FILE: <bc-27.htm> GENERAL INDEX [Navigate to MAIN MENU ]
QUARANTINE PROCEDURES
---- Please CLICK on desired
underlined categories [to search for Subject Matter,
depress Ctrl/F ]:
|
[ Please refer also
to Related Review ] |
|
Overview The concept of quarantining materials and organisms to
keep unwanted elements from entering new areas originated almost
simultaneously with the distinction between "valuable and possibly
injurious" (Fisher & Andres 1999). Much of the information on
excluding unwanted plants and plant pests from world commerce through the use
of quarantine has been assembled by Kahn (1988) Regulations governing the
arrival of questionable materials to a country, state, province or county
arose along with the establishment of quarantine facilities where transported
items could be examined before passing on to their destination and
assimilation into the general economy and environment. Ooi (1986) gave an
overview of biological control quarantine from the perspective of developing
countries. The process of seeking
effective natural enemies and importation is highly involved and demands many
considerations (Legner 1986 ). The primary function of a biological control quarantine
facility is to provide a secure area where the identity of all incoming
biological control candidates can be confirmed and undesirable organisms,
especially hyperparasitoids, parasitoids of predators, and extraneous host or
host plant material, can be eliminated. In fact the quarantine laboratory
often represents the last chance to study and evaluate potential biological
control agents in the sequence of collection, importation and liberation. The number of quarantine facilities in the United States
which are certified to handle incoming shipments of beneficial organisms has
increased from four to 26 over the past 40 years. In addition to 24 listed by
Coulson & Hagen (1985), new quarantine facilities have been constructed
at Montana State University, Bozeman for phytophagous insects and the
University of California, Riverside for nematodes. New or expanded quarantine
facilities have been constructed in a number of other countries (e.g.,
Australia, Great Britain, Mexico, Germany and Thailand). The steady increase in quarantine need and capacity is due
on part to an increased interest in biological and non-polluting methods of
pest control, and the desire to expand on the many successes already achieved
through the importation of exotic natural enemies. Also, there is an increase
in new pests that are transported throughout the world and which are amenable
to biological as well as the stricter prerelease information requirements on
behavior and safety of biological control candidates. Lengthy studies on
candidates often ties up quarantine areas thereby increasing the need for
greater quarantine capacity to avoid limiting the amount of materials that
can be handled. For example, in the United States to prove the environmental
safety of plant-feeding arthropods for the biological control of weeds can
include studies with as many as 10-20 North American native plant species
related to the target weed. When such studies are not permitted or feasible
in the country of origin of the biological control phytophage, these tests
must be conducted in a domestic quarantine facility. Similarly, testing
parasitoids against indigenous insect species which have been declared
legally threatened or endangered and which may be present in areas near or
contiguous to insect pest infested agricultural crops that are targeted for
parasitoid release,may not only require more quarantine space but also delay
or prevent the colonization of newly imported organisms. The longer the
imported organisms remain in quarantine before these tests can be conducted,
the greater the risk that subtle genetic changes occur, altering the
potential fitness of the organism. Increasing concern over the quality f the environment is
also causing a proliferation of regulations governing the importation and
liberation of beneficial organisms. Explorer collectors, quarantine officers
and project scientists must spend increasing time to study and comply with
domestic and foreign regulations that cover importation, exportation and
liberation of biological control agents. Air travel has reduced the amount of
time required to move biological control agents from one continent to
another, but the proliferation of international airports has spawned a
logistical confusion of unpredictable package routing, delayed agricultural
and customs inspection and unscheduled reloading and shipment to the final
destination. Frequently material arrives dead or in a weakened state and on
occasion may never arrive. The safety record for international transport of
beneficial organisms has been very good. Worldwide there have been remarkably
few escapes when considering the hundreds of species and millions of
specimens which have been processed. This safety record is a result of the
surprisingly uniform set of international protocols and procedures that are
shared by quarantine personnel and regulatory officials in each country. For
an overview of the history and continuing role of quarantine within the
context of classical biological control see Coulson & Soper (1989). There are several statutory and technological elements of
which the explorer, collector and shipper should be aware and which shape the
operation of the quarantine laboratory, beginning with the collection,
selection and packaging of exotic biological control candidates in their
native habitat or country of origin until their release from quarantine or
termination of the study. These include national and state regulations
(including required permits) as they pertain to the certification of
quarantine facilities and the importation, handling and release of natural
enemies. Also included are quarantine laboratory design and equipment,
personnel and operating procedures (Fisher 1964, Creager 1987). Establishing
Quarantine Facilities A quarantine basically provides a tight security room for
opening and examining incoming shipments of beneficial organisms prior to
release to other laboratories for further study or to cooperators for field
liberation. United States Department of Agriculture certified quarantine
facilities may range from a one- or two-room unit in an existing building to
multi-room complexes designed to meed specific quarantine needs, such as
screening. A primary quarantine facility is one certified by the U. S.
Dept. of Agriculture (APHIS) to receive direct shipments from foreign sources
which may contain live pest host material as well as the candidate natural
enemies. Secondary quarantine facilities may handle only those
biological control shipments previously processed through a primary
quarantine laboratory or which are free of live, exotic pest species, but
which may contain hyperparasitoids of entomopathogens still to be screened
out prior to liberation. Location and
Utilities.--Primary quarantine laboratories are preferably located
near a major port of entry, such as an international airport. This proximity
becomes increasingly important in proportion to the number of shipments
received throughout the year. The quarantine facility should be physically
located where water, electricity, natural gas or propane, road access, etc.
are available. A standby electrical generator powered by natural gas or
propane is considered essential for supplying power to selected circuits
during power outages. Less obvious concerns are freedom from windborne
pollutants such as industrial smoke, dust and pesticide drift. A telephone
for communicating with collectors worldwide and between quarantine personnel
and federal or state regulatory personnel is essential. Ready access to a
telex or FAX transmitting unit is highly desirable. Structural Design.--Details of the quarantine building itself are dictated
largely by local construction codes. Key features of all quarantine
laboratories are the sealed nature of the rooms or buildings, a vestibule
system for entry and exit with positive closure doors, and a network of
filters through which air enters and leaves the facility. Leppla & Ashley
(1978) show diagrams of floor plants of five biological control quarantine
facilities in the United States. In order to reduce heat and cooling costs, the walls and
ceilings should be well insulated. To minimize transfer of heat in or out of
the building, as well as to deter window breakage, double glazed or
thermopane windows are advised. The outer panes should be of tempered and/or
wire-reinforced glass. If vandalism is considered a problem, the quarantine
facility should be encircled with a sturdy fence at least two meters in
height. Added precautions include alarms that signal unlawful entry and fire. In the United States, the USDA APHIS Biological Assessment
Support Staff (BASS) approves the design of new and or modifications of
established quarantines. Final certification includes an onsite verification
by an APHIS official to confirm compliance with structural and operational
criteria. Additional information on quarantine structural criteria may be
obtained from the USDA, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS),
Hyattsville, MD. 20782. The structural criteria vary according to the kinds of
beneficial organisms to be handled and the risks posed to the environment: Arthropods: The handling of beneficial parasitoids, predators and
phytophagous arthropods requires rooms with temperature, relative humidity,
light and air exchange control systems to meet the environmental needs of the
different species. When such requirements cover a relatively narrow range of
environmental parameters, the heating, ventilation, air conditioning, air
delivery systems can be relatively simple. On the other hand, if several
species of beneficial arthropods having widely divergent environmental
requirements must be handled simultaneously, each room will require special
controls to provide the variety of rearing conditions. The diversity of
conditions can be greatly increased by the use of individual temperature and
environmental chambers. However, such units should be viewed as temporary at
best because of their limited size and the restricted numbers of organisms
which can be produced in them. Quarantines for handling phytophagous
arthropods need one or more glasshouse containment areas directly accessible
from the quarantine laboratory. Pathogens of
Pest Arthropods: Information on
pathogen quarantine construction and operation may be obtained from the
Biological Assessment and Taxonomic Support Group, Plant Pest Quarantine,
APHIS, USDA, Federal Center Bldg., Room 625, 6505 Belcrest Rd., Hyattsville,
MD 20782, Tel. (301) 436-5215. Pathogens of
Weeds: Melching et al
(1983) discuss criteria for handling plant pathogens. The buildings at the
USDA/ARS Plant Disease Research Laboratory, Frederick, MD are sealed and air
conditioned via a tandem set of filters designed to remove particles larger
than 0.5 lm. Exhaust air is also passed through a third, deep-bed filter
before discharge to the outside. Each filter is capable of removing airborne
bacteria or fungal spores. The air pressure within the unit is negative to
the outside atmosphere, so in the event of any leakage, the air would flow
inward. Waste water is sterilized before discharge from the area. Workers
must shower before leaving the laboratory, leaving their laboratory garments
inside the quarantine. To minimize cross contamination between study areas,
the laboratory and greenhouse are divided into a series of cubicles of
varying size. Some of the work in progress at this facility is described by
Bruckart & Dowler (1986). Another description of a facility designed to
contain weed plant pathogens is given by Watson & Sackston (1985). A much
simplified pathology quarantine which incorporates all the essential features
of the above units is that described by Inman (1970), who converted a room in
an older building into a functioning quarantine. Nematodes: Certain species of nematodes attack a narrow range of
introduced weeds. Others are narrowly host specific, or pathogenic, on pest
arthropods. Since beneficial as well as phytophagous pest species of
nematodes are closely tied to the soil environment, the safe handling of
imported species requires a quarantine facility capable of handling and
sterilizing plants and soil. In the unique Isolation and Nematode Quarantine
Facility recently constructed at the University of California, Riverside,
soil containment is the primary concern. Security measures include restricted
entry, use of disposable shoe covers, arthropod control and stringent
disposal methods. The primary quarantine facilities certified for handling
exotic beneficial organisms in the United States as reported by Coulson &
Hagen (1985) are as shown in Table 1. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 1. Primary quarantine facilities for
handling exotic beneficial organisms in the United States
(Coulson & Hagen 1985). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U. S. Dept. of
Agriculture, Agricultural Res. Service Location (State, City) Organisms
Handled1 CA, Albany Phyto. CT, Ansonia Entom.,
Entpath., Antag. DE, Newark Entom.,
Phyto., Poll., Vect., Compet., Entpath. (Ertle & Day 1978) MD, Frederick Phyto.,
Planpath. (Melching et al. 1983) MS, Stoneville Entom.,
Phyto. (Bailey & Kreasky 1978, Jones et al. 1985) MT, Bozeman Phyto. NY, Ithaca Entom. TX, Temple Phyto.
(Boldt 1982) TX, College Station Compet. UT, Logan Poll. State
(University and Dept. Agric.) Research Facilities CA, Albany, Univ. Calif. (Berkeley) Entom., Compet., Entpath. (Etzel 1978) CA, Davis, Univ. Calif. (Davis) Entom. CA, Riverside, Univ. Calif. (Riverside) Entom., Phyto., Compet.,
Entpath. (Fisher 1978) FL, Gainesville, Univ. Florida Planpath. FL, Dept. Agric. Entom.,
Phyto. (Denmark 1978) GU, Mangilao, Univ. Guam Entom., Phyto. HI, Oahu, HI Dept. Agric. Entom., Phyto. HI, Hilo, Volcanoes Natl. Park Phyto. MT, Bozeman, Montana State Univ. Entom., Phyto. NC, Raleigh, NC Dept. Agric Entom. OH, Columbus, Ohio State Univ. Entpath. TX, College Station, Texas A&M Univ. Entom. VA, Blacksburg, Polytech. Inst. Entom., Phyto. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 1/ Antag. =
pathogens antagonistic to plant pathogens; Compet. = competitors, parasitoids
&predators of synanthropicflies; Entom. = entomophagous arthropods;
Entpath. = entomopathogens; Nema. = nematodes; Phyto. = phytophagous
arthropods; Planpath. = plant pathogens; Poll. = pollinators; Vect. = vectors
of man and animals. Equipment and
Amenities.--The kinds of
these items needed in quarantine will vary depending on the class of organism
and the studies to be made. Most are standard items in entomological
laboratories and include various dissecting tools, holding cages, micro
habitat monitoring equipment and illuminators. An olfactometer and video
recording equipment for studying the behavioral biologies and host
relationships of organisms are also useful. Three main categories of
equipment are (1) hardware (cages, microscopes, temperature cabinets), (2)
reference items (literature files, identified voucher specimens, records, and
(3) cleaning and disposal equipment. A quarantine laboratory to process incoming shipments
solely for identification requires only a handling cage, a microscope,
identified reference specimens and other identification aids, and containers
for reshipment. When maintaining entomophagous or phytophagous arthropods
throughout their life cycles, hosts and host plants in various stages of
development, several sizes of cages and special lighting, temperature and
humidity controls are necessary. There is a need to avoid overstocking with equipment as
quarantine space is often limited. Ample enclosed storage within the facility
should be provided to keep work surfaces clean and free of clutter. Normally,
equipment used in quarantine should remain inside the facility. Handling Cages:
A cage design that has proven highly satisfactory in handling arthropods for
over 40 years measures ca. 55 cm high, 44 cm deep and 46-60 cm wide, and is
constructed of wood with a glass top and fine meshed cloth or screen on the
backside. It has a door in front equipped with paired, cloth sleeves which
allow easy, yet effective escape proof access to the cage's contents. One
variation of this cage is of lucite plastic, the architecture speeds the
handling and recollection of large numbers of organisms by making them more
accessible to the paved openings at the front. The lucite cage's limited
ventilation may allow moisture to condense on interior surfaces if large
volumes of fresh plant material are held, but presents no problem when
samples are processed quickly. When processing an incoming shipment, the handling cage
should be equipped inside with a knife or scissors to open packages,
tweezers, an aspirator and camel's hair brush to use in the transfer or
capture of the organisms, vials and cartons to hold the organisms, and paper
and pencil for recording the number of organisms and other observations. A CO2
unit for anesthetizing organisms while in the handling cage or even
refrigeration of the package prior to placement in the cage will reduce their
activity and facilitate identification, sorting and processing. Microscope:
A binocular dissecting microscope (10-60X) and high quality illuminator
(fiber optic) is usually adequate for assessing the general conditions of
quarantined arthropod material, including identification and the sexing of
specimens. A microscope mounted on a pedestal with an adjustable arm is
versatile and can also be used to view organisms on plants and in cages. In
addition a second microscope, such as one with phase contrast adaptation
capable of detecting entomopathogens may be needed to maintain healthy
cultures (Poinar & Thomas 1978). Identified Voucher Specimens: The availability of identified reference specimens to
compare with incoming material can greatly increase the speed and accuracy of
workers as they select specimens for release or further study. Often a single
box or, at most, a small cabinet with several trays of specimens, plus a file
containing taxonomic keys and other aids will suffice. Reference Files:
The following references and information have proved useful in the operation
of the quarantine facility: Borer & Delong (1970), DeBach (1964), Clausen
(1940), Clausen (1978), King & Leppla (1984), Peterson (1959, 1960),
Poinar (1977), Poinar & Thomas (1978), Waage & Greathead (1987). Lights: Daylight-fluorescent and the halide type plant growth
lamps have proven satisfactory for indoor plant culture and greenhouse
containment areas that require supplemental light. Heat from halide lamps may
be of value in speeding plant growth, but harmful if excessive heat buildup
is undesirable. These lamps also require special wiring and circuitry. Time
switches are needed to simulate day length. The entry vestibules of the
quarantine laboratory should be equipped with blacklight traps to attract
insects which may have inadvertently gained entry to the vestibule either
from the outside or from within the quarantine handling area. Temperature Cabinets: These are
essential for experiments requiring closely regulated temperature cycles.
Units with good records of reliability are preferred to minimize repairs.
Temperature and humidity recording devices also will be needed. Refrigerator: Cooling incoming shipments of arthropods to ca. 5°C
not only extends the longevity of the organisms but facilitates handling
during transfer and identification. Refrigerators may range from small, under-the-counter
units, to the large double door, restaurant models when space permits. The
latter can accommodate large packages, and are especially useful when large
amounts of material is being handled. Household refrigerators with
thermostatic controls adapted to operate at predetermined minimum
temperatures also may be used. Care should be taken when selecting a
temperature for long term holding periods to avoid excessive mortality. Refrigerated Room: A built-in cold room is considered desirable if large
amounts of plant material or hibernating immature arthropods are to be held
under simulated winter conditions. For temporary storage of packaged dormant
material, portable refrigerated walk-in units can be rented. Carbon Dioxide: Judiciously used, CO2 anesthetization (one
minute maximum) can facilitate the handling of both entomophagous and
phytophagous arthropods. However, Nicolas & Sillens (1989) pointed out
that CO2 narcosis may have adverse short- and long-term effects.
Anesthetization time can be extended by passing the gas over ether. Because
CO-2 is heavier than air, caution must be used to avoid build-up in
the bottoms of open containers. Carbon dioxide is best supplied with
portable cylinders provided with pressure regulators that are under the direct
control of the personnel using them. Central CO2 installations
which serve several stations on the other hand often develop leaks, or gas is
wasted by forgotten taps. Tools: A selection of hand tools such as hammers, screwdrivers,
pliers and small ladders are all useful for cage and equipment maintenance.
Flashlights and fire extinguishers are essential for emergency purposes. Vacuum and Pressure Pumps: Such devices
are useful when collecting large numbers of living specimens and with
olfactometer experiments. Air pressure is handy for cleaning cages, aerating
hydroponic tanks of aquatic plants, etc. Positive and negative air supplies
can be from a central source in the building, or provided by portable units. Pest Control:
Ants, whiteflies, aphids, spider mites, etc. frequently pose problems to
plant and insect cultures in quarantine. Control by nonpesticide methods are
preferred (e.g., light traps, sticky boards, soaps, biological control
agents, handpicking of infested leaves). Commercial insectaries and some farm
and garden supply stores are sources of biological control agents (Anon.
1989, Bezark 1989). If chemical sprays are to be used, a unit for confining
the treatments to the plants and to exhaust odors and drift outside the
quarantine will be needed. Insecticidal dusts should not be used. Boric acid
powder can be used for cockroach control (Ebeling 1978). [See section on
contaminants: ENT229.17]. Cleaning and Disposal Equipment: Vacuum cleaners, brooms, sponges, mops and other
janitorial equipment are necessary. Most containment facilities are equipped
with pass through steam autoclaves which allow direct removal of treated
materials from quarantine without the possibility of recontamination. For
treatment of small amounts of material, regular household ovens or specially
constructed electrically heated chests may supplement the autoclave in purely
arthropod handling facilities. The steam autoclave is preferred if soil and
other compacted materials are used in containment. Pathogen infected waste
material should be sterilized at 100°C for sufficient
time to permit adequate penetration of heat. The usefulness of microwave ovens is questionable.
Hertelandy & Pinter (1986a,b) discussed the use of microwaves to control
stored product pests, but the effectiveness in killing spores of certain
pathogens is doubtful. Under no circumstances ought carpets be used to floor a
quarantine laboratory, as the fibers retain material that can infest
cultures, and sterilization is practically impossible. Records: A file cabinet is useful for keeping equipment operating
instructions, quarantine handling records, taxonomic keys, pertinent
literature, correspondence and appropriate phone numbers. The cabinet may be
kept in a quarantine anteroom, but should be readily accessible to workers.
Computer equipment greatly facilitates record management and the exchange of
information among laboratories and regulatory agencies. Communication Units: A telephone
communication capability between personnel working in quarantine and elsewhere
is essential. An intercom system permitting nonmanual operated response
should minimize worker interruption. Protocol in
Quarantine Operations The intent and design of a quarantine facility are to
speed the safe importation and release of candidate biological control
agents, beginning with the federal and state permitting process through the
actual shipping, receipt, processing, release and finally documentation f the
work. To assure the rigorous standards for handling imported materials, there
has been a concurrent tightening of domestic and foreign regulations
governing the collection and shipment process. U. S. Department
of Agriculture Regulations. No single Federal statute specifically addresses
regulation of the importation, movement and release of biological control
agents per se (Coulson & Soper 1989). There are at least six Federal
regulations that impact on biological control activities: (1) the Plant
Quarantine Act, 1912 (initial legislation to restrict movement of potential
pests into the United States); (2) the Federal Plant Pest Act of 1957
(regulates the importation and movement of plant pests and plant parts that
may harbor pests); (3) the Public Health Services Act (regulates movement of
insects and vectors of human disease agents); (4) the Federal Insecticide
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (authorizes the Environmental
Protection Agency to regulate pesticides) which by broad definition includes
biological control organisms; (5) the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) (requires an assessment of actions that may affect the quality of the
environment); and (6) the Endangered Species Act (attempts to avoid impact on
indigenous rare and endangered species).
New restrictions
are expected following the 11
September 2001 assault in New York City. In the United States, the regulation of biological control
agent movement, package inspection at ports of entry and quarantine
certification inspection, has rested with the Biological Assessment Support
Staff (BASS) since 1983. This is part of the Plant Protection and Quarantine
(PPQ) section, of the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS),
USDA, Hyattsville, MD 10782 (Lima 1983). APHIS PPQ regulatory actions set the standards and
guidelines for all federal and state biological control quarantine
activities. However, individual states may attach additional regulations
regarding treatment accorded to specific pests within their geographic
jurisdictions. Obviously created to handle the diverse importation of harmful
substances into the United States, it is incredulous that the U. S.
Government could not have short circuited this bureaucracy for the
altruistic endeavors of a biological control worker! Therefore to separate importations into different
categories, PPQ has placed the organisms that must be quarantined into three
categories: Category A: Foreign plant pests not present or of limited
distribution in the United States; domestic plant pests of limited
distribution in that country, including program pests; state regulated pests
and exotic strains of domestic pests. Category B: Biological control agents and pollinators. Category B1: high risk: weed antagonists; shipments
accompanied by prohibited plant material or Category A pests. Category B2: low risk: pure cultures of known beneficial
organisms. Category C: Domestic pests that have attained their
ecological ranges, non-pest organisms and other organisms for which courtesy
permits may be issued. Specifically, all exotic biological control organisms
(Cat. B) enter the United States accompanied by Category A pests (i.e., hosts
of the biological control agents) or weed antagonists must be received in a
primary PPQ certified quarantine facility (Lima 1983). Permits: Federal and state permits are require for almost all
movement of beneficial organisms into and throughout the United States. This
is not the sticker that accompanies the package, but rather the
authorization to do the importation. Importation to the United States.--Permits are required for all importations of living
beneficial arthropods and microorganisms into the United States. Application
for these permits is made on PPQ Form 526 (Application and Permit to Move
Live Plant Pests), which can be obtained from APHIS/PPQ, Hyattsville, MD, or
from state agricultural departments.
The completed forms should be routed to those state agricultural
officials in whose jurisdiction the receiving quarantine facility is located.
The state-approved forms are then forwarded to APHIS/PPQ for concurrence
and/or instruction of further conditions required in handling the material.
At this point PPQ Form 526 becomes the permit and the duly signed form
and PPQ-48 shipping labels are forwarded to the applicant. These labels are
then affixed to the outside of the packages by the explorer or foreign
shipper. Packages which are hand carried into the United States should also
bear the proper shipping labels and also be accompanied by a copy of the
approved PPQ Form 526 to avoid delays at the Port of Entry. At least six
months should be allowed to process the 526 application through USDA (APHIS)
and state departments of agriculture although the time required varies
considerably. In the biological control of weeds it is often necessary
to import exotic plants for host range studies. Applications can be obtained
from the Permit Unit, Plant Protection and Quarantine Program, APHIS, USDA,
Federal Building, Hyattsville, MD 20782. Plants to be imported under the
quarantine permit may also be subject to the provisions of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Information on plants which come under these provisions, how to obtain
permits for their importation, and which foreign agencies should be contacted
to obtain the proper export permits, may be obtained from the Wildlife Permit
Office, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of Interior,
Washington, D.C. 20240. In addition, permits to move restricted plants from a
foreign source or from one state to another should be obtained from
quarantine officials in the receiving state. Some countries (e.g., Australia, Mexico) require permits
not only for collection but also to export living or dead specimens (museum material)
of indigenous species. As biological control explorers sometimes work with
relatively obscure elements of a country's flora and fauna, it is not
uncommon for them to discover new species and compile new biological
information. By requiring export permits, officials of foreign governments
are better able to monitor the biota of their countries and to assure that
type specimens of newly described species remain in their national
repositories. Arrangements for necessary travel, collection and export permits
needed by the explorer can usually be handled through the Ministry of
Agriculture, Plant Quarantine or Plant Protection Service officials of the
host country. Such arrangements must be initiated at least 12 months in
advance of travel. Interstate.--Some
states have regulations covering the importation, movement and release of
arthropods within their boundaries (e.g., California, Florida, Oregon,
Texas). In these instances, APHIS-PPQ issues PPQ-49 permit labels at a
state's request. This label covers the transport of biological control
organisms only and does not include living host material. Packages of
biological control agents to be shipped or mailed among states should bear
this label. State regulatory officials should be routinely informed of releases
within their areas, whether permits are required or not. Technically,
shipments containing only living beneficial species do not require a permit,
but their movement should be made a matter of record at the Biological
Control Documentation Center, Beltsville, MD. With weed feeding arthropods and pathogens of weeds, the
import application and labelling process has two added steps to that
described above (Klingman & Coulson 1982). Prior to completing and filing
PPQ Form 526, the applicant must prepare a proposal justifying the planned
importation of weed arthropods whether for study or release. The proposal
should address: (1) the importance of the weed problem and whether the target
plant has any redeeming features that may lead to objections against its
control, (2) the organism to be introduced for study and/or release, and (3)
a summary of the information known about the host range and biology of the
organism, noting if studies are still needed and how it is to be handled in
quarantine. The proposal is forwarded to the APHIS Technical Advisory Group
(APHIS-TAG) which considers the potential hazards and benefits of the
proposed importation. Packaging For
Shipment.--The least
active stages of an organism (e.g., egg, pupa, diapausing larva & adult)
often survive the rigors of packaging and travel better than active stages.
All packing materials should be cooled before shipping, and the shipments
should be directed by the swiftest and most secure routing, usually air
freight. The amount of fresh plant material included in the
shipment should be minimized. Fresh foliage deteriorates rapidly when
packages are placed in a warm location. Also there should be a minimum of
free moisture in packages, especially if fresh plant material is included. Organisms to be shipped should be taken from expanding,
healthy populations to minimize the inclusion of diseased or genetically
impoverished material (Myers & Sabath 1981). Early season generations of
multivoltine species generally contain fewer parasitoids, including hyperparasitoids.
Outgoing packages should remain open as long as possible. Packages that are
received should be cooled to ca. 5°C before
contents are examined. Also, packages should not be overloaded. Each life stage may require particular attention . A double
or triple wrapped package will safeguard against organism escapes, and in any
case are required by law for a variety of organisms. Circumstances may require shipping under less than optimum
conditions, which although perhaps encumbering the delivery of organisms in
top condition, is probably better than not taking a chance on getting
beneficial material through. In such cases it is best to make several
shipments by whatever means is available. Even simple lettersize envelopes
have served to adequately transport living beneficials, especially if
styrofoam protection is included that will reduce pressure from automatic
stamp canceling machinery. Identification.--Authoritative identification is an important step to
unlocking information on host range, ecological relationships, biology (life
history) and even previous uses as a biological control agent. It is
essential to a rapid release from quarantine. Quarantine workers should be
aware of how to prepare specimens for identification and forwarding to appropriate
specialists (Edwards et al. 1985, Steyskal et al. 1986). The majority of biological agents handled in quarantine
are from little studied ecosystems in foreign areas, and often prove
difficult to identify. Knutson (1981) pointed out that out of the 318 species
of parasitoids and predators released through the USDA/ARS, Newark, Delaware,
Biological Control Quarantine from 1965-1979, 16% could be identified only to
the generic level and 2% only to the family or higher level. Of the 42
species of arthropods released to control weeds in the United States at that
time, all were identified to species, but seven of them were new to science
during the period when they first came under consideration as biological
control agents. Voucher Specimens.--Voucher specimens of entomophagous and phytophagous
natural enemies and hosts should be preserved. Voucher specimens aid workers
in tracking the spread and success of new biological control agents. Knutson
(1984) summed up the importance of retaining voucher materials noting that
they serve to (1) document the identity of organisms released thus permitting
a retrogressive tracking of changes in their names if later needed, and (2)
provide specimens and information for future studies that may not have been
envisioned at the time of release. For example, voucher specimens helped
unravel a 20-year old taxonomy problem with two trypetid seed head flies
known to attack the weed Centaurea solstitalis L. in areas of
the Mediterranean. An early importation of the fly, then identified as Urophora
sirunaseva (Hering) (Zwölfer 1969), failed to establish on this weed
in California, apparently due to an antibiosis reaction on the part of the
California plant (Fisher & Andres 1999). Fifteen years later a similar
fly was observed attacking C. solstitalis plants of California
origin in an experimental garden in Greece (Sobhian & Zwölfer 1985). This
latter fly was identified as the true U. sirunaseva (White
& Clement 1987), while the earlier introduced Italian fly was confirmed
to be U. jacaluta Rondani, as had been speculated by Steyskal
(1979). Voucher material should be prepared in the manner
suggested by Steyskal et al. (1986). In the case of weed feeding arthropods,
samples of the plants used for host specificity tests should also be
preserved (Klingman & Coulson 1982). Similarly, host materials for
entomophagous arthropods should be vouchered. Records and
Reports.--Each
candidate biological control agent is tracked from the time of receipt until
its final clearance and release into the environment. These records are of
interest to APHIS-PPQ, which must monitor the importation and final
disposition of biotic agents and associated plant pests. Special standardized
report forms are available from the Biological Control Documentation Center,
Beneficial Insects Laboratory, USDA/ARS, Beltsville, MD 20705. Exercise 27.1: Discuss the history of Federal Quarantine in the United
States. Exercise 27.2: Detail quarantine procedures in the State of California. REFERENCES: [ Additional
references may be found at MELVYL Library ] Anonymous.
1985. Recommended measures for regulating the importation and movement of
plants. Information Letter, FAO, Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission
(1985) No. 132. 20 p. Anonymous.
1989. Directory of producers of natural enemies of common pests. IPM
Practitioner, 11(4): 15-18. BIRC, P.O. Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707. Bailey,
J. C. & J. B. Kreasky. 1978. Quarantine laboratory for plant-feeding
insects, pp. 53-56. In: N. C. Leppla & T. R. Ashley (eds.),
Facilities For Insect Research and Production. USDA, SEA, Tech. Bull. 1576.
86 p. Bartlett,
B. R. & R. van den Bosch. 1964. Foreign exploration for beneficial
organisms, pp. 283-304. In: P. DeBach (ed.), Biological Control of
Insect Pests and Weeds. Chapman & Hall. Bellows,
T. S., Jr. & T. W. Fisher, (eds) 1999. Handbook of Biological Control:
Principles and Applications. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1046 p. Bezark,
L. G. 1989. Suppliers of beneficial organisms in North America. State of
California Dept. Food & Agric., Biol. Cont. Serv. Prog., BC 89-1. 13 p. Boldt,
P. E. 1982. Quarantine facility for exotic phytophagous insects. FAO, Plant
Protect. Bull. 30(2): 73-77. Boldt,
P. E. & J. J. Drea. 1980. Packaging and shipping beneficial insects for
biological control. FAO Plant Protect. Bull., Vol 28(2): 64-71. Borror,
D. J. & D. M. DeLong. 1970. An Introduction to the Study of Insects, 3rd
ed. Hold, Rinehart & Winston, New York. 812 p. Briese,
D. T. & R. J. Milner. 1986. Effect of the microsporidian Pleistophora
schubergi in Anaitis efformata (Lepidoptera:
Geometridae) and its elimination from a laboratory colony. J. Invertebr.
Path. 48: 107-16. Bruckart,
M. L. & W. M. Dowler. 1986. Evaluation of exotic rust fungi in the United
States for classical biological control of weeds. Weed Sci. 34: 11-14 (suppl.
1). Carl,
K. P. 1982. Biological control of native pests by introduced natural enemies.
CIBC, Bio. News & Info. 3(3): 191-200. Clausen,
C. P. 1940. Entomophagous Insects. McGraw-Hill, New York & London. 688 p. Clausen,
C. P. (ed.). 1978. Introduced Parasites and Predators of Arthropod Pests and
Weeds: A World Review. USDA, ARS, Agric. Handb. 480. 545 p. Coulson,
J. R. & J. H. Hagan. 1985. Biological control information document No.
00061. ARS Biol. Cont. Doc. Ctr., USDA, ARS, BARC-East, Beltsville, MD 20705.
95 p. Coulson,
J. R. & R. S. Soper. 1989. Protocols for the introduction of biological
agents in the United States, pp. 1-35. In: R. P. Kahn (ed.), Plant
Protection & Quarantine, Vol. 3, Special Topics. CRC Press, Inc., Boca
Raton, FL. 215 p. Creager,
R. A. 1987. A containment facility for research on foreign noxious weeds.
Weed Tech. 1: 52-55. DeBach,
P. (ed.). 1964. Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weds. Chapman &
Hall, Ltd. 844 p. Denmark,
H. A. 1978. Quarantine and biological-control laboratory, pp. 47-49. In:
N. C. Leppla & T. R. Ashley (eds.), Facilities For Insect Research and
Protection. USDA, SEA, Tech. Bull. 1576. 86 p. Ebeling,
W. 1978. Urban Entomology. Div. Agr. Sci., Univ. Calif., Berkeley. 695 p. Edwards,
S. R., G. M. Davis & L. I. Nevling, Jr. (eds.). 1985. The systematics
community. Assoc. Syst. Coll., Mus. Natl. Hist., Univ. Kansas, Lawrence, KS
66045. 275 p. Ertle,
L. R. & W. H. Day. 1978. USDA quarantine facility, Newark, Delaware, pp.
49-52. In: N. C. Leppla & T. R. Ashley (eds.), Facilities For
Insect Research and Production. USDA, SEA, Tech. Bull. 1576. 86 p. Etzel,
L. K. 1978. University of California quarantine, Albany, pp. 45-46. In:
N. C. Leppla & T. R. Ashley (eds.), Facilities For Insect Research and
Production. USDA, SEA, Tech. Bull. 1576. 86 p. Etzel,
L. K., S. O. Levinson & L. A. Andres. 1981. Elimination of Nosema
in Galeruca rufa, a potential biological control agent for
field bindweed. Environ. Ent. 10: 143-46. Finney,
G. L. & T. W. Fisher. 1964. Culture of entomophagous insects and their
hosts, pp. 328-55. In: P. DeBAch (ed.), Biological Control of Insect
Pests and Weeds, Chapman & Hall, Ltd., London. 844 p. Fisher,
T. W. 1964. Quarantine handling of entomophagous insects, pp. 305-26. In:
P. DeBach (ed.), Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds. Chapman &
Hall, Ltd., London. 844 p. Fisher,
T. W. 1978. University of California quarantine facility, Riverside, pp.
56-60. In: N. C. Leppla & T. R. Ashley (eds.), Facilities For
Insect Research and Production. USDA, SEA, Tech. Bull. 1576. 86 p. Frick,
K. E. 1974. Biological control of plant insects and diseases, pp. 204-23. In:
F. G. Maxwell & F. A. Harris (eds.), Biological Control of Weeds:
Introduction, History, Theoretical and Practical Application. Proc. Summer
Inst., Univ Press of Mississippi, Jackson. 647 p. Funasaki,
G. Y., P.-Y. Lai, L. M. Nakahara, J. W. Beardsley & A. K. Ota. 1988. A
review of biological control introductions in Hawaii: 1890 to 1985. Proc.
Hawaiian Ent. Soc. 28: 105-60. Goodwin,
R. H. 1984. Recognition and diagnosis of diseases in insectaries and the
effects of disease agents on insect biology, pp. 96-130. In: E. G.
King & N. C. Leppla (eds.), Advances and Challenges in Insect Rearing.
USDA, ARS, Proc. Conf., Atlanta, GA, March 1980. Granados,
R. & B. A. Federici (eds.). 1986. The Biology of Baculoviruses, Vol. I.
275 pp., Vol. II, 276 p. CRC Press. Harley,
K. L. S. & B. W. Wilson. 1968. Propagation of cerambycia borer on a
meridic diet. Canad. J. Zool. 46: 1265-66. Hertelendy,
L. & A. Pinter. 1986. Microwave method to control pests of stored
products. Novenyvedelem, 1985, 21(5): 215. In: A. Szenessy et al. (eds.),
Abstracts and Bibliography of Hungarian Plant Protection, Vol. 11, p. 38-39. Hertelendy,
L. & A. Pinter. 1986. Application of microwave method to control pests of
stored products. Novenyvedelem, 1985 21(9): 423-25. In: A. Szenessy et
al. (eds). Abstracts and Bibliography of Hungarian Plant Protection, Vol. 11:
p. 39. Inman,
R. E. 1970. A temporary quarantine laboratory for research with exotic plant
pathogens. Plant Disease Reporter 54: 3-7. Jones,
W. A., J. E. Powell & E. G. King, Jr. 1985. Stoneville research
quarantine facility: a national center for support of research on biological
control of arthropod and weed pests. Bull. Ent. Soc. Amer. 31(2): 20-26. Kahn,
R. P. 1988. Plant quarantine: Principles, Concepts and Problems. Vol. I. 256
p., Vol II, 272 p., Vol. III, 224 p. CRC Press. King,
E. G. & N. C. Leppla (eds.). 1984. Advances and Challenges in Insect
Rearing. USDA ARS (southern region). Proc. Conf. in Atlanta, GA. March 4-6,
1980. 306 p. Klingman,
D. L. & J. R. Coulson. 1982. Guidelines for introducing foreign organisms
into the United States for biological control of weeds. Weed Sci. 30: 661-67. Klingman,
D. L. & J. R. Coulson. 1983. Introducing foreign organisms into the
United States. Bull. Ent. Soc. Amer. 29: 55-61. Knutson,
L. 1981. Symbiosis of biosystematics and biological control, pp 61-78. In:
G. Papavizas (ed.), Biological Control in Crop Production. BARC Symp. No. 5,
Allanheld, Osmun, Ottawa. Knutson,
L. 1984. Voucher material in entomology: a status report. Ent. Soc. Amer.
Bull. 30(4): 8-11. Laing,
J. E. & J. Hamai. 1976. Biological control of insect pests and weeds by
imported parasites, predators and pathogens, pp. 686-743. In: C. B.
Huffaker & P. S. Messenger (eds.), Theory and Practice of Biological
Control. Academic Press, New York. 514 p. 1986 Legner, E. F. 1986.
Importation of exotic natural enemies. In: pp. 19-30, "Biological Control of
Plant Pests and of Vectors of Human and
Animal Diseases." Fortschritte der Zool. Bd. 32: 341 pp Legner , E. F. & T. S. Bellows, Jr. 1999. Exploration
for natural enemies. In: Bellows,
T. S., Jr. & T. W. Fisher, (eds) 1999. Handbook of Biological Control:
Principles and Applications. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Leppla,
N. C. 1985. Gelling agents for insect diet: from mush to medium. FRASS 8(1):
1-2. Leppla,
N. C. & T. R. Ashley (eds.). 1978. Facilities for insect research and
production. USDA, SEA, Tech. Bull. 1576. 86 p. Lima,
P. J. 1983. Safeguard guidelines for containment of plant pests under permit.
USDA, APHIS, PPQ: APHIS 81-61. 11 p. McMurtry,
J. A. & G. T. Scriven. 1975. Population increase of Phytoseiulus persimilis
on different insectary feeding programs. J. Econ. Ent. 68: 319-20. Melching,
J. S., K. R. Bromfield & C. H. Kingsolver. 1983. The plant pathogen
containment facility at Frederick, MD. Plant Dis. 67(7): 717-22. Milner,
R. J. & D. T. Briese. 1986. Identification of the microsporidian Pleistophora
schulbergi infecting Anaitis effornata (Lepidoptera:
Geometridae). J. Invertebr. Pathol. 48: 100-06. Myers,
J. H. & M. D. Sabath. 1981. Genetic and phenotypic variability, genetic
variance, and the success of establishment of insect introductions for the
biological control of weeds. Proc. Intl. Symp. Biol. Contr. Weeds, Brisbane,
Australia. p. 91-102. Nicolas,
G. & D. Sillens. 1989. Immediate and latent effects of carbon dioxide on
insects, pp. 97-116. In: T. E. Mittler, F. J. Radovsky & V. H.
Resh (eds. Ann. Rev. Ent. 34: 583 p. Ooi,
A. C. P. 1986. Quarantine and biological control. Biocontrol News and Info.
7(4): 227-31. Dec. Crop Protect. Branch, Dept. Agric., Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia. Pershing,
J. C. (ed.). 1988. Frass newsletter, Vol. 11 & 12. Insect Rearing Group,
Chevron Chem. Corp., P.O. Box 4010, Richmond, CA. 94804. Peterson,
A. 1959. Larvae of Insects. Part I. Edwards Bros., Inc., Ann Arbor, MI. 315
p. Peterson,
A. 1960. Larvae of Insects. Part II. Edwards Bros., Inc. Ann Arbor, MI. 416
p. Poinar,
G. O., Jr. 1977. CIH key to the groups and genera of nematode parasites of
invertebrates. Commonw. Agric. Bur. 43 p. Poinar,
G. O., Jr. & G. M. Thomas. 1978. Diagnostic manual for the identification
of insect pathogens. Plenum Press, New York. 218 p. Ridings,
W. H. & T. W. Fisher. 1983. Quarantine Technology, pp. 51-52. In:
S. L. Battlefield (ed.). Proc. Natl. Interdis. Biol. Cont. Conf., USDA. Feb.
15-17. Room,
P. M., I. W. Forno & M. F. J. Taylor. 1984. Establishment in Australia of
two insects for biological control of the floating weed Salvinia molesta.
Bull. Ent. Res. 74: 505-16. Room,
P. M., K. L. S. Harley, I. W. Forno & D. P. A. Sands. 1981. Successful
biological control of the floating weed Salvinia. Nature 294: 78-80. Scriven,
G. T. & J. A. McMurtry. 1971. Quantitative production and processing of
tetranychid mites for large-scale testing or predator production. J. Econ.
Ent. 64: 1255-57. Shapiro,
M. 1984. Micro-organisms as contaminants and pathogens in insect rearing, pp.
130-143. In: E. G. King & N. C. Leppla (eds.), Advances and
Challenges in Insect Rearing. USDA, ARS, Proc. Conf., Atlanta, GA, March,
1980. Singh,
P. 1972. Bibliography of artificial diets for insects and mites. Bull. 209,
New Zealand Dept. Sci. Indust. Res., Wellington, New Zealand. 75 p. Singh,
P. 1989. Construction and operation of plant pathogen containment facilities
(quarantine). FAO Plant Protect. Bull. New Zealand Dept. Sci. Indust. Res.,
Wellington, New Zealand. (in press). Singh,
P. & R. F. Moore (eds.). 1985. Handbook of Insect Rearing, Vol. II.
Elsevier, Amsterdam. 514 p. Sobhian,
R. & L. A. Andres. 1978. The response of the skeleton weed gall midge, Cystiphora
schmidti (Diptera: Cecedomyiidae), and the gall mite, Aceria chondrillae
(Eriophyidae) to North American strains of rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla
juncea). Environ. Ent. 7: 506-08. Sobhian,
R. & H. Zwölfer. 1985. Phytophagous insect species associated with flower
heads of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis L.) in
California. Angew. Entomol. 99: 301-21. Steyskal,
G. C. 1979. Taxonomic studies on fruitflies of the genus Urophora
(Diptera: Tephritidae). Misc. Publs. Ent. Soc. Wash. 1-61. Steyskal,
G. C., W. L. Murphy & E. M. Hoover (eds.). 1986. Insects and mites:
techniques for collection and preservation. U. S. Dept. Agric., Misc. Publ.
No. 1443. 103 p. Waage,
J. & D. Greathead (eds.). 1987. Insect Parasitoids. Academic Press. 390
p. Wapshere,
A. J. 1974. Host specificity of phytophagous organisms and the evolutionary
centers of plant genera and subgenera. Entomophaga 19: 301-09. Watson,
A. K. & W. E. Sackston. 1985. Plant pathogen containment (quarantine)
facility at MacDonald College. Canad. J. Plant Path. 7: 177-180. White,
I. M. & S. L. Clement. 1987. Systematic notes on Urophora
(Diptera, Tephritidae) species associated with Centaurea solstitialis
(Asteraceae, Cardueae) and other Palearctic weeds adventive in North America.
Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 89: 571-80. Zwölfer,
H. 1969. Urophora siruna-seva (HG.) (Dipt.: Trypetidae),
a potential insect for the biological control of Centaurea solstitialis
L. in California. Tech. Bull. Connonw. Inst. Biol. Contr. 11: 105-54. Zwölfer, H. & P. Harris. 1971. Host specificity.
Determination of insects for biological control of weeds. Ann. Rev. Ent. 16:
159-78. |