sci 100:113–122 and their target weeds.’’ Vila M, Espinar JL, Hejda M, Hulme PE, Jaros ˇik V, Maron JL, Pergl J, Schaffner U, Sun Y, Pys ˇek P (2011) Ecological M. D. Day is a principal entomologist with the Queensland impacts of invasive alien plants: a meta-analysis of their Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. He has had 38 years effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol Lett experience in weed biological control and is currently inves- 14:702–708 tigating biocontrol of weeds of tropical American and African Warner KD (2016) Reframing the social values questions that origin, such as cacti, chromolaena, grasses, lantana, mikania underlie invasive plant conflicts: issues to consider for and mother of millions. Russian olive. In: Schwarzla ¨nder M, Gaskin JF (eds) Pro- rd ceedings of the 3 Northern Rockies Invasive Plants

Journal

BioControlSpringer Journals

Published: May 31, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off