Archive for the ‘Monitoring’ Category

For Large-Scale Pest Insect Detection, Traps in Parallel Lines More Efficient Than Grids

Entomology Today Leave a Comment

Detecting pest insects across large areas means placing vast numbers of traps, with associated costs to set them up and check them regularly. Grid patterns have been the traditional choice, but a new study shows trap-placement patterns using parallel lines could be just as effective with much lower servicing requirements. Such large-scale trapping is used in detection of pests such as the spongy moth (Lymantria dispar), and the study of trap patterns used trapping data from spongy moth detection efforts in North Carolina and Ohio in 2021 to evaluate various trapping simulations. (Photo by Susan Ellis, Bugwood.org)

By John P. Roche, Ph.D.

Sampling for the presence of insect pests has traditionally used traps laid out in grid patterns. While effective, they are labor intensive to set up and monitor and thus a costly way to sample. In a new study, however, researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and North Carolina State University show that alternative trap-layout designs can match grid patterns in effectively detecting pest insects with lower servicing requirements.

Because of the expense that would be involved with testing trap-layout designs in the field, the researchers used simulations with a computer model called TrapGrid. Barney Caton, Ph.D., of the USDA Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service; Hui Fang, Ph.D., and Godshen Pallipparambil, Ph.D., of the Center for Integrated Pest Management at NC State; and Nicholas Manoukis, Ph.D., of the USDA Agricultural Research Service published their findings in April in the Journal of Economic Entomology.

TrapGrid can simulate the detection of insect pests by traps arranged in different patterns in a simulated landscape. In their simulations, the research team compared the performance of traditional grid patterns with alternative designs based on transects that they called “trap-sect” designs. Building on earlier work the researchers have conducted in trap-layout models, the team’s hypothesis was that trap-sect designs would detect pests as effectively as traditional grids but with much greater efficiency.

The alternative trap-layout designs tested were crossed lines, parallel lines, and spoked patterns. (See Figure 2.) In their simulations, Caton and colleagues measured the average probability of detection of a pest and the distance traveled to service the traps. Good sampling designs would have a high probability of detecting a pest and low servicing distances.

The researchers found that many of the alternative trap-layout designs provided pest detection that was similar to that provided by full grids. Of the alternative layouts, parallel-line designs showed the greatest probability of detection, followed by spoke designs, and then crossed-line designs. With parallel-line designs, the probability of detection increased incrementally with each additional line that was added, from two lines to seven lines, as would be expected.

Full grids had the longest servicing distance, followed by spokes and crossed lines (75 percent shorter), followed by parallel lines (66–89 percent shorter). Overall, in terms of detectability and efficiency combined, the best designs were four to seven parallel lines, followed by spoked lines.

A study of pest-insect trap-layout designs using the TrapGrid computer simulation, compared traditional grid patterns (A and B) with several alternate designs: four crossed lines (C), eight spokes with an untrapped hub (D), two parallel lines (E), four parallel lines (not pictured), five parallel lines (F), six parallel lines (G), and four parallel lines in a modified alignment (H). All designs used 250 traps, indicated by blue diamonds. Establishment positions of pests are indicated with red circles. (Image originally published in Caton et al 2023, Journal of Economic Entomology)

It makes sense that the alternative designs such as parallel lines and spoked lines were more efficient—with the shorter servicing distances of these designs, efficiency increases. But why was pest detectability in the parallel-line and spoked-line designs similar to the detectability in the full grid?

“This similarity is dependent on many things,” Manoukis says, “like the attractiveness of the traps.” With attractive traps, pests will be drawn to traps even if they are not in a full grid pattern. In addition, in the comparisons in these simulations, pest outbreaks occurred randomly in space, which might help them be detected by the alternative designs, making detectability more similar to that in the full grid.

To approximate how alternative sampling designs might work in the field, the investigators overlaid alternative designs onto actual trapping data for two pest moth species, the European grapevine moth (Lobesia botrana) in California in 2010 and the spongy moth (Lymantria dispar) in North Carolina and Ohio in 2021. In the overlay of a four-parallel-line trap design on European grapevine moth data from California, the service distance was reduced by 43 percent. In the overlay of a crossed-lines trap design on spongy moth data in North Carolina and Ohio, the service distance was reduced by 35 percent and 47 percent, respectively.

“Aligning traps in this way is a new idea,” Caton says, “but it makes sense to improve efficiency. Survey managers already have to place traps in the field; this method just has them being placed in different shapes. The basic process is unchanged.”

Barney Caton, Ph.D. (left), of the USDA Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service; Hui Fang, Ph.D. (second from left), and Godshen Pallipparambil, Ph.D. (right), of the Center for Integrated Pest Management at NC State; and Nicholas Manoukis, Ph.D. (second from right), of the USDA Agricultural Research Service tested the probability of detection and the servicing distance of several alternative trap-layout designs for pest-insect sampling and compared the results to a traditional square grid design. They found that parallel-line and spoked-line trap designs offered good detection with significantly improved servicing efficiency. (Photo courtesy of USDA)

The investigators conclude that alternative trapping designs would reduce sampling costs considerably. But there are hurdles to overcome to implement these new designs. “The ‘tried and true’ methods often have some inertia behind them,” Caton says. “So, a new approach is almost always difficult to implement. But cost-cutting is usually a significant motivator, so our hope is that managers will adopt the trap-sect approach on that basis.”

The parallel-line and spoked-line sampling patterns worked well in the simulations in the study. Pest managers could refine these strategies even more by using an adaptive approach where surveyors add traps as pests are detected. This would permit pest detection with even greater efficiency. In future research, Caton and colleagues plan to investigate dynamic strategies of sampling that adapt over time.

“The TrapGrid model really made this research possible,” Caton says. “In the field it would be very time-consuming and costly to evaluate different designs. While some field validation is likely still needed, the results were strong enough that, given the good track record of the model, we are confident that the new sampling designs should work well.”

This investigation was the first test of alternative trap placement patterns for area-wide delimitation trapping in 40 years. Additional studies, including looking at dynamic sampling strategies, should further refine this promising approach.

Read More

Transect-based trapping for area-wide delimitation of insects

Journal of Economic Entomology

Read Full Post »

December 12, 2022

New app identifies rice disease at early stages

by David Bradley, Inderscience Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain

Rice is one of the most important food crops for billions of people but the plants are susceptible to a wide variety of diseases that are not always easy to identify in the field. New work in the International Journal of Engineering Systems Modelling and Simulation has investigated whether an application based on a convolution neural network algorithm could be used to quickly and effectively determine what is afflicting a crop, especially in the early stages when signs and symptoms may well be ambiguous.

Manoj Agrawal and Shweta Agrawal of Sage University in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, suggest that an automated method for rice disease identification is much needed. They have now trained various machine learning tools with more than 4,000 images of healthy and diseased rice and tested them against disease data from different sources. They demonstrated that the ResNet50 architecture offers the greatest accuracy at 97.5%.

The system can determine from a photograph of a sample of the crop whether or not it is diseased and if so, can then identify which of the following common diseases that affect rice the plant has: Leaf Blast, Brown Spot, Sheath Blight, Leaf Scald, Bacterial Leaf Blight, Rice Blast, Neck Blast, False Smut, Tungro, Stem Borer, Hispa, and Sheath Rot.

Overall, the team’s approach is 98.2% accurate on independent test images. Such accuracy is sufficient to guide farmers to make an appropriate response to a given infection in their crop and thus save both their crop and their resources rather than wasting produce or money on ineffective treatments.

The team emphasizes that the system works well irrespective of the lighting conditions when the photograph is taken or the background in the photograph. They add that accuracy might still be improved by adding more images to the training dataset to help the application make predictions from photos taken in disparate conditions.

More information: Shweta Agrawal et al, Rice plant diseases detection using convolutional neural networks, International Journal of Engineering Systems Modelling and Simulation (2022). DOI:

Read Full Post »

South West Farm Press Logo

Sampling key to nematode management

Part 3: Sampling is crucial for detecting nematode issues. Specialists from Texas, Arkansas, and Georgia weigh in on sampling best practices.

Ron Smith

May 1, 2023

7 Min Read
blooming cotton sunsetThe best time to sample for nematodes in Texas cotton fields is during the season, whereas in Arkansas and Georgia, sampling is best if done following harvest.Shelley E. Huguley

Nematode infestations are not as obvious as armyworms, thrips, or fleahoppers, but the damage they cause to numerous crops can be devastating. Farm Press called on Extension and Research pathologists From Texas to Georgia to ascertain the damage nematodes can cause, the symptoms to look for in-season, sampling recommendations, and management options. Also, new research seeks to find more varieties resistant to nematode damage.The first and most crucial part of managing nematode infection is identifying the problem, including determining level of pressure and specific species present.Timing and collection of representative samples are critical to identifying infection levels and creating a viable management plan.“Sampling should wait until at least 60 days after planting,” Terry Wheeler, Texas A&M AgriLife Research Pathologist, Lubbock, said. “Soil sampling for a nematode analysis is fine from 60 days to the end of the season, as long as there is good soil moisture.”She said soil tends to dry out in the fall, so sampling during the growing season “is usually better.”“Taking soil samples is the only way to determine the population density of root-knot or reniform nematode,” said Travis Faske, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Lonoke.Related:Unmanaged nematode damage can exceed 50%He added that other nematodes, including lesion nematode or lance nematode, could be a problem in some states. “Lance is generally not a problem here.”He said the best time to sample in his area is just after harvest.

Sampling is crucial

“Sampling is the only way to detect problems of nematodes other than root-knot nematodes, the only one if you were scouting you could see stunted plants showing nutrition deficiencies in mid-season and could dig up and see galling.“That’s where I come in, sampling and getting farmers to sample. I’ve talked with some who say they have sampled. I ask, how long ago? ‘Well, about 15, 20 years ago’ they say. A lot of things change within their production system in that time.”“Fall is the best time,” said University of Georgia Extension Plant Pathologist Bob Kemerait, Tifton.But Kemerait said some Georgia farmers were sampling this winter. “We were seeing a number of samples come back positive for high levels of nematodes, which is unusual for samples collected during cooler winter months,” he said.He attributes those high populations to several La Niña winters, winters that are warmer than average and that allow nematodes to continue to feed.And during the winter of 2022-2023 they had a buffet. “In warmer winters, some cover crops or winter wheat could be a host,” he said. “Some common winter weeds like henbit and chickweed also might be a host in a warm winter. In a winter like we’ve had this year, nematodes never really went to bed and may want to go out and get themselves a snack.”Related:Resistant varieties, rotation suppress reniform nematodesHe said plants typically not a good host in colder winters could become fair hosts in warmer winters.Does it make sense to sample in the winter?“That’s a great question,” Kemerait said. “I would say under most circumstances no. It’s too late. But we’ve had growers across Georgia who, against my better judgment initially, took samples. They wanted to know what was in their fields. Surprisingly, we’ve found some very high levels of nematodes.”He cited two reasons to avoid taking samples during winter months. “The first is if you come back with nothing in the sample, you don’t know if that’s because there’s nothing there or because you sampled in the winter when nematode populations are suppressed. Also, our threshold levels are based upon fall counts, not spring. That makes interpretation of winter numbers a bit difficult.“On the other hand, because it’s been so warm this winter, we find successful growers who have nematode pressures at elevated levels, which we normally wouldn’t see this time of year.”Kemerait said some growers are making good decisions based on what they find in late nematode samples.“Still, I wish they had sampled in the fall.”Related:Nematode symptoms may resemble nutrient deficiencyHe added that if growers get samples with high numbers, they can make management decisions. “But if they don’t get low numbers back, they can’t know for sure if they have nothing or the timing is off. I prefer that growers sample in the fall, just after harvest, before soils get cold.”

Population changes

Faske said producers should consider that nematode population density could change over time and sometimes in spite of resistant varieties.He said producers may say, “’I don’t have a nematode problem,’ referring to root-knot but don’t think about reniform. Without a soil sample they don’t know.”Faske explained that nematode samples can be predictive or diagnostic.“If growers see a problem, stunted plants, for instance, they take a diagnostic sample to determine why those plants are stunted. They would take a sample in sick-looking plants, not the dead plants. Nematode populations will be low in dead plants.”He recommended comparing the sample area to a lush and green area in cotton, soybeans, or peanuts. “Send those two samples off and compare nematode numbers to determine if the symptom you’re seeing is related to nematode density.”He said producers take predictive samples in the fall.“Then they should ask if they can predict damage based on nematode density or are they at a level that would cause damage for a subsequent crop, cotton, soybeans or peanuts.”

Representative sample

He said samples should represent the field as accurately as possible.Samples do not have to be large, Faske said. “We don’t need a gallon of soil.”Wheeler recommends taking a composite soil sample (10 to 20 spots per sample) to a depth of 8 to 12 inches.  “You can be close to the surface, 6 to 8 inches, nearer to midseason, deeper as you get close to harvest. “Take the sample near the taproot. Mix the soil well in a bucket and put it in a plastic bag,” she said.  “Keep the sample from getting hot, or from freezing.  Nematodes are very sensitive to extreme temperatures.”Faske recommends producers stay with the same laboratory from year to year.“Although the process is generally the same, sometimes the way labs report findings are a little different.” He said Arkansas reports as per 100 cubic centimeters of soil; Mississippi reports as 500 cubic centimeters of soil; Missouri reports as 250 cubic centimeters of soil.


He said thresholds for nematode populations, unlike for insect pests, are difficult to establish.“If samples show more than 100 per 100 cubic centimeters of soil per root, that’s a serious problem going into soybeans or cotton and growers should think about a management tactic.”Faske said Arkansas commodity boards see nematode sampling as a critical tool in crop management and have “put their money where their mouth is, providing free assays to farmers. For the past few years, commodity boards have been paying for nematode assays.”All three agree, growers have to know what’s there before they can develop a management plan.

8 key tips for nematode sampling

Timing and technique are critical aspects of pulling, protecting, and transporting nematode samples.Morgan McCulloch, Texas A&M AgriLife, San Angelo, and Travis Faske, University of Arkansas, Division of Agriculture, Lonoke, offer tips to collect nematode samples.

  1. The best sampling time is relative to grower objectives. “For cotton management, we usually aim to sample after the cotton has reached maturity, McCulloch says. “This can happen prior to or soon after cotton harvest.” Moisture is important for nematode sampling as nematodes move with water in the soil profile. McCulloch recommends sampling when the soil is moist enough to hold its shape after squeezing gently.“Anytime you sample for nematodes, you’re aiming for the root zone of the targeted plant, around 12 inches deep for cotton,” McCulloch says.Samples should represent the field as accurately as possible, Faske says. “You wouldn’t want all of your samples to come from an obviousSample testing can get expensive; more samples are always better, but one comprehensive sample from multiple field points would provide an idea of what kind of nematodes are in a field. Protect samples. Recommendations call for placing samples in Ziploc bags to preserve moisture before the extraction process. Keep bagged samples out of direct sunlight. Transportation. “When we send samples to a commercial lab, we usually send them in a Styrofoam cooler in a cardboard box to keep them fresh,” McCulloch says. The sample form from the lab website should direct the lab to run a nematode assay to identify specific parasitic nematodes and relative densities. “Wherever you get samples processed, continue with that same laboratory,” Faske said. “Different labs report findings differently, although the procedure for assays is the same.”

Read more about:

Reniform NematodeNematodes

About the Author(s)
Ron Smith

Ron Smith

Editor, Farm Progress

Ron Smith has spent more than 30 years covering Sunbelt agriculture. Ron began his career in agricultural journalism as an Experiment Station and Extension editor at Clemson University, where he earned a Masters Degree in English in 1975. He serve

Read Full Post »


Monday, 17 April 2023 15:05:44


Grahame Jackson posted a new submission ‘Multifunctional electronic patch offers early detection of plant diseases, other crop threats’


Multifunctional electronic patch offers early detection of plant diseases, other crop threats


by Matt Shipman, North Carolina State University
Researchers from North Carolina State University have developed an electronic patch that can be applied to the leaves of plants to monitor crops for different pathogens—such as viral and fungal infections—and stresses such as drought or salinity. In testing, the researchers found the patch was able to detect a viral infection in tomatoes more than a week before growers would be able to detect any visible symptoms of disease.

“This is important because the earlier growers can identify plant diseases or fungal infections, the better able they will be to limit the spread of the disease and preserve their crop,” says Qingshan Wei, corresponding author of a paper on the work and an assistant professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at NC State. “In addition, the more quickly growers can identify abiotic stresses, such as irrigation water contaminated by saltwater intrusion, the better able they will be to address relevant challenges and improve crop yield.”

The paper, “Abaxial leaf surface-mounted multimodal wearable sensor for continuous plant physiology monitoring,” is published April 12 in the open-access journal Science Advances.

Read Full Post »

April 26, 2023

James Cullum

No Comments

Update: New Pest & Disease Records (20 April 2023)

This month’s pest alerts include the first report of Cucurbit aphid-borne yellows virus infecting muskmelon (Cucumis melo) in India.

We’ve selected a few of the latest new geographic, host and species records for plant pests and diseases from CAB Abstracts. Records this month include the first report of root rot on onion seedlings caused by Globisporangium irregulare in South Korea, and the first report of Cucurbit aphid-borne yellows virus infecting muskmelon (Cucumis melo) in India.

To view all search results for new geographic, host and species records for plant pests and diseases, click here or to view results by your location click here.

If there’s another new record you’d like to highlight, please post a comment.

View past pest alerts

Plant pests and diseases, new geographic records, new host records, new species, pest alerts, plant diseases, plant health, plant pests

Agriculture and International Development, Crop health, Plant Sciences

Read Full Post »

Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing are delighted to announce the publication of two new titles focused on entomology.

Advances in monitoring of native and invasive insect pests of crops, edited by Dr Michelle Fountain NIAB-EMR, UK and Dr Tom Pope Harper Adams University, UK.

With its considered approach, the book explores current best practices for the detection, identification and modelling of native and invasive insect pests of crops.

Advances in understanding insect pests affecting wheat and other cereals, edited by Professor Sanford D. Eigenbrode, University of Idaho, USA and Dr Arash Rashed, Virginia Tech, USA.

This collection discusses the most recent developments in fundamental and applied research on major pests and shows how better understanding of these pests can be used to improve integrated pest management strategies.

*Special Offer*

Receive 20% off your order of either book using code PEST20 via the BDS Website. Discount code expires 30th June 2023.

Read Full Post »

 EPPO Reporting Service no. 11 – 2022  Num. article: 2022/244

First record of sweet potato chlorotic stunt virus in the Netherlands

The NPPO of the Netherlands recently informed the EPPO Secretariat of the first finding of sweet potato chlorotic stunt virus (Crinivirus, SPCSV – EU Annexes) in sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) plants on its territory. SPCSV was found in September 2022 in two open fields in Noord-Brabant province (11.83 and 4.72 ha) and one in Limburg province (0.5 ha). The official survey was part of the Euphresco project ‘Phytosanitary risks of newly introduced crops’ (PRONC). Tracing back investigations to the origin of the finding showed that the sweet potato slips used for planting originated from a company in another EU Member State. Sweet potato is a new crop in the Netherlands. During the survey, plants with and without virus symptoms were sampled and tested. SPCSV was identified in several plants with virus-like symptoms (e.g. vein banding, discoloration, rings, dots). Additionally, in several of these symptomatic plants a second, non-EU listed, virus was identified: sweet potato virus G (Potyvirus, SPVG00). The mixed infection may have increased the severity of the observed symptoms.

Official phytosanitary measures have been taken. The companies have to report to the NPPO when all tubers of the Ipomoea batatas plants have been harvested and the total quantity thereof. All infected lots should be stored in a traceable manner, separately from other harvested lots. Only sales for consumption/industry are allowed, otherwise the lots have to be destroyed. The companies should report when the infected lots are sold or destroyed. The lots must be sold/destroyed before 31 March 2023. 

The pest status of sweet potato chlorotic stunt virus in the Netherlands is officially declared as: Transient, actionable, under eradication.


NPPO of the Netherlands (2022-10). https://english.nvwa.nl/topics/pest-reporting/pest-reports

Read Full Post »

Update: New Pest & Disease Records (05 December 2022)

This month’s pest alerts include the isolation and identification of the top blight pathogen of Passiflora edulis (photograph by Earth100).

We’ve selected a few of the latest new geographic, host and species records for plant pests and diseases from CAB Abstracts. Records this month include information about a new virus disease of sunflower from Nebraska and the isolation and identification of the top blight pathogen of Passiflora edulis.

To view all search results for new geographic, host and species records for plant pests and diseases, click here or to view results by your location click here.

If there’s another new record you’d like to highlight, please post a comment.

View past pest alerts

Plant pests and diseasesnew geographic recordsnew host recordsnew speciespest alertsplant diseasesplant healthplant pests

Agriculture and International DevelopmentCrop healthPlant Sciences

Read Full Post »

Growers can use a test kit to detect ToBRFV before plants even shows signs

Knowing, for sure, that your crop is infected before the plants show signs. Growers have wanted that since the Tomato brown rugose fruit virus (TOBRFV) reared its ugly head. And preferably quickly, too. This summer, the Dutch company Spark Radar launched a grower test kit for that. Growers can use it to detect, with high reliability and within three hours, whether their crop is contaminated.

According to Spark Rader’s co-founder, Rogier van der Voort, its virus test’s reliability and sensitivity can well well-compared to that of a PCR test. “However, you don’t have to send our test’s samples to a service lab. That saves considerable time – crucial when detecting and containing a possible outbreak.”

When the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, he and Bas Rutjens, who founded Spark Genetics, put their heads together. That company has been supporting breeding companies with genetics issues since 2018. “When the pandemic began, the laboratory had to partially close. We started asking ourselves how we could offer the market something that was much needed. That had to be a reliable, sensitive pathogen test that anyone could perform on-site,” says Rogier.

Testing before symptoms show
The test works pre-symptomatically, meaning you can test for the virus’ presence early. Rogier draws a parallel with COVID-19. “You can now do a self-test for that. But, that’s an antigen test you use when you’re already showing symptoms.” In the case of the coronavirus, for example, a runny nose.

One of the ToBRFV’s symptoms is spots on the fruit or signs on leaves. “Antigen tests, however, aren’t as reliable as PCR tests, and their lower sensitivity means they don’t work pre-symptomatically. You can also only test two to three plants at once,” Rogier explains.

Leaf material
Currently, growers can test 60 plants at a time using Spark Radar test kits. Testing can be done in three ways. “We started with leaf samples. A piece of leaf the size of a fingernail is enough. Growers collect the leaf sample in a bag we provide, and once collected, testing can begin.”

The test kits include the test material and hardware so that growers can run the tests themselves. “We’ve developed equipment to read the tests. We use magnetic and sensing racks for that. The magnetic rack lets us extract the virus from the sample, which helps ensure our tests’ high sensitivity,” Van der Voort continues.

A part of the test kit. The white container is lined with magnets. Detection is done using a different rack.

Surface and water tests
Growers, however, prefer to test more than just leaf material. “There’s plenty of market demand for swab tests too, which allows for testing for the presence of the virus on things like carts or blades. It’s like the cotton swab you use in your throat and nose when doing a COVID-19 self-test.”

They developed a third testing protocol for water. “Growers can test for the ToBRFV in, say, their drainage system,” Rogier elaborates. These last two testing methods are currently in their final market introduction stages. “We’re fully in the testing phase for these new applications and are using trial feedback to make the swab and water test kits are durable as possible.” The company plans to market these two testing kits in December commercially.

Spark Radar also wants to start offering the kits internationally, and this fledgling company has taken the first steps toward that. “A large North American party has been using our test for several months. They want to deploy it more widely during the next harvest period. We have a commitment from a Dutch party with overseas farms too. They want to use our tests outside the Netherlands,” states Rogier.

A virus test must be reliable. The test kits, thus, include a clear manual (you can also watch an online video). For now, it is in Dutch and English, but the company wants to include other languages as well. “We’re currently focusing on producing the tests. We’ve gained new clients after presenting the test at a recent event.”

Testing for other pathogens
ToBRFV is undoubtedly receiving global attention. That begs the question: Does Spark Radar have the clout to help growers combat this virus? Spark Radar’s co-founder thinks so. “We were recently chosen to participate in the Foodvalley and government investment fund, InvestNL’s Fast Lane program. We had to give an answer to what’s needed to become even more influential, scale up and maintain our test’s current and projected speed.”

That speed does not only apply to the ToBRFV but to other plant viruses, bacteria, and fungi. Spark Radar is also working on a test kit for cucumber fur virus and Pepino mosaic virus in tomatoes. “Those will be similar tests to the ToBRFV ones,” concludes Rogier.

For more information:
Rogier van der Voort
Spark Radar
8 Padualaan
3584 CH, Utrecht, NL
Email: rogier@sparkgenetics.com 
Email: info@sparkradar.bio 
Website: www.sparkradar.bio

Publication date: Fri 25 Nov 2022

Read Full Post »

Sunday, 06 November 2022 09:58:58


Grahame Jackson posted a new submission ‘Banana freckle eradication plan to continue ‘


Banana freckle eradication plan to continue

Mirage News

NT Government
The Northern Territory’s plant biosecurity team will continue with a plan to eradicate banana freckle following its detection on a second commercial property.

Members of the plant biosecurity team from the Department of Industry, Tourism and Trade met with the Consultative Committee on Emergency Plant Pests on Wednesday where it was agreed that it was still feasible to eradicate the disease.

The team will now redraft a Response Plan for approval by the National Management Group later this month.

The detection of banana freckle on the second commercial property triggered a review of the response plan.

As a result, the plant biosecurity team will continue with its work to remove banana plants from infected properties.

So far infected plants have been removed from 14 properties. There have been 48 total banana freckle detections since May, of which 42 are located in the Batchelor and Rum Jungle region.

/Public Release. This material from the originating organization/author(s) may be of a point-in-time nature, edited for clarity, style and length. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s).View in full here.

Read Full Post »

Agdia launches rapid molecular test kit for tomato mottle mosaic virus

Agdia has launched a RNA-based assay, on their AmplifyRP XRT platform, for the detection of Tomato mottle mosaic virus (ToMMV). 

Global tomato and pepper production has been significantly disrupted in recent years by emerging pathogens. One such pathogen, Tomato brown rugose fruit virus (ToBRFV, Tobamovirus), is thought to have caused billions of dollars in damage to the tomato industry alone over the past few years. While advancements in breeding for pathogen resistance traits over the past two decades have largely protected tomato and pepper crop production from viral threats, ToBRFV was able to bypass resistance with devastating consequences. The virus continues to cause disruption of the global seed supply chain along with affecting yield and marketability of tomato fruit when not properly excluded from production facilities.

Much like ToBRFV, Tomato mottle mosaic virus is also able to break through well-established viral resistance traits, and thus represents yet another significant threat to tomato and pepper production worldwide.

Initially found in tomato crops in Mexico in 2013, Tomato mottle mosaic virus has since been detected in the United States, Brazil, Europe, Africa, Asia and Iran. Several other Tobamovirus-infected samples collected prior to 2013 which were previously attributed to Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) or Tomato mosaic virus (ToMV) have since been distinguished as ToMMV infections via high-specificity molecular methods which were not previously available.

Symptoms caused by ToMMV infection include mottling, necrosis, flower abortion and leaf distortion. Much like other Tobamoviruses, ToMMV is highly transmissible via mechanical means (pruning, harvesting, etc.) and may also be present in seed, although further studies are needed to demonstrate whether vertical transmission occurs at any significant level.

Agdia’s AmplifyRP XRT for ToMMV has been validated for use with tomato and pepper seeds and leaf in addition to other secondary matrixes such as peas (Pisum sativum) and petunia. As a rapid, field-deployable molecular method requiring far less training than traditional PCR methods, this assay provides users with greater flexibility to deploy detection capabilities where they need it, when they need it. Use cases for this assay include, but are not limited to:

  • In-field monitoring at remote production sites as a stand-alone assay.
  • Screening incoming plantlets & monitoring production crops in commercial greenhouses
  • Laboratory-based molecular diagnosis with crude or purified extracts with faster time-to-result than traditional PCR or qPCR methods. This assay can be used with Agdia’s AmpliFire isothermal fluorometer or with most real-time PCR machines.

Agdia’s AmplifyRP XRT for ToMMV is highly specific to ToMMV and has been proven through experimentation and in-silico analysis to detect isolates from around the world. No cross-reactivity was observed with high titer samples from other Tobamoviruses, including Cucumber green mottle mosaic virus (CGMMV), Kyuri green mottle mosaic virus (KGMMV), Pepper mild mottle virus (PMMoV), Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV), Tomato brown rugose fruit virus (ToBRFV), Tomato mosaic virus (ToMV), Tobacco mild green mosaic virus (TMGMV), Zucchini Green Mottle Mosaic Virus (ZGMMV) and more.

For more information:
52642 County Road 1
Elkhart, IN 46514
phone 1-574-264-2615
fax 1-574-264-2153

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »