Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-7jgsp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T17:40:23.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Defoliation on Growth and Reproduction of Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolius)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lucinda W. Treadwell  and
J. P. Cuda
Lucinda W. Treadwell
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology and Nematology, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 970 Natural Area Drive, Gainesville, FL 32611
J. P. Cuda*
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology and Nematology, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 970 Natural Area Drive, Gainesville, FL 32611
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jcuda@ufl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The exotic Brazilian peppertree is a serious invader of both disturbed and natural areas in central and south Florida, forming fast-growing, impenetrable thickets that dominate entire ecosystems. Brazilian peppertree has been targeted for biocontrol, and two defoliating insect species may eventually be released. This study was done to consider the possible effectiveness of defoliating biocontrol agents. The research investigated the effects of different frequencies of defoliation on height, crown diameter, and berry production of young Brazilian peppertrees. All the foliage was manually clipped from 36 trees in field plots once or twice per year for ≥ 1 yr. The effect on berry production of clipping 100% of the leaves from scattered individual branches of one large Brazilian peppertree was ALSo examined. Trees that were completely defoliated five times at 6-mo intervals were significantly smaller and produced significantly fewer fruits than undamaged controls. Plants defoliated one time only, two times in 1 yr, and two times in each of 2 yr were comparable to the undamaged controls. From this simulated herbivory study, we infer that multiple defoliations by insect defoliators have the potential to significantly suppress the growth and fruit production of Brazilian peppertree in Florida.

Keywords

Brazilian peppertree Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi SCITEBiological controldefoliationinvasivegrowth responsereproductive responsesimulated herbivorywoody plant

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , April 2007 , pp. 137 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Baldwin, I.T. 1990. Herbivory simulations in ecological research. Trends Ecol. Evol. 5:91–93.Google Scholar
Bennett, F.D., Crestana, L., Habeck, D.H., and Berti-Filho, E. 1990. Brazilian peppertree—prospects for biological control. Pages 293–297. in Delfosse, E.S., ed Melbourne, Australia Rome, Italy Ministero dell'Agriculture e delle Foreste CSIRO Proceedings VII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds.Google Scholar
Capinera, J.L. and Roltsch, W.J. 1980. Response of wheat seedlings to actual and simulated migratory grasshopper defoliation. J. Econ. Entomol. 73:256–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, D.B. and Clark, D.A. 1985. Seedling dynamics of a tropical tree: impacts of herbivory and meristem damage. Ecology. 66:1884–1892.Google Scholar
Cuda, J.P., Habeck, D.H., Hight, S.D., Medal, J.C., and Pedrosa-Macedo, J.H. 2004. Brazilian peppertree, Schinus terebinthifolius: sumac family—Anacardiaceae. Pages 439–441. in Coombs, E., Clark, J., Piper, G., Cofrancesco, A. eds. Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the United States. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
J.P. Cuda, A.P. Ferriter, V. Manrique. 2006. Florida's Brazilian Peppertree Management Plan: Recommendations from the Brazilian Peppertree Task Force. 2nd ed. Fort Lauderdale, FL Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council http://ipm.ifas.ufl.edu/reports/BPmanagPlan.pdf.Google Scholar
Ewe, S.M.L. and Sternberg, S.L. 2003. Seasonal gas exchange characteristics of Schinus terebinthifolius in a native and disturbed upland community in Everglades National Park, Florida. For. Ecol. Manag. 179:27–36.Google Scholar
Ewel, J. 1978. Ecology of Schinus . Pages 9–21. in. Schinus: Technical Proceedings of Techniques for Control of Schinus in South Florida: A Workshop for Natural Area Managers. Sanibel, FL Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation.Google Scholar
Ewel, J.J., Ojima, D.S., Karl, D.A., and DeBusk, W.F. 1982. Schinus in successional ecosystems of Everglades National Park. Homestead, FL National Park Service, Everglades National Park, South Florida Research Center Report T-676. 141.Google Scholar
[FDACS] Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 1999. Noxious weed list. Chapter 5B-57.007. in. Introduction or Release of Plant Pests, Noxious Weeds, Arthropods, and Biological Control Agents. Gainesville, FL Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry http://doacs.state.fl.us/~pi/5b-57.htm#.007 (September 2002).Google Scholar
[FLEPPC] Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council 2005. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's 2005 List of Invasive Species. http://www.fleppc.org/list/05List.htm.Google Scholar
Gogue, G.J., Hurst, C.J., and Bancroft, L. 1974. Growth inhibition by Schinus terebinthifolius . Hortscience. 9:301.Google Scholar
Habeck, D.H., Bennett, F.D., and Balciunas, J.K. 1994. Biological control of terrestrial and wetland weeds. Pages 523–547. in Rosen, D., Bennett, F.D., Capinera, J.L. eds. Pest Management in the Subtropics: Biological Control—A Florida Perspective. Andover, UK Intercept.Google Scholar
Hammerton, J.L. 2002. Invasive alien plants to look out for. Bahamas J. Sci. 10:2–22.Google Scholar
Henriksson, J., Haukioja, E., and Ruohomäki, K. 1999. Impact of leaf damage on mountain birch shoots. New Phytol. 142:469–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjältén, J., Danell, K., and Ericson, L. 1993. Effects of simulated herbivory and intraspecific competition on the compensatory ability of birches. Ecology. 74:1136–1142.Google Scholar
Jackson, R.V. and Bach, C.E. 1999. Effects of herbivory on growth and survival of seedlings of a rainforest tree, Alphitonia whitei (Rhamnaceae). Aust. J. Ecol. 24:278–286.Google Scholar
Janzen, D.H. 1976. Effect of defoliation on fruit-bearing branches of the Kentucky coffee tree, Gymnocladus dioicus (Leguminosae). Am. Midl. Nat. 95:474–478.Google Scholar
Kaitanieme, P., Neuvonen, S., and Nyssönen, T. 1999. Effects of cumulative defoliations on growth, reproduction, and insect resistance in mountain birch. Ecology. 80:524–532.Google Scholar
Krauss, N.L. 1963. Biological control investigations on Christmas berry (Schinus terebinthifolius) and emex (Emex spp.). Proc. Hawaii Entomol. Soc. 18 (2):281–287.Google Scholar
Kriticos, D., Brown, J.R., Radford, I.J., and Nicholas, M. 1999. Plant population ecology and biological control: Acacia nilotica as a case study. Biol. Control. 16:230–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
F.B. Laroche 1999. Melaleuca Management Plan: Ten Years of Successful Melaleuca Management in Florida 1988–1998. 3rd ed. West Palm Beach, FL South Florida Water Management District.Google Scholar
Lehtilä, K. and Boalt, E. 2004. The use and usefulness of artificial herbivory in plant–herbivore studies. Pages 257–275. in Weisser, W.W., Siemann, E. eds. Insects and Ecosystem Function. Berlin Springer.Google Scholar
Littell, R.C., Milliken, G.A., Stroup, W.W., and Wolfinger, R.D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, N.C. SAS Institute. 633.Google Scholar
Lovelock, C.E., Posada, J., and Winter, K. 1999. Effects of elevated CO2 and defoliation on compensatory growth and photosynthesis of seedlings in a tropical tree, Copaifera aromatica . Biotropica. 31:279–287.Google Scholar
Mack, R.N. 1991. The commercial seed trade: an early disperser of weeds in the United States. Econ. Bot. 44:257–273.Google Scholar
Marquis, R.J. 1984. Leaf herbivores decrease fitness of a tropical plant. Science. 226:537–539.Google Scholar
Morgan, E.C. and Overholt, W.A. 2005. Potential allelopathic effects of Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi, Anacardiaceae) aqueous extract on germination and growth of selected Florida native plants. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 132:11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, J.F. 1978. Brazilian pepper: its impact on people, animals and the environment. Econ. Bot. 22:353–359.Google Scholar
Mytinger, L. and Williamson, G.B. 1987. The invasion of Schinus into saline communities of Everglades National Park. Fla. Sci. 50 (1):7–12.Google Scholar
Ollat, N. and Gaudillere, J.P. 1998. The effect of limiting leaf area during stage I of berry growth on development and composition of berries of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 49:251–258.Google Scholar
Panetta, F.D. and McKee, J. 1997. Recruitment of the invasive ornamental, Schinus terebinthifolius, is dependent upon frugivores. Aust. J. Ecol. 22:432–438.Google Scholar
Raghu, S. and Dhileepan, K. 2005. The value of simulating herbivory in selecting effective weed biological control agents. Biol. Control. 34:265–273.Google Scholar
SAS, 1999. SAS OnLine Doc. Version 8. Cary, NC SAS Institute http://v8doc.sas.com/sashtml/.Google Scholar
Stephenson, A.G. 1980. Fruit set: herbivory, fruit reduction, and the fruiting strategy of Catalpa speciosa (Bignoniaceae). Ecology. 61:57–64.Google Scholar
[USDA, NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006. The PLANTS database. Baton Rouge, LA National Plant Data Center http://plants.usda.gov.Google Scholar
Wirf, L. 2006. Using simulated herbivory to predict the efficacy of a biocontrol agent: the effect of manual defoliation and Macaria pallidata Warren (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) herbivory on Mimosa pigra seedlings. Aust. J. Entomol. 45:324–326.Google Scholar
Wolfinger, R. 1993. Covariance structure selection in general mixed models. Commun. Stat. Simul. 22:1079–1106.Google Scholar
Wolfinger, R. and Chang, M. 1998. Comparing the SAS GLM and MIXED procedures for repeated measures. Cary, NC SAS Institute http://support.sas.com/md/app/papers/mixedglm.pdf.Google Scholar
Woodall, S.L. 1979. Physiology of Schinus . Pages 3–6. in Workman, R. ed. Schinus: Technical Proceedings of Techniques for Control of Schinus in South Florida: A Workshop for Natural Area Managers. Sanibel, FL Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation.Google Scholar
Ziminski, M. 1999. Draft: Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule Study. Jacksonville, FL U.S. Army Corps of Engineers http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/pd/envdocs/Hendry/Lake_O/DEIS.html.Google Scholar