Monitoring and Evaluation

K. DhileepanSegun OsunkoyaRachel McFadyen

Invasive Plant ScienceBiosecurity QueenslandDepartment of Agriculture, Fisheries & ForestryEcosciences Precinct Brisbane, Australia

Biocontrol of Parthenium

Initiated in 1974

Native range surveys (1976-1996)

9 insects + 2 fungi introduced

8 insects + 2 fungi established

5 agents widespread & effective

Vary seasonally and temporally

Biological control

CQ

NQ

SEQ

Smicronyx weevil

Carmenta moth

Listronotus weevil

Summer rust

Winter rust

Epiblema mothZygogramma beetle

Bucculatrix moth

Conotrachelus weevil Stobaera bug

History

1974 1984 1994 2004 2014

Host specificity tests

Native range survey

Field release

Evaluation

1976 1996

19991979

Monitoring

1980

1980

2004

2014

20001996

LAG-TIME: Introduction and establishment

1974 1984 1994 2004 2014

Zygogramma

Epiblema & Listronotus

Carmenta

Smicronyx

Evaluation

Summer rust

Conotrachelus

Winter rust

Monitoring & Evaluation

MONITORING

Establishment and spread

Abundance and damageo Individual plant level

o Population level

Local and regional scale

EVALUATION

Baseline (pre-release) data

Impact assessmento Plant population level

o Ecosystem response

o Economic assessment

Smicronyx weevil - yet to be evaluated

Monitoring & evaluation – why?

Measure the success/failure

Estimate economic benefits (if successful)

Why biocontrol failed (if failed)

Satisfy Government/funding bodies

Increase public profile

Attract funding for future research

Sense of achievement and satisfaction

Stomphastis sp. nova

North Qld (3 sites)

Central Qld (12 -16 sites)

Since 2004 (annual survey)

Parthenium incidence

Agent abundance

Pasture cover

South-east Qld (2 sites)

Commenced in 2014

Monthly sampling

Agent introduction

Seed bank

Monitoring

Summer rust Incidence & abundance across 19 sites since 2004

2010

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Fel

spar

Car

diga

nS

tatio

n

Pla

in C

reek

Land

sbor

ough

Sta

tion

Kem

mis

Cre

ek

Car

fax

Ove

rflo

w

Mor

brid

ge

Cle

rmon

t

Oak

y C

reek

Hill

side

Em

eral

d

Wyc

arba

h

Mt H

ay

Spr

ings

ure

Alb

inia

Nat

iona

l Par

k

Del

argu

m

Mol

eyam

ber

Cre

ek

Hut

ton

Cre

ek

North Qld Central Qld

Su

mm

er r

ust

inci

den

ce (

%)

2009

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

0

20

40

60

80

100

Fels

par

Card

igan

Pla

in C

reek

Landsboro

ugh

Kem

mis

Carfa

x

Overflo

w

Morb

ridge

Cle

rmont

Oaky C

reek

Hills

ide

Em

era

ld

Wycarb

ah

Mt H

ay

Sprin

gsure

Alb

inia

Dela

rgum

Mole

yam

ber

Hutto

n C

reek

North Qld Central Qld

Pla

nts

wit

h s

um

mer

rust

(%)

Monitoring

Stomphastis sp. nova

Before & after-release

Simulation experiments

Performance vs. damage

Exclusion trials

Long-term changes

target weed population

beneficial plant communities

seed-bank dynamics

temporal and spatial changes

Evaluation

Different methods

All not suitable for all agents

All methods have deficiencies

Labor intensive and expensive

Extensive & intensive studies required

Dependent of community help

At the mercy of weather conditions

Erratic (but realistic) results

Evaluation - difficulties

Epiblema strenuana

0

20

40

60

80

100

Plant height Flowers Biomass

Plant parameters

Pla

nt v

igou

r re

duct

ion

(%)

GlasshouseFieldcageField

Zygogramma bicolorata

0

20

40

60

80

100

Plant height Flowers Biomass

Plant parameters

Pla

nt v

igou

r re

duct

ion

(%)

GlasshouseFieldcagefield

Listronotus setosipennis

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Plant height Flowers Biomass

Pla

nt

vig

our

reduction (

%)

GlasshouseFieldcageField

Variable establishment times for different agents

Variable time taken for the agent to become abundant

long-term pre-release data often not available

Long-term impact studies not usually followed

Before & after release

1996 1998

Simulation experiments

Glasshouse & field experiments

Evaluation at plant level only

Not always reflect field situation

Bench mark for field evaluation

Other biotic factors excluded

Multi-location trial is beneficial

Zygogramma beetle

Epiblema moth

Listronotus weevil

Summer rust

Conotrachelus weevil

C = control; R = rosette; PF = pre-flowering; F = flowering

Damage levels vs. plant performance

Suitable to evaluate at

individual plant level

Not suitable when damage level is

dependent on plant vigor

Difficult to relate with changes in

weed population

C = control; R = rosette; PF = pre-flowering; F = flowering; Ex = excluded; Es = escaped

Biocontrol exclusion

Field cage affect plant vigor influence the agent performance long-term maintenance difficult Not useful for pathogens

Pesticides residue problem labor intensive and expensive affected by weather condition

Buffel Grass Blue Grass

Increase in feed (kg/ha)

Increase in cattle (hd/ha)

Economic benefits ($/ha)

22.44 32.54

0.0021 0.0020

$0.82 $0.78

Cost benefit = $ 2.09 (based on 2000 value)

Economic benefit

Before commencing evaluation

Do we need pre-release data?

Should we study seed-bank?

If so, for how long?

How long to evaluate?

20 years good - 5 year intervals

Snap-shots over time

When to start evaluation?

Start now!!

Late 1980s

Where to start!

Release efforts in climatically favourable areas (CLIMEX models).

Seed bank (once in 3-5 years) + above-ground studies

In Africa study areas more likely to be cropping (disturbed) areas

Opportunity to compare cropping & non-cropping areas

Beneficial to establish ‘refuge’ for biocontrol agents

Performance across low and high ‘altitudes’

In Australia and India Z. bicolorata outbreaks declined over time.

Need to check if this will happen in Africa as well.

Good luck

We would be happy to help in your monitoring and evaluation studies