biosecurity built on science

Project 2014 Part A: New tools for field grains surveillance

Jenny Davidson: Senior Pulse Pathologist (SARDI)

Rohan Kimber: Pulse Pathologist (SARDI)

Greg Baker: Entomologist (SARDI)

Helen De Graaf: Entomologist (SARDI)

Les Zeller: Engineer (QDAFF)

Paul Kamel: Engineer (QDAFF)

Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre

biosecurity built on science

Problem being addressed – Surveillance and New technologies

New technologies emerging – unprecedented rate

Smart phones / tablets (growers / consultants)

Electronics - ‘smart controls’ , UAV’s (drones), robotics

Wireless technology (communication)

Digital image analysis or recognition

Biosensors & micro sensors

Spore Trapping – ‘Hirst’ Trap – 1952

Chronological monitoring

Adhesive tape – microscopy

Retrospective analysis

Now use DNA specific primers

biosecurity built on science

Who will use research?

New technologies & sensing systems

Quarantine Surveillance (pre and post entry) – early detection is primary aim

Broad scale surveillance network

Conducted by agronomists and/or growers

Conducted by researchers

biosecurity built on science

Who will directly benefit from the research?

Using new technologies & sensing systems to detect & report fungal spore / insect dispersal patterns in the field to the decision maker or grower community Benefits to -

National interests (biosecurity) Regional threats (eg. rusts) Local (on farm) outbreaks

biosecurity built on science

Results so far

Conducted a review and held a workshop on new technologies

Participants: endusers (eg agronomists and researchers), technology developers (e.g. NICTA, ARCAA, ACVT, ARA, CSIRO), pathologists and entomologists

Identified sensing platforms and sensing technologies

Selected target species as model systems

Diamond Back Moth (model for exotic turnip moth)

Sclerotinia of canola (model for airborne fungal spores- multiple targets)

Wheat stripe rust (model for exotic barley stripe rust or lentil rust)

Endemic aphids (model system for russian wheat aphid)

Selected surveillance technologies for evaluation

biosecurity built on science

Results so far – spore trapping systems

New generation technology

• Biosensor detection • Mobility (Ground vehicle, UAV etc.) • ‘Smart capture’ – GPS, environment or velocity triggers • Wireless / telemetry data transmission (web) and reporting

(eg. Smart phone)

Potential systems being evaluated

A. SYield Auto Sampler B. Miniature Virtual Impactor C. Ionic Spore Trap

A

B

C

Field evaluation, technology adaptation, collaboration

• Dr Rohan Kimber visiting Rothamsted Research and Burkard Manufacturing Co. in the United Kingdom – May / June 2014

Rothamsted Research

Rothamsted Research

biosecurity built on science

Results so far - Insect Trap systems

New generation technology

• Species specific detection - Pheromone lure (stacking for multiple targets) • Sensors - optical, impedance & digital to confirm target • Smart capture – GPS, environment or diurnal triggers • Wireless / telemetry networked grid & transmission

Optical sensor &

digital camera Potential systems being evaluated - Project engineering DAFF Qld A. Smart trap (moths) – lure based B. Smart trap (aphids) – reverse miniature virtual impactor

Field evaluation, technology adaptation, collaboration

• DAFF & SARDI – Qld and SA test sites in 2014

A

B

biosecurity built on science

Potential – imaging systems

New generation technology

• Digital, multi- and hyper-spectral imaging • Mobility (Ground vehicle, UAV etc.) • Broad scale surveillance – large area in limited time

Potential collaborations being explored

A. Airborne Research Australia – imaging sensors adapted to fixed wing aircraft

B. Australian Centre for Field Robotics – imaging sensors adapted to UAVs and autonomous ground robots

C. Australian Research Centre for Aerospace Automation – UAV technology

C

Satellite

imagery

Aerial imagery

DroneMetrex

DroneMetrex

biosecurity built on science

Challenges and issues arising from the research

Picking the winner(s) in a rapidly evolving field

- Project aims to identify two systems for final development

Use one or multiple systems per target or identification process?

- Aerial imaging followed by trapping or in field evaluation

Developing systems versus evaluation of existing systems

- Eg. existing smart traps (for spore capture or insect capture)

Systems reliability - crashing UAV’s, processing ‘dirty’ samples in-field

Analysis/interpretation of data (multispectral, automated insect ID process)

IP issues

Costs of technologies

CASA regulations – limiting potential of UAVs

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/A7Yv9VFXvPs/maxresdefault.jpg

biosecurity built on science

Prospects for success

Spore capture possibly dependent upon development of biosensors (Dr Kelly Hill PBCRC Project )

- Otherwise dependent upon laboratory DNA assays

Insect capture technology – additional players, collaborative opportunities

UAV and multispectral technology is developing rapidly

- Targets stress reactions

- Pinpoint areas to investigate for additional surveillance or diagnostic technologies

Further work Plant studies

biosecurity built on science

Thank you