Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

Biocontrol in marine environments: Can pests’ natural enemies stop their spread?

13c1e126e91944499df10d649c4aeec9?s=47 jatalah
March 03, 2012

Biocontrol in marine environments: Can pests’ natural enemies stop their spread?

Seaweek 2012, Cawthron Institute

13c1e126e91944499df10d649c4aeec9?s=128

jatalah

March 03, 2012
Tweet

Transcript

  1. BIOCONTROL IN MARINE ENVIRONMENTS: CAN PESTS’ NATURAL ENEMIES STOP THEIR

    SPREAD? JAVIER ATALAH and EMMA NEWCOMBE CAWTHRON INSTITUTE, NELSON 6 of March 2012
  2. BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS  Alien or non-native species are intentionally or

    accidentally released into new environments  One of the greatest threats to the world's oceans  Ecological and economic impacts  ~148 marine species introduced to NZ
  3. RESEARCH THEMES AT BIOSECURITY GROUP Assessing and reducing risk of

    new international introductions Detect and eradicate new incursions Reduce domestic spread Understand and mitigate adverse effects Management goals from prevention to cure
  4. CAWTHRON TEAM…. Biosecurity team leader: Grant Hopkins Senior scientist and

    consultant: Barrie Forrest Kate Schmanski (PhD) Risk Assessment: Chris Batstone Novel mitigation tools: Javier Atalah Didemnum ecology & impacts: Lauren Fletcher (PhD) Hydrodynamic & spread modelling: Ben Knight Biocontrol : Holly Bennett (PhD) Social science: Marg O’Brien Taxonomy: Rod Asher et al.
  5. None
  6. None
  7. THE CRITERIA FOR NIS BY CHAPMAN AND CARLTON (1991): (1)

    Appearance in local regions where not found previously (2) Initial expansion of local range subsequent to introduction (3) Association with human mechanism(s) of dispersal (4) Association with or dependency on other NIS (5) Prevalence on or restriction to new or artificial environment(s) (6) Relatively restricted distribution on a continent compared to distributions of native species (7) Widespread disjunct global distribution (8) Insufficient passive or active dispersal capabilities to account for the observed distribution of the species (9) Exotic evolutionary origin
  8. INTRODUCTION PATHWAYS: SHIPPING Ballast waters Sea Chest Vessel fouling

  9. INTRODUCTION PATHWAYS: AQUACULTURE Salmon farms Mussel farms

  10. Targeted surveillance (MAFBNZ/NIWA)  Designed for specific species  Targets

    high risk locations and habitats  QA/QC (consistent with Australian Marine Monitoring programme).  Rapid ID and reporting Bluff Nelson Tauranga Wellington Auckland - Port of Auckland - Viaduct basin - Westhaven marina - Bayswater marina Lyttelton Otago Whangarei Picton/Havelock Opua Marina Images courtesy of MAF Biosecurity NZ
  11. DETECTION LIMITS IN ENVIRONMNETAL SAMPLES  Water : plankton net

     Sediment: grab sampler  Biofilm: 3 weeks  Benthic Assemblage: 3 months
  12. MULTISPECIES DETECTION NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCING

  13. MULTI-SPECIES DETECTION WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE PROCESSOR

  14. MANAGEMENT OPTIONS: PHYSICAL TREATMENTS Hull wraps Wrapping above high tide

    mark First diver applying plastic wrapping Rotating brush
  15. Novel antifouling tools  PhD research to ID novel natural

    compounds that inhibit the development of problem fouling species
  16. MANAGEMENT OPTIONS: CHEMICAL TREATMENTS  TBT paints (banned)  Antifouling

    paint (Cu + Zn)  Bleach/Lime  Acetic acid
  17. NOVEL MANAGEMENT TOOLS: BIOCONTROL  Frequent practice in terrestrial and

    freshwater systems  Lack of research investigating the feasibility of biocontrol agents for the management of non-indigenous species (NIS) in marine habitats
  18. • Classical – introduce natural enemy from the pest’s native

    range • Neoclassical – introducing a NIS to control native pest • Augmentative biocontrol – enhancing natural enemies to control pests TYPES OF BIOCONTROL
  19. NATURAL ENEMY MECHANISMS  Predation  Grazing  Larval interception

     Space preemption  Competition  Parasitism
  20. IDEAL TRAITS  High consumption rate per capita  Rapid

    population growth  Generalist vs specialist  Potentially farmed and enhanced  Resistant to changing conditions  Minimal non-target effects
  21. Spread Infested vector source Natural habitats Other values, e.g. shellfish

    aquaculture Adverse effects Biocontrol to reduce propagule pressure Biocontrol as mitigation tool
  22.  Caging experiment in a marina  Target fouling assemblages,

    including several NIS  Four biocontrol agent tested:  Sea urchin (Evechinus chloroticus)  Cushion star (Patiriella regularis)  Cat’s eye (Turbo smaragdus)  Limpets (Cellana radians)  Cook’s turban (Cookia sulcata)  Monthly photo quadrat sampling METHODS
  23. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN n = 3 Control Cage Control Control Cage

    Control Fouled structures Defouled structures
  24. None
  25. Time (month) 0 1 2 3 Total Cover (%) 0

    20 40 60 80 100 Control EFFECT ON ESTABLISHED FOULING
  26. EVECHINUS BEGINNING OF EXPERIMENT

  27. EVECHINUS EFFECT AFTER 3 MONTHS

  28. PATIRIELLA EFFECT AFTER 3 MONTHS

  29. Time (month) 0 1 2 3 Mean fouling % cover

    (±SE) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Control EFFECT ON DEFOULED STRUCTURES (PREVENTION)
  30. TURBO EFFECT AFTER 3 MONTHS

  31. PATIRIELLA EFFECT AFTER 3 MONTHS

  32. CONTROL AFTER 3 MONTHS

  33. Anemones as Biocontrol

  34. Why anemones ?  Compete for space  Predate on

    invertebrate larvae  Can monopolise space at farms  Considered as “benign” fouling
  35. LAB EXPERIMENT Anemone cover (%) 0 10 20 30 40

    50 60 Number of Bugula larvae settled 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Low Medium High
  36. None
  37. FIELD EXPERIMENT: SALMON FARM

  38. FIELD EXPERIMENT

  39. A real world application: Undaria invasion in Fiordland

  40. BACKGROUND  Undaria incursion during vector management strategy development process

     Remoteness implies manageable vectors, but difficult response  A government joint-agency response was activated  Sea urchins as part of integrated pest management 1987
  41. 2

  42. www.ianskipworth.com

  43. None
  44. None
  45. None
  46. None
  47. None
  48. None
  49. http://naaupaquaicbas.wordpress.com/i-ciclo-de-conferencias-e- formacao-naaup/kelp-florestas-de-laminarias-o-que-sao/ Dr. Kent Simmons, University of Winnipeg 6 months

    1 - 3 years
  50. WHY DON’T WE WANT UNDARIA?  Competitively superior (under some

    conditions)  Canopy species (Ecosystem engineer)  Ephemeral (changes in ecosystem stability)  Fouling species (“the gorse of the sea”)
  51. None
  52. None
  53. None
  54. INTEGRATED PEST RESPONSE  4 – 6 weekly surveillance 

    Encapsulation of target areas of seabed (with chlorine added)  Manual removal  Sea urchin biocontrol of target areas (< 2 ha)
  55. None
  56. None
  57. None
  58. None
  59. None
  60. None
  61.  Urchin barrens are usually considered a bad thing because

    seaweeds (which function as important ecosystem engineers) are destroyed  BUT – turns out this might be a useful tool for killing off an ecosystem engineer we don’t want
  62. None
  63. 40 000?

  64. None
  65. ASSOCIATED RESEARCH  Biocontrol efficacy  Urchin persistence at release

    sites  Colonization of adjacent areas  Assess non-target effects
  66. Conclusions and future research