United States

Department of

Agriculture

Marketing and

Regulatory

Programs

Animal and

Plant Health

Inspection

Servi ce 

# Field Release of

Megamelus scutellar

i s

, Berg (Hemiptera:

Delphacidae)

, for

B iological Control of

W ater H yacinth Eichhornia

crassipes Mart. (Solms)

(Pontederiales:

Pontederiaceae) in the

Continental United States

Environmental Assessment,

January 2010

# Field Release of Megamelus

scutellar

i s

, Berg (Hemiptera:

Delphacidae), for B iological C ontrol

of Water H yacinth Eichhornia

crassipes Mart. (Solms)

(Pontederiales: Pontederiaceae) in

the Continental United States

Environmental Asse ssment,

January 2010

Agency Contact:

Shirley Wager

- Page , Branch Chief

Pest Permitting

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

4700 River Road, Unit 133

Riverdale, MD 20737

– 1236

The U.S . Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all

its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex,

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or

family status. (Not all p rohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons

with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720

– 2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil

Rights, Room 326

– W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250

– 9410 or call (202) 720

– 5964 (voice and TDD).

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and em ployer.

Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply

recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) over others no t mentioned. USDA neither guarantees or warrants

the standard of any product m entioned. Product names are mentioned

solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific information.

This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides

must be registered by appropriate State and/or Feder al agencies before they

can be recommended.

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals,

d esirable plants, and fish or other wildlife

– if they are not handled or applied

properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Fol low recommended

practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers.

# Table of Contents

I. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

....................... 1

II. Alternatives

................................ ................................ ........... 2

III. Affected Environment

................................ ........................... 5

IV. Environmental Consequences

................................ ............. 8

V. Other Issues

................................ ................................ ........ 1 7

VI. Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Consulted

...... 1 8

VII. References

................................ ................................ ........... 19

Table 1. Worldwide Distribution of Species of

Pontederiaceae

................................ ............................... 7

Table 2. Species of Pontederiaceae in the United States

......... 8

Table 3. Seven Categories of P lants Considered for the

Test Plant List

................................ ............................... 11

VIII. Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E1 

# I. Purpose and Need for the Proposed

Action

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health

Inspect ion Service (APHIS) , Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)

Permit Unit is proposing to iss ue permit s for release of the insect

Megamelus scutellaris Berg (Hemiptera: Delphacidae )

. The agent would

be used by the appli cant for biological control of water hy acinth

, Eichhornia crassipes Mart. (Solms) (Pontederiales: Pontederiaceae)

, in the

continental United States . Before permit s are issued for release of M.

scutellaris

, the APHIS

– PPQ Permit Unit needs to analyze the potential

impacts of the release of this agent into the continental United States.

This en vironmental assessment 1 

### (EA) has been prepared, consistent with

USDA

– APHIS' National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

implementing procedures (Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR), part 3 72). It examines the potential effects on the quality of the

human environment that may be associated with the release of M.

scutellaris to control infestations of water hyacinth within the continental

United States . This EA considers a ―no action‖ alter native and the

potential effects of the proposed action

.

The applicant’s purpose for releasing M. scutellaris is to reduce the

severity of infestations of water hyacinth in the United States

. Water

hyacinth originated in lowland tropical South America , p robably in the

Amazon B asin (Barrett and Forno

, 1982). Water hyacinth is a floating

plant. Its erect

, free

- floating habit and showy flowers made it attractive

for use in ornamental ponds and garden pools which inevitably led to

spread of the plant by hum ans . It was first introduced into the United

States in the late 1800s

, and then into many tropical and subtropical (and

some warm

- temperate) regions of the world (Gopal

, 1987). The growth

form is sympodial 2 

### and individual rosettes reproduce to form exten sive

floating mats which, in mature stands, extend a meter or more above the

water surface (Center and Spencer

, 1981). Problems caused by water

hyacinth in areas where it is has invaded are well documented (Center

, 1994), and result from its rapid growth, ability to re

- infest via seeds or

from plant fragments, and lack of natural enemies. Infestations negatively

a ffect water traffic, water quality, infrastructure for pumping and

hydroelectric operations, water use, and biodiversity (Schmitz et al.

, 1993). Other problems include property damage during floods, water loss

1 Regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

United States Code 4321 et seq. ) provide that an environmental assessment ―[shall include brief

discussions of the need for the proposal, of alternatives as required by section 1 02(2)(E), of the

environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons

consulted‖ ( 40 CFR § 1508.9 )

. 2 A plant whose main stem grows horizontally and that has lateral branches that stop growing at a

certain point.2 

### due to evapotranspiration, and increases in mosquito populations

. Water

hyacinth remains one of the world's most troublesome aquatic weed as it

continues to invade water bodies and wet land s in new regions (Julien et

al.

, 1996).

Existing water hyacinth management options (discussed below) are

ineffective, expensive, temporary, or have non

- target impacts. In addition,

herbicide programs periodically disrupt the life cycles of the currentl y

released insects used for biological control of water hyacinth

, thus,

limit ing their potential. A s a result, more mobile agents with higher

reproductive capacities are needed that can survive disruptions of water

hyacinth communities by herbicide applic ations. For these reasons, the

applicant has a need to iden tify an effective, host

- specific biological

control organism and release it into the environment for the control of

water hyacinth

.



# II . Alternatives

This section will explain the two alternat ives available to the APHIS

– PPQ

P ermit Unit

— no action and issuance of permit s for environmental release

of M. scutellaris

. Although APHIS ’ alternatives are limited to a decision

o f whether to issue permit s for release of M. scutellaris , other methods

avai lable for control of water hyacinth are also described. These control

methods are not decisions to be made by APHIS

, and are li kely to

continue whether or not permit s are issued for environmental release of M.

scutellaris . These are methods presently bei ng used to control water

hyacinth by public and private concerns.

A third alternative was considered, but will not be analyzed further.

Under this third alternative, the APHIS

– PPQ Permit Unit would have

issued permits for the field release of M. scutel laris , however, the permits

would contain special provisions or requirements concerning release

procedures or mitigating measures , such as limited release of M.

scutellaris . No issues have been raised which would indicate that special

provisions or requir ements are necessary.



## A. No A ction

Under the no action alternative, the APHIS

– PPQ Permit Unit would not

issue permit s for the field release of M. scutellaris for the control of water

hyacinth

—

t he release of this biological control agent would not take

place. The following methods are presently being used to control water

hyacinth ; these methods will continue under the ―no a ction‖ alternative

and are likely to continue even if permit s are issued for release of M.

scutellaris

.3 

### Treatment with the isooc tyl esters and dimethylamine salts of

2,4

- dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4

- D) is the principle chemical control

alternative employed in the United States, although diquat and glyphosate

are also used (Vandiver et al.

, 1999). The costs depen d on the size of the

treatment area, the scale of the treatment, and the herbicide dosage.

Current costs per acre range from $250 for gly phosate to $300 to $1,000

for 2,4

- D (Gibbons et al.

, 1999).

This method is better suited to small isolated drainag es but all plant

fragments must be removed to avoid re

- sprouting. Equipment includes

rakes, mechanical harvesters, and suction dredgers. Excluding volunteer

labor for smaller sites, harvesting costs can range from $500 to $800 per

acre with additional co sts for mobilization and equipment ($35,000 to

$111,000) (WSDE

, 2001). There may be additional fees for disposal of

plant material.

Three insects were released in the United States during the 1970s

—

Neochetina eichhorniae Warner (Coleoptera: Curculioni dae) beginning in

1972, N. bruchi Hustache (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) beginning in 1974,

and Niphograpta ( =Sameodes ) albigutallis (Warren) (Lepidoptera:

Pyralidae) beginning in 1977. These insects now occur throughout the

range of water hyacinth in the U nited States (Center et al.

, 1999 b ).



## B

. Issue P ermit s for E nvironmental R elease of

M

. scutellaris

Under this alternative, the APHIS

– PPQ Permit Unit would issue permit s

for the field release of M. scutellaris for the control of w ater hyacinth

wherever it occurs in the continental United States . Th ese permit s would

contain no special provisions or requirements concerning release

procedures or mitigating measures

.

Biological C ontrol A gent I nformation

Insect Taxonomy

Order: H emiptera

Family: Delphacidae

Genus: Megamelus Fieber, 1866

Species: scutellaris Berg, 1883

The genus Megamelus is widespread throughout the world and includes

24 species in the Americas (Asche

, 1985). Most species in this genus are

associated with aq uatic plants (O’Brien and Wilson

, 1985). Two of the

South American species, M. electrae in Trinidad and Tobago (Crut t well

, 1973) and M. scutellaris in Peru, Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina (Sosa et

al.

, 2004), are associated with water hyacinth

. 1. Chemical

C ontrol

2. Mechanical

C ontrol

3. Biological

Co ntrol

1. Description4 

### Megamel us scutellaris produces multiple, over

- lapping generations per

year. Adults exhibit two wing forms with a long

- winged dispersal form

, which is capable of fl ight (macropterous)

, and a short

- winged, non

- flying

form (brachypterous). The wing form is determi ned within the generation

and is dependent on environmental cues

, such as crowding and host plant

quality. The macropterous form enables the insect to disperse from

overcrowded or poor quality plants to find better quality water hyacinth

plants

.

Adults m ate at the bottom of the water hyacinth plant (Sosa et al.

, 2005)

, as well as on the upper leaves (Tipping et al.

, 2008 ). A few days after

mating, females begin laying eggs ( ovipositing ) within plant tissue located

in the leaves of water hyacinth . Most e gg laying ( oviposition ) sites

contain two eggs (Tipping et al.

, 2008 ) . Eggs are oval with one end

pointed and the other end rounded . They are milky white when laid

, and

turn yellowish white with reddish eye spots before hatching (Sosa et al.

, 2005).

Nym phs (immature insect stage) emerge after 7 to 13 days after eggs are

laid (Sosa et al. , 2005; Tipping et al.

, 2008 )

, depending upon the

temperature. The emerging nymph begins feeding on the plant closest to

the water surface. Nymphs develop through five instars (life stages

between molts)

, and will feed on the top and bottom of leaves and leaf

stems . Development of the entire immature stage in outdoor conditions

can take about 25 days (Sosa et al.

, 2005). Field observations in Argentina

have found that the immature stages of M. scutellaris overwinter in

decayed mats of water hyacinth (Sosa et al.

, 2005).

Planthoppers

, such as M. scutellaris

, feed by inserting their stylets

(needle

- like mouthparts) into the plant and ingesting the sap (Sogawa

, 1982). S aliva is secreted during penetration, forming a stylet sheath which

acts to hold the stylets together

, and facilitate lubrication and movement

toward food sources (Sogawa

, 1982). The sheath remains i mbedded in the

tissue after the stylets are withdrawn an d may be branched or unbranched

, depending upon whether or not the stylets changed direction within the

plant after insertion. Spiller (1990) found that stylet probing caused

significant damage to cell organs, leading to cell death.

The native range of M. scutellaris includes Argentina

— Buenos Aires,

Chaco, Corrientes, Entre Rios, Formosa, and Santa Fe Provinces; Brazil

— Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Paraná, and Río Grande do Sul S tates; Peru

— Iquitos; and Uruguay. According to Sosa et al. (2004) the native range is

likely to be much more extensive in South America wherever water

hyacinth occurs naturally. M. scutellaris is not known to have been

introduced into any countries outside its native range

, although it has been

studied in South African quarantine . The expected range of M. scutellaris 2. Life H istory

3. Native R ange5 

### in North America should mirror that of water hyacinth (Tipping et al.

2008)

.

In quarantine studies, water hyacinth plants are heavily damaged by M.

scutellaris feeding, and they eventually wilt and d ie

. Water hya cinth

p lants without M. scutellaris grew larger and produced more leaves than

plants attacked by the insects. Quarantine study data indicate the potential

of M. scutellaris to damage water hyacinth

, and to rapidly increase in

number in a relatively short time (Tipping et al

. , 2008).



# III

. Affected Environment

Water hyacinth is a floating plant. P lants vary in size from a few

centimeters (cm) to over a meter in height. The glossy green, leathery leaf

blades are up to 20 c m long and 5 to 15 cm wide

, and are attached to stems

that are often spongy

- inflated. Numerous dark, branched, fibrous roots

dangle in the water from the underside of the plant. The flower is showy

light

- blue to violet (sometimes white) on a loose terminal spike. Each

flower has six b luish

- purple petals joined at the base to form a short tube.

One petal bears a yellow spot. The fruit is a three

- celled capsule

containing many tiny , ribbed seeds.

In spring

, overwintering water hyacinth plants (old stem bases) initiate

growth by prod ucing daughter plants. These plants slowly increase in

number and size during the spring and summer until the maximum

biomass is reached in September. As the plants become crowded, shading

causes many of the lower leaves to die back

. In mild climates, w ater

hyacinth can flower year

- round, and from early spring to late fall

e lsewhere. Seeds form in the submerged, withered flower. By late fall

, some of the old leaves start dying and by January most plants have

declined

. Colonization of a new site begins with small plants at low plant

densities. These plants increase in number and density without increasing

in size until they produce a new mat. As a mature dense mat is formed,

individual plant size continues to increase, however, density decreases.

Wat er hyacinth reproduces sexually by seeds (Müller, 1883)

, and

vegetatively by budding and stol o n s (a shoot which bends to the ground or

which grows horizontally above the ground and produces roots and shoots

at the nodes )

. Daughter plants sprout from the s tolons

, and doubling times

of mats have been reported from 6 to 18 days (Mitchell

, 1976)

. The seeds

can germinate in a few days or remain dormant for 15 to 20 years

(Matthews, 1967; Gopal, 1987) ; however, t hey usually sink and remain

dormant through perio ds of stress (droughts). Upon reflooding , the seeds

often germinate and renew the growth cycle. 4. Impact on

Water

Hyacinth6 

## A. Areas A ffected by W ater H yacinth

Water hyacinth is native to South America, but has been introduced

throughout much of the tropics and subtropics. Th e center of origin is

unknown but is thought to be Amazonia. It is also common in the

Caribbean. In Africa, it has infested the Nile, Congo, and Zaire River

watersheds. It also occurs in Senegal, the Central African Republic, South

Africa, and Madagasca r. It is common in tropical Asia

, including

Southeast Asia, most of the Indian subcontinent, and extends through

coastal China into South Korea and Japan. It is also found throughout

Indonesia and in Australia.

Water hyacinth is believed to have been introduced into the United States

in 1884 at an exposition in New Orleans . W ithin 70 years of reaching

Florida, the plant covered 126,000 acres of waterways (Schmitz et al.

, 1993). Worldwide, the limits of distri bution are at 40° N orth and S outh

latitude

. In the United States, water hyacinth is most abundant in the

s outheast ern United States

. It also occurs in California and Hawaii, with

s cattered records in other S tates. Water hyacinth has been reported in

Ore gon, Washington, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Kentucky,

Tennessee, Missouri

, and Arkansas where plants escape summertime

cultivation but do not persist through the winter. I t is annually stocked in

farm fish ponds in southern Arizona and southern Delaw are, but has not

become established in the natural systems of these S tates.

Water hyacinth is an aquatic weed which can be found in lakes, rivers,

ponds, and ditches of temperate climates . It is not winter

- hardy; its

minimum growth temperature is 12 o C e lsius (C) (54 o F ahrenheit (F) ); its

opti mum growth temperature is 25 to 30 o C (77 to 86 o F); its maxi mum

growth temperature is 33 to 35 o C (92 to 95 o F) (Kasselmann

, 1995)

.



## B. Plants R elated to W ater H yacinth and T heir

D istribution

Information regarding plants taxonomically related to water hyacinth is

included because n ative plant species which are closely related to water

hyacinth have the most potential to be attacked by M. scutellaris

.

Water hyacinth is a member of t he pickerelweed family (Pontederiaceae).

T he families most closely related to the Pontederiaceae are

— Commelinaceae, Haemodoraceae, Philydraceae, and Hanguanaceae

. There are 6 to 9 genera and 30 to 40 species in the Pontederiaceae

worldwide (table 1)

. Most members of this family are confined to the

Americas, and all members of the genus Eichhornia ( 8 sp ecies ) originate

in tropical America, except for E. natans

, which is from tropical Africa.

Horn (2002) recognizes 1 3 species (including E. crassipes ) in 4 genera

th at occur in the United States (table 2 ) . Four of these ( E. azurea, E. 2. Present

D istribution in

North America

1. Taxonomically

Rel ated Plants 1. Native and

Worldwide

Distribution

3

. Habitat7 

### crassipes, E . paniculata, and Monochoria vaginalis ) are not native to

North America. Two of the 13 ( E. paniculata and the native Heteranthera

peduncularis ) have been collec ted in the United States only once, each

about a century ago. Pickerelweed ( Pontederia cordata ) is sometimes

separated into two varieties, P. cordata var. cordata and P. cordata var.

lancifolia , based mainly on leaf shape . However, leaf shape is variable

(even within an individual) and seems to be i nfluenced by habitat

conditions; therefore, this distinction is poorly justified.

Table 1. Worldwide Distribution of Species of Pontederiaceae

Species *

Eichhornia crassipes Mart. (Solms) Distribution †

NA, C A, SA, AFR, ASIA

Eichhornia azurea (Sw.) Kunth NA, CA, SA

Eichhornia cordifolia Gand. CA

Eichhornia diversifolia (Vahl) Urban NA, CA, SA

Eichhornia heterosperma Alexander CA, SA

Eichhornia natans (P. Beauv.) Solms AFR

Eichhornia paniculata (Sprengl) Solms CA, SA

Eichhornia paradoxa (Mart.) Solms CA, SA

Heteranthera callifolia Rchb. ex Kunth AFR

Heteranthera (= Zosterella ) dubia (Jacq.) MacMillan NA, CA, AFR

Heteranthera limosa (Sw.) Willd. NA, CA, SA

Heteranthera mexicana S. Watson NA

Heteranthe ra multiflora (Griseb.) C.N. Horn NA

Heteranthera oblongifolia C. Mart. ex Roem. & Schult. SA

Heteranthera penduncularis Benth. NA

Heteranthera reniformis Ruiz López & Pavón NA

Heteranthera rotundifolia (Kunth) Griseb. NA, CA, SA

Heteranthera seube rtiana Solms CA

Heteranthera spicata J. Presl. CA, SA

Heteranthera zosterifolia Mart. SA

Hydrothrix gardneri Hook. f. SA

Monochoria africana (Solms

- Laub.) N.E. Br. AFR

Monochoria australasica Ridley AUS

Monochoria brevipetiolata Verdc. AFR

Monoch oria elata Ridl. ASIA

Monochoria hastata (L.) Solms SA, ASIA

Monochoria korsakowii Regel & Maack ASIA

Monochoria plantaginea Kunth ASIA

Monochoria vaginalis (Burm. f.) K. Presl ex Kunth NA, ASIA

Pontederia cordata L. NA, CA, SA

Pontederia crassicauli

s Schlecht CA

Pontederia lagoensis Warm. SA

Pontederia parviflora Alexander CA

Pontederia (= Reussia ) rotundifolia L.f. CA, SA

Pontederia sagittata C. Presl CA

Pontederia subovata (Seub.) Lowden SA

Reussia triflora Seub. SA

Scholleropsis lutea H. Per r. AFR

* Based on data from Eckenwalderand Barrett (1986), Horm (2002), IOPI (2002) NS MBG (2002).

† Africa (AFR), South America (SA), Central America

— including southern Mexico (CA), North America

(NA), Europe (EU), Australia (AUS), and Asia (ASIA).8 Table 2. Species of Pontederiaceae in the United States. *

Non

- native (Introduced) Species State Status

Eichhornia azurea (Sw.) Kunth

Eichhornia crassipes (Martius) Solms

- Laubach

Eichhornia paniculata (Sprengl.) Solms ‡

Monochoria vaginali

s (Burm. f.) K. Presl ex Kunth

Native Species

Eichhornia diversifolia (Vahl) Urban †

Heteranthera (= Zosterella ) dubia (Jacq.) MacMillan Special concern in

Kentucky, threatened in

Maine, endangered in

New Hampshire

Heteranthera limosa (Sw.) Will d. Special concern in

Kentucky, threatened in

Minnesota and

Tennessee

Heteranthera (= Eurystemon ) mexicana S. Watson

Heteranthera multiflora (Griseb.) C.N. Horn Threatened in

Pennsylvania

Heteranthera peduncularis Benth. ‡

Heteranthera renifor

mis Ruiz López & Pavón Special concern in

Connecticut, endangered

in Illinois and Ohio

Heteranthera rotundifolia (Kunth) Griseb.

Pontederia cordata L.

* Derived from USDA (1997), but modified according to Horn (2002).

† Native to Puerto Rico (Horn, 2 002).

‡ Known from only a single collection about 100 years ago (Horn, 2002).



# IV. Environmental Consequences

A. No Action

Water hyacinth grows rapidly

, forming expansive colonies of tall,

interwoven floating plants. It blankets large water bodies

, creating

impenetrable barriers and obstructing navigation. Floating mats block

drainage, causing flooding or preventing floodwaters from subsiding

. Large rafts of water hyacinth plants accumulate where water channels

narrow, sometimes causing bridges to collapse. Water hyacinth hinders

irrigation by impeding water flow, by clogging irrigation pumps, and by

interfering with weirs ( a low dam built across a stream to raise its level or

divert its flow ). Multimillion

- dollar flood control and water supply

p rojects can be rendered useless by water hyacinth infestations

(Gowanloch and Bajkov

, 1948)

.

Infestations block access to recreational areas and decrease waterfront

property values, often harming the econom y of communities that depend

upon fishing and wat er sports for revenue. Shifting water hyacinth mats

sometimes prevent s boats from reaching shore, trapping the occupants and

exposing them to environmental hazards. Water hyacinth infestations

intensify mosquito problems by hindering insecticide applicat ion s

, 1. Impact of

Spread of

Water

Hyacinth9 

### interfering with predators, increasing habitat for species that attach to

plants, and impeding runoff and water circulation.

Dense mats reduce light to submerged plants, thus depleting oxygen in

aquatic communities. The resultant lack of phytopla nkton ( very small

, free

- floating plants ) alters the composition of invertebrate communities,

ultimately affecting fisheries. Drifting mats scour vegetation, destroying

native plants and wildlife habitat. Water hyacinth also competes with

other plants, of

ten displacing wildlife forage and habitat. Higher sediment

loading occurs under water hyacinth mats due to increased production of

detritus and siltation.

The continued use of chemical herbicides, mechanical controls, and

previously released biological control agents at current levels would result

if the ―no action‖ alternative is chosen

, and may continue even if permits

are issued for environmental release of M. scutellaris.

a. Chemical C ontrol

Herbicidal treatment of water hyacinth often damages ne arby desirable

vegetation

, and treatment is costly. Cost of treatment depends on the size

of the treatment area, the scale of the treatment, and the herbicide dosage.

Current costs per acre range from $250 for glyphosate

, and for 2,4

- D,

between $300 to $1,000 (Gibbons et al., 1999) . Use of herbicides in

aquatic areas also raise s water quality concerns. After herbicide

application, m assive amounts of dying vegetation can reduce the amount

of oxygen in the water column.

b. Mechanical C ontrol

M echanica l harvesting of water hyacinth often damages nearby desirable

vegetation. This method is better su it ed to small, isolated drainages

, and

all plant fragments must be removed to avoid re

- sprouting . Harvesting

costs can range from $500 to $800 per acre, wit h additional costs for

mobilization and equipment ($35,000 to $111,000) (WSDE, 2001). There

may be additional fees for disposal of plant material.

c. Biological C ontrol

The previously released water hyacinth biological control insects

Neochetina eich horniae

, N. bruchi

, and Niphograpta albigutallis now

occur throughout the range of water hyacinth (Center et al.

, 1999 b ).

Numerous field studies documented the decline of water hyacinth in

diverse geographical areas of the United States after introduction s of

biological control agents (Goyer and Stark

, 1984 ; Cofrancesco et al.

, 1985). Surveys conducted by Center et al. (1999a) confirmed that water

hyacinth population s not subjected to repeated control operations become 2. Impact from

the U se of

O ther C ontrol

Methods10 

### stressed by biological control agent s, particularly by the two Neochetina

species. However, herbicide programs periodically disrupt the life cycles

of the currently released biological control organisms and limit their

potential. This is because the food source of the insect is killed by t he

herbicide, and their ability to disperse to untreated plants is limited. As a

result, more mobile agents with higher reproductive capacities are needed

that can survive disruptions of water hyacinth communities by herbicide

applications.

These envir onmental consequences may occur even with the

implementat ion of the biological control alternative , d epending on the

efficacy of M. scutellaris to reduce water hyacinth in the continental

United States.



## B. Issue P ermit s for E nvironmental R elease of M.

s cutellaris

Host specificity to water hyacinth has been demonstrated through field

observations and host specificity testing.

a. Scientific L iterature

In the scientific literature, s pecificity of M. s cutellaris has been found to

be limited to species in the family Pontederiaceae. In no

- choice 3



### laboratory tests

, potential hosts of M. scutellaris included Pontederia

cordata var. cordata and P. rotundifolia

. However, in field explorations

in wh ich the t wo species coex isted with water hyacinth

, M. scutellaris was

only found on water hyacinth ( Sosa, 2007 a )

. In addition, field surveys

were conducted from 1997 to 2000 to examine several plant species in the

plant family Pontederiaceae for the presence of M. scutellari s

. Species

included Pontederia cordata, P. rotundifolia, P. subovata, P. parviflora,

water hyacinth , and Eichornia azurea, but M. scutellaris was only

collected from water hyacinth (Sosa, 2007b).

b

. Host S pecificity T esting

Host range de termination of M. scutellaris was based on plant species in

seven categories listed in table 3

, including representatives from the

Pontederiaceae (Tipping et al., 2008) . Additionally, native and exotic

associated wetland species and economic species were also tested.

3 A no

- choice test is when M. scutellaris is placed into a cage in which on ly the test

plants (non

- target plants) are present for feeding or egg laying. In a choice test, M.

scutellaris is offered a choice between water hyacinth and the test plant in the cage. 

### 1. Impact of

M. scutellaris

on Non

- target

P lants11 Table 3

. Seven C ategories of P lants C onsidered for the T est P lant L ist



### . These plants were used for host specificity tests using M. scutellaris and

were conducted in quarantine facilities.

Category 1

— Genetic T ype of the T arget W eed S pecies ( water hyacinth )

. Genus and Species Common Name N. American Status

Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms

- Laub. Water hyacinth E xotic

Category 2

— Species in the S ame G enus ( Eichhornia ) as W ater H yacinth

. ( There are no native North American species of Eichho rnia , except E. paniculata

from southern Mexico. )

Genus and Species Common Name N. American Status

Eichhornia paniculata (Spreng.) Solms Brazilian water

hyacinth Introduced into F lorida

Eichhornia diversifolia (Vahl) Urb. V ariableleaf water

hyacinth Na tive to Puerto Rico

Category 3

— Species in O ther G enera but in the S ame F amily

. ( Pontederiaceae ) and subfamily as water hyacinth.

Genus and Species Common Name N. American Status

Heteranthera dubia (Jacquin) MacMillan grassleaf mudplantain N ative

Het eranthera limosa (Sw.) Willd. blue mudplantain N ative

Heteranthera multiflora (Griseb.) Horn bouquet mudplantain N ative

Heteranthera peduncularis Benth. egret mudplantain N ative

Heteranthera reniformis Ruiz & Pavón kidneyleaf

mudplantain N ative

Heteran thera rotundifolia (Kunth)

Griseb. roundleaf mudplantain N ative

Heteranthera zosterfolia C. Martius Stargrass E xotic

Monochoria vaginalis (Burman f.) C.

Presl ex Kunth heartshape false

pickerelweed E xotic

Pontederia cordata L. Pickerelweed N ative

Cat egory 4

— Threatened and E ndangered S pecies in the S ame F amily as

W ater H yacinth

.



### There are no f

ederally listed threatened or endangered species in the plant

family Pontederiaceae

.

Category 5

— Species in the S ame O rder (Pontederiales) as W ater H yacinth

. Fa mily, Genus

, and Species Common name N. American Status

Commelinaceae, Commelina erecta L. Dayflower N ative

Commelinaceae, Commelina

benghalensis L. Benghal dayflower E xotic

Commelinaceae, Tradescantia ohiensis

Raf. Bluejacket N ative12 Category 6

— Speci es in Orders O ther than W ater H yacinth

. 

### According to Dahlgren et al. (1981; see also Barrett and Graham

, 1997)

, the Pontederiales are most closely related to the orders Haemodorales (2

native species in 2 genera

— Lachnanthes and Xiphidium ), Philydrales (no

North American natives), and Typhales (22 native species in 2 genera

— Typha and Sparganium ). Other w etland species commonly found in close

association with water hyacinth were included in host specificity testing

. In addition, common exotic plant species were evaluated for their

suitability for M. scutellaris

.

Order Family Genus Species Common Name Status

Alismatales Alismataceae Sagittaria falcata D uck potato N ative

Alismatales Alismataceae Sagittaria latifolia Broadleaf

arrowhead N ative

Alism atales Alismataceae Echinodorius cordifolus S pade leaf sword N ative

Liliales Amaryllidaceae Crinum americanum S wamp lily N ative

Apiales Apiaceae Hydrocotyle umbellata M arsh pennywort N ative

Arales Araceae Peltandra virginica G reen arum N ative

Ara les Araceae Pistia stratiotes W ater lettuce E xotic

Arales Araceae Orontium aquaticum G olden club N ative

Arales Araceae Colocasia esculenta T aro E xotic

Hydropteridales Azollaceae Azolla caroliniana Carolina mosquito

fern N ative

Zingiberales Cannacea e Canna flaccida G olden canna N ative

Zingiberales Costaceae Costus woodsonii R ed button ginger E xotic

Capparales Cruciferae Nasturtium aquaticum W atercress E xotic

Eriocaulales Eriocaulaceae Eriocaulon compressum F lattened pipewort N ative

Fabales Fa baceae Glycine max S oybean C rop

Cyperales Graminaceae Oryza sativa R ice C rop

Haloragales Haloragaceae Proserpinaca palustris M ermaid weed N ative

Haloragales Haloragaceae Myriophyllum aquaticum P arrot feather N ative

Hydrocharitales Hydrocharitace ae Limnobium spongia F rog's bit N ative

Liliales Iridaceae Iris hexagona P rairie iris N ative

Arales Lemnaceae Lemna minor C ommon

duckweed N ative

Zingiberales Marantaceae Thalia geniculata A lligator flag N ative

Hydropteridales Marsileaceae Marsilea q uadrifolia European

waterclover E xotic

Solanales Menyanthaceae Nymphoides aquatica F loating hearts N ative

Fabales Mimosaceae Neptunia oleraceae S ensitive plant E xotic

Musales Musaceae Musa acuminate D warf banana C rop

Nymphaeales Nymphaeaceae Nuphar luteum S patterdock N ative

Nymphaeales Nymphaeaceae Nymphaea odorata F ragrant water lily N ative

Nymphaeales Nymphaeaceae Nymphaea mexicana Y ellow water lily N ative

Myrtales Onagraceae Ludwigia glandulosa P rimrose

- willow N ative

Myrtales Onagraceae L udwigia peploides W ater primrose N ative

Orchidales Orchidaceae Epidendrum sp. C rop

Orchidales Orchidaceae Vanilla planifolia V anilla C rop

Orchidales Orchidaceae Dendrobium sp. C rop13 Order Family Genus Species Common Name Status

Poaceae Poaceae Triticum aestivum W heat C rop

Poaceae Poaceae Saccharum officinarum S ugarcane C rop

Poaceae Poaceae Sorghum bicolor S orghum C rop

Cyperales Poaceae Zizaniopsis miliacea S outhern wild rice N ative

Piperales Saururaceae Saururus cernuus L izard's tail Native

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae Bacopa caro liniana B lue hyssop N ative

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae Bacopa monnieri S mooth water

hyssop N ative

Solanales Solanaceae Lycopersicon esculentum T omato Crop

Typhales Typhaceae Typha latifolia C attail Native

Zingiberales Zingiberaceae Renealmi a cernua Red renealmia E xotic

Zingiberales Zingiberaceae Alpina nutans S hell ginger E xotic

Zingiberales Zingiberaceae Curcuma zedoaria T umeric E xotic

Zingiberales Zingiberaceae Zingiber officinale G inger E xotic

Zingiberales Zingiberaceae Hedy chium coronarium G arland lily E xotic

Category 7

— Any S pecies on which M. scutellaris O r I ts C lose R elative s A re

F ound.

Plant Order, Family, Genus

, and Species Megamelus scutellaris

relatives (same genus) Status in

N. America

Nymphaeales, Nymphaeaceae

, Nymphaeae ordorata M. davisii Van Duzee Native

Nymphaeales, Nymphaeaceae,

Nuphar luteum M. davisii Van Duzee Native

Commelinales, Pontederiaceae,

Pontederia cordata M. palaetus (Van Duzee)

M. bellicus Native

Exotic

Hydrocharitales, Hydrocharitaceae,

L imnobium spongia M. timehri Native



### c. Laboratory T ests

(1) Oviposition Testing



### In no

- choice oviposition testing

, in which M. scutellaris is provided only

non

- target plants as an oviposition choice, adults did oviposit into other

non

- target plant sp ecies before they died and nymphs did emerge from

five species. Oviposition occurred on Eichhornia paniculata (exotic)

, Heteranthera dubia (native) , H. rotundifolia (native) , Monochoria

vaginalis (exotic), and Pontederia cordata (native) (appendix 1). Al l of

these species occur within the same genus or subfamily as water hyacinth

. The species and the mean ( standard error (SE) ) number of emerged

nymphs were Eichhornia paniculata (17.2 4.7), Heteranthera dubia (4.4

1.7), H. rotundifolia (2.7 2.7), Monochoria vaginalis (6.0 + 4.3), and

Pontederia cordata (0.2 0.2). In contrast, 143.2 6.6 nymphs emerged

per water hyacinth plant.14 

### In choice oviposition tests, where M. scutellaris was provided a choice of

either the non

- target host plant or wate r hyacinth for oviposition , t hree

close relatives were tested

— Eichhornia paniculata, Heteranthera

rotundifolia, and Pontederia cordata ( appendix 2 ). Nymph emergence

occurred only on E. paniculata and P. cordata

.

(2) Feeding and Survival Testing



### To test the potential for M. scutellaris to feed on non

- target plants if water

hyacinth were removed from a site by floo ding, drought, or herbicides (a

spill

- over event) , large

- nymph transfer tests were conducted. Fifty

- nine

plants were tested to evaluate la rge

- nymph survival for 7 days. Ten

plants, 6 in the Pontederiaceae, supported some survival of large nymphs

for 7 days (appendix 3). All test species which supported large nymph

survival for 7 days were tested using small nymphs, as well as P. cordata.

Small nymphs were able to survive and develop only on H

. dubia and E

. paniculata (appendix 4). Only a single nymph survived on H. dubia after

21 days

, and it failed to develop into an adult. Only one nymph was able

to develop to adulthood on E. paniculat a, although most of the surviving

nymphs did develop into larger nymphs.

Emerged nymphs were transferred to non

- target plant species (appendix

4 ) . A mean percentage ( SE) of 78.2 1.1 percent of nymphs survived to

adulthood on water hyacinth while no ne survived on the other non

- target

transfer plants except for E. paniculata , where 37.5 percent survived to

adulthood. Th ose adults were unable to survive on E. paniculata for more

than a few days

, while 92.3 percent of those adults survived on water

hya cinth during the same period.

(3) Discussion



### Megamelus scutellaris was unable to sustain populations on any test plant.

It is also unlikely to cause problems during spill

- over events that may be

triggered by perturbations

, such as herbicide applicati on

, because survival

was virtually nonexistent on associated wetland plants regardless of

taxonomic distances. It might be possible for displaced adults or nymphs

to temporarily feed on the native plant H

. dubia (grassleaf mudplantain)

should the plant be nearby and have foliage floating on the surface. The

majority of biomass in this species is submerged and, therefore, any minor

feeding is unlikely to damage the plant.

Heteranthera dubia did not support development of M

. scutellaris to

adulthood. Th e greatest amount of survival occurred on the exotic species

E

. paniculata (Brazilian water hyacinth )

, which is also a suboptimal host.

The native aquatic plant P

. cordata (pickerelweed) was an unsuitable host

because adults and nymphs were unable to surv ive on it for 7 d ays

.15 

### (4) Accidenta l T ransmission of P lant V iruses



### Some insects in the family D elphacid ae can transmit viruses from one

plant to another . Of the 1 ,100 known d elphacid species, only 27 species

have been documented to experimentally trans mit plant viruses (Nault

, 1994).

T here is no evidence of M. scutellaris transmitting any virus diseases

within or without the water hyacinth system. Water hyacinth pathogens

(fungi

, such as Uredo eichhorniae (Charudattan, 2001)) have received a

great d eal of attention over the decades from researchers seeking

biological antagonists for this weed ; however, there are no records of

viruses or virus

- like diseases in water hyacinth

.

Once a biological control agent

, such as M. scutellaris

, is released into the

environment and become s established, there is a slight possibility th at it

could move from the target plant ( water hyacinth ) to attack non

- target

plants , such as th e native plant P

. cordata or H

. dubia

. Host shifts by

introduced weed biological control agents to unrelated plants are rare

(Pemberton, 2000). Native species closely related to the target species are

the most likely to be attacked (Louda et al., 2003)

. If other plant species

were to be attacked by M. scutellaris , the resulting effects could be

environmental impacts that may not be easily reversed. Biological control

agents

, such as M. scutellaris

, generally spread without intervention by

man . In princ iple, therefore, release of th is biological control agent at

even one site must be considered equivalent to release over the entire area

in which potential hosts occur

, and in which the climate is suitable for

reproduction and survival.

In addition, these agents may not be successful in reducing water hyacinth

populations in the continental United States. Worldwide, biological weed

control programs have had an overall success rate of 33 percent; success

rates have been considerably higher for p rograms in individual countries

(Culliney, 2005)

. Actual impacts on water hyacinth by M. scutellaris will

not be known until after release occurs and post

- releas e monitoring has

been conducted.

―Cumulative impacts are defined as the impact on the environment which

results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what

agencies or person undertakes such o ther actions‖ (40 CFR 1508.7).

In the late 1890s

, wa ter hyacinth was beginning to block navigable waters

in several S outhern S tates. In 1899, Congress authorized the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (USACE) to remove water hyacinth from navigable

waters in Florida and Louisiana. Because of its persistence

, wa ter

hyacinth removal from waterways became an ongoing function of the

USACE

. Herbicide and biological control research is being conducted for 2. Uncertainties

Regarding the

Environmental

R elease of

M. scutellaris

3. Cumula tive

I mpacts16 

### USACE by USDA at Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Since 1960, a cooperative

program with the State of Florida Game and F resh Water Fish

Commission has been in place to control water hyacinth

.

In Texas, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department controls water

hyacinth throughout Texas using mechanical controls and herbicides.

In California, State legislation in 1982 desi gnated Cal Boating as t he lead

agency for controlling water hyacinth in the Sacramento

- San Joaquin

Delta, its tributaries, and the Suisun Marsh . Herbicides are used to control

water hyacinth

.

In Louisiana, the Louisiana D epartment of Wildlife and Fisheri es is

charged with the responsibility of controlling water hyacinth in

Louisiana’s public waters. Chemical control began in 1946

, and

biological controls are used. Biological control agents were first

introduced into Louisiana in 1974 (Manning, 1979).

R elease of M. scutellaris is not expected to have any negative cumulative

impacts in the continental United States because of its host specificity to

water hyacinth

. Effective biological control of water hyacinth will have

beneficial effects for weed manag ement programs , and may result in a

long

- term, non

- damaging method to assist in the control of water hyacinth

, and prevent its spread into other areas po tentially at risk from invasion.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (E SA) and ESA’s implementing

regulations require Federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed threatened

and endangered species

, or result in the destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat.

APHIS has determined that

, based on the host specificity of M. scutellaris

, there will be no effect on any listed plant or designated critical habitat in

the continental United States. In host specificity testing, the biological

cont rol organism oviposited and nymphs survived only on plants within

the same genus or subfamily as water hyacinth . No federally listed

threatened or endangered plants belong to the family Pontederiaceae

(USFWS, TESS, 2009). In addition, no federally listed threatened or

endangered species are known to depend on or use water hyacinth

. 4. Endangered

Species Act17 

# V. Other Issues

Consistent with Executive Order (EO) 12898, ―Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- income

Populations,‖ APHIS considered the potential for disproportionately high

and adverse human health or environmental effects on any minority

populations a nd low

- income populations. There are no adverse

environmental or human health effects from the field r elease of M.

scutellaris

, and the ir release will not have disproportionate adverse effects

to any minority or low

- income populations.

Consistent with EO 13045, ―Protection of Children From Environmental

Health Risks and Safety Risks,‖ APHIS considered t he potential for

disproportionately high and adverse environmental health and safety risks

to children. No circumstances that would trigger the need for special

environmental reviews are involved in implementing the preferred

alternative. Therefore, it i s expected that no disproportionate effects on

children are a nticipated as a consequence of the field release of

M. scutellaris

.

EO 13175, ―Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments,‖ was issued to ensure that there would be ―meaningful

consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of

Federal policies that have tribal implications....‖ In June 2009, APHIS

sent out letters to potentially affected tribal leaders and organizations to

give notification of the proposed environmental release of M. scutellaris

and to request input from tribes. APHIS will continue to consult and

collaborate with Indian tribal officials to ensure that they are well

informed and represented in policy and program decisions that may impact

th eir agricultural interests

, in accordance with E O 13175

.18 

# VI. Agencies, Organizations, and

Individuals Consulted

The Technical Advisory Group for the Biological Control Agents of

Weeds (TAG) recommended the r elease of M. scutellaris on February 2,

2009

. TAG members that reviewed the release petition ( Tipping et al.

, 200 8 ) included representatives from the Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S.

Geological S urvey, Environmental Protection Agency, California

Department of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Forest Service, and Agriculture and Agri

Food Canada , Health Canada

.

This EA was prepared and reviewed by APH IS. The addresses of

participating APHIS units, cooperators, and consultants (as applicable)

follow.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Policy and Program Development

Environmental and Risk Analysis Services

4700 R iver Road, Unit 149

Riverdale, MD 20737

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Registrations, Identification, Permits, and Plant Safeguarding

4700 River Road, Unit 133

Riverdale, MD 207 37

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Research Service

Invasive Plants Research Lab

3205 College Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, FL 3331419 

# V II . References

Asche, M.

, 1985. Zur phylogenie der Delphacidae Leach, 1815

(Homoptera Cicadina Fulgoromorph a). Marburger Entomol. Pub. 2: 1

–

910.

Barrett

, S.C.H.

, and Forno , I.W., 1982. Style morph distribution in New

World populations o

f Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms

- Laubach (water

hyacinth). Aquatic Botany

. 13: 299

– 306.

Barrett, S.C.H.

, and Graham , S .W., 1997. Adaptive radiation in the

aquatic plant family Pontederiaceae: insights from phylogenetic analyses

. Givnish, T.J. and Sy s tma , K.J., eds.

, 225

– 258

. In Molecular e volution and

a daptive r

adiation

. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Center, T.D.

, 1994. Biological control of weeds: w ater hyacinth and

waterlettuce

. Rosen, D., Bennett, F.D., and J. L. Capinera , J.L., eds. 481

–

521. In Pest m anagement in the s ubtropics: b iological c ontrol

- a Florida

p erspective . Intercept Publ. C o., Andover, United Kingdom.

Center, T.D.

, and Spencer , N.R., 1981

. The phenology and growth of

water hyacinth ( Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms) in a eutrophic north

central Florida lake. Aquatic Botany . 10: 1

– 32.

Center, T.D., Dray

, Jr. , F.A. , Jubi nsky, G.P., and Leslie , A.J., 1999a

. Water hyacinth weevils ( Neochetina eichhorniae and N. bruchi ) inhibit

water hyacinth ( Eichhornia crassipes ) colony development

. Biological

Control

. 15:39

– 50.

Center, T.D., Dray

. Jr., F.A., Jubinsky, G.P., and Grodowi t z , M.J., 1999 b

. Insects and other arthropods that feed on aquatic and wetland plants.

USDA

– ARS technical bulletin 1870.

Charudattan, R.

, 2001. Biological control of water hyacinth by using

pathogens: opportunities, challenges, and recent developments

. Julien,

M.H., Hill, M.P., Center, T.D., and Jinaqing , D., eds.

, 21

– 28. In

Biological and i ntegrated c ontrol of w ater h yacinth, Eichhornia crassipes

. ACIAR Proceedings 102.

Cofrancesco, A.F., Stewart, R.M., and Sander , D.R., 1985

. The impact of

Neo chetina eichhorniae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on water hyacinth in

Louisiana

. In Proceedings of the VI International Symposium on

b iological c ontrol of w eeds

, 525

– 535. August 19

– 25, 1984, Vancouver,

Canada. Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

.20 

### Cruttwell, R.E.

, 1973. Prelimin ary investigations on some insects causing

minor damage to water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes

. Report West

Indian Station, CIBC.

Culliney, T.W.

, 2005. Benefits of classical biological control for

managing invasive plants. Critical Reviews in Plant Sci

. 24 : 131

– 150.

Dahlgren, R.M.T., Rosendal

- Jensen, S., and Nielsen , B.J., 1981. A

revised classification of the angiosperms with comments on the

correlations between chemical and other characteristics

. Young, D.A. a nd

Seigler, D.S.

, eds.

, 149

– 204

. In: Phytochemistry and A ngiosperm

P hylogeny . Praeger Scientific, New York.

Eckenwalder, J.E.

, and Barrett , S.C.H., 1986. Phylogenetic systematics of

Pontederiaceae. Systematic Botany

. 11 : 373

– 391.

Gibbons, M.V., R osenkranz, M.G., Gibbons, Jr., H.L., and Sy s tma , M.D.,

1999. Guide for developing integrated aquatic vegetation management in

Oregon. Center for Lakes and Reservoirs, Portland State University,

Portland, OR.

Gopal, B.

, 1987. Water h yacinth. Elsevier, New York.

Gowanloch, J.N.

, and Bajkov , A.D., 1948. Water hyacinth program.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Biennial Report

(1946/1947)

. 2:66

– 124.

Goyer, R.A.

, and Stark , J.D., 1984. The impact of Neochetina eichhorniae

on water hyacinth in southern Louisiana. J

. Aquatic Plant Mgmt . 22: 57

–

61.

Horn, C.

, 2002. Pontederiaceae

. Argus, G.W., Ghandi, K., Goldblatt, P.,

Hess, W.J., Kiger, R.W., Strother, J.L., Utech, F.H., and Zarucchi, J.L.

, eds. In: Flora of North America

. Oxford Univers ity Press, New York.

26: 37

– 46

.

International Organization for Plant Information

, 2002. IOPI g lobal p lant

c hecklist

, [Online]. Available: http://bgbm3.bgbm.fu

berlin.de/iopi/gpc/default .asp [2009, Mar. 9].

IOPI─ S ee Inte rnational Organization for Plant Information21 

### Julien M.H., Harley, K.L.S., Wright, A.D., Cilliers, C.J., Hill, M.P.,

Center, T.D., Cordo, H.A., and Cofrancesco , A.F., 1996. International

cooperation and linkages in the management of water hyacinth with

emphasis on biological control. Moran, V.C. and Hoffman, J. H.

, ed s

. , 273

– 282. Cape Town, South Africa , Unive rsity of Cape Town.

Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Biological Control of

Weeds.

Kasselmann

, C.

, 1995. Aquarienpflanzen. Egen Ulmer GMBH & Co.,

Stuttgart. 472 pp. (In German)

Louda, S.M., Pemberton, R.W., Johnson, M.T., and Follett , P.A., 2003.

Nontarget effects

— t he Achilles’ heel of biological contro l. Retrospective

analyses to reduce risk a ssociated with biological control introductions.

Annual Rev

. Entomol. 48: 365

– 396.

Manning, J.H.

, 1979. Establishment of water hyacinth weevil populations

in Louisiana. J

. Aquatic Plant Mg m t. 17:39

– 41.

Matthews, L.J.

, 1967. Seedling establishment of water hyacinth.

PANS(C)

. 13(1):7

– 8.

MBG

─ S ee Missouri Botanical Garden

Missouri Botanical Garden

, 2002. In Tropicos n omenclatural d ata b ase

Online]. Available: http://www.tropicos.org/ [ 2009 , Mar. 9].

Mitchell

, D

. S.

, 1976. The growth and management of Eichhornia

crassipes and Salvinia spp. in their native environment and in alien

situ a tions. Varshney CK, Rzoska J, eds

. In: Aquatic W eeds in Southeast

Asia . The Hague: Dr. W. Junk b.v., Publishers. 396 pp.

Müller, F.

, 1883. Einige Eigenthümlichkeiten der Eichornia crassipes

. Kosmos. 13:297

– 300.

Nault, N. R.

, 1994. Transmission biology, vector specificity, and

evolution of planthopper

- transmitted viruses

. In Planthoppers. Their

E cology and M

anagement. Denno , R.F. and Perfect , T.J.

, eds.

, 429

– 448.

C hapman and Hall, New York.

O’Brien, L. B. and Wilson , S.W., 1985. Planthopper systematics and

external morphology

. In The leafhoppers and planthoppers. Nault , L.R.,

and Rodrigues , J.G.

, eds., 61

– 101

. Wiley, New York.

Pemberton, R.W.

, 2000. Predictabl e risk to native plants in weed

biolog ical control. Oecologia

, 125: 489

– 494.22 

### Schmitz

, D

. C

. , Schardt

, J.D., Leslie

, A.G., Dray

, F.A., Osborne

, J.A., and

Nelson , B.V., 1993. The ecological impact and management history of

three invasive alien aquatic plant s in Florida. In Biological pollutio n

— the

control and impact of invasive exotic species. McKnight, B.N., ed

. , Indianapolis: Indiana Acad emy Sci

. 261 pp.

Sogawa, K.

, 1982. The rice brown planthopper: f eeding physiology and

host plant interactions. Annu a l Rev

. Entomol

. 27: 49

– 73.

Sosa, A.J., Marino de Remes Lenicov, A.M., Mariani, R., and Cordo

, H.A., 2004. Redescription of Megamelus scutellaris Berg (Hemiptera:

Delphacidae), a candidate for biological control of water hyacinth. Annals

Ent omol

. Soc

. Am erica. 97: 271

– 275.

Sosa, A.J., Marino de Remes Lenicov, A.M., Mariani, R., and Cordo

, H.A., 2005. Life history of Megamelus scutellaris with description of

immature stages (Hemiptera: Delphacidae). Annals Ent omol

. Soc

. America . 98 : 66

– 72

.

Sosa, A.J., C ordo, H.A., and Sacco , J., 2007a. Prelminary evaluation of

Megamelus scutellaris Berg (Hemiptera: Delphacidae), a candidate for

biological control of water hyacinth

. Biological Control. 42:129

– 138.

Sosa, A.J., Marino de Remes Lenicov, A.M., and Mariani , R., 2007b.

Species of Megamelus (Hemiptera: Delphacidae) associated with

Pontederiaceae in South America. Annals Ent omol

. Soc

. America

, 100: 798

– 809.

Spiller, N.J.

, 1990. An ultrastructural study of the stylet pathway of the

brown planthoper, Nilaparv ata lugens Stål. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 54: 191

–

193.

Tipping, P.W., Center, T.D., and Dray, Jr. , F.A., 2008. Proposed field

release of Megamelus scutellaris Berg (Hemiptera: Delphacidae) for

control of water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes Mart. (Solms)

(Pon tederiales: Pontederiaceae). Petition submitted to the Technical

Advisory Group for Biological Control Agents of Weeds. 34 p p

.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

, 1997. The PLANTS database, version

3.5 [Online]

. Available: http://plants.usda.gov [ 2009 , Mar. 9]. USDA

Natural Resource Conservation Service, National Plant Data Center, Baton

Rouge, LA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009. Threatened and Endangered

Species System

, 2009 [Online]. Available:

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/ [ 2009 , Feb. 12]

.23 

### USDA─ S ee U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS, TESS─ S ee U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Threatened and

Endangered Species System.

Vandiver, V.V., Center, T.D., Dray, F.A., Hall, D.W., Bagnall, L.O.,

Sutton, D.L., Neitzke, C.J., Eplee, R.E., and Teem , D.H., 1999. 1999

Florida a quatic w eed g uide. SP

– 55, University of Florida, Inst

. Food and

Agric

. Sci

. , Gainesville, Florida.

Washington State Department of Ecolog y

, 2001. Final supplemental

environmental impact statement for freshwater aquatic plant management.

Pub

. No. 00

– 10

– 040.

WSDE

─ S ee Washington State Department of EcologyA

– 1



# Appendix A . Results of N o

- choice O viposition T ests

Two females and one male M. scutellaris (7 to 10 d ays of age) were placed on single plants for a

period of 7 d ays . The percentage of adults (%P1 Survival), the number of emerged F1 nymphs

(No. Progeny), and their survival (% F1 Nymph Survival) were recorded or calculated. All tests

involving non

- target plant species were replicated four times. Shaded rows indicate plant species

oviposited on by M. scutella ris and nymphs emerged

. Nymphs survived only on the exotic plant

Eic h hornia paniculata.

% P1 Survival No. Progeny % F1 Nymph Survival

Test

Species Water

H yacinth Test

Species Water

H yacinth Test

Species Water

H yacinth

Genus Species Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

1 Commelina benghalensis 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 36.5 4.9

- - - -

2 Commelina erecta 0.0 0.0 93.9 3.8 0.0 0.0 200.6 31.7

- - - -

3 Eichhornia diversifolia 0.0 0.0 93.9 3.8 0.0 0.0 200.6 31.7

- - - -

4 Eichhor nia paniculata 8.3 8.3 100.0 0.0 17.2 4.7 176.0 10.7 1.1 1.1 82.5 0.7

5 Heteranthera dubia 0.0 0.0 93.9 3.8 4.4 1.7 200.6 31.7 0.0 0.0

- -

6 Heteranthera multiflora 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 89.5 13.1

- - - -

7 Heteranthera reniformis 0.0 0.0 93.9 3.8 0. 0 0.0 200.6 31.7

- - - -

8 Heteranthera rotundifolia 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 2.7 2.7 89.5 13.1 0.0 0.0

- -

9 Heteranthera zosterfolia 0.0 0.0 93.9 3.8 0.0 0.0 200.6 31.7

- - - -

10 Monochoria vaginalis 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 6.0 4.3 89.5 13.1 0.0 0.0

- -

11 Pontede ria cordata 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.2 0.2 113.7 26.8 0.0 0.0 50.0 7.0

12 Echinodorus chordifolus 0.0 0.0 83.4 16.6 0.0 0.0 154.5 22.9

- - - -

13 Sagittaria falcate 0.0 0.0 83.4 16.6 0.0 0.0 154.5 22.9

- - - -

14 Sagittaria latifolia 0.0 0.0 83.4 16.6 0.0 0. 0 154.5 22.9

- - - -

15 Crinum americanum 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 176.0 10.7

- - 82.5 0.7

16 Hydrocotyle umbellate 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 36.5 4.9

- - - -

17 Colocasia esculenta 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 176.0 10.7

- - 82.5 0.7

18 Orontium aquatic um 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 164.0 24.4

- - 92.3 4.8

19 Peltandra v irginica 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 164.0 24.4

- - 92.3 4.8

20 Azolla caroliniana 0.0 0.0 83.4 16.6 0.0 0.0 154.5 22.9

- - - -

21 Canna f laccida 0.0 0.0 83.4 16.6 0.0 0.0 154.5 22.9

- - - -

22 Nasturtium aquaticum 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 113.7 26.8

- - 50.0 7.0

23 Eriocaulon compressum 0.0 0.0 83.4 16.6 0.0 0.0 154.5 22.9

- - - -

24 Proserpinaca p alustris 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 164.0 24.4

- - 92.3 4.8

25 Limnobium s pongia 0.0 0.0 100. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 176.0 10.7

- - 82.5 0.7

26 Iris hexagona 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 164.0 24.4

- - 92.3 4.8

27 Lemna m inor 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 164.0 24.4

- - 92.3 4.8

28 Thalia geniculata 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 164.0 24.4

- - 92.3 4.8

29 Marsilea m u tica 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 164.0 24.4

- - 92.3 4.8

30 Nymphoides aquatica 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 36.5 4.9

- - - -

31 Neptunia aquatica 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 113.7 26.8

- - 50.0 7.0A

– 2 % P1 Survival No. Progeny % F1 Nymph Survival

Test

Species Water

H yacinth Test

Species Water

H yacinth Test

Species Water

H yacinth

Genus Species Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

32 Nelumbo l utea 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 176.0 10.7

- - 82.5 0 .7

33 Nuphar l uteum 0.0 0.0 83.4 16.6 0.0 0.0 154.5 22.9

- - - -

34 Nymphaea o derata 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 113.7 26.8

- - 50.0 7.0

35 Nymphaea mexicana 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 164.0 24.4

- - 92.3 4.8

36 Ludwigia glandulosa 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 176.0 10.7

- - 82.5 0.7

37 Ludwigia peploides 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 113.7 26.8

- - - -

38 Dendrobium sp. 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 176.0 10.7

- - 82.5 0.7

39 Epidendrum s p. 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 176.0 10.7

- - 82.5 0.7

40 Vanilla planifolia 0. 0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 176.0 10.7

- - 82.5 0.7

41 Saururus c ernuus 0.0 0.0 83.4 16.6 0.0 0.0 154.5 22.9

- - - -

42 Bacopa caroliniana 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 164.0 24.4

- - - -

43 Bacopa monnieri 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 113.7 26.8

- - - -

44 Typha l atifolia 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 164.0 24.4

- - - -

45 Costus woodsonii 0.0 0.0 83.4 16.6 0.0 0.0 154.5 22.9

- - - -

46 Glycine m ax 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 176.0 10.7

- - 82.5 0.7

47 Oryza s ativa 0.0 0.0 83.4 16.6 0.0 0.0 154.5 22.9

- - - -

48 Musa sp. 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 164.0 24.4

- - - -

49 Saccharum officinarum 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 176.0 10.7

- - 82.5 0.7

50 Sorghum bicolor 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 164.0 24.4

- - - -

51 Triticum aestivum 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 164.0 24.4

- - - -

52 Zea m ays 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 176.0 10.7

- - 82.5 0.7

53 Lycopersican esculentum 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 176.0 10.7

- - 82.5 0.7

54 Alpina n atans 0.0 0.0 83.4 16.6 0.0 0.0 154.5 22.9

- - - -

55 Globba schomburkii 0.0 0.0 83.4 16.6 0.0 0.0 15 4.5 22.9

- - - -

56 Hedychium coronarium 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 164.0 24.4

- - - -

57 Renealmia c ernua 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 89.5 13.1

- - - -

Source: Tipping, et al., 2008.B

– 1



# Appendix B . Results of C hoice O viposition T esting

Two females and on e male M. scutellaris (7 to 10 d ays of age) were placed in an aquari um with

a single non

- target test plant and a single water hyacinth plant of similar size for a period of 7

d ays . The number of emerged nymphs (No. Prog eny), their percent survival (% F1 Ny mph

Survival), and the percent survival of adults (%F1 Adult Survival) were recorded or calculated.

All tests were replicated four times. Adults emerged only from Eichhornia paniculata.

Source: Tipping, et al., 2008. No. Progeny % F1 Nymph S urvival % F1 Adult Survival

Genus Species Test

Species Water

H yacinth Test

Species Water

H yacinth Test

Species Water

H yacinth

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

Eichhornia paniculata 1.5 0.9 121.5 14.6 37.5 12.5 82.5 8.5 0.0 0.0 92.3 4.8

Heteranthera rotundifolia 0 0.0 57.2 22.9 0.0 0.0 84.5 1.3

- - - -

Pontederia cordata 0.3 0.3 168.5 16.9 0.0 0.0 85.0 2.8

- - - -C

– 1



# Appendix C

. Results of N o

- choice L arge N ymph

T ransfer T ests (spill

- over scenario)

Ten 3 rd 

### to 5 th 

### instars wer e placed on single test plants in sleeve cages for 7 d ays . The

number of surviving life stages w ere tallied after 7 d ays, and the percentage of large nymph

survival was calculated. Tests were replicated at least four times. Shaded rows indicate

species that supported some survival of large nymphs for 7 days.

% Large Nymph Survival

Number

Tested Test Species Number

Tested Water

H yacinth

Family Genus Species Mean SE Mean SE

1 Commelinaceae Commelina bengalensis 40 0.0 0.0 40 87.5 0.6

2 Commelinaceae Commelina erecta 50 0.0 0.0 50 28.0 13.0

3 Commelinaceae Tradescantia ohiensis 50 0.0 0.0 50 96.0 5.0

4 Pontederiaceae Eichhornia paniculata 50 5.8 4.0 50 66.9 4.8

5 Pontederiaceae Heteranthera dubia 50 88.0 5.8 50 66.9 4.8

6 Pontederiace ae Heteranthera limosa 50 12.0 5.8 50 86.6 6.9

7 Pontederiaceae Heteranthera multiflora 50 2.0 2.0 50 74.0 4.0

8 Pontederiaceae Heteranthera peduncularis 40 0.0 0.0 50 83.0 9.2

9 Pontederiaceae Heteranthera reniformis 50 0.0 0.0 50 66.9 4.8

10 Ponteder iaceae Heteranthera zosterfolia 50 28.0 15.0 50 86.6 6.9

11 Pontederiaceae Monochoria vaginalis 50 10.0 6.3 50 66.9 4.8

12 Pontederiaceae Pontederia cordata 50 0.0 0.0 50 80.0 5.5

13 Alismataceae Echinodorus chordifolus 50 0.0 0.0 50 30.0 7.1

14 Alism ataceae Sagittaria falcata 50 10.0 7.7 50 78.0 7.3

15 Alismataceae Sagittaria latifolia 50 0.0 0.0 50 80.0 5.5

16 Amaryllidaceae Crinum americanum 50 0.0 0.0 50 96.0 4.0

17 Araceae Colocasia esculenta 50 0.0 0.0 50 83.0 9.2

18 Araceae Colocasia sp. 5 0 0.0 0.0 50 74.0 4.0

19 Araceae Hydrocotyle umbellata 40 0.0 0.0 40 87.5 0.6

20 Araceae Orontium aquaticum 50 0.0 0.0 50 28.0 13.0

21 Araceae Peltandra virginica 50 0.0 0.0 50 96.0 5.0

22 Araceae Pistia stratiotes 50 0.0 0.0 50 83.0 9.2

23 Azollaceae Azolla caroliniana 50 0.0 0.0 50 83.0 9.2

24 Cannaceae Canna flaccida 50 0.0 0.0 50 86.6 6.9

25 Cruciferae Nasturtium aquaticum 50 0.0 0.0 50 96.0 5.0

26 Eriocaulaceae Eriocaulon compressum 50 0.0 0.0 50 76.0 6.7

27 Haloragaceae Myriophyllum aquaticum 50 0.0 0.0 50 86.6 6.9

28 Haloragaceae Proserpinaca palustris 50 0.0 0.0 50 86.6 6.9

29 Hydrocharitaceae Limnobium spongia 50 0.0 0.0 50 83.0 9.2

30 Iridaceae Iris hexagona 50 0.0 0.0 50 83.0 9.2

31 Lemnaceae Lemna minor 50 0.0 0.0 50 83.0 9.2

32 Mar antaceae Thalia geniculata 50 0.0 0.0 50 80.0 5.5

33 Marsileaceae Marsilea quadrifolia 50 0.0 0.0 50 96.0 4.0C

– 2 % Large Nymph Survival

Number

Tested Test Species Number

Tested Water

H yacinth

Family Genus Species Mean SE Mean SE

34 Menyanthaceae Nymphoides aquatica 50 6.0 6.0 50 83.0 9.2

35 Mimosaceae Neptunia aquatica 50 0.0 0.0 50 96.0 5.0

36 Nymphaeaceae Nuphar lut eum 50 0.0 0.0 50 83.0 9.2

37 Nymphaeaceae Nymphaea oderata 50 0.0 0.0 50 78.0 7.3

38 Nymphaeaceae Nymphaea mexicana 50 0.0 0.0 50 83.0 9.2

39 Onagraceae Ludwigia glandulosa 50 0.0 0.0 50 66.9 4.8

40 Onagraceae Ludwigia peploides 50 4.0 2.4 50 86.6 6. 9

41 Orchidaceae Dendrobium sp. 50 0.0 0.0 50 83.0 9.2

42 Orchidaceae Vanilla planifolia 50 0.0 0.0 50 74.0 4.0

43 Saururaceae Saururus cernuus 50 0.0 0.0 50 96.0 4.0

44 Scrophulariaceae Bacopa caroliniana 50 0.0 0.0 50 66.9 4.8

45 Scrophulariaceae B acopa monnieri 50 0.0 0.0 50 66.9 4.8

46 Typhaceae Typha latifolia 50 2.0 2.0 50 86.6 6.9

47 Costaceae Costus woodsonii 50 0.0 0.0 50 76.0 6.7

48 Fabaceae Glycine max 50 0.0 0.0 50 76.0 6.7

49 Graminaceae Oryza sativa 50 0.0 0.0 50 28.0 13.0

50 Musace ae Musa sp. 50 0.0 0.0 50 83.0 9.2

51 Poaceae Saccharum officinarum 50 0.0 0.0 50 74.0 4.0

52 Poaceae Sorghum bicolor 50 0.0 0.0 50 76.0 6.7

53 Poaceae Triticum aestivum 50 0.0 0.0 50 76.0 6.7

54 Poaceae Zea mays 50 0.0 0.0 50 96.0 5.0

55 Solanaceae Lycopersican esculentum 50 0.0 0.0 50 74.0 4.0

56 Zingiberaceae Alpina natans 50 0.0 0.0 50 96.0 5.0

57 Zingiberaceae Curcuma zedoaria 50 0.0 0.0 50 83.0 9.2

58 Zingiberaceae Hedychium coronarium 50 0.0 0.0 50 83.0 9.2

59 Zingiberaceae Renealmia cernu a 50 0.0 0.0 50 28.0 13.0

Source: Tipping, et al., 2008.D

– 1



# Appendix D . Results of the N o

- choice, S mall

nymph T ransfer T ests

Ten 1 st 

### to 3 rd 

### instars were placed on single test plants in sleeve cages. The test s ended when

all nymphs developed i nto adults in the water hyacinth controls and the number of surviving

life stages w ere tallied. The percentage of small nymph s that survived was calculated. All

tests were replicated four times. Shaded rows indicate species where M. scutellaris nymphs

w ere able to survive and develop.

% Small Nymph Survival

Test Species Water H yacinth

Family Genus Species No.

Tested Mean SE No.

Tested Mean SE

1 Pontederiaceae Eichhornia paniculata 50 22.0 7.3 50 78.0 7.3

2 Pontederiaceae Heteranthera dubia 50 2.0 2.0 50 78.0 7.3

3 Pontederiaceae Heteranthera limosa 50 0.0 0.0 50 34.0 13.2

4 Pontederiaceae Heteranthera peduncularis 50 0.0 0.0 50 34.0 13.2

5 Pontederiaceae Heteranthera reniformis 50 0.0 0.0 50 78.0 7.3

6 Pontederiaceae Heteranthera zosterf olia 50 0.0 0.0 50 34.0 13.2

7 Pontederiaceae Monochoria vaginalis 50 0.0 0.0 50 78.0 7.3

8 Pontederiaceae Pontederia cordata 50 0.0 0.0 50 30.0 7.1

9 Pontederiaceae Pontederia cordata 50 0.0 0.0 50 78.0 7.3

10 Alismataceae Echinodorus chordifolus 50 0.0 0.0 50 30.0 7.1

11 Alismataceae Sagittaria falcata 50 0.0 0.0 50 28.0 8.0

12 Onagraceae Ludwigia peploides 50 0.0 0.0 50 34.0 13.2

13 Typhaceae Typha latifolia 50 0.0 0.0 50 34.0 13.2

Source: Tipping, et al., 2008.E

– 1



# Appendix E

. Response to comme nt on draft EA

The Arizona Game and Fish Department submitted a comment on draft environmental

assessment for release of M. scutellaris for biological control of water hyacinth on

December 16, 2009

. Specific issues are indicated in bold text and the re sponse follows.

The commenter recommends that USDA clearly identify how release sites will be

chosen and if interagency coordination will occur prior to release, a nd to describe how

rapidly the beetle is expected to reproduce and spread to adjacent hab itats prior to

this release and include methods of control once it has been released.

The agent for release is not a beetle but is a planthopper in the insect order Hemiptera.

Permit applications for environmental release of this organism are submitted t o the

appropriate state department of agriculture for review and comment prior to permit

issuance.

Monitoring of M. scutellaris will be conducted by researchers at t he USDA

- ARS Invasive

Plant Research Laboratory. Four long term sites currently serving as ecological study sites

in Florida will become the first release and evaluation sites for M. scutellaris

. E stablishment and rates of spread in the field will be determined

.

Undesired effects of M. scutellaris are not predicted, so mitigation of local p opulations is

not expected. However, the planthopper’s narrow host range suggests that locally

undesirable effects could be mitigated by using herbicides to eliminate water hyacinth

infestation s on which the insect resides.

The commenter has suggested t hat USDA develop a strategy to identify where

“tamarisk” will be suppressed but native vegetation may not reestablish naturally due

to altered hydrology. Also, the commenter has indicated that USDA develop a

vegetation monitoring protocol to determine the response on the riparian plant

community and to document evidence of native tree recruitment and survival.

Water hyacinth is an aquatic plant and its removal would not require subsequent riparian

plant restoration projects. Removal of water hyacinth is not expected to have an impact on

native tree recruitment and survival.

The commenter raises general concerns regarding unexpected effects of biological

control agents, and in particular, the potential for host shifting.

Host shifts by introduced weed biological control agents to unrelated plants are rare

(Pemberton, 2000).E

– 2



### The commenter uses the tamarisk leaf beetle as an example of a biological control agent

that has exhibited unexpected behavior. However, the comment er is not completely correct

in his statements regarding releases of the beetle. As for releases of vertebrate species as

biological control agents, i t is well known that this ha s often resulted in adverse

environmental consequences . This practice is discouraged (Howarth, 1991) and APHIS

does not approve it

.

The commenter indicates that water hyacinth does not currently occur in Arizona , and

that two sites where it has occurred have been eradicated since July of 2000.

Beca use M. scutellaris does not currently occur in Arizona, it would not likely be released

in that State and would not likely spread there because its host (water hyacinth) does not

occur there.

The commenter requests that an independent scientific review be completed

concerning the ecology and behavior of this insect.

An independent review has occurred. The Technical Advisory Group for the Biological

Control Agents of Weeds (TAG) recommended the release of M. scutellaris on February 2,

2009. The TAG is an independent interagency group of scientists and regula tory specialists

that reviews the research petition submitted by the biological control researcher and

provides a recommendation to APHIS. TAG members that reviewed the release petition

(Tipping et al., 2008) included representatives from the Bureau of In dian Affairs,

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Geological Survey,

Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Forest Service, an d Agriculture and

Agri

- Food Canada, Health Canada.E

– 3



### The commenter suggests that there is inherent risk in the use of biological control

agents, and that home range testing and screening may not adequately address the

ability of a biological control agen t to use and cause considerabl e population level

damage to non

- target species.

The risk analysis provided by quarantine host range testing indicated that there would be no

risk to non

- target species. In contrast to the reviewer’s comment, quarantine host range

testing has repeatedly been shown to be highly predictive of the eventual environmental

host range of biological control agents following release. The host specificity screening

p rocess used for biological control agents of weeds is inherently conservative which

contributes to the go o d safety record of recent weed bio logical control i ntroduct ions

(Messing and Wright, 2006).

The commenter states that the EA fails to show that M. scutellaris could not persist on

and affect native species in the genus Heteranthera and members of the

Pontederiaceae.

Th e data are clear that M. scutellaris cannot sustain itself on Heteranthera species (Tipping

et al., 2008) . In all of the testing, only a single nymph of M. scutellaris was able to survive

on H. dubia after 21 days, and this single nymph was never able to develop into an adult.

Although insects can lay eggs on many plants, this is not evidence of utilization or future

damage. For example, many lepidopteran species will freely lay eggs on cages or non

target plants that do not support growth and developmen t by immatures. In host specificity

testing, M. scutellaris fail ed to survive on all the non

- target plant species, including all

Heteranthera species.

The commenter indicated that the experiments were not thorough because only four

repetitions using t wo females and one male were conducted.

The number of replications in any experimental design should be guided in large part by the

amount of variation that is present. As a result of low variability, we believe four

replications were appropriate as a pa rt of the experimental design. Some studies were

replicated five times as a response to increased variability.

Using only two females in the test minimized intraspecific competitive interactions which

may have confounded the interpretation of the result s. For example, adding too many

females actually reduces oviposition, a condition that might underestimate the insect’s host

range.E

– 4



### The commenter states that Heteranthera species are used for cover, oviposition, and

feeding sites, by certain frogs an d salamanders, and that the EA did not address

potential effects to these species from host shifting by M. scutellaris

.

Many insect herbivores (including M. scutellaris ) can survive on relatively few plant

species, most of which are close relatives. Thes e relationships between insect herbivores

and their host plants have coevolved over millennia, resulting in insect herbivore diets that

are as stable as they are predictable. B ecause it has been shown quantitatively that M.

scutellaris will not develop on Heteranthera species in host specificity testing (Tipping et

al., 2008) there is no reason to discuss potential impacts on amphibian and reptile species

that may utilize Heteranthera species

.

Control of water hyacinth is expected to benefit organisms i n fresh water ecosystems and is

not expected to negatively impact non

- target organisms. No endangered or threatened

organisms are dependent on water hyacinth. Large infestations of water hyacinth in small

ponds have been implicated in causing declines in phytoplankton abundance (McVea and

Boyd

, 1975), which likely impacts zooplankton densities and diversity (Schmitz et al.

, 1993). Reduced plankton abundance and dissolved oxygen levels under modest water

hyacinth infestations (10

- 25% cover) caused decline s in fish productivity in experimental

ponds (McVea and Boyd

, 1975). Further, depleted oxygen levels under water hyacinth

mats have been implicated in fish kills (Timmer and Weldon

, 1967). Also, Griffen (1989)

partially attributed declines in the federal ly endangered kite ( Rostrhamus sociabilis ) to

destruction of kite habitat by water hyacinth. Thus, reductions in water hyacinth

infestations would likely benefit a variety of native fauna.

References:

Griffen, J. 1989. The Ev erglades kite. Aquatics 11(3): 17

– 19.

Howarth, F.G. 1991. Environmental impacts of classical biological control. Annual

Review Entomology. 36: 485

– 509.

McVea, C. and C.E. Boyd. 1975. Effects of waterhyacinth cover on water chemistry,

phytoplankton, and fish in ponds. Journa l of Environmental Quality 4(3): 375

– 378.

Messing , R.H . and M.G. Wright. 2 006. Biological control of invasive species: solution or

po llution? Front. Ecol. Environ. 4: 132

– 140.

Pemberton, R.W., 2000. Predictable risk to native plants in weed biological control.

Oecologia, 125:489

– 494.

Schmitz, D.C., J.D. Schardt, A.J. Leslie, F.A. Dray Jr., J.A. Os borne, and B.V. Nelson.

1993. The ec ological impact and management history of three invasive alien aquatic plant

species in Florida, pp.173

– 194. In : McKnight, B.N. Biological Pollution: The control andE

– 5



### impact of invasive exotic species. Indiana Academy of Sciences, Indianapolis, Indiana.

T immer, C.E. and L.W. Weldon. 1967. Evapotranspiration and pollution of water by

waterhyacinth. Hyacinth Control Journal

. 6: 34

– 37.

Tipping, P.W., Center, T.D., and Dray, Jr., F.A., 2008. Proposed field release of

Megamelus scutellaris Berg (Hemiptera: Delphacidae) for control of water hyacinth

Eichhornia crassipes Mart. (Solms) (Pontederiales: Pontederiaceae). Petition submitted to

the Technical Advisory Group for Biological Control Agents of Weeds. 34 pp.