2 September 2012 Last updated at 21:27 ET
By Mark Kinver
Environment reporter, BBC News

trees _62580248_3892669680_bcd8e914ba_b


UK trees are facing an “unprecedented level of threat” from pests and diseases, the Forestry Commission has warned.


All species are vulnerable to potential attacks – from ecologically vital oaks to non-native ornamental species, such as lawson cypresses.

The biggest risk, it warns, comes from non-native organisms, which – in their natural range – are kept in check by natural predators and environmental conditions.

However, if they are able to become established in the UK’s natural environment then there are often no natural controls to curb their spread, resulting in a potentially devastating impact on the landscape.

In October 2011, UK Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman launched the Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Action Plan, warning that millions of trees could be lost in the next few years unless urgent action was taken.

The Commission recently published biosecurity guidance, offering advice on steps that can be taken to avoid accidentally spreading damaging organisms on clothes, footwear, vehicles, etc.

“The fact that we are an island has helped us, because we are fairly impoverished compared with the European mainland,” explained Hugh Evans, head of Forest Research in Wales.

“So even the 20 miles of water is enough to protect us from the pests that are quite dangerous on the mainland.”

But our relative isolation has come at a cost, he warned.

“If pests do get through, then they arrive without the spectrum of natural enemies and that is one element that can make the effect within the arrival country much worse than in the country of origin.”

Growing trade

Richard McIntosh from Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera) says the growing volume of international trade is one reason for concern.

“Trade is becoming increasingly global, and there is an ever-widening diversity of plants and plant material being traded around the world,” he told BBC News.

“There are examples of where pests or pathogens have been introduced, and it is very difficult to respond to them once they are within the EU.

“Prevention is much better than cure but identifying all of the risks is not always the easiest thing to do.”

Probably the most widely publicised pathogen is Phytophthora ramorum, a fungal organism which was suspected of being introduced to these shores via the plant trade. There is no treatment; infected trees have to be felled and removed from the natural environment.

Although it had been present at low levels in the UK for a number of years, in 2009 there was a sudden change in the pathogen’s behaviour. It was recorded infecting and killing the commercially important Japanese larch trees in South-West England.

It was the first time in the world that P. ramorum had been found on a species of conifer. It has since been recorded affecting larch trees at sites in all four UK nations.

John Morgan, head of the Forestry Commission’s Plant Health Service observed: “We are still are pursuing a policy of reducing the level of the disease so then it does not spread further.

“If, over a number of years of felling, we can reduce its spread we can then preserve what we have left in terms of larch in forests.”

Dr Morgan added that the disease would not be eradicated: “Once something like that is established then we are purely looking at a policy of containment.

P. ramorum is definitely in the realms of containment strategies. By the time it was discovered in larches, it was too late.”

Experts say the symptoms to look out for on larch trees include dead and partially flushed trees present in groups, patches or distributed throughout a stand. An affected tree’s crown and branches die back, and there is a distinctive yellowing or ginger colour beneath the bark.

Unwelcomed guests

Another pest that was introduced to the UK as a result of human activity was the great spruce bark beetle.

bark beetle

Adult great spruce bark beetle (Image: Forestry Commission)


Introducing a natural predator proved to be an effective control of the great spruce bark beetle


“It clearly came into this country via wood that had not been debarked properly,” said Prof Evans.

“What was interesting – and I think this is [a] somewhat typical story – is that although we found it in 1982, our subsequent research found that it had been in the country at least 10 years prior to that.”

The beetle breeds under the bark and destroys the cambium (a layer of growing tissue that produces new cells to carry water, sugars and nutrients around the tree). This weakens the tree, and in most extreme cases, the damage can kill the tree.

As part of their research, Prof Evans said scientists quickly identified a possible “bio-control” option. They introduced a natural predator – another species of beetle called Rhizophagus grandis.

“We were able to bring that beetle in to the country; we got the very first licence for the release of a non-native species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

“It proved to be incredibly successful,” he told BBC News.

“[The great spruce bark beetle] did kill quite a few trees, but after the predator was introduced and we continued to monitor it for a few years, its population has dropped to a relatively low level. It is still spreading, but the predator seems to be following it.”

Preventing pests

Dr Morgan said UK control measures involved four stages.

Once a pest or disease becomes established, it becomes virtually impossible to eradicate it
“We try to prevent pest and diseases entering the country; then, if they have arrived, we switch to a policy of eradication to try and stop them becoming established,” he said.

“If they do become established then we try and follow a policy of containment which is to try and slow or stop the spread of the pest.

Finally, if all previous three efforts have failed then we operate a way that we can live with the particular pest or disease.”

There are a number of ways that scientists are able track the global or regional spread of a pest or pathogen, such as the EU Plant Health Directive that requires nations to report new outbreaks or new pathogens.

Another way data is shared among researchers is via bodies such as the European Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization and the International Plant Protection Convention.

“Both of these organisations have notification systems where countries are able to report developments that might be of wider interest,” revealed Fera’s Richard McIntosh.

“We monitor that sort of intelligence, together with information that might be coming out via publications, and also what we are finding – such as what we are intercepting at the national borders.”

Mr McIntosh said this information is used to produce a document known as a Pest Risk Analysis (PRA), which looks at the risks, possible impacts and control of each organism within a UK context.

Wider impact

Andrew Sharkey, head of woodland management for the Woodland Trust, said the impact of pests and diseases often had ramifications that were felt beyond the individual trees that were infected.

Experts recommend a “watching brief” for UK oaks amid concern of a Dutch elm disease-like outbreak
“Two of our sites have been affected [Phytophthora ramorum]… so we had to fell the larch on those sites,” he said.

“We are comfortable with this because it is good practice but it means that it has disrupted all of the site plans for those sites.

“The larches on one of the sites were on what we call ‘planted ancient woodlands’, which we were trying to restore back to native woodlands.

“This has an immediate impact on our biodiversity work and planning work.”

In 2011, Natural England’s Keith Kirby warned that the future well-being of the UK’s oak trees was at a crossroads because of the potential threat from a disease known as Acute Oak Decline (AOD), which experts warned could be as devastating to the treescape as Dutch elm disease.

Dr Kirby told BBC News that research was helping shed more light on dynamics of the mysterious disease.

“We are becoming more and more certain that it is basically a bacterial issue, and a beetle is involved in its spread. It appears that the problem is also exacerbated if the tree is under stress,” he said.

“But we are not that much further along in terms of knowing exactly how abundant or widespread it is.

“At the moment, it does not look as if it has gone beyond the East Midlands and southern England area, where most of the records have come from.”

As one of the UK’s leading woodland ecologists, Dr Kirby said people had to be philosophical about the fact that the composition of woodlands were going to change.

“We cannot attempt to maintain the mixtures that existed in the past,” he observed. “We have to accept that there will be change, and manage the dynamic situation.

“If you have got a changing environment, you cannot expect the communities and assemblages of species of past environments to survive.”

Related Stories

Pest and disease threats to UK trees 27 OCTOBER 2012, SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENT
UK oaks’ future ‘at crossroads’ 14 SEPTEMBER 2011, SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENT
New funds to tackle tree diseases 20 OCTOBER 2011, SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENT
Oak disease ‘threatens landscape’ 28 APRIL 2010, SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENT
DNA boost in tree killer battle 21 APRIL 2010, SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENT
Hunt to stop tree-killing beetle 01 APRIL 2012, UK
The decline of the English elm tree 21 AUGUST 2010, NEWSNIGHT





Rothamsted Reserch

where knowledge grows


Crop Biotech Update




 Leaf notching caused by pea and bean weevil

Rothamsted Research is key partner in a new research project which aims to design and produce a control system for beetle pests of peas and beans, which does not use blanket sprays of insecticides.

Pea and bean weevil and bruchid beetle are common pests in UK legumes. Damage caused by the weevil adult is visible as notching around the leaf margins and, although this damage doesn’t usually significantly affect yield, the eggs laid during feeding produce larvae which feed in the nitrogen-fixing root nodules of peas and beans, resulting in yield loss. Damage caused by bruchid beetle is visible as holes in the seed, affecting quality and value to the grower.

“Following discussions with growers over recent years, it has become apparent that current control using spray applications have become less effective,” says Becky Ward, Principal Technical Officer at PGRO.  “We believe this is either due to increasing pest pressure, or possibly decreased efficacy of pyrethroid insecticides.”

“As a result of this feedback, PGRO, Rothamsted Research, Oecos, Exosect Ltd and BASF plc are undertaking research to design and produce a control system for beetle pests of peas and beans, which does not use blanket sprays of insecticides.

“Instead, the beetles will be lured to simple devices, baited with beetle-specific attractive odours, where they will be coated with spores of an insect fungal disease. When they leave the device they will spread the disease to other beetles like them.

“This will reduce pest beetle numbers and damage to the crops without damage to the environment or other beneficial and non-target insects such as pollinating bees.

“The insect fungal disease occurs naturally in the soil in the UK and does not pose a risk to other animals. The attractants used are either insect-produced (a specific pheromone) or are odours produced by flowering peas and beans.

“The spores and the attractants will be prepared in a novel formulation that is electrostatically charged and sticks to the beetle’s body and is passed on to other beetles when they meet.”

Monitoring systems are already available which detect adults when they begin migrating in the early spring. The systems comprise traps containing pheromone lures or plant semio-chemicals and are used to aid spray application decision-making. The aim of this new project is to provide effective and environmentally-friendly biological control of both pea and bean weevil and bruchid beetle.

The project is partially funded by Innovate UK and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, with additional support from industry partners PGRO, BASF plc, Oecos and Exosect Ltd.

“The partners are starting detailed work on the project in October with research and investigations being carried out over the next four years,” adds Becky Ward.

Dr Toby Bruce of Rothamsted Research said: “I’m very excited about this new project because it will use species specific attractants to make crop pests come to a biological control agent rather than blanket spraying with insecticide. This could change how we control insect pests in fields. It uses a very innovative formulation that will allow co-delivery of a pea and bean weevil aggregation pheromone with a biocontrol agent.”


  • Toby Bruce
  • For further technical information, please contact PGRO:  +44 (0)1780 782585   info@pgro.org
    For press information, contact PGRO’s PR agency, Ahead Ltd on +44 (0)190 4634040  mail@aheadpr.eu


Plant Health Hawaii

Sites: IBIS PH
Publish date: Sat 2014-Oct-18
Discovery date: Sun 2014-Oct-19
Author: Janelle
Channel: Industry
Text (summary):
HONOLULU — One live adult coconut rhinoceros beetle (CRB) has been found near the Diamond Head Lookout on Oahu’s south shore. The lone CRB was found yesterday by CRB crews checking survey traps. This is the first time that a CRB has been found east of the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam (JBPH-H) 6-mile zone where the CRB were initially found in December 2013. A second two-mile buffer zone was created in the Campbell Industrial Park area after a CRB was found in a survey trap in July 2014. A third two-mile buffer zone is being established around the Diamond Head Lookout.

Beginning next week traps will be deployed in higher density in the new buffer zone. Additional surveys for breeding sites and damage to coconut trees will also be conducted.

“The detection of this beetle on Diamond Head is of great concern,” said Scott Enright, chairperson of the Board of Agriculture. “Our crews will step up activities in that area and ask residents to survey their palm trees and also check any mulch piles which may serve as a reservoir for the beetles.”

- See more at: http://planthealth.org/article/coconut-rhinoceros-beetle-found-diamond-head#sthash.xsS1QQqg.dpuf

From: EurekAlert

Contact: David Orenstein
Brown University

iceplant 79961_rel
IMAGE: An iceplant, from a region of high diversity in South Africa, is overtopping and killing a native shrub on the New Zealand coast, a region with far less diversity.



PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — Dov Sax of Brown University and Jason Fridley of Syracuse University aren’t proposing a novel idea to explain species invasiveness. In fact, Charles Darwin articulated it first. What’s new about Sax and Fridley’s “Evolutionary Imbalance Hypothesis” (EIH) is that they’ve tested it using quantifiable evidence and report in Global Ecology and Biogeography that the EIH works well.

The EIH idea is this: Species from regions with deep and diverse evolutionary histories are more likely to become successful invaders in regions with less deep, less diverse evolutionary histories. To predict the probability of invasiveness, ecologists can quantify the imbalance between the evolutionary histories of “donor” and “recipient” regions as Sax and Fridley demonstrate in several examples.

Darwin’s original insight was that the more challenges a region’s species have faced in their evolution, the more robust they’ll be in new environments.

“As natural selection acts by competition, it adapts the inhabitants of each country only in relation to the degree of perfection of their associates,” Darwin wrote in 1859. Better tested species, such as those from larger regions, he reasoned, have “consequently been advanced through natural selection and competition to a higher stage of perfection or dominating power.”

To Sax and Fridley the explanatory power of EIH suggests that when analyzing invasiveness, ecologists should add historical evolutionary imbalance to the other factors they consider.

“Invasion biology is well-studied now, but this is never listed there even though Darwin basically spelled it out,” said Sax, associate of ecology and evolutionary biology. “It certainly hasn’t been tested before. We think this is a really important part of the story.”

Evidence for EIH

Advancing Darwin’s insight from idea to hypothesis required determining a way to test it against measurable evidence. The ideal data would encapsulate a region’s population size and diversity, relative environmental stability and habitat age, and the intensity of competition. Sax and Fridley found a suitable proxy: “phylogenetic diversity” (PD), an index of how many unique lineages have developed in a region over the time of their evolution.

“All else equal, our expectation is that biotas represented by lineages of greater number or longer evolutionary history should be more likely to have produced a more optimal solution to a given environmental problem, and it is this regional disparity, approximated by PD, that allows predictions of global invasion patterns,” they wrote.

With a candidate measure, they put EIH to the test.

Using detailed databases on plant species in 35 regions of the world, they looked at the relative success of those species’ invasiveness in three well-documented destinations: Eastern North America, the Czech Republic, and New Zealand.

They found that in all three regions, the higher the PD of a species’ native region, the more likely it was to become invasive in its new home. The size of the effect varied among the three regions, which have different evolutionary histories, but it was statistically clear that plants forged in rough neighborhoods were better able to bully their way into a new region than those from evolutionarily more “naive” areas.

Sax and Fridley conducted another test of the EIH in animals by looking at cases where marine animals were suddenly able to mix after they became united by canals. The EIH predicts that an imbalance of evolutionary robustness between the sides, would allow a species-rich region to dominate a less diverse one on the other side of the canal by even more than a mere random mixing would suggest.

The idea has a paleontological precedent. When the Bering land bridge became the Bering Strait, it offered marine mollusks a new polar path between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Previous research has shown that more kinds of mollusks successfully migrated from the diverse Pacific to the less diverse Atlantic than vice-versa, and by more so than by their relative abundance.

In the new paper, Sax and Fridley examined what has happened since the openings of the Suez Canal in Egypt, the Erie Canal in New York, and the Panama Canal. The vastly greater evolutionary diversity in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean compared to the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic led to an overwhelming flow of species north through the Suez.

But evolutionary imbalances across the Erie and Panama Canals were fairly small (the Panama canal connects freshwater drainages of the Atlantic and Pacific that were much more ecologically similar than the oceans) so as EIH again predicts, there was a more even balance of cross-canal species invasions.

Applicable predictions

Sax and Fridley acknowledge in the paper that the EIH does not singlehandedly predict the success of individual species in specific invasions. Instead it allows for ecosystem managers to assess a relative invasiveness risk based on the evolutionary history of their ecosystem and that of other regions. Take, for instance, a wildlife official in a historically isolated ecosystem such as an island.

“They already know to be worried, but this would suggest they should be more worried about imports from some parts of the world than others,” Sax said.

Not all invasions are bad, Sax noted. Newcomers can provide some ecosystem services — such as erosion control — more capably if they can become established. The EIH can help in assessments of whether a new wave of potential invasion is likely to change the way an ecosystem will provide its services, for better or worse.

“It might help to explain why non-natives in some cases might improve ecosystem functioning,” Sax said.

But perhaps Darwin already knew all that.


Muniappan headshot


Muni Muniappan wins award for work in tropical agriculture


Saving the papaya industry in southern India. Discovering an invasive species in Senegal and Nepal. Connecting researchers in developing countries. These are some of the accomplishments of entomologist Rangaswamy “Muni” Muniappan that caught the attention of the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development and that won him the organization’s 2014 award for scientific excellence.

Muniappan received the BIFAD Award for Scientific Excellence today in Des Moines, Iowa. It is presented each year by the presidentially appointed body that governs U.S. foreign assistance in agriculture.

Muniappan is director of the Integrated Pest Management Innovation Lab, a venture that works in developing countries to achieve three vital aims: minimize crop losses, increase farmer income, and decrease pesticide use. Muniappan, a longtime expert in the study of insects that benefit or harm humans, leads a multimillion dollar research portfolio of projects that includes partners from 16 American universities and 51 overseas organizations.

Muniappan discovered the papaya mealybug in Asia and helped employ biological control to eradicate it, which restored the livelihoods of thousands of farmers on the Asian subcontinent. This translated to an economic benefit of more than $1 billion over five years, according to a study published in the Journal of Crop Protection.

His discovery of the tomato leafminer (Tuta absoluta) in Senegal allowed experts to be warned so that preventive biological control measures could be taken for a pest that likely threatens all sub-Saharan tomato farmers.

Muniappan has created incentives for scientists to work together across national boundaries. He recently brought together scientists from South Asia and Central America in a conference on invasive species in Senegal.

Muniappan’s achievements also include control of such pests as the pink hibiscus mealybug, the fruit-piercing moth, the red coconut scale, the banana weevil, and the Asian cycad scale. He has worked to control weeds including the Siam weed, lantana, and the ivy gourd. He has been instrumental in establishing working groups for the weeds chromolaena and parthenium within the International Organization for Biological Control.

Muniappan’s career includes 36 years spent in Guam; a stint as a Fulbright Research Scholar in India; a UN Food and Agriculture Organization consultant in the Maldives, Palau, and Vanuatu; and a visiting professorship at the University of Guyana.

An honorary member of the International Organization for Biological Control since 2010, Muniappan has published journal articles in the Journal of Economic Entomology and Annals of the Entomological Society of America.

Funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, the innovation lab is managed by Virginia Tech’s Office of International Research, Education, and Development.

Related articles:
1. Speckled beetle key to saving crops in Ethiopia
2. Halting crop destruction in India saves up to $309 million
3. Virginia Tech research program confirms presence of invasive insect in Senegal
4. Virginia Tech entomologist helps Asian farmers fend off papaya mealybug



Tiny wasps deployed to kill crop-eating pests Indonesia’s cassava plantations are being killed by mealybugs, and thousands of wasps will be released to stop them.

Dana MacLean Last updated: 30 Sep 2014 11:25

cassava mealybugThe mealybug, originally from South America, is devastating Indonesia’s cassava crop [Georgina Smith/CIAT]
Scientists will release 3,000 parasitoid wasps in a cassava plantation in the Indonesian city of Bogor, hoping they will prey on the pink mealybug pest that has devastated the crop, the second-most-consumed starch in Indonesia.
The mealybug, a sap-sucking insect originally from South America, thrives in tropical climates and reproduces year-round. Each female lays about 500 eggs at a time, resulting in up to 15 new generations of the bugs annually.
“If not brought under control [in Indonesia], this invasive pest has the potential to considerably reduce cassava yield as it previously did in Thailand and elsewhere in the Asia region,” said Johannes Willem Ketelaar, the integrated pest management specialist for vegetables with the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) in the Asia-Pacific region.

cassava mealybug parasitoid

A photo of the parasitoid wasp released by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture [AP]
Parasitoid wasps lay eggs inside the mealybug – and when the eggs hatch as larvae, the mealybug implodes. The strategy has been successfully used before to address a mealybug infestation in Thailand in 2010, as well as in Africa’s cassava belt, where the pest population was reduced to less than 10 percent of its peak, according to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Centres (CGIAR).
But repeated introductions of new crops and species to foreign ecosystems were what created the mealybug problem in the first place. Neither the insect nor cassava are indigenous to the Greater Mekong subregion, which includes Thailand, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam, and China’s southern Yunnan province.
“There is always a risk of unintended consequences when introducing a new species into an ecosystem,” said Laura Kahn, a physician and co-founder of the One Health Initiative, a scientific research movement investigating interaction among humans, animals and ecosystems.
Nevertheless, using the parasitoid wasps as a form of biocontrol is more environmentally sound than pesticides, scientists say, and has a proven track record.

Taking over, ‘alien-style’
Indonesian cassava farmers first sighted the mealybug in 2010. The pests infected entire plantations in Lampung and Java by 2014, according to Aunu Rauf, an entomologist at Bogor Agricultural University.
Mealybugs slowly perish and completely die within about two weeks, while the parasitoid wasp develops and feeds inside the mealybug body.
– Kris Wyckhuys, cassava entomologist
“The farmers did not know how to contain it. They tried to cut the tips off the leaves, but it wouldn’t stop spreading,” said Rauf.
Scientists at the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) and FAO, in partnership with the Bogor Agricultural University, decided to introduce the wasps.
With heads the size of pins, the two-millimetre-long wasps use the mealybug’s body as a host by implanting their eggs inside and growing into larvae, eventually taking over the plant-sucking pests, “alien-style”, according to Kris Wyckhuys, a cassava entomologist at CIAT based in Hanoi.
“Following parasitism, mealybugs slowly perish and completely die within about two weeks, while the parasitoid wasp develops and feeds inside the mealybug’s body,” Wyckhuys explained.
It will take two years to bring down the mealybug population using the wasps, which scientists hope will adapt to local conditions and reproduce to initiate a long-term, full-fledged assault on mealybugs, which otherwise could become more resilient because of temperature increases associated with climate change.

Better than pesticides
The use of parasitoids, or parasite-like organisms that develop inside other life forms and later kill them, is more effective, safe and sustainable than pesticides, especially in Southeast Asia where farmers often do not use protective equipment, according to the FAO.
“Use of pesticides are often ineffective, contaminate the environment, can result in secondary pest outbreaks and can be hazardous for the applicator’s health,” said Ketelaar.

cassava mealybug parasitoid release

Agricultural officers prepare to release parasitoid wasps at a cassava field in Bogor, Indonesia [AP]
In addition, the waxy substance covering the mealybug’s body acts as an armour against insecticide, while the toxic poison is likely to kill other beneficial insects including the wasps, according to Rauf.
According to the FAO, for the wasp deployment to be successful, “farmers must stop use of pesticides”, stressed Ketelaar.
The study conducted before the wasp release did not find any potential negative side effects on Indonesian flora and fauna, noted CIAT’s Wyckhuys, who added the wasps have never been known to host in other species besides mealybugs.
But given that 75 percent of all emerging infectious diseases originate in the animal world – often when exotic species are introduced to a new place – risks cannot be completely ruled out, said Kahn.
For example, Kahn said, “white nose syndrome, the fungal disease that is decimating the little brown bat population in the US, was probably introduced by [a European species]. Hopefully nothing bad will happen with the wasps, but you never know.”
Entomologists, however, say the greater risk is that the initiative will not work, because of the use of pesticides or unforeseen wasp predators.
“The huge task of tackling the mealybug problem is just starting, and lots of work remains to be done,” concluded Wyckhuys.

Al Jazeera

Received from:






FirstAnnouncement_IWGLVV2015  2Invitation:

Dear Sir or Madam, dear colleague,

It is our pleasure to invite you to join us at the Fifth Conference of the International Working Group on Legume and Vegetable Viruses (IWGLVV), scheduled from Sunday 30 August – Thursday 3 September 2015 in Haarlem, The Netherlands.

A Call for Papers and Sessions will be issued in September 2014. The deadline for receipt of abstracts will be March 2015.

Please check this web site regularly for updates on registration and the scientific and social programme.

We are looking forward to welcoming you to The Netherlands for our Vth IWGLVV meeting in the beautiful and historic city of Haarlem.

The organizing committee
Links: http://www.plant-virology.nl/IWGLVV2015

First announcement: http://www.plantenvirologie.nl/IWGLVV2015/PDF/FirstAnnouncement_IWGLVV2015.pdf

Dr. M. (Martin) Verbeek
Plant Virologist
Wageningen UR, Plant Research International
Business unit: Biointeractions and Plant Health
PO Box 69
6700 AB Wageningen
Visiting address: Droevendaalsesteeg 1
Room: W0.Ec.011
6708 PB Wageningen
T +31 317 48 06 29
F +31 317 48 10 07
E-mail: martin.verbeek@wur.nl
Disclaimer: http://www.disclaimer-uk.wur.nl


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 209 other followers