Citation
Interaction between the waterhyacinth mite, Orthogalumna terebrantis Wallwork, and the mottled waterhyacinth weevil, Neochetina eichhorniae Warner

Material Information

Title:
Interaction between the waterhyacinth mite, Orthogalumna terebrantis Wallwork, and the mottled waterhyacinth weevil, Neochetina eichhorniae Warner
Creator:
Del Fosse, Ernest Sheridan, 1949-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xiii, 193 leaves : ill., graphs ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Aquatic plants ( jstor )
Aquatic weeds ( jstor )
Copyrights ( jstor )
Eggs ( jstor )
Mites ( jstor )
Petioles ( jstor )
Plants ( jstor )
Tunnels ( jstor )
Weeds ( jstor )
Weevils ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Entomology and Nematology -- UF
Entomology and Nematology thesis Ph. D
Water hyacinth -- Biological control ( lcsh )
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida, 1975.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 161-192).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Ernest Sheridan Del Fosse.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
This item is presumed in the public domain according to the terms of the Retrospective Dissertation Scanning (RDS) policy, which may be viewed at http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00007596/00001. The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator(ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
029980943 ( ALEPH )
38046321 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text


















INTERACTION BETWEEN THE WATERHYACINTH MITE,
Orthogalumna terebrantis WALIWORK,
AND THE MOTTLED WATERHYACINTH WEVIL,
Neochetina eichhorniae WARNER





By




ERNEST SHERIDAN DEL FOSSE


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE
COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FUIFIIMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1975











DEDICATION





I proudly dedicate this dissertation to r late father, ne Francis Edouard Delfosse, and to ny wife, Janet Ann Veronica Del Fosse.


E.S.D.F

December 1975











ACKNOWIEDGMENTS


I express sincere gratitude to Drs. D. H. Habeck and B. D. Perkins, my on- and off-campus advisors, respectively. Without the financial, intellectual and emotional support of these men, this project could not have been completed.

This study was financed in part from a grant from the Florida Department of Natural Resources, dispensed through the United States Department of Agriculture. I am extremely grateful to these sources for their support.

Inasmuch as this research was conducted for the most part at the USDA Aquatic Plant Management Laboratory-University of Florida Agricultural Research Center in Davie, Florida, a great debt of appreciation is due both of these agencies for use of their facilities. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. D. L. Sutton (Former Acting W-ARC Director until September 1975), Mr. R. D. Blackburn (USDA Location Leader until July 1974), and Dr. K. K. Steward (Acting USDA Location Leader, July 1974-present). Both USDA secretarial help (from Mrs. G. C. Wilby and Mrs. A. G. Sullivan) and UF-ARC secretarial help (from Mrs. E. B. Ward, Mrs. A. C. Reinert, Ms. M. Gonzales and Mrs. A. K. Conneiy) were also greatly appreciated. I am also grateful to F Department of Entomology-Nematology secretaries, especially Mrs. A. Kesler and Mrs. D. Nickle, and former secretary Miss M. Davis, who helped organize Gainesville activities for me in ny absence.


iii










I am also grateful to Mrs. T. C. Carlysle of the USDA in

Gainesville; Drs. J. A. Reinert, D. L. Thomas, N. L. Woodiel, J. H. Tsai and R. E. McCoy of the U*-ARC in Davie; and Drs. W. G. Eden (former Departmental Head), V. G. Perry, T. J. Walker, R. I. Sailer, L. Berner, H. L. Cromroy and J. L. Nation of the Entomology-Nematology Department, UF, Gainesville, for their help in various aspects of this project.

I thank Dr. R. L. Littell, Department of Statistics, UF, Gainesville, for help in designing, analyzing and interpreting statistical tests used in this project. I would also like to thank Dr. R. Machisin of Nova University's Computer Center, Davie, for use of keypunching equipment and IBM duplicators, and Mrs. C.

lynn, UF, Gainesville, for help with computer work.

This research was greatly facilitated by technical aid. I am very grateful to Mr. W. C. Durden and T. M. Taylor of the USDA in Davie, and Miss M. M. Lovarco, Mr. W. H. Ornes, Mas. T. R. Pearce, D. L. Johnston, C. J. Feimster and J. Jerris, Mrs. M. R. Van Montfrans, Mrs. J. Michewies, Miss C. J. Hay, Mrs. A. D. Jones, Mr. D. H. Turner and Mr. W. Maier of UF-ARC in Davie.

I especially thank my wife, Janet Ann Veronica Del Fosse, both for typing part of this manuscript, and for her love, patience and understanding throughout our 51 years as Professional Students.

E.S.D.F.
December 1975












TABIE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGMNTS. . 0 # 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 * * a & & 9 0 0 * ISTACKNOWIEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *

IST OF FIGURES. . .................* ....* * * * *


ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * . . .

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

ITERATURE REVIEW..... . . . . . . .

The Problem..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

World-Wide Infestation . . . . . . . . . . . .

Specific Problems Caused by Waterhyacinth. . . . .

Benefits of Waterhyacinth . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Monetary Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conflict of Interest . . . .* . . . . . . . . . . .

Control Attempts Other Than Biological Control. . . . ..

Chemical Control . . . . . . . . . . . . ....

Mechanical, Cultural and Integrated Control. . . .

Biological Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

General Theory of Biological Control of Hydrophytes.

Control with Neochetina spp. . . . . . . . . . .

Control with Orthogalumna terebrantis Wallwork . . .

Other Arthropods on Waterhyacinth. . . . . . ....

Control with Pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Control with Other Biotic Agents . . . . . . . .


Page iii

viii

xi xii

1 5

5 5

6 12 16 17 18 18 21 23









Page


Manipulation of Natural Enemies and Population


Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RELEASE OF THE MOTTLED WATERHYACINTH WEEVIL..

Methods and Materials . . . . . . . . . .

Results and Discussion. . . . . . . .. COFFIN-HOLDER TREATMENTS . . . . . .....

Methods and Materials . . . . . . . . . .

Results and Discussion. . .* . . . . . .

Orthogalumna terebrantis Alone . . .

Neochetina eichhorniae Alone . .

Combination of N. eichhorniae and 0.

N. eichhorniae Established 3 Months, terebrantis Added. . . . . . . . .

O. terebrantis Established 3 Months, eichhorniae Added . . . . . . . ..

Covered Controls . * . . . . .

Uncovered Controls . . . . . . . .


. . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

terebrantis then 0.


. # . .

then N.


. . .


. . * . . . .

* . . . . . .

. . . . . . .


MOVEMENT OF ADULT WATERHYACINTH MITES TO PICKERE WEED. ...

Methods and Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Results and Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EFFECT OF ADULT WATERHYACINTH MITES ON WEEVIL OVIPOSITION. .

Methods and Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Results and Discussion. . * . . . . . . . . . .











Page


EFFECT OF ADULT WATERHYACINTH MITES ON WEEVIL EGGS . . . . . 93

Methods and Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Results and Discussion.... ..... e. . . . . 93

TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY OPTIMA: EFFECT OF ABIOTIC FACTORS . 94

Methods and Materials ... .......... . . . . 94

Results and Discussion. ................ 95

WATER CHEMISTRY, NUTRIENTS AND ELEMENTAL COMPOSITION OF WATERHYACINTH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 90

Methods and Materials . . . . ... . . ...... 98

Results and Discussion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

DISCOVERY OF A POSSIBLE KAIROMONE FROM WATERHYACINTH . . . . 103

Methods and Materials . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 103

Results and Discussion. ....... . . ....... 106

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE THEORY OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL WITH PRIMARY CONSUMERS...................... 107

APPENDIX...... . . . . . . .... � ... .. . 111

LITERATURECITED .. a.. ...... ..... . 161

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. . . . . . . a . . . . a . . . . 193


vii













LIST OF TABLES


Monthly averages of weevils and mites from Area 1.


Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly


averages averages averages averages averages averages averages averages averages


of weevils

of weevils of weevils of weevils of weevils of weevils of weevils of weevils of weevils


and

and

and and and and and

and


mites mites mites mites mites mites mites mites


from Area from Area from Area from Area from Area from Area from Area

from Area


@ 0 0


2. . . .

3. . . .

4....

. 0 . .
6. . . .

7. . . .0

8. . . .

9. . . .0
5#�



8 o 0

9....0


and mites from Area 10 . . .


11 Monthly averages of wateirhyacinth measurements from


Area I . . . * 12 Monthly averages
Area2 . . . * 13 Monthly averages
Area 3 ... . .

14 Monthly averages
Area 4. . . .* 15 Monthly averages
Area 5 . . . 16 Monthly averages
Area6 . . . * 17 Monthly averages
Area 7*.*. .*


S� * ******

of waterhyacinth measurements
S � * * 0 * 0 0 0 of waterbyacinth measurements
* * 0* * * * 0 *

of waterhyacinth measurements


of waterhyacinth measurements
0 0 0 0 & 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 * 0

of waterhyacinth measurements 0 0 0 00ii 0& 000 of waterbyacinth measurements


viii


. .. �

from
....

from


from



f 0
from from


from
. . .. .


Page 112 113

114 115 116 117 118 119

120 121


122


123


124 125


126 127 128













No.

18 Monthly averages of waterhyacinth measurements from
Area 8 * * * * * . * * * . . . . . . . * . . . *

19 Monthly averages of waterhyacinth measurements from
Area 9 * * * * . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 Monthly averages of waterhyacinth measurements from
Area 10. * * . * * * . . . . . . . . .


21 ANOVA for weevils, mites
experiment * . . . . * 22 ANOVA for weevils, mites
holder experiment. ... 23 Septenarial averages for 24 Septenarial averages for 25 Septenarial averages for 26 Septenarial averages for
treatment* * . * * * * * 27 Septenarial averages for
treatment. * . * * * * * 28 Septenarial averages for 29 Septenarial averages for


and waterhyacinth for release
* 0 0 * ....... 0

and waterbyacinth for coffin* * * * * *�. . 0 0 mite treatment. * * * . * . * weevil treatment....... weevil plus mite treatment. . . weevil, delay, then add mites
* * * * * * * 0 * * . 0 0 0 mite, delay, then add weevils.
* 0 * 0 0 * * * * 0 * 0 0 * 0 covered coffin-holders. . . uncovered coffin-holders. . .


30 Summary of septenarial averages for mite and weevil
measurements for coffin-holder experiment. . . . . . .. 31 Summary of septenarial averages for witerbyacinth
measurements for coffin-holder experiment. . . . . . .. 32 Population parameters for weevils and mites grown in
incubators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33 Oviposition and development of mites at different
temperatures . . . . . * . . . . . . . a * * * .

34 Water quality measurements at release site of weevils. *


Page


129 130 131


132 133

135

137 139

141 143 145 147


149 151 153

154 155












No. Page 35 Water quality measurements from coffin-holders and
pondwater....*.*. ............... 156
36 Amount of N, P, K and crude protein from waterhyacinth. . 157 37 Elemental content of waterhyacinth. . . . . . . . . . . . 159

38 Temperature and dissolved oxygen from release canal
and coffin-holders............. *0* * 0 0 0 ...* .. 160












LIST OF FIGURES


No. Page

1 Schematic view of waterhyacinth mat where weevils were released. * . . . . . * * * * . . . . .* & e a � * . * 45

2 Aerial view of Davie, Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

3 Monthly trends of weevil populations. . . . . . . . . 52 4 Monthly trends of mite populations* ......... * * . 55 5 Monthly trends of air temperature in Davie. * .. . . . 57 6 Monthly trends in rainfall and evaporation in Davie . . . 59 7 Monthly trends of waterhyacinth measurements. . . . . . . 63 8 Experimental design of coffin-holder experiment . . . . . 69 9 Monthly trends of weevil populations in coffin-holders. . 72 10 Monthly trends of mite populations in coffin-holders. . . 75 11 Monthly trends of waterhyacinth measurements in coffinholders . # . . * . . . * e , . a o * . & . , e. 77 12 Monthly trends of waterhyacinth measurements in coffinholders .. , . . * . * . * . . . * � . * * e . . . . o 79

13 Schematic view of mite aspirator. . . . . . . . . . 91 14 Monthly changes in water temperatures in coffin-holders . 102 15 Schematic view of olfactometer. . . . . . . . * . . . 105











Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the
Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


INTERACTION BETWEEN THE WATERHYACINTH MITE, Orthogalumna terebrantis WALUIORK, AND THE MOTTLED WATERHYACINTH WEEVIL, Neochetina eichhorniae WARNER


By

Ernest Sheridan Del Fosse

December, 1975

Chairman: Dr. Dale H. Habeck Co-chairman: Dr. B. David Perkins Major Department: Entomology and Nematology

Seven hundred adult mottled wateryacinth weevils (Neochetina eichhorniae Warner) were released on a waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms-Laubach) mat infested with wateryacinth mites (Orthogalumna terebrantis Wallwork). Plants averaged significantly (P= 0.05) smaller after 50 weeks. Average petiole length was reduced by over 30 cm after 4 generations of adult weevils had emerged. Density of plants was reduced from an average of 34 plants/m2 at the time of weevil release to an average of 26 plants/m2 after 50 weeks. Weevil populations increased geometrically and reduction in plant size and density was closely correlated with weevil population increase.


xii











Mite populations fluctuated with weather. Temperature and

humidity were the abiotic factors most influential in affecting mite population development. Waterhyacinth mites apparently move to pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata L.) under conditions of low temperatures and high humidity, and move back to waterhyacinth

under higher temperatures and humidity. Mites laid more eggs and immature mites developed to adults best at 15-350C. In the field, waterhyacinth mite damage is associated with fungal pathogens and saprophytes. Weevil feeding spots, which had formerly been thought to be associated with these pathogens and saprophytes, in fact were not seen to be conducive to their development. The fungus Acremonium zonatum (Saw.) Gains. developed on waterhyacinth only after adult waterhyacinth mites had created their emergence holes in the pseudolaminae.

Adult waterhyacinth mites did not adversely affect the. population buildup of mottled waterhyacinth weevils. Weevils actually oviposited more (P-O.05) eggs when waterhyacinth mites were present than when they were absent. This may be due to the presence of a "kairomone" in waterhyacinth tissue that is released from plants that

are damaged by arthropod feeding or structural breaks.

Adult waterhyacinth mites will starve in the presence of weevil

eggs as their only source of food. Weevils and mites in combination tended to act synergistically in their damage on waterhyacinth, while reducing plant size and abundance, and opening plants to attack from pathogens and saprophytes.
xiii












INTRODUCTION


In North America more than 170 aquatic plants are classed as weeds, with 40-50 causing major problems (Timmons 1970, Weed Science Society of America 1971). Holloway (1964) considered submersed aquatics to be the most serious because they can reduce water flow and cause recreational problems. Soulthorpe (1967), however, considered the stoloniferous free-floating plants, such as waterbyacinth (Eiohhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solmas-Laubach), to be the most serious of the problems.
Biological control, despite the claim by some that it ". .
U
has become a household term, (Berndixen 1974) is still greatly misunderstood by lay people. Even though weed science (matology) and weed control (matonovy) have developed greatly in recent years (Camargo 1974), there is still much hesitation involved by lay people whenever biological control is considered. This concern is caused mainly by misunderstanding; lay people often confuse biological control with biological or biochemical warfare or point to introductions of exotic plants (e.g. &lla verticillata Roll.)2 or fish (e.g. Tilapia spp.)3 .a reasons not.to use biological


1Farinosae: Pontederiaceae.

2Helobiae: Hydrocharitaceae.

Perciformes: Cichlidae.










control. However, no biological control of weeds program carried out by responsible scientists has ever resulted in a deleterious introduction.

Examples of entomophagous control of introduced terrestrial

plants are numerous (Dodd 1940, Huffaker and Kennett 1959, Holloway 1964), but only 1 aquatic plant, alligatorweed (Alternanthera
4
philoxeroides (Mart.) Griseb.),. has been controlled biologically to date (Brown and Spencer 1973).

In order to appreciate fully the need for biological control of waterhyacinth, one only needs to review the record compiled by other methods of control. Chemical, mechanical or cultural control methods are highly inefficacious, on a practical scale. These methods have proven successful only briefly and over restricted areas. In 1947, 63,000 acres were covered by waterhyacinth in Florida (Perkins 1972). From January 1960-June 1962. 55,000 of the 70,000 acres of waterhyacinth were treated with chemicals, but in 1962, over 80,000 acres were covered with waterhyacinth (Tabita and Woods 1962). In 1972, Dr. A. Burkhalter of the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Florida estimated that over 200,000 acres were covered with wateriyacinth in Florida, even though 70-100 State, Federal, City and County agencies now use chemicals for control of waterlyacinth (Perkins 1972). Dr. C. B.


Centrospermae: Aramanthaceae.










Bryant, in response to my questioning at the recent Hyacinth Control Society Annual Meeting in San Antonio, Texas, said that the effective depth of mechanical control was only 5 feet, although the machinery could be modified, with a great deal of trouble, to operate at 7-8 feet. Such equipment may have limited use in control of waterhyacinth under certain conditions of easy accessibility. Its use in severely limited in control of submersed aquatics for it does not remove roots, turions, stolons, etc., and may stimulate new growth as old growth is removed. Present cultural methods are simply not practical over large expanses of waterhyacinth infestations. Biological control may be the least expensive, most practical, most effective and most ecologically acceptable method that can be used against waterhyacinth. Integrating biological control with other methods may also have application (Entomological Society of America 1975).

If biological control of waterhyacinth is to be evaluated, we
must have techniques available that will enable us to follow closely populations of all agents involved. Since all presently used biological control agents of waterhyacinth are exotic, it will be necessary to see how the agents affect each other, as well as populations of waterbyacinth and naturally occurring arthropods that utilize waterhyacinth mats.

The first biological control agent of waterhyacinth released and established in Florida was the mottled waterbyacinth weevil, Neochetina eichhorniae Warner.5 The waterhyacinth mite, Orthogalumna

5Coleoptera: Curoulionidae.










6
terebrantis Wallwork, was probably accidentally introduced in 1884 with the first waterhyacinth plants. It was first found in the United States in 1968 (Bennett 1968b) . This study was initiated to determine the effects of these arthropods on each other as well as on waterhyacinth.

To fully and accurately assess the effects of these biological control agents as compared to other methods used, it is imperative that these other techniques be understood. Consequently I have reviewed below other commonly used control methods and agents of waterhyacinth.


Acari: Galumnidae.











LITERATURE REVIEW


The Problem


World-Wide Infestation

Little (1965) found that waterbyacinth grows profusely in Asia, Australia, New Zealand, South America and Pacific Islands, and is still spreading (Sculthorpe 1967). Ingersall (1964) found waterbyacinth to be a major problem in Africa, Australia, India, Ceylon and Java, while Holm et al. (1969) and Little (1965) considered it to be ciroumglobal and one of the world's major weeds. Matthews (1971) commented that it is illegal to possess waterhyacinth in New Zealand- the only such restriction on arq plant there. Waterbyacinth is also a problem in the Panama Canal (Hearne 1966), Australia (Bill 1969, Kleinschmidt 1974, Springell and Blake 1975), India (Jain 1975, Sahai and Sinha 1969), Southeast Asia (Soorjani et al. 1975), Sudan (Gay and Berry 1959, Mohamed 1975), the Makon River (Gangstad et al. 1972, Anorymous 1974), Puerto Rico (Rushing 1974), Pakistan (Naik 1972), and the United States (Perkins 1972, 1973a, b, 1974, Book 1969, Johnson 1920).
The area of origin of waterhyacinth is South America (Klorer
1909, Wunderlich 196 , Webre 1975). Bock (1969, 1972) found that the










natural distribution of waterbyacinth was due to its morphological characteristics and wide range of environmental tolerances.

Florida's first waterhyacinth was reportedly placed in the St. Johns River in about 1885 by Mrs. N. F. Fuller, at San Mateo, 5 miles south of Palatka (Tilghman 1962). These plants may have originated in Venezuela (Webre 1975), and were shown at the Cotton States Centennial Exposition in New Orleans, Louisiana, in 1884 (Wunderlich 1967, Klorer 1909). By 1890 waterhyacinth was established in Florida (Webber 1897). In addition to the several State, Federal and City control operations against waterhyacinth, in 1961 the Governor of Florida established the Lee County Hyacinth Control District (Miller 1964).

Waterhyacinth was first officially recognized as a serious , hydrophyte on 4 June 1897 with the passage of a Congressional Act authorizing the Secretary of War to investigate the effect of waterhyacinth on obstructing navigation in Louisiana and Florida waters (Penfound and Earle 1948).

Specific Problems Caused Waterhacinth

Problems caused by infestations of waterhyacinth are varied. Several authors have commented on the mosquito breeding sites created by waterhyacinth (Berber and Haynes 1925, Mulrenan 1962, Sealbrook 1962, McDonald and Lu 1973). Ingersall (1964) found that thick mats of waterhyacinth prevent small fish from feeding on mosquito larvae. Wilson (1967) stated that without aquatic plants many










of our mosquito problems cannot exist.
Basic to the problems caused by waterhyacinth is its phenomenal growth potential (Das 1956, Westlake 1963, Yount 1964, Sheffield 1967, Knipling et al. 1970, Rogers and Davis 1972.) The presence and abundance of a weed in a particular area depends upon the area's history and the weed's ability to reproduce with existing climatic, edaphio, hydrologic and biotic limitations, disturbance of habitat, etc. (Andres 1973). Spencer (1974) reported that the dry weight production of waterbyacinth, less roots, was 11,880 kg/ha for 3 months (compared to Byer and Sturrock's (1965) estimate of 13.338 kg/ha for whole plant production of maise.) Davis (1970) reported
that waterhyacinth could double in volume every 12.5 days during the growing season. Thus, considering the average growing season in northeast Florida to be 300 days (Laessle 1942), 1 acre of waterhyacinth under optimum conditions would theoretically cover in one year more than 12 million acres of water with plants of equal density. Penfound and Earle (1948) found that 1 plant could produce 2000 daughter plants in 3 months and 10 plants produced 655,360 plants (1 acre) in 8 months under good growing conditions.
2
A single plant reproducing vegetatively covered 7000 yards in 1 month (Vaas 1951). Spatford (1935), Das (1969) and Anorymous (1970) also commented on the rapid proliferation of waterhyacinth. Wahlquist (1972) found production of waterioacinth to be highest in ponds fertilized with N-P-K fertilizer in a combination of 8-8-0. Bonetto (1971) noted that waterhyacinth upset the ecological balance










of waters by interfering with native hydrophytes and fish. Standing
2
crop of waterhyacinth varied from 0.72 kg/m (Sahai and Sinha 1969) to 1.4 (Dymond 1949) to 1.5 (Penfound and Earle 1948) on a dry weight basis.

Many other estimates of waterhyacinth growth are available, but one must keep in sight the reasons why waterhyacinth can proliferate so greatly Certain prerequisites are needed. Waterhyacinth requires "a great intensity of light" (DruiJff 1974), A pH of less than 4 is toxio to waterbyacinth (Druijff 1973) and 7 is optimal for growth. Our streams, lakes and canals are nutrient baths; Kemp (1968) commented that streams in densely populated areas carry 6000 pounds of P/mile, and P in domestic sewage is equal to

3 pounds/person/year (Makenthun 1969). Low temperatures can limit waterbyacinth growth. The purplish-white roots of waterhyacinth (Olive 1894) will be killed by water temperatures below 28oF (-2.20C) (Baclkman & Co. 1930).
Waterhyaointh doesn't produce seeds in all areas of its distribution (Bock 1966, Druijff 1973), but seeds can be ery important to the widespread distribution of waterhyacinth. When flowers are present, basal and capital bending of the petiole thrusts the inflorescence into the water, where seeds are released (Rao 1920). In New Zealand each flower on the spike has been able to produce more than 300 seeds, and with 20 or more flowers/spike, each plant can produce 5000 seeds (Matthews 1971). Coupled with a seed viability found in New Zealand of more than 20 years, one can










see why the efficacy of short-teram control methods is poor. Matthews (1967) found that seeds can withstand submersion or desiccation for 15 years, and experiments at the University of Khartoum (Chadwick and Obeid 1966) determined that sandy soil stops seed germination. In mud, waterhyaointh seeds are viable for at least 7 years (Parya 1934, Hitcheock et al. 1949). Scarification is needed for seed germination, not light p se (Parija 1934). Waterhyacinth does produce seeds in Florida, but the major method of reproduction there, as most places, is vegetative. Waterhyacinth will root on muddy banks, and can survive even when the water level drops (Spruce 1908).
Waterhyacinth is also detrimental as a factor causing water
loss through evapotranspiration (Linacre et al. 1970, Perkins 1972, Anonymous 1962, Brezr~y et al. 1973). In fact, only American Pondweed, Potamogeton nodosus Poir, has a higher recorded evapotranspiration rate than waterhyacinth (Otis 1914). Timmer and Weldon (1967) found that the average waterbyacinth evapotranspiration rate was 3.96 inches (10.8 cm) of water/week, while pan evaporation was 1.08 inches (2.75 cm)/week; ise. evapotranspiration was 3.7 times evaporation. More than
6 acre-feet of water could be lost in this manner in 6 months. Other estimates of evapotranspiration rates of waterhyacinth include values from 1.48 (Van Der Weert and Kamberling 1974) to 3.2 (Penfound and Earle 1948) to 5.3 (Rogers and Davis 1972) to 7.8 times


1Helobiae: Potamogetonaceae.










evaporation (Anorrmous 1972d). Such results caused Timer and Weldon (1967) to state "more water can be lost through evapotranspiration from waterhyacinth on large reservoirs, water conservation areas, and irrigation canals than is supplied for storage purposes." They also felt that efficient use of water could be impossible where waterhyacinth reduces water flow 0% or more, as can occur (Stephens et al. 1963) or causes water loss through evapotranspiration. Factors that influence evapotranspiration are

humidity and wind (Meyer and Anderson 1955), and diurnal fluctuation in water temperature is largely due to incident solar radiation (Anorormous 1967). Since water for irrigation may cost from $1-20/ acre (Frevert et al. 1955, Houk 1956), a considerable monetary loss

is also involved.

Other problems are also caused by waterhyacinth. The oxygendepleting pollution and load imposed by 1 acre of waterhyacinth is equal to the sewage created by 40 people (Ingersall 1964). Dissolved carbon dioxide (DC02) uptake is an important aspect of waterhyacinth ecology (Ultsch 1973). Ultsch (1974) found that dissolved oxygen

(DO), pH and temperature were lower under a mat of waterhyacinth, and DCO2 was higher when compared to areas containing only submerged macrophytes. lynch et al. (1947) found that when the water chemistry of an open water situation is compared to that under waterlqacinth, surface water under waterbyacinth is more uniform, acidity and DCO2 are higher, and DO is lower. Few fish can tolerate such conditions.










Waterhyacinth obstructs navigation and other uses of water (Zeiger 1962, Perkins 1972, 1973a), reduces real estate values (Ultsch 1974), and increases turbidity and pollution of water (Timer and Weldon 1967). large monetary losses result from large-area infestations of waterlyacinth (Heinen and Ahmed 1964, Wild 1961, Anonymous 1957, 1970-'71).
Free-floating rafts of waterhyacinth destroy valuable submerged plants (Perkins 1973a, 1974) and concentrates American coots, Fulca americana L.,2 in ponds where migratory waterfowl usually live. Coots then eat all available duck food (Gowanlock 1944). Aviators have mistaken waterbyacinth rafts for landing strips (Johnson 1920). Mats of waterbyacinth cause sewage to back up in some areas (Penfound and Earle 1948) and accelerate fresh water succession (Russell 1942). Waterbyacinth, in blocking canals, also interferes with fishing and other recreational sports and hinders water transportation (Perkins 1974). For these and other reasons, Holcomb and Wegener (1971) considered only waterhyacinth, out of 89 aquatic plants near Kissimmee, Florida, to be detrimental "to the fishery and other plant communities."

In summary, reasons to control waterhyacinth include:

(1) interference with navigation;
(2) clogging of water drains, irrigation canals, spray
equipment and pumps;

(3) causing unsightly appearances by completely covering the


Gruiformes: Rallidae.










water surface;
(4) interference with fishing, swimming and other aquatic recreational sports (Anorymous 1970)

(5) reduction of open water available for waterfowl, and decreases waterfowl hunting;
(6) creation of ideal breeding grounds for mosquitoes and

other aquatic insects which utilize protected water found in and around plants;

(7) reduction of fish populations by competition for water
space and basic nutrients (food elements) in the water, which may result in an over-abundance of small, undesirable fish; and
(8) direct economic loss due to evapotranspiration and creation of deep beds of organic matter on stream and lake bottoms.


Benefits of Waterhyacinth

Not all aspects of waterhyacinth ecology are negative. Positive aspects of waterhyacinth include:
(1) removal of nutrients from water;
(2) useage as raw material for production of natural gas and fertilizer (contains Cd, Ni, Pb, Hg, Au, Ag, NO3 and P04);

(3) production of products such as planting pots;
(4) useage as a mulch and soil additive;
(5) useage as beautification tool; (6) production of animal food; and

(7) experimentally used for paper production, packing material,










etc.
Waterhyaointh can remove N and P from sewage (Sheffield 1967, Yount and Crossman 1970, Ramachandran et al. 1971, Boyd 1970, Anonymous 1971, Soarebrook and Davis 1971, Haller and Sutton 1973). Rogers and Davis (1972) found that 1 ha of waterbyacinth under optimum growing conditions could absorb the daily N and P waste of over 800 people, while 1 ha of waterhyacinth could remove the annual N waste production of 500 people and P of 225 persons (Boyd 1970). This is especially important when one considers that P is one of the most ecologically important elements, and a deficiency of P, therefore, may limit productivity (Hutchinson 1957). Waterhyacinth also removes copper sulphate pentahydrate (Sutton and Blackburn 1971) and Ramachandran et al. (1971) found that 1 acre of waterhyacinth could remove

3.075 pounds of N/year and had a protein content almost equal to that of milk.
One acre of waterhyaointh produced $2000 worth of low grade methane gas/year (1 million ft3) by anaerobic fermentation in a pilot study, with the residue used as a high-grade fertilizer (Webre 1975). WaterbIacinth has also been suggested as a source of potash (Day 1918).
Waterbyacinth has very high nutrient removal capabilities

(Rogers and Davis 1972, Sheffield 1967, Steward 1969, Knipling et al. 1970). Scarsbrook and Davis (1971) found that waterhyacinth could absorb 2.87 g P, 6.93 g N and 8.73 g K in 23 weeks. Ornes and Sutton (1975) found a maximum of 5,500 mg Pig dry weight (DW)









occurred when the level of P in sewage effluent (in which plants were grown) was 1.1 mg/ml, and found that plants produced 1.9 daughter plants/week, as did Rushing (1974). Dunigan et al. (1975) found waterhyacinth removed NH -N in the field and greenhouse and NO-P in
3
greenhouse tests, and Silver at al. (1974) showed that waterhyacinth roots could anaerobically fix N2. * Rao et al. (1973) found that waterhyacinth took up Fl to the extent of 75 mag. Waterhyacinth doesn't absorb orthophasphate in proportion to the amount in water (Knipling et al. 1970), and less than 0.10 ppm is lethal to waterhyacinth (Haller et al. 1971). Excessive amounts of P absorbed by waterhyacinth are not associated with an increase in yield (Gerloff 1969, Gerloff and Krumbholtz 1966).
Waterhyacinth is used as food for cattle (Davies 1959), buffalo (Anonymous 1951) and pigs (Grist 1965, Anonymous 1952) in India, and for cattle and pigs in Madagascar (Anonymous 1965). It has also been used for silage in the Philippines (Agrupis 1953) and elsewhere (Bagnall et al. 1974, Byron et al. 1975); for yeast production in Brazil (Oyakawa et al. 1965); for composts and mulch for tea in India (Basak 1948, Anonymous 1966); as a source of protein (Pirie 1960, 1970, Boyd 1968a, b, Krupauer 1971) containing useful growth substances (Sircar and Ray 1961, Sircar and Chakraverty 1961, Sircar and Kundu 1960, Mukherjee et al. 1964,. Bhanja and Sircar 1966, Bhanja et al. 1968, Iswaran and Sen 1973, Maiti 1974, Parra and Hortenstine 1974. Sircar et al. 1973) and gibberellins (Sircar and Chakraverty 1962); to enhance growth of microorganisms and plants and accelerate










alcoholic fermentation (Sheikh et al. 1964); for fodder in South Central China (Naik 1972); for cows, horses and pigs in North
America (Vaas 1951); for manure (Smith and Thornton 1945, Singh 1962); and as a source of lysine and other amino acids as a supplement to grain protein (Taylor and Robbins 1968). liang and Lovell (1971) found that waterbyacinth could be a good substitute for alfalfa meal in catfish diets, while it is also used (Anormous 1974) for fish and animal food, and for paper. Several other
authors have suggested using waterhyacinth as animal food (Baldwin et al. 1974, little 1968a, Boyd 1968a, 1969, Combs 1970, Salveson 1971, Stephens 1972, Bagnall et al. 1973, Hentges et al. 1975). little (1968a) and Boyd (1968a) emphasized food resources that could possibly be developed from native macrophytes, and Boyd
(1971a) compiled a bibliography of utilization of aquatic plants, while Naik (1972) reviewed waterhyacinth use in West Pakistan. In short, waterhyacinth only needs to be harvested to be useful, "if a use can be found" (PFirie 1960).
Waterbyacinth also reduces bank erosion by damping wave action (Tilghman 1962, 1964, Maltby 1963) and has value as a mulch (Tilghman 1962).
Nolan and Kirmse (1974) and Vaas (1951) found waterbyacinth
unsuitable for paper making because of low pulp yields and drainage rates.
Finally, waterbyacinth is one of the best biotic salinity indicators (Penfound and Hathaway 1938).










Even though waterbyacinth has mar~ potential uses and benefits, on a practical basis, no use has been developed, or benefit derived, that counterbalances the detrimental aspects of waterbyacinth

biology.


Monetary Relationships

Holm et al. (1969) estimated that aquatic ditchbank weeds cause an annual loss of 1,272,480 acre-feet of water, costing $39J million in 17 western states. Annual damage from waterbwhyacinth alone in Louisiana in 1947 was $1-15 milion, with $5 million/year a conservative estimate (Lynch et al. 1947). Other estimates on losses due to aquatic weeds are also high.
Although millions of dollars are spent yearly on the highly inefficaceous methods of chemical and mechanical control of waterhyacinth, only $380,000 was spent during the first EIEVN YEARS (through fiscal year 1973) on ALL ASPECTS of biological control of waterbyaointh.3' By comparison, savings biological control of

Klamath weed, Hypericum perforatum L..5 which now costs nothing


3Coulson, J. R. 1972. Potential environmental effects of the introduction of the Argentine weevil, Neochetina eichhorniae, into the Uited States. Tech. Rept. Interag. Res. Adv. Comm, Meet., Aq. Plant Contr. Sea., US Army Corps of Engin., Houston, TX, 19 p.
4
Due to restrictions placed on USDA and similar reports, this, and subsequent reports, are footnoted and not listed in "literature Cited".


5arietales: Hypericaceae.











to control, exceed $2 million/year.3


Conflict of Interest

The use of phytophagous organisms is limited because of their small sise, high reproductive rate and high mobility. Thus, introduced natural enemies in one area of an undesirable plant's distribution may spread into other areas where the plant is desirable (Andres 1973). Several examples of this are available. The ~6
introduced phreatophyte salt cedar, Tamarix pentandra Pall., is a problem at certain times of the year in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas where it impedes water flow, causes flooding, and transpires great amounts of water in the dry season. However, it also provides nesting areas for white winged dove, Zenaida asiatica L, nectar and shelter. If the weed were reduced to lower abundance (i.e. leaving enough plants to support doves, etc., yet reducing abundance to a tolerable level for other interests), the conflict of interest might be resolved (Andres 1973). Ensminger (1973) stated that alligatorweed, Alternanthera phileroxeroides (Mart.) Griseb., is an important food for wildlife in louisiana coastal marshes, and also protects stream banks from erosion, and that the


6Parietales: Tamaricaceae.

7Columbiformes: Columbidae.


8Centrospermae:s Aramanthaceae.










alligatorweed flea beetle, Agasicles grophila Selman, has already damaged plants in marsh areas grazed by cattle.

Yellowstar thistle, Centaurea solstitialis L. 10 is exotic and causes economic loss in grazing ranges and grain and seed crops in California. It is also important for bees, Apis mellifera L.11 which pollinate fruit and seed crops in California. Since the cattle industry was the predominate direct interest, biological control has been started (Andres 1973). Results are as yet inconclusive.

There has never been any question of conflict of interest with control of waterbyacinth,3 but if economic uses are found, one may develop.


Control Attempts Other Than Biological Control

Chemical Control

The best thing that can be said for spraying
chemical poisons on lakes in the grip of algae and
weeds is that it is usually a futile undertaking.
Treating a lake with copper sulphate or other toxic chemicals is no more effective than taking aspirin
for a brain tumour. It offers only a temporary
relief, maksing symptoms of cultural eutrophication.
In the long run it makes a lake sicker. Poisoning
algae and weeds simply accelerates the natural process of growth, death and decay, thereby freeing
nutrients for another cycle of plant production
(Hasler 1968).


9Coleopteras Chrysomelidae.

10Tubiflorae: Cynareae.


1 Hymenoptera: Apidae.










The above statement is typical of the environmental uproar over the indiscriminate use of poisons on our lakes, streams, canals and terrestrial areas. In the past, most lay people were convinced that chemicals may be the answer to all their pest problems. But, as Hasler (1972) stated

- As I observe the public clamouring for chemical treatment of a lake or stream to rid it
of carp [Cyprinus carpio L;,12 watermilfoil..
(riophyllum pp. or water hyacinth (Echhornia crassipes), I search in vain for the
basis of this faith in chemical magic. Have we
professionals been sold on the chemical 'fixt and passed it on innocently to the public in
conservation bulletins and public meetings.

And "attempts to control [waterhyacinth and other aquatics] has presented Florida citizens with a multimillion dollar expense and created a bonanza for the [chemical industry] "(Anonymous 1972d).
Aquatic herbicides are used very extensively in the world,

however, and apparently with some success. One of the most widely used herbicides on waterhyacinth is 2,4-D.1 Amine formulations of 2,4-D at 3.5-4.5 kg/ha reportedly gives good waterhyacinth control if at least 80% of the leaves are covered (Druijff 1973). Timmer and Weldon (1967) and Anomymous (1967) found that 2,4-D reduced water loss through evapotranspiration. Sen (1957) controlled waterhyacinth with a 2% concentration of 2,4-D without arny apparent


12 Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae.

13Mrtiflorae: Haloragaceae.


14(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)acetio acid.










effects on aquatic fauna.

Mary other people have studied or recommended use of 2,4-D and other chemicals on waterhyacinth (Anorymous 1960, 1970, 1972c, Klingman 1961, Baruah et al. 1955, Lawrence 1962, Gallagher 1962, White 1962, 1964, Blackburn and Weldon 1963, Weldon et al. 1966, Zeiger 1963, Rogers and Doty 1966, Braddock 1966, Phillippy 1966, Little 1968b, Wentzel 1968, Misra and Das 1969, Achuff and Zeiger 1969, Blackburn et al. 1971, Patro and Tosh 1971, Dynansagar and Dharurkar 1972, 1974, Moody 1973, Pieterse and Van Rijn 1974).

One of the greatest disadvantages, other than cost, of using
chemicals for control of aquatic weeds is the potential side effects on non-target organisms and other adverse environmental effects. DruiJff (1973) found that drift, reduction in DO due to decomposition, and accumulation of organic debris raising the level of the lakebed are all problems that should be considered in applying chemicals. Shoecraft (1971) wrote on the growing concern of the effects of 2,4-D on non-target organisms, and recent studies showed that 2,4-D caused teratogenic effects of game birds (Luts-Ostertag and Luts 1970). Mauriello (1970) found that use of 2,4-D causes undesirable recycling of nutrients into already over-nutrified waters by setting up large biochemical demands. Paulson (1970) found that there was "a real hazard to bees and possibly other nectar-feeding insects from application of 2,4-D to plants in flower," Tilghman (1963) protested the use of chemicals (as they are now applied) more than 10 years ago, and reported that cattle were killed after eating










sprayed waterhyacinth along the St. Johns River (1), so spraying was stopped. Montelaro (1962) pointed out problems in using herbicides, especially effects of 2,4-D on non-target organisms. Hamilton (1966) said that damage by 2,4-D is widespread and at a very high level, and Finny (1962) stated "it is possible for whole towns to be defoliated by [.4-D and other] herbicides carried in the water supply if care is not exercised to keep them out of that supply." Foul odors and tastes in water can also result from 2,4-D (Faust and Aly 1962). Vaas (1951) however, found no harmful effects to fish or other biota if 2,4-D is used properly.

Druijff (1974) summed up the chemical control story adequately by stating
in places where machines cannot operate and
where chemicals represent the only alternative to
the costly process of weed removal 'by hand', chemicals
have their uses, but must be applied with great
discretion.

Mechanical, Cultural and Integrated Control

Mechanical removal has been used for years as a method of

"controlling" aquatic macrophytes. Bryant (1973) pointed out that though little work has been done on the long-term effects of mechanical harvesting of aquatic weeds, there is "little or nothing to indicate that it is harmful." Ahmed (1954) and Chokder and Begum (1965) reported that removal by hand is used in East Pakistan, whereas Asim (1961) and Siddiqi (1962) suggested both hand removal and use of 2,4-D in West Pakistan. Naik (1972) found that 1 person











could remove 500 plants/hour which ". . . is useful and effective but requires large numbers of personnel for the complete eradication of waterbacinth'- but recommended hand-removal. livermore and Wunderlich (1969) and Nichols and Cottam (1972) commented on

existing harvesting equipment for waterbyacinth. Sawboats were used with success in Louisiana, but left a fringe of plants that quickly grew back (Wunderlich 1962). Wunderlieh (1938) found that

physically crushing plants killed them very well. Finally, Wunderlich (1967) said ". . . a well-planned combined mechanicalchemical approach is the most satisfactory method of keeping our waterways open at a reasonable cost."
Mohamed and Bebour (1973a, b) found that burning and backburning controlled waterhyacinth. Richardson (1975) found that a combination of drawdown, drying and freezing could be effective
for waterhyacinth control in ouisiana, while Hestand and Carter (1974, 1975) found that drawdown actually increased the amount of waterhyacinth present.

Coudi et al. (1971) discovered that N2CO2-He laser energy on waterhyacinth resulted in immediate, visible plasmolysis, then a burning (proportional to the amounts of laser energy applied), then an endogenous systemic response (at high rates). They also discovered that physiological age was important in utilization of the laser system. Couch and Gangstad (1974) found that laser energy

22
(10.6 m) at levels of less than 1 J/om2 for individually-irradiated plants, and 69 J/ome2 for group-irradiated plants significantly










reduced waterhyacinth growth, and at a level of 4 J/om2 reduced photosynthesis 50%. No practical field use has been found for lasers in waterbyacinth control, however.

Inundation has also been tried as a method of suppressing waterbyacinth growth, without success. An abscission zone is formed across the rhizome of a bulbous petiole, and plants float

to the surface in 20-40 days (Robertson and Thien 1932).

Integrated control of waterbyacinth using 2,4-D and insects in various combinations has been investigated very little to date. Preliminary results, however, have been encouraging (Perkins, pers,

comm.).




Biological Control


General Theory of Biological Control of Hydrophytes

Aquatic plants are part of a healthy aquatic
ecosystem. The aim of management should be, therefore, to control aquatic plants by restoring them
to their original balance or some anthropocentrically.determined allowable balance, in the case of exotics ; it should not be to eradicate them (Nichols and Cottam
1972).
This statement represents the view of biological control
advocates, and is the most ecologically-sound concept of control.
One way, and perhaps the only way, that management can be achieved is through the use of biological control agents.

Not all people favor using biological control agents, however.










As Paulson (1970) has written

A common fallacy of both chemical and biological
control is that they tend to ignore the basic cause of
our aquatic weed problem, which is water pollution.
Any attempt to control aquatic weeds which does not
also remove excess nutrients from the water is doomed to failure. Such methods invite reinfestation by the same
weeds, or an invasion by other species which may be even
more objectionable.-Until we discontinue the practice of using our waterways as open sewers, . . . , aquatic
weed control is an exercise in futility. Under present
conditions, and as far as can be seen into the future, we expect a bumper crop of aquatic weeds to invade our
waters every summer. The time is long past due to
approach the problem from the standpoint that aquatic
weeds represent a useful crop to be utilized and
harvested.

Apparently insignificant insects can tip the balance in favor
of a competing plant species; a principle in effect in South America,

where other macrophytes gain some surface area in relation to waterhyacinth when wateryacinth is attacked heavily (Huffaker 1964).
This is true despite White-Stevens' (1975) contention that, for the

practical grower, biological control is ". . . too specific, too
late, too ephemeral, too unreliable, too complicated, too impractical.
and too costly" (1) to be used efficiently. He also stated that

There is not one commercial crop or livestock
animal which can be economically produced to meet current federal and state standards of quality and
be completely protected by biological methods of
pest control.

The aim of biological control of weeds is to reduce weed
abundance by introducing natural enemies, or augmenting their action.

It can be successful, depending upon the number of weed species
involved, phylogenetic proximity of beneficial plant species, type

and stability of habitat, and degree and urgency of control (Andrea










1973).

Biological weed control has been most successful against

introduced perennial plants that are dominant over extensive areas in habitats of low disturbance (Andres 1973). Since waterhyacinth is alien to the United States, its abundance may be directly related to absence of effective natural enemies.15

The survey of waterhyacinth for natural enemies was started by Ing. Agr. Aquiles Silveira Guido in Uruguay under a PL-480 project, resulting in discovery of 4 insect and 1 mite species with potential for biological control of waterhyacinth. Testing of these species began in 1968 at the USDA Laboratory in Hurlingham, Argentina.15


Control with Neochetina .

Neochetina species are specific to the Pontederiaceae (0O'Brien 1975) with N. eichhorniae and N. bruchi Hustache on waterhyacinth, and N. affinis Hustache on Eichhornia asurea (Mart.) Kunth. An insect's host range can be precisely determined if the visual, tactile and chemical stimuli used by the insect species for finding and accepting the host plant are known. If all these are characteristic of only 1 host plant, only that will be attacked (Harris and ZwIfer 1968). Some Pontederiaceae fulfill these requirements for Neochetina spp., as some of these bagoine weevils occur in Guyana,


15Andres, L. A. 1971. S 1maM y of the biology and host specificity of Neochetina eichhorniae Warner, a weevil to control the waterhyacinth, Eichhorniaa -rssipes. USDA Tech. Rept. 9 p.










Brazil, Urugiuay and Argentina from both Eichhornia spp. and Reussia
16
pp. and were found to be host specific in tests in Trinidad (Bennett 1968a).

The chevroned waterhyaointh weevil, N. bruchi, as it was originally described (Hustache 1926), was actually composed of both the mottled waterhyacinth weevil, N. eichhorniae, plus N. bruchi (Silveira Guido 1965). It was sometimes more numerous than N.
15'
eichhorniae in South America,15 and had microsporidian and nematode parasites in South America (Andres and Bennett 1975). Bennett (1971) found N. bruchi from Eichhornia spp. and Reussia sp. from Guyana, Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina. Perkins (1974) listed N. bruchi as a defoliator-external leaf feeder as adults, and noted that it is favored by cooler weather. Five adults can kill an average waterhyacinth plant in 5 days, under laboratory conditions. N. bruchi was first released in the egg stage in the United States at Davis, Florida by Dr. B. D. Perkins and E. S. Del Fosse on 1 July 19740.

N. eichhorniae (Warner 1970) has been reported from Argentina, Bolivia and Trinidad.17 After N. eichborniae was separated taxonomically f�om N. bruchi, the former species was studied from 1968.1970 at the USDA laboratory in Hurlingham (province of Buenos Aires) Argentina.15 It was found to be more abu ant than N. bruchi around


1 arinosae: Pontederiaceae.

17perkins, B. D. 1971. Host specificity and biology studies of Neochetina eichhorniae Warner, an insect for the biological control of water hyacinth. USDA Tech. Rept. 26 p.











Sante Fe, Argentina, and has the same parasites in South America as does N. bruohi (Andres and Bennett 1975). N. eichhorniae was shipped from Trinidad and Argentina to India for further quarantine studies (Rao et al. 1972). Some specificity and feeding tests were repeated8 using N. eichhorniae, and these insects were also found to be restricted to the Pontederiaceae.

The life cycle of N. eichhorniae in Argentina is as follows:

eggs are laid in October-November by adults which have overwintered, and hatch in 7-10 days. The white apodous larvae have 3-5 instars and develop in about 2 months (November-January). They pupate in January, and remain in this stage 20-30 days. Adults emerge and begi# to feed, creating characteristic 2-4 m diameter feeding spots. Adults can live 280 days in the laboratory, and a 1:1 sex ratio occurs in the field. There is a positive thigmotrophic response to the crown of the plants and among insects themselves. Females produce a maximum and average of 300 and 50 eggs, respect tively, in their lifetimes.19 Weevils often feign death after being disturbed. The period of egg to adult takes approximately 3 months.

Perkins, B. D. 1972. Host specificity and biology studies of Neochetina eichhorniae Warner, an insect for the biological control of water hyacinth. Tech. Rept. US Army Corps of Engin. 35 p.
19
Perkins, B. D. 1972. Research leading to introduction of the first of the waterhyacinth insects in the United States. Tech Rept. Interag. Res. Adv. Comm. Meet., Aq. Plant Contr. See., US Arzr Corps of Engin., Houston, TX, October 11-13, 7 p.










Like may other aquatic insects (Usinger 1956), Neochetina spp.
�8
have waxy body coatings, and are obligatorily tied to the aquatic environment. Larvae need waterhyacinth roots in which to pupate (Perkins 1974).

Before release in the United States, this species, as well as N. bruchi, was subjected to many tests. Feeding tests were run on 27 species of plants in 14 families, and consisted of starvation, 18
paied plant, and group plant tests.18 In these tests, significant feeding was noted only on ~ nilum americanum Nutt.20 and waterhyacinth, and larvae couldn't live on the former species.

The only known enemies of Neochetina sppi are the fungi
s21 21
Beauveria sp.21and Asperglus sp., 2 mites which may attack pupae, 22 1
and possibly a microsporidian. Competition with snails8 and 2 soarabs ( local sp. and .)scinetus sp.)23 may be important.

Permission from the USDA Working Group on Biological Control of Weeds to release N. eichhorniae came in 1972. An unknown number of weevils were released in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, on the 23rd of August, 1972 (Anorymous 1972a, b, and Perkins, pers. comm.), with an estimated 20-30% surviving to adults (Perkins 1973b).


20Pandales: Sparganiaceae.

21Moniliales.

22Sporozoa: Microsporidea.


23Coleoptera: Searabaeidae.










The technique for release is well developed, and spread id increase in the field has been studied.24

Damage to plants by Neochetina spp. occurs mainly nocturnally; insects are quiescent during the day and spend time in the crown of the plant. Adults can withstand submersion for several minutes, but will drown if the perios is prolonged.18' 19 Each adult can produce about 20 feeding spots/day, and there are up to 5 larvae/ plant (Perkins 1974). This feeding damage has been reported to open plants to attack by pathogens and saprophytes. It has been noted that E. eichhorniae affects vigor and growth of the plant (Perkins 1973b, 1974). Hudson (1973) said that "to date, the most effective tool has been insect attack," such as that caused by weevils.

Before weevils were released, several beneficial effects were thought to accrue through the use of these curculionids.25 These included

(1) opening of large areas of water for recreational uses; (2) increase in efficiency of water distribution and flood control systems;

(3) reduction in areas for mosquito breeding;


2Perkins, B. D. 1974. Research on insect biological control against waterhyacinth. USDA Tech. Rept. 11 p.

25Coulson, J. R. 1972. Potential environmental effects of the introduction of the Argentine waterhyacinth weevil, Neochetina eichhorniae into the United States. Tech. Rept. Interag. Res. Adv. Comm. Meet., Aq. Plant Cont?. See., US Army Corps of Engin., Houston, TX, October 11-13, 19 p.










(4) increase in DO in water;
(5) increase in utility of water for potable irrigation, fish and wildlife areas; and
(6) reduction or elimination of the need for chemical or mechanical control.
Adverse effects of the introduction were thought to possibly b25
be 2
(1) aesthetic loss of flower beauty; (2) increase in other aquatic weeds;
(3) temporary increase in amount of organic matter in water; and
(4) limited feeding on pickerelweed.
Alternatives to biological control of waterhyacinth were thought to be25
(i) continuation of chemical or mechanical control;
(2) possibility of mechanical harvesting and utilization;

S (3) possible use of natural enemies, including Arzama densa Walker26 and 0. terebrantias;
S(4) use of fish and/or snails; and
(5) no control at all.

Control with Orthogalumna terebrantis Wallwork

Orthogal umna is a small genus of galumnid mites known only

26Lepidoptera: Noctuidae.










from Madagascar, southeastern North America, Central and South America. 0. terebrantis is found on waterhyacinth in the latter

3 regions (Balough 1960). The waterhyacinth mite was described by Wallwork (1965) using Balough's (1961) generic descriptions of oribatoids. This mite was originally thought to be in the genus LApotgalumna. and earlier references used this genus (Bennett 1968a, b).* 0. terebrantis is found on E. azurea and Pontederia cordata . as well as on waterhyacinth, but not on other unrelated plants.

The waterhyacinth mite is one of very few phytophagous oribatoids (Cordo and DeLoach 1975); most feed on fungi, algae, lichens,

decaying plant material and raroly on tissues of higher plants (Wooley 1960). The average body length is 440.7 u and average width at the widest point is 237.4 u (Wallwork 1965). This species damages waterhyacinth in Uruguay,27 other parts of South America (Bennett 1970b, Bennett and Zw6lfer 1968, Coulson 1971), the United States28 (Bennett 1970a) and has been introduced and established in Zambia (Bennett 1974a).


27Silveira Guido, A. 1965. Natural enemies of weed plants.
Final Report, Dept. Sanidad Vegetal, Univ. de la Repurblic, Montevideo, Uruguay.

28Gordon, R. D., and J. R. Coulson. 1971. Report of field
observations of arthropods on waterhyacinth in Florida, Louisiana and Texas, July 1969. In Gangsted et al. Tech. Rept. of the Potential Growth of Aquatic Pla ts of the cross Florida Barge Canal, Rev. of the Aquatic Plat Contr. Res. Prog. and Summary of the Res. Area Dev. Oper,, in Fl. US Arniy Corps of Engin. 191 p.











The first investigations of 0. terebrantis were made in Uruguay.27 In laboratory testing, the waterhyacinth mite fed significantly only on waterbyacinth, among 17 plants tested.17 Nymphs and larvae make narrow elongate mines in the pseudolaminae (the waterbyacinth "leaf" is not a true blade, but an extension of the petiole; a pseudolamina (Arber 1920)). These tunnels frequently number more than 50/pseudolaidna, and damage a large per cent of tissue (Bennett 1968a, Perkins 1973a, Cordo and DeLoach 1975). Del Fosse et al. (1975) and Del Fosse and Cromroy (1975) found that adult mites could enter pseudolaminae to feed, whereas Cordo and Deloach (1975) did not. Strain differences and experimental technique may have produced these conflicting results, since the Argentine-Uruguayan strains had also been observed to penetrate pseudolaminae as adults (Perkins 1973a, Cordo and DeLoach 1975).
According to Perkins (1974) the waterhyacinth mite is the only pseudolamina tunneler on waterhyacinth, although the tunneler Eugaurax sp.29 has subsequently been found (Sabrosky 1974). Number of mines may exceed 500/pseudolamina in heavy infestations (Perkins 1973a) and there may be more than 20,000 mites/2

In oviposition tests, 21 plants in 13 families were used, and mites laid eggs in waterhyacinth and none of the other plants (Cordo and DeLoach 1975). For these reasons the waterbyacinth mite has been considered to be one of the 4-5 most promising biological control agents on waterhyacinth (Bennett 1968a, b, Coulson 1971, Perkins


29Diptera: Chloropidae.










1973a) .
Dr. Fred Bennett of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control first found the waterhyacinth mite in the United States (Bennett 1968b).24 It may have been brought into Florida when waterbyacinth was introduced, over 90 years ago (Perkins 1974), but this is uncertain. It may have moved from Mexico along the Gulf coast on an alternate host, such as pickerelweed. This suggestion has even less credibility, since the mite's absence from waterhyacinth in the region of Mexico City (Perkins, pers. comm.) refutes this argument.

The Florida strain of the waterhyacinth mite had been thought to be restricted to shady areas33 but Perkins (1973a) found that although immatures are sometimes trapped and killed inside pseudolaminae in the sun, sunny and shady areas are attacked equally. Cordo and DeLoach (1975) found that the Argentine strain was more host specific than the United States' or Uruggan strains. In the United States 0. terebrantis was noted feeding as much or more on Pontederia than Eichhornia33 but Perkins (1973b) didn't find it on either E. azurea or P. lanceolata Nutt. growing adjacent to heavilyinfested stands of E. crassipes in Argentina. Larval mines were found to be more concentrated with the Florida strain than the Argentine strain, without the concomitant increase in damage (Perkins 1973a).

The life cycle of the waterhyacinth mite in Arg ntina is as follows: adults oviposit in separate waterhyacinth laminae,










inserting eggs approximately every fourth lamina. Nymphal and larval stages develop and tunnel within the leaf, producing 2-7 apicaly-directed tunnels for each 1 petiole-directed tunnel. Tunnels reach an average length of 5 mm before the adults emerge. From egg to adult takes about 10 days. The emerged adult may feed at the spot where mining occurred, may enter an old tunnel to feed, or may feed in scars created by other animals or abrasions caused by any means. The number of adult tunnels is negligible compared to the number of larval tunnels. From 4 pseudolaminae, Perkins (1973a) found a ratio of 1 adult: 5 r~phs: 10 larvae. Most tunnels are occupied by a single mrVph or larva. There is no sexual dimorphism.

The only enemies of the waterhyacinth mite that have been

recorded are predaceous mites. As with Neochetina spp., the waterhyacinth mite needs the presence of water, and will die in less than

1 day without it (Perkins 1973a).

Both the mottled waterhyacinth weevil and the waterhyacinth

mite, although they may feed slightly on other plant species, fill the criteria for introduction as biological control agents in both safety and specificity, as described by Huffaker (1964). He stated (p. 646)

It is unreasonable to insist that an insect (or
other arthropod] be unable to engage in ay feeding
on some economic plant under forced or unnatural
stress. The capacity to breed on a given plant is
the main criterion.












Other Arthropods on Waterhyacinth

Mary people have collected or identified arthropods from

waterhyacinth and related aquatic plants19. 30-33 (Blatchley 1920, Leonard 1926, Rehn 1952, 1959, Sabrosky 1950, 1974, Kapur and Dutta 1952, Forbes 1954, Zolessi 1956, Cooreman 1959, Sankaran et al. 1966, Bennett 1968a, b, 1970a, b, 1972a, b, 1974a, b, Bennett and Zw61fer 1968, Vogel 1968, Bennett 1971, Pieterse 1972, Vogel and Oliver 1969a, b, Alden 1971, Coulson 1971, Johnson 1971, Ultsch 1971, 1974., Perkins 1972, 1973a, b, 1974, Brown and Spencer 1973, Silveira Guido 1971, Sankaran and Rao 1972, Silveira Guido and Perkins 1975). Goin (1943) studied lower vertebrate fauna from waterhyacinth. From these investigations, various recommendations for further study have developed.

Bennett and Zw&ilfer (1968) recommended that 6 species of arthropods should be studied further for biologi al control of


30ao, V. P. 1963. US PL-480 Project: Survey of natural
enemies of witch weed and water hyacinth and other aquatic weeds affecting waterways in India. CIBC Rept.

3 o, V. P. 1964. US PL-480 Project: Survey of natural
enemies of witch weed and water hyacinth and other aquatic weeds affecting waterways in India. CIBC Rept.

oRao, V. P. 1965. US PL-480 Project: Survey of natural
enemies of witch weed and water hyacinth and other aquatic weeds affecting waterways in India. CIBC Rept.

33Spencer, N. R. 1975. Report on the biology and host specificity of Epipagis albiguttalis. USDA Tech. Rept. 11 p.










waterbyacinth, viz. Acigona ignitalis Hmps., EWpads albiguttalis Hps., 38 Cornops longicorne (Bruner).35 N. bruchi, Thrypticus sp., 36 and 0. terebrantis. Bennett (1968a) also found that Arsama densa was "adequately host specific and , . . destructive to warrant further investigation," but Habeck (1975) cautioned against introduction of this noctuid without further study because it is a pest of dasheen, Calocasia esculenta L.37

Other invertebrates besides insects live in and around waterhyacinth mats. O'Hara (1967) found over 44,000 specimens of over 55 species from 11 samples of waterhyacinth growing around lake Okeechobee, Florida, with the scud Hyalella astea (Saussure)38 the most abundant. Katz (1967) also found that Hyalella sp. was at ndant in waterhyacinth, comprising 20-8 of the organisms found there. These and other amphipods are important in the diets of fresh water fish (Huish 1957. Mclane 1955. Hansen et al. 1971). Microorganisms in waterhyacinth roots may add to NO -N decreases in
3
eutrophic waters (Dunigan 1974, Dunigan and Shamasuddin 1975).


Control with Pathogens

The use of pathogens as biological control agents is steadily

Lepidoptera: Pyralidae.

35orthoptera: Acrididae.

36Diptera: Dolichopodidae.

37Spathiflorae: Araceae.
38 i Palaeonidae.
Amhpoda: Palaemonidae,











gaining popularity (Daniel et al. 1973, Timmons 1970, Hasan 1973, 1974). Many pathogens attack waterhyacinth, especially after attack by insects.39 Several people are studying pathogens for use against waterhyacinth (Nag Raj 1965, Nag Raj and Ponnappa 1970, Ponnappa 1970, Coulson 1971, Zettler and Freeman 1972, Charudattan 1972).
40*
Acremonium (Cephalosporium) zonatum (Saw.) Gains.0 is the

fungus with perhaps the greatest potential for control of waterhyacinth (Charudattan and Perkins 1974, Padwick 1946, Rintz 1973, Charudattan 1975). Another pathogen with seemingly good potential for biological control of waterhyacinth is Cercospora sp.40, 41 Other pathogens being studied include Fusarium roseum (Lk.) Snyder
40
and Hansen (Rintz and Freeman 1972), Alternaria eichhorniae var. floridana Nag RaJ and Ponn.42 (McCorquodale et al. 1973, Charudattan 1975), Rhizoctonia solani Kuehn3 (Freeman and Zettler 1971, Joyner and Freeman 1973, Joyner 1972, Matsumoto et al. 1933, Nag Raj 1965,


9Coulson, J. R. 1972. Potential environmental effects of the introduction of the Argentine weevil, Neochetina eichhornia4, into the United States. Tech. Rept. Interag. Res. Adv. Comm. Meet., Aq. Plant Contr. See., US Army Corps of Engin., Houston, TX, 19 p.

4 oniliales: Tuberculariaceae.

41Conway, K. E. 1975. Successful field testing of a fungal
pathogen as a biological control of water hyacinth. Paper presented
at Annu. Meet. Hyacinth Contr. Soo., San Antonio, TX, 7 July.

42onliales: Dermatiaceae.


-3*celia Sterilia.










Charudattan 1972), Uredo eichhorniae Frag. and Cig. (Charudattan 1975), Bipolaris (Helinthosporium) ap.2 (Charudattan 1975), and yriothecium roridum4~5 (Charudattan 1972).

Many people hope that a sufficiently virulent phase of one or more of these pathogens may be found or developed. The thought has been expressed that "surely pathogens could save the State of Florida a barrel of money in the fight on water hyacinths- not for one year, but from now on" (Anonymous 1972a).


Control with Other Biotic Agents

Phytophagous fish, such as the white amur, Ctenopharyngodon

idella Valenciennes,12 and Tilapia spp. are also being investigated for biological control of waterhyacinth (Blackburn et al. 1971, Avault 1965, Van Zon 1974, Baker et al. 1974, Kilger and Smitherman 1971, Druijff 1974, Del Fosse et al. 1976). Use of the combination of the white amur and the mottled waterhyacinth weevil have been conducted (Del Fosse et al. 1976) and further studies utilizing these primary consumers are planned.

Phytophagous mammals, especially the manatee, Triohechus
trichechus L., have been considered for use in biological control, but have many drawbacks for waterhyacinth catrol (Druijff 1974,


Uredinales: Pucciniaceae.

oniliales.


46Sirenia: Trichechidae.









47
Blackburn and Andres 1968), as do goats, C_ sp., and sheep, Ovis ap.,47 which have been used for weed control along ditchbanks (Druijff 1974). Water buffalo, Bubalus sp., 7 have recently been investigated for waterbyaointh control in Gainesville, Florida.

Snails, such as Pomacea australia (d'Orbigry)48 and Marisa

cornuarietis L.8 feed on waterbyacinth as well (Hunt 1958, Seaman and Porterfield 1964, Blackburn and Andres 1968).


Manipulation of Natural Enemies and Population Modelin

Climatic influences often determine the success or failure of phytophagous insects in controlling pest plants (Harris and

Peschken 1974, Andres and Goedon 1971). Natural enemies may kill, slow or prevent establishment or reduce impact of plants, as may the amelioration of plant-insect climatic synchronization (Annecke et al. 1969).

When dealing with large populations of phytophagous insects, as with N. eichhorniae, or mites, as with 0. terebrantis, interspecific and/or intraspecific competition may influence their combined effects. These factors can be measured (Bendixen 1975).

Several hypotheses of population interaction are available

based on number of attacks by an individual with respect to prey density. Several of these theories will be investigated to
determine whether my results support them.
Thompson (1924, 1929) theorized that predators and parasitoids

Artiodactyla: Bovidae.

48tenobra iata: Ampulardae.
Ctenobranoiata; Ampulariidae.










can easily find their prey, and attacks are only limited by the consumption capacity of the predator or available eggs of the parasitoid. Thus, in the Thompsonian theory, number of attacks is constant, and is unrelated to prey density.
Nicholson (1933) and Nicholson and Bailey (1935) said that the

number of attacks by an individual for anr prey density depends only on the searching ability of the predator. This ability is constant for the species, so fulfilling the appetite ("consumption capacity") of the predator or using all eggs of a parasitoid is unimportant. Total prey killed would then be directly proportional to prey density (ease of finding prey), and per cent killed is constant. These authors emphasize subtractive processes such as intraspecific competition and other density-related phenomena.

Based on empirical data, Holling's (1959) disc equation is the best representation of population change due to predator effects. Under this theory, as prey density increases, number killed increases

at a progressively reduced rate. Per cent killed then, would decline under this concept, albeit less drastically than under the Thompsonian theory.

A typical vertebrate sigmoid curve and population lag response has also been found for some insect populations. Haynes and Sisojevic (1966) found such a curve to apply for Philodromus rufus Walohenaer7 predation upon Drosophila sp.0 and Embree

Araneae: Thomisiidae.


5Diptera: Drosophilidae.










(1966) found such a re: ponse for a tachinid parasite, Cyzenis albicans (Fall.)51 attacking the winter moth, Cheimatobia brumata L.52

Andrewartha and Birch (1954) considered that intrinsic

favorableness of the environment determined population numbers, whereas Milne (1962), while aware of the importance of environmental conditions, emphasized the importance of density-related subtractive processes.

Chitty (1960) was more concerned with intrinsic spGcies

attributes, and theorized that there is an inverse relationship between vitality of individuals and population density, which can also be part of the mechanism of population fluctuation.
Pimentel (1961) suggested that Nicholsonian density-stabilizing mechanisms are replaced during evolution be genetic feedback predator-prey mec*.anisms, thus emphasizing mutual adaptation between species, their predators and their food plants.

Perkins (1965) found that as tingid53 populations increased, moth2 populations on Lantana54 decreased. He attributed this mortality to tingid-caused leaf abscission.

Debach (1971) theorized that after introducing many enemies
against a pest species, the most "effective" one will be predominant,


51Diptera: Tachinidae.

52Lepidoptera: Geometridae.

5 emipteras Tingidae.


5Tubiflorae: Verbenaceae.










and iteshit;workwithAph55
and cites his work with Ap s app.5 as empirical evidence. Whether this theory will hold true when one considers the introduction of many primary consumers on a post weed (such as Neochetina spp., 0. terebrantis, etc. against waterhyacinth) remains to be proved.

Very little in the way of population modeling has been done on any aquatic plant. Ewel et al. (1975) developed a theoretical model for the impact of waterhyacinth on the environment, but a model for the impact of phytophagous insects on waterhyacinth has not been developed.

The lack of information concerning biological control of

aquatic weeds and interaction of species indicated by this literature review points to research that is needed. The experiments described below are an attempt to fill part of this void.


5"Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae.











RELEASE OF THE YHOTTLED WATERHACIlNTH WEEVIL


Methods and Materials

Seven hundred field-collected (in northern Ft. Lauderdale, Florida) adult mottled waterhyacinth weevils were released on a waterhyacinth mat infested with waterhyacinth mites (Figure 1, point X). This release was made on 11 June 1974, an consisted of about 350 females: 350 males. The mat of waterhyacinth was located approximately 7 mites west of the USDA Aquatic Plant Management Laboratory in Davie, Florida (Figure 2, point A), in a canal on SW 31st Street (Figure 2, point B) off Hiatus Rcid, in Davie. All weevils were released in a 0.3 m area on 1-2 plants.
Once each week for 50-weeks the following data were taken from 1 randomly selected plant/area for each of the 10 areas (Figure 1):
(1) number of adult weevils (female, male and total)/plant;
(2) average number of adult waterhyacinth mites/pseudolamina;

(3) number of healthy and senescent pseudolainae/plant;
2
(4) age and number/cm2 of mite nymphal and larval tunnels and weevil feeding spots (determined on most dense areas of tunnels or feeding spots/ pseudolamina);

(5) average pseudolamina dimensions (width and length)/plant;
(6) average petiole length/plant (determined by selecting an average length petiole, after considering all petioles on the plant);
(7) average root length/plant (determined by length of longest primary root/plant);

(8) other arthropods/plant; and





















Figure I.- Schematic view of waterbhyacinth mat on which 700 adult Neochetina eichhorniae Warner were released. IX= point of weevil release; A-C= points of collection of water samples; and 1-10= areas of week3y plant sampling.








23.45 M


17.4 M


sand culvert


I



























Figure 2.- Aerial view of Davie, Florida, indicating location of USDA Aquatic Plant Management Laboratory (A), Official United States Weather Station (B), coffin-holders (C) and mat used for release study of Neochetina eiehhorniae Warner (D).










Hiatus Road









2
(9) plant density/4 (taken monthly at release point, and at all areas after 50 weeks.

In addition, water depth, air temperature (with Weksler maximumminimum thermometers), relative humidity (RH; with a H. J. Greene hygrothermograph) and rainfall (with a Belfort Instrument@ gauge) were recorded weekly at the Official United States Weather Station at the USDA laboratory in Davie (Figure 2, point B). All instruments, except Weather Station equipment, were calibrated initially and recalibrated after 6 months and again after 12 months.

Age of mite tunnels and weevil feeding spots was rated on a subjective scale of from 1-4. For mite tunnels, these ages corresponded to tunnels containing an egg or larva, proto- or deutonymph, tritorymph, or emerged adult (after creation of emergence hole), respectively. For weevil feeding spots, the corresponding scale was less than 1 week old, 1-2 weeks old, 2-3 weeks old, and greater than 3 weeks old, respectively. Associated with age 1 feeding spots was a pale green color, heavy exudate and presence of adult waterhyacinth mites; with age 2 feeding spots, a dark green color, little or no exudate, and few or no adult waterhyacinth mites; with age 3 feeding spots, a light brown color, no exudate and no adult waterhyacinth mites; and with age 4 feeding spots, a dark brown color, no exudate and no adult waterhyacinth mites. Age 1 tunnels averaged 0.5 mm in length; age 2 tunnels,

1.0 mm; age 3, 1.5 zm; and age 4, 2.0 mm.
For computer analyses, in which meristio data con most effectively be
handled, number of mite tunnels/a2 was multiplied by tunnel age (equation 1) to give an Orthogalumna Damage Index (ODI).

ODI= (no. tunnels/cm2)(age of tunnels) (1)











Neochetina Damage Indices (NDI) were computed by equation 2.

NDI= (no. feeding spots/cm2) [5 - (age of feeding spots (2)

Rationale behind these indices is as follows: as mite tunnels get longer (i.e. as mites grow to adults and emerge), damage to the plant successively increases. Thus, tunnels of age 4 are more damaging to the plant (partly because they bear the opening of the tunnel which the adult mite prepared in its emergence, which allows development of pathogens and saprophytes) than are tunnels of ages 1, 2 or 3 (assuming equal numbers of tunnels of each age). Directly
2
multiplying verage age of tunnels by their density/cm2 gives a reasonable estimate of the damage done to the plant by mite tunnels. Conversely, recent weevil feeding spots are more damaging to the plant than are old feeding spots because they cause increased desiccation and attract mites and weevils. Thus, direct multiplication of age by density would be negatively correlated to effect, and would be the opposite of the mite scale. To put both mite and weevil damage on a similar scale then, a weevil feeding spot of age

4 is made meristically equal to a mite tunnel of age 1 by subtracting

4 from.5 (5 - 4= 1), and so on. This is not to imply that the same damage is done to the plant by a weevil feeding spot and mite tunnel of the same age; this computation only places mite and weevil damage on a similar scale.
When these data are handled in this manner, relative damage to the plant by mites and weevils can be compared, and only I number each/plant/site/day need be recorded for mite and weevil damage,










respectively.
Plant measurement factors (PMF) were calculated for each area on the mat by the formula in equation 3.

PMF= (esW + + PL) (3)
kiL
Parameters in equation (3) are as follows: PsW= pseudolamina width; PsL;= pseudolamina length; RL= root length; and PL= petiole length. All above measurements are given in cm.
Air temperature, RH and rainfall were taken daily at the Official U. S. Weather Station in Davie. Weekly averages were then computed for each week. Photographs of the site were taken monthly and aerial (helicopter) pictures were taken after week 50. This and all following
experiments were analyzed statistically. Analyses of variance and Duncan's Multiple Range Tests (Duncan 1965) were applied where appropriate, as were regression, multiple and canonical correlation, and plotting procedures.

A waterhyacinth mat without weevils, but with a "natural" (i.e. population not manipulated directly by man) population of mites was sampledas was the experimental mat for comparison purposes.


Results and Discuission

For the first 3 months, numbers of adult weevils/plant were low
and sporadic (Figure 3)0 This was due to the low number of weevils released (700). After 3 months (the time for first generation weevil

adults to emerge) number of adults recovered/plant began to increase. Increase in number of weevils found on the plants appeared to level off by October (Figure 3), and decrease slightly aftvr that. However,


























Figure 3.- Monthly trends of Neochetina eichhorniae Warner
(NE) populations and damage data after NE release on a waterhyacinth mat infested with Orthogalumna terebrantis Wallwork. FS= feeding spots; NDI= [ - (age of NE FS(no./cm2).









































I I I I I 1 1 X J J A S 0 N D J F M A MONTHS (1974-'75)


1 9
8
to
7 6







1 0


--- --- -"










because adult waterhyacinth weevils are concentrated around areas of new feeding, possibly because of the release of a kairomone (see p. 109), number of adults is not a reliable measure of the weevil population. Number of weevil feeding spots/om2 is a more reliable measure of the weevil population, and this index increased steadily throughout the 12-month period (Figure 3). Increase in number of weevils of all life stages is nearly geometrical in shape, and more accurately gauges the stress applied to waterhyacinth by weevils. After 50 weeks, there were approximately 2.25 million weevils of all life stages, based on an average egg production of 50/female and an 80% egg to adult mortality. This number may be considerably higher than the actual number of weevils on the mat, but is the best estimate based on the life history information now at hand.

Fluctuations of the waterhyacinth mite population were closely related to certain abiotic factors, especially temperature and

evaporation. As temperature began to decrease, numbers of adult mites, then number of mite tunnels, also decreased (Figures 4-6).

Adult waterhyacinth mite populations were temporarily reduced at week 6 (from the previous week's average of 95/plant to 42/plant) by a light spray of malathion applied by a helicopter pilot spraying citrus in a neighboring grove. He had flown over our canal to see what we were doing, but momentarily forgot to turn off his spray rig. Immature mites inside closed tunnels at the time of this spray were apparently not affected. Populations of adult mites had


























Figure 4.- Monthly trends of Orthogalumna terebrantis Wallwork

(OT) populations and damage data on a waterhyacinth mat containing Neochetina eichhorniae Warner. ODI= (age of OT tunnels)(no. tunnels/
2
on )

















































MONTHS (1974-'75)


60


S30
15
0 16 -


o
0


13
107
:4'
3,

2
E-4
1
1000800600
400 200
0


08






4


M J J A S 0 N D J1 F M A


























Figure 5.- Monthly trends in air temperature (0C) taken at Official United States Weather Station and above concrete coffinholders, Davie, Florida.











maximum


44 42 40 38 36
34 32 30 28 26
24 2220 18 16
14 12 10
8
6
34 32 30 28 26
24 22 20 18 16
14 12
1r


maMMui


average


S Ji I I N J. J A


I I I
s 0 N MONTHS (1974.-'75)


I I


mivimum


average


























Figure 6.- Monthly trends in rainfall (R) and pan evaporation
(E) taken at Official United States Weather Station, Davie, Florida,

























1.6
1.4
1.2
-% 1.0too
-0.8-S0.6

0.4 0.2
0-
0.8
# 0.6

0.2
0,.2 F
0
4 J J A S 0 N D J F M A MONTHS (1974--'75)


I










increased to pre-spray levels by week 9 (with 118 adult waterhyaointh mites/plant). Weevils were apparently unaffected by the spray because they were in the crown of the plant at the time of the spray.
Monthly averages for all weevil plus mite, and plant data for each individual area, viz. 1-10, are given in Tables 1-10 and 1120, respectively. The same general trends are shown with the individual areas as in the entire area.

Analyses of variance for statistically significant parameters measured at the release site of N. eichhorniae are given in Table 21. There was a highly significant (P-- 0.01) reduction in number of pseudolaminae, pseudolamina width and length, petiole length, root length and PEF, and a highly significant increase in number of adult mottled waterbyacinth weevils, waterhyacinth mites, weevil and mite damage and male and female weevils, over the 50 week period. PMF was also significantly (P= 0.05) different over time.
2
Plant density was reduced from an average of 34 to 26 plants/m2 for this same period.

Areas of the release mat, viz. 1-10, were highly significantly different for adult mottled waterhyacinth weevils, pseudolamina dimensions, petiole and root lengths, and PMF, and significantly different for number of petioles, waterhyacinth mite damage, and female weevils (Table 21).


All tables are listed consecutively in the Appendix.










These data indicate 2 important results: first, the combined effects of weevils and mites applied sufficient stress to the plants to bring about a significant reduction in plant size and density (viz, the 30+ cm decrease in petiole length); and second, some factor(s) caused areas 1-10 to be significantly different in some parameters. A closer examination of the mat in the field indicated that areas 1-4 were predominantly shaded, whereas areas 5-10 were in full sun for most of the day. Areas 1-4 had consistently higher numbers of weevils (averages of 2.5/plant, compared to 1.8/plant for areas 5-10) and pseudolaminae (10.1/plant compared to 10.0/plant for areas 5-10), larger pseudolamina width (13.25 ca compared to 13.14 for areas 5-10) and length (14.11 cm compared to 14.04 for areas 5-10), longer root length (13.51 cm compared to 29.08 for areas 5-10), lower mite damage (27.68 compared to 31.04 for areas 5-10), shorter petiole length (52.88 cm compared to 52.97 for areas 5-10), less female weevils (0.94/plant compared to 0.98/plant for areas 5-10), and lower PMF (2.74 compared to 3.01 for areas 5-10) (Tables 1-20). Mites were always more abundant in sunr~y than shaded areas.
Decrease in pseudolamina dimensions, petiole and root lengths,
2
and number of plants/2 closely followed increase in the mottled waterhyacinth weevil population. For the first 3 months of the study, plant size increased (Figure 7) due to the normal summer growth period. By the time of the second emergence of weevil adults, however, a gradual lessening !n the heretofore increasing


























Figure 7.- Monthly trends of waterhyacinth measurements on a mat containing Neochetina eichhorniae Warner and Orthogalumna terebrantis Wallwork. Ps= pseudolaminae; PsW= pseudolamina width; PsL= pseudolamina length; PL= petiole length; RL= root length; PMF= (PsW + PsL + PL).
hL








63
3.0 -2.8
2.6 -
2.42
2.2
40 35 30
p 25 20 80 70 60
Control
"" Treatment ---40 19 17 15
13
11 15
14 %13 'E12 11

C'a 35 - -- - --- - -- -- - - --
* 32 ---Control o *
a 29 -Treatment
26


12
0 10



M Ji J A S 0 N D J F M A MONTHS (1974-'75)










average size of plant parts leveled off, and as later emergences of adult weevils occurred, a dropoff in size of individual plant parts followed.

The best measurement of stress applied to waterhyacinth is seen in the petiole length. This measurement is the most reliable

parameter of plant health because, unlike root length (which is greatly influenced by water quality) or pseudolamina dimensions (which do not change appreciably in size), it is the first parameter to be affected. In this experiment, petiole length decreased 30-40 cm over the 50 week period (Figure 7) in the experimental mat, while it increased initially, then leveled off, in the control mat. Plant dea sity also decreased greatly relative to the control mat (Figure 7). Since nutrients were not limiting in the study (e.g. P was greater than 0.1 ppm, pH was around 7, etc.), and inasmuch as no herbicides were applied to the plants, decrease in size of plant parameters can be directly attributed to stress applied by insects and ensuring attack by mites and pathogens.

Adult waterhyacinth mites were very often found feeding in spots created by adult mottled waterhyacinth weevils, This was especially obvious when populations of mites were high, and may have contributed to mite population increase (see p. 109).

Pathogens such as Acremonium zonatum and Cercospora sp. were noted to increase in effect and abundance as the year progressed, and were especially abundant when mite populations were high. A relationship between A. zonatum and arthropods attack ing waterhyacinth










has often been suspected. It is usually weevil damage, however, that is said to allow A. zonatum to develop to a greater extent in affected waterhyacinth (Charudattan 1972, 1975).2 In this study, however, and in all other field and laboratory observations made, no fungal lestion of A. zonatum were found associated with weevil feeding spots. Zonate leaf spot disease of waterhyacinth (caused by A. zonatum) was very abundant in the field and laboratory plants at the time of these observations. In all observed cases, however, fungal lesions developed from age 4 (i.e. after the adult waterhyacinth mite had created an emergence hole) mite tunnels, as

clearly seen in all samples. These lesions caused or accelerated drying of waterhyacinth tissue and added to the poor health of the plants.


2Charudattan, R., and B. D. Perkins. 1974. Fungi associated with insect damaged waterhyacinth in Florida and possible effects on plant host population. Paper presented at Annu. Meet. Hyacinth Contr. Soc., Winter Haven, FL, July 1974.









COFFIN-HOIDER TREATMENTS


Methods and Materials

Seven treatments with varying numbers of weevils and mites plus controls were conducted in concrete coffin-holders at the USDA laboratory in Davie. Coffin-holders (78.75 x 226.05 em) were initially filled with 750 liters of pond water and 1 liter of 0.5% Hoagland's nutrient solution (Hoagland and Arnon 1950). Nutrients, therefore, were not considered limiting. All coffinholders had an equal amount of waterhyacinth biomass added initially (equal to 20 small plants). All plants were field-collected in Davie, and washed in 0.1 NaC1 solution to kill all biota before mites and/or weevils were added. A pair (1 male: 1 female) of adult waterhyacinth weevils/plant and/or 50 adult waterhyacinth mites/plant were added in the following treatments

(1) 40 weevils and 1000 mites added simultaneously;

(2) 40 weevils alone; (3) 1000 mites alone;
(4) 40 weevils established for 3 months, then 50 mites/plant added; (5) 1000 mites established for 3 months, then 2 weevils/plant added; (6) covered controls (no weevils or mites added, and coffin-holders screened to prevent immigration); and

(7) uncovered controls.
These treatments will be referred to as (1-7), respectively.

Rationale behind choosing these treatments was as follows: 2 weevils and 50 mites/plant are realistic (perhaps even low) numbers of arthropods that approach levels of these agents that have been released and are







67
present in the field (Perkins 1973 a, b), and correspond to most of the releases of weevils that have been made. In some cases, however, we may apply weevils to a mat of waterhyacinth without mites, or a mat may exist with only mites; thus treatments (2) and (3). Also, a mat without mites, but with an established population of weevils may come into contact with a mat containing mites (or most mites may have been killed through the action of cold weather or insecticides), and vice verse; thus treatments (4) and (5). In addition, some measure of growth without the stress of arthropods was needed. Since allochthonous arthropods may eventually invade the plants, 1 set of controls, (6), was covered with screening on a wooden frame in an attempt to keep arthropods out. Finally, uncovered controls,

(7), were set up'to determine growth of plants not stressed by arthropods.

All treatments were replicated in 3 blocks in a randomized complete block design (Figure 8). Blocks consisted of 9 coffinholders,each, with an empty row of buffer coffin-holders between each block. Treatments (1-6) were replicated once in each block; treatment (7) was replicated 3 times in each block.

Six months into the study an additional aliquot of weevils and mites (same number/plant as before) were added to the experiment to simulate heavy emergences of these arthropods.

The data were sampled following a modified 7-week, or septenary, schedule; i.e. on week 1, all coffins in all blocks were sampled; week 2, block 1; week 3, block 2; week 4, block 3; week 5, blocks


























Figure 8.- Experimental design of on-station coffin-holders containing: Neochetina eichhorniae Warner (NE) alone (1); Orthogalumna terebrantis Wallwork (OT) alone (2); NE + OT (3); NE, plus OT after a 3 month delay (4); OT, plus NE after a 3 month delay (5); covered controls (6); uncovered controls (7); and blanks between blocks (8).





B B
6 H B B2

HE
B 8 B B B B
8B B B B B


0
B
B
B
H

2
H8

8
B
B
B
B










I and 2; week 6, blocks i and 3; and week 7, blocks 2 and 3. In each septenary, then, each block was completely sampled 4 times. Sampling during week 8 corresponded to that during week 1; week 9 to week 2; etc. On week 50, all coffins in all blocks were sampled.

The same data were taken for this experiment as with the release experiment. One plant/coffin-holder was chosen at random/week. From this plant all measurements were taken. The plant was then placed back into the same coffin. Unlike the release experiment, in which plants were slightly broken during weevil collection, plants in this experiment were not torn apart in search of weevils. The only other difference between this and the release experiment was that wet weights of plants were taken weekly, from the plant chosen at random, in this experiment.


Results and Discussion

Monthly trends of mottled waterhyacinth weevils, waterhyacinth

mites, plant and pseudolamina measurements, and other plant parameters are given in Figures 9-12, respectively. These figures indicate the trend over all treatments, and represent the average effect of weevils, mites, mite-aeevil combinations, and controls on waterbyacinth.

As with the release experiment, number of weevils and mites,
plus the weevil feeding spots and mite tunnels, were low and sporadic initially (Figures 9 and 10)4. Adult weevils/plant decreased sharply after release (Figure 9), whereas weevil feeding spots increased for the first 5 months, then decreased (Figure 9). Number of adult


























Figure 9.- Monthly trends of Neochetina eichhorniae Warner

(NE) populations and damage data after NE release on waterhyacinth contained in concrete coffin-holders. FS= feeding spots; NDI=

- (age of NE FSA(no. FS/cm2)#











16.
14
12 10
8
H 6
4
2
0 7
6

)

M3-
2-- '0/
1 0
3.5
3,,0

. 2.5
2.0
S1.5
1.0 0.5
0
S1.0-0.8 0.6.:
0.4
0.2
0
m J J A S 0 N D J F M A MONTHS (1974-'75)










mites/plant followed a similar trend (Figure 10), but did not decline as quickly. Age and number/cm of mite tunnels, and ODI all increased initially, following the adult mite population, then decreased with the decline in adult ites/plant (Figure 10).

A gradual increase in number of plants/coffin-holder occurred
(Figure 11), but since these figures include all treatments includingg both covered and uncovered controls), this trend is misleading (see analyses of individual treatments, below).. All plant measurements decreased over 50 weeks, viz. pseudolaminae/plant, pseudolamina width and length (Figure 11). petiole and root length, PMF and wet weight (Figure 12).
There was a highly significant difference in mite damage
between blocks in septenary 2 and a significant difference between blocks for septenary 3 (Table 22). Mite damage was also significantly different between treatments for septenary 3, as was the block x treatment interaction. Number of adult mites/plant was significantly different between blocks for septenary 3 and 7, and between treatments for septenary 5.
D mage caused by adult weevils was highly significantly different between blocks for septenary 2 and 7, and between treatments for septenary 2 (Table 22).
Number of adult weevils/plant were significantly different
between blocks for septenary 4, 6 and 7, and highly significantly different between treatments for septenary 1, and for the block x treatment interaction for septenary 6 (Table 22).


























Figure 10.- Monthly trends of Orthogalumna terebrantis Wallwork
(OT) populations and damage data after OT release on waterhyacinth contained in concrete coffin-holders. ODI= (age of OT tunnels)(no. tunnels/om2),












30.
252015
o10
5
0.
12 o108.

6
4,
2
0
3.0
2.5


S1.5
2.0
l�5


0.
0* 3025
2015
10


0


I I I I I H J J A S 0 N D J F M A
MONTHS (1974-175)




























Figure 11.- Monthly trends of waterhyaointh measurements from plants grown in concrete coffin-holders. Ps= pseudolaminae; PsWpseudolamina width; PsL;= pseudolaena length.








Planta/Coffin


o "4o r 0 on oN to 0% co 0


S ill 11 1 . % i .' *IIl .. .i f..ll. l.l.... . I 1 I I 5 I I I I 1 I I I I I


C4 -I-


o


to 4-


Psw (om)


PsL (cm)


Pa/Plant w 0% %0 to


. ..



























Figure 12.- Monthly trends of waterhyacinth measurements from plants grown in concrete coffin-holders. PLI petiole length; RL= root length; PMF= (sW + PsL + PL) , where PsW and PsL> pseudolamina RL
width and length, respectively.







79







S175
i50
20

100

75
1.5 o.5

0

3 30
20

15
12
9 06


M J J A S 0 N D J F M A MONTHS (1974-'75)










Number of pseudolaminae/plant was highly significantly different between blocks for septenary 2, 4 and 5-7, and significantly different for septenary 3; a significant difference was found between treatments for septenary 2, 5 and 6; and a significant difference was noted for block x treatment interaction for septenary 4. Petiole length was significantly different between blocks for septenary 2 and 3 and highly significantly different between blocks for septenary 6, between ta atments for septenary 2 and 3, and for block x treatment interaction for septenary 3 (Table 22).
Pseudolamina width was significantly different between blocks
for septenary 2 and 4, highly significantly different for septenary 5-7, significantly different between treatments for septenary 2, and highly significantly different for septenary 3 (Table 22).
Pseudolamina length was highly significantly reduced for

septenary 2 and 7, and significantly reduced for septenary 5 and 6. Root length was highly significantly reduced for septenary 1. Plant density was significantly reduced in septenary 2 and 5-7, and highly significantly reduced for septenary 3 and 5 (Table 22).
Wet weight of waterbyacinth was highly significantly reduced for septenary 2. There was also a significant block difference for spider mites for septenary 2 and 3, between treatments for septenary 2, and a highly significant difference for block x treatment interaction for septenary 2 and 3. PMF was highly significantly different

for blocks in septenary 5, and significantly different for septenary
5 and 6; between treatments for septenary 5; and for block x










treatment interaction for septenary 6 there was a highly significant difference (Table 22).

Most of the above-mentioned block differences can be explained by the removal of plants by boat-tailed grackles, Cassidix mexicanus L. For some unknown reason, the birds removed plants in coffinholders in blocks 1 and 2, with many more plants removed from block 1 than 2, but did not remove plants from block 3. Coffinholders were covered with 1.8 cm mesh wire screening in septenary 3, after birds were noted removing plants. (Grackles landed on mats at the field site, and wire observed to remove some plants. They then fed on the removed plants, or perhaps on arthropods contained thereon.)

Other factors that may also have added to these block differences include: shading (block 1 was shaded for a longer period of time daily by neighboring buildings) and position effects.


Orthogalumna terebrantis Alone

Septenarial averages of population growth of 0. terebrantis

are given in Table 23. Since the mottled waterhyacinth weevil moved from coffin-holder to coffin-holder, septenarial averages are also given in Table 23 for populations of and damage to waterhyacinth by N. eichhorniae. Similar procedures will be followed in all subsequent analyses.


Passerifoimes: Icteridae.










Number of adult mites was initially high, then dropped off to zero, as did number of mite tunnels/cm2. Before reduction in mite populations, plant size and weight had begun to decrease (Table 23).

This decrease was in part due to stress applied by mites and the few weevils that came onto the plants. This was ascertained by comparison with growth of controls.

The effect that waterhyacinth mites alone had in reducing

waterhyacinth, however, was not very great. There was, however, a higher incidence of pathogenic and saprophytic disease on plants

with mites alone. The total stress applied by mites, weevils and pathogens contributed to decrease in waterhyacinth size and density.

Neochetina eichhorniae Alone

Population growth of and effect on waterhyacinth of the mottled waterhyacinth weevil is shown in Table 24. Density of weevil feeding spots and NDI increased initially, then decreased (Table 24). This may have been caused by stress applied to plants by weevils, making plants less suitable for attack by weevils. Effect of weevils on waterhyacinth is shown by the steadily decreasing size of plant parts (Table 24). Coffin effect may also have contributed to these decreases (see controls, below).

The mottled waterhyacinth weevil alone caused a greater

decrease in number and size of plants than did the waterhyacinth mite, but plants bearing weevils alone were found to be attacked











less strongly by pathogens and saprophytes than were plants bearing mites alone. These results tend to support further use of waterhyacinth mites as biological control agents of waterhyaoinhth because of their ability to enhance stress by being conducive to establishment and development of pathogens, especially pathogenic fungi such as Acremonium zonatum.


Combination of N. eichhorniae and 0. terebrantis

Population growth of both the mottled waterhyacinth weevil and the waterhyacinth mite, and their combined effect on waterhyacinth is shown in Table 25.

As occurred with the previous treatments, numbers of feeding spots and mite tunnels were initially low, reached a peak, then again decreased. This may be due to the plants becoming unsuitable for preferred feeding by either species; by septenary 2, not only had the plants become smaller in size and less dense, but a great deal of disease had been able to enter the plants containing weevils and mites. As a result of all biotic stresses, the combination of weevils, mites and pathogens, the greatest effect on plants was seen with this treatment. In addition, the effect was greater than would be expected if only the additive effects of weevils, mites and pathogens were considered; i.e. biological synergism had occurred. This lends support for similar conclusions reached with the release experiment.















N. eichhorniae Established 2 Months, then 0. terebrantis Added

Septenarial averages of population growth of mottled waterhyacinth weevils and waterhyacinth mites, plus plant measurements, are given in Table 26. As with prior treatments, mite damage and numbers were greatest in early parts of this treatment, but weevil damage was fairly consistent. All plant measurements decreased significantly over the 50 weeks, albeit not as greatly as in the prior 3 treatments. These results indicate the value of adding

0. terebrantis to waterbyacinth mats containing only N. eichhorniae, because damage by A. zonatum and other pathogens and saprophytes increased after mites were added.


0. terebrantis Established 2 Months, then N. eichhorniae Added

Septenarial averages of population growth of weevils and mites, plus plant measurements, are given in Table 27. Some individual plant parts decreased in size over the 50-week period, but density of plants increased over this time. Weevils probably didn't have enough time owing to their low numbers on the plants (as compared with the period of time that weevils applied initially to plants had) to exert sufficient stress to lessen density as well as size of plants in the few months that the experiment ran. Levels of pathogens were highest when mite populations were greatest.










These results typify the pro-weevil release stage that is now typical of the majority of the canals and lakes in Florida. Levels of pathogens in these situations are generally low, depending upon the specific conditions in the particular area. Addition of weevils to these areas may cause an increase in number of mites, and in turn, pathogens (see p. 109).


Covered Controls

Population growth of and effect on waterhyacinth of the mottled waterhyacinth weevil and the waterhyacinth mite in coffin-holders which had neither weevils nor mites applied initially, and were covered with screening, is shown in Table 28. Numbers of weevils and weevil damage were very low, but mites were relatively high in number due to exclusion of natural enemies in covered coffin-holders. Plant density increased greatly over the 50-week period, from 20 plants to an average of 88 plants/coffin-holder (Table 28).

Perhaps the greatest effect that the covers had was in allowing the population outbreak of spider mites. As with waterbyacinth mites, when predators of tetrargchids were excluded, populations of spider mites increased greatly. Since plant density increased considerably in these coffin-holders, however, effect of tetranychids on waterhyacinth was negligible.

The source of these allochthonous acari, which does not include other predatory mites to a great degree, was probably other waterhyacinth plants on the USDA station.













Uncovered Controls

Population growth of and effect on waterhyacinth of the mottled waterhyaointh weevil and the waterhyacinth mite in control coffinholders to which neither arthropod was applied are given in Table 29. Number of weevils was greater, and number of mites was less, compared to covered controls (Table 28), and plant growth was less.

Septenarial averages of the above 7 treatments for all data are given in Tables 30 and 31.











MOVEMENT OF ADULT WATERHYACINTH MITES TO PICKEREI.WEED


Methods and Materials

Waterhyacinth mites are sometimes found on pickerelweed,

Pontederia cordata. This has been noted especially in the Gainesville area, but rarely in the Ft. Lauderdale area (Perkins, pers. com.). The conditions under which this occurred were unknown. Four temperature, light and humidity regimes were established in Precision Scientific Freas� Model 818 incubators. These chambers can be calibrated to run dual temperature and light regimes. The regimes chosen were: (1) 5-250C; (2) 10-300C; (3) 15-35C; and (4) 20-400C. Light was provided by a single fluorescent bulb in each chamber,

providing 115, 120 110, and 110 ft-candles, respectively. lights were on from 8:00 AM-5:00 PM in all chambers. RH varied from 30-80%.

Two hundred adult field-collected waterhyacinth mites were

placed on each of 4 mite-free waterhyacinth plants. Each infested plant was then placed next to an arthropod-free pickerelweed plant. Plants were touching to allow movement of mites. Both waterhyacinth and pickerelweed plants were field-collected in Davie and established from 1-2 weeks in each incubator before arthropods were added. Plants were placed in plastic-lined metal tubs, each containing about 2 liters of 0.5% Hoagland's nutrient solution, which was replenished weekly. Thus, nutrients were not considered to be limiting.

Plants were checked 6eekly for 10-weeks for movement of mites




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EKNDCKZHB_YFM6GP INGEST_TIME 2015-04-20T21:19:56Z PACKAGE AA00029994_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

INTERACTION BETWEEN THE WATERHYACI NTH MITE, Qrthogalumna terebrantis WALLWORK, AND THE MOTTLED WATERHYACINTH WEEVIL, Neochetina eichhornlae WARNER By ERNEST SHERIDAN DEL FOSSE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1975

PAGE 2

DEDICATION I proudly dedicate this dissertation to my late father, ne Francis Edouard Delfosse, and to my wife, Janet Ann Veronica Del Fosse, E.S.D.F December 1975

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I express sincere gratitude to Drs. D. H. Habeck and B. D. Perkins, ray onand off -camp us advisors, respectively. Without the financial, intellectual and emotional support of these men, this project could not have been completed. This study was financed in part from a grant from the Florida Department of Natural Resources, dispensed through the United States Department of Agriculture, I am extremely grateful to these sources for their support. Inasmuch as this research was conducted for the most part at the USDA Aquatic Plant Management Laboratory-University of Florida Agricultural Research Center in Davie, Florida, a great debt of appreciation is due both of these agencies for use of their facilities. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. D. L, Sutton (Former Acting UF-ARC Director until September 1975) • Mr, R, D. Blackburn (USDA Location Leader until July 197*0. and Dr. K. K. Steward (Acting USDA Location Leader, July 197^-present). Both USDA secretarial help (from Mrs, G. C. Wilby and Mrs, A. G, Sullivan) and UF-ARC secretarial help (from Mrs. E. B. Ward, Mrs. A. C. Reinert, Ms. M. Gonzalez and Mrs, A. K. Connley) were also greatly appreciated. I am also grateful to UF Department of Entomology-Nematology secretaries, especially Mrs. A. Kesler and Mrs. D. Nickle, and former secretary Miss M. Davis, who helped organize Gainesville activities for me in my absence. iii

PAGE 4

I am also grateful to Mrs. T. C. Carlysle of the USDA in Gainesville; Drs. J. A. Reinert, D. L. Thomas, N. L. Woodiel, J. H. Tsai and R. E. McCoy of the UF-ARC in Davie; and Drs. W. G. Eden (former Departmental Head), V, G. Perry, T. J. Walker, R. I, Sailer, L. Berner, H. L. Cromroy and J. L. Nation of the Entomology-Nematology Department, UF, Gainesville, for their help in various aspects of this project. I thank Dr. R. L. IAttell, Department of Statistics, UF, Gainesville, for help in designing, analyzing and interpreting statistical tests used in this project. I would also like to thank Dr. R. Machisin of Nova University's Computer Center, Davie, for use of keypunching equipment and IBM duplicators, and Mrs. C. Iynn, UF, Gainesville, for help with computer work. This research was greatly facilitated by technical aid. I am very grateful to Mr. W. C. Durden and T. M. Taylor of the USDA in Davie, and Miss M. M. Lovarco, Mr. W. H. Ornes, Mss. T. R. Pearce, D. L. Johnston, C.J. Feimster and J. Jerris, Mrs. M. R. Van Montfrans, Mrs. J. Miehewicz, Miss C. J. Hay, Mrs. A. D. Jones, Mr. D. H. Turner and Mr. W. Maier of UF-ARC in Davie. I especially thank my wife, Janet Ann Veronica Del Fosse, both for typing part of this manuscript, and for her love, patience and understanding throughout our % years as Professional Students. E.S.D.F. December 1975 iv

PAGE 5

TAB IE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii LEST OF TABLES viii LEST OF FIGURES ^ ABSTRACT . -h^ INTRODUCTION . i LITERATURE REVIEW 5 The Problem ............. 5 World-Wide Infestation 5 Specific Problems Caused by Waterhyacinth 6 Benefits of Waterhyacinth 12 Monetary Relationships . 16 Conflict of Interest , 17 Control Attempts Other Than Biological Control 18 Chemical Control ............. 18 Mechanical, Cultural and Integrated Control. .... 21 Biological Control 23 General Theory of Biological Control of hydrophytes. 23 Control with Neochetina spp. 25 Control with Qrthogalumna terebrantis Wallwork ... 30 Other Arthropods on Waterhyacinth 35 Control with Pathogens 36 Control with Other Biotic Agents 38 v

PAGE 6

Page Manipulation of Natural Enemies and Population Modeling ••••••••••• 39 RELEASE OF THE MOTTLED WA TERHYACI NTH WEEVIL Methods and Materials 43 Results and Discussion. ...... 50 COFFIN-HOLDER TREATMENTS 66 Methods and Materials ......... 66 Results and Discussion 70 Orthogalumna terebrantis Alone 81 Neochetina elchhorniae Alone 82 Combination of N. elchhorniae and 0. terebrantis . 83 N. elchhorniae Established 3 Months, then 0. terebrantis Added &!f 0. terebrantis Established 3 Months, then N. eichhornlae Added. , . 8^ Covered Controls 85 Uncovered Controls ................ 86 MOVEMENT OF ADULT WATERHYACINTH MITES TO PICKERELWEED. ... 87 Methods and Materials 87 Results and Discussion 88 EFFECT OF ADULT WATERHYACINTH MITES ON WEEVIL OVIPOSITION. . 89 Methods and Materials 89 Results and Discussion. ....... 92 vi

PAGE 7

Page EFFECT OF ADULT WATERHYACINTH MITES ON WEEVIL EGGS 93 Methods and Materials ••••••• .... 93 Results and Discussion, 93 TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY OPTIMA: EFFECT OF ABIOTIC FACTORS . 9^ Methods and Materials • . . . 94 Results and Discussion 95 WATER CHEMISTRY, NUTRIENTS AND ELEMENTAL COMPOSITION OF WATERHYACINTH. . , 99 Methods and Materials ........ 98 Results and Discussion. ... ..... 99 DISCOVERY OF A POSSIBLE KAIROMONE FROM WATERHYACINTH .... 103 Methods and Materials 103 Results and Discussion. ( 106 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE THEORY OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL WITH PRIMARY CONSUMERS 10? APPENDIX . . . , Hi LITERATURE CITED ^ BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 1(M vii

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES No. Page 1 Monthly averages of weevils and mites from Area 1. . . . 112 2 Monthly averages of weevils and mites from Area 2. . , . 113 3 Monthly averages of weevils and mites from Area 3. . . . 114 4 Monthly averages of weevils and mites from Area 4. . . . 115 5 Monthly averages of weevils and mites from Area 5. . . . 116 6 Monthly averages of weevils and mites from Area 6. . . . 117 7 Monthly averages of weevils and mites from Area 7. . . . 118 8 Monthly averages of weevils and mites from Area 8. . . . 119 9 Monthly averages of weevils and mites from Area 9. . . . 120 10 Monthly averages of weevils and mites from Area 10 . , . 121 11 Monthly averages of waterhyacinth measurements from Area 1 122 12 Monthly averages of waterhyacinth measurements from Area 2..,. ••••«.••.....,..... 123 13 Monthly averages of waterhyacinth measurements from Area 3 124 14 Monthly averages of waterhyacinth measurements from Area 4,.., 125 15 Monthly averages of waterhyacinth measurements from Area 5 126 16 Monthly averages of waterhyacinth measurements from Area 6........... 127 17 Monthly averages of waterhyacinth measurements from Area 7 128 viii

PAGE 9

No. Page 18 Monthly averages of waterhyacinth measurements from Area 8 , 129 19 Monthly averages of waterhyacinth measurements from Area 9 • • • • . . . 130 20 Monthly averages of waterhyacinth measurements from Area 10. 131 21 ANOVA for weevils, mites and waterhyacinth for release experiment ....................... 132 22 ANOVA for weevils, mites and waterhyacinth for coffinholder experiment. ............ ., 133 23 Septenarial averages for mite treatment I35 2k Septenarial averages for weevil treatment I37 25 Septenarial averages for weevil plus mite treatment. . . 139 26 Septenarial averages for weevil, delay, then add mites treatment. 141 27 Septenarial averages for mite, delay, then add weevils, treatment. ..... 143 28 Septenarial averages for covered coffin-holders. .... 1^5 29 Septenarial averages for uncovered coffin-holders. ... 1^7 30 Summary of septenarial averages for mite and weevil measurements for coffin-holder experiment 1^9 31 Summary of septenarial averages for waterhyacinth measurements for coffin-holder experiment. ....... 151 32 Population parameters for weevils and mites grown in incubators ....................... 153 33 Oviposition and development of mites at different temperatures ••••»....... 154 34 Water quality measurements at release site of weevils. . 155 ix

PAGE 10

No. Page 35 Water quality measurements from coffin-holders and pondwater ............. 156 36 Amount of N, P, K and crude protein from waterhyacinth. . 157 37 Elemental content of waterhyacinth ...... 159 38 Temperature and dissolved oxygen from release canal and coffin-holders. .......... ••• 160 x

PAGE 11

IIST OF FIGURES No « Page 1 Schematic view of waterhyacinth mat where weevils were released. 45 2 Aerial view of Davie, Florida ........ 3 Monthly trends of weevil populations. 52 k Monthly trends of mite populations 55 5 Monthly trends of air temperature in Davie 57 6 Monthly trends in rainfall and evaporation in Davie ... 59 7 Monthly trends of waterhyacinth measurements 63 8 Experimental design of coffin-holder experiment ..... 69 9 Monthly trends of weevil populations in coffin-holders. . 72 10 Monthly trends of mite populations in coffin-holders. . . 75 11 Monthly trends of waterhyacinth measurements in coffinholders ....o. ........ ••••• 77 12 Monthly trends of waterhyacinth measurements in coffinholders • ••••••••••••• 79 13 Schematic view of mite aspirator. ............ 91 lk Monthly changes in water temperatures in coffin-holders . 102 15 Schematic view of olfactometer 105 xi

PAGE 12

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy INTERACTION BETWEEN THE WATERHYACINTH MITE, Orthogalumna terebrantis WALLWORK, AND THE MOTTLED WATERHYACINTH WEEVIL, Neochetina eichhorniae WARNER By Ernest Sheridan Del Fosse December, 1975 Chairman: Dr. Dale H. Habeck Co-chairman: Dr. B. David Perkins Major Department: Entomology and Nematology Seven hundred adult mottled waterhyacinth weevils ( Neochetina eichhorniae Warner) were released on a waterhyacinth ( Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms-Laubach) mat infested with waterhyacinth mites ( Orthogalumna terebrantis Wallwork). Plants averaged significantly (P= 0.05) smaller after 50 weeks. Average petiole length was reduced by over 30 cm after 4 generations of adult weevils had emerged. Density of plants was reduced from an average of 3^ plants/m at the time of weevil release to an average of 26 plants/m after 50 weeks. Weevil populations increased geometrically and reduction in plant size and density was closely correlated with weevil population increase. xii

PAGE 13

Mite populations fluctuated with weather. Temperature and humidity were the abiotic factors most influential in affecting mite population development. Waterhyacinth mites apparently move to pickerelweed ( Pontederia cordata L. ) under conditions of low temperatures and high humidity, and move back to waterhyacinth under higher temperatures and humidity. Mites laid more eggs and immature mites developed to adults best at 15-35°C. In the field, waterhyacinth mite damage is associated with fungal pathogens and saprophytes. Weevil feeding spots, which had formerly been thought to be associated with these pathogens and saprophytes, in fact were not seen to be conducive to their development. The fungus Acremonium zona turn (Saw.) Gams, developed on waterhyacinth only after adult waterhyacinth mites had created their emergence holes in the pseudolaminae. Adult waterhyacinth mites did not adversely affect the population buildup of mottled waterhyacinth weevils. Weevils actually oviposited more (P=0.05) eggs when waterhyacinth mites were present than when they were absent. This may be due to the presence of a "kairomone" in waterhyacinth tissue that is released from plants that are damaged by arthropod feeding or structural breaks. Adult waterhyacinth mites will starve in the presence of weevil eggs as their only source of food. Weevils and mites in combination tended to act synergistically in their damage on waterhyacinth, while reducing plant size and abundance, and opening plants to attack from pathogens and saprophytes. xiii

PAGE 14

INTRODUCTION In North America more than 170 aquatic plants are classed as weeds, with 40-50 causing major problems (Timmons 1970, Weed Science Society of America 1971). Holloway (1964) considered submersed aquatics to be the most serious because they can reduce water flow and cause recreational problems. Sculthorpe (1967), however, considered the stoloniferous free-floating plants, such as waterhyacinth ( Eiohhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms-Laubach), 1 to be the most serious of the problems. Biological control, despite the claim by some that it . . has become a household term," (Bendlxen 1974) is still greatly misunderstood by lay people. Even though weed science (ma to logy) and weed control (matonomy) have developed greatly in recent years (Camargo 1974), there is still much hesitation involved by lay people whenever biological control is considered. This concern is caused mainly by misunderstanding; lay people often confuse biological control with biological or biochemical warfare or point to introductions of exotic plants (e.g. Hydrilla vertlclllata Rolle) 2 or fish (e.g. Tilapla spp.) 3 as reasons not to use biological ^Parinosae: Pontederiaceae, ^elobiae: Bydrocharitaceae. ^Perciformes: Cichlidae.

PAGE 15

2 control. However, no biological control of weeds program carried out by responsible scientists has ever resulted in a deleterious introduction. Examples of entomophagous control of introduced terrestrial plants are numerous (Dodd 1940, Huffaker and Kennett 1959, Holloway 1964), but only 1 aquatic plant, alligatorweed ( Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Griseb.)». has been controlled biologically to date (Brown and Spencer 1973)* In order to appreciate fully the need for biological control of waterhyacinth, one only needs to review the record compiled by other methods of control. Chemical, mechanical or cultural control methods are highly inefficacious, on a practical scale. These methods have proven successful only briefly and over restricted areas. In 194?t 63,000 acres were covered by waterhyacinth in Florida (Perkins 1972). From January 1960-June 1962, 55,000 of the 70,000 acres of waterhyacinth were treated with chemicals, but in 1962, over 80,000 acres were covered with waterhyacinth (Tabita and Woods 1962). In 1972, Dr. A. Burkhalter of the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Florida estimated that over 200,000 acres were covered with waterhyacinth in Florida, even though 70-100 State, Federal, City and County agencies now use chemicals for control of waterhyacinth (Perkins 1972). Dr. C. B. Centrospermae: Aramanthaeeae.

PAGE 16

3 Bryant, in response to my questioning at the recent Hyacinth Control Society Annual Meeting in San Antonio, Texas, said that the effective depth of mechanical control was only 5 feet, although the machinery could be modified, with a great deal of trouble, to operate at 7-8 feet. Such equipment may have limited use in control of waterhyacinth under certain conditions of easy accessibility. Its use in severely limited in control of submersed aquatics for it does not remove roots, turions, stolons, etc. , and may stimulate new growth as old growth is removed. Present cultural methods are simply not practical over large expanses of waterhyacinth infestations. Biological control may be the least expensive, most practical, most effective and most ecologically acceptable method that can be used against waterhyacinth. Integrating biological control with other methods may also have application (Entomological Society of America 1975) . If biological control of waterhyacinth is to be evaluated, we must have techniques available that will enable us to follow closely populations of all agents involved. Since all presently used biological control agents of waterhyacinth are exotic, it will be necessary to see how the agents affect each other, as well as populations of waterhyacinth and naturally occurring arthropods that utilize waterhyacinth mats. The first biological control agent of waterhyacinth released and established in Florida was the mottled waterhyacinth weevil, Neochetina eichhornlae Warner,^ The waterhyacinth mite, Orthogalunna ^Coleoptera: Curculionidae,

PAGE 17

4 terebrantls Wallwork.^ was probably accidentally introduced in 188^ with the first waterhyacinth plants. It was first found in the United States in 1968 (Bennett 1968b) . This study was initiated to determine the effects of these arthropods on each other as well as on waterhyacinth. To fully and accurately assess the effects of these biological control agents as compared to other methods used, it is imperative that these other techniques be understood. Consequently I hafe reviewed below other commonly used control methods and agents of waterhyacinth. ^Acari: Galumnidae.

PAGE 18

LITERATURE REVIEW The Problem World-Wide Infestation Little (1965) found that waterhyacinth grows profusely in Asia, Australia, New Zealand, South America and Pacific Islands, and is still spreading (Sculthorpe 1967). Ingersall (1964) found waterhyacinth to be a major problem in Africa, Australia, India, Ceylon and Java, while Holw et al. (1969) and Little (I965) considered it to be circumglobal and one of the world* 3 major weeds. Matthews (1971) commented that it is illegal to possess waterhyacinth in New Zealand — the only such restriction on any plant there, Waterhyacinth is also a problem in the Panama Canal (Hearne 1966), Australia (Bill 1969, Kleinschmidt 197^, Springell and Blake 1975), India (Jain 1975, Sahai and Sinha I969), Southeast Asia (Soorjani et al, 1975), Sudan (Gay and Berry 1959, Mohamed 1975), the Makon River (Gangstad et al, 1972, Anonymous 1974), Puerto Rico (Rushing 197^), Pakistan (Naik 1972), and the United States (Perkins 1972, 1973a, b, 1974, Bock 1969, Johnson 1920). The area of origin of waterhyacinth is South America (Klorer 1909, Wunderlich 196 , Webre 1975). Bock (1969, 1972) found that the 5

PAGE 19

6 natural distribution of waterhyacinth was due to its morphological characteristics and wide range of environmental tolerances, Florida's first waterhyacinth was reportedly placed in the St. Johns River in about 1 885 by Mrs. N. F. Fuller, at San Mateo, 5 ndles south of PalatJca (Tilghman 1962). These plants may have originated in Venezuela (Webre 1975) » and were shown at the Cotton States Centennial Exposition in New Orleans, Louisiana, in 1884 (Wunderlich 1967, Klorer 1909). By I89O waterhyacinth was established in Florida (Webber 1897). In addition to the several State, Federal and City control operations against waterhyacinth, in 1961 the Governor of Florida established the Lee County Hyacinth Control District (Miller 1964). Waterhyacinth was first officially recognized as a serious , hydrophyte on 4 June I897 with the passage of a Congressional Act authorizing the Secretary of War to investigate the effect of waterhyacinth on obstructing navigation in Louisiana and Florida waters (Penfound and Earle 1948). Specific Problems Caused by_ Waterhyacinth Problems caused by infestations of waterhyacinth are varied. Several authors have commented on the mosquito breeding sites created by waterhyacinth (Berber and Haynes 1925, Mulrenan I962, Sealbrook I962, McDonald and Lu 1973). Ingersall (1964) found that thick mats of waterhyacinth prevent small fish from feeding on mosquito larvae. Wilson (1967) stated that without aquatic plants many

PAGE 20

7 of our mosquito problems cannot exist. Basic to the problems caused by waterhyacinth is its phenomenal growth potential (Das 1956, Westlake 1963, Yount 1964, Sheffield 1967, Knipling et al. 1970, Rogers and Davis 1972.) The presence and abundance of a weed in a particular area depends upon the area's history and the weed's ability to reproduce with existing climatic, edaphie, hydrologic and bio tic limitations, disturbance of habitat, etc. (Andres 1973). Spencer (197*0 reported that the dry weight production of waterhyacinth, less roots, was 11,880 kg/ha for 3 months (compared to Byer and Sturrock's (I965) estimate of 13,338 kg/ha for whole plant production of maize.) Davis (1970) reported that waterhyacinth could double in volume every 12.5 days during the growing season. Thus, considering the average growing season in northeast Florida to be 300 days (Laessle 19^2), 1 acre of waterhyacinth under optimum conditions would theoretically cover in one year more than 12 million acres of water with plants of equal density. Penfound and Earle (19^8) found that 1 plant could produce 2000 daughter plants in 3 months and 10 plants produced 655,360 plants (1 acre) in 8 months under good growing conditions. A Single plant reproducing vegetatively covered 7000 yards 2 in 1 month (Vaas 1951). Spafford (1935), Das (1969) and Anonymous (1970) also commented on the rapid proliferation of waterhyacinth. Wahlquist (1972) found production of waterhyacinth to be highest in ponds fertilized with N-P-K fertilizer in a combination of 8-8-0. Bonetto (1971) noted that waterhyacinth upset the ecological balance

PAGE 21

8 of waters by interfering with native hydrophytes and fish. Standing 2 crop of waterhyacinth varied from 0.72 kg/m (Sahai and Sinha I969) to 1.4 (Dyraond 19^9) to 1.5 (Penfound and Earl© 1948) on a dry weight basis. Many other estimates of waterhyacinth growth are available, but one must keep in sight the reasons why waterhyacinth can proliferate so greatly. Certain prerequisites are needed. Waterhyacinth requires "a great intensity of light" (Druijff 1974). A pH of less than 4 is toxic to waterhyacinth (Druijff 1973) and 7 is optimal for growth. Our streams, lakes and canals are nutrient baths; Kemp (I968) commented that streams in densely populated areas carry 6000 pounds of P/mile, and P in domestic sewage is equal to 3 pounds/person/year (Makenthun I969). Low temperatures can limit waterhyacinth growth. The purplish-white roots of waterhyacinth (Olive 1894) will be killed by water temperatures below 28°F (-2.2°C) (Backman & Co. 1930). Waterhyacinth doesn't produce seeds in all areas of its distribution (Bock 1966, Druijff 1973). but seeds can be ^ery important to the widespread distribution of waterhyacinth. When flowers are present, basal and capital bending of the petiole thrusts the inflorescence into the water, where seeds are released (Rao 1920). In New Zealand each flower on the spike has been able to produce more than 300 seeds, and with 20 or more flowers /spike, each plant can produce 5000 seeds (Matthews 1971) . Coupled with a seed viability found in New Zealand of more than 20 years, one can

PAGE 22

9 see why the efficacy of short-term control methods is poor. Matthews (1967) found that seeds can withstand submersion or desiccation for 15 years, and experiments at the University of Khartoum (Chadwick and Obeid 1966) determined that sandy soil stops seed germination. In mud, waterhyacinth seeds are viable for at least 7 years (Parya 1934, Hitchcock et al. 1949). Scarification is needed for seed germination, not light per se (Pari ja 1934) . Waterhyacinth does produce seeds in Florida, but the major method of reproduction there, as most places, is vegetative. Waterhyacinth will root on muddy banks, and can survive even when the water level drops (Spruce 1908). Waterhyacinth is also detrimental as a factor causing water loss through evapotranspiration (Idnacre et al. 1970, Perkins 1972, Anonymous 1962, Brezny et al. 1973). In fact, only American Pondweed, Potamogeton nodosns Poir,* has a higher recorded evapotranspiration rate than waterhyacinth (Otis 191*0. Timmer and Weldon (1967) found that the average waterhyacinth evapotranspiration rate was 3.96 inches (10.8 cm) of water /week, while pan evaporation was 1.08 inches (2.75 cm) /week; i.e. evapotranspiration was 3.7 times evaporation. More than 6 acre-feet of water could be lost in this manner in 6 months. Other estimates of evapotranspiration rates of waterhyacinth include values from 1.48 (Van Der Weert and Kamber3ing 1974) to 3.2 (Penfound and Earle 1948) to 5.3 (Rogers and Davis 1972) to 7.8 times ^Kalobiae: Potamogetonaceae.

PAGE 23

10 evaporation (Anonymous 1972d). Such results caused Timmer and Weldon (I967) to state "more water can be lost through evapotranspiration from waterhyacinth on large reservoirs, water conservation areas, and irrigation canals than is supplied for storage purposes," They also felt that efficient use of water could be impossible where waterhyacinth reduces water flow 505C or more, as can occur (Stephens et al, 19&3) or causes water loss through evapotranspiration. Factors that influence evapotranspiration are humidity and wind (Meyer and Anderson 1955) » and diurnal fluctuation in water temperature is largely due to incident solar radiation (Anonymous 19&7). Since water for irrigation may cost from $1-20/ acre (Frevert et al, 1955t Houk 1956), a considerable monetary loss is also involved. Other problems are also caused by waterhyacinth. The oxygendepleting pollution and load imposed by 1 acre of waterhyacinth is equal to the sewage created by 40 people (Ingersall 1964), Dissolved carbon dioxide (DCO^) uptake is an important aspect of waterhyacinth ecology (Ultsch 1973). Ultsch (197 2 *) found that dissolved oxygen (DO), pH and temperature were lower under a mat of waterhyacinth, and DCOg was higher when compared to areas containing only submerged macrophytes. lynch et al. (19^7) found that when the water chemistry of an open water situation is compared to that under waterhyacinth, surface water under waterhyacinth is more uniform, acidity and DC0 2 are higher, and DO is lower. Few fish can tolerate such conditions.

PAGE 24

11 Waterhyacinth obstructs navigation and other uses of water (Zeiger 1962, Perkins 1972, 1973a), reduces real estate values (Ultsch 197*0 , and increases turbidity and pollution of water (Timmer and Weldon 1967). Large monetary losses result from large-area infestations of waterhyacinth (Heinen and Ahmed 1964, Wild I96I, Anonymous 1957. 1970f 71). Free-floating rafts of waterhyacinth destroy valuable submerged plants (Perkins 1973a. 1974) and concentrates American coots, Fulica 2 americana L, , in ponds where migratory waterfowl usually live. Coots then eat all available duck food (Gowanlock 1944), Aviators have mistaken waterhyacinth rafts for landing strips (Johnson 1920), Mats of waterhyacinth cause sewage to back up in some areas (Penfound and Earle 1948) and accelerate fresh water succession (Russell 1942), Waterhyacinth, in blocking canals, also interferes with fishing and other recreational sports and hinders water transportation (Perkins 1974), For these and other reasons, Holcomb and Wegener (1971) considered only waterhyacinth, out of 89 aquatic plants near Kissimmee, Florida, to be detrimental "to the fishery and other plant communities,*' In summary, reasons to control waterhyacinth include: (1) interference with navigation; (2) clogging of water drains, irrigation canals, spray equipment and pumps; (3) causing unsightly appearances by completely covering the Gruiformes: Rallidae,

PAGE 25

12 water surface; (4) interference with fishing, swimming and other aquatic recreational sports (Anonymous 1970) ; (5) reduction of open water available for waterfowl, and decreases waterfowl hunting; (6) creation of ideal breeding grounds for mosquitoes and other aquatic insects which utilize protected water found in and around plants; (7) reduction of fish populations by competition for water space and basic nutrients (food elements) in the water, which may result in an over-abundance of small, undesirable fish; and (8) direct economic loss due to evapotranspiration and creation of deep beds of organic matter on stream and lake bottoms* Benefits of Waterhyaclnth Not all aspects of waterhyacinth ecology are negative. Positive aspects of waterhyacinth include: (1) removal of nutrients from water; (2) useage as raw material for production of natural gas and fertilizer (contains Cd, Ni, Pb, Hg, Au, Ag, NC> 3 and PO^) ; (3) production of products such as planting pots; (4) useage as a mulch and soil additive; (5) useage as beautification tool; (6) production of animal food; and (7) experimentally used for paper production, packing material,

PAGE 26

13 etc. Waterhyacinth can remove N and P from sewage (Sheffield 1967, Tount and Crossman 1970, Ramachandran et al. 1971,. Boyd 1970, Anonymous 1971, Scarsbrook and Davis 1971, Haller and Sutton 1973). Rogers and Davis (1972) found that 1 ha of waterhyacinth under optimum growing conditions could absorb the daily N and P waste of over 800 people, while 1 ha of waterhyacinth could remove the annual N waste production of 500 people and P of 225 persons (Boyd 1970) . This is especially important when one considers that P is one of the most ecologically important elements, and a deficiency of P, therefore, may limit productivity (Hutchinson 1957). Waterhyacinth also removes copper sulphate pentahydrate (Sutton and Blackburn 1971) and Ramachandran et al. (1971) found that 1 acre of waterhyacinth could remove 3.075 pounds of N/year and had a protein content almost equal to that of milk. One acre of waterhyacinth produced $2000 worth of low grade methane gas/year (1 million ft 3 ) by anaerobic fermentation in a pilot study, with the residue used as a high-grade fertilizer (Webre 1975). Waterhyacinth has also been suggested as a source of potash (Day 1918). Waterhyacinth has very high nutrient removal capabilities (Rogers and Davis 1972, Sheffield 1967, Steward 1969, Knipling et al. 1970). Scarsbrook and Davis (1971) found that waterhyacinth could absorb 2.87 g P, 6.93 g N and 8.73 g K in 23 weeks. Ornes and Sutton (1975) found a maximum of 5,500 mg P/g dry weight (DW)

PAGE 27

14 occurred when the level of P in sewage effluent (in which plants were grown) was 1.1 mg/znl, and found that plants produced 1,9 daughter plants/week, as did Rushing ( 197*0 . Dunigan et al. (1975) found waterhyacinth removed NH^-N in the field and greenhouse and N0~-P in greenhouse tests, and Silver et al. (197*0 showed that waterhyacinth roots could anaerobically fix N • Rao et al. (1973) found that waterhyacinth took up Fl to the extent of 75 mg. Waterhyacinth doesn't absorb orthophasphate in proportion to the amount in water (Knipling et al. 1970) i and less than 0.10 ppm is lethal to waterhyacinth (Haller et al. 1971)* Excessive amounts of P absorbed by waterhyacinth are not associated with an increase in yield (Gerloff 1969» Gerloff and Krumbholtz 1966). Waterhyacinth is used as food for cattle (Davies 1959)* buffalo (Anonymous 1951) and pigs (Grist 19^5. Anonymous 1952) in India, and for cattle and pigs in Madagascar (Anonymous 1965)* It has also been used for silage in the Philippines (Agrtqds 1953) and elsewhere (Bagnall et al. 1974, Byron et al. 1975) ; for yeast production in Brazil (Oyakawa et al. 19^5) ; for composts and mulch for tea in India (Basak 1948, Anonymous 1966) ; as a source of protein (Pirie i960, 1970, Boyd 1968a, b, Krupauer 1971) containing useful growth substances (Sircar and Ray 196I, Sircwr and Chakraverty I96I, Sircar and Kundu I960, Mukherjee et al. 1964, Bhanja and Sircar 1966, Bhanja et al. 1968, Iswaran and Sen 1973» Haiti 1974, Parra and Hortenstine 1974, Sircar et al. 1973) and gibberellins (Sircar and Chakraverty 1962) ; to enhance growth of microorganisms and plants and accelerate

PAGE 28

15 alcoholic fermentation (Sheikh et al. 1964) ; for fodder in South Central China (Naik 1972) j for cows, horses and pigs in North America (Vaas 1951) ; for manure (Smith and Thornton 19^5, Singh 1962) ; and as a source of lysine and other amino acids as a supplement to grain protein (Taylor and Robbins I968). Hang and Iovell (1971) found that waterhyaointh could be a good substitute for alfalfa meal in catfish diets, while it is also used (Anonymous 197^) for fish and animal food, and for paper. Several otter authors have suggested using waterhyaointh as animal food (Baldwin et al, 197^, little 1968a, Boyd 1968a, 1969, Combs 1970, Salveson 1971, Stephens 1972, Bagnall et al. 1973. Hentges et al. 1975). little (1968a) and Boyd (1968a) emphasized food resources that could possibly be developed from native macrophytes, and Boyd (1971a) compiled a bibliography of utilization of aquatic plants, — while Naik (1972) reviewed waterhyaointh use in West Pakistan, In short, waterhyaointh only needs to be harvested to be useful, "if a use can be found" (Pirie i960), Waterhyaointh also reduces bank erosion by damping wave action (Tilghman 1962, 1964, Maltby 1963) and has value as a mulch (Tilghman 1962). Nolan and Kirmse (1974) and Vaas a 951) found waterhyaointh unsuitable for paper making because of low pulp yields and drainage rates. Finally, waterhyaointh is one of the best biotio salinity indicators (Penfound and Hathaway 1938).

PAGE 29

16 Even though water hyacinth has many potential uses and benefits , on a practical basis, no use has been developed, or benefit derived, that counterbalances the detrimental aspects of waterhyacinth biology. Monetary Relationships Holm et al. (1969) estimated that aquatic ditchbank weeds cause an annual loss of 1,272,^80 acre-feet of water, costing $394 million in 1? western states. Annual damage from waterhyacinth alone in Louisiana in 19^7 was $1-15 million, with $5 million/year a conservative estimate (Lynch et al. 19^7). Other estimates on losses due to aquatic weeds are also high. Although millions of dollars are spent yearly on the highly inefficaceous methods of chemical and mechanical control of waterhyacinth, only $380,000 was spent during the first ELEVEN TEARS (through fiscal year 1973) on ALL ASPECTS of biological oontrol of 34 waterhyaointh. • By comparison, savings by biological control of Klamath weed, Hypericum perforatum L.,^ which now costs nothing 3 -'Coulson, J. R. 1972. Potential environmental effects of the introduction of the Argentine weevil, Neochetina elchhorniae . into the United States. Tech. Rept. Interag. Res. Adv. Comm. Meet., Aq. Plant Contr. Sec., US Army Corps of Engin., Houston, TX, 19 p. k Due to restrictions placed on USDA and similar reports, this, Cited" bSeqU ° nt r ° ports * * re footnotGd and not listed in "Literature ^Parietales: Hyp eric aceae.

PAGE 30

to control, exceed $2 million/year. 17 Conflict of Interest The use of phytophagous organisms is limited because of their small size, high reproductive rate and high mobility. Thus, introduced natural enemies in one area of an undesirable plant 1 s distribution may spread into other areas where the plant is desirable (Andres 1973). Several examples of this are available. The introduced phreatophyte salt cedar, Taaarix pentandra Pall. , is a problem at certain times of the year in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas where it impedes water flow, causes flooding, and transpires great amounts of water in the dry season. However, it also provides nesting areas for white winged dove, Zenaida asiatica L,, 7 nectar and shelter. If the weed were reduced to lower abundance (i.e. leaving enough plants to support doves, etc., yet reducing abundance to a tolerable level for other interests), the conflict of interest might be resolved (Andres 1973). Ensndnger (1973) stated that alligatorweed, Alternanthera phileroxeroides (Mart.) 8 Griseb., is an important food for wildlife in Louisiana coastal marshes, and also protects stream banks from erosion, and that the ^Parietales: Tamaricaceae. 'Columbiformes: Columbidae. p Centrospermae: Aramanthaceae.

PAGE 31

18 alligatorweed flea beetle, A ga sides hygrophila Selman,^ has already damaged plants in marsh areas grazed by cattle. Yellows tar thistle, Centaurea solstitialis L., 10 is exotic and causes economic loss in grazing ranges and grain and seed crops in California. It is also important for bees, Apis mellifer* L. 11 which pollinate fruit and seed crops in California. Since the cattle industry . was the predominate direct interest, biological control has been started (Andres 1973). Results are as yet inconclusive. There has never been any question of conflict of interest with control of waterhyaeinth,^ but if economic uses are found, one may develop. Control Attempts Other Than Biological Control Chemical Control The best thing that can be said for spraying chemical poisons on lakes in the grip of algae and weeds is that it is usually a futile undertaking. Treating a lake with copper sulphate or other toxic chemicals is no more effective than taking aspirin for a brain tumour. It offers only a temporary relief, maksing symptoms of cultural eutrophication. In the long run it makes a lake sicker. Poisoning algae and weeds simply accelerates the natural process of growth, death and decay, thereby freeing nutrients for another cycle of plant production (Hasler 1968). Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae. Tubiflorae: Cynareae. Eymenoptera: Apidae.

PAGE 32

19 The above statement is typical of the environmental uproar over the indiscriminate use of poisons on our lakes, streams, canals and terrestrial areas. In the past, most lay people were convinced that chemicals may be the answer to all their pest problems. But, as Hasler (1972) stated — . As I observe the public clamouring for chemical treatment of a lake or stream to rid it of carp {Cyprinus carpio L^,12 wateradlf oil _.. ( Hvriophyllum spp.)13 or water hyacinth ( Eichhornla crassipes) , I search in vain for the basis of this faith in chemical magic. Have we professionals been sold on the chemical 'fix' and passed it on innocently to the publio in conservation bulletins and public meetings. And "attempts to control [waterhyacinth and other aquatics] has presented Florida citizens with a multi-trillion dollar expense and created a bonanza for the [chemical industry] n (Anonymous 1972d) . Aquatic herbicides are used very extensively in the world, however, and apparently with some success. One of the most widely 14 used herbicides on waterhyacinth is 2,4-D. Amine formulations of 2,4-D at 3»5-^.5 kg/ha reportedly gives good waterhyacinth control if at least 80$ of the leaves are covered (Druijff 1973). Tinnier and Weldon (1967) and Anonymous (I967) found that 2,4-D reduced water loss through evapotranspiration. Sen (1957) controlled waterhyacinth with a 2f> concentration of 2,4-D without any apparent 12 Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae. ^^yrtiflorae: Haloragaceae. 14 (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)acetio acid.

PAGE 33

20 effects on aquatic fauna. Many other people have studied or recommended use of 2,4-D and other chemicals on waterhyacinth (Anonymous i960, 1970, 1972c, Klingman I96I, Baruah et al. 1955, Lawrence 1962, Gallagher 1962, White 1962, 1964, Blackburn and Weldon 1963, Weldon et al. I966, Zeiger 1963, Rogers and Doty 1966, Braddock 1966, Phillippy 1966, Little 1968b, Wentzel I968, Misra and Das 1969, Achuff and Zeiger 1969, Blackburn et al. 1971, Patro and Tosh 1971, Dynansagar and Dharurkar 1972, 1974, Moody 1973, Pieterse and Van Rijn 1974). One of the greatest disadvantages, other than cost, of using chemicals for control of aquatic weeds is the potential side effects on non-target organisms and other adverse environmental effects. Druijff (1973) found that drift, reduction in DO due to decomposition and accumulation of organic debris raising the level of the lakebed are all problems that should be considered in applying chemicals. Shoecraft (1971) wrote on the growing concern of the effects of 2,4-D on non-target organisms, and recent studies showed that 2,4-D caused teratogenic effects of game birds (Lutz-Ostertag and Lutz 1970). Mauriello (1970) found that use of 2,4-D causes undesirable recycling of nutrients into already over-nutrlfied waters by setting up large biochemical demands. Paulson (1970) found that there was "a real hazard to bees and possibly other nectar-feeding insects from application of 2,4-D to plants in flower. V Tilghman (I963) protested the use of chemicals (as they are now applied) more than 10 years ago, and reported that oattle were killed after eating

PAGE 34

21 sprayed waterhyacinth along the St. Johns River (l)» so spraying was stopped. Montelaro (19^2) pointed out problems in using herbicides, especially effects of 2,4-D on non-target organisms. Hamilton (I966) said that damage by 2,^-D is widespread and at a very high level, and Finny (19&2) stated "it is possible for whole towns to be defoliated by I5,*HD and other) herbicides carried in the water supply if care is not exercised to keep them out of that supply." Foul odors and tastes in water can also result from 2,4-D (Faust and Aly 19&2). Vaas (1951) however, found no harmful effects to fish or other biota if 2,4-D is used properly. Druijff (197*0 summed up the chemical control story adequately by stating in places where machines cannot operate and where chemicals represent the only alternative to the costly process of weed removal ! by hand 1 , chemicals have their uses, but must be applied with great discretion. Mechanical . Cultural and Integrated Control Mechanical removal has been used for years as a method of "controlling" aquatic macrophytes. Bryant (1973) pointed out that though little work has been done on the long-term effects of mechanical harvesting of aquatic weeds, there is "little or nothing to indicate that it is harmful." Ahmed (195*0 and Chokder and Begum (1965) reported that removal by hand is used in East Pakistan, whereas Asim (196l) and Siddiqi (1962) suggested both hand removal and use of 2,4-D in West Pakistan. Naik (1972) found that 1 person

PAGE 35

22 could remove 500 plants/hour which ". . , is useful and effective but requires large numbers of personnel for the complete eradication of water hyacinth" — but recommended hand-removal. Iivermore and Winder lich (I969) and Nichols and Cottam (1972) commented on existing harvesting equipment for waterhyacinth. Sawboats were used with success in Louisiana, but left a fringe of plants that quickly grew back (Wunderlich 1962). Wunderlich (1938) found that physically crushing plants killed them very well. Finally, Wunderlich (1967) said "... a well-planned combined mechanicalchemical approach is the most satisfactory method of keeping our waterways open at a reasonable cost." Mohamed and Bebour (1973a, b) found that burning and backburning controlled waterhyacinth. Richardson (1975) found that a combination of drawdown, drying and freezing could be effective for waterhyacinth control in Louisiana, while Hestand and Carter (197^, 1975) found that drawdown actually increased the amount of waterhyacinth present. Coudi et al. (1971) discovered that N 2 C0 2 -He laser energy on waterhyacinth resulted in immediate, visible plasmolysis, then a burning (proportional to the amounts of laser energy applied), then an endogenous systemic response (at high rates). They also discovered that physiological age was important in utilization of the laser system. Couch and Gangstad (197*0 found that Laser energy (10.6 nm) at levels of less than 1 j/cm 2 for individually-irradiated plants, and 69 J/cm for group-irradiated plants significantly

PAGE 36

23 reduced waterhyaeinth growth, and at a level of k j/cm reduced photosynthesis 50$. No practical field use has been found for lasers in waterhyaeinth control, however. Inundation has also been tried as a method of suppressing waterhyaeinth growth, without success. An abscission zone is formed across the rhizome of a bulbous petiole, and plants float to the surface in 20-40 days (Robertson and Thien 1932), Integrated control of waterhyaeinth using 2,4-D and insects in various combinations has been investigated very little to date. Preliminary results, however, have been encouraging (Perkins, pers. coram . ) , Biological Control General Theory of Biological Control of Hydrophytes Aquatic plants are part of a healthy aquatic ecosystem. The aim of management should be, therefore, to control aquatic plants by restoring them to their original balance or some anthropocentrlcallydetermined allowable balance, in the case of exotics ; it should not be to eradicate them (Nichols and Cot tan 1972). This statement represents the view of biological control advocates, and is the most ecologically-sound concept of control. One way, and perhaps the only way, that management can be achieved is through the use of biological control agents. Not all people favor using biological control agents, however.

PAGE 37

As Paulson (19?0) has written A common fallacy of both chemical and biological control is that they tend to ignore the basic cause of our aquatic weed problem, which is water pollution. Any attempt to control aquatic weeds which does not also remove excess nutrients from the water is doomed to failure. Such methods invite reinfestation by the same weeds, or an invasion by other species which may be even more objectionable. — Until we discontinue the practice of using our waterways as open sewers, • • • , aquatic weed control is an exercise in futility. Under present conditions, and as far as can be seen into the future, we expect a bumper crop of aquatic weeds to invade our waters every summer. The time is long past due to approach the problem from the standpoint that aquatic weeds represent a useful crop to be utilized and harvested. Apparently insignificant insects can tip the balance in favor of a competing plant species; a principle in effect in South America, where other macrophytes gain some surface area in relation to waterhyacinth when waterhyacinth is attacked heavily (Huffaker 196^). This is true despite White-Stevens 1 (1975) contention that, for the practical grower, biological control is . . too specific, too late, too ephemeral, too unreliable, too complicated, too impractical and too costly" (!) to be used efficiently. He also stated that There is not one commercial crop or livestock animal which can be economically produced to meet current federal and state standards of quality and be completely protected by biological methods of pest control. The aim of biological control of weeds is to reduce weed abundance by introducing natural enemies, or augmenting their action. It can be successful, depending upon the number of weed species involved, phylogenetlo proximity of beneficial plant species, type and stability of habitat, and degree and urgency of control (Andres

PAGE 38

25 1973). Biological weed control has been most successful against introduced perennial plants that are dominant over extensive areas in habitats of low disturbance (Andres 1973). Since waterhyacinth is alien to the United States, its abundance may be directly related to absence of effective natural enemies. 15 The survey of waterhyacinth for natural enemies was started by Ing. Agr. Aquiles Silveira Guido in Uruguay under a PL-480 project, resulting in discovery of 4 insect and 1 mite species with potential for biological control of waterhyacinth. Testing of these species began in 1$68 at the USDA laboratory in Hurlingham, Argentina. 15 Control with Neochetina spp . Neochetina species are specific to the Pontederiaceae (O'Brien 1975) with N. eichhorniae and N. bruchi Hustache on waterhyacinth, and N. af finis Hustache on Eichhornia azurea (Mart.) Kunth. An insect's host range can be precisely determined if the visual, tactile and chemical stimuli used by the insect species for finding and accepting the host plant are known. If all these are characteristic of only 1 host plant, only that will be attacked (Harris and Zwolfer 1968). Some Pontederiaceae fulfill these requirements for Neochetina spp. , as some of these bagoine weevils occur in Guyana, + « ^"Jr 8 * i9?U SmmaJ ^ of the biology and host specificity ?fJ S 0 ?M e ^ hhornl j£ Warnar » a weevil ^ control the waterhyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes . USDA Tech. Rept. 9 p. 9

PAGE 39

26 Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina from both Etchhornla spp. and Reussia spp.*^ and were found to be host specific in tests in Trinidad (Bennett 1968a). The chevroned waterhyacinth weevil, N. bruchi , as it was originally described (Hustache 1926) , was actually composed of both the mottled waterhyacinth weevil, N, eichhorniae , plus N. bruchi (Silveira Guido 1965)* It was sometimes more numerous than N. ei chhorniae in South America, ^ and had udcrosporidian and nematode parasites in South America (Andres and Bennett 1975)* Bennett (1971) found N. bruchi from Eichhornla spp. and Reussia sp. from Guyana, Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina. Perkins (197*0 listed N. bruchi as a defoliator-external leaf feeder as adults, and noted that it is favored by cooler weather. Five adults can kill an average waterhyacinth plant in 5 days, under laboratory conditions. N. bruchi was first released in the egg stage in the United States at Davie, Florida by Dr. B. D. Perkins and E. S. Del Fosse on 1 July N. eichhorniae (Warner 1970) has been reported from Argentina, 17 Bolivia and Trinidad. After N. eichhorniae was separated taxonomically f ^om N. bruchi . the former species was studied from I9681970 at the USDA Laboratory in Hurlingham (province of Buenos Aires) Argentina. It was found to be more abu iant than N. bruchi around jjarinosaex Pontederiaceae. 17 'Perkins, B. D. 1971. Host specificity and biology studies of Neochatina eichhorniae Warner, an insect for the biological control of water hyacinth. USDA Tech. Rept, 26 p. 197^.

PAGE 40

27 Sante Fe, Argentina, and has the same parasites in South America as does N. bruohi (Andres and Bennett 1975). N. eichhorniae was shipped from Trinidad and Argentina to India for further quarantine studies (Rao et al. 1972). Some specificity and feeding tests were 18 repeated using N. eichhorniae , and these insects were also found to be restricted to the Pontederiaceae, The life cycle of N. eichhorniae in Argentina is as follows: eggs are laid in October-November by adults which have overwintered, and hatch in 7-10 days. The white apodous larvae have 3-5 ins tars and develop in about 2 months (November-January), They pupate in January, and remain in this stage 20-30 days. Adults emerge and begin to feed, creating characteristic 2-4mm diameter feeding 18 spots. Adults can live 280 days in the laboratory, and a 1:1 sex ratio occurs in the field. There is a positive thigmotrophic response to the crown of the plants and among insects themselves. Females produce a maximum and average of 300 and 50 eggs, respecrtively, in their lifetimes. 19 Weevils often feign death after being disturbed. The period of egg to adult takes approximately 3 months. J$ Perkins, B. D. 1972. Host specificity and biology studies of Neochetina eichhorniae Warner, an insect for the biological control of water hyacinth. Tech. Rept. US Army Corps of Engin. 35 p. 19 Perkins, B. D. 1972. Research leading to introduction of the first of the waterhyacinth insects in the United States. Tech Rept. Interag. Res. Adv. Comm. Meet., Aq. Plant Contr. Sec., US Army Corps of Engin., Houston, TX, October 11-13, 7 p.

PAGE 41

28 Like many other aquatic insects (Usinger 1956) , Neoohetina spp. 18 have waxy body coatings/ and are obligatorily tied to the aquatic environment. larvae need waterhyacinth roots in which to pupate (Perkins 197*0. Before release in the United States, this species, as well as N. bruchi , was subjected to many tests. Feeding tests were run on 27 species of plants in 14 families, and consisted of starvation, 18 paired plant, and group plant tests. In these tests, significant feeding was noted only on Sparf ; nium aaericanmn Nut t. 20 and waterhyacinth, and larvae couldn't live on the former species. The only known enemies of Neochetlna sppi are the fungi 21 21 Beauveria sp. and Aspergilus sp., 2 mites which may attack pupae, and possibly a rdcrosporidian, 22 Competition with snails 18 and 2 soarabs ( Cyclocephala sp, and Dyscinetus sp.) 2 ^ may be important. Permission from the USDA Working Group on Biological Control of Weeds to release N. eichhornlae came in 1972, ^ An unknown number of weevils were released in Ft, Laxderdale, Florida, on the 23rd of August, 1972 (Anonymous 1972a, b, and Perkins, per s. comm.), with an estimated 20-30$ surviving to adults (Perkins 1973b), 20 Pandales: Sparganiaceae. 21 Mord]iales. 22 Sporozoa: Microsporidea. 23 •'Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae.

PAGE 42

29 The teohnlque for release is well developed, and spread iixi increase in the field has been studied. Damage to plants by Neoehetina spp. occurs mainly nocturnally; insects are quiescent during the day and spend time in the crown of the plant. Adults can withstand submersion for several minutes, but will drown if the perlos is prolonged, 1 ®' Each cdult can produce about 20 feeding spots/day, and there are up to 5 larvae/ plant (Perkins 197*0 • This feeding damage has been reported to open plants to attack by pathogens and saprophytes. It has been noted that N, eichhorniae affects vigor and growth of the plant (Perkins 1973b, 197*0. Hudson (1973) said that "to date, the most effective tool has been insect attack," such as that caused by weevils. Before weevils were released, several beneficial effects were thought to accrue through the use of these curculiordds.^ These included (1) opening of large areas of water for recreational uses; (2) increase in efficiency of water distribution and flood control systems; (3) reduction in areas for mosquito breeding; 2k Perkins, B, D. 197^. Research on insect biological control against waterhyacinth. USDA Tech, Rept, 11 p. 25 -Xoulson, J, R, 1972, Potential environmental effects of the introduction of the Argentine waterhyacinth weevil, Neoehetina eichhorniae into the United States, Tech. Rept, Interag, Res, Adv. Coram, Meet,, Aq, Plant Cont~. Sec,, US Army Corps of Engin,, Houston, TX, October 11-13, 19 p.

PAGE 43

(Jf) increase in DO in waters (5) increase in utility of water for potable irrigation, fish and wildlife areas; and (6) reduction or elimination of the need for chemical or mechanical control. Adverse effects of the introduction were thought to possibly (1) aesthetic loss of flowor beauty; (2) increase in other aquatic weeds; (3) temporary increase in amount of organic matter in water; and (4) limited feeding on pickerelweed. Alternatives to biological control of waterhyacinth were 25 thought to be (1) continuation of chemical or mechanical control; (2) possibility of mechanical harvesting and utilization; (3) possible use of natural enemies, including Arzaaa densa "26 Walker and 0. terebrantis ; (4-) use of fish and/or snails; and (5) no control at all. Control with Qrthogalumna terebrantis Vfallwo rk Orthogalumna is a small genus of galumnid mites known only Lepidoptera: Noctvddae.

PAGE 44

31 from Madagascar, southeastern North America, Central and South America. 0, terebrantis is found on waterhyaointh in the latter 3 regions (Balough I960). The waterhyaointh mite was described by Wallwork (1965) using Balough's (196l) generic descriptions of oribatoids. This mite was originally thought to be in the genus Lepot&alumna , and earlier references used this genus (Bennett 1968a, b). 0. terebrantis is found on E. azurea and Pontederla cordata as well as on waterhyaointh, but not on other unrelated plants. The waterhyaointh mite is one of very few phytophagous oribatoids (Cordo and DeLoach 1975) » most feed on fungi, algae, lichens, decaying plant matex*ial and rarely on tissues of higher plants (Wooley i960). The average body length is 440.7 u and average width at the widest point is 237.4 u (Wallwork I965). This species 27 damages waterhyaointh in Uruguay, other parts of South America (Bennett 1970b, Bennett and Zwolfer 1968, Coulson 1971) » the 28 United States (Bennett 1970a) and has been introduced and established in Zambia (Bennett 1974a). 27 Silveira Guido, A. 1965* Natural enemies of weed plants. Final Report, Dept. Sanidad Vegetal, Univ. de la Repurblic, Montevideo, Uruguay. 28 Gordon, R. D., and J. R. Coulson. 1971. Report of field observations of arthropods on waterhyaointh in Florida, Louisiana and Texas, July 1969. In GangstAd et al. Tech. Rept. of the Potential Growth of Aquatic Pis ts of the cross Florida Barge Canal, Rev. of the Aquatic Plai: Contr. Res. Prog, and Summary of the Res. Area Dev. Oper., in Fl. US Army Corps of Engin. 191 p.

PAGE 45

32 The first investigations of 0. terebrantis were made in Uruguay. 2 ^ In laboratory testing, the waterhyacinth mite fed 17 significantly only on waterhyacinth, among 17 plants tested. Nymphs and larvae make narrow elongate mines in the pseudolaminae (the waterhyacinth "leaf" is not a true blade, but an extension of the petiole; a pseudolamina (Arber 1920)), These tunnels frequently number more than 50 /pseudo lamina, and damage a large per cent of tissue (Bennett 1968a, Perkins 1973a, Cordo and DeLoach 1975). Del Fosse et al. (1975) and Del Fosse and Cromroy (1975) found that adult mites could enter pseudolaminae to feed, whereas Cordo and DeLoach (1975) did not. Strain differences and experimental technique may have produced these conflicting results, since the Argentine-Uruguayan strains had also been observed to penetrate pseudolaminae as adults (Perkins 1973a, Cordo and DeLoach 1975). According to Perkins (197*0 the waterhyacinth mite is the only pseudolamina tunneler on waterhyacinth, although the tunneler Eugaurax sp. 2 ^ has subsequently been found (Sabrosky 197*0. Number of mines may exceed 500/pseudolamina in heavy infestations (Perkins 1973a) and there may be more than 20,000 ndtes/m . In oviposition tests, 21 plants in 13 families were used, and mites laid eggs in waterhyacinth and none of the other plants (Cordo and DeLoach 1975). For these reasons the waterhyacinth mite has been considered to be one of the 4-5 most promising biological control agents on waterhyacinth (Bennett 1968a, b, Coulson 1971, Perkins Dipt era: Chloropidae.

PAGE 46

33 1973a). Dr. Fred Bennett of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control first found the waterhyacinth mite in the United States (Bennett 1968b) . It may have been brought into Florida when waterhyacinth was introduced, over 90 years ago (Perkins 197^) , but this is uncertain. It may have moved from Mexico along the Gulf coast on an alternate host, such as pickerelweed. This suggestion has oven less credibility, since the mite's absence from waterhyacinth in the region of Mexico City (Perkins, pers, comm.) refutes this argument. The Florida strain of the waterhyacinth mite had been thought to be restricted to shady areas'^ but Perkins (1973a) found that although immature s are sometimes trapped and killed inside pseudolaminae in the sun, sunny and shady areas are attacked equally. Cordo and DeLoach (1975) found that the Argentine strain was more host specific than the United States' or Uruguyan strains. In the United States 0. terebrantis was noted feeding as much or more on Pontederia than Eichhornia^ but Perkins (1973b) didn't find it on either E. azurea or P. lanceolata Nutt. growing adjacent to heavily Infested stands of E. crasslpes in Argentina. larval mines were found to be more concentrated with the Florida strain than the Argentine strain, without the concomitant increase in damage (Perkins 1973a). The life cycle of the waterhyacinth mite in Arg^ itina is as follows: adults oviposit in separate waterhyacinth laminae.

PAGE 47

inserting eggs approximately every fourth lamina. Nymphal and larval stages develop and tunnel within the leaf, producing 2-7 apically-directed tunnels for each 1 petiole-directed tunnel. Tunnels reach an average length of 5 mm before the adults emerge. From egg to adult takes about 10 days. The emerged adult may feed at the spot where mining occurred, may enter an old tunnel to feed, or may feed in scars created by other animals or abrasions caused by any means. The number of adult tunnels is negligible compared to the number of larval tunnels. From 4 pseudolaminae, Perkins (1973a) found a ratio of 1 adult: 5 nymphs: 10 larvae. Most tunnels are occupied by a single nymph or larva. There is no sexual dimorphism. The only enemies of the waterhyacinth mite that have been recorded are predaceous mites. As with Neochetlna spp. , the waterhyacinth mite needs the presence of water, and will die in less than 1 day without it (Perkins 1973a) . Both the mottled waterhyacinth weevil and the waterhyacinth mite, although they may feed slightly on other plant species, fill the criteria for introduction as biological control agents in both safety and specificity, as described by Huf faker (1964). He stated (p. 646) It is unreasonable to insist that an insect (or other arthropod] be unable to engage in any feeding on some economic plant under forced or unnatural stress. The capacity to breed on a given plant is the main criterion.

PAGE 48

Other Arthropods on Water hyacinth Many people have collected or identified arthropods from waterhyacinth and related aquatic plants 1 ^* ^°~33 (siatchley 1920, Leonard 1926, Rehn 1952, 1959t Sabrosky 1950, 197^. Kapur and Dutta 1952, Forbes 195^» Zolessi 1956, Cooreman 1959. Sankaran et al. 1966, Bennett 1968a, b, 1970a, b, 1972a, b, 197^a. b, Bennett and Zwolfer 1968, Vogel 1968, Bennett 1971. Pieterse 1972, Vogel and Oliver 1969a, b, Alden 1971. Coulson 1971, Johnson 1971, Ultsch 1971, 197^. Perkins 1972, 1973a, b, 1974, Brown and Spencer 1973, Silveira Guide 1971. Sankaran and Rao 1972, Silveira Guido and Perkins 1975). Goin (19^3) studied lower vertebrate fauna from waterhyacinth. From these investigations, various recommendations for further study have developed. Bennett and Zwolfer (1968) recommended that 6 species of arthropods should be studied further for biologi *1 control of 3 °Rao, V, P, 1963, OS PL-480 Project: Survey of natural enemies of witch weed and water hyacinth and other aquatic weeds affecting waterways in India. CIBC Rept, ^Rao, V. P. 1964. US PL-480 Project: Survey of natural enemies of witch weed and water hyacinth and other aquatic weeds affecting waterways in India. CIBC Rept. ^ao, V. P. 1965. US PL-480 Project: Survey of natural enemies of witch weed and water hyacinth and other aquatic weeds affecting waterways in India. CIBC Rept. 33 •''Spencer, N. r. 1975. Report on the biology and host specificity of Epipagis a lbiguttalis . USDA Tech. Rept. 11 p.

PAGE 49

36 34 waterhyacinth, viz, Acigona igni talis Haps., Eplpagis albiguttalis og « Hmps., Cornops longicorne (Bruner) , N. bruohi , Thrypticus sp., and 0. terebrantis . Bennett (1968a) also found that Arzama densa was "adequately host specific and ... destructive to warrant further investigation," but Habeck (1975) cautioned against introduction of this noctuid without further study because it is a 37 pest of dasheen, Calocasia esculenta L. Other invertebrates besides insects live in and around waterhyacinth mats* O'Hara (196?) found over 44,000 specimens of over 55 species from 11 samples of waterhyacinth growing around lake 38 Okeechobee, Florida, with the scud Hyalella azteca (Saussure)^ the most abundant, Katz (1967) also found that Hyalella sp, was at ndant in waterhyacinth, comprising 20-80$ of the organisms found there. These and other amphipods are important in the diets of fresh water fish (Huish 1957. McLane 1955t Hansen et al. 1971). Microorganisms in waterhyacinth roots may add to N0~-N decreases in eutrophic waters (Dunigan 1974, Dunigan and Shams uddin 1975). Control with Pathogens Tha use of pathogens as biological control agents is steadily "34" •^Lepidoptera: Pyralidae. 35 ^Orthoptera: Acrididae, 36 -HDiptera: Dolichopodidae, 37 ' Spathiflorae: Araceae. 38 Amphipodaj Palaemonidae,

PAGE 50

37 gaining popularity (Daniel et al. 1973. Timmons 1970, Hasan 1973, 1974) . Many pathogens attack waterhyacinth, especially after attack 39 by insects. Several people are studying pathogens for use against waterhyacinth (Nag Raj I965, Nag Raj and Ponnappa 1970, Ponnappa 1970, Coulson 1971, Zettler and Freeman 1972, Charudattan 1972), Acremonium ( Cephalosporium) zonatum (Saw.) Garas.^ 0 is the fungus with perhaps the greatest potential for control of waterhyacinth (Charudattan and Perkins 1974, Padwick 1946, Rintz 1973, Charudattan 1975). Another pathogen with seemingly good potential for biological control of waterhyacinth is Cercospora sp.** 0 * ^ Other pathogens being studied include Fusarium roseum (Lk.) Snyder 40 and Hansen (Rintz and Freeman 1972) , Alternarla eichhornlae var. 42 floridana Nag Raj and Ponn. (McCorquodale et al. 1973, Charudattan 1975) . Rhlzoctonia solanl Kuehn^ (Freeman and Zettler 1971, Joyner and Freeman 1973, Joyner 1972, Matsumoto et al. 1933, Nag Raj 1965, 39 Coulson, J. R. 1972. Potential environmental effects of the introduction of the Argentine weevil, Neochetina eichhorniad . into the United States. Tech. Rept. Interag. Res. Adv. Comm. Meet., Aq. Plant Contr. Sec., US Army Corps of Engin., Houston, TX, 19 p. ^^Moniliales: Tuberculariaceae. 41 Conway, K. E. 1975. Successful field testing of a fungal pathogen as a biological control of water hyacinth. Paper presented at Annu. Meet. Hyacinth Contr. Soc, San Antonio, TX, 7 July. ^^oniliales: Derma tiaceae. ^"Vcelia Sterilia.

PAGE 51

38 Charudattan 1972) , Urodo elohhornlaa Frag, and Cig. (Charudattan ho 1975) » Blpolarls ( Heltnlnthosporlum) sp. (Charudattan 1975) » and Myrlotheclum roridma (Charudattan 1972) . Many people hope that a sufficiently virulent phase of one or more of these pathogens may be found or developed. The thought has been expressed that "surely pathogens could save the State of Florida a barrel of money in the fight on water hyacinths — not for one year, but from now on" (Anonymous 1972a), Control with Other Biotic Agents Phytophagous fish, such as the white amur, Ctenophoryngodon 12 idella Valenciennes, and Tilapia spp, are also being investigated for biological control of waterhyacinth (Blackburn et al, 1971, Avault 1965, Van Zon 197^, Baker et al, 197^, Kilger and Sndtherman 1971, Druijff 1974, Del Fosse et al. 1976). Use of the combination of the white amur and the mottled waterhyacinth weevil have been conducted (Del Fosse et al. 1976) and further studies utilizing these primary consumers are planned. Phytophagous mammals, especially the manatee, Triohechus trichechus L., have been considered for use in biological control, but have many drawbacks for waterhyacinth catrol (Druijff 197^, "55 — Uredinales: Pucciniaceae. oniliales. 46 Sirenia: Trichechidae.

PAGE 52

39 47 Blackburn and Andres 19»8), as do goats, Capra sp., and sheep, 47 Ovis sp. , which have been used for weed control along ditchbanks 47 (Druljff 1974). Water buffalo, Bubalus sp., have recently been investigated for waterhyaointh control in Gainesville, Florida, 48 Snails, such as Poaaoea australis (d'Orbigny) and Marisa 48 oornuarietis L, feed on waterhyacinth as wall (Hunt 1958, Seaman and Porterfield 1964, Blackburn and Andres 1968), Manipulation of Natural Enemies and Population Modeling Climatic influences often determine the success or failure of phytophagous insects in controlling pest plants (Harris and Peschken 1974, Andres and Goedon 1971). Natural enemies may kill, slow or prevent establishment or reduce impact of plants, as may the amelioration of plant-insect climatic synchronization (Annecke et al, 1969). When dealing with large populations of phytophagous insects, as with N. eichhorniae , or mites, as with 0, terebrantis . interspecific and/or intraspeoific competition may influence their combined effects. These factors can be measured (Bendixen 1975). Several hypotheses of population interaction are available based on number of attacks by an individual with respect to prey density. Several of these theories will be investigated to determine whether my results support them. Thompson (1924, 1929) theorized that predators and parasitoids 'Artiodactyla: Bovidae. 48 Ctenobranchiata: Aiupulariidae.

PAGE 53

can easily find their prey, and attacks are only limited by the consumption capacity of the predator or available eggs of the parasitoid. Thus, in the Thorapsonian theory, number of attacks is constant, and is unrelated to prey density, Nicholson (1933) and Nicholson and Bailey (1935) said that the number of attacks by an individual for any prey density depends only on the searching ability of the predator. This ability is constant for the species, so fulfilling the appetite ("consumption capacity") of the predator or using all eggs of a parasitoid is unimportant. Total prey killed would then be directly proportional to prey density (ease of finding prey), and per cent killed is constant. These authors emphasise subtractive processes such as intraspeclfio competition and other density-related phenomena. Based on empirical data, Holling's (1959) disc equation is the best representation of population change due to predator effects. Under this theory, as prey density increases, number killed increases at a progressively reduced rate. Per cent killed then, would decline under this concept, albeit less drastically than under the Thompsonian theory. A typical vertebrate sigmoid curve and population lag response has also been found for some insect populations. Haynes and Sisojevic (1966) found such a curve to apply for Phllodroraus rufus Walchenaer^ predation upon Drosophila sp.^° and Embree 55 ^Araneae: Thomisiidae. Diptera: Drosophilidae.

PAGE 54

(1966) found such a tq: ponse for a tachinid parasite, CyzertLs 51 CO albicans (Fall.) attacking the winter moth, Chelmatobia brumata L. Andrewartha and Birch (195*0 considered that intrinsic favorableness of the environment determined population numbers, whereas Milne (I962), while aware of the importance of environmental conditions, emphasized the importance of density-related subtractive processes. Chitty (I960) was more concerned with intrinsic species attributes, and theorized that there is an inverse relationship between vitality of individuals and population density, which can also be part of the mechanism of population fluctuation. Pimento 1 (1961) suggested that Nicholsonian density-stabilizing mechanisms are replaced during evolution be genetic feedback predator-prey mecl-anisms, thus emphasizing mutual adaptation between species, their predators and their food plants. Perkins (19^5) found that as tingid^ populations increased, moth populations on Lantana decreased. He attributed this mortality to tingid-caused leaf abscission. Debach (1971) theorized that after introducing many enemies against a pest species, the most "effective" one will be predominant, ^Diptera: Tachinidae. 52 Lepidoptera: Geometridae. ^Hendptera: Tingidae. Clj, ^Tubiflorae: Verbenaceae.

PAGE 55

ex. and cites his work with Aphytis spp. as empirical evidence. Whether this theory will hold true when one considers the introduction of many primary consumers on a post weed (such as Neochetina spp.» 0, terebrantls . etc. against waterhyacinth) remains to be proved. Very little in the way of population modeling has been done on any aquatic plant. Ewel et al. (1975) developed a theoretical model for the impact of waterhyacinth on the environment, but a model for the impact of phytophagous insects on waterhyacinth has not been developed. The lack of information concerning biological control of aquatic weeds and interaction of species indicated by this literature review points to research that is needed* The experiments described below are an attempt to fill part of this void. ^Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae.

PAGE 56

RELEASE OF THE KOTTLED WATERH1 ACI NTH WEEVIL Methods and Mat erials Seven hundred field-collected (in northern Ft. Lauderdale, Florida) adult mottled waterhyacinth weevils were released on a waterhyacinth mat infested with waterhyacinth mites (Figure 1, point X). This release was made on 11 June 1974, and consisted of about 350 females; 350 males. The mat of waterhyacinth was located approximately 7 mites west of the USDA Aquatic Plant Management Laboratory in Davie, Florida (Figure 2, point A), in a canal on SW 31st Street (Figure 2, point B) off Hiatus Rc ad, in Davie. All weevils were released in a 0.3 m area on 1-2 plants. Once each week for 50-weeks the following data were taken from 1 randomly selected plant/area for each of the 10 areas (Figure 1): (1) number of adult weevils (female, male and total) /plant; (2) average number of adult waterhyacinth mites/pseudolamina; (3) number of healthy and senescent pseudolandnae/plant; 2 (4) age and number/cm of mite nymphal and larval tunnels and weevil feeding spots (determined on most dense areas of tunnels or feeding spots/ pseudolamina) ; (5) average pseudolamina dimensions (width and length) /plant; (6) average petiole length/plant (determined by selecting an average length petiole, after considering all petioles on the plant) ; (7) average root length/plant (determined by length of longest primary root/plant) ; (8) other arthropods/plant; and 43

PAGE 59

Figure 2. — Aerial view of Davie, Florida, indicating location of USDA Aquatic Plant Management Laboratory (A), Official United States Weather Station (B), coffin-holders (C) and mat used for release study of Neochetina eichhorniae Warner (D) .

PAGE 61

48 (9) plant density/a (taken monthly at release point, and at all areas after 50 weeks. In addition, water depth, air temperature (with Weksler® maximumminimum thermometers), relative humidity (RH; with a H. J, Green® hygrothermograph) and rainfall (with a Belfort Instrument® gauge) were recorded weekly at the Official United States Weather Station at the USDA Laboratory in Davie (Figure 2, point B), All instruments, except Weather Station equipment, were calibrated initially and recalibrated after 6 months and again after 12 months. Age of mite tunnels and weevil feeding spots was rated on a subjective scale of from 1-4. For mite tunnels, these ages corresponded to tunnels containing an egg or larva, protoor deutonymph, tri to nymph, or emerged adult (after creation of emergence hole), respectively. For weevil feeding spots, the corresponding scale was less than 1 week old, 1-2 weeks old, 2-3 weeks old, and greater than 3 weeks old, respectively. Associated with age 1 feeding spots was a pale green color, heavy exudate and presence of adult waterhyaeinth mites; with age 2 feeding spots, a dark green color, little or no exudate, and few or no adult waterhyaeinth mites; with age 3 feeding spots, a light brown color, no exudate and no adult waterhyaeinth mites; and with age k feeding spots, a dark brown color, no exudate and no adult waterhyaeinth mites. Age 1 tunnels averaged 0.5 mm in length; age 2 tunnels. 1.0 mm; age 3, 1.5 mm; and age 4, 2.0 mm. For computer analyses, in which meristic data cm most effectively be handled, number of mite tunnels/cm 2 was multiplied by tunnel age (equation 1) to give an Orthogalumna Damage Index (ODI) . 0DI= (no. tunnels/cm 2 ) (age of tunnels) (1 j

PAGE 62

<*9 Neochetina Damage Indices (NDI) were computed by equation 2. NDI= (no. feeding spots/cm 2 ) [5 (age of feeding spots)| (2) Rationale behind these indices is as follows: as mite tunnels get longer (i.e. as mites grow to adults and emerge), damage to the plant successively increases. Thus, tunnels of age 4 are more damaging to the plant (partly because they bear the opening of the tunnel which the adult mite prepared in its emergence, which allows development of pathogens and saprophytes) than are tunnels of ages i, 2 or 3 (assuming equal numbers of tunnels of each age). Directly multiplying verage age of tunnels by their density/cm 2 gives a reasonable estimate of the damage done to the plant by mite tunnels. Conversely, recent weevil feeding spots are more damaging to the plant than are old feeding spots because they cause increased desiccation and attract mites and weevils. Thus, direct multiplication of age by density would be negatively correlated to effect, and would be the opposite of the mite scale. To put both mite and weevil damage on a similar scale then, a weevil feeding spot of age 4is made meristically equal to a mite tunnel of age 1 by subtracting h from 5 (5 fc» 1), and so on. This is not to imply that the same damage is done to the plant by a weevil feeding spot and mite tunnel of the same age; this computation only places mite and weevil damage on a similar scale. When these data are handled in this manner, relative damage to the plant by mites and weevils can be compared, and only 1 number each/plant/site/day need be recorded for mite and weevil damage,

PAGE 63

50 respectively. Plant measurement factors (PMF) were calculated for each area on the mat by the formula in equation 3» PMF= ( PsW + PsL + PL) (3) • RL Parameters in equation (3) are as follows: PsW= pseudolamina width; PsL= pseudolamina length; RL= root length; and PL= petiole length. All above measurements are given in cm* Air temperature, RH and rainfall were taken daily at the Official U. S. Weather Station in Davie. Weekly averages were then computed for each week. Phbtographs of the site were taken monthly and aerial (helicopter) pictures were taken after week 50. This and all following experiments were analyzed statistically. Analyses of variance and Duncan* s Multiple Range Tests (Duncan 19^5) were applied where appropriate, as were regression, multiple and canonical correlation, and plotting procedures. A waterhyacinth mat without weevils, but with a "natural" (i.e. population not manipulated directly by man) population of mites was sampledas was the experimental mat for comparison purposes. Results and Discussion For the first 3 months, numbers of adult weevils/plant were low and sporadic (Figure 3). This was due to the low number of weevils released (700). After 3 months (the time for first generation weevil adults to emerge) number of adults recovered/plant began to increase. Inorease in number of weevils found on the plants appeared to level off by October (Figure 3) , and decrease slightly af tor that. However,

PAGE 64

Figure 3, — Monthly trends of Neochetina eichhorniae Warner (NE) populations and damage data after NE release on a waterhyacinth mat infested with Orthogalumna terebrantis Wallwork. FS= feeding spots; NDI= R (age of NE FsJ(no./cm 2 ).

PAGE 65

52

PAGE 66

53 because adult waterhyacinth weevils are concentrated around areas of new feeding, possibly because of the release of a kairomone (see p. 109), number of adults is not a reliable measure of the weevil population. Number of weevil feeding spots/cm is a more reliable measure of the weevil population, and this index increased steadily throughout the 12-month period (Figure 3)» Increase in number of weevils of all life stages is nearly geometrical in shape, and more accurately gauges the stress applied to waterhyacinth by weevils. After 50 weeks, there were approximately 2,25 million weevils of all life stages, based on an average egg production of 50 /female and an 80$ egg to adult mortality. This number may be considerably higher than the actual number of weevils on the mat, but is the best estimate based on the life history information now at hand. Fluctuations of the waterhyacinth mite population were closely related to certain abiotic factors, especially temperature and evaporation. As temperature began to decrease, numbers of adult mites, then number of mite tunnels, also decreased (Figures 4-6). Adult waterhyacinth mite populations were temporarily reduced at week 6 (from the previous week*s average of 95/plant to hi /plant) by a light spray of malathion applied by a helicopter pilot spraying citrus in a neighboring grove. He had flown over our canal to see what we were doing, but momentarily forgot to turn off his spray rig. Immature mites inside closed tunnels at the time of this spray were apparently not affected. Populations of adult mites had

PAGE 67

Figure 4. — Monthly trends of Orthogalumna terebrantis Wallwork (OT) populations and damage data on a waterhyacinth mat containing Neochetina eichhorniae Warner. ODI^ (age of OT tunnels) (no. tunnels/ cm ).

PAGE 68

60 x MONTHS (197^*75)

PAGE 69

Figure 5. — Monthly trends in air temperature ( C) taken at Official United States Weather Station and above concrete coffinholders, Davie, Florida,

PAGE 70

H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i MJJASONDJFMA MONTHS (I97JW75)

PAGE 71

Figure 6. — Monthly trends in rainfall (R) and pan evaporation (E) taken at Official United States Weather Station, Davie, Florida,

PAGE 72

59 MONTHS (197^*75)

PAGE 73

60 increased to pre-spray levels by weak 9 (with 118 adult waterhyaointh mites/plant) . Weevils were apparently unaffected by the spray because they were in the crown of the plant at the time of the spray. Monthly averages for all weevil plus mite, and plant data for each individual area, viz. 1-10, are given in Tables 1«10 and 1120, respectively. 1 The same general trends are shown with the individual areas as in the entire area. Analyses of variance for statistically significant parameters measured at the release site of N. eichhornlae are given in Table 21. There was a highly significant (P= 0.01) reduction in number of pseudolaminae, pseudolamlna width and length, petiole length, root length and EMP, and a highly significant increase in number of adult mottled waterhyacinth weevils, waterhyaointh mites, weevil and mite damage and male and female weevils, over the 50 week period. PMF was also significantly (P= 0.05) different over time. Plant density was reduced from an average of 34to 26 plants/m 2 for this same period. Areas of the release mat, via. 1-10, were highly significantly different for adult mottled waterhyacinth weevils, pseudolandna dimensions, petiole and root lengths, and PMF, and significantly different for number of petioles, waterhyacinth mite damage, and female weevils (Table 21), All tables are listed consecutively in the Appendix.

PAGE 74

61 These data indicate 2 important results: first, the combined effects of weevils and mites applied sufficient stress to the plants to bring about a significant reduction in plant size and density (viz. the 30+ cm decrease in petiole length) ; and second, some factor(s) caused areas 1-10 to be significantly different in some parameters. A closer examination of the mat in the field indicated that areas 1-4 were predominantly shaded, whereas areas 5-10 were in full sun for most of the day. Areas 1-4 had consistently higher numbers of weevils (averages of 2.5/plant, corcpared to 1.8/plant for areas 5-10) and pseudolaminae (10.1/plant compared to 10.0/plant for areas 5-10), larger pseudolamina width (13.25 cm compared to 13. 1** for areas 5-10) and length (14.11 cm compared to 14.04 for areas 5-10), longer root length (13.51 cm compared to 29,08 for areas 5-10), lower mite damage (27.68 compared to 31.04 for areas 5-10), shorter petiole length (52.88 cm compared to 52.97 for areas 5-10), less female weevils (0.94/plant compared to 0.98/plant for areas 5-10), and lower PMF (2.74 compared to 3.01 for areas 5-10) (Tables 1-20). Mites were always more abundant in sunny than shaded areas. Decrease in pseudolamina dimensions, petiole and root lengths, and number of plants/m closely followed increase in the mottled waterhyacinth weevil population. For the first 3 months of the study, plant size increased (Figure 7) due to the normal summer growth period. By the time of the second emergence of weevil adults, however, a gradual lessening r'n the heretofore increasing

PAGE 75

Figure 7» — Monthly trends of waterhyaointh measurements on a mat containing Neocheti na eichhorrdae Warner and Ortho^alumna terebrantis Wallwork. Ps= pseudo laminae; PsW= pseudolandna width; Psl>= pseudolandna length; PL= petiole length; RL= root length; PMF= ( PsW ± PsL + PL) . ^

PAGE 76

63 MJJASONDJFMA MONTHS ( 1974» 75)

PAGE 77

6k average size of plant parts leveled off, and as later emergences of adult weevils occurred, a dropoff in size of individual plant parts followed. The best measurement of stress applied to waterhyacinth is seen in the petiole length. This measurement is the most reliable parameter of plant health because, unlike root length (which is greatly influenced by water quality) or pseudolamina dimensions (which do not change appreciably in size) , it is the first parameter to be affected. In this experiment, petiole length decreased 30-40 cm over the 50 week period (Figure 7) in the experimental mat, while it increased initially, then leveled off, in the control mat. Plant density also decreased greatly relative to the control mat (Figure 7). Since nutrients were not limiting in the study (e.g. P was greater than 0.1 ppm, pH was around 7, etc.), and inasmuch as no herbicides were applied to the plants, decrease in size of plant parameters can be directly attributed to stress applied by insects and ensuring attack by mites and pathogens. Adult waterhyacinth mites were very often found feeding in spots created by adult mottled waterhyacinth weevils. This was especially obvious when populations of mites were high, and may have contributed to mite population increase (see p, 109). Pathogens such as Acremonium zonatum and Cercospora sp. were noted to increase in effect and abundance as the year progressed, and were especially abundant when mite populations were high. A relationship between A. zonatum and arthropods attac! ing waterhyacinth

PAGE 78

65 has often been suspected. It is usually weevil damage, however, that is said to allow A. zonatum to develop to a greater extent in affected waterhyacinth (Charudattan 1972, 1975). In this study, however, and in all other field and laboratory observations made, no fungal lestion of A. zonatum were found associated with weevil feeding spots. Zonate leaf spot disease of waterhyacinth (caused by A. zonatum) was very abundant in the field and laboratory plants at the time of these observations. In all observed cases, however, fungal lesions developed from age 4 (i.e. after the adult waterhyacinth odte had created an emergence hole) mite tunnels, as clearly seen in all samples. These lesions caused or accelerated drying of waterhyacinth tissue and added to the poor health of the plants. Charudattan, R., and B. D. Perkins. 197^. Fungi associated with insect damaged waterhyacinth in Florida and possible effects on plant host population. Paper presented at Annu. Meet. Hyacinth Contr. Soe. Winter Haven, FL, July 1974.

PAGE 79

COFFIN-HOLDER TREATMENTS Methods a nd Materials Seven treatments with varying numbers of weevils and mites plus controls were conducted in concrete coffin-holders at the USDA Laboratory in Davie. Coffin-holders (78.75 x 226.05 cm) were initially filled with 750 liters of pond water and 1 liter of 0.5# Hoagland's nutrient solution (Hoagland and Arnon 1950). Nutrients, therefore, were not considered limiting. All coffinholders had an equal amount of waterhyacinth biomass added initially (equal to 20 small plants). All plants were field-collected in Davie, and washed in 0.1 NaCl solution to kill all biota before mites and/or weevils were added. A pair (1 male: i female) of adult waterhyacinth weevils /plant and/or 50 adult waterhyacinth mites/plant were added in the following treatments: (1) 40 weevils and 1000 mites added simultaneously; (2) 40 weevils alone; (3) 1000 mites alone; (4) 40 weevils established for 3 months, then 50 mites/plant added; (5) 1000 mites established for 3 months, then 2 weevils/plant added; (6) covered controls (no weevils or mites added, and coffin-holders screened to prevent immigration) ; and (7) uncovered controls. These treatments will be referred to as (1-7), respectively. Rationale behind choosing these treatments was as follows: 2 weevils and 50 mites/plant are realistic (perhaps even low) numbers of arthropods that approach levels of these agents that have been released and are 66

PAGE 80

67 present in the field (Perkins 1973 a, b), and correspond to most of the releases of weevils that have been made. In some oases, however, we may apply weevils to a mat of waterhyacinth without mites, or a mat may exist with only mites; thus treatments (2) and (3), Also, a mat without mites, but with an established population of weevils may come into contact with a mat containing mites (or most mites may have been killed through the action of cold weather or insecticides), and vice verse; thus treatments (4) and (5). In addition, some measure of growth without the stress of arthropods was needed. Since allochthonous arthropods may eventually invade the plants, i set of controls, (6), was covered with screening on a wooden frame in an attempt to keep arthropods out. Finally, uncovered controls, (7)» were set up to determine growth of plants not stressed by arthropods. All treatments were replicated in 3 blocks in a randomized complete block design (Figure 8). Blocks consisted of 9 coffinholders, each, with an empty row of buffer coffin-holders between each block. Treatments (1-6) were replicated once in each block; treatment (7) was replicated 3 times in each block. Six months into the study an additional aliquot of weevils and mites (same number /plant as before) were added to the experiment to simulate heavy emergences of these arthropods. The data were sampled following a modified 7-week, or septenary, schedule; i.e. on week 1, all coffins in all blocks were sampled; week 2, block 1; week 3, block 2; week 4, block 3; week 5, blocks

PAGE 81

Figure 8.— Experimental design of on-station coffin-holders containing: Neochetlna eichhorniae Warner (NE) alone (1) ; Orthogalumna terebrantis Wallwork (OT) alone (2) ; NE + OT (3) ; NE, plus OT after a 3 month delay (4); OT, plus NE after a 3 month delay (5); covered controls (6); uncovered controls (7); and blanks between blocks (8).

PAGE 83

70 1 and 2; week 6, blocks 1 and 3; and week 7, blocks 2 and 3. In each septenary, then, each block was completely sampled k times. Sampling during week 8 corresponded to that during week 1; week 9 to week 2; etc. On week 50, all coffins in all blocks were sampled. The same data were taken for this experiment as with the release experiment. One plant/eoffin-holder was chosen at random/week. From this plant all measurements were taken. The plant was then placed back into the same coffin. Unlike the release experiment, in which plants were slightly broken during weevil collection, plants in this experiment were not torn apart in search of weevils. The only other difference between this and the release experiment was that wet weights of plants were taken weekly, from the plant chosen at random, in this experiment. Results and Discussion Monthly trends of mottled water hyacinth weevils, waterhyacinth mites, plant and pseudolamina measurements, and other plant parameters are given in Figures 9-12, respectively. These figures indicate the trend over all treatments, and represent the average effect of weevils, mites, mite-weevil combinations, and controls on waterhyacinth. As with the release experiment, number of weevils and mites, plus the weevil feeding spots and mite tunnels, were low and sporadic initially (Figures 9 and 10), Adult weevils/plant decreased sharply after release (Figure 9), whereas weevil feeding spots increased for the first 5 months, then decreased (Figure 9), Number of adult

PAGE 84

Figure 9. — Monthly trends of Neochetina eichhorniae Warner (NE) populations and damage data after NE release on waterhyacinth contained in concrete coffin-holders. FS= feeding spots; NDI= (5 (age of NE FS)fcno. FS/cm 2 ).

PAGE 85

72 MJJASOHDJFMA MONTHS (197 z *-*75)

PAGE 86

73 mites/plant followed a similar trend (Figure 10), but did not decline as quickly. Age and number /cm of mite tunnels, and ODI all increased initially, following the adult mite population, then decreased with the decline in adult mites/plant (Figure 10), A gradual increase in number of plants/coffin-holder occurred (Figure 11), but since these figures include all treatments (including both covered and uncovered controls), this trend is misleading (see analyses of individual treatments, below).All plant measurements decreased over 50 weeks, viz. pseudolandnae/plant, pseudolandna width and length (Figure 11), petiole and root length, PMF and wet weight (Figure 12), There was a highly significant difference in mite damage between blocks in septenary 2 and a significant difference between blocks for septenary 3 (Table 22). Mite damage was also significantly different between treatments for septenary 3, as was the block x treatment interaction. Number of adult mites/plant was significantly different between blocks for septenary 3 and 7, and between treatments for septenary 5, Damage caused by adult weevils was highly significantly different between blocks for septenary 2 and 7, and between treatments for septenary 2 (Table 22), Number of adult weevils/plant were significantly different between blocks for septenary k, 6 and 7, and highly significantly different between treatments for septenary 1, and for the block x treatment interaction for septenary 6 (Table 22).

PAGE 87

Figure 10. — Monthly trends of Orthogalumna terebrantls Wallvork (0T) populations and damage data after 0T release on waterhyacinth contained in concrete coffin-holders. 0DI= (age of 0T tunnels) (no. tunnels/cm ).

PAGE 88

75 o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MJJASONDJFMA MONTHS (1974'75)

PAGE 89

Figure 11. — Monthly trends of waterhyacinth measurements from plants grown in concrete coffin-holders. Ps= pseudolaminae; PsW= pseudolandna width; PsL= pseudolanrf na length.

PAGE 90

MONTHS (197 2 *, 75)

PAGE 91

Figure 12. — Monthly trends of waterhyacinth measurements from plants grown in concrete coffin-holders. PL= petiole length; PJ> root length; PMF= (psW + PsL + PL) , where PsW and PsL= pseudo lamina RL width and length, respectively.

PAGE 92

79 MONTHS (I97V 75)

PAGE 93

80 Number of pseudolan&nae/plant was highly significantly different between blocks for septenary 2, 4 and 5-7, and significantly different for septenary 3; a significant difference was found between treatments for septenary 2, 5 and 6; and a significant difference was noted for block x treatment interaction for septenary Petiole length was significantly different between blocks for septenary 2 and 3 and highly significantly different between blocks for septenary 6, between ti atments for septenary 2 and 3, and for block x treatment interaction for septenary 3 (Table 22). Pseudolamina width was significantly different between blocks for septenary 2 and 4, highly significantly different for septenary 5-7, significantly different between treatments for septenary 2, and highly significantly different for septenary 3 (Table 22). Pseudolamina length was highly significantly reduced for septenary 2 and 7, and significantly reduced for septenary 5 and 6. Root length was highly significantly reduced for septenary 1. Plant density was significantly reduced in septenary 2 and 5-7, and highly significantly reduced for septenary 3 and 5 (Table 22). Wet weight of waterhyacinth was highly significantly reduced for septenary 2. There was also a significant block difference for spider mites for septenary 2 and 3, between treatments for septenary 2, and a highly significant difference for block x treatment interaction for septenary 2 and 3. PMF was highly significantly different for blocks in septenary 5, and significantly different for septenary 5 and 6; between treatments for septenary 5; and for block x

PAGE 94

81 treatment interaction for septenary 6 there was a highly significant difference (Table 22). Most of the above-mentioned block differences can be explained by the removal of plants by boat-tailed gracklo3, Cassidix mexicanus L.* For some unknown reason, the birds removed plants in coffinholders in blocks 1 and 2, with many more plants removed from block 1 than 2, but did not remove plants from block 3. Coffinholders were covered with 1.8 cm mesh wire screening in septenary 3, after birds were noted removing plants. (Grackles landed on mats at the field site, and were observed to remove some plants. They then fed on the removed plants, or perhaps on arthropods contained thereon. ) Other factors that may also have added to these block differences include: shading (block 1 was shaded for a longer period of time daily by neighboring buildings) and position effects. Orthogalumna terebrantis Alone Septenarial averages of population growth of 0. terebrantis are given in Table 23. Since the mottled waterhyacinth weevil moved from coffin-holder to coffin-holder, septenarial averages are also given in Table 23 for populations of and damage to waterhyacinth by N. eichhorniae. Similar procedures will be followed in all subsequent analyses. Passerifo.mes: Icteridae.

PAGE 95

82 Number of adult mites was initially high, then dropped off to zero, as did number of mite tunnels/cm , Before reduction in mite populations, plant size and weight had begun to decrease (Table 23). This decrease was in part due to stress applied by mites and the few weevils that came onto the plants. This was ascertained by comparison with growth of controls. The effect that waterhyacinth mites alone had in reducing waterhyacinth, however, was not very great. There was, however, a higher incidence of pathogenic and saprophytic disease on plants with mites alone. The total stress applied by mites, weevils and pathogens contributed to decrease in waterhyacinth size and density, Neochetina elchhorniae Alone Population growth of and effect on waterhyacinth of the mottled waterhyacinth weevil is shown in Table 24. Density of weevil feeding spots and NDI increased initially, then decreased (Table 2k) . This may have been caused by stress applied to plants by weevils, making plants less suitable for attack by weevils. Effect of weevils on waterhyacinth is shown by the steadily decreasing size of plant parts (Table 2k). Coffin effect may also have contributed to these decreases (see controls, below). The mottled waterhyacinth weevil alone caused a greater decrease in number and size of plants than did the waterhyacinth mite, but plants bearing weevils alone were found to be attacked

PAGE 96

83 less strongly by pathogens and saprophytes than were plants bearing mites alone. These results tend to support further use of waterhyacinth mites as biological control agents of waterhyacinth because of their ability to enhance stress by being conducive to establishment and development of pathogens, especially pathogenic fungi such as Acremonium zonqtum . Combination of N. eichhorniae and 0 . terebrantis Population growth of both the mottled waterhyacinth weevil and the waterhyacinth ndte t and their combined effect on waterhyacinth is shown in Table 25, As occurred with the previous treatments, numbers of feeding spots and mite tunnels were initially low, reached a peak, then again decreased. This may be due to the plants becoming unsuitable for preferred feeding by either species; by septenary 2, not only had the plants become smaller in size and less dense, but a great deal of disease had been able to enter the plants containing weevils and ndtes. As a result of all biotic stresses, the combination of weevils, mites and pathogens, the greatest effect on plants was seen with this treatment. In addition, the effect was greater than would be expected if only the additive effects of weevils, mites and patlogens were considered; i.e. biological synergism had occurred. This lends support for similar conclusions reached with the release experiment.

PAGE 97

8t N. eichhorrAae Established 2 Months , then 0. terebrantis Added Septonarial averages of population growth of mottled waterhyacinth weevils and waterhyacinth mites, plus plant measurements, are given in Table 26. As with prior treatments, mite damage and numbers were greatest in early parts of this treatment, but weevil damage was fairly consistent. All plant measurements decreased significantly over the 50 weeks, albeit not as greatly as in the prior 3 treatments. These results indicate the value of adding 0, terebrantis to waterhyacinth mats containing only N. elohhornlae . because damage by A, zonatum and other pathogens and saprophytes increased after mites were added, 0. terebrantis Established 2. Months , then N. erlchhorniae Added Septenarial averages of population growth of weevils and mites, plus plant measurements, are given in Table 27. Some individual plant parts decreased in size over the 50-week period, but density of plants increased over this time. Weevils probably didn't have enough time owing to their low numbers on the plants (as compared with the period of time that weevils applied initially to plants had) to exert sufficient stress to lessen density as well as size of plants in the few months that the experiment ran. Levels of pathogens were highest when mite populations were greatest.

PAGE 98

85 These results typify the pre-weevil release stage that is now typical of the majority of the canals and lakes in Florida. Levels of pathogens in these situations are generally low, depending upon the specific conditions in the particular area. Addition of weevils to these areas may cause an increase in number of mites, and in turn, pathogens (see p. 109). Covered Controls Population growth of and effect on waterhyacinth of the mottled waterhyacinth weevil and the waterhyacinth mite in coffin-holders which had neither weevils nor mites applied initially, and were covered with screening, is shown in Table 28. Numbers of weevils and weevil damage were very low, but mites were relatively high in number due to exclusion of natural enemies in covered coffin-holders. Plant density increased greatly over the 50-week period, from 20 plants to an average of 88 plants/coffin-holder (Table 28). Perhaps the greatest effect that the covers had was in allowing the population outbreak of ,,-pider mites. As with waterhyacinth mites, when predators of tetranychids were excluded, populations of spider mites increased greatly, since plant density increased considerably in these coffin-holders, however, effect of tetranychids on waterhyacinth was negligible. The source of these allochthonous acari, which does not include other predatory mites to a great degree, was probablyother waterhyacinth plants on the USDA station.

PAGE 99

86 Uncovered Controls Population growth of and effect on waterhyacinth of the mottled waterhyaointh weevil and the waterhyacinth mite in control coffinholders to which neither arthropod was applied are given in Table 29. Number of weevils was greater, and number of mites was less, compared to covered controls (Table 28), and plant growth was less. Septenarial averages of the above 7 treatments for all data are given in Tables 30 and 31.

PAGE 100

MOVEMENT OF ADULT WATERHYACINTH MITES TO PICKEREIWEED Methods and Materials Waterhyacinth mites are sometimes found on pickerelweed, Pontederia cordata. This has been noted especially in the Gainesville area, but rarely in the Ft. Lauderdale area (Perkins, pers. comm.). The conditions under which this occurred were unknown. Four temperature, light and humidity regimes were established in Precision Scientific Freas^ Model 81 8 incubators. These chambers can be calibrated to run dual temperature and light regimes. The regimes chosen were: (1) 5-25°C; (2) 10-30°C; (3) 15-35°C; and (4) 20-40°C. Light was provided by a single fluorescent bulb in each chamber, providing 115, 120 110, and 110 ft-candles, respectively. Lights were on from 8:00 AM-5:00 PM in all chambers. RH varied from 30-80#. Two hundred adult field-collected waterhyacinth mites were placed on each of k mite-free waterhyacinth plants. Each infested plant was then placed next to an arthropod-free pickerelweed plant. Plants were touching to allow movement of mites. Both waterhyacinth and pickerelweed plants were field-collected in Davie and established from 1-2 weeks in each incubator before arthropods were added. Plants were placed in plastic-lined metal tubs, each containing about 2 liters of 0.5$ Hoagland's nutrient solution, which was replenished weekly. Thus, nutrients were not considered to be limiting. Plants were checked weekly for 10-weeks for movement of mites 87

PAGE 101

88 to pickerelweed. Temperatures and RH were taken weekly with Taylor maximum-mi nimum thermometers and a Psycho-Dyne ® psychrometer (model 22010) , respectively. Results and Discussion After 10 weeks, the only mites that moved from waterhyacinth to P. cordata in the incubators were in chambers 1 and 2, with accompanying low temperatures and high humidity. Not all mites in either chamber moved, however. These conditions correspond to those noted in the field at the time of mite movement there. The reason(s) why such waterhyacinth mite movement in the field occurs remains obscure. Most waterhyacinth mite movement occurred in incubator 2, with a 10-30°C temperature regime and 80# RH. Mites moved onto pickerelweed in incubator 1, with a 5-25°C temperature regime and 30-40# RH only once, immediately after being placed in the incubator. This incubator had been left open in preparing the chamber for the waterhyacinth mites, and had reached the RH of the external air — about 70#. Thus, this one-time movement in incubator 1 may have been a response to external conditions, and not a response to the temperature, RH, and light conditions in the incubator per se. Movement under conditions in incubator 2 was constant, however, as determined by an increasing number of mites on pickerelweed each week in this incubator.

PAGE 102

EFFECT OF ADULT WATERHYACINTH MITES ON WEEVIL OPPOSITION Methods and Materials Using the Freas incubators at the settings described above, 3 pairs of weevils (3 females: 3 males) were added to each of 5 pie pans (22.5 cm diameter x 2.5 cm deep). Pie pans were covered with glass plates (23.1 cm x 0.3 cm thick). Each pie pan contained a fresh waterhyacinth pseudolaudna inserted in a 7 ml-capacity test tube containing tap water. Pie pan rims were coated with silicone grease (either GHTLTL-L-157-19^ Dow® Corning kk Grease 2150-257-5358-4tB-19**, or 6850-880-7616 Silicone Compound DSAJ; »O0-70-C-O337-A-ll/69) Lot Ba-207) to prevent mite escape. To one pie pan-pseudolamina unit in each incubator were added 0, 50, 100, 150 or 200 adult, field-collected waterhyacinth mites. Data were taken weekly for 10 weeks on: (1) number of dead weevils; (2) number of waterhyacinth mite adults/plant; (3) number of weevil feeding spots and eggs; (4) number of waterhyacinth mite ovipqsition holes; and (5) number of waterhyacinth mite tunnels. In order to collect the large number of mites needed for these experiments (more than 2000/week), a new technique was developed. At first, waterhyacinth mite adults were collected with a camel's hair brush. This method of collecting individual waterhyacinth mites 89

PAGE 105

92 required several hours and was extremely tedious, A new mite aspirator was developed (Figure 13) which allowed collection in the field of several thousand adult waterhyacinth mites/hour (depending on the number of mites present) . With this aspirator, it was a simple matter to collect only the adult galumrdd mites needed, and pass over other mites. Incubator 1, with the lowest temperature regime, was unreliable for all experiments. Plant material, nutrient solution and water froze within 1 week. For this reason, experiments in incubator 1 were terminated after 3 weeks. Results and Discussion No detrimental effect on weevil oviposition was noted aver a 10-week period (Table 32).. . Number of eggs laid/female was higher in incubators 2 (for all levels of mites) and 3 (for 50 mites/ pseudolamina) -when mites were present as compared to controls without mites. Extrapolating these results to the field, there may be no detrimental effect of large populations of adult waterhyacinth mites on mottled waterhyacinth weevil oviposition. In fact, weevils may even oviposit more when populations of mites are high (see p, 110).

PAGE 106

EFFECT OF ADULT WATERHYACINTH MITES ON WEEVIL EGGS Methods and Materials Using the Freas incubators at the settings described above, 3 freshly collected eggs of the mottled waterhyacinth weevil and 10 adult waterhyacinth mites were placed on dampened filter paper in petrl dishes sealed with silicone grease. This was done to determine if mites would feed on weevil eggs under starvation conditions. One such petrl dish was added to each incubator weekly. Controls without mites were added after the third week. Results and Discussion In 10 weeks of testing, there was no feeding or attempt to feed on mottled waterhyacinth weevil eggs by adult waterhyacinth mites. This was revealed after careful microscopic examination of eggs. Controls remained in good condition each week. Mites starved in the presence of weevil eggs as their only source of food. Whether these data, collected under highly artificial conditions in incubators, can be extrapolated to field occurrences under similar conditions is not known. However, since mites in all incubators (representing 4 different temperature regimes) starved rather than fed upon weevil eggs, the conclusion that weevil eggs will hot be attacked heavily by waterhyacinth mite adults in the field is probably valid. 93

PAGE 107

TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY OPTIMA: EFFECT OF ABIOTIC FACTORS Methods and Materials Using the Freas chambers at the settings described above, 5 pairs (5 females: 5 males) of adult mottled waterhyaclnth weevils were added to 1 weighed and measured waterhyaclnth plant. Another similarly prepared plant was infested with 50 adult waterhyaclnth mites* Plants were placed in 2.5 liter stainless steel jars containing 2 liters of 0.5# HoaglaxxPs nutrient colution and ringed with silicone grease to prevent escape of mites. A similar unit was placed in each of the incubators. Each week, for 2 -weeks, data were taken on number of adult weevils and mites/plant and age and number/cm of feeding spots and tunnels. Within this period, however, all plants were destroyed by the arthropods, so an alternate design had to be conceived. Oviposition of mites and weevils (described undei "Effect of Adult Waterhyaclnth Mites on Weevil Oviposition") was used as an index of growth of mite and weevil populations, respectively. In addition, adult waterhyaclnth mites were added to pie pans prepared as in "Effect of Adult Waterhyaclnth Mites on Weevil Oviposition,*' above, except that no silicone grease was used. Additional pie pans were prepared with the silicone grease layer, in which was placed a healthy waterhyaclnth pseudolamina inserted in a waterfilled test tube. The pseudolaminae (which were collected in the

PAGE 108

95 greenhouse at the USDA station in Davie) contained approximately 200 500 immature mite tunnels* One of each set of pie pans was placed in each incubator* Data on number of eggs laid at each temperature regime, plus number of adult mites which emerged from the tunnels were taken for 10 weeks* Similar abiotic data were taken for field experiments* Numbers of weevils and mites/plant were determined for the duration of the study. Periodically the number of weevil larvae (based on number of larval tunnels/plant) and number of pupae/plant were determined along with immature waterhyacinth mites. Results and Discussion Humidity measurements in the incubators were too sporadic for any definite conclusions to be reached on optima for mite or weevil development. High RH, however, £?eemed to favor development of both species (Table 32) because incubators 2 and 3, which had best development of arthropods, also had highest RH, High and low extremes of temperature were most unfavorable to development of both species (Table 32), with mottled waterhyacinth weevil mortality being IOO3G at the low temperature regime (5-25°C) and 15-43?& at the high temperature regime (20-40°C), and 100$ for adult waterhyacinth mites at both extreme regimes. Weevils laid twice as many eggs (125) at temperature regime 3 (15-35°C) es compared with temperature regime 2 (10-30°C) (63)

PAGE 109

96 (Table 32). Number of eggs laid by weevils was affected by number of mites present; at temperature regime 2, kVf> were laid at the lower 2 levels of mites, and 56£ at the higher 2 levels of mites (with only yf> laid by control weevils). At temperature regime 3, 39# of the eggs were laid at the lower 2 levels of mites, 35$ at the higher 2 levels, and 2&f> by control weevils. Mite tunnels produced at the different temperature regimes were also affected by temperature (Table 32), As with weevil oviposition, the 2 extreme regimes were most unsuitable for mite development, with no tunnels produced at the lower regime, and an avert ^e of 0.096 tunnels/female/v*eek at the higher regime. Temperature regime 2 was also most favorable for mite tunnel development, with a total of 1061 emerged adults as compared with 731 at temperature regime 3* Mite oviposition and development showed a similar trend (Table 33). Most eggs were laid at temperature regimes 4 (599) and 3 (598), followed by 2 (529) and 1 (6). There was no statistical difference, however, between number of eggs laid/female in incubators 2, 3 or 4 (based on assumptions of a 1:1 sex ratio and 25 females/pan), with averages of 21.16, 23.92 and 23.96 eggs/female, respectively. Number of nymphs and larvae developing to adults in the incubators showed the reverse correlation, with the greatest per cent developing at temperature regime 2, followed by 3, k and 1, respectively. Average per cent developed from these temperature regimes were ^3.2, 22.8, 18.4 and 4.2, respectively (Table 33).

PAGE 110

97 These data generally correspond to known temperature tolerances of mottled waterhyacinth weevils in the field. Mite data also correspond to best development in the field? i.e. approximately 30°C.

PAGE 111

WATER CHEMISTRY, NUTRIENTS AND ELEMENTAL COMPOSITION OF WATERHYACI NTH Methods and Materials Measurements of alkalinity (total, hydroxide and carbonate), NaCl, CaCO color, Cu. MgCO^, total hardness, NO^, DO, water temperature, pH, PO^ (available and total) and turbidity were made on water from the release site, from ponds which supplied coffin-holders, and from coffin-holders. All samples, except those from ponds (which are sampled monthly for other tests) , were collected after week 50. At the release site of N. eichhorniae , water samples were taken at a depth of approximately 40 cm (root level) at points A, B and C (Figure 1) for all measurements except DO and water temperature, which were taken at a depth of 0 (surface), 40 (root level) and approximately 100 cm (bottom) at all 10 areas* DO and water temperature were taken with a Yellow Springs Instrument Company™ Model 51A Oxygen Meter, All other analyses were run according to instructions in Standard Methods (1971), Plants were collected prior to testing end after 50-weeks. Both wet and dry weights were taken on all collected plants from areas 1-10 at the field release site and from coffin-holders. After taking meristic data on week 50 in both areas, 1 plant each from areas 1-10 was placed in a 25-gallon plastio bag and sealed to prevent escape of contained biota. A similar method was used to contain coffin-holder plants. Plants from each study were then 98

PAGE 112

99 placed individually into Berlese 1 funnels and dried for 1 week with 25-watt incandescent bulbs. Biota were heat-extracted into 70# ethyl alcohol. Plants were then removed from the Berlese* funnels and further dried in a forced-air drying oven for 2-weeks at 21.1°C. Plants were then ground up in a Thomas-Wiley laboratory Mill® Model if, and redried for 7 days in a fib Pr^cision-Thelco ^forced-air drying oven Model 6 at 25°C. Analyses of N, P, K and crude protein were then run on all plants as per instructions in Standard Methods (1971). Plant material was weighed for analyses with Mettler 1 -^ Models H10 and P1200 single pan balances. Results and Discussion Tvter quality measurements were significantly different between canal and coffin-holder areas (Tables 3* and 35, respectively) for all parameters. Canal parameters were consistently higher than coffin-holder parameters for all measurements save pH, which was generally slightly higher in the coffinholders. levels of all nutrients exceeded those needed for growth of waterhyaointh, so nutrients were not considered to be limiting in either study. This is critical to valid interpretation of the stress applied by biological control agents; if plants were stressed by lack of a critical nutrient, then effect of released phytophagous arthropods would not be accurately gauged. Since all coffin-holders had the same nutrients added (i.e. pond water and 0.5£ Hoagland»s nutrient solution) in exactly the same smounts, the amount of these nutrients present in the water would be an inverse function of the absorption by waterhyaointh.

PAGE 113

100 Water in coffin-holders containing weevil-mite combinations (released simultaneously) had the lowest amounts of nutrients in most cases (Table 35) • and controls had generally the highest amount of nutrients in the water. Stressing waterhyacinth, then, causes it to take up more nutrients that it would if not stressed by arthropods. These results are also reflected by elemental content data of waterhyacinth from each treatment (Table 36). Plants containing simultaneously-applied weevils and mites had the highest content of N and crude protein (CP) , and very high P and K, when compared to other treatments. Other authors have obtained results from elemental analyses of aquatic plants (Gerloff et al, 1964, Reimer and Toth I968) and waterhyacinth that were not stressed by arthropods (Table 3?). These unstressed plants had an average of N, P, K and CP higher than plants in my experiments. Even taking different areas and times of sampling into consideration, these results may indicate that nutrient removal capabilities of these and other biotic agents can be significant. Plants from the release canal, however, had higher levels of these nutrients than did plants from coffin-holders (Table 36). Water from the canal, however, had much higher nutrients levels than did pond or coffinholder water, which may account for this difference (Tables 34 and 35), DO readings were the reverse of nutrient-content data (Table 38). Both temperature and DO were higher in coffin-holders than the field. In both cases, however, DO was very low under waterhyacinth, and could certainly inhibit aquatic life in these situations. Temperatures under waterhyacinth and in open water contained in coffin-holders showed similar trends to field water temperatures (Figure 14). Temperatures were more constant and extremes were less under waterhyacinth than open water.

PAGE 114

Figure l'f. — Monthly changes in water tenperature (°C) in coffin-holders in Davie, Florida.

PAGE 115

102 MJJASONDJFMA MONTHS (197^ '75)

PAGE 116

DISCOVERY OF A POSSIBLE KAIRQKONB FROM WATERHYACI NTH Methods and Materials An insect olfactometer was designed (Figure 15) to test the attraction of N. eichhorniae to a chemical produced by growing waterhyacinth pseudolaminae and petioles. This chemical (or complex of chemicals) may be a kairomone, because it attracts phytophagous organisms which feed on waterhyacinth. (A kairomone can be defined generally as a sendochenr' cal produced by one organism which attracts members of another species, which then damages the producing species in some way; i.e. a chemical message that does not benefit the producing orgamism.) This "kairomone" is also suspected of being the phagostumulant for mottled waterhyacinth weevils and waterhyacinth mite adults, and may cause adult weevils to oviposit more heavily when present in high amounts (see "Contributions to the Theory of Biological Control of Aquatic Macrophytes with Primary Consumers," p. 107.) Crushed waterhyacinth petioles and ground pseudolaminae were added to the left-hand plastic box in Figure 15. A whole, mature pseudolamina (with its cut end sealed to prevent escape of the "kairomone") was added to the right box. Twenty-seven adult Neochetina spp. were added to the shell vial, and left overnight. The experiment was replicated 3 more times, alternating the samples each time. No air flow was maintained through the olfactometer. Number of weevils in each box after 24, 36 and 48 hours was noted. 103

PAGE 118

105

PAGE 119

106 Results and Diseusfcdon After 2k hours, over 90$ of the insects were attracted to the left chamber (or the chamber containing the "kairomone" in later replications) of the olfactometer. The existance of a chemical that attracts weevils to broken and crushed plants is thus confirmed. These weevils also created more feeding spots/insect than those attracted to whole pseudolaminae with sealed ends, so a phfgostimulant is probably also involved. It has already been shown that mottled waterhyacinth weevils lay more eggs in the presence of mites (Table 32), This may be due to release of more of this "kairomone" by the addition of mite damage. Thus, not only are weevils tied to waterhyacinth in their pupal stage (due to the needed root hairs for pupation), but they may also be stimulated to lay more eggs, feed more, and aggregate around injured plants due to a "kairomone" chemical (or complex of chemicals) present in waterhyacinth tissue.

PAGE 120

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE THEORY OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF AQUATIC MACROPHYTES WITH PRIMARY CONSUMERS Results of these experiments may add to our knowledge of biological control of aquatic weeds with obligatorily monophagous (or stenophagous) primary consumers. There is a very complex relationship between introduced herbivores, their host plants and the environment. Although biological control of terrestrial weeds has been discussed extensively (Huffaker 1959, 196^. Huffaker and Kennett 1959. Wilson 1964, Zwolfer 1973, Zwolfer and Harris 1971), litei*ature and demonstrated examples of biological control of aquatic macrophytes are scarce (Andres and Bennett 1975t Zelger 1967, Hawkes et al. I967). Floating hydrophytes are under a great deal of stress from the environment. Terrestrial weeds are s bject to fluctuations of the environment; submerged aquatics are generally under more constant conditions, due to the influence of their surrour.iing aqueous medium; but floating aquatic plants must have mechanisms by which they can thrive in both media at the same time. Eradication of an aquatic weed is rarely, if ever, the desired end point in a biological control program. Phytophagous arthropods are usually introduced to reduce size and/or density of plants to some anthropocentrically determined allowable level. This level is a highly arbitrary figure and varies depending upon local conditions. Conflict of interest is obviously intimately involved in this process of determination of allowable level. A hypothetical goal, namely a fringe of waterhyacinth on a given body of water, may not be attainable with only 1 or 2 biological control agents, even if releases of exotic arthropods are backed up by sound biological and 107

PAGE 121

108 ecological data. It has been demonstrated herein that release of N. eichhorniae on a mat of waterhyacinth that is infested with 0, terebrantis can reduce size and density of waterhyacinth significantly over the period of 1 year, under certain conditions. This reduction has not reached the extent of limiting growth of waterhyacinth to a fringe of plants as yet. Nor has this goal been reached in areas of Ft. Lauderdale where weevils have been established for over 3^ years (Perkins, pers. comm.) and mites for perhaps 70 or more years. The reduction that has been realized in these experiments has coincided with increase in populations of the mottled waterhyacinth weevil, and has bean aided by high populations of waterhyacinth mites with the concomitant heavy invasion by pathogenic fungi and saprophytes. These effects should theoretically increase with the addition of the second species of Argentine weevil, N. bruchl . which is presently in the field in Ft, Lauderdale. Unlike biological control of insects, then (where the main stress is exerted by the released biological control agent(s) itself), biological control of waterhyacinth in the United States may follow a different pattern. The release of waterhyacinth weevils (and other direct pseudolaminae and petiole feeders such as grasshoppers, which are slated for future release) exerts a certain amount of direct stress by destruction of photosynthetic tissue. Weevils, based on results of experiments described herein, lay more eggs in the presence of mites. Reasons for this were at first obscure,

PAGE 122

109 but nay involve the following mechanism. It has recently been found (Perkins and Lovarco, pars, comm.) that breaking petioles of a waterhyacinth plant causes an 8-l6-fold increase in the number of weevils that come on to a plant. Results of the olfactometer experiment (p. 106) have shown that a possible "kairomone" is released from the young, growing petiolar tissue in the breaking process, which draws insects to the point of breakage. Such a stimulant may also stimulate weevils to increase oviposition. Extrapolating these concepts to the field situation where great numbers of waterhyacinth mites are present leads to the following proposed hypothesis of interaction of weevils, mites and plants. When adult mottled waterhyacinth weevils are first released in an area, most of their feeding is concentrated around a very small area. When adult weevils are present, their feeding creates feeding sites for adult waterhyacinth mites. Since waterhyacinth mites can easily feed on pseudolaminae with breaks in the tissues (Del Fosse et al. 1975). a favorable habitat for waterhyacinth mite development is thus created. As waterhyacinth mites begin to oviposit, more of this "kairomone" in pseudolaminae is released. This in turn attracts more weevils to plants, which may be stimulated by the "kairomone" (or part of the chemical complex) to oviposit more. This leads to more suitable feeding sites for adult waterhyacinth mite feeding, and the process continues, limited mainly by ambient abiotic conditions (which limit growth of waterhyacinth mite populations). This also explains the synergistic effect of the

PAGE 123

no populations of waterhyacinth weevils and mites when they are in combination on plants, and the limited dispersion of weevils for months after initial release of adult weevils. The double stress thusly applied to infested waterhyacinth plants by the synergistic combination of waterhyacinth weevils and mites is further multiplied by the addition of pathogenic fungi. As earlier demonstrated, there is a very close relationship between incidence of A. zonatum . the causal agent of zonate leaf spot disease of waterhyacinth, and mite tunnels of age 4; i.e. after the adult mite has created its emergence hole. Since adult waterhyacinth mites are attracted to fresh weevil feeding spots (i.e. age 1), and adult weevils are stimulated to lay more eggs and feed more heavily when large numbers of waterhyacinth mites are present (possibly due to the increased titre of "kairomone" released by waterhyacinth mite feeding), which will lead to heavier mite populations, the amount of fungus (or other waterhyacinth mite-dependent pathogens) may be directly related to the interaction of these 2 arthropods. Thus, the interaction between N. elchhorniae and 0. terebrantls is a very complex cne, but all indications point to cooperation rather than disoperation, which leads to a synergistic effect on waterhyacinth.

PAGE 124

APPEiOXX

PAGE 125

112 S to 3 W o cm 3 s3 ON o CM (0 H O e tsO 14 5 4 4 0 £ > H 4 4 4 4 4 4 cj 4 4 CJ 4 4 '4 Q a OS vO CA CM >A CM 95 CO O o >A rH OD O CO CA O CM vO CO O VA o CM o SI i-l O CM ON vO ON CM i-l Ov tH CM i-l iH i-l IN r-i Si 4 V «k 4 o T 4 O 1 4 T 4 r 4 O o * O O O O O va CM O va ft o o O VA VA CM o VA o o VA CM O o O VA o o • VA • • • va • 00 • • • • • ON • CO • o 1-1 • ON • o iH 4 .a ,o •> 4 1 .o V * .Q o •d II o 7 o •d 1 JO O o 3 S CM M3 >A CM to CA CO Pi CO o VA CO CM i-l CM CM CM CM CV! CM CA CM CA CA CA CM JQ ,o JO ja JO .'> .o 4 4 4 4 4 ,o 4 • 4 m 4 4 * 4 4 m 4 • 4 O o o • 'A CM • VA C\i 'A 'A • o o o o VA o O >A o VA o o o o • o o O • o • CM .3• CM • « CM • CM • CM • i-l • CM . • CA 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 • o CM • O VA • VA CM • 'A CM • 8 o o o 8 vO 3 O VA CM CM VA CM O CA -r-t tA • OCM • o CM • o •r-i • CM : • o CA • ri • VO iH . • CA CM • CM i-t * £> *» X) ft & 4 4 4 4 Cj ,a 4 4 m 4 4 4 4 * 4 4 O O • O o • o VA O o O 'A 'A o o >A CvVA O O O VA VA OVA CM o (M ri o •rH • CO • 1-1 • CM t-t VA rH • CO • »A • tH • CM i-l ' • CO ! • vO • O t-l • o tH 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 «) 4 4 4 O O • CM vO • o o • ft • VA • o VA VA CM • o VA VA CO CA «A CM VA CM CM CM CA • CM vi • v. M • • ro • • ^i • CM • iH ? 4 V 4 V 4 O ? 4 O ,0 V 4 ? 4 o ? 4 4 JO * 4 O o ft ft ft o >A O CM o VA o 'A O VA VA CM O O o VA •r-i CM CM CM c*"\ O lA 1 1 c\) Si 1-1 tH Oi-l 1 iH s 6! u a X X t* g H H 0ft > > 00 $
PAGE 126

, $ *o ?J i 3 O bO H rH +» qS cd Q> JS t> H CM .a 05 4 4 cS 4 rt d « o o -3" o vr\ Oo r* CM vO s va CA O VA vO v5 co o CO CO CA CA tr\ CM co CA CO CO On vO o vO ON ON tH o CM vi CM Xt m ^> • .o x> ,o ft at .Q JO .O .O .Q 00*6 8 • CO • o o • VA VA CM Cv• VA CM CO 6.75 O VA • CNVA CM • co 8 • Cvo o • Ov VA CM • ON • ,Q m a o n O * o ** •O o * A o o ft iO O • o ft £> o o ft o ft o ft .o 1.00 CM • CM o va • CM CO ca • CM o as • CM CM vO • CM CM vO • CM CM vO • CM CM vO • CA O O • CA CM vO • CA 2.88 • CM VA « CM ,0,0,0 fl^flfl^^^JJ .Q • • • •»«••>»••.«.• . O O 1A o O *A o O *A O >A O VA O CNtA O O O O O CA A o CM CM va QN CA CA 0\ CM CM CO CO vo CA iH vO CM i-i CA «-l ft ON M H ON CO ON NO i o o X H H s H 0 O ON CM NO CM -JCM OCM CO M tH CM CM 8 o CD I I

PAGE 127

Tt +> rH . 4 to ov 000 <»h fco td O rt 0) 0 , o S3 «-g 0 3 © to . o 4 01 1 © -p © N—' © © «d :< £h P n h S © © «n 3 HH^ J ' i ' > £ > rH ,© M n o ! 0 4 3 U CM O 5 s o t© -4 Eh O 3 • 3 P ,0 * O St a 0 0 0 O O .O O O 0 .0 ,0 m £i ,a * ,0 •> 11 ,0 O 0 0 • -* .-t • 0 VQ CM CM '-0 O O 0 0 0 O 'O s O • • O• ON • ON • VO • 0 « SO • CO • •4CM • -it rH 4 '0 r •0 0 • .0 ? 0 ? O f O © O 0 © • •0 O •> © © ? O O O • UN. CM • »0 00 0 JN CM O O O >JN vr% OCM O O CO • vo • vr\ • 0• • CO • ON • CO • CO • CO • ON • ON • CO 0 A O u O O O O 0 4 ,jQ * • •> t) ,Q * O m 8 • * CM • O 0 • • CM • CM cO CM O CO CN VO 0 CM CM CM • CM • CM • c^ tt CN • C^V • CN • CM • CO 4 4 4 ) •J •J 4 1 s* 4 tj 4 4 4 O O • 0 0 • 0 0 • 8 • O O O O CM 0 0 VT\ OCM O tr\ CM O O 0 0 O 0 H • • ft CN * 0 • CM • O • • CO • CO ? ,0 0 I ? O r ,0 •J 1 ? 'J V © 4 9 1 .a 4 O O • O O • CV O • co CO (*> O if '7s t ON CM CM CM O O . ( VO 'A co co 3 • <0 -M 9 •O « CM vH P -* CO* vH tj •J Y A •d 0 d cj ? .j J 1— * .O >d ! w 1 • 0 0 • O O • w> CM • 0 • >n o tM O CO T-t •. ^ CO .H rH CO rH • O :~t • • • en . 4 • CO • T ^ • CO 0 • CO i 4 aj J { >d .M CM C^ tH CM CM JO 4 .0 •k 4 •> d * U 0 ? 1 4 y 4 ,o 4 O r 4 Q. O • vo CM • O VO O O • CN «N CM 0 CM vr\ CM 0 0 CO • CM & f cX • CO 0 CM cC CM «N en • >o . • vO VO ON H H B n XI X u £ ON H 0 H H rH > > iO ON O 0 •, < ON CM CM CM OCM CO CO v\ CO T-l CNCM

PAGE 128

115 $ u n n • (DO S 6h : , I ) •rl bp O © C O rj S tri p o to 4 •;-> '.'I 31 g 4 +> G C +> n O-rl o .© w © H 'd & rj » f! « P © bfl S O qj « . Pi © +> ' -r^ s • £h 4 C O 43 .'-t el O vi h C-t 5 © © g£3 H += 0 w • I [ o >,.» © bO << 0) :1 o CM 3 o : 0 -4 8* © OO O CM CQ CO CO O ^ ON ON. Q NO O O O O \H CO UJ 00 un CN On un UN UN o *H -.HtH H H C\J r( H d t-H tH y-4 7 Q . I 43 4 o o o O un O • • • CN VQ .^JO 43 4 43 4 o o o o o o • • • vH n OJ 4 43 43 'd 43 UN UN O UN O CM frun Oo • • • • • V\ NO NO CO tN •d -O 43 UN UN O CM CM U> m o un un OCM ON 0\ vo CO CO ** 43 o o o o o •t » * » 43 43 43 ,Q Q UN O Q UN CM UN UN O 43 O 4 04 'X) CO T-i on cn o 43 O o 43 •a o o o H a o • S cm fJNojNnnc^^(vir\ 444444444 4 4 O 'A O CN• • cn o a un o o O un un O O CM CM O O O CM O O Q 'A un uS • ••••• 4 OJ N N (°i M 'A o .O 43 43 43 • • m * 4 4 4 4 .a 43 43 qj 4 4 43^ <4 «T i 4 J Q A O (O O O 4 ir\ vn in ^ OvO CO CM ^ o >?So On CM On N Cn N od (O ctD ON IN CO 0\ CM CN CM CM CN v4 V\ ON vo v\. 00 tH *-4 CM •«-* CM CN 43 43 oJ «J WN O O CvO O • • a Q O •J O o o 0 qj qj qj qj qj O CN ON \Q vH r-t vH i J 4 UN o • • ON tH <4 «} 9 C] . I o O Q O 7 V 43 43 n to n (14 4 CM T-l O CM CO O VO CO UN Q CO O O CM UN CN O O UN UN CM UN UN o CM CM vH CM OUN »»»•••••••••« CMCMCMCMCMCMCMtHi-icMCMCM vH CM o o :-fN CM J eg UN 43 J 43 <4 cS ^ CM UN UN UN UN O POCV CM u^ • • • • \H CO .H VO 5> S3 ^ 43 4 H CN 4 & tt 4 UN O £>o • • >A vo Ov j-J CO ON tH O JJ O vo 4 OcO CO U"\ eN CV OOCMCMCMCMv-«tH^I*-icM '.M Eh O I 0 3 CM o i CO 4 I LHXl ii

PAGE 129

(0 i © o +> c t O 43 n .(DO 00 c? :i I g «n 5 9 h $ 3

© I ©a « h •H S UN *l 4 UN © © *. © 2* O O -g 2 ^ J 43 c © o © © © © 4 3 r-f > to -p 0 P © 60 ^ P. . O ej W 1 © +> • > O ~ 0 © v. ' © © •J u 6-« O W h © © a 1 is H U o r. ay u «^ H 1 o r-. CM 0 1 3* p a, < £3 4 .'3 Eh O CM O bO 5 4 43 «3 «3 «3 * * «k » «tf flj c$ c0 cJ ct5 qS <3 aj qj t$ 0 0 0 0 0 as ON »-l ON VO 0 N 00 0 •H 0 0 CO CM . i UN i-i 'A H c*n tH 0 ON CM CO 0 ri CN CN1-1 1 d cJ ? 4 7 4 7 J J d <* 0 O O •d * O O T» • 0 O O • O CJ • 'N * cm • Q N V 0 0 cM O O 8 O O O 0 in • • vO • 03 * 'O • CO • CO • ON * ON » CO (J O .O * 0 ,a y .0 •y ,Q f fi -d 0 •0 X» •v 1.00 UN » cvj •O • UN CnI • CM CM vO • CM un IS « CM CM > ^ « en cM O • CM S3 • CO • CN :3 • CO aS . CN CNJ NO • CA O O . ON .O «3 ,Q ja J3 c-J 5 4 of «4 . H J 43 ^1 d 4 0 0 0 0 CJ ^J O >'N UN CM UN CM •'N J '-'N v 1 O O O UN 0 0 O iH ,H CM CM ON 0 "N i-l V 4 0 V .O ft (« O <3 ? ? 43 * 4 i4 «t 4 O 0 . ON ON 60.00 ON NO • t-i ON ON • O CM • UN, • CNc>N o< CM 21.00 -, -i ON • u>> • CM '0 CO • CNiH UN CO • ON CM UN CM • On t-l ? c« a * 43 • cS V a O m .0 O 4k ? I J >A t>c0 CM NO CO ON CM •ri UN CNON ON cn CM CM CM CM tH vH «H rt CM CM aj O » 43 O O £> m a >i * V d CJ CJ A >A' CM »r» CM O O 0 0 O O O O UN CM O O ON O CO cS CM O f vO ^3" UN. u> CJ En CM ON CM ON §1 UN ON t-i NO O CM ON H S 0 00 ON NO T-l o o ON X X ON T-l o o ON NO CM CM CM CM CO CO UN ON OT-< T-l T-l T-t CM

PAGE 130

117 N -J i JQ m u •P O • O O C w © •H S) o © q h » oq 4 © o ^ *d *H ;H ^ © §b 1 S P. bp i-| , O 4 Ul 1 2> -p no e-« 4 q o © © © n 3 +> M n +> o or o (4 o O ft 0) So © n °. -°. * °. y y -°. * y * y y O-^OOOO ^ ia ir\ >A O (A v> iA n >A 4 CM vO CM UN O \Q O O N O »»»••••••••••« \0 4 On 00 vo >A On 4 Oh© CM t-I t-I CM *-l *H v-l t-I rH H N H 4 444444 r OO V 3 O « O C S -OOC S -C^O-OCMCMUN.OCMO • ••••••••••••• VO «N no N N © © ON ON ON On 00 ON On TOrQO'dij'd tStJojo 4 ,Q .Q 4 .Q oo o o 00,0 4 o O NN>A«S00rlCMO00vr\i7\vo o • ••••••••••• ON « «l O 4 o >1 i< tj ij il ij ^ iA UN »r\ vr\ q un. O CM C^OC^un. c\! vr\ O O UN UN. O O O O O CM CM O UN O ••••• •••••• OOOcMUN.cNC--ONCMt-ICMO ON. o 7 ^ y y * y -°. * y * v tJ.Q 44404 4 44444,Q OOOCVJW\OONOC^.vr>oO\OCM OtHCNjt-liHOC^-VACNlC^O^AvONO • •••• •• •••«. QO^^CNftCM^ON^CMUNocM tM^CMNCMMHCMcgi? 4 .0 T> 4 ct5 o o lOiOSlOS^oo oo o vr\ o NN^NONiAiAoo iT\ N u> O CM ON CM ON 00 O CM 00 ri vd CO N iA CM T-t vH -r-t t-I <4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 O CAfAcMT-tOv-5invOCM O ON ON CM CM CM ON CM O CM O NO n OCM CM CM CM ON t-I CM 4444,00,0 44444 O O >A ^ O v> o UN o O O OOUN CNO OUN •••••• CO no UN ON ON ON On cm UN ft i-i yr\ CNcn» ON un 00 • • • CO no un 3^8 o 5 • ft UN. CM 3 4 UN CM CO CO 00 CM ON "N On B 0 00 On •r-l O X! H X X ON H ON y-i o o On no CM CM CM CM H H CO CO H ft UN. ON CN. CM CM CM 4* O q 3 +> O e-i o © 4 o © 1 rj * it u H H

PAGE 131

118 CO •H -3 5 (4 o o (0 © a C CO O •H fcp O a> q ^£ +> O CO 3 «» © o /-v^J CO j? — ' E-l CO CD a I CJ >-i sJI CD CAP ° -H © © O CO © CO CD H .1 J 4 H © > CO u > O CD u 2 ci OP CD O O 0 J d CD o > 10 +> s <-f ri ^ ri O 3 CD bO t>sh 5 a CD v — ' CD CO 4 H p id ft S © CD ass O o •H CD | CD ji o o s o CO CD bO H CO O a Or CD Si 3h 8 o CM O 53 CD si O -3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 rtHrliHrlCVHHH .o o o o o o 4 4 4 Xi JO X> A £> O >A O UN. UN o O >A iA i>-vr\t>-cMUN.vr\cMt>8 C\ \Q N N O C\ CO ON ? ! I I 1 « 4 ,0 .O ;Q O us, CM CM un oo O t>1-4 vO t>c*>. • ••••• ooO O o o O JO 4 O O UN o CN. O ? JQ m .o 4 4 u> O 4 CM O O • • • •rH O ON • ON A 4 O O u^ u> 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 O O UN CM CM r-i O o UN CM CO CO CM UN CM u^ CM CM CM C^V CM CM CM CM CM CM T-t CM CM CM o o CM O UN u^ o o • • s B I ^> O O ^3 ^3 X> ,Q 04^3^3 4444 CMO-O-cMCVcMCMO -J" cAtVONvO C"\ CM MD ON CO ON MD O O H X a H H a B f5 > O o On CM CM CM CM co co rN v-t CM CM CD O CD taO

PAGE 132

119 £4 j2 a ^ 03 1 4 o +> 4 <«H . o q o o rf © © a ^ w 3 « © -d © -H bo h u © 4 > w +> O P © M , O it ID © +> • ^-^ > O CO C-h «t Q ~ 0 •83 B O 0) f, S © © rl H 5 >J 'J O £ > H o o pi to I c © CM o ; 0 HP « 3 a, 4 g a n 1 -i a o CM a to .3 °. V °. °. °. °. ? ? ? 1 V 4 4 4 ,Q O ,Q ,n r O cj 4 ,o o 4 ovoonuSth^oo^cnca^^o o -3vO ON CO 00 >A CM CM CO CM o © Tj< Cj) © © © ,a .a tj ,a f f ? f 4 4,0,0 O^l O/l OOO'AO^OO^'AOU-N O^OC^VAcM^AOCv-cM^AC*•••••••••••••« O -.H >A iA CO N 05 CO Q\ ON vfl IS On CO O O •y °. 7 v 7 f 4,0.0,0,0,0,0,0 tj O £k fit TJ OCOCMCMJAOCOCMNACM^CMCM^A CN ^A CO vH O CO vO vO CM NO vO • •••••••••• CMCMCMCMCMCACACACACMCMCN, o o ^M O O »A O >AWN. iAiAiAiA»Avrt CM J AcMCM0-CMcMC>-O-t>o 1A OOOO-^-CMvHCMCMtHOOO 4044441)4 4411411,0 O O (A O ^\ Np CO >A CM O t-( CM »A C^N CN T-t IT; r\ MD CM Sn Sn, vb' O j* 1 ca »A ca v-i cm c^vo CM c^n cm n n rt 4rQ .O JO » * m 4 4 mJ (1 ,Q c4 ,Q o O
A o • • ON vr\ .a 4 4 O O VN. O • • CM *H .O 4 rO 4 4 t>O1A • • • h o\ n O»A O CM va O >A W 0\ 4 CA VA Ovo cm 4r vo -3£SON Ox N N v\ N CO CA 'A ovo th cm c>co o\ b' N n N A * eg N rl ON H S H H H 6 CO ON vO o o tA .-( O O On CM H 4 N CO CO CM CM r4 th > > ^A CA EN. CM CM o © u 4 I CM ro & 1 © © 4 I ^1 II H

PAGE 133

120 4 £i 4 S1£ gas** 0 pJ (0 bfl ^ & SP*rf O cj to 1 © 4? • * — s b» O On E-t 4 C! ^ rf m > > H .O. M CM '.1 +3 O or o C H 'J e o a : j o CM O ,o .o 4 4 .-O 4 * 4 « 4 * 4 •> m 4 CM • o »n • 8 • «n CO cn ON NO 8 »n 01 CM CM CM >n • (0 CM .--» • o • ON • CO H « o CM tNcn 4 (4 4 Si O O o o 0 o o o O a 2.00 CM « CM o • -3• CM • o o • ON Q • o. *o • CO * CO o o • ON o o • CO o o • On • ON V at Si •> 4 V 4 1 Si .o o V .o 0 a 1 Si •0 O 1.00 o o CM CM NO • CM T"» CM o • CM o •n CM rj O • cn CO CO CM k — ' • Cn N.M NO • cn • « CM \ r\ ' J » • CM CM • cn 4 4 al 4 4 4 '1 4 4 n !>01 o En o >n C3 o A CM o o o o o o o CM cn •c-i o .4 CM CM o Si m .a 4 4 4 4 4 ,o 4 4 .O « .o .o < J .o n al 4 o o • ON CN. CM • >n • CO cM ,H CO • »n CM o in « CM •n CM . ON i~i fO n • CO CM o • CM • o • *n cn o »n • r-t C^ O >A o NO • NO T-i } ,o } f ? ? ? f ? -°. V 4o44 4 444444 o o vn in in o o cnoo o o >n o o »n »n cm o o CM o• •••••••••••• cnvnco-4-o.ricncMoocMooo CM 4 a} i 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 o o . cn O »n • cn *n CM * cn • cQ • CM o • CO cn • CM 51 • CM O o cn *n oCM O o • cn vn CM • cn CM NO • tj>

4 444 o »n o v\ \r\ o >n o oin cm oo oo on o cncn no cn co ocm >n 4 o *n vn o vn o o o CM CM M> cn. o «n • ••••«. oco >n cn CM hi « « 9 On M M H CO On no I O O cn th o o On no OCO CO CM CM CM CM -r-t ,-1 H > > >n cn cn. -H tH cm CM CM. a 3 o i o I H H

PAGE 134

121 V) i I a +> © w 4£ (0 fi © •HOW £>© © H +> xl P. © >H 4 , O +> H © © a o h U 4^k © 4 d (D bO o 4 to • © +> o ^ > g o © V^r H N • 1 O PJ si % i cm o S5 © 3h o CM o S3 4 si CO .0 X> Xi 4 4 .0 m .a .0 • <» 4 4 ,0.0,0,0 • » » • 4 4 4 Q] 5 * ^ ^ o VO On UN UN. UN, H N N N O 00 iA T-t vO ^ N CM vH v-4 t-4 ,0 ,0 4 4 ,Q \o •* o CO O On O 81 UN. O IN «-t H H (\1 .O O OO 4 4 43 O ,Q .O Xi O o .0 O V\ 1T\ V> >n T\ v> o OCMCMCMC--CMCMO • •••••••4 CO CO CO >0 CO ON OCO ft Q >A iA ^ O O N N N O • • • • • ON ON ON ON CO ,a©© 4 4 4 .O ,Q ,Q T3 O T) T) O o CO C>UN CO CO CM OiO (sj © rj • I T -d O ,0 >A V\ if> CM OCM tH t-« »H CM CM CM COCM CO CO CO CO CM CM X> Xi XI .O .O .0 ,0 ,Q ,0.0 4444444444 4 , Q 4 4 O l O v AOiOQ0 1 0 0'-0 , OO l OO Ovo O O CM OO O O O* O CM O N (\t O CM <5 CO CO CM vH O O vr\cO Xi ,0,0,0.0,0,0,0,0,0 4^34444444444 4 Xi UN CM o O C\ iH N ^ ON CO CO >0 CO >o OCO NO CM *0 CM Cn-CMO-^OOOcMVOcM-^-^Cn-O CO^fx-»CMCOCOcOCMCMCMCOTH-O'd'0^1 4 44 44 4 O O vo UN. o O O OOO VO UN. o UN O O CM C>O OUN o UN Q O O vfS O VO CO "J" CO UN CO CM O tH tH UN. \Q 4 4 4 4 OU^cMcMCOOCOcMCMCMCQO CO O VO UNCMv-tTHCOUNCOt-t CMCOCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCO CM UN o o 4 UN ft CM ,0 ^> O vo CM UN. O O • CM CO • UN ON 0.0 ft ^o ^0 4 4 O 5 .O »o ft ^ 4 o CM Xi ft ^1X> 4 ON NO NO ON no On ON CO o o • • VO xo o o CM ft ON CO On Np COiH OnnO-4 N CO CO UN CO O^OOOOcMcMCMcM-r-l'.Hv-JT-tcM CM o O © bfl 4 II M I

PAGE 135

© to s> w J? 4 CD O A nr) H +> CD 0 (0 CD +> CO P

H 4 CD O CD H -p g Coo H "H P P, g o 4 0 4 * "15 CD 0 <0 CD +>H O 1 ^ CD W (J ^£ CtJ > 4 W CD -P I 4 CO ±> CD CD P to +> 4 • CO CO CD +> 6 I •H O 4 CD +3 a a to CD CD ft p 7° • o t-I CO CO 4 H C 4 +J Eh CD O o CD S5 CD 10 S CD >i E-t (0 CD CO hO C P 4 t»« 0 © H id ft A >A \Q UN, UN 3: if ^ V O o o o o 4 0) O UN, CN OCM *A o P> CM CN 1 I ? '0 cj qj 8 ^ CM 'A cS flj q) c4 OOcMCOcM»AcMCM ^ cm r\ n n o >A On Os 4ON vo 1-1 O UN{S-vr\\r\c^\C^\CM O A CO CM t-t C^ PN CM tH < »0 ON CO cvj qj qj qj qj q5 qj qj O UN. UN VTv o CO CO Q -4" CO n n m n n n 4 cA 4 \ vo^ ^> qj q) q) q} qj UN O CM CO O • • • • • CN 4CO cM CO v-J O CN CO cn c*N CN CN CM CN ^c^^^^c^c^^cX?!^^^^ o o ON 4 4 4 UN uv vn, CM CM • « ON O H H CM • « ON O OUNWAU^iaoo UN vn o 'A CM uo CN o O ON On o On CN E CO ON vo CN »-l OOOO ON vo -3" CM CM CM CSCO CO «N CN CS. CM t-I t-I t-I t-t CM

PAGE 136

j w ,0 © g © CO © p © p 4 d > W © 4 O • H © CM © H > rl cj 8 O © H O to _ »A P R GO© e o aj O 4 u © p Vi g to © w © fi S ft£ © to -H g> 4 to © P ©hO P 4 G 4 g to © © u ' H 3 «* to > © © p bO +> 4 • m U U H 9 i •H © © > G •G © ..;> , rl « o CM -H vH © 3 g .0 -H qj +> Eh © j2 a 0 © P © to a © id Eh (0 © © bo £ s £© I I 2 ft © -H £ 3 3* «h to o :3 o « s Pi -G -P p ^-s. O U i-l & O C Pi o Pi ^ — " © H ,G O P ^-N<— > •H bfl 9 +» G p« O © © P« M G © 3 O CM bO 10 G f%, 3~ .G ^ P Is 'd to .2 W CO Ph CM to P, to p 10 +> (X. G 3 4 4 cd 4 4 ij cj (j ij y> o o UN ctf 4 O O ONvQ^-CAOTHVnOOtHVT^vO rlHlAvOvOvOH-CO^HI^nOvO CAcMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM J 4 4 J 4 4 P cm »n o -rH N t> N \fl N • • • • • H N O ia Q N C> ^ ^ 4 O nj © ctf o Tj © OUNvoOtHOUn.ou~\ OO-rHCNCMvOvOCNCN • •••••••• Q (A thON(A 1 AcMCO -TCACMCMCMcMCMCAcM ©^ o y ^. p. n d.Q 4444444 O O O CO CM ON vo O• • • • dvO CO Q 4 >A \o a5 o o Q uv g o\ 4 w cm un o CK >n h t>>A -cfr lA CM o cm vo • • • CO CN. UN CN. -3" -3" 4 4 4 4 id ON o ovO O • ON • x-i • •. i • CO • 00 th vo ^» ir\ o y-t ON >A CM VO CM O OSVOOCO ON CM >A CA ON rl •r-i -r-t tH CM O 4 4 4 4 4 w> O ON ^> CM VO WN o CO t-4 • • • • • O (M 4 »0 vo t-i *-t vH tH t-I 4 v -N 4 Gn Ov w> CA CM iH tH vH 4 CM 4 4 CN »o • • C-\ CM 4 CM CM • • 44444444444 o o o o o o UN. UN C? OOvo •5 VA ON vH l°\ CA CM -Q" o o • Pi o o >a O o t3 o O CM . i CA CA CM o o UN o O CO CM VfN XA OCM • • -dvo l A CM 4 O cD « UN CM cA cn en CO, cd ca on vo cM 4 4 4 4 4 4 O ovnunoouno un. VNO-CM'AOCS-OCV. 4 4 4 4 4 Q iA UN u> o tfS CM OCM V> OOCO CM Ov-^cMO Ovco Ovo cM Ov H Ov

PAGE 137

ctf © © w © p © -p 3 © p O • iH © CO © rl «} ©" O © H 0 U W tr\ •P g co© § 3 * V} © •P H © 1 ^ © w «y .3 © jH «a -H g> ctf w NOP ^ a a > w © © U Vi a a o H 4 n bO p ctf > © f< f< H • © © P > c: © w ctf g © w © 43 © P ctf 7 ° • o CO -H tH © Eh © 45 O o © S3 © bD +5 3 C*s £© IS O 3 O O ft, 43 P P *~N,^. O Mhh g O C pj O © H 45 o P "->^> •H MhI fi +> « ft, O 23" p 13' w o •A u © 45 o P ^ X) ^1 w H ft, (X, CM ft, o'l ft, w P "J op. ctf 4 ctf 4 >tf i 4 4 o CM CO o On r> 1-1 CM CM >o CM CO CM • • • • • • • • co CO CO co CM co CM ctf 4 a 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 N VO H to uS On ctf qj ctf ctJ ctf ctf O ON O VQ O\Q CM ON CO ON CM CM CO CO Q CM ft ca n o r\ w vo co o vH O £N -3" Q cm t^i n r> ^ ON cM CO no *0 to \o CM CO CO CM CM CM CM CM CM 4 O XS T) O 43 • W * O 43 4 CM ON -j•dON CO CO 4 M3 CO 4 43 ctf 4 CO OCO CO ON N 'A QN \Q ON nQ rt CO O-voir-cf co co -3O CO CM -3co 'A ctf m 4 i4 id 3 iTi CO to -A o CM ON o CO » • • • • • • • • • • 00 ON CO CO CM o CM CO CM .-< .-1 H .H . H vH tO tH \Q ON \Q tPv O • ••••• CO CO CO tpy VT\ -jr-t tH tH tH 3 -3 J ctf c4 cd O o o to o o o o ctf ctf o o O tTN vo co vo <} c^oo -3o o>o vg 4 4 4 4 o CM 'O vo CO LO o o c8 vo o • • • • • • • • J* CO CO CO O CM CM CM iH 1-1 i-l tH < H s-i 4 rtf 4 c3 ctf 4 Q o o o o >o O O ; o o O o CM O O • • • • • • CO l 3 Q o CO s CO CO o ON ON co CO CO CM CO CM CM 43 43 ,o ,o .o .o 43 .Q XI .a .o 43 43 ctf CO CO co CO -Jro >o CO CO -* CO N CO co CO CM CO CO CO ON CM ^o CM ctf ctf ctf 4 a) ctf 4 ctf ctf ctf ctf ctf cd aj O o to CM O o o o o UN O «s o >o to CM O VTN, O o to CM o o O En ON O H ON iH o o iH o iH ON o CO O iH o iH ft ON Date iH S3 ha VIII X H X 0 ON i ^ H H III > > CO 1-( ON o CO CD iH o ON CNJ VO CM CNJ CM
PAGE 138

1 tH © § w £ cj CD © (0 CO P © -p 1h ,3 3 cd > s O »H H > rl H © © w -y cd «H +> to o © -ri P bfl -H M» © -P © fi o P cd c 0 125 w © §5 O H «3 U 3>.J5 bfl +> cd • © k H • © © +> > $5 © to cd S © a 3 eh 01 © © -p © i i © -H 4 o a. g © -p cd Q '3 cj cj 4 4 cj >d td oj c3 cj cd O o CM vH vH ON tr\ ,H VO vO o EC ^N O OO ^N CM tH «N CM CM (*>, O -4" FN. C'N CM CM CM CM CN CN CN CN ^3 cd cj cd '1 cd 4 cd ttf 4 cd q> ON vH C'N OCM VO CM tH C«N VO CM o CM CM tH CM CN UN '3 .Q o o O ,o J .3 q$ CI) a) cd «d O CM • Cv • CO vO o o • UN 00 4 tH ON • 00 • UN NO > Ov • tH tH tH tH • • CN nH cj cj cd cd O o O o Sn o o • -o CN cM N v ? CM K CM cj ON «d cd 5 v^ cj UN O CO vO CN O vo cd cd tH CO ON CM ^-^^CMCNCMCMCN cd cd 2> ^ ON ON • • tH CN cd cd cd cd o o o o o UN O UN o UN CM O O cd oj UN Q CM UN o o t>VO tH CO CO Q CO vo ON vj. vQ Ov CN CO CNCO CN^F ON CMCMCMCMCNCNCNCNCMCNCMCNCMCM .o .o .o ,o rQ -4CN CN CN CN CN UN c^ CN CN CN cj cj cd cd i Ov vo CN OS vH o o o o CM Ov CM o © (0 ex, II to

PAGE 139

H ctJ § 2 * ,r~i © p (0 © W ©. P H © § © W ^ n ct w o P bO © © P bfl p ti • o U h H © ©. +) 'I ^ © P ctf ll » o VO-H v-i © E-i © ,C O O © © ra e © a ih n © © bp +> 3 &© II H g o 0 O '^h) S ,8 w ° © O POO P CP, o © © v_xv^ p-. i-5 to o 1 © ^o p l-J hp W c a. 3 s P S H fv, 3! ^ CM B CO O C ,1 a, 4 w p ft, C O Oi © 4 O M'OVOO^iACiJvONON CO tH irv N N to \0 >A CO CO CM ^ (M CO vO CO ON • ••••••••••••• 4 ctJ o CO 0 o o CM o • CO CM CM -A 4 4 VO O CM VO 4 SI ctf ctJ ci5 rj cj qj CO vO CM vo CM vo vo co o 4 4 ON ON O CO VO CO CO CM CM tN CM O vo vo CO CM CM -3" cM CM 13 «H O © 0 CO OCO CO vQ O<0 CO vo vo OOCO Cy^vovocMCO-^tv-cMvQ O CM £>-4" CO CM COCO-3--3CM co >o 00 o CO ON «tf oj ci cj o 'O CM CO r-t v-t OO CM h5 4 CtJ O •rH VO O ON VO ^ vo o -3x-i CO vO vo -J" tH rt 1-1 vH tt a >(5 4 O O o o O O VO o o O • • • • • « vO oCO CO Q ON CM OCM CO CM CO CO CO CO cd 4 4 nJ tt 3VO CO vO CO CO CO cO o! oj i nJ nS O VO o O O vo o CO VO o O CM • • • • • • ON 00 ON o ON ctJ 4 (J 4 ctJ ctJ CtJ 4 O VO VO tH O VO CM 'O CM CM rt CM vo VO ON CO ON o T-l O CM .H . ^ rH CtJ 4 H > > tN CM CO ^h CO vH vo tH CO tH oCM

PAGE 140

O 4 O 3 p !h CO CD CD +> 3 CD +> O • H CD vO CD H > rl n) d) 8 2 H p a q o «> >P fi O 4 O 4 £ S | O) CD in a U H id H co ^ '1 co-^ 4 «h -P DOC a co o bfj 5 a a 9 6 CO CD S 4 O H to > CD CD -P bO +> 4 • © rCj CD P cd ii • o no 8 CM CM CM CM 4 CO ON CM 4 4 8 o 4 o CO CM cd 4 H d" CN tO ON O • • • CM CM co cd 4 cd UN. VO CO « • • N 'A >o CO c o v y v °. ° 00 u> vr\ VO W> tH ci 4 4 CM CM CM co CM • • ON CM C-v cj cs! 4 '3 4 q5 4 CO «A vO ~f OD Ov CM ON Cvl CO O 00 • • • • • • • • O o vO CM ON i ^ vH vH 4 :i "3 4 ctf <4 .3 4 O CZ> vO rO vO x-t ON C^S CM VO CM to vO o Ov v-t C^l o >o »o CO s H •rH 1 H v-l c4 ca CM CM On J tO CO 4 O o 4 o O O CM CM 4 4 4 4 CM O vO *0 ON CO CO <}• CM CM 4 4 4 4 4 4 o o o to CM CM o o vO o o o o o tO w> CO CO to to trv CM CM • * VQ t>3 ^ cD >o o o o o CM O tO C^t CO CO o o • o CO VO CM CO CM 1 i vH o o vO o PS cd ctJ 4 4 cd id 4 4 4 4 CN CN CM CO CO CO CM CO CO CO CM co CO CN. Ov CM CO 4 4 0} 4 4 cd 4 cd cd 4 4 4 cd cd oti^ooovrvtotrvooovooo O CM O ;. »0 »0 CN CM CM O O O CM tOO OOOn o Ov H H H B H X! to ON vO CN ON vH o o O o CM CM CO CM -rH O O t-I - CO CO ,-1 to CO tH tN CM

PAGE 141

^p-g (^n^MMNnMNN CN CN CN CN o ta^ n « 02"-' O O O CO -4" (A >A ^ >A o UN ON CO (M O WN > UN CN OtH tH CM

PAGE 142

129 .O © n H g o ^3 O hO^-v O C (-3 w o •H n 1 n w bp w r •o CM W (X, CM 0) £3 4 (0 +5 4 4 o -3" ON ON 4 4 O CM O NO CN O 4 4 4 4 rl N CO CM CM CM 4 3 4 4 ctJ 4 4 ri S CJ N N ^ ^ 0~\ CO -± CA CA -if CA CA CA CA CM CM CM 4 4 4 4 CO s / A *A Y3 • CM • CA • CA • CA • CA 4 4 4 4 SO O 8 « CM « 00 tH • o CM • t-t CM • o CM o o o O CO CM • • • OON O CO N O n O >A o o & o 4 O \-» O CM O>A >A CA 4 4 ,0 jQ CO * 4 4 O CO CM O rQ rO O CM o o 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 CM O CA CA NO >A \fl \Q CM vO 00 • ••••••••• IC\ N O CO O'A n rl d r-irtTAx-ir-iy-t-r-t-rirtr-t 4 4 4 CM CO o NO CO o • CM • t-t • tH 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 O CM CO >A CM ON O >A NO NO •A CI (*> CM «H t-t £>CA -3-^ > *A ca C<"N CA rH x-t tH cH rt 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 O o O O JA O O o o >A *A o o • • • • • • • • CO CO £>00 o CM CA CA On NO GN >A CN «A CM CM cM PS CM CA 3 cA CA 4 4 4 4 4 $ «J 00 3> o T-l CM CA CA t-t •rH i-t CM t-t vH t-t CM 4 4 4 4 4 o o o o va va CM CM o o 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 J* CA CA CA -3" ?S CA O CA CA CM (A ° § K 4 O CM •rH >A O o -3ON 4 o O Cn• • O00 ^ d va v> \A »A »A O OO 4 4 4 O 00 CM CM o o o o 'A O *A *A O O CM CM O • • • • On CO OOn VIII M X 9 H H H hi > H > > NO o CA O O ON CM VD CM CM CM co CO >A in lA tH CM

PAGE 143

130 4 4 ci 4 4 ci <'5 ci ClJ ci 4 o on CO ON CO OS On vO IN On 1-1 vO CM CO O vo co co o CM vO Cv• • • • • • • • • • • • • • CM CM CM CM co CM CM co co CM co CM CM CM O bph-1 O CftJ o f*5 <3 O -H *^~n — » +> G (X, O U5 o •r) CJ 1 n n bp W 3~ eJ a, 3: — CM n CM (0 p4 4 ft, C o p, <5 o ClJ 4 a) ITS i 4 kO CO o & oCN co • • • H 3 $ CO co co vo CO v-l O ci rt CN CM CO OS VO vO o • .O o .a o .n o Q CO vo as O so o CO CM vo • • • • vO i o vo ON ci on 3 4 o >f\ iri in t>t>-rS al 4 3 CO O UN • ON CM 4 O CO ON O VT\ CM ON ON 4 n m 4 n ci ci ci 4 4 ci ci 4 ci ci ci 4 >i 4 O O UN cH CO on on J* CM •5n vo CO ON Oo co CM CO O ON ON CM IN oON 'O rH CN rH VO J* vH > H vH CM .H iH tH H tH H CO ci 4 ci 4 4 4 ci ci ci ci ci ci ci 3> J* CO ON vH 00 o o 0"N 3> vo vO vO CM vo vo o CM O vO vH u> CO UN vH VO CO CO H CO CM tH •rH tH ci ci ci ci ci 4 cd o o • o o o o O O ViN. UN. UN to Q O O VO O O 4 ci ci 4 ctf ci ci ci ci ci cd 4 cS O o VO VO o o o o «o VO o o o CM CM >o UN »0 vo CM Cvo • • • • • • • • • • • • • CNON CO o CM o ON O 00 ON ON tH vH H ft ON ci vo o >o o o CM O CN O O COvOCOCMQCN-CMtN--^COO-cHT-l^ COOvOCOCOvO-Hvr\OfOCOcMvOVA CM CN CM COCM CO -3" COCOCOCM CO CM CO 4 -i ci ci ci ci > ON vo o o CN O o II (/) 4°^

PAGE 144

131 o o 2 to © ctf P * o O H © t-t © H cd ©" © H o © u ss -H MB © p Q « 2 P co C © © p bO P ctf • © U U H . © © p ~ © to £3 © (0 © © bp J? © H -d ft g p . •H bp,-) g P G ft, O © © • P-. hf) 10 CO, 3" 43^ p § -d to CM 10 CM to cd (0 p a, g op. J cd cd cd cd cd cd 4 cd cd cd • CM t-H • CM 1-4 00 • tH cn • CM cd 4 cd 4 cd d CO UN -I O CM vO ON vO ON ON CM CM CM CM 1 O .0 m O • 0 O O O 1 .O cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd vO O 4vO O 'A ON UN CO •H O CM 0 CM UN VO UN vO UN UN cS CO UN O OvH vO -3" vO 0 0ON M3 00 ON CA ON s> UN ON r-i CN cd cd 4 cd cd cd cd cd cd cd ctf ctf cd 1 5n 00 O-t vO $ ON >VJ OS ON it. O UN OO TH ON UN CM 'A v-l >a . -1 0vO ,H >a CM vH , 1 rH vH O O tH t-4 tH a cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd qj 0• -3" tH 13.37 12.35 00 VO • ON 1 H CO . VO « C*N 0 CM • CN tH ON O • CN tH 12.00 * CM (5v • tH 10.66 CM ON . O tH • ON cd cd cd cd ct5 cd cd cd cd cd cd cd ctf Ctf O O O O 0 UN UN. 0 UN 0 O co 0 O O 0 UN O O UN, OUN CM O O CO vO tSOCvtNOn^MD-* T-t O0 vO ON O ONOvONCACMCM O^J O CMvQ t-I CM ONCMONCM-^^ONONONONONCM CM ,0 .O ,Q ,Q r Q ,Q 43 ,Q ctf -34UN ON -3ON CM ON Ov ON ON ON ON ON CA oN ON ON c-N c>N CM CM * cd tHOOOOCMCMCMCMtHt-It-It-ICM X M X X Ov t-1 H H H 9 H > > o o i o w II

PAGE 145

132 Table 21. — Least-squares analyses of variance for Neochetin a eichhorniae Warner (NE) , Orthogalumna t erebrantis Wallwork (ox) and waterhyacinth (WH) parameters for NE release experiment. Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F Kc»— Date 50 IOI52.2273 203.0446 37.99** Area Q 7 219 6109 ?6 6? I ^6 Ul— Date 50 33200060.9000 665777.3390 9.63** No. WH PsDate 50 1036.5036 20.7301 4.84** Area 9 r~->y> f , 72.4977 8.0553 1.88* OT Damage-Date 49 47947.5920 978.5223 2.67** Area 9 4083. 1520 453.6836 1.24* NE Damage-Date 49 7983.4020 162.9266 3.52** Ps WidthDate 49 758.1626 15.4727 6.50** Area 9 8I.9143 9.1016 3.83** Ps Length-Date 3657.9383 74.6518 26.93** Area 9 202.8048 22.5339 8.13** Petiole LengthDate 49 119502.7390 2438.8314 25.57** Area 9 11535.9160 1281.7684 13.44** Root LengthDate 49 16687. 5815 340.5629 4.75** Area 9 3281.7111 364.6346 5.08** Male NEDate 49 242.4880 4.9487 2.47** Female NE-Date 49 192.7780 3.9342 2.14* Area 9 33.5780 3.7309 2.03* PMF b Date 49 106.8468 2.1806 1.96* Area 9 61.1792 6.7977 6.10** a Ps= pseudolaraina(e). bpMF= ( Ps Width + Ps Length + Petiole Length) . Root Length *P= 0.05. *P= 0.01.

PAGE 146

133 Table 22. Least-squares analyses of variance for Neoch etina eichhorniae Warner (NE), Orth ogalumna terebrantis WallworlcTolF) and waterhyacinth (WH) parameters for coffin-holder experiment. Source df Septenary NETreatment (T) 6 1 iJ-LOCK \OJ C n o c 6 B x T 0 B 7 OTB 2 3 T 6 5 B 2 7 NE DamageB 2 2 T 6 2 B 2 7 OT DamageB 2 2 B 2 3 T 6 3 B x T 6 3 Ps a WidthR c 2 T o 2 T 6 -5 B 2 B 2 5 B 2 6 B 2 7 Ps LengthB 2 2 B 2 5 B 2 6 B 2 7 Petiole '".engthB 2 2 T 6 2 T 6 3 B x T 6 3 B 2 6 B 2 7 Sura of oquares Mean Square F 894.48 0.07 0.07 0.67 0.30 149.08 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.15 8.27** 3.00* 3.00* 9.00** 3.00* 7302.13 4125.63 312.67 3651.06 687.60 156.33 3.82* 3.92* 3.17* 40.07 kf>P> 07 6O4.96 20.04 OP i 0 (O, \c 302.48 5.56** 21.64** 9.69** 6889.56 593.27 3095.76 2262.67 3444.78 296.64 515.96 377.11 14.88** 4.79* 8.34** 6.09** 3.50 8.89 8.81 6.57 5.82 7.86 19.78 1.75 1.48 1.47 3.28 2.91 3.93 9.89 3.72* 3.15* 7.57** 3.61* 4.90** 6.09** 6.39** I.65 2.21 3.18 21.69 0.83 1.10 1.59 10.84 4.24** 4.32* 3.75* 5.02** 4.03 12.35 5.79 5.88 17.64 93.85 2.01 2.06 O.96 O.98 8.82 46.92 3.52* 3.60* 3.27* 3.32* 5.78** 4.68* Root X * ngth " B 2 1 715.47 357.74 5.89**

PAGE 147

Table 22. — Continued, Septenary Sua of Squares Mean Square F • Wo, Wn rs/rlant1 B -> 2 6.22 3.11 6.22** I 6 2 10.44 1.74 3.48* B 2 3 36.41 18.20 3.19* B 2 42.00 21.00 9.61** BxT 6 4 46.00 7.67 3.51* B 2 5 12.96 6.48 7.34** T 6 5 17.^1 2.90 3.29* B 2 6 22.30 11.15 4.95** T 6 6 40 8*? B 2 7 44.74 22.37 7.16** 2 WH Density/m 3 2 2 304.22 i52.ll 4.51* B 2 3 1998.35 999.17 5.20** B 2 4 10854.89 5427.44 4.35** 3 2 j 1 01 ^ *t6 Q ^7^) 7ft 3 2 6 19590.22 9795.11 4.41* 3 2 7 16576.07 8288.04 4.49* WH Wet Weight3 2 2 8597.42 4298.71 7.41** PMF b B 2 4 0.15 0.08 12.58** T 6 0.46 0.08 12.44** 3 2 5 0.28 0.14 3.36* B 2 6 0.85 0.42 4.56* BxT 6 6 3.91 O.65 7.01** a Ps= pseudolamina(e) . PKF= frs Width + Ps Length + Petiole Length). Root Length *P= 0.05.

PAGE 148

n i u & m u 0) P P to CD © 3 EH H ci be o •P '-i o u (0 © 4 (D CO 3 W © H © C O Pi, © P O (0 © « * O W -P © © •rt a! w at O H o • © j fi o q C O (JH S qJ PL, CM -P (0 C O © bOW O ci 5 © © © <1h > ^ hjM ci P ci xJ H -H © S ctl O > r-f •H cd at +» 3 £ © ci C Jh h O © © «S hH -P -P p CA^ o cvj E-« • C ^© 3 § cd fa +> CO ^p 5 H -rt +> csl »ri © £ 3H a op -p p © •0 LA ca CM CD O I o CO o o CA CO o o o '3 nJ o o 05 o o CA CA o at c4 ,13 00 at at O(A rH CO CM CA o o CAO iAO o ci cd ^O* at at CAvO o tH .O at at at 10 o p< CO CM •5: 3 8, o cd H CO 3 § • • • • tH CM OO 3 at at o at ^A CA o o CM la CA o 4 On CA CO LA CM CO vo CM • • • • CAvO -rH CA 3£ 3 Q 'A .Q cd vo t>5CM • • * • '} cd ,Q CM CO t>CO ON»A cA O • • • • O O CM -rH CA o o CM CM o o 00 CO O >A • • o o cd i-i 4 a A o cd at at OO O OO O . • • OO O ci at at Ovca O CM cA t-t • « • OO O ci ci* CM >A CM • • CM CM at O »AQ 'A .O CM 0-»A vo • • CAOv •A CA o ci & osca -> >A CA CM • • • •rH CO CA CM CO © © • C MO at at o CM at at CM CN v( ( CO VA CM at at 00 CO O >A • . O-o © o : ^ •H O «H P, O vO ON CM CM o J u u © © W Ph ft, PL, o CO o p, o 5 I CO .a, n PL, ci •P a 3 3 o •H P '0 Pt5 5 P o o PL, P«i

PAGE 149

136 o•o • KJ 1 3a •P a CD CO CM tH 9 O a Sou cm • • • CM C°v O O '1 4 to I 4 CM 00* I CM • CN. I ON vO ci CO .a +> ho © CM CM * o CM CM 8 o & 0) CM ,9 CO +> O CD o ct) o 1 0 !i0 c3 v ii II

PAGE 150

to H cd Pi Fh © P P 01 © j © to Jb 8* CD -r< • J . '-1 fc^ * a c H CD 0 10 +> .CJ CD © 1 3 ' d C H •H cd to J-i > cd O H O • CD . £ f< O 0) O cJH t fH © to to »A U 9 © H © £ 8"^ a § "* 9 to -p h o o o © s , +> . o ,d . o o o to CJ © ^~sC>H © Mtc! O U ci 3 © b — to © » cd O > r-f •rl ftj cd +5 £© § .'1 u o ) © cd .pi p p P, d to .,-) 0} 3 W) 14 d ci > cm e-t . Cd ?H P E-i p to +> a '3 H +) ci *d © ci H 9 'A ca CM © O o CO cd o o •A CM o o o o cd CM ci O o o 'A ci cd • ci CM -3" ci CM O o cd cd £t CM »A >A O rl -3o o o cj cd cd • • • CA^N. CO O -3" *A CACM O o IN cd ci cd cd tNCO x-t CA -1 'A CM CO • • • • CA
A up, CM O CM O• • •' • CA OCM O « cd cd cd cd O CA CA O CM CA *A O • • • • CA CN CM CA ci cd o cd O CM vQ CO O CA • • CM VQ CO O ON o p o Sf H © ft, o < & s ^ o p cd cd cd O t-i o • • • o o o cd cd cd o o o o o CD o o o cd cd cd o o o o o o o o o A -H • • • o o o cd cd cd CA Ovo CA i-i O • • • o o o A H • • • CM -3" ON cd cd cd cd cd cd OOO -3" CA -jVA VO CM CM Ovo CA • • I • • • • • 4>A!N rl rt N 4 CA ri ci cd cd o co t>-.t O >A tH tH *A CO CM >A tH cd cd COcd 0 rH CA VO. CA • • CM O CM cd oj qj cd O O *A *A vo O ON O O CM *A CA CA OVO On CA CM CM CA ci cd V -i cd cd A CA CM cd 81 vo CO vr\ cM CM CA O q ri cm o cd cd cd cd ci CA CM CA O Q CA ON CO Oif O ON CN CM CO cS CM CA CA -cj" ci cd o cd cd ^A CM >A ON »A CM ON CM cd 00 o o CM cd cd co co co co -3CM O ,o cd VA O CM vo CM vo • • « -=} CA -3CA CM cd CM cd cd x> t>cM vo VA CM o •P -H o o I „ ^ 3 ^ O Ph O A a. hi CO B o ,3 g o if VO O CA t-1 o o to (0 3 p o o Ph P4 p ©

PAGE 151

CO 3 VO n5 o IN CO N CM o O o ti CO C OJ -p e C) 01 id VO -3I Ox r! VO N 0 D 10 cd -3* i o r; o vO b'j -p jC -P bJD Ov p. I; a +' o & o O o bO I L5£U ii CM CO H o O CO cd II n o p, h-1 CO p< to P; II

PAGE 152

139 o >A 03 4 4 cd «d cd ca cd o Oca -V O ON OO o• • • • • « • « o CM no CM CS] O r-i o vH Q J cd 4 flS cd cd id o CO CA vO CA £> <*> o CAOO O CA CO ca CM • • • • • • • • o CAvO CM o o o vH id 4 4 cd cd cd cd O iH CA o o o o o o CM lA o o o • • « • • • • • o CM CM vO o o o o cd cd cd ca Oo ca cm \o IN CM cd cd CO • • >A4vo cd cd cd cd cd «^ ca o oCA >A o CM cd cd 4 id cd ca »A CM ON -4 CO CM O CM • • • • tH CM CM CM a V cd cd cd cd 4 ca Oca ca CAVQ CA O-4*a & »0 CM CM ca ca CM a o +> Q D to CA CM CO o o CA CO o cd cd CAOcd cd cd cd caSn • • cano cd cd ON c°\ »A CA • • CM NO cd cd cd cd id OO ON O -4VO •A CM >A • • • • • ON O O O O .o cd cd cd cd CO Q o-o A >A • • • • • CM vO tH O O fi ,Q cd cd cd cd cd >AO CO CM cA CA • • • • • x-i ON CM *A CM tH ,o JO cd ,Q .o vO CA O CV CM CA VA Sn • • • 0 CM CA CA dfe cd cd o cd CO CA CA »A ON J* 5 4 'A-4 O O CM cd 4 o 4 cd «d t3 4 CM O CM co -if Vf\ if o cd 4 CA CA -4" CO CM cd cd CM CA CA ON CA O4 n co 4 o CO OCA -3> -4 O CM CM CA vO O • • ^A CA CM •.H vO CM CA >A O CO cA vo lA 4" NO CA CM CM 4 4 «k O 4 4 OO CO "A On On tH O 'A CA vO On • • • • • • NO CN CA O\o CO •4 CM CM cd oCM U w Eh O o § "d ,C CD 0) o o 00 n p o o. •g CO ^ £? ft o S3 CM eg si o o • hO o p c 4 i3 H ft tH o o CM CO CO O • (-I g hp o « o C-i o O ; ? q •H o Vh O CO ffl O Oft ft, ft O o 9 o ft X a o J3 +> a ft »-1 CO +> if CO ft ft o Ix: o o o 0

PAGE 153

140

PAGE 154

141 to ° lag O 14 w *«5 ctf © b0 W rH W © «^ ij bO W > +» ttf o (0 at O d lias o CD H -P Eh A. £4 O 5 CD |S CO CD , -d h MO | £ o E-i ttf A CA vQ CA Octf ctf tH O CM *A • • CA Ottf ttf 1 12 ctf CA ,o 4 CA CVj On 00 • • C^ On O rH ttf ttf .a cm JA -ch -3" OCO • • • CMCv. 4 o CO p o a CO CM ttf ttf ttf o o o o • • o o o o ttf ttf ttf CA CA CvCO CA CM • • • o o o ttf ttf ttf o o o o • • o o o o 2 ^ ri © • •b boo © H .0* § EH o o S3 1 a Eh O o © « M MO O O O ttf ttf ctf O CO O O N H ttf ctf ttf CO CO vO -rH ON ON ttf CA ON vO 3 CO CM tH CM CO ttf ttf ctf >A UN OCV CM tH ttf ttf ttf ctf 8 VA lA ON CM >A VA CM CO CO NO VO • « • tH CM Ottf ttf ctf ctf ctf O CM O *A-3" O • • • NO CA vH OtH (TV tH >A CA ttf CO -4 CM CM CA CO ctf ctf ctf ctf ctf ctf NO • o ON OCM vH • • o o 'A O • o SnSn * • ctf ctf ctf ctf ctf ctf O^o • CM CAO CA*A • • vH tH o o • CM 7.33 161.08 ,a ctf ctf ttf ctf ctf o o • On CM CO CA l A00 • • CM CA CO A O CM • • CM *A • O O CA *A CA . . >A OtH ,0 ctf CO ctf ctf ctf ctf ON CA CO NO O OOno ON ..... *A CM CM CA Ottf -3" CM O CM O XI ctf ctf CO no • . ctf ctf CA ctf ctf O CM tH CO ctf ctf On O ctf ,Q rH NO NO CM o J u u © © © o t o rj) O a p CO H W P, o V) CA OIH g o P i CO CA o •H P P O © O to «

PAGE 155

i o o vO CM CD rH % 6h vO 0 Q •P G O W CM CD O 0 t>oo 01 CO CN. o c\ 4 On 0% ON o ON 00 CM • ON e3 CN| ON CM ON I & ho •H CO It o -o VO CM VO CM 10 -P o & ^ 0 CO g o CD yj I P£L| II CM CD EH O «H o CO ctf II Pi 3 3 n a, II i

PAGE 156

1^3 n g q •s +3 n H 0 +> ft o 5 to to Eh CO o c to G ctf G J H CO p VI 4) CO tJ p? 01 0} G H 4 CD _ J £} 8 2 2 f* H q ctf 3 O o •ri 0 a C) A o o co (25 .a i q H p 3 G CO o i •H W P 8 0) 0) W H CO » ctf > jtf 3 CO • J> JCj »Tj CO 4 P © J4 , G *0 4 p 3 CO • s +> 4 (0 W 0 E-t CO x\ CO © I -a s CM E-i O W CD wo co CM © B o CO o 4 co o o o 4 co o ctf 4 o t>co CO co vr\ ri • • • JO & .a ctf oM0 4 4 4 coo co • « • O r-i O o ovo CO • • xH t>4 4 ctf 4 o J* 3r o CO O o • • • • • On CM CM no ctf 4 o ctf ctf 4 4 0 Cv. Ovn. o >0 CM OtH MO o VO O>o CM ON vO o • • • • • • • • • • m • O CM >0 vO o o o o vO 00 tH CO CM co vO 0, o 3 3 -3CM £> 4 .Q co M CM^ K> CO • o • • (TVO • ON • JO Xi 4 O OMO OQ £>o t>-CM -J• • • « • o vO CM 45 4*^3 co>o CO CO t-1 CM -3" O COCO >o O rH CO .O O mm m <3 d ja £) 00 O O CM COO t-I ^J• • • • CM VO CO tH CO o CM •H CO • to o © 4 H A On Eh O o tfl 4 r~i VO • • o o 4 ctf VOCM CM -3" • • o o CO o00 ,H CM CO CO • g boo G «=: a o O 4 4 4 Ov tH CM CO 4 ^3 .O vH CM ON OOn un, • • • CM O ON tH CM 4 4 4 4 o ctf ^3 .Q CO 4*0 o »oco do »OCvCO •o CM CO CM • • • • • « • • o o o CO 'O CM O xH tO CM V ctf O CO H « o o ctf ^3 xS 4 ctf 4 o O-CO o 00 ovO »0 x-i CM VO ON • • • • • • • OCO iH CO CM CO ON >o £>CO 4 4 c^ ^Sn vo VO CO CO 4 ctf >o CO CM 00 • • oo »o 00 CO 4 ctf 00 O VO VO • • 00 CO CO 4 4 O t>O NO • • CS tH o CM u (0 o 1 M (X, o u u (D CD CO p_ CL, Ph o VO o 4* 8 o a o o o 4 4 ctf CM vO • CO 00 o • co o CO • •3ctf 4 m ctf vO CM o O ON CM NO NO VO IS NO ON CO co co co vp, u> 4CO 43 4 4 4 VO CM NO ri • CO CO * -3• 4• 'O ctf 3 CO 4 4 4 ctf 4 OO ON £NCO o VO O ON o o • • • * • 00 cs. NO o ON CM tH CVl 5 o .G I cQ 1-1 a, o ^G -P G° 3 10 Ph Ph •3 § o •H +> P O S O Ph P4

PAGE 157

o o CM q H £4 O C<^ CM CD O o 01 \Q «^ 4 • • • 00 o c^v • -3I ON 4 Si 2 4 co CM CO o I ON CM ft J* CM -3O 0s .5? 4 C<~> 00 MO U CM . a w 1 +> o & 3 0) o bp I II CM CO o o co
PAGE 158

n •H cij fn .Q CO U V H «L Ml O 43 :J Jh O cd o sito o tin Jh O o o S3 09 © 0 +> •9 3 1 i-i cd -P © © En H 43 O +> © U o o •H I D C 43 o ptj I Pi 1 •8 > OH O «H P O o '1 *g © cd © W el o O 3 © © 0 tl Cij Pi-H © to «s bOW © d U ^ H © © cij +> £ -1 > J5 r H .H • «0 cd o 43 «J f-t R> cd H cd 43 © © S Jh > © © w © +» +> © H ,'3, £j H © ft 1 $3 w © cd J3 • H-p 00 -x CM CM En 0 -H "» 'O CM © o 10 '•J 4 cd CJ cn o o O CN CM O NO • • • • o CM UN ca vH ca •0 * : cd o o ON CN i H o CM NO On • • • • • o vH CM CN On o o o o 4 o o o o o a -3 cd Son • • tH vH O 43 «fc • 43 cd ir\ cn O • • CN CO O cd cd 43 O CM O no CN 3" O d \Q • • • • tH CM CNON CO 1 J ' .3 o o o o o o 3 o o cd cd CO CM CN-* • • o o cd cd o £ 43 . cd 43 ^N R JO u5 a) O O tH CO CACM cN-3" 3 '0 +J o o< CO CM rrH CN^J53 o cd cd cd CM NO CA CN. no ri cX vH O C\ CN no CA • • • CN -3,H cd Si i cd t3 A GO cd cd cd ON CM CN >A • • CN . H o 3 .H ON Cd Cd ONg NO o cd 43* 00 NO cd 5> 8 CN 'A CO CN cd cd 'A ON tH NO « • UN CO CN CO CN CO O tH o • • • 0N-3NO 43 » cd O o

PAGE 159

146 CO CM © H •3 E-i O 5 a a ID CO CM (!) o I o CO ft ON ON CM CnnO ON at Sn CO O I ON CM CM "A I O 00 • O I ON <4 o o3? tt Os N C«N 4 un i o CM g 1 w ' o & c g O to I CM 3 .1 ID O O 0) II II M H

PAGE 160

w •rl ctf H ctf o +> U O |! a -h H to ctj 10 (D 8 J » G © O §3 .as* © 4 o 0 •H J •rl +» © 0 0 © O © . ctf u © iS P © © £-* o q a (0 11 © o r o^P 1 o to S * q © ctf W P! f> ffl +> © © 3 J3 rrl P.-H © C 10 t| © H •H © cj +> ?* > J2 ctf P , C H -H • «0 nJ O ,cj ctf •H ctf o . ctf if © © C > © © (0 © P P © H P. ctf H © £ CO |^ I "H to © I ctf A '• cnp CM E-i , P O «M ctf © w O H +> ctf Eh fa ,1 H 3 © © spa © •o • o © -p © CO [ > CM © o CO SI O .O 4 csj cm o 4 o O o o ctf ctf CO tH CO • • «H CM V ctf ctf UN un, CO o O £1 ctf ctf ,Q ctf UN UN On cM CO (M CN On • • • • •cH CN tH * ctf ctf ctf VO i-l CM O CN O • • • o o o ctf ctf ctf tH tH • • o o o cd ctf 00 & VO CN • • CM -cfr V 4 S o un. vO Ocd ctf ,o n ctf 10 P O a, P CO •rl 1 CM cd ft. -H © • H b0 O Q © o CM cd cd CN.-* CNvO O O t>O -4" -4 O ctf £ ,Q >AO C>4 cncM • • CM CN ctf 6 ^3 • • • NOV CM 1 Eh o o CM CO cd cd i-t tH OsvO cd cd O r~t O CO 4-cn MD CM CO CM ctf ctf CM »A co 4-^ >A CM cd cd cd • « CM CM ctf cd O ON CN ON XX cd CO vO o o CNCNUN CN. CM CN CM 0^ CO CN CM ctf cd • • CO v-t O CN cd cd ctf ft CNtH CO Ovo VO CNON vO CN. CN CN, CN cd ctf cd cd cd cd [NCM cd CNUN. CN ON • • ON ON ON CN CN CO ON UN, CM CM UN O r-i i-t • • • • • UN .3^JUN ON CN CM ftf 3 1 O fti 3 § «H — ' EH O O S5 O O o 43 P I CO CO ft) o BP CO ft) h" o a; o © P o © o ft. fti

PAGE 162

i •2 u Q 4 O -P ?< o CM O 09 © . MICH 4 -H •P C o u CD 5n •d 4 O i C O •H •H + 5 o o o (1) fa CD I o O u o < i $ CD .a . o (0 c; faQ 3 +> (0 O H 4 w CD CD H ^ a-p •:-> 4 n iq r < o H CM O bO «4 n p o w •H CO CM o 0 ,3 At 5 1 CO I C4 CD u 1^9 ,Q O 4 cd cj 4 cj CNCAQ -3" O CAO tH CAiJ CNO CA--» Ji hO,Q ,0 II » » ctf cj cj cj ctS cj cd Q 00 CNCO O O CA On *Avo CO O O tH cA-cfr\HOON oosooooo © 4 4 cj ctf ctf O O Q O O CAnO O KA OS IA O (^O cj cj ctf cj cj ctf cj COiriNOOON "Aconino oh H ho X> JL I • -M B ctf ctf ctf cj cj nno rfO in if • •••••• N Noo h O O O A CM CAiA O O O O vH -jCM O O O O O CO On CM O O O O flVt 4 4 4 4 4 O >A tN On O CO O ^ON HCMO O N • •••••• NNrlOOOO "O 4 4 4 4 4 4 C^iAO O O CA CN CACN vn vrv cn^}4 4 4 4 4 4 ohh^oon O CM cncM O O O 13 ^ h0 ctf ctf cj 4 tJ tJ 4 4 4 4wocoo CO 4o»AO • • • • 44vOO O 13 4 4 4 4 CM CO W^^i o • • • • • C^H O O ^ ^ ° 00 ^co cnoo ^ ^ 4 cjoo n oiAnwo • ••••«• ••••••• ••••• Nwooooo nnwoooo nnhoo hO,Q 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 <'o ! coo'nnooo O O O-CO O o ^ • ••••• •«••••• On vo O O CM CM Ono^oOOOO ^ CM O CM • ••««.. C°» -rH f-J O C 4 C 4; if>-4vg t-i h en >AOOA-? cm 0~\0 • •••••• ^3 ctf O 4 4 4 >AO NCNO CM O NO NO O • • • • • CA On CM O O CM U 8 cr 1 o «M c^no --t co >a enen H On co OA CM -rH O • •••••• \Q O rCCO N4CO ^ ^ CM CO O O CM t-» £N vr\ cM NO AC^ MONH>A vt HrlrlH C°\CM CM OCA C^\ CT\ (ACAOCO IAN C"\ONi}t-i C\CO »-( CACAO ^ACn! ON NO NO CN >A CM NO no ^ +J +J +> H +> +> I I I I I I I •H O E Ac! bo A,'0 ONO >ACAHCO [n. *A (A CM CM CM On H p, O .ici "O CD CA o in cm on *.«••. no tv ts. tfN, in vn^j•o a +j p p o o *n t>--3no o O CACM tH CA-5F O 4 u Q c; .h xJ o CO N'ACAO (AO >ArlNCOOCOCO • •••••• O CAnq no in CA CM 4 -o j< q ^cj wo CM NO no On CA OO On On-? CM CA tH ^ >J to o^pH'rj *n en o ca ca OCO in CA CA • • • « • in On CN oin a +> p +> i lit H +> fi )h l< CM NO T-i in Q On CM in wS CM CACA CACM CACM CM CM CA CA CA CM CM O CM CA CA CM CM x-t CM CA CACA CA (S d d ct it ctf444444 4 4 44444 ^34ctf44 Q CO O O O CO O O O O ••»•••• ••••• ooooooo ooooooo iaoooo o co o co o o o ino o o o o o • •••••• ooooooo o o ino o >ao in o cm o o cm o CAO O O O 00 O CAO o o o o o r-i CM CA^J" in no CnT-i CM CA^iAno CN hcM CA4 iAnO CN t-i CM CA^in EH O I A A O 31 dqW CA 4 CD wlo

PAGE 163

150 o w H ID O cm o ba <« P< cd H it +> o I a> g CN| o (0 +-' -0 g ^ b0,O a"xi £> H H © ,Q III » I I » I I I » cd -o>J ct tt X d <3 -rl hO cd cd cd cd cd co os cm cm *A co o nco oj^^o w o o VO ON 00 HOMH CM CM voO\»Ohooo CM tH .a 4 A o COO-U-\C0 £>CJO00 r(NO O ,Q •OAS -O t) ^3 • I * I I • cd cd <AO COCO -jso CM CM -rH O O O CO t>IN»OvO VN, •O T"5 -O T"i -o "O -r-j II I I I I © bO -H

-! CM v-t t-t ^3 cd cd H iJ d to a) I l 00 OCNCO CM CO O00 CM W*V CO CO CM CsCM o O -5 ^OvHOvO^O O -3" 0O -3" OON o >A(^4\OH4vO -3O «>HOVOrlO ri M^C^n CM tH 'AN CNNHtHtH CO SO rl OS CO OS CO ^ ^ CO CM (ACA CM tJ+> cd J-i > -H M CM so -rH O-so O>A CM CO O 00 o O O O O OlA-EfOrlO COCO^00 » B cd -H U O ^4 Jxi hO (J Oii^d'N O cdcdctfcdcdO-r-J OCO VS,OVT\vocMCN-CO H USiAN COVO^f CM CM O O CM 00 o so OO CM CM us so ***\ CO OOOs O CM 00 ^ifOO Osvo CM so so O >A0O l>-vrvvr\^tH cm >A^i" CM O O O CM tH CM >A H ri ctJ JCJ M n bfl CD ^ -H -H a © cd ,0 0 hO M « f I I I I cd cd cd O O ^ OS ^1CO HCKh NN r-t OsO CO VTviACO COCO O CM CO ON O CM Cs«0 CO xH 0--3tH 00 -jCM so SO CM 00 ri CO CO O -3" CO CM CO CO CM O CM CO CO CO CM r-t cd cd cdcdcdcdctfcdcd OO CO CO O O CO oo OO OOOOOsO-5 tH CM CM CM CO t* t-i cd cd ,H CM CO^t voso Csv-4 CM CO -3" UN,vQ O tH CM CO-^voso O5 10 +> W CO CD H O O o O CO 1 w rH o si 1 § o o o •8 Jh O I 5 CM 8 +> O CM s H 5 O -p CO bO cd O of 1 CD hO cd u U M Q ^° 1

PAGE 164

151 CO CM on I, ^ 4> V .G ft} G P* O 9 « S ft. o .G w +> ^ H a.i G f4 •H +> © © J* ?7 ?7V G H • I I I • I fill fi.OOetfctfctfcj bO^'OO C> CM* CM * UN. oncM CM * ONvO vO vO ooooooo ooooooo ooooooo oo U -ri ci Tj q) qj UN Ov CN. O * CM rH CO CO CO UNvO OCM • ••••«• rH tH CN CM O CM rH o on ono cm o o rl rl r( rl rl rH H V 77 VVV O Ulfl (!j (J VO UNvQ VOOHH • • • , « • • • rH * tH * IN CO VO O -rH CJN O CO VO rM O CD O CO CD CO CM O vO VO * ON ' CN OCK CM t>* O tN rH ON O ON. CM UN CM CM CM CM CM CM tH C0*O O £> <3 On cv! ON ON UN. OvCNON* ^CN-oS cv A! O qj O O ctf qj CO vO WN -rH CO OUN. Cv-vo CM CM * CO • •••••• 4" 'CvOncO CO vo CM 7 rl ff\ H H N O •O g CD M D* O q} ON t>vn >AOMAr\ rH vO CM i-l ONvo CTJ qj UN • • O O v 1 .g i 4 V CM ON CO ON •rH -3CM OV • • • • ON 00-\n ON Ov ON ON i rr t&y co cS qj qj CO fSOCO CM CM vQ^ 0 4OO rl0 4 ON CM CM CM CM CM vH H t) ^3 M O I I I I I •H CD rQ nj qj ONvo CN-Cp * ON vSvq 4vH qj qj On UN bO hCnH Tj> qj «J qj qj qj ctf VO CvOON. ONvo ON. CM rH I H o o CO CM CM CM O ON. CM CM CM rH bO hO'rt i i r qj qj qj qj qJ qj CvCM CO CM O -cH tH vO ONvo CM ON rH ON UN. O. ON. H rl H "O hO hD CD I I I I M) qj qj qj O UN O CO ON ON tH VQ CO vO U"N._jON. CM ON r-H * * ON ON CM CM ON UN ON CM CM CM Cv-3" UN. ON rH ^J©OqJqJqJ A{ O ei qj • qj «fl cd HxlOqJcjqSqJ HOqJqJ O ON UN rH f\» fN_ vr\ /-> — I vrN rrv rr"i -W /r^ «^rv . ON O ON. UN rH CM . vO ONO ON^t o O CV-UN.Q OvvO if UN ON vO CO -4ON rH CM CM ONVO vO rH vo vO ON OrH ON CM VO CM Ovo -4" -j" ON CM CM CM UN ON. ON. CM CM tH rH NO ON ON CM CM rH rH vO ON ON CM 6 H -O.G ,1111 rl MO iJ TV q] q) UNCO ON UN. ON UN vH PNO-7 ON OCM O Q NO q5 cJ q5 ttf AJ -O X! o CM CM CO OCM rH CM • •••••• rH -* rH UN ON rH OCM CM CM rH rH rH H I o f f I I X> qJ qJ a) JQ CD bO O-CO O ON 00 OOrH UN UN ON UNVO CO OON O CO VO CO UN o * O vo rH* vo CM ON CM CM tH CM rH VO CM CM CM CM UN O rH rH nj qj nj t o CVCM CM CO ON O ON rH * * UN ON UNvo TJ 44 H O ^ qj q$ O UN ON ON O O OUN CM ON CO O O NO UOjQ UN On on Sn vo CO 00 UN un UNvo vo CO 00 vo no UN^JO-CO \Q UN UN* * UN OOUN i CM ON* U-\vo CSrH CM ON* UNvo OrH CM 0>* UNvo CVrH CM ON,* o o CO a a -< EH O H5lg W XJ CD W O (0 -p (S G TJ O TJ S qJ

PAGE 165

152 Ph •P o o « H O a 59 Q 5 « 3~ bOi-} 3' a. G (x, o 3 W Ph H (U 10 •P q /4 if. •rl CD o o a. o w cd C W cd i o +> p< CO CO I ctf c: CD © M © CD i i T -i S I i OAtN CO •3oa oa bO CD rl Tl -rl III II £5 qj cd cd cd cd 43 OACAOO rl CM C> 00 -4ON -3" CM ca^* I I I T « •H 43 cd a} cd INvr\.oANO O vr» no -3" ^ OA oj OA OA V T cd cd bO CD TJJ 43 Cy cd cd q) cd cd ooo ooooooo ooooooo -3Jj-3UN, OA ON rl N>A4 OA OA CM -3" ooooooo 43 d «a u x a, a P OA MO u o o H «fy P O 'O" -3-00 OA OCOvQCO o-no on o -3oaco On O o O CO i-H On >A On CM CN CM OA rl v\ v-t On Pi C A! H U A 43 CM CM OCV OA no O NO vHNQ OA CM OA On Qn rl O V> CN CO rl 3" O On O CM O On Hrl rl rl H W > 2 P« > rH -jvo oo onq r»H rl NO t-» MO On OAnO CO CN CO ON CM V>NO ON O CM CM OA OA CM OA OA CM O On CN CO CM 1 A On -3CM Q CO 00 -rH CM OA CM CM CM OA CM rl O^OA-^r OAOA^ OA Vo h taxi to cd «h to I I I I I I I I a} nj A CN O (M rlO NO CM CN.CM CM O UN,iTN,-jCA^t >A CO >A4CN.r\(AP> O CN CN V\ V"\ ^J" NO V°V1? cd ctf C0 i vvf-f f H bO XI «J ej cj qj H •<-) -h x: si cd g i i i i i T T tj*m O ctf 4 «f ctf rH •H -H O cij ci cj H o\n4 t^OO H 4NNONOO CN.CO On On CM NO O (N-c}" CO O CN CN O CO ON O O CO >A r\ >A tHVACO CN vn, CM 00 NO CM On CM NO O CN-iJCM-t-t-tH NO -4" CN CN CM CM CM *A C*S CM CM CM iH NO vS C*S cS C*S cS ill qj ni d C C H flj cj a} ttf cj On NO ON CM O -3" -r-4 >Ao th o -5r cnno cm o oo On CM 00 1AO -rH CM CM CM II I I I A< cj ctf ctf CM 00 CN tH C^-dO t-H w^NO O IN^d" O bO^ q) ctf III I I O T-J •<-> «H «H dl On 4" JN CO ON VfN, cnCA-4CM -jOA O CN CN OA CN, CA C^N CM NO -3OA CA CM CM CM CN ^A w\ -;}• -d" -3OA t3 <3 <4 O CN O O rl rl 00 UA Q OA CN CN O WACN wSOArlNO O S C S S S S H t i t t r r i tj h o p< cf a 1 cj 1 rl V\rl >T\HCO H CM ^ACO OA CM CN CN CN CM NO C-CMOrl On CN O CO On vo CO On CO XS £> Xi CO CO OA O rl rl On 00 VT\ OA CM -3" CM MO CM OA -d WACN CN NO CM OA OA OA OA OA CM S Q. £V rj rj tVj I »V I I CD O H 43 43 , V AtSO O WA CM CO vo CM no On OA OA CO CO -qOn rl On o O OA ^\ CM vT\nO CN n CM OA-c}WAnO CN rl CM OA ^3" WAnQ CN rl CM OA-d «AnQ !N I OA 43 W 43 CD CO O 1 1 73 O Si u o

PAGE 166

153 CD 1/5 ACO O bO,Q "d © I I I O O-MD CM O tH O tH < ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo V© bO v» T i VX> A bO«H Xi XS A • •III H CM CM O CO >AO\0\0N C^vCN C°\ C^lC°\ ,3 ^cj .3 © bfljcj bO bCd CO CNN No vo -3no -qo unonuno CO ir\ CS-vo tH CM d o © o • • • • • ^4-3 un.^do © o • • • • O CNCO CM Oo n3 CM CM cX o xS bo O On On OUN CO C^NO-^t-I cm d n! vj ,Q q) oj g! ql O OHN'An O N-cJC~\nO « • * • • • « • • • O ON tH cm On CM CM CM O INCncn ON th cm cx O bO bO • I I a! £> ® Xi or>N>An ON r-i cm on CM CM CM ooooo tH t-t CM ooooo "AO iT\o T-t -rH CM I CM 7 cd X> & Ml-H O CN-jC^vnO OvT»ON OOOOO U^O UNO tH T-i CM en Ti T3 A no CM tH tH CM OOOOO UNO U^ o 3 O 1 CD W a ii U5 ah

PAGE 167

Table 33 • — Oviposition and development of Orthogalumna terebrantis Wallwork (OT) at 4 different temperature regimes. Fieldcollected waterhyacinth pseudolaminae bearing tunnels containing deutoor tritonymphs of OT were provided to obtain development to adult data. Source Temperature Regimes (°C) oource ^ 1Q ^ Q ^5 20=5cT No. OT Eggs Laid Total 6.00 529.00 598.00 599.00 Per Female 0.24 51.16 23.92 23.96 OT Tunnels " Total Provided 625.00 3237.00 3O83.OO I89O.OO Total Adults Emerged 26.00 I398.OO 704.00 348.00 $ Emerged 4.20 43.20 22.80 18.40

PAGE 168

155 Table 34. — Water quality measurements at release site of Neochetina eichhorniae Warner taken 50 weeks after release. Values in the same row followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 5$ level as determined by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. Test Open Water To Under It. of mat rt. of mat mat Total Alkalinity (ppm) 244.0 a 246.0 b 248.0 c Hydroxide " " '0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a Carbonate " » 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a NaCl (ppm) 200.0 b 200.0 b 150.0 a oaovj^ ^ppny 160.0 c 158.0 b yctU a Color 350.0 b 300.0 a 300.0 a Cu (ppm) 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a MgCO^ (ppra) 10.0 b 12.0 c 8.0 a Total Hardness (ppm) 170.0 c 160.0 b 100.0 a N0 3 (ppm) 0.001 a 0,0 a 0.0 a PH 7.15 a 7.62 c 7.2 b Total PO^ (ppm) 0.15 b 0.15 b 0.12 a Available PO^ (ppm) 0.08 b 0.08 b 0.05 a Turbidity (JTU) 1.25 b 1.20 a 1.40 0

PAGE 169

156 0 I U •as o cd O © -P* © O O o o .-8 o © £! C ( o i-; •H ri -P C O o w f-1 3 s o i O o g o O © CM t-I O O o O OA OA o OA CO CO NO o o CM • • • • • • • • • • • • • • o o o OA o On o CO o o tH va o s CM tH © cd cd cd 'H 0 id © o .Q .o cd o o o o • • • • NO o CO CNCM 'O o 8 © o £ o o CM O © o On © ON CO o o o * o d o o cd o o 4 o « o O o © CM CM O IN o © •P o p, a p, T^ H o q O O H cd cd o 53 O O I S3 & P. to w © i I P. -jE-i P, p rs * CU n^ OA rH 8 ^ &o o a f-i I p. OA g © % ri > s c3 P O ! EH © cd •a 1 o V3 o id 3 o o Jt © I eg cd H )h O I o •rl © a •H P © O o © 5=5

PAGE 170

157 Table 36. — Amount of N, P, K and crude protein (CP) from waterhyacinth samples. Source #N P(ppt) K(ppm) Avg. 1.2072 NE established 1 1.1464 3 months, OT 2 I.383I added 3 1.0207 Avg. 1.183* 0T established 1 1.1094 3 months, NE 2 1.1390 added 3 1.4792 Avg. 1.2425 Covered 1 O.963O Controls 2 0.8062 3 1.1760 Avg. O.9817 0.5212 0.5091 1.8182 0.9*95 2.68 4.61 I6.3I 7.87 7.6912 7.8585 2' 6 i? 8.3883 0.3758 0.8485 0^091 O.192S 4.40 7.38 54* 5.87 5.*5*7 *.5302 7.2575 5.7*75 0.5212 0.4849 0.6302 0.5*55 2.92 5.6* 2£ 7.333* 8.1820 7.1188 7.5447 0.5*55 0,6667 0.9091 O.7071 5.01 8.07 3.82 5.63 7.1651 8.6443 6.3792 7.3962 0.7636 0.6061 2.0606 1.1434 8.06 *.67 1303 8.09 6.9339 7.1188 9.2»53 7.766$ 0.5818 0.5818 2.7273 1.2970 6.76 24.49 10.06 13.37 6.1019 5.0387 7.3500 6.1635

PAGE 171

158 : Table 36. — Continued. Source £n P(ppt) K(ppm) ^CP Uncovered Controls 1 1.0823 2 1.3338 3 I.2771 0.6707 0.8000 9.17 545_ 6.1019 8.3361 7.9817 Avg. 1.2311 0.6707 67?9 a NE= Neochetina eichhornlae Warner (Coleoptera: Curcullonidae) . 0T= Orthogalumna terebrantis Wallwork (Acari: Galumnidae).

PAGE 172

159 w o § o o •rl (0 d m I p o w •H n m •rl c © -H O © & O S3 0. c3 O on CO n cr5 O On & JO CO ,H »H ON CD pq CO P} i 1 1 o OCM 1 1 vO -rH 1 1 tr\ H I I ! i a i o ON On ^ ON % i i 1 t 1 3 o •A o CM CO ctJ m I I I I 1 o o o 1 o ON 1 1 i 1 o 1 o 1 1 1 • o 1 • 1 0.00 1-1 o 0.00 1 • 1 C^V o 1 • 1 o siS 1 o o ^CN o o CM NO o 1 o 1 o o H o •rH 1 o «-» 1 o o 3> 2 NO CM 1 1 .* 1 o ^* CM J* 1 1 1 o o ON ft 5> vO o 1 1 CM CM CM CM o • o i • 1 • o « o • • o o ! • 1 o CN1 ! ! VTN r-N. o o oo o { Csl 1 1 CM 1

PAGE 173

10 ON a* o o w o ^3 2 «•••••••••!• ••••••«]• OOOOOOOOOOjO O 0|0 VO V\.UN.VN, On On CT\ ONOO OnOnoO On CO I On ur\vriu-N,irN,tr\,u"\,vr\,vr\u->, irJ v\ cmcmcmcmcmcmcmcmcm cmicm OnOnI-^O CNCO CM c^vr^c^Ji • •«•••••] *A-4-|vr\ CN-no 0-0O-vo cv|o>CM CMICM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM (CM CO CO CM vO O \Q OO-CO 0-fc^\ • •••••••••la O^O T-t t-{ tH O O O 0\rl cm on; o C^ VN. cn» CO O-O-lO00 O-nO no vtvno w-\Jvo oooocoonononoco • ••••••••• no no no no >A>A>r\ vt\nq uMw^v CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM CM NT\H >AnO O COKi • ••••• •] OCNCO Ot>INCMOCM CM CM CM CM CM CMICM 8 "8 < o 3 ; 1 O s to 5 CO w H CO -p I c I w fa CO o 1 'H -P C « eh I i o o I $ co 'd o . 2 h S w c o •rl o -p CD © CO CO o o a

PAGE 174

LITERATURE CITED v/ Achuff , P. L., awl C, F. Zeiger. 1969. A survey of aquatic plants in the cross-Florida barge canal. Hyacinth Contr. J. 8: 14-16. Agrupis, R. M. 1953» The value of water hyacinth as silage. Phillipp. Agric. 37: 50-56. Ahmed, N. 1954. On waterhyacinth and its control in fish ponds. Proc. Indo-Pac. Fish Coun.. 5s Tech. Paper 6. Alden, R. W. 1971. Trophic relationships of two invertebrates of the water hyacinth community. Quart, J. Fl. Acad. Sci. 34 (Suppl. 1): 5. Andres, L. A. 1973* Recent developments in the control of weeds with natural enemies. Proc. Soviet-Amer. Congr. on Integr. Pest Mgmt., Kiev, USSR. 11-14. Andres, L. A., and F. D. Bennett. 1975. Biological control of aquatii weeds. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 20: 31-46. Andres, L. A., and R, D. Goeden. 1971. The biological control of weeds by the introduction of natural enemies. Pages 143-164 in Biological Control, C. B. Huffaker, ed. Plenum Press, NY. 511 P. Andrewartha, H. G., and L. C. Birch. 1954. The Distribution and Abundance of Ani als. Univ. of Chicago Press, IL. 782 p. Annecke, D. P., M. Karny, and W. A. Burger. 1969. Improved biological control of the pricklypear, Opuntia megacantha Solm-Dyck, in South Africa through the use of an insecticide. Phytophlactica 1: 9-13. Anonymous, 1951. Water hyacinth, a new use. Madras Agric. J. 38: 27-28. 161

PAGE 175

162 Anonymous, 1952. The wealth of India. CSIR New Delhi 3: 130-13**. • 1957* House document — 37, 85th Congress, 1st Session. Review of Reports, Water Hyacinth Obstructions, Louisiana. 135. • I960. Project (4) aquatic weeds. Proc. S. Weed Contr. Conf. 13: 367-389. • 1962. Publication No. 62 of the IASA Committee for Evaporation, pages 123-133. . 1965« Control of aquatic weeds. Rept. FAO Conf. Quelea Bird Water Hyacinth Contr. in Africa, Douala, Cameroon. Pages 6-13. • 1966. Mulching with water hyacinth ( Eichhornia crasslpes) . Two and a Bud 13: 31, . 1967. Herbicide cuts water loss. Agric. Res. (Wash.) 16 WT9. . 1970. Florida hyacinth control bulletin. Fl. Game and Freshwat. Fish C omm. p. . 1970-' 71. Biennial Report. LA Wild If. and Fish. Comm. pT95. • 1971. University of Florida Researchers may have a new use for water hyacinth. Gainesville Sun, 16 Aug.: 16. . 1972a. Weevil batilion charges water hyacinth. Weeds, Trees and Turf 11(1): 18. • 1972b. Aquatic weed control 1975? Fl. Conserv. News, April: 2. . 1972c. Turning the tide against aquatic weeds. World Farming 14(9): 18-22.

PAGE 176

163 Anonymous. 1972d. The culture and car* of aquatic plants* ENFO Newsletter, July. Environ, Inform. Centr, Fl. Conserv. Found,, Winter Park. 12 p. • 197^ • South-east Asian workshop on aquatic weeds. Conf . Rept. PANS 20(4): 462-464. Arber, A. 1920. Water Plants: A Study of Aquatic Angiosperms. Univ. Press, Cambridge. 436 p. Asim, S. M. 1961. How to control water hyacinth and other undesirable weeds in impoundments meant for fish culture. Proc. Con. Fish. Officer 6l. App. 13: 69-70. Avault, J. W. 1965» Preliminary studies with grass carp for aquatic weed control. Progr. Fish Cult. 2?: 207-209. Backman & Company. 1930. A report of an investigation of water . Q hyacinth; City Comm. of Jacksonville, FL. Bagnall, L. 0., J. A. Baldwin, and J. F. Hentges. 1974. Processing and storage of waterhyacinth silage. Hyacinth Contr, J, 13: 64-65. Bagnall, L. 0., J. F. Hentges, Jr., and R. L. Shirley. 1973. Aquatic weed utilization: harvesting and processing. Weed Sci., Abstr., 36. Baker, G. E., D. L. Sutton, and R. D. Blackburn. 1974. Feeding habits of the white amur on waterhyacinth. Hyacinth Contr. J. 12: 58-62. Baldwin, J. A., J. R. Hentges, and L. 0. Bagnall. 1974. Preservation and cattle acceptability of waterhyacinth silage. Hyacinth Contr. J. 12: 79-81. Balough, J. i960. Oribates (Acari) noveaux de Madagascar (l re serie) Mem. Inst. Sci. Madagascar. I (14): 7-37. . 1961. Identification keys of world Orlbatid (Acari) families and genera. Acta Zool. 7(3-4): 243-244.

PAGE 177

16* Barber, M. A., and T. B. Haynes. 1925. Waterhyacinth and the breeding of Anopheles . U. S. Public Health Serv. Rept. ^0: 2557-2562. Baruah, H. K., N. Das, and P. Baruah. 1955. Control of water hyacinth ( Eichhornia crassipes) with herbicides. J. Univ. Gauhati 6: 103105. Basak, M. N. 19^*8. Waterhyacinth compost. West Bengal Gov. Press. Alipur. Bendixen, L. E. 197**. Biological weed control. Agrichem, Age June: 10-11. Bennett, F. D. 1968a. Insects and mites as potential controlling agents of water hyacinth (Eichhornla crassipes (Mart.) Solms), Proc. Brit. Weed Contr. Conf. $t 832-835. • 1968b. Investigations of insects attacking water hyacinth in Florida, British Hondurus and Jamaica, I968. Mimeo, Rept, 9 P. . 1970a. Insects attacking water hyacinth in the West Indies, British Hondurus and the U. S. A. Hyacinth Contr. J. 5: 10-13. • 1970b, Recent investigations on the biological control of some tropical and subtropical weeds. Proc. Brit. Weed Contr. Conf. 10; 660-668. • 1971* Investigations of insects as controlling agents for Salvinia auricula ta Aubl. and Eichhornla crassipes (Mart.) Solms., two aquatic weeds of neotropical origin. Mimeo. Rept. 9 P. . 1972a. Current status of the biological control of Salvinia in Africa. Paper presented at Intern. Congr. Entomol. Canberra, Australia.

PAGE 178

165 Bennett, P, D. 1972b, Survey and assessment of the natural enemies of waterhyaclnth, Eichhornia crasslpes . PANS 18(3): 310-311. / . 1974a. Biological Control. Pages 99-106 in Aquatic Vegetation and Its Use and Control, D. S. Mitchell, ed. UNESCO, Paris. 1974b. Some aspects of the biological control of aquatic weeds. Proc. Intern. Symp. Biol. Contr. Weeds, Rome, 1971, 2: 63-73. Bennett, F. D„ and H. Zwb'lfer. 1968. Exploration for natural enemies of water hyacinth in northern South America and Trinidad. Hyacinth Contr. J. 7s 44-52. ^ Bhanja, A., and S. M. Sircar. 1966. Gibberellins from the root of water-hyacinth, Eichhornia crasslpes (Mart.) Solms.). Sci. Cult. 32: 371-372. * Bhanja, A., R. K. Mukherjee, S. Banerjee, P. K. Sircar, and S. M. Sircar. 1968. Isolation and identification of growth substances in the root of water-hyacinth ( Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms.). Pages 47-56 in International Symposium of Plant Growth Substances, S. M. Sircar, ed. Dept. Bot., Calcutta Univ., Calcutta. Bill, S. M. 1969. The water weed problem in Australia. Hyacinth Contr. J. 8: 1-6. Blackburn, R. D. , and L. A. Andres. 1968. The snail, the mermaid, and the flea beetle. USDA Yearb. 1968: 229-234. . Blackburn, R. D., and L.W. Weldon. 1963. Suggested control measures for common aquatic weeds of Florida. Hyacinth Contr. J. 2: 2-4. Blackburn, R. D., D. L. Sutton, and T. Taylor. 1971, Biological control of aquatic weeds. J. Irrig. & Drain., Proc. Paper 8362: 421-432. Blatchley, W, S. 1920, Orthoptera of Northeastern America. Nature Publ. Co., IN. 784 p.

PAGE 179

166 Bock, J. H. 1966. An ecological study of Elchhornla crasslpes with emphasis on its reproductive biology. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of CA, Berkeley. . 1969. Productivity of the water hyacinth Eichhornia crasslpes (Mart.) Solms. Ecology 50(3): 460-464. . 1972. Long distance dispersal of water hyacinth, -Eichhornia crasslpes . J. Col.-Wyo. Acad. Sci. 7(2-3); 88. Bonetto r A. A. 1971 • Principal limnologic traits of northern Argentina. Boln. Soc. Argent, Bot. Suppl. 11: 184-209. Boyd, C. E. 1968a. Evaluation of some common aquatic weeds as possible foodstuffs. Hyacinth Contr. J. 7: 26-27. • 1968b. Fresh-water plants: a potential source of protein. Econ. Bot. 22: 359-368, • 1969» The nutritive value of three species of water weeds. Econ. Bot. 23: 123-127. .11970. Vascular aquatic plants for mineral nutrient removal from polluted waters. Econ, Bot. 24: 55-103, . 1971a. A bibliography of interest in the utilization of vascular aquatic plants. Econ. Bot. 25: 74-84, • 1971b. Variation in the elemental content of Eichhornia crasslpes . Hydrobiology 38(3-4): 409-414. Braddock, W. D. 1966. Weed control problems in the East Volusia Mosquito Control District. Hyacinth Contr. J. 5: 31 Brezny, D., I, Metha, and R. K. Sharma. 1973. Studies on evapoJ transpiration of some aquatic weeds. Weed Sci. 21(1): 1 97-204.

PAGE 180

167 Brown, J. C., and N. R. Spencer. 1973. Vogtia malloi. a newly introduced phycitine moth (Lep., Pyralidae) to control alligatorweed. Environ. Entomol. 2(4): 519-523. Bryant, C. B. 1973. Control of aquatic weeds by mechanical harvesting. PANS 19(4) : 601-605. Byer, M., and J. N. Sturrock. 1965. The yields of leaf protein extracted by large scale processing of various crops. J. Food Sci. & Agric. 16: 341-355. . Byron, H. T., J. F. Hentges, Jr., J. D. O'Connell, and L. 0. Bagnall. 1975. Organic acid preservation of waterhyacinth silage. Hyacinth Contr. J. 13; 64-65. Camargo, P. N. de. 1974. On matology (weed science) and matonomy (weed control). Ciencia e Cultura 26(5): 452-458. Chadwick, M. J., and M. 0. H. Obeid. 1966. A comparative study of the growth of Eichhornia crassipes and Pistia stratiotes inwater culture. Dept. Bot. & Hydrobiol. Res. Unit., Univ. of Khartoum. Charudattan, R. 1972. Pathogenicity of fungi and bacteria from India to hydrilla and waterhyacinth. Hyacinth Contr. J. 11: 44-48. Age 9-12. 1975. Weed control with plant pathogens. Agrichem. Charudattan, R., and B. D. Perkins. 1974. Fungi associated with insect-damaged water hyacinths in Florida and their possible effects on plant host populations. Paper presented at 14th Annu. Meet. Hyacinth Contr. Soc., Winter Park, FL. 14 July. Chitty, D. i960. Population processes in the vole and their relevance to general theory. Can. J. Zool. 38: 99-113.

PAGE 181

168 Chokder, A. H. t and A. Begum. 1965* Control of aquatic vegetation in fisheries. Agric. Pak. 11(2): 235-24?. Combs, G, E. 1970. Aquatic plants for swine feeding. Pages 60-61 in Proc. Aquatic Plant Res. Conf., Univ. of Fl., Gainesville. Cooreraan, J. 1959* Tetranychus telarius (L.) (Acari: Tetranychidae) parasite de la jacinth d'eau ( Eichhornia crasslpes Mart.). Bull. Agric. Congo de Beige 50; 395-401. Cordo, H. A., and C. J. DeLoach, 1975. Oppositional specificity and feeling habits of Orthogalumna terebrantis in Argentina, a biological control agent of waterhyacinth. Environ. Entomol, M^): 561-565. Couch, R., and E. 0. Gangstad. 197^. Response of waterhyacinth to laser radiation. Weed Sci. 22(5): 450-^53. Coudi, R., J. Ehrlich, and T. A. Barr, Jr. 1971. Effects of N_-C0 9 He laser energy on water hyacinths. J. AL Acad. Sci. 4o(3): 132-133. Coulson, J. R. 1971. Prognosis for control of the water hyacinth by arthropods. Hyacinth Contr. J. 9(1): 31-3^. Daniel, J. T., G. E. Templeton, R. H. Smith, and W. T. Fox. 1973. Biological control of northern jointvetch in rice with an endemic fungal disease. Weed Sci. 21(4); 303-307. Das, N. 1956. Studies on the vegetative propagation of water hyacinth. J. Univ. Cauhati 67: 133-135. ^Das, R. R. 1969. A study of reproduction in Eichhornia crasslpes ^ (Mart.) Solms, Bull. Intern. Soo. Trop. Ecol. 10: 195-198. Davies, J. R. J. 1959. Effects of the waterhyacinth ( Eichhornia crasslpes) in the Nile Valley. Nature, Lond. 184: 1085-1086.

PAGE 182

169 Davis, G. K. 1970. lake Alice on the University of Florida campus as a model for the study of aquatic weed control and lake preservation. Pages 88-95 in Proc, Aquatic Plant Res, Conf., Univ. of FL, , Gainesville, " Day, F. W, F. 1918, The water hyacinth as a source of potash, Agric. Bull, Fed, Malay > States, DeBach, P, 1971. First Latin American Congress of Entomology, Cusao Peru, Del Fosse, E, S. t H, L, Croraroy, and D, H, Habeck, 1975. Determination of the feeding mechanism of the waterhyacinth mite. Hyacinth Contr. J, ljt 49-51. Del Fosse, E, S,, and H. L, Croraroy. 1975. A 1 ^Cs trap for isotope use, Fl, Entomol, (In Press), Del Fosse, E. S., B. D. Perkins, and D. L. Sutton, 1976, Combination of the white amur plus the waterhyacinth weevil on waterhyacinth. Hyacinth Contr, J, l4(In Press), Dodd, A, P, 1940. The biological eanpaign against pricklypear. Coma, Prickly Pear Bd. , Brisbane, Australia, 137 p. Druijff, A. H, 1973. Possible approaches to water hyacinth control. PANS 19(2): 219-222. . 1974. Chemical control of aquatic weeds. Publ. Intern. Inst. Land Reclam, Improv. 16(4): 223-236. Duncan, D. B. 1965. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, ill 1-^2. Dunigan, E. P. 1974. Some preliminary observations on the nitrogenutili ing microorganisms on the roots of water hyacinths. LA Acad. Sci. 37: 23-24.

PAGE 183

170 Dunigan, E. P., and Z. H. Shamsuddin. 1975* Nitrogen and phosphorus uptake by water hyacinths grown in a greenhouse, Agron. Abstr. 66: 27. Dunigan, E, P., R, A. Phelan, and Z. H, Shansuddin, 1975. Use of water hyacinths to remove nitrogen and phosphorus from eutrophio waters. Hyacinth Contr. J. 13: 59-61. Dymond, G. C, 19**9. The water-hyacinth, a Cinderella of the plant world. Pages 221-227 in Soil Fertility and Sewage. John Wiley & Sons, London, j Dynansagar, V, R. , and R, D, Dharurkar. 1972, The effect of herbi-© cides on the germination of water hyacinth seeds. Hyacinth Contr, J. 10: 25-27. • 197^. The effect of herbicides on root tip mitosis in waterhyacinth. Hyacinth Contr. J. 12: 26-29. Easley, J. F., and R. L. Shirley. 197 2 *. Nutrient elements for livestock in aquatic plants. Hyacinth Contr, J, 12: 82-85. Embree, D. G. 1966. The role of introduced parasites in the control of the winter moth in Nova Scotia. Can. Entomol. 98: 11591168. Ensminger, A. 1973. Flea beetle project detrimental. Catalyst for Environ. Qual. 3(3): 6 (letter to editor). Entomological Society of America. 1975. Integrated Pest Management: Rationale, Potential, Needs & Implementation. Special Publ. 75-2. 141 p. \ Ewel, K, C, L. Bract, and M. L. Stevens. 1975. Use of models for evaluating aquatic weed control strategies. Hyacinth Contr. J. 13: 3^39.

PAGE 184

171 Faust, S. D., and 0. M. Aly. 1962. Some effects of 2,4-D on drinking water quality. Hyacinth Contr. J. It 10-12. Finny, S. N. 1962, Herbicidal operations in relationship to water supplies. Hyacinth Contr. J. 1: 8-9. Forbes, T, M. 195^. The Lepidoptera of New York and neighboring states. Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta, Memoir. Freeman, T. E. , and F. W. Zettler. 1971. Rhizoctonia blight of water hyacinth. Phytopathology 6it 892. Frevert, R. K., 0. 0. Schwab, T. W. Edminster, and K. K. Barnes. 1955. Soil and Water Conservation Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, NY. 683 p. Gangstad, E. 0., D. E. Seaman, and M. L. Nelson. 1972. Potential growth of aquatic plants of the lower Mekong River Basin, Laos-Thailand, Hyacinth Contr, J. 10: 4-9. Gallagher, J. E. 1962. Water hyacinth control with amitrol-T. Hyacinth Contr. J. 1: 17-18. Gay, P, A., and L. Berry. 1959. The waterhyacinth: a new problem in the Nile. Geogr. J. 125: 89-91. Gerloff, G. C. I969. Evaluating nutrient supplies for the growth of aquatio plants in natural waters. Pages 537-555 in Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, Correctives. Proc. Symp. Natl. Acad. Sci. (Wash.). Gerloff, G. C., and P. H. Krombholtz. 1966. Tist. a analysis as a measure of nutrient availability for thr gi rth of angiosperm aquatic plants. Limnol. Oceanogr. 11: 529-_>37. Gerloff, G. C., D. D. Moore, and J. T. Curtis. 1964. Mineral Content of native plants of Wisconsin. Agric. Exp. Sta., Univ. WI., Madison, Res. Rept. Ik,

PAGE 185

172 Goin, C, J. 1943. The lower vertebrate fauna of the water hyacinth community in northern Florida. Proc. FL Acad,' Sci. 6: 14315*. Gowanlock, J. N, 1944. The economic status of the water hyacinth in Louisiana, LA Conserv, 2: 3-8, Grist, D, H, 1965. Rice. Longmans, Lond., 4th Edn. t 548.:: Habeck, D, H. 1975. Arzama densa as a pest of dasheen. FL Entomol. 57(4): 409-411. Haller, W. T. , and D. L. Sutton. 1973, Effect of pH and high phosphorus concentra'ion on growth of waterhyacinth. Hyacinth Contr, J. 11 j 59-61. Haller, W. T., E. B. Knipling, and S, H, West. 1971, Phosphorus absorption by and distribution in water hyacinths. Soil & Crop Sci. Soc. FL, 30: 64-68. Hamilton, E. G. 1966. The effect of hebicide damage on private farming interests. Hyacinth Contr. J. 5: 21-26. Hansen, K. L., E. G. Ruby, and R, L, Thompson. 1971. Trophic relationships in the water hyacinth community. Quart. J. FL. Acad. Sci. 34(2): 107-113. Harris, P., and D. P. Peschken. 1974. Biological control of St. Johns-wort, rypericum perforatum . Can. Agric. 19(1): 13-15. Harris, P., and H. Zwolfer. 1968. Screening of phytophagous insects for biological control of weeds. Can. Entomol. 100: 295-303. Hasan, S. 1973. The biology of Puccirda chondrillae . a potential biological control agent of skeleton weed. Ann. Appl. Biol. 74(3): 326-332.

PAGE 186

173 Hasan, S. 1974. Recent advances in the use of plant pathogens as biocontrol agents of weeds. PANS 20(11): 437-443. Hasler, A. D. 1968. Dwindling lakes. Natur. Hist. 77: 8-31. • 1972. Poisons, phosphates, preservation, people and politics. A fish eye's view of ecology. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 102: 213-224. Hawkes, R. B., L. A. Andres, and W. H. Anderson. 1967. Release and progress of an introduced flea beetle, Agasicles n. sp. to control alligatorweed. J. Econ. Entomol. 60: 1976-1977, Haynes, D. L. and P. Sisojevie. 1966. Predatory behavior of Philodromus rufus Walckenaer (Araneae: Thomsiidae). Can. Entomol. 98: 113-133. Hearne, J. S. 1966. The Panama Canal's aquatic weed problem. Hyacinth Contr. J. 5: 1-5, Heinen, E. T., and S. E. D. H. Ahmed. 1964. Water hyacinth control on the Nile River, Sudan. Inf. Prof, Centre Dept. Agric., Khartoum, • Hentges, J. F., Jr., L. 0. Bagnall, and R. L. Shirley. 1975. Aquatic weed utilization. Pages 62-6? in Proc. Aquatic Plant Res. Conf., Univ. of FL., Gainesville. v/Hestand, R. S., and C. C. Carter. 1974. The effects of a winter drawdown on aquatic vegetation in a shallow water reservoir. Hyacinth Contr. J. 12: 9-12. y • 1975. Succession of vegetation in lake Ocklawaha two growing seasons following a winter drawdown. Hyacinth Contr. J. 13: 43-47.

PAGE 187

Hitchcock, A. B., P. W. Zimmerman, H. Kirkpatrick, and T. T. Earl©. 19^9. Water hyacinth and its growth, reproduction and its practical control by 2,*HD. Contrib, Boyce Thomoson Inst. 15: 363. /Hoagland, D. R. , and D. I. Arnon. I95O. The water culture method for "V groining plants without soil. CA. Agric. Exp. Sta. Circ. 3^7. 32 p. J Holcomb, D., and W. Wegener. 1971. Hydrophytic changes related to lake fluctuation as measurd by point transects. Proc. Annu. Conf. South East Assoc. G a me & Fish Comm. 25: 570-583. Holling, C. S. I959. The components of predation as revealed by , study of small animal predation of the European pine sawflv Can. Entomol.91: 293-320. a Holloway, J. K. 1964. Projects in biological control of weeds. Pages 659-670 in Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds. P. DeBaeh, ed. Reinhold Co., NY. 844 p. Holm, J. G., L. W. Weldon, and R. D. Blackburn. 1969. Aquatic weeds. Science 166: 699-709. Houk, I. R. 1956. Irrigation Engineering. Vol. 2. John Wiley & Sons, Nl. 531 p. Hudson, J. C. 1973. The Florida Department of Natural Resources and its role in aquatic plant research and control. Hyacinth Contr. J. 11: 2-f. Huffaker, C. B. 1959. Biological control of weeds with insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 4: 251-276. .1964. Fundamentals of biological weed control. Pages 631-649 in Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds. P ' DeBach, ed. Chapman and Hall, Lord. 844 p.

PAGE 188

175 Huffaker, C. B., and C. E. Kennett. 1959. Ecological tests on Chrysolina gemellata (Rossi) and C. h.ypericl Forst. in biological control of Klamath weed. J. Econ. Entomol. 1061-1064. Huish, M. T. 1957. Food habits of three Centrarchidae in Lake George, Florida. Proc. Annu. Conf. South East Game & Fish Comm. 9: 302-312. Hunt, B. P. 1958. Introduction of Marisa into Florida. Nautilus 72: 53-55. Hustache, A. 1926. Contribution a'letude des curculionides de la, Republique Argentina (premiere note). Ana. Mus. Nac. Hist. Bern. Rivadavia, Buenos Aires 34: 155-261. Hutchinson, G. E. 1957. A Treatise on Limnology. Vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons, NY. 978 p. Ingersall, J. M. 1964. The water hyacinth — historical examples of ecological disaster (III), special aspects of environment resulting from various kinds of nuclear wars, Part III, Appendix 1-2, Hudson Inst., Inc. NY, Iswaran, V., and A. Sen. 1973. Influence of extract of water hyacinth (Eic iornia crassipes) on the yield of brinjal ( Solanum melongena) var. Pusa Kranti. Sci. & Cult. p. 394. Jain, S. C. 1975. Aquatic weeds and their management in India. Hyacinth Contr. J. 13: 6-8. Johnson, E. 1920. Fresno County will fight water hyacinth CA. Agric. Dept. Bull. 9: 202-203. Johnson, W. E. 1971. Feeding analysis of two decapods from the water hyacinth community. Quart. J. FL. Acad. Aci. 34(Suppl. 1): 4.

PAGE 189

176 Joyner, B. G. 1972, Characterization of a Rhizoctonia sp. pathogenic to aquatic plants. MS Thesis, Univ. of FX., Gainesville, 4l p. Joyner, B. G., and T. W. Freeman. I973. Pathogenicity of Rhizoctonia solani to aquatic plants. Phytopathology 63: 681-6857 " Kapur, A. P., and D. K, Dutta. 1952. Studies on the bionomics of the semi-aquatic grasshopper, Gesonula punctifrons Stal. Proc. Indian Sci. Congr. 39(3): 339. Katz, E. E. 1967. Effects of the chemical eradication of water hyacinths on associated fauna, MS Thesis, Stetson Univ., Deland, FX* Kemp, L. E. I968. Phosphorus in flowing waters, Pergamon Press 2: 373-386. Kilgen, R. H., and R. 0. Smitherman. 1971. Food habits of the white amur ( Ctenopharyngodon idella) stocked in ponds alone and in combination with other species. Prog. Fish. Cult. 33: 123-127. Kleinschmidt, H. E. 1974. Water hyacinth control. Queensland Agrlc. J. 100(6): 229-230. KHngman, G. C. 1961. Weed Control: As a Science. John Wiley & Sons. NY. 421 p. Klorer, J. 1909. The water hyacinth problem. J. Assoc. Eng. Soc. 42: 33-48. /Knipling, E. B«, S. H. West, and W. T. Haller. 1970. Growth characteristics, yield potential and nutritive content of water hyacinths. Proc. Soil & Crop Sci. Soc. FL. 7: 51-63. Krupauer, V. 1971. The use of herbivorous fish for ameliorative purposes in Central and Eastern Europe. Proc. Eur. Weed Res. Coun,, Intern. Symp. on Aquatic Weeds, Oxford. 3: 95-103.

PAGE 190

177 Laessle, A. M. 1942. The plant communities of the Welaka area. Univ. of FL. Publ. 143 p. Lawrence, J, M. 1962. Aquatic herbicide data. Agric. Handb. No. 231. 133 P. Leonard, M. D, 1926. A list of the insects of New York. Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. Mem. 101s 1-121. Liang, J. K., and R. T. Lovell, 1971. Nutritional value of water hyacinth in channel catfish feeds. Hyacinth Contr, J. 9s Iinacre, E. T. t B. B. Hicks, G. R. Shinty, and C. Grauze, 1970. The evaporation from a swamp. Agric. Meteorol. 7: 375-386 . little, E. C. S. 1965. The world wide distribution of the water hyacinth. Hyacinth Contr. J. 4: 30-32. • 1968a. Handbook of utilization of aquatic plants. FAO, Rome. • 1968b, The control of water weeds. Weed. Res. 8: 79-105. Livermore, D. F., and W. D. Wunderlich. I969. Mechanical removal of organic production from waterways. In Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, and Correctives. Natl, Acad. Sci. (Wash.). Lutz-Ostertag, Y., and M. H. Lutz. 1970. Action nefaste de l*herbecide 2,4-D sur le development embryonnaire et la fecondite du gibier £ plumes. C. R. Acad. Sci. (Paris), Serie D T-159: 2418-2421. Lynch, J. J., J. E. King, T. K» Chamberlain, and A. L. Smith. 1947. Effects of aquatic weed infestations on the fish and wildlife of the Gulf States. U. S. Dept. Inter. Spec. Sci. Rept. 39: 1-71.

PAGE 191

178 Maiti, S. N. 197^. Effect of water hyacinth ( Eichhornla crassipes (Mart.) Solms) extract on yield and fibre quality of jute. Sci. Cult. 40(9): 401-403. Makenthun, K. M. I969. The practice of water pollution biology. U. S. Dept. Inter. FWPCA. 281 p. Maltby, H. 1963* Effects of erosion on farm lands and river front along the St. Johns River. Hyacinth Contr. J. 2: 5. Matthews, L. J. 1967. Seedling establishment of water hyacinth. Pest. Artie. C. 13: 7-8. • 1971. Water hyacinth: A million dollar menace. New Zealand J. Agric. 123(6): 41. Matsuraoto, T. W. t W. Yamaraoto, and S. Hirane. 1933. Physiology and parasitism of the fungi generally referred to as H ypochnus sasakii II. Temperature and humidity relations. J. Soc. Trop. Agric. Taiwan. 5: 332-345. Mauriello, C. G. 1970. Memorandum on St. Johns hearing of February 11, 1970. Approved at Official Meet., July 8, I97O. Dept. Air & Water Pollu. Contr. 11 p. McCorquodale, D. S., R. D. Martin, and T, T. Sturrock. 1973. An indigenous leaf spot disease of the water-hyacinth observed in South Florida. II. Infectivity studies of Alternaria eichhorniae var. floridana . Abstr. p. 3. McDonald, J. L., and L. C. Lu. 1973. Preference of Mansonia uniformis (Thoob.) for specific water hyacinth plants. Mosq, News 33(3): 466-467. . McLane, W. M. 1955. The fishes of the St. Johns River System. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of FL., Gainesville.

PAGE 192

179 Meyer, B. S., and D. B. Anderson. 1955. Plant Physiology. D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc. NT. 78** p. Miller, T. W. 1964. Hyacinth control in Lee County, Florida. Hyacinth Contr. J. 3: 20-21. Milne, A. 1962. On a theory of natural control of insect populations. J. Theor. Biol. 3: 19-50. Misra, G., and N. Das. 1969* Studies on the control of water hyacinth. Hyacinth Contr, J. 8: 223. Mohaiaed, B. P. 1975. The ecology of waterhyacinth in the White Nile, Sudan. Hyacinth Contr. J. 13? 39-43. Mohamed, B. F., and F, F. Bebaur. 1973a. Burning as a supporting treatment in controlling waterhyacinth in the Sudan. Iroutine burning. Hyacinth Contr. J, 11: 31-34. • 1973b. IIBackburning. Hyacinth Contr. J. 11: 34-36. Montelaro, J. 1962. Danger to crop plants from herbicides used for aquatic weed control. Hyacinth Contr. J. 1: 4-5. Moody, H. L. 1973. Some values of Florida 1 s aquatic weeds. FL. Natur. 7-10. Mukherjee, R. P., A. Bhanja, P. Roy Burman, and S. M. Sircar. 1964. Presence of a bound auxin in the roots of water-hyacinth ( Eichhornia crassipes Mart. Solms.). Bull. Bot. Soc. Beng. 18: 87-90. Mulrenan, J. A. 1962. The relationship of mosquito breeding to aquatic plant production. Hyacinth Contr. J. 1: 6-7.

PAGE 193

180 Nag Raj, T. R. 1<#5. Thread blight of water hyacinth. Curr. Soi. 3M2): 618-619. Nag Raj, R. T., and K. M. Ponnappa. 1970. Blight of water hyacinth caused by Alternarla eichhorniae sp. nov. Trans, Brit. Mycol, Soc. 55(1): 123-130. Naik, I, W. 1972. Water hyacinth and its control in West Pakistan. Pak. J. Sci. 24(1^); 90-97. Nichols, S,, and G. Cottam. 1972. Harvesting as a control for aquatic plants. Wat. Res. Bull. 8(6): 1205, 1210. Nicholson, A. J. 1933. The balance of animal populations. J. Anim. Ecol. 2 (Suppl.): 132-178. Nicholson, A. J., and V. A. Bailey. 1935. The balance of animal populations. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1: 551-598. Nolan, W. J., and D. W. Kirmse. 197 2 *. The papermaking properties of waterhyacinth. Hyacinth Contr. J. 12: 90-97. O'Brien, C. W. 1975. A taxonondc revision of the New World subaquatic genus Neochetina (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Bagoini). 29 p. (In Press). 0 f Hara, J. 1967. Invertebrates found in water hyacinth mats. Quart. J. FL. Acad. Sci. 30(1): 75-80. Olive, E. W. 1894. Contributions to the histology of the Pontederiaceae. Bot. Gaz. 19: 178-18^. Ornes, W. H., and D. L. Sutton. 1975. Removal of phosphorus from static sewage effluent by waterhyacinth. Hyacinth Contr. J. 13: 56-58.

PAGE 194

181 Otis, C. H. 1914. The transpiration of emerged water plants: its measurements and relationships. Bot. Gaz. 58: 457-494. Oyakawa, N. f W. Or land, and 0. L. Volente. I965. The use of Eichhornia crassipes in the production of yeast, feeds and forages. Intern. Grassl. Congr., Sao Paulo. 9: 5. Padwick, G. W. Notes on Indian fungi. IV. Mycol. Papers 1?: 10-11. Parija, P. 1934. Physiological investigations on water hyacinth ( Eichhornia crassipes) in Orissa with notes on some other aquatic weeds. Ind. J. Agric. Sci. 4: 399-429. Parra, J. V., and C. C. Hortenstine. 1974. Plant nutritional content of some Florida waterhyacinths and response by Pearl Millet to incorporation of waterhyacinths in three soil types. Hyacinth Contr. J. 12: 85-90. Parya, P. 1934. Physiological investigation on water hyacinth in Orissa. Ind. J. Agric. Sci. 4: 399. Patro, G. K. t and G. C. Tosh. 1971. Studies on control of water hyacinth ( Eichhornia crassipes) by herbicides. Andhra Agric. J. 18(4): 139-143. Paulson, R. W., Jr. 1970. The effects of the herbicide 2,4-D on the aquatic environment. Univ. of S. FL. Mimeo Rept. Penfound, W. T., and T. T. Earle. 1948. The biology of the water hyacinth. Ecol. Monogr. 18(4): 447-472. Penfound, W. T., and E. S. Hathaway. 1938. Plant communities in the marshlands of Southwesten Louisiana. Ecol. Monogr. 8: I-56.

PAGE 195

182 Perkins, B. D. 1965* Status and relative importance of insects introduced to combat Lantana. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of HA. 178 pp. • 1972. Potential for water hyacinth management with biological agents. Proc. Annu. Tall Timbers Conf. on Ecol. Anim. Contr. by Habitat . Managemt. 3: 53-64. • 1973a. Preliminary studies on a strain of the waterhyacinth mite. Proc. Intern, Symp. Biol. Contr. Weeds, Rome, 1971. 2: 179-184. . 1973b. Release in the United States of Neochetina eichhorniae . an enemy of waterhyacinth, Proc. Annu. Meet. S. Weed Sci. Soc. 26: 368, Abstr. . 1974. Arthropods that stress waterhyacinth. PANS 304^314. Phillippy, C. L. 1966. Recorameded herbicides for the five regions of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Hyacinth Contr. J. 5: 32-35. Pieterse, A. H. 1972. A preliminary investigation on control of water hyacinth by spider mites. Proc. For. Weed Contr. Conf. 11: 1-3. Pieterse, A. H., and P. J. Von Rijn. 1974. A preliminary study on the response of Eichhornia crassipes . Salvinia auric ulata and Pistla strati otes to glyphosate. Medeh Fac. landbovwet Rijksuniv Gent. I. 39(2): 423-428. Pimentel, D. 1961. On a genetic feed-back mechanism regulating populations of herbivores, parasites and predators. Amer. Natur. 95: 65-79. Pirie, N. W. i960. Waterhyacinth: A curse or a crop? Nature, Lond. 105: 116.

PAGE 196

183 Pirie, N. W. 1970. Weeds are not all bad. Ceres 3: 31-39. Ponnappa, K. M. 1970. On the pathogenicity of >frriotheoium roridumEichhornia crassipes isolate. Hyacinth Contr. J. 8: 18-20. Ramachandran, V., T. Ramaprabha, and P. V. G. K. Reddy. 1971. Eradication and utilization of water hyacinth. Curr, Sei. 40(1*0 : 367-368. Rao, P. S. J. 1920. Note on the geotropic curvature of the inflorescence of Eichhornia speclosa Kunth (water hyacinth). J, Ind. Bot. i: 217-218. Rao, K. V., A. K. Khanderhan, and D. V a idyanadham. 1973. Uptake of Fluorida by water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipe s. Ind. J. Exi Biol. 11(1): 68-69. Rao, V. P., T. Sankaran, and G. Rameseshiah. 1972. Studies on four species of natural enemies for biological control of Eic hhornia crassipes . CIBC Rept. 10 p. ' Rehn, J. A. G. 1952. On the genus Gesonula . Trans. Amer. Ento; riL Soc. 78: 117-136. • 1959. Further notes on the genus Gesonula (Orthoptera: Acrididae: Cyrtacanthacridinae) , Entomol. News. 70: 109-111. Reiner, P. N., and S. J. Toth. I968. A survey of chemical composition of aquatic plants in New Jersey. NJ Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. No. 820. Richardson, L. V. 1975. Water level manipulation: A tool for aquatic weed control. Hyacinth Contr. J. 13: 8-11. Rintz, R. E. 1973. A zonal leaf spot of waterhyacinth caused by Cephalosporin zonatum . Hyacinth Contr. J, 11: 41-44.

PAGE 197

Rintz, R. E. t and T. E. Freeman. 1972. Fusarium roseum pathogenic to water hyacinth in Florida. Phytopathology 62: 806. Abstr, Robertson, H. F. , and B. A. Thien. 1932. The occurrence of water hyacinth ( Eichhornia crassipes) seedlings under natural conditions in Burma. Agric. & livesk. of Ind. 2: 383-390. Rogers, H. H., and D. E. Davis. 1972* Nutrient removal by water v 5hyacinth. Weed Sci. 20(5): 423-428. Rogers, J. D., and J. W, Doty. I966, Aquatic weed control in the subdrainage districts of the Florida evergaldes. Hyacinth Contr. J. 5: 26-29. Russell, R. J. 1942. Flotant. Geog. Rev. 32: 74-98. Rushing, W. N. 1974. Waterhyacinth research in Puerto Rico. Hyacinth Contr. J. 12: 48-52, Sabrosky, C. W. 1950. Key to the species of Eugaurax (Diptera: Chloropidae) . J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 40: 184. • 1974. Eugaurax setigena (Diptera: Chloropidae), a new stem miner in water hyacinth. Fl. Entomol. 57(4): 347-348. Sahai, R., and A. B. Sinha. 1969* Contribution to the ecology of i> Indian aquatics. I. Seasonal changes in biomass of water hyacinth ( Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms). Hydrobiologia 35: 376-382. Salveson, R. E. 1971 • Utilization of aquatic plants in steer diets: Voluntary intake and digestibility. MSA Thesis, Univ. of FL., Gainesville. 15-34. Sankaran, T., and V. P. Rao. 1972. An annotated list of insects attacking some terrestrial and aquatic weeds in India, with records of some parasites of the phytophagous insects. Tech. Bull. No. 15. CIBC, pages 131-157.

PAGE 198

185 Sankaran, T., P. Srinath, and K. Krishna. I966. Studies on Gesonula punctifrons Stal. (Orthoptera; Acrididae: Cyrtacanthacridinae) attacking waterhyacinth in India. Entomophaga 11(5): 433-^140, Scarsbrook, E. t and D. E. Davis. 1971. Effect of sewage effluent on the growth of five vascular aquatic species. Hyacinth Contr. J. 9: 26-30. Sculthorpe, C. B. 196?. The Biology of Aquatic Vascular Plants. St. Martins Press, NY. 610 p. Sealbrook, E. L. 1962. The correlation of mosquito breeding to hyacinth plants. Hyacinth Contr, J, 1: 18-19. Seaman, D, E., and W. A. Porterfield. 1964. Control of aquatic weeds by the snail Marlsa cornuarietis L. Weeds 12(2) : 87-92. Sen, A. C. 1957. The effect of 2,4-D weed killer on aquatic fauna. Sci. & Cult. 28: 315-316. Shapley, H. 1953. Climatic change. Harvard Univ. Press. Sheffield, C. W. I967. Waterhyacinth for nutrient removal. Hyacinth Contr. J. 6: 27-30. Sheikh, N. M. , S. A. Ahmed, and S. Hedayetullah. 1964. The effect of the root extract of water hyacinth ( Eichhornia speciosa Kunth), on the growth of micro-organisms and mash kalai ' ( Phaseolus mungo var. Roxburghii) , and on alcoholic fermentation. Pak. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 7i 96-102. Shoecraft, B. 1971. Sue the Bastards! The Franklin Press, Phoenix. 463 P. 9V Siddiqi, S. A. 1962, Control of aquatic weeds in closed waters. Agric. Pak. 13(2): 298-305.

PAGE 199

186 Silveira Guido, A. 1965* Natural enemies of weed plants. Final Rept. Dept. Sanidad Vegetal, Univ. de la Repurblic, Montevideo, Uruguay. • 1971 • Datos preliminares de biologia y especificidad de Acigona igni talis Hraps. (Lep,, Pyralidae) sobre el hospedero Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Soljns-Laubach (Pontederiaceae) . Revista Sociedad Entomologica Argentina. 33(1-4): 137-145. Silveira Guido, A., and B. D. Perkins. 1975. Biology and host specificity of Cor nop s aquaticum Bruner, a potential biological control agent for waterhyacinth. Environ. Entomol. (In Press). Silver, W. S., A. Jump, and D. Pikatzki. 1974. Nitrogen fixation associated with fresh water and marine angiosperms. Annu, Meet. Amer. Soc. Microbiol. 74: 199. Abstr. Singh, S, D. 1962. Preliminary experiments on the unrelated manurial values of some aquatic weeds as composts, Proc. Sess. IndoPac. Fish. Coun., Seoul. 10: 141-145. Sircar, P. K. , S. Banerjee, and S. M. Sircar. 1973. Gibberellinlike activity in the shoot extract of water-hyacinth ( Eichhornia crassipes Solms.). Ind. J. Agrio. 43(1): 1-8. Sircar, S. M., and R. K. Chakraverty. 1961. The effect of gibberellic acid and growth substances of the root extract of water hyacinth ( Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms) on jute ( Corchorus capsularis linn.). Curr. Sci. 30: 428-431, . 1962. The effect of gibberellic acid and growth substances of the root abstract of water hyacinth ( Eichhornia crassipes Mart. Solms.) on rice and grain. Ind. J. Plant Physiol. 5: 1-2. . Sircar, S. M., and M. Kundu. i960. Growth-regulating substances separated from the root of water hyacinth. Physiologia 13: 56-63,

PAGE 200

Sircar, S. M., and A. Ray. I96I. Growth substances separated from the root of waterhyacinth by paper chromatography. Nature. Lond. 190: 1213-1214. Smith, P. B., and G. D. Thornton. 1945. Production of artificial manure. Agric. Exp. Sta. Univ. FL. Bull. No. 145. Soerjani, M. , J. V. Pancho, and N. V. Vong. 1975. Aquatic weed problems and control in Southeast Asia. Hyacinth Contr. J. 13: 2-3. Spafford, N. J. 1935. Water hyacinth in South Australia. Dept. S. Austr* Bull. No. 35. Spencer, N. R. 1974. Insect enemies of aquatic weeds. PANS 20(4); 444-450. Springell, P. H., and J. D. Blake. 1975. Waterhyacinth problems in the Fitzroy region of central Queensland. Hyacinth Contr. J. 13« 3-5. Spruce, R. 1908. Notes of a Botanist in the Amazon and Andes. MacMillan Co., NT. 520 p. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 1971. 13th ed. APHA, AWWA, WPIF, NY. 874 p. Stephens, E. L. 1972. Digestibility trials on ten elements and three toxicants in adequate plant diets fed steers. MSA Thesis, Univ. of FL., Gainesville, pages 16-40. Stephens, J. C., R. D. Blackburn, D. E. Seaman, and L. W. Weldon.. I963. Flow retardance by channel weeds and their control J. Irrig. Drain. Div., Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil Engin. 31-53. Steward, K. K. I969. Nutrient removal potentials of various aquatic plants. Hyacinth Contr. J. 8: 34-35.

PAGE 201

188 Straskruba, M. I966. Das antcil der hoheren pflanzenon der production der gewassa. Mith, Int. Ver. Theor. Angew. IAmnol., 14, Stoffhaushalt der dinnengewasserj chende und microbiologie. Sutton, D, L., and R. D, Blackburn. 197U Uptake of copper by water hyacinth. Hyacinth Contr. J. 9: 18-20, Tabita, A,, and J, W. V/oods. I962. History of hyacinth control in Florida, Hyacinth Contr. J, 1: 19-23. Taylor, K. G. , and R. C. Robbins, 1968. The andno acid composition of water hyacinth (Bichhornla crasslpes) and its value as a protein supplement. Hyacinth Contr, J, 7i 24-25. Thompson, W, R, 1924. La theorie mathematique de 1' action des parasites entomophages et le facteur du hasard. Annu. Fae. Sci. Marseille. 2: 69-89. . 1929* Biological control and the theories of the interactions of populations. Parasitology 31j 299-388. Tilghman, N, J. 1962. The value of water hyacinth in the propagation of fish. Hyacinth Contr. J. 1: 8. • 1963. The St. Johns River hyacinth story. Hyacinth Contr. J. 2: 13-14. • 1964. Conservation of Florida's natural resources. Hyacinth Contr. J. 3: 25-26, y Timmer, C, E,, and L, W. Weldon. 1967. Evapotranspiration and pollution of water by water hyacinth. Hyacinth Contr. J. 6: 34-37. lS Timmons, F. L. 1970. Control of aquatic weeds. FAO Intern. Conf. h ~ Weed. Contr. pages 357-363,

PAGE 202

189 Ultsch, G, R. 1971. The relationship of dissolved carbon dioxide and oxygen to ndcrohabitat selection in Pseudobranchus striatus . Copeia 1971(2): 2^7-252. • 19?3« The possible importance of aquatic carbon dioxide uptake in the ecology of the water hyacinth ( Eichhornia crassipes) . Quart. J. FL. Acad. Sci. 32. . 197^. The effects of water hyacinths ( Eichhornia crassipes) on the microenvironraent of aquatic communities, 39 p. Usinger, R. L. f ed. 1956. Aquatic Insects of California. Univ. of CA. Press, Berkeley. 508 p. Vaas, K. F. 1951* Note on water hyacinth in Indonesia and its eradication by spraying with 2,4-D. Cont. Gen. Res. Sta. Bogor. 20: 1-59. /Van Der Weert, R., and G. E. Kamberling. 197 2 *. Evapotranspiration of water hyacinth ( Eichhornia crassipes). J. Hydrol. 22: 201-202. Van Zon, J, C. J. 197^. Studies on the biological control of aquatic weeds in the Netherlands. Proc. Intern. Symp. Biol. Contr. Weeds, Montpellier. 3, Vogel, E. 1968, life history and evaluation of Arzama densa Walker for control of water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms. Ph.D. Dissertation, IA. State Univ. Vogel, E., and A. D. Oliver. 1969a. Evolution of Arzama densa Walker as an aid to control of water hyacinth in Louisiana. J, Econ. Entomol. 62: l42-H*5. • 1969b. Life history and some factors affecting the population of Arzama densa Walker (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) in Louisiana. Annu. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 62: 7^9-752.

PAGE 203

190 Wahlquist, H. 1972. Production of waterhyacinths and resulting water quality in earthen ponds. Hyacinth Contr. J. 10: 9-11. Wallwork, J. A. 1965* A leaf boring galumnid mite (Acari: Cryptostigmata) from Uruguay. Acarologia 7(4): 758-764. Warner, R. E. 1970. Neochetina eichhorniae , a n. sp. of weevil from waterhyacinth, and biological notes on it and N. bruchi . Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 72: 487-496. Webber, H. J. 1897* The water hyacinth and its relation to navigation in Florida. USDA Div. Bot. Bull. 18. Webre, G. 1975. Waterhyacinth: A disposal plant. Dixie 7-11 , 13. Weed Science Society of America. 1971. Composite list of weeds, Rept, of Subcomm. on Stand, of Common & Bot. Names of Weeds. Weed Sci. 19: 435-476. ^Weldon, L. W., R. D. Blackburn, H. T. De Rigo, and R. T. Mellen, Jr. I966. Use of invert formulations in aquatic weed control. Hyacinth Contr. J. 5: 12-14. Wentzel, R. 1968. Vegetation management in Florida's drainage systems — the sales, the service and the savings. Hyacinth Contr. J. 7: 37-38. Westlake, D. F. 1963. Comparisons of plant productivity. Biol. Rev. 38: 385-425. White, A. C. 1962. Diquat — Prospective role in aquatic weed control. Hyacinth Contr. J. 1: 4. • 1964. Status report on diquat and paraquat as aquatic herbicides. Hyacinth Contr. J. 4: 18-19. White-Stevens, R. L. 1975. Worth noting . . . Farm Chem. 138(4): 74.

PAGE 204

191 Wild, H. 1961. Harmful aquatic plants in Africa and Madagascar, CCTA, CSA Publ. No. 73. Wilson, F. 1964. The biological control of weeds. Annu, Rev. Entomol. 9: 225-244. . 1967* The role of aquatic weeds in mosquito control. Hyacinth Contr. J. 6: 26. Wooley, T. A. i960. Some interesting aspects of oribatid ecology (Acarina). Ann, Entomol, Soc, Amer, 53: 251-253, Wunderlich, W, E, 1938. Mechanical hyacinth destruction. Mil. Engin. 30: 5-10. _, 1962, History of waterhyacinth control in Louisiana, Hyacinth Contr, J, 1: 14, 1967. The use of machinery in the control of aquatic vegetation. Hyacinth Contr. J. 6: 22-24, Yount, J, L, 1964, Aquatic nutrient reduction potential and possible method. Kept, Annu. Meet. FL. Anti-Mosq. Assoc. 35: 83-85. Yount, J. L. , and R, A, Crossman, Jr. 1970, Eutrophication control by plant harvesting. J. Water Pollu, Contr, Fed, 42: 173, Zeiger, C, F, 1962. Hyacinth: — Obstruction to navigation. Hyacinth Contr, J. 1: 16-17. . 1963. Field experiments with silvex and amitrol-T for aquatic weed control. Hyacinth Contr. J. 2: 6-12.

PAGE 205

192 Zeiger, C. F. 1967, Biological control of alligatorweed with Agasicles n. sp. in Florida. Hyacinth Contr. J. 6: 31-34. Zettler, F. W. t and T. E. Freeman. 1972. Plant pathogens as biocontrols of aquatic weeds. Annu. Rev. Phytopath. 10(45): 455-470. Zolessi, L. C. 1956. Observacionnes sobre Cornops aquaticum Br, (Acridoidea, Cyrtacanthacr.) en el Uruguay. Rev, Soc. Uruguaya Entoraol, Is 3-28, Zwolfer, H. 1973. Possibilities and limitations in biological control of weeds. 0EPP/EPP0 Bull. 2(3): 19-30. Zwolfer, H. f and P. Harris. 1971. Host specificity determination of insects for biological control of weeds. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 16: 159-178.

PAGE 206

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Ernest Sheridan Del Fosse was born 26 April 19^9 in Glen Ridge, New Jersey. He attended Cedar Grove, New Jersey, Public Schools until 1967 t when he graduated from Cedar Grove Memorial High School, He was employed at Dor emus Animal Hospital in Cedar Grove from 1961 to 1967. In 1967 he enrolled in the School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, where he received the Bachelor of Science degree in zoology in 1971, From 1970 to 1971 he worked as the Curator of Louisville's Collection of Amphibians and Reptiles, He entered South Dakota State University with a Research Assistantship in Entomology in 1971 » where he received the Master of Science degree in entomology in 1972, In I972, he accepted a Research Assistantship in Entomology at the University of Florida from the Department of Entomology and Nematology. He has held that position until the present time, while fulfilling the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy, Ernest S, Del Fosse is married to the former Janet Ann Veronica Fadayko, and they are childless. He is a member of the Entomological Society of America, the Florida Entomological Society, the Newell Entomological Society, the Hyacinth Control Society, the Biological Research Institute of America, the Society of the Sigma Xi, and Gamma Sigma Delta, Honor Society of Agriculture, 193

PAGE 207

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree Doctor of Philosophy. Dale H. Habeck, Chairman Professor of Entomology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree Doctor of Philosophy. B. David Perkins, Co-Chairman Assistant Professor of Entomology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree Doctor of Philosophy. Professor of Zoology and Entomology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree Doctor of Philosophy. Reece I. Sailer Graduate Research Professor

PAGE 208

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree Doctor of Philosophy. Thomas J. Walked Professor of Entomology This dissertation was submitted to the Dean of the College of Agriculture and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy* December 1975 College of Agriculture Dean, Graduate School