Pest-free Areas Research Articles

Epidemiologically-based strategies for the detection of emerging plant pathogens

Emerging pests and pathogens of plants are a major threat to natural and managed ecosystems worldwide. Whilst it is well accepted that surveillance activities are key to both the early detection of new incursions and the ability to identify pest-free areas, the performance of these activities must be evaluated to ensure they are fit for purpose. This requires consideration of the number of potential hosts inspected or tested as well as the epidemiology of the pathogen and the detection method used. In the case of plant pathogens, one particular concern is whether the visual inspection of plant hosts for signs of disease is able to detect the presence of these pathogens at low prevalences, given that it takes time for these symptoms to develop. One such pathogen is the ST53 strain of the vector-borne bacterial pathogen Xylella fastidiosa in olive hosts, which was first identified in southern Italy in 2013. Additionally, X. fastidiosa ST53 in olive has a rapid rate of spread, which could also have important implications for surveillance. In the current study, we evaluate how well visual surveillance would be expected to perform for this pathogen and investigate whether molecular testing of either tree hosts or insect vectors offer feasible alternatives. Our results identify the main constraints to each of these strategies and can be used to inform and improve both current and future surveillance activities.

EPPO Datasheet: Naupactus xanthographus

EPPO Datasheet: <i>Naupactus xanthographus</i>

Introduction to PM 9 Standards on National regulatory control systems

EPPO BulletinVolume 51, Issue 3 p. 600-601 EUROPEAN AND MEDITERRANEAN PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATIONFree Access Introduction to PM 9 Standards on National regulatory control systems PM 9/7 (2), PM 9/8 (2), PM 9/31 (1) First published: 05 December 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/epp.12817AboutSectionsPDF 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 the 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 Standards on national regulatory control systems are intended to be used by National Plant Protection Organizations in their capacity as bodies responsible for official control of regulated pests. APPENDIX 1 DEFINITIONS Area of low pest prevalence: An area, whether all of a country, part of a country, or all or parts of several countries, as identified by the competent authorities, in which a specific pest is present at low levels and which is subject to effective surveillance or control measures. Containment: Application of phytosanitary measures in and around an infested area to prevent spread of a pest. Eradication: Application of phytosanitary measures to eliminate a pest from an area. Incursion: An isolated population of a pest recently detected in an area, not known to be established, but expected to survive for the immediate future. Monitoring: An official ongoing process to verify phytosanitary situations. Official control: The active enforcement of mandatory phytosanitary regulations and the application of mandatory phytosanitary procedures with the objective of eradication or containment of quarantine pests or for the management of regulated non-quarantine pests. Outbreak: A recently detected pest population, including an incursion, or a sudden significant increase of an established pest population in an area. Pest-free area: An area in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained. Pest-free place of production: Place of production in which a specific pest is absent as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained for a defined period. Phytosanitary procedure: Any official method for implementing phytosanitary regulations, including the performance of inspections, tests, surveillance or treatments in connection with regulated pests. Quarantine area: An area within which a quarantine pest is present and is being officially controlled. Suppression: The application of phytosanitary measures in an infested area to reduce pest populations. Surveillance: An official process which collects and records data on pest presence or absence by survey, monitoring or other procedures. Survey: 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. APPENDIX 2 OUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTS EPPO Standards on national regulatory control systems describe procedures for official control of individual regulated pests for the purpose of their eradication or containment, or demonstration or maintenance of pest-free areas, pest-free places of production or areas of low pest prevalence. These Standards conform to supplement No. 1 of ISPM no. 5 Glossary of phytosanitary terms (IPPC, 2019). REFERENCE IPPC (2019) Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. ISPM no. 5. Supplement no. 1. Guidelines on the interpretation and application of the concept of official control for regulated pests. IPPC Secretariat, FAO, Rome (IT). Google Scholar Volume51, Issue3December 2021Pages 600-601 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Forest Biosecurity Systems and Processes: An Indian Perspective

Biological invasions continue unabated across the globe despite all efforts to manage the problem by implementing biosecurity regulations and associated management methods. In this context, this paper reviews the plant biosecurity legislation applicable to agriculture and forestry sectors in India to prevent/manage invasions, with the objective of identifying limitations in the legislation or lapses in implementing it and propose corrective measures. The legislation can be improved by: (1) revising and updating the Destructive Insects and Pests Act (1914) and Plant Quarantine Order 2003 and (2) establishing a National Sanitary and Phytosanitary Database Center to promote exchange of information. Establishing more plant quarantine stations with state-of-the-art facilities and a Biosecurity and Trade Unit may support implementation of legislation. Some of main gaps in information and research in biosecurity are identified. The plant biosecurity legislation, though meant to be common, mainly addresses the agriculture sector; its application in the forestry context is currently scarce. Hence, it is suggested that India may enact forest biosecurity scrupulously especially in the context of introducing the REDD + strategy and a Forest Certification Scheme. It is proposed that an integrated pest management (IPM) system involving e-pest surveillance, establishment of pest-free areas and use of biocontrol may help tackle emerging pest threats. The use of new technologies for remote sensing and detection and mapping of vegetation may help bio-surveillance, forecasting, and monitoring of pests. However, successful implementation of all management options demands formation of an exclusive national policy to manage invasive alien species and an action plan governed by a single agency. To realize the plant biosecurity goals, India may also strengthen regional cooperation to: (1) harmonize regulations for sanitary/phytosanitary and plant quarantine/biosafety measures and (2) use a common pest risk analysis (PRA) for unknown pests in the region. Capacity-building of officials to identify risky goods and verify conformity with Import Health Standards is raised. Also, raising awareness on biosecurity among all stakeholders and involving them in implementing the legislation would be helpful. The proposed National Agricultural Biosecurity System and the Agricultural Biosecurity Bill currently considered by the Indian Parliament is expected to address the inadequacies.

Effects of male lure dispensers and trap types for monitoring of Ceratitis capitata and Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae).

Attractant-based trapping is used in the establishment of pest-free areas and areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Male lures are commonly used attractants in fruit fly trapping. In this study, the effects of male lure dispensers, traps and combinations of dispensers and traps on monitoring of two fruit fly pests, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) and Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel), were investigated in South Africa. In the male-lure-based trapping systems evaluated, trimedlure (TML) for C. capitata and methyl eugenol (ME) for B. dorsalis, the type of dispenser affected catches for both species. Higher catches of B. dorsalis males were recorded in bucket traps baited with a dispenser containing 15 g ME compared with traps baited with dispensers containing either 4 g ME or 2 g ME. Catches of C. capitata males were higher with dispensers containing TML than those with TML plus extender (Capilure®). The type of trap used with TML also influenced catches of C. capitata with higher numbers recorded in yellow Delta trap compared with the Sensus bucket trap. Dispensers with higher ME loadings are more effective for monitoring of B. dorsalis. The yellow Delta trap baited with TML (without extender) would be an effective monitoring system for C. capitata. Fruit fly prevalence levels as determined by specific trapping systems should be related to their efficiency in terms of catches of the target pests. © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry.

Assessing the economic benefit of area wide management and the sterile insect technique for the Queensland fruit fly in pest-free vs. endemic regions of South-east Australia

This study evaluates the economic potential for Area Wide Management (AWM) of the Queensland fruit fly (Qfly) using the Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) through three case studies across endemic and Pest-Free Areas (PFA) in south-east Australia. The cost of Qfly needs to be identified before the potential benefit of AWM and SIT can be evaluated. We use results from grower workshops and expert elicitation to identify the financial cost of Qfly to growers (the baseline) and the potential impact of AWM as a precursor to SIT (scenarios). Results show a net benefit from maintaining PFA status. In endemic regions, the potential financial benefits to growers of are low. Avoided adjustment costs that contribute to a net benefit in PFA’s are sunk in endemic regions. The low threshold for Qfly in markets and on-farm, and availability of cost-effective management options, implies limited benefits from avoided management costs. Market access is uncertain and AWM and SIT alone are not sufficient to access these benefits. Although there may be exceptions, we find limited grower benefits from AWM and SIT in Qfly endemic growing regions.

Phytosanitary irradiation: Does modified atmosphere packaging or controlled atmosphere storage creating a low oxygen environment threaten treatment efficacy?

Phytosanitary irradiation treatment is used to control insects in fresh commodities so that the commodities can be safely exported to pest-free areas. The goal of phytosanitary irradiation is to prevent reproduction. Modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) and controlled atmosphere (CA) storage creating a low oxygen environment are used to preserve the quality of fruits and vegetables. Low oxygen is known to be radioprotective in insects and other organisms. This raises the question of whether MAP or CA may reduce the efficacy of phytosanitary irradiation treatments. IPPC regulations prohibit the application of phytosanitary irradiation for fruits and vegetables under modified atmospheres. Studies used to support this restriction have typically used unrealistic conditions, particularly with the use of severe hypoxia or anoxia and short duration exposures after irradiation (≤2 h hold time under low oxygen). Results from these studies have been extrapolated to suggest phytosanitary irradiation may be compromised by MAP or CA. Although low oxygen radioprotection in insects has been demonstrated for various biological parameters such as adult emergence, flight ability, mating success, and fertility, to date no studies have shown that irradiation of insects at approved doses under modified atmospheres results in treatment failure, i.e., allows successful reproduction. Recent studies using commercially relevant conditions show that MAP may improve control due to the toxic effect of extended exposures to low O2 and high CO2 to insects. Regulatory restrictions on the use of MAP and CA during irradiation treatment should be reviewed and reconsidered. In the absence of data showing treatment failure due to modified atmospheres, current regulatory restrictions are not scientifically justified.

Normes OEPP ‐ National regulatory control systems/EPPO Standards ‐ Systèmes de lutte nationaux réglementaires

EPPO BulletinVolume 48, Issue 3 p. 501-502 Normes OEPP EPPO StandardsFree Access Normes OEPP - National regulatory control systems/EPPO Standards - Systèmes de lutte nationaux réglementaires First published: 26 December 2018 https://doi.org/10.1111/epp.12518AboutSectionsPDF 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 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 Standards on national regulatory control systems are intended to be used by National Plant Protection Organizations, in their capacity as bodies responsible for official control of regulated pests. References 1 EPPO/CABI (1997) Quarantine Pests for Europe, 2nd edn. CAB International, Wallingford (GB). 2 EU (2000) Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the community. Official Journal of the European Communities L169, 1– 112. 3 FAO (1997) International Plant Protection Convention (new revised text). FAO, Rome (IT). 4 IPPC (2018) Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. ISPM no. 5. Supplement no. 1. Guidelines on the interpretation and application of the concept of official control for regulated pests. IPPC Secretariat, FAO, Rome (IT). Appendix 1 – Definitions Area of low pest prevalence: An area, whether all of a country, part of a country, or all or parts of several countries, as identified by the competent authorities, in which a specific pest is present at low levels and which is subject to effective surveillance or control measures. Containment: application of phytosanitary measures in and around an infested area to prevent spread of a pest. Eradication: application of phytosanitary measures to eliminate a pest from an area. Incursion: an isolated population of a pest recently detected in an area, not known to be established, but expected to survive for the immediate future. Monitoring: an official ongoing process to verify phytosanitary situations. Official control: the active enforcement of mandatory phytosanitary regulations and the application of mandatory phytosanitary procedures with the objective of eradication or containment of quarantine pests or for the management of regulated non-quarantine pests. Outbreak: a recently detected pest population, including an incursion, or a sudden significant increase of an established pest population in an area. Pest-free area: an area in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained. Pest-free place of production: place of production in which a specific pest is absent as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained for a defined period. Phytosanitary procedure: any official method for implementing phytosanitary regulations including the perfor- mance of inspections, tests, surveillance or treatments in connection with regulated pests. Quarantine area: an area within which a quarantine pest is present and is being officially controlled. Suppression: the application of phytosanitary measures in an infested area to reduce pest populations. Surveillance: An official process which collects and records data on pest presence or absence by survey, monitoring or other procedures. Survey: an official procedure conducted over a defined period of time to determine the characteristics of a pest population or to determine which species are present in an area. Appendix 2 – Outline of requirements EPPO Standards on national regulatory control systems describe procedures for official control of individual regulated pests, for the purpose of their eradication or containment, or demonstration or maintenance of pest-free areas, pest-free places of production or areas of low pest prevalence. These Standards conforms to supplement No. 1 of ISPM no. 5 Glossary of phytosanitary terms: ‘Guidelines on the interpretation and application of the concept of official control for regulated pests’. Volume48, Issue3December 2018Pages 501-502 ReferencesRelatedInformation

PM 9/26 (1) National regulatory control system for Globodera pallida and Globodera rostochiensis

Specific scopeThis Standard describes a national regulatory control system for Globodera pallida and Globodera rostochiensis.

Pest categorisation of Aleurocanthus spp.

The Panel on Plant Health performed a pest categorisation of Aleurocanthus spp., a well‐defined insect genus of the whitefly family Aleyrodidae (Arthropoda: Hemiptera). Difficulties within the taxonomy of the genus give doubt about the ability to accurately identify some members to species level. Nevertheless, the genus is thought to currently include about ninety species mainly reported from tropical and subtropical areas. The genus is listed in Council Directive 2000/29/EC and is regulated on Citrus, Fortunella and Poncirus. Several Aleurocanthus species are highly polyphagous; Aleurocanthus spiniferus has hosts in 38 plant families; Aleurocanthus woglumi has more than 300 hosts including Pyrus, Rosa and Vitis vinifera as well as Citrus. A. spiniferus is present in the EU in restricted areas of Italy and Greece, where it is under official control. No other Aleurocanthus spp. are known to occur in the EU. Host plants for planting, excluding seeds, and cut flowers or branches are the main pathways for entry. Outside of the EU, the genus can be found in regions that have climate types which also occur within the EU, suggesting establishment is possible. Aleurocanthus spp. can be significant pests of crops that are also grown in the EU. Phytosanitary measures are available to reduce the likelihood of entry into the EU, e.g. sourcing host plants for planting from pest free areas. As a genus Aleurocanthus does satisfy all the criteria that are within the remit of EFSA to assess and required by risk managers to give it consideration as a Union quarantine pest. Aleurocanthus does not meet all of the criteria to allow it consideration by risk managers as a Union regulated non‐quarantine pest (RNQP). Specifically, Aleurocanthus is not widespread in the EU.

Occurrence and population distribution of plant parasitic nematodes associated with roselle (&lt;i&gt;Hibiscus sabdariffa&lt;/i&gt; L.) in northern Nigeria

Pests including nematodes have been reported as a limiting factor to the production of roselle worldwide. A survey of rosellefarmsinsix Northern Sates of Nigeria was conductedin 2013 to identify the diverse nematode species associated with the soils and roots of the plant and determine their population densities on farmers’ fields. Eightsoil and ten plant samples were randomly collected from each of twenty farms from which nematodes were extracted and identified. Four genera of plantparasitic nematodes ( Meloidogyne spp., Helicotylenchus spp., Rotylenchulus spp.and Tylenchus spp.) were found in association with roots and rhizosphere of roselle plants. Meloidogyne were most populous (62.29%) on the roots while Tylenchuswas least (1.68%). Helicotylenchus spp appeared in highest density (50.05%) in plant rhizosphere, but not identified from the roots. The highest percentage of nematode population (22.7 %) wasfrom Katsina, followed by Sokoto (21.6%), Jigawa (17.4%), Zamfara (16.5%), Kano (15.1%) and Kaduna states (6.7%).The generally low nematode density observed might be due to low precipitation and high soil temperature of the six states. Occurrence of varied species of nematodes demands effective control measures for improved roselle productivity. Kano, Zamfara and Jigawawith low nematode population densities can be considered for further research towards the establishment of pest-free areas or area of low pest prevalence for roselle nematodes in Nigeria, useful in the agricultural export trade. Further studies are required on the determination of density economic threshold and the definitive roles of nematodes in causing low productivity of roselle. Keywords: Export value, Hibiscus sabdariffa , nematodes, population densities, pest-free area

Management of the false carmine cochineal Dactylopius opuntiae (Cockerell): perspective from Pernambuco state, Brazil

The false carmine cochineal outbreak in the semiarid region of Brazil has caused considerable damage to the cactus production for the last 16 years. Native of Mexico, the false carmine cochineal, Dactylopius opuntiae (Cockerell), has invaded other countries including recent citations in Morocco and Israel. In some countries, intentional introduction of the false carmine cochineal has been done for biological control of noxious cactus weeds; while, in Brazil, its introduction was apparently for carmine dye production. However, there was a rapid distribution through the semiarid region causing a huge problem for cactus pear production as fodder. The pest problem in Brazil has motivated studies on control alternatives. Farmers have the option to manage this pest with host-plant-resistance or alternative and synthetic insecticides. In addition, knowledge on indigenous predatory insect species with the potential to help suppressing the pest population have been generated, especially the lady beetles Zagreus bimaculosus (Mulsant), Prodiloides bipunctata Weise. Farmers should also be aware of the risks involved in transporting contaminated vegetative material and animals into pest free areas. All these practices can be fully achieved once growers start changing their current practice of cactus growing. It is particularly important for growers to conduct regular inspections in the fields to detect early infestation of the pest. Dealing with small and spatially localized infestations have been proved easier than work on highly infested areas. Cactus can still be a profitable activity if these recommendations are taken seriously.

Current and Future Potential Risk of Establishment of Grapholita molesta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Washington State.

The oriental fruit moth, Grapholita molesta (Busck) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), is a primary pest of stone fruits that cause significant economic damage. Larvae, which enter the host plant through shoot tips, damage shoots, and ripe fruits. Native to Asia, this pest now occurs in many fruit-growing countries, including the United States and Canada. Though the pest was previously reported from many states within the United States, its current distribution and the environmental variables that influence its distribution are not properly identified. The objectives of this study were to 1) identify the environmental factors associated with G. molesta current distribution, 2) predict the current distribution of G. molesta in Washington State (WA) using Maxent and Climex models, 3) identify those areas within WA best suited for establishment of pest free zones, areas of low pest prevalence, and pest free production areas, and 4) identify regions most at risk for further expansion of G. molesta populations as a function of climate change. The current models predicted a small portion of central WA is suitable to support G. molesta, which is consistent with observed distributions. However, climate change models predict that more areas will become suitable for the pest. These results indicate that action should be taken to monitor and reduce current populations of G. molesta to stem its potential expansion into the major commercial tree fruit production areas in the state.

A Review of &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;Bactrocera minax&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; (Diptera: Tephritidae) in China for the Purpose of Safeguarding

The Chinese citrus fly, Bactrocera minax (Enderlein) (Diptera: Tephritidae), is the most destructive citrus pest in many citrus production areas in China. The pest is oligophagous, feeding exclusively on the fruits of citrus plants. The pest is univoltine, with adults emerging during April to May and overwintering as pupae. Evidence suggests that the region of origin of the species might be in the elevated temperate southern Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau, spreading out through China’s major waterway systems. Currently, B. minax occurs in nine citrus producing provinces in China, but mostly prominently in the five south central provinces or municipalities of Guizhou, Hubei, Hunan, Sichuan, and Chongqing. Fruit infestations in these provinces are generally moderate to severe. The species is not reported in the four southern citrus production provinces of Guangdong, Fujian, Zhejiang, and Hainan (island). Orchard sanitation such as collection and treatment of the fallen and hanging infested fruits, mass trapping by using various food-based traps with insecticides, and foliar and ground insecticide sprays are the primary pest management options. Sterile insect technology was studied in the field in the 1980s to 1990s, with promising outcomes. The two highly attractive kairomone lures used for many Bactrocera species, cuelure or methyl eugenol, are not attractive to this species. Hydrolyzed protein, sugar and vinegar mixture, and waste brewer's yeast are the most common lures being used in China. Published data indicated that the quality and efficacy of these lures are inconsistent and disputable. Visual cue lures such as colored sticky spheres are also being used in the field. Preliminary field studies suggested that female rectum extracts demonstrated high attraction to males as well as females of the species. Phytosanitary treatment studies in China focus on irradiation and cold treatment. The outcomes of irradiation appeared promising. When B. minax larvae were treated with an irradiation dose of 50 Gy, no adults emerged from the surviving pupae and larvae failed to pupate when the dose reached 70 Gy. No fruit quality was impacted by the treatment. Results from several small-scale cold treatment studies were less promising and inconsistent. One study indicated that under 0°C constant treatment, no mortality of 3rd instar larvae occurred until day 12, and only 55% mortality occurred by day 22. The scientific and technological gaps in safeguarding US citrus industry from the invasion of this destructive pest include: 1) lack of effective lures for early detection and emergency responses; 2) insufficient work on phytosanitary treatment techniques; and 3) weak definition of and lack of data for B. minax pest free areas in China.

Normes OEPP ‐ Systèmes de lutte nationaux réglementaires/EPPO Standards ‐ National regulatory control systems

EPPO BulletinVolume 47, Issue 3 p. 504-505 Normes OEPP EPPO StandardsFree Access Normes OEPP - Systèmes de lutte nationaux réglementaires/EPPO Standards - National regulatory control systems First published: 22 December 2017 https://doi.org/10.1111/epp.12434AboutSectionsPDF 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 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 Standards on national regulatory control systems are intended to be used by National Plant Protection Organizations, in their capacity as bodies responsible for official control of regulated pests. References EPPO/CABI (1997) Quarantine Pests for Europe, 2nd edn. CAB International, Wallingford (GB). EU (2000) Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the community. Official Journal of the European Communities L169, 1– 112. FAO (1997) International Plant Protection Convention (new revised text). FAO, Rome (IT). IPPC (2007) Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. ISPM no. 5. Supplement no. 1. Guidelines on the interpretation and application of the concept of official control for regulated pests. IPPC Secretariat, FAO, Rome (IT). Appendix 1 – Definitions Area of low pest prevalence: an area, whether all of a country, part of a country, or all or parts of several countries, as identified by the competent authorities, in which a specific pest occurs at low levels and which is subject to effective surveillance, control or eradication measures. Containment: application of phytosanitary measures in and around an infested area to prevent spread of a pest. Eradication: application of phytosanitary measures to eliminate a pest from an area. Incursion: an isolated population of a pest recently detected in an area, not known to be established, but expected to survive for the immediate future. Monitoring: an official ongoing process to verify phytosanitary situations. Official control: the active enforcement of mandatory phytosanitary regulations and the application of mandatory phytosanitary procedures with the objective of eradication or containment of quarantine pests or for the management of regulated non-quarantine pests. Outbreak: a recently detected pest population, including an incursion, or a sudden significant increase of an established pest population in an area. Pest-free area: an area in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained. Pest-free place of production: place of production in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained for a defined period. Phytosanitary procedure: any official method for implementing phytosanitary regulations including the perfor- mance of inspections, tests, surveillance or treatments in connection with regulated pests. Quarantine area: an area within which a quarantine pest is present and is being officially controlled. Suppression: the application of phytosanitary measures in an infested area to reduce pest populations. Surveillance: an official process which collects and records data on pest occurrence or absence by survey, monitoring or other procedures. Survey: an official procedure conducted over a defined period of time to determine the characteristics of a pest population or to determine which species occur in an area. Appendix 2 – Outline of requirements EPPO Standards on national regulatory control systems describe procedures for official control of individual regulated pests, for the purpose of their eradication or containment, or demonstration or maintenance of pest-free areas, pest-free places of production or areas of low pest prevalence. These Standards conforms to supplement No. 1 of ISPM no. 5 Glossary of phytosanitary terms: ‘Guidelines on the interpretation and application of the concept of official control for regulated pests’. Volume47, Issue3December 2017Pages 504-505 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Pest categorisation of Hishimonus phycitis.

The Panel on Plant Health performed a pest categorisation of Hishimonus phycitis (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) for the EU. H. phycitis is a well‐defined species, occurring in tropical and subtropical Asian countries from Iran to Malaysia. H. phycitis is polyphagous. Hosts of particular relevance to the EU include Citrus spp. and Solanum melongena. While harmful in its own right as a leafhopper extracting host nutrients through feeding, it is regarded in the Middle East more significantly as a vector of Witches' broom disease of lime phytoplasma, which limits production of Citrus aurantifolia, and in India as a vector of brinjal little‐leaf phytoplasma impacting S. melongena yields. H. phycitis is currently regulated by Council Directive 2000/29/EC, listed in Annex II/AI as Hishomonus phycitis (sic). Eggs planted on host plants for planting could provide a pathway for entry into the EU. The EU has eco‐climatic conditions that are also found in countries where H. phycitis occurs although it is unknown whether H. phycitis occurs in those areas. There is therefore considerable uncertainty around EU establishment. Any establishment is likely to be limited to the warmest areas around the Mediterranean. As a free‐living organism with adults capable of flight, spread within the EU would be possible but confined to the limited area where establishment could occur. Measures are available to inhibit entry via traded commodities (e.g. prohibition on the introduction of Citrus plants for planting; sourcing other hosts from pest free areas). H. phycitis does satisfy all of the criteria that are within the remit of EFSA to assess to be regarded as a Union quarantine pest. It is uncertain if eggs of H. phycitis would carry phytoplasmas into the EU as transovarial transmission from infected females to eggs has not been demonstrated.

Sensitivity of an enriched ginger oil based trapping system for Ceratitis fruit fly pests (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Enriched ginger oil (EGO) is a new male attractant for Ceratitis (Diptera: Tephritidae) species. The relative sensitivity of three Ceratitis pest species, C. capitata, C. rosa and C. cosyra, and their distance-dependent responses to EGO were determined using mark-release-recapture trials in three commercial fruit orchards in Mpumalanga, South Africa. Mature males of the three species (9–14 days after adult emergence) marked with fluorescent pigments were released at four distances: 25 m, 50 m, 100 m and 200 m from a centrally located white Delta trap baited with EGO. Different pigment colours were used for the different distances. Two releases were conducted in each orchard with an interval of one month between the releases. Traps were checked the following day, one week, two weeks and a month after release. Specimens captured were examined under a UV light to determine pigment colour on males of C. capitata, C. rosa and C. cosyra. There were no significant differences in recapture rates of the three Ceratitis species in the EGO baited trap. Most of the recaptures of all species occurred within a 50 m distance from the EGO baited trap. Most of the recaptures also occurred on the day following release. Based on the recapture rates obtained in this study, the probability of a trapping grid of 5 EGO baited traps per 2.59 km2 capturing one or more flies of C. capitata, C. rosa and C. cosyra for a population consisting of 1000 males for each species was estimated at over 95%. The EGO based trapping system would be an effective detection method for C. capitata, C. rosa and C. cosyra in pest free areas and in areas of low pest prevalence.

Normes OEPP ‐ Systèmes de lutte nationaux réglementaires/EPPO Standards ‐ National regulatory control systems

EPPO BulletinVolume 46, Issue 3 p. 541-542 Normes OEPP EPPO StandardsFree Access Normes OEPP - Systèmes de lutte nationaux réglementaires/EPPO Standards - National regulatory control systems First published: 28 November 2016 https://doi.org/10.1111/epp.12337AboutSectionsPDF 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 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). Distribution EPPO Standards are distributed by the EPPO Secretariat to all EPPO member governments. Copies are available to any interested person under particular conditions upon request to the EPPO Secretariat. Scope EPPO Standards on national regulatory control systems are intended to be used by National Plant Protection Organizations, in their capacity as bodies responsible for official control of regulated pests. References EPPO/CABI (1997) Quarantine Pests for Europe, 2nd edn. CAB International, Wallingford (GB). EU (2000) Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the community. Official Journal of the European Communities L169, 1– 112. FAO (1997) International Plant Protection Convention (new revised text). FAO, Rome (IT). IPPC (2007) Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. ISPM no. 5. Supplement no. 1. Guidelines on the interpretation and application of the concept of official control for regulated pests. IPPC Secretariat, FAO, Rome (IT). Appendix 1 – Definitions Area of low pest prevalence: an area, whether all of a country, part of a country, or all or parts of several countries, as identified by the competent authorities, in which a specific pest occurs at low levels and which is subject to effective surveillance, control or eradication measures. Containment: application of phytosanitary measures in and around an infested area to prevent spread of a pest. Eradication: application of phytosanitary measures to eliminate a pest from an area. Incursion: an isolated population of a pest recently detected in an area, not known to be established, but expected to survive for the immediate future. Monitoring: an official ongoing process to verify phytosanitary situations. Official control: the active enforcement of mandatory phytosanitary regulations and the application of mandatory phytosanitary procedures with the objective of eradication or containment of quarantine pests or for the management of regulated non-quarantine pests. Outbreak: a recently detected pest population, including an incursion, or a sudden significant increase of an established pest population in an area. Pest-free area: an area in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained. Pest-free place of production: place of production in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained for a defined period. Phytosanitary procedure: any official method for implementing phytosanitary regulations including the perfor- mance of inspections, tests, surveillance or treatments in connection with regulated pests. Quarantine area: an area within which a quarantine pest is present and is being officially controlled. Suppression: the application of phytosanitary measures in an infested area to reduce pest populations. Surveillance: an official process which collects and records data on pest occurrence or absence by survey, monitoring or other procedures. Survey: an official procedure conducted over a defined period of time to determine the characteristics of a pest population or to determine which species occur in an area. Appendix 2 – Outline of requirements EPPO Standards on national regulatory control systems describe procedures for official control of individual regulated pests, for the purpose of their eradication or containment, or demonstration or maintenance of pest-free areas, pest-free places of production or areas of low pest prevalence. These Standards conforms to supplement No. 1 of ISPM no. 5 Glossary of phytosanitary terms: ‘Guidelines on the interpretation and application of the concept of official control for regulated pests’. Volume46, Issue3December 2016Pages 541-542 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Normes OEPP

Normes <scp>OEPP</scp>

Normes OEPP EPPO Standards

Normes OEPP EPPO Standards