Biological control of pests and a social model of animal welfare

Mankad, Aditi; Kennedy, Uttara; Carter, Lucy

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.080

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the past 5 years, there has been a significant increase in the exploration of the social and institutional factors influencing research and development of GBTs. Public attitudes toward novel genetic tools using synthetic biology (c.f., Mankad et al, 2019;Synthetic Biology Future Science Platform, 2020) and the broader normative questions raised by public participation in science in the context of gene drives (c.f. Thizy et al, 2019;Ledingham and Hartley, 2021) are examples of these efforts.…”

Section: Social and Institutional Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Much of this effort is considered reactive to existing pest problems and does not necessarily prevent or manage new incursions (Doherty et al, 2016;Epanchill-Niell, 2017). Developing control tools and methods that deliver improved welfare outcomes for both target and non-target animals is also an important consideration in pest management (Littin et al, 2014;Mankad et al, 2019;Hampton et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conditions for Investment in Genetic Biocontrol of Pest Vertebrates in Australia

Carter

Mankad

Campbell³

et al. 2022

Front. Agron.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Managing pest vertebrate species in Australia is a significant challenge for government, industry, research sectors and land-managers. Innovative tools such as genetic biocontrol offers decision-makers a potentially effective means of reducing the impact of pest species incursions. To determine the conditions for investment in genetic biocontrol, we applied qualitative engagement methodologies to identify and integrate existing knowledge of pest species research and management in Australia. Two facilitated workshops were held to determine key topics related to genetic biocontrol technologies for selected pest species. The topics explored during workshop discussions included: identifying existing knowledge gaps; risk perceptions; social and ethical considerations and; industry and business considerations. The workshops' aim was to assess the potential, the priorities and the risk parameters among expert stakeholders and decision-makers for using genetic biocontrol approaches to reduce the impacts of key pest species in Australia. This paper reports on the design, process and outcomes of each workshop to inform the creation of a decision framework. Stakeholders were cautiously optimistic of pursuing continued research and development for vertebrate pest management in Australia. However, employing an appropriate, transparent process for incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives on genetic biocontrol technologies is essential to ensure their development and use remains supported. This outcome will require meaningful investment in both social science investigations and well-considered engagement processes concurrent with biotechnology development globally.

show abstract

Section: Social and Institutional Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conditions for Investment in Genetic Biocontrol of Pest Vertebrates in Australia

Carter

Mankad

Campbell³

et al. 2022

Front. Agron.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2008; Dubois 2019; Mankad et al. 2019). This malleability creates problems for scientific communications.…”

Section: Contemporary Definitions Of Humanementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Acknowledging the context-dependent interpretations of "humane," there have been attempts to refine scientific definitions of it in the wildlife field, such as "actions that promote good welfare and minimize the amount (severity, duration, and the number of animals affected) of animal suffering (pain, fear, or other negative states)" (British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 2016). However, there remains no agreed universal scientific definition of humane (Beausoleil et al 2010;Baker & Macdonald 2012), and definitions vary greatly between individuals and communities based on their values and experiences (Gales et al 2008;Dubois 2019;Mankad et al 2019). This malleability creates problems for scientific communications.…”

Section: Contemporary Definitions Of Humanementioning

confidence: 99%

Reconsidering humaneness

Hampton

Fisher

Warburton

2020

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal welfare is increasingly important in the understanding of how human activity affects wildlife, but the conservation community is still grappling with meaningful terminology when communicating this aspect of their work. One example is the use of the terms "humane" and "inhumane." These terms are used in scientific contexts, but they also have legal and social definitions. Without reference to a defined technical standard, describing an action or outcome as humane (or inhumane) constrains science communication because the terms have variable definitions; establish a binary (something is either humane or inhumane); and imply underlying values reflecting a moral prescription. Invoking the term "humane," and especially the strong antithesis "inhumane," can infer a normative judgment of how animals ought to be treated (humane) or ought not to be treated (inhumane). The consequences of applying this terminology are not just academic. Publicizing certain practices as humane can create blurred lines around contentious animal welfare questions and, perhaps intentionally, defer scrutiny of actual welfare outcomes. Labeling other practices as inhumane can be used cynically to erode their public support. We suggest that, if this normative language is used in science, it should always be accompanied by a clear, contextual definition of what is meant by humane.

show abstract

“…Pest species of certain crops decline due to the deficiency of food when a different crop species becomes the focus of cultivation. On the other hand, when plants have enough space so that the sunlight can reach the ground some insect pests can be decreased by more than 96% [14] facilitating visibility to predatory species [15][16][17][18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic analysis and control of a rice-pest system under transcritical bifurcations

Mandal

Oberst

Biswas

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

World-wide rice consummation constantly grows constantly with non-proportional yield as large amounts of rice are lost due to pest infestations. Cultural methods were widely applied at an early stage of agricultural pest management but then replaced over time through insecticides. To describe a rice-pest system and to control the corresponding pests applying cultural methods and/or insecticides, statistical analyses have been used, and also other mathematical models using an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategy considering long time period and more parametric values. Considering the limitations of IPM, we have developed a mathematical model for a rice-pest system found in agricultural management. The mathematical model consists of two non-linear differential equations (NDEs) to illustrate the interrelation of rice and its corresponding agricultural pests. This model is extended to become an optimal control problem (minimization problem), considering both, cultural methods and pesticides, to minimize the density of agricultural pests and to increase the production of rice, reducing gross annual losses. Pesticides have been applied only in emergencies to reduce environmental pollution and damage to nearby ecosystems such as aquatic ecosystems, and a decision model has also been developed to mitigate potential risks. To compare the effectiveness of the considered controls, the ratio of annual production of rice is studied for both controls and without control. This study contributes to building a relationship between NDEs and agricultural management as well as connecting mathematically rice-pest relationships to global food security.

show abstract

Biological control of pests and a social model of animal welfare

Cited by 17 publications

References 75 publications

Conditions for Investment in Genetic Biocontrol of Pest Vertebrates in Australia

Conditions for Investment in Genetic Biocontrol of Pest Vertebrates in Australia

Reconsidering humaneness

Dynamic analysis and control of a rice-pest system under transcritical bifurcations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About