EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
EXTERNAL SCIENTIFIC REPORT
Extensive Literature Searches Soil and Growing Media Inventories1
(RC/EFSA/PLH/2013/01-SC1)
Johan Bremmer, Maria Holeva, Annemarie Breukers, Ans Brouwer, Aad
Termorshuizen, Loes den Nijs, Eleni Kalogeropoulou, Vaya Kati, Panagiotis Milonas,
Nikon Vassilakos, Hans Gijzen
IBF Consortium2
ABSTRACT
In this project two inventories by means of extensive literature searches following the methodology
described in the EFSA guidance on systematic review have been executed: Inventory 1 of all types of
soil and growing media (if relevant components thereof) to be elaborated considering (i) the soil and
growing medium imported as commodities (i.e. not in association with plants intended for planting),
(ii) the soil and growing medium attached to plants for planting, and (iii) the soil and growing medium
attached as a contaminant to imported goods (ranging from ware potatoes to agricultural machinery).
Inventory 2, based on interceptions data and scientific and technical literature, of plant pests, plant
diseases and weeds that can be associated with soil and growing medium (if relevant components
thereof). Execution of Inventory 1 resulted in a list of 956 soils and growing media. Execution of
Inventory 2 resulted in Excel tables for each taxonomic group separately in which the pests and
diseases are linked to the soil and growing media. Additional information has been provided for
processes applied to produce growing media and the impact on harmful organisms and private
certification schemes applied in Europe to control the trade and use of growing media.
© IBF Consortium, 2015
KEY WORDS
Soil, growing media, harmful organisms, plant growth, phytosanitary risk
DISCLAIMER
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried
out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),
awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to
which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety
Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present
document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
1
Question No EFSA-Q-2013-00405
Any enquiries related to this output should be addressed to ALPHA @efsa.europa.eu
Suggested citation: Johan Bremmer, Maria Holeva, Annemarie Breukers, Ans Brouwer, Aad Termorshuizen, Loes den Nijs,
Eleni Kalogeropoulou, Vagia Kati, Milonas Panagiotis, Nikon Vassilakos, Hans Gijzen, 2014. Extensive Literature Searches
Soil and Growing Media Inventories (OC/EFSA/PLH/2013/01). EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-834, 49 pp.
Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu/publications
2
IBF International Consulting, Wageningen UR, Benaki Phytopathological Institute
© European Food Safety Authority, 2015
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
SUMMARY
EFSA has requested to provide preparatory work for the Panel on Plant Health, which provides insight
into the types and compositions of soil and growing media that arecurrently in use, and their possible
association with harmful organisms. The objectives of this contract are to develop two inventories by
means of extensive literature searches following the methodology described in the EFSA guidance on
systematic review:
Inventory 1 of all types of soil and growing media (if relevant components thereof) to be elaborated
considering
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
the soil and growing medium imported as commodities (i.e. not in association with plants
intended for planting)
the soil and growing medium attached to plants for planting
the soil and growing medium attached as a contaminant to imported goods (ranging from
ware potatoes to agricultural machinery). Inventory 2, based on interceptions data and
scientific and technical literature, of plant pests, plant diseases and weeds that can be
associated with soil and growing medium (if relevant components thereof).
Execution of Inventory 1 resulted in 15,331 records which have been screened, of which 6,788 are
used for data extraction. This resulted in a list of 881 soils and growing media.
Inventory 2 includes the quarantine organisms listed in the Council Directive 2000/29/EC, the
organisms addressed by emergency measures in the EU, the organisms included in EPPO pest lists,
and also examples of the most important emerging risks of plant health concern that are not listed in
the EU regulation. Execution of Inventory 2 resulted in 7,611 records which have been screened, of
which 1,563 are used for data extraction.
The results are presented in harmonized Excel tables for each taxonomic group separately. Additional
information has been provided for processes applied to produce growing media and the impact on
harmful organisms and private certification schemes applied in Europe to control the trade and use of
growing media.
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
2
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Table of contents ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Background as provided by EFSA ........................................................................................................... 4
Terms of reference as provided by EFSA ................................................................................................ 4
Introduction and Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 6
1. Materials and methods: Inventory 1 ................................................................................................ 7
1.1.
Search strategy ........................................................................................................................ 7
1.2.
Screening of records ............................................................................................................... 8
1.3.
Data extraction ........................................................................................................................ 9
1.4.
Additional information.......................................................................................................... 11
2. Materials and methods: Inventory 2 .............................................................................................. 11
2.1.
Search strategy ...................................................................................................................... 12
2.2.
Screening of records ............................................................................................................. 14
2.3.
Data extraction ...................................................................................................................... 16
3. Results ........................................................................................................................................... 18
3.1.
Results of Inventory 1: Soil and growing media ................................................................... 18
3.2.
Results of Inventory 2 ........................................................................................................... 20
4. Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................................. 24
References .............................................................................................................................................. 26
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................. 27
Appendix A.
Search Terms Inventory 1 .......................................................................................... 27
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
3
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
BACKGROUND AS PROVIDED BY EFSA
This procurement is launched to provide preparatory work for the Panel on Plant Health in the context
of the request from the EC to provide a scientific opinion on the risks to plant health posed by soil or
growing medium. The background and terms of references of the request can be consulted at EFSA
register of question under the Plant health section at question number EFSA-Q-2013-00405
(http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/).
Soil and growing medium provide a means via which harmful organisms to plants and plant products
and other non-native invasive species, including agricultural or invasive weeds, can enter and spread
into the European Union territory. The risks posed by the movement of soil and growing medium as
potential pathways for the introduction and spread of harmful organisms are universally recognised
and addressed in the European Union by the Council Directive 2000/29/EC. Three separate scenarios
for the import and movement of soil and growing medium need to be considered when addressing the
phytosanitary risks posed by these objects (i) Soil and growing medium imported as commodities (i.e.
not in association with plants intended for planting); (ii) Soil and growing medium attached to plants
for planting, and (iii) Soil and growing medium attached as a contaminant to imported goods (ranging
from ware potatoes to agricultural machinery).
TERMS OF REFERENCE AS PROVIDED BY EFSA
The main objective of this procedure is to provide preparatory work for the Panel on Plant Health in
the context of the request from the EC3 to provide a scientific opinion on the risks to plant health
posed by soil or growing medium as commodities, attached to plants for planting and, as a
contaminant on imported consignments.
The specific objectives of the contract resulting from the present reopening competition are to develop
two inventories by means of extensive literature searches following the methodology described in the
EFSA guidance on systematic review:
Inventory 1 of all types of soil and growing media (if relevant components thereof) to be elaborated
considering (i) the soil and growing medium imported as commodities (i.e. not in association with
plants intended for planting), (ii) the soil and growing medium attached to plants for planting, and (iii)
the soil and growing medium attached as a contaminant to imported goods (ranging from ware
potatoes toagricultural machinery).
For each identified type of soil and growing medium the contractor should indicate:
The production processes involved to produce or process the soil or growing medium, from
the raw material(s) to the final product(s).
The end use in agriculture with special focus to the EU (e.g. soil improver, fertiliser, growing
media for plants for planting etc.)
The phytosanitary requirements imposed by EU regulation as well as by private certification
schemes of soil and growing media before its end use.
Inventory 2, based on interceptions data and scientific and technical literature, of plant pests, plant
diseases and weeds that can be associated with soil and growing medium (if relevant components
thereof). The inventory should include at least the quarantine organisms listed in the Council Directive
2000/29/EC, the organisms addressed by emergency measures in the EU6, the organisms included in
EPPO pest lists7 and also examples of the most important emerging risks of plant health concern that
are not listed in the EU regulation.
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
4
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
The tasks are specified as follows:
Task 1
Validate with EFSA counterpart the draft protocols for the extensive literature searches (ELS) and the
document/studies selection criteria to perform the tasks 2 and 3.
Task 2
Inventory 1: Perform an extensive literature search to make an inventory of all soil and growing
media (and if relevant components thereof). To this effect, the currently available scientific and
technical documentation, the grey literature, the relevant National Authorities websites and specific
databases (trade, soil etc.) should be scrutinised. The information should be extracted to include in the
inventory the soil and growing media (i) imported as commodities (i.e. not in association with plants
intended for planting), (ii) attached to plants for planting, and (iii) attached as a contaminant to
imported goods (ranging from ware potatoes to agricultural machinery). For each identified type of
soil and growing medium (if relevant components thereof) the contractor is requested to indicate the
(i) production processes (from raw material to final product), (ii) the phytosanitary requirements
imposed by EU regulation as well as (iii) the requirements of the existing private certification schemes
(e.g. Regeling Handels Potgronden, Netherlands; GGS Gütegemeinschaft Substrate für Pflanzen e.V
Germany) and (iv) the end use(s) in agriculturec with special focus to the EU (e.g. soil improvers,
fertilisers, growing media for plants for planting etc.)
Task 3
Inventory 2: Perform an extensive literature search to make an inventory of the harmful organisms of
plants (including weeds and invasive plants) that can be associated with soil and growing media (if
relevant components thereof). To this effect, the currently available scientific and technical
documentation, the grey literature, the relevant National Authorities websites and specific databases
(trade, soil etc.) should be scrutinised. The information should be extracted to include in the inventory
all the organisms listed in the Council Directive 2000/29/EC7, the EU emergency measures and the
EPPO lists9 and also examples of the most important emerging risks of plant health concern that are
not listed in the EU regulation.
For each organism the contractor should indicate the stage of the life cycle of the organisms associated
with soil or growing medium (if relevant components thereof).
Task 4
Synthesis and analyses of the results of the searches and the uncertainties.
This contract was awarded by EFSA to:
Contractor: IBF Consortium
Contract title: Extensive Literature Searches Soil and Growing Media Inventories
Contract number: RC/EFSA/PLH/2013/01-SC1
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
5
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
The EFSA Panel on Plant Health has received a request from the EC to provide a scientific opinion on
the risks to plant health posed by soil or growing medium. Soil and growing medium provide a means
via which harmful organisms to plants and plant products and other non-native invasive species,
including weeds and invasive plants, can enter and spread into the European Union territory. The risks
posed by the movement of soil and growing medium as potential pathways for the introduction and
spread of harmful organisms are universally recognised and addressed in the European Union by the
Council Directive 2000/29/EC. Three separate scenarios for the import and movement of soil and
growing medium need to be considered when addressing the phytosanitary risks posed by these
objects:
i.
ii.
iii.
Soil and growing medium imported as commodities (i.e. not in association with plants
intended for planting);
Soil and growing medium attached to plants for planting, and
Soil and growing medium attached as a contaminant to imported goods (ranging from ware
potatoes to agricultural machinery).
To provide a solid, science based opinion, EFSA has requested the contractor to provide preparatory
work for the Panel on Plant Health, which provides insight into the types and compositions of soil and
growing media that are currently in use, and their possible association with harmful organisms. The
objectives of this contract are to develop two inventories by means of extensive literature searches
following the methodology described in the EFSA guidance on systematic review:
Inventory 1 of all types of soil and growing media (if relevant components thereof) to be
elaborated considering (i) the soil and growing medium imported as commodities (i.e. not in
association with plants intended for planting), (ii) the soil and growing medium attached to
plants for planting, and (iii) the soil and growing medium attached as a contaminant to
imported goods (ranging from ware potatoes to agricultural machinery).
For each identified type of soil and growing medium the contractor should indicate:
-
The production processes involved to produce or process the soil or growing
medium, from the raw material(s) to the final product(s).
The end use in agriculture with special focus to the EU (e.g. soil improver,
fertiliser, growing media for plants for planting etc.)
The phytosanitary requirements imposed by EU regulation as well as by private
certification schemes of soil and growing media before its end use.
Inventory 2, based on interceptions data and scientific and technical literature, of plant pests,
plant diseases and weeds that can be associated with soil and growing medium (if relevant
components thereof). The inventory should include at least the quarantine organisms listed in
the Council Directive 2000/29/EC5, the organisms addressed by emergency measures in the
EU6, the organisms included in EPPO pest lists7 and also examples of the most important
emerging risks of plant health concern that are not listed in the EU regulation.
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
6
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
1.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: INVENTORY 1
An Extensive Literature Search (ELS) was performed to create an inventory of soil and growing media
(and if relevant components thereof). We will further refer to this list as Inventory 1. The inventory
includes soil and growing media that may be:
i.
ii.
iii.
imported as commodities
attached to plants for planting
attached as a contaminant (adhering soil or growing medium) to imported goods
The ELS was performed according to EFSA’s guidance document for performing systematic reviews
(EFSA, 2010). The review question was defined as follows:
“Which soil types and growing media do exist, that can be imported into the EU as commodity, in
association with plants for planting, or as contaminant adhering to imported commodities?”
To avoid ambiguous use of terminology, the following definitions were applied:
Growing medium: any material in which plant roots are growing or intended for that purpose.
Soil: specific type of growing medium that is naturally occurring, composed of the loose surface
material of the earth and consisting of a mixture of minerals and organic material.
Commodity: a type of plant, plant product, or other article being moved for trade or other purpose.
Adhering soil: soil that is unintentionally attached to imported goods such as agricultural commodities
and machinery.
1.1.
Search strategy
The search covered soils and growing media used in different ways, e.g. as substrate, amendment,
fertiliser, mulch, etc. Moreover, soils and growing media could be of very different origin, including
e.g. agricultural or horticultural products or waste, industrial by-products, inorganic material (e.g.
rock), wood-based products, and municipal waste. A major drawback of such a broad scope is that a
literature search would yield an excessively large number of records. To reduce the number of search
results to an acceptable level, studies were only considered eligible if they provided evidence that a
soil or growing medium was associated with plant production or attached as a contaminant or used as
a commodity that can be transported. Other criteria were that the study has been published in the
period of 2004-2014 and that it at least comprises an English or Dutch abstract. Dutch studies were
included since the Netherlands are a key player in the horticultural industry.
The literature search was largely restricted to bibliographic scientific databases, as this yielded a very
large number of records and searching in grey literature would cause the ELS to become
unmanageable, while such search would provide limited added value. Hand search has been executed
by screening websites of private organizations responsible for certification of production and trade of
growing media. CAB Abstracts was selected as primary search database as this database covers by far
the most journals relevant for the scope of the project. Additional records were searched in AGRIS
and ARTIK as these databases contain domain-specific and Dutch literature, respectively. To cover
also possible very recent developments in the domain of soils and growing media, a representative of
the Dutch RHP foundation was interviewed by phone.
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
7
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
Boolean operators, proximity operators, truncation, specific tools and database specific functionalities,
like CABI and AGRIS thesauri, were used to ensure that relevant search terms were included in the
search strategy. Particular search terms were not included in the search strategy because they would
yield a large number of records, most of which are outside the scope of the ELS. For example, “soil”
was excluded, and replaced with narrower search terms such as “potting soil” and “soil mix”. Also,
search terms associated with sterilized growing media (e.g. in vitro, culture medium) were not
included as these are frequently associated with microbiological studies. Table 1 summarizes the
search strategy; the complete lists of search terms are included in Appendix A.
After removing duplicates, the final result of the bibliographic database search yielded a total of
15,331 records. The approach and results of the search strategy, including number of search hits, are
presented in Figure 1.
Table 1:
Searches
Set #1
Set #2
Set #3
Set #4
Set #5
Set #6
Set #7
Set #8
Set #9
Set #10
1.2.
Search strategy of Inventory 1
Combination of search terms
Search terms representing adhering soil
Search terms representing soil or growing media as commodity
Search terms representing plants for planting
Search terms representing types of soil and growing media
Set #3 AND #4, representing soil and growing media associated with plants
for planting
Time period of ten years, combined with OR
Set #1 AND #6
Set #2 AND #6
Set #5 AND #6
Set #7 OR #8 OR #9
Screening of records
The final unduplicated list of 15,502 records was screened by a team of nine people. Only title and
abstract were screened, as data were also to be extracted from abstracts alone (see motivation below).
To guarantee that a consistent screening procedure was applied by all people, a screening guidance
document was developed which included a detailed description of the screening tool (Appendix B).
Also, a screening exercise was performed in which all persons screened the same set of records and
codes were compared to identify and discuss differences in interpretations.
Table 2 provides an overview of screening criteria and results of the screening process. Records for
which no decision could be made on the basis of abstract screening were marked as a separate
category that could optionally be evaluated at a later stage, depending on the results of the abstractbased data extraction.
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
8
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
Table 2:
Applied screening criteria and screening results in absolute and relative numbers
Screening code
Excluded records
No abstract available
Interpretation
Information from the database does not include an
abstract
e.g. letter to the editor, introductory chapters,
theoretical/model study
Reported study does not deal with soil and growing
media (e.g. studies dealing with aquaculture or
livestock production
i.e. the use of a particular growing medium is
arbitrary and not related to the objective or
conclusions
i.e. the growing medium is used as carrier to
measure the effect of nutrients, pH, salinity, etc.
i.e. study on the optimal soil conditions for
restoring vegetation a in conservation area
#
%
records records
551
Document
type
not
eligible
90
Reported study does not
deal with soil and growing
media
2,161
Soil and growing media
are not the focus of the
study
2,702
Study describes a response
to dose experiment
2,232
Soil or growing medium is
not moved
282
Included records
Included
Proceed with data extraction
6,788
Unsure – full text No decision possible on the basis of abstract
screening required
screening
527
1.3.
4%
1%
14%
18%
15%
2%
44%
3%
Data extraction
A total of 6,788 records resulted from the screening stage as eligible for abstract-based data extraction.
From this selection, 808 records were identified as dealing with sterilized growing media and not
further subjected to data extraction. The remaining records were mapped into different clusters based
on type of product (e.g. waste or residue, wood, compost), type of application (e.g. amendment,
mulch), production environment (e.g. nursery, greenhouse) and production system (e.g. organic
production, containers). Clusters of records were then assigned to the different team members
involved in data extraction (nine in total). For each record, the following information was collected:
Context in which the soil or growing medium was addressed, i.e. plant production, natural
environment, adhering soil or commodity;
Possible treatments mentioned with respect to the soil or growing medium, e.g.
composting, cooking or drying;
Soils and/or growing media mentioned in the abstract.
After approximately 25% of all records had been done, it was agreed with EFSA to limit data
extraction to the collection of information that was still absent or poorly represented (i.e. extracted
from less than 10 abstracts) in the inventory. This implied that soil and growing media which were
scored for 10 or more times were not scored anymore. This decision was made to make the data
extraction less labour-intensive by not having to check Soil and growing media very commonly
mentioned (e.g. “vermiculite”, “peat”) in the steadily growing list of soils and growing media. In
addition, it was decided upon consultation with EFSA to not further specify certain categories of soils
and growing media, either because they had a low phytosanitary risk profile or because more detail
was not considered informative to EFSA’s objectives. Specifically, these categories are commercial
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
9
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
products, wetting agents, animal manure and other products of animal origin, micro-organisms (e.g.
mycorrhiza), and water and nutrient solutions used in soilless cropping systems.
In the initial review protocol, data extraction was supposed to distinguish between single components
and mixtures, i.e. products consisting of different types of soils or growing media. However, it was
agreed with EFSA to restrict data extraction to individual components, as it appeared that mixtures are
often created ad hoc for a specific purpose and the hypothetical number of combinations of soils and
growing media is endless. Moreover, for brands representing commercial products it is very difficult
to identify the individual compounds and the ratio to which they are mixed. A full picture of the
protocol has been presented in Figure 1.
CAB abstracts
Search output:
13,312 records
AGRIS
Search output:
1,632 records
ARTIK
Search output:
558 records
Upload in Endnote
Hand search
output
Merged reference file:
15,502 records
Duplicate removal
Edited reference file:
15,331 records
Upload in EPPI;
screening
Selected abstracts:
6,788 records
Figure 1: Schematic overview of the search and screening procedure, including the number of records
resulting at each stage
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
10
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
1.4.
Additional information
Apart from the extracted information described in section 1.3, the objectives of Inventory 1 specified
the collection of the following additional information on soil and growing media:
2.
Characterisation of the production process of soil and growing media in relation to the
possible presence of harmful organisms. This was done as a separate activity by the team
member working at SoilCaresResearch with a phytopathological education. SoilCares aims to
contribute globally to a sustainable agricultural production by developing widely available and
affordable methods for soil and crop quality assessment as well as management
recommendations. The applied method was expert judgement and knowledge based on the
most important scientific literature. Based on the inventory of treatments that followed from
the data extraction, a final list of relevant and possible treatments was defined. These
treatments were then associated with the identified types of soil and growing media. In doing
so, soils and growing media were merged into categories with comparable production
processes.
Association of soils and growing media with requirements following from private certification
schemes. A separate review of existing relevant certification schemes was performed. This
was not included in the ELS approach as it concerns only a small number of certification
schemes and regulations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: INVENTORY 2
An Extensive Literature Search (ELS) was performed to compile an inventory of plant pests, plant
pathogens, weeds and invasive plants that can be associated with the soil and growing media (if
relevant components thereof) identified in Inventory 1. We will further refer to this list as Inventory 2.
In specific, this inventory includes:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
The quarantine organisms listed in the Council Directive 2000/29/EC;
the organisms addressed by emergency measures in the EU;
the organisms included in the EPPO pest lists (A1 and A2 lists of organisms recommended for
regulation, Alert lists);
cases of the most important emergency risks of plant health concerns that are not listed in the
EU regulation.
The ELS was performed according to EFSA’s guidance document for performing systematic reviews
(EFSA, 2010). The review question was defined as follows:
“Which organisms harmful to plants (i.e. plant pests, plant pathogens, weeds and invasive plants) can
be associated with soil and growing media?”
The list with harmful organisms has been limited to organisms that can be associated with soil. Mites,
based on their biology, are not considered to have an association with soil/growing medium and
therefore are not included in the search list. In agreement with this, a search in the CAB Abstracts
database for relevant records regarding species such as: Eutetranychus lewisi, E. orientalis,
Oligonychus perditus, and Aculops fuchsiae has yielded no records apart from three (for E. orientalis)
that were all not relevant. Other group of pests such as psyllids, aphids and whiteflies are not included
in the search terms based on their biology and life cycle as there is no clear association with soil, and
if any records are retrieved would be most likely not relevant as it was the case for the mites.
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
11
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
To avoid the ambiguous use of terminology, the following definitions were applied:
Plant pest: Any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to plants or
plant products (ISPM 5). However, in this specific call, the term ‘plant pest’ does not include the
pathogens and the weeds/invasive plants; the term is restricted to insects, acari, nematodes.
Plant pathogens: Micro-organisms (including viruses and viroids) causing disease to plants (ISPM 5)
Weed: A plant growing where it is not wanted. Generally used to describe plants which colonize
readily, and can compete for resources with a planted crop (FAO)
Invasive plant: Plants that are introduced accidently or deliberately into a natural environment where
they are not normally found, with serious negative consequences for their new environment (adapted
from
the
definition
of
‘Invasive
Alien
Species’
in
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/).
Plants: Living plants and parts thereof, including seeds and germplasm (ISPM 5)
Harmful organisms for plants: Any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent
injurious to plants or plant products. (Council Directive 2000/29/EC)
2.1.
Search strategy
Literature on harmful organisms for plants was considered only if these organisms were associated
with soil and growth media. Studies were included if they: a) relate to organisms that are harmful to
plants and are currently regulated in the EU (including those considered as emerging risks) or are
recommended for regulation (EPPO), or are not listed in the EU regulation but considered to pose an
important emergency risk for plant health, and b) describe the association of these organisms harmful
to plants with soil and growing media that have a (potential) end use in an agricultural or natural
environment. To demarcate the search on organisms considered as an “emerging risk”, a pre-selection
of organisms representative for this category was done in consultation with EFSA. Studies were
excluded if they: a) consider organisms comprising (only) a threat other than to plant health (microorganisms affecting animal/human health, food safety, etc.), or b) consider import of organisms
harmful to plants that is not associated with the soil and growing media (e.g. active transport of the
pest/pathogen/weed/invasive plant itself).
Other criteria were that the study has been published in the time period of 2004-2014 and that it
comprises an English or Dutch abstract. In consistency with Inventory 1 search strategy, Dutch studies
were included since the Netherlands are a key player in the horticultural industry.
In consistency with Inventory 1 search strategy, the literature search for Inventory 2 was restricted to
one bibliographic scientific database. This search yielded a large number of records and searching in
grey literature would cause the ELS to become unmanageable, while such search would provide
limited added value. CAB abstracts was selected as primary search database as this database covers by
far the most journals relevant for the scope of the project.
The search terms for Inventory 2 included:
1. The names of the harmful organisms (pests, pathogens and weeds/invasive plants) that fall in
one of the four categories:
a. quarantine organisms listed in the Council Directive 2000/29/EC,
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
12
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
b. organisms addressed by emergency measures in the EU,
c. organisms included in the EPPO pest lists (A1 and A2 lists of organisms
recommended for regulation, Alert lists),
d. predefined organisms considered to pose an important emerging risk for plant health
that are not listed in the EU regulation, see Appendix D
2. The soils and growing media identified in Inventory 1.
Search terms in category 1 included the synonyms of the organisms that have been used in the last ten
years. For pathogens, insects and nematodes, these synonyms were retrieved from the CABI
Thesaurus and EPPO pest datasheets. The weeds selected for the screening included the only genus
listed in the EU Directive, seven species from the EPPO Lists and two species suggested as posing an
emerging risk. The selection of the weed species among those listed in the EPPO Lists was based on
the information in the Q-Bank database (http://www.q-bank.eu) and the Invasive Species
Compendium datasheets (http://www.cabi.org/isc) regarding their invasiveness, negative agricultural
and environmental impact and their means of distribution listing contaminated growth media as a way
for dispersal - i.e. not by animals, wind etc. Weed species were also selected to cover all requested
growth habitats (i.e. terrestrial, aquatic and parasitic plants). Synonyms for the selected weeds were
obtained from the EPPO pest datasheets (http://www.eppo.int/INVASIVE_PLANTS/ias_lists.htm)
and the Invasive Species Compendium datasheets (http://www.cabi.org/isc).
For bacteria, fungi, insects and weeds/invasive plants, the search was performed using the name and
synonyms of one organism each time, combined with OR, as it was expected that the search would
retrieve a large amount of records and keeping the records separated per organism would allow a more
efficient handling of them. For nematodes, viruses and phytoplasmas, the search was performed using
the names and synonyms of all organisms within each taxonomic group at once, combined with OR, as
the number of retrieved records was expected to be smaller.
The search for Inventory 2 started when approximately 60% of the Inventory 1 records had been
processed, leading to a list of about 900 terms on soils and growing media, hereafter referred to as
‘Intermediate list of soil and growing media terms’. Upon completion of Inventory 1, an additional list
of about 150 terms was compiled and used to search for the Inventory 2, hereafter referred to as
“Additional list of soil and growing media terms”. In this second list, it was agreed with EFSA not to
include crop names, as this information was to be covered by the data extraction from the EPPO PQR
database (https://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm) on the host plants for the harmful
organisms under study. The lists of search terms used are included in Appendix C.
The search for Inventory 2 was performed in two phases:
Phase A: The search was performed for bacteria, fungi, viruses, phytoplasmas, insects, nematodes and
weeds/invasive plants in combination with the ‘Intermediate list of soil and growing media terms’.
The search strategy is shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Search strategy for Inventory 2: Phase A
Searches
Set #1
Set #2
Set #3
Combination of search terms
Time period of ten years, combined with OR
Intermediate list of soil and growing media terms, combined with OR
Name and synonyms of a harmful organism, combined with OR
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
13
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
Set #4
Set #1 AND #2 AND #3
Phase B: The search was performed for bacteria, fungi, viruses, insects, phytoplasmas, nematodes and
weeds/invasive plants in combination with the ‘Additional list of soil and growing media terms’. The
search strategy is shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Search strategy for Inventory 2: Phase B
Searches
Set #1
Set #2
Set #3
Set #4
Set #5
Set #6
Combination of search terms
Intermediate list of soil and growing media terms, combined with OR
Additional list of soil and growing media terms, combined with OR
2 NOT 1
Time period of ten years, combined with OR
3 AND 4
5 AND name and synonyms of a harmful organism combined with OR
An overview of screening criteria and results of the screening process is presented in Table 5. The
final result of the bibliographic database search yielded a total of 7611 records, as shown in Table 6. It
is noted that certain records were given more than one of the screening codes listed in Table 5, e.g.
‘INCLUDE: Included for data extraction’ and ‘INCLUDE: organism is a VECTOR of an eligible
pest’, depending on the information presented in the abstract. The approach and results of the search
strategy are presented in Figure 2.
Additional information was retrieved from EPPO PQR database and Datasheets and PRA’s (Pest Risk
Analysis) as presented on the website of EPPO (www.eppo.org). The EPPO PQR database contains
an overview of host plants of harmful organisms. Since a considerable part of the soil and growing
media are from plant origin, the host plants (Latin names) of the harmful organisms listed in the EPPO
PQR database were compared with the soil and growing media from plant origin (Latin names).
Datasheets and PRA’s of harmful organisms contain systematic information about host plants and
means of dispersal of harmful organisms. Since these documents contain relevant information about
soil and growing media additional to the extensive literature search, data have been extracted.
Furthermore, we have investigated whether Europhyt, the European database in which interceptions of
harmful organisms are registered, contains relevant information which can be systematically retrieved,
but this appeared not to be the case.
2.2. Screening of records
The records were screened on title and abstract by a team of six people: a bacteriologist, a mycologist,
a virologist, an entomologist, a nematologist and a weed scientist. To guarantee that a consistent
screening procedure was applied by all people, a screening guidance was developed which included a
detailed description of the screening tool, presented in Table 3.3. Records for which no decision could
be made on the basis of abstract screening were marked as a separate category that could optionally be
evaluated at a later stage, depending on the results of the abstract-based data extraction.
Table 5: Overview of screening criteria and results of the screening process
Screening code
Interpretation
# records
Excluded records
EXCLUDE: No abstract Information from the database does not
84
available
include an abstract
EXCLUDE:
Document Ineligible documents include amongst 129
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
% records
1,1%
1,7%
14
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
type not eligible
EXCLUDE:
Reported
study does not deal with
soil and growing media
EXCLUDE:
Reported
study does not deal with an
eligible pest
EXCLUDE:
Reported
study is not focused on
product/soil and growing
media
EXCLUDE:
Reported
study is not focused on pest
EXCLUDE:
Reported
study refers to POSITIVE
effect of the pest on soil
and growing medium
EXCLUDE:
Reported
study is a dose response
study
Included records
INCLUDE: Included for
data extraction
INCLUDE: NEGATIVE
effect of soil and growing
medium on the pest
INCLUDE:
STIMULATING impact on
harmful organisms
INCLUDE: plant material
INFECTED by eligible
pest, BUT not clearly
associated with soil/Gm
INCLUDE: organism is a
VECTOR of an eligible
pest
others, letters to the editor or proceeding
introductions. N.B. document types like
books, book chapters or reports are eligible
The record does not address soils or
growing media that are (potentially)
2,961
associated with plant production (e.g.
culture medium for multiplying pathogens)
Eligible plant pests are those currently
regulated in the EU (quarantine, or
addressed by emergency measures), or 346
recommended for regulation (EPPO), or
included in the list as emerging risks.
The study is not focused on a product/soil
and growing medium.
2,505
The pest is not the focus of the study.
The pest has a beneficial role for the soil
and growing medium.
Study included if: a) related to organisms
that are harmful to plants and are currently
regulated in the EU (including those
considered as emerging risks) or are
recommended for regulation (EPPO); AND
b) describe the association of these
organisms harmful to plants with soil and
growing media that have a (potential) end
use in an agricultural or natural
environment. Proceed with data extraction.
The study contains data showing that a
growing medium/soil amendment has a
negative impact on an eligible pest.
The addition of a soil/growing medium
enhances growth of a pest, but this
soil/growing medium does not 'carry' this
pest itself.
The study refers to infection of plants/plant
material by a pest (e.g. description of
symptoms), but it does not mention this
plant material as ingredient of a growing
medium.
The study refers to the vector of an eligible
pest.
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
38,9%
4,5%
32,9%
8
0,1%
41
0,5%
20
0,3%
453
6,0%
500
6,6%
51
0,7%
406
5,3%
72
0,9%
15
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
INCLUDE: no decision The information included in the title and
102
possible based on abstract
abstract is not sufficient.
2.3.
1,4%
Data extraction
As presented in Table 6, a total of 1,563 records resulted from the screening stage as eligible for
abstract-based data extraction. It is noted that certain records were given more than one of the
screening codes listed in Table 5, depending on the information presented in the abstract. For all
records included for data extraction, the following information was collected:
Name of pest
Type of soil/growing medium from the Inventory 1 list, associated with the pest
For those records where there was evidence of the pest surviving in a soil/growing medium, the
following additional information was collected:
Stage of life cycle associated with soil/growing medium
Association with plant tissue
Survival length
Geographical location where the study was conducted
Geographical location of pest in the study
Source of harmful organism
Detection/identification method
Conditions tested for pest survival
Table 6: Overview of results of the screening process per taxonomic group
Taxonomic group
Bacteria
Fungi
Viruses
Phytoplasmas
Insects
Nematodes
Weeds/invasive plants
Total number of records
# records
retrieved from
CAB database
1,140
738
353
185
3,802
476
917
7,611
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
# records
selected for
data extraction
538
195
12
80
623
75
40
1,563
16
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
CAB abstracts
Search output, uploaded in Endnote and then in EPPI
Bacteria: 1140
records
Fungi: 738
records
Viruses: 353
records
Phytoplasmas: 185
records
Insects: 3802
records
Nematodes: 476
records
weeds/invasive
plants: 917 records
Nematodes: 75
records
weeds/invasive
plants: 40 records
Screening
Selected records for data extraction
Bacteria: 538
records
Fungi: 195
records
Viruses: 12
records
Phytoplasmas: 80
records
Insects: 623
records
Figure 2: Schematic overview of the search and screening procedure for Inventory 2,
including number of records resulting at each stage
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
17
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
3.
RESULTS
Results have been stored in Excel data files with the following names:
Inventory 1:
Data extraction: ‘final results v2 including latin name.xlsx’
Data extraction: ‘pathways.xlsx’
Processing of soil and growing media: ‘treatments soil and growing media.xlsx’
Inventory 2, data extraction:
Nematodes: ‘final results inv II nematodes.xlsx’
Bacteria: ‘final results inv II bacteria.xlsx’
Phytoplasmas: ‘final results inv II phytoplasmas.xlsx’
Fungi: ‘final results inv II fungi.xlsx’
Weeds: ‘final results inv II weeds.xlsx’
Viruses: ‘final results inv II viruses.xlsx’
Insects: ‘final results inv II insects.xlsx’
Inventory 2, additional information (source of harmful organism, life cycle stage):
__TABLE_NEMATODES (vs. SOIL_GM – SOURCE OF HO - LIFE STAGE)
__TABLE_BACTERIA (vs. SOIL_GM – SOURCE OF HO - LIFE STAGE)
__TABLE_INSECTS_ACARI (vs. SOIL_GM – SOURCE OF HO - LIFE STAGE)
__TABLE_FUNGI (vs. SOIL_GM – SOURCE OF HO - LIFE STAGE)
__TABLE_WEEDS_PARASITIC PLANTS (vs. SOIL_GM – SOURCE OF HO - LIFE STAGE)
3.1.
Results of Inventory 1: Soil and growing media
Data extraction
A final list of soil and growing media as output of the data extraction has been compiled, in which
types of soil and growing media are classified in the following structure:
1. Bulkcategories
a. Animal manure: manure (including leachate) of animal origin, e.g. cow / cattle
manure, pig manure, chicken/ broiler/ poultry litter, guano (bat manure) goat dreg,
poultry refuse, sheep droppings, steer manure, swine waste, fish manure
b. Commercial products: brands representing growing media with a predefined
composition of single components and a standardized quality level.
c. Hydroponic system/ soilless culture: floating cultivation
d. Mycorrhiza and microorganisms
e. Other products from animal origin; growing media of animal origin not animal
manure such as blood meal, bone meal etc.
f. Sterilized growing media: (in vitro) culture media such as agar, sterilized water etc.
g. Wetting agents: a substance that reduces the surface tension of a liquid
2. Material from plant origin
a. Catch and cover crops/ weeds
b. Other material from plant origin
c. Wood (-based) or forest soil and growing media
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
18
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
d. Processed products from plant origin including waste and residues
3. Inorganic and industrial / municipal material
a. Soil and growing mediaof natural origin
b. Processed anorganic soil and growing media
c. Municipal and industrial waste.
The following criteria were used for the development of this structure:
1. The bulk categories have been defined to cover all growing media of which containing
harmful organisms can be excluded or that further subdivision does not make sense, because
the composition of the medium is still unclear.
2. Since growing media of plant origin form a major risk for containing harmful organisms and a
major category in the growing media, they are distinguished from other growing media. The
subdivision within this group is made for the following reasons. Catch and cover crops and
weeds are not soil and growing media by themselves, but by mixing them with the soil, they
can be part of the mixture. Wood (-based) or forest s&gm are a major category because
forestry pests are an important category of harmful organisms. Particle size can be an indicator
of the level of risk and in legislation this category is separately addressed (e.g. in the annexes
of Council Directive 2000/029/EC. Furthermore processing material of plant origin can affect
the level of risk of containing harmful organisms.
3. In the anorganic categories, the subdivision is based on processing intentionally (processed
anorganic soil and growing media) or unintentionally (municipal and industrial) waste.
Furthermore within each category, additional subcategories are made. For material from plant origin,
all growing media based on plant parts are clustered at species level. Finally, within each category,
duplications have been removed and the soil and growing media are put in alphabetical order. The
categories also reflect the intended use such as manure (fertilization), catch and cover crops,
mycorrhiza, wetting agents, if sufficient information was available. However, making a distinction
between soil improvement and growing medium could not be made on the basis of the information
presented in the abstracts.
Additionally, pathways are scored if the abstract contains sufficient information. The following
pathways are distinguished:
1. Associated with plant production
2. Associated with natural environment
3. Adhering soil
4. Commodity.
Processing of soil and growing media
A table with main categories of soil and growing media on one axis and the processes on the other axis
has been constructed in which all potential combinations are identified and the potential impact of the
process on the risk of containing harmful organisms.
Certification schemes
Within Europe, three organizations deal with certification of soil and growing media applied by
consumers and professional organizations as a substrate for plant growth:
1. RHP, The Netherlands. This organization manages 6 quality marks: RHP Horticulture, RHP
Consumer, RHP Mushrooms, RAG Green Roof, RAG Landscaping and RAG Soil supply.
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
19
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
The RHP distinguishes itself from other organization by a full chain control. This implies that
not only the product will be checked, but also the whole production and transport process to
the customer. The main aspects on which the growing media are checked are chemical aspects
(raw material and fertilizers), physical aspects and phytosanitary aspects. The certification
body MPS (Milieu Project Sierteel)-ECAS is responsible for supervising compliance with the
requirements. The surveillance exists of audits at (peat)-extraction locations, as well as
production-facilities. Additionally products are sampled and analysed. The product-sampling
is intended to ensure that production-processes are managed in compliance with the
requirements. Sampled peat products are analysed on weeds, Plasmodiophora brassicae and
nematodes. The assessment of these organisms offers a clear indication of the overall
phytosanitary status of the product. The methods for analysing the organisms are practically
feasible and reliable. For weeds a germination test will be performed. To test the presence of
Plasmodiophora brassicae, susceptible brassicaea are grown on samples to determine whether
they become infested. The Oostenbrink elutriator is applied to extract free living nematodes,
the Kort elutriator to extract cyst nematodes and the Bearmann funnel to extract
Bursaphelenchus ssp.
The results provide the necessary insight into the phytosanitary status of the products.
2. In Appendix E an overview is given of the nematodes for which peat is analysed. The results
of the tests are stored in a database that is not publicly available. Peat cannot be harvested in
agricultural areas and growing media have to be free from harmful organisms and weeds.
Source: www.rhp.nl/en/professional/
3. GGS, Germany. The GGS (Gütegemeinschaft für Pflanzen e.V.) manages the following
growing media: bark, growing media, flower potting soils, constituents, expanded clay
granules, substrates for roof gardens and substrates for tree planting. No exhaustive list of
single components of the different growing media can be presented, since members of GGS
have to provide the recipe of the growing medium, which will be checked. In Germany
growing media which can be applied by professional users are listed in table 7 of the fertilizer
law (Verordnung über das Inverkehrbringen von Düngemitteln, Bodenhilfsstoffen,
Kultursubstraten und Planzenhilfsmitteln (Düngemittelverordnung – DüMV), vom 5.
Dezember 2012.) Source: www.substrate-ev.org/home.html?L=1
4. CAS, France. (Le Chambre Syndicale des Ameliorants Organique et Support de Culture)
source: www.cas-asso.com/fr/La-CAS/Les-permanents. The website contains only
information in French. A request has been submitted by email for clarification but not
responded.
3.2.
Results of Inventory 2
Data extraction
The results of the data extraction of Inventory 2 are presented in Excel files. For each of the taxonomic
groups (see Appendix C) separate tables were created. On each table harmful organisms are
horizontally presented in alphabetical order and the soil and growing media vertically, similar as the
presentation of the results of Inventory 1.
Each file contains at least
-
the result of the data extraction of the ELS (sheet entitled ‘positive relationships’) (a),
-
the EPPO PQR database (sheet entitled ‘EPPO PQR) (except weeds) (b) and
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
20
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
-
the EPPO datasheets and PRAs (sheet entitled ‘EPPO PRA and DS’) (c).
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
21
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
The results of all taxonomic groups are summarized in a separate sheet entitled ‘summary’ in which
the codes have the following meaning (based on the EPPO PQR, User Manual):
No information
Major
Minor
Incidental
wild/weed
artificial
unclassified
alternate
Uncertain
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-1
The same codes are applied in the sheets entitled ‘EPPO PQR’ for all taxonomic groups except weeds.
This EPPO user’s manual provides the following explanation of the codes; ‘Major hosts are defined as
precisily as possible, usually at the species level. Minor hosts are frequently whole genera, but like the
other host categories they may also be plant families, or non-taxonomic groupings of plants, such as
‘woody plants’. Incidental hosts are hosts when a pest is found on a plant but it is not known whether
it can complete its life cycle on it. In the case of unclassified host no details are available. Alternate
hosts are hosts when two unrelated host species feature in the life cycle of a pest.
The codes of the EPPO datasheets and PRA datasheets (sheet entitled ‘EPPO PRA and DS’ for all
taxonomic groups have the following meaning:
Evidence of relationship (unclassified)
Uncertain relationship
1
-1
‘Uncertain’ means that on the basis of the difference in the taxonomic level between the host of a
harmful organism and the plant material used as growing medium the relationship the risk of
containing harmful organisms neither can be confirmed nor excluded.
The codes in the datasheets entitled ‘positive relationship’ (all taxonomic groups) mean the number of
records in which the relationship between harmful organism and soil and growing medium is
provided.
Furthermore, the files can contain the following sheets based on the data extraction of the ELS:
‘Negative relationship’: the soil or growing medium has a suppresive impact on the harmful
organism.
‘Stimulating relationship’: the soil or growing medium has a stimulating relationship.
‘Vector’: organism acts as a vector for Harmful organisms.
‘Geographical origin-Detection’ (only phytoplasma’s): the geographical origin of the harmful
organism is reported as well as the method by which the harmful organism is detected.
The codes in these datasheets also mean the number of records in which the relationship between
harmful organism and soil and growing medium is provided.
Finally, the sheets contain at the bottom of the sheets ‘positive relationship’ and ‘negative
relationship’ additional information about the geographical origin of the pest used in the particular
study, the study, the life cycle stage of the organism, the association with plant tissue, survival length,
source of harmful organism, detection – identification method, and conditions tested for pest survival.
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
22
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
In separate Word-files for each relevant taxonomic group, the source of the harmful organism and the
life cycle stage are presented per record for each soil and growing medium.
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
23
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
4.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Although an ELS is intended to provided exhaustive evidence, some demarcations had to be made
because of project management related reasons:
Generic terms such as ‘soil’ and ‘compost’ had to be excluded
Screening and data extraction are based on abstracts
Only English and Dutch abstracts in Inventory 1 and only English abstracts are included in
Inventory 2.
No plant names of plants without specified plant parts from the second part of the results of
Inventory 1 are included in the second search strategy of Inventory 2, because of the overlap
with the data from the EPPO PQR database.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Those limitations may have the consequence that not every soil and growing medium type is included
in the list. This conclusion is enhanced by the observations made during data extraction. Since most
records regard scientific papers presenting results of research and experiments, the records do not
contain evidence about practical use of soil and growing media, but only use in experiments. It is
obvious that in many cases, material of plant species which are locally available is used to produce a
growing medium. Therefore, no plant species can be excluded as a source for production of growing
media.
It became also apparent during data extraction of Inventory 1 that soil and growing media cannot be
sharply demarcated and distinguished from other categories such as fertilizers, manure, catch and
cover crops, toppings etc.
Those observations feed the discussion whether the application of methods such as a systematic
review and extensive literature search is the most effective and efficient method under all
circumstances. The research question dealt with in this report has a number of characteristics that
complicate the use of such rigid methods:
Very broad scope
Difference in relevance (e.g. phytosanitary risk, movement) and current knowledge status
The use of “bulk terms” which complicates the definition of a search strategy that is
sufficiently specific and sensitive
“Experimental use” of soil and growing media particularly informal. This is not recorded in
scientific literature
Continuous evolution of the domain, with new products being investigated and applied and
virtually any organic substance being hypothetically feasible as growing medium
These complications encourage a thorough consideration of methodological aspects in future similar
situations, such as:
A precise definition of the objective of a review and specification of the insights that are to be
obtained from it, including distinction between what is known already and which information
is still lacking;
Narrowing down the review question or defining several review questions at a level that
enables the formulation of sufficiently specific eligibility criteria and selection of those studies
that contribute to the defined knowledge demand;
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
24
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
25
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
Critical evaluation of the suitability of information sources in relation to the required insights
to be obtained. A broad (scientific) literature search may not always be the most efficient
choice, for instance in the following cases:
- (Scientific) literature may not always accurately reflect the current state of art, for
instance if there’s a high rate of innovation or many developments take place in a notscientific environment; in such cases, alternative methods such as interviewing
experts or stakeholders may be more efficient;
- Information about the topic of interest is highly condensed in a few specific
information sources, such as proceedings of media conferences, in which case a
directed search through reviews and thematic issues (e.g. Acta Horticulturae) may
then be more efficient.
It is therefore recommended to evaluate in which cases an extensive literature search is the most
appropriate tool to apply.
REFERENCES
EU, 2000. Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the
introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their
spread within the Community. Official Journal of the European Communities L 169/1, 10.7.2000,
pp. 1-122.
EFSA, 2010. Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to
supportdecision
making.
EFSA
Journal
2010;
8(6):1637,
90
pp.
DOI:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1637EPPO, 2009/ PQR – Plant Quarantine Data Retrieval System; The
EPPO database on quarantine pests; User’s manual PQR Version 5.
FAO, 2007. Glossary of phytosanitary terms. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, ISPM
No.5, FAO, Rome.
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
26
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
APPENDICES
Appendix A.
Search Terms Inventory 1
CAB search terms
1. (adher* adj3 soil? or attach* adj3 soil?)
2.
growing med* mix* or growing mix or growing mixes or growing mixture? or pot mix* or pot
soil mix* or potted soil mix* or potting material* or potting med* mix* or potting mix* or
potting soil mix* or different potting or various potting or ((pot soil? or potted soil? or potting or
growing media or growing medium? or growing substrat*) adj10 (component? or composed or
composing or composition? or contained or containing or manufactur* or process*))
3.
container crop? or container cultivation or container culture? or container grown plant? or
container plant? or "plant? in pot?" or pot culture? or pot cultivation or pot grown plant? or pot
plant? or potplant? or potted plant? or potting plant? or bulb? or bud stick? or budstick? or bud
wood? or budling? or budwood? or cuttings or graft wood? or grafting wood? or graftings or
graftwood? or nurser* or ornamental crop? or ornamental plant? or ornamentals or planting
material? or planting stock? or "plants for planting" or rhizome? or "root stock?" or rootstock? or
scion? or seed tuber? or seedling? or stock type? or stocktype? or stolon* or transplant* or
vegetative propagation or exp bulbs or exp vegetative propagation or exp ornamental crops or exp
ornamental plants or exp planting stock or exp seed tubers
4.
agricultural waste? or bark compost* or bio waste? or biowaste? or fruit waste? or growing
media or growing medium? or horticultural waste? or hydroponic* or mulch* or organic
amendment? or organic fertilizer? or organic waste? or pot soil? or potted soil? or potsoil* or
potting media or potting medium? or potting soil? or soil conditioner? or soil mix* or soilless
culture? or substrat* or uncomposted or vegetable waste? or exp agricultural wastes or exp
organic amendments or exp organic wastes or exp soilless culture
5.
3 and 4
6.
(2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007 or 2008 or 2009 or 201?).yr
7.
1 and 6
8.
2 and 6
9.
5 and 6
10. 7 or 8 or 9
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
27
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
AGRIS search terms:
1. (adher* adj3 soil? or attach* adj3 soil?)
2. growing med* mix* or growing mix or growing mixes or growing mixture? or pot mix* or pot
soil mix* or potted soil mix* or potting material* or potting med* mix* or potting mix* or
potting soil mix* or different potting or various potting or ((pot soil? or potted soil? or potting
or growing media or growing medium? or growing substrat*) adj10 (component? or composed
or composing or composition? or contained or containing or manufactur* or process*))
3. annuals or container crop? or container cult* or container grown or container plant* or "plant?
in pot?" or pot cult* or pot grown or pot plant* or potplant? or potted plant? or potting plant?
or bulb? or bud stick? or budstick? or bud wood? or budling? or budwood? or cuttings or graft
wood? or grafting* or graftwood? or nurser* or ornamental crop? or ornamental plant? or
ornamentals or perennials or plant* material? or plant* stock? or plant propagation or "plants
for planting" or rhizome? or "root stock?" or rootstock? or scion? or seed potato* or seed
tuber? or seedling? or stock type? or stocktype? or stolon* or transplant* or vegetative
propagation or exp grafting or exp ornamental plants or exp plant propagation or exp
vegetative propagation
4. agricultural waste? or bark compost* or bark product? or bio waste? or biowaste? or fruit
waste? or growing media or growing medium? or horticultural waste? or hydroponic* or
mulch* or organic amendment? or organic fertilizer? or organic waste? or pot soil? or potted
soil? or potsoil* or potting compost? or potting media or potting medium? or potting soil? or
soil conditioner? or soil mix* or soilless culture? or substrat* or uncomposted or vegetable
waste? or exp agricultural wastes or exp crop residues or exp organic amendments or exp
organic fertilizers or exp organic wastes or exp soilless culture
5. 3 and 4
6. (2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007 or 2008 or 2009 or 201?).yr
7. 1 and 6
8. 2 and 6
9. 5 and 6
10. 7 or 8 or 9
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
28
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
ARTIK search strategy:
1. (AANHANGEND* OR ADHER*) AND (GROND* OR SOIL*)
2. POTGROND* OR "POTTING MIX" OR "POTTING MIXES" OR "POTTING MIXTURE"
OR "POTTING MIXTURES" OR ((GROEIMED* OR "GROWING MEDIUM" OR
"GROWING MEDIA" OR "POTTING SOIL" OR "POTTING SOILS" OR SUBSTRAAT*
OR SUBSTRAT*) AND (COMPONENT* OR COMPOSITION* OR FABRICAGE* OR
GRONDSTOF* OR MENGSEL* OR MIX* OR PROCES* OR PRODUCTIE* OR
SAMENSTELLING*))
3. (BUDWOOD OR BULB* OR "CONTAINER CROP" OR "CONTAINER CROPS" OR
"CONTAINER CULTIVATION" OR "CONTAINER CULTURE" OR "CONTAINER
PLANT" OR "CONTAINER PLANTS" OR "POT PLANT" OR "POT PLANTS" OR
"POTTED PLANT" OR "POTTED PLANTS" OR RHIZOME* OR SEEDLING* OR
AFENTEN OR AFLEGGEN OR BLADKNOPSTEK* OR BLADSTEK* OR BLOEMBOL*
OR BOLLEN* OR "BOLLETJES EN KNOLLETJES ALS PLANTGOED" OR
BOOMKWEKERIJ* OR BOLROKKEN OR CONTAINERPLANT* OR
CONTAINERTEELT* OR ENTEN OR ENTHOUT* OR ENTMATERIA* OR GRAFT* OR
GROENHOUTSTEK* OR HALFHARDHOUTSTEK* OR HARDHOUTSTEK* OR
KWEKERIJ* OR MICROVERMEERDERING OR OCULATIEHOUT* OR OCULEREN
OR "ONDERGRONDSE UITLOPER" OR "ONDERGRONDSE UITLOPERS" OR
ONDERSTAM* OR PLANTGOED* OR PLANTENKWEKERIJ* OR
PLANTENVERMEERDERING* OR PLANTMATERIA* OR POOTKNOL* OR
POTPLANT* OR SCHEUTSTEK* OR SIERGEWAS* OR SIERPLANT* OR SIERTEELT*
OR STEKHOUT* OR STEKKELING* OR STEKKEN OR STEKMATERIA* OR
STENTEN OR VASTEPLANTENKWEKERIJ* OR "VEGETATIEVE
VERMEERDERING" OR VERMEERDERINGSMATERIAAL* OR VERPLANT* OR
WORTELSTEK* OR ZAAILING* OR ZACHTHOUTSTEK*) AND (AEROPONIC* OR
BIOWASTE* OR "GROWING MEDIA" OR "GROWING MEDIUM" OR HYDROPONIC*
OR MULCH* OR "SOIL CONDITIONERS" OR AARDAPPELAFVAL* OR
"AGRARISCHE AFVALSTOFFEN" OR BODEMVERBETERAAR* OR "COMPOST VAN
SCHORS" OR "CULTUUR ZONDER GROND" OR FRUITAFVAL* OR GROEIMEDIA
OR GROEIMEDIUM* OR GRONDMENGSEL* OR GRONDVERBETERAAR* OR
HYDROCULTUUR* OR LANDBOUWAFVAL* OR MEST OR "ORGANISCH AFVAL"
OR "ORGANISCHE MESTSTOFFEN" OR "ORGANISCHE VERBETERAARS" OR
SUBSTRAAT* OR SUBSTRAT* OR TOMATENAFVAL* OR TUINBOUWAFVAL* OR
VOEDINGSFILMSYSTEEM*)
4. 1 or 2 or 3
5. 4 and jaar=2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013,2014
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
29
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
Appendix B Guidance for title & abstract screening of Inventory I
FAQ
1) How to interpret the exclusion criterion “does not deal with soil or Gm”?
All records in the list somehow mention a product that can possibly be used, or interpreted, as soil or
Gm. How should we distinguish between records containing relevant information and records that
don’t?
Answer:
Records should be excluded for not dealing with soil or Gm only in the case that they describe a
product without any relation to plant production and/or trade/movement. Examples of such records
are:
- Piccarolo (2006): leaves and prunings....: deals with treatment of biowaste that results
from pruning.
- Costa et al. (2008): performance, carcass...: deals with livestock research.
2) How to classify records mentioning, but not focusing on soil or Gm?
There were quite some records that in fact describe a soil or Gm, although not as the main subject.
“not focusing on soil or Gm”. How should we classify these records? In the test sample, the exclusion
criterion “does not deal with soil or Gm” was quite frequently selected.
Answer:
Including all studies incidentally mentioning a soil or Gm while not actually with it, is inefficient as
this will yield many records, most of which do not provide additional information. Yet, it is incorrect
to identify them as “not dealing with soil or Gm”. We conclude that another exclusion criterion is
required here, which we define as “focus not on soil & Gm”. This criterion applies if the objective and
conclusions of the study are independent of the choice for a particular soil or Gm.
Examples of records applying to this exclusion criterion:
- Keski-Saari et al. (2007): phenolics ...: study on plant metabolism, Gm not considered as
dependent variable;
- Farina et al. (2007): automation of...: study on irrigation technology; gm not considered
as dependent variable.
- Cao et al. (2007): effects of lanthanum....: study on effect of radiation without any
relation to the gm.
3) How to interpret the exclusion criterion “not (intended to be) used commercially”?
Most records do not explicitly contain evidence of commercial use of a soil or Gm. To which kind of
records is this exclusion criterion aimed? Should abstracts of studies taking place under experimental
circumstances be excluded on this criterion
Answer:
It appeared that commercial use is an ambiguous term. Soil and Gm may be studied in an experimental
environment prior to, or in parallel with their commercial use. Also, what to do with soils used in
environmental contexts? Therefore, the exclusion criterion is replaced with two alternative ones (see
last page of document):
Exclude: dose response study (nutrients, pH, salinity, ...)
This category includes studies evaluating the correlation between plant growth and particular
physical/chemical characteristics in a growing medium, e.g. different levels of nutrient concentration,
salinity, pH, spore elements. They do not have an intention to investigate the suitability of the
“carrying” substrate or Gm itself.
Examples of studies to be excluded on this criterion are:
- Oki et al. (2007): effect of nutrient levels...: solutions with different nutrient compositions
to study effect of nutrient on plant.
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
30
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
-
Garlet et al. (2007): Growth and essential...: nutrient solutions varying in potassium to
study effect of nutrient on plant.
N.B. These studies are essentially different from studies evaluating the soil or Gm itself for its
chemical/physical characteristics, and which should not be excluded! An example of such nonexcluded study is:
- “Schroeder et al. (2004): Gas composition...”: physical characteristics under investigation
are related to substrate suitability.
Exclude: s & gm unlikely to be moved
Records to be excluded for this reason are those dealing with soil or Gm for which it is obvious that
they are not being moved (un)deliberately elsewhere. Here, movement can be (1) as commodity, (2) as
contaminant / adhering soil, or (3) with harvested crops (including, but not exclusively, plants for
planting). Soil and gm used in an agricultural context will almost always be subject to (possible)
movement as they may at some moment be used for the cultivation of seeds or plants for planting.
Soils used in an environmental context may in some cases be subject to movement, e.g. if conservation
areas are treated for some reason or endangered plants are multiplied elsewhere.
Examples of records excluded based on this criterion are:
- Anderson et al. (2004): Establishment, growth...: effect of substrate characteristics on
vegetation recovery after disturbance.
- ZongQiang et al. (2007): effects of soil-moisture...: study of desert steppe soils in relation
to climate change.
4) When to use the exclusion criterion “not used in natural or agricultural environment”?
Considering the reformulation suggested under question 2, this exclusion criterion is considered
redundant.
5) Which products are considered as soil or Gm?
Certain records deal with additions (amendments) made to a soil, such as fertilizers, cover material,
and soil improvers. Should we include these records? And does the original soil of Gm that is
amended with a product need to be included in the data extraction?
Answer:
Soil and Gm include all types of amendments, so data extraction should include these amendments as
well. N.B. amendments can also comprise microorganisms, such as mycorrhiza and trichoderma
(fungi).
Whether the amended soil or Gm is of interest as well depends on the context: see also the answer to
question 4 about this.
6)
How to deal with abstracts referring to hydroponic solutions:
Some records refer to hydroponic solutions. These solutions seem not to fall in Gm categories
that the ELR focuses: transferred as commodities, attached to plants for planting or
contaminants for products. Do we exclude them? and which excluding criterion should we
choose?
Answer:
Hydroponics refer to the system, and a hydroponic system contains a growing medium as well
including water cultivation (i.e. water with nutrients), but also water-irrigated substrates such as
rockwool. Hydroponics being used as substrate is thus no valid reason for exclusion. If however a
hydroponic system is used for testing crop sensitivity to particular elements (e.g. nutrients), the record
may be excluded; see answer to question 3.
7)
How to deal with records referring to in vitro media and other sterilized media?
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
31
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
Sterilized media can strongly vary in composition and are frequently mentioned. Yet, their relevance is
questionable, because they are mostly used for screening genotypes or basic research and are (usually)
not intended for commercial use. Should we exclude them as 'not intended for commercial use'?
Answer:
In vitro media, as well as all other sterilized media, should be included as they can potentially be used
commercially. However, we agree that the risk of in vitro media is very low and that specifying all
such media is not relevant for the scope of the review. Therefore, a separate category under “include”
will be defined in which in vitro media and other sterilized media, including (liquid or solid) culture
media and sterilized water solutions can be categorized. Provided that EFSA agrees, we will not
include this category in data extraction.
8)
Which level of detail is required for specification of soil and Gm?
Abstracts provide different levels of detail on information on soil and Gm. When do we
consider the mentioned soil(s) and/or Gm sufficiently specified for abstract data extraction,
and when is full text data extraction required?
Answer:
Soil and Gm need to be specified as much as possible at the level of individual components. Apart
from category (e.g. “soil”, “manure”, etc.) we want to know which soil (sand, clay,...), manure (farm
yard, chicken). In case of mixtures (e.g. potting soil), preferably the full composition is required; not
only the main components. In case this information is not (completely) available in the abstract, data
extraction should take place on the basis of full text. In case you are unsure, it’s better to play on safe
and select full text data extraction.
Additional exclusion categories
In addition to the exclusion and inclusion criteria that were already defined and described above, 3
additional criteria have been defined to deal with particular types of records:
- exclude: abstract not available. Although records without an abstract should have been
excluded already in Endnote, there might be incidental cases where an abstract is lacking (as
seen in the sample set).
- Exclude: document type ineligible. Occasionally, a record may comprise a type of document
that is obviously not eligible for data extraction because it is unsuitable. This is for instance
the case with letters to the editor, or introduction papers of conference proceedings. N.B. Book
chapters or scientific reports are in principle eligible. In case you’re not sure about the
eligibility of a document type, consider marking the document as unsure.
- Include: no decision possible based on abstract screening. In some cases, a record does not
contain sufficient information to decide whether or not it should be included. In such case, the
record should be included and subjected to full text screening. This is not the same as deciding
that the record is suitable for full text data extraction! In the latter case, the study does not
meet the exclusion criteria, whereas in the former it might meet one or more exclusion criteria.
Other recommendations
-
Per record, you may only select one answer (i.e. one reason to exclude or include). The
category “unsure” comprises an exception; this answer can be selected in addition to another
one (the most likely answer).
In case you’re not fully sure, it’s better to remain on the safe side, e.g. opt for “unsure” if
you’re not sure whether to include or not, and opt for “full text” if you’re not sure about the
level of information provided in the abstract.
When screening the records, keep in mind the objective of the ELS, which is inventorying
possible soils and growing media that can be imported into the EU. Screening should not be
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
32
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
-
biased by personal knowledge or beliefs about possible risks associated with soils or Gm, as
this will follow from the second inventory!
In case a study mentions more than one soil or Gm, the record should be classified according
to the most detailed level of data extraction needed. So: select “sterilized s&Gm only if all
media mentioned fall within this category, and select “s&Gm specified” only if all media are
sufficiently specified.
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
33
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
APPENDIX C: Search Terms Inventory 2
Search terms for nematodes
1. Aphelenchoides besseyi or Aphelenchoides oryzae or Asteroaphelenchoides besseyi or Rice
white tip nematode? or strawberry crimp disease nematode? or
2. Belonolaimus longicaudatus or sting nematode? or
3. Bursaphelenchus xylophilus or Aphelenchoides xylophilus or Bursaphelenchus lignicolus or
pine wood nematode? or pine wilt disease or
4. Ditylenchus destructor or potato rot nematode? or
5. Ditylenchus dipsaci or Tylenchus dipsaci or Ditylenchus devastatrix or Ditylenchus secalis or
Ditylenchus havensteinii or Ditylenchus hyacinthi or Ditylenchus putrefaciens or Ditylenchus
tobaensis or Ditylenchus phloxidis or Ditylenchus sonchophila or Ditylenchus fragariae or
Ditylenchus galeopsidis or stem nematode? or "stem and bulb eelworm?" or onion bloat or
6. Globodera pallida or Heterodera pallida or White potato cyst nematode? or pale potato cyst
nematode? or
7. Globodera rostochiensis or Heterodera schachtii rostochiensis or Heterodera schachtii solani
or Heterodera rostochiensis or yellow potato cyst nematode? or golden potato cyst nematode?
or golden nematode? or
8. Heterodera elachista or
9. Heterodera glycines or Soybean cyst nematode? or
10. Heterodera zeae or
11. Hirschmanniella or
12. Longidorus diadecturus or
13. Meloidogyne chitwoodi or columbia root-knot nematode? or
14. Meloidogyne enterolobii or Meloidogyne mayaguensis or
15. Meloidogyne ethiopica or
16. Meloidogyne fallax or False Columbia root-knot nematode? or
17. Meloidogyne mali or Meloidogyne ulmi or
18. Nacobbus aberrans or Anguillulina aberrans or Nacobbus batatiformis or Nacobbus
serendipiticus or Nacobbus serendipiticus bolivianus or Nacobbus bolivianus or Pratylenchus
abberans or False root-knot nematode? or
19. Paratrichodorus porosus or Trichodorus porosus or Paratrichodorus Atlantodorus porosus or
Atlantodorus porosus or Trichodorus bucrius or
20. Punctodera chalcoensis or
21. Radopholus similis citrus race or Radopholus similis citrophilus or Radopholus citrophilus or
Citrus spreading decline nematode? or
22. Radopholus similis banana race or Radopholus granulosus or Radopholus acutocaudatus or
Radopholus biformis or Radopholus similis similis or Burrowing nematode? or banana
toppling disease nematode? or
23. Xiphinema americanum or Tylencholaimus americanus or american dagger nematode? or
24. Xiphinema bricolense or
25. Xiphinema californicum or
26. Xiphinema rivesi
Search terms for bacteria
1. (acidovorax adj3 citrulli) or (pseudomonas adj3 citrulli)
2. (clavibacter adj3 insidiosus) or aplanobacter insidiosus or bacterium insidiosum or burkholderiella
insidiosa or (corynebacterium adj3 insidiosum) or corynebacterium insidiosum var saprophyticum
or erwinia insidiosa or mycobacterium insidiosum or phytomonas insidiosa
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
34
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
3. (clavibacter adj3 michiganensis) or (corynebacterium adj3 michiganense)
4. (clavibacter adj3 sepedonicus) or aplanobacter sepedonicus or bacterium sepedonicum or
(corynebacterium adj3 sepedonicum) or mycobacterium sepedonicum or phytomonas sepedonica
or pseudobacterium sepedonicum
5. (curtobacterium adj3 flaccumfaciens) or (corynebacterium adj3 flaccumfaciens) or
(corynebacterium flaccumfaciens var aurantiacum) or (corynebacterium flaccumfaciens var
violaceum)
6. dickeya dianthicola or (erwinia adj3 dianthi) or (erwinia adj4 dianthicola) or (pectobacterium adj3
dianthicola) or pectobacterium parthenii-dianthicola
7. (pantoea adj3 stewartii) or bacillus stewartii or erwinia stewartii or pantoea stewarti
8. ralstonia solanacearum or bacillus musae or bacillus musarum or bacillus nicotianae or bacillus
sesami or bacillus solanacearum or bacterium solanacearum or bacterium solanacearum var
asiatica or bacterium solanacearum var asiaticum or burkholderia solanacearum or
chromobacterium nicotianae or erwinia nicotianae or erwinia solanacearum or phytobacterium
solanacearum or phytomonas ricini or phytomonas solanacearum or phytomonas solanacearum var
asiatica or pseudomonas batatae or pseudomonas solanacearum or pseudomonas solanacearum var
asiatica or pseudomonas tectonae or xanthomonas solanacearum or xanthomonas solanacearum
var asiatica
9. (pseudomonas adj3 actinidiae)
10. (pseudomonas adj3 aesculi)
11. (xanthomonas adj3 citri) or (xanthomonas adj3 aurantifolii) or bacillus citri or bacterium citri or
phytomonas citri or pseudomonas citri or xanthomonas smithii
12. (xanthomonas adj4 oryzae) or pseudomonas oryzae
13. (xanthomonas adj3 oryzicola)
14. (xanthomonas adj3 phaseoli) or (bacterium phaseoli) or (bacillus phaseoli) or (phytomonas
phaseoli) or (pseudomonas phaseoli)
15. (xanthomonas adj3 vesicatoria) or (bacterium exitiosum) or (phytomonas exitiosa) or (phytomonas
vesicatoria) or (pseudomonas exitiosa) or (pseudomonas gardneri) or (pseudomonas vesicatoria)
or (xanthomonas exitiosa)
16. (xanthomonas adj3 allii)
17. (xanthomonas adj3 corylina) or (phytomonas corylina) or (pseudomonas corylina)
18. (xanthomonas adj3 dieffenbachiae) or (bacterium dieffenbachiae) or (phytomonas dieffenbachiae)
19. (xanthomonas adj4 poinsettiicola) or (xanthomonas pulcherrimae) or (xanthomonas adj4
poinsetticola)
20. (xanthomonas adj3 translucens) or (xanthomonas adj3 hordei) or bacterium translucens or
phytomonas translucens or pseudomonas translucens
21. (xanthomonas fragariae)
22. (xylophilus ampelinus) or (xanthomonas ampelina)
23. (pseudomonas adj4 persicae)
24. (burkholderia caryophylli) or (phytomonas caryophylli) or (pseudomonas caryophylli)
25. (erwinia amylovora) or (bacillus amylovora) or (bacillus amylovorus) or (bacterium amylovorum)
or (micrococcus amylovorus)
26. xylella fastidiosa
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
35
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
27. (xanthomonas adj3 pruni) or bacillus pruni or bacterium cerasi wraggi or bacterium pruni or
phytomonas cerasi wraggi or phytomonas pruni or pseudomonas cerasi wraggi or pseudomonas
pruni
28. (liberibacter africanus) or (liberibacter americanus) or (liberibacter asiaticus)
29. liberibacter solanacearum or candidatus liberibacter psyllaurous or candidatus liberibacter
solanacearum or liberibacter psyllaurous or zebra chip
30. candidatus arsenophonus phytopathogenicus or syndrome des basses richesses
31. xanthomonas euvesicatoria or bacterium vesicatorium or xanthomonas perforans or xanthomonas
gardneri
32. dickeya chrysanthemi or erwinia chrysanthemi or (pectobacterium adj4 chrysanthemi) or
pectobacterium parthenii or Dickeya solani
33. Pantoea ananatis or Bacillus ananas or Erwinia ananas or Pantoea ananas
34. xanthomonas adj3 punicae
35. bacterial brown stripe or bacterial leaf blight or maize bacterial leaf blight or sugarcane leaf streak
36. burkholderia gladioli or burkholderia cocovenenans or pseudomonas antimicrobica or
pseudomonas cocovenenans or pseudomonas gladioli or pseudomonas marginata
Search terms for phytoplasmas
(Phytoplasma mali) or (Apple proliferation) or (Phytoplasma prunorum) or (Apricot chlorotic leafroll)
or (European stone fruit yellows) or (Phytoplasma ulmi) or (Elm phl*em necrosis mycoplasm) or
(Rubus stunt phytoplasma) or (elm yellows-associated phytoplasma) or (Phytoplasma vitis) or
(Grapevine flavescence dor*e) or (Phytoplasma palmae) or (Palm lethal yellowing) or (coconut lethal
yellowing) or (peach rosette) or (Peach X- disease) or (Western X-disease) or (Peach yellow leafroll)
or (Peach western X) or (Peach yellows) or (Peach little peach) or (Peach red suture) or (Phytoplasma
pyri) or (Pear decline) or (Phytoplasma solani) or (Stolbur) or (Spiroplasma citri) or (Strawberry
witches broom) or (Witches broom) or (Potato purple-top wilt) or (Maize redness) or (Phytoplasma
aurantifoliae) or (Lime witches broom)
Search terms for fungi
1.
2.
3.
4.
Atropellis pinicola or Gordonia zelleri
Atropellis piniphila or Cenangium piniphilum or Atropellis arizonica
Ceratocystis fimbriata adj2 platani or Endoconidiophora fimbriata or Ceratocystis platani
Ceratocystis virescens or Endoconidiophora virescens or Ophiostoma virescens or Ceratocystis
coerulescens
5. Ciborinia camelliae or Sclerotinia camelliae
6. Cronartium coleosporioides or Cronartium stalactiforme or Peridermium stalactiforme or
Cronartium comandrae or Cronartium pyriforme or Peridermium pyriforme comandra or
Cronartium comptoniae or Peridermium comptoniae or Cronartium himalayense or Peridermium
himalayense or Cronartium quercuum or Cronartium quercus or Cronartium asclepiadeum adj2
quercuum or Cronartium cerebrum or Cronartium fusiforme or Cronartium kamtschaticum
7. Cryphonectria parasitica or Endothia parasitica or Diaporthe parasitica or Valsonectria parasitica
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
36
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
8. Didymella ligulicola or Mycosphaerella chrysanthemi or Mycosphaerella ligulicola or Didymella
chrysanthemi or Ascochyta chrysanthemi or Phoma ligulicola or Stagonosporopsis ligulicola
9. Endocronartium harknessii or Cronartium harknessii or Peridermium harknessii or Peridermium
cerebroides
10. Fusarium foetens or Gibberella pulicaris
11. Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. albedinis or Cylindrophora albedinis
12. Gibberella circinata or Fusarium circinatum or Fusarium subglutinans f. sp. pini or Fusarium
lateritium f.sp. pini
13. Guignardia citricarpa or Phyllosticta citricarpa or Phoma citricarpa or Phyllostictina citricarpa
14. Heterobasidion irregular or Polyporus irregularis
15. Hypoxylon mammatum or Entoleuca mammata or Hypoxylon pruinatum or Anthostoma morsei or
Fuckelia morsei
16. Mycosphaerella populorum or Davidiella populorum or Septoria musiva or Cylindrosporium
oculatum
17. Phellinus weirii or Fuscoporia weirii or Inonotus weirii or Poria weirii or Fomitiporia weirii
18. Phialophora cinerescens or Verticillium cinerescens
19. Phoma andigena or Phoma andina or Stagonosporopsis andigena
20. Phymatotrichopsis omnivora or Phymatotrichum omnivorum or Ozonium omnivorum or Ozonium
auricomum
21. Phytophthora fragariae adj2 fragariae
22. Phytophthora fragariae adj2 rubi or Phytophthora rubi
23. Phytophthora kernoviae
24. Phytophthora lateralis
25. Phytophthora ramorum
26. Plasmopara halstedii or Plasmopara helianthi
27. Puccinia pittieriana or Gerwasia pittieriana or Morispora ochraceoflava
28. Septoria lycopersici adj2 malagutii or Septoria malagutii
29. Synchytrium endobioticum or Synchytrium solani or Chrysophlyctis endobiotica
30. Thecaphora solani or Angiosorus solani
31. Tilletia indica or Neovossia indica
32. (Verticillium albo-atrum or Verticillium dahliae) and (hop or Humulus or Humulus lupulus)
33. (Colletotrichum xanthii or Colletotrichum acutatum) and (strawberr* or Fragaria annassa)
34. Fusarium oxysporum adj2 lactucae
35. Gremmeniella abietina or Ascocalyx abietina or Crumenula abietina or Crumenula pinea or
Lagerbergia abietina or Scleroderris abietina or Scleroderris lagerbergii or Brunchorstia pinea or
Brunchorstia destruens or Brunchorstia pini or Excipulina pinea or Septoria pinea or Gordonia
abietina
36. Gymnosporangium globosum or Gymnosporangium fuscum adj2 globosum or Gymnosporangium
juniperi-virginianae or Gymnosporangium macropus or Gymnosporangium virginianum or
Podisoma juniperi-virginianae or Aecidium pyrolatum or Roestelia pyrata or Gymnosporangium
asiaticum or Gymnosporangium haraeanum or Gymnosporangium chinense or Gymnosporangium
koreaense or Gymnosporangium koreensis or Gymnosporangium spiniferum or Roestelia
koreaensis or Roestelia koreensis or Gymnosporangium claviceps or Gymnosporangium
germinale or Podisoma gymnosporangium claviceps or Caeoma germinale or Roestelia aurantiaca
or Gymnosporangium yamadae
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
37
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
Phytophthora cinnamomi
Polymyxa betae
Alternaria gaisen or Alternaria kikuchiana or Macrosporium nashi
Alternaria mali
Anisogramma anomala or Apioporthe anomala or Cryptosporella anomala
Apiosporina morbosa or Sphaeria morbosa or Dibotryon morbosum or Otthia morbosa or
Plowrightia morbosa or Cucurbitaria morbosa
Botryosphaeria laricina or Physalospora laricina or Guignardia laricin
Ceratocystis fagacearum or Endoconidiophora fagacearum or Chalara quercina
Cercospora angolensis or Phaeoramularia angolensis
Chalara fraxinea or Hymenoscyphus albidus or Hymenoscyphus pseudoalpidus
Chrysomyxa arctostaphyli or Melampsoropsis arctostaphyli or Peridermium coloradense
Diaporthe vaccinii or Phomopsis vaccinii
Diplodia mali
Elsinoe fawcettii or Sphaceloma fawcettii adj2 fawcettii
Elsinoe australis or Sphaceloma fawcettii adj2 viscosa or Sphaceloma australis
Sphaceloma fawcettii adj2 scabiosa or Ramularia scabiosa
Glomerella gossypii or Colletotrichum gossypii
Guignardia laricina or Botryosphaeria laricina or Physalospora laricina
Guignardia pyricola or Botryosphaeria berengeriana adj2 pyiricola or Physalospora pyricola or
Macrophoma kuwatsukai or Macrophoma pyrorum
Melampsora farlowii or Chrysomyxa farlowii or Necium farlowii
Melampsora medusa or Melampsora albertensis or Caeoma faulliana or Uredo medusae
Monilinia fructicola or Sclerotinia fructicola
Mycosphaerella dearnessii or Scirrhia acicola or Systremma acicola or Lecanosticta acicola or
Lecanosticta pini or Septoria acicola
Mycosphaerella larici-leptolepis or Phoma yano-kubotae or Phyllosticta laricis
Mycosphaerella pini or Scirrhia pini or Dothistroma septospora or Dothistroma pini or
Cytosporina septospora
Mycosphaerella gibsonii or Cercospora pini-densiflorae or Cercoseptoria pini-densiflorae or
Pseudocercospora pini-densiflorae
Ophiostoma wageneri or Ceratocystis wageneri or Leptographium wageneri adj2 ponderosum or
Verticicladiella wageneri adj2 ponderosa
Phoma tracheiphila or Deuterophoma tracheiphila or Bakerophoma tracheiphila
Phyllosticta solitaria
Puccinia hemerocallidis or Dicaeoma hemerocallidis or Aecidium patriniae or Puccinia funkiae or
Uredo hostae or Puccinia hostae
Puccinia horiana
Sirococcus clavigignenti-juglandacearum
Stegophora ulmea or Gnomonia ulmea or Sphaeria ulmea or Dothidella ulmea or Lambro ulmea
Stenocarpella macrospora or Diplodia macrospora or Macrodiplodia macrospora or Macrodiplodia
zeae adj2 macrospora or Stenocarpella zeae
Stenocarpella maydis or Diplodia maydis or Diplodia zeae or Sphaeria maydis or Sphaeria zeae or
Hendersonia zeae or Macrodiplodia zeae or Dothiora zeae
Venturia nashicola
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
38
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
73. Botrytis allii or Botrytis aclada or Botrytis byssoidea
74. Plectosphaerella cucumerina
Search terms for weeds
1. Arceuthobium
2. Pueraria lobata or Dolichos lobatus or Dolichos hirsutus or Pueraria hirsuta or Pachyrrhizus
thunbergianus or Pueraria thunbergiana
3. Solanum elaeagnifolium or Solanum dealbatum or Solanum flavidum or Solanum hindsianum or
Solanum leprosum or Solanum roemerianum or Solanum saponaceum or Solanum texense or
Solanum uniflorum
4. Acroptilon repens or Centaurea repens or Centaurea picris or Acroptilon picris
5. Alternanthera philoxeroides or Achyrantes philoxeroides or Bucholzia philoxeroides or Telanthera
philoxeroides
6. Ambrosia artemisiifolia or Ambrosia elatior or Ambrosia elata or Ambrosia paniculata
7. Fallopia japonica or Reynoutria japonica or Polygonum cuspidatum
8. Amaranthus palmeri
9. Phelipanche ramosa or Kopsia interrupta or Kopsia ramosa or Orobanche cannabis or Orobanche
interrupta or Orobanche micrantha or Phelipanche ramosa or Philipaea ramose
10. Mikania micrantha or Eupatorium cordatum or Kleinia alata or Mikania alata or Mikania cordata
or Mikania glechomaefolia or Mikania orinocensis or Mikania scandens or (Mikania scandens
adj1 subcymosa) or Mikania sinuata or Mikania subcrenata or Mikania subcymosa or Mikania
umbellifera or Mikania volubilis or Willoughbya micrantha
Search terms for viruses
(Andean potato mottle virus) OR (Cherry rasp leaf virus) OR (Flat apple virus) OR (Chrysanthemum
stem necrosis virus) OR (Citrus leprosis virus) OR (Eggplant mosaic virus) OR (Peach rosette mosaic
virus) OR (Potato black ringspot virus) OR (Watermelon silver mottle virus) OR (Watermelon silvery
mottle virus) OR (Beet necrotic yellow vein virus) OR (Impatiens necrotic spot virus) OR (Pepino
mosaic virus) OR (Raspberry ringspot virus) OR (Raspberry Scottish leaf curl virus) OR (Tobacco
ringspot virus) OR (Tomato ringspot virus) OR (Tomato spotted wilt virus) OR (Arabis mosaic virus)
OR (Andean potato latent virus) OR (Peach yellow bud mosaic virus) OR (Strawberry latent ringspot
virus) OR (Tomato black ring virus) OR (Blackberry Himalaya mosaic virus) OR (Winter peach
mosaic virus) OR (Grape yellow vein virus) OR (Pineapple yellow spot virus) OR (Potato spindle
tuber viroid) OR (Chrysanthemum stunt viroid) OR (Coconut cadang-cadang viroid) or (Beet curly top
virus) OR (Black raspberry latent virus) OR (Cherry leafroll virus) OR (Citrus mosaic virus) OR
(Citrus tristeza virus) OR (Little cherry) OR (Prunus necrotic ringspot virus) OR (Satsuma dwarf
virus) OR (Tatter leaf virus) OR (Strawberry crinkle virus) OR (Strawberry latent ringspot virus) OR
(Strawberry mild yellow edge virus) OR (Strawberry latent C virus) OR (Strawberry vein banding
virus) OR (Peach mosaic virus) OR (Plum line pattern virus) OR (Raspberry leaf curl virus) OR (Bean
golden mosaic virus) OR (Cowpea mild mottle virus) OR (Lettuce infectious yellow virus) OR
(Pepper mild tigre virus) OR (Squash leaf curl virus)
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
39
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
Search terms for insects
1. Acleris gloverana OR Western blackheaded budworm
2. Acleris variana OR Teras variana OR Peronea variana OR Peronea angusana OR Eastern
blackheaded budworm
3. Aeolesthes sarta OR city longhorn beetle OR Sart longhorn beetle OR Uzbek longhorn beetle
4. Agrilus planipennis OR Agrilus feretrius OR Agrilus marcopoli OR emerald ash borer
5. Nemorimyza maculosa OR Amauromyza maculosa OR Agromyza guaranitica OR
Chrysanthemum leaf miner OR burdock leaf miner
6. Anastrepha fraterculus OR Acrotoxa fraterculus OR Anastrepha braziliensis OR Anastrepha
peruviana OR Anastrepha soluta OR Anthomyia frutalis OR Dacus fraterculus OR Tephritis
mellea OR Trypeta fraterculus OR Trypeta unicolor OR South American fruit fly
7. Anastrepha ludens OR Acrotoxa ludens OR Trypeta ludens" OR Mexican fruit fly
8. Anastrepha obliqua OR Acrotoxa obliqua OR Anastrepha fraterculus var. mombinpraeoptans OR
Anastrepha mombinpraeoptans OR Anastrepha trinidadensis OR Tephritis obliqua OR Trypeta
obliqua OR West Indian fruit fly
9. Anastrepha suspensa OR Acrotoxa suspensa OR Anastrepha longimacula OR Anastrepha
unipuncta OR Trypeta suspensa OR Caribbean fruit fly
10. Anthonomus bisignifer OR Anthonomus bisignatus OR Anthonomus signatus OR Minyrus
japonicus OR Minyrus albopilosus OR Strawberry weevil OR strawberry blossom weevil
11. Anthonomus eugenii OR Anthonomus aeneotinctus OR Pepper weevil
12. Anthonomus grandis OR Anthonomus grandis grandis OR Anthonomus grandis thurberiae
South-eastern boll weevil OR Thurberia boll weevil OR Mexican boll weevil
13. Anthonomus quadrigibbus OR Tachypterus quadrigibbus OR Tachypterellus quadrigibbus OR
Tachypterellus quadrigibbus magnus OR Tachypterellus consors cerasi OR Apple curculio OR
Western curculio OR large apple curculio
14. Anthonomus signatus OR Anthonomus bisignatus OR Anthonomus pallidus OR Anthonomus
scutellatus OR Strawberry weevil OR strawberry bud weevil
15. Bactrocera carambolae OR Carambola fruit fly
16. Bactrocera caryae OR Dacus caryeae
17. Bactrocera cucumis OR Austrodacus cucumis OR Dacus cucumis OR Dacus tryoni var. cucumis"
OR Cucumber fly
18. Bactrocera cucurbitae OR Chaetodacus cucurbitae OR Dacus cucurbitae OR Strumeta cucurbitae
OR Zeugodacus cucurbitae OR Melon fly OR melon fruit fly
19. Bactrocera dorsalis OR Chaetodacus ferrugineus OR Chaetodacus ferrugineus dorsalis OR
Chaetodacus ferrugineus var. okinawanus OR Dacus dorsalis OR Strumeta dorsalis OR Oriental
fruit fly
20. Bactrocera invadens
21. Bactrocera kandiensis
22. Bactrocera minax OR Polistomimetes minax OR Callantra minax OR Bactrocera citri OR Mellesis
citri OR Dacus citri OR Tetradacus citri OR Chinese citrus fly
23. Bactrocera occipitalis OR Chaetodacus ferrugineus var. occipitalis OR Dacus occipitalis
24. Bactrocera papayae
25. Bactrocera philippinensis
26. Bactrocera pyrifoliae
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
40
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
27. Bactrocera tryoni OR Chaetodacus tryoni OR Dacus ferrugineus tryoni OR Dacus tryoni OR
Strumeta tryoni OR Tephritis tryoni OR Queensland fruit fly
28. Bactrocera tsuneonis OR Dacus tsuneonis OR Dacus cheni OR Japanese orange fly
29. Bactrocera zonata OR Dacus zonatus OR Dasyneura zonata OR Rivellia persicae OR peach fruit
fly OR guava fruit fly
30. Blitopertha orientalis OR Anomala orientalis OR Oriental beetle
31. Carposina niponensis OR Carposina sasakii OR Carposina persicana" OR Peach fruit moth
32. Ceratitis capitata OR Ceratitis citriperda OR Ceratitis hispanica OR Pardalaspis asparagi OR
Tephritis capitata OR Mediterranean fruit fly OR medfly
33. Ceratitis quinaria OR Pardalaspis quinaria OR Five-spotted fruit fly OR Rhodesian fruit fly OR
Zimbabwean fruit fly
34. Ceratitis rosa OR Pterandrus rosa OR Natal fruit fly OR Natal fly
35. Conotrachelus nenuphar OR Plum curculio OR plum weevil
36. Cydia inopinata OR Grapholita inopinata OR Laspeyresia prunifoliae OR Grapholita cerasana OR
Manchurian fruit moth
37. Cydia packardi OR Grapholitha packardi OR Steganoptycha pyricolana OR Enarmonia packardi
OR Enarmonia pyricolana OR Laspeyresia packardi OR Laspeyresia pyricolana OR Cherry
fruitworm
38. Cydia prunivora OR Grapholitha prunivora OR Enarmonia prunivora OR Semasia prunivora OR
Laspeyresia prunivora OR Lesser appleworm OR plum moth
39. Dacus ciliatus Loew OR Dacus appoxanthus var. decolor OR Dacus brevistylus OR Dacus
insistens OR Dacus sigmoides OR Didacus ciliatus OR Leptoxyda ciliata OR Tridacus mallyi OR
Ethiopian fruit fly OR lesser pumpkin fly OR cucurbit fly
40. Dendroctonus micans OR Bostrichus micans OR Hylesinus lingiperda OR Hylesinus micansOR
Great spruce bark beetle
41. Dendroctonus adjunctus OR Dendroctonus convexifrons OR Round-headed pine beetle
42. Dendroctonus brevicomis OR Dendroctonus barberi OR Western pine beetle
43. Dendroctonus frontalis OR Dendroctonus arizonicus OR Southern pine beetle
44. Dendroctonus ponderosae OR Dendroctonus monticolae OR Mountain pine beetle OR Black Hills
beetle
45. Dendroctonus pseudotsugae OR Douglas fir beetle
46. Dendroctonus rufipennis OR Dendroctonus borealis OR Dendroctonus engelmanni OR
Dendroctonus piceaperda OR Dendroctonus similis OR Hylurgus rufipennis OR Spruce beetle
OR Engelmann spruce beetle OR red-winged pine beetle
47. Dendrolimus sibiricus OR Dendrolimus superans sibiricus OR Dendrolimus laricis OR Siberian
silk moth OR Siberian moth OR Siberian conifer silk moth OR Siberian lasiocampid OR larch
caterpillar
48. Diabrotica barberi OR Diabrotica longicornis barberi OR Northern corn rootworm
49. Diabrotica speciosa OR San Antonio beetle
50. Diabrotica undecimpunctata OR Diabrotica soror OR spotted cucumber beetle
51. Diabrotica virgifera OR Western corn rootworm OR Colorado corn rootworm OR Mexican corn
rootworm
52. Dryocoetes confusus OR Dendroctonus abietis OR Western balsam bark beetle
53. Epitrix cucumeris OR potato flea beetle
54. Epitrix similaris
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
41
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
55. Epitrix subcrinita
56. Epitrix tuberis OR Tuber flea beetle
57. Erschoviella musculana OR Nycteola musculana OR arrothripus musculana" OR walnut moth
OR Asian walnut moth
58. Euphranta japonica OR Rhacochlaena japonica OR Japanese cherry fruit fly
59. Frankliniella occidentalis OR Frankliniella californica OR Frankliniella helianthi OR
Frankliniella moultoni OR Frankliniella trehernei OR Western flower thrips, alfalfa thrips
60. Gilphinia hercyniae
61. Gnathotrichus sulcatus OR Cryphalus sulcatus OR Gnathotrichus aciculatus OR Western hemlock
wood stainer
62. Gonipterus gibberus OR Dacnirotatus bruchi OR eucalyptus snout beetle OR eucalyptus weevil
OR gum tree weevil
63. Gonipterus scutellatus OR eucalyptus snout beetle OR eucalyptus weevil OR gum tree weevil
64. Helicoverpa armigera OR Heliothis armigera OR Chloridea armigera OR corn earworm OR
cotton bollworm
65. Helicoverpa zea OR Heliothis zea OR Bombyx obsoleta OR Phalaena zea OR Heliothis umbrosus
American bollworm OR corn earworm OR tomato fruitworm OR New World bollworm
66. Hirschmanniella spp.
67. Ips calligraphus OR Bostrichus calligraphus OR Ips ponderosae OR Ips interstitialis OR Coarse
writing engraver OR six-spined ips OR six-spined engraver beetle
68. Ips confusus OR Tomicus confusus OR Piñon ips
69. Ips paraconfusus OR California five-spined engraver OR California five-spined ips
70. Ips chagnoni OR Ips cloudcrofti OR Tomicus grandicollis OR Southern pine engraver
71. Ips lecontei Arizona five-spined engraver OR Arizona five-spined ips
72. Ips pini OR Bostrichus pini OR Ips laticollis OR Ips oregonis OR Eastern pine engraver OR pine
engraver beetle
73. Ips plastographus OR Tomicus plastographus OR California pine engraver
74. Ips subelongatus OR Ips fallax OR larch bark beetle OR oblong bark beetle
75. Keiferia lycopersicella OR Pthorimaea lycopersicella OR Gnorimoschema lycopersicella OR
Eucatoptus lycopersicella OR Tomato pinworm
76. Leptinotarsa decemlineata OR Chrysomela decemlineata OR Doryphora decemlineata OR
Polygramma ''Chev.'' Decemlineata OR Colorado beetle
77. Leucinodes orbonalis
78. Limonius californicus OR Cardiophorus californicus OR
79. Pheletes californicus" OR sugarbeet wireworm
80. Liriomyza bryoniae OR Agromyza bryoniae OR Liriomyza solani OR Liriomyza citrulla OR
Tomato leaf miner
81. Liriomyza huidobrensis OR Agromyza huidobrensis OR Liriomyza cucumifoliae OR Liriomyza
langei OR Liriomyza dianthi OR Serpentine leaf miner OR pea leaf miner OR South American
leaf miner
82. Liriomyza sativae OR Liriomyza pullata OR Liriomyza canomarginis OR Liriomyza minutiseta
OR Liriomyza munda OR Liriomyza guytona OR Liriomyza propepusilla OR Vegetable leaf
miner OR serpentine vegetable leaf miner OR cabbage leaf miner OR tomato leaf miner
83. Liriomyza trifolii OR Liriomyza alliovora OR American serpentine leaf miner OR
chrysanthemum leaf miner
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
42
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
84. Listronotus bonariensis OR Hyperodes bonariensis OR Argentine stem weevil OR wheat stem
weevil
85. Longidorus diadecturus
86. Maconellicoccus hirsutus OR Phenacoccus hirsutus OR pink hibiscus mealybug OR pink
mealybug OR hibiscus mealybug
87. Margarodes prieskaensis OR Sphaeraspis prieskaensis OR Ground pearls OR margarodes
88. Margarodes vitis OR Coccionella vitis OR Margarodes vitium OR Sphaeraspis vitis OR
Ground pearls OR margarodes
89. Margarodes vredendalensis OR Ground pearls OR margarodes
90. Melanotus communis OR Elater communis OR common wireworm OR corn wireworm OR
community wireworm
91. Monochamus alternatus
92. Monochamus carolinensis
93. Monochamus marmorator
94. Monochamus mutator OR Monochamus maculosus
95. Monochamus nitens
96. Monochamus notatus
97. Monochamus obtusus
98. Monochamus scutellatus
99. Monochamus titillator
100.
Myiopardalis pardalina
101.
Myndus crudus OR Myndus cocois OR Haplaxius crudus OR Pallid cane leafhopper
102.
Nacobbus aberrans OR Anguillulina aberrans OR Nacobbus batatiformis OR Nacobbus
serendipiticusOR Nacobbus serendipiticus bolivianus OR False root-knot nematode
103.
Naupactus leucoloma OR Graphognathus leucoloma OR Pantomorus leucoloma OR whitefringed weevil OR white-fringed beetle
104.
Neoleucinodes elegantalis OR Leucinodes elegantalisOR Tomato fruit borer OR eggplant
moth
105.
Opogona sacchari OR Alucita sacchari OR Tinea subcervinella OR Opogona subcervinella
OR Banana moth
106.
Pissodes nemorensis OR Pissodes approximatus OR Pissodes canadensis OR Pissodes
deodarae OR Northern pine weevil OR deodar weevil
107.
Pissodes strobi OR Pissodes sitchensis OR Pissodes engelmanni ORWhite pine weevil OR
Sitka spruce weevil
108.
Pissodes terminalis OR Lodgepole terminal weevil
109.
Premnotrypes latithorax OR Andean potato weevil
110.
Premnotrypes suturicallus
111.
Premnotrypes vorax
112.
Rhagoletis cingulata OR Trypeta cingulata OR Eastern cherry fruit fly OR cherry fruit fly
OR North American cherry fruit fly
113.
Rhagoletis completa OR Rhagoletis suavis subsp. Completa OR Walnut husk fly
114.
Rhagoletis fausta OR Rhagoletis intrudens OR Trypeta fausta OR Black cherry fruit fly
115.
Rhagoletis indifferens (Rhagoletis cingulate subsp. Indifferens)" OR Western cherry fruit fly
116.
Rhagoletis mendax OR Blueberry maggot
117.
Rhagoletis pomonella OR Trypeta pomonella OR Apple maggot OR apple maggot fly
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
43
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
118.
Rhagoletis ribicola OR Dark currant fly
119.
Rhagoletis suavis OR Trypeta suavis
120.
Rhizoecus hibisci OR Ripersiella hibisci OR root mealybug
121.
Rhynchophorus ferrugineus OR Calandra ferruginea OR Curculio ferrugineus OR
Rhynchophorus signaticollis OR Asiatic palm weevil OR coconut weevil OR red palm weevil OR
red stripe weevil
122.
Rhynchophorus palmarum OR palm weevil OR palm-marrow weevil OR South American
palm weevil
123.
Scirtothrips aurantii OR Scirtothrips acaciaeOR South African citrus thrips
124.
Scirtothrips citri OR Euthrips citri OR California citrus thrips
125.
Scirtothrips dorsalis OR Neophysopus fragariae OR Heliothrips minutissimus OR
Anaphothrips andreae OR Scirtothrips dorsalis var. padmae OR Chilli thrips OR yellow tea thrips
126.
Scolytus morawitzi OR Eccoptogaster morawitzi OR Morawitz’s bark beetle
127.
Spodoptera eridania OR Laphygma eridania OR Prodenia eridania OR Xylomyges eridania
OR Southern armyworm
128.
Spodoptera frugiperda OR Laphygma frugiperda OR Fall armyworm OR corn leafworm OR
southern grassworm
129.
Spodoptera littoralis OR Hadena littoralis OR Cotton leafworm OR Egyptian cottonworm OR
Mediterranean brocade moth
130.
Spodoptera litura OR Prodenia litura OR Cotton leafworm OR tobacco cutworm
131.
Strauzia longipennis OR Sunflower maggot fly
132.
Strobilomyia viaria OR Lasiomma melaniola OR Strobilomyia melaniola OR Canadian larch
cone fly
133.
Tecia solanivora OR Scrobipalpopsis solanivora OR Guatemalan potato moth
134.
Tetropium gracilicorne OR fine-horned spruce borer
135.
Thrips palmi OR Thrips leucadophilus OR Thrips gossypicola OR Chloethrips aureus OR
Thrips gracilis OR Palm thrips
136.
Trirhithromyia cyanescens
137.
Ceroplastes ceriferus
138.
Chilo suppressalis
139.
Acalitus gossypii
140.
Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus
141.
Spodoptera exempta
142.
Cydia fabivora
143.
Anomis flava
144.
Neoceratitis cyanescens
145.
Maruca vitrata
Search terms for soil and growing media based on results of Inventory 1 (a, based on approx.
900 soil and growing media)
1.
("2004" or "2005" or "2006" or "2007" or "2008" or "2009" or 201#).yr.
2.
xx200.cc. or exp agricultural wastes/ or exp bagasse/ or exp bran/ or exp diatomite/ or exp
fabrics/ or exp husks/ or exp limestone/ or exp manures/ or exp molasses/ or exp plant fibres/ or exp
plastics/ or exp straw/ or exp sugarcane byproducts/ or exp synthetic fibres/ or ((barley or Hordeum
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
44
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
vulgare or mung or mungbean? or Vigna radiata or mustard or Sinapis alba or Scabiosa or Sesbania)
adj10 (cover crop? or cover plant?)).mp. or ((Brachiaria or brassica* or Cajanus cajan or canola or
cereal? or clover? or cowpea? or Vigna unguiculata or Crambe or forage radish* or Raphanus sativus
or grass?? or speargrass or ryegrass or Lolium multiflorum or Digitaria eriantha pentzii or forage
sorghum or Sorghum bicolor x Sorghum sudanense or legume? or hairy vetch or Vicia villosa or
Mucuna deeringiana or Mucuna pruriens or Phacelia or rye or Secale cereale or safflower or
Carthamus tinctorius or snail medic or Medicago scutellata or soy?bean? or Glycine max or
subclover? or Trifolium subterraneum or sunflower? or Helianthus annuus or Stylosanthes capitata or
Stylosanthes macrocephala or Triticale or wheat? or Triticum aestivum) adj10 (cover crop? or cover
plant? or green mulch* or live mulch* or living mulch* or plant? mulch*)).mp. or ((brassica* or
broccoli or cabbage? or carrot? or cauliflower? or coconut? or herb? or hyacinth? or malt or onion? or
pea or peas or reed? or Phragmites australis or tobacco) adj3 (residue? or waste?)).mp. or ((acai or
jucara) adj5 (residue? or waste?)).mp. or acidic electroly?ed water.mp. or adhesives.mp. or almond
shell?.mp. or alum.mp. or ((alnus or artemisia or datura or eupatorium or schima) and (fresh leaves or
green leaf or green leaves)).mp. or anna?to.mp. or anthracite.mp. or arisco.mp. or bagasse?.mp. or
baked earthen.mp. or bamboo?.mp. or basalt.mp. or bean pod?.mp. or bentonite?.mp. or ((bhimal or
grewia optiva or kharik or celtis australis or timala or ficus auriculata or azadirachta indica or Murraya
koenigii or Quercus leucotrichophora) and (leaf or leaves)).mp. or biochar.mp. or bioplastic?.mp. or
bitumen emulsion?.mp. or black turf?.mp. or bran.mp. or brans?.mp. or (brassica carinata and
pellet?).mp. or brick?.mp. or cachaca?.mp. or (camellia adj3 shell?).mp. or caragana powder?.mp. or
cassava stem?.mp. or (castor adj3 pomace?).mp. or cellulose?.mp. or chaff?.mp. or chalk?.mp. or
charcoal?.mp. or (citrus adj3 waste?).mp. or clay.mp. or coal.mp. or coir.mp. or coco* fiber?.mp. or
coco* fibre?.mp. or coconut milk.mp. or coconut shell fib*.mp. or (coffee adj3 parchment?).mp. or
coffee pulp.mp. or coffe residue?.mp. or coffee waste?.mp. or compost?.mp. or corn cob?.mp. or
maize cob?.mp. or corn gluten meal.mp. or maize gluten meal.mp. or corn harvest residue?.mp. or
corn residue?.mp. or maize harvest residue?.mp. or maize residue?.mp. or corn stalk?.mp. or maize
stalk?.mp. or corn stover?.mp. or maize stover?.mp. or cotton gin trash.mp. or cotton residue?.mp. or
cotton waste?.mp. or cotton seed oil.mp. or (biodegradable residue? or biodegradable waste? or crop
residue? or crop waste? or food waste? or garden waste? or green waste? or greenwaste? or leaf litter
or leaf waste? or "litter (plant)" or organic residue? or organic waste? or plant residue? or pruning
debris or pruning litter or (pruning adj3 residue?) or pruning trash or pruning waste? or yard waste? or
yardwaste?).mp. or crumb rubber?.mp. or date palm by-product?.mp. or (date palm adj5 waste?).mp.
or (date palm? adj5 residue?).mp. or date palm leaf.mp. or date palm leaves.mp. or decomposing
granite?.mp. or diatomaceous earth.mp. or diatomite.mp. or dry olive cake?.mp. or empty fruit
bunch*.mp. or ((eucalypt* or leek? or thyme) and (dry adj2 powder*)).mp. or (eupatorium adj5
bag?).mp. or expanded shale?.mp. or fabric?.mp. or fel?spar?.mp. or filter cake?.mp. or filtercake?.mp.
or filter mud cake?.mp. or fly ash.mp. or foam?.mp. or foil?.mp. or fruit residue?.mp. or (fruit adj5
waste?).mp. or gangetic alluvial soil?.mp. or geotextile?.mp. or ginger powder?.mp. or glass
fiber?.mp. or glass fibre?.mp. or glass wool.mp. or glassfib*.mp. or glasswool.mp. or ((gliricidia or
lantana) and mulch*).mp. or glue?.mp. or grape marc.mp. or grape residue?.mp. or grape pomace?.mp.
or vine pomace?.mp. or grape stalk?.mp. or grape yeast?.mp. or gravel?.mp. or ground nut cake?.mp.
or groundnut cake?.mp. or peanut cake?.mp. or ground nut shell?.mp. or groundnut shell?.mp. or
peanut shell?.mp. or gunny bag?.mp. or gypsum?.mp. or (hazelnut adj2 shell?).mp. or hemp chip?.mp.
or hull?.mp. or humus.mp. or husk?.mp. or hydrogel?.mp. or hydrophobic kaolin*.mp. or hydrous
kaolin*.mp. or illite?.mp. or ((jatropha cake? or jatropha seedcake?) and (de oiled or deoiled)).mp. or
kaolin based particle?.mp. or leonardite.mp. or lichen soil.mp. or light expanded.mp. or lime.mp. or
limestone*.mp. or loam.mp. or local mixed grasses.mp. or loess.mp. or mahoni seed?.mp. or mahua
cake?.mp. or manure?.mp. or (meadow mix* and mulch*).mp. or ((melon? or watermelon?) adj2
(biomass or residue? or shell? or waste?)).mp. or mineral ah.mp. or molasse?.mp. or moss??.mp. or
mountain powder.mp. or mushroom farm waste*.mp. or mushroom waste*.mp. or mushroom
residue?.mp. or mushroom substrate?.mp. or mycelial slurr*.mp. or leonardite.mp. or neem cake?.mp.
or neem kernel cake?.mp. or neem seed cake?.mp. or neem oilseed cake?.mp. or neemcake?.mp. or oil
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
45
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
cake?.mp. or oilcake?.mp. or ((oil palm? or oilpalm) and (mesocarp fiber? or mesocarp fibre?)).mp. or
oilpalm waste*.mp. or palm waste*.mp. or olive marc.mp. or olive pomace?.mp. or (olive? adj5
waste?).mp. or (orange? adj3 (peel? or residue? or waste?)).mp. or (palm oil mill effluent* or palm oil
mill waste*).mp. or (palm trunk? adj3 tissue?).mp. or papaya seed flour.mp. or paper.mp. or
newspaper?.mp. or pearl stone.mp. or pearlstone.mp. or peat*.mp. or (pecan? adj3 shell?).mp. or
(pepper? adj3 (biomass or residue? or waste?)).mp. or perlite*.mp. or ((pinus merkusii or tusam) adj3
(litter or residue? or waste?)).mp. or phyllite?.mp. or plant fiber?.mp. or plant fibre?.mp. or
plastics.mp. or posidonia.mp. or (press mud and (sugar mill? or sugarmill? or sugar factor* or sugar
industr*)).mp. or propenamide propeonate.mp. or pumice?.mp. or refuse tea.mp. or tea refuse.mp. or
((regreen adj5 hybrid?) and (cover crop? or cover plant?)).mp. or rice bark.mp. or rice harvest
residue?.mp. or rice residue?.mp. or rice rind.mp. or rind rice.mp. or ((rice or wheat) adj1 grain?).mp.
or rock.mp. or rockwool.mp. or row cover?.mp. or rowcover?.mp. or rubber crumb?.mp. or sand.mp.
or sarkanda.mp. or savanna? soil?.mp. or scoria.mp. or sesame cake?.mp. or sesame oilseed cake?.mp.
or sesame oil seed cake?.mp. or shade cloth?.mp. or shadecloth?.mp. or shredded.mp. or silt.mp. or
slag?.mp. or sodium alginate?.mp. or sponge?.mp. or sphagnum.mp. or straw.mp. or ((sugar cane or
sugarcane) adj5 waste?).mp. or synthetic fiber?.mp. or synthetic fibre?.mp. or tailing?.mp. or talc.mp.
or tea residue?.mp. or (tea adj5 waste?).mp. or tezontle.mp. or tile?.mp. or tomato soup waste?.mp. or
topsoil?.mp. or torf.mp. or tuff?.mp. or (turf adj3 transloc*).mp. or (turf adj3 transfer*).mp. or
turface*.mp. or turves.mp. or ulu grass*.mp. or ulugrass*.mp. or vegetable fiber?.mp. or vegetable
fibre?.mp. or vegetable residue?.mp. or vegetable waste?.mp. or vermicompost?.mp. or
vermiculite*.mp. or vinasse?.mp. or volcanic ash.mp. or volcanic cinder*.mp. or water hyacinth?.mp.
or eichhornia crassipes.mp. or wheat gluten matrix.mp. or wheat starch.mp. or ((xaxim or dicksonia
sellowiana) adj3 (powder? or substrate?)).mp. or zeatin?.mp. or zeolite*.mp. or zucchini biomass.mp.
or zucchini residue?.mp. [mp=abstract, title, original title, broad terms, heading words]
3. ((biodigester* adj3 (residue? or waste?)) or bio solid* or biosolid* or (cedar bark or fir bark or
eucalypt* bark or pine bark or red wood bark or spruce bark)).mp. or ((conifer needle? or fir needle?
or pine needle?).mp. or exp conifer needles/) or brush* chip?.mp. or byproduct?.mp. or chip
residual*.mp. or carton.mp. or condensed distiller*.mp. or cork.mp. or distill* residue?.mp. or exp
distillers' residues/ or drift wood.mp. or driftwood.mp. or forest litter.mp. or hardwood mulch*.mp. or
kaolin* residue?.mp. or kaolin waste?.mp. or (leaf mo?ld? and mulch*).mp. or maravalha.mp. or
(monosodium glutamate* adj3 (residue? or waste?)).mp. or (municipal adj2 waste?).mp. or refuse.mp.
or penicillin production residue?.mp. or phosphogypsum?.mp. or pine nugget?.mp. or poplar
chip?.mp. or rapeseed cake?.mp. or river waste?.mp. or sapropel*.mp. or saw dust*.mp. or
sawdust*.mp. or shredded.mp. or sludge?.mp. or exp sludges/ or slurry.mp. or slurries.mp. or spent
wash.mp. or spentwash.mp. or urban garbage.mp. or tannery residue?.mp. or tannery waste?.mp. or
thatch* cover?.mp. or timber waste?.mp. or "tree fern?".mp. or treefern?.mp. or waste water?.mp. or
wastewater?.mp. or wood chip?.mp. or woodchip?.mp. or wood dust?.mp. or wood fiber?.mp. or wood
fibre?.mp. or wood flour.mp. or wood litter.mp. or wood log?.mp. or wood mulch*.mp. or wood
residue?.mp. or wood shaving?.mp. or wood waste?.mp. [mp=abstract, title, original title, broad terms,
heading words]
4. (alfalfa or lucerne or Medicago sativa or Azolla or water fern? or waterfern? or bracken or
brackenfern? or Pteridium aquilinum or Carex or Cannabis sativa or hemp or celeriac? or celeries or
celery or Apium graveolens or Chromolaena or grass?? or Pennisetum purpureum or kenaf or Hibiscus
cannabinus or Lesquerella or mahogony or Swietenia macrophylla or Swietenia mahagoni or Mikania
micrantha or Parthenium or pearl millet? or pearlmillet? or Pennisetum glaucum or prajwal or
Sorghum or spring vetch or Lathyrus vernus or switchgrass?? or Panicum virgatum).mp. [mp=abstract,
title, original title, broad terms, heading words]
5.
1 and (2 or 3 or 4)
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
46
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
Search terms for soil and growing media based on results of Inventory 1 (b, based on approx.
150 soil and growing media)
((acacia? or acalypha indica or kuppaimeni or anacardium occidentale or cashew* or beta vulgaris or
sugar beet? or sugarbeet? or butea monosperma or palas or carnauba or casuarina or erigeron or
faidherbia or fleabane? or jojoba or leucaena or nochi or vitex negundo or pongamia or ficus
roxburghii or teak or tectona grandis or vasambu or achorus calamus) adj5 (leaf or leaves)) or agrolite
or alsil or alumin?um or apatite? or phosphorite? or exp apatite or (asparagus adj3 rootstock?) or
asphalt* spray or attapulgite or palygorskite or ((Austroplenckia populnea or vime's or japanese cedar?
or cryptomeria japonica or cypress* or chamaecyparis obtusa or rhododendron?) adj5 bark) or (bauxite
residue? or bauxite waste? or red mud?) or bay oil? or bhusa or biotite or (bitum* adj5 emulsi*) or
bokashi or (brazil nut? adj5 shell?) or calcium silicat* or (carnation? and post harvest residue?) or
((carnauba or copernicia prunifera) adj5 (dust or industr*)) or (cashew* adj5 integument?) or ((cassia
siamea or kassod or senna siamea or locust bean tree? or parkia biglobosa or sapium or swallow wort?
or swallowwort? or calotropis procera or eucalypt* or teak or tectona grandis) adj5 (extract? or leaf
powder?)) or ceramsite or chipped branch?? or coke plaster or (cranberry adj5 (press or presscake?))
or (cyperus rotundus and bulb?) or (dal weed? or dalweed) or diorite or (earthworm? adj5 (casting? or
excrement?)) or felt? or (flax adj5 shive?) or flysch or ((gingelly* or pongamia) adj5 cake?) or
(glycyrrh* adj5 (debris or litter or residu? or waste?)) or grit or gyttja or haydite* or hornfels* or
humate? or (ilex paraguariensis adj2 (tooth* or chopped stem?)) or ipomoea fistulosa dry lea* or
(jiffy* adj5 pellet*) or jute bag? or lemon tree pruning* or lignocellulosic waste? or (ligustrum
nepalensis and extract?) or marble or metal chip? or (mine spoil? or mining spoil? or mine waste? or
mining waste?) or muslin cloth? or oxic horizon* or (platanus and leaf mo?ld?) or (polyacrylamid*
adj5 granule?) or ((polyethylene terephthalate* adj5 bottle?) or pet bottle?) or (polystyren* adj5
(granule? or bead?)) or pozzolana or pyrite? or quartz or ((sago waste? or sago residue? or sago pith
residue?) and press*) or (sericultur* adj5 waste?) or slate? or soilrite* or sporocarp? or stabilizate or
stalite* or (terminalia catappa adj5 seed?) or (termite? adj5 (tomb or mound?)) or termitaria or (thuja
and by-product?) or (tithonia and (leaf or leaves) and mulch*) or vinegar residue? or vivianite or
(walnut? adj2 shell?)
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
47
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
APPENDIX D: Predefined organisms considered to pose an important emerging risk for plant
health that are not listed in the EU regulation
Nematodes:
Belonolaimus longicaudatus
Paratrichodorus porosus
Fungi:
Botrytis allii
Plectosphaerella cucumerina
Bacteria:
Burkholderia gladioli
Acidovorax avenae subsp. avenae
Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae
Pantoea ananatis
Dickeya chrysanthemi
Insects:
Ceroplastes ceriferus
Chilo suppressalis
Acalitus gossypii
Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus
Spodoptera exempta
Cydia fabivora
Anomis flava
Neoceratitis cyanescens
Maruca vitrata
Weeds:
Mikania micrantha
Phelipanche ramose
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
48
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
SOIL AND GROWING MEDIA INVENTORIES REPORT
APPENDIX E: List of Nematodes subject to test on presence in Soil and Growing Media by RHP
Aphelenchoides spp.
Bursaphelenchus spp
Criconema spp.
Criconemoides spp.
Ditylenchus spp.
Globodera spp.
Helicotylenchus spp.
Hemicriconemoides spp.
Hemicycliophora spp.
Heterodera spp.
Hoplolaimus spp.
Longidorus spp.
Meloidogyne spp.
Nacobbus spp
Paralongidorus spp
Paratrichodorus spp.
Paratylenchus spp.
Pratylenchoides spp
Pratylenchus spp.
Punctodera spp
Radopholus spp.
Rotylenchulus spp
Rotylenchus spp.
Trichodorus spp.
Tylenchorhynchus spp.
Xiphinema spp.
EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-834
49
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.