16. Backyard ecology/backyard research – most of
the important research in ecology can literally
be done in our back yards. All the relationships
and answers to the big questions are there for
us to find. Exotic locations and expensive
equipment may only confirm what we already
observed and synthesized.
17. Every slide in this presentation was taken within 50
miles of home. Most were taken within 10 miles
with some in our backyard. All the basic concepts
were developed while walking near home. Total
expenses to do this and related research is less than
$3000 over 4 years, including consumables and
equipment. The most expensive pieces of
equipment are the computer and the camera.
18. Medicating the ecology (gerbil science) - My first
fear with biocontrols is that we select target
organisms the way we select any other problem
that appears to need solving. We look only at the
crisis. Then we charge in solving an apparent
problem mechanistically without looking in depth
to understand the crisis or look for creative less
dangerous and minimally disruptive alternatives.
19. Classical biocontrol – the introduction of non-
native organisms in the attempt to reduce the
effects of other introduced non-native organisms
on ecosystems.
There are unforeseen negative effects from the
biocontrols which cannot be predicted in the
local and extra-local ecosystems in which they
are introduced through genetic and/or
behavioral changes in the non-native biocontrol
and native organisms.
20. In other words it is a mechanistic attempt to
use non-native organisms to control already
present non-native organisms.
It does not attempt to bring an ecosystem back
into balance. Instead it causes a new system
and (im)balance to develop that is alien.
21. Specialists – a specialist in ecology is an organism
that is limited to one organism as an energy source
(or any other limiting condition such as type of
nesting habitat or roosting location) which makes it a
specialist to that condition in a specific time and
place. It is usually derived/descended from a
generalist which has moved into a “niche” due to
varying factors such as competition, environmental
change, mate selection or lack of other available food
sources.
22. When the specific limiting factor is removed
from a specialist, it will often expand beyond the
boundaries to which it is confined.
23. Specialist biocontrol – a mythological organism
which with enough time will begin to exploit
other energy sources and environmental
resources in the ecosystem into which it was
introduced. In other words, an introduced
“specialist biocontrol” will expand in an
ecosystem beyond the expected limited
boundaries in an ecosystem to have “unexpected”
and negative effects on an ecosystem.
24. Unexpected effects of a specialist biocontrol – Some of
the nearly infinite effects an introduced biocontrol may
have upon an ecosystem after introduction:
1. begin to eat native relatives of the non-native plant it was
introduced to control.
2. act as a food supplement for other native
organisms, causing their population to explode with unforeseen
consequences. (Ex. – brown marmorated stink bugs and song
birds, emerald ash borers and woodpeckers.)
3. act as a primary food source for native predators causing a
population explosion of the original native primary food source.
4. compete with and outcompete native organisms for
resources such as egg laying sites, hibernation sites, supplemental
food sources, … .
5. carry diseases and/or parasites which may infect and
otherwise affect native organisms.
25. It is important to remember that non-native
biocontrols have high rates of failure and low rates
of success.
There is an average of 2.44 introduced
organisms for every species on which control is
being attempted. I think this number is
underestimated and that the real number is at least
5 introduced organisms for every biocontrol
target, probably higher.
26. Bioeradication – The extinction of a non-native
(invasive) species from an ecosystem using
native organisms. The goal is the regeneration
of the ecosystem by eliminating the non-native
problem from the ecosystem using native
organisms which minimize the potential
problems associated with the addition of non-
native organisms as potential controls.
27. Bioeradicant – Any native organism in any time
frame from seconds to centuries that partially or
fully inhibits a non-native organism and helps to
drive it to extinction.
28. Bioeradication system – A group of native
organisms which through any biological
relationship and time frame partially or fully
inhibits a non-native organism to the point it is
driven to extinction.
29. Bioeradication systems are what I am observing
when I walk. There may be individual organisms
doing the same, but I have not seen them.
30. Hybrid bioeradication system – A group of
native and indigenous non-native organisms
which through any biological relationship and
time frame partially or fully inhibits a non-native
organism to the point it is driven to extinction.
31. Direct bioeradication – The use of a native
organism or native organism system as a
bioeradicant for a specific organism by
increasing its population through introduction of
more of the bioeradicant.
32. Indirect bioeradication – Providing the native
natural resources such as food sources, breeding
sites or shelter needed for a bioeradicant or
bioeradicant system to develop at a specific
location for a specific organism. This may be
nectar sources, sheltering plants, mutualistic
fungi, water source or … for any life stage.
33. The difference between bioeradication and
biocontrol is that bioeradication assumes it is
possible to exterminate a non-native species
from an ecosystem using native species. While
biocontrol is trying to change, modify or
minimize the effects of one non-native organism
by using another non-native organism.
34. Bioremediation – the use of native organisms to
displace and eradicate non-native organisms while
replacing them as they are eliminated from an
ecosystem.
This is an expansion of the traditional definition of
bioremediation; the use of microorganisms or
plants to mitigate chemical or organic pollution.
This expands the term to mean use of native
organisms to restore an ecosystem during the
process of and after the removal of a non-native
organism or non-native organism system.
35. The question most frequently asked with
Bioeradication is why has no one noticed it
before?
The answer is threefold:
1.) no one thought to look
2.) many of the non-natives were
eradicated before anyone even noticed
they were an issue
3.) systems are much harder to identify,
observe and understand than individual
organisms.
36. Population
Non-native biocontrol
Non-native invasive
Native congeners
and conspecifics of
non-native invasive
time
Simplified expected curves for what happens when a non-native biocontrol is
introduced after the establishment of a non-native invasive due to the
biocontrol adapting to new food sources without defenses to that
biocontrol.
37. Population
Native bioeradicant
Non-native invasive
Native congeners of
non-native invader
time
The expected population curves for native bioeradicant use. The baseline populations for
native organisms change as the native bioeradicants adapt to the non-native invasive and eat a
few more of the native while the system comes back into balance as the non-native is
destroyed. There is some recoverable risk to the native ecosystem, but not the unrecoverable
risk of introducing non-native biocontrols.
38. One of the weaknesses we exploit in
bioeradication is that the imported non-
natives are of limited genetic variability due
to the few members of the species and
limited number of cultivars imported.
39. Modern horticultural practices further limit
the amount of genetic heterogeneity by
using primarily clones and seeds of plants
controlled for certain “desirable” traits.
40. Therefore, they have fewer genetic tools
with which to resist native herbivores and
diseases.
41. Which means that a bioeradication system
will often be devastating.
42. To further this argument, the first plant I
investigated, Ailanthus altissima, had a
complete bioeradication system in place.
43. If my first target proved that bioeradication is
happening, imagine how many other invasives
are undergoing the same!
44. Common name: Tree-of-heaven
Scientific name: Ailanthus altissima
Origin: China
Local habitat: It prefers the edge of wooded areas and open fields. However, it will grow in
wooded areas where light reaches the forest floor.
Reproduction: This tree is dioecious with separate male and female trees. A mature female
may produce over 350,000 seeds/year. Germination rate may run as high as 90%
under controlled conditions. When mechanically (physically) injured, this tree will
produce many clones from its roots up to 30 yards away. Seed bank is one year
except under controlled conditions.
Identifying features: It has odd pinnate compound leaves with opposite blade-like leaflets.
Leaflets have one pair to several pairs of notches along the edge of the proximal
end. Each notch has a gland on the distal end of the point. The odor is
unmistakable at certain times when downwind.
Weaknesses: It tends to form monoclonal stands when physically injured and may
interconnect roots between individuals in a stand. This means that herbivores and
disease have fewer genotypes to deal with and disease can move through root
grafts within the stand. It is dioecious with possible sterilization of female trees.
Local Controls: A combination of the native moth Atteva aurea, the eriophyoid mite Aculops
ailanthii, various as of yet unidentified herbivorous insects and several pathogenic
Fusarium and Verticillium fungi. Whitetailed deer browse leaves.
Outlook: Excellent. It is apparently slowly going extinct locally and probably throughout its
eastern North American range from naturally occurring processes..
45. Common name: Tree-of-heaven
Scientific name: Ailanthus altissima
Origin: China
Local habitat: It prefers the edge of wooded areas and open fields. However, it will
grow in wooded areas where light reaches the forest floor.
Reproduction: This tree is dioecious with separate male and female trees. A
mature female may produce over 350,000 seeds/year. Germination rate may run
as high as 90% under controlled conditions. When mechanically (physically)
injured, this tree will produce many clones up to 30 yards away.
Identifying features: It has odd pinnate compound leaves with blade-like leaflets
which are opposite. Leaflets have one pair to several pairs of notches
along the edge of the proximal end. Each notch has a gland on the distal
end of the point. The odor is unmistakable at certain times when downwind.
Weaknesses: tends to form monoclonal stands when physically injured and may
interconnect roots between individuals in a stand. This means that herbivores and
disease have fewer genotypes to deal with and disease can move
through root grafts when spreading through a stand.
Local Controls: A combination of the native moth Atteva aurea, Aculops ailanthii, various as
of yet unidentified herbivorous insects and several pathogenic Fusarium
and Verticillium fungi. Whitetailed deer browse leaves.
Outlook: Apparently slowly going extinct locally and probably throughout its eastern North
American range from naturally occurring processes.
46.
47.
48. Very early in the life of
Ailanthus the main root
makes a right angle turn
that is parallel with the
ground while often putting
down a tap root as seen in
this photo and the
following.
93. Birds – best for long
distances between
landscapes*
Moths – best
for medium
and short
distances
within a
landscape**
Wind – best
within
landscapes
for short
distances
with high
mite and tree
densities
Transport of Aculops ailanthii and disease across
landscapes
Deer – short and medium distances
within a landscape as they browse
on Ailanthus leaves
*I have yet to see a bird’s nest or birds consistently roost on Ailanthus
**A. aurea may be the primary transporter of A. ailanthii in all distances
94. From recent walking it appears that
there is a correlation between the
density and nearness of the nectar
sources adult Atteva aurea feed on
and the amount of disease in a stand
of Ailanthus.
95. Which means that the key to Ailanthus
control is to plant native flowers
nearby with compact inflorescences
that bloom in succession from late
spring to hard freeze as nectar sources
for adult Atteva aurea.
106. Common name: Multiflora rose
Scientific name: Rosa multiflora
Origin: Asia
Local habitat: fields and wooded areas
Reproduction: seeds and stem clones
Identifying features: The only local rose I know of where the thorns curve towards the
center of plant
Weaknesses: Many native and non-native relatives from which disease and herbivores can
evolve to become bioeradicants. Dense stands facilitate the spread of herbivores
and disease. Birds eat the abundant fruit, potentially spreading disease and
herbivores between plants locally and across landscapes. Clonal growth limits
genetic heterogeneity and facilitates the movement of disease through a stand.
Local Controls: Rose rosette disease, an Emaravirus spread by the eriophyoid mite
Phyllocoptes fructiphilus is in a bioeradication system with birds. It probably
developed on a native rose in California or another Pacific Coast state.
Outlook: Excellent. It is severely affected by rose rosette disease and possibly another
disease which yellows the leaves.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114. Probable scenario for the spread of rose rosette
disease across the ecosystems
Birds – carrying mites long
distances, between landscapes
and within landscapes while
feeding and nesting
Pollinators – carrying mites
medium distances, within
landscapes
Wind – carrying mites
short distances, within
stands
115. Common name: Japanese honeysuckle
Scientific name: Lonicera japonica
Origin: Asia
Local habitat: It prefers the edge of wooded areas and open woodlands.
Reproduction: Cloning and bird distributed seeds.
Identifying features: Elliptic shaped leaves opposite on climbing vines. Distinct
flowers with a sweet odor when in bloom. Prefers shaded edges with a
substrate of brush and small trees to climb on.
Weaknesses: Many native and non-native relatives from which disease and herbivores can
evolve from to become bioeradicants. Clonal spread limits genetic heterogeneity
and is a pathway for disease to move through a stand. Birds eat the abundant
fruit, potentially spreading disease and herbivores between plants locally and
across landscapes.
Local Controls: There appears to be beetle herbivory and several diseases which it
shares with the non-native bush honeysuckles.
Outlook: Good. This plant is on the decline from my observations due to disease and
insect herbivory. It should be an easy research target for bioeradication.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121. Common name: Morrows honeysuckle
Scientific name: Lonicera morrowii
Origin: Asia
Local habitat: wooded areas
Reproduction: seeds spread by birds
Identifying features: Bushy shrub with elliptic shaped leaves similar to Japanese
honeysuckle.
Weaknesses: Many native and non-native relatives from which disease and herbivores can
evolve to become bioeradicants. Dense stands facilitate the spread of herbivores
and disease. Birds eat the abundant fruit, potentially spreading disease and
herbivores between plants locally and across landscapes.
Local Controls: Herbivorous insects with mites and disease working together. I am seeing
possibly three separate diseases as I walk.
Outlook: Excellent. It is going extinct throughout its eastern North American range due to
disease and herbivory.
133. Probable scenario for the movement of
pathogens and insect herbivores between
Lonicera morrowii plants.
Wind – short distances
within landscapes Deer – short and medium
distances between thickets
within a landscape
Birds – long distances between
landscapes
Insect pollinators and herbivores –
short and medium distances within
landscapes
134. Common name: Amur honeysuckle
Scientific name: Lonicera maackii
Origin: Asia
Local habitat: wooded areas
Reproduction: seeds spread by birds
Identifying features: Elliptic shaped leaves with a curved narrowing point
Weaknesses: Many native and non-native relatives from which disease and herbivores can
evolve to become bioeradicants. Dense stands facilitate the spread of herbivores
and disease. Birds eat the abundant fruit, potentially spreading disease and
herbivores between plants locally and across landscapes.
Local Controls: Herbivorous insects with mites and disease working together. I am seeing a
variety of separate diseases as I walk.
Outlook: Good. It appears to be going extinct throughout its eastern North American range
due to disease and herbivory.
135.
136.
137.
138. Common name: Oriental bittersweet
Scientific name: Celastrus orbiculatus
Origin: Asia
Local habitat: forests and fields
Reproduction: seeds
Identifying features: Acuminate shaped leaves with serrulate margins towards and on the
ends of new growth becoming orbicular mature leaves with serrated margin,
bright yellow/orange seeds in the fall. Vine is not hairy as is poison ivy or shaggy
like native grape.
Weaknesses: A close native relative from which disease and herbivores can evolve to
become bioeradicants. Dense stands facilitate the spread of herbivores and
disease. Birds eat the abundant fruit, potentially spreading disease and
herbivores between plants locally and across landscapes.
Local Controls: None now. However, a disease was apparently forming at home on the
leaves of several plants.
Outlook: Good. In time since it has a close native relative, I expect a native organism or
more probably organism system to begin to eradicate it. In our backyard, there
appears to be a necrotic disease developing on the leaves.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147. Common name: Wineberry
Scientific name: Rubus phoenicolasius
Origin: Asia
Local habitat: woodlands, along the edges of road roads and trails
Reproduction: seeds and clones from stems
Identifying features: Hairy red or green stems with a combination of soft fuzzy prickles and
hard thorns. Stems turn red in the fall. Fruit forms in pods which break open
about a week before ripening to clusters of bright red drupelets.
Weaknesses: Many native and possibly non-native relatives from which disease and
herbivores can evolve to become bioeradicants. Clonal stands facilitate the spread
of herbivores and disease. Birds eat the abundant fruit, potentially spreading
disease and herbivores between plants locally and across landscapes.
Local Controls: When I walk there appears to be disease and herbivory similar to native
blackberries and the native raspberries for which it was brought in to
hybridize with.
Outlook: Good. I see chlorosis (disease) and other issues which appear to have moved from
closely related native raspberries.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153. Native raspberry showing disease which may
be in the process of being passed to non-native
wineberry.
154. Common name: Garlic mustard
Scientific name: Alliaria petiolata
Origin: Eurasia
Local habitat: the understory along trails and roads
Reproduction: seeds
Identifying features: It is one of the earliest forbs to bloom which has white flowers on
multiple stems up to mid-thigh high. According to Bernd Blossey of Ithaca College,
it needs earthworms to flourish so it will usually not be found where earthworms
have not been introduced.
Weaknesses: A member of a large family of native and non-native plants from which
diseases and herbivores can evolve to become bioeradicants.
Local Controls: Since it is in the mustard family, there are potential native bioeradicants
developing. Humans can help by picking it for flavoring hopelessly boring
English/German style cooking and as a nutrition source.
Outlook: Good. There is an apparent bioeradicant already beginning to make an impact
and many native plants within the family from which bioeradicants can develop.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159. Common name: Japanese stiltgrass
Scientific name: Microstegium vimineum
Origin: Asia
Local habitat: wooded areas with partial sun. It usually starts along the edge of trails
and roads where people accidently carry the hitchhiking seeds and spreads from
there. Intermittent/seasonal streams are often a preferred growing location and a
corridor by which it spreads into the forest.
Reproduction: seeds
Identifying features: Silver vein down middle of leaf, large dense stands which become
noticeable in late summer
Weaknesses: Many native and non-native relatives from which disease can evolve into a
bioeradicant. Tends to grow in well-traveled areas which facilitates the spread of
disease.
Local Controls: Members of the Bipolaris fungi family that may have evolved from native
pathogenic fungi of Zea mays.
Outlook: Good. In the Midwest, it is being eradicated by Bipolaris fungi and other
organisms. (Our gerbils do not like it as food. So, it will probably not be usable as
a harvestable pet food for rabbits, hamsters, gerbils, mice, guinea pigs or rats.)
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166. Part 3: The concepts, terminology,
theoretical framework and
application of bioeradication
169. Common name: Mile-a-minute
Scientific name: Polygonum perfoliatum
Origin: Asia
Local habitat: edges of woods and open areas within woods
Reproduction: seed
Identifying features: Blue green deltoid (triangular) leaves, thin fuchsia/green prickly stems,
shallow roots, clusters of green, purple and blue berries, blankets an area fast.
Weaknesses: Many native relatives from which disease and herbivores can evolve to
become bioeradicants. Self pollinating. Dense stands facilitate the spread of
herbivores and disease. Birds eat the abundant fruit, potentially spreading
disease and herbivores between plants locally and across landscapes. Not
tolerant to cold/frost so dies if there is a late spring frost or an early fall frost.
Limited growing season in cooler areas, reducing size of plants and seed
production.
Local Controls: None, the non-native biocontrol appears to be minimally successful. There
is the possibility that a disease is beginning to infect this plant.
Outlook: This plant is in a large family of related plants. Therefore, I expect it to go
extinct when native organisms catch up with it. I found it infesting a woodland
near the University of Delaware, the place where non-native biocontrols are being
studied and released in attempts to control it. This suggests that the non-native
biocontrol is not as successful as expected.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176. Example of plants with similar physiology in close
proximity to P. perfoliatum.
177. My first concern with this plant is that its propagule
(seed) spread is an important and uncontainable
component of how it moves across the landscape.
Look at where a new patch appears and you will
find that a bird roosted or perched in a nearby tree
after eating the berries someplace else.
Since this plant is in berry from mid-summer
through the fall migration, seed spread can be
hundreds of miles in one or two years.
179. It is obvious that migrating birds are spreading
the seeds along species specific eastern United
States migration corridors.
180. This makes the plant a bad target for biocontrol
as it is impossible to control as the plant spreads
too rapidly and too far to be contained by the
release of “specialist” herbivorous insects at
specific locations without doing a range wide
release at which time there is a strong possibility
that it will be more detrimental to the local
ecologies than the plant itself is.
181. Therefore, unless a bioeradicant system
develops and naturally spreads, this plant will
continue to spread without any hope of
containing or eradicating it.
182. My second concern is it appears that the native
congeners were not checked thoroughly for
potential controls. There are possibly hundreds
of confamiliars and congeners in the plant’s
present and potential range.
183. My third concern is that testing of biocontrols is
necessarily limited to try to control the number of
variables, reduce time to release and reduce costs.
This unfortunately increases the probability that
the biocontrol will attack native plants and/or
otherwise disrupt the ecosystem.
184. This makes for a very high likelihood that the
introduced non-native biocontrol will begin
feeding on native plant relatives given enough
generations to adapt to the local ecologies.
185. My fourth concern is the large number of other
plants in close proximity with similar physical
traits. It is not always only the chemicals in the
food that matter, but the physical attributes
such as leaf shape, vine shape, nutritional
value/density, plant density, leaf area, toughness
of stems, leaves, roots, … that affect whether a
plant is used as food.
186. My concern here is that this biocontrol may
jump from the target to a native with similar
physical properties.
187. Which leads me to fear that due to the
limited understanding of the long term
ecological relationships and the narrow numbers
of organisms tested with the short time frame of
testing, biocontrols will jump from their targeted
plant to others, especially natives related by
genes, physical attributes and proximity.
188. With the huge number of potential native
insects, diseases and systems in contact with
Mile-a-minute and it congeners/confamiliars a
native bioeradicant system will develop and may
already have developed.
189. If we are willing to look for native organisms and
organism systems in this plant’s present range of
spread, there is a high probability of finding a
safe native answer for this plant.
190. Common name: Tree-of-heaven
Scientific name: Ailanthus altissima
Origin: China
Local habitat: It prefers the edge of wooded areas and open fields. However, it will grow in
wooded areas where light reaches the forest floor.
Reproduction: This tree is dioecious with separate male and female trees. A mature female
may produce over 350,000 seeds/year. Germination rate may run as high as 90%
under controlled conditions. When mechanically (physically) injured, this tree will
produce many clones from its roots up to 30 yards away. Seed bank is one year
except under controlled conditions.
Identifying features: It has odd pinnate compound leaves with opposite blade-like leaflets.
Leaflets have one pair to several pairs of notches along the edge of the proximal
end. Each notch has a gland on the distal end of the point. The odor is
unmistakable at certain times when downwind.
Weaknesses: tends to form monoclonal stands when physically injured and may
interconnect roots between individuals in a stand. This means that herbivores and
disease have fewer genotypes to deal with and disease can move through root
grafts within the stand. It is dioecious with possible sterilization of female trees.
Local Controls: A combination of the native moth Atteva aurea, the eriophyoid mite Aculops
ailanthii, various as of yet unidentified herbivorous insects and several pathogenic
Fusarium and Verticillium fungi. Whitetailed deer browse leaves.
Outlook: Excellent. Apparently slowly going extinct locally and probably throughout its
eastern North American range from naturally occurring processes..
224. This planter of seedlings at home 2 summers ago had A. aurea and A.
ailanthii on it. I was setting up an experiment at home a few weeks
ago. I had to quit due to the heavy level of A. ailanthii destroying the
seedlings almost as fast as they sprouted.
241. Atteva aurea moved north and throughout the range of Ailanthus altissima
from native Simaroubaceae as Ailanthus altissima moved south and
throughout the country.
Atteva aurea
Ailanthus altissima
native Simaroubaceae
confamiliars
242. From recent walking it appears that
there is a correlation between the
density and nearness of the nectar
sources adult Atteva aurea feed on
and the amount of disease in a stand
of Ailanthus.
243. The key to finding a native biocontrol
insect (system) for a plant is to find an
organism which is a generalist
herbivore for a family or genus of
plants and a specialist to that family or
genus.
244. This means that the bioeradicant has
the genetic ability to switch from one
plant to another and yet will not cause
the extinction of coevolved food
sources.
245. A. aurea larvae eat other
Simaroubaceae family members, but
only eats members of this family.
246. A. aurea larvae will preferentially eat
the non-coevolved food source
because this food source does not
have the defenses to A. aurea that a
coevolved native Simaroubaceae food
source has.
247. Hence, an easy meal that is a higher
quality food source (higher energy
return for energy expended) than a
native coevolved one since it spends
less energy dealing with chemical and
physical defenses.
248. At the same time it is embedded in a
system of a mite (A. ailanthii) and
several diseases.
250. Unique features of this system:
1. A. altissima is the only food for A. aurea larvae in most of the A.
altissima range
2. A. aurea adults are broadly generalist nectar feeders
3. A. ailanthii is an apparent specialist to A. altissima
4. A. aurea larvae have no other local food sources because the adults
have spread themselves beyond their normal range by following nectar
sources and A. altissima
5. A. aurea and A. ailanthii are the apparent vectors for several A.
altissima diseases
6. A. ailanthii apparently hitchhikes between A. altissima trees on birds
and A. aurea and is spread by wind.
7. A. ailanthii appears to have environmental persistence and cold
tolerance, staying persistently in stands of A. ailanthus if observations at
home are an indicator.
8. A. aurea appears to evolving to colder temperatures as witnessed by
their presence feeding on goldenrod in central Pennsylvania in mid-
November 2012 after frost and freeze.
252. 1. Do not apply pesticides to the
surrounding area –
herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, … .
253. 2. Plant a wide variety of native high
nectar flowers, such as Asteraceae
family members, nearby so there are
high quality food sources from mid-
spring to the first hard freeze for the
adults to feed on.
254. 3. Get out the camera and microscope
to enjoy the beauty of A. aurea and A.
ailanthii.
255. So far I have found adult Atteva aurea
on daisy-like flowers and at least 2
species of goldenrod from August to
mid-November. I am still not sure
what they feed on from early spring
when the Ailanthus leaves are just
beginning to bloom to mid-August but
expect it to be other flowers with
compact inflorescences.
256.
257.
258. There are several obvious differences between
Ailanthus altissima and Polygonum perfoliatum
which changes the number of bioeradicants
available and the timing of the system
developing.
259. 1. The first and most obvious is the spread of
propagules – samaras which stay in a local area
vs. seeds in berries which are transported across
the landscape.
260. 2. A. altissima is resident all year giving ample
time for natives to use it for shelter and adapt to
the plant as a food source vs. P. perfoliatum
which as a tender annual offers a shorter time
for natives to adapt.
261. 3. The number of native confamiliars and
congeners for A. altissima is very small. P.
perfoliatum has a large number of relatives near
it such as Polygonum pensylvanicum
(Pennsylvania smartweed).
262. 4. A. altissima has several native confamiliars in
the Simaroubaceae family which serve as a
reservoir of native bioeradicants. P. perfoliatum
has many native confamiliars such as Polygonum
pensylvanicum, which is found abundantly
locally and may serve as reservoirs for
bioeradicants once a system develops.
263. 5. The native confamiliars of A. altissima are
Neotropical which means that throughout most
its range there are few reservoirs for
bioeradicants. However, the primary
bioeradicant, A. aurea apparently has
wanderlust. It may migrate seasonally hundreds
of miles a year. It is multivoltine with no
apparent diapause from first appearance to
killer freeze.
In contrast, P. perfoliatum has many local
congeners and confamiliars which are possible
local bioeradicant reservoirs.
265. Attempting rodent and insect control in our
garden and yard using native birds and bats -
21 song bird houses,
10 bat houses,
6 song bird nesting platforms,
4 kestrel houses,
2 barn owl houses
1 hawk nesting platform
(and counting).
270. As an ecologist, I regularly work with an almost
infinite set of variables. To even attempt to
reduce this huge set of variables into a few
easily measured and understood is
insanity, while being morally and ethically wrong
because it is not an accurate portrayal of reality
and can lead to disastrous consequences.
272. Propagule spread is an important
component of how problems develop. With
Mile-a-minute, it is obvious that migrating birds
spread the seeds first locally then along the
species specific migration corridors. As more
species develop a taste for the berries, they will
too spread the seeds along their migration
corridors, … .
273. In a similar way, the seeds of the various
honeysuckles and Multiflora rose are spread
primarily by birds, such as mocking birds in the
case of multifora rose. In both of these
examples native or native/non-native hybrid
systems are forming to eradicate the non-native
invasive plants. This is the only way possible to
eradicate these plants.
274. In contrast, the seeds of the various
species of grape hyacinth, (Muscari sp.) and
periwinkle (Vinca sp.) spread through a slow and
localized process which deposits most of the
seeds within a short distance of the parent or
clone sequentially from a parent plant . If a
migratory bird or mammal develops a taste for
the seeds or vegetatively reproductive parts, this
will become a major problem the same as with
the aforementioned species. However, with
infestations such as these, minimal intervention
will be successful.
275. In between these examples are plants such as
Japanese stilt grass and garlic mustard which depend on
animals, including humans, to spread their hitchhiking
seeds.
Unfortunately, humans are very efficient at
spreading hitchhiking seeds long distances.
Therefore, only a native bioeradicant system will be
successful. For both Japanese stilt grass and garlic
mustard systems are apparently developing. Most
probably the systems will be spread the same way as the
plants – inadvertently by humans.
276. Population
Non-native biocontrol
Non-native invasive
Native congeners
and conspecifics of
non-native invasive
time
Simplified expected curves for what happens when a non-native biocontrol is
introduced after the establishment of a non-native invasive due to the
biocontrol adapting to new food sources without defenses to that
biocontrol.
277. Population
Native bioeradicant
Non-native invasive
Native congeners of
non-native invader
time
The expected population curves for native bioeradicant use. The baseline populations for
native organisms change as the native bioeradicants adapt to the non-native invasive and eat a
few more of the native while the system comes back into balance as the non-native is
destroyed. There is some recoverable risk to the native ecosystem, but not the unrecoverable
risk of introducing non-native biocontrols.
278. Population
Non-native
biocontrols
Pioneer non-native invasive
Native congeners of
non-native invasive
time
Secondary non-native invasives
A more complex version of what is expected when a (pioneer) non-native plant is introduced
followed by its non-native biocontrol. The native system collapses allowing secondary non-
natives to enter.
Native organisms
279. Populationor
concentration
Non-native
specialist biocontrol
Non-native invasive
Chemical defenses of
non-native invasive
population
time
This diagram demonstrates what is expected when a non-native specialist biocontrol is
reintroduced to its non-native host as happened in North America with Pastinaca
sativa, the European parsnip, when its European control, Depressaria pastinacella, was
accidently reintroduced. (Zangerl, et al, 2005)
280. Medicating the ecology (gerbil science) - My first
fear with biocontrols is that we select target
organisms the way we select any other problem
that appears to need solving. We look only at the
crisis. Then we charge in solving an apparent
problem mechanistically without looking in depth
to understand the crisis or look for creative
minimally disruptive or less dangerous
alternatives.
281. The same misguided attitudes which we
experience in medicine we experience in
ecology, everything needs fixing immediately.
In other words, we are constantly try to fix
everything without first understanding what we
are trying to fix.
282. Classical biocontrol – the introduction of non-
native organisms in the attempt to reduce the
effects of other introduced non-native organisms
on ecosystems.
There are unforeseen negative effects from the
biocontrols which cannot be predicted in the
local and extra-local ecosystems in which they
are introduced through genetic and/or
behavioral changes in the non-native biocontrol
and native organisms.
283. In other words it is a mechanistic attempt to use
non-native organisms to control already present
non-native organisms. It does not attempt to
bring an ecosystem back into balance. Instead it
causes a new system and (im)balance to develop
that is inherently alien.
286. 1.) A specialist only exists in a limited time and
place. A specialist in one location with a limiting
resource such as food may be a generalist in
another location when that limiting resource is
commonly available.
287. 2.) Specialists should go extinct when the target
organism goes extinct in a specific location.
If they are persisting after the target is
destroyed, they are not specialists.
288. 3.) Specialists are recruited by looking primarily at
the effects on the target, not all the potential
collateral effects they may have on the rest of the
ecology such as becoming a food supplement for a
native organism or competing for breeding
resources, causing a predator to use them as a
primary prey, … . The result is an unbalanced
ecosystem with unforeseen ecological
effects, including the extinction of native
organisms.
289. 4.) Specialists derive from generalists.
Therefore, they contain the genes and (relict)
behavioral patterns which may cause them to
revert back to generalists when the situation at
that time and place change such as the addition of
another resource or the target plant becomes
scarce/extinct.
290. Non-native biocontrol has high rates of failure
and low rates of success, an average of 2.44
introduced organisms for every species on which
control is being attempted. I think this number
is underestimated and that the real number is at
least 5 introduced organisms for every
biocontrol target.
291. Bioeradication – The extinction of a non-native
(invasive) species from an ecosystem using
native organisms. The goal is the regeneration
of the ecosystem by eliminating the non-native
problem from the ecosystem using native
organisms which minimize the potential
problems associated with the addition of non-
native organisms as potential controls.
292. Bioeradication uses a variety of native organisms
working together to eradicate a non-native
organism from the ecosystem and restore it to
its original state.
293. If the target reappears after local extinction, the
bioeradication system naturally reasserts itself if
all the resources for it are still present. In other
words, the system has reverted to its original
resource use state, but has the ability to reassert
itself if the non-native invasive reappears.
294. The difference between bioeradication and
biocontrol is that bioeradication assumes it is
possible to eradicate a non-native species from
an ecosystem using native species. While
biocontrol is trying to change, modify or
minimize the effects of one non-native organism
by using another non-native organism.
295. Bioeradicant – Any native organism in any time
frame from seconds to centuries that partially or
fully inhibits a non-native organism and helps to
drive it to extinction.
296. Bioeradication system – A group of native
organisms which through any biological
relationship and time frame partially or fully
inhibits a non-native organism to the point it is
driven to extinction.
297. Hybrid bioeradication system – A group of
native and indigenous non-native organisms
which through any biological relationship and
time frame partially or fully inhibits a non-native
organism to the point it is driven to extinction.
298. Direct bioeradication – This is the (re)introduction
and use of a native organism or native organism
system as a bioeradicant for a specific organism by
increasing its population at a given location.
299. Indirect bioeradication – Providing the native
resources such as food, breeding sites or shelter
needed for a native bioeradicant or bioeradicant
system to develop at a specific location for a
specific organism. This may be nectar sources,
sheltering plants, mutualistic fungi, water source
or … .
300. Bioeradication garden – A form of Indirect
Bioeradication which is a garden of local native
plants that provide a resource for any life stage
that a native bioeradicant needs to be effective as
a bioeradicant such as food, egg laying
sites, overwintering sites, protection from
predators, …, .
Presently we have an experimental bioeradication
garden in our yard to determine nectar sources
used by Atteva aurea.
301. Bioeradication resource – Any naturally occurring
or native environmental resource a native
bioeradicant needs to be effective as a bioeradicant
in that ecosystem.
302. Resource use – This is the use by a native
bioeradicant of a native or non-native resource.
In the case of a non-native resource it takes time
to adapt to using it through either learning to
use it (behavioral changes) or genetic
changes, often both.
303. Resource familiarity – This is the amount of use
of a resource by a native bioeradicant. In the
case of non-native (invasive) resources time is
required for a native bioeradicant to adapt to a
non-native through either behavioral or genetic
changes and begin driving the non-native to
extinction.
304. Resource heritage – This is the passing on of a
behavioral and/or genetic adaptation to a
resource by a native bioeradicant. This can be
through learning, by genetic change or more
probably a combination of both. It can spread
through a species horizontally as one organism
learns from another or vertically as it is passed
on to/through offspring through learning or
genes.
305. Herbivory, predation and parasitism –
Relationships in which one organism or groups
of organisms benefit by using other organisms
as an energy source. This does not imply that all
the benefit accrues to the herbivore, predator or
parasite as there are often unseen benefits to
both groups of organisms.
306. Direct competition – When an organism competes
directly with another organism for a resource.
Examples are two species of bees competing for a
nectar source, a gold finch and a junco competing
at our thistle feeder or a mourning dove and a rock
dove (pigeon) competing for grain in a field. This is
good if a native bioeradicant is successfully
outcompeting a non-native organism, driving it to
extinction. It is bad when a non-native is driving a
native to extinction.
307. Positive indirect competition – Positive when an
organism provides a resource needed for a
native organism to compete with a non-native
organism.
Knowing how to manipulate this is better
than introducing a non-native organism into an
ecosystem to control another non-native
organism. An example is providing plants as egg
laying sites for a native butterfly that competes
for nectar with a non-native species such as the
cabbage butterfly.
Indirect Bioeradication can be a result of
this.
308. Negative indirect competition - Using a native
organism to destroy a biological resource that a
non-native organism needs which is in
competition with that or another native
organism. This may be planting tall native
wildflowers in a meadow to destroy a grass
needed by a non-native moth for food, egg
laying sites or shelter.
309. Resource enhancement/depletion – This is
enhancing a resource needed by a native
bioeradicant or depleting a resource needed by a
non-native to help eradicate a non-native
species.
This may be as simple as removing a dam to
allow fish to migrate along a river corridor and
eat larvae of a non-native, adding sand banks in
a creek to facilitate drinking by native birds or
changing a dry meadow back to a flooded
meadow to remove burrow sites for a non-native
bee or mammal.
310. Bioremediation – the use of native organisms to
displace and eradicate non-native organisms or
to replace non-native organisms as they are
eliminated from an ecosystem. This is an
expansion of the traditional definition of
bioremediation.
311. Traditional bioremediation is the use of
microorganisms or plants to mitigate chemical
or organic pollution. This is the use of the term
to mean use of native organisms to restore an
ecosystem during the process of and after the
removal of a non-native organism or non-native
organism system.
312. Mutualism – Two or more organisms which
cooperate to the benefit of each other.
Bioeradicant systems reflect this at different levels
of relationship by eliminating a non-native from the
ecosystem through (unintended) cooperation, such
as phoretic transport of smaller organisms on larger
ones, different feeding strategies which enhance
the success of both species while eradicating a non-
native such as the leaf eating larvae of a native
moth which carry a disease that weakens a non-
native which makes it into a food source for a
second organism to further destruction of the non-
native*, behavioral adaptations which help
partition a resource and other strategies.
313. * This is apparently happening to Ailanthus
altissima. Atteva aurea is carrying a fusarium
and/or verticillium disease which weakens A.
altissima. At that point the ambrosia beetle
Euwallacea validus burrows into the weakened
tree, possibly carrying another canker/necrotic
lesion causing fusarium disease with it. I have
seen this happen even with Drill and Fill. Once
the tree is weakened, E. validus burrows appear.
314. Competition – Relationships where certain
organisms benefit through a variety of
mechanisms to the detriment of others without
necessarily using them as an energy source.
This is an essential element in bioeradication.
315. Enemy Release Hypothesis (ERH) - It is the
disease/pest/competitor version of the Founder
Effect but exchanges genes for the biological
controls. This frees the plant to focus on growth
and reproduction. In essence it is a bottleneck
which reduces the biological checks a non-native
has in its native ecosystem when it moves to a
new ecosystem.
The final effect is the elimination of many of the
restraints which prevented the non-native
organism from taking over its home ecosystem.
316. Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability (EICA)
– the evolution of a non-native organism to a new
ecosystem by ridding itself of genes, genotypes
and behaviors which are unsuitable in the
introduced ecosystem and developing new
genes, genetic synergies and/or behaviors that
increase its ability to adapt and survive. It is
mostly seen on the front end of the sigmoidal
curve of adaption, exponential population growth
and plateauing that is found during the
introduction of most invasive non-native
organisms into a new ecosystem.
