Rep o rt of th e tw en - Rotterdam Convention

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Consultation with trading partners prior to and during trials will increase the understanding of NPPOs and their confidence in the trial results. 2.3 Overview of methodology The standard describes tests for determining the host status of a fruit or vegetable variety at a defined stage of maturity to a particular fruit fly species (Diptera: Tephritidae). A fruit variety may be classified as a non-host, conditional non-host or a potential host on the basis of these tests. There is a series of tests involving laboratory cages trials and field trials. Laboratory cage trials using punctured and unpunctured fruit provide a robust test and are mandatory. This system can be supplemented by field trials using punctured fruit if required. The results of trials are interpreted in the following manner: • if no survival is recorded in a damaged fruit, regardless of maturity, then the fruit is described as a non-host to the fruit fly species tested • if no survival is recorded in a damaged fruit at a specific maturity, then the fruit is described as a conditional non-host to the fruit fly species tested • if no survival is recorded in undamaged fruit at a particular stage of maturity then the fruit is described as a conditional non-host • if either damaged or undamaged fruit become infested, then the fruit is described as a potential host. The term potential host is sued because the trials are forced, no-choice tests using laboratory reared flies and these may over represent the population pressure actually found in the field situation. Physical damage to fruit (i.e. breaks in the skin surface) may provide fruit flies the opportunity to oviposition where this opportunity is precluded by undamaged skin. Therefore, when determining host-status of a fruit, consideration should be given to both physically damaged and undamaged states of the fruit. For the purpose of these trials physical damage to fruit is achieved by puncturing fruit with entomological pins. The terms punctured and unpunctured fruit are used to describe damaged and undamaged fruit in this standard, as these terms reflect the actual methods used to damage fruit in the trials. The suggested sequence of tests is as follows: The first test is of punctured fruit in a laboratory cage to determine if a commodity can be a host to a fruit fly species if it is punctured. The results of trials are interpreted in the following manner: • if the fruits do not become infested, then the commodity is regarded as a non-host to that fruit fly species • if the commodity does become infested, even if only one adult of that fruit fly species develops, then the commodity is either a host or conditional non-host to that fruit fly species. The second test is a laboratory cage test using unpunctured fruit to determine if fruit may be a conditional host. The results of trials are interpreted in the following manner: • if the unpunctured fruit does not become infested, then the commodity is regarded as a conditional non-host 73
• if the unpunctured fruit does become infested, even if only one adult fruit fly develops, then the commodity is regarded as a host unless the third test (as noted below) shows it to be a conditional non-host. The third test is a field cage trial using unpunctured fruit to determine if a fruit found to be a host under laboratory conditions (as in the second test) may be a conditional non-host under field conditions. The laboratory cage trial are recognized as stringent tests that may not duplicate what happens in the field. The results may indicate: • if the unpunctured fruit under field conditions does not become infested, then the commodity is regarded as a conditional non-host • if the unpunctured fruit under field conditions does become infested, even if only one adult fruit fly develops, then the commodity is regarded as a host. The number of flies that should be used in host status trials is selected to try to truly reflect field populations. This has been the subject of debate for many years. The only country that has established a standard for host testing in New Zealand. Their standard states that the number of gravid females to be used per cage should be adequate to ensure 250-500 viable eggs are laid per 500 gm of fruit. To asses the potential oviposition load that trial fruit may be exposed to, fecundity tests on colony flies are undertaken. The average fecundity per female is then used to calculate the required number of females per cage. In this standard a minimum potential oviposition load of 1 000 viable eggs per replicate was chosen for laboratory trials. However, for field/glasshouse trials a minimum potential oviposition Figure 1: Diagram of the host testing stages LABORATORY CAGE TRIAL USING PUNCTURED FRUIT Adult fruit flies emerge YES LABORATORY CAGE TRIAL USING UNPUNCTURED FRUIT Adult fruit flies emerge YES FIELD CAGE TRIAL USING UNPUNCTURED FRUIT (ON THE PLANT) Adult fruit flies emerge YES Potential host 74 NO NO NO Non-host Conditional Non-host Conditional Non-host
Page 1 and 2:
RAP PUBLICATION 2005/25 Re p o r t
Page 3 and 4:
T h e d e s ig n a tio n a n d p re
Page 5 and 6:
Contents Foreword .................
Page 7 and 8:
1.3 Opening remarks by Ms Wan Norma
Page 9 and 10:
1.6.2 Election of the Drafting Comm
Page 11 and 12:
the control groups. Over the same p
Page 13 and 14:
In conclusion, Mr Piao extended his
Page 15 and 16:
(PD) works with the support officer
Page 17 and 18:
Information technology such as Glob
Page 19 and 20:
in national and international offic
Page 21 and 22:
3.9 Lao People’s Democratic Repub
Page 23 and 24:
Pesticides were registered and regu
Page 25 and 26: The Philippines lagged behind devel
Page 27 and 28: Farmer’s pest management skills a
Page 29 and 30: farmers. A new programme “3 reduc
Page 31 and 32: 3.25 Impact assessment of IPM-FFS i
Page 33 and 34: pre-shipment and quarantine purpose
Page 35 and 36: Fiji : Mr Hiagi Munivai Foraete Jap
Page 37 and 38: 10.2.2 Recommendations of the meeti
Page 39 and 40: 10.3.3 Review of the progress in In
Page 41 and 42: 10.4.1.3 Assist in carrying out act
Page 43 and 44: Ms Wu Xiaoling Deputy Division Dire
Page 45 and 46: Lao PDR Mr Vilaysouk Khennavong Dir
Page 47 and 48: Philippines Ms Merle B. Palacpac Ch
Page 49 and 50: Dr Turnjit Sattayavirut Senior Ento
Page 51 and 52: Mr Sakda Srinives Senior Subject Ma
Page 53 and 54: Pacific Plant Protection Organizati
Page 55 and 56: Ms Rattana Juijunjea National Burea
Page 57 and 58: REGIONAL STANDARDS FOR PHYTOSANITAR
Page 59 and 60: Work Plan for the Sonora Fruit Fly
Page 61 and 62: surveillance An official process th
Page 63 and 64: • systems to allow certified frui
Page 65 and 66: Trap density Trap density is critic
Page 67 and 68: 3.2.2. Regulatory controls on the m
Page 69 and 70: If bilateral arrangements have been
Page 71 and 72: 2. Control measures in the identifi
Page 73 and 74: SCOPE INTRODUCTION This standard de
Page 75: species may be correctly identified
Page 79 and 80: The determined number of gravid fem
Page 81 and 82: Trial methodology and procedures ar
Page 83 and 84: PROGRESS IN INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEM
Page 85 and 86: Agriculture has established standar
Page 87 and 88: Under TCP/THA/3003, FAO provided te
Page 89 and 90: 2.1 Regional training workshop for
Page 91 and 92: 2.5 National Consultation on the Ra
Page 93 and 94: 6. More information is needed on pe
show all

Rep o rt of th e tw en - Rotterdam Convention

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?