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


MARC21 XML Export

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<record xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
  <leader>00000nam##2200000uu#4500</leader>
  <datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">eng</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Euphresco, plant health, preparedness, knowledge exchange, impact, containment, eradication</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20201219002721.0</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Report of the Euphresco project 2016-C-227 'Chalara – lessons learned'</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <controlfield tag="001">4348774</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">Fera Science Ltd (Fera), Sand Hutton, United Kingdom</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Agstner, Barbara</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">Fera Science Ltd (Fera), Sand Hutton, United Kingdom</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Stokes, John</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">Teagasc Agriculture and Food Development Authority (TEAGASC),  Dublin, Ireland</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Douglas, Gerry C.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">Department of Agriculture and Food (DAFM), Backweston, Ireland</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Nolan, Sheila</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">USDA APHIS Plant Protection &amp; Quarantine (APHIS-USDA), Buzzards Bay, United States of America</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Pfister, Scott</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">University of Padova (UNIPD), Legnaro, Italy</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Montecchio, Lucio</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">University of Padova (UNIPD), Legnaro, Italy</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Linaldeddu, Benedetto</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), As, Norway</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Hietala, Ari M.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">Estonian University of Life Sciences (EMU), Tartu, Estonia</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Drenkhan, Rein</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Uppsala, Sweden</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Vasaitis, Rimyys</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">Julius Kühn Institut (JKI), Braunschweig, Germany</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Douanla-Meli, Clovis</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">Julius Kühn Institut (JKI), Braunschweig, Germany</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Enderle, Rasmus</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">Nature Research Centre (NRC), Vilnius, Lithuania</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Burokienė, Daiva</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">State Plant Protection Service (VAAD), Riga, Latvia</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Bokuma, Gunita</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="s">622166</subfield>
    <subfield code="z">md5:e94bfa923a7ef22bc520af45bb251c5e</subfield>
    <subfield code="u">https://zenodo.org/record/4348774/files/report_2016-C-227_FINAL.pdf</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="542" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="l">open</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">2020-12-18</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="909" ind1="C" ind2="O">
    <subfield code="p">openaire</subfield>
    <subfield code="o">oai:zenodo.org:4348774</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">Fera Science Ltd (Fera), Sand Hutton, United Kingdom</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Jones, Glyn</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Chalara – lessons learned</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="7">
    <subfield code="a">cc-by</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">opendefinition.org</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">&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;</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="n">doi</subfield>
    <subfield code="i">isVersionOf</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">10.5281/zenodo.4348773</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">10.5281/zenodo.4348774</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">doi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="980" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">publication</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">report</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
34
23
views
downloads
All versions This version
Views 3434
Downloads 2323
Data volume 14.3 MB14.3 MB
Unique views 3131
Unique downloads 1919

Share

Cite as