1. Monitoring and Evaluation K. Dhileepan Segun Osunkoya Rachel McFadyen Invasive Plant Science Biosecurity Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry Ecosciences Precinct Brisbane, Australia Biocontrol of Parthenium

2. Initiated in 1974 Native range surveys (1976-1996) 9 insects + 2 fungi introduced 8 insects + 2 fungi established 5 agents widespread & effective Vary seasonally and temporally Biological control CQ NQ SEQ

3. Smicronyx weevil Carmenta moth Listronotus weevil Summer rust Winter rust Epiblema moth Zygogramma beetle Bucculatrix moth Conotrachelus weevil Stobaera bug

4. History 1974 1984 19942004 2014 Host specificity tests Native range survey Field release Evaluation 1976 1996 1999 1979 Monitoring 1980 2004 2014 2000 1996

5. LAG-TIME: Introduction and establishment 1974 1984 19942004 2014 Zygogramma Epiblema & Listronotus Carmenta Smicronyx Evaluation Summer rust Conotrachelus Winter rust

6. Monitoring & Evaluation MONITORING Establishment and spread Abundance and damage o Individual plant level o Population level Local and regional scale EVALUATION Baseline (pre-release) data Impact assessment o Plant population level o Ecosystem response o Economic assessment Smicronyx weevil - yet to be evaluated

7. Monitoring & evaluation – why? Measure the success/failure Estimate economic benefits (if successful) Why biocontrol failed (if failed) Satisfy Government/funding bodies Increase public profile Attract funding for future research Sense of achievement and satisfaction

8. Stomphastis sp. nova North Qld (3 sites) Central Qld (12 -16 sites) Since 2004 (annual survey) Parthenium incidence Agent abundance Pasture cover South-east Qld (2 sites) Commenced in 2014 Monthly sampling Agent introduction Seed bank Monitoring

9. Summer rust Incidence & abundance across 19 sites since 2004 Monitoring

10. Stomphastis sp. nova Before & after-release Simulation experiments Performance vs. damage Exclusion trials Long-term changes target weed population beneficial plant communities seed-bank dynamics temporal and spatial changes Evaluation

11. Different methods All not suitable for all agents All methods have deficiencies Labor intensive and expensive Extensive & intensive studies required Dependent of community help At the mercy of weather conditions Erratic (but realistic) results Evaluation - difficulties

12. Variable establishment times for different agents Variable time taken for the agent to become abundant long-term pre-release data often not available Long-term impact studies not usually followed Before & after release 19961998

13. Simulation experiments Glasshouse & field experiments Evaluation at plant level only Not always reflect field situation Bench mark for field evaluation Other biotic factors excluded Multi-location trial is beneficial Zygogramma beetle Epiblema moth Listronotus weevil Summer rust Conotrachelus weevil C = control; R = rosette; PF = pre-flowering; F = flowering

14. Damage levels vs. plant performance Suitable to evaluate at individual plant level Not suitable when damage level is dependent on plant vigor Difficult to relate with changes in weed population C = control; R = rosette; PF = pre-flowering; F = flowering; Ex = excluded; Es = escaped

15. Biocontrol exclusion Field cage affect plant vigor influence the agent performance long-term maintenance difficult Not useful for pathogens Pesticides residue problem labor intensive and expensive affected by weather condition

16. Buffel GrassBlue Grass Increase in feed (kg/ha) Increase in cattle (hd/ha) Economic benefits ($/ha) 22.4432.54 0.00210.0020 $0.82$0.78 Cost benefit = $ 2.09 (based on 2000 value) Economic benefit

17. Before commencing evaluation Do we need pre-release data? Should we study seed-bank? If so, for how long? How long to evaluate? 20 years good - 5 year intervals Snap-shots over time When to start evaluation? Start now!! Late 1980s

18. Where to start! Release efforts in climatically favourable areas (CLIMEX models). Seed bank (once in 3-5 years) + above-ground studies In Africa study areas more likely to be cropping (disturbed) areas Opportunity to compare cropping & non-cropping areas Beneficial to establish ‘refuge’ for biocontrol agents Performance across low and high ‘altitudes’ In Australia and India Z. bicolorata outbreaks declined over time. Need to check if this will happen in Africa as well.

19. Good luck We would be happy to help in your monitoring and evaluation studies