Pest risk assessment - Department of Agriculture and Food

Department of Agriculture and Food,
Western Australia
Draft Policy Review:
Fresh table grape bunches (Vitis spp.) imported into Western
Australia from other states and territories
Supporting your success
Draft Policy Review
Contributing authors
Bennington JMA
Research Officer - Biosecurity and Regulation, Plant Biosecurity
Hammond NE
Research Officer - Biosecurity and Regulation, Plant Biosecurity
Hooper RG
Research Officer - Biosecurity and Regulation, Plant Biosecurity
Jackson SL
Research Officer - Biosecurity and Regulation, Plant Biosecurity
Poole MC
Research Officer - Biosecurity and Regulation, Plant Biosecurity
Tuten SJ
Senior Policy Officer - Biosecurity and Regulation, Plant Biosecurity
Wood CE
Technical Officer - Biosecurity and Regulation, Plant Biosecurity
Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, February 2016
Document citation
DAFWA 2016, Draft policy review: Fresh table grape bunches (Vitis spp.) imported into
Western Australia from other states and territories. Department of Agriculture and Food,
Western Australia (DAFWA), South Perth
Copyright© Western Australian Agriculture Authority, 2016
Western Australian Government materials, including website pages, documents and online
graphics, audio and video are protected by copyright law. Copyright of materials created by
or for the Department of Agriculture and Food resides with the Western Australian Agriculture
Authority established under the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007. Apart
from any fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review, as
permitted under the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced or
reused for any commercial purposes whatsoever without prior written permission of the
Western Australian Agriculture Authority.
For further information or additional copies of this document, please contact:
Marc Poole
Plant Biosecurity
Biosecurity and Regulation
Department of Agriculture and Food
3 Baron-Hay Court
South Perth WA 6151
Telephone: +61 8 9368 3224
Email: plantbiosecuritypolicy@agric.wa.gov.au
Post: Locked Bag 4 Bentley Delivery Centre WA 6983
Important disclaimer
The Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture and Food and the State of
Western Australia accept no liability whatsoever by reason of negligence or otherwise arising
from the use or release of this information or any part of it.
Accessibility–screen readers
To enhance your experience, we suggest turning off spelling error notification as there are
scientific, agricultural and departmental terms that may not be found in your local computer’s
dictionary.
Draft Policy Review
Contents
Summary............................................................................................................................... vi
Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Biosecurity policy framework .................................................................................................. 2
Consultation........................................................................................................................ 5
Australian grape production.................................................................................................... 6
Western Australia ............................................................................................................... 8
Queensland ...................................................................................................................... 18
New South Wales ............................................................................................................. 18
Victoria ............................................................................................................................. 19
Tasmania .......................................................................................................................... 19
South Australia ................................................................................................................. 19
Northern Territory ............................................................................................................. 19
The PRA structure ................................................................................................................ 21
Stage one: Initiation.............................................................................................................. 22
Pest categorisation ........................................................................................................... 24
Stage two: Pest risk assessments ........................................................................................ 27
Citrophilus mealybug ........................................................................................................ 27
Citrus planthopper ............................................................................................................ 38
European fruit lecanium scale ........................................................................................... 48
European wasp ................................................................................................................. 53
Flat grain beetle ................................................................................................................ 64
Grape phylloxera .............................................................................................................. 67
Kanzawa spider mite ........................................................................................................ 80
Metallic shield bug ............................................................................................................ 84
Native tussock moth ......................................................................................................... 92
Peach white scale ........................................................................................................... 101
Queensland fruit fly ......................................................................................................... 106
Spanish red scale ........................................................................................................... 117
Warehouse beetle........................................................................................................... 122
Bitter rot .......................................................................................................................... 126
Botryosphaeria canker (species not present in WA) ........................................................ 139
Citrus exocortis viroid ..................................................................................................... 155
Grapevine fanleaf virus ................................................................................................... 168
Grapevine yellow speckle viroid 1, 2 ............................................................................... 181
Hop stunt viroid ............................................................................................................... 194
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola .................................................................... 209
Phomopsis cane and leaf spot ........................................................................................ 223
Sooty mould.................................................................................................................... 237
White rot ......................................................................................................................... 249
Pest risk assessment conclusions .................................................................................. 262
Stage three - Pest risk management .................................................................................. 264
Available risk management options ................................................................................ 265
Proposed conditions for table grapes imported into Western Australia............................ 271
References ......................................................................................................................... 281
iii
Draft Policy Review
Appendices
Appendix A Methodology.................................................................................................... 314
Appendix B Australian climate zones ................................................................................. 335
Appendix C Recorded host plants of citrophilus mealybug ................................................. 338
Appendix D Recorded host plants of Queensland fruit fly ................................................... 345
Appendix E Recorded host plants of European fruit lecanium scale ................................... 363
Appendix F Recorded host plants of kanzawa spider mite.................................................. 375
Appendix G Recorded host plants of peach white scale ..................................................... 387
Appendix H Recorded host plants of Spanish white scale .................................................. 412
Appendix I Comparison of climatic similarities within the Western Australian
viticulture regions to Australian and world locations of Greenaria uvicola ........................... 432
Appendix J Comparison of climatic similarities within the Western Australian
viticulture regions to Australian locations of Phomopsis viticola .......................................... 435
iv
Draft Policy Review
Tables
Table 1: Australian table grapes–varieties and seasonality (ATGA 2012a) ............................. 7
Table 2: Seasonal availability of the main table grape varieties for Western Australia ............ 8
Table 3 Regional quarantine pest invertebrates associated with imported table
grapes .................................................................................................................................. 25
Table 4: Regional quarantine pest pathogens associated with the table grape
pathway................................................................................................................................ 26
Table 5: Economic consequences of citrophilus mealybug ................................................... 35
Table 6: Economic consequences of citrus planthopper ....................................................... 45
Table 7: Economic consequences of European wasp .......................................................... 61
Table 8: Movement of table grapes out of a Phylloxera Infested Zone ................................. 69
Table 9: Economic consequences of grape phylloxera ......................................................... 76
Table 10: Economic consequences of metallic shield bug .................................................... 90
Table 11: Economic consequences of native tussock moth .................................................. 98
Table 12: Economic consequences of Queensland fruit fly................................................. 113
Table 13: Economic consequences of bitter rot .................................................................. 135
Table 14: Economic consequences of Botryosphaeria canker ............................................ 152
Table 15: Economic consequences of citrus exocortis viroid .............................................. 165
Table 16: Economic consequences of grapevine fanleaf virus ........................................... 178
Table 17: Economic consequences of grapevine yellow speckle viroid 1, 2 ....................... 191
Table 18: Economic consequences of hop stunt viroid ....................................................... 206
Table 19: Economic consequences of Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola ............ 219
Table 20: Economic consequences of Phomopsis cane and leaf spot ................................ 233
Table 21: Economic consequences of sooty mould ............................................................ 246
Table 22: Economic consequences of white rot of grapes .................................................. 258
Table 23: Summary of unrestricted risk estimates for invertebrates of quarantine
concern .............................................................................................................................. 262
Table 24: Summary of unrestricted risk estimates for pathogens of quarantine
concern .............................................................................................................................. 263
Table 25: Restricted risk assessment summary for Queensland fruit fly ............................. 278
Table 26: Restricted risk assessment summary for bitter rot .............................................. 279
Table 27: Restricted risk assessment summary for Phomopsis cane and leaf spot ............ 280
Table A1: Generic nomenclature for qualitative likelihoods................................................. 318
Table A2: Combination of likelihoods (matrix of rules) ........................................................ 319
Table A3: PRA definition of geographic areas .................................................................... 325
Table A4: Qualitative assessment score matrix for consequences criterion ........................ 327
Table A5: Rules for determining the overall consequence rating for each pest ................... 328
Table A6: Risk estimation matrix ........................................................................................ 329
Table A7: State pest risk analysis generic communications plan ........................................ 334
Table I1: Some reported Australian and world locations for Greenaria uvicola ................... 432
Table J1: Reported Australian locations for Phomopsis viticola .......................................... 435
v
Draft Policy Review
Summary
The Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia (department) has
prepared this draft report to assess the request for market access to import fresh
table grape bunches into Western Australia from other states and territories. A formal
pest risk analysis (PRA) is required to determine if fresh table grape bunches from
other states and territories can be imported into Western Australia without exposing
the state to an unacceptable level of biosecurity risk.
Grape (Vitis spp.) fruit, seed and plant material had been prohibited entry into
Western Australia from all sources for many years until 2013, when the decision to
issue an import permit for fresh table grape bunches from California, USA was made.
The PRA for fresh table grape bunches imported into Western Australia from other
states and territories commenced with a pest categorisation process that identified
quarantine pests of concern to Western Australia. The pest categorisation process
identified 13 invertebrate and 20 pathogen taxa that met the International Plant
Protection Convention (IPPC) definition for a quarantine pest and were associated
with the pathway.
The draft PRA (this document) has evaluated the quarantine pests associated with
the importation of fresh table grape bunches into Western Australia and assessed
their unrestricted risk. Where the unrestricted risk estimate (URE) has been found to
exceed the appropriate level of protection (ALOP) for Western Australia, risk
management measures are proposed to reduce them to that level.
The draft PRA determined that the URE associated with Queensland fruit fly, bitter
rot and, Phomopsis cane and leaf spot exceeds the ALOP for Western Australia. The
unrestricted risk estimate for these pests justifies the application of phytosanitary
measures to provide an appropriate level of protection for Western Australia while
minimising any impediments to the trade in fresh table grape bunches. The proposed
specific requirements for Queensland fruit fly, bitter rot and Phomopsis cane and leaf
spot are summarised below:
Queensland fruit fly







state/territory area freedom
within state/territory area freedom
pest free places of production
pre-shipment cold treatment
pre-shipment irradiation treatment
systems approach
methyl bromide fumigation
Bitter rot




state/territory area freedom
within state/territory area freedom
pest free places of production
systems approach
Phomopsis cane and leaf spot




state/territory area freedom
within state/territory area freedom
pest free places of production
systems approach
vi
Draft Policy Review
The draft PRA including the recommendations for phytosanitary measures will be
released for stakeholder consultation. Stakeholder submissions will then be reviewed
by the department in the context of consistency with accepted practices, technical
justification and national obligations. Should any new or important information come
to light that may have a significant effect on the analysis, this information will be
incorporated into the final document. The final document will be made available to
stakeholders.
vii
Draft Policy Review
Scope
The scope of this pest risk analysis (PRA) is to consider the quarantine risks
associated with the importation of commercially produced fresh table grape bunches
(Vitis vinifera) (hereafter referred to as table grapes) into Western Australia for
human consumption that have been grown and packed in other Australian states and
territories.
1
Draft Policy Review
Biosecurity policy framework
The Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia (the department) has
biosecurity policies targeted to facilitate safe trade, tourism and commodity
movement whilst reducing exposure of the state’s agricultural and environmental
resources to regional quarantine plant and animal pests, diseases and weeds
The department complies with international and national agreements and standards,
including the requirement to consider market access requests and ensure entry
conditions are scientifically and technically justifiable wherever possible.
In response to the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding on Animal and Plant
Quarantine Measures, the department adopted a formal risk analysis process for
developing and reviewing quarantine polices in relation to the trade of plants and
their products into the state.
This risk analysis process enables the department to formally consider the
phytosanitary risks associated with requests to import plant products into the state. If
these risks are found to exceed Western Australia’s appropriate level of protection
(ALOP), risk management measures are proposed to reduce the risks to an
acceptable level. Western Australia's ALOP provides a high level of protection aimed
at reducing risk to a very low level, but not to zero. Zero risk is neither reasonable,
nor an achievable option. However, if it is not possible to reduce the risks to an
acceptable level, trade will not be allowed.
The department’s approach to risk management is in accordance with Western
Australia’s obligations under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity (IGAB)
and consistent with the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on the Application of
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement). This Agreement—to which
Australia is a signatory—establishes the rules governing the development, adoption
and enforcement of entry requirements for imported produce.
2
Draft Policy Review
International policy
The Australian Government is responsible for regulating the movement of plants and
plant products into and out of Australia. Once plant and plant products have been
cleared by Australian biosecurity officers, they may be subject to interstate
requirements.
Table grapes from some international trading partners are permitted entry into other
Australian states and territories subject to conditions. Import policies exist for table
grapes imported from the United States of America (California) (DAFF 2013), Chile
(Biosecurity Australia 2005), China (Biosecurity Australia 2011a), Japan (Australian
Department of Agriculture 2014), Korea (Biosecurity Australia 2011b) and New
Zealand (Australian Department of Agriculture 2015a).
The Australian Department of Agriculture is currently conducting policy reviews for
the import of table grapes from India (initiated November 2010) and Sonora, Mexico
(initiated June 2014).
On July 2013 the Australian Department of Agriculture released the Final nonregulated analysis of existing policy for Californian table grapes to Western Australia
(DAFF 2013). The department amended its import requirements to enable the entry
of Californian table grapes into the state. This was the first time table grapes were
allowed entry into Western Australia since prohibition in 1881 under the Destructive
Insects and Substances Act 1880. Grapes were originally restricted entry due to the
presence of grape phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae) in Victoria, discovered in the
mid-1870s ('Occasional notes' 1881)
Interstate policy
State and territory governments are responsible for plant health controls within their
individual jurisdictions. Legislation relating to resource management or plant health
may be used by state and territory government agencies to control interstate
movement of plants and their products.
The legislation underpinning plant biosecurity in Western Australia is the Biosecurity
and Agriculture Management Act 2007 (BAM Act).
In Western Australia, grape (Vitis spp.) fruit, seed, plant material, and machinery
used in the growing or processing of grapes, are prescribed potential carriers under
the BAM Act, and are restricted entry into the state from other Australian states and
territories:
-
the entry of table grapes and grape seeds are subject to an import permit;
grape plants, cuttings/budwood and machinery require Director General
approval (includes post-entry quarantine) and an import permit; and
tissue culture requires Director General approval.
Intrastate policy
There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western Australia.
However, Western Australia does have maturity standards in place for table grapes.
These standards aim to eliminate sour grapes being presented for sale to ensure
consumer satisfaction and encourage repeat sales. Maturity standards are set under
3
Draft Policy Review
regulation 46 of the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management (Agriculture Standards)
Regulations 2013.
The minimum maturity standards are set for each variety depending upon seasonal
conditions. The Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food, Western
Australia approves the minimum standard of maturity for each variety of table grapes
for the 12 month period commencing on 1 September of that year. The Director
General notifies the Table Grape Producers’ Committee established under the
Agricultural Produce Commission Act 1988 of those minimum standards.
The sale of immature table grapes for consumption as fresh fruit is prohibited under
regulation 47 of the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management (Agriculture Standards)
Regulations 2013.
4
Draft Policy Review
Consultation
On 15 September 2011, the department wrote to registered stakeholders announcing
the formal commencement of a PRA for the import of table grapes into Western
Australia from other Australian states and territories.
On 19 December 2014 the department made available on its website, Australian
state and territory government departments and registered stakeholders, a draft pest
categorisation for advance consideration of quarantine pests, prior to the formal
release of the draft report.
The draft PRA, including recommendations pertaining to the import of table grapes,
will be released for stakeholder consultation. This will provide the opportunity for
stakeholders to comment and draw attention to any scientific, technical, or other gaps
in the data, misinterpretations and errors.
Stakeholder submissions will be reviewed by the department in the context of
consistency with accepted practices, technical justification and national obligations.
Should any new or important information come to light that may have a significant
effect on the analysis, this information will be incorporated into the final document.
The final document will be circulated to stakeholders.
5
Draft Policy Review
Australian grape production
The geographical expanse of table grape production areas across Australia allows
table grapes to be available for six to seven months of the year. The season starts in
November, peaking in February/March and closes in May. Early season table grapes
are produced in the Northern Territory, Queensland and New South Wales, and late
season grapes in Victoria. Western Australia produces table grapes for the majority
of the year, from Carnarvon in the north to Busselton in the south (ATGA 2012b). In
2013/14, 82% of Australian households purchased grapes at least once. The
average Australian household spent about $28 on grapes across eight occasions in
the year (HAL 2014).
The major table grape varieties grown in Australia are Menindee Seedless, Flame
Seedless, Thompson Seedless, Red Globe and Crimson Seedless (Table 1).
Table grapes are either trimmed and packed in the field, or picked into tubs and
transported to a packing shed for trimming and packing. Grapes are packed as a
loose bulk pack or into individual bunch bags then placed into cartons. Once the
grapes are packed they are cooled as quickly as possible to <5oC at 85–95% relative
humidity to ensure freshness of the berries and bunch stems.
Table grapes held in cool storage for longer than 7 days require a sulphur dioxide
(SO2) generator pad placed inside a polyethylene liner, which protect the grapes from
fungal infections. Once the grapes are cooled SO2 generator pads are added and the
poly liner closed and sealed. Cartons are then stacked onto pallets and placed in a
holding room at 0–2oC ready for transport.
For optimum shelf life, cartons of table grapes containing SO2 pads inside
polyethylene liners should be transported at 0oC, otherwise at a maximum of 10oC
(Hannah & Pitt 2006).
6
Draft Policy Review
Table 1: Australian table grapes–varieties and seasonality (ATGA 2012a)
Variety
Green Grapes — Seedless
Dawn Seedless (WA only)
Menindee Seedless
Thompson Seedless
Green Grapes — Seeded
Calmeria
Golden Globe
O'Hanez
Red Grapes — Seedless
Crimpson Seedless
Flame Seedless
Ralli Seedless
Ruby Seedless
Red Grapes — Seeded
Cardinal
Red Emperor
Red Globe
Blue/ Black Grapes — Seeded & Seedless
Autumn Royal
Black Muscat
Purple Cornichon
Ribier
Midnight Beauty
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
—
—
—
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
—
—
—
—
—
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
not avail abl e
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
not avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
not avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
—
—
—
—
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
avail abl e
—
—
not avail abl e
7
Draft Policy Review
Western Australia
Wines of Western Australia prepare an Environmental Management Guidelines for
Vineyards report that is reviewed every five years (Winewatch 2011). The report
provides guidance to industry on the best management practices for viticulture in
Western Australia.
The department publishes a Viticulture Spray Guide for Western Australia that is
produced every two years and is available at the beginning of the growing season.
The report provides information on the management of pest and diseases in wine
and table grape vineyards in Western Australia. Copies are available on request at
agric.wa.gov.au/table-grapes/viticulture-spray-guide-western-australia-201314.
Table grapes
Over 30 table grape varieties are grown in Western Australia, however four varieties
dominate new plantings—Flame Seedless, Dawn Seedless, Red Globe and Crimson
Seedless.
New generation varieties such as Autumn Crisp, Adora Seedless, Sweet Celebration
and Jacks Salute are currently being planted in Western Australia, with small
volumes of fruit available to consumers. These and other new varieties will form the
basis of production for Western Australia in the future.
Fresh table grapes are available from November to April, with cool storage
technologies extending supply a further six to twelve weeks depending on variety
(Table 2).
Table 2: Seasonal availability of the main table grape varieties for Western Australia
Variety
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Flame Seedless
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
Dawn Seedless
not avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e c ool store
avail abl e c ool store
avail abl e c ool store
avail abl e c ool store
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
Redglobe
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e c ool store
avail abl e c ool store
avail abl e c ool store
avail abl e c ool store
avail abl e c ool store
avail abl e c ool store
not avail abl e
Crimson Seedless
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
not avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e
avail abl e c ool store
avail abl e c ool store
avail abl e c ool store
avail abl e c ool store
avail abl e c ool store
avail abl e c ool store
—
available cool store
cool storage
— — — — —
Grapevine cuttings
Western Australia exports dormant grapevine cuttings. In the period 2007–2009
approximately 16 000 cuttings were exported to India and 10 000 cuttings to
Indonesia by one company alone. Additional cuttings may have been exported to
these and other international trading partners (C Harding 2012, pers. comm. 3
September).
Wine grapes
The wine industry is a significant contributor to the Western Australian economy. It is
the highest value-adding horticulture industry in the state, with a ten-fold increase
from the farmgate value of harvested wine grapes to the final sale value of bottled
wine. The value of horticulture on average increases three times from farm to
consumer (Radhakrishnan 2012).
8
Draft Policy Review
In 2010, the value of the wine industry was estimated at $684 million, and was
projected to grow to $795 million by 2015. The industry is highly reliant on the
domestic market, with 48% of the total value generated from wine sales in Western
Australia and 40% from eastern Australia. International exports accounted for 12% of
the total value. The Western Australian wine industry is renowned for its high value
production, supported by the unit value of export at $5.43 per litre compared with
$2.61 per litre for the rest of Australia, with China the major export destination
(Radhakrishnan 2012).
The Australian Bureau of Statistics Vineyards Estimates 2011–2012 reported the
total area of wine grapes in Western Australia was 10 556 ha (621 producers), of
which 10 316 ha were bearing (620 producers). Of this total area, 1491 ha of wine
grapes were left on the vine or dropped to the ground (315 producers) (ABS 2012).
Approximately 90% of the state’s wine grapes are produced on their own roots
without rootstocks (G Ward 2015, pers. comm. 26 February).
In Western Australia, wine grapes are produced in five Geographical Indications (GI)
Zones. The main production regions are the South West Australia GI zone (six wine
regions) and the Greater Perth GI Zone (3 wine regions) (Figure 1).
9
Draft Policy Review
Figure 1: Wine producing regions of the South West Australia and Greater Perth
GI Zones of Western Australia (Source: Wine Australia)
10
Draft Policy Review
Western Australian viticulture regions
South West Australia GI zone
This zone extends from Harvey to Margaret River and east to Albany. It includes six
regions and produces approximately 90% of Western Australia’s wine grapes and
approximately 20% of the state’s table grapes.
Margaret River region
This region lies to the west of the Geographe Region and includes the western
part of the shires of Busselton and Augusta-Margaret River. The eastern boundary
follows the line of longitude 115o18’ E, running southwards from the township of
Vasse to the Southern Ocean east of Augusta.
It includes the towns of Margaret River, Dunsborough, Augusta, Yallingup,
Witchcliffe, Karridale and Cowaramup.
The Margaret River region experiences a temperate climate with warm, distinctly
dry summers and cold, wet winters (Appendix B).As a result of the regions
climate, some wine grape varieties are rarely fully dormant. The following climate
data has been summarised from the Australian Government Bureau of Meterology
(2015):




Margaret River’s (Witchcliffe BOM site 9746) average daily minimum and
maximum temperatures range from 8.0°C in July to 27.3°C in February.
The mean annual rainfall is approximately 1013 mm with most rainfall
occurring in winter.
Dunsborough’s (Cape Naturaliste BOM site 9628) average daily minimum
and maximum temperatures range from 10.1°C in August to 25.9°C in
February. The mean annual rainfall is approximately 805 mm with most of
the rain falling from late autumn and throughout winter.
Augusta’s (Cape Leeuwin BOM site 9518) average daily minimum and
maximum temperatures range from 11.2°C in August to 23.4°C in
February. The mean annual rainfall is approximately 964 mm with most
rainfall occurring from late autumn to early spring.
Witchcliffe’s (BOM site 9746) average daily minimum and maximum
temperatures range from 8°C in July to 27.3°C in February. The mean
annual rainfall is approximately 1008 mm with most rainfall occurring from
late autumn to early spring.
The Margaret River region produces approximately 45% of the state’s wine
grapes.
Data collected from Western Australian vineyard properties in the vineyard
mapping project 2008/12 found 386 properties produced grapes in this region,
with 5960 ha planted with wine grapes. This data was also presented in Western
Australian Wine Industry Strategic Plan 2014–2024 (WoWA 2014).
Most vineyards in this region are drip-irrigated.
Strong winds, fungal diseases (especially powdery mildew), weevils and birds are
the main problems encountered in this region.
11
Draft Policy Review
Great Southern region
This large region lies to the east of the Manjimup region, extending along the
South Coast from Beaufort Inlet (west of Bremer Bay) to Long Point (west of
Walpole), and inland to the southern edges of the Kojonup, Tambellup and
Gnowangerup Shires.
It includes the towns of Albany, Denmark, Walpole, Mount Barker, Rocky Gully,
Frankland, Cranbrook, Kendenup, Tenterden and Manypeaks.
There are five sub-regions in this area; Albany, Denmark, Frankland River, Mount
Barker and Porongurup.
The Great Southern region experiences a temperate climate and is Western
Australia’s coolest wine growing region. In the west of the region, summers are
warm and distinctly dry, and winters cold and wet. The east of the region is
characterised by wet summers and low winter rainfalls (Appendix B). The following
climate data has been summarised from the Australian Government Bureau of
Meterology (2015):



Albany’s (BOM site 9500) average daily minimum and maximum
temperatures range from 8.2°C in July to 22.9°C in February. The mean
annual rainfall is approximately 928 mm with most rainfall occurring in
winter.
Mount Barker’s (BOM site 9581) average daily minimum and maximum
temperatures range from 6.1°C in July and August to 26.3°C in January.
The mean annual rainfall is approximately 727 mm with most rainfall
occurring in winter.
Rocky Gully’s (BOM site 9964) average minimum and maximum
temperatures range from 6.5°C in July to 27.5°C in January. The mean
annual rainfall is approximately 685 mm with most rainfall occurring in
winter.
The Great Southern region produces about 25% of the state’s wine grapes.
Data collected from Western Australian vineyard properties in the vineyard
mapping project 2008/12 found 150 properties produced grapes in this region,
with 3424 ha planted with wine grapes. This data was presented in Western
Australian Wine Industry Strategic Plan 2014–2024 (WoWA 2014).
Most vineyards in this region are drip-irrigated. The majority of wine grapes are
machine harvested, although manual harvesting of premium grapes is increasing.
Pruning is mainly by machine, followed by manual or mechanically-aided clean-up
of spurs.
Powdery mildew, bunch rot (especially in southern areas), spring frost, birds, high
vigour and limited water availability are the main problems encountered in this
region.
Geographe region
This region lies between the Margaret River, Blackwood Valley and Peel regions
and includes the Geographe Bay hinterland and Shires of Capel, Dardanup and
Harvey. It also encompasses a large portion of the Shire of Donnybrook–
Balyingup and significant parts of the Shires of Collie, Busselton and a small
portion of the Shire of Waroona.
12
Draft Policy Review
It includes the towns of Bunbury, Busselton, Capel, Dardanup, Donnybrook,
Brunswick Junction and Harvey. The towns of Kirup, Collie and Yarloop are on the
boundary of this region.
The Geographe region experiences a temperate climate with warm to hot,
distinctly dry summers and cold, wet winters (Appendix B).The following climate
data has been summarised from the Australian Government Bureau of Meterology
(2015):

Bunbury’s (BOM site 9965) average daily minimum and maximum
temperatures range from 7°C in July to 30.1°C in February. The mean
annual rainfall is approximately 728 mm with most rainfall occurring in late
autumn and winter.
Busselton’s (BOM site 9515) average daily minimum and maximum
temperatures range from 7.5°C in July and August to 28.5°C in January.
The mean annual rainfall is approximately 805 mm with most rainfall
occurring from late autumn and throughout winter.
Donnybrook’s (BOM site 9534) average daily minimum and maximum
temperatures range from 5.7°C in July to 30.5°C in January and February.
The mean annual rainfall is approximately 980 with most rainfall occurring
from late autumn to early spring.
Harvey’s (Wokalup BOM site 9642) average daily minimum and maximum
temperatures range from 7.9°C in August to 31°C in January. The mean
annual rainfall is approximately 945 mm with most rainfall occurring from
late autumn and throughout winter.
Collie’s (BOM site 9628) average minimum and maximum temperatures
range from 4.2°C in July to 30.5°C in January. The mean annual rainfall is
approximately 931 mm with most rainfall occurring from late autumn to early
spring.




In 2004 there were 100 ha of table grapes scattered widely throughout the region.
Data collected from Western Australian vineyard properties in the vineyard
mapping project 2008/12 found 107 properties produced grapes in this region with
over 869 ha planted with wine grapes. This data was presented in Western
Australian Wine Industry Strategic Plan 2014–2024 (WoWA 2014).
Most vineyards in this region are drip-irrigated. The majority of wine grapes are
machine harvested, although manual harvesting of premium grapes is increasing.
Pruning is mainly by machine, followed by manual or mechanically-aided clean-up
of spurs.
Powdery mildew, wingless grasshoppers and garden weevils are the main
problems encountered in this region.
Pemberton region
The Pemberton region is dominated by state forests and national parks. This
region is adjacent to the Manjimup region in the northeast and the Great Southern
region in the east and lies mostly in the Shire of Manjimup. A small part of the
Shire of Nannup is included.
It includes the towns of Pemberton and Northcliffe.
The Pemberton region experiences a temperate climate with warm, distinctly dry
summers and cold, wet winters (Appendix B).

Pemberton’s (BOM site 9592) average minimum and maximum
temperatures range from 7.1°C in August to 26.5°C in February. The
13
Draft Policy Review
mean annual rainfall is approximately 1184 mm with most rainfall
occurring from late autumn to spring (Australian Government Bureau of
Meterology 2015).
Data collected from Western Australian vineyard properties in the vineyard
mapping project 2008/12 found 45 properties produced grapes in this region with
971 ha planted with wine grapes. This data was presented in Western Australian
Wine Industry Strategic Plan 2014–2024 (WoWA 2014).
Most vineyards in this region are drip-irrigated.
High vigour, powdery mildew, botyritis bunch rot and birds are the main problems
encountered in this region. Smoke taint is a risk in some years.
Blackwood region
This region lies between the Geographe and Manjimup regions and is centred on
the Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes. It encompasses the majority of the Shire of
Boyup Brook and parts of the Shires of Donnybrook–Balingup and Nannup.
It includes the towns of Bridgetown, Boyup Brook, Nannup, Balingup, Yornup,
Mullalyup, Wilga, Dinninup, Mayanup and Tonebridge towns.
The Blackwood region experiences a temperate climate with warm, distinctly dry
summers and cold, wet winters (Appendix B).

Bridgetown’s (BOM site 9617) average minimum and maximum
temperatures range from 4.5°C in July to 29.9°C in February. The mean
annual rainfall is approximately 725 mm with most rainfall occurring from
late autumn to early spring (Australian Government Bureau of Meterology
2015).
Data collected from Western Australian vineyard properties in the vineyard
mapping project 2008/12 found that 49 properties produced grapes in this region
with 435 ha planted with wine grapes. This data was presented in Western
Australian Wine Industry Strategic Plan 2014–2024 (WoWA 2014).
Most vineyards in this region are drip-irrigated.
Manjimup region
This region adjoins the Blackwood Valley region, Pemberton Region and the
Great Southern Region. It is predominately within the Shire of Manjimup with a
small portion of the Shire of Cranbrook.
It includes the towns of Manjimup, Quininup, Palgarup, Deanmill and Jardee.
The Manjimup region experiences a temperate climate with warm, distinctly dry
summers and cold, wet winters (Appendix B).

Manjumup’s (BOM site 9573) average minimum and maximum
temperatures range from 6.4°C in July to 27.2°C in January. The mean
annual rainfall is approximately 998 mm with most rainfall occurring from
late autumn to early spring (Australian Government Bureau of Meterology
2015).
Data collected from Western Australian vineyard properties in the vineyard
mapping project 2008/12 found that 28 properties produced grapes in this region
with 393 ha planted with wine grapes. This data was presented in Western
Australian Wine Industry Strategic Plan 2014–2024 (WoWA 2014).
14
Draft Policy Review
Most vineyards in this region are drip-irrigated.
Powdery mildew, botrytis bunch rot and birds are the main problems encountered
in this region.
Greater Perth GI zone
This zone extends from Waroona to Cervantes and includes three regions which
produce approximately 15% of Western Australia’s wine grapes and approximately
50% of the state’s table grapes.
Swan District region
This region lies to the west of the Perth Hills region and extends westwards from
the Swan Valley to the Indian Ocean and north to Gingin. The region includes the
western portions of the Shires of Swan and Chittering, the southern portion of the
Shire of Gingin and the City of Wanneroo. The southern portion of the eastern
boundary follows the foot of the Darling Scarp.
It includes Bullsbrook, Carabooda, Forrestfield, Gnangara, Middle Swan, Midland,
Muchea, Gingin, Quinns Rocks, Two Rocks, Warwick, Wattle Grove and Yanchep.
The Swan District region experiences a subtropical climate with hot, distinctly dry
summers and cold, wet winters (Appendix B).The following climate data has been
summarised from the Australian Government Bureau of Meterology (2015):





Bullsbrook‘s (Pearce RAAF BOM site 9053) average minimum and
maximum temperatures range from 8.2°C in August to 33.5°C in January.
The mean annual rainfall is approximately 678 mm with most rainfall
occurring in winter.
Forrestfield’s (Perth Airport BOM site 9021) average minimum and
maximum temperatures range from 8.0°C in July and August to 31.9°C in
February. The mean annual rainfall is approximately 771 mm with most
rainfall occurring in winter.
Gingin’s (Gingin Aero BOM site 9178) average minimum and maximum
temperatures range from 6.1°C in July to 33.2°C in February. The mean
annual rainfall is approximately 649 mm with most rainfall occurring in
winter.
Warrick’s (Perth metro BOM site 9255) average minimum and maximum
temperatures range from 7.6°C in July to 31.2°C in February. The mean
annual rainfall is approximately 732 mm with most rainfall occurring from
late autumn to early spring.
Wattle Grove’s (Gosnells BOM site 9106) average minimum and
maximum temperatures range from 8.7°C in July to 33.2°C in January and
February. The mean annual rainfall is approximately 819 mm with most
rainfall occurring from late autumn to early spring.
The Swan Valley in the southeast of the region accounts for 75% of the grapes
planted in the Greater Perth Zone. Data collected from Western Australian
vineyard properties in the vineyard mapping project 2008/12 found 249 properties
produced grapes in the Swan District region with 897 ha planted with wine grapes.
This data was presented in Western Australian Wine Industry Strategic Plan
2014–2024 (WoWA 2014).
The majority of the Swan Valley vines are on rootstocks due to widespread root
knot nematodes in the sandy soils.
15
Draft Policy Review
There are small commercial table grape plantings at West Gingin (C Gordon 2015,
pers. comm. 18 February). Wine grapes are produced in various locations north of
the Swan Valley, including Gingin and Chittering (G Ward 2015, pers. comm. 26
February).
Perth Hills region
This region includes the Darling Range to the east of Perth (between Karnet and
Bindoon and inland to The Lakes) and lies between the Swan District and Peel
regions. Portions of the Shires of Chittering, Toodyay, Swan, Mundaring,
Kalamunda, Armadale and Serpentine-Jarrahdale are included in this region.
It includes Mundaring, Mt Helena, Glen Forrest, Kalamunda, Bickley, Lesmurdie,
Roleystone, Jarrahdale, Chidlow, Woorooloo, Gidgegannup, Chittering and
Bindoon,
The Perth Hills region experiences a subtropical climate with hot, distinctly dry
summers and cold, wet winters (Appendix B).The following climate data has been
summarised from the Australian Government Bureau of Meterology (2015):

Bickley’s (BOM site 9240) average minimum and maximum
temperatures range from 7.1°C in July to 30.7°C in February. The mean
annual rainfall is approximately 1094 mm with most rainfall occurring
from late autumn to early spring.
Jarrahdale’s (Karnet BOM site 9111) average minimum and maximum
temperatures range from 6.2°C in July to 30.7°C in January. The mean
annual rainfall is approximately 1152 mm with most rainfall occurring
from late autumn to early spring.

Data collected from Western Australian vineyard properties in the vineyard
mapping project 2008/12 found 46 properties produced grapes in this region with
168 ha planted with wine grapes. This data was presented in Western Australian
Wine Industry Strategic Plan 2014–2024 (WoWA 2014).
Peel region
This region lies between the Geographe and Perth Hills regions and covers most
of the Murray River catchment area. It extends from the coast north and south of
Mandurah and inland to Williams. alit includes most of the Shires of Murray,
Waroona and Boddington, and the northwest of the Shire of Williams, the south of
the Shire of Wandering, the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale west of the Darling
Scarp and the southern portion of the Shire of Rockingham.
It includes Mandurah, Pinjarra, Waroona, Serpentine, Mundijong, Byford,
Dwellingup, Boddington, Wandering and Quindanning.
The Peel region experiences a temperate climate with mild to warm, distinctly dry
summers and cold, wet winters (Appendix B).The following climate data has been
summarised from the Australian Government Bureau of Meterology (2015):


Mandurah’s (BOM site 9977) average minimum and maximum
temperatures range from 10.6°C in July to 29.9°C in February. The mean
annual rainfall is approximately 646 mm with most rainfall occurring from
late autumn to early spring.
Dwellingup’s (BOM site 95387) average minimum and maximum
temperatures range from 5.4°C in July to 29.6°C in January and February.
16
Draft Policy Review
The mean annual rainfall is approximately 1234 mm with most rainfall
occurring from late autumn to early spring.
Wandering’s (BOM site 10917) average minimum and maximum
temperatures range from 3.9°C in July to 32.1°C in January. The mean
annual rainfall is approximately 509 mm with most rainfall occurring from
late autumn to early spring.

Data collected from Western Australian vineyard properties in the vineyard
mapping project 2008/12 found 13 properties produced grapes in this region with
108 ha planted with wine grapes. This data was presented in Western Australian
Wine Industry Strategic Plan 2014–2024 (WoWA 2014).
Eastern Plains, Inland and North of Western Australia GI zone
This large zone covers sparsely populated areas extending from the far north of
Western Australia to the Southern Ocean and includes the eastern Wheatbelt, most
of the Midwest and all of the Rangelands. It extends from Lake Grace through to
Merredin, Dallwalinu, Three Springs and Geraldton, to Kalgoorlie and the Goldfields
(east to the Nullabor Plain) and north to Carnarvon, the Pilbara and the Kimberley,
including the Western Australian arid interior.
The Eastern Plains, Inland and North Western Australia zone includes the following
Shires; Ashburton, Boulder, Broome, Bruce Rock, Carnamah, Carnarvon, Chapman,
Coolgardie, Coorow, Corrigin, Cue, Cunderdin, Derby-West Kimberley, Dalwallinu,
Dowerin, Dumbleyung, Dundas, East Pilbara, Exmouth, Goomalling, Greenough,
Halls Creek, Irwin, Kellerberrin, Kent, Kondinin, Koorda, Kulin, Lake Grace, Laveron,
Leonora, Meekatharra, Menzies, Merredin, Mingenew, Morawa, Mount Magnet,
Mount Marshall, Mukinbudin, Mullewa, Murchison, Narembeen, Northampton Valley,
Nungarin, Perenjori, Port Hedland, Quairading, Roebourne, Sandstone, Shark Bay,
Tammin, Three Springs, Trayning, Upper Gasgoyne, Westonia, Wickepin, Wiluna,
Wongan-Ballidu, Wyalkatchem, Wyndham-East Kimberley, Yalgoo and Yilgarn.
Wineries are scattered throughout this zone including Lake Grace and Geraldton.
Carnarvon produces approximately 17% of Western Australia’s table grapes.
Additional table grapes are produced around Geraldton and small volumes produced
in Kununurra.
Carnarvon accounts for approximately half of the total value of Western Australia’s
table grapes, produced from approximately 200 ha.
Carnarvon experiences a desert climate with hot, humid, drought summers. This
region can have an annual rainfall of less than 350 mm (Appendix B).

Carnarvon’s (BoM site 6011) average minimum and maximum
temperatures range from 10.9°C in July to 32.5°C in February. The
mean annual rainfall is approximately 226 mm with most rainfall
occurring from late autumn to late winter (Australian Government
Bureau of Meterology 2015).
Wine and table grapes are produced in the Mid-West/Geraldton region, with wine
grapes produced in the Chapman Valley and table grapes around Walkaway.
The Geraldton region experiences a subtropical climate with hot, distinctly dry
summers and cold, wet winters (Appendix B).

Geraldton’s (BoM site 8050) average minimum and maximum
temperatures range from 10.5°C in July to 29.7°C in February. The mean
annual rainfall is approximately 445 mm with most rainfall occurring from
late autumn to late winter (Australian Government Bureau of Meterology
2015).
17
Draft Policy Review
Central Western Australia GI zone
This zone includes most of the Woolbelt and the western Wheatbelt from Watheroo
through to Northam, Narrogin, and Kojonup to Tambellup. It includes the Shires of
Beverley, Brookton, Broomhill, Cuballing, Katanning, Kojonup, Moora, Narrogin,
Northam, Pingelly, Wagin, Woodanilling, West Arthur, Victoria Plains, York, the
eastern parts of Collie and Toodyay, the southeastern portion of Williams and the
northern part of Tambellup.
Table grapes are produced in the Shire of Dandaragan (C Gordon 2015, pers. comm.
18 February).
Backyard production
Table grapes are grown in domestic situations in Western Australia. Recent figures
on the number of households growing grapevines are not available, however a 1996
report estimated 13.5% of Western Australian private dwellings produced grapes; the
highest rate for Australia (Cross & Taylor 1996).
Naturalised
Grapevines may persist from abandoned plantings (Taplin & Symon 2008) and are
occasionally found naturalised around Perth and in the south-west (Hussey et al.
2007). There are several herbarium specimens of Vitis vinifera collected from
uncultivated areas in Western Australia. The specimens include references to vines
with seedlings (Western Australian Herbarium 1998). Additionally, seedlings are
occasionally observed growing in vineyards between rows (A Taylor 2012, pers.
comm. 4 Sept.; C Gordon 2012, pers. comm., 31 Oct.).
According to Hosking et al. (2003), Vitis vinifera has naturalised in Western Australia
and Victoria, with records also suggesting that it has naturalised in New South
Wales, although only weakly so.
Queensland
In 2008/09 Queensland table grape production was valued at $60 million. The
majority of Queensland’s table grapes are exported to other Australian states and
territories (Tree & Oag 2009).
Queensland produces early season grapes predominately in the St George, Emerald
and Mundubbera areas (ATGA 2012b). Harvest of Menindee Seedless grapes
commences in mid-November (Emerald) through to mid-December (St George). Red
Globe grape harvest commences in mid-December (Emerald) through to late
January (St George) (Tree & Oag 2009). Queensland is the second largest table
grape producing state.
New South Wales
New South Wales wine and table grape production areas include the Murrumbidgee
irrigation area, Hunter Valley, central rangelands of Mudgee, Orange and Cowra and
the area encompassing Wagga Wagga, Young and Gundagai. Table grapes are also
grown in Sydney’s south-west and grapes for dried fruit are grown in the lower
Murray irrigation area (Dunn & Zurbo 2014).
18
Draft Policy Review
Table grapes are harvested from December (Menindee and Bourke) through to
February in the Murray Valley (Moody 2011).
Victoria
Table grape production occurs in the Sunraysia/Murray Valley region in Victoria’s
north-west. The region produces approximately 80 000 tonnes of late season table
grapes (DPI Victoria 2010).
In 2008/09, Victoria was the largest table grape producing state, with 73% of
Australian production. Since the mid-1990s table grape production has remained
relatively stable (DEPI Victoria 2011).
In 2009/10, Victoria exported 26 597 tonnes of table grapes worth $74 million. The
key export destinations for Victorian table grapes in 2009/10 were Indonesia, Hong
Kong, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, New Zealand and the United Arab
Emirates (DEPI Victoria 2011).
Tasmania
Table grapes are not commercially produced in Tasmania (ATGA 2011).
South Australia
Table grape production occurs in the Riverland in South Australia (ATGA 2011).
Northern Territory
The Northern Territory table grape season runs from early November through to
Christmas. An October harvest has been achieved in non-commercial trial production
in Katherine (JD Swan 2011, pers. comm.).
Based on 2009 figures the table grape industry was estimated at $3.68 million with a
1048 t yield. Table grape production has decreased over the last ten years from
4000 t to 1000 t in 2010. In 2008 there were six growers with 221 ha under
production. In 2011, the production area increased to approximately 304 ha from four
growers, three in Ti-Tree and one in Alice Springs (JD Swan 2011, pers. comm.).
Table grape varieties produced in the Northern Territory include:





Menindee seedless
Flame seedless
Thompson
Red globe
Crimson seedless
The Northern Territory table grape producers have adopted industry technologies
including:


own rooted or rootstocks such as:
- Harmony
- Paulsen
- Ramsey
drip irrigation
19
Draft Policy Review



®
Dormex spraying
Gibberellic acid (GA) application
overhead plastic coverings to protect table grapes from rain during véraison
(bunch ripening) to the end of harvest.
The majority of grower’s field pack grapes directly into boxes which are chilled on
farm and then transported to market (JD Swan 2011, pers. comm.).
The main Northern Territory markets are Victoria, South Australia and New South
Wales. Western Australia is an attractive market to the Ti-Tree growers (JD Swan
2011, pers. comm.).
20
Draft Policy Review
The PRA structure
The methodology used by the department in conducting a PRA is detailed in
Appendix A and consists of three stages.
 Stage one: Initiation
Initiation of the pest risk analysis (PRA) describes the initiation point and
defines the PRA area and pathway. It also provides background information
considered in undertaking the pest risk assessments.

Stage two: Pest risk assessment
Pests1 potentially associated with the pathway are categorised to determine
whether they meet the definition of a quarantine pest2 and require further
assessment.
Quarantine pests associated with the pathway are further assessed to estimate
the likelihood that they would enter, establish or spread and the level of
economic consequence should that occur. This is expressed as a unrestricted
risk estimate (URE).

Stage three: Pest risk management
Risk management options are considered for pests where the URE exceeds
Western Australia’s appropriate level of protection (ALOP).
Risk management options are considered in terms of efficacy to reduce the
unrestricted risk to an acceptable level. If the risk cannot be reduced to an
acceptable level through the application of phytosanitary measures, trade will
not be allowed.
1ISPM
5 definition: any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent
injurious to plants or plant products.
2ISPM
5 definition: a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby
and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled.
21
Draft Policy Review
Stage one: Initiation
Initiation point
The initiation point for this risk analysis was the receipt of several market access
requests to import table grapes into Western Australia.
PRA area definition
The ’PRA area’ refers to the defined area considered in the PRA. In this risk analysis,
the ‘PRA area’ is defined as the whole state of Western Australia.
The ‘endangered area’ is defined as any area within Western Australia where
ecological factors favour the establishment of a quarantine pest whose presence in
the area will result in economically important loss.
Pathway definition
The entry pathway under consideration is the import of commercially produced table
grapes, either field or packhouse packed, from other Australian states and territories
into Western Australia for human consumption. It does not include wine, dried or
processed grape berries.
This PRA does not consider the risks posed by the identified quarantine pests
associated with other pathways.
For the purpose of this PRA, table grapes are defined as fresh fruit, that is, a part of a
plant that could or does contain a seed, and includes the peduncle (stalk of the fruit
cluster) and pedicel (stalk of a single fruit) of table grape varieties of Vitis vinifera
(Figure 2). It does not include dried or processed grape berries, leaf material or other
extraneous material.
Figure 2: Diagram of table grape bunch (Pratt 1988)
22
Draft Policy Review
To capture essential practices for extending the storage life of table grapes that
enables growers to take advantage of market price fluctuations, this analysis
assumes that imported table grapes have been cooled to 0–2oC at 85–95% relative
humidity and stored in standard closed box packaging with sulphur pads (ATGA
2012a).
Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under minimum on-arrival
border procedures.
Previous pest risk analysis reports
There are no endorsed PRA reports considering the import of table grapes from other
Australian states and territories into Western Australia.
Some of the quarantine pests identified in this PRA have been assessed previously
for other commodities by the department. Additionally, the Australian Department of
Agriculture completed the non-regulated analysis of existing policy for Californian
table grapes to Western Australia (DAFF 2013). While information such as pest
biology, hosts and assessments may be useful, the risk profile for those pests in
association with this pathway may differ and not be directly applicable.
23
Draft Policy Review
Pest categorisation
Part B of this risk analysis report identifies pests potentially associated with imported
table grapes produced using commercial production and packing procedures.
Regional quarantine pests refer to pests present in other Australian states and
territories which are:



of potential economic importance to endangered areas within Western
Australia and
not yet present in Western Australia or
present but not widely distributed and are under official control.
Pest3 categorisation is a process undertaken to assess invertebrate and pathogen
species to identify then as regional quarantine pests’ associated with the pathway;
that is pests which:




are absent from Western Australia or present but not widely distributed and
under official control
are associated with the pathway
have the potential to establish in Western Australia
have the potential to be of economic concern should they establish in
Western Australia.
The pest categorisation process identified 13 invertebrate and 20 pathogen species
as pests of quarantine concern for Western Australia. The full pest categorisation
process and results are available in part B of this report ‘A categorisation of
invertebrate and pathogen organisms associated with fresh table grape bunches
(Vitis sp.) imported from othe Australian states and territories’.
Tables 1 and 2, list regional quarantine pests associated with the table grape
pathway that require further consideration to:



Evaluate the quarantine pest risk profile
Determine the requirement for phytosanitary measures
Determine the extent of any phytosanitary measures necessary to provide the
appropriate level of protection for Western Australia.
Any phytosanitary measures must be applied without unduly restricting trade of table
grapes—in accordance with the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on the
application of of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement).
3
IPPC definition: any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent
injurious to plants or plant products
24
Draft Policy Review
Table 3 Regional quarantine pest invertebrates associated with imported table
grapes
Common name
Scientific name
Citrophilus mealybug
Pseudococcus calceolariae (Maskell, 1897)
Citrus planthopper
Colgar peracutum (Walker, 1858)
European fruit lecanium scale
Parthenolecanium corni (Bouché, 1844)
European wasp
Vespula germanica (Fabricus, 1793)
Flat grain beetle
Cryptolestes pusillus (Schönherr, 1878)
BAMA (s22) declared pest
Grape phylloxera
Daktulosphaira vitifoliae (Fitch, 1855)
Kanzawa spider mite
Tetranychus kanzawai Kishida, 1927
Metallic shield bug
Scutiphora pedicellata (Kirby, 1826)
Native tussock moth
Euproctis paradoxa (Butler, 1886)
Peach white scale
Pseudaulacaspis pentagona (Targioni Tozzetti, 1886)
Queensland fruit fly
Bactrocera (Bactrocera) tryoni (Froggatt, 1897)
Spanish red scale
Chrysomphalus dictyospermi (Morgan, 1889)
Warehouse beetle
Trogoderma variabile Ballion 1878
BAMA (s22) declared pest
25
Draft Policy Review
Table 4: Regional quarantine pest pathogens associated with the table grape
pathway
Common name
Scientific name
Bitter rot
Greeneria uvicola (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Punith. 1974
[Anamorphic Fungi]
Botryosphaeria canker
Botryosphaeria iberica A.J.L. Phillips, J. Luque & A. Alves,
2005
Botryosphaeria sarmentorum A.J.L. Phillips, J. Luque & A.
Alves, 2005
Dothiorella neclivorem W.M. Pitt & J.R. Úrbez-Torres sp.
nov., 2015
Dothiorella sp. 1 W.M. Pitt & J.R. Úrbez-Torres sp. nov.,
2015
Dothiorella vidmadera W.M. Pitt, J.R. Úrbez-Torres,
Trouillas, 2013
Dothiorella vinea-gemmae W.M. Pitt & J.R. Úrbez-Torres
sp. nov., 2015
Spencermartinsia plurivora Abdollahz, Javadi & A.J.L.
Phillips, 2015
Spencermartinsia viticola (A.J.L. Phillips & J. Luque) A.J.L.
Phillips, A. Alves & Crous, 2008
Citrus exocortis viroid
Posipiviroid Citrus exocortis viroid (CEVd)
Grapevine fanleaf virus
Nepovirus Grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV) [Comoviridae]
Grapevine yellow speckle
viroid 1, 2
Apscaviroid Grapevine yellow speckle viroid (GYSVd)
strain 1 [Pospiviroidae]
Apscaviroid Grapevine yellow speckle viroid (GYSVd)
strain 2 [Pospiviroidae]
Hop stunt viroid
Hostuviroid Hop stunt viroid (HSVd) [Pospiviroidae]
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana
and P. uvicola
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana (Bres. & Torrend) Bissett 1983
[Anamorphic Fungi]
Pestalotiopsis uvicola (Speg.) Bissett 1983
Phomopsis cane and leaf
spot
Phomopsis viticola (Sacc.) Sacc. 1915 [Anamorphic Fungi]
Sooty mould
Capnodium elongatum Berk. & Desm., 1849
White rot
Pilidiella castaneicola (Ellis & Everh)
Pilidiella diplodiella (Speg.) Crous & J.M. van Niekerk 2004
[Diaporthales: Diaporthaceae]
26
Draft Policy Review
Stage two: Pest risk assessments
Citrophilus mealybug
Scientific name (ABRS 2009)
Pseudococcus calceolariae (Maskell, 1879) [Hemiptera Pseudococcidae]
Synonyms (ABRS 2009)
Dactylopius calceolariae Maskell, 1879
Pseudococcus fragilis Brain, 1912
Pseudococcus citrophilus Clausen, 1915
Pseudococcus gahani Green, 1915
Preferred common name
citrophilus mealybug
Alternate common names
scarlet mealybug, currant mealybug
Common host plants
carrot, Citrus sp., European grape, fig, Grevillea banksii, Hibiscus sp., Monterey pine,
oleander, pea, peanut, pear, potato, quince, rhododendron, stone fruit and walnut. A
comprehensive host list for citrophilus mealybug is provided in Appendix C.
Plant part affected
foliage, fruit and twigs
Australian distribution
Queensland (QDPC 2015)
New South Wales (ASCU 2015)
Victoria (VAIC 2015)
Tasmania (TPPD 2015)
South Australia (WINC 2015)
Biology and pest status
Biology and ecology
The adult female citrophilus mealybug is a slow moving oval shaped insect
approximately 3 to 4 mm in length and is native to eastern Australia. The adult
female and immature stages have a coating of white mealy wax. Adult male
mealybugs are typically about 1.5 mm in length, with long wings, a brown colored
body and two multi-segmented antennae that are about half the body length (Daane
et al. 2012). Williams (1985) provides a detailed taxonomic description of the
mealybug.
After the male has fertilised the female, eggs are laid in groups of up to 500 in egg
sacs and 3–4 generations can occur throughout the year. Developmental stages
include egg, 3–4 larval stages (nymphs), pupae (male only) and adults (Smith et al.
1997).
Citrophilus mealybug is typically found in protected sites within vineyard and
orchards such as under bark, between bud scales, under leaves and within grape
bunches (Furness & Charles 2003). The economically important stage of this pest is
27
Draft Policy Review
the female adult and immature nymphs; the adult male only survives for a few days
and does not feed. During feeding, citrophilus mealybug produces honeydew which
is an exudate high in sugar that encourages the development of sooty mould (Hely et
al. 1982) and other bunch rots (AWRI 2011).
Citrophilus mealybug has been recorded from nearly 50 host families (Ben-Dov et al.
2015), see Appendix C.
Dispersal
Citrophilus mealybug is typical of the family Pseudococcidae in that dispersal
mechanisms are limited. While dispersal within plants can be attributed to the adult
and nymph, the dispersal within a vineyard or orchard can be attributed to wind
dispersal of the nymphs. Hely et al. (1982) also indicated that visiting insects, birds
and on the clothing of orchard workers can play are part in dispersing this mealybug
within a vineyard or orchard. Long distance dispersal can be attributed to infested
fruit, nursery stock, animals and workers (Hely et al. 1982).
Damage
The presence of honeydew and sooty mould downgrades fruit quality with heavy
infestations making grape bunches unsalable (Furness & Charles 2003) and
prevents the proper drying of grapes for dried fruit production (AWRI 2011).
Winemakers also express concern about the potential for taint caused by high
numbers of mealybug and sooty mould in bunches at harvest (AWRI 2011).
Control
The mealy wax secretion that cover the adult affords some protection against
insecticides as it resists wetting and spray penetration. Management practices for the
chemical control of mealybugs are timed to target the nymphal stage when damage
or mealybug numbers are high (Furness & Charles 2003).
Furness and Charles (2003) also reported that biocontrol agents can normally
provide good control of mealybugs within Australian vineyards.
However, infestations may occur when biocontrol agents are removed from the
vineyards, for example, after the application of broad spectrum insecticides.
Biocontrol agents’ prevalent within Australia vineyards include the parasitic wasps
Anagyrus fusciventris and Tetracnemoidea brevicornis, the ladybird beetles
Rhizobius ruficollis and Cryptolaemus montrouzieri, the green lacewings Chrysopa
spp. and the predatory fly larvae Diadiplosis koebelei.
The ladybird beetle Cryptolaemus montrouzieri, the green lacewings Chrysopa spp.
have been recorded from Western Australia.
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is an unrestricted risk estimate (URE) for
citrophilus mealybug in association with table grapes imported from other Australian
states and territories. The URE is estimated in the absence of risk management
measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment considers basic
standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes including
cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in standard
closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences are
described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
28
Draft Policy Review
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
The likelihood that citrophilus mealybug will arrive in Western Australia with the
importation of table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source and
destination area considered relevant to citrophilus mealybug and includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin








Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). Citrophilus mealybug has been recorded from all table grape
producing states and territories with the exception of Western Australia and
the Northern Territory.
Citrophilus mealybug is considered to be a frequent pest of horticultural crops
including Vitis vinifera (Furness & Charles 2003; Ben-Dov et al. 2015).
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
Grape imports are anticipated to occur from November to May with several
consignments arriving each week.
Citrus mealybug can be present throughout the year having 3–4 generations
per year and may be present during grape harvest.
It is likely that honeydew production, associated sooty mould and damage
would be present on heavily infested grape bunches. Any grape bunches
harvested showing these symptoms may be detected during field packing
house quality control inspections and subsequently removed from the
pathway.
Lightly infested grape bunches may not result in obvious visible markers of
infestation such as the presence of honeydew and sooty mould. Under these
conditions, citrophilus mealybug may escape detection during packing house
quality control inspection and remain hidden within harvested grape bunches.
The small size of immature mealybugs may make them difficult to detect,
especially at low population levels. If present on grape bunches, sorting,
grading and packing procedures may not detect citrophilus mealybug and
infested table grapes may not be discarded.
The presence of citrophilus mealybug on the table grape pathway at its origin is
not expected to reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western
Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures


Citrophilus mealybug is typically found in protected sites within vineyard and
orchards. These sites can limit the effectiveness of chemical sprays and
include under the bark, between bud scales, under leaves and within grape
bunches.
Chemical control measures are based on nymph numbers as the waxy
coating of the adult resists wetting and spray penetration.
29
Draft Policy Review

Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is expected that
standard on-arrival procedures would not detect the presence of citrophilus
mealybug in a consignment of table grapes.
The ability of citrophilus mealybug to survive existing pest management
procedures is not expected to reduce the likelihood of this pest being imported
into Western Australia.
Ability to survive transport and storage





After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of sulphur dioxide
treatment against citrophilus mealybug under short term (<8 weeks) transport
and storage conditions for table grapes.
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of low temperature
treatments against citrophilus mealybug under short term (<8 weeks)
transport and storage conditions for table grapes.
Longer term (8 weeks or greater) low temperature table grape storage
conditions in conjunction sulphur dioxide treatments may be detrimental to the
survivability of citrophilus mealybug (Yokoyama et al. 2001).
Other routine post-harvest procedures such as palletisation, containerisation,
and transportation to Western Australia are not expected to impact on the
survivability of any juvenile and adult life stages protected within harvested
grape bunches.
The ability of citrophilus mealybug to survive transport and storage procedures is
not expected to reduce the likelihood of this pest being imported into Western
Australia.
Citrophilus mealybug has been assessed as having a high probability of importation
with imported table grapes. That is, the importation of citrophilus mealybug would be
very likely to occur under standard commercial production, harvesting and packing
house procedures for table grapes from regions where this pest occurs. No
significant factors were identified that limit citrophilus mealybug’s potential to be
imported into Western Australia.
Probability of distribution
The likelihood that citrophilus mealybug will be distributed into Western Australia in a
viable state to a suitable host, as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of table
grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the destination area considered
relevant to citrophilus mealybug and includes:
Transport of table grapes within Western Australia

There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western
Australia; consequently bunches infested with citrophilus mealybug may be
distributed throughout Western Australia.
30
Draft Policy Review

In 2013/14, 82% of Australian households purchased grapes at least once
(HAL 2014). This suggests that table grapes have the potential to be widely
distributed within Western Australia.
The ability of citrophilus mealybug to move with infested table grapes is not
expected to reduce the likelihood of this pest being distributed within Western
Australia.
Risks from by-products and waste



The importation of table grapes for human consumption will result in the
generation of waste material including rachis and berries.
Fruit waste may be disposed of in a number of ways including municipal
refuse sites, composting, mulching and discarding into urban, rural or natural
localities including roadsides.
Lea and Worsley (2008a) reported that 51% of Australian people surveyed
often composted food waste.
The ability of citrophilus mealybug to be associated with table grape by-products
and waste is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be
distributed within Western Australia.
Ability to move from the pathway to a suitable host



Adults and nymphs escaping detection are likely to survive storage and
transport to the endangered area as they could survive on disposed fruit
before it desiccates or decays.
Citrophilus mealybug is typical of the family Pseudococcidae which have
limited independent dispersal capabilities. Adults and nymphs would have
difficulty in finding a suitable host as dispersal between hosts is normally
achieved by nymphs on wind currents, animals and vineyard/orchard workers.
These dispersal mechanisms for independent dispersal would be limited from
discarded host material.
The wide host range including many commercial fruit crops grown in Western
Australia increases the opportunity for citrophilus mealybug to locate a
suitable host.
The ability of citrophilus mealybug to move from infested table grapes to a suitable
host is expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Citrophilus mealybug is estimated as having a low probability of distribution in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the distribution of citrophilus
mealybug to the endangered area and subsequent transfer to a suitable host would
be unlikely to occur as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of imported table
grapes. Due to the diminished ability of citrophilus mealybug to move from discarded
table grapes to a suitable host, a higher probability of distribution could not be
justified.
Overall probability of entry (importation x distribution)
The overall probability of entry has been estimated by combining the individual
probabilities of importation and distribution using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Citrophilus mealybug is estimated as having a low probability of entry in association
31
Draft Policy Review
with imported table grapes. That is, the probability that citrophilus mealybug would
enter Western Australia, be distributed in a viable state to an endangered area and
subsequently transfer to a suitable host would be unlikely to occur as a result of
trade in table grapes imported from regions where this pest occurs.
Probability of establishment
The likelihood that citrophilus mealybug will establish within Western Australia is
based on an assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered
relevant to citrophilus mealybug and includes:
Availability of suitable hosts, alternative hosts and vectors in the PRA area




Citrophilus mealybug has been recorded from nearly 50 host families (BenDov et al. 2015) including carrot, citrus, European grape, fig, Grevillea,
hibiscus, Monterey pine, Oleander, pea, peanut, pear, potato, quince,
rhododendron, stone fruit and walnut.
Citrophilus mealybug has the capacity to feed on most parts of its host with
the exception of the roots indicating that most host plant would provide
suitable protected feeding sites throughout the year.
Many host plants are grown commercially in Western Australia.
Many host plants are grown in backyards, as amenity plants and be present
as naturalised populations. Domestic garden plantings, both maintained and
abandoned, occur in Perth and in most Western Australian towns and by
many farmhouses.
The availability of suitable hosts in Western Australia is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for citrophilus mealybug to establish in Western
Australia.
Suitability of the environment


CLIMEX climate matching scenarios were generated from climatic data for
locations where citrophilus mealybug is known to occur in Australia. The
scenarios suggest that all regions of Western Australia with the exception of
the Pilbara and Kimberley regions are suitable for the establishment of
citrophilus mealybug.
The wide host range including many commercial fruit crops grown in Western
Australia increases the opportunity for citrophilus mealybug to locate a
suitable host plant within the environment.
Bioclimatic modelling assessing current Australian distribution and the mealybugs
wide host range suggest that Western Australia’s climate and environment is not
expected to be a factor limiting the potential for citrophilus mealybug to establish
within Western Australia.
Cultural practices and control measures


Cultural practices and control measures for mealybug species present in
Western Australian commercial horticultural production has potential to limit
the potential for establishment although the timing of crawler may differ to
species already present.
The absence or lack of effective control measures in natives, amenity and
backyard situations is not seen as a factor limiting the potential for
establishment.
32
Draft Policy Review
Cultural practices and control measures are not expected to be a factor limiting
the potential for citrophilus mealybug to establish in Western Australia.
Reproductive strategies and survival




A mated female finding a suitable host has the capacity to initiate a viable
population for the foreseeable future.
Reproduction is sexual indicating that any immature mealybug would have to
mature into either an adult female or male then find a suitable mate in order to
initiate a viable population for the foreseeable future.
Eggs are laid in groups of up to 500 in egg sacs and 3 to 4 generations can
occur throughout the year.
Citrophilus mealybug is typically found in protected sites within vineyard and
orchards such as under bark, between bud scales, under leaves and within
grape bunches, these sites can limit the effectiveness of chemical sprays and
biocontrol agents
The reproductive and survival strategy of citrophilus mealybug is not expected to
be a factor limiting the potential for citrophilus mealybug to establish within
Western Australia.
Citrophilus mealybug has been estimated as having a high probability of
establishment within Western Australia. That is, the establishment of citrophilus
mealybug in an endangered area would be very likely to occur as a result of the
infested table grapes being imported into Western Australia and distributed in a
viable state to a suitable host. No significant factors were identified that limit
citrophilus mealybug’s potential to establish in Western Australia.
Probability of spread
The likelihood that citrophilus mealybug will spread within Western Australia is based
on an assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant
to citrophilus mealybug and includes:
Suitability of the natural or managed environment for natural spread


CLIMEX climate matching scenarios were generated from climatic data for
locations where citrophilus mealybug is known to occur in Australia. The
scenarios suggest that all regions of Western Australia with the exception of
the Pilbara and Kimberley regions would provide a suitable environment for
citrophilus mealybug.
The wide host range including many commercial fruit crops grown in Western
Australia increases the opportunity for citrophilus mealybug to locate a
suitable host plant and spread within the natural or managed environment.
The suitability of the natural or managed environment is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for citrophilus mealybug to spread in Western Australia.
Presence of natural barriers


Many host plant would be naturalised in Western Australia and are common
backyard and amenity plants.
The long distances between regional centres in Western Australia may
prevent long-range natural spread of citrophilus mealybug.
33
Draft Policy Review

The long distances between commercial host crops in Western Australia may
prevent long-range natural spread of citrophilus mealybug.
The presence of natural barriers is expected to be a factor limiting the potential
for citrophilus mealybug to spread in Western Australia.
Potential for movement with commodities or conveyances


Long distance dispersal is primarily facilitated by commercial and noncommercial distribution of plant material such as nursery stock and fruit.
Other conveyances for dispersal include workers and machinery containing
infested material.
The potential for movement with commodities or conveyances is not expected to
be a factor limiting the potential for citrophilus mealybug to spread in Western
Australia.
Potential natural enemies


Biocontrol agents’ prevalent within Australia vineyards include the parasitic
wasps Anagyrus fusciventris, Tetracnemoidea brevicornis, the ladybird
beetles Rhizobius ruficollis and Cryptolaemus montrouzieri, green lacewings
Chrysopa spp. and the predatory fly Diadiplosos koebelei.
The biocontrol agents Anagyrus fusciventris, Tetracnemoidea brevicornis,
Rhizobius ruficollis and Diadiplosos koebelei have not been recorded from
Western Australia.
The potential for natural enemies is not expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for citrophilus mealybug to spread in Western Australia.
Citrophilus mealybug has been estimated as having a moderate probability of
spread within Western Australia. That is, spread of citrophilus mealybug in an
endangered area would occur with an even probability as a result of the infested
table grapes being imported into Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to
a suitable host. Due to the limited capacity of citrophilus mealybug for natural long
range spread from infested to uninfested areas, a higher probability of spread could
not be justified.
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
The overall probability of entry, establishment and spread has been estimated by
combining the individual probabilities using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Citrophilus mealybug has been assessed as having a low probability of entry,
establishment and spread entry in association with imported table grape bunches.
That is, the entry, establishment and spread of citrophilus mealybug would be
unlikely to occur should table grapes be imported into Western Australia from
regions where this pest occurs.
Economic consequences
ISPM 11 (2014) indicates that the assessment of economic consequences is made
using ‘a hypothetical situation where a pest is supposed to have been introduced
and to be fully expressing its potential economic consequences (per year) in the PRA
area’.
34
Draft Policy Review
This is interpreted as an unabated incursion; however, it is acknowledged that
existing control regimes for similar species may impact on this expression. In light of
this interpretation, an evaluation of the consequence of entry, establishment or
spread of citrophilus mealybug is considered in Table 5.
Table 5: Economic consequences of citrophilus mealybug
Criterion
Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health
C - Significant at the local level



Any other aspects of
the environment
Although citrophilus mealybug can infest a wide
range of plant hosts, the main economic impact of
this species is the production of honeydew leading
to the development of sooty mould.
Existing control strategies for several economically
important mealybug species present in Western
Australia are already in place.
The presence of sooty moulds and associated
damage may impact on backyard, naturalised and
native hosts where there is an absence or lack of
effective control measures.
A - Unlikely to be discernible at any geographic level

There are no known consequences of citrophilus
mealybug on other aspects of the environment.
Indirect consequences
Eradication, control etc.
C - Significant at the local level


Domestic trade
Although a control or eradication program would
add to the cost of production of a wide range of
fruit, control strategies are already in place in
Western Australia for several economically
important mealybug species.
These existing control strategies are expected to
limit the impact of citrophilus mealybug within
Western Australian horticulture.
D - Significant at the district level



Yield and quality reduction may reduce the amount
of table grapes and other host fruit available for
domestic supply.
Citrophilus mealybug is present in all Australian
states with the exception of Western Australia and
the Northern Territory. The presence of citrophilus
mealybug in a commercial production area within
Western Australia would not have any significance
to interstate trade from a regulatory perspective.
Some interstate and domestic markets could be
lost or diminished as infested produce may fail to
meet consumer expectations of high quality
produce.
35
Draft Policy Review
Table 5: Economic consequences of citrophilus mealybug
Criterion
Estimate
International trade
D - Significant at the district level




Environment, including
rural and regional
economic viability
Although the bulk of Western Australia’s table
grape and other host fruit production are destined
for the domestic market, some international
markets may be lost or diminished as infested
produce may fail to meet consumer expectations of
high quality produce.
Yield and quality reduction may reduce the amount
of table grapes and other host fruit available for
international markets.
The future development of international markets
may be hampered by the presence of citrophilus
mealybug in Western Australia.
The presence of citrophilus mealybug in Western
Australia may limit access to overseas markets
that are free from this pest. India, Thailand and
Pakistan have specific conditions for citrophilus
mealybug (Australian Department of Agriculture
2015ak; 2015aa; 2015e; 2015as; 2015at; 2015aw;
2015h; 2015y).
A - Unlikely to be discernible at any geographic level

Additional pesticides required to control citrophilus
mealybug are unlikely to have any discernible
impact on other aspects of the environment
including rural and regional economic viability at
any geographic level.
The expected economic consequences for the endangered area should citrophilus
mealybug enter, establish and spread within Western Australia has been determined
to be low using the decision rules outlined in Table A5.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
A URE of negligible was determined using the matrix rules outlined in Table A6 for
table grapes imported into Western Australia from regions where citrophilus
mealybug occurs.
Unrestricted risk estimate for citrophilus mealybug
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
Low
Consequences
Low
Unrestricted risk
Very low
36
Draft Policy Review
As the URE is equivalent to Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’, the basic standards of
practice for table grape production would provide an appropriate level of protection
for Western Australia.
37
Draft Policy Review
Citrus planthopper
Scientific name (ABRS 2009)
Colgar peracutum (Walker, 1858) [Hemiptera: Flatidae]
Synonyms (ABRS 2009)
Cromna peracuta Walker, 1858
Phyllyphanta hyalinata Stål, 1859
Colgar roseipennis Distant, 1910
Colgar rufostigmatum Distant, 1910
Preferred common name
citrus planthopper
Alternative common names
none known
Common host plants (Smith et al. 1997)
asparagus, bougainvillea, citrus, coral tree, European grapevine, Geraldton wax,
guava, macadamia, papaw and potato.
Plant part affected
leaves, fruit, fruit stalks and twigs
Australian distribution
Queensland (Fletcher 2011; ASCU 2015)
New South Wales (Fletcher 2011; ASCU 2015)
Victoria (Smith et al. 1997)
South Australia (Smith et al. 1997; Fletcher 2011)
Northern Territory (Fletcher 2011)
Biology and pest status
The biology and pest status of citrus planthopper has been adapted from Smith et al.
(1997) and modified to include additional relevant information.
Biology and ecology
Citrus planthopper is native to Australia. The adult is approximately 8 mm in length.
When at rest, the adult leafhopper holds its wings in a tent-like shape and viewed
from the side they appear triangular. Citrus planthopper is pale green to white, with a
minute red spot in the middle of each forewing and a red border on its forewings. The
juvenile stages are pale green to white (sometimes with conspicuous lengthwise
brownish stripes), and a clump of feathery, mealy filaments projecting back from the
tip of the abdomen. Adult and juvenile planthoppers are mobile, skipping short
distances when disturbed. Adults are considered weak fliers and juveniles are
flightless.
The eggs of all species are laid in oval-shaped masses of about 50 eggs. The egg
masses are about 5 mm in diameter. At first eggs are white, but they darken near
hatching. The complete life cycle takes 1–2 months.
38
Draft Policy Review
Citrus planthopper are more common inside the tree canopy than outside. Large
numbers of young and adults congregate on the twigs and fruit stalks, producing
large amounts of clear honeydew, which supports the growth of sooty mould.
Damage
Although sooty mould is the main damaged attributed to citrus planthopper, feeding
damage on citrus can occur in the form of small, circular yellow marks becoming less
obvious as the fruit matures. Citrus planthopper is considered to be mostly a minor
pest of citrus in regions where it is present although can be an occasionally important
pest in some inland areas of Queensland.
Pest status
Although Smith et al. (1997) included grapes as a host for citrus planthopper, recent
viticulture management guides
(Nicholas et al. 2003; Dunn & Zurbo 2014; Fahey 2014) do not include citrus
planthopper as a pest of any significance for Australian viticulture.
Control
Control of citrus planthopper in citrus orchards is predominantly achieved by
biological control with Smith et al. (1997) reporting that the small wasp Achalcerinys
sp. parasitizes up to 90% of eggs and is an important natural enemy. Other wasps
that parasitize citrus planthopper eggs include Ooencrytus sp. and Aphanomerus
spp. Dryinid wasps and Strepsiptera parasite nymphs. Chemical control for citrus
planthopper in citrus orchards is recommended after a monitoring program has
detected more than 20% of green twigs are infested. Monitoring is recommended
from mid-December to early March in Queensland and from February to late may in
Victoria and South Australia.
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is an unrestricted risk estimate for citrus
planthopper in association with imported table grapes imported from other Australian
states and territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the absence of risk
management measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment considers
basic standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes including
cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in standard
closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences are
described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
The likelihood that citrus planthopper will arrive in Western Australia with the
importation of table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source and
destination area considered relevant to citrus planthopper and includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin
39
Draft Policy Review







Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). Citrophilus planthopper has been recorded from all table grape
producing states and territories with the exception of Western Australia.
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
Citrus planthopper does not require an association with table grape bunches
for their existence. They can feed and breed in the absence of table grape
bunches and have the capacity to feed on other host plants.
Citrus planthopper monitoring is recommended from mid-December to early
March in Queensland and from February to late may in Victoria and South
Australia. Citrus planthopper has the potential to be present during table
grape harvest.
It is likely that honeydew production, associated sooty mould and damage
would be present on heavily infested grape bunches. Any grape bunches
harvested showing these symptoms may be detected during field and packing
house quality control inspections and subsequently removed from the
pathway.
Although citrus planthopper juvenile and adult life stages are mobile, the
adults are considered poor flyers and the juveniles are flightless. It is
expected that if present, some juveniles and adults would remain within the
table grape bunch when harvested and processed through standard packing
house operations.
Smith et al. (1997) included grapes as a host for citrus planthopper. However,
recent viticulture management guides (Nicholas et al. 2003; Dunn & Zurbo
2014; Fahey 2014) do not list citrus planthopper as a pest of any significance
for Australian viticulture.
The presence of citrus planthopper on the table grape pathway at its origin is
expected to reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western
Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures




Standard management practices for the control of citrus planthopper in citrus
are based on monitoring population levels. The action level for control is when
20% or more of green twigs are infested.
Although Smith et al. (1997)
included grapes as a host for citrus planthopper, recent viticulture
management guides (Nicholas et al. 2003; Dunn & Zurbo 2014; Fahey 2014)
do not include citrus planthopper as a pest of any significance for Australian
viticulture. This suggests its absence or if present, that existing pest
management procedures for other pest species may be limiting its presence
in Australian vineyards.
Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is expected that
standard on-arrival procedures would not detect the presence of citrus
planthopper adult and nymphs in a consignment of table grapes.
40
Draft Policy Review
The ability of citrus planthopper to survive existing pest management procedures
is expected to be a factor limiting the likelihood of this pest being imported into
Western Australia.
Ability to survive transport and storage




After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of sulphur dioxide
treatment against citrus planthopper under transport and storage conditions
for table grapes.
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of low temperature
treatments against citrus planthopper under transport and storage conditions
for table grapes.
Other routine post-harvest procedures such as palletisation, containerisation,
and transportation to Western Australia are not expected to impact on the
survivability of any juvenile and adult life stages protected within harvested
grape bunches.
The ability of citrus planthopper to survive transport and storage procedures is
not expected to reduce the likelihood of this pest being imported into Western
Australia.
Citrus planthopper is estimated as having an extremely low probability of
importation. That is, the importation of citrus planthopper would be extremely unlikely
to occur under standard commercial production, harvesting and packing house
procedures for table grapes from regions where this pest occurs. Due to the lack of
evidence that citrus planthopper is a pest of any significance for Australian viticulture,
a higher probability of importation could not be justified.
Probability of distribution
The likelihood that citrus planthopper will be distributed into Western Australia in a
viable state to a suitable host, as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of table
grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the destination area considered
relevant to citrus planthopper and includes:
Transport of table grapes within Western Australia


There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western
Australia; consequently bunches infested with citrus planthopper may be
distributed throughout Western Australia.
In 2013/14, 82% of Australian households purchased grapes at least once
(HAL 2014). This suggests that table grapes have the potential to be widely
distributed within Western Australia.
The ability of citrus planthopper to move with infested table grapes is not
expected to be a factor limiting the potential for citrus planthopper to be
distributed within Western Australia.
Risks from by-products and waste
41
Draft Policy Review



The importation of table grapes for human consumption will result in the
generation of waste material including rachis and berries.
Fruit waste may be disposed of in a number of ways including municipal
refuse sites, composting, mulching and discarding into urban, rural or natural
localities including roadsides.
Lea and Worsley (2008a) reported that 51% of Australian people surveyed
often composted food waste.
The ability of citrus planthopper to be associated with table grape by-products
and waste is not expected to be a factor limiting the potential for citrus
planthopper to be distributed within Western Australia.
Ability to move from the pathway to a suitable host

Citrus planthopper is typical of the family Flatidae, which have limited
independent dispersal capabilities. With adults being weak fliers and juveniles
flightless, the juvenile planthopper would have some difficulty in finding a
suitable host as dispersal between hosts is normally achieved by adults.
The ability of citrus planthopper to move from infested table grapes to a suitable
host is expected to be a factor limiting the potential for citrus planthopper to be
distributed within Western Australia.
Citrus planthopper is estimated as having a low probability of distribution in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the distribution of citrus planthopper
to the endangered area and subsequent transfer to a suitable host would be unlikely
to occur as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of imported table grapes. Due
to the limited independent dispersal capabilities typical of the family Flatidae, a higher
probability of distribution could not be justified.
Overall probability of entry (importation x distribution)
The overall probability of entry has been estimated by combining the individual
probabilities of importation and distribution using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Citrus planthopper is estimated as having an extremely low probability of entry in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the probability that citrus planthopper
would enter Western Australia, be distributed in a viable state to an endangered area
and subsequently transfer to a suitable host would be extremely unlikely to occur as
a result of trade in table grapes imported from regions where this pest occurs.
Probability of establishment
The likelihood that citrus planthopper will establish within Western Australia is based
on an assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant
to citrus planthopper and includes:
Availability of suitable hosts, alternative hosts and vectors in the PRA area


Host plant for citrus planthopper include commonly grown such as asparagus,
bougainvillea, citrus, coral tree, European grapevine, Geraldton wax, guava,
macadamia, papaw and potato.
Citrus planthopper feeds on twigs and fruit stalks suggesting that most host
plant would provide suitable feeding sites throughout the year.
42
Draft Policy Review


Many of these host plants are grown commercially in Western Australia
Many host plants are grown in backyards, as amenity plants and be present
as naturalised populations. Domestic garden plantings, both maintained and
abandoned, occur in Perth and in most Western Australian towns and by
many farmhouses.
The availability of suitable hosts in Western Australia is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for citrus planthopper to establish in Western Australia.
Suitability of the environment

CLIMEX climate matching scenarios were generated from climatic data for
locations where citrus planthopper is known to occur in Australia. The
scenarios suggest that the southern and coastal regions of Western Australia
would be suitable for the establishment of citrus planthopper.
Bioclimatic modelling and current Australian distribution suggest that Western
Australia’s climate is not expected to be a factor limiting the potential for citrus
planthopper to establish within Western Australia.
Cultural practices and control measures



The citrus industry takes an active and positive stance on food safety issues
by implementing integrated crop management techniques (ICM) to reduce
pesticide usage (Foord et al. 2006).
Recent viticulture production guides (Nicholas et al. 2003; Dunn & Zurbo
2014; Fahey 2014) do not consider citrus planthopper as a pest of any
significance in Australian viticulture. This suggests its absence, or if present,
that existing pest management procedures for other pest species has
potential to limit its establishment in Western Australia.
The absence or lack of effective control measures in natives, amenity and
backyard situations is not seen as a factor limiting the potential for
establishment.
Cultural practices and control measures are not expected to be a factor limiting
the potential for citrus planthopper to establish in Western Australia.
Reproductive strategies and survival



A mated female finding a suitable host has the capacity to initiate a viable
population for the foreseeable future.
Reproduction is sexual indicating that any immature citrus planthoppers
would have to mature into either an adult female or male then find a suitable
mate in order to initiate a viable population for the foreseeable future.
Citrus planthopper has a 1–2 month life cycle enabling large populations to
build up on host plant and in particular citrus.
The reproductive and survival strategy of citrus planthopper is not expected to be
a factor limiting the potential for citrus planthopper to establish within Western
Australia.
Citrus planthopper has been estimated as having a high probability of establishment.
That is, the establishment of citrus planthopper in an endangered area would be very
likely to occur as a result of infested table grapes being imported into Western
Australia and distributed in a viable state to a suitable host. No significant factors
were identified that limit citrus planthopper establishing in Western Australia.
43
Draft Policy Review
Probability of spread
The likelihood that citrus planthopper will spread within Western Australia is based on
an assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to
citrus planthopper and includes:
Suitability of the natural or managed environment for natural spread

The weak flying capabilities of citrus planthopper is indicative of limited
independent dispersal capabilities and dispersal is more likely associated with
host material such as infested fruit, nursery stock and equipment. Long
distance dispersal would be facilitated primarily by the commercial distribution
of nursery stock.
The suitability of the natural or managed environment is expected to be a factor
limiting the potential for citrus planthopper to spread in Western Australia.
Presence of natural barriers



Many host plant would be naturalised in Western Australia and are common
backyard and amenity plants.
The long distances between regional centres in Western Australia may
prevent long-range natural spread of citrus planthopper.
The long distances between commercial host crops in Western Australia may
prevent long-range natural spread of citrus planthopper.
The presence of natural barriers is expected to be a factor limiting the potential
for citrus planthopper to spread in Western Australia.
Potential for movement with commodities or conveyances

Citrus planthopper being a weak flyer is indicative of a somewhat limited
independent dispersal capability and is more likely to disperse in association
with host material such as infested fruit, nursery stock and equipment. Long
distance dispersal would be facilitated primarily by the commercial distribution
of nursery stock.
The potential for movement with commodities or conveyances is not expected to
be a factor limiting the potential for citrus planthopper to spread in Western
Australia.
Potential natural enemies



Control of citrus planthopper in citrus orchards is predominantly achieved by
biological control with Smith et al. (1997)
reporting that the small wasp Achalcerinys sp. parasitizes up to 90% of eggs.
Other biocontrol agents include the wasps Ooencrytus sp., Aphanomerus
spp. Dryinid wasps and Strepsiptera parasite nymphs.
It is not known if suitable biocontrol agents are present in Western Australia
for the biocontrol of citrus planthopper.
The potential for natural enemies is not expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for citrus planthopper to spread in Western Australia.
Citrus planthopper has been estimated as having a moderate probability of spread
within Western Australia. That is, spread of citrus planthopper in an endangered area
44
Draft Policy Review
would occur with an even probability as a result of the infested table grapes being
imported into Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to a suitable host.
Due to the limited capacity of citrus planthopper for natural long range spread from
infested to uninfested areas, a higher probability of distribution could not be justified.
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
The overall probability of entry, establishment and spread has been estimated by
combining the individual probabilities using the matrix rules shown in Table A2. Citrus
planthopper has been assessed as having an extremely low probability of entry,
establishment and spread entry in association with imported table grapes. That is,
the entry, establishment and spread of citrus planthopper would be extremely
unlikely to occur should table grapes be imported into Western Australia from
regions where this pest occurs.
Economic consequences
ISPM 11 (2014) indicates that the assessment of economic consequences is made
using ‘a hypothetical situation where a pest is supposed to have been introduced
and to be fully expressing its potential economic consequences (per year) in the PRA
area’.
This is interpreted as an unabated incursion; however, it is acknowledged that
existing control regimes for similar species may impact on this expression. In light of
this interpretation, an evaluation of the consequence of entry, establishment or
spread of citrus planthopper is considered in Table 6.
Table 6: Economic consequences of citrus planthopper
Criterion
Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health
B - Minor significance at the local level


Any other aspects of
the environment
Citrus planthopper infest a somewhat limited range
of plant hosts, the main economic impact of this
species is the production of honeydew leading to the
development of sooty mould.
Existing control strategies for the control of sooty
moulds are already in place in Western Australia.
The presence of sooty moulds may impact on
backyard, naturalised and native hosts.
A - Unlikely to be discernible at any geographic level

There are no known consequences of citrus
planthopper on other aspects of the environment.
Indirect consequences
Eradication, control
etc.
C - Significant at the local level level

A control or eradication program would add to the
cost of production of plant hosts. Effective control
45
Draft Policy Review
Table 6: Economic consequences of citrus planthopper
Criterion
Estimate

Domestic trade
strategies are based on biological control agents.
The introduction and maintenance of suitable
biocontrol agents may add to the production costs of
affected crops.
B - Minor significance at the local level


Some interstate and domestic markets could be lost
or diminished as infested produce may fail to meet
consumer expectations of high quality produce.
Yield and quality reduction may reduce the amount
of table grapes and other host fruit available for
international markets.

International trade
B - Minor significance at the local level




Environment,
including rural and
regional economic
viability
Although the bulk of Western Australia’s horticultural
production is destined for the domestic market,
some international markets could be lost or
diminished as infested produce may fail to meet
consumer expectations of high quality produce.
Yield and quality reduction may reduce the amount
of table grapes and other host fruit available for
international markets.
The presence of citrus planthopper in Western
Australia may limit access to overseas markets that
are free from this pest.
The future development of international markets may
be hampered by the presence of citrus planthopper
in Western Australia.
A - Unlikely to be discernible at any geographic level

Additional pesticides required to control citrus
planthopper are unlikely to have any discernible
impact on other aspects of the environment including
rural and regional economic viability at any
geographic level.
The expected economic consequences for the endangered area should citrus
planthopper enter, establish and spread within Western Australia has been
determined to be very low using the decision rules outlined in Table A5.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
A URE of negligible was determined using the matrix rules outlined in Table A6 for
table grapes imported into Western Australia from regions where citrus planthopper
occurs.
46
Draft Policy Review
Unrestricted risk estimate for citrus planthopper
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
Extremely low
Consequences
Very low
Unrestricted risk
Negligible
As the URE is below Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’, the basic standards of practice
for table grape production would provide an appropriate level of protection for
Western Australia.
47
Draft Policy Review
European fruit lecanium scale
Scientific name (ABRS 2009)
Parthenolecanium corni (Bouché, 1844) [Hemiptera: Coccidae]
Synonyms (ABRS 2009)
Lecanium corni Bouché, 1844
Lecanium vini Bouché, 1851
Preferred common name
European fruit lecanium scale
Alternate common names
brown scale, European fruit scale, European peach scale, fruit scale, plum scale,
yew scale
Common host plants
Polyphagous species, 350 host species from 40 families (Ben-Dov 2014b), including
grape (Pellizzari 1997a), stone fruit (peach, nectarine, plum, cherry and apricot),
apple, pear (Pfeiffer 1997), currant, gooseberry, raspberry and various ornamentals
(Alford 1984). A comprehensive host list for European fruit lecanium scale is provided
in Appendix E.
Plant part affected
leaves, branches and fruit (Pellizzari 1997a).
Australian distribution
Tasmania (TPPD 2015)
Victoria(WINC 2015)
NSW (Snare 2006)
Biology and pest status
Parthenolecanium corni (European fruit lecanium scale) is present in Victoria (WINC
2015), Tasmania (TPPD 2015) and has also been recorded in New South Wales
(Snare 2006). This species is difficult to distinguish in the field from the more
common grapevine scale, P. persicae (Pellizzari 1997a).
European fruit lecanium scale belongs to the Coccidae family, commonly referred to
as soft scales. Soft scales are small and inconspicuous sedentary insects with
sucking mouthparts that feed on plant sap. They produce a hard layer of wax on their
outermost skin that provides protection. As with other scale insects, European fruit
lecanium scale exists in several forms depending on the sex and age; there are three
life stages—egg, nymph (crawler) and adult. The form usually encountered, the
‘scale insect’, is the female adult. The male adult is short-lived and rarely observed.
Biology and ecology
The biology and ecology of European fruit lecanium scale has been adapted from
Varela et al. (2013) and modified to include additional information.
48
Draft Policy Review
The adult female is 3–5 mm long and nearly hemispherical—slightly longer than
broad—smooth, and shiny brown. Adult females are mostly found on 1–3-year-old
wood under the bark on the underside of woody canes, cordons and spurs, where
they remain for the rest of their lives. Females generally reproduce
parthenogenetically (without mating) because of the scarcity of males, with eggs laid
in spring. Unmated females produce female progeny.
Eggs are oval and found beneath the female body. As more eggs are laid, the
female’s entire body is converted to eggs and she eventually dies with the walls of
the scale’s body forming a hard-shell egg chamber. Each female lays about 1500
eggs. Eggs are pearly white when first laid, turning yellow to pink as they are about to
hatch.
The eggs hatch in early summer (Snare 2006) and the first nymphal stage (crawler),
emerges from beneath the female body. Crawlers are small, flat, oval and vary from
yellow in the summer months to pale brown in winter. Crawlers migrate from under
the female’s shell to the shoots and underside of basal leaves of the current season’s
growth and settle to feed along the veins on the underside of leaves. After all the
crawlers have emerged, the empty shell of the dead female remains attached to the
1–3-year-old wood. As the crawlers moult to second instars they are found higher up
in the canopy.
Overwintering occurs as second instar nymphs that migrate to old, lignified branches
and trunks, where they settle in sheltered places (Pellizzari 1997a) or fertilised
females on twigs and branches (Snare 2006). Feeding resumes in spring.
The lifecycle of European fruit lecanium scale is affected by climatic conditions and
the host plant. On grapevine, European fruit lecanium scale has one or two
generations/year (Pellizzari 1997a), with only two nymphal stages. The seasonal and
spatial distribution of European fruit lecanium scale in Australia is not well
documented.
Where bivoltine populations exist, a portion of the second instar population move
from the underside of the leaves and settle on green-parts of the vine such as leaf
petioles, grape-stalks and berries. The nymphs of the second generation migrate to
the old-lignified branches to overwinter, in a similar manner to univoltine populations
(Pellizzari 1997a).
Dispersal
The crawlers have functional legs and are the main dispersive stage within and
between plants. Crawler dispersal may be active or passive. In active dispersal the
crawlers move from the egg chamber to leaves and shoots where they settle, and
may move between plants where canopies touch. The most important means of
passive dispersal is wind, which may easily transfer crawlers large distances. In
addition, rain, machinery and animals may contribute to the passive dispersal of
crawlers. The transport of infested propagation material is another important method
of incidental introduction into other areas and countries (Greathead 1997; Pellizzari
1997b).
Pest status
Second instar and young adult females (Pellizzari 1997a) excrete honeydew that
covers leaves and clusters, leaving a sticky residue and allowing for sooty mould
growth, causing blackened areas on leaves and fruit (Varela et al. 2013). Outbreaks
cause economic damage, particularly to table grape varieties, due to grapes
becoming covered in sooty mould. The presence of sooty mould can render the
berries either unmarketable, not suitable for export, or their economic value is
reduced as they have to be washed before they can be sold (Pellizzari 1997a).
Sooty mould development on the honeydew also reduces the light reaching the
leaves. Large infestations can kill twigs and stunt vine growth (Snare 2006).
49
Draft Policy Review
European fruit lecanium scale can also transmit viral pathogens (Hommay et al.
2008).
European fruit lecanium scale is considered one of the most economically important
coccids for grapevines. Although common in European vineyards, it only occasionally
forms economically important outbreaks (Pellizzari 1997a). In contrast, it is
considered one the most important introduced pests of grapevines in South American
vineyards (Argentina, Brazil and Chile) (González 1983; Pellizzari 1997a). In New
Zealand it has been recorded in low numbers on grapevines (Hodgson & Henderson
2000). A survey of coccid species in the main vineyard regions of Australia did not
report European fruit lecanium scale on grapevines (Rakimov et al. 2013). Recent
viticulture management guides (Nicholas et al. 2003; Dunn & Zurbo 2014; Fahey
2014) do not include European fruit lecanium scale as a pest of any significance for
Australian viticulture.
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for European
fruit lecanium scale in association with imported table grapes imported from other
Australian states and territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the absence of
risk management measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment
considers basic standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes
including cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in
standard closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences
are described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
The likelihood that European fruit lecanium scale will arrive in Western Australia with
the importation of table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source
and destination area considered relevant to European fruit lecanium scale and
includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin



Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). European fruit lecanium scale has been recorded from table grape
producing states of New South Wales and Victoria.
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
Although this species has been reported on Vitis spp. (Pellizzari 1997a), a
review of current literature, the Australian Plant Pest Database and internet
50
Draft Policy Review




sources found no records of European fruit lecanium scale reported on Vitis
spp. in Australia.
A survey of coccid species in the main vineyard regions of Australia did not
report European fruit lecanium scale on grapevines (Rakimov et al. 2013).
The small size of European fruit lecanium scale adult females (3–5 mm)
(Varela et al. 2013) may make them difficult to detect, especially at low
population levels. If present on grape bunches, sorting, grading and packing
procedures may not detect and subsequently discard infested table grapes.
European fruit lecanium scale produces honeydew that covers leaves and
clusters, allowing the growth of sooty mould, causing blackened areas on
leaves and fruit (Varela et al. 2013). Any grape bunches harvested showing
these symptoms may be detected during field and packing house quality
control inspections and subsequently removed from the pathway.
Lightly infested grape bunches may not result in obvious visible markers of
infestation such as the presence of honeydew and sooty mould. Under these
conditions, European fruit lecanium scale may escape detection during firld
and packing house quality control inspection and remain hidden within
harvested grape bunches.
The presence of European fruit lecanium scale on the table grape pathway at its
origin is expected to reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western
Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures






Insecticidal control is difficult in scales and must be directed at unprotected
nymphs as the hard, waxy armour of adults makes it difficult to penetrate
scale coverings.
Well-timed insecticide applications specifically for scale control are usually
required, as well as application of dormant oils.
Identifying the periods of egg hatch and crawler activity is critical to the proper
timing of insecticide applications aimed at the nymphs.
European fruit lecanium scale females develop under under the bark of
cordons, arms, upper trunk and vine head (Varela et al. 2013). These
protected sites could limit the effectiveness of chemical sprays.
Where European fruit lecanium scale occurs on grapes, parasites and
predators help keep populations under control (Pellizzari 1997a; Varela et al.
2013).
Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is not expected that
standard on-arrival procedures would detect the presence of nymphs or
adults in a consignment of table grapes.
The ability of European fruit lecanium scale to survive existing pest management
procedures is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be
imported into Western Australia with table grapes.
Ability to survive transport and storage

Scales have been intercepted on table grapes imported from Chile into New
Zealand (Biosecurity Australia 2005).
51
Draft Policy Review





After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of sulphur dioxide
treatment against European fruit leucanium under transport and storage
conditions for table grapes.
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of low temperature
treatments against European fruit leucanium under transport and storage
conditions for table grapes.
European fruit leucanium scale undertakes an overwinter stage (Pellizzari
1997a) suggesting the potential to survive cold storage and transportation.
Other routine post-harvest procedures such as palletisation, containerisation,
and transportation to Western Australia are not expected to impact on the
survivability of any nymphs or adult protected within harvested grape
bunches.
The ability of European fruit lecanium scale to survive transport and storage
procedures is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be
imported into Western Australia with table grapes.
European fruit lecanium scale is estimated as having a negligible probability of
importation in association with imported table grapes. That is, the importation of
European fruit lecanium scale would almost certainly not occur under standard
commercial production, harvesting and packing house procedures for table grapes
from regions where this pest occurs. Due to the lack of evidence of European fruit
lecanium scale associated with Australian viticulture, a higher probability of
importation could not be justified.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
Where a negligible probability of entry (importation or distribution) occurs, combining
any other probability using the matrix rules shown in Table A2 would result in a
negligible probability of entry, establishment and spread.
Combining a negligible probability of entry, establishment and spread with any
estimate of economic consequence would result in a URE that does not exceed
Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’ (Table A6), consequently continuation of a risk
assessment for this pest is not required.
For table grapes grown in regions where European fruit lecanium scale occurs, the
basic standards of practice for table grape production would provide an appropriate
level of protection for Western Australia. As such, specific risk mitigating
phytosanitary measures would not be required for the table grape pathway.
52
Draft Policy Review
European wasp
Scientific name (ABRS 2009)
Vespula germanica (Fabricus, 1793) [Hymenoptera: Vespidae]
Synonyms (ABRS 2009)
Vespa germanica Fabricus, 1793
Preferred common name
European wasp
Alternative common names
none known
Common host material
honey, soft fruits, grape, meat, sugary drinks
Plant part affected
fruit
Australian distribution
Queensland (Spradbery & Maywald 1992)
New South Wales (Spradbery & Maywald 1992)
Victoria (Spradbery & Maywald 1992)
Tasmania (Spradbery & Maywald 1992)
South Australia (Spradbery & Maywald 1992)
Northern Territory (NTEIC 2015)
Biology and pest status
Biology and ecology
The biology and ecology of European wasp has been adapted from Byrne and
Widmer (2015) and Davis (2004) and modified to include additional relevant
information.
European wasps are stout-bodied and bee-shaped, only slightly larger than a normal
bee. They are brightly coloured with alternating bright lemon-yellow and black stripes
with yellow legs. The antennae are entirely black. European wasps fly swiftly with
their legs tucked up close to the body.
European wasps are established in eastern Australia and each year fertilised wasp
queens arrive in Western Australia via freight and cargo to seed new nests. Through
a European wasp surveillance program operating since 1977, the Department of
Agriculture and Food, Western Australia has been able to successfully eradicate
incursions and prevent establishment in Western Australia. Most of these incursions
have occurred near interstate freight terminals such as Kewdale.
In spring, lone mated queens search for a nest site and begin to construct a nest.
The nest is made from papery material scraped from wooden objects and mixed with
saliva. The queen constructs about a dozen cells and lays an egg in each cell. When
the eggs hatch into larvae she captures insects to feed the larvae until they pupate
and eventually emerge as worker wasps in late spring or early summer. Once a
53
Draft Policy Review
worker population is available to gather wood fibre for nest construction and food for
the queen and larvae, the queen is freed to concentrate on laying eggs and she
remains in the nest. The nest grows in both size and number of wasps over summer
and peaking in early autumn. Male wasps (drones) are then produced, followed by
new queens in late autumn.
The new queens and drones mate and the nests usually decline and finally die out
during winter. However, the mild winters in southern Australia may not be sufficiently
severe and nests can survive over winter. These overwintering nests may retain
many new queens and, given the head start of not having to establish a new nest,
can grow very large, containing tens of thousands of wasps, European wasp nests
typically contain 2000 or more worker wasps.
European wasp nests have an outer covering and are shaped like a soccer ball but
can be larger. Nests are typically underground with a single entry hole approximately
40 mm in diameter. Occasionally nests are located in wall cavities, roof voids and
hollow tree trunks, retaining walls and rockeries in gardens, compost heaps, within
tree trunks and unused sheds.
Pest status
European wasps attack bees and bee hives, robbing the hives of honey and
sometimes completely killing hives. They also directly damage soft fruits and can
cause substantial damage to grape crops. European wasps have even been reported
cutting pieces of flesh from cows’ teats.
Environmentally, they are damaging through direct predation on native insects and
competition with other species including birds. Tourism is adversely affected in areas
where they are plentiful because wasps are attracted to foods, drinks and barbeques
in outdoor areas. They can be a significant urban pest and the cost of having a nest
destroyed by professional pest control operators is expensive. European wasps can
sting several times in an attack and stung victims can require medical attention.
Fatalities have been caused by reactions in allergic patients and by multiple wasp
attacks where nests have been disturbed.
Lefoe et al. (2001) reported on research to minimise the impact of European wasps
on the grape and wine industry in Australia and found that European wasps can
become a serious pest problem in the grape and wine industry in years of high
abundance. Problems associated with European wasp include; occupational health
and safety issues with stings to workers, a nuisance to customers at the cellar door
and restaurants, and crop damage and loss of quality in wine (Lefoe et al. 2001).
Grape production losses can be significant with Bashford (2001) reporting losses of
up to 25% in Tasmania and grape production losses of 10 to 15% in Victoria. Thinskinned fruits such as raspberries, peaches and apricots may also be subject to
direct attack when they are ripe and particularly when they are overripe (DPIPWE
2014) and strawberry production losses of 20% been reported by Bashford (2001).
Control
Current management practises have been outlined by Lefoe et al. (2001) who
indicates the primary management tool for European wasp is direct nest destruction
with an insecticide registered for use against European wasp. Baiting is also seen by
Lefoe et al. (2001) as having considerable potential. Other management tools include
trapping but although a variety of traps are available commercially, trapping alone is
reported to rarely reduce overall wasp population when numbers are high.
Lefoe et al. (2001) outlined the status of biological control programs against
European wasp where A biological control program in the late 1980's and early
1990's aimed at establishing a parasitic wasp (Sphecophaga vesparum) where 120
000 parasitoids were distributed as dormant cocoons to parts of southeastern
54
Draft Policy Review
Australia. The parasite has not been recovered from release sites however and its
establishment is not confirmed.
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for European
wasps in association with imported table grapes imported from other Australian
states and territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the absence of risk
management measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment considers
basic standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes including
cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in standard
closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences are
described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry describes the likelihood that the quarantine pest will be
imported into the PRA area and be distributed in a viable state to a suitable host
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
The likelihood that European wasps will arrive in Western Australia with the
importation of table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source and
destination area considered relevant to European wasps and includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin





Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). European wasp has been recorded from the table grape producing
states and territories of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South
Australia and the Northern Territory.
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
European wasps are a recognised pest in vineyards causing occupational
health and safety issues with stings to workers, and crop damage and loss of
quality in wine (Lefoe et al. 2001).
Lefoe et al. (2001) indicates that some wineries bring harvests forward to
reduce losses when wasp numbers are high.
European wasps are highly mobile and would have ample opportunity to
move off the fruit when harvested and processed through standard packing
house operations.
55
Draft Policy Review
The presence of European wasps on the table grape pathway at its origin is
expected to reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western
Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures



Lefoe et al. (2001) outlines successful baiting technology used to control
European wasps in vineyards.
Lefoe et al. (2001) assessed the impact of European wasps on the grape and
wine industry in Australia and found that European wasps can become a
serious pest problem in the grape and wine industry in years of high
abundance.
Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is expected that
standard on-arrival procedures would not detect the presence of European
wasp in a consignment of table grapes.
The ability of European wasps to survive existing pest management procedures
is expected to be a factor limiting the potential for European wasps to be
imported into Western Australia with table grapes.
Ability to survive transport and storage




After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of sulphur dioxide
treatment against European wasp under transport and storage conditions for
table grapes.
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of low temperature
treatments against European wasp under transport and storage conditions for
table grapes.
Other routine post-harvest procedures such as palletisation, containerisation,
and transportation to Western Australia are not expected to impact on the
survivability of any wasps protected within harvested grape bunches.
The ability of European wasps to survive transport and storage procedures is not
expected to be a factor limiting the potential for European wasps to be imported
into Western Australia with table grapes.
European wasps are estimated as having a very low probability of importation in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the importation of European wasps
would be very unlikely to occur under standard commercial production, harvesting
and packing house procedures for table grapes from regions where this pest occurs.
Due to the highly mobile nature of European wasp, a higher probability of importation
could not be justified.
Probability of distribution
The likelihood that European wasp will be distributed into Western Australia in a
viable state to a suitable host, as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of table
56
Draft Policy Review
grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the destination area considered
relevant to European wasp and includes:
Transport of table grapes within Western Australia



There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western
Australia; consequently bunches infested with European wasp may be
distributed throughout Western Australia.
In 2013/14, 82% of Australian households purchased grapes at least once
(HAL 2014). This suggests that table grapes have the potential to be widely
distributed within Western Australia.
Packaging material may trap European wasp within the packaging.
The ability of European wasp to move with infested table grapes is not expected
to be a factor limiting the potential for native tussock moth to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Risks from by-products and waste




The importation of table grapes for human consumption will result in the
generation of waste material including rachis and berries.
Fruit waste may be disposed of in a number of ways including municipal
refuse sites, composting, mulching and discarding into urban, rural or natural
localities including roadsides.
Lea and Worsley (2008a) reported that 51% of Australian people surveyed
often composted food waste.
European wasps are highly mobile and would have ample opportunity to
move off the pathway before table grapes are generated into by-products and
waste.
The ability of European wasp to be associated with table grape by-products and
waste is not expected to be a factor limiting the potential for European wasp to
be distributed within Western Australia.
Ability to move from the pathway to a suitable host





Any wasps that escape detection are likely to survive storage and transport to
the endangered area.
European wasps are highly mobile and would have ample opportunity to
move off the fruit and into the endangered area.
It is expected that the greater majority of European wasp present on the
pathway will be sterile worker wasps and would not be capable of initiating a
founding population.
The presence of a mated female cannot be discounted as each year fertilised
wasp queens arrive in Western Australia via freight and cargo.
A fertilised queen does not require a suitable host to initiate a founding
population.
The ability of European wasp to move from infested table grapes to a suitable host
is expected to be a factor limiting the potential for European wasp to be
distributed within Western Australia.
European wasp is estimated as having a very low probability of distribution in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the distribution of European wasp to
57
Draft Policy Review
the endangered area and subsequent transfer to a suitable host would be very
unlikely to occur as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of imported table
grapes. Due to the predominance of sterile workers associated with the table grape
pathway, a higher probability of distribution could not be justified.
Overall probability of entry (importation x distribution)
The overall probability of entry has been estimated by combining the individual
probabilities of importation and distribution using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
European wasp is estimated as having an extremely low probability of entry in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the probability that European wasp
would enter Western Australia, be distributed in a viable state to an endangered area
and subsequently transfer to a suitable host would be extremely unlikely to occur
as a result of trade in table grapes imported from regions where this pest occurs.
Probability of establishment
The likelihood that European wasp will establish within Western Australia is based on
an assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to
citrophilus mealybug and includes:
Availability of suitable hosts, alternative hosts and vectors in the PRA area


A fertilised queen does not require a suitable host to initiate a founding
population.
European wasp workers forage for carbohydrates such as sugars from
ripening grapes and other soft fruit and sugary soft drinks. Protein such meat
scraps, pet food or picnic or alfresco food are also collected by foraging
worker to feed the developing colony. These food sources will be readily
available in the natural and managed environment.
The availability of suitable hosts in Western Australia is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for European wasp to establish in Western Australia.
Suitability of the environment




European wasp is established in many areas of eastern Australia
(Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and the
Northern Territory). There are similarities in the natural and managed
environments of these states with those in Western Australia. This suggests
that areas within Western Australia would be suitable for European wasp to
establish.
A climate model published by Spradbery and Maywald (1992) indicated that
European wasp had the potential to colonise most of Australia’s south east
areas and eastern seaboard north to Rockhampton (Queensland) as well as
the south west region of Western Australia.
DAFWA’s European wasp surveillance program has been successful in
eradicating overwintering wasp nests in the Perth metropolitan area since
1997 suggesting a suitable climate exists for the wasp to establish.
The mild winters in Western Australia may not be sufficiently severe and nests
can survive over winter. These overwintering nests may contain many new
queens
58
Draft Policy Review
Bioclimatic modelling and current Australian distribution of European wasp
suggest that Western Australia’s climate and environment is not expected to be
a factor limiting the potential for European wasp to establish within Western
Australia.
Cultural practices and control measures



Wasps are not considered a significant pest in Western Australia’s viticulture
industry (DAFWA 2013).
The underground nests and other physically protected nests of European
wasp would be largely isolated from cultural and control measure for other
pest present in the natural and managed environment.
The absence or lack of effective control measures in native, amenity and
backyard situations is not seen as a factor limiting the potential for
establishment.
Cultural practices and control measures are not expected to be a factor limiting
the potential for European wasp to establish in Western Australia.
Reproductive strategies and survival


European wasps build underground nest as well as in man-made structures
such as roof spaces and cavity walls of houses, retaining walls and rockeries
in gardens, compost heaps, within tree trunks and unused sheds. These sites
can limit the effectiveness of chemical sprays and biocontrol agents.
The mild winters in Western Australia allow nests to survive over winter.
These overwintering nests may retain many new queens and, given the head
start of not having to establish a new nest, can grow very large, containing
typically contain 2000 or more worker wasps.
The reproductive and survival strategy of European wasp is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for European wasp to establish within Western
Australia.
European wasp has been estimated as having a high probability of establishment
within Western Australia. That is, the establishment of European wasp in an
endangered area would be very likely to occur as a result of the infested table
grapes being imported into Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to the
endangered area. No significant factors were identified that limit European wasp
establishing in Western Australia.
Probability of spread
The likelihood that European wasp will spread within Western Australia is based on
an assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to
European wasp and includes:
Suitability of the natural or managed environment for natural spread

European wasp has spread to in many areas of eastern Australia
(Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and the
Northern Territory). There are similarities in the natural and managed
environments of these states with those present in Western Australia. This
suggests the spread of European wasp would be similar within Western
Australia.
59
Draft Policy Review
The suitability of the natural or managed environment is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for European wasp to spread in Western Australia.
Presence of natural barriers



Queens and foraging workers rarely fly more than 1 km from their nest
(Spradbery & Maywald 1992).
Although the adult fly is considered a strong flyer, the presence of natural
barriers such as deserts or arid native vegetation systems may restrict long
range natural spread of European wasp.
The long distances between some of the main Western Australian commercial
fruit production and inhabited areas may make it difficult for European wasp to
spread unaided from one production or inhabited area to another.
The presence of natural barriers is expected to be a factor limiting the potential
for European wasp to spread in Western Australia.
Potential for movement with commodities or conveyances



The long distance spread of European wasp occurs with the transport of
commodities and conveyances as demonstrated by the many incursions
eradicated near interstate freight terminals in Western Australia.
Long distance spread to new areas following European wasp’s establishment
in Western Australia is expected to be similar to the spread that has occurred
in other Australian states and territories.
There are minimal intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of fruit,
nursery stock, machinery or equipment within Western Australia.
The potential for movement with commodities or conveyances is not expected
to be a factor limiting the potential for European wasp to spread in Western
Australia.
Potential natural enemies

A biological control program in the late 1980's and early 1990's was
unsuccessful in establishing a parasitic wasp in southeastern Australia.
The potential for natural enemies is not expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for European wasp to spread in Western Australia.
European wasp has been estimated as having a high probability of spread within
Western Australia. That is, spread of European wasp in an endangered area would
be very likely to occur as a result of infested table grapes being imported into
Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to a suitable host. No significant
factors were identified that limit European wasp spreading in Western Australia.
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
The overall probability of entry, establishment and spread has been estimated by
combining the individual probabilities using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
European wasp has been assessed as having a extremely low probability of entry,
establishment and spread entry in association with imported table grapes. That is,
the entry, establishment and spread of European wasp would occur with an even
60
Draft Policy Review
probability should table grapes be imported into Western Australia from regions
where this pest occurs.
Economic consequences
ISPM 11 (2014) indicates that the assessment of economic consequences is made
using ‘a hypothetical situation where a pest is supposed to have been introduced
and to be fully expressing its potential economic consequences (per year) in the PRA
area’.
This is interpreted as an unabated incursion; however, it is acknowledged that
existing control regimes for similar species may impact on this expression. In light of
this interpretation, an evaluation of the consequence of entry, establishment or
spread of European wasp is considered in Table 12.
Table 7: Economic consequences of European wasp
Criterion
Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health
D - Significant at the district level



Any other aspects of
the environment
European wasp has the potential for significant
impacts to the viticulture industry with crop losses of
upto 25% being reported from Tasmania (Bashford
2001).
Other thin-skinned fruits such as raspberries,
peaches, apricots and strawberry may also be
subject to direct attack when they are ripe or
overripe.
Environmental conditions exist within Western
Australia that are similar to areas in eastern Australia
where European wasp occurs, this suggests similar
impacts to plant life or health could occur if
European wasp establishes in Western Australia.
C - Significant at the local level


European wasps are economic pests of beehives
The introduction of exotic species such as European
wasp into the natural environment may have the
capacity to induce changes in the ecology of
susceptible native ecological communities by
predation of native invertebrates, competition with
native animals for food.
Indirect consequences
61
Draft Policy Review
Table 7: Economic consequences of European wasp
Criterion
Estimate
Eradication, control
etc.
C - Significant at the local level




Domestic trade
A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level

International trade
The presence of European wasp in Western
Australia is not espected to result in interstate trade
restrictions as European wasp is present in all
Australian states and mainland territories.
B - Minor significance at the local level

Environment,
including rural and
regional economic
viability
Due to the nature of spread of European wasp
during an incursion situation, eradication programs
in Western Australia have been shown to be an
effective mechanism in preventing European wasp
establishing in Western Australia.
In conventional orchard systems and domestic
situations, successful control regimes aimed a
minimising the impact of for European waps involves
the manual destruction of nests and the baiting of
foraging worker wasps.
The incorporation of modifications to existing cultural
practices for the preservation of introduced and
natural environments would add to the cost of
production.
The cost of having a nest destroyed by professional
pest control operators is expensive
The presence of European wasp in Western
Australia may limit access to overseas markets that
are free from this pest.
D - Significant at the district level




Under the hypothetical unabated incursion scenario,
the potential economic consequences of European
wasp in Western Australia would be expected to
result in significant impact to social amenities and
the tourist industry.
Tourism is expected to be adversely affected in
areas where European wasps are plentiful as they
are attracted to foods, drinks and BBQs in outdoor
and alfresco areas.
Insecticides required to control European wasp, if
used, are expected to have consequences that are
unlikely to be discernible at the local level.
European wasps can sting several times in an attack
and stung victims can require medical attention.
Fatalities have been caused by reactions in allergic
patients and by multiple wasp attacks where nests
have been disturbed.
62
Draft Policy Review
The expected economic consequences for the endangered area should European
wasp enter, establish and spread within Western Australia has been determined to
be low using the decision rules outlined in Table A5.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
A UREof negligible was determined using the matrix rules outlined in Table A6 for
table grapes imported into Western Australia from regions where European wasp
occurs.
Unrestricted risk estimate for European wasp
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
Extremely low
Consequences
Low
Unrestricted risk
Negligible
As the URE is below Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’, the basic standards of practice
for control for table grape production would provide an appropriate level of protection
for Western Australia.
63
Draft Policy Review
Flat grain beetle
Scientific name (ABRS 2009)
Cryptolestes pusillus (Schönherr, 1817) [Coleoptera: Laemophloeidae]
Synonyms (ABRS 2009)
Cucujus pusillus Schönherr, 1817
Cucujus minutus Olivier, 1791
Alternate common names
none known
Common host material
flour based material, damaged grain and wheat embryos.
Plant part affected
Seed and processed cereal products
Australian distribution
Western Australia BAMA s.22 declared pest (Moulden 1979)
Queensland (QDPC 2015)
New South Wales (ASCU 2015)
Tasmania (TPPD 2015)
Northern Territory (NTEIC 2015)
Biology and pest status
Biology and ecology
The biology and ecology of flat grain beetles has been adapted from Emery (1999)
and Moulden (1979) and modified to include additional information.
Flat grain beetles belong to the genus Cryptolestes. Cryptolestes species present in
Australia include C. capensis (Waltl, 1834), C. diemenensis (Blackburn, 1903), C.
distorticornis (Lea, 1929), C. ferrugineus (Stephens, 1831), C. norfolcensis (Lea,
1929), C. pusilloides (Steel & Howe, 1952), C. pusillus (Schoenherr, 1817), C.
turcicus (Grouvelle, 1876) and C. ugandae Steel & Howe, 1955 (ABRS 2009).
Flat grain beetles are typically small reddish brown insects about 1.5mm long with
long antennae and a flattened body. Eggs are laid throughout the stored grain and
other host material and develop into tiny larvae with characteristic tail horns, biting
mouth parts and three pairs of legs. Pupation takes place in a cocoon. A complete
life cycle takes from 4-5 weeks and adults may survive up to one year.
Pest status
Flat grain beetles are group of secondary grain pests usually found in flour based
material or feeding on damaged grain and wheat embryos.
Flat grain beetle (C. pusillus) has been intercepted by Australian Department of
Agriculture operational staff during inspections of Californian table grapes for export
to Australian eastern states, however, these beetles are likely to be present only as a
contaminant (DAFF 2013).
64
Draft Policy Review
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for flat grain
beetle in association with imported table grapes imported from other Australian states
and territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the absence of risk management
measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment considers basic
standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes including
cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in standard
closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences are
described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
The likelihood that flat grain beetle will arrive in Western Australia with the
importation of table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source and
destination area considered relevant to flat grain beetle and includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin




Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). Flat grain beetle has been recorded from the table grape producing
states and territories of Western Australia (BAMA declared s22), Queensland,
New South Wales and the Northern Territory.
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
Flat grain beetle has been recorded as a contaminant on table grape bunches
imported from California to Australian eastern states (DAFF 2013).
Flat grain beetle has not been recorded from Australian grapevines.
The presence of flat grain beetle on the table grape pathway at its origin is
expected to reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western
Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures


Flat grain beetle has not been recorded from Australian grapevines.
Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is expected that
standard on-arrival procedures would not detect the presence of flat grain
beetle adult and nymphs in a consignment of table grapes.
65
Draft Policy Review
The ability of flat grain beetle to survive existing pest management procedures is
not expected to be a factor limiting the potential for flat grain beetle to be
imported into Western Australia with table grapes.
Ability to survive transport and storage





Flat grain beetle (C. pusillus) has been intercepted on Californian table
grapes for export to Australian eastern states (DAFF 2013).
After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of sulphur dioxide
treatment against flat grain beetle under transport and storage conditions for
table grapes.
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of low temperature
treatments against flat grain beetle under transport and storage conditions for
table grapes.
Other routine post-harvest procedures such as palletisation, containerisation,
and transportation to Western Australia are not expected to impact on the
survivability of any juvenile and adult life stages protected within harvested
grape bunches.
The ability of flat grain beetle to survive transport and storage procedures is not
expected to be a factor limiting the potential for flat grain beetle to be imported
into Western Australia with table grapes.
Flat grain beetle is estimated as having a negligible probability of importation in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the importation of flat grain beetle
would almost certainly not occur under standard commercial production,
harvesting and packing house procedures for table grapes from regions where this
pest occurs. Due to the lack of evidence that flat grain beetle is associated with
Australian viticulture, a higher probability of importation could not be justified.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
Where a negligible probability of entry (importation or distribution), establishment or
spread occurs, combining any other probability using the matrix rules shown in Table
A2 would result in a negligible probability of entry, establishment and spread.
Combining a negligible probability of entry, establishment and spread with any
estimate of economic consequence would result in a URE that does not exceed
Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’ (Table A6), consequently continuation of a risk
assessment for this pest is not required.
For table grapes grown in regions where warehouse beetle occurs, the basic
standards of practice for table grape production would provide an appropriate level of
protection for Western Australia. As such, specific risk mitigating phytosanitary
measures would not be required for the table grape pathway.
66
Draft Policy Review
Grape phylloxera
Scientific name (ABRS 2009)
Daktulosphaira vitifoliae (Fitch, 1855) [Hemiptera: Phylloxeridae]
Synonyms (ABRS 2009)
Pemphigus vitifoliae Fitch, 1855
Preferred common name
grape phylloxera
Alternate common names
phylloxera, vine louse, grape leaf louse
Common host plants
Vitis aestivalis, V. berlandieri, V. labrusca, V. riparia, V. rupestis, V. vinifera, V.
vulpina
Plant part affected
roots, trunk, branches, leaves, fruit
Australian distribution
Queensland (Benheim et al. 2012)
New South Wales (ASCU 2015)
Victoria (VAIC 2015)
Biology and pest status
Biology and ecology
Grape phylloxera (phylloxera) is a small (up to 1 mm long), yellow, aphid-like insect
that feeds on the roots of grape vines, resulting in stunted vine growth, decline in vine
health, decreased yield, and under some conditions vine death. Originating from
North America, phylloxera is now established in most grapevine growing regions of
the world and is considered the most serious pest of European grapevine (Vitis
vinifera).
In its native environment of North America, phylloxera lives on both the roots and
leaves of American Vitis spp. such as V. rupestis with the full lifecycle alternating
between an aerial, leaf-feeding gallicolae (winged form), and a root-feeding
radicicolae (wingless form). The radicicolae form spends most of its lifecycle
underground and only moves to the soil surface and aerial parts of the grapevine to
disperse.
In Australia, the radicicolae is the main form associated with European grapevine,
although the leaf-galling gallicolae can also be present (Buchanan 1979). When
gallicolae are encountered it is usually associated with water-shoots from resistant
rootstock or ornamental species. At the present time, at least three quarters of
Australian’s grapevines and almost all of Western Australian grapevines cultivated for
wine production are the susceptible V. vinifera cultivars grown on their own roots.
The only known means of protecting vines against grape phylloxera is the use of
phylloxera-tolerant American rootstock cultivars and quarantine measures. The
underground radicicolae is the most destructive form of phylloxera. NVHSC and
67
Draft Policy Review
NPTRG (2005) outlines the lifecycle of phylloxera in Australia in included that
reproduction is almost exclusively asexual with several generations developing
during the growing season. Eggs are laid on the roots during spring and summer
which develop into mobile crawlers. While some of these crawlers remain on the root
during winter and develop into adult radicicolae to repeat its lifecycle on that plant,
others will disperse to infest other vines. Buchanan et al. (2003) indicates that
asexually reproducing females can reproduce 200 individual in a growing season.
Dispersal
Buchanan and Whiting (1991) outlines the dispersal mechanisms of phylloxera in
which dispersing crawlers move along the root system of the vine and through cracks
in the soil, on the soil surface and on the foliage or fruit. Dispersal
Buchanan and Whiting (1991) outlines the dispersal mechanisms of phylloxera in
which dispersing crawlers move along the root system of the vine and through cracks
in the soil, on the soil surface and on the foliage or fruit.
Wind-assisted spread of crawlers is believed responsible for the rapid onset of
infestations within vineyards. The presence of crawlers on grape foliage and fruit
provides a pathway for long range dispersal via harvested fruit, nursery stock,
vineyard machinery, including mechanical harvesters or in wine bins.
Pest status
The health of grapevines typically declines to uneconomic levels in 3 to 10 years
(Buchanan & Whiting 1991) when infested with phylloxera. This decline results from
feeding damaged caused by saliva being injected into the root causing the root cells
to swell, become dysfunctional and eventually die. Symptoms of infestation include
extensive nodulation of the fibrous roots (NVHSC & NPTRG 2005), fungal decay of
the root system (Granett et al. 1998), premature yellowing of leaves in early autumn
foliage and a general decline in vine vigour and eventual death of the vine (NVHSC &
NPTRG 2005). It should be noted that other ailments such as nematode attack, virus
such as grapevine yellows and water stress can induce similar symptoms. However,
these biotic and abiotic stresses will also exacerbate symptoms of a phylloxera
infestation. The visual appearance of infested vines is not always a reliable guide to
the presence of phylloxera, as vines in sandy soils, those grafted to resistant
rootstocks, or in the early stages of infestation, may not display an obvious reduction
in vigour.
Nougaret and Lapham (1928) determined that the soil type greatly influences the rate
of onset of symptoms with infested vines living longer in fertile, deep, well-drained
soil than in shallow soil or soil with poor drainage. Vines growing in heavy, shallow
soils can rapidly succumb to infestations with symptoms appearing 3–4 years after
becoming infested. Heavier soils tend to contract and crack when drying, allowing
openings for the insect to crawl to and infest the root system. Grape vines grown in
fine-textured soils, such as clay, are also prone to infestation but may not be
symptomatic until 8–10 years after infestation. For sandy soils, i.e. soils containing
more than 70% sand, Buchanan and Whiting (1983); Buchanan and Whiting (1991)
showed that vines appear to be little affected by phylloxera. However, Buchanan and
Whiting (1983) also indicated that there appears no reason to consider that any
viticulture area in Australia as totally immune from phylloxera damage on the basis of
soil or climate.
Depending on soils type, King and Buchanan (1986) reported that an unchecked
phylloxera infestation can expand concentrically at a rate of 20–100 meters a year
with satellite infestations frequently establishing downwind from larger infested areas.
Control
Current control measures for phylloxera include the use of resistant American
rootstock, movement controls and disinfestation treatments. NVHSC and NPTRG
68
Draft Policy Review
(2005) indicate that when European grapevine is grafted onto phylloxera tolerant
rootstock, root galls formed by the presence of phylloxera can still develop but do not
cause any economically significant vine decline. Phylloxera tolerant rootstocks are
bred from grapevines native to North America which evolved in the presence of
phylloxera. The mechanism by which tolerance occurs is primarily by the formation of
a corky tissue layer around root lesions and galls, limiting the spread of decay, and to
a lesser extent, resistance by repulsion. The Phylloxera and Grape Industry Board of
South Australia provides a brief outline of the characteristics of rootstocks (PGIBSA
n.d.).
Movement controls are based on Australia’s National Phylloxera Management
Protocol (NVHSC 2009) which defines a set of agreed conditions under which
phylloxera risk material may be moved from within and one region to another.
Phylloxera risk material identified in the movement protocols include diagnostic
samples, grapevine material, marc, must or juice, table grapes, vineyard equipment,
vehicles and visitors, and wine grapes. The agreed conditions are based on an
assessment of the risk of transfer associated with the risk material, the research
relating to survival of phylloxera in various situations, and the likelihood of phylloxera
being present in the originating region.
Requirements for exporting table grapes from Phylloxera Infested Zone (PIZ) in
Australia (Table 8) have been outlined in the National Phylloxera Management
Protocol (NVHSC 2009).
Table 8: Movement of table grapes out of a Phylloxera Infested Zone
Procedure
Requirement
Vineyard/packing shed



Transport



Grapes packed for sale as table grapes must be free
of soil and leaf material.
Grapes must be packed into new containers or
returnable plastic containers free of soil and plant
material.
Packed table grapes must undergo one of the
disinfestation treatments specified below.
Containers must be loaded onto a transport vehicle
on a hard surface4, not within the vineyard.
Transport vehicle must be cleaned free of all soil and
plant material (NVHSC (2009) - procedure I).
Transport should be via the most direct route
possible.
4
Hard surface could include consolidated gravel or rubble surface. Excludes earth
surfaces.
69
Draft Policy Review
Table 8: Movement of table grapes out of a Phylloxera Infested Zone
Procedure
Requirement
Disinfestation

Packed with sulphur pads containing a minimum
970g/kg sodium metabisulphite at the rate specified
on the label and in accordance with the
manufacturer’s instructions.
OR
 Fumigated with methyl bromide following one of the
treatments listed below.
Fruit pulp
temperature
Dosage
Rate
(g/m³)
Duration
(hours)
Dosage
at 30
minutes
(75%)
Dosage
at 2
hours
(60%)
21oC or
higher
32
2
24g/m3
20g/m3
15.5°C or
greater but
less than
21°C
40
2
30g/m3
24g/m3
10°C or
greater but
less than
15.5°C
48
2
36g/m3
29g/m3
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for
phylloxera in association with imported table grapes imported from other Australian
states and territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the absence of risk
management measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment considers
basic standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes including
cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in standard
closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences are
described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
70
Draft Policy Review
The likelihood that phylloxera will arrive in Western Australia with the importation of
table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source and destination area
considered relevant to phylloxera and includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin





Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). Phylloxera has been recorded from the table grape producing states
and territories of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria.
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
Although phylloxera in Australia primarily colonise the root systems of
grapevines, when dispersing, crawlers can be present in grape bunches, on
stems and leaves of infested vine and vineyard machinery and equipment
(Buchanan & Whiting 1991). Crawlers are particularly prevalent during
summer and autumn (Buchanan et al. 2003).
Dispersing crawler would also have the potential to be associated with
packing containers for field packed table grapes.
Due to their small size, the presence of crawlers in harvested grape bunches
would likely remain undetected during pack-house quality control inspection.
If present on grape bunches, sorting, grading and packing procedures may
not detect and subsequently discard infested table grapes.
The presence of phylloxera on the table grape pathway at its origin is not
expected to reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western
Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures


Current control measure for phylloxera infested areas is the use of phylloxeratolerant rootstocks. When European grapevine is grafted onto a phylloxera
tolerant rootstock, root galls formed by the presence of phylloxera can still
develop but do not cause any economically significant vine decline.
Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is expected that
standard on-arrival procedures would not detect the presence of phylloxera in
a consignment of table grapes.
The ability of phylloxera to survive existing pest management procedures is not
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into Western
Australia with table grapes.
Ability to survive transport and storage


After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
Due to the insecticidal nature of the sulphur dioxide pads (Buchanan 1990),
any crawlers remaining with the harvested grape bunches are unlikely to
71
Draft Policy Review



survive this routine procedure associated with the interstate shipment of table
grape bunches.
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of low temperature
treatments against phylloxera under transport and storage conditions for table
grapes.
Phylloxera has been reported to survive cold stabilization (-4 to +2°C) in
winemaking (Powell et al. 2014), suggesting grape phyloxera could survive
cold storage conditions without sulphur dioxide treatment.
Other routine post-harvest procedures such as palletisation, containerisation,
and transportation to Western Australia are not expected to impact on the
survivability of any juvenile and adult life stages protected within harvested
grape bunches.
The ability of phylloxera to survive transport and storage procedures is expected
to be a factor limiting the potential for phylloxera to be imported into Western
Australia with table grapes.
Phylloxera is estimated as having a very low probability of importation in association
with imported table grapes. That is, the importation of phylloxera would be very
unlikely to occur under standard commercial production, harvesting and packing
house procedures for table grapes from regions where this pest occurs. Due to the
use of sulphur pads during extended storage and transport conditions, a higher
importation could not be justified.
Probability of distribution
The likelihood that phylloxera will be distributed into Western Australia in a viable
state to a suitable host, as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of table grapes
is based on an assessment of factors in the destination area considered relevant to
phylloxera and includes:
Transport of table grapes within Western Australia



There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western
Australia; consequently bunches infested with phylloxera may be distributed
throughout Western Australia.
As grapes are easily damaged during handling (Mencarelli et al. 2005),
packed grapes may not be processed or handled again until they arrive at the
retailers. Therefore, any phylloxera present in packed grapes is unlikely to be
detected during transportation and distribution to retailers.
In 2013/14, 82% of Australian households purchased grapes at least once
(HAL 2014). This suggests that table grapes have the potential to be widely
distributed within Western Australia.
The ability of phylloxera to move with infested table grapes is not expected to be
a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within Western Australia.
Risks from by-products and waste

The importation of table grapes for human consumption will result in the
generation of waste material including rachis and berries.
72
Draft Policy Review


Fruit waste may be disposed of in a number of ways including municipal
refuse sites, composting, mulching and discarding into urban, rural or natural
localities including roadsides.
Lea and Worsley (2008a) reported that 51% of Australian people surveyed
often composted food waste.
The ability of phylloxera to be associated with table grape by-products and waste
is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Ability to move from the pathway to a suitable host



Vitis spp. in Western Australia may be found in backyards, as amenity plants
and as naturalised populations. Domestic garden plantings, both maintained
and abandoned, occur in Perth and in most Western Australian towns and by
many farmhouses.
Crawlers would be able to survive on disposed fruit before fruit desiccation or
decay. However, it would be difficult for the crawlers to find a suitable host to
infest due to phylloxera’s host range limited to Vitis spp.
Dispersing crawlers are the main means of independent spread of phylloxera
within vineyards. Although crawlers can be found at ground level within a
vineyard, these crawlers would have difficulty in finding a suitable host as
dispersal between hosts is mainly achieved by wind dispersal. Wind assisted
dispersal would be limited from discarded host material.
The ability of phylloxera to move from infested table grapes to a suitable host is
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Phylloxera is estimated as having a very low probability of distribution in association
with imported table grapes. That is, the distribution of phylloxera to the endangered
area and subsequent transfer to a suitable host would be very unlikely to occur as
a result of the processing, sale or disposal of imported table grapes. Due to the
limited ability of phylloxera to move from discarded table grapes to a suitable host, a
higher probability of distribution could not be justified.
Overall probability of entry (importation x distribution)
The overall probability of entry has been estimated by combining the individual
probabilities of importation and distribution using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Phylloxera is estimated as having an extremely low probability of entry in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the probability that phylloxera would
enter Western Australia, be distributed in a viable state to an endangered area and
subsequently transfer to a suitable host would be extremely unlikely to occur as a
result of trade in table grapes imported from regions where this pest occurs.
Probability of establishment
The likelihood that phylloxera will establish within Western Australia is based on an
assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to
phylloxera and includes:
73
Draft Policy Review
Availability of suitable hosts, alternative hosts and vectors in the PRA area






Phylloxera feeds on the root systems of grapevines indicating that any Vitis
plants would provide a suitable feeding site throughout the year.
In Western Australia both table and wine grape varieties are grown. In regions
such as the Swan Valley and Margaret River wine and table grapes are grown
in close proximity to each other.
Vitis spp. in Western Australia may be found in backyards, as amenity plants
and as naturalised populations. Domestic garden plantings, both maintained
and abandoned, occur in Perth and in most Western Australian towns and by
many farmhouses.
A number of Vitis spp. are recorded as weeds in Australia (Randall 2007) and
could be potential wild hosts in Western Australia.
Seedlings have been recorded in naturalised populations (Western Australian
Herbarium 1998) and are occasionally observed growing in vineyards
between rows (A Taylor 2012, pers. comm. 4 Sept.), suggesting
environmental conditions suitable for the germination and establishment of
grape seedlings occur in Western Australia.
Seedling survival in natural environments is influenced by many factors,
including environmental conditions, seed predation, herbivory of seedlings
and plants, growth rate and competition for resources (including light,
nutrients and water). In managed environments, especially where intentional
germination of grape seed is attempted, conditions may be more favourable
resulting in a higher proportion of seed germination and plant survival.
The availability of suitable hosts in Western Australia is not expected to be a
factor limiting this pest’s potential to establish in Western Australia.
Suitability of the environment


CLIMEX climate matching scenarios were generated using data from the
North Central Vine Disease District in Victoria. The scenarios suggest that
most of the Southwest region of Western Australia is suitable for the
establishment of the pest.
Factors limiting the establishment of phylloxera include the predominance of
sandy soil types in Western Australia.
Bioclimatic modelling and current Australian distribution suggest that Western
Australia’s climate is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to
establish within Western Australia.
Cultural practices and control measures



Table grape plantings in Western Australia are mainly grown with phylloxera
tolerant rootstock while the majority of wine grapes are grown on their own
rootstock. Both types of rootstock can support phylloxera.
The subterranean nature of the radicicolae would be largely isolated from
cultural and control measure for other pest present in the natural and
managed environment.
The absence or lack of effective control measures in native, amenity and
backyard situations is not seen as a factor limiting the potential for
establishment.
Cultural practices and control measures are not expected to be a factor limiting
this pest’s potential to establish in Western Australia.
74
Draft Policy Review
Reproductive strategies and survival


Phylloxera reproduces asexually indicatingthat any mature phylloxera
individual is capable of establishing a founding population and that any
immature phylloxera has the potential to establish a founding population.
Asexually reproducing females can reproduce 200 individual in a growing
season.
The reproductive and survival strategy of phylloxera is not expected to be a factor
limiting this pest’s potential to establish within Western Australia.
Phylloxera has been estimated as having a high probability of establishment within
Western Australia. That is, the establishment of phylloxera in an endangered area
would be very likely to occur as a result of infested table grapes being imported into
Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to a suitable host. No significant
factors were identified that limit phylloxera’s potential to establish in Western
Australia.
Probability of spread
The likelihood that phylloxera will spread within Western Australia is based on an
assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to
phylloxera and includes:
Suitability of the natural or managed environment for natural spread



European grapevine is a common plant in managed environments such as
commercial vineyards and urban areas.
The host range of phylloxera is limited to Vitis spp.
Wind dispersal is seen as the main mechanism for the natural spread of
phylloxera.
The suitability of the natural or managed environment is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for phylloxera to spread in Western Australia.
Presence of natural barriers

The major commercial grape production districts in Western Australia are
located in the south-west of the state between Perth and Albany and in the
Carnarvon region in the north-west.

The presence of natural bush-land would form a natural barrier limiting the
natural spread of phylloxera.

The long distances between regional centres in Western Australia may
prevent long-range natural spread of phylloxera.

The distances between commercial host crops in Western Australia may
prevent long-range natural spread of phylloxera.
The presence of natural barriers is expected to be a factor limiting the potential
for phylloxera to spread in Western Australia.
Potential for movement with commodities or conveyances

There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western
75
Draft Policy Review

Australia; consequently commodities or conveyances infested with phylloxera
may be distributed throughout Western Australia.
Phylloxera can disperse independently and in association with host material.
However, phylloxera has limited independent dispersal capability which is
restricted to the dispersal activities of the crawler stage. Populations have
been distributed around the world on exported vines, and this continues to be
the primary means of spread (Walker et al. 2013). Long distant dispersal may
be facilitated by the distribution of infested grape harvesting machinery,
nursery stock and plant material.
The potential for movement with commodities or conveyances is not expected to
be a factor limiting the potential for phylloxera to spread in Western Australia.
Potential natural enemies

Natural enemies are not known to occur in Australia.
The potential for natural enemies is not expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for phylloxera to spread in Western Australia.
Phylloxera has been estimated as having a moderate probability of spread within
Western Australia. That is, spread of phylloxera in an endangered area would occur
with an even probability as a result of infested table grapes being imported into
Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to a suitable host. Due to the
limited capacity of phylloxera for natural long range spread from infested to
uninfested areas, a higher probability of distribution could not be justified.
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
The overall probability of entry, establishment and spread has been estimated by
combining the individual probabilities using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Phylloxera has been assessed as having an extremely low probability of entry,
establishment and spread entry in association with imported table grapes. That is,
the entry, establishment and spread of phylloxera would be extremely unlikely to
occur should table grapes be imported into Western Australia from regions where
this pest occurs.
Economic consequences
ISPM 11 (2014) indicates that the assessment of economic consequences is made
using ‘a hypothetical situation where a pest is supposed to have been introduced
and to be fully expressing its potential economic consequences (per year) in the PRA
area’.
This is interpreted as an unabated incursion; however, it is acknowledged that
existing control regimes for similar species may impact on this expression. In light of
this interpretation, an evaluation of the consequence of entry, establishment or
spread of phylloxera is considered in Table 9.
Table 9: Economic consequences of grape phylloxera
Criterion
Estimate
Direct consequences
76
Draft Policy Review
Table 9: Economic consequences of grape phylloxera
Criterion
Estimate
Plant life or health
E - Highly significant at the district level



Any other aspects of
the environment
Phylloxera is considered a major pest of viticulture
wherever it has established in Australia or indeed
worldwide.
The majority of commercial wine grape plantings in
Western Australia are grown on their own rootstock.
These rootstocks are not tolerant to phylloxera and
are not expected to survive in the long term if
infested.
Similar environmental conditions exist within
Western Australia that are similar to infested areas in
eastern Australia, this suggests that similar impacts
to plant life or health could occur.
A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level

The introduction of phylloxera into the natural
environment would not have the capacity to induce
changes in native ecological communities due to its
host range limited to Vitis spp.
Indirect consequences
Eradication, control
etc.
E - Highly significant at the district level




Due to the nature of phylloxera an eradication
program is not expected not be feasible.
In conventional vineyards, successful control
regimes for phylloxera are commonly undertaken
with the use of resistant rootstock and movement
restrictions.
Western Australian wine grape production is largely
based on non-rootstock plantings and would be
susceptible to infestation; this is in contrast to table
grape production in which most commercial planting
are grown on phylloxera tolerant rootstock.
The incorporation of phylloxera tolerant rootstock
into cultural practices would represent a major
investment for the viticulture industry within Western
Australia.
77
Draft Policy Review
Table 9: Economic consequences of grape phylloxera
Criterion
Estimate
Domestic trade
D - Significant at the district level



International trade
D - Significant at the district level



Environment,
including rural and
regional economic
viability
Yield reduction may reduce the amount of table
grapes available for the domestic market.
Some interstate and domestic markets could be lost
or diminished as infested vineyards may fail to meet
consumer demand for premium Western Australia
wine and table grapes.
The presence of phylloxera in Western Australia may
result in intra and interstate trade restrictions for
table grapes due to its absence within other regional
areas of Western Australia or other states and
territories.
Yield reductions may reduce the amount of table
grapes and wine available for international markets.
Some international markets could be lost or
diminished as infested vineyards may fail to meet
consumer demand for premium Western Australia
wines and table grapes.
The presence of grape phylloxera in Western
Australia may limit access to overseas markets that
are free from this pest. Chile, China, Kenya,
Thailand and Tonga have specific restrictions for
grape phylloxera (Australian Department of
Agriculture 2015ad; 2015y; 2015x; 2015ac; 2015av).
E - Highly significant at the district level



In the hypothetical unabated scenario, the presence
of phylloxera in Western Australia is expected to
result in the eventual collapse of the Western
Australian viticulture industry, as most vineyards
would eventually be infested with vines rendered
unproductive or die.
Tourism in affected areas is expected to be
significantly impacted due to its close association
with the viticulture industry.
The impact on such a major redirection of the
Western Australian viticulture industry could lead to a
significant reduction in the viability of rural and
regional economies in the south west districts of
Western Australia.
The expected economic consequences for the endangered area should phylloxera
enter, establish and spread within Western Australia has been determined to be
moderate using the decision rules outlined in Table A5.
78
Draft Policy Review
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
A URE of negligible was determined using the matrix rules outlined in Table A6 for
table grapes imported into Western Australia from regions where phylloxera occurs.
Unrestricted risk estimate for grape phylloxera
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
Extremely low
Consequences
Moderate
Unrestricted risk
Negligible
As the URE is below Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’, the basic standards of practice
for table grape production would provide an appropriate level of protection for
Western Australia.
79
Draft Policy Review
Kanzawa spider mite
Scientific name (ABRS 2009)
Tetranychus kanzawai Kishida, 1927 [Trombidiformes: Tetranychidae]
Synonyms (ABRS 2009)
Tetranychus hydrangeae Pritchard & Baker, 1955
Preferred common name
kanzawa spider mite
Alternate common names
none known
Common host plants
apple, apricot, carnation, chrysanthemum, common sowthistle, cucumber, eggplant,
camellia, European grape, hibiscus, hydrangea, kidney bean, papaya, pea, peach,
peanut, pear, persimmon, pomegranate, soy bean, strawberry, sweet pea,
sweetpotato. A comprehensive host list is provided in Appendix F.
Plant part affected
Australian distribution
Queensland (Seeman & Beard 2011)
New South Wales (Seeman & Beard 2011)
Biology and pest status
Biology and ecology
The biology and ecology of kanzawa spider mite has been adapted from the
Australian Department of Agriculture’s Final report for the non-regulated analysis of
existing policy for table grapes from Japan (Australian Department of Agriculture
2014) and modified to include additional information
Tetranychus kanzawai is a member of the spider mite family, Tetranychidae. T.
kanzawai has been recorded in Queensland and New South Wales but has not been
recorded in Western Australia.
Mites of the genus Tetranychus are commonly referred to as spider mites due to their
habit of spinning silken webbing on plants. These mites feed mainly on the contents
of leaf cells, but are known to attack all host tissues exposed to air during heavy
infestations and can sometimes damage fruit. The damage to leaf tissue a plant’s
ability to photosynthesise and consequently reduces the vitality of the plant and
therefore the size of the fruit.
There are five stages in the spider mite life cycle: egg, larva, two stages of nymph
(protonymph and deutonymph), and adult. Adult spider mites are very small, with
females measuring 0.3–0.5 millimetres in length and males being even smaller. A
complete life cycle of spider mites can be completed in less than one week (in
optimum conditions) and up to several weeks with many overlapping generations in a
single season. All Tetranychus species are capable of both sexual reproduction and
parthenogenesis, with unfertilised females producing only male offspring.
80
Draft Policy Review
For T. kanzawai, female adults can lay up to 20–25 eggs per day, which are
deposited directly on the host leaf. The development time from egg to adult has been
reported as 19, 16 and 12 days at 20, 22 and 25 °C, respectively. The reported life
span is 20–33 days for adult females and 19–35 days for adult males at 15–30 °C.
Optimum conditions for development have been reported in the range of 20–25 °C
and 30–90 per cent relative humidity.
Pest status
Tetranychus kanzawai has been reported as a pest of greenhouse grown table
grapes in Japan (Australian Department of Agriculture 2014) and present in low
numbers in Taiwanese vineyards (Biosecurity Australia 2011b). Tetranychus
kanzawai has not been recorded from Vitis in Australia and recent viticulture
management guides (Nicholas et al. 2003; Dunn & Zurbo 2014; Fahey 2014) do not
include the mite as a pest of any significance for Australian viticulture.
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for kanzawa
spider mite in association with imported table grapes imported from other Australian
states and territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the absence of risk
management measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment considers
basic standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes including
cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in standard
closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences are
described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
The likelihood that kanzawa spider mite will arrive in Western Australia with the
importation of table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source and
destination area considered relevant to kanzawa spider mite and includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin



Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). T. kanzawai has been recorded from the table grape producing states
of Queensland and New South Wales.
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
Tetranychus kanzawai mites and webbing are often found on the under
surfaces of the leaves, but can occasionally attack and breed on grape
81
Draft Policy Review


berries (Ho & Chen 1994; Ashihara 1996 cited in Biosecurity Australia 2011b,
p. 135).
Tetranychus kanzawai has been reported as a pest of greenhouse grown
table grapes in Japan (Australian Department of Agriculture 2014) and be
present in low numbers in Tiawanese vineyards (Biosecurity Australia 2011b).
T. kanzawai has not been recorded from Australian grapevines.
The presence of kanzawa spider mite on the table grape pathway at its origin is
expected to reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western
Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures


Kanzawa spider mite has not been recorded from Australian grapevines,
suggesting if present, that existing pest management procedures for other
tetranychid mite may be limiting the presence of kanzawa spider mite in
Australian vineyards.
Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is not expected that
standard on-arrival procedures would detect the presence of kanzawa mite
adult and nymphs in a consignment of table grapes.
The ability of kanzawa spider mite to survive existing pest management
procedures is expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported
into Western Australia with table grapes.
Ability to survive transport and storage





After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of sulphur dioxide
treatment against kanzawa spider mite under short term (<8 weeks) transport
and storage conditions for table grapes.
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of low temperature
treatments against kanzawa spider mite under short term (<8 weeks)
transport and storage conditions table grapes.
Longer term (8 weeks or greater) low temperature storage conditions of table
grapes in conjunction sulphur dioxide treatments may be detrimental to the
survivability of kanzawa spider mite (Yokoyama et al. 2001).
Other routine post-harvest procedures such as palletisation, containerisation,
and transportation to Western Australia are not expected to impact on the
survivability of any juvenile and adult life stages protected within harvested
grape bunches.
The ability of kanzawa spider mite to survive transport and storage procedures is
not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into
Western Australia with table grapes.
Kanzawa spider mite is estimated as having a negligible probability of importation in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the importation of kanzawa spider
mite would almost certainly not occur under standard commercial production,
harvesting and packing house procedures for table grapes from regions where this
pest occurs. Due to the lack of evidence that kanzawa spider mite is associated with
82
Draft Policy Review
Australian viticulture a higher estimation of the probability of importation could not be
justified.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
Where a negligible probability of entry (importation or distribution), establishment or
spread occurs, combining any other probability using the matrix rules shown in Table
A2 would result in a negligible probability of entry, establishment and spread.
Combining a negligible probability of entry, establishment and spread with any
estimate of economic consequence would result in a URE that does not exceed
Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’ (Table A6), consequently continuation of a risk
assessment for this pest is not required.
For table grapes grown in regions where kanzawa spider mite occurs, the basic
standards of practice for table grape production would provide an appropriate level of
protection for Western Australia. As such, specific risk mitigating phytosanitary
measures would not be required for the table grape pathway.
83
Draft Policy Review
Metallic shield bug
Scientific name (ABRS 2009)
Scutiphora pedicellata (Kirby, 1826) [Hemiptera: Scutelleridae]
Synonyms (ABRS 2009)
Tetyra pedicellata Kirby, 1826
Scutiphora rubromaculata Guérin, 1831
Peltophora cruenta Burmeister, 1835
Scutiphora picta Guérin-Méneville, 1838
Preferred common name
metallic shield bug
Alternate common names
none known
Common host plants
Crataegus oxyacantha, Dodonaea triquetra, Ficus spp., Leptospermum spp., Prunus
armeniaca, Prunus avium, Prunus domestica plum, Prunus persica, Pyrus
communis, Sambucus guadichaudiana, Vitis vinifera, unspecified garden plants, both
exotic and native.
Plant part affected
Vegetative growth, fruit
Australian distribution
Queensland (VAIC 2015)
New South Wales (ASCU 2015)
Victoria (VAIC 2015)
Tasmania (TPPD 2015)
South Australia (ABRS 2009)
Biology and pest status
Biology and ecology
Metallic shield bug (Scutiphora pedicellata) is a native Australian species. The adult
is a shield-shaped sucking insect (Hemiptera) about 14 mm long and is a deep
metallic green or blue colour mottled with black on the upper surfaces. The front and
side margins of the thorax and two spots on the upper surface of the body are bright
red (Fletcher 2007). A comprehensive description and identification key is provided
by Cassis and Vanags (2006).
Metallic shield bug can be found sheltering in groups of 10–20 in leaf litter or under
bark, particularly around the bases of native Australian tree species. Metallic shield
bug feeds on vegetative growth, as well as on fruits which may shrivel and fall
(Fletcher 2007).
Pest status
Hely et al. (1982) indicates that although rarely important in commercial vineyards,
infestations on grapevine occurs when metallic shield bug move into the vineyards
during in dry weather. Recent viticulture management guides (Nicholas et al. 2003;
84
Draft Policy Review
Dunn & Zurbo 2014; Fahey 2014) do not include metallic shield bug as a pest of any
significance for Australian viticulture.
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for metallic
shield bug in association with imported table grapes imported from other Australian
states and territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the absence of risk
management measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment considers
basic standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes including
cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in standard
closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences are
described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
The likelihood that metallic shield bug will arrive in Western Australia with the
importation of table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source and
destination area considered relevant to metallic shield bug and includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin




Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). Metallic shield bug has been recorded from the table grape producing
states of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
Hely et al. (1982) indicates that S. pedicellata feeds on vegetative growth and
fruit although is rarely important in commercial vineyards.
Recent viticulture management guides (Nicholas et al. 2003; Dunn & Zurbo
2014; Fahey 2014) do not include metallic shield bug as a pest of concern for
Australian viticulture.
The presence of metallic shield bug on the table grape pathway at its origin is
expected to reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western
Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures

Recent viticulture production guides (Nicholas et al. 2003; Dunn & Zurbo
2014; Fahey 2014) do not consider metallic shield bug as a pest of any
significance in Australian viticulture. This suggests its absence or if present,
85
Draft Policy Review

that existing pest management procedures for other pest species may be
limiting its presence in Australian vineyards.
Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is expected that
standard on-arrival procedures would not detect the presence of metallic
shield bug adult and nymphs in a consignment of table grapes.
The ability of metallic shield bug to survive existing pest management procedures
is expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into
Western Australia with table grapes.
Ability to survive transport and storage




After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of sulphur dioxide
treatment against metallic shield bug under standard transport and storage
conditions for table grapes.
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of low temperature
treatments against metallic shield bug under standard transport and storage
conditions for tablegrapes.
Other routine post-harvest procedures such as palletisation, containerisation,
and transportation to Western Australia are not expected to impact on the
survivability of any juvenile and adult life stages protected within harvested
grape bunches.
The ability of metallic shield bug to survive transport and storage procedures is
not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into
Western Australia with table grapes.
Metallic shield bug is estimated as having an extremely low probability of
importation in association with imported table grapes. That is, the importation of
metallic shield bug would be extremely unlikely to occur under standard
commercial production, harvesting and packing house procedures for table grapes
from regions where this pest occurs. Due to the lack of evidence that metallic shield
bug is a pest of any significance for Australian viticulture, a higher probability of
importation could not be justified.
Probability of distribution
The likelihood that metallic shield bug will be distributed into Western Australia in a
viable state to a suitable host, as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of table
grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the destination area considered
relevant to metallic shield bug and includes:
Transport of table grapes within Western Australia

There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western
Australia; consequently bunches infested with metallic shield bug may be
distributed throughout Western Australia.
86
Draft Policy Review

In 2013/14, 82% of Australian households purchased grapes at least once
(HAL 2014). This suggests that table grapes have the potential to be widely
distributed within Western Australia.
The ability of metallic shield bug to move with infested table grapes is not
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Risks from by-products and waste



The importation of table grapes for human consumption will result in the
generation of waste material including rachis and berries.
Fruit waste may be disposed of in a number of ways including municipal
refuse sites, composting, mulching and discarding into urban, rural or natural
localities including roadsides.
Lea and Worsley (2008a) reported that 51% of Australian people surveyed
often composted food waste.
The ability of metallic shield bug to be associated with table grape by-products
and waste is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be
distributed within Western Australia.
Ability to move from the pathway to a suitable host


Hely et al. (1982) indicates that infestations on grapevine occurs when
metallic sheild bug move into the vineyards during in dry weather, this
suggests the same mobility would be possibility from an infested grape bunch
to a suitable host.
The wide host range indicated by Fletcher (2007) including native and exotic
plants increases the opportunity for metallic shield bug to locate a suitable
host.
The ability of metallic shield bug to move from infested table grapes to a suitable
host is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed
within Western Australia.
Metallic shield bug is estimated as having a high probability of distribution in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the distribution of metallic shield bug
to the endangered area and subsequent transfer to a suitable host would be very
likely to occur as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of imported table
grapes. No significant factors were identified that limit metallic shield bug’s potential
to be distributed in Western Australia.
Overall probability of entry (importation x distribution)
The overall probability of entry has been estimated by combining the individual
probabilities of importation and distribution using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Metallic shield bug estimated as having an extremely low probability of entry in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the probability that metallic shield
bug would enter Western Australia, be distributed in a viable state to an endangered
area and subsequently transfer to a suitable host would be extremely unlikely to
occur as a result of trade in table grapes imported from regions where this pest
occurs.
87
Draft Policy Review
Probability of establishment
The likelihood that metallic shield bug will establish within Western Australia is based
on an assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant
to metallic shield bug and includes:
Availability of suitable hosts, alternative hosts and vectors in the PRA area



Host plants for metallic shield bug include commonly grown species such as
Leptospermum, stone fruit, grapevine, pear and fig.
Many of these host plants are grown commercially in Western Australia
Many host plants are grown in backyards, as amenity plants and be present
as naturalised populations. Domestic garden plantings, both maintained and
abandoned, occur in Perth and in most Western Australian towns and by
many farmhouses.
The availability of suitable hosts in Western Australia is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for metallic shield bug to establish in Western
Australia.
Suitability of the environment

Metallic shield big has been recorded from all Australian states and territories
with the exception of the Northern Territory suggests that some regions within
Western Australia that would be suitable for metallic shield bug to establish.
The recorded Australian distribution suggests that Western Australia’s climate is
not expected to be a factor limiting the potential for metallic shield bug to
establish within Western Australia.
Cultural practices and control measures


Recent viticulture production (Nicholas et al. 2003; Dunn & Zurbo 2014;
Fahey 2014) do not consider metallic shield bug as a pest of any significance
in Australian viticulture. This suggests its absence or if present, that existing
pest management procedures for other pest species has potential to limit the
potential for establishment.
The absence or lack of effective control measures in natives, amenity and
backyard situations is not seen as a factor limiting the potential for
establishment.
Cultural practices and control measures are not expected to be a factor limiting
the potential for metallic shield bug.
Reproductive strategies and survival

Fletcher (2007) indicates that metallic shield bug is commonly found
sheltering in groups of 10–20 in leaf litter or under bark, particularly around
the bases of native trees; these sites can limit the effectiveness of chemical
sprays.
The reproductive and survival strategy of metallic shield bug is not expected to be
a factor limiting the potential for metallic shield bug to establish within Western
Australia.
Metallic shield bug has been estimated as having a high probability of establishment
within Western Australia. That is, the establishment of Metallic shield bug in an
88
Draft Policy Review
endangered area would occur with an even probability as a result of infested table
grapes being imported into Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to a
suitable host. No significant factors were identified that limit metallic shield bug’s
potential to establish in Western Australia.
Probability of spread
The likelihood that metallic shield bug will spread within Western Australia is based
on an assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant
to metallic shield bug and includes:
Suitability of the natural or managed environment for natural spread

Hely et al. (1982) indicates that infestations on grapevine occurs when
metallic sheild bug move into the vineyards during in dry weather, this
suggests the same mobility would be possibility for spread within the natural
or managed environment.
The suitability of the natural or managed environment is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for metallic shield bug to spread in Western Australia.
Presence of natural barriers



Many host plant would be naturalised in Western Australia and are common
backyard and amenity plants.
The long distances between regional centres in Western Australia may
prevent long-range natural spread of metallic shield bug.
The long distances between commercial host crops in Western Australia may
prevent long-range natural spread of metallic shield bug.
The presence of natural barriers is expected to be a factor limiting the potential
for metallic shield bug to spread in Western Australia.
Potential for movement with commodities or conveyances

Fletcher (2007) indicates that metallic shield bug is commonly found
sheltering in groups of 10–20 in leaf litter or under bark, particularly around
the bases of native trees; this suggests that the long distance dispersal of
metallic shield bug can be facilitated by the distribution of infested commercial
and non-commercial nursery stock.
The potential for movement with commodities or conveyances is not expected to
be a factor limiting the potential for metallic shield bug to spread in Western
Australia.
Potential natural enemies

A review of the scientific literature indicates that very little is known about the
natural enemies of metallic shield bug.
The potential for natural enemies is not expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for metallic shield bug to spread in Western Australia.
Metallic shield bug has been estimated as having a high probability of spread within
Western Australia. That is, spread of metallic shield bug in an endangered area
would be very likely to occur as a result of the infested table grapes being imported
89
Draft Policy Review
into Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to a suitable host. No
significant factors were identified that limit metallic shield bug’s potential to spread in
Western Australia.
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
The overall probability of entry, establishment and spread has been estimated by
combining the individual probabilities using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Metallic shield bug has been assessed as having an extremely low probability of
entry, establishment and spread entry in association with imported table grapes. That
is, the entry, establishment and spread of metallic shield bug would be extremely
unlikely to occur should table grapes be imported into Western Australia from regions
where this pest occurs.
Economic consequences
ISPM 11 (2014) indicates that the assessment of economic consequences is made
using ‘a hypothetical situation where a pest is supposed to have been introduced
and to be fully expressing its potential economic consequences (per year) in the PRA
area’.
This is interpreted as an unabated incursion; however, it is acknowledged that
existing control regimes for similar species may impact on this expression. In light of
this interpretation, an evaluation of the consequence of entry, establishment or
spread of metallic shield bug is considered in Table 10.
Table 10: Economic consequences of metallic shield bug
Criterion
Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health
B - Minor significance at the local level


Any other aspects of
the environment
Metallic shield bug infests a somewhat limited range
of plant hosts.
A review of the scientific literature indicates metallic
shield bug is generally not considered a pestiferous
species.
A - Unlikely to be discernible at any geographic level

There are no known consequences of metallic shield
bug on other aspects of the environment.
Indirect consequences
Eradication, control
etc.
B - Minor significance at the local level
Domestic trade
B - Minor significance at the local level


A control or eradication program is not expected to
significantly add to the cost of production of plant
host.
The presence of metallic shield bug in Western
90
Draft Policy Review
Table 10: Economic consequences of metallic shield bug
Criterion
Estimate

International trade
B - Minor significance at the local level


Environment,
including rural and
regional economic
viability
Australia is not anticipated to have any significance
to interstate or intrastate trade from a regulatory
perspective.
Some interstate and domestic markets could be lost
or diminished as infested produce may fail to meet
consumer expectations of high quality produce.
The presence of metallic shield bug in Western
Australia may limit access to overseas markets that
are free from this pest.
Some international markets could be lost or
diminished as infested produce may fail to meet
consumer expectations of high quality produce.
A - Unlikely to be discernible at any geographic level

Additional pesticides required to metallic shield bug
are unlikely to have any discernible impact on other
aspects of the environment including rural and
regional economic viability at any geographic level.
The expected economic consequences for the endangered area should metallic
shield bug enter, establish and spread within Western Australia has been determined
to be negligible using the decision rules outlined in Table A5.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
A URE of negligible was determined using the matrix rules outlined in Table A6 for
table grapes imported into Western Australia from regions where metallic shield bug
occurs.
Unrestricted risk estimate for metallic shield bug
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
Extremely low
Consequences
Negligible
Unrestricted risk
Negligible
As the URE is below Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’, the basic standards of practice
for table grape production would provide an appropriate level of protection for
Western Australia.
91
Draft Policy Review
Native tussock moth
Scientific name (ABRS 2009)
Euproctis paradoxa (Butler, 1886) [Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae]
Synonyms
Porthesia paradoxa (Hely et al. 1982)
Chionophasma paradoxa (ABRS 2009)
Preferred common name
native tussock moth
Alternate common names
tussock moth
Common host plants
Acacia leiocalyx (Hendry 2011), avocado (QDPC 2015), nectarine, peach, grape
(Hely et al. 1982), Contoneaster sp., Lagerstroemia sp. (Moore 1962), Lantana
camara and radiata pine (FCNI 2015).
Plant part affected
fruit, foliage (Hely et al. 1982)
Australian distribution
Queensland (UQIC 2015)
New South Wales (FCNI 2015)
Biology and pest status
Biology and ecology
Native tussock moth (Euproctis paradoxa) is a native Australian species recorded
from coastal hinterland regions of Queensland and New South Wales. The adult
moth is white with a yellow brush on its tail. It has a wingspan of approximately 4 cm,
and typical of the family Lymantriidae, has a woolly or furry body (Herbison-Evans &
Crossley 2014) and the females are relatively inactive (Zborowski & Edwards 2007).
Hendry (2011) indicates that most of the Australian Lymantritridae are yet to be
described.
Development stages include eggs, larvae (caterpillar), pupae and adult. Final instar
larvae can reach a length of 2.5 cm and are brown and red in colour with a pair of red
prominences on the back towards the rear end (Hely et al. 1982). Typical of
Lymantriid, the larvae have tussocks of bristly hairs, pupate in cocoons of silk and
larval setae amongst foliage, loose bark and other crevices (Common 1990).
Pest status
Little is known on the biology of native tussock moth although its pest status has
reported as sometimes damaging to grapes, nectarines and peaches (Hely et al.
1982). The destructive stage of this pest is the larvae which on grapes can feed on
the stalks of ripening berries and on the berry skin near the stalks. This can allow the
entry of mould fungi and ferment fly, resulting in spoiling of the whole bunch The fruit
surfaces of peaches and nectarines can also be grazed upon near the stem (Hely et
al. 1982). Moore (1962) reported slight damage to Pinus radiata foliage.
92
Draft Policy Review
Although Hely et al. (1982) mentions that ripening grapes, peaches and nectarines
are sometimes attacked by this moth, recent viticulture management guides
(Nicholas et al. 2003; Dunn & Zurbo 2014; Fahey 2014) do not include native tussock
moth as a pest of any significance for Australian viticulture. Likewise Hetherington
(2005) does not include the moth as a pest of any significance for Australian stone
fruit production and Elliott et al. (1998) does not include the moth as a pest of any
significance for Australian forests.
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for native
tussock moth in association with imported table grapes imported from other
Australian states and territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the absence of
risk management measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment
considers basic standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes
including cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in
standard closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences
are described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
The likelihood that native tussock moth will arrive in Western Australia with the
importation of table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source and
destination area considered relevant to native tussock moth and includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin




Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). Native tussock moth has been recorded from the table grape
producing states of Queensland and New South Wales.
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
The native tussock moth has a limited host range and is considered an
occasional pest of grapes and stone fruit. Should feeding larvae damage the
ripening bunches, infested berries exhibiting spoilage should be rejected
during routine quality inspection; however, early instar larvae are more likely
to escape detection due to a lack of feeding damage and/or their small size.
Recent viticulture management (Nicholas et al. 2003; Dunn & Zurbo 2014;
Fahey 2014) do not include native tussock moth as a pest of concern for
Australian viticulture.
93
Draft Policy Review
The presence of native tussock moth on the table grape pathway at its origin is
expected to reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western
Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures


Recent viticulture management guides (Nicholas et al. 2003; Dunn & Zurbo
2014; Fahey 2014) do not include native tussock moth as a pest of any
significance in Australian viticulture. This suggests its absence or if present,
that existing pest management procedures for other pest species may be
limiting its presence in Australian vineyards.
Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is expected that
standard on-arrival procedures would not detect the presence of native
tussock moth larvae in a consignment of table grapes.
The ability of native tussock moth to survive existing pest management
procedures is expected to be a factor limiting the potential for native tussock
moth to be imported into Western Australia with table grapes.
Ability to survive transport and storage





After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of sulphur dioxide
treatment against native tussock moth and is not expected to impact its
survivability under short term (<8 weeks) transport and storage conditions for
table grapes.
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of low temperature
treatments against native tussock moth and is not expected to impact on its
survivability under short term (<8 weeks) transport and storage conditions for
table grapes.
Longer term (8 weeks or greater) low temperature storage conditions of table
grapes in conjunction sulphur dioxide treatments may be detrimental to the
survivability of native tussock moth (Yokoyama et al. 2001).
Other routine post-harvest procedures such as palletisation, containerisation,
and transportation to Western Australia are not expected to impact on the
survivability of any juvenile life stages protected within harvested grape
bunches.
The ability of native tussock moth to survive transport and storage procedures is
not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into
Western Australia with table grapes.
Native tussock moth is estimated as having an extremely low probability of
importation in association with imported table grapes. That is, the importation of
native tussock moth would be extremely unlikely to occur under standard
commercial production, harvesting and packing house procedures for table grapes
from regions where this pest occurs. Due to the lack of evidence that native tussock
moth is a pest of any significance for Australian viticulture, a higher probability of
importation could not be justified.
94
Draft Policy Review
Probability of distribution
The likelihood that native tussock moth will be distributed into Western Australia in a
viable state to a suitable host, as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of table
grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the destination area considered
relevant to native tussock moth and includes:
Transport of table grapes within Western Australia


There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western
Australia; consequently bunches infested with native tussock moth may be
distributed throughout Western Australia.
In 2013/14, 82% of Australian households purchased grapes at least once
(HAL 2014). This suggests that table grapes have the potential to be widely
distributed within Western Australia.
The ability of native tussock moth to move with infested table grapes is not
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Risks from by-products and waste



The importation of table grapes for human consumption will result in the
generation of waste material including rachis and berries.
Fruit waste may be disposed of in a number of ways including municipal
refuse sites, composting, mulching and discarding into urban, rural or natural
localities including roadsides.
Lea and Worsley (2008a) reported that 51% of Australian people surveyed
often composted food waste.
The ability of native tussock moth to be associated with table grape by-products
and waste is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be
distributed within Western Australia.
Ability to move from the pathway to a suitable host


Early instar caterpillars which escape detection are likely to survive storage
and transport to the endangered area where they could develop through to
pupation before fruit desiccates or decays and emerge as adults.
Typical of the family Lymantriidae, the female moth is relatively immobile
compare to the male moth suggesting that any emergent female would have
difficulty locating a host plant to lay its eggs.
The ability of native tussock moth to move from infested table grapes to a suitable
host is expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Native tussock moth is estimated as having a moderate probability of distribution in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the distribution of native tussock
moth to the endangered area and subsequent transfer to a suitable host would occur
with an even probability as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of imported
table grapes. Due to the relative immobility of the female moth that is typical of
Lymantrid moths; a high probability of distribution could not be justified.
95
Draft Policy Review
Overall probability of entry (importation x distribution)
The overall probability of entry has been estimated by combining the individual
probabilities of importation and distribution using the matrix rules shown Table A2.
Native tussock moth is estimated as having an extremely low probability of entry in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the probability that native tussock
moth would enter Western Australia, be distributed in a viable state to an endangered
area and subsequently transfer to a suitable host would be extremely unlikely to
occur as a result of trade in table grapes imported from regions where this pest
occurs.
Probability of establishment
The likelihood that native tussock moth will establish within Western Australia is
based on an assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered
relevant to native tussock moth and includes:
Availability of suitable hosts, alternative hosts and vectors in the PRA area


Although the native tussock moth appears not to have an extensive host
range it does include several major commercial crops and common home
grown fruit trees including avocado, grape, nectarine, peach and radiata pine.
Many host plants are grown in backyards, as amenity plants and be present
as naturalised populations. Domestic garden plantings, both maintained and
abandoned, occur in Perth and in most Western Australian towns and by
many farmhouses
The availability of suitable hosts in Western Australia is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for native tussock moth to establish in Western
Australia.
Suitability of the environment

Native tussock moth appears distribution in Australia limited to coastal
hinterland areas of Queensland and New South Wales. This suggests that
only limited areas within Western Australia may be suitable for native tussock
moth to establish.
The recorded Australian distribution suggests that Western Australia’s climate is
expected to be a factor limiting the potential for native tussock moth to establish
within Western Australia.
Cultural practices and control measures


Current and recent production and management guides (Elliott et al. 1998;
Nicholas et al. 2003; Hetherington 2005; Dunn & Zurbo 2014; Fahey 2014) do
not consider native tussock moth as a pest of any significance in Australian
viticulture, stone fruit and forestry production. This suggests that existing
control measures for other pest species may have the potential to limit the
potential for establishment.
The absence or lack of effective control measures in natives, amenity and
backyard situations is not seen as a factor limiting the potential for
establishment.
96
Draft Policy Review
Cultural practices and control measures are not expected to be a factor limiting
the potential for native tussock moth to establish in Western Australia.
Reproductive strategies and survival

Typical of the family Lymantriidae, the female moth is relatively immobile
compare to the male moth.
The reproductive and survival strategy of native tussock moth is expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for native tussock moth to establish within Western
Australia.
Native tussock moth has been estimated as having a very low probability of
establishment within Western Australia. That is, the establishment of native tussock
moth in an endangered area would be very unlikely to occur as a result of infested
table grapes being imported into Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to
a suitable host. Due to the relative immobility of the female moth typical of Lymantrid
moths; a high probability of establishment could not be justified.
Probability of spread
The likelihood that native tussock moth will spread within Western Australia is based
on an assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant
to native tussock moth and includes:
Suitability of the natural or managed environment for natural spread

Native tussock moth has a range limited to the coastal hinterlands of
Queensland and New South Wales and has been recorded from a limited
number of host plants. This suggests that suitable natural or managed
environments may not be common in Western Australia.
The suitability of the natural or managed environment is expected to be a factor
limiting the potential for native tussock moth to spread in Western Australia.
Presence of natural barriers



Many host plant would be naturalised in Western Australia and are common
backyard and amenity plants.
The long distances between regional centres in Western Australia may
prevent long-range natural spread of native tussock moth due to the relative
immobility of the female moth typical of Lymantrid moths.
The long distances between commercial host crops in Western Australia may
prevent long-range natural spread of native tussock moth.
The presence of natural barriers is expected to be a factor limiting the potential
for native tussock moth to spread in Western Australia.
Potential for movement with commodities or conveyances

Native tussock moth would be able to disperse in association with host
material. Long distance dispersal is facilitated by the commercial distribution
of the host fruit and nursery stock.
97
Draft Policy Review
The potential for movement with commodities or conveyances is not expected to
be a factor limiting the potential for native tussock moth to spread in Western
Australia.
Potential natural enemies

A review of the scientific literature indicates that very little is known about the
natural enemies of native tussock moth.
The potential for natural enemies is not expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for native tussock moth to spread in Western Australia.
Native tussock moth has been estimated as having a moderate probability of spread
within Western Australia. That is, spread of native tussock moth in an endangered
area would occur with an even probability as a result of infested table grapes
being imported into Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to a suitable
host. Due to the relative immobility of the female moth typical of Lymantrid moths
precludes a high probability of spread could not be justified.
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
The overall probability of entry, establishment and spread has been estimated by
combining the individual probabilities using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Native tussock moth has been assessed as having an extremely low probability of
entry, establishment and spread entry in association with imported table grapes. That
is, the entry, establishment and spread of native tussock moth would be extremely
unlikely to occur should table grapes be imported into Western Australia from
regions where this pest occurs.
Economic consequences
ISPM 11 (2014) indicates that the assessment of economic consequences is made
using ‘a hypothetical situation where a pest is supposed to have been introduced
and to be fully expressing its potential economic consequences (per year) in the PRA
area’.
This is interpreted as an unabated incursion; however, it is acknowledged that
existing control regimes for similar species may impact on this expression. In light of
this interpretation, an evaluation of the consequence of entry, establishment or
spread of native tussock moth is considered in Table 11.
Table 11: Economic consequences of native tussock moth
Criterion
Estimate
Direct consequences
98
Draft Policy Review
Table 11: Economic consequences of native tussock moth
Criterion
Estimate
Plant life or health
B - Minor significance at the local level




Any other aspects of
the environment
The native tussock moth has a limited host range
and is considered an occasional pest of grapes and
stone fruit.
A review of the scientific literature indicates native
tussock moth is generally not considered a
pestiferous species.
Current and recent production and management
guides (Elliott et al. 1998; Nicholas et al. 2003;
Hetherington 2005; Dunn & Zurbo 2014; Fahey
2014) do not consider native tussock moth as a
pest of any significance in Australian viticulture,
stone fruit and forestry production.
Damage arising from native tussock moth impacts
on table grape and fruit production as vines and
trees can be defoliated and fruit damaged by the
feeding larvae.
A - Unlikely to be discernible at any geographic level

There are no known consequences of the native
tussock moth on other aspects of the environment.
Indirect consequences
Eradication, control
etc.
B - Minor significance at the local level
Domestic trade
B - Minor significance at the local level



International trade
It is expected that the native tussock moth would
have similar impacts to those encountered in other
areas of Australia where this pest has established.
A control or eradication program is not expected to
significantly add to the cost of production of plant
host.
The presence of native tussock moth in Western
Australia is not anticipated to have any significance
to interstate or intrastate trade from a regulatory
perspective.
Some interstate and domestic markets could be
lost or diminished as infested produce may fail to
meet consumer expectations of high quality
produce.
B - Minor significance at the local level


The presence of native tussock moth in Western
Australia may limit access to overseas markets that
are free from this pest
Some international markets could be lost or
diminished as infested or damaged produce may
not meet consumer expectations of high quality
produce.
99
Draft Policy Review
Table 11: Economic consequences of native tussock moth
Criterion
Estimate
Environment,
including rural and
regional economic
viability
A - Unlikely to be discernible at any geographic level

Additional pesticides required to control native
tussock moth are unlikely to be discernible at have
any discernible impact on other aspects of the
environment including rural and regional economic
viability at any geographic level.
The expected economic consequences for the endangered area should native
tussock moth enter, establish and spread within Western Australia has been
determined to be negligible using the decision rules outlined in Table A5.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
A URE of negligible was determined using the matrix rules outlined in Table A6 for
table grapes imported into Western Australia from regions where native tussock moth
occurs.
Unrestricted risk estimate for native tussock moth
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
Extremely low
Consequences
Negligible
Unrestricted risk
Negligible
As the URE is below Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’, the basic standards of practice
for control table grape production would provide an appropriate level of protection for
Western Australia.
100
Draft Policy Review
Peach white scale
Scientific name (ABRS 2009)
Pseudaulacaspis pentagona (Targioni, 1886) [Hemiptera: Diaspididae]
Synonyms (ABRS 2009)
Diaspis pentagona Targioni, 1886
Diaspis amygdali Tryon, 1889
Diaspis lanatus Cockerell, 1892
Diaspis patelliformis Sasaki, 1894
Aspidiotus vitiensis Maskell, 1895
Diaspis lanata Maskell, 1895
Preferred common name
peach white scale
Alternate common names
white peach scale, mulberry scale, West Indian peach scale, West Indian scale,
white plum scale, white scale
Common host plants
Highly polyphagous species, over 390 host species from 88 families (Ben-Dov
2014c), including Morus species (mulberries), various kinds of deciduous trees, plum,
peach, apple, walnut and grapes (Kozár 1990a). A comprehensive host list of peach
white scale is provided in Appendix G.
Plant part affected
stem, branch, leaf and fruit (Kozár 1990b)
Australian distribution
Queensland (QDPC 2015)
New South Wales (ASCU 2015)
Biology and pest status
Peach white scale is a polyphagous, Oriental species of near-cosmopolitan
distribution. It is known to infest Morus species (mulberries) and various kinds of
deciduous trees. They are frequent on plum, peach, apple, walnut, grapes and
several other plants (Kozár 1990a).
Peach white scale belongs to the Diaspididae family, commonly referred to as
armoured scales. Armoured scales are sedentary insects with sucking mouthparts
that feed on plant sap. As with other scale insects, peach white scale exists in
several forms depending on the sex and age; there are three life stages—egg,
nymph (crawler) and adult.
Biology and ecology
The biology and ecology of peach white scale has been adapted from Hetherington
(2005) and modified to include additional information.
Little white peach scale research has been conducted in Australia. The seasonal and
spatial distribution of peach white scale in Australia is unknown. Peach white scale
are found on wood, leaves and fruit, but more commonly on branches and twigs
(Hely et al. 1982).
101
Draft Policy Review
Peach white scale is often inconspicuous as they can be covered with a thin layer of
the skin of the outer bark of the host plant. The armour is semi-circular although the
shape varies considerably with the density of the scales. The armour is usually firmly
cemented to the host plant and water tight. Removing the scale exposes the usually
creamy-white to reddish-orange insect.
The most commonly seen scales are immature males that cluster together in dense
patches to form encrustations on the trunk and scaffolding (primary) branches.
Immature male scale coverings are elongate and snowy white; these encrustations
give trees a fluffy, whitewashed appearance. Adult males are rarely observed twowinged insects (Kuitert 1968) that live for only about 24 hours, during which time they
must locate the sessile females by pheromone attraction (Heath et al. 1979) to mate.
Females disperse throughout the tree and are less conspicuous. The female is a
creamy white to orange sac-like insect that is protected under a circular, convex,
white, waxy scale 1–2.25 mm in diameter.
Peach white scale is a bisexual species (Brown & Bennett 1957), with 2–5
generations a year. The speed with which the insect completes its lifecycle is related
to temperature. The number of generations under Australian conditions is unknown.
Overwintering takes place in female form, in facultative winter diapause.
Females lay eggs from which the first instar nymphs (crawlers) hatch. The colour of
the egg indicates whether it will give rise to male (pinkish-white-coloured eggs) or
female (coral-coloured eggs) adults (sexual dimorphism), with production of the two
sexes in two different time intervals (sexual dichronism). Females lay 150–200 eggs,
with those laid first containing female embryos, and the second series male embryos
(Brown & Bennett 1957).
Mobile crawlers emerge 2 to 5 days after oviposition and continue to show
dichronism. The male crawlers tend to locate themselves in clusters on the older and
lower portions of the tree. The female crawlers tend to disperse all over the plant
including fruit. Late instar female crawlers permanently attach to suitable sites and
commence feeding (Mopper & Strauss 1998). Subsequent developmental stages and
adult females are sessile (Beardsley & Gonzalez 1975).
Dispersal
Typically, male diaspids are very weak fliers and limited to passive downwind
dispersal (Rice & Moreno 1970). The crawlers have functional legs and are the main
dispersive stage within and between plants. Crawler dispersal may be active or
passive. In active dispersal the crawlers move from the egg chamber to leaves and
shoots where they settle, and may move between plants where canopies touch. The
most important means of passive dispersal is wind, which may easily transfer
crawlers large distances. In addition, rain, machinery and animals may contribute to
the passive dispersal of crawlers. The transport of infested propagation material is
another important method of incidental introduction into other areas and countries
(Greathead 1997; Pellizzari 1997b).
Damage
White peach scale can infest bark, fruit and trees. As with other scales, it feeds on
plant sap. Severe infestations can cause stunting, premature leaf drop, and death of
entire branches. If the infestation is left untreated for 2–3 years, tree death can occur.
Pest status
It is considered the main pest of peach trees in the east Mediterranean region of
Turkey (Erkiliç & Uygun 1997). In Australia, peach white scale is most common on
peaches and nectarines under netting, and is a particular problem in warmer coastal
regions. It is a serious regional issue in southeast Queensland and Alstonville in New
South Wales (Hetherington 2005). Recent viticulture management guides (Nicholas
102
Draft Policy Review
et al. 2003; Dunn & Zurbo 2014; Fahey 2014) do not include peach white scale as a
pest of any significance for Australian viticulture.
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for peach
white scale in association with imported table grapes imported from other Australian
states and territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the absence of risk
management measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment considers
basic standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes including
cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in standard
closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences are
described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
The likelihood that peach white scale will arrive in Western Australia with the
importation of table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source and
destination area considered relevant to peach white scale and includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin




Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). Peach white scale has been recorded from the table grape producing
states of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
Although this species is a pest of grapevine (Kozár 1990a; Ben-Dov 2014c), a
review of current literature, the Australian Plant Pest Database and internet
sources found no records of peach white scale as a pest of Vitis spp. in
Australia.
The small size of peach white scale (Hetherington 2005) may make them
difficult to detect, especially at low population levels. If present on grape
bunches, sorting, grading and packing procedures may not detect and
subsequently discard infested table grapes.
The presence of peach white scale on the table grape pathway at its origin is
expected to reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western
Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures
103
Draft Policy Review




Insecticidal control is difficult in scales and must be directed at unprotected
nymphs as the hard, waxy armour of adults makes it difficult to penetrate
scale coverings.
Well-timed insecticide applications specifically for scale control are usually
required, as well as application of dormant oils.
Identifying the periods of egg hatch and crawler activity is critical to the proper
timing of insecticide applications aimed at the nymphs.
Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is expected that
standard on-arrival procedures would not detect the presence of peach white
scale adult and nymphs (crawlers) in a consignment of table grapes.
The ability of peach white scale to survive existing pest management procedures
is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into
Western Australia with table grapes.
Ability to survive transport and storage





Scales have been intercepted on table grapes imported from Chile into New
Zealand (Biosecurity Australia 2005).
After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of sulphur dioxide
treatment against peach white scale under standard transport and storage
conditions for table grapes.
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of low temperature
treatments against peach white scale under standard transport and storage
conditions for table grapes.
Other routine post-harvest procedures such as palletisation, containerisation,
and transportation to Western Australia are not expected to impact on the
survivability of any juvenile and adult life stages protected within harvested
grape bunches.
The ability of peach white scale to survive transport and storage procedures is
not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into
Western Australia with table grapes.
Peach white scale is estimated as having a negligible probability of importation in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the importation of peach white scale
would almost certainly not occur under standard commercial production,
harvesting and packing house procedures for table grapes from regions where this
pest occurs. Due to the lack of evidence of peach white scale is associated with
Australian viticulture a higher probability of importation could not be justified.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
Where a negligible probability of entry (importation or distribution) occurs, combining
any other probability using the matrix rules shown in Table A2 would result in a
negligible probability of entry, establishment and spread. Combining a negligible
probability of entry, establishment and spread with any estimate of economic
consequence would result in a URE that does not exceed Australia’s ALOP of ‘very
104
Draft Policy Review
low’ (Table A6), consequently continuation of a risk assessment for this pest is not
required.
For table grapes grown in regions where peach white scale occurs, the basic
standards of practice for table grape production would provide an appropriate level of
protection for Western Australia. As such, specific risk mitigating phytosanitary
measures would not be required for the table grape pathway.
105
Draft Policy Review
Queensland fruit fly
Scientific name (ABRS 2009)
Bactrocera (Bactrocera) tryoni (Froggatt, 1897) [Diptera: Tephritidae]
Synonyms (Drew 1989)
Tephritis tryoni Froggatt, 1897
Dacus tryoni Froggatt, 1909
Chaetodacus tryon Tryon, 1927
Chaetodacus tryoni juglandis Tryon, 1927
Chaetodacus tryoni sarcocephali Tryon, 1927
Dacus (Strumenta) tryoni Hardy, 1951
Strumenta tryoni May, 1963
Dacus (Bactrocera) tryoni Drew, 1982
Preferred common name
Queensland fruit fly
Alternate common names
Qfly, QFF
Common host plants
apple, apricot, avocado, banana, bitter gourd, black mulberry, blueberry, capsicum,
carambola, cashew, cherry, citrus, coffee, date palm, edible fig, eggplant, feijoa,
European grapevine, guava, kumquat, litchi, loquat, mango, nectarine, olive,
passionfruit, papaya, peach, pear, persimmon, plum, pomegranate, pumpkin, quince,
strawberry, tomato, walnut. A comprehensive host list for Queensland fruit fly is
provided in Appendix D.
Plant part affected
fruit
Australian distribution
Queensland (Hancock et al. 2000)
New South Wales (Hancock et al. 2000)
Victoria (Hancock et al. 2000)
Northern Territory (Hancock et al. 2000)
Biology and pest status
Queensland fruit fly (Qfly) is a native Australian tephritid fruit fly with an approximate
body length of 10 mm and wingspan of 10 mm. The adult fly is predominantly orange
to black in colour with lateral yellow stripes and a yellow lobe on the thorax.
Queensland fruit fly has similar marking to other native Australian and non-Australian
species of Bactrocera and Dacus (White & Hancock 1997). A comprehensive
description and identification key is provided by White and Hancock (1997).
Biology and ecology
Developmental stages include egg, larvae, pupae and adult. Eggs are typical of
Bactrocera species and are white to pale yellow in colour and are approximately 0.8
mm wide and 2 mm in length. Larvae develop through three instars with the third
instar larvae being 8 to 11 mm long and 1.2 to 1.5 mm wide. Diagnostic features of
106
Draft Policy Review
the larvae include the shape of the mouthparts and anal spiracles (White & ElsonHarris 1994). The pupa are barrel-shaped, white to yellow-brown in colour and
usually about 60 to 80% of the length of larva.
Eggs are laid below the skin of the host fruit. These hatch within two to three days
and the larvae feed for another 10 to 31 days. Pupation occurs in the soil for
approximately seven days but may be longer in cooler conditions. Adults can be
present throughout the year in four to five overlapping generations, overwintering as
adults. Up to 70 individuals have been recorded as developing from a single infested
fruit (Christenson & Foote 1960).
Dispersal
Adult flight and the transport of infected fruit are the predominant means of dispersal
to previously uninfected areas.
A review on the ecology of Qfly by Clarke et al. (2011) indicates that the adult can
disperse over distances up to a few kilometres from pupae originating from an
infested fruit. Clarke et al. (2011) also noted that although a single Qfly has been
recorded 94 km from its release point, this distance was considered highly unusual.
Damage
The destructive stage of Qfly is the larvae that infest the fruit. Furthermore, the
ensuing bacterial infection often results in the partial or complete degradation of the
infested fruit.
Pest status
Qfly is considered to be the most serious insect pest of fruit crops in Australia and
has the potential to infest 100% of unprotected crops. Qfly can infest most
commercial fruit crops (Drew et al. 1982) grown in Western Australia. Table grapes
(Oag 2001) and wine grapes (Loch 2008) are recognised host for Qfly. However, a
literature review by Dominiak (2011) suggests while grapes may not be a preferred
host for Qfly, high Qfly populations and the absence of preferred host increase the
probability of Qfly attacking grapes. Lloyd (2007) also described this scenario
Queensland’s Central Burnett area where the cessation of baiting after the end of a
commercial citrus harvest significantly increased Qfly pressure in summer table
grapes crops even though the recommended field controls of baiting and Male
Annihilation Technique (MAT) controls were being undertaken in the vineyards.
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for Qfly in
association with imported table grapes imported from other Australian states and
territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the absence of risk management
measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment considers basic
standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes including
cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in standard
closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences are
described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
107
Draft Policy Review
Probability of importation
The likelihood that Qfly will arrive in Western Australia with the importation of table
grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source and destination area
considered relevant to Qfly and includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin








Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). Qfly has been recorded from the table grape producing states and
territories of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and the Northern
Territory.
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
Qfly requires the presence of maturing fruit to complete the egg to larval
development stages.
High Qfly populations generated from other sources and the absence of
preferred host increase the probability of Qfly attacking grapes.
Table grapes (Oag 2001) and wine grapes (Loch 2008) are recognised as
suitable host for Queensland fruit fly.
Given the potential for severe infestations in most commercial fruit, production
practices for the control of Qfly are usually undertaken.
The presence of adult Qfly on the table grape pathway would be very unlikely
as they are of a highly mobile nature.
The presence of visible characteristics associated with infested berries such
as rots and stings may be detected during standard field and packing house
quality control inspections and subsequently removed from the pathway.
However, in many cases these indicators may not be present especially for
newly infested berries and subsequently infested bunches may not be
removed from the table grape pathway.
The presence of Qfly on the table grape pathway at its origin is not expected to
reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures





Qfly is seen as an emerging pest of table and wine grape with significant
production reported by Loch (2008).
Qfly damage reviewed by Dominiak (2011) suggests management of Qfly of
an irregular occurrence with infestations increasing with high populations level
in the area and the absence of preferred hosts.
The presence of Qfly in table grapes in certain situations can occur even
though recommended field controls are being undertaken (Lloyd 2007).
Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is expected that
standard on-arrival procedures would not detect the presence of Qfly in a
consignment of table grapes.
108
Draft Policy Review
The ability of Qfly to survive existing pest management procedures is expected
to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into Western Australia
with table grapes.
Ability to survive transport and storage





After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of sulphur dioxide
treatment against Queensland fruit fly under standard transport and storage
conditions for table grapes.
Qfly eggs and larvae remaining with harvested grape bunches are expected
to survive routine processing procedures in the packing house, palletisation,
containerisation and transportation to Western Australia providing storage and
transit times are less than 18 days when shipped at 0°C.
Cold storage verification trials for Australian table grapes have recently been
conducted to gain access to overseas markets (HAL 2014). These trials
demonstrated that cold treatments of 1°C for 16 days, 2°C for 18 days and
3°C for 20 days will completely disinfest all stages of Mediterranean fruit flies
without injury to table grapes. Since the Mediterranean fruit fly was shown in
previous research submitted to Japan to be more tolerant of cold treatment
than the Queensland fruit fly, the results of these trials are also applicable to
exports from Queensland fruit fly infested areas in Australia.
Other routine post-harvest procedures such as palletisation, containerisation,
and transportation to Western Australia are not expected to impact on the
survivability of any larvae remaining protected within harvested grape berries.
The ability of Qfly to survive transport and storage procedures is not expected
to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into Western Australia
with table grapes.
Qfly is estimated as having a moderate probability of importation in association with
imported table grapes. That is, the importation of Qfly would occur with an even
probability under standard commercial production, harvesting and packing house
procedures for table grapes from regions where this pest occurs. Due to the irregular
occurrence of infestations, a higher probability of importation could not be justified.
Probability of distribution
The likelihood that Qfly will be distributed into Western Australia in a viable state to a
suitable host, as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of table grapes is based
on an assessment of factors in the destination area considered relevant to Qfly and
includes:
Transport of table grapes within Western Australia


There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western
Australia; consequently bunches infested with Qfly may be distributed
throughout Western Australia.
As grapes are easily damaged during handling (Mencarelli et al. 2005),
packed grapes may not be processed or handled again until they arrive at the
109
Draft Policy Review

retailers. Therefore, any Qfly larvae present in packed grapes are unlikely to
be detected during transportation and distribution to retailers.
In 2013/14, 82% of Australian households purchased grapes at least once
(HAL 2014). This suggests that table grapes have the potential to be widely
distributed within Western Australia.
The ability of Qfly to move with infested table grapes is not expected to be a
factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within Western Australia.
Risks from by-products and waste




The importation of table grapes for human consumption will result in the
generation of waste material including rachis and berries.
Fruit waste may be disposed of in a number of ways including municipal
refuse sites, composting, mulching and discarding into urban, rural or natural
localities including roadsides.
Lea and Worsley (2008a) reported that 51% of Australian people surveyed
often composted food waste.
Qfly has the capacity to disperse up to a few kilometres after emerging from
pupae originating from an infested berry or bunch.
The ability of Qfly to be associated with table grape by-products and waste is not
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Ability to move from the pathway to a suitable host



Qfly eggs and larvae that escape detection are likely to survive storage and
transport to the endangered area. Both life stages would have the potential to
develop through to pre-pupation within the fruit before desiccation or decay
occurs. Surviving larvae would also have the potential to pupate and emerge
as adults.
Several Qfly larvae can infest a single berry or bunch (Loch 2008); multiple
adult male and female may emerge from pupae originating from an infested
berry or bunch. This will improve the chances for successful mating and
suitable host fruit being infested in the PRA area.
Qfly’s wide host range includes many commercial fruit crops grown in
Western Australia. The Qfly adult also has the capacity to disperse up to a
few kilometres. Both these factors would favour the ability of Qfly to locate a
suitable host in the PRA area.
The ability of Qfly to move from infested table grapes to a suitable host is not
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Qfly is estimated as having a high probability of distribution in association with
imported table grapes. That is, the distribution of Qfly to the endangered area and
subsequent transfer to a suitable host would be very likely to occur as a result of
the processing, sale or disposal of imported table grapes. No significant factors were
identified that limit Qfly’s potential to be distributed within Western Australia.
Overall probability of entry (importation x distribution)
110
Draft Policy Review
The overall probability of entry has been estimated by combining the individual
probabilities of importation and distribution using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Qfly is estimated as having a moderate probability of entry in association with
imported table grapes. That is, the probability that Qfly would enter Western
Australia, be distributed in a viable state to an endangered area and subsequently
transfer to a suitable host would occur with an even probability as a result of trade in
table grapes imported from regions where this pest occurs.
Probability of establishment
The likelihood that Qfly will establish within Western Australia is based on an
assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to this
pest and includes:
Availability of suitable hosts, alternative hosts and vectors in the PRA area


Qfly is a polyphagous insect with host plants belonging to many different plant
families (Hancock et al. 2000), many of these host plants are present in
Western Australia and several host plants and would be grown on a
commercial basis Australia. A comprehensive host list is provided in Appendix
D.
Qfly host plants are widely distributed and are naturalised within Western
Australia (Hnatiuk 1990; Keighery & Longman 2004). These host plants may
be found in backyards, as amenity plants and as naturalised populations.
Domestic garden plantings, both maintained and abandoned, occur in Perth
and in most Western Australian towns and by many farmhouses.
The availability of suitable hosts in Western Australia is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for Qfly to establish in Western Australia.
Suitability of the environment


A CLIMEX® bioclimatic analysis published by Sutherst and Yonow (1998)
indicates that Qfly has the potential to establish in Western Australia.
Qfly has been reported from many areas of eastern Australia (Queensland,
New South Wales, Victoria and Northern Territory). There are similarities in
the natural and managed environments of these states with those in Western
Australia. This suggests that Qfly would have the potential to establish within
Western Australia.
Bioclimatic modelling and current Australian distribution suggest that Western
Australia’s climate is not expected to be a factor limiting the potential for Qfly to
establish within Western Australia.
Cultural practices and control measures

Cultural practices and management regimes such as baiting, cover sprays
and orchard hygiene are undertaken to control Mediterranean fruit fly in many
Western Australian commercial horticultural production systems as well as in
domestic situations. These and other cultural practices and management
regimes has the potential to impact on Qfly establishing in those areas being
managed for Mediterranean fruit fly
Cultural practices and control measures are expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for Qfly to establish in Western Australia.
111
Draft Policy Review
Reproductive strategies and survival


Several Qfly larvae can infest a single bunch; multiple adult male and females
may emerge from pupae originating from an infested bunch. This reproductive
strategy would improve the chances for successful mating and for host fruit
being infested by Qfly in a new area.
Adult Qfly can be present throughout the year in overlapping generations; this
survival strategy would improve the chances of Qfly finding a suitable host
throughout the year.
The reproductive and survival strategy of Qfly is not expected to be a factor
limiting the potential for Qfly to establish within Western Australia.
Qfly has been estimated as having a high probability of establishment within
Western Australia. That is, the establishment of Qfly in an endangered area would be
very likely to occur as a result of infested table grapes being imported into Western
Australia and distributed in a viable state to a suitable host. No significant factors
were identified that limit Qfly’s potential to establish in Western Australia.
Probability of spread
The likelihood that Qfly will spread within Western Australia is based on an
assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to Qfly
and includes:
Suitability of the natural or managed environment for natural spread



Qfly host plants are widely distributed and are naturalised within Western
Australia (Hnatiuk 1990; Keighery & Longman 2004).
Qfly host plants are grown widely in most populated areas of Western
Australia as fruit, ornamental and shade fruit trees.
Qfly has been reported from many areas of eastern Australia (Queensland,
New South Wales, Victoria and Northern Territory). There are similarities in
the natural and managed environments of these states with those in Western
Australia. This suggests that Qfly would be able to spread in a similar within
Western Australia.
The suitability of the natural or managed environment is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for Qfly to spread in Western Australia.
Presence of natural barriers


Although the adult fly is considered a strong flyer, the presence of natural
barriers such as deserts or non-host native vegetation may prevent long
range natural spread of Qfly.
The long distances between some of the main Western Australian
commercial fruit production areas may make it difficult for Qfly to spread
unaided from one production or inhabited area to another.
The presence of natural barriers is expected to be a factor limiting the potential
for Qfly to spread in Western Australia.
Potential for movement with commodities or conveyances
112
Draft Policy Review


Long distance spread to new areas following Qfly’s establishment in Western
Australia may occur through commercial and non-commercial (tourism) fruit
movement.
There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western
Australia.
The potential for movement with commodities or conveyances is not expected to
be a factor limiting the potential for Qfly to spread in Western Australia.
Potential natural enemies


Very little is known about the natural enemies of Qfly (Clarke et al. 2011).
Natural enemies have rarely been used in the active management of Qfly
(Clarke et al. 2011).
The potential for natural enemies is not expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for Qfly to spread in Western Australia.
Qfly has been estimated as having a high probability of spread within Western
Australia. That is, spread of Qfly in an endangered area would be very likely to
occur as a result of infested table grapes being imported into Western Australia and
distributed in a viable state to a suitable host. No significant factors were identified
that limit Qfly’s potential to spread within Western Australia.
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
The overall probability of entry, establishment and spread has been estimated by
combining the individual probabilities using the matrix rules shown in Table A2. Qfly
has been assessed as having a moderate probability of entry, establishment and
spread entry in association with imported table grapes. That is, the entry,
establishment and spread of Qfly would occur with an even probability should
table grapes be imported into Western Australia from regions where this pest occurs.
Economic consequences
ISPM 11 (2014) indicates that the assessment of economic consequences is made
using ‘a hypothetical situation where a pest is supposed to have been introduced
and to be fully expressing its potential economic consequences (per year) in the PRA
area’.
This is interpreted as an unabated incursion; however, it is acknowledged that
existing control regimes for similar species may impact on this expression. In light of
this interpretation, an evaluation of the consequence of entry, establishment or
spread of Qfly is considered in Table 12.
Table 12: Economic consequences of Queensland fruit fly
Criterion
Estimate
Direct consequences
113
Draft Policy Review
Table 12: Economic consequences of Queensland fruit fly
Criterion
Estimate
Plant life or health
D - Significant at the district level





Any other aspects of
the environment
Qfly is considered to be the most serious insect pest
of fruit crops in Australia.
Qfly has the potential to infest 100% of unprotected
crops
Oviposition sites even if non-viable can allow the
entry of saprophytic or pathogenic fungi which can
damage maturing fruit, or cause rejection at harvest.
Environmental conditions exist within Western
Australia that are similar to areas in eastern Australia
where Qfly occurs, this suggests similar impacts to
plant life or health could occur if Qfly establishes in
Western Australia.
Existing control measures for Mediterranean fruit fly
has the potential to limit damage caused by Qfly.
A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level


The introduction of exotic species such as Qfly into
the natural environment may have the capacity to
induce changes in the ecology of susceptible native
ecological communities.
Ecological changes may not be reversible as Qfly is
an Australia native species.
Indirect consequences
Eradication, control
etc.
D - Significant at the district level




Due to the nature of spread of Qfly during an
incursion situation, an eradication program may be
feasible.
Existing control measures for Mediterranean fruit fly
has the potential to limit damage caused by Qfly.
In conventional orchard systems, successful control
regimes for Qfly have in the past been undertaken
with cover sprays of fenthion or dimethoate provided
these insecticides were approved for use on the
affected crop. However, an APVMA review has
limited the use of these insecticides, especially with
edible skinned fruits such as table grapes, which will
exacerbate the assessment of this criterion.
Modifying existing cultural practices for the
preservation of introduced and natural environments
would add to the cost of production.
114
Draft Policy Review
Table 12: Economic consequences of Queensland fruit fly
Criterion
Estimate
Domestic trade
D - Significant at the district level



International trade
Yield reduction may reduce the amount of table
grapes and other host fruit available for the domestic
market.
The presence of Qfly in Western Australia may result
in trade restrictions to South Australia and Tasmania
due to the absence of Qfly in those states.
Some interstate and domestic markets could be lost
or diminished as infested produce may fail to meet
consumer expectations of high quality produce.
APVMA restrictions on the use of fenthion and
dimethoate may further exacerbate this situation.
D - Significant at the district level





Although the bulk of Western Australia’s table grape
and other host fruit production are destined for the
domestic market, some international markets may
be lost or diminished as infested produce may fail to
meet consumer expectations of high quality produce.
Yield and quality reduction may reduce the amount
of table grapes and other host fruit available for
international markets.
The future development of international markets may
be hampered by the presence of Qfly in Western
Australia.
Quarantine restrictions are likely to be imposed.
AVPMA restrictions on the use of fenthion and
dimethoate may further exacerbate this situation.
The presence of Queensland fruit fly in Western
Australia may limit access to overseas markets that
are free from this pest. Chile, China, Cook Island,
Fiji, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, New
Caledonia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New
Guinea, Philippines, Reunion, Sri Lanka, Taiwan,
Thailand, Thailand, Tonga and USA have specific
conditions for Qfly (Australian Department of
Agriculture 2015ak; 2015aa; 2015e; 2015as; 2015at;
2015aw; 2015h; 2015y; 2015ad; 2015x; 2015ac;
2015av; 2015w; 2015p; 2015ay; 2015d; 2015am;
2015v; 2015aj; 2015ax; 2015i; 2015c; 2015aq;
2015af; 2015ai; 2015an; 2015al; 2015t; 2015f;
2015r; 2015o; 2015s; 2015m; 2015ae; 2015ar;
2015ah; 2015au; 2015k; 2015n; 2015ao; 2015l;
2015q; 2015z; 2015g; 2015j; 2015ap; 2015ag)
115
Draft Policy Review
Table 12: Economic consequences of Queensland fruit fly
Criterion
Estimate
Environment,
including rural and
regional economic
viability
D - Significant at the district level



Under the hypothetical unabated incursion scenario,
the potential economic consequences of Qfly in
Western Australia would be expected to result in
significant impacts to the Western Australian fruit
industry as many orchards would be infested and
produce rendered unmarketable. This impact may be
tempered by control pracices in place for
Mediterranean fruit fly.
The impact on such a redirection of the Western
Australian fruit industry may lead to a reduction in
the viability of rural and regional economies in the
south west districts of Western Australia.
Insecticides required to control Qfly, if used, are
expected to have consequences that are unlikely to
be discernible at the local level.
The expected economic consequences for the endangered area should Qfly enter,
establish and spread within Western Australia has been determined to be moderate
using the decision rules outlined in Table A5.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
A URE of moderate was determined using the matrix rules outlined in Table A6 for
table grapes imported into Western Australia from regions where Qfly occurs.
Unrestricted risk estimate for Queensland fruit fly
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
Moderate
Consequences
Moderate
Unrestricted risk
Moderate
As the URE is above Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’, the basic standards of practice
for table grape production would not provide an appropriate level of protection for
Western Australia. As such, specific risk mitigating phytosanitary measures will be
required for the table grapes pathway.
116
Draft Policy Review
Spanish red scale
Scientific name (ABRS 2009)
Chrysomphalus dictyospermi (Morgan, 1889) [Hemiptera: Diaspididae]
Synonyms (ABRS 2009)
Aspidiotus dictyospermi Morgan, 1889
Preferred common name
Spanish red scale
Alternate common names
dictyospermum scale, Morgan’s scale, palm scale, western red scale
Common host plants
apple, avocado, banana, citrus, European grapevine, guava, macadamia , olive,
pear. Highly polyphagous species, over 300 host species from 80 families (Ben-Dov
2014a). A comprehensive host list for Spanish red scale is provided in 0.
Plant part affected
leaves, branches and fruit (Watson 2005; Alford 2014)
Australian distribution
Queensland (QDPC 2015)
New South Wales (ASCU 2015)
Northern Territory (NTEIC 2015)
Biology and pest status
Spanish red scale is a highly polyphagous species known predominately as a serious
pest of citrus (Zahradník 1990), but can also be of economic consequence in a
number of horticultural fruit crops including, mango, banana (Chua & Wood 1990),
tea (Nagarkatti & Sankaran 1990), avocado (Smith 1973), fig and olive (Alford 2014).
Other hosts include conifers (Zahradník 1990), orchids, palms (Miller & Davidson
2005) and Dracaena species (Alford 2014). It is present throughout the
Mediterranean basin; and many other parts of the world, including America, Asia,
Australia and New Zealand (Alford 2014).
Spanish red scale belongs to the Diaspididae family, commonly referred to as
armoured scales. Armoured scales are sedentary insects with sucking mouthparts
that feed on plant sap. As with other scale insects, Spanish red scale exists in
several forms depending on the sex and age; there are three life stages—egg,
nymph (crawler) and adult.
Biology and ecology
The scale cover of adult females is 1.5–2 mm long, nearly circular, and greyish or
reddish-brown in colour, often with a coppery tinge. The body of the living female is
yellow. Male scale covers are similar to that of the female, but elongate (Gill 1997;
Watson 2005). The scale can readily be removed to reveal the soft, yellow body of
the living female beneath.
Females lay eggs from which the first instar nymphs (crawlers) hatch, and settle on
the old leaves to commence feeding. Nymphs develop through three instar stages for
117
Draft Policy Review
about 3 weeks before becoming adults. There is then a delay of several weeks
before mating of the adult males and females take place and eggs are laid (Alford
2014).
Spanish red scale has parthenogenetic forms and bisexual forms. Development is
affected by climatic conditions (Miller & Davidson 2005) and can be continuous in
tropical conditions. In California, there are three or four overlapping generations
annually (Watson 2005). Members of the second and subsequent generations
usually settle on the young leaves and developing fruits (Alford 2014). The seasonal
and spatial distribution of Spanish red scale in Australia is unknown. Spanish red
scale overwinters as either young adult females or as second instar nymphs (Alford
2014).
Dispersal
Typically, male diaspids are very weak fliers and limited to passive downwind
dispersal (Rice & Moreno 1970). The crawlers have functional legs and are the main
dispersive stage within and between plants. Crawler dispersal may be active or
passive. In active dispersal the crawlers move from the egg chamber to leaves and
shoots where they settle, and may move between plants where canopies touch. The
most important means of passive dispersal is wind, which may easily transfer
crawlers large distances. In addition, rain, machinery and animals may contribute to
the passive dispersal of crawlers. The transport of infested propagation material is
another important method of incidental introduction into other areas and countries
(Greathead 1997; Pellizzari 1997b).
Damage
The upper surface of the leaves seems to be the preferred feeding area, although
undersides of leaves, branches and fruit may be infested also (Miller & Davidson
2005). Toxic saliva injected while feeding on leaves and fruits causes the
surrounding tissue to turn yellow (chlorosis). Where infestations are heavy, branches
begin to wilt, with premature leaf drop. Infested fruits also become deformed. In
addition to direct feeding damage, foliage and fruits are contaminated by honeydew
excreted by the nymphs and upon which sooty mould develops (Alford 2014).
Pest status
Spanish red scale has been reported on Vitis spp. and is known to affect the fruit of
host plants, and the post-harvest stage (Watson 2005), however, a review of current
literature and internet sources could find no records of Spanish red scale reported on
Vitis spp. in Australia. It has been recorded as a minor pest of avocados in Australia
(Smith 1973). Recent viticulture management guides (Nicholas et al. 2003; Dunn &
Zurbo 2014; Fahey 2014) do not include Spanish red scale as a pest of any
significance for Australian viticulture.
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for Spanish
red scale in association with imported table grapes imported from other Australian
states and territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the absence of risk
management measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment considers
basic standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes including
cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in standard
closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences are
described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
118
Draft Policy Review
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
The likelihood that Spanish red scale will arrive in Western Australia with the
importation of table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source and
destination area considered relevant to Spanish red scale and includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin






Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). Spanish red scale has been recorded from the table grape producing
states and territories of Queensland, New South Wales and the Northern
Territory.
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
Although this species has been reported on Vitis spp. and is known to affect
the fruit of host plants, and the post-harvest stage (Watson 2005), a review of
current literature, the Australian Plant Pest Database and internet sources
found no records of Spanish red scale reported on Vitis spp. in Australia.
The small size of Spanish red scale (1.5–2 mm long) (Gill 1997; Watson
2005) may make them difficult to detect, especially at low population levels. If
present on grape bunches, sorting, grading and packing procedures may not
detect and subsequently discard infested table grapes.
Spanish red scale produces honeydew that covers leaves and clusters,
allowing the growth of sooty mould (Alford 2014), causing blackened areas on
leaves and fruit. Any grape bunches harvested showing these symptoms may
be detected during field and packing house quality control inspections and
subsequently removed from the pathway.
Lightly infested grape bunches may not result in obvious visible markers of
infestation such as the presence of honeydew and sooty mould. Under these
conditions, Spanish red scale may escape detection during packing house
quality control inspection and remain hidden within harvested grape bunches.
The presence of Spanish red scale on the table grape pathway at its origin is
expected to reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western
Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures



Insecticidal control is difficult in scales and must be directed at unprotected
nymphs as the hard, waxy armour of adults makes it difficult to penetrate
scale coverings.
Well-timed insecticide applications specifically for scale control are usually
required, as well as application of dormant oils.
Identifying the periods of egg hatch and crawler activity is critical to the proper
timing of insecticide applications aimed at the nymphs.
119
Draft Policy Review

Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is expected that
standard on-arrival procedures would not detect the presence of Spanish red
scale adult and nymphs in a consignment of table grapes.
The ability of Spanish red scale to survive existing pest management procedures
is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into
Western Australia with table grapes.
Ability to survive transport and storage





Scales have been intercepted on table grapes imported from Chile into New
Zealand (Biosecurity Australia 2005).
After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of sulphur dioxide
treatment against Spanish red scale under standard transport and storage
conditions for table grapes.
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of low temperature
treatments against Spanish red scale has not been documented and is not
expected to impact its survivability under standard transport and storage
conditions for table grapes.
Other routine post-harvest procedures such as palletisation, containerisation,
and transportation to Western Australia are not expected to impact on the
survivability of any juvenile and adult life stages protected within harvested
grape bunches.
The ability of Spanish red scale to survive transport and storage procedures is
not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into
Western Australia with table grapes.
Spanish red scale is estimated as having a negligible probability of importation in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the importation of Spanish red scale
would almost certainly not occur under standard commercial production,
harvesting and packing house procedures for table grapes from regions where this
pest occurs. Due to the lack of evidence that peach white scale is associated with
Australian viticulture; a higher probability of importation could not be justified.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
Where a negligible probability of entry (importation or distribution) occurs, combining
any other probability using the matrix rules shown in Table A2 would result in a
negligible probability of entry, establishment and spread. Combining a negligible
probability of entry, establishment and spread with any estimate of economic
consequence would result in a URE that does not exceed Australia’s ALOP of ‘very
low’ (Table A6), consequently continuation of a risk assessment for this pest is not
required.
For table grapes grown in regions where Spanish red scale occur, the basic
standards of practice for table grape production would provide an appropriate level of
120
Draft Policy Review
protection for Western Australia. As such, specific risk mitigating phytosanitary
measures would not be required for the table grape pathway.
121
Draft Policy Review
Warehouse beetle
Scientific name (ABRS 2009)
Trogoderma variabile Ballion, 1878 [Coleoptera: Dermestidae]
Synonyms (ABRS 2009)
Trogoderma persica Pic, 1914
Trogoderma versicolor turkestanicum Pic, 1914
Trogoderma scabripennis Casey, 1916
Trogoderma parabile Beal, 1954
Preferred common name
warehouse beetle
Alternate common names
none known
Common host plants (Emery 1999)
Vegetable and flower seeds including sunflower, rice, carrot and tomato seed, fish
food, cereal products including animal feed, rolled barley and oats, stored canola.
Plant part affected
Seed and processed cereal products
Australian distribution
Western Australia BAMA s22 declared pest (ICDB 2015)
Queensland (Rees et al. 2003)
New South Wales (ASCU 2015)
Victoria (VAIC 2015)
South Australia (Rees et al. 2003)
Biology and pest status
Biology and ecology
The biology and ecology of warehouse beetle has been adapted from Emery (1999)
Warehouse beetle (Trogoderma variabile) Farmnote 77/99 Department of
Agriculture, Government of Western Australia and modified to include additional
information
The adult warehouse beetle is about 3–5 mm long, with three indistinct, whitish
bands across the wing covers. Dead insects may be greyer in colour. The adult does
little damage is not as obvious as the larvae because of its short life span of 7-10
days.
The larvae of the warehouse beetle are 5–8 mm long and covered with thick reddishbrown setae, which gives them a hairy appearance.
Warehouse beetle closely resembles khapra beetle (Trogoderma granarium), widely
regarded as the world's worst stored grain pest. Khapra beetle is absent from
Australia. Larvae and adults of other commonly occurring insects of the same family
Dermestidae are similar in appearance to warehouse beetle. Dermestid beetles that
might be confused with warehouse beetle include the Australian carpet beetle
(Anthrenocerus australis), varigated carpet beetle (Anthrenus verbasci), common
hide beetle (Dermestes maculatus) or the harmless native Trogoderma species.
122
Draft Policy Review
Pest status
Warehouse beetle is regarded as a persistent pest of grain storage and handling
structures in Australia where it is usually associated with residues (Rees et al. 2003).
The warehouse beetle larva is the stage that does the damage, attacking a wide
range of products. All types of cereal, stored canola, vegetable and flour seeds,
notably sunflower seed, paddy rice remnants, carrot and tomato seed, and fish food
may be infested. The insect thrives on cereal products such as processed animal
feeds or rolled barley and oats and stored canola. Packaging materials such as
second-hand grain sacks and corrugated cardboard can also harbour the pest. It is
not known to infest fresh plant material such as grain in standing crops (GRDC 2015)
or fresh fruit.
A characteristic of warehouse beetle infestations is the accumulation of cast larvae
skins. Both the larvae and the tissue-thin, brownish cast skins bear spear shaped
setae (hairs or bristles). These setae are known to cause gastric upset in babies and
young children who are inadvertently fed contaminated food.
The insect is also highly allergenic and would be expected to pose additional
problems for asthmatics and cause irritation or allergic reaction in sensitive persons.
Warehouse beetle has been intercepted by Australian Department of Agriculture
operational staff during inspections of Californian table grapes for export to Australian
eastern states, however, these beetles are likely to be present only as a contaminant
(DAFF 2013).
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for
warehouse beetle in association with imported table grapes imported from other
Australian states and territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the absence of
risk management measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment
considers basic standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes
including cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in
standard closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences
are described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
The likelihood that warehouse beetle will arrive in Western Australia with the
importation of table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source and
destination area considered relevant to warehouse beetle and includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin

Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). Warehouse beetle has been recorded from the table grape producing
123
Draft Policy Review



states of Western Australia (BAMA declared s22), Queensland, New South
Wales, Victoria and South Australia.
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
Warehouse beetle has been recorded as a contaminant on table grape
bunches imported from California to Australian eastern states (DAFF 2013).
Warehouse beetle has not been recorded from Australian grapevines.
The presence of warehouse beetle on the table grape pathway at its origin is
expected to reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western
Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures


Warehouse beetle has not been recorded from Australian grapevines.
Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is expected that
standard on-arrival procedures would not detect the presence of warehouse
beetle adult and larvae in a consignment of table grapes.
The ability of warehouse beetle to survive existing pest management procedures
is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into
Western Australia with table grapes.
Ability to survive transport and storage





Warehouse beetle has been intercepted on Californian table grapes for export
to Australian eastern states (DAFF 2013).
After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of sulphur dioxide
treatment against warehouse beetle under standard transport and storage
conditions for table grapes.
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of low temperature
treatments against warehouse beetle under standard transport and storage
conditions for table grapes.
Other routine post-harvest procedures such as palletisation, containerisation,
and transportation to Western Australia are not expected to impact on the
survivability of any juvenile and adult life stages protected within harvested
grape bunches.
The ability of warehouse beetle to survive transport and storage procedures is not
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into Western
Australia with table grapes.
Warehouse beetle is estimated as having a negligible probability of importation in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the importation of warehouse beetle
would almost certainly not occur under standard commercial production,
harvesting and packing house procedures for table grapes from regions where this
124
Draft Policy Review
pest occurs. Due to the lack of evidence that warehouse beetle is associated with
Australian viticulture; a higher probability of importation could not be justified.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
Where a negligible probability of entry (importation or distribution), establishment or
spread occurs, combining any other probability using the matrix rules shown in Table
A2 would result in a negligible probability of entry, establishment and spread.
Combining a negligible probability of entry, establishment and spread with any
estimate of economic consequence would result in a URE that does not exceed
Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’ (Table A6), consequently continuation of a risk
assessment for this pest is not required.
For table grapes grown in regions where warehouse beetle occurs, the basic
standards of practice for table grape production would provide an appropriate level of
protection for Western Australia. As such, specific risk mitigating phytosanitary
measures would not be required for the table grape pathway.
125
Draft Policy Review
Bitter rot
Scientific name (Robert et al. 2005)
Greeneria uvicola (Berk. & MA Curtis) Punith. 1974 [Diaporthales: Gnomoniaceae]
Synonyms (Robert et al. 2005)
Melanconium fuligineum (Scribn. & Viala) Cavara 1888
Phoma uvicola Berk. & MA Curtis 1873
Phyllostictina uvicola (Berk. & MA Curtis) Höhn. 1920
Myrothecium convexum Berk. & MA Curtis 1875
Greeneria fuliginea Scribner & Viala 1887
Frankiella viticola Speschnew 1900
Phyllosticta frankiana Sacc. & Syd. 1902
Preferred common name
Bitter rot
Alternative common names
Ripe rot of grape
Necrotic fleck of grapevine
Common host plants
Vitis vinifera, Vitis aestivalis, Vitis bourquina, Vitis labrusca, Vitis munsoniana, Vitis
rotundifolia (Ridings & Clayton 1970; McGrew 1988; Farr & Rossman 2015).
Shown to be experimentally capable of invading fruits of apple, cherry, peach,
strawberry, blueberry and banana (Ridings & Clayton 1970) but not recorded from
those hosts in Australia (PHA 2001).
Plant part affected
All parts of the plant (Miranda 2005)
Greenaria uvicola has been isolated from roots of plants expressing dieback
symptoms (Castillo-Pando et al. 2001).
Australian distribution
Queensland (PHA 2001; BRIP 2015)
New South Wales (Castillo-Pando et al. 2001; PHA 2001; Sergeeva et al. 2001)
Victoria (Washington & Nancarrow 1983)
Biology and pest status
Greeneria uvicola is an ascomycete belonging tentatively within the Diaporthales and
has no known teleomorph (Castlebury et al. 2002; Navarrete et al. 2009). Of the six
families present within the Diaporthales, G. uvicola does not fit phylogentically into
any of them, although it is most closely related to the Valsaceae (Gryzenhout et al.
2006). Greeneria uvicola is the only representative of this genus.
Symptoms
Symptoms of infection include flecks on young leaves, shoots, tendrils, individual
flower buds, pedicels, rachis and berries (Kummuang et al. 1996b). On mature
berries olive-brown lesions covered in black spore masses may occur (Kummuang et
al. 1996b). On green berries concentric rings of acervuli are often formed (McGrew
1988). Infected grapes develop a brownish colour, which darken and have a rough
appearance as the bunch rot develops (Steel 2014). Lesions can increase in size and
126
Draft Policy Review
cause soft rot of the infected berries which may detach (McGrew 1988), or the
berries may shrivel and become mummified (Navarrete et al. 2009).
Infected berries may drop when young, half-size, full-size or upon maturity
(Kummuang et al. 1996a). Some berries may not detached and continue to dry and
become firmly attached and shrivel on the rachis. Disease symptoms are
characterised by a bitter taste to the berries, with the acceptability of diseased fruit
for either table or wine use markedly reduced (McGrew 1988).
Symptoms can be confused with other bunch-rotting fungi which produced black
spores, such as Alternaria spp. and Phomopsis viticola (Samuelian et al. 2011).
Greeneria uvicola has been isolated in the presence of other bunch-rot agents
(Colletotrichum acutatum) which may add to confusion as to the cause of the bunch
rot (Samuelian et al. 2011).
Life cycle and infective stages
Greeneria uvicola can act as an endophyte and has been isolated from both
symptomatic and asymptomatic grapevine tissue (Navarrete et al. 2009). It can
overwinter in the necrotic bark of year-old canes within its area of climatic adaptation
and can cause girdling of young shoots of V. vinifera (McGrew 1988).
Greeneria uvicola can invade pedicels in the spring and remain latent until the berries
begin to mature (Longland & Sutton 2008). Wounding of the berries is not required
for infection to occur but it does increase the rate of infection (Longland & Sutton
2008). Greeneria uvicola can overwinter as a saprophyte on leaves, pedicels and
mummified berries on the vine or on the ground (Kummuang et al. 1996a).
Modes of transmission and spread
Conidia are dispersed by rain or other sources of water (Luttrell 1953) and have been
found in rain water runoff from vines (Kummuang et al. 1996a). There are reports that
conidia are air borne; however, attempts to verify the air borne nature of G. uvicola
spores via primary references were unsuccessful.
Climatic requirements and range
Kummuang et al. (1996a)
reports that disease development is mainly associated with sub-tropical vineyards;
however, the global distribution of this pathogen demonstrates that it has the
potential to establish in a variety of climatic conditions (Biosecurity Australia 2010).
The severity of the disease is dependent on the environmental conditions with the
optimum temperature for infection is reported to be in the range of 28–30°C (Ridings
& Clayton 1970). However studies by Steel et al. (2007) indicated a higher optimum
temperature of 35°C post-véraison for infection of berries to occur. Greeneria uvicola
was more often observed in shaded dense canopies (Steel et al. 2007). Kummuang
et al. (1996a) reports that disease development is mainly associated with sub-tropical
vineyards; however, the global distribution of this pathogen demonstrates that it has
the potential to establish in a variety of climatic conditions (Biosecurity Australia
2010).
Control
Control of bitter rot with fungicides in countries other than Australia is recommended
up to 14 days prior to harvest (Longland & Sutton 2008). However, this is not
possible in Australia due to restrictions on fungicide application on wine grapes
destined to be processed for overseas markets (Steel et al. 2012).
Studies by Steel et al. (2012)
127
Draft Policy Review
suggested that fungicidal treatment for the control of G. uvicola in Australia should
be applied at the inflorescence and green berry stage of development to minimise
establishment and that while strobilurins are effective in control ripe rot on table
grapes they need to be applied post-véraison, which is currently not possible for wine
grapes destined for the overseas market (Steel et al. 2012).
There are limited fungicide products registered for post-véraison in Australia (Steel et
al. 2012). Preliminary observations by Steel et al. (2012) suggest that pyraclostrobin
inhibited the growth of C. acutatum and G. uvicola more than the related strobilurin
fungicides used in Australian viticulture, azoxystrobin and trifloxystrobin. Grapevine
flowers were susceptible to G. uvicola infection at temperatures of 15–30°C with the
optimal temperature being 30°C.
Flowers treated with Cabrio 5 days before inoculation reduced infection in the
glasshouse, and field grown vines treated mid-flowering reduced infection from 7 to
0% at flowering and from 86 to 2% at véraison (Steel et al. 2012). In Australia, Cabrio
cannot be used after bunch closure and azoxystrobin up to flowering on wine grapes
to be processed for the overseas market (Steel et al. 2012).
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for bitter rot
in association with imported table grapes imported from other Australian states and
territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the absence of risk management
measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment considers basic
standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes including
cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in standard
closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences are
described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
The likelihood that bitter rot will arrive in Western Australia with the importation of
table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source and destination area
considered relevant to bitter rot and includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin


Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014).
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
128
Draft Policy Review





Greeneria uvicola has been isolated from Victoria (Washington & Nancarrow
1983), New South Wales (Castillo-Pando et al. 2001; PHA 2001; Sergeeva et
al. 2001; Steel et al. 2007) and Queensland (PHA 2001; BRIP 2015) including
Mundubbera, a table grape growing region . This pathogen is considered to
occur frequently in subtropical grape production areas in Australia (Samuelian
et al. 2011).
The first record in Victoria was from 1895, no further records for Victoria were
found (Washington & Nancarrow 1983; PHA 2001).
Greeneria uvicola infects rachis, pedicels and berries, black acervuli may
form on the berry surface. However, this pathogen can act as an endophyte
showing no visible signs of infection (Longland & Sutton 2008; Samuelian et
al. 2011).
One study that placed infected berries onto healthy bunches did not result in
infection of adjacent non-wounded berries (Ridings & Clayton 1970). Other
reports indicated symptoms were not noted until close to harvest in grapes
inoculated with G. uvicola from bloom to two weeks before harvest (Longland
& Sutton 2008).
Greeneria uvicola has been isolated in the presence of another bunch-rot
agent (Colletotrichum acutatum) (Samuelian et al. 2011) which may add to
confusion when determining the causal agent of the bunch rot.
The presence of bitter rot on the table grape pathway at its origin is not expected
to reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures






As infected berries mature they become soft and show water-soaked
symptoms with brown lesions often with concentric rings of fruiting bodies
which can cause the epidermis and cuticle to rupture. Infected berries may
abscise or dry into mummies and stay firmly attached (McGrew 1988; Momol
et al. 2007). Other than endophytic infections, symptoms of infected fruit are
recognisable.
However, there may be a time delay between infection and the appearance of
visual symptoms (Biosecurity Australia 2010).
Additionally, conidia on the surface of berries may lead to infection between
harvest and arrival in Western Australia. Both of these situations may result in
post-harvest decay (Biosecurity Australia 2010).
Conidia on bunch surfaces are microscopic and may result in the importation
of G. uvicola into Western Australia from other Australian states and
territories.
There are no current specific G. uvicola movement or other restrictions in
other Australian states or territories for table grapes or other grape material
from areas where this pathogen occurs.
Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is unlikely that
standard on-arrival procedures would detect the presence of this pathogen in
a consignment of table grapes.
The ability of bitter rot to survive existing pest management procedures is not
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into Western
Australia with table grapes.
Ability to survive transport and storage
129
Draft Policy Review




After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
Greeneria uvicola has been reported to overwinter on mummified berries, fruit
spurs and pedicels in Starkville, Mississippi where average winter minimum
temperatures are -1 to 1°C (Kummuang et al. 1996a), suggesting that this
pathogen could survive cold storage conditions.
While specific information regarding the effect of SO2 on this pathogen was
limited, reports for other fungi such as Botrytis cinerea indicate that topical
infections and surface contamination may be reduced; however, systemic
infections were not MacLean and Conner (2009) reported that SO2 did reduce
the amount of mycelial growth of muscadine grapes after picking.
Other routine post-harvest procedures such as palletisation, containerisation,
and transportation to Western Australia are not expected to impact on the
survivability of this pathogen protected within harvested grape bunches.
The ability of bitter rot to survive transport and storage procedures is not
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into Western
Australia with table grapes.
Bitter rot is estimated as having a high probability of importation in association with
imported table grapes. That is, the importation of bitter rot would be very likely to
occur under standard commercial production, harvesting and packing house
procedures for table grapes from regions where this pest occurs. Due to the
Australian distribution, ability to infect berries and rachis and ability to act as an
endophyte; a lower probability of importation could not be justified.
Probability of distribution
The likelihood that bitter rot will be distributed into Western Australia in a viable state
to a suitable host, as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of table grapes is
based on an assessment of factors in the destination area considered relevant to this
pest and includes:
Transport of table grapes within Western Australia





Greeneria uvicola infections or conidia which escape detection are likely to
survive storage and transport to the endangered area.
As grapes are easily damaged during handling (Mencarelli et al. 2005),
packed grapes may not be processed or handled again until they arrive at the
retailers. Therefore, pathogens in packed grapes are unlikely to be detected
during transportation and distribution to retailers.
Imported fruit are intended for human consumption. Fruit will be distributed to
many localities by wholesale and retail trade and by individual consumers.
In 2013/14, 82% of Australian households purchased grapes at least once
(HAL 2014). This suggests that table grapes have the potential to be widely
distributed within Western Australia.
There are no intrastate restrictions in place for the movement of table grapes;
consequently bunches infected with P. diplodiella or conidia on the berry
surfaces may be distributed throughout Western Australia.
The ability of bitter rot to move with infected table grapes is not expected to be a
factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within Western Australia
130
Draft Policy Review
Risks from by-products and waste



The importation of table grapes for human consumption will result in the
generation of waste material including rachis and berries.
Fruit waste (including rachis and damaged berries) may be disposed of in a
number of ways including municipal refuse sites, composting, mulching and
discarding into urban, rural or natural localities including roadsides.
Lea and Worsley (2008a) reported that 51% of Australian people surveyed
often composted food waste.
The ability of bitter rot to be associated with table grape by-products and waste is
not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Ability to move from the pathway to a suitable host







Known hosts for G. uvicola (Vitis spp.) occur in Western Australia in
vineyards, backyards, as amenity plants and as naturalised populations.
For conidia to transfer from the table grape pathway to a suitable host plant
infected fruit waste would need to be in close proximity to the host plant.
However, this pathogen can overwinter on pedicels, mummified or dropped
berries (Kummuang et al. 1996a) prolonging the timeframe for transfer to a
suitable host.
Transfer to a suitable host may be facilitated by rain splash (Luttrell 1953) and
possibly wind driven rain or water splash or other water splash such as
reticulation.
There are reports that conidia are air borne; however, attempts to verify the
air borne nature of G. uvicola spores via primary references were
unsuccessful.
Greeneria uvicola infects rachis, pedicels and berries, black acervuli may
form on the berry surface (Longland & Sutton 2008; Samuelian et al. 2011).
Vitis vinifera seedlings have been recorded in naturalised populations in
Western Australia (Western Australian Herbarium 1998). Rachis with
associated berries from seeded varieties may be discarded in environments
suitable for germination. In this situation resultant seedlings would be in very
close proximity to infected material, facilitating transfer to the seedling (a
suitable host).
Seedling survival in natural environments is influenced by many factors such
as environmental conditions, seed predation, herbivory of seedlings and
plants, growth rate and competition for resources (including light, nutrients
and water). In managed environments, especially where intentional
germination of grape seed is attempted, conditions may be more favourable
resulting in a higher proportion of seed germination and plant survival.
The ability of bitter rot to move from infected table grapes to a suitable host is
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Bitter rot is estimated as having a low probability of distribution in association with
imported table grapes. That is, the distribution of bitter rot to the endangered area
and subsequent transfer to a suitable host would be unlikely to occur as a result of
the processing, sale or disposal of imported table grapes. Due to the requirement for
dispersal by rain-splash and restricted host range; a higher estimation of the
probability of distribution could not be justified.
131
Draft Policy Review
Overall probability of entry (importation x distribution)
The overall probability of entry has been estimated by combining the individual
probabilities of importation and distribution using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Bitter rot is estimated as having a low probability of entry in association with imported
table grapes. That is, the probability that bitter rot would enter Western Australia, be
distributed in a viable state to an endangered area and subsequently transfer to a
suitable host would be unlikely to occur as a result of trade in table grapes imported
from regions where this pest occurs.
Probability of establishment
The likelihood that bitter rot will establish within Western Australia is based on an
assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to this
pest and includes:
Availability of suitable hosts, alternative hosts and vectors in the PRA area






Vitis spp. are naturally recorded hosts of G. uvicola. In Western Australia both
table grapes and wine grape varieties are grown. In regions such as the Swan
Valley and Margaret River wine and table grapes are grown in close proximity
to each other.
Vitis spp. in Western Australia may be found in backyards, as amenity plants
and as naturalised populations. Domestic garden plantings, both maintained
and abandoned, occur in Perth and in most Western Australian towns and by
many farmhouses.
In Western Australia both table grape and wine grape varieties are grown. In
regions such as the Swan Valley and Margaret River wine and table grapes
are grown in close proximity to each other.
Greeneria uvicola has also been shown to be capable of infecting fruits of
apple, cherry, peach, strawberry, blueberry and banana under experimental
conditions (Ridings & Clayton 1970). There are no records of this pathogen
infecting these species in Australia (PHA 2001).
Vitis spp. in Western Australia may be found in backyards, as amenity plants
and as naturalised populations (Western Australian Herbarium 1998).
Domestic garden plantings, both maintained and abandoned, occur in Perth
and in most Western Australian towns and by many farmhouses.
A number of Vitis spp. are recorded as weeds in Australia (Randall 2007) and
could be potential wild hosts in Western Australia.
The availability of suitable hosts in Western Australia is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for bitter rot to establish in Western Australia.
Suitability of the environment


Kummuang et al. (1996a) reports that disease development is mainly
associated with sub-tropical vineyards; however, the global distribution of this
pathogen demonstrates that it has the potential to establish in a variety of
climatic conditions (Biosecurity Australia 2010).
CLIMEX climate matching scenarios were generated from climatic data for
locations where G. uvicola is known to occur in Australia and other countries
Appendix I. The scenarios suggest that all viticultural regions in Western
132
Draft Policy Review

Australia would be suitable for the establishment and proliferation of
G. uvicola Figure I1.
Environmental conditions required for disease development has not been
ascertained for Australia (Steel et al. 2007), however, in culture this pathogen
was demonstrated to have an optimum temperature of 28°C, but could grow
at 8°C and germinate and produce conidia at temperatures exceeding 12°C
(Biosecurity Australia 2010).
Bioclimatic modelling and current Australian distribution suggest that Western
Australia’s climate is not expected to be a factor limiting the potential for bitter rot
to establish within Western Australia.
Cultural practices and control measures




Cultural practices and existing control measures for other grapevine
pathogens within Western Australian commercial production vineyards are
likely to limit the potential for establishment. According to the 2013/14
viticulture spray guide fungicides are best applied from budburst through to
bunch closure (depending upon target pathogen).
There are limited fungicide products registered for post-véraison in Australia
(Steel et al. 2012). Preliminary observations by Steel et al. (2012) suggest
that grapevine flowers were susceptible to G. uvicola infection and fungicides
should be applied prior to flowering to reduce infection by G. uvicola.
However the recommended fungicides cannot be applied post-véraison on
wine grapes to be processed for the overseas markets (Steel et al. 2012).
Cultural practices or pathogen control measures which could reduce the
capacity for G. uvicola to establish in Western Australia are unlikely to be
applied to naturalised host populations or unmanaged vineyards.
Cultural practices and pathogen control measures in backyard and amenity
Vitis species may be variable. General fungicides approved for domestic use
are unlikely to have an impact upon establishment of this pathogen and those
registered for use on Vitis are not approved for use in domestic situations.
Cultural practices and control measures are expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for bitter rot to establish in Western Australia.
Reproductive strategies and survival




Greeneria uvicola can overwinter on canes, mummified, pedicels or dropped
fruit (Kummuang et al. 1996a) a reproductive strategy which contributes to the
capacity for this pathogen to establish in a new area.
Greeneria uvicola invades the pedicels in spring, remaining latent until fruit
begins to ripen (Longland & Sutton 2008) requiring a relative humidity of
above 50% (Steel et al. 2007). Steel et al. (2007) isolated G. uvicola from
asymptomatic tissue early in the season and suggest that latent infection
occurs at flowering.
To maintain disease control vines need to be sprayed every 10–14 days from
bloom to harvest, as spraying late in the season does not control the disease
(Longland & Sutton 2008).
Greeneria uvicola has also been isolated from grapevine wood in Australia
(Castillo-Pando et al. 2001).
The reproductive and survival strategy of bitter rot is not expected to be a factor
limiting this pest’s potential to establish within Western Australia.
133
Draft Policy Review
Bitter rot has been estimated as having a moderate probability of establishment
within Western Australia. That is, the establishment of bitter rot in an endangered
area would occur with an even probability as a result of infected table grapes
being imported into Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to a suitable
host. Due to the restricted host range and potential control via current cultural
practices; a higher probability of establishment could not be justified.
Probability of spread
The likelihood that bitter rot will spread within Western Australia is based on an
assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to this
pest and includes:
Suitability of the natural or managed environment for natural spread


Conidia of G. uvicola have been reported to be splash dispersed by moisture
(Luttrell 1953). The pathogen can be carried in aerosols and therefore could
be spread between trees and adjacent vineyards by wind driven rain (Luttrell
1953). This situation is likely to occur in both natural and managed
environments within Western Australia.
It is possible that the long distance spread to new areas may only occur via
the movement of infected host plant material.
The suitability of the natural or managed environment is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for bitter rot to spread in Western Australia.
Presence of natural barriers


The major commercial table grape production districts in Western Australia
are located in the south-west of the State between Perth and Albany and in
the Carnarvon region in the north-west. Natural barriers, including climatic
differentials and long distances, may limit the natural unfacilitated spread of
the pathogen between these production areas.
If isolated plants in a home garden were to become infected by G. uvicola, it
is likely that physical barriers would prevent its spread to other hosts due to
the limited distance that conidia can be spread by rain splash.
The presence of natural barriers is expected to be a factor limiting the potential
for bitter rot to spread in Western Australia.
Potential for movement with commodities or conveyances



Long distance spread to new areas following establishment in Western
Australia may occur through the movement of fruit, nursery stock or other
propagative material.
Infected grape bunches may be distributed throughout Western Australia for
human consumption.
There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western
Australia. This regulatory situation in Western Australia is unlikely to limit the
capacity for this pathogen to spread following establishment.
The potential for movement with commodities or conveyances is not expected to
be a factor limiting the potential for bitter rot to spread in Western Australia.
134
Draft Policy Review
Potential natural enemies

There are no known natural enemies of G. uvicola.
The potential for natural enemies is not expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for bitter rot to spread in Western Australia.
Bitter rot has been estimated as having a moderate probability of spread within
Western Australia. That is, spread of bitter rot in an endangered area would occur
with an even probability as a result of infected table grapes being imported into
Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to a suitable host. Due to the
presence of natural barriers and long distance spread being limited to infected
propagation material and infected fruit; a higher probability of spread could not be
justified.
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
The overall probability of entry, establishment and spread has been estimated by
combining the individual probabilities using the matrix rules shown in Table A2. Bitter
rot has been assessed as having a low probability of entry, establishment and
spread entry in association with imported table grapes. That is, the entry,
establishment and spread of bitter rot would be unlikely to occur should table
grapes be imported into Western Australia from regions where this pest occurs.
Economic consequences
ISPM 11 (2014) indicates that the assessment of economic consequences is made
using ‘a hypothetical situation where a pest is supposed to have been introduced
and to be fully expressing its potential economic consequences (per year) in the PRA
area’.
This is interpreted as an unabated incursion; however, it is acknowledged that
existing control regimes for similar species may impact on this expression. In light of
this interpretation, an evaluation of the consequence of entry, establishment or
spread of bitter rot is considered in Table 13.
Table 13: Economic consequences of bitter rot
Criterion
Estimate
Direct Consequences
Plant life or health E - Significant at the regional level



Greeneria uvicola can cause serious non-Botrytis rot
of both table and wine grapes. It causes berries to
either fall from the vine or to become bitter, making
them inedible (McGrew 1988).
Greeneria uvicola is the most significant cause of
bunch rot (along with C. acutatum) in wine producing
vineyards in the Hastings Valley and Hunter Valley
regions of NSW (Steel et al. 2007).
Greeneria uvicola has caused up to 30% loss of
mature berries in muscadine grapes in the Mississippi
135
Draft Policy Review
Table 13: Economic consequences of bitter rot
Criterion
Estimate



region of the USA (Kummuang et al. 1996a).
Greeneria uvicola can also cause leaf and twig blight,
and girdling of shoots of grapevines (McGrew 1988).
Greeneria uvicola infects many species of grape,
including Vitis vinifera, V. labrusca and V. rotundifolia
(Ridings & Clayton 1970).
The disease can spread rapidly near harvest causing
a soft rot (McGrew 1988).
Any other aspects of A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level
the environment
 There are no known direct consequences of this
pathogen on the natural or managed environment.
Indirect consequences
Eradication, control D - Significant at the district level
etc
 Little information exists on the epidemiology of this
pathogen on grapes, making management difficult
(Samuelian et al. 2011).
 Disease peaks at berry maturity and in sub-tropical
areas following periods of rainfall and warm
temperatures, limiting fungicide control (Samuelian et
al. 2011).
 Additional fungicide treatment or other control
methods would need to begin at the inflorescence and
(green) berry stages of reproductive development on
susceptible hosts. No management options have
been investigated for Australia (Steel et al. 2007).
There are currently no fungicides registered in
Australia for the control of G. uvicola (APVMA 2015).
 Overwinters on grapevine canes, leaves and
mummified fruit that have not been removed. No
sexual stage has been isolated and conidia are
dispersed through rain splash or wind driven rain.
Acts as an endophyte until berries start to mature,
making control difficult (Longland & Sutton 2008;
Navarrete et al. 2009).
Domestic trade D - Significant at the district level




Yield reduction would reduce the amount of table
grapes available for domestic supply.
Light coloured berries become brown with concentric
rings of acervuli.
Berries taste bitter and easily detach. However,
berries that stay on the vine shrivel and become firmly
attached.
Wine quality is affected by as little as 10% infected
berries (Samuelian et al. 2011).
International trade D - Significant at the district level
136
Draft Policy Review
Table 13: Economic consequences of bitter rot
Criterion
Estimate





The presence of G. uvicola in commercial grape
production areas may limit access to overseas
markets that are free from this pathogen. Several
countries including China and South Korea have
restrictions on grapes for G. uvicola (Australian
Department of Agriculture 2015y; 2015ab)
Growers may incur additional costs for testing berries
for the presence of G. uvicola to international markets
such as China.
Yield reduction may reduce the amount and quality of
fruit exported.
Additionally, impacts on the export of fresh apples,
strawberry, peach and banana may occur (Biosecurity
Australia 2010).
Management option for wine grape growers in
Australia are limited due to the restrictions on
pesticide use for wine to be exported (Samuelian et
al. 2012).
Environment, B - Minor significance at the local level
including rural and
 Additional fungicide applications or other control
regional economic
measures would be required to control this disease on
viability
suitable hosts and these may have minor impact on
the environment.
The expected economic consequences for the endangered area should bitter rot
enter, establish and spread within Western Australia has been determined to be
moderate using the decision rules outlined in Table A5.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
A URE of low was determined using the matrix rules outlined in Table A6 for table
grapes imported into Western Australia from regions where bitter rot occurs.
Unrestricted risk estimate for bitter rot
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
Low
Consequences
Moderate
Unrestricted risk
Low
As the URE is above Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’, the basic standards of practice
for table grape prodcution would not provide an appropriate level of protection for
137
Draft Policy Review
Western Australia. As such, specific risk mitigating phytosanitary measures will be
required for the fresh table grape bunch pathway.
138
Draft Policy Review
Botryosphaeria canker (species not present in WA)
Scientific names (Robert et al. 2005; Phillips et al. 2013)
Botryosphaeria iberica A.J.L. Phillips, J. Luque & A. Alves, 2005
Botryosphaeria sarmentorum A.J.L. Phillips, J. Luque & A. Alves, 2005
Dothiorella neclivorem W.M. Pitt & J.R. Úrbez-Torres sp. nov., 2015
Dothiorella sp. 1 W.M. Pitt & J.R. Úrbez-Torres sp. nov., 2015
Dothiorella vidmadera W.M. Pitt, J.R. Úrbez-Torres, Trouillas, 2013
Dothiorella vinea-gemmae W.M. Pitt & J.R. Úrbez-Torres sp. nov., 2015
Spencermartinsia plurivora Abdollahz, Javadi & A.J.L. Phillips, 2015
Spencermartinsia viticola (A.J.L. Phillips & J. Luque) A.J.L. Phillips, A. Alves &
Crous, 2008
Synonyms (Robert et al. 2005; Phillips et al. 2013)
Botryosphaeria iberica:
Anamporh: Dothiorella iberica A.J.L. Phillips, J. Luque & A. Alves, 2005
Botryosphaeria sarmentorum:
Anamorph: Dothiorella sarmentorum (Fr.) A.J.L. Phillips, Alves & Luque, 2005
Sphaeria sarmentorum Fr., 1818
Diplodia sarmentorum (Fr.) Fr., 1849
Spencermartinsia viticola:
Anamorph: Dothiorella viticola A.J.L. Phillips & J. Luque, 2005
Botryosphaeria viticola A.J.L. Phillips & J. Luque, 2005
Preferred common name
Botryosphaeria (‘bot’) canker
Alternate common names
Excoriose
Black dead arm
Dieback
Common host plants
Botryosphaeria iberica:
Citrus sinensis, Cupressus macrocarpa, Juniperus communis, Malus pumila, Persea
Americana, Pistacia spp., Quercus spp. and Vitis vinifera (Phillips et al. 2013; Farr &
Rossman 2015)
Botryosphaeria sarmentorum:
A plurivorus species, isolated from 34 different host species including Acer, Citrus,
Corylus, Malus, Menispermum, Prunus, Pyrus, Quercus, Rosa, Ulmus and Vitis
vinifera (Phillips et al. 2013; Farr & Rossman 2015).
Dothiorella neclivorem, Dothiorella sp. 1, Dothiorella vidmadera and Dothiorella
vinea-gemmae have only been recorded from Vitis vinifera (Pitt et al. 2015).
Spencermartinsia plurivora:
Casuarina equisetifolia, Citrus sp., Cupressus sempervirens, Eucalyptus spp., Malus
domestica, Prunus armeniaca and Vitis Vinifera (Pitt et al. 2015).
139
Draft Policy Review
Spencermartinsia viticola:
Citrus sp., Populus cathayana, Poniciana gilliesii, Prunus persica and P. salicina, and
Vitis vinifera (Phillips et al. 2013).
Plant part affected
Botryosphaeria canker has been isolated from many parts of the plant including
cordons, canes, trunks, shoots, buds and bunches (Qiu et al. 2011; Wunderlich et al.
2011b).
Australian distribution
Botryosphaeria iberica:
South Australia (PHA 2001; Pitt et al. 2013a)
Victoria (PHA 2001)
Botryosphaeria sarmentorum:
Queensland (PHA 2001)
New South Wales (PHA 2001)
Victoria (PHA 2001)
Dothiorella neclivorem:
New South Wales (Pitt et al. 2015)
Dothiorella vidmadera:
South Australia (Pitt et al. 2015)
Dothiorella vinea-gemmae:
New South Wales (Pitt et al. 2015)
Dothiorella sp. 1:
South Australia (Pitt et al. 2015)
Spencermartinsia plurivora:
South Australia (Pitt et al. 2015)
Spencermartinsia viticola:
New South Wales (PHA 2001; Wunderlich et al. 2011b)
South Australia (PHA 2001; Pitt et al. 2015)
Five Botryosphaeriaceae species have been identified on grapevines in Western
Australia; Botryosphaeria australis (anamorph = Neofusicoccum australe), B. rhodina
(ana. = Lasiodiplodia theobromae), B. stevensii (ana. = Diplodia mutila) and
B. obtusa (ana. = Di. seriata) (Taylor et al. 2005) and Spencermartinsia westrale
(previously reported as S. viticola) (Pitt et al. 2015).
Biology and pest status
Numerous reviews of the status and taxonomy of the Botryospheriaceae have been
published (Crous et al. 2006; Úrbez-Torres 2011; Phillips et al. 2013). A review of
species infecting grapevines is presented by Úrbez-Torres (2011), with 21 species
being reported from grapevines worldwide. The Botryospheriaceae includes a range
of morphologically diverse fungi and the distribution of the family Botryospheriaceae
is cosmopolitan. Fungi from the Botryospheriaceae have been reported as
pathogens, endophytes and saprobes, mainly on wood hosts, but also occur on a
wide range of annual and perennial hosts (Úrbez-Torres 2011; Phillips et al. 2013).
The Botryosphaeriaceae include significant plant pathogens causing leaf spots, fruit
rots, dieback and perennial cankers (Farr & Rossman 2015). In association with
grapevines they are most commonly known for causing trunk and cane diseases,
140
Draft Policy Review
known as Botryosphaeria canker or Black dead arm, but have also been reported as
causing bunch rot in Australian and South Africa (Úrbez-Torres 2011; Wunderlich et
al. 2011b). Botryosphaeria canker is caused by several Botryosphaeriaceae species
and these pathogens are one group of many other non-related fungi that are involved
in the grapevine trunk disease complex (Úrbez-Torres 2011; Van Niekerk et al.
2011). Incidence and symptom profiles of pathogens involved in the trunk disease
complex can vary between regions, with rainfall and temperature influencing both a
pathogen’s distribution and ability to cause disease symptoms (Úrbez-Torres 2011;
Van Niekerk et al. 2011). Field symptoms can be confused with other grapevine trunk
disease pathogens such as Eutypa lata and Phomopsis viticola, neither of which
occur in Western Australia (Taylor et al. 2005).
Symptoms
Botryosphaeria canker is characterised by the presence of wedge- or pie-shaped
perennial cankers in spurs, cordons and/or trunks (Úrbez-Torres 2011; Van Niekerk
et al. 2011). Other internal symptoms in grapevines which have been associated with
Botryosphaeriaceae species include black streaking, brown streaking, wedge-shaped
necrosis, brown internal necrosis, watery necrosis and esca-like brown and yellow
soft wood rot (Van Niekerk et al. 2011). Botryosphaeriaceae species have also been
associated with dieback of canes and shoots, stunted growth, delayed bud burst,
bleached canes and bud necrosis and general loss of vigour (Taylor et al. 2005;
Úrbez-Torres 2011).
Botyrosphaeria species causing bunch rot were detected in the Swan Valley,
Western Australia during the 2006/07 season (Taylor 2007) and have also been
reported from the Hunter Valley in NSW (Steel et al. 2007; Taylor 2007). During a
study in the Hunter Valley (NSW) Wunderlich et al. (2011a; 2011b) isolated species
of Botryosphaeriaceae from reproductive tissues and bunches showing symptoms of
bunch rot including darkening of berry skins, softening and oozing of juice from
berries, mycelial growth and formation of black pycnidia on berry surfaces as well as
berry collapse and drying out of berries. The greatest number of isolations occurred
from dormant buds and wood followed by berries at harvest, while isolates from
flowers and pea-sized berries were scarce (Wunderlich et al. 2011b). The isolation of
Botryosphaeria species from all tissue types sampled confirms that they can infect
different grapevine tissue types throughout all growth stages.
Life cycle and infective stages
Botryosphaeriaceae species overwinter as pycnidia embedded in diseased woody
parts of vines and wood debris left on the vineyard floor after pruning. Pycnidia
produce pycnidiospores under humid conditions that are exuded in gelatinous ribbonlike masses of spores known as cirrhi (Úrbez-Torres 2011).
Modes of transmission and spread
Spores are spread primarily through rain splash over short distances. One study of
Neofusicoccum spp. showed a maximum distance of 2m spread from the source
during a rainfall event. (Úrbez-Torres 2011). Spores must land on susceptible
pruning wounds or other suitable wounds for infection to occur (Úrbez-Torres 2011).
Cankers primarily develop from infected pruning wounds but can also develop at the
site of cracks or natural openings on the framework of vines (Úrbez-Torres 2011).
Pruning wounds have been shown to be susceptible to infection by members of the
Botryosphaeriaceae for up to 21 days during winter in South Africa and 4 months
after pruning in Italy (Úrbez-Torres 2011).
Botryosphaeriaceae have also been isolated from reproductive tissues (dormant
buds, flowers and pea-sized berries and mature berries) and bunches showing
symptoms of bunch rot (Taylor et al. 2005; Úrbez-Torres 2011; Wunderlich et al.
141
Draft Policy Review
2011a; Wunderlich et al. 2011b). Observations made by Wunderlich et al. (2011b)
suggest that successful infection of dormant buds may occur in early in the season
possibly leading to bunch infection developing towards the end of the season.
Wunderlich et al. (2011b) suggest that these infections may be carried internally and
may be unaffected by fungicide applications throughout the season. Further work by
Wunderlich et al. (2011a) suggests that the success rate of infection via the surface
of dormant buds is very low and that spread of infection internally resulting from
infected buds even lower. Variation in virulence between isolates of the same
species was noted in pathogenicity trials on mature berries and wood Wunderlich et
al. (2011a) and all isolates tested were pathogenic on mature berries. These studies
indicate that isolates are not tissue specific and showed that individual isolates could
infect wood, mature berries and dormant buds (Wunderlich et al. 2011a).
Rain-splash of spores is the primary means of spread within vineyards (Úrbez-Torres
2011). However, contaminated pruning equipment can also transfer spores to fresh
wounds made during pruning. Disease spread may occur where infected planting
material is used to produce cuttings (Úrbez-Torres 2011).
Asymptomatic propagation material is the most likely means of long distance spread
introducing Botryosphaeriaceae species into nurseries and subsequently commercial
vineyards. Botryosphaeriaceae have been isolated from asymptomatic tissues
supporting reports of these species to survive as endophytes in their hosts (Van
Niekerk et al. 2011).
Arthropods have been implicated as vectors of some grapevine trunk disease
pathogens, with millipedes and ants being the most likely insects to transfer spores to
pruning wounds (Moyo et al. 2014). This would provide another means of spread
between grapevines within a vineyard. The role that wind-blown spores may play in
long distance spread is currently unknown (Úrbez-Torres 2011).
Many species of Botryosphaeriaceae are plurivorous, occurring in many native and
introduced plant species and agricultural crops, such as stone fruit. In addition to
spread between grapevines, alternative hosts could provide a source of inoculum in
vineyards, or also be an unmanaged source of infection that allow for long distance
dispersal (Úrbez-Torres 2011; Van Niekerk et al. 2011).
Climatic requirements and range
Regional differences have been noted in many surveys for Botryosphaeriaceae
species suggesting that climatic conditions influence the distribution of grapevine
trunk pathogens (Taylor et al. 2005; Úrbez-Torres et al. 2006; Úrbez-Torres et al.
2009; Pitt et al. 2010; Úrbez-Torres 2011; Van Niekerk et al. 2011). Differences in
symptoms of trunk disease have also been noted in different climatic regions
suggesting that symptom-based diagnosis alone is unreliable (Van Niekerk et al.
2011). Further studies are required to understand the climatic requirements for
disease expression and spore release of each species due to the high variation in
climatic conditions among regions where Botryosphaeriaceae occur (Úrbez-Torres
2011).
In Western Australia, Taylor et al. (2005) noted species differences between grape
growing regions, with Botryosphaeria rhodina being isolated only from the Swan
Districts region and B. australe only from the Margaret River and
Pemberton/Manjimup region. Dothiorella iberica and Dothiorella sarmentorum were
isolated in a survey of Botryosphaeriaceaous species in New Zealand vineyards.
Incidence of species differed between the North and South Islands, with D. iberica
being isolated only from Otago (South Island) and D. sarmentorum found in the
central and southern areas of the South Island. (Baskarathevan et al. 2012).
Pitt et al. (2010)
142
Draft Policy Review
found that Diplodia and Dothiorella were ubiquitous in their survey of
Botryosphaeriaceae species associated with grapevine decline in New South Wales
and South Australia. They suggested that Australian climatic conditions clearly
favoured the growth of these species over some of their more aggressive
counterparts (Pitt et al. 2013a).
High relative humidity is important in the release of spores of Botryosphaeriaceae;
however, due to the main means of spread being by rain-splash, rain events are
more critical for spore dispersal to occur (Úrbez-Torres 2011). Overhead irrigation
has also been shown to trigger spore release in Californian vineyards (Úrbez-Torres
2011).
Temperature has been suggested to influence the virulence of some species
however further research is required (Úrbez-Torres 2011). Botryosphaeriaceae spore
release can occur at temperatures as low as 3°C and up to 35°C (Úrbez-Torres
2011). In vitro Dothiorella species grew at lower temperatures than Lasiodiplodia
theobromae and Botryosphaeria dothidea Pitt et al. (2013a) In the field Do.
vidmadera (previously reported as Do. iberica) was most commonly isolated from
grapevines grown in cooler climate regions of NSW and SA (Pitt et al. 2013a). In
general Dothiorella species have a cardinal temperature range between 5°C and
35°C, with the reported optimum temperature for growth varying between species.
Optimum temperatures for growth of have been reported to be 20-25°C for
Dothiorella iberica and Do. sarmentorum (Phillips et al. 2013), 22.9°C for Do.
vidmadera (Pitt et al. 2013a), 25°C for Do. neclivorem and Do. vinea-gemmae (Pitt et
al. 2015), and 23.6°C for Dothiorella sp. 1 (Pitt et al. 2015).
The cardinal temperatures for growth for Spencermartinsia isolates has been
reported to be between 5°C and 35°C, with an optimum of 20-25°C (Phillips et al.
2013). The reported optimum temperature for both S. westrale and S. viticola is 24°C
(Pitt et al. 2013a; Pitt et al. 2015).
Diagnosis
Identification of genera and species in the Botryosphaeriaceae is currently by a
combination of culture and conidial features and multi-gene region sequence data
(Phillips et al. 2013; Hyde et al. 2014). Hyde et al. (2014) provides a backbone
phylogenetic tree based on type species and recommended primers for identification
of Botryosphaeriaceae species using sequence data.
Recent molecular and morphological studies of Botryosphaeriaceae species isolated
from grapevines in Australia have revealed that isolates previously identified as
Do. iberica and S. viticola actually represent multiple species (Pitt et al. 2013b; Pitt et
al. 2015). Australian isolates of Do. iberica from grapevines have been re-identified
by Pitt et al. (2013b; 2015) as Do. vidmadera (DAR78992-DAR78995) and
Dothiorella sp. 1. (DAR78991). Spencermartinsia viticola isolates from grapevines
have been re-identified as S. westrale (DAR80529–DAR80530, WA isolates),
Do. neclivorem (DAR80992, NSW), Do. vinea-gemmae (DAR81012, NSW) and
S. plurivora (DAR78869 & DAR78872, SA). With the re-identification of the Western
Australian isolates of S. viticola to S. westrale, one other culture previously identified
as S. viticola isolated from Citrus sp. (WAC13268) was resequenced using ITS and
TEF gene regions. An assessment of the sequences has concluded that the isolate
from Western Australia should be reclassified as Spencermartinsia sp. (unpublished
data). Hence, S. viticola is included in the current risk assessment for Botryosphaeria
canker.
Control
Control strategies for grapevine trunk diseases currently includes chemical and
biological spray programs, vineyard sanitation, and cultural practices (Úrbez-Torres
2011; Pitt et al. 2013a). Traditionally control of trunk disease has been achieved by
143
Draft Policy Review
remedial surgery; pruning out all infected wood in cordons and/or trunk at least 10cm
below the visible vascular symptoms (canker and/or dark streaking of the wood) in
addition to the application of protectant fungicides on cut surfaces after surgery
(Úrbez-Torres 2011; Pitt et al. 2013a).
Studies have shown that pruning wounds remain susceptible to infection by all major
trunk disease pathogens for an extended period time, and that treatment of pruning
wounds with selected fungicides as soon as possible after pruning can reduce the
occurrence of Botryosphaeria canker on grapevines (Úrbez-Torres 2011; Pitt et al.
2013a).
Results of fungicide trials have suggested that the effectiveness for control of
Botryosphaeria canker is influenced by both the fungicide used and the species
pathotype infecting the grapevine (Pitt et al. 2012; Pitt et al. 2013a). Field trials
indicated that carbendazim, fluazinam, tebucanazole and pyraclostrobin are the most
effective but these are not currently registered for control of Botryosphaeria canker in
Australia (Pitt et al. 2012; ATGA 2014). Garrison Rapid, Greenseal, Gelseal and
Bacseal wound protectants applied to freshly cut pruning wounds are also effective in
reducing infection rates and are recommended in Australia (Pitt et al. 2012; ATGA
2014)
As with virulence and symptomology of pathogens, climatic variation has been noted
to influence control strategies (Úrbez-Torres 2011; Van Niekerk et al. 2011). In areas
that receive rainfall throughout the year inoculum is available not only to infect fresh
pruning wounds but also other mechanical wounds created throughout the year (Van
Niekerk et al. 2011). In regions where only summer rainfall is received infections
would be limited to wounds made by viticultural practices employed during summer
when inoculum is present after rain, as noted by the lower incidence in South Africa
(Van Niekerk et al. 2011).
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for
Botryosphaeria canker in association with imported table grapes imported from other
Australian states and territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the absence of
risk management measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment
considers basic standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes
including cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in
standard closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences
are described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
The likelihood that Botryosphaeria canker will arrive in Western Australia with the
importation of table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source and
destination area considered relevant to Botryosphaeria canker and includes:
144
Draft Policy Review
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin






Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). Species of the Botryosphaeriaceae that are known to infect grapevines
have been detected in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South
Australia (PHA 2001; Pitt et al. 2013a; Pitt et al. 2015).
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
Botryosphaeria spp. were consistently isolated from flowers and berries in a
survey of bunch rots in the Hastings Valley, NSW 2005/06 season (Steel et al.
2007).
In surveys in NSW the greatest number of Botryosphaeriaceae isolations
occurred from dormant buds and wood followed by berries at harvest, while
isolates from flowers and pea-sized berries were scarce (Wunderlich et al.
2011b).
Isolation of Botryosphaeriaceae species from all tissue types sampled
suggests that they can infect different tissue types throughout all growth
stages (Wunderlich et al. 2011b).
Symptoms of berries from which Botryosphaeriaceae species have been
isolated included darkening of berry skins, softening and oozing of juice from
berries, mycelial growth and formation of black pycnidia on berry surfaces as
well as berry collapse and drying out of berries (Wunderlich et al. 2011a;
Wunderlich et al. 2011b). These symptoms may be detected and the infected
bunches discarded; however, infected bunches may remain and be
harvested.
The presence of Botryosphaeria canker on the table grape pathway at its origin is
not expected to reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western
Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures






Botryosphaeriaceae species are known to survive endophytically in their host
and infection may be asymptomatic (Van Niekerk et al. 2011)
Heavily infected bunches with significant amounts of berry rot are unlikely to
be harvested for export and rotted berries in bunches with less symptoms
may be removed from the harvested bunch. However, infected berries may
remain with the bunch for processing and export.
There are no current specific movement or other restrictions in other
Australian states or territories for table grapes or other grape material from
areas where this pathogen occurs.
Recently infected fruit may not display symptoms and may be harvested for
export, however this is considered to be very unlikely to occur as most
infections are initiated early in the growing season (Wunderlich et al. 2011b).
While specific information regarding the effect of SO2 on this pathogen was
limited, reports for other fungi such as Botrytis cinerea indicate that topical
infections and surface contamination may be reduced; however, systemic
infections were not (Mencarelli et al. 2005; Lichter et al. 2006).
Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
145
Draft Policy Review
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is unlikely that
standard on-arrival procedures would detect the presence of this pathogen in
a consignment of table grapes.
The ability of Botryosphaeria canker to survive existing pest management
procedures is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be
imported into Western Australia with table grapes.
Ability to survive transport and storage






After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of sulphur dioxide
treatment against Botryosphaeriaceae species under standard transport and
storage conditions for table grapes.
Botryosphaeriaceae species overwinter in infected grapevine tissues .It is
unlikely that cold storage and transportation conditions would significantly
impact on the survival of P. viticola associated with infected table grapes
(Australian Department of Agriculture 2014).
Botryosphaeriaceae species overwinter as pycnidia embedded in diseased
woody parts of vines and wood debris left on the vineyard floor after pruning
(Úrbez-Torres 2011). It is unlikely that cold storage and transportation
conditions would significantly impact on survival of Botryosphaeriaceae
species associated with infected table grapes.
Other routine post-harvest procedures such as palletisation, containerisation,
and transportation to Western Australia are not expected to impact on the
survivability of this pathogen protected within harvested grape bunches.
As grapes are easily damaged during handling (Mencarelli et al. 2005),
packed grapes may not be processed or handled again until they arrive at the
retailers. Therefore, pathogens in packed grapes are unlikely to be detected
during transportation and distribution to retailers.
The ability of Botryosphaeria canker to survive transport and storage procedures
is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into
Western Australia with table grapes.
Botryosphaeria canker is estimated as having a high probability of importation in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the importation of Botryosphaeria
canker would be very likely to occur under standard commercial production,
harvesting and packing house procedures for table grapes from regions where this
pest occurs. Due to the Australian distribution, ability to infect berries and rachis and
ability to act as an endophyte; a lower probability of importation could not be justified.
Probability of distribution
The likelihood that Botryosphaeria canker will be distributed into Western Australia in
a viable state to a suitable host, as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of
table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the destination area considered
relevant to Botryosphaeria canker and includes:
Transport of table grapes within Western Australia
146
Draft Policy Review




As grapes are easily damaged during handling (Mencarelli et al. 2005),
packed grapes may not be processed or handled again until they arrive at the
retailers. Therefore, pathogens in packed grapes are unlikely to be detected
during transportation and distribution to retailers.
Imported fruit are intended for human consumption. Fruit will be distributed to
many localities by wholesale and retail trade and by individual consumers.
In 2013/14, 82% of Australian households purchased grapes at least once
(HAL 2014). This suggests that table grapes have the potential to be widely
distributed within Western Australia.
There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western
Australia.
The ability of Botryosphaeria canker to move with infected table grapes is not
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Risks from by-products and waste




The importation of table grapes for human consumption will result in the
generation of waste material including rachis and berries.
Fruit waste may be disposed of in a number of ways including municipal
refuse sites, composting, mulching and discarding into urban, rural or natural
localities including roadsides.
Lea and Worsley (2008a) reported that 51% of Australian people surveyed
often composted food waste.
Conidia may be transferred to a suitable host by wind driven rain, rain or other
water splash such as reticulation or transferred by insects (Úrbez-Torres
2011; Moyo et al. 2014).
The ability of Botryosphaeria canker to be associated with table grape by-products
and waste is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be
distributed within Western Australia.
Ability to move from the pathway to a suitable host






Transfer to a suitable host may be facilitated by wind driven rain, rain or other
water splash such as reticulation (Úrbez-Torres 2011).
Spores must land on a susceptible pruning wound or opening and germinate
in order for infection to occur (Úrbez-Torres 2011).
Arthropods have also been implicated as vectors of grapevine trunk disease
pathogens, with millipedes and ants being the most likely insects to transfer
spores to pruning wounds (Moyo et al. 2014).
Many Botryosphaeriaceae species are plurivorus occurring on many native
and introduced plant species and agricultural crops, many of which occur in
Western Australia in or near vineyards, backyards, as amenity plants and as
naturalised populations (Úrbez-Torres 2011; Phillips et al. 2013).
Vitis vinifera seedlings have been recorded in naturalised populations in
Western Australia (Western Australian Herbarium 1998). Rachis with
associated berries from seeded varieties may be discarded in environments
suitable for germination. In this situation resultant seedlings would be in very
close proximity to infected material, facilitating transfer to the seedling (a
suitable host).
Seedling survival in natural environments is influenced by many factors such
as environmental conditions, seed predation, herbivory of seedlings and
147
Draft Policy Review
plants, growth rate and competition for resources (including light, nutrients
and water). In managed environments, especially where intentional
germination of grape seed is attempted, conditions may be more favourable
resulting in a higher proportion of seed germination and plant survival.
The ability of Botryosphaeria canker to move from infected table grapes to a
suitable host is expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be
distributed within Western Australia.
Botryosphaeria canker is estimated as having a low probability of distribution in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the distribution of Botryosphaeria
canker to the endangered area and subsequent transfer to a suitable host would be
unlikely to occur as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of imported table
grapes. Due to the requirement for dispersal by rain-splash; a higher probability of
distribution could not be justified.
Overall probability of entry (importation x distribution)
The overall probability of entry has been estimated by combining the individual
probabilities of importation and distribution using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Botryosphaeria canker is estimated as having a low probability of entry in association
with imported table grapes. That is, the entry of Botryosphaeria canker would be
unlikely to occur should table grapes be imported into Western Australia from
regions where this pest occurs.
Probability of establishment
The likelihood that Botryosphaeria canker will establish within Western Australia is
based on an assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered
relevant to Botryosphaeria canker and includes:
Availability of suitable hosts, alternative hosts and vectors in the PRA area





In Western Australia both table grape and wine grape varieties are grown. In
regions such as the Swan Valley and Margaret River wine and table grapes
are grown in close proximity to each other.
Many Botryosphaeriaceae species are plurivorus occurring on many native
and introduced plant species and agricultural crops, many of which occur in
Western Australia in or near vineyards, backyards, as amenity plants and as
naturalised populations (Úrbez-Torres 2011; Phillips et al. 2013).
Arthropods have also been implicated as vectors of grapevine trunk disease
pathogens, with millipedes (Ommatoiulul moreletti) and ants (Crematogaster
peringueyi) being the abundant pathogen carriers in a study by Moyo et al.
(2014) in South Africa. The vectors, Portuguese millipedes (Ommatoiulul
moreletti) and other species of the same genus of ant (Crematogaster spp.)
are present in Western Australia (ABRS 2009; Widmer 2015).
In Western Australia both table grape and wine grape varieties are grown. In
regions such as the Swan Valley and Margaret River wine and table grapes
are grown in close proximity to each other.
Vitis spp. in Western Australia may be found in backyards, as amenity plants
and as naturalised populations. Domestic garden plantings, both maintained
148
Draft Policy Review


and abandoned, occur in Perth and in most Western Australian towns and by
many farmhouses.
Vitis spp. in Western Australia may be found in backyards, as amenity plants
and as naturalised populations (Western Australian Herbarium 1998).
Domestic garden plantings, both maintained and abandoned, occur in Perth
and in most Western Australian towns and by many farmhouses.
A number of Vitis spp. are recorded as weeds in Australia (Randall 2007) and
could be potential wild hosts in Western Australia.
The availability of suitable hosts in Western Australia is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for Botryosphaeria canker to establish in Western
Australia.
Suitability of the environment






Climatic conditions in the PRA area favour establishment of
Botryosphaeriaceae species as many known hosts are grown in the PRA
area. Host plants are grown in suburban and rural settings.
The presence of Vitis species in Western Australia (Western Australian
Herbarium 1998) suggests that environmental conditions in the endangered
area are conducive to the establishment of Botryosphaeriaceae species.
Multiple Botryosphaeriaceae species are present in the viticultural areas of
South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales (Pitt et al. 2010; Qiu et al. 2011;
Pitt et al. 2013a; Pitt et al. 2013b; Pitt et al. 2015) where similar climatic
conditions can be found to Western Australia.
The occurrence of other Botryosphaeriaceae species in Western Australia
(Taylor et al. 2005; Taylor 2007; Pitt et al. 2015) provides further indication
that environmental conditions would be suitable for the establishment of these
species.
Regional differences in the distribution of Botryosphaeriaceae species has
been documented elsewhere so some grape growing regions of Western
Australia might not be suitable for all species to establish in.
Pitt et al. (2010) found that Diplodia and Dothiorella were ubiquitous, and
Australian climatic conditions clearly favoured the growth of these species
over some of their more aggressive counterparts.
Current Australian distribution suggests that Western Australia’s climate is not
expected to be a factor limiting the potential for Botryosphaeria canker to
establish within Western Australia.
Cultural practices and control measures




Cultural practices and existing control measures for other grapevine trunk
disease pathogens within Western Australian commercial production
vineyards may limit the potential for establishment.
However, in fungicide studies it was shown that not all fungicides are equally
effective against all species (Pitt et al. 2013a).
Cultural practices or pathogen control measures which could reduce the
capacity for Botryosphaeriaceae species to establish in Western Australia are
unlikely to be applied to naturalised host populations or unmanaged
vineyards.
Cultural practices and pathogen control measures in backyard and amenity
hosts may be variable. Most fungicides registered for use on Vitis are not
approved for use in domestic situations. General fungicides approved for
149
Draft Policy Review
domestic use are likely to have an impact upon establishment of this
pathogen.
Cultural practices and control measures are expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for Botryosphaeria canker to establish in Western Australia.
Reproductive strategies and survival





Pycnidiospores of Botryosphaeriaceae species are released under humid
conditions and growth can occur at temperature from 5-35°C with optimums
of 20-25°C (Úrbez-Torres 2011).
Pycnidia are commonly found embedded in diseased woody parts of vines
and in wood debris left on the vineyard floor after pruning and are the main
overwintering structures (Úrbez-Torres 2011).
Observations made by Wunderlich et al. (2011b) suggest that infection of
dormant buds may occur in early in the season with infections carried
internally and unaffected by further fungicide applications throughout the
season.
Asymptomatic infection can occur with asymptomatic propagation material
being implicated in the introduction of Botryosphaeriaceae species into
nurseries and subsequently commercial vineyards (Úrbez-Torres 2011; Van
Niekerk et al. 2011)
Botryosphaeriaceae species are known to survive endophytically in their
hosts (Van Niekerk et al. 2011).
The reproductive and survival strategy of Botryosphaeria canker is not expected
to be a factor limiting the potential for Botryosphaeria canker to establish within
Western Australia.
Botryosphaeria canker has been estimated as having a moderate probability of
establishment within Western Australia. That is, the establishment of Botryosphaeria
canker in an endangered area would occur with an even probability as a result of
the infected table grapes being imported into Western Australia and distributed in a
viable state to a suitable host. Due to the potential control of current cultural
practices; a higher probability of establishment could not be justified.
Probability of spread
The likelihood that Botryosphaeria canker will spread within Western Australia is
based on an assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered
relevant to Botryosphaeria canker and includes:
Suitability of the natural or managed environment for natural spread




Spores of Botryosphaeriaceae species are spread primarily by rain splash
within the vineyard and spread is generally localised (Úrbez-Torres 2011).
Arthropods have also been implicated as vectors of grapevine trunk disease
pathogens, with millipedes and ants being the most likely groups insects to
transfer spores to pruning wounds (Moyo et al. 2014).
The role wind-blown spores may play in long distance spread is currently
unknown (Úrbez-Torres 2011).
Many species are plurivorus occurring in many native, introduced plant
species and agricultural crops (Úrbez-Torres 2011; Van Niekerk et al. 2011;
Phillips et al. 2013).
150
Draft Policy Review

Infected alternative hosts, such as stone fruit, may provide inoculum for
further spread throughout the state.
The suitability of the natural or managed environment is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for Botryosphaeria canker to spread in Western
Australia.
Presence of natural barriers




The major commercial grape production districts in Western Australia are
located in the south-west of the state between Perth and Albany and in the
Carnarvon region in the north-west.
Natural barriers between the major commercial grape production areas,
including climatic differentials and long distances may limit the natural unfacilitated spread of the pathogen in vineyards. However, many species are
plurivorus and other suitable hosts may occur in between the major grape
production areas (Úrbez-Torres 2011; Phillips et al. 2013).
If isolated plants in a home garden were to become infected by
Botryosphaeria canker, it is likely that physical barriers would prevent its
spread to other hosts due to the limited distance that conidia can be spread
by rain splash.
The wide host ranges of Botryosphaeria spp. may overcome natural barriers
existing between grape growing regions in Western Australia by providing
other suitable hosts where grapes are not commercially grown.
The presence of natural barriers is expected to be a factor limiting the potential
for Botryosphaeria canker to spread in Western Australia.
Potential for movement with commodities or conveyances



Long distance dispersal to new viticultural areas occurs primarily through the
transfer of infected or contaminated propagation materials such as bud wood,
cane cuttings and nursery stock (Úrbez-Torres 2011).
Botryosphaeriaceae species are known to survive endophytically in their
hosts (Van Niekerk et al. 2011).
There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within WA. This
regulatory situation in Western Australia is unlikely to limit the capacity for this
pathogen to spread following establishment.
The potential for movement with commodities or conveyances is not expected to
be a factor limiting the potential for Botryosphaeria canker to spread in Western
Australia.
Potential natural enemies

There are no known natural enemies of the Botryosphaeriaceae species of
concern.
The potential for natural enemies is not expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for Botryosphaeria canker to spread in Western Australia.
Botryosphaeria canker has been estimated as having a moderate probability of
spread within Western Australia that is, spread of Botryosphaeria canker in an
endangered area would occur with an even probability as a result of the infected
table grapes being imported into Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to
151
Draft Policy Review
a suitable host. Due to the presence of natural barriers and long distance spread
being limited to infected propagation material and infected fruit, a higher estimation of
the probability of spread could not be justified.
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
The overall probability of entry, establishment and spread has been estimated by
combining the individual probabilities using the matrix rules shown Table A2.
Botryosphaeria canker has been assessed as having a low probability of entry,
establishment and spread entry in association with imported table grapes. That is,
the entry, establishment and spread of Botryosphaeria canker would be unlikely to
occur should table grapes be imported into Western Australia from regions where
this pest occurs.
Economic consequences
ISPM 11 (2014) indicates that the assessment of economic consequences is made
using ‘a hypothetical situation where a pest is supposed to have been introduced
and to be fully expressing its potential economic consequences (per year) in the PRA
area’.
This is interpreted as an unabated incursion; however, it is acknowledged that
existing control regimes for similar species may impact on this expression. In light of
this interpretation, an evaluation of the consequence of entry, establishment or
spread of Botryosphaeria canker is considered in Table 14.
Table 14: Economic consequences of Botryosphaeria canker
Criterion
Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health D - Significant at the district level





Many Botryosphaeriaceae species, including Do.
iberica, Do. sarmentorum and S. plurivora are
plurivorus, infecting other agricultural crops and
native and introduce plant species (Phillips et al.
2013; Pitt et al. 2015).
Other plant groups known to be infected by the
Botryosphaeriaceae species of concern include
Citrus, Casuarina, Malus, Prunus, Eucalyptus,
Menisermum, Pyrus, Ulmus, Cypressus, Juniperus,
Persea, Pistacia, and Quercus (Phillips et al. 2013;
Pitt et al. 2015).
20-30% loss of ripening has been reported in
Muscandine (Vitis rotundifolia) fruit due to
Botryosphaeria dothidea in southeastern USA
(Milholland 1988).
In grapevines declining vines are less vigorous, have
an underdeveloped and smaller canopy (Qiu et al.
2011).
Reduced bud-burst, and subsequent yield loss has
152
Draft Policy Review
Table 14: Economic consequences of Botryosphaeria canker
Criterion
Estimate



Any other aspects of
the environment
been associated with Botryosphaeriaceae infections
(Qiu et al. 2011).
Estimates of economic costs, due to yield loss and
an increase in production cost, are difficult to
quantify due to the complex nature of grapevine
trunk diseases but a study from California attributed
an annual cost of $260 million to Botryosphaeria
dieback and Eutypa dieback (Siebert, 2001 as cited
in Pitt et al. (2012; n.d.)).
Development of Botryosphaeria canker in a vineyard
is slow, progressively building up in the vineyard
leading to a general decline in vigour and yield of the
vines (Phillips 1998; Taylor et al. 2005).
Current control measures for other grapevine trunk
diseases in Western Australia may provide some
control for any new Botryosphaeriaceae species if
introduced.
A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level

There are no known direct consequences of this
pathogen on the natural environment.
Indirect consequences
Eradication, control C - Minor significance at the district level
etc.
 Programs to control the spread of Botryosphaeria
canker may include surgery of infected branches
and/or removal of vines and routine application of
protectant fungicides to wounds after pruning
(Úrbez-Torres 2011; Pitt et al. 2013a).
 No chemical control has been specifically available
for Botryosphaeria canker (Úrbez-Torres 2011),
however a study by Pitt et al. (2012) has evaluated a
number of fungicides under Australian conditions.
 Fungicides evaluated varied in effectiveness at
reducing growth of Botryosphaeriaceae isolates,
however not all of the tested fungicides are available
for use in Australia (Pitt et al. 2012).
Domestic trade B - Minor significance at the local level

Botryosphaeria canker is known to be in eastern
Australia and it is unlikely that domestic trade would
be restricted this pathogen was to be introduced.
International trade B - Minor significance at the local level

Trade restrictions would only be imposed by
countries demonstrating absence and
Botryosphaeria canker is widespread throughout
viticultural regions. It is unlikely that restrictions
would be applied to international trade.
153
Draft Policy Review
Table 14: Economic consequences of Botryosphaeria canker
Criterion
Environment,
including rural and
regional economic
viability
Estimate
C - Significant at the local level


Some of the Botryosphaeriaceae species of concern
are plurivorus and have been reported from
Eucalyptus sp. (Pitt et al. 2015). These species may
pose a threat to the plant health of native bush land.
Additional control activities for Botryosphaeria
canker are unlikely to have any discernible impact
on other aspects of the environment including rural
and regional economic viability at the district level.
The expected economic consequences for the endangered area should
Botryosphaeria canker enter, establish and spread within Western Australia has been
determined to be low using the decision rules outlined in Table A5.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
A URE of very low was determined using the matrix rules outlined in Table A6 for
table grapes grown in regions where Botryosphaeria canker occurs.
Unrestricted risk estimate for Botryosphaeria canker
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
Low
Consequences
Low
Unrestricted risk
Very low
As the URE is equivalent to Western Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’, the basic
standards of practice for table grape production would provide an appropriate level of
protection for Western Australia.
154
Draft Policy Review
Citrus exocortis viroid
Scientific name (ICTV 2014)
Pospiviroid Citrus exocortis viroid (CEVd) [Pospiviroidae]
Synonyms
None known
Preferred common name
CEVd
Citrus exocortis
Alternate common names
Scaly butt
Common host plants
Brassica napas, Citrus sinensis, Citrus medica, Daucus carota, Ficus carica,
Glandularia puchella, Gynura aurantiaca, Impatiens walleriana, Petunia hybrid,
Poncirus trifoliate, Solanum jasminoides, Solanum lycopersicum (syn. Lycopersicon
esculentum), Solanum melongena, Verbena x hybrid, Vicia faba, Vitis spp. (DuranVila & Semancik 2003; Verhoeven et al. 2004; Singh et al. 2006; Yakoubi et al.
2007a; Singh et al. 2009).
Experimental host range (Duran-Vila & Semancik 2003)
Aster grandifloras, Capsicum annum, Chrysanthemum morifolium, Cucumis sativus,
Curcurbita pepo, Dalia variabilis, Datura stramonium, Gomphrena globose, Gynura
sarmentaosa, Oscimum basilicum, Petunia axillaria, Petunia violacea, Physalis
floridana, Physalis ixocarpa, Physalis peruviana, Solanum aculeatiisium, Solanum
dulcamara, Solanum hispidum, Solanum marginatum, Solanum peruvianum (syn.
Lycopersicon peruvianum), Solanum quitoense, Solanum topiro, Solanum
tuberosum, Tagetes patula, Zinnia elegans.
Plant part affected
Present in all parts of grapevines; however, infection is asymptomatic in grapevines
(Little & Rezaian 2003).
Australian distribution
Queensland (Simmonds 1966)
New South Wales (Gillings et al. 1991; Broadbent & Dephoff 1992)
Victoria (Washington & Nancarrow 1983)
South Australia (Büchen-Osmond et al. 1988; Wan Chow Wah & Symons 1997)
Biology and pest status
Viroids are small pathogenic, non-protein coding RNA replicons which are fully
dependent on the host for biological functions such as replication, processing and
transport (Steger & Riesner 2003). Viroids are classified into one of two families
(Pospiviroidae or Avsunviroidae) according to how these functions are performed and
on their secondary structure (Steger & Riesner 2003). Members of the family
Pospiviroidae adopt a rod-like or quasi-rod-like structure in vitro, have a central
conserved region (CCR) and replicate within the host nucleus, whereas the members
of the family Avsunviroidae replicate in the host’s chloroplasts and have a quasi-rodlike or branched structure (Flores et al. 2011).
155
Draft Policy Review
Five genera are recognised within the family Pospiviroidae and are distinguished
primarily on the sequences that form the CCR in their proposed rod-like secondary
structure (Flores et al. 2003c). Sequence data and biological properties, particularly
host range, are used to differentiate viroid species. An arbitrary level of 90%
nucleotide identity has been used to separate viroid species versus variants of the
same species (Flores et al. 2003c).
Viroids often produce ‘variants’ which is not a formal term of classification but rather
a way to describe sequence variation which can occur due to errors in replication
(Flores et al. 2003b). These molecular variants can adapt themselves to new hosts
and life cycle-conditions. A relatively large number of sequence variants and suitable
hosts have been reported for Citrus exocortis viroid (CEVd) (Duran-Vila & Semancik
2003).
The viroids that belong to the Pospiviroidae have the widest host range, to which
CEVd belongs (Singh et al. 2003b). Citrus exocortis viroid infects citrus species and
many other hosts and was first isolated from a grapevine in Spain (Little & Rezaian
2003).
Symptoms
Symptoms produced by viroid infection can be quite variable, ranging from
malformation of leaves, chlorotic or necrotic spots and leaf epinasty variable (Singh
et al. 2003b; Flores et al. 2011). In stems symptoms include, shortening of the
internodes, bark cracking and localised necrosis. Other viroids incite very mild
symptoms and can even be symptomless in some hosts (Singh et al. 2003b; Flores
et al. 2011).
Citrus exocortis viroid may be present in all parts of grapevines; however, infection is
asymptomatic (Little & Rezaian 2003). Sensitive hosts of CEVd may show symptoms
of stunting, epinasty and leaf distortion (Duran-Vila & Semancik 2003). It has been
seen to cause of apical proliferation, stunting, epinasty, leaf distortion and veinal
necrosis in tomato in India but has also been reported as being symptomless in
grapevine, tomato, eggplant, turnip, carrot and broad bean (Duran-Vila & Semancik
2003; Di Serio et al. 2014). A large number of hosts and sequence variants have
been reported (Duran-Vila & Semancik 2003).
If CEVd-infected bud wood is propagated onto Poncirus trifoliata (L.) Raf. root stock,
bark scaling symptoms will appear on the rootstock, and trees may become stunted
(Broadbent & Dephoff 1992; Singh et al. 2003b). However, CEVd may exist in sweet
orange, mandarin or grapefruit on rootstocks such as rough lemon or sweet orange
without showing any symptoms (Broadbent & Dephoff 1992; Singh et al. 2003b).
Life cycle and infective stages
Once the host plant is infected, viroid particles are transported throughout the host
plant via the phloem, most likely facilitated by the RNA-binding phloem protein 2,
thus becoming a systemic infection (Flores & Owens 2010; Flores et al. 2011).
Viroids have been detected in virtually all plant tissues using various detection
methods (Singh et al. 2003b).
Fagoaga et al. (1995) successfully transferred the broad bean variant into tomato,
chrysanthemum and cucumber, although all remained symptomless. The variant
once passaged through tomato was transferred back into a number of hosts including
back into broad bean. All tested positive to the viroid, and the tomato,
chrysanthemum and Gynura showed symptoms (Fagoaga et al. 1995).
Citrus exocortis viroid can remain infectious for long periods in dry tissue and as a
contaminant on dry surfaces. It has been reported to be resistant to inactivation by
heat and many chemical used to inactivate viruses (Duran-Vila & Semancik 2003).
156
Draft Policy Review
Modes of transmission and spread
Viroids are mainly transmitted by mechanical means and vegetative propagation,
including grafting (Little & Rezaian 2003; Singh et al. 2003b; Flores et al. 2011).
Seed and/or pollen transmission has been reported for many species within the
family Pospiviroidae (Hammond & Owens 2006; Di Serio et al. 2014).
Wan Chow Wah and Symons (1997) reported CEVd transmission via grape seed. It
has also been reported to be seed transmissible in Impatiens walleriana and Verbina
x hybrid (Singh et al. 2009), and tomato (Mink 1993). The viroid is spread in citrus
through budding or grafting, but can also be mechanically spread on pruning
equipment, though this is dependent on susceptibility of varieties (Hardy et al. 2008).
There is no known insect vector of the disease and seed transmission in citrus in
unknown (Hardy et al. 2008). Citrus exocortis viroid is primarily spread over long
distances by infected budwood and cuttings (Duran-Vila & Semancik 2003).
Wan Chow Wah and Symons (1997) tested 10 grapevine varieties sourced within
South Australia; including Sultana H5 and Emporer table grape seedlings for
presence of CEVd. All 10 varieties tested positive using RT-PCR. Later studies in
eight varieties of grapevines showed that CEVd can be transferred via grape seed
(Wan Chow Wah & Symons 1999b).
Symptomless hosts may provide a reservoir for infection of crops grown in close
proximity (Flores & Owens 2010; Di Serio et al. 2014).
Climatic requirements and range
Citrus exocortis viroid has been recorded in Citrus spp. in Queensland (Simmonds
1966); Victoria (Washington & Nancarrow 1983), New South Wales (Gillings et al.
1991; Broadbent & Dephoff 1992) and South Australia (Büchen-Osmond et al. 1988).
It has also been detected in grapevines South Australia, Victoria and New South
Wales (Wan Chow Wah & Symons 1997). Worldwide it has been detected in
grapevine in Spain and California as well as Australia (Little & Rezaian 2003).
Replication and symptom development are usually favoured by plants grown at
relatively high temperature (30-33°C) and light intensity (Singh et al. 2003b; Flores &
Owens 2010; Flores et al. 2011). Thus, many detections of viroids are from crops
grown in glasshouses or in tropical or subtropical areas (Flores et al. 2011).
Diagnosis
Early assays for CEVd used indicator plants, typically Gynura, to detect the viroids in
citrus and other hosts but now molecular methods are used for detection allowing
symptomless hosts to be identified (Duran-Vila & Semancik 2003). Diagnosis of
viroid diseases based on symptom expression in their natural hosts is often difficult
(Hammond & Owens 2006).
A recent publication reports a real-time RT-PCR test for CEVd and HSVd with high
diagnostic sensitivity and specificity (Papayiannis 2014).
Control
The main means of controlling the spread of viroids is through the use of viroid-free
propagation material and regular disinfection of pruning tools to reduce local spread
(Singh et al. 2003b; Flores et al. 2011; Di Serio et al. 2014). Household bleach (1-3%
NaCIO) is effective for disinfection of pruning tools (Singh et al. 2003b).
In Australia, control of exocortis disease in Citrus has largely been achieved through
the use of viroid-free budwood (Hardy et al. 2008).
Pest risk assessment
157
Draft Policy Review
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for CEVd in
association with imported table grapes imported from other Australian states and
territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the absence of risk management
measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment considers basic
standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes including
cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in standard
closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences are
described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
The likelihood that CEVd will arrive in Western Australia with the importation of table
grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source and destination area
considered relevant to CEVd and includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin





Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). Citrus exocortis viroid has been isolated from grapevines in South
Australia (Wan Chow Wah & Symons 1997).
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
Citrus exocortis viroid may be present in all parts of grapevines, including
bunches (stems and berries); however, infection is asymptomatic. As such,
grape bunches harvested from infected vines would meet aesthetic standards
and phytosanitary conditions, and could harvested, packed and imported into
Western Australia.
Wan Chow Wah and Symons (1997) tested report CEVd was transmitted via
grape seed, therefore this viroid may be imported into Western Australia with
seeded table grape varieties..
No vector has been identified, as such the potential for importation via a
vector associated with the table grape pathway is considered to be highly
unlikely to occur.
The presence of CEVd on the table grape pathway at its origin is not expected to
reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures

Citrus exocortis viroid has been reported to be resistant to inactivation by heat
and many chemicals used to inactivate viruses (Duran-Vila & Semancik
2003).
158
Draft Policy Review



The main means of controlling the spread of viroids is through the use of
viroid-free propagation material and regular disinfection of pruning tools to
reduce local spread (Singh et al. 2003b; Flores et al. 2011; Di Serio et al.
2014).
Infected, symptomless grape bunches would go undetected during harvest
and inspection procedures.
Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is unlikely that
standard on-arrival procedures would detect the presence of this pathogen in
a consignment of table grapes.
The ability of CEVd to survive existing pest management procedures is not
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into Western
Australia with table grapes.
Ability to survive transport and storage


After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
Citrus exocortis viroid has been reported to survive a 2 year storage period at
4°C in Impatiens walleriana and Verbena x hybrid seeds (Singh et al. 2009).
This, plus the demonstrated transmission of CEVd in grape seed (Wan Chow
Wah & Symons 1997), indicates that the viroid would likely survive extended
periods of cold storage. There is currently no known literature on the efficacy
of sulphur dioxide treatment against this viroid under standard transport and
storage conditions for table grapes.
The ability of CEVd to survive transport and storage procedures is not expected
to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into Western Australia
with table grapes.
Citrus exocortis viroid is estimated as having a high probability of importation in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the importation of CEVd would be
very likely to occur under standard commercial production, harvesting and packing
house procedures for table grapes from regions where this pest occurs. Due to the
asymptomatic nature of CEVd in Vitis spp., the systemic nature of infection and the
known distribution of the viroid in Australia; a lower probability of importation could
not be justified.
Probability of distribution
The likelihood that CEVd will be distributed into Western Australia in a viable state to
a suitable host, as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of table grapes is
based on an assessment of factors in the destination area considered relevant to
CEVd and includes:
Transport of table grapes within Western Australia

Imported fruit are intended for human consumption. Fruit will be distributed to
many localities by wholesale and retail trade and by individual consumers.
159
Draft Policy Review


In 2013/14, 82% of Australian households purchased grapes at least once
(HAL 2014). This suggests that table grapes have the potential to be widely
distributed within Western Australia.
There are no intrastate movement restrictions in place for table grapes,
consequently table grapes infected with CEVd may be distributed throughout
Western Australia.
The ability of CEVd to move with infected table grapes is not expected to be a
factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within Western Australia.
Risks from by-products and waste



The importation of table grapes for human consumption will result in the
generation of waste material including rachis and berries.
Fruit waste may be disposed of in a number of ways including municipal
refuse sites, composting, mulching and discarding into urban, rural or natural
localities including roadsides.
Lea and Worsley (2008a) reported that 51% of Australian people surveyed
often composted food waste.
The ability of CEVd to be associated with table grapes by-products and waste is
not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Ability to move from the pathway to a suitable host





The main hosts of CEVd (Citrus spp. and Vitis spp.) occur in Western
Australia in vineyards, orchards, backyards, naturalised populations and as
amenity plants.
Viroids are mainly transmitted by mechanical means, for example
contaminated pruning equipment and vegetative propagation (Little &
Rezaian 2003; Singh et al. 2003b; Flores et al. 2011). Transfer to a suitable
host plant by cutting or pruning tools from bunches is considered unlikely.
No vector has been identified for CEVd (Hardy et al. 2008).
Citrus exocortis viroid has been shown to be seed transmissible in grapevines
(Wan Chow Wah & Symons 1999b). Therefore, CEVd may be distributed with
infected seeded table grapes and fruit waste. Rachis with associated berries
or individual berries from seeded varieties may be discarded in environments
suitable for germination. In this situation resultant seedlings would be in very
close proximity to infected material, facilitating transfer to the seedling (a
suitable host).
Transfer of CEVd via a germinated seed would require successful
stratification and germination of a CEVd-infected grape seed, survival of that
seedling and transmission of the viroid to the seedling. The following points
have been considered in relation to the above scenario:
 It is likely that some but not all table grapes imported from other
Australian states and territories will contain seeds, while some
varieties will be seedless.
 Grape seed germination is very variable and is dependent on many
factors including parent, environment and the cultural conditions
required during both fruit set and seed handling (Owens 2008).
 The proportion of grapevine seed that germinates depends on the
cultivar, seed maturity, storage, stratification, planting conditions
(Doijode 2001) and pollen sources (Sabir 2011).
160
Draft Policy Review




Grape seed dormancy has been broken under various cold treatments
including 12 weeks at 5°C, 9 weeks at 0°C and 8 weeks at 5°C (Ellis
et al. 1983). Ellis et al. (1983) reported that hybrid crosses subjected
to 5°C for 12 weeks had a mean germination of 40% (range 8–62%).
Night-time temperatures below 6°C during winter may be sufficient for
stratification (Ellis et al. 1983; Doijode 2001).
However, seedlings have been recorded in naturalised populations
(Western Australian Herbarium 1998) and are occasionally observed
growing in vineyards between rows (A Taylor 2012, pers. comm. 4
Sept.), suggesting environmental conditions suitable for the
germination and establishment of grape seedlings occur in Western
Australia. Ellis et al. (1983) reported hybrid grape seed viability of 60–
90%.
Seedling survival in natural environments is influenced by many
factors such as environmental conditions, seed predation, herbivory of
seedlings and plants, growth rate and competition for resources
(including light, nutrients and water). In managed environments,
especially where intentional germination of grape seed is attempted,
conditions may be more favourable resulting in a higher proportion of
seed germination and plant survival.
There is very little information in the literature on the rate of
transmission of CEVd in grapevines. Seed transmission rates of 66%
and 28% have been reported for Impatiens walleriana and Verbena x
hybrida (Singh et al. 2009).
The ability of CEVd to move from infected table grapes to a suitable host is
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Citrus exocortis viroid is estimated as having a low probability of distribution in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the distribution of CEVd to the
endangered area and subsequent transfer to a suitable host would be unlikely to
occur as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of imported table grapes. Due to
the limited ability of CEVd to be transferred to a suitable host and the variable
germination rates of grape seed; a higher probability of distribution could not be
justified.
Overall probability of entry (importation x distribution)
The overall probability of entry has been estimated by combining the individual
probabilities of importation and distribution using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
CEVd is estimated as having a low probability of entry in association with imported
table grapes. That is, the entry of CEVd would be unlikely to occur should table
grapes be imported into Western Australia from regions where this pest occurs.
Probability of establishment
The likelihood that CEVd will establish within Western Australia is based on an
assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to
CEVd and includes:
Availability of suitable hosts, alternative hosts and vectors in the PRA area
161
Draft Policy Review





Citrus exocortis viroid has a wide host range and many of these hosts are
grown in Western Australia.
Citrus exocortis viroid has only been detected in citrus, grapevine, Petunia
spp. and petchoa (Petunia x Calibrachoa) in Australia (Simmonds 1966;
Washington & Nancarrow 1983; Büchen-Osmond et al. 1988; Gillings et al.
1991; Broadbent & Dephoff 1992; Wan Chow Wah & Symons 1997).
In Western Australia both table grape and wine grape varieties are grown. In
regions such as the Swan Valley and Margaret River wine and table grapes
are grown in close proximity to each other.
Vitis spp. are present in Western Australia in vineyards, backyards,
naturalised populations and as amenity plants. In Western Australia
naturalised populations include seedlings (Western Australian Herbarium
1998). Domestic garden plantings, both maintained and abandoned, occur in
Perth and in most Western Australian towns and by many farmhouses.
A number of Vitis spp. are recorded as weeds in Australia (Randall 2007) and
could be potential wild hosts in Western Australia.
The availability of suitable hosts in Western Australia is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for CEV to establish in Western Australia.
Suitability of the environment


Citrus exocortis viroid has wide global distribution (CABI, 2012). Citrus
exocortis viroid has been reported from Queensland (Simmonds 1966), New
South Wales (Gillings et al. 1991; Broadbent & Dephoff 1992), Victoria
(Washington & Nancarrow 1983) and South Australia (Büchen-Osmond et al.
1988; Wan Chow Wah & Symons 1997). Therefore, climatic conditions in
parts of Western Australia would be suitable for establishment of the viroid.
The presence of Vitis, Citrus and Petunia species in Western Australia
(Western Australian Herbarium 1998) suggest that environmental conditions
in the endangered area are conducive to the establishment of CEVd.
Current Australian distribution suggests that Western Australia’s climate is not
expected to be a factor limiting the potential for CEVd to establish within Western
Australia.
Cultural practices and control measures



Cultural practices and existing control measures for other grapevine
pathogens within Western Australian commercial production vineyards are
unlikely limit the potential for establishment.
Cultural practices or pathogen control measures which could reduce the
capacity for CEVd to establish in Western Australia are unlikely to be applied
to naturalised host populations or unmanaged vineyards.
Cultural practices and pathogen control measures in backyard and amenity
Vitis species may be variable.
Cultural practices and control measures are not expected to be a factor limiting
the potential for CEVd to establish in Western Australia.
Reproductive strategies and survival

Following infection viroid particles replicate and are transported throughout
the host plant via the phloem thus becoming a systemic infection (Flores &
Owens 2010; Flores et al. 2011).
162
Draft Policy Review


Citrus exocortis viroid has been demonstrated to be seed-borne in grape
seed (Wan Chow Wah & Symons 1997).
Citrus exocortis viroid can remain infectious for long periods in dry tissue and
as a contaminant on dry surfaces. It has been reported to be resistant to
inactivation by heat and many chemical used to inactivate viruses (Duran-Vila
& Semancik 2003).
The reproductive and survival strategy of CEVd is not expected to be a factor
limiting the potential for CEVd to establish within Western Australia.
Citrus exocortis viroid has been estimated as having a high probability of
establishment within Western Australia. That is, the establishment of CEVd in an
endangered area would be very likely to occur as a result of the infected table
grapes being imported into Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to a
suitable host. Due to the systemic nature of viroid infection, suitable climatic
conditions, and wide host range; a lower probability of establishment could not be
justified.
Probability of spread
The likelihood that CEVd will spread within Western Australia is based on an
assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to
CEVd and includes:
Suitability of the natural or managed environment for natural spread






The wide host range of CEVd may facilitate spread, providing alternative
hosts (other than Vitis spp.) and a larger distribution of suitable hosts
throughout Western Australia.
Citrus exocortis viroid has wide distribution (CABI 2014) and in Australia has
been reported from Queensland (Simmonds 1966), New South Wales
(Gillings et al. 1991; Broadbent & Dephoff 1992), Victoria (Washington &
Nancarrow 1983) and South Australia (Büchen-Osmond et al. 1988; Wan
Chow Wah & Symons 1997). Therefore, climatic conditions in parts of
Western Australia would be suitable for spread of the viroid.
Long distance spread to new areas following establishment in Western
Australia may occur through the movement of Vitis spp. fruit, nursery stock,
propagative material and contaminated pruning equipment.
Spread is reliant on the germination and establishment of infected seeds,
mechanical transmission to a suitable host (Duran-Vila & Semancik 2003) or
through nursery stock and propagative material, as there are no known
vectors.
Contaminated pruning equipment may provide an avenue for transfer of the
viroid to non-Vitis hosts present in Western Australia. Citrus exocortis viroid
can be mechanically transferred in citrus through infected pruning equipment
and cutting tools, bud and/ or root grafting (Broadbent & Dephoff 1992).
Existing cultural methods are unlikely to reduce the likelihood of
establishment or spread.
The suitability of the natural or managed environment is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for CEVd to spread in Western Australia.
Presence of natural barriers
163
Draft Policy Review



The major commercial grape production districts in Western Australia are
located in the south-west of the state between Perth and Albany and in the
Carnarvon region in the north-west.
Natural barriers between the major commercial grape production areas,
including climatic differentials and long distances may limit the natural
unfacilitated spread of the pathogen.
The wide host range of CEVd may overcome natural barriers existing
between grape growing regions in Western Australia by providing other
suitable hosts where grapes are not commercially grown.
The presence of natural barriers is not expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for CEVd to spread in Western Australia.
Potential for movement with commodities or conveyances




Viroids are mainly transmitted by mechanical means and vegetative
propagation, including grafting (Little & Rezaian 2003; Singh et al. 2003b;
Flores et al. 2011).
Seed and/or pollen transmission has been reported for many species within
the family Pospiviroidae (Hammond & Owens 2006; Di Serio et al. 2014).
As infection is asymptomatic in grapevine, it is more likely that infected
material would remain undetected and possibly be moved.
There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock) within Western Australia. This regulatory
situation in Western Australia is unlikely to limit the capacity for this pathogen
to spread following establishment. Western Australian intrastate regulations
are unlikely to limit the capacity for this pathogen to spread following
establishment within other host species.
The potential for movement with commodities or conveyances is not expected to
be a factor limiting the potential for CEVd to spread in Western Australia.
Potential natural enemies

There are no known natural enemies of CEVd.
The potential for natural enemies is not expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for CEVd to spread in Western Australia.
Potential vectors

No vector has been identified for CEVd.
The potential for vectors is expected to be a factor limiting the potential for CEVd
to spread in Western Australia.
Citrus exocortis viroid has been estimated as having a moderate probability of
spread within Western Australia. That is, spread of CEVd in an endangered area
would occur with an even probability as a result of the infected table grapes being
imported into Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to a suitable host.
Due to the presence of natural barriers and long distance spread being limited to
infected propagation material and infected fruit; a higher probability of spread could
not be justified.
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
164
Draft Policy Review
The overall probability of entry, establishment and spread has been estimated by
combining the individual probabilities using the matrix rules shown in Table A2. CEVd
has been assessed as having a low probability of entry, establishment and spread
entry in association with imported table grapes. That is, the entry, establishment and
spread of CEVd would be unlikely to occur should table grapes be imported into
Western Australia from regions where this pest occurs.
Economic consequences
ISPM 11 (2014) indicates that the assessment of economic consequences is made
using ‘a hypothetical situation where a pest is supposed to have been introduced
and to be fully expressing its potential economic consequences (per year) in the PRA
area’.
This is interpreted as an unabated incursion; however, it is acknowledged that
existing control regimes for similar species may impact on this expression. In light of
this interpretation, an evaluation of the consequence of entry, establishment or
spread of CEVd is considered in Table 15.
Table 15: Economic consequences of citrus exocortis viroid
Criterion
Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health
C - Minor significance at the district level









Citrus exocortis viroid does not cause any symptoms
in grapevine (Little & Rezaian 2003).
It can cause bark scaling on Poncirus trifoliata
(occasionally citrange) rootstocks, tree stunting and
decline of all varieties on citrange, Poncirus trifoliata,
Rangpur lime and Swingle citrumelo rootstocks
(Barkley 2004).
The viroid is latent in most citrus varieties and
causes symptoms when those infected varieties are
grafted to intolerant rootstocks (Barkley 2004).
Most hosts of CEVd are symptomless (Singh et al.
2009).
Can cause bunchy top, leaf chlorosis (Singh et al.
2009), and/ or stunting in tomato (Verhoeven et al.
2004).
In fig, the symptoms are characterised by a mosaic
pattern, with yellow chlorotic lesions and deformation
(Yakoubi et al. 2007b).
Losses due to citrus diseases, not just viroids, have
been reported to be up to one-third (Singh et al.
2003b).
Yield losses can be high in citrus infected with CEVd
(Hammond & Owens 2006).
Reduced ability of trees to utilise water may increase
cost (Singh et al. 2003b).
165
Draft Policy Review
Table 15: Economic consequences of citrus exocortis viroid
Criterion
Estimate

Any other aspects of
the environment
Data on economic losses due to viroids are scarse
as it depends on the viroids species/strain, the host
species, geographic area and agricultural practices
(Di Serio et al. 2012).
A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level

There are no known direct consequences of this
pathogen on the natural environment.
Indirect consequences
Eradication, control
etc.
D - Significant at the district level



Domestic trade
A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level


International trade
If CEVd was to become established in WA, viroid
containment and eradication control measures may
be employed to minimise the spread of CEVd from
grapevine to suitable citrus scion/rootstock
combinations.
Where susceptible citrus varieties are used,
strategies to produce viroid-free planting material
would be necessary (Duran-Vila & Semancik 2003)
Infected plants may be destroyed and viroid-free
material may need to be re-planted.
Citrus exocortis viroid has been reported from
Queensland (Simmonds 1966); Victoria (Washington
& Nancarrow 1983), New South Wales (Gillings et al.
1991; Broadbent & Dephoff 1992) and South
Australia (Wan Chow Wah & Symons 1997).
It would be unlikely for trade restrictions to be
applied by other Australian states and territories
where this viroid is not known to occur as specific
restrictions for this viroid are not in place at the
present time.
C - Minor significance at the district level




Citrus exocortis viroid can infect a variety of
commercially grown species including Citrus spp.
and Vitis spp. (Singh et al. 2009).
Citrus exocortis viroid has been detected in most
countries where citrus is grown.
The presence of these viroids in Western Australia
may limit access to overseas markets that are free
from these viroids. This is more likely to affect export
of grape propagative material than fresh fruit. Laos
has specific conditions for CEVd (Australian
Department of Agriculture 2015u)
The Western Australian industry has sent grape
propagative material to destinations such as
166
Draft Policy Review
Table 15: Economic consequences of citrus exocortis viroid
Criterion
Estimate

Environment,
including rural and
regional economic
viability
Indonesia, India and Portugal.
Future exports may be restricted should CEVd
establish in WA.
A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level


There would not be additional use in pesticides to
control CEVd as management is through use of
viroid-free propagation material and cultural
practices.
Additional control activities for CEVd are unlikely to
have any discernible impact on other aspects of the
environment including rural and regional economic
viability at the local level.
The expected economic consequences for the endangered area should CEVd enter,
establish and spread within Western Australia has been determined to be low using
the decision rules outlined in Table A5.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
An URE of very low was determined using the matrix rules outlined in Table A6 for
table grapes grown in regions where CEVd occurs.
Unrestricted risk estimate for citrus exocortis viroid
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
Low
Consequences
Low
Unrestricted risk
Very low
As the URE is equivalent to Western Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’, the basic
standards of practice for table grape production would provide an appropriate level of
protection for Western Australia.
167
Draft Policy Review
Grapevine fanleaf virus
Scientific name (ICTV 2014)
Nepovirus Grapevine fanleaf virus [Secoviridae]
Synonyms
None known
Preferred common name
Grapevine fanleaf virus
Alternate common names (Brunt et al. 1996 onwards)
GFLV
Grapevine court-noue
Grapevine yellow mosaic
Grapevine banding
Grapevine arriciamento virus
Grapevine infectious degeneration
Grapeviene Reisigkrankheit
Grapevine roncet,
rapevine urticado
Common host plants
Vitis spp. (Brunt et al. 1996 onwards), Cynodon dactylon (Bermuda/ couch grass)
(Izadpanah et al. 2003).
Extensive range of experimental herbaceous hosts (Dias 1963; Brunt et al. 1996
onwards).
Plant part affected
All parts are affected; however symptoms may be expressed in leaves and berries
(Brunt et al. 1996 onwards).
Australian distribution
South Australia (Habili et al. 2001; DAFF 2013)
Victoria (Habili et al. 2001; DAFF 2013)
New South Wales (DAFF 2013)
Biology and pest status
Grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV) is a Nepovirus belonging to the family Secoviridae
(ICTV 2014). The virus causes disease in most cultivars of Vitis vinifera (Brunt et al.
1996 onwards; Martelli et al. 2001; Andret-Link et al. 2004). Grapevine fanleaf virus
has also been isolated from Cynodon dactylon (Bermuda/ couch grass),
Chenopodium amaranticolor and shown to infect a wide range of experimental hosts
(Dias 1963; Brunt et al. 1996 onwards; Izadpanah et al. 2003).
Symptoms
The virus reduces plant vigour and life span, as well as reducing the yield, size and
quality of fruit (Andret-Link et al. 2004; Cretazzo et al. 2010). Symptoms range from
fanleaf to yellow mosaic, vein banding, line pattern, chlorotic ring spots and mottle
(Andret-Link et al. 2004). Deformation of leaves and margins that have a toothed
appearance, petiole sinus open wider than normal and veins growing closely together
give the appearance of a partially closed fan (Hewitt et al. 1962). Other symptoms
include abnormal branching, proliferating shoots and short internodes (Hewitt et al.
168
Draft Policy Review
1962; Martelli 2010; Hoover et al. 2011). Grapevine fanleaf virus affects fruit set, with
small, straggly clusters, large seed berries and small seedless berries and irregular
ripening (Hewitt et al. 1962; Martelli 2010; Hoover et al. 2011).
Co-infection of grapevines with GFLV and Grapevine yellow speckle viroid (GYSVd)
can induce vein banding with symptoms of yellow mottling or banding along primary
veins (Little & Rezaian 2003).
Life cycle and infective stages
Following infection by GFLV, the virus particles replicate and are transferred
throughout the host plant resulting in a systemic infection (Brunt et al. 1996 onwards;
Martelli et al. 2001; Andret-Link et al. 2004).
Modes of transmission and spread
The main mode of transmission is through the ectoparasitic dagger nematode
Xiphinema index (Andret-Link et al. 2004). Xiphinema italiae has been implicated as
a vector; however Catalano et al. (1992) was unable to confirm that it acts as a
vector in Italy. Transmission by X. vuittenezi has also been suspected but not proven
(Martelli & Boudon-Padieu E (eds.) 2006). None of these nematode species has
been detected in Western Australia (PHA 2001). Xiphinema index is found in a small
region in north-eastern Victoria that corresponds to a phylloxera infestation (Nicol et
al. 1999). It is possible that restrictions imposed on grapevine movement due to
phylloxera may be limiting the spread of X. index (Nicol et al. 1999).
Grapevine fanleaf virus can be acquired and transmitted by both juvenile and adult
nematodes but it is not transmitted transovarily through nematode eggs (Andret-Link
et al. 2004). Grapevine fanleaf virus has been detected in X. index that have been
stored for extended periods of time (over four years) in the absence of host plants
(Andret-Link et al. 2004). Transmission can occur through a single nematode feeding
for only a few minutes (Nicol et al. 1999).
Grapevine fanleaf virus can be spread through mechanical inoculation, although
cuttings and etiolated seedlings have only been reported a small number of times
(Andret-Link et al. 2004). Grafting resistant cuttings onto infected root stock will result
in the whole plant being infected (Andret-Link et al. 2004).
Recovery of the virus from seedlings of seeds from infected grapevines is not
common but can occur (Cory & Hewitt 1968); however, data on this area of research
is limited. Grapevine fanleaf virus has been recovered from the endosperm of
infected seeds, but not the embryo (Cory & Hewitt 1968). The virus has also been
detected in both the ovaries and anthers of infected grapevines (Gambino et al.
2010). Infected embryos were detected in situ, however, only one GFLV infected
plant out of more than 70 plant-derived embryos occurred (Gambino et al. 2009;
Gambino et al. 2010). It was observed that infected embryos were often abnormal
and were not converted into plants (Gambino et al. 2010).
Grapevine fanleaf virus was detected in Chenopodium amaranticolor and other
experimental host seeds after mechanical inoculation of infected grapevine sap into
the host plant (Dias 1963).
Long-distance spread is primarily through infected planting material (Habili et al.
2001). Spread can also occur through infected X. index being transferred in soil
(Andret-Link et al. 2004)
Climatic requirements and range
Grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV) is widespread, being found across western Asia,
Middle East, Mediterranean, Europe, South Africa, New Zealand, North and South
America (Izadpanah et al. 2003; Andret-Link et al. 2004).
169
Draft Policy Review
In Australia, GFLV has been reported from New South Wales (DAFF 2013), Victoria
and South Australia (Habili et al. 2001). In Victoria, the Rutherglen area is the only
recorded site of X. index, and spread of GFLV has been contained according to 20
years of sampling (Habili et al. 2001).
Diagnosis
Detection techniques based on bioassays and serology have traditionally been used
to identify grapevine viruses (López-Fabuel et al. 2013). Serological methods are
limited by the low viral titres in some grapevine tissues. Molecular methods are
increasingly being used for detection of viruses in grapevines because of their higher
analytical sensitivity and specificity (López-Fabuel et al. 2013).
A recent study has identified that the highest titre of virus was in young leaves during
the vegetative period (Krebelj et al. 2015). It is recommended that young leaves be
used for detection of GFLV when sampling during the vegetative period. Mature
leaves, tendrils and flower/berry clusters had a high virus titre at the beginning of the
vegetative period and distribution of GFLV in the tissue of berries was found to be
uneven (Krebelj et al. 2015).
The reliability of woody indexing for grapevine viruses has been shown to be affected
by environmental and growth factors such as climatic conditions, bud-take and
transmission of virus to the indicator (Constable et al. 2013). Molecular detection
methods are recommended in conjunction with woody indexing (Constable et al.
2013).
New and more sensitive methods of detection for grapevine viruses have identified
that mixed infections regularly occur (Zhang et al. 2011; López-Fabuel et al. 2013). A
real-time multiplex RT-PCR has been developed for the simultaneous detection of
RNA viruses that infect grapevines, including GFLV, Arabis mosaic virus, Grapevine
leafroll-associated virus 1, Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3 and Grapevine fleck
virus (López-Fabuel et al. 2013).
Control
Control strategies for GFLV depend on the presence or absence of the nematode
vector, X. index. Where GFLV is present but the vector is not, replanting with virus
free material will keep a vineyard healthy. However, when the nematode vector is
present, effective control strategies can be difficult to implement (Andret-Link et al.
2004). The main control strategies are eradication or reduction of the X. index
population by soil disinfection. However, nematicides are of limited efficacy (AndretLink et al. 2004; Martelli 2010).
Rootstocks used need to have resistance to both X. index and GFLV (Nicol et al.
1999). However, no useful sources of resistance against the virus have been
identified (Andret-Link et al. 2004).
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for GFLV in
association with imported table grapes imported from other Australian states and
territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the absence of risk management
measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment considers basic
standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes including
cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in standard
closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences are
described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
170
Draft Policy Review
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
The likelihood that GFLV will arrive in Western Australia with the importation of table
grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source and destination area
considered relevant to GFLV and includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin






Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). Grapevine fanleaf virus is present in New South Wales (DAFF 2013),
Victoria and South Australia (Habili et al. 2001). In Victoria, the Rutherglen
area is the only recorded site of X. index, and spread of GFLV has been
contained according to 20 years of sampling (Habili et al. 2001).
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
Grapevine fanleaf virus has been recovered from the endosperm of infected
seeds, but not the embryo (Cory & Hewitt 1968). However, only one GFLV
infected plant out of more than 70 plant-derived embryos occurred (Gambino
et al. 2009; Gambino et al. 2010).
The leaves of infected vines may become symptomatic and fewer grape
bunches may develop. Bunches may be smaller, straggly clusters, with large
seed berries, small seedless berries, and irregular ripening (Hewitt et al.
1962; Martelli 2010; Hoover et al. 2011).
Xiphinema index, vector of GFLV, is an ectoparasitic root-feeding nematode
and as such the potential for importation via a vector associated with the table
grape pathway is considered to be highly unlikely to occur.
The presence of GFLV on the table grape pathway at its origin is expected to
reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures


Symptomatic fruit (small clusters and irregular ripening) may be discarded
during packing house and quality control procedures; however, some infected
fruit and asymptomatic bunches may be imported into Western Australia.
Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is not expected that
standard on-arrival procedures would detect the presence of GFLV infected
bunches in a consignment of table grapes.
171
Draft Policy Review
The ability of GFLV to survive existing pest management procedures is not
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into Western
Australia with table grapes.
Ability to survive transport and storage



After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of sulphur dioxide
treatment against GFLV under standard transport and storage conditions for
table grapes.
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of low temperature
treatments against GFLV under standard transport and storage conditions for
table grapes.
The ability of GFLV to survive transport and storage procedures is not expected
to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into Western Australia
with table grapes.
Grapevine fanleaf virus is estimated as having a moderate probability of importation
in association with imported table grapes. That is, the importation of GFLV would
occur with an even probability under standard commercial production, harvesting
and packing house procedures for table grapes from regions where this pest occurs.
Due to the distribution of the virus in Australia and the low rate of seed transmission;
a higher probability of importation could not be justified.
Probability of distribution
The likelihood that GFLV will be distributed into Western Australia in a viable state to
a suitable host, as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of table grapes is
based on an assessment of factors in the destination area considered relevant to this
pest and includes:
Transport of table grapes within Western Australia



Imported fruit are intended for human consumption. Fruit will be distributed to
many localities by wholesale and retail trade and by individual consumers.
In 2013/14, 82% of Australian households purchased grapes at least once
(HAL 2014). This suggests that table grapes have the potential to be widely
distributed within Western Australia.
There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western
Australia.
The ability of GFLV to move with infected table grapes is not expected to be a
factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within Western Australia.
Risks from by-products and waste

The importation of table grapes for human consumption will result in the
generation of waste material including rachis and berries.
172
Draft Policy Review


Fruit waste may be disposed of in a number of ways including municipal
refuse sites, composting, mulching and discarding into urban, rural or natural
localities including roadsides.
Lea and Worsley (2008a) reported that 51% of Australian people surveyed
often composted food waste.
The ability of GFLV to be associated with table grape by-products and waste is
not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Ability to move from the pathway to a suitable host




Known hosts of GFLV (Vitis spp. and Cynodon dactylon) occur in Western
Australia in vineyards, backyards, as amenity plants and as naturalised
populations.
The vectors X. index and X. italiae are not associated with the table grape
pathway and are not known to occur in Western Australia. As such these
vectors would not offer a means for the virus to leave the pathway and
transfer to a suitable host.
Grapevine fanleaf virus has been recovered from the endosperm of seeds
from infected grapevines (Cory & Hewitt 1968). There are reports of
Grapevine fanleaf virus being transmitted via seed. Therefore, GFLV may be
distributed with infected seeded table grapes and fruit waste. Rachis with
associated berries or individual berries from seeded varieties may be
discarded in environments suitable for germination. In this situation resultant
seedlings would be in very close proximity to infected material, facilitating
transfer to the seedling (a suitable host).
Transfer of GFLV via a germinated seed would require successful
stratification and germination of a GFLV -infected grape seed, survival of that
seedling and transmission of the viroid to the seedling. The following points
have been considered in relation to the above scenario:
 It is likely that some but not all table grapes imported from other
Australian states and territories will contain seeds, while some
varieties will be seedless.
 Grape seed germination is very variable and is dependent on many
factors including parent, environment and the cultural conditions
required during both fruit set and seed handling (Owens 2008).
 The proportion of grapevine seed that germinates depends on the
cultivar, seed maturity, storage, stratification, planting conditions
(Doijode 2001) and pollen sources (Sabir 2011).
 Grape seed dormancy has been broken under various cold treatments
including 12 weeks at 5°C, 9 weeks at 0°C and 8 weeks at 5°C (Ellis
et al. 1983). Ellis et al. (1983) reported that hybrid crosses subjected
to 5°C for 12 weeks had a mean germination of 40% (range 8–62%).
Night-time temperatures below 6°C during winter may be sufficient for
stratification (Ellis et al. 1983; Doijode 2001).
 However, seedlings have been recorded in naturalised populations
(Western Australian Herbarium 1998) and are occasionally observed
growing in vineyards between rows (A Taylor 2012, pers. comm. 4
Sept.), suggesting environmental conditions suitable for the
germination and establishment of grape seedlings occur in Western
Australia. Ellis et al. (1983) reported hybrid grape seed viability of 60–
90%.
 Seedling survival in natural environments is influenced by many
factors such as environmental conditions, seed predation, herbivory of
173
Draft Policy Review

seedlings and plants, growth rate and competition for resources
(including light, nutrients and water). In managed environments,
especially where intentional germination of grape seed is attempted,
conditions may be more favourable resulting in a higher proportion of
seed germination and plant survival.
Seed transmission of GFLV has been reported, however data on this
area of research is limited (Gambino et al. 2010). Infected embryos
were detected in situ, however, only one GFLV infected plant out of
more than 70 plant-derived embryos occurred (Gambino et al. 2009;
Gambino et al. 2010). It was observed that infected embryos were
often abnormal and were not converted into plants (Gambino et al.
2010).
The ability of GFLV to move from infected table grapes to a suitable host is
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Grapevine fanleaf virus is estimated as having a very low probability of distribution in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the distribution of GFLV to the
endangered area and subsequent transfer to a suitable host would be very unlikely
to occur as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of imported table grapes. Due
to the limited ability of GFLV to be transferred to a suitable host and the variable
germination rates of grape seed; a higher probability of distribution could not be
justified.
Overall probability of entry (importation x distribution)
The overall probability of entry has been estimated by combining the individual
probabilities of importation and distribution using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
GFLV is estimated as having a very low probability of entry in association with
imported table grapes. That is, the probability that GFLV would enter Western
Australia, be distributed in a viable state to an endangered area and subsequently
transfer to a suitable host would be very unlikely to occur as a result of trade in
table grapes imported from regions where this pest occurs.
Probability of establishment
The likelihood that GFLV will establish within Western Australia is based on an
assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to this
pest and includes:
Availability of suitable hosts, alternative hosts and vectors in the PRA area



Vitis species are the main natural hosts of GFLV, however the virus has been
detected in Bermuda/ couch grass(Cynodon dactylon) and transmitted to an
extensive range of experimental hosts (Dias 1963; Brunt et al. 1996 onwards;
Izadpanah et al. 2003).
In Western Australia both table grape and wine grape varieties are grown. In
regions such as the Swan Valley and Margaret River wine and table grapes
are grown in close proximity to each other.
Vitis spp. are present in Western Australia in vineyards, backyards,
naturalised populations and as amenity plants. In Western Australia
174
Draft Policy Review

naturalised populations include seedlings (Western Australian Herbarium
1998). Domestic garden plantings, both maintained and abandoned, occur in
Perth and in most Western Australian towns and by many farmhouses.
A number of Vitis spp. are recorded as weeds in Australia (Randall 2007) and
could be potential wild hosts in Western Australia.
The availability of suitable hosts in Western Australia is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for GFLV to establish in Western Australia.
Suitability of the environment



Grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV) is widespread, being found across western
Asia, Middle East, Mediterranean, Europe, South Africa, New Zealand, North
and South America (Izadpanah et al. 2003; Andret-Link et al. 2004).
In Australia GFLV has been reported from New South Wales (DAFF 2013),
Victoria and South Australia (Habili et al. 2001). In Victoria, the Rutherglen
area is the only recorded site of X. index, and spread of GFLV has been
contained according to 20 years of sampling (Habili et al. 2001).
The presence of Vitis spp. and Cynodon dactylon (Bermuda/ couch grass) in
Western Australia (Western Australian Herbarium 1998) suggests that
environmental conditions in the endangered area are conducive to the
establishment of GFLV.
Current Australian distribution suggests that Western Australia’s climate is not
expected to be a factor limiting the potential for GFLV to establish within Western
Australia.
Cultural practices and control measures




The main means of control of GFLV is through the use of virus-free
propagation material (Andret-Link et al. 2004).
Cultural practices and existing control measures for other grapevine
pathogens within Western Australian commercial production vineyards are
unlikely limit the potential for establishment.
Cultural practices or pathogen control measures which could reduce the
capacity for GFLV to establish in Western Australia are unlikely to be applied
to naturalised host populations or unmanaged vineyards.
Cultural practices and pathogen control measures in backyard and amenity
Vitis species may be variable.
Cultural practices and control measures are not expected to be a factor limiting
the potential for GFLV to establish in Western Australia.
Reproductive strategies and survival



Following infection by GFLV, the virus particles replicate and are transferred
throughout the host plant resulting in a systemic infection (Brunt et al. 1996
onwards; Martelli et al. 2001; Andret-Link et al. 2004).
There are mixed reports regarding seed transmission of Grapevine fanleaf
virus. It is often reported (Martelli et al. 2001) that Lázár et al. (1990)
established that seed transmission of grapevine occurred with GFLV.
However, in a later report (Lázár 2003) cites seed transmission for Grapevine
chrome mosaic virus and Grapevine line pattern viruses, but did not mention
seed transmission for Grapevine fanleaf virus.
Rates of nepovirus transmissions through seed vary and may be as high as
100% but are usually lower (Mink 1993; Albrechtsen 2006). The capacity to
175
Draft Policy Review
be seed transmitted is known to vary among strains of other virus species,
and to vary between cultivars of the same plant species (Albrechtsen 2006);
this may also be true of GFLV and Vitis species. Some strains of GFLV are
probably seed transmitted in some grapevine cultivars (Biosecurity Australia
2011a).
The reproductive and survival strategy of GFLV is expected to be a factor limiting
this pest’s potential to establish within Western Australia.
Grapevine fanleaf virus has been estimated as having a moderate probability of
establishment within Western Australia. That is, the establishment of GFLV in an
endangered area would occur with an even probability as a result of infected table
grapes being imported into Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to a
suitable host. Due to the limited host range and lack of a vector; a higher probability
of establishment could not be justified.
Probability of spread
The likelihood that GFLV will spread within Western Australia is based on an
assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to this
pest and includes:
Suitability of the natural or managed environment for natural spread




Grapevine fanleaf virus is widespread, being found across western Asia,
Middle East, Mediterranean, Europe, South Africa, New Zealand, North and
South America (Izadpanah et al. 2003; Andret-Link et al. 2004). Therefore,
climatic conditions in parts of Western Australia would be suitable for spread
of the viroid.
Long distance spread to new areas following establishment in Western
Australia may occur through the movement of Vitis spp. fruit, nursery stock
and propagative material.
Grapevine fanleaf virus has been found within the pollen of grapevine, but
has not been established to be transmitted via pollen (Cory & Hewitt 1968).
Existing cultural methods are unlikely to reduce the likelihood of
establishment or spread.
The suitability of the natural or managed environment is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for GFLV to spread in Western Australia.
Presence of natural barriers


The major commercial grape production districts in Western Australia are
located in the south-west of the state between Perth and Albany and in the
Carnarvon region in the north-west.
Natural barriers between the major commercial grape production areas,
including climatic differentials and long distances may limit the natural
unfacilitated spread of the pathogen.
The presence of natural barriers is expected to be a factor limiting the potential
for GFLV to spread in Western Australia.
Potential for movement with commodities or conveyances
176
Draft Policy Review


Spread in Western Australia is currently reliant on the germination and
establishment of infected seed, mechanical transmission to a suitable host or
through nursery stock and propagative material, as the vector X. index is not
known to occur in Western Australia.
There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock) within Western Australia. This regulatory
situation in Western Australia is unlikely to limit the capacity for this pathogen
to spread following establishment.
The potential for movement with commodities or conveyances is not expected to
be a factor limiting the potential for GFLV to spread in Western Australia.
Potential vectors

Grapevine fanleaf virus is transmitted by a nematode vector, Xiphinema
index, which is not known to occur in Western Australia.
The potential for vectors is expected to be a factor limiting the potential for GFLV
to spread in Western Australia.
Potential natural enemies

There are no known natural enemies of GFLV.
The potential for natural enemies is not expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for GFLV to spread in Western Australia.
Grapevine fanleaf virus has been estimated as having a low probability of spread
within Western Australia. That is, spread of GFLV in an endangered area would be
unlikely to occur as a result of infected table grapes being imported into Western
Australia and distributed in a viable state to a suitable host. Due to the presence of
natural barriers and long distance spread being limited to infected propagation
material and infected fruit, a higher probability of spread could not be justified.
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
The overall probability of entry, establishment and spread has been estimated by
combining the individual probabilities using the matrix rules shown in Table A2. GFLV
has been assessed as having a very low probability of entry, establishment and
spread entry in association with imported table grapes. That is, the entry,
establishment and spread of GFLV would be very unlikely to occur should table
grapes be imported into Western Australia from regions where this pest occurs.
Economic consequences
ISPM 11 (2014) indicates that the assessment of economic consequences is made
using ‘a hypothetical situation where a pest is supposed to have been introduced
and to be fully expressing its potential economic consequences (per year) in the PRA
area’.
This is interpreted as an unabated incursion; however, it is acknowledged that
existing control regimes for similar species may impact on this expression. In light of
this interpretation, an evaluation of the consequence of entry, establishment or
spread of GFLV is considered in Table 16
177
Draft Policy Review
Table 16: Economic consequences of grapevine fanleaf virus
Criterion
Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health E - Significant at the regional level








Any other aspects of
the environment
Grapevine fanleaf virus causes disease in V. vinifera
and some hybrids and other cultivated Vitis spp.
(Andret-Link et al. 2004).
The virus reduces plant vigour and life span, as well
as reducing the yield, size and quality of fruit
(Andret-Link et al. 2004; Cretazzo et al. 2010).
Symptoms range from fanleaf to yellow mosaic, vein
banding, line pattern, chlorotic ring spots and mottle
(Andret-Link et al. 2004).
Grapevine fanleaf virus has reportedly reduced
yields by up to 80% (Habili et al. 2001).
Production losses due to GFLV reported from Chile
range from 5-10% but can reach up to 90% or more
(Fiore et al. 2011).
Other symptoms include abnormal branching,
proliferating shoots, and short internodes (Martelli
2010; Hoover et al. 2011).
Grapevine fanleaf virus also affects fruit set, with
small clusters and irregular ripening (Martelli 2010;
Hoover et al. 2011).
Grapevines may suffer decline, and the lifespan of
infected grapevines may be halved (Andret-Link et
al. 2004). Vein-banding symptoms have been
associated in some cultivars with co-infections of
GFLV and Grapevine yellow speckle viroid 1
(Szychowski et al. 1995; Little & Rezaian 2003).
Grapevine fanleaf virus may infect Cynodon dactylon
(Bermuda/ couch grass) (Izadpanah et al. 2003)
which is present in WA.
A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level


Grapevine fanleaf virus may infect Cynodon dactylon
(Bermuda/ couch grass) (Izadpanah et al. 2003)
which is present as a weed in WA.
There are no known direct consequences of this
pathogen on the natural environment.
Indirect consequences
178
Draft Policy Review
Table 16: Economic consequences of grapevine fanleaf virus
Criterion
Estimate
Eradication, control D - Significant at the district level
etc.
 Virus control measures in the field are limited and
eradication may not be possible unless an outbreak
is detected at an early stage.
 Extensive surveys may be required to determine the
extent of an outbreak. Infected vines may be
removed and replaced.
 Cultivation of virus-free plants and weed control
(Andret-Link et al. 2004; Martelli 2010) may reduce
the spread of the virus.
 In eastern Australia, the virus is being contained by
measures on other grape pests (Habili et al. 2001).
Possible by restrictions imposed on grapevine
movement due to phylloxera (Nicol et al. 1999).
 Local virus spread is difficult to attain when a
nematode vector is not present.
Domestic trade C - Minor significance at the district level



Grapevine fanleaf virus is present in NSW (DAFF
2013), Victoria and South Australia (Habili et al.
2001).
Spread would be limited due to the absence of the
nematode vector, X. index
Restrictions may apply to those states that are free
of the virus.
International trade C - Minor significance at the district level




This virus is found in most grape-growing countries
(Izadpanah et al. 2003; Andret-Link et al. 2004).
The presence of GFLV in Western Australia may limit
access to overseas markets that are free from this
virus. Grapevine fanleaf virus is a disease of
quarantine concern for Thailand (Australian
Department of Agriculture 2015ac)
The Western Australian industry has sent grape
propagative material to destinations such as
Indonesia, India and Portugal.
Future exports may be restricted should GFLV
establish in WA.
179
Draft Policy Review
Table 16: Economic consequences of grapevine fanleaf virus
Criterion
Estimate
Environment, A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level
including rural and
 There would not be additional use in pesticides to
regional economic
control GFLV as management is through use of
viability
viroid-free propagation material and cultural
practices.
 Additional control activities for GFLV are unlikely to
have any discernible impact on other aspects of the
environment including rural and regional economic
viability at the district level.
The expected economic consequences for the endangered area should GFLV enter,
establish and spread within Western Australia has been determined to be moderate
using the decision rules outlined in Table A5.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
A URE of very low was determined using the matrix rules outlined in Table A6 for
table grapes imported into Western Australia from regions where GFLV occurs.
Unrestricted risk estimate for grapevine fanleaf virus
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
Very low
Consequences
Moderate
Unrestricted risk
Very low
As the URE is equivalent to Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’, the basic standards of
practice for table grape production would provide an appropriate level of protection
for Western Australia.
180
Draft Policy Review
Grapevine yellow speckle viroid 1, 2
Scientific name (ICTV 2014)
Apscaviroid Grapevine yellow speckle viroid 1 [Pospiviroidae]
Apscaviroid Grapevine yellow speckle viroid 2 [Pospiviroidae]
Synonyms
Grapevine yellow speckle viroid 1:
Grapevine viroid-f (GVd-f) (Koltunow & Rezaian 1988b)
Grapevine viroid-1 (GVd-1) (Little & Rezaian 2003)
Grapevine yellow speckle viroid 2:
Grapevine viroid-1B (GVd-1B) (Koltunow & Rezaian 1989 )
Grapevine viroid-2 (GVd-2) (Little & Rezaian 2003)
Preferred common name
Grapevine yellow speckle disease
Alternative common names
Grapevine yellow speckle viroid 1, GYSVd-1, Grapevine yellow speckle viroid 2,
GYSVd-2
Common host plants
Grapevine yellow speckle viroid 1:
Vitis vinifera (Koltunow & Rezaian 1989 ), Vitis cinerea, Vitis coignetiae and Vitis
aestivalis (Gambino et al. 2014).
Grapevine yellow speckle viroid 2:
Vitis vinifera (Koltunow & Rezaian 1989 )
Plant part affected
All parts are affected; however symptoms may be expressed in leaves (Little &
Rezaian 2003).
Australian distribution
New South Wales (Wan Chow Wah & Symons 1997)
Victoria (Krake & Steele Scott 2002)
South Australia (Koltunow & Rezaian 1989 ; Wan Chow Wah & Symons 1999b)
Biology and pest status
Viroids are small pathogenic, non-protein coding RNA replicons which are fully
dependent on the host for biological functions such as replication, processing and
transport (Steger & Riesner 2003). Viroids are classified into one of two families
(Pospiviroidae or Avsunviroidae) according to how these functions are performed and
on their secondary structure (Steger & Riesner 2003). Members of the family
Pospiviroidae adopt a rod-like or quasi-rod-like structure in vitro, have a central
conserved region (CCR) and replicate within the host nucleus, whereas the members
of the family Avsunviroidae replicate in the host’s chloroplasts and have a quasi-rodlike or branched structure (Flores et al. 2011).
Five genera are recognised within the family Pospiviroidae and are distinguished
primarily on the sequences that form the CCR in their proposed rod-like secondary
structure (Flores et al. 2003c). Sequence data and biological properties, particularly
181
Draft Policy Review
host range, are used to differentiate viroid species. An arbitrary level of 90%
nucleotide identity has been used to separate viroid species versus variants of the
same species (Flores et al. 2003c).
Viroids often produce ‘variants’ which is not a formal term of classification but rather
a way to describe sequence variation which can occur due to errors in replication
(Flores et al. 2003a). These molecular variants can adapt themselves to new hosts
and life cycle-conditions.
Grapevine yellow speckle disease has been attributed to two closely related circular
RNA molecules named Grapevine yellow speckle viroids (GYSVd-1 and GYSVd-2)
(Koltunow et al. 1989). GYSVd has a central conserved region homologous with
Apple scar skin viroid (ASSVd), and both belong to the genus Apscaviroid (Koltunow
& Rezaian 1988a; Little & Rezaian 2003).
The viroids that belong to the family Pospiviroidae, to which the Grapevine yellow
speckle viroids (GYSVd-1 and GYSVd-2) belong, generally have the widest host
range (Singh et al. 2003b). However, Vitis spp. are the only reported hosts of GYSVd
with reports of GYSVd-1 and GYSVd-2 on V. vinifera, and GYSVd-1 on V. cinerea, V.
coignetiae and V. aestivalis from surveys in Italy (Singh et al. 2003b; Gambino et al.
2014). A third GYSVd species has been proposed, GYSVd-3, based on sequence
identity of less than 90% (87.77-88.59%) with of GYSVd-1 (Jiang et al. 2009a).
These isolates have also been reported in the literature as GYSVd-1 ‘type 3’ (Jiang
et al. 2009a; Salman et al. 2014). However, this viroid has yet to be formally
approved as a new species by the International Committee on Virus Taxonomy
(ICTV 2014).
The two Grapevine yellow speckle viroids (GYSVd-1 and GYSVd-2) considered here
are assessed together due to their related biology and taxonomy. They are predicted
to pose a similar risk and require similar mitigation measures.
Symptoms
Symptoms produced by viroid infection can be quite variable, ranging from
malformation of leaves, chlorotic or necrotic spots and leaf epinasty variable (Singh
et al. 2003b; Flores et al. 2011). In stems symptoms include, shortening of the
internodes, bark cracking and localised necrosis. Other viroids incite very mild
symptoms and can even be symptomless in some hosts (Singh et al. 2003b; Flores
et al. 2011).
Grapevine yellow speckle viroid may be present in all parts of grapevines; however,
expression of symptoms often occurs in the leaves (Little & Rezaian 2003).
Grapevine yellow speckle viroids 1 and 2 symptoms are expressed as yellow
blotches or vein banding and can occur early in the season until autumn (Krake et al.
1999a). Symptoms may vary according to cultivar, ranging from scattered speckles
on a few leaves to large areas on leaves turning chrome yellow on more than 20
leaves per vine (Shanmuganathan & Fletcher 1980). Foliar symptoms may be absent
in affected vines or restricted to a few yellowish spots or flecks (Little & Rezaian
2003).
Development of symptoms occurs during the summer months and sometimes as
early as October and as late as march if the vines are in active growth (Koltunow &
Rezaian 1988a; Little & Rezaian 2003). Variation in the intensity of GYSVd
symptoms may also be related to the grapevine cultivar, plant age and environmental
factors. The existence of sequence variants (both GYSVd-1 and GYSVd-2) may also
have a role in symptom variation
(Little & Rezaian 2003; Salman et al. 2014).
There are no published records of GYSVd affecting growth, yield or fruit set
(Shanmuganathan & Fletcher 1980) and the effect on photosynthesis and its
182
Draft Policy Review
consequences have not been investigated (Little & Rezaian 2003). It has been
observed that vines infected with multiple viroid/virus symptoms had a reduction in
bunch size and grape size compared to those just displaying grapevine yellow
symptoms (Krake & Steele Scott 2002). Co-infection of grapevines with GYSVd and
Grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV) can induce vein banding with symptoms of yellow
mottling or banding along primary veins (Little & Rezaian 2003).
Life cycle and infective stages
Once the host plant is infected, viroid particles are transported throughout the host
plant via the phloem, most likely facilitated by the RNA-binding phloem protein 2,
thus becoming a systemic infection (Flores & Owens 2010; Flores et al. 2011).
Viroids have been detected in virtually all plant tissues using various detection
methods (Singh et al. 2003b). Grapevine yellow speckle viroid may be present in all
parts of grapevines; however, symptoms are mostly seen on the leaves (Little &
Rezaian 2003).
Modes of transmission and spread
Viroids are mainly transmitted by mechanical means and vegetative propagation,
including grafting (Little & Rezaian 2003; Singh et al. 2003b; Flores et al. 2011).
Seed and/or pollen transmission has been reported for many species within the
family Pospiviroidae (Hammond & Owens 2006; Di Serio et al. 2014).
Grapevine yellows disease is graft transmissible; however, sap inoculations to
alternative hosts were not successful (Shanmuganathan & Fletcher 1980).
Mechanical spread of GYSVd has been reported (Krake et al. 1999a), although
Staub et al. (1995) was unable to transmit it via normal pruning procedures.
Wan Chow Wah and Symons (1997) reported GYSVd transmission via grape seed
after detecting GYSVd-1 and GYSVd-2, as well as other grapevine viroids, in an
Emperor red table grape seeding germinated in vitro. In further studies, Wan Chow
Wah and Symons (1997) detected GYSVd-1 in all 11 seedlings tested from seeds
germinated in vitro, Australian grapevine viroid (AGVd) in 9 and Hop stunt viroid
(HSVd) in 2 via dot-blot hybridisation. Using RT-PCR techniques, GYSVd-1 and
HSVd were detected in all 11 seedlings. Seedlings were tested at 7–9 months and
variants of GYSVd were also detected via RT-PCR (Wan Chow Wah & Symons
1999b).
Climatic requirements and range
Of the grapevine viroids, GYSVd-1 and HSVd occur worldwide, whereas GYSVd-2,
CEVd and AGVd are only found sporadically (Jiang et al. 2012; Gambino et al.
2014). Grapevine yellow speckle disease is wide spread in the irrigated areas of
Australia where most of the wine and drying grapes are grown (Koltunow & Rezaian
1988a). Grapevine yellow speckle viroid has been reported in Vitis vinifera in New
South Wales, Victoria and South Australia (Koltunow & Rezaian 1989 ; Wan Chow
Wah & Symons 1997; 1999b; Krake & Steele Scott 2002).
Grapevine yellow speckle viroid 1 and 2 has been reported to have a low infection
rate in cultivated grapevines in China, only being detected in 3 out of 89 grapevine
samples tested (Jiang et al. 2009b). Although an unusually high infection rate has
been reported for GYSVd-2 in Australia (Jiang et al. 2009b).
Replication and symptom development are usually favoured by plants grown at
relatively high temperature (30-33°C) and light intensity (Singh et al. 2003b; Flores &
Owens 2010; Flores et al. 2011). Thus, many detections of viroids are from crops
grown in glasshouses or in tropical or subtropical areas (Flores et al. 2011).
Diagnosis
Diagnosis of viroid diseases based on symptom expression in their natural hosts is
183
Draft Policy Review
often difficult (Hammond & Owens 2006). A recent publication reports on
development of a polyprobe for detection of GYSVd, HSVd and AGVd
simultaneously providing a reduction in cost, time and labour requirements for the
detection of these viroids (Zhang et al. 2012a).
Control
The main means of controlling the spread of viroids is through the use of viroid-free
propagation material and regular disinfection of pruning tools to reduce local spread
(Singh et al. 2003b; Flores et al. 2011; Di Serio et al. 2014). Household bleach (1-3%
NaCIO) is effective for disinfection of pruning tools(Singh et al. 2003b).
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for GYSVd in
association with imported table grapes imported from other Australian states and
territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the absence of risk management
measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment considers basic
standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes including
cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in standard
closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences are
described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
The likelihood that GYSVd will arrive in Western Australia with the importation of
table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source and destination area
considered relevant to GYSVd and includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin



Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). Grapevine yellow speckle viroid 1 and 2 are known to occur in New
South Wales, Victoria and South Australia (Koltunow & Rezaian 1989 ; Wan
Chow Wah & Symons 1997; 1999b; Krake & Steele Scott 2002).
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
This viroid may be present in all parts of grapevines, including bunches (stem
and berries); however, infection is asymptomatic. As such, grape bunches
harvested from infected vines would meet aesthetic standards and
phytosanitary conditions, and could harvested, packed and imported into
Western Australia.
184
Draft Policy Review


Grapevine yellow speckle viroids 1 and 2 can be transmitted via seed (Wan
Chow Wah & Symons 1997; 1999b) and therefore these viroids may be
imported into Western Australia with seeded table grape varieties.
No vector has been identified, as such the potential for importation via a
vector associated with the table grape pathway is considered to be highly
unlikely to occur.
The presence of GYSVd on the table grape pathway at its origin is not expected
to reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures





Viroids have been reported to be resistant to inactivation by heat and many
chemicals used to inactivate viruses (Duran-Vila & Semancik 2003; Little &
Rezaian 2003).
The main means of controlling the spread of viroids is through the use of
viroid-free propagation material and regular disinfection of pruning tools to
reduce local spread (Singh et al. 2003b; Flores et al. 2011; Di Serio et al.
2014).
The level of yellow speckle disease symptoms resulting from GYSVd infection
can vary greatly. Most infected vines show no symptoms or symptom
expression varies from season to season (Koltunow et al. 1989; Little &
Rezaian 2003).
Infected, symptomless grape bunches would go undetected during harvest
and inspection procedures.
Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is expected that
standard on-arrival procedures would not detect the presence of GYSVd in a
consignment of table grapes.
The ability of GYSVd to survive existing pest management procedures is not
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into Western
Australia with table grapes.
Ability to survive transport and storage


After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of sulphur dioxide
treatment against GYSVd under standard transport and storage conditions for
table grapes.
The ability of GYSVd to survive transport and storage procedures is not expected
to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into Western Australia
with table grapes.
Grapevine yellow speckle viroid is estimated as having a high probability of
importation in association with imported table grapes. That is, the importation of
GYSVd would be very likely to occur under standard commercial production,
harvesting and packing house procedures for table grapes from regions where this
pest occurs. Due to the asymptomatic nature of GYSVd in Vitis spp., the systemic
nature of infection and the known distribution of the viroid in Australia; a lower
probability of importation could not be justified.
185
Draft Policy Review
Probability of distribution
The likelihood that GYSVd will be distributed into Western Australia in a viable state
to a suitable host, as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of table grapes is
based on an assessment of factors in the destination area considered relevant to
GYSVd and includes:
Transport of table grapes within Western Australia



Imported fruit are intended for human consumption. Fruit will be distributed to
many localities by wholesale and retail trade and by individual consumers.
In 2013/14, 82% of Australian households purchased grapes at least once
(HAL 2014). This suggests that table grapes have the potential to be widely
distributed within Western Australia.
There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western
Australia.
The ability of GYSVd to move with infected table grapes is not expected to be a
factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within Western Australia.
Risks from by-products and waste



The importation of table grapes for human consumption will result in the
generation of waste material including rachis and berries.
Fruit waste may be disposed of in a number of ways including municipal
refuse sites, composting, mulching and discarding into urban, rural or natural
localities including roadsides.
Lea and Worsley (2008b) reported that 51% of Australian people surveyed
often composted food waste.
The ability of GYSVd to be associated with table grapes by-products and waste is
not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Ability to move from the pathway to a suitable host






Known hosts (Vitis spp.) of GYSVd occur in Western Australia in vineyards,
backyards, naturalised populations and as amenity plants.
Viroids are mainly transmitted by mechanical means, for example
contaminated pruning equipment and vegetative propagation (Little &
Rezaian 2003; Singh et al. 2003b; Flores et al. 2011).
No vector has been identified for GYSVd.
Grapevine yellow speckle viroid has been shown to be seed transmissible in
grapevines (Wan Chow Wah & Symons 1999b).
Therefore, GYSVd may be distributed with infected seeded table grapes and
fruit waste. Rachis with associated berries or individual berries from seeded
varieties may be discarded in environments suitable for germination. In this
situation resultant seedlings would be in very close proximity to infected
material, facilitating transfer to the seedling (a suitable host).
Transfer of GYSVd via a germinated seed would require successful
stratification and germination of a GYSVd-infected grape seed, survival of that
seedling and transmission of the viroid to the seedling. The following points
have been considered in relation to the above scenario:
186
Draft Policy Review







It is likely that some but not all table grapes imported from other
Australian states and territories will contain seeds, while some
varieties will be seedless.
Grape seed germination is very variable and is dependent on many
factors including parent, environment and the cultural conditions
required during both fruit set and seed handling (Owens 2008).
The proportion of grapevine seed that germinates depends on the
cultivar, seed maturity, storage, stratification, planting conditions
(Doijode 2001) and pollen sources (Sabir 2011).
Grape seed dormancy has been broken under various cold treatments
including 12 weeks at 5°C, 9 weeks at 0°C and 8 weeks at 5°C (Ellis
et al. 1983). Ellis et al. (1983) reported that hybrid crosses subjected
to 5°C for 12 weeks had a mean germination of 40% (range 8–62%).
Night-time temperatures below 6°C during winter may be sufficient for
stratification (Ellis et al. 1983; Doijode 2001).
However, seedlings have been recorded in naturalised populations
(Western Australian Herbarium 1998) and are occasionally observed
growing in vineyards between rows (A Taylor 2012, pers. comm. 4
Sept.), suggesting environmental conditions suitable for the
germination and establishment of grape seedlings occur in Western
Australia. Ellis et al. (1983) reported hybrid grape seed viability of 60–
90%.
Seedling survival in natural environments is influenced by many
factors such as environmental conditions, seed predation, herbivory of
seedlings and plants, growth rate and competition for resources
(including light, nutrients and water). In managed environments,
especially where intentional germination of grape seed is attempted,
conditions may be more favourable resulting in a higher proportion of
seed germination and plant survival.
There is very little information in the literature on the rate of
transmission of GYSVd in grapevines.
The ability of GYSVd to move from infected table grapes to a suitable host is
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Grapevine yellow speckle viroid is estimated as having a low probability of
distribution in association with imported table grapes. That is, the distribution of
GYSVd to the endangered area and subsequent transfer to a suitable host would be
unlikely to occur as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of imported table
grapes. Due to the limited ability of GYSVd to be transferred to a suitable host and
the variable germination rates of grape seed; a higher probability of distribution could
not be justified.
Overall probability of entry (importation x distribution)
The overall probability of entry has been estimated by combining the individual
probabilities of importation and distribution using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
GYSVd is estimated as having a low probability of entry in association with imported
table grapes. That is, the probability that GYSVd would enter Western Australia, be
distributed in a viable state to an endangered area and subsequently transfer to a
suitable host would be unlikely to occur as a result of trade in table grapes imported
from regions where this pest occurs.
187
Draft Policy Review
Probability of establishment
The likelihood that GYSVd will establish within Western Australia is based on an
assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to
GYSVd and includes:
Availability of suitable hosts, alternative hosts and vectors in the PRA area




Vitis species are currently the only known natural hosts for GYSVd-1 and
GYSVd-2 (Little & Rezaian 2003; Gambino et al. 2014).
In Western Australia both table grape and wine grape varieties are grown. In
regions such as the Swan Valley and Margaret River wine and table grapes
are grown in close proximity to each other.
Vitis spp. in Western Australia may be found in backyards, as amenity plants
and as naturalised populations (Western Australian Herbarium 1998).
Domestic garden plantings, both maintained and abandoned, occur in Perth
and in most Western Australian towns and by many farmhouses.
A number of Vitis spp. are recorded as weeds in Australia (Randall 2007) and
could be potential wild hosts in Western Australia.
The availability of suitable hosts in Western Australia is not expected to be a
factor limiting this pest’s potential to establish in Western Australia.
Suitability of the environment




Grapevine yellow speckle viroid 1 occurs worldwide, whereas GYSVd-2 is
only found sporadically (Jiang et al. 2012; Gambino et al. 2014).
Grapevine yellow speckle disease is wide spread in the irrigated areas of
Australia where most of the wine and drying grapes are grown (Koltunow &
Rezaian 1988a). Grapevine yellow speckle viroid
The presence of Vitis species in Western Australia (Western Australian
Herbarium 1998) suggest that environmental conditions in the endangered
area are conducive to the establishment of GYSVd.
Vitis seedlings have been recorded in naturalised populations (Western
Australian Herbarium 1998) and are occasionally observed growing in
vineyards between rows (A Taylor 2012, pers. comm. 4 Sept.), suggesting
environmental conditions suitable for the germination and establishment of
grape seedlings occur in Western Australia.
Current Australian distribution suggests that Western Australia’s climate is not
expected to be a factor limiting the potential for GYSVd to establish within
Western Australia.
Cultural practices and control measures



Cultural practices and existing control measures for other grapevine
pathogens within Western Australian commercial production vineyards are
unlikely limit the potential for establishment.
Cultural practices or pathogen control measures which could reduce the
capacity for GYSVd to establish in Western Australia are unlikely to be
applied to naturalised host populations or unmanaged vineyards.
Cultural practices and pathogen control measures in backyard and amenity
Vitis species may be variable.
Cultural practices and control measures are not expected to be a factor limiting
the potential for GYSVd to establish in Western Australia.
188
Draft Policy Review
Reproductive strategies and survival



Following infection viroid particles replicate and are transported throughout
the host plant via the phloem thus becoming a systemic infection (Flores &
Owens 2010; Flores et al. 2011).
Wan Chow Wah and Symons (1997) detected GYVd-1 and GYVd-2 in an
Emperor seedling and was reconfirmed in another Emperor seedling
providing evidence of transmission via grape seed (Wan Chow Wah &
Symons 1999b).
Viroids can remain infectious for long periods in dry tissue and as a
contaminant on dry surfaces. It has been reported to be resistant to
inactivation by heat and many chemical used to inactivate viruses (Duran-Vila
& Semancik 2003).
The reproductive and survival strategy of GYSVd is not expected to be a factor
limiting this pest’s potential to establish within Western Australia.
Grapevine yellow speckle viroid has been estimated as having a high probability of
establishment within Western Australia. That is, the establishment of GYSVd in an
endangered area would be very likely to occur as a result of infected table grapes
being imported into Western Australia. Due to the systemic nature of viroid infection,
suitable climatic conditions, and and presence of suitable hosts; a lower probability of
establishment could not be justified.
Probability of spread
The likelihood that GYSVd will spread within Western Australia is based on an
assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to
GYSVd and includes:
Suitability of the natural or managed environment for natural spread





Vitis species are currently the only known natural hosts for GYSVd-1 and
GYSVd-2 (Little & Rezaian 2003; Gambino et al. 2014).
Long distance spread to new areas following establishment in Western
Australia may occur through the movement of Vitis spp. fruit, nursery stock
and propagative material.
Grapevine yellow speckle viroid is transmitted by grafting and distributed in
infected propagating material (Shanmuganathan & Fletcher 1980; Martelli &
Boudon-Padieu E (eds.) 2006). Spread of GYSVd does not appear to be
caused by pruning of vines (Staub et al. 1995).
Spread is reliant on the germination and establishment of infected seeds,
mechanical transmission to a suitable host (Krake et al. 1999b) or through
nursery stock and propagative material, as there are no known vectors.
Existing cultural methods are unlikely to reduce the likelihood of
establishment or spread.
The suitability of the natural or managed environment is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for GYSVd to spread in Western Australia.
Presence of natural barriers

The major commercial grape production districts in Western Australia are
located in the south-west of the state between Perth and Albany and in the
Carnarvon region in the north-west.
189
Draft Policy Review

Natural barriers between the major commercial grape production areas,
including climatic differentials and long distances may limit the natural
unfacilitated spread of the pathogen.
The presence of natural barriers is expected to be a factor limiting the potential
for GYSVd to spread in Western Australia.
Potential for movement with commodities or conveyances




Viroids are mainly transmitted by mechanical means and vegetative
propagation, including grafting (Little & Rezaian 2003; Singh et al. 2003b;
Flores et al. 2011).
Seed and/or pollen transmission has been reported for many species within
the family Pospiviroidae (Hammond & Owens 2006; Di Serio et al. 2014).
As infection is sometimes asymptomatic in grapevine, it is possible that
infected material would remain undetected and possibly be moved.
There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock) within Western Australia. This regulatory
situation in Western Australia is unlikely to limit the capacity for this pathogen
to spread following establishment. Western Australian intrastate regulations
are unlikely to limit the capacity for this pathogen to spread following
establishment within other host species.
The potential for movement with commodities or conveyances is not expected to
be a factor limiting the potential for GYSVd to spread in Western Australia.
Potential natural enemies

There are no known natural enemies of GYSVd.
The potential for natural enemies is not expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for GYSVd to spread in Western Australia.
Potential vectors

No vector has been identified; however, slow natural unfacilitated spread has
been reported (Krake et al. 1999b; Martelli & Boudon-Padieu E (eds.) 2006).
The potential for vectors is expected to be a factor limiting the potential for
GYSVd to spread in Western Australia.
Grapevine yellow speckle viroid has been estimated as having a low probability of
spread within Western Australia. That is, spread of GYSVd in an endangered area
would be unlikely to occur as a result of infected table grapes being imported into
Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to a suitable host. Due to the
presence of natural barriers, limited host range and long distance spread being
limited to infected propagation material and infected fruit, a higher probability of
spread could not be justified.
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
The overall probability of entry, establishment and spread has been estimated by
combining the individual probabilities using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Grapevine yellow speckle viroid has been assessed as having a very low probability
of entry, establishment and spread entry in association with imported table grapes.
190
Draft Policy Review
That is, the entry, establishment and spread of GYSVd would be very unlikely to
occur should table grapes be imported into Western Australia from regions where this
pest occurs.
Economic consequences
ISPM 11 (2014) indicates that the assessment of economic consequences is made
using ‘a hypothetical situation where a pest is supposed to have been introduced
and to be fully expressing its potential economic consequences (per year) in the PRA
area’.
This is interpreted as an unabated incursion; however, it is acknowledged that
existing control regimes for similar species may impact on this expression. In light of
this interpretation, an evaluation of the consequence of entry, establishment or
spread of GYSVd is considered in Table 17.
Table 17: Economic consequences of grapevine yellow speckle viroid 1, 2
Criterion
Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health C - Minor significance at the district level





Any other aspects of
the environment
Grapevine yellow speckle viroids 1 and 2 cause
grapevine yellow speckle disease and may show
symptoms on grapevines depending on the cultivar,
climatic conditions (Little & Rezaian 2003).
There are no reports confirming that grapevine
yellow speckle disease has significant
consequences on grapes in Australia except
occasionally causing a significant loss in healthy leaf
area (Little & Rezaian 2003).
Many clones or cultivars are infected by grapevine
yellow speckle disease but still give an acceptable
yield and quality of fruit without signs of
degeneration (Krake et al. 1999a). Vein-banding
disease of grapevine is caused by the combination
of GYSVd-1 or GYSVd-2 and Grapevine fanleaf
virus infection (Szychowski et al. 1995).
Multiple infection of GYSVd-1 or GYSVd-2 with
Grapevine fanleaf virus caused a more severe veinbanding disease (Little & Rezaian 2003). Veinbanding disease has a detrimental effect on the yield
of certain varieties.
Grapevine fanleaf virus has not been detected in
Western Australia and is assessed separately in this
PRA.
A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level

There are no known direct consequences of these
viroids on the natural environment.
191
Draft Policy Review
Table 17: Economic consequences of grapevine yellow speckle viroid 1, 2
Criterion
Estimate
Indirect consequences
Eradication, control D - Significant at the district level
etc.
 If GYSVd was to become established, viroid
containment and eradication measures may be
employed. Infected plants may be removed and
destroyed from vineyards, and viroid-free indexed
material may need to be replanted.
Domestic trade A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level


Grapevine yellow speckle viroid has been reported
in Vitis vinifera in New South Wales, Victoria and
South Australia (Koltunow & Rezaian 1989 ; Wan
Chow Wah & Symons 1997; 1999b; Krake & Steele
Scott 2002).
It would be unlikely for trade restrictions to be
applied by other Australian states and territories
where this viroid is not known to occur as specific
restrictions are not in place for this viroid at the
present time.
International trade B - Minor significance at the local level


Grapevine yellow speckle viroid -1 occurs worldwide,
whereas GYSVd-2 is only found sporadically (Jiang
et al. 2012; Gambino et al. 2014).
The presence of GYSVd in Western Australia may
limit access to overseas markets that are free from
these viroids. This is more likely to affect export of
grape propagative material than fresh fruit. Thailand
has specific conditions for GYSVd (Australian
Department of Agriculture 2015ac).
Environment, A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level
including rural and
 There would be not additional use in pesticides to
regional economic
control GYSVd and management is through use of
viability
viroid-free propagation material and cultural
practices.
 Additional control activities for GYSVd are unlikely to
have any discernible impact on other aspects of the
environment including rural and regional economic
viability at the local level.
The expected economic consequences for the endangered area should GYSVd
enter, establish and spread within Western Australia has been determined to be low
using the decision rules outlined in Table A5.
192
Draft Policy Review
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
A URE of negligible was determined using the matrix rules outlined in Table A6 for
table grapes imported into Western Australia from regions where GYSVd occurs.
Unrestricted risk estimate for grapevine yellow speckle viroid 1, 2
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
Very low
Consequences
Low
Unrestricted risk
Negligible
As the URE is below Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’, the basic standards of practice
for table grape production would provide an appropriate level of protection for
Western Australia.
193
Draft Policy Review
Hop stunt viroid
Scientific name
Hostuviroid Hop stunt viroid (HSVd) [Pospiviroidae] (ICTV 2014)
Synonyms
Citrus B viroid (CBV) (Diener et al. 1988; la Rosa et al. 1989)
Citrus cachexia viroid (CCaVd) (Broadbent & Dephoff 1992)
Citrus gummy bark viroid (Mazhar et al. 2014)
Citrus viroid (CVd-IIa), IIb and IIc (Barbosa et al. 2005)
Cucumber pale fruit viroid (CPFVd) (Singh et al. 2003b)
TsnRNA-IIa (Vidalakis et al. 2010)
(N.B. These are not true synonyms but rather genetic variants of HSVd that are often
host-specific.)
Preferred common name
Hop stunt viroid
Alternate common names
Cedar-shaped hop (Sano 2003a)
Citrus cachexia (Kaponi et al. 2012)
Citrus gummy bark disease as caused by CVd-IIb (Sofy et al. 2012)
Cucumber pale fruit (Singh et al. 2003b)
Dapple fruit disease of plum and peach (Sano et al. 1989)
Dwarf hop (Sano 2003a)
Fruit degeneration of apricot (Amari et al. 2007)
Hop stunt disease (Shikata (1990) cited by Zhang et al. (2012b))
Xyloporosis (Ito et al. 2006b)
Common host plants
Amaranthus retroflexus (Matoušek et al. 2007)
Citrus spp. (Barbosa et al. 2005; Ito et al. 2006b)
Cucumis sativus (Mahaffee et al. 2009; Lemmetty et al. 2011)
Ficus carica (Yakoubi et al. 2007a)
Galinsoga ciliate (Matoušek et al. 2007)
Hibiscis rosa-sinensis (Luigi et al. 2013)
Humulus spp. (Sano 2003a; Gent et al. 2009)
Malus spp. (Cañizares et al. 1999)
Morus alba (Elbeaino et al. 2012)
Pisatacia vera (Elleuch et al. 2013)
Prunus armeniaca (Ito et al. 2006a)
Prunus avium (Kaponi et al. 2012)
Prunus domestica (Meziani et al. 2010)
Prunus dulcis (Cañizares et al. 1999; Zhang et al. 2009)
Prunus insititia (Kaponi et al. 2012)
Prunus persica (Yang et al. 2007; El-Dougdoug et al. 2010)
Prunus salicina (Kaponi & Kyriakopoulou 2013)
Punica granatum (Astruc et al. 1996)
Pyrus spp. (El-Dougdoug et al. 2010; Kaponi et al. 2012)
Solanum lycopersicum (Sano et al. 1989)
Vitis spp. (Sano et al. 1989; Wan Chow Wah & Symons 1999b)
Ziziphus jujube (Zhang et al. 2009)
194
Draft Policy Review
Plant part affected
Present in all parts of grapevines; however, infection is asymptomatic in grapevines
(Little & Rezaian 2003).
Australian distribution
New South Wales (Gillings et al. 1991)
Victoria (Koltunow et al. 1988)
South Australia (Koltunow et al. 1988; Rezaian et al. 1988)
Biology and pest status
Viroids are small pathogenic, non-protein coding RNA replicons which are fully
dependent on the host for biological functions such as replication, processing and
transport (Steger & Riesner 2003). Viroids are classified into one of two families
(Pospiviroidae or Avsunviroidae) according to how these functions are performed and
on their secondary structure (Steger & Riesner 2003). Members of the family
Pospiviroidae adopt a rod-like or quasi-rod-like structure in vitro, have a central
conserved region (CCR) and replicate within the host nucleus, whereas the members
of the family Avsunviroidae replicate in the host’s chloroplasts and have a quasi-rodlike or branched structure (Flores et al. 2011).
Five genera are recognised within the family Pospiviroidae and are distinguished
primarily on the sequences that form the CCR in their proposed rod-like secondary
structure (Flores et al. 2003c). Sequence data and biological properties, particularly
host range, are used to differentiate viroid species. An arbitrary level of 90%
nucleotide identity has been used to separate viroid species versus variants of the
same species (Flores et al. 2003c).
Viroids often produce ‘variants’ which is not a formal term of classification but rather
a way to describe sequence variation which can occur due to errors in replication
(Flores et al. 2003a). These molecular variants can adapt themselves to new hosts
and life cycle-conditions. A relatively large number of sequence variants and suitable
hosts have been reported for Hop stunt viroid (HSVd) (Duran-Vila & Semancik 2003).
Hop stunt viroid has the broadest documented host range of all the known viroids
(Cañizares et al. 1999). However, variants have been separated into three basic
groups, hop (includes many grapevine isolates), plum (includes many peach, apricot
and almond isolates) and citrus (Sano et al. 1989; Sano et al. 2001), with two
additional groups, the plum-citrus and plum-hop-citrus which possibly derived from
recombination events (Zhang et al. 2009).
Symptoms
Symptoms produced by viroid infection can be quite variable, ranging from
malformation of leaves, chlorotic or necrotic spots and leaf epinasty variable (Singh
et al. 2003b; Flores et al. 2011). In stems symptoms include, shortening of the
internodes, bark cracking and localised necrosis. Hop stunt viroid can incite very mild
symptoms and can even be symptomless in some hosts (Singh et al. 2003b; Flores
et al. 2011); including almond, apricot, grapevine (Astruc et al. 1996; Little & Rezaian
2003; Pallás et al. 2003), jujube (Zhang et al. 2009), cherry (Osman et al. 2012) and
pomegranate (Astruc et al. 1996). Some of the main economic crops infected with
HSVd are hop, stone fruit, citrus and grapevine.
In hop, HSVd causes hop stunt disease. Infected hops plants can have a stunted
appearance, with reduced height of plants, distorted and chlorotic leaves, fewer and
smaller cones (Koltunow et al. 1988; Sano 2003a; Pethybridge et al. 2008). Infected
hops plants can have a stunted appearance, with reduced height of plants, distorted
195
Draft Policy Review
and chlorotic leaves, fewer and smaller cones (Koltunow et al. 1988; Sano 2003a;
Pethybridge et al. 2008).
In stone fruit, HSVd is associated with dapple fruit disease. Symptoms are often
evident in plum and peach, but these are restricted to the fruit, and severity varies
depending on species and cultivars (Sano 2003b). Hop stunt viroid is usually
asymptomatic in apricot and almond (Cañizares et al. 1999; Pallás et al. 2003; ElDougdoug et al. 2010) however, fruit degeneration of apricot in Spain has been
associated with HSVd (Amari et al. 2007)
Citrus infected by some HSVd variants may also remain asymptomatic (KawaguchiIto et al. 2009). However, some variants of citrus HSVd are thought to be associated
with different diseases including; citrus cachexia, yellow corky vein disease of sweet
orange, split bark disorder of sweet lime, and gummy stem blight (Mazhar et al.
2014).
In grapevines HSVd produces no obvious disease symptoms (Sano 2003a;
Kawaguchi-Ito et al. 2009).
Life cycle and infective stages
Once the host plant is infected, viroid particles are transported throughout the host
plant via the phloem, most likely facilitated by the RNA-binding phloem protein 2,
thus becoming a systemic infection (Flores & Owens 2010; Flores et al. 2011).
Viroids have been detected in virtually all plant tissues using various detection
methods (Singh et al. 2003b). Hop stunt viroid may be present in all parts of
grapevines; however, infection is asymptomatic (Little & Rezaian 2003).
Hop stunt viroid is considered to be a genetically variable pathogen that has spread
amongst many crops worldwide. Replication is dependent on each’s hosts’
transcriptional ability, and pathogenicity depends on the variants interactions with the
hosts’ cellular components (Sano 2013).
Although grapevines remain asymptomatic, HSVd is able to replicate in grapevines,
and hence vines can be a viroid reservoir that may be a potential threat to other
crops (Zhang et al. 2012b). For example, HSVd infection of grapevines has been
reported to evolve to transmit and cause disease of hop crops in Japan, and there is
also data to indicate that HSVd of hops in the US and China may have also
originated from grapevines (Kawaguchi-Ito et al. 2009).
Modes of transmission and spread
Viroids are mainly transmitted by mechanical means and vegetative propagation,
including grafting (Little & Rezaian 2003; Singh et al. 2003b; Flores et al. 2011; Di
Serio et al. 2014). Seed and/or pollen transmission has been reported for many
species within the family Pospiviroidae (Hammond & Owens 2006; Di Serio et al.
2014).
It was been reported by Mink (1993) that HSVd (cucumber strain) in a tomato was
detected in its’ pollen and that this could then be used to fertilise flowers of a healthy
tomato plant, which then produced infected seed and subsequently an infected
tomato seedling.
Sequence analysis of HSVd isolates from apricots, peach, other stone fruits,
grapevine and hop suggested that closely related variants could be isolated from
different cultivars of the same host and different hosts from different regions of China.
They conclude that this strongly supports the transmission of HSVd between different
hosts (Zhang et al. 2012b). Kawaguchi-Ito et al. (2009) determined that grapevine is
a ‘symptomless reservoir’ of HSVd in which this viroid can evolve and be transmitted
to hop crops to cause epidemics. Their research also indicates that in Japan,
196
Draft Policy Review
transmission from grapevines to hops is ongoing. That is hops are being continuously
infected from grapevines and other hops.
In summary, sequence variability allowing for cross-cultivar and cross-host infections
during pruning, in addition with evidence for seed-borne distribution within some
hosts, including grapevines, are two factors which would allow for the long distance
dispersal and spread of HSVd.
Wan Chow Wah and Symons (1999b) demonstrated that HSVd is seedborne in
grape seed. They detected HSVd in the eight Vitis vinifera varieties they tested,
showing that this pathogen is seed transmissible in grapevines, and also determined
a differential transmission in HSVd via seeds (Wan Chow Wah & Symons 1999b).
There is no known vector for HSVd and this pathogen is primarily spread over long
distance by infected budwood, cuttings or seeds (Wan Chow Wah & Symons 1999a;
Sano 2003b; Papayiannis 2014). Symptomless hosts may provide a reservoir for
infection of crops grown in close proximity (Flores & Owens 2010).
Climatic requirements and range
Hop stunt viroid occurs in grapevines in South Australia and Victoria (Koltunow et al.
1988; Rezaian et al. 1988) and has been recorded from Citrus spp. in New South
Wales (Gillings et al. 1991). Hop stunt viroid has not been reported in hops in
Australia (Pethybridge et al. 2008), but occurs in hops grown in China, Japan, Korea
and the US (Pethybridge et al. 2008; Kawaguchi-Ito et al. 2009; Sano 2013) and
possibly in Czech Republic (Matoušek et al. 2013).
World-wide HSVd variants have been detected in multiple hosts, which do not require
the same specific climatic requirements required by hops (i.e. around latitudes of 35º
in both hemispheres) (Pethybridge et al. 2008).
Viroid replication and symptom development are usually favoured by plants grown at
relatively high temperature (30-33ºC) and light intensity (Flores & Owens 2010;
Flores et al. 2011). Thus, many crops affected by viroids are grown in glasshouses or
in tropical or subtropical areas (Flores et al. 2011).
Diagnosis
Diagnosis of viroid diseases based on symptom expression in their natural hosts is
often difficult (Hammond & Owens 2006). Initially assays for HSVd used indicator
plants (bioassays) and dot-blot hybridisation techniques (Papayiannis 2014), but now
RNA-based molecular methods are used allowing for symptomless hosts to be
identified (Duran-Vila & Semancik 2003; Papayiannis 2014).
Traditionally HSVd detection has relied on biological , but this was unsuitable for
detection of viroids prior to symptom expression (Wan Chow Wah & Symons 1997).
Instead dot-blot hybridisation techniques became more widely used to detect HSVd.
Koltunow et al. (1988) determined that northern blot analysis was more effective for
the detection of HSVd in grapevines than traditional dot-blot analysis. More recently,
it has become apparent that dot-blot hybridisation techniques are not adequate for
detecting viroid in low titre in many hosts. Sensitivity in detection is improved by the
use of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) techniques. This is
because they exponentially amplify the viroid components within the tissue extracts
that are tested (Wan Chow Wah & Symons 1997).
RT-PCR application to grapevines has limitations due to the high levels of phenolic
compounds, polysaccharides and other complex substances in the tissue extracts.
These can inhibit PCR and result in false negative tests (Wan Chow Wah & Symons
1997). Wan Chow Wah and Symons (1997) detected HSVd in 2 of 11 tested
seedlings via dot-blot hybridisation and the standard RT-PCR technique as used by
Wan Chow Wah and Symons (1997). However, use of a modified RT-PCR technique
using a ‘hot start’ resulted in the detection of HSVd in all 11 seedlings.
197
Draft Policy Review
A rapid detection polyprobe for four viroids of grapevine, including HSVd, has
recently been developed for use on grapevine leaves in China (Zhang et al. 2012a).
This probe was tested using fresh grapevine leaf tissue and reported as having
potential applications in in quarantine and certification programs.
The most recent publication reports a real-time RT-PCR test for HSVd and CEVd
with high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in multiple hosts, including grapevine
(Papayiannis 2014). This method has been reported to have a 100% diagnostic
sensitivity (DSe) and diagnostic specificity (DSp).
Control
The main means of controlling the spread of viroids is through the use of viroid-free
propagation material and regular disinfection of pruning tools to reduce local spread
(Singh et al. 2003b; Flores et al. 2011; Di Serio et al. 2014). Household bleach (1-3%
NaCIO) is effective for disinfection of pruning tools (Singh et al. 2003b).
Historically researchers believed that viroids could be eliminated from infected
grapevines by shoot apical meristem culture (SAMC). Wan Chow Wah and Symons
(1997) developed a RT-PCR polyprobe (multiple viroid) detection method that
increased the reliability of viroid detection in grapevines, and this showed that some
viroids were not eliminated but rather only reduced to non-detectable levels using
dot-blot hybridisation. They referred to the process of reduced titre after SAMC as
‘differential reduction of viroids’. In their study HSVd was detected in 11 samples both
by dot-blot and the RT-PCR methods.
Hop stunt viroid rarely occurs in Citrus spp. in Australia due to the breeding program
managed by AusCitrus (Australian Propagation Association Inc.). Stock is tested
every three years in NSW within the breeding program and infection was very rarely
seen after the root stock was changed. Cachexia is rarely found in Australian citrus
clones (Broadbent & Dephoff 1992). Hop stunt viroid can also be latent in some
varieties and is bud, root grafting and mechanically transmitted in citrus (Barkley
2004).
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for HSVd in
association with imported table grapes imported from other Australian states and
territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the absence of risk management
measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment considers basic
standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes including
cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in standard
closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences are
described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
198
Draft Policy Review
The likelihood that HSVd will arrive in Western Australia with the importation of table
grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source and destination area
considered relevant to HSVd and includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin





Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). Hop stunt viroid has been isolated from grapevines in South Australia
(Koltunow et al. 1988; Rezaian et al. 1988) and Victoria (Koltunow et al.
1988), although its prevalence in vineyards in these states is not documented.
Work on hops in the US (Eastwell & Nelson 2007) and Prunus species
germplasm in the US (Osman et al. 2012) indicate that HSVd is widespread in
those states in which it occurs.
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
This viroid may be present in all parts of grapevines, including bunches;
however, infection is asymptomatic. As such, grape bunches harvested from
infected plants would meet aesthetic export standards and phytosanitary
conditions, and could be harvested, packed and exported into Western
Australia.
Hop stunt viroid can be transmitted via seed (Wan Chow Wah & Symons
1997; 1999b) and therefore these viroids may be imported into Western
Australia with seeded table grape varieties.
No vector has been identified, as such the potential for importation via a
vector associated with the fresh table grape pathway is considered to be
highly unlikely to occur.
The presence of HSVd on the table grape pathway at its origin is not expected to
reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures



Hop stunt viroid has been reported to resist inactivation by heat treatments in
hops (Matousek et al. 1995 cited by Singh et al. (2003a).
The main means of controlling the spread of viroids is through the use of
viroid-free propagation material and regular disinfection of pruning tools to
reduce local spread (Singh et al. 2003b; Flores et al. 2011; Di Serio et al.
2014).
Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is expected that
standard on-arrival procedures would not detect the presence of HSVd in a
consignment of table grapes.
The ability of HSVd to survive existing pest management procedures is not
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into Western
Australia with table grapes.
Ability to survive transport and storage
199
Draft Policy Review





After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of sulphur dioxide
treatment against HSVd under standard transport and storage conditions for
table grapes.
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of low temperature
treatments against HSVd under standard transport and storage conditions for
table grapes.
In hop plant leaves and cones, HSVd was found to survive for at least six
months when kept refrigerated at 4ºC (Yaguchi & Takahashi 1984). This
suggests that the cooling of grape bunches during transport and storage is
unlikely to affect the viability of the viroid.
Other routine post-harvest procedures such as palletisation, containerisation,
and transportation to Western Australia are not expected to impact on the
survivability of HSVd stages protected within harvested grape bunches.
The ability of HSVd to survive transport and storage procedures is not expected
to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into Western Australia
with table grapes.
Hop stunt viroid is estimated as having a high probability of importation in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the importation of HSVd would be
very likely to occur under standard commercial production, harvesting and packing
house procedures for table grapes from regions where this pest occurs. Due to the
asymptomatic nature of HSVd in Vitis spp., the systemic nature of infection and the
known distribution of the viroid in Australia; a lower probability of importation could
not be justified.
Probability of distribution
The likelihood that HSVd will be distributed into Western Australia in a viable state to
a suitable host, as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of table grapes is
based on an assessment of factors in the destination area considered relevant to this
pest and includes:
Transport of table grapes within Western Australia



Imported fruit are intended for human consumption. Fruit will be distributed to
many localities by wholesale and retail trade and by individual consumers.
In 2013/14, 82% of Australian households purchased grapes at least once
(HAL 2014). This suggests that table grapes have the potential to be widely
distributed within Western Australia.
There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western
Australia.
The ability of HSVd to move with infected table grapes is not expected to be a
factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within Western Australia.
Risks from by-products and waste

The importation of table grapes for human consumption will result in the
generation of waste material including rachis and berries.
200
Draft Policy Review



Fruit waste may be disposed of in a number of ways including municipal
refuse sites, composting, mulching and discarding into urban, rural or natural
localities including roadsides.
Lea and Worsley (2008a) reported that 51% of Australian people surveyed
often composted food waste.
Hop stunt viroid has been shown to be seed transmissible in grapevines (Wan
Chow Wah & Symons 1999b).
The ability of HSVd to be associated with table grape by-products and waste is
not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Ability to move from the pathway to a suitable host





Known hosts of HSVd occur in Western Australia in vineyards, orchards,
backyards, and naturalised populations as amenity plants.
Viroids are mainly transmitted by mechanical means, for example
contaminated pruning equipment and vegetative propagation (Little &
Rezaian 2003; Singh et al. 2003b; Flores et al. 2011).
No natural vectors have been identified for HSVd (EFSA Panel on Plant
Health 2008).
Hop stunt viroid has been shown to be seed transmissible in grapevines (Wan
Chow Wah & Symons 1999b). Therefore, HSVd may be distributed with
infected seeded table grapes and fruit waste. Rachis with associated berries
or individual berries from seeded varieties may be discarded in environments
suitable for germination. In this situation resultant seedlings would be in very
close proximity to infected material, facilitating transfer to the seedling (a
suitable host).
Transfer of HSVd via a germinated seed would require successful
stratification and germination of HSVd-infected grape seed, survival of that
seedling and transmission of the viroid to the seedling. The following points
have been considered in relation to the above scenario:
 It is likely that some but not all table grapes imported from other
Australian states and territories will contain seeds, while some
varieties will be seedless.
 Grape seed germination is very variable and is dependent on many
factors including parent, environment and the cultural conditions
required during both fruit set and seed handling (Owens 2008).
 The proportion of grapevine seed that germinates depends on the
cultivar, seed maturity, storage, stratification, planting conditions
(Doijode 2001) and pollen sources (Sabir 2011).
 Grape seed dormancy has been broken under various cold treatments
including 12 weeks at 5°C, 9 weeks at 0°C and 8 weeks at 5°C (Ellis
et al. 1983). Ellis et al. (1983) reported that hybrid crosses subjected
to 5°C for 12 weeks had a mean germination of 40% (range 8–62%).
Night-time temperatures below 6°C during winter may be sufficient for
stratification (Ellis et al. 1983; Doijode 2001).
 However, seedlings have been recorded in naturalised populations
(Western Australian Herbarium 1998) and are occasionally observed
growing in vineyards between rows (A Taylor 2012, pers. comm. 4
Sept.), suggesting environmental conditions suitable for the
germination and establishment of grape seedlings occur in Western
Australia. Ellis et al. (1983) reported hybrid grape seed viability of 60–
90%.
201
Draft Policy Review


Seedling survival in natural environments is influenced by many
factors such as environmental conditions, seed predation, herbivory of
seedlings and plants, growth rate and competition for resources
(including light, nutrients and water). In managed environments,
especially where intentional germination of grape seed is attempted,
conditions may be more favourable resulting in a higher proportion of
seed germination and plant survival.
There is very little information in the literature on the rate of
transmission of HSVd in grapevines.
The ability of HSVd to move from infected table grapes to a suitable host is
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Hop stunt viroid is estimated as having a low probability of distribution in association
with imported table grapes. That is, the distribution of HSVd to the endangered area
and subsequent transfer to a suitable host would be unlikely to occur as a result of
the processing, sale or disposal of imported table grapes. Due to the limited ability of
HSVd to be transferred to a suitable host and the variable germination rates of grape
seed; a higher probability of distribution could not be justified.
Overall probability of entry (importation x distribution)
The overall probability of entry has been estimated by combining the individual
probabilities of importation and distribution using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Hop stunt viroid is estimated as having a low probability of entry in association with
imported table grapes. That is, the probability that HSVd would enter Western
Australia, be distributed in a viable state to an endangered area and subsequently
transfer to a suitable host would be unlikely to occur as a result of trade in table
grapes imported from regions where this pest occurs.
Probability of establishment
The likelihood that HSVd will establish within Western Australia is based on an
assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to this
pest and includes:
Availability of suitable hosts, alternative hosts and vectors in the PRA area


Hop stunt viroid has the broadest documented host range of all the known
viroids (Cañizares et al. 1999) and many of these hosts are grown in Western
Australia.
Hop stunt viroid has been reported in grapevines in South Australia and
Victoria (Koltunow et al. 1988; Rezaian et al. 1988) and has been recorded
from Citrus spp. in New South Wales (Gillings et al. 1991).
In Western Australia both table grape and wine grape varieties are grown. In
regions such as the Swan Valley and Margaret River wine and table grapes are
grown in close proximity to each other.

Vitis spp. in Western Australia may be found in backyards, as amenity plants
and as naturalised populations (Western Australian Herbarium 1998).
202
Draft Policy Review

Domestic garden plantings, both maintained and abandoned, occur in Perth
and in most Western Australian towns and by many farmhouses.
A number of Vitis spp. are recorded as weeds in Australia (Randall 2007) and
could be potential wild hosts in Western Australia.
The availability of suitable hosts in Western Australia is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for HSVd to establish in Western Australia.
Suitability of the environment




Hop stunt viroid has a wide geographic distribution, and is known to occur in
parts of Europe, China, Japan, Korea and the US, and in Australia in Victoria
and South Australia. Worldwide HSVd variants have been detected in multiple
hosts, which do not require the same specific climatic requirements required
by hops (i.e. around latitudes of 35º in both hemispheres) (Pethybridge et al.
2008).
Hop stunt viroid occurs in grapevines in South Australia and Victoria
(Koltunow et al. 1988; Rezaian et al. 1988) and has been recorded from
Citrus spp. in New South Wales (Gillings et al. 1991).Therefore, climatic
conditions in parts of Western Australia would be suitable for establishment of
the viroid.
The presence of Vitis and Citrus species in Western Australia (Western
Australian Herbarium 1998) suggests that environmental conditions in the
endangered area are conducive to the establishment of HSVd.
Seedlings have been recorded in naturalised populations (Western Australian
Herbarium 1998) and are occasionally observed growing in vineyards
between rows (A Taylor 2012, pers. comm. 4 Sept.), suggesting
environmental conditions suitable for the germination and establishment of
grape seedlings occur in Western Australia.
Current Australian distribution suggests that Western Australia’s climate is not
expected to be a factor limiting the potential for HSVd to establish within Western
Australia.
Cultural practices and control measures



Cultural practices and existing control measures for other grapevine
pathogens within Western Australian commercial production vineyards are
unlikely to limit the potential for establishment.
Cultural practices or pathogen control measures which could reduce the
capacity for HSVd to establish in Western Australia are unlikely to be applied
to naturalised host populations or unmanaged vineyards.
Cultural practices and pathogen control measures in backyard and amenity
Vitis species may be variable.
Cultural practices and control measures are not expected to be a factor limiting
the potential for HSVd to establish in Western Australia.
Reproductive strategies and survival


Following infection viroid particles replicate and are transported throughout
the host plant via the phloem thus becoming a systemic infection (Flores &
Owens 2010; Flores et al. 2011).
There is some evidence for mechanical transmission of variants between
hosts of the same cultivar and for mutant variants to infect alternate cultivars
or species (Amari et al. 2007; Zhang et al. 2012b).
203
Draft Policy Review


In South Australia, Wan Chow Wah and Symons (1999b) detected HSVd from
seedlings of 8 different varieties of Vitis vinifera grown from seeds of HSVd
infected plants, providing evidence of transmission via grape seed.
Viroids can remain infectious for long periods in dry tissue and as a
contaminant on dry surfaces. It has been reported to be resistant to
inactivation by heat and many chemical used to inactivate viruses (Duran-Vila
& Semancik 2003).
The reproductive and survival strategy of HSVd is not expected to be a factor
limiting this pest’s potential to establish within Western Australia.
Hop stunt viroid has been estimated as having a high probability of establishment
within Western Australia. That is, the establishment of HSVd in an endangered area
would be very likely to occur as a result of infected table grapes being imported into
Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to a suitable host. Due to the
systemic nature of viroid infection, suitable climatic conditions, and wide host range;
a lower probability of establishment could not be justified.
Probability of spread
The likelihood that HSVd will spread within Western Australia is based on an
assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to this
pest and includes:
Suitability of the natural or managed environment for natural spread







The wide host range of HSVd may facilitate spread, providing alternative
hosts (other than Vitis spp.) and a larger distribution of suitable hosts
throughout Western Australia.
The world-wide distribution of HSVd in grapevines (Little & Rezaian 2003),
suggests that the Western Australian environment would be suitable for the
spread of HSVd.
Long distance spread to new areas following establishment in Western
Australia may occur through the movement of Vitis spp. fruit, nursery stock,
propagative material and contaminated pruning equipment.
Spread is reliant on the germination and establishment of infected seeds,
mechanical transmission to a suitable host (Gent et al. 2009) or through
nursery stock and propagative material, as there are no known vectors.
Pollen transmission has been demonstrated in some hosts for some variants
of HSVd, and as the disease is seedborne in grapes, this may also provide a
mode for which the viroid may spread (Mink 1993; Wan Chow Wah & Symons
1999b).
Contaminated pruning equipment may provide an avenue for transfer of the
viroid to non Vitis hosts present in Western Australia (Sano 2003a; Barbosa et
al. 2005; Kawaguchi-Ito et al. 2009; Zhang et al. 2012b).
Existing cultural methods are unlikely to reduce the likelihood of
establishment or spread.
The suitability of the natural or managed environment is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for HSVd to spread in Western Australia.
Presence of natural barriers
204
Draft Policy Review



The major commercial grape production districts in Western Australia are
located in the south-west of the state between Perth and Albany and in the
Carnarvon region in the north-west.
Natural barriers between the major commercial grape production areas,
including climatic differentials and long distances may limit the natural
unfacilitated spread of the pathogen.
The wide host range of HSVd may overcome natural barriers existing
between grape growing regions in Western Australia by providing other
suitable hosts where grapes are not commercially grown.
The presence of natural barriers is not expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for HSVd to spread in Western Australia.
Potential for movement with commodities or conveyances




Viroids are mainly transmitted by mechanical means and vegetative
propagation, including grafting (Kawaguchi-Ito et al. 2009).
Seed and/or pollen transmission has been reported for many species within
the family Pospiviroidae, including HSVd (Mink 1993; Hammond & Owens
2006; Di Serio et al. 2014).
As infection is asymptomatic in grapevine, it is more likely that infected
material would remain undetected and possibly be moved.
There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock) within Western Australia. This regulatory
situation in Western Australia is unlikely to limit the capacity for this pathogen
to spread following establishment. Western Australian intrastate regulations
are unlikely to limit the capacity for this pathogen to spread following
establishment within other host species.
The potential for movement with commodities or conveyances is not expected to
be a factor limiting the potential for HSVd to spread in Western Australia.
Potential natural enemies

There are no known natural enemies of HSVd.
The potential for natural enemies is not expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for HSVd to spread in Western Australia.
Potential vectors

No natural vectors have been identified for HSVd (EFSA Panel on Plant
Health 2008).
The potential for vectors is expected to be a factor limiting the potential for HSVd
to spread in Western Australia.
Hop stunt viroid has been estimated as having a moderate probability of spread
within Western Australia. That is, spread of HSVd in an endangered area would
occur with an even probability as a result of infected table grapes being imported
into Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to a suitable host. Due to the
presence of natural barriers and long distance spread being limited to infected
propagation material and infected fruit; a higher probability of spread could not be
justified.
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
205
Draft Policy Review
The overall probability of entry, establishment and spread has been estimated by
combining the individual probabilities using the matrix rules shown in Table A2. Hop
stunt viroid has been assessed as having a low probability of entry, establishment
and spread in association with imported table grapes. That is, the entry,
establishment and spread of HSVd would be unlikely to occur should table grapes
be imported into Western Australia from regions where this pest occurs.
Economic consequences
ISPM 11 (2014) indicates that the assessment of economic consequences is made
using ‘a hypothetical situation where a pest is supposed to have been introduced
and to be fully expressing its potential economic consequences (per year) in the PRA
area’.
This is interpreted as an unabated incursion; however, it is acknowledged that
existing control regimes for similar species may impact on this expression. In light of
this interpretation, an evaluation of the consequence of entry, establishment or
spread of GYSVd is considered in Table 18.
Table 18: Economic consequences of hop stunt viroid
Criterion
Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health
C - Minor significance at the district level






Hop stunt viroid does not cause any symptoms in
grapevine.
It can cause citrus cachexia showing symptoms of
discolouration, gumming and browning of the
phloem tissue, wood pitting, cracking bark, stunting
and eventual death is susceptible citrus species (Ito
et al. 2006b; Zhang et al. 2009).
It can cause stunting and death in hops, and also
losses in cone yields of up to 50% or more (Singh et
al. 2003b). However, at present there is no
commercial hop industry established in Western
Australia (Koltunow et al. 1988).
It can cause dapple fruit disease in plum and peach
(Sano 2003b) and although previously being
reported as latent in apricots can produce
“degeneration” in fruit leaving them unmarketable
(Amari et al. 2007).
Hop stunt viroid -c causes the third most
economically important viroid disease in the
Netherlands, due to infection causing reduction in
cucumber fruit size and quality (Singh et al. 2003b).
Given that many host crops are grown commercially,
there could potentially be agronomic impacts as a
result of HSVd establishing and spreading in
Western Australian grapevines, particularly if crosshost infection were to occur.
206
Draft Policy Review
Table 18: Economic consequences of hop stunt viroid
Criterion
Estimate
Any other aspects of
the environment
A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level

There are no known direct consequences of this
pathogen on the natural environment where it is
known to infect grapevines in Victoria and South
Australia (Koltunow et al. 1988).
Indirect consequences
Eradication, control
etc.
D - Significant at the district level


Domestic trade
A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level


International trade
If HSVd was to become established in WA, viroid
containment and eradication control measures may
be employed. The presence of HSVd in grapevine in
the eastern states has not resulted in the need for
eradication or control measures. If it were to ‘jump a
species’ then eradication and control measures
could be necessary.
Infected plants may be destroyed and viroid-free
material may need to be re-planted.
Hop stunt viroid occurs in grapevines in South
Australia and Victoria (Koltunow et al. 1988; Rezaian
et al. 1988) and has been recorded from Citrus spp.
in New South Wales (Gillings et al. 1991).
It would be unlikely for trade restrictions to be
applied by other Australian states and territories
where this viroid is not known to occur as specific
restrictions for this pathogen are not in place at the
present time.
C - Minor significance at the district level




Hop stunt viroid has been detected in most countries
(Pethybridge et al. 2008; Kawaguchi-Ito et al. 2009;
Sano 2013).
The presence of HSVd in commercial grape
production areas may limit access to overseas
markets that are free from this viroid. This is more
likely to affect export of grape propagative material
than fresh fruit.
The Western Australian industry has sent grape
propagative material to destinations such as
Indonesia, India and Portugal.
Hop stunt viroid has the broadest documented host
range of all the known viroids (Cañizares et al.
1999). Future exports may be restricted should
HSVd establish in WA, and particularly if it were to
‘jump species’.
207
Draft Policy Review
Table 18: Economic consequences of hop stunt viroid
Criterion
Estimate
Environment,
including rural and
regional economic
viability
A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level


Eradication and control of HSVd is through cultural
practices and not use of pesticides.
Additional control activities for HSVd are unlikely to
have any discernible impact on other aspects of the
environment including rural and regional economic
viability at the local level.
The expected economic consequences for the endangered area should HSVd enter,
establish and spread within Western Australia has been determined to be low using
the decision rules outlined in Table A5.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
A URE of very low was determined using the matrix rules outlined in Table A6 for
table grapes imported into Western Australia from regions where HSVd occurs.
Unrestricted risk estimate for hop stunt viroid
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
Low
Consequences
Low
Unrestricted risk
Very low
As the URE is equivalent to Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’, the basic standards of
practice for table grape production would provide an appropriate level of protection
for Western Australia.
208
Draft Policy Review
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola
Scientific names (Robert et al. 2005)
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana (Bres. & Torrend) Bissett 1983 [Xylariales:
Amphisphaericeae]
Pestalotiopsis uvicola (Speg.) Bissett 1983 [Xylariales: Amphisphaericeae]
Synonyms (Robert et al. 2005)
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana:
Pestalotia menezesiana Bres. & Torrend 1909
Pestalotiopsis uvicola:
Pestalotia uvicola Speg. 1878
Preferred common name
None known
Common host plants for P. menezesiana
Pestalotia menezesiana:
Actinidia chinenesis, Anasas comosus, Cissus alata Jacq. (as Cissus rhombifolia),
Leea spp., Musa spp., Podocarpus macrophyllus, Ravenala madagascariensis,
Rhododendron stamineum, Vitis spp. and Wodyetia bifurcata (Watanabe & Tsudome
1970; Bissett 1982; Sergeeva et al. 2001; Zhang et al. 2003; Huang et al. 2007; Wei
et al. 2007; Liu et al. 2010; Farr & Rossman 2015).
Shown experimentally to infect Theobroma cacao (Bissett 1982)
Pestalotia uvicola:
Ceratonia silique, Cocos nucifera, Cycas revolute, Eucalyptus moluccana, Laurus
nobilis, Macadamia integrifolia, Mahonia acanthifolia (syn. Berberis napaulensis),
Mangifera indica, Meterosideros kermadecensis and Vitis spp. (Bissett 1982; Zhang
et al. 2003; Vitale & Polizzi 2005; Grasso & Granata 2008; Úrbez-Torres et al. 2009;
Carrieri et al. 2013; Ismail et al. 2013; Niu et al. 2015).
Plant part affected
Berries, rachis, canes, flowers and leaves (Bissett 1982; Xu et al. 1999; Sergeeva et
al. 2001; Sergeeva et al. 2005; Steel et al. 2007).
Australian distribution
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana:
New South Wales (Sergeeva et al. 2005)
Pestalotiopsis uvicola:
New South Wales (PHA 2001; Sergeeva et al. 2005)
Queensland (Simmonds 1966; PHA 2001; BRIP 2015)
Biology and pest status
The genus Pestalotiopsis is a large group of fungi belonging to the family
Amphisphaeriaceae. Pestalotiopsis species are differentiated primarily on conidial
characteristics such as size, septation, pigmentation and presence or absence of
appendages (Maharachchikumbura et al. 2012; Maharachchikumbura et al. 2014). It
is difficult to classify to species level due to variation of characteristics such as
growth rate, conidial morphology and fruiting structures within a species (Jeewon et
209
Draft Policy Review
al. 2003; Keith et al. 2006). Recent molecular studies have used mulit-locus
phylogenic analysis, ITS, β-tublin and tef1 gene regions, to differentiate species
(Maharachchikumbura et al. 2012; Maharachchikumbura et al. 2014). Pestalotiopsis
species known from culture have been dividied in to three genera based on these
studies, Pestalotiopsis, Neopestalotiopsis and Pseudopestalotiopsis
(Maharachchikumbura et al. 2014).
Pestalotiopsis species are widely distributed in tropical and temperate ecosystems.
They have been isolated as plant pathogens and endophytes and are also known to
persist as saprobes, being found in association with dead plant material
(Maharachchikumbura et al. 2012; Maharachchikumbura et al. 2014).
Pestalotiopsis species are reported to cause production and economic losses of
many host crops, including apple, blueberry, coconut, chestnut, ginger, grapevine,
guava, hazelnut, lychee, mango, orchi, peach, rambutan and tea
(Maharachchikumbura et al. 2014). Some species of Pestalotiopsis have been
reported to produce novel compounds with applications in medicine, agriculture and
industry (Maharachchikumbura et al. 2014).
The two species assessed here, Pestalotiospsis menezesiana and P. uvicola, have
been grouped together because of their related biology and taxonomy. They are
predicted to pose a similar threat. A description of P. menezesiana is provided by
(Bissett 1982).
Neither of the type material for P. menezesiana or P. uvicola has been sequenced,
making identification based on sequence data dubious. The isolate of P. uvicola that
was isolated from Verticordia sp. in Western Australia was the first sequence for this
species to be placed on Genbank. There are now 25 sequences of P. uvicola on
Genbank, and a reassessment of the sequences has concluded that the isolate from
Western Australia should be reclassified as Pestalotiopsis sp. (R Shivas 2012, pers.
comm. 13 December). In Australia both species have been isolated from Vitis
species (PHA 2001) and P. uvicola has been isolated from Eucalyptus moluccana in
Queensland (Úrbez-Torres et al. 2009). Tejesvi et al. (2009) suggests that the
present system whereby fresh collections are made and compared to existing
monographs cannot work, as the descriptions are brief and based mostly on host
making the identifications subjective, with names on Genbank more than likely to be
erroneous.
Symptoms
Very little information exists on the epidemiology of P. menezesiana and P. uvicola
from grapevines (Sergeeva et al. 2005). Generally, Pestalotiopsis spp. are
considered to be opportunistic pathogens that affect stressed plants, resulting in a
further loss of production, quality or plant death in ornamental species (Keith et al.
2006).
A variety of disease symptoms are caused by species of Pestalotiopsis, including
canker lesions, shoot dieback, leaf spots, needle blight, tip blight, grey blight, scabby
canker, severe chlorosis, fruit rots and leaf spots (Maharachchikumbura et al. 2011;
Maharachchikumbura et al. 2012; Maharachchikumbura et al. 2014).
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana has been reported to cause severe defoliation of
grapevines in India and grape rotting in India and Japan (Bissett 1982; Xu et al.
1999; Sergeeva et al. 2005). Pestalotiopsis menezesiana has been isolated from
unripe berries at harvest that later developed post-harvest rot after shipment (Xu et
al. 1999).
Sergeeva et al. (2005)
were the first to report this species from grapevines in New South Wales; however,
no disease symptoms or severity were reported. Sergeeva et al. (2001; 2005)
210
Draft Policy Review
reported P. menezesiana was isolated from dormant canes, cankers and dieback,
inside wood, green shoots, leaves, rachis and berries. Pestalotiopsis uvicola has
been isolated from bleached canes, internal wood, leaf spots, flower rachis and
berries (Sergeeva et al. 2001; Sergeeva et al. 2005).
Life cycle and infective stages
Sergeeva et al. (2005)
carried out infection studies on berries of cv. Chardonnay using P. uvicola, as this
was the most isolated Pestalotiopsis spp. occurring on grapevines in New South
Wales. Results from the trial indicated that berries were more readily infected at the
later stage of development, either due to berries being more susceptible when they
are older or that the pathogen undergoes an endophytic period after flowering, but
that wounded berries of 7mm could be infected (Sergeeva et al. 2005).
Pestalotiopsis uvicola is often isolated from bleached canes and is often found in
association with other wood infecting fungi such as Botryosphaeria spp., Greeneria
uvicola and Phomopsis viticola (Sergeeva et al. 2005; Úrbez-Torres et al. 2009). In
Japan P. uvicola and P. menezesiana caused berry rot both in the field and on postharvest fruit (Xu et al. 1999). Pestalotiopsis spp. were the second most isolated fungi
from grapevine cankers in Texas (Úrbez-Torres et al. 2009). Many species behave
as an endophyte before becoming pathogenic often when the plant becomes
stressed (Hopkins & McQuilken 2000).
No sexual stage has been identified for either species. Spores from pycnidia of a
Pestalotiopsis sp. were found under the bark of grapevine arms showing signs of die
back (Castillo-Pando et al. 2001). A Pestalotiopsis sp. was one of the fungi isolated
from cankers associated with pruning wounds in vineyards in New South Wales
(Savocchia et al. 2007b).
Modes of transmission and spread
Many species of Pestalotiopsis are dispersed through water splash, spores in the air
and contaminated nursery tools (Maharachchikumbura et al. 2011). Studies in Japan
detected spores of P. menezesiana and P. uvicola from air samples in vineyards (Xu
et al. 1999).
Climatic requirements and range
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola have been reported from varied climatic
locations worldwide, including West Africa, Australia (New South Wales and
Queensland), China, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Korea and United States of America
(Florida, Kansas, Texas) (Farr & Rossman 2015).
Diagnosis
Identification of Pestalotiopsis isolates to species level is difficult as many species
have been described on the basis of host-specificity. However, species are not highly
host-specific and taxa may infect a range of hosts, therefore there may be fewer
biological species than those described (Maharachchikumbura et al. 2011). For
accurate molecular identification sequences of epitypified species are needed
(Maharachchikumbura et al. 2011; Maharachchikumbura et al. 2012). Recent
molecular studies recommend using multi-locus phylogenic analysis, ITS, β-tublin
and tef1 gene regions, to differentiate species (Maharachchikumbura et al. 2012;
Maharachchikumbura et al. 2014).
Control
Pestalotipsis species produces large numbers of spores. Spread of spores by air and
water splash make sanitation and disease management critical
(Maharachchikumbura et al. 2011).
211
Draft Policy Review
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola in association with imported table grapes
imported from other Australian states and territories. The unrestricted risk is
estimated in the absence of risk management measures (including inspection). The
pest risk assessment considers basic standards of practice for the production and
transport of table grapes including cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative
humidity and stored in standard closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods
and consequences are described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in
Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
The likelihood that Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola will arrive in Western
Australia with the importation of table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in
the source and destination area considered relevant to Pestalotiopsis menezesiana
and P. uvicola and includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin






Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola have been isolated from
New South Wales, where it has been associated with stem dieback and
cankers (Sergeeva et al. 2005). Pestalotiopsis uvicola has also been isolated
from Queensland (PHA 2001).
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
Sergeeva et al. (2001) reported isolation of Pestalotiopsis species from
berries in NSW.
There is one culture of P. menezesiana isolated from the surface of a grape
berry listed in PHA (2001).
Conidia may be present on the surface of the berries; undamaged fruit may
carry conidia without visual symptoms and may result in post-harvest decay.
Both Pestalotiopsis spp. were isolated from unripe fruit at harvest, causing a
post-harvest rot after shipment in Japan (Xu et al. 1999).
There are no current specific P. menezesiana or P. uvicola movement or other
restrictions in other Australian states or territories for table grapes or other
grape material from areas where this pathogen occurs.
212
Draft Policy Review
The presence of Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola on the table grape
pathway at its origin is expected to reduce the likelihood of the pest being
imported into Western Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures

While specific information regarding the effect of SO2 on this pathogen was
limited, reports for other fungi such as Botrytis cinerea indicate that topical
infections and surface contamination may be reduced; however, systemic
infections were not (Mencarelli et al. 2005; Lichter et al. 2006).

Diseased grape clusters showing obvious symptoms are likely to be removed
during the harvesting process.

Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is not expected that
standard on-arrival procedures would detect the presence of Pestalotiopsis
menezesiana and P. uvicola infections in a consignment of table grapes.
The ability of Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola to survive existing pest
management procedures is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s
potential to be imported into Western Australia with table grapes.
Ability to survive transport and storage





After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of sulphur dioxide
treatment against Pestalotiopsis infections under standard transport and
storage conditions for table grapes.
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of low temperature
treatments against Pestalotiopsis infections under standard transport and
storage conditions for table grapes.
The study by Xu et al. (1999) on Pestalotiopsis infections in Japanese table
grapes indicated that symptoms develop more slowly at low temperature.
Other post-harvest procedures such as palletisation, containerisation, and
transportation to Western Australia are not expected to impact on the survival
of Pestalotiopsis infections protected within harvested grape bunches.
The ability of Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola to survive transport and
storage procedures is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to
be imported into Western Australia with table grapes.
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola are estimated as having a low probability
of importation in association with imported table grapes. That is, the importation of
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola would be unlikely to occur under
standard commercial production, harvesting and packing house procedures for table
grapes from regions where this pest occurs. Due to the limited reports of berry
infection in Australia; a higher probability of importation could not be justified.
Probability of distribution
213
Draft Policy Review
The likelihood that Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola will be distributed into
Western Australia in a viable state to a suitable host, as a result of the processing,
sale or disposal of table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the
destination area considered relevant to this pest and includes:
Transport of table grapes within Western Australia




As grapes are easily damaged during handling (Mencarelli et al. 2005),
packed grapes may not be processed or handled again until they arrive at the
retailers. Therefore, pathogens in packed grapes are unlikely to be detected
during transportation and distribution to retailers. Pestalotiopsis spp.
infections or conidia which escape detection are likely to survive storage and
transport to the endangered area.
Imported table grapes are intended for human consumption and the majority
of table grapes are likely to be distributed to retail trade and then onto
consumers. Consumers may transport the table grapes around the state.
In 2013/14, 82% of Australian households purchased grapes at least once
(HAL 2014). This suggests that table grapes have the potential to be widely
distributed within Western Australia.
There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western
Australia.
The ability of Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola to move with infected
table grapes is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be
distributed within Western Australia.
Risks from by-products and waste




The importation of table grapes for human consumption will result in the
generation of waste material including rachis and berries.
Fruit waste may be disposed of in a number of ways including municipal
refuse sites, composting, mulching and discarding into urban, rural or natural
localities including roadsides.
There is the potential for consumer waste to be discarded near host plants,
including commercially grown, household or wild host plants.
Lea and Worsley (2008a) reported that 51% of Australian people surveyed
often composted food waste.
The ability of Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola to be associated with
table grape by-products and waste is not expected to be a factor limiting this
pest’s potential to be distributed within Western Australia.
Ability to move from the pathway to a suitable host


Known hosts of P. menezesiana (including Vitis spp., Ravenala
madagascariensis, Rhododendron stamineum and Cissus alata) and
P. uvicola (including Vitis spp., Berberis napaulenis, Cycas revoluta,
Macadamia integrifolia, Mangifera indica and Laurus nobilis) occur in Western
Australia in vineyards, backyards, as amenity plants and in naturalised
populations. Whilst not known to be hosts, two native Cissus species occur in
Western Australia (Western Australian Herbarium 1998).
For conidia to transfer from the table grape pathway to a suitable host plant
infected fruit waste would need to be in close proximity to the host plant.
Transfer to a suitable host may be facilitated by wind and rain (or water)
214
Draft Policy Review


splash or other water splash such as reticulation (Maharachchikumbura et al.
2011).
Vitis vinifera seedlings have been recorded in naturalised populations in
Western Australia (Western Australian Herbarium 1998). Rachis with
associated berries from seeded varieties may be discarded in environments
suitable for germination. In this situation resultant seedlings would be in very
close proximity to infected material, facilitating transfer to the seedling (a
suitable host).
Seedling survival in natural environments is influenced by many factors such
as environmental conditions, seed predation, herbivory of seedlings and
plants, growth rate and competition for resources (including light, nutrients
and water). In managed environments, especially where intentional
germination of grape seed is attempted, conditions may be more favourable
resulting in a higher proportion of seed germination and plant survival.
The ability of Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola to move from infected
table grapes to a suitable host is expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s
potential to be distributed within Western Australia.
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola are estimated as having a low probability
of distribution in association with imported table grapes. That is, the distribution of P.
menezesiana and P. uvicola to the endangered area and subsequent transfer to a
suitable host would be unlikely to occur as a result of the processing, sale or
disposal of imported table grapes. Due to the requirement for dispersal by rainsplash; a higher probability of distribution could not be justified.
Overall probability of entry (importation x distribution)
The overall probability of entry has been estimated by combining the individual
probabilities of importation and distribution using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola is estimated as having a very low
probability of entry in association with imported table grapes. That is, the probability
that P. menezesiana and P. uvicola would enter Western Australia, be distributed in
a viable state to an endangered area and subsequently transfer to a suitable host
would be very unlikely to occur as a result of trade in table grapes imported from
regions where this pest occurs.
Probability of establishment
The likelihood that P. menezesiana and P. uvicola will establish within Western
Australia is based on an assessment of factors in the source and destination areas
considered relevant to this pest and includes:
Availability of suitable hosts, alternative hosts and vectors in the PRA area


Members of the genus Pestalotiopsis have wide host ranges
(Maharachchikumbura et al. 2011).
Vitis spp., Leea sp., Musa sp., Ravenala madagascariensis, Rhododendron
stamineum and Cissus alata are the naturally recorded hosts of
P. menezesiana, while Laurus nobilis, Vitis spp. Berberis napaulenis, Cycas
revoluta, Macadamia integrifola and more recently Mangifera indica are some
of the known hosts for P. uvicola.
215
Draft Policy Review




In Western Australia both table grape and wine grape varieties are grown. In
regions such as the Swan Valley and Margaret River wine and table grapes
are grown in close proximity to each other.
Vitis spp. in Western Australia may be found in backyards, as amenity plants
and as naturalised populations (Western Australian Herbarium 1998).
Domestic garden plantings, both maintained and abandoned, occur in Perth
and in most Western Australian towns and by many farmhouses.
A number of Vitis spp. are recorded as weeds in Australia (Randall 2007) and
could be potential wild hosts in Western Australia.
Cissus alata and Leea species are present in Western Australia where they
are grown as ornamental plants. Neither Hussey et al. (2007) nor Florabase
(Western Australian Herbarium 1998) report these plants having naturalised in
Western Australia. While not identified as hosts of this pathogen, two native
species of Cissus occur in the state (Western Australian Herbarium 1998).
The availability of suitable hosts in Western Australia is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola to
establish in Western Australia.
Suitability of the environment




Germination of conidia for both fungi occurred at 10–33°C and no germination
was observed above 35°C. Optimum temperature for germination of conidia
was 25°C for P. menezesiana and 23–25°C for P. uvicola and hyphal growth
was greatest at 23°C for P. menezesiana and 25°C for P. uvicola (Xu,
Kusakari, Hosomi, Toyoda & Ouchi 1999 cited inAustralian Department of
Agriculture 2014, p. 126).
These parameters indicate that conditions within areas of Western Australia
would be favourable for establishment (Australian Department of Agriculture
2014).
Areas in Western Australia are likely to be similar to locations where these
pathogens are found in New South Wales and Queensland (PHA 2001; BRIP
2015).
Other species of Pestalotiopsis have been reported from a wide range of
climatic regions in Western Australia (BRIP 2015; WAC 2015).
Current Australian distribution suggests that Western Australia’s climate is not
expected to be a factor limiting the potential for Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and
P. uvicola to establish within Western Australia.
Cultural practices and control measures



Cultural practices and existing control measures for other grapevine
pathogens within Western Australian commercial production vineyards are
likely to limit the potential for establishment. According to the 2013/14
viticulture spray guide fungicides are best applied from budburst through to
bunch closure (depending upon target pathogen).
Cultural practices or pathogen control measures which could reduce the
capacity for Pestalotiopsis spp. to establish in Western Australia are unlikely
to be applied to naturalised host populations or unmanaged vineyards.
Cultural practices and pathogen control measures in backyard and amenity
Vitis species may be variable. Most fungicides registered for use on Vitis are
not approved for use in domestic situations. General fungicides approved for
domestic use are likely to have an impact upon establishment of this
pathogen.
216
Draft Policy Review
Cultural practices and control measures are expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola to establish in Western
Australia.
Reproductive strategies and survival


Pestalotiopsis species produce large numbers of spores which are spread by
air and water splash (Maharachchikumbura et al. 2011).
Pestalotiopsis species are commonly reported as endophytes and saprobes
as well as pathogens with wide host ranges (Maharachchikumbura et al.
2011).
The reproductive and survival strategy of Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P.
uvicola is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to establish
within Western Australia.
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola have been estimated as having a
moderate probability of establishment within Western Australia. That is, the
establishment of Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola in an endangered area
would occur with an even probability as a result of infected table grapes being
imported into Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to a suitable host.
Due to the potential control of current cultural practices; a higher probability of
establishment could not be justified.
Probability of spread
The likelihood that Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola will spread within
Western Australia is based on an assessment of factors in the source and destination
areas considered relevant to this pest and includes:
Suitability of the natural or managed environment for natural spread





Many species of Pestalotiopsis are dispersed through water splash, spores in
the air and contaminated nursery tools (Xu et al. 1999; Maharachchikumbura
et al. 2011). This situation is likely to occur in both natural and managed
environments within Western Australia.
Members of the genus Pestalotiopsis have wide host ranges
(Maharachchikumbura et al. 2011).
Long distance spread to new areas following establishment in Western
Australia may occur through the movement of Vitis spp, Laurus nobilis,
Mangifera inica, Leea spp. or Cissus spp. fruit, nursery stock or other
propagative material.
There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape, Laurus
nobilis, Mangifera inica, Leea spp. or Cissus spp. material (including fruit and
nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western Australia. This
regulatory situation in Western Australia is unlikely to limit the capacity for this
pathogen to spread following establishment.
As the sexual state is unknown for both pathogens, it is possible that long
distance spread to new areas may only occur via the movement of infected
host plant material. Pestalotiopsis spp. are considered stress pathogens
(Maharachchikumbura et al. 2011) with an unknown latent period. In times of
stress, such as drought, there may be an increased possibility of spread.
217
Draft Policy Review
The suitability of the natural or managed environment is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola to
spread in Western Australia.
Presence of natural barriers


The major commercial grape production districts in Western Australia are
located in the south-west of the State between Perth and Albany and in the
Carnarvon region in the north-west.
Natural barriers between the major commercial grape production areas,
including climatic differentials and long distances may limit the natural unfacilitated spread of the pathogen in vineyards. However, many species are
plurivorus and other suitable hosts may occur in between the major grape
production areas (Maharachchikumbura et al. 2011).
The presence of natural barriers is expected to be a factor limiting the potential
for Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola to spread in Western Australia.
Potential for movement with commodities or conveyances


Long distance dispersal to new viticultural areas occurs primarily through the
transfer of infected or contaminated propagation materials such as bud wood,
cane cuttings and nursery stock (Xu et al. 1999; Maharachchikumbura et al.
2011).
There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within WA. This
regulatory situation in Western Australia is unlikely to limit the capacity for this
pathogen to spread following establishment.
The potential for movement with commodities or conveyances is not expected to
be a factor limiting the potential for Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola to
spread in Western Australia.
Potential natural enemies

There are no known natural enemies of Pestalotiopsis spp.
The potential for natural enemies is not expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola to spread in Western
Australia.
Potential vectors

There are no known vectors of Pestalotiopsis spp.
The potential for vectors is not expected to be a factor limiting the potential for
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola to spread in Western Australia.
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola have been estimated as having a
moderate probability of spread within Western Australia. That is, spread of
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola in an endangered area would occur with
an even probability as a result of infected table grapes being imported into Western
Australia and distributed in a viable state to a suitable host. Due to the presence of
natural barriers and long distance spread being limited to infected propagation
material and infected fruit; a higher probability of spread could not be justified.
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
218
Draft Policy Review
The overall probability of entry, establishment and spread has been estimated by
combining the individual probabilities using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola has been assessed as having a very low
probability of entry, establishment and spread entry in association with imported table
grapes. That is, the entry, establishment and spread of P. menezesiana and P.
uvicola would be very unlikely to occur should table grapes be imported into
Western Australia from regions where this pest occurs.
Economic consequences
ISPM 11 (2014) indicates that the assessment of economic consequences is made
using ‘a hypothetical situation where a pest is supposed to have been introduced
and to be fully expressing its potential economic consequences (per year) in the PRA
area’.
This is interpreted as an unabated incursion; however, it is acknowledged that
existing control regimes for similar species may impact on this expression. In light of
this interpretation, an evaluation of the consequence of entry, establishment or
spread of Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola is considered in Table 19.
Table 19: Economic consequences of Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P.
uvicola
Criterion
Estimate
Direct consequences
219
Draft Policy Review
Table 19: Economic consequences of Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P.
uvicola
Criterion
Estimate
Plant life or health D - Significant at the district level






Any other aspects of
the environment
A variety of disease symptoms on many hosts are
caused by species of Pestalotiopsis, including
canker lesions, shoot dieback, leaf spots, needle
blight, tip blight, grey blight, scabby canker, severe
chlorosis, fruit rots and leaf spots
(Maharachchikumbura et al. 2011).
In Australia, both P. menezesiana and P. uvicola has
only been associated with stem dieback and cankers
in NSW (Sergeeva et al. 2005).
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana has been reported to
cause severe defoliation of grapevines in India and
grape rotting in India and Japan (Sergeeva et al.
2005).
Pestalotiopsis uvicola has been found in association
with other wood decay fungi in Australia (Sergeeva
et al. 2005) and both species were isolated from
unripe fruit at harvest, then causing a post-harvest
rot after shipment in Japan (Xu et al. 1999).
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana has been reported to
cause leaf spot of kiwifruit and plantain and rot of
cuttings of grape ivy (Bissett 1982; Park et al. 1997;
Xu et al. 1999; Huang et al. 2007).
Pestalotiopsis uvicola has been reported to cause
leaf spot and stem blight of bay laurel, stem blight of
Metrosideros kermadecensis and leaf spot of mango
and carob (Vitale & Polizzi 2005; Grasso & Granata
2008; Carrieri et al. 2013; Ismail et al. 2013).
A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level

There are no known direct consequences of these
species on the natural environment.
Indirect consequences
220
Draft Policy Review
Table 19: Economic consequences of Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P.
uvicola
Criterion
Estimate
Eradication, control B - Minor significance at the local level
etc.
 Measures to control P. menezesiana include
application of fungicide, removal of dead and
diseased plant parts from vines and orchards.
Control measures for P. uvicola are expected to be
similar (Australian Department of Agriculture 2014).
 If P. menezesiana or P. uvicola were introduced into
Western Australia it is unlikely eradication would be
attempted as Pestalotiopsis spp. are considered to
be weak pathogens with an unknown latent period,
only causing disease when host plants are under
stress (Maharachchikumbura et al. 2011).
 Pestalotiopsis menezesiana has been isolated from
dormant canes (Sergeeva et al. 2001).
Domestic trade A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level


Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola occur in
NSW and Queensland (Simmonds 1966; PHA 2001;
Sergeeva et al. 2005).
It would be unlikely for trade restrictions to be
applied by other Australian states and territories
where this fungus is not known to occur as specific
restrictions for this pathogen are not in place at the
present time.
International trade C - Minor significance at the district level


Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola have
been reported from many countries (Australian
Department of Agriculture 2014).
The presence of P. menezesiana and P. uvicola in
commercial grape production areas may limit access
to overseas markets that are free from these
pathogens.
Environment, B - Minor significance at the local level
including rural and
 Additional fungicide applications or other control
regional economic
measures may be required to control this disease on
viability
suitable hosts and these may have minor impact on
the environment.
The expected economic consequences for the endangered area should P.
menezesiana and P. uvicola enter, establish and spread within Western Australia has
been determined to be low using the decision rules outlined in Table A5.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
221
Draft Policy Review
A URE of negligible was determined using the matrix rules outlined in Table A6 for
table grapes imported into Western Australia from regions where Pestalotiopsis
menezesiana and P. uvicola occurs.
Unrestricted risk estimate for Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
Very low
Consequences
Low
Unrestricted risk
Negligible
As the URE is below Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’, the basic standards of practice
for table grape production Pestalotiopsis menezesiana and P. uvicola would provide
an appropriate level of protection for Western Australia.
222
Draft Policy Review
Phomopsis cane and leaf spot
Scientific name (Gomes et al. 2013)
Phomopsis viticola (Sacc.) Sacc. 1915 [Diapothales: Diaporthaceae]
Teleomorph: Diaporthe ampelina (Berkeley & M.A. Curtis) R.R. Gomes, C. Glienke &
Crous 2013
Synonyms (Gomes et al. 2013)
Phoma ampelina Berk. & M.A. Curtis (1873)
Phomopsis ampelina (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Grove (1919)
Phomopsis viticola (Taxon 2)
Cryptosporella viticola Shear 1911
Fusicoccum viticola Reddick 1909
Phoma viticola Sacc. 1880
Phoma vitis Schulzer 1870
Diaporthe neoviticola (Sacc.) Udayanga, PW Cous & KD Hyde (2012)
Preferred common name
Phomopsis cane and leaf spot
Alternative common names
Phomopsis cane and leaf blight, Dead arm, Excoriosis
Common host plants
Vitis spp. is the main host; other reported hosts include Ampelopsidis spp. and
Parthenocissus quinquefolia (Punithalingam 1964; Gomes et al. 2013).
Plant part affected
All parts including berries (Erincik et al. 2001)
Australian distribution
Queensland (Simmonds 1966; BRIP 2015)
New South Wales (Merrin et al. 1995; PHA 2001)
Victoria (Merrin et al. 1995; PHA 2001)
South Australia (Merrin et al. 1995; PHA 2001)
Biology and pest status
Phomopsis viticola is a serious problem in Australia and other viticultural areas of the
world. Infection can lead to stunting of the vine, reduced budburst and infection of
mature berries. This leads to reduced production of bunches, lower quality of fruit
and losses in yields (Merrin et al. 1995; Van Niekerk et al. 2005; Savocchia et al.
2007a; Anco et al. 2011). Yield losses of 35.7% have been estimated from
experimental work in the USA due to Phomopsis infection of the rachis and
subsequent dropping of the clusters (Pscheidt & Pearson 1989).
Symptoms
Phomopsis viticola invades nearly all stem tissues causing necrotic areas leading to
the girdling of the shoots resulting in the ‘dead-arm’ condition. Major symptoms are
the death of vines or some of the arms, desiccation of stocks and shoots, stunting of
branches, deformation of leaves, flower abortion and drying of buds. Symptoms of P.
viticola are also bleaching of canes, lesions on the canes, and small dark spots
223
Draft Policy Review
surrounded by yellow halos on the leaves of grapevines (Punithalingam 1964; CABI
2015b).
Life cycle and infective stages
In spring, small spots develop on the leaves of the vines; these leaf lesions can
become necrotic and drop out leaving the leaf with a ‘shot-hole’ appearance. Lesions
appear on emerging shoots and growth of buds is inhibited. Infections may occur on
the flower clusters, and severe infections can cause the clusters to become necrotic
and fall off (Steel et al. 2007). During the warmer months the epidermal layers of the
shoots crack as the cane expands to form black lesions 3–6mm in length, these
lesions may coalesce to form large scabby areas on the canes. These lesions may
girdle the shoots as they mature, or cause the shoots to become stunted and die. If
the infection spreads into the rachis the young bunches may dry out and fall off. Fruit
infection can occur, with infection developing as brown spots on the berries, which
enlarge and darken as the disease progresses, the berries may become mummified
and fall from the bunch (Hewitt & Pearson 1988; CABI 2015b).
Phomopsis viticola overwinters as pycnidia under the epidermal layer of the canes,
spurs and bark of grapevines. Pycnidia are usually black, depressed-subglobose, up
to 500µm wide. In spring mature α-conidia are released from the pycnidia in the form
of cirri (Punithalingam 1964). The α-conidia are spread by rain splash or insects onto
young vine foliage. Sporulation of P. viticola on infected canes occurs in the
temperature range of 5–35°C and the presence of free-water, and has an optimum
temperature of about 22° (Anco et al. 2013). Infection of young tissue by α-conidia
occurs though the stomata, fresh wounds or directly through the cuticle (CABI
2015b). Alpha conidia are hyaline, unicellular, ellipsoid, and flat or rounded at the
base, with a narrowed and pointed apex, sometimes slightly constricted in the midregion. The size of the α-conidia varies from (7.0-) 8.0-11.8 (-14.0) µm x (1.1-) 2.03.2 (-2.9) µm (Punithalingam 1964; Merrin et al. 1995). Two forms of conidia are
known to occur, α- and β-conidia, the role of the β-conidia has not been determined,
α-conidia are the main form involved in the infection process (Hewitt & Pearson
1988). Symptoms appear 3–4 weeks after infection. Infected canes and spurs can
continue to produce conidiomata and conidia for at least three seasons, and dead
canes may produce pycnidia for up to 4.5 years (Moller & Kasimatis 1981).
Modes of transmission and spread
Alpha conidia of P. viticola are dispersed by rain splash and insects within the
vineyard. Long distance dispersal of the disease occurs through the movement of
infected or contaminated propagation materials such as bud wood, cane cuttings and
young plants (Hewitt & Pearson 1988; Scheper et al. 1997) and fruit bunches.
Phomopsis viticola has also been reported to be spread by pruning equipment
(Punithalingam 1964).
Climatic requirements and range
Phomopsis viticola is present throughout viticultural areas in Asia, Europe, Africa,
North America, New Zealand and Australia. Countries where P. viticola is present
include Argentina, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, China, France, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Italy, India, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the Former
Yugoslavia. In North America P. viticola is found in California, New York, and
Canada; it is also present in Venezuela in South America (Sônego et al. 2005;
Todorović et al. 2005; Hadžic´ 2006; Król 2006; Rábai et al. 2008; Sánchez-Torres et
al. 2008; Casieri et al. 2009; Cragnolini et al. 2009; Graham et al. 2009; Rego et al.
2009; Farr & Rossman 2015).
In Australia, P. viticola is present in the viticultural areas of Coonawarra, Mildura,
Rutherglen, Mudgee, Hunter Valley and the Barossa Valley (Merrin et al. 1995;
Mostert et al. 2001; PHA 2001).
224
Draft Policy Review
Only D. australafricana (not P. viticola) has been recorded in the viticultural regions
of Western Australia. A survey of Western Australian vineyards conducted in 2005
detected D. australafricana four times but did not detect P. viticola from over 250
canes with symptoms of bleaching, limited bud burst and stunted or shortened
internodes (Taylor et al. 2005).
Diagnosis
Currently, the accepted nomenclature for the main Phomopsis spp. associated with
grapevines in Australia are Diaporthe australafricana, formerly P. viticola Taxon 1 or
D. viticola, and Phomopsis viticola for the Taxon 2 isolates; teleomorph Diaporthe
ampelina (Van Niekerk et al. 2005; Gomes et al. 2013). Molecular analysis using
multiple gene regions is recommended for the identification of Phomopsis/Diaporthe
isolates to species level (Van Niekerk et al. 2005; Gomes et al. 2013; Hyde et al.
2014).
Control
Currently in Australia chemical control of D. australafricana is not recommended
(Rawnsley & DeGaris 2006). Therefore, additional chemical control may be needed
for P. viticola if it were to become established in the state (Pscheidt & Pearson 1989;
Clarke et al. 2004; DAFWA 2013). As P. viticola overwinters as pycnidia under the
epidermal layer of the canes, spurs and bark of grapevines pruning to remove
infected canes and vineyard hygiene are also important control methods (Hewitt &
Pearson 1988).
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for
Phomopsis cane and leaf spot in association with imported table grapes imported
from other Australian states and territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the
absence of risk management measures (including inspection). The pest risk
assessment considers basic standards of practice for the production and transport of
table grapes including cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and
stored in standard closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and
consequences are described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in
Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
The likelihood that Phomopsis cane and leaf spot will arrive in Western Australia with
the importation of table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source
and destination area considered relevant to Phomopsis cane and leaf spot and
includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin

Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
225
Draft Policy Review







2014). Phomopsis viticola is present in Victoria, New South Wales, and South
Australia (Merrin et al. 1995).
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
Phomopsis viticola prevalence and impact in other Australian states and
territories appears to be increasing. Wicks and DeGaris (2011) reported that
in five years the pathogen became widespread in Coonawarra and
Padthaway vineyards and in some vineyards 70% of shoots were infected.
The authors report that ‘the disease is likely to increase and continue to
cause significant yield losses in the area unless appropriate management
strategies are put in place’.
In New South Wales 7.4% of wood samples collected from major wine
producing regions where found to be infected with P. viticola (Somers & Quirk
2007).
Fruit infection can occur, with infection developing as brown spots on the
berries, which enlarge and darken as the disease progresses, the berries may
become mummified and fall from the bunch (Hewitt & Pearson 1988; CABI
2015b).
All parts of grape bunches are suitable to infection throughout the growing
season but most infections are initiated early in the growing season.
Infections initiated early in the season that continue to develop given cool and
wet conditions can lead to infection in the bunch stem which may become
brittle and break resulting in loss of the bunch (Anco et al. 2011); however,
infected bunches may remain and be harvested.
If or at what level late-season infection of grape bunches occurs under natural
conditions is unknown. Grape bunches, if infected closet to harvest may not
be symptomatic at harvest and may be packaged for (Australian Department
of Agriculture 2014).
Visual symptoms appear close to harvest as infected berries become brown
and shrivelled, eventually becoming mummified. Infected berries may abscise
from the pedicel (Taylor & Mabbitt 1961; Moller & Kasimatis 1981; Hewitt &
Pearson 1988; Anco et al. 2011); however, infected berries may remain on the
bunch. A survey of a vineyard in Hastings Valley, New South Wales found that
8% of bunches in 2004/05 were infected with Phomopsis viticola at harvest
(Steel et al. 2007). This increased to 16% in the 2005/06 growing season
(Steel et al. 2007).
The presence of Phomopsis cane and leaf spot on the table grape pathway at its
origin is not expected to reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into
Western Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures


Heavily infected bunches with significant amounts of berry rot are unlikely to
be harvested for export and rotted berries in bunches with less symptoms
may be removed from the harvested bunch. However, infected berries may
remain with the bunch for processing and export.
There are no current specific P. viticola movement or other restrictions in
other Australian states or territories for table grapes or other grape material
from areas where this pathogen occurs.
226
Draft Policy Review



Recently infected fruit may not display symptoms and may be harvested for
export, however this is considered to be very unlikely to occur as most
infections are initiated early in the growing season.
While specific information regarding the effect of SO2 on this pathogen was
limited, reports for other fungi such as Botrytis cinerea indicate that topical
infections and surface contamination may be reduced; however, systemic
infections were not (Mencarelli et al. 2005; Lichter et al. 2006).
Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is unlikely that
standard on-arrival procedures would detect the presence of this pathogen in
a consignment of table grapes.
The ability of Phomopsis cane and leaf spot to survive existing pest management
procedures is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be
imported into Western Australia with table grapes.
Ability to survive transport and storage






After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of sulphur dioxide
treatment against P. viticola infection under standard transport and storage
conditions for table grapes.
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of low temperature
treatments against P. viticola infection under standard transport and storage
conditions for table grapes.
Phomopsis viticola overwinters in infected grapevine tissues (Punithalingam
1964; Hewitt & Pearson 1988; Nita 2005). It is unlikely that cold storage and
transportation conditions would significantly impact on the survival of P.
viticola associated with infected table grapes (Australian Department of
Agriculture 2014).
Other routine post-harvest procedures such as palletisation, containerisation,
and transportation to Western Australia are not expected to impact on the
survivability of P. viticola protected within harvested grape bunches.
Phomopsis viticola infections associated with harvested table grapes are very
likely to survive routine processing procedures in the packing house,
palletisation, containerisation, transportation to Western Australia and
minimum on-arrival border procedures.
The ability of Phomopsis cane and leaf spot to survive transport and storage
procedures is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be
imported into Western Australia with table grapes.
Phomopsis cane and leaf spot is estimated as having a high probability of
importation in association with imported table grapes. That is, the importation of
Phomopsis cane and leaf spot would be very likely to occur under standard
commercial production, harvesting and packing house procedures for table grapes
from regions where this pest occurs. Due to the Australian distribution, ability to infect
berries and rachis and ability to act as an endophyte; a lower probability of
importation could not be justified.
227
Draft Policy Review
Probability of distribution
The likelihood that Phomopsis cane and leaf spot will be distributed into Western
Australia in a viable state to a suitable host, as a result of the processing, sale or
disposal of table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the destination area
considered relevant to Phomopsis cane and leaf spot and includes:
Transport of table grapes within Western Australia




As grapes are easily damaged during handling (Mencarelli et al. 2005),
packed grapes may not be processed or handled again until they arrive at the
retailers. Therefore, pathogens in packed grapes are unlikely to be detected
during transportation and distribution to retailers.
Imported fruit are intended for human consumption. Fruit will be distributed to
many localities by wholesale and retail trade and by individual consumers.
In 2013/14, 82% of Australian households purchased grapes at least once
(HAL 2014). This suggests that table grapes have the potential to be widely
distributed within Western Australia.
There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western
Australia.
The ability of Phomopsis cane and leaf spot to move with infected table grapes is
not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Risks from by-products and waste




The importation of table grapes for human consumption will result in the
generation of waste material including rachis and berries.
Fruit waste may be disposed of in a number of ways including municipal
refuse sites, composting, mulching and discarding into urban, rural or natural
localities including roadsides.
Waste may enter the environment via composting. Lea and Worsley (2008a)
reported that 51% of Australian people surveyed often composted food waste.
Conidia may be transferred to a suitable host by wind driven rain, rain or other
water splash such as reticulation.
The ability of Phomopsis cane and leaf spot to be associated with table grapes byproducts and waste is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to
be distributed within Western Australia.
Ability to move from the pathway to a suitable host



Transfer to a suitable host may be facilitated by wind driven rain, rain or other
water splash such as reticulation from infected berries or rachis (Hewitt &
Pearson 1988; Scheper et al. 1997).
Known hosts of P. viticola (Vitis spp. and Parthenocissus quinquefolia) occur
in Western Australia in vineyards, backyards, as amenity plants and as
naturalised populations.
Vitis vinifera seedlings have been recorded in naturalised populations in
Western Australia (Western Australian Herbarium 1998). Rachis with
associated berries from seeded varieties may be discarded in environments
suitable for germination. In this situation resultant seedlings would be in very
228
Draft Policy Review

close proximity to infected material, facilitating transfer to the seedling (a
suitable host).
Seedling survival in natural environments is influenced by many factors such
as environmental conditions, seed predation, herbivory of seedlings and
plants, growth rate and competition for resources (including light, nutrients
and water). In managed environments, especially where intentional
germination of grape seed is attempted, conditions may be more favourable
resulting in a higher proportion of seed germination and plant survival.
The ability of Phomopsis cane and leaf spot to move from infected table grapes to
a suitable host is expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be
distributed within Western Australia.
Phomopsis cane and leaf spot is estimated as having a low probability of distribution
in association with imported table grapes. That is, the distribution of Phomopsis cane
and leaf spot to the endangered area and subsequent transfer to a suitable host
would be unlikely to occur as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of
imported table grapes. Due to the requirement for dispersal by rain-splash and
restricted host range; a higher probability of distribution could not be justified.
Overall probability of entry (importation x distribution)
The overall probability of entry has been estimated by combining the individual
probabilities of importation and distribution using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Phomopsis cane and leaf spot is estimated as having a low probability of entry in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the entry of Phomopsis cane and leaf
spot would be unlikely to occur should table grapes be imported into Western
Australia from regions where this pest occurs.
Probability of establishment
The likelihood that Phomopsis cane and leaf spot will establish within Western
Australia is based on an assessment of factors in the source and destination areas
considered relevant to Phomopsis cane and leaf spot and includes:
Availability of suitable hosts, alternative hosts and vectors in the PRA area




In Western Australia both table grape and wine grape varieties are grown. In
regions such as the Swan Valley and Margaret River wine and table grapes
are grown in close proximity to each other.
Vitis spp. in Western Australia may be found in backyards, as amenity plants
and as naturalised populations. Domestic garden plantings, both maintained
and abandoned, occur in Perth and in most Western Australian towns and by
many farmhouses.
Vitis spp. in Western Australia may be found in backyards, as amenity plants
and as naturalised populations (Western Australian Herbarium 1998).
Domestic garden plantings, both maintained and abandoned, occur in Perth
and in most Western Australian towns and by many farmhouses.
A number of Vitis spp. are recorded as weeds in Australia (Randall 2007) and
could be potential wild hosts in Western Australia.
229
Draft Policy Review
The availability of suitable hosts in Western Australia is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for Phomopsis cane and leaf spot to establish in
Western Australia.
Suitability of the environment





Climatic conditions in the PRA area favour P. viticola establishment as all
known hosts are grown in the PRA area. Host plants are grown in suburban
and rural settings including production for home consumption.
Climate modelling, using CLIMEX® software (Sutherst et al. 2004) and data
from locations where P. viticola is known to occur, predicts that all viticultural
regions of Western Australia have climatic conditions suitable for the
establishment and proliferation of P. viticola (Appendix J).
The presence of Vitis species in Western Australia (Western Australian
Herbarium 1998) suggests that environmental conditions in the endangered
area are conducive to the establishment of P. viticola.
Phomopsis viticola is present in the viticultural areas of South Australia,
Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania (Merrin et al. 1995; Mostert et al.
2001) and similar climatic conditions to these regions can be found in
Western Australia.
The occurrence of D. australafricana in Western Australia (Merrin et al. 1995)
provides further indication that environmental conditions would be suitable for
the establishment of P. viticola. Diaporthe australafricana is common in the
cooler, wetter grape growing areas and can co-exist with P. viticola in the
warmer regions of Australia (Rawnsley & Wicks 2002).
Bioclimatic modelling and current Australian distribution suggest that Western
Australia’s climate is not expected to be a factor limiting the potential for
Phomopsis cane and leaf spot to establish within Western Australia.
Cultural practices and control measures




Infection from P. viticola can occur very early in the growing season (prebloom) and berries can remain suitable to infection throughout the growing
season with the infection remaining latent until the berries begin to ripen
(Erincik et al. 2001). According to Erincik et al. (2001), symptoms are rarely
observed on plant parts that develop later in the season, supporting the
importance of early season infection and disease control. Failure to control P.
viticola early in the season with adequate fungicide application could result in
infections later in the growing season (Erincik et al. 2001).
Recommendations in Australia are that chemical control of D. australafricana
(present in Western Australia) is not required (Rawnsley & DeGaris 2006).
Therefore, additional chemical control may be needed for P. viticola if it were
to become established in the state.
Cultural practices and existing control measures for other grapevine
pathogens within Western Australian commercial production vineyards may
limit the potential for establishment. According to the 2013/14 viticulture spray
guide fungicides are best applied from budburst through to bunch closure
(depending upon target pathogen).
Cultural practices or pathogen control measures which could reduce the
capacity for P. viticola to establish in Western Australia are unlikely to be
applied to naturalised host populations or unmanaged vineyards.
230
Draft Policy Review

Cultural practices and pathogen control measures in backyard and amenity
Vitis spp. may be variable. Most fungicides registered for use on Vitis are not
approved for use in domestic situations. General fungicides approved for
domestic use are likely to have an impact upon establishment of this
pathogen.
Cultural practices and control measures are not expected to be a factor limiting
the potential for Phomopsis cane and leaf spot to establish in Western Australia.
Reproductive strategies and survival




Sporulation and germination of alpha spores of P. viticola on infected canes
occurs in the temperature range of 5–35°C and the presence of free-water,
and has an optimum temperature of about 22°C (Hewitt & Pearson 1988;
Anco et al. 2013).
Prolonged periods of rain and cool weather favour disease development,
pycnidium production requires cool temperatures (Rawnsley & Wicks 2002).
Spores require free water to germinate and infection has been found to occur
within a few hours (Hewitt & Pearson 1988).
The development of this disease is greatly influenced by climatic conditions,
inoculum density and host growth stage (Hewitt & Pearson 1988).
Environmental conditions must be favourable for development and
subsequent spread of the disease (Rawnsley & Wicks 2002).
Climate modelling, using CLIMEX® software (Sutherst et al. 2004) and data
from locations where P. viticola is known to occur, predicts that all viticultural
regions of Western Australia have climatic conditions suitable for the
establishment and proliferation of P. viticola Appendix J.
The reproductive and survival strategy of Phomopsis cane and leaf spot is not
expected to be a factor limiting the potential for Phomopsis cane and leaf spot to
establish within Western Australia.
Phomopsis cane and leaf spot has been estimated as having a high probability of
establishment within Western Australia. That is, the establishment of Phomopsis
cane and leaf spot in an endangered area would be very likely to occur as a result
of the infected table grapes be imported into Western Australia and be distributed in
a viable state to a suitable host. Due to the suitable climatic conditions and presence
of D. australafricana; a lower probability of establishment could not be justified.
Probability of spread
The likelihood that Phomopsis cane and leaf spot will spread within Western
Australia is based on an assessment of factors in the source and destination areas
considered relevant to Phomopsis cane and leaf spot and includes:
Suitability of the natural or managed environment for natural spread


Conidia of P. viticola are dispersed by rain splash and insects within the
vineyard and spread is generally localised (Hewitt & Pearson 1988).
In spring, pycnidia of P. viticola erupt through the epidermis of diseased tissue
and exude conidia when wet (Hewitt & Pearson 1988). Conidia liberated from
pycnidia are dispersed by rain splash (Punithalingam 1964).
231
Draft Policy Review


Conidia carried by the combined action of wind and rain drops are the main
means of dissemination of P. viticola (Emmett et al. 1992).
Phomopsis viticola spreads mostly within the vine, rather than from vine to
vine, so spread within the vineyard is localised (Hewitt & Pearson 1988). This
situation is likely to occur in both natural and managed environments within
Western Australia.
The suitability of the natural or managed environment is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for Phomopsis cane and leaf spot to spread in Western
Australia.
Presence of natural barriers



The major commercial grape production districts in Western Australia are
located in the south-west of the state between Perth and Albany and in the
Carnarvon region in the north-west.
Natural barriers between the major commercial grape production areas,
including climatic differentials and long distances may limit the natural
unfacilitated spread of the pathogen.
If isolated plants in a home garden were to become infected by P. viticola, it is
likely that physical barriers would prevent its spread to other hosts due to the
limited distance that conidia can be spread by rain splash.
The presence of natural barriers is expected to be a factor limiting the potential
for Phomopsis cane and leaf spot to spread in Western Australia.
Potential for movement with commodities or conveyances



Long distance dispersal to new viticultural areas occurs primarily through the
transfer of infected or contaminated propagation materials such as bud wood,
cane cuttings and nursery stock (Hewitt & Pearson 1988).
Phomopsis viticola has also been reported to be spread by pruning
equipment and agricultural machinery (Punithalingam 1964).
There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western
Australia. This regulatory situation in Western Australia is unlikely to limit the
capacity for this pathogen to spread following establishment.
The potential for movement with commodities or conveyances is not expected to
be a factor limiting the potential for Phomopsis cane and leaf spot to spread in
Western Australia.
Potential natural enemies

There are no known natural enemies of P. viticola.
The potential for natural enemies is not expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for Phomopsis cane and leaf spot to spread in Western Australia.
Phomopsis cane and leaf spot has been estimated as having a moderate probability
of spread within Western Australia That is, spread of Phomopsis cane and leaf spot
in an endangered area would occur with an even probability as a result of the
232
Draft Policy Review
infested/infected table grapes be imported into Western Australia and be distributed
in a viable state to a suitable host. Due to the presence of natural barriers and long
distance spread being limited to infected propagation material and infected fruit, a
higher estimation of the probability of spread could not be justified.
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
The overall probability of entry, establishment and spread has been estimated by
combining the individual probabilities using the matrix rules shown Table A2.
Phomopsis cane and leaf spot has been assessed as having a low probability of
entry, establishment and spread entry in association with imported table grapes. That
is, the entry, establishment and spread of Phomopsis cane and leaf spot would be
unlikely to occur should table grapes be imported into Western Australia from regions
where this pest occurs.
Economic consequences
ISPM 11 (2014) indicates that the assessment of economic consequences is made
using ‘a hypothetical situation where a pest is supposed to have been introduced
and to be fully expressing its potential economic consequences (per year) in the PRA
area’.
This is interpreted as an unabated incursion; however, it is acknowledged that
existing control regimes for similar species may impact on this expression. In light of
this interpretation, an evaluation of the consequence of entry, establishment or
spread of Phomopsis cane and leaf spot is considered in Table 20.
Table 20: Economic consequences of Phomopsis cane and leaf spot
Criterion
Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health E - Highly significant at the district level


Phomopsis viticola is a serious disease of grapes;
crop losses of up 37.5% have been recorded. The
fungus has considerable potential to reduce yields
where preventive control has been ineffective, or
when the disease has remained unidentified over a
number of seasons. In years when vineyards are
severely infected, losses can occur from reduced
vigour of shoots early in the growing season, leading
to stunting of grapevines (Hewitt & Pearson 1988).
In some areas of Australia, P. viticola causes
considerable damage to canes through the
development of lesions, scarring and eventual
breakage of the cane (Rawnsley & Wicks 2002).
Breakage of the canes at severely scarred regions
reduces cluster number and yield and diseased
mature berries should not be harvested (CABI
2015b).
233
Draft Policy Review
Table 20: Economic consequences of Phomopsis cane and leaf spot
Criterion
Estimate




Any other aspects of
the environment
Phomopsis viticola is a serious problem for many
parts of Australia and elsewhere. Severe symptoms
were found in a number of vineyards in NSW and
Victoria during the 1992/93 and 1993/94 seasons
(Merrin et al. 1995). The fungus can weaken mature
vines and kill grafted and other nursery stock (Hewitt
& Pearson 1988). Lowering vine productivity by
reducing potential bunch numbers (CABI 2015b).
If berries are infected, post-harvest storage in cool
temperatures at high humidity can lead to losses.
Canes or spurs infected with P. viticola are prone to
frost damage and infection reduces the amount of
healthy wood for new shoot growth the following
season (Hewitt & Pearson 1988).
Infected cane material reduces the rate of success
of grafting and cutting propagation (CABI 2015b).
Weakens canes, which makes them more
susceptible to winter injury. Damages leaves, which
reduces photosynthesis. Infects cluster stems, which
can result in poor fruit development and premature
fruit drop. Infects berries resulting in a fruit rot near
harvest (Anco et al. 2011).
Phomopsis viticola is most destructive in
geographical regions with a moderate spring climate
with sufficient rain at bud burst to keep vines wet for
several days. These conditions occur in much of the
grape growing areas of the south west regions of
Western Australia (Appendix J).
A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level

There are no known direct consequences of this
pathogen on the natural environment.
Indirect consequences
Eradication, control D - Significant at the district level
etc.
 Programs to minimise the impact of P. viticola may
include fungicide applications (Clarke et al. 2004)
and crop monitoring which may result in additional
production costs.
 Phomopsis viticola overwinters as pycnidia under
the epidermal layer of the canes, spurs and bark of
grapevines (Hewitt & Pearson 1988).
 Reduced chemical input minimises the amount of
residues in crops and soil and the detrimental effects
on natural biodiversity (Rawnsley & Wicks 2002).
 Currently in Australia recommendations are that
chemical control of D. australafricana (present in
Western Australia) is not required (Rawnsley &
234
Draft Policy Review
Table 20: Economic consequences of Phomopsis cane and leaf spot
Criterion
Estimate
DeGaris 2006). Therefore, additional chemical
control may be needed for P. viticola if it were to
become established in the state.
Domestic trade C - Minor significance at the district level


Phomopsis viticola is known to be in eastern
Australia and it is unlikely that domestic trade would
be restricted this pathogen was to be introduced.
Intrastate trade may be disrupted if eradication or
containment was attempted if P. viticola were to
become established in Western Australia.
International trade B–Minor significance at the local level


Phomopsis viticola is present throughout many
viticultural areas in Asia, Europe, Africa, North
America, South America, New Zealand and
Australia.
Trade restrictions would only be imposed by
countries demonstrating absence and P. viticola is
widespread throughout viticultural regions. It is
unlikely that restrictions would be applied to
international trade
Environment, C–Minor significance at the district level
including rural and
 Additional fungicide applications or other control
regional economic
activities may be required to control the disease as
viability
chemical control is not currently recommended for D.
australafricana (the species present in Western
Australia) (Rawnsley & DeGaris 2006).
 Additional control activities for P. viticola are unlikely
to have any discernible impact on other aspects of
the environment including rural and regional
economic viability at the district level.
The expected economic consequences for the endangered area should Phomopsis
cane and leaf spot enter, establish and spread within Western Australia has been
determined to be moderate using the decision rules outlined in Table A5.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
A URE of low was determined using the matrix rules outlined in Table A6 for table
grapes grown in regions where Phomopsis cane and leaf spot occurs.
Unrestricted risk estimate for Phomopsis cane and leaf spot
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
Low
235
Draft Policy Review
Consequences
Moderate
Unrestricted risk
Low
As the URE is above Western Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’, the basic standards of
practice for table grape production would not provide an appropriate level of
protection for Western Australia. As such, specific risk mitigating phytosanitary
measures will be required for the table grape pathway.
236
Draft Policy Review
Sooty mould
Scientific names (Robert et al. 2005)
Capnodium elongatum Berk. & Desm. 1849
Synonyms (Robert et al. 2005)
Capnodium elongatum f. elongatum Berk & Desm. 1849
Capnodium elongatum f. phyllostachydis Sacc. 1913
Preferred common name
Sooty mould
Alternate common names
Sooty mold
Common host plants
Ailanthus altissima, Bignonia capreolata, Ilex spp., Liriodendron tulipifera, Jacksonia
scoparia, Mespilus germanica, Nerium oleander, Osmanthus ilicifolius, Pittosporum
sp., Populus tremula, Prunus persica, Pyrus sp., Salix caprea and, Vitis sp. (BRIP
2015; Farr & Rossman 2015).
Plant part affected
Leaves, shoots and bunch surface (Laemmlen 2011; Dunn & Zurbo 2014).
Australian distribution
Queensland (PHA 2001; BRIP 2015)
Biology and pest status
Symptoms
Sooty mould is the common name applied to several species of saprophytic fungi
that grow on honeydew secretions on plant parts and surfaces. Their dark, threadlike mycelium grows over plant parts giving them an appearance of being covered
with a layer of soot (Laemmlen 2011).
Life cycle and infective stages
Sooty moulds are ascomycetes and an imperfect state of ascomycetous affinity that
can only be differentiated on the basis of the ascigerous stages (Boedijn 1931). The
sooty mould fungi frequently grow in harmony together, making taxonomy
identification challenging as stages of different species have often been described
under one name (Mibey 1997). Hughes (1976) reported that sooty moulds showed a
remarkable degree of pleomorphy and that some were known to produce as many as
three imperfect states as well as ascostromata. The difficulty in taxonomic
identification has resulted in the common application of the term sooty mould to any
dark walled fungi species (Hughes 1976).
Based on conidal states and with considerable emphasis on hyphal morphology,
Hughes (1976) recognised 5 families of ascomycetes in his work on sooty mould
fungi but did not place them in a separate Order (Mibey 1997). Work by Reynolds
(1998) provided information on sooty mould phylogeny, reporting that Capnodiacean
isolates constituted a monophyletic group that are represented by both asexual and
sexual states. Use of molecular techniques and biochemical characters in the
237
Draft Policy Review
identification of the sooty mould fungi is still problematic today because most type
materials are unavailable for DNA extraction (Chomnunti et al. 2014).
Sooty moulds are presently known to comprise of seven families and several
orphaned genera of Ascomycota. Capnodium elongatum is a fungus within one of the
identified families: Capnodiacea (Sacc) Höhnell (1910). Taxa of the Capnodium
species can be recognised by their superficial black mycelia with septate cylindrical,
dark brown hyphae. They form bitunicate asci. The asexual stages form elongated
pycnidia that have short or long narrow necks with conspicuous oval swelling. Near
the base, middle or apex of the pycnida, minute unicellular and hyaline conidia are
produced (Chomnunti et al. 2014).
Traditionally, sooty moulds have been regarded as deriving their nourishment from
honey-dew produced by various kinds of plant sucking insects (Hughes 1976).
McAlpine (1896b), in his account of the sooty mould Capnodium citricola, mentioned
that he had ‘never found sooty mould without the accompaniment of scale insect..’
and ‘the general rule is that the fungus follows in the wake of insects’ (cited in
Hughes (1976)). Whilst all reports agree that sooty mould is predominately
associated with scale insects and other honeydew producers, they can also occur in
their absence (Hughes 1976; Mibey 1997).
The species of sooty mould present on plant parts is determined by the combination
of the environment, host, and the insect species. In his work with sooty moulds in
New Zealand forests, Hughes (1976) found that whilst there was considerable
evidence that most sooty moulds displayed no host preference, there where
instances of species restriction to certain hosts. Mibey (1997) showed that sooty
moulds are associated with a wide range of different Homoptera, but the specificity of
the association was unclear and further studies were necessary. What is clearly
evident is that some sooty mould species are specific to a particular plant or insects,
while others may colonize many types of surfaces and use honeydew produced by
several kinds of insects
(Laemmlen 2011). In Australia it has been reported that the principal damage
associated with mealybugs on grapevines, arises from their secretion of honeydew
which encourages the growth of sooty moulds (Braybrook 2012).
Although sooty mould does not itself feed on a plant, it indirectly damages the plant
by coating leaves to a point that photosynthesis is reduced and can stunt plant
growth, productivity and cause premature leaf drop (Laemmlen 2011). Mould
spreading on grape bunches can make the fruit unsalable or lead to rotting (Dunn &
Zurbo 2014).
Honeydews complex mixture of a large variety of chemical compounds such as
sugars, free amino acids, proteins, minerals and vitamins (Auclair 1963,cited in
Hughes (1976)) makes it an important energy source for many organisms such as
birds, ants, small beetles, flies, wasps, honey and bumble bees (Mibey 1997). The
transfer of honeydew by other organisms and water splash assists in the colonisation
of sooty mould on host plant material. In vitro studies by Fisher (1939) reviewing the
diagnostic features of sooty mould families found that the Capnodium isolates growth
was optimal between 18-20°C and rapidly declined with a rise above this optimal
range. None of the organisms studied made any growth at a relative atmospheric
humidity of 90%, with only one (not Capnodium) succumbing to three days’ exposure
to temperature below 10°C (Fisher 1939).
The presence of sooty mould is always a significant addition to the damage caused
by associated honeydew secreting plant sucking insects such as aphids,
leafhoppers, mealybugs, soft scales and white flies (Laemmlen 2011). The effective
control of sooty mould is through the elimination of these honeydew producers, as
without the honeydew the fungi could not grow (Mibey 1997). Judicious pruning to
remove infested plant parts and controls to keep ants away from the honeydew such
238
Draft Policy Review
as baits can be employed. Once honeydew-producing insects are suppressed, sooty
moulds will gradually weather away. Alternatively they can be removed with strong
stream of water or soap and water. Some sooty moulds adhere quite strongly to plant
surfaces and may survive washing treatments for a period of time before weathering
away (Laemmlen 2011).
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for sooty
mould in association with imported table grapes imported from other Australian states
and territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the absence of risk management
measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment considers basic
standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes including
cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in standard
closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences are
described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder factors) and the probability of distribution (post-border factors). The probability
of entry is determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution
using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
The likelihood that sooty mould will arrive in Western Australia with the importation of
table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source and destination area
considered relevant to sooty mould and includes:
Association with the table grape pathway at its origin



Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). Isolates of Capnodium elongatum have been recorded from
Queensland (Simmonds 1966; PHA 2001; BRIP 2015). The Vitis sp. sample
record is dated 1890, whilst two non-Vitis host samples have undated
collection records.
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
Parthenolecanium corni and Pseudococcus calceolariae are pests of
grapevine that can be found on grape bunches where they produce
honeydew that causes the development of sooty mould. These species of
European fruit lecanium scale are not present in WA. European fruit lecanium
scale is present in Victoria (WINC 2015), Tasmania (TPPD 2015) and has
also been recorded in New South Wales (Snare 2006). A survey of coccid
species in the main vineyard regions of Australia did not report European fruit
lecanium scale on grapevines (Rakimov et al. 2013).
239
Draft Policy Review





During a growing season sooty mould spores maybe blown or splashed by
water onto plant surfaces where honeydew is present. Honeydew secretions
from plant sucking insects stimulate the spore germination and germ tubes of
sooty mould fungus (Yamamoto 1952).
Sooty moulds can grow under a wide range of environmental conditions and
are common in tropical, subtropical and warm temperate regions (Chomnunti
et al. 2014). Warm temperatures and dry weather increase the prevalence of
sooty moulds due to the increased activity of plant sucking insects and less
rain available to dilute the honeydew concentration (Gillman 2011).
Honeydew often drips onto fruit following feeding by parasites such as
mealybugs on the foliage of bunch clusters. Honeydew is colourless and
syrupy when first exuded, later becoming darker because of the sooty mould.
Grapes are predominately packed in the field and transported from the
vineyard to packing/cooling facilities (ATGA 2012a).
Heavily infected bunches with significant amounts of berry rot are unlikely to
be harvested for export and rotted berries in bunches with less symptoms
may be removed from the harvested bunch. However, infected berries may
remain with the bunch for processing and export.
The presence of bitter rot on the table grape pathway at its origin is not expected to
reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures




The effective control of sooty mould is through the elimination of honeydew
producers, as without the honeydew the fungi could not grow (Mibey 1997).
Ants use honeydew as a food source and will protect honeydew producing
insects. Ant management is an important consideration in the control of sooty
mould (Laemmlen 2011).
Some sooty moulds adhere quite strongly to plant surfaces and may survive
washing treatments for a period of time before weathering away (Laemmlen
2011).
Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is unlikely that
standard on-arrival procedures would detect the presence of this pathogen in
a consignment of table grapes.
The ability of sooty mould to survive existing pest management procedures is not
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into Western
Australia with fresh table grape bunches.
Ability to survive transport and storage



After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of sulphur dioxide
treatment against C. elongatum infection under standard transport and
storage conditions for table grapes.
There is currently no known literature on the efficacy of low temperature
treatments against C. elongatum infection under standard transport and
storage conditions for table grapes.
240
Draft Policy Review


Other routine post-harvest procedures such as palletisation, containerisation,
and transportation to Western Australia are not expected to impact on the
survivability of C. elongatum infections protected within harvested grape
bunches.
As grapes are easily damaged during handling (Mencarelli et al. 2005),
packed grapes may not be processed or handled again until they arrive at the
retailers. Therefore, pathogens in packed grapes are unlikely to be detected
during transportation and distribution to retailers.
Sooty mould is estimated as having a very low probability of importation in
association with fresh imported table grape bunches. That is, the importation of sooty
mould would be very unlikely to occur under standard commercial production,
harvesting and packing house procedures for fresh table grape bunches from regions
where this pest occurs. Due to the limited reports of berry infection in Australia; a
higher probability of importation could not be justified.
Probability of distribution
The likelihood that sooty mould will be distributed into Western Australia in a viable
state to a suitable host, as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of fresh table
grape bunches is based on an assessment of factors in the destination area
considered relevant to sooty mould and includes:
Transport of table grapes within Western Australia




As grapes are easily damaged during handling (Mencarelli et al. 2005),
packed grapes may not be processed or handled again until they arrive at the
retailers. Therefore, pathogens in packed grapes are unlikely to be detected
during transportation and distribution to retailers.
Imported fruit are intended for human consumption. Fruit will be distributed to
many localities by wholesale and retail trade and by individual consumers.
In 2013/14, 82% of Australian households purchased grapes at least once
(HAL 2014). This suggests that table grapes have the potential to be widely
distributed within Western Australia.
There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western
Australia.
The ability of sooty mould to move with infected fresh table grape bunches is not
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Risks from by-products and waste



The importation of fresh table grapes bunches for human consumption will
result in the generation of waste material including rachis and berries.
Fruit waste may be disposed of in a number of ways including municipal
refuse sites, composting, mulching and discarding into urban, rural or natural
localities including roadsides.
Lea and Worsley (2008a) reported that 51% of Australian people surveyed
often composted food waste.
241
Draft Policy Review
The ability of sooty mould to be associated with fresh table grapes bunches byproducts and waste is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to
be distributed within Western Australia.
Ability to move from the pathway to a suitable host





Transfer of fungal spores to a suitable host is usually facilitated by wind or
rain splash.
Capnodium species are the most commonly found sooty moulds in gardens
and landscapes (Laemmlen 2011). Sooty moulds appear to show no
preference for a particular host or plant and can occur on both wild and
cultivated plants.
Vitis vinifera seedlings have been recorded in naturalised populations in
Western Australia (Western Australian Herbarium 1998). Rachis with
associated berries from seeded varieties may be discarded in environments
suitable for germination. In this situation resultant seedlings would be in very
close proximity to infected material, facilitating transfer to the seedling (a
suitable host).
Seedling survival in natural environments is influenced by many factors such
as environmental conditions, seed predation, herbivory of seedlings and
plants, growth rate and competition for resources (including light, nutrients
and water). In managed environments, especially where intentional
germination of grape seed is attempted, conditions may be more favourable
resulting in a higher proportion of seed germination and plant survival.
There is little information available on succession of sooty moulds
communities. They frequently grow mixed together and have remarkable
degree of pleomorphy (Hughes 1976). It is likely that different fungal species
may be specialists of different stages of sooty mould formation, such as initial
infection or pioneers, secondary species followed by stable climax community
(Chomnunti et al. 2014).
The ability of sooty mould to move from infected fresh table grape bunches to a
suitable host is not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be
distributed within Western Australia.
Sooty mould is estimated as having a low probability of distribution in association
with fresh imported table grape bunches. That is, the distribution of sooty mould to
the endangered area and subsequent transfer to a suitable host would be unlikely to
occur as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of fresh imported table grape
bunches. Due to the requirement for dispersal by rain-splash; a higher probability of
distribution could not be justified.
Overall probability of entry (importation x distribution)
The overall probability of entry has been estimated by combining the individual
probabilities of importation and distribution using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Sooty mould is estimated as having a very low probability of entry in association with
fresh imported table grape bunches. That is, the probability that sooty mould would
enter Western Australia, be distributed in a viable state to an endangered area and
subsequently transfer to a suitable host would be very unlikely to occur as a result
of trade in fresh table grape bunches imported from regions where this pest occurs.
242
Draft Policy Review
Probability of establishment
The likelihood that sooty mould will establish within Western Australia is based on an
assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to
sooty mould and includes:
Availability of suitable hosts, alternative hosts and vectors in the PRA area






The distribution of sooty mould fungi is largely dependent on honeydew
secreted by insects in the Order Hemitera, suborder Homoptera which
includes aphids, whiteflies, soft scales, mealy bugs, leafhoppers and psyllids,
living on the plants and other surfaces such as rocks below plants (Barr 1987,
cited in Chomnunti et al. (2014)).
Sooty moulds have wide host ranges (Farr & Rossman 2015). Many of the
other reported hosts of C. elongatum have been recorded in Western
Australia.
In Western Australia both table grape and wine grape varieties are grown. In
regions such as the Swan Valley and Margaret River wine and table grapes
are grown in close proximity to each other.
Vitis spp. in Western Australia may be found in backyards, as amenity plants
and as naturalised populations. Domestic garden plantings, both maintained
and abandoned, occur in Perth and in most Western Australian towns and by
many farmhouses.
Vitis spp. in Western Australia may be found in backyards, as amenity plants
and as naturalised populations (Western Australian Herbarium 1998).
Domestic garden plantings, both maintained and abandoned, occur in Perth
and in most Western Australian towns and by many farmhouses.
A number of Vitis spp. are recorded as weeds in Australia (Randall 2007) and
could be potential wild hosts in Western Australia.
The availability of suitable hosts in Western Australia is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for sooty mould to establish in Western Australia.
Suitability of the environment




Transfer of fungal spores to a suitable host is usually facilitated by wind or
rain splash (Mibey 1997).
The warm-temperate climate of Australia provides an abundance of perennial
foliage on which sooty moulds are able to establish themselves during winter
and thereby persist from one season to a next (Fisher 1939).
Sooty moulds are more common under warm conditions. During drought
aphid populations and their honeydew production typically increase on foliage
undergoing moisture stress. Higher temperatures and increased drought
stress as a result of climate change is expected to increase the prevalence of
sooty moulds (Chomnunti et al. 2014).
Under dry conditions, less rain would be available to remove or dilute
honeydew concentrations which promote sooty moulds.
Current Australian distribution suggests that Western Australia’s climate is not
expected to be a factor limiting the potential for sooty mould to establish within
Western Australia.
Cultural practices and control measures
243
Draft Policy Review



Sooty moulds are indirectly controlled by reducing populations of sucking
insects that excrete honeydew.
Cultural practices and existing control measures for other grapevine
pathogens within Western Australian commercial production vineyards may
limit the potential for establishment. According to the 2013/14 viticulture spray
guide fungicides are best applied from budburst through to bunch closure
depending upon the target pathogen (DAFWA 2013).
Ant management is an important consideration to halt development of sooty
moulds. Ants are attracted to and use honeydew as a food source, they will
protect honeydew producing insects from predators in order to harvest
honeydew (Laemmlen 2011).
Cultural practices and control measures are expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for sooty mould to establish in Western Australia.
Reproductive strategies and survival



The sooty moulds nearly always grow intermingled so that it is very hard to
identify the separate species, this difficulty being enlarged by the fact that
most of these fungi are showing more than one form of fructification (Boedijn
1931).
There is little information available on succession of sooty moulds
communities. They frequently grow mixed together and have remarkable
degree of pleomorphy (Hughes 1976). It is likely that different fungal species
may be specialists of different stages of sooty mould formation, such as initial
infection or pioneers, secondary species followed by stable climax community
(Chomnunti et al. 2014).
The warm-temperate climate of Australia provides an abundance of perennial
foliage on which sooty moulds are able to establish themselves during winter
and thereby persist from one season to a next (Fisher 1939).
The reproductive and survival strategy of sooty mould is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for sooty mould to establish within Western Australia.
Sooty mould has been estimated as having a moderate probability of establishment
within Western Australia. That is, the establishment of sooty mould in an endangered
area would occur with an even probability as a result of infected fresh table grape
bunches being imported into Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to a
suitable host. Due to the potential control of current cultural practices; a higher
probability of establishment could not be justified.
Probability of spread
The likelihood that sooty mould will spread within Western Australia is based on an
assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to
sooty mould and includes:
Suitability of the natural or managed environment for natural spread


Sooty moulds are more common in tropical, subtropical and warm temperate
regions and thus their prevalence in temperate regions is likely to increase
with global warming (Chomnunti et al. 2014).
Sooty moulds are usually dispersed by wind or rain splash. This situation is
likely to occur in both natural and managed environments within Western
Australia.
244
Draft Policy Review


Host plants for sooty mould are widely distributed and are naturalised within
Western Australia (Western Australian Herbarium 1998; BRIP 2015; WAC
2015).
Areas in Western Australia are likely to be similar to locations where this
pathogen is found in Queensland and in other grape growing regions
worldwide.
The suitability of the natural or managed environment is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for sooty mould to spread in Western Australia.
Presence of natural barriers


The major commercial grape production districts in Western Australia are
located in the south-west of the state between Perth and Albany and in the
Carnarvon region in the north-west.
Natural barriers between the major commercial grape production areas,
including climatic differentials and long distances may limit the natural unfacilitated spread of the pathogen in vineyards. However, many species are
plurivorus and other suitable hosts may occur in between the major grape
production (Western Australian Herbarium 1998; Farr & Rossman 2015).
The presence of natural barriers is expected to be a factor limiting the potential
for sooty mould to spread in Western Australia.
Potential for movement with commodities or conveyances



There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape,
oleander, Osmanthus, Eucalytpus sp, or material (including fruit and nursery
stock), machinery or equipment within Western Australia.
Capnodium species are the most commonly found sooty moulds in gardens
and landscapes. Sooty moulds appear to show no preference for a particular
host or plant and can occur on both wild and cultivated plants (Chomnunti et
al. 2014).
Honeydew secretions from plant sucking insects stimulate the spore
germination and germ tubes of sooty mould fungus (Yamamoto 1952).
Honeydew is colourless and syrupy when first exuded, later becoming darker
because of the sooty mould. Where there has been a large number of plant
sucking insects the honeydew may drip on the surrounding smaller plants,
grass, soil and even stones (Boedijn 1931).
The potential for movement with commodities or conveyances is not expected to
be a factor limiting the potential for sooty mould to spread in Western Australia.
Potential natural enemies


Honeydews high carbohydrate content makes it an important energy source
for many organisms including birds, ants, flies, wasps and bees (Mibey 1997),
this competition for sooty moulds nutrient source may impact on the success
of colony formation.
Predators and parasites that feed on honeydew producing Homoptera insects
can reduce the level of honeydew (Laemmlen 2011) and thereby impact on
sooty moulds capacity to germinate and colonies plant parts.
The potential for natural enemies is expected to be a factor limiting the potential
for sooty mould to spread in Western Australia.
Potential vectors
245
Draft Policy Review


Sooty moulds have long been recorded in association with a wide range of
different Homoptera, but it is currently uncertain if insects serve as a vector to
sooty mould, although one species has been isolated from an insect
(Chomnunti et al. 2014).
Nath (1973) (cited in Mibey (1997)) reported that soft scales can assist in the
transmission of sooty moulds with regard to the dispersal of Capnodium citiri
in orange orchards.
The potential for vectors is expected to be a factor limiting the potential for sooty
mould to spread in Western Australia.
Sooty mould has been estimated as having a moderate probability of spread within
Western Australia. That is, spread of sooty mould in an endangered area would
occur with an even probability as a result of infected fresh table grape bunches
being imported into Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to a suitable
host. Due to the presence of natural barriers and long distance spread being limited
to infected propagation material and infected fruit; a higher probability of spread
could not be justified.
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
The overall probability of entry, establishment and spread has been estimated by
combining the individual probabilities using the matrix rules shown in Table A2. Sooty
mould has been assessed as having a very low probability of entry, establishment
and spread entry in association with fresh imported table grape bunches. That is, the
entry, establishment and spread of sooty mould would be unlikely to occur should
fresh table grape bunches be imported into Western Australia from regions where
this pest occurs.
Economic consequences
ISPM 11 (2014) indicates that the assessment of economic consequences is made
using ‘a hypothetical situation where a pest is supposed to have been introduced
and to be fully expressing its potential economic consequences (per year) in the PRA
area’.
This is interpreted as an unabated incursion; however, it is acknowledged that
existing control regimes for similar species may impact on this expression. In light of
this interpretation, an evaluation of the consequence of entry, establishment or
spread of sooty mould is considered in Table 21.
Table 21: Economic consequences of sooty mould
Criterion
Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health B - Minor significance at the local level


Sooty mould colonies form biofilms covering entire
leaves or plants blocking sunlight from leaf
chloroplasts and reducing the plants energy
production by photosynthesis (Hughes 1976)
Reduction of photosynthesis by sooty moulds results
246
Draft Policy Review
Table 21: Economic consequences of sooty mould
Criterion
Estimate


Any other aspects of
the environment
in lower growth rates and reduced yields (Chomnunti
et al. 2014).
Grape berries in an infested bunch do not develop
normally and are shrivelled (Mani et al. 2014).
Capnodium species are the most commonly found
sooty moulds in gardens and landscapes. Sooty
moulds appear to show no preference for a particular
host or plant and can occur on both wild and
cultivated plants (Laemmlen 2011).
A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level

There are no known direct consequences of this
pathogen on the natural environment.
Indirect consequences
Eradication, control B - Minor significance at the local level
etc.
 First step in the control of sooty mould colonies is to
rinse any sticky surfaces with a jet of water to wash
off honeydew before the mould can grow (Chomnunti
et al. 2014).
 Sooty moulds are indirectly controlled by reducing the
population of sucking insects that excrete honeydew.
 Ant management is an important consideration to halt
development of sooty moulds. Ants are attracted to
and use honeydew as a food source they will protect
honeydew producing insects from predators in order
to harvest honeydew (Laemmlen 2011).
Domestic trade B - Minor significance at the local level


Bunches with berries coated in sooty mould are
unsightly, resulting in loss of market value due to
cosmetic damage, are poor in quality and unfit for
human consumption (Mani et al. 2014).
Sooty mould is known to be in eastern Australia and it
is unlikely that domestic trade would be restricted if
this pathogen was to be introduced.
International trade A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level

It is unlikely that restrictions would be applied to
international trade.
Environment, B - Minor significance at the local level
including rural and
 Where there has been a large number of plant
regional economic
sucking insects activity on hosts plants, the honeydew
viability
they excrete may drip on the surrounding smaller
plants, grass, soil and even stones and resulting in
them being covered with the black fungus (Boedijn
1931).
247
Draft Policy Review
The expected economic consequences for the endangered area should sooty mould
enter, establish and spread within Western Australia has been determined to be
negligible using the decision rules outlined in Table A5.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
A URE of negligible was determined using the matrix rules outlined in Table A6 for
fresh table grapes imported into Western Australia from regions where sooty mould
occurs.
Unrestricted risk estimate for sooty mould
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
Very low
Consequences
Negligible
Unrestricted risk
Negligible
As the URE is below Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’, the basic standards of practice
for control for table grape production would provide an appropriate level of protection
for Western Australia.
248
Draft Policy Review
White rot
Scientific name (Van Niekerk et al. 2004)
Pilidiella castaneicola (Ellis & Everh.) Arx 1957 [as ‘castaniicola’]
Pilidiella diplodiella (Speg.) Crous & J.M. van Niekerk 2004 [Diaporthales:
Schizoparmaceae]
Synonyms (Robert et al. 2005)
Pilidiella diplodiella:
Charrinia diplodiella (Speg.) Viala & Ravaz 1894
Clisosporium diplodiella (Speg.) Kuntze 1898
Coniothyrium diplodiella (Speg.) Sacc. 1884
Coniella sp. Höhn. 1918
Coniella diplodiella (Speg.) Petr. & Syd. 1927
Coniella petrakii B. Sutton 1980
Phoma diplodiella Speg. 1878
Pilidiella castaneicola:
Anamorph: Gloeosporium castaneicola Ellis & Everh. 1895
Coniella castaneicola (Ellis & Everh.) B. Sutton 1980
Asteromella castaneicola (Ellis & Everh.) Petr. 1957
Phyllosticta castaneicola Ellis & Everh. 1895
Pilidiella quercicola (Oudem) Petr. 1927 [1926]
Schizoparme staminea Shear 1923
Preferred common name
White rot
Alternative common names
Hail disease
Common host plants
Pilidiella diplodiella:
Vitis spp. (Van Niekerk et al. 2004) is the major host. Other reported hosts include
Angogeisus latifolia, Citrus aurantifolia, Geranium sp., Hibiscus sabdariffa (Jamaica
sorrel) and Rosa sp. (Correa Sánchez et al. 2011).
Pilidiella castaneicola:
Acer sp., Carya sp., Castanea sativa, Castanea spp., Eucalytpus petellita,
Eucalyptus spp., Fragaria sp., Frangaria ananassa, Liquidambar styracifolia (sweet
gum), Magifera indica (mango), Quercus spp., Rhus capallina (black mumac), Rhus
sp., Rosa rugose-prostrata, Vitis cordifilia and Vitis vinifera (Nag Raj 1993; Bissegger
& Sieber 1994; Van Niekerk et al. 2004; Rossman et al. 2007; Farr & Rossman
2015).
Plant part affected
Berries, pedicels, rachis, non-lignified shoots; rarely leaves and fruits (Bisiach 1988;
Farr & Rossman 2015).
Australian distribution
249
Draft Policy Review
Pilidiella diplodiella:
New South Wales (PHA 2001)
Pilidiella castaneicola:
Queensland (BRIP 2015)
New South Wales (PHA 2001)
Victoria (PHA 2001)
Northern Territory (PHA 2001; DNAP 2015)
Biology and pest status
Vitis vinifera is the major host of white rot caused by P. diplodiella. Correa Sánchez
et al. (2011) report alternative hosts such as Rosa spp., Anogeisus latifolia,
Geranium sp. in India, Pisum sativum in Australia, and Citrus aurantifolia in Mexico.
The Australian isolate mentioned by Correa Sánchez et al. (2011) is believed to be
the one from Western Australia (Shivas 1989; WAC 2015) and has since been
sequenced and found to match Coniella fragariae (unpublished data). Pilidiella
castaneicola has a variety of hosts (Nag Raj 1993; Van Niekerk et al. 2004; Farr &
Rossman 2015).
Pilidiella diplodiella and P. castaneicola were reported to infect grapevines in Japan,
however only P. diplodiella has been recorded on V. vinifera in Australia (PHA 2001).
In Japan both species are considered to be causal agents of white rot and were
assessed together by the Australian Department of Agriculture (2014) due to their
similar biology and thereby considered to pose a similar risk and require similar
mitigation measures.
Symptoms
White rot disease can occur on the pedicels, rachis, shoots, stem; lesions on leaves
are rare, but marginal and up to 4cm if occurring (Bisiach 1988; CABI 2015a).
Life cycle and infective stages
Infection of P. diplodiella usually occurs after hail or a heavy storm, where spores
splashed from the soil lead to infection causing damaged berries to turn yellow then
pinkish blue (Bisiach 1988; Crous & Carstens 2000). Berries shrink and brown
pycnidia form that cause the cuticle to detach from the epidermis and due to air
between the cuticle and epidermis the appearance of the berry becomes whitish
(Crous & Carstens 2000; Kassemeyer & Berkelmann-Löhnertz 2009). Symptoms of
P. diplodiella and P. castaneicola on grapevine are reported to differ only slightly
(Yamato 1995 cited in Australian Department of Agriculture 2014, p. 147).
Other pathways for infection by P. diplodiella are wounds (such as sun scorch,
mechanical damage (including pruning) or attack by other pathogens) and rain
splash (CABI 2015a). The rachis and pedicel can be penetrated directly by the
fungus (Bisiach 1988).
Modes of transmission and spread
Sporulation occurs on the berries and leaves that fall to the ground, providing
inoculum for the next season (Bisiach 1988; CABI 2015a). Conidia can remain viable
in soil for 1–2 years, 2–3 years on berries both in the soil and in the air and 11–16
years in dry, cold conditions (undefined) (Bisiach 1988; CABI 2015a). The fungus is
spread in infected host plant material, soil and also on pruning implements (CABI
2015a).
Climatic requirements and range
Under high humidity (90-100%) and temperature (24-27°C), infection can damage
250
Draft Policy Review
the majority of the cluster and pycnidia are produced on the skin of the berry (Bisiach
1988). Bisiach (1988) states that infection is negligible when the temperature is
below 15°C and above 34°C and that the incubation period varies from 3–8 days,
depending on the tissue infected (longer in shoot penetration), means of penetration,
temperature and relative humidity.
In dry conditions pycnidia may develop within the berry close to the seed providing a
source of innoculum for successive seasons (Bisiach 1988). Specimens of
P. diplodiella collected from Vitis vinifera seed samples from Italy, and used in
assays by Van Niekerk et al. (2004) to verify the species presence in South Africa.
Bisiach (1988) identified that this pathogen rarely occurs as cankers on non-lignified
shoots in Vitis vinifera cultivars; although it has been frequently observed on nonlignified shoots in American or interspecific hybrid rootstock cultivars.
Control
Fungicidal control of white rot is difficult due to the short incubation time of the
conidia, with only 12 hours until the germ-tube has entered the berry and then
fungicides are not effective. Removal of damaged grapes before infection events
such as hailstorms or fungicide application within 18 hours of a hailstorm are the
most effective control measures (CABI 2015a). Large-scale field monitoring trials in
China’s table grape planting regions from 2009 - 2012 have demonstrated that the
average severity of white rot could be reduced by 73%, by protecting grapevines
from rainfall through the erection of rain shelters (Du et al. 2015).
Pest risk assessment
The outcome of this pest risk assessment is a unrestricted risk estimate for white rot
in association with imported table grapes imported from other Australian states and
territories. The unrestricted risk is estimated in the absence of risk management
measures (including inspection). The pest risk assessment considers basic
standards of practice for the production and transport of table grapes including
cooling table grapes to 0–2oC at 85–98% relative humidity and stored in standard
closed box packaging with sulphur pads. Likelihoods and consequences are
described using the processes and nomenclature outlined in Appendix A.
Probability of entry
The probability of entry is considered in two parts; the probability of importation (preborder) and the probability of distribution (post-border). The probability of entry is
determined by combining the probabilities of importation and distribution using the
matrix rules shown in Table A2.
Probability of importation
Association of white rot with the table grape pathway at its origin
The likelihood that white rot will arrive in Western Australia with the importation of
fresh table grapes is based on an assessment of factors in the source and
destination area considered relevant to white rot and includes

Commercial table grape production occurs in all mainland Australian states
and territories with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory (ATGA
2014). White rot has been recorded from the table grape producing states
251
Draft Policy Review










and territories of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and the Northern
Territory.
Cook (2008) and (D Cook 2015, pers. comm.) predicted that 3950 tonnes of
table grapes could be expected to be imported into Western Australia per year
from other Australian states and territories should table grapes be permitted
entry. This is considered to be the minimum import volume when estimating
the likelihood of importation.
Grapes are predominately packed in the field and transported from the
vineyard to packing/cooling facilities (ATGA, 2012 #10).
The last isolate of P. diplodiella on Vitis sp. recorded in the Australian Plant
Pest Database (PHA 2001) was for 2001 for NSW, all other isolates reported
were from the 1950’s to 1970’s.
No recent publications relating to P. diplodiella on Vitis sp.in Australia have
been found during this assessment.
Pilidiella castaneicola is commonly encountered on Eucalyptus leaves and
causes leaf and fruit diseases on strawberry (Van Niekerk et al. 2004).
Coniella castaneicola (Ellis & Everh.) B. Sutton 1980 [syn.] has been reported
in three Australian states, but there are no reported incidents of its occurrence
on Vitis in Australia.
Pilidiella diplodiella infections and conidia are associated with berries,
pedicels and rachis (Bisiach 1988). However, infected berries are likely to
show signs of infection and be discarded before packing and transport.
Conida transmitted to the surface of grape bunches or in soil residue, are able
to remain viable for 2-3 years (CABI 2015a). Grape clusters contaminated
with conidia and not showing signs of infection at packing could be
transported to Western Australia.
Isolate records suggests that white rot infection in Australia is not very
prevalent, or that standard practice fungicide applications control this
pathogen to below an economic threshold.
As such, the consequence of white rot in other Australian states and
territories may be insufficient to trigger formal investigation, including
identification of the causal agent and subsequent reporting.
The presence of white rot on the table grape pathway at its origin is expected to
reduce the likelihood of the pest being imported into Western Australia.
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures

Pilidiella diplodiella and P. castaneicola were judged to cause the same
disease due to their similar biology and thereby posed a similar risk and
required similar mitigation measures (Australian Department of Agriculture
2014).

Control of white rot is predominately controlled by prevention of wounds
caused by insect, mechanical damage, hail and mildew attach. Modification of
training systems to keep grape clusters high above the ground is
recommended (Bisiach 1988).

Infected branches, rachises and desiccated berries falling on soils in host
regions, can provide potential inoculum for future white rot outbreaks for up to
15 years (Bisiach 1988). Dispersal of inoculum in soil is possible by winddriven rain splash, infected plant material and machinery.

Pilidiella diplodiella mycelia may enter via infected table grape rachis which
escape detection during harvesting or packing house quality control
inspection and are exported to Western Australia. However, cluster shrivelling
252
Draft Policy Review
may occur and be detected during harvest or packing house quality control
inspection, resulting in the removal of symptomatic bunches

Conidia on berry surfaces are microscopic and may result in the importation
of P. diplodiella into Western Australia from other Australian states and
territories.

Standard on-arrival procedures include verification that the commodity is as
described, and inspection for external and internal contaminates of containers
and packaging. Inspection of the product itself is not considered under
minimum on-arrival border procedures. Consequently, it is expected that
standard on-arrival procedures would not detect the presence of white rot in a
consignment of fresh table grapes.
The ability of white rot to survive existing pest management procedures is not
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into Western
Australia with table grapes.
Ability to survive transport and storage




Dried pycnidia of the fungi can release conidia that may remain viable in soil
for more than 15 years. Under favourable conditions, conidia from
contaminated soil on the grape cluster will germinate and initiate infection
(Bisiach 1988).
After harvest, table grapes are cooled to 0–2°C and 85–95% relative humidity
and shipped over long distances at 0°C with a sulphur dioxide (SO2) pads
inside polyethylene lined containers (McConnell 2000).
The incubation period for the fungus varies from three to eight days,
depending on the tissue infected (Bisiach 1988). Pilidiella diplodiella
infections associated with harvested grape bunches not showing obvious
symptoms, or with only minor lesions on peduncle, rachis or pedicel, are very
likely to survive routine processing procedures in the packing house,
palletisation, containerisation and transportation to Western Australia.
Symptoms of white rot develop slowly below 15°C (Bisiach 1988), so
infected/contaminated grapes may exhibit no or mild symptoms on arrival in
Western Australia. Consequently grape bunches without symptoms, or with
only minor symptoms, may not be detected at routine inspection on arrival.
The ability of white rot to survive transport and storage procedures is not
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be imported into Western
Australia with table grapes.
White rot has been assessed as having a very low probability of importation in
association with imported table grapes. That is, the importation of white rot would be
very unlikely to occur under standard commercial production, harvesting and
packing house procedures for table grapes from regions where this pest occurs. Due
to the limited reports of berry infection in Australia; a higher probability of importation
could not be justified.
Probability of distribution
The likelihood that white rot will be distributed into Western Australia in a viable state
to a suitable host, as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of fresh table grape
bunches is based on an assessment of factors in the destination area considered
relevant to white rot and includes:
253
Draft Policy Review
Transport of table grapes within Western Australia




As grapes are easily damaged during handling (Mencarelli et al. 2005),
packed grapes may not be processed or handled again until they arrive at the
retailers. Therefore, pathogens in packed grapes are unlikely to be detected
during transportation and distribution to retailers.
Imported fruit are intended for human consumption. Fruit will be distributed to
many localities by wholesale and retail trade and by individual consumers.
In 2013/14, 82% of Australian households purchased grapes at least once
(HAL 2014). This suggests that table grapes have the potential to be widely
distributed within Western Australia.
There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape material
(including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or equipment within Western
Australia. Consequently bunches infected with P. diplodiella or conidia on the
berry surfaces may be distributed throughout Western Australia.
The ability of white rot to move with infested table grapes is not expected to be a
factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within Western Australia.
Risks from by-products and waste




The importation of fresh table grapes for human consumption will result in the
generation of waste material including rachis and berries.
Most fruit waste, berries, clusters and stalks, will be discarded into managed
waste systems and will be disposed of in municipal tips. Consumers will
discard small quantities of fruit waste in urban, rural and natural localities.
Small amounts of fruit waste will be discarded in domestic compost.
Lea and Worsley (2008a) reported that 51% of Australian people surveyed
often composted food waste.
Conidia may be transferred to a suitable host from waste material by wind
driven rain, rain or other water splash such as reticulation (Bisiach 1988).
The ability of white rot to be associated with table grape by-products and waste is
not expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
Ability to move from the pathway to a suitable host




For conidia to transfer from the fresh table grape pathway to a suitable host
plant infected fruit waste would need to be in close proximity to the host plant
and some form of injured berries present (Bisiach 1988). However, after
infected rachises and or desiccated berries are discarded near a suitable
host, conidia and infected plant material may remain viable in soil for up to 15
years.
Hail damage is a predisposing factor for white rot infection (Bisiach 1988),
heavy rain, wind driven rain, water splash, mechanical injury and wounding
caused by downy mildew (Plasmopara viticola) and insects (to a lesser
extent) can facilitate infection (Sutton & Waterson 1964 cited in Australian
Department of Agriculture 2014, p. 146).
Known hosts for P. diplodiella (Vitis spp. and Hibiscus sabdariffa) occur in
Western Australia in vineyards, backyards, as amenity plants and as
naturalised populations.
Pilidiella castaneicola has a wide host range with most of these distributed in
Western Australia including but not limited to Magifera indica (mango),
Fragaria sp. (strawberries) and Eucalyptus sp. (Western Australian Herbarium
1998).
254
Draft Policy Review


Vitis vinifera seedlings have been recorded in naturalised populations in
Western Australia (Western Australian Herbarium 1998). Rachis with
associated berries from seeded varieties may be discarded in environments
suitable for germination. In this situation resultant seedlings would be in very
close proximity to infected material, facilitating transfer to the seedling (a
suitable host).
Seedling survival in natural environments is influenced by many factors such
as environmental conditions, seed predation, herbivory of seedlings and
plants, growth rate and competition for resources (including light, nutrients
and water). In managed environments, especially where intentional
germination of grape seed is attempted, conditions may be more favourable
resulting in a higher proportion of seed germination and plant survival.
The ability of white rot to move from infested table grapes to a suitable host is not
expected to be a factor limiting this pest’s potential to be distributed within
Western Australia.
White rot is estimated as having a low probability of distribution in association with
imported table grapes. That is, the distribution of white rot to the endangered area
and subsequent transfer to a suitable host would be unlikely to occur as a result of
the processing, sale or disposal of imported table grapes. Due to the requirement for
dispersal by rain-splash and hail damage being a predisposing factor for infection; a
higher probability of distribution could not be justified.
Overall probability of entry (importation x distribution)
The overall probability of entry has been estimated by combining the individual
probabilities of importation and distribution using the matrix rules shown in Table A2.
White rot is estimated as having a very low probability of entry in association with
imported table grapes. That is, the probability that white rot would enter Western
Australia, be distributed in a viable state to an endangered area and subsequently
transfer to a suitable host would be very unlikely to occur as a result of trade in
table grapes imported from regions where this pest occurs.
Probability of establishment
The likelihood that white rot will establish within Western Australia is based on an
assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to
white rot and includes:
Availability of suitable hosts, alternative hosts and vectors in the PRA area


Pilidiella diplodiella has been recorded from Vitis spp. (Van Niekerk et al.
2004), Rosa spp., Anogeisus latifolia, Geranium sp., Citrus aurantifolia and
Hibiscus sabdariffa (Correa Sánchez et al. 2011). All of these species except
Anogeisus latifolia are found to occur in Western Australia (Western
Australian Herbarium 1998).
In Western Australia both table grapes and wine grape varieties are grown. In
regions such as the Swan Valley and Margaret River wine and table grapes
are grown in close proximity to each other. Additionally, Vitis spp. in Western
Australia may be found in backyards, as amenity plants and as naturalised
populations.
255
Draft Policy Review




Pilidiella castaneicola has a variety of hosts including but not limited to Acer
sp. Carya sp. and Eucalytus spp. (Nag Raj 1993; Farr & Rossman 2015) with
a number of these hosts widely distributed in Western Australia.
Pilidiella castaneicola has been reported in Eastern Australia to be present on
Magifera indica (mango), Fragaria sp. (strawberries) (PHA 2001), but not Vitis
vinifera.
Vitis spp. in Western Australia may be found in backyards, as amenity plants
and as naturalised populations (Western Australian Herbarium 1998).
Domestic garden plantings, both maintained and abandoned, occur in Perth
and in most Western Australian towns and by many farmhouses.
A number of Vitis spp. are recorded as weeds in Australia (Randall 2007) and
could be potential wild hosts in Western Australia.
The availability of suitable hosts in Western Australia is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for white rot to establish in Western Australia.
Suitability of the environment



Areas in Western Australia are likely to be similar to locations where this
pathogen is found in NSW.
Worldwide the distribution of white rot is very similar to that of V. vinifera
(Bisiach 1988).
Disease outbreaks of white rot are favoured by hailstorms or summer rain
followed by persistent high humidity combined with temperatures of 24–27 C
(Bisiach 1988). These conditions may exist in some areas of Western
Australia to facilitate the spread of the assessed fungi.
Current Australian distribution suggests that Western Australia’s climate is not
expected to be a factor limiting the potential for white rot to establish within
Western Australia.
Cultural practices and control measures



Cultural practices and existing control measures for other grapevine
pathogens within Western Australian commercial production vineyards are
likely to limit the potential for establishment. According to the 2013/14
viticulture spray guide fungicides are best applied from budburst through to
bunch closure depending upon the target pathogen (DAFWA 2013).
Cultural practices or pathogen control measures which could reduce the
capacity for white rot to establish in Western Australia are unlikely to be
applied to naturalised host populations or unmanaged vineyards.
Cultural practices and pathogen control measures in backyard and amenity
Vitis species may be variable. General fungicides approved for domestic use
are unlikely to have an impact upon establishment of this pathogen and those
registered for use on Vitis are not approved for use in domestic situations.
Cultural practices and control measures are expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for white rot to establish in Western Australia.
Reproductive strategies and survival


Sporulation occurs on the berries and leaves that fall to the ground, providing
inoculum for the next season (Bisiach 1988; CABI 2015a).
Conidia of P. diplodiella can remain viable in soil for 1–2 years, 2–3 years on
berries both in the soil and in the air and 11–16 years in dry, cold conditions
(undefined) (Bisiach 1988; CABI 2015a).
256
Draft Policy Review
The reproductive and survival strategy of sooty mould is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for white rot to establish within Western Australia.
White rot has been estimated as having a moderate probability of establishment
within Western Australia. That is, the establishment of sooty mould in an endangered
area would occur with an even probability as a result of infected fresh table grape
bunches being imported into Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to a
suitable host. Due to the potential control of current cultural practices; a higher
probability of establishment could not be justified.
Probability of spread
The likelihood that white rot will spread within Western Australia is based on an
assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered relevant to
white rot and includes:
The suitability of the natural or managed environment for natural spread





Conidia of P. diplodiella have been reported to be splash dispersed by rain
and hail (Bisiach 1988). This situation is likely to occur in both natural and
managed environments within Western Australia.
Host plants for white rot are widely distributed and are naturalised within
Western Australia (Western Australian Herbarium 1998)
Areas in Western Australia are likely to be similar to locations where this
pathogen is found in NSW and in other grape growing regions worldwide.
Conidia can remain viable in soil for 1–2 years, 2–3 years on berries both in
the soil and in the. The fungus may also spread in contaminated soil and also
on pruning implements (Bisiach 1988; CABI 2015a).
One gram of soil from an infected vineyard may contain 300-2,000 conidia
(Bisiach 1988).
The suitability of the natural or managed environment is not expected to be a
factor limiting the potential for white rot to spread in Western Australia.
Presence of natural barriers



As the sexual state is unknown (Van Niekerk et al. 2004), it is possible that
long distance spread to new areas may only occur via the movement of
infected host plant material or contaminated soil.
The major commercial grape production districts in Western Australia are
located in the south-west of the State between Perth and Albany and in the
Carnarvon region in the north-west. Natural barriers, including climatic
differentials and long distances, may limit the natural unfacilitated spread of
the pathogen.
If isolated plants in a home garden were to become infected by white rot, it is
likely that physical barriers would prevent its spread to other hosts due to the
limited distance that conidia can be spread by rain splash.
The presence of natural barriers is expected to be a factor limiting the potential
for white rot to spread in Western Australia.
Potential for movement with commodities or conveyances
257
Draft Policy Review


Long distance spread to new areas following establishment in Western
Australia may occur through the movement of Vitis spp. fruit, Hibiscus
sabdariffa, nursery stock or other propagative material.
There are no intrastate restrictions regarding the movement of grape, or
Hibiscus sabdariffa material (including fruit and nursery stock), machinery or
equipment within Western Australia.
The potential for movement with commodities or conveyances is not expected to
be a factor limiting the potential for white rot to spread in Western Australia.
Potential natural enemies

There are no known natural enemies of P. diplodiella (Bisiach 1988).
The potential for natural enemies is not expected to be a factor limiting the
potential for white rot to spread in Western Australia.
White rot has been estimated as having a moderate probability of spread within
Western Australia. That is, spread of white rot in an endangered area would occur
with an even probability as a result of infected table grapes being imported into
Western Australia and distributed in a viable state to a suitable host. Due to the
presence of natural barriers and long distance spread being limited to infected
propagation material and infected fruit, a higher probability of spread could not be
justified.
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
The overall probability of entry, establishment and spread has been estimated by
combining the individual probabilities using the matrix rules shown in Table A2. White
rot has been assessed as having a very low probability of entry, establishment and
spread entry in association with imported table grapes. That is, the entry,
establishment and spread of white rot would be very unlikely to occur should table
grapes be imported into Western Australia from regions where this pest occurs.
Economic consequences
ISPM 11 (2014) indicates that the assessment of economic consequences is made
using ‘a hypothetical situation where a pest is supposed to have been introduced
and to be fully expressing its potential economic consequences (per year) in the PRA
area’.
This is interpreted as an unabated incursion; however, it is acknowledged that
existing control regimes for similar species may impact on this expression. In light of
this interpretation, an evaluation of the consequence of entry, establishment or
spread of white rot is considered in Table 22
Table 22: Economic consequences of white rot of grapes
Criterion
Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health D - Significant at the district level
258
Draft Policy Review
Table 22: Economic consequences of white rot of grapes
Criterion
Estimate










In Australia P. diplodiella has only been recorded
from Vitis spp. (PHA 2001).
On Vitis spp. it causes berries to shrink and form
brown pustules that cause the fruit to detach from
the cuticle and become pale and the majority of the
cluster can be affected under the correct conditions
(Kassemeyer & Berkelmann-Löhnertz 2009; MAF
Biosecurity New Zealand 2009).
Disease can occur on the pedicels, rachis, shoots,
stem and rarely on the leaves (Bisiach 1988; CABI
2015a).
It has also been recorded on Hibiscus sabdariffa in
Mexico causing leaf spots and on Geranium sp.,
Angogeisus latifolia and Citrus aurantifolia (Correa
Sánchez et al. 2011).
Losses of 20–80 percent of the crop have been
reported in Europe in areas prone to hailstorms
(Bisiach 1988).
Pilidiella diplodiella is one the principal fungal
disease in China causing an annual loss of grape
production of about 16.3% (Li et al. 2008)
In Australia P. castaneicola has not been recorded
for Vitis spp. (PHA 2001).
It is reported that the disease caused by P.
castaneicola on grapevines in Japan occurs
sporadically, or causes damage at the same sites
every year (Rural Culture Association Japan 2005
cited in Australian Department of Agriculture 2014,
p. 147).
Pilidiella castaneicola is known to cause leaf and
fruit diseases of strawberries, and is found on
foliage of broad-leafed trees (Farr & Rossman
2015).
Pilidiella castaneicola causes leaf spot on
Eucalyptus, but is reported to be of minor
importance as a leaf pathogen (Van Niekerk et al.
2004).
Any other aspects of A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level
the environment
 There are no known direct consequences of this
fungus on the natural environment.
Indirect consequences
Eradication, control C - Minor significance at the district level
etc.
 If P. diplodiella was introduced into Western
Australia it is unlikely eradication would be
attempted.
259
Draft Policy Review
Table 22: Economic consequences of white rot of grapes
Criterion
Estimate



Measures to control white rot include prevention of
wounding caused by insects or powdery mildew,
and modified training systems to keep grape
clusters high above the ground (Bisiach 1988).
Removal of damaged grapes before infection
events such as hailstorms or fungicide application
within 18 hours of a hailstorm are the most
effective control measures (CABI 2015a).
Applications of additional fungicides and other
control measures may be required.
Domestic trade A - Unlikely to be discernible at the local level

Pilidiella diplodiella and P. castaneicola are known
to be present in Australia’s eastern states – NSW,
NT, Qld and Vic (PHA 2001). It would be unlikely
for trade restrictions to be applied, as no known
specific restrictions for this pathogen are in place at
the present time.
International trade D - Significant at the district level

The presence of P. diplodiella in commercial grape
production areas may limit access to overseas
markets that are free from this pathogen. New
Zealand lists this pathogen as an ‘unwanted
organism’ (MAF Biosecurity New Zealand 2009)
and Thailand lists it as a ‘disease of quarantine
concern’ (Australian Department of Agriculture
2015b).
Environment, B - Minor significance at the local level
including rural and
 Additional fungicide applications or other measures
regional economic
may be required to control this disease on
viability
susceptible hosts and these may have minor
impact on the environment.
The expected economic consequences for the endangered area should white rot
enter, establish and spread within Western Australia has been determined to be low
using the decision rules outlined in Table A5.
Unrestricted risk estimate (URE)
A URE of very low was determined using the matrix rules outlined in Table A6 for
table grapes imported into Western Australia from regions where white rot occurs.
Unrestricted risk estimate for white rot
260
Draft Policy Review
Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread
Very low
Consequences
Low
Unrestricted risk
Negligible
As the URE is below Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’, the basic standards of practice
for control table grape production would provide an appropriate level of protection for
Western Australia.
261
Draft Policy Review
Pest risk assessment conclusions
Table 23: Summary of unrestricted risk estimates for invertebrates of quarantine concern
empty cell
Probability of
Entry
Establishment
Spread
Overall
probability (EES)
Economic
consequence
Unrestricted risk
low
low
high
moderate
low
low
very low
extremely low
low
extremely low
high
moderate
extremely low
very low
negligible
negligible
not assessed
not assessed
not assessed
not assessed
at most
negligible
not assessed
at most very low
European wasp
very low
very low
extremely low
high
high
extremely low
low
negligible
Flat grain beetle
negligible
not assessed
not assessed
not assessed
not assessed
at most
negligible
not assessed
at most very low
Grape phylloxera
very low
very low
extremely low
high
moderate
extremely low
moderate
negligible
negligible
not assessed
not assessed
not assessed
not assessed
at most
negligible
not assessed
at most very low
extremely low
high
extremely low
high
high
extremely low
negligible
negligible
extremely low
moderate
extremely low
very low
moderate
extremely low
negligible
negligible
Peach white scale
negligible
not assessed
not assessed
not assessed
not assessed
at most
negligible
not assessed
at most very low
Queensland fruit fly
moderate
high
moderate
high
high
moderate
moderate
moderate
Spanish red scale
negligible
not assessed
not assessed
not assessed
not assessed
at most
negligible
not assessed
at most very low
Warehouse beetle
negligible
not assessed
not assessed
not assessed
not assessed
at most
negligible
not assessed
at most very low
Citrophilus mealybug
Citrus planthopper
European fruit lecanium
scale
Kanzawa spider mite
Metallic shield bug
Native tussock moth
Importation x
Distribution
high
=
262
Draft Policy Review
Table 24: Summary of unrestricted risk estimates for pathogens of quarantine concern
empty cell
Probability of
Overall
probability (EES)
Economic
consequence
Unrestricted risk
moderate
low
moderate
low
moderate
moderate
low
low
very low
low
high
moderate
low
low
very low
very low
very low
moderate
low
very low
moderate
very low
high
low
low
high
low
very low
low
negligible
Hop stunt viroid
high
low
low
high
moderate
low
low
very low
Pestalotiopsis
menezesiana and P.
uvicola a
low
low
very low
moderate
moderate
very low
low
negligible
high
low
low
high
moderate
low
moderate
low
Sooty mould
very low
low
very low
moderate
moderate
very low
negligible
negligible
White rot
very low
low
very low
moderate
moderate
very low
low
negligible
Importation x
Distribution
Bitter rot
high
Botryosphaeria
canker
Citrus exocortis
viroid
Entry
Establishment
low
low
moderate
high
low
low
high
low
Grapevine fanleaf
virus
moderate
Grapevine yellow
speckle viroid 1, 2
Phomopsis cane
and leaf spot
=
Spread
263
Draft Policy Review
Stage three - Pest risk management
Consistent with the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and the Intergovernmental Agreement on
Biosecurity (IGAB), Western Australia’s appropriate level of protection (ALOP) is ‘very low’,
providing a ‘high level of sanitary and phytosanitary protection aimed at reducing risk to a
very low level, but not zero’. This reflects the maximal risk from a pest incursion that the state
considers to be ‘acceptable’, and is consistent with Australia’s ALOP for international trade.
Reducing biosecurity risk to zero is unrealistic as it would require a complete halt in interstate
trade and travel. This framework means that Western Australia has accepted a 'very low level'
of biosecurity risk as a consequence to continuing interstate trade and travel.
The conclusion of the pest risk assessments is the determination of a unrestricted risk
estimate (URE) for the pests of quarantine concern. The URE is the level of risk expressed as
a probability of an adverse event occurring as well as the magnitude of consequences of such
an event. In determining the unrestricted risk, existing commercial production practices in
Australia have been considered, as have post-harvest and packing procedures.
The URE determines whether the basic standards of practice for table grape production
provides an appropriate level of protection, or whether specific risk mitigating phytosanitary
measures are required to achieve Western Australia’s ALOP. An unrestricted risk that is
either ‘negligible’ or ‘very low’ meets Western Australia’s ALOP and is considered acceptable
— for these quarantine pests, risk management measures are not justified. If the URE is
found to exceed the level of quarantine risk that is acceptable to Western Australia, risk
management measures are proposed to reduce the level of risk to that level.
Risk management describes the process of identifying and implementing measures to
mitigate risks so as to achieve Western Australia’s appropriate level of protection (ALOP) of
‘very low’, without unduly restricting trade. The guiding principle for risk management is to
manage risk to achieve the required degree of protection that can be justified and feasible
within the limits of available measures and resources. In addition to existing commercial
production practices for table grapes and minimum import requirements for Western
Australia, specific pest risk management measures are recommended to achieve Western
Australia’s ALOP of very low.
If adopted, the risk management measures proposed in this PRA would inform Western
Australia’s import requirements for table grapes, to limit the level of quarantine risk to an
acceptably low level. The implementation of phytosanitary measures is not considered to be
permanent. After application, the success of the measures in achieving their aim is
determined by monitoring over time. This is achieved by inspection of the table grapes onarrival, and noting any interceptions or incursions of a pest into the PRA area. The
information supporting the PRA will be periodically reviewed to ensure that any new
information that becomes available is used to evaluate the need to modify any phytosanitary
measures in place.
In some cases the recommended measures require further arrangements in order to be
implemented. For example, some risk management measures identified may require
preparatory work to be undertaken by the governing jurisdiction of the exporting state before
trade can commence. Certification and General Requirements are systems to ensure that the
phytosanitary status of table grapes is maintained during the process of production and
export to Western Australia. Where necessary, DAFWA will work with the governing
jurisdiction of the exporting state or territory to ensure that an operational work plan and the
risk management measures recommended in this PRA are implemented.
The URE for pests of quarantine concern are summarised in Table 23 and Table 24. The
URE for Queensland fruit fly, bitter rot and Phomopsis cane and leaf spot exceed Western
Australia’s ALOP and require specific pest risk management measures to achieve the level of
quarantine risk that is acceptable to the state in order to allow the importation of table grapes
For these, Western Australia exercises its obligations under the IGAB to apply scientifically
264
Draft Policy Review
justified sanitary and phytosanitary measures that are not more trade restrictive than required
to achieve Western Australia’s ALOP.
Available risk management options
The risk management measures described below form the basis of the proposed import
conditions for table grapes into Western Australia. The specific phytosanitary risk
management measures are detailed in the ‘Proposed conditions for table grapes imported
into Western Australia’ section. The proposed risk management measures described below
do not preclude consideration of alternative risk management measures should they be
proposed by stakeholders.
Pest free areas
The concept of ‘pest freedom’ allows exporting states or territories to provide assurance to
Western Australia that table grapes are free from a specific pest or pests and meet the
phytosanitary import requirements when imported from a pest free area or place of
production.
A ‘pest free area’ (PFA) is defined as ‘an area in which a specific pest does not occur as
demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being
officially maintained’ (ISPM 5 2015). In accordance with ISPM 4 (2011), ‘Requirements for the
establishment of pest free areas (1995)’, there are three main components to the
establishment and maintenance of a PFA. These are:

systems to establish freedom

phytosanitary measures to maintain freedom

checks to verify freedom has been maintained.
Systems to establish freedom may include information gathered from general surveillance
and specific surveys.
Phytosanitary measures to maintain freedom include specific measures to prevent the
introduction and spread of a quarantine pest, including:



regulatory action, such as the:
o listing of a pest on a quarantine pest list
o specific import requirements relating to that pest into an area
o restriction of the movement of certain products within an area
routine monitoring
extension advice to producers (ISPM 4 2011).
Continuing pest free status should be verified after the PFA has been established. These
checks may include:



ad hoc inspection of exported consignments
requirement that researchers, advisors or inspectors notify the state and territory
quarantine authorities of any occurrences of the pest
monitoring surveys.
The declaration of a pest free area may be either within a state or territory or for the whole of
the state or territory.
In the context of a restricted risk estimate, for a PFA where the probability of importation is
reduced to very low, combining any other probability using the matrix rules shown in Table
A2 would result in a negligible to very low probability of entry, establishment and spread.
265
Draft Policy Review
Combining a negligible to very low probability of entry, establishment and spread with the
moderate estimate of economic consequence determined for Queensland fruit fly, bitter rot
and Phomopsis cane and leaf spot, would result in a restricted risk estimate that does not
exceed Western Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’ (Table A6), consequently the application of
further risk mitigation measures would not be justified.
Whole of state/territory pest free area
In general whole of state/territory PFA applications are considered acceptable if specified
quarantine pests have not been recorded from the state or territory, there are phytosanitary
measures in place to maintain freedom and there are checks in place to verify ongoing
freedom.
Pest status for an area may be determined by state and territory quarantine authorities, and
based on supporting information that may include:







individual pest records
pest records from surveys
records or other indication of pest absence
results of general surveillance
information from scientific publications and databases
phytosanitary measures used to prevent introduction or spread
other information relevant to assessing pest absence or presence (ISPM 8 2011).
General surveillance may be adequate on its own to determine the pest status of an area and
would be specifically applicable to pest status of ‘Absent: no pest records’ and ‘Absent pest
no longer present’(ISPM 6 2011; ISPM 8 2011). The level of confidence provided by general
surveillance for determining the pest status of an area is determined by the reliability of the
pest record information provided and associated biosecurity systems.
The decision regarding the acceptability of state/territory PFAs would lie with Western
Australia, subject to consideration of technical justification. Western Australia has accepted
whole of state/territory PFAs for pests of quarantine concern to the state.
Within a state or territory pest free area
In order for a PFA to be recognised within a state or territory, surveillance programs specific
to individual quarantine pests will be required to demonstrate freedom within the state or
territory. Area freedom is to be determined by:

appropriate systems to establish freedom within the area; and

legislative requirements to delineate pest free areas; and

legislative requirements to restrict the movement of host fruit into and within the pest
free area; and

ongoing checks to verify freedom.
The decision regarding the acceptability of state/territory PFAs would lie with Western
Australia, subject to consideration of technical justification. Western Australia currently
accepts within state/territory pest free areas for certain pests of quarantine concern.
Pest free place of production
266
Draft Policy Review
A ‘pest free place of production’ is defined as ‘a place of production in which a specific pest
does not occur as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this
condition is being officially maintained for a defined period’ (ISPM 5 2015).
Requirements for the establishment and maintenance of a pest free place of production as a
phytosanitary measure by state and territory quarantine authorities include:

systems to establish pest freedom

systems to maintain pest freedom

verification that pest freedom has been attained or maintained

product identity and phytosanitary security of the consignment (ISPM 10 2011).
The first three components are similar to those described above for a PFA. The forth
component, product identity and phytosanitary security of the consignment are requirements
to ensure traceability to the pest free place of production, and maintain the integrity of the
consignment of pest freedom of the product after harvest.
Where necessary, a pest free place of production also includes the establishment and
maintenance of an appropriate buffer zone (ISPM 10 2011).
The decision regarding the acceptability of pest free places of production would lie with
Western Australia, subject to consideration of technical justification. Western Australia has
accepted pest free place of production programs for certain pests of quarantine concern.
Cold temperature treatment for Queensland fruit fly
The use of cold temperature as a risk mitigation measure for Queensland fruit fly (Qfly) in
table grapes has recently been validated for the export of Australian table grapes to Japan. In
validation trials conducted by DAFWA in 2012; probit-9 efficacy against Qfly by using
Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) was demonstrated.
Endemic to most parts of Western Australia, Medfly has been shown in previous research
submitted to Japan to be more tolerant of cold treatment than Qfly. The results of this
research also provides Australia’s other major trading partners including China, India,
Indonesia, Korea, New Zealand, Taiwan, Thailand, USA and Vietnam with the data packages
needed to satisfy their requirements to approve exports of Australian table grapes (HAL
2014). The cold treatment regime accepted by Japan for Qfly is



1°C for 16 days, or
2°C for 18 days, or
3°C for 20 days.
Probit-9 efficacy requires 99.9968329% mortality of a pest (often rounded to 99.9968%) after
a treatment has been applied. Probit-9 efficacy can also be expressed as a survival rate of
0.003167% after treatment. In the context of a restricted risk estimate, cold treatment as a
phytosanitary measure is expected to reduce the probability of importation to extremely low
(probability range = 10-6 → 0.001).
Where a probability of importation is assessed as extremely low, combining any other
probability using the matrix rules shown in Table A2 would result in an extremely low or
negligible probability of entry, establishment and spread.
Combining an extremely low or negligible probability of entry, establishment and spread
with any estimate of economic consequence other than extreme for Qfly would result in a
restricted risk estimate that does not exceed Western Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’ (Table
A6), consequently the application of further risk mitigation measures would not be justified for
Queensland fruit fly.
267
Draft Policy Review
Irradiation treatment
The use of irradiation for phytosanitary purposes on table grapes has recently been gazetted
by the Australian Government (ComLaw 2015). The gazetted standard allows an irradiation
dose of 150 Gy to 1 kGy. Irradiation at levels between 150 Gy and 1 kGy is effective at killing
or sterilising insect pests such as Queensland fruit fly without posing a risk to human health or
significantly affecting product quality. Jessup et al. (1992) demonstrated that a dose of 75 Gy
prevented the development of adults when eggs or larvae were irradiated in apples, oranges,
avocadoes, mangoes, tomatoes and cherries.
Minimum effective irradiation doses have the capacity to sterilise or prevents further life cycle
development of the target pest. The use of a pest sterilisation dose, rather than a pest
mortality dose, has been adopted as an international standard ISPM 18 (2011) and ISPM 28
pt5 (2009). A pest sterilisation dose ensures that products are exposed to the minimum dose
possible in consideration of food safety standards, while still meeting phytosanitary
requirements.
The ionising radiation source may be:

gamma rays from the radionuclide cobalt 60; or cesium-137

x-rays (up to 5 mega electron volts [MeV]); or

electrons generated from machine sources (up to 10 mega electron volts [MeV]).
The application of irradiation treatment to the consignment reduces the likelihood of
importation to negligible.
It is accepted internationally and nationally that irradiated commodities negate the need for
further risk mitigation measures for most invertebrate pests. Irradiation treatment at
phytosanitary rates for fresh fruit is not considered efficacious against plant pathogens
identified as quarantine pests in this document. Effectiveness of irradiation treatment for
control of post-harvest fungi in the fresh fruit pathway is still being evaluated (Kader 1986; De
Kock & Holz 1991; Bautista-Baños et al. 2013).
In the context of a restricted risk estimate, the use of irradiation is expected to reduce the
probability of importation to negligible. Where a negligible probability of importation occurs,
combining any other probability using the matrix rules shown in Table A2 would result in a
negligible probability of entry, establishment and spread.
Combining a negligible probability of entry, establishment and spread with any estimate of
economic consequence would result in a restricted risk estimate that does not exceed
Western Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’ (Table A6), consequently the application of further risk
mitigation measures is not justified.
Western Australia has accepted irradiation programs for certain pests of quarantine concern.
Systems approach
A ‘systems approach’ is defined as ‘the integration of different risk management measures, at
least two of which act independently, and which cumulatively achieve the appropriate level of
protection against regulated pests’ (ISPM 5 2015). A systems approach provides the
opportunity to consider pre- and post-harvest procedures that may contribute to the effective
management of pest risk. It is important to consider systems approaches among pest risk
management options as the integration of measures may be less trade restrictive than other
risk management options (particularly where the alternative is prohibition) (ISPM 14 2011).
ISPM 14 (2011) outlines the circumstances where systems approaches may be considered
when one or more of the following apply:

Individual measures are:
268
Draft Policy Review
-
not adequate to meet phytosanitary import requirements
-
not available (or likely to become unavailable)
-
detrimental (to commodity, human health, environment)
-
not cost effective
-
overly trade restrictive
-
not feasible

the pest and pest-host relationship is well known

a systems approach has been demonstrated to be effective for a similar
pest/commodity situation

there is the possibility to assess the effectiveness of individual measures either
qualitatively or quantitatively

relevant growing, harvesting, packing, transportation and distribution practices are
well-known and standardised

individual measures can be monitored and corrected

prevalence of the pest(s) is known and can be monitored

a systems approach is cost effective (e.g. considering the value and/or volume of
commodity).
Western Australia may consult and cooperate with exporting states or territories in the
development and implementation of a systems approach for the importation of table grapes.
The decision regarding adopting a systems approach would lie with Western Australia,
subject to consideration of technical justification, minimal impact, equivalence, and
operational feasibility. Western Australia has accepted systems approach programs for
certain pests of quarantine concern.
For the quarantine pests with a URE that exceeds Western Australia’s ALOP (Queensland
fruit fly, bitter rot and Phomopsis cane and leaf spot), a systems approach would need to
reduce the URE to at least very low.
In the context of a restricted risk estimate, for a Systems Approach where the probability of
importation is reduced to very low, combining any other probability using the matrix rules
shown in Table A2 would result in a negligible to very low probability of entry, establishment
and spread.
Combining a negligible to very low probability of entry, establishment and spread with the
moderate estimate of economic consequence determined for Queensland fruit fly, bitter rot
and Phomopsis cane and leaf spot, would result in a restricted risk estimate that does not
exceed Western Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’ (Table A6), consequently the application of
further risk mitigation measures would not be justified.
Methyl bromide fumigation treatment
Methyl bromide is a fast acting fumigant and its use as a phytosanitary measure has been
critical in preventing the introduction of plant pests that potentially have significant economic
and/or environmental consequences (UNEP IPPC 2007). However, using methyl bromide as
a quarantine measure can reduce the shelf life of table grapes to only a few days (HAL 2009).
Furthermore, methyl bromide is recognised as an ozone depleting substance and its use has
been restricted in Australia.
The restricted use of methyl bromide has been in place since 2005 under Australia’s
obligations as a party to the ‘Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
269
Draft Policy Review
1989’ (the Montreal Protocol) (Australian Government Department of the Environment 2015).
Methyl bromide use in Australia is now restricted to:


phytosanitary measures for imports, exports and certain commodities transported
interstate (current use is >300 tonne per annum)
non-phytosanitary purposes that have been approved under critical use exemptions
(current use is <40 tonne per annum), for:
o soil fumigation in the production of strawberry runners
o treatment of rice packaged in Australia for domestic use, and
o as a feedstock in chemical reactions to create other chemicals (current use is
<1 tonne per annum) (Australian Government Department of the Environment
2015).
Methyl bromide fumigation is accepted nationally and internationally as capable of providing
an appropriate level of risk mitigation measures for most invertebrate pests. However, its
application at rates suitable for fresh fruit is not considered efficacious against plant
pathogens (MBTOC 2002).
In the context of a restricted risk estimate, the application of methyl bromide is expected to
reduce the probability of importation to negligible. Where a negligible probability of
importation occurs, combining any other probability using the matrix rules shown in Table A2
would result in a negligible probability of entry, establishment and spread.
Combining a negligible probability of entry, establishment and spread with any estimate of
economic consequence would result in a restricted risk estimate that does not exceed
Western Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’ (Table A6), consequently the application of further risk
mitigation measures is not required.
Western Australia currently accepts methyl bromide fumigation for most invertebrate
quarantine pests. Methyl bromide rates accepted for Qfly treatment of other commodities are:




48 grams/rn3 for two (2) hours at pulp temperatures of 10 - 14.9°C; or
40 grams/m3 for two (2) hours at pulp temperatures of 15 - 20.9°C; or
32 grams/rn3 for two (2) hours at pulp temperatures of 21 - 25.9°C; or
24 grams/m3 for two (2) hours at pulp temperatures of 26 - 31.9°C
270
Draft Policy Review
Proposed conditions for table grapes imported into Western Australia
Definitions
approved – approved by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food.
consignment – ‘a quantity of plants, plant products or other articles being moved from one
country to another and covered, when required, by a single phytosanitary certificate (a
consignment may be composed of one or more commodities or lots)’ (ISPM 5 2015).
bitter rot – Greeneria uvicola (Berk. & MA Curtis) Punith. 1974 [Diaporthales:
Gnomoniaceae]
grape phylloxera – Daktulosphaera vitifoliae Fitch, 1855 [Hemiptera: Phylloxeridae].
lot – ‘a number of units of a single commodity, identifiable by its homogeneity of composition,
origin etc., forming part of a consignment’ (ISPM 5 2015).
pest free area – ‘an area in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated by
scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially
maintained’ (ISPM 5 2015).
pest free place of production – a ‘place of production in which a specific pest does not
occur as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition
is being officially maintained for a defined period’ (ISPM 5 2015).
Phomopsis cane and leaf spot – Phomopsis viticola (Sacc.) Sacc. 1915 [Diapothales:
Diaporthaceae] Teleomorph: Diaporthe ampelina (Berkeley & M.A. Curtis) R.R. Gomes, C.
Glienke & Crous 2013.
place of production – ‘any premises or collection of fields operated as a single production or
farming unit. This may include production sites which are separately managed for
phytosanitary purposes’ (ISPM 5 2015).
systems approach – ‘the integration of different risk management measures, at least two of
which act independently, and which cumulatively achieve the appropriate level of protection
against regulated pests’ (ISPM 5 2015).
Queensland fruit fly –Bactrocera (Bactrocera) tryoni (Froggatt, 1897) [Diptera: Tephritidae]
table grape bunches – are defined as fresh fruit (that is, a part of a plant that could or does
contain a seed and includes the peduncle; the stalk of the fruit cluster and pedicel; the stalk of
a single fruit) of table grape varieties of Vitis vinifera L.. It does not include dried or processed
grape berries or leaf material or other extraneous material.
General Requirements
Packaging and labelling
Western Australian Import Requirement condition ID 00 (Containers) will apply. This condition
states:
1. The owner of imported fruit, vegetable, seed or plants shall ensure that they are
transported in new or approved containers bearing the details specified in subcondition (2).
2. All containers referred to in sub-condition (1) shall have details of the commodity
type, the commodity producer, packer or agent and the district of production
printed on an external surface in letters not less than 5 mm in height.
271
Draft Policy Review
Western Australian Import Requirement condition ID 59 (Fruit, vegetable and plant containers
(used) other than potato containers – general diseases) will apply. This condition states:
Fruit, vegetable and plant (including plant material) containers (used) other than potato
containers are
1. To be constructed in an approved manner using approved material.
2. To be certified as having been
a. cleaned of all soil and plant material; and
b. treated in an approved manner.
Notice of intention to import
Regulation 75 of the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Regulations 2013 requires that
a commercial carrier transporting a prescribed potential carrier into the State must give not
less than 24 hours notice of the time and place of entry into the State. Prescribed potential
carriers include fresh table grape bunches and containers (prescribed potential carriers are
listed in regulation 5 of the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Regulations 2013). The
penalty for a commercial carrier failing to give notice in accordance with the regulations is set
out in section 20(2) of the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007.
Sulphur dioxide pads
The pest risk assessments assume that sulphur dioxide (SO2) slow release pads would be
used for table grape bunches imported into Western Australia from other Australian states
and territories. This will be confirmed by on-arrival inspection procedures (600 unit
inspection).
Remedial action will be applied to consignments found not to contain SO2 pads; this may
include re-export, destruction or methyl bromide treatment.
The related Western Australian Import Requirement condition ID E1 (Quarantine Treatment
and Destruction premises) will apply. This condition states:
Any necessary quarantine treatment or destruction shall be at the importer's cost,
unless QWA charging policy decrees otherwise.
Details of premises accredited to perform quarantine treatments may be obtained from
the attending Inspector, or by contacting QWA on (08) 9334 1800
Free from leaf material, extraneous material and soil
The assumptions made as part of the pest risk assessments included that the imported
grapes will be free from leaf material, extraneous material and soil. This will be confirmed by
on-arrival inspection procedures (600 unit inspection).
Remedial action will be re-export or destruction. Treatment is not considered to be an option
in this case.
The related Western Australian Import Requirement condition ID E1 (Quarantine Treatment
and Destruction premises) will apply. This condition states:
Any necessary quarantine treatment or destruction shall be at the importer's cost,
unless QWA charging policy decrees otherwise.
272
Draft Policy Review
Details of premises accredited to perform quarantine treatments may be obtained from
the attending Inspector, or by contacting QWA on (08) 9334 1800
Present for inspection
Regulation 79 of the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Regulations 2013 requires that
a person who imports a prescribed potential carrier must (unless exempted under
subregulation (3)) ensure that the prescribed potential carrier is kept secure until it is
inspected, take the prescribed potential carrier to the nearest inspection point and present the
prescribed potential carrier for inspection. Prescribed potential carriers include fresh table
grape bunches and containers (prescribed potential carriers are listed in regulation 5 of the
Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Regulations 2013).
Protocol inspection
To verify the lot is free from leaf material, extraneous material, and pests and that slow
release sulphur dioxide pads have been used lots will be subjected to a 600 unit inspection
on arrival. The 600 unit inspection protocol provides a 95% confidence that the level of leaf,
extraneous material or pests does not exceed 0.5%. It provides the same confidence that the
level of containers without SO2 pads does not exceed 0.5%.
The full rate inspection (“600 unit”) element of Western Australian Import Requirements
Condition ID D11 (protocol inspection) would apply:
The below table provides the sample size required to be 95% certain (confidence
level) of detecting at least one infested unit in a lot with an infestation level of 0.5%. A
lot is the quantity of units identifiable by its homogeneity of composition, origin, etc. A
lot may form part of a consignment or comprise the entire consignment (AQIS, 1998).
To maintain the confidence level it is important that the sample is taken at random
throughout the entire lot and applied to every lot in a consignment.
Lot Size
(Units)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
120
140
160
180
200
250
300
350
400
450
Sample Size
Required (Units)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
120
139
157
174
190
228
260
287
311
331
Lot Size
(Units)
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
10,000+
Sample Size
Required (Units)
349
379
402
421
437
450
471
487
499
509
517
542
556
564
569
573
576
579
581
600
273
Draft Policy Review
Maturity standards
This is not an import requirement; however, Western Australia’s table grape maturity
standards apply to all grapes sold in the state. These standards aim to eliminate sour grapes
being presented for sale to ensure consumer satisfaction and encourage repeat sales. The
grape maturity standards are established under regulation 46 of the Biosecurity and
Agriculture Management (Agriculture Standards) Regulations 2013. The sale of immature
table grapes for consumption as fresh fruit is prohibited under regulation 47 of the Biosecurity
and Agriculture Management (Agriculture Standards) Regulations 2013.
Certification
Each consignment to be accompanied by an Interstate Plant Health Certificate issued by the
quarantine authority in the exporting state or territory or under a quality assurance
arrangement approved by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food,
Western Australia, endorsed as follows and as required under ‘specific requirements’.

The name of the commodity, identified by genus and species; and

Name and address of property on which the product was grown or approved
registration number; and

Name and address of the packing house or approved registration number; and

Name and address of the place if any treatments were carried out; and

The date if any treatments were applied.
Note: if the name and address of the property on which the product was grown is not
compulsory under the ‘Specific Requirement’ it may be excluded from the endorsement.
However, any corrective action necessary will be taken at the packing house level.
Specific phytosanitary measures for Queensland fruit fly
These conditions should be regarded as alternative – only one of these phytosanitary
measures needs to be applied.
State or territory area freedom
Each consignment to be accompanied by an Interstate Plant Health Certificate issued by the
quarantine authority in the exporting state or territory or under a quality assurance
arrangement approved by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food,
Western Australia as certified as having been:
Grown and packed under an approved state or territory pest free area protocol
Within state or territory area freedom
Each consignment to be accompanied by an Interstate Plant Health Certificate issued by the
quarantine authority in the exporting state or territory or under a quality assurance
arrangement approved by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food,
Western Australia as certified as having been:
Grown and packed under an approved pest free area program
274
Draft Policy Review
Pest free place of production
Each consignment to be accompanied by an Interstate Plant Health Certificate issued by the
quarantine authority in the exporting state or territory or under a quality assurance
arrangement approved by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food,
Western Australia as certified as having been:
Grown and packed under an approved pest free place of production program
Cold treatment
Each consignment to be accompanied by an Interstate Plant Health Certificate issued by the
quarantine authority in the exporting state or territory or under a quality assurance
arrangement approved by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food,
Western Australia as certified as having been treated at a temperature for one of the following
options:
1°C for 16 days, or
2°C for 18 days, or
3°C for 20 days
Irradiation
Each consignment to be accompanied by an Interstate Plant Health Certificate issued by the
quarantine authority in the exporting state or territory or under a quality assurance
arrangement approved by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food,
Western Australia as certified as having been irradiated at:
Dmin 150Gy Dmax 1000Gy (1kGy).
Systems approach
Each consignment to be accompanied by an Interstate Plant Health Certificate issued by the
quarantine authority in the exporting state or territory or under a quality assurance
arrangement approved by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food,
Western Australia as certified as having been:
Grown and packed under an approved systems approach program
Methyl bromide fumigation
Each consignment to be accompanied by an Interstate Plant Health Certificate issued by the
quarantine authority in the exporting state or territory or under a quality assurance
arrangement approved by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food,
Western Australia as certified as having been treated for one of the following options:
48 grams/rn3 for two (2) hours at pulp temperatures of 10 - 14.9°C; or
40 grams/m3 for two (2) hours at pulp temperatures of 15 - 20.9°C; or
32 grams/rn3 for two (2) hours at pulp temperatures of 21 - 25.9°C; or
24 grams/m3 for two (2) hours at pulp temperatures of 26 - 31.9°C
275
Draft Policy Review
Specific phytosanitary measures for bitter rot
These conditions should be regarded as alternative – only one of these phytosanitary
measures needs to be applied.
State or territory area freedom
Each consignment to be accompanied by an Interstate Plant Health Certificate issued by the
quarantine authority in the exporting state or territory or under a quality assurance
arrangement approved by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food,
Western Australia as certified as having been:
Grown and packed under an approved state or territory pest free area protocol
Within state or territory area freedom
Each consignment to be accompanied by an Interstate Plant Health Certificate issued by the
quarantine authority in the exporting state or territory or under a quality assurance
arrangement approved by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food,
Western Australia as certified as having been:
Grown and packed under an approved pest free area program
Pest free place of production
Each consignment to be accompanied by an Interstate Plant Health Certificate issued by the
quarantine authority in the exporting state or territory or under a quality assurance
arrangement approved by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food,
Western Australia as certified as having been:
Grown and packed under an approved pest free place of production program
Systems approach
Each consignment to be accompanied by an Interstate Plant Health Certificate issued by the
quarantine authority in the exporting state or territory or under a quality assurance
arrangement approved by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food,
Western Australia as certified as having been:
Grown and packed under an approved systems approach program
Specific phytosanitary measures for Phomopsis cane and leaf spot
These conditions should be regarded as alternative – only one of these phytosanitary
measures needs to be applied.
State or territory area freedom
Each consignment to be accompanied by an Interstate Plant Health Certificate issued by the
quarantine authority in the exporting state or territory or under a quality assurance
276
Draft Policy Review
arrangement approved by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food,
Western Australia as certified as having been:
Grown and packed under an approved state or territory pest free area protocol
Within state or territory area freedom
Each consignment to be accompanied by an Interstate Plant Health Certificate issued by the
quarantine authority in the exporting state or territory or under a quality assurance
arrangement approved by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food,
Western Australia as certified as having been:
Grown and packed under an approved pest free area program
Pest free place of production
Each consignment to be accompanied by an Interstate Plant Health Certificate issued by the
quarantine authority in the exporting state or territory or under a quality assurance
arrangement approved by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food,
Western Australia as certified as having been:
Grown and packed under an approved pest free place of production program
Systems approach
Each consignment to be accompanied by an Interstate Plant Health Certificate issued by the
quarantine authority in the exporting state or territory or under a quality assurance
arrangement approved by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food,
Western Australia as certified as having been:
Grown and packed under an approved systems approach program
277
Draft Policy Review
Table 25: Restricted risk assessment summary for Queensland fruit fly
empty cell
Risk Management Measure
Importation x Distribution =
Probability of
Entry
Establishment
Spread
Overall
probability (EES)
Economic
consequence
Restricted risk
estimate
Option 1:
State/territory freedom
very low
high
very low
high
high
very low
moderate
very low
Option 2:
Within state/territory freedom
very low
high
very low
high
high
very low
moderate
very low
Option 3:
Pest free place of production
very low
high
very low
high
high
very low
moderate
very low
Option 4:
Pre-shipment/in-transit cold
treatment
extremely low
high
moderate
high
high
extremely low
moderate
negligible
Option 5:
Pre-shipment irradiation
treatment
negligible
high
moderate
high
high
negligible
moderate
negligible
Option 6:
Systems approach
very low
high
very low
high
high
very low
moderate
very low
Option 7:
Methyl bromide fumigation
negligible
high
moderate
high
high
negligible
moderate
negligible
278
Draft Policy Review
Table 26: Restricted risk assessment summary for bitter rot
Probability of
Risk Management Measure
Importation x
Distribution =
Entry
Establishment
Spread
Overall
probability (EES)
Economic
consequence
Restricted risk
estimate
Option 1:
State/territory freedom
very low
low
very low
moderate
moderate
very low
moderate
very low
Option 2:
Within state/territory freedom
very low
low
very low
moderate
moderate
very low
moderate
very low
Option 3:
Pest free place of production
very low
low
extremely low
moderate
moderate
extremely low
moderate
very low
Option 4:
Systems approach
very low
low
very low
moderate
moderate
very low
moderate
very low
279
Draft Policy Review
Table 27: Restricted risk assessment summary for Phomopsis cane and leaf spot
Probability of
Risk Management Measure
Importation x
Distribution =
Entry
Establishment
Spread
Overall
probability (EES)
Economic
consequence
Restricted risk
estimate
Option 1:
State/territory freedom
very low
low
very low
high
moderate
very low
moderate
very low
Option 2:
Within state/territory freedom
very low
low
very low
high
moderate
very low
moderate
very low
Option 3:
Pest free place of production
very low
low
very low
high
moderate
very low
moderate
very low
Option 4:
Systems approach
very low
low
very low
high
moderate
very low
moderate
very low
280
Draft Policy Review
References
ABRS 2009, Australian Faunal Directory [online database]. Australian Biological Resources
Study (ABRS), Canberra. <http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/onlineresources/fauna/afd/index.html> [2015].
ABS 2012, Vineyards, Australia, 2011–12: cat. no. 1329.0.55.002. Australian Bureau of
Statistics (ABS), Canberra.
<http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1329.0.55.002Main+Features12
011-12> [24 February 2015].
Albrechtsen SE 2006, Testing methods for seed-transmitted viruses: principles and
protocols. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
Alford DV 1984, A colour atlas of fruit pests: their recognition, biology and control. Wolfe,
London.
Alford DV 2014, Pests of fruit crops: A colour handbook, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Florida.
Amari K, Ruiz D, Gómez G, Sánchez-Pina MA, Pallás V & Egea J 2007, An important new
apricot disease in Spain is associated with Hop stunt viroid infection. European Journal
of Plant Pathology, 118: 173–181.
Anco DJ, Erincik O & Ellis MA 2011, Phomopsis cane and leaf spot of grape: HYG-3031-11,
fact sheet. The Ohio State University. <http://ohioline.osu.edu/hygfact/3000/pdf/3031.pdf>.
Anco DJ, Madden LV & Ellis MA 2013, Effects of temperature and wetness duration on the
sporulation rate of Phomopsis viticola on infected grape canes. Plant Disease, 97:
579–589.
Andret-Link P, Laporte C, Valat L, Ritzenthaler C, Demangeat G, Vigne E, Laval V, Pfeiffer
P, Stussi-Garaud C & Fuchs M 2004, Grapevine fanleaf virus: still a major threat to the
grapevine industry. Journal of Plant Pathology, 86: 183–195.
APVMA 2015, Public Chemical Registration Information System (PubCRIS) [online
database]. Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicinces Authority (APVMA).
<https://portal.apvma.gov.au/pubcris> [2015].
ASCU 2015, Agricultural Scientific Collections Unit (ASCU) via Australian Plant Pest
Database [online database]. NSW Department of Primary Industries.
<http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/resources/australian-plant-pest-database/>
[2015].
Astruc N, Marcos JF, Macquaire G, Candresse T & Pallás P 1996, Studies on the diagnosis
of hop stunt viroid in fruit trees: Identification of new hosts and application of a nucleic
acid extraction procedure based on non-organic solvents. European Journal of Plant
Pathology, 102: 837–846.
ATGA 2011, Submission to the Australian Senate: Inquiry into biosecurity and quarantine
arrangements. Australian Table Grape Association Inc. (ATGA).
ATGA 2012a, Strategic investment plan 2012–2017: Australian table grape industry.
Australian Table Grape Association Inc. (ATGA), Mildura, Victoria.
281
Draft Policy Review
ATGA 2012b, Varieties. Australian Table Grape Association Inc. (ATGA).
<http://www.australiangrapes.com.au/about-atga2/varieties> [03 February 2015].
ATGA 2014, 7th International Table Grape Symposium <symposium proceedings>, 12–14
November, Mildura, Victoria, Australian Table Grape Association Inc. (ATGA).
Australian Department of Agriculture 2014, Final report for the non-regulated analysis of
existing policy for table grapes from Japan. Australian Government Department of
Agriculture, Canberra.
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015a, ICON [online database]. Australian Government
Department of Agriculture. <http://apps.daff.gov.au/icon32/asp/ex_querycontent.asp>
[23 February 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015b, Manual of Importing Country Requirements
[online database]. Australian Government Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx> [6 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015c, All to Papua New Guinea, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Papua_New_Guinea_PG/All2.aspx> [27
May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015d, All to Sri Lanka, Manual of Importing Country
Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Indonesia_ID/Zucchini-ScallopiniPumpkins.aspx> [27 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015e, Apples to Pakistan, Manual of Importing Country
Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Pakistan_PK/Apple.aspx> [27 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015f, Apples to Philippines, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture. <http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Philippines_PH/Apples.aspx>
[28 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015g, Apples to Taiwan, Manual of Importing Country
Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Taiwan_TW/Apples.aspx> [28 May
2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015h, Apples to Thailand, Manual of Importing Country
Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Thailand_TH/Apples.aspx> [27 May
2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015i, Apricot, cherry, nectarine, peach, plum to India,
Manual of Importing Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian
Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/India_IN/Apricot_Cherry_Nectarine_Peac
h_Plum.aspx> [27 May 2015].
282
Draft Policy Review
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015j, Asparagus to Cook Island, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Cook_Islands_CK/Asparagus.aspx> [28
May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015k, Avocados to Thailand, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture. <http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Thailand_TH/Avocado.aspx>
[28 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015l, Basil to Cook Island, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Cook_Islands_CK/Basil.aspx> [28 May
2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015m, Carrots to Cook Island, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Cook_Islands_CK/Carrots.aspx> [28 May
2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015n, Celery to Cook Island, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Cook_Islands_CK/Celery.aspx> [28 May
2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015o, Cerasus pseudocerasus to China, Manual of
Importing Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/China_CN/Cerasus_pseudocerasus.aspx
> [28 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015p, Cherries to China, Manual of Importing Country
Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/China_CN/Cherries1.aspx> [27 May
2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015q, Cherries to Cook Island, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Cook_Islands_CK/Cherries.aspx> [28
May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015r, Cherries to Thailand, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture. <http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Thailand_TH/Cherries.aspx>
[28 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015s, Cherries to USA, Manual of Importing Country
Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/United_States_of_America_US/Cherries.
aspx> [27 May 2015].
283
Draft Policy Review
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015t, Choko to New Caledonia, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/New_Caledonia_NC/Choko.aspx> [28
May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015u, Citrus to Loas, Manual of Importing Country
Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Laos_LA/Citrus-spp.aspx> [28 May
2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015v, Grapefruit, lemon, lime, mandarin, orange,
pomelo, tangerine, tangor to Malaysia, Manual of Importing Country Requirements
(MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Malaysia_MY/Grapefruit,-Lemon,-Lime,Mandarin,-Orange,-Pomelo,-Tangerine,-Tangor.aspx> [27 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015w, Grapefruit, lemon, lime, mandarin, orange,
tangerine to Indonesia, Manual of Importing Country Requirements (MICoR) [online
database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Indonesia_ID/Grapefruit_Lemon_Lime_M
andarin_Orange_Tangerine.aspx> [27 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015x, Grapes to Chile, Manual of Importing Country
Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Chile_CL/Vitis_vinifera.aspx> [27 May
2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015y, Grapes to China, Manual of Importing Country
Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/China_CN/Grapes.aspx> [27 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015z, Grapes to Cook Island, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Cook_Islands_CK/Grapes.aspx> [28 May
2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015aa, Grapes to India, Manual of Importing Country
Requirements (MICoR): [online database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/India_IN/Grapes.aspx> [27 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015ab, Grapes to South Korea, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Korea_South_KR/Grapes.aspx> [28 May
2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015ac, Grapes to Thailand, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture. <http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Thailand_TH/Grapes.aspx>
[27 May 2015].
284
Draft Policy Review
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015ad, Grapes to Tonga, Manual of Importing Country
Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Tonga_TO/Grapes.aspx> [27 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015ae, Honeydew melons, rockmelons to Fiji, Manual
of Importing Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department
of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Fiji_FJ/Honeydew%20melons%20Rockm
elons.aspx> [28 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015af, Kiwifruit to Taiwan, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture. <http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Taiwan_TW/Kiwifruit.aspx>
[27 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015ag, Kiwifruit to Thailand, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture. <http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Thailand_TH/Kiwifruit.aspx>
[28 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015ah, Malus pumila to China, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/China_CN/Malus_pumila.aspx> [28 May
2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015ai, Melons, cucumber to New Caledonia, Manual
of Importing Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department
of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/New_Caledonia_NC/Melons_Cucumber.
aspx> [28 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015aj, Orange, mandarin, tangerine, clementine,
lemon, grapefruit, lime, tangelo, tangor to USA, Manual of Importing Country
Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/United_States_of_America_US/Oranges
_Mandarins_Lemons_Grapefruit_Limes_Tangelo.aspx> [27 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015ak, Oranges, mandarins, lemons, grapefruit, limes,
tangelo to India, Manual of Importing Country Requirements (MICoR) [online
database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/India_IN/Oranges_Mandarins_Lemons_
Grapefruit_Limes_Tangelo.aspx> [27 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015al, Oranges, mandarins, lemons, grapefruit, limes,
tangelo to New Zealand, Manual of Importing Country Requirements (MICoR) [online
database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/New_Zealand_NZ/Oranges_Mandarins_
Lemons_Grapefruit_Limes_Tangelo.aspx> [28 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015am, Oranges, mandarins, lemons, grapefruit,
limes, tangelo to Philippines, Manual of Importing Country Requirements (MICoR)
[online database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Philippines_PH/Oranges_Mandarins_Le
mons_Grapefruit_Limes_Tangelo.aspx> [27 May 2015].
285
Draft Policy Review
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015an, Oranges, mandarins, lemons, grapefruit, limes,
tangelo to Thailand, Manual of Importing Country Requirements (MICoR) [online
database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Thailand_TH/Oranges_Mandarins_Lemo
ns_Grapefruit_Limes_Tangelo.aspx> [28 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015ao, Other to Reunion, Manual of Importing Country
Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Reunion_RE/Other.aspx> [28 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015ap, Passionfruit to Reunion, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Reunion_RE/Passionfruit.aspx> [28 May
2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015aq, Peaches to Jordan, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture. <http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Jordan_JO/Peaches.aspx>
[27 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015ar, Pears to China, Manual of Importing Country
Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/China_CN/Pyrus_spp.aspx> [28 May
2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015as, Pears to India, Manual of Importing Country
Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/India_IN/Pears.aspx> [27 May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015at, Persimmons to Thailand, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Thailand_TH/Persimmon.aspx> [27 May
2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015au, Potatoes to Cook Island, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Cook_Islands_CK/Potatoes.aspx> [28
May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015av, Roses to Kenya, Manual of Importing Country
Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Kenya_KE/Rosa_spp.aspx> [27 May
2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015aw, Strawberries to Thailand, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Thailand_TH/Strawberries.aspx> [27 May
2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015ax, Vaccinium ashie to China, Manual of Importing
Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian Department of
286
Draft Policy Review
Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/China_CN/Vaccinium_ashie.aspx> [27
May 2015].
Australian Department of Agriculture 2015ay, Zucchini, scallopini, pumpkins to Indonesia,
Manual of Importing Country Requirements (MICoR) [online database]. Australian
Department of Agriculture.
<http://micor.agriculture.gov.au/Plants/Pages/Indonesia_ID/Zucchini-ScallopiniPumpkins.aspx> [27 May 2015].
Australian Government Bureau of Meterology 2015, Climate data online.
<http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/index.shtml> [5 February 2015].
Australian Government Department of the Environment 2015, Methyl Bromide.
<http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/ozone/methyl-bromide> [13 May 2015].
AWRI 2011, Pests and diseases: Viti-Notes: Mealybugs. Australian Wine Research Institute
(AWRI). <https://www.awri.com.au/wp-content/uploads/mealybug.pdf>.
Barbosa CJ, Pina JA, Pérez-Panadés J, Bernad L, Serra P, Navarro L & Duran-Vila N 2005,
Mechanical transmission of citrus viroids. Plant Disease, 89: 749–754.
Barkley P 2004, Citrus diseases and disorders, 2nd edn. NSW Agriculture, New South
Wales.
Bashford R 2001, The spread and impact of the introduced vespine wasps Vespula
germanica (F.) and Vespula vulgaris (L.) (Hymenoptera: Vespidae: Vespinae) in
Tasmania. The Australian Entomologist, 28: 1–12.
Baskarathevan J, Jaspers MV, Jones EE & Ridgway HJ 2012, Incidence and distribution of
botryosphaeriaceous species in New Zealand vineyards. European Journal of Plant
Pathology, 132: 549–560.
Bautista-Baños S, Sivakumar D, Bello-Pérez A, Villanueva-Arce R & Hernández-López M
2013, A review of the management alternatives for controlling fungi on papaya fruit
during the postharvest supply chain. Crop Protection, 49: 8–20.
Beardsley JW, Jr & Gonzalez RH 1975, The biology and ecology of armored scales. Annual
Review of Entomology, 20: 47–73.
Ben-Dov Y 2014a, Chrysomphalus dictyospermi (Morgan), ScaleNet [online database].
<http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/catalogs/diaspidi/Chrysomphalusdictyospermi.htm> [01
October 2014].
Ben-Dov Y 2014b, Parthenolecanium corni, ScaleNet [online database].
<http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/catalogs/coccidae/Parthenolecaniumcorni.htm>
[January 2015].
Ben-Dov Y 2014c, Pseudaulacaspis pentagona (Targioni Tozzetti), ScaleNet [online
database].
<http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/catalogs/diaspidi/Pseudaulacaspispentagona.htm> [27
November 2014].
Ben-Dov Y, Miller DR & Gibson GAP 2015, ScaleNet [online database], Gainsville, Florida.
<www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm> [January, 2015].
287
Draft Policy Review
Benheim D, Rochfort S, Robertson E, Potter ID & Powell KS 2012, Grape phylloxera
(Daktulosphaira vitifoliae) – a review of potential detection and alternative management
options. Annals of Applied Biology, 161: 91–115.
Biosecurity Australia 2005, Final report for the import risk analysis for table grapes from
Chile. Biosecurity Australia, Canberra, Australia.
Biosecurity Australia 2010, Draft import risk analysis report for table grapes from the People's
Republic of China. Biosecurity Australia, Canberra.
Biosecurity Australia 2011a, Final import risk analysis report for table grapes from the
People's Republic of China. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry,
Canberra.
Biosecurity Australia 2011b, Final non-regulated risk analysis report for table grapes from the
Republic of Korea. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.
Bisiach M 1988, 'White rot', in RC Pearson, AC Goheen (eds.), Compendium of grape
diseases. The American Phytopathological Society Press, St Paul, Minnesota, pp. 22–
23.
Bissegger M & Sieber TN 1994, Assemblages of endophytic fungi in coppice shoots of
Castanea sativa. Mycologia, 86: 648–655.
Bissett J 1982, Pestalotiopsis menezesiana on greenhouse plantings of Cissus rhombifolia
with notes on related fungi occurring on Vitaceae. Canadian Journal of Botany, 60:
2570–2574.
Boedijn KB 1931, Notes on some sooty moulds. Bulletin du Jardin Botanique de Buitenzorg,
11: 220–231.
Braybrook D 2012, Mealybug management, fact sheet. Grape and Wine Research and
Development Corporation. <http://www.gwrdc.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/2012/11/Mealybug-factsheet-Sept2012.pdf >.
BRIP 2015, Plant Pathology Herbarium (BRIP) via Australian Plant Pest Database [online
database]. Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
<http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/resources/australian-plant-pest-database/>
[2015].
Broadbent P & Dephoff C 1992, Virus indexing in the New South Wales citrus improvement
scheme. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 32: 493–502.
Brown SW & Bennett FD 1957, On sex determination in the diaspine scale Pseudaulacaspis
pentagona (Targ.) (Coccoidea). Genetics, 46: 510–523.
Brunt AA, Crabtree K, Dallwitz MJ, Gibbs AJ, Watson L & Zurcher E.J (eds.) 1996 onwards,
Plant viruses online: Descriptions and lists from the VIDE database. Version: 20th
August 1996 [online database]. <http://pvo.bio-mirror.cn/refs.htm >.
Buchanan GA 1979, Agnote 139/79: Grape phylloxera. Government of Victoria: Department
of Agriculture, Victoria.
Buchanan GA 1990, The distribution, biology and control of grape phylloxera (Daktulosphaira
vitifolii (Fitch), in Victoria [doctoral thesis]. La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria.
288
Draft Policy Review
Buchanan GA, Furness GO & Charles JG 2003, 'Grape phylloxera', in PR Nicholas, PA
Magarey, MF Wachtel (eds.), Grape Production Series: Diseases and Pests. Winetitles,
Adelaide, pp. 71–73.
Buchanan GA & Whiting JR 1983, 'The biology and control of grape phylloxera ' in TH Lee,
TC Somers (eds.), 5th Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference: Advances in
viticulture and oenology for economic gain, 29 November–1 December, Perth,
Australian Wine institute, Adelaide, South Australia, pp. 191–197.
Buchanan GA & Whiting JR 1991, Phylloxera management: Prevention is better than cure.
Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, 6: 223–230.
Büchen-Osmond C, Crabtree K, Gibbs A & McLean G (eds). 1988, Viruses of Plants in
Australia. Australian National University, Canberra.
Byrne O & Widmer MA 2015, European wasps in Western Australia. Department of
Agriculture and Food, Western Australia. <https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/plantbiosecurity/european-wasps-western-australia> [18 March 2015].
CABI 2014, Citrus exocortis viroid (citrus exocortis), Crop Protection Compendium [online
database]. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, UK.
<http://www.cabi.org/cpc/datasheet/16534> [5 May 2015].
CABI 2015a, Coniella diplodiella (grapevine white rot), Crop Protection Compendium [online
database]. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, UK.
<http://www.cabi.org/cpc/datasheet/15183> [5 May 2015].
CABI 2015b, Phomopsis viticola (Phomopsis cane and leaf spot), Crop Protection
Compendium [online database]. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, UK.
<http://www.cabi.org/cpc/datasheet/40489> [5 May 2015].
Cañizares MC, Marcos JF & Pallás V 1999, Molecular characterization of an almond isolate
of hop stunt viroid (HSVd) and conditions for eliminating spurious hybridization in its
diagnosis in almond samples. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 105: 553–558.
Carrieri R, Carotenuto G & Lahoz E 2013, Characterization and pathogenicity of
Pestalotiopsis uvicola causing black leaf spot on carob (Ceratonia siliqua L.) in Italy.
European Journal of Plant Pathology, 137: 655–661.
Casieri L, Hofstetter V, Viret O & Gindro K 2009, Fungal communities living in the wood of
different cultivars of young Vitis vinifera plants. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 48: 73–
83.
Cassis G & Vanags L 2006, 'Jewel bugs of Australia (Insecta, Heteroptera, Scutelleridae)', in
W Rabitsch (ed.), Hug the bug—For love of true bugs Festschrift zum 70 Geburtstag
von Ernst Heiss. Biologiezentrum der Oberösterreichische Landesmuseen, Austria, pp.
275–398.
Castillo-Pando M, Somers A, Green CD, Priest M & Sriskanthades M 2001, Fungi associated
with dieback of Semillon grapevines in the Hunter Valley of New South Wales.
Australasian Plant Pathology, 30: 59–63.
Castlebury LA, Rossman AY, Jaklitsch WJ & Vasilyeva LN 2002, A preliminary overview of
the Diaporthales based on large subunit nuclear ribosomal DNA sequences.
Mycologia, 94: 1017–1031.
289
Draft Policy Review
Catalano L, Savino V & Lamberti F 1992, Presence of grapevine fanleaf nepovirus in
populations of longidorid nematodes and their vectoring capacity. Nematologia
Mediterranea, 20: 67–70.
Chomnunti P, Hongsanan S, Aguirre-Hudson B, Tian Q, Peršoh D, Dhami MK, Alias AS, Xu
J, Liu X, Stadler M et al. 2014, The sooty moulds. Fungal Diversity, 66: 1–36.
Christenson LD & Foote RH 1960, Biology of fruit flies. Annual Review of Entomology, 5:
171–192.
Chua TH & Wood BJ 1990, 'Other tropical fruit trees and shrubs', in D Rosen (ed.), Armored
scale insects: Their biology, natural enemies and control: Volume 4B. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 543–552.
Clarke AR, Powell KS, Weldon CW & Taylor PW 2011, The ecology of Bactrocera tryoni
(Diptera: Tephritidae): what do we know to assist pest management? Annals of Applied
Biology, 158: 26–54.
Clarke K, Sergeeva V, Emmett RW & Nair NG 2004, Survival of Phomopsis viticola in
grapevine cuttings after hot water treatment. Australasian Plant Pathology, 33: 317–
319.
ComLaw 2015, Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code - Standard 1.5.3 - Irradiation of
Food. ComLaw Australian Government.
<http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2015C00188/Download> [22 May 2015].
Common IFB 1990, Moths of Australia. Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Victoria.
Constable FE, Connellan J, Nicholas P & Rodoni BC 2013, The reliability of woody indexing
for detection of grapevine virus-associated diseases in three different climatic
conditions in Australia. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 19: 74–80.
Cook DC 2008, Benefit cost analysis of an import access request. Food Policy, 33: 277–285.
Correa Sánchez E, Ortiz García CF, Torres de la Cruz M, Bautista Muñoz CdC, Rivera Cruz
MdC, Lagunes Espinoza LdC & Hernández Salgado JH 2011, Etiología de la mancha
acuosa de la jamaica (Hibiscus sabdariffa) en Tabasco, México [Etiology of roselle
(Hibiscus sabdariffa) watery spot in Tabasco, Mexico]. Revista Mexicana de
Fitopatología, 29: 165–167.
Cory L & Hewitt WB 1968, Some grapevine viruses in pollen and seeds. Phytopathology, 58:
1316–1320.
Cragnolini CI, March GJ, Viglianco AI, Novo RJ, Bugiani R & Barreto D 2009, Presencia de
Phomopsis viticola (Saccardo) Saccardo, agente causal de excoriosis, en viñedos de
Córdoba, Argentina [Presence of Phomopsis viticola (Saccardo) Saccardo, causal
agent of excoriosis, in vineyards of Córdoba, Argentina]. AgriScientia, 26: 35–41.
Cretazzo E, Padilla C, Carambula C, Hita I, Salmerón E & Cifre J 2010, Comparison of the
effects of different virus infections on performance of three Majorcan grapevine
cultivars in field conditions. Annals of Applied Biology, 156: 1–12.
Cross S & Taylor E 1996, 'Human exposure to soil contaminants through the consumption of
home-grown produce', Contaminated Sites Monograph Series, no. 6. South Australian
Health Commission, Adelaide.
290
Draft Policy Review
Crous PW & Carstens E 2000, 'Confusion surrounding white rot disease of grapevines',
Wineland [online], 2015. <http://www.wineland.co.za/technical/confusion-surroundingwhite-rot-disease-of-grapevines> [6 May 2015].
Crous PW, Slippers B, Wingfield MJ, Rheeder J, Marasas WFO, Philips AJL, Alves A,
Burgess T, Barber P & Groenewald JZ 2006, Phylogenetic lineages in the
Botryosphaeriaceae. Studies in Mycology, 55: 235–253.
Daane KM, Almeida RPP, Bell VA, Walker JTS, Botton M, Fallahzadeh M, Mani M, Miano JL,
Sforza R, M. Walton VM et al. 2012, 'Biology and management of mealybugs in
vineyards', in NJ Bostanian, C Vincent, R Isaacs (eds.), Arthropod management in
vineyards: Pests, approaches and future directions. Springer Science +Business
Media, pp. 271–307.
DAFF 2013, Final non-regulated analysis of existing policy for Californian table grapes to
Western Australia. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF),
Canberra.
DAFWA 2013, Viticulture spray guide 2013/2014: Wine grapes and table grapes: Bulletin
4853. Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia (DAFWA).
Davis PR 2004, Farmnote 82: European wasps. Department of Agriculture, Government of
Western Australia.
De Kock PJ & Holz G 1991, Use of gamma irradiation for control of postharvest Botrytis
cinerea bunch rot of table grapes in cold storage. South african journal for enology and
viticulture, 12: 82–86.
DEPI Victoria 2011, Victoria's grape industry: Winter 2011. Department of Environment and
Primary Industries (Victoria) (DEPI, Victoria). <http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/agricultureand-food/horticulture/wine-and-grapes/grape-industry-profile/victorias-grape-industrywinter-2011> [6 May 2015].
Di Serio F, Flores R, Verhoeven JTJ, Li SF, Pallás V, Randles JW, Sano T, Vidalakis G &
Owens RA 2014, Current status of viroid taxonomy. Archives of Virology, 159: 3467–
3478.
Di Serio F, Torchetti EM, Flores R & Navarro B 2012, The role of plant viroids in diseases new developments. CAB Reviews, 7: 1–6.
Dias HF 1963, Host range and properties of grapevine fanleaf and grapevine yellow mosaic
viruses. Annals of Applied Biology, 51: 85–95.
Diener TO, Smith DR, Hammond RH, Albanese G, La Rosa R & Davino M 1988, Citrus B
viroid identified as a strain of hop stunt viroid. Plant Disease, 72: 691–693.
DNAP 2015, Northern Territory Plant Pathology Herbarium (DNAP) via Australian Plant Pest
Database [online database]. Department of Resources, Northern Territory.
<http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/resources/australian-plant-pest-database/>
[2015].
Doijode SD 2001, Seed storage of horticultural crops. Food Products Press, Binghamton,
New York.
291
Draft Policy Review
Dominiak BC 2011, Review of grapes Vitis sp. as an occasional host for Queensland fruit fly
Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Crop Protection, 30: 958–961.
DPI Victoria 2010, Victoria's grape industry: Summer 2010. Department of Primary Industries
(DPI), Melbourne, Victoria.
<http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/28678/Victorias-GrapeIndustry.pdf> [6 May 2015].
DPIPWE 2014, European and English wasps. Department of Primary Industries, Parks,
Water and Environment (Tasmania) (DPIPWE).
<http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/biosecurity/plant-biosecurity/pests-and-diseases/europeanand-english-wasps> [25 March 2015].
Drew RAI 1989, The tropical fruit flies (Diptera, Tephritidae, Dacinae) of the Australasian and
Oceanian regions. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 26: 1–521.
Drew RAI, Hooper GHS & Bateman MA 1982, Economic Fruit Flies of the South Pacific
Region. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane, Queensland.
Du F, Deng W, Yang M, Wang H, Mao R, Shao J, Fan J, Chen Y, Fu Y, Li C et al. 2015,
Protecting grapevines from rainfall in rainy conditions reduces disease severity and
enhances profitability. Crop Protection, 67: 261–268.
Dunn G & Zurbo B 2014, Primefact 511: Grape vine pests and their management, 2nd edn.
New South Wales Department of Primary Industries.
<http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/110998/Grapevine-pests-andtheir-management.pdf>.
Duran-Vila N & Semancik JS 2003, 'Citrus viroids', in A Hadidi, R Flores, JW Randles, JS
Semancik (eds.), Viroids. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, pp. 178–194.
Eastwell KC & Nelson ME 2007, 'Occurrence of viroids in commercial hop (Humulus lupulus
L.) production areas of Washington State', Plant Health Progress [online]. Plant
Management Network International.
<http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/php/research/2007/hop/>.
EFSA Panel on Plant Health 2008, Pest risk assessment made by France on Hop stunt viroid
(HSVd) considered by France as harmful in the French overseas department of
Réunion. The EFSA Journal, 687: 1–17.
El-Dougdoug KA, Osman ME, Abdelkader HS, Dawoud RA & Elbaz RM 2010, Elimination of
Hop stunt viroid (HSVd) from infected peach and pear plants using cold therapy and
chemotherapy. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 4: 54–60.
Elbeaino T, Kubaa RA, Choueiri E, Digiaro M & Navarro B 2012, Occurrence of Hop Stunt
Viroid in Mulberry (Morus alba) in Lebanon and Italy. Journal of Phytopathology, 160:
48–51.
Elleuch A, Hamdi I, Ellouze O, Ghrab M, Fkahfakh H & Drira N 2013, Pistachio (Pistacia vera
L.) is a new natural host of Hop stunt viroid. Virus Genes, 47: 330–337.
Elliott HJ, Ohmart CP & Wylie FR 1998, Insect pests of australian forests: Ecology and
management. Inkata Press, Melbourne.
292
Draft Policy Review
Ellis RH, Hong TD & Roberts EH 1983, A note on the development of a practical procedure
for promoting the germination of dormant seed of grape (Vitis spp.). Vitis, 22: 211–219.
Emery RN 1999, Farmnote 77: Warehouse beetle (Trogoderma variabile). Agriculture
Western Australia, South Perth.
Emmett RW, Buchanan GA & Magarey PA 1992, Grapevine diseases and pest
management. Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, 7: 149–171.
Erincik O, Madden LV, Ferree DC & Ellis MA 2001, Effect of growth stage on susceptibility of
grape berry and rachis tissues to infection by Phomopsis viticola. Plant Disease, 85:
517–520.
Erkiliç LB & Uygun N 1997, Development time and fecundity of the white peach scale,
Pseudaulacaspis pentagona, in Turkey. Phytoparasitica, 25: 9–16.
Fagoaga C, Semancik JS & Duran-Vila N 1995, A citrus exocortis viroid variant from broad
bean (Vicia faba L.): infectivity and pathogenesis. Journal of General Virology, 76:
2271–2277.
Fahey D 2014, Grapevine management guide 2013–14. New South Wales Department of
Primary Industries, Wagga Wagga, NSW.
<http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/302840/12968-Grapevinemment-guide-2014-15-web-ver.pdf>.
Farr DF & Rossman AY 2015, Fungal Databases [online database], Systematic Mycology
and Microbiology Laboratory. United States Department of Agriculture: Agricultural
Research Service. <http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/> [2015].
FCNI 2015, Forests NSW Insect Collection (FCNI) via Australian Plant Pest Database [online
database]. NSW Department of Primary Industries.
<http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/resources/australian-plant-pest-database/>
[2015].
Fiore N, Zamorano A, Rivera L, González F, Aballay E, Montealegre J & Pino AM 2011,
Grapevine viruses in the Atacama Region of Chile. Journal of Phytopathology, 159:
743–750.
Fisher EE 1939, A study of Australian sooty moulds. Annals of Botany, 3: 399–426.
Fletcher M 2007, Primefact 508: Plant bugs. New South Wales Department of Primary
Industries. <http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/142808/plantbugs.pdf>.
Fletcher MJ 2011, Colgar peracutum, Australian Faunal Directory [online database].
Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra.
<http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/onlineresources/fauna/afd/taxa/Colgar_peracutum> [03 February 2015].
Flores R, Daròs JA, Hernández C & Di Serio F 2011, 'Viroids', in Encyclopedia of life
sciences. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester.
Flores R, Darós JA & Navarro JA 2003a, 'Replication', in A Hadidi, R Flores, JW Randles, JS
Semancik (eds.), viroids. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia, pp. 55-60.
293
Draft Policy Review
Flores R, Darós JA & Navarro JA 2003b, 'Replication', in A Hadidi, R Flores, JW Randles, JS
Semancik (eds.), Viroids. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia, pp. 55–60.
Flores R & Owens RA 2010, 'Viroids', in BWJ Mahy, MHV van Regenmortel (eds.), Desk
encyclopedia of plant and fungal virology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 71–81.
Flores R, Randles JW & Owens RA 2003c, 'Classification', in A Hadidi, R Flores, JW
Randles, JS Semancik (eds.), Viroids. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia, pp.
71–75.
Foord G, McCarthy A & Pasqual G 2006, Citrus from Western Australia: Bulletin 4496.
Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia.
Furness GO & Charles JG 2003, 'Mealybugs', in PR Nicholas, PA Magarey, MF Wachtel
(eds.), Grape Production Series: Diseases and Pests. Winetitles, Adelaide, pp. 54–55.
Gambino G, Di Matteo D & Gribaudo I 2009, Elimination of Grapevine fanleaf virus from
three Vitis vinifera cultivars by somatic embryogenesis. European Journal of Plant
Pathology, 123: 57–60.
Gambino G, Navarro B, Torchetti EM, La Notte P, Schneider A, Mannini F & Di Serio F 2014,
Survey on viroids infecting grapevine in Italy: identification and characterization of
Australian grapevine viroid and Grapevine yellow speckle viroid 2. European Journal of
Plant Pathology, 140: 199–205.
Gambino G, Vallania R & Gribaudo I 2010, In situ localization of Grapevine fanleaf virus and
phloem-restricted viruses in embryogenic callus of Vitis vinifera. European Journal of
Plant Pathology, 127: 557–570.
Gent DH, Barbour JD, Dreves AJ, James DG, Parker R & B. WD (eds). 2009, Field guide for
integrated pest management in hops. Oregon State University, University of Idaho, US
Department of Agriculture and Washington State University.
Gill RJ 1997, 'The scale insects of California. Part 3. The armored scales (Homoptera:
Coccoidea: Diaspididae)', Technical Series in Agricultural Biosystematics and Plant
Pathology, no. 3. California Department of Food and Agriculture, California, USA.
Gillings MR, Broadbent P & Gollnow BI 1991, Viroids in Australian citrus: relationship to
Exocortis, Cachexia and Citrus Dwarfing. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 18:
559–570.
Gillman D 2011, Sooty Mold, Landscape, Nursery and Urban Forestry Program. The
Universtiy of Massachusetts Amherst. <http://extension.umass.edu/landscape/factsheets/sooty-mold> [16 March 2015].
Gomes RR, Glienke C, Videira SIR, Lombard L, Groenewald JZ & Crous PW 2013,
Diaporthe: a genus of endophytic, saprobic and plant pathogenic fungi. Persoonia:
Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution of Fungi, 31: 1–41.
González RH 1983, Manejo de plagas de la vid [Management of grapevine pests]. Faculty of
Agricultural Sciences, Veterinary and Forestry, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Graham AB, Johnston PR & Weir BS 2009, Three new Phaeoacremonium species on
grapevines in New Zealand. Australasian Plant Pathology, 38: 505–513.
294
Draft Policy Review
Granett J, Omer AD, Pessereau P & Walker MA 1998, Fungal infections of grapevine roots in
phylloxera-infested vineyards. Vitis, 37: 39–42.
Grasso FM & Granata G 2008, First report of stem blight on Metrosideros kermadecensis
induced by Pestalotiopsis uvicola in Italy. Journal of Plant Pathology, 90: 587.
GRDC 2015, Warehouse Beetle (South). Grains Research & Development Corporation
(GRDC). <https://www.grdc.com.au/Resources/Ute-Guides/Insects/Storagepests/South/Warehouse-Beetle> [16 March 2015].
Greathead DJ 1997, 'Crawler behaviour and dispersal', in Y Ben-Dov, CJ Hodgson (eds.),
Soft scale insects: Their biology, natural enemies and control: Volume 7A. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 339–342.
Gryzenhout M, Myburg H, Wingfield BD & Wingfield MJ 2006, Cryphonectriaceae
(Diaporthales), a new family including Cryphonectria, Chrysoporthe, Endothia and
allied genera. Mycologia, 98: 239–249.
Habili N, Rowhani A & Symons RH 2001, Grapevine fanleaf virus: a potential threat to the
viticultural industry. The Australian Grapegrower and Winemaker, 449a: 141–145.
Hadžic´ S 2006, Phomopsis viticola Sacc. (crna pjegavost) u vinogradima Hercegovine
[Phomopsis viticola Sacc (dead arm disease) in vineyards of Herzegovina]. 51: 95–
102.
HAL 2009, 'Fumigation of table grapes for export', in Table grape industry annual report
2008/09. Horticulture Australia Limited (HAL), Sydney.
HAL 2014, Table grape industry advisory committee annual report 2013/14. Horticulture
Australia Limited (HAL), Sydney.
Hammond RW & Owens RA 2006, Viroids: New and continuing risks for horticultural and
agricultural crops. In: APSnet Features. The American Phytopathological Society.
<http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Pages/Viroids.aspx> [04 May
2015].
Hancock DL, Hamacek EL, Lloyd AC & Elson-Harris MM 2000, The distribution and host
plants of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Australia, Information Series QI99067.
Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Queensland.
Hannah R & Pitt K 2006, Best management production manuals for Australian table grape
varieties. Final report of project TG04005. Horticulture Australia Limited, Sydney, NSW.
Hardy S, Donovan N & Barkley P 2008, Primefact 772: Citrus exocortis. New South Wales
Department of Primary Industries.
<http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/228852/Citrus-exocortis.pdf>.
Heath RR, McLaughlin JR, Tumlinson JH, Ashley TR & Doolittle RE 1979, Identification of
the white peach scale sex pheromone: an illustration of micro techniques. Journal of
Chemical Ecology, 5: 941–953.
Hely PC, Pasfield G & Gellatley GJ 1982, Insect pests of fruit and vegetables in New South
Wales. Inkata Press, Melbourne.
295
Draft Policy Review
Hendry P 2011, Host plant for Euproctis paradoxa (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) and notes on
the genus Euproctis 63: 21–21.
Herbison-Evans D & Crossley S 2014, Euproctis paradoxa (Butler, 1886). In: Caterpillars
(and butterflies and moths) of Australia.
<http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/lyma/paradox.html> [12 May 2015].
Hetherington S 2005, Integrated pest and disease management for Australian summerfruit.
New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Orange, NSW.
Hewitt WB, Goheen AC, Raski DJ & Gooding GV, Jr 1962, Studies on virus diseases of the
grapevine in California. Vitis, 3: 57–83.
Hewitt WB & Pearson RC 1988, 'Phomopsis cane and leaf spot', in RC Pearson, AC Goheen
(eds.), Compendium of grape diseases. The American Phytopathological Society
Press, St Paul, Minnesota, pp. 17–18.
Hnatiuk RJ 1990, Census of Australian vascular plants. Australian Government Publishing
Service, Canberra.
Hodgson C & Henderson R 2000, 'Coccidae (Insecta: Hemiptera: Coccoidea)', Fauna of New
Zealand, no. 41. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand.
Hommay G, Komar V, Lemaire O & Herrbach E 2008, Grapevine virus A transmission by
larvae of Parthenolecanium corni. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 121: 185–188.
Hoover E, Wold-Burkness S, Hilton J, Mollov D, Burkness E, Galvan T, Hemstad P &
Hutchison WD 2011, Grape IPM guide for Minnesota producers. University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
<http://pdc.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@pdc/documents/asset/cfans_a
sset_175589.pdf>.
Hopkins KE & McQuilken MP 2000, Characteristics of Pestalotiopsis associated with hardy
ornamental plants in the UK. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 106: 77–85.
Hosking JR, Conn BJ & Lepschi BJ 2003, Plant species first recognised as naturalised for
New South Wales over the period 2000–2001. Cunninghamia, 8: 175–187.
Huang SL, Yan B, Wei JG, Yan WH, Cen ZL & Yang T 2007, First report of plantain zonate
leaf spot caused by Pestalotiopsis menezesiana in China. Australasian Plant Disease
Notes, 2: 61–62.
Hughes SJ 1976, Sooty moulds. Mycologia, 68: 693–820.
Hussey BMJ, Keighery GJ, Dodd J, Lloyd SG & Cousens RD 2007, Western weeds: a guide
to the weeds of Western Australia, 2nd. ed. The Weed Society of Western Australia
(Inc.), Victoria Park, Western Australia.
Hyde KD, Nilsson RH, Alias SA, Ariyawansa HA, Blair JE, Cai L, de Cock AWAM,
Dissanayake AJ, Glockling SL, Goonasekara ID et al. 2014, One stop shop: backbones
trees for important phytopathogenic genera: I (2014). Fungal Diversity, 67: 21–125.
ICDB 2015, Insect Collection Database (ICDB) via Australian Plant Pest Database [online
database]. Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia.
296
Draft Policy Review
<http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/resources/australian-plant-pest-database/>
[2015].
ICTV 2014, Virus taxonomy: 2014 release [online database]. International Committee on
Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV). <http://ictvonline.org/virusTaxonomy.asp> [12 May 2015].
Ismail AM, Cirvilleri G & Polizzi G 2013, Characterisation and pathogenicity of Pestalotiopsis
uvicola and Pestalotiopsis clavispora causing grey leaf spot of mango (Mangifera
indica L.) in Italy. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 135: 619–625.
ISPM 28 pt5 2009, Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests (ISPM 28) (Annex 5: PT 5;
Irradiation treatment for Bactrocera tryoni). International Standards for Phytosanitary
Measures to Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, Food and
Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
ISPM 4 2011, International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) 4 'Requirements
for the establishment of pest free areas (1995)'. Secretariat of the International Plant
Protection Convention, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.
ISPM 5 2015, International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) 5 'Glossary of
phytosanitary terms'. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, Food
and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.
ISPM 6 2011, International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) 6 'Guidelines for
surveillance (1997)'. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, Food
and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.
ISPM 8 2011, International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) 8 'Determination of
pest status in an area (1998)'. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection
Convention, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.
ISPM 10 2011, International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) 10 'Requirements
for the establishment of pest free places of production and pest free production sites
(1999)'. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, Food and
Agriculture Organisation, Rome.
ISPM 11 2014, International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) 11 'Pest risk
analysis for quarantine pests (2013)'. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection
Convention, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.
ISPM 14 2011, International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) 14 'The use of
integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management (2002)'.
Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, Food and Agriculture
Organisation, Rome.
ISPM 18 2011, International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) 18 'Guidelines for
the use of irradiation as a phytosanitary measure (2003)'. Secretariat of the
International Plant Protection Convention, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.
Ito T, Furuta T, Ito T, Isaka M, Ide Y & Kaneyoshi J 2006a, Identification of cachexiainducible Hop stunt viroid variants in citrus orchards in Japan using biological indexing
and improved reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Journal of General
Plant Pathology, 72: 378–382.
297
Draft Policy Review
Ito T, Furuta T, Ito T, Isaka M, Ide Y & Kaneyoshi J 2006b, Identification of cachexiainducible Hop stunt viroid variants in citrus orchards in Japan using biological indexing
and improved reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Journal of General
Plant Pathology, 72: 378-382.
Izadpanah K, Zaki-Aghl M, Zhang YP, Daubert SD & Rowhani A 2003, Bermuda grass as a
potential reservoir host for Grapevine fanleaf virus. Plant Disease, 87: 1179–1182.
Jeewon R, Liew ECY, Simpson JA, Hodgkiss IJ & Hyde KD 2003, Phylogenetic significance
of morphological characters in the taxonomy of Pestalotiopsis species. Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution, 27: 372–383.
Jessup AJ, Rigney CJ, Millar A, Sloggett RF & Quinn NM 1992, 'Gamma radiation as a
commodity treatment against the Queensland Fruit fly in fresh fruit' in Use of Irradiation
as a Quarantine Treatment of Food and Agricultural Commodities, International Atomic
Energy Agency.
Jiang D, Guo R, Wu Z, Wang H & Li S 2009a, Molecular characterization of a member of a
new species of grapevine viroid. Archives of Virology, 154: 1563–1566.
Jiang D, Sano T, Tsuji M, Araki H, Sagawa K, Purushothama CRA, Zhang Z, Guo R, Xie L &
Wu Z 2012, Comprehensive diversity analysis of viroids infecting grapevine in China
and Japan. Virus Research, 169: 237–245.
Jiang D, Zhang Z, Wu Z, Guo R, Wang H, Fan P & Li S 2009b, Molecular characterization of
grapevine yellow speckle viroid-2 (GYSVd-2). Virus Genes, 38: 515–520.
Kader AA 1986, Potential applications of ionizing radiation in postharvest handling of fresh
fruits and vegetables. Food Technology, 40: 117–121.
Kaponi M, Luigi M & Kyriakopoulou PE 2012, 'Mixed infections of pome and stone fruit
viroids in cultivated and wild trees in Greece', New Disease Reports [online], 26: 8.
British Society for Plant Pathology, Reading. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5197/j.20440588.2012.026.008> [12 May 2015].
Kaponi MS & Kyriakopoulou PE 2013, First report of Hop stunt viroid infecting Japanese
plum, cherry plum, and peach in Greece. Plant Disease, 97: 1662.
Kassemeyer H-H & Berkelmann-Löhnertz B 2009, 'Fungi of grapes', in H König, G Unden, J
Fröhlich (eds.), Biology of microorganisms on grapes, in must and in wine. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, pp. 61–87.
Kawaguchi-Ito Y, Li S-F, Tagawa M, Araki H, Goshono M, Yamamoto S, Tanaka M, Narita
M, Tanaka K, Liu S-X et al. 2009, 'Cultivated grapevines represent a symptomless
reservoir for the transmission of hop stunt viroid to hop crops: 15 years of evolutionary
analysis', PLOS ONE [online], 4: e8386.
<http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0008386> [11 May
2015].
Keighery G & Longman V 2004, The naturalized vascular plants of Western Australia. 1:
Checklist, environmental weeds and distribution in IBRA regions. Plant Protection
Quarterly, 19: 12–32.
298
Draft Policy Review
Keith LM, Velasquez ME & Zee FT 2006, Identification and characterization of Pestalotiopsis
spp. causing scab disease of guava, Psidium guajava, in Hawaii. Plant Disease, 90:
16–23.
King PD & Buchanan GA 1986, The dispersal of phylloxera crawlers and spread of
phylloxera infestations in New Zealand and Australian vineyards. American Journal of
Enology and Viticulture, 37: 26–33.
Koltunow AM, Krake LR, Johnson SD & Rezaian MA 1989, Two related viroids cause
grapevine yellow speckle disease independently. Journal of General Virology, 70:
3411–3419.
Koltunow AM, Krake LR & Rezaian MA 1988, Hop stunt viroid in Australian grapevine
cultivars: potential for hop infection. Australasian Plant Pathology, 17: 7–10.
Koltunow AM & Rezaian MA 1988a, Grapevine yellow speckle viroid: structural features of a
new viroid group. Nucleic Acids Research, 16: 849.
Koltunow AM & Rezaian MA 1988b, Grapevine yellow speckle viroid: structural features of a
new viroid group. Nucleic Acids Research, 16: 849–864.
Koltunow AM & Rezaian MA 1989 Grapevine viroid 1B, a new member of the apple scar skin
viroid group contains the left terminal region of tomato planta macho viroid. Virology,
170: 575–578.
Kozár F 1990a, 'Deciduous fruit trees', in D Rosen (ed.), Armored scale insects: Their
biology, natural enemies and control: Volume 4B. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands,
pp. 593–602.
Kozár F 1990b, 'Sampling and census-taking', in D Rosen (ed.), Armored scale insects: Their
biology, natural enemies and control: Volume 4B. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands,
pp. 341–347.
Krake LR & Steele Scott N 2002, Grapevine scion-understock combinations suitable for
Australian viticulture and some interactions with virus diseases. Final report to Grape
and Wine Research and Development Corporation of project CSP 00/3. CSIRO Plant
Industry.
Krake LR, Steele Scott N & Rezaian MA 1999a, 'Viroids', in LR Krake, N Steele Scott, MA
Rezaian, RH Taylor (eds.), Graft-transmitted diseases of grapevines. CSIRO
Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, pp. 65–74.
Krake LR, Steele Scott N, Rezaian MA & Taylor RH 1999b, Graft-transmitted diseases of
grapevines. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria.
Krebelj AJ, Čepin U, Ravnikar M & Novak MP 2015, Spatio-temporal distribution of
Grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV) in grapevine. European Journal of Plant Pathology,
142: 159–171.
Król E 2006, Fungi inhabiting decaying grapevine (Vitis spp.) cuttings. Journal of Plant
Protection Research, 46: 353–358.
Kuitert LC 1968, Observations on the biology, bionomics and control of white peach scale,
Pseudaulacaspis pentagona (Targ.). Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural
Society, 1967, 80: 376–381.
299
Draft Policy Review
Kummuang N, Smith BJ, Diehl SV & Graves CH, Jr 1996a, Muscadine grape berry rot
diseases in Mississippi: Disease epidemiology and crop reduction. Plant Disease, 80:
244–247.
Kummuang N, Smith BJ, Diehl SV & Graves CH, Jr 1996b, Muscadine grape berry rot
diseases in Mississippi: Disease identification and incidence. Plant Disease, 80: 238–
243.
la Rosa R, Albanese G, Renis M & Catara A 1989, 'Viroids and viroid-like RNAs in citrus
plants' in R Goren, K Mendel, N Goren (eds.), Citriculture: Proceedings of the Sixth
International Citrus Congress, 6–11 March 1988, Tel Aviv, Israel, Balaban Publishers,
Rehovot, Israel, pp. 903–907.
Laemmlen FF 2011, Sooty mold: Integrated pest management for home gardeners and
landscape professionals. In: Pest Notes Publication 74108. University of California:
Agriculture and Natural Resources, Davis, CA.
<http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PDF/PESTNOTES/pnsootymold.pdf> [22 May 2015].
Lázár J 2003, 'Sanitary aspects and results of the Hungarian grape breeding' in E Hajdu, E
Borbas (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Grape Genetics
and Breeding, 26–31 August 2002, Kecskemét, Hungary, International Society for
Horticultural Science, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 755–762.
Lea E & Worsley A 2008a, Australian consumers' food-related environmental beliefs and
behaviours. Appetite, 50: 207–214.
Lea E & Worsley A 2008b, Australian consumers' food-related environmental beliefs and
behaviours. Appetite, 50: 207-214.
Lefoe G, Ward D, Honan P & Dardy S 2001, Minimising the impact of European wasps on
the grape and wine industry. Final report to Grape and Wine Research and
Development Corporation of project DAV 99/1. Department of Natural Resources and
Environment, Keith Turnball Research Institute.
Lemmetty A, Werkman AW & Soukainen M 2011, First report of Hop stunt viroid in
greenhouse cucumber in Finland. Plant Disease, 95: 615.
Lichter A, Gabler FM & Smilanick JL 2006, Control of spoilage in table grapes. Stewart
Postharvest Review, 2: 1–10.
Little A & Rezaian MA 2003, 'Grapevine viroids', in A Hadidi, R Flores, JW Randles, JS
Semancik (eds.), Viroids. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, pp. 195–206.
Liu AR, Chen SC, Lin XM, Wu SY, Xu T, Cai FM & Jeewon R 2010, Endophytic
Pestalotiopsis species associated with plants of Palmae, Rhizophoraceae,
Planchonellae and Podocarpaceae in Hainan, China. African Journal of Microbiology
Research, 4: 2661–2669.
Lloyd A 2007, Area wide management of fruit fly - Central Burnett. Final report of project
AH03002. Horticulture Australia Limited, Sydney, NSW.
Loch A 2008, Queensland fruit fly an emerging insect pest of wine grapes. Australian
Viticulture, 12: 65–67.
300
Draft Policy Review
Longland JM & Sutton TB 2008, Factors affecting the infection of fruit of Vitis vinifera by the
bitter rot pathogen Greeneria uvicola. Phytopathology, 98: 580–584.
López-Fabuel I, Wetzel T, Bertolini E, Bassler A, Vidal E, Torres LB, Yuste A & Olmos A
2013, Real-time multiplex RT-PCR for the simultaneous detection of the five main
grapevine viruses. Journal of Virological Methods, 188: 21–24.
Luigi M, Manglli A, Tomassoli L & Faggioli F 2013, First report of Hop stunt viroid in Hibiscus
rosa-sinensis in Italy. New Disease Reports, 27: 14.
Luttrell ES 1953, Melanconium leaf and stem fleck of grapes. Phytopathology, 43: 347–348.
MacLean D & Conner P 2009, Postharvest control of decay organisms in Muscadine grapes.
Final report to Southern Region Small Fruit Consortium (SRSFC) of project #2009-12.
SRSFC and University of Georgia, Tifton, Georgia.
MAF Biosecurity New Zealand 2009, Import Risk Analysis: Table grapes (Vitis vinifera) from
China. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), Biosecurity New Zealand,
Wellington, New Zealand. <http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/regs/imports/risk/tablegrapes-china-ra.pdf>.
Mahaffee WF, Pethybridge SJ & Gent DH (eds). 2009, Compendium of hop diseases and
pests. The American Phytopathological Society Press, St Paul, Minnesota.
Maharachchikumbura SSN, Guo L-D, Cai L, Chukeatirote E, Wu WP, Sun X, Crous PW,
Bhat DJ, McKenzie EHC, Bahkali AH et al. 2012, A multi-locus backbone tree for
Pestalotiopsis, with a polyphasic characterization of 14 new species. Fungal Diversity,
56: 95–129.
Maharachchikumbura SSN, Guo L-D, Chukeatirote E, Bahkali AH & Hyde KD 2011,
Pestalotiopsis—morphology, phylogeny, biochemistry and diversity. Fungal Diversity,
50: 167–187.
Maharachchikumbura SSN, Hyde KD, Groenewald JZ, Xu J & Crous PW 2014,
Pestalotiopsis revisited. Studies in Mycology, 79: 121–186.
Mani M, Shivaraju C & Kulkarni NS 2014, 'Pests', in The grape entomology. Springer India,
pp. 9–166.
Martelli GP 2010, 'Virus diseases of grapevine', in Encyclopedia of life sciences. John Wiley
& Sons Ltd., Chichester.
Martelli GP & Boudon-Padieu E (eds.) 2006, 'Directory of infectious diseases of grapevines
and viroses and virus-like diseases of the grapevine: Bibliographic report 1998–2004',
Options Méditerranéennes. Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques
Méditerranéennes, Bari, Italy.
Martelli GP, Walter B & Pinck L 2001, Grapevine fanleaf virus, Descriptions of plant viruses
[online database]. Association of Applied Biologists.
<http://www.dpvweb.net/dpv/showdpv.php?dpvno=385> [25 May 2015].
Matoušek J, Orctová L, Ptáček J, Patzak J, Dědič P, Steger G & Riesner D 2007,
Experimental transmission of Pospiviroid populations to weed species characteristic of
potato and hop fields. Journal of Virology, 81: 11891–11899.
301
Draft Policy Review
Matoušek J, Radišek S, Jakše J, Duraisamy GS, Uhlířová K, Orctová L, Svoboda P, Patzak J
& Rausche J 2013, 'Biolistic transfer of hop viroid disease syndrome from slovenian
cultivar 'Celeia' to Czech hop 'Osvald's 72': pathogenesis symptoms and identification
of dominant sequence upon transfer of HpSVd component' in J Patzak, A Koutoulis
(eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Humulus Symposium, 9–14 September
2012, Zatec, Czech Republic, International Society for Horticultural Science, Leuven,
Belgium, pp. 121–127.
Mazhar MA, Bagherian SAA, Ardakani AS & Izadpanah K 2014, Nucleotide sequence and
structural features of Hop stunt viroid and Citrus bent leaf viroid variants from blighted
citrus plants in Kohgiluyeh-Boyerahmad Province of Iran. Journal of Agricultural
Science and Technology, 16: 657–665.
MBTOC 2002, Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC): 2002
Assessment. Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. United
Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
McConnell S 2000, Table grapes: Cool chain and sulphur dioxide (SO2) usage guide: from
harvest to retail to Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria.
McGrew JR 1988, 'Bitter rot', in RC Pearson, AC Goheen (eds.), Compendium of grape
diseases. The American Phytopathological Society Press, St Paul, Minnesota, pp. 20–
22.
Mencarelli F, Bellincontro A & DiRenzo G 2005, Grape: postharvest operations. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
<http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/inpho/docs/Post_Harvest_Compendium__Grape.pdf> [January 2015].
Merrin SJ, Nair NG & Tarran J 1995, Variation in Phomopsis recorded on grapevine in
Australia and its taxonomic and biological implications. Australasian Plant Pathology,
24: 44–56.
Meziani S, Rouag N, Milano R, Kheddam M & Djelouah K 2010, 'Assessment of the main
stone fruit viruses and viroids in Algeria' in Proceedings of the 21st International
Conference on Virus and other Graft Transmissible Diseases of Fruit Crops, 5–10 July
2009, Neustadt, Germany, Julius Kühn-Institut, Berlin, Germany, pp. 289–292.
Mibey RK 1997, 'Sooty moulds', in Y Ben-Dov, CJ Hodgson (eds.), Soft scale insects: Their
biology, natural enemies and control: Volume 7A. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands,
pp. 275–290.
Milholland RD 1988, 'Macrophoma rot', in RC Pearson, AC Goheen (eds.), Compendium of
grape diseases. The American Phytopathological Society Press, St Paul, Minnesota, p.
24.
Miller DR & Davidson JA 2005, Armored scale insect pests of trees and shrubs. Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Mink GI 1993, Pollen and seed-transmitted viruses and viroids. Annual Review of
Phytopathology, 31: 375–402.
Miranda JG 2005, Epidemiological factors affecting bitter rot infection in Vitis vinifera L. in
North Carolina [masters thesis]. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North
302
Draft Policy Review
Carolina. <http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/185/1/etd.pdf> [26 May
2015].
Moller WJ & Kasimatis AN 1981, Further evidence that Eutypa armeniacae—not Phomopsis
viticola—incites dead arm symptoms on grape. Plant Disease, 65: 429–431.
Momol T, Ritchie L & Dankers H 2007, Florida plant disease management guide: Grape
(Vitis spp.). University of Florida, Florida.
<http://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/00/05/38/71/00033/PG01100.pdf> [November
2014].
Moody T 2011, Agriculture - fruit and vegetables, Land and Property Information. In: Atlas of
New South Wales. New South Wales Government.
<http://atlas.nsw.gov.au/public/nsw/home/topic/article/agriculture-fruit-andvegetables.html> [27 May 2015].
Moore KM 1962, Insect attack on Pinus spp.: Research note no. 12. Forestry Commission of
New South Wales. Division of Forest Management, Sydney.
<http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/390015/Insect-Attack-onPinus-Spp.pdf> [27 May 2015].
Mopper S & Strauss SY (eds). 1998, Genetic structure and local adaptation in natural insect
populations: effects of ecology, life history and behavior. Chapman and Hall, New York.
Mostert L, Crous PW, Kang J-C & Phillips AJL 2001, Species of Phomopsis and a Libertella
sp. occurring on grapevines with specific reference to South Africa: morphological,
cultural, molecular and pathological characterization. Mycologia, 93: 146–167.
Moulden J 1979, Farmnote 141: Identification of grain storage insects. Western Australian
Department of Agriculture.
Moyo P, Allsopp E, Roets F, Mostert L & Halleen F 2014, Arthropods vector grapevine trunk
disease pathogens. Phytopathology, 104: 1063–1069.
Nag Raj TR 1993, Coelomycetous anamorphs with appendage-bearing conidia. Mycologue
Publications, Waterloo, Ontario.
Nagarkatti S & Sankaran T 1990, 'Tea', in D Rosen (ed.), Armored scale insects: Their
biology, natural enemies and control: Volume 4B. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands,
pp. 553–562.
Navarrete F, Abreo E, Bettucci L, Martínez S & Lupo S 2009, First report of Greeneria
uvicola as cause of grapevine dead-arm dieback in Uruguay. Australasian Plant
Disease Notes, 4: 117–119.
Nicholas PR, Magarey P & Wachtel MF (eds). 2003, Grape production series: Diseases and
pests. Winetitles, Adelaide.
Nicol JM, Stirling GR, Rose BJ, May P & van Heeswijck R 1999, Impact of nematodes on
grapevine growth and productivity: current knowledge and future directions, with
special reference to Australian viticulture. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine
Research, 5: 109–127.
Nita M 2005, Epidemiology and management of Phomopsis cane and leaf spot of grape
[doctoral thesis]. The Ohio State University. <https://etd.ohiolink.edu/> [26 May 2015].
303
Draft Policy Review
Niu X-Q, Zhu H, Yu F-Y, Tang Q-H, Song W-W, Liu L & Qin W-Q 2015, First report of
Pestalotiopsis menezesiana causing leaf blight of coconut in Hainan, China. Plant
Disease, 99: 554.
Nougaret RL & Lapham MH 1928, Technical Bulletin no. 20: A study of phylloxera
infestations in California as related to types of soil. United States Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC.
<http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/CAT86200017/PDF> [28 May 2015].
NTEIC 2015, Northern Territory Economic Insect Collection (NTEIC) via Australian Plant
Pest Database [online database]. Department of Resources, Northern Territory.
<http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/resources/australian-plant-pest-database/>
[2015].
NVHSC 2009, National phylloxera management protocol. National Vine Health Steering
Committee (NVHSC). <http://www.phylloxera.com.au/media/National-PhylloxeraManagement-Protocol.pdf> [28 May 2015].
NVHSC & NPTRG 2005, A guide to grape phylloxera in Australia, brochure. National Vine
Health Steering Committee (NVHSC); National Phylloxera Technical Reference Group
(NPTRG). <http://www.phylloxera.com.au/media/Phylloxera_ID_brochure.pdf>.
Oag DR 2001, 'Grape production in Australia', in MK Papademetriou, FJ Dent (eds.), Grape
production in the Asia-Pacific region. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok Thailand, pp. 4–18.
'Occasional notes' 1881. The West Australian, August 19, p. 2. <http://nla.gov.au/nla.newsarticle2985497> [25 February 2015].
Osman E, Al Rwahnih M, Golino D, Pitman T, Cordero F, Preece JE & Rowhani A 2012,
Evaluation of the phytosanitary status of the Prunus species in the national clonal
germplasm repository in California: survey of viruses and viroids. Journal of Plant
Pathology, 94: 249–253.
Owens RA 2008, 'Viroids', in M Roossinck (ed.), Plant virus evolution. Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg, Berlin, pp. 83–108.
Pallás V, Gómez G, Amari K, Cañizares MC & Candresse T 2003, 'Hop stunt viroid in apricot
and almond', in A Hadidi, R Flores, JW Randles, JS Semancik (eds.), Viroids. CSIRO
Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, pp. 168–170.
Papayiannis LC 2014, Diagnostic real-time RT-PCR for the simultaneous detection of Citrus
exocortis viroid and Hop stunt viroid. Journal of Virological Methods, 196: 93–99.
Park J-Y, Lee W, Song D-U, Seong K-Y, Cho B-H & Kim K-C 1997, Leaf blight of kiwifruit
caused by Pestalotiopsis menezesiana (Bress. & Torr.) Bissett and its ecopathology.
Korean Journal of Plant Pathology, 13: 22–29.
Pellizzari G 1997a, 'Grapevine', in Y Ben-Dov, CJ Hodgson (eds.), Soft scale insects: Their
biology, natural enemies and control: Volume 7B. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands,
pp. 323–331.
Pellizzari G 1997b, 'Olive', in Y Ben-Dov, CJ Hodgson (eds.), Soft scale insects: Their
biology, natural enemies and control: Volume 7B. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands,
pp. 217–229.
304
Draft Policy Review
Pethybridge SJ, Hay FS, Barbara DJ, Eastwell KC & Wilson CR 2008, Viruses and viroids
infecting hop: significance, epidemiology, and management. Plant Disease, 92: 324–
338.
Pfeiffer DG 1997, 'Deciduous fruit trees', in Y Ben-Dov, CJ Hodgson (eds.), Soft scale
insects: Their biology, natural enemies and control: Volume 7B. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
Netherlands, pp. 293–322.
PGIBSA n.d., Rootstocks. Phylloxera and Grape Industry Board of South Australia
(PGIBSA). <http://www.phylloxera.com.au/resources/rootstocks/> [30 March 2015].
PHA 2001, Australian Plant Pest Database [online database]. Plant Health Australia (PHA).
<www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/appd> [2015].
Phillips AJL 1998, Botryosphaeria dothidea and other fungi associated with excoriose and
dieback of grapevines in Portugal. Journal of Phytopathology, 146: 327–332.
Phillips AJL, Alves A, Abdollahzadeh J, Slippers B, Wingfield MJ, Groenewald JZ & Crous
PW 2013, The Botryosphaeriaceae: genera and species known from culture. Studies in
Mycology, 76: 51–167.
Pitt W, Savocchia S & Wunderlich N n.d., Botryosphaeria dieback: Identification and
management. National Wine and Grape Industry Centre, Wagga Wagga, NSW.
<http://www.csu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/455197/NWGIC-fs4botdieback.pdf> [28 May 2015].
Pitt WM, Huang R, Steel CC & Savocchia S 2010, Identification, distribution and current
taxonomy of Botryosphaeriaceae species associated with grapevine decline in New
South Wales and South Australia. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 16:
258–271.
Pitt WM, Huang R, Steel CC & Savocchia S 2013a, Pathogenicity and epidemiology of
Botryosphaeriaceae species isolated from grapevines in Australia. Australasian Plant
Pathology, 42: 573–582.
Pitt WM, Sosnowski MR, Huang R, Qiu Y, Steel CC & Savocchia S 2012, Evaluation of
fungicides for the management of botryosphaeria canker of grapevines. Plant Disease,
96: 1303–1308.
Pitt WM, Úrbez-Torres JR & Trouillas FP 2013b, Dothiorella vidmadera, a novel species from
grapevines in Australia and notes on Spencermartinsia. Fungal Diversity, 61: 209–219.
Pitt WM, Úrbez-Torres JR & Trouillas FP 2015, Dothiorella and Spencermartinsia, new
species and records from grapevines in Australia. Australasian Plant Pathology, 44:
43–56.
Powell KS, Bruce RJ & Korosi GA 2014, 'Assessing the risk of phylloxera survival during
white grape processing' in N Ollat, D Papura (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth
International Phylloxera Symposium, 28–30 August 2013, Bordeaux, France,
International Society for Horticultural Science, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 49–58.
Pratt C 1988, 'Grapevine structure and growth stages', in RC Pearson, AC Goheen (eds.),
Compendium of grape diseases. The American Phytopathological Society Press, St
Paul, Minnesota, pp. 3–7.
305
Draft Policy Review
Pscheidt JW & Pearson RC 1989, Time of infection and control of Phomopsis fruit rot of
grape. Plant Disease, 73: 829–833.
Punithalingam E 1964, 'Phomopsis viticola', CMI Descriptions of Pathogenic Fungi and
Bacteria, no. 635. Commonwealth Mycological Institute (CMI), England.
QDPC 2015, Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries Insect Collection (QDPC) via
Australian Plant Pest Database [online database]. Queensland Department of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
<http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/resources/australian-plant-pest-database/>
[2015].
Qiu Y, Steel CC, Ash GJ & Savocchia S 2011, Survey of Botryosphaeriaceae associated
with grapevine decline in the Hunter Valley and Mudgee grape growing regions of New
South Wales. Australasian Plant Pathology, 40: 1–11.
Rábai A, Dula T & Mugnai L 2008, Distribution of esca disease in Hungary and the
pathogens causing the syndrome. Acta Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungarica,
43: 45–54.
Radhakrishnan M 2012, Contribution of horticulture to the WA economy: Value chain
analysis. Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia (DAFWA), Perth.
Rakimov A, Ben-Dov Y, White V & Hoffmann AA 2013, Soft scale insects (Hemiptera:
Coccoidea: Coccidae) on grapevines in Australia. Australian Journal of Entomology,
52: 371–378.
Randall RP 2007, The introduced flora of Australia and its weed status. CRC for Australian
Weed Management Glen Osmond, SA.
Rawnsley B & DeGaris K 2006. 'Phomopsis alert in the Limestone Coast'. The Australian and
New Zealand Grapegrower and Winemaker, 512: 60–61.
Rawnsley B & Wicks T 2002, Phomopsis viticola: pathogenicity and management. Final
report to Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation of project SAR
99/1. South Australian Research and Development Institute.
Rees DP, Starick N & Wright EJ 2003, 'Current status of the warehouse beetle Trogoderma
variabile (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) as a pest of grain storage in Australia' in EJ
Wright, MC Webb, E Highley (eds.), Stored grain in Australia 2003: Proceedings of the
Australian Postharvest Technical Conference, 25–27 June 2003, Canberra, Australia,
CSIRO Stored Grain Research Laboratory, Canberra, pp. 119–121.
Rego C, Nascimento T, Cabral A, Silva MJ & Oliveira H 2009, Control of grapevine wood
fungi in commercial nurseries. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 48: 128–135.
Reynolds DR 1998, Capnodiaceous sooty mold phylogeny. Canadian Journal of Botany, 76:
2125–2130.
Rezaian MA, Koltunow AM & Krake LR 1988, Isolation of three viroids and a circular RNA
from grapevines. Journal of General Virology, 69: 413–422.
Rice RE & Moreno DS 1970, Flight of male California red scale. Annals of the Entomological
Society of America, 63: 91–96.
306
Draft Policy Review
Ridings WH & Clayton CN 1970, Melanconium fuligineum and the bitter rot disease of grape.
Phytopathology, 60: 1203–1211.
Robert V, Stegehuis G & Stalpers J 2005, The MycoBank engine and related databases
[online database]. <http://www.mycobank.org/>.
Rossman AY, Farr DF & Castlebury LA 2007, A review of the phylogeny and biology of the
Diaporthales. Mycoscience, 48: 135–144.
Sabir A 2011, Influences of Self- and Cross-pollinations on Berry Set, Seed Characteristics
and Germination Progress of Grape (Vitis vinifera cv. Italia). International Journal of
Agriculture and Biology, 13: 591-594.
Salman TM, Habili N & Shi B 2014, Effect of temperature on symptom expression and
sequence polymorphism of grapevine yellow speckle viroid 1 in grapevine. Virus
Research, 189: 243–247.
Samuelian SK, Greer LA, Cowan K, Priest M, Sutton TB, Savocchia S & Steel CC 2012,
Phylogenetic relationships, pathogenicity and fungicide sensitivity of Greeneria uvicola
isolates from Vitis vinifera and Muscadinia rotundifolia grapevines. Plant Pathology, 62:
829–841.
Samuelian SK, Greer LA, Savocchia S & Steel CC 2011, Detection and Monitoring of
Greeneria uvicola and Colletotrichum acutatum development on Grapevines by RealTime PCR. Plant Disease, 95: 298-303.
Sánchez-Torres P, Hinarejos R, González V & Tuset JJ 2008, Identification and
characterization of fungi associated with esca in vineyards of the Comunidad
Valenciana (Spain). Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 6: 650–660.
Sano T 2003a, 'Hop stunt viroid', in A Hadidi, R Flores, JW Randles, JS Semancik (eds.),
Viroids. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, pp. 207–212.
Sano T 2003b, 'Hop stunt viroid in plum and peach', in A Hadidi, R Flores, JW Randles, JS
Semancik (eds.), Viroids. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, pp. 165–167.
Sano T 2013, 'History, origin, and diversity of hop stunt disease and Hop stunt viroid' in J
Patzak, A Koutoulis (eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Humulus
Symposium, 9–14 September 2012, Zatec, Czech Republic, International Society for
Horticultural Science, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 87–96.
Sano T, Hataya T, Terai Y & Shikata E 1989, Hop stunt viroid strains from dapple fruit
disease of plum and peach in Japan. Journal of General Virology, 70: 1311–1319.
Sano T, Mimura R & Ohshima K 2001, Phylogenetic analysis of hop and grapevine isolates
of hop stunt viroid supports a grapevine origin for hop stunt disease. Virus Genes, 22:
53–59.
Savocchia S, Greer LA & Steel CC 2007a, First report of Phomopsis viticola causing bunch
rot of grapes in Australia. Plant Pathology, 56: 725.
Savocchia S, Steel CC, Stodart B & Somers A 2007b, Pathogenicity of Botryosphaeria
species isolated from declining grapevines in sub tropical regions of Eastern Australia.
Vitis, 46: 27–32.
307
Draft Policy Review
Scheper RWA, Scott ES & Whisson DL 1997, Phomopsis cane and leaf spot: discovery of
the sexual stage of P. viticola type 1. Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry
Journal, 12: 264–265.
Seeman OD & Beard JJ 2011, Identification of exotic pest and Australian native and
naturalised species of Tetranychus (Acari: Tetranychidae) Zootaxa, 2961: 1–72.
Sergeeva V, Nair T & Spooner-Hart R 2001, Fungi recorded on grapevines during the course
or an industry service on Botrytis monitoring and fungicide resistance. The Australian
Grapegrower and Winemaker, 449a: 7–11.
Sergeeva V, Priest M & Nair NG 2005, Species of Pestalotiopsis and related genera
occurring on grapevines in Australia. Australasian Plant Pathology, 34: 255–258.
Shanmuganathan N & Fletcher G 1980, The incidence of grapevine yellow speckle disease
in Australian grapevines and the influence of inoculum source on symptom expression.
Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 31: 327–333.
Shivas RG 1989, Fungal and bacterial diseases of plants in Western Australia. Journal of the
Royal Society of Western Australia, 72: 1–62.
Simmonds JH 1966, Host index of plant diseases in Queensland. Queensland Department of
Primary Industries, Brisbane.
Singh RP, Dilworth AD, Ao X, Singh M & Baranwal VK 2009, Citrus exocortis viroid
transmission through commercially-distributed seeds of Impatiens and Verbena plants.
European Journal of Plant Pathology, 124: 691–694.
Singh RP, Dilworth AD, Baranwal VK & Gupta KN 2006, Detection of Citrus exocortis viroid,
Iresine viroid, and Tomato chlorotic dwarf viroid in new ornamental host plants in India.
Plant Disease, 90: 1457.
Singh RP, Randles JW & Hadidi A 2003a, 'Strategies for the control of viroid diseases', in A
Hadidi, R Flores, JW Randles, JS Semancik (eds.), Viroids. CSIRO Publishing,
Collingwood, Victoria, pp. 295–302.
Singh RP, Ready KFM & Nie X 2003b, 'Biology', in A Hadidi, R Flores, JW Randles, JS
Semancik (eds.), Viroids. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, pp. 30–48.
Smith D 1973, Insect pests of avocados. Queensland Agricultural Journal, 99: 645–653.
Smith D, Beattie GAC & Broadley R (eds). 1997, Citrus pests and their natural enemies:
integrated pest management in Australia. Queensland Department of Primary
Industries, Brisbane.
Snare L 2006, Pest and disease analysis in hazelnuts. Report of project NTO5002.
Horticulture Australia Limited, Sydney, NSW.
Sofy AR, Soliman AM, Mousa AA & El-Dougdoug KA 2012, Molecular characterization and
bioinformatics analysis of viroid isolate associated with citrus gummy bark disease in
Egypt. International Journal of Virology, 8: 133–150.
Somers T & Quirk L 2007, Grapevine management guide 2007–08. New South Wales
Department of Primary Industries.
308
Draft Policy Review
Sônego OR, Garrido L da R & Júnior AG 2005, Principais doenças fúngicas da videira no Sul
do Brasil [Major fungal diseases of the vine in southern Brazil]. Circular Técnica:
Embrapa Uva e Vinho, 56: 1–32.
Spradbery JP & Maywald GF 1992, The distribution of the European or German wasp,
Vespula germanica (F.) (Hymenoptera: Vespidae), in Australia: past, present and
future. Australian Journal of Zoology, 40: 495–510.
Staub U, Polivka H, Herrmann JV & Gross HJ 1995, Transmission of grapevine viroids is not
likely to occur mechanically by normal pruning. Vitis, 34: 119–123.
Steel C 2014, Non-Botrytis bunch rots: questions and answers, factsheet. Grape and Wine
Research and Development Corporation, Kent Town, SA.
<http://research.agwa.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Non-botrytis-bunch-rotsFinal.pdf> [3 June 2015].
Steel CC, Greer LA & Savocchia S 2007, Studies on Colletotrichum acutatum and Greeneria
uvicola: Two fungi associated with bunch rot of grapes in sub-tropical Australia.
Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 13: 23–29.
Steel CC, Greer LA & Savocchia S 2012, Grapevine inflorescences are susceptible to the
bunch rot pathogens, Greeneria uvicola (bitter rot) and Colletotrichum acutatum (ripe
rot). European Journal of Plant Pathology, 133: 773–778.
Steger G & Riesner D 2003, 'Molecular characteristics', in A Hadidi, R Flores, JW Randles,
JS Semancik (eds.), Viroids. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, pp. 15–29.
Sutherst RW, Maywald GF, Bottomley W & Bourne A 2004, CLIMEX Version 2.0 [software].
Hearne Scientific Software, Victoria, Australia.
Sutherst RW & Yonow T 1998, The geographical distribution of the Queensland fruit fly,
Bactrocera (Dacus) tryoni, in relation to climate. Australian Journal of Agricultural
Research, 49: 935–953.
Szychowski JA, McKenry MV, Walker MA, Wolpert JA, Credi R & Semancik JS 1995, The
vein-banding disease syndrome: A synergistic reaction between grapevine viroids and
fanleaf virus. Vitis, 34: 229–232.
Taplin RL & Symon DE 2008, Remnant horticultural plants at the site of the former
Newman's Nursery, 1854–1932. Journal of the Adelaide Botanic Garden, 22: 73–96.
Taylor A 2007, Scoping study on the non-Botrytis bunch rots that occur in Western Australia.
Final report to Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation of project RT
05/05-2. Wine Industry Association, Western Australia.
Taylor A, Hardy GESJ, Wood P & Burgess T 2005, Identification and pathogenicity of
Botryosphaeria species associated with grapevine decline in Western Australia.
Australasian Plant Pathology, 34: 187–195.
Taylor RH & Mabbitt JM 1961, Dead arm disease of grape vines. The Journal of Agriculture,
Victoria, 59: 157–165.
Tejesvi MV, Tamhankar SA, Kini KR, Rao VS & Prakash HS 2009, Phylogenetic analysis of
endophytic Pestalotiopsis species from ethnopharmaceutically important medicinal
trees. Fungal Diversity, 38: 167–183.
309
Draft Policy Review
Todorović D, Šalinger V & Mitić B 2005, Pojava i širenje crne pegavosti vinove loze
(Phomopsis viticola) na jugu Srbije [The emergence and spread of black leaf spot of
grapevine (Phomopsis viticola) in southern Serbia]. Biljni Lekar [Plant Doctor], 33: 637–
641.
TPPD 2015, Tasmanian Plant Pest Database (TPPD) via Australian Plant Pest Database
[online database]. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment,
Tasmania. <http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/resources/australian-plant-pestdatabase/> [2015].
Tree C & Oag D 2009, 'Managing Queensland fruit fly and phylloxera issues for interstate
market access of table grapes' in 7th Australian Table Grape Technical Conference 1618 September, Mildura, Victoria.
UNEP IPPC 2007, Methyl bromide: Quarantine and preshipment uses. United Nations
Environmental Program (UNEP) and the International Plant Protection Convention
(IPPC). <http://ozone.unep.org/Publications/UNEP-Ozone-Secretariat-MPBrochure.pdf>.
UQIC 2015, University of Queensland Insect Collection (UQIC) via Australian Plant Pest
Database [online database]. Queensland Museum.
<http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/resources/australian-plant-pest-database/>
[2015].
Úrbez-Torres JR 2011, The status of Botryosphaeriaceae species infecting grapevines.
Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 50: S5–S45.
Úrbez-Torres JR, Adams P, Kamas J & Gubler WD 2009, Identification, incidence, and
pathogenicity of fungal species associated with grapevine dieback in Texas. American
Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 60: 497–507.
Úrbez-Torres JR, Leavitt GM, Voegel TM & Gubler WD 2006, Identification and distribution of
Botryosphaeria spp. associated with grapevine cankers in California. Plant Disease,
90: 1490–1503.
VAIC 2015, Victorian Agricultural Insect Collection (VAIC) via Australian Plant Pest Database
[online database]. Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Victoria.
<http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/resources/australian-plant-pest-database/>
[2015].
Van Niekerk JM, Bester W, Halleen F, Crous PW & Fourie PH 2011, The distribution and
symptomatology of grapevine trunk diseas pathogens are influenced by climate.
Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 50: S98–S111.
Van Niekerk JM, Groenewald JZ, Farr DF, Fourie PH, Halleen F & Crous PW 2005,
Reassessment of Phomopsis species on grapevines. Australasian Plant Pathology, 34:
27–39.
Van Niekerk JM, Groenewald JZE, Verkley GJM, Fourie PH, Wingfield MJ & Crous PW
2004, Systematic reappraisal of Coniella and Pilidiella, with specific reference to
species occurring on Eucalyptus and Vitis in South Africa. Mycological Research, 108:
283–303.
310
Draft Policy Review
Varela LG, Daane KM, Phillips PA, Bettiga LJ & Triapitsyn SV 2013, 'Scale insects', in LJ
Bettiga (ed.), Grape pest management, 3rd edn. University of California: Agriculture
and Natural Resources, California, pp. 273–276.
Verhoeven JTJ, Jansen CCC, Willemen TM, Kox LFF, Owens RA & Roenhorst JW 2004,
Natural infections of tomato by Citrus exocortis viroid, Columnea latent viroid, Potato
spindle tuber viroid and Tomato chlorotic dwarf viroid. European Journal of Plant
Pathology, 110: 823–831.
Vidalakis G, Pagliaccia D, Bash JA & Semancik JS 2010, Effects of mixtures of citrus viroids
as transmissible small nuclear RNA on tree dwarfing and commercial scion
performance on Carrizo citrange rootstock. Annals of Applied Biology, 157: 415–423.
Vitale A & Polizzi G 2005, Occurrence of Pestalotiopsis uvicola causing leaf spots and stem
blight on bay laurel (Laurus nobilis) in Sicily. Plant Disease, 89: 1362.
WAC 2015, Western Australian Culture Collection (WAC) via Australian Plant Pest Database
[online database]. Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia.
<http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/resources/australian-plant-pest-database/>
[2015].
Walker MA, Granett J, Bettiga LJ, Peacock WL & Weber EA 2013, 'Grape phylloxera', in LJ
Bettiga (ed.), Grape pest management, 3rd edn. University of California: Agriculture
and Natural Resources, California, pp. 191–201.
Wan Chow Wah YF & Symons RH 1997, A high sensitivity RT-PCR assay for the diagnosis
of grapevine viroids in field and tissue culture samples. Journal of Virological Methods,
63: 57–69.
Wan Chow Wah YF & Symons RH 1999a, Transmission of viroids via grape seeds. Journal
of Phytopathology, 147: 285–291.
Wan Chow Wah YF & Symons RH 1999b, Transmission of viroids via grape seeds. Journal
of Phytopathology, 147: 285–291.
Washington WS & Nancarrow RJ 1983, List of diseases recorded on fruit and vegetable
crops in Victoria before June 30, 1980, Technical Report Series: no. 66. Department of
Agriculture, Victoria, Melbourne.
Watanabe T & Tsudome K 1970, Fungi isolated from wilted pineapple plants in Okinawa.
Transactions of the Mycological Society of Japan, 11: 64–71.
Watson GW 2005, Arthropods of economic importance - Diaspididae of the World, World
Biodiversity Database [online database].
<http://wbd.etibioinformatics.nl/bis/diaspididae.php> [01 October 2014].
Wei J-G, Xu T, Guo L-D, Liu A-R, Zhang Y & Pan X-H 2007, Endophytic Pestalotiopsis
species associated with plants of Podocarpaceae, Theaceae and Taxaceae in
southern China. Fungal Diversity, 24: 55–74.
Western Australian Herbarium 1998, The Western Australian flora, FloraBase [online
database]. Department of Parks and Wildlife. <https://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au/>
[2015].
311
Draft Policy Review
White IM & Elson-Harris MM 1994, Fruit flies of economic significance: their identification and
bionomics. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
White IM & Hancock DL 1997, CABIKEY: Indo-Australasian Dacini fruit flies [CD-ROM]. CAB
International, Wallingford, UK.
Wicks TJ & DeGaris K 2011, Phomopsis control in the limestone coast. Final report to Grape
and Wine Research and Development Corporation of project RT-08/01-3. South
Australian Research and Development Institute.
Widmer MA 2015, Portuguese millipedes. Department of Agriculture and Food, Western
Australia. <https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/pest-insects/portuguese-millipedes> [6 May
2015].
Williams DJ 1985, Australian mealybugs. British Museum (Natural History), London, UK.
WINC 2015, Waite Insect and Nematode Collection (WINC) via Australian Plant Pest
Database [online database]. University of Adelaide and South Australian Research and
Development Institute. <http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/resources/australianplant-pest-database/> [2015].
Winewatch 2011, Environmental management guidelines for vineyards in WA. Wines of
Western Australia.
<http://www.winewa.asn.au/images/Technical%20Papers/EMGV_2011_WORD_FINAL
.pdf> [4 June 2015].
WoWA 2014, Western Australian Wine Industry Strategic Plan 2014–2024. Wines of
Western Australia (WoWA), Claremont, WA.
<http://www.winewa.asn.au/images/WAWineIndustryStrategicPlan/35368_WINE_Wine
_Industry_WA_Strategic_Plan.pdf> [4 June 2015].
Wunderlich N, Ash GJ, Steel CC, Raman H, Cowling A & Savocchia S 2011a, Refining the
biological factors affecting virulence of Botryosphaeriaceae on grapevines. Annals of
Applied Biology, 159: 467–477.
Wunderlich N, Ash GJ, Steel CC, Raman H & Savocchia S 2011b, Association of
Botryosphaeriaceae grapevine trunk disease fungi with the reproductive structures of
Vitis vinifera. Vitis, 50: 89–96.
Xu L, Kusakari S-i, Hosomi A, Toyoda H & Ouchi S 1999, Postharvest disease of grape
caused by Pestalotiopsis species. Annals of the Phytopathological Society of Japan,
65: 305–311.
Yaguchi S & Takahashi T 1984, Response of cucumber cultivars and other cucurbitaceous
species to infection by hop stunt viroid. Phytopathologische Zeitschrift, 109: 21–31.
Yakoubi S, Elleuch A, Besaies N, Marrakchi M & Fakhfakh H 2007a, First report of Hop stunt
viroid and Citrus exocortis viroid on Fig with symptoms of Fig Mosaic Disease. Journal
of Phytopathology, 155: 125–128.
Yakoubi S, Elleuch A, Besaies N, Marrakchi M & Fakhfakh H 2007b, First report of Hop stunt
viroid and Citrus exocortis viroid on fig with symptoms of fig mosaic disease. Journal of
Phytopathology, 155: 125-128.
312
Draft Policy Review
Yamamoto W 1952, The germination of spores of the sooty mould fungus, and the growth of
their germ tubes, with special reference to the honeydews secreted by insects.
Japanese Journal of Phytopathology, 16: 49–53.
Yang Y-A, Wang H-Q, Cheng Z-M, Sano T & Li S-F 2007, First report of Hop stunt viroid
from plum in China. Plant Pathology, 56: 339.
Yokoyama VY, Miller GT & Crisosto CH 2001, Pest response in packed table grapes to low
temperature storage combined with slow-release sulfur dioxide pads in basic and largescale tests. Journal of Economic Entomology, 94: 984–988.
Zahradník J 1990, 'Forests: Conifers', in D Rosen (ed.), Armored scale insects: Their biology,
natural enemies and control: Volume 4B. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 633–
644.
Zborowski P & Edwards T 2007, A guide to Australian moths. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne,
Vic.
Zhang B, Liu G, Liu C, Wu Z, Jiang D & Li S 2009, Characterisation of Hop stunt viroid
(HSVd) isolates from jujube trees (Ziziphus jujuba). European Journal of Plant
Pathology, 125: 665-669.
Zhang J, Xu T & Ge Q 2003, Notes on Pestalotiopsis from southern China. Mycotaxon, 85:
91–99.
Zhang Y, Singh K, Kaur R & Qiu W 2011, Association of a novel DNA virus with the
grapevine vein-clearing and vine decline syndrome. Phytopathology, 101: 1081–1090.
Zhang Z, Peng S, Jiang D, Pan S, Wang H & Li S 2012a, Development of a polyprobe for the
simultaneous detection of four grapevine viroids in grapevine plants. European Journal
of Plant Pathology, 132: 9–16.
Zhang Z, Zhou Y, Guo R, Mu L, Yang Y, Li S & Wang H 2012b, Molecular characterization of
Chinese Hop stunt viroid isolates reveals a new phylogenetic group and possible cross
transmission between grapevine and stone fruits. European Journal of Plant Pathology,
134: 217–225.
313
Draft Policy Review
Appendix A Methodology
This section describes the methodology used by the Department of Agriculture and Food,
Western Australia (the department) to identify and mitigate risks posed by quarantine pests5.
The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) defines a pest as ‘any species, strain
or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to plants or plant products’. This
includes organisms that are pests because they directly affect cultivated/managed or
uncultivated/unmanaged plants, indirectly affect plants, or indirectly affect plants through
effects on other organisms (ISPM 11 2014). If at any stage of the process it becomes
apparent that a pest has a detrimental impact on human or animal life, health or welfare the
relevant authority is notified.
The methodology adopted by the department for state pest risk analyses (PRAs) conforms
to the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) and is similar to and
comparable with the methodologies employed by the Australian Department of Agriculture.
The relevant IPPC standards are available from https://www.ippc.int/
The three elements of the PRA process include:



Stage 1 - Initiation
Stage 2 - Pest risk assessment
Stage 3 - Pest risk management
Stage 1: Initiation
The aim of Stage 1 is to identify the objectives of the pest risk analysis, including
 Part 1 - Initiation point
 Part 2 - Identifying the pathway of concern to the PRA and PRA area.
 Part 3–Background information
Part 1: Initiation point
Initiation of a PRA is often in response to:


The identification of a pathway that presents a potential pest hazard, for example;
- requests for interstate trade in a commodity not previously imported
- requests for interstate trade in a commodity from a new area or new state of origin
- a pathway other than commodity import is identified.
The identification of a pest that may require phytosanitary measures, for example;
- an emergency arises on interception of a new pest on an imported commodity
- a new pest risk is identified by scientific research
- a pest is introduced into the source area
- a pest is reported to be more damaging in an area other than its area of origin
- a pest is repeatedly intercepted
- a request is made to import an organism
- an organism is identified as a vector for other pests.
5
ISPM 5 definition: a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not
yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled.
314
Draft Policy Review

The review or revision of phytosanitary policies and priorities, for example;
- a decision to undertake a review of phytosanitary regulations, requirements or
operations
- a proposal made by another Australian state or territory for alternative conditions
- a new treatment or loss of a treatment system, a new process, or new information
impacts on an earlier decision
- a dispute arises on phytosanitary requirements.
An important facet of the initiation stage is to identify the pest(s), their current distribution
and association with host plants and commodities and their presence on the pathway.
Part 2: Identifying the pathway of concern to the PRA and PRA area


A pathway is defined as ‘any means that allows the entry or spread of a pest’
(ISPM 5 2015). The pathway of concern is outlined in the scope of the PRA
document.
The PRA area is ‘area in relation to which a pest risk analysis is conducted’; where
an area is defined as ‘an officially defined country, part of a country or all or parts of
several countries’ (ISPM 5 2015).
Part 3: Background information

Provide background information relevant to undertaking pest risk assessments. This
includes but is not limited to:
- policy framework
- existing
- policy
- industry
- information
- climate
Stage 2: Pest risk assessment
Stage 2 describes the process of identifying pest(s) of quarantine concern from those
identified in Part 1 and estimating the risk associated with each.
Risk assessment includes the following steps:
1) Pest categorisation
2) Assessing the probability of entry, establishment, and spread
3) Assessing economic consequences
315
Draft Policy Review
Pest categorisation
An essential part of the risk analysis is the categorisation of pests identified in Part 1 into
quarantine and non-quarantine pests. The process of categorisation considers the pest(s)
individually against the criteria for a quarantine pest to determine if the pest fulfils the
necessary requirements of the definition.
A quarantine pest is defined in ISPM 5 (2015) as: ‘a pest of potential economic importance
to the area endangered thereby, and not yet present there, or present but not widely
distributed and being officially controlled’.
In this context the area endangered is defined as ‘an area in which ecological factors favour
the establishment of a pest whose presence in the area will result in economically important
loss’.
ISPM 11 (2014), ‘Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests’, includes the following criteria in
pest categorisation:
•
•
•
•
•
identity of the pest
presence or absence in the PRA area
regulatory status
potential for establishment and spread in PRA area
potential for economic consequences (including environmental consequences) in the
PRA area.
Identity of pest6
The identity of the pest should be clearly defined to ensure that the assessment is being
performed on an identifiable organism. Where possible the pest should be identified as a
distinct taxonomic entity. If this is not possible because the causal agent of particular
symptoms has not yet been fully identified, then the pest should be shown to produce
consistent symptoms and to be transmissible.
The taxonomic unit for the pest is generally a species. The use of a higher or lower
taxonomic level is possible where supported by scientifically sound rationale. For levels
below a species, evidence demonstrating factors such as differences in virulence, host
range or vector relationships are significant enough to affect phytosanitary status should be
presented. In situations involving vectors, the vector may be considered a pest to the extent
that it is associated with the causal organism and is required for transmission of the pest.
Presence or absence in the PRA area
The pest should be absent from all or a defined part of the PRA area. In most instances
absence is identified as absent: no pest records. If the pest is absent from the PRA area, it
satisfies this aspect of the definition of a quarantine pest.
If the pest is present in the PRA area is widely distributed and/or not under official control
then the pest does not satisfy the definition of a quarantine pest.
6
IPPC definition: any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to plants
or plant products
316
Draft Policy Review
Regulatory status
Pests present in the PRA area that are under official control or are being considered for official
control may satisfy this aspect of the definition of a quarantine pest.
Official control is defined as ‘the active enforcement of mandatory phytosanitary regulations and
the application of mandatory phytosanitary procedures with the objective of eradication or
containment of quarantine pests or for the management of regulated non-quarantine pests.’
Potential for establishment and spread in PRA area
Evidence should be available to support the conclusion that the pest could become
established or spread in the PRA area. Host species (or near relatives), alternative hosts
and where applicable vectors should be present in the PRA area. The PRA area should
have ecological and climatic conditions, including those in protected conditions, suitable for
the establishment and spread of the pest.
Potential for economic consequences in PRA area
There should be clear indications that the pest is likely to have an unacceptable economic
impact (including environmental impact) should it become established in the PRA area. If a
pest has no potential economic impact in the PRA area, then it does not satisfy the definition
of a quarantine pest.
317
Draft Policy Review
Assessing the probability of entry, establishment and spread
The probability of entry describes the likelihood that the quarantine pest will be imported
into the PRA area and be distributed in a viable and undetected on, or associated with, the
pathway as it moves from the exporting area to the endangered area7 where it may
establish.
Probability of establishment and probability of spread are obtained by examining
biological and other factors in the endangered area that may influence a quarantine pest’s
ability to become established and subsequently spread to other areas.
In qualitative risk assessments the probabilities for entry, establishment and spread are
expressed as likelihoods using the generic nomenclature outlined in Table A1. The entry,
establishment and spread potential for each quarantine pest are combined using a matrix of
‘rules’ (Table A2) to provide the overall probability of entry, establishment and spread,
representing the ‘cumulative likelihood’ that these events will occur.
Table A1: Generic nomenclature for qualitative likelihoods
Likelihood
Descriptive definition
Probability (P)
High
The event would be very likely to occur
Range = 0.7 → 1
Moderate
The event would occur with an even
probability
Range = 0.3 → 0.7
Low
The event would be unlikely to occur
Range = 0.05 → 0.3
Very low
The event would be very unlikely to occur
Range = 0.001 → 0.05
Extremely
low
The event would be extremely unlikely to
occur
Range = 10-6 → 0.001
Negligible
The event would almost certainly not occur
Range = 0 → 10-6
The decision rules used to determine the cells in this matrix (Table A2) were obtained by
assigning broad probability ranges to each of the qualitative descriptors, that is, ‘high’,
‘moderate’, ‘low’, ‘very low’, ‘extremely low’ and ‘negligible’. This approach enables the
qualitative terms to be combined within a logical, rather than arbitrary, framework. This
approach also enables the qualitative descriptors to be assigned to combinations in a
consistent and transparent manner.
The results of the approach illustrate that where a ‘high’ likelihood is multiplied by a lower
likelihood, the result will generally fall into the same range as the lower of the two. This is not
unexpected, since a high probability is close to one, and therefore should not alter the value
with which it is combined with. Conversely, Table A2 shows that ‘negligible’ likelihoods tend
to dominate when they are combined with higher likelihoods. Once again, this is not
unexpected, since a negligible probability is very close to zero, and it is clear that anything
multiplied by a figure very close to zero will be very close to zero.
7
An area, within the PRA area, where ecological factors favour the establishment of a pest
whose presence in the area will result in economically important loss.
318
Draft Policy Review
Where a negligible probability of entry, establishment or spread occurs, combining any
other probability using the matrix rules shown in Table A2 would result in a negligible
probability of entry, establishment and spread.
Table A2: Combination of likelihoods (matrix of rules)
— —
Likelihood 2
— —
High
Likelihood 1
Moderate
High
Moderate
high
—
Low
Very low Extremely Negligible
low
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
moderate
low
low
low
very low
—
—
—
very low
very low
very low
extremely
low
—
—
Extremely extremely
low
low
extremely
low
extremely
low
extremely
low
negligible
—
Negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
Low
Very low
negligible
Probability of entry
The probability of entry describes the likelihood that the quarantine pest will be imported
into the PRA area and be distributed in a viable state to a suitable host.
The probability of entry is dependent on the pathway(s) from the exporting area to the
destination, and the frequency and quantity of pests associated with them. It takes into
account normal production practices used in the source area and standard on-arrival
procedures.
The probability of entry is subsequently obtained by considering the ‘importation’ and
‘distribution’ pathway(s) for the commodity, and the likelihood that a given pest will remain
viable and undetected as each of the component steps is completed. The following partial
checklist can be used to estimate the entry potential divided into those factors that may
affect the likelihood of importation and those that may affect the likelihood of distribution.
Calculation of the probability of entry
The likelihood of entry is determined by combining the likelihood that the quarantine pest will
be imported into the PRA area and the likelihood that the quarantine pest will be distributed
within the PRA area, using a matrix of rules (Table A2).
Probability of
entry
=
Probability of importation
X
Probability of distribution
319
Draft Policy Review
Probability of importation
The probability of importation is the likelihood that the quarantine pest will arrive in the
PRA area when a given commodity is imported. When describing scenarios and assigning
likelihoods, ISPM 11 suggest consideration of the following factors:
Association of the quarantine pest with the pathway at its origin including:




prevalence of the quarantine pest in the source area
occurrence of the quarantine pest in a life stage associated with the commodity,
containers or conveyances
volume and frequency of movement along the pathway
seasonal timing of movements
Ability to survive existing pest management procedures

application of plant protection products, handling, culling, rouging and grading.
Survival of the quarantine pest during transport or storage




speed and conditions of transport and duration of the life cycle of the quarantine
pest in relation to time in transport and storage
vulnerability of the life-stages during transport or storage
the likely prevalence of a quarantine pest association with a consignment
commercial procedures (e.g. refrigeration) applied to consignments in the country
of origin, country of destination, or in transport or storage.
Survival of the quarantine pest given any existing pest management procedures


existing pest management procedures (including phytosanitary procedures) applied
to consignments against other pests from origin to end use should be evaluated for
effectiveness against the pest in question.
probability that the quarantine pest will go undetected during inspection or survive
other existing phytosanitary procedures should be estimated.
Probability of distribution
The probability of distribution is the likelihood that a quarantine pest that has entered the
PRA area via a pathway will be distributed as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of
the commodity, and subsequently transferred to a suitable host.
When describing scenarios and assigning likelihoods, ISPM 11 suggest consideration of the
following factors:






dispersal mechanisms, including vectors to allow movement from the pathway to a
suitable host
whether the imported commodity is to be sent to a few or many destination points
in the PRA area
proximity of entry, transit and destination points to suitable hosts
time of year at which import takes place
intended use of the commodity (e.g. planting, processing or consumption)
risks from by-products and waste.
Some uses are associated with a much higher probability of introduction (e.g. planting) than
others (e.g. processing). The probability associated with any growth, processing, or disposal
of the commodity in the vicinity of suitable hosts should also be considered.
320
Draft Policy Review
Probability of establishment
The probability of establishment is the likelihood that a quarantine pest having transferred
to a suitable host within the endangered area will establish and initiate a viable population for
the foreseeable future.
In order to assess the probability of establishment of a quarantine pest in relation to a
specific PRA area, reliable scientific biological information is required. This may be obtained
from areas where the quarantine pest is known to occur. The PRA area can then be
compared with the areas where it occurs. Expert judgement and climate modelling where
practicable may assist in assessing probability of establishment. Case histories of
comparable pests may be considered.
When describing scenarios and assigning likelihoods, ISPM 11 suggest consideration of the
following factors:
The availability of suitable hosts, alternate hosts and vectors in the PRA area including:





Whether hosts and alternate hosts are present and how abundant or widely
distributed they may be.
Whether hosts and alternate hosts occur within sufficient geographical proximity to
allow the quarantine pest to complete its life cycle.
Whether there are other plant species, which could prove to be suitable hosts in
the absence of the usual host species.
Whether a vector, if needed for dispersal of the pest, is already present in the PRA
area or likely to be introduced.
Whether another vector species occurs in the PRA area.
The suitability of the environment in the PRA area including:



Whether environmental factors such as climate, soil type, pest and host
competition are suitable for the pest and any identified hosts or vectors.
The probability of establishment in protected environments such as a glasshouse
should be considered.
Where possible climate modelling systems, such as CLIMEX®, can be used to
provide insights into the climatic suitability of the PRA for a quarantine pest.
Potential adaptation of the pest including:


Whether the species is polymorphic8 and the degree to which the pest has
demonstrated the ability to adapt to conditions present in the PRA area.
The genetic variability is considered an indication of a pest’s ability to withstand
environmental fluctuations, to adapt to a wide range of habitats, to develop
pesticide resistance and to overcome host resistance.
Reproductive and survival strategies of the pest including:

8
Characteristics that enable the pest to reproduce effectively in the new
environment, such as parthenogenesis9, self-crossing, duration of the life cycle,
number of generations per year, the presence of a resting stage, etc.
Polymorphic – Having many forms; of great variability.
Parthenogenesis – the ability to reproduce without fertilisation; a common reproductive strategy
among mites and some insects such as thrips and aphids.
9
321
Draft Policy Review
Minimum population requirements establishment including:

If possible, the threshold population required for establishment should be
considered.
Cultural practices and control measures including:



Whether any differences in cultural practices between the PRA area and the areas
where the pest occurs may influence its ability to establish.
Whether there are any pest control programs or natural enemies already in the
PRA area which may impact upon establishment.
Pests for which control is not feasible should be considered to present a greater
risk than those for which treatment is easily accomplished. The availability (or lack)
of suitable methods for eradication should also be investigated.
The overall probability of establishment is then expressed using the qualitative likelihoods
outlined in Table A1.
Probability of spread
The probability of spread is the likelihood that a pest having established within the
endangered area will continue to increase its geographical distribution.
In order to estimate the probability of spread of a pest, reliable biological information is
obtained from areas where the pest is known to occur. This information is compared with the
PRA area and expert judgement used to assess the probability of spread. Case histories of
comparable pests can be considered.
Both human facilitated and natural spread are considered. Natural spread includes the
movement of the pest by flight, wind dispersal, transport by vectors such as insects, birds or
animals and natural migration.
When describing scenarios and assigning likelihoods, ISPM 11 suggest consideration of the
following factors:






The suitability of the natural and/or managed environment for natural spread of the
pest.
Presence of natural barriers.
Movement of the pest with commodities, packaging materials or conveyances.
The intended use of the commodity.
Potential vectors for the pest in the PRA area.
Potential natural enemies of the pest in the PRA area.
The information on probability of spread is used to estimate how rapidly a pest's potential
economic importance may be expressed within the PRA area. This also has significance if
the pest is liable to enter and establish in an area of low potential economic importance and
then spread to an area of high potential economic importance.
The overall probability of spread may then be expressed using the qualitative likelihoods
outlined in Table A1.
322
Draft Policy Review
Overall entry, establishment and spread potential
The overall entry, establishment and spread potential is the product of their respective
probabilities, derived from the matrix of rules shown in Table A2. The matrix of rules is used
to combine the probability of entry and the probability of establishment, that result is then
combined with the probability of spread. The probabilities are combined in this manner, as it
is necessary for a pest to be introduced before it can establish. Likewise, a pest must first
establish before it can spread. The overall entry, establishment and spread potential is the
probability all the events will occur.
Overall entry,
establishment
and spread
potential
=
Probability of
entry
X
Probability of
establishment
X
Probability of
spread
Assessing economic consequences
The analysis of economic consequences is made using ‘a hypothetical situation where the
pest is supposed to have been introduced and to be fully expressing its potential economic
consequences (per year) in the PRA area’ (ISPM No. 11). However, existing control regimes
for other pests may impact upon the expression of economic consequences for the pest
undergoing assessment and are taken into consideration.
In order to estimate the economic importance of the pest, information is obtained from areas
where the pest currently occurs. Consideration is given to whether the pest causes major,
minor or no damage; frequently or infrequently. The situation in the PRA area is then
compared with that in areas where the pest occurs. Case histories concerning comparable
pests can also be considered. Expert judgement is then used to assess the potential
economic consequences should the pest establish and spread in the PRA area.
Economic assessments carried out for each quarantine pest are based on available
information regarding each of the direct and indirect consequence. It should be noted that, in
many instances, information regarding the likely consequences of incursions of the identified
quarantine pests is often limited. In addition, it is often the case that the consequences of a
pest in one country or environment are different to those in another. Given these limitations,
the economic assessment should be based on information available for each identified
quarantine pest, or on information obtained for similar pests. In some cases, this means that
a subset of the direct and indirect criteria listed below should be considered in the
assessment.
Consideration of direct consequences includes the following:
Plant life or health

Native and introduced plant life or health (for example, production losses, reduction
of keystone plant species, reduction of plant species that are major components of
ecosystems [in terms of abundance or size], reduction of endangered plant
species, significant reduction, displacement or elimination of other plant species).
Any other aspect of the environment


Other biota (for example effects on microorganisms)
The physical environment (for example altered water quality and hydrology,
changed soil or dune formation)
323
Draft Policy Review
Consideration of indirect consequences includes the following:
Eradication, control, surveillance/monitoring, compensation strategies/programs





Eradication or control programs
Research
Surveillance and monitoring strategies/programs
Changes to producer costs or input demands resulting from quality changes
Feasibility of eradication or containment
Domestic trade or industry effects



Changes in consumer demand
Effects on other industries supplying inputs to, or utilising outputs from directly
affected industries
Possibility that phytosanitary measures will be imposed by trading partners
International trade effects




Loss of markets
Meeting new technical requirements to enter/maintain markets
Changes of international consumer demand resulting from quality changes
Possibility that phytosanitary measures will be imposed by trading partners
Environment



Significant effects on plant communities
Significant effects on designated environmentally sensitive or protected areas
Significant change in ecological processes and the structure, stability or processes
of an ecosystem
- further effects on plant species
- erosion
- water table changes
- increased fire hazard
- nutrient cycling
Effects on native species not directly affected by the pest (for example, food chains or
reproductive cycles disrupted through loss of prey or pollinators)

Effects on human use (for example, water quality, recreational uses, tourism,
animal grazing, fishing etc.)
 Costs of environmental restoration or rehabilitation
 Costs of amenity or infrastructure repair
 Reduced rural and regional economic viability
 Loss of environmental or social amenity
- Reduction of environmental amenity
- Reduction of recreational, social, cultural or aesthetic value
 ‘Side effects’ of control measures
- loss of pollinators, mycorrhizae, mutualists or other beneficial organisms
- susceptibility to other pests
The relevant examples of direct and indirect consequences are considered and estimates of
the consequences are assigned.
The direct and indirect consequences are estimated based on four geographic levels, ‘local’,
‘district’, ‘regional’ and ‘PRA area’, described in Table A3.
324
Draft Policy Review
Table A3: PRA definition of geographic areas
Geographic
area
Definition
Local
An aggregate of households or enterprises—e.g. a rural
community, town or suburbs.
District
A geographically or geopolitically associated collection of
aggregates such as Local Government Areas (generally
represented as a city or shire, although there may be exceptions
with larger shires such as the Wyndham-East Kimberley,
Carnarvon & Esperance shires).
Region
A geographically or geopolitically associated collection of Local
Government Areas — Gascoyne, Goldfields-Esperance, Great
Southern, Kimberley, Mid-West, Peel, Pilbara, South West and
Wheatbelt as defined under the Regional Development
Commissions Act 1993 (Figure A1).
PRA area
Western Australia
325
Draft Policy Review
Figure A1: Regional Western Australia (Department of Regional Development 2014).
326
Draft Policy Review
The consequence is described as ‘unlikely to be discernible’, ‘minor significance’, significant’
or ‘highly significant’:




an ‘unlikely to be discernible’ consequence is not usually distinguishable from
normal day-to-day variation in the criterion;
a consequence of ‘minor significance’ is not expected to threaten economic
viability, but would lead to a minor increase in mortality/morbidity or a minor
decrease in production. For non-commercial factors, the consequence is not
expected to threaten the intrinsic ‘value’ of the criterion—though the value of the
criterion would be considered as ‘disturbed’. Effects would generally be reversible;
a ‘significant’ consequence would threaten economic viability through a moderate
increase in mortality/morbidity, or a moderate decrease in production. For noncommercial factors, the intrinsic ‘value’ of the criterion would be considered as
significantly diminished or threatened. Effects may not be reversible; and
a ‘highly significant’ consequence would threaten economic viability through a large
increase in mortality/morbidity, or a large decrease in production. For noncommercial factors, the intrinsic ‘value’ of the criterion would be considered as
severely or irreversibly damaged.
The values are translated into a qualitative score (A–G) and are outlined in Table A4.
Table A4: Qualitative assessment score matrix for consequences criterion
—
—
—
Local
District
Region
PRA area
Unlikely to be discernible
A
A
A
A
Minor significance
B
C
D
E
Significant
C
D
E
F
Highly significant
D
E
F
G
Magnitude
—
Geographic Region
327
Draft Policy Review
The overall consequence for each pest is achieved by combining the qualitative scores (A–
G) for each direct and indirect consequence using a series of decision rules (Table A5).
These rules are mutually exclusive and are assessed in numerical order until one applies.
Table A5: Rules for determining the overall consequence rating for each pest
Rule
The impact scores for consequences of direct and
indirect criteria
Overall consequence
rating
1
Any criterion has an impact of ‘G’; or
more than one criterion has an impact of ‘F’; or
a single criterion has an impact of ‘F’ and each
remaining criterion an ‘E’
2
A single criterion has an impact of ‘F’; or
all criteria have an impact of ‘E’
3
One or more criteria have an impact of ‘E’; or
all criteria have an impact of ‘D’
Moderate
4
One or more criteria have an impact of ‘D’; or
all criteria have an impact of ‘C’
Low
5
One or more criteria have an impact of ‘C’; or
all criteria have an impact of ‘B’
Very low
6
One or more but not all criteria have an impact of ‘B’,
and all remaining criteria have an impact of ‘A’
Extreme
High
Negligible
Estimating unrestricted risk
As with the overall probability of entry, establishment and spread where the events are
combined, the expected risk also requires each of the events to occur, that is a pest to be
introduced, to establish and spread, with the ensuing economic consequences. Therefore,
risk estimation represents the integration of likelihoods and consequences, with the objective
of deriving a measure of the expected loss or ‘risk’ associated with each quarantine pest.
Unrestricted risk
estimate
=
Entry, establishment and
spread potential
X
Economic consequence
of entry, establishment
and spread
In the context of a risk analysis, it is important to recognise that the terms ‘likelihood’,
‘consequence’ and ‘risk’ cannot be used interchangeably. That is, ‘likelihood’ describes the
probability of an event, ‘consequence’ describes its impact or the loss associated with the
event, while the term ‘risk’ denotes the product of likelihood and consequence. In this sense,
it is incorrect to refer to likelihood as a ‘risk’ or to interpret the simple likelihood of an event in
terms of its relative magnitude or seriousness. For example, the statement ‘the risk of entry
is considered to be high’ should be rephrased as ‘the likelihood of entry is considered to be
high’.
328
Draft Policy Review
When interpreting the risk estimation matrix (Table A6), it should be remembered that
although the descriptive terms used on each axis are the same (that is ‘low’, ‘moderate’,
‘high’, etc.), the vertical axis refers to probability (and has a value between zero and one),
while the horizontal axis refers to consequence (which is a qualitative expression for
economic impact). The implication of this is that a ‘negligible’ probability combined with an
‘extreme’ consequence, is not the same as an ‘extreme’ probability combined with a
‘negligible’ consequence. As such, the matrix is not symmetrical.
Probability of entry, establishment
and spread
Table A6: Risk estimation matrix
High
negligible
very low
low
moderate
high
extreme
Moderate
negligible
very low
low
moderate
high
extreme
Low
negligible
negligible
very low
low
moderate
high
Very low
negligible
negligible
negligible
very low
low
moderate
Extremely
low
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
very low
low
Negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
very low
Negligible
Very low
Low
Moderate
High
Extreme
—
—
—
—
Economic Consequence of entry, establishment and spread
A feature of the matrix is the non-linear band of shaded cells marked ‘very low’, that
represents Western Australia’s appropriate level of protection. If the unrestricted risk for a
quarantine pest is above the appropriate level of protection (that is very low), then these
quarantine pests will proceed to Stage Three where risk management measures are
considered. Otherwise, the risk analysis for the quarantine pest stops at this point.
Where a negligible probability of entry (importation or distribution), establishment or spread
occurs, combining any other probability using the matrix rules shown in Table A2 would
result in a negligible probability of entry, establishment and spread. Combining a negligible
probability of entry, establishment and spread with any estimate of economic consequence
would result in a URE that does not exceed Western Australia’s ALOP of ‘very low’ (Table
A6), consequently continuation of a risk assessment for this pest is not required.
329
Draft Policy Review
Regional approach to risk management
The World Trade Organization’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures (SPS Agreement) defines ‘appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary
protection’ as the level of protection deemed appropriate by the Member in establishing a
sanitary or phytosanitary measure to protect human, animal or plant life or health within its
territory.
Australia has an appropriate level of protection (ALOP) for international trade that has been
defined as ‘very low’. This is consistent with Western Australia’s ALOP for interstate trade.
However, the risk to particular regions of some threats may be greater in one region
compared to another. This variation may be a function of pest or disease status (presence or
absence), or of the level of risk (expressed as probability of an adverse event occurring as
well as the magnitude of consequences of such an event). Therefore, phytosanitary
measures needed to meet the national ALOP can vary from one region to another within a
country, depending on the level of risk posed by the pest.
This concept is supported by Article 6 of the SPS Agreement which recognises that risk may
not be evenly distributed across a country and that, where practicable, different risk
reduction measures should be imposed within a country to achieve a country’s ALOP in the
least trade restrictive manner.
It can be seen that while there is one level of protection for Australia, regions can argue a
higher (or lower) URE and therefore more (or less) restrictive measures are needed for
imports into those regions to meet the ALOP.
However, regions can only argue on this basis if there are internal quarantine barriers in
place, (or are practical to put in place), to restrict the entry of the commodity once imported
into another part of the country at risk.
The application of a regional approach to risk management has the benefit of being the least
restrictive to trade whilst providing effective protection to regions most at risk. A graphical
representation is provided in Figure A2. The area above the ALOP line (set at “very low”) is
the magnitude of the sanitary and phytosanitary measures needed to meet Australia’s ALOP
for each region. This assumes that there are effective internal quarantine measures in place
to prevent the domestic movement of the commodity.
LEVEL OF RISK
Extreme
High
Moderate
Low
Very low
Negligible
—
——
——
——
——
—
——
——
——
——
high
——
——
——
——
modera
te
low
——
——
——
— low
— modera
te
— low
very
low
negligib
—
—
very
low
— negligib
—
— negligib
very
—
low
— negligib
le
Region
C
le
Region
D
le
Region
E
le
Region
A
very
low
— negligib
le
Region
B
ALOP

——
Figure A2: Regional approach to the appropriate level of protection
330
Draft Policy Review
Stage 3: Pest risk management
The conclusions from the pest risk assessment are used to decide whether risk
management is required and the strength of measures needed to meet the ALOP. Since
zero risk is neither a reasonable nor achievable option, the guiding principle for risk
management should be to manage risk to achieve the required degree of safety that can be
justified and is feasible within the limits of available measures and resources.
Pest risk management describes the process of identifying, evaluating and recommending
the most appropriate phytosanitary measures to achieve the appropriate level of protection
for Western Australia.
Appropriate measures should be chosen based on their effectiveness in reducing the
unrestricted risk. The effectiveness of any proposed phytosanitary measures (or combination
of measures) are evaluated for efficacy of reducing the risk to an acceptable level (that is
very low). The risk mitigation evaluation includes consideration of the following:

Phytosanitary measures should be cost-effective and feasible

Principle of minimal impact
- Phytosanitary measures should not be more trade restrictive than necessary
- Phytosanitary measures should be applied to the minimum area necessary for
the effective protection of the endangered area
Reassessment of previous requirements
- No additional measures should be imposed if existing measures are effective
Principle of equivalence
- If different phytosanitary measures with the same effect are identified, they
should be accepted as alternatives
Principle of non-discrimination
- Phytosanitary measures should not discriminate between exporting areas of the
same phytosanitary status
- Phytosanitary measures should not be more stringent than those applied within
the PRA area for pests present in the PRA area but under official control.



Examples of phytosanitary measures commonly applied to traded commodities include:
Options for consignments






Inspection or testing for freedom from a pest or to a specified pest tolerance
Prohibition on parts of the host
Pre entry or post entry quarantine system
Specified conditions on preparation of the consignment
Specified treatment of the consignment
Restrictions on end use, distribution and periods of entry of the commodity
Options preventing or reducing infestation in the crop





Treatment of the crop, field or place of production
Restriction of the composition of a consignment so that it is composed of plant
belonging to resistant or less suitable species
Growing plants under specially protected conditions (for example glasshouse,
isolation)
Harvesting of the commodity at a certain age or a specified time of year
Production in a certified scheme.
Options ensuring that the area, place or site of production of crop is free from the pest
331
Draft Policy Review



Pest free area
Pest free place of production or pest free production site
Inspection of crop to confirm pest freedom
Options for other types of pathways, consider



Natural spread
Measures for human travellers and their baggage
Cleaning or disinfestation of contaminated machinery
Options within the importing area


Surveillance
Eradication programs
Prohibition of commodities if no satisfactory measure can be found.
Regional approach to risk management
The SPS Agreement defines ‘appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection’ as the
level of protection deemed appropriate by the Member in establishing a sanitary or
phytosanitary measure to protect human, animal or plant life or health within its territory.
Australia has one appropriate level of protection (ALOP) for international trade that has been
defined as “very low”. This is consistent with Western Australia’s ALOP for interstate trade.
However, the risk to particular regions of some threats may be greater in one region
compared to another. This variation may be a function of pest or disease status (presence or
absence), or of the level of risk (expressed as probability of an adverse event occurring as
well as the magnitude of consequences of such an event). Therefore, phytosanitary
measures needed to meet the national ALOP can vary from one region to another within a
country, depending on the level of risk posed by the pest.
This concept is supported by Article 6 of the SPS Agreement which recognises that risk may
not be evenly distributed across a country and that, where practicable, different risk
reduction measures should be imposed within a country to achieve a country’s ALOP in the
least trade restrictive manner.
Monitoring and Review of Phytosanitary Measures
The principle of "modification" states "As conditions change, and as new facts become
available, phytosanitary measures shall be modified promptly, either by inclusion of
prohibitions, restrictions or requirements necessary for their success, or by removal of those
found to be unnecessary" (ISPM No. 1).
Therefore, the implementation of phytosanitary measures is not considered to be permanent.
After application, the success of the measures in achieving their aim will be determined by
monitoring during use. This is often achieved by inspection of the commodity on-arrival,
noting any interceptions or any entries of the pest to the PRA area. The information
supporting the pest risk analysis will be periodically reviewed to ensure that any new
information that becomes available will be used to evaluate the need to modify any
phytosanitary measures in place.
332
Draft Policy Review
Risk communication
Risk communication is generally an interactive process allowing exchange of information
between the department and stakeholders. In this case stakeholders include individuals,
groups or organisations that have an interest in or would be affected by the PRA and the
outcomes of the PRA process.
The department considers stakeholder engagement to be an important part of the PRA
process. The department consults with stakeholders throughout the process both formally
and informally.
Engagement commences with the department announcing that a PRA has been initiated and
includes consultation on the draft PRA report. For commodity based PRAs the department
may release the pest categorisation report for consultation prior to the release of the draft
PRA report. The department may consult with internal and external individuals or
organisations as required throughout the PRA process.
The department places documents for consideration and consultation on its website,
www.agric.wa.gov.au, advices registered stakeholders via email of the release of documents
and prepares a media release informing readers of the release of the document.
Stakeholders wishing to register to receive information are encouraged to send an email to
plantbiosecuritypolicy@agric.wa.gov.au requesting inclusion on the stakeholder register.
When registering please provide your full name, organisation name (if applicable) and
position title (if applicable).
333
Draft Policy Review
Table A7: State pest risk analysis generic communications plan
Stage
Initiation of risk analysis
Pest categorisation
released
(consultation period
normally 30 days)
Draft risk assessments to
SDQMA
Draft report released
(consultation period
normally 30 days)
Final report released
Communications










Notification letter of initiation to registered
stakeholders, Australian Department of Agriculture
(ADoA), Subcommitte Domestic Quarantine and
Market Access (SDQMA) and regional directors.
Document released for comment to registered
stakeholders, ADoA, SDQMA and regional directors.
Copy of pest categorisation made available on the
DAFWA website.
Notification letter to SDQMA requesting
consideration of international market access
implications as part of a nationally agreed process.
Notification and draft report sent to registered
stakeholders.
Copy of draft report made available on the DAFWA
website.
Media release.
Notification and final report sent to registered
stakeholder.
Copy of final report made available on the DAFWA
website.
Media release.
References
Department of Regional Development 2014, Regional Western Australia [map].
<http://www.drd.wa.gov.au/Publications/Documents/Regional_Map_WA_AO.jpg> [4
February 2015].
ISPM 5 2015, International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) 5 'Glossary of
phytosanitary terms'. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention,
Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.
ISPM 11 2014, International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) 11 'Pest risk
analysis for quarantine pests (2013)'. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection
Convention, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.
334
Draft Policy Review
Appendix B Australian climate zones
Figure B1: Climate classification of Australia (Australian Government Bureau of Meterology 2005).
335
Draft Policy Review
Figure B2: Seasonal rainfall zones of Australia (Australian Government Bureau of Meterology 2005).
336
Draft Policy Review
Figure B3: Climate zones based on temperature and humidity (Australian Government Bureau of Meterology 2005).
Australian Government Bureau of Meterology 2005, Climate classification maps [map]. <http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_averages/climateclassifications/index.jsp> [4 February 2015].
337
Draft Policy Review
Appendix C Recorded host plants of citrophilus mealybug
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Anacardiaceae
Schinus molle
peppertree
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Apiaceae
Apium graveolens
celery
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Apiaceae
Conium maculatum
hemlock
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Apiaceae
Daucus carota
carrot
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Apocynaceae
Nerium oleander
oleander
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Araliaceae
Hedera helix
English ivy
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Araliaceae
Polyscias sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Asteraceae
Cynara scolymus
artichoke
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Asteraceae
Helianthus sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Asteraceae
Helianthus tuberosus
Jerusalem artichoke
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Asteraceae
Senecio sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Asteraceae
Sonchus oleraceus
sow thistle
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Asteraceae
Traversia sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Asteraceae
Vernonia appendiculata
Not known
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Boraginaceae
Heliotropium arborescens
heliotrope
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Casuarinaceae
Allocasuarina sp.
n/a
ANIC (2015)
338
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Casuarinaceae
Allocasuarina stricta
she oak
TPPD (2015)
Chenopodiaceae
Chenopodium sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Clusiaceae
Hypericum perforatum
St. John's wort
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Crassulaceae
Aeonium balsamiferum
not known
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Crassulaceae
Kalanchoe beharensis
not known
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Cucurbitaceae
Sechium edule
chayote
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Cunoniaceae
Eucryphia sp.
n/a
ANIC (2015)
Ebenaceae
Diospyros virginiana
persimmon
ASCU (2015)
recorded as Diospyros virginianum
Ericaceae
Rhododendron sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Euphorbiaceae
Schizogyne sericea
not known
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Geraniaceae
Geranium sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Geraniaceae
Pelargonium sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Grossulariaceae
Ribes grossularia
not known
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
recorded as Ribes grossularis
Grossulariaceae
Ribes sanguineum
red-flower currant
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Juglandaceae
Juglans regia
English walnut
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
339
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Lamiaceae
Lavandula staechas
lavenda
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Lauraceae
Persea indica
not known
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Leguminosae - Caesalpiniaceae
Cassia siamea
Siamese cassia
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Leguminosae - Papilionaceae
Arachis hypogaea
peanut
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Leguminosae - Papilionaceae
Laburnum sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Leguminosae - Papilionaceae
Medicago sativa
lucerne
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Leguminosae - Papilionaceae
Melilotus sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Leguminosae - Papilionaceae
Pisum sativum
pea
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Leguminosae - Papilionaceae
Sophora sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Leguminosae - Papilionaceae
Sophora microphylla
small leaf kowha
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Leguminosae - Papilionaceae
Trifolium sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Leguminosae - Papilionaceae
Trifolium repens
white clover
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Leguminosae - Papilionaceae
Vicia faba
faba bean
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Loganiaceae
Buddleja madagascariensis
not known
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Malvaceae
Abutilon sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Malvaceae
Hibiscus sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Malvaceae
Malva sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
340
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Moraceae
Ficus sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Myrtaceae
Eugenia sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Oleaceae
Ligustrum sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Orobanchaceae
Orobanche minor
lesser broomrape
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Pinaceae
Pinus radiata
Monterey pine
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Pittosporaceae
Pittosporum sp.
n/a
ANIC (2015)
Pittosporaceae
Pittosporum tobira
Australian laurel
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Pittosporaceae
Pittosporum undulatum
Victorian box
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Plantaginaceae
Plantago coronopus
Buck's horn plantain
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Poaceae
Lolium sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Polygonaceae
Rheum rhaponticum
rhubarb
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Polygonaceae
Rumex obtusifolius
broadleaf dock
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
recorded as Romex obtusifolia
Polygonaceae
Rumex sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Polypodiaceae
Platycerium sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Proteaceae
Grevillea banksii
Bank's grevillea
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Proteaceae
Persoonia sp.
n/a
QDPC (2015)
341
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Ranunculaceae
Aguilegia sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Ranunculaceae
Ranunculus ficaria
lesser celandine
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Rhamnaceae
Ceanothus sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Rosaceae
Crataegus sp.
hawthorn
TPPD (2015)
Rosaceae
Cydonia oblonga
quince
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Rosaceae
Fragaria sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Rosaceae
Malus pumila
paradise apple
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Rosaceae
Malus silvestris
crab apple
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Rosaceae
Prunus sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Rosaceae
Prunus dulcis
almond
ANIC (2015)
Rosaceae
Pyrus communis
pear
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Rosaceae
Rosa sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Rosaceae
Rubus sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Rubiaceae
Coprosma australis
not known
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Rutaceae
Choisya ternata
Mexican orange
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Rutaceae
Citrus sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Rutaceae
Citrus medica
citron
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
342
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Rutaceae
Citrus paradisi
grapefruit
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Rutaceae
Citrus sinensis
orange
ANIC (2015)
Santalaceae
Exocarpos sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Sapindaceae
Dodonaea viscosa
Florida hopbush
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Saxifragaceae
Ribes sp.
n/a
ASCU (2015)
Scrophulariaceae
Digitalis sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Scrophulariaceae
Hebe sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Solanaceae
Solanum betaceum
tree tomato
ASCU (2015)
recorded as Cyphomandra betacea
Solanaceae
Solanum sp.
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Solanaceae
Solanum tuberosum
potato
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Sterculiaceae
Brachychiton
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Sterculiaceae
Theobroma cacao
cocoa
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Vitaceae
Vitis vinifera
European grape
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
Welwitschiaceae
Welwitschia mirabilis
Not known
Ben-Dov et al. (2013)
343
Draft Policy Review
References
ANIC 2015, Australian National Insect Collection (ANIC) via Australian Plant Pest Database [online database]. CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences.
<http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/resources/australian-plant-pest-database/> [2015].
ASCU 2015, Agricultural Scientific Collections Unit (ASCU) via Australian Plant Pest Database [online database]. NSW Department of Primary
Industries. <http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/resources/australian-plant-pest-database/> [2015].
Ben-Dov Y, Miller DR & Gibson GAP 2015, ScaleNet [online database], Gainsville, Florida. <www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm>
[January, 2015].
QDPC 2015, Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries Insect Collection (QDPC) via Australian Plant Pest Database [online database].
Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. <http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/resources/australian-plantpest-database/> [2015].
TPPD 2015, Tasmanian Plant Pest Database (TPPD) via Australian Plant Pest Database [online database]. Department of Primary Industries,
Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania. <http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/resources/australian-plant-pest-database/> [2015].
344
Draft Policy Review
Appendix D Recorded host plants of Queensland fruit fly
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host
record
Anacardiaceae
Anacardium occidentale
cashew
White & Hancock
(1997)
Anacardiaceae
Bouea macrophylla
peach mango
Hancock et al. (2000)
Anacardiaceae
Mangifera indica
mango
Hancock et al. (2000)
Anacardiaceae
Pleiogynium timorense
Burdekin plum
Hancock et al. (2000)
Anacardiaceae
Semecarpus australiensis
tartree
Hancock et al. (2000)
Anacardiaceae
Spondias cytherea
jewish plum
White & Hancock
(1997)
Anacardiaceae
Spondias mombin
hog-plum
Hancock et al. (2000)
Annonaceae
Annona X atemoya
atemoya
Hancock et al. (2000)
recorded as Annona atemoya
Annonaceae
Annona glabra
pond apple
Hancock et al. (2000)
Annonaceae
Annona muricata
soursop
Hancock et al. (2000)
Annonaceae
Annona reticulata
bullock’s heart
White & Hancock
(1997)
Annonaceae
Annona squamosa
custard apple
White & Hancock
(1997)
345
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host
record
Annonaceae
Cananga odorata
ylang-ylang
White & Hancock
(1997)
Annonaceae
Polyalthia nitidissima
canary beech
Hancock et al. (2000)
Annonaceae
Rauwenhoffia leichhardtii
acid drope vine
Hancock et al. (2000)
Annonaceae
Rollinia deliciosa
rollinia
Hancock et al. (2000)
Annonaceae
Rollinia mucosa
rollinia
Hancock et al. (2000)
Apocynaceae
Alyxia ruscifolia
prickly alyxia
Hancock et al. (2000)
Apocynaceae
Carissa ovata
currant bush
Hancock et al. (2000)
Apocynaceae
Nerium olander
oleander
Hancock et al. (2000)
Apocynaceae
Ochrosia elliptica
elliptic yellowwood
Hancock et al. (2000)
Apocynaceae
Ochrosia moorei
yellowwood
Hancock et al. (2000)
Apocynaceae
Thevetia peruviana
yellow oleander
Hancock et al. (2000)
Arecaceae
Normanbya normanbyi
black palm
Hancock et al. (2000)
Arecaceae
Phoenix dactylifera
date palm
White & Hancock
(1997)
Cactaceae
Opuntia ficus-indica
Indian fig
White & Hancock
(1997)
346
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host
record
Cactaceae
Opuntia sp.
prickly pear
Hancock et al. (2000)
Capparaceae
Capparis lucida
coast caper
Hancock et al. (2000)
Capparaceae
Capparis mitchellii
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Capparaceae
Capparis nobilis
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Caricaceae
Carica papaya
paw-paw
White & Hancock
(1997)
Celastraceae
Cassine australis
red olive plum
Hancock et al. (2000)
Celastraceae
Salacia chinensis
lolly berry
Hancock et al. (2000)
Celastraceae
Siphonodon australis
ivorywood
Hancock et al. (2000)
Clusiaceae
Calophyllum inophyllum
beach calophyllum
Hancock et al. (2000)
Clusiaceae
Garcinia dulcis
yellow mangosteen
Hancock et al. (2000)
Clusiaceae
Garcinia warrenii
native mangosteen
Hancock et al. (2000)
Combretaceae
Terminalia arenicola
brown damson
Hancock et al. (2000)
Combretaceae
Terminalia aridicola
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Combretaceae
Terminalia catappa
Pacific almond
White & Hancock
(1997)
Combretaceae
Terminalia ferdinandiana
billy-goat plum
Hancock et al. (2000)
347
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host
record
Combretaceae
Terminalia melanocarpa
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Combretaceae
Terminalia muelleri
Mueller’s damson
Hancock et al. (2000)
Combretaceae
Terminalia platyphylla
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Combretaceae
Terminalia sericocarpa
damson
Hancock et al. (2000)
Combretaceae
Terminalia subacroptera
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Cucurbitaceae
Cucurbita moschata
pumpkin
Hancock et al. (2000)
Cucurbitaceae
Diplocyclos palmatus
striped cucumber
Hancock et al. (2000)
Cucurbitaceae
Momordica charantia
bitter gourd
Hancock et al. (2000)
Cucurbitaceae
Trichosanthes anguina
guada bean
Hancock et al. (2000)
Cunoniaceae
Davidsonia pruriens
Davidson’s plum
Hancock et al. (2000)
Cunoniaceae
Schizomeria ovata
white birch
Hancock et al. (2000)
Ebenaceae
Diospyros australis
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Ebenaceae
Diospyros blancoi
mabolo
Hancock et al. (2000)
Ebenaceae
Diospyros digyna
black sapote
Hancock et al. (2000)
Ebenaceae
Diospyros ebenaster
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Ebenaceae
Diospyros kaki
persimmon
White & Hancock
348
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host
record
(1997)
Ebenaceae
Elaeocarpus bancroftii
ebony heart
Hancock et al. (2000)
Elaeocarpaceae
Elaeocarpus angustifolius
blue quandong
Hancock et al. (2000)
Ericaceae
Vaccinium sp.
blueberry
Hancock et al. (2000)
Euphorbiaceae
Drypetes lasiogyna var.australasica
grey boxwood
Hancock et al. (2000)
Euphorbiaceae
Glochidion ferdinandii
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Euphorbiaceae
Glochidion harveyanum
Harvey’s buttonwood
Hancock et al. (2000)
Euphorbiaceae
Phyllanthus acidus
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Leguminosae Papilionaceae
Castanospermum australe
black bean
Hancock et al. (2000)
Flacourtiaceae
Dovyalis caffra
kei apple
White & Hancock
(1997)
Flacourtiaceae
Flacourtia inermis
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Flacourtiaceae
Flacourtia jangomas
Indian plum
White & Hancock
(1997)
Flacourtiaceae
Flacourtia rukam
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Goodeniaceae
Scaevola taccada
sea lettuce tree
Hancock et al. (2000)
349
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host
record
Juglandaceae
Juglans regia
walnut
White & Hancock
(1997)
Lauraceae
Beilschmiedia obtusifolia
blush walnut
Hancock et al. (2000)
Lauraceae
Cryptocarya erythroxylon
southern maple
Hancock et al. (2000)
Lauraceae
Endiandra compressa
Queensland
greenheart
Hancock et al. (2000)
Lauraceae
Endiandra cowleyana
northern rose walnut
Hancock et al. (2000)
Lauraceae
Endiandra discolor
rose walnut
Hancock et al. (2000)
Lauraceae
Endiandra longipedicellata
buff walnut
Hancock et al. (2000)
Lauraceae
Endiandra microneura
Noah’s walnut
Hancock et al. (2000)
Lauraceae
Endiandra sankeyana
Sankey’s walnut
Hancock et al. (2000)
Lauraceae
Endiandra wolfei
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Lauraceae
Persea americana
avocado
White & Hancock
(1997)
Lecythidaceae
Barringtonia calyptrata
mango pine
Hancock et al. (2000)
Lecythidaceae
Planchonia careya
cocky apple
Hancock et al. (2000)
Loganiaceae
Fagraea cambagei
porcelain fruit
Hancock et al. (2000)
350
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host
record
Malpighiaceae
Malpighia emarginata
acerola
Hancock et al. (2000)
Melastomataceae
Melastoma affine
native lasiandra
Hancock et al. (2000)
Meliaceae
Aglaia sapindina
boodyarra
Hancock et al. (2000)
Meliaceae
Owenia venosa
crow’s apple
Hancock et al. (2000)
Meliaceae
Sandoricum indicum
santol
Hancock et al. (2000)
Moraceae
Artocarpus heterophyllus
jackfruit
Hancock et al. (2000)
Moraceae
Artocarpus odoratissimus
marang
Hancock et al. (2000)
Moraceae
Ficus benjamina
Weeping fig
White & Hancock
(1997)
Moraceae
Ficus carica
edible fig
White & Hancock
(1997)
Moraceae
Ficus leptoclada
Atherton fig
Hancock et al. (2000)
Moraceae
Ficus macrophylla
Moreton Bay fig
Hancock et al. (2000)
Moraceae
Ficus racemosa
cluster fig
White & Hancock
(1997)
Moraceae
Maclura cochinchinensis
Indian cockspur
Hancock et al. (2000)
Moraceae
Morus alba
white mulberry
White & Hancock
(1997)
351
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host
record
Moraceae
Morus nigra
black mulberry
White & Hancock
(1997)
Moraceae
Pourouma cecropiifolia
Amazon grape tree
Hancock et al. (2000)
Musaceae
Musa acuminata
wild banana
White & Hancock
(1997)
Musaceae
Musa x paradisiaca
Banana
Hancock et al. (2000)
dwarf banana
lady finger banana
sugar banana
Myrtaceae
Acmena graveolens
cassowary pine
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Acmena hemilampra ssp.hemilampra
broad-leaved lillypilly
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Acmena resa
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Acmena smithii
lillypilly
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Acmenosperma claviflorum
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Eugenia brasilensis
grumichama
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Eugenia reinwardtiana
beach cherry
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Eugenia uniflora
Brazilian cherry
White & Hancock
(1997)
352
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host
record
Myrtaceae
Feijoa sellowiana
feijoa
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Myrciara cauliflora
jaboticaba
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Psidium cattleianum var. Littorale
cherry guava
White & Hancock
(1997)
Recorded as Psidium cattleianum (=littorale)
Myrtaceae
Psidium guajava
guava
White & Hancock
(1997)
Myrtaceae
Rhodamnia sessiliflora
iron malletwood
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium alliiligneum
onionwood
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium angophoroides
swamp satinash
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium aqueum
water apple
White & Hancock
(1997)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium australe
creek satinash
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium canicortex
yellow satinash
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium cormiflorum
bumpy satinash
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium corynanthum
sour cherry
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium cumini
jambolan
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium erythrocalyx
Johnstone R.
Hancock et al. (2000)
353
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host
record
satinash
Myrtaceae
Syzygium fibrosum
fibrous satinash
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium forte ssp. forte
white apple
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium jambos
wax jambu
White & Hancock
(1997)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium kuranda
Kuranda satinash
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium luehmannii
cherry satinash
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium malaccense
Malay apple
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Eugenia megacarpa
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Recorded as Syzygium megacarpa
Myrtaceae
Syzygium paniculatum
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium puberulum
white satinash
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium rubrimolle
red lady apple
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium samarangense
Java apple
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium suborbiculare
red bush apple
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium tierneyanum
river cherry
Hancock et al. (2000)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium xerampelinum
Mulgrave satinash
Hancock et al. (2000)
354
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host
record
Oleaceae
Notelaea longifolia
moch olive
Hancock et al. (2000)
Oleaceae
Olea europaea
olive
White & Hancock
(1997)
Oxalidaceae
Averrhoa bilimbi
bilimbi
Hancock et al. (2000)
Oxalidaceae
Averrhoa carambola
carambola
White & Hancock
(1997)
Passifloraceae
Passiflora aurantia
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Passifloraceae
Passiflora edulis
passionfruit
White & Hancock
(1997)
Passifloraceae
Passiflora edulis f. flavicarpa
yellow passionfruit
Hancock et al. (2000)
Recorded as Passiflora edulis var. flavicarpa
Passifloraceae
Passiflora foetida
stinking passionfruit
Hancock et al. (2000)
Passifloraceae
Passiflora quadrangularis
granadilla
White & Hancock
(1997)
Passifloraceae
Passiflora suberosa
corky passionfruit
Hancock et al. (2000)
Passifloraceae
Passiflora subpeltata
white passiofruit
Hancock et al. (2000)
Punicaceae
Punica granatum
pomegranate
White & Hancock
(1997)
355
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host
record
Rhamnaceae
Rhamnella vitiensis
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rhamnaceae
Ziziphus mauritiana
Indian jujube
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rhizophoraceae
Carallia brachiata
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rosaceae
Cydonia oblonga
quince
White & Hancock
(1997)
Rosaceae
Eriobotrya japonica
loquat
White & Hancock
(1997)
Rosaceae
Fragaria sp.
strawberry
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rosaceae
Malus sylvestris
apple
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rosaceae
Prunus armeniaca
apricot
White & Hancock
(1997)
Rosaceae
Prunus avium
cherry
White & Hancock
(1997)
Rosaceae
Prunus cerasifera
ornamental plum
White & Hancock
(1997)
Rosaceae
Prunus domestica
plum
White & Hancock
(1997)
Rosaceae
Prunus persica
peach
White & Hancock
(1997)
356
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host
record
Rosaceae
Prunus persica var. nucipersica
nectarine
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rosaceae
Pyrus communis
pear
White & Hancock
(1997)
Rosaceae
Pyrus pyrifolia
nashi
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rosaceae
Rubus fruticosus
blackberry
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rosaceae
Rubus ursinus var. loganobaccus
loganberry
White & Hancock
(1997)
Rubiaceae
Coffea arabica
coffee
White & Hancock
(1997)
Rubiaceae
Nauclea orientalis
Leichhardt tree
Hancock et al. (2000)
cheesewood
Rutaceae
Acronychia acidula
lemon aspen
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rutaceae
Acronychia laevis
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rutaceae
Acronychia laevis
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
recorded as Acronychia sp. aff. laevis
Rutaceae
Acronychia vestita
fuzzy lemon aspen
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rutaceae
Aegle marmelos
bael fruit
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rutaceae
Casimiroa edulis
white sapote
Hancock et al. (2000)
357
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host
record
Rutaceae
Casimiroa tetrameria
yellow sapote
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rutaceae
Citrus aurantifolia
lime
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rutaceae
Citrus aurantium
Seville orange
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rutaceae
Citrus jambhiri
bush lemon
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rutaceae
Citrus limetta
sweet lemon
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rutaceae
Citrus limon
Lemon
Hancock et al. (2000)
Meyer lemon
Rutaceae
Citrus maxima
Pummelo
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rutaceae
Citrus medica
citron
White & Hancock
(1997)
Rutaceae
Citrus reticulata
mandarin
White & Hancock
(1997)
Rutaceae
Citrus sinensis
orange
White & Hancock
(1997)
Rutaceae
Citrus x paradisi
grapefruit
White & Hancock
(1997)
pink grapefruit
Rutaceae
Clausena lansium
wampi
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rutaceae
Eremocitrus glauca
lime bush
White & Hancock
358
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host
record
(1997)
Rutaceae
Fortunella crassifolia
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rutaceae
Fortunella japonica
kumquat
White & Hancock
(1997)
Rutaceae
Glycosmis trifoliata
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Rutaceae
Murraya exotica
orange jessamine
Hancock et al. (2000)
Santalaceae
Santalum lanceolatum
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Sapindaceae
Blighia sapida
akee
Hancock et al. (2000)
Sapindaceae
Castanospora alphandii
brown tamarind
Hancock et al. (2000)
Sapindaceae
Euphorbia longan
longan
Hancock et al. (2000)
Sapindaceae
Ganophyllum falcatum
Daintree hickory
Hancock et al. (2000)
Sapindaceae
Litchi chinensis
litchi
Hancock et al. (2000)
Sapindaceae
Nephelium lappaceum
rambutan
Hancock et al. (2000)
Sapindaceae
Pometia pinnata
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Sapotaceae
Amorphospermum antilogum
brown pearwood
Hancock et al. (2000)
Sapotaceae
Chrysophyllum cainito
star apple
Hancock et al. (2000)
359
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host
record
Sapotaceae
Manilkara zapota
sapodilla
Hancock et al. (2000)
Sapotaceae
Mimusops elengi
Red coondoo
Hancock et al. (2000)
Sapotaceae
Niemeyera chartaceae
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Sapotaceae
Niemeyera prunifera
plum boxwood
Hancock et al. (2000)
Sapotaceae
Planchonella australis
black apple
Hancock et al. (2000)
Sapotaceae
Planchonella macrocarpa
big-leaf planchonella
Hancock et al. (2000)
Sapotaceae
Planchonella obovoidea
black ash
Hancock et al. (2000)
Sapotaceae
Pouteria caimito
abiu
Hancock et al. (2000)
Sapotaceae
Pouteria campechiana
eggfruit tree
Hancock et al. (2000)
Sapotaceae
Pouteria pohlmaniana
yellow boxwood
Hancock et al. (2000)
recorded as Pouteria pohlmaniana var. pohlmaniana
Sapotaceae
Pouteria sapota
mammey sapote
Hancock et al. (2000)
Sapotaceae
Synsepalum dulcificum
miracle fruit
Hancock et al. (2000)
Smilacaceae
Ripogonum papuanum
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Solanaceae
Capsicum annuum
capsicum
Hancock et al. (2000)
Solanaceae
Capsicum annuum
chilli
Hancock et al. (2000)
360
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host
record
Solanaceae
Cyphomandra betaceae
tamarillo
Hancock et al. (2000)
Solanaceae
Lycopersicon esculentum
tomato
Hancock et al. (2000)
Solanaceae
Physalis peruviana
cape gooseberry
White & Hancock
(1997)
Solanaceae
Solanum laciniatum
kangaroo apple
White & Hancock
(1997)
Solanaceae
Solanum mauritianum
wild tobacco
Hancock et al. (2000)
Solanaceae
Solanum melongena
eggplant
Hancock et al. (2000)
Solanaceae
Solanum seaforthianum
Brazilian nightshade
White & Hancock
(1997)
Solanaceae
Solanum torvum
Devil’s fig
Hancock et al. (2000)
Thymeliaceae
Phaleria clerodendron
scented daphne
Hancock et al. (2000)
Tiliaceae
Grewia asiatica
phasia
Hancock et al. (2000)
Verbenaceae
Premna serratifolia
coastal premna
Hancock et al. (2000)
Vitaceae
Cissus antarctica
not known
Hancock et al. (2000)
Vitaceae
Cissus sp.
n/a
Hancock et al. (2000)
Vitaceae
Vitis labrusca
Isabella grape
White & Hancock
(1997)
361
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host
record
Vitaceae
Vitis vinifera
grapevine
White & Hancock
(1997)
References
Hancock DL, Hamacek EL, Lloyd AC & Elson-Harris MM 2000, The distribution and host plants of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Australia,
Information Series QI99067. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Queensland.
White IM & Hancock DL 1997, CABIKEY: Indo-Australasian Dacini fruit flies [CD-ROM]. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
362
Draft Policy Review
Appendix E Recorded host plants of European fruit lecanium scale
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Aceraceae
Acer
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Aceraceae
Acer macrophyllum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Aceraceae
Acer negundo
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Aceraceae
Acer pseudoplatanus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Aceraceae
Acer rubrum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Aceraceae
Acer saccharinum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Aceraceae
Acer turcomanicum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Anacardiaceae
Cotinus cogygria
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Anacardiaceae
Pistacia
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Annonaceae
Asimina triloba
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Aquifoliaceae
Ilex
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Araliaceae
Aralia
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Aspleniaceae
Asplenium
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Asteraceae
Cichorium intybus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Berberidaceae
Mahonia
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Betulaceae
Alnus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
363
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Betulaceae
Alnus rhombifolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Betulaceae
Betula
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Betulaceae
Corylus avellana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Buxaceae
Buxus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Buxaceae
Buxus sempervirens
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Cannabidaceae
Cannabis
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Capparidaceae
Viburnum
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Capparidaceae
Viburnum tinus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Capparidaceae
Viburnus opulus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Caprifoliaceae
Lonicera
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Caprifoliaceae
Sambucus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Caprifoliaceae
Sambucus racemosa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Carpinaceae
Carpinus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Carpinaceae
Carpinus betulus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Carpinaceae
Carpinus caroliniana
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Celastraceae
Euonymus europaeus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Cistaceae
Helianthemum ovatum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
364
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Cornaceae
Cornus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Cornaceae
Cornus florida
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Cornaceae
Cornus mas
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Cornaceae
Cornus sanguinea
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Cornaceae
Swida
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Corylaceae
Corylus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Corylaceae
Corylus americana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Corylaceae
Corylus avellana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ebenaceae
Diospyros
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Elaeagnaceae
Elaeagnus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Elaeocarpaceae
Aristotelia
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ericaceae
Arbutus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ericaceae
Arbutus menziesii
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ericaceae
Calluna vulgaris
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ericaceae
Vaccinium myrtillus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Euphorbiaceae
Ricinus communis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Acacia
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
365
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Fabaceae
Acacia hispida
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Amorpha fruticosa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Caragana
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Caragana arborescens
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Cercis canadensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Cercis siliquastrum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Colutea
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Colutea arborescens
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Gleditsia
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Gleditsia triacanthos
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Glycine
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Robinia pseudoacacia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Robinia pseudoacacia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Sophora
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Sophora japonica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Wisteria sinensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fagaceae
Castanea sativa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
366
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Fagaceae
Quercus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fagaceae
Quercus nigra
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fagaceae
Quercus palustris
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Geraniaceae
Pelargonium
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Grossulariaceae
Ribes
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Grossulariaceae
Ribes aureum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Grossulariaceae
Ribes grossularia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Grossulariaceae
Ribes nigrum
—
TPPD (2015)
Grossulariaceae
Ribes rubrum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Hamamelidaceae
Liquidambar styraciflua
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Hippocastanaceae
Aesculus hippocastanum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Juglandaceae
Carya alba
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Juglandaceae
Carya illinoiensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Juglandaceae
Carya tomentosa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Juglandaceae
Juglans
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Juglandaceae
Juglans regia
English walnut
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Lamiaceae
Mentha
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
367
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Lamiaceae
Rosmarinus officinalis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Lamiaceae
Thymus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Lauraceae
Sassafras
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Liliaceae
Asparagus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Magnoliaceae
Liriodendron tulipifera
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Magnoliaceae
Magnolia
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Magnoliaceae
Magnolia grandiflora
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Moraceae
Broussonetia papyrifera
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Moraceae
Maclura aurantiaca
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Moraceae
Maclura pomifera
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Moraceae
Morus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Moraceae
Morus alba
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Moraceae
Morus nigra
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Myricaceae
Myrica cerifera
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Nyssaceae
Nyssa sylvatica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Oleaceae
Fraxinus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Oleaceae
Fraxinus americana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
368
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Oleaceae
Fraxinus chinensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Oleaceae
Fraxinus excelsior
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Oleaceae
Fraxinus pannonica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Oleaceae
Jasminum
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Oleaceae
Ligustrum vulgare
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Oleaceae
Syringa vulgaris
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Philadelphaceae
Philadelphus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Pinaceae
Pinus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Platanaceae
Platanus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Platanaceae
Platanus occidentalis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Platanaceae
Platanus orientalis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Punicaceae
Punica granatum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ranunculaceae
Clematis vitalba
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ranunculaceae
Thalictrum minus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rhamnaceae
Ceanothus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Adenostoma fasciculatum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Amygdalus communis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
369
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Rosaceae
Armeniaca vulgaris
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Cotoneaster
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Cotoneaster microphylla
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Crataegus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Crataegus monogyna
hawthorn
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Crataegus oxyacantha
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Cydonia oblonga
quince
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Cydonia vulgaris
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Fragaria
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Heteromeles arbutifolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Malus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Malus communis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Malus domestica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Malus pumila
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Malus sylvestris
crab apple
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Mespilus germanica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Persica
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
370
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Rosaceae
Persica vulgaris
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Potentilla fructicosa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus armeniaca
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus avium
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus cerasifera
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus domestica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus laurocerasus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus persica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus persica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus pritchardi
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus spinosa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus vulgaris
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Pyracantha
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Pyrus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Pyrus communis
pear
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Pyrus malus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
371
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Rosaceae
Rosa
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Rosa acicularis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Rosa canina
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Rubus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Rubus amoenus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Rubus caesius
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Rubus ideus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Sorbaria
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Sorbus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Sorbus aucuparia
Rosaceae
Spiraea
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Salicaceae
Populus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Salicaceae
Salix
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Salicaceae
Salix humboldiana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Salicaceae
Salix nigra
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Salicaceae
Salix pentandra
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Salicaceae
Salix repens
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
372
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Salicaceae
Salix viminalis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Simaroubaceae
Ailanthus altissima
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Solanaceae
Solanum tuberosum
potato
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Taxaceae
Taxus baccata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Tiliaceae
Tilia
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Tiliaceae
Tilia americana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Tiliaceae
Tilia cordata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Tiliaceae
Tilia euchlora
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Tiliaceae
Tilia parvifolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Tiliaceae
Tilia platyphyllos
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ulmaceae
Celtis
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ulmaceae
Celtis caucasica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ulmaceae
Celtis occidentalis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ulmaceae
Celtis sinensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ulmaceae
Ulmus
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ulmaceae
Ulmus americana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ulmaceae
Ulmus campestris
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
373
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Ulmaceae
Ulmus minor canescens
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ulmaceae
Ulmus parvifolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ulmaceae
Ulmus racemosa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ulmaceae
Ulmus thomasii
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Urticaceae
Pellionia
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Urticaceae
Urtica
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Urticaceae
Urtica dioica
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Vitaceae
Vitis
n/a
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Vitaceae
Vitis vinifera
European grape
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
References
Ben-Dov Y 2014, Parthenolecanium corni, ScaleNet [online database].
<http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/catalogs/coccidae/Parthenolecaniumcorni.htm> [January 2015].
TPPD 2015, Tasmanian Plant Pest Database (TPPD) via Australian Plant Pest Database [online database]. Department of Primary Industries,
Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania. <http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/resources/australian-plant-pest-database/> [2015].
374
Draft Policy Review
Appendix F Recorded host plants of kanzawa spider mite
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Adoxaceae
Sambucus sp.
elderberry
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Amaranthaceae
Chenopodium sp.
goosefoot
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Annonaceae
Annona squamosa
sugar apple
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Apiaceae
Oenanthe javanica
waterdropwort
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Apocynaceae
Nerium oleander
oleander
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Araceae
Alocasia macrorrhizos
Giant taro
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Araceae
Alocasia odora
Asian taro
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Araceae
Colocasia esculenta
coco yam
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Araliaceae
Aralia elata
Japanese angelica tree
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Araliaceae
Aralia nudicaulis
wild sarsaparilla
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Araliaceae
Polyscias guilfoylei
geranium aralia
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Arecaceae
Areca catechu
betel palm
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Asparagaceae
Cordyline fruticosa
tiplant
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Asparagaceae
Dracaena fragrans
fragrant dracaena
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Asparagaceae
Eucharis x grandiflora
Amazon lily
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Asparagaceae
Lachenalia ensifolia
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
375
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Asparagaceae
Polianthes tuberosa
tuberose
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Asparagaceae
Polygonatum falcatum
japanrams
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Balsaminaceae
Impatiens balsamina
Impatiens
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Balsaminaceae
Impatiens sp.
Impatiens
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Betulaceae
Corylus heterophylla
Siberian hazelnut
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Boraginaceae
Ehretia macrophylla
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Brassicaceae
Brassica juncea
brown mustard
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Campanulaceae
Platycodon grandiflorus
balloon-flower
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Cannabaceae
Celtis sinensis
Chinese hackberry
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Cannabaceae
Humulus lupulus
Common hop
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Cannabaceae
Humulus scandens
Japanese hop
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Caricaceae
Carica papaya
papaya
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Caryophyllaceae
Dianthus caryophyllus
carnation
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Caryophyllaceae
Gypsophila paniculata
baby's breath
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Clethraceae
Clethra alnifolia
coastal sweetpepperbush
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Combretaceae
Terminalia catappa
tropical almond
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
376
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Commelinaceae
Commelina communis
Asiatic dayflower
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Compositae
Achillea filipendulina
fernleaf yarrow
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Compositae
Ageratum sp.
n/a
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Compositae
Ambrosia ambrosioides
ambrosia leaf bur ragweed
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Compositae
Arctium lappa
greater burdock
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Compositae
Bidens pilosa
hairy beggarticks
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Compositae
Chrysanthemum sp.
Chrysanthemum
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Compositae
Dahlia sp.
Dahlia
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Compositae
Helianthus annuus
sunflower
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Compositae
Pericallis cruenta
cineraria
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Compositae
Sonchus oleraceus
Common sowthistle
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Compositae
Youngia japonica
hawksbeard
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Convolvulaceae
Calystegia pellita
Japanese false bindweed
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Convolvulaceae
Ipomoea aquatica
swamp morning-glory
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Convolvulaceae
Ipomoea batatas
sweetpotato
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Convolvulaceae
Ipomoea sp.
n/a
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
377
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Cucurbitaceae
Benincasa hispida
waxgourd
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Cucurbitaceae
Citrullus lanatus
watermelon
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Cucurbitaceae
Cucumis melo
cantaloupe
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Cucurbitaceae
Cucumis sativus
cucumber
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Cucurbitaceae
Cucumis sp.
n/a
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Cucurbitaceae
Cucurbita sp.
n/a
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Cucurbitaceae
Diplocyclos palmatus
striped cucumber
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Cucurbitaceae
Lagenaria siceraria
bottle gourd
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Cucurbitaceae
Luffa acutangula
angled loofa
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Cucurbitaceae
Luffa cylindrica
sponge gourd
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Cucurbitaceae
Trichosanthes cucumeroides
snake gourd
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Cyatheaceae
Cyathea sp.
treefern
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Dioscoreaceae
Dioscorea alata
water yam
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Dioscoreaceae
Dioscorea oppositifolia
Chinese yam
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Ebenaceae
Diospyros kaki
persimmon
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Euphorbiaceae
Acalypha sp.
n/a
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
378
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Euphorbiaceae
Codiaeum variegatum
croton
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbia pulcherrima
poinsettia
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Euphorbiaceae
Jatropha integerrima
peregrina
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Euphorbiaceae
Jatropha sp.
n/a
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Euphorbiaceae
Mallotus japonicus
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Euphorbiaceae
Manihot carthaginensis
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Euphorbiaceae
Manihot esculenta
cassava
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Euphorbiaceae
Melanolepis multiglandulosa
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Gentianaceae
Gentiana scabra
scabrous gentian
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Hydrangeaceae
Hydrangea macrophylla
French hydrangea
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Hydrangeaceae
Hydrangea sp.
hydrangea
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Iridaceae
Gladiolus sp.
Gladiolus
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Lamiaceae
Callicarpa japonica
Japanese callicarpa
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Lamiaceae
Clerodendrum trichotomum
glorytree
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Lamiaceae
Perilla frutescens
beefsteakplant
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Lamiaceae
Perilla sp.
beefsteakplant
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
379
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Lamiaceae
Tectona grandis
teak
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Lardizabalaceae
Akebia quinata
chocolate vine
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Amphicarpaea bracteata
hog peanut
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Arachis hypogaea
peanut
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Canavalia sp.
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Clitoria ternatea
butterfly pea
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Erythrina variegata
tiger’s claw
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Glycine max
soybean
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Glycine sp.
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Hylodesmum podocarpum
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Lablab purpureus
lablab bean
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Lathyrus odoratus
sweet pea
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Mimosaceae
Mimosa invisa
giant falso sensitive plant
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Phaseolus lunatus
lima bean
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Phaseolus sp.
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Phaseolus vulgaris
kidney bean
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
380
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Pisum sativum
pea
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Psophocarpus tetragonolobus
winged bean
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Pueraria montana
kudzu
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Robinia pseudoacacia
locust tree
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Trifolium pratense
red clover
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Trifolium repens
white clover
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Trifolium sp.
clover
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Vicia faba
broad bean
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Vigna angularis
adzuki bean
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Fabaceae - Papilionaceae
Vigna unguiculata
snake pean
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Lythraceae
Punica granatum
pomegranate
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Malvaceae
Alcea rosea
hollyhock
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Malvaceae
Gossypium sp.
cotton
Malvaceae
Hibiscus mutabilis
cotton rose
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Malvaceae
Hibiscus rosa-sinensis
Chinese hibiscus
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Malvaceae
Hibiscus syriacus
common hibiscus
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
381
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Marantaceae
Maranta sp.
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Meliaceae
Melia sp.
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Meliaceae
Sandoricum koetjape
yellow sentol
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Moraceae
Artocarpus integer
jackfruit
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Moraceae
Ficus religiosa
bo-tree
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Moraceae
Morus alba
white mulberry
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Moraceae
Morus sp.
mulberry
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Musaceae
Musa sp.
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Oxalidaceae
Averrhoa carambola
carambola
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Oxalidaceae
Oxalis corniculata
creeping oxalis
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Oxalidaceae
Oxalis debilis
pink woodsorrel
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Passifloraceae
Passiflora edulis
passionfruit
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Pedaliaceae
Sesamum indicum
sesame
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Poaceae
Bambusa sp.
bamboo
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Poaceae
Saccharum officinarum
sugar cane
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Poaceae
Sorghum bicolor
forage sorghum
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
382
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Poaceae
Zea mays
maize
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Polygonaceae
Reynoutria multiflora
recorded as Fallopia multiflora
Chinese knotweed
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Primulaceae
Primula sieboldii
sakuraso
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Primulaceae
Trientalis sp.
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Ranunculaceae
Thalictrum minus
common meadow rue
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rhamnaceae
Ziziphus jujuba
jujube
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rosaceae
Prunus mume
recorded as Armeniaca mume
Japanese apricot
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rosaceae
Prunus campanulata
recorded as Cerasus campanulata
Taiwan cherry
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rosaceae
Chaenomeles japonica
dwarf quince
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rosaceae
Eriobotrya japonica
loquat
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rosaceae
Fragaria x ananassa
strawberry
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rosaceae
Kerria japonica
yamabuki
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rosaceae
Malus domestica
apple
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rosaceae
Prunus armeniaca
apricot
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rosaceae
Prunus avium
sweet cherry
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
383
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Rosaceae
Prunus persica
nectarine/peach
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rosaceae
Prunus sp.
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rosaceae
Pyrus communis
pear
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rosaceae
Pyrus pyrifolia
nashi pear
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rosaceae
Pyrus sp.
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rosaceae
Rosa hybrida
rose
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rosaceae
Rosa sp.
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rosaceae
Rubus crataegifolius
rose
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rosaceae
Rubus hirsutus
peng li
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rosaceae
Sorbus commixta
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rubiaceae
Galium spurium
false cleavers
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rubiaceae
Gardenia jasminoides
gardenia
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rutaceae
Citrus limon
lemon
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rutaceae
Citrus maxima
pomelo
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rutaceae
Citrus sp.
—
Rutaceae
Poncirus trifoliate
recorded as Citrus trifoliata
Japanese bitter-orange
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
384
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Rutaceae
Murraya paniculata
orange-jessamine
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rutaceae
Orixa japonica
orixa
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Rutaceae
Zanthoxylum piperitum
Szechuan pepper
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Salicaceae
Populus sp.
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Salicaceae
Salix chaenomeloides
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Sapindaceae
Cardiospermum halicacabum
small balloon creeper
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Solanaceae
Capsicum annuum
capsicum/chilli
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Solanaceae
Lycium chinense
Chinese boxthorn
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Solanaceae
Solanum melongena
eggplant
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Solanaceae
Solanum nigrum
black nightshade
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Solanaceae
Solanum rudepannum
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Theaceae
Camellia japonica
Camellia
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Theaceae
Camellia sinensis
tea
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Strelitziaceae
Strelitzia reginae
bird of paradise
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Urticaceae
Boehmeria nivea
Chinese silkplant
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Urticaceae
Urtica thunbergiana
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
385
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Verbenaceae
Glandularia phlogiflora
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Verbenaceae
Verbena hybrida
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Violaceae
Viola mandshurica
purple violet
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Violaceae
Viola sp.
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Vitaceae
Cayratia japonica
Java plum
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Vitaceae
Vitis sp.
—
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Vitaceae
Vitis vinifera
European grape
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
Zingiberaceae
Zingiber officinale
ginger
Migeon and Dorkeld (2015)
References
Migeon A & Dorkeld F 2015, Tetranychus kanzawai, Spider mites web: a comprehensive database for the Tetranychidae [online database].
<http://www.montpellier.inra.fr/CBGP/spmweb> [January 2015].
386
Draft Policy Review
Appendix G Recorded host plants of peach white scale
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Acanthaceae
Acanthus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Acanthaceae
Asystasia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Acanthaceae
Crossandra sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Aceraceae
Acer
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Actinidiaceae
Actinida chinensis
kiwifruit
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Actinidiaceae
Actinidia arguta
Tara vine
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Actinidiaceae
Actinidia polygama
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Actinidiaceae
Actinidia sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Amaranthaceae
Gomphrena sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Anacardiaceae
Mangifera indica
mango
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Anacardiaceae
Mangifera sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Anacardiaceae
Rhus chinensis
Chinese gall
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Anacardiaceae
Rhus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Anacardiaceae
Schinus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Anacardiaceae
Spondias sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Apocynaceae
Allamanda cathartica
yellow trumpet vine
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
387
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Apocynaceae
Allamanda grandiflora
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Apocynaceae
Allamanda sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Apocynaceae
Catharanthus roseus
Magagascar periwinkle
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Apocynaceae
Ervatamia orientalis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Apocynaceae
Nerium oleander
olerander
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Apocynaceae
Nerium sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Apocynaceae
Plumeria acutifolia
pagodatree
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Apocynaceae
Plumeria alba
pagodatree
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Apocynaceae
Plumeria rubra
pagodatree
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Apocynaceae
Plumeria sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Apocynaceae
Rhynchospermum sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Apocynaceae
Rhynchospermum verticulatum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Aquifoliaceae
Ilex opaca
American holly
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Aquifoliaceae
Ilex sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Araceae
Philodendron sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Araceae
Symplocarpus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
388
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Araliaceae
Arailia sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Araliaceae
Aralia elata
Chinese/Japanese
angelica tree
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Araliaceae
Aralia spinosa
American angelica tree
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Araliaceae
Hedera sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Araliaceae
Kalopanax septemlobus
painted maple
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Arecaceae
Chrysalidocarpus lutescens
butterfly palm
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Arecaceae
Cocos nucifera
coconut palm
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Arecaceae
Phoenix
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Asclepiadaceae
Asclepius sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Asclepiadaceae
Calotropis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Asclepiadaceae
Calotropis procera
rubber bush
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Asclepiadaceae
Cynanchym perrieri
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Asclepiadaceae
Marsdenia clausa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Asclepiadaceae
Tylophora asthmatica
Indian ipecac
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Asteraceae
Arctium sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Asteraceae
Bahia fastigata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
389
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Asteraceae
Helianthus annuus
sunflower
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Asteraceae
Helianthus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Asteraceae
Mikania
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Berberidaceae
Berberis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Berberidaceae
Mahonia sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Betulaceae
Osmanthus asiaticus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Betulaceae
Osmanthus heterophyllus
recorded as Osmanthus ilicifolius
Chinese holly
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Betulaceae
Ostrya
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Bignoniaceae
Bignonia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Bignoniaceae
Catalpa bignonioides
syn Catalpa syringifolia
common catalpa
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Bignoniaceae
Catalpa bungei
Manchurian catalpa
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Bignoniaceae
Catalpa ovata
Chinese catalpa
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Bignoniaceae
Catalpa sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Bignoniaceae
Catalpa vulgaris
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Bignoniaceae
Catalpa yunnanensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
390
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Bignoniaceae
Tecoma sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Bombacaceae
Thespesia grandiflora
recorded as Montezuma speciosissima
maga
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Boraginaceae
Ehretia acuminata
koda tree
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Boraginaceae
Ehretia ovalifolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Boraginaceae
Heliotropium arborescens
recorded as Heliotropium peruvianum
heliotrope
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Boraginaceae
Messersmidia argentea
tree-heliotrope
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Boraginaceae
Heliotropium foertherianum
recorded as Tournefortia argentea
tree-heliotrope
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Brassicaceae
Brassica rapa
wild turnip/common
mustard
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Brassicaceae
Brassica willdenovii
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Brassicaceae
Iberis sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Cannabaceae
Trema sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Capparaceae
Cleome spinosa
spiny spider-flower
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Caricaceae
Carica papaya
papaya
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Caricaceae
Carica sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
391
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Caryophyllaceae
Dianthus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Casuarinaceae
Casuarina
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Celastraceae
Euonymus alata striata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Celastraceae
Euonymus europaea
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Celastraceae
Euonymus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Celastraceae
Orixa japonica
Orixa
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Chenopodiaceae
Salicornia fruticosa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Clusiaceae
Calophyllum sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Clusiaceae
Mammea americana
tropical apricot
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Convolvulaceae
Argyreia nervosa
elephant vine
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Convolvulaceae
Argyreia speciosa
elephant vine
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Convolvulaceae
Ipomea batatas
sweet potato
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Convolvulaceae
Ipomea purpurea
morning glory
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Convolvulaceae
Ipomea sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Convolvulaceae
Ipomoea tiliacea
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Cornaceae
Cornus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
392
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Crassulaceae
Bryophyllum calycinum
cathedral bells
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Crassulaceae
Kalanchoe bracteata
recorded as Kalanchoe nadyae
syn Bryophyllum pinnatum
cathedral bells
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Crassulaceae
Kalanchoe orgyalis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Crassulaceae
Kalanchoe pinnata
cathedral bells
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Crassulaceae
Kalanchoe sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Crassulaceae
Sedum sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Cucurbitaceae
Citrullus lanatus
recorded as Citrullus vulgaris
watermelon
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Cucurbitaceae
Cucurbita sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Cycadaceae
Cycas media
zamia palm
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Cycadaceae
Cycas revoluta
sago palm
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Cycadaceae
Cycas sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Cycadaceae
Zamia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ebenaceae
Diospyros kaki
persimmon
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ebenaceae
Diospyros sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ebenaceae
Diospyros virginiana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
393
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Elaeagnaceae
Elaeagnus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Euphorbiaceae
Aleurites
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Euphorbiaceae
Codiaeum sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Euphorbiaceae
Croton sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbia sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Euphorbiaceae
Hevea
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Euphorbiaceae
Jatropha curcas
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Euphorbiaceae
Jatropha gossypifolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Euphorbiaceae
Jatropha integerrima
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Euphorbiaceae
Jatropha sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Euphorbiaceae
Macaranga sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Euphorbiaceae
Mallotus japonicus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Euphorbiaceae
Manihot esculenta
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Euphorbiaceae
Manihot sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Euphorbiaceae
Pedilanthus tithymaloides
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Euphorbiaceae
Poinsettia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
394
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Euphorbiaceae
Ricinus communis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Euphorbiaceae
Ricinus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Euphorbiaceae
Sapium sebiferum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Euphorbiaceae
Sebastiana ligustrina
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Euphorbiaceae
Securinega leucophrus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Acacia arabica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Acacia sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Albizia stipulata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Bauhinia sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Cajanus cajan
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Cassia alata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Cercis canadensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Cercis sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Crotaleria juncea
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Crotolaria sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Cytisus nigricans
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
395
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Fabaceae
Cytisus scoparius
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Erythrina glauca
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Erythrina indica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Erythrina poeppigiana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Erythrina sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Genista sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Gleditschia ferox
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Gleditschia sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Gleditschia triacanthos
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Glycine max
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Kennedya
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Lespedeza sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Ononis sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Phaseolus vulgaris
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Pueraria sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Robinia pseudoacacia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
396
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Fabaceae
Sarothamnus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Sophora japonica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fabaceae
Vigna sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fagaceae
Castanea crenata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fagaceae
Castanea sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Fagaceae
Quercus acutissima
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Flacourtiaceae
Flacourtia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Geraniaceae
Geranium sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Geraniaceae
Pelargonium inquinans
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Geraniaceae
Pelargonium sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Geraniaceae
Pelargonium zonale
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ginkgoaceae
Ginkgo
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Grossulariaceae
Ribes sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Guttiferae
Hypericum sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Hippocastanaceae
Aesculus hippocastanum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Hippocastanaceae
Aesculus pavia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
397
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Hydrangeaceae
Hydrangea sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Juglandaceae
Juglans mandshurica sieboldiana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Juglandaceae
Juglans nigra
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Juglandaceae
Juglans regia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Juglandaceae
Juglans sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Juglandaceae
Pterocarya stenoptera
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Labiatae
Nepeta sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Lamiaceae
Callicarpa sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Lauraceae
Cinnamomum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Lauraceae
Sassafras sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Liliaceae
Draceana sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Loganiaceae
Buddleia davidii
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Loganiaceae
Gelsemium sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Loranthus
Loranthus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Lythraceae
Lagerstroemia flos-reginae
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Magnoliaceae
Magnolia sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
398
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Malvaceae
Althaea rosea
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Malvaceae
Althaea sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Malvaceae
Dombeya sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Malvaceae
Gossypium brasiliense
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Malvaceae
Gossypium sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Malvaceae
Hibiscus diversifolius
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Malvaceae
Hibiscus esculentum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Malvaceae
Hibiscus manihot
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Malvaceae
Hibiscus mutabilis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Malvaceae
Hibiscus rosa-sinensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Malvaceae
Hibiscus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Malvaceae
Hibiscus tiliaceus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Malvaceae
Malachra sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Malvaceae
Malvastrum tricuspidatum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Malvaceae
Sida
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Malvaceae
Sterculia sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
399
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Malvaceae
Urena lobata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Malvaceae
Urena sinuata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Meliaceae
Cedrela sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Meliaceae
Cedrela toona
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Meliaceae
Melia azedarach
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Meliaceae
Melia sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Menispermaceae
Cissampelos pareira
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Moraceae
Broussonetia kazinoki
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Moraceae
Broussonetia papyrifera
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Moraceae
Broussonetia sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Moraceae
Castilla sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Moraceae
Ficus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Moraceae
Morus alba
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Moraceae
Morus bombycis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Moraceae
Morus indica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Moraceae
Morus nigra
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
400
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Moraceae
Morus rubra
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Moraceae
Morus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Musaceae
Strelitzia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Myoperaceae
Myoporum pictum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Myrtaceae
Eugenia sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Myrtaceae
Psidium
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Oleaceae
Chionanthus virginicus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Oleaceae
Fraxinus chinensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Oleaceae
Fraxinus excelsior
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Oleaceae
Fraxinus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Oleaceae
Jasminum sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Oleaceae
Jasminum sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Oleaceae
Ligustrum ibota
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Oleaceae
Ligustrum japonicum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Oleaceae
Ligustrum obtusifolium
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Oleaceae
Ligustrum sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
401
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Oleaceae
Olea europea
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Oleaceae
Osmanthus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Oleaceae
Syringa sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Oleaceae
Syringa vulgaris
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Onagraceae
Fuchsia sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Orchidaceae
[MillerDa2005],
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Orchidaceae
Ellaeanthus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Orchidaceae
Stanhopea sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Pandanaceae
Pandanus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Passifloraceae
Passiflora edulis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Passifloraceae
Passiflora quadrangularis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Passifloraceae
Passiflora sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Pinaceae
Pinus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Piperaceae
Piper sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Piperaceae
Piper umbellatum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Piperaceae
Potomorphe umbellata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
402
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Pittosporaceae
Pittosporum sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Platanaceae
Phytolacca rivinoides
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Platanaceae
Platanocephalus indicus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Platanaceae
Platanus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Polygalaceae
Polygala
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ranunculaceae
Clematis sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ranunculaceae
Delphinium sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ranunculaceae
Paeonia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rhamnaceae
Hovenia dulcis glabra
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rhamnaceae
Rhamnus alaternus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rhamnaceae
Rhamnus elaternum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rhamnaceae
Rhamnus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rhamnaceae
Ziziphus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Amygdalus armeniaca
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Amygdalus communis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Amygdalus persica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
403
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Rosaceae
Amygdalus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Armeniaca
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Cerasus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Cliffortia polygonifolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Cotoneaster sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Cydonia oblonga
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Cydonia sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Cydonia vulgaris
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Kerria japonica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Malus formosana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Malus pumila
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Malus sylvestris
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Persica vulgaris
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Photinia serrulata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus amygdaloides
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus armeniaca
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
404
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Rosaceae
Prunus avium
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus cerasus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus communis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus domestica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus laurocerasus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus mume
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus persica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus pognostyla
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus pseudocerasus serrulata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus salicina
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus sargentii
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus subhirtella
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Prunus yedoensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Pyrus serotina
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Rosa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
405
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Rosaceae
Rubus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Sorbus commixta
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Spiroea japonica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rosaceae
Stranvaesia niitakayamensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rubiaceae
Bouvardia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rubiaceae
Cinchona sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rubiaceae
Galium sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rubiaceae
Morinda citrifolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rubiaceae
Palicourea sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rubiaceae
Psychotria horizontalis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rutaceae
Citrus aurantium
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rutaceae
Citrus bigaradia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rutaceae
Citrus maxima
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rutaceae
Citrus reticulata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rutaceae
Citrus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rutaceae
Evodia rutaecarpa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
406
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Rutaceae
Zanthoxylum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Rutaceae
Zanthoxylum piperitum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Salicaceae
Populus alba
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Salicaceae
Populus sieboldi
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Salicaceae
Populus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Salicaceae
Salix babylonica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Salicaceae
Salix chaenomeloides
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Salicaceae
Salix glandulosa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Salicaceae
Salix kinuyanagi
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Salicaceae
Salix nigra
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Salicaceae
Salix sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Salicaceae
Salix warburgii
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Sapindaceae
Koelreuteria paniculata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Sapindaceae
Nephelium
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Sapotaceae
Sideroxilon marmulano
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Saxifragaceae
Deutzia scabra
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
407
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Saxifragaceae
Ribes grossularia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Saxifragaceae
Ribes rubrum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Saxifragaceae
Ribes sinanense
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Scrophulariaceae
Angelonia salicariaefolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Scrophulariaceae
Buddleja sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Scrophulariaceae
Paulownia sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Scrophulariaceae
Paulownia tomentosa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Scrophulariaceae
Scrophularia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Scrophulariaceae
Veronica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Simaroubaceae
Ailanthus glandulosa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Simaroubaceae
Picrasma quassioides
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Solanaceae
Capsicum annum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Solanaceae
Capsicum grossum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Solanaceae
Capsicum sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Solanaceae
Datura suaveolens
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Solanaceae
Lycopersicon esculentum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
408
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Solanaceae
Nicotiana tabacum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Solanaceae
Solanum auriculatum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Solanaceae
Solanum rugosum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Solanaceae
Solanum sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Solanaceae
Solanum uporo
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Solanaceae
Solanum verbascifolium
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Sterculiaceae
Firmiana plantanifolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Sterculiaceae
Firmiana simplex
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Sterculiaceae
Guazuma ulmifolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Sterculiaceae
Sterculia plantifolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Sterculiaceae
Theobroma sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Theaceae
Camellia sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Theaceae
Thea sinensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Tiliaceae
Tilia miqueliana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Tiliaceae
Triumfetta bartramia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ulmaceae
Aphananthe aspera
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
409
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Ulmaceae
Celtis australis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ulmaceae
Celtis sinensis japonica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ulmaceae
Trema lamarckiana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ulmaceae
Trema micrantha
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ulmaceae
Ulmus campestris
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ulmaceae
Ulmus sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Ulmaceae
Zelkova serrata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Urticaceae
Boehmeria sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Urticaceae
Urtica dioica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Verbenaceae
Callicaria superba
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Verbenaceae
Callicarpa americana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Verbenaceae
Callicarpa lanata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Verbenaceae
Lantana sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Verbenaceae
Stachytarpheta dichotoma
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Verbenaceae
Stachytarpheta indica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Verbenaceae
Stachytarpheta jamaicensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
410
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
Common name
Reference to host record
Verbenaceae
Stachytarpheta mutabilis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Verbenaceae
Stachytarpheta sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Verbenaceae
Stachytarpheta urticaefolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Verbenaceae
Stachytarpheta urticifolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Verbenaceae
Verbena bonariensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Verbenaceae
Verbena sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Viscaceae
Phoradendron flavescens
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Vitaceae
Quinaria
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Vitaceae
Vitis sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
Vitaceae
Vitis vinifera
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2014)
References
Ben-Dov Y 2014, Pseudaulacaspis pentagona (Targioni Tozzetti), ScaleNet [online database].
<http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/catalogs/diaspidi/Pseudaulacaspispentagona.htm> [March, 2015].
411
Draft Policy Review
Appendix H Recorded host plants of Spanish white scale
Family
Scientific name
common name
reference to host record
Acanthaceae
Sciaphyllum brownii
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Aceraceae
Acer palmatum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Agavaceae
Agave
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Agavaceae
Furcraea gigantea
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Agavaceae
Pincenectitia tuberculata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Agavaceae
Yucca
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Agavaceae
Yucca elephantipes
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Amaryllidaceae
Doryanthes palmeri
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Anacardiaceae
Anacardium occidentale
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Anacardiaceae
Lithraea arhoeirihna
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Anacardiaceae
Mangifera indica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Anacardiaceae
Pistacia lentiscus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Anacardiaceae
Pistacia mutica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Anacardiaceae
Rhus succudenae
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Anacardiaceae
Schinus terebinthifolius
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Anacardiaceae
Spondias dulcis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
412
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
common name
reference to host record
Anacardiaceae
Spondias mangifera
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Annonaceae
Annona
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Annonaceae
Annona cherimola
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Annonaceae
Annona muricata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Apiaceae
Actinolema eryngioides
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Apocynaceae
Allamanda
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Apocynaceae
Carissa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Apocynaceae
Nerium oleander
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Apocynaceae
Plumeria
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Apocynaceae
Trachelospermum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Apocynaceae
Vinca major
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Araceae
Anthurium
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Araceae
Epipremnum pinnatum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Araceae
Monstera deliciosa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Araceae
Xanthosoma
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Araliaceae
Aralia sieboldi
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
413
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
common name
reference to host record
Araliaceae
Hedera chrysocarpa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Araliaceae
Hedera helix
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Araliaceae
Meryta macrophylla
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Araliaceae
Schefflera
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Araucariaceae
Araucaria braziliana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
[WilliaWa1988]
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Areca
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Areca catechu
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Areca sajuda
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Areca triandra
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Chamaerops humilis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Cocos
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Cocos nucifera
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Cocos romanzoffiana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Dictyosperma
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Dictyosperma album
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
414
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
common name
reference to host record
Arecaceae
Drymophloeus robustus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Elaeis guineensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Howeia forsteriana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Howeia selloviana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Hyphaene
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Hyphaene thebaica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Kentia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Kentia belmoreana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Latania
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Latania borbonica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Phoenix
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Phoenix canariensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Phoenix dactylifera
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Phoenix reclinata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Roystonea regia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Sabal andasoni
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
415
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
common name
reference to host record
Arecaceae
Sabal blackburniana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Sabal havanensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Socratea exorrhiza
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Veitchia joannis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Arecaceae
Verschaffeltia splendida
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Asparagaceae
Beaucarnea recurvata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Asparagaceae
Dracaena sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Asteraceae
Bahia fastigata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Berberidaceae
Berberis aquifolium
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Bromeliaceae
Cryptanthus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Buxaceae
Buxus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Buxaceae
Buxus balearica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Buxaceae
Buxus hyrcana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Buxaceae
Buxus sempervirens
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Cactaceae
Cactus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Cactaceae
Opuntia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
416
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
common name
reference to host record
Cactaceae
Opuntia cochinellifera
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Capparidaceae
Capparis spinosa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Caprifoliaceae
Lonicera caprifolium
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Caprifoliaceae
Lonicera implexa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Caricaceae
Carica papaya
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Casuarinaceae
Casuarina
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Caprifoliaceae
Casuarina stricta
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Celastraceae
Elaeodendron
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Celastraceae
Euonymus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Celastraceae
Euonymus japonicum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Celastraceae
Euonymus japonicus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Clusiaceae
Calophyllum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Clusiaceae
Calophyllum inophyllum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Combretaceae
Terminalia catappa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Cornaceae
Cornus mas
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Cupressaceae
Cupressus macrocarpa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
417
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
common name
reference to host record
Cupressaceae
Thuja occidentalis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Cycadaceae
Cycas
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Cycadaceae
Cycas circinalis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Cycadaceae
Cycas revoluta
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Cyperaceae
Cyperus alternifolius
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Daphniphyllaceae
Daphniphyllum humile
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Ebenaceae
Diospyros
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Ebenaceae
Diospyros lotus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Ehretiaceae
Patagonula americana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Elaeagnaceae
Elaeagnus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Elaeagnaceae
Elaeagnus reflexa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Ericaceae
Arbutus unedo
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Ericaceae
Enkianthus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Euphorbiaceae
Aleurites
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbia regie-jubae
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
418
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
common name
reference to host record
Euphorbiaceae
Macaranga
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Euphorbiaceae
Manihot esculenta
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Euphorbiaceae
Manihot palmata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Fabaceae
Acacia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Fabaceae
Acacia cyanophylla
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Fabaceae
Albizia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Fabaceae
Baikiaea minor
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Fabaceae
Caesalpinia sappan
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Fabaceae
Cassia spectabilis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Fabaceae
Ceratonia siliqua
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Fabaceae
Cercis siliquastrum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Fabaceae
Crotalaria spectabilis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Fabaceae
Erythrina indica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Fabaceae
Robinia sp.
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Fabaceae
Sarothamnus scoparius
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Fabaceae
Sophora japonica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
419
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
common name
reference to host record
Fabaceae
Sophora secundiflora
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Fabaceae
Spartium junceum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Fagaceae
Quercus lusitanica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Fagaceae
Quercus mirbeckii
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Fagaceae
Quercus suber
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Guttiferae
Mammea
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Guttiferae
Mammea africana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Guttiferae
Rheedia aristata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Heliconiaceae
Heliconia rex
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Iridaceae
Iris germanica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Lauraceae
Benzoin
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Lauraceae
Cinnamomum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Lauraceae
Cinnamomum camphora
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Lauraceae
Cinnamomum zeylanicum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Lauraceae
Endiandra palmerstoni
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Lauraceae
Laurus maderensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
420
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
common name
reference to host record
Lauraceae
Laurus nobilis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Lauraceae
Ocotea foetens
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Lauraceae
Persea americana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Lauraceae
Persea gratissima
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Lecythidaceae
Barringtonia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Lecythidaceae
Barringtonia racemosa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Liliaceae
Aloe ciliaris
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Liliaceae
Aloe purpurascens
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Liliaceae
Aloe zeyberi
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Liliaceae
Anthericum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Liliaceae
Asparagus plumosus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Liliaceae
Asparagus sprengeri
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Liliaceae
Aspidistra
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Liliaceae
Dianella intermedia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Liliaceae
Dracaena
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Liliaceae
Dracaena draco
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
421
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
common name
reference to host record
Liliaceae
Gasteria
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Liliaceae
Ophiopogon
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Liliaceae
Ophiopogon japonicus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Lomariopsidaceae
Arthrobotrya odoratisima
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Lythraceae
Lagerstroemia flos-reginae
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Lythraceae
Lagerstroemia indica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Magnoliaceae
Magnolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Malpighiaceae
Malpighia glabra
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Malvaceae
Hibiscus syriacus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Marantaceae
Calathea
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Meliaceae
Swietenia macrophylla
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Menispermaceae
Cocculus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Moraceae
Artocarpus altilis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Moraceae
Artocarpus heterophyllus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Moraceae
Artocarpus incisa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Moraceae
Artocarpus integra
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
422
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
common name
reference to host record
Moraceae
Brosimum utile
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Moraceae
Ficus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Moraceae
Ficus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Moraceae
Ficus altissima
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Moraceae
Ficus benjamina
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Moraceae
Ficus carica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Moraceae
Ficus corynocali
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Moraceae
Ficus eburnia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Moraceae
Ficus elastica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Moraceae
Ficus indica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Moraceae
Ficus macrophylla
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Moraceae
Ficus nitida
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Moraceae
Ficus populnea
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Moraceae
Ficus pumila
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Moraceae
Ficus tinctoria
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Musaceae
Musa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
423
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
common name
reference to host record
Musaceae
Musa cavendishi
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Musaceae
Musa sapientum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myoporaceae
Myoporum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myoporaceae
Myoporum desertum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myoporaceae
Myoporum loetum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myoporaceae
Myoporum pictum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myristicaceae
Myristica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myristicaceae
Myristica fragrans
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myrtaceae
Agonis flexuosa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myrtaceae
Eucalyptus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myrtaceae
Eucalyptus cinerifolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myrtaceae
Eucalyptus corynocali
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myrtaceae
Eucalyptus gunni
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myrtaceae
Eugenia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myrtaceae
Eugenia jambo
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myrtaceae
Eugenia malaccensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
424
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
common name
reference to host record
Myrtaceae
Eugenia micheli
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myrtaceae
Eugenia vaccinifolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myrtaceae
Feijoa selloviana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myrtaceae
Feijoa sellowiana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myrtaceae
Myrtus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myrtaceae
Psidium guajava
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myrtaceae
Spermolepis gummifera
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Myrtaceae
Syzygium
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Ochnaceae
Schuurmansia henningsii
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Oleaceae
Jasminum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Oleaceae
Jasminum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Oleaceae
Jasminum officinalis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Oleaceae
Ligustrum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Oleaceae
Ligustrum coriaceum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Oleaceae
Ligustrum kellerianus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Oleaceae
Ligustrum sinensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
425
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
common name
reference to host record
Oleaceae
Olea
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Oleaceae
Olea europaea
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Oleaceae
Olea fragrans
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Orchidaceae
Bachia mayor
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Orchidaceae
Coclogyne cristata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Orchidaceae
Cymbidium
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Orchidaceae
Cypripedium
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Orchidaceae
Dendrobium
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Orchidaceae
Epidendrum tampens
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Orchidaceae
Odontoglossum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Orchidaceae
Vanilla
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Orchidaceae
Vanilla fragrans
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Paeoniaceae
Paeonia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Pandanaceae
Pandanus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Pandanaceae
Pandanus graminifolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Passifloraceae
Passiflora coerulea
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
426
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
common name
reference to host record
Phytolaccaceae
Phytollaca americana
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Pinaceae
Pinus caribaea
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Pinaceae
Pinus thunbergii
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Pittosporaceae
Pittosporum tobira
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Platanaceae
Platanus orientalis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Poaceae
Bambusa vulgaris
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Polygonaceae
Muehlenbeckia platyclados
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Proteaceae
Banksia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Proteaceae
Macadamia tetraphylla
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Ranunculaceae
Caltha edulis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rosaceae
Cerasus lauro-cerassus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rosaceae
Cotoneaster
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rosaceae
Crataegus azarolus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rosaceae
Eriobotrya japonica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rosaceae
Fragaria vesca
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rosaceae
Laurocerasus officinalis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
427
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
common name
reference to host record
Rosaceae
Malus pumila
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rosaceae
Malus sylvestris
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rosaceae
Photinia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rosaceae
Photinia serrulata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rosaceae
Prunus laurocerasus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rosaceae
Prunus spinosa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rosaceae
Pyrus communis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rosaceae
Pyrus cydonia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rosaceae
Rosa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rosaceae
Rosa centifolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rosaceae
Rosa indica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rubiaceae
Randia fitzalani
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Ruscaceae
Ruscus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Ruscaceae
Ruscus aculeatus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Ruscaceae
Ruscus hypoglossum
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rutaceae
Citrus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
428
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
common name
reference to host record
Rutaceae
Citrus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rutaceae
Citrus aurantifolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rutaceae
Citrus aurantium
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rutaceae
Citrus deliciosa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rutaceae
Citrus limetta
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rutaceae
Citrus limon
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rutaceae
Citrus maxima
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rutaceae
Citrus nobilis unshiu
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rutaceae
Citrus paradisi
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rutaceae
Citrus sinensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rutaceae
Citrus unschiu
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Rutaceae
Ruta halepensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Salicaceae
Populus alba
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Salicaceae
Populus nigra
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Salicaceae
Salix
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Sapotaceae
Argania spinosa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
429
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
common name
reference to host record
Sapotaceae
Mimusops elenga
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Sapotaceae
Palaquium
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Solanaceae
Solanum melongena
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Sterculiaceae
Brachychiton
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Sterculiaceae
Brachychiton populneus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Sterculiaceae
Sterculia diversifolia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Strelitziaceae
Strelitzia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Strelitziaceae
Strelitzia augusta
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Strelitziaceae
Strelitzia ericolai
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Strelitziaceae
Strelitzia reginae
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Strelitziaceae
Trelitzia alba
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Taxaceae
Taxus
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Taxaceae
Taxus baccata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Theaceae
Camellia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Theaceae
Camellia japonica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Theaceae
Camellia sinensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
430
Draft Policy Review
Family
Scientific name
common name
reference to host record
Theaceae
Camellia thea
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Theaceae
Cleyera japonica
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Theaceae
Thea sinensis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Ulmaceae
Chaetacme aristata
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Vitaceae
Vitis
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Vitaceae
Vitis vinifera
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Zamiaceae
Zamia
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Zingiberaceae
Alpinia nutans
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Zingiberaceae
Phaeomeria speciosa
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
Zingiberaceae
Zingiber
—
Ben-Dov et al. (2015)
References
Ben-Dov Y 2014, Chrysomphalus dictyospermi (Morgan), ScaleNet [online database]. <http://www.montpellier.inra.fr/CBGP/spmweb> [01
October 2014].
431
Draft Policy Review
Appendix I Comparison of climatic similarities within the Western Australian
viticulture regions to Australian and world locations of Greenaria uvicola
CLIMEX® (Sutherst et al. 2007) modelling is based on the assumption that if the modeller
knows where a pest, pathogen or other organism exists, an inference can be made to what
climatic conditions that organism can tolerate. CLIMEX® utilises long term climatic data such
as temperature, rainfall and humidity from areas where the organism is known to occur to
predict the climatic suitability of areas where the organism is not known to occur.
A broad assumption can be drawn that the organism under consideration would have similar
chances of survival at these locations as in its current locations. Although the climatic
environment is a major influence in determining the suitability or otherwise of a particular
region for an organism, a range of biotic and abiotic factors influences can influence the
distribution and impact an organism has in a particular region, such as the availability of host
plants, availability of suitable soil types and interactions with other organisms.
Regional climate matching utilising CLIMEX® was conducted to identify locations within
Western Australia that have similar climatic conditions to a range of locations where the
important grape pathogen Greenaria uvicola – the causal agent of bitter rot of grapes – has
been reported to occur (Table I1).
A CLIMEX® regional climate match is achieved by aggregating long term climatic data for the
locations where G. uvicola exists and provides a Climatic Match Index (CMI) output for
locations within Western Australia. By convention, any Western Australian locations with a
CMI greater than 0.6 suggest the climate at these locations are similar to the locations where
G. uvicola exists. Regional climate matching in this scenario has been calculated with
ambient temps (max, min), rainfall (amount & pattern) and relative humidity (9am & 3pm).
The resulting CMI suggests that all viticulture growing regions of Western Australia (Figure
I1) would have similar climatic conditions to at least some of the locations listed Table I1. As
a result of this similarity, all viticulture regions of Western Australia are predicted to have
climatic conditions suitable for the establishment and proliferation of G. uvicola.
Table I1: Some reported Australian and world locations for Greenaria uvicola
Location
Nearest Climex locations
Reference to location
Hunter Valley (NSW)
Cessnock, Scone, Singleton
Castillo-Pando, et al. (2001)
Hastings Valley (NSW)
Port Maquarie
Samuelian, et al. (2010)
Granite Belt (NSW)
Tenterfield
Steel & Greer (2008)
South Burnett (Qld)
Kingaroy
Steel & Greer (2008)
Uruguay
Paso de los Torros, Treinta y
Tres, Montevideo, Mercedes
(general locations for Uruguay)
Navarrete, et al. (2009)
USA — Mississippi (Beaumont, Crystal
Springs, Starkville)
Hattiesburg, Crystal Springs,
Starkville, Bogalusa
Kummuang, et al. (1996)
USA — North Carolina (Rockingham
County, Alamance County)
Rockingham, Burlington
Longland & Sutton (2008)
India (Hyderabad)
Hyderabad
Reddy & Reddy (1983)
432
Draft Policy Review
Figure I1: A Climex® regional climate match index (CMI) output map of Western Australia
depicting climatic similarities to a range of G. uvicola locations outlined in Table I1.
433
Draft Policy Review
References
Castillo-Pando M, Somers A, Green CD, Priest M & Sriskanthades M 2001, Fungi associated
with dieback of Semillon grapevines in the Hunter Valley of New South Wales.
Australasian Plant Pathology, 30: 59–63.
Kummuang N, Smith BJ, Diehl SV & Graves CH, Jr 1996, Muscadine grape berry rot
diseases in Mississippi: Disease epidemiology and crop reduction. Plant Disease, 80:
244–247.
Longland JM & Sutton TB 2008, Factors affecting the infection of fruit of Vitis vinifera by the
bitter rot pathogen Greeneria uvicola. Phytopathology, 98: 580–584.
Navarrete F, Abreo E, Bettucci L, Martínez S & Lupo S 2009, First report of Greeneria
uvicola as cause of grapevine dead-arm dieback in Uruguay. Australasian Plant
Disease Notes, 4: 117–119.
Reddy MS & Reddy KRC 1983, Greeneria fruit rot, an endemic disease of grape in India.
Indian Phytopathology, 36: 110–114.
Samuelian SK, Greer LA, Savocchia S & Steel CC 2011, Detection and monitoring of
Greeneria uvicola and Colletotrichum acutatum development on grapevines by realtime PCR. Plant Disease, 95: 298–303.
Steel CC & Greer DH 2008, 'Effect of climate on vine and bunch characteristics: Bunch rot
disease susceptibility' in PG Adsule, IS Sawant, SD Shikhamany (eds.), Proceedings
of the International Symposium on Grape Production and Processing, 6–11 February
2006, Baramati (Pune), Maharashtra, India, International Society for Horticultural
Science, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 253–262.
Sutherst RW, Maywald GF & D.J. K 2007, CLIMEX Version 3.0 [software]. Hearne Scientific
Software, Victoria, Australia.
434
Draft Policy Review
Appendix J Comparison of climatic similarities within the Western Australian
viticulture regions to Australian locations of Phomopsis viticola
CLIMEX® modelling is based on the assumption that if the modeller knows where a pest or
other organism exists, an inference can be made to what climatic conditions that organism
can tolerate. CLIMEX® utilises long term climatic data such as temperature, rainfall and
humidity from areas where the organisms is known to occur to predict the climatic suitability
of areas where the organisms are not known to occur. A broad conclusion can be drawn the
organism under consideration would have similar chances of survival at these locations as
the organism is having at its current locations. Although the climatic environment is a major
influence in determining the suitability or unsuitability of a particular region for an organism, a
range of biotic and abiotic factors influences such as the availability of host plants, availability
of suitable soil types and interactions with other organisms can influence the distribution and
impact an organism has in a particular region.
Regional climate matching utilising CLIMEX® bioclimatic software (Sutherst et al. 2007) has
been undertaken to identify locations within Western Australia that have similar climatic
conditions to those locations where P. viticola is known to exist within Australia (Table J1).
A CLIMEX® regional climate match is achieved by aggregating long term climatic data for the
locations where P. viticola exists and provides a Climatic Match Index (CMI) output for
locations within Western Australia. By convention, any Western Australian locations with a
CMI greater than 0.6 suggest the climate at these locations are climatically similar to the
locations where P. viticola exists. Regional climate matching in this scenario has been
calculated with ambient temps (max, min), rainfall (amount & pattern) and relative humidity
(9am & 3pm).
The resulting CMI output from where P. viticola is known to exist suggests that all viticulture
growing regions (Figure J1) of Western Australia would have similar climatic conditions as
those locations where P. viticola has been reported from. As a result of this similarity, all
viticulture regions of Western Australia are predicted to have climatic conditions suitable for
the establishment and proliferation of P. viticola.
Table J1: Reported Australian locations for Phomopsis viticola
—
P. viticola location
Closest BoM10 Station
Reference to location
New South Wales
Bathurst
Bathurst
Merrin et al. (1995)
—
Cowra
Cowra
Merrin et al. (1995)
—
Griffith
Griffith
Merrin et al. (1995)
—
Hunter Valley
Cessnock
pers com Dr Rawnsley
—
Mudgee
Mudgee
Merrin et al. (1995)
—
Murrambateman
Yass
Merrin et al. (1995)
—
Muswellbrook
Scone
Merrin et al. (1995)
—
Dalwood
Paterson
Merrin et al. (1995)
10
Bureau of Meteorology
435
Draft Policy Review
Table J1: Reported Australian locations for Phomopsis viticola
Victoria
Ballarat
Ballarat
Merrin et al. (1995)
—
Mildura
Mildura
Merrin et al. (1995)
—
Nagambie
Mangalore
Merrin et al. (1995)
—
Rutherglen
Rutherglen
Taylor & Mabbitt 1961
—
Swan Hill
Swan Hill
Clarke et al. (2004)
South Australia
Barossa Valley
Nurioopta
Merrin et al. (1995)
—
Coonawarra
Coonawarra
Merrin et al. (1995)
—
Mt Pleasant
Mt Crawford
Merrin et al. (1995)
436
Draft Policy Review
Figure J1: A Climex® regional climate match index (CMI) output map of Western
Australia depicting climatic similarities to reported Australian P. viticola locations.
437
Draft Policy Review
References
Clarke K, Sergeeva V, Emmett RW & Nair NG 2004, Survival of Phomopsis viticola in
grapevine cuttings after hot water treatment. Australasian Plant Pathology, 33: 317–
319.
Cucuzza JD & Sall MA 1982, Phomopsis cane and leaf spot disease of grapevine: Effects of
chemical treatments on inoculum level. Plant Disease, 66: 794–797.
Graham AB, Johnston PR & Weir BS 2009, Three new Phaeoacremonium species on
grapevines in New Zealand. Australasian Plant Pathology, 38: 505–513.
Merrin SJ, Nair NG & Tarran J 1995, Variation in Phomopsis recorded on grapevine in
Australia and its taxonomic and biological implications. Australasian Plant Pathology,
24: 44–56.
Sutherst RW, Maywald GF & D.J. K 2007, CLIMEX Version 3.0 [software]. Hearne Scientific
Software, Victoria, Australia.
Taylor RH & Mabbitt JM 1961, Dead arm disease of grape vines. The Journal of Agriculture,
Victoria, 59: 157–165.
438