Knowledge sharing and cooperation between agencies and countries is a critical part of maintaining biosecurity, a national symposium has been told.

Speaking at the 2024 Plant Biosecurity Research Initiative (PBRI) symposium in Cairns recently, presenters detailed the importance of whole-of-industry strategies to curb the threat posed to agriculture by weed, pest and disease incursions.

“Knowledge sharing (with other countries that are already dealing with a particular pest or disease) is critical in terms of tips and tricks for detection and coming up with an incursion response,” Jane Muller, CSIRO’s Safe Trade project co-lead, told the conference.

Ms Muller said biosecurity initiatives were critical in protecting $90 billion of Australian agricultural production, $70 billion of exports and 1.6 million jobs across the agricultural supply chain.

PBRI program director Jo Luck said Australia’s approach to managing an incursion by fall armyworm was an example of how inter-agency cooperation had the potential to improve pest control. “Fall armyworm has been present in Australia for a number of years now, and we are still seeking innovations to control it,” she said.

“Global withdrawal of chemicals to manage pests and diseases will continue, while resistance to chemicals is also of concern for sustainable pest management. This is driving the need for collaboration and cross-industry research, and better fall armyworm management is a prime example of how we can work together to innovate and manage this pest.”

Integrated pest management

University of Melbourne and Cesar Australia entomologist Dr Paul Umina told the symposium that the Australian Grains Pest Innovation Program – a joint initiative between the university, Cesar and GRDC – had studied the effects of common agricultural chemicals on beneficial insects.

As part of that, researchers undertook hundreds of bio-assays to come up with the ‘Beneficials chemical toxicity table’ (cesaraustralia.com/resources/beneficials-toxicity-table), which received its final update in April this year. He said this table had been effective in facilitating grower and agronomist discussions about chemical choice and timing, integrated pest management and beneficial insects for pest control.

“One of the effective ways to facilitate biological control in natural systems is to use softer chemicals or biopesticides to replace the more traditional broad-spectrum insecticides,” he said. “We were interested to understand the impacts of various insecticides on natural enemies in Australian grain crops and to put that information into the hands of growers.”

Following extensive literature reviews and consultation with agrichemical companies, Dr Umina said researchers were surprised to find there was very little data about the impacts of insecticides on important beneficial insects, and “we set about filling some of those gaps”.

Following the development of the ‘Beneficials chemical toxicity table’, Dr Umina said there had been encouraging feedback from growers – as well as agrichemical companies – about its usefulness to the industry.

“We were also intrigued by some of the results in the bio-assays in terms of species-specific responses to chemicals, even between closely related species. So, for example, two aphid parasitoids within the same family can respond very differently to a particular chemical.

“One limitation of the data is that we are only looking at acute toxicities. But, of course, chemicals can have transgenerational effects and sublethal effects. So we need to be mindful of the fact that particular chemicals that might appear to be benign can still have population impacts.”

Biosecurity Commons

University of Melbourne researcher  Dr James Camac, who is the project  manager for the Biosecurity Commons initiative (biosecuritycommons.org.au), told the symposium that global biosecurity risks were increasing, with three main challenges facing biosecurity researchers and practitioners:

• learning how to best harness existing data to aid biosecurity regulators and industry in making scientifically informed decisions;
• understanding and forecasting how climate change will affect international trade and human movement – the two main avenues for exotic species introductions; and
• determining where the biggest “bang for buck” can be obtained across a wide range of pre-border, border and post-border risk mitigation strategies.

“All biosecurity systems are constrained by budgets and it is critical to determine which risk-reducing activities provide the greatest return on investment in terms of avoiding damage to agricultural, environmental or social assets,” he said.

“All three challenges need data and sophisticated, but practical, models and tools for timely decision-making that incorporates science, economics and human behaviour.”

Diagnostic and surveillance initiative

Dr Will Cuddy, manager of plant biosecurity research and diagnostics at NSW Department of Primary Industries, told the symposium that GRDC was a co-investor in the $42 million National Grains Diagnostic and Surveillance Initiative (NGDSI), which was aimed at creating a five-year ‘uplift’ in on-the-ground diagnostics.

“The outcomes are intended to be twofold: better preparedness for exotics, as well as better diagnostics to support management of endemics,” Dr Cuddy said.

The six-year NGDSI initiative will use state-of-the-art technology and processes to improve Australia’s ability to rapidly detect and accurately diagnose exotic pests and plants.

It will also support the development of more than 20 biosecurity specialists across Australia, modernise current surveillance techniques and utilise global intelligence to forecast future pest and disease risks to the nation’s grains industry.

More information: Callum Fletcher, callum.fletcher@grdc.com.au