FILE: <bc-27.htm> Pooled References GENERAL INDEX [Navigate to MAIN MENU ]
QUARANTINE PROCEDURES
For Beneficial
Arthropod Importation
(Contacts)
---- 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. A lengthy study 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. Passing the gas over
ether can extend anesthetization time. 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 is
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. |