Scientific curiosity as an emerging threat The P. kernoviae story Dr Mike Ormsby, Senior Adviser, Biosecurity New Zealand
Hypothesis: That Scientific Research posses a Biosecurity Risk 2
Evidence of Risk Phytophthora kernoviae has been in New Zealand for 50+ years and caused few problems Scientists discovered that we have this plant pathogen and the world was told Scientists discovered that we have this plant pathogen in our pine forests Impacts: Scientists in other countries threaten to restrict access of New Zealand s wood products = COSTS TO INDUSTRY. 3
This is true But what else happened? HISTORY of PHYTOPHTHORA 1876 Phytophthora infestans first described. Cause of Potato Blight and the Irish Potato Famine. Phytophthora = Plant destroyer 1922 Phytophthora cinnamomi first described. Now believed to be the most destructive plant pathogen found so far. Widespread in New Zealand 1970 Unidentified Phytophthora species found under stands of Pinus radiata by Murray McAlonan (Masters thesis). 4
HISTORY of PHYTOPHTHORA continued 2001 Phytophthora ramorum first identified. Found to be the cause of Sudden Oak Death in California and Europe 2002 Unidentified Phytophthora species collected from diseased cherimoya trees in Northland. Sample lodged in ICMP collection 2005 Phytophthora kernoviae first named from samples collected during P. ramorum surveys in the UK in 2003-2004 2006 - Phytophthora kernoviae identified in New Zealand from samples collected from cherimoya in 2002. 5
Why was P. kernoviae identified? In the early 1990s various developments led to rising concern about the threat posed by invasive Phytophthora pathogens to European forests. These included the association of P. cinnamomi with cork oak mortality in Iberia, the spread of the new hybrid, P. alni subspecies on alder and evidence that several Phytophthoras, including the newly recognized P. quercina, were associated with deciduous oak declines across northern and central Europe. This concern was heightened when another new and invasive pathogen, P. ramorum was shown to be responsible for a widespread oak mortality in California and Oregon (Brasier et al. 2005). 6
Why was P. kernoviae identified? cont. The discovery in 2003 that P. ramorum was spreading from diseased rhododendrons onto stems of trees in several woodlands and gardens in southern England prompted detailed sample surveys for P. ramorum on trees at the affected sites. During these surveys, another previously unknown Phytophthora was isolated from a large (>1 m 2 ) aerial bleeding lesion on a mature European beech, Fagus sylvatica, in a woodland in Cornwall, south-west England and concurrently from Rhododendron ponticum at another woodland site in the same area. Like P. ramorum, the new Phytophthora was causing widespread foliar necrosis and shoot dieback of the often dense understorey rhododendrons (Brasier et al. 2005). 7
Why Look in New Zealand? Same reasons as the UK: What do we have in New Zealand? (establish baseline information) Are there any sleeper-organisms? If we know what we have and what we do not have, we can better manage the diseases that are here and prevent the others from arriving. 8
What came out of the Research? 1. Phytophthora kernoviae is established in New Zealand 2. Phytophthora europaea is established in New Zealand 3. 21 species of Phytophthora we thought were in New Zealand are here 4. 3 previously recorded Phytophthora species could not be confirmed (P. cambivora, P. drechsleri, P. porri) 5. 2 previously recorded Phytophthora species were incorrectly identified and are not thought to be in New Zealand (P. lateralis and P. meadii) 6. There is no evidence to suggest we have Phytophthora ramorum. 9
What does this mean for New Zealand? 1. We now have a better understanding of the species of Phytophthora we do and do not have 2. This allows us to better manage the domestic and trade-related impacts from the species we do have. 3.. and protect New Zealand from the species that we do not have 4. Because we have greater confidence in knowing what we do and do not have, our trading partners can have greater confidence in the phytosanitary assurances we can give. 10
Conclusion The Hypothesis is correct! Scientific Research does represent a risk to industry. but it also provides benefits and opportunities Like any risk, the best response is risk management: to reduce the negative and enhance or take advantage of the positive. 11
Conclusions cont. Good Risk Management is: 1. Being Informed: e.g. engage with science organizations and government, attend industry/science workshops to know what is going on and why 2. Being Prepared: e.g. know how to and be prepared to respond, with government and the science community. 12
Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives JAMES MADISON 13