Forest health surveillance methodology in hardwood plantations in Queensland, Australia

Forest health surveillance (FHS) of hardwood plantations commenced in Queensland in 1997 as plantations expanded following a state government planting initiative arising from the national 2020 forest policy vision. The estate was initially characterised by a large number of small plantations (10-50 ha), although this has changed more recently with the concentration of larger plantations in the central coast and South Burnett regions. Due to the disparate nature of the resource, drive- and walkthrough surveys of subsets of plantations have been undertaken in preference to aerial surveys. FHS has been effective in detecting a number of new hardwood pests in Queensland including erinose mites (Rhombacus and Acalox spp.), western white gum plate galler (Ophelimus sp.), Creiis psyllid and bronzing bug (Thaumastocoris sp.), in evaluating their potential impact and assisting in focussing future research efforts. Since 2003 there has been an increased emphasis on training operational staff to take a greater role in identifying and reporting on forest health issues. This has increased their awareness of forest health issues, but their limited time to specifically survey and report on pests and diseases, and high rates of staff turnover, necessitate frequent ongoing training. Consequently, common and widespread problems such as quambalaria shoot blight (Quambalaria pitereka), chrysomelid leaf beetles (mainly Paropsis atomaria) and erinose mites may be under-reported or not reported, and absence data may often not be recorded at all. Comment is made on the future directions that FHS may take in hardwood plantations in Queensland.

Productivity and health effects of anaplasmosis and babesiosis on Bos indicus cattle and their crosses, and the effects of differing intensity of tick control in Australia

Tick fever is an important disease of cattle where Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus acts as a vector for the three causal organisms Babesia bovis, Babesia bigemina and Anaplasma marginale. Bos indicus cattle and their crosses are more resistant to the clinical effects of infection with B. bovis and B. bigemina than are Bos taurus cattle. Resistance is not complete, however, and herds of B. indicus-cross cattle are still at risk of babesiosis in environments where exposure to B. bovis is light in most years but occasionally high. The susceptibility of B. indicus cattle and their crosses to infection with A. marginale is similar to that of B. taurus cattle. In herds of B. indicus cattle and their crosses the infection rate of Babesia spp. and A. marginale is lowered because fewer ticks are likely to attach per day due to reduced numbers of ticks in the field (long-term effect on population, arising from high host resistance) and because a smaller proportion of ticks that do develop to feed on infected cattle will in turn be infected (due to lower parasitaemia). As a consequence, herds of B. indicus cattle are less likely than herds of B. taurus cattle to have high levels of population immunity to babesiosis or anaplasmosis. The effects of acaricide application on the probability of clinical disease due to anaplasmosis and babesiosis are unpredictable and dependent on the prevalence of infection in ticks and in cattle at the time of application. Attempting to manipulate population immunity through the toleration of specific threshold numbers of ticks with the aim of controlling tick fever is not reliable and the justification for acaricide application should be for the control of ticks rather than for tick fever. Vaccination of B. indicus cattle and their crosses is advisable in all areas where ticks exist, although vaccination against B. bigemina is probably not essential in pure B. indicus animals.

Flying-foxes in the Australian urban environment - community attitudes and opinions

The urban presence of flying-foxes (pteropid bats) in eastern Australia has increased in the last 20 years, putatively reflecting broader landscape change. The influx of large numbers often precipitates community angst, typically stemming from concerns about loss of social amenity, economic loss or negative health impacts from recently emerged bat-mediated zoonotic diseases such as Hendra virus and Australian bat lyssavirus. Local authorities and state wildlife authorities are increasingly asked to approve the dispersal or modification of flying-fox roosts to address expressed concerns, yet the scale of this concern within the community, and the veracity of the basis for concern are often unclear. We conducted an on-line survey to capture community attitudes and opinions on flying-foxes in the urban environment to inform management policy and decision-making. Analysis focused on awareness, concerns, and management options, and primarily compared responses from communities where flying-fox management was and was not topical at the time of the survey. While a majority of respondents indicated a moderate to high level of knowledge of both flying-foxes and Hendra virus, a substantial minority mistakenly believed that flying-foxes pose a direct infection risk to humans, suggesting miscommunication or misinformation, and the need for additional risk communication strategies. Secondly, a minority of community members indicated they were directly impacted by urban roosts, most plausibly those living in close proximity to the roost, suggesting that targeted management options are warranted. Thirdly, neither dispersal nor culling was seen as an appropriate management strategy by the majority of respondents, including those from postcodes where flying-fox management was topical. These findings usefully inform community debate and policy development and demonstrate the value of social analysis in defining the issues and options in this complex human - wildlife interaction. The mobile nature of flying-foxes underlines the need for a management strategy at a regional or larger scale, and independent of state borders.

Novel vaccine acceptance in emerging infectious diseases: a case study of Hendra virus vaccine uptake in Australia

Background: The development of a horse vaccine against Hendra virus has been hailed as a good example of a One Health approach to the control of human disease. Although there is little doubt that this is true, it is clear from the underwhelming uptake of the vaccine by horse owners to date (approximately 10%) that realisation of a One Health approach requires more than just a scientific solution. As emerging infectious diseases may often be linked to the development and implementation of novel vaccines this presentation will discuss factors influencing their uptake; using Hendra virus in Australia as a case study. Methods: This presentation will draw on data collected from the Horse owners and Hendra virus: A Longitudinal cohort study To Evaluate Risk (HHALTER) study. The HHALTER study is a mixed methods research study comprising a two-year survey-based longitudinal cohort study and qualitative interview study with horse owners in Australia. The HHALTER study has investigated and tracked changes in a broad range of issues around early uptake of vaccination, horse owner uptake of other recommended disease risk mitigation strategies, and attitudes to government policy and disease response. Interviews provide further insights into attitudes towards risk and decision-making in relation to vaccine uptake. A combination of quantitative and qualitative data analysis will be reported. Results: Data collected from more than 1100 horse owners shortly after vaccine introduction indicated that vaccine uptake and intention to vaccinate was associated with a number of risk perception factors and financial cost factors. In addition, concerns about side effects and veterinarians refusing to treat unvaccinated horses were linked to uptake. Across the study period vaccine uptake in the study cohort increased to more than 50%, however, concerns around side effects, equine performance and breeding impacts, delays to full vaccine approvals, and attempts to mandate vaccination by horse associations and event organisers have all impacted acceptance. Conclusion: Despite being provided with a safe and effective vaccine for Hendra virus that can protect horses and break the transmission cycle of the virus to humans, Australian horse owners have been reluctant to commit to it. General issues pertinent to novel vaccines, combined with challenges in the implementation of the vaccine have led to issues of mistrust and misconception with some horse owners. Moreover, factors such as cost, booster dose schedules, complexities around perceived risk, and ulterior motives attributed to veterinarians have only served to polarise attitudes to vaccine acceptance.