State Pest Risk Analysis for grape phylloxera ... · State Pest Risk Analysis for grape phylloxera...

State Pest Risk Analysis for grape phylloxera v1.0 of 66

State Pest Risk Analysis for grape phylloxera (Daktulsphaira vitifoliae)

Disclaimer Vinehealth Australia and its employees do not warrant or make any representation regarding the use, or results of the use, of the information

contained herein as regards to its correctness, accuracy, reliability and currency or otherwise. Vinehealth Australia and its employees expressly

disclaim all liability or responsibility to any person using the information or advice.


Amendment record Amendment number

Description Date

1 Version 1: New document October 2018


Table of Contents

1.0 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Australia’s biosecurity policy framework .................................................................................... 10

2.2 Existing policy .............................................................................................................................. 10

2.3 Current management of grape phylloxera in Australia .............................................................. 10

2.4 Current management of grape phylloxera in South Australia .................................................... 12

2.4.1 South Australian Plant Quarantine Standard ................................................................................................. 12

2.4.2 Role of Vinehealth Australia .......................................................................................................................... 12

3.0 Scope of this Pest Risk Analysis ....................................................................................................... 13

4.0 Method for Pest Risk Analysis ......................................................................................................... 13

4.1 Stage 1: Initiation ........................................................................................................................ 14

4.2 Pest risk assessment ................................................................................................................... 14

4.2.1 Pest categorisation ......................................................................................................................................... 14

4.2.2 Assessment of the probability of entry, establishment and spread .............................................................. 17

4.2.3 Assessment of potential Consequences ........................................................................................................ 52

4.2.4 Final Risk Estimate ......................................................................................................................................... 56

5.0 Pest Risk Management .................................................................................................................... 58

6.0 References ...................................................................................................................................... 64


1.0 Summary Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of grapevines from the Commonwealth post-entry quarantine facility pathway based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of dormant cuttings or rootlings pathway from a PIZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of potted vines pathway from a PIZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of grapevine tissue cultures pathway from a PIZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of MODERATE for the Movement of grape harvesters pathway from a PIZ based on existing controls, which is above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity cannot be recommended for continued approval without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. additional risk management is justifiable. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of LOW for the Movement of grape bins or containers pathway from a PIZ based on existing controls, which is above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity cannot be recommended for continued approval without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. additional risk management is justifiable. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of VERY LOW for the Movement of grape bins or containers pathway from a PIZ based on existing controls, which meets Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of MODERATE for the Movement of trellis posts pathway from a PIZ based on existing controls, which is above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity cannot be recommended for continued approval without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. additional risk management is justifiable. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of MODERATE for the Movement of hand tools pathway from a PIZ based on existing controls, which is above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity cannot be recommended for continued approval without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. additional risk management is justifiable.


Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of MODERATE for the Movement of netting pathway from a PIZ based on existing controls, which is above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity cannot be recommended for continued approval without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. additional risk management is justifiable. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of VERY LOW for the Movement of winery equipment pathway from a PIZ based on existing controls, which meets Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of table grapes pathway from a PIZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of VERY LOW for the Movement of winegrapes pathway from a PIZ based on existing controls, which meets Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of VERY LOW for the Movement of grape must and unfiltered juice pathway from a PIZ based on existing controls, which meets Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of VERY LOW for the Movement of filtered juice pathway from a PIZ based on existing controls, which meets Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of wine pathway from a PIZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of pre-fermentation grape marc pathway from a PIZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of VERY LOW for the Movement post-fermentation grape marc pathway from a PIZ based on existing controls, which meets Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of grapevine diagnostic samples and vineyard soils pathway from a PIZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned.


Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of MODERATE for the Movement of clothing pathway from a PIZ based on existing controls, which is above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity cannot be recommended for continued approval without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. additional risk management is justifiable. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of MODERATE for the Movement of footwear pathway from a PIZ based on existing controls, which is above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity cannot be recommended for continued approval without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. additional risk management is justifiable. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of dormant cuttings or rootlings pathway from a PRZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of potted vines pathway from a PRZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of grapevine tissue cultures pathway from a PRZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of MODERATE for the Movement of grape harvesters pathway from a PRZ based on existing controls, which is above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity cannot be recommended for continued approval without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. additional risk management is justifiable. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of LOW for the Movement of other machinery pathway from a PRZ based on existing controls, which is above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity cannot be recommended for continued approval without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. additional risk management is justifiable. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of LOW for the Movement of grape bins or containers pathway from a PRZ based on existing controls, which is above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity cannot be recommended for continued approval without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. additional risk management is justifiable. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of LOW for the Movement of trellis posts pathway from a PRZ based on existing controls, which is above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity cannot be recommended for continued approval without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. additional risk management is justifiable.


Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of MODERATE for the Movement of hand tools pathway from a PRZ based on existing controls, which is above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity cannot be recommended for continued approval without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. additional risk management is justifiable. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of LOW for the Movement of netting pathway from a PRZ based on existing controls, which is above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity cannot be recommended for continued approval without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. additional risk management is justifiable. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of VERY LOW for the Movement of winery equipment pathway from a PRZ based on existing controls, which meets Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of table grapes pathway from a PRZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of VERY LOW for the Movement of winegrapes pathway from a PRZ based on existing controls, which meets Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of VERY LOW for the Movement of grape must and unfiltered juice pathway from a PRZ based on existing controls, which meets Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of filtered juice pathway from a PRZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of wine pathway from a PRZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of pre-fermentation grape marc pathway from a PRZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of VERY LOW for the Movement of post-fermentation grape marc pathway from a PRZ based on existing controls, which meets Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned.


Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of diagnostic samples and vineyard soils pathway from a PRZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of LOW for the Movement of clothing pathway from a PRZ based on existing controls, which is above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity cannot be recommended for continued approval without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. additional risk management is justifiable. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of LOW for the Movement of footwear pathway from a PRZ based on existing controls, which is above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity cannot be recommended for continued approval without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. additional risk management is justifiable.

Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of VERY LOW for the Movement of dormant cuttings or rootlings pathway from a PEZ based on existing controls, which meets Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of potted vines pathway from a PEZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of grapevine tissue cultures pathway from a PEZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of MODERATE for the Movement of grape harvesters pathway from a PEZ based on existing controls, which is above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity cannot be recommended for continued approval without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. additional risk management is justifiable. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of LOW for the Movement of other machinery pathway from a PEZ based on existing controls, which is above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity cannot be recommended for continued approval without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. additional risk management is justifiable. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of VERY LOW for the Movement of grape bins or containers pathway from a PEZ based on existing controls, which meets Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of LOW for the Movement of trellis posts pathway from a PEZ based on existing controls, which is above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity cannot be recommended for continued approval without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. additional risk management is justifiable.


Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of VERY LOW for the Movement of hand tools pathway from a PEZ based on existing controls, which meets Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of LOW for the Movement of netting pathway from a PEZ based on existing controls, which is above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity cannot be recommended for continued approval without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. additional risk management is justifiable. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of winery equipment pathway from a PEZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of table grapes pathway from a PEZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of VERY LOW for the Movement of winegrapes pathway from a PEZ based on existing controls, which meets Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of grape must and unfiltered juice pathway from a PEZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of filtered juice pathway from a PEZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of wine pathway from a PEZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of pre-fermentation grape marc pathway from a PEZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of post-fermentation grape marc pathway from a PEZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned.


Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of NEGLIGIBLE for the Movement of grapevine diagnostic samples and vineyard soils pathway from a PEZ based on existing controls, which is below Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of VERY LOW for the Movement of clothing pathway from a PEZ based on existing controls, which meets Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity can be recommended to continue without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned. Grape phylloxera has been given a risk estimate of LOW for the Movement of footwear pathway from a PEZ based on existing controls, which is above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection. As a result, this means the activity cannot be recommended for continued approval without further restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. additional risk management is justifiable.

2.0 Background 2.1 Australia’s biosecurity policy framework Australia’s biosecurity policies aim to protect Australia against the risks that may arise from exotic pests entering, establishing and spreading in Australia, thereby threatening Australia’s unique flora and fauna, as well as those agricultural industries that are relatively free from serious pests (DAWR, 2016). The risk analysis process is an important part of Australia’s biosecurity policies. It enables formal consideration of risks that could be associated with proposals to import new products into Australia, or between parts of Australia. If the risks are found to exceed Australia’s overarching appropriate level of protection (ALOP) of ‘very low’, the threat from the particular pest posed by the import of the particular commodity given current controls is considered unacceptable. Risk management measures are then proposed to reduce the risks to an acceptable level. If the estimated risk falls into the ‘very low’ category or below it, the risk is considered acceptable. This means the commodity will be recommended for continued import without additional restriction in respect of the pest concerned – i.e. further risk management is not justifiable. If it is not possible to reduce the risks to an acceptable level, then no trade will be allowed. This risk analysis does not take into account how well the current controls are understood by importers, or how well the current controls are adhered to, just that they exist. These factors are being addressed outside of this pest risk assessment.

2.2 Existing policy The Commonwealth Government is responsible for regulating the movement of plants and plant products into and out of Australia. However, state and territory governments are responsible for plant health controls within their individual jurisdiction (DAWR, 2016) and these are documented in Plant Quarantine Standards or equivalent.

2.3 Current management of grape phylloxera in Australia There have been several hundred strains of grape phylloxera documented worldwide, of which Australia is known to have 83 endemic strains (Umina et al., 2007) (Powell and Korosi, 2014). Grape phylloxera, whilst endemic to Australia on a pest level, can also be exotic on a strain level. At present, it is confined to regions in Victoria and New South Wales. South Australia, Western Australia, Northern Territory and Tasmania are designated ‘phylloxera-free’. Phylloxera has not been found in Queensland since the 1960s.


In Australia, phylloxera is managed in accordance with the National Phylloxera Management Protocol (NPMP), which allows for the delineation of geographical grape growing regions, or part thereof, by phylloxera status for policy, regulatory and management purposes. Phylloxera Exclusion Zones (PEZ) are areas that have been surveyed and found free of phylloxera, Phylloxera Risk Zones (PRZ) are areas that have not been surveyed for phylloxera and are of unknown status, and Phylloxera Infested Zones (PIZ) are areas that are known to be within 5 km of a phylloxera infested property (NVHSC, 2009) (Figure 1). The NPMP describes conditions which restrict the movement of phylloxera risk vectors between different Phylloxera Management Zones. Movement conditions were designed to prevent the spread of phylloxera by preventing the movement of phylloxera out of PIZs and PRZs into PEZs. The NPMP was developed to provide a basis from which legislation and regulations for the movement of phylloxera risk vectors could be developed by each state and territory government, and to which the regulations could be aligned, creating a consistent set of requirements across Australia. Each state’s Plant Quarantine Standard, or equivalent, contain sections attributed to movement Conditions relating to the wine and grape industries, aimed at preventing the incursion and spread of grape phylloxera. South Australia’s Plant Quarantine Standard is one such regulatory document.

Figure 1. Phylloxera Management Zones, Australia. Image courtesy Vinehealth Australia.

Since the NPMP was developed in 2009, scientific research has identified the presence of a range of key endemic phylloxera strains (G1, G4, G7, G19, G20, G30, G38) and importantly, highlighted the variation in tolerance of these strains to current disinfestation procedures outlined in the NPMP and used in state regulations. The strains differ in fecundity, survivorship, development, virulence and damage levels and consequently risk of transfer (Powell and Clarke, 2018). Previous to the development of the NPMP, only strains G1 and G4 were used in research studies. Some disinfestation procedures have been shown by this research to be inadequate against these key phylloxera strains (Powell, 2017). All states are now in agreement that the NPMP needs updating as part of a larger national phylloxera management strategy. The most recent published review of phylloxera management in Australia was completed by Powell and Clarke (2018) who described and reviewed phylloxera risk vectors, pathways and knowledge gaps


which are likely to influence the risk of entry, establishment and spread of exotic and endemic grape phylloxera in Australia.

2.4 Current management of grape phylloxera in South Australia

2.4.1 South Australian Plant Quarantine Standard The South Australian Plant Quarantine Standard contains allowable entry conditions for grape phylloxera risk vectors. Table 1 below presents the high-level entry conditions from the current V 13.0. A comment on Vinehealth Australia’s perceived adequacy of existing measures is also provided. Table 1. South Australian Plant Quarantine Standard v13.0 conditions relating to the movement of grape phylloxera risk vectors

SA Plant Quarantine Standard Phylloxera Risk Vector From Phylloxera Management Zone or other

Adequacy of measure Condition

7 - Grapevine material including for planting and/ or propagation

Grapevine tissue culture PRZ Inadequate

Remainder PEZ, PRZ, PIZ Adequate

7A - Machinery and equipment used in grape production

Grape harvesters and other machinery

PEZ, PRZ, PIZ Inadequate

Hand tools PRZ, PIZ Inadequate

Grape bins PRZ Inadequate

Trellis posts PRZ, PIZ, PEZ Inadequate

Netting PRZ, PIZ Inadequate


8 - Grapes and related materials Winegrapes PRZ Inadequate

Grape marc Pre-fermentation and post-fermentation Inadequate


8A - Grapevine diagnostic samples and vineyard soils

Diagnostic samples (some disinfestation procedures)

PRZ, PIZ Inadequate

2.4.2 Role of Vinehealth Australia South Australia is the only jurisdiction in Australia with a statutory body dedicated to the protection of vineyards from grape phylloxera and other pests and diseases. The Phylloxera Act 1899, established the Phylloxera and Grape Industry Board of South Australia, which now trades as Vinehealth Australia, and operates under the Phylloxera and Grape Industry Act 1995. This legacy equates to 119 years of continuous service of leadership by Vinehealth Australia in grape and wine biosecurity knowledge. One of its greatest assets, envied by other commodities, is its Vineyard Register – a geospatial register of every vineyard in South Australia of 0.5 hectares or greater in size, with accompanying ownership and planting details. This register allows Vinehealth Australia direct access to every landowner in the state with grapevines planted (approximately 3,300 entities). Through Vinehealth Australia, South Australian vineyard owners invest in the following activities to the benefit of the state and national wine industry:

• maintaining and improving SA’s Vineyard Register;

• assisting Biosecurity SA with responses under the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed;

• improving and enforcing the SA Plant Quarantine Standard;

• biosecurity training and awareness;

• pest and disease policy, procedures and innovative tools;

• research and development priority setting and support of vital biosecurity research;

• active surveillance for phylloxera using remote sensing and GIS technologies;

• operation and maintenance of the phylloxera heat shed in Naracoorte; and

• leading a coordinated approach to phylloxera and biosecurity for the wine industry. Information on much of this activity can be accessed on Vinehealth Australia’s website, http://vinehealth.com.au/.

http://vinehealth.com.au/


Vinehealth Australia undertakes routine aerial surveillance followed by on-ground verification of 'weak spots' in vineyards in order to validate its area freedom status from grape phylloxera. In addition, Vinehealth Australia conducts comprehensive general surveillance activities to validate all reported biosecurity incidents, including vine health issues. This provides an additional assurance that if phylloxera were in a vineyard, it would be detected. During its operation, Vinehealth Australia has forged strong ties with regional wine industry associations. This continues to provide an additional valuable avenue for extension of biosecurity awareness and best practice farm-gate hygiene direct to grapegrowers.

3.0 Scope of this Pest Risk Analysis Vinehealth Australia has undertaken this Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) for two purposes:

i) To underpin its comprehensive review of the South Australian Plant Quarantine Standard V13.0 Conditions 7, 7A, 8 and 8A.

ii) To underpin its review of the state outbreak plan for phylloxera and in light of a phylloxera incursion, the movement restrictions applicable to moving both between and within phylloxera management zones (the latter of which is dealt with poorly in the current NPMP and state regulations)

This PRA applies a restricted risk rating to each of the current conditional entries of a range of phylloxera risk vectors and recommendations on how these risk levels could be lowered. As South Australia already has prescribed movement Conditions relating to grape phylloxera, this pest risk assessment will not address pure unrestricted (inherent) risk as if no safeguards were in place, but rather assess baseline risk as the current level of risk according to the entry conditions in place within Version 13 of the SA PQS.

4.0 Method for Pest Risk Analysis This section outlines the method used for the PRA in this report. Vinehealth Australia has conducted this PRA in accordance with the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs), including ISPM 2: Framework for pest risk analysis (FAO, 2007) and ISPM 11: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests (FAO, 2013). A PRA evaluates biological and other scientific and economic evidence to determine whether a pest should be regulated and the strength of any phytosanitary measures to be taken against it. Two major components of quarantine risk are evaluated in this PRA and then combined to give an overall estimate of risk:

(i) probability of the pest phylloxera entering, establishing and spreading in South Australia from imports into the state; and

(ii) consequences should this happen. Quarantine risk is evaluated taking into account existing commercial practices, incorporating phytosanitary measures currently practiced. This PRA is conducted in three steps: initiation, pest risk assessment and pest risk management.


4.1 Stage 1: Initiation Initiation identifies the pest(s) and pathway(s) that are of quarantine concern and should be considered for risk analysis in relation to the identified PRA area. For this PRA, the ‘PRA area’ is defined as the state of South Australia, which has area freedom from grape phylloxera. Where appropriate, previous qualitative risk assessments undertaken by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (previously Biosecurity Australia): Final import risk analysis report for table grapes from the People’s Republic of China (Biosecurity Australia, 2011) and Draft report for the non-regulated analysis of existing policy for table grapes from Sonora, Mexico (DAWR, 2016) have been taken into consideration when developing the new PRA.

4.2 Pest risk assessment In this PRA, pest risk assessment has been divided into the following interrelated processes:

4.2.1 Pest categorisation Pest categorisation identifies which of the pests with the potential to be on the commodity are quarantine pests (a pest of potential economic importance to an area where the pest has not yet been detected) for Australia and require pest risk assessments. This pest risk analysis is confined to a single pest as follows:

• Identity Scientific name: Daktulosphaira vitifoliae (Fitch) Common name: Grape phylloxera

• Host range Vitis species (grapevines, rootstocks, ornamental and wild vines)

• Symptoms (plant parts affected): Grape phylloxera symptoms include slow and stunted shoot growth, with gradual decrease in vigour, leaf yellowing and ultimately, failure of budburst. Excessive weed growth undervine is often associated with infestations. Leaf yellowing is a common early symptom of an infestation and will normally be seen in two to three neighbouring vines – usually, but not always within the same row. Phylloxera tends to spread out from the roots of the vine where it was first introduced, causing an ‘oil spot’ pattern of symptomatic vines, which increases progressively in size as more vines become infested. Root feeding on V. vinifera results in distinctive and characteristic hook-shaped galls (nodosities) on fleshy roots, or tuberosities (swellings) on older roots. Grapevines grafted to phylloxera resistant rootstocks may show signs of phylloxera on the roots but visual symptoms in the canopy do not occur, which makes detection difficult. Some phylloxera strains which can feed on tolerant American rootstock leaves and/ or roots cause neither vine decline nor economic damage (Vinehealth Australia, 2017a). Depending on the phylloxera strain, leaf galls may occur on the leaves of suckers of American Vitis rootstocks. Grafted vines can sustain populations of phylloxera, which can spread to ungrafted vines (Vinehealth Australia, 2017b). Crop losses range from no noticeable impact, to almost total crop loss. The infestation rate and yield decline are significantly related to vine variety, seasonal temperatures, soil moisture levels and phylloxera strain. Vines planted on ungrafted V. vinifera rather than onto phylloxera resistant rootstock are most at risk to succumbing to phylloxera. In 2007, approximately 80 per cent of Australia’s commercial winegrapes were reported to be ungrafted V. vinifera, susceptible to phylloxera (Trethowan and Powell, 2007). From a South Australian perspective nearly 10 years on, 72 per cent of winegrapes are planted on own roots (Vinehealth Australia, in press). These figures highlight the risk and potential impact of phylloxera to the Australian wine industry. Information on identifying phylloxera is given in the National Diagnostic Protocol for grape phylloxera (SPHD, 2016).


• Distribution in Australia: Grape phylloxera is the most economically destructive and geographically widespread pest species of commercial grapevines, on which it is an obligate biotroph of Vitis species, occurring in almost all viticultural regions around the world (Powell, 2012). Phylloxera destroyed more than one million hectares of grapevines in Europe in the late 1800s. It has caused considerable losses in both quality and yield of grapevines throughout many grape-producing areas around the world (PGIBSA, 2003; INRA, 2009). The first detection of phylloxera in Australia was near Geelong, Victoria in 1875. An early attempt at eradication was unsuccessful and phylloxera was later detected in other parts of Central and North East Victoria. The first detection in New South Wales was in 1884 at Camden and further infestations were subsequently found nearby. Phylloxera was first found in Queensland at Enoggera, Brisbane, in 1910 and has not been detected in that state since the 1960s. South Australia, which had not received infected material, banned movement of vine material under the powers of the Vine Protection Act of 1874. Currently, declared Phylloxera Infested Zones (PIZ) are confined to areas in Victoria (North East, Maroondah, Nagambie, Mooroopna, Upton and Whitebridge) and New South Wales (Sydney region and Albury/Corowa) (Vinehealth Australia, 2017a). South Australia is one of the few places in the world free of the vine-destroying pest phylloxera, and the only Australian mainland state that is free of fruit fly. The whole state of South Australia is covered by an area freedom certificate for grape phylloxera, Queensland fruit fly (Bactrocera tryoni) and Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata).

• Status in South Australia: The pest status of grape phylloxera in South Australia is; Absent – no pest records. D. vitifoliae is a declared pest under Section 4 of the Plant Health Act, 2009. The Act includes a requirement to notify PIRSA if a suspect detection is made and also allows for measures to control or prevent entry of declared pests into South Australia. Current entry requirements are outlined in the Plant Quarantine Standard (http://pir.sa.gov.au/biosecurity/plant_health).

• Biology: Grape phylloxera is a very small yellow to brown soft bodied sapsucking insect native to eastern North America that lives and feeds on grapevines. The phylloxera lifecycle involves egg, larval and adult stages. Phylloxera can occur in both above-ground and below-ground forms, however the above-ground form is rare in Australia. The below-ground damage to vine roots is the predominant cause of vine death. Phylloxera feed on leaves and/or grapevine roots causing death of the European grapevine, Vitis vinifera, within five to six years on average; but dependent on which endemic strain is present. The roots of V. vinifera, are extremely susceptible to attack by phylloxera but the leaves are resistant to strains present in Australia. In Australia, root-galling is the predominant cause of damage on V. vinifera (Powell and Clarke, 2018). There have been several hundred strains of the pest documented worldwide, of which Australia is known to have 83 endemic strains (Umina et al., 2007) (Powell and Korosi, 2014). These strains are known to display different levels of virulence and therefore the risk of spread of these strains will differ in practice. Worldwide, phylloxera strains are categorised into Biotypes, from A to G. In Australia, the most widely distributed strains identified belong to the Biotype A group, including the two superclones G1 and G4, although among the strains tested, some fit into the Biotype B, D, or E groups (Umina et al., 2007, KS Powell, personal communication, 2015). Knowledge of strain is important to determine spread. Strains also differ in their ability to withstand different disinfestation procedures and rootstocks differ in their ability to tolerate or resist various phylloxera strains. Grape phylloxera has a complex life-cycle, with a number of life-cycle variations (Forneck and Huber, 2009). Whilst its classic life-cycle has both sexual and asexual reproductive phases, in Australia (and some other countries e.g. USA (California), China, New Zealand) asexual reproduction predominates

http://pir.sa.gov.au/biosecurity/fruit_fly

http://pir.sa.gov.au/biosecurity/plant_health


and root infesting phylloxera (radicoles) are more common than leaf infesting phylloxera (gallicles) (Powell and Clarke, 2018). Sexual reproduction, if it occurs in Australia at all, is relatively rare (Corrie and Hoffmann, 2004). There are five phylloxera life-stages - eggs, first instars, intermediate instars (which include second, third and fourth instars), winged adults (alates) and wingless (apterous) adults. However, the relative mobility and natural dispersal ability of each stage differs (Powell and Clarke, 2018). The first instar stage is considered to be the highest risk to grapevine production for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is more mobile than other instars. High population levels are found on the soil surface, foliage, and fruit throughout late spring and summer (King and Buchanan, 1986; Powell, 2000; Omer et al., 2002; Huber et al., 2003). Pearce et al., 2018 reported higher amounts of phylloxera DNA from late summer to early winter, peaking in autumn. Secondly, its distribution above and below ground is broader than other life-stages. It is mobile within the soil profile, on the soil surface, within the grapevine canopy and can also be wind dispersed. This life-stage is asexual and hence a single crawler could potential start a new establishment. The crawler could then develop rapidly to produce an apterous adult capable of producing several hundred eggs (Powell and Clarke, 2018). Adults lay approximately 200-400 eggs per cycle and can have five to nine egg laying cycles per growing season. First instars are also very hardy. Powell et al. (2014) found that this life-cycle stage is able survive for up to 21 days immersed in water depending on the temperature.

• Movement: Movement of phylloxera is considered to be mainly by crawlers. These may be associated with grapevine material, grape products, vineyard or winery equipment and machinery, as well as clothing and footwear – the movement from which can lead to unlimited spread if no control measures are practiced. Crawlers are also naturally spread from vine to vine by crawling along the soil surface or crawling from root to root. They may also be carried by wind, with spread in strong winds of up to 25 metres (Powell, 2000). Natural spread occurs at a rate of 100-200 metres per year within a vineyard (King and Buchanan, 1986). To prevent the spread of phylloxera from infested areas, each state has legislation (laws) and associated regulations, which restrict or prohibit the movement of “phylloxera risk vectors”. These include grapevine material, grape products, soil, vineyard or winery equipment and machinery (PIRSA, 2017b). Phylloxera have been detected year-round, but numbers are highest in autumn.

• Potential for economic concern Grape phylloxera is a devastating pest of grapevines worldwide, affecting Vitis species (commercial grapevines and ornamental vines). In Australia it generally causes death of Vitis vinifera within 5-6 years depending on the insect strain, and prior to that, causes yield losses and reduction in fruit quality as the vines gradually succumb to an infestation. A lack of available chemical or biological control for phylloxera means there is no treatment for a phylloxera-infested vineyard. The only option is to pull out the vineyard and replant with new vines that have been grafted onto phylloxera tolerant or resistant rootstock. Pulling out vines and replanting comes at an approximate cost of $60,000 per hectare, including vine removal, new grafted vine material (3-5 times that of own rooted material) and new block infrastructure, notwithstanding loss of production while new plantings mature and additional water and nutrition. In addition to vine material costs of replanting a vineyard post phylloxera infection, other secondary management costs are likely to be incurred by the grower, which may include, but are not limited to, additional machinery and infrastructure (such as heat sheds, washdown bays, etc), heightened farmgate hygiene practices (including cleaning and disinfestation), people management, logistics and loss of production while a new vineyard is maturing. Loss of brand value and company reputation, as well as visitor offerings, may be affected (Vinehealth Australia, 2017a).


• Control: In Australia, phylloxera is managed in accordance with state-based plant quarantine standards (e.g. Plant Quarantine Standard South Australia), which are predominantly aligned with the National Phylloxera Management Plan, which allows for the delineation of grape growing regions, or part thereof, by phylloxera status. Phylloxera Exclusion Zones (PEZ) are areas that have been surveyed and found free of phylloxera, Phylloxera Risk Zones (PRZ) are areas that have not been surveyed for phylloxera and are of unknown status, and Phylloxera Infested Zones (PIZ) are areas that are known to be within 5 km of a phylloxera infested property. There are no proven chemical methods to control phylloxera. Little information on biological control is available. The only proven cultural method is to replant infested vineyards with resistant rootstock.

• Association with entry pathways: Grape phylloxera has the potential to enter South Australia via the following pathways: Grapevine material including for planting and/or propagation

Grapevines quarantined at the Commonwealth post-entry quarantine facility Dormant cuttings or rootlings Potted vines Grapevine tissue cultures

Machinery used in grape and wine production

Grape harvesters Other machinery

Equipment used in grape and wine production

Grape bins and containers Trellis posts Hand tools Netting Winery equipment

Grapes and grape related materials

Table grapes Winegrapes Grape must and unfiltered juice Filtered juice Wine Pre-fermentation grape marc Post-fermentation grape marc

Grapevine diagnostic samples and vineyard soils

Grapevine diagnostic samples and vineyard soils

Clothing and footwear Clothing Footwear

4.2.2 Assessment of the probability of entry, establishment and spread Details of how to assess the ‘probability of entry’, ‘probability of establishment’ and ‘probability of spread’ of a pest are given in ISPM 11 (FAO, 2013). The use of the term ‘probability’ is limited to the direct quotation of ISPM definitions. In qualitative PRAs such as this one, the term ‘likelihood’ is the descriptor used for estimates of likelihood of entry, establishment and spread. Methodology used in this PRA is consistent with that of the DAWR, outlined in recent table grape assessments (DAWR, 2016) and (Biosecurity Australia, 2011). A summary of the process is given below, including a description of the qualitative methodology used in this risk analysis. Likelihoods are assigned to each step of entry, establishment and spread using six descriptors as outlined in Table 2 below, along with their definitions and indicative probabilities.


Table 2. Nomenclature of quantitative likelihoods (Adapted from Biosecurity Australia, 2011) (DAWR, 2016)

Likelihood Descriptive definition Indicative probability range High The event would be very likely to occur >700 →1000 times in 1,000 events Moderate The event would occur with an even probability >300 → 700 times in 1,000 events Low The event would be unlikely to occur >50 → 300 times in 1,000 events Very low The event would be very unlikely to occur >1 → 50 times in 1,000 events Extremely low The event would be extremely unlikely to occur >0.001 → 1 times in 1,000 events Negligible The event would almost certainly not occur 0 → 0.001 times in 1,000 events

4.2.2.1 Likelihood of Entry

The likelihood of entry for PRAs, considers two components separately – the likelihood of importation and the likelihood of distribution. Both these factors are then combined for each pathway to give a risk rating for likelihood of entry. 4.2.2.1.1 Likelihood of Importation

In this PRA, the likelihood of importation describes the likelihood that grape phylloxera will enter South Australia as a result of distribution and incidence of phylloxera in the source areas (outside the state based on the three Phylloxera Management Zones), relative vulnerability of phylloxera during transport or storage, commodity form and pest association and existing controls. Likelihood of importation – Factors relevant to each pathway

Distribution and incidence of phylloxera in the source areas – according to the national Phylloxera Management Zones, there are a number of PIZs in Victoria and NSW. Parts of QLD and VIC are categorised as PRZs where status is unknown, however rezoning projects are currently being undertaken, with more planned in Victorian PRZs at the time of publishing. Western VIC and the remainder of NSW are categorised as PEZs. TAS, WA, NT and SA are all states with area freedom from grape phylloxera. Relative vulnerability of life-stages during transport or storage - The first instar stage of the phylloxera lifecycle is considered to be the highest risk to grapevine production for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is more mobile than other instars. High population levels are found on the soil surface, foliage, and fruit throughout late spring and summer (King and Buchanan, 1986; Powell, 2000; Omer et al., 2002; Huber et al., 2003). Pearce et al., 2018 reported higher amounts of phylloxera DNA from late summer to early winter, peaking in autumn. Secondly, its distribution above and below ground is broader than other life-stages. It is mobile within the soil profile, on the soil surface, within the grapevine canopy and can also be wind dispersed. First instars are also very hardy. Powell et al. (2014) found that this life-cycle stage is able survive for up to 21 days immersed in water depending on the temperature. During harvest time, generally in autumn in Australia, Pearce et al. (2018) reported higher amounts of phylloxera DNA compared to other times of the year. This timing presents the greatest opportunity of phylloxera to be transported from an infested vineyard, through carriage inside grape bunches, on loose berries, on leaves, immersed in grape juice during the harvesting process, or on harvesters, equipment, footwear and clothing. In addition, the ability of first instar crawlers to survive without a food source for an extended period of time, almost certainly guarantees their viability during transport between states to the destination processing facility. Existing Controls – movement are subject to importer registration and direct inspection (http://pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/239207/Plant_Quarantine_Standard_Version_13_-_October_2017.pdf).


Likelihood – Entry from a Commonwealth post-entry quarantine facility

Factors influencing assessment Assessment of existing controls in place

Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Grapevines quarantined at the Commonwealth post-entry quarantine (PEQ) facility

Commodity form and pest association – the insect could be present on grapevine material in any of its lifecycle stages, but as this grapevine material is exposed to rigorous testing and housed under strict quarantine for in excess of a year prior to release, the presence of phylloxera could only occur through cross contamination or poor quarantine practices. Relative vulnerability of phylloxera during transport or storage – as entry of this material into SA is allowed without any additional treatment, transport or storage conditions during transport would have negligible impact on phylloxera survival. Existing Controls – allowed entry as cuttings, rootlings or potted vines without additional treatment, provided direct entry from Commonwealth PEQ to SA with certification.

Likelihood = Very low (1-50 times in 1,000 events)

Likelihood – Entry from a PIZ


Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Dormant cuttings or rootlings

Existing Controls – Prohibited entry into SA.

Likelihood = Extremely Low (0.001 - 1 times in 1,000 events)

Factors influencing assessment Assessment of existing

controls in place

Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Potted vines




Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Grapevine tissue cultures

Commodity form and pest association – As tissue cultures are produced in a sterile laboratory situation, not in the field, the presence of phylloxera could only occur through cross contamination at the laboratory. Existing Controls – Allowed entry under an Import Certificate from Chief Inspector (PHIC), and a Plant Health Certificate (PHC) to demonstrate production according to specifications. These include that the cultures must be axenic (free from other living organisms) and that the closure or stopper of the tissue culture must prevent the entry of contaminating organisms.




Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Grape harvesters

Relative vulnerability of phylloxera during transport or storage - The virulence of phylloxera is such that first instars can survive for up to 21 days immersed in water depending on the temperature (Powell et al., 2014). Phylloxera survival without food (grapevine roots) is likely to be increased through protection from heat and cold if it is associated with a clod of soil or on grapevine leaf material, for example. Thorough cleaning of harvesters prior to undertaking sterilistion is therefore vital in ensuring efficacy of these treatments. If phylloxera insects therefore fall near vulnerable grapevines in SA, the chances of their survival whilst making their way to vine roots are conceivably high. With the asexual lifecycle of phylloxera predominating in Australia, a single crawler could potential start a new establishment (Powell and Clarke, 2018). Commodity form and pest association - Mechanical grape harvesters operate over vintage in summer and autumn at the time in the season when phylloxera venture out of the soil onto the soil surface and up into the vine canopy (Pearce et al., 2018). These machines are notoriously hard to clean of plant material, which often gets stuck under belts and between fish plates which are very seldomly removed during normal washdowns between vineyard blocks or vineyards within the same phylloxera management zone. Many growers do not own their own harvesters and therefore sharing of harvesters between properties is very common. Harvesters are therefore a very high-risk vector for transfer of phylloxera. Existing Controls – Movement of grape harvesters into SA from a PIZ relies on the issuing of a PHIC which dictates requirement of thorough cleaning of the machine of all soil and plant material after removal of parts which may hide plant fragments, and then a dry heat treatment undertaken and proof of this through a PHC. Recent scientific research has indicated that one of the currently prescribed time/temperature dry heat treatments is not 100% effective against all key endemic phylloxera strains.

Likelihood = Moderate (300-700 times in 1,000 events) This rating acknowledges that one of the current time/temperature heat treatment specifications has been found inadequate for 100% mortality of all key phylloxera strains and harvesters are notoriously hard to clean.


Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Other machinery

Relative vulnerability of phylloxera during transport or storage - The virulence of phylloxera is such that first instars can survive for up to 21 days immersed in water depending on the temperature (Powell et al., 2014). If this machinery is not properly cleaned of soil and plant material, phylloxera survival is increased. Commodity form and pest association – This machinery could include tractors, spray equipment, pruners, forklifts, backhoes, excavators. Some may operate during spring and summer when phylloxera ventures out of the ground into the vine canopy and some operate more in winter when phylloxera is buried deep in the soil, so chances of pickup up insects is lessened. Some of this machinery is used to dig up soil so access to where the phylloxera lives on infested vines could be high. This range of machinery is comparatively easier to clean of soil and plant material than a grape harvester. Many growers do not own all of these pieces of equipment and therefore sharing between properties is still highly likely.

Likelihood = Low (50-300 times in 1,000 events) This rating acknowledges that one of the current time/temperature heat treatment specifications has been found inadequate for 100% mortality of all key phylloxera strains.


Existing Controls – Movement of other machinery into SA from a PIZ relies on the issuing of a PHIC which dictates requirement of thorough cleaning of the machine of all soil and plant material after removal of parts which may hide plant fragments, and then an option of steam, hot water or dry heat treatment as disinfestation and proof of this through a PHC. Recent scientific research has indicated that one of the currently prescribed time/temperature dry heat treatment is not 100% effective against all key endemic phylloxera strains and that the existing steam treatment specifications could be reworded to ensure effectiveness.


Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Equipment - Grape bins or containers

Relative vulnerability of phylloxera during transport or storage - The virulence of phylloxera is such that first instars can survive for up to 21 days immersed in water depending on the temperature (Powell et al., 2014). If bins are not properly cleaned of soil and plant material and disinfested, prior to leaving a PIZ, phylloxera present are highly likely to survive a trip to SA. Commodity form and pest association – The external surfaces of grape bins are highly likely to contact vineyard soil if placed on non-hard pack surfaces during loading at the vineyard. As they serve as vessels for transporting grapes to a processing facility, phylloxera present on grape bunches is highly likely to be transported inside grape bins given the time of the year of vintage which correlates to when phylloxera move into the canopy. Phylloxera could also be transferred to the underside of bins via dirty truck trays. Existing Controls – Grape bins must be cleaned prior to hot water disinfestation treatment; proof of disinfestation is through a PHC.



Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Equipment - Trellis posts

Relative vulnerability of phylloxera during transport or storage – The virulence of phylloxera is such that first instars can survive for up to 21 days immersed in water depending on the temperature (Powell et al., 2014). With soil clods in cervices of the posts, phylloxera could survive transport to SA. In addition, carrying out disinfestation on posts is difficult due to their relatively dense structure and multitude of crevices and therefore there is a chance of phylloxera survival with the current disinfestation treatments. Commodity form and pest association – Trellis posts are banged into the soil and are positioned in close proximity to vine roots. It is possible that phylloxera may climb up trellis posts into the vine canopy during spring to summer when they venture out of the soil. Trellis posts are relatively porous to soil and insects and can be very difficult to clean once pulled out of the ground. Existing Controls – Used trellis posts (vineyard posts) must be cleaned and disinfested using dry heat, steam or hot water with proof provided by a PHC.

Likelihood = Moderate (300-7000 times in 1,000 events) This rating acknowledges that one of the current time/temperature heat treatment specifications has been found inadequate for 100% mortality of all key phylloxera strains; the structure of the trellis posts and the difficulty in cleaning them.



Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Equipment - Hand tools

Commodity form and pest association – hand tools such as secateurs, shovels and technical equipment are inherent used within the grapevine canopy or in the soil and therefore have a potential to come into contact with phylloxera if present. These tools are generally simple in design, containing few crevices to attract clods of soil or plant material and therefore could be effectively disinfested using a range of treatments. Existing Controls – There are no pre-existing controls in place to manage importation of hand tools from a PIZ.

Likelihood = High (700-1,000 times in 1,000 events) This rating reflects the current silence on hand tools from a PIZ in SA PQS V13.0.


Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Equipment - Netting

Commodity form and pest association – Grapevine netting is used to cover grapevines as a means of protection of the grapes from bird pests. Nets commonly touch the grapevine canopy and hang on the ground touching the soil. Netting is applied to vineyards in summer and autumn, coinciding with phylloxera presence in the canopy. Existing Controls – There are no prescribed pre-existing controls in place to manage importation of netting from a PIZ. Cleaning and disinfestation of netting is very difficult.

Likelihood = High (700-1,000 times in 1,000 events) This rating represents the current silence on netting from a PIZ in SA PQS V13.0 and acknowledges the difficulty in cleaning.


Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Winery equipment

Commodity form and pest association – Winery equipment including crushers, presses and destemmers may contain parts which are hard to clean, hiding soil and grapevine material clods which in turn could contain phylloxera. This equipment is used to process winegrapes during a time of the year when phylloxera can be harboured in the grape bunches. If this equipment has been processing phylloxera-infested grapes and is not cleaned thoroughly and disinfested prior to moving to SA, it poses a high risk of transferring phylloxera. Existing Controls – There are no prescribed pre-existing controls in place to manage importation of wine equipment from a PIZ.

Likelihood = High (700-1,000 times in 1,000 events) This rating represents the current silence on winery equipment from a PIZ in SA PQS V13.0 and acknowledges the difficulty in cleaning, but for food safety purposes active cleaning would be employed.


Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Table grapes

Commodity form and pest association – Table grapes are harvested at peak time in summer to autumn when grape phylloxera emerge from the soil and move into the canopy (Pearce et al., 2018). It is therefore vital with table grape importation into SA that the disinfestation is effective. Existing Controls – Table grapes from a PIZ are permitted entry after fumigation with methyl bromide, or a mixture of sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide and accompanied by a PHC as proof of disinfestation.

Likelihood = Very Low (1-50 times in 1,000 events)



Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Winegrapes

Commodity form and pest association – Winegrapes are harvested at peak time when grape phylloxera emerge from the soil and move into the canopy (Pearce et al., 2018). It is highly likely then that winegrapes grown in a PIZ will harbour phylloxera. Speed of transport and conditions of storage compared with the duration of the phylloxera lifecycle - Winegrapes are transported from the vineyard to the receiving winery for processing almost always within 24 hours of being harvested. As reported above, any phylloxera transported in winegrape loads is highly likely to be viable when it reaches the winery. If grape processing is not undertaken within this 24 hour period as well, grapes may be cold stored at the winery at approximately 5˚C. Powell et al. (2014) completed phylloxera survival studies, immersing first instars in water of different temperatures and reported survival for 9 days at 5˚C. Resilience of first instars in cold water (albeit not ambient temperature alone) is therefore demonstrated and therefore a strong indicator that other measures of treatment at the winery prior to processing of the grapes are not likely to decrease phylloxera’s chance of survival. Existing Controls – Winegrapes from a PIZ are prohibited entry into SA.



Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Grape must and unfiltered juice

Commodity form and pest association – Grape must and unfiltered juice has not been filtered to remove particles equivalent to the size of phylloxera (less than 1mm diameter) and therefore pose a risk to SA vines if a spill were to occur near vines. Existing Controls – Grape must or unfiltered juice from a PIZ may enter SA under an ICA arrangement - ICA22 where strict hygiene measures are in place for both the sender and receiver. Import must also be accompanied by a Plant Health Declaration (PHD) or PHC.

Likelihood = Low (50-300 times in 1,000 events) This rating reflects the fact that a spill of this pathway has the risk of starting an infestation if near a vineyard.


Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Filtered juice

Commodity form and pest association – Filtered juice is juice that has been filtered to 50 microns to remove particulates which may include phylloxera. Existing Controls – May enter unrestricted, without proof of filtration occurring.



Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Wine

Commodity form and pest association – Wine to have undertaken a minimum of four days fermentation to kill any phylloxera if present. Existing Controls – May enter unrestricted




Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Pre-fermentation grape marc

Commodity form and pest association – Pre-fermentation grape marc is marc that has not completed at least 3 days of fermentation or has not been composted or pasteurised to Australian Standard AS 4454, and therefore likely to contain viable phylloxera. Existing Controls – Pre-fermentation grape marc is prohibited entry to South Australia



Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Post-fermentation grape marc

Commodity form and pest association – Post-fermentation grape marc is marc that has completed at least 3 days of fermentation or composting or pasteurisation as per Australian Standard AS 4454. Fermentation studies were conducted over 20 years ago when strain knowledge was unknown and composting studies have only been undertaken on a single strain, so further research is due. Existing Controls – Post-fermentation grape marc may enter unrestricted, without proof of filtration occurring.

Likelihood = Low (50-300 times in 1,000 events) This rating reflects the unknown effects of fermentation and composting on a range of endemic strains.


Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Grapevine diagnostic samples and vineyard soils

Commodity form and pest association – Diagnostic samples are small samples of grapevine plant material or soil sent to a laboratory for specialist testing, often through the general mail or using a courier for transport. Packaging generally involves triple bagging, so the sample is safe and secure, to be received by the laboratory in a sound state. Existing Controls – Diagnostic samples from a PIZ may enter SA post-disinfestation to an accredited or approved laboratory and are accompanied by a PHIC, PHC and permit out of the PIZ.



Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Clothing

Commodity form and pest association – clothing worn down vine rows in a PIZ is at high risk of picking up phylloxera, particularly when phylloxera venture out of the soil onto the soil surface and into the vine canopy. People who have walked down vine rows in a PIZ could easily be in a SA vineyard region walking down vine rows within a day and transfer the pests. Existing Controls – There are no regulations in the SA PQS addressing clothing, but the most common farm-gate hygiene practice is to wear a disposable suit if walking down vine rows in a PIZ. Vinehealth Australia advocates for hot washing and tumble drying of all clothes worn in a vineyard in a PIZ irrespective of the use of disposable suits. Vinehealth also continues to communicate to its registered vineyard owners about farm-gate hygiene which includes management of clothing

• http://vinehealth.com.au/2018/08/14/when-sharing-isnt-caring/

• http://vinehealth.com.au/2018/06/24/farm-gate-hygiene-2/

• http://vinehealth.com.au/2018/01/30/5994/

Likelihood = High (700-1,000 times in 1,000 events) This is an unregulated pest pathway

http://vinehealth.com.au/2018/08/14/when-sharing-isnt-caring/

http://vinehealth.com.au/2018/06/24/farm-gate-hygiene-2/

http://vinehealth.com.au/2018/01/30/5994/


• http://vinehealth.com.au/2018/01/30/guide-correct-disinfestation/

• http://vinehealth.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Vinehealth_A4-Fact-Sheet-Hosting-Visitors_FINALlowres.pdf


Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Footwear

Commodity form and pest association – footwear used to walk down vine rows in a PIZ is at high risk of picking up phylloxera, either within soil clods caught in tread, or just the insects alone, particularly when phylloxera venture out of the soil onto the soil surface. People who have walked down vine rows in a PIZ could easily be in a SA vineyard region walking down vine rows within a day and transfer the pests. Existing Controls – There are no regulations in the SA PQS addressing footwear but disinfestation with sodium hypochlorite is the industry standard. Vinehealth Australia continues to communicate to its registered vineyard owners about farm-gate hygiene which includes management of footwear





• http://vinehealth.com.au/2017/06/16/60-seconds-safe-shoes/


Likelihood = High (700-1,000 times in 1,000 events) This rating reflects the footwear pathway being unregulated and the relatively recent change in requirement for 60 second disinfestation which is practically quite difficult to achieve to ensure 100% mortality of the key phylloxera strains.

Likelihood – Entry from a PRZ






controls in place


Existing Controls – Prohibited entry into SA. Likelihood = Extremely Low (0.001 - 1 times in 1,000 events)


Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant

Commodity form and pest association – As tissue cultures are produced in a laboratory situation, not in the field, the presence of phylloxera could only occur through cross contamination at the laboratory.


http://vinehealth.com.au/2018/01/30/guide-correct-disinfestation/

http://vinehealth.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Vinehealth_A4-Fact-Sheet-Hosting-Visitors_FINALlowres.pdf







http://vinehealth.com.au/2017/06/16/60-seconds-safe-shoes/





to Grapevine tissue cultures

Existing Controls – Allowed entry under a PHIC and a PHC to demonstrate production according to specifications. These include that the cultures must be axenic (free from other living organisms) and that the closure or stopper of the tissue culture must prevent the entry of contaminating organisms.

Noting that the SA PQS Condition 7 is not clear about allowing entry of grapevine tissue cultures grown inside a PRZ



Relative vulnerability of phylloxera during transport or storage - The virulence of phylloxera is such that first instars can survive for up to 21 days immersed in water depending on the temperature (Powell et al., 2014). Phylloxera survival without food (grapevine roots) is likely to be increased through protection from heat and cold if it is associated with a clod of soil or on grapevine leaf material, for example. Thorough cleaning of harvesters prior to undertaking sterilistion is therefore vital in ensuring efficacy of these treatments. If phylloxera insects therefore fall near vulnerable grapevines in SA, the chances of their survival whilst making their way to vine roots are conceivably highWith the asexual lifecycle of phylloxera predominating in Australia, a single crawler could potential start a new establishment (Powell and Clarke, 2018). Commodity form and pest association - Mechanical grape harvesters operate over vintage in summer and autumn at the time in the season when phylloxera venture out of the soil onto the soil surface and up into the vine canopy (Pearce et al., 2018). These machines are notoriously hard to clean of plant material, which often gets stuck under belts and between fish plates which are very seldomly removed during normal washdowns between vineyard blocks or vineyards within the same phylloxera management zone. Many growers do not own their own harvesters and therefore sharing of harvesters between properties is very common. Harvesters are therefore a very high-risk vector for transfer of phylloxera. Existing Controls – Movement of grape harvesters into SA from a PRZ relies on issuing of a PHIC which dictates requirement of thorough cleaning of the machine of all soil and plant material after removal of parts which may hide plant fragments, and then a dry heat treatment undertaken effectively and proof of this through a PHC. Recent scientific research has indicated that one of the currently prescribed time/temperature dry heat treatments is not 100% effective against all key endemic phylloxera strains.

Likelihood = Moderate (300-700 times in 1,000 events) This rating acknowledges that one of the current time/temperature heat treatment specifications has been found inadequate for 100% mortality of all key phylloxera strains and harvesters are notoriously hard to clean.



Relative vulnerability of phylloxera during transport or storage - The virulence of phylloxera is such that first instars can survive for up to 21 days immersed in water depending on the temperature (Powell et al., 2014). If this machinery is not properly cleaned of soil and plant material, phylloxera survival is increased. Commodity form and pest association – This machinery could include tractors, spray equipment, pruners, forklifts, backhoes, excavators. Some may operate during spring and summer when phylloxera ventures out of the ground into the vine canopy and some operate

Likelihood = Low (50-300 times in 1,000 events) This rating acknowledges that one of the current time/temperature heat treatment specifications has been


more in winter when phylloxera is buried deep in the soil, so chances of pickup up insects is lessened. Some of this machinery is used to dig up soil so access to where the phylloxera lives on infested vines could be high. This machinery is on the whole is easier to clean of soil and plant material than a grape harvester. Many growers do not own all of these pieces of equipment and therefore sharing between properties is still highly likely. Existing Controls – Rely on issuing of a PHIC which dictates requirement of thorough cleaning of the machine of all soil and plant material after removal of parts which may hide plant fragments, and then an option of steam, hot water or dry heat treatment and proof of this through a PHC. Recent scientific research has indicated that a currently prescribed time/temperature dry heart treatment is not 100% effective against all key endemic phylloxera strains and that the existing steam treatment specifications could be reworded to ensure effectiveness.

found inadequate for 100% mortality of all key phylloxera strains.


Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Equipment - Grape bins or containers

Relative vulnerability of phylloxera during transport or storage - The virulence of phylloxera is such that first instars can survive for up to 21 days immersed in water depending on the temperature (Powell et al., 2014). If bins are not properly cleaned of soil and plant material and disinfested, prior to leaving a PRZ, if phylloxera are present, they are highly likely to survive a trip to SA. Commodity form and pest association – The external surfaces of grape bins are highly likely to contact vineyard soil if placed on non-hard pack surfaces during loading at the vineyard. As they serve as vessels for transporting grapes to a processing facility, phylloxera present on grape bunches is highly likely to be transported inside grape bins given the time of the year of vintage which correlates to when phylloxera move into the canopy. Phylloxera could also be transferred to the underside of bins via dirty truck trays. Existing Controls – grape bins must be cleaned free of soil and plant material; proof of cleaning is through a PHC. No current requirement for disinfestation.

Likelihood = Moderate (300-700 times in 1,000 events) Rating based on fact that current SA PQS does not require disinfestation for bins from a PRZ.



Relative vulnerability of phylloxera during transport or storage – The virulence of phylloxera is such that first instars can survive for up to 21 days immersed in water depending on the temperature (Powell et al., 2014). With soil clods in cervices of the posts, phylloxera could survive transport to SA. In addition, carrying out disinfestation on posts is difficult due to their relatively dense structure and multitude of cervices and therefore there is a chance of phylloxera survival with the current disinfestation treatments. Commodity form and pest association – Trellis posts are banged into the soil and are positioned in close proximity to vine roots. It is possible that phylloxera may climb up trellis posts into the vine canopy during spring to summer when they venture out of the soil. Trellis posts are

Likelihood = Low (50-300 times in 1,000 events) This rating acknowledges that one of the current time/temperature heat treatment specifications has been found inadequate for 100% mortality of all key phylloxera strains; the structure of the


porous to soil and insects and can be very difficult to clean once pulled out of the ground. Existing Controls – Used trellis posts (vineyard posts) must be cleaned and sterilised using dry heat, steam or hot water with proof provided by a PHC.

trellis posts and the difficulty in cleaning them.



Commodity form and pest association – hand tools such as secateurs, shovels and technical equipment are inherent used within the grapevine canopy or in the soil and therefore have a potential to come into contact with phylloxera if present. These tools are generally simple in design, containing few crevices to attract clods of soil or plant material and therefore could be effectively disinfested using a range of treatments. Existing Controls – Hand tools from a PRZ must be cleaned free of soil and plant residues and accompanied by a PHC to demonstrate the cleaning. No requirements for disinfestation.

Likelihood = Moderate (300-700 times in 1,000 events) This rating acknowledges the lack of disinfestation required in the current SA PQS.



Commodity form and pest association – Grapevine netting is used to cover grapevines as a means of protection of the grapes from bird pests. Nets commonly touch the grapevine canopy and hang on the ground touching the soil. Netting is applied to vineyards in summer and autumn, coinciding with phylloxera presence in the canopy. Existing Controls – There are no prescribed pre-existing controls in place to manage importation of netting from a PRZ. Cleaning and disinfestation of netting is very difficult.

Likelihood = Moderate (300-700 times in 1,000 events) This rating represents the current silence on netting from a PRZ in SA PQS V13.0 and acknowledges the difficulty in cleaning.



Commodity form and pest association – Winery equipment including crushers, presses and destemmers may contain parts which are hard to clean, hiding soil and grapevine material clods which in turn could contain phylloxera. This equipment is used to process winegrapes during a time of the year when phylloxera can be harboured in the grape bunches. If this equipment has been processing phylloxera-infested grapes and is not cleaned thoroughly and disinfested prior to moving to SA, it poses a high risk of transferring phylloxera. Existing Controls – There are no prescribed pre-existing controls in place to manage importation of winery equipment from a PRZ.

Likelihood = Moderate (300-700 times in 1,000 events) This rating represents the current silence on winery equipment from a PRZ in SA PQS V13.0 and acknowledges the difficulty in cleaning.



Commodity form and pest association – Table grapes are harvested at peak time in summer to autumn when grape phylloxera emerge from the soil and move into the canopy (Pearce et al., 2018). It is therefore vital with table grape importation into SA that the disinfestation is effective.



Existing Controls – Table grapes from a PRZ are permitted entry after fumigation with methyl bromide, fumigation with a mixture of sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide, or inclusion of sulphur pads, and accompanied by a PHC as proof of disinfestation.



Commodity form and pest association – Winegrapes are harvested at peak time when grape phylloxera emerge from the soil and move into the canopy. It is highly likely then that winegrapes grown in a PRZ will harbour phylloxera if phylloxera is there. Speed of transport and conditions of storage compared with the duration of the phylloxera lifecycle - Winegrapes are transported from the vineyard to the receiving winery for processing almost always within 24 hours of being harvested. As reported above, any phylloxera transported in winegrape loads is highly likely to be viable when it reaches the winery. If grape processing is not undertaken within this 24 hour period as well, grapes may be cold stored at the winery at approximately 5˚C. Powell et al. (2014) completed phylloxera survival studies, immersing first instars in water of different temperatures and reported survival for 9 days at 5˚C. Resilience of first instars in cold water (albeit not ambient temperature alone) is therefore demonstrated and therefore a strong indicator that other measures of treatment at the winery prior to processing of the grapes are not likely to decrease phylloxera’s chance of survival. Existing Controls – Winegrapes from a PRZ are prohibited entry into SA except under a PHIC where the sending business holds ICA33.

Likelihood = Very Low (1-50 times in 1,000 events) Noting that even though entry of winegrapes from a PRZ is possible under Condition 8 of the current SA PQS, in reality this movement does not happen in practice



Commodity form and pest association – Grape must and unfiltered juice has not been filtered to remove particles equivalent to the size of phylloxera (less than 1mm diameter) and therefore pose a risk to SA vines if a spill were to occur near vines. Existing Controls – Grape must or unfiltered juice from a PRZ may enter SA under an ICA arrangement - ICA22 where strict hygiene measures are in place for both the sender and receiver. Import must also be accompanied by a Plant Health Declaration (PHD) or PHC.

Likelihood = Low (50-300 times in 1,000 events) This rating reflects the fact that a spill of this pathway has the risk of starting an infestation if near a vineyard.



Commodity form and pest association – Filtered juice is juice that has been filtered to 50 microns to remove particulates which may include phylloxera. Existing Controls – May enter unrestricted, without proof of filtration occurring.









Commodity form and pest association – Pre-fermentation grape marc is marc that has not completed at least 3 days of fermentation or has not been composted or pasteurised to Australian Standard AS 4454, and therefore likely to contain viable phylloxera. Existing Controls – Pre-fermentation grape marc is prohibited entry to South Australia





Likelihood = Low (50-300 times in 1,000 events) This rating reflects the unknown effects of fermentation and composting on a range of endemic strains.



Commodity form and pest association – Diagnostic samples are small samples of grapevine plant material or soil sent to a laboratory for specialist testing, often through the general mail or using a courier for transport. Packaging generally involves triple bagging, so the sample is safe and secure, to be received by the laboratory in a sound state. Existing Controls – Diagnostic samples from a PRZ may enter SA post-disinfestation to an accredited laboratory and are accompanied by a PHIC, PHC and permit out of the PRZ. Noting that diagnostic samples from a PRZ should also be able to be sent to an approved laboratory.




Commodity form and pest association – clothing worn down vine rows in a PRZ is at high risk of picking up phylloxera, particularly when phylloxera venture out of the soil onto the soil surface and into the vine canopy. People who have walked down vine rows in a PRZ could easily be in a SA vineyard region walking down vine rows within a day and transfer the pests. Existing Controls – There are no regulations in the SA PQS addressing clothing. The most common farm-gate hygiene practice for clothing worn in a vineyard in a PIZ is to wear a disposable suit, however in

Likelihood = Moderate (300-700 times in 1,000 events) This is an unregulated pest pathway


practice this is not commonplace in a PRZ as well. Vinehealth Australia advocates for hot washing and tumble drying of all clothes worn in a vineyard in a PRZ irrespective of the use of disposable suits. Vinehealth also continues to communicate to its registered vineyard owners about farm-gate hygiene which includes management of clothing







Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Footwear

Commodity form and pest association – footwear used to walk down vine rows in a PRZ is at high risk of picking up phylloxera, either within soil clods caught in tread, or just the insects alone, particularly when phylloxera venture out of the soil onto the soil surface. People who have walked down vine rows in a PRZ could easily be in a SA vineyard region walking down vine rows within a day and transfer the pests. Existing Controls – There are no regulations in the SA PQS addressing footwear but disinfestation with sodium hypochlorite is the industry standard. This disinfestation practice is not commonplace throughout PRZs as yet. Vinehealth Australia continues to communicate to its registered vineyard owners about farm-gate hygiene which includes management of footwear





• http://vinehealth.com.au/2017/06/16/60-seconds-safe-shoes/


Likelihood = Moderate (300-700 times in 1,000 events) This is an unregulated pest pathway

Likelihood – Entry from a PEZ or state free of grape phylloxera



Relative vulnerability of phylloxera during transport or storage – effective hot water treatment prior to dispatch will ensure if any phylloxera was present it would be unviable post treatment. Commodity form and pest association – planting material grown in an area with phylloxera is a highly likely entry mechanism for the pest, given the association of the pathway with soil. However, the vast majority of vine nurseries are located in PEZs and therefore this risk is lowered. Poor nursery practices and movement of grapevine material from unknown sources is a risk. Speed of transport and conditions of storage compared with the duration of the phylloxera lifecycle – phylloxera can survive large temperature ranges. Dormant cuttings and rootlings are commonly transported cool. Powell et al. (2014) completed phylloxera survival studies, immersing















first instars in water of different temperatures and reported survival for 9 days at 5˚C. Resilience of first instars in cold water (albeit not ambient temperature alone) is therefore demonstrated and therefore a strong indicator that transport at cold temperatures is not likely to decrease phylloxera’s chance of survival. Existing Controls – dormant cuttings or rootlings must be hot water treated immediately prior to dispatch to SA and be transported free of soil accompanied by a Plant Heath Certificate.


controls in place





Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant to Grapevine tissue cultures

Commodity form and pest association – As tissue cultures are produced in a laboratory situation, not in the field, the presence of phylloxera could only occur through cross contamination at the laboratory. Existing Controls – Allowed entry under an Import Certificate from Chief Inspector (PHIC), and a Plant Health Certificate (PHC) to demonstrate production according to specifications. These include that the cultures must be axenic (free from other living organisms) and that the closure or stopper of the tissue culture must prevent the entry of contaminating organisms.




Relative vulnerability of phylloxera during transport or storage - The virulence of phylloxera is such that first instars can survive for up to 21 days immersed in water depending on the temperature (Powell et al., 2014). Phylloxera survival without food (grapevine roots) is likely to be increased through protection from heat and cold if it is associated with a clod of soil or on grapevine leaf material, for example. Thorough cleaning of harvesters prior to undertaking sterilistion is therefore vital in ensuring efficacy of these treatments. If phylloxera insects therefore fall near vulnerable grapevines in SA, the chances of their survival whilst making their way to vine roots are conceivably high. With the asexual lifecycle of phylloxera predominating in Australia, a single crawler could potential start a new establishment (Powell and Clarke, 2018). Commodity form and pest association - Mechanical grape harvesters operate over vintage in summer and autumn at the time in the season when phylloxera venture out of the soil onto the soil surface and up into the vine canopy (Pearce et al., 2018). These machines are notoriously hard to clean of plant material, which often gets stuck under belts and between fish plates which are very seldomly removed during normal washdowns between vineyard blocks or vineyards within the same phylloxera management zone. Many growers do not own their own harvesters and therefore sharing of harvesters between

Likelihood = Moderate (300-700 times in 1,000 events) This rating acknowledges that one of the current time/temperature heat treatment specifications has been found inadequate for 100% mortality of all key phylloxera strains; that knowledge on phylloxera survival shows that the current reference to 14 days is insufficient; that harvesters are notoriously hard to clean; and recognition of out of date


properties is very common. Harvesters are therefore a very high-risk vector for transfer of phylloxera. Existing Controls – Biosecurity SA is running additional requirements for entry of harvesters from a PEZ alongside requirements stipulated in Condition 7A of the SA PQS V13.0. These requirements are not visible to importers until they obtain a PHIC. Movement relies on issuing of a PHIC which dictates requirement of thorough cleaning of the machine of all soil and plant material after removal of parts which may hide plant fragments, certified statement proving continuous operation within the PEZ for the past 14 days and proof of dry heat treatment upon exit of a PIZ or PRZ if operational within one of these zones in the previous 12 months, and a PHC. Recent scientific research has indicated that a currently prescribed time for 40˚C dry heat treatment is not 100% effective against all key endemic phylloxera strains.

surveillance methods for undertaking both maintenance of PEZs and rezoning exercises.



Relative vulnerability of phylloxera during transport or storage - The virulence of phylloxera is such that first instars can survive for up to 21 days immersed in water depending on the temperature (Powell et al., 2014). If this machinery is not properly cleaned of soil and plant material, phylloxera survival is increased. Commodity form and pest association – This machinery could include tractors, spray equipment, pruners, forklifts, backhoes, excavators. Some may operate during spring and summer when phylloxera ventures out of the ground into the vine canopy and some operate more in winter when phylloxera is buried deep in the soil, so chances of pickup up insects is lessened. Some of this machinery is used to dig up soil so access to where the phylloxera lives on infested vines could be high. This machinery is on the whole is easier to clean of soil and plant material than a grape harvester. Many growers do not own all of these pieces of equipment and therefore sharing between properties is still highly likely. Existing Controls – Biosecurity SA is running additional requirements for entry of machinery from a PEZ alongside requirements stipulated in Condition 7A of the SA PQS V13.0. These requirements are not visible to importers until they obtain a PHIC. Movement relies on issuing of a PHIC which dictates requirement of thorough cleaning of the machine of all soil and plant material after removal of parts which may hide plant fragments, certified statement proving continuous operation within the PEZ for the past 14 days and proof of dry heat treatment upon exit of a PIZ or PEZ if operational within one of these zones in the previous 12 months, and a PHC. Recent scientific research has indicated that a currently prescribed time for 40˚C dry heat treatment is not 100% effective against all key endemic phylloxera strains.

Likelihood = Low (50-300 times in 1,000 events) This rating acknowledges that one of the current time/temperature heat treatment specifications has been found inadequate for 100% mortality of all key phylloxera strains and that knowledge on phylloxera survival shows that the current reference to 14 days is insufficient; and recognition of out of date surveillance methods for undertaking both maintenance of PEZs and rezoning exercises.


Likelihood of importation – additional factors relevant

Relative vulnerability of phylloxera during transport or storage - The virulence of phylloxera is such that first instars can survive for up to 21 days immersed in water depending on the temperature (Powell et al., 2014). If bins are not properly cleaned of soil and plant material and



to Equipment - Grape bins or containers

disinfested effectively, if phylloxera present, they are highly likely to survive a trip to SA. Commodity form and pest association – The external surfaces of grape bins are highly likely to contact vineyard soil if placed on non-hard pack surfaces during loading at the vineyard. As they serve as vessels for transporting grapes to a processing facility, phylloxera present on grape bunches is highly likely to be transported inside grape bins given the time of the year of vintage which correlates to when phylloxera move into the canopy. Phylloxera could also be transferred to the underside of bins via dirty truck trays. Existing Controls – grape bins must be cleaned free of soil and plant material; proof of cleaning is through a PHC. No current requirement for disinfestation.

This rating acknowledges that even though currently no proof is required to acknowledge whether the bins being imported from a PEZ have been used in a PRZ or PIZ prior, the bins must have been hot water treated to exit these zones (a process which recent research confirmed efficacy of at the current time and temperature specifications)



Relative vulnerability of phylloxera during transport or storage – The virulence of phylloxera is such that first instars can survive for up to 21 days immersed in water depending on the temperature (Powell et al., 2014). With soil clods in cervices of the posts, phylloxera could survive transport to SA. In addition, carrying out disinfestation on posts is difficult due to their relatively dense structure and multitude of cervices and therefore there is a chance of phylloxera survival with the current disinfestation treatments. Commodity form and pest association – Trellis posts are banged into the soil and are positioned in close proximity to vine roots. It is possible that phylloxera may climb up trellis posts into the vine canopy during spring to summer when they venture out of the soil. Trellis posts are porous to soil and insects and can be very difficult to clean once pulled out of the ground. Existing Controls – Used trellis posts (vineyard posts) must be cleaned and sterilised using dry heat, steam or hot water with proof provided by a PHC.

Likelihood = Low (50-300 times in 1,000 events) This rating acknowledges that one of the current time/temperature heat treatment specifications has been found inadequate for 100% mortality of all key phylloxera strains; the structure of the trellis posts; the difficulty in cleaning the posts which is critical for the sterilisation method to work and the PMZ.



Commodity form and pest association – hand tools such as secateurs, shovels and technical equipment are inherent used within the grapevine canopy or in the soil and therefore have a potential to come into contact with phylloxera if present. These tools are generally simple in design, containing few crevices to attract clods of soil or plant material and therefore could be effectively disinfested using a range of treatments. Existing Controls – Hand tools from a PEZ must be cleaned free of soil and plant material and accompanied by a PHC to demonstrate the cleaning. No disinfestation is required.





Commodity form and pest association – Grapevine netting is used to cover grapevines as a means of protection of the grapes from bird pests. Nets commonly touch the grapevine canopy and hang on the ground touching the soil. Netting is applied to vineyards in summer and autumn, coinciding with phylloxera presence in the canopy. Existing Controls – There are no prescribed pre-existing controls in place to manage importation of netting from a PEZ. Cleaning and disinfestation of netting is very difficult.

Likelihood = Low (50-300 times in 1,000 events) This rating represents the current silence on netting from a PEZ in SA PQS V13.0; acknowledges the difficulty in cleaning and the PMZ.



Commodity form and pest association – Winery equipment including crushers, presses and destemmers may contain parts which are hard to clean, hiding soil and grapevine material clods which in turn could contain phylloxera. This equipment is used to process winegrapes during a time of the year when phylloxera can be harboured in the grape bunches. If this equipment has been used as part of a mobile operation to process phylloxera-infested grapes in a PRZ or PIZ and wasn’t fully cleaned and sterilised upon exit of those zones prior to moving to SA, it poses a high risk of transferring phylloxera. Existing Controls – There are no prescribed pre-existing controls in place to manage importation of winery equipment from a PEZ.

Likelihood = Very Low (1-50 times in 1,000 events) This rating represents the current silence on winery equipment from a PEZ in SA PQS V13.0; acknowledges the difficulty in cleaning and the PMZ.



Commodity form and pest association – Table grapes are harvested at peak time when grape phylloxera emerge from the soil and move into the canopy. It is therefore vital with table grape importation into SA that the disinfestation is effective. Existing Controls – Table grapes from a PEZ are permitted entry subject to proof of origin with a PHC.




Commodity form and pest association – Winegrapes are harvested at peak time when grape phylloxera emerge from the soil and move into the canopy. It is highly likely then that winegrapes grown will harbour phylloxera if phylloxera is there. Speed of transport and conditions of storage compared with the duration of the phylloxera lifecycle - Winegrapes are transported from the vineyard to the receiving winery for processing almost always within 24 hours of being harvested. As reported above, any phylloxera transported in winegrape loads is highly likely to be viable when it reaches the winery. If grape processing is not undertaken within this 24 hour period as well, grapes may be cold stored at the winery at approximately 5˚C. Powell et al. (2014) completed phylloxera survival studies, immersing first instars



in water of different temperatures and reported survival for 9 days at 5˚C. Resilience of first instars in cold water (albeit not ambient temperature alone) is therefore demonstrated and therefore a strong indicator that other measures of treatment at the winery prior to processing of the grapes are not likely to decrease phylloxera’s chance of survival. Existing Controls – Winegrapes from a PEZ are permitted entry subject to proof of origin, being a PHC or Plant Health Assurance Certificate (PHAC). These loads are traditionally consigned with industry proof of origin documentation such as consignment notes which are carried with the load en route to the winery and presented to the receiving winery as a form of proof of origin identification. This industry documentation is carried irrespective of other compliance documentation held when grapes transported out of SA.



Commodity form and pest association – Grape must and unfiltered juice has not been filtered to remove phylloxera and therefore is still a risk to SA vines if a spill were to occur and phylloxera were present. Commodity sent under ICA22 is surrounded by strict hygiene procedures for both the sender and receiver. Existing Controls – Grape must or unfiltered juice from a PEZ may enter SA with proof of origin.




Commodity form and pest association – Filtered juice is juice that has been filtered to 50 microns to remove particulates which may include phylloxera. Existing Controls – May enter unrestricted





Likelihood = Extremely Low (1 time in 1,000 events)



Commodity form and pest association – Pre-fermentation grape marc is marc that has not completed at least 3 days of fermentation or has not been composted or pasteurised to Australian Standard AS 4454, and therefore likely to contain viable phylloxera if present. Existing Controls – Pre-fermentation grape marc is prohibited entry to South Australia






Likelihood = Very low (1-50 times in 1,000 events) This rating reflects the unknown effects of fermentation and composting on a range of endemic strains but that the inherent risk of phylloxera presence is very low.



Commodity form and pest association – Diagnostic samples are small samples of grapevine plant material or soil sent to a laboratory for specialist testing, often through the general mail or using a courier for transport. Packaging generally involves triple bagging, so the sample is safe and secure, to be received by the laboratory in a sound state. Existing Controls – Diagnostic samples from a PEZ may enter SA securely packaged to an accredited or approved laboratory and accompanied by a PHIC and PHC.




Commodity form and pest association – the inherent risk of phylloxera being pickup up and transferred on clothing worn in vineyards in a PEZ is very low and would have to arise from the same clothes being worn in a vineyard in a PIZ or PRZ within the 21 days prior to visiting the vineyard in the PEZ, and that the clothes were not hot washed and tumbled dried for effective sterilisation. Existing Controls – There are no regulations in the SA PQS addressing clothing. Vinehealth Australia continues to communicate to its registered vineyard owners about farm-gate hygiene which includes management of clothing






Likelihood = Very Low (1-50 times in 1,000 events) This is an unregulated pest pathway


Likelihood of importation – additional

Commodity form and pest association – the inherent risk of footwear picking up phylloxera from vineyards in a PEZ is low, but could arise from the same footwear being worn in a vineyard in a PIZ or PRZ within the 21 days prior to visiting the vineyard in the PEZ, and phylloxera

Likelihood = Low (50-300 times in 1,000 events)









factors relevant to Footwear

being picked up either alone or within soil clods caught in tread, particularly when phylloxera venture out of the soil onto the soil surface. People who have walked down vine rows in a PIZ or PRZ could easily be in a SA vineyard region walking down vine rows within a day and transfer the pests if footwear has not undergone disinfestation or the disinfestation was not carried out according to industry standards. Existing Controls – There are no regulations in the SA PQS addressing footwear. Disinfestation with sodium hypochlorite is the industry standard but seldomly used in PEZs. Vinehealth Australia continues to communicate to its registered vineyard owners about farm-gate hygiene which includes management of footwear





• http://vinehealth.com.au/2017/06/16/60-seconds-safe-shoes/ http://vinehealth.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Vinehealth_A4-Fact-Sheet-Hosting-Visitors_FINALlowres.pdf

This rating reflects the footwear pathway being uregulated and the lack of implementation of farm-gate hygiene for visitors to be asked questions about where they’ve been.

4.2.2.1.2 Likelihood of Distribution

The likelihood of distribution describes the likelihood that the pest will be distributed, as a result of the processing, sale or disposal of the commodity, in the PRA area and subsequently transferred to a susceptible part of a host. For this PRA, it means the likelihood of grape phylloxera being distributed as a result of: dispersal mechanisms of the pest, including vectors, to allow movement from the pathway to a host; host range and accessibility; commodity end-use, and risks from by-products and waste.

Likelihood of distribution - Factors relevant to each pathway

Dispersal mechanisms of the pest, including vectors, to allow movement from the pathway to a host – Grape phylloxera are asexual insects, meaning only a single insect is required to start an infestation. This insect can spread from vine to vine either above ground in the vine canopy or below the ground on vine roots, as well as being carried on footwear, clothing, machinery or equipment travelling down vine rows and between vineyard blocks or in soil. Movement of phylloxera can primarily be attributed to the transfer of first instar (crawler) or first instar lifecycle stages, which are associated with the movement of various human assisted vectors that can lead to unlimited spread if no control measures are practiced. Crawlers may also be carried by wind, with spread of up to 25 metres (Powell, 2000). Natural spread occurs at a rate of 100-200 metres per year within a vineyard (King and Buchanan, 1986). Vectored movement from feral animals such as foxes and kangaroos is also anecdotally considered to occur. Long distance spread is most likely through contaminated soil, footwear, clothing, machinery, propagation material, diagnostic samples, grapes and grapevine material. Host range and accessibility - Hosts include only Vitis species – commercial and ornamental grapevines, including rootstocks, therefore phylloxera must be vectored to within close proximity of susceptible grapevines for a new infestation to occur.


Likelihood of distribution – additional factors relevant

Commodity end-use – These grapevines may be sent directly to a nursery for further replication or may be sent to another laboratory for scientific purposes. As these vines will have undergone strict testing, they are not











to Grapevines quarantined at the Commonwealth post-entry quarantine (PEQ) facility

considered a risk of carrying phylloxera unless laboratory protocols have failed.


Likelihood of distribution – additional factors relevant to Dormant cuttings or rootlings

Commodity end-use – Dormant cuttings or rootlings are highly likely to transfer any phylloxera present, due to their planting in the soil and immediate food source.

Likelihood = High (700-1,000 times in 1,000 events)


controls in place

Likelihood of distribution – additional factors relevant to Potted vines

Commodity end-use – Potted vines are highly likely to transfer any phylloxera present, due to their planting in the soil and immediate food source and shelter of the phylloxera during transport in soil medium.



Likelihood of distribution – additional factors relevant to Grapevine tissue cultures

Commodity end-use – Grapevine tissue cultures are produced in a sterile environment and their eventual release from a laboratory into a nursery would be undertaken with strict biosecurity procedures in place.



Likelihood of distribution – additional factors relevant to Grape harvesters

Commodity end-use – Grape harvesters are highly likely to transfer any phylloxera present, to a susceptible part of the vine, given they are driven down vine rows coming into contact with soil and vine canopies. Grape harvesters are also used at a time of the year when phylloxera is at its highest abundance.



Likelihood of distribution – additional factors relevant to Other machinery

Commodity end-use – Other machinery including tractors, spray equipment, pruners, forklifts, backhoes, and excavators is highly likely to transfer any phylloxera present, to a susceptible part of the vine, given it operates down vine rows coming into contact with soil and vine canopies.




Likelihood of distribution – additional factors relevant to Equipment - Grape bins or containers

Commodity end-use – If phylloxera was to come into SA on a grape bin or container which is then placed onto a non-hard pack surface adjacent to vines, there is a risk that phylloxera could be transferred from the bins to the vineyard either by natural movement or vectored on machinery or footwear. If infected grape bins were placed onto bin trailers and then moved down vine rows, there is a risk that phylloxera or soil or plant material clods could fall onto a vine and become established. There is a chance however, that if phylloxera which has entered on a grape bin falls off on a hard pack area away from vines and is exposed to high temperatures in summer during vintage, they will perish, even if survival for 21 days without food is possible.

Likelihood = Moderate (300- 700 in 1,000 events)


Likelihood of distribution – additional factors relevant to Equipment - Trellis posts

Commodity end-use – any phylloxera present on used trellis posts coming into SA that have a destination for another vineyard presents a likely risk of distribution as these posts would be placed adjacent to already or soon to be planted vines.



Likelihood of distribution – additional factors relevant to Equipment - Hand tools

Commodity end-use – any hand tools coming into SA contaminated with phylloxera are a likely high risk of distribution as these tools are used in direct contact with vines.



Likelihood of distribution – additional factors relevant to Equipment - Netting

Commodity end-use – any netting coming into SA contaminated with phylloxera is a likely high risk of distribution as these nets come into direct contact with vines when placed out into the vineyard and are applied at times of peak phylloxera abundance.

Likelihood = Moderate (300-700 times in 1,000 events) Nets are only used around vintage time. If they entered SA after vintage and were place in a shed until the following year the risk of direct transfer of viable phylloxera would be reduced.


Likelihood of distribution – additional factors relevant

Commodity end-use – winery equipment in most situations is operated on a hard pack surface which can heat up and kill any phylloxera which may fall onto it, although phylloxera crawlers can survive for up to 3 weeks without food. Operation of this equipment is seldom undertaken



to Winery equipment

in close proximity to vines, with the only exception being mobile crushing machinery.


Likelihood of distribution – additional factors relevant to Table grapes

Commodity end-use – Harvested and packing house-disinfested table grapes are unlikely to be a pathway for phylloxera to reach and infest susceptible grapevines as these grapes will either go direct to market or to a packing house, not within close proximity to vines. Risks from by-products and waste – waste from table grape consumption is likely to be sent to landfill or composted, again away from susceptible vines.



Likelihood of distribution – additional factors relevant to Winegrapes

As a commodity, winegrapes are commonly collected on a truck from the vineyard from which they are harvested and driven directly to the processing facility within the shortest timeframe to ensure winegrape quality is not compromised. On occasions, backloading of small parcels onto the same truck does occur where the truck will visit multiple vineyards before reaching the winery and this activity provides a pathway for cross-contamination between vineyards of phylloxera infested winegrapes, through spillage or transfer via forklifts moving the bins. Overfilling of grape bins or poorly maintained grape bins leading to spillage of grape juice, or a truck accident, are additional pathways by which contaminated product could reach vines en route to the winery. Once at a winery, spills onto bitumen are unlikely to result in phylloxera survival as the heat radiated from the bitumen, especially in the height of summer, would be considerable enough to kill phylloxera. Commodity end-use – A proportion of phylloxera active life-stages can survive post-harvest grape processing including crushing, destemming and pressing and so can be present in juice. Processing of juice including filtering, fermentation and cold treatment can impact on phylloxera risk (Powell and Clarke, 2018). Once grapes have fully completed their winemaking process, the resulting wine product is no longer considered a vector for the spread of phylloxera. Dispersal mechanisms of the pest to allow movement from the pathway to a host – spillage management is tightly controlled through Chain of Responsibility Code of Conduct laws surrounding winegrape consignment. If spills were to occur at a winery on a bitumen surface, phylloxera is likely to die rapidly due to high heat. Risks from by-products and waste - Spreading of uncomposted grape marc from a winery onto adjacent vineyards, although a potential source of distribution, is not considered a common practice in industry.

Likelihood = Low (50 - 300 times in 1,000 events)


Likelihood of distribution – additional

Commodity end-use – Grape must and unfiltered juice imported into SA is transported in a tanker, driven directly to a processing facility. Spillage en route to the processing facility from a tanker containing



factors relevant to Grape must and unfiltered juice

contaminated product is a minor risk if the spill is adjacent to susceptible vines. Any phylloxera present from spills onto bitumen are likely to die from the radiant heat. Dispersal mechanisms of the pest to allow movement from the pathway to a host – spillage management is tightly controlled through Chain of Responsibility Code of Conduct laws surrounding grape must and unfiltered juice. Risks from by-products and waste – the management of waste from grape must and unfiltered juice is prescribed under ICA22 where it must be processed through the waste management system and not applied to vines.


Likelihood of distribution – additional factors relevant to Filtered juice

Commodity end-use - Filtered juice imported into SA is transported in a tanker, driven directly to a processing facility. Spillage en route to the processing facility from a tanker containing contaminated product is a very minor risk even if the spill is adjacent to susceptible vines as the filtering of the juice removes particulates of the size of grape phylloxera. Dispersal mechanisms of the pest to allow movement from the pathway to a host – spillage management is tightly controlled through Chain of Responsibility Code of Conduct laws surrounding tankered juice.



Likelihood of distribution – additional factors relevant to Wine

Commodity end-use – Wine imported into SA is transported in a tanker or bottled. Spillage of wine presents a very minor risk even if the spill is adjacent to susceptible vines as the filtering of the wine and complete fermentation ensures phylloxera risk is removed. Dispersal mechanisms of the pest to allow movement from the pathway to a host – spillage management is tightly controlled through Chain of Responsibility Code of Conduct laws surrounding tankered liquids.



Likelihood of distribution – additional factors relevant to Pre-fermentation grape marc

Commodity end-use – Pre-fermentation grape marc imported into SA presents a risk if the end use is composting directly in a vineyard. Spillage of contaminated product en route to the destination is a risk if the spill is adjacent to susceptible vines. Dispersal mechanisms of the pest to allow movement from the pathway to a host – spillage management is tightly controlled through Chain of Responsibility Code of Conduct laws.

Likelihood = Moderate (300 -700 times in 1,000 events) This rating is considered higher than that of grape must and unfiltered juice due to the propensity of grape marc to be spread onto vineyards, especially in small to medium sized winery operations



Likelihood of distribution – additional factors relevant to Post-fermentation grape marc

Commodity end-use – Post-fermentation grape marc imported into SA presents a very small risk of distributing phylloxera even if destined for composting in a vineyard, due to phylloxera susceptibility to heat produced through the composting process.



Likelihood of distribution – additional factors relevant to Grapevine diagnostic samples and vineyard soils

Commodity end-use – Diagnostic samples imported into SA present a very minor risk of distributing phylloxera given the packaging of the samples and carriage away from vineyards during transport. The only risk is a rollover of the transport vehicle and spillage of the contents of the packaging adjacent to susceptible vines. Risks from by-products and waste – samples originating from an approved or accredited laboratory are under strict guidelines for waste disposal, which prohibits waste being applied to vineyards, instead being treated by methods including autoclaving and deep burial.



Likelihood of distribution – additional factors relevant to Clothing

Commodity end-use - People who have walked down vine rows in a PIZ or PRZ could easily be in a SA vineyard region walking down vine rows again in the same clothes within a day and transfer the insects onto susceptible vines. These are most likely tourists who have the propensity to visit wineries or cellar doors through heightened interest in the wine industry; or industry personnel with a lack of understanding or disregard for farm-gate hygiene protocols.

Likelihood = Moderate (300-700 times in 1,000 events)


Likelihood of distribution – additional factors relevant to Footwear

Commodity end-use - People who have walked down vine rows in a PIZ or PRZ could easily be in a SA vineyard region walking down vine rows again in the same footwear within a day and transfer the insects onto susceptible vines. These are most likely tourists who have the propensity to visit wineries or cellar doors through heightened interest in the wine industry; or industry personnel with a lack of understanding or disregard for farm-gate hygiene protocols.

Likelihood = Moderate (300-700 times in 1,000 events)


Likelihood of Entry (Importation X Distribution)

Likelihoods of importation and distribution with existing controls are now combined using the tabular matrix in

Table 3. This matrix is also used for combining the likelihoods of entry, established and spread.

Table 3. A matrix of ‘rules’ for combining qualitative likelihoods (Biosecurity Australia, 2011) (DAWR, 2016)

High Moderate Low Very low Extremely low Negligible

High High Moderate Low Very low Extremely low Negligible

Moderate Low Low Very low Extremely low Negligible

Low Very low Very low Extremely low Negligible

Very Low Extremely low Extremely low Negligible

Extremely Low Negligible Negligible

Negligible Negligible

Pathway Likelihood of importation

Likelihood of distribution


Movement of grapevines from the Commonwealth post-entry quarantine facility

Very Low Very Low Extremely Low

PIZ


Likelihood of distribution1


Movement of dormant cuttings/rootlings Extremely Low High Extremely Low

Movement of potted vines Extremely Low High Extremely Low

Movement of grapevine tissue cultures Very Low Very Low Extremely Low

Movement of grape harvesters Moderate High Moderate

Movement of other machinery Low High Low

Movement of grape bins/containers Very Low Moderate Very Low

Movement of trellis posts Moderate High Moderate

Movement of hand tools High High High

Movement of netting High Moderate Moderate

Movement of winery equipment Moderate Very Low Very Low

Movement of table grapes Very Low Very Low Extremely Low

Movement of winegrapes Very Low Low Very Low

Movement of grape must and unfiltered juice Low Very Low Very Low

Movement of filtered juice Very Low Very Low Extremely Low

Movement of wine Very Low Extremely Low Extremely Low

Movement of pre-fermentation grape marc Extremely Low Moderate Extremely Low

Movement of post-fermentation grape marc Low Very Low Very Low

Movement of grapevine diagnostic samples and vineyard soils

Very Low Extremely Low Extremely Low

Movement of clothing High Moderate Moderate

Movement of footwear High Moderate Moderate

PRZ




Movement of dormant cuttings/rootlings Extremely Low High Extremely Low





1 Risk of distribution identified once in SA and therefore irrespective of Phylloxera Management Zone


Movement of grape bins/containers Moderate Moderate Low

Movement of trellis posts Low High Low

Movement of hand tools Moderate High Moderate

Movement of netting Moderate Moderate Low

Movement of winery equipment Moderate Very Low Very Low



Movement of grape must and unfiltered juice Low Very Low Very Low


Movement of wine Very Low Extremely Low Extremely Low

Movement of pre-fermentation grape marc Extremely Low Moderate Extremely Low

Movement of post-fermentation grape marc Low Very Low Very Low



Movement of clothing Moderate Moderate Low

Movement of footwear Moderate Moderate Low

PEZ




Movement of dormant cuttings/rootlings Very Low High Very Low






Movement of trellis posts Low High Low

Movement of hand tools Very Low High Very Low

Movement of netting Low Moderate Low

Movement of winery equipment Very Low Very Low Extremely Low



Movement of grape must and unfiltered juice Very Low Very Low Extremely Low


Movement of wine Extremely low Extremely Low Negligible

Movement of pre-fermentation grape marc Extremely low Moderate Extremely Low

Movement of post-fermentation grape marc Very Low Very Low Extremely Low



Movement of clothing Very Low Moderate Very Low

Movement of footwear Low Moderate Low

4.2.2.2 Likelihood of Establishment

Establishment is defined as the ‘perpetuation for the foreseeable future, of a pest within an area after entry’ (FAO, 2015). This process assumes that the pest has arrived (it has been imported and distributed) and now focusses on its ability to establish. Establishment is based on comparative assessment of factors that operate in the pest source area (Phylloxera Management Zones outside SA) and the pest risk area (South Australia), as relevant to the ability of the pest (grape phylloxera) to survive and reproduce. As a result, a single assessment can be made regardless of entry pathway. Factors considered include, host range and accessibility; survival and reproductive strategies; climate and geographic features; and agricultural practices.

2 Risk of distribution identified once in SA and therefore irrespective of Phylloxera Management Zone


Categorisation of likelihood also uses Table 2.


Likelihood of establishment - Factors relevant to each pathway

Host range and accessibility – Grape phylloxera specifically infects roots of Vitis species – commercial, wild and ornamental grapevines (Vinehealth Australia, 2017a). South Australia has 75,566 hectares under vine (Vinehealth Australia, pers. comm), of which approximately 97% is winegrapes – a very large food source on which to become established. In 2016-17, South Australia’s wine industry generated more than $2.3 billion in revenue (PIRSA, 2016). With the significant connectivity of the wine industry in terms of sharing of machinery, equipment and people, there is a very high chance of spread of phylloxera from one property to another once a property is infested, especially through a lack of farm-gate hygiene practices.

Reproductive strategies – In Australia, the asexual grape phylloxera lifecycle predominates. Establishment therefore only requires a single crawler (Powell and Clarke, 2018). From there, the crawler can develop rapidly to produce an apterous adult capable of producing several hundred eggs (Powell and Clarke, 2018) per cycle and can have five to nine egg laying cycles per growing season.

Climate and geographic features – Establishment requires phylloxera to survive and then reproduce. Powell et al. (2014) found that the crawler stage, that most likely to be picked up and moved, is able to survive for up to 21 days immersed in water depending on the temperature. It is also able to survive in broad climatic zones. The distribution of phylloxera worldwide includes all climatic zones where its host plant Vitis species is grown. It is present in regions with extreme temperature ranges, for example the Ararat Valley, Armenia where temperatures range from -30°C to 42°C (Armenian Travel Bureau, 2010) and cold regions of Russia including Moldova, Ukraine, in Rostov Region, Stavropol and Krasnodar Territories of Russia, in the Caucasus (Afonin et al., 2009). This broad temperature survival range of phylloxera would suggest that temperature is not a limiting factor in the potential for phylloxera survival in grape growing regions of Australia. Phylloxera has been detected in both cool and warm climate grape growing regions of Victoria and NSW (Powell and Clarke, 2018). Based on this variation in climate of the phylloxera infested zones, and the fact that Australia has 83 endemic phylloxera strains, a broad range of climates is conducive to survival and reproduction and therefore perpetuation of phylloxera, should it land in a winegrowing region in South Australia.

Agricultural practices – 72% of vines in South Australia are planted on own roots (Vinehealth Australia, in press) and therefore susceptible to phylloxera, thus facilitating perpetuation of the spread of an initial establishment. There are no known chemical or biological controls so planting on resistant rootstock is the only management option for grapegrowers, as well as implementing best practice farm-gate hygiene.



Likelihood of Entry and Establishment

Likelihoods of entry and establishment are now combined using the tabular matrix in Table 3.

Pathway Likelihood of Entry x Establishment


Extremely Low x High = Extremely Low

PIZ

Pathway Likelihood of Establishment

Movement of dormant cuttings/rootlings Extremely Low x High = Extremely Low

Movement of potted vines Extremely Low x High = Extremely Low

Movement of grapevine tissue cultures Extremely Low x High = Extremely Low

Movement of grape harvesters Moderate x High = Moderate

Movement of other machinery Low x High = Low

Movement of grape bins/containers Very Low x High = Very Low

Movement of trellis posts Moderate x High = Moderate

Movement of hand tools High x High = High

Movement of netting Moderate x High = Moderate

Movement of winery equipment Very Low x High = Very Low

Movement of table grapes Extremely Low x High = Extremely Low

Movement of winegrapes Very Low x High = Very Low

Movement of grape must and unfiltered juice Very Low x High = Very Low

Movement of filtered juice Extremely Low x High = Extremely Low

Movement of wine Extremely Low x High = Extremely Low

Movement of pre-fermentation grape marc Extremely Low x High = Extremely Low

Movement of post-fermentation grape marc Very Low x High = Very Low

Movement of grapevine diagnostic samples and vineyard soils Extremely Low x High = Extremely Low

Movement of clothing Moderate x High = Moderate

Movement of footwear Moderate x High = Moderate

PRZ







Movement of grape bins/containers Low x High = Low

Movement of trellis posts Low x High = Low

Movement of hand tools Moderate x High = Moderate

Movement of netting Low x High = Low










Movement of clothing Low x High = Low

Movement of footwear Low x High = Low


PEZ


Movement of dormant cuttings/rootlings Very Low x High = Very Low







Movement of hand tools Very Low x High = Very Low


Movement of winery equipment Extremely Low x High = Extremely Low



Movement of grape must and unfiltered juice Extremely Low x High = Extremely Low


Movement of wine Negligible x High = Negligible


Movement of post-fermentation grape marc Extremely Low x High = Extremely Low


Movement of clothing Very Low x High = Very Low


4.2.2.3 Likelihood of Spread

Spread is defined as ‘the expansion of the geographical distribution of a pest within an area’ (FAO, 2015). The likelihood of spread considers the factors relevant to the movement of the pest, after establishment on a host plant or plants, to other susceptible host plants of the same or different species in other areas. This process is based on a comparative assessment of biological information from the source area and the pest risk area as this relates to the ability of the pest to disperse. It considers, host availability; pest mobility; barriers to pest spread and industry awareness. The rate of spread of phylloxera should also be considered. Phylloxera infestations have the capability of moving up to 100m per season in a vineyard (www.vinehealth.com.au, 2016), this movement is dependent on many factors, including but not limited to:

• natural spread due to wind – this may be dependent on the site

• presence of winged phase of phylloxera as part of the lifecycle – this is dependent on the phylloxera strain present

• the natural virulence of the phylloxera strain present

• presence of natural barriers where no vines are present – site specific

• method of initial vector transmission

• vectored movement - abundance of vineyard traffic from machinery and people with the potential to spread the phylloxera down vine rows within a block, between vineyards

• presence of own rooted vines in a vineyard block Categorisation of likelihood of spread also uses Table 2 and is independent of the mode of entry into South Australia.



Likelihood of spread

Host availability – Grape phylloxera feeds on roots of Vitis species – commercial, wild and ornamental grapevines (Vinehealth Australia, 2017a). South Australia has 75,566 hectares under vine (Vinehealth Australia, pers. comm). These vast plantings of the commodity in question, apart from ornamental vines grown in many backyards around Australia, demonstrate the planted area at risk of a phylloxera infestation. Furthermore, 72% of South Australia’s vines are planted on own roots (Vinehealth Australia, in press), susceptible to phylloxera. However, grafted vines can also sustain populations of phylloxera, which can spread to ungrafted vines (Vinehealth Australia, 2017b). Pest mobility – Grape phylloxera can spread locally by the movement of contaminated footwear, clothing, soil, grapevine material, grapes and grape products, machinery or equipment, wind dispersal and anecdotally by feral animals including foxes and kangaroos. Disease spread between geographical regions most likely occurs through the movement of contaminated soil, footwear, clothing, machinery, equipment, grapevine material, grapes and grape products. Phylloxera first instars can survive for up to 21 days immersed in water depending on the temperature (Powell et al., 2014), therefore improving likelihood of survival during spread. Farm-gate hygiene practices are not being readily employed by all registered SA grapegrowers as reported by Vinehealth Australia in their recent Vineyard Owner Survey (Vinehealth Australia, 2018). Only 20% of respondents claimed to provide farm-gate hygiene training for their staff and contractors, 51% did not have a biosecurity plan in place for their vineyard, and only 17% keep a visitor register/log to record who’s coming onto their property. This lack of on-farm biosecurity coupled with the known interconnectedness of our industry via heightened contractor use bringing with it the sharing of machinery, equipment and people between neighbouring vineyards, within wine regions, between wine regions within a state and between states, is a large contributing factor of phylloxera spread being almost certain at present, despite efforts by government and industry to raise the profile of the importance of farm-gate hygiene. Barriers to pest spread - Current geographic spread of Phylloxera Infested Zones in Australia indicates ability of phylloxera to survive across a wide range of climatic conditions. Since 1991, phylloxera has spread in Victoria and resulted in the establishment of new PIZs in the Yarra Valley (Maroondah PIZ), Upton, Whitebridge and expansion of existing quarantine boundaries in Nagambie and North East Victoria PIZs. Since the initial establishment of the Maroondah PIZ in 2006, further detections have led to seven boundary expansions up until mid-2017. There is no proven chemical method to eradicate phylloxera on roots of ungrafted V. vinifera grapevines (Loch and Slack, 2007). Little information on biological control of grape phylloxera is available (Vinehealth Australia, 2017a). Therefore, once phylloxera is established, spread is very likely. Farm-gate hygiene including planting with vines grafted to phylloxera resistant rootstock and removing vines and leaving soil fallow are the only management options available to grape growers. Industry awareness – Vinehealth Australia has a long legacy of 119 years’ service of leadership in biosecurity and direct link to its approximately 3,400 levy payers. Of its core activities, industry awareness and



promotion of best practice farm-gate hygiene, particularly with respect to phylloxera, are a key priority. Examples of the activities undertaken in this area include:

• Monthly E-newsletters http://vinehealth.com.au/news-2/newsletters/

• Featured articles http://vinehealth.com.au/news-2/featured-articles/

• Biosecurity alerts http://vinehealth.com.au/news-2/biosecurity-alerts/

• Vintage toolkit http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/farm-gate-hygiene/vintage-toolkit/

• Posters http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/farm-gate-hygiene/farm-gate-hygiene-posters/

• Fact sheets http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/farm-gate-hygiene/farm-gate-hygiene-fact-sheets/

• Signage – farm gate http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/farm-gate-hygiene/vineyard-signage/ and consumer-facing http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/farm-gate-hygiene/hosting-wine-tours-signage-2/

• Online tools http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/online-tools/

• Responsible Visitation Campaign http://vinehealth.com.au/projects/responsible-visitation-campaign/

• Grower disinfestation kits http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/hosting-visitors/grower-disinfestation-kits-2/

Likelihood of Entry, Establishment and Spread

Likelihoods of entry, establishment and spread are now combined using the tabular matrix in Table 3.

Pathway Likelihood of (Entry x Establishment) x Spread


Extremely Low x High = Extremely Low

PIZ








Movement of trellis posts Moderate x High = Moderate

Movement of hand tools High x High = High

Movement of netting Moderate x High = Moderate










http://vinehealth.com.au/news-2/newsletters/

http://vinehealth.com.au/news-2/newsletters/

http://vinehealth.com.au/news-2/featured-articles/

http://vinehealth.com.au/news-2/biosecurity-alerts/

http://vinehealth.com.au/news-2/biosecurity-alerts/

http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/farm-gate-hygiene/vintage-toolkit/

http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/farm-gate-hygiene/vintage-toolkit/

http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/farm-gate-hygiene/farm-gate-hygiene-posters/

http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/farm-gate-hygiene/farm-gate-hygiene-posters/

http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/farm-gate-hygiene/farm-gate-hygiene-fact-sheets/

http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/farm-gate-hygiene/farm-gate-hygiene-fact-sheets/

http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/farm-gate-hygiene/vineyard-signage/

http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/farm-gate-hygiene/vineyard-signage/

http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/farm-gate-hygiene/hosting-wine-tours-signage-2/

http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/farm-gate-hygiene/hosting-wine-tours-signage-2/

http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/online-tools/

http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/online-tools/

http://vinehealth.com.au/projects/responsible-visitation-campaign/

http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/hosting-visitors/grower-disinfestation-kits-2/

http://vinehealth.com.au/industry/resources/hosting-visitors/grower-disinfestation-kits-2/


Movement of clothing Moderate x High = Moderate

Movement of footwear Moderate x High = Moderate

PRZ







Movement of grape bins/containers Low x High = Low


Movement of hand tools Moderate x High = Moderate











Movement of clothing Low x High = Low


PEZ


Movement of dormant cuttings/rootlings Very Low x High = Very Low







Movement of hand tools Very Low x High = Very Low


Movement of winery equipment Extremely Low x High = Extremely Low



Movement of grape must and unfiltered juice Extremely Low x High = Extremely Low


Movement of wine Negligible x High = Negligible


Movement of post-fermentation grape marc Extremely Low x High = Extremely Low


Movement of clothing Very Low x High = Very Low



4.2.3 Assessment of potential Consequences

The objective of the consequence assessment is to provide a structured and transparent analysis of the likely consequences if the pests or disease agents were to enter, establish and spread in Australia. Pest effects with the potential to cause harm have been considered, and may be described as direct (effect on plant life or health, and other environmental effects) or indirect (effect on control, eradication, domestic and international trade and communities) and may occur in economic, environmental and social contexts. These pest effects have been individually rated at the geographic level that they most apply to. When considering the extent of a consequence of a disease, it is important to consider the persistence of its effects. In general, where the effect is prolonged, the consequences are considered to be greater (Biosecurity Australia, 2001) The magnitude of the potential impact for each criterion is described using four categories:

Indiscernible: Pest impact unlikely to be noticeable from normal day-to-day variation.

Minor significance: Expected to lead to a minor increase in mortality/morbidity of hosts or a minor decrease in production but not expected to threaten the economic viability of production. Expected to decrease the value of non-commercial criteria but not threaten the criterion’s intrinsic value. Effects would generally be reversible.

Significant: Expected to threaten the economic viability of production through a moderate increase in mortality/morbidity of hosts, or a moderate decrease in production. Expected to significantly diminish or threaten the intrinsic value of non-commercial criteria. Effects may not be reversible.

Major significance: Expected to threaten the economic viability through a large increase in mortality/morbidity of hosts, or a large decrease in production. Expected to severely or irreversibly damage the intrinsic ‘value’ of non-commercial criteria.

The estimates of the magnitude of the potential consequences are translated into a combined qualitative impact score (A–G) for the state using Table 4. For example, a consequence with a magnitude of ‘significant’ at the ‘State’ level3 will have a consequence impact score of E. Table 4. Assessment of local, district, state and national consequence impact scores based on the magnitude of the consequences at four geographic scales.

Geographic scale

Local District State Nation

Magnitude

Indiscernible A A A A

Minor significance B C D E

Significant C D E F

Major significance D E F G

The overall consequence for each pest is achieved by combining the qualitative impact scores (A–G) for each direct and indirect consequence using a series of decision rules (Table 5). These rules are mutually exclusive and are assessed in numerical order until one applies.

3 This can also be called Regional level estimation


Table 5. Decision rules for determining the overall consequence rating for each pest

1

Any criterion has an impact of ‘G’; or

Extreme more than one criterion has an impact of ‘F’; or

a single criterion has an impact of ‘F’ and each remaining criterion an ‘E’.

2 A single criterion has an impact of ‘F’; or

High all criteria have an impact of ‘E’.

3 One or more criteria have an impact of ‘E’; or

Moderate all criteria have an impact of ‘D’.

4 One or more criteria have an impact of ‘D’; or

Low all criteria have an impact of ‘C’.

5 One or more criteria have an impact of ‘C’; or

Very Low all criteria have an impact of ‘B’.

6 One or more but not all criteria have an impact of ‘B’, and

Negligible all remaining criteria have an impact of ‘A’.

Consequence ratings

Criterion Estimate and rationale

DIRECT

Plant Life or Health

Impact score: E – Significant at the state level Grape phylloxera can form galls on the roots and leaves of susceptible plants with root feeding allowing the entry of fungi into the roots leading to decline of the plants (Granett et al., 2001). The relative impact of grape phylloxera entry to the state and then consequences to vine health of establishment and spread are considered to be significant at the state level, with moderate increase in vine death and moderate decrease in grape production. From the state perspective, a phylloxera incursion is not expected to irreversibly wipe out grape production, rather through management, grape growers are expected to adapt over time to an incursion. Yield losses would be expected gradually as vines die, but then through vine replacement (albeit at $60,000 per hectare, Vinehealth Australia, pers. comm) and maturing of these vines over the medium term, yields from a state level could be expected to return to pre-phylloxera incursion levels. Internationally, most wine growing countries are now thriving in the presence of grape phylloxera, with plantings on resistant rootstock the key. South Australia at present though, is very vulnerable to a phylloxera incursion. Vines planted on ungrafted V. vinifera rather than onto phylloxera resistant rootstock are most at risk to succumbing to phylloxera. In South Australia, 72% of vines are planted on own roots (Vinehealth Australia, in press), susceptible to phylloxera. Grafted vines are not immune to phylloxera though, and can sustain populations of phylloxera, which can spread to ungrafted vines (Vinehealth Australia, 2017b). There have been several hundred strains of the pest documented worldwide, of which Australia is known to have 83 endemic strains (Umina et al., 2007) (Powell and Korosi, 2014). At present, these endemic strains are confined to parts of Victoria and New South Wales. The impact on vines in South Australia of a phylloxera incursion would ultimately be affected by the strain or strains imported due to their varying virulence. Phylloxera feed on leaves and/or grapevine roots causing death of V. vinifera, within five to six years on average; but dependent on which endemic strain is present. The infestation rate and yield decline are significantly related to vine variety, seasonal temperatures, soil moisture levels and phylloxera strain. Fruit bearing grapevines in home gardens are also expected to be susceptible to phylloxera and would need to be replaced. Ornamental vines may have some resistance, but if so, then it is likely that their leaves will develop galls and the infestation may be detected.

Other aspects of the environment

Impact score: A – Indiscernible at the local There are no known direct consequences of grape phylloxera entry, establishment and spread on other aspects of the environment. It is assumed that infested vines will either die and/or be grubbed and in commercial situations, replanted with vines grafted to resistant rootstock.

INDIRECT


Control/Eradication Impact score: D – Major significance at the local level The indirect consequences of phylloxera entry into South Australia and subsequent establishment and spread, include control or eradication. Phylloxera being a predominantly root-dwelling insect, is inherently difficult to target with chemical treatments. It is little surprise then, that to date there is no proven chemical method to eradicate phylloxera on roots of ungrafted V. vinifera grapevines (Loch and Slack, 2007). Effectiveness of a treatment is also difficult to evaluate because although many phylloxera may be killed, populations may rebound rapidly and resume feeding on the vines (UCANR, 2015). Little information on biological control of grape phylloxera is also available. With the lack of available chemical or biological controls for phylloxera, the only cultural control measure available to growers at a local level is to remove infested vines. Blocks may be left fallow, replanted to crops other than grapevines, or replanted with vines grafted onto phylloxera resistant rootstock. The cost of grafted vine material alone is 3-5 times that of own rooted vine material. Pulling out vines and replanting comes at an approximate cost of $60,000 per hectare, including vine removal, new grafted vine material and new block infrastructure, notwithstanding loss of production while new plantings mature (Vinehealth Australia, pers. comm) and potential loss of brand value and company reputation, as well as visitor offerings which may be affected (Vinehealth Australia, 2017a). This large increase in cost for replanting with phylloxera resistant material is expected to threaten economic viability of businesses at a local level and hence a rating of major significance. The ongoing quarantine burden also needs consideration which is expected to greatly increase cost to an individual business and hence rated as a major significance at the local level. In addition to vine material costs of replanting a vineyard post phylloxera infection, other secondary management costs are likely to be incurred by the grower on an ongoing basis, which may include, but are not limited to additional machinery and infrastructure (such as heat sheds, washdown bays, etc), heightened farmgate hygiene practices (including cleaning and disinfestation), regulatory documentation to be obtained to facilitate movement of machinery and equipment out of an infested zone, and additional people and logistics management. Growers may also embark on farm level phylloxera surveillance programs to monitor spread within their own properties and this would come at a significant cost.

Domestic Trade Impact score: C – Minor significance at the District level The indirect consequence of phylloxera entry into South Australia and subsequent establishment and spread, includes effects on domestic trade, which have been rated at the district (wine region) level. The value of the wine industry to South Australia is immense. In 2017, South Australia’s area under vine was 75,624 hectares (Vinehealth Australia, pers. comm). Farmgate value of the 863,789 tonnes produced was estimated at $658 million in 2016-17, with 612 million litres of wine produced valued at $2.3 billion (PIRSA, 2017a). Continuity of supply is one factor likely to have a significant effect on domestic trade. Individual businesses may be unable to meet rising domestic demand obligations whilst replanting programs are underway, with newly planted vines not fully yielding and infested vines reducing in yield. This effect is likely to be reversible over time and would most likely lead to initial substitution of product at the district level, with regional branding and recognition strong in South Australia, therefore categorised as a minor significance at the District level. The presence of grape phylloxera in SA is likely to affect trade of grapes domestically due to quarantine regulations. All grapes grown in a PIZ must be processed inside the PIZ, and therefore growers contracted to wine businesses with processing facilities only outside the PIZ are likely to have significant issues, at a minimum in the initial season in which a new PIZ is declared. Movement of other grape products will also be affected from a quarantine viewpoint and could result in a loss of market. Quarantine implications on contracting businesses and nurseries would be significant. South Australia’s marketed ‘clean, green’ image could be at stake in the event of an incursion. This is not expected to discernibly affect domestic trade, with the current strong reputation of South Australian wine regions domestically.

International Trade Impact score: C – Significant at the Local level The indirect consequence of phylloxera entry into South Australia and subsequent establishment and spread, includes effects on international trade, but which would


only impact those businesses that undertake international trade, and therefore this rating is at the local level. South Australia exported 510 million litres of wine in 2016-17 to 111 countries, valued at $1.47 billion. China (including Hong Kong), the United Kingdom (UK), the United States of America (USA), Canada and New Zealand were the key export destinations, comprising more than three quarters (76%) of the total South Australian wine export value. South Australia’s export income target is $25 billion by 2020 (PIRSA, 2017a). Continuity of supply is one factor likely to have a significant effect on international trade at the Local level. Individual businesses may be unable to meet rising international demand obligations whilst replanting programs are underway, with newly planted vines not fully yielding and infested vines reducing in yield. Inability to meet international trade could result in substitution of product from another country. The presence of grape phylloxera on winegrowing businesses that do undertake international trade is not expected to affect their international trade from a commodity perspective as wine is processed, removing phylloxera and therefore no treatment would have to be imparted to the wine to facilitate international trade. However, South Australia’s marketed ‘clean, green’ image could be at stake in the event of an incursion, potentially reducing international trade. Even if a business is not inside a PIZ, there could be some negative impacts on all businesses if the state’s image is tarnished.

Communities Impact score: C – Minor significance at the District level The indirect consequence of phylloxera entry into South Australia and subsequent establishment and spread, includes effects on tourism and regional communities and is therefore rated at the district level. Grapevines are grown in domestic gardens for both food and amenity value as shade or ornamental features. Infested grapevines would need to be removed and the garden may lose some of its amenity value (Biosecurity Australia, 2011).

With approximately 8,500 employees in grapegrowing and winemaking, the wine sector in South Australia is the most significant of all states and territories in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011). In vintage 2017, South Australia’s Winegrape crush was 51% of the national crush at 984,000 tonnes (Wine Australia, 2018). South Australia also accounts for almost 80% of Australia’s premium wine production produced from some of the oldest vines in the world (PIRSA, 2016). The wine sector in South Australia is therefore a very important sector to the state's economy. Regional winemaking communities rely heavily on direct and indirect employment of wine businesses. Impacts to individual businesses that cannot recover from a phylloxera incursion due to the cost of replanting or complying with quarantine regulations may lead to employment losses, which could have flow on effects to regional communities. However, because there is commonly a multi-year lag between phylloxera infestation and vine death, businesses would on the whole be expected to adapt to these rising costs and implement replanting programs over time and absorb higher compliance costs as part of doing business.

Tourism could be negatively impacted initially, with the removal of old vines, often being tourist attraction, or through modifications to tourist offerings. However, even as part of preparedness activities, tourism operators are being trained not to allow visitors to access vines and to consider other offerings for tourists, so effects on tourism are not expected to be significant. This consequence is therefore rated as minor at the District level.

Overall Consequence rating for grape phylloxera entering, establishing and spreading within

SA = MODERATE


4.2.4 Final Risk Estimate

The final risks for the pathways presented are determined by combining the likelihood estimates of entry, establishment and spread with the overall consequence, using the risk estimation matrix (Table 6). The final risk is then compared with Australia’s ALOP to determine the need for risk management measures; particularly focussed on those risk pathways for which conditional entry in the SA PQS requires strengthening. Australia’s ALOP is ‘very low risk’. Table 6. Risk assessment matrix

LIK

EL

IHO

OD

of

Pe

st

En

try,

Es

tab

lis

hm

en

t a

nd

Sp

rea

d (

EE

S)

High Negligible Very Low Low Moderate High Extreme

Moderate Negligible Very Low Low Moderate High Extreme

Low Negligible Negligible Very Low Low Moderate High

Very Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Very Low Low Moderate

Extremely Low

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Very Low Low

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Very Low

Negligible Very Low Low Moderate High Extreme

CONSEQUENCES of Pest Entry, Establishment and Spread (EES)

Pathway Likelihood Rating

(P[EES]) Consequence summary rating

Risk Estimate of existing control in place


Extremely Low Moderate Negligible

PIZ

Pathway Likelihood Rating (P[EES])

Consequence summary rating


Movement of dormant cuttings/rootlings Extremely Low Moderate Negligible

Movement of potted vines Extremely Low Moderate Negligible

Movement of grapevine tissue cultures Extremely Low Moderate Negligible

Movement of grape harvesters Moderate Moderate Moderate

Movement of other machinery Low Moderate Low


Movement of trellis posts Moderate Moderate Moderate

Movement of hand tools High Moderate Moderate

Movement of netting Moderate Moderate Moderate

Movement of winery equipment Very Low Moderate Very Low

Movement of table grapes Extremely Low Moderate Negligible

Movement of winegrapes Very Low Moderate Very Low

Movement of grape must and unfiltered juice Very Low Moderate Very Low

Movement of filtered juice Very Low Moderate Very Low

Movement of wine Extremely Low Moderate Negligible

Movement of pre-fermentation grape marc Extremely Low Moderate Negligible

Movement of post-fermentation grape marc Very Low Moderate Very Low



Movement of clothing Moderate Moderate Moderate

Movement of footwear Moderate Moderate Moderate


PRZ




Movement of dormant cuttings/rootlings Extremely Low Moderate Negligible





Movement of grape bins/containers Low Moderate Low

Movement of trellis posts Low Moderate Low

Movement of hand tools Moderate Moderate Moderate


Movement of winery equipment Very Low Moderate Very Low



Movement of grape must and unfiltered juice Very Low Moderate Very Low

Movement of filtered juice Extremely Low Moderate Negligible

Movement of wine Extremely Low Moderate Negligible


Movement of post-fermentation grape marc Very Low Moderate Very Low



Movement of clothing Low Moderate Low


PEZ




Movement of dormant cuttings/rootlings Very Low Moderate Very Low






Movement of trellis posts Low Moderate Low

Movement of hand tools Very Low Moderate Very Low


Movement of winery equipment Extremely Low Moderate Negligible



Movement of grape must and unfiltered juice Extremely Low Moderate Negligible

Movement of filtered juice Extremely Low Moderate Negligible

Movement of wine Negligible Moderate Negligible


Movement of post-fermentation grape marc Extremely Low Moderate Negligible



Movement of clothing Very Low Moderate Very Low



5.0 Pest Risk Management The following are a summary of movement pathways for grape phylloxera with risk estimates which are

above Australia’s Appropriate Level of Protection of Very Low, taking into account current controls in

place. It is recommended that current restrictions in place surrounding each of these pathways are

insufficient. Proposed changes to the SA Plant Quarantine Standard or farm-gate hygiene practices to

reduce these risk levels are presented.

Phylloxera Infested Zone

Pathway Risk estimate with current controls in place

Proposed changes to SA PQS or farm-gate hygiene practices to reduce baseline risk

Movement of grape harvesters

Moderate • Harvester to be dismantled prior to cleaning with removal of belts and photographic timestamped evidence of the dismantled harvester when in the heat shed.

• Heat treatment to SA PQS specifications with data logger evidence to be supplied

• Continued communication by Vinehealth Australia of the importance of cleaning, to ensure efficacy of the disinfestation treatment applied thereafter – particularly applicable to grape harvesters which are very difficult to clean thoroughly of soil and plant material.

• Increase in time specifications associated with one of the dry heat treatment temperature options based on new science.

Movement of other machinery

Low • Machinery to be thoroughly cleaned

• Data logger evidence of sterilisation (dry heat or hot water) to be supplied

• Removal of steam as a valid disinfestation treatment due to high probability it cannot be applied practically to ensure efficacy using scientifically validated method


Movement of trellis posts

Moderate Prohibit entry into SA

Movement of hand tools

Moderate • Current silence addressed by adding entry conditions of cleaning free of soil and plant residues and sterilisation by one of four methods – dry heat, hot water, steam or sodium hypochlorite.

• Increase in time specifications associated with both dry heat treatment temperature options included.

Movement of netting

Moderate Prohibit entry into SA




Movement of clothing and footwear

Moderate Continued communication by Vinehealth Australia: 1. If your operational visitors have either not visited

another vineyard in the three weeks prior and walked down vine rows or near vines, or only visited vineyards in a PEZ, provide them alternative footwear, or ensure footwear disinfestation is undertaken on entry and exit of vine rows. And, provide a disposable chemical suit, or alternative clothing that remains on your vineyard.

2. If your operational visitors have visited another vineyard in a PRZ, PIZ or overseas wine region in the three weeks prior, and walked down vine rows or near vines: a. If the visitor is not wearing the same clothes

(including hats) or shoes that they wore in the PRZ, PIR or overseas wine region, they must wear a disposable chemical suit or change into alternative clothing that remains on your vineyard. And, wear alternative footwear or undertake footwear disinfestation on entry and exit of vine rows.

b. If the visitor is wearing the same shoes that they wore in the PRZ, PIR or overseas wine region, and these shoes have not been disinfested according to the Footwear and Small Hand Tool Disinfestation protocol (http://vinehealth.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Vinehealth-Footwear-and-Small-Hand-Tools-Disinfestation-Protocol-White-A3.pdf) prior to entering your property, deny these operational visitors access to your vine rows. Explain that their footwear presents a risk and must be disinfested according to the Footwear and Small Hand Tool Disinfestation protocol prior to coming onto your property and away from vines.

c. If the visitor is wearing the same shoes that they wore in the PRZ, PIZ or overseas wine region, and these shoes have been disinfested according to the Footwear and Small Hand Tool Disinfestation protocol prior to entering your property, provide alternative footwear or ensure footwear disinfestation is undertaken again on entry and exit of vine rows. Conditional entry at this stage though is subject to the state of the clothing worn. If the operational visitors are also wearing the same clothing (including hats) they wore in the PRZ, PIZ or overseas wine region, they must be denied access, even if they wore a disposable suit in the vineyard they recently visited. Only options for controlled entry are for visitors to change into their own clean clothes and then wear a disposable chemical suit, or to change into alternative clothing that remains on your vineyard.

http://vinehealth.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Vinehealth-Footwear-and-Small-Hand-Tools-Disinfestation-Protocol-White-A3.pdf





Phylloxera Risk Zone




Moderate • Harvester to be dismantled prior to cleaning with removal of belts and photographic timestamped evidence of the dismantled harvester when in the heat shed.

• Heat treatment to SA PQS specifications with data logger evidence to be supplied

• Continued communication by Vinehealth Australia of the importance of cleaning, to ensure efficacy of the disinfestation treatment applied thereafter – particularly applicable to grape harvesters which are very difficult to clean thoroughly of soil and plant material.



Low • Machinery to be thoroughly cleaned

• Data logger evidence of sterilisation (dry heat or hot water) to be supplied



Movement of grape bins/containers

Low • Change to entry conditions to require disinfestation as for bins or containers from PIZ. Dry heat also added as an additional valid disinfestation treatment in addition to hot water.



Low • Prohibit entry into SA

Movement of hand tools

Moderate • Current silence addressed by adding entry conditions of cleaning free of soil and plant residues and sterilisation by one of four methods – dry heat, hot water, steam or sodium hypochlorite.


Movement of netting

Low • Prohibit entry into SA due to probable inability to clean of soil and plant material.




Movement of clothing and footwear

Low Continued communication by Vinehealth Australia: 1. If your operational visitors have either not visited

another vineyard in the three weeks prior and walked down vine rows or near vines, or only visited vineyards in a PEZ, provide them alternative footwear, or ensure footwear disinfestation is undertaken on entry and exit of vine rows. And, provide a disposable chemical suit, or alternative clothing that remains on your vineyard.

2. If your operational visitors have visited another vineyard in a PRZ, PIZ or overseas wine region in the three weeks prior, and walked down vine rows or near vines: a. If the visitor is not wearing the same clothes

(including hats) or shoes that they wore in the PRZ, PIR or overseas wine region, they must wear a disposable chemical suit or change into alternative clothing that remains on your vineyard. And, wear alternative footwear or undertake footwear disinfestation on entry and exit of vine rows.

b. If the visitor is wearing the same shoes that they wore in the PRZ, PIR or overseas wine region, and these shoes have not been disinfested according to the Footwear and Small Hand Tool Disinfestation protocol (http://vinehealth.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Vinehealth-Footwear-and-Small-Hand-Tools-Disinfestation-Protocol-White-A3.pdf) prior to entering your property, deny these operational visitors access to your vine rows. Explain that their footwear presents a risk and must be disinfested according to the Footwear and Small Hand Tool Disinfestation protocol prior to coming onto your property and away from vines.

c. If the visitor is wearing the same shoes that they wore in the PRZ, PIZ or overseas wine region, and these shoes have been disinfested according to the Footwear and Small Hand Tool Disinfestation protocol prior to entering your property, provide alternative footwear or ensure footwear disinfestation is undertaken again on entry and exit of vine rows. Conditional entry at this stage though is subject to the state of the clothing worn. If the operational visitors are also wearing the same clothing (including hats) they wore in the PRZ, PIZ or overseas wine region, they must be denied access, even if they wore a disposable suit in the vineyard they recently visited. Only options for controlled entry are for visitors to change into their own clean clothes and then wear a disposable chemical suit, or to change into alternative clothing that remains on your vineyard.






Phylloxera Exclusion Zone




Moderate • Harvester to be dismantled prior to cleaning with removal of belts.

• Submission of a certified statement that the harvester has not worked in a PIZ or PRZ within the previous 6 months. If true – thorough cleaning required.

• If harvester has been used in a PRZ or PIZ within previous 6 months, then it needs to have been dismantled for cleaning and sterilisation according to SA heat treatment specifications and have been accompanied by photographic timestamped evidence of the dismantling and data logger evidence of the heat treatment.

• Continued communication by Vinehealth Australia of the importance of cleaning, to ensure efficacy of the disinfestation treatment applied thereafter – particularly applicable to grape harvesters which are very difficult to clean thoroughly of soil and plant material



Low • Machinery to be thoroughly cleaned.

• Submission of a certified statement that the machinery has not worked in a PIZ or PRZ within the previous 6 months. If true – thorough cleaning required.

• If machinery has been used in a PRZ or PIZ within previous 6 months, then it needs to have been thoroughly cleaned and sterilised according to SA heat treatment specifications and have been accompanied by data logger evidence of the heat or hot water treatment.

• Continued communication by Vinehealth Australia of the importance of cleaning, to ensure efficacy of the disinfestation treatment applied thereafter – particularly applicable to grape harvesters which are very difficult to clean thoroughly of soil and plant material



Low • Cleaned thoroughly and sterilised by hot water or dry heat (because have been in soil)



Movement of netting

Low • Prohibit entry into SA due to probable inability to clean of soil and plant material.

Movement of footwear and clothing

Low Continued communication by Vinehealth Australia: 1. If your operational visitors have either not visited

vineyards in the three weeks prior and walked down vine rows or near vines, or only visited vineyards in a PEZ, provide them alternative footwear (including gum boots




or work boots), or sturdy shoe covers, or ensure footwear disinfestation is undertaken on entry and exit of vine rows.

2. If your operational visitors have visited vineyards in a PRZ, PIZ or overseas wine region in the three weeks prior and walked down vine rows or near vines:

a. If the operational visitors are wearing the same clothing (including hats) they wore in the PRZ, PIZ or overseas wine region, they must be denied access to your vine rows, even if they wore a disposable suit in the vineyard they recently visited.

b. If the operational visitors have changed their clothing (including hats) and shoes that they wore in the PRZ, PIZ or overseas wine region, provide them alternative footwear, or sturdy shoe covers, or ensure footwear disinfestation is undertaken on entry and exit of vine rows.

c. If the operational visitors have changed their clothing (including hats) but not shoes that they wore in the PRZ, PIZ or overseas wine region:

i. If the shoes were disinfested prior to entering your property, provide alternative footwear or ensure footwear disinfestation is undertaken on entry and exit of vine rows.

ii. If the shoes were not disinfested prior to entering your property, deny access to your vine rows and advise the operational visitors that footwear presents a risk and must be disinfested prior to coming onto your property and away from vineyards.


6.0 References Armenian Travel Bureau. (2010). Climate in Armenia. http://www.atb.am/en/armenia/nature/climate/

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2011). Census of Population and Housing.

Biosecurity Australia (2001). Guidelines for Import Risk Analysis – Draft.

Biosecurity Australia (2011). Final import risk analysis report for table grapes from the People’s Republic of

China.

Corrie, A.M. and Hoffmann, A.A. (2004). Fine-scale genetic structure of grape phylloxera from the roots

and leaves of Vitis. Heredity 92, 118–127.

Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (DAWR) (2016). Draft report for the non-regulated analysis of existing policy for table grapes from Sonora, Mexico. Huber, L., Eisenbeis, G., Porten, M. and Ruhl, E.H. (2003). The influence of organically managed vineyard

soils on the phylloxera populations and the vigour of grapevines. Acta Horticulturae 617, 55–59.

INRA (2009). Viteus vitifoliae (Fitch) Dactylosphaera vitifoliae Fitch, Viteus vitifolii (Shimer).

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) (2007). Framework for pest risk analysis. IPSM 2.

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) (2013). Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests. IPSM 11. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) (2015). International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures. ISPM 5: Glossary of phytosanitary terms. Forneck, A. and Huber, L. (2009). (A)sexual reproduction—a review of life-cycles of grape phylloxera,

Daktulosphaira vitifoliae. Entomologia experimentalis et Applicata 131, 1– 10.

Granett J., Walker M.A., Kocsis L and Omer A.D. (2001). Biology and management of grape phylloxera. Annual Review of Entomology 46: 387-412.

King, P.D. and Buchanan, G.A. (1986). The dispersal of phylloxera crawlers and spread of phylloxera

infestations in New Zealand and Australian vineyards. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 37, 26-

33.

Loch A. and Slack, J. (2007). Grape phylloxera: the world's worst grapevine pest. Primefacts: Profitable and Sustainable Primary Industries 553: 1-4. National Vine Health Steering Committee (NVHSC) (2009). National Phylloxera Management Protocol. http://vinehealth.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/National-Phylloxera-Management-Protocol.pdf Omer, A.D., Granett, J. and Walker, M.A. (2002) Influence of plant growth stage on grape phylloxera

(Homoptera: Phylloxeridae) populations. Environmental Entomology 31, 120–126.

Pearce, I., McLoughlin, S., Tully, B., Ophel-Keller, K, McKay, A., Giblot-Ducray, D., Hall, B., Correll, R., Collins,

C., Raven, G., King, G. and Anderson, C. (2018). Sampling strategies for sensitive, accurate, cost-effective

detection of grape phylloxera for quantifying area freedom status. PBCRC 2061. Final report to Plant

http://www.atb.am/en/armenia/nature/climate/

http://vinehealth.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/National-Phylloxera-Management-Protocol.pdf


Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre.

Phylloxera and Grape Industry Board of South Australia (PGIBSA). (2003). A guide to grape phylloxera in

Australia. Phylloxera and Grape Industry Board of South Australia, Australia.

Powell, K.S. (2000). Management of Grape Phylloxera in South-East Australia Phase I and Phase II.

GRDC/NRE Report. p171.

Powell, K.S. (2012). A holistic approach to future management of grapevine phylloxera. In: Bostanian, N.,

Vincent, C., Isaacs, R. (Eds.), Arthropod Management in Vineyards: Pests, Approaches and Future

Directions. Springer Science and Business Media BV, London, UK, pp. 239–251.

Powell, K. (2017). Risks and Management of Endemic and Exotic Phylloxera. Final report to Australian

Grape and Wine Authority. DEP 1301. p1-110.

Powell, K.S. and Clarke, C.W. (2018). A Scientific Basis for Risk Analysis of Grape phylloxera Daktulosphaira

vitifoliae Fitch. Wine Australia.

Powell, K.S. and Korosi, G.A. (2014). ‘Taking the Strain’ selecting the right rootstock to protect against

endemic phylloxera strains. Acta Horticulture 1045, 99-108.

Powell, K.S., Bruce, R.J., Korosi, G.A. (2014). Assessing the risk of phylloxera survival during white grape

processing. Acta Horticulture 1045, 49-58.

Primary Industries and Regions SA (PIRSA). (2016). Wine. http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/food_and_wine/wine

Primary Industries and Regions SA (PIRSA). (2017a). Wine ScoreCard 2016-17.

https://www.wineaustralia.com/getmedia/6635ddff-0eff-4c32-a350-

0aa45b5cad78/PIRSA_Wine_Scorecard_2016-17

Primary Industries and Regions SA (PIRSA). (2017b). Plant Quarantine Standard South Australia. Version 13

October 2017.

http://pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/239207/Plant_Quarantine_Standard_Version_13_-

_October_2017.pdf

Subcommittee on Plant Health Diagnostics (SPHD) (2016). National Diagnostic Protocol. Molecular

diagnosis of strains of: Daktulosphaira vitifoliae Fitch Phylloxera of grapevines.

Trethowan, C.J. and Powell, K.S. (2007). Rootstock-phylloxera interactions under Australian field

conditions. Acta Horticulture 733

Umina, P.A., Corrie, A.M., Herbert, K.S., White, V.L., Powell, K.S., Hoffmann, A.A. (2007). The use of DNA

markers for pest management-clonal lineages and population biology of grape phylloxera. Acta

Horticulture 733, 183–195.

University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources (UCANR). (2015). UC Pest Management

Guidelines – Grape phylloxera. http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/r302300811.html

Vinehealth Australia (2017a). Vigilance required in phylloxera fight. Australian Grapegrower and

Winemaker. pp34-38. http://www.vinehealth.com.au/media/GGWM-Feb-2017-Vinehealth-Australia-

Phylloxera-Update-article.pdf

http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/food_and_wine/wine

https://www.wineaustralia.com/getmedia/6635ddff-0eff-4c32-a350-0aa45b5cad78/PIRSA_Wine_Scorecard_2016-17

https://www.wineaustralia.com/getmedia/6635ddff-0eff-4c32-a350-0aa45b5cad78/PIRSA_Wine_Scorecard_2016-17

http://pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/239207/Plant_Quarantine_Standard_Version_13_-_October_2017.pdf

http://pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/239207/Plant_Quarantine_Standard_Version_13_-_October_2017.pdf

http://www.vinehealth.com.au/media/GGWM-Feb-2017-Vinehealth-Australia-Phylloxera-Update-article.pdf

http://www.vinehealth.com.au/media/GGWM-Feb-2017-Vinehealth-Australia-Phylloxera-Update-article.pdf


Vinehealth Australia (2017b). About grape phylloxera. Factsheet.

http://www.vinehealth.com.au/media/About-Grape-Phylloxera-Factsheet-Version-1.1.pdf

Vinehealth Australia (2018). Survey reveals work required. Electronic newsletter.

http://vinehealth.com.au/2018/08/14/survey-reveals-work-required/

Wine Australia (2018). Australian wine sector 2017 at a glance. Summary report.

https://www.wineaustralia.com/getmedia/ba012fa8-3e20-44e9-a783-

e8d137a2c74d/MI_SectorReport_Jan2018_F

http://www.vinehealth.com.au/media/About-Grape-Phylloxera-Factsheet-Version-1.1.pdf

http://vinehealth.com.au/2018/08/14/survey-reveals-work-required/

https://www.wineaustralia.com/getmedia/ba012fa8-3e20-44e9-a783-e8d137a2c74d/MI_SectorReport_Jan2018_F

https://www.wineaustralia.com/getmedia/ba012fa8-3e20-44e9-a783-e8d137a2c74d/MI_SectorReport_Jan2018_F

State Pest Risk Analysis for grape phylloxera ... · State Pest Risk Analysis for grape phylloxera...

Documents

Transcript of State Pest Risk Analysis for grape phylloxera ... · State Pest Risk Analysis for grape phylloxera...