Morella faya (firetree)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Plant Type
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Biology and Ecology
- Latitude/Altitude Ranges
- Air Temperature
- Rainfall Regime
- Soil Tolerances
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Impact Summary
- Economic Impact
- Environmental Impact
- Impact: Biodiversity
- Threatened Species
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Uses List
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Links to Websites
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Morella faya (Ait.) Wilbur
Preferred Common Name
Other Scientific Names
- Myrica faya Ait.
International Common Names
- English: fayatree; fire tree; firebush
- Spanish: faya
- French: gale faya
- Portuguese: faia; faia das ilhas; samouco
Local Common Names
- Germany: Feuerbaum
- USA/Hawaii: candleberry myrtle
- MYRFA (Myrica faya)
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
The Macaronesian endemic M. faya has so far proved to be invasive only in the Hawaiian islands although is also cultivated in Florida (USA), Queensland (Australia) and New Zealand. Introduced to Hawaii in the 1800s and widely used subsequently in reclamation planting, it has spread into a variety of habitats including natural forest, lava flows, roadsides and abandoned pasture. It has a variety of impacts on native and exotic fauna and flora, especially as a result of the changes this nitrogen-fixing species induces on nutrient cycling. Since the mid-1900s, various control programmes have been initiated, including biological control, but these have had limited success and the species has yet to be brought under control, although natural dieback has been observed in recent decades.
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Plantae
- Phylum: Spermatophyta
- Subphylum: Angiospermae
- Class: Dicotyledonae
- Order: Myricales
- Family: Myricaceae
- Genus: Morella
- Species: Morella faya
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
Throughout the literature Morella faya has been, and still often is, referred to as Myrica faya. Only recently has the nomenclature change made by Wilbur (1994) been highlighted (Staples et al., 2002). This change had been easily overlooked as the new combination for M. faya was made in a footnote and resulted from Wilbur's recognition of the genus Morella Lour as a segregate from Myrica. However, it must be noted that the division of the Myricaceae into three genera might not be definitive and may still be revised (Griffin and Blazich, 2001).
DescriptionTop of page
M. faya is an evergreen tree growing up to 12 m tall in its native range, but is usually much smaller where introduced, e.g. no more than 8 m tall in Hawaii and in windy and exposed sites it may only reach a height of 2-3 m. It is often multi-stemmed and branches have reddish peltate hairs. The leaves are alternate, coriaceous, oblanceolate, glabrous, of variable size, 4-11 cm long by 1-2.5 cm wide. Leaf margins are somewhat revolute, remotely serrulate or serrate in upper half with a rounded to acute apex. Flowers are unisexual and generally born on separate trees. Each inflorescence is a spike or catkin bearing yellow flowers with no perianth. These are borne among leaves of the current year's growth. The fruit is a slightly fleshy edible drupe about 6 mm in diameter and dark red or blackish when mature, containing 1-5 seeds.
Plant TypeTop of page Broadleaved
DistributionTop of page
M. faya is native to the Macaronesian islands of the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands but not Cape Verde. It is also found on mainland Portugal but it is unclear whether the species is native there or was introduced (Press and Short, 1994). This species has not been widely introduced around the world but it is known to be present in the Hawaiian Islands, Florida, Australia and New Zealand. On all the main Hawaiian islands the species has become a major environmental weed. In New Zealand it is cultivated but has only been reported as naturalized on the Chatham Islands (Owen, 1997).
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Planted||Reference||Notes|
|-Canary Islands||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Natural||Bramwell and Bramwell, 1984|
|USA||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Florida||Present||Introduced||late 1800s||Planted||Hodges and Gardner, 1985|
|-Hawaii||Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||Planted||Vitousek and Walker, 1989|
|Portugal||Restricted distribution||Not invasive||Press & Short, 1994|
|-Azores||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Natural||Marler and Boatman, 1952|
|-Madeira||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Natural||Press & Short, 1994|
|Spain||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|Australia||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Planted||Csurhes and Edwards, 1998|
|-Queensland||Present, few occurrences||Introduced||Not invasive||Planted||Anon., 2003|
|New Zealand||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Planted||Owen, 1997|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page
M. faya was introduced into Hawaii probably by immigrants from the Azores or Madeira in the late 1800s, either as an ornamental or a medicinal plant. During the 1920s and 1930s the species was extensively planted for watershed reclamation. The weedy tendencies of M. faya were first recognised by the mid-1920s and by 1944 the Territorial Board of Agriculture and Forestry began an attempt to eradicate the species (Neal, 1965). By the 1990s, Whiteaker and Gardner (1992) reported that M. faya was a problem on all the major Hawaiian islands and covered around 35,000 ha. Over 80% species cover was found to occur on the island of Hawaii, including over 12,200 ha in the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park where only one tree existed in 1962, and it is considered to be one of the main noxious weed species. They considered that the species had yet to reach the limits of its potential distribution and a decade later its cover in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park had increased to over 15,900 ha, although much dieback has occurred since 1990 (Lenz and Taylor, 2001). It was also introduced to Florida, USA in the late 1800s (Hodges and Gardner, 1985), and to Queensland, Australia and New Zealand, though is not reported as invasive in any of these locations.
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
The State of Hawaii, USA restricts the import of M. faya seeds (Friday, 2000). In Queensland, Australia M. faya has been declared a Class 1 pest, i.e. a species that is not commonly present in Queensland and, if introduced, would cause an adverse economic, environmental or social impact. If established the species is subject to eradication from the state and landowners must take reasonable steps to keep the land free of the pest (Anon., 2003). There is a low risk of accidental introductions and introduction for ornamental purposes is the most likely pathway for the species to spread into new regions.
HabitatTop of page
In its native range, M. faya is a frequent component of forest canopies and in many stands it is co-dominant, whereas it is generally absent from the shrub layer. In open areas, M. faya is a pioneer species on old lava flows and spreads readily into pasture lands. It is also found on sea cliffs, rocky hillsides and along roadsides. Habitats invaded in Hawaii reflect those occupied by the species in its native range (Lutzow-Felling et al., 1995; Arévalo and Fernández-Palacios, 2000), however, it does not readily invade closed, late-successional native forests (Binggeli, 1999). In its native Azores, stands dominated by M. faya are invaded by the Australian tree Pittosporum undulatum (Marler and Boatman, 1952).
Habitat ListTop of page
|Terrestrial – Managed||Managed grasslands (grazing systems)||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Managed grasslands (grazing systems)||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Natural|
|Disturbed areas||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Disturbed areas||Principal habitat||Natural|
|Rail / roadsides||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Natural|
|Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural||Natural forests||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Natural forests||Principal habitat||Natural|
|Natural grasslands||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Natural grasslands||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Natural|
|Rocky areas / lava flows||Principal habitat||Natural|
|Coastal areas||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Natural|
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page
This tree is primarily associated with primary succession, such as colonization of old lava flows. However, it is also common on abandoned pasture lands in Hawaii where the weedy nature of the tree was first recognized.
Biology and EcologyTop of page
Physiology and Phenology
This tree is adapted to xeric conditions and exhibits attributes such as a relatively low transpiration rate. Broadly similar phenological patterns have been observed in the native and invaded ranges with flowering in late spring and fruiting towards the end of the year. In Hawaii, peak flowering time occurs in June with a minimum in December-January. Fruits may be observed all year round but in Hawaii, fruits ripen primarily between August and November. Peaks of immature fruiting have been recorded in August-September and a minimum in February-March. Maximum mature fruiting has observed in November and a minimum in May. Leaf flushing peaks in June but some differences in leaf flushing and leaf fall between the three Hawaiian sites investigated have been observed (Kraus, 1964; Whiteaker and Gardner, 1992).
M. faya is considered to be a dioecious species; however, male plants often produce some fruits and female individuals may bear a few male inflorescences. It appears to be a wind-pollinated species although in Hawaii it is visited by the introduced Apis mellifera. Up to 20,000 seeds per tree are produced every year. The fruit is bird-dispersed in its native range, and in Hawaii it is dispersed by birds (mainly introduced species) but also feral pigs. Seed germination decreases from 80% at 10 weeks to 30% after 78 weeks of dry storage, but are recorded asremaining viable in the soil for long periods (PIER, 2007). Passage of seeds through birds has no effect on germination whereas the species own leaf litter reduces seed germination. Germination occurs at all light levels but is highest under 55-63% shade (Walker, 1990). In its native range, M. faya contributes little to the seed bank of forests where the tree is a canopy co-dominant (Arévalo and Fernández-Palacios, 2000).
In its native range, the distribution of M. faya is very much determined by rainfall and temperature. Frost is a major limiting factor as the tree has not been recorded more than 100 m above the frost line. The minimum mean annual rainfall is about 500 mm. In some forests, fog drips are a significant source of water and the tree is therefore rarely encountered above the high moisture cloud zone. In the Macaronesian islands the altitudinal range of M. faya is 400-1500 m, however, this can vary greatly between islands, with for example, the upper altitudinal limit being 600 to 1500 m depending on the island. In Hawaii, M. faya occurs between 150 and 2000 m altitude, but does not regenerate naturally at either altitudinal extreme. The mean annual rainfall range is 1270-2540 mm and mean annual temperature may be as high as 22°C. In Hawaii, M. faya has been found in 11 soil types and on pH 5-6 soils in forests in Tenerife, Canary Islands (Whiteaker and Gardner, 1992; Fernández-Palacios and Arévalo, 1998). Being a light-demanding species it does not regenerate under its own canopy (Fernández-Palacios and Arévalo, 1998), and typically natural regeneration takes place on old lava flows or in open vegetation.
M. faya forms a symbiotic association with the nitrogen-fixing actinomycete Frankia sp. (Turner and Vitousek, 1987).
ClimateTop of page
|C - Temperate/Mesothermal climate||Preferred||Average temp. of coldest month > 0°C and < 18°C, mean warmest month > 10°C|
|Cf - Warm temperate climate, wet all year||Preferred||Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, wet all year|
|Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer||Tolerated||Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers|
|Cw - Warm temperate climate with dry winter||Tolerated||Warm temperate climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry winters)|
Latitude/Altitude RangesTop of page
|Latitude North (°N)||Latitude South (°S)||Altitude Lower (m)||Altitude Upper (m)|
Air TemperatureTop of page
|Parameter||Lower limit||Upper limit|
|Absolute minimum temperature (ºC)||0||0|
|Mean annual temperature (ºC)||13||22|
|Mean maximum temperature of hottest month (ºC)||0||0|
|Mean minimum temperature of coldest month (ºC)||0||0|
RainfallTop of page
|Parameter||Lower limit||Upper limit||Description|
|Dry season duration||0||0||number of consecutive months with <40 mm rainfall|
|Mean annual rainfall||500||2500||mm; lower/upper limits|
Rainfall RegimeTop of page Winter
Soil TolerancesTop of page
Special soil tolerances
Natural enemiesTop of page
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page
M. faya suffers from a number of diseases resulting in canker, dieback and root rot. Nectria galligena, common throughout its native range, causes severe canker and galls. The dieback disease, Ramularia destructiva, may be especially severe on the shoots of young plants or stump coppice and may also cause premature shedding of flowers and fruits (Gardner and Hodges, 1990). In Hawaii, Botrytis cinerea causes fruit rot and up to half of the fruits have been reported to be infected (Duffy and Gardner, 1994). The leafhopper Sophonia rufofascia (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) was first reported in the state of Hawaii in 1987 probably resulting from an accidental introduction from Asia. It feeds on the leaf phloem of a wide host plant range and has a major impact on tree health including a reduction in leaf size, constriction of leaf xylem diameters, leaf chlorosis and necrosis, and is probably the main or sole cause of the dieback exhibited by M. faya since the late 1990s (Lenz and Taylor, 2001).
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
The seeds are bird-dispersed in its native range, and in Hawaii they are dispersed by birds and feral pigs. Eleven species of birds are known to visit M. faya, four are natives and seven exotics (LaRosa et al., 1985; Woodward et al., 1990). The two studies, both carried out in the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, came to different conclusions although they both view the species as bird-dispersed. LaRosa et al. (1985) concluded that the exotic finch, Carpodacus mexicanus, and the native Myadestes obscurus were the most important dispersal agent. Woodward et al. (1990) found that the four species of native birds that visit the tree rarely feed on the fruits whereas out of the seven exotic birds visiting the species, five were observed ingesting the fruit. The Japanese White eye (Zosterops japonicus) was the most frequent visitor and consumer and is the primary dispersal agent according to Woodward et al. (1990), whereas LaRosa et al. (1985) found that it rarely consumed the fruit. Over a third of the Zosterops japonicus captured by Woodward et al. (1990) produced faecal samples containing seeds. These seeds were just as viable as those collected directly from M. faya trees or on under their canopies.
This species does not appear to be currently used or promoted for land rehabilitation, and there is a low risk of accidental introductions. Introduction for ornamental purposes is the most likely pathway for the species to spread into new regions.
Pathway CausesTop of page
Impact SummaryTop of page
|Fisheries / aquaculture||None|
ImpactTop of page
As M. faya facilitates an increase in the polyphagous Sophonia rufofascia abundance, this could cause some economic impact on fruit crops where M. faya is present. There are, however, no quantitative assessments of economic damage caused by M. faya.
Economic ImpactTop of page
As M. faya facilitates an increase in the polyphagous Sophonia rufofascia abundance, this could cause some economic impact on fruit crops where M. faya is present. There are, however, no quantitative assessments of economic damage caused by M. faya.
Environmental ImpactTop of page
M. faya has many deleterious impacts but it primarily changes ecosystem function by altering the nitrogen cycle, increasing nitrogen availability through nitrogen fixation. It also forms monospecific stands that have virtually no understorey and its litter inhibits germination and seedling establishment of the native tree Metrosideros polymorpha. In Hawaii, during primary succession on lava flows, invasion by M. faya increases nitrogen inputs to this system by at least fourfold and in native forests the tree alters both the quality and quantity of litter entering the decomposition process. These changes favour the abundance of exotic earthworms and their biomass under the canopy of M. faya is four to nearly eight times greater than under the canopy of the native Metrosideros polymorpha. In turn, this increase in the number of earthworms which are actively sought by feral pigs causes widespread disturbance and damage to native vegetation from pig feeding, increasing chances for further establishment of M. faya. It also increases the abundance of harmful insect herbivores (Aplet, 1990; Vitousek et al., 1987; Vitousek and Walker, 1989; Lenz and Taylor, 2001).
Impact: BiodiversityTop of page
M. faya facilitates the spread of introduced species and animals, exotic earthworms in particular. In the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, M. faya is recognized as one of the most important environmental weeds.
Threatened SpeciesTop of page
|Threatened Species||Conservation Status||Where Threatened||Mechanism||References||Notes|
|Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis (ulihi phyllostegia)||USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered species||Hawaii||Ecosystem change / habitat alteration||US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995|
|Phyllostegia knudsenii (Waimea phyllostegia)||NatureServe NatureServe; USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered species||Hawaii||Competition (unspecified)||US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009a|
|Phyllostegia renovans (red-leaf phyllostegia)||NatureServe NatureServe; USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered species||Hawaii||Competition - monopolizing resources; Ecosystem change / habitat alteration||US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010b|
|Phyllostegia waimeae (Kauai phyllostegia)||USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered species||Hawaii||Ecosystem change / habitat alteration||US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008a|
|Plantago princeps||NatureServe NatureServe; USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered species||Hawaii||Competition - monopolizing resources; Ecosystem change / habitat alteration||US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010c|
|Platydesma rostrata||CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered) CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered); USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered species||Hawaii||Competition - monopolizing resources; Ecosystem change / habitat alteration||US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010b|
|Pritchardia hardyi (Makaleha pritchardia)||CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered) CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered); USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered species||Hawaii||Competition - monopolizing resources||US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010d|
|Santalum freycinetianum var. lanaiense||No Details||Hawaii||Competition (unspecified)||US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011b|
|Schiedea kaalae (Oahu schiedea)||CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered) CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered); USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered species||Hawaii||Competition - monopolizing resources||US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998|
|Schiedea stellarioides||Hawaii||Competition - monopolizing resources; Ecosystem change / habitat alteration||US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010a|
|Silene perlmanii (cliffface catchfly)||Hawaii||Competition - monopolizing resources; Ecosystem change / habitat alteration||US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012|
|Solanum sandwicense||National list(s) National list(s); USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered species||Hawaii||Competition - monopolizing resources||US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009b|
|Spermolepis hawaiiensis (Hawaii scaleseed)||USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered species||Hawaii||Competition - monopolizing resources||US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010e|
|Stenogyne kanehoana (Oahu stenogyne)||Hawaii||Competition - monopolizing resources||US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998|
|Tetramolopium remyi (Awalua Ridge tetramolopium)||USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered species||Hawaii||Competition - monopolizing resources||US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995|
|Viola chamissoniana subsp. chamissoniana (pamakani)||USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered species||Hawaii||Competition (unspecified); Ecosystem change / habitat alteration||US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008b|
|Viola lanaiensis (Hawaii violet)||USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered species||Hawaii||Competition (unspecified); Ecosystem change / habitat alteration||US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995|
|Peucedanum sandwicense (makou)||NatureServe NatureServe; USA ESA listing as threatened species USA ESA listing as threatened species||Hawaii||Competition - monopolizing resources||US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011a|
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Abundant in its native range
- Pioneering in disturbed areas
- Long lived
- Fast growing
- Has high reproductive potential
- Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
- Modification of nutrient regime
- Modification of successional patterns
- Monoculture formation
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Threat to/ loss of endangered species
- Threat to/ loss of native species
- Competition - monopolizing resources
- Competition - shading
- Interaction with other invasive species
- Rapid growth
- Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
- Difficult/costly to control
UsesTop of page
This species has a limited potential. It is an ornamental with a good degree of wind tolerance. It was formerly viewed as species to be used in land reclamation as was the case in Hawaii during the early 1900s, and Portuguese labourers used to make wine from the fruits. In its native range it is viewed as a valuable fuelwood and other minor uses have been reported (Lutzow-Felling et al., 1995).
Uses ListTop of page
- Land reclamation
- Source of medicine/pharmaceutical
Detection and InspectionTop of page
The State of Hawaii, USA restricts the import of M. faya seeds (Friday, 2000). In Queensland, Australia, M. faya has been declared a Class 1 pest, i.e. a species that is not commonly present in Queensland and, if introduced, would cause an adverse economic, environmental or social impact. If established, the species would be subject to eradication by the state government and landowners would have to take reasonable steps to keep the land free of the pest (Anon., 2003). There is a low risk of accidental introductions and introduction for ornamental purposes is the most likely pathway for the species to spread into new regions.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page There is no confusion with other species and no particular difficulties in identifying this tree.
Prevention and ControlTop of page
M. faya is not a preferred fodder for livestock, thus herbivory is of very limited value in controlling the species (Lutzow-Felling et al., 1995), although PIER (2007) notes that goats can used to help control the species. The grass Schizachyrium condensatum reduces recruitment of M. faya as it substantially reduces light at the soil surface and is thought to then reduce germination and early seedling growth of M. faya (D'Antonio and Mack, 2001) though management strategies involving reseeding have not been developed. In addition, as feral pigs are important in Hawaii in disseminating seeds and via ground disturbance, provide sites for seedling establishment, control of feral pigs is likely to reduce existing densities and further spread.
Loh and Daehler (2007) assessed the effects of three mechanical control treatments for M. faya on the regeneration of native species: logging all trees, trees left standing but girdled, and incremental girdling over 20 months. Leaf litter was either removed or left, and a selection of native and invasive species were planted. No single method eliminated all invaders, but girdling of M. faya provided suitable conditions for most native species, and if combined with selective removal of the most disruptive alien species and native seed additions, it was concluded that girdling could be an effective general strategy for restoring native forests that have been overwhelmed by woody invaders (Loh and Daehler, 2007).
Use of herbicides has proved to be the only effective means of controlling the species to date. However, due to the high costs of chemicals and labour requirements, the original aim of eradicating the species was never achieved. Glyphosate is very effective when applied by the notching method or into drilled holes. The species is susceptible to foliar sprays of picloram resulting in complete canopy kill and 99% control of resprouting. Control of M. faya by soil application in open vegetation with tebuthiuron has been poor. The species is moderately sensitive to drizzle applications of triclopyr in water or oil and repeat applications may provide adequate suppression as the canopy density is reduced by previous treatments (Whiteaker and Gardner, 1992; Matooka, 2000).
Biological control of M. faya has been attempted since the 1950s. In 1956, Strepsicrates smithiana (Tortricidae) was introduced to Hawaii but it failed to become established on M. faya. Instead, at low elevation it became established on M. cerifera. By the early 1960s, insects associated with M. faya in its native range had been extensively documented (e.g. Kraus, 1964) and later efforts included the use of pathogens (Hodges and Gardner, 1985). A number of diseases causing cankers, dieback and root rot were identified as potential biocontrol agents (Gardner and Hodges, 1990). The first agent to become established on M. faya is a leaf miner, Caloptilia nr. schinella Walsingham (Gracillariidae) which was released in Hawaii in 1991 (Leen and Markin, 1996). By 1995, this leaf miner had spread widely from the four release sites; however, its impact on the trees was negligible. In 1998, the leaf spot fungus Septoria hodgesii Gardner was released but this agent has had no significant impact (Smith, 2002). In view of the limited success achieved with introduced biological control agents, an alternative approach has been suggested, entailing the introduction of more aggressive or ecologically fit strains of already established insect pests and pathogens, and Duffy and Gardner (1994) suggested that this approach should be envisaged for the fruit rot Botrytis cinerea. Due to the poor results so far achieved and the lack of potential biological control agents from the native range, the biological control programme of M. faya has been greatly reduced since 1995 (Smith, 2002). However, Phyllonorycter myricae(Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae) is currently under investigation as a possible biological control agent at the Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry laboratory, Volcano, Hawaii (PIER, 2007).
There is little hope that a single biological control agent will be discovered that will effectively control M. faya. It is likely that a variety of agents in conjunction with the use of traditional control methods will keep the species under control.
ReferencesTop of page
Anon., 2003. Declared plants of Queensland. NRM Facts PP. The State of Queensland, Australia. http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/factsheets/pdf/pest/PP1.pdf
Aplet GH, 1990. Alteration of earthworm community biomass by the alien Myrica faya in Hawaii. Oecologia, 82:414-416
Arévalo JR, Fernández-Palacios JM, 2000. Seed bank analysis of tree species in two stands of the Tenerife laurel forest (Canary Islands). Forest Ecology Management, 130:177-185
Bramwell D, Bramwell Z, 1984. Wild flowers of the Canary Islands. Cheltenham, UK: Stanley Thornes
Csurhes S, Edwards R, 1998. Potential environmental weeds in Australia: candidate species for preventative control. Coorparoo, Australia: Queensland Department of Natural Resources
D'Antonio CM, Mack M, 2001. Exotic grasses potentially slow invasion of an N-fixing tree into a Hawaiian woodland. Biological Invasion, 3:69-73
Fernández-Palacios JM, Arévalo JR, 1998. Regeneration strategies of tree species in the laurel forest of Tenerife (The Canary Islands). Plant Ecology, 137:21-29
Friday JB, 2000. Seed Technology for Forestry in Hawaii. Resource Management RM-4 CTAHR, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu
Griffin JJ, Blazich FA, 2001. Myricaceae - Bayberry family - Myrica L. and Morella Lour. - bayberry. http://wpsm.net/Morella_&_Myrica.pdf
Hodges CS, Gardner DE, 1985. Myrica faya: potential biological control agents. University of Hawaii Cooperative Extension Service Studies Unit, Technical Report, 54:1-37. Botany Dept, University of Hawaii, Honolulu
Krauss NLH, 1964. Insects associated with firebush (Myrica faya Aiton). Proceedings of the Hawaiian entomological Society, 18:405-411
LaRosa AM, Smith CW, Gardner DE, 1985. Role of alien and native birds in the dissemination of firetree (Myrica faya Ait. - Myricaceae) and associated plants in Hawaii. Pacific Science, 39:372-378
Leen R, Markin G, 1996. Identity, release and establishment of Caloptilia nr. schinella (Walsingham) (Gracillariidae) on the island of Hawaii for control of Myrica faya Aiton (Myricaceae). Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society, 50(4):348-350; 11 ref
Lenz L, Taylor JA, 2001. The influence of an invasive tree species (Myrica faya) on the abundance of an alien insect (Sophonia rufofascia) in Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park. Biological Conservation, 102:301-307
Loh RK, Daehler CC, 2007. Influence of invasive tree kill rates on native and invasive plant establishment in a Hawaiian forest. Restoration Ecology, 15(2):199-211. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/rec
Lutzow-Felling CJ, Gardner DE, Markin GP, Smith CW, 1995. Myrica faya: review of the biology, ecology, distribution and control, including an annotated bibliography. University of Hawaii Cooperative Extension Service Studies Unit, Technical Report, 94:1-114. Botany Dept, University of Hawaii, Honolulu
Marler P, Boatman DJ, 1952. An analysis of the vegetation on the northern slopes of Pico, the Azores. Journal of Ecology, 40:143-155
Motooka A, 2000. Summaries of herbicide trials for pasture, range, and non-cropland weed control - 1999. University of Hawaii Cooperative Extension Service - Weed Control WC-5. College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR), Honolulu
Neal MC, 1965. In Gardens of Hawaii. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Special Publication No. 50. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: Bishop Museum
Owen SJ, 1997. Ecological weeds on conservation land in New Zealand: a database. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation
Press JR, Short MD, Eds, 1994. Flora of Madeira. The Natural History Museum, London, UK: HMSO
Smith CW, 2002. Forest pest biological control programe in Hawai'i. In: Smith C, W, Denslow J, Hight S, Eds. Proceedings of a workshop on biological control of invasive plants in native Hawaiian Ecosystems. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: University of Hawaii Cooperative Extension Service Studies Unit, Technical Report, 129:91-102
Staples GW, Imada CT, Herbst DR, 2002. New Hawaiian plant records for 2000. Bishop Museum Occasional Paper, 68:3-18
US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008. Phyllostegia waimeae (no common name). 5-Year Review, Short Form. In: Phyllostegia waimeae (no common name). 5-Year Review, Short Form : US Fish and Wildlife Service.6 pp.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008. Viola chamissoniana ssp. chamissoniana (Pamakani). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. In: Viola chamissoniana ssp. chamissoniana (Pamakani). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation : US Fish and Wildlife Service.11 pp.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009. 5-Year Review, Short Form Summary: Species Reviewed: Phyllostegia knudsenii (no common name). In: 5-Year Review, Short Form Summary: Species Reviewed: Phyllostegia knudsenii (no common name) : US Fish and Wildlife Service.6 pp.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009. Solanum sandwicense (Popolo 'aiakeakua). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. In: Solanum sandwicense (Popolo 'aiakeakua). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation : US Fish and Wildlife Service.13 pp.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010. 5-Year Review, Short Form Summary: Species Reviewed: Schiedea stellarioides (no common name). In: 5-Year Review, Short Form Summary: Species Reviewed: Schiedea stellarioides (no common name) : US Fish and Wildlife Service.7 pp.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010. Determination of Endangered Status for 48 Species on Kauai and designation of Critical Habitat: Final Rule. In: Determination of Endangered Status for 48 Species on Kauai and designation of Critical Habitat: Final Rule : US Fish and Wildlife Service.i + 205 pp.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010. Plantago princeps (laukahi kuahiwi). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. In: Plantago princeps (laukahi kuahiwi). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation : US Fish and Wildlife Service.19 pp.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010. Spermolepis hawaiiensis (no common name). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. In: Spermolepis hawaiiensis (no common name). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation : US Fish and Wildlife Service.19 pp.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing 23 Species on Oahu as Endangered and Designating Critical Habitat for 124 Species. In: Federal Register , 76(148) : US Fish and Wildlife Service.46362-46593. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-02/pdf/2011-17162.pdf
US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011. Santalum freycinetianum var. lanaiense, Lanai sandalwood ('iliahi). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. In: Santalum freycinetianum var. lanaiense, Lanai sandalwood ('iliahi). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation : US Fish and Wildlife Service.19 pp.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012. 5-Year Review, Short Form Summary: Species Reviewed: Silene perlmanii (no common name) Current Classification: Endangered. In: 5-Year Review, Short Form Summary: Species Reviewed: Silene perlmanii (no common name) Current Classification: Endangered : US Fish and Wildlife Service.5 pp.
Vitousek PM, Walker LR, 1989. Biological invasion by Myrica faya in Hawai'i: Plant demography, nitrogen fixation, ecosystems effects. Ecological Monographs, 59:247-265
Vitousek PM, Walker LR, Whiteaker LD, Mueller-Dombois D, Matson PA, 1987. Biological invasion by Myrica faya alters ecosystem development in Hawaii. Science, 238:802-804
Whiteaker LD, Gardner DE, 1992. Firetree (Myrica faya) distribution in Hawai'i. In: Stone CP, Smith CW, Tunison JT, Eds. Alien plant invasions in native ecosystems of Hawai'i: management and research. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 225-240
Wilbur RL, 1994. The Myricaceae of the United States and Canada: genera, subgenera, and series. Sida, 16:93-107
Woodward SA, Vitousek PM, Matson K, Hughes F, Benvenuto K, Matson PA, 1990. Use of the exotic tree Myrica faya by native and exotic birds in Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park. Pacific Science, 44:88-93
ContributorsTop of page
22/11/2007 Updated by:
Nick Pasiecznik, Consultant, France
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/