4.1 Article

Records of Bursaphelenchus spp. intercepted in imported packaging wood at Ningbo, China

Journal

FOREST PATHOLOGY
Volume 36, Issue 5, Pages 323-333

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0329.2006.00462.x

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

From January 2003 to June 2005, samples from 3416 batches of wooden packaging material were inspected for the presence of nematodes in the Ningbo Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau, China. Bursaphelenchus spp. were detected in 202 batches from 25 different countries. The following species were identified on the basis of their morphology and their intergenic transcribed spacer-restriction fragment length polymorphism (ITS-RFLP) patterns: B. xylophilus, B. fungivorus, B. rainulfi, B. hylobianum, B. thailandae, B. mucronatus, B. aberrans, B. lini, B. singaporensis, B. doui, B. conicaudatus, B. vallesianus, B. pinasteri, B. hofmanni and B. arthuri. The most frequently found species were B. mucronatus (57 batches), B. xylophilus (40 batches), B. fungivorus (21 batches), B. rainulfi (19 batches) and B. thailandae (nine batches). The pine wood nematode B. xylophilus was not only found in packaging wood imported from areas where it is known to occur (i.e. The United States of America, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan), but also from countries considered to be free of this dangerous pest (i.e. Brazil, Thailand, Belgium, The Netherlands, Italy and Spain). The occurrence of B. xylophilus in packaging wood from countries regarded as being free of the nematode can most likely be explained by the global circulation of wooden packaging material among infested and non-infested countries. Our findings emphasize the need to fully implement international standards on phytosanitary treatment of packaging wood, in order to prevent further spread of the pine wood nematode, and the need for careful re-examination of the current heat treatment measures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available