<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="1"?>
<pra datepubli="2024-04-02" lastupdate="2024-04-02">
 <uuid>87353b06-127a-4601-a5c5-a315c4c53f11</uuid>
 <country>EPPO</country>
 <datepra>2024-02-09</datepra>
 <title>Rapid risk assessment of plant pathogenic bacteria and protists likely to threaten agriculture, biodiversity and forestry in Zambia</title>
 <description><![CDATA[<p>Mulema J, Phiri S, Bbebe N, Chandipo R, Chijikwa M, Chimutingiza H, Kachapulula P, Mwanda FK, Matimelo M, Mazimba-Sikazwe E, Mfune S (2024) Rapid Risk Assessment of plant pathogenic bacteria and protists likely to threaten agriculture, biodiversity and forestry in Zambia. NeoBiota 91, 145-178. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.91.113801" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.91.113801</a>&nbsp;</p><p>A prioritisation study was conducted to address the lack of adequate information about potential pests likely to be introduced in Zambia and become invasive. The study was conducted by subject matter experts from relevant institutions in and outside Zambia. Although this study focused on major pest categories, this paper only addresses bacteria and&nbsp;<span data-obkms-id="009C7315-C9B8-4A61-B3E5-71BBC4CB140E" data-taxon-parsed-name="Protista">Protista</span>. A list of 306 bacterial and 10&nbsp;<span data-obkms-id="A6984224-B0C7-4135-97BC-E6A661441706" data-taxon-parsed-name="Protista">Protista</span> species adjudged to affect plants was generated using CABI&rsquo;s Horizon Scanning Tool. The 316 (total) pest species were refined to focus on pests that affect value chains important to Zambia&rsquo;s economy. This resulted in a final list of 133 bacteria and eight&nbsp;<span data-obkms-id="FBFA69A4-FFA2-4965-9CC4-59AD89C88505" data-taxon-parsed-name="Protista">Protista</span>. Four additional bacteria species considered of phytosanitary interest were added and all 137 bacteria and eight&nbsp;<span data-obkms-id="450919B6-51B6-4576-9A4A-9271F1D3F3DD" data-taxon-parsed-name="Protista">Protista</span> species were subjected to a rapid risk assessment using agreed guidelines. Vectors reported to transmit any of the pathogenic organisms were also subjected to a risk assessment. A proportion of 53% (n = 77 of 145) comprising 73 bacteria and four&nbsp;<span data-obkms-id="8CF3DD03-C614-4972-BF3D-8380F83A29D2" data-taxon-parsed-name="Protista">Protista</span> species were reported as present in Africa. Of these, 42 (57%, n = 73) bacterial species and two (n=4)&nbsp;<span data-obkms-id="E2F2E5EB-61EB-4635-8806-6FDF702FE5BD" data-taxon-parsed-name="Protista">Protista</span> species were reported in neighbouring countries. Considering a cut-off of 54, the highest scoring pests were 40 bacteria (highest score of 140) and three&nbsp;<span data-obkms-id="4D452EED-5171-4A33-AB07-A99B712B1DBA" data-taxon-parsed-name="Protista">Protista</span> (highest score of 125). Three actions were suggested for high-scoring pests, a detection surveillance, a pest-initiated pest risk analysis (<abbr title="pest risk analysis">PRA</abbr>) or a detection surveillance followed by pest-initiated&nbsp;<abbr title="pest risk analysis">PRA</abbr>. A &ldquo;no action&rdquo; was suggested where the risk was very low although, for some pathogenic organisms, a &ldquo;no action&rdquo; was followed by periodic monitoring. This information will contribute towards proactive prevention and management of biological invasions. </p>]]></description>
 <author id="24">
  <fullname>EPPO Secretariat</fullname>
  <institute id="14">Other PRAs - Scientific articles and research projects</institute>
 </author>
 <tags>
  <tag>article</tag>
  <tag>contaminant</tag>
  <tag>prioritisation</tag>
 </tags>
 <organisms>
  <organism eppocode="PSDMAV">Acidovorax avenae</organism>
  <organism eppocode="LIBEAF">'Candidatus Liberibacter africanus'</organism>
  <organism eppocode="LIBEAS">'Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus'</organism>
  <organism eppocode="LIBEPS">'Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum'</organism>
  <organism eppocode="PHYPAS">'Candidatus Phytoplasma asteris'</organism>
  <organism eppocode="PHYPPI">'Candidatus Phytoplasma pini'</organism>
  <organism eppocode="DICKCC">Dickeya chrysanthemi pv. chrysanthemi</organism>
  <organism eppocode="DICKDD">Dickeya dadantii</organism>
  <organism eppocode="ERWICD">Dickeya dianthicola</organism>
  <organism eppocode="DICKSO">Dickeya solani</organism>
  <organism eppocode="ERWIZE">Dickeya zeae</organism>
  <organism eppocode="CLABXY">Leifsonia xyli subsp. xyli</organism>
  <organism eppocode="PECBPA">Pectobacterium parmentieri</organism>
  <organism eppocode="PECBPE">Pectobacterium peruviense</organism>
  <organism eppocode="PECBPU">Pectobacterium punjabense</organism>
  <organism eppocode="PLADBR">Plasmodiophora brassicae</organism>
  <organism eppocode="POLMGR">Polymyxa graminis</organism>
  <organism eppocode="SPONSU">Spongospora subterranea</organism>
  <organism eppocode="XANTVA">Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. vasculorum</organism>
  <organism eppocode="XANTAU">Xanthomonas citri pv. aurantifolii</organism>
 </organisms>
 <praarea>
  <area isocode="9A">EPPO</area>
 </praarea>
 <files>
  <file type="1" size="0">
   <title>link</title>
   <url>https://pra.eppo.int/getfile/a7808057-58dd-4f41-808f-ea9060d07214</url>
  </file>
  <file type="1" size="333426">
   <title>NB-91-145_article-113801_en_1.pdf</title>
   <url>https://pra.eppo.int/getfile/41e0783b-464c-4ee6-a563-ce7d1f5514ec</url>
  </file>
 </files>
</pra>
