The potential of biological control against Heterobasidion root rot is not realized in practical forestry

For about 25 years, forest managers in Sweden have been treating stumps following harvesting with Phlebiopsis gigantea, retailed as Rotstop (R) S gel, against spore infections of Heterobasidion, which cause root rot in order to minimize losses in timber production. However, not all forest managers trust the efficacy of stump treatment and this fact has hindered widespread adoption of stump treatment using P. gigantea. In this study, we evaluated stump treatment in the field during commercial thinning operations across 15 sites, by assessing the degree of stump coverage and subsequent infection levels in stump discs. In total, 45 % of all stumps were infected with Heterobasidion spp.. Nineteen percent of all stumps were considered to have full (100 %) coverage by Rotstop (R) S but contractors failed to achieve the manufacturers stipulated minimum coverage (85 %) in approximately 1/3 of all stumps. Using PCR, we could only detect the presence of P. gigantea in 73 % of the tested stumps. Large variation occurred between stump coverage and the recovery of P. gigantea in wood chip samples collected from stump discs across sites. In the worst case, we detected P. gigantea in only three out of ten treated stumps at one site. Despite this discrepancy we saw a clear reduction of the size of Heterobasidion infections on stumps where stump treatment coverage was more than 85 % of the stump surface.Our results suggest that forest operators in Sweden repeatedly fail to either apply a spore solution of P. gigantea or cover enough of the stumps to provide the desired protection. The outcome of such sub-standard application, could further undermine the usage of biological control agents in forestry and limit any potential control against Heterobasidion spp.

ARTEFACTS: How do we want to deal with the future of our one and only planet?

The European Commission’s Science and Knowledge Service, the Joint Research Centre (JRC), decided to try working hand-in-hand with leading European science centres and museums. Behind this decision was the idea that the JRC could better support EU Institutions in engaging with the European public. The fact that European Union policies are firmly based on scientific evidence is a strong message which the JRC is uniquely able to illustrate. Such a collaboration would not only provide a platform to explain the benefits of EU policies to our daily lives but also provide an opportunity for European citizens to engage by taking a more active part in the EU policy making process for the future. A PILOT PROGRAMME To test the idea, the JRC launched an experimental programme to work with science museums: a perfect partner for three compelling reasons. Firstly, they attract a large and growing number of visitors. Leading science museums in Europe have typically 500 000 visitors per year. Furthermore, they are based in large European cities and attract local visitors as well as tourists from across Europe and beyond. The second reason for working with museums is that they have mastered the art of how to communicate key elements of sophisticated arguments across to the public and making complex topics of public interest readily accessible. That is a high-value added skill and a crucial part of the valorisation of public-funded research, never to be underestimated. Finally museums are, at present, undergoing something of a renaissance. Museums today are vibrant environments offering new techniques and technologies to both inform and entertain, and attract visitors of all demographics.JRC.H.2-Knowledge Management Methodologies, Communities and Disseminatio