United States

Department of Agriculture

Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Animal and

Plant Health Inspection
Service 

# Field Release of Lilioceris

cheni Gressit & Kimoto ( Coleo ptera: Chrysomelidae ) for

B iological Control of Air Potato, Dioscorea

bulbifera (Dioscoreaceae )

, in the Continental United
States

Environmental Assessment, September, 2010

# Field Release of Lilioceris cheni

Gressit & Kimoto (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) for B iological
C ontrol of Air Potato, Dioscorea
bulbifera (Dioscoreaceae)

, in the
Continental United States

Environmental Assessment, September, 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 prohibited 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 employer.

Mention of companies or commercial products in this repor t 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 mentioned. 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 Federal 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. Follow recommended practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers.

## Table of Contents

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

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

Alternatives

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

Affected Environment

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

Environmental Consequences

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

Other Issues

................................ ................................ ........ 1 4

Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Consulted

...... 1 5

References

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

Table 1. Seven Categories of Plants Considered for the Test

Plant List.

................................ ................................ ....... 9

Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F1 

## I. Purpose and Need for the Proposed

Action

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) , Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Pest Permitting Branch (PPB) is proposing to iss ue permit s for release of the

insect Lilioceris cheni ( Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae )

. The agent would be

used by the appli cant for biological control of air potato

, Dioscorea bulbifera L. ( Dioscoreaceae )

, in the continental United States . Before permit s are issued for release of L. cheni

, the APHIS

– PPQ PPB 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 Environm ental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) implementing procedures (Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 372). It examines the potential effects on the quality of the human environment that may be associated with the release of L. cheni to
control infestations of air potato within the continental United States . This

EA considers a ―no action‖ alternative and the potential effects of the proposed action

.

The applicant‘s purpose for releasing L. cheni is to reduce the severity of

infestations of air potato ( Dioscorea bulbifera ) in the continental United

States

. Air potato is a twining vine 65 feet long or greater, capable of climbing and out

- competing native vegetation (e.g., Schmitz et al.

, 1997; Langeland and Craddock Burks

, 1998; Gordon et al.

, 1999). Air potato

was introduced to Florida as an ornamental from tropical Asia or Africa in 1905 (Morton

, 1976), and it now constitutes one of the most aggressive weeds ever introduced to Florida (Hammer

, 1998). By the 1980s, this vine was found growin g in thickets, waste areas, and hedges or fencerows in south and central Florida (Bell and Taylor

, 1982). By 1999, air potato was listed in Florida as a noxious weed by the Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services (FDACS) (FLEPPC

, 2003). Air

potato is considered the most serious type of environmental threat, described as a Category I weed by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC) (FLEPPC

, 2003), ―invasive exotics that are altering native plant communities by displacing native speci es, changing community structure or ecological functions, or hybridizing with natives.‖ Presently, air potato is well established in Florida and probably throughout the Gulf states (Raz

, 2002) where it has the potential to severely disrupt entire

ecosyste ms (Hammer

, 1998).

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 102(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 Existing air potato management options (discussed below) are ineffective, expensive, temporary, or have non

- target impacts. 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 air

potato

.



## II . Alternatives

This section will explain the two alternatives available to the APHIS

– PPQ

PPB

— no action (no issuance of permits) and issuance of permit s for

environmental release of L. cheni

. Although APHIS ‘ alternatives are

limited to a decision o f whether to issue permit s for release of L. cheni

, other methods available for control of air potato 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 L.

cheni . These are methods presently being used to control air potato by public and private concerns.

A third alternative was considered, but will not be analyzed fu rther. Under this third alternative, the APHIS

– PPQ PPB would have issued permits for the field release of L. cheni , however, the permits would contain special provisions or requirements concerning release procedures or mitigating measures , such as limited release of L. cheni . No issues have

been raised which would indicate that special provisions or requirements

are necessary.



### A. No A ction

Under the no action alternative, the APHIS

– PPQ PPB would not issue permit s for the field release of L. cheni for the control of air potato

— t he

release of this biological control agent would not take place. The following methods are presently being used to control air potato ; these

methods will continue under the ―no a ction‖ alternative and are likely to continue even if permit s are issued for release of L. cheni

. Presently,

control of air potato populations is limited to chemical and mechanical

control or a combination of these two methods

.

Chemical control of vines requires repeated basal (cut stem) or foliar applications of triclopyr ester, triclopyr amine, and glyphosate herbicides (e.g., Remedy TM , Garlon 3A TM , or Roundup TM ) and these treatments need to be repeated over a two or three year period (Mullahey and Brown

, 1999). Herbicidal control with Roundup TM and Rodeo TM of heavily infested areas (e.g., Fern Forest, Broward County Florida) that included other invasive weeds cost $1,750/h ectare /y ear

. In this example, complete control was

not achieved as re

- sprout ing continued despite three herbicide treatments during nearly t wo years

. 1. Chemical
C ontrol3 Manual removal of aboveground plants and bulbils (aerial tubers ; s mall

bulb or bulb

- shaped growth arising from the leaf axil or in the place of flowers) has become a common activity employed by diverse volunteer groups (Duxbury et al.

, 2003). Manual removal of plants and bulbils was found to be as effective at controlling air potato as a combination of herbicide (e.g. Roundup TM ) and hand pulling (Gordon et al.

, 1999).



### B

. Issue P ermit s for E nvironmental R elease of

L. cheni

.

Under this alternative, the APHIS

– PPQ PPB would issue permit s upon request and after evaluation of each application for the field release of L.

cheni for the control of air potato 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

.

a. Biological c ontrol organism i nformation

Insect Taxonomy

Order: Coleoptera Family: Chrysomelidae Subfamily: Criocerinae

Genus: Lilioceris Reitter Species: cheni

Common name none

Lilioceris spp. adult beetles are typically 1 cm long by 0.5 cm wide at the

abdomen. The beetle is a shiny patent leather black color except for its tan/light orange or bright red wing covers. The shape of the beetle is elongate, with a rectangular shaped abdomen, a thorax narrow and about half as wide as the abdomen, and narrow heads with bulging eyes

. The shape somewhat resembles a square violin with a short neck

.

Specimens of L. cheni were identified by Dr. Alex Konstantinov at the
USDA, Agricultural Research Service

, Systematic Entomology Laboratory ( A. Konstantinov, pers. comm. , June 7, 2010 ).

Overwintered adult females beg i n egg laying ( o viposition) at the end of May and continue through mid June. T he oviposition period averages around 49 days with 13 active (effective) days of oviposition per female.

Beetles la y an average of approximately 1,223 per female, or about 90 eggs per female per active oviposition date. Mean egg hatch i s nearly 80

percent

. The mean incubation period for eggs i s approximately four days. 2. Mechanical

C ontrol

1. Description

3. Life H istory 2. Taxonomic
Information4 Lilioceris eggs are entirely pale white when first laid. As the larvae inside develop, the eggs become more yellow , and later, the anterior end of the eggs become s clear. T wo days before h atching , two distinct patches of light maroon spots are visible that become the eyes of the larva.

The larvae are brown, soft bodied

, and somewhat slug

- like, except for the six legs and head capsule. They are yellow in the first two instars (larval

devel opmental stages) , but become dark grey before pupation. Lilioceris

larvae feed together in a group (gregariously) and skeletonize the leaves while moving across the undersides of the leaves, exuding frass (insect feces) onto their backs, producing a fecal shield. This fecal shield can deter predators, but can also attract parasit e s, ( Schaffner and Müller

, 2001 ). The larvae prefer tender , newly

- emerged air potato leaves, but can also eat older toughened leaves. Early instar larvae can consume air

potato bulbils i f there is an initial tear through its surface, but more mature larvae can eat intact bulbils without difficulty. The average larval development period is approximately eight days (Pemberton, 2009)

.

When Lilioceris larvae finish feeding in their fourth instar, they move

from the vines and enter the soil

. The larvae secrete a white substance from their mouths and form a cocoon in which they pupate. The substance

harden s to a Styrofoam

- like substance

. Pupation in the soil is done gregariously, often in clumps of six to eight individuals joined by the

white Styrofoam TM

- like substance. The pupal stage lasts approximately

16 days.

Lilioceris cheni has been reported from China, India , Laos

, and Nepal

. Pemberton (2009) found L. cheni in the subtropical Katmandu Valley of Nepal at approximately 27 degree s N orth

, and in the Chiang Mai area of northern Thailand and in subtropical Xishuanbanna in southern Yunnan

Province of China at about 22 degrees N orth (Pemberton, 2009)

.

Lilioceris cheni is known only from subtropical and tropical areas of Asia. During the cool dry winter season its host plant, air potato, loses its leaves and the adult beetles seek shelter beneath debris on the ground. In the Katmandu Valley (4000 feet and approximately 28 degrees N) the source of the studied beetles, there are periodic frosts. This sheltering behavior of the beetles allows them to survive these conditions to successfully over

winter. This may also allow the beetles to survive in northern Florida and

t he Gulf Coast states where air potato currently grows. Because these beetles are host specific to air potato

, they will be limited to the current and potential geographic range of this plant in North America, which is Florida, the Gulf Coast areas and the adjacent interior areas

.

Both the adults and larvae of L. cheni consume the leaves and aerial 4 . Native R ange

6 . Impact on

Air Potato 5. Potential

North American Range5 bulbils of air potato. The larva e feed gregariously and quickly skeletonize

leaves

. The amount of leaf consumption by this beetle is very large. During the development of a single larva, it consumes approximately 11

square feet of leaf tissue, and the adults, which can live three months or more, can eat another 20 square feet of leaf. T hus, a single individual

beetle can consume approximately 30 square feet of leaf tissue (Pemberton, 2009)

. In laboratory studies, potted plants defoliated by L.

cheni re

- grew slowly

. The ability of the beetle larvae and adults to feed

on the bulbils is a lso important because in the United States the weed rarely flowers or produces fruit, so the aerial tubers are the primary means

of air potato persistence and spread . In laboratory studies

, even minimal bulbil feeding on the shoot area by L. cheni greatly decrease d the bulb il‘s ability to sprout, reducing the plant‘s reproductive capacity.



## III

. Affected Environment

Air potato is an herbaceous, perennial

, twining vine 65 feet long or greater, capable of climbing and out

- competing native vegetation (e.g

., Schmitz et al.

, 1997; Langeland and Craddock Burks

, 1998; Gordon et al.

, 1999). Air potato was introduced to Florida as an ornamental from tropical Asia or Africa in 1905 (Morton

, 1976), and it now constitutes one of the most aggressive weeds ever intr oduced to Florida (Hammer

, 1998). By the 1980s, this vine was found growing in thickets, waste areas, and hedges or fencerows in south and central Florida (Bell and Taylor

, 1982).



### A. Areas A ffected by Air Potato

Air potato is native to and widely distributed in tropical and subtropical Asia and Africa (Burkill

, 1960; Coursey

, 1967; Tindall

, 1993). In the

Western Hemisphere, it is widely naturalized in the tropics and subtropics of the West Indies, Central, and South America (McVaugh

, 1989; Schultz

, 1993). Air potato is naturalized in central and southern Mexico (Colima, Mexico, Puebla, Veracruz, San Luis Potosi, Oaxaca, and Chiapas sta tes), and the West Indies (USDA, SCS

, 1982; Nesom and Brown

, 1998; USDA, NRCS

, 2002). It is reported to be established in Central America and northern South America (Tellez and Schubert

, 1994; Bennett and

Prance

, 2000).

Since its introduction to Florida, air potato has aggressively spread throughout the state. From the northwestern panhandle, Escambia County, to the southern tip of the state, collections from herbaria and reports from biologists have listed 29 of 67 Florida counties infested with air potato (Schmitz

, 1994; Gann et al.

, 2001; Wunderlin and Hansen

, 2003). This species has also been reported to be naturalized in Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Hawaii (Nesom and Brown

, 1998; USDA

, SCS

, 1982). 2. Present

D istribution in
the United
States 1. Native and
Worldwide

Distribution6 Based on the known range of air potato in North America, the plant can survive in areas with an average annual minimum temperature range of

- 12.2 to

- 9.5 C (10 to 15°F )

. Climatic data (minimum January temperature and annual rainfall) from locations where air potato is known to occur in

Florida have been ext rapolated outside of Florida to estimate its potential

distribution in the United States (Pemberton, 2009)

. These data suggest

that air potato may be able to spread throughout much of the Gulf coast and along the Atlantic coast as far north as Charleston, South Carolina (Pemberton, 2009).

In Florida, air potato is frequently found in tr opical and subtropical

hammocks. A hammock is a dense stand of trees that grow s on natural

rises that are only a few inches higher than surrounding marshland. Air

potato may also invade disturbed uplands, scrub, sinkholes, alluvial flood plain forests, and urban lots (Schultz

, 1993; Gann et al.

, 2001), pinelands (Langeland and Craddock

- Burks

, 1998)

, and hedges or fencerows (Bell and Taylor

, 1982). Evidence also suggests that air potato aggressively exploits disturbed sites, such as forest canopies damaged by hurricanes, and it impedes the reestablishment of native species (Horvitz et al.

, 1998;

Gordon et al.

, 1999).



### B. Plants R elated to Air Potato and T heir D istribution

Information regarding plants taxonomically related to air potato ( Di o scorea bulbifera ) is included because n ative plant species which are closely related to air potato have the most potential to be attacked by L.

cheni

.

The Dioscoreaceae (the plant family to which air potato belongs) i ncludes either four (Caddick et al.

, 2002 ) or seven genera (Al

- Shehbaz and

Schubert

, 1989; Raz 2002). The largest genus in the family, Dioscorea

, contains appr oximately 600 species (Raz

, 2002) (850 species according to

Al

- Shehbaz and Schubert

, 1989), most of which grow in the subtropics or tropics, with only a few species growing in the warmer temperate regions (Al

- Shehbaz and Schubert

, 1989; Raz

, 2002). The Di oscorea genus is grouped into subgeneric sections. The two native North American (north of Mexico) species, D. floridana Barlett (Florida yam) and D. villosa L. (wild yam), are assigned to the section Macropoda (Knuth

, 1924; Raz

, 2002). Traditionally air potato ( D. bulbifera ) has been placed in section Opsophyton (Knuth

, 1924; Huber

, 1998). Rajania , an endemic genus in the West Indies (Raz

, 2002), is the only other genus of the Dioscoreaceae

in North America

. Although this genus is being revised (L. Raz, unpubl. data), the center of origin appears to be Cuba with 19 species distributed throughout the West Indies (Knuth

, 1924; Raz

, 2002).

In the Western Hemisphere, approximately 130 Dioscorea species occur

in Brazil and 120 in Central America and Mexi co (Al

- Shehbaz and 1. Taxonomically

Related Plants 3

. Habitat7 Schubert

, 1989). The most comprehensive treatment of the Mexican

Dioscorea included 63 species (Matuda

, 1953 )

. S ix Dioscorea species

occur in the southeastern United States (Al

- Shehbaz and Schubert

, 1989;

Raz

, 2002) and, of these, four are naturalized from Asia and two are native ( D. floridana and D. villosa ) (Raz

, 2002). There are nine native

Dioscorea spp. and 19 species of the genus Rajania from the West Indies (Knuth

, 1924; Raz

, 2002; L. Raz, unpubl. data) with their greatest

diver sity in Cuba (Leon and Alain

, 1974; L. Raz, unpubl. data).

The closest Dioscorea species that occur in the northern extent of this range are south of the Texas border in the states of Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas, Mexico. Dioscorea species that occur in these states that are hosts of biological control agents could potentially provide a bridge between D. bulbifera populations in Texas to more

southern Dioscorea species in the state of Veracruz, Mexico, and

southward. The only Diosco rea species known from this northern  ̳bridging area‘ are D. convolvulacea (Barrera

, 1990), D. militaris , and D

. remotiflora (McVaugh

, 1989) and these are only reported from the state of Tamaulipas, south of the Texas border. In Texas, D. bulbifera is not known to be widespread (B.L. Turner and T. Wendt, University of Texas; and M.D. Reed, TAMU herbarium, Texas A&M University, personal. comm.). However, a few scattered specimens have been collected fr om wild plant populations (USDA, NRCS

, 2002) in the east ern part of the state (Nesom and Brown

, 1998).



## IV. Environmental Consequences

A. No Action

a . Effects of air potato on native plants and animals

Air potato often dominates habitats that it invades, displacing native plants and the animals that depend on them. Air potato vines blanket native vegetation so completely that they may be i njured or killed by shading (Langeland and Craddock Burks

, 1998). Sometimes, air potato completely covers other vegetation so it is not possible to see other plants

beneath it. Air potato is one of the more common natural area weeds in

central and southern Florida. In southern Florida, the weed occurs in 15.2

percent of 315 of the conservation areas and 25 percent of 48 of the habitats surveyed (Gann et al.

, 2001). Air potato has a long

- term impact on the community structure by invading and dominating sites following hurricane disturbance (Gordon et al.

, 1999).

Air potato is a Category I Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council plant. Invasive plants are assigned the Category I rating when they are 1. Impact of Air

Potato on the
Environment8 understood to alter native plant communities by displacing native species, changing community structure or ecological func tions.

b . Beneficial uses of air potato

Air potato was originally introduced into the United States as an ornamental and perhaps to a limited degree as a food plant by immigrants from the West Indies, where it is occasionally cultivated (Coursey

, 1967).

Dioscorea alata is the more popular yam used as an ethnic West Indian food plant, but home cultivation of this species in Florida is uncommon. No purposeful known cultivation of air potato in Florida is known and no

commercial cultivation of other Dioscorea species is known in Florida. The attractive leaves and rapid lush growth promoted the introduction of the plant and the early use of it in Florida as an ornamental. Purposeful cultivation of the plant as an ornamental occurred to some degree fo r approximately 40 years (Long and Lakela

, 1971), and may still occur occasionally , but ornamental cultivation is problematic because it could

result in new infestations of the weed.

The contin ued use of chemical herbicides and mechanical controls at
current levels would result if the ―no action‖ alternative is chosen

, and may continue even if permits are issued for environmental release of L.

cheni

.

a. Chemical C ontrol

Chemical control of air potato is expensive ( $1,750/h ectare /y ear) and requires multiple years of treatment to be effective. The herbicidal control

has additional costs as non

- target species, such as natives, may be injured

due to the non

- selective nature of these products.

b. Mechanical C ontrol

Mechanical control can be effective in controlling air potato in accessible locations, but is expensive, labor

- intensive, and results are short term. Plants that are located in natural areas, such as hammocks, may be

difficult or impossible to access.

These environmental consequences may occur even with the implementat ion of the biological control alternative , d epending on the efficacy of L. cheni to reduce air potato infestations in the continental

United States. 2. Impact from

the U se of

O ther C ontrol

Methods9 

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

Host S pecificity T esting

Host range determination of L. cheni was based on plant species in seven categories listed in table 1 (Pemberton, 2009)

.

Table 1

. 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 L. cheni and were conducted in quarantine facilities.

Category 1

— Genetic T ype of the T arget W eed S pecies ( Air P otato )

. Genus and Species Common Name Status

Dioscorea bulbifera air potato Native Asia & Africa;
Cultivated West Indies; Introd. MS, LA TX, HI , and FL Category 2

— Species in the S ame G enus ( Dioscorea ) as Air P otato

. Genus and Species Common Name Status

Dioscorea floridana Florida yam Native FL, GA and SC

Dioscorea villosa Wild yam Native FL north to Ontario, C anada and

MN , west to TX

. Dioscorea altissima dunguey PR; exotic

- native to

Brazil Rajania cordata (Dioscorea) cordata himber Cuba; Jamaica;

Puerto Rico Dioscorea pilosiuscula b ulbous yam Hispaniola; Puerto Rico; VI; Jamaica Dioscorea polygonoides mata gallina Hispaniola; Puerto Rico; Cuba; Jamaica

Dioscorea trifida cush cush yam West Indies; S. American, cultivated

Dioscorea alata white yam Native Africa Eastern US, PR, VI, Invasive in

FL Dioscorea cayenensis chinese yam Introduced FL n orth to

VT Dioscorea polystachya yellow guinea yam Cultivated W est
I ndies ; African Dioscorea polystachya cultivated C hinese

yam Eastern US weed;
Cultivation limited;

Indochina

Dioscorea rotundata guinea yam Cultivated West Indies; African

Dioscorea sansibarensis Zanzibar yam Native East Africa

Eradicated from FL

Disocorea trifida cush cush yam West Indies; S. American, cultivated 1. Impact of

L. cheni on Non

- target
P lants10 Category 3

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

. ( Dioscoreaceae ) as Air P otato

. Genus and Species Common Name Status Tacca integrifolia bat flower Native Indochina, Malaysia;
Ornamental in FL

Category 4

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

Air Potato

.

There are no f

ederally listed threatened or endangered species in the plant family Dioscoreaceae

.

Category 5

— Species in the S ame O rder ( Liliales ) as Air Potato

. Family, Genus

, and Species Common name Status

Liliace aceae ; Lilium sp

. lily Ornamental non

native, native species occur in FL

Liliaceaceae ; Zephyranthes grandiflora

. rosepink zephyr lily Rare; Native FL &

Mexico Nartheciaceae; Aletris farinosa white colicroot Native Central N

America & E.
Canada Smilacaceae; Smilax laurifolia laurel greenbrier Native Central N

. America

, Bahamas
& Cuba

Category 6

— Plant Species in Orders O ther than Air Potato

.

Order F Genus Family Species C ommon Name Status

Acrecaceae Arecales cabbage palm Native SE US,

Bahamas &
Cuba

Alismatales Alismataceae Sagittaria latifolia broadleaf

arrowhead Native N.

America Asparagales Amaryllidaceae Crinum americanum Seven

sisters Native SE US;

Invasive PR Asparagales Iridaceae Iris virginica Virginia iris Native E. N. America; widely

cultivated

Commelinales Commelinaceae Tradescantia ohiensis Ohio spiderwort Native NE USA

Commelinales Pontederiaceae Pontederia cordata pickerelweed Native NE USA

Fabales Fabaceae Cassia (Senna) l igustrina privet wild

sensitive plant Native Africa &

Asia; Inroduced Neotorpics: VI

Pandanales Pandanaceae Pandanus spiralis screw pine Native Australia

Poales Cyperaceae Cladium jamaicense Jamaica

swamp
sawgrass Native Australia;

Southern N. America; HI &

PR

Poales Juncaceae Juncus effusus soft rush Cosmopolitan in temperate
wetlands11 Order F Genus Family Species C ommon Name Status

worldwide

Poales Poaceae Saccharum officinarum sugarcane Native Asia;
Cultivated FL to

TX

Lamiales Verbenaceae Callicarpa americana American beauty berry FL, SE US

Zingerbales Cannaceae Canna flaccida bandana of

the Everglades Native

Neotropics: Widely cultivated Zingerbales Cannaceae Canna indica indian shot Native to tropics;

exotic Zingerbales Coastaceae Costus woodsonii red button ginger Native Asia &

PR; cultivated widely in tropics Zingerbales Heliconiaceae Heliconia caribaea lobsterclaw Native Caribbean;

cultivated exotic Haloragales Marantaceae Thalia geniculata alligatorflag Native Africa , N and S Americas;

Invasive FL Zingerbales Zingerberaceae Hedychium coronarium butterfly ginger Native Asia; exotic FL, GA, LA, HI & PR Zingerbales Musaceae Musa acuminata edible banana Native Asia & Africa; cultivated widely in tropics

Category 7

— Any S pecies on which L. cheni o r i ts C lose R elative s a re

F ound.

Plant Order, Family, Genus

, and Species L. cheni or R elatives Status

Dioscoreales, Dioscoraceae

, Dioscorea alata L. cheni Native to Africa.

Introd uced into GA, LA, PR, V irgin

I slands . Invasive in

FL Urticales; Moraceae

, Ficus elastica L. cheni Native to Asia;

Introd uced into FL & PR; widely

cultivated Fabales; Fabaceae

, Cassia (Senna) ligustrina* L. cheni Native to Africa & Asia; Introduced

into Neotropics;

V irgin I slands Lamiales; Verbenaceae; Callicarpa

americana* L. cheni Native to the SE
USA and
Caribbean Asparagales; Asparagaceae; Asparagus officinalis Crioceris sp. Native N Africa Europe & Asia; Widely cultivated Asparagales; Asparagaceae ; Asparagus sprengeri Criocerus sp. Native S. Africa;

Introduced into

A ustralia, N ew Zealand, W est
I ndies

, FL

, CA

, &

HI *Target agent found on Cassia sophera and Callicarpa macrophylla12 ( 1 ) Feeding and Survival Testing

In no

- choice testing slight feeding occurred on three Dioscorea species besides air potato (appendix B). In all choice tests, adult feeding occurred only on air potato (appendix C and D ).

In tests where L. cheni eggs were transferred directly to Dioscorea species

test plants (air potato, Dioscorea altissima

, Dioscorea floridana

, Dioscorea polystachya , and Dioscorea villosa ), 100 percent of larvae successfully hatched from the transferred eggs. First instar larvae died on all test plants without feeding except for air potato. Larvae hatched from eggs transferred onto air potato leaves fed immediately and began to grow (appendix E).

( 2 ) Oviposition Testing

Three Dioscorea species (air potato and two native species) were used in oviposition studies (Pemberton, 2009). The native Dioscorea plants were used because they are the most closely related to air potato in Florida and thus would be considered at highest risk for attack by L. cheni

. In testing,

e gg masses were laid on the two test species, Dioscorea villosa , and Dioscorea floridana

, and the control, air potato ( D. bulbifera )

. Oviposition was consistently lower on test plants than on air potato

. In these studies, n either larval feeding nor adult feeding was documented on

eit h er test plant but occurred on air potato (appendix F )

.

(3) Discussion

In host specificity testing conducted in the laboratory, t his tropical/subtropical beetle, L. cheni

, was found to be host specific to the target weed Dioscorea bulbifera (Pemberton, 2009). Although L. cheni laid eggs on other Dioscorea plant species tested, no larvae were able to develop to the adult stage except on air potato. Very small amounts of test feeding by adult L. cheni w ere observed on the two North American and Florida native yams ( D. floridana and D. villosa ), and a natura lized weed ( D. polystachya ), and a Brazilian species naturalized in Puerto Rico ( D.

altissima ) , but l arvae were unable to feed on the leaves of any of these

Dioscorea species. In addition, t here was no feeding or development by

L. cheni on any cultivated Dioscorea species or plant representatives of

monocot orders tested

.

Once a biological control agent

, such as L. cheni

, is released into the

environment and become s established, there is a slight possibility th at it could move from the target plant ( air potato ) to attack non

- target plants

, such as the native plant s D. villosa or D. floridana

. Host shifts by 2. Uncertainties Regarding the

Environmental

R elease of L.
cheni

cheniM. scutell
aris13 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 L. cheni , the resulting effects could be environmental impacts that may not be easily reversed. Biological control organisms such as L. cheni generally spread without intervention by man

. In principle, 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 air potato

popu lations 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 air potato by L. cheni 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).

A variety of Federal, State, County, City, and private organizations work

to control a ir potato.

Archbold Biological Station in Lake Placid, Florida uses a combination of methods to control air potato, including hand collecting of bulbils during the late fall, winter, and spring months, manually removing vines from April through June bef

ore fruits are produced, and application of an herbicide during the growing season.

The Nature Conservancy coordinate s with state agencies, invasive pest plant councils and local groups to halt the further spread of air potato by educating peo ple about this plant's harmful e ffects , and work s on their

own lands as well as coordinat ing with other private and public land managers to control air potato on wild lands.

Palm Beach County has an ordinance that requires all properties within the County to remove air potato

. In February 2003, the County created the Invasive Vine Strike Force Program in order to assist property owners

with the treatment and removal of these vines. This program provides free treatment of the two vines for properties with infe stations of approximately two

- acres or less. If necessary, the County will perform one

re

- treatment within six months of the initial treatment after which the property owner is required by County ordinance to keep their property free 3. Cumula tive

I mpacts14 and clear of air potat o.

The City of Gainesville Nature Operations Division organizes the annual Great Air Potato Round Up to keep the air potato reasonably under control for another year. Volunteers head out to some of the city's most infested

areas to c ollect bu l bils and des troy them.

Release of L. cheni is not expected to have any negative cumulative impacts in the continental United States because of its host specificity to air potato

. Effective biological control of air potato will have beneficial

effects for weed management programs , and may result in a long

- term,

non

- damaging method to assist in the control of air potato , and prevent its spread into other areas po tentially at risk from invasion.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 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 L. cheni

, there will be no effect on any listed plant or designated critical habitat in the continental United States. In host specificity testing, the biological control organism survived only on air potato . No federally listed threatened or endangered plants belong to the family Dioscoreaceae (USFWS, TESS,

20 10 ). In addition, no federally listed threatened or endangered species are known to depend on or use air potato

.



## 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 release of L. cheni

and the ir release will not have disproportionate adverse ef fects to any minority or low

- income populations.

Consistent with EO 13045, ―Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,‖ APHIS considered the 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 is expected that no disproportionate effects on

children are a nticipated as a conseque nce of the field release of L. cheni

. 4. Endangered Species Act15 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 policie s that have tribal implications....‖ In Ju ly 20 10

, APHIS sent

out letters to potentially affected tribal leaders and organizations to give

notification of the proposed environmental release of L. cheni 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 their agricultural interests

, in accordance with E O 13175

.



## VI. Agencies, Organizations, and
Individuals Consulted

The Technical Advisory Group for the Biological Control Agents of Weeds (TAG) recommended the release of L. cheni on Augu st 21 , 2009

. TAG members that reviewed the release petition ( Pemberton, 2009 ) included representatives from USDA

- Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA

- Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA

- Agricultural Research Service, Environm ental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, Oregon Department of Agriculture, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Forest Service, and Agriculture and Agri

Food Canada , Health Canada

.

This EA was prepared and reviewed by APHIS. 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 R isk Analysis Services 4700 River 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 20737

U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service16 Invasive Plants Research Lab 3205 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 3331417 

## V II . References

Al

- Shehbaz, I.A. and B.G. Schubert. 1989. The Dioscoreaceae in the

southeastern United States. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum

. 1: 57

− 95.

Barrera, G.M. 1990. Plantas vasculares raras, amenazadas y en peligro de extincion en Tamaulipas. Biotam

. 2 : [no pg. nos.].

Bell, C.R., and B.J. Taylor. 1982. Florida Wild Flowers and Roadside Plants. Laurel Hill Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.

Bennett, B.C., and G.T. Prance. 2000. Introduced plants in the indigenous pharmacopoeia of northern South America. Economic Botany

. 54 : 90

− 10 2.

Burkill, I.H. 1960. The organography and the evolution of Dioscoreaceae. The family of the yams. Journal of the Linnean Society of Botany

. 56 : 319

− 412.

Caddick, L.R., P. Wilkin, P.J. Rudall, T.A.J. Hedderson, and M.W. Chase.

2002. Yams reclassified: a recircumscription of Dioscoreaceae and

Dioscoreales. Taxon

. 51 : 103

− 114.

Coursey, D.G. 1967. Botany and t axonomy. Pp. 28

- 67

. I n : D. Rhind, [ ed. ]

, Yams. Longmans, Green, and Co., London.

Culliney, T.W.

, 2005. Benefits of classical biological control for managing invasive plants. Critical Reviews in Plant Sci

. 24 : 131

– 150.

Duxbury, C., S. Glasscock, and I. Staniszewska. 2003. Control of regrowth from air potato ( Dioscorea bulbifera L.) bulbils. Wildland

Weeds

. 6 : 14

− 15.

FLEPPC―see Florida Exotic Plant Pest Council

Florida Exotic Plant Pest Council, Plant List Committee. 2003. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council‘s 2003 list of invasive species. Wildland Weeds

. 6 : suppl.

Gann, G. D., K. Bradley, and S.W. Woodmansee. 2001. Floristic Inventory of South Florida Database. Available online www.regionalconservation.org last accessed June 8, 2010.

Gordon, D.R., G.D. Gann, E. Ca rter, and K. Thomas. 1999. Post

hurricane vegetation response in South Florida Hammocks with and

without Dioscorea bulbifera L. control. Pp. 309

- 326

. I n : D.T. Jones and B.W. Gamble, [ eds. ] , Florida‘s Garden of Good and Evil. South Florida18 Water Managem ent District, West Palm Beach.

Hammer, R.L. 1998. Diognosis: Dioscorea . Wildland Weeds

. 2 : 8

− 10.

Horvitz, C.C., J.B. Pascarella, S. McMann, A. Freedman, and R.L.

Hofstetter. 1998. Functional roles of invasive non

- indigenous plants in

hurricane

- affected subtropical hardwood forests. Ecological Applications

. 8 : 947

− 974.

Huber, H. 1998. Dioscoreaceae. Pp. 216

− 235

. I n : K. Kubitzki, [ ed. ] , The

Families and Genera of Vascular P lants, Vol. 3. Springer

- Verlag, Berlin.

Knuth, R. 1924. Dioscoreaceae. Pp 1

- 387 in A. Engler, ed., Das Pflanzenreich IV. 43 [Heft 87]. Engelmann, Leipzig, Germany.

Langeland, K.A., and K. Craddock Burks. 1998. Identification and Biology of Non

- native Pl ants in Florida‘s Native Areas. University of
Florida, Gainesville.

Leon, H., and H. Alain. 1974. Flora de Cuba, Vol. 1. Otto Koeltz Science Publishers, Koenigstein.

Long, R.W., and O. Lakela. 1976. A Flora of Tropical Florida: a Manual

of the Seed Plants and Ferns of Southern Peninsular Florida. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, Fla.

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

. 2003. Nontarget effects

— t he Achilles‘ heel of biological contro l. Retrospective analyses to redu ce risk associated with biological control introductions.

Annual Rev

. Entomol. 48: 365

– 396.

Matuda, E. 1953. Las Dioscoreaceas de Mexico. Anales del Instituto Biologia Méxicana

. 24 : 279

− 389.

McVaugh, R. 1989. Flora Novo

- Galiciana: a descriptive Account of the Vascular Plants of Western Mexico. Vol. 15, Bromeliaceae to Dioscoreaceae. University of Michigan Herbarium, Ann Arbor.

Morton, J.F. 1976. Pestiferous spread of many ornamental and fruit species in south Florida. Proceedings Florida State Horticu ltural Society

. 89 : 348

− 353.

Mullahey, J.J., and S.H. Brown. 1999. Weakening the grip of air potato. Pp. 285

− 290

. I

n : D.T. Jones and B.W. Gamble, [ eds. ] , Florida‘s Garden

of Good and Evil. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm

Beach.19 Nesom, G.L., and L.E. Brown. 1998. Annotated checklist of the vascular plants of Walker, Montgomery, and San Jacinto Counties, East Texas. Phytologia

. 84: 107

− 153.

Pemberton, R.W., 2009. Proposed field release of Lilioceris sp. near impressa (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), a leaf and bulbil feeder of air potato, Dioscorea bulbifera L. (Dioscoreaceae) in Florida. Petition submitted to the Technical Advisory Group for Biological Control Agents of Weeds. 48 pp.

Pemberton, R.W.

, 2000. Predictabl e risk to native plants in weed biolog ical control. Oecologia

. 125: 489

– 494.

Raz, L. 2002. Dioscoreaceae: R. Brown: Yam Family. Pp. 479

- 485

. I n : Editorial Committee, [ ed. ] , Flora of North America, Vol. 26. Oxford University Press, New York.

Schaffner, U . and M ü ller, C. 2001 Exploitation of the fecal shield of the lily leaf beetle. Lilioceris lilii , (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), by the specialist parasitoid Lemophagus pulcher (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae).

Journal of Insect Behavior. 14: 739

− 757.

Schmitz, D.C. 1994. The ecological impact of non

- indigenous plants in

Florida. TSS

- 94

- 100, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Pp. 10

- 28

. I

n : D.C. Schmitz and T.C. Brown, project directors, An

assessment of invasive non

- indigenous species in F lorida‘s public lands. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee.

Schmitz, D.C., D. Simberloff , R.L. Hofstetter, W.T. Haller, and D. Sutton.

1997. The ecological impact of nonindigenous plants. Pp. 39

- 61

. I n : D. Simberloff, D.C. Schmit z, and T.C. Brown, [ eds. ] , Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Schultz, G.E. 1993. Element Stewardship abstract for Dioscorea bulbifera Air potato. The Nature Conservancy, Davis, Calif.

Tellez, O.V., and B.G. Schubert. 1994. Alismataceae a Cyperaceae. Pp.

319

- 332

. I

n : G. Davidse, M.S. Sousa, and A.O. Chater, [ eds. ] , Flora

Mesoamericana. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. Instituto de Biologia, Mexico, D.F.

Tindall, H.D. 1 993. Vegetables in the Tropics. Macmillan, London.

USDA , NRCS ─See U.S. Department of Agriculture , Natural Resource

Conservation Service

.20 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service.

2002. The PLANTS Database. 3.5. Available online http://plants.usda.gov National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, L A

. Last accessed June 8,

2010.

U SDA , SCS

─ S ee U.S. Department of Agriculture

, Soil Conservation

Service

.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982.

National List of Scientific Plant Names. SCS

- TP

- 159, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washin gton, D.C.

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

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Threatened and Endangered Species System

. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/ last accessed June 8, 2010.

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 Ecology

, 2001. Final supplemental environmental impact statement for freshwater aquatic plant management.

Pub

. No. 00

– 10

– 040.

WSDE

─ S ee Washington State Department of Ecology

Wunderlin, R.P., and B.F. Hansen. 2003. Guide to the Vascular Plants of Florida, 2nd ed. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.A

– 1



## Appendix A . Results of Adult Feeding T ests

In these tests, besides air potato, only some minor feeding occurred on some non

- target.

Dioscorea species. Additional tests were conducted only on plants with feeding in adult feeding tests with cut material; NA indicates plants without adult feeding and therefore received no further testing. Florida natives in bold.

Cut Material Whole plants
Order; Family; (Section) Genus species Adult Larval Development Adult Larval Development

Feed Feed Pupa Adult Feed Feed Pupa Adult

Alismatales;

Alismataceae Sagittaria

latifolia no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Arecales;

Acrecaceae Sabal

palmetto no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Asparagales;

Amarillidaceae Crinum

americanum no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Asparagales;

Iridaceae Iris virginica no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Commelinales;

Commelinaceae Tradescantia

ohiensis no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Commelinales;

Pondeteriaceae Pontederia

cordata no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Dioscoreales;

Dioscor e aceae Tacca

integrifolia no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Dioscoreales;

Dioscor e aceae

- (Chondrocarpa) Dioscorea

altissima min no no no NA NA NA NA

Dioscoreales;

Dioscor e aceae

- (Dematostemon) Dioscorea

polygonoides no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Dioscoreales;

Dioscor e aceae

- (Enantiphyllum) Dioscorea

alata no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Dioscoreales;

Dioscor e aceae

- (Enantiphyllum) Dioscorea

cayenensis no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Dioscoreales;

Dioscor e aceae

- (Enantiphyllum) Dioscorea

polystachya no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Dioscoreales;

Dioscor e aceae

- (Enantiphyllum) Dioscorea

polystachya ( batatas) min no no no NA NA NA NA

Dioscoreales;

Dioscor e aceae

- (Enantiphyllum) Dioscorea

rotundata no NA NA NA NA NA NA NAA

– 2

Dioscoreales;

Dioscor e aceae

- (Lynchonostemon) Dioscorea

pilosiuscula no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Dioscoreales;

Dioscor e aceae

- (Macrogynodium) Disocorea

trifida no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Dioscoreales;

Dioscor e aceae

- (Macropoda) Dioscorea

floridana min no no no no no no no

Dioscoreales;

Dioscor e aceae

- (Macropoda) Dioscorea

villosa min no no no no no no no

Dioscoreales;

Dioscor e aceae

- (Opsophyton) Dioscorea

bulbifera yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

Dioscoreales;

Dioscor e aceae

- (Opsophyton) Dioscorea

sansibarensis no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Dioscoreales;

Dioscor e aceae

- (Rajania) Rajania

(Dioscorea )

cordata no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Fabales;

Fabaceae Cassia

ligustrina no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Lamiales;

Verbenaceae Callicarpa

americana no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Liliales;

Liliaceae Asparagus

officinalis no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Liliales;

Liliaceae Asparagus

sprengeri no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Liliales;

Liliaceae Lilium sp

(ornamental) no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Liliales;

Liliaceae Zephyranthes

grandiflora no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Liliales;

Nartheciaceae Aletris

farinosa no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Liliales;

Smil ac ac eae Smilax

laurifolia no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Pandanales;

Pandanaceae Pandanus

spiralis no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Poales;

Poaceae Saccharum

officinarum no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Poales; Cyperaceae Cladium

mariscus no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Poales;

Juncaceae Juncus

effusus no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Urticales;

Moraceae Ficus elastica no NA NA NA NA NA NA NAA

– 3

Zingerbales;

Cannaceae Canna

flaccida no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Zingerbales;

Cannaceae Canna indica no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Zingerbales;

Costaceae Costus

woodsonii no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Zingerbales;

Heliconiaceae Heliconia

caribeae no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Zingerbales;

Marantaceae Thalia

geniculata no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Zingerbales;

Musaceae Musa

acuminata no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Zingerbales; Zingerberaceae Hedychium

coronarium no NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Source: Pemberton, 2009

.B

– 1



## Appendix B . Results of No

- choice Adult Feeding

Tests

In no

- choice testing slight feeding occurred on three Dioscorea species besides air potato.

Florida natives in bold.

Leaf Area Eaten (cm 2 )

Test Plant Species Total Mean se A&B** Dioscorea bulbifera ; air potato (Opsophyton) 1621.49* 324.30 62.18

A Dioscorea villosa ; wild yam (Macropoda) 0.67 0.07 0.05

B Dioscorea floridana ; F lorida yam (Macropoda) 0.46 0.05 0.07

C Dioscorea bulbifera ; air potato (Opsophyton) 1226.52* 306.63 63.81

C Dioscorea alata ; water yam ( Enantiophyllum ) 0.00 0.00 0.00

D Dioscorea bulbifera ; air potato (Opsophyton) 1216.06* 243.21 13.98

D Smilax laurifolia ; bamboo vine 0.00 0.00 0.00

E Dioscorea bulbifera ; air potato (Opsophyton) 637.53 127.51 38.47

E Dioscorea altissima ; dunguey (Chondrocarpa) 0.17 0.06 0.01

E Dioscorea cayenensis ; yellow guinea yam ( Enantiophyllum ) 0.00 0.00 0.00

E Rajania ( Dioscorea ) cordata ; himber (Rajania) 0.00 0.00 0.00

E Dioscorea pilosiuscula ; bulbous yam (Lynchonostemon) 0.00 0.00 0.00

E Dioscorea polygonoides ; mata gallina (Dematostemon) 0.00 0.00 0.00

F Dioscorea bulbifera ; air potato (Opsophyton) 615.67 123.13 30.27

F Dioscorea alata ; water yam ( Enantiophyllum ) 0.00 0.00 0.00

F Dioscorea polystachya ; cultivated chinese yam ( Enantiophyllum ) 0.00 0.00 0.00

F Dioscorea polystachya batatas; chinese yam ( Enantiophyllum ) 0.05 0.05 0.00

F Dioscorea rotundata ; guinea yam ( Enantiophyllum ) 0.00 0.00 0.00

G Dioscorea bulbifera ; air potato (Opsophyton) 310.57 62.11 24.36

G Dioscorea sansibarensis ; Z anzibar yam (Opsophyton) 0.00 0.00 0.00

G Disocorea trifida ; indian yam (Macrogynodium) 0.00 0.00 0.00 * Tests conducted for two months longer than others ** Tests conducted concurrentlyC

– 1



## Appendix C . Results of adult multi

- choice feeding

tests using plant species other than Dioscore a (except for air potato).

In all choice tests, adult feeding occurred only on air potato (indicated in bold ).

Leaf Area Eaten (cm 2 )

Test Species Total Mean se
A Dioscorea bulbifera ; air potato 1226.52* 306.63 63.81

A Callicarpa americana ; beauty berry 0 0 0

A Cassia ligustrina ; senna 0 0 0

A Tacca integrifolia ; bat flower 0 0 0

B&C** Dioscorea bulbifera ; air potato 1366.88* 273.38 102.58

B Crinum americanum ; FL swamp lily 0 0 0

B Pontederia cordata ; pickerel weed 0 0 0

B Sagittaria latifolia ; broadleaf arrowhead 0 0 0

B Thalia geniculata ; arrowroot 0 0 0

C Ficus elastica ; Indian rubber tree 0 0 0

C Pandanus spiralis; screw palm 0 0 0

C Sabal palmetto ; sabal palm 0 0 0

C Saccharum officinarum ; sugarcane 0 0 0

D Dioscorea bulbifera ; air potato ( 374.91 74.98 20.07

D Musa acuminata ; banana 0 0 0

D Tradescantia ohiensis ; Ohio spiderwort 0 0 0

E Dioscorea bulbifera ; air 379.63 75.93 18.48

E Costus woodsonii ; red button ginger 0 0 0

E Hedychium coronarium ; butterfly ginger 0 0 0

E Juncus effusus ; soft rush 0 0 0

F&G** Dioscorea bulbifera ; air potato 606.23 121.25 56.98

F Cladium mariscus ; sawgrass 0 0 0

F Iris virginica ; blue flag iris 0 0 0

F Lilium sp (ornamental); lily 0 0 0

G Aletris farinosa ; colicroot 0 0 0

G Canna indica; indian shot 0 0 0

G Heliconia caribeae ; 0 0 0

H Dioscorea bulbifera ; air potato 323.39 64.68 9.69

H Zephyranthes grandiflorum; rose pink zephyr lily 0 0 0

H Canna flaccida; bandana of the Everglades 0 0 0

I Dioscorea bulbifera ; air potato 369.58 73.92 10.94

I Asparagus officinalis ; garden asparagus 0 0 0

I Asparagus sprengeri ; asparagus fern 0 0 0D

– 1



## Appendix D

. Results of adult feeding tests

, including Dioscorea plant species.

In all tests, feeding occurred only on air potato (indicated in bold ).

Leaf Area Eaten (cm 2 )

Test Plant Species Total Mean se A&B** Dioscorea bulbifera ; air potato (Opsophyton) 1621.49* 324.30 62.18

A Dioscorea villosa ; wild yam (Macropoda) 0.67 0.07 0.05

B Dioscorea floridana ; Florida yam (Macropoda) 0.46 0.05 0.07

C Dioscorea bulbifera ; air potato (Opsophyton) 1226.52* 306.63 63.81

C Dioscorea alata ; water yam (Enantiophyllum) 0.00 0.00 0.00

D Dioscorea bulbifera ; air potato (Opsophyton) 1216.06* 243.21 13.98

D Smilax laurifolia ; bamboo vine 0.00 0.00 0.00

E Dioscorea bulbifera ; air potato (Opsophyton) 637.53 127.51 38.47

E Dioscorea altissima ; dunguey (Chondrocarpa) 0.17 0.06 0.01

E Dioscorea cayenensis ; yellow guinea yam (Enantiophyllum) 0.00 0.00 0.00

E Rajania (Dioscorea) cordata ; himber (Rajania) 0.00 0.00 0.00

E Dioscorea pilosiuscula ; bulbous yam (Lynchonostemon) 0.00 0.00 0.00

E Dioscorea polygonoides ; mata gallina (Dematostemon) 0.00 0.00 0.00

F Dioscorea bulbifera ; air potato (Opsophyton) 615.67 123.13 30.27

F Dioscorea alata ; water yam (Enantiophyllum) 0.00 0.00 0.00

F Dioscorea polystachya ; cultivated chinese yam (Enantiophyllum) 0.00 0.00 0.00

F Dioscorea polystachya batatas; chinese yam (Enantiophyllum) 0.05 0.05 0.00

F Dioscorea rotundata ; guinea yam (Enantiophyllum) 0.00 0.00 0.00

G Dioscorea bulbifera ; air potato (Opsophyton) 310.57 62.11 24.36

G Dioscorea sansibarensis ; Zanzibar yam (Opsophyton) 0.00 0.00 0.00

G Disocorea trifida ; indian yam (Macrogynodium) 0.00 0.00 0.00 * Tests conducted for two months longer than others ** Tests conducted concurrently

Source: Pemberton, 2009

.E

– 1



## Appendix E. No choice larval development tests

– egg transferal on to whole plants

Larvae that hatched f

rom eggs transferred on to air potato leaves fed immediately and began to grow. First instar larvae placed on test leaves other than air potato died without feeding. Feeding measurement reflects one week of larval feeding.

Florida natives in bold.

Leaf Area Eaten (cm 2 ) Plant Species Total Mean se Dioscorea bulbifera ; air potato (Section Opsophyton) 79.04 15.81 6.55

Dioscorea altissima ; dunguey (Section Chondrocarpa) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dioscorea floridana ; Florida yam (Section Macropoda) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dioscorea polystachya batatas; chinese yam (Section Enantiophyllum) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dioscorea villosa ; wild yam (Section Macropoda) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Source: Pemberton, 2009F

– 1



## Appendix F . Results of oviposition and larval

development tests

A lthough eggs were laid on native Dioscorea plant species, no larvae were able to survive beyond the first instar on plants other than air potato. Larvae developed to the adult stage only on air potato. This test was repeated 4 times (A

- D).

Leaf a rea e aten (cm 2 ) 1 Oviposition &

d evelopment 2

Test Plant s pecies Total Mean se Eggs Adults % to
Adult

A D . bulbifera; air potato (Opsophyton) 523.79 104.76 19.90 124 118 95.16%

A D. floridana; Florida yam (Macropoda) 0.00 0.00 0.00 31 0 0.00%

A D. villosa; wild yam (Macropoda) 0.00 0.00 0.00 25 0 0.00%

B D. bulbifera; air potato (Opsophyton) 574.81 114.96 7.31 143 129 90.21%

B D. floridana; Florida yam (Macropoda) 0.00 0.00 0.00 21 0 0.00%

B D. villosa; wild yam (Macropoda) 0.00 0.00 0.00 40 0 0.00%

C D. bulbifera; air potato (Opsophyton) 348.21 69.64 17.38 201 189 94.03%

C D. floridana; Florida yam (Macropoda ) 0.00 0.00 0.00 11 0 0.00%

C D. villosa; wild yam (Macropoda) 0.00 0.00 0.00 35 0 0.00%

D D. bulbifera; air potato (Opsophyton) 483.00 96.60 34.80 182 167 91.76%

D D. floridana; Florida yam (Macropoda) 0.00 0.00 0.00 38 0 0.00%

D D. villosa; wild yam (Macropoda) 0.00 0.00 0.00 45 0 0.00%

1 Adult feeding

2 Eggs laid on test plants, number of adults produced on each plant, and the percent of larvae developing into

adults.

Source: Pemberton, 2009

.