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

Seaweek 2012, Cawthron Institute

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.
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
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
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
42. www.ianskipworth.com
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”)
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)
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
63. 40 000?
65. ASSOCIATED RESEARCH  Biocontrol efficacy  Urchin persistence at release sites  Colonization of adjacent areas  Assess non-target effects
66. Conclusions and future research