Field assessment of host plant specificity and potential effectiveness of a prospective biological control agent, Aceria salsolae, of Russian thistle, Salsola tragus

Smith, Lincoln; Cristofaro, Massimo; Lillo, Enrico de; Monfreda, Rosita; Paolini, Alessandra

doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2008.11.007

Cited by 23 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(39 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, controlled experiments need to be done to test the importance of these factors. The results of field experiments with A. hyperici, A. malherbae and Aceria salsolae de Lillo and Sobhian (Willis et al 2003;Skoracka et al (2009) in this issue; Smith et al 2009; R. Hansen unpublished data) support the general pattern that nontarget plants that can be suitable for development under laboratory conditions are much less populated in the field and sustain little or no damage. However, it is still not known which factors explain this difference, and learning this would improve our ability to assess risk to such nontarget species based on experiments conducted under artificial environmental conditions.…”

Section: (Zygophyllaceae; Puncturevine)supporting

confidence: 61%

Effectiveness of eriophyid mites for biological control of weedy plants and challenges for future research

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eriophyid mites have been considered to have a high potential for use as classical biological control agents of weeds. We reviewed known examples of the use of eriophyid mites to control weedy plants to learn how effective they have been. In the past 13 years, since Rosenthal's 1996 review, 13 species have undergone some degree of pre-release evaluation (Aceria genistae, A. lantanae, Aceria sp. [boneseed leaf buckle mite (BLBM)], A. salsolae, A. sobhiani, A. solstitialis, A. tamaricis, A. thalgi, A. thessalonicae, Cecidophyes rouhollahi, Floracarus perrepae, Leipothrix dipsacivagus and L. knautiae), but only four (A. genistae, Aceria sp. [BLBM], C. rouhollahi and F. perrepae) have been authorized for introduction. Prior to this, three species (Aceria chondrillae, A. malherbae and Aculus hyperici) were introduced and have become established. Although these three species impact the fitness of their host plant, it is not clear how much they have contributed to reduction of the population of the target weed. In some cases, natural enemies, resistant plant genotypes, and adverse abiotic conditions have reduced the ability of eriophyid mites to control target weed populations. Some eriophyid mites that are highly coevolved with their host plant may be poor prospects for biological control because of host plant resistance or tolerance of the plant to the mite. Susceptibility of eriophyids to predators and pathogens may also prevent them from achieving population densities necessary to reduce host plant populations. Short generation time, high intrinsic rate of increase and high mobility by aerial dispersal imply that eriophyids should have rapid rates of evolution. This raises concerns that eriophyids may be more likely to lose efficacy over time due to coevolution with the target weed or that they may be more likely to adapt to nontarget host plants compared to insects, which have a longer generation time and slower population growth rate. Critical areas for future research include life history, foraging and dispersal behavior, mechanisms controlling host plant specificity, and evolutionary stability of eriophyid mites. This knowledge is critical for designing and interpreting laboratory and field experiments to measure host plant specificity and potential impact on target and nontarget plants, which must be known before they can be approved for release. One of the more successful examples of an eriophyid mite controlling an invasive alien weed is Phyllocoptes fructiphilus, whose impact is primarily due to transmission of a virus pathogenic to the target, Rosa multiflora. Neither the mite nor the virus originated from the target weed, which suggests that using "novel enemies" may sometimes be an effective strategy for using eriophyid mites.

show abstract

Section: (Zygophyllaceae; Puncturevine)supporting

confidence: 61%

Effectiveness of eriophyid mites for biological control of weedy plants and challenges for future research

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The fact that some plant species could sustain mite populations in the laboratory but not in the field suggests that some environmental conditions affect host plant specificity of this eriophyid mite, enabling mites to persist and multiply on plants under laboratory conditions but not in the field. Some hypothetical causes could be differences in leaf toughness and exposure to UV radiation, precipitation, natural enemies, and wind (which permits dispersal away from plants) (Smith et al 2009;Skoracka et al 2010;Smith et al 2010). Thus, the laboratory experiments predicted a wider range of host plants than was observed in the field experiments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…data;Littlefield et al 2000). Very few field experiments have been conducted to compare results with those of laboratory experiments (e.g., Smith et al 2009). …”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Laboratory and field experimental evaluation of host plant specificity of Aceria solstitialis, a prospective biological control agent of yellow starthistle

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Centaurea solstitialis (yellow starthistle, Asteraceae) is an invasive annual weed in the western USA that is native to the Mediterranean Region and is a target for classical biological control. Aceria solstitialis is an eriophyid mite that has been found exclusively in association with Ce. solstitialis in Italy, Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria. The mite feeds on leaf tissue and damages bolting plants, causing stunting, witch's broom and incomplete flower development. Field experiments and laboratory no-choice and two-way choice experiments were conducted to assess host plant specificity of the mite in Bulgaria. Mites showed the highest degree of host specificity in the field and lowest in the no-choice experiments. In the field, highest densities of mites occurred on Ce. solstitialis and Ce. cyanus (bachelor's button), and either no mites or trace numbers occurred on the other test plants: Ce. diffusa (diffuse knapweed), Carthamus tinctorius (safflower) and Cynara scolymus (artichoke). In no-choice experiments, mites persisted for 60 days on Ce. diffusa, Ce. cyanus, Ce. solstitialis, Ca. tinctorius and Cy. scolymus, whereas in two-way choice experiments mites persisted on 25% of Cy. scolymus plants for 60 days and did not persist on Ca. tinctorius beyond 40 days. The eight other species of plants that were tested in the laboratory were less suitable for the mite. These results suggest that although A. solstitialis can persist on some nontarget plants for as long as 60 days in the laboratory, it appears to be much more specific under natural conditions, and warrants further evaluation as a prospective biological control agent.

show abstract

“…eurekensis) and Eureka Valley dune grass (Swallenia alexandrae) (Smith, personal communication). A mite (Aceria salsolae) specific to the genus Salsola has been discovered that reduces plant size by 80% (Smith et al, 2009) and permission for its release has been requested (Smith, 2005).…”

Section: Deserts and Arid Shrublandsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar problems from Salsola occur in the San Joaquin Valley, California (http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/pm/pm.htm). Biological control of Salsola is in progress (Smith, 2005;Smith et al, 2009; see also Table 2). …”

Section: Air Pollution Reductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems

Carruthers²,

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Field assessment of host plant specificity and potential effectiveness of a prospective biological control agent, Aceria salsolae, of Russian thistle, Salsola tragus

Cited by 23 publications

References 28 publications

Effectiveness of eriophyid mites for biological control of weedy plants and challenges for future research

Effectiveness of eriophyid mites for biological control of weedy plants and challenges for future research

Laboratory and field experimental evaluation of host plant specificity of Aceria solstitialis, a prospective biological control agent of yellow starthistle

Classical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About