Plant Pest and Disease Records Development and Adoption of National Standards

A report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation by Bob Ikin and Nick Small

March 2000 RIRDC Publication No 00/32 RIRDC Project No AQS-2A

ii

© 2000 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 0 642 58062 6 ISSN 1440-6845 Plant Pests and Disease Records – Development and Adoption of National Standards Publication No. 00/32 Project No AQS-2A The views expressed and the conclusions reached in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of persons consulted. RIRDC shall not be responsible in any way whatsoever to any person who relies in whole or in part on the contents of this report. This publication is copyright. However, RIRDC encourages wide dissemination of its research, providing the Corporation is clearly acknowledged. For any other enquiries concerning reproduction, contact thePublications Manager on phone 02 6272 3186.

Researcher Contact Details Name Mr Adrian Harris Address Plant Quarantine Policy Branch Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service Phone: (02) 6271 6406 Fax: (02) 6272 3307 Email: adrian.harris@aqis.gov.au Website: http://www.aqis.gov.au

RIRDC Contact Details Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 1, AMA House 42 Macquarie Street BARTON ACT 2600 PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604 Phone: 02 6272 4539 Fax: 02 6272 5877 Email: rirdc@rirdc.gov.au Website: http://www.rirdc.gov.au Published in March 2000 Printed on environmentally friendly paper by Canprint

iii

Foreword The modern global trading and quarantine environments has made access to accurate and reliable pest information increasingly important. Pest records held at pest collections are a major resource in this regard. In the past, a key deficiency with the pest records held within Australia has been that, in the absence of an appropriate national standard for documenting pest records and determining pest status, it has been difficult to establish their accuracy and reliability, especially when attempting to make determinations of whether a particular pest is present or absent in Australia. In order to address this deficiency, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) commissioned a consultant in 1998 to coordinate the development of a national standard and to evaluate the compliance with this standard of records held at various pest collections. This national standard was developed in consultation with pest collection curators from around Australia. This report provides an assessment of major Australian pest collections against the national standard that has been developed for pest records. The report also includes consideration of other issues associated with pest collections which serve to impede the provision of accurate and reliable pest data and recommends strategies for improvement. This project was funded from RIRDC Core Funds which are provided by the Federal Government. The report will be added to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 450 research publications, forms part of our Resilient Agricultural Systems R&D program, which aims to foster agri-industry systems that have sufficient diversity, flexibility and robustness to be resilient and respond to challenges and opportunities. Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our website: • downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/Index.htm • purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/cat/contents.html Peter Core Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

iv

Acknowledgements The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) gratefully acknowledges the contribution of Dr Rob Brown, whose work forms the basis of this report. AQIS would also like to thank the many pest collection curators and stakeholders who contributed their time and effort to this project.

v

Contents FOREWORD ............................................................................................................. III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................... IV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................... VI

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

2. OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................... 1

3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 2 3.1 Development of a National Standard........................................................................2 3.2 General Evaluation of Existing Pest Collection Records ..........................................2 3.3 Sample Pest Record Evaluation...............................................................................3

4. RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 4 4.1 Development of a National Standard........................................................................4 4.2 General Evaluation of Existing Pest Collection Records .........................................5 4.3 Sample Pest Record Evaluation...............................................................................8

5. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 10

6. RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 13

7. APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 14

vi

Executive Summary With the adoption by FAO member countries, including Australia, of the “Principles of Plant Quarantine as Related to International Trade” (FAO International Standard Phytosanitary Measure (ISPM) No. 1) as a global quarantine standard and the development and acceptance of “Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis” (ISPM No. 2), the provision of accurate pest data to overseas countries in support of market access bids for Australian products has become vital. If accurate pest records can be provided easily, overseas access bids can be made more quickly, with obvious benefits to Australian export industries. Conversely, accurate pest records will help to ensure that when the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) conducts a pest risk analysis of an import proposal, the process of identifying risk organisms is valid. This will help to ensure that local industries are not exposed to unacceptable risk if imports are permitted. In addition, accurate pest records will enable AQIS to better defend quarantine decisions to overseas countries seeking to export their products to Australia. Pest (including disease) records are principally maintained at pest collections held by State departments of agriculture, CSIRO, and other organisations such as universities and museums. Previously, however, there has been no national standard for documenting pest records and determining pest status. This has resulted in difficulties in establishing the accuracy and reliability of Australian pest records, especially when attempting to make determinations of whether particular pests are present or absent. This deficiency was the impetus for this project. The aim of this project was to develop a standard system for recording pests and determining pest status (based on a draft standard developed by the FAO), in consultation with curators of Australian pest and disease collections and then to evaluate the compliance of existing pest records with this ‘National Standard’. The National Standard was developed at a workshop of pest collection curators and subsequently distributed to the various collections. A key component of the National Standard is a framework to determine the reliability of pest records. Since the development of the National Standard for the Determination of Pest Status, the draft FAO ISPM from which it was developed has been published in final form by the FAO. The Australian National Standard is a further refinement of the FAO ISPM. Pest records that comply with the Australian National Standard will also comply with the FAO ISPM. AQIS may, in future, seek revision of the FAO ISPM to incorporate the refinements contained in the Australian Standard. Five of the major pest collections were then visited and their pest records subjected to a general evaluation against the National Standard. As a test case, in order to quantify the extent to which existing pest records conform to the National Standard, pest records for tomato and cherry were evaluated against the National Standard. Overall, it was found that there is good conformity of pest records with the National Standard. Consequently revision of existing records to align them with the National Standard is not a major issue. However, the retrieval and collation of pest records information from pest collections did emerge as a major issue. Most of the pest collections use incompatible electronic databases and one of the collections has only a hard copy database. Consequently, data retrieval and collation of data is more difficult and time consuming than if the databases were compatible and/or electronically linked. Another major issue is the lack of curation resources, especially for some of the nematode collections. This lack of curation threatens to result in the loss of valuable records.

vii

It was noted that, relative to other classes of pathogens, there are few voucher specimens associated with virus diseases. In the absence of voucher specimens, there is virtually no opportunity to confirm previous reports of their occurrence on particular host crops. The recommendations of this report are that pest collection records be placed on linked or, at least, compatible electronic databases and that further resources be allocated to the curation of pest collections. In accordance with the recommendation of Nairn et al. (1996) in their review of quarantine in Australia, the National Office of Animal and Plant Health (NAOPH), an operating group within Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry Australia (AFFA) has been coordinating the investigation of strategies to enable better collation and retrieval of information held in the various databases around the country. In 1999, NOAPH organised a National Databases for Pests and Diseases Workshop in Canberra. Participants included representatives from the various state pest collections as well as representatives from CSIRO and AFFA. The workshop presented a number of possibilities to link distributed heterogenous databases. These possibilities simply were not available in the past but, due to advances in information technology and the internet, are now entirely feasible. At the conclusion of the workshop, working groups were formed to progress the issue. It is anticipated that future work towards the linking of pest databases will require external funding.

1

1. Introduction With the adoption by FAO member countries, including Australia, of the “Principles of Plant Quarantine as Related to International Trade” (FAO International Standard Phytosanitary Measure (ISPM) No. 1) as a global quarantine standard and the development and acceptance of “Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis” (ISPM No. 2), the provision of accurate pest data to overseas countries in support of market access bids for Australian products has become vital. If accurate pest records can be provided easily, overseas access bids can be made more quickly, with obvious benefits to Australian export industries. Conversely, accurate pest records will help to ensure that when the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) conducts a pest risk analysis of an import proposal, the process of identifying risk organisms is valid. This will help to ensure that local industries are not exposed to unacceptable risk if imports are permitted. In addition, accurate pest records will enable AQIS to better defend quarantine decisions to overseas countries seeking to export their products to Australia. Pest (including disease) records are principally maintained at pest collections held by State Departments of Agriculture, CSIRO, and other organisations such as universities and museums. Previously, however, there has been no national standard for documenting pest records and determining pest status. This has resulted in difficulties in establishing the accuracy and reliability of Australian pest records, especially when attempting to make determinations of whether particular pests are present or absent in Australia. This deficiency was the impetus for this project.

2. Objectives The principal aims of this project were to: • develop a national standard for documenting pest records and for determining pest status • evaluate the level of compliance of existing pest records with this standard.

2

3. Methodology

3.1 Development of a National Standard A draft ISPM for Determination of Pest Status in an Area, was prepared by the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). This document was circulated for comment to member countries in late 1997. The purpose of this ISPM was to describe the content of a pest record and the use of pest records and other information in the determination of pest status in an area as well as providing descriptions of pest status categories and recommendations for good reporting practices. This draft ISPM formed the base from which a national standard could be developed. AQIS circulated the draft ISPM for comment to curators of pest collections, and other relevant scientists. The responses received by AQIS were collated and, in July 1998, a workshop was convened at the Institute for Horticultural Development at Knoxfield, for the purpose of allowing respondents and others to discuss the various issues which had been raised. The workshop was attended by the key curators of national/state pest and disease reference collections, by senior quarantine scientists, and by taxonomists representing various plant protection disciplines. The participants included:

Dr. Bob Ikin, Plant Quarantine Policy Branch, AQIS, Canberra Mr. Michael Priest, Mycologist/Curator, NSW Agriculture Herbarium, Orange Dr. Murray Fletcher, Entomologist/Curator, NSW Agriculture Herbarium, Orange Dr. Graeme Evans, Principal Scientist, Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra Dr. Adrian Gibbs, Virologist, Australian National University, Canberra Dr. Steve Shattuck, Entomologist, Australian National Insect Collection, Canberra Mr. Ian Pascoe, Mycologist/Curator, Agriculture Victoria Herbarium, Knoxfield Mr. Darby Munro, Principal Plant Pathologist, DPIF, Hobart Dr. Kerrie Davies, Nematologist, Waite Institute Nematode Collection, Adelaide Mr. Ted Fenner, Senior Entomologist/Quarantine Adviser, NTDPIF, Darwin Dr. Rob Brown, Consultant, Vermont.

3.2 General Evaluation of Existing Pest Collection Records In October, 1998, the major pest collections in New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia were visited. Unfortunately, the visit planned for Queensland was aborted because of the early and unexpected retirement of the collection’s curator (he has not yet been replaced, and the collection is currently not being curated). The following collections were visited and evaluated against the National Standard:

1. NSW Agriculture Herbarium (Orange, NSW) 2. Australian National Insect Collection (Canberra, ACT) 3. Agriculture Victoria Herbarium (Knoxfield, VIC) 4. Waite Institute Nematode Collection (Adelaide, SA) 5. Agriculture WA Culture Collection (South Perth, WA).

3

3.3 Sample Pest Record Evaluation In order to quantify the extent to which existing pest records conformed to the National Standard, pest records for two sample crops were evaluated against the National Standard. The crops chosen were tomato and cherry, as the information obtained from this exercise could be incorporated into the export market access submissions that AQIS was preparing for these two commodities. The pest records were provided by the curators. These records were collated and analysed to determine both the numbers, and the proportions of records which conformed to the National Standard. Problems encountered in developing the pest lists for tomato and cherry were noted, and consideration was given as to how these could be overcome, and a better system developed for meeting requests for pest data.

4

4. Results 4.1 Development of a National Standard Most discussion at the workshop centred on the need to maintain voucher specimens as verification of the presence of a pest. This aspect was considered to be more important than details of who had made the pest identification, as identifications may be erroneous but the identification of maintained voucher specimens can be validated at later date. As a consequence, requirements for voucher specimens have been incorporated into the Standard. Under the National Standard, the basic information required for a pest record is as follows: • current scientific name of the organism

• life stage or state

• taxonomic group

• identification method and identifier

• date

• locality (including important environmental conditions)

• scientific name of host and/or circumstances of collection (e.g. trap)

• host damage (if applicable)

• prevalence

• bibliographical references

• reference collection data (e.g. acronyms, accession numbers)

In addition, a key component of the National Standard is a table listing the criteria against which the reliability of pest records can be determined. These criteria are: • the scientific credibility of the identifier

• the method used to identify the pest

• the method of pest collection/observation

• the medium by which the identification/observation has been recorded.

The final version of the National Standard has been distributed to the various pest collections and stakeholders. A copy of the National Standard is provided in the Appendix.

5

4.2 General Evaluation of Existing Pest Collection Records 1. NSW Agriculture Herbarium The plant disease collection is well housed and curated, and all the records are readily available on a computerised database (the same system is also used by Agriculture Victoria). The majority of specimens held in the collection are agriculturally relevant. Voucher specimens are well labelled and the data recorded (authority, technical identification, location and date, and recording/publication) are of high quality. Specimens are easily accessed and maintained in dedicated storage facilities. The collection also incorporates a comprehensive range of relevant published material. Although there are many written records of the occurrence of virus diseases of various crops in NSW, there are few voucher specimens to back these records. This is a common weakness in all of the plant disease collections. The plant disease collection also incorporates material on the occurrence of diseases in South Australia, recently transferred from the Waite Institute collection in Adelaide. The nematode collection is no longer actively curated (when the last nematologist retired several years ago, the position was not filled). Most specimens are held primarily as fixed and mounted material on microscope slides (i.e. as permanent mounts). This material will have value only so long as it is maintained. If the slides dry out and are not re-mounted when needed, these records will be lost. The insect collection is similarly well housed and curated, and all the records are readily available on a computerised database. In addition to agriculturally relevant specimens, many others of non-agricultural significance are also held. As well as pinned specimens housed in cabinets, the collection also includes identified specimens in alcohol, and a considerable amount of wet preserved material awaiting identification. The NSW plant disease and insect collections at Orange are particularly valuable, and are the only collections in the country protected by Act of Parliament. Both the plant disease and insect collections and the recorded data backing the voucher specimens they hold, conform in large degree with the National Standard. Requests for pest data should be readily met. 2. Agriculture Victoria Herbarium The plant disease collection is well housed and curated, and all the records are readily available on a computerised database (the same system as is also used by NSW Agriculture). The majority of specimens held are agriculturally relevant.

6

Voucher specimens are well labelled and the data recorded (authority, technical identification, location and date, and recording/publication) are of high quality. Specimens are easily accessed and maintained in dedicated storage facilities. The collection also incorporates a comprehensive range of relevant published material. Although there are many written records of the occurrence of virus diseases of various crops in Victoria, there are few voucher specimens in support of these records. Agriculture Victoria has not had a nematologist for several years, and the nematode collection is not actively curated. Most specimens are held primarily as fixed and mounted material on microscope slides (i.e. as permanent mounts). This material will have value only so long as it is maintained. If the slides dry out and are not re-mounted when needed, these records will be lost. Valuable type specimens in the collection are probably no longer useable because of the lack of curation. The plant disease collection and the recorded data backing the voucher specimens they hold, conform in large degree with the National Standard. Requests for pest data should be readily met. 3. Agriculture WA Culture Collection The plant disease collection is represented by well maintained and curated cultures of fungal and bacterial pathogens. All records are available on a computerised database but, as it is a less comprehensive system than that used in NSW and Victoria, it has lower utility. All the records held are agriculturally significant. The data recorded (authority, technical identification, location and date, and recording/publication) are of high quality. The collection does not have preserved, diseased host material, as is held in collections in the eastern States. However, some fungal disease samples are held in the botanical herbarium curated by the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) at South Perth. Virus diseases are poorly represented. A comprehensive publication on the occurrence of plant diseases in Western Australia was published about ten years ago, but has not been updated since then. 4. Australian National Insect Collection The Australian National Insect Collection is well housed and curated. The majority of specimens are not of agricultural significance. Parts of the collection are databased and voucher specimens are well labelled and the data recorded (authority, technical identification, location and date, and recording/publication) are of high quality. Those parts of the collection which are databased, have been databased in an ad hoc manner using external funds when they were available. The aphid collection, for example, was databased in a specific project funded by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. The collection has plans to progressively database all specimens held.

7

The collection is arranged in such a way that non-databased material can be readily accessed and examined if needed. Requests for pest data should be readily met. 5. Waite Institute Nematode Collection The nematode collection is held primarily as fixed and mounted material on microscope slides (i.e. as permanent mounts). At present the collection is well maintained but is not curated. The current nematologist on the staff of the Institute is not employed to act as curator and, when she ceases full-time employment in the near future, there is no guarantee that this valuable collection will be maintained. Although there are several nematologists employed by the South Australian Research and Development Institute, in the same precinct, there appears to be little direct input or involvement with the collection. Details on all specimens held are recorded in field and related notebooks and all data relate to the site from which the nematodes were collected rather than from specific hosts. The data are comprehensive and of high quality, but all details are available only as hard copy. The collection does not have a computerised database. This is a major weakness of the collection. The collection includes material which is both agriculturally and non-agriculturally significant. The collection also has considerable numbers of samples and specimens being held pending assessment and identification. The nematode collection and the recorded data backing the voucher specimens they hold, conform in large degree with the National Standard. Any AQIS requests for data in relation to market access can be met, but with some difficulty as the records will have to be searched manually. There is an urgent need for funds to permit the collection to computerise its database.

8

4.3 Sample Pest Record Evaluation 1. Tomato A total of 905 records were provided for pests and diseases of tomato. The conformity of the records with the National Standard was evaluated for each pest collection considered in this study. These results are summarised in Table 1. Table 1.

collection pests number of records

number of records

conforming

% conformity

NSW Ag pathogens 447 383 85.7 insects 195 148 75.9Ag VIC pathogens 161 157 97.5Ag WA pathogens 36a - -ANIC insects/nematodes 66 43 65.2Waite Institute nematodes nab - -a These records are represented by culture collections. b Due to lack of staff resources and the fact that the data in this collection are not maintained electronically, it was not possible to obtain the required data from this collection. All 905 records are backed by voucher specimens. Those records that were found not to conform with the National Standard generally had minor deficiencies; usually either no details on the collector of the material or no date on which the material was collected. The percentages of tomato pest records that were (a) identified down to the genus level only and (b) identified by symptoms only was also evaluated for each pest collection in the study. The results are summarised in Table 2. Table 2.

collection pests number of records

% identified to genus level only

% identified by symptoms only

NSW Ag pathogens 447 8.7 4.7 insects 195 7.7 14.3Ag VIC pathogens 161 32.9a 0.6Ag WA pathogens 36 8.3 0ANIC insects/nematodes 66 0 0Waite Institute nematodes nab - -a 79% of this figure is attributable to records identified as Oidium sp. b Due to lack of staff resources and the fact that the data in this collection are not maintained electronically, it was not possible to obtain the required data from this collection.

9

2. Cherry A total of 209 records were provided for pests and diseases of cherry. The conformity of the records with the National Standard was evaluated for each pest collection considered in this study. These results are summarised in Table 3. Table 3.

collection pests number of records

number of records

conforming

% conformity

NSW Ag pathogens 53 36 67.9 insects 51 49 96.1Ag VIC pathogens 70 63 90.0Ag WA pathogens 0 - -ANIC insects/nematodes 35 12 34.3Waite Institute nematodes 0 - - All 209 records are backed by voucher specimens. Again, those records that were found not to conform with the National Standard generally had minor deficiencies; usually either no details on the collector of the material or no date on which the material was collected. The percentages of cherry pest records that were (a) identified down to the genus level only and (b) identified by symptoms only was also evaluated for each pest collection in the study. The results are summarised in Table 4. Table 4.

collection pests number of records

% identified to genus level only

% identified by symptoms only

NSW Ag pathogens 53 15.0 13.2 insects 51 9.8 3.9Ag VIC pathogens 70 8.6 1.4Ag WA pathogens 0 - -ANIC insects/nematodes 35 0 0Waite Institute nematodes 0 - -

10

5. Discussion The National Standard for the Determination of Pest Status has been provided to pest collections around Australia. It is anticipated that these collections will, in the future, use the National Standard for documenting all new material catalogued at the collections. All the collections evaluated have voucher specimens which conform to a large degree with the National Standard. Some collections, particularly those which are actively curated, conform more closely to the National Standard than collections such as the Waite Institute Nematode Collection or the Agriculture WA Culture Collection. However, overall, there was good conformity of pest records with the National Standard. The vast majority of pest records were identified down to the species level. Only a small minority of records were identified only as far as the genus level. Likewise, only a small proportion of records were identified only by symptoms. As a result of the specificity of pest records and their conformity with the National Standard, revision of existing records is not a major issue. It was noted that, relative to other classes of pathogens, there are few voucher specimens associated with virus diseases. In the absence of voucher specimens, there is virtually no opportunity to confirm previous reports of their occurrence on particular host crops. During the course of this project, retrieval of pest record information emerged as the major issue. With the exception of the Waite Institute Nematode Collection, the major collections have records maintained on electronic databases, supported by hard copy and other relevant material. The two largest collections (NSW Agriculture, at Orange, and Agriculture Victoria, at Knoxfield) utilise the same software package. The software packages used by the Australian National Insect Collection, and the Agriculture WA Culture Collection differ from, and are incompatible with the NSW and Victorian systems. The Australian National Insect Collection and Agriculture WA Culture Collection systems were developed and implemented to meet the specific needs at the time of the two organisations concerned. As the Australian National Insect Collection database was developed primarily for reasons other than plant quarantine, there is little likelihood of its being modified to make it compatible with those of NSW Agriculture and Agriculture Victoria. In any case, as the majority of the collection probably has little plant quarantine significance, there is no reason to change the current system. The Agriculture WA Culture Collection is a minor but, nevertheless, important collection. Its database is less comprehensive than that used by NSW Agriculture and Agriculture Victoria and, clearly, there would be benefits if it was upgraded and made compatible with them. No estimate has been made of the resources required to do this, but it would include purchase of the necessary software, and labour costs for re-entering the existing data. The Waite Institute Nematode Collection is the least accessible in terms of data retrieval as it is not computerised. Much of the material catalogued is not of quarantine significance but, if an electronic database were to be introduced, it would be sensible to use the system adopted by the Australian National Insect Collection for its nematode collection. Such a system could still effectively be queried for plant quarantine purposes, but would not be compatible with the NSW Agriculture and Agriculture Victoria systems. It is estimated that the development and implementation of a database similar to that used by the Australian National Insect Collection would cost approximately $35,000 ($5,000 for a computer and the

11

necessary software, and $30,000 for the salary of a technician to enter the data). This task could probably be undertaken and completed in a year. The usefulness of the Western Australian Culture collection would be greatly improved by upgrading the database using a more appropriate software package compatible with that used in the NSW Agriculture and Agriculture Victoria collections. The purchase of the software, provision of a dedicated computer (if required) and salary for someone to input the data could probably be achieved for a total of $15,000 and could be completed within a four month time frame. At present, the collation of a national pest list using pest data from the pest collections involves individually requesting the information from each pest collection, retrieval of the information from each database by staff at each collection and manual re-entry of the data (due to database incompatibility) to form the final collated list. Placement of the pest record data for each collection on compatible databases would facilitate the collation of national pest lists as pest record data could be combined and sorted electronically rather than having to be manually re-entered. Data could be obtained more quickly if the various databases were not just compatible but were also electronically linked and were accessible to organisations that use pest record data. The major cost of this option is associated with the provision of a dedicated server for the network. Such a development is highly recommended, but it should be extended to include the collections in Western Australia, South Australia, and that held at Indooroopilly in Queensland. It should be noted that AQIS’s Pest and Disease Information (PDI) database does not contain comprehensive data on pests collected in Australia. Any information on the presence of particular pests in Australia that is contained in the PDI database is generally derived from pest records held in the various pest collection databases. The principal strength of the PDI database is its information on pest interceptions on imported goods and in passenger baggage. AQIS’s Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy (NAQS) database contains plant and animal pest records taken from over 100 surveys of the Australia’s northern region from Cairns to Broome and extending approximately 20 kilometres inland and including the Ord River irrigation area and Kakadu National Park. In the context of plant pest status determination, the NAQS database would be able to provide some useful information on the distribution and prevalence of pests in northern Australia. The other major issue to emerge during the course of this project is the lack of curation resources at some of the collections. This applies especially to the nematode collections held at the Agriculture Victoria and Waite Institute Collections. These collections are not being actively curated. The specimens held at these collections are held primarily as fixed and mounted material on microscope slides (i.e. permanent mounts). Without ongoing curation, the mounting medium degrades and, if the specimens are not re-mounted, they dry out and become unusable. There are approximately 35 active nematologists in Australia ( according to the membership list of the Australasian Association of Nematologists). The majority of these are associated with the management of nematode diseases in broadacre crops. Of the 35, only a few are experienced and internationally recognised but, of these, only three have taxonomic interests – one in conventional taxonomy and the other two in molecular taxonomy. Since the development of the National Standard for the Determination of Pest Status, the draft FAO ISPM from which it was developed has been published in final form by the FAO. The Australian National Standard is a further refinement of the FAO ISPM. Pest records that comply with the

12

Australian National Standard will also comply with the FAO ISPM. AQIS may, in future, seek revision of the FAO ISPM to incorporate the refinements contained in the Australian National Standard. Nairn et al. (1996), in their review of quarantine in Australia, recommended that the National Office of Animal and Plant Health (NAOPH), an operating group within Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry Australia (AFFA), take a leadership role in the development of pest and disease databases and information systems. To this end, following the completion of the Pest Status Determination Project, NOAPH has been coordinating the investigation of strategies to enable better collation and retrieval of information held in the various databases around the country. On 29-30 July 1999, NOAPH organised a National Databases for Pests and Diseases Workshop in Canberra. Participants included representatives from the various state pest collections as well as representatives from CSIRO (including the Mathematical and Information Sciences division) and AFFA. The representatives from the various pest collections presented information on the status of their collections, including the type of database system used and how it operates, the number of pest records on the database, problems associated with the present system, views on how the system could be improved. The workshop recognised: (a) the need for a national database for pests of plants (b) that the most effective way to achieve this was by constructing a network of existing pest

databases, linked via the internet and new information technology tools. Representatives from CSIRO’s Mathematical Information Sciences division presented a good overview of the possibilities to link distributed heterogenous databases. These possibilities simply were not available in the past but, due to advances in information technology and the internet, are now entirely feasible. At the conclusion of the workshop, working groups were formed to progress the issue. It is anticipated that future work towards the linking of pest databases will require external funding.

13

6. Recommendations In view of the importance of timely information retrieval from pest collections, it is strongly recommended that consideration be given to funding arrangements to enable the electronic linkage of the various pest collection databases as a means of facilitating the timely retrieval of information maintained at pest collections. Failing the provision of sufficient funding for a national database, it is recommended that consideration be given to funding arrangements to allow the placement of Agriculture WA Culture Collection records on the system compatible with that used by the NSW Agriculture and the Agriculture Victoria collections and to allow placement of the Waite Institute Nematode Collection records on a database compatible with that used by the Australian National Insect Collection. Given the serious threat to the integrity of pest collections posed by the lack of resources available for the curation of the collections, it is recommended that consideration be given to funding arrangements to ensure that these collections continue to be available as an important technical resource. Implementation of these recommendations will facilitate the compilation of accurate technical information upon which to base Australia’s phytosanitary requirements and will assist in the timely provision of data required to support export market access proposals.

14

7. Appendices

Appendix 1. Standard for the Determination of Pest Status

INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................15 Scope ............................................................................................................................. 15 References ..................................................................................................................... 15 Definitions and Abbreviations ......................................................................................... 16 Outline of Requirements................................................................................................. 17

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DETERMINATION OF PEST STATUS ...............18 1. Purposes of Pest Status Determination...................................................................... 18 2. Pest Records .............................................................................................................. 19 2.1 Pest Record.............................................................................................................. 19 2.2 Reliability .................................................................................................................. 19 3. Pest Status in an Area................................................................................................ 21 3.1 Describing Pest Status in an Area............................................................................ 21 3.1.1 Presence ............................................................................................................. 21 3.1.2 Absence............................................................................................................... 21

3.2 Determination of Pest Status in an Area .................................................................. 22 4. Recommended Reporting Practices........................................................................... 24 5. Useful References...................................................................................................... 25

15

Introduction Scope This standard describes the content of a pest record, and the use of pest records and other information in the determination of pest status in an area. Descriptions of pest status categories are provided as well as recommendations for good reporting practices.

References Glossary of phytosanitary terms, 1997. ISPM Pub. No. 5, FAO, Rome.

Guidelines for pest eradication programmes, 1998. ISPM Pub. No. 9, FAO, Rome.

Guidelines for pest risk analysis, 1996. ISPM Pub. No. 2, FAO, Rome.

Guidelines for surveillance, 1998. ISPM Pub. No. 6, FAO, Rome.

International Plant Protection Convention, 1992. FAO, Rome.

Nairn, ME, Allen, PG, Inglis, AR, and Turner, C (1996). Australian Quarantine: a shared responsibility. Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Canberra.

New Revised Text of the International Plant Protection Convention, 1997. FAO, Rome.

Principles of plant quarantine as related to international trade, 1995. ISPM Pub. No. 1, FAO, Rome.

Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas, 1996. ISPM Pub. No. 4, FAO, Rome.

16

Definitions and Abbreviations Area An officially defined country, part of a country or all or parts of several

countries. Delimiting survey Survey conducted to establish the boundaries of an area considered to be

infested by or free from a pest. Detection survey Survey conducted in an area to determine if pests are present. Establishment Perpetuation, for the foreseeable future, of a pest within an area after entry. Interception (of a pest) The detection of a pest during inspection of an imported consignment. IPPC The International Plant Protection Convention, a multilateral treaty for

cooperation in plant protection, approved and deposited in 1951 with FAO in Rome, having come into force in 1952 and amended in 1979 (the Revised Text) and 1997 (the New Revised Text).

Monitoring survey Ongoing survey to verify the characteristics of a pest population. National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO)

Official service established by a government to discharge the functions specified by the IPPC.

Occurrence The presence in an area of a pest officially reported to be indigenous or introduced and/or not officially reported to have been eradicated.

Official Established, authorized or performed by a National Plant Protection Organization.

Outbreak An isolated pest population, recently detected and expected to survive for the immediate future.

Pest Any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal, or pathogenic agent, injurious to plants or plant products.

Pest free area (PFA) An area in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained.

Pest record A document providing information concerning the presence or absence of a specific pest at a particular location at a certain time, within an area (usually a country) under described circumstances.

Pest status (in an area) Presence or absence, at the present time, of a pest in an area, including where appropriate its distribution as officially determined using expert judgement on the basis of current and historical pest records and other information.

Phytosanitary measure Any legislation, regulation or official procedure having the purpose to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests.

Phytosanitary regulation Official rule to prevent the introduction and/or spread of quarantine pests, by regulating the production, movement or existence of commodities or other articles, or the normal activity of persons, and by establishing schemes for phytosanitary certification.

Quarantine pest A pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled.

Regional Plant Protection Organization (RPPO) Intergovernmental organization with the functions laid down by Article IX of the IPPC.

Regulated pest A quarantine pest or a regulated non-quarantine pest. Surveillance An official process which collects and records data on pest occurrence or

absence by survey, monitoring or other procedures. Survey An official procedure conducted over a defined period of time to determine

the characteristics of a pest population or to determine which species occur in an area.

Transience Presence of a pest that is not expected to lead to establishment.

17

Outline of Requirements Pest records are essential components of the information used to establish the status of a pest in an area. All importing and exporting countries need information concerning the status of pests for risk analyses, the establishment of and compliance with import regulations, and the establishment and maintenance of pest free areas. A pest record provides information concerning the pest, the time and location of the observations, the damage caused, as well as references or other relevant information pertaining to a single observation. The reliability of pest records is based on consideration of the data in regard to the collector/identifier, the means of technical identification, the location and date of the record, and the recording/publication of the record. The determination of pest status requires expert judgement concerning the information available on the present-day occurrence of a pest in an area. Pest status is determined using information from individual pest records, pest records from surveys, data on pest absence, findings of general surveillance, and scientific publications and databases, including reference collection databases. Pest status is outlined in this standard in terms of three categories incorporating various final determinations:

- presence of the pest - leading to determinations such as "present in all parts of the country", "present in specified areas only", etc.

- absence of the pest - leading to determinations such as "no pest records", "pest eradicated", "pest no longer present", etc.

- transience of the pest - leading to determinations such as "non-actionable incursion", "actionable incursion", and "outbreak under eradication".

To facilitate international cooperation among National Plant Protection Organizations (NPPOs) in meeting their obligations in reporting the occurrence, outbreak or spread of pests, NPPOs or other organizations or persons involved in recording the presence, absence, or transience of pests, should follow good reporting practices. These practices concern the use of accurate, reliable data for pest records, the sharing of pest status information in a timely and ethical manner, respecting the legitimate interests of all parties concerned, and taking into account the pest status determinations in this standard.

18

General Requirements for Determination of Pest Status 1. Purposes of Pest Status Determination

A pest record is documented evidence that indicates the presence or absence of a specific pest at a particular location and certain time, within an area, usually a country, under described circumstances. Pest records are used in conjunction with other information for the determination of the status of the given pest in the area. In general, the provision of reliable pest records and the determination of pest status are vital components of a number of activities covered under the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and by the principles noted in the ISPM: Principles of plant quarantine as related to international trade, and the international standards for phytosanitary measures that have been developed from them. Importing countries need pest status information to:

- conduct a pest risk analysis (PRA) on a pest in another country

- establish phytosanitary regulations to prevent the entry, establishment or spread

of a pest

- conduct a PRA on a non-quarantine pest in their own territory with a view to

regulating it.

Exporting countries need pest status information to: - comply with import regulations by not exporting consignments infested with the

regulated pests of the importing country - meet requests for information from other countries for the purpose of PRA on

pests in their territory. All countries may use pest status information for:

- PRA purposes

- planning national, regional or international pest management programmes

- establishing national pest lists

- establishing and maintaining pest free areas.

Information on the status of a pest in areas, countries and regions may be used to establish the global distribution of a pest.

19

2. Pest Records

2.1 Pest Record The ISPM: Guidelines for surveillance describes the elements of information from general surveillance and specific surveys that may be included in a pest record. The basic information needed in a pest record includes the following:

- current scientific name of the organism including, as appropriate, subspecific

terms (strain, biotype, etc.) - life stage or state

- taxonomic group

- identification method and identifier

- year, and month if known, recorded; normally the day will only be required for specific circumstances (e.g. the first detection of a particular pest, pest monitoring)

- locality, e.g. location codes, addresses, geographical coordinates; important conditions such as if under protected cultivation (e.g. greenhouses) should be indicated

- scientific name of host or circumstances of collection (e.g. trap or soil sample), as appropriate

- host damage, as appropriate

- prevalence, indication of the level of pest presence or pest numbers

- bibliographical references, if any.

- reference collection data including acronyms and accession numbers

A list of references is noted in the Appendix to this standard for consultation in the preparation of a pest record.

2.2 Reliability Pest record information is available from many sources and has varying levels of reliability. Some key components are identified in the following table. Although the table ranks the categories in descending order of relative reliability, it must be recognized that these are not rigid and are only designed to provide guidance in evaluating the record. In particular, it should be noted that pests differ in the level of expertise needed for their identification. NPPOs have responsibility to provide accurate information on pest records upon request.

20

Table. Guidance for Evaluating the Reliability of a Pest Record 1. Authority

2. Technical Identification

3. Location and Date

4. Recording/Publication

(a) taxonomic specialist using current best practice

(a) discriminating biochemical or molecular diagnosis (if available)

(a) delimiting or detection surveys

(a) NPPO record/RPPO publication

(b) professional specialist; diagnostician

(b) specimen or culture maintained in official collection; taxonomic description by specialist

(b) other field or production surveys

(b) scientific or technical journal - refereed

(c) scientist

(c) specimen in general collection

(c) casual or incidental field observation; no defined location or date

(c) official historical record

(d) technician

(d) description and photo

(d) observations with/in products or by-products; interception

(d) listed in a reference collection database

(e) expert amateur

(e) visual description only

(e) precise location and date not known

(e) scientific or technical journal - non-refereed

(f) non-specialist

(f) method of identification not known

(f) specialist amateur publication

(g) collector/identifier not known

(g) unpublished scientific or technical document

21

3. Pest Status in an Area

3.1 Describing Pest Status in an Area

Determination of pest status requires expert judgement on the current distribution of a pest in an area. This judgement is based on a synthesis of pest records and information from other sources. Both current and historical records are used in assessing the present-day situation. Pest status can be described under the following categories:

3.1.1 Presence A pest is present if records indicate that it is indigenous or introduced. If a pest is present and sufficient reliable records are available, then it may be possible to characterise its distribution using phrases, or a combinations of phrases, such as the following examples: • Present: in all parts of the area • Present: only in specified areas • Present: except in specified pest-free areas • Present: in all parts of the area where host crop(s) are grown • Present: only in specified areas where host crop(s) are grown • Present: only in protective cultivation • Present: seasonally • Present: but managed • Present: under eradication • Present: at low prevalence. If few reliable records are available, it will be difficult to characterise the distribution. As appropriate, it is useful to characterise the prevalence of the pest (e.g. common, occasional, rare), and the level of damage and/or losses caused by the pest on relevant hosts.

3.1.2 Absence If there are no records of the presence of the pest in the general surveillance data of an area, it may be reasonable to conclude that a pest is or has always been absent. This may be supported by specific records of absence. It is also possible to conclude that a pest is absent even if there are pest records or other information such as from general surveillance suggesting the contrary. These different situations are described below. Absence may also be confirmed by specific surveys (see ISPM: Guidelines for surveillance) and, in that case, the phrase "confirmed by survey" should then be added. Similarly, when a pest free area is established according to the appropriate ISPM, (see ISPM: Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas) the phrase "Pest free area declared” should be added.

Absent: no pest records General surveillance indicates that the pest is absent now and has never been recorded. Absent: pest eradicated Pest records indicate that the pest was present in the past. A documented pest eradication programme was conducted and was successful (see ISPM: Guidelines for pest eradication programmes). Surveillance confirms continued absence. Absent: pest no longer present

22

Pest records indicate that the pest was transient or established in the past, but general surveillance indicates the pest is no longer present. The reason(s) may include: - climate or other natural limitation to pest perpetuation - changes in hosts cultivated - changes in cultivars - changes in agricultural practices. Absent: pest records invalid Pest records indicate the presence of a pest, but the conclusion is reached that the records are invalid or no longer valid, as in the following officially declared cases: - changes in taxonomy - misidentification (needs to be supported by a voucher specimen) - erroneous record - changes in national borders where reinterpretation of the record may be needed. Absent: pest records unreliable Pest records indicate the presence of a pest, but the determination leads to the conclusion that the records are unreliable, as in the following officially declared cases: - ambiguous nomenclature - outdated identification or diagnostic methods - records not supported by voucher specimens - records cannot be considered reliable (see Table). Absent: intercepted only The pest has only been reported on consignments at a point of entry or while under detention before release, treatment or destruction. Surveillance confirms that the pest has not established. 3.1.3 Transience Pest status is considered transient when a pest is present but establishment is not expected to occur based on technical evaluation. There are three types of transients: Transient: non-actionable incursion The pest has only been detected as an individual occurrence or isolated population, not expected to survive and no phytosanitary measures have been applied. Transient: actionable incursion The pest has been detected as an individual occurrence or an isolated population that may survive into the immediate future, but is not expected to establish. Appropriate surveillance are being applied. Transient: outbreak under eradication The pest has been detected as an isolated population which may survive into the immediate future and, without phytosanitary measures for eradication, may establish. Appropriate phytosanitary measures have been applied for its eradication. 3.2 Determination of Pest Status in an Area Determination of the status of a pest is provided by an NPPO. It results in deciding upon the most appropriate description of the pest status in an area (see Section 3.1) based on supporting information.

23

This may include: - individual pest records - pest records from surveys - records or other indication of pest absence - results of general surveillance - information from scientific publications and databases - phytosanitary measures used to prevent introduction or spread - other information relevant to assessing pest absence or presence. The reliability and consistency of the information should be considered. In particular, careful judgement is needed when there is conflicting information.

24

4. Recommended Reporting Practices NPPOs have obligations under the IPPC (see New Revised Text: Article VIII 1a) to report "the occurrence, outbreak or spread of pests", of which, in the terms of this standard, information pertaining to "pest status in an area" is a part. This standard is not concerned with NPPOs’ reporting obligations, but with the quality of the reported information. Accurate reports are an essential part of the international cooperation to facilitate trade. Failure to discover and report pests, or inaccurate, incomplete, untimely, or misinterpreted reports can lead to the establishment of unjustified trade barriers, or to the introduction and/or spread of pests. Persons or organisations involved in collecting pest records should follow the recommendations in this standard, and provide the NPPO with accurate and complete details before reporting the information generally. To observe good reporting practices, NPPOs should: - base determinations of pest status in an area on the most reliable and timely information available - take into account the categories and pest status determinations set out in this standard when exchanging pest status information between countries - inform the NPPO of trading partners as soon as possible, and their Regional Plant Protection Organization (RPPO) where appropriate, of relevant changes in pest status and especially reports of newly established pests - report interceptions of regulated pests which suggest a change in pest status in the exporting country to other countries only after consultation with the exporting country - when becoming aware of an otherwise unreported record of a pest in another country, the NPPO may report it to other countries or RPPOs only after informing and where possible consulting with the NPPO concerned - exchange pest status information in conformity with Articles VII (2j) and VIII (1a and 1c) of the IPPC to the extent practicable, and in a medium and language acceptable to both parties. - correct erroneous records as soon as possible.

25

5. Useful References

This listing is for reference purposes only. The references here are widely available, easily accessible and generally recognised as authoritative. The list is not comprehensive or static, nor is it endorsed as a standard under this ISPM. Nomenclature, Terminology and General Taxonomy Bayer coding system, 1996. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization, Paris, France. BioNET-INTERNATIONAL: global network for Biosystematics. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Codes for the representation of names of countries, ISO 3166. International Organization for Standards, Geneva, Switzerland (English/French). Dictionnaire des agents pathogènes des plantes cultiveés, 1992. I. Fiala & F. Fèvre, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris, France (English/French/Latin). Glossary of plant pathological terms, 1997. M.C. Shurtleff & C.W. Averre, American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul MN, USA. Glossary of phytosanitary terms, 1997. ISPM Pub. No. 5, FAO, Rome, Italy (Arabic/Chinese/ English/French/Spanish). International code of botanical nomenclature. International Botanical Congress. International code of nomenclature for cultivated plants. International Bureau for Plant Taxonomy and Nomenclature, Utrecht, Netherlands. International code of zoological nomenclature. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. United Nations Terminology Bulletin No. 347, 1995. Office of Conference and Support Services, United Nations, NY (UN Member names in Arabic/Chinese/English/French/ Russian/Spanish). General Pest Identification and Distribution CABPEST CD-ROM. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Crop protection compendium CD-ROM. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Descriptions of fungi and bacteria. CAB

International, Surrey, UK. Distribution maps of pests. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Hojas de datos sobre plagas y enfermedades agrícolas de importancia cuarentenaria para los países miembros del OIRSA, volúmenes 1-4, 1994-1996. Organismo Internacional Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria, El Salvador. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographical reference, 1982. Honacki et al. eds, Allen Press Inc., Kansas, USA. Plant pathologist’s pocketbook, 2nd ed., 1983. CAB International Mycological Institute, Surrey, UK (Arabic ed., 1990, CABI/FAO; Spanish ed., 1985, published by FAO Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, Santiago, Chile, in cooperation with CABI). Quarantine pests for Europe, 2nd ed.: Data sheets on quarantine pests for the European Union and for the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization, 1997. I.M. Smith et al. eds, CABI/EPPO, CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Bacteria Guide to plant pathogenic bacteria, 2nd ed., 1997. J.F. Bradbury & G.S. Saddler, CAB International Mycological Institute, Surrey, UK. Names of plant pathogenic bacteria 1864-1995, 1996. J. Young et al., Ann. Rev. Phytopathology: 721-763. Fungi Ainsworth & Bisby’s dictionary of the fungi, 8th ed., 1995. D.L. Hawksworth et al., CAB International Mycological Institute, Surrey, UK. Index of fungi. CAB International Mycological Institute, Surrey, UK. Insects and Mites ANI-CD: Arthropod name index on CD-ROM. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

26

Insects of economic importance: a checklist of preferred names, 1989. A.M. Wood, CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Nematodes Aphelenchidae, Longidoridae and Trichodoridae: their systematics and bionomics, 1993. D.J. Hunt, CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Catalog of the Order Tylenchida, 1991. B.A. Ebsary, Agriculture Canada. NEMA-CD-ROM. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Plant Diseases Common names for plant diseases, 1996. Compiled by APS Committee on Standardization of Common Names for Plant Diseases, American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN, USA. Searchable on the APSnet Internet site at: http://www.scisoc.org/resource/common/. Disease Compendium Series, American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN, USA. Distribution maps of plant diseases. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Multilingual compendium of plant diseases, vols. 1 (1976), 2 (1977). American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul MN, USA (Crosslingual: 23 languages). Plant diseases of international importance, 4 vols., 1992. Prentice Hall, NJ, USA. Plants and Weeds A checklist of names for 3,000 vascular plants of economic importance. Rev., 1986. E. Terrell et al., USDA Agricultural Research Service, Washington DC, USA. Grass Weeds 1 (1980), Grass Weeds 2 (1981), Monocot Weeds 3 (1982). Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Basle, Switzerland (English/French/German/Spanish). Index Kewensis. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Surrey, UK. Plants and plant products, 1983. FAO Terminology Bulletin 25, Rome, Italy (English/ French/German/Spanish). Scientific and common names of 7,000 vascular

plants in the United States, 1995. L. Brako et al., American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul MN, USA. Vascular plant families and genera, 1992. R.K. Brummitt, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Surrey, UK. World weeds: natural histories and distribution, 1997. L.G. Holm et al., John Wiley & Sons, NY, USA. Viruses Descriptions of plant viruses. Association of Applied Biologists, Institute of Horticultural Research, Wellesbourne, UK. VIDE database. A. Brunt et al. eds, Searchable on the Plant Viruses Online site on the Internet at: http://biology.anu.edu.au/Groups/MES/vide/refs.htm. Viruses of plants, 1996. A. Brunt et al., CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Virus taxonomy: classification and nomenclature of viruses, 1995. F.A. Murphy et al. eds, Sixth Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. Archives of Virology/Supplement 10, Springer Verlag, Vienna, New York. The Index virum files are searchable on the Internet at: http://life.anu.edu.au/viruses/Ictv/index.html.