DOCSLIB.ORG

New Pest Response Guidelines Phytophthora Species in the Environment and Nursery Settings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Pest Response Guidelines Phytophthora Species in the Environment and Nursery Settings United States Department of New Pest Response Agriculture Marketing and Guidelines Regulatory Programs Animal and Phytophthora species in the Environment and Nursery Plant Health Settings Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Cooperating State Departments of Agriculture July 09, 2010 i Phytophthora spp. New Pest Response Guidelines Phytophthora species in the Environment and Nursery Settings The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of any individuals income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication o program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720- 6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. This document is not intended to be complete and exhaustive. It provides a foundation based upon available literature to assist in the development of appropriate and relevant regulatory activities. Some key publications were not available at the time of writing, and not all specialists and members of the research community were consulted in the preparation of this document. References to commercial suppliers or products should not be construed as an endorsement of the company or product by the USDA. All uses of pesticides must be registered or approved by appropriate Federal, State, and/or Tribal agencies before they can be applied. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to use a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its label. The information provided on pesticide labels may not reflect all of the actual information, including precautions and instructions for use, which you are required to follow in your specific State or locality. It is the responsibility of persons intending to use a pesticide to read and abide by the label, including labeling approved for the particular State or locality in which the chemical is to be used, and to comply with all Federal, State, Tribal, and local laws and regulations relating to the use of the pesticide. APHIS program staffs are responsible for their compliance with applicable environmental regulations. CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife—if they are not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers. Version 1.0 October 7, 2010 07/09/10 ii Phytophthora spp. CREDITS Cite this report as follows: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS). 2010. Phytophthora species in the Environment and Nursery Settings New Pest Response Guidelines, USDA–APHIS–PPQ–Emergency and Domestic Programs–Emergency Management, Riverdale, Maryland. Further information regarding this New Pest Response Guidelines can be obtained from: USDA-APHIS-PPD Emergency Management 4700 River Road, Unit 160 Riverdale, MD 20737-1237 Phone: 301-734-8247 FAX: 301-734-8584 CONTRIBUTORS These guidelines were prepared by: Writers: Melinda Sullivan, Ph.D. USDA, APHIS, PPQ, CPHST Russ Bulluck, Ph.D. USDA, APHIS, PPQ, CPHST Editor: Lara Boeck, USDA, APHIS, PPQ, Registration, Identification, Permits, and Plant Safeguarding Cover Photo: Courtesy of Alina Greslebin and Carlos Baroll “Phytophtora austrocedrae” 07/09/10 iii Phytophthora spp. Acknowledgements We acknowledge the kind assistance provided by the following individuals during the preparation of this document: Philip Berger, USDA APHIS PPQ, Center for Plant Health, Science and Technology (CPHST), Raleigh, NC Jonathan Jones, USDA APHIS PPQ Emergency and Domestic Programs (EDP), Riverdale, MD Prakash Hebbar, USDA APHIS PPQ, EDP, Riverdale, MD Matthew Royer, USDA APHIS PPQ, EDP, Riverdale, MD Patrick Shiel, USDA APHIS PPQ, CPHST, Raleigh, NC Roger Magarey, North Carolina State University Thank you also to reviewers: Lindsey Seaston, USDA APHIS PPQ CPHST Matteo Garbelotto, University of California, Berkeley David Rizzo, University of California, Davis Susan Frankel, USDA Forest Service Heather M. Hartzog, USDA APHIS PPQ CPHST Lisa Ferguson, USDA APHIS PPQ CPHST Valerie DeFeo, USDA APHIS PPQ EDP Gloria Abad, USDA APHIS PPQ PHP Michael Benson, North Carolina State University H. David Shew, North Carolina State University 07/09/10 iv Phytophthora spp. CONTENTS SECTION PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii CONTENTS v LIST OF TABLES ix 1. INTRODUCTION o Purpose 1.1 o Disclaimers 1.2 o Pest Status 1.2 o Exotic Phytophthora Species Prevention 1.3 o Program Safety 1.3 o Contacts 1.3 o Initiating an Emergency Pest Response Program 1.4 o Support for Program Decision Making 1.5 o Exotic Phytophthora Species Included in New Pest Response 1.7 Guideline o Exotic Phytophthora Species Not Included in New Pest 1.9 Response Guideline 2. PEST INFORMATION o Nomenclature 2.4 o Phytophthora alni 2.4 o Phytophthora alticola, P. frigida 2.7 o Phytophthora austrocedrae 2.9 o Phytophthora boehmeriae 2.11 o Phytophthora captiosa, P. fallax 2.14 o Phytophthora colocasiae 2.15 o Phytophthora gallica 2.18 o Phytophthora idaei 2.19 o Phytophthora iranica 2.20 o Phytophthora italica 2.21 o Phytophthora kernoviae 2.22 o Phytophthora melonis 2.26 o Phytophthora multivesiculata 2.28 o Phytophthora multivora 2.29 o Phytophthora pinifolia 2.31 o Phytophthora polonica 2.33 o Phytophthora porri 2.34 o Phytophthora primulae 2.37 o Phytophthora psychrophila 2.39 o Phytophthora quercina 2.40 o Phytophthora tentaculata 2.42 o Phytophthora uliginosa 2.43 07/09/10 v Phytophthora spp. 3. SURVEY PROCEDURES o Introduction 3.1 o Precautions for Inspectors 3.1 o National Survey 3.2 o Sampling Procedures/Survey Strategies 3.4 o Survey Types 3.6 General Detection Surveys 3.6 Delimiting Survey 3.7 Monitoring Survey 3.7 o Survey Sites 3.8 Nursery Site 3.8 Natural Area Site 3.16 o Host Range, Symptoms, and Survey Information for Exotic 3.24 Phytophthora spp. Phytophthora alni 3.24 Phytophthora alticola 3.25 Phytophthora austrocedrae 3.26 Phytophthora boehmeriae 3.27 Phytophthora captiosa 3.28 Phytophthora colocasiae 3.29 Phytophthora fallax 3.30 Phytophthora frigida 3.31 Phytophthora gallica 3.31 Phytophthora idaei 3.31 Phytophthora iranica 3.32 Phytophthora italica 3.32 Phytophthora kernoviae 3.33 Phytophthora melonis 3.34 Phytophthora multivesiculata 3.35 Phytophthora multivora 3.36 Phytophthora pinifolia 3.37 Phytophthora polonica 3.37 Phytophthora porri 3.38 Phytophthora primulae 3.39 Phytophthora psychrophila 3.40 Phytophthora quercina 3.41 Phytophthora tentaculata 3.42 Phytophthora uliginosa 3.43 4. Diagnostics and Identification o Importance 4.2 o Authorities 4.2 o Identification 4.3 Phytophthora alni 4.3 Phytophthora alticola 4.4 Phytophthora austrocedrae 4.4 Phytophthora boehmeriae 4.5 07/09/10 vi Phytophthora spp. Phytophthora captiosa 4.5 Phytophthora colocasiae 4.6 Phytophthora fallax 4.7 Phytophthora frigida 4.7 Phytophthora gallica 4.7 Phytophthora idaei 4.8 Phytophthora iranica 4.9 Phytophthora italica 4.9 Phytophthora kernoviae 4.10 Phytophthora melonis 4.11 Phytophthora multivesiculata 4.12 Phytophthora multivora 4.13 Phytophthora pinifolia 4.14 Phytophthora polonica 4.14 Phytophthora porri 4.15 Phytophthora primulae 4.16 Phytophthora psychrophila 4.16 Phytophthora quercina 4.17 Phytophthora tentaculata 4.18 Phytophthora uliginosa 4.18 o Sample Packaging and Documentation 4.19 o Sample Numbering, Labeling, and Record Keeping 4.19 o State or Other Diagnostic Screening Laboratories Results 4.20 o Approved Laboratory or Confirmatory Testing 4.20 o Potentially Actionable Suspect Sample (PASS) Policy for 4.20 Exotic Phytophthora species o Diagnostic and Identification Protocols 4.21 o Completing the PPQ Form 391 Determination Section 4.21 o Saturday Delivery 4.21 o Notification of State Officials of Sample Submissions and 4.22 Results o Sample Processing Time 4.22 o Morphological characteristics of exotic Phytophthora spp. 4.23 5. REGULATORY PROCEDURES o Instructions to Officers 5.1 o Quarantine Actions and Authorities 5.1 o Tribal Governments 5.2 o Overview of Regulatory Program for Exotic Phytophthora 5.3 species After a U.S. Detection o Record Keeping 5.3 o Issuing an Emergency Action Notification 5.4 o Regulated Articles 5.5 o Quarantine Action 5.5 o Regulated Establishment 5.5 o Primary Plant Host List 5.6 o Regulatory Treatments for Exotic Phytophthora spp. 5.6 07/09/10 vii Phytophthora spp. o Quarantine Area 5.7 o Grower Requirements Under Quarantine 5.7 o Establishing a Federal Quarantine 5.7 o Removing Areas from Quarantine 5.7 o Regulatory Records 5.8 6. CONTROL o Overview 6.1 o Control Decisions and Oversight 6.1 o Control of Exotic Phytophthora spp. 6.1 o Control Procedures for Positive Commercial Nursery 6.6 Detections o Destruction of Wild and Cultivated Host Plants 6.7 o Cultural Control of Exotic Phytophthora spp. 6.7 o Chemical Control of Exotic Phytophthora spp. 6.10 o Biological Control of Exotic Phytophthora spp. 6.12 o Host Resistance for Control of Exotic Phytophthora spp. 6.12 o Control Records 6.14 o Environmental Monitoring 6.14 7. PATHWAYS FOR INTRODUCTION a. A Quarantine Pest and Its Pathway 7.1 b. Questions Regarding Detection 7.2 c. Examination of Pathway Risk 7.3 8. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE o Overview 8.1 o Disclaimer 8.1 o National Environmental Policy Act 8.1 o Categorical Exclusions 8.2 o Environmental Assessments 8.2 o Environmental Impact Statements 8.2 o Environmental Monitoring 8.3 o Biological Assessment 8.3 9.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phytopythium: Molecular Phylogeny and Systematics
    Persoonia 34, 2015: 25–39 www.ingentaconnect.com/content/nhn/pimj RESEARCH ARTICLE http://dx.doi.org/10.3767/003158515X685382 Phytopythium: molecular phylogeny and systematics A.W.A.M. de Cock1, A.M. Lodhi2, T.L. Rintoul 3, K. Bala 3, G.P. Robideau3, Z. Gloria Abad4, M.D. Coffey 5, S. Shahzad 6, C.A. Lévesque 3 Key words Abstract The genus Phytopythium (Peronosporales) has been described, but a complete circumscription has not yet been presented. In the present paper we provide molecular-based evidence that members of Pythium COI clade K as described by Lévesque & de Cock (2004) belong to Phytopythium. Maximum likelihood and Bayesian LSU phylogenetic analysis of the nuclear ribosomal DNA (LSU and SSU) and mitochondrial DNA cytochrome oxidase Oomycetes subunit 1 (COI) as well as statistical analyses of pairwise distances strongly support the status of Phytopythium as Oomycota a separate phylogenetic entity. Phytopythium is morphologically intermediate between the genera Phytophthora Peronosporales and Pythium. It is unique in having papillate, internally proliferating sporangia and cylindrical or lobate antheridia. Phytopythium The formal transfer of clade K species to Phytopythium and a comparison with morphologically similar species of Pythiales the genera Pythium and Phytophthora is presented. A new species is described, Phytopythium mirpurense. SSU Article info Received: 28 January 2014; Accepted: 27 September 2014; Published: 30 October 2014. INTRODUCTION establish which species belong to clade K and to make new taxonomic combinations for these species. To achieve this The genus Pythium as defined by Pringsheim in 1858 was goal, phylogenies based on nuclear LSU rRNA (28S), SSU divided by Lévesque & de Cock (2004) into 11 clades based rRNA (18S) and mitochondrial DNA cytochrome oxidase1 (COI) on molecular systematic analyses.
    [Show full text]
  • Eucalyptus 2018 17-21 September 2018, Le Corum, Montpellier - France
    Eucalyptus 2018 17-21 September 2018, Le Corum, Montpellier - France Eucalyptus 2018 Managing Eucalyptus plantations under global changes Abstracts Book Foreword Eucalyptus trees cover about 20 million hectares in more than 90 countries around the world with major centers in Brazil (5.7 m ha), India (3.9 m ha) and China (4.5 m ha). Eucalypts are widely grown in commercial plantations to produce raw material for the industry (pulp and paper, charcoal, sawn timber, wood panels) but also in small woodlots for the production of firewood and charcoal for domestic uses. The considerable expansion of these plantations in recent decades reflects major competitive advantages of eucalypts relative to other tree species in terms of productivity, tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses, wood quality for a wide variety of uses and ability to be managed in coppice. However, the requirements in water and nutrients of eucalypt trees are high to reach high biomass productions and the environmental impact of the silviculture is still a matter of debate. In a context of global changes with more frequent drought events, temperature rise and rapid expansion of pests and diseases, the sustainability of eucalypt plantations is of concern in many regions. Interdisciplinary research is urgently needed to improve the adaptation of eucalypt plantations to global changes. Cirad and I-Site MUSE organize an international conference under the auspices of IUFRO (Division 2.08.03 Improvement and culture of eucalypts and Division 1.02.01 Ecology and silviculture of plantation forests in the tropics) to present recent advances likely to improve the management of eucalypt plantations in tropical, sub-tropical and Mediterranean regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Alnus Glutinosa
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.13.875229; this version posted December 13, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. Investigations into the declining health of alder (Alnus glutinosa) along the river Lagan in Belfast, including the first report of Phytophthora lacustris causing disease of Alnus in Northern Ireland Richard O Hanlon (1, 2)* Julia Wilson (2), Deborah Cox (1) (1) Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Belfast, BT9 5PX, Northern Ireland, UK. (2) Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK * [email protected] Additional key words: Plant health, Forest pathology, riparian, root and collar rot. Abstract Common alder (Alnus glutinosa) is an important tree species, especially in riparian and wet habitats. Alder is very common across Ireland and Northern Ireland, and provides a wide range of ecosystem services. Surveys along the river Lagan in Belfast, Northern Ireland led to the detection of several diseased Alnus trees. As it is known that Alnus suffers from a Phytophthora induced decline, this research set out to identify the presence and scale of the risk to Alnus health from Phytophthora and other closely related oomycetes. Sampling and a combination of morphological and molecular testing of symptomatic plant material and river baits identified the presence of several Phytophthora species, including Phytophthora lacustris. A survey of the tree vegetation along an 8.5 km stretch of the river revealed that of the 166 Alnus trees counted, 28 were severely defoliated/diseased and 9 were dead.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidio Phytophthora Management Recommendations
    2016 Presidio Phytophthora Management Recommendations Laura Sims Presidio Phytophthora Management Recommendations (modified) Author: Laura Sims Other Contributing Authors: Christa Conforti, Tom Gordon, Nina Larssen, and Meghan Steinharter Photograph Credits: Laura Sims, Janet Klein, Richard Cobb, Everett Hansen, Thomas Jung, Thomas Cech, and Amelie Rak Editors and Additional Contributors: Christa Conforti, Alison Forrestel, Alisa Shor, Lew Stringer, Sharon Farrell, Teri Thomas, John Doyle, and Kara Mirmelstein Acknowledgements: Thanks first to Matteo Garbelotto and the University of California, Berkeley Forest Pathology and Mycology Lab for providing a ‘forest pathology home’. Many thanks to the members of the Phytophthora huddle group for useful suggestions and feedback. Many thanks to the members of the Working Group for Phytophthoras in Native Habitats for insight into the issues of Phytophthora. Many thanks to Jennifer Parke, Ted Swiecki, Kathy Kosta, Cheryl Blomquist, Susan Frankel, and M. Garbelotto for guidance. I would like to acknowledge the BMP documents on Phytophthora that proceeded this one: the Nursery Industry Best Management Practices for Phytophthora ramorum to prevent the introduction or establishment in California nursery operations, and The Safe Procurement and Production Manual. 1 Title Page: Authors and Acknowledgements Table of Contents Page Title Page 1 Table of Contents 2 Executive Summary 5 Introduction to the Phytophthora Issue 7 Phytophthora Issues Around the World 7 Phytophthora Issues in California 11 Phytophthora
    [Show full text]
  • Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan 2011-2016
    Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan 2011-2016 April 1981 Revised, May 1982 2nd revision, April 1983 3rd revision, December 1999 4th revision, May 2011 Prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce Ohio Department of Natural Resources National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Division of Wildlife Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 2045 Morse Road, Bldg. G Estuarine Reserves Division Columbus, Ohio 1305 East West Highway 43229-6693 Silver Spring, MD 20910 This management plan has been developed in accordance with NOAA regulations, including all provisions for public involvement. It is consistent with the congressional intent of Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, and the provisions of the Ohio Coastal Management Program. OWC NERR Management Plan, 2011 - 2016 Acknowledgements This management plan was prepared by the staff and Advisory Council of the Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve (OWC NERR), in collaboration with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources-Division of Wildlife. Participants in the planning process included: Manager, Frank Lopez; Research Coordinator, Dr. David Klarer; Coastal Training Program Coordinator, Heather Elmer; Education Coordinator, Ann Keefe; Education Specialist Phoebe Van Zoest; and Office Assistant, Gloria Pasterak. Other Reserve staff including Dick Boyer and Marje Bernhardt contributed their expertise to numerous planning meetings. The Reserve is grateful for the input and recommendations provided by members of the Old Woman Creek NERR Advisory Council. The Reserve is appreciative of the review, guidance, and council of Division of Wildlife Executive Administrator Dave Scott and the mapping expertise of Keith Lott and the late Steve Barry.
    [Show full text]
  • Argentina-Carbon-And-Forests.Pdf
    22383 Public Disclosure Authorized ARGENTINA: Carbon and Forests Prepared by Roger A. Sedjo and Eduardo Ley Resourcesfor the Future Public Disclosure Authorized 1616 P Street NW Washington. D. C. December 4, 1995 Public Disclosure Authorized Report Prepared for the Global Environmental Facility of the World Bank Public Disclosure Authorized FILE COPY ARGENTINA: Carbon and Forests' Roger A. Sedjo and Eduardo Ley Resources for the Future December 4, 1995 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1. GLO13AL W ARM ING AND CARBO N ......................................................................................... 1 1 THE CuRRENT SrruATIoN.................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 TYPESOF H umAN REspoNsEs............................................................................................................ 6 13 TooLs To MTGATE THE BUILD-UP OF ATMOSPHERIc CARBON......................................................... 6 2. FOREST MANAGEMENT: MITIGATION ACTIVITIES AND SINK ENHANCEMENT.... 8 2.1 How M ucH FOREST?......................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 FoREST M EGATION POUCIES............................................................................................................ 9 3. ARGENTINA: CARBON AND FORESTS ...................................................................... 6.........16 3.1 FoREsTs Iq ARGENTNA ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Genetic and Pathogenic Relatedness of Pseudoperonospora Cubensis and P. Humuli
    Mycology Genetic and Pathogenic Relatedness of Pseudoperonospora cubensis and P. humuli Melanie N. Mitchell, Cynthia M. Ocamb, Niklaus J. Grünwald, Leah E. Mancino, and David H. Gent First, second, and fourth authors: Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, third author: United States Department of Agriculture– Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS), Horticultural Crops Research Unit; and fifth author: USDA-ARS, Forage Seed and Cereal Research Unit, and Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis. Accepted for publication 6 March 2011. ABSTRACT Mitchell, M. N., Ocamb, C. M., Grünwald, N. J., Mancino, L. E., and in nuclear, mitochondrial, and ITS phylogenetic analyses, with the Gent, D. H. 2011. Genetic and pathogenic relatedness of Pseudoperono- exception of isolates of P. humuli from Humulus japonicus from Korea. spora cubensis and P. h u m u l i . Phytopathology 101:805-818. The P. cubensis isolates appeared to contain the P. humuli cluster, which may indicate that P. h um u li descended from P. cubensis. Host-specificity The most economically important plant pathogens in the genus experiments were conducted with two reportedly universally susceptible Pseudoperonospora (family Peronosporaceae) are Pseudoperonospora hosts of P. cubensis and two hop cultivars highly susceptible to P. humuli. cubensis and P. hu m u li, causal agents of downy mildew on cucurbits and P. cubensis consistently infected the hop cultivars at very low rates, and hop, respectively. Recently, P. humuli was reduced to a taxonomic sporangiophores invariably emerged from necrotic or chlorotic hyper- synonym of P. cubensis based on internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sensitive-like lesions. Only a single sporangiophore of P.
    [Show full text]
  • Phytophthora Resistance and Susceptibility Stock List
    Currently known status of the following plants to Phytophthora species - pathogenic water moulds from the Agricultural Pathology & Kingdom Protista. Biological Farming Service C ompiled by Dr Mary Cole, Agpath P/L. Agricultural Consultants since 1980 S=susceptible; MS=moderately susceptible; T= tolerant; MT=moderately tolerant; ?=no information available. Phytophthora status Life Form Botanical Name Family Common Name Susceptible (S) Tolerant (T) Unknown (UnK) Shrub Acacia brownii Mimosaceae Heath Wattle MS Tree Acacia dealbata Mimosaceae Silver Wattle T Shrub Acacia genistifolia Mimosaceae Spreading Wattle MS Tree Acacia implexa Mimosaceae Lightwood MT Tree Acacia leprosa Mimosaceae Cinnamon Wattle ? Tree Acacia mearnsii Mimosaceae Black Wattle MS Tree Acacia melanoxylon Mimosaceae Blackwood MT Tree Acacia mucronata Mimosaceae Narrow Leaf Wattle S Tree Acacia myrtifolia Mimosaceae Myrtle Wattle S Shrub Acacia myrtifolia Mimosaceae Myrtle Wattle S Tree Acacia obliquinervia Mimosaceae Mountain Hickory Wattle ? Shrub Acacia oxycedrus Mimosaceae Spike Wattle S Shrub Acacia paradoxa Mimosaceae Hedge Wattle MT Tree Acacia pycnantha Mimosaceae Golden Wattle S Shrub Acacia sophorae Mimosaceae Coast Wattle S Shrub Acacia stricta Mimosaceae Hop Wattle ? Shrubs Acacia suaveolens Mimosaceae Sweet Wattle S Tree Acacia ulicifolia Mimosaceae Juniper Wattle S Shrub Acacia verniciflua Mimosaceae Varnish wattle S Shrub Acacia verticillata Mimosaceae Prickly Moses ? Groundcover Acaena novae-zelandiae Rosaceae Bidgee-Widgee T Tree Allocasuarina littoralis Casuarinaceae Black Sheoke S Tree Allocasuarina paludosa Casuarinaceae Swamp Sheoke S Tree Allocasuarina verticillata Casuarinaceae Drooping Sheoak S Sedge Amperea xipchoclada Euphorbaceae Broom Spurge S Grass Amphibromus neesii Poaceae Swamp Wallaby Grass ? Shrub Aotus ericoides Papillionaceae Common Aotus S Groundcover Apium prostratum Apiaceae Sea Celery MS Herb Arthropodium milleflorum Asparagaceae Pale Vanilla Lily S? Herb Arthropodium strictum Asparagaceae Chocolate Lily S? Shrub Atriplex paludosa ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • Phytophthora Pathogens Threaten Rare Habitats and Conservation Plantings
    Phytophthora pathogens threaten rare habitats and conservation plantings Susan J. Frankel1, Janice Alexander2, Diana Benner3, Janell Hillman4 & Alisa Shor5 Abstract Phytophthora pathogens are damaging native wildland vegetation including plants in restoration areas and botanic gardens. The infestations threaten some plants already designated as endangered and degrade high-value habitats. Pathogens are being introduced primarily via container plant nursery stock and, once established, they can spread to adjacent areas where plant species not previously exposed to pathogens may become infected. We review epidemics in California – caused by the sudden oak death pathogen Phytophthora ramorum Werres, De Cock & Man in ‘t Veld and the frst USA detections of P. tentaculata Krber & Marwitz, which occurred in native plant nurseries and restoration areas – as examples to illustrate these threats to conservation plantings. Introduction stock) (Liebhold et al., 2012; Parke et al., Phytophthora (order: Peronosporales; 2014; Jung et al., 2015; Swiecki et al., kingdom: Stramenopila) pathogens 2018b; Sims et al., 2019). Once established, have increasingly been identifed as Phytophthora spp. have the potential associated with plant dieback and to reduce growth, kill and cause other mortality in restoration areas (Bourret, undesirable impacts on a wide variety of 2018; Garbelotto et al., 2018; Sims et al., native or horticultural vegetation (Brasier 2019), threatened and endangered species et al., 2004; Hansen 2007, 2011; Scott & habitat (Swiecki et al., 2018a), botanic Williams, 2014; Jung et al., 2018). gardens and wildlands in coastal California In this review, we focus on the (Cobb et al., 2017; Metz et al., 2017) and consequences of two pathogen southern Oregon (Goheen et al., 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Techniques in Colorado Potato Beetle (Leptinotarsa Decemlineata Say) Control and Resistance Management: History Review and Future Perspectives
    insects Review Modern Techniques in Colorado Potato Beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say) Control and Resistance Management: History Review and Future Perspectives Martina Kadoi´cBalaško 1,* , Katarina M. Mikac 2 , Renata Bažok 1 and Darija Lemic 1 1 Department of Agricultural Zoology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Svetošimunska 25, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; [email protected] (R.B.); [email protected] (D.L.) 2 Centre for Sustainable Ecosystem Solutions, School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong 2522, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +385-1-239-3654 Received: 8 July 2020; Accepted: 22 August 2020; Published: 1 September 2020 Simple Summary: The Colorado potato beetle (CPB) is one of the most important potato pest worldwide. It is native to U.S. but during the 20th century it has dispersed through Europe, Asia and western China. It continues to expand in an east and southeast direction. Damages are caused by larvae and adults. Their feeding on potato plant leaves can cause complete defoliation and lead to a large yield loss. After the long period of using only chemical control measures, the emergence of resistance increased and some new and different methods come to the fore. The main focus of this review is on new approaches to the old CPB control problem. We describe the use of Bacillus thuringiensis and RNA interference (RNAi) as possible solutions for the future in CPB management. RNAi has proven successful in controlling many pests and shows great potential for CPB control. Better understanding of the mechanisms that affect efficiency will enable the development of this technology and boost potential of RNAi to become part of integrated plant protection in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Distr. GENERAL UNEP/CBD/COP/9/9 2 May
    CBD Distr. GENERAL UNEP/CBD/COP/9/9 2 May 2008 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Ninth meeting Bonn, 19–30 May 2008 Item 2.2 of the provisional agenda* REPORT OF THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY Note by the Executive Secretary 1. In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Conference of the Parties and the Council of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) contained in the annex to decision III/8, annex, the GEF Council prepares and submits a report for each ordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties. Section 3 of the MOU provides a list of specific information, detailed information as well as other information to be included in the report. 2. In addition, in decision VIII/18, paragraph 2, the Conference of the Parties requested the Global Environment Facility, as the institutional structure operating the financial mechanism of the Convention, to include in its regular report to the Conference of the Parties information on: (a) The initial application of the Resource Allocation Framework to resources allocated in the fourth replenishment of the Global Environment Facility that is operational from July 2006, focusing on the biodiversity focal area; (b) How the Resource Allocation Framework is likely to affect funding available to developing countries and countries with economies in transition for the implementation of their commitments under the Convention. 3. In light of the above, the Executive Secretary is circulating herewith the report of the Global Environment Facility to the Conference of the Parties at its ninth meeting. * UNEP/CBD/COP/9/1.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Plants
    Indigenous Plant Nursery Plant Species List The following plant list contains some of the local native plants that may be available from the Edendale Indigenous Plant Nursery. Availability can vary so please contact the nursery for specific and seasonal availability of plants. Contact details: [email protected] Phone (03) 9433 3703 30 Gastons Road, Eltham VIC 3091 Open 7 days per week, 9.30am to 4.30pm Trees Species Common Name Size (height x width) Acacia dealbata Silver Wattle 6 – 30m x 5 – 10m Acacia implexa Lightwood 5 – 15m x 4 – 7m Acacia pycnantha Golden Wattle 3 – 10m x 2 – 5m Acacia mearnsii Black Wattle 8 – 25m x 6 – 10m Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood 5 – 30m x 4 – 15m Allocasuarina littoralis Black Sheoke 4 – 8m x 2 – 5m Allocasuarina verticillata Drooping Sheoke 4 – 11m x 3 – 6m Banksia marginata Silver Banksia 1 – 10m x 1 – 5m Callitris rhomboidea Oyster Bay Pine 9 – 15 m high Eucalyptus blakelyi Blakely’s Red Gum 15 – 24m x 10 – 15m Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum 15 – 50m x 15 – 35m Eucalyptus goniocalyx Long-leaved Box 8 – 20m x 6 – 15m Eucalyptus leucoxylon Yellow Gum 10 – 20m x 6 – 20m Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Red Stringybark 10 – 35m x 10 – 20m Eucalyptus melliodora Yellow Box 10 – 30m x 8 – 25m Eucalyptus ovata Swamp Gum 8 – 30m x 8 – 20m Eucalyptus pauciflora Snow Gum 8 – 12m x 6 – 10m Eucalyptus polyanthemos Red Box 7 – 25m x 5 – 15m Eucalyptus radiata Narrow-leaved Peppermint 10 – 30m x 6 – 20m Eucalyptus rubida Candlebark Gum 10 – 25m x 10 – 20m Eucalyptus tricarpa Red Ironbark 10 – 30m x
    [Show full text]