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.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11