Containing Queensland prickly pear : buffer zones, closer settlement, whiteness

By 1925, the introduced prickly pear (Opuntia and Nopalea spp.) covered up to 60 million acres of Queensland and New South Wales in what was perceived as prime agricultural land. After 40 years of experimentation, all Queensland Government strategies had failed. Faced with this failure and a diminishing expectation that the land would ever be conquered, buffer zones were proposed by the newly formed Queensland Prickly Pear Land Commission. A close reading of government documents, newspaper reports and local histories about these buffer zones shows how settler anxieties over who could or should occupy the land shaped the kinds of strategies recommended and adopted in relation to this alien species. Physical and cultural techniques were used to manage the uneasy coexistence between prickly pear, on the one hand, and farmers and graziers on the other. Furthermore, this environmental history challenges the notion of racially homogenous closer settlement under the White Australia Policy, showing the many different kinds of livelihood and labour in prickly pear land in the 1920s.

A lucky break : contingency in the storied worlds of prickly pear

In July 1926, the science behind biological control transitioned from an experimental method to a trusted policy tool in invasive species management. In local storytelling, historical writing and scientific analysis, the ‘lucky’ discovery of the South American Cactoblastis cactorum moth was a watershed moment for scientists concerned with prickly pear, Opuntia and Nopalea spp. Within 10 years, Queensland declared itself pest free. Overnight success is the climax in this tale's narrative arc. Articulating this introduction as a ‘lucky break’ worked to stabilize the narrative of human control in the agricultural environments of post-colonial Queensland, and, in doing so, consolidated biological control as critical management technique. I argue that ‘luck’ elides the assemblage of elements and actors necessary to enable this change, allowing settlers to distance themselves from the responsibility for disruptions associated with nineteenth-century plant transfers. To challenge the rhetorical function of luck, three episodes of contingency are discussed: (1) transnational mobility of things and knowledge, (2) the unpredictable adaptation of insect diet, and; (3) human vectors in industrialized insect–plant complexes. There are important distinguishing differences between luck and contingency, which I frame as a critical analytical tool for understanding the political role of non-humans, in the storied worlds of science in prickly pear land.