Wastewater remediation options for prawn farms - Aquaculture Industry Development Initiative 2002-04.

There are many potential bioremediation approaches that may be suitable for prawn farms in Queensland. Although most share generally accepted bioremediation principles, advocacy for different methods tends to vary widely. This diversity of approach is particularly driven by the availability and knowledge of functional species at different localities around the world. In Australia, little is known about the abilities of many native species in this regard, and translocation and biosecurity issues prevent the use of exotic species that have shown potential in other countries. Species selected must be tolerant of eutrophic conditions and ecological shifts, because prawn pond nutrient levels and pathways can vary with different assemblages of autotrophic and heterotrophic organisms. Generally, they would be included in a constructed ecosystem because of their functional contributions to nutrient cycling and uptake, and to create nutrient sinks in forms of harvestable biomass. Wide salinity, temperature and water quality tolerances are also valuable attributes for selected species due to the sometimes-pronounced effects of environmental extremes, and to provide over-wintering options and adequate safety margins in avoiding mass mortalities. To practically achieve these bioremediation polycultures on a large scale, and in concert with the operations of a prawn farm, methods involving seed production, stock management, and a range of other farm engineering and product handling systems need to be reliably achievable and economically viable. Research funding provided by the Queensland Government through the Aquaculture Industry Development Initiative (AIDI) 2002-04 has enabled a number of technical studies into biological systems to treat prawn farm effluent for recirculation and improved environmental sustainability. AIDI bioremediation research in southern Queensland was based at the Bribie Island Aquaculture Research Centre (BIARC), and was conducted in conjunction with AIDI genetics and selection research, and a Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) funded program (Coast and Clean Seas Project No.717757). This report compilation provides a summary of some of the work conducted within these programs.

Predicting risk and benefit a priori in biological control of invasive plant species: a systems modelling approach

While the method using specialist herbivores in managing invasive plants (classical biological control) is regarded as relatively safe and cost-effective in comparison to other methods of management, the rarity of strict monophagy among insect herbivores illustrates that, like any management option, biological control is not risk-free. The challenge for classical biological control is therefore to predict risks and benefits a priori. In this study we develop a simulation model that may aid in this process. We use this model to predict the risks and benefits of introducing the chrysomelid beetle Charidotis auroguttata to manage the invasive liana Macfadyena unguis-cati in Australia. Preliminary host-specificity testing of this herbivore indicated that there was limited feeding on a non-target plant, although the non-target was only able to sustain some transitions of the life cycle of the herbivore. The model includes herbivore, target and non-target life history and incorporates spillover dynamics of populations of this herbivore from the target to the non-target under a variety of scenarios. Data from studies of this herbivore in the native range and under quarantine were used to parameterize the model and predict the relative risks and benefits of this herbivore when the target and non-target plants co-occur. Key model outputs include population dynamics on target (apparent benefit) and non-target (apparent risk) and fitness consequences to the target (actual benefit) and non-target plant (actual risk) of herbivore damage. The model predicted that risk to the non-target became unacceptable (i.e. significant negative effects on fitness) when the ratio of target to non-target in a given patch ranged from 1:1 to 3:2. By comparing the current known distribution of the non-target and the predicted distribution of the target we were able to identify regions in Australia where the agent may be pose an unacceptable risk. By considering risk and benefit simultaneously, we highlight how such a simulation modelling approach can assist scientists and regulators in making more objective decisions a priori, on the value of releasing specialist herbivores as biological control agents.

Evaluating legume species as alternative trap crops to chickpea for management of Helicoverpa spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in central Queensland cotton cropping systems

Mounting levels of insecticide resistance within Australian Helicoverpa spp. populations have resulted in the adoption of non-chemical IPM control practices such as trap cropping with chickpea, Cicer arietinum (L.). However, a new leaf blight disease affecting chickpea in Australia has the potential to limit its use as a trap crop. Therefore this paper evaluates the potential of a variety of winter-active legume crops for use as an alternative spring trap crop to chickpea as part of an effort to improve the area-wide management strategy for Helicoverpa spp. in central Queensland’s cotton production region. The densities of Helicoverpa eggs and larvae were compared over three seasons on replicated plantings of chickpea, Cicer arietinum (L.), field pea Pisum sativum (L), vetch, Vicia sativa (L.) and faba bean, Vicia faba (L.). Of these treatments, field pea was found to harbour the highest densities of eggs. A partial life table study of the fate of eggs oviposited on field pea and chickpea suggested that large proportions of the eggs laid on field pea suffered mortality due to dislodgment from the plants after oviposition. Plantings of field pea as a replacement trap crop for chickpea under commercial conditions confirmed the high level of attractiveness of this crop to ovipositing moths. The use of field pea as a trap crop as part of an areawide management programme for Helicoverpa spp. is discussed.

A comparison of alternative plant mixes for conservation bio-control by native beneficial arthropods in vegetable cropping systems in Queensland Australia.

Cucurbit crops host a range of serious sap-sucking insect pests, including silverleaf whitefly (SLW) and aphids, which potentially represent considerable risk to the Australian horticulture industry. These pests are extremely polyphagous with a wide host range. Chemical control is made difficult due to resistance and pollution, and other side-effects are associated with insecticide use. Consequently, there is much interest in maximising the role of biological control in the management of these sap-sucking insect pests. This study aimed to evaluate companion cropping alongside cucurbit crops in a tropical setting as a means to increase the populations of beneficial insects and spiders so as to control the major sap-sucking insect pests. The Population of beneficial and harmful insects, with a focus on SLW and aphids, and other invertebrates were sampled weekly oil four different crops which could be used for habitat manipulation: Goodbug Mix (GBM; a proprietary seed Mixture including self-sowing annual and perennial herbaceous flower species); lablab (Lablab purpureus L. Sweet); lucerne (Medicago sativa L.); and niger (Guizotia abyssinica (L.f.) Cass.). Lablab hosted the highest numbers of beneficial insects (larvae and adults of lacewing (Mallada signata (Schneider)), ladybird beetles (Coccinella transversalis Fabricius) and spiders) while GBM hosted the highest numbers of European bees (Apis mellifera Linnaeus) and spiders. Lucerne and niger showed little promise in hosting beneficial insects, but lucerne hosted significantly more spiders (double the numbers) than niger. Lucerne hosted significantly more of the harmful insect species of aphids (Aphis gossypii (Glover)) and Myzus persicae (Sulzer)) and heliothis (Heliothis armigera Hubner). Niger hosted significantly more vegetable weevils (Listroderes difficillis (Germar)) than the other three species. Therefore, lablab and GBM appear to be viable options to grow within cucurbits or as field boundary crops to attract and increase beneficial insects and spiders for the control of sap-sucking insect pests. Use of these bio-control strategies affords the opportunity to minimise pesticide usage and the risks associated with pollution.

Classical Biological Control for the Protection of Natural Ecosystems.

Of the 70 cases of classical biological control for the protection of nature found in our review, there were fewer projects against insect targets (21) than against invasive plants (49), in part, because many insect biological control projects were carried out against agricultural pests, while nearly all projects against plants targeted invasive plants in natural ecosystems. Of 21 insect projects, 81% (17) provided benefits to protection of biodiversity, while 48% (10) protected products harvested from natural systems, and 5% (1) preserved ecosystem services, with many projects contributing to more than one goal. In contrast, of the 49 projects against invasive plants, 98% (48) provided benefits to protection of biodiversity, while 47% (23) protected products, and 25% (12) preserved ecosystem services, again with many projects contributing to several goals. We classified projects into complete control (pest generally no longer important), partial control (control in some areas but not others), and "in progress," for projects in development for which outcomes do not yet exist. For insects, of the 21 projects discussed, 59% (13) achieved complete control of the target pest, 18% (4) provided partial control, and 41% (9) are still in progress. By comparison, of the 49 invasive plant projects considered, 27% (13) achieved complete control, while 33% (16) provided partial control, and 47% (24) are still in progress. For both categories of pests, some projects' success ratings were scored twice when results varied by region. We found approximately twice as many projects directed against invasive plants than insects and that protection of biodiversity was the most frequent benefit of both insect and plant projects. Ecosystem service protection was provided in the fewest cases by either insect or plant biological control agents, but was more likely to be provided by projects directed against invasive plants, likely because of the strong effects plants exert on landscapes. Rates of complete success appeared to be higher for insect than plant targets (59% vs 27%), perhaps because most often herbivores gradually weaken, rather than outright kill, their hosts, which is not the case for natural enemies directed against pest insects. For both insect and plant biological control, nearly half of all projects reviewed were listed as currently in progress, suggesting that the use of biological control for the protection of wildlands is currently very active.

Issues of Digital Ecosystems Approach to Biological Ecosystem Simulation Model Fit Optimization

This study examines the application of digital ecosystems concepts to a biological ecosystem simulation problem. The problem involves the use of a digital ecosystem agent to optimize the accuracy of a second digital ecosystem agent, the biological ecosystem simulation. The study also incorporates social ecosystems, with a technological solution design subsystem communicating with a science subsystem and simulation software developer subsystem to determine key characteristics of the biological ecosystem simulation. The findings show similarities between the issues involved in digital ecosystem collaboration and those occurring when digital ecosystems interact with biological ecosystems. The results also suggest that even precise semantic descriptions and comprehensive ontologies may be insufficient to describe agents in enough detail for use within digital ecosystems, and a number of solutions to this problem are proposed.

Harvest weed seed control: is there a role in northern region farming systems?

Harvest weed seed control (HWSC) is a new approach which targets weed seed removal and/or destruction during the crop harvest operation. The success of HWSC is dependant upon weed seed retention at harvest. To identify and define the potential value of HWSC in northern farming systems, we conducted a field survey. In total 1400 transects across 70 paddocks assessed weed distribution, density and seed production at harvest time in wheat, chickpea and sorghum crops. Seventy weed species were identified, of which many had large seed numbers retained at crop harvest. The most prevalent included common sowthistle, flaxleaf fleabane, awnless barnyard grass, wild oat, and African turnip weed. Our field survey has shown there is a role for HWSC in the northern farming system. Therefore the efficacy of specific HWSC systems on problematic weeds should be evaluated in the northern region.