1 / 19

Biocontrol of Parthenium: Monitoring and Evaluation

This article covers the biocontrol of Parthenium weed in Australia. It discusses the history, monitoring, and evaluation of introduced agents such as weevils, moths, and fungi to manage the invasive plant. The importance of monitoring and evaluation methods, as well as the challenges faced, are highlighted.

aidan-neal
Télécharger la présentation

Biocontrol of Parthenium: Monitoring and Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Biocontrol of Parthenium Monitoring and Evaluation K. Dhileepan Segun Osunkoya Rachel McFadyen Invasive Plant Science Biosecurity Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry Ecosciences Precinct Brisbane, Australia

  2. Biological control • Initiated in 1974 • Native range surveys (1976-1996) • 9 insects + 2 fungi introduced • 8 insects + 2 fungi established • 5 agents widespread & effective • Vary seasonally and temporally NQ CQ SEQ

  3. Smicronyx weevil • Zygogramma beetle • Epiblema moth • Stobaera bug • Conotrachelus weevil • Winter rust • Summer rust • Bucculatrix moth • Listronotus weevil • Carmenta moth

  4. History • 1994 • 2004 • 1974 • 2014 • 1984 • 1996 • 1976 • Native range survey • 1999 • 1979 • Host specificity tests • 1980 • 2004 • Field release • 2014 • 1980 • Monitoring • 1996 • 2000 • Evaluation

  5. LAG-TIME: Introduction and establishment • Smicronyx • Summer rust • Zygogramma • 1994 • 2004 • 1974 • 2014 • 1984 • Carmenta • Winter rust • Epiblema & Listronotus • Conotrachelus • Evaluation

  6. Monitoring & Evaluation • Smicronyx weevil - yet to be evaluated • MONITORING • Establishment and spread • Abundance and damage • Individual plant level • Population level • Local and regional scale • EVALUATION • Baseline (pre-release) data • Impact assessment • Plant population level • Ecosystem response • Economic assessment

  7. Monitoring & evaluation – why? • Measure the success/failure • Estimate economic benefits (if successful) • Why biocontrol failed (if failed) • Satisfy Government/funding bodies • Increase public profile • Attract funding for future research • Sense of achievement and satisfaction

  8. Monitoring • North Qld (3 sites) • Central Qld (12 -16 sites) • Since 2004 (annual survey) • Parthenium incidence • Agent abundance • Pasture cover • South-east Qld (2 sites) • Commenced in 2014 • Monthly sampling • Agent introduction • Seed bank • Stomphastis sp. nova

  9. Monitoring • Summer rust Incidence & abundance across 19 sites since 2004

  10. Evaluation • Before & after-release • Simulation experiments • Performance vs. damage • Exclusion trials • Long-term changes • target weed population • beneficial plant communities • seed-bank dynamics • temporal and spatial changes • Stomphastis sp. nova

  11. Evaluation - difficulties • Different methods • All not suitable for all agents • All methods have deficiencies • Labor intensive and expensive • Extensive & intensive studies required • Dependent of community help • At the mercy of weather conditions • Erratic (but realistic) results

  12. Before & after release • Variable establishment times for different agents • Variable time taken for the agent to become abundant • long-term pre-release data often not available • Long-term impact studies not usually followed • 1996 • 1998

  13. Simulation experiments • Glasshouse & field experiments • Evaluation at plant level only • Not always reflect field situation • Bench mark for field evaluation • Other biotic factors excluded • Multi-location trial is beneficial • Zygogramma beetle • Epiblema moth • Listronotus weevil • Summer rust • Conotrachelus weevil C = control; R = rosette; PF = pre-flowering; F = flowering

  14. Damage levels vs. plant performance • Suitable to evaluate at individual plant level • Not suitable when damage level is dependent on plant vigor • Difficult to relate with changes in weed population C = control; R = rosette; PF = pre-flowering; F = flowering; Ex = excluded; Es = escaped

  15. Biocontrol exclusion • Field cage • affect plant vigor • influence the agent performance • long-term maintenance difficult • Not useful for pathogens • Pesticides • residue problem • labor intensive and expensive • affected by weather condition

  16. Economic benefit • Buffel Grass • Blue Grass • Increase in feed (kg/ha) • 22.44 • 32.54 • Increase in cattle (hd/ha) • 0.0021 • 0.0020 • Economic benefits ($/ha) • $0.82 • $0.78 • Cost benefit = $ 2.09 • (based on 2000 value)

  17. Before commencing evaluation • Late 1980s Do we need pre-release data? Should we study seed-bank? If so, for how long? How long to evaluate? 20 years good - 5 year intervals Snap-shots over time When to start evaluation? Start now!!

  18. Where to start!Release efforts in climatically favourable areas (CLIMEX models). • Seed bank (once in 3-5 years) + above-ground studies • In Africa study areas more likely to be cropping (disturbed) areas • Opportunity to compare cropping & non-cropping areas • Beneficial to establish ‘refuge’ for biocontrol agents • Performance across low and high ‘altitudes’ • In Australia and India Z. bicolorata outbreaks declined over time. • Need to check if this will happen in Africa as well.

  19. Good luck • We would be happy to help in your monitoring and evaluation studies

More Related