Talk:Kauri dieback

Improving this article

Some ideas for sections adapted from the article for potato blight, Phytophthora_infestans:

1. Etymology
2. Life cycle, signs and symptoms
3. Genetics and origin
4. Damage to kauri
5. History of dieback
6. Disease management
   1. Resistant trees
   2. Controlling spread
   3. Environmental conditions
   4. Use of fungicides
7. Projected impact
8. References
9. Further reading

I've just added an Etymology section. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

A rose by other names

Phytophthora agathidicida and Phytophthora taxon Agathis should probably redirect here. I don't see a need to have a separate page for Phytophthora agathidicida. Also Taxobox ... would do myself but rushing out the door Onco p53 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, redirects done. I agree about the taxobox; I'll use the potato blight format. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Images

We need to get some photos of the actual organism or its effects. Perhaps someone should make a formal request from MPI that they donate some photos to the Commons under a CC-BY licence, or just CC0? At the moment there are photos on the website that seem to be mostly Crown Copyright but are available for use if you ask the webmaster each time, which is not particularly useful.

"Copyright: Unless otherwise indicated, copyright in all material available on this site is owned by the Crown or its licensors. You can reproduce this material free of charge without further permission, as long as you: reproduce the material accurately; do not use the material in a derogatory manner or a misleading context; and acknowledge the source and copyright status of the material. Permission to reuse photos from the site must be given by the site administrator. In most cases permission will be granted with little delay."

Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Claim of human cause needs stronger evidence

The claim "71% of the infected trees in the Waitakere Ranges are within 50 metres of a public walkway" is meaningless unless we're also told what proportion of the Waitakere Ranges is within 50 metres of a public walkway. Perhaps there are walkways all over and the latter is also 71%; then the implication of humans spreading the disease has no foundation. True evidence would estimate the relative risk or odds ratio for being infected and how this varies with proximity to human activities, perhaps with a spatial statistical model. Tayste (edits) 02:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Similarly "71% of the infected trees in the Waitakere Ranges are within 50 metres of a public walkway" does not demonstrate a causal link between people walking and the disease. It is likely that kauri within 50 metres of a public walkway are more stressed than others in remote areas, due to all the interference and change of local conditions caused by laying the tracks in the first place! ... ThorpeStephen (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, we need to confirm that there's a consensus in the literature that dieback is primarily human-caused, summarise the arguments used, and reflect it here. That one factoid I included was just one from the NZ Geo article, and there of course needs to be a whole section on the role of humans in spreading dieback. I'm happy to start doing that, and would appreciate help. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The recent genetic studies are interesting as they suggest the causative pathogen may have been present in NZ for centuries, without leading to Kauri dieback disease. This suggests that the disease might be resulting from the loss of some protective factor (a different soil fungus perhaps?) without which the Phytophthora is able to get out of control and cause disease. It would be interesting to see whether there are any places where the Phytophthora fungus is present but no Kauri dieback is evident, and survey what other organisms are present in the soil too. Meodipt (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

In case you're interested, this study was highly flawed. A blogger went over the data and found that 87% of the kauri measured were within 50 meters of a public walkway. A classic example of selection bias and academic/political fraud:

https://jordi.nz/kauri-dieback-putting-70-infected-trees-are-within-50m-walking-track-statement-test/ Palm Puree (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that saying humans are the primary vector for spread of the disease is "unsourced speculation". There does seem to be a consensus among experts on this - see e.g. "The highest risk vector for Phytophthora agathidicida movement into new distinct locations is soil disturbance associated with human activity e.g. visitor tracks, baitlines and informal routes." [1] or "Human activity is the leading cause of infected soil movement (on footwear and equipment)" [2] I just couldn't find a scientific journal article to use as a citation, as presumably it is difficult to prove conclusively. Nevertheless this does seem to be what the experts think, so I shall add that back in and use those two pdf documents as the source. Meodipt (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Timeline of identification

Partially in response to an article that states "Some say the disease was first discovered in 2006, others say 2009, and the origin is unknown"[3] here is a timeline:

• March 1972 - first isolated from Great barrier island [4]
• 1974 - publication describing this isolation, it was initially identified as P. heveae (Gadgil, 1974).
• March 2006 - first found in the Waitakere Ranges [5] by Ross Beever
• June 2006 - first documented as a possible new species with the tag name "Phytophthora taxon Agathis" in Report "Beever, R E, Ramsfield, T D, Dick M A, Park D, Fletcher, M J, Horner, I J (2006) Molecular characterisation of New Zealand isolates of the fungus Phytophthora. MAF Operational Research Report MBS304: 35pp." (not publicly available).
• August 2007 "Phytophthora taxon Agathis" name and research presented at IUFRO conference.
• 2009 - "Phytophthora taxon Agathis" Name 'published' (invalidly) in the conference proceedings "Beever, R.E., Waipara, N.W., Ramsfield T.D., Dick, M.A. & Horner, I.J. (2009) Kauri (Agathis australis) under threat from Phytophthora? In: Goheen, E.M. & Frankel, S.J. (Coords.) Phytophthoras in Forests and Natural Ecosystems. Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of IUFRO Working Party S07.02.09, General Technical report PSW-GTR-221. USDA Forest Service, Albany, CA, USA, pp. 74–85. (proceedings from this 2007 conference)
• 2015 - Formal publication of the name "Phytophthora agathidicida" by myself and colleagues [6]

I don't expect that this information will be incorporated into the article, I just wanted to get it straight in my own mind, and writing it here might help others. Onco p53 (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Timeline of track and forest closures

• Forest & Bird: Alice Olive Reserve, South Auckland <can't find reference?>
• July 2012: Auckland Council establish 15 kauri protection areas in the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park and nine protection areas in the Hunua Ranges Regional Park, and closes all tracks leading into these protected areas. These areas contain significant stands of healthy kauri.
• 31 March 2015: The New Zealand Government closes the 40ha Albany Scenic Reserve in Auckland.
• 2 December 2017: Te Kawerau ā Maki place a rāhui over the Waitakere Ranges forest.
• 5 Dec 2017: Auckland Council closes a total of 24 tracks in the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park.
• 16 March 2018: The Department of Conservation closes Goldie Bush in support of the rāhui placed by Te Kawerau ā Maki.
• 1 May 2018: Auckland Council closes the forested areas of the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park.
• 1 May 2018: MPI issue "Controlled Area Notices" for the Waitākere Ranges and parts of the Hunua Ranges.
• 12 May 2018: The Department of Conservation close Okura Blush Scenic Reserve in Auckland. The track closure is supported by a rāhui placed by Te Kawerau ā Maki.
• 13 July 2018: The Department of Conservation proposes 34 full or partial track closures in areas including Waikato, Coromandel, Hauraki, Great Barrier Island, Whangarei, Tauranga and the Bay of Islands.
• 28 July 2018: Auckland Council closes all walking tracks in Auckland North Shore's Kauri Park, after a diseased kauri is found in the area for the first time

Further preventative closures

• 1 May 2018: Auckland Council closes ten at-risk tracks in the Hunua Ranges Regional Park to help prevent the spread of kauri dieback disease.
• 2 August 2018 Forest & Bird closes all its reserves with kauri to the public

Track upgrades

DOC is undertaking some track maintenance and upgrades at key sites in Northland. These track upgrades include replacing the existing barrel and grate footwear cleaning stations, resurfacing tracks with new gravel and building new boardwalks and box steps. .

Don't expect all the above details to be included - but also needed to get the above clear. It may only be useful to include the first and more important track/forest closures.

References

Information to be added

Notes from the Kauri Dieback Wikiblitz:

Jack Craw: "It is much more likely to have been spread independently (probably from the ex-Forest Service Waipoua Nursery) to many spots, including planted kauri in ex Forest Service (now DOC) forests, Titirangi, GBI etc." References needed.

Section "Research" needed: fundamental ecology, origin, mortality/virulence, DNA, specificity, Bellgard on life cycle and relationships to other organisms, alternative hosts.

Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Spread by humans?

"The consensus among experts is that the predominant vector for spread of the disease is human activity.[34][35][17] This can be seen as 71% of the infected trees in the Waitakere Ranges are within 50 metres of public walking tracks" This is not very convincing. - Firstly, what percentage of total kauri in the Waitakeres are within 50 metres of public walking tracks? If most are, then it is no wonder that most infected kauri are! - Furthermore, most public walking tracks are on ridges, so most infected kauri are also on ridges. Perhaps environmental conditions on ridges are different to those in valleys and are more conducive to infection, for reasons unconnected with walking humans? - The very act of constructing tracks through the forest may in some way have opened up nearby kauri to infection, or the presence of tracks may put nearby kauri at risk for reasons unconnected with walking humans? For example, soil moisture, light levels, etc. may be different near tracks and may act as stressors on the kauri, increasing the likelihood of infection. - If any of the above points are valid, then closing off the forests to people will have no effect. ThorpeStephen (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Scientific consensus

There've been some repeated attempts by @FeijoaSalsa: to insert text claiming that P. agathacidida is not the accepted cause of kauri dieback, instead blaming other Phytophthera species, drought, etc. The sources given for this are papers from the 1960s or 1970s, but in the recent peer-reviewed scientific literature there seems to be a consensus that this is not the case. If there is a contrarian view currently held by a significant minority of scientists, and there are peer-reviewed publications to back this up, it would be good to add a subheading called "Dissenting views" or the like and summarise those views there. But removing material that reflects what most or all of the recent sources are saying, and replacing it with a contrarian viewpoint, is not good practice.

P.Agathadicida is not the scientific consensus. As per the references provided Phytopthora cinnamomi was identified as the Cause of Kauri Deiback in the Waitakere Ranges in 1974 and I have provide the link to the peer reviewed Podger and Newhook paper 1974. Frank Newhook being the head of plant pathology from 19-18 - 1999 and the expert on this field. Furthermore Auckalnd Council's own research 2011 and 2017 found more of the soil samples under deiback trees were cinnamomi but also included a range of other Phytopthoras. So no P. Agathadicida is not a single cause of Kauri Dieback. The government "Kauri Dieback Science Plan" which I provided a link for and was removed also notes "a. In addition to P. agathidicida, other Phytophthora species including P. multivora and P. cinnamomi, have been found to be associated with dying kauri trees. "FeijoaSalsa (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Feijoa Salsa.FeijoaSalsa (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Controversial statements like "The doubling percentages claim is unscientific and is based on non-diagnostic aerial photographs that are not published." (no citation) and "…which has an unpublished and negative peer review" (no citation) (diff) need to be summaries of an already-published source, or they're original research, and they need to be referenced. All future information inserted should be a summary of recent reliable sources, or it runs the risk of being reverted.

The claim you have posted that "Between 2011 and 2016 the infection rate of kauri trees in the ranges doubled, from 8% to 19% In the Waitākeres 58% of large areas of kauri ecosystem over 5 hectares have some state of infection ." Need to be removed. 1. The people you had in your original construction of this article were the author of the NZ geo article and the scientist who wrote the council document quoting their own work. They have conflict of interest and it is biased. The council 2011 and 2017 documents are not scientific documents. And are not peer reviewed. The 2011 document is not public. Please provide a link. You can't. You will need to get council to publish the document. And you will find it is not a proper council document. The 2017 document is not a scientific document. The research is that they took 350 soil tests and never published the results of those soil tests in the results section!!!! That is not science. They also surveyed the trees by looking at the trees - ah that is not science. The test and soil results have been obtained by concerned community groups. The soil tests did not show Phytopthora Agathadicida. There is not a 19% increase in spread. The author of the report left council immediately after. There were also other lies in the document. Namely that Phytopthora Agathadicida was a new pathogen found in 2009. A false claim repeated in this article. That is scientific fraud. It is not a new pathogen as the coucnil scientist well knew. As he had visited the original Gadgil site in 2009 were it was originally discovered . Gadgil had published in a peer reviewed report his dscovery in 1974. 04:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Feijoa Salsa FeijoaSalsa (talk)

Note also that the Talk page of an article is not a forum for a debate about the facts about kauri dieback. It's to discuss editing the article, and how to make it a balanced and neutral summary of (again) recent reliable published sources. @Onco p53:, as another major contributor do you have anything to add? —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

You've questioned the scienctific validity of the statements made. I have responded with peer reviewed research. "FeijoaSalsa (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Feijoa SalsaFeijoaSalsa (talk)

Its is a bit hard to follow what is going on here, but certainly there is no scientific doubt that P. agathadicida causes the disease 'kauri dieback'. If you inoculate healthy trees / seedlings with the pathogen, they get the symptoms of the disease, and the pathogen can be isolated from those symptoms. i.e. Koch's postulates. Other Phytophthora could certainly be associated with diseased trees, but (to my knowledge) they have not been proven to cause disease on any significant scale. --Onco p53 (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Cause of kauri dieback

I've removed the dieback science plan ref which is a press release with no authors or publication date listed; we would need a better reference to establish what the scientific consensus of the cause of kauri dieback is. The media release clearly states "The pathogen suspected to cause the disease is Phytophthora agathidicida." It states other species have been found in association but more research is needed. It does not support the statement that User:FeijoaSalsa has tried repeatedly to insert in the lead that kauri dieback is "suspected to be caused by oomycetes including Phytophthora agathidicida, Phytophthora cinnamomi, Phytophthora multivora and others." This is not an accurate summary of the source. Multiple reliable sources state simply that "the cause of kauri dieback is is Phytophthora agathidicida": DOC, the Kauri Dieback Programme website, Waikato Regional Council, the media 1, 2, Tree Council of NZ, and peer-reviewed research: 1, 2, 3. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Giantflightlessbirds Thank you kindly for your contributions and especially for checking the sources added by previous edits. It is highly appreciated! —Snoteleks (Talk) 00:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)