Description
Potentially Misidentified Species- The native moth Ommatostola lintneri inhabits sand dunes. It is unlikely to co-occur with R. lutosa at its first North American location on Delaware Bay (McCabe and Scweitzer 1991), or at R. lutosa's only reported Chesapeake site, Grasonville MD (Tipping 1997, personal communication).
Taxonomy
Kingdom | Phylum | Class | Order | Family | Genus |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Animalia | Hexapoda | Insecta | Diptera | Noctuidae | Rhizedra |
Synonyms
Invasion History
Chesapeake Bay Status
First Record | Population | Range | Introduction | Residency | Source Region | Native Region | Vectors |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1997 | Unknown | Unknown | Introduced | Boundary Resident | Europe | Eurasia | Shipping(unspecified) |
History of Spread
Rhizedra lutosa (Large Wainscot Moth) is native to Europe where it ranges from southern Fennoscandia and the Shetland Islands to Spain (Bretherton et al. 1983), and eastward to Tibet and Japan (Mikkola and LaFontaine 1994). An occurrence in Iceland may be the result of an introduction (Bretherton et al. 1983). Rhizedra lutosa's broad range in the Old World is related to its feeding on Phragmites australis (Common Reed), which has an even wider range (Haslam 1972).
In September-November, 1988, and in October 1989, a total of 18 moths of this species were collected in salt marshes in Cumberland County NJ, along the middle eastern shore of Delaware Bay. None were collected in 1990 (McCabe and Schweitzer 1991; Mikkola and LaFontaine 1994). This species was not found in extensive insect surveys at nearby sites in the 1970's and 1980's (McCabe and Schweitzer 1991). Additional specimens were collected in the Hudson River valley NY (Pinebush, Albany County; West Shokan, Catskill County) in 1991 (Mikkola and LaFontaine 1994).
A few moths tentatively identified as Rhizedra lutosa were collected in fall 1997 in a blacklight survey in Grasonville MD, on the Eastern Shore of Chesapeake Bay (Tipping 1997personal communication). The shore of the Bay near Grasonville is extensively bordered by P. australis (Fofonoff personal observation). Since this moth is such a new arrival, the success of its establishment is unknown.
History References - Bretherton et al. 1983; Haslam 1972; McCabe and Schweitzer 1991; Mikkola and LaFontaine 1994; Tipping 1997 personal communication
Invasion Comments
Residency - Adults of Rhizedra lutosa occur on Phragmites australis flowers in salt marshes (Bretherton et al. 1983; McCabe and Schweitzer 1991), but this species has no adaptations for aquatic life. Larvae feed on the rhizomes ofP. australis plants growing above the water table, and are killed by flooding (Van den Toorn and Mook 1982).
Vector(s) of Introduction - Mikkola and LaFontaine(1994) suggest that Phragmites australis debris, including leaf litter with overwintering Rhizedra lutosa eggs, accumulating in dockside storage yards, may be tracked or blown into ships or containers and thus transported.
Ecology
Environmental Tolerances
For Survival | For Reproduction | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Minimum | Maximum | Minimum | Maximum | |
Temperature (ºC) | ||||
Salinity (‰) | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
Oxygen | ||||
pH | ||||
Salinity Range | fresh-poly |
Age and Growth
Male | Female | |
---|---|---|
Minimum Adult Size (mm) | ||
Typical Adult Size (mm) | ||
Maximum Adult Size (mm) | ||
Maximum Longevity (yrs) | ||
Typical Longevity (yrs |
Reproduction
Start | Peak | End | |
---|---|---|---|
Reproductive Season | |||
Typical Number of Young Per Reproductive Event |
|||
Sexuality Mode(s) | |||
Mode(s) of Asexual Reproduction |
|||
Fertilization Type(s) | |||
More than One Reproduction Event per Year |
|||
Reproductive Startegy | |||
Egg/Seed Form |
Impacts
Economic Impacts in Chesapeake Bay
Rhizedra lutosa (Large Wainscot Moth) is a new colonist of uncertain establishment (Ferguson 2000 personal communication; Tipping 1997 personal communication), so it has not yet had significant economic impacts in the Chesapeake bay region.
In the eastern United States, where Phragmites australis (Common Reed) is regarded as a nuisance (Marks et al. 1994) this insect might be regarded as beneficial, since its larvae can extensively damage P. australis colonies in dry habitats (Van den Toorn and Mook 1982). It is being investigated as a possible biocontrol organism for invasive Phragmites australis populations in the Eastern U.S. by CABI Biosciences Inc. Populaions of R. lutosa in the northeastern U.S. appear to be causing small decreases in the growth rate of P. australis in scattered locations, but appear to be insufficient to affect the rapid population expansion of the plant (Casagrande et al. 2003).
References- Casagrande et al. 2003; Ferguson 2000; Marks et al. 1994; Tippin 1997; Van den Toorn and Mook 1982
Economic Impacts Outside of Chesapeake Bay
In the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe, Phragmites australis (Common Reed) is planted for reclamation and stabilization of reclaimed land, so that Rhizedra lutosa (Large Wainscot Moth), as one of this reed's herbivores, is regarded as a pest (Van den Toorn and Mook 1982). Phragmites australis is positively regarded in much of Europe, as a component of wetland habitats, and as an occasional industrial crop (Haslam 1972). 'Reed decline' is a serious environmental concern in Europe, in contrast to the eastern United States, where reed invasions are seen as a major problem (Marks et al. 1994). Rhizedra lutosa is being investigated as a possible biocontrol organism for invasive P. australis populations in the Eastern U.S. However, at present, populations of the moth appear to have only small effects on the plants growth rate (Casagrande et al. 2003).
References- Casagrande et al. 2003; Haslam 1972; Marks et al. 1994; Van den Toorn and Mook 1982
Ecological Impacts on Chesapeake Native Species
Rhizedra lutosa (Large Wainscot Moth) appears to be rare and sporadic at this time in North America (McCabe and Schwietzer 1991; Mikkola and LaFontaine 1994), and appears to have had no impacts yet in North America. However, its range and abundance appears to be rapidly expanding (Ferguson 2000). In Europe, it is a significant herbivore of terrestrial populations of Phragmites australis (Common Reed) (Bretherton et al. 1983; Van den Toorn and Mook 1982), which is cryptogenic in the Chesapeake Bay region. The major potential impact of R. lutosa on native biota is indirect, through possible reduction of the spread of P. australis into upland habitats. In experiments in the Netherlands, R. lutosa infestations in dry fields planted with Phragmites australis resulted in invasion by other plant species. Since larvae do not tolerate flooding (Van den Toorn and Mook 1982), effects on marsh vegetation are unlikely to be significant.
References - Bretherton et al. 1983; Ferguson 2000 personal communication; McCabe and Schwietzer 1991; Mikkola and LaFontaine 1994; Van den Toorn and Mook 1982
Ecological Impacts on Other Chesapeake Non-Native Species
Rhizedra lutosa (Large Wainscot Moth) appears to be rare and sporadic at this time in North America (McCabe and Schwietzer 1991; Mikkola and LaFontaine 1994), and appears to have had no impacts yet in North America. However, its range and abundance appears to be rapidly expanding (Ferguson 2000). In Europe, it is a significant herbivore of terrestrial populations of Phragmites australis (Common Reed) (Bretherton et al. 1983; Van den Toorn and Mook 1982), which is cryptogenic in the Chesapeake Bay region. Larvae of R. lutosa feed on rhizomes of Phragmites australis located above the water table, causing shoots to turn brown, wither, and break off. When reed plants were grown in experimental fields in the Netherlands, R. lutosa completed its life cycle in dry fields which were undisturbed (controls) or mown. When fields were flooded, few R. lutosa larvae survived, and those which did failed to metamorphose. Significant damage occurred to P. australis in the dry-control and dry-mown treatments (Van den Toorn and Mook 1982).
In North America, R. lutosa potentially could affect the spread of invasive P. australis in terrestrial habitats in North America. However, since native populations of P. australis are known to occur on this continent, the deliberate use of R. lutosa for biocontrol is questionable.
References - Bretherton et al. 1983; McCabe and Schwietzer 1991; Mikkola and LaFontaine 1994; Van den Toorn and Mook 1982
References
Bretherton, R. F.; Goater, B.; Lorimer, R. I. (1983) The Moths and Butterflies of Great Britain and Ireland, , Colchester, UK. Pp. 260-263Casagrande, R. A.; Balme G.; Blossey, B. (2003) Rhizedra lutosa, a natural enemy of Phragmites australis in North America., Estuaries 26: 602-606
2000 Conversations with Paul Fofonoff, about introduced moths in the Chesapeake Bay region.. None
Haslam, S. M. (1972) Biological flora of the British Isles List Br. Vasc. Pl. (1958) No. 665, . 1. Phragmites communis, Journal of Ecology 60: 585-610
Marks, Marianne; Lapin, Beth; Randall, John (1994) Phragmites australis (P. communis): Threats, management, and monitoring, Natural Areas Journal 14: 285-294
McCabe, Tim L.; Schweitzer, Dale F. (1991) Rhizedra lutosa (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) newly introduced to North America, Entomological News 102: 130-132
Mikkola, Kauri; LaFontaine, J. Donald (1994) Recent introductions of riparian noctuid moths from the Palearctic region to North America, with the first report of Apamea unanimis (Hubner) (Noctuidae: Amphipyrinae)., Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 48: 121-127
Van Der Toorn, J.; Mook, J. H. (1982) Influence of environmental factors and management on stands of Phragmites australis, Journal of Applied Ecology 19: 477-499