DOCSLIB.ORG

20123382938.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
20123382938.Pdf Plant Pest Risk Analysis Concepts and Application This page intentionally left blank Plant Pest Risk Analysis Concepts and Application Edited by Christina Devorshak CABI is a trading name of CAB International CABI CABI Nosworthy Way 38 Chauncey Street Wallingford Suite 1002 Oxfordshire OX10 8DE Boston, MA 02111 UK USA Tel: +44 (0)1491 832111 Tel: +1 800 552 3083 (toll free) Fax: +44 (0)1491 833508 Tel: +1 (0)617 395 4051 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.cabi.org © CAB International 2012. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owners. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library, London, UK. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Plant pest risk analysis : concepts and application / C. Devorshak, ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-78064-036-5 (alk. paper) 1. Plants, Protection of. 2. Risk assessment. 3. Insect pests--Control. 4. Agricultural pests--Control. I. Devorshak, Christina, 1969- SB950.P55 2012 628.9'6--dc23 2012025556 ISBN-13: 978 1 78064 03 5 Commissioning editor: Rachel Cutts Editorial assistant: Chris Shire Production editor: Simon Hill Typeset by SPi, Pondicherry, India. Printed and bound in the UK by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY. Contents Contributors vii Acknowledgements ix PART I: PEST RISK ANALYSIS BACKGROUND AND HISTORY 1. Introduction 3 2. Basic Concepts in Risk Analysis 7 3. History of Plant Quarantine and the Use of Risk Analysis 19 4. International Legal and Regulatory Framework for Risk Analysis 29 PART II: PEST RISK ANALYSIS – COMPONENTS AND APPLICATIONS 5. Terminology Used in Pest Risk Analysis 45 6. Information and Pest Risk Analysis 57 7. Economic Analysis in Pest Risk Analysis 65 8. Types and Applications of Pest Risk Analysis 83 PART III: PEST RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS 9. Qualitative Methods 97 10. Quantitative Methods 119 11. Pest Risk Assessment 135 12. Mapping, Climate and Geographic Information for Risk Analysis 151 v vi Contents PART IV: PEST RISK MANAGEMENT, RISK COMMUNICATION AND UNCERTAINTY 13. Pest Risk Management Theory and Background 167 14. Pest Risk Management Applications and Practice 179 15. Risk Communication in Pest Risk Analysis 199 16. Uncertainty in Pest Risk Analysis 209 PART V: SPECIAL TOPICS FOR PEST RISK ANALYSIS 17. Special Applications of Pest Risk Analysis – Beneficial Organisms 225 18. Special Applications of Pest Risk Analysis – Weed Risk Assessment 237 19. Appropriate Level of Protection, Precaution and Jurisprudence 257 20. Invasive Species and Living Modified Organisms 269 Acronyms 281 Glossary 283 Index 289 Contributors Chapter 2: Robert Griffin ([email protected]) Chapter 7: Lottie Erikson ([email protected]) Chapter 10: Robert Griffin Chapter 11: Christina Devorshak ([email protected]) and Alison Neeley ([email protected]) Chapter 12: Glenn Fowler ([email protected]) and Yu Takeuchi (Yu. [email protected]) Chapter 13: Robert Griffin and Alison Neeley Chapter 14: Robert Griffin Chapter 15: Alison Neeley and Christina Devorshak Chapter 16: Robert Griffin Chapter 17: Stephanie Bloem ([email protected]) and Kenneth Bloem ([email protected]) Chapter 18: Anthony Koop ([email protected]) Chapter 19: Robert Griffin vii This page intentionally left blank Acknowledgements This text represents the team effort of many individuals and colleagues from the USDA APHIS PPQ CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL). They have served as authors, contributors, reviewers, editors and sources of information. Between them, they are experts in economics, climate and mapping, entomology, plant pathology, weed science, botany, risk analysis, international trade and international development. They are practising pest risk analysts, working on projects as diverse as developing predic- tive models for pest spread, to economic models on pest impacts, to developing interna- tional guidance on pest risk analysis. Together, they bring years of experience in pest risk analysis from different back- grounds – including working in the US Department of Agriculture, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the International Plant Protection Convention and as faculty at universities – with expertise in areas as diverse as international standards development to biological, economic and climate modelling in risk analysis. As a group, they have been active in educating stu- dents and plant protection professionals on various aspects of pest risk analysis at univer- sities and professional workshops, both nationally and internationally. Their expertise and contributions to this text were of immeasurable value and I am grateful to them for their time and efforts in contributing chapters to this text. In addition to the significant efforts of the authors listed above, many others assisted with the production of this text. I am grateful to Robert Griffin for donating not only his own time and expertise, but that of many of his staff in PERAL as writers, reviewers, experts and editors. Lucy Reid,1 the PERAL librarian, tracked down valuable resources for the writ- ers and always managed to come through for us. Tara Holtz,1 Alison Neeley, Ashley Jackson,1 Lottie Erikson, Glenn Fowler and Stephanie Bloem all provided reviews and inputs during various stages of the development of this work. Much of the material that served as the basis for this book came from PERAL’s flagship course, ‘Risk Analysis 101’ – the materials for that course having been developed over the past six years. In teaching that course, I always learned just as much from the students as I have taught them. It is thanks to their valuable suggestions for improvements to course materials that PERAL has developed one of the best pest risk analysis training courses available – which in turn served as the inspiration and basis for this book. ix x Acknowledgements I must also express sincere appreciation to colleagues in other countries and other plant protection services who are also working in the field of pest risk analysis and regula- tory plant protection. My work in the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) for five years, then subsequently as a risk analyst in PERAL, has given me unique and valuable opportunities to interact with risk practitioners from all over the world – and more impor- tantly, the chance to learn more about how they conduct pest risk analysis. Over the years, and at countless meetings, I’ve always been amazed at the passion, commitment and wealth of knowledge so many of them have for this work. And because of these colleagues, I was able to learn about pest risk analysis from some of the best practitioners in the world. We have all learned from each other, and we eagerly continue to learn – such is the nature of the field of pest risk analysis. Finally, additional acknowledgments go to Roger Magarey,1 Leslie Newton,1 Manuel Colunga-Garcia,2 Dan Borchert,1 Barney Caton,1 Ron Sequeira,1 Bill Smith,3 Frank Koch,3 Ross Meentemeyer,4 Matt Dedmon,5 Joe Russo,5 Mike Simon,6 Gary Lougee6 and Lisa Ferguson1 for their assistance with Chapter 12 and to Larry Fowler1 and Claire Wilson7 for their assistance with Chapter 18. Notes 1 Mailing address and affiliation: USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST, 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300, Raleigh, NC, 27606 USA 2 Michigan State University. 3 USDA Forest Service. 4 UNC-Charlotte. 5 ZedX, Inc. 6 USDA-APHIS-PPQ-QPAS. 7 Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Part I Pest Risk Analysis Background and History This page intentionally left blank 1 Introduction Christina Devorshak 1.1. Purpose of this Textbook pathologists, botanists, weed scientists, ecologists or economists who have learned Pest risk analysis is an evolving and dynamic about risk analysis outside of a traditional field. In the past 20 years, countries all over educational setting. In fact, most pest risk ana- the world have adopted pest risk analysis as lysts have probably learned about pest risk a means to inform regulatory decisions for analysis through being mentored by col- plant protection. During that time, pest risk leagues, attending workshops and professional analysis has undergone an evolution – pest meetings, through specialized professional risk analysts have adapted methods used in training, or simply by learning on the job. other sectors, scientific information to sup- In the past several years, plant protec- port analyses is more available than ever, and tion services, as well as institutes of higher the need for more, better and different types education, have recognized the importance of pest risk analyses continues to grow. of developing curricula in regulatory plant Pest risk analysis informs and guides protection, and for pest risk analysis in par- decisions for regulatory plant protection – ticular. Courses are being developed in dif- from domestic activities such as prioritizing ferent countries and at different universities pests for surveillance to making quarantine to educate students about regulatory plant decisions regarding the importation of prod- protection, and to foster a new generation of ucts from other countries. The need for ana- plant protection specialists. However, there lytical support for decision makers has become is a noticeable gap in educational materials indispensable. Moreover, regulatory plant pro- available to support the development of tection decisions affecting imported products such courses. are required, under international treaties, to be This textbook is intended to fill that supported by an assessment of risk. gap – it provides a solid foundation in the The need for better, faster and more field of pest risk analysis and its application diverse types of pest risk analyses places to regulatory plant protection. The intended demands on plant protection services for audience of this text is upper-level students more analytical support.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Invasive Fruit Flies (Diptera: Drosophilidae) Meet in a Biodiversity Hotspot
    J. Entomol. Res. Soc., 19(1): 61-69, 2017 ISSN:1302-0250 Invasive Fruit Flies (Diptera: Drosophilidae) Meet in a Biodiversity Hotspot Carla REGO1* António Franquinho AGUIAR2 Délia CRAVO2 Mário BOIEIRO1 1Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Azorean Biodiversity Group and Department of Agrarian Sciences, University of Azores, Angra do Heroísmo, Azores, PORTUGAL 2Laboratório de Qualidade Agrícola, Camacha, Madeira, PORTUGAL e-mails: *[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] ABSTRACT Oceanic islands’ natural ecosystems worldwide are severely threatened by invasive species. Here we discuss the recent finding of three exotic drosophilids in Madeira archipelago -Acletoxenus formosus (Loew, 1864), Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura, 1931) and Zaprionus indianus (Gupta, 1970). Drosophila suzukii and Z. indianus are invasive species responsible for severe economic losses in fruit production worldwide and became the dominant drosophilids in several invaded areas menacing native species. We found that these exotic species are relatively widespread in Madeira but, at present, seem to be restricted to human disturbed environments. Finally, we stress the need to define a monitoring program in the short-term to determine population spread and environmental damages inflicted by the two invasive drosophilids, in order to implement a sustainable and effective control management strategy. Key words: Biological invasions, Drosophila suzukii, invasive species, island biodiversity, Madeira archipelago, Zaprionus indianus. INTRODUCTION Oceanic islands are known to contribute disproportionately to their area for Global biodiversity and by harbouring unique evolutionary lineages and emblematic plants and animals (Grant,1998; Whittaker and Fernández-Palácios, 2007). Nevertheless, many of these organisms are particularly vulnerable to human-mediated changes in their habitats due to their narrow range size, low abundance and habitat specificity (Paulay, 1994).
    [Show full text]
  • Whitefly by Officers of the Entomology Branch, Department of Agriculture Western Australia
    No. 05 April 2004 Whitefly By officers of the Entomology Branch, Department of Agriculture Western Australia 'Whiteflies' or 'snow flies' (Aleyrodidae) are tiny, sap- Which whiteflies occur in Western sucking insects often found on the underside of leaves. Australia? They are related to other sucking insects such as aphids, mealybugs and scale insects, and tend to fly when the Five important species of whitefly occur in Western plant is disturbed. Whitefly adults resemble small moths Australia, as listed in the table below. With the and the body and wings are covered in a powdery white exception of the citrus whitefly and the native strain of wax. Nymphs (or larvae) are a flattened oval shape, and Bemisia tabaci, which are native to Australia, all have look more like a scale insect. been introduced. Species such as the greenhouse and silverleaf whitefly cause significant damage to Damage commercial crops both here and overseas. Whiteflies produce a sticky substance known as Identification of whiteflies is extremely difficult since most honeydew, on which sooty mould can develop. Low whitefly adults appear similar in colour (most are white to off-white), size (1.5–2.5 mm) and shape (moth-like). numbers of whiteflies are not usually damaging and The pupal stage has most of the characteristics used to adults by themselves will not cause significant damage identify whiteflies and is the only stage from which an unless they are transmitting plant viruses. Virus accurate species identification can be made. symptoms include irregular ripening in tomatoes and blanching in carrots and broccoli. When present in large numbers, whitefly feeding can affect plant growth causing distortion, discoloration, yellowing or silvering of leaves.
    [Show full text]
  • Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States
    Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States September 1993 OTA-F-565 NTIS order #PB94-107679 GPO stock #052-003-01347-9 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States, OTA-F-565 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1993). For Sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office ii Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop, SSOP. Washington, DC 20402-9328 ISBN O-1 6-042075-X Foreword on-indigenous species (NIS)-----those species found beyond their natural ranges—are part and parcel of the U.S. landscape. Many are highly beneficial. Almost all U.S. crops and domesticated animals, many sport fish and aquiculture species, numerous horticultural plants, and most biologicalN control organisms have origins outside the country. A large number of NIS, however, cause significant economic, environmental, and health damage. These harmful species are the focus of this study. The total number of harmful NIS and their cumulative impacts are creating a growing burden for the country. We cannot completely stop the tide of new harmful introductions. Perfect screening, detection, and control are technically impossible and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, the Federal and State policies designed to protect us from the worst species are not safeguarding our national interests in important areas. These conclusions have a number of policy implications. First, the Nation has no real national policy on harmful introductions; the current system is piecemeal, lacking adequate rigor and comprehensiveness. Second, many Federal and State statutes, regulations, and programs are not keeping pace with new and spreading non-indigenous pests.
    [Show full text]
  • Identified Difficulties and Conditions for Field Success of Biocontrol
    Identified difficulties and conditions for field success of biocontrol. 4. Socio-economic aspects: market analysis and outlook Bernard Blum, Philippe C. Nicot, Jürgen Köhl, Michelina Ruocco To cite this version: Bernard Blum, Philippe C. Nicot, Jürgen Köhl, Michelina Ruocco. Identified difficulties and conditions for field success of biocontrol. 4. Socio-economic aspects: market analysis and outlook. Classical and augmentative biological control against diseases and pests: critical status analysis and review of factors influencing their success, IOBC - International Organisation for Biological and Integrated Controlof Noxious Animals and Plants, 2011, 978-92-9067-243-2. hal-02809583 HAL Id: hal-02809583 https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02809583 Submitted on 6 Jun 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. WPRS International Organisation for Biological and Integrated Control of Noxious IOBC Animals and Plants: West Palaearctic Regional Section SROP Organisation Internationale de Lutte Biologique et Integrée contre les Animaux et les OILB Plantes Nuisibles:
    [Show full text]
  • 1.6 Parasitoids of Giant Whitefly
    UC Riverside UC Riverside Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Life Histories and Host Interaction Dynamics of Parasitoids Used for Biological Control of Giant Whitefly (Aleurodicus dugesii) Cockerell (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8020w7rd Author Schoeller, Erich Nicholas Publication Date 2018 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE Life Histories and Host Interaction Dynamics of Parasitoids Used for Biological Control of Giant Whitefly (Aleurodicus dugesii) Cockerell (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Entomology by Erich Nicholas Schoeller March 2018 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Richard Redak, Chairperson Dr. Timothy Paine. Dr. Matthew Daugherty Copyright by Erich Nicholas Schoeller 2018 The Dissertation of Erich Nicholas Schoeller is approved: Committee Chairperson University of California, Riverside Acknowledgements This dissertation was made possible with the kind support and help of many individuals. I would like to thank my advisors Drs. Richard Redak, Timothy Paine, and Matthew Daugherty for their wisdom and guidance. Their insightful comments and questions helped me become a better scientist and facilitated the development of quality research. I would particularly like to thank Dr. Redak for his endless patience and unwavering support throughout my degree. I wish to also thank Tom Prentice and Rebeccah Waterworth for their support and companionship. Their presence in the Redak Lab made my time there much more enjoyable. I would like to thank all of the property owners who kindly allowed me to work on their lands over the years, as well as the many undergraduate interns who helped me collect and analyze data from the experiments in this dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Biosecurity Risk Assessment
    An Invasive Risk Assessment Framework for New Animal and Plant-based Production Industries RIRDC Publication No. 11/141 RIRDCInnovation for rural Australia An Invasive Risk Assessment Framework for New Animal and Plant-based Production Industries by Dr Robert C Keogh February 2012 RIRDC Publication No. 11/141 RIRDC Project No. PRJ-007347 © 2012 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-74254-320-8 ISSN 1440-6845 An Invasive Risk Assessment Framework for New Animal and Plant-based Production Industries Publication No. 11/141 Project No. PRJ-007347 The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances. While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct, the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication. The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors. The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Control of Ash Whitefly
    usually precipitate the quarantine and shipping restrictions associated with such insect pests as Mediterranean fruit fly. Furthermore, tools typically employed for early detection of low insect population densities, such as pheromone or bait traps, are not available for whiteflies, and newly introduced whiteflies are often wide- spread before they are discovered. Conse- quently, modern strategies for managing populations of exotic whitefly pests typi- cally center around biological control rather than eradication. The history of Siphoninus phillyreae (Haliday)in North America typifies many introduced whiteflies. Siphoninus phillyreae is an Old World species, reported in the Eastern Hemisphere from Morocco to In- dia, and from Ireland to Central Africa. Its discovery in California was the first re- corded in the Western Hemisphere. In the absence of effective natural enemies in California, this whitefly subsequently de- veloped extensive, damaging populations. Siphoninus phillyreae whitefly develops continuously, although more slowly dur- ing cooler (winter) temperatures, complet- ing several generations each year. In heavily infested areas populations rapidly occupy undersides of all leaves on suscep- tible trees. Nymphal populations on trees cause premature dehiscence of leaves and defoliation, severely reduce yield in fruit trees and, in some cases, cause the death of young pear trees following repeated defo- liation. Honeydew produced by whiteflies falls on sidewalks, lawns and automobiles, and is carried by air currents and foot traf- fic into homes, causing sticky furniture, draperies and carpets. It further serves as a medium for sooty molds, which discolor any surface affected by the honeydew, in- cluding fruit intended for market. Adult populations reach astounding levels, limit- ing outdoor activity in many areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Ash Whitefly, Siphoninus Phillyreae
    DACS-P-01744 Pest Alert created 15-September-2010 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry Charles H. Bronson, Commissioner of Agriculture Ash Whitefly, Siphoninus phillyreae (Haliday), a New Exotic Whitefly (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in Central Florida, and Encarsia inaron, its parasitoid (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) Ian C. Stocks, [email protected], Biological Scientist IV, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry Greg Hodges, [email protected], Bureau Chief - Entomology, Nematology and Plant Pathology, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry INTRODUCTION: In May 2010, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry (FDACS-DPI) staff were alerted to the possible presence of ash whitefly at Lake Buena Vista (Fig. 1). A subsequent inspection of containerized pomegranate trees (Punica granatum) revealed a moderate infestation of the ash whitefly on several trees. In early September 2010, DPI Entomologist Dr. Susan Halbert collected specimens from a pomegranate at a private residence in Panama City, Florida. This species had not previously been collected in Florida, although concern of its possible introduction and impact prompted DPI staff in 1990 to prepare an entomology circular (No. 337) and fact sheet (EENY-147) that presented photographs, a description and a discussion of its biology and potential agricultural and horticultural impact (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/IN/IN30400.pdf). Ash whitefly was first detected in the continental United States California in LosAngeles County, California, in 1988, and was later found in Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona. An extensive infestation of ash whitefly on Bradford pears (Pyrus calleryana) was found in Raleigh, North Carolina in 1993 (Hackney et al., 1997), and it has been reported from Texas, South Carolina and Georgia (McDonald et al., 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • EU Project Number 613678
    EU project number 613678 Strategies to develop effective, innovative and practical approaches to protect major European fruit crops from pests and pathogens Work package 1. Pathways of introduction of fruit pests and pathogens Deliverable 1.3. PART 7 - REPORT on Oranges and Mandarins – Fruit pathway and Alert List Partners involved: EPPO (Grousset F, Petter F, Suffert M) and JKI (Steffen K, Wilstermann A, Schrader G). This document should be cited as ‘Grousset F, Wistermann A, Steffen K, Petter F, Schrader G, Suffert M (2016) DROPSA Deliverable 1.3 Report for Oranges and Mandarins – Fruit pathway and Alert List’. An Excel file containing supporting information is available at https://upload.eppo.int/download/112o3f5b0c014 DROPSA is funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration (grant agreement no. 613678). www.dropsaproject.eu [email protected] DROPSA DELIVERABLE REPORT on ORANGES AND MANDARINS – Fruit pathway and Alert List 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Background on oranges and mandarins ..................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Data on production and trade of orange and mandarin fruit ........................................................................ 5 1.3 Characteristics of the pathway ‘orange and mandarin fruit’ .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Invasive Species
    This document contains chapters extracted from the Egyptian State of Environment Reports for 2007 and 2008 that deal specifically with biodiversity. The complete reports are available at: http://www.eeaa.gov.eg/English/info/report_search.asp Biodiversity Introduction: Biodiversity is the sphere of life on earth that encompasses ecosystems, natural habitats, fauna and flora, microbial species, and genetic resource. Biodiversity provides food, fuel, construction materials, waste purification and decomposition, climate regulation, alleviation of disasters, renewal of soil fertility, disease combating, keeping genetic resources (crops, breeds, animal wealth, medicine and other products). For that reason, biodiversity is the basis of life prosperity, the means of human lives and cultures, and by its conservation, we keep humanity, providing its treasures for the existing and future generations. The Arab Republic of Egypt has paid special attention in the last 2 decades for natural resources conservation issues, and has enacted legislation to conserve natural heritage with support of political leadership to assure integration of development sectors with environment protection, and conserving natural resources for the existing and future generations. The promulgation of law no 102 of 1983 on protected areas was in tandem with the declaration of Ras Mohamed, the first national park in Egypt, in south Sinai, followed by establishment of 27 protectorates all over Egypt covering 15% of Egypt's total area. Since 1980 until now, many skills and experiences have been gained to improve protected areas management and biodiversity conservation. The first phase, during eighties, was distinguished by comprehensive protection, while the second phase during nineties, was distinguished by conservation and sustainable development, and currently the main target is comprehensive ecosystem management which depends on applying integrated ecosystem for human being welfare, as well as achieving 2010 target (reducing the rate of biodiversity loss).
    [Show full text]
  • Pest List for the Importation of Fresh Commercial Citrus Fruit: Grapefruit (Citrus × Paradisi); Lime (C
    Pest List for the Importation of Fresh Commercial Citrus Fruit: Grapefruit (Citrus × paradisi); Lime (C. aurantiifolia); Mandarin Orange, Tangerine, or Hybrids (C. reticulata); Sweet Orange (C. sinensis); and Tangelo (C. × tangelo) from Peru into the Continental United States November 2, 2012 Version 1 Agency Contact: Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606 Ver. 1 (Original) November 2, 2012 i Executive Summary The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prepared this pest list to examine plant pest risks associated with importing commercially produced fresh Citrus fruit for consumption from all areas of Peru into the continental United States. This request (SENASA-Peru, 2011) is for the following species: grapefruit (Citrus × paradisi Macfad.); lime (C. aurantiifolia [Christm.] Swingle); mandarin orange, tangerine, or hybrids (C. reticulata Blanco); sweet orange (C. sinensis [L.] Osbeck); and tangelo (Citrus × tangelo J.W. Ingram & H.E. Moore) (Rutaceae). An earlier risk assessment was developed for exports of citrus from five production regions, and market access was established (USDA, 2003). Here, considering expansion of the export area from Peru to the entire country, we considered the pathway to include the following processes and conditions: phytosanitary
    [Show full text]
  • Biocontrol of the Pomegranate Whitefly, Siphoninus Phillyreae (Hemiptera
    Egypt. J. Plant Prot. Res. Inst. (2018), 1(1): 51-57 Egyptian Journal of Plant Protection Research Institute www.ejppri.eg.net Biocontrol of the pomegranate whitefly, Siphoninus phillyreae (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) by augmentation, releasing and evaluation of Eretmocerus parasiphonini (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) in Egypt Shaaban Abd-Rabou Scale insects and mealybugs Research Department , Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center , Egypt ARTICLE INFO Abstract: Article History The pomegranate whitefly, Siphoninus phillyreae Received: 15/3/2018 (Haliday) (Hemiptera : Aleyrodidae) is one of the most Accepted: 1/7/2018 important pests infested pomegranate in Egypt. The aim of this ________________ work was to evaluate the biological control potential of the Keywords parasitoid, Eretmocerus parasiphonini Evans and Abd-Rabou Parasitic hymenoptera, (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) against the pomegranate whitefly, pomegranate whitefly, Siphoninus phillyreae (Haliday) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) on biological control and pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) by mass rearing and Eretmocerus augmentative releases of this parasitoid during 2011-2014 in parasiphonini. Egypt. This parasitoid species were mass reared and monthly releases were made in the fields of pomegranate during each of three consecutive years (2011-2014). About 142578 E. parasiphonini individuals were released in fields in Assuit, Daqahylia and Giza governorates in Egypt on pomegranate which were naturally infested by S. phillyreae. Populations of the parasitoid and parasitism were much higher in field plots where releases were made as compared with where no releases were made. The maximum rate of parasitism reached 48.9, 42.1 and 46.7 % in Assuit, Daqahylia and Giza governorates, respectively in the field treatment where releases were made, while parasitism peaked at 2.6, 4.6 and 2.5% in Assuit, Daqahylia and Giza governorates, respectively where no releases were made.
    [Show full text]