View
324
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SESSION 1: STRENGTHENING BORDER BIOSECURITY
Plant pest impacts:a common set of metrics
Kylie Ireland
biosecurity built on science
Plant pest impacts:a common set of metrics
Kylie Ireland
Postdoctoral Fellow
Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre
Pierce’s disease
Sudden Oak Death
Asian Gypsy Moth
Huanglongbing
Texas root rot
Oriental Fruit Fly
Plum curculio
False codling moth
Peach X disease
Brown rot
Verticillium wilt
Asian citrus psyllid
Vegetable leaf miner
European canker
Guava rust (exotic strain)
Cotton aphid
Tomato leaf miner
Tarnished plant bug
Apple maggot
Blackline
Tomato ringspot virusJapanese beetle
Brown marmorated stink bug
biosecurity built on science
Predicting High Impact Pests
What is most likely THE next big pest?
Identify priority pathways & pest traits
Support effective resource allocation
Pathways & Risk Assessment Framework for High-Impact Species (PRAFHIS)
High Impact?
biosecurity built on science
What is Impact?
# ?
% ?
Proportion?
Ratio ?
Impacts / Consequences / Effects
Small -> Medium -> Large
Minor -> Major (5%) -> Massive
Low -> Moderate -> High
Important
Severe
Serious
Extreme
Nationally Significant / National Interest
biosecurity built on science
Plant-production specific
- Socio-economic, trade & market driven
Measurable metrics
Independent of biological/pathway characteristics
Cross taxa
- Pathogens & Insects +…
Spatio-temporal variability
- Past, current & potential
Alien & native
A common set of metrics
biosecurity built on science
Flexible – in development & application
Transparent
Harmonising
Easy to use
Integration with new & existing tools
- ACERA – Prioritising Plant Pests
- DAWR – Risk-Return Resource Allocation (RRRA) model
- ABARES – NEBRA classification
End-user needs
biosecurity built on science
Plant protection
Economic assessment parameters
- Cook et al.
Risk assessment guidance
- IPPC, EPPO, DAWR, MPI….
Policy practitioner discussions
- AU & NZ
Score amalgamation
- Holt et al.
Integrating academic advances
Environmental Impact
Blackburn et al. 2014A unified classification of alien species based on the magnitude of their environmental impacts
Hawkins et al. 2015Framework and guidelines for implementing the proposed IUCN Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT)
Class. Framework
Uncertainty
Score amalgamation
biosecurity built on science
20 Metrics – 18 “Measurable”
Primary response
Investment
Yield loss
Success
Mid to long term response
Economic injury level
Control costs
Yield reduction
*Feas. of Management
Cultivar loss
Cultivar recovery
Spatio-temporal
Distribution
Maximum area affected
Frequency
*Reversibility
Market-driven
*Host crop value
*Market access
Alternate market avail.
Area freedom loss
Treatments
Price discount
Quality loss
biosecurity built on science
MetricMin. Conc.
(MC = 0)Minor
(MN = 1)Moderate (MO = 2)
Major (MR = 3)
Massive (MV = 4)
Market-driven
Host crop value (% total plant industry)
≤ 0.01 % >0.01 - 0.1 % > 0.1 - 1 % > 1 – 10 % > 10 %
Market access change (loss/change of market share)
No change Minor
< 5 %
Moderate
> 5 - 20 %
Major
> 20 - 50 %
All Major
> 50 %
e.g. Rhizoctonia sp. Karnal bunt, wheat, AU/NZ *potential
Fruit flies, hort, AU/NZ
“Disruptor” Metrics & Classes
0
0
biosecurity built on science
“Disruptor” Metrics & Classes
MetricMin. Conc.
(MC = 0)Minor
(MN = 1)Moderate (MO = 2)
Major (MR = 3)
Massive (MV = 4)
Spatio-temporal
Reversibility Temporary, ≤ 1 year
Temporary, > 1 - 5 years
Temporary, > 5 -15 years
Ongoing - NOexcl. alt. cropping
Ongoing - YESexcl. alt. cropping
e.g. Citrus canker,QLD, 2004-9
Foc TR4 (Panama), banana, global
Bacterial wilt, hort., global
Mid to long term management
Feasibility of management *readily avail. &cost-effective
Not required Rarely requires targeted control
Existing approaches adequate
Barriers to uptake and adoption
Cannot using existing
approaches
e.g. Rhizoctonia spp., multiple crops,
global
Fusarium head blight, wheat, AU
Current rust strains, wheat, AU
Med. Fly, hort., WA
Myrtle rust, hort& forestry?, AU
biosecurity built on science
SNAPSHOT!
Pest event details:- Pest identity
- Host(s)
- Location
- Time period
- Assessor(s)
- Notes
Data deficient
Not applicable
Data Sheet = TRANSPARENCY
Everett et al. 2011Australasian Plant Dis. Notes (2011) 6:67–71
Event details HIGH (0.705; DD = 0.00; MEDIUM) ^Pest: Kiwifruit canker; Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae (Psa) (Bacteria) – ExoticHost(s): KiwifruitLocation: New Zealand
Time period:
2010-2015
Assessor(s): Joy Tyson, David Logan, Lisa Jamieson – Plant and Food Research New ZealandNotes: This assessment focuses on the primary response periodMetric Class* Decision notes ScoreDisruptor 0.625Crop value MR 245 M, 2-3% 3Management MR 3Market access MN Immediate loss of access to all countries for
Actinidia nursery stock from New Zealand.Psa was already present in major growing regions of Italy, France, China and Chile
1
Reversibility MR Impact ongoing 3Spatiotemporal 0.938Distribution MV 4Max. area MV 4Frequency MV 4Reversibility MR Disruptor 3Market-driven 0.458Crop value MR Disruptor 3Market access MO Disruptor 2
Alt. market MO ? Capture initial closing markets 2
Area freedom MV 4
Treatments MO More change needed initially? 2
Price discount MC 0Quality loss MC 0
Primary response 0.917Investment MV Containment measures. Destruction of heavily
infected vines.Large investment in research.
4
Yield lossMR
? Expect more loss as gold pushed out. Likely higher than this in those first two years
3
Success
MV
MPI and the kiwifruit industry tried to contain Psato the incursion site/area (Te Puke); these containment measures failed. Spread to all growing regions by 2012
4
Mid to long-term management 0.750EIL N/A -
Control costsN/A
Removal of heavily infected vines. Large amounts of copper applied.
-
Yield reduc. N/A -
Management MR Disruptor 3Cv loss MR 3
biosecurity built on science
Discrimination- Spatial
- Temporal
- High/low impact
Future work- Further testing
Spatio-temporal scales
Expand taxa/systems- e.g. weeds, animal prod.
- Scoring Weighting, decision making- DCME (Liu & Cook)
Conditional probabilities
Thresholds….
Event details
Pest Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae., Psa (Bacteria)
Host(s)Actinidia deliciosa, Green kiwifruit, less susceptible;
A. chinensis ‘Hort16A’, Gold kiwifruit, highly susceptible
Location North Island, New Zealand
Time period 2010-2012 2010-2015
Impact class (score) High (0.705) High (0.674)
Uncertainty (DD) 0.00 0.05
Confidence Medium Medium
Disruptor 0.625 0.625
Crop value 3 3
Management 3 3
Market access 1 1
Reversibility 3 3
Spatiotemporal 0.938 0.938
Distribution 4 4
Max. area 4 4
Frequency 4 4
*Reversibility 3 3
Market-driven 0.458 0.396
*Crop value 3 3
*Market access 2 1
Alt. market 2 1
Area freedom 4 4
Treatments 2 1
Price discount 0 0
Quality loss 0 0
Primary response 0.917 0.750
Investment 4 3
Yield loss 3 2
Success 4 4
Mid to long-term management 0.750 0.750
EIL N/A DD
Control costs N/A 2
Yield reduction N/A 4
*Management 3 3
Cv loss 3 3
Cv recovery 3 3
Validation?
Everett et al. 2011Australasian Plant Dis. Notes (2011) 6:67–71
biosecurity built on science
What next….? Please, get involved!
Petra Kuhne
rt
Metric system w’shops- Validate & improve
PRAFHIS- Analysis of predictors
of high impact pests
- Risk assessment framework
End-users engage!
biosecurity built on science
For more information, or to join the PRAFHIS email list, please email [email protected]
Please, get involved! End users….Engage!