Skip to main content

Full text of "DTIC ADA520830: Effects of a Nonnative, Invasive Lovegrass on Agave palmeri Distribution, Abundance, and Insect Pollinator Communities"

See other formats


ERDC/EL TN-10-1 
May 2010 



of S En r Tneer°s PS Effects °f a Normative, Invasive Lovegrass 
on Agave palmeri Distribution, Abundance, 
and Insect Pollinator Communities 


by Denise L. Lindsay , 1 Pamela Bailey , 1 Richard F. Lance , 1 Michael J. Clifford , 2 

Robert Delph , 2 and Neil S. Cobb 2 


PURPOSE: This technical note is a product of the Department of Defense Legacy Resource 
Management Program work unit titled “Effects of invasives on the distribution of keystone 
desert plants on military lands.” The objective of the work unit is to provide a better under¬ 
standing of the impacts of invasive species on key components of ecosystems and pollinator 
communities. The study documented herein emphasized the integration of invasive nonnative 
plant invasion with other ecological processes through assessments of the spatial effects and fire 
dynamics of Lehmann lovegrass (.Eragrostis lehmanniana) on the distribution and abundance of 
Palmer’s agave (Agave palmeri ), investigations of changes in A. palmeri pollinator community 
composition and diversity in the presence of high E. lehmanniana abundance, and implementa¬ 
tion of a focused network analysis of A. palmeri and the plants with which it directly interacts 
with through shared pollinators. The purpose of this technical note is to provide information 
(such as key insights into important ecological relationships that foster species persistence, bio¬ 
diversity, and community stability) that can be leveraged against ongoing work on pollinator 
systems by Fort Huachuca, the state of Arizona, and the U.S. Army Engineer Research and 
Development Center, to address management concerns for desert plant communities and their 
associated threatened and endangered species. 

INTRODUCTION: Invasive plants are considerable challenges for land managers in desert eco¬ 
systems, especially invasive grasses, which both benefit from and promote recurrences of fire, 
often reducing the persistence of native species and converting native plant communities to 
annual grasslands (Brooks and Pyke 2001). Invasive plants are capable of aggressively spreading 
into new habitat and monopolizing essential resources such as nutrients, water, and light, conse¬ 
quently out-competing native species. Impacts of invasive species on natural environments have 
contributed to the decline of 42 percent of federally threatened and endangered species nation¬ 
wide (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2001), and following direct loss of 
habitat, invasive species are the next greatest threat to the survival of native species. Potential 
negative impacts of invasive species include the disruption of ecosystem structure and function 
via the alteration of community composition, the reduction of available resources, and 
diminished reproductive efficiency. 

The genus Agave is an important native taxa to assess the effects of invasive grasses because 
agaves are keystone species (one whose impact on its ecosystem is disproportionately large 


1 U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. 

2 Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. 







Report Documentation Page 


Form Approved 
OMB No. 0704-0188 


Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington 
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it 
does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 


1. REPORT DATE 

MAY 2010 


2. REPORT TYPE 


3. DATES COVERED 

00-00-2010 to 00-00-2010 


4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Effects of a Nonnative, Invasive Lovegrass L Agave palmeriDistribution, 
Abundance, and Insect Pollinator Communities 

6. AUTHOR(S) 


7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,Vicksburg,MS 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 


5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 


5b. GRANT NUMBER 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROIECT NUMBER 


5e. TASK NUMBER 


5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 
REPORT NUMBER 


10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 
NUMBER(S) 


12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 


13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 


14. ABSTRACT 


15. SUBIECT TERMS 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 


a. REPORT 

unclassified 


b. ABSTRACT 

unclassified 


c. THIS PAGE 

unclassified 


17. LIMITATION OF 

18. NUMBER 

ABSTRACT 

OF PAGES 

Same as 

18 

Report (SAR) 



19a. NAME OF 
RESPONSIBLE PERSON 


Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 





ERDC/EL TN-10-1 
May 2010 

relative to its abundance) of semiarid and arid regions of the southwest with considerable eco¬ 
logical and economic value (Good-Avila et al. 2006). The Palmer’s agave (Agave palmeri ) is 
state protected in Arizona and is currently threatened by the invasive African plant, Lehmann 
lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana ), as grasses strongly compete with agave seedlings (U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1999). A. palmeri grows in sandy to gravelly places on limestone 
in oak woodlands and grassy plains at elevations between 900-2,000 m in Arizona, New Mexico, 
and Mexico (Flora of North America Editorial Committee 2002). Agave plays a key role in the 
life history of the federally endangered lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae) and state 
listed Mexican long-tongued bat (Choeronycteris mexicana). It is an important nectar and pollen 
resource for a large variety of pollinators, including bees, hummingbirds, orioles, butterflies, and 
wasps (National Park Service (NPS) 2007). However, little is known regarding the effect of 
agave on insect pollinators. 

E. lehmanniana was introduced in southern Arizona in 1932 to control soil erosion and provide 
forage for cattle and has since spread throughout the southwest (Crider 1945; Gori and Enquist 
2003; Bock et al. 2007). It is now considered a major plant species on about 140,000 hectares 
(ha), primarily located in southeastern Arizona (Halvorson and Guertin 2003), and has the 
potential to spread to over 7,000,000 ha under predicted climate change scenarios (Huang and 
Geiger 2008). The biomass of E. lehmanniana is typically two to four times greater than the 
biomass produced by native grass vegetation (Anable et al. 1992); thus, it can indirectly impact 
pollinators by crowding out native plants and reducing the availability of nectar sources and 
nesting sites (e.g. woody stems and bare earth used by bees). Currently, E. lehmanniana grows at 
elevations from 200-1,830 m (Flora of North America Editorial Committee 2007). The potential 
for E. lehmanniana to dominate and influence ecosystems is likely increasing because under 
changing climate conditions, its future distribution is predicted to be much greater than its cur¬ 
rent distribution (Schussman et al. 2006), with colonization spreading to areas higher in elevation 
and much farther north than its present range. 

Additionally, the lovegrass can indirectly affect plant interactions by altering fire dynamics 
throughout the ecosystem. Prescribed fires to remove E. lehmanniana populations have been 
unsuccessful in maintaining control, often resulting in regrowth during subsequent seasons 
(Rogers 2004). Furthermore, the lovegrass has been shown to increase the frequency and inten¬ 
sity of natural fires (Kupfer and Miller 2005), which could alter A palmeri germination, growth, 
abundance, and resource availability and foraging behavior of pollinators (Geiger 2006; Gucker 
2006). Agave stalks are edible to wild herbivores such as deer, javelina, rodents, and rabbits 
(USFWS 1999). Because agave stalks often remain available following fire when other food 
resources are limited, herbivores may favor them, negatively impacting the availability of flow¬ 
ering stalks for pollinators, such as the nectar-feeding bats (USFWS 1999). In addition to the 
direct mortality of agave, fire may alter the availability of blooms, as agaves physiologically 
commit to bolt by early spring. If an agave survives a burn, bolting continues although the stalk 
is then smaller and has fewer flowers (Howell 1996; USFWS 1999), and if an agave stalk bums 
directly, the reproductive effort and the availability of nectar for that plant is completely lost 
(USFWS 1999). Both of these situations result in reduced availability of nectar for pollinators. 

This study assesses the impacts of invasive species on key components of ecosystems and polli¬ 
nator communities. To integrate aspects of invasive nonnative plant invasion with other ecologi¬ 
cal processes, the spatial effects of fire, soil type, and E. lehmanniana on the distribution and 


2 



ERDC/EL TN-10-1 
May 2010 

density of A. palmeri are assessed, and changes in agave pollinator community composition and 
diversity in the presence of high E. lehmanniana abundance are investigated. A network 
approach was implemented (Jordano et al. 2006; Olesen et al. 2006) to describe and analyze how 
agave interacts through shared pollinators with other plants, and to detect any differences in the 
structures of these agave “ego networks” associated with low and high E. lehmanniana abun¬ 
dance. Network visualization and analysis of pollination communities can provide key insights 
into important ecological relationships that foster species persistence, biodiversity, and commu¬ 
nity stability (Aizen et al. 2009; Carvalheiro et al. 2008; Fontaine et al. 2006; Memmott et al. 
2004). The agave ego network was restricted to only those plants directly connected to 
A. palmeri, making other common network measures, such as diameter or closeness centrality, 
meaningless or redundant with other statistics. Information gained from this study will be lever¬ 
aged against ongoing work on pollinator systems by Fort Huachuca, the state of Arizona, and the 
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, to address management concerns for 
desert plant communities and associated threatened and endangered species. 

METHODS: 

Study Locale. The study was conducted on Fort Huachuca, located in Cochise County of 
southeastern Arizona (Figure 1). Nearly 3,000 ha of Agave have been documented (Danzer and 
Roberts 2003) on the 33,000-ha installation. Fort Huachuca has well characterized vegetative 
communities, supports a number of rare plants and pollinators, and has a high diversity of polli¬ 
nators. The overall study area (21,200 ha) did not include the northeast section of the base, as 
agave was not present and fire history data were not available. Study sites were selected using 
prior data ’ to locate areas characterized by high (> 35 percent) and low (< 15 percent) abun¬ 
dance E. lehmanniana, and low, medium, and high densities of A. palmeri. These study sites 
were chosen in paired locations for high and low abundance E. lehmanniana over relatively 
homogenous terrain (elevation ranged from about 1450-1550 m) to minimize environmental 
variance. Mean E. lehmanniana percentage was determined between two classes of study sites 
(high = 52.83 percent ± 18.37 percent, low = 5.67 percent ± 4.59 percent) to be significantly dif¬ 
ferent (Fiji = 37.24, P = 0.0001) using PROC GLM (SAS Institute 2005). Surveys and sampling 
were conducted during the summer of 2008. 

Distribution of Eragrostis lehmanniana and Agave palmeri in Relation to Fire and 
Soil. Geographic infonnation systems (GIS) data were obtained, including shapefiles of fire 
history from 1975-2006, soil types (Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO)), and agave distribution 
and density (provided by D. Schlichting). High-resolution (1-m) 2007 color infrared imagery 
(USDA National Agriculture Imagery Program) was obtained for determining canopy cover of 
overstory tree species (e.g. Prosopis spp.). High-resolution imagery was classified using a super¬ 
vised classification to differentiate areas of tree canopy from grasslands. With this imagery, the 
authors were able to remotely detect the presence of larger shrubs and trees (crown diameter 
> 1 m), and quantify canopy cover. 


1 Personal communication. 2009. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 

2 Personal communication. 2009. D. Schlicting, Range Training Lands Assessment Coordinator, Colorado State 
University Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands, Ft. ITuachuca, AZ. 


3 



ERDC/EL TN-10-1 
May 2010 



10 Kilometers 


■fa Site Locations 
I&&&1 Agave Distribution 

Lehmann I xwcgrass Cover 
160% 


Figure 1. Map of study area and sample site locations (stars) on Fort Huachuca, Arizona, including 
Agave palmeri distribution (cross-hatched) and Eragrostis lehmanniana percent cover 
(shaded). E. lehmanniana was masked to the extent of grasslands as determined by the 
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Program (SWReGAP) (Lowry et al. 2007). 


Spatial analyses were performed by overlaying shapclilcs and rasters to determine the interac¬ 
tions of spatial distributions of fire, soil-type, E. lehmanniana, and A. palmeri. To increase sam¬ 
pling efficiency, 1,000 random points were generated for the high, medium, and low density 
A. palmeri datasets (Beyer 2004). Trends in the distribution and density of A. palmeri were ana¬ 
lyzed relative to the distribution and density of E. lehmanniana by using an inverse distance 


4 








ERDC/EL TN-10-1 
May 2010 


weighting interpolation from point data (all percent cover of E. lehmanniana ) collected in 2004 
and 2006 1 and 2008 which occurred on the study area. The output of this interpolation was a 
spatial dataset of percent cover of E. lehmanniana. The relationship of E. lehmanniana density to 
fire occurrence was also assessed, to further investigate the effects of E. lehmanniana on 
A. palmeri through potential impacts to A. palmeri survival, and thus A. palmeri pollinator 
guilds. This was accomplished by creating 1,000 random points in the area of A. palmeri distri¬ 
bution (high, medium, and low) and masking the E. lehmanniana dataset to each fire occurring 
from 1975-2006. At each random point within each fire year, the percent cover of 
E. lehmanniana was compared to cover not burned during that year. An analysis of variance 
(ANOVA) was used to compare A. palmeri density with both fire occurrence and percent cover¬ 
age of E. lehmanniana, and all significant values were accepted at the 0.05 probability level 
using SPSS 16.0 (SPSS, Inc. 2007). 

Interpolated percent cover of E. lehmanniana was masked to the extent of grasslands as deter¬ 
mined by the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Program (SWReGAP; Lowry et al. 2007) and 
the distribution of A. palmeri was excluded. Then 1000 random points were generated that over¬ 
laid the potential E. lehmanniana distribution (e.g., grasslands and non-agave) and extracted 
E. lehmanniana percent cover on these points. Percent cover of E. lehmanniana was also deter¬ 
mined by generating 1,000 random points within the distribution of A. palmeri and compared to 
percent E. lehmanniana in non-agave areas with an ANOVA. To determine which soil types are 
preferred by E. lehmanniana, 1,000 random points were generated and soil type was extracted 
from a SSURGO soils dataset, and percent cover was extracted from the interpolated E. lehman¬ 
niana dataset. An ANOVA was used to determine whether percent cover of E. lehmanniana dif¬ 
fered significantly between soil types. 

Agave palmeri Surveys. The relative abundance and size class of A. palmeri were quantified 
at each of 10 sites characterized by high (N = 5) and low (N = 5) E. lehmanniana abundance in 
the grassland vegetation community. The total number of live and dead A. palmeri were quanti¬ 
fied per site, and size class was calculated by measuring the average diameter of each living 
A. palmeri using a standard measuring tape. Diameter was calculated by averaging two perpen¬ 
dicular measurements across the top of the plant. Comparisons of the number of live and dead 
A. palmeri between sites with high and low E. lehmanniana abundance were conducted with an 
analysis of variance using PROC GLM (SAS Institute 2005). A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was 
performed to compare size class differences between high and low E. lehmanniana abundance 
sites using PROC NPAR1WAY (SAS Institute 2005). 

Pollinator Sampling. Two related pollinator studies were conducted. The first was a directed 
assessment of insect pollinators visiting A. palmeri flowers. For this study, pollinators from 
A. palmeri were sampled during the peak agave flowering season (July and August). Once per 
month, pollinators were collected on blooms from 7-10 individual A. palmeri per site, at each of 
12 sites characterized by high (N = 6) and low (N = 6) E. lehmanniana abundance. Individual 
agaves were systematically sampled for 2 consecutive minutes with battery-powered handheld 
vacuums modified for insect collection while perched on orchard ladders to reach flowering 
stalks that range in height from 3-6 m. Insects were identified to the lowest possible taxonomic 


1 Personal communication. 2009. D. Schlichting, Range Training Lands Assessment Coordinator, Colorado State 
University Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands, Ft. Huachuca, AZ. 


5 



ERDC/EL TN-10-1 
May 2010 

level. Efforts were made to observe pollination by hummingbirds on agave, but due to very few 
interactions and difficulties with species identification, hummingbird data were not included in 
the analyses. Likewise, data on nocturnal pollinators were not included. 

A. palmeri pollinator community differences between high and low E. lehmanniana abundance 
sites were assessed by comparing mean species richness and species abundance among sites with 
a one-way analysis of variance using PROC ANOVA (SAS Institute 2005). Species indicator 
analysis was conducted with a Monte Carlo test of significance to determine whether specific 
pollinator taxa responded to high or low E. lehmanniana abundance. A multi-response permuta¬ 
tion procedure (MRPP) was used to determine pollinator community composition differences 
between high and low E. lehmanniana abundance sites. 

The second pollinator study examined plant-pollinator networks from a complementary ongoing 
study of all pollinators associated with grasslands on Fort Huachuca to assess networks for 
A. palmeri insect pollinators. For this study, 16 plots (100 m x 25 m) characterized by high 
(N = 8) and low (N = 8) E. lehmanniana abundance were surveyed for pollinator-plant interac¬ 
tions monthly from April through September, with the exception of June. Each plot was divided 
into five sampling lanes, four of which were randomly selected for sampling by a randomly 
assigned field technician. Sampling was conducted using the same handheld vacuums used for 
the agave-centric pollinator sampling and focused on capturing all insects found on flowers (any 
species) along each of the four selected transects over a 20-minute period, with collection on 
individual plants limited to 2 consecutive minutes. Plots were sampled once per month, with the 
order of sampling both among and within plot pairs randomly assigned. Plants on each plot were 
identified to species and collected insects were identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level. 
As explained earlier, hummingbirds and nocturnal pollinator activity on plots was not recorded. 

All flower-feeding Hymenoptera and Lepidoptera, and the plant species on which they were 
collected, were used to create rectangular weighted adjacency matrices and corresponding bipar¬ 
tite (or 2-mode) networks: one set for native (combined data from all low E. lehmanniana 
abundance sites and all months) and another set for invaded (combined data from all high 
E. lehmanniana abundance sites and all months). In these matrices, plant species comprise the 
row categories and insect pollinators the column categories, with the number of individuals of an 
insect species captured on a plant represented in the corresponding matrix cell. For the bipartite 
network, each plant and pollinator corresponds to a node, and the number of pollinators captured 
on a plant provides a weighting for the edges (= links) between plant and pollinator nodes. To 
visualize and analyze the structure of plant-plant interactions (= shared pollinators), the weighted 
adjacency matrices were dichotomized and collapsed to create new, square weighted adjacency 
matrices and corresponding unipartite (or 1-mode) networks. In the new weighted adjacency 
matrices, the constituent plants comprise both column and row categories and the matrix cells 
correspond to the number of pollinator species shared by pairs of different plant species. For the 
unipartite network, each species of plant corresponds to a node, and the number of pollinator 
species shared by two plant species corresponds to a weighted edge between nodes. In order to 
focus analyses on A. palmeri, reduced matrices corresponding to the unipartite (1-mode) “ego 
networks” of agave (all plants linked directly to A. palmeri through shared pollinators) were 
extracted from the broader data sets. 1 Because many of the available analyses can only be used 


1 Treatment of the full pollination network data will be presented in a separate publication. 


6 



ERDC/EL TN-10-1 
May 2010 


to analyze unweighted (binary) networks, the weighted agave ego network matrices were 
dichotomized to create unweighted adjacency matrices and corresponding unweighted unipartite 
networks. The significance of differences in standard network measures, described earlier, for 
unipartite networks from areas with high and low E. lehmanniana abundance were determined 
following bootstrap procedures described by Snijders and Borgatti (1999). All matrix processing 
and network analyses were executed using UCINET 6.0 (Borgatti et al. 1999), and network 
creation and visualization were executed with Pajek 1.02 (Batagelj and Mrvar 1998). Network 
parameters of interest (reviewed in Borner et al. 2007) included those related to topology, such 
as: number of nodes or size of the network (AO, number of edges or links ( E ), density of the net¬ 


work 


D = - 


2 E 


N(N- 1) 


and several measures of network connectedness, including mean number 


of edges per node |/i) or mean degree centrality ( C D ), mean betweenness centrality ( C H j; the 


proportion of shortest network paths between other nodes that incorporate a node), mean eigen¬ 
vector centrality ( C E ; a measure of the degree to which a node is a component of overall con¬ 
nectedness in the network), and mean Bonacich power ( C p ; when the attenuation factor, [1, is 

positive, power is a positive function of being connected to well-connected nodes). Network 
creation and visualization were executed with Netdraw 2.085 (Borgatti 2002), with random posi¬ 
tioning of nodes and strength of weighted edges (number of shared pollinators) represented by 
scaled line thicknesses (stronger edge = thicker line). 


RESULTS: 


Agave palmeri and Eragrostis lehmanniana distributions. A. palmeri was present in 
1837 ha across the study area (21,200 ha; Figure 1), with an estimated 249 ha being designated 
as high density, 993 ha designated as medium density, and 595 ha designated as low density. The 
overall agave distribution grew with a mean of 25.7 percent E. lehmanniana cover, while mean 
E. lehmanniana cover in the study area was 7.3 percent ± 0.3 percent. Although the presence of 
high E. lehmanniana abundance did not significantly alter the number of live (F\c, = 0.71, 
P = 0.4231) or dead (F\$ = 2.38, P = 0.1615) A. palmeri among the sample sites, areas of low 
density agave had significantly higher percent coverage of E. lehmanniana than either medium- 
or high-density areas of agave across the study area (F = 42.50, P < 0.0001; Figure 2). Addition¬ 
ally, a significantly higher ratio of smaller agave plants (< 0.4 m radius) to larger agave plants 
(> 0.4 m radius) was found in sites corresponding to high E. lehmanniana abundance 
( KSa= 1.9578, P = 0.0009). Overall, A. palmeri plants ranged in size from 0.03-2.64 m in 
diameter. 


There were several fundamental differences among levels of agave density. Percent canopy 
cover of overstory trees was highest (1.9 percent) in high-density agave areas and lowest 
(1.0 percent) in low-density agave areas. Agave density also varied by the relative abundance of 
soil type. High density agave was largely (76.0 percent) found on the Terrarossa-Blacktail-Pyeatt 
Complex, while low-density agave was found equally on the Terrarossa Complex and White 
House Complex (Table 1). Soil type also influenced percent cover of E. lehmanniana on Fort 
Huachuca. Aside from the Ubik Complex, the three most common soil types where agave was 
found (Terrarossa-Blacktail-Pyeatt Complex, Terrarossa Complex, and White House Complex) 
had the most E. lehmanniana cover of any soil type (13-19 percent; Table 1). Percent cover of 


7 



ERDC/EL TN-10-1 
May 2010 


E. lehmanniana was significantly higher (F = 398.33, P < 0.001) within the distribution of agave 
than in non-agave areas (Figure 3). 



Figure 2. Low-density Agave palmeri corresponds to significantly higher percent 
coverage of Eragrostis lehmanniana than either medium- or high-density 
agave (F = 42.50, P < 0.0001). 


Table 1. Influence of soil type on Agave palmeri distribution and Eragrostis 
lehmanniana abundance. 1 


Mean ± SD 

Percent Soil Abundance of 

Agave palmeri Distribution 

Amount of 
Landscape 

Soil Type 

Eragrostis lehmanniana 
Percent Cover 

High 

Density 

Medium 

Density 

Low 

Density 

Comprised of by 
Soil Type 

White House Complex 

10.9 ±0.7 

4.3 

21.2 

30.3 

14.7 

Terrarossa Complex 

11.8 ±0.6 

11.7 

21.6 

30.6 

12.6 

Budlamp-Woodcutter Complex 

3.2 ± 0.4 

0.00 

5.4 

0.6 

12.1 

Far-Hogris Asscociation 

1.8 ±0.3 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

11.5 

Gardencan-Lanque Complex 

10.0 ±0.7 

1.8 

3.6 

6.5 

10.2 

Terrarossa-Blacktail-Pyeatt Complex 

19.1 ±0.9 

76.1 

37.4 

24.7 

8.00 

Ubik Complex 

14.7 ±2.7 

0.00 

0.1 

0.3 

1.4 

Carbine Very Gravelly Loam 

7.8 ± 1.3 

5.2 

9.8 

4.5 

1.3 

1 High densities of agave were preferentially found on Terrorossa-Blacktail-Pyeatt Complex, as was E. lehmanniana. Percent 
cover of E. lehmanniana was higher in soil types preferred by agave, but was also abundant on other soil types (e.g., Ubik 

Complex). 


8 




































































ERDC/EL TN-10-1 
May 2010 


V) 

</> 

(0 

I— 

05 

QJ 

> 

o 

c 

C 

ro 

E 

.c 

Q) 


QJ 

> 

O 

o 


c 

cu 

o 

s_ 

QJ 

0 . 



Figure 3. Eragrostis lehmanniana exhibits significantly higher percent cover in 
areas where Agave palmeri occurs compared to areas with no agave 
(F = 398.33, P < 0.001). 


Interactions of natural and prescribed bum history with E. lehmanniana distribution and density 
showed no discernible pattern. Areas with high E. lehmanniana abundance did not burn more 
frequently than areas of low E. lehmanniana abundance. For A. palmeri, however, areas of high 
and medium density were significantly associated with more frequent burning (F = 3.26, 
P < 0.05; Figure 4). 

Pollinator Community Analysis. There was no significant difference in pollinator species 
richness (F 23 = 0.14, P = 0.7076) or species abundance (Fi^ = 0.50, P = 0.4868) between sites 
with high and low E. lehmanniana abundance (Table 2). Pollinator community composition 
analysis revealed no significant differences between high and low E. lehmanniana abundance 
sites (r = -0.015, P = 0.726). Of the 70 taxa identified (Appendix A), only one species was an 
indicator of either high or low E. lehmanniana abundance; with a mean observed indicator value 
of 20.8 ± 3.67, Agapostemon angelicus was found to be an indicator species of A. palmeri 
located in high E. lehmanniana abundance sites (P = 0.0472). 


9 




ERDC/EL TN-10-1 
May 2010 



Figure 4. Agave palmeri density significantly decreases with increasing 
percentage of area burned per year (F = 3.26, P < 0.05). 


Table 2. Pollinator species richness and species abundance for eight high (>35 percent) 
and eight low (<15 percent) Eragrostiis lehmanniana abundance sites. 

Eragrostis lehmanniana Abundance 

n 

Species Richness 

Species Abundance 

Mean 

SE 

Mean 

SE 

High 

8 

11.45 

1.52 

53.27 

7.84 

Low 

8 

12.23 

1.37 

67.54 

17.28 


Pollinator Network Analyses. In each agave ego network (native vs. invaded), agave was 
directly linked (shared > 1 pollinators) with 11 other plants (Figure 5). In addition to A. palmeri, 
however, the two networks only have three plant species in common, including Acacia augustis- 
sima, Calliandra eriophylla, and Prosopis velutina. The native network included 30 different 
insect pollinators, while the invaded network contained 14 different insect pollinators. Nine spe¬ 
cies of pollinators, Apis melifera, Dialictus microlepoides, Hemiargus isola, Microclepi spp., 
Bruchophagus spp., Myrmecosystus spp., Crematogaster spp., Lydella radieus, and Trupanea 
spp. were found within the agave ego networks in both native and invaded plots. In both of the 
larger community networks, the agave ego network played an important role, comprising 
40 percent of the plant species. However, there were notable differences between the native and 
invaded agave ego networks, including a higher degree of pollinator sharing among plants in the 
native network relative to the invaded network ( E = 92 vs. 72; D = 63.64 percent vs. 
43.64 percent). Significant differences (one-tailed t-tests, 10,000 bootstraps) between the 
unweighted unipartite networks (native vs. invaded, p-value) included mean node degree 


10 





























ERDC/EL TN-10-1 
May 2010 

centrality (c d = 7.667 vs. 5.833, p = 0.04l) and mean node power 

(c p = 1160.109 vs. 662.263, p > 0.001 j. In regards to the weighted unipartite networks, the same 
trends hold true with C D (14.500 vs. 8.500,/; = 0.010), C B (22.792 vs. 2.583 , p = 0.034), and 
mean cluster coefficient (c = 1.821 vs. 1.213, p = 0.002 j. There were no significant differences in 
betweenness centrality (c b = 1.667 vs. 2.583, p = 0.653) or eigenvector centrality 
[ C E = 0.280 vs. 0.276, p = 0.910 j for the unweighted networks, nor in eigenvector centrality for 
the weighted networks (C E = 0.268 vs. 0.246, p = 0.697). Agave also appears to play a more cen¬ 
tral role in the native ego network as indicated by a higher two-step reach (the percentage of 
other nodes within two-links of agave; 93.10 percent versus 86.21 percent). 

DISCUSSION: High abundance of E. lehmanniana significantly altered the distribution of 
A. palmeri size classes, resulting in a higher ratio of small to large plants. Areas with a higher 
ratio of small to large agave plants are a management concern on Fort Huachuca because stands 
of small plants are considered to be important future nectar-feeding centers, and should thus be 
protected. 1 However, areas of low-density agave had significantly higher percent coverage of 
E. lehmanniana than either medium- or high-density areas of agave, indicating that high 
E. lehmanniana abundance tends to exclude A. palmeri. Although the small/young agave plants 
are important, the more dense stands of agave also need to be protected, as total amount of nectar 
produced is the main conservation concern for the endangered lesser long-nosed bat. 

Although Kupfer and Miller (2005) found that the presence of E. lehmanniana increases both the 
frequency and intensity of natural fires, Geiger (2006) determined that the proportion of E. leh¬ 
manniana does not increase following burns. Similarly, it was determined that areas with high 
E. lehmanniana abundance did not bum more frequently than areas of low E. lehmanniana abun¬ 
dance. However, fires did occur significantly more in areas of high-density agave than in areas of 
low-density agave. Because fire has the potential to reduce or eliminate agave bloom production 
by damaging or destroying plants, this could have a negative effect on overall nectar availability. 
Agave density also varied by soil type, with high-density agave being associated with the 
Terrarossa-Blacktail-Pyeatt Complex, also following an observation of Geiger (2006) that sur¬ 
vival of agave varies with soil type. Because E. lehmanniana was preferentially found on the 
same three soil types where A. palmeri most commonly occurred, and percent cover of 
E. lehmanniana was significantly higher within agave areas, the two species will likely be in 
close association for the foreseeable future. This suggests that areas of agave may be more prone 
to invasion by E. lehmanniana than areas without agave. 


1 Personal communication. 2009. D. Schlichting, Range Training Lands Assessment Coordinator, Colorado State 
University Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands, Ft. Huachuca, AZ. 


11 



ERDC/EL TN-10-1 
May 2010 



Figure 5. Unipartite networks of plants linked through shared pollinator species from a) native grass 
dominated plots, and b) invaded plots dominated by the nonnative grass Eragrostis 
lehmanianna. Line thickness reflects edge weighting (number of pollinator species shared). 


12 

















ERDC/EL TN-10-1 
May 2010 


There was no significant difference in A. palmeri pollinator species richness, species abundance, 
or community composition between sites with high and low E. lehmanniana abundance, sug¬ 
gesting that E. lehmanniana does not have a negative influence on the agave pollinator guild. 
Agave flowering stalks often tower over the maximum height of E. lehmanniana, thus allowing 
pollinators to access agave blooms with ease. High E. lehmanniana abundance is concomitant 
with low densities of A. palmeri, which suggests that pollinator activity should also follow this 
pattern. However, sites with high E. lehmanniana abundance could be outcompeting other native 
flora, thus increasing the amount of pollinator activity on the limited numbers of A. palmeri in 
high E. lehmanniana abundance sites. Agapostemon angelicus, a native, pollen-feeding sweat 
bee, was the only pollinator observed to be an indicator species of A. palmeri in high E. lehman¬ 
niana abundance sites. The sweat bees are considered generalist species, pollinating a wide vari¬ 
ety of flower species. Though A. angelicus could be utilizing A. palmeri as a major pollen 
source, the association may be due to E. lehmanniana providing cover or nesting material for 
A. A. angelicus; however, that may be unlikely considering that Agapostemon spp. nest in ground 
burrows (Michener 2000). In general, bees are the most common pollinator, a trend also 
observed in this study. A. palmeri pollinators collected in this study included 30 species of 
Hymenoptera (bees), 21 species of Diptera (flies), 9 species of Coleoptera (beetles), 4 species of 
Lepidoptera (butterflies), and 2 species of Hemiptera (aphids, leafhoppers, and cicadas). Two 
species of Coleoptera and two species of Araneae (spiders) that were herbivores or predators 
were also collected. 

Network descriptions of the interconnectedness and co-reliance among plants that share pollina¬ 
tors provide potentially important insights into the combined community’s robustness and resil¬ 
ience to changes in composition, such as loss of species (Aizen et al. 2009; Fontaine et al. 2006; 
Memmott et al. 2004). Network approaches also provide important insights into the role of a 
particular species, plant or pollinator, in supporting community structure, as well as that species’ 
susceptibility to extinction within the community (Carvalheiro et al. 2008). In the case of agave 
in the Sonoran desert grassland community that was studied, it appears that A. palmeri and its 
one-step ego network (the plants to which it is directly linked through shared pollinators) are 
major components of the overall community pollinator network and likely lend a large degree of 
stability to the community pollination dynamics. It also appears that A. palmeri and the plants in 
its ego network are well established and supported by multiple pollinator linkages, but appear to 
be significantly more linked within the native network. One possible reason for the apparent 
greater connectedness of the native agave ego network may be a rarefaction bias in the sampling 
results arising from the higher density of agave in native habitat and concomitant higher prob¬ 
ability of detecting more pollinator species. Percent cover of agave was significantly higher 
within native sites (F = 4.88, P = 0.0444). In the sampling component of this study for the 
directed assessment of A. palmeri insect pollinators, where numbers of agave sampled in native 
and invaded habitat were equivalent, significant differences in pollinator diversity did not exist. 
An additional factor could be different portions of plants in the low and high E. lehmanniana 
abundance sites that are pollinator generalists, or pollinators that are flower generalists. 

CONCLUSIONS: The nonnative grass E. lehmanniana has negatively impacted the native plant 
A. palmeri, which is an important resource for many pollinators in the desert communities of the 
Southwestern United States. E. lehmanniana may exclude A. palmeri, as areas of high E. leh¬ 
manniana abundance were associated with significantly lower densities of A. palmeri, greater 
numbers of small/young A. palmeri plants, and lower pollinator network connectedness. 


13 



ERDC/EL TN-10-1 
May 2010 

Although E. lehmanniana abundance had no significant effect on fire frequency, medium- and 
high-density A. palmeri areas were associated with increased fire frequency, which can decrease 
overall nectar production through direct or indirect means. Due to similar soil preferences, 
E. lehmanniana and A. palmeri are likely to continue be found in close association; therefore, 
continued study and monitoring of the invasion and impacts of E. lehmanniana on these desert 
communities and their associated threatened and endangered species would benefit future man¬ 
agement decisions. 

POINTS OF CONTACT: For additional information, contact Denise Lindsay (601-634-2362, 
denise.l.lindsay@usace.army.mil), Pamela Bailey (601-634-2380, pamela.bailey@usace.army. 
mil), or Dr. Richard Lance (601-634-3791, richard.f.lance@usace.army.mil). This technical note 
should be cited as follows: 

Lindsay, D. L., P. Bailey, R. F. Lance, M. J. Clifford, R. Delph, and N. S. Cobb. 

2010. Effects of a normative, invasive lovegrass on Agave palmeri distribution, 
abundance, and insect pollinator communities. ERDC/EL TN-10-1. Vicksburg, 

MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The authors thank Sheridan Stone, Dean Schlichting, Pamela 
Landin, Susan Langley, Gwynne Pollard, and John-Paul Flodnett for their assistance with field 
efforts and data accumulation. Funding for this project was provided by the Department of 
Defense Legacy Resource Management Program (MIPR: W31RYO80857494). The study 
described and the resulting data presented herein, unless otherwise noted, were partly obtained 
from research conducted under the U.S. Army Environmental Quality Technology Program by 
the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Permission was granted by the 
Chief of Engineers to publish this information. The views expressed in this manuscript are those 
of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, 
Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. The use of trade, product, or firm names in this 
report is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

REFERENCES: 

Aizen, M. A., C. L. Morales, and J. M. Morales. 2009. Invasive mutualists erode native pollination webs. 
PLoS Biology 6:e31. 

Anable, M. E., M. P. McClaran, and G. B. Ruyle. 1992. Spread of introduced Lehmann lovegrass 
Eragrostis lehmanniana Nees. in southern Arizona, USA. Biological Conservation 61:181-188. 

Batagelj, V., and A. Mrvar. 1998. Pajek: Program for large network analysis. Connections 21:47-57. 

Beyer, H. L. 2004. Hawth's analysis tools for ArcGIS. http://www.spatialecology.com/htools. 

Bock, C. E., J. H. Bock, L. Kennedy, and Z. F. Jones. 2007. Spread of non-native grasses into grazed 
versus ungrazed desert grasslands. Journal of Arid Environments 71:229-235. 

Borgatti, S. P., M. G. Everett, and L. C. Freeman. 1999. UCINET 6.0 Version 1.00. Natick: Analytic 
Technologies. 

Borgatti, S. P. 2002. NetDraw: Graph Visualization Software. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies. 


14 


ERDC/EL TN-10-1 
May 2010 

Bomer, K., S. Sanyal, and A. Vespignani. 2007. Network science. In Annual review of information sci¬ 
ence and technology, V.41, ed. B Cronin, 12:537-607. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc./Ameri¬ 
can Society for Information Science and Technology. 

Brooks, M. L., and D. A. Pyke. 2001. Invasive plants and fire in the deserts of North America. In Pro¬ 
ceedings of the Invasive Species Workshop - the Role of Fire in the Control and Spread of Invasive 
Species, ed. K.E.M. Galley and T.P. Wilson, 1-14. Tallahassee, FL: Fire Conference 2000 - the First 
National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 11, 
Tall Timbers Research Station. 

Carvalheiro, L. G., E. R. M. Barbosa, and J. Memmott. 2008. Pollinator networks, alien species, and the 
conservation of rare plants: Trinia glauca as a case study. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:1419-1427. 

Crider, F. J. 1945. Three introduced lovegrasses for soil conservation. Washington, DC: U.S. 
Government Printing Office, U.S. Department of Agriculture Circular. 

Danzer, S., and J. Roberts. 2003. Monitoring Palmer’s Agave (Agave palmeri) on Fort Huachuca, Ari¬ 
zona: 2002 Monitoring Report. 

Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2002. Flora of North America, Volume 26. New York: 
Oxford University Press. 

Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2007. Flora of North America, Volume 25. New York: 
Oxford University Press. 

Fontaine, C., I. Dajoz, J. Meriguet, and M. Loreau. 2006. Functional diversity of plant-pollinator interac¬ 
tion webs enhances the persistence of plant communities. PLoS Biology 4:el. 

Geiger, E. L. 2006. The role of fire and a nonnative grass as disturbances in semi-desert grasslands of 
southeastern Arizona. PhD diss., School of Renewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona. 

Good-Avila, S. V., V. Souza, B. S. Gaut, and L. E. Eguiarte. 2006. Timing and rate of speciation in Agave 
(Agavaceae). PNAS 103: 9124-912. 

Gori, D. F., and C. A. F. Enquist. 2003. An assessment of the spatial extent and condition of grasslands in 
central and southern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico and northern Mexico. Tucson, AZ: The 
Nature Conservancy, Arizona Chapter. 

Gucker, C. L. 2006. Agave lechuguilla. In Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agricul¬ 
ture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, http://www.fs.fed. 
us/database/feis/ 

Halvorson, W. L., and P. Guertin. 2003. Factsheet for Eragrostis lehmanniana Nees. USGS Weeds in the 
West project: Status of Introduced Plants in Southern Arizona Parks. 

Howell, D. J. 1996. Agave palmeri on Fort Huachuca: Five years of research on natural history and 
response to fire. Report to Fort Huachuca, AZ. 

Huang, C., and E. L. Geiger. 2008. Climate anomalies provide opportunities for large-scale mapping of 
non-native plant abundance in desert grasslands. Diversity and Distributions 14:875-884. 


15 


ERDC/EL TN-10-1 
May 2010 


Jordano, P., J. Bascompte, and J. M. Olesen. 2006. The ecological consequences of complex topology and 
nested structure in pollination webs. In Specialization and generalization in plant-pollinator interac¬ 
tions, ed. N.M. Waser and J. Ollerton, 173-199. University of Chicago Press, EEUU. 

Kupfer, J. A., and J. D. Miller. 2005. Wildfire effects and post-fire responses of an invasive mesquite 
population the interactive importance of grazing and non-native herbaceous species invasion. Journal 
of Biogeography 32:453-466. 

Lowry, J. H., Jr., R. D. Ramsey, and K. A. Thomas, et al. 2007. Land cover classification and mapping. 
Chapter 2. In Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Final Report, ed. J.S. Prior-Magee, et al. Moscow, 
ID: U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program. 

Memmott, J., N. Waser, and M. Price. 2004. Resilience of pollination networks to species extinctions. 
Proceedings of the Royal Society, B 271:2605-2611. 

Michener, C. D. 2000. The bees of the world. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2007. Coronado National Memorial, http://www.nps.gov/archive/coro/ 
pph tm 1/1 Oh ighligh ts354.html. 

Olesen, J. M., J. Bascompte, Y. L. Dupont, and P. Jordano. 2006. The smallest of worlds: Pollination 
network. Journal of Theoretical Biology 240:270-276. 

Rogers, K. 2004. Lehmann lovegrass won't succumb to fire. University of Arizona News Services. 

SAS Institute. 2005. SAS Onlinedoc 9.1.3. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. 

Schussman, H., E. Geiger, T. Mau-Crimmins, and J. Ward. 2006. Spread and current potential distribu¬ 
tion of an alien grass, Eragrostis lehmanniana Nees, in the southwestern USA: comparing historical 
data and ecological niche models. Diversity and Distributions 12:582-592. 

Snijders, T. A. B., and S. P. Borgatti. 1999. Non-parametric standard errors and tests for network statis¬ 
tics. Connections 22:61-70. 

Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for [Pima and Cochise County, Arizona], Available online 
at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov. 

SPSS, Inc. 2007. SPSS for Windows, Version 16.0. Chicago, IL. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001. Nonindigenous species - An emerging issue for 
the EPA. http://www.epa.gov/owow/invasive_species/workshop/nisvoll.pdf. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Biological opinion on activities on Fort Huachuca Mili¬ 
tary Reservation, 2-21-98-F-266. October 27, 1999. 


NOTE: The contents of this technical note are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. 
Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such products. 


16 


ERDC/EL TN-10-1 
May 2010 


Appendix A. Agave palmeri pollinator species list grouped by feeding 
guild. 


Guild 

Order 

Family 

Genus and Species 

pollen-feeder 

Hymenoptera 

Andrenidae 

Perdita albovittata 

pollen-feeder 

Hymenoptera 

Andrenidae 

Perdita spp. 

pollen-feeder 

Hymenoptera 

Anthophoridae 

Diadasia rinconis 

pollen-feeder 

Hymenoptera 

Apidae 

Apis melifera 

pollen-feeder 

Hymenoptera 

Apidae 

Bombus sonorus 

pollen-feeder 

Hymenoptera 

Apidae 

Xylocopa califomica 

pollen-feeder 

Hymenoptera 

Colletidae 

Colletis spp. 

pollen-feeder 

Hymenoptera 

Colletidae 

Ptiloglossa arizonensis 

pollen-feeder 

Hymenoptera 

Halictidae 

Agapostemon angelicus 

pollen-feeder 

Hymenoptera 

Halictidae 

Dialictus comulus 

pollen-feeder 

Hymenoptera 

Halictidae 

Dialictus microtepoides 

pollen-feeder 

Hymenoptera 

Halictidae 

Dialictus pruinosiformis 

pollen-feeder 

Hymenoptera 

Halictidae 

Dialictus spp. 1 

pollen-feeder 

Hymenoptera 

Halictidae 

Dialictus spp. 2 

pollen-feeder 

Hymenoptera 

Halictidae 

Halictus tripartitus 

pollen-feeder 

Hymenoptera 

Halictidae 

Sphecodes stygius 

pollen-feeder 

Hymenoptera 

Megachilidae 

Lithurgus apicalis 

pollen-feeder 

Hymenoptera 

Halictidae 

unknown 

nectar-feeder 

Lepidoptera 

Lycanidae 

Timolus azia 

nectar-feeder 

Lepidoptera 

Lycanidae 

Leptotes marina 

nectar-feeder 

Lepidoptera 

Sphingidae 

Hyles lineata 

nectar-feeder 

Lepidoptera 

Zygaenidae 

Ctenucha venosa 

nectar/herbivore 

Diptera 

Sepsidae 

unknown 

nectar/herbivore 

Diptera 

Otitidae 

unknown 1 

nectar/herbivore 

Diptera 

Otitidae 

unknown 2 

nectar/herbivore 

Diptera 

Lonchaeidae 

Lonchaea spp. 

nectar/herbivore 

Diptera 

Sciaridae 

unknown 

nectar/herbivore 

Diptera 

Chloropidae 

unknown 

nectar/herbivore 

Diptera 

Chloropidae 

Thaumatomyia spp. 

nectar/herbivore 

Diptera 

Phoridae 

unknown 

nectar/herbivore 

Diptera 

Anthomyiidae 

unknown 1 

nectar/herbivore 

Diptera 

Anthomyiidae 

unknown 2 

nectar/herbivore 

Diptera 

Anthomyiidae 

unknown 3 

nectar/herbivore 

Diptera 

Sarcophagidae 

Sarcophaga spp. 

nectar/herbivore 

Diptera 

Sarcophagidae 

unknown 

nectar/herbivore 

Diptera 

Caliphoridae 

Phaenicia spp. 

nectar/herbivore 

Coleoptera 

Cleridae 

Enoclerus abdominalis 

nectar/herbivore 

Coleoptera 

Scarabaeidae 

Cotinus texana arizonica 

nectar/herbivore 

Coleoptera 

Scarabaeidae 

Euphoria testacea 

nectar/herbivore 

Coleoptera 

Lycidae 

Lycus sanguineus 

nectar/herbivore 

Coleoptera 

Bruchidae 

unknown 1 

nectar/herbivore 

Coleoptera 

Bruchidae 

unknown 2 

nectar/herbivore 

Coleoptera 

Curculionidae 

Apion spp. 

nectar/herbivore 

Coleoptera 

Curculionidae 

Peltophorus polymitus 

nectar/herbivore 

Coleoptera 

Mordellidae 

unknown 


17 
































































































































































































ERDC/EL TN-10-1 
May 2010 


Guild 

Order 

Family 

Genus and Species 

nectar/herbivore 

Hemiptera 

Coreidae 

Acanthocephala thomasi 

nectar/predator 

Hymenoptera 

Scolitidae 

unknown 

nectar/predator 

Hymenoptera 

Vespidae 

Polistes castanelcolor 

nectar/predator 

Hymenoptera 

Vespidae 

Polistes fuscatus 

nectar/predator 

Hymenoptera 

Vespidae 

Eumenes bollii 

nectar/predator 

Hymenoptera 

Tiphiidae 

Tiphia spp. 

nectar/predator 

Hymenoptera 

Bethyliidae 

unknown 

nectar/predator 

Hymenoptera 

Braconidae 

Bruchophagus spp. 1 

nectar/predator 

Hymenoptera 

Braconidae 

Bruchophagus spp. 2 

nectar/predator 

Hymenoptera 

Braconidae 

unknown 1 

nectar/predator 

Hymenoptera 

Braconidae 

unknown 2 

nectar/predator 

Hymenoptera 

Braconidae 

unknown 3 

nectar/predator 

Hymenoptera 

Eulophidae 

unknown 

nectar/predator 

Diptera 

Tachinidae 

Juriniopsis adusta 

nectar/predator 

Diptera 

Tachinidae 

Lydella radicus 

nectar/predator 

Diptera 

Tachinidae 

unknown 1 

nectar/predator 

Diptera 

Tachinidae 

unknown 2 

nectar/predator 

Diptera 

Syrphidae 

Eristalis tenax 

nectar/predator 

Diptera 

Syrphidae 

Neocnemodon sp. 

nectar/predator 

Diptera 

Conopidae 

Conops sp. 

nectar/predator 

Hemiptera 

Anthocoridae 

Orius insidiosus 

herbivore 

Coleoptera 

Chrysomelidae 

Zygospila continua 

predator 

Coleoptera 

Carabidae 

unknown 

predator 

Araneae 

Thomisidae 

Misumena vatia 

predator 

Araneae 

Salticidae 

unknown 


18