Goldson Stephen L, Barratt Barbara I P, Armstrong Karen F
Bio-Protection Research Centre, Lincoln UniversityCanterbury, New Zealand; Biocontrol and Biosecurity Group, AgResearchCanterbury, New Zealand.
Biocontrol and Biosecurity Group, AgResearch Otago, New Zealand.
Front Plant Sci. 2016 Nov 15;7:1670. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01670. eCollection 2016.
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 biosecurity, advancement may include increased and informed vigilance by farmers, pheromone traps and resistant plants to slow invasion. Increasingly, there is also the potential for more use of improved population dispersal models and surveillance strategies including unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as emerging techniques to determine invasive pest genomes and their geographical origins.
为保护高产草原免受病虫害侵袭,有效的边境前规划和边境干预措施必不可少。生物安全防控失败必然需要进行昂贵且困难的根除工作,或者采取长期且往往效果不佳的管理策略。相比之下,对于那些具有直接经济和/或社会价值的植物,且相关害虫通常位于分布相对有限的寄主植物地上部分,公众和政治对此感兴趣的部门更有可能进行早期干预。在此情况下,生物安全监测和应对措施能够轻松设计出来。相反,由固有单位价值较低的植物构成的牧场几乎没有美学价值(即便有也微乎其微)。然而,鉴于新西兰牧场面积广阔以及相关产业的价值,这些植物具有巨大的经济重要性。此外,由于新西兰的田园生态系统缺乏对入侵和侵扰的生物抗性,其易受侵害性加剧。再者,鉴于牧场面积巨大,由于单位面积成本以及使用农药可能造成污染,干预选项受到限制。畜牧产品的生物安全风险与水果不同,例如水果至少部分入侵途径能够被识别且风险能够被评估。通过畜牧部门途径做到这一点的能力大幅降低,因为风险生物更多是通过搭便车途径传入,这些途径分散且多样。此外,草原生态系统内的牧场害虫通常难以察觉,其幼虫阶段往往在地下。这些特征使得检测和应对工作格外困难。这一情况的后果可能会给本就日益增加的生产集约化和气候变化压力雪上加霜。本综述探讨了牧场生物安全面临的独特挑战以及应对现有困难可采取的措施。虽然没有万灵药,且在边境前和边境处改善牧场生物安全的机会有限,但进展可能包括农民提高并明智地保持警惕、使用性诱捕器和抗性植物来减缓入侵。越来越多地,还可能更多地利用改进的种群扩散模型和监测策略,包括无人驾驶飞机,以及用于确定入侵害虫基因组及其地理来源的新兴技术。