Tue Mar 14 2006 - 16:35:58 PST

Contents
1. Listserve back and kicking (Global, Planet Earth)
2. Alopecurus arundinaceus (Wisconsin, USA)
3. Zebra mussels in Montana? (Montana, USA)
4. IPANE needs more volunteers (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, USA)
5. Test-drive a honeysuckle popper (Eastern states, USA)
6. Starting a county-wide program (Wisconsin, USA)
7. Mulch from Louisiana and Formosan termites (Nationwide, USA)
8. Literature reviews (Planet Earth)

--------------------------------------- 

1. Listserve back and kicking (Global, Planet Earth)
From: Barry Rice (bamrice(at)ucdavis.edu)

It has been a while since the last posting, but the listserve is back. I'll
be sending out a few listserves in the next week or so, to clear out the
backlog of old posts. An apology ahead of time to those who waited so long
to see their posts get distributed! It is now sent in html packaging, so it
may look a little different to some readers.

---------------------------------------  

2. Alopecurus arundinaceus (Wisconsin, USA)
From: Jennifer Stewart (jstewart(at)co.sauk.wi.us)

Our office is looking for a less invasive species to plant in wetter
paddocks for grazers. Someone suggested Garrison creeping foxtail
(Alopecurus arundinaceus). Have you heard of it? How can we check to see
that it's not just as bad as reed canarygrass?.

---------------------------------------  

3. Zebra mussels in Montana? (Montana, USA)
From: Barry Rice (bamrice(at)ucdavis.edu)

Bas Hargrove (TNC-Idaho) alerted me to a very weird, frightening event that
happened last Halloween night. An anonymous person (whistleblower?
naturalist? prankster?) left a jar of live zebra mussels (Dreissena
polymorpha) on the doorstep of the Charles M. Russell Wildlife Refuge
office. The zebra mussels were attached to a threeridge mussel (Amblema
plicata). The threeridge mussel is native to the eastern USA, where it
occurs in zebra mussel-infested waters, and is possibly being stressed by
the presence of the zebra mussel.

Neither zebra mussels or threeridge mussels occur in Montana. Why was the
jar left? As a threat? For more information, see:
http://fwp.mt.gov/news/article_4019.aspx
If you have any information, contact Eileen Ryce at 406-444-2448.

--------------------------------------- 

4. IPANE needs more volunteers (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut,
USA)
From: IPANE (www.ipane.org)

The Invasive Plant Atlas of New England (IPANE) and the New England Wild
Flower Society (NEWFS) are seeking volunteers to help gather data on
invasive plants. New IPANE volunteers are especially needed for ME, NH, VT,
and CT. The information these volunteers gather is added to the remarkable
IPANE website, a regional database useful to track invasives and rapidly
detect new invasions. Volunteers receive training provided at no charge.
See the IPANE web site at http://www.ipane.org.

--------------------------------------- 

5. Test-drive a honeysuckle popper (Eastern states, USA)
From: Barry Rice (bamrice(at)ucdavis.edu)

I have been contacted by a manufacturer of a weed tool, which is designed to
be effective against Lonicera maackii and L. tartarica (bush honeysuckles).
I am looking for TNC staff willing to try one of these and give me an
unbiased review of the tool (along with photographs) for our web site. The
manufacturer has offered to send us a "honeysuckle popper" free of charge
for this purpose. Give me a call if you want to volunteer for this duty .

--------------------------------------- 

6. Starting a county-wide program (Wisconsin, USA)
From: Christine Regester (christine.regester(at)ces.uwex.edu)

I work with the University of Wisconsin-Extension as a county based
horticulture educator. I need information or a contact regarding beginning a
invasive species identification and control program in Walworth County in
southeastern Wisconsin. Any help in beginning a program like other states
have done would be greatly appreciated.

--------------------------------------- 

7. Mulch from Louisiana and Formosan termites (Nationwide, USA)
From: Faith Campbell (fcampbell(at)tnc.org)

There has been concern that Formosan termites could be spread from
Lousiana/Texas in the wake of hurricane damage. Faith Campbell and Valerie
Vartanian (TNC) have verified this is essentially urban legend. I have
summarized points from their emails below. Contact Faith Campbell for more
details on this issue---B. Rice

--There are warnings/quarantines against moving building materials from
damaged homes for use in other structures or areas. Of special concern are
architectural components such as beams, doors and salvaged lumber and lumber
taken from damaged buildings and stored on the ground where it can become
termite-infested. If anyone is chipping, bagging and selling mulch from
Louisiana or Texas, it is being done under the radar and illegally.

--It is highly unlikely that termites they would survive the
mulching/chipping process. The chipping process is as destructive to insects
as it is to tree limbs and the likelihood is low of transporting a viable
colony of Formosan termites in this manner. Further, any composting that
occurs will raise the temperature inside a mulch pile to the point that
termites will not survive.

--The spread of Formosan termites via bagged mulch would require the
presence of a cohesive and viable colony, including reproducing individuals,
and not just a few individuals in a bag. Such colonies are very sensitive to
disturbance and exposure, and spreading a colony in your yard would destroy
it.

--------------------------------------- 

8. Literature reviews (Planet Earth)
From: Tunyalee Martin (tamorisawa(at)ucdavis.edu)

Alyokhin, A. and G. Sewell. 2004. Changes in a lady beetle community
following the establishment of three alien species. Biological Invasions
6(4): 463-471.

Biological control, the deliberate introduction of natural enemies for the
control of insect populations, has historically been considered efficient
and environmentally safe. Currently, researchers have been concerned about
better understanding negative non-target impacts that can occur after
releases are made. Lady beetles, in the family Coccinellidae, have been
used extensively to control insect pests, however, recent research suggests
exotic beetles can negatively impact native beetles through increased food
competition and intraguild predation.

Coccinella septempunctata L., Harmonia axyridis (Pallas), and Propylea
quatordecimpunctata (L.) are exotic beetles that, although they were
investigated and released for biological control, never established near
released sites and so are believed to have been introduced inadvertently in
shipped cargo. This study observed northern Maine beetle community changes
in potato crops over 31 years.

As C. septempunctata populations increased, the number of two native
species, Hippodamia tredecimpunctata (Say) and Coccinella transversoguttata
Brown, decreased. The later establishment of two other exotics, H. axyridis
and P. quatordecimpunctata, were found to significantly reduce the density
of C. transversoguttata populations only. Although a significant positive
correlation was found between H. axyridis and P. quatordecimpunctata
densities and P. quatordecimpunctata and C. septempunctata densities,
suggesting biotic facilitation (enhanced survival when two or more species
invade the same area) the authors also admit that an external factor could
have the same impact on different invaders. In the end, H. tredecimpunctata
and C. transversoguttata remained at lower densities in potato fields and it
is unknown whether these same trends would result in a larger or more
natural habitat.

Ness, J.H. and J.L. Bronstein. 2004. The effects of invasive ants on
prospective ant mutualists. Biological Invasions 6(4): 445-461.

Invasive species as competitors and predators have been well documented,
however, their effects on mutualistic relationships has not. After
invasion, mutualistic relationships could change. Three groups of ant
mutualisms were studied in this review: ant-dispersed plants,
reward-producing arthropods, and reward-producing plants. The seven
invasive ants studied were the long-legged ant (Anoplolepis longipes),
Argentine ant (Linepithema humile), slender crazy ant (Paratrechina
longicomis), big-headed ant (Pheidole megacephala), tropical fire ant
(Solenopsis geminata), red imported fire ant (S. invicta), and little fire
ant (Wasmannia auropunctata).

Nineteen studies were reviewed to determine changes between ants and
ant-dispersed plants. Eleven of these studies found a negative effect after
the introduction of invasive ants. Researchers found that invasive ants may
collect fewer seeds, consume the seeds, place the seeds differently than
natives or not far away enough from the parent plant. Some positive
interactions included invasive ants excluding harvester ants from feeding on
certain seeds, while consuming fewer types of seeds than the native ants.

Forty one studies discussed the exclusion of invasive ants on
reward-producing arthropods (RPAs) or the determination of a relationship
between the two. Fifty three ant and RPA relationships were reviewed and
72% were considered positive. Negative relationships were determined in
17% of the relationships and non-significant effects in 11%. Positive
relationships could be due to protection from predators and parasitoids of
RPAs by the invasive ants, the building of shelter to protect RPAs from the
environment, and the removal of honeydew, keeping the living area mold and
fungus free. Studies with negative (5 of 9) or non-significant effects (4
of 6) often involved S. invicta. Solenopsis invicta prefers protein-rich
foods and is more likely to feed on RPAs than collect sugars from them.

Fifteen studies investigated how invasive ants affected reward-producing
plants (RPPs). Positive interactions were recorded in nine of the
studies. The benefits to RPPs were increased production of fruit or seeds,
faster plant growth, decreased herbivory and decreased disease caused by
pathogens. Other studies found no difference in protection from herbivory,
whether the plants were RPPs or not. No effect or negative interactions
were seen in other studies, either through little protection from herbivory
or reduced growth.

The comparison of invasive versus non-invasive ants with regards to partner
quality with ant-dispersed plants determined that invasive ants were worse
partners as determined by mean seed dispersal distance. Using RPA
abundance/survivorship, invasive ants were no different than non-invasive
ants. Using a number of different criteria, the general trend was that
invasive ants were better partners for RPPs. The authors caution that these
results are based on a few studies and the determination of partner quality
was oversimplified.