Comparison of diagnostic techniques for the detection and differentiation of Cherry leaf roll virus strains for quarantine purposes.

Some strains of Cherry leaf roll virus (CLRV) are considered as quarantine pests in New Zealand. CLRV was detected in seven plant host species: Actinidia chinensis, Hydrangea macrophylla, Malus domestica, Plantago major, Ribes rubrum, Rubus idaeus and Rumex sp. collected from New Zealand between 2005 and 2012. Biological, serological and molecular techniques were compared for the detection and differentiation of CLRV isolates. The biological analysis revealed differences in symptomatology and disease severity among the isolates. The five isolates tested by ELISA were serologically related to each other using polyclonal antisera with only one out of four commercially-available antisera successfully detecting all of them. The phylogenetic analysis of sequences obtained from parts of the coat protein, polymerase and 3'-untranslated regions revealed that the New Zealand CLRV isolates clustered into two closely related but distinct phylogenetic groups with some isolates grouping differently depending on the gene studied. The New Zealand CLRV isolates were clearly distinct to overseas isolates found in phylogenetic groups A, D and E. The conventional RT-PCR using primers targeting the CLRV coat protein coding region is recommended for determining sequence differences between strains. These findings will be useful in making regulatory decisions with regard to the testing requirements and the CLRV strains to be regulated in New Zealand.

Basic substances: an opportunity for approval of low-concern substances under EU pesticide regulation.

Plant extracts and byproducts furnish various alternative products for crop protection and are traditionally used by farmers. However, the cost and timeframe for their registration as active substances are prohibitive for small companies and farmers' associations with the new Plant Protection Products (PPP) Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009. However, there is now a possibility of registering light compounds as 'basic substances', a new category described in Article 23 and in 'Whereas/Recital 18'. We developed a regulatory expertise on the approval of such products within the framework of the PPP regulation. A Draft Assessment Report in one volume was established, later transformed by EC Directorate into a Basic Substance Application Template, and subsequently used by the EC as a matrix for the corresponding Guidelines for applicants (SANCO 10363/2012 rev. 9). Here we provide further tools, consisting of methodological, linguistic and strategic recommendations in order to constitute a Basic Substance Application (BSA) and proceed to its registration. While the use of alternative agents for crop protection is increasing both in organic and conventional agriculture, these usages are still considered as 'minor uses'. Our approach and tools are valuable to non-PPP specialised applicants for simplifying and facilitating their submission of the BSA.

Biopesticides: state of the art and future opportunities.

The use of biopesticides and related alternative management products is increasing. New tools, including semiochemicals and plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs), as well as botanical and microbially derived chemicals, are playing an increasing role in pest management, along with plant and animal genetics, biological control, cultural methods, and newer synthetics. The goal of this Perspective is to highlight promising new biopesticide research and development (R&D), based upon recently published work and that presented in the American Chemical Society (ACS) symposium "Biopesticides: State of the Art and Future Opportunities," as well as the authors' own perspectives. Although the focus is on biopesticides, included in this Perspective is progress with products exhibiting similar characteristics, namely those naturally occurring or derived from natural products. These are target specific, of low toxicity to nontarget organisms, reduced in persistence in the environment, and potentially usable in organic agriculture. Progress is being made, illustrated by the number of biopesticides and related products in the registration pipeline, yet major commercial opportunities exist for new bioherbicides and bionematicides, in part occasioned by the emergence of weeds resistant to glyphosate and the phase-out of methyl bromide. The emergence of entrepreneurial start-up companies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fast track for biopesticides, and the availability of funding for registration-related R&D for biorational pesticides through the U.S. IR-4 program provide incentives for biopesticide development, but an expanded effort is warranted both in the United States and worldwide to support this relatively nascent industry.

Biopesticides in the framework of the European Pesticide Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009.

BACKGROUND: The European Pesticide Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 encourages the use of less harmful active substances. Two main concerns involve the application of cut-off criteria for pesticides without losing tools for future agriculture (especially for minor uses) and the implementation of zonal evaluations. Biopesticides are considered to have lower risks than synthetic pesticides; consequently, there is strong interest for their use in integrated pest management practices. RESULTS: This paper provides an analysis of the current European situation, starting with the first attempts to regulate the use of plant protection products and focusing on the implications of the new legislative criteria for biopesticides. CONCLUSION: It is important to be aware that biopesticides are still pesticides and fall under the same regulations as their synthetic counterparts. Although manufacturers are still reluctant to commit to such alternatives due to difficulties with approval and registration, biopesticides could be alternatives for traditional plant protection products, either as a base for the synthesis of new products or integrated with traditional plant protection products. In addition, biopesticides have to be used only as indicated on the label, which provides critical information about how to safely handle and use plant protection products.

Contact and fumigant toxicity of plant essential oils and efficacy of spray formulations containing the oils against B- and Q-biotypes of Bemisia tabaci.

BACKGROUND: The contact + fumigant toxicity of 92 plant essential oils and control efficacy of 18 experimental spray formulations containing nine selected essential oils (0.5 and 0.1% sprays) and six commercial insecticides to females from B- and Q-biotypes of Bemisia tabaci were evaluated using vapour-phase mortality and spray bioassays. RESULTS: Garlic and oregano (LC50 , 0.15 mL cm(-3) ) were the most toxic oils against B- and Q-biotype females. Strong fumigant toxicity to both biotype females was also obtained from catnip, cinnamon bark, clove bud, clove leaf, davana, savory and vetiver Haiti oils (LC50 , 0.17-0.48 mL cm(-3) ). The 0.5% sprays of these oils (except for thyme red oil) resulted in 90-100% mortality against both biotype females. Only garlic applied as 0.1% spray provided 100% mortality. Spinosad 100 g L(-1) suspension concentrate (SC) treatment resulted in 92 and 95% mortality against both biotype females, whereas acetamiprid 80 g L(-1) wettable powder (WP), imidacloprid 80 g L(-1) SC, thiamethoxam 100 g L(-1) water-dispersible granule (WDG) and pyridaben 200 g L(-1) WP treatments resulted in 89-100% mortality against B-biotype females only. CONCLUSION: In the light of global efforts to reduce the level of highly toxic synthetic insecticides in the agricultural environment, the essential oils described, particularly garlic, cinnamon bark and vetiver Haiti, merit further study as potential insecticides for the control of B. tabaci populations as fumigants with contact action.

Modeling the rejection probability in plant imports.

Phytosanitary inspection of imported plants and flowers is a major means for preventing pest invasions through international trade, but in a majority of countries availability of resources prevents inspection of all imports. Prediction of the likelihood of pest infestation in imported shipments could help maximize the efficiency of inspection by targeting inspection on shipments with the highest likelihood of infestation. This paper applies a multinomial logistic (MNL) regression model to data on import inspections of ornamental plant commodities in the Netherlands from 1998 to 2001 to investigate whether it is possible to predict the probability that a shipment will be (i) accepted for import, (ii) rejected for import because of detected pests, or (iii) rejected due to other reasons. Four models were estimated: (i) an all-species model, including all plant imports (136,251 shipments) in the data set, (ii) a four-species model, including records on the four ornamental commodities that accounted for 28.9% of inspected and 49.5% of rejected shipments, and two models for single commodities with large import volumes and percentages of rejections, (iii) Dianthus (16.9% of inspected and 46.3% of rejected shipments), and (iv) Chrysanthemum (6.9 and 8.6%, respectively). All models were highly significant (P < 0.001). The models for Dianthus and Chrysanthemum and for the set of four ornamental commodities showed a better fit to data than the model for all ornamental commodities. Variables that characterized the imported shipment's region of origin, the shipment's size, the company that imported the shipment, and season and year of import, were significant in most of the estimated models. The combined results of this study suggest that the MNL model can be a useful tool for modeling the probability of rejecting imported commodities even with a small set of explanatory variables. The MNL model can be helpful in better targeting of resources for import inspection. The inspecting agencies could enable development of these models by appropriately recording inspection results.

Crop protection--what will shape the future picture?

The drivers which influence the types of crop protection most needed by agriculture are changing. A polarisation of approaches has resulted in the needs of organic agriculture and biotechnological agriculture, which can be identified as the current extremes of the spectrum, becoming very different. The main requirements of these two sectors are identified here and used as the basis for questioning future EU research requirements in crop protection. Factors affecting/influencing organic farming and the use of genetically modified crops are discussed in some detail.