Scientific curiosity as an emerging threat The P' kernoviae story Dr Mike Ormsby, Senior Adviser, Bi

1
Scientific curiosity as an emerging threatThe
P. kernoviae story Dr Mike Ormsby, Senior
Adviser, Biosecurity New Zealand
2
Hypothesis That Scientific Research posses a
Biosecurity Risk
3
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 Zealands wood products
• COSTS TO INDUSTRY.

4
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).

5

• 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.

6
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).

7
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 (gt1 m2)
  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).

8
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.

9
What came out of the Research ?

• Phytophthora kernoviae is established in New
  Zealand ?
• Phytophthora europaea is established in New
  Zealand ?
• 21 species of Phytophthora we thought were in New
  Zealand are here ?
• 3 previously recorded Phytophthora species could
  not be confirmed (P. cambivora, P.
  drechsleri, P. porri) ?
• 2 previously recorded Phytophthora species were
  incorrectly identified and are not thought to be
  in New Zealand (P. lateralis and P. meadii) ?
• There is no evidence to suggest we have
  Phytophthora ramorum ?.

10
What does this mean for New Zealand?

• We now have a better understanding of the species
  of Phytophthora we do and do not have
• This allows us to better manage the domestic and
  trade-related impacts from the species we do
  have.
• . and protect New Zealand from the species that
  we do not have
• 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.

11
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.

12
Conclusions cont.

• Good Risk Management is
• Being Informed e.g. engage with science
  organizations and government, attend
  industry/science workshops to know what is going
  on and why
• Being Prepared e.g. know how to and be prepared
  to respond, with government and the science
  community.

13

• 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