Plant Bio-Security - Coursework Example

Plant Bio-security al Affiliation: Plant Bio-security Introduction Bio-security refers to the procedures to stop the introduction or spread of harmful organisms, pests and diseases to human, plant and animal life. The procedures represent a combination of the systems and processes that have been put in place by custom agents, bio-science laboratories as well as agricultural managers so as to prevent the spread of dangerous toxins and pathogens. In another language, bio-security can be described as the integrated and strategic approach that includes the policy and other regulatory frameworks that analyses and manages risks in the food safety sector, plant and animal health and life as well as associated environmental risks. Bio-security includes the introduction of animal pests, plant pests and diseases, the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their associated products as well as the introduction of invasive genotypes and alien species. Bio-security is a holistic concept to the sustainability of food safety and agriculture (Dreistadt, Flint, & Clark 2004). Australia has a strong geographical isolation on quarantine and this makes the nation to be in a fortunate situation of being free from significant pests and diseases that tend to adversely affect agricultural production in other parts of the globe. Fewer ewer pests and disease problems may mean lower production costs. Freedom from pests and diseases provides an enormous market with an access advantage to Australian producers and farmers. The social and other valued public amenities which include gardens and parks are maintained if these amenities are protected from oversees pests. In addition, plant industries in Australia need to come up with ways of protecting themselves from pests and diseases present in some parts of Australia such as potato cyst nematode (Groves, Panetta, & Virtue 2001) Plant bio-security starts on the farm and even extends across the whole of the bio-security continuum. Early discovery of pests and diseases is the key to effective responses. It gives the best opportunity to stop exotic pests and diseases from establishing in Australia (Dreistadt, Flint, & Clark 2004). Types of pests Mite pests and insects Severe insect attacks mostly occur in two main ways. The interaction of pest predator plant interaction becomes unequal and the pest population explodes and this causes a lot of damages to the plant. Alternatively, the pest attack may possess a cyclical nature thus it may cause damages on a seasonal basis. In most cases, plants adapt to the previous damage and this causes them minimal chances of surviving. Cultivated plants can sometimes escape attacks of the insects or damage them. Such a situation is mostly common when pests re introduced without a complete suite parasitic and predatory organisms or removed through the use of insecticides (Flint, 1998) These factors tend to reduce the normal growth activities of plants such as water logging, roots compaction, and inappropriate nutrient application often predisposes plants to possibility of being affected by mites and insects such as aphids and mealy bugs. The most common insect and mite considerations believed to damage the insects are the perfect identification of the pests, having a full understanding of the ecology of the pests and diseases and to understand how the pests interact with other close organisms especially parasites and predators. This kind of knowledge is very essential especially when considering the control of the organisms through the use of pesticides (Barker & Randall, 2006). Sap sucking insects These insects tend to be available on the plant nutrients in the flow of the sap and in most cases associated with the most thorough damage on plants and this makes them hard to control and deal with completely. The most frequently known insects that suck sap include aphids, mealy bugs, scale pests and mite pests. These pests come as a result of outside stress on the plants especially those plants which are suffering from cold stress, lack of nutrients balance as well as other disturbances (NRMMC 2007). In such cases, it is difficult to deal with these pests through the use of pesticides thus the control achieved in such situations will always be transitory. Use of pesticides inappropriately may enhance the reproductive abilities of the pest population and this may result to the development of pesticides resistance by the insects. It is essential to have knowledge of the necessary conditions for the growth of plants which are infected by such populations and recognize the conditions which are likely to limit the growth of the plants and increase the plants vulnerability to the pests. Plants which are grown in suitable conditions are not likely to be attacked by these insects thus parasitic and predatory insects must provide sufficient pests control (Dreistadt & Clark, 2004). Stem and bud-boring insects They are mainly the Lepidoptera larvae and Coleoptera and are often believed to cause serious problems in native plants and can ruin a season’s productivity completely. Control of this group of pests can be difficult because they are not observable and that systematic pesticides are badly transported to the most active site. Regular functioning of systematic insecticides and pesticides can be used as preventive measures for effective control (Rodoni, 2009). Foliage diseases Most plant species in Australia are a collection of pathogenic fungi and have the ability to of causing leaf spots, mildews and cankers. In most cases, foliage diseases do not require to be controlled. However, they can lead to economic issues in horticultural plants. Usually numerous kinds of fungicide and pesticides used to deal with the marks on the leaves are appropriate (Andow, 2003). Soil-borne fungal diseases Soil-borne diseases are the most often responsible for the vast death in local flora. They exhibit a wide range of symptoms which are over and over again mistaken with effects brought about by water logging nutrient disproportion, or insufficiency and reduced root development. Simply examining the on seen signs of these problems is not often possible to differentiate the casual agent bringing up the ailment. As a result, the assumptions made concerning the availability of soil-borne diseases may time to time be erroneous. These circumstances raise the issue of using pesticides improperly in a manner to control predetermined pathogens. Precisely diagnosing the availability of soil borne pathogens is done through a technique that involves separating the pathogen followed by a consequent detection of the pathogen by competent personnel (Magarey & Colunga, 2009).. One the troubles integrated in the diagnosis and control of soil pathogens is lack of distinct way of controlling these pathogens. A variety of fungicides are purported to control kind pathogens but have inconsistent causes that depend on the status of environment. In a nutshell, lacking defined ways of diagnosing translates to a dilemma in knowing these pathogens quickly and in a consistency. A recurring condition which all time to time arises is that fungicides are used without particular pathogen having been identified and in circumstances which may not be helpful for usefulness of the chemical (Garcia & Fieselmann, 2009). Stipulation of idyllic growing setting is far more complex, predominantly for plants which have previous been cultivated comprehensively. A number of postulations on growing settings can over time be availed from making observations of the habits of growth of a plant in its innate ecosystem which relays to the range of temperature, the type of soils it thrives on well, water available etc. Sequentially the requirement for the microrrhiza is also an important factor that vitally impacting on the vigor conversely translating that soil-borne pathogens have been at work but rather that the plant may have been stressed by settings which are totally not convincing (Moerkerk, 2006). The Wwaratah soil-borne disease This kind of disease has a big probability of growing as a cut flower among plants and flowers for export and local markets. The development of profitable cultivation has potentially been prevented by several issues at hand such as bad plant growth and hardness in farming. The poor growth of the plants is assumed predominantly due to main and crown disease which cause in high plant mortality problems. . Many fungi species are to be involved with departed and dying waratah; these include species of Pythium, Rhizoctonia, Phytophthora, Cylindrocladium Fusarium, and Cylindrocarpon. It has been asserted that Cylindrocarpon destructans and Phytophthora cinnamomi are pathogenic to waratahs. Cylindrocladium scoparianum is also said to be an efficient pathogen for various plant species such as Banksia and the waratah. In addition, waratahs which are dead are characterized by various signs such as wilting, leaf staining, dieback and dropping; necrosis, stem becoming black progressively, death of roots and in other cases it can lead to death of the plant (Moerkerk, 2006). Effects of plant pests in the world The threat posed to crop growth by plant pest and diseases is one of the contributors to “a perfect storm” which poses a threat to world food security. By now, the biological threat accounts for around 30% loss in world production and the problem is forecast to get worse, scientists warn. It is unlucky fact too that despite a general consensus on threats from the pests and disease to world production real monitoring and evaluation of damage caused globally is very poorly gotten. Awareness is being raised on the immense range of pest and disease that threaten crops for agricultural, the devastation they can cause, the difficulties in controlling them.Locust swarms may vanish for many years, only to break out of their endemic regions after periods of abnormally high rainfall (Moerkerk, 2006). In Brazil there was a recent example of the latter was the deliberate introduction of witches broom disease of cocoa, Crinipellis perniciosa. The aim was a social one – to weaken the political power to a powerful cocoa land owner, achieved its desired effect: production across fell 65%. The Brazil nation went from being third leading producer of cocoa to third place. The rubber tree is a native commodity in South Africa but very little is produced there. The main reason is the fungus Microcyclus ulei has resisted all attempts to control it over more than 100 years. Biological control of pests It is a bio-effecter method of controlling pests including insects, mites, weeds and plant diseases using other living organisms. It depends on predation, parasitism, herbivore, or other natural mechanisms, but typically also involves an active man management role. It can be a useful component of integrated pest management (IPM) programs. There are 3 basic types of biological pest control strategies: importation (sometimes called classical biological control), augmentation and conservation (Groves, Panetta & Virtue, 2001). Biological control agents are natural enemies of insects and pests including predators, pathogens and parasitoids. Biological control agents for plant diseases are often referred to as antagonists. Biological control agents for weeds may include herbivores, seed predators, and plant pathogens. Another component of the biological control of pests is the concept referred to as importation. Importation is a classical biological control and is primarily used against exotic pests that have inadvertently been introduced from elsewhere without their natural control. Many organisms that are not pests in their native habitat become unusually abundant after colonizing new location. Researchers go to the pest’s native ecosystem, study as well as collect the natural enemies that can kill the pest there, and then ship the promising natural enemies back for testing and possible release. Numerous insects and some weed that were widespread pest in California are now partially or completely controlled by natural enemies except where these natural enemies are disrupted, such as by pesticide usage or honeydew-seeking ants (Andow 2003). A big bonus of biological control is its relative safety for human health and environment, compared to widespread use of broad-spectrum pesticides. Nearly all negative impacts from exotic species have been caused by undesirable organisms contaminating imported goods (Williams, Nicol, & Newfield, 2000). Cultural control of plant pests These are the oldest methods that have been applied to deal with and manage pest populations. Nevertheless, with the progress of synthetic pesticides these controls were speedily abandoned or de-emphasized and explore on them was basically discontinued (Pheloung & Halloy, 1999). Strategies on which cultural practices are based I) Make the plant ecosystem unacceptable to pest by interfering with their oviposition preference, host crop discrimination or by adults and immature. II) Make plant not accessible to the pest in space and time by utilizing know how of the life history of the pests. III) Through natural enemies enhances reduction of pest survival on crop, or by changing the susceptibility of the crops to the pest (Jackson & Bayliss, 2011). Advantages of cultural control methods Cultural controls methods are normally the cheapest of all control procedures because they frequently only need modifications to usual production practices. They do not even require extra labor, only cautious planning is required. Repeatedly they are the only control measures that are profitable for high home of low value crops (Groves, Panetta, & Virtue 2001) Cultural controls are dependable, and are typically precise. Of chief importance is the detail that they do not own some of the damaging side property of pesticides (NRMMC 2007). Disadvantages Cultural control of pests entails long-term planning for greatest efficiency and they call for vigilant timing. They are time and again based on the swap of knowledge and skills for purchased inputs and, as such, are more challenging on the farmers know-how. They may be effective for one pest but may be ineffective against a closely related variety. Certain cultural controls also have adverse effects on wildlife and may also cause erosion problems. Cultural strategies include Isolation of crops Planting spacing Mixed cropping and crop diversity Timing of planting and seeding Rotation of crops Volunteer crops destruction Management of nursery and trap crops Management of the surrounding environment (Jackson & Bayliss, 2011). Monitoring control of plant pests Pest management integrated is the foundation of the proper identification and monitoring. Monitoring is necessary to know the presence of the pest so that the action can be taken before infestation becomes contagious.  Many pests are the majority susceptible to insecticides and other control techniques when they are in a fastidious stage of development (Groves, Panetta, & Virtue 2001) Several tools are used to monitor pest insects and arthropods.  Nursery managers and plant protection staff should know the pests which attack their crops, and then use a monitoring plan that can anticipate pest harms. Scouting programs are conducted for the casual examination of the number of plants affected by pests in the nursery then the necessary measures can be taken (Andow 2003). Chemical control of plant pests There are three main key classes of chemical treatments of pests and diseases which include: 1. Treatment of soil 2. Treatment of seeds 3. Foliar sprays Seed treatments are composed of slurries and dust applied to seeds so as to protect them against damping-off of the seeds caused by soil borne pathogens and fungi. Chemical pesticides based on man-made substances are designed so as to reduce the strength of the pest populations and at the same time leaving the plants unharmed. Chemical control helps eliminate common pests in various ways. Some may kill as soon as they come into contact with the chemical whereas others disrupt the ability of the pests to reproduce. Other controls just limit the physical growth of the pests or even influence their behavior in ways that are detrimental to their lives. Most of the chemical controls are effective. They offer control over many insects and pests at the various stages of the pests (Andow 2003). Impacts of new pests and how to reduce them Plant pests and diseases tend to affect food crops and this causes significant losses to farmers across the globe thus threatening food security. The spread of these trans-boundary plant pests and diseases dramatically increased in recent years. This has been brought about by trade, globalization, decreased resilience in the systems of production as well as climatic changes. These kinds of pests and diseases easily spread to other countries and can reach epidemic proportions. Outbreak of pests and diseases can lead to huge losses to crops and even pastures and this threatens the livelihoods of farmers as well as the food and nutrition security of millions. Great battles are being fought in every day farming activities as farmers and gardeners strive to protect their crops and plants and at the same time garden pests and diseases seek to attack and destroy them (Dreistadt, Flint, & Clark 2004). Conclusion Plant pests and diseases have continued to threaten farmers since the beginning of farming many years ago. The damages caused can be economic (through loss of output, investments and income) as well as psychological loss which is manifested in panic and shock). Eradicating plant pests and diseases is a necessity for producers and farmers and thus decisions regarding the control of the pests and diseases are made by the individual farmer. However, as discussed from the paper, the presence of pests on a single farm poses a big threat to adjacent farms and in other cases even to far distant localities. Pests and diseases mean negative impacts to third parties and thus call for additional response either from the affected parties or even from the public. Services such as infrastructure aimed at combating pests and diseases are a public good that can only be afforded and be provided more efficiently by the government other than when provided by individuals. Yet, the most efficient and effective forms of government intervention depends much on the kind of pests and diseases in question. It has been observed that when the government involves itself much on pests and diseases, it tends to create a dependency amongst farmers and this discourages them from adopting integrated pest management approaches that can enable them to address the issue even more effectively. That explains the reason why the government wants to only intervene through provision of knowledge and information on the ways of treating and dealing with plant pests and diseases, of which farmers should engage in (Dreistadt, Flint, & Clark 2004). References Barker, J., Randall, R. and Grice, T. (2006). Weeds of the future? Threats to Australia’s grazing industries by garden plants. Meat and Livestock Australia Limited, North Sydney Flint, M.L. & Dreistadt. S. H. (1998). Natural Enemies Handbook: The Illustrated Guide to Biological Pest Control. Oakland: Univ. Calif. Div. Agric. Nat. Res. Publ. 3386. Groves, R.H. (1997). Recent incursions of weeds to Australia 1971–1995’. Technical Series No. 3. CRC for Weed Management Systems,Glen Osmond. King, C., Thomas, N., Steel, J., Hunt, T. & Weiss, J. (2008). Weed spread pathways risk assessment in Victoria. Proceedings of the 16th Australian Weeds Conference, eds R.D. van Klinken, V.A. Osten, F.D. Panetta & J.C. Scanlan, pp. 50-2. Queensland Weeds Sindel, B. (2001). The colonisation of railway tracks by weeds. A consultancy report to assist Rail Services Australia, Division of Rail Infrastructure Corporation. University of New England, Armidale. Sinden, J., Jones, R., Hester, S., Odom, D., Kalisch, C., James, R. & Cacho, O. (2004). The economic impact of weeds in Australia. Technical Series No. 8 CRC for Australian Weed Management, Adelaide. Pheloung, P. , Williams, P. , & Halloy, S. (1999). A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. Journal of Environmental Management, 57(4), 239-251. Jackson, S. , & Bayliss, K. (2011). Spore traps need improvement to fulfil plant biosecurity requirements. Plant Pathology, 60(5), 801-810. Cook, D. , Kristensen, N. , Liu, S. , Paini, D. , Kerr, P. , et al. (2014). Plant biosecurity policy-making modelled on the human immune system: What would it look like? Environmental Science & Policy, 41, Andow, D.A. (2003). Pathways-based risk assess-ment of exotic species invasions. In‘Invasion pathways’, eds G. Ruiz and J. Carlton, pp. 439-55. Island Press, New York. Dreistadt, S.H., Flint, M.L. & Clark. J.K. (2004). Pests of Landscape Trees and Shrubs: An Integrated Pest Management Guide. 2nd ed. Oakland: Univ. Calif. Agric. Nat. Res. Publ. 3359. Flint, M.L. & Dreistadt. S. H. (1998). Natural Enemies Handbook: The Illustrated Guide to Biological Pest Control. Oakland: Univ. Calif. Div. Agric. Nat. Res. Publ. 3386. Groves, R.H. (1997). Recent incursions of weeds to Australia 1971–1995’. Technical Series No. 3. CRC for Weed Management Systems,Glen Osmond. Groves, R.H., Panetta, F.D. & Virtue J.G. (2001) ‘Weed risk assessment’. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. King, C., Thomas, N., Steel, J., Hunt, T. & Weiss, J. (2008). Weed spread pathways risk assessment in Victoria. Proceedings of the 16th Australian Weeds Conference, eds R.D. van Klinken, V.A. Osten, F.D. Panetta & J.C. Scanlan, pp. 50-2. Queensland Weeds Society, Brisbane. Moerkerk, M. (2006). Risk of weed movement through vehicles, plant and equipment: results from a Victorian study. Proceedings of the 15th Australian Weeds Conference, eds C. Preston,J.H. Watts and N.D. Crossman, pp. 458-61. Weed Management Society of South Australia, Adelaid NRMMC. (2007). ‘Australian Weeds Strategy – a national strategy for weed management in Australia’. National Resource Management Ministerial Council, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Canberra. Rust, M.K. & Choe. D. (2012). Pest Notes: Ants. Oakland: Univ. Calif. Agric. Nat. Res. Publ. 7411 Sindel, B. (2001). ‘The colonisation of railway tracks by weeds’. A consultancy report to assist Rail Services Australia, Division of Rail Infrastructure Corporation. University of New England, Armidale. Sinden, J., Jones, R., Hester, S., Odom, D., Kalisch, C., James, R. & Cacho, O. (2004). ‘The economic impact of weeds in Australia’. Technical Series No. 8 CRC for Australian Weed Management, Adelaide. Williams, P.A., Nicol, E. & Newfield, M. (2000). Assessing the risk to indigenous NewZealand biota from new exotic plant taxa and genetic material. Science for Conservation Jackson, S. , & Bayliss, K. (2011). Spore traps need improvement to fulfil plant biosecurity requirements. Plant Pathology, 60(5), 801-810. Cook, D. , Kristensen, N. , Liu, S. , Paini, D. , Kerr, P. , et al. (2014). Plant biosecurity policy-making modelled on the human immune system: What would it look like?. Environmental Science & Policy, 41, 1-10. Pheloung, P. , Williams, P. , & Halloy, S. (1999). A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. Journal of Environmental Management, 57(4), 239-251. Rodoni, B. (2009). The role of plant biosecurity in preventing and controlling emerging plant virus disease epidemics. Virus Research, 141(2), 150-157. Magarey, R. , Colunga-Garcia, M. , & Fieselmann, D. (2009). Plant biosecurity in the united states: Roles, responsibilities, and information needs. BioScience, 59(10), 875-884. Read More