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

DataCite XML Export

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<resource xmlns:xsi="" xmlns="" xsi:schemaLocation="">
  <identifier identifierType="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.4348774</identifier>
      <creatorName>Jones, Glyn</creatorName>
      <affiliation>Fera Science Ltd (Fera), Sand Hutton, United Kingdom</affiliation>
      <creatorName>Agstner, Barbara</creatorName>
      <affiliation>Fera Science Ltd (Fera), Sand Hutton, United Kingdom</affiliation>
      <creatorName>Stokes, John</creatorName>
      <affiliation>Fera Science Ltd (Fera), Sand Hutton, United Kingdom</affiliation>
      <creatorName>Douglas, Gerry C.</creatorName>
      <givenName>Gerry C.</givenName>
      <affiliation>Teagasc Agriculture and Food Development Authority (TEAGASC),  Dublin, Ireland</affiliation>
      <creatorName>Nolan, Sheila</creatorName>
      <affiliation>Department of Agriculture and Food (DAFM), Backweston, Ireland</affiliation>
      <creatorName>Pfister, Scott</creatorName>
      <affiliation>USDA APHIS Plant Protection &amp; Quarantine (APHIS-USDA), Buzzards Bay, United States of America</affiliation>
      <creatorName>Montecchio, Lucio</creatorName>
      <affiliation>University of Padova (UNIPD), Legnaro, Italy</affiliation>
      <creatorName>Linaldeddu, Benedetto</creatorName>
      <affiliation>University of Padova (UNIPD), Legnaro, Italy</affiliation>
      <creatorName>Hietala, Ari M.</creatorName>
      <givenName>Ari M.</givenName>
      <affiliation>Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), As, Norway</affiliation>
      <creatorName>Drenkhan, Rein</creatorName>
      <affiliation>Estonian University of Life Sciences (EMU), Tartu, Estonia</affiliation>
      <creatorName>Vasaitis, Rimyys</creatorName>
      <affiliation>Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Uppsala, Sweden</affiliation>
      <creatorName>Douanla-Meli, Clovis</creatorName>
      <affiliation>Julius Kühn Institut (JKI), Braunschweig, Germany</affiliation>
      <creatorName>Enderle, Rasmus</creatorName>
      <affiliation>Julius Kühn Institut (JKI), Braunschweig, Germany</affiliation>
      <creatorName>Burokienė, Daiva</creatorName>
      <affiliation>Nature Research Centre (NRC), Vilnius, Lithuania</affiliation>
      <creatorName>Bokuma, Gunita</creatorName>
      <affiliation>State Plant Protection Service (VAAD), Riga, Latvia</affiliation>
    <title>Chalara – lessons learned</title>
    <subject>Euphresco, plant health, preparedness, knowledge exchange, impact, containment, eradication</subject>
    <date dateType="Issued">2020-12-18</date>
  <resourceType resourceTypeGeneral="Text">Report</resourceType>
    <alternateIdentifier alternateIdentifierType="url"></alternateIdentifier>
    <relatedIdentifier relatedIdentifierType="DOI" relationType="IsVersionOf">10.5281/zenodo.4348773</relatedIdentifier>
    <rights rightsURI="">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International</rights>
    <rights rightsURI="info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess">Open Access</rights>
    <description descriptionType="Abstract">&lt;p&gt;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.&amp;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.&amp;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.&amp;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Given the research backgrounds of the attendees there was a strong emphasis on the search for resistant or tolerant species.&amp;nbsp; This line of research, by its nature, is uncertain and long term.&amp;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.&amp;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.&amp;nbsp; As such, this research may be more pertinent to the post invasion stage of Ash dieback.&amp;nbsp; Land managers may demonstrate low acceptance/uptake of resistant/tolerant ash if they are unsupported during the high mortality phase of ash dieback.&amp;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.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Research into more immediate response options (e.g. silviculture) were mentioned.&amp;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.&amp;nbsp; The creation of a toolkit for local authority managers in the UK was an example of an attempt to achieve this.&amp;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The time for different strands of research to provide useable outputs to land managers emerged as a key theme.&amp;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.&amp;nbsp; This problem can be understood by considering the behaviour of local managers.&amp;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.&amp;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.&amp;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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&amp;rsquo;s pre-emptive licensing of biological control agents for brown marmorated stink bug).&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <description descriptionType="Other">Report of the Euphresco project 2016-C-227 'Chalara – lessons learned'</description>
All versions This version
Views 3434
Downloads 2323
Data volume 14.3 MB14.3 MB
Unique views 3131
Unique downloads 1919


Cite as