Wollemia nobilis (Wollemi Pine) - Biosecurity New Zealand

More documents

Recommendations

Info

nursery stock, the results of this assessment would have significantly under or over estimated the level of risk posed by the organism. To ensure that the risk management measures resulting from this assessment remain appropriate to the risk posed by the pathway, organism associations recorded with the commodity in the place of origin and during import into New Zealand or other countries should be monitored. 4.3 Risk Management 4.3.1 Risk Evaluation Since the risk estimate for surface feeding insects associated with Wollemia nobilis whole plants or root-less cuttings imported from Australia is non-negligible, phytosanitary measures will need to be employed to effectively manage the risks to reduce them to an acceptable level. The risk estimate for surface feeding insects associated with Wollemia nobilis plants in vitro imported from Australia is negligible and as such phytosanitary measures will not be required. 4.3.2 Option Evaluation 4.3.2.1 Risk Management Objective To ensure that no surface feeding insects associated with Wollemia nobilis nursery stock in Australia are: o transplanted into the New Zealand environment with Wollemia nobilis nursery stock imported from Australia; or o transmitted to a host plant in the New Zealand environment from Wollemia nobilis nursery stock imported from Australia. 4.3.2.2 Options Available Referring to figure 3.4 in section 3.6, there are conceivably a number of points on the Wollemia nobilis nursery stock import pathway at which measures could be applied to reduce to an acceptable level the risk of surface feeding insects establishing in New Zealand and causing unwanted consequences. The following management options should be assessed: a) Limiting exposure of the Wollemia nobilis whole plants and root-less cuttings before packaging and transport to New Zealand to ensure they are free of surface feeding insects; b) Inspecting all Wollemia nobilis whole plants or root-less cuttings before packaging and transport to New Zealand to ensure they are free of surface feeding insects; Page 40 of 193 14 March 2008 Import Risk Analysis: Wollemia nobilis (Wollemi Pine) Araucariaceae Nursery Stock from Australia
c) Treating all imported Wollemia nobilis whole plants or root-less cuttings before release into the New Zealand environment to ensure they are free of surface feeding insects; d) Detecting and treating infested plants within New Zealand before any Wollemia nobilis whole plants or root-less cuttings are released into the New Zealand environment. Inspection Options b) and d) above both rely on an effective inspection process to identify infested plants or cuttings. The three most important variables of any inspection process are (see Appendix 3 section App 3.2 for further details): i) how detectable the organism or infestation is during visual inspection; ii) the ability of the inspector to detect the organism or infestation; and iii) the level of infestation of the consignment that is considered acceptable (the detection level that is required). Dealing with the latter first (the level of infestation of the consignment that is considered acceptable), in the case of Chrysomphalus dictyospermi and Nipaecoccus sp. the potential for parthenogenesis and the high likelihood of establishment and spread in warmer areas or enclosures indicates that a single female or cluster of eggs on a single plant should pose an unacceptable risk. Hyblaea puera is less likely to establish in New Zealand and as such a higher tolerance level could be accepted. Any inspection undertaken would therefore need to have a 95% confidence level of detecting a small group (3 or less) of larvae or adults or a single egg group on a single plant within the consignment. The second inspection variable, the ability to detect the organism or infestation, is influenced by the distribution and physical characteristics of the larvae, adults or a single egg group on the plant. For Chrysomphalus dictyospermi, a close examination is required of the leaves of the plants in strong light, looking for circular, flat, greyish or reddish-brown scale covers. For Hyblaea puera, each female moth lays approximately 500 eggs on tender new leaves of teak or other host plants, attaching them singly near the veins, and usually on the lower surface. The first- and second-instars feed mainly on the leaf surface and protect themselves in a shallow depression on the leaf covered with strands of silk. Starting with the third-instar, the larva feeds from within leaf folds. Low-level infestations can be detected by the presence of leaf-folds within which the larvae can be seen when the fold is partially eaten. In both examples, a person inspecting large volumes of material in a relatively short time would find detecting low-level infestations difficult. A single inspection would therefore not provide sufficient confidence that the level of consignment infestation by surface feeding insects is acceptable. Extending the inspection period by holding the plants within post-entry quarantine in New Zealand may increase the size of the infestation as the insects complete a generation or two. Chrysomphalus dictyospermi can complete 6 generations per year (2 months per generation) whereas mealybugs may take up to 3 months for egg hatching. As a three month inspection period may not be sufficient to allow a single generation of a pseudococcid (mealybug) to develop, Import Risk Analysis: Wollemia nobilis (Wollemi Pine) Araucariaceae Nursery Stock from Australia 14 March 2008 Page 41 of 193
Page 1 and 2: Import Risk Analysis: Wollemia nobi
Page 3 and 4: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestr
Page 5 and 6: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following peop
Page 7 and 8: 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Synopsis T
Page 9 and 10: 1.4 Recommended Measures Based on t
Page 11 and 12: 1.4.2 Plant Inspection Requirements
Page 13 and 14: Plant Management Requirements • T
Page 15 and 16: 1.4.6 Expected Performance of Measu
Page 17 and 18: Figure 2.1: A summary of the Biosec
Page 19 and 20: determine the level of likely risk.
Page 21 and 22: 2.2.3.4 Risk Estimations The aim of
Page 23 and 24: 2.2.5 Assessment of Residual Risk R
Page 25 and 26: Photo of Wollemia nobilis foliage i
Page 27 and 28: There are about 20 species in the g
Page 29 and 30: visual inspection. Any of the requi
Page 31 and 32: to group allocations are provided i
Page 33 and 34: o As a group, endophytic or saproph
Page 35 and 36: 3.5.2 Assessment of Risk of Exposur
Page 37 and 38: Figure 3.4: Overview of the potenti
Page 39 and 40: 3.7 References Bullock, S; Summerel
Page 41 and 42: citrus planting material and fruit
Page 43 and 44: clumps over the face of the fruit.
Page 45: Potential for spread Surface feedin
Page 49 and 50: While this methyl bromide treatment
Page 51 and 52: sufficient protection from surface
Page 53 and 54: The objective for the pesticide tre
Page 55 and 56: Coptotermes: Termite Coptotermes ar
Page 57 and 58: found in plant material from small
Page 59 and 60: New Zealand economy will only becom
Page 61 and 62: o transmitted to a host plant in th
Page 63 and 64: Additional measures Inspections sho
Page 65 and 66: considered adequate to ensure air-b
Page 67 and 68: 6. FOLIAGE DISEASES 6.1 Hazard Iden
Page 69 and 70: turn yellowish brown or grey at the
Page 71 and 72: the New Zealand economy will only b
Page 73 and 74: 6.3 Risk Management 6.3.1 Risk Eval
Page 75 and 76: • To reduce the likelihood of exp
Page 77 and 78: ack under quarantine conditions (fo
Page 79 and 80: Ji SQ, Fan BH, 1988. A study of cot
Page 81 and 82: Life cycle The main inoculum source
Page 83 and 84: 7.2 Risk Assessment 7.2.1 Entry Ass
Page 85 and 86: The likelihood that a root disease-
Page 87 and 88: management practices provided in 3.
Page 89 and 90: To manage the potential risks assoc
Page 91 and 92: 8. WOOD DECAY FUNGI 8.1 Hazard Iden
Page 93 and 94: Epidemiology P. noxius attacks a wi
Page 95 and 96: 8.3.2 Option Evaluation 8.3.2.1 Ris
Page 97 and 98:
Storozhenko VG, 2003. Rot incidence
Page 99 and 100:
10. MYCORRHIZAL FUNGI 10.1 Hazard I
Page 101 and 102:
diversity of Glomalean fungi occurs
Page 103 and 104:
o Acting as a parasite (pathogen) o
Page 105 and 106:
still infected with the fungus, and
Page 107 and 108:
through excessive handling of root
Page 109 and 110:
Cowan, P E (1989) A vesicular-arbus
Page 111 and 112:
or fruits. The majority of the asco
Page 113 and 114:
It is possible that a serious infec
Page 115 and 116:
plants and rootless cuttings import
Page 117 and 118:
Pre-export Requirements The princip
Page 119 and 120:
11.4 Assessment of Residual Risk 11
Page 121 and 122:
12. PHYTOPHTHORA CINNAMOMI 12.1 Haz
Page 123 and 124:
overseas showed modest variation, s
Page 125 and 126:
content were considered important f
Page 127 and 128:
12.3.2 Option Evaluation 12.3.2.1 R
Page 129 and 130:
apparent on infected plants that ar
Page 131 and 132:
Zentmyer, G A (1983) The world of P
Page 133 and 134:
HEPA filter A ‘high-efficiency pa
Page 135 and 136:
Unwanted organism (Biosecurity Act
Page 137 and 138:
Scientific name Common name Hazard
Page 139 and 140:
Ridley, G S; Bain, J; Bulman L S; D
Page 141 and 142:
a) Access Access to propagation and
Page 143 and 144:
3.6.1.4 DISEASE, PEST AND WEED CONT
Page 145 and 146:
APPENDIX 3: ANALYSIS OF CLEARANCE R
Page 147 and 148:
ate of Caenorhabditis elegans from
Page 149 and 150:
eadily removed, may result in reshi
Page 151 and 152:
App 3.2.3 Recommendations for measu
Page 153 and 154:
Reference Treatment Schedules and C
Page 155 and 156:
Table App 3.3: A selection of USDA
Page 157 and 158:
Active ingredient Chemical group Di
Page 159 and 160:
(Yue et al. 2003). All exposed stag
Page 161 and 162:
First and 2 nd instars of the preda
Page 163 and 164:
Table App 3.5: Derived efficacies f
Page 165 and 166:
• the lack of efficacy data under
Page 167 and 168:
App 3.3.11 Analysis of measure effi
Page 169 and 170:
o Nursery stock should be treated a
Page 171 and 172:
Active ingredient (Chemical Group)
Page 173 and 174:
Matheron et al. (2000) assessed in
Page 175 and 176:
App 3.4.2.6 Pencycuron Pencycuron i
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Herron, G; Jiang, L; Spooner Hart,
Page 183 and 184:
littoralis (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)
Page 185 and 186:
APPENDIX 4: ANALYSIS OF PEQ REQUIRE
Page 187 and 188:
App 4.2.1.3 Treatments applied to p
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
o as standard requirements for all
Page 193 and 194:
The limitations of the specificatio
Page 195 and 196:
NPPRL to test for the presence of f
Page 197 and 198:
o the minimum quarantine period be
Page 199:
show all

Wollemia nobilis (Wollemi Pine) - Biosecurity New Zealand

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?