Life cycle and host range of Phycitasp. rejected for biological control of prickly acacia in Australia

Prickly acacia (Vachellia nilotica subsp. indica), a native of the Indian subcontinent, is a serious weed of the grazing areas of northern Australia and is a target for classical biological control. Native range surveys in India identified a leaf webber, Phycita sp. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) as a prospective biological control agent for prickly acacia. In this study, we report the life cycle and host-specificity test results Phycita sp. and highlight the contradictory results between the no-choice tests in India and Australia and the field host range in India. In no-choice tests in India and Australia, Phycita sp. completed development on two of 11 and 16 of 27 non-target test plant species, respectively. Although Phycita sp. fed and completed development on two non-target test plant species (Vachellia planifrons and V. leucophloea) in no-choice tests in India, there was no evidence of the insect on the two non-target test plant species in the field. Our contention is that oviposition behaviour could be the key mechanism in host selection of Phycita sp., resulting in its incidence only on prickly acacia in India. This is supported by paired oviposition choice tests involving three test plant species (Acacia baileyana, A. mearnsii and A. deanei) in quarantine in Australia, where eggs were laid only on prickly acacia. However, in paired oviposition choice trials, only few eggs were laid, making the results unreliable. Although oviposition choice tests suggest that prickly acacia is the most preferred and natural host, difficulties in conducting choice oviposition tests with fully grown trees under quarantine conditions in Australia and the logistic difficulties of conducting open-field tests with fully grown native Australian plants in India have led to rejection of Phycita sp. as a potential biological control agent for prickly acacia in Australia

Can Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Reduce the Growth of Agricultural Weeds?

BACKGROUND: Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) are known for their beneficial effects on plants. However, there is increasing evidence that some ruderal plants, including several agricultural weeds, respond negatively to AMF colonization. Here, we investigated the effect of AMF on the growth of individual weed species and on weed-crop interactions. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: First, under controlled glasshouse conditions, we screened growth responses of nine weed species and three crops to a widespread AMF, Glomus intraradices. None of the weeds screened showed a significant positive mycorrhizal growth response and four weed species were significantly reduced by the AMF (growth responses between -22 and -35%). In a subsequent experiment, we selected three of the negatively responding weed species--Echinochloa crus-galli, Setaria viridis and Solanum nigrum--and analyzed their responses to a combination of three AMF (Glomus intraradices, Glomus mosseae and Glomus claroideum). Finally, we tested whether the presence of a crop (maize) enhanced the suppressive effect of AMF on weeds. We found that the growth of the three selected weed species was also reduced by a combination of AMF and that the presence of maize amplified the negative effect of AMF on the growth of E. crus-galli. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our results show that AMF can negatively influence the growth of some weed species indicating that AMF have the potential to act as determinants of weed community structure. Furthermore, mycorrhizal weed growth reductions can be amplified in the presence of a crop. Previous studies have shown that AMF provide a number of beneficial ecosystem services. Taken together with our current results, the maintenance and promotion of AMF activity may thereby contribute to sustainable management of agroecosystems. However, in order to further the practical and ecological relevance of our findings, additional experiments should be performed under field conditions

Phylogenetic structure and host abundance drive disease pressure in communities

Pathogens play an important part in shaping the structure and dynamics of natural communities, because species are not affected by them equally. A shared goal of ecology and epidemiology is to predict when a species is most vulnerable to disease. A leading hypothesis asserts that the impact of disease should increase with host abundance, producing a ‘rare-species advantage. However, the impact of a pathogen may be decoupled from host abundance, because most pathogens infect more than one species, leading to pathogen spillover onto closely related species. Here we show that the phylogenetic and ecological structure of the surrounding community can be important predictors of disease pressure. We found that the amount of tissue lost to disease increased with the relative abundance of a species across a grassland plant community, and that this rare-species advantage had an additional phylogenetic component: disease pressure was stronger on species with many close relatives. We used a global model of pathogen sharing as a function of relatedness between hosts, which provided a robust predictor of relative disease pressure at the local scale. In our grassland, the total amount of disease was most accurately explained not by the abundance of the focal host alone, but by the abundance of all species in the community weighted by their phylogenetic distance to the host. Furthermore, the model strongly predicted observed disease pressure for 44 novel host species we introduced experimentally to our study site, providing evidence for a mechanism to explain why phylogenetically rare species are more likely to become invasive when introduced. Our results demonstrate how the phylogenetic and ecological structure of communities can have a key role in disease dynamics, with implications for the maintenance of biodiversity, biotic resistance against introduced weeds, and the success of managed plants in agriculture and forestry

Le multiculturalisme australien

Depuis les années 70 le multiculturalisme est à l'ordre du jour dans les pays occidentaux. L'originalité de l'Australie c'est d'avoir fondé sa politique d'immigration sur ce concept. Mais le débat n'en est pas clos pour autant : le multiculturalisme n'est-il qu'un moyen pour contrôler les groupes ethniques et leurs revendications, ou au contraire favorise-t-il de nouveaux liens sociaux entre eux ? Après vingt années de multiculturalisme «débridé», les questions que les Australiens se posent aujourd'hui ne sont pas sans rappeler les interrogations françaises et européennes...Wapshere Nathaniel. Le multiculturalisme australien. In: Hommes et Migrations, n°1174, mars 1994. Australie, Canada, USA. Le multiculturel dans tous ses états. pp. 6-13