Review Article |
Corresponding author: Marion K. Seier ( m.seier@cabi.org ) Academic editor: Gerhard Karrer
© 2023 Marion K. Seier, Alessandro Rapini, Kate M. Pollard, Robert W. Barreto, Harry C. Evans.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Seier MK, Rapini A, Pollard KM, Barreto RW, Evans HC (2023) Tracing the origins and tracking the movements of invasive rubber vines (Cryptostegia spp., Apocynaceae). NeoBiota 89: 95-133. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.89.109180
|
Cryptostegia grandiflora and C. madagascariensis (Apocynaceae) are the only two species of this Madagascan plant genus. Both have been transported around the world as ornamentals due to their attractive flowers and based on a perceived potential as sources of rubber – hence, the common name rubber vine – because of their copious latex, which also contains toxic cardiac glycosides. As a result of their vigorous growth and ability to climb over and smother vegetation, both species have become invasive, posing an actual or potential threat to native ecosystems in many tropical and sub-tropical countries, as well as to human and animal health. Classical biological control (CBC), or the introduction of co-evolved natural enemies to control an invasive alien species in its exotic range, has successfully been used to tackle C. grandiflora in northern Queensland, Australia. This strategy is currently being evaluated for its suitability to manage C. madagascariensis in north-eastern Brazil using the same Madagascan rust fungus, Maravalia cryptostegiae, released as a CBC agent in Australia. For CBC to be successful, it is critical to understand the taxonomy of the invader as well as the origin(s) of its weedy biotype(s) in order to select the best-matched co-evolved natural enemies. Based on an exhaustive search in published and unpublished sources, we summarise the taxonomy and uses of these rubber vines, follow their historical movements and track their earliest records and current weed status in more than 80 countries and territories around the world.
Cardiac glycosides, classical biological control, poisonous plants, taxonomy, uses, weed status
Cryptostegia (Apocynaceae, Periplocoideae) is a plant genus native to Madagascar with two accepted species: Cryptostegia grandiflora, commonly referred to as rubber vine and C. madagascariensis, alternatively named Madagascar rubber vine (
In order to achieve such success, it is fundamental to correctly determine the taxonomic position of an invasive plant species, as well as the biotype(s) present in the invaded country or region, in order to achieve a close match with its compatible natural enemies from the native range. This is especially critical when exploiting plant pathogens, such as rust fungi as biocontrol agents; typically, these are host specific at both the inter- and intra-species level. Where multiple or mixed introductions have taken place – particularly commonplace for plant species of horticultural or ornamental interest, such as Lantana camara (Verbenaceae) (
A prime example of the complexity and problems involved when working with rust biocontrol agents is that of the invasive skeleton weed, Chondrilla juncea (Asteraceae), in Australia and its co-evolved rust, Puccinia chondrillina (Pucciniaceae), from the centre of origin in the Mediterranean Region. Following the initial release of a rust strain from Italy, populations of skeleton weed fell dramatically and this success has been well documented (
Currently, a similar study is underway as part of a CBC project for Brazil aiming to match pathotypes of M. cryptostegiae, under evaluation as a biocontrol agent, with the biotype(s) of C. madagascariensis invading the north-eastern region of the country. Literature searches to establish the identity of these weed populations and to trace their origin have revealed a complex history of inter-continental transport of Cryptostegia species spanning centuries. In addition to summarising the taxonomic debate surrounding the genus Cryptostegia, we track the movements linked to its uses and assess the environmental impact of the two rubber vines from Madagascar in the countries and regions where they have been introduced.
The genus Cryptostegia was erected to accommodate the single species C. grandiflora, based on a specimen sent to the Royal Botanic Gardens (RBG) Kew from a hot-house plant cultivated in the English Home Counties: “where it flowered in summer, we believe, for the first time in Europe” (
Lectotype of Cryptostegia grandiflora in
The main description of C. grandiflora in
Illustration of Cryptostegia grandiflora (as “Nerium grandiflorum Roxb.”), from Icones Roxburghianae (
According to
Historical events point to the Portuguese who colonised the area around Cochin on the Malabar Coast in the early 16th century and later established a viceroy ship there. Around this period, the first attempt at European colonisation of Madagascar was also by the Portuguese; although the first permanent settlement was not established until around 1615 at the behest of the Portuguese Viceroy of India. This colony in southern Madagascar, near Fort Dauphin (Taolagnaro), became pivotal in the trans-oceanic trade route between Portugal and India (
The new species C. madagascariensis, in
Illustration of Cryptostegia madagascariensis in
Subsequently,
The two species recognised in the most recent treatment of the genus (
“Calyx lobes > 13 mm long; corona lobes bifid; spathe of translator orbicular, obtuse at apex; leaves always glabrous; follicles often more than 10 cm long 1. C. grandiflora
Calyx lobes ≤ 13 mm long; corona lobes entire; spathe of translator ovate, acute at apex; leaves sometimes hairy; follicles shorter than 10 cm 2. C. madagascariensis”
The flower main characteristics to separate the two species were illustrated by
Diagram of a longitudinal section of Cryptostegia grandiflora (left) and C. madagascariensis (right) flowers; showing the corolline corona (G) in C. grandiflora, with bifid lobes converging at the tips and hiding the anthers (A) and stigma (S) – hence the generic descriptor – whilst those of C. madagascariensis are entire and separate. C = calyx, N = nectary, O = ovary, P = corolla lobes; ex
Habitats of Cryptostegia in Madagascar A C. madagascariensis forming low shrubs in savannah with typical baobab vegetation, Morondava-Manja area, west-central Madagascar B C. madagascariensis, in littoral locality forming dense, low stands on compacted sand, Ramena beach, Diego Suarez, northern Madagascar C gallery-forest habitat of C. grandiflora in south-west Madagascar, along dry river bed D lianas of C. grandiflora growing into the canopy of tamarind trees within gallery forest, Betioky, south-west Madagascar.
Cryptostegia grandiflora has a narrower distribution in Madagascar, being restricted to the dry south-west region, some 600 km distance between Tulear and Fort Dauphin, with an annual rainfall of less than 600 mm. It is a vigorous climber in gallery or riverine forests (Fig.
These events also led the USA to invest more heavily in alternative sources of rubber, including Cryptostegia, through the Emergency Rubber Project. Experimental plantations were initiated or revived in various tropical countries of the Americas, especially in Haiti (
There are various reports in the literature of the anti-tumour and anti-microbial potential of bioactive extracts of C. grandiflora, as well as analgaesic properties (
Conversely and somewhat ironically, in their Madagascan centres of origin, the two rubber-vine species have limited medicinal uses, although
This section covers those continents or geographic regions for which data regarding the presence and status of the two Cryptostegia species exist. Data were gathered from both published and unpublished sources, i.e. reports and herbaria records, as well as from web-based sources: namely, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), the Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) and the databases Tropicos, the Global Invasive Species Database (GISD), Pacific Islands Ecosystems at Risk (PIER) and Plants of the World online (POWO). All herbaria consulted are referred to with their acronyms according to Thiers (2022). Identification of individual Cryptostegia species from herbarium specimens could not always be confirmed, as online images were often not available or specimens were not well preserved. Thus, in most cases, the species identification given on the respective labels and in the databases was accepted. Table
A specimen of C. madagascariensis in Herb K from the Hong Kong Botanical Garden dated 1879 indicates that the species must have been introduced from another British colonial botanical garden.
The history of C. grandiflora in India has already been discussed at length. Suffice to say that there are few publications of it as a problematic or invasive weed. In the invasive alien flora of India (
The first herbarium specimen of C. grandiflora dates from 1904 (Herb L), although records document that the species has been present at Bogor Botanical Garden, Java since at least 1897 (Herbs LD, UPS). While C. grandiflora is included in a guide book to the invasive alien plants of Indonesia (
Whilst the earliest herbarium specimen of C. grandiflora from Pakistan dates from 1962 (Herb SINDH), a new fungus, Pleosphaeropsis (now Aplosporella) cryptostegiae, was described from dead twigs of rubber vine, collected in 1939 from Lahore – then part of India (
There are no indications that C. grandiflora is weedy in Egypt (
The presence of Cryptostegia was first reported as C. grandiflora from Accra in 1927 (
Specimens at Herbs MO and US show records of C. grandiflora from the Namibian town of Karibib dating back to 1958. A Herb K record from the Etosha National Park in 2006 listed C. grandiflora as “fairly common”; whilst an earlier report from a game reserve bordering the Park described it as planted in “cultivated gardens”, where it was linked to the poisoning and death of several elephants (
First collected in Tanga, north-east Tanzania, in 1929 (Herb EA), with early 1930s Herb K collections of C. madagascariensis (initially identified as C. grandiflora) from the nearby Moa District showing the annotation: “originally introduced as a rubber vine [presumably as a source of rubber] and now found in most gardens on the coast”. However, there have been no reports of it as an invasive species (
Similar to Mauritius,
First introduced as an ornamental, C. grandiflora is now naturalised in the savannah areas. The species is listed as potentially invasive and as a threat to dry savannahs and pastures (Comité Français de L’UICN 2022;
The earliest record for both C. grandiflora and C. madagascariensis is from the New York Botanical Garden in 1905. Both species are in cultivation in gardens and plant nurseries – especially in Florida, where they were introduced in the early 1900s (
Cryptostegia grandiflora and/or C. madagascariensis have been reported as present in all of the Central American countries, as well as on a number of the Caribbean islands; however, their respective status has been recorded as naturalised or invasive in less than half of the respective countries or territories (see Table
Occurrences, earliest records and current status of Cryptostegia grandiflora and C. madagascariensis by individual countries.
Country/Region | Cryptostegia grandiflora | Cryptostegia madagascariensis | Referencesc | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Presencea | Earliest recordb | Notes | Presence | Earliest record | Notes | ||
Asia | |||||||
Bangladesh | + | u | – | - | – | – |
|
China: Hong Kong | - | – | – | + | 1879 (Herb K) | – | Herbarium record |
India | + | 1804 (Herb K) | cultivated, established | + | u | established |
|
Indonesia | + | 1897 (Herbs LD, UPS) | cultivated, not naturalised | - | – | – |
|
Pakistan | + | 1962 (Herb SINDH) | cultivated | - | – | – |
|
Philippines | + | u | cultivated, |
+ | 1955 (Herb US) | garden record | Herbarium record (C. madagascariensis); |
Saudi Arabia | + | 1893 (Herb L) | – | - | – | – | Herbarium record |
Singapore | + | u | cultivated | - | – | – |
|
Taiwan | - | – | – | + | 1971 (Herb TAI) | – |
|
Yemen | + | – | cultivated | - | – | – |
|
Africa | |||||||
Angola | + | – | as Cryptostegia sp. in Herb LISU, Herbario Angola | + | – | as Cryptostegia sp. in Herb LISU, Herbario Angola |
|
Botswana | + | u | naturalised | - | – | – |
|
Burkina Faso | + | u | – | - | – | – |
|
Comoros | + | u | – | - | – | – |
|
Congo | - | – | – | + | u | – |
|
Cote d’Ivoire | + | 1995 (Herb UCJ) | – | - | – | – |
|
Egypt | + | 1904 (Herbs S, UPS) | cultivated | - | – | – |
|
Ethiopia | + | 1972 (Herbs MO, WAG in L) | invasive in the Afar and Shewa regions | - | – | – |
|
Gambia | + | u | – | - | – | – |
|
Ghana | + | 1927 (Herb GC) | – | + | 1932 (Herb K) | – |
|
Guinea | + | u | – | - | – | – |
|
Kenya | + | u (Herb US) | – | + | 1970 (Herb K) | cultivated, established, record of the rust M. cryptostegiae from 1950 | Herbarium record (C. grandiflora); |
Madagascar | + | 1879 (Herb MO) | endemic | + | 1911 (Herbs MO, S) | endemic |
|
Malawi | - | – | – | + | – | naturalised |
|
Mali | + | u | – | - | – | – |
|
Mauritius | + | 1867 (Herb K) | record from Hooker herbarium at Herb K, established | + | 1867 (Herb K) | specimen from Hooker herbarium at Herb K, naturalised, recorded as native in GISD and PIER (referencing outdated version of GRIN) |
|
Mayotte | + | u | cultivated | + | – | undated record in Herb P |
|
Morocco | + | u | – | - | – | – |
|
Mozambique | + | u | – | + | u | – |
|
Namibia | + | 1958 (Herbs MO, US) | – | - | – | – |
|
Nigeria | + | 1966 (Herb WAG in L) | – | - | – | – | Herbarium record |
Réunion | + | u | naturalised, potentially invasive | - | – | – | Comité Français de L’ UICN (2022); |
Senegal | + | 1960 (Herb IFAN) | – | - | – | – |
|
Seychelles | + | u | – | + | u | naturalised, recorded as native in GISD |
|
Somalia | - | – | – | + | 1989 (Herb UPS) | – |
|
South Africa | + | 1943 (Herb K) | invasive in Limpopo, Mpumalanga and North–West Provinces | + | 1860s (Bot. Garden Cape Town) | invasive in Limpopo and North–West Provinces |
|
Tanzania | + | u | – | + | 1929 (Herb EA) | cultivated |
|
Zambia | + | u | naturalised | + | – | naturalised |
|
Zimbabwe | + | 1976 (Herb K) | cultivated | + | – | – |
|
North America | |||||||
Mexico | + | 1897 (Herb US) | invasive in Baja California, Chiapas, Tabasco, Yucatan | + | 1930 (Herb NY) | recorded from Baja California, Tabasco, Yucatan |
|
USA | + | Mainland 1905 (Herb NY), Hawaii 1930 (Herb BISH) | mainland record from New York Botanical Garden, possibly invasive in Texas, Florida | + | Mainland 1905 (Herb NY), Hawaii 1906 (Herb BISH) | mainland record from New York Botanical Garden, invasive in Florida, Hawaii |
|
Central America and the Caribbean | |||||||
Anguilla | - | – | – | + | u | cultivated |
|
Bahamas | + | 1904 (Herb NY) | escape from cultivation | - | – | – |
|
Barbados | + | 1906 (Herb US) | – | + | 2007 (Herb US) | – |
|
Belize | + | 1990 (Herb NY) | – | + | 1970 (Herb MO) | cultivated |
|
Bermuda | + | u | escape from cultivation | - | – | – |
|
British Virgin Isld | + | u | recorded on Tortola Isl | + | u | invasive on Anegada Isl |
|
Cayman Isl | + | u | cultivated, naturalised on all three islands | - | – | – |
|
Costa Rica | - | – | – | + | 1966 (Herb MO) | Genus recorded at USDA Rubber Station since 1947 (Herb MO), but not identified at species level |
|
Cuba | + | 1895 (Herb NY) | invasive | + | 1926 (Herb US) | – |
|
Dominica | - | – | – | + | u | – |
|
Dominican Republic | + | 1910 (Herb US) | – | + | 1977 (Herb MO) | – |
|
El Salvador | + | u | – | + | 1922 (Herb US) | – |
|
Grenada | - | – | – | + | 1924 (Herb US) | – |
|
Guadeloupe | + | 1893 (Herb NY) | cultivated in Jardin botanique de la Basse–Terre | - | – | – | Herbarium record |
Guatemala | + | 2002 (Herb UVAL) | – | + | 1994 (Herb UVAL) | – |
|
Haiti | + | u | not naturalised | + | 1927 (Herb US) | not naturalised, identified as C. grandiflora in Herbs K and NY |
|
Honduras | + | 1945 (Herbs F, MO) | invasive | + | 1947 (Herb F) | – |
|
Jamaica | + | 1858 (Herb K) | not naturalised | + | u | – |
|
Martinique | + | u | – | + | early 1900s | naturalised |
|
Montserrat | + | 1979 (Herb NY) | invasive | + | u | escape from cultivation, invasive |
|
Netherland Antilles | + | Curaçao 1913 (Herb US) | invasive on Curaçao, Aruba, Bonaire, naturalised on Saba, St Maarten/St Martin, established on St Eustatius | + | Saba 2006 (Herb NY) | recorded on Saba, St Eustatius |
|
Nicaragua | + | 1987 (Herb WAG in L) | – | + | 1923 (Herb MO) | – |
|
Panama | + | 1977 (Herbs MEXU, MO) | recorded in Darién Province | + | 1935 (Herb MO) | recorded in several provinces |
|
Puerto Rico | + | 1913 (Herb NY) | – | + | 1915 (Herb US) | naturalised | Acevedo-Rodriguez (2005); |
St Lucia | + | 1909 (Herb L) | – | + | u | cultivated, naturalised |
|
Trinidad & Tobago | + | 1909 (Herb L) | – | + | 1933 (Herb MO) | – |
|
US Virgin Isl | + | 1923 (Herb NY) | herbarium record from St Croix, erroneously reported from St John | + | 1970 (Herb MO) | naturalised on St Croix, St John, St Thomas | Acevedo-Rodriguez (1996); Acevedo-Rodriguez (2005); |
South America | |||||||
Brazil | + | 1906 as C. sp. (Herb P), 1916 as C. grand. (Herbs SP, IPA) | naturalised in Bahia, Mato Grosso do Sul, Pará, Piauí, Rio Grande do Norte | + | 1906 as C. sp. (Herb P), 1930 as C. madagascariensis (Herb US) | invasive in Ceará, Pernambuco, Piauí, Maranhão, Rio Grande do Norte, recorded in Bahia |
|
Colombia | + | 1906 (Herb US) | – | + | 1899 (Herb US) | – |
|
Ecuador | + | 1926 (Herb US) | herbarium record from mainland Bahia, cultivated on Santa Cruz Isl., Galapagos | - | – | – |
|
French Guiana | + | 1977 (Herb WAG in L) | – | + | 2000 (Herb US) | – | Herbaria records |
Guyana | - | – | – | + | 1988 (Herb US) | escape from cultivation | Funk at al. (2007) |
Suriname | + | 1972 (Herb U in L) | – | - | – | – | Herbarium record |
Peru | + | 1959 (Herb F) | naturalised in Cajamarca | - | – | – | Herbarium record; |
Venezuela | + | 1922 (Herb US) | – | + | 1939 (Herb US) | escape from cultivation, recorded in Amazonas, Aragua, Bolívar, Lara, Nueva Esparta, Sucre |
|
Oceania | |||||||
Australia | + | 1875 (GISD) | invasive in Queensland, recorded in Northern Territory, Western Australia | + | 1953 (Australia Virtual Herb) | naturalised, recorded in Queensland, Northern Territory, Western Australia |
|
Cook Isl | - | – | – | + | 1993 (Herb CHR) | established, recorded from Isl of Rarotonga, Mangaia, ‘Atiu, Penrhyn |
|
Fiji | + | u | established | - | – | – |
|
French Polynesia | + | 1831 (Herb BISH) | cultivated on several Isl | + | 1926 (Herb MO)– | treated as C. grandiflora in Herbs L, MIN, BISH |
|
Guam | + | 1963 (Herb US) | cultivated, established | - | – | – |
|
Marshall Isl | + | 1965 (Herb BISH) | recorded on Kwajelein Atoll | - | – | – |
|
New Caledonia | + | 1950 (Herb P) | invasive on New Caledonia Isl, Ile Grande Terre | - | – | – |
|
Northern Mariana Isl | + | u | recorded on Saipan Isl, established | - | – | – |
|
Palau | - | – | – | + | u | cultivated on Babeldaob, recorded on Koror |
|
Papua New Guinea | + | 1936 As C. sp. (Herb K) | cultivated on Bismarck Archipelago | - | – | – | Herbarium record; |
Records from the New York Botanical Garden (Herb NY) document that C. grandiflora was first collected in Cuba in the late 19th century; the species is now considered as invasive (
The history of Cryptostegia in Haiti has been detailed above, as have the failed attempts to cultivate it as a source of rubber in the 1940s. Records in Herb US show that C. madagascariensis was already present in 1927, but there are no reports of the species becoming naturalised or weedy. Cryptostegia grandiflora is also listed as present (
Cryptostegia madagascariensis, or allamanda pourpre, was introduced in the early 1900s as an ornamental: now naturalised in the dry forests in the south of the island where it is perceived as a potential invasive threat (
The earliest record of C. madagascariensis in Montserrat is unknown, but the species is now regarded as one of the key alien plants on the island and is being closely monitored. It has been described as “covering large tracts of land in the Silver Hills where it grows almost as a monoculture at the expense of other species” (
Unknown when first introduced, C. madagascariensis is now considered to be naturalised on the island and is commonly found in the dry savannah, especially around Micoud, Vieux Fort and Laborie (
Following its introduction as an ornamental, C. madagascariensis has become invasive on the British Virgin Island of Anegada, where it is posing a threat to the island’s biodiversity (
Two herbarium specimens collected in 1906 around Manaus, Amazonas and deposited in Herb P, are probably the oldest records of Cryptostegia in Brazil, indicating the presence of rubber vine in this region during the peak of the first Amazon rubber boom. In 1916, Pickel reported the cultivation of C. grandiflora in Olinda, Pernambuco, on the north-east coast of Brazil on the label of a herbarium specimen kept at Herb IPA, which possibly constitutes the second oldest collection of the genus in Brazil. The first record of C. madagascariensis, also from Pernambuco, dates from 1930 (Herb US). However, there is anecdotal evidence that the species might have been present in the region much earlier in the form of a painting by José dos Reis Carvalhoos from 1859 depicting a reddish-flowering vine, resembling Cryptostegia sp., climbing up a carnaúba palm (Fig.
Watercolour painting “Corte de carnauba” by José dos Reis Carvalhoos (1859) depicting a red-purple flowering vine, potentially Cryptostegia sp., climbing up a carnaúba palm (right-hand side) (source: Wikimedia Commons, public domain).
The first indication that rubber vine was problematic in Brazil came in a report from the north-east region entitled ‘dangerous visitors’ (
Cryptostegia madagascariensis A completely smothering native riparian vegetation and climbing up the endemic palm, Copernicia prunifera (Carnaúba or wax palm), Cruz, Acaraú River, Ceará, Brazil, 2007 B close-up of flowers and fruits; showing their claw-like nature, particularly of the opened fruits C in the Botanic Garden, Rio de Janeiro, with erroneous identification (inset), showing the characteristic whip-like shoots.
Studies show that C. madagascariensis is having a significant negative impact on the unique semi-arid Caatinga ecosystem in north-east Brazil, affecting the regeneration and ecological succession of native vegetation (
A Cryptostegia grandiflora climbing up into the canopy and smothering native Eucalyptus stands, northern Queensland, Australia B C. grandiflora thicket showing immediate impact of the rust, Maravalia cryptostegiae, with yellowing and falling leaves, three months after its release.
This actual and potential threat to the ecosystems of tropical Australia was the catalyst for an integrated management strategy – including a CBC programme – implemented by the then Queensland Department of Lands. This was funded in part by the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation because of the impact of rubber-vine weed on the cattle industry due to loss of grazing and reduced access to water sources by weed infestations (
Following extensive safety testing, the Madagascan moth, Euclasta whalleyi (Pyralidae, Lepidoptera), as well as the rust fungus, were released in northern Australia in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Long-term monitoring studies of the rust have shown significant impacts on weed populations with much-reduced seedling recruitment (Fig.
Cryptostegia madagascariensis is present in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia (
Cryptostegia grandiflora has been cultivated on a number of the islands. For Papua New Guinea, there is a Herb K record dated 1936 from the New Guinea Agricultural Department, labelled Cryptostegia sp., with the annotation: “from which fibre is prepared”. Presumably, therefore, it was being grown as a crop for rope or similar products. While classed as established on several of the islands (see Table
The two representative species of Cryptostegia native to Madagascar are now present in most countries of the sub-tropics and tropics, including remote island systems. These species – commonly and collectively known as rubber vines – were introduced initially for their ornamental value, but later, prior to and during both World Wars, they were also cultivated as potential sources of rubber. In many, but not all countries, these two vines have become naturalised and, in several, they have assumed the status of an invasive weed posing a threat to indigenous ecosystems, as well as to agriculture. From the data available, the two rubber vines appear to be ‘sleeper weeds’ in the sense that many years may elapse from their escape and naturalisation to becoming invasive and problematic (
The Australian experience shows that CBC can be successful in controlling rubber vine invasions, provided the invasive Cryptostegia species and biotype is correctly matched with a respective pathotype of the rust M. cryptostegiae. Hopefully, this success can be replicated in Brazil and, potentially, other countries affected by invasive rubber vines should they embrace this control approach in the future. Nonetheless, the message would appear to be that, despite its attraction as an ornamental and perceived usefulness as a source of rubber, caution should be exercised concerning their potential to become invasive wherever the two species have been introduced, as well as posing a threat to human health, in addition to that of livestock and herbivores, in general, due to toxic glycosides in the latex (
Marion Seier and Harry Evans conceptualised and put together the initial drafts of the manuscript. Alessandro Rapini, Marion Seier and Kate Pollard collated, validated and curated species distribution data. All authors reviewed, edited and approved the final manuscript.
Oriel Herrera and Istvan Major (deceased) first detected and reported the Cryptostegia invasion in Brazil and, thus, played a pivotal role in the inception of the current biocontrol programme. We would like to acknowledge the support of SC Johnson, as well as of the Government of Ceará and the Syndicate of Carnaúba Wax Refiners, Brazil, for this programme. We also thank the anonymous reviewers of this manuscript.
Financial support for this work for Marion Seier, Kate Pollard and Harry Evans was received from SC Johnson & Son, Inc. Grant Ref. # 25731; Alessandro Rapini was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico” (Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) (Productivity Fellowship no. 307396/2019-3).
CABI is an international intergovernmental organisation and we gratefully acknowledge the core financial support from our member countries (and lead agencies) including the United Kingdom (Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office), China (Chinese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs), Australia (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research), Canada (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada), Netherlands (Directorate-General for International Cooperation) and Switzerland (Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation). See https://www.cabi.org/about-cabi/who-we-work-with/key-donors/ for full details.