Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T19:50:05.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predator Interference with the Cinnabar Moth (Tyria jacobaeae) for the Biological Control of Tansy Ragwort (Senecio jacobaea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kimberly K. Crider
Kimberly K. Crider*
Affiliation:
Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Science, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: kcrider@fs.fed.us
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Quantification of interference with biological control agents can provide support for anecdotal claims of success or failure of agent establishment and efficacy. This study was initiated because of observed predation of cinnabar moth larvae by carpenter ants when releasing larvae for the control of tansy ragwort, an invasive plant in Montana. Biotic and abiotic factors were compared among three sites with historically variable moth population establishment. Two experiments were developed to (1) observe and document insect activity, predation, or disappearance on tansy ragwort stems either protected or accessible to ants; and (2) quantify the effects of ant exclusion on herbivory of tansy ragwort. Site comparisons indicated that ant colony density was highest at the driest of three sites, and, interestingly, no ant colonies were detected at the site with higher observed numbers of moth larvae and adults and lower densities of tansy ragwort. Available substrate (logs and stumps) for ant colonization did not differ between the three sites. In the ant exclusion experiments, a larger number of larvae were missing on plants accessible to ants (63%) compared with plants where ants were excluded (39%) after 36 h. Direct observation of predation of larvae by carpenter ants accounted for 9% of missing larvae on stems accessible to ants. Larvae were able to consume 81% of original flowers or buds on ant-excluded stems, compared with 18% consumption on ant-accessible stems, suggesting that ant predation could limit the efficacy of cinnabar moth larvae. These results provide one of many possible explanations for the anecdotal observations of large, persistent populations of cinnabar moths in moist areas. This work emphasizes the importance of post-release observation and monitoring to detect and, ideally, quantify factors to support anecdotal perceptions regarding the fate and subsequent efficacy of insect biological-control agents.

Keywords

Cinnabar mothTyria jacobaeae L.carpenter antCamponotus spp.tansy ragwortSenecio jacobaea L.Biological controlpredationtansy ragwortcinnabar mothcarpenter antSenecio jacobaeaTyria jacobaeaeCamponotus
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 332 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Current address: Research Ecologist, Center for Forest Disturbance Science, USDA Forest Service, 320 Green Street, Athens, GA 30602

References

Literature Cited

Bacher, S. and Schwab, F. 2000. Effect of herbivore density, timing of attack and plant community on performance of creeping thistle Cirsium arvense . Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 10:343–352.Google Scholar
Beirne, B. P. 1975. Biological control attempts by introductions against pest insects in the field in Canada. Can. Entomol. 107:225–236.Google Scholar
Bergelson, J. M. and Lawton, J. H. 1988. Does foliage damage influence predation on the insect herbivores of birch? Ecology 69:434–445.Google Scholar
Bernays, E. A. 1997. Feeding by Lepidopteran larvae is dangerous. Ecol. Entomol. 22:121–123.Google Scholar
Chen, Y., Hansen, L. D., and Brown, J. J. 2002. Nesting sites of the carpenter ant, Camponotus vicinus Mayr) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in northern Idaho. Environ. Entomol. 31:1037–1042.Google Scholar
Crider, K. K. 2009. Biological Control: Effects of Tyria jacobaeae on Senecio jacobaea population dynamics in NW Montana. Ph.D Dissertation. Missoula, MT University of Montana. 127 p.Google Scholar
Dempster, J. P. 1971. The population ecology of the cinnabar moth, Tyria jacobaea (Lepidoptera, Arctiidae). Oecologia 7:26–67.Google Scholar
Dempster, J. P. and Lakhani, K. H. 1979. A population model for cinnabar moth and its food plant, ragwort. J. Anim. Ecol. 48:143–163.Google Scholar
Denoth, M. and Myers, J. H. 2005. Variable success of biological control of Lythrum salicaria in British Columbia. Biol. Control 32:269–279.Google Scholar
Ding, J. Q. and Blossey, B. 2005. Invertebrate predation on the water lily beetle, Galerucella nymphaeae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), and its implications for potential biological control of water chestnut, Trapa nutans . Biol. Control 35:17–26.Google Scholar
Ehler, L. E. 1990. Introduction strategies in biological control of insects. Pages 111–134 in Mackauer, M., Ehler, L., and Roland, J., eds. Critical Issues in Biological Control. Andover, UK Intercept.Google Scholar
Formanowicz, D. R. and Brodie, E. D. 1985. Unpalatability and toxicity of an introduced species (cinnabar moth larvae) to native predators. Am. Midl. Nat. 113:401–403.Google Scholar
Gayahan, G. G. and Tschinkel, W. R. 2008. Fire ants, Solenopsis invicta, dry and store insect pieces for future use. J. Insect Sci. 39:1–8.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. L. 1989. Soldier production in Camponotus novaeboracensis during colony growth. Insectes Soc. 36:28–41.Google Scholar
Goeden, R. D. and Louda, S. M. 1976. Biotic interference with insects imported for weed control. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 21:325–342.Google Scholar
Grevstad, F. S. 1999. Factors influencing the chance of population establishment: implications for release strategies in biocontrol. Ecol. Appl. 9:1439–1447.Google Scholar
Haccou, P. and Hemerik, L. 1985. The influence of larval dispersal in the cinnabar moth (Tyria jacobaeae) on predation by the red wood ant (Formica polyctena): an analysis based on the proportional hazards model. J. Anim. Ecol. 54:755–769.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1958. The ecology of ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) with especial reference to control. Herbage Abstr. 28:151–157.Google Scholar
Harris, P., Wilkinson, A.T.S., Neary, M. E., and Thompson, L. S. 1971. Senecio jacobaea L., tansy ragwort (Compositae). Pages 97–104 in Technical Communications No. 4. Farnham Royal, UK Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control.Google Scholar
Holldobler, B. and Wilson, E. O. 1990. The Ants. Cambridge, MA Belknap Press, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hooper, P. T. 1978. Pyrrolizidine alkaloid poisoning—pathology with particular reference to differences in animal and plant species. Pages 161 in Keeler, R. F., Van Kampen, K. R., and James, L. F., eds. Effects of poisonous plants on Livestock–Australian Symposium on Poisonous Plants at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, June 19–24, 1977. New York Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hunt-Joshi, T. R., Root, R. B., and Blossey, B. 2005. Disruption of weed biological control by an opportunistic mirid predator. Ecol. Appl. 15:861–870.Google Scholar
Isaacson, D. L. 1973. A life table for the cinnabar moth, Tyria jacobaeae, in Oregon. Entomophaga 18:291–303.Google Scholar
Julien, M. H. and Griffiths, M. W. 1998. Biological Control of Weeds: A World Catalogue of Agents and Their Target Weeds, 4th ed. Wallingford, UK CAB.Google Scholar
Klotz, J. H. and Reid, B. L. 1993. Nocturnal orientation in the black carpenter ant Camponotus pennsylvanicus (DeGeer) (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Insectes Soc. 40:95–106.Google Scholar
Marston, N. L., Scmidt, G. T., Biever, K. D., and Dickerson, W. A. 1978. Reaction of five species of soybean caterpillars to attack by the predator, Podisus maculiventris. Environ. Entomol. 7:53–56.Google Scholar
Mattocks, A. R. 1986. Chemistry and toxicology of pyrrolizidine alkaloids. New York Academic.Google Scholar
Myers, J. and Campbell, B. J. 1976. Carpenter ant predation as a deterrent to the spread of a biological control agent, cinnabar moth. J. Entomol. Soc. B. C. 73:7–9.Google Scholar
Nechols, J. R., Obrycki, J. J., Tauber, C. A., and Tauber, M. J. 1996. Potential impact of native natural enemies on Galerucella spp. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) imported for biological control of purple loosestrife: a field evaluation. Biol. Control 7:60–66.Google Scholar
Nuss, A. B., Suiter, D. R., and Bermett, G. W. 2005. Continuous monitoring of the black carpenter ant, Camponotus pennsylvanicus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), trail behavior. Sociobiology 43:597–618.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, M. and Linsenmair, K. E. 2000. Contributions to the life history of the Malaysian giant ant Camponotus gigas . Insectes Soc. 47:123–132.Google Scholar
Rosenheim, J. A., Limburg, D. D. and Colfer, R. G. 1999. Impact of generalist predators on a biological control agent, Chrysoperla carnea: direct observations. Ecol. Appl. 9:409–417.Google Scholar
Rosenheim, J. A., Wilhoit, L. R., and Armer, C. A. 1993. Influence of intraguild predation among generalist insect predators on the suppression of an herbivore population. Oecologia 96:439–449.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. E. and Ives, A. R. 2001. Generalist predators disrupt biological control by a specialist parasitoid. Ecology 82:705–716.Google Scholar
van der Meijden, E. 1973. Experiments on dispersal, late larval predation and pupation in the cinnabar moth (Tyria jacobaeae L.) with a radioactive label (1921r). Neth. J. Zool. 23:430–445.Google Scholar
van der Meijden, E. 1979. Herbivore exploitation of a fugitive plant species: local survival and extinction of the cinnabar moth and ragwort in a heterogeneous environment. Oecologia 42:307–323.Google Scholar
Vrieling, K., Wouter, S., and van der Meijden, E. 1991. Tritrophic interactions between aphids (Aphis jacobaeae Schrank), ant species, Tyria jacobaeae L., and Senecio jacobaea L. lead to maintenance of genetic variation in pyrrolizidine alkaloid concentration. Oecologia 86:177–182.Google Scholar
Weseloh, R. M. 1988. Effects of microhabitat, time of day, and weather on predation of gypsy moth larvae. Oecologia 77:250–254.Google Scholar
Weseloh, R. M. 1995. Forest characteristics associated with abundance of foraging ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Connecticut. Environ. Entomol. 24:1453–1457.Google Scholar
Wiebe, A. P. and Obrycki, J. J. 2004. Quantitative assessment of predation of eggs and larvae of Galerucella pusilla in Iowa. Biol. Control 31:16–28.Google Scholar
Youngs, L. C. and Campbell, R. W. 1984. Ants preying on pupae of the western spruce budworm, Choristoneura occidentalis (Lepidoptera, Tortricidae), in eastern Oregon and western Montana. Can. Entomol. 116:1665–1669.Google Scholar