A Biological Control Feasibility Study of the Invasive Weed-Air Potato,
Dioscorea bulbifera L. (Dioscoreaceae): an Effort to Increase Biological Control
Transparency and Safety
Author(s): G. S. Wheeler, R. W. Pemberton, L. Raz
Source: Natural Areas Journal, 27(3):269-279.
Published By: Natural Areas Association
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3375/0885-8608(2007)27[269:ABCFSO]2.0.CO;2
URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3375/0885-8608%282007%2927%5B269%3AABCFSO
%5D2.0.CO%3B2
BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and
environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published
by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of
BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.
Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries
or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.
BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research
libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.
CONSERVATION ISSUES
•
A Biological Control
Feasibility Study
of the Invasive
Weed-Air Potato,
Dioscorea bulbifera
L. (Dioscoreaceae):
an Effort to Increase
Biological Control
Transparency and
Safety
G.S. Wheeler1
R.W. Pemberton
USDAAgriculturalResearchService
InvasivePlantResearchLab
3225CollegeAve.
FtLauderdale,FL33314
L. Raz
FairchildTropicalBotanicGarden
CenterforTropicalPlantConservation
CoralGables,FL33156-4242
•
1Correspondingauthor:
wheelerg@saa.ars.usda.gov;954-475-6546
NaturalAreasJournal26:269–279
Volume 27 (3), 2007
ABSTRACT:Biologicalcontrolisincreasinglyusedagainstinvasiveweedsofnaturalareas.Scientific
andregulatoryreviewofsafety-relatedresearchoccursbeforecandidatebiologicalcontrolagentscan
bereleased.Toincreasesafety,efficacy,andtransparencyoftheprocess,wesuggestthat,priortoestablishingaproject,afeasibilitystudybeconductedonapotentialtargetforbiologicalcontroltojudge
whethertheprojectisappropriate.Thepresentpaperisbothafeasibilitystudyofanimportantinvasive
weedandaguidetodoingbiologicalcontrolfeasibilitystudiesonotherweedpests.Theinvasiveweed
DioscoreabulbiferaL.threatensthebiodiversityofmanynaturalareasinthesoutheasternUnitedStates.
Currentcontroleffortsdirectedagainstthisinvasivespeciesincludeherbicidalormanualremoval,both
ofwhicharecostlyandineffective.Biologicalcontrolusinginsectsthatselectivelyfeedonthisspecies
whileleavingdesirablenativeandeconomicspeciesunharmedmaybeausefuloption.Asherbivore
hostrangemaybelimitedbytaxonomicaffinitiesandthelackofsympatrywithpotentialhostspecies,
weproposethatthisweedwillbearelativelysafetargetbecauseoftaxonomicandgeographicisolation
fromdesirablenativeandeconomicplantspecies.ThefamilyDioscoreaceaeispoorlyrepresentedin
NorthAmerica,northofMexico,andthetwonativespeciesthataresympatricwiththeweedarefrom
adifferentsubgenerictaxonthantheweed.TheWestIndianandnorthernMexicanspecies,whilemore
diverse,arealsoassignedtodifferentsubgenerictaxa,andaregeographicallyisolatedfromthenorthern
rangeoftheweed.Initialsearchesforbiologicalcontrolagentshavebegunandwillcontinuewithin
itslargetranscontinentalnativerange.However,furtherresearchisneededthatwillbetterdelimitthe
geographicoriginoftheweed’sNorthAmericanpopulationwithinitslargenativerange.Thiswillaid
inthedetectionofsuitablenaturalenemies.Muchoftheinformationweacquiredandanalyzedinthis
feasibility study is required for the environmental assessment normally submitted for approval prior
to the introduction of a biological control agent.We suggest that this type of analysis will be better
consideredatthebeginningoftheprocess.Ifthistypeofanalysisisdonepriortooratthebeginning
ofprojects,potentialconflictsandriskscanbejudgedandthenbetteraddressedduringtheprojectsto
ultimatelyproducesafer,moreacceptableagentsforbiologicalcontrol.
Indexterms:airpotato,airyam,biologicalcontrolofweeds,Dioscoreabulbifera,feasibilitystudy
INTRODUCTION
Thesafetyofbiologicalcontrolhasbeen
the subject of recent debate and discussion (Follett and Duan 2000; Strong and
Pemberton2000;Loudaet.al.2003;and
others). Safety to non-target economic
plantshasbeenaparamountconcernsince
theinceptionofbiologicalcontrolofweeds
(Dodd1940),butthepotentialuseofnativeplantsbybiologicalcontrolagentsisa
relativelyrecentconsideration.Increasing
evidenceoftheadoptionofnativeplants
by insects introduced for biological controlofweedsbegantoemergeduringthe
1980s (Andres 1981;Turner et al 1987).
When Cactoblastis cactorum (Bergoth)
(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) was discovered
in Florida in 1989, Habeck and Bennett
(1990) and Louda et al. (1997) reported
that Rhinocyllus conicus (Froel.) (Coleoptera:Curculionidae)wascausingharm
tonativeNorthAmericanCirsiumthistles,
and the issue came to the attention of
ecologistsandthemedia.Areviewofthe
nativeplantsusedasdevelopmentalhosts
bybiologicalcontrolagentsintroducedto
the United States found that virtually all
oftheplantsusedwerecloselyrelatedto
thetargetweed(Pemberton2000).Inaddition,allofthecasesinvolvedbiological
controlintroductionsmadepriorto1974,
when the potential use of native plants
began to be considered more carefully.
This increased attention to native plants
bybiologicalcontrolprogramsintheU.S.
mirrored the increased interest in native
plants, as demonstrated by legislation to
protect rare plants and the growth in nativeplantsocieties(Pemberton2004).The
adoption of native plants by biological
control agents introduced in earlier eras
continuesandincreasesinsomecases,as
withC.cactorumonNorthAmerican(and
potentially Mexican) prickly pear cacti
Opuntia(JohnsonandStiling1996).This
givestheimpressionthatcurrentbiological
controlofweedspracticeisnotassafeas
it actually is. Remedies to this problem
include increased transparency of practiceandcontinuedeffortstoimprovethe
ecologicallysafepractice.Onemethodto
achieve both is to conduct and publish a
biologicalcontrolfeasibilitystudyonthe
prospectivetargetweed.
The feasibility study can be a decisionmakingprocess(i.e.,whetherornotbioNatural Areas Journal 269
logicalcontrolshouldbepursued)orasa
process to adequately address ecological
safetyofanintendedprogram.Thestudy
canalsobeavehicletodeveloppolitical
andeconomicsupportforaprogram.Such
astudyshould,inouropinion,gatherand
evaluate information on the following
topics, all of which are discussed in this
example: (1) nature of damage caused
by the weed, (2) ecological damage, (3)
economicdamage,(4)areaoforiginand
geographic distribution of the weed, (5)
identification,(6)taxonomyandanalysis
of related plants using traditional and
molecular data, (7) Conflicts of interests
(e.g.,economicallyimportantspecies),(8)
potentialrisksofbiologicalcontroltonativeplants,(9)secondaryplantchemistry
and its potential relevance to herbivory,
(10)levelofspecificityneededtoavoidor
limitnon-targeteffectsandrecommended
species to be tested, (11) areas surveyed
fornaturalenemies,(12)naturalenemies
found,and(13)decisionandrecommendationsummary.
We offer the following feasibility study
ofairpotato(DioscoreabulbiferaL.;Dioscoreaceae),aninvasiveweedofnatural
vegetationinFlorida,asaworkingmodel
oftheapproach.Inadditiontoweedbiologicalcontrol,wethinkthatwithmodification,thefeasibilitystudypresentedhere
can be useful and appropriate for insect
biologicalcontrol.
Nature of damage
Dioscorea bulbifera is an herbaceous,
perennial twining vine 20 m or more,
capable of climbing and out-competing
nativevegetation(e.g.,Schmitzetal.1997;
Langeland and Craddock Burks 1998;
Gordonetal.1999).Dioscoreabulbifera
was introduced to Florida from tropical
Asia or Africa in 1905 (Morton 1976)
and now constitutes one of the most aggressiveweedseverintroducedtoFlorida
(Hammer1998).Thenotedhorticulturalist
HenryNehrlingwasapparentlythefirstto
expressconcernforitsinvasiveness,statingthat“withtheexceptionofthekudzu
vineIhaveneverseenamoreaggressive
anddangerousvineinFlorida”(Nehrling
1933). Similar warnings were expressed
270 Natural Areas Journal
inthe1970s(LongandLakela1976)with
recommendationstolimittheplantingof
this ornamental species (Morton 1976;
Ward1977).Bythe1980s,thisvinewas
foundgrowinginthickets,wasteareas,and
hedge or fencerows in south and central
Florida(BellandTaylor1982).By1999,
D. bulbifera was listed in Florida as a
noxiousweedbytheFloridaDepartment
of Agricultural and Consumer Services
(FDACS) (FLEPPC 2003). Dioscorea
bulbifera is considered the most serious
typeofenvironmentalthreat,describedasa
CategoryIweedbytheFloridaExoticPest
PlantCouncil(FLEPPC)(FLEPPC2003),
“invasive exotics that are altering native
plant communities by displacing native
species, changing community structures
or ecological functions, or hybridizing
with natives.” Presently, D. bulbifera is
well established in Florida and probably
throughout the Gulf states (Raz 2002)
whereithasthepotentialtoseverelydisrupt
entireecosystems(Hammer1998).
Ecological damage
TheprimaryecologicalthreatD.bulbifera
posestonaturalareasisitsabilitytoclimb
andeventuallyout-competenativevegetationforlimitedresources(Schmitz1994;
Langeland and Craddock Burks 1998;
Gordon et al. 1999). D. bulbifera is one
of the more common natural area weeds
in central and south Florida. In south
Florida,theweedoccursin15.2%of315
oftheconservationareasand25%of48of
thehabitatssurveyed(comparedwiththe
mostcommonnaturalareaweedBrazilian
pepper, Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi,
reportedfrom65.4%oftheconservation
areasand83.3%ofthehabitats;Gannet
al.2001).InsouthFlorida,D.bulbiferais
frequentlyfoundintropicalandsubtropical
hammocksbutmayalsoinvadedisturbed
uplands, scrub, sinkholes, alluvial flood
plainforests,andurbanlots(Schultz1993;
Gannetal.2001).Evidencealsosuggests
that D. bulbifera aggressively exploits
disturbed sites, such as forest canopies
damagedbyhurricanes,andimpedesthe
reestablishmentbynativespecies(Horvitz
etal.1998;Gordonetal.1999).Thisspecieshasaprofoundlong-termimpacton
thecommunitystructurebyinvadingand
maintainingthesesitesfollowinghurricane
disturbance(Gordonetal.1999).
Economic damage
Presently,controlofD.bulbiferapopulations is limited to manual, herbicidal, or
acombinationofthesetwomethodswith
onlylimitedefficacy.Manualremovalof
aboveground plants and bulbils (aerial
tubers) has become a common activity
employed by diverse volunteer groups
(Duxbury et al. 2003). Manual removal
of plants and bulbils was found to be as
effective at controlling D. bulbifera as a
combinationofherbicide(e.g.Roundup)
and hand pulling (Gordon et al. 1999).
If mechanical removal is not an option,
chemical control of vines requires repeated basal applications of herbicides
(e.g., Roundup, Remedy, or 50% Garlon
3A), and these treatments need to be repeated over a 2 or 3 y period (Mullahey
andBrown1999).Herbicidalcontrolwith
Roundup and Rodeo of heavily infested
areas(e.g.,FernForest,BrowardCounty,
Florida)thatincludedotherinvasiveweeds
(e.g.S.terebinthifolius,Bischofiatrifoliate
(Roxb.))cost$1,750/ha/y.Inthisexample,
completecontrolwasnotachievedasresproutscontinueddespitethreeherbicide
treatments during nearly 2 y.A resident
biologist (Pat Howell, Broward County
Parks and Recreation, pers. comm.) estimated that 5 y or more of herbicidal
control and monitoring will be required.
Theherbicidalcontrolhasadditionalcosts
asnon-targetspecies,suchasnatives,may
beinjuredduetothenon-selectivenature
oftheseproducts.
Area of origin and geographic
distribution
D. bulbifera is native to and widely distributedinAsiaandAfrica(Burkill1960;
Coursey1967;Tindall1993).CultivatedD.
bulbiferawasfirstbroughtfromthePacific
toIndiainthemiddleofthe19thcentury
andfromtherecultivarswereintroduced
toEurope(Burkill1960).IntheWestern
Hemisphere,itiswidelynaturalizedinthe
tropicsandsubtropicsoftheWestIndies,
Central, and South America (McVaugh
1989; Schultz 1993). Further research
Volume 27 (3), 2007
is required to determine which cultivar
is invasive in North America. Presently,
studiesareunderwaytoidentifytheorigin
of the invasive variety of D. bulbifera in
FloridathroughchloroplastDNAanalysis
(Overholt et al. 2003). Possibly the best
adaptedbiologicalcontrolagentswillbe
imported from the area of origin of the
invasiveD.bulbiferavariety.
Since its introduction to Florida, D. bulbiferahasaggressivelyspreadthroughout
thestate.Fromthenorthwesternpanhandle,
EscambiaCounty,tothesoutherntipofthe
state,collectionsfromherbariaandreports
from state regional biologists have listed
29of67FloridacountiesinfestedwithD.
bulbifera(Schmitz1994;Gannetal.2001;
WunderlinandHansen2003).Thisspecies
has also been reported to be naturalized
inMississippi,Louisiana,Texas,Hawaii,
central and southern Mexico (Colima,
Mexico,Puebla,Veracruz,SanLuisPotosi,
Oaxaca,andChiapasstates),andtheWest
Indies(USDA/SCS1982;McVaugh1989;
Nesom and Brown 1998; USDA/NRCS
2002). It is reported to be established
in Central and northern South America
(Tellez and Schubert 1994; Bennett and
Prance2000).
Identification
TheidentityofFloridapopulationsofD.
bulbiferawasrecentlyverifiedbyL.Raz,
an authority on the Dioscoreaceae (Raz
2002).Leavesaresimple,alternate,blades
broadlyovate-cordate,cuspidate,4-20cm
longandwide,prominently7-11nerved,
glabrous, and entire (Schultz 1993; Raz
2002).MoredetailscanbefoundinTindall
(1993) and Hammer (1998). In Florida,
bulbils form in August and drop to the
groundinNovembertoDecember(Mullahey and Brown 1999) and may weigh
asmuchas1kg,though300gbulbilsare
more common (Degras 1993).The vines
diebackduringthecoolermonths,evenin
thefrost-freeregionsofsouthernFlorida,
and regrow during the spring. In south
Florida, D. bulbifera vines may grow to
20mormorefromundergroundtubersor
bulbilsproducedinleafaxils(Langeland
andCraddockBurks1998).Whileflowers
are produced in the plant’s native range
Volume 27 (3), 2007
(Tindall1993),theyhaveonlyrarelybeen
seeninFlorida(Schultz1993)andwhen
theydoappear,theyareconsideredinfertile
(Gordonetal.1999).Theprimarymeans
ofspreadingisthroughhumanmovement
ofbulbils(Schultz1993).
TheDioscoreaspecies(D.alata,D.bulbifera,D.polystachya(=D.oppositifolia),
and D. sansibarensis) naturalized in the
UnitedStates(Table1)allproducetubers
(enlargedundergroundstem,typicallyverticallyoriented)andcanbedistinguished
fromthenativespecies(D.floridanaandD.
villosa),whichproducerhizomes(horizontalundergroundstems).Furthermore,the
naturalizedspecieshaveaerialbulbilsinthe
leafaxils,whicharelackinginthenative
species(Raz2002;WunderlinandHansen
2003). D. bulbifera can be distinguished
fromthethreeothernaturalizedDioscorea
species(D.alata,D.polystachya,andD.
sansibarensis)thatoccurinFloridabyits
unwingedstems,withalternateleavesthat
areentire,andleaflengthlessthan20cm.
D. alata has winged stems and opposite
leaves; D. polystachya has leaf margins
that are irregularly three-five lobed; D.
sansibarensishaslargeleavesto46cmin
length(Raz2002;WunderlinandHansen
2003).ThetwoDioscoreaspeciesnativeto
FloridaandtheUnitedStates(D.floridana
andD.villosa)arelow-climbingvinesless
than3minlength(Raz2002;Wunderlin
andHansen2003).
Taxonomy and analysis of related
plants
ThefamilyDioscoreaceaeincludeseither
four(Caddicketal.2002b)orsevengenera(Al-ShehbazandSchubert1989;Raz
2002). The largest genus in the family,
Dioscorea, contains approximately 600
species(Raz2002)(850speciesaccording
toAl-ShehbazandSchubert1989),most
ofwhichgrowinthesubtropicsortropics,
with only a few species growing in the
warmertemperateregions(Al-Shehbazand
Schubert1989;Raz2002).IntheWestern
Hemisphere,approximately130Dioscorea
speciesoccurinBraziland120inCentral
America and Mexico (Al-Shehbaz and
Schubert 1989). The most comprehensivetreatmentoftheMexican Dioscorea
included 63 species (Matuda 1953). In
only Mesoamerica, 46 species names
havebeenaccepted(TellezandSchubert
1994).Onlysix Dioscoreaspeciesoccur
inthesoutheasternU.S.(Al-Shehbazand
Schubert 1989; Raz 2002) and, of these,
fourarenaturalizedfromAsiaandtwoare
native(Raz2002;Table1).
The Dioscorea genus is grouped into
subgenericsections.ThetwonativeNorth
American (north of Mexico) species, D.
floridana (Florida yam) and D. villosa
(wild yam), are assigned to the section
Macropoda (Knuth 1924; Raz 2002).
TraditionallyD.bulbiferahasbeenplaced
in section Opsophyton along with other
tropicalOldWorldspecies(Knuth1924;
Huber1998).Recentphylogeneticanalysis
basedonsequencedatafromtwoplastid
genesplacedthisspeciesinthemostlyOld
World‘B’cladeandwithinalowerlevel
compound-leaf subclade (CL) (Wilkin et
al.2005).Thisanalysisdidnotincludethe
two native U.S. Dioscorea species (Raz
2002).However,otherresultsindicatethat
thetwonativespeciesshouldbeplacedin
the Stenophora subclade ofWilkin et al.
(2005;L.Raz,unpubl.data).
Rajania, an endemic genus in the West
Indies(Raz2002),istheonlyothergenus
oftheDioscoreaceaeintheregion(Table
2).Membersofthisgenusproduceanindehiscentsamaraandcanbedistinguished
from members of the Dioscorea, which
producecapsularfruit(Huber1998).Althoughthisgenusisbeingrevised(L.Raz,
unpubl.data),thecenteroforiginappears
to be Cuba with 19 species distributed
throughouttheWestIndies(Knuth1924;
Raz 2002). Recent phylogenetic analysis
baseduponmolecularsequencedatasuggests that the Rajania genus should be
subsumedintothemuchlargerDioscorea
genus (Caddick et al. 2002a; Wilken et
al.2005).Untiltheformalnomenclatural
transferscanbecompleted,wecontinueto
usethetraditionalgenericepithetRajania
(L.Raz,unpubl.data).
Potential conflicts of interest,
economically important species
TheDioscoreagenusincludesseveralim-
Natural Areas Journal 271
272 Natural Areas Journal
Table1.NorthAmericanandWestIndianDioscoreaspp.thatarenative,naturalized,orcultivated.ListcompiledfromvarioussourcesincludingtheUSDA,NRCSPlantsdatabaseandSIIT
2003.TaxonomyfollowsthatoftheMissouriBotanicalGardenTropicos,NomenclaturalDataBase.
Scientific name
Section
Common name
Occurrence in NA & WI1
Comments
Origin
A. Species native to the continental US
Dioscorea floridana Bartlett
Macropoda
Florida yam
FL,GA,SC
native
SE U.S. 9
D. villosa L. (including D. quaternata J.F. Gmel.)
Macropoda
wild yam
Eastern U.S. north to CT, south
to FL, and west to NE
native
E. U. S. 9
B. Species of concern in Mexico and the West Indies
Volume 27 (3), 2007
Dioscorea alata L.
Enantiophyllum
water yam
FL,Puerto Rico,Virgin Islands,
Cuba, Hispaniola, Bahamas,
Jamaica
naturalized
Trop. E. Asia 3
D. altissima Lam.
Chondrocarpa
dunguey
Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, Cuba,
Lesser Antilles
native
South America 10
D. bulbifera L. (includes D.
latifolia Benth.)
Opsophyton
air yam
FL, MS, LA, TX, Bahamas, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Hispaniola,
Jamaica, Cent. & So. Mexico
naturalized
Trop. Old World 3
D. cayenensis Lam. (includes D.
occidentalis R. Knuth. in part)
Enantiophyllum
yellow guinea yam
Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, Cuba,
Jamaica
naturalized
Africa 3
D. convolvulacea Cham. &
Schldl.
Trigonobasis
(Zhizum)
yam
Mexico
cultivated
Central America 3
D. convolvulacea Schlecht. &
Cham.
Trigonobasis
So. & West Mexico (pos.
Tamaulipas)
native
Central America 3
D. cubensis R. Knuth.2
Lynchnostemon
Cuba
native
Cuba 5, 10
D. dodecaneura Vell.
Lasiogyne
FL
naturalized
South America
D. dumetorum (Kunth) Pax
(includes D. tryphylla L.)
Lasiophyton
bitter yam
Cuba, Jamaica, Hispaniola
naturalized
Africa 3
D. esculenta (Lour.) Burkill
Combilium
lesser yam
Hispaniola (as D. sativa ?),
Puerto Rico, Cuba
cultivated
Indo-China 3
yam
Mexico, Central America
cultivated
Mexico, Central
America 4
D. floribunda C. Martius &
Galeotti
(continued)
Volume 27 (3), 2007
Table1.Continued.
Natural Areas Journal 273
Occurrence in NA & WI1
Comments
Origin
S. West Mexico (pos.
Tamaulipas)
native
S. W. Mexico (pos.
Tamaulipas)8
bulbous yam
Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands, Lesser Antilles
native
South or Central
America
mata gallina, gunda,
bitter Jesse
Cuba, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico,
Jamaica, Lesser Antilles
native
South America,
West Indies or
Central America
So. to West Mexico (pos.
Tamaulipas)
native
S. to W. Mexico (pos.
Tamaulipas) 9
Eastern U.S. north to CT, south
to GA, and west to MO
naturalized
E. Asia 9
Lynchnostemon
Cuba
native
Cuba 10
D. remotiflora Knuth.
Macrogynodium
So. to West Mexico (pos.
Tamaulipas)
native
So. to West Mexico
(pos. Tamaulipas)8
D. rotundata Poir. (includes D.
occidentalis R. Knuth. in part)
Enantiophyllum
Guinea yam
Puerto Rico, Jamaica
cultivated
Africa 3
D. sansibarensis Pax
Opsophyton
Zanzibar yam
FL
naturalized
Africa 3
D. tamoidea Griseb.2
Lynchnostemon
Cuba, Hispaniola
native
West Indies 5
D. trifida L.
Macrogynodium
Hispaniola, Jamaica, Puerto Rico,
Cuba
cultivated
N. South America 3, 5
D. wrightii Uline2 (includes D.
heradurensis (R. Knuth) P.
Wilson 10)
Lynchnostemon
Cuba
native
Cuba 5
Scientific name
Section
D. militaris B.L. Rob.
Trigonobasis
D. pilosiuscula Bertero ex
Spreng.
Dematostemon
D. polygonoides Humb. & Bonpl.
ex Willd.
Lynchnostemon
D. remotiflora Knuth.
Macrogynodium
D. polystachya Turcz. (including
D. oppositifolia Thunb.)
Enantiophyllum
D. ravenii Ayala (including D.
grisebachii Knuth 10)
1
Common name
Cinnamon yam,
Chinese yam
Indian yam, mapuey,
yampi, cush-cush
U.S. state abbreviations.
2
Name not included in the Missouri Botanical Garden, Tropicos, Nomenclatural Data Base. Dioscorea section Lychnostemon also includes an unpublished
species from Cuba.
3
Burkill 1960; 4 Knuth 1924; 5 Leon & Alain 1974; 6 Martin 1969;
7
MBG 2003;
8
McVaugh 1989;
9
Raz 2002;
10
Raz unpublished data.
portantspeciesthathavebeenusedaround
theworldforfood(Martin1974;Mabberley1997).In1972,itwasestimatedthat
5443metrictonsofyamswereimported
intotheUnitedKingdomfromWestAfrica
and the West Indies (Purseglove 1972).
However,theimportanceofmanyofthese
yams for food has declined substantially
because of the introduction of alternate
foodcrops(Purseglove1972).Thespecies,
D.alata,wasalsointroducedtoGeorgia
(Raz 2002) and South Florida (Young
1923;Raz2002)wheresomemodesthome
gardenusemaystilloccur,anditmaystill
be used as food (Hammer 1998). However,likeD.bulbifera,D.alataiswidely
naturalized in Florida where it has been
reported from nine counties (Wunderlin
and Hansen 2003), and is considered a
FLEPPC Category I species (FLEPPC
2003). D. alata is likely to be found escapedfromcultivationinotherareasinthe
southeasternUnitedStates(Raz2002).To
ourknowledge,noDioscoreaspeciesare
Table2.CaribbeanRajaniaspp.compiledfromvarioussources1.ThegenusRajaniaisbeingsubsumed
intoDioscorea2.However,thetraditionaluseisappliedhereuntilthisrevisionispublished.
Scientific name 3
Common name
Occurrence 1
R. angustifolia Sw.
Ñame cimarron
Hispaniola
R. cephalocarpa Uline ex
R.Knuth
R. cordata L.
Cuba
Ñame de la India, Jamaica, Puerto Rico,
himber,
Hispaniola, Lesser
wa-wa
Antilles
R. ekmanii Knuth
Cuba
R. hastata L. (includes R.
microphylla Knuth 3)
Hispaniola
R. microphylla Kunth
Ñame mambi
R. nipensis Howard.
R. ovata Sw.
Cuba, Bahamas
Cuba
Ñame cimarron
Cuba, Hispaniola
R. pilifera Urb.
Hispaniola
R. porulosa R.Knuth
Cuba
R. psilostachya (Knuth) Uline ex
R. Knuth
Cuba
R. quinquefolia L.
Catyame
Cuba, Hispaniola
R. spiculiflora
Hispaniola
R. tenella Howard
Cuba
R. tenuiflora R. Knuth
Lampina
R. theresensis Uline ex R.Knuth
R. wrightii Uline ex R. Knuth
Cuba, Hispaniola
Cuba
Ñame cimarron
Cuba
1
Adams 1972; Leon and Alain 1974; Correll and Correll 1982; Liogier and
Martorell 1982; Liogier 2000.
2
Raz (unpublished data).
Only R. cordata L., R. hastata L., and R. linearis (Griseb.) R.A. Howard are
recognized by the Missouri Botanical Garden, Tropicos, Nomenclatural Data
Base. This table includes all published names currently recognized by Raz (ms in
prep.). Rajania also includes two unpublished species from Cuba and the
Domincan Republic, respectively. Varietal names are not listed here.
3
274 Natural Areas Journal
cultivatedcommerciallyasfoodcropsin
FloridaorthesoutheasternU.S.
AnotherDioscoreaintroductiontoSouth
FloridaincludesD.sansibarensisorZanzibaryamthathasbeenreportedrarely(Raz
2002;USDA/NRCS2002;Wunderlinand
Hansen2003).Thefewknownpopulations
ofD.sansibarensishavebeeneradicated
(Hammer,MiamiDadeParksandRecreation, pers. comm.).Another exotic species,D.polystachya(asD.oppositifolia;
sensu, Al-Shehbaz and Schubert 1989),
is native to easternAsia where it is cultivatedforfood.IntheU.S.,thisspecies
has become naturalized in many states
(NorthCarolina,SouthCarolina,Georgia,
Tennessee,Alabama,andArkansas)where
it was introduced as an ornamental (AlShehbaz and Schubert 1989; Raz 2002).
D. polystachya now represents a severe
threattonativeplantcommunitiesinTennessee(SEEPPC2001;Pemberton2002;
Tu 2002). Recently a South American
species,D.dodecaneuraVell.,wassoldin
anurseryinnorthFlorida.Althoughthis
speciesdoesnotproducebulbilsandonly
staminateplantsareknowninourrange,its
aggressivegrowthprompteddiscontinued
sales(L.Raz,unpubl.data).
Members of the Dioscorea genus are of
greatereconomicimportanceintheWest
Indieswhereseveralspeciesarestillcultivated (Martin 1974; Perez et al. 2005;
Table1).D.alatahasbeengrownhistoricallyintheregionanditstilloccursinthe
Bahamas(CorrellandCorrell1982),Cuba
(LeonandAlain1974),Hispaniola(Liogier2000),Jamaica(Adams1972),Puerto
Rico (Liogier and Martorell 1982), and
the Virgin Islands (USDA/NRCS 2002).
D.cayenensis(reportedasD.occidentalis
in Leon andAlain 1974) is cultivated in
Cuba,Jamaica(L.Raz,pers.observation),
and Puerto Rico (Liogier and Martorell
1982).D.trifidaremainsanimportantcrop
intheLesserAntilles(Degras1993),and
D. dumetorum has been reported (as D.
triphylla in Leon and Alain 1974) from
Cuba.Finally,D.esculentaiscultivatedin
PuertoRico(LiogierandMartorell1982)
andCuba(Perezetal.2005).Atleastfour
foodyams(D.alata,D.cayenensisandD.
cayenensissubsp.rotundataandD.trifida)
are imported to the United States from
Volume 27 (3), 2007
LatinAmerica,primarilyCostaRica,and
aresoldinsupermarketsandethnicgrocery
storescateringtoHispanicandWestIndian
people(Pemberton,unpubl.data).
Potential risks of biological control to
native plants
In addition to the two native species D.
floridanaandD.villosa(Raz2002),athird
species,D.quaternata(fourleafyam),has
beenlistedbysomeauthors(Al-Shehbaz
andSchubert1989;USDA/NRCS2002).
However, more recent treatments of the
North American species subsumed D.
quaternata into D. villosa based upon
significant phenotypic variability within
thecomplexwithoutanyapparentnatural
gapsinthevariation(Raz2002;Wunderlin
andHansen2003).D.floridanaoccursin
Florida,Georgia,andSouthCarolina(Raz
2002;USDA/NRCS2002;Wunderlinand
Hansen2003).D.villosaoccursinFlorida,
north to Connecticut and west to Texas,
andMinnesota(Al-ShehbazandSchubert
1989; Raz 2002; USDA/NRCS 2002;
WunderlinandHansen2003).
TheWestIndieshasgreaternativespecies
diversityofboththeDioscoreaandRajania genera than NorthAmerica, north of
Mexico.TheWest Indian Dioscorea and
Rajaniaarecurrentlyinrevisionandthe
numbersofspeciesgivenhereareunpublished estimates (L. Raz, unpubl. data).
ThereareninenativeDioscoreaspp.and
19speciesoftheendemicgenusRajania
from the West Indies (Knuth 1924; Raz
2002; L. Raz, unpubl. data) with their
greatestdiversityinCuba(LeonandAlain
1974;L.Raz,unpubl.data).Noneofthese
West Indian Dioscorea species is placed
inthesectionOpsophytonwiththeweed
D.bulbifera(Table1).
Thegreatestdiversityofthisgroupinour
areaoccursinMexicoandCentralAmerica,
withabout60nativespeciesofDioscorea,
(Matuda1953;TellezandSchubert1994).
For our purposes, the Dioscorea species
that occur in the northern extent of this
range,alongtheTexasborderinthestates
ofChihuahua,Coahuila,NuevoLeon,and
Tamaulipas, Mexico, would be the most
relevant. Dioscorea species that occur in
Volume 27 (3), 2007
these states that are hosts of biological
controlagentscouldpotentiallyprovidea
bridge between D. bulbifera populations
inTexastomoresouthernDioscoreaspeciesinthestateofVeracruz,Mexico,and
southward. The only Dioscorea species
knownfromthisnorthern‘bridgingarea’
are D. convolvulacea (Barrera 1990), D.
militaris, and D. remotiflora (McVaugh
1989)andtheseareonlyreportedfromthe
stateofTamaulipas,justsouthoftheTexas
border. Like the West Indian Dioscorea
species,themoregeographicallyproximate
MexicanDioscoreaspeciesbelongtodifferenttaxonomicsectionsthanD.bulbifera
(Table1),andphylogeneticstudiesbased
onplastidDNA(L.Raz,inprep.)donot
suggestaffinitiesofD.bulbiferawithany
oftheseMexicanyamspecies.
InTexas,D.bulbiferaisnotknowntobe
widespread(B.L.TurnerandT.Wendt,UniversityofTexas;andM.D.Reed,TAMU
herbarium,TexasA&M University, pers.
comm.).However,afewscatteredspecimenshavebeencollectedfromwildplant
populations (USDA/NRCS 2002) in the
easternpartofthestate(NesomandBrown
1998).AsD.bulbiferaisnotreportedto
bepresentinTexas,itisdoubtfulthatany
releasesofcontrolagentswilloccurthere.
However, if an introduced control agent
was to establish in this area of Texas, it
wouldhavetotraveladistanceof~320km
fromtheHoustonareatotheTamaulipas
state of Mexico to encounter one of the
nativeDioscoreaspecies.
Secondary plant chemistry and its
relevance to herbivory and pathogens
Inadditiontogeographicandtaxonomic
barriers to dietary breadth in herbivores
introduced for biological control of D.
bulbifera, the choice of host plant species may be limited by the presence,
concentration,orvariabilityofsecondary
metabolites.Theuseofsecondarychemistrytoassistinhostrangepredictionsof
potentialbiologicalcontrolagentsisrelativelyunexplored;however,itsrelevance
isgainingrecognition(Jordon-Thadenand
Louda 2003; Wheeler 2005). Like many
plantgroups,however,thereisinsufficient
detailed information available describing
thesecondarymetabolitesofD.bulbifera.
Thesteroiddiosgeninoccursinthetubers
inthetwoNorthAmericanspeciesofthe
genus(Martin1969)andseveralspeciesin
southernMexico(Morton1977).Tannins
and polyphenolics may also be common
constituentsinDioscoreatubers,imparting
a bitter flavor (Al-Shehbaz and Schubert
1989).The bitter and sometimes poisonouscomponentsofD.bulbiferatubersand
bulbils were found to be three furanoid
norditerpenes(Teleketal.1974;Webster
etal.1984).Theflavonolskaempferoland
quercetinwerefoundinseveralDioscorea
and Rajania species (Williams and Harborne1988).OtherDioscoreaspecies(e.g.,
D. dumetorum) contain the highly toxic
alkaloidsdioscorineanddihydrodioscorine
(Al-Shehbaz and Schubert 1989; Mabberley1997).TuberextractsofD.hispida
Schlusseleithercontainingthesealkaloids
or other non-alkaloid fractions increased
mortality when fed to the diamondback
mothPlutellaxylastella(L.)(Lepidoptera:
Plutellidae;Banaagetal.1997,1998).Additionalchemicalanalysesofthisgroupare
needed to better describe the secondary
metabolite diversity and its relevance to
herbivory,particularlyofthetargetweedD.
bulbiferaandthesympatricorgeographicallyproximatenativeDioscoreaspecies
intheregion.
Level of specificity needed by natural
enemies
The family Dioscoreaceae is poorly
represented in North America, but more
abundantintheWestIndiesandMexico.
ToavoiduseofnativeandeconomicspeciesinNorthAmerica,theWestIndies,and
Mexico,abiologicalcontrolagentshould
berestrictedtothesectionOpsophytonin
thegenusDioscorea.Typically,specialized
herbivoresrestricttheiruseofhostplants
toaparticularplanttaxon,suchasagenus,
tribe,orfamily(EhrlichandRaven1964;
MitterandFarrell1991).Althoughnotvery
closelyrelatedtoD.bulbifera,speciesof
specialconcernarethetwoUnitedStates
and Florida natives, D. floridana and D.
villosa,bothofwhichwillbeextensively
testedbecausetheyaresympatricwiththe
weed.Testingshouldincluderepresentatives of the taxonomic sections to which
Natural Areas Journal 275
the geographically proximate northern
Mexican and West Indian Dioscorea
species belong (Table 1). This is section
TrigonobasisfortheMexicanspeciesand
sectionsChondrocarpa,Lynchonostemon,
Dematostemon,andRajaniafortheWest
Indian species.The other two extant DioscoreaspeciesnaturalizedintheU.S.(D.
alataandD.polystachya)shouldbetested
todetermineifthecandidateenemymay
bepotentiallyusefulascontrolagentsof
thesespecies.Dioscoreaspecies,including
severalvarietiesgrownforfoodinCuba,
the Bahamas, and elsewhere in theWest
Indies,shouldbetestedincludingseveral
varieties of D. alata, D. cayenensis, D.
cayenensis subsp. rotundata (section
Enantiphyllum), and D. trifida (section
Macrogynodium),andD.esculenta(sect.
Combilium),althoughnonearetaxonomicallyclosetothetargetweed(Wilkinetal.
2005;L.Raz,unpubl.data).Thetestingof
thesesameDioscoreafoodspecieswillbe
apriorityifthecandidatebiocontrolagent
feedsonthetubersorbulbils.
Areas surveyed for natural enemies
Few foreign explorations have been
conducted to date searching for natural
enemies of D. bulbifera. Some surveys
havebeenmadeinNepalbyPembertonand
Rayamaji(unpubl.data).Additionally,explorationsfornaturalenemieshavebegun
inGhanaandUganda,Africa(Overholtet
al.2003).Theplant’shugenativearea,both
tropicalAfricaandtropicalAsia,represents
animpossiblylargeareatoexplore.Portions of these enormous regions can and
shouldbesurveyedtodiscoveradiversity
of potential control agents. The amount
of survey needed will relate to project
development, suitability, and success of
releasedbiologicalcontrolagents.
Natural enemies found
OnarecentsurveyintheKatmanduValley
ofNepal,R.PembertonandM.Rayamahji
discovered several highly damaging herbivorespeciesonD.bulbifera.TheseincludeaspeciesofLiliocerus(Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae)foundfeedingonboththe
leaves and the bulbils of the plant. The
gregariouslarvaedefoliatetheplantsand
276 Natural Areas Journal
completely consume bulbils. Specialists
aredeterminingthepreciseidentityofthe
insects.Two additional chrysomelid speciesDactylispabrevispinosaChapuisand
Lemasp.fromNepalmayhavepotential.
Severalotherunidentifiedherbivoresfrom
Nepalincludeaweevil,aleafminingfly,
twocaterpillarspecies–oneskeletonizing
leaves, the other feeding on leaves and
theshoottip–andanundeterminedleaf
spotfungus.InBenin,Africa,exploratory
surveys recovered two beetles, Lilioceris
lividaDalmanandLemaarmata(F.)(W.
Overholt,UniversityofFlorida,Ft.Pierce,
pers.comm.).Intensivesurveysshouldbe
conductedforadditionalnaturalenemiesof
thisweedinothergeographicareas.
Several insect and disease pests of cultivatedDioscoreaspp.areknown(Tindall
1993).Theseincludeyampestspeciesof
beetles and aphids from tropical Africa.
The cultivation of edible varieties of D.
bulbiferainIndiaandAfricahasdeveloped
insectspeciesthatareconsideredpests.In
WestAfrica,thepestlistincludesseveral
species (Coursey 1967; Pursglove 1972)
includingLiliocerusimpressa(Fabricius)
(=Criocerisimpressa;Coleoptera:Chrysomelidae).This species has been reported
from Nepal (1524-3353 m elevation; as
C. impressa; Bryant 1952; Takizawa
1989),Bangladesh(DasandIslam1984),
India(asCriocerisimpressa;Sinbaetal.
1978),Malaysia,Burma,SriLanka(asC.
impressa; Srivastava and Bhagat 1967),
throughout Southeast Asia (Kimoto and
Gressitt 1979), and China (Yu 1993).
This may be the Liliocerus discovered
inNepalbyPembertonandRayamaji.In
India, the host range of this species (C.
impressa) may include additional species, namely D. alata, Ficus elastica L.
(Moraceae), Holarrhena antidysentrica
Wall. (Apocynaceae), Callicarpa macrophylla Vahl. (Verbenaceae), unspiked
sandal(SrivastavaandBhagat1967),and
Cassia sophera (Fabaceae) (Saha 1973).
However,thegenusLiliocerusisinneed
ofrevision(E.C.Kane,A.S.Konstantinov
USDA/ARS/SEL, Beltsville, Maryland,
pers. comm.). Liliocerus impressa may
be a complex of species with different
hostplants,perhapswithmanyDioscorea
specialists.Preliminaryadultfeedingtests
oftheNepaleseLiliocerusspeciessuggest
thatitisaDioscoreaspecialist(Pemberton,
unpubl. data). The diverse and complex
chemistryinthegenusDioscorea(Bakeret
al.1966;HarborneandWilliams1995)is
reasontobelievethatspecialistherbivores
arelikelytohaveevolvedwithD.bulbifera
andotherDioscoreaspecies.Somenewly
discoveredagentsinNepal,orotheryetto
bediscoveredspecialists,maybesuitable
biologicalcontrolagentsoftheweed.
Decision and recommendation
summary
D.bulbiferaiscurrentlyawidespreadenvironmentalweedthroughoutmanyparts
ofthesoutheasternUnitedStateswhereit
threatensthestabilityandbiodiversityof
nativecommunities.Controloftheweedby
mechanicalandchemicalmethodsrequires
repeatedtreatmentsoverseveralyearsand
appearstobeonlymarginallysuccessful.
D.bulbiferaistaxonomicallyisolatedwith
onlytwonativecongenericspeciesinNorth
America, north of Mexico. These North
AmericancongenersareassignedtodifferenttaxonomicsectionsthanD.bulbifera.
Likewise,theWestIndianDioscoreaand
northernMexicanspeciesmostproximate
toTexasalsobelongtodifferenttaxonomic
sectionsofthegenus.Dioscoreaalataand
othercultivatedyamsbelongtodifferent
sections (Enantiophyllum, Opsophyton,
and Combilium) as well. These food
yams are grown in the West Indies, but
havenocommercialcultivationinFlorida
andlimitedhomecultivation.Herbivores
introducedforbiologicalcontrolofD.bulbiferamustbehostspecifictothesection
Opsophytontoavoiddamagetodesirable
plantsintheregion.Moreover,D.bulbifera
isgeographicallyisolatedfromregionsin
MexicoandtheWestIndiesthathaverich
Dioscoreaflora.Potentialcandidateshave
been found and searches for additional
speciesareunderwayinAfricaandAsia.
This feasibility assessment suggests that
targetingD.bulbiferaforclassicalbiologicalcontrolhasgoodpotential.
Feasibility studies, such as this one on
D. bulbifera, done prior to or early in a
biological control project can accurately
identify risks and help judge the suitabilityoftheweedforbiologicalcontrol
Volume 27 (3), 2007
priortosignificantresearchandmonetary
investment.Werecommendthatfeasibility
studiescontainingsimilarelementsshould
bedoneforallprojects.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work would not have been possible
without the valuable conversations and
herbariasearchesconductedbynumerous
collaborators. Previous versions of this
documentwereimprovedbythehelpfulreviewsprovidedbyW.Overholt,University
of Florida, Ft Pierce, FL.We thank E.C.
KaneandA.S.Konstantinov,USDA/ARS/
SEL,Beltsville,MD,fordeterminationof
Dioscoreaherbivores;andforinformation
ontherangeofDioscoreaspp.O.Tellez,
HerbarioNacionaldeMexico;B.L.Turner,
SchoolBiologicalSciences,andT.Wendt,
Curators,UniversityofTexas,Austin,TX;
M.Reed,TAMUherbarium,TexasA&M,
CollegeStation,TX;L.&R.Brown,SBSC
Herbarium,Houston,TX;G.Diggs,Austin
College,TX;A.Neill,BotanicalResearch
Institute of Texas, TX; J.Williams, Sam
HoustonStateUniversity,Huntsville,TX;
D.L.Gorchov,MiamiUniversity,Oxford,
OH;P.Howell,BrowardCountyParks&
Recreation,FtLauderdale,FL;A.Hunsberger,UniversityofFlorida/Miami-Dade
CountyExtension,FL;J.Vedaee,Broward
CountyAgricultureandExtensionEducationDavie,FL.
GregWheelerstudiedforaPHDinEntomologyattheUniversityofFlorida,graduatingin1989.HehasworkedasaResearch
EntomologistwiththeUSDA-Agricultural
ResearchService,InvasivePlantResearch
LaboratoryinFt.Lauderdale,Florida,for
13 years. His research interests include
biological control, the chemical ecology
ofinsect/plantinteractions,andheleads
biological control projects for Brazilian
pepper, Australian pine, hydrilla, and
Chinesetallow.
Robert (Bob) Pemberton did his PhD in
Entomology at the University of California Berkeley in 1980. He has worked as
aResearchEntomologistwiththeUSDAAgriculturalResearchServicelaboratories
in Berkeley, Calif., Bozeman, Mont., and
Volume 27 (3), 2007
Seoul, South Korea, and has been with
the Invasive Plant Research Laboratory
in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, for 13 years.
Hisresearchinterestsfocusonthebiologicalcontrolandecologyofinvasiveplants
andinsects.Hecurrentlyleadsprojectson
biologicalcontrolofDioscoreabulbifera,
Lygodium microphyllum, Paederia spp.,
thelobatelacscaleinsect(Paratachardina
lobata), and the ecology of an invasive
orchidbeeEuglossaviridissima.
Lauren Raz is curator of the Herbarium
at Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden in
Miami,Florida,whereshehasbeenworkingsinceAugust2004.SheholdsaPhDin
Biology from NewYork University, via a
jointtrainingprogramwithTheNewYork
BotanicalGarden.Herresearchinterests
include systematics of the yam family,
Dioscoreaceae, as well as floristics and
biogeographyoftheWestIndies.
LITERATURE CITED
Adams, C.D. 1972. Flowering Plants of Jamaica.UniversityoftheWestIndies,Mona,
Jamaica.
Al-Shehbaz,I.A.,andB.G.Schubert.1989.The
Dioscoreaceae in the southeastern United
States. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum
70:57-95.
Andres,L.A.1981.Conflictinginterestsandthe
biologicalcontrolofweeds.Pp.11-20inE.S.
Delfosse, ed., Proceeding V International
Symposium for the Biological Control of
Weeds,CSIRO,Melbourne,Australia.
Baker,E.A.,J.T.Martin,andA.P.Wilson.1966.
DistributionofdiosgenininDioscoreaspp.
AnnalsofAppliedBiology58:203-211.
Banaag, A., H. Honda, and T. Shono. 1997.
Effects of alkaloids from yam, Dioscorea
hispidaSchlussel,onfeedinganddevelopment of larvae of the diamondback moth,
Plutellaxylostella(Lepidoptera:Yponomeutidae). Applied Entomology and Zoology
32:119-126.
Banaag, A., H. Honda, and T. Shono. 1998.
Effects of non-alkaloid extracts from
tropical yam, Dioscorea hispida against
thediamondbackmoth,Plutellaxylostella
(Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae). Applied
EntomologyandZoology33:369-373.
Barrera,G.M.1990.Plantasvascularesraras,
amenazadas y en peligro de extincion en
Tamaulipas.Biotam2:[nopg.nos.]
Bell,C.R.,andB.J.Taylor.1982.FloridaWild
Flowers and Roadside Plants. Laurel Hill
Press,ChapelHill,N.C.
Bennett, B.C., and G.T. Prance. 2000. Introduced plants in the indigenous pharmacopoeiaofnorthernSouthAmerica.Economic
Botany54:90-102.
Bryant,G.1952.NepalExpedition,BritishMuseum 1949-637, Chrysomelidae collected
by Mr. O. Pulunin.Annals and Magazine
ofNaturalHistory5:601-608.
Burkill,I.H.1960.Theorganographyandthe
evolutionofDioscoreaceae.Thefamilyof
theyams.JournaloftheLinneanSocietyof
Botany56:319-412.
Caddick, L.R., P.J. Rudall, P. Wilkin, T.A.J.
Hedderson,andM.W.Chase.2002a.PhylogeneticsofDioscorealesbasedoncombined
analyses of morphological and molecular
data. Botanical Journal of the Linnean
Society138:123-144.
Caddick, L.R., P. Wilkin, P.J. Rudall, T.A.J.
Hedderson, and M.W. Chase. 2002b.
Yams reclassified: a recircumscription of
Dioscoreaceae and Dioscoreales. Taxon
51:103-114.
Correll, D.S., and H.B. Correll. 1982. Flora
of the Bahama Archipelago (including
the Turks and Caicos islands). J. Cramer,
Vaduz.
Coursey,D.G.1967.Botanyandtaxonomy.Pp.
28-67 in D. Rhind, ed.,Yams. Longmans,
Green,andCo.,London.
Das,G.P.,andM.A.Islam.1984.Lifehistory
of Lilioceris impressa and its damage on
‘Pesta alu’ (Dioscorea bulbifera). BangladeshJournalofAgriculture9:69-75.
Degras, L. 1993.The general morphology of
yams.Pp.1-27inR.Cost,ed.,TheYam,a
TropicalRootCrop.Macmillan,London.
Dodd, A.P. 1940. The Biological Campaign
againstPricklyPear.CommonwealthPrickly
PearBoard,Brisbane,Australia.
Duxbury,C.,S.Glasscock,andI.Staniszewska.
2003.Controlofregrowthfromairpotato
(DioscoreabulbiferaL.)bulbils.Wildland
Weeds6:14-15.
Ehrlich,P.R.,andP.H.Raven.1964.Butterflies
andplants:astudyincoevolution.Evolution
18:586-608.
FLEPPCPlantListCommittee.2003.Florida
Exotic Pest Plant Council’s 2003 list of
invasivespecies.WildlandWeeds6:suppl.
Follett, P., and J.J. Duan. 2000. Nontarget
Effects of Biological Control. Kluwer,
Boston,Mass.
Gann,G.D.,K.Bradley,andS.W.Woodmansee. 2001. Floristic Inventory of South
FloridaDatabase.Availableonline<www.
regionalconservation.org>.
Natural Areas Journal 277
Gordon, D.R., G.D. Gann, E. Carter, and K.
Thomas. 1999. Post-hurricane vegetation
responseinSouthFloridaHammockswith
andwithoutDioscoreabulbiferaL.control.
Pp.309-326inD.T.JonesandB.W.Gamble,
eds., Florida’s Garden of Good and Evil.
SouthFloridaWaterManagementDistrict,
WestPalmBeach.
Habeck,D.H.,andF.D.Bennett.1990.CactoblastiscactorumBery(Lepidoptera:Pyralidae),aphycitinenewtoFlorida.Entomology
Circular333,FloridaDepartmentofAgricultureandConsumerServices,Divisionof
PlantIndustry,Gainesville,Fla.
Hammer, R.L. 1998. Diognosis: Dioscorea.
WildlandWeeds2:8-10.
Harborne, J.B., and C.A. Williams. 1995.
Monocotyledons:systematicsandevolution.
Pp.201-215inP.J.Rudall,P.J.Cribb,D.F.
Cutler,andC.J.Humphries,eds.,Monocotyledons: Systematics and Evolution. Royal
BotanicalGardens,Kew,U.K.
Horvitz, C.C., J.B. Pascarella, S. McMann,
A. Freedman, and R.L. Hofstetter. 1998.
Functionalrolesofinvasivenon-indigenous
plants in hurricane-affected subtropical
hardwoodforests.EcologicalApplications
8:947-974.
Huber,H.1998.Dioscoreaceae.Pp.216-235in
K.Kubitzki,ed.,TheFamiliesandGenera
ofVascularPlants,Vol.3.Springer-Verlag,
Berlin.
Johnson,D.M.,andP.Stiling.1996.Hostspecificity of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae),anexoticOpuntia-feeding
moth,inFlorida.EnvironmentalEntomology25:743-748.
Jordon-Thaden, I.E., and S.M. Louda. 2003.
ChemistryofCirsiumandCarduus:arole
inecologicalriskassessmentforbiological
controlofweeds?BiochemicalSystematics
andEcology31:1353-1396.
Kimoto,S.,andJ.L.Gressitt.1979.ChrysomelidaeColeopteraofThailandCambodiaand
Laos and Vietnam. Pt. 1, Sagrinae Donaciinae Zeugophorinae Megalopodinae and
Criocerinae.PacificInsects20:191-256.
Knuth,R.1924.Dioscoreaceae.Pp1-387inA.
Engler,ed.,DasPflanzenreichIV.43[Heft
87].Engelmann,Leipzig,Germany.
Langeland,K.A.,andK.CraddockBurks.1998.
Identification and Biology of Non-native
PlantsinFlorida’sNativeAreas.University
ofFlorida,Gainesville.
Leon,H.,andH.Alain.1974.FloradeCuba,
Vol. 1. Otto Koeltz Science Publishers,
Koenigstein.
Liogier, H.A. 2000. Diccionario Botanico de
Nombres Vulgares de la Espanola. Jardin
Botanico Nacional, Santo Domingo, Do-
278 Natural Areas Journal
minicanRepublic.
Liogier,H.A.,andL.F.Martorell.1982.Flora
of Puerto Rico and Adjacent Islands: a
SystematicSynopsis.UniversidaddePuerto
Rico,RioPiedras.
Long,R.W.,andO.Lakela.1976.AFloraof
Tropical Florida: a Manual of the Seed
Plants and Ferns of Southern Peninsular
Florida. University of Miami Press, Coral
Gables,Fla.
Louda, S.M., D. Kendall, J. Connor, and D.
Simberloff.1997.Ecologicaleffectsofan
insectintroducedforthebiologicalcontrol
ofweeds.Science277:1088-1090.
Louda,S.M.,R.W.Pemberton,M.T.Johnson,
andP.A.Follett.2003.Nontargeteffects—
the Achilles’ heel of biological control?
Retrospectiveanalysestoreduceriskassociatedwithbiocontrolintroductions.Annual
ReviewofEntomology48:365-396.
Mabberley,D.J.1997.ThePlantBook.2nded.
CambridgeUniversityPress,NewYork.
Martin, F.W. 1969.The species of Dioscorea
containing sapogenin. Economic Botany
23:373-379.
Martin, F.W. 1974. Tropical Yams and their
Potential. Pt. 2, Dioscorea bulbifera. AgriculturalHandbook466,U.S.Department
ofAgriculture,Washington,D.C.
Matuda,E.1953.LasDioscoreaceasdeMexico.
Anales del Instituto Biologia Méxicana
24:279-389.
[MBG]MissouriBotanicalGarden.2003.MissouriBotanicalGarden’sVAST(VAScular
Tropicos)nomenclatraldatabase.Available
online<http://www.mobot.org/>.
McVaugh, R. 1989. Flora Novo-Galiciana: a
descriptiveAccountoftheVascularPlants
ofWesternMexico.Vol.15,Bromeliaceae
to Dioscoreaceae. University of Michigan
Herbarium,AnnArbor.
Mitter,C.,andB.Farrell.1991.Macroevolutionaryaspectsofinsect-plantinteractions.Pp
35-78inE.Bernays,ed.,Insect-PlantInteractions,3.CRCPress,BocaRaton,Fla.
Morton,J.F.1976.Pestiferousspreadofmany
ornamentalandfruitspeciesinsouthFlorida.
Proceedings Florida State Horticultural
Society89:348-353.
Morton, J.F. 1977. Major Medicinal Plants:
Botany, Culture, and Uses. Charles C.
Thomas,Springfield,Ill.
Mullahey,J.J.,andS.H.Brown.1999.Weakening the grip of air potato. Pp. 285-290
in D.T. Jones and B.W. Gamble, eds.,
Florida’sGardenofGoodandEvil.South
Florida Water Management District, West
PalmBeach.
Nehrling,H.1933.ThePlantWorldinFlorida:
fromthePublishedManuscriptsofDr.Henry
Nehrling.Macmillan,NewYork.
Nesom,G.L.,andL.E.Brown.1998.Annotated
checklistofthevascularplantsofWalker,
Montgomery,andSanJacintoCounties,East
Texas.Phytologia84:107-153.
Overholt,W., C. Hughes, C.Wallace, and E.
Morgan.2003.Originofairpotatoidentified.WildlandWeeds7:9.
Pemberton,R.W.2000.Predictablerisktonative
plantsinweedbiologicalcontrol.Oecologia
125:489-494.
Pemberton, R.W. 2002. Selection of appropriate future target weeds for biological
control.Pp.375-386inR.G.VanDriesche,
B.Blossey,M.S.Hoddle,S.Lyon,andR.
Reardon,eds.,Biologicalcontrolofinvasive
plants in the eastern United States. U.S.
DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,
Morgantown,W.Va.
Pemberton, R.W. 2004. Biological control
safetywithintemporalandculturalcontexts.
Pp.245-251inJ.Cullen,ed.,XISymposium
on Biological Control of Weeds. CSIRO,
Canberra,Australia.
Perez, J., D.Albert, S. Rosete, L. Sotolongo,
M. Fernandez, P. Delprete, and L. Raz.
2005. Consideraciones etnobotanicas sobre el genero Dioscorea (Dioscoreaceae)
en Cuba. Ecosistemas 14(2). Available
online <http://www.revistaecosistemas.
net/pdfs/115.pdf>.
Purseglove,J.W.1972.TropicalCrops:Monocotyledons.J.Willey,NewYork.
Raz,L.2002.Dioscoreaceae:R.Brown:Yam
Family.Pp.479-485inEditorialCommittee,
ed.,FloraofNorthAmerica,Vol.26.Oxford
UniversityPress,NewYork.
Saha, A.K. 1973. Chromosomal studies of
the Indian Coleopterans (Indian beetles).
Cytologia38:363-373.
Schmitz,D.C.1994.Theecologicalimpactof
non-indigenousplantsinFlorida.TSS-94100,FloridaDepartmentofEnvironmental
Protection.Pp.10-28inD.C.Schmitzand
T.C. Brown, project directors, An assessmentofinvasivenon-indigenousspeciesin
Florida’spubliclands.FloridaDepartmentof
EnvironmentalProtection,Tallahassee.
Schmitz, D.C., D. Simberloff, R.L. Hofstetter,W.T.Haller,andD.Sutton.1997.The
ecologicalimpactofnonindigenousplants.
Pp.39-61inD.Simberloff,D.C.Schmitz,
andT.C.Brown,eds.,StrangersinParadise:
ImpactandManagementofNonindigenous
SpeciesinFlorida.IslandPress,Washington,D.C.
Schultz,G.E.1993.ElementStewardshipabstractforDioscoreabulbiferaAirpotato.The
NatureConservancy,Davis,Calif.
SEEPPC. 2001. Invasive Exotic Pest Plants
Volume 27 (3), 2007
in Tennessee. Published by the Tennessee
ExoticPestPlantCouncil.Availableonline
<http://www.seeppc.org>.
Sinba, P.K., R. Singh, and R.P.Yadav. 1978.
CriocerisimpressaFabr.onairpotato.FAO
PlantProtectionBulletin26:27-28.
Srivastava,J.B.,andG.L.Bhagat.1967.Studies
onthebiologyofCriocerisimpressaFabr
(ChrysCol),adefoliatorpestofDioscorea
bulbiferaL.IndianJournalofEntomology
28:435-437.
Strong,D.R.,andR.W.Pemberton.2000.Biologicalcontrolofinvadingspecies–riskand
reform.Science288:1969-1970.
Takizawa, H. 1989. Chrysomelid beetles of
Nepal,northeasternIndiaandwesternSikkim.CollectedbytheHimalayaexpeditions
of the National Science Museum Tokyo
Japan. Japanese Journal of Entomology
57:319-332.
Telek,L.,F.W.Martin,andR.J.Ruberte.1974.
Bitter compounds in tubers of Dioscorea
bulbifera L. Journal Of Agricultural and
FoodChemistry22:334-337.
Tellez, O.V., and B.G. Schubert. 1994. AlismataceaeaCyperaceae.Pp.319-332inG.
Davidse,M.S.Sousa,andA.O.Chater,eds.,
FloraMesoamericana.UniversidadNacional
AutonomadeMexico.InstitutodeBiologia,
Mexico,D.F.
Volume 27 (3), 2007
Tindall,H.D.1993.VegetablesintheTropics.
Macmillan,London.
Tu,M.2002.Elementstewardshipabstractfor
Dioscorea oppositifolia L. syn Dioscorea
battatas (Decne), Chinese yam, cinnamon
vine. The Nature Conservancy,Arlington,
Va.
Turner,C.E.,R.W.Pemberton,andS.S.Rosenthal.1987.HostutilizationofnativeCirsium
thistles (Asteraceae) by the introduced
weevil Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae)inCalifornia.Environmental
Entomology16:111-115.
USDA/NRCS.2002.ThePLANTSDatabase.
3.5. Available online <http://plants.usda.
gov>. National Plant Data Center, Baton
Rouge,La.
USDA/SCS.1982.NationalListofScientific
PlantNames.SCS-TP-159,U.S.Department
ofAgriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Washington,D.C.
Ward,D.B.1977.KeystothefloraofFlorida-5,
Dioscoreaceae.Phytologia38:151-154.
Webster, J., W. Beck, and B. Ternai. 1984.
Toxicity and bitterness in Australian Dioscorea bulbifera and Dioscorea hispida
fromThailand.JournalofAgriculturaland
FoodChemistry32:1087-1090.
Wheeler,G.S.2005.Maintenanceofanarrow
hostrangebyOxyopsvitiosa;abiological
controlagentofMelaleucaquinquenervia.
Biochemical Systematics and Ecology
33:365-383.
Wilkin, P., P. Schols, M.W. Chase, K.A.
Chayamarit, C.A. Furness, S. Huysmans,
F.Rakotonasolo,E.Smets,andC.Thayai.
2005.Aplastidgenephylogenyoftheyam
genus,Dioscorea:roots,fruitsandMadagascar.SystematicBotany30:736-749.
Williams, C.A., and J.B. Harborne. 1988.
Distributionandevolutionofflavonoidsin
the monocotyledons. Pp. 505-524 in J.B.
Harborne, ed., The Flavonoids: Advances
in Research Since 1980. Chapman and
Hall,London.
Wunderlin,R.P.,andB.F.Hansen.2003.Guide
to the Vascular Plants of Florida, 2nd ed.
UniversityPressofFlorida,Gainesville.
Young,R.A.1923.Cultivationofthetrueyams
intheGulfregion.Bulletin1167,U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,Washington,D.C.
Yu,P.Y.1993.Coleoptera:Crioceridae-Sagrinae,Donaciinae,Criocerinae.Pp.321-328
in C.M. Huang, ed., The Series of the
Bioresources Expedition to the Longqi
Mountain Nature Reserve; Animals of
LongqiMountain.ChinaForestryPublishing House, 7 Liuhaihutong, Denei Dajie
Beijing,China.
Natural Areas Journal 279