Queensland fruit fly responses (2014) George Gill, Principal Adviser, Plant and Environment Response, Operations Branch Barney Stephenson, Principal Adviser, Surveillance and Incursion Investigation, Operations Branch www.mpi.govt.nz
Historical context New Zealand is free from economically significant fruit fly pest species; New Zealand surveillance/response system based on science Lures, traps and systems International scientific advice and review Fruit flies are amenable to eradication; Early detection is crucial to quick eradication, and the tools to achieve this have led to the creation of effective and efficient programmes; Medfly has been eradicated from New Zealand three times; Contracted (AQ) service provider to deliver operational activity.
Fruit Fly Background International pests and widely recognised threat; Threat to New Zealand s horticulture industry Good preparation enables prompt management; Market access international credibility; Need for investment appropriate benefit:cost Application of quality assurance provides confidence.
Integrated system with a series of measures Offshore requirements for commodity treatments; Border detection systems (commercial, passenger); Structured surveillance; Pre-planned contingency to respond on detection; Systems and infrastructure to eradicate immediately available if required.
Surveillance Two over-arching outcomes: Prompt detection and eradication Area freedom monitoring and assurances Tourism and trade centres Climatically suitable areas Urban locations in horticultural areas Prompt detection and eradication Area freedom monitoring
Surveillance trap deployment Nationwide 7572 fruit fly traps in NZ 3 lure types Trimedlure/capilure (Medfly) 400 m spacing (~8 traps/km 2 ) Cuelure (QFF and other Bactrocera spp.) 400 m spacing (~8 traps/km 2 ) Methyl eugenol (Oriental and other Bactrocera spp.) 1200 m spacing (~1 trap/km 2 ) Seasonal deployment
MPI specifications for trapping Trapping mid-spring to late autumn Traps placed and managed to specification (e.g. no contamination) Traps cleared every 14 days Lure and insecticide replenished at defined intervals Lynfield traps replaced every season Identifications conducted by MPI entomologists Examination of all flies in traps Identification and reporting within specified timeframes Excellent process underpins credibility
The system is sensitive and effective Species Location Date Outcome 3 Bactrocera passiflorae (Fiji) Auckland March 1990 1 Bactrocera tryoni (Q-fly) Whangarei May 1995 2 Bactrocera tryoni (Q-fly) Auckland, North Shore April 1996 1 Bactrocera papayae Auckland, Mt Eden April 1996 2 Ceratitis capitata (Medfly) Auckland, Mt Roskill May 1996 1 Bactrocera tryoni (Q-fly) Auckland, Avondale May 2012 1 Bactrocera tryoni (Q-fly) Whangarei January 2014 1 Bactrocera tryoni (Q-fly) Whangarei April 2014 Increased surveillance, no further finds Increased surveillance, no further finds Increased surveillance, no further finds Increased surveillance, no further finds Eradication programme. Eradication successful Increased surveillance, no further finds Increased surveillance, no further finds Increased surveillance, no further finds (on-going)
Pre-planned Response MPI response as per the Standard Three levels Response 1: Investigation: Is there an established population? Response 2: Demonstrated establishment Measures applied for 3 generation equivalence Response 3: Makes provision for male annihilation etc. CTO decision Measures applied for 3 generation equivalence following last detection
Plan covers Skills and infrastructure Response zones Defining population limits Population monitoring Containment and eradication Host management Market access zones Communication and reporting Time frames and outcomes
Benefits of a plan Certainty of approach everything mapped out; Significant benefits from whole of system approach; Trading partner and stakeholder trust; Assists bilateral communication; Assists with developing and agreeing consistent international protocols. Clear accountability and clarity of roles Provides foundation for GIA discussions
Response pushing the GO button One male in cue lure trap ID confirmed Level 1 response declared 72 hr plan Iwi and community involved and affected.
Response zones Controlled Area Notice Minimum 200 metre radius intense activity (A zone) Minimum 1.5 km radius population containment (B zone) Enhanced surveillance outside 1.5 km (C zone) Market access zones to meet trading partner requirements
Trap deployment A zone: 1 trap on each property within 2 days and examined daily for 7 days and then every 3 days. B zone: 20-30 traps/km 2. Examined every three days. C zone: 8 traps/km 2 back-filling gaps in grid in place. Total response traps = 357
Fruit monitoring Date/collection cycle Total A zone fruit monitored Fruits to lab Incubated Cut 522 Kg 75 kg 447 Kg
What if...? Trigger for moving to Response 2: Evidence of established population e.g. larvae in fruit Planning to move to next level: Logistical preparation Specifications for movement control, tracing and organism management etc. Trading partner communications Measures in place for 3 generation equivalent.
Processing Trap submissions Traps cleared daily or 3 days depending on location. After 2 weeks of no detections response stood down. Surveillance traps remain in place.
Improvements Improvements to the Standard Sound evidence for improvements to systems, linkage with QA Improved lures and lures for species that do not respond to current lures Sensitivity of traps and grids (modelling) Risk mapping Application technologies in a New Zealand context (SIT, MAT etc.) Quarantine zones scientific advice regarding appropriate distances Response actions/decisions informed by research Trap density, sensitivity review, modelling Lures (novel formulations), enhanced Standard review Response level 3 Operational plans for deployment of alternative methods
Questions and discussion