Endangered Cactus Restoration: Mitigating the Non‐Target Effects of a Biological Control Agent (Cactoblastis cactorum) in Florida

The moth Cactoblastis cactorum (Berg), the poster child of weed biological control in Australia, has recently invaded the United States and threatens native cacti. Concern is greatest for the endangered semaphore cactus, Opuntia corallicola, of which only two known populations exist in the wild. We made three separate outplantings of O. corallicola, designed to bolster the number of extant cacti and to test the effectiveness of three different treatments to protect the cacti from Cactoblastis. In one outplanting, we tested the associational susceptibility hypothesis and found that cacti planted more than 20 m away from the common prickly pear cactus, Opuntia stricta, which act as a reservoir of Cactoblastis, were just as frequently attacked and killed by Cactoblastis as cacti planted within 5 m. In addition, Cactoblastis attack was greater in the shade than in the sun. In the second outplanting, we minimized the attack from Cactoblastis by using protective cages planted at least 500 m from O. stricta in areas not inhabited by cacti. Cages attracted the attention of local animals, which destroyed the cages and trampled the cacti inside to death. Crown rot caused high mortality in this outplanting. In the third outplanting, again conducted at least 500 m away from O. stricta, fertilization did not reduce crown rot mortality. We suggest that increasing populations of O. corallicola in Florida, by means of outplantings, will remain a challenge because of death from Cactoblastis when planted in areas where cacti normally grow and because of death from crown rot in areas where they do not. Because Cactoblastis is moving rapidly northward and westward and has already reached Charleston, South Carolina, rare cacti in the rest of the U.S. Southeast may be in danger. Eventually, many cactus species in the U.S. South, Southwest, and Mexico will likely be threatened by this moth.

[1]  F. J. Simmonds,et al.  Biological control ofOpuntia spp. byCactoblastis cactorum in the Leeward Islands (West Indies) , 1966, Entomophaga.

[2]  P. Stiling Potential Non-target Effects of a Biological Control Agent, Prickly Pear Moth, Cactoblastis cactorum (Berg) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), in North America, and Possible Management Actions , 2002, Biological Invasions.

[3]  S. Louda,et al.  Indirect versus direct effects of grasses on growth of a cactus (Opuntia fragilis): insect herbivory versus competition , 1994, Oecologia.

[4]  S. Hight,et al.  EXPANDING GEOGRAPHICAL RANGE OF CACTOBLASTIS CACTORUM (LEPIDOPTERA: PYRALIDAE) IN NORTH AMERICA , 2002 .

[5]  Steven W. Woodmansee,et al.  A SIGNIFICANT NEW POPULATION OF THE RARE SEMAPHORE PRICKLYPEAR CACTUS, OPUNTIA CORALLICOLA (CACTACEAE) , 2002 .

[6]  Jorge Soberón,et al.  The Importance of Opuntia in Mexico and Routes of Invasion and Impact of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) , 2001 .

[7]  J Memmott,et al.  Infiltration of a Hawaiian Community by Introduced Biological Control Agents , 2001, Science.

[8]  S. J.,et al.  THE IMPORTANCE OF OPUNTIA IN MEXICO AND ROUTES OF INVASION AND IMPACT OF CACTOBLASTIS CACTORUM ( LEPIDOPTERA : PYRALIDAE ) , 2001 .

[9]  J. Elkinton,et al.  Effects of a Biological Control Introduction on Three Nontarget Native Species of Saturniid Moths , 2000, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[10]  B. A. Hawkins,et al.  Non-target Effects of Biological Control , 2000 .

[11]  J. Hoffmann,et al.  The renowned cactus moth, Cactoblastis cactorum: its natural history and threat to native Opuntia floras in Mexico and the United States of America , 2000 .

[12]  L. Ruggiero,et al.  Non-target effects of an introduced biological control agent on deer mouse ecology , 2000, Oecologia.

[13]  F. Howarth Non-target Effects of Biological Control Agents , 2000 .

[14]  V. Negrón-Ortíz Reproductive biology of a rare cactus, Opuntia spinosissima (Cactaceae), in the Florida Keys: why is seed set very low? , 1998, Sexual Plant Reproduction.

[15]  Derek M. Johnson,et al.  DISTRIBUTION AND DISPERSAL OF CACTOBLASTIS CACTORUM (LEPIDOPTERA: PYRALIDAE), AN EXOTIC OPUNTIA-FEEDING MOTH, IN FLORIDA , 1998 .

[16]  Daniel Simberloff,et al.  Ecological Effects of an Insect Introduced for the Biological Control of Weeds , 1997 .

[17]  Daniel Simberloff,et al.  How Risky is Biological Control , 1996 .

[18]  Derek M. Johnson,et al.  Host specificity of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), an exotic Opuntia-feeding moth, in Florida , 1996 .

[19]  D. Onstad,et al.  Risks of Host Range Expansion by Parasites of Insects Population ecology can help us estimate the risks that biological control agents pose to nontarget species , 1996 .

[20]  R. Pemberton Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in the United States: An Immigrant Biological Control Agent or an Introduction of the Nursery Industry? , 1995 .

[21]  D. Simberloff,et al.  Conservation of pristine habitats and unintended effects of biological control. , 1992 .

[22]  J. Linsley ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CLASSICAL BIOLOGICAL CONTROL I , 1991 .

[23]  P. Stiling Calculating the establishment rates of parasitoids in classical biological control. , 1990 .

[24]  Joshua Lederberg,et al.  Letter from Joshua Lederberg to John H. Gibbons, United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment , 1986 .

[25]  H. Hokkanen,et al.  Success in classical biological control , 1985 .

[26]  F. Slansky,et al.  THE NUTRITIONAL ECOLOGY OF IMMATURE INSECTS , 1981 .

[27]  C. Clausen,et al.  Introduced parasites and predators of arthropod pests and weeds : a world review , 1978 .

[28]  A. P. Dodd The biological campaign against prickly-pear , 1940 .