International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures Research Articles

Effects of γ-irradiation as phytosanitary treatment on the quality of Japanese fruits and the survival of their regulated pests

Irradiation with γ-rays, electron beams, and X-rays was a widely accepted plant quarantine treatment, and the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) have been gradually prepared against regulated pests. The effective doses against these pests for phytosanitary irradiation were recently admitted as new annexes in ISPM No. 28. In Japanese fruits, the peach fruit moth and Japanese orange fly commonly become the causes of severe issues in exporting apples and Satsuma mandarins from Japan. Therefore, the species-specific dose for peach fruit moth and the generic dose for the family Tephritidae were administered to confirm the effectiveness of irradiation treatments to prevent the adult emergence of these pests. Moreover, depending on the dose level, the fruit quality might be affected by irradiation, although different fruit cultivars might show different responses. The responses of apple and Satsuma mandarin cultivars in Japan should be clarified to determine applicability of irradiation treatments. Preliminary assessment on Japanese cultivars of 11 kinds of apples and 3 mandarins were investigated in this report. In conclusion, phytosanitary irradiations are effective against two pests in apples or Satsuma mandarins while keeping high quality as the commodity.

Wood borer detection rates on wood packaging materials entering the United States during different phases of ISPM 15 implementation and regulatory changes

Wood packaging material (WPM) used in international trade, such as crating and pallets, is recognized as a high-risk pathway for the introduction of bark- and wood-infesting insects (borers). The International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 15 (ISPM 15), which sets treatment requirements for WPM, was adopted in 2002. The United States (US) implemented ISPM 15 during 2005–2006. We used 2003–2020 AQIM (Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Monitoring, conducted by USDA APHIS) data, based on standard random sampling, to compare pre-ISPM 15 borer detection rates in WPM entering the US (2003–2004) to detection rates during 2005–2006 (implementation phase), 2007–2009 (post-ISPM 15 when bark was not regulated) and 2010–2020 (post-ISPM 15 when bark was regulated). We examined borer detection rates overall for all AQIM WPM records and individually for the three main cargo survey programs within AQIM [Italian tiles, perishables, and general WPM (GWPM) for any WPM associated with containerized maritime imports], and individually for three major US trading partners (China, Italy, and Mexico). During 2003–2020, wood borers were detected in 180 of 87,571 consignments with WPM (0.21%). When compared to 2003–2004 (detection rate of 0.34%), detection rates fell 61% during 2005–2006, 47% during 2007–2009, and 36% during 2010–2020. Similar declines occurred for WPM associated with Italian tiles and perishables. However, for GWPM there was no significant reduction post-ISPM 15. WPM infestation rates were reduced significantly during various post-ISPM 15 periods for Italy and Mexico, but not for China. Seven families or subfamilies of borers were recorded in WPM with Cerambycidae and Scolytinae being most frequent. The incidence of WPM with bark fell significantly after the 2009 change to ISPM 15 that required debarked WPM. We discuss several factors that could influence the apparent effectiveness of ISPM 15.

Introduction to PM 3 Standards on Phytosanitary procedures

EPPO BulletinVolume 52, Issue 3 p. 516-517 EUROPEAN AND MEDITERRANEAN PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATIONFree Access Introduction to PM 3 Standards on Phytosanitary procedures PM 3/66 (3), PM 3/77 (2), PM 3/81 (3), PM 3/82 (3), PM 3/94 (1) First published: 20 December 2022 https://doi.org/10.1111/epp.12898AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat 1 APPROVAL EPPO Standards are approved by the EPPO Council. The date of approval appears in each individual Standard. In the terms of Article II of the IPPC, EPPO Standards are Regional Standards for the members of EPPO. 2 REVIEW EPPO Standards are subject to periodic review and amendment. The next review date for this set of EPPO Standards is decided by the EPPO Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulations. 3 AMENDMENT RECORD Amendments will be issued as necessary, numbered and dated. The dates of amendment appear in each individual Standard (as appropriate). 4 SCOPE EPPO Phytosanitary Procedures are intended to be used by NPPOs in their capacity as bodies responsible for the inspection and testing of plants and plant products moving in trade, or for the implementation of surveys against quarantine pests. 5 DEFINITIONS These definitions are extracted from the Glossary of phytosanitary terms (IPPC, 2019): Inspection: Official visual examination of plants, plant products or other regulated articles to determine if pests are present and/or to determine compliance with phytosanitary regulations. Monitoring: An official ongoing process to verify phytosanitary situations. Phytosanitary procedure: Any official method for implementing phytosanitary measures, including the performance of inspections, tests, surveillance or treatments in connection with regulated pests. Survey (of pests): An official procedure conducted over a defined period to determine the presence or absence of pests, or the boundaries or characteristics of a pest population, in an area, place of production or production site. Test: Official examination of plants, plant products or other regulated articles, other than visual, to determine if pests are present, identify pests or determine compliance with specific phytosanitary requirements. 6 OUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTS EPPO Standards on phytosanitary procedures describe the methods to be followed for performing inspections or tests of commodities moving in trade, or surveys against quarantine pests. Methods to be followed for performing treatments of commodities and treatments of crops for containment or eradication of regulated pests are included in series PM10. EPPO Standards on phytosanitary procedures arise from the programmes of activity of the EPPO Panels on Phytosanitary Measures, on Phytosanitary Measures for Potato, and on Phytosanitary Procedures. The full list of phytosanitary procedures Standards (Series PM3) is available at https://www.eppo.int/RESOURCES/eppo_standards/pm3_procedures with direct links to the Standards in the EPPO Bulletin. The new and revised Standards published in the present issue of the EPPO Bulletin are PM 3/66 (3) Guidelines for the management of plant health risks of biowaste of plant origin, PM 3/77 (2) Vegetable plants for planting under protected conditions -Inspection of places of production, PM 3/81 (3) Inspection of consignments for Xylella fastidiosa, PM 3/82 (3) Inspection of places of production for Xylella fastidiosa, PM 3/94 (1) Raising professional operators' awareness of regulated and emerging plant pests. REFERENCES EPPO (2022) EPPO Standard PM 1/2 EPPO A1 and A2 lists of pests recommended for regulation in EPPO countries. In EPPO Standards: General phytosanitary measures. EPPO, Paris (FR). Available at https://www.eppo.int/media/uploaded_images/RESOURCES/eppo_standards/pm1/pm1-002-31-en_A1A2_2022.pdf [accessed on 1 October 2022] or in EPPO Global Database https://gd.eppo.int/standards/PM1/ [accessed on 1 October 2022]. FAO (2008) ISPM No. 31, Methodologies for Sampling of Consignments. IPPC Secretariat. FAO, Rome (IT). Available at https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2016/11/ISPM_31_2008_Sampling_of_consignments_EN.pdf [accessed 1 November 2020]. IPPC (2019) Glossary of phytosanitary terms. ISPM no. 5. In International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, pp. 41– 63. IPPC Secretariat, FAO, Rome (IT). Available at https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2019/06/ISPM_05_2019_En_Glossary_2019-06-26_PostCPM-14-Fixed.pdf [accessed 1 November 2020]. Volume52, Issue3December 2022Pages 516-517 ReferencesRelatedInformation

The role of propagule pressure in experimental bark beetle invasions

Abstract Although many non‐native species arrive in novel environments, only a fraction successfully establish. A crucial factor affecting the colonization process of invading species is propagule pressure. The positive association between propagule pressure and colonization probability is driven both by stochastic dynamics and the ‘Allee effect’. Although the role of Allee effects in invading populations is theoretically compelling, they are difficult to quantify in the field because the earliest phases of biological invasions are typically not observed. We conducted parallel studies using two species of bark beetles, Hylurgus ligniperda in New Zealand and Ips pini in North America, to (i) assess the role of propagule pressure on colonization success, (ii) empirically test for Allee effects and (iii) estimate Allee thresholds. We evaluated each of these factors by experimentally testing the effect of propagule pressure (numbers released) on simulated tree colonization success in two different settings: (1) field conditions where beetles could disperse freely and (2) enclosed cages where dispersal loss was prevented. Colonization success was positively associated with numbers released (i.e. propagule pressure) for both species, though colonization occurred at lower numbers for H. ligniperda than for I. pini. A demographic Allee effect was only detected in H. ligniperda and the Allee threshold was smaller when beetles were released 1 m from host billets than when they were released 10 m away. Greater colonization success at lower release densities may explain the invasion success of H. ligniperda worldwide. Higher release densities required for successful colonization may explain why I. pini is a poor establisher. Synthesis and applications. Our results linking invasion failure to small founding population densities generally support the theoretical literature on the role of propagule pressure and Allee effects in biological invasions. Agencies such as the International Plant Protection Committee (IPPC) setting phytosanitary measures such as the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 15 (ISPM 15) should consider using the colonization thresholds estimated here to limit numbers of colonizing individuals below invasion thresholds. Additionally, agencies conducting trapping efforts at ports‐of‐entry should be aware of these thresholds and widely report when trapping numbers exceed these thresholds.

PLANT QUARANTINE: AN EFFECTIVE APPROACH FOR THE PREVENTION OF DISEASES: A REVIEW

A major factor in the long-distance spread of diseases and insect pests that could be dangerous to the agriculture of the importing country is the interchange of germplasm and the international trade of agri-horticultural products. Protecting nations from the unauthorized influx of novel insect pests and illnesses fall within the purview of the National Plant Protection Organizations. Combining regulatory and technical strategies that can guarantee biosecurity for a country or region can be used to achieve the exclusion. The International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs), which offer standards on pest prevention, detection, and eradication, are developed by the Food and Agriculture Organizations International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). Inthe recent era, the import and export of plant commodities have dramatically increased,and the chance of plant diseases is also increased from their original native place to new location, where it does not exist. The new diseases have tremendous loss in India and the world. In the last decade beginning the government of India in 2003 has notification of new Plant Quarantine order (PQ order)that harmonized Indias regulatory frameworkwith the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and internationally accepted standards and the tenants of the sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement of the world trade organization. So,to prevent exotic diseases from a foreign country or within country legal restrictions are enforced commonly known as quarantinelaws. Plant Quarantine measures are taken at the domestic or in time or as well as foreign Quarantine. It acts as an important tool to exclude plant diseases.Effectively implementation of Quarantine is highly emphasized for disease management.

(4) Mechanism of Plant Quarantine and Irradiation Treatment Schedules as International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures

(4) Mechanism of Plant Quarantine and Irradiation Treatment Schedules as International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures

Introduction to PM 3 Standards on Phytosanitary procedures

EPPO BulletinVolume 51, Issue 3 p. 352-353 EUROPEAN AND MEDITERRANEAN PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATIONFree Access Introduction to PM 3 Standards on Phytosanitary procedures PM 3/76 (2), PM 3/78 (2), PM 3/80 (2), PM 3/68 (2), PM 3/92 (1), PM 3/93 (1) First published: 16 December 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/epp.12818AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat 1 APPROVAL EPPO Standards are approved by the EPPO Council. The date of approval appears in each individual Standard. In the terms of Article II of the IPPC, EPPO Standards are Regional Standards for the members of EPPO. 2 REVIEW EPPO Standards are subject to periodic review and amendment. The next review date for this set of EPPO Standards is decided by the EPPO Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulations. 3 AMENDMENT RECORD Amendments will be issued as necessary, numbered and dated. The dates of amendment appear in each individual Standard (as appropriate). 4 SCOPE EPPO Phytosanitary Procedures are intended to be used by NPPOs in their capacity as bodies responsible for the inspection and testing of plants and plant products moving in trade, or for the implementation of surveys against quarantine pests. 5 DEFINITIONS These definitions are extracted from the Glossary of phytosanitary terms (IPPC, 2019): Inspection: Official visual examination of plants, plant products or other regulated articles to determine if pests are present and/or to determine compliance with phytosanitary regulations. Monitoring: An official ongoing process to verify phytosanitary situations. Phytosanitary procedure: Any official method for implementing phytosanitary measures, including the performance of inspections, tests, surveillance or treatments in connection with regulated pests. Survey (of pests): An official procedure conducted over a defined period to determine the presence or absence of pests, or the boundaries or characteristics of a pest population, in an area, place of production or production site. Test: Official examination of plants, plant products or other regulated articles, other than visual, to determine if pests are present, identify pests or determine compliance with specific phytosanitary requirements. 6 OUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTS EPPO Standards on phytosanitary procedures describe the methods to be followed for performing inspections or tests of commodities moving in trade, or surveys against quarantine pests. Methods to be followed for performing treatments of commodities and treatments of crops for containment or eradication of regulated pests are included in series PM10. EPPO Standards on phytosanitary procedures arise from the programmes of activity of the EPPO Panels on Phytosanitary Measures, on Phytosanitary Measures for Potato, and on Phytosanitary Procedures. The full list of phytosanitary procedures Standards (Series PM3) is available at https://www.eppo.int/RESOURCES/eppo_standards/pm3_procedures with direct links to the Standards in the EPPO Bulletin. The new and revised Standards published in the present issue of the EPPO Bulletin are listed below: PM 3/81 (2) Inspection of consignments for Xylella fastidiosa PM 3/82 (2) Inspection of places of production for Xylella fastidiosa PM 3/88 (1) Testing of potato varieties to assess resistance to Synchytrium endobioticum PM 3/89 (1) Control of volunteer potato plants PM 3/90 (1) Inspection of citrus fruits consignments PM 3/91 (1) Sentinel woody plants: concepts and application REFERENCES EPPO (2020) EPPO Standard PM 1/2 EPPO A1 and A2 lists of pests recommended for regulation in EPPO countries. In EPPO Standards: General phytosanitary measures. EPPO, Paris (FR). Available at [accessed on 1 November 2020] or in EPPO Global Database https://www.eppo.int/media/uploaded_images/RESOURCES/eppo_standards/pm1/pm1-002-29-en.pdfhttps://gd.eppo.int/standards/PM1/ [accessed on 1 November 2020]. Google Scholar FAO (2008) ISPM No. 31, Methodologies for Sampling of Consignments. IPPC Secretariat. FAO, Rome (IT). Available at https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2016/11/ISPM_31_2008_Sampling_of_consignments_EN.pdf [accessed 1 November 2020]. Google Scholar IPPC (2019) Glossary of phytosanitary terms. ISPM no. 5. In International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, pp. 41– 63. IPPC Secretariat, FAO, Rome (IT). Available at https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2019/06/ISPM_05_2019_En_Glossary_2019-06-26_PostCPM-14-Fixed.pdf [accessed 1 November 2020]. Google Scholar Volume51, Issue3December 2021Pages 352-353 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Diagnostic Procedures to Detect Xylella fastidiosa in Nursery Stocks and Consignments of Plants for Planting

Preventive measures for infectious diseases caused by the harmful plant pathogenic bacterium Xylella fastidiosa include inspections and diagnostic tests on imported consignments of plants and in nurseries. Currently, mandatory checks on plant propagating materials are enforced in Europe (EU regulation 2021/1201) for the most susceptible species found in the European outbreaks, and prior to move propagating materials of the “specified plants” from nurseries located in the so-called “demarcated areas”. These requirements imply sampling and laboratory manipulation of a large number of samples, nevertheless plants to be sampled are often small size potted plants. While statistically based methods for inspections and sampling are available, namely the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures n. 31, validated laboratory procedures to test large volumes of plant materials are lacking. In this work, we optimized two distinct protocols to detect X. fastidiosa in pooled plant materials collected from lots of plants for planting. The first protocol was designed to test in pool few samples (up to 8), the second to process through a single diagnostic test plant material from a high number of samples (up to 225). Accuracy of the newly developed protocols was assessed by pooling at different ratio tissues collected from healthy and infected Polygala myrtifolia, Nerium oleander, Olea europaea, Lavandula stoechas and Prunus avium. Moreover, tests included pools of plantlets of Brassicaceae and Solanaceae artificially inoculated with stem portions of infected periwinkle. Using both protocols, high diagnostic sensitivity values were generated using serological and molecular tests, with qPCR consistently yielding the highest performance values, regardless the host species tested.

Phytosanitary examination: Ukraine experience and international standards

The article explores Ukraine’s experience in conducting phytosanitary expertise based on international standards. It was stated that Ukraine should develop a series of draft in national legislation in the field of quarantine and plant protection, which would be adapted to the legislation of the European Union and at the same time meet the requirements of the International Plant Protection Convention. In this area, Ukraine has already partially implemented some structural reforms in the phytosanitary sector, but these processes require continued state support and encouragement, international coordination that will facilitate the development of agriculture in general. Such coordination can be undertaken primarily in the framework of international universal organisations within the UN system, in particular within FAO. It has been emphasised that Law of Ukraine No. 2501-VIII “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Regulation of Some Phytosanitary Procedures” came into force on February 2, 2019. Among the innovations are the granting of the right to carry out expert examination to private laboratories, new terms in the field of plant quarantine and the creation of the Register of Phytosanitary Certificates issued. It has been concluded that Ukraine is currently actively applying international standards, participating in their development and registering official translations of international standards for phytosanitary measures. Developing national and applying international standards, as a key factor in creating a quality system in the field of plant quarantine, not only ensure full fulfilment by Ukraine of its obligations under the IPPC and SPS, agreeing on the phytosanitary safety of exported quarantine cargoes, but also increase the competitiveness of the domestic vegetal products in the world market. This creates a positive image of Ukraine as a reliable trading partner that does not violate the requirements of other countries and guarantees the conformity of product quality, phytosanitary procedures to internationally recognised standards. Therefore, for qualified phytosanitary examinations, the mechanism of guaranteeing compliance with national and international standards, amending legislation, introducing effective penalties for violation of the rules and procedure for conducting phytosanitary examinations should be a promising area

Introduction to Phytosanitary Procedures

EPPO BulletinVolume 50, Issue 3 p. 362-363 Phytosanitary procedureFree Access Introduction to Phytosanitary Procedures First published: 31 December 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/epp.12727AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Approval EPPO Standards are approved by EPPO Council. The date of approval appears in each individual Standard. In the terms of Article II of the IPPC, EPPO Standards are Regional Standards for the members of EPPO. Review EPPO Standards are subject to periodic review and amendment. The next review date for this set of EPPO Standards is decided by the EPPO Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulations. Amendment record Amendments will be issued as necessary, numbered and dated. The dates of amendment appear in each individual Standard (as appropriate). Scope EPPO Phytosanitary Procedures are intended to be used by NPPOs, in their capacity as bodies responsible for the inspection and testing of plants and plant products moving in trade, or for the implementation of surveys against quarantine pests. Definitions These definitions are extracted from the Glossary of phytosanitary terms (IPPC, 2019): Inspection: official visual examination of plants, plant products or other regulated articles to determine if pests are present and/or to determine compliance with phytosanitary regulations Monitoring: an official ongoing process to verify phytosanitary situations Phytosanitary procedure: any official method for implementing phytosanitary measures including the performance of inspections, tests, surveillance or treatments in connection with regulated pests Survey (of pests): An official procedure conducted over a defined period to determine the presence or absence of pests, or the boundaries or characteristics of a pest population, in an area, place of production or production site Test: Official examination of plants, plant products or other regulated articles, other than visual, to determine if pests are present, identify pests or determine compliance with specific phytosanitary requirements. Outline of requirements EPPO Standards on phytosanitary procedures describe the methods to be followed for performing inspections or tests of commodities moving in trade, or surveys against quarantine pests. Methods to be followed for performing treatments of commodities and treatments of crops for containment or eradication of regulated pests are included in series PM10. EPPO Standards on phytosanitary procedures arise from the programmes of activity of the EPPO Panels on Phytosanitary Measures, on Phytosanitary Measures for Potato, and on Phytosanitary Procedures. The full list of Phytosanitary procedures Standards (Series PM3) is available on https://www.eppo.int/RESOURCES/eppo_standards/pm3_procedures with direct links to the Standards in the EPPO Bulletin. The new and revised Standards published in the present issue of the EPPO Bulletin are listed below: PM 3/81 (2) Inspection of consignments for Xylella fastidiosa. PM 3/82 (2) Inspection of places of production for Xylella fastidiosa. PM 3/88 (1) Testing of potato varieties to assess resistance to Synchytrium endobioticum. PM 3/89 (1) Control of volunteer potato plants. PM 3/90 (1) Inspection of citrus fruits consignments. PM 3/91 (1) Sentinel woody plants: concepts and application. References EPPO (2020) EPPO Standard PM 1/2 EPPO A1 and A2 lists of pests recommended for regulation in EPPO countries. In EPPO Standards: General phytosanitary measures. EPPO, Paris (FR). Available at https://www.eppo.int/media/uploaded_images/RESOURCES/eppo_standards/pm1/pm1-002-29-en.pdf [accessed on 1 November 2020] or in EPPO Global Database https://gd.eppo.int/standards/PM1/ [accessed on 1 November 2020]. Google Scholar FAO (2008) ISPM No. 31, Methodologies for Sampling of Consignments. IPPC Secretariat. FAO, Rome (IT). Available at https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2016/11/ISPM_31_2008_Sampling_of_consignments_EN.pdf [accessed 1 November 2020]. Google Scholar IPPC (2019) Glossary of phytosanitary terms. ISPM no. 5. In International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, pp. 41– 63. IPPC Secretariat, FAO, Rome (IT). Available at https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2019/06/ISPM_05_2019_En_Glossary_2019-06-26_PostCPM-14-Fixed.pdf [accessed 1 November 2020]. Google Scholar Volume50, Issue3December 2020Pages 362-363 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Phytosanitary Examination: Ukraine Experience and International Standards

The article explores Ukraine’s experience in conducting phytosanitary expertise based on internationalstandards. It was stated that Ukraine should develop a series of draft in national legislation in the field ofquarantine and plant protection, which would be adapted to the legislation of the European Union and at thesame time meet the requirements of the International Plant Protection Convention. It has been emphasisedthat Law of Ukraine No 2501-VIII “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Regulation ofSome Phytosanitary Procedures” came into force on February 2, 2019. It has been concluded that Ukraine iscurrently actively applying international standards, participating in their development and registering officialtranslations of international standards for phytosanitary measures. This creates a positive image of Ukraineas a reliable trading partner that does not violate the requirements of other countries and guarantees theconformity of product quality, phytosanitary procedures to internationally recognised standards. Therefore,for qualified phytosanitary examinations, the mechanism of guaranteeing compliance with national andinternational standards, amending legislation, introducing effective penalties for violation of the rules andprocedure for conducting phytosanitary examinations should be a promising area.

Oriental Fruit fly distribution within Kandara sub county, Murang’a, Kenya

The Oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae), previously recognized as Bactrocera invadens, presence in Kenya dates since 2003, the first record of this pest in Africa. Its phytosanitary importance resulted to avocado export ban to South Africa in 2008 and later to Seychelles, to prevent possible entry of this pest into these markets through fruit trade. To regain these markets and avoid more external market loss, this study was carried out to facilitate creation of a pest free area for fruit flies as required by the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) number 26. Detection survey for the pest was conducted using 110 methyl eugenol lure-based traps laced with malathion insecticide, placed throughout Kandara Sub-County, at a density of 5 traps/km2 in June 2013. The sub county has the highest concentration of small-scale farmers of avocados for export markets in Kenya. The traps were examined after 2 weeks of placement. Data on host plants was also collected. The results showed that traps captured the pest in all agroecological zones (Lower highland (LH)1, Upper midland (UM) 1, Upper midland (UM) 2 and Upper midland (UM) 3). Possible host plants observed in the farms included avocado, mango, pawpaw, guava, coffee, passion fruit, loquats, banana, citrus, and tree tomato. The pest density was highest in UM 3, which has the lowest elevation and the highest concentration of mango orchards. High trap catches recorded in market centres was associated with poor disposal of fruits. The lowest pest density was recorded at LH 1, which has the highest elevation in the sub-county. Therefore, creation of a pest free area in the Sub County will rely on effective mass trapping exercise for more than six months in order to remove all the flies, followed by protection of the area from emerging flies using strategically placed traps and various cultural practices, accompanied by strong farmer participation and stakeholder partnership to ensure integrity of exported fruit sources. Keywords: Asian invasive fruit fly, pest free area, fence traps, Agro ecological zones

A Policy Study on the Implementation Challenges of Phytosanitary Standards: The Case of ISPM 15 in Botswana, Cameroon, Kenya, and Mozambique

The rise in international trade in recent decades has been accompanied by an increase in the movement of wood packaging materials (WPMs). Recognizing the associated threat of cross-border pest movement, the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, the governing body of the International Plant Protection Convention, adopted the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 15 (ISPM 15; guidelines for regulating WPM in international trade) for the treatment of WPMs. The objective of this article is to raise awareness on the challenges four sub-Saharan countries—Botswana, Cameroon, Kenya, and Mozambique—are facing when it comes to implementation. During extensive fieldwork, we conducted interviews with key stakeholders to understand their role in the setup and implementation of the standard as well as their perceptions on relevant challenges. Addressing these challenges is vital for achieving compliance and removing associated institutional and economic barriers. The article can assist policy-makers and academics to design future policies that tackle implementation problems, especially in the context of developing countries.

Sample size for inspection intended to manage risk within mixed consignments

The identification of a lot, and the size of the random sample taken for plant products, is justified by appeal to International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 31, “Methodologies for Sampling of Consignments”. ISPM 31 notes that “A lot to be sampled should be a number of units of a single commodity identifiable by its homogeneity [...]” and “Treating multiple commodities as a single lot for convenience may mean that statistical inferences cannot be drawn from the results of the sampling.” However, consignments are frequently heterogeneous, either because the same commodities have multiple sources or because there are several different commodities. The ISPM 31 prescription creates a substantial burden on border inspection because it suggests that heterogeneous populations must be split into homogeneous sub-populations from which separate samples of nominal size must be taken. We demonstrate that if consignments with known heterogeneity are treated as stratified populations and the random sample of units is allocated proportionally based on the number of units in each stratum, then the nominal sensitivity at the consignment level is achieved if our concern is the level of contamination in the entire consignment taken as a whole. We argue that unknown heterogeneity is no impediment to appropriate statistical inference. We conclude that the international standard is unnecessarily restrictive.

Importation of psychrotolerant fungi to Antarctica associated with wooden cargo packaging

AbstractThe harsh climatic conditions and low levels of human activity in Antarctica, relative to other regions, means few non-native species have established. However, the risk of introductions is becoming greater as human activity increases. Non-native microorganisms can be imported to Antarctica in association with fresh food, cargo and personal clothing, but the likelihood of their establishment is not well understood. In January 2015, a wooden packing crate, heavily contaminated with fungi, was imported by aircraft from Punta Arenas, Chile, to Rothera Research Station, Antarctica.Mucor racemosusBull. and two strains ofTrichoderma viridescens(A.S. Horne & H.S. Will.) Jaklitsch & Samuels were isolated from the wood. Measurements of hyphal extension rates indicated that all three strains were psychrotolerant and capable of growth at 4°C, withM. racemosusgrowing at 0°C. The imported fungi could grow at rates equivalent to, or faster than, species isolated from Antarctic soils, suggesting that low temperature may not be a limiting factor for establishment. It is recommended that wood heat-treatment standards, equivalent to those described in the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 15, are employed by national operators importing cargo into Antarctica, and that treated wood is adequately stored to prevent fungal contamination prior to transportation.

Common pathways by which non-native forest insects move internationally and domestically

International trade and movement of people are largely responsible for increasing numbers of non-native insect introductions to new environments. For forest insects, trade in live plants and transport of wood packaging material (WPM) are considered the most important pathways facilitating long-distance invasions. These two pathways as well as trade in firewood, logs, and processed wood are commonly associated with insect infestations, while “hitchhiking” insects can be moved on cargo, in the conveyances used for transport (e.g., containers, ships), or associated with international movement of passengers and mail. Once established in a new country, insects can spread domestically through all of the above pathways. Considerable national and international efforts have been made in recent years to reduce the risk of international movement of plant pests. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) No. 15 (WPM), 36 (plants for planting), and 39 (wood) are examples of phytosanitary standards that have been adopted by the International Plant Protection Convention to reduce risks of invasions of forest pests. The implementation of ISPMs by exporting countries is expected to reduce the arrival rate and establishments of new forest pests. However, many challenges remain to reduce pest transportation through international trade, given the ever-increasing volume of traded goods, variations in quarantine procedures between countries, and rapid changes in distribution networks. It is therefore likely that many more human-assisted invasions of forest insects will take place. New geographic expansions by natural modes are also made possible due to changes in host distribution and/or climate.

EFSA 2017 Workshop on Crisis Preparedness – Plant Health

EFSA Supporting PublicationsVolume 14, Issue 7 1266E External scientific reportOpen Access EFSA 2017 Workshop on Crisis Preparedness – Plant Health Andrew Vincent, Andrew VincentSearch for more papers by this authorInstinctif Partners Ltd, Instinctif Partners LtdSearch for more papers by this author Andrew Vincent, Andrew VincentSearch for more papers by this authorInstinctif Partners Ltd, Instinctif Partners LtdSearch for more papers by this author First published: 06 July 2017 https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.EN-1266Citations: 5 Question number: EFSA-Q-2017-00257 Disclaimer: The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors. AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References Alomar, O., Batlle, A., Brunetti, J.M., García, R., Gil, R., Granollers, T., Jiménez, S., Laviña, A., Reverté, C., Riudavets, J., Virgili-Gomà, J., 2016. Development and testing of the media monitoring tool MediSys for the monitoring, early identification and reporting of existing and emerging plant health threats. EFSA supporting publication 2016: 13(12):EN-1118. 81 pp. doi: 10.2903/sp.efsa.2016.EN-1118 College Hill Ltd; 2013. 2012 EFSA Crisis Training Exercise and four year training strategy EFSA Supporting Publication 2013; 10(1):EN-388. [55 pp.]. doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2013.EN-388 College Hill Ltd; 2014. 2013 EFSA Crisis Training Exercise EFSA Supporting Publication 2014; 11(1):EN-535. [35 pp.]. doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2014.EN-535 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2012. EFSA procedures for responding to urgent advice needs - 03 May 2012. EFSA Supporting Publication 2012; 9(5):EN-279, 26 pp. doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2012.EN-279 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2016a. EFSA Strategy 2020: trusted science for safe food. ISBN 978-92-9199-847-0. doi: 10.2805/397609 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2016b. Best practice for crisis communicators: how to communicate during food or feed safety incidents. ISBN 978-92-9199-770-1. doi: 10.2805/943501 Instinctif Partners Ltd., 2014. EFSA's food and feed crisis preparedness training: 2014 Crisis Training Exercise. EFSA Supporting Publication 2014; 11(12):EN-708, 34 pp. doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2014.EN-708 Instinctif Partners Ltd, 2015. EFSA's food and feed crisis preparedness training: 2015 Crisis Training Exercise. EFSA Supporting Publication 2016; 13(1):EN-987, 36 pp. doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2016.EN-987 Instinctif Partners Ltd, 2016. Report of Baltic Countries 2016 Workshop on Crisis Preparedness. EFSA Supporting Publication 2016; 13(6):EN-1045. 25pp. doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2016.EN-1045 Jeger M, Schans J, Lövei GL, van Lenteren J, Navajas M, Makowski D, Stancanelli G, Tramontini S, Ceglarska EB; Special issue: Risk assessment in support of plant health. EFSA Journal 2012; 10(10):s1012. [8 pp.]. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.s1012. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), 2016. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) 6 - Guidelines for surveillance. Adopted 1997; published 2016. Rome, IPPC, FAO. Citing Literature Volume14, Issue7July 20171266E ReferencesRelatedInformation

Normes OEPP ‐ Directives pour l'analyse du risque phytosanitaire /EPPO Standards ‐ Guidelines for pest risk analysis

Normes OEPP ‐ Directives pour l'analyse du risque phytosanitaire /EPPO Standards ‐ Guidelines for pest risk analysis

Normes OEPP

Normes <scp>OEPP</scp>

Comparative study of radio-frequency and microwave heating for phytosanitary treatment of wood

Radio-frequency (RF) and microwave (MW) heating for phytosanitary treatment of green wood in compliance with international standards for phytosanitary measures no. 15 (ISPM-15) were evaluated and compared to assess treatment time, depth of electromagnetic wave (EMW) penetration and heating uniformity. White oak (Quercus alba) cants (48 cm long with cross-section dimensions ranging from 10 × 10 cm2 to 25 × 25 cm2) were heated in a 19 MHz RF or 2.45 GHz MW laboratory oven using an equivalent heating power (3.4 kW). In each specimen, temperature was measured at different depths (distance from the upper face). Specimens were held in the treatment chamber for 2 min after the target temperature of 60 °C was achieved through the profile of the specimen to ensure compliance with the ISPM-15 treatment schedule. Thermal image analyses of treated specimens as well as theoretical depth of penetration for dielectric energy were explored. Wood specimens were also heated using RF at high power (9–11 kW) and results were compared with RF heating at 3.4 kW. For wood with cross-section dimensions of 10 × 10 cm2 to 15 × 15 cm2, heating rates for RF and MW were relatively similar. However, above 15 × 15 cm2, RF heating was more than 40 % faster with greater heating uniformity than MW. The theoretical values derived for depth of penetration and thermal image analyses indicate that RF (19 MHz) penetrates wood more uniformly and is better suited than MW (2.45 GHz) for bulk volume treatments of wood.