www.cabi.org

KNOWLEDGE FOR LIFE

Annual Report 2011 Biological control of Russian olive,

Elaeagnus angustifolia U. Schaffner, K. Dingle, C. Swart and M. Cristofaro

April 2012

CABI Ref: VM10015 Issued April 2012

Biological control of Russian olive, Elaeagnus angustifolia

Annual Report 2011

U. Schaffner, K. Dingle, C. Swart and M. Cristofaro1

CABI Rue des Grillons 1, CH-2800 Delémont, Switzerland Tel: ++ 41 32 421 4870 Fax: ++ 41 32 421 4871 Email: Europe-CH@cabi.org

1Biotechnology and Biological Control Agency (BBCA) Via del Bosco 10, 00060 Sacrofano (Rome), Italy Tel: ++ 39 06 3048 3480 Fax: ++ 39 06 3048 6044 Email: massimo.cristofaro@casaccia.enea.it Sponsored by: Wyoming Biological Control Steering Committee Montana Weed Trust Fund, through Montana State University BLM Havre, Montana, through Wyoming Biological Control Steering Committee

This report is the Copyright of CAB International, on behalf of the sponsors of this work where appropriate. It presents unpublished research findings, which should not be used or quoted without written agreement from CAB International. Unless specifically agreed otherwise in writing, all information herein should be treated as confidential.

Table of Contents Summary 1

1. Introduction 2

2. Work Programme for Period under Report 2

3. Field Surveys and Field Studies for New Biological Control Candidates 3 3.1. Field surveys 3 3.2. Summary and outlook 3

4. Aceria angustifoliae DENIZHAN (Acari, Eriophyoidae) 3 4.1. Host-range testing under quarantine conditions 4 4.2. Open-field test in Iran 4 4.3. Experimental assessment of impact 5 4.4. Summary and outlook 8

5. Ananarsia eleagnella (KUZNETZOV) (Lep., Gelechiidae) 9 5.1. Field host range 9 5.2. Experimental assessment of host range under field conditions 11 5.3. Summary and outlook 12

6. Test Plant List 12

7. Stakeholder Perception 12

8. Work Programme Proposed for 2012 13

9. Acknowledgements 14

10. References 14

1

Summary

1. Russian olive, Elaeagnus angustifolia, is a shrub or small tree of Eurasian origin. It was originally planted in North America as a horticultural plant but has started escaping from cultivation and invading riparian and other moist habitats in western North America. This report summarizes the results of investigations carried out in 2011 on the biology, host specificity and impact of potential biological control agents of Russian olive. The investigations were conducted in close collaboration with the Biotechnology and Biological Control Agency (BBCA), Rome, Italy, the Uzbek Academy of Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan, the University of Samarkant, Uzbekistan, and the University of Mashhad, Iran.

2. Significant progress was made with assessing the host range of the mite Aceria angustifoliae (Acari, Eriophyoidae) under both quarantine and open-field conditions. The results indicate that this species has a very narrow host range and cannot survive on other members of the family Elaeagnaceae apart from Russian olive. Moreover, a field study carried out in Turkey indicates that fruits infested by the mite drop to the ground at an immature stage. A new experimental study was set up in Iran to assess the impact of the mite on naturally growing Russian olive trees, but results will not be available before 2013.

3. The moth Ananarsia eleagnella (Lep., Gelechiidae) attacks and develops inside fruits of the wild and the cultivated forms of Russian olive. Field surveys indicate that this biological control candidate has a very narrow host range under open-field conditions. A new experimental approach to assess the host range under natural conditions had to be postponed to 2012 since rearing the moth failed.

4. Planned work in the foothills of the Pamir Mountains east of Tashkent, Uzbekistan, had to be postponed because it proved to be military area. Efforts are made to obtain a permit to revisit the area in 2012 to study the biology of new potential biological control agents and to hopefully find new candidates.

5. In 2011, a new initiative was launched together with colleagues from the US Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service, Sidney, Montana, that aims to address and discuss potential conflict of interests right at the outset of this relatively new biological control project. One of the main tasks of this initiative will be a stakeholder meeting putatively scheduled for autumn 2012 or winter 2012/13 during which results from literature and stakeholder reviews as well as from the biological control project will be presented and discussed.

6. In 2012, emphasis will be put on pursuing the investigations on the host range and impact of the mite Aceria angustifoliae under open-field conditions and on the field host range of Ananarsia eleagnella. Provided that we can obtain permission to work in the military zones, we will resume field studies with potential biological control agents in the mountain ranges of eastern Uzbekistan. Depending on the level of funding, we will also consider extending surveys for new biological control candidates into China. Finally, an important goal for 2012 is to organize and hold a Russian olive stakeholder meeting in the USA.

2

1. Introduction

Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), a small tree or multi-stemmed shrub native to south-eastern Europe and Asia, was introduced to North America as a horticultural plant and was used for hedgerows and erosion control, reclamation purposes, and as a shade tree and a nectar source for honey bees. As recently as the 1980s and 1990s, many state and federal agencies in the USA and Canada were subsidizing the planting of young Russian olive trees (Katz and Shafroth, 2003). However, Russian olive had already escaped cultivation between the 1920s and 1950s and has now become the fourth most frequently occurring woody riparian plant and the fifth most abundant in the western USA (Nagler et al., 2010). In contrast to saltcedar (Tamarix spp.), which is limited in its distribution by its sensitivity to hard frosts, Russian olive can survive harsh winter temperatures and is therefore able to colonize higher latitudes. To date, it has been designated by several US states as a noxious weed (Colorado, Connecticut, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming), an invasive weed (California, Nebraska, Wisconsin), or a regulated species (Montana). Habitat suitability maps for Russian olive created by the National Institute of Invasive Species Science (NIISS; www.niiss.org) indicate that Russian olive has not yet colonized its whole potential range in North America. Because of the potential benefits of planting Russian olive near human settlements, developing a classical biological control programme against it could give rise to a conflict of interests. It was therefore decided to initially focus on biological control agents that reduce the seed output and hence the spread of this invader, without killing established trees. However, Russian olive has been spreading to such an extent in recent decades that the economic and environmental damage caused may soon outweigh its horticultural benefits nationally. In 2007, CABI in Switzerland (CABI) and the Biotechnology and Biological Control Agency (BBCA, Italy) initiated surveys in Eurasia to determine whether biological control of Russian olive is a feasible option and to come up with a priority list of potential agents. This report summarizes the work conducted by CABI and BBCA in the fourth year of the Russian olive project.

2. Work Programme for Period under Report

The following work programme was proposed for 2011: Search for biological control candidates

• Continue quantitative surveys in Uzbekistan and Iran, eventually also in eastern Asia;

• Send herbivores and pathogens to taxonomists for identification. Aceria angustifoliae (Acari, Eriophyoidae)

• Establish a rearing colony under quarantine conditions; • Repeat open-field host-range test in Iran; • Start host-range testing in quarantine; • Repeat impact experiments in Iran and Turkey.

Ananarsia eleagnella (Lepidoptera, Gelechiidae)

• Determine field host range by surveying closely related plant species;

3

• Set up a laboratory rearing colony if a sufficient number of adults emerge from collected fruits;

• Continue with host-range testing. Rearing of biological control candidates

• Establish rearing colonies and study biology of 1–2 new biological control candidates.

Test plant list

• Finalize test plant list and submit to the US Technical Advisory Group (TAG). Write Annual Report.

3. Field Surveys and Field Studies for New Biological Control Candidates

3.1. Field surveys In 2011, we had planned to conduct field surveys of the herbivore assemblages associated with Russian olive in mountain forests in the foothills of the Pamir Mountains east of Tashkent. Besides searching for new herbivores that attack the reproductive parts of Russian olive trees, the surveys were also to be used to start biological studies on two curculionid species that were found during a preliminary survey conducted in 2009. Unfortunately, during the first survey, in May 2011, we were stopped by military control and were informed that the whole area is military zone and that it is prohibited to work there. Despite several attempts channelled through the Uzbek Academy of Sciences, we were not successful in obtaining a permit to work in the mountain range where we had found the two potential biological control agents. 3.2. Summary and outlook We will pursue our efforts to obtain a permit to work in the Pamir Mountains east of Tashkent, since this is the only place that we have found new biological control candidates in the last five years, and since it has been hypothesized that the centre of origin of Russian olive may be somewhere in the mountain ranges of central or eastern Asia (Prof. H. M. Khaidarov, personal communication). Depending on the level of funding, we also plan to expand surveys into other parts of the mountain regions of eastern Uzbekistan and/or western China.

4. Aceria angustifoliae DENIZHAN (Acari, Eriophyoidae)

This mite, which was recently described by Denizhan et al. (2008), attacks leaves, inflorescences and young fruits of Russian olive. It is almost exclusively found towards the tips of young shoots, i.e. on those parts of the tree where fruit production occurs. Hence, while the mite does not defoliate whole trees, it is likely to have a negative impact on the reproductive output of Russian olive. We therefore believe that this species is a promising biological control candidate that could meet the goal

4

of the biological control programme against Russian olive, i.e. to stop or slow down the spread of Russian olive into semi-natural and natural habitats, without killing trees at places where they were planted on purpose. During surveys carried out in the first two years of this project, we found the mite at several sites in Turkey and Iran. In 2011, emphasis was put on assessing the host range of A. angustifoliae both under open-field and quarantine conditions and on pursuing investigations on its impact on the reproductive output of Russian olive. 4.1. Host-range testing under quarantine conditions METHODS In 2010, different methods of artificial inoculation of Russian olive trees had been tested under both open-field conditions in Iran and quarantine conditions at CABI. Based on the experience gained, we started assessing the host range of A. angustifoliae in 2011. Between May and July, three collections of the mite were made in western Anatolia, Turkey, and hand-carried to the quarantine facility at CABI. Five to ten infested leaves from the field-collected shoots were checked under the microscope for the presence of living mites and then pinned to leaves of potted test and control plants (Plate 1). All trees were kept in the quarantine facility throughout the experiment. The shoot tips that were inoculated were marked and repeatedly monitored for the presence of mites during summer and autumn 2011.

Plate 1. Artificial inoculation of potted control and test plants with the mite Aceria angustifoliae under quarantine conditions. Infested leaves collected in the mite’s native range were individually pinned to shoots of potted plants. RESULTS As in the previous year, mites were found on inoculated shoot tips of Russian olive trees in approximately 50% of cases (Table 1). In contrast, not a single mite was found on any of the test plant species. 4.2. Open-field test in Iran METHODS In spring 2010, an orchard was set up on the campus of Shirvan University, Iran, by planting ten trees each of Russian olive and seven test plant species (Table 2; Plate 2). The trees were planted in a grid of 3 × 4 m in five blocks containing two plants of each species. All trees were inoculated first in 2010 and

5

again in June/July 2011 by attaching infested leaves to shoots of the trees using plastic clips. All trees were regularly monitored for signs of mite attack. Table 1. Results from no-choice host-specificity tests conducted under quarantine conditions at CABI with Aceria angustifoliae in 2011. _________________________________________________________________________ # of # of successful # of mites/ inoculations inoculations leaf (mean ± SE) _________________________________________________________________________ Family ELAEAGNACEAE Elaeagnus angustifolia 17 9 18.8 ± 10.1 Elaeagnus umbellata NAa 19 0 0.0 Elaeagnus commutata 19 0 0.0 Hippophae rhamnoidesb 13 0 0.0 Shepherdia argentea NA 8 0 0.0 Shepherdia canadensis NA 1 0 0.0 Family RHAMNACEAE Berchemia scandens NA 3 0 0.0 Ceanothus americanus NA 9 0 0.0 Frangula alnus 12 0 0.0 Rhamnus alnifolia 10 0 0.0 Rhamnus alatus NA 6 0 0.0 Rhamnus cathartica 18 0 0.0 Rhamnus californica NA 5 0 0.0 Hovenia dulcis NA 6 0 0.0 Ziziphus jujube 5 0 0.0 Family MORACEAE Maclura pomifera NA 6 0 0.0 Family VITACEAE Parthenocissus quinquefolia NA 9 0 0.0 ___________________________________________________________________ a NA = native to North America. b Cultivated in North America. RESULTS On 22 July, eight out of ten Russian olive trees showed signs of mite attack. Presence of A. angustifoliae was confirmed by visual inspection under the microscope. None of the test plants revealed any signs of mite attack (Table 2). 4.3. Experimental assessment of impact METHODS In 2011, two different approaches were pursued to assess the impact of A. angustifoliae on fruit production. In 2009, a long-term experiment had been set up in the common garden at Shirvan University to compare the reproductive output of Russian olive trees that were either experimentally inoculated with the mite, or sprayed with an acaricide to keep them free of attack. Because the young Russian olive trees in Shirvan had not started flowering by 2011, a new common garden was set up at the experimental farm of Mashhad University, Iran (Plate 3). The 20 trees that were chosen for the impact experiment had all been planted in 2010 and were flowering in 2011. In June 2011, ten trees each were either experimentally inoculated

6

with the mite or sprayed with an acaricide to keep them free of attack (control plants).

Plate 2. Dr Asadi and students standing beside a Russian olive tree that was successfully infested with the mite Aceria angustifoliae in the open-field host-range test in Shirvan, Iran. Infested Russian olive leaves were attached to the shoots of the test plant using plastic clips.

Plate 3. Russian olive trees selected for the experimental impact study on the experimental farm of Mashhad University, Iran. The second approach to assess the impact of A. angustifoliae on reproductive output of Russian olive was to monitor the transition probability from flower bud formation to fruit ripening on branches of Russian olive that are attacked by the mite and on branches that are free of mite attack. Flower bud formation in spring occurs at a time when mites are just about to become active after winter dormancy. In contrast, mite damage is most pronounced during flowering and during early fruit formation. Previous comparative studies indicated that fruit production on mite-attacked

7

branches is significantly lower than on branches without mite attack. Also, fruit production was found to be significantly lower on branch segments with mite attack than on segments of the same branch that showed no signs of mite attack (Schaffner et al., 2010). However, such comparative studies do not allow us to determine whether the reduced fruit production on attacked branches is due to the mite attack, or whether mites prefer young shoots that invest more in vegetative than in reproductive growth. Therefore, a trip was made to central Turkey in spring 2011 to mark individual shoots on naturally growing Russian olive trees at the time of flower bud formation. The number of side-shoots was determined on the apical 50 cm of each branch, as well as the number of leaves and flower buds on each side-shoot. Care was taken to only sample branches on the sun-exposed side of the tree where fruits are usually produced. The study site was revisited once a month and the number of healthy and infested leaves and fruits on all branches were recorded. However, when the site was revisited in July, the trees had dropped all their fruits, a phenomenon we had already observed in 2010. Luckily, a group of Russian olive trees was found nearby that was also partially attacked by the mite, but where the young fruits were still hanging on the trees. Therefore, on 15 July, attacked and unattacked branches of seven Russian olive trees at this site were marked and the numbers of side-shoots, healthy and attacked leaves, and healthy and attacked fruits recorded. On 25 August, the site was revisited and the number and status of leaves and fruits on all marked branches were recorded again.

Table 2. Results in 2011 from the ongoing open-field test with Aceria angustifoliae in Shirvan, Iran. _________________________________________________________________________ # of # of trees with trees mite attack _________________________________________________________________________ Family ELAEAGNACEAE Elaeagnus angustifolia 10 8 Family RHAMNACEAE Ziziphus jujube 10 0 Family MORACEAE Morus alba 10 0 Morus rubra 10 0 Family VITACEAE Vitis vinifera 10 0 Family ROSACEAE Malus domestica 10 0 Cerasus avium 10 0 Rosa canina 10 0 ___________________________________________________________________ RESULTS In the common garden at Shirvan University, minor infestations were found on five of the ten inoculated trees in late summer. We expected that only minor mite damage would occur during the first season, which is why we explicitly set up this impact study as a long-term experiment.

8

The impact study conducted in central Turkey produced interesting results. A general comparison of branches with signs of mite attack and branches with no signs of mite attack (Fig. 1A) did not reveal a clear pattern regarding the impact of A. angustifoliae on the reproductive output of Russian olive. However, when we compared damaged fruits (i.e. fruits along mite-infested shoot segments) with undamaged fruits (i.e. fruits on unattacked shoot segments; Fig. 1B), the monitoring study clearly showed that Russian olive trees dropped all damaged fruits at the immature stage. In contrast, some 50% of fruits matured on shoot segments that had not been attacked by the mite (Fig. 1B).

No. f

ruits

per

bra

nch

0

5

10

15

20

25

unattackedfruits

attackedfruits

No. f

ruits

per

bra

nch

0

5

10

15

20

25

unattackedfruits

attackedfruits

July 15 August 25

No. f

ruits

per

bra

nch

0

5

10

15

unattackedbranches

attackedbranches

No. f

ruits

per

bra

nch

0

5

10

15

20

25

unattackedbranches

attackedbranches

A)

B)

*** ***

Figure 1. Results from the impact monitoring study conducted for Aceria angustifoliae in central Turkey. Measurements were taken on 15 July, when fruits were immature, and on 25 August, when the first fruits were mature. (A) Number of fruits on unattacked (white bars) and attacked (black bars) branches, and (B) Number of unattacked (white bars) and attacked (black bars) fruits; during the immature (left) and mature (right) stages. Bars are means + SE. *** P < 0.001. 4.4. Summary and outlook In 2011, significant progress was made with the host-range testing of A. angustifoliae both under field and quarantine conditions. The fact that none of the test plants,

9

including test plant species of the genera Elaeagnus and Shepherdia, showed any signs of mite attack in the quarantine tests strongly suggests that this mite is strictly monophagous. This is further supported by the results from the open-field host-range test. We do not know for sure what happened at the first field site for the impact monitoring study in Turkey where all trees dropped their young fruits. It is noteworthy that the same phenomenon had already been observed at this site in 2010. We suspect that fruit abortion happened because of a local hard frost during the second half of June. However, Russian olive trees growing some 20 km away from the first site were still carrying at least some of their fruits, indicating that such complete loss of reproductive output might be a localized phenomenum. In any case, it might be worth comparing the frequency of complete or almost complete reproductive failure between the native and the introduced ranges of Russian olive, or between areas in the introduced range in North America where Russian olive is invasive and not invasive. In 2012, we plan to continue with both open-field and quarantine host-range testing, as well as with the open-field impact studies. Since attempts to extend the experimental garden at Shirvan University in 2011 by ordering commercially available or collecting wild test plant species from the families Elaeagnaceae and Rhamnaceae, have failed, efforts will be made in 2012 to send additional test plant species to Iran to make sure that the common garden includes at least some critical test plants from the family Elaeagnaceae.

5. Ananarsia eleagnella (KUZNETZOV) (Lep., Gelechiidae)

This moth is the most common fruit-feeding herbivore on Russian olive in Uzbekistan and Iran. Larvae of this moth feed on the fruit pericarp, but they also penetrate the seed coat and feed inside the seeds. First larvae are found in the fruits in early August. The life cycle of A. eleagnella lasts approximately one month. Since young larvae can also be found in September and October, this moth is likely to have at least two generations per year. According to Ponomarenko (1997), the ecological host range of A. eleagnella is restricted to the genera Elaeagnus and Hippophae. First investigations on the host specificity under no-choice conditions indicated, however, that larvae of this moth have a relatively broad fundamental host range, since they also fed on hawthorn and on pieces of apple, both from the family Rosaceae. In contrast, preliminary single-choice host-range studies conducted in Iran in 2010 suggested that the larvae have a very strong preference for Russian olive. Before further exploring the reason for the different results obtained under artificial conditions, we decided to conduct field studies to assess the field host range of A. eleagnella in Uzbekistan and to test methods to experimentally assess the host range of this moth under more natural conditions. These studies were carried out in collaboration with Dr Toshpulat Rajabov from the University of Samarkant. 5.1. Field host range METHODS Between the end of July and September 2011, field surveys were carried out at three locations in the Samarkant district and Bukhara region. During a first visit, Russian olive fruits were checked for presence of A. eleagnella larvae. If

10

larvae were found at a site, several hundred fruits each were collected from different Russian olive trees as well as from sympatrically occurring fruit trees belonging to plant genera represented in the test plant list. All fruits were taken back to the university, where a subset of the collected fruits was dissected. The remaining fruits were stored in plastic containers covered with a gauze lid and regularly inspected for adult moth emergence (Plate 4).

Plate 4. Storage conditions for fruits from Russian olive and test plant species at the University of Samarkant (photo: T. Rajabov). RESULTS During surveys carried out in late July and early August, no signs of attack by A. eleagnella were found. Attacked fruits were first recorded on 14 August. Accordingly, fruit collections were made from mid August until the end of September.

Plates 5. Fruits collected during the field study on the field host range of Aceria eleagnella in Uzbekistan. Left: Elaeagnus angustifolia infested by A. eleagnella; centre: fruits of Crataegus turkestanica were found to be infested by a Microlepidoptera that morphologically differs from A. eleagnella; right: fruits of Hippophae rhamnoides did not show signs of attack by a Microlepidoptera (photos: T. Rajabov). Test plant species growing sympatrically with Russian olive in the Samarkant district and Bukhara region include the closely related species Hippophae rhamnoides (sea buckthorn) as well as various species in the family Rosaceae (Plate 5). In 2011, the attack rate on Russian olive fruits at the study sites ranged from 1% to 20% (Table

11

3). In contrast, no larvae of A. eleagnella were found in fruits of any of the test plant species sampled during the surveys. Fruits of Crataegus turkestanica were also infested by a Microlepidoptera species, but the larvae differed morphologically from those of A. eleagnella. Table 3. Results from assessments of the field host range of the fruit-attacking moth Ananarsia eleagnella in Uzbekistan in 2011. At each site fruits from five to ten individual trees per species were sampled. _________________________________________________________________________

Site and # of fruits # of fruits % of fruits plant species dissected attacked attacked _________________________________________________________________________

Kattakurgan Elaeagnus angustifolia 600 20 3.3 Zeravshan River Elaeagnus angustifolia 300 33 1.1 Hippophae rhamnoides 300 0 0 Crataegus turkestanica 308 0 0 Prunus sogdiana 200 0 0 Rosa canina 300 0 0 Urgut Elaeagnus angustifolia wild 300 12 4.0 Elaeagnus angustifolia cultivated 300 62 20.7 Crataegus turkestanica 300 0 0 Rosa canina 300 0 0 ________________________________________________________________________ 5.2. Experimental assessment of host range under field conditions METHODS During the field surveys carried out between July and September 2011 in the Samarkant district and Bukhara region, a large number of Russian olive fruits infested with A. eleagnella were collected to establish a rearing colony of this biological control agent at the University of Samarkant. The plan was to rear the larvae of the first generation to adulthood, and then experimentally release adults of the second generation onto fruit-bearing branches of test and control trees and cover each branch with a gauze bag. The gauze bag was to be removed again after one week, i.e. when adults of A. eleagnella had died. We planned to assess attack of fruits of test and control plants as well as larval development in October/November. In contrast to bioassays with detached/cut fruits in Petri dishes, this method has the advantage that the fruits will remain fresh over the whole period of larval development of A. eleagnella. RESULTS For unknown reasons, no adults emerged from the large collection of infested fruits. Dissection of the fruits in October 2011 revealed a large number of larvae, but they were all dead. Attempts to collect new infested fruits in the field were unsuccessful as well; no larvae were found in any of the Russian olive fruits collected in the field in October.

12

5.3. Summary and outlook As indicated above, the ecological host range of A. eleagnella is believed to comprise members of the genera Elaeagnus and Hippophae (Ponomarenko, 1997). The field data collected in 2011 and in previous years indicate, however, that the larvae of this moth do not attack H. rhamnoides under field conditions. In general, the attack rate of Russian olive fruits in 2011 was found to be lower than in previous years. What was surprising was that A. eleagnella apparently did not produce a second generation in 2011. In previous years, larvae were found attacking fruits in the field until late October. It remains to be shown whether the failure in rearing A. eleagnella at Samarkant University was due to the same (unknown) factors that were responsible for the lack of a second generation under field conditions, or whether it was due to suboptimal rearing conditions. In 2012, we plan to continue the two approaches for assessing the host range of A. eleagnella under field conditions by finding field sites with additional representatives of plant genera represented on the test plant list, and by improving the rearing conditions in order to obtain adult A. eleagnella that can then be used for experimental releases as described above. In previous years, we were not able to obtain an export permit to ship infested Russian olive fruits to CABI in Switzerland. Provided that we are more successful in obtaining an export permit in 2012, we will also repeat our efforts at establishing a quarantine rearing colony that will allow us to further study the biology of this insect.

6. Test Plant List

The test plant list of the Russian olive biological control project was presented and discussed at the Annual Meeting of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) in Mission, Texas, in early October 2009. Because of the relatively isolated taxonomic position of Russian olive, the test plant list consists of only a few test plant species from the same family, the Elaeagnaceae. The most critical test plant species are the only native congeneric species, Elaeagnus commutata, as well as the three members of the North American genus Shepherdia. No other genera within the family Elaeagnaceae have native North American species. The ornamental and medicinal plant Hippophae rhamnoides (sea buckthorn), which is a non-native in North America but regularly cultivated for medicinal and ornamental purposes, is also included in the test plant list. The test plant list with an accompanying description was compiled in fall 2009 and sent to the project partners in the USA. Once the general information on the target weed and the rationale for conducting a biological control project are completed, the list will be formally submitted to TAG.

7. Stakeholder Perception

To address and discuss potential conflict of interests right at the outset of this new biological control initiative, we recently initiated, together with colleagues from USDA-ARS (US Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service) Sidney, Montana, a platform to collect, analyse and disseminate science-based information on Russian olive. Particular emphasis is being put on the following questions: (i)

13

what are the economic, environmental or social impacts of Russian olive in North America or in other parts of the invaded range, (ii) what are the goals of Russian olive management, and (iii) is classical biological control a useful and feasible way to achieve these management goals? The initiative was first presented to a wider audience at the XIII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds in Hawaii, in September 2011 (Delaney et al., 2011). During the meeting, a larger consortium consisting of scientists from ten different organizations or institutions met for the first time to discuss the next steps in this initiative. A first important output was the finalization of a questionnaire that was subsequently sent out to several hundreds of stakeholders. The questionnaire included questions regarding the status of Russian olive in the stakeholder’s area (e.g. invasive in some habitats, beneficial in others?), the assumed or documented negative and positive impacts of Russian olive in the area, research needs to address the status and impact of Russian olive in the area, and the stakeholder’s concerns regarding biological control agents that (i) defoliate trees, (ii) kill trees, or (iii) reduce the reproductive output of Russian olive. In parallel, an extensive literature review is underway covering the scientific literature from both the native and the introduced ranges of Russian olive. This literature review will be largely done by USDA-ARS Sidney, Montana, and CABI. The information gathered from the stakeholders and the literature review will be made available electronically and in a joint publication. Another milestone of this initiative will be a stakeholder meeting putatively scheduled for autumn 2012 or winter 2012/13 during which the information gathered from the literature and stakeholder reviews as well as from the biological control project will be presented to and discussed with a large number of stakeholders, including USDA-APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service), USDA Forest Service, US Department of the Interior (USDI) BLM (Bureau of Land Management), USDI BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs), US Fish and Wildlife Service, state agencies, non-governmental organizations such as environmental organizations, and industry.

8. Work Programme Proposed for 2012

In line with the results obtained during the field season 2011, it is proposed that work in 2012 should focus on the following elements. Aceria angustifoliae (Acari, Eriophyoidae)

• Continue open-field host-range test in Iran; • Continue host-range testing in quarantine; • Continue impact experiments in Iran and Turkey.

Ananarsia eleagnella (Lepidoptera, Gelechiidae)

• Continue to determine field host range by surveying closely related plant species;

• Continue host-range testing in Uzbekistan; • Provided that export permit can be obtained try to establish rearing colony at

CABI.

14

New biological control candidates • Provided a permit for surveys in military areas in Uzbekistan can be obtained,

conduct survey to collect additional potential agents, specifically two curculionid species attacking shoot tips of Russian olive trees.

Stakeholder workshop

• Review literature on Russian olive biology and environmental impact in the native range;

• Help prepare and participate in a stakeholder workshop on Russian olive in North America.

Write Annual Report

9. Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Prof. Aloviddin Khamraev (Institute of Zoology, Uzbek Academy of Sciences, Tashkent) and Dr Toshpulat Rajabov (University of Samarkant) for their collaboration in Uzbekistan. Special thanks are also due to our Iranian partners Dr Reza Ghorbani and Dr Ghorbanli Asadi (Mashhad University), and our Turkish partners Dr Levent Gültekin and Dr Rüstem Hayat (Ardahan University) for their valued help with carrying out experiments and field surveys in Asia. We thank John L. Baker for providing roots of Russian olive and of test plant species from North America, and Florence Willemin and Christian Leschenne (both CABI) for plant propagation. Financial support for this project was kindly provided by the Wyoming Biological Control Steering Committee, the Montana Weed Trust Fund through Montana State University, and BLM Havre through Wyoming Biological Control Steering Committee.

10. References

Delaney, K.J., Espeland, E., Norton, A., Sing, S., Keever, K., Baker, J.L., Cristofaro, M., Jashenko, R., Gaskin, J. and Schaffner, U. (2011) Russian olive – a suitable target for classical biological control in North America? XIII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Waikoloa, Hawaii, 11-16 September 2011.

Denizhan, E., Monfreda, R., De Lillo, E. and Cobanoglu, S. (2008) Two new species of eriophyoid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) associated with Elaeagnaceae in Turkey. Zootaxa 1698, 41–48.

Katz, G.L. and Shafroth, P.B. (2003) Biology, ecology, and management of Elaeagnus angustifolia L. (Russian olive) in western North America. Wetlands 23, 763–777.

Nagler, P.L., Glenn, E.P., Jarnevich, C.S. and Shafroth, P.B. (2010) Distribution and abundance of saltcedar and Russian olive in the western United States. In: Shafroth, P.B., Brown, C.A. and Merritt, D.M. (eds) Saltcedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act Science Assessment. Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5247, US Geological Survey, pp. 11–31.

Ponomarenko, M.G. (1997) Catalogue of the subfamily Dichomeridinae (Lepidoptera, Gelechiidae) of the Asia. Far Eastern Entomologist 50, 1–67.

Schaffner, U., Zaquini, L. and Cristofaro, M. (2010) Biological control of Russian olive, Elaeagnus angustifolia. Annual report 2009. CABI Europe – Switzerland.

15

Distribution list John L. Baker Roman Jashenko Dan Bean Ken Junkert Larry Beneker Kenny Keever Dave Burch Aloviddin Khamraev Mike Carruthers Boris Korotyaev Rose DeClerck-Floate Andrew Norton Tim Collier Gary Piper Enzo Colonnelli Mike Pitcairn Eric Coombs Toshpulat Rajabov Enrico de Lillo Blake Schaan Jack de Loach Mark Schwarzländer Kevin Delaney Bruce Shambaugh Joe DiTomaso Josh Shorb Erin Espeland John Simons John Gaskin Sharlene Sing Jim Ghekiere Lincoln Smith Reza Ghorbani Ivo Toşevski Levent Gültekin Livy Williams Rich Hansen USDA ARS EBCL Rüstem Hayat CABI library (2) Bruce Helbig

www.cabi.org

KNOWLEDGE FOR LIFE

contact CABI europe CABI Head Office Nosworthy Way, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8DE, UK T: +44 (0)1491 832111 CABI Bakeham Lane, Egham, Surrey, TW20 9TY, UK T: +44 (0)1491 829080 CABI Rue des Grillons 1, CH-2800 Delémont, SWITZERLAND T: +41 (0)32 4214870

asia CABI C/o Internal Post Box 56, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 12 Zhongguancun Nandajie, Beijing 100081, CHINA T: +86 (0)10 82105692 CABI 2nd Floor, CG Block, NASC Complex, DP Shastri Marg, Opp. Todapur Village, PUSA, New Delhi – 110012, INDIA T: +91 (0)11 25841906 CABI PO Box 210, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, MALAYSIA T: +60 (0)3 89432921 CABI Opposite 1-A, Data Gunj Baksh Road, Satellite Town, Rawalpindi-PAKISTAN T: +92 (0)51 9290132 africa CABI ICRAF Complex, United Nations Avenue, Gigiri, PO Box 633-00621, Nairobi, KENYA T: +254 (0)20 7224450/62

americas CABI UNESP- Fazenda Experimental Lageado, Rua: José Barbosa de Barros, 1780 Botucatu – SP, CEP: 18610-307, BRAZIL T: (14) 3882 - 6300 / 3811 - 7127 CABI Gordon Street, Curepe, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO T: +1 868 6457628 CABI 875 Massachusetts Avenue, 7th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA T: +1 617 3954051