Biological Invasions

, Volume 17, Issue 8, pp 2403–2413 | Cite as

Phytosanitary inspection of woody plants for planting at European Union entry points: a practical enquiry

  • René Eschen
  • Ludovic Rigaux
  • Lidia Sukovata
  • Anna Maria Vettraino
  • Mariella Marzano
  • Jean-Claude Grégoire
Original Paper

Abstract

Phytosanitary import inspections are important to avoid entry of harmful pests on live plants. In the European Union (EU), all consignments of live plants must be inspected at the first point of entry, and plants allowed entry can be moved without further inspection among the 28 Member States and Switzerland. It is important that inspections in EU countries adhere to the same standard to avoid introduction of harmful organisms through countries with weaker methods. We tested whether sampling intensity and confidence in the inspection results were the same across these countries. Questionnaires were sent to inspectors in all countries, asking about inspections of individual consignments of woody plants for planting. Data about 102 lots, inspected at 13 points of entry in six countries, were analyzed. We used hypergeometric and binomial statistics for small and large consignments, respectively, to calculate the probability that <1 % of the plants were infested. The duration of the inspection increased with lot size, but the probability that the infestation level was below 1 % of the plants was lower for small than for large lots. Moreover, large international differences in inspection intensity and the probability that the inspections could detect a level of infestation below 1 % were found: the probability was consistently above 0.95 in one country, while the average probability was below 0.6 in the other countries. We suggest that the EU Member States adopt common maximum acceptable infestation levels and harmonized, statistics-based sampling protocols for plants for planting.

Keywords

European Union International standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM) International trade Invasive alien species Phytosanitary inspections Quarantine species 

References

  1. Brasier CM (2005) Preventing invasive pathogens: deficiencies in the system. The Plantsman 4:54–57Google Scholar
  2. Brasier C (2008) The biosecurity threat to the UK and global environment from international trade in plants. Plant Pathol 57:792–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. European Commission (2002) Council directive 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. Off. J. Eur. Union, L169Google Scholar
  4. Dehnen-Schmutz K, Touza J, Perrings C, Williamson M (2007) The horticultural trade and ornamental plant invasions in Britain. Cons Biol 21:224–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. European Commission (2010) Commission decision of 7 July 2010 amending Decision 2008/840/EC as regards emergency measures to prevent the introduction into the Union of Anoplophora chinensis (Forster). Official Journal of the European Union, L 174/46Google Scholar
  6. European Commission (2012) Commission implementing decision of 1 March 2012 as regards emergency measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Anoplophora chinensis (Forster). Official Journal of the European Union, L 64/38Google Scholar
  7. FAO (2009) International standards for phytosanitary measures 31. Methodologies for sampling of consignments. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  8. FAO (2011) International standards for phytosanitary measures 12. Phytosanitary certificates. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  9. FAO (2012) International standards for phytosanitary measures 5. Glossary of phytosanitary terms. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  10. FVO (2011a) Food and Veterinary Office. European Commission. Health and consumers directorate-general. Final report of an audit carried out in Italy from 24 to 31 June 2011 in order to evaluate the system of import controls for plant health. Published online by the Food and Veterinary Office: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_id=2722. Accessed 21 June 013
  11. FVO (2011b) Food and Veterinary Office. European Commission. Health and consumers directorate-general. Final report of an audit carried out in France from 07 to 10 November 2012 in order to evaluate the system of import controls for plant health. Published online by the Food and Veterinary Office: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_id=2919. Accessed 21 June 2013
  12. FVO (2012a) Food and Veterinary Office. European Commission. Health and consumers directorate-general. Final report of an audit carried out in Belgium from 06 to 10 February 2012 in order to evaluate the system of import controls for plant health. Published online by the Food and Veterinary Office: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_id=2915. Accessed 21 June 2013
  13. FVO (2012b) Food and Veterinary Office. European Commission. Health and consumers directorate-general. Final report of an audit carried out in Spain from 11 to 21 September 2012 in order to evaluate the system of import controls for plant health. Published online by the Food and Veterinary Office: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_id=3046. Accessed 21 June 2013
  14. Holmes TP, Aukema JE, Von Holle B, Liebhold A, Sills E (2009) Economic impacts of invasive species in forests. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1162:18–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hulme P, Nentwig W, Pyšek P, Vilà M (2009) Common market, shared problems: time for a coordinated response to biological invasions in Europe. Neobiota 8:3–19Google Scholar
  16. Kenis M, Rabitsch W, Auger-Rozenberg A-M, Roques A (2007) How can alien species inventories and interception data help us prevent insect invasions? Bull Entomol Res 97:489–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kenis M, Auger-Rozenberg M, Roques A, Timms L, Péré C, Cock MJW, Settele J, Augustin S, Lopez-Vaamonde C (2009) Ecological effects of invasive alien insects. Biol Invasions 11:21–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levine J, D’Antonio C (2003) Forecasting biological invasions with increasing international trade. Conserv Biol 17:322–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liebhold A, Brockerhoff E, Garrett LJ, Parke JL, Britton KO (2012) Live plant imports: the major pathway for forest insect and pathogen invasions of the US. Front Ecol Environ 10:135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCullough DG, Work TT, Marshall D, Cavey JF, Liebhold A (2006) Interceptions of non-indigenous plant pests at U.S. ports of entry and border crossings over a 17-year period. Biol Invasions 8:611–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paini D, Worner S, Cook D, De Barro P, Thomas M (2010) Threat of invasive pests from within national borders. Nat Comm 1:115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Perrings C, Dalmozzone S, Williamson M (2000) The economics of biological invasions. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pimentel D (ed) (2002) Biological invasions. Economic and environmental costs of alien plants, animal and microbial species. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  25. R Development Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  26. Roques A (2010) Alien forest insects in a warmer world and a globalised economy: impacts of changes in trade, tourism and climate on forest biosecurity. N Z J For Sci 40(suppl.):S77–S94Google Scholar
  27. Roques A, Auger-Rozenberg A-M (2006) Tentative analysis of the interceptions of non-indigenous organisms in Europe during 1995–2004. Bull OEPP/EPPO Bull 36:490–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Santini A, Ghelardini L, De Pace C, Desprez-Loustau M-L, Capretti P, Chandelier A, Cech T, Chira D, Diamandis S, Gaitniekis T, Hantula J, Holdenrieder O, Jankovsky L, Jung T, Jurc D, Kirisits T, Kunca A, Lygis V, Malecka M, Marcais B, Schmitz S, Schumacher J, Solheim H, Solla A, Szabo I, Tsopelas P, Vannini A, Vettraino A, Webber J, Woodward S, Stenlid J (2013) Biogeographical patterns and determinants of invasion by forest pathogens in Europe. New Phytol 197:238–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sequeira R, Griffin R (2014) The biosecurity continuum and trade: pre-border operation. In: Gordh G, McKirdy S (eds) The handbook of plant biosecurity. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 119–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith RM, Baker RHA, Malumphy CP, Hockland S, Hammon RP, Starzewski JC, Collins DW (2007) Recent non-native invertebrate plant pest establishments in Great Britain: origins, pathways, and trends. Agric For Entomol 9:307–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Surkov IV, Oude Lansink AGJM, Van der Werf W, Van Kooten O (2007) Designing optimal phytosanitary inspection policy, a conceptual framework and an application. In: Oude Lansink AGJM (ed) New approaches to the economics of plant health. Wageningen UR Frontis series, vol 20. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 39–54Google Scholar
  32. Tualau A, Nair J (2008) Nursery stock survey July–November 2008. Biosecurity New Zealand report BMR 08-09/03Google Scholar
  33. USDA (1998) Agriculture quarantine inspection monitoring handbook. Published online by The U.S. Department of Agriculture: www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/aqim_handbook.pdf. Accessed 05 Jan 2015
  34. Venette RC, Moon RD, Hutchinson WD (2002) Strategies and statistics of sampling for rare individuals. Ann Rev Entomol 47:143–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vitousek PM, D’Antonio CM, Loope LL, Rejmanek M, Westbrooks R (1997) Introduced species: a significant component of human-caused global change. N Z J Ecol 21:1–16Google Scholar
  36. Williams F, Eschen R, Harris A, Djeddour D, Pratt C, Shaw R, Varia S, Lamontagne-Godwin J, Thomas S, Murphy S (2010) The cost of impact of invasive non-native species on Great Britain. CABI, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed-effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, Berlin 574pCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • René Eschen
    • 1
  • Ludovic Rigaux
    • 2
  • Lidia Sukovata
    • 3
  • Anna Maria Vettraino
    • 4
  • Mariella Marzano
    • 5
  • Jean-Claude Grégoire
    • 2
  1. 1.CABIDelémontSwitzerland
  2. 2.Lutte biologique et Écologie spatialeUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Forest Protection DepartmentForest Research InstituteRaszynPoland
  4. 4.Department for Innovation in Biological, Agro-Food and Forest Systems (DIBAF)Università degli Studi della TusciaViterboItaly
  5. 5.Forest ResearchNorthern Research StationRoslin, MidlothianUK

Personalised recommendations