Final Import Risk Analysis Report for Fresh Unshu Mandarin Fruit from Shizuoka Prefecture in Japan



Yüklə 2.54 Mb.
səhifə20/29
tarix21.08.2017
ölçüsü2.54 Mb.
1   ...   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   ...   29

Thysanoptera (thrips)

Chaetanaphothrips orchidii

[Thripidae]



Citrus rust thrips

Feasible

Polyphagous species (Childers and Nakahara 2006) which is already established in Australia (Smith et al., 1997).

Significant

Considered a pest of economic importance for citrus in Florida (Childers and Nakahara 2006). Damage to citrus rind may affect marketability. Is a significant pest of Anthurium spp. damaging unopened buds and affecting marketability (CAB International 2007).

Yes

(WA)


Frankliniella intonsa

[Thripidae]



Intonsa flower thrips

Feasible

Host range includes capsicum, tomato, cotton, rice and peach (CAB International 2007). High reproductive rate - there are up to 22 generations per year, with females each laying up to 76 eggs each (Tang 1976).

Significant

Causes a medium level of damage on citrus in Korea, and control measures are considered necessary. Frankliniella intonsa is associated with economic damage of several crop species: asparagus, chrysanthemum, okra, tomatoes and peas. As part of a pest complex, F. intonsa has been associated with economic damage to strawberries in Italy and the UK, lucerne in former Czechoslovakia and nectarines in Greece (CAB International 2007).

Yes

Frankliniella occidentalis

[Thripidae]



Western flower thrips

Feasible

Very wide host range including citrus, cucurbits, strawberry, apple, wheat and grapevine (CAB International 2004).

High reproductive rate (Katayama 1997), with more than one generation per year (McDonald et al. 1998).

Adults are capable of flight (Pearsall 2002).


Significant

Frankliniella occidentalis is a pest of several economically important crop species (Lewis 1997; CAB International 2004). It is also a vector of plant viruses (Lewis 1997; Inoue et al. 2004)

Yes

(NT, Tas.)



Thrips palmi

[Thripidae]



Melon thrips

Feasible

Main hosts are plants in the Cucurbitaceae and Solanaceae families (CAB International 2007). Short lifecycle of about 18 days and high fecundity of up to 200 eggs per female (Wang et al. 1989).

Significant

It is a major pest of cucurbits and solanaceous pests in many tropical regions (CAB International 2007).

Yes (NT, SA, Tas., WA)

PATHOGENS

BACTERIA

Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri

Asiatic citrus canker

Feasible

Narrow host range (Schubert et al. 2001). May be spread by rain splash and contaminated harvesting tools.

Significant

Can cause defoliation and premature fruit-drop. Infected fruit can carry visible canker lesions with significant consequences for fruit marketing (Schubert et al. 2001). Economic damage to the local citrus industry could be substantial as a result of reductions in the amount of marketable fruit.

Yes

FUNGI

Alternaria pellucida

Alternaria leaf spot

Feasible

Fugus can be associated with waste fruit or rind discarded to waste. It produces conidia (CABI Bioscience 2008) that can be wind dispersed.

Not significant

No – Although the fungus has been found on Japanese unshu mandarin fruit (ATCC 2008; Farr et al. 2008; CABI Bioscience 2008) its single isolation occurred in 1968. There have been no other reports including any damage or rot in fruit during the last 40 years, indicating it is of no economic significance.

No

Capnodium citri

Sooty mould

Feasible

Fungus is present superficially on the fruit rind discarded to waste and spores and mycelial fragments are windborne (Baker et al. 2008).

Not significant

Sooty mould fungi are not parasitic and only grow superficially on plant surfaces. They only lessen the aesthetic value of plant parts occasionally, or when on leaves slightly lower the vigor of plants by blocking sunlight essential for photosynthesis (Baker et al. 2008). USA considers sooty mould fungi not recorded in that country as non-actionable (USDA 1995).

No

Chaetoscorias vulgaris

Sooty mould

Feasible

Fungus is present superficially on the fruit rind discarded to waste and spores and mycelial fragments are windborne (Baker et al. 2008).

Not significant

Sooty mould fungi are not parasitic and only grow superficially on plant surfaces. They only lessen the aesthetic value of plant parts occasionally, or when on leaves slightly lower the vigor of plants by blocking sunlight essential for photosynthesis (Baker et al. 2008). USA considers sooty mould fungi not recorded in that country as non-actionable (USDA 1995).

No

Chaetothyrium javanicum

Sooty mould

Feasible

Fungus is present superficially on the fruit rind discarded to waste and spores and mycelial fragments are windborne (Baker et al. 2008).

Not significant

Sooty mould fungi are not parasitic and only grow superficially on plant surfaces. They only lessen the aesthetic value of plant parts occasionally, or when on leaves slightly lower the vigor of plants by blocking sunlight essential for photosynthesis (Baker et al. 2008). USA considers sooty mould fungi not recorded in that country as non-actionable (USDA 1995).

No

Corticium koleroga

Thread blight

Feasible

Coffee is the main host of this fungus (Segura et al. 2004). Host range in Mexico also includes apple trees (Jimenez-Fonseca and Mendoza-Zamora 1990) and pear trees (Chavez-Alfaro et al. 1995). Citrus species are hosts in the USA, some South American and Caribbean countries (Farr et al. 2008).

Not significant

On citrus, this fungus is seldom severe enough to require treatment and it is controlled with copper fungicides (Timmer 2000b). Copper fungicides are applied throughout the growing season in unshu production in Japan.

No

Diaporthe medusaea

Gummosis

    Feasible

This pathogen already occurs in the eastern states of Australia on Erigeron (Asteraceae) (APPD 2007).

Not significant

There is limited information regarding this fungus on citrus in Japan (MAFF 1990), indicating that it is of minor importance. In Japan, this fungus is recorded as being less pathogenic on citrus than Diaporthe citri (Yamato 1977). While present in eastern Australia, it has not been recorded on Citrus spp. in Australia. Sporulation of this fungus occurs on dead plant material (Yamato 1976; JCACF 2002).

No

Guignardia citricarpa

Citrus black spot

Not feasible

This fungus is of subtropical distribution (Miles et al. 2004). The climate in SA is not suitable for the survival and therefore establishment of this fungus in SA (Paul et al. 2004).







No

Hypocapnodium japonicum

Sooty mould

Feasible

Fungus is present superficially on the fruit rind discarded to waste and spores and mycelial fragments are windborne (Baker et al. 2008).

Not significant

Sooty mould fungi are not parasitic and only grow superficially on plant surfaces. They only lessen the aesthetic value of plant parts occasionally, or when on leaves slightly lower the vigor of plants by blocking sunlight essential for photosynthesis (Baker et al. 2008). USA considers sooty mould fungi not recorded in that country as non-actionable (USDA 1995).

No

Leptoxyhium axillatum

Sooty mould

Feasible

Fungus is a typical component of sooty moulds on a wide range of host. It produces conidia that can be wind dispersed (Rodriguez et al. 2002).

Not significant

No – Although this fungus is associated with Citrus sp., it grows on honey dew of scale insects and is not considered a real disease of plants (Rodriguez et al. 2002).

No

Limacinia harae

Sooty mould

Feasible

Fungus is present superficially on the fruit rind discarded to waste and spores and mycelial fragments are windborne (Baker et al. 2008).

Not significant

Sooty mould fungi are not parasitic and only grow superficially on plant surfaces. They only lessen the aesthetic value of plant parts occasionally, or when on leaves slightly lower the vigor of plants by blocking sunlight essential for photosynthesis (Baker et al. 2008). USA considers sooty mould fungi not recorded in that country as non-actionable (USDA 1995).

No

Meliola butleri

Sooty mould

Feasible

Fungus is present superficially on the fruit rind discarded to waste and spores and mycelial fragments are windborne (Baker et al. 2008).

Not significant

Sooty mould fungi are not parasitic and only grow superficially on plant surfaces. They only lessen the aesthetic value of plant parts occasionally, or when on leaves slightly lower the vigor of plants by blocking sunlight essential for photosynthesis (Baker et al. 2008). USA considers sooty mould fungi not recorded in that country as non-actionable (USDA 1995).

No

Neocapnodium tanakae

Sooty mould

Feasible

Fungus is present superficially on the fruit rind discarded to waste and spores and mycelial fragments are windborne (Baker et al. 2008).

Not significant

Sooty mould fungi are not parasitic and only grow superficially on plant surfaces. They only lessen the aesthetic value of plant parts occasionally, or when on leaves slightly lower the vigor of plants by blocking sunlight essential for photosynthesis (Baker et al. 2008). USA considers sooty mould fungi not recorded in that country as non-actionable (USDA 1995).

No

Penicillium fructigenum

Fruit rot

Feasible

Infected fruit can be discarded into waste in Australia and Penicillium species produce large amounts of conidia dispersed in air (Agrios 2005).

Not significant

This pathogen is considered non-actionable in USA in spite of not being reported in that country (USDA 1995).

No

Scorias citrina

Sooty mould

Feasible

Fungus is present superficially on the fruit rind discarded to waste and spores and mycelial fragments are windborne (Baker et al. 2008).

Not significant

Sooty mould fungi are not parasitic and only grow superficially on plant surfaces. They only lessen the aesthetic value of plant parts occasionally, or when on leaves slightly lower the vigor of plants by blocking sunlight essential for photosynthesis (Baker et al. 2008). USA considers sooty mould fungi not recorded in that country as non-actionable (USDA 1995).

No

Sphaceloma fawcettii

Citrus scab

Feasible

Attacks several varieties of citrus (Timmer 2000a). Leaves are most susceptible to infection just as they emerge from the bud, and they become immune before reaching full size. Fruit remain susceptible to infection for about three months after petal fall (Whiteside 1988).

Significant

Shoot infection can be severe enough to cause stunting of susceptible rootstock seedlings in nurseries and seedbeds. Infection of actively emerging shoot apices causes much distortion of shoots and leaves. Infection of very young fruit produces warty outgrowths on the rind (Timmer 2000a).

Heavily infected fruit may drop, and those remaining on the tree may be scarred and distorted to such a degree that they become unmarketable as fresh fruit (Knorr 1973).



Yes

Triposporiopsis spinigera

Sooty mould

Feasible

Fungus is present superficially on the fruit rind discarded to waste and spores and mycelial fragments are windborne (Baker et al. 2008).

Not significant

Sooty mould fungi are not parasitic and only grow superficially on plant surfaces. They only lessen the aesthetic value of plant parts occasionally, or when on leaves slightly lower the vigor of plants by blocking sunlight essential for photosynthesis (Baker et al. 2008). USA considers sooty mould fungi not recorded in that country as non-actionable (USDA 1995).

No

Viruses

Citrus leaf rugose virus

Citrus leaf rugose

Not feasible

Virus transmitted by grafting and mechanical inoculation (Brunt et al. 1996). Brunt et al. (1996) speculate that it is possibly seed transmitted but there is no supporting evidence. Also, although the virus is found in Australia except in Western Australia, there is no evidence of spread (Brunt et al. 1996). Unshu mandarins are seedless (Chapter 3). Therefore, establishment from imported fruit is unlikely.







No

Citrus psorosis virus

Psorosis complex

Not feasible

Graft-transmitted disease (Derrick and Barthe 2000). Seed and insect vectors failed to transmit the virus (Thind et al. 1999)

Establishment of a graft-transmissible disease from imported fruit is unlikely.









No

Apple stem grooving virus

Tatter leaf and citrange stunt

Not feasible

The virus is graft-transmitted (MAFF 1990; Miyakawa and Ito 2000), and establishment in Australia through imported fruit is unlikely.







No

Citrus tristeza virus

Citrus quick decline

Not feasible

Disease is aphid and graft -transmitted (Brunt et al. 1996; Lee and Bar-Joseph 2000). Establishment in Australia through imported fruit is unlikely. Long distance spread between countries is by movement of infected budwood. The virus is transmitted in a non-persistent manner by its aphid vectors. Association of aphids with export fruit is unlikely. Virus is not transmitted by seed (Brunt et al. 1996). Unshu mandarins are seedless (Chapter 3).







No

Citrus enation – woody gall virus

Vein enation

Not feasible

Transmitted by insect vectors and grafting (Brunt et al. 1996), and therefore establishment through imported fruit is unlikely.







No

Citrus yellow mottle associated virus

Citrus yellow mottle disease

Not feasible

Graft transmissible agent (Garnsey 2000), so establishment through imported fruit is unlikely.







No

Satsuma dwarf virus

(Citrus mosaic virus, natsudaidai dwarf virus, navel orange infectious mottling virus).



Satsuma dwarf

Not feasible

Graft-transmitted (Iwanami and Koizumi 2000), so establishment in Australia through imported fruit is unlikely. Seed transmission was reported in bush bean but not observed in other other hosts. Natural spread through an unknown soilborne vector has been observed in Japan but entry of soil with imported fruit is unlikely. Hence, establishment through imported fruit is not possible.







No

Viroids

Citrus bent leaf viroid




Not feasible

No – Graft transmissible (Ashulin et al. 1991). Establishment through imported fruit is unlikely.







No

Citrus exocortis viroid

Exocortis

Not feasible

No – Graft transmissible; not vector or seed transmission; dissemination occurs principally through propagation of symptomless infected budwood (Duran-Vila et al. 2000b). Establishment through imported fruit is unlikely.







No

Citrus viroid III




Not feasible

No – Graft transmissible (Najar and Duran-Vila 2004). Establishment through imported fruit is unlikely.







No

Citrus viroid IV




Not feasible

No – Graft transmissible (Najar and Duran-Vila 2004). Establishment through imported fruit is unlikely.







No

Citrus viroid original source




Not feasible

No – Graft transmissible (Vernière et al. 2004). Establishment through imported fruit is unlikely.







No

Hop stunt viroid

Cachexia

Not feasible

No – Graft transmissible (Duran-Vila et al. 2000a). Establishment through imported fruit is unlikely.







No
1   ...   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   ...   29


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©azkurs.org 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə