Suchergebnisse

Viele invasive gebietsfremde Arten im Sinne der Biodiversitätskonvention sind auch Pflanzenschädlinge im Sinne des Internationalen Pflanzenschutzübereinkommens und umgekehrt. Deshalb ist eine enge Zusammenarbeit zwischen diesen Politikbereichen sinnvoll. In der EU gibt es zwei Verordnungen, die nichteinheimische schädliche Organismen regeln, die Pflanzengesundheitsverordnung 2016/2031 und die Verordnung 1143/2014 über invasive Arten. Für viele schädliche Arten sind damit Prävention und Bekämpfung durch eine der beiden Verordnungen geregelt, lediglich für gebietsfremde Pflanzenarten, die nur landwirtschaftlich genutzte Pflanzen schädigen, existiert zurzeit keine zufriedenstellende Regelungspraxis. Die im Internationalen Jahr der Pflanzengesundheit angestrebte Bewusstseinsbildung über Risiken der Ein- und Verschleppung von Schadorganismen könnte auch zu einer besseren Regulierung solcher gebietsfremder Pflanzen führen. ; Many invasive alien species in the sense of the Convention on Biodiversity are also plant pests as defined in the International Plant Protection Convention – and vice versa. Cooperation between the two policy fields is therefore necessary. In the European Union different regulations exist in the fields of plant health and environmental protection. While for many noxious species prevention and management measures are prescribed in one of the two regulations, some species, namely alien plants that pose a threat solely to agriculture and cultivated plants are currently not regulated to a satisfactory degree. It is hoped the increased awareness about plant health threats in the International Year of Plant Health will stimulate a better legal treatment of these plants as pests in the EU.

Viele invasive gebietsfremde Arten im Sinne der Bio­diversitätskonvention sind auch Pflanzenschädlinge im Sinne des Internationalen Pflanzenschutzübereinkommens und umgekehrt. Deshalb ist eine enge Zusammenarbeit zwischen diesen Politikbereichen sinnvoll. In der EU gibt es zwei Verordnungen, die nichteinheimische schäd­liche Organismen regeln, die Pflanzengesundheitsverordnung 2016/2031 und die Verordnung 1143/2014 über invasive Arten. Für viele schädliche Arten sind damit Prävention und Bekämpfung durch eine der beiden Verordnungen geregelt, lediglich für gebietsfremde Pflanzenarten, die nur landwirtschaftlich genutzte Pflanzen schädigen, existiert zurzeit keine zufriedenstellende Regelungspraxis. Die im Internationalen Jahr der Pflan­zengesundheit angestrebte Bewusstseinsbildung über Risi­ken der Ein- und Verschleppung von Schadorganismen könnte auch zu einer besseren Regulierung solcher gebietsfremder Pflanzen führen. ; Many invasive alien species in the sense of the Convention on Biodiversity are also plant pests as defined in the International Plant Protection Convention – and vice versa. Cooperation between the two policy fields is therefore necessary. In the European Union different regulations exist in the fields of plant health and environmental protection. While for many noxious species prevention and management measures are prescribed in one of the two regulations, some species, namely alien plants that pose a threat solely to agriculture and cultivated plants are currently not regulated to a satisfactory degree. It is hoped the increased awareness about plant health threats in the International Year of Plant Health will stimulate a better legal treatment of these plants as pests in the EU.

Eichhornia crassipes is notorious as the world's worst aquatic weed, and here we present all aspects of its biology, ecology and invasion behaviour within the framework of the new series of Botany Letters on Monographs on invasive plants in Europe. Native to the Amazon in South America, the plant has been spread around the world since the late 1800s through the ornamental plant trade due to its attractive lilac flowers, and is established on every continent except Antarctica. Its distribution is limited in Europe to the warmer southern regions by cold winter temperatures, but it has extensive ecological and socio-economic impacts where it invades. Its reproductive behaviour, characterised by rapid vegetative spread and high seed production, as well as its wide physiological tolerance, allows it to proliferate rapidly and persist in a wide range of environments. It has recently been regulated by the EU, under Regulation No. 1143/2014, which states that E. crassipes shall not be brought into the territory of the Union, kept, bred or transported to, from or within the Union. However, in the absence of effective control measures, such as herbicidal and biological control, it will continue to be a significant threat to European waterways, particularly in eutrophic waters, and under future climate change scenarios.

Introduced pests and diseases cause such devastation due, to a great degree, to a lack of natural enemies in their introduced range, and a lack of immunity within their new hosts as they have not previously been exposed to them (Tomoshevitch et al., 2013). The threat from new pests and pathogens is only set to rise as the rate of international trade increases, involving greater numbers of countries and trade routes, creating new pathways for their introduction. Similarly, the change in climate, e.g. increased temperatures and changed rainfall patterns, creates new habitats in which these damaging organisms can establish and thrive, making them a threat to more countries and plants. A key issue that scientists face is trying to predict which of these organisms could/will cause problems for plants in the future, and where. The overall aim of this project was to establish the basis for an International Plant Sentinel Network (IPSN) as an early-warning system for future pest and disease threats. The network would use enhanced monitoring of plants that are growing outside their natural regions for damage by all the organisms that exist in the new environment; i.e. 'sentinel plants'. Research has shown the potential power of using sentinel plants for identifying new pest organisms (Fagan et al., 2008, Baker et al., 2009, Britton et al., 2010, Kenis et al., 2011; Tomoshevitch et al., 2013, ISEFOR, 2015). As well as helping to identify 'unknowns' or 'future threats', research can also provide key information about pests and diseases that scientists already know but which are poorly characterised. The more scientists (and botanical institute) know, the better the management plans that can be put in place to prevent the introduction of such pests and/or slow or stop their establishment and spread. For this reason, the aim of the IPSN is to bring together experts from different backgrounds who work in plant health, including those working in governments, academic institutions and NGOs combined with staff working in botanic ...

Ambrosia artemisiifolia (ragweed) is a neophyte in Europe and Germany, which originated from the United States of America. In the USA the rate of sensitization against ragweed equals that of grass pollen, and without containment the rate of allergic sensitizations against ragweed pollen will clearly increase. Currently, the most frequent sensitizations in Germany are against grass pollen, followed by sensitizations against house dust mite and birch pollen. Ragweed pollen evokes symptoms at about 10 pollen/m3, grass pollen at about 15 pollen/m3. ese concentrations of ragweed pollen are only reached on limited occasions in Germany. Ragweed cross-reacts with mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris) and a correct diagnosis is only feasible with the ragweed specic allergen Amb a 1. Due to cross reactivity with mugwort, new sensitizations against ragweed pollen are not needed to evoke allergic symptoms. e neophyte encounters an already mugwort-sensitized population, extends the pollen season and may provoke new sensitizations. Ragweed sensitizations are characterized by an increased tendency to also aect the lower airways, which is less with mugwort sensitizations. us containment of ragweed is needed. Ragweed seeds are imported or spread by contaminated bird feed, the transport of ragweed contaminated soil (also in tyre treads) and agricultural products from infested areas. States bordering on ragweed positive areas, like Brandenburg and Bavaria, are especially at risk and invasion is already underway. Ragweed seeds survive up to 40 years in soil, and so extended timescales for eradication and observations are needed. Germany is, compared to other countries like France (Rhone-Valley), Italy (Po-Valley), Ukraine and Hungary, limited in respect to ragweed infestation. Conditions in Germany are therefore favourable for the containment of ragweed. Switzerland implemented legislation against birdseed contamination by ragweed early during the plants expansion, and obligatory ragweed registration- and eradication showed that ragweed containment is possible. Without counter measures ragweed expansion in Germany will take place, resulting in more allergic disease. Considering the increasing number of allergic individuals, even without ragweed invasion, containment of the neophyte should be actively persued. Unfortunately, time is running out.