2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Commodity risk assessment of Persea americana from Israel

      research-article
      EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
      EFSA Journal
      John Wiley and Sons Inc.
      Persea americana, Avocado, plants for planting, Israel, European Union, commodity risk assessment, plant health, scions, rooted plants, grafted plants

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The EFSA Panel on Plant health was requested to prepare and deliver risk assessments for commodities listed in the relevant Implementing Acts as ‘High risk plants, plant products and other objects’ (Commission Implementing Regulation ( EU) 2018/2019 establishing a provisional list of high risk plants, plant products or other objects, within the meaning of Article 42 of Regulation ( EU) 2016/2031). This scientific opinion covers the plant health risks posed by the following commodities: (i) scions and (ii) grafted plants of Persea americana imported from Israel, taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by the Plant Protection and Inspection Services from Israel. The relevance of an EU quarantine pest for this opinion was based on evidence that: (i) the pest is present in Israel; (ii) P. americana is a host of the pest and (iii) the pest can be associated with the commodity. The relevance of any other pest, not regulated in the EU, was based on evidence that: (i) the pest is present in Israel; (ii) the pest is absent in the EU; (iii) P. americana is a host of the pest; (iv) the pest can be associated with the commodity and (v) the pest may have an impact and can pose a potential risk for the EU territory. Twenty‐six pests (15 insects, one mite, 9 fungi and one viroid) that fulfilled all criteria were selected for further evaluation. For the 26 selected pests, the risk mitigation measures proposed in the technical dossier were evaluated. Limiting factors on the effectiveness of the measures were documented. For each of the 26 pests, an expert judgement is given on the likelihood of pest freedom taking into consideration the risk mitigation measures acting on the pest, including any uncertainties. The fungi Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae and  Neoscytalidium dimidiatum were the pests most frequently expected on the imported commodities. The Expert Knowledge Elicitation indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9,573 and 10,000 bundles of scions per 10,000; and 9,747 and 10,000 grafted plants per 10,000 would be free of these two fungi.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment

          Abstract This Guidance describes a two‐phase approach for a fit‐for‐purpose method for the assessment of plant pest risk in the territory of the EU. Phase one consists of pest categorisation to determine whether the pest has the characteristics of a quarantine pest or those of a regulated non‐quarantine pest for the area of the EU. Phase two consists of pest risk assessment, which may be requested by the risk managers following the pest categorisation results. This Guidance provides a template for pest categorisation and describes in detail the use of modelling and expert knowledge elicitation to conduct a pest risk assessment. The Guidance provides support and a framework for assessors to provide quantitative estimates, together with associated uncertainties, regarding the entry, establishment, spread and impact of plant pests in the EU. The Guidance allows the effectiveness of risk reducing options (RROs) to be quantitatively assessed as an integral part of the assessment framework. A list of RROs is provided. A two‐tiered approach is proposed for the use of expert knowledge elicitation and modelling. Depending on data and resources available and the needs of risk managers, pest entry, establishment, spread and impact steps may be assessed directly, using weight of evidence and quantitative expert judgement (first tier), or they may be elaborated in substeps using quantitative models (second tier). An example of an application of the first tier approach is provided. Guidance is provided on how to derive models of appropriate complexity to conduct a second tier assessment. Each assessment is operationalised using Monte Carlo simulations that can compare scenarios for relevant factors, e.g. with or without RROs. This document provides guidance on how to compare scenarios to draw conclusions on the magnitude of pest risks and the effectiveness of RROs and on how to communicate assessment results.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The principles and methods behind EFSA 's Guidance on Uncertainty Analysis in Scientific Assessment

            Abstract To meet the general requirement for transparency in EFSA's work, all its scientific assessments must consider uncertainty. Assessments must say clearly and unambiguously what sources of uncertainty have been identified and what is their impact on the assessment conclusion. This applies to all EFSA's areas, all types of scientific assessment and all types of uncertainty affecting assessment. This current Opinion describes the principles and methods supporting a concise Guidance Document on Uncertainty in EFSA's Scientific Assessment, published separately. These documents do not prescribe specific methods for uncertainty analysis but rather provide a flexible framework within which different methods may be selected, according to the needs of each assessment. Assessors should systematically identify sources of uncertainty, checking each part of their assessment to minimise the risk of overlooking important uncertainties. Uncertainty may be expressed qualitatively or quantitatively. It is neither necessary nor possible to quantify separately every source of uncertainty affecting an assessment. However, assessors should express in quantitative terms the combined effect of as many as possible of identified sources of uncertainty. The guidance describes practical approaches. Uncertainty analysis should be conducted in a flexible, iterative manner, starting at a level appropriate to the assessment and refining the analysis as far as is needed or possible within the time available. The methods and results of the uncertainty analysis should be reported fully and transparently. Every EFSA Panel and Unit applied the draft Guidance to at least one assessment in their work area during a trial period of one year. Experience gained in this period resulted in improved guidance. The Scientific Committee considers that uncertainty analysis will be unconditional for EFSA Panels and staff and must be embedded into scientific assessment in all areas of EFSA's work.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The ambrosia symbiosis is specific in some species and promiscuous in others: evidence from community pyrosequencing

              Symbioses are increasingly seen as dynamic ecosystems with multiple associates and varying fidelity. Symbiont specificity remains elusive in one of the most ecologically successful and economically damaging eukaryotic symbioses: the ambrosia symbiosis of wood-boring beetles and fungi. We used multiplexed pyrosequencing of amplified internal transcribed spacer II (ITS2) ribosomal DNA (rDNA) libraries to document the communities of fungal associates and symbionts inside the mycangia (fungus transfer organ) of three ambrosia beetle species, Xyleborus affinis, Xyleborus ferrugineus and Xylosandrus crassiusculus. We processed 93 beetle samples from 5 locations across Florida, including reference communities. Fungal communities within mycangia included 14-20 fungus species, many more than reported by culture-based studies. We recovered previously known nutritional symbionts as members of the core community. We also detected several other fungal taxa that are equally frequent but whose function is unknown and many other transient species. The composition of fungal assemblages was significantly correlated with beetle species but not with locality. The type of mycangium appears to determine specificity: two Xyleborus with mandibular mycangia had multiple dominant associates with even abundances; Xylosandrus crassiusculus (mesonotal mycangium) communities were dominated by a single symbiont, Ambrosiella sp. Beetle mycangia also carried many fungi from the environment, including plant pathogens and endophytes. The ITS2 marker proved useful for ecological analyses, but the taxonomic resolution was limited to fungal genus or family, particularly in Ophiostomatales, which are under-represented in our amplicons as well as in public databases. This initial analysis of three beetle species suggests that each clade of ambrosia beetles and each mycangium type may support a functionally and taxonomically distinct symbiosis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                alpha@efsa.europa.eu
                Journal
                EFSA J
                EFSA J
                10.1002/(ISSN)1831-4732
                EFS2
                EFSA Journal
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1831-4732
                03 February 2021
                February 2021
                : 19
                : 2 ( doiID: 10.1002/efs2.v19.2 )
                : e06354
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence: alpha@ 123456efsa.europa.eu
                Article
                EFS26354
                10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6354
                7856566
                d483b653-699d-4c8e-acde-913f8871f4f0
                © 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 26, Tables: 95, Pages: 195, Words: 86534
                Categories
                Scientific Opinion
                Scientific Opinion
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                February 2021
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.9.7 mode:remove_FC converted:03.02.2021

                persea americana,avocado,plants for planting,israel,european union,commodity risk assessment,plant health,scions,rooted plants,grafted plants

                Comments

                Comment on this article