Quality Vegetation Management Making The World a Better Place. QVM is a set of principles that creates and sustains healthy habitats through professional, ethical and responsible practices. Learn more at www.vmanswers.com/QVM Habitat WITH HABITAT® HERBICIDE, YOU CAN RESTORE AQUATIC AREAS WITHOUT HARMING WILDLIFE. Clean Up The Weeds Without Upsetting The Locals. Professional Vegetation Management As part of a responsible Quality Vegetation Management™ program, Habitat provides long-term control, eliminating the need for repeat applications. And Habitat uses less active ingredient and breaks down quickly, so it’s gentle on the environment. Be tough on weeds, not wildlife. Use Habitat. □-BASF 1-800-545-9525 I www.vmanswers.com The Chemical Company Always read and follow label directions. Habitat is a registered trademark, and Quality Vegetation Management is a trademark of BASF. ©2005 BASF Corporation. All rights reserved. FLORIDA EXOTIC PEST PLANT COUNCIL - www.fleppc.org Officers Alison Fox, Chair University of Florida Agronomy Department 352/392-1811, Ext 207 amfox@ ifas.ufl. edu Dianne Owen, Secretaiy Florida Atlantic University 954/236-1085 dowen@ fau.edu Ellen Donlan, Treasurer South Florida Water Management District 800-432-2045 Ext 6130 edonlan@ sfwmd.gov Karen Brown, Editor University of Florida Center for Aquatic & Invasive Plants 352/392-1799 kpbrown® mail.ifas.ufl.edu Jim Burney, Immediate Past Chair Aquatic Vegetation Control, Inc. 561/845-5525 L1JE® aol.com Directors Scott Ditmarsen (2nd year) DowAgro Sciences 813/866-7090 scditmarsen® dow.com Jbn Lane (2nd year) USACOE Invasive Species Management 904/232-1044 Jbn.S.Lane@ saj02.usace.army.mil Tbny Pemas (2nd year) National Park Service Florida/Caribbean Exotic Plant Management Team 305/252-0347 Tbny_Pemas@ nps.gov Paul Pratt (2nd year) USDA-ARS Invasive Plant Research laboratory 954/475-6549 prattp@ saa.ars.usda.gov Alison Higgins (1st year) The Nature Conservancy Florida Keys 305/745-8402 Ext 111 ahiggins@tnc.org Cheryl McCormick- Rote ( 1st year) University of Florida Center for Aquatic & Invasive Plants 352/846-2516 Cheiyl@ufl.edu Gary Nichols (1st year) St Jbhns River Water Management District 321/409-2159 gnichols@ sjrwmd.com Donna Watkins (1st year) Florida DEP Bureau of Natural and Cultural Resources 850/245-3104 donna watkins@ dep.state.fl.us Committee Chairs Biological Control Robert Doren Florida International University 305/348-6721 dorenr@fiu.edu By-laws Dennis Giardina Fakahatehee Strand Preserve State Park 239/695-4593 Dennis. Giardina@ dep.state.fi. us CAST Representative Dennis Giardina Ken Langeland (alternate) Editorial Karen &own Education Leesa Souto Stormwater Management Academy 321/722-2123 Lsouto@ mail.ucf.edu FNGA/FLEPPC Liaison Doria Gordon University of Florida The Nature Conservancy 352/392-5949 dgoidon@ botanyufl.edu Legislative Matthew Eng Palm Beach County 561/233-2400 mking@ co.palm-beach.fl.us Membership Katy Roberts 727/726-1455 kroberts@ij.net Merchandise Tbny Pemas Nominations Jim Bumey Plant List Keith Bradley The Institute for Regional Conservation 305/247-6547 bradley@ regionalconservation.org Research John Volin Florida Atlantic University 954/236-1115 jvolin@fau.edu Symposium Program Cheryl McCormick-Rote Training Jim Duquesnel Florida Park Service 305/451-1226 james.g.duquesnel@ dep.state.fi. us Vendors Tbdd Olson Aquatic Vegetation Control 561/845-5525 to Ison® avcaquatic.com Webmaster Tbny Pemas Task Force Chairs Australian Pine Robert Egan Habitat Restoration Resources 239/574-8173 HabitatRR@yahoo.com Brazilian Pepper ,Im Cuda University of Florida Entomology Department 352/392-1901 Ext. 126 Jcuda@ ifas.ufl.edu Carrotwood Chris Lockhart Habitat Specialists, Inc. 561/738-1179 chris@ habitatspecialists.com Dioscorea William Overholt University of Florida- IFAS Indian River Research and Education Center waoverholt® ifas.ufl.edu 772/468-3922 Ext 143 Grasses Greg MacDonald University of Florida Agronomy Department 352/392-1811 Ext 228 gemac@ mail.ifas.ufl.edu Iygodium Jeffrey Hutchinson University of Florida- IFAS Center for Aquatic & Invasive Plants jthutchinson@ ifas.ufl.edu 352/392-9981 Skunkvine Brian Nelson SWFWMD 352/796-7211 Brian.Nelson@ swfwmd.state.fl.us Chinese Tallow Cheryl McCormick-Rote Melaleuca Francois Laroche South Florida Water Management District 561/682-6193 flaroche@ sfwmd.gov SOUTHEAST EXOTIC PEST PLANT COUNCIL www.se-eppc.org Officers President Tbny Pemas National Park Service Florida/Caribbean Exotic Plant Management Team 305/252-0347 Tbny_Pemas@ nps.gov Wee President Joyce Bender Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission 502/573-2886 Joyce.Bender@ ky.gov Secretary Kristen Gounaris Allen Richmond National Battlefield Park 804/795-5019 Kristen_Allen@ nps.gov Treasurer Lee Patrick Invasive Plant Control Inc. 615/385-4319 lee@ invasiveplantcontrol.com SE-EPPC Chapters and Regional Organizations: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mid-Atlantic, Mississippi, New England, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tbnnessee, USDA-Forest Service The Exotic Pest Plant Council has not tested any of the products advertised or referred to in this publication, nor has it verified any of the statements made in any of the advertisements or articles. The Council does not warrant, expressly or implied, the fitness of any product advertised or the suitability of any advice or statements contained herein. WOdland Weeds Fall 2006 , Volume 9 , Number 4 Table of Contents 6 Silver Linings by Michael Meisenburg 14 In Memory - Kathleen Craddock Burks 15 Georgia Exotic Pest Plant Council List of Non- native Invasive Plants in Georgia 19 Foreign Exploration for Biological Control Agents by Sharon M.L. Ewe, William A. Overholt, Laurence G. Kirton, Ee-May Lai, Ismail Ahmad and Shankar Ulaganathan 23 Socio-Economic Impacts of Controlling Melaleuca in South Florida by Katherine Carter- Finn and Alan W. Hodges 26 Gainesville’s Great Air Potato Round Up by Gary Paul 30 The Southeast EPPC Invasive Plant Mapping Project by Chris Evans and Chuck Bargeron 31 Internodes The mission of the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council is to support the management of invasive exotic plants in Florida^ natural areas by providing a forum for the exchange of scientific, educational and technical information. An exotic plant has been introduced to Florida, either purposefully or accidentally, from a natural range outside of Florida. A naturalized exotic plant is one that sustains itself outside of cultivation (it is still exotic; it has not “become” native). An invasive exotic plant not only has become naturalized, but it is expanding its range in Florida plant communities. Wildland Weeds (ISSN 1524-9786) is published quarterly by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC) and the Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council (SE-EPPC) to provide a focus for the issues and for information on exotic pest plant biology, distribution and control. Direct all editorial and advertising inquiries to: Karen Brown, Editor Wildland Weeds 7922 NW 71st Street Gainesville, FL 32653 352/392-1799; FAX 352/392-3462 kpbrown@ ifas.ufl.edu Editorial Committee: Cressida Silvers Jim Cuda Ken Langeland Michael Meisenburg Direct address changes to: Dianne Owen FLEPPC Secretary PO Box 23426 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33307 954-236-1085 dowen@fau.edu On the Cover: What do these butterflies have in common? They all benefit from exotic plants in Florida. Clockwise from upper left: Ceraunus blue, Long-tailed skipper, Polydamas swallowtail, Cloudless sulphur (caterpillar). Polydamas swallowtail photo by Erika Simons. All others by Michael Meisenburg. See article on page 6. WILDLAND WEEDS 3 editor’s note ecently I visited the lovely city of Portland, Oregon and spot- ted an “invasive plant removal/resto ration planting” sign in one of their many city gardens along the Willamette River. Outside the city at one of the beautiful waterfalls along the Columbia Gorge, I came upon a young woman pulling weeds. She was Diana Spartis, an AmeriCorps member leading a group of students from the Alpha Conservation Corps. They were working at Latourell Falls, a scenic natural area, removing the invasive ground cover Herb Robert, a/k/a Stinky Bob ( Geranium robertianum) , under a grant hum the Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department. Returning home to Gainesville, Florida, I attended a “Florida Quilts” show at the natural history museum and one of the quilts featured a lionfish. The panel describing the quilt, written by the artist, cautioned against releasing lionfish into the wild due to their non-native and invasive status. It went on to mention that studies were underway on their impacts to local fisheries. I was quite surprised, but on reflection (and while reviewing my over- flowing email inbox in preparation for this issue), I realize that we are now riding a huge wave of awareness, activity and research on the invasive species dilemma. Just a few of the many widespread endeavors taking place in our field right now: National Tribal Invasive Species Conference in Nevada Japanese knotweed workshop at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York “Elongated mustard (Brassica elongata) is growing about 5 miles east of Salida, Colorado on the north of the Arkansas River. It jumped the river this spring and is continuing to spread along roads and into the sur- Diana Spartis rounding areas. Chaffee County Weeds has been in contact with BLM and treated 18 acres along the roads and... ” The Midwest Invasive Plant Network is offering a free dis- tance-learning workshop on How to Start a Cooperative Weed Management Area in the Eastern United States Aimed at preventing the spread of aquatic invasive species by water gardeners and aquarium hobbyists, “Do Not Release” materials warn about potentially invasive aquatic plants and animals and caution against releasing them into our waters. FLEPPC Education and Outreach Small Grants Request for Proposals - FY2007 • Proposal Due Date: March 1, 2007 Program Description and Eligibility The Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council is soliciting grant proposals for non-native invasive plant education and outreach projects in the State of Florida. The intent of these grants is to provide funding to organizations or individuals who wish to edu- cate the public about non- native invasive plants and their effects on the environ- Evaluation Criteria Award preference will be given to proposals that meet the following criteria: • Involve a plant or plants listed on the FLEPPC 2005 list of Invasive Species (found on www.fleppc.org); • Educational message will reach a large segment of the community; • Include partnerships (please specify type and degree of involvement for partner entities); • Demonstrate matching funds or in-kind contributions; • Increase local community awareness of non-native plants through local chare ttes, volunteer events, web site development, and distribution of educational materials; • Evaluate the project success through process or outcome evaluation; • Heighten community awareness about non-native invasive plant identification, control, and prevention; • First time applicants and new projects, although repeat applicants will still be considered. Application instructions and further information may be found on the FLEPPC website (www.fleppc.org). Grants may not be used to fund capital expense items (sprayers, chain saws, machinery, herbicide) or to fund control or large-scale herbicide application activities. Requests for funding should not exceed $1,000.00 and all funds awarded are to be used within 1 year of receipt. If full funding is not available, partial funding may be awarded. ment and economy of Florida. Proposals will be accepted from individuals, public or private nonprofit organizations, and academic institutions. Applicant/organization must present a summary of results at the FLEPPC Annual meeting (poster or presentation) or provide a summary article for Wildland Weeds, the FLEPPC quarterly magazine. The FLEPPC Education Committee will review all grants and award letters will be sent via electronic mail by May 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION , contact Leesa Souto, Director of Public Education Email: Lsouto@mail.ucf.edu • Phone: 321-722-2123 • Fax: 321-722-3585 (call first) 4 FALL 2006 The U.S. House of Representatives passed an appropriations bill that would double the budget of the National Science Foundation (NSF) over the next ten years. If passed, it would provide $11.8 million for initial implementation of the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). One of the primary “challenges” identified for NEON is research concerning invasive species. A news release on the Southern California Caulerpa Action Team (SCCAT) website regarding the success- ful eradication of Caulerpa taxifolia quotes NOAAfe Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere: “The proliferation of Caulerpa would have irreversibly changed the ecosystem in California’s near-shore coastal environment.” Caulerpa was detected in the Agua Hedionda lagoon (near San Diego) and Huntington harbor (near Los Angeles). A number of governmental agencies and community-based environmental organ- izations cooperated and worked togeth- er to successfully eradicate the invasive marine weed. Front page Washington Post article on the link between increased carbon diox- ide emissions and invasive vines: “ Pumped Up on Carbon Dioxide, Vines Strengthen Their Grip” National Science Foundation hosts “ Biodiversity and Ecosystems Informatics Working Group.” Former ISAC officer and Deputy Chief of Research of the U.S. Forest Service and Co-chair of Ecosystems Center’s Semester in Environmental Science (SES) program presents, “ Indicator Design and Data Assessment for Non-native Species.” U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service will host a meeting for Federal economists interested in invasive species. A Conservation Grazing Workshop in Connecticut includes topics: Invasive Plants and Their Alternatives; Using Sheep for Invasive Plant Control; Conservation Grazing with Exmoor Ponies; and Goats as Grazing Animals for Invasive Plant Management. The Nebraska Invasive Plant Conference, “ Threats to Nebraska Rivers: Invasive Plant Conference” promotes the control of invading plants to prevent further degra- dation of the state’s riparian areas. Conference announced: Invasive Plants in Pacific Northwest Ecosystems. New provision to law provides for inva- sives control and native species establishment in federally funded high- way construction projects. Recent Appalachian Mountain Club magazine article on invasives, “ Space Invaders: As invasive species choke out natives, scientists wage a costly and mount- ing battle.” New England examples are highlighted. This issue of Wildland Weeds brings you news of the SE-EPPC Invasive Plant Mapping Project, Georgia EPPC’s list of Non-Native Invasive Plants in Georgia, a report on foreign exploration for new bio- logical control agents, and the results of a study on the socio-economic impacts of con- trolling melaleuca in south Florida A lot of folks are working hard - please help out by joining an EPPC chapter today! / \ yV Algae and Aquatic Weed Control and Maintenance Product A siienl m toocH'tutHj njLHi SCTrcubSPon loi use m txM&nsd bic- ind fiiHt CPA Ion ttfuHn [Hart g r ~wEr ram i n; J C*rt»rr5 3 t*n) of HUC •ntiyflEWtyK' Ip ^ OClC QiT lijttt I|/J macjilD ;rdui'4(ri5r, lb reyrmtom on vvitutyitj trying rrgsucn irstSEi. jalidog Ltivti ipfSr-ng&i.^vdb- A jH'rrtf'fp' coftcrrfrtfnj iqinj JUfiMsMSr willl J wde f dip 'J U£dtO u W item Domain iheidc: mtpfr wftntti lUrfi m KtLFlim i tnlud rirtpe Lf vwrl iHa ip p 4 Lite* HP lubcrMng IrtyJjtuml. — -- A pmibr coccw jtsjiiM. ite V sutef To t'Mimgnt DetlD^i S pdirrq b d jchjt etelnwni dong clocks MatfvFt ti«t laircfim wd WMig iraifi CwUQU ffRMtil itfra it tr* sift*e A ajtitj lurttods 1 + U? tordrc** I broe. qo/t undir#snv 41 id Ad?, parish or fjnhjr* Idcd \y yTtf l im Iraifinfffs A jra^uku dt wfncn SWC vU>v COWO i* p# n * n “tHf tiMoiTW iqniit: fArcs ai wwc m«or tcnmin in rj dock A hjud cheiiwd cow* jtpMOto formula n * con{]r«TtiE>' wirtf tpr frjZW tfixA wdfcf ta rn rrtugtis *nd sma# -ponds Treated walw on t* used ri UK'A wiimn Pu iwcl formuklten ol Cj*ne-Rifi Uqjjrt In / Utdrfl SDrcftrj**. try utir ft bit! jfld slrine *30 lllffc l W *nmvctafn hr front tjnfcs anj nm*W wrm TO A illLiLr ase frrmfcftpn in 2 0 : a w packaging tor orsmwirtal icp+cji»!rti lAGartfrn fundt and iqmruni! PrwdeahgH 11 1 am pm giiisn ot * i om p* A trbrrceid Ct Edlir-f ffif 5 c cnt\rtritr\ #ntrr tcijCif OK.«t*Ti PM ] iil' ■r-Tj THTlV Cfo*d| W dtt WltT rftt j plfSTig Available Frtim Qudlily DEUrrhuttMt TTif Dugiiodl me Untied State-s anti Wnrlawide cppked bicxhemsts md fiTtiducti Srilicjlcd Id aldifl scn-jist and iptfk VCf d prptiJc'i 1 -000-5 5-5--S 1 0^ * E-maJL infO^app^l^dbNO^etntat&.^-nm WILDLAND WEEDS 5 by Michael Meisenburg, University of Florida / IFAS, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Photos by the author unless otherwise noted. P eople like butterflies. Not everyone, but many do. They make butterflies the subject of photographs, paintings, and poems. They landscape with plants to attract these colorful creatures; plants as nectar sources and — for the devoted butterfly gardener — plants as cater- pillar hosts. They buy books to help identify the many species and books to teach them which plants to plant. They may keep life lists or yard lists, with some taking cross-country vacations to add species to these lists. They certify their yards with the National Wildlife Federation as backyard habitats; habitats for many species, including but- terflies. They may even... (pause added for dramatic effect) plant exotic plants for their butterflies because, like it or not, many butterflies do benefit from introduced plants. The extent to which any particular butterfly species benefits from introduced plants varies. Some plants, such as lan tana ( Lantana camara ) and musky mint ( Hyptis muta- bilis), are excellent sources of nectar for many butterflies. Find these plants on a hot summer day and you will often see many butterflies hovering around them. Introduced plants such as these rival native species for their attractive- ness to adult butterflies. However, while these plants bene- fit the insects by feeding adults, a butterfly’s range depends more on larval host plants than adult nectar sources (Cech and Thdor 2005). For most butterfly species, adults live a few weeks or less, and non-migratory species usually remain fairly close to their larval host plants. Some butterfly species have undergone population increases or range expansions in recent years because invasive exotic plants are being used as larval host plants. Some species even colonize the United States from other countries (Smith et al. 1994, Cech and Thdor 2005). The degree of invasive- ness of the plants being utilized ranges from none to FLEPPC Category I designations. Small and easily overlooked, Ceraunus blue butterflies are common around Gainesville near patches of their larval host plants; usually the non-native trailing indigo (Indigo fera spicataj. Exotic opportunism Butterflies benefit from introduced plants in many ways. An unusual example is this Queen imbibing alkaloids from showy rattle- box ( Crotalaria spectabilis, Figure 1). Much like their close relatives Monarchs, Queens have co evolved to use alkaloid -producing plants to their advantage. Plants in the genus Crotalaria produce alka- loids as a defense against her- bivory; the male (pictured) must collect these chemicals to synthesize pheromones and attract a mate. 6 FALL 2006 Flying north into new counties Several native butterfly species previously confined to the more- southerly latitudes of Florida have spread north in recent years, and their expansion appears to follow changes in the state’s flora. Native to Florida, Long-tailed skippers use legumes for rearing their caterpillars. They readily use introduced plants in the genus Desmodium, such as D. incanum and D. tortuosum (commonly known as beggarticks or ticktreefoils). These two species are often found in disturbed areas around the state. Young larvae fold small pieces of leaves over to hide from pred- ators (Figure 2), while older larvae (Figure 3) sometimes attach two leaves together with their silk for the same purpose. A common fall butterfly, Long-tailed skippers appear to be expanding their range to the north as their populations have grown throughout the state. The Long- tailed skipper is an agricultural pest, as the caterpillars seem to prefer cul- tivated beans ( Phaseolus spp.) as host plants over any other legume. Plants in the genus Senna often are utilized by Florida’s butterflies, in this case sulphurs (family Pieridae). One is the Cloudless sulphur, a famil- iar yellow butterfly that is especially abundant during late summer. Their caterpillars often are found on the introduced septicweed ( Senna occi- dentalis, Figure 4). The caterpillars are primarily green, but may be bright yellow as well (see sidebar). The green larvae of Sleepy oranges also can be found on sennas, such as coffeeweed ( Senna obtusifolia, Figure 5). Both of these sulphurs are common butterflies. Another, the Orange- barred sulphur, is expanding its range north based on, it seems, the planting of valamuerto or Christmas senna ( Senna pendula) in central and northern Florida. Figure 6 shows a female depositing an egg on this FLEPPC Category I species near Kanapaha Prairie in western Alachua County (Gainesville). Is it global warming? A recent article in The Gainesville Sun asserted that global warming is allowing certain butterfly species to expand their ranges northward due, presumably, to decreased winter mortality (Tuesday 10/1 1/05). However, for ten of the thirteen species used as examples, range expansions may in fact be aided by expanding populations of non- native plants being used as larval food-plants. Of the thirteen butterfly species listed in the article, four are using non-native plants that are now growing wild in Alachua County; four are using non-native plants common in home landscaping; and two are using native plants frequently found in disturbed habitats but uncommon in undisturbed natural areas. Many of the species referred to in the newspaper article are also used as examples in this magazine article. The bottom line: if introduced Aristolochia wasn’t growing in Alachua County, there would be no Polydamas swallowtails, regardless of how warm it gets. WILDLAND WEEDS 7 INTRODUCING NEW TECHNOLOGY us Patent #5,888,500 TopFilrrr Sticker for Rainfastness (Outperforming all current surfactants tested to date) Maximizes Treatments by Minimizing Wash-off Locate Your Distributors: “Natural Products from the Grain-Belt of the USA ” For more information: L. Marshall, Ph.D., 636-936-1400 Biosorb, Inc., St.Charles, Missouri, USA Biocar (Natural Microsponges) TopFilm” makes algaecide stick to algae www.biosorb-inc.com Herbicide Treatment with TopFilm” For the plants you love to hate... Applied Aquatic Mt 0 MA«AG£M£Nr, INC. Pandion Systems, Inc. RmI iYm 1 iiri Invasive Exotic Plant Management Ecologists and land managers ... Specializing in complex control and research projects requiring a high degree of ecological proficiency and experience. “Over 20 Years... Leading the way in effective, efficient and economical Aquatic & Natural Area Exotic Pest Plant Management” Gainesville, Florida 352-372-4747 www.pandionsy stems .com exotics @pandionsy stems .com P.O. Box 1469 Eagle Lake, FL 33839 1-800-408-8882 www.appliedaquaticmgmt.com Aquatic Vegetation Control, Inc. Environmental Services “Sound, value-oriented environmental stewardship ” 6753 Garden Road, Suite 109 Riviera Beach, FL 33404 (561) 845-5525 (800) 327-8745 Fax: (561) 845-5374 email: LlJ2@aol.com www. avcaqu atic . co m 8 FALL 2006 The ultimate example of butterflies benefiting from introduced plants is when a species colonizes Florida from outside of the United States. For a species to succeed in this rare event, it must find its larval host plant to be adequately available. Thus, it is not surprising that they would use a plant species introduced from their native range. However, we do sometimes find non-native butterfly species that have colo- nized Florida utilizing native vegetation. A little tropical butterfly, the dingy pur- plewing, was observed doing so several years ago and is now established in southern Florida. Occasionally, Caribbean species establish ephemeral populations in southern Florida, only to die out after a few years. Butterflies are mobile creatures and, like their host plants, have populations that wax and wane as environmental conditions dictate. A close relative of the Long-tailed skipper — the Dorantes longtail — uses many of the same legumes for larval host plants as the long-tailed, but seems to favor Desmodium over all others. After being found for the first time in southern Florida in 1969, the range of Dorantes skippers is expanding to the north and they can now be found throughout Florida. There is speculation that they are supplanting Long- tailed skippers in the state (Cech and Tidor 2005). Three butterflies — Gray ministreak, Fulvous hairstreak, and Malachite — use FLEPPC- listed species and, while it is possible that they use other species, the only verified host plants are invasive. Gray ministreaks use lead tree ( Leucaena leucocephala, a Category II species) for their caterpillars, and lay their eggs on the unopened flower buds (Figure 8). One of — if not the — smallest butterflies in the U.S., gray ministreaks were first documented in Florida in 1973 (Cech and Tidor 2005). They are found throughout the Caribbean. At Fort De Soto Park (Pinellas County), Gray ministreaks may also be using woman’s tongue ( Albizia lebbeck, a Category I species) as a host plant (Lyn Atherton, personal communication). During the same period, Fulvous hairstreaks (Figure 9) arrived in Florida from the Caribbean. Given that their sole (known) host plant is Brazilian pepper ( Schinus tere- binthifolius, a Category I species) (Minno et al. 2005), it is surprising that they have not become more widespread. Formerly abundant in certain regions of southern Florida (e.g. Homestead), they have become less common in the last year or two (Mark Salvato, personal communication). Another tropical species expanding to the north as far as Gainesville is the Polydamas swallowtail (Figure 7). In northern Florida, it is never far from dutchman’s-pipe or Aristolochia vines, the obligatory host. One of these, the cal- ico vine ( Aristolochia elegans, formerly misap- plied as A. littoralis), is a FLEPPC Category II species. Crossing the state line Knowing no political boundaries, butter- flies often cross into Florida from the north. For the pierids (sulphurs and whites), this is due in no small part to the abundance of its more-tem- perate larval host plants: legumes and crucifers. In northern Florida, many of these plants are introduced ruderal and agricultural plants, such as sweet clover ( Melilotus albus), white clover ( Trifolium repens ), alfalfa ( Medicago sativa), black medic ( Medicago lupulina ), cabbage ( Brassica oleracea), wild radish ( Raphanus raphanistrum) , and garden radish ( Raphanus sativus ). Refugees from another country WILDLAND WEEDS 9 Certainly the most spectacular of our recent introductions is the Malachite (Figure 10), a green and black showstopper. It’s only known larval host plant in Florida is the green shrimp plant or Browne’s blechum ( Blechum pyramidatum, a recent addition to the Category II listing) (Minno et al. 2005). This butterfly made periodic strays into southern Florida through the 1960’s from Cuba, and by 1970 had become established (Smith et al. 1994, Cech and Thdor 2005). It ranges north to Sarasota and Vero Beach. However... These are some of the best examples of increasing but- terfly diversity as a result of introduced plants in Florida. However, the examples are not a complete list, as many other cases exist. For instance, many species in our largest family of butterflies — the skippers (family Hesperiidae) — use grasses as host plants. Several skippers have successful- ly made the jump to non-native grasses, including torpedo- grass ( Panicum repens ), guineagrass ( Panieum maximum), Johnsongrass ( Sorghum halapense ), and cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), among others (Minno et al. 2005). Observations of skipper larvae on introduced grasses might lead to the conclusion that these plants are good for the species using it. However, assessing an exotic plant’s bene- fit (or cost) to wildlife should be made by comparing it to the native plants that are displaced — a plant being utilized by an animal does not necessarily mean that the habitat has been enhanced. For example, observations of a Clouded skipper caterpillar on Johnsongrass (Figure 11) might lead some to assume that Jbhnsongrass is good for clouded skip- pers. But evaluating the plant’s proposed benefit to butter- flies should include the species it is displacing. If the Jbhnsongrass displaced Fakahatcheegrass ( Tripsacum dacty- loides), one of the butterfly’s native host plants, then the net benefit of the Jbhnsongrass is canceled. It also should be noted that new host plants may not always increase butterfly populations. Spicebush swallow- tails use trees and shrubs in the laurel family, including the Category I invasive camphortree ( Cinnamomum camphora ). However, in several years of looking for their boldly colored larvae, only once have I found a spicebush swallowtail caterpillar on a camphortree, suggesting that host plants (or lack thereof) are not the limiting factor in Spicebush swal- lowtail populations. Conclusion The situation in Florida is not unique, as a similar sit- uation exists in California where 14 of the 32 butterfly species found within the city of Davis (a low number by Florida standards) exist solely on introduced vegetation (Thacker 2004). A majority of the remaining species will also use non-native plants as caterpillar host plants. Like the Orange-barred sulphurs and Polydamas swallowtails in Florida, the Davis butterflies benefiting from the introduced flora are native species undergoing range expansions. One may question whether having new butterflies in the state is a good thing, since they could be regarded as exotics. The situation is analogous to that of the cattle egret: the birds expanded their range after humans modified the environment and created conditions conducive to the egrets. But whether or not you call them exotics is a philo- sophical debate. Geopolitical boundaries don’t matter to wildlife, and where the line is drawn only matters to us. Rather than calling the butterflies iexotic,i a more appro- priate description might be inaturalized.i And, of course, if these butterflies begin to displace our native species, then they might be considered iinvasive.i It is inescapable that invasive species displace native species and upset the complex food webs that make up nat- ural communities. Understanding this big picture motivates many of us to keep up the battle against these invasives, a battle that increases in importance daily as the conversion of natural habitats to developments continues. However, hidden within this big picture is a silver lining of increasing butterfly diversity in Florida. Contact Michael Meisenburg at ecomike@ ufl.edu for further information. Literature cited Cech, R., and G. TUdor. 2005. Butterflies of the East Coast: an observer’s guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Smith, D. S., L. D. Miller, and J. Y. Miller. 1994. The butterflies of the West Indies and SouthFlorida. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England. Minno, M. C., J. E Butler, and D. W. Hall. 2005. Florida butterfly caterpillars and their host plants. University Press of Florida Gainesville, Florida Thacker, P D. 2004. California butterflies: At home with aliens. Bioscience:54(3) 182-187. A special thanks to Marc Minno for his review of this article. Exotic plants: a double-edged sword Florida’s state butterfly, the Zebra heliconian (formerly Zebra longwing), uses native passion vines as its larval host plant. These vines produce cyanogenic (toxic) compounds and, in a tightly coevolved relationship, the boldly colored caterpillars sequester these chemicals for their own protection. The introduced scarlet passion- flower ( Passiflora coccinea) produces the same chemicals, but in greater — and lethal — quantities than our native species. To gravid (pregnant) Zebra heliconians, scarlet passionflower tastes the same as native passion vines, but the elevated chemical levels doom the soon-to-hatch larvae. Plants such as these could function as population sinks, having deleterious effects on local Zebra heliconian populations and resulting in unintended biological control of the state’s butterfly, if you will. 10 FALL 2006 Sennas and sulfurs It all begins with a female laying an egg, in this case a Cloudless sulphur and a valamuerto bush in my mother-in-law’s backyard. Eggs can be laid on either unopened flowers or leaves and, if they survive the voracious and abundant ants, they hatch in a day or two. From there the caterpillars grow yellow or green, depending upon whether the caterpillars eat prima- rily green leaves or the yellow flowers. Larval colors aside, both morphs produce the same yellow adults when they emerge WILDLAND WEEDS 11 The beauty of Sonar* is measured by what it does not do. A beautiful lake can turn ugly once invasive aquatic weeds like hydrilla or Eurasian watermilfoil take over. But before you introduce non-selective grass carp or launch a mechanical harvesting program, consider what Sonar Aquatic Herbicide does not do. Sonar does not eliminate desirable vegetation. SePRO has the technology to manage application rates and monitor the treatment progress to ensure that invasive species are removed with minimal effect on native plants and the lake's ecosystem. After treatment, desirable native species are allowed to thrive and often become more abundant, creating a more diverse habitat. ‘Trademark of SePRO Corporation. Always read and follow label directions. ©Copyright 2005 SePRO Corporation. Sonar does not harm fish or waterfowl nor carry any restrictions for using treated water for swimming, fishing, boating or drinking — when used according to label directions — which is unique among aquatic herbicides. The one thing Sonar does do is restore a lake to its more natural, pristine condition. Sonar has been used by wildlife groups to successfully restore numerous aquatic habitats. In addition, a lake treated with Sonar often requires fewer re-applications than lakes treated with other aquatic herbicides. That's because results can last for more than just one season. For more information about Sonar Aquatic Herbicide and the entire line of SePRO aquatic products, visit our web site at www.sepro.com or call 1-800-419-7779. SePRO Corporation carmei, in 46032 Restores Aquatic Habitats Kathleen Craddock Burks (09/30/1946 - 06/08/2006) athy Burks, outstanding Florida botanist and dear friend to many in the conservation community, died at her home on June 8, 2006 after a brief bat- tle with cancer. Kathy will be remembered for her joyful personality, her passion for botany, her personal integrity, her dedication to excellence, and her many contributions to botany and conservation in Florida. Kathy received a Master of Science degree in Biological Science from Florida State University in 1992. Her master’s project was a critical floristic study of Lake Miccosukee and environs in the Florida panhandle, where she developed an early expertise and interest in aquatic species, and endangered species such as the federally listed Miccosukee gooseberry ( Ribes echinellum ) . Kathy’s first major project after graduating from FSU was a four-year study of plant diversity in wet savannas in the Apalachicola National Forest, which involved botanical inventory and monitoring of groundcover diversity in response to prescribed fire. She was hired by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in 1993 where she worked in the Bureau of Invasive Plant Management for ten years and became known as one of the state’s foremost experts on invasive plant species. During this time, Kathy gave dozens of presentations, conducted workshops, and contributed to numerous papers and reports, including Florida Wetland Plants: an Identification Manual (1998, John Tobe senior author) and Identification and Biology of Non-Native Plants in Florida’s Natural Areas (1998, Ken Langeland senior author). Kathy also provided expert plant identification services for biologists and public land managers throughout the state. Kathy joined the Florida Natural Areas Inventory in January 2004 as the program’s invasive plants biologist where she was responsible for mapping the distribution and abundance of invasive exotic plants in Florida, and develop- ing a statewide invasive plants geodatabase to manage the information and make it readily accessible. At FNAI she continued her role as a leader in the field of invasive plants, working with federal, state, and local governments and private organizations to advance critical issues related to the prevention and control of invasive exotic plant species. During Kathy’s career she served as Chair of the Invasive Species List Committee for the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, as Chair of the Science Committee for the Florida Wildflower Advisory Council, as a member of the Florida Endangered Plants Advisory Council, and she had recently accepted the responsibility of serving as Plants Editor for the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals (FCREPA). Whether invasive plants, rare plants, or roadside wildflowers, Kathy was involved with helping bring good science to decisions regarding all of these important conservation issues. Beginning in her days at graduate school, Kathy was always a devoted advocate for the R. K Godfrey Herbarium at Florida State University, bringing positive attention and critically needed financial resources to this important educational and research resource. Based on this longtime relationship with the Herbarium, her family requests that anyone wishing to honor Kathy make a contribution in her name to the Florida State University Foundation, specif- ically earmarked for Friends of the Godfrey Herbarium, PO. Box 3062739, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2739. We will miss Kathy’s expertise and effectiveness, her congenial approach to getting the job done. But we will mostly miss her warm spirit, the passion and dedication she brought to botany and protecting Florida’s important natural areas, and the friendships those who knew her were so fortunate to experience. Kathy leaves an enduring legacy in her good works and friendships that will continue to inspire for many years to come. Gary Knight Director, Florida Natural Areas Inventory 14 FALL 2006 Georgia Exotic Pest Plant Council List of Non -native Invasive Plants in Georgia Category i alert Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) The purpose of the Georgia EPPC Invasive Plant List is to identify and categorize plants that pose threats to natural areas in Georgia. Natural areas are those that are managed to conserve or restore native plant commu- nities. This list does not include species that are problematic only in agricultural or pastoral systems. The list does not have regulatory authority; it is intended to aid in land management decisions and increase public awareness of invasive species. INVASIVE PLANT DEFINITION An invasive exotic species is defined as any species capable of propagating that is not native to that ecosystem, and whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, environmental harm. Political boundaries are not used when determining the nativity of a species. Instead, a species is defined as exotic when it is not native to a par- ticular ecosystem, making it possible to have a species that is native to parts of Georgia, but considered an inva- sive exotic in others. LIST DESCRIPTION The Georgia EPPC Invasive Plant List is separated into 4 categories, and one subcategory (see category def- initions on following pages). Species were ranked by EPPC members with input from other professionals and land managers. Detailed distribution information does not exist for many of these species, making it difficult to use demonstrable distribution data as a criterion for ranking a species. Efforts are underway to collect this distribution data and it will be incorporated into future revisions of the List. WILDLAND WEEDS 15 Category 1 - A serious exotic plant problem in Georgia natural areas, extensively invading native plant communities and displacing native species. Scientific Name Common Name Ailanthus altissima (P. Mill.) Swingle tree of heaven Albizia julibrissin Durazz. mimosa Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Griseb. alligatorweed Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Soims common water hyacinth Elaeagnus umbel lata Thunb. autumn olive Hedera helix l English ivy Hydrilla verticillata (L f.) Royle hydrilla Lespedeza bi color Turcz. shrubby lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata (Dum.-Cours.) g. Don Chinese lespedeza Ligustrum sinense Lour. Chinese privet Lonicera japonica Thunb. Japanese honeysuckle Lygodium japonicum (Thunb. ex Murr.) Sw. Japanese climbing fem Melia azedarach l Chinaberrytree Microstegium vimineum (Trim) a. Camus Nepalese browntop Murdannia keisak (Hassk.) Hand.-Maz. marsh dewflower PaulOWnia tomentosa (Thunb.) Sieb. &Zucc. ex Steud. princess tree Pueraria montana (Lour.) Merr. kudzu Rosa multiflora Thunb. ex Murr. multiflora rose Triadica sebifera (L) Small tallow tree Wisteria sinensis (Sims) DC. Chinese wisteria Category 1 Chinese privet ( UguStrum sinense ) Category 1 Alert - Not yet a serious exotic plant problem in Georgia natural areas, but has significant potential to become a serious problem. Scientific Name Common Name Achyranthes japonica (Miq.) Nakai Japanese chaff flower Alliaria petiolata (Bieb.) Cavara & Grande garlic mustard Arthraxon hispidus (Thunb.) Makino small carpgrass Celastrus orbiculatus Thunb. Oriental bittersweet Imperata cylindrica (L) Beauv. cogongrass Paederia foetida l skunk vine Polygonum cuspidatum sieb. &Zucc. Japanese knotweed Salvinia molesta d. s. Mitchell giant salvinia Category 2 Bigleaf periwinkle ( Vinca major ) Category 2 - a moderate exotic plant problem in Georgia natural areas, invading native plant communities and displacing native species, but to a lesser degree than Category 1 species. Scientific Name Common Name Ardisia crenata Sims coral ardisia Cinnamomum camphora (L) J. Presi camphortree Cynodon dactylon (L) Pers Bermudagrass Dioscorea oppositifolia L Chinese yam Egeria densa Planch. Brazilian waterweed Elaeagnus pungens Thunb. thorny olive Leucanthemum vulgare Lam. oxeye daisy Ligustrum japonicum Thunb. Japanese privet Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Herder Amur honeysuckle Miscanthus sinensis Anders s. Chinese silvergrass Myriophyllum aquaticum (Veil.) Verde. parrot feather watermilfoil Nandi na domestica Thunb. sacred bamboo Nasturtium officinale Ait. f. watercress Paspalum notatum Fiuegge bahiagrass Phyllostachys aurea Carr, ex A.& C. Riviere golden bamboo Sesbania herbacea (P Mm.) McVaugh bigpod sesbania Sesbania punicea (Cav.) Benth. rattlebox Spiraea japonica l f. Japanese spirea Tamarix gallica L French tamarisk Vinca major l bigleaf periwinkle Vinca minor l common periwinkle 16 FALL 2006 Category 3 - A minor exotic plant problem in Georgia natural areas, or not yet known to be a problem in Georgia, but known to be a problem in adjacent states. Category 4 - A naturalized exotic plant (self-sustaining outside of cultivation) in Georgia but generally not a problem in Georgia natural areas, or a potentially inva- sive plant but additional information is needed to determine its true status. Scientific Name Common Name Alternanthera sessilis (L) R. Br. ex DC. sessile joy weed Ampelopsis brevipedunculata (Maxim.) Trautv. Amur peppervine, porcelainberry Anthoxanthum odoratum l sweet vemalgrass Arundo donax l giant reed Berberis thunbergii DC. Japanese barberry Broussonetia papyrifera (L) EHer. ex Vent. paper mulberry Carduus nutans L musk thistle Centaurea cyanus l garden cornflower Clematis terniflora dc sweet autumn virginsbower Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott coco yam Coronilla Maria l purple crownvetch Caucus carota l Queen Anne’s lace Dioscorea alata l. water yam Dioscorea bulbifera l. air yam EragrOStl'S CUrvula (Schrad.) Nees weeping lovegrass Euonymus fortunei (Turcz.) Hand.-Maz. winter creeper Hemerocallis fulva (L) l. orange daylily Hibiscus syriacus L rose of Sharon Lantana camara l lantana Lespedeza thunbergii (DC.) Nakai Thunb erg’s lespedeza Ugustrum lucidum Ait. f. glos s y privet Umnophila sessiliflora (Vahi) Biume Asian marshweed Uriope muscari (Dene.) Bailey monkey grass Lolium arundinaceum (Schreb.) S.J. Darbyshire tall fescue Lonicera fragrantissima iindi. & Paxton sweet breath of spring Mahonia bealei (Fortune) Carr. leatherleaf mahonia Marsilea minuta l dwarf waterc lover Meiilotus alba Medikus white sweetclover Melinis repens (Wind.) Zizka rose Natal grass Mentha x piperita L (pro sp.) peppermint Morns alba l white mulberry Mosla dianthera (Buch.-Ham. ex Roxb.) Maxim. miniature beefs teakplant Myriophyllum spicatum l Eurasian watermilfoil Panicum repens l. torpedo grass Paspalum urvillei steud. Vasey’s grass Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex steud. common reed Poa annua l annual bluegrass Polygonum persicaria L spotted ladys thumb Poncirus trifoliata (L) Raf. trifoliate orange Potamogeton crispus l curly pondweed Pyrus calleryana Dene. Callery pear Rottboellia COChinchinensiS (Lour.) W.D. Clayton itchgrass Rubus discolor Weihe &Nees Himalayan blackberry Sesbania vesicaria (Jacq.) eu. bagpod Solanum viarum Dunai tropical soda apple Sorghum halepense (L) Pers. J ohnsongrass Stachys floridana Shuttiw. ex Benth. Florida hedgenettle Vemida fordii (Hemsl.) Airy-Shaw tungoil tree Scientific Name Common Name Akebia quinata (Houtt.) Dene. chocolate vine Allium vineale L wild garlic Alysicarpus vaginalis (L) dc. white moneywort Artemisia vulgaris L common wormwood Bidens bipinnata L Spanish needles Bidens pilosa l hairy beggarticks Bromus arvensis L field brome Bromus secalinus L rye brome Bromus tectorum l cheatgrass Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. bull thistle Commelina benghalensis L Tropical spiderwort Cytisus scoparius (L) Link scotchbroom Euonymus alata (Thunb.) Sieb. winged burning bush Fatoua villosa (Thunb.) Nakai hairy crab weed Firmiana simplex (L) w. Wight Chinese parasoltree Gomphrena serrata L arras a con todo Ilex cornuta Iindi. & Paxton Chinese holly Ilex crenata Thunb. Japanese holly Ipomoea coccinea l reds tar Ipomoea cordatotriloba cordatotriloba Dennst. tie vine Ipomoea purpurea (L) Roth tall momingglory Jacquemontia tamnifolia (L.) Griseb. smallflower momingglory Kummerowia stipulacea (Maxim.) Makino Korean clover Kummerowia striata (Thunb.) Schindi. Japanese clover Uriope spicatum Lour. creeping liriope Najas minor ah. brittle watemymph Orobanche minor Smith small broomrape Paspalum quadrifarium Lam. tussock paspalum Polygonum caespitosum Biume oriental ladys thumb Polygonum sachalinense F Schmidt ex Maxim. giant knotweed Pyracantha coccinea m. Roemer scarlet fire thorn Quercus acutissima Carruthers sawtooth oak Rosa laevigata Michx. Cherokee rose Rubus phoenicolasius Maxim. wine raspberry Setaria faberi Herrm. Japanese bristlegrass Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roemer & J.A. Schultes yellow bristlegrass Setaria viridis viridis (L) Beauv. green bristlegrass Sonchus asper (L) nm spiny sowthistle Sonchus oleraceus l common sowthistle Torilis arvensis (Huds.) link spreading hedgeparsley Verbascum thapsus l. common mullein Verbena bonariensis l purpletop vervain Verbena brasiliensis Veil. Brazilian vervain Verbena tenuisecta Briq. moss vervain Wisteria floribunda (wmd.) dc. Japanese wisteria WILDLAND WEEDS 17 Category 3 Leatherleaf mahonia ( M ahonia bealei ) The purpose of the Georgia EPPC is to focus attention on: the adverse effects exotic pest plants have on the diversity of Georgia’s native plants and animals; 2 3 4 the use of exotic pest plant management to prevent habitat loss; the socioeconomic impacts of these plants; changes in the seriousness of the different exotic pest plants over time; b the need to exchange information which helps land owners and managers set priorities for exotic pest plant management. President Connie Gray DeKalb County Parks and Recreation cpgray@ co.dekalb.ga.us 404-501-9452 Vice President Malco lm Hodges The Nature Conservancy mhodges@ tnc.org 404-253-7211 Secretary Cynthia Taylor Elachee Nature Center Treasurer Elaine Nash Georgia Native Plant Society Past President Jim Allison DNR Heritage Program Board of Directors: Chris Evans University of Georgia cevans@ uga.edu 229-386-3298 Russell Hattaway Georgia Green Industry Association James Johnson Georgia Forestry Commission Cindy Reittinger DNR - State Parks and Historic Sites J ohn Taylor US DA Forest Service jwtaylor@ fs.fed.us 404-347-2718 Gary Wade UGA - Horticulture Brighton West Trees Atlanta 9th Annual Southeast EPPC Conference co-hosted by the Georgia Exotic Pest Plant Council March 20-22, 2007 Athens, GA www.gaeppc.oig 18 FALL 2006 Foreign Exploration for Biological Control Agents of Three Invasive Plant Species from Asia by Sharon M.L. Ewe 1 , William A. Overholt, Laurence G. Kirton 3 , Ee-May Lai 3 , Ismail Ahmad 3 and Shankar Ulaganathan 4 Introduction In June 2005, a joint Florida International University (FIU) and University of Florida (UF) expedi- tion to Malaysia was conducted to explore for potential insect biological control agents of three FLEPPC Category 1 plants: air potato ( Dioscorea bulbifera Linn.), shoebutton ardisia ( Ardisia elliptica Thunberg) and coral ardisia or coral berry (A. crenata Roxburgh.) (Fig. 1 A-C). This expedition, funded by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, was led by Sharon Ewe (FIU) in collabora- tion with researchers from the Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM). All three Florida pest plant species are native to Southeast Asia, which has a high diversity of both the Dioscoreaceae and Myrsinaceae (Burkill 1935). TWo field expeditions were undertaken during the trip. Fifteen natural areas, parks and forest reserves, as well as sev- eral dozen village compounds, home gardens, and “dusun” (small fruit orchards) were examined. Ewe and her partners traveled approximately 600 km in the urban and rural areas of Peninsular Malaysia (Fig. 2). Air potato The presence of air potato was first recorded in Florida in 1905 (Morton 1976) but the introduction of this species to North America can most likely be attributed to slave ships from Africa (Coursey 1967). It is believed to have originated in Asia but is found all over the tropics in Asia and Africa (Martin 1974). This plant has been cultivated in home gardens as a food source for such an extensive period that wide diversity is observed in species morphology throughout the Old World (Coursey 1967, Martin 1974). It remains an important food crop in sub-Saharan Africa (http://www.cgiar.org/impact/research/yam.html) where the tubers can be easily stored for up to 6 months as an emergency food source. It is less important in Southeast Asia where econom- ic development has reduced the need for long-term food storage. Despite being noted in the floras of Central and South America, the air potato is not an important food source in the New World (Martin 1974). In Florida, air potato forms a thick blanketing vine that can shade out both canopy and understory vegetation (Langeland 2003). At present, manage- ment of this species is limited to repeat- ed physical and chemical methods, with no long-term alternatives. In describing this species, Martin (1974) observed that underground tubers were sometimes attacked by beetles and nematodes but appeared to be more resistant than tubers of other species. Ongoing work in Ghana by Overholt and African colleagues has revealed sev- eral species of insect defoliators, but none yet that are sufficiently host- spe- cific to be considered as candidates for biological control agents. In Northern Peninsular Malaysia, air potato is known in rural villages as “ubi takut babi” (potato afraid of pigs) because of its aerial tubers. Many older villagers recalled growing air potato in the 1950s, when the plant was widely cultivated primarily for its under- ground tubers. However, due to easy access to fast-food chains and marketplaces selling the common potato ( Solarium tuberosum L.), air potato is no longer cultivated. We encountered several Dioscorea spp. vines on the expedition, primarily either in secondary forest or at the edges of home gardens. In addi- tion to the air potato, we encoun- tered D. orbiculata, D. glabra and D. hispida. Almost all individuals, including the air potato, had signs of leaf damage. It appeared, how- ever, that herb ivory was sporadic (lb) Shoebutton ardisia in the under story of remote south-western brackish mangrove areas in Everglades National Park; (lc) Fruiting coral berry growing in the shady understory in Thllahassee. Air potato growing behind the primary author’s house in Osceola County, Florida. 1 Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, USA. 2 Indian River Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 2199 South Rock Road, Fort Pierce, FL 34945, USA. 3 Forest Research Institute Malaysia, 52109 Kepong, Selangor, Malaysia. 4 Penang Botanic Gardens, Jdlan Kebun Bunga, 10350 Pulau Pinang, Malaysia. WILDLAND WEEDS 19 or seasonal as some sections of vines had been completely con- sumed while younger or older leaves remained intact. In some areas, several feet of Dioscorea sp. vines were completely defoliated, possibly by the larval form of a sawfly that was not seen during this expedition but was observed during a previous trip in December 2004 (Fig. 3A; see http://www.fiu.edu/~ewes/www/ Malaysia-trip.htm for a more complete description). In the home garden of the undergraduate volunteer (S. Ulamanathan), two air potato vines were found that showed signs of foliar insect damage but no insects. Tvo bulbils on a vine had healed wounds from borer damage; visual inspection revealed that the insects were no longer present. One Lyman trid (Lepidoptera) and two Tagiades (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) caterpillars were collected from the air potato plants during this trip. The Lymantrid remains unidentified as it emerged a wingless female. The Thgiades larvae did not devel- op into adults, but were probably T. japetus (Stoll) or T. gana (Moore) or both species, as there appeared to be two larval forms. Ardisia Shoebutton ardisia ( Ardisia elliptica ) was introduced into Florida as an ornamental in 1900 (Gordon and Thomas 1997). Having escaped cultivation, this primarily bird-dispersed species can now be found in most South Florida counties (Wunderlin and Hansen 2004) where it often displaces native understory species by forming dense monospecific stands (Koop 2003). Coral berry (. Ardisia crenata ) was introduced into Florida about the same time as the shoebutton ardisia. This species is now recorded in 14 northern Florida counties as well as in Texas (Singhurst et al. 1997). Like shoebutton ardisia, this species is shade- tolerant and can form monospecific carpets that displace native communities (Langeland and Craddock-Burks 1998). These plants represent a significant threat to the remaining closed-canopy natural areas in Florida as they can shade out and outcompete native understory species, altering forest structure and function (Gordon 1998). They also have the capacity to displace native species such as Ardisia escallanoides (marlberry) and the endangered Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett’s silverbush). Although there is no record of human use of either species in Florida, fruits of shoebutton ardisia are eaten by locals in Peninsular Malaysia and described as tasting similar to java plum ( Eugenia jambolana) (Burkill 1935). Burkill (1935) also reports that seeds of coral berry are eaten by the Malays while the indigenous people of the Peninsula and the Javanese use the leaves as a salad. Leaf and root juices of coral berry are also used to treat fevers, coughs, diarrhea, ear-ache, and other ailments. In Peninsular Malaysia, shoebutton ardisia was found as a cultivated ornamental. Although this plant was cultivated in coastal areas and as a roadside plant, shoebutton ardisia appeared to be a difficult species to maintain because of the prevalence of herbivores. Eight species of herbivores were observed on five populations of shoebutton ardisia in June 2005. The most frequently encountered herbivore was the pagoda bag- worm, Pagodiella hekmeyeri Heylaerts (Lepidoptera: Psychidae). This caterpillar was present in large numbers and caused signifi- cant damage by excising round holes (diameter range = 3-20 mm) from the leaves (Fig. 3B). An elongate species of bagworm also was found on shoebutton ardisia (Fig. 3C). Although larvae of the latter species were larger (approximately 4-5 cm long), density of this herbivore on shoebutton ardisia was lower, resulting in less damage. Additionally, we also found a cocoon on the underside of a leaf and some small red-brown chrysomelid beetles that scraped the undersides of leaves (Fig. 3D). The insect that emerged from the cocoon was later identified as a moth, Birthama congrua Walker (Lepidoptera: Limacodidae), while the beetles were determined to be Rhyparida sp. (Chrysomelidae: Eumolpinae) and Manobia sp. (Chrysomelidae: Alticinae). We visually estimated that damage to shoebutton ardisia ranged from approximately 10-80% of leaves damaged and/or consumed by her- bivores. Greater damage was observed on smaller trees (often > 50% leaf area consumed), possibly leading to the death of a planted individual along a trail in a forest recreation park. Figure 2 (A) Outline of expedition trips (dotted line) within Peninsular Malaysia. The first trip explored home gardens and forested areas ofmidwestem Peninsular Malaysia while the second trip focused on rural home gardens and plantations in northwestern Peninsular Malaysia. (B) Geographical location of Malaysia relative to other countries in South East Asia. An elongate bagworm leaf herbivore on shoebutton ardisia 20 FALL 2006 (A) Sections of air potato stem that had been defoliated by unknown herbivores (possibly sawfly larvae). The damage appeared to be several months old. (B) Pagoda bagworm (Pagodiella hekmeyeri) to the right of a damage hole formed by removal of a circular disc of leaf lamina. The bagworm scrapes the chlorophyll off the leaf before incising cleanly around the area consumed. The excised leaf disc is then added to the bagworm’s protective case. (D) Signs of Chrysomelid damage on the underside of a shoebutton ardisia leaf. The beetle scrapes out small patches on the underside of the leaf, resulting in a spot-like damage pattern. (E) Mealybugs observed on shoebutton ardisia during an earlier trip (Dec 2004). Although all plants were fruiting copiously, no fruit feeders were observed and most of the damage to foliage was restricted to the lower half of the canopies. Some of the damage to shoebutton ardisia also appeared to be seasonal. For example, fresh leaf miner damage was observed only on some plants even though there were exit holes of leaf miners on all plants. In December 2004, Ewe found some shoebutton ardisia growing in FRIM infested with a mealybug (Fig. 3E), probably Rastrococcus spinosus (Robinson) (Homoptera: Pseudo coccidae), but none of these insects were found on the same plants in June 2005. The general appearance of the mealybug colony at the time suggests they may have been in decline due to natural control by predators and parasitoids. Coral ardisia was less popular as an ornamental in Malaysia and usually found in the understoiy of primary forests. We found two populations of coral berry but only one species of herbivore, Collix stellata Warren (Lepidoptera: Geometridae), on this plant. This moth species has been recorded feeding on Trigonostemon sp. (Euphorbiaceae), Ardisia sp. (Myrsinaceae) and Allophylus sp. (Sapindaceae) in Peninsular Malaysia (Holloway 1997, in which the moth is referred to by its junior synonym, C. griseipalpis Wileman). Conclusion During our relatively short survey, we discovered a high diversity of herbivores on shoebutton ardisia in Peninsular Malaysia (8 herbivore species), and a lesser diversity on air pota- to (3 herbivore species). At least two bagworm species were found co-existing on shoebutton ardisia in June 2005 and, although present only part of the year, they caused significant damage to the trees. However, the same bagworms are considered pests of some commercial crops in Malaysia (Khoo et al. 1991), and thus are not likely to be sufficiently specialized to use in biological con- trol. Some of the insects observed were possible specialists, such as the chrysomelid beetles found on shoebutton ardisia and the sawfly on air potato. Despite their proximity to the equator (1-4 2 N), the Peninsular Malaysian herbivores displayed a high degree of temporal variation in abundance, perhaps in response to wet and dry periods or as a result of natural fluctuations in population size mediated by natural enemies. Different suites of herbivores seemed to dominate the plants during the two different visits. More detailed and longer term studies will be required prior to introducing candidate biological control agents. The complete DEP report is available at: http://www.fiu.edu/~ewes/www/Malaysia-trip.htm. Acknowledgements We thank the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for research funding to Ewe and Overholt. We also thank Dr. M.S. Mohamedsaid for identifying the beetle specimens; Dr. J. Holloway, Natural History Museum, London, for confirming the identities of the adult moths; Dr. D. Lee (FIU), and S. Cheng and M. Azmi (FRIM), for research support. Author for correspondence: Sharon Ewe, Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199. Tel: (305)348- 7319. Email: Sharon. ewe@ fiu.edu Literature Cited Burkill, L.H. 1935. A dictionary of economic products of the Malay Peninsula. University Press, Oxford, England. Coursey, D.G. 1967. Yams. An account of the nature, origins, cultivation and utilization of the useful members of the Dioscoreaceae. Longmans, London. 230 pp. Gordon, D.R. and Thomas, KP 1997. Florida’s invasion by nonindigenous plants: history, screening and regulation. In: Simberloff, D., Schmitz, D.C. and Brown, T.C., editors. Strangers in paradise: impact and management of nonindigenous species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 21-37. Gordon, D.R. 1998. Effects of invasive, non- indigenous plant species on ecosystem process- es: lessons from Florida Ecological Applications 8: 975-989. Holloway, J.D. 1997. The Moths of Borneo. Part 10. Family Geometridae, Subfamilies Sterrhinae and Larentiinae. Malayan Nature Journal 51: 1-242. Koop, A.L. 2003. Population dynamics and invasion rate of an invasive, tropical understory shrub, Ardisia elliptica. PhD Dissertation, University of Miami, Miami, FL. 207 pp. Langeland, K.A. 2003. Natural area weeds: air potato (Dio score a bulbifera). Agronomy Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville. SS AGR 164. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ pdffiles/ AG/ AG11200.pdf Langeland, K.A. and Craddock-Burks, K 1998. Identification and biology of non-native plants in Florida’s natural areas. University Press of Florida, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 165 pp. Martin, EW. 1974. Tropical yams and their potential Part 2. Dioscorea bulbifera. USDA Agronomy Handbook No. 466. Morton, J.E 1976. Pestiferous spread of many ornamental and fruit species in South Florida. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 89: 348-353. Khoo, K.C., Ooi, PA.C. & Ho, C.T. 1991. Crop Pests and their Management in Malaysia. Tropical Press, Kuala Lumpur. 242 pp. Singhurst, J.R., Ledbetter, W.J., Holmes, W.C. 1997. Ardisia crenata (Myrsinaceae): new to Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 42: 503-504. Wunderlin, R.P and Hansen, B.E 2004. Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants (http://www. plantatlas.usf.edu/). Institute for Systematic Botany, University of South Florida, Tampa. WILDLAND WEEDS 21 H er bicides / Adjuvants / Service FOR Aquatics, Roadside & Utility Rights of Way Paul Mason, Aquatic /VM Specialist PH 407-718-9154 paul. mason@uap.com Jbe Collins, Government Acct. Coordinator PH 352-222-0655 joseph.collins@uap.com Terry W hitecar, Utility Specialist PH 386-473-3882 terrence.whitecar@uap.com Dan McMillan, Aquatic /VM Specialist PH 706-318-3238 daniel.mcmillan@uap.com Office 863-425-6139, Fax 321-226-0213 Florida Books from the Great Outdoors ViiEt our website for book* on Florida plonts nnd cinirunls, outdoor refrnilino, history, kids' hooks onH more! www.noridabooks.com ^[^oiClvUfcior& l J utilMilnq to , it. H^CTsburep, Rancid / * ■ We promote greater U- i f jtf / public awareness of Kr? * Florida’s precious RESOURCE MANAGEMENT water resources... 6900 SW 21st Court, Building 9 # Davie, Florida 33317 (954) 382-9766 • FAX (954) 382-9770 www.allstatemanagement.com waterweed@aol.com Weed and Algae Control Environmental Services • Fish Stocking • Wetland Planting • Fountains & Aeration Vegetation Solutions, LLC • Terrestrial & Aquatic Invasive Plant Control • “GPS recording every time we pull the trigger” • Invert applications - less non-target damage, less drift • Large and small jobs in the southeastern U.S. Paul L. Ridaught ph: (352) 542-7637 cell: (352) 275-4313 Vegsol@aol.com Old Town, Florida 22 FALL 2006 SuMmlM KHSflBH fmOTfTj pS®. if ’?$/ < tiji | l If] J — < elaleuca quinquenervia, commonly referred to as melaleuca, was introduced to Florida in the late 1800s and has flourished in the state since its introduction. In the late 1980s and early 1990s efforts to eradicate/control melaleu- ca began in earnest. Public agencies in Florida have spent an estimated $25 mil- lion on control efforts from 1989 to 1999 and have succeeded in reducing the area it covers by about 100,000 acres (Pratt and Feniter 2001). However, private landhold- ers have been less aggressive in its removal, and this has allowed melaleuca to spread in many areas and resulted in no net loss of the acreage covered. The Areawide Management Evaluation of Melaleuca (TAME Melaleuca) project was created in 2001 specifically to address the problems and unique situations associated with melaleuca control, and to further promote effective control measures. The work pre- sented here is part of the TAME project’s efforts to assess the current status of melaleuca management in the state. Balciunas and Center (1991) conduct- ed a benefit-cost analysis of melaleuca con- trol as part of their study on the prospects and dilemmas that could arise if biological control was used in the fight against this invasive tree. Under the assumption that melaleuca was allowed to spread unchecked, they determined that by the year 2010 economic damages could amount to $1.76 billion. In contrast to this and other prior research that has been largely prospective, we sought to charac- terize the current state of melaleuca man- agement in South Florida and to determine the benefits and costs of controlling melaleuca for the year 2003. The main objective of this analysis was to assign monetary values to the benefits gained in areas invaded by melaleuca that have been successfully treated, and the costs associat- ed with that treatment. To document the current status of melaleuca and associated management practices, surveys were developed and mailed to professional land managers and residents in the 10 southernmost counties of Florida during the summer of 2004. The surveys for the professional managers were sent to individuals whose management areas were classified as park/preserve or agricultural. Information gathered includ- ed general descriptive information pertain- ing to the management unit and specific information on melaleuca control treat- ments. The response rates for park/ preserve and agricultural managers were 32% and 22%, respectively. As shown in Tables 1-1 and 1-2, the responses from park/preserve managers revealed that 619,317 acres of melaleuca inhabited their management areas, while they treated a total of 84,740 acres during 2003. Park managers indicated the largest by Katherine Carter- Finn, kfinn@ ufl.edu and Alan W. Hodges, awhodges@ufl.edu University of Florida /IFAS, Food and Resource Economics Department area of infestation occurred on park/ preserve lands and lakefronts (553,763 and 39,509 acres respectively). Managers also indicated that stump treatment was used most frequently on park/preserve land (46,562 acres.) Because control strate- gies may not be completely effective, a 90% rate of effective removal was applied to the treatment areas reported by park/preserve managers to yield the esti- mated area of melaleuca killed as 76,265 acres. Based upon the survey results, the total costs associated with these control methods were reported as $10.9 million. The park/preserve managers felt that melaleuca impaired the ecological function and recreational use of the land they man- aged by an average of 23%. Agricultural managers indicated that a total of 12,271 acres of melaleuca occupied their land and that they treated an estimat- ed 10,868 acres. Managers indicated that the largest areas of infestation occurred on lands classified as pasture/range land (10,441 acres). The most frequently used method of treatment was mechanical removal (7,279). When the previously mentioned effective rate of treatment is applied, it is estimated that 9,781 acres of melaleuca were killed in 2003. Survey results indicated that agricultural managers spent an estimated cost of $1,180,000 dur- ing 2003. It should be noted that the raw data from agricultural managers represent- ed a sample of the population and were subsequently expanded to reflect that pop- ulation. The population was 11,500 and the sample size was 2,000. The population size was divided by the sample size and yielded an expansion factor of 5.75. This calculation assumed that the sample data gathered was representative of the popula- tion. Finally, the agricultural managers WILDLAND WEEDS 23 Table 1-1. Infested Area of Melaleuca Categorized by Land Use, 2003. Land Use Classification Park Managers (Ac.) Ag. Managers (Ac.) Total (Ac.) Park 553,763 0 553,763 Lake front 39,509 0 39,509 Mitigation 13,897 6 13,903 Range 690 10,441 11,131 Other 8,633 748 9,381 Right of Way 2,718 69 2,787 Fruit 63 558 621 Crop 43 374 417 Forest 0 46 46 Nursery 1 29 30 Total 619,317 12,271 631,588 Table 1-2. Various Control Methods Used to Treat Melaleuca in South Florida, 2003. Method Park Managers (Ac.) Ag. Managers (Ac.) Total (Ac.) Felling + Herbicide (stump treat.) 46,562 2,277 48,839 Foliar/Soil Herbicides 15,802 1,064 16,866 Mechanical 4,592 7,279 11,871 Hack and Squirt 11,454 230 11,684 Biological Control 6,310 18 6,328 Biological + Other 4,242 0 4,242 Other Control 20 0 20 Total* 84,740 10,868 95,608 * Total area excludes biological plus other control methods to avoid double counting. reported that the agricultural productivi- ty, market value, and ecological function of their land had been reduced by an average of 24 percent, 11 percent, and 22 percent, respectively. The benefits that applied to the areas of land reported by park/preserve man- agers were ecosystem benefits, recre- ational values, and the benefits gained from avoidance of increased fire dam- ages, and were $13,142,718, $703,313, and $178,213, respectively for a total of $14,024,244. The benefits of restored ecological function, agricultural produc- tivity, agricultural market value, and avoidance of fire damages applied to melaleuca treatment areas as reported by agricultural managers were in the amounts of $236,866, $2,146,228, $6,675,569, and $178,213, respectively, and yielded a total of $9.24 million. Since there were two categories of man- agers being considered, the overall avoid- ance of fire damages $356,426 was divid- ed between the two categories to yield $178,213 for each managerial category. Total benefits were estimated to be $23,261,120 (Table 1-3). The costs were derived from the res- idential and professional survey data along with the TAME Melaleuca program costs, which include the costs associated with this research, and as shown in Table 1-4, were estimated to be $13.2 million. Based upon the results of the surveys it was quite apparent that the vast major- ity of melaleuca control was still taking place on public land in South Florida. This phenomenon is most likely because a legal mandate requires public agencies to remove invasive plants from their management areas. It may be necessary for the legislature to make the current laws addressing the general public more stringent so as to induce a greater num- ber of private land managers and home- owners to implement melaleuca controls on their properties. While making tighter laws is a step in the right direction, it will also be necessary for the lawmakers to assign specific penalties for those in vio- lation of the law and require a uniform enforcement of the laws and penalties. This would require increased presence by the enforcement agencies and would certain- ly require a greater amount of time and effort from those agencies. A requirement similar to those of some municipalities that call for new construction sites to have melaleuca trees removed from the property before a certifi- cate of occupancy can be issued may be a useful tool in inducing melaleuca removal. The English/ Spanish language residen- tial survey was directed at gathering informa- tion related to the awareness and perceptions of melaleuca by the residents. Specifically, the content of the survey was designed to gather an introductory assessment of residential experience with and knowledge of melaleu- ca, an assessment of attitudes towards melaleuca and treatment methods, as well as cost data, willingness- to -pay information, and demographic data. Residents (as opposed to park/preserve and agricultural managers) had the lowest survey response rate at 20 percent and the majority of resi- dents surveyed (96%) indicated that they did not have melaleuca on their property. It was estimated that the residents of South Florida spent approximately $246,750 on melaleuca control/removal in 2003. A majority of residents who responded to the survey questions aimed at determining their awareness of melaleuca indicated that they knew that melaleuca was not native to Florida and that they knew non-native plants could be harmful (71% and 89%, respective- ly). However, when the residents were later asked to indicate if melaleuca affected their Table 1-3. Total Benefits of Melaleuca Control in 2003 Benefit Value ($) Agricultural productivity 2,146,228 Agricultural land market value 6,675,569 Ecological function 13,379,584 Recreational value 703,313 Avoidance of fire damages 356,426 Total 23,261,120 Table 1-4. Cost Data for Melaleuca Control in 2003. Group Costs ($) Park managers 10,866,113 Agricultural managers 1,180,000 Residents 246,750 TAME Melaleuca 915,000 Total 13,207,863 24 FALL 2006 enjoyment of the outdoors, 77% of those who responded to the question indicated that it did not. When residents were asked to indicate if they felt that melaleuca nega- tively affected their property value, 95% of those responding to the question indicated that they felt it did not. There seemed to be a gap between what people know about melaleuca and how that knowledge affect- ed their desire to take the actions necessary to control it. According to the survey data, the main sources that provided informa- tion on melaleuca for residents were news- papers and local/national news (59% and 47% of residents who responded to the question, respectively). Policy makers, environmental action groups, and public agencies should target these outlets to help educate the public about melaleuca and why they should control it. It is important to keep in mind that this analysis did not consider benefits that may have accrued to private homeowners in South Florida and would only serve to increase the benefit figure. Given the resulting benefit-cost ratio of 1.76, it can be said that current policies requiring melaleuca control provided a benefit to society for the year 2003. It is interesting to note that due to the compound effect of having multiple values tied to their land (i.e.-the values gained from the ecological functions, the actual production of agricul- tural commodities, as well as the market value of the land) this analysis indicated that agricultural lands have a higher bene- fit-cost ratio than park/preserve lands for treating melaleuca (7.83 vs. 1.29). Even without considering the benefits accruing to agricultural land market values, the ratio is still greater for agricultural lands than park/preserve lands (2.17 vs. 1.29). Therefore, it is recommended that policy- makers and public agencies continue to at least maintain the current levels of funding and control efforts for melaleuca reduc- tion. Not only should they continue to maintain the current levels of funding, but they should also consider increasing funds to help specifically target agricultural man- agers to persuade them to control melaleu- ca on their property. This would help solve the problem of having melaleuca spread on private lands while it is being controlled on public lands, and would also help avoid cross contamination from the infested areas to the areas under control. In view of the positive benefit- cost ratio determined in this study, it is recommended that poli- cies requiring the removal of melaleuca remain in effect until the benefits no longer outweigh the costs. For further information, contact the authors at: kfinn@ ufl.edu or awhodges@ ufl.edu Literature Cited Balciunas, J.K., and T.D. Center. 1991. “Biological control of Melaleuca quinquenervia : prospects and conflicts.” In: T.D. Center, R.E Doren, R.L. Hofstetter, R.L. Myers and L.D. Whiteaker (eds.). Proceedings of the Symposium, on Exotic Pest Plants. National Park Service, Denver, CO. NPS/NREVER/NRTR-91/06. 1-22. Pratt, RD. and A.P Ferriter. 2001. “Plan of Work for The Areawide Management Evaluation of Melaleuca quinquen- ervia (TAME Melaleuca).” United States Department of Agriculture and the South Florida Water Management District. Available at http://tame.ifas.ufl.edu/media/docs/ plan.pdf Here today. Gone for good! Earth Balance® is Florida's leading ecosystem restoration firm specializing in large-scale exotic removal, mitigation, restoration, and planting projects. In our exotic removal projects, we use only State-approved herbicides and the latest techniques for the complete and effective eradication of nuisance and exotic vegetation. Our crews are thoroughly trained in the safe and proper handling of all chemicals, tools, and equipment used in exotic removal work. At Earth Balance®, we believe in SAFETY FIRST! • replace those exotics with native grasses, shrubs, and trees from our native nursery. 888 - 536-2855 Contract growing services available. farth Balance Corporate Headquarters: North Port, FL Native Nursery: DeSoto County, FL www.earthbalance.com WILDLAND WEEDS 25 Gainesville's Great Air Potato Round Up by Gary Paul, Nature Operations Division, City of Gainesville, Florida G ainesville’s Annual Great Air Potato Round Up was a spectacular suc- cess for the seventh year this past January with almost 1,000 participants removing nearly 16,000 pounds of air potato tubers from local natural areas. This brings the event’s seven-year total to more than 111 tons of tubers. The Round Up has become a popular and effective educational tool to focus the public’s attention on invasive exotic plants and their management. A goal of the cam- paign is to help people understand how home landscaping decisions can affect the plant communities in our natural areas. Nearly all of Gainesville’s 21 nature parks border residential areas and connect to other neighborhoods by the many creeks that flow through the city. These adjoining properties and creeks can serve as disper- sal corridors for the highly invasive air potato plants and their tubers. The City of Gainesville’s initial public education campaign on invasive plants in natural areas consisted of “nativescape” workshops, a corresponding brochure, and guided nature walks. However, the pro- gram had only limited success. Our mes- sage was getting through, but we often had low attendance, and many of the partici- pants already were aware of the problems created by non-native invasive plants. We were failing to attract a large portion of our target audience - residents with little or no knowledge of the issue. We decided to try a large, full-scale education event - a volunteer exotic plant removal day and celebration, to attract this target audience. The event was modeled after popular litter cleanups, with partici- pants collecting tubers instead of trash. To make it fun for everyone, we planned to have prizes, competitions and, of course, free T-shirts for participants. We sought sponsors to donate cash, goods and servic- es, sending out letters to businesses and organizations, and following up with phone calls. We used a multi-media approach to attract volunteers, including radio public service announcements, posters in business windows, the govern- ment access television channel, our non- profit support group’s newsletter, our web- site and the newsletters of other environ- mental organizations who support the event. Local scouting groups, the University of Florida and Santa Fe Community College also were heavily recruited for volunteers. The Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC) and the Payne’s Prairie Chapter of the Florida Native Plant Society (FNPS) enthusiastical- ly supported us, as do more than a score of other national and local entities. Once we came up with a catchy name, “The Great Air Potato Round Up” was born in 2000. Air potato ( Dioscorea bulbifera ) was chosen as the focus species for three rea- sons: First, the distinctive appearance and prevalence of air potato in Gainesville makes this an easy- to -recognize plant to target. Large populations are established along most of Gainesville’s creeks, and it is a menace to both publicly held natural areas and private landowners. We target areas in nature parks or properties with direct creek connections to nature parks. Second, picking up tubers that resemble baking potatoes involves little training for volunteers; a one-day event precludes time to train volunteers in plant identification and removal. Lastly, air potato tuber removal allows for better scheduling opportunities. Spring and autumn in Gainesville are booked with festivals, plant sales, and football games and summer is just too hot to attract many people out- doors. That leaves winter, when the plant goes dormant and collapsing vines deposit tubers on the ground - perfect for easy harvest and disposal! Volunteers preregister and are assigned to sites. They meet their leader at the site on the morning of the event. Site leaders are a key to the campaign’s success. In addition to volunteer supervision, the education they provide is the most critical task of all. We recruit site leaders from peo- ple knowledgeable in ecology, Florida’s natural communities, and/or invasive non- native plant ecology. Using pressed plant samples, line drawings, photos, maps, and fact sheets, site leaders give short presenta- tions prior to tuber collection by the vol- unteers. To encourage participation and increase motivation, recognition is given to the individual and to the group with the continued, on page 29... 26 FALL 2006 Aquatic Weed Control Products From Helena Chemical Company Agent for the Sonar Product Line in Florida: **Sfrf* Sonar* A.S. • Sonar SRP • Sonar PR • Sonar “Q” Quick Release* Pellets Complete Line of Herbicides including: Nautique* • Aqua-Kleen® • Aquathol® K • Aquathol® Super K • Hydrothol®191 Reward® • Rodeo® • Weedar® • Renovate® • HardBall® Florida Distributor for SePRO Products: Sonar* A.S. (pints & quarts) • Captain* Algaecide • Revive* Complete Line of Adjuvants including: Kinetic® HV • Optima® • Quest® • Induce® • Dyne-Amic® ( ^ELENA * People . . .Products . . . Knowledge ™ . Helena Chemical Company • PO Box 1 758 • Dade City, FL 33526 © 2002 Helena Chemical Company. Aqua-Kleen and Weedar are registered trademarks of Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co. Aquathol and Hydrothol are registered trademarks of ELF Atochem. Reward is a registered trademark of Syngenta Professional Products. Rodeo is a registered trademark of the Monsanto Company. AquaPro and Renovate are registered trademarks of Dow AgroSciences. *Captain, Nautique, Revive, Sonar, Precision Release and Sonar Quick Release are trademarks of SePRO Corporation. WILDLAND WEEDS 27 Invasive Plant Control, Inc. manages invasive species throughout the United States. Clients range from the National Park Service to non profit land managers. IPC strives to build a strong relationship with each and every client. Invasive Plant Control, Inc.’s work with the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy is an excellent example of the benefits of a strong partnership. The following interview with Mary Beth Steisslinger, Ecological Restoration Coordinator for the PPC, highlights some of this organization’s achievements. Who is the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy? The Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy’s mission is to work in partnership with the City of Pittsburgh to restore, renew, revitalize and preserve the four great parks of Pittsburgh - Frick, Highland, Riverview and Schenley. Since 1998, the PPC has been a Private Non- Profit Partner with the City of Pittsburgh. The PPC works closely with the Department of Public Works (DPW), Parks Division, on planning, restoration and maintenance efforts to continually improving Pittsburgh’s four historic parks. Pittsburgh has 1700+ acres in the center of the City in Frick, Highland, Riverview and Schenley Parks. The parks are over 100 years old, and revitalization efforts include the steward- ship of historic structures, landscapes and plantings. What is the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy’s involvement with invasives? The Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy has received many grants to work on natural area restoration with a goal being the reestablishment of biodiversity in these urban settings. Often times, the invasive plant threats hinder the true recovery of a functioning native plant commu- nity. The PPC contracted with Invasive Plant Control, Inc. to help with the initial intensive treatments for 1, 2 and 3 year periods, depending on the severity of inva- sive plant infestation. Once the severe populations have been suppressed the PPC takes over maintenance of invasive eradication with the help of the DPW Parks and Urban EcoStewards. Who are the key players IPC, Inc. and the PPC partner within Pittsburgh? Besides the City of Pittsburgh, our main partners include members of the Pittsburgh Urban Ecological Collaborative (UEC) made up of over a dozen environ- mental organizations including the Nine Mile Run Watershed Association, PA Cleanways, Friends of the Riverfront and Partners in Parks... Additionally, we work with many community groups, schools and indi- viduals in a program collaboratively run thru the UEC called Urban EcoStewards. Once a natural area in the parks or greenspace of the City has undergone some focused restoration activities, Urban EcoStewards are assigned to the areas to keep invasive plants out and steward native plantings. What relationship does the PPC have with IPC? Invasive Plant Control, Inc. and the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy have collaborated on activities that include a county-wide symposium on invasive plants, develop- ment of one of the first cooperative weed management areas (CWMA) in the NE, to trainings, consulting and advising for PPC staff, field partners and municipal land managers in the Pittsburgh area. s. What are some of the current invasive plants being controlled by IPC, Inc. and the PPC? Invasive Plant Control, Inc. and the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy are currently working on an 80 acre restoration of the historic landscape and natural areas in the Panther Hollow Watershed in Schenley Park. Invasive plant chal- lenges include garlic mustard threatening old stands of trilli- um, May apple and Solomon’s seal; Norway maple which has rapidly eliminated many species found in the original sugar maple-basswood community and Japanese knotweed which has spread along all the stream banks and wetland areas, choking out moist meadow species such as Joe-pye, iron- weed, Sylphium cup-plant and seed-box. What are some invasive plant manage- ment projects on the horizon? Invasive Plant Control, Inc. and the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy are currently working with city, county, state and federal partners through the newly formed CWMA, Three Rivers Invasive Species Coalition (TRISC). One of the driving forces behind this coalition is to respond early to eliminate mile-a-minute vine in the western half of the state where it has only recently established a foothold. For additional information about the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy visit their website at www.pittsburghparks.org. You can also find this interview online at www.invasiveplantcontrol.com 615.385.4319 WWW.INVASIVEPLANTCONTROL.COM most, the largest, and the most unusual tubers collected. Awards are presented at a central celebration following the event, which also offers educational displays, free food, and live music, and culminates with drawings for many great prizes donated by local and national businesses. Past prizes have included valuable items such as a new moun- tain bike and a kayak! Public response to The Great Air Potato Round Up has been phenomenal, exceeding all expectations. After seven years, the event is well known in Gainesville and anticipated by resi- dents. Very little recruiting is necessary as peo- ple now contact us to ask if they can partici- pate. Still, we speak about the Round Up to civic groups whenever the opportunity presents itself. Our challenge now is to think of ways to expand the educational message to encompass additional problem plants. A preliminary idea is to collaborate with our local chapter of the Florida Native Plant Society to educate nursery owners about the hazards of offering exotic pest plants for sale to the public and alternatives to these plants. Our hope is to someday rid our city’s natural areas of all invasive plant infesta- tions with the help and cooperation of informed citizens. For more information, contact the author at: paulga@ ci.gainesville.fi. us THANK YOU to the following sponsors for supporting this issue of WILDLAND WEEDS : BASF p. 2 Helena Chemical Company p. 27 Invasive Plant Control p. 28 SePRO Corporation p. 12 Syngenta Professional Products p. 32 Biosorb p. 8 Dow AgroSciences p. 11 Earth Balance p. 25 UAP Timberland p. 22 Applied Biochemists p. 5 Allstate Resource Management p. 22 Applied Aquatic Management p. 8 Aquatic Vegetation Control p. 8 Great Outdoors Publishing Co p. 22 Pandion Systems p. 8 Vegetation Solutions LLC p. 22 29 The Southeast EPPC INVASIVE PLANT MAPPING PROJECT by Chris Evans and Chuck Bargeron The University of Georgia, Bugwood Network UUFUIISIUwkii4 ■ I nvasive species are a serious problem in the Southeast, and addressing them is an integral part of any land man- agement or restoration plan in our region. Ask most managers and researchers and they could tell you where they have seen invasive species and which ones occur in their area. Occurrence/distribution data also is available from research projects, inventories and surveys that have been conducted by graduate students, university researchers, and conservationists. However, this data is not organized for easy access in a central location for the Southeast. In response, the Southeast EPPC is introducing its invasive plant mapping project. The project provides a single location to compile existing data about the distribution of invasive plants across the Southeast and to collect new data using volunteers. This project will improve our understanding of the range of the major invasive species, and aid in a rapid response to early detections of new species. As the data becomes more complete, it can be used by state EPPC chapters to review and adjust their state lists of invasive species. Private landowners, managers, researchers and other interested individuals (whether EPPC members or not) can easily contribute to this database via an online report form developed by the University of Georgia’s Bugwood Network. The form allows space to report descriptive information about the infestation, such as the size of the infested area and canopy cover, and location information. A question that often arises when using volunteer- collected data is “how can we be sure the species is accurately identified?” This mapping project hopes to verify the validity of volunteer- collected data by allowing users to upload photographs with their data forms. These photos will be reviewed by invasive species experts throughout the Southeast for identification accuracy. Additionally, the collection and submission of voucher specimens to a local herbarium is strongly encouraged. Only reports that include a reviewed photo or a voucher specimen will be labeled as “verified.” The project uses the North American Weed Management Association (NAWMA) mapping standards, which means that existing data can be easily incorporated into the database and shared with other projects. Many invasive species management projects store their data in a format that complies with these standards to facilitate data compilation and sharing (including any project using The Nature Conservancy Weed Information Management System (WIMS) program). Even though the Southeast EPPC mapping project is just getting underway, a broad background of data already has been compiled. County-level distribu- tion data from the NRCS PLANTS database (http://plants.usda.gov/) has been included for over 400 invasive species. While this data is not yet complete, it does provide a start. Most importantly, it allows users to see where data needs to be collected. Additionally, for the federally listed noxious weeds, county-level data from the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey Program, administered by USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), also have been included. Plans are underway to add several more large data sets to the project database. Viewing the data online is easy and intuitive. Distribution data is graphically displayed as point-data or on county-level maps. The project uses a Flash-based mapping server for county-level maps that is fast loading and easy to use. Google Maps web services are incorporated to allow users to overlay the point data with road maps, satellite images, and topographic maps. To learn more about the project, view current maps, or enter data, visit the Southeast EPPC’s website at www.se-eppc.org or contact Chris Evans at cevans@ uga.edu 30 FALL 2006 Internodes Mark your calendar • North American Weed Management Association (NAWMA) Annual Conference, September 18-21, 2006, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, http://www.nawma.org/ • 33rd Annual Natural Areas Conference, September 20-23, 2006, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. Theme: Stewards of the Old and New West. Focus: Natural areas preservation in differing contexts. w w w. naturalarea. o rg • National Association of Exotic Pest Plant Councils (NAEPPC) Membership Meeting, September 20, 2006, Flagstaff, AZ as part of the 33 Annual Natural Areas Conference. • California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) Conference, Research & Management: Bridging the Gap, October 5-7, 2006, Sonoma County, CA. www.cal-IPC.org • 30th Annual Florida Aquatic Plant Management Society Meeting, October 30 - November 2, 2006; St. Petersburg, FL. www.fapms.org • Public Land Acquisition & Management Partnership Conference, November 1-2, 2006, Jacksonville, FL. www.ces.fau.edu/plam2006 • 11th Annual Invasive Species Workshop, Florida Panther/Ten Thousand Islands Refuges & The Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, December 1, 2006. Takako_hashimoto@fws.gov or (239) 353- 8442 x 222 • Eighth Annual National Invasive Weeds Awareness Week (NIWAW 8), organized by the Invasive Weeds Awareness Coalition (IWAC), February 25 - March 2, 2007, Washington, DC. w w w. nawm a. o rg/ ni waw/ niw aw_ ind ex . htm • SE-EPPC Annual Symposium, co-hosted by the Georgia Exotic Pest Plant Council, March 20-22, 2007, Athens, GA. Chris Evans at cevans@uga.edu or www.gaeppc.org • Florida Native Plant Society, April 19-22, 2007, Gainesville, FL. www.fnps.org •22nd Annual FLEPPC Symposium, April 30-May 3, 2007, Cocoa Beach, FL. www.fleppc.org • 2007 Aquatic Weed Control Short Course, University of Florida- IFAS, Aquatic, Upland and Invasive Weed Control; Aquatic Plant Identification, May 14-18, 2007, http://conference.ifas.ufl.edu/ Publications • The popular brochure, Herbicide Advice for Homeowners by Dr. Kenneth Langeland, has been updated and posted online at the University of Flo rid a- IFAS Extension Publication website under the title, Herbicides to Kill Invasive Trees in Home Landscapes: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/AG259 • NatureServe Explorers Assessment of Non- native U.S Plants is now available on their w eb site : http :// w w w. n atureserve . o rg/exp lo rer/ . 452 non-native plants of the U.S. are search- able by name, location, invasive impact rank (I-Rank), or by a combination of these crite- ria Assessments are the result of applying a systematic protocol (Morse et al. 2004) to determine the degree of impact an individual non-native species has on the native plants, animals, and ecosystems of the U.S. • A new publication on the use of fire as a tool for controlling invasive plants can be downloaded at: http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/ management/UseofFire.pdf The 57-page doc- ument also can be ordered for a slight charge from Cal-IPC at http://www.cal-ipc.org. • Systematic Reconnaissance Flight (SRF) exot- ic plant distribution data can now be down- loaded for South Florida from the TAME Melaleuca website at: http://tame.ifas.ufl.edu/ The SRFer Mapserver was developed for the TAME Melaleuca project to provide an interactive platform to display and download SRF Data for Melaleuca and other invasive species. • Browse historical South Florida Water Management District SRF data for Florida (1993-2005) • Browse, display and print SRF point data in Google Maps • Download .gif files for use in applications such as MS Word and Powerpoint • Download shapefiles for use in GIS applications • Global distribution data for Melaleuca coming soon! Project contact is Amy Ferriter, Boise State University, Department of Geosciences, amyferriter@ boisestate.edu • The National Exotic Pest Plant Council website at www.naeppc.oig includes a map outlining individual state chapters, the SE-EPPC, the Midwest Invasive Plant Network, the Mid- Atlantic EPPC, and the Invasive Plant Atlas of New England. We are coming together, folks! • Go to http://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/ preventio n/huntersanglers. shtml for an interesting note about The Invasive Species Threat to Hunting and Fishing in America, a Partnership Bringing Hunters and Anglers Into the Battle Against Terrestrial and Aquatic Invasive Species. • The USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Tfechnology Enterprise Tfeam http://www.fs.fed.us/ foresthealth/technology/bcpubs.shtml has a list of publications on biological control, including Invasive Plants of Asian Origin Established in the United States and Their Associated Natural Enemies Volume 1, 2nd Edition, and Invasive Plants Established in the United States that are Found in Asia and Their Associated Natural Enemies Volume 2, 2nd Edition. • The Plant Conservation Alliance £ Alien Plant Working Group has approximately 60 fact sheets in PDF format on their list, Least Wanted: Alien Plant Invaders of Natural Areas: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact.htm The fact sheets include management options. Grants • The Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council solicits grant proposals for non-native invasive plant education and outreach projects in the State of Florida The purpose is to provide funding to oiganizations or individuals who wish to edu- cate the public about non-native invasive plants and their effects on the environment and econo- my of Florida Please see RFP on page 4. • Pulling Together Initiative (PTI) grant pro- posals are solicited from non-profit organi- zations and government agencies interested in managing invasive plant species. The Initiative provides support on a competitive basis for the formation of local Weed Management Area (WMA) partnerships. These partnerships engage federal resource agencies, state and local governments, pri- vate landowners, and other interested par- ties in developing long-term weed manage- ment projects within the scope of an inte- grated pest management strategy. Preproposals for next year will be due at the end of October 2006. To learn more, visit http ://www.nfwf. o rg/pro grams/p ti.cfm WILDLAND WEEDS 31 syngenta 24 hr. support • 1-866-SYNGENTA syngentaprofessionalproducts.com Lose the weeds. Make everyone happy. Quickly restore lakes and ponds while keeping the animal life that lives there. With Reward® Landscape and Aquatic Herbicide you can control a broad spectrum of submersed, marginal, and floating aquatic weeds and see results within hours of application. Reward: the no-wait, no-worry management tool for aquatic systems. Important: Always read and follow label instructions before buying or using this product. ©2006 Syngenta. Syngenta Professional Products, Greensboro, NC 27419. Reward® and the Syngenta logo are trademarks of a Syngenta Group Company.