Suitable areas for invasive insect pests in Brazil and the potential impacts for eucalyptus forestry.
alien species
biological invasion
ecological niche models
forest pests
potential distribution
Journal
Pest management science
ISSN: 1526-4998
Titre abrégé: Pest Manag Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100898744
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Jun 2022
Historique:
revised:
06
03
2022
received:
22
11
2021
accepted:
26
03
2022
pubmed:
27
3
2022
medline:
21
5
2022
entrez:
26
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Brazil is among the world's largest producers of eucalyptus and the damage caused by native and invasive insect pests is one of the main factors affecting eucalyptus yield. The recent history of biological invasions of eucalyptus pests in Brazil prompts demand for phytosanitary measures to prevent new invasions. This study used ecological niche models to estimate suitable areas for nine eucalyptus pests. This information was used to assess the potential ports of entry, generate invasion risk maps considering the likelihood of introducing invasive species, and estimate the eucalyptus producing municipalities and areas within the species' suitable range. A large distribution range was predicted for Eucalyptolyma maideni (Hempitera: Aphalaridae), Orgya postica (Lepidoptera: Erebidae), Sinoxylon anale (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae), and Trachymela sloanei (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in Brazil, while a comparatively smaller distribution was predicted for Ophelimus maskelli (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), Mnesampela privata (Lepidoptera: Geometridae), Paropsis atomaria (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), Paropsisterna beata, and P. cloelia (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). High-risk areas of invasion near airports and seaports were predicted mainly in southern, southeastern, and northeastern Brazil. A large proportion of the municipalities (24.4% to 93.7%) and areas with eucalyptus plantations (31.9% to 98.3%) are within the climatically suitable areas estimated for the pests, especially in southern and southeastern regions, which comprises 61.5% of the Brazilian eucalyptus production. The results indicate that eucalyptus forestry may be significantly impacted by biological invasion. The findings provided by our study can assist decision-makers in developing phytosanitary measures to prevent new invasions of forest pests in Brazil. © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Brazil is among the world's largest producers of eucalyptus and the damage caused by native and invasive insect pests is one of the main factors affecting eucalyptus yield. The recent history of biological invasions of eucalyptus pests in Brazil prompts demand for phytosanitary measures to prevent new invasions. This study used ecological niche models to estimate suitable areas for nine eucalyptus pests. This information was used to assess the potential ports of entry, generate invasion risk maps considering the likelihood of introducing invasive species, and estimate the eucalyptus producing municipalities and areas within the species' suitable range.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A large distribution range was predicted for Eucalyptolyma maideni (Hempitera: Aphalaridae), Orgya postica (Lepidoptera: Erebidae), Sinoxylon anale (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae), and Trachymela sloanei (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in Brazil, while a comparatively smaller distribution was predicted for Ophelimus maskelli (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), Mnesampela privata (Lepidoptera: Geometridae), Paropsis atomaria (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), Paropsisterna beata, and P. cloelia (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). High-risk areas of invasion near airports and seaports were predicted mainly in southern, southeastern, and northeastern Brazil. A large proportion of the municipalities (24.4% to 93.7%) and areas with eucalyptus plantations (31.9% to 98.3%) are within the climatically suitable areas estimated for the pests, especially in southern and southeastern regions, which comprises 61.5% of the Brazilian eucalyptus production.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The results indicate that eucalyptus forestry may be significantly impacted by biological invasion. The findings provided by our study can assist decision-makers in developing phytosanitary measures to prevent new invasions of forest pests in Brazil. © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2596-2606Subventions
Organisme : Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
Organisme : Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Estado de Santa Catarina
Informations de copyright
© 2022 Society of Chemical Industry.
Références
IPBES, Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services, in Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, ed. by Brondizio ES, Settele J, Díaz S and Ngo Bonn HT. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, p. 1148 (2019).
Seebens H, Blackburn TM, Dyer EE, Genovesi P, Hulme PE, Jeschke JM et al., No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nat Commun 8:14435 (2017).
Bradshaw CJA, Leroy B, Bellard C, Roiz D, Albert C, Fournier A et al., Massive yet grossly underestimated global costs of invasive insects. Nat Commun 7:106-111 (2016).
Adelino JRP, Heringer G, Diagne C, Courchamp F, Faria LDB and Zenni RD, The economic costs of biological invasions in Brazil: a first assessment. NeoBiota 67:349-374 (2021).
Pozebon H, Marques RP, Padilha G, O'Neal M, Valmobida I, Bevilaqua JG et al., Arthropod invasions versus soybean production in Brazil: a review. J Econ Entomol 113:1591-1608 (2020).
Vilela EF and Zucchi RA, Pragas introduzidas no Brasil: insetos e ácaros. FEALQ, Piracicaba, Brazil, p. 908 (2015).
Oliveira CM, Auad AM, Mendes SM and Frizzas MR, Crop losses and the economic impact of insect pests on Brazilian agriculture. Crop Prot 56:50-54 (2014).
Jiménez-Valverde A, Peterson AT, Soberón J, Overton JM, Aragón P and Lobo JM, Use of niche models in invasive species risk assessments. Biol Invasions 13:2785-2797 (2011).
Marchioro CA and Krechemer FS, Prevention is better than cure: integrating habitat suitability and invasion threat to assess global biological invasion risk by insect pests under climate change. Pest Manag Sci 77:4510-4520 (2021).
Fletcher DH, Gillingham PK, Britton JR, Blanchet S and Gozlan RE, Predicting global invasion risks: a management tool to prevent future introductions. Sci Rep 6:26316 (2016).
McGeoch MA, Genovesi P, Bellingham PJ, Costello MJ, McGrannachan C and Sheppard A, Prioritizing species, pathways, and sites to achieve conservation targets for biological invasion. Biol Invasions 18:299-314 (2016).
Simberloff D, Martin J-L, Genovesi P, Maris V, Wardle DA, Aronson J et al., Impacts of biological invasions: what's what and the way forward. Trends Ecol Evol 28:58-66 (2013).
IBÁ, Relatório Anual 2020. Indústria Brasileira de Árvores, Brasília, p. 66 (2020).
Queiroz TB, Campoe O, Montes C, Alvares CA, Cuartas M and Guerrini I, Temperature thresholds for eucalyptus genotypes growth across tropical and subtropical ranges in South America. Forest Ecol Manag 472:18248 (2020).
Wilcken CF, As pragas exóticas que estão chegando. Rev Opiniões 46:26-27 (2017).
Iede ET, Penteado SRC and Reis Filho W, Pragas quarentenárias florestais: riscos e prevenção. Floresta 30:65-73 (2000).
Schühli GS, Penteado SC, Barbosa LR, Reis Filho W and Iede ET, A review of introduced forest pests in Brazil. Pesqui Agropecu Bras 51:397-406 (2016).
Queiroz DL, Pragas exóticas e potenciais a eucaliptocultura no Brasil, in Manejo Fitossanitário de Cultivos agroenergéticos. Universidade Federal de Lavras, Lavras, pp. 239-249 (2009).
MAPA. Pragas quarentenárias ausentes - PQA. https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/sanidade-animal-e-vegetal/sanidade-vegetal/analise-de-riscos-de-pragas. [acessed 11 February 2022]
Neumann FG and Collet NG, Insecticide trials for control of the autumn gum moth (Mnesampela privata), a primary defoliator in commercial eucalypt plantations prior to canopy closure. Aust For 60:130-137 (1997).
Protasov A, Blumberg D, Brand D, La Salle J and Mendel Z, Biological control of the eucalyptus gall wasp Ophelimus maskelli (Ashmead): taxonomy and biology of the parasitoid species Closterocerus chamaeleon (Girault), with information on its establishment in Israel. Biol Control 42:196-206 (2007).
Schutze MK, Mather PB and Clarke AR, Species status and population structure of the Australian eucalyptus pest Paropsis atomaria Olivier (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Agric For Entomol 8:323-332 (2006).
Yamoah E, Voice D, Gunawardana D, Chandler B and Hammond D, Eradication of Paropsisterna beata (Newman) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in a semi-rural suburb in New Zealand. N Z J For Sci 46:5 (2016).
Nahrung HF, Lewis ASR, Ridenbauch RD, Allen GR, Reid CAM, McDougal RL et al., Expansion of the geographic range of the eucalypt pest Paropsisterna cloelia (Stål) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) through synonymy and invasion. Austral Entomol 59:619-629 (2020).
Early R, Bradley BA, Dukes JS, Lawler JL, Olden JD, Blumenthal DM et al., Global threats from invasive alien species in the twenty-first century and national response capacities. Nat Commun 7:12485 (2016).
Brown JL, Bennet JR and French CM, SDMtoolbox 2.0: the next generation python-based GIS toolkit for landscape genetic, biogeographic and species distribution model analyses. Peerj 5:4095-4099 (2017).
Fick SE and Hijmans RJ, WorldClim 2: new 1km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 37:4302-4315 (2017).
Giannini TC, Maia-Silva C, Acosta AL, Jaffé R, Carvalho AT, Martins CF et al., Protecting a managed bee pollinator against climate change: strategies for an area with extreme climatic conditions and socioeconomic vulnerability. Apidologie 48:784-794 (2017).
Elith J, Kearney M and Phillips S, The art of modelling range-shifting species. Methods Ecol Evol 1:330-342 (2010).
Hageer Y, Esperón-Rodriguez M, Baumgartner JB and Beaumont LJ, Climate, soil or both? Which variables are better predictor of the distributions od Australian shrub species? PeerJ 5:e3446 (2017).
Syfert MM, Smith MJ and Coomes DA, The effects of sampling bias and model complexity on the predictive performance of MaxEnt species distribution models. PLoS One 8:e55158 (2013).
Phillips SJ, Anderson RP and Schapire RE, Maximum entropy modelling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190:231-259 (2006).
Boria RA, Olson LE, Goodman SM and Anderson RP, Spatial filtering to reduce sampling bias can improve performance of ecological niche models. Ecol Model 275:73-77 (2014).
Morales NS, Fernández IC and Baca-González V, Maxent's parameter configuration and small samples: are we paying attention to recommendations? A systematic review. PeerJ 5:e3093 (2017).
Rodda GH, Jarnevich CS and Reed RM, Challenges in identifying sites climatically matched to the native ranges of animal invaders. PLoS One 6:e14670 (2011).
Hill MP and Terblanche JS, Niche overlap of congeneric invaders supports a single-species hypothesis and provides insight into future invasion risk: implications for global management of the Bactrocera dorsalis complex. PLoS One 9:e90121 (2014).
Warren DL, Glor RE and Turelli M, ENMTools: a toolbox for comparative studies of environmental niche models. Ecography 33:607-611 (2010).
Burnham KP, Anderson DR and Huyvaert KP, AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:23-35 (2011).
Hirzel AH, Le Lay G, Helfer V, Randin C and Guisan A, Evaluating the ability of habitat suitability models to predict species presences. Ecol Model 199:142-152 (2006).
Byeon D-H, Lee J-H, Lee H-S, Park Y, Jung S and Lee W-H, Prediction of spatiotemporal invasive risk by the red imported fire ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in South Korea. Agronomy 6:875-882 (2020).
McCullough DG, Work TT, Cavey JF, Liebhold AM and Marshall D, Interceptions of nonindigenous plant pests at US ports of entry and border crossing over a 17-year period. Biol Invasions 8:611-630 (2006).
Eschen R, Britton K, Brockerhoff E, Burgess T, Dalley V, Epanchin-Niell RS et al., International variation in phytosanitary legislation and regulations governing importation of plants for planting. Environ Sci Policy 51:228-237 (2015).
Hulme PE, Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. J Appl Ecol 46:10-18 (2009).
Hulme PE, Bacher S, Kenis M, Klotz S, Kühn I, Minchin D et al., Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: a framework for integrating pathways into policy. J Appl Ecol 45:403-414 (2008).
Meleiro M, Silva DME and Iede ET, Pragas interceptadas pela Vigilância Agropecuária Internacional no Porto de Santos de 2006 a 2008 - Comunicado Técnico. Embrapa Florestas, Colombo, 336, p. 8 (2014).
Jones ME, Daane KM and Paine TD, Establishment of Psyllaephagus parvus and P. perplexans as serendipitous biological control agents of eucalyptus psyllids in southern California. Biocontrol 56:735-744 (2011).
Brustel H and Aberlenc H-P, Les Bostrichidae Latreille, 1802 de la faune de France: espèces autochtones, interceptées, introduites ou susceptibles de l'être (Coleoptera). Revue de l'Association Roussillonnaise d'Entomologie 23:65-68 (2014).
Borowski J, Bostrichidae, in Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera, Vol. 4, ed. by Löbl I and Smetana A. Apollo Books, Stenstrup, pp. 320-328 (2007).
Liu LY, Ghahari H and Beaver RA, An annotated synopsis of the powder post beetles of Iran (Coleoptera: Bostrichoidea: Bostrichidae). J Insect Biodiversity 4:1-22 (2016).
Mansfield S, New communities on eucalypts grown outside Australia. Front Plant Sci 7:1812 (2016).
Sanchez I, Amarillo JM and Molina D, Primeira cita de Trachymela sloanei (Blackburn, 1897) (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) em Europa. Revista gaditana de Entomología 6:127-130 (2015).
Teixeira EP, Novo JPS and Berti Filho E, First record of Sinoxylon anale Lesne and Sinoxylon senegalensis (Karsch) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) in Brazil. Neotrop Entomol 31:641-652 (2002).
Lopes da Silva M, Benito NP, Sanches MM, Marques SA, Návia D, Gonzaga V et al., Interceptações de pragas quarentenárias e ausentes não regulamentadas em material vegetal importado. Pesqui Agropecu Bras 51:494-501 (2016).
Gonzaga V, Benito N, Lopes-da-Silva M, Rocha HM and Navia D, Quarentena vegetal no Brasil, in Pragas introduzidas no Brasil: insetos e ácaros, ed. by Vilela EF and Zucchi RA. FEALQ, Piracicaba, pp. 67-108 (2015).
Araújo MB and New M, Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends Ecol Evol 22:42-47 (2007).
Crimmins SM, Dobrowski SZ and Mynsberge AR, Evaluating ensemble forecasts of plant species distributions under climate change. Ecol Model 266:126-130 (2013).
Hao T, Elith J, Lahoz-Monfort JJ and Guillera-Arroita G, Testing whether ensemble modelling is advantageous for maximising predictive performance of species distribution models. Ecography 43:549-558 (2020).
Zhu G-P and Peterson AT, Do consensus models outperform individual models? Transferability evaluations of diverse modeling approaches for an invasive moth. Biol Invasions 19:2519-2532 (2017).
Early R and Sax DF, Climatic niche shifts between species' native and naturalized ranges raise concern for ecological forecasts during invasions and climate change. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23:1356-1365 (2014).
Li Y, Liu X, Li X, Petitpierre B and Guisan A, Residence time, expansion toward the equator in the invaded range and native range size matter to climatic niche shifts in non-native species. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23:1094-1104 (2014).
Hill MP, Gallardo B and Terblanche JS, A global assessment of climatic niche shifts and human influence in insect invasions. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 26:679-689 (2017).
Beaumont LJ, Gallagher RV, Thuiller W, Downey PO, Leishman MR and Hughes L, Different climatic envelopes among invasive populations may lead to underestimations of current and future biological invasions. Divers Distrib 15:409-420 (2009).
Fitzpatrick MC, Weltzin JF, Sanders NJ and Dunn RR, The biogeography of prediction error: why does the introduced range of the fire ant over-predict its native range? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:24-33 (2007).
Peterson AT and Nakazawa Y, Environmental data sets matter in ecological niche modelling: an example with Solenopsis invicta and Solenopsis richteri. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:135-144 (2008).
Sales LP, Ribeiro BR, Hayward MW, Paglia A, Passamani M and Loyola R, Niche conservatism and the invasive potential of the wild boar. J Anim Ecol 86:1214-1223 (2017).
Pearson RG, Raxworthy CJ, Nakamura M and Peterson AT, Predicting species distributions from small numbers of occurrence records: a test case using cypric geckos in Madagascar. J Biogrogr 34:102-117 (2007).
van Proosdij ASJ, Sosef MSM, Wieringa JJ and Raes N, Minimum required number of specimen records to develop accurate species distribution models. Ecography 39:542-552 (2015).
Wisz MS, Hijmans RJ, Li J, Peterson AT, Graham CH, Guisan A et al., Effect of sample size on the performance of species distribution models. Divers Distrib 14:763-773 (2008).