Summary data for the incidence of live insects found in association with WPM during surveys of imported goods that were conducted before or after implementation of ISPM 15 in various countries.

aSeaport = maritime seaports; Con = containerized cargo; Non-Con = non-containerized cargo, also called break bulk cargo; Land ports = land border crossing between Mexico and USA.bWPM = wood packaging material. Consignment = typically these are imported goods that are similar in nature, have a similar origin, have been packaged and shipped in a similar manner, and have arrived at a port-of-entry at the same time. WPM items = individual units such as one entire pallet, or all crating associated with one imported product, or one piece of dunnage.cWPM infestation levels were based on values reported by the authors or on calculations based on data they included in their published papers. The infestation rate in Bulman [33] was based on the 1366 consignments that definitely contained WPM (i.e., cases, crates, pallets, and skids) as presented in Table 3 of that paper. These inspections were based on a random sample of less-than-full container loads. The rate in Bulman [34] was based on the 7916 consignments listed in Table 4 of that paper that definitely contained WPM, using the same categories listed for Bulman [33]. These inspections targeted primarily containers with full-container loads of cargo considered high-risk by the inspector and consisted of “door inspections” in which the doors at the end of the container are opened and all commodities are inspected as well as possible without removal. The values given in Salvage [35] were the published infestation levels and the containerized cargo was for less-than-full container loads; no information was given on how the consignments were selected. Values in Sánchez-Salinas [37] were for all consignments with WPM that arrived at the maritime port of San Antonio, Chile, during the 30-month inspection period (18 mo pre- and 12-mo post-ISPM15), and were based on data in Tables 8 and 10 in the thesis [37] after deleting the bostrichid data so that the analysis would be similar to our analysis of the AQIM data. Using the sample size data presented in Sánchez-Salinas [37], the calculated 47% reduction in infestation rate of WPM entering Chile after implementation of ISPM15 was not statistically significant (P = 0.23, Fisher’s exact test, one-tailed). Zahid et al. [36] presented actual infestation levels of individual WPM items with the ISPM15 mark that were sampled at three maritime seaports; however, the authors did not state how the WPM items were selected. Haack and Petrice [28] presented infestation levels of individual WPM items sampled at five seaports and one land border crossing during a 2-wk period at each port; the sampled WPM items were from containers that were selected for inspection during normal port operations.dPercentage values for the frequency at which bark was found is based on the same sampling protocol described above in footnote c.