Report Open Access

Chalara – lessons learned

Jones, Glyn; Agstner, Barbara; Stokes, John; Douglas, Gerry C.; Nolan, Sheila; Pfister, Scott; Montecchio, Lucio; Linaldeddu, Benedetto; Hietala, Ari M.; Drenkhan, Rein; Vasaitis, Rimyys; Douanla-Meli, Clovis; Enderle, Rasmus; Burokienė, Daiva; Bokuma, Gunita

Citation Style Language JSON Export

{
"publisher": "Zenodo",
"DOI": "10.5281/zenodo.4348774",
"language": "eng",
"title": "Chalara \u2013 lessons learned",
"issued": {
"date-parts": [
[
2020,
12,
18
]
]
},
"abstract": "<p>Ash dieback has become a continent-wide problem in a relatively short period of time which has generated a significant amount of research within and across countries.&nbsp; To consider what lessons have been learned, this project convened a workshop of researchers and government and non-governmental representatives from 10 EU countries to describe the impact of the disease, research undertaken and underway, and management responses.&nbsp; From the workshop and following work, it was identified that whilst there was much ongoing research which had the potential to deliver long term benefits, a lack of immediately useable information for land managers risks ash being lost from the landscape before long-term research outputs are available for use.&nbsp; The Awareness, Planning, Action and Recovery framework developed with Defra funding (and subsequently published, Stokes and Jones, 2019) was used to explore this issue.</p>\n\n<p>Given the research backgrounds of the attendees there was a strong emphasis on the search for resistant or tolerant species.&nbsp; This line of research, by its nature, is uncertain and long term.&nbsp; There appeared to be a number of potential interesting options but none of them were particularly close to offering a solution to the large-scale loss of ash from the landscape.&nbsp; Outputs of resistance/tolerance research (resistant/tolerant ash) will most likely be available after then period of high impact and mortality of ash dieback has passed.&nbsp; As such, this research may be more pertinent to the post invasion stage of Ash dieback.&nbsp; Land managers may demonstrate low acceptance/uptake of resistant/tolerant ash if they are unsupported during the high mortality phase of ash dieback.&nbsp; In the short term, adopting planting strategies to maintain/increase high genetic diversity may offer more immediate solutions for land managers and may also have a positive effect across multiple threats.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>Research into more immediate response options (e.g. silviculture) were mentioned.&nbsp; However, there was limited discussion of how the outputs of this research have been, or should be, translated practical/usable solutions for those responsible for management at a local level.&nbsp; The creation of a toolkit for local authority managers in the UK was an example of an attempt to achieve this.&nbsp; The creation of a toolkit reflected the need to get information to those who have to manage the impacts of the disease whilst the longer-term research is ongoing.</p>\n\n<p>The time for different strands of research to provide useable outputs to land managers emerged as a key theme.&nbsp; It has been documented that responses in plant health can lag outbreaks (Ward, 2016), resulting in missed opportunities to limit the total impact of an outbreak.&nbsp; This problem can be understood by considering the behaviour of local managers.&nbsp; The Awareness, Planning, Action and Recovery framework sets out four phases which local managers need to oversee for a successful outcome. The research described at the workshop was more focussed upon the latter phases of action and recovery.&nbsp; Overlooking the earlier phases risks local managers being unsupported during the early period of an outbreak and risks slow uptake of the outputs of long term research.&nbsp; This situation may be worsened where local managers have had a poor, unsupported experience of managing ash which results in a reluctance to plant resistant/tolerant material.</p>\n\n<p>Two options are to address this issue are: 1) to provide local managers with more immediate solutions and engagement; and 2) to take a pre-emptive approach to long term research, beginning before the threat arrives (as per New Zealand&rsquo;s pre-emptive licensing of biological control agents for brown marmorated stink bug).</p>",
"author": [
{
"family": "Jones, Glyn"
},
{
"family": "Agstner, Barbara"
},
{
"family": "Stokes, John"
},
{
"family": "Douglas, Gerry C."
},
{
"family": "Nolan, Sheila"
},
{
"family": "Pfister, Scott"
},
{
"family": "Montecchio, Lucio"
},
{
"family": "Linaldeddu, Benedetto"
},
{
"family": "Hietala, Ari M."
},
{
"family": "Drenkhan, Rein"
},
{
"family": "Vasaitis, Rimyys"
},
{
"family": "Douanla-Meli, Clovis"
},
{
"family": "Enderle, Rasmus"
},
{
"family": "Burokien\u0117, Daiva"
},
{
"family": "Bokuma, Gunita"
}
],
"note": "Report of the Euphresco project 2016-C-227 'Chalara \u2013 lessons learned'",
"type": "article",
"id": "4348774"
}
103
65
views