Download Proposal form to prescribe certain organisms as not new organisms

PROPOSAL FORM
Proposal form to prescribe certain organisms as
not new organisms
for the purposes of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act
Send by post to: Environmental Protection Authority, Private Bag 63002, Wellington 6140 OR email to: [email protected]
Name of person or organisation making the proposal
Bioforce Limited
Postal Address
P.O Box 73, Drury 2247
Date
05-12-12
www.epa.govt.nz
2
Proposal form
Important
If species were not present in New Zealand before 29 July 1998, they are classed as new organisms under the
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act. As such, they will require HSNO Act approval for
propagation or distribution of the organism to occur. Currently, if anyone was to conduct any of these activities
without a HSNO Act approval they would be committing an offence under section 109(1) of the Act.
To change its “new organism” status (which means that an organism will not be regulated under the HSNO Act), an
organism must be deregulated under section 140(1)(ba) of the HSNO Act, by an Order in Council given by the
Governor General prescribing organisms that are not new organisms for the purposes of this Act.
As part of this process, the following form is to be filled in by the person or organisation making a proposal to
prescribe certain new organisms as not new organisms.
If the proposal is progressed, the information provided in this form will be used in the decision-making process
(which is likely to include a public consultation component). Any confidential information must be clearly labelled
and included as a separate Appendix.
2012
3
Proposal form
1. Details of the new organism(s) proposed to be prescribed as not new organism(s)
Please complete this section for each organism proposed to be prescribed as a not new organism.
Name of organism
The Macrotrachelia sp. that has been deposited as voucher specimen 09/2008/3333, at the Ministry for Primary
Industries, Plant (Health laboratory) Auckland New Zealand.
Why do you want to prescribe this organism as “not new”?
Including:

Is there any information on the economic or environmental impacts of the organism?

What is the benefit of making this organism “not new”?

Can these benefits be quantified?

Can these benefits be achieved by alternative means?
Macrotrachelia sp. shows potential as a biological control agent. Prescribing this organism as “not new” would
enable this potential to be fully realized. Several European anthocorids have economic significance as natural
enemies of crop pests (e.g. thrips, whitefly). For example, species in the closely related genus Orius are produced
in large quantities for augmentative biological control and are used extensively for the control of thrips in a range of
crops, including in New Zealand. Macrotrachelia nigronitens has been purposefully introduced into Hawaii, and
possibly also to California (Lariviere, 2012). Macrotrachelia sp. has been found feeding on Cuban laural thrips
(Gynaikothrips ficorum) and offers potential as a beneficial biological control agent. It is also possible that
Macrotrachelia sp. could be used as an augmentative biological control agent for other thrips and pest species,
including the tomato potato psyllid (Bactericera cockerelli).
Prescribing this organism as “not new” will allow for further research into the potential of Macrotrachelia sp. as a
biological control agent. In addition it will enable it to be used, should it prove to be effective.
The benefits to New Zealand of using Macrotrachelia sp. as a biological control agent are currently not quantifiable
without further research. Heavy infestations of Cuban laural thrips reduce the value of ornamental plants (North
Carolina State University, 2004). In addition, the thrips can be a human annoyance, inadvertently biting people,
and swarming Cuban laural thrips has been identified as a nuisance for people in the Cook Islands (PestNet,
2010). Any reduction of these impacts can be considered beneficial. The unexplored potential for control of tomato
potato psyllid could have even greater benefits. The tomato potato psyllid is a major cost to industry and there is
great need for new methods of control.
Making this species “not new” would enable researchers to more effectively investigate its potential benefit as a
biological control agent, and to gain a better understanding of its potential impacts on pest species, or its potential
for detrimental impacts on native species. Despite being present in the New Zealand environment the ”new
organism” status of this species means that a HSNO approval is required before this basic research can be
conducted. This “new organism” status also prevents the use of Macrotrachelia sp. as a biological control agent.
2012
4
Proposal form
The costs and restrictions entailed by undertaking research in containment facilities are prohibitive. Work in
containment would increase compliance costs and limit the size and scale of any research. Furthermore, this would
achieve little in reality, given that Macrotrachelia sp. has established a self-sustaining population in the New
Zealand environment.
In short, we can see no practical alternative means to achieve the same benefits that accrue from prescribing this
species as “not new”.
Describe the biology of the organism
Including:

What are the biological characteristics of the organism?

Where is it found overseas?

Does it cause a disease?

Does it have potentially beneficial characteristics?

What adverse effects could making this organism “not new” have on people or the environment, if any? Can these be quantified?
Uncertainty still surrounds the exact taxonomic identification of this organism. It is suspected that Macrotrachelia
sp. (voucher specimen 09/2008/3333, Plant (Health laboratory) Auckland New Zealand) could be Macrotrachelia
nigronitens. However, resolving the exact taxonomy of the specimen has proven difficult (Lariviere, 2012).
Most known species of the family Anthocoridae are predatory as nymphs and adults, mainly on other small
arthropods. The species Macrotrachelia nigronitens is found in Southern, Central and Northern America. It has
been purposefully introduced to Hawaii, although it does not appear to have established (Lariviere, 2012).
Very little is known or published on the biology of this organism, and its potential as a biological control organism is
unknown. Its predation of the Cuban laural thrips is considered a beneficial characteristic of this species, and it may
consume other pest species. There is the potential that this species can consume native, non-pest insect species,
particularly of the order Thysanoptera.
We are not aware of any reports that this species causes disease, or is of any risk to human health. Some species
of the family Anthocoridae have been known to probe humans, although there are no reports of disease
transmission, and the bites are only of mild nuisance value. Anthocorids of the genus Orius have been reported to
bite humans, however they are used extensively in large quantities as augmentative biological control agents in
New Zealand without any reported adverse effects. There are no published instances of this species having bitten
humans, and making this organism “not new” is not anticipated to cause significant human concerns.
2012
5
Proposal form
Has the organism formed a self-sustaining population in New Zealand?
Including:

Where and when has population(s) of the organism been found in New Zealand?

How does this organism spread?
In 2008 Macrotrachelia sp. specimens were found on Ficus microcarpa leaves in Auckland during investigations by
the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Unverified reports compiled by Stephen Thorpe, suggest that this
Anthocorid species may have been present in Auckland for around 20 years (TNZOR, 2012).
Currently they are widely distributed in the Auckland area. Macrotrachelia sp appear to be widespread where Ficus
spp. occur, and may possibly be found on Callistemon spp. trees. The organism is able to fly, and could be spread
by the transport of nursery stock.
Is any person attempting to manage, control or eradicate the organism under any Act or is the organism
the subject of an enforcement action or action under a civil penalty regime?
Including:

If the organism has been part of an official incursion response or other MPI (MAF) response or management activity, describe what
happened here including why the response was stood down.
We are not aware of any attempts to manage, control or eradicate this organism. The organism is not listed as an
unwanted organism by the Ministry of Primary Industries.
We are not aware that it is the subject of an enforcement action or action under a civil penalty regime.
Is there reason to believe that this organism was deliberately imported in contravention of an Act of
Parliament? If so, please explain.
We are not aware of any reason to believe that this organism was deliberately imported into New Zealand.
Any other information you wish to include?
2012
6
Proposal form
2. References (if applicable)
Author, title and source
Lariviere, M. 2008. What anthocorid biocontrol agent was introduced to Rarotonga? NZAC News No. 8 March
2012 pg 3
North Carolina State University. 2004. Cuban laurel thrips. Retrieved 18 May 2013 from:
http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/orn/thrips/cuban_laurel_thrips.htm
PestNet. 2010. Thrip predator, Montandoniola moraguesi. Retrieved 18 May 2013 from:
http://portal.cbit.uq.edu.au/pestnet/SummariesofMessages/Pests/PestsEntities/Insects/Thrips/ThripprepatorMonta
ndoniolamoraguesiCookIs.aspx
Thorpe's New Zealand Organisms Register (TNZOR). 2012. TNZOR Anthocoridae. Retrieved 18 May 2013 from:
http://species-id.net/wiki/TNZOR_Anthocoridae
2012