Search

The egg is the first life stage directly exposed to the environment in oviparous animals, including many vertebrates and most arthropods. Eggs are vulnerable and prone to mortality risks. In arthropods, one of the most common egg mortality factors is attack from parasitoids. Yet, parasitoids that attack the egg stage are absent in more than half of all insect (sub)orders. In this review, we explore possible causes explaining why eggs of some insect taxa are not parasitized. Many insect (sub)orders that are not attacked by egg parasitoids lack herbivorous species, with some notable exceptions. Factors we consider to have led to escape from egg parasitism are parental egg care, rapid egg development, small egg size, hiding eggs, by e.g. placing them into the soil, applying egg coatings or having thick chorions preventing egg penetration, eusociality, and egg cannibalism. A quantitative network analysis of host-parasitoid associations shows that the five most-speciose genera of egg parasitoids display patterns of specificity with respect to certain insect orders, especially Lepidoptera and Hemiptera, largely including herbivorous species that deposit their eggs on plants. Finally, we discuss the many counteradaptations that particularly herbivorous species have developed to lower the risk of attack by egg parasitoids.

The Panel on Plant Health conducted a pest risk assessment for Liriomyza huidobrensis and Liriomyza trifolii in the European Union and identified and evaluated the phytosanitary measures listed in Council Directive 2000/29/EC. Entry on the principal pathways (plants for planting, cut flowers and leafy vegetables) is assessed as likely as the pests are regularly associated with the pathways at origin, survival during transport or storage is high and only partially affected by current pest management procedures, and transfer to a suitable host is likely as their hosts are so widespread. Establishment is rated as very likely because both species have established populations in most countries of the EU, with transient populations occurring outdoors in non-Mediterranean areas. Spread within the EU is considered to be likely because the pests can readily be moved with plant material. The magnitude of the potential consequences is rated as minor for both species in Mediterranean areas. In non-Mediterranean countries it is moderate for both species in protected crops but, outdoors, impacts are minor for L. huidobrensis and minimal for L. trifolii. The current regulations to prevent entry and spread were found to be only partially effective as interceptions are still being made, cut branches with foliage and leafy vegetables other than celery are excluded, and the methods for inspection and the treatments required to confirm pest free areas, places of production and consignments are not clearly specified. Removal of the legislation would have some advantages and disadvantages but may not have a major effect. The regulations could be tightened by including additional commodities, clearly prescribing the inspection procedures and the appropriate treatments to be used and combining these with other measures, e.g. screening. The application of protected zones to areas where the pests are not yet present can be applied to help prevent further spread. © European Food Safety Authority, 2012

The Panel on Plant Health has delivered a scientific opinion on the different risks posed by European and non-European populations of the potato cyst nematodes (PCN) Globodera pallida and Globodera rostochiensis to solanaceous plants in the EU and on the effectiveness of current control measures. Although PCN, particularly G. rostochiensis, are widespread in the EU, crop damage is limited because breeders have been able to develop varieties that are resistant to the small number of genotypes that are present. These genotypes represent a minor subset of the gene pool and virulence that is present in South America. As new South American genotypes are very likely to have a similar potential for establishment and spread as existing European genotypes, the potato varieties currently grown in Europe will not be resistant to new virulent genotypes. As resistant varieties take a very long time to develop, the consequences of a new introduction of South American PCN would be major. The Panel therefore concluded that it is very important to maintain the current phytosanitary measures to prevent the entry of South American PCN. However, uncertainties over the effectiveness of the measures in Annex IVAI relating to place of production freedom and soil origin were noted, and the Panel identified additional risk reduction options for certain plants for planting (e.g. bulbs) and additional requirements to confirm the absence of PCN in places of production. The Panel also identified some problems with the existing control measures to reduce the spread of PCN within the EU. A thorough and well-coordinated EU-wide survey using standardized methods would be necessary to evaluate the need to maintain these measures. The monitoring of PCN populations should exploit new diagnostic techniques (e.g. mitochondrial DNA sequences) to ensure that the resistance available is deployed appropriately. The Panel on Plant Health has delivered a scientific opinion on the different risks posed by European and non-European populations of the potato cyst nematodes (PCN) Globodera pallida and Globodera rostochiensis to solanaceous plants in the EU and on the effectiveness of current control measures. Although PCN, particularly G. rostochiensis, are widespread in the EU, crop damage is limited because breeders have been able to develop varieties that are resistant to the small number of genotypes that are present. These genotypes represent a minor subset of the gene pool and virulence that is present in South America. As new South American genotypes are very likely to have a similar potential for establishment and spread as existing European genotypes, the potato varieties currently grown in Europe will not be resistant to new virulent genotypes. As resistant varieties take a very long time to develop, the consequences of a new introduction of South American PCN would be major. The Panel therefore concluded that it is very important to maintain the current phytosanitary measures to prevent the entry of South American PCN. However, uncertainties over the effectiveness of the measures in Annex IVAI relating to place of production freedom and soil origin were noted, and the Panel identified additional risk reduction options for certain plants for planting (e.g. bulbs) and additional requirements to confirm the absence of PCN in places of production. The Panel also identified some problems with the existing control measures to reduce the spread of PCN within the EU. A thorough and well-coordinated EU-wide survey using standardized methods would be necessary to evaluate the need to maintain these measures. The monitoring of PCN populations should exploit new diagnostic techniques (e.g. mitochondrial DNA sequences) to ensure that the resistance available is deployed appropriately.

In 2011, the EFSA Panel on Plant Health was asked by the European Commission to provide an opinion on a technical file submitted by the US Authorities to support a request to list a new heat treatment (60 °C/60 min) among the EU import requirements for wood of Agrilus planipennis host plants. After a thorough analysis of the documents provided the Panel concluded that, with a low uncertainty, A. planipennis is likely to survive the proposed heat treatment of 60 °C/60 min, and that, to ensure a control level of 99 % the temperature of the heat treatment of 60 min should be higher than 70 °C. Following the publication of this scientific opinion, the US Authorities submitted a new proposal to the European Commission, consisting in a new heat treatment (71.1 °C/60 min). The EFSA Panel on Plant Health was asked to consider whether this new proposal was within the scope of the published opinion and, if not, to clarify its conclusion and indicate what data would be needed to assess the effectiveness of the new treatment. The Panel concluded that the new proposal is not within the scope of the opinion as the data provided by the US Authorities cannot be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the new proposed heat treatment. An accurate assessment of the new proposed heat treatment (71.1 °C/60 min) would require an experiment including several temperatures higher than 70 °C (one corresponding to the proposed treatment). Regarding the data requirements for assessing the effectiveness of the new treatment, the Panel lists the information required in the checklist presented in the Panel’s draft guidance document on methodology for evaluation of the effectiveness of options to reduce the risk of introduction and spread of organisms harmful to plant health in the EU territory, currently under public consultation on EFSA website. In 2011, the EFSA Panel on Plant Health was asked by the European Commission to provide an opinion on a technical file submitted by the US Authorities to support a request to list a new heat treatment (60 °C/60 min) among the EU import requirements for wood of Agrilus planipennis host plants. After a thorough analysis of the documents provided the Panel concluded that, with a low uncertainty, A. planipennis is likely to survive the proposed heat treatment of 60 °C/60 min, and that, to ensure a control level of 99 % the temperature of the heat treatment of 60 min should be higher than 70 °C. Following the publication of this scientific opinion, the US Authorities submitted a new proposal to the European Commission, consisting in a new heat treatment (71.1 °C/60 min). The EFSA Panel on Plant Health was asked to consider whether this new proposal was within the scope of the published opinion and, if not, to clarify its conclusion and indicate what data would be needed to assess the effectiveness of the new treatment. The Panel concluded that the new proposal is not within the scope of the opinion as the data provided by the US Authorities cannot be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the new proposed heat treatment. An accurate assessment of the new proposed heat treatment (71.1 °C/60 min) would require an experiment including several temperatures higher than 70 °C (one corresponding to the proposed treatment). Regarding the data requirements for assessing the effectiveness of the new treatment, the Panel lists the information required in the checklist presented in the Panel’s draft guidance document on methodology for evaluation of the effectiveness of options to reduce the risk of introduction and spread of organisms harmful to plant health in the EU territory, currently under public consultation on EFSA website.

Following a request by the European Commission, EFSA’s Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a statement to clarify the current scientific knowledge regarding the identity of the apple snails in the context of the evaluation of the pest risk analysis prepared by the Spanish Ministry of Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs (EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH), 2012). The Panel concludes on the risk to plant health posed by Pomacea species in the ‘canaliculata complex’, that out of the around 50 species in the genus of Pomacea, four species P. canaliculata, P. insularum, P. lineata and P. maculata belong to the ‘canaliculata complex’, where P. insularum and P. maculata are recently considered to be synonyms. Current methods of identification imply high uncertainty if risk reduction options are applied at the Pomacea single species level. The Spanish pest risk analysis identifies important plant health risks connected to Pomacea species. The available scientific evidence indicates that other Pomacea species may pose similar risks to plant health as identified for P. insularum. The Panel clarifies that risk reduction options should not be targeted to single species of the genus Pomacea considering: (i) the dynamical situation in the current study on the systematics of the Ampullariidae species and the genus Pomacea in particular; (ii) the uncertainties and the possible unexpected evolution of the invasive potential of species of Pomacea other than P. insularum and P. canaliculata; (iii) the poor knowledge on the trophic habits of many species of the genus Pomacea, with possible overlaps in the trophic niche (macrophytes); (iv) the high uncertainty on the identification of the different Pomacea species. Following a request by the European Commission, EFSA’s Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a statement to clarify the current scientific knowledge regarding the identity of the apple snails in the context of the evaluation of the pest risk analysis prepared by the Spanish Ministry of Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs (EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH), 2012). The Panel concludes on the risk to plant health posed by Pomacea species in the ‘canaliculata complex’, that out of the around 50 species in the genus of Pomacea, four species P. canaliculata, P. insularum, P. lineata and P. maculata belong to the ‘canaliculata complex’, where P. insularum and P. maculata are recently considered to be synonyms. Current methods of identification imply high uncertainty if risk reduction options are applied at the Pomacea single species level. The Spanish pest risk analysis identifies important plant health risks connected to Pomacea species. The available scientific evidence indicates that other Pomacea species may pose similar risks to plant health as identified for P. insularum. The Panel clarifies that risk reduction options should not be targeted to single species of the genus Pomacea considering: (i) the dynamical situation in the current study on the systematics of the Ampullariidae species and the genus Pomacea in particular; (ii) the uncertainties and the possible unexpected evolution of the invasive potential of species of Pomacea other than P. insularum and P. canaliculata; (iii) the poor knowledge on the trophic habits of many species of the genus Pomacea, with possible overlaps in the trophic niche (macrophytes); (iv) the high uncertainty on the identification of the different Pomacea species.