Comparing effects of invasive plant management: a case study of biocontrol vs. herbicide
Peterson, P. G., Merrett, M. F., Fowler, S. V., Barrett, D. P., & Paynter, Q. (2020). Comparing biocontrol and herbicide for managing an invasive non‐native plant species: Efficacy, non‐target effects and secondary invasion. Journal of Applied Ecology, 57(10), 1876-1884. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13691
Summary written by Justin Dalaba, edited by Audrey Bowe
Managers are faced with many decisions when it comes to invasive plant management options, yet there are benefits and drawbacks to each. This study provides a unique opportunity for comparison of herbicide and biocontrol impacts on the invasive woody shrub, Calluna vulgaris, as well as indirect effects including non-target impacts, secondary invasion, and native plant recovery. The 5-year field trial in Tongariro National Park, New Zealand, where there is a high endemicity of plants that are particularly vulnerable to invasion, offers some insight into the need for evaluating non-target impacts of invasive plant treatments and long-term monitoring for secondary invasion. In their study, Peterson et al. utilized two control methods for Calluna vulgaris, which is considered one of the worst invasive plants in the park. Researchers applied these treatments (biocontrol, herbicide, insecticide + herbicide, and control) randomly across twenty-four 5×5 meter plots and followed plant cover and species richness over 5 years. They found that biocontrol introduction of the heather beetle (Lochmaea suturalis) reduced invasive plant cover by 97%, compared to 87% reduction from herbicide (Pasture Kleen; 2,4-D ester), and a 20% increase in the control. Native dicot cover increased after biocontrol, while herbicide had major non-target effects on native dicots. Notably, secondary invasion was greatest with biocontrol because non-native dicot cover increased in newly cleared space, where herbicide almost eliminated non-native dicots. Despite secondary invasion, biocontrol did not have severe non-target impacts on native dicots compared to herbicide, and thus had the greatest benefits to native flora.
- Restoration goals are often compromised by low efficacy of target plant suppression resulting from regeneration, invasion by other weeds (secondary invasion), and native seed limitation
- Both biocontrol and herbicide application effectively controlled the target invasive in this study, but biocontrol had the best outcomes for native flora, while herbicide had dramatic non-target effects on the most species-rich native plant group
- There was no evidence of parasitism, predation of, or non-target feeding by the biocontrol agents, suggesting a long-term and sustainable control
- Biocontrol can be a more appropriate method than herbicide application at a landscape scale
- Non-target impacts of herbicide should be considered before determining if it is an appropriate control for invasive plants
- Rapidly removing the largest vegetation cover can allow space and resources for other species to invade, regardless of what control method is used
- Wherever possible, management impacts should be measured for longer than 5 years to more sufficiently quantify native plant community responses and secondary invasion
Read more of our research summaries:
Embracing change in policy with a changing climate
Bradley et al. (2023) lay out ideas for better integration of invasive species and climate change policies and practices
Who’s in the driver seat? Reducing stressors not invaders may advance restoration
New research questions our assumptions about invasive plants as the primary drivers of ecological degradation. Restoration success may be limited by interactions of different stressors.
Promising but atypical: New evidence on water chestnut biocontrol host choice and feeding
In addition to documenting a departure from predictions in host-specificity testing, Simmons and Blossey present new evidence on the potential impacts and safety of water chestnut biological control.
Building more equitable and inclusive practice
This article reflects on how we can reframe our thinking and work to support equitable, inclusive, and just conservation science and practice.
Time, patience, and biodiversity: a recipe for biotic resistance?
This article explores a case study of biotic resistance, where over time native species may limit the invasion of other species. A native herbivore learns to consume an invasive alga in less than a decade.
Integrating EDRR surveillance with eDNA metabarcoding
How complete are current eDNA reference libraries for the Laurentian Great Lakes region? Can we confidently integrate invasive species detection with biodiversity sampling?
Missed signals: Invasive species noise disrupts native species communication
Invasive species vocalizations may be a significant avenue for competition among species. This thought-provoking article gives a glimpse into the potential effects of invasive species disrupting a soundscape.
Peering into predictors at the spongy moth invasion front
Shifting temperature regimes can influence the suitability and spread of invasive insects, including spongy moth. How can secondary host plant connectivity support its expansion across the U.S.?
Teasing apart invasive worm impacts on native species
Can invasive worms serve as food for native species? How do they alter leaf litter microhabitat? New research offers insight into the potential effects and trophic interactions of jumping worms (Amynthas spp.) and native reptiles and amphibians.
A Place to Pool Data on Potential Plant Invasions
Public gardens are in a unique position to form a sentinel network to aid in detecting potential invasive species. This study informs how public gardens can collectively contribute data for potential new invaders.
Readability Gap in Biological Invasions Research
How accessible is invasive species literature? A detailed analysis of the leading journal, Biological Invasions, points to a decline in readability for key stakeholders over two decades.