Knowledge brokering in biosecurity: How international ...€¦ · Lye, JC (2017) Knowledge brokering in biosecurity: How international linkages and learnings can help us build a better

Knowledge brokering in biosecurity:

How international linkages and

learnings can help us build a better

system

Jessica Lye (2017)

Supported by the AgriFutures Rural Women’s Award

and the Department of Agriculture and Water

Resources Stronger Biosecurity and Quarantine

Initiative (SBQI).

About the author

Dr Jessica Lye GAICD leads the Science & Extension project team at AUSVEG Ltd., Peak Industry Body

for Australian vegetable and potato growers. Areas of expertise include plant biosecurity policy, exotic

pest incursion response, agricultural engagement and extension, science communication, and

promotion of agricultural innovation and practice change.

Jessica is currently a member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and the Australian

Women in Agriculture. In 2016, Jessica received the AgriFutures Australia Rural Women’s Award

(Victoria), an award that identifies and supports emerging leaders who have the desire, commitment

and leadership potential to make a greater contribution to primary industries and rural communities.

Jessica currently leads several industry levy funded projects encompassing agrichemical needs and

priorities, sustainable farming, exotic plant pest management, plant pest surveillance, and farm

biosecurity. She is the industry representative on the Consultative Committee for Emergency Plant

Pests, and sits on multiple committees, including the Commonwealth Imported Seed Regulation

Working Group (Department of Agriculture & Water Resources), and the Farm Productivity and

Resource Use Strategic Investment Advisory Panel for the Vegetable R&D Levy (Hort Innovation).

Acknowledgements

The author would thank the following for support and funding for this project:

AgriFutures Australia (Rural Women’s Award)

Commercial sponsors of the Rural Women’s Award, including Westpac

The Australian Federal Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (Stronger Biosecurity &

Quarantine Initiative)

AUSVEG Ltd

Plant Health Australia

Hosting farms and organisations in the US

Forward

From 4-29 July 2017 the author travelled to horticultural regions along the east and west coast of the

United States (US), meeting with growers, researchers and government departments to investigate

how effective plant biosecurity and pest management is achieved in the US at the farm, regional,

state and national level.

The motivation to complete this study tour arose from experiences during the Cucumber Green

Mottle Mosaic virus incursion in 2014-15, whereby international expertise proved invaluable to

responding to the incident, and also with ensuing industry-led research into the virus.

It is the intent that outputs arising from this tour will result in a raised industry awareness about

exotic horticultural pests that may pose a threat to Australian production, which will increase the

chances of early reporting, detection, and response.

This pest information may also inform Australian investments in biosecurity preparedness activities

and guide prioritisation of information that must be extended to industry and biosecurity personnel.

Additionally, information captured in relation to effective US biosecurity initiatives, pest-management

decision-aid systems, and biosecurity resources may also be used to develop similar initiatives and

resources, which would be adapted to suit Australia’s needs.

Finally, this tour developed professional relationships with US biosecurity personnel, researchers and

growers, with the intent of increasing information sharing and fostering collaborations to support

eradication and management of economically significant plant pests.

Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1

Project Plan ............................................................................................................................................. 1

Scope and Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 2

Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3

The Importance of Food Security ........................................................................................................ 3

What is Plant Biosecurity? .................................................................................................................. 3

Australian Biosecurity ......................................................................................................................... 4

Current Challenges .............................................................................................................................. 5

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Bursary Use ....................................................................................................................................... 12

Findings ................................................................................................................................................. 12

US Biosecurity ................................................................................................................................... 12

Topic 1: Common horticultural pests in the US ................................................................................ 15

Topic 2: Biosecurity initiatives in urban & peri-urban areas............................................................. 20

Topic 3: Exotic pest eradication and management responses ......................................................... 24

Topic 4: Biosecurity & pest management decision-making tools for industry and government ..... 29

Discussion.............................................................................................................................................. 31

Communication & Extension ................................................................................................................ 36

Outcomes .............................................................................................................................................. 37

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 37

Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 38

Pest Preparedness............................................................................................................................. 38

Biosecurity Capacity and Capability .................................................................................................. 39

Urban Biosecurity.............................................................................................................................. 39

The Role of Councils .......................................................................................................................... 40

Project Challenges and Solutions .......................................................................................................... 40

Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................. 41

Professional Development .................................................................................................................... 41

References ............................................................................................................................................ 43

Additional Resources ............................................................................................................................ 44

P a g e | 1

Lye, JC (2017) Knowledge brokering in biosecurity: How international linkages and learnings can help us build a better system

Executive Summary

From 4-29 July 2017 the author travelled to horticultural regions along the east and west coast of the

United States (US), meeting with growers, researchers and government departments to investigate

how effective plant biosecurity and pest management is achieved in the US at the farm, regional,

state and national level. States visited were California, Oregon, Washington State, Pennsylvania,

Delaware, West Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. Over a 25 day period 4000km of US highway was

travelled, and 30 meetings were undertaken.

Study tour major stakeholders (industry, government, and researchers) were kept informed of tour

progress through regular e-bulletins, mini reports, and over social media. Extension of findings to

industry was ramped up shortly after conclusion of the tour with the commencement of a series of

biosecurity workshops in Australian states. This final report has been developed for use by

AgriFutures Australia and interested horticultural industries. In this context, ‘industry’ encapsulates

growers, crop protection consultants, wholesalers, farm supply businesses, fresh produce

transporters, and distributers.

It is the intent that outputs arising from this tour will result in a raised industry awareness about

exotic horticultural pests that may pose a threat to Australian primary production, which will increase

the chances of early reporting, detection, and response. This pest information may also inform

Australian investments in biosecurity preparedness activities and guide prioritisation of information

that must be extended to industry and biosecurity personnel. Additionally, information captured in

relation to effective US biosecurity initiatives, pest-management decision-aid systems, and biosecurity

resources may also be used to develop similar initiatives and resources, which would be adapted to

suit Australian needs.

Finally, this tour developed professional relationships with US biosecurity personnel, researchers and growers, with the intent of increasing information sharing and fostering collaborations to support eradication and management of economically significant plant pests.

Project Plan

In November 2015 an overseas study tour was proposed, followed by appropriate extension activities

to vegetable and potato industry stakeholders. At the time of development the intent of the project

was two-fold: 1. Gather new information around existing and new High Priority Plant Pests (HPPs),

management and eradication methods, impacts on overseas industries, risk pathways to Australia,

and 2. Facilitate transfer of this knowledge to Australian stakeholders.

The original intent was to focus on gaining information on key High Priority Pests that are currently

identified as high risk threats to the Australian vegetable and potato industries. It was proposed that

the tour would run for three weeks and include visits to research institutions and growing operations.

The original itinerary proposed encompassed a visit to New Zealand in order to focus on Zebra Chip

management and the United States to focus on Brown Marmorated Stink Bug and Vegetable

Leafminer (an insect that has recently been detected on the Australian mainland). South America was

also a possibility for incorporation into the tour, as the International Potato Center, Peru, carries out

research on potato pests and diseases, and protects the largest potato bank in the world.

P a g e | 2


Over 2016 the objectives of the study tour were influenced by experiences the author gained during

certain high impact biosecurity events, including the Cucumber Green Mottle Mosaic Virus (CGMMV)

and Tomato Potato Psyllid (TPP) incursions in Northern Territory and Western Australia respectively.

In addition, increased detections of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (BMSB) in break bulk shipping

containers had been reported by the Australian Federal Department of Agriculture and Water

Resources in 2015 and 2016. Based on these factors, as well as production seasons, timeframe, and

budget it was decided to focus on the US for the entirety of the tour.

These biosecurity incursions led the author to analyse exactly what information was needed by

industry and government in order to more effectively manage CGMMV and TPP, and what

information would be needed in order to eradicate or manage BMSB if it were to be detected on the

mainland. In essence, what information and initiatives would be useful from a preparedness

perspective?

Over 2016 it became evident that the scope of the original project proposal required re-evaluation as

the knowledge gained from the study tour would not only directly benefit the Australian vegetable

and potato industries. In the biosecurity space no industry works in a vacuum. Many plant pests, such

as the Vegetable Leafminer, have wide host ranges and can impact on other industries, such as

nurseries and gardens, and also on native plants. Information gained from overseas researchers and

growers would thus have far reaching, beneficial outcomes that would extend beyond the vegetable

and potato industries.

Additional funding supplied by the Australian Federal Department of Agriculture and Water Resources

through the Stronger Biosecurity & Quarantine Initiative led to the broadening out of study tour

scope to other horticultural commodities, such as pome fruit, citrus, and viticulture. Given the

breadth of horticultural industries found in the US, there was a high chance of collecting applicable

information.

During further development of the project plan it also became evident that the relationships formed

with overseas researchers would be a major outcome of the study tour. During the early stages of the

Cucumber Green Mottle Mosaic Virus incursion in 2014 governments and industry gained invaluable

information about the virus from Dr Aviv Dombrovsky from the Volcani Institute in Israel, a country

that has been managing and researching the virus since the 1990's. Identification of key plant pest

researchers in the US would potentially support faster and more effective eradication or management

responses in Australia.

These considerations led to consolidation of study tour scope and objectives outlined below.

Scope and Objectives

This study tour was an investigation into how effective plant biosecurity is achieved in the US at the farm, regional, state and national level. It focused on four broad topics:

1. Common horticultural pests in the US; 2. Biosecurity initiatives in urban and peri-urban areas; 3. Exotic pest eradication and management responses; and 4. Biosecurity and pest management decision-making tools for industry and government.

P a g e | 3


In collecting information on these topics, the Australian horticultural industry may then consider the

following questions relating to plant biosecurity: What should we be aware of? What should we be

doing? What can we learn from other experiences? What initiatives would benefit our industry?

Ultimately, it is intended that information acquired and consolidated from this tour will:

1. Raise industry awareness about exotic horticultural pests that may pose a threat to Australian

production;

2. Support informed decision-making when launching industry biosecurity preparedness

activities;

3. Develop international relationships so that collaborations may be created to support

eradication and management of economically significant plant pests.

Background

The Importance of Food Security Food Security is achieved when ‘all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to

sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and

healthy life’ (FOA 2005). The flipside (food insecurity) can lead to insufficient food, reduced access to

food, access to only low quality or unsafe food, anxiety and stress caused by the fear of running out of

food, or starvation when extreme. In Australia, we are lucky to regularly produce a substantial

domestic supply of high quality horticultural produce with 6,358,805 tonnes produced in 2015/16

(Fresh Logic, 2016). We even have enough to export, while still satisfying domestic consumers.

However, global food demand will rise alongside a growing global population, which is expected to

grow by 60 million people a year over the next 20 years, and the importance of agribusiness to the

Australian economy will rise with this demand (Deloitte, 2017).

It has been estimated that a 70 percent increase in global food production will be required by 2050 in

order to avoid global food insecurity (Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2015). This must be

achieved in the face of population growth, changing diets, climate change, water scarcity, less

farmers, reduced soil health, and pest pressure. It is indeed concerning that the Food and Agriculture

Organisation (FAO) estimates that between 20 and 40 percent of global crop yields are reduced each

year due to the damage wrought by plant pests and diseases. It is therefore, essential that our

biosecurity system is protected and regularly assessed for process and practice improvement.

What is Plant Biosecurity? Plant Biosecurity is a set of measures designed to protect a crop, crops or a sub-group of crops from

emergency plant pests at national, regional and individual farm levels (Plant Health Australia, 2005). It

is underpinned by a set of risk mitigation measures carried out at various points in the biosecurity

continuum, which encompasses pre-border (preparedness) and post-border (response and

management) activities (Figure 1):

1. Pre-entry measures may include laws prohibiting importation of species, or agreements with

other international exporters that they will take measures to remove or kill invasive species in

cargo shipped to Australia;

P a g e | 4


2. Port-of-entry measures include inspection and/or quarantine of cargo at ports of entry;

3. Rapid response may be required if a pest incursion is not prevented at pre-entry, or not

caught at a port-of-entry. The species may become established in low numbers at first. If

detected early enough and the species is believed to pose a significant threat, a rapid

response may be launched to try to contain or eradicate it;

4. In some cases, species may become too widely established for rapid response. If it is found

that the species is causing significant harm to the survival of native species, ecosystem

functions, agricultural crops, or human health, there are three main options: do nothing,

protect only high value areas via manual or chemical control means, or search for a biocontrol

that might reduce the unwanted impacts of the species (or a combination of these

strategies).

Detection and management of a pest becomes more difficult as a pest moves further into the

biosecurity continuum. Quarantined production and trade restrictions occur when all other

biosecurity measures in the system fail. It is therefore crucial that industry, government and the

community strive to support the system where we can.

Australian Biosecurity The Australian horticultural industries are free of many plant pests and diseases currently impacting

agriculture overseas. Australian seed potato is one example of a commodity that is highly sought after

by international trading partners due to our freedom from many potato diseases.

In Australia, the Federal Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (DAWR) develops and

implements pre-border plant biosecurity strategies. Pest Risk Assessments (PRAs) are routinely

undertaken by DAWR that assess the risks, impacts, establishment potential and likely transmission

method of major global plant pests. Biosecurity Import Risk Assessments (BIRAs) are also conducted

to determine pest risks associated with allowing certain imports to enter the country. Both PRAs and

Figure 1. Despite pre- and post-border mitigation tactics, some exotic pests become

established in country. At each stage of the continuum biosecurity personnel must

decide on appropriate action based on technical feasibility and costs-benefits to

industry and the community (image sourced from John Kabashima, University of

California Surf Coast Research and Extension Centre).

P a g e | 5


BIRAs guide DAWR in determining what pre-border biosecurity controls would achieve our

Appropriate Level of Protection (ALOP) while still facilitating trade.

Eradication or containment of nationally significant plant pests is undertaken with cost-sharing

between the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments, and industries that are signatories to

the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed. The Consultative Committee on Emergency Plant Pests

(CCEPP), made up of government and industry representatives, assesses the technical feasibility of

launching an eradication response for an exotic pest. Recommendations from the CCEPP are made to

a National Management Group, which has the task of assessing and endorsing, or not endorsing, any

recommendation. National plant pest responses are undertaken in line with PlantPlan, an operational

plan that must be followed to ensure consistency in actions, reporting and record keeping for any

response conducted within Australia.

It is the role of state agricultural departments to eradicate or contain pests that are already

established on the Australian mainland but may be regionally (not nationally) significant. These pests,

such as Queensland Fruit Fly, are often trade sensitive and can lead to high production impacts in key

agricultural regions.

Pests that are not regulated by the Federal governments or jurisdictions (not under official control)

will move to management, and industry must develop methods of controlling the pest in-field. Both

the Federal Government and horticultural industries contribute funding for research, development

and extension projects to aid in pest management. These projects are driven and managed by

industry through the Research & Development Corporations (RDCs). The RDC for most horticultural

industries is Horticulture Innovation Australia, although some industries, such as beekeeping, are

serviced by AgriFutures Australia.

Current Challenges In the 2014 report, ‘Australia’s Biosecurity Future’ it is noted that Australia faces a growing number

and complexity of biosecurity challenges and suggests that the current status quo (processes and

practices) may not be sufficient to combat these challenges in the future (CSIRO, 2014). Major

challenges include resourcing, an increasingly complex operating environment, pesticide resistance

and emergent strains, and globalisation.

Resourcing

For appropriate activities at each point in the biosecurity continuum to be carried out we need

resourcing and experience, however, expertise and associated resourcing in Australian plant

biosecurity is steadily becoming a limited commodity. Several recent high profile horticultural pest

outbreaks over the past three years have highlighted a deficit in state government biosecurity

capacity, as well as the need for greater biosecurity preparedness within Australian horticultural

industries.

In 2014, the Cucumber Green Mottle Mosaic Virus incursion resulted in over 20 cucurbit growers in

the Northern Territory being placed under strict quarantine for two growing seasons. In 2015, Varroa

jacobsoni was found in Townsville, representing a significant threat to industries that rely on

pollination. In 2017, Tomato Potato Psyllid was detected for the first time in Australia. Many had been

expecting the first detection to occur in the eastern states of Australia, possibly deposited by easterly

wind currents, or brought in by one of the millions of international travellers who land in eastern

seaboard airports each year. The psyllid was, in fact, found in a Perth vegetable garden.

P a g e | 6


A reduction in extension and biosecurity capacity in state governments over recent decades has led to

biosecurity personnel becoming generalists needing to ‘cover more bases’ rather than experts, and

resulted in industry becoming disengaged from state agricultural departments. A report from the

Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE) in 2012 assessed biosecurity capacity in the Western

Australian Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD), which was then

Western Australian Department of Primary Industries (WA DPI). According to the CofFEE report, the

steady reduction in the numbers of staff employed in delivering the department’s biosecurity

programs was obvious with 141 official redundancies recorded during the WA DPI restructure of

2012. One interviewee of the report noted ‘But a lot of the experts have [...] been let go. Like the

senior entomologist has been let go, the weather station expert they let go, the person who was the

most expert on bees and bee research has gone.’ In addition, a recent assessment of biosecurity

capacity in DPIRD following the TPP incursion further noted that ‘…too few staff had previous

experience of a major plant pest incursion response’ (BCWA, 2017).

A recent assessment of Biosecurity Queensland produced similar findings. This report noted that

change in recent years had tended to be responsive rather strategic, Biosecurity Queensland lacks

capacity and will need increased capability to transform and meet the needs of the future

(Queensland Biosecurity Capability Review, 2015).

The decline in extension and technical personnel in state departments dates back several decades. In

1982, the Balderstone Report recommended a reduction of federal government support for

agriculture. During this period the Commonwealth Extension Services Grants program was

discontinued, resulting in staff cuts at state levels nation-wide (Hunt et al. 2012). In 1996, the Nairn

Review noted that incursions of plant pests was approximately 10 times more than for animals over

the previous 25 years. In 2008, the Beale Review advocated a government-industry partnership

approach, but urged the states to avoid further reducing their capability in biosecurity.

Operating Environment

Our operating environment has become increasingly complex over the past 30 years with roles of

government and industry intertwined, and biosecurity activities being conducted at all levels:

national, state, regionally, and on the farm (Figure 2). Roles are increasingly shared between

government and industry. However, this is not necessarily accompanied by sufficient resourcing or

training for industry. The fragmented nature of Australian horticulture in particular, makes biosecurity

activities – particularly in regards to preparedness and response – difficult to carry out in a

coordinated fashion.

In addition, the face of the Australian biosecurity system is quickly evolving, and there is currently a

re-evaluation of who should take ownership of system components and determination of who is

‘responsible’ for maintaining good practice and decision making.

P a g e | 7


Plant agricultural industries in particular are being required to take an increasingly active role in the

space. Recent changes to key biosecurity legislation, such as the Federal, QLD and NSW Biosecurity

Bills, have made it clear that the Australian biosecurity system will soon be entering a new era. The

QLD and NSW Bills include a General Biosecurity Obligation (or Duty). This Obligation states that

parties must, to the best of their knowledge, take all possible precautions against spreading pests and

disease. The implementation of this Obligation will undoubtedly initiate changes in attitude toward

biosecurity responsibilities. Under this new paradigm, biosecurity responsibility will encompass all

stakeholders, rather than attributing biosecurity duties to the provinces of only government or

industry.

Pesticide Selective Pressure

As a result of continued applications over time a plant pest may evolve resistance to the insecticide

active chemical. The resistance allele becomes prolific in the pest population over time and,

therefore, the population becomes increasingly difficult to control at the labelled rate and frequency.

Pesticide resistance is now a global problem.

Following the introduction of synthetic organic insecticides in the 1940’s, such as DDT, it was not long

before the first cases of resistance were detected. By 1947, resistance to DDT was confirmed in

houseflies. Thereafter, with every new insecticide introduction (eg. cyclodienes, organophosphates,

carbamates, formamidines, pyrethroids, Bacillus thuringiensis, spinosyns and neonicotinoids) cases of

resistance have appeared 2 to 20 years after their introduction in a number of key pest species. This

phenomenon has been described as the ‘pesticide treadmill’.

From a biosecurity perspective this can lead to disruption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

programs, ineffective post-harvest treatments, and increased difficulty in eradicating or containment

of pests. Thus, pesticide resistance can hinder border controls, pest incursion responses, and

management strategies, and can throw up challenges at every point in our biosecurity continuum.

Two spotted mite, the distribution of this mite is close to global, is considered one of the most

resistant species in terms of the total number of pesticides to which populations have become

resistant. As it stands, the International Resistance Action Committee (IRAC) have determined it to

show resistance to seven pesticide groups.

Figure 2: Australian plant biosecurity authorities and operating environment. Dashed lines

indicate government contributions to levies and industry paying fee for service for border control

requirements. Source: Invasion curve modified from Craik et al. (2016) IGAB Independent Review

Panel.

P a g e | 8


Transmission pathways

As globalisation continues, our biosecurity system will come under increasing pressure. As described

in a 2016 research paper, CSIRO studied 1300 plant pests and global trade pathways to determine risk

of invasion for 126 countries. The study found that countries with diverse commodities and/or large

trade volumes represented the greatest source of invasive pests and pathogens (China and USA),

Australia has a relatively high likelihood of plant pest arrival, and as trade volumes increase pressures

from invasive species will intensify.

Methodology

Rather than focus and gain in-depth insight into one state or region, the tour was intended to support

a ‘broad brush’ approach to gain information on the four priority topics. This was a strategic decision

that recognised the diversity of geographies in which horticultural commodities are grown throughout

Australia, and are reflected in equivalent regions throughout the US. For example, the Willamette

Valley in Oregon shares geographical and climatic equivalencies with the Lindenow vegetable growing

region of Victoria, the Columbia Basin of Washington State bears similarities to the Yarra Valley, and

the San Joaquin Valley in California is equivocal to the Riverland of South Australia.

A list of meetings is displayed in Table 1. The tour was split into two components: 1. California,

Oregon, Washington State (west), and 2. Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, North Carolina, and

Florida (east) (Figure 3).

Approximately 50% of meetings were organised before arriving in the US. The itinerary was left with

gaps to ensure flexibility during the tour and only one domestic flight, from Seattle to Philadelphia,

was booked. Meeting targets included agricultural extension officers, growing operations, StopBMSB

research groups, plant pest diagnostic personnel, and research personnel with land grant universities

and the USDA.

A communications plan was developed to ensure stakeholders were kept informed of tour progress

through regular e-bulletins, mini reports, and over social media. Extension of findings to industry was

ramped up shortly after conclusion of the tour with the commencement of a series of biosecurity

workshops in Australian states. This final report was be developed for use by AgriFutures Australia

and interested horticultural industries.

Figure 3: The tour was split into

two driving segments – the west

coast (segment one) and the east

coast (segment two).

P a g e | 9


Table 1:Study tour itinerary

Date Location Meeting &Topic

4-6 July Greater Los Angeles, California

The Growing Experience, Long Beach, California

Common and damaging horticultural pests in Greater LA region. University of California, South Coast Research and Extension Centre, Orange County, California

Common and damaging horticultural pests in the region.

Current and past pest eradication attempts.

Industry and government roles and relationships during pest responses.

The Glassy Winged Sharp Shooter/Xylella management program.

Citrus Greening management.

Extension methods for achieving IPM in regional areas. Los Angeles County Arboretum, Pasadena, California

University of California (Davis) Web Application for ranking species invasiveness.

Common and damaging horticultural pests in the region. University of California invasive species roundtable, Orange County, California

Current pests of concern for Californian horticulture and forestry.

Activities by the Centre for Invasive Species Research at UC Riverside.

Urban initiatives for containing and managing the South American Palm Weevil and Polyphagus Shot Hole Borer.

7-9 July Sacramento and Davis, California

California Department of Food and Agriculture, Plant Pests Diagnostics Centre, Sacramento, California

Structure and function of the Plant Health and Pest Prevention division.

Services provided by the Plant Pests Diagnostics Centre.

Current response initiatives, such as Huanglongbing (Citrus Greening).

The National Plant Pest Diagnostic Network.

The role of the CDFA during pest responses and relationship with industry. University of California, Davis, California

UC (Davis) Urban IPM Extension Program.

Current response initiatives, such as Brown Marmorated Stink Bug.

Methods of engagement with urban dwellers for purposes of pest identification and management.

10-13 July Willamette Valley and Mt Hood Valley, Oregon

Oregon State University (Research farm) Corvallis

Emergent fungal and bacterial diseases of brassica – impact and management. Peoria Road Farm, Corvallis

Common and damaging horticultural pests in the region. Pitkin Winterrowd Farm, Canby

Common and damaging horticultural pests in the region. Oregon State University, Mid-Columbia Agricultural Research and Extension Centre, Hood River

P a g e | 10


Current management initiatives, such as Coddling Moth.

Experiences in engagement with urban dwellers for purposes of pest identification and management.

Common and damaging horticultural pests in the region.

Reasons for disrupted pest management plans in the regions.

13-14 July Columbia Plateau and Pullman, Washington State

Washington State University (WSU) Pullman campus

Common and damaging horticultural pests in the North West.

Impact and management of Tomato Potato Psyllid (TPP) in the region.

Stop BMSB Program – specifically, the spread of BMSB. WSU Research and Extension Centre, Pasco

Impact and management TPP in the region.

Training session on TPP identification, collection and cultivation.

Common and damaging vegetable and potato pests in the region. WSU Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Centre

History of parasitoid work for purposes of BMSB control.

Stop BMSB Program – specifically, BMSB suppression using beneficials.

Progress of Trissolcus japonicas work, and intentions for release and monitoring.

Training session on BMSB identification, collection and cultivation.

15-17 July Spring Mills, University Park, and Biglerville, Pennsylvania

Department of Entomology, Penn State University

Extension methodologies for effective IPM adoption.

Common horticultural pests in the state and past eradication successes.

Outcomes of initial national BMSB program.

Effect of photoperiods on BMSB diapause.

Allium Leafminer – impact and management.

Overview of Pest Watch online database.

Evolution and structure of iPIPE. Pennsylvania State University Agronomy Research Farm, Spring Mills, Pennsylvania

Farm walk to identify common agricultural pests in the region.

Overview of research farm initiatives. ZedX Inc

Function of the Integrated Pest Information Platform for Extension and Education (iPIPE). Penn State Fruit Research and Extension Centre

History of BMSB invasion.

Stop BMSB program, including BMSB host preferences and timing for optimal trapping.

18-19 July Newark, Delaware Beneficial Insects Introduction Research Unit, USDA Agricultural Research Service

Process used by the BIIR unit for identifying and verifying efficacy of beneficials before mass release.

Common horticultural pests in the state and past eradication successes.

Stop BMSB program, including current work on Trissolcus japonicas.

Genetic basis for parasitoid-host interactions.

P a g e | 11


20-21 July Kearneysville, West Virginia

USDA Appalachian Fruit Research Station

Stop BMSB program, including work with MPI NZ to develop a first detector system, bio-acoustic and bio-odorant methods of trapping, and sniffer dog training.

USDA Area Wide Management program for BMSB.

Attract & kill trap under development for Spotted Wing Drosophila.

22-24 July Appalachians, North Carolina

NCSU Entomology, North Carolina State University, Mountain Horticultural Research and Extension Centre, North Carolina

Common and damaging horticultural pests in the East and South East.

Stop BMSB Program.

Toured farms in the region to learn ID of common pests and general management practices in the region.

26-28 July Gainesville and Vero Beach, Florida

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville, Florida

Overview of USDA and FDACS-DPI.

Ports of entry.

Interdiction stations.

Nursery inspections.

Fruit fly detection.

Citrus multiple pest surveys.

Pest incursions – detection and response processes including an overview of the Florida incident Command System. Examples: Giant African Land Snail and Oriental Fruit Fly.

Discussion of Don’t Pack a Pest Initiative – funding, progress, and impact.

Quarantine facility tour.

Pest permits for research. Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey team (Florida branch), Gainesville

Overview of program, funding, purpose and scope.

Citrus Germplasm Introduction Program Facility, Lacrosse, Florida

Tour of new greenhouse and quarantine facilities. University of Florida, Gainesville

Doctorate of Plant Medicine.

Farm biosecurity, first detector system, and citizen science. Syngenta, Vero Beach

Leafminer biology.

P a g e | 12


Bursary Use The majority of this project was funded by AgriFutures Australia through the Rural Women’s Award.

Funding was used to cover the following expenses: Accommodation, meals, return flight to

Melbourne, internal flights in the US, car hire, travel insurance, expenses associated with attendance

at PlantSci17, conference poster printing, and purchasing of biosecurity workshop materials.

Findings

The scale and diversity of US horticulture is impressive and states visited during this tour were chosen

based on horticultural outputs and diversity of crops. The largest horticultural state is California, while

Washington State typically leads the country in apple production, Oregon has a major nursery and

greenhouse industry, vegetable seed industry, and burgeoning hops industry.

North Carolina is the primary sweet potato producer of the country, while Florida is the largest

producer of oranges. The country uses 7.4 million acres for vegetable production annually, with

leading horticultural crops by volume of production comprised of potatoes, tomatoes, and lettuce.

Major vegetable export markets are Canada (71%) and Mexico (8%) (USDA National Agricultural

Statistics Service, 2014).

Leading export commodities are potato (18%), lettuce (15%), onions (13%), and cabbage (9%).

Notably, 25% of horticultural imports into Australia are from the US, which equates to 54,250 tonne

of produce per year. At USD 16 billion by value of production the US vegetable industry is small in the

context of US plant agriculture as a whole but it overshadows the Australian industry, which is worth

about AUD 3.8 billion (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2014; Fresh Logic, 2016).

While this study tour resulted in a wealth of information collected, for the purposes of brevity not all

findings have been incorporated into this report. The author welcomes further questions pertaining

to study tour findings.

US Biosecurity To understand US Biosecurity it is important to first understand the level of resourcing at the disposal

of state governments and the Federal Government.

US states are split into counties, with each regional county having its own Department of Agriculture.

State and county extension officers are heavily integrated with state and local industry. As an

example, Florida has 67 counties, with 2-3 Agricultural Advisors placed within each county agricultural

departments. Agriculture is so important to Florida, that the state Commissioner for Agriculture is one

of the state cabinet, which is comprised of four.

While counties represent one source of resourcing available to state and federal governments, the

university system represents another. ‘Land grant’ universities have a major role to play in US

biosecurity resourcing and they have a long history of supporting primary producers. In 1862 and

1890 the Morrill Acts granted federally controlled land to each state for them to sell, to raise funds,

and establish colleges. At the time of establishment the purpose of these institutions was to teach

more practical (less philosophical) subjects, such as agriculture.

P a g e | 13


Under the Acts, each eligible state received 120 km2 of federal land for each member of congress.

This land, or the proceeds from its sale, was to be used toward establishing and funding the land

grant universities. There are now 106 Land Grant Universities.

The US congress later recognized the need to disseminate the knowledge gained at the land grant

universities to farmers and homemakers. The Smith Lever Act of 1914 recognised the importance of

extension and led to a cooperative arrangement between government and the land grant universities

via development of Research and Extension Centres (RECs) to support industry education and

research adoption. Today, these RECs are crucial for effective functioning of the National Cooperative

Extension network, which is subsidised by government and managed by the US land grant universities.

The movement towards agricultural extension was quite strong decades before the Smith Lever Act.

For 20 years prior to the first introduction of the Morrill Act in 1862, there was a political movement

calling for the creation of agricultural colleges. Figure 4 displays the Penn State Agronomy farm in the

mid and late 19th centuries, or ‘Farmers High School’ as it was known at the time, compared with the

Penn State agronomy farm today, where extension officers hold workshops and run field

experiments.

The author was impressed by the level of integration between REC personnel and industry. Growers

routinely call these researchers for farm management guidance. The educational resources supplied

to growers through these centres is also impressive. Apart from regular workshops at expansive and

well equipped university agronomy farms, REC personnel around each state and region routinely

source annual funds to produce and distribute commodity specific best practice growing guides each

year.

The two agencies in the US in charge of developing and implementing border plant biosecurity

strategies are the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency of the US Department of Homeland

Security, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s Plant Protection and Quarantine (APHIS

PPQ) of the USDA.

Figure 4: Farmer's High School, Pennsylvania State University, circa 1855-59 (left), the Dean of the College of Agricultural

Sciences talks to farmers, circa 1916 (centre right), extension agents inspect bags of potatoes (right). Source: Pennsylvania

State University Archives. Pennsylvania State University Agronomy Farm – green cities research (left), Penn State

demonstration ‘weed garden’ (centre), and Penn State Master Gardener workshop (right). Research collectives around each

state and region source funds to produce and distribute best practice guides each year. REC personnel are so integrated with

industry that growers routinely call them for farm management guidance.

P a g e | 14


International trade has been the most important pathway for the accidental or purposeful

introduction of invasive species into the US. It has been found that costs and information needs

increase dramatically as a pest penetrates deeper into the continuum (Magarey et al. 2009).

The terrorist attacks of September 11 had a noticeable impact on plant biosecurity authorities and

processes in the US. After the attacks responsibility for pre border biosecurity activities, such as

shipment inspections, were transferred from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to the

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency of the US Department of Homeland Security. However,

some border activities are shared with APHIS-PPQ. Examples include cargo treatment and pest

identification services.

US state government agencies and the USDA jointly lead eradications of national significance. State

agencies work particularly closely with county agriculture departments during a response. There is no

reimbursement for growers in the case of quarantine.

Pest surveillance is undertaken in each state by the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS),

which is a cooperative effort between state and federal agencies to conduct surveillance, detection,

and monitoring of exotic plant pests of agricultural and natural plant resources, and biological control

agents.

In the case of harmful pests moving from official control to management, land grant universities

undertake necessary research during incursion response and management, and achieve uptake of

research results through the Cooperative National Extension Network. On some occasions industry

will fund R&D.

In the US system the author noted that roles of government and industry are generally separate and

distinct (Figure 5).

Figure 5: US Plant Biosecurity Authorities and Operating Environments. Source: Invasion

curve modified from Craik et al. (2016) IGAB Independent Review Panel.

P a g e | 15


Topic 1: Common horticultural pests in the US

Noting that certain pests endemic to the US (not only those exotic to the US) could be highly

damaging to Australian horticultural regions, each meeting involved collection about key pests in each

region. Information was also collected about exotic pests under containment or eradication (these

findings are expanded upon under topic 3). Figure 6 depicts what pests were discussed as pests of

concern during the study tour. Note: This figure does not indicate pest distribution, only where the

pest was mentioned to be an issue.

Pest List

Bagrada Bug (Bragada hilaris)

On arrival in Los Angeles the author was quickly introduced to the issue of the Bagrada Bug, which

became a major problem in California three seasons ago. According to an interviewee at the Growing

Experience, during this time it had reached ‘plague proportions’. It was reported to be particularly

damaging to Brassica species and the Growing Experience interviewee reported that a whole kale

crop had been destroyed in the first season that the bug appeared on the property. Major damage

occurs when the bug attacks seedling cotyledons of broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, Brussel sprouts,

kale, turnip, mustard, and radish (Figure 7).

Bragada bug was first identified in Los Angeles County in 2008. It is now in the Californian counties of

Orange, Imperial, and San Bernardino, as well as in the state of Arizona. The current range in

California and Arizona indicates that the bug, which is a native of Africa, is capable of dessert dwelling.

The Growing Experience, which is a peri-urban organic operation, now plants a buffer of coriander,

which they believe keeps the bug at low levels, and use fennel as a habitat for beneficial insects.

As shown in Figure 7, this pest is morphologically similar to the Harlequin Bug (Murgantia histrionica)

and growers initially confused Bragada Bug for the latter, which may have led to a delayed

identification. It should be noted here that California has a similar climate to parts of Australia. Our

Brassica industry is currently worth AUD 476 million per year at the farm gate, which equates to

12.5% of the Australian vegetable industry by value of production (Fresh Logic, 2016).

Figure 6: Pests discussed as

pests of concern during the

study tour. Annotations indicate

where the pest was mentioned

to be an issue, but does not

denote pest distribution.

P a g e | 16


Western Spotted Cucumber Beetle (Diabrotica undecimpunctata undecimpunctata)

Cucumber Beetle was frequently mentioned by growers in Oregon as a pest of cucurbits, although the

host range extends beyond this plant family. Adult beetles are reported to also feed on soybeans,

cotton, and crops in the bean family (Day, 2008). The author also observed potato crops heavily

impacted by the beetle. Damage was extensive (Figure 7) and an untouched paddock of zucchini and

pumpkin lay a few metres away. The larval form, which is known as the Southern Corn Rootworm

tunnels through the roots of young plants.

The Spotted Cucumber Beetle and its Western sub-species observed in Oregon are found throughout

the US, which is indicative of establishment potential. Eleven percent of the vegetable industry is

cucurbit and bean production, which equates to a value of AUD 420 million. In addition, the cotton

industry in Australia is worth AUD 1.3 billion at the farm gate. Since Australian cotton growers

maintain a strict IPM strategy to enable use of Genetically Modified cultivars, this pest could heavily

impact the cotton industry in additional to a range of horticultural industries.

The Japanese Beetle (Popillia japonica)

While in Pennsylvania the author observed the Japanese Beetle at the Penn State agronomy farm.

Found in many production regions in the Eastern US, the Japanese Beetle (Popillia japonica) has a

host preference for turf, however it is extremely polyphagous and has been observed feeding on

almost 300 plant species in the US, including vegetables and tree fruits. Both larvae and adults feed

on plant material, with adult feeding characterised by skeletonised plant foliage (Figure 7). While this

beetle is under management on the east coast, the west coast, specifically Oregon, is trying to

eradicate due to the potential impact on the turf industry.

The Squash Bug (Anasa tristis)

The Squash Bug (Anasa tristis) is widespread throughout the US, Central America and Southern

Canada. It has been reported to attack nearly all cucurbits, but squash and pumpkin are preferred for

oviposition. Injection of toxins into the plant during feeding leads to severe foliage wilt, discoloration,

and green matter death (Figure 7). It was recently discovered that the Squash Bug can act as a vector

of the Cucurbit Yellow Vine Disease (CYVD) bacterium. It is possible that an Australian incursion of the

Squash Bug may be difficult to recognise as it could foreseeably be confused with the Crusader Bug,

which is endemic to Australia (Figure 7). Once it reaches adulthood it can be difficult to control, and

growers must resort to mechanical methods – such as manually picking them off leaves.

The Harlequin Cabbage Bug (Murgantia histrionica)

The Harlequin Bug (Murgantia histrionica) is also known as the Calico Bug or Fire Bug. This bug can be

easy to confuse with BMSB as it is of a similar size and has the characteristic shield-like shape. Found

in tropical America, as well as throughout most of North America, the adult and nymphs feed on the

stems and leaves of cole crops, such as cabbage, broccoli, kale, turnip, radish, horseradish, mustard

and rape. Feeding damage can be extreme; the cabbage row on which the author observed this bug

resembled something like swiss cheese (Figure 7). A bug of similar appearance is found in Australia –

the Cotton Harlequin Bug (Tectocoris diophthalmus). Read more about the Harlequin Cabbage bug at

the Penn State Extension website (see Additional Resources).

Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (Halyomorpha halys)

The Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (BMSB), is a severe crop pest that has its origins in Eastern Asia. In

the mid-1990s BMSB was detected in Pennsylvania. The bug is highly polyphagous, with a ravenous

P a g e | 17


appetite for an extensive range of production crops, including many fruits, vegetables and nuts.

Australian Federal Government biosecurity personnel occasionally respond to BMSB detections in

shipping containers entering Australian ports.

In the US the bug has become a major pest to urban dwellers and agriculturalists alike. To the point

that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has initiated a collaborative research and extension

effort to better manage the pest, and control its spread to additional regions. This program,

StopBMSB, is expanded upon under topic 3.

Colorado Potato Beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata)

While searching for Harlequin Bug in a row of North Carolina cabbage the author found a lonely

Colorado Potato Beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) which had clearly lost its way from a nearby

tomato crop. This beetle was first identified as a crop pest in the early 19th century in the US, and in

Europe during the early 20th century. The beetle has a reasonably narrow host range, preferring

solanaceae, such as potato, tomato and eggplant. In potato crops adults and larvae feed on the edges

of leaves and may quickly defoliate young plants. They eventually strip all leaves from the haulm.

Tubers exposed at the soil surface are also eaten. Due to its striking appearance it is likely that an

incursion of this pest in Australia would be quickly recognised. Read more about Colorado Potato

Beetle at the Pacific North West extension website or refer to the exotic pest fact sheet developed by

Plant Health Australia (see Additional Resources).

Spotted Wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii)

Spotted Wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) is an economically damaging pest that infests thin-

skinned fruits. It was first recorded as invasive in Hawaii in 1980 and simultaneously in California and

in Europe in 2008. Initial detection in California was hindered by the resemblance of D. suzukii to

other endemic Drosophila species. While D. suzukii is not under eradication, this is a priority pest for

tree fruit and berry growers in the US and research into effective management is underway. In

particular the Tracy Leskey research group at the USDA Appalachian Tree Fruit Research Station in

Kearneysville, West Virginia, has developed an effective lure and kill trap for management of this pest

in orchards.

Giant African Land Snail (Achatina fulica)

Florida continues to attempt to eradicate the Giant African Land Snail (GALS) – an eradication that has

been in progress for seven years. Initially the pest was established in Florida in the late 1960s but was

eradicated by 1975.

While the snail is damaging to a broad range of crops and is a serious production pest in its own right,

(it feeds on more than 500 species of plants and adults can lay up to 4,000 eggs per year) it also

carries Rat lung Worm, which poses a serious food safety risk as it causes an infection of the brain

called eosinophilic meningo-encephalitis. In addition, these snails are hermaphrodites and are able to

self-fertilise, laying up to 4,000 eggs per year.

Based on the polyphagous nature of the pest, similarities in climate between Florida and Queensland,

and high fecundity, the author suggests that the establishment potential in Australia would be high.

P a g e | 18


Figure 7: Top row – Feeding damage the Bragada Bug (left), Bragada Bug compared with the Harlequin Bug (centre left), Cucumber Beetle

observed in Oregon (centre right), damage to potato leaves from Cucumber Beetle (right). Second row – Japanese Beetle observed in

Pennsylvania on an apple tree (left), skeletonised apple tree leaf from Japanese Beetle feeding (centre left), Harlequin Bug observed in Nth

Carolina on cabbage (centre right), the Crusader Bug (right). Third row – Squash Bug observed in Pennsylvania on pumpkin (left), Squash Bug

egg cluster on underside of leaf (centre left), CYVD symptoms in pumpkin (centre right, photo from Bugwood.org), Squash Bug nymphs

feeding on pumpkin (right, photo from MSU Extension). Bottom row – Giant African Land Snail observed in Florida (left), Colorado Potato

Beetle observed on cabbage in Nth Carolina on cabbage (right).

P a g e | 19


Innovative pest trapping

The author noted the large amount of work being conducted on development of innovative, more

effective pest traps. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services has an entire 3D

printing lab dedicated to inventing and testing traps for notable pests such as TPP, GALS and Citrus

Psyllid (Figure 8).

The Tracy Leskey research group at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Appalachian Fruit

Research Station in West Virginia have re-developed their existing attract and kill lure trap (initially

developed for Apple Maggot), to be effective against Spotted Wing Drosophila. During development

the group tested a range of colours and shapes. The result has been a lure the size of an apple, which

has a waxy cap of sugar feeding stimulant, red dye, and insecticide. The results have been extremely

promising, with initial results indicating that the lures themselves provide equivalent control to

insecticide sprays. The group is also developing an alternative Spotted Wing Drosophila lure for

organic production. It will be interesting to see what other horticultural pests this lure could be

adapted to target in future.

The author also viewed another trap developed by the Leskey group – a clear sticky trap designed for

collecting BMSB. When paired with a Trécé Inc. lure, which is made up of an aggregation pheromone,

the sticky trap manages to capture the adult and nymph life stages, which are happy to crawl up the

tree-like post (Figure 8). The Leskey group has been undertaking work for the Ministry of Primary

Industries, New Zealand, to develop these traps for a first detector system. In addition, bioacoustics

research conducted by the group may lead to development of traps that could be placed in shipping

containers.

Despite these innovations, the author noted that sometimes tried and true methods work best. Figure

8 shows a retrofitted hand vacuum used for collecting TPP from potato paddock boundaries. It is

therefore important to note existing technologies and techniques that are being implemented

internationally on-farm.

Figure 8: A SWD lure and kill trap developed by

the Leskey research group Appalachian Fruit

Research Station in West Virginia (top left),

BMSB clear stick trap topped by a Trécé Inc. lure

(top right), FDACS 3D printing laboratory for

development of pest traps (centre left, centre

right), assortment of FDACS 3D pest traps ready

for testing (bottom left), retrofitted hand

vacuum for trapping of TPP in Washington State

(bottom right).

P a g e | 20


Topic 2: Biosecurity initiatives in urban & peri-urban areas

Urbanisation is changing the face of plant biosecurity

The author was interested to hear about challenges faced in the greater Los Angeles production

regions due to urbanisation. According to Dr Karey Windleiss-Rojas at the University of California,

Davis, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) did not transfer extension and

engagement activities to urban areas until recently.

Dr John Kabashima, an experienced agricultural researcher and extension agent at the University of

California South Coast REC, noted that efforts to control Red Imported Fire Ant in urban areas were

hindered by due to the location of the incursion. There are several other pests currently found in Los

Angeles and Sacramento urban areas that are important to manage, from an agriculturalists

perspective. These include BMSB, Huanglongbing, and the Glassy Wing Sharpshooter-Xylella

fastidiosa complex.

Dr Kabashima is leading in the development of an urban biosecurity strategy for the Los Angeles

region. It is expected to be completed in 2018.

The ‘Master Gardener’ Program

The US ‘Master Gardener’ program is a long standing, national volunteer program run by US land

grant universities. In the early days of the program, qualified Master Gardeners would receive training

to provide horticultural advice to urban gardeners. However, in the face of global pest spread and the

role that urban areas play in harbouring economically damaging pests the program has now evolved

to have an increased focus on plant biosecurity.

The Master Gardeners receive regular training from agricultural university personnel on exotic pests

of concern and are valuable citizen scientists within urban areas, extending the reach of plant

biosecurity initiatives. As such, this program now plays an important role as a first detector system for

exotic pests in urban and peri-urban areas, allowing US primary production industries much needed

buffer time to prepare for management or eradication of these pests.

First Detector Program

The US has a National Plant Diagnostic Network (NDPN), which is divided into five regions and is

managed government and university labs. Unlike the Australian National Plant Diagnostic network,

the US NDPN plays a role in extension via the First Detector program, which it has managed since

2003. According to the program ‘first detectors’ are ‘anyone who may encounter a potential invasive

species during the course of their daily lives’. Anybody in the community interested in learning more

about identification of exotic pests may opt into the program and become a trained First Detector.

The program provides the following modules for participants: Monitoring for high risk pests,

diagnosing plant problems: arthropods, diagnosing plant problems: plant diseases, submitting

diagnostic samples, photography for diagnosis, disease and pest scenarios. The program provides

training through an e-learning platform, and also provides train the trainer materials for any person

interested in conducting a First Detector workshop (Figure 9). Country agricultural agents and Master

Gardeners are particularly encouraged to undertake the training and conduct workshops.

North West Pollinator Initiative (CSI: Bees)

The Washington State University Department of Entomology (David Crowder Research Group) have

launched an awareness and education program that recognises the need to increase public

knowledge of bee phenology, ecology and health. It is known as the North West Pollinator Initiative,

P a g e | 21


or ‘CSI: Bees’. Through this program city dwellers concerned about recent declines in pollinators can

contribute to research into bee health after initial training as citizen scientists.

CSI: Bees is currently comprised of two sub-projects:

• Wild Bee Sense Biodiversity, which trains volunteers in identification and monitoring of wild

bees; and

• The Pollinator Post Project, which explores the habitat needs of cavity nesting bees in urban

areas. Workshop attendees are supplied with milk cartons filled with tubes that may be used

as a hive and are then asked to mail samples of these cavity nests to the research group at

the end of the season for further analysis and bee identification.

There has been extensive delivery in the eastern part of Washington State, driven by Elias Bloom, a

Washington State University doctoral student, who is conducting 20-30 workshops per season. The

program has been so successful that Seattle urban dwellers have requested more workshops on the

topic. Apart from educating urban dwellers about the importance of pollinators, and threats to their

health (such as Varroa mite and American Foul Brood), it aims to capture citizen science by asking the

public to be involved with bee monitoring. The program heavily utalises the WSU Master Gardener

program and 4H cubs. The program even has boy scout clubs running a surveillance project for them.

The research group leader is Dr David Crowder at Washington State University, Pullman. He described

the initiative as ‘hugely successful’. Notably, the program coordinator is visiting James Cook University

during October 2017 through to February 2018 to carry out CSI: Bees extension work in Australia.

According to the Crowder research group the program aims to ‘…promote pollinator community

health and pollination services through research into habitat conservation on small-scale diversified

production systems of western Washington. This research has a strong focus on developing techniques

that are practical and useful for growers in both long-term organic and transitioning farming systems.’

In investigating urban biosecurity initiatives that may lead to high uptake from the community,

beginning with a bee health program may pave the way for other citizen science activities.

Urban IPM Programs

In 1972, Richard Nixon was the first president to use the term Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

when he requested several federal agencies commit to developing and promoting the concept.

Today, US Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs are commonly managed by land grant

universities. Interestingly, IPM is no longer solely practiced by primary producers – it is also

increasingly being used in public areas and private homes with support from cooperative IPM

programs.

These programs recognise a gap in urban dweller knowledge in regards to safe pesticide usage,

pesticide disposal, and pesticide rotation to avoid resistance. Interestingly, the worldwide resurgence

of bed bugs (Cimex lectularius L. and Cimex hemipterus F.) that are resistant to commonly used

household pesticides has motivated a greater focus on urban IPM.

The University of California has embraced urban IPM, and now has five urban IPM extension officers,

including one officer who specialises in vertebrate pests and one agricultural advisor for urban areas.

The University of California Urban IPM Program links in closely with the Master Gardener program. At

the University of California Master Gardeners are trained in safe use of urban pesticides and

resistance management so they may extend that training to urban dwellers.

P a g e | 22


Such programs are extremely useful in major trade centres, and particularly those cities with thriving

ports. Increased knowledge of correct pesticide usage within household environments has several

benefits for agriculture:

• An increased awareness of pests, and therefore an increased potential for urban dwellers to

notice new exotic species;

• An understanding by the public of the important role it can play in protecting food production

zones;

• Reduced pesticide resistance due to appropriate rotation of chemistry and implementation of

cultural controls in urban areas; and

• Creating an urban ‘buffer zone’ between pest incursion epi-centres and agricultural regions,

whereby pest populations are suppressed in urban centres for longer and more effectively.

Dr Karey Windleiss-Rojas, who is based at University of California, Davis, leads the program. She noted

that urban IPM extension officers are not trained marketers and quickly needed to needed to learn

new skills in order to design appealing materials for the public. The program works routinely with

retail nurseries in an effort to train employees in pest identification and management.

The Urban IPM Program has decided to target a particular subset of the urban population for

awareness and adoption – urban gardeners. They acknowledge that these people would usually be

female, and not millennials, hence they are now routinely using Pinterest.

When there is a suspect exotic detection the Urban IPM Program encourages the community to

report suspect pests to the government or to a Master Gardener. Importantly, the Urban IPM

Program trains urban dwellers about safe use of pesticides, how to read a pesticide label, pesticide

storage, and rotation of chemistry. This program also employs a train the trainer approach, and

designs educational kits that trainers can borrow and use during workshops. In return, it is expected

that the trainers supply feedback to the program from participants.

One issue encountered by the program has been with gaining support for parasitic wasp releases in

urban areas as there is a lack of understanding as to what these wasps are. According to Dr Windbiel-

Rojas the key is having a trusted messenger working with community leaders.

This program is becoming increasingly important as damaging plant pests, such as BMSB, are found in

Los Angeles and surrounding suburbs, but not yet in adjacent agricultural areas.

Don’t Pack a Pest Initiative

An initiative of the USDA and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the

‘Don’t Pack a Pest’ campaign is now in its seventh year. The program was launched in an effort to

educate travellers about the biosecurity risks that they pose by bringing food, plants or other items

into the state.

The major program message is simply put: When you travel, declare agricultural items, don’t pack a

pest. Through program mascot, Linus the Detector Dog, the program uses videos and airport signage

to convey the message to incoming and outgoing travellers (Figure 9). It began modestly in 2010, with

a small amount of funding to cover production of the video, placement of signage at Miami

International Airport, a social media campaign, development of an online platform, a press briefing,

development and distribution of luggage tags, and several other small scale initiatives.

Now the program is expanding to include additional program signs for several other US airports. The

program is also partnering with neighbouring countries, such as Jamaica, and Turks and Caicos to

expand the campaign internationally.

P a g e | 23


Interestingly, it was found by program developers that passengers in Caribbean countries do not

empathise with a canine as the program mascot. Therefore, the program developed an alternate

character for these countries – Satsy the Suitcase.

Figure 9: Top row – Taxonomic training videos, identification factsheets, and teaching materials used in the First Detector

Program. Second row – CSI: Bees webpage and volunteer citizen scientists learn to identify and photograph pollinators.

(Photos by Sylvia Kantor, WSU). Bottom row – Urban IPM ‘educational packs’ and pest fact handouts developed as a part

of the CA Urban IPM Program (left and centre left), exotic pest fact sheet developed by the First Detector Program (centre

right), awareness material developed to aid the Giant African Land Snail eradication in Florida (top right), Don’t Pack a Pest

awareness flier (bottom right).

P a g e | 24


Topic 3: Exotic pest eradication and management responses

Federal and state governments are heavily involved in the leadership and operational elements of

both eradications and management programs. Under eradication situations, the Incident Command

System (ICS) provides a framework for launching operations. The ICS was developed during the

California fires of 1970 and is a standard crisis management operating procedure with equivalencies

to PlantPlan. It includes planning, operations, logistics, and finance components in a structure that

supports a scalable response (Figure 10). The ICS also dictates a hierarchy and delegations of

authority. It has a first responder structure, whereby the first on scene has charge of the incident until

a more qualified responder arrives. The ICS is used by all levels of government in the US, as well as by

private sector and non-governmental organisations.

Florida Pest Responses

Florida frequently makes use of the ICS – it has recently finished a proof of freedom phase for a

successful eradication of Oriental Fruit fly in the Miami-Dade region. The eradication took six months,

at a cost of approximately USD 3 million in agricultural and urban environments. The author visited

the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) to learn more about the pest

challenges faced by the state and how it undertakes eradication or management.

Florida has a high diversity of crops and a mild climate, and much like Queensland and the Torres

Strait Island group, it has a natural pest pathway from Cuba to Florida. Indeed, the Cuba-Florida plant

pest pathway represents a significant biosecurity challenge for the state. As such, the Cooperative

Figure 10: Incident Command System structure as used by US biosecurity personnel.

P a g e | 25


Agricultural Pest Survey in Florida is focussed on High Priority Pests (HPPs) that may travel from

Caribbean countries to Florida.

According to Penca et al. (2016) 20 out of 59 pests on the CAPS priority pest list are found in the

Caribbean basin. However, this number may be even higher. Due to the US embargo on Cuba there is

a lack of knowledge about pests in the country. In addition, the recent relaxation of restrictions on

Cuba and the potential for future trade will likely increase the risk of pest incursion in Florida from the

Caribbean. In recognition of current and future challenges the Greater Caribbean Safeguarding

Initiative (GCSI) has been launched. This is a collaborative effort to pre-emptively develop control

methods for Caribbean plant pests.

On the domestic front, Florida is participating in a cooperative exchange of personnel with Hawaii and

California. This tri-state arrangement ensures that personnel in each state are aware of their

counterparts in similar horticulturally focussed states, and understands the processes and procedures

followed in those states. According to FDACS the initiative has been enlightening, important for staff

professional development, and useful when developing trade protocols.

In this report the author has chosen to focus on two pests currently impacting on Floridian

horticulture and communities: the Asian Citrus Psyllid- Candidatus Liberibacter sp. complex (under

management), and Giant African Land Snail (under eradication).

Asian Citrus Psyllid- Candidatus Liberibacter sp. complex

The Asian Citrus Psyllid was found in Florida in 1998. The detection was made in the Miami-Dade

County at the southern tip of the state. The psyllid is a strong vector for bacteria of the Candidatus

Liberibacter species, which causes Citrus Greening – a devastating citrus disease that is currently

incurable and leads to eventual tree death. In 2005, Citrus Greening, otherwise known as

Huanglongbing, was confirmed in four counties. The confirmation was followed by confirmation in 12

counties by 2006, and 30 counties by 2007. By 2015 all citrus growing counties were confirmed to be

affected by Citrus Greening.

The complex has had a devastating impact on the Floridian citrus industry. The orange crop forecast

for the 2016-2017 growing season from the (USDA) is 70% lower than 20 years ago and 14% lower

than the 81.5 million boxes produced in the 2015/2016 season. It has resulted in four billion US

dollars in economic damage and has eliminated approximately 8,000 jobs. The complex has also

drastically changed farming practices by interrupting IPM programs.

A major management tactic is further investment into the state citrus budwood program, which was

established in 1953 and became mandatory for all propagation of citrus in 1997 (Figure 9). The

objective of this program is to assist growers and nurserymen in the production of horticulturally

superior citrus nursery stock that is believed to be free of virus and other graft-transmissible diseases.

A state of the art budwood facility has recently been built, at which screening of rootstock will be

carried out by FDACS technical staff. This facility upgrade will further support citrus greening

management efforts.

Giant African Land Snail

In 1966, a Miami boy smuggled three Giant African Snails into Florida following an overseas vacation.

Upon finding the snails his grandmother released them into her garden. As a result, the state of

Florida launched an eradication program that lasted from 1969 to 1973, during which time more than

18,000 snails were collected at an equivalent current day cost of USD 4 million. This eradication was

P a g e | 26


eventually successful. Since 2010, FDACS have been undertaking a second large-scale GALS

eradication in Miami-Dade county.

The potential impact of the pest extends beyond production impacts and trade issues. GALS carries

Rat Lung Worm, which is a major food safety issue. It can also lead to other hazards. For example,

movement of large numbers of snails on streets at night can create slick spots if run over, and hitting

snail shells with a lawn mower can create instant shrapnel (GALS strengthen their shells by feeding on

concrete, thus also leading to infrastructure damage).

FDACS are employing several tactics to eradicate GALS. They include:

• Direct inspection and collection at infested premises;

• Detector dogs for screening of adjacent premises;

• Metaldehyde baits – liquid and granules;

• Testing of novel attractants, such as papaya oil; and

• Launching a community awareness campaign and a ‘junior detector’ program.

Over 150,000 snails have been collected over the eradication. According to FDACS they were finding

buckets full of snails in the beginning, and now they are finding a couple of hundred per week.

This most recent GALS incursion had a highly unusual pathway. In 2010, biosecurity officers found at

least 20 snails in a wooden box in a back yard, the owner of which was a practitioner of a traditional

African religion, Ifa Orisha. This practitioner had smuggled the snails into Florida in his luggage.

Another practitioner aided the smuggling effort and hid snails under her dress on a flight from

Nigeria. The snails were smuggled in for use in a ceremony, which involved cracking a snail shell and

ingesting the mucus. Thus, apart from effective eradication tactics Australia can also learn from the

Florida experience of trace back during the incursion.

Other US Responses

Brown Marmorated Stink Bug

StopBMSB is a high profile management program now in its second five year iteration. It has been

calculated that USD 23 billion worth of crops are at risk if the bug were to spread uncontrolled across

the country. The program includes research into innovative trapping techniques, biocontrol,

modelling spread rates, and clarifying the phenology of the pest to aid grower decision-making during

summer.

One researcher visited was Joshua Milnes, a graduate student at Washington State University, who is

studying a parasitic wasp that may aid in controlling BMSB populations. Joshua is building up a stock

of the wasp (Trissolcus japonicas, or the Samurai Wasp) and will soon release it in several regions

around Washington with the intent of suppressing bug populations in urban areas, before it reaches

major agricultural regions. This effort is important to the state economy as Washington is a major

producer of apples worldwide, with an industry worth USD 2.4 billion by Value of Production. Joshua

will monitor the impact of the parasitic wasp following release. He is also interested in testing the

potential for the parasitoid to survive through the Washingtonian winter and will be looking at ‘non-

target effects’ (Eg. could the wasp attack US native stink bug eggs?).

Effective trapping of BMSB was discussed. One particularly useful BMSB trap is the pyramid trap,

which emulates a tree. The bug is encouraged to climb up the ‘tree’ and into a one-way container trap

with the help of a pheromone lure. For more information on StopBMSB see Additional Resources.

P a g e | 27


Xylella fastidiosa and Glassy Winged Sharp Shooter

The glassy-winged sharpshooter (GWSS) was first identified in California as early as 1989 and is

thought to have been introduced from the South Eastern US as eggs on nursery stock. The GWSS can

now be found in high populations in areas of San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Los

Angeles, Ventura, Kern and Santa Barbara counties.

A management response for Xylella fastidiosa and the GWSS has been in progress in California since

1999, with the state grape industry now providing funding for further research as a part of the

Pierce’s Disease Control Program. While Californian grape growers have managed outbreaks of

Pierce’s disease for over a century, the introduction of the GWSS has led to disease outbreaks

increasing in regularity.

The program has been well funded, with approximately USD 40 million allocated from industry funds

over the life of the program and nearly USD 20 million per year from governments since 1999.

According to the 2016 Pierce’s Disease Control Program Annual Report to the Legislature, the disease

now threatens a crop production value of USD 5.24 billion and associated economic activity within

California of approximately USD 57.6 billion. The program strategy is to slow or stop the spread of the

GWSS while short and long-term solutions are developed and has involved the following initiatives:

• CDFA inspections of nursery stock and bulk grapes moving throughout the state to slow the

spread of the GWSS;

• A state wide survey to determine the migration of the GWSS;

• Introduction of parasitic wasps that lay eggs in the GWSS;

• An educational outreach program that provides information to growers, nursery people and

others on identifying the pest, symptoms of infection and methods to control the disease;

and,

• Targeted ground spraying inside vineyards and surrounding host habitats.

Communication outreach programs were launched to explain the ground spraying well in advance of

the treatments. Encouraging growers to use cultural practices, such as selectively removing

vegetation around vineyards and replanting with vegetation that will not carry the disease has also

aided in reducing the regularity of disease outbreaks.

Since the start of the program more than 2.56 million biological control agents have been released in

agricultural, riparian, and urban environments in California. These control agents are Gonatocerus

ashmeadi, G. morgani, and G. morrilli, the former two biologicals being native to California, while G.

merrilli has been introduced from Mexico

Several advisory groups have aided governance of the program. These include: Pierce’s Disease and

Glassy Winged Sharpshooter Board, Pierce’s Disease Advisory Task Force, Pierce’s Disease Research

Scientific Advisory Panel, the Pierce’s Disease Research Symposium Planning Group, and the California

Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association / Glassy Winged Sharpshooter Advisory Group.

During the tour one extension officer described this management program as the most successful

example of industry-government collaboration he had ever observed in the state.

Japanese Beetle

While Japanese Beetle is established on the East coast, Oregon state policy is to eradicate Japanese

beetles before breeding populations can establish as the state nursery and garden industry is at high

risk. In order to undertake the eradication in urban areas, the Oregon Department of Agriculture has

P a g e | 28


undertaken public outreach emphasising the opportunity represented by the current incursion (Figure

11). Strong public outreach is necessary due to the high level of spraying required in urban areas to

eradicate the pest – the department is treating urban turf with Acelepryn G® (0.2%

chlorantraniliprole) using hand held sprayers.

As stated in one public flier: ‘The Japanese beetle infestation is currently at the beginning of the

[invasion] curve, which is why we have a unique and small window of opportunity when resource costs

are low…Without eradication, we will be unable to manage the species without significant resource

investment.’

Figure 11: The newly built Citrus Budwood facility near Gainesville, Florida

(top left and top right). GALS trap routinely used by FDACS (second row left),

GALS breeding at FDACS for use in research (second row centre), GALS

awareness flier (second row right). BMSB sentinel egg mass for endemic

parasitoid screening (third row left), parasitised BMSB eggs (third row right).

Japanese Beetle eradication information flier (bottom row).

P a g e | 29


Topic 4: Biosecurity & pest management decision-making tools for industry

and government

WSU Decision Aid System

WSU Extension has operated an insect sampling network in the Columbia Basin of Washington since

2009 to monitor potato pest populations and report current information about population size and

location to potato growers. It began when Drs Timothy Waters and Carrie Wohleb of Washington

State University first began monitoring problematic regional potato pests, such as Green Peach Aphid,

Beet Leafhopper, Potato Tuberworm, and Tomato Potato Psyllid (Figure 12).

Every week after collecting trap results Dr Wohleb would email the findings to potato growers in the

region. This system is now underpinned by a pest spread modelling algorithm and has evolved into

WSU Potato Pest Alerts – an email subscription service that provides current information about the

size and location of insect pest populations, and serves as an early warning system (Figure 13). The

system helps potato growers make informed insect pest management decisions and contributes to a

better understanding of the movement and biology of potato pests in the Columbia Basin.

Each alert:

• Summarises the week’s sampling results and recommendations for pest management;

• Includes maps showing insect population densities for the region; and,

• Includes graphs of seasonal insect population trends, images of pests and the diseases they

spread, and hyperlinks to further information.

It is shortly about to undergo another upgrade, with the team at WSU aiming to convert it into an

online decision aid system for potato growers, which will provide regional pest information,

forecasting data, and guidelines for IPM management at each point of the growing season. WSU

already have a very sophisticated Decision Aid System for tree fruit (see Additional Resources). The

potato survey is being developed into a similarly sophisticated system, where it will capture the WSU

AG Weather Network and National Weather Service NOAA information for pest forecasting, and

provide guidance on IPM strategies for each stage of the season.

Figure 12: Timeline of events during evolution of the potato pest decision aid system at Washington State University.

P a g e | 30


iPIPE

The Integrated Pest Information Platform for Extension and Education (iPIPE) shares equivalencies

with AusPestCheck and began with pest modelling the Soy Bean Rust incursion of 2005-2009. Users

share information on pests so that agriculture professionals can make more informed decisions in

regards to pest management. Observations are housed in a national pest observation depository.

Importantly, those who submit data are kept anonymous.

Following the Soy Bean Rust incursion, the initiative received a USD 7 million USDA Agriculture and

Food Research Initiative grant for further development. The initiative became a collaborative venture

among the North Carolina State University Centre for Integrated Pest Management (IPM), regional

IPM centres, numerous land-grant institutions, the information technology company ZedX Inc. and

other stakeholders. Additional funding for iPiPE has been provided by the United Soybean Board and

the Georgia Peanut Board.

iPIPE is now expanding to include phone applications for specific crops types. The chemical company,

BASF, is in the process of taking over iPIPE, but it is intended that the resource will remain available to

the research community. Managers of the initiative are looking to expand its usage to other countries.

Agronomy Farms as Learning Platforms

The author noted a practical and useful education initiative at the Penn State Agronomy Farm, which

maintains a ‘weed garden’. This is a selection of carefully contained and maintained invasive weeds

commonly found in the region (Figure 3). This particular weed garden is used for training Master

Gardeners and university extension staff. (The author noticed one weed, a Glossy Buckthorn, that had

been stripped almost completely bare by the Japanese Beetle). Such regional set-ups would be useful

as training sites for new entrants into Australian horticulture, or for those growers and supply chain

members who would like a refresher in weed identification.

Figure 13: Top row and middle rows – pest

forecasting outputs from the potato pest

decision aid system in Washington State.

Bottom row – Weed Garden exhibit at Penn

State (left), displayed weeds are carefully

contained (centre), feeding damage on Glossy

Buckthorn by Japanese Beetle – note the

complete lack of foliage (right).

P a g e | 31


Discussion

In a space that is vital for domestic and global food security, plant biosecurity professionals are

increasingly being challenged with stretched resources and an ongoing brain drain. In identifying gaps,

needs, and priorities for a strengthened system, it is important to identify ‘launch pads’ – initiatives

that have been ground-truthed elsewhere and may be incorporated into our system. Several potential

launch pads are discussed in this report. More than ever Australia plant biosecurity professionals

must be both inward looking and conduct regular critical needs analyses, and outward looking by

considering what initiatives elsewhere can be adopted to strengthen the Australian system.

There are many instances in the past where Australia has replicated overseas agricultural initiatives.

For example, in 1880s and 1890s land was gifted to newly developing agricultural colleges, emulating

the US land grant university system, although over time this system has evolved into the largely

privatised system we know today (Hunt et al. 2012). More recently, AgriFutures Australia and the

Grains Research and Development Corporation funded development of ExtensionAUS – an online

platform for agricultural extension professionals based on a US initiative, eXtension. In 2017, the Rural

R&D for Profit project ‘Improving Plant Pest Management Through Cross Industry Deployment of

Smart Sensor, Diagnostics and Forecasting’ was launched. This surveillance system will draw on

aspects of mega pest surveillance systems found in Europe and New Zealand.

For the purpose of this discussion ‘industry’ encapsulates growers, crop protection consultants,

wholesalers, farming supply businesses, fresh produce transporters and distributers. All of the above,

as well as federal and state & territory governments are key players in maintaining pest free

production areas in Australia.

In considering the findings of this study tour, it is important to consider what we can learn from US

experiences and initiatives. These may include eradication tactics, trapping technologies, how to

effect university-industry collaborations and urban education, and pest management ‘know how’.

The Golden Triangle: Industry, Research and Government

The US National Cooperative Extension network is a good example of a system that supports

transition of an exotic pest under official control to an effective management situation. The interplay

between government, industry, and researchers is fluid, despite roles being much defined. When

research is needed to manage a new pest, Research and Extension Centre personnel will undertake

that research and advise growers on best management tactics. The author noted several instances

where growers would call their regional extension officer for guidance on pest control. In Australia,

many growing operations keep an agronomist on retainer, pay fee-for-service for advice, or conduct

their own self-learning.

The report ‘Research to practice – a case study in relationship building for successful extension’ found

that in order to provide successful extension, there is a need for increased communication between

growers and researchers (Fleming, Wilson and Measham 2014). The report suggests that scientists

and growers should explore more participatory related approaches, where they discuss and

subsequently target key focus areas (Fleming, Wilson and Measham 2014). Further, a review of the

agricultural research, development and extension system within Australia made a recommendation to

‘integrate research and extension capacity within institutions…Extension services must not be

considered as add-ons, they must be fully integrated into the process and delivery of research…’ (Hunt

et al. 2014).

P a g e | 32


The author has noted a deterioration of research capacity in horticulture – particularly within the

vegetable and potato industries. The recently published Australian Academy of Science’s draft

‘Decadal Plan for Agriculture’ highlights that Australia’s share of global agricultural research

publications has fallen from six per cent in 1996 to three per cent in recent years, and emphasises

that the research decline is slowly eroding Australia’s growth in agricultural productivity.

A shift in research focus at state department level in Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales

especially, has resulted in researchers often changing specialisations to suit the needs of industries

such as dairy and grains. In addition, it has been noted by industry groups that many growers feel a

level of disconnect with those undertaking research and associated opportunities for solving real

challenges that they are facing on the ground.

It is the view of author that horticultural industries can play a more active role in attracting new

researchers and retaining existing expertise. In essence, creating a ‘pull’ towards working in

horticulture. Ultimately, supporting expansion of researcher networks within horticulture, and more

fully integrating researchers into the industry will create ‘buy in’, allow current researchers to become

aware of (and more readily access) research opportunities, and attract new researchers to the field.

In regards to industry-government relationships, the author noted the close alignment between

industry and government, particularly while in Florida. This is supported by the field officer resourcing

available to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. A strong and constant in-

field presence of government personnel aid in strengthening the massage that scrupulous biosecurity

underpins a robust industry. This close relationship between government and industry makes growers

more willing to report pests of concern, even though there is no owner reimbursement mechanism

following quarantine.

In order for industry and government to work together effectively in the biosecurity space it is

imperative that each party understands the roles, responsibilities, resources and expertise of the

other. Within the vegetable and potato industries there is a lack of knowledge in regards to the role of

government in managing border biosecurity, during an incursion, and during management of endemic

pests. On the part of government there is an assumption that industry is well placed to take a leading

role for some aspects of the system and has resources and knowledge to initiate management,

surveillance and preparedness schemes. However, it is important to remember that government are

the legislators, and have access to specialist facilities and expertise – industry can only achieve so

much without the support of Australian governments.

Take home points:

• Biosecurity researchers should be supported in expanding their professional network in

horticulture and becoming more integrated into the industry.

• Closer relationships between Australian governments and industry will facilitate biosecurity

preparedness and response.

County-State Government Interplay

A key difference observed between Australia and the US approaches to biosecurity is the lack of

collaboration between Australian industry and government with shires and councils. These are

equivalent to US state counties and they represent a significant source of resourcing and advice

during pest responses, or during management of new or particularly damaging endemic pests.

As stated previously, US counties have agriculture departments and sometimes several Agricultural

Advisors, so there is significant resourcing and knowledge available to state governments. We may

P a g e | 33


not have quite the same level of agricultural knowledge or resourcing in applicable Australian councils

and shires, but there is opportunity to work more closely, whether it be between state government

and council, industry and council, or a combination of the three.

Councils and shires have emergency response staff that may be called upon to aid with pest incursion

response, particularly in regards to information flow to producers and communities. In addition,

councils and shires regularly organise regional festivals, which often have a focus on local produce

and represent good opportunities for raising biosecurity awareness for the purpose of preparedness.

Take home points:

• There is a close relationship between state and county governments for purposes of pest

management.

• Australian councils and shires are equivalent to US state counties and could be a source of

resourcing and advice during pest responses, or during management of new or particularly

damaging endemic pests.

Urban Biosecurity

It is clear that engagement with urban areas for purposes of pest management and plant biosecurity

is far more engrained in US culture. This is certainly in part due to the ephemeral nature of Australian

funding into agricultural extension and engagement activities, which often require long time frames

before any discernible impact can be measured. Indeed, there seems to be limited appetite from

industry groups and governments to actively address the issue of exotic pest incubation in urban

areas. How to reach and engage urban dwellers for the purposes of plant biosecurity often ends up in

the ‘too hard basket’. This is likely due to reduced resourcing and in particular, a lack of personnel

experienced in such forms of extension.

Many Australian horticultural regions are located adjacent to, or near, peri-urban spaces, which are in

turn associated with ports of entry (Figure 14). Community gardens and urban farms are likely to

become more prevalent as consumers become more aware and more cautious about the origin of

what is on their plate. With increasing efforts to utilise the space that we have, and create healthier,

environmentally friendly urban environments through initiatives such as the Hort Innovation Greening

Cities Pool 1 fund, and others, boosting plant biosecurity in urban settings will become increasingly

important.

Incursions are heavily linked to trade and are often associated with urban areas – due to proximity

with ports, airports, or nearby island groups. We have enjoyed a measure of protection through our

isolation in the past, but as shown by Figure 15, sea freight is prolific, and represents a high risk

pathway to Australia. According to Ports Australia, we have more than 70 ports that support trade

with every region of the world, 876 cruise ships visited Australia’s ports over 2014-15 and the volume

of sea trade is expected to double over the next 20 years. The US has recognised trade as a major

transmission pathway and taken active steps to address it. The author was extremely impressed at

the extent to which universities and government are trying to raise awareness in urban areas, and

create urban buffer zones. Initiatives that stood out are covered in this report and include:

• The Master Gardener program, which is a long standing, national volunteer program that

captures valuable citizen scientists;

• The First Detector Program, which is underpinned by a ‘train the trainer’ structure and

provides valuable teaching tools online; and

• The California University Urban IPM Program, which educates city dwellers about pests and

suppression practices.

P a g e | 34


Implementation of similar initiatives in Australia would be a valuable way of developing a buffer zone

between new agricultural pests and production regions. They would also serve the purpose of

educating the wider community about the delicate nature of food production systems and how they,

as a member of the community, can contribute to Australian food security.

It is important to note that often people who are willing to ‘get involved’, such as community

gardeners or students often do not know how to get involved or who to contact. There is potential for

state and territory departments to nominate an ‘urban liaison’ for this purpose. Notably, a key

discussion point that the author encountered while engaging with Australian growers is the difficulty

encountered in controlling the extent of biosecurity measures undertaken by farm visitors, such as

contractors, journalists, and power providers.

Take home points:

• Engagement with urban areas for purposes of pest management and plant biosecurity is far

more engrained in US culture.

• Australian extension activities are largely ephemeral and effective extension requires long

time frames for impact.

Figure 14: Distribution of major vegetable growing

regions in Australia, as well as major Ports of Entry.

Figure 15: Snapshot of air and marine traffic. Marine Tracker was used to take the marine traffic snapshot, which was

taken at 10am on a Thursday in late October 2017.

P a g e | 35


Operating Environments and Eradications

The Australian biosecurity system has seen quite a bit of change in the past 20 years. However, there

are strong equivalencies between the US and Australian biosecurity response systems, with one

example being the Incident Command System and the Australian Biosecurity Incident Management

System. No doubt one was modelled on the other, or they share common ancestry. While decision-

making and funding for the purpose of pest eradications differs drastically, pest responses remain

operationally similar.

Many horticultural industries, including the vegetable and potato industries, now have industry

biosecurity plans. These plans include lists of HPPs and provide an indication of where preparedness

activities should be directed. In addition, Plant Health Australia are often tasked with writing

contingency plans for these HPPs, which provide important pest specific information to guide

incursion response activities.

These plans and lists are usually tools for government personnel or industry representatives in the

event of a pest incursion. However, more preparation with producers is necessary in raising

awareness around problematic pests, particularly in regards to providing information to growers

about what they may expect in the event of a HPP incursion.

To this end, pre-prepared response plans for HPPs would lead to faster decision-making during

incursion response, and a faster move to effective management if necessary. Learnings from this

study tour, and relationships developed with biosecurity personnel in the US can aid in development

of such pre-prepared response plans.

Eradication Case Study: GALS

This study tour highlighted the serious nature of GALS as an exotic pest. With an abundance of

horticultural crops, particularly running down the eastern seaboard of Australia, the author suggests

that establishment potential of the snail would be high. One problematic pathway for this pest is the

importing or smuggling of GALS into Australia as a pet. A Google search by the author quickly brought

up results that direct searchers to sites providing guidance on where to buy a snail and how to care

for it. There are also a plethora of notable books on the subject. In a good example of pre-border risk

mitigation Australia has now prohibited import of GALS.

Australian governments have indeed been successful in past eradications. In 1977, approximately 300

snails were found Gordonvale, Queensland and eradication was successfully completed eight months

after detection. In 2004 a single snail was found at a steel factory in Currumbin Valley, Queensland,

and in 2013 a single snail was found in a container yard in Brisbane, Queensland.

However, with increasing urbanisation, less public support for use of pesticides, reduced government

biosecurity resourcing, and limited biosecurity awareness in urban areas, future eradications of GALS

may prove difficult. This will make international advice on best practices for eradicating GALS even

more valuable.

Take home points:

• Increased urbanisation will add to complexity of eradications.

• Australia can increase preparedness by reviewing international eradication practices for

priority pests, such as GALS.

P a g e | 36


Communication & Extension

Communication and extension was targeted at three major stakeholder groups: Industry (growers,

supply chain, representative bodies and Research and Development Corporations), Government

(operational staff at DAWR, state agriculture departments, and researchers (university and

government research organisations).

Communications and extension were not targeted at urban dwellers or those without a direct linkage

to horticulture as this was determined to be outside of the project scope. However, the findings of

this project may be extended to other stakeholders at a later stage within awareness campaigns or for

the purposes of organisational or inter-governmental collaboration. One example is sharing these

findings with New Zealand Ministry of Primary Industries, or with Horticulture New Zealand.

Communications during the study tour was guided by a communications plan which defined three

types of communication was used during the tour: formal tour update, social media updates,

informative e-bulletin to industry.

Three formal tour updates summarising meeting participants and meeting topics were distributed to

supporting organisations – AUSVEG, Plant Health Australia, the Department of Agriculture and Water

Resources, and AgriFutures Australia. Three Front Line e-Bulletins were distributed to industry and

research contacts. These bulletins were short (400-600) word articles that informed readers about

the purpose of the study tour and interesting pieces of knowledge acquired throughout the trip.

These bulletins included ‘exotic pest snippets’ and ‘interesting initiatives’. Study tour tweets were

published several times each week from the author Twitter handle and replicated on

@biosecurityveg.

The tour was followed by two Vegetable Extension Network industry workshops (Clyde, Victoria on 7

September 2017 and Forthside, Tasmania on 3 October 2017) (Figure 16). Following extension of tour

findings, workshop participants were taken through facilitated farm biosecurity planning activities.

Study tour results relating to BMSB were presented at the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Workshop

held on 25 September 2017 in Brisbane, directly preceding the PlantSci17 Conference. This workshop

was organised by Plant Health Australia, with the aim of evaluating current knowledge about BMSB

and to identify R&D gaps. During the presentation study tour findings on BMSB was coupled with an

analysis of how BMSB would affect the Australian vegetable industry as well as recommendations for

research and preparedness initiatives.

The project included attendance at the PlantSci17 conference on 25-28 September 2017 in Brisbane.

During this conference study tour findings were presented to attendees, who were mainly

Figure 16: Project extension activities throughout September-December 2017.

P a g e | 37


researchers and government personnel, via a conference poster. Government biosecurity policy and

scientific personnel were also advised of study tour findings at a DAWR organised seminar at the

Songlines Conference Centre on 11 October 2017. Finally, study tour findings were presented at the

inaugural ‘Gippsland Women in Horticulture Advance’ event at the Department of Economic

Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEJTR) at Ellinbank, Victoria on 23 November were the

author presented challenges for the Australian Biosecurity system and case studies from the US.

Outcomes

The potential outcomes arising from this project are expected to be diverse. Information collected

and relationships developed as a result of this study tour will:

Aid in updating industry biosecurity plan pest lists, which will in turn guide research and

preparedness initiatives;

Support informed decision-making regarding investments in biosecurity preparedness for the

vegetable and potato industries, and the broader horticulture industry;

Enable prioritisation of biosecurity related information that may be extended to industry, the

supply chain, researchers and government personnel, and therefore, increase knowledge of

important biosecurity issues among stakeholders;

Provide advice on US biosecurity initiatives and biosecurity resources that may be adapted to

Australian needs; and

Broker collaborative relationships with US biosecurity personnel and researchers who are

practiced in managing, containing or eradicating HPPs so they may be accessed for future

reference.

These outcomes will collectively contribute to industry and government preparedness activities that

will safeguard our horticultural production regions from damaging plant pests, as well as support

faster decision-making during exotic pest incursions.

Conclusion

Growing food security challenges make it clear that the ongoing health and sustainability of Australian

production regions cannot be taken for granted. In a bid to continuously build resilience, we must

constantly critically analyse the food production system in which we operate – regionally, nationally,

and globally – and ask ourselves: Where are the weak points? Where is the dysfunction? Are other

countries ‘doing it better’? If so, why are they more successful in protecting production zones? Where

can we collaborate? What can, or should, we replicate?

Ultimately, the objectives of this project will only be achieved if collated information is extended to

industry and associated players in plant biosecurity (government and scientists), and if this

information is used as a basis for gathering more learnings from our international counterparts.

An outward looking agenda, whereby Australian horticulturalists, researchers, and government learn

from overseas experiences within the plant biosecurity space, and then builds upon the outcomes of

P a g e | 38


those experiences through collaboration and information sharing, is essential in the face of emerging

challenges and resource constraints.

It is during crisis situations when biosecurity best practices become topics of discussion once again. It

seems logical to take steps to promote a culture of investment in preparedness and education, rather

than reaction and response.

Given this current context, raising awareness of exotic plant pests threats among industry members,

identifying international ‘go-to’ pest experts, and sourcing information to ensure that biosecurity

preparedness investments are effective, synergistic, and not duplicated, will become increasingly

important in this current global context. As such, this tour was one such step that may contribute in a

positive way towards a cultural change.

Recommendations

The author makes the below recommendations to decision-makers in industry and government based

on observations and ideas made and developed during the study tour. Please note, there are existing

initiatives within Australia that address certain recommendations, at least in part. For example:

Greater Sydney Local Land Services have been piloting an urban pest surveillance and

biosecurity initiative over 2016 and 2016;

The Vegetable and Potato Biosecurity Program will extend activities to urban biosecurity in

2018; and

A recently approved Rural R&D for Profit investment will focus on developing and rolling out

smart trap technologies for key plant pests in Australia from 2018-2022.

Consideration of these recommendations should be made in conjunction with review of existing

activities undertaken by both industry and government.

Pest Preparedness Recommendation 1

Review current government and industry HPP lists for horticultural commodities based on tour

findings and update accordingly.

Recommendation 2

Determine economic impact of key US pests down to regional level and develop pre-emptive

interstate phytosanitary protocols and proof of freedom data requirements for pests that have the

greatest potential economic impact for key production regions.

Recommendation 3

Develop pre-populated response plans and pre-prepared management plans for key US pests:

• Identify currently used effective pest management practices for key US pests;

• Conduct gap analyses and scoping studies to determine current industry and government

capacity to eradicate or manage key US pests;

• Identify key personnel in the US who may provide advice; and

P a g e | 39


• Ensure industry has AgChem emergency permits ‘on the shelf’ and ready to be processed for

key US pests.

Recommendation 4

Advance BMSB preparedness activities:

• Investigate Australian bushland flora as hosts for BMSB;

• Set up a BMSB first detector system at high risk areas that expands on Commonwealth

inspection activites; and

• Develop relationships with Stop BMSB researchers and investigate collaborative research

projects.

Recommendation 5

Prioritise development of innovative trapping technologies:

• Conduct a review of currently used overseas pest traps and new innovations for key HPPs;

• Identify international research groups that are developing innovative and effective pest traps

and ensure Australian government biosecurity personnel maintain relationships with these

groups; and

• Stockpile traps for top 42 exotic plant pests as identified by the Department of Agriculture

and Water Resources.

Biosecurity Capacity and Capability Recommendation 6

Source funds to hold a CAPS-NAQS pest surveillance forum, whereby information on pest surveillance

tactics in the Torres Strait Island group and Caribbean Islands may be exchanged.

Recommendation 7

Conduct government personnel ‘exchanges’ between jurisdictions, similar to the initiative undertaken

by Florida, Hawaii and California state agriculture departments. Such an exchange program would

strengthen interstate relationships between state departments and aid in knowledge transfer to new

biosecurity personnel, leading to faster and more effective decision making during pests incursions,

holistic surveillance strategies, and collaboration for the purpose of preparedness.

Recommendation 8

Launch a formal scheme for strengthening connections between biosecurity researchers and industry,

with the aim to expand researcher networks within industry and make research institutions aware of

industry opportunities, leading to an increased pool of biosecurity experts available for horticultural

R&D.

Urban Biosecurity Recommendation 9

Increase education and awareness about impacts of exotic pests in urban areas:

P a g e | 40


• Conduct a study assessing the ratio of incursions originating in urban areas, and determine

which urban areas present the highest risk for horticultural regions;

• Focus on initial launching of awareness activities directed at community gardeners, port

workers, and school groups;

• Assess current university courses and determine potential for integrating biosecurity modules

into applicable courses, such as agribusiness, agriscience, botany, ecology, geography,

environmental science, and science;

• Assess current university research and collaborate where appropriate to support urban

biosecurity initiatives;

• Investigate launching a bee health citizen science program and determine how such a

program could be expanded to topics on plant health; and

• Develop a network of state government based ‘urban liaisons’ to field questions from urban

dwellers interested in IPM and biosecurity.

The Role of Councils Recommendation 10

Support more active involvement of councils in biosecurity:

• Encourage council staff to undertake routine Emergency Plant Pest Response and farm

biosecurity best-practice training;

• Develop a nationally accepted position description for a council biosecurity officer, outlining

the specific roles and powers of the officer, and encourage councils in key production areas

to fund these positions; and

• Hold state department-council workshops in key production regions with the intent of

ensuring roles and responsibilities in the event of pests incursions are understood, and

clarifying how councils may support state governments during these incursions.

Project Challenges and Solutions

As previously described, the project scope required some re-evaluation from the original project

proposal. To meet demands of logistics, budget, timeframe, and tour topics the location of the tour

was reduced to the US. However, the scope was broadened to encompass wider horticulture,

acknowledging the broad host ranges of some pests and the potential for biosecurity initiatives to

benefit many industries.

Originally the tour was to be undertaken over March 2017. However, TPP was detected in Western

Australia over this period and tour dates were changed to July in order for the author to aid TPP

eradication and management efforts in-country.

This allowed the author to reflect on the issues encountered with TPP eradication in Australia and

thus add an additional topic to the study tour, which focussed on urban biosecurity initiatives.

P a g e | 41


Next Steps

Findings from the study tour will continue to be developed into information material for industry and

translated into applicable languages, such as Khmer and Vietnamese. Information gathered on US

pests will be used to improve the vegetable and potato industry biosecurity plans developed by Plant

Health Australia and to develop biosecurity preparedness initiatives that may have greatest impact for

these industries. In addition, information supplied to other horticultural groups, such as citrus and

pome fruit, will further bolster biosecurity preparedness efforts in horticulture as a whole.

The author would stress how important it is to maintain relationships developed during the tour.

Certain groups that hosted the author during the tour are keen to visit Australia and it is clear we can

learn quite a bit from each other, particularly in regards to eradication and management of certain

pests, such as GALS and BMSB. The importance of international expertise was demonstrated during

both the CGMMV incursion of 2014 in the Northern Territory, and during the TPP incursion of 2017 in

Western Australia.

Australia is in an interesting situation, with a biosecurity system that is increasingly moving towards a

‘hybrid structure’. As noted by CSIRO in the report ‘Australia’s Biosecurity Future’, the current status

quo may not be sufficient to combat future challenges.

Given the increasing number of challenges to our biosecurity system (resource constraints, operating

environment complexity, pesticide resistance, increasing transmission pathways etc..) it is crucial that

Australian governments and industry groups are both inward and outward looking. We must

continuously analyse and evaluate our own system, and consider overseas knowledge, biosecurity

initiatives and processes to aid development of a national biosecurity strategy going forward.

Professional Development

In addition to undertaking this project, the author attended a three day leadership workshop funded

and organised by AgriFutures Australia. The author took the following learnings from this workshop:

Aspirational leadership attributes for the author are logic and integrity;

There is nothing wrong with ‘spruiking’ yourself and your achievements; and

It is worth thinking outside of the box where collaborative endeavours are concerned.

As a newcomer to agriculture and rural Australia the professional network developed over this three

day workshop was one of high importance for the author. It is all too easy to restrict a professional

network to the industry in which you work (in this case the vegetable industry). However, a diverse

professional network that spans other sectors is crucial to gaining a broad perspective on challenges

to rural Australia, and for development of ideas to address these challenges.

As a part of the Rural Women’s Award 2016 (Vic) the author was also funded to undertake the

Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) course, which was challenging and worthwhile.

According to the ‘Gender Equity Insights 2017’ report (BCEC, 2017) the number of women in

leadership positions in the sector of agriculture, fisheries and forestry remains extremely low –

women account for only 14% of management personnel and senior executives. The author intends to

use the qualification and knowledge gained from the AICD course to aid in rectifying this imbalance

and become an effective decision-maker in agriculture.

P a g e | 42


Finally, the study tour component of this project was extremely ambitious and the author navigated

over 4000km of US east and west coast highway with minimal disruptions to the schedule. The

experience was a positive one for the author, not only from the perspective of gaining new

knowledge and being afforded the opportunity to share that knowledge and develop

recommendations, but also as proof of what may be achieved through perseverance.

P a g e | 43


References

AEC Group (2015) ACA 2014-15 Economic Impact Study

Australian Academy of Science (2016) Agriculture Decadal Plan, consultation draft

Australian Federal Government (2012) Biosecurity Emergency Management: Biosecurity Incident

Management System V1.0-29

Balderstone, J., Duthie, L., Eckersley, D., Jarrett, F., and McColl, J (1982) Agricultural Policy: Issues and

Options for the 1980s. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Services

Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (2017) Gender Equity Insights 2017 report

Beale, R., Fairbrother, J., Inglis., A and Trebeck, D. (2008) One biosecurity: a working partnership. The

independent review of Australia’s quarantine and biosecurity arrangements. Quarantine and

Biosecurity Review Panel report to the Australian Government, Canberra

Biosecurity Council of Western Australia (2017) Biosecurity and market access report

Brooks, R., Kompas, T., and Glanville, R. (2015) Queensland Biosecurity Capability Review

California Department of Food and Agriculture (2016) Pierce’s Disease Control Program Annual

Report to the Legislature

Centre of Full Employment and Equity (2012) The Impact on Community Services of Staff and Service

Reductions, Privatisation and Outsourcing of Public Services in Australian States: Case Studies of

Biosecurity and Primary Industry, Child Protection and Housing

Craik, W., Palmer, D., and Sheldrake, R. IGAB Independent Review Panel (2016) Is Australia’s national

biosecurity system and the underpinning Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity fit for the

future? Discussion paper.

Day, E. (2008) Cucumber Beetles fact sheet, Virginia Cooperative Extension

Deloitte (2014) Building the Lucky Country: Catching the next wave

Fleming, A., Wilson, S., and Measham, P. (2014) Research to practice – a case study in relationship

building for successful extension. Rural Extension and Innovation Systems Journal, 10:1

Fresh Logic (2016) Australian Horticulture Statistics Handbook 2015/16

FAO, IFAD and WFP (2015) The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015. Meeting the 2015

international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress, Rome.

Grains Research and Development Corporation (2016) Online Farm Trials: a national grains research

information resource, viewed online 7 October 2016

Hunt, W., Birch, C., Vanclay, F., and Coutts, J. (2014) Recommendations arising from an analysis of

changes to the Australian agricultural research, development and extension system. Food Policy, 44

Hunt, W., Birch, C., Coutts, J., and Vanclay, F. (2012) The many turnings of agricultural extension in

Australia. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 18:1

P a g e | 44


Isard, S., Russo, J., Magarey, R., Golod, J., and VanKirk, J. (2015) Integrated Pest Information Platform

for Extension and Education (iPiPE): Progress through sharing, Journal of Integrated Pest

Management, 6:1, 1

Magarey, R., Colunga-Garcia, M., and Fieselmann, D. (2009) Plant Biosecurity in the United States:

Roles, Responsibilities, and Information Needs. BioScience, 59:10

Nairn, M., Allen, P., Inglis, A., and Tanner, C. (1996) Australian Quarantine a shared responsibility.

Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Canberra

Paini, D., Sheppard, A., Cook, D., Barroe, P., Worner, S., and Thomas, M. (2016) Global threat to

agriculture from invasive species. PNAS, 113:27

Penca, C., Adams, D., and Huler, J. (2016) The Cuba-Florida plant-pest pathway. Insecta Mundi, 995

Pennsylvania State University Archives

Plant Health Australia (2005) Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed

Simpson, M., and Srinivasan, V. (2014) Australia's biosecurity future: preparing for future biological

challenges. Canberra: CSIRO

USDA Economic Research Service (2017) Ag and Food Statistics

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (2014) Census of Horticultural Specialities

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (2014) Census of Horticultural Specialities; USDA,

Economic Research Service using data from USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Citrus

Fruits, Non-citrus fruits and nuts, and Vegetables

USDA (2002) Emergency Response Manual

www.portsaustralia.com.au

Additional Resources

Exotic pest fact sheets

Plant Health Australia:

http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au

Research and Extension Centres

Penn State Research and Extension Centre:

https://extension.psu.edu/

University of California Urban IPM:

http://ucanr.edu/sites/urbanIPM/

University of California Surf Coast Research and Extension Centre:

http://screc.ucanr.edu/

http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/

https://extension.psu.edu/

http://ucanr.edu/sites/urbanIPM/

http://screc.ucanr.edu/

P a g e | 45


Mountain Horticultural Crops Research and Extension Centre:

https://mountainhort.ces.ncsu.edu/

State Departments

California Department of Food and Agriculture:

https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services:

http://www.freshfromflorida.com/

Pest Control Programs

Stop BMSB:

http://www.stopbmsb.org/

Urban Initiatives

First Detector Program:

https://firstdetector.org/static/index.html

http://www.flfirstdetector.org/

Master Gardener Program:

https://extension.psu.edu/programs/master-gardener

http://mg.ucanr.edu/

http://gardeningsolutions.ifas.ufl.edu/mastergardener/

http://mastergardener.wsu.edu/

http://extension.oregonstate.edu/mg/

Don’t Pack a Pest initiative:

http://www.dontpackapest.com/

North West Pollinator Initiative:

https://nwpollinators.org/

eXtension

https://www.extension.org/

Decision Making Tools:

Washinton State University Decision Aid System:

https://www.decisionaid.systems/

iPIPE:

http://www.ipipe.org/

https://mountainhort.ces.ncsu.edu/

https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/

http://www.freshfromflorida.com/

http://www.stopbmsb.org/

https://firstdetector.org/static/index.html

http://www.flfirstdetector.org/

https://extension.psu.edu/programs/master-gardener

http://mg.ucanr.edu/

http://gardeningsolutions.ifas.ufl.edu/mastergardener/

http://mastergardener.wsu.edu/

http://extension.oregonstate.edu/mg/

http://www.dontpackapest.com/

https://nwpollinators.org/

https://www.extension.org/

https://www.decisionaid.systems/

http://www.ipipe.org/

Documents

Knowledge brokering in biosecurity: How international ...€¦ · Lye, JC (2017) Knowledge brokering in biosecurity: How international linkages and learnings can help us build a better