![]() |
Photo by Colin G Wilson. Rubber vine smothering vegetation. Viewed 30.03.2014 |
Rubber Vine, Cryptostegia grandiflora, endemic to the Island of Madagascar, was
introduced to Northern Australia in 1917 in the hope of becoming a rubber
source ( Huwer, McFadyen, 1999). The shrub has since become a serious problem in the areas that
it inhabits.
There have been several mechanisms
to conquer this weed. Chemical control is effective as rubber vine is susceptible
to many herbicides however this method has proven to be uneconomical due to the
vast areas of infestation. In 1988, Euclasta whalleyi , a leaf feeding moth,
also endemic to Madagascar was released as a potential biocontrol agent. It has
been effective to a degree, increasing leaf litter which promotes grass growth
amongst rubber vine which intern increases fuel loads for fire management. This
creates opportunities to use fire as a part of the approach to manage this
damaging weed (Tomly, Evans, 2004).
In 1995 a rust fungus, Maravalia cryptostegiae, also from Madagascar was released to areas
of the weed’s range in Queensland. The
results showed a rust-induced defoliation, producing an overall reduction in fecundity
and biomass of the plant. Particularly in areas with low water tables weed
growth decreased noticeably. At some sites both drought and rust induced
stressed caused up to 75% plant mortality. This resulted in improved growth of
indigenous grasses amongst thickets which creates ideal conditions in order to
burn off and control the weed further. In order to gain full restraint over
this economically and ecologically damaging weed would require the assistance
of the landholders in which the rubber vine occupies.
Refereneces:
Huwer RK, McFadyen R.E, 1999, 'Biology and the host range of the hawk moth Nephele densoi Keferstein (Lep.: Sphingidaw) a potential agent for the biological control of rubber vine Cryptosteyia grandflora', Biocontrol Science Technology, Vol.9, no. 1, p.10.
McFadyden R.E, Harvey G.J, 1990, 'Distribution and control of rubber vine Cryptosteyia grandflora weed in North Queensland, Plant Protection Quarterly, Vol.5 no. 4, pp. 152-155.
Tomley A.J, Evans H.C, 2004, 'Establishment of and preliminary impact studies on, the rust, Maravalia Cryptopstegiae, of invasive alien weed, Cryptosteyia grandflora in Queensland, Australia, Plant Pathology, Vol.53, no. 4, pp. 475-484.
Well written. It’s great to know that two different biological control agents are effective in controlling this invasive plant, to a degree. Have the biocontrol agents had any negative impacts on the native fauna and/or flora? Nice post.
ReplyDeleteThe rust fungus has come into contact with native plants, however it has not shown to have any detrimental effects on it.
DeleteAssuming there aren't any negative consequences arising from these species, it would seem that people are getting better at choosing biological control agents. How do they predict the potential effects on the ecosystem before they release the organism into the wild? What's the difference between the disaster of the cane toad and a successful biological control agent?
ReplyDeleteThat's a good question! From what i've read before the cane toad was released they found that the toad ate the cane beetle, making it seem like a good control agent. however upon the release of the cane toad it was discovered that the cane toad ate just about anything, so the cane beetle not being its main food source, wasn't enough to eradicate them altogether. It's always a challenge to predict the outcome of introductions into ecosystems, these days more thorough testings are conducted before the release into the environment.
Delete