Search results

To protect productive grasslands from pests and diseases, effective pre- and at-border planning and interventions are necessary. Biosecurity failure inevitably requires expensive and difficult eradication, or long-term and often quite ineffective management strategies. This is compared to the early intervention more likely for sectors where there is public and political interest in plants of immediate economic and/or social value, and where associated pests are typically located above-ground on host plantings of relatively limited distribution. Here, biosecurity surveillance and responses can be readily designed. In contrast, pastures comprising plants of low inherent unit value create little, if any, esthetic interest. Yet, given the vast extent of pasture in New Zealand and the value of the associated industries, these plants are of immense economic importance. Compounding this is the invasibility of New Zealand's pastoral ecosystems through a lack of biotic resistance to incursion and invasion. Further, given the sheer area of pasture, intervention options are limited because of costs per unit area and the potential for pollution if pesticides are used. Biosecurity risk for pastoral products differs from, say, that of fruit where at least part of an invasive pathway can be recognized and risks assessed. The ability to do this via pastoral sector pathways is much reduced, since risk organisms more frequently arrive via hitchhiker pathways which are diffuse and varied. Added to this pasture pests within grassland ecosystems are typically cryptic, often with subterranean larval stages. Such characteristics make detection and response particularly difficult. The consequences of this threaten to add to the already-increasing stressors of production intensification and climate change. This review explores the unique challenges faced by pasture biosecurity and what may be done to confront existing difficulties. While there is no silver bullet, and limited opportunity pre- and at-border for improving pasture ...

AbstractClassical biological control, the introduction of natural enemies to new environments to control unwanted pests or weeds, is, despite numerous successful examples, associated with rising concerns about unwanted environmental impacts such as population decline of nontarget species. Recognition of these biosafety risks is globally increasing, and prerelease assessments of biological control agents (BCAs) have become more rigorous in many countries. We review the current approaches to risk assessment for BCAs as used in Australasia, Europe, and North America. Traditionally, these assessments focus on providing assurance about the specificity of a proposed BCA, generally via a list of suitable versus nonsuitable hosts determined through laboratory specificity tests (i.e., by determining the BCA's physiological host range). The outcome of interactions of proposed agents in the natural environment can differ from laboratory‐based predictions. Potential nontarget host testing may be incomplete, additional ecological barriers under field conditions may limit encounters between BCA and nontargets or reduce attack levels, and BCAs could disperse to habitats beyond those used by the target species and adversely affect nontarget species. We advocate for the adoption of more comprehensive, ecologically‐based, probabilistic risk assessment approaches to BCA introductions. An example is provided using a Bayesian network that can integrate information on probabilities and uncertainties of a BCA to spread and establish in new habitats, interact with nontarget species in these habitats, and eventually negatively impact the populations of these nontarget species. Our new model, Biocontrol Adverse Impact Probability Assessment, aims to be incorporated into a structured decision‐making framework to support national regulatory authorities.