Commodity risk assessment of Malus domestica plants from United Kingdom

EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH Panel); Claude Bragard; Paula Baptista; Elisavet Chatzivassiliou; Paolo Gonthier; Josep Anton Jaques Miret; Annemarie Fejer Justesen; Alan MacLeod; Christer Sven Magnusson; Panagiotis Milonas; Juan A Navas‐Cortes; Stephen Parnell; Roel Potting; Philippe Lucien Reignault; Emilio Stefani; Hans‐Hermann Thulke; Wopke Van der Werf; Antonio Vicent Civera; Lucia Zappalà; Andrea Lucchi; Pedro Gómez; Gregor Urek; Umberto Bernardo; Giovanni Bubici; Anna Vittoria Carluccio; Michela Chiumenti; Francesco Di Serio; Elena Fanelli; Cristina Marzachì; Agata Kaczmarek; Olaf Mosbach‐Schulz; Jonathan Yuen

doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8002

. 2023 May 12;21(5):e08002. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8002

Commodity risk assessment of Malus domestica plants from United Kingdom

EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH Panel)^✉, Claude Bragard, Paula Baptista, Elisavet Chatzivassiliou, Paolo Gonthier, Josep Anton Jaques Miret, Annemarie Fejer Justesen, Alan MacLeod, Christer Sven Magnusson, Panagiotis Milonas, Juan A Navas‐Cortes, Stephen Parnell, Roel Potting, Philippe Lucien Reignault, Emilio Stefani, Hans‐Hermann Thulke, Wopke Van der Werf, Antonio Vicent Civera, Lucia Zappalà, Andrea Lucchi, Pedro Gómez, Gregor Urek, Umberto Bernardo, Giovanni Bubici, Anna Vittoria Carluccio, Michela Chiumenti, Francesco Di Serio, Elena Fanelli, Cristina Marzachì, Agata Kaczmarek, Olaf Mosbach‐Schulz, Jonathan Yuen

PMCID: PMC10176602 PMID: 37187571

Abstract

The European Commission requested the EFSA Panel on Plant Health to prepare and deliver risk assessments for commodities listed in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 as ‘High risk plants, plant products and other objects’. This Scientific Opinion covers plant health risks posed by rooted plants in pots, bundles of bare‐rooted plants or trees and bundles of budwood and graftwood of Malus domestica imported from the United Kingdom, taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by the United Kingdom. All pests associated with the commodities were evaluated against specific criteria for their relevance for this opinion. Two quarantine pests (tobacco ringspot virus and tomato ringspot virus), one protected zone quarantine pest (Erwinia amylovora) and four non‐regulated pests (Colletotrichum aenigma, Meloidogyne mali, Eulecanium excrescens, Takahashia japonica) that fulfilled all relevant criteria were selected for further evaluation. For E. amylovora, special requirements are specified in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072. Based on the information provided in the Dossier, the specific requirements for E. amylovora were met. For the remaining six pests, the risk mitigation measures proposed in the technical Dossier from the UK were evaluated considering the possible limiting factors. For the selected pests, expert judgement is given on the likelihood of pest freedom, taking into consideration the risk mitigation measures acting on the pest, including uncertainties associated with the assessment. The degree of pest freedom varies among the pests evaluated, with scales (E. excrescens and T. japonica) being the pests most frequently expected on the imported budwood and graftwood. The Expert Knowledge Elicitation indicated with 95% certainty that between 9,976 and 10,000 bundles (consisting of 50 up to 500 plants each) per 10,000 would be free from the above‐mentioned scales.

Keywords: apple, European Union, pathway risk assessment, plant health, plant pest, quarantine

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and terms of reference as provided by European Commission

1.1.1. Background

The new Plant Health Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 ¹ , on the protective measures against pests of plants, has been applied from December 2019. Provisions within the above Regulation are in place for the listing of ‘high risk plants, plant products and other objects’ (Article 42) on the basis of a preliminary assessment, and to be followed by a commodity risk assessment. A list of ‘high risk plants, plant products and other objects’ has been published in Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 ² . Scientific opinions are therefore needed to support the European Commission and the Member States in the work connected to Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, as stipulated in the terms of reference.

1.1.2. Terms of Reference

In view of the above and in accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 ³ , the Commission asks EFSA to provide scientific opinions in the field of plant health.

In particular, EFSA is expected to prepare and deliver risk assessments for commodities listed in the relevant Implementing Act as “High risk plants, plant products and other\objects”. Article 42, paragraphs 4 and 5, establishes that a risk assessment is needed as a follow‐up to evaluate whether the commodities will remain prohibited, removed from the list and additional measures will be applied or removed from the list without any additional measures. This task is expected to be on‐going, with a regular flow of Dossiers being sent by the applicant required for the risk assessment.

Therefore, to facilitate the correct handling of the Dossiers and the acquisition of the required data for the commodity risk assessment, a format for the submission of the required data for each Dossier is needed.

Furthermore, a standard methodology for the performance of “commodity risk assessment” based on the work already done by Member States and other international organizations needs to be set.

In view of the above and in accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, the Commission asks EFSA to provide scientific opinion in the field of plant health for Malus domestica from United Kingdom (UK) taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical Dossier provided by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of United Kingdom.

1.2. Interpretation of the terms of reference

The EFSA Panel on Plant Health (hereafter referred to as ‘the Panel’) was requested to conduct a commodity risk assessment of Malus domestica from the UK following the Guidance on commodity risk assessment for the evaluation of high‐risk plant Dossiers (EFSA PLH Panel, 2019).

The EU quarantine pests that are regulated as a group in the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 were considered and evaluated separately at species level.

Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 lists certain pests as non‐European populations or isolates or species. These pests are regulated quarantine pests. Consequently, the respective European populations, or isolates, or species are non‐regulated pests.

Annex VII of the same Regulation, in certain cases (e.g. point 32) makes reference to the following countries that are excluded from the obligation to comply with specific import requirements for those non‐European populations, or isolates, or species: Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canary Islands, Faeroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Russia (only the following parts: Central Federal District (Tsentralny federalny okrug), Northwestern Federal District (Severo Zapadny federalny okrug), Southern Federal District (Yuzhny federalny okrug), North Caucasian Federal District (Severo‐Kavkazsky federalny okrug) and Volga Federal District (Privolzhsky federalny okrug), San Marino, Serbia, Switzerland, Türkiye, Ukraine and United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland ⁴ )). Most of those countries are historically linked to the reference to ‘non‐European countries’ existing in the previous legal framework, Directive 2000/29/EC.

Consequently, for those countries,

any pests identified, which are listed as non‐European species in Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 should be investigated as any other non‐regulated pest.
any pest found in a European country that belongs to the same denomination as the pests listed as non‐European populations or isolates in Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, should be considered as European populations or isolates and should not be considered in the assessment of those countries.

Pests listed as ‘Regulated Non‐Quarantine Pest’ (RNQP)’ in Annex IV of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, and deregulated pests (i.e. pests which were listed as quarantine pests in the Council Directive 2000/29/EC and were deregulated by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072) were not considered for further evaluation.

In its evaluation, the Panel:

Checked whether the information provided by the applicant (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the United Kingdom) in the technical Dossier (hereafter referred to as ‘the Dossier’) was sufficient to conduct a commodity risk assessment. When necessary, additional information was requested to the applicant.
Selected the relevant union EU‐regulated quarantine pests and protected zone quarantine pests (as specified in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 ⁵ , hereafter referred to as ‘EU quarantine pests’) and other relevant pests present in United Kingdom and associated with the commodity.
Assessed whether or not the applicant country implements specific measures for Union quarantine pests for which specific measures are in place for the import of the commodity from the specific country in the relevant legislative texts for emergency measures (https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/legislation/emergency_measures_en); the assessment was restricted to whether or not the applicant country applies those measures. The effectiveness of those measures was not assessed.
Assessed whether the applicant country implements the special requirements specified in Annex VII (points 1–101) and Annex X of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 targeting Union quarantine pests for the commodity in question from the specific country.
Assessed the effectiveness of the measures described in the Dossier for those Union quarantine pests for which no specific measures are in place for the import of the commodity from the specific applicant country and other relevant pests present in applicant country and associated with the commodity.

Risk management decisions are not within EFSA's remit. Therefore, the Panel provided a rating based on expert judgement regarding the likelihood of pest freedom for each relevant pest given the risk mitigation measures claimed to be implemented by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of United Kingdom.

2. Data and methodologies

2.1. Data provided by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the United Kingdom

The Panel considered all the data and information (hereafter called ‘the Dossier’) provided by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the United Kingdom in September 2021, including the additional information provided by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the United Kingdom in November 2021, September 2022 and February 2023 after EFSA's request. The Dossier is managed by EFSA.

The structure and overview of the Dossier is shown in Table 1. The number of the relevant section is indicated in the opinion when referring to a specific part of the Dossier.

Table 1.

Structure and overview of the Dossier

Dossier section	Overview of contents	Filename
1.0	Technical Dossier	GB Malus domestica dossier.docx
2.0	Pest list	UK_Malus_domestica_pest_list.xls
3.0	Additional information provided by the DEFRA of United Kingdom in November 2021	Defra response to EFSA ‐ Malus domestica.docx
4.0	Additional information provided by the DEFRA of United Kingdom in September 2022	Malus domestica EFSA questions Jul 2022.docx
5.0	Additional information provided by the DEFRA of United Kingdom in February 2023	Gymnosporangium juniperi‐virginianae_GB_response_Feb23

Database	Platform/Link
Aphids on World Plants	https://www.aphidsonworldsplants.info/C_HOSTS_AAIntro.htm
CABI Crop Protection Compendium	https://www.cabi.org/cpc/
Database of Insects and their Food Plants	https://www.brc.ac.uk/dbif/hosts.aspx
Database of the World's Lepidopteran Hostplants	https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/hostplants/search/index.dsml
EPPO Global Database	https://gd.eppo.int/
EUROPHYT	https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/europhyt/
Leaf‐miners	https://www.leafmines.co.uk/html/plants.htm
Nemaplex	https://nemaplex.ucdavis.edu/Nemabase2010/PlantNematodeHostStatusDDQuery.aspx
Plant Pest Information Network	https://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-and-resources/resources/registers-and-lists/plant-pest-information-network/
Plant Viruses Online	https://bio-mirror.im.ac.cn/mirrors/pvo/vide/famindex.htm
Scalenet	https://scalenet.info/associates/
Spider Mites Web	https://www1.montpellier.inra.fr/CBGP/spmweb/advanced.php
USDA ARS Fungal Database	https://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/fungushost/fungushost.cfm
Web of Science: All Databases (Web of Science Core Collection, CABI: CAB Abstracts, BIOSIS Citation Index, Chinese Science Citation Database, Current Contents Connect, Data Citation Index	Web of Science https://www.webofknowledge.com
FSTA, KCI‐Korean Journal Database, Russian Science Citation Index, MEDLINE
SciELO Citation Index, Zoological Record)
World Agroforestry	https://www.worldagroforestry.org/treedb2/speciesprofile.php?Spid=1749
GBIF	https://www.gbif.org/
Fauna Europaea	https://fauna-eu.org/
EFSA List of Non‐EU viruses and viroids of Cydonia Mill., Fragaria L., Malus Mill., Prunus L., Pyrus L., Ribes L., Rubus L. and Vitis L..	https://www.efsa.europa.eu/it/efsajournal/pub/5501

No.	Pest name according to EU legislation⁽ ^a ⁾	EPPO code	Group	Pest present in the UK	Malus domestica confirmed as a host (reference)	Pest can be associated with the commodity	Pest relevant for the opinion
1	Acleris minuta	ACLRMI	Insect	No	Yes (CABI, online)	NA	No
2	Aeolesthes sarta Trirachys sartus	AELSSA	Insect	No	Yes (CABI, online)	NA	No
3	Anastrepha fraterculus as Anastrepha spp.	ANSTFR	Insect	No	Yes (CABI, online)	NA	No
4	Anastrepha ludens	ANSTLU	Insect	No	Yes (CABI, online)	NA	No
5	Anastrepha serpentina as Anastrepha spp.	ANSTSE	Insect	No	Yes (CABI, online)	NA	No
6	Anastrepha suspensa as Anastrepha spp.	ANSTSU	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
7	Anoplophora chinensis	ANOLCN	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
8	Anoplophora glabripennis	ANOLGL	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
9	Anthonomus quadrigibbus	TACYQU	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
10	Aphis citricidus	TOXOCI	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
11	Apple fruit crinkle viroid	AFCVD0	Viroid	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
12	Apple necrotic mosaic virus	APNMV0	Virus	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
13	Apriona cinerea	APRICI	Insect	No	Yes (CABI, online)	NA	No
14	Apriona germari	APRIGE	Insect	No	Yes (CABI, online)	NA	No
15	Bactrocera cucurbitae as Bactrocera spp.	DACUCU	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
16	Bactrocera dorsalis	DACUDO	Insect	No	WOS (EPPO, online)	NA	No
17	Bactrocera tryoni as Bactrocera spp.	DACUTR	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
18	Bactrocera zonata	DACUZO	Insect	No	Yes (CABI, online)	NA	No
19	Botryosphaeria kuwatsukai	PHYOPI	Fungus	No	Yes (CABI, online)	NA	No
20	Candidatus Phytoplasma pruni‐related strain (North American grapevine yellows, NAGYIII)	PHYPPN	Bacterium	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
21	Carposina sasakii	CARSSA	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
22	Ceratitis quilicii as Ceratitis spp.	CERTQI	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
23	Ceratitis rosa as Ceratitis spp.	CERTRO	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
24	Cherry rasp leaf virus	CRLV00	Virus	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
25	Choristoneura rosaceana	CHONRO	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
26	Conotrachelus nenuphar	CONHNE	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
27	Cryphonectria parasitica	ENDOPA	Fungus	Yes	Yes (CABI, online)	No	No
28	Erwinia amylovora	ERWIAM	Bacterium	Yes	Yes (EPPO, online)	Yes	Yes
29	Eurhizococcus brasiliensis	EURHBR	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
30	Grapholita inopinata	CYDIIN	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
31	Grapholita packardi	LASPPA	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
32	Grapholita prunivora	LASPPR	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
33	Gymnosporangium clavipes as Gymnosporangium spp.	GYMNCL	Fungus	No	Yes (CABI, online)	NA	No
34	Gymnosporangium globosum as Gymnosporangium spp.	GYMNGL	Fungus	No	Yes (CABI, online)	NA	No
35	Gymnosporangium juniperi‐virginianae as Gymnosporangium spp.	GYMNJV	Fungus	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
36	Gymnosporangium yamadae as Gymnosporangium spp.	GYMNYA	Fungus	No	Yes (CABI, online)	NA	No
37	Lopholeucaspis japonica	LOPLJA	Insect	No	Yes (CABI, online)	NA	No
38	Lycorma delicatula	LYCMDE	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
39	Oemona hirta	OEMOHI	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
40	Phyllosticta solitaria	PHYSSL	Fungus	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
41	Phymatotrichopsis omnivora	PHMPOM	Fungus	No	Yes (CABI, online)	NA	No
42	Popillia japonica	POPIJA	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
43	Prodiplosis longifila	PRDILO	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
44	Rhagoletis pomonella	RHAGPO	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
45	Saperda candida	SAPECN	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
46	Scirtothrips aurantii	SCITAU	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, reporting service 2023)	NA	No
47	Spodoptera eridania	PRODER	Insect	No	Yes (CABI, online)	NA	No
48	Spodoptera frugiperda	LAPHFR	Insect	No	Yes (CABI, online)	NA	No
49	Spodoptera litura	PRODLI	Insect	No	Yes (CABI, online)	NA	No
50	Tobacco ringspot virus	TRSV00	Virus	Yes	Yes (EPPO, online)	Yes	Yes
51	Tomato ringspot virus	TORSV0	Virus	Yes	Yes (EPPO, online)	Yes	Yes
52	Trirachys sartus	AELSSA	Insect	No	Yes (EPPO, online)	NA	No
53	Xiphinema americanum sensu stricto	XIPHAA	Nematode	No	Yes (CABI, online)	NA	No
54	Xiphinema bricolense	XIPHBC	Nematode	No Data	Yes (Xu and Zhao, 2019)	NA	No
55	Xiphinema californicum	XIPHCA	Nematode	No	Yes (Xu and Zhao, 2019)	NA	No
56	Xiphinema rivesi (non‐EU populations)	XIPHRI	Nematode	No	Yes (CABI, online)	NA	No

Number	Current scientific name	EPPO code	Name used in the EU legislation	Taxonomic information	Group	Regulatory status
1	Colletotrichum aenigma	COLLAE	NA	Phyllachorales Glomerellaceae	Fungus	Non‐regulated
2	Meloidogyne mali	MELGMA	NA	Rhabditida Meloidogynidae	Nematodes	Non‐regulated
3	Eulecanium excrescens		NA	Hemiptera Coccidae	Insects	Non‐regulated
4	Takahashia japonica	TAKAJA	NA	Hemiptera Coccidae	Insects	Non‐regulated
5	Tobacco ringspot virus	TRSV00	Tobacco ringspot virus	Picornavirales, Secoviridae	Virus	EU Quarantine Pest according to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072
6	Tomato ringspot virus	TORSV0	Tomato ringspot virus	Picornavirales, Secoviridae	Virus	EU Quarantine Pest according to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072
7	Erwinia amylovora	ERWIAM	Erwinia amylovora	Enterobacterales Erwiniaceae	Bacteria	EU Quarantine Pest according to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072

No.	Risk mitigation measure (name)	Implementation in the UK
1	Certified material	All nurseries are registered as professional operators with the UK NPPO, either by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) in England and Wales, or by the Scottish Government, and are authorised to issue UK plant passports.
2	Phytosanitary certificates	APHA inspectors monitor the pests and diseases during crop certification and passport policy.
3	Cleaning and disinfection of facilities, tools and machinery	General hygiene measures are undertaken as part of routine nursery production, including disinfection of tools and equipment between batches/lots.
4	Rouging and pruning	Where necessary, leaves, prunings, weeds are all removed from the nursery to reduce the number of over wintering sites for pest and disease. No further details are available.
5	Biological and mechanical control	The nursery intending to export to the EU applies the physical isolation between containers and the soil surface in their production of containerised Malus M. domestica plants. The biological control used for spider mites and thrips are predatory mites of the phytoseiid family (Neoseiulus californicus) and for thrips predatory larvae mites (Amblyseius spp.), respectively). Equally through the year, habitat for beneficial predators is maintained to enhance populations (conservation biological control). For mildew control, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens can also be used.
6	Pesticide application	Control treatments including pesticides are only applied based on advice from members of BASIS, this qualification involves training in integrated pest management and pest and disease identification. Crop protection is achieved using a combination of approved pesticides when required (disease pest pressure, growth stage, etc., and environmental factors), together with other integrated crop protection processes such as surveillance. Specific crop protection products and records are available for all consignments, varieties. Pesticides application depends on situation (disease pest pressure, growth stage, etc., and environmental factors) at that time. Subject to this variation in pest pressure, in some seasons few, if any, pesticides are applied; in others, it is sometimes necessary to apply preventative and/or control curative applications of pesticides. In many circumstances also, biological control is also used to control outbreaks, rather than using chemical treatments. The most common pests and diseases in M. domestica for which treatment may be applied would be mildew, spider mites, aphids and thrips. Pesticides used for: Mildew include products such as: Azoxystrobin, Potassium bicarbonate, sulfur Aphids include products such as flonicamid and esfenvalerate
7	Surveillance and monitoring	Surveillance is based on visual inspection with samples taken from symptomatic material, and where appropriate, samples are also taken from asymptomatic material (e.g. plants, tubers, soil, watercourses). For sites with the likelihood of multiple pest and host combinations (e.g. ornamental and retail sites), we make use of our standard method for site selection and visit frequency, whereby clients are assessed taking into account business activity, size of business and source material, so for example a large propagator using third country material receives 10 visits per year while a small retailer selling locally sourced material is visited once every second year. Where pest specific guidelines are absent Inspectors select sufficient plants to give a 95% probability of detecting symptoms randomly distributed on 1.5% of plants in a batch/consignment. Plant material is regularly monitored for plant health issues. This monitoring is carried out by trained nursery staff via regular crop walking and records kept of this monitoring. Qualified agronomists also undertake regular crop walks to verify the producer's assessments. Curative or preventative actions are implemented together with an assessment of phytosanitary risk. Unless a pest can be immediately and definitively identified as non‐quarantine growers are required to treat it as a suspect quarantine pest and notify the competent authority. Inspections are targeted both at the plants or products which present the greatest risk, and also a wider range of plants and plant products which are monitored for more general risks, including those highly polyphagous pests whose range may be unknown or still increasing. UK inspectors receive comprehensive training on the full range of symptoms caused by pests and diseases, to allow them to detect any new and emerging risks, and during a visit to a nursery, they are free to inspect any plants on that nursery. Samples of pests and plants showing any suspicious symptoms are routinely sent to the laboratory for testing. Incoming plants are inspected for freedom from pests and disease before entering the nursery.
8	Sampling and laboratory testing	Assessments are normally made based on visual examinations, but samples may be taken for laboratory analysis to get a definitive diagnosis. Samples of pests and plants showing any suspicious symptoms are routinely sent to the laboratory for testing.
	Root washing	Roots are washed prior to export.
	Refrigeration	Plants are transported by lorry (size dependant on load quantity). Sensitive plants will occasionally be transported by temperature‐controlled lorry if weather conditions during transit are likely to be very cold.
11	Pre‐consignment inspection	Separate to any official inspection, plant material is checked by growers for plant health issues prior to dispatch.

Rating of the likelihood of pest freedom	Pest free with some exceptional cases (based on the Median)
Percentile of the distribution	5%	25%	Median	75%	95%
Proportion of pest‐free potted plants	*9,981* out of 10,000 bundles	*9,986* out of 10,000 bundles	*9,991* out of 10,000 bundles	*9,996* out of 10,000 bundles	*9,999* out of 10,000 bundles
Proportion of infested potted plants	1 out of 10,000 bundles	4 out of 10,000 bundles	9 out of 10,000 bundles	14 out of 10,000 bundles	19 out of 10,000 bundles
Proportion of pest‐free bundles of bare rooted plants	*9,989* out of 10,000 bundles	*9,992* out of 10,000 bundles	*9,994* out of 10,000 bundles	*9,997* out of 10,000 bundles	*9,999* out of 10,000 bundles
Proportion of infested bundles of bare rooted plants	1 out of 10,000 bundles	3 out of 10,000 bundles	6 out of 10,000 bundles	8 out of 10,000 bundles	11 out of 10,000 bundles
Proportion of pest‐free bundles of graftwood/budwood	*9,995* out of 10,000 bundles	*9,997* out of 10,000 bundles	*9,998* out of 10,000 bundles	*9,999* out of 10,000 bundles	*10,000* out of 10,000 bundles
Proportion of infested bundles of graftwood/budwood	0 out of 10,000 bundles	1 out of 10,000 bundles	2 out of 10,000 bundles	3 out of 10,000 bundles	4 out of 10,000 bundles
Summary of the information used for the evaluation	Possibility that the pest could become associate with the commodity C. aenigma has been reported in the UK (Baroncelli et al., 2015). M. domestica is a host of C. aenigma. Measures taken against the pest and their efficacy The relevant proposed measures are: (i) Inspection, certification and surveillance, (ii) Sampling and laboratory testing, (iii) Cleaning and disinfection of facilities, tools and machinery, (iv) Removal of soil from roots (washing), (v) Pesticide application and (vi) Pre‐consignment inspection. Interception records There are no records of interceptions from UK. Shortcomings of current measures/procedures The undetected presence of C. aenigma during inspections may contribute to the spread of C. aenigma infection. Main uncertainties Symptoms caused by C. aenigma may be overlooked at the onset of infestation. Latent infections of C. aenigma cannot be detected. C. aenigma is not under official surveillance in UK, as it does not meet criteria of quarantine pest for GB. It is uncertain how many other UK sites may be infested but undetected.

Rating of the likelihood of pest freedom	Almost always pest free (based on the Median)
Percentile of the distribution	5%	25%	Median	75%	95%
Proportion of pest‐free potted plants	*9,997* out of 10,000 bundles	*9,998* out of 10,000 bundles	*9,999* out of 10,000 bundles	*10,000* out of 10,000 bundles	*10,000* out of 10,000 bundles
Proportion of infested potted plants	0 out of 10,000 bundles	0 out of 10,000 bundles	1 out of 10,000 bundles	2 out of 10,000 bundles	3 out of 10,000 bundles
Proportion of pest‐free bundles of bare rooted plants	*9,996* out of 10,000 bundles	*9,997* out of 10,000 bundles	*9,998* out of 10,000 bundles	*9,999* out of 10,000 bundles	*10,000* out of 10,000 bundles
Proportion of infested bundles of bare‐rooted plants	0 out of 10,000 bundles	1 out of 10,000 bundles	2 out of 10,000 bundles	3 out of 10,000 bundles	4 out of 10,000 bundles
Summary of the information used for the evaluation	Possibility that the pest/pathogen could enter exporting nurseries M. mali was first described in the northern part of Japan (Itoh et al., 1969), where it frequently parasitises on apple roots. It is a polyphagous nematode. Its host range includes a wide variety of tree, shrub and herbaceous plant species. M. mali is thought to have been introduced into the EU (to the Netherlands) with elm plants imported from Japan for breeding purposes. From the Netherlands, the nematode was shipped to 10 other European countries as part of the breeding programme against Dutch elm disease caused by Ophiostoma ulmi. The current range of Meloidogyne mali in the EU includes Austria, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands, with few occurrences or limited distribution in all cases. However, M. mali is believed to be more widespread in the EU than actually reported (Ahmed et al., 2013; EPPO, 2017). The nematode also occurs in the UK in southern England in at least two locations, where it was found on elms in 2018 (Prior et al., 2019). To date, there have been no reports of detection of this species on apples in the UK, and no epidemics or economic losses have been reported in the UK. However, M. mali is not officially monitored in the UK because the species does not meet the criteria for quarantine pests in the UK, and it is uncertain how many other sites in the UK may be infested but not detected. M. mali can be associated with the roots of its host plants or with the soil and can enter exporting nurseries, especially with plants intended for planting that are growing in infested soil. Measures taken against the pest/pathogen and their efficacy The relevant proposed measures are: (i) Inspection, certification and surveillance, (ii) Sampling and laboratory testing, (iii) Cleaning and disinfection of facilities, tools and machinery, (iv) Removal of soil from roots (washing) and (v) Pre‐consignment inspection. Interception records There are no records of interceptions from UK. Shortcomings of current measures/procedures The undetected presence of M. mali during inspections may contribute to the spread of M. mali infection. Pre‐export root washing does not significantly reduce the risk of nematode infestation in plants intended for planting. Main uncertainties Symptoms caused by M. mali may be overlooked at the onset of infestation. Early infestation of M. mali in the roots cannot be detected. M. mali is not under official surveillance in UK, as it does not meet criteria of quarantine pest for GB. It is uncertain how many other UK sites may be infested but undetected. Root washing does not significantly reduce the risk of nematodes associated with roots of plants intended for planting that are infected with certain endoparasitic nematodes.

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Values	9,980					9,986		9,991		9,996					10,000
EKE results	9,980	9,980	9,981	9,982	9,984	9,986	9,988	9,991	9,994	9,996	9,997	9,998.5	9,999.3	9,999.7	9,999.9

Number	Group	Pest species	Pest free with some exceptional cases	Pest free with few exceptional cases	Almost always pest free
1	Fungi	Colletotrichum aenigma/potted	L	M	U
2	Fungi	Colletotrichum aenigma/bare rooted	L	M	U
3	Fungi	Colletotrichum aenigma/graftwood			LMU
4	Nematodes	Meloidogyne mali/potted			LMU
5	Nematodes	Meloidogyne mali/bare rooted			LMU
6	Insects	Eulecanium excrescens/potted	L	M	U
7	Insects	Eulecanium excrescens/bare‐rooted	L	M	U
8	Insects	Eulecanium excrescens/graftwood	LM		U
9	Insects	Takahashia japonica/potted	L	M	U
10	Insects	Takahashia japonica/bare‐rooted	L	M	U
11	Insects	Takahashia japonica/graftwood	LM		U
12	Viruses	tobacco ringspot virus/potted			LMU
13	Viruses	tobacco ringspot virus/bare‐rooted		L	MU
14	Viruses	tobacco ringspot virus/graftwood	L	M	U
15	Viruses	tomato ringspot virus/potted			LMU
16	Viruses	tomato ringspot virus/bare‐rooted		L	MU
17	Viruses	tomato ringspot virus/graftwood	L	M	U

	Pest freedom category	Pest‐free plants out of 10,000
	Sometimes pest free	≤ 5,000
	More often than not pest free	5,000 to ≤ 9,000
	Frequently pest free	9,000 to ≤ 9,500
	Very frequently pest free	9,500 to ≤ 9,900
	Extremely frequently pest free	9,900 to ≤ 9,950
	Pest free with some exceptional cases	9,950 to ≤ 9,990
	Pest free with few exceptional cases	9,990 to ≤ 9,995
	Almost always pest free	9,995 to ≤ 10,000

Legend of pest freedom categories
L	Pest freedom category includes the elicited lower bound of the 90% uncertainty range
M	Pest freedom category includes the elicited median
U	Pest freedom category includes the elicited upper bound of the 90% uncertainty range

Taxonomic information	Current valid scientific name: Colletotrichum aenigma (Anthracnose and Glomerella leaf blight pathogen) Synonyms: Colletotrichum populi (Farr and Rossman, online) Name used in the EU legislation: – Order: Phyllachorales Family: Glomerellaceae Common name: – Name used in the Dossier: –
Group	Fungi
EPPO code	COLLAE
Regulated status	EU status : N/A Non‐EU: N/A
Pest status in UK	C. aenigma has been reported in the UK (Baroncelli et al., 2015).
Pest status in the EU	C. aenigma has been reported in Italy from: Pyrus communis, Citrus sinensis and Olea europaea (Schena et al., 2014).
*Host status on Malus domestica.*	C. aenigma has been isolated from M. domestica in China (Wang et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2021), Korea (Lee et al., 2021) and Japan (Yokosawa et al., 2017).
PRA information	Available Pest Risk Assessments: Pest categorisation of Colletotrichum aenigma, C. alienum, C. perseae, C. siamense and C. theobromicola (EFSA PLH Panel, 2022). Final report for the review of biosecurity import requirements for fresh strawberry fruit from Japan (Australian Government, 2020).
Other relevant information for the assessment
Biology	Colletotrichum spp. are dispersed through asexual conidiospores which are produced on diseased plant tissue and dead leaves, but they can also, produce ascospores through sexual reproduction (Australian Government, 2020). Conidia and ascospores can be dispersed through raindrops, wind‐blown rain, wind or insects. Infected nursery stock, contaminated soil, infected leaves and fruits are the main pathways. Moreover, Colletotrichum spp. can be distributed through asymptomatic hosts (mainly fruits) and can survive in the soil for a long period (80 days during summer, 120 days during winter) (Australian Government, 2020). C. aenigma mycelium can grow between 10°C and 36°C with an optimum of 28°C. Colletotrichum spp. development, sporulation and spread is favoured by warm, wet weather with an optimum temperature of 27°C. They can remain dormant in fruits and leaves, without causing any symptoms (quiescent period) (De Silva et al., 2017). If the sexual stage of the Colletotrichum spp. occurs, perithecia are formed, which can act as overwintering structures and source of inoculum.
Symptoms	Main type of symptoms	Anthracnose symptoms can develop on flowers, stems, fruits, leaves and twigs (Velho et al., 2019). Leaves: – Disease on leaves referred to as Glomerella leaf spot; – Spots (from yellowish to brown discolorations); – Necrosis across or between leaf veins and at leaf tips; – Drop of leaves prematurely; – Dead or unhealthy. Shoots: – Brown or purplish lesions; – Dieback. Flowers: – Turn dark and die. Fruits: – Disease on fruits called ‘bitter rot’; – Before harvest: Brown depressed lesions on fruit on the peel of young fruits which result in reduced fruit quality and fruit drop (Marais, 2004); – Lesions can become larger, darker and can show concentric rings of acervuli; – Pink spores on the surface; – Sectioning the fruit can reveal a v‐shaped lesion.
	Presence of asymptomatic plants	Quiescent infections can occur in fruits and leaves. The fungus infects young fruits but enters a dormant phase until fruit maturity (Marais, 2004; Chen et al., 2022).
	Confusion with other pests	Due to the taxonomic re‐evaluation of the Colletotrichum genus, the individual species can only be identified by combining morphological characters as well as DNA sequence analysis (EFSA PLH Panel, 2022).
Host plant range	Colletotrichum aenigma has been previously reported from wide range of hosts including M. domestica, Camellia sinensis, Citrus sinensis, Fragaria x ananassa, Malus domestica, Olea europaea, Persea americana, Pyrus communis, Pyrus pyrifolia and Vitis vinifera (Weir et al., 2012; Schena et al., 2014; Yan et al., 2015; Han et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016; Sharma et al., 2017; Fu et al., 2019; Velho et al., 2019; EFSA PLH Panel, 2022).
Reported evidence of impact	Colletotrichum aenigma has been identified in association with other Colletotrichum species causing anthracnose and pre‐ and post‐harvest fruit rot in several economically important crop plants.
Pathways and evidence that the commodity is a pathway	– Infected nursery stock, contaminated soil/substrate and fruits are the main pathways (Australian Government, 2020); – The pathogen can be dispersed through spores on dead twigs, leaves and mummified fruit; – Rain and humidity facilitate the spore production and dispersal. The pathogen can over‐winter mainly on fresh/dry leaves and on fresh twigs.
Surveillance information	According to the information provided by the NPPO – DEFRA of the UK: – Colletotrichum aenigma is not included in the list of pests associated with M. domestica in the UK. According to Baroncelli et al. (2015), C. aenigma has been isolated from strawberry infected tissue in the UK. However, there is no further information about the distribution within the UK.

No.	Risk mitigation measure	Effect on the pest	Evaluation and Uncertainties
1	Certified material	Yes	Uncertainties: – Due to the potential dormant phase of Colletotrichum spp., the visual inspection might be insufficient.
2	Phytosanitary certificates	Yes	Uncertainties: – Due to the potential dormant phase of Colletotrichum spp., the visual inspection might be insufficient.
3	Cleaning and disinfection of facilities, tools and machinery	Yes	Uncertainties: – Due to the potential dormant phase of Colletotrichum spp., the visual inspection might be insufficient.
4	Rouging and pruning	Yes	Uncertainties: – Due to the potential dormant phase of Colletotrichum spp., the visual inspection might be insufficient.
5	Biological and mechanical control	Yes
6	Pesticide application	Yes	Uncertainties: – Resistance to fungicides is present in some populations of Colletotrichum. – The risk of fungicide resistance can vary according to the compounds (FRAC, 2020). – Fungicide treatment may not be sufficient to remove quiescent infections.
7	Surveillance and monitoring	Yes	Uncertainties: – Due to the potential dormant phase of Colletotrichum spp., the visual inspection might be insufficient.
8	Sampling and laboratory testing	Yes	Uncertainties: – Due to the potential dormant phase of Colletotrichum spp., the visual inspection might be insufficient.
9	Root washing	No
10	Refrigeration	Yes	Uncertainties: – Reduced temperatures will only slow the growth of the fungus but not eliminate it. – The effect on latent or endophytic presence is unclear.
11	Pre‐consignment inspection	Yes	Uncertainties: – Due to the potential dormant phase of Colletotrichum spp., the visual inspection might be insufficient.

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Elicited values	0					4		9		14					20
EKE	0.121	0.329	0.701	1.494	2.62	4.09	5.61	8.84	12.3	14.1	16.0	17.6	18.9	19.6	20.0

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Elicited values	0					3		6		8					12
EKE	0.272	0.541	0.913	1.55	2.31	3.17	4.01	5.66	7.4	8.3	9.3	10.2	11.0	11.6	12.0

Control (of a pest)	Suppression, containment or eradication of a pest population (FAO, 1995, 2017).
Entry (of a pest)	Movement of a pest into an area where it is not yet present, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled (FAO, 2017).
Establishment (of a pest)	Perpetuation, for the foreseeable future, of a pest within an area after entry (FAO, 2017).
Impact (of a pest)	The impact of the pest on the crop output and quality and on the environment in the occupied spatial units.
Introduction (of a pest)	The entry of a pest resulting in its establishment (FAO, 2017).
Measures	Control (of a pest) is defined in ISPM 5 (FAO, 2017) as ‘Suppression, containment or eradication of a pest population’ (FAO, 1995). Control measures are measures that have a direct effect on pest abundance. Supporting measures are organisational measures or procedures supporting the choice of appropriate risk mitigation measures that do not directly affect pest abundance.
Pathway	Any means that allows the entry or spread of a pest (FAO, 2017).
Phytosanitary measures	Any legislation, regulation or official procedure having the purpose to prevent the introduction or spread of quarantine pests, or to limit the economic impact of regulated non‐quarantine pests (FAO, 2017).
Protected zone	A Protected zone is an area recognised at EU level to be free from a harmful organism, which is established in one or more other parts of the Union.
Quarantine pest	A pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled (FAO, 2017).
Regulated non‐quarantine pest	A non‐quarantine pest whose presence in plants for planting affects the intended use of those plants with an economically unacceptable impact and which is therefore regulated within the territory of the importing contracting party (FAO, 2017).
Risk mitigation measure	A measure acting on pest introduction and/or pest spread and/or the magnitude of the biological impact of the pest should the pest be present. A risk mitigation measure may become a phytosanitary measure, action or procedure according to the decision of the risk manager.
Spread (of a pest)	Expansion of the geographical distribution of a pest within an area (FAO, 2017).

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Values	9,988					9,992		9,994		9,997					10,000
EKE results	9,988	9,988	9,989	9,990	9,991	9,992	9,993	9,994	9,996	9,997	9,998	9,998	9,999.1	9,999.5	9,999.7

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Elicited values	0					1		2		3					6
EKE	0.0978	0.186	0.306	0.508	0.751	1.04	1.32	1.93	2.64	3.07	3.62	4.21	4.88	5.43	6.01

Taxonomic information	Current valid scientific name: Meloidogyne mali Synonyms: Meloidogyne ulmi Name used in the EU legislation: – Order: Rhabditia Family: Meloidogynidae Common name: apple root‐knot nematode Name used in the Dossier: Meloidogyne mali
Group	Nematoda
EPPO code	MELGMA
Regulated status	EU status: Not regulated in the EU Non‐ EU: Quarantine pest: USA (1994); Morroco (2018); EPPO A2 (2017) (EPPO, online_a); it is also regulated in Colombia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia and Uruguay (EPPO, 2017). M. mali is also on the list of ‘pests of quarantine interest’ in the Dominican Republic. All Meloidogyne species are quarantine pests for Türkiye (EPPO, 2017).
Pest status in UK	Present, few occurrences (EPPO, online_b). According to EPPO (online_c), only two outbreaks of M. mali have been reported from the UK; the nematode was detected in the rhizosphere of elms at two sites in southern England in 2018. To date, there have been no reports of detection of this species on apples in the UK and no epidemics or economic losses have been reported in the UK.
Pest status in the EU	Restricted distribution in the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy; pest status in France: absent, pest eradicated in 2021 according to French NPPO (2021–07) (EPPO, online_b). The nematode has also been reported as M. ulmi in Austria (de Jong et al., online). M. mali is believed to be more widespread in the EU than actually reported because elm plants grown in the Netherlands under the breeding programme against Dutch elm disease caused by Ophiostoma ulmi on plots infested with the nematode were shipped from the Netherlands to 10 other European countries (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Slovakia, Romania, and the United Kingdom) (Ahmed et al., 2013; EPPO, 2017). These programmes began in the 1980s (Prior et al., 2019).
Host status on Malus domestica	Apple, M. domestica is considered the major host (EPPO, online_d).
PRA information	Available Pest Risk Assessments: – Risks to plant health posed by EU import of soil or growing media (EFSA PLH Panel, 2015); – A quickscan pest risk analysis for the Meloidogyne mali (Pylypenko, 2016); – Pest risk analysis for Meloidogyne mali (EPPO, 2017); – UK risk register details for Meloidogyne mali (DEFRA, online).
Other relevant information for the assessment
Biology	Meloidogyne mali, the apple root‐knot nematode, belongs to the group of root knot nematodes, Meloidogyne spp., which includes more than 100 named species. Root‐knot nematodes are at the top of the list of 10 most important nematode groups that have significant economic impacts on crops worldwide (Jones et al., 2013). Like other root knot nematodes, M. mali is an obligate endoparasite that invades underground plant parts. When found in Europe in 2000, the nematode was initially described as a new species, Meloidogyne ulmi (Palmisano and Ambrogioni, 2000) and elms remained long time the only known host plants. The synonymy with the well‐known species M. mali was found later, after comparison in the Netherlands with living material from Japan (Ahmed et al., 2013).
	M. mali exhibits sexual dimorphism, with spherical, sedentary females and vermiform males. It reproduces sexually (amphimixis) (Subbotin et al., 2021) and has one generation per year. After mating, the female lays her eggs in the gelatinous matrix inside the root tissue (in the cortex, very close to the epidermis). This nematode hatches from the egg as a second stage juvenile (J2), and then undergoes three more moults to develop into an adult. The second stage juvenile (J2) is an infective stage that can enter the host root, create a specialised feeding site (giant cells), and begin feeding. When J2 develop, they cause root swelling and become swollen females. The females tear open the root cortex and protrude from the root surface with the egg masses for a time. J2 hatch from the egg masses and migrate into the soil (Itoh et al., 1969). The entire life cycle of M. mali lasts 18–22 weeks (Inagaki, 1978; Subbotin et al., 2021).
Symptoms	Main type of symptoms	The above‐ground symptoms of M. mali are not very specific and are similar to those seen in any plant with a damaged root system. Infested plants show suppressed shoot growth, nutrient deficiency symptoms, chlorosis, transient wilting during midday even with adequate soil moisture, leaf drop, and reduced plant yield. Plants infested with nematodes usually occur in patches or along the plant row. The most common and noticeable symptom of Meloidogyne spp. infection is the presence of root galls. On the roots of host plants, M. mali causes severe galls that impair water and nutrient uptake from the soil (Ahmed et al., 2013). Root galls produced by this nematode are roundish with no secondary roots emerging from them and look like a ‘string of pearls’. Their size can vary depending on the species and age of the host plants and is relatively large in apples. In young roots, galls are up to 0.5 cm in diameter; in older roots, they can develop into larger galls, 1–2 cm in diameter (EPPO, 2018).
	Presence of asymptomatic plants	M. mali is difficult to detect. The extent of symptoms depends on the density of the nematode population in the soil and the number of second‐stage (J2) juveniles that can invade and establish in the root tissue of host plants. In infected trees, symptoms may only be visible above ground when the roots are heavily infested.
	Confusion with other pests	Symptoms of host plant infestation by M. mali are expressed as reduced plant growth and vigour with root galling. Typical aboveground symptoms such as stunting, chlorosis and wilting result from reduced water and nutrient availability due to impaired root function. These symptoms are similar to those of other soil‐borne diseases, insect damage, nutrient deficiency, or cultural and/or environmental stress. The most characteristic symptoms caused by M. mali, such as root galls, are also characteristic of damage caused by other Meloidogyne species or even other nematode genera (Nacobbus, Meloidodera and others). Laboratory tests are therefore crucial for accurate identification of nematodes. Morphologically, M. mali is similar and can be confused with some other root‐knot nematodes such as M. ardenensis, M. camelliae and M. suginamiensis (EPPO, 2018).

Host plant range	M. mali has been reported infesting a wide range of host plants, including apple rootstocks as the main host of this species, grapes, cherries, figs, Japanese chestnuts, maples, mulberry trees, elms, beeches, roses, soybeans, tomatoes, egg plants and white clover (EPPO, online_d). Major hosts: Malus domestica, Morus alba, Morus bombycis, Morus latifolia, Ulmus chenmoui, Ulmus glabra. Hosts: Acer palmatum, Acer pseudoplatanus, Acer x freemanii, Achyranthes japonica, Apium graveolens, Castanea crenata, Cucumis sativus, Euonymus kiautschovicus, Fagus sylvatica, Ficus carica, Geum coccineum, Glycine max, Lagerstroemia indica, Maclura tricuspidata, Malus hupehensis, Malus prunifolia, Malus toringo, Malus x purpurea, Morus alba, Morus bombycis, Morus latifolia, Prunus serrula, Prunus x yedoensis, Quercus robur, Rosa, Rubus fruticosus, Rubus idaeus, Solanum lycopersicum, Solanum melongena, Sorbus aucuparia, Taxus baccata, Trifolium repens, Ulmus chenmoui, Ulmus davidiana var. japonica, Ulmus glabra, Ulmus parvifolia, Ulmus x hollandica, Vitis vinifera, Zelkova serrata. Wild plants/Weeds: Arctium lappa, Dryopteris carthusiana, Dryopteris filix‐mas, Geranium robertianum, Impatiens parviflora, Taraxacum officinale, Urtica dioica.
Reported evidence of impact	M. mali is a polyphagous nematode that attacks and parasitises a wide range of woody and herbaceous plants. On the roots of host plants, M. mali causes typical round, rootless galls that look like a ‘string of pearls’ (EPPO, 2017). Their size can vary on different hosts; on apple, they are relatively large compared to other known Meloidogyne species. Root galls caused by M. mali are associated with increased susceptibility and reduced tree stability due to root rot caused by secondary pathogens through openings that develop in older galls, which can cause the tree to be uprooted by strong winds (EPPO, 2017). According to EPPO (2017), this nematode pest can have a major economic impact on cultivated hosts. In heavily infested apples, the nematode can cause stunted growth and severe decline. In Japan, this nematode was reported to reduce plant growth and leaf weight of mulberry by 10–20% (Toida, 1991). In young apple trees, a growth reduction of 15–43% was found in inoculation trials only (Inagaki, 1978). According to EPPO standard PM1/002(30), M. mali is recommended for regulation as an A2 quarantine pest (EPPO, online_e).
Pathways and evidence that the commodity is a pathway	– Plants, plants for planting (roots), with or without growing media; – Soil and growing media as such or attached to plants; – Soil and growing media attached to machinery, tools, packaging materials, etc.
Surveillance information	Under plant passport audits or a programme of general surveillance of all registered growers, all growers in the United Kingdom are inspected by plant health inspectors. Plant health inspectors monitor plant diseases and pests as part of plant certification and plant passport audits. In addition, plant and seed health inspectors conduct a quarantine surveillance programme on registered farms and inspect plants grown and marketed in the UK. The quarantine surveillance programme is targeted and focuses on farms visited based on size, type of crop grown, origin of crop and growers with a history of pest and disease problems. The risk category assigned to the farm determines the frequency of visits. Inspections target both the plants or products that pose the greatest risk and a broader range of plants and plant products that are monitored for more general risks, including highly polyphagous pests whose incidence may be unknown or increasing. UK inspectors are extensively trained to identify new and emerging risks posed by the possible presence of pests. When pests or suspicious symptoms are detected, inspectors regularly send samples to the laboratory for testing. In addition to official controls and inspections, producers shall conduct visual health checks on a regular basis. The competent authority provides growers with regular training and information on plant diseases and pests. In nurseries, the possible presence of plant diseases and pests is also monitored by the competent nursery staff. Observations made during these inspections are documented; curative and preventive measures are implemented; and a plant health risk assessment is made.

No.	Risk mitigation measure	Effect on the pest	Evaluation and uncertainties
1	Certified material		Evaluation: The certification system may include freedom of place of production for certain nematodes. Uncertainties: – The pest is difficult to detect, especially when infestations in the roots of host plants are low or the symptoms caused by M. mali are absent or not very pronounced.
2	Phytosanitary certificates	Yes	Evaluation: Plants are visually inspected for the presence of symptoms caused by pests and diseases. Galls caused by root‐knot nematodes may only be visible at high levels of infection. If suspicious symptoms are detected, samples are sent to the laboratory for examination. Uncertainties: – Above‐ground symptoms of M. mali are not very specific and are similar to those caused by other abiotic or biotic stresses that damage the root system. Therefore, the symptoms may be overlooked. – When infestations in host plant roots are low, symptoms caused by M. mali are absent or not very pronounced and may not be detected.
3	Cleaning and disinfection of facilities, tools and machinery	Yes	Evaluation: Cleaning and disinfection of facilities, tools, and machinery can help reduce infestations of host plants with M. mali. Uncertainties: – Details on cleaning and disinfection of facilities, tools and machinery that would be effective against nematodes are not provided. Information is lacking on the efficacy and feasibility of the above options for risk reduction against M. mali in apples.
4	Rouging and pruning	No	–
5	Biological and mechanical control	No	–
6	Pesticide application	No	–
7	Surveillance and monitoring	Yes	Evaluation: Surveillance and monitoring of root‐knot nematodes are difficult to implement in practice. M. mali is not under official surveillance in UK, as it does not meet criteria of QP for GB. Uncertainties: – The pest is difficult to detect, especially when infestations in the roots of host plants are low or the symptoms caused by M. mali are absent or not very pronounced.
8	Sampling and laboratory testing	Yes	Evaluation: Sampling and testing of soil attached to roots and roots for galls caused by nematodes are routinely performed by both, phytosanitary inspectors and growers. Uncertainties: – Symptoms caused by M. mali can only be detected when root galls are formed, but this is difficult when infestations are low. In addition, aboveground symptoms are often general signs of root stress in the plant. – Therefore, the presence of M. mali in apple roots may not be detectable by visual inspection, so samples are not sent for laboratory examination.
9	Root washing	Yes	Evaluation: Root washing does not significantly reduce the risk of nematode infestation in plants intended for planting that are infested with root knot nematodes. Uncertainties: – Because M. mali is present in both soil and roots, root washing does not significantly reduce the risk of nematode infestation in plants intended for planting.
10	Pre‐consignment inspection	Yes	Evaluation: Growers can visually inspect roots for the presence of galls caused by root‐knot nematodes. If root galls are detected, the finding is documented, and then curative and preventive measures are taken. Uncertainties: – When infestations in roots of host plants are low, galls caused by M. mali are not very pronounced and can be overlooked.

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Elicited values	0.0					0.5		1.0		2.0					4.0
EKE	0.0141	0.0374	0.0785	0.166	0.292	0.461	0.645	1.07	1.61	1.94	2.35	2.80	3.28	3.65	4.00

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Elicited values	0					1		2		3					6
EKE	0.098	0.186	0.306	0.508	0.751	1.04	1.32	1.93	2.64	3.07	3.62	4.21	4.88	5.43	6.01

Taxonomic information	Current valid scientific name: Eulecanium excrescens Synonyms: Lecanium excrescens Name used in the EU legislation: – Order: Hemiptera Family: Coccidae Common name: excrescent scale, wisteria scale Name used in the Dossier: Eulecanium excrescens
Group	Insects
EPPO code	–
Regulated status	The pest is neither regulated in the EU nor listed by EPPO. Eulecanium excrescens is listed in the UK Plant Health Risk Register but archived in 2020 as considered to pose a low risk to the UK (DEFRA, online).
Pest status in UK	Eulecanium excrescens is present in the UK as introduced species with restricted distribution to the Greater London Area; outside this area, the pest has been reported only in a few localities of the neighbouring county of Hertfordshire (Salisbury et al., 2010). The organism has been found at numerous sites in London and is likely to have been present in the UK since at least 2000. E. excrescens may be more widespread in the PRA area than is currently known. The species is currently considered present in the UK (Dossier Section 2.0).
Pest status in the EU	Eulecanium excrescens is absent from the territory of the EU (García Morales et al., online).
Host status on Malus domestica	Malus domestica is a host of Eulecanium excrescens (Deng, 1985).
PRA information	Pest Risk Assessments available: – UK Risk Register Details for Eulecanium excrescens (DEFRA, online); – CSL Pest Risk Analysis for Eulecanium excrescens (MacLeod and Matthews, 2005).
Other relevant information for the assessment
Biology	According to Malumphy (2005), E. excrescens has one generation/year; the nymphs overwinter and reach maturity in April. The adult females lay eggs in May; crawlers emerge in May–June and settle on the leaves; in Autumn, before the leaves fall, they move from the leaves to the twigs to overwinter.
Symptoms	Main type of symptoms	E. excrescens is a sapsucker able to damage host plants by removing large quantities of sap, so causing weakening, leaf loss and dieback; large amount of honeydew is also produced, reducing photosynthesis and disfiguring ornamental plants in parks and gardens (MacLeod and Matthews, 2005).
	Presence of asymptomatic plants	The globular, dark brown, mature adult females of E. excrescens can usually be distinguished from other Coccidae found in the UK by their large size, up to 13 mm long and 10 mm high (Figure 1). A grey powdery wax resembling a growth of mould usually covers the scale, although this may be lost as they mature. The immature nymphs are pale brown with rectangular whitish encrustations on their surface. Both adults and nymphs occur on the stems and branches of the host plants. A detailed description is given in Malumphy (2005) and references therein.
	Confusion with other pests	Low initial infestations may be overlooked.
Host plant range	E. excrescens is considered highly polyphagous and has been recorded on a wide range of deciduous orchard and ornamental trees e.g. Malus (apple), Prunus (peach/cherry) and Pyrus (pear) (Essig, 1958; Gill, 1988; Kosztarab, 1996). To date in the UK, E. excrescens has not been found on fruit trees in gardens or commercial orchards but only on ornamentals in private gardens on Wisteria (Fabaceae), Prunus (cherry) and South African trumpet vine (Podranea ricasoliana: Bignoniaceae). However, due to its polyphagy, this scale could be economically important for apple (Malus spp.), almond (Prunus dulcis (Mill.)), apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.), cherry (Prunus spp.), elm (Ulmus spp.), peach (Prunus persica (L.)), pear (Pyrus communis L.), sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus L.), walnut (Juglans regia L.) and Wisteria spp. (Essig, 1958; Gill, 1988).
Reported evidence of impact	Since more records are forthcoming, it can be expected that the host list in the UK will expand in the near future (CSL, 2005). In the vast majority of cases, the host plant has been Wisteria spp. and this is likely to be the preferred host, as it is in the USA (Gill, 1988).
Pathways and evidence that the commodity is a pathway	The soft scale Eulecanium excrescens is native to Asia and introduced in the USA, where it is present in California, Connecticut, New York, Oregon and Pennsylvania (MacLeod and Matthews, 2005; Malumphy, 2005). Though as above mentioned this species mainly feeds on Wisteria spp., it is also known to attack other vines as Podranea ricasoliana, Parthenocissus quinquefolia and P. tricuspidata, and trees as Malus, Prunus, Pyrus, Ulmus, Zelkova (Salisbury et al., 2010).
Surveillance information	In China, this scale is regarded as a pest damaging fruit orchards (MacLeod and Matthews, 2005), i.e. Malus, Prunus and Pyrus (Deng, 1985). In the USA, E. excrescens is included in the list of pests harmful to hazelnut (Corylus avellana) production in Oregon (Murray and Jepson, 2018). In California, it is rare and not regarded as a pest of economic importance (Gill, 1988). There are no data from other US states. However, through feeding, E. excrescens does remove large quantities of sap, weakening the plant causing some leaf loss and slow dieback. Large amounts of honeydew are produced and aesthetic damage to host plants may occur. Wisterias are very high value plants, often a main feature of gardens and buildings where they climb and cover south facing walls. Although detracting from the aesthetic appearance of the host, E. excrescens is unlikely to kill mature plants. Young, small plants would be more susceptible and could be killed. A parasitoid species has been detected attacking E. excrescens on one infested plant in London (Malumphy, 2005). Thus, natural enemies may be able to limit further damage.

No.	Risk mitigation measure	Effect on the pest	Evaluation and uncertainties
1	Certified material	Yes	Evaluation: Potential E. excrescens infestations could easily be detected, though low initial infestations might be overlooked. Uncertainties: – The details of the certification process are not given (e.g. number of plants, intensity of surveys and inspections, etc.). Specific figures on the intensity of survey (sampling effort) are not provided.
2	Phytosanitary certificates	Yes	Evaluation: The procedures applied could be effective in detecting E. excrescens infestations, though low initial infestations might be overlooked. Uncertainties: – Specific figures on the intensity of survey (sampling effort) are not provided.
3	Cleaning and disinfection of facilities, tools and machinery	No
4	Rouging and pruning	Yes	Evaluation: Pruning can affect scale populations either directly by removal of infested branches and indirectly exposing the pest to biotic and abiotic control agents.
5	Biological and mechanical control	Yes	Evaluation: Chemical applications can affect biological control agents. Uncertainties: – No details are provided on abundance and efficacy of the natural enemies.
6	Pesticide application	Yes	Evaluation: Chemicals listed in the Dossier do not target specifically this pest; however, they may be effective. Uncertainties: – No details are given on the pesticide application schedule.
7	Surveillance and monitoring	Yes	Evaluation: It can be effective Uncertainties: – Low initial infestations (crawlers) might be overlooked.
8	Sampling and laboratory testing	Yes	Evaluation: – It can be effective and useful for specific identification. Low initial infestations might be overlooked.
9	Root washing	No
10	Pre‐consignment inspection	Yes	Evaluation: It can be effective, though low initial infestations might be overlooked. Uncertainties: – There is a lack of details on the frequency and intensity of these inspections at this stage.

PERMALINK

Commodity risk assessment of Malus domestica plants from United Kingdom

Claude Bragard

Paula Baptista

Elisavet Chatzivassiliou

Paolo Gonthier

Josep Anton Jaques Miret

Annemarie Fejer Justesen

Alan MacLeod

Christer Sven Magnusson

Panagiotis Milonas

Juan A Navas‐Cortes

Stephen Parnell

Roel Potting

Philippe Lucien Reignault

Emilio Stefani

Hans‐Hermann Thulke

Wopke Van der Werf

Antonio Vicent Civera

Lucia Zappalà

Andrea Lucchi

Pedro Gómez

Gregor Urek

Umberto Bernardo

Giovanni Bubici

Anna Vittoria Carluccio

Michela Chiumenti

Francesco Di Serio

Elena Fanelli

Cristina Marzachì

Agata Kaczmarek

Olaf Mosbach‐Schulz

Jonathan Yuen

Abstract

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and terms of reference as provided by European Commission

1.1.1. Background

1.1.2. Terms of Reference

1.2. Interpretation of the terms of reference

2. Data and methodologies

2.1. Data provided by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the United Kingdom

Table 1.

2.2. Literature searches performed by EFSA

Table 2.

2.3. Methodology

2.3.1. Commodity data

2.3.2. Identification of pests potentially associated with the commodity

Table 3.

2.3.3. Listing and evaluation of risk mitigation measures

Figure 1.

2.3.4. Expert knowledge elicitation

3. Commodity data

3.1. Description of the commodity

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

3.2. Description of the production areas

3.3. Production and handling processes

3.3.1. Growing conditions

3.3.2. Source of planting material

3.3.3. Production cycle

3.3.4. Pest monitoring during production

3.3.5. Post‐harvest processes and export procedure

4. Identification of pests potentially associated with the commodity

4.1. Selection of relevant EU‐quarantine pests associated with the commodity

4.2. Selection of other relevant pests (non‐regulated in the EU) associated with the commodity

4.3. Overview of interceptions

4.4. List of potential pests not further assessed

4.5. Summary of pests selected for further evaluation

Table 4.

5. Risk mitigation measures

5.1. Possibility of pest presence in the export nurseries and production areas

5.2. Risk mitigation measures applied in the UK

Table 5.

5.3. Evaluation of the current measures for the selected relevant pests including uncertainties

5.3.1. Overview of the evaluation of Colletotrichum aenigma for all commodity types

5.3.2. Overview of the evaluation of Meloidogyne mali

Table A.2.

5.3.3. Overview of the evaluation of Eulecanium excrescens for all the commodity types

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Elicited values	0.00					3.00		6.00		10.00					15.00
EKE	0.11	0.27	0.55	1.12	1.91	2.91	3.95	6.15	8.57	9.90	11.34	12.66	13.80	14.48	14.98

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Values	9,985					9,990		9,994		9,997					10,000
EKE results	9,985.0	9,985.5	9,986.2	9,987.3	9,988.7	9,990.1	9,991.4	9,993.8	9,996.1	9,997.1	9,998.1	9,998.9	9,999.4	9,999.7	9,999.9

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Elicited values	0					5		9		13					20
EKE	0.506	0.959	1.56	2.57	3.74	5.07	6.34	8.89	11.6	13.1	14.8	16.4	18.0	19.1	20.0

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Values	9,980					9,987		9,991		9,995					10,000
EKE results	9,980	9,981	9,982	9,984	9,985	9,987	9,988	9,991	9,994	9,995	9,996	9,997	9,998	9,999.0	9,999.5

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Values	9,975					9,982		9,988		9,994					10,000
EKE results	9,975.0	9,975.6	9,976.4	9,977.9	9,979.8	9,981.9	9,984.0	9,988.1	9,992.0	9,994.0	9,995.9	9,997.5	9,998.7	9,999.3	9,999.7

Taxonomic information	Current valid scientific name: Takahashia japonica Synonyms: Pulvinaria japonica, Takahashia wuchangensis Name used in the EU legislation: – Order: Hemiptera Family: Coccidae Common name: Asiatic string cottony scale, string cottony scale Name used in the Dossier: –
Group	Insects
EPPO code	TAKAJA
Regulated status	Takahashia japonica is neither regulated in the EU nor anywhere in the world.
Pest status in UK	Takahashia japonica is present in the UK (Tuffen et al., 2019). The pest was recorded from West Berkshire in 2018 on Magnolia in a private garden (Malumphy et al., 2019; Tuffen et al., 2019). No action was taken reflecting the low threat this pest poses to the UK The UK NPPO have not revisited the original site to determine if it is present or not so they have no evidence to prove that it is absent (answer by DEFRA).
Pest status in the EU	Takahashia japonica is native to Asia (Limonta et al., 2022), where it is reported from China, India, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan (García Morales et al., online). In the EU, it is present in Croatia and Italy (Limonta and Pellizzari, 2018; Landeka et al., 2021). In Italy, the pest was first reported in 2017 from the Northern provinces of Milano and Varese. High infestations of T. japonica indicated that the pest was most probably introduced some years before its detection (Limonta and Pellizzari, 2018). In Croatia, the pest was observed for the first time in 2019 from the city of Pula (Landeka et al., 2021) and eradication measures were applied by cutting down the infested branches and by applying insecticides (EPPO, online). There is no information whether the eradication was successful or not.
Host status on Malus	Malus pumila (=domestica) is reported to be host for Takahashia japonica (Limonta et al., 2022); however, it is not reported among the major hosts by the UK NPPO (DEFRA, online). T. japonica is a soft scale insect native to Asia (Limonta et al., 2022), where it is reported from China, India, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan (García Morales et al., online). The species has been introduced in Europe (Croatia, Italy and the UK) (García Morales et al., online). T. japonica is highly polyphagous species with total of 35 known host species in 17 families (Limonta et al., 2022). The hosts are Acer negundo, A. buergerianum, A. pseudoplatanus, A. pseudosieboldianum, Albizia julibrissin, Alnus japonica, Carpinus betulus, Celtis australis, C. sinensis, Citrus sp., Cornus officinalis, Cydonia oblonga, Diospyros kaki, Juglans regia, Lespedeza sp., Lespedeza bicolor, Liquidambar styraciflua, Loropetalum chinense, Magnolia kobus, M. obovate, Malus pumila, Morus sp., M. alba, M. nigra, Parthenocissus tricuspidate, Prunus cerasifera, P. glandulosa, P. salicina, P. tomentosa, Pyrus serotina, Rhododendron schlippenbachii, Robinia pseudoacacia, Salix chaenomeloides, S. glandulosa, Styphnolobium japonicum, Ulmus davidiana and Zelkova serrata (Limonta et al., 2022).
PRA information	Available Pest Risk Assessments: – UK Risk Register Details for Takahashia japonica (DEFRA, online).
Other relevant information for the assessment
Biology	T. japonica is a monovoltine parthenogenetic species native to Asia. Its life cycle is characterised by the migrations of first instar crawlers from twigs to leaf undersides in May–June, and second instar nymphs from leaves to twigs in September–October, to overwinter. After overwintering, the nymphs resume activity from March onwards and reach the length of about 1.5 mm and 0.5 mm wide. The moult to the adult female occurs at the same overwintering site. The first moults occur in early April, and the whole population reaches the adult stage over about 10 days. The adult female's body size increases quickly from about 1.5 mm long to 6–7 mm long and 5 mm wide and becomes slightly convex in the adult reproductive female. In this growing phase, the adult preovigerous females feed and produce honeydew droplets. Oviposition starts in late April and goes on until early May. Females settled on the twigs, secrete the long egg sacs that can reach 6–7 cm in length over several days. Egg sacs produced by females kept in the laboratory were usually 2.5–4.0 cm long. Fecundity is high: about 1,200 eggs were counted in a 1 cm length of ovisac, so the estimated fecundity in the laboratory was over 4,000–5,000 eggs/female. In the environment, egg hatching occurs in early June, and the first instar nymphs or ‘crawlers’ are the main natural dispersal stage. Indeed, they move to the undersides of leaves, where they settle on the veins. During this migration, the crawlers can be easily carried by the wind, insects or birds to other conterminous host plants. Long distance dispersal is likely to be with infested plants being moved in trade. In late August–September, the population consists of second instar nymphs, each about 1.3 mm long. From September to October, the second‐instar nymphs migrate gradually from the leaf undersides to the twigs, settling to overwinter. Overwintering second‐instar nymphs are brown and covered by transparent wax plates (Limonta et al., 2022).
Symptoms	Main type of symptoms	Heavy infestations of T. japonica on twigs cause dieback and necrosis of buds, which is mostly harmful to newly planted young trees. The production of honeydew is limited. From late April onwards (when the females start oviposition), the trees assume a striking and unsightly appearance due to the many conspicuous white ovisacs hanging from the twigs and branches, reducing their aesthetic value and causing concern among citizens. Moreover, the ovisacs persist on the plants long after the eggs have hatched and are still present in winter, so the unsightly appearance persists (Limonta et al., 2022). The early instars and young females are small and inconspicuous. It is the conspicuous ovisacs that are most likely to be detected first (Malumphy et al., 2019).
	Presence of asymptomatic plants	Low initial infestations in the absence of waxy ovisacs may be overlooked.
	Confusion with other pests	T. japonica can hardly be confused with other scales. Indeed, mature adult females have characteristic long, string‐like, looped ovisacs, hanging from the bark (Malumphy et al., 2019).
Host plant range	Takahashia japonica is a highly polyphagous species reported on 35 broad‐leaf trees and shrubs belonging to 17 families: Acer negundo, A. buergerianum, A. pseudoplatanus, A. pseudosieboldianum, Albizia julibrissin, Alnus japonica, Carpinus betulus, Celtis australis, C. sinensis, Citrus sp., Cornus officinalis, Cydonia oblonga, Diospyros kaki, Juglans regia, Lespedeza sp., Lespedeza bicolor, Liquidambar styraciflua, Loropetalum chinense, Magnolia kobus, M. obovate, Malus pumila, Morus sp., M. alba, M. nigra, Parthenocissus tricuspidate, Prunus cerasifera, P. glandulosa, P. salicina, P. tomentosa, Pyrus serotina, Rhododendron schlippenbachii, Robinia pseudoacacia, Salix chaenomeloides, S. glandulosa, Styphnolobium japonicum, Ulmus davidiana and Zelkova serrata (Limonta et al., 2022).
Reported evidence of impact	There are no reports of economic or ecological damage induced by T. japonica in Asia (Malumphy et al., 2019). According to Limonta et al. (2022) in Italy its impact on urban trees has mostly involved some honeydew production and the appearance of infested trees due to long white ovisacs hanging from the branches. T. japonica can potentially reduce esthetical value of plants (Malumphy et al., 2019). No data about damage on Malus domestica are available. Three European new country records of T. japonica in a 4‐year interval (Italy, Great Britain and Croatia) indicate that this species could expand its range in Europe, primarily due to the import and trade in ornamental trees. In Italy, 5 years after its detection, the first infested area (Lombardy region) has expanded slightly, and the level of infestation is high. Still, so far, no new infestation foci in other Italian regions have been reported. Despite some heavy infestations, no real impact on plant vigour has been noticed in fully grown trees (Limonta et al., 2022). So far, its impact on urban trees has mostly involved some honeydew production and the unsightly appearance of infested trees from the oviposition period onwards (eight or 9 months of the year). Pruning off most of the infested twigs and branches in winter, when the overwintering nymphs are clearly visible in spring (April–May), before the eggs hatch, are suggested to reduce infestations. Several natural enemies of T. japonica are recorded in the literature (Tuffen et al., 2019).
Pathways and evidence that the commodity is a pathway	Possible pathways of entry for T. japonica are plants for planting (excluding seeds bulbs and tubers), bonsai and cut branches (Malumphy et al., 2019).
Surveillance information	No surveillance information is currently available from the UK NPPO.

No.	Risk mitigation measure	Effect on the pest	Evaluation and uncertainties
1	Certified material	Yes	Evaluation: Potential T. japonica infestations could easily be detected, though low initial infestations might be overlooked. Uncertainties: – The details of the certification process are not given (e.g. number of plants, intensity of surveys and inspections, etc.). Specific figures on the intensity of survey (sampling effort) are not provided.
2	Phytosanitary certificates	Yes	Evaluation: The procedures applied could be effective in detecting T. japonica infestations though low initial infestations might be overlooked. Uncertainties: – Specific figures on the intensity of survey (sampling effort) are not provided.
3	Cleaning and disinfection of facilities, tools and machinery	No
4	Rouging and pruning	Yes	Evaluation: Pruning can affect scale populations either directly by removal of infested branches and indirectly exposing the pest to biotic and abiotic control agents.
5	Biological and mechanical control	Yes	Evaluation: Chemical applications can affect biological control agents. Uncertainties: – No details are provided on abundance and efficacy of the natural enemies.
6	Pesticide application	Yes	Evaluation: Chemicals listed in the Dossier do not target specifically this pest, however, may be effective. Uncertainties: – No details are given on the pesticide application schedule.
7	Surveillance and monitoring	Yes	It can be effective, though low initial infestations might be overlooked.
8	Sampling and laboratory testing	Yes	It can be effective and useful for specific identification. Low initial infestations might be overlooked.
9	Root washing	No
10	Pre‐consignment inspection	Yes	Evaluation: It can be effective, though low initial infestations might be overlooked. Uncertainties: – There is a lack of details on the frequency and intensity of these inspections at this stage.

Taxonomic information	Current valid scientific name: Tobacco ringspot virus Synonyms: TRSV, Tobacco ringspot, Tobacco ringspot nepovirus. Name used in the EU legislation: Tobacco ringspot virus [TRSV00] Order: Picornavirales Family: Secoviridae Common name: ringspot of tobacco Name used in the Dossier: Tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV)
Group	Virus and Viroids
EPPO code	TRSV00
Regulated status	TRSV is listed as EU Quarantine pest (Annex II, Part A of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072); Pests not known to occur in the EU Union territory (2019). Quarantine pest: Morocco (2018), Tunisia (2012), Canada (2019), Mexico (2018), Israel (2009), Norway (2012). A1 list: East Africa (2001), Argentina (2019), Brazil (2018), Paraguay (1995), Jordan (2013), Kazakhstan (2017), Turkey (2016), Ukraine (2019). A2 list: Egypt (2018), China (1993), Jordan (2013), Russia (2014), APPPC (1993), EAEU (2016), EPPO (1995) (EPPO, online_a).
Pest status in UK	Present, few occurrences (EPPO, online_b). According to the NPPO (2021), TRSV is present from few reports. It has been detected in pelargonium (ornamental) and anemone (wild plant) in the UK.
Pest status in the EU	Present, no details (Georgia, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey). Few occurrences (Hungary, Italy). Transient under eradication (Netherlands) (EPPO, online_b).
Host status on M. domestica	Malus domestica is reported as a host for TRSV in the EPPO Global Database (EPPO, online_c).
PRA information	Available Pest Risk Assessments: – Scientific Opinion on the pest categorisation of non‐EU viruses and viroids of Cydonia Mill., Malus Mill. and Pyrus L. (EFSA PLH Panel, 2019); – Rapid Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) for Tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV) (DEFRA, 2018).
Other relevant information for the assessment
Biology	TRSV is a bipartite positive‐sense RNA virus with isometric particles about 28 nm in diameter. TRSV occurs in a wide range of herbaceous and woody hosts (Stace‐Smith, 1985). It is naturally transmitted by nematodes; Xiphinema americanum sensu lato, X. americanum sensu stricto and X. rivesi in non‐persistent manner (Brown et al., 1995; Douthit and McGuire, 1978). It has been also associated with other vectors. In soybean, by nymphs but not adults of Thrips tabaci, as well as spider mites of the genus Tetranychus, grasshoppers of the genus Melanoplus, the tobacco flea beetle, Epitrix hirtipennis (Dunleavy, 1957; Bergeson et al., 1964). It has been also reported that the aphids, Myzus persicae and Aphis gossypii, as well as honeybees, can transmit TRSV (Bristow and Martin, 1999). Additionally, TRSV can be spread through seeds in soybean, petunia, Nicotiana glutinosa, Gomphrena globosa and Taraxacum officinale; including tobacco, cantaloupe, cucumber, muskmelon and lettuce (Yang and Hamilton, 1974). It can be also transmitted by clonal propagation and mechanically by sap‐inoculation (Yang and Hamilton, 1974), in addition to pollen transmission in some species (Card et al., 2007), but this has been poorly studied and its efficiency is unclear, in particular in woody plants.
Symptoms	Main type of symptoms	TRSV mostly does not cause striking symptoms, and symptom expression varies according to the plant species. In apple plants, TRSV causes stem pitting, necrosis, and breaking or separation of scion/rootstock at the graft union. Foliage is sparse, and leaves are chlorotic and diffusely mottled (Lana et al., 1983). In grapevine, it shows symptoms of decline, whereas new growth is weak and sparse, internodes are shortened, leaves are small and distorted (Gonsalves, 1988). In soybean, it shows curved, brown coloured and necrotic buds. Brown streaks can be seen in the pith of stems and branches, and occasionally on petioles and leaf veins. Leaflets are dwarfed and rolled (Demski and Kuhn, 1989). In tobacco, it causes ring and line patterns on the foliage and stunting (Gooding, 1991). In cucurbits, leaves are mottled and stunted, and fruits are deformed (Sinclair and Walker, 1956). In cherry trees, in which the disease has only ever been seen in a few individual trees, young leaves show irregular chlorotic blotching over the whole leaf blade, and the leaf margins are deformed and lobed. These symptoms are seen in scattered leaves throughout the crown. Fruits mature late on infected trees (Stace‐Smith and Hansen, 1974).
	Presence of asymptomatic plants	TRSV disease could be asymptomatic.
	Confusion with other pests	No definite symptoms have been associated with TRSV in woody plants. It might be confused with Tomato ringspot virus (ToRSV), which has a similar host range (EPPO/CABI, 1996).
Host plant range	TRSV infects a wide range of herbaceous and woody hosts and can cause significant yield loss in soybeans (Glycine max), tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum), Vaccinium spp., and Cucurbitaceae (Stace‐Smith, 1985). In addition, many other hosts have been also found naturally infected, such as Anemone, apples (Malus domestica), aubergines (Solanum melongena), blackberries (Rubus fruticosus), Capsicum, cherries (Prunus avium), Cornus, Fraxinus, Gladiolus, grapes (Vitis vinifera), Iris, Lupinus, Mentha, Narcissus pseudonarcissus, pawpaws (Carica papaya), Pelargonium, Petunia, Sambucus and various weeds (Gonsalves, 1988).
Reported evidence of impact	TRSV can cause economically important diseases of fruit crops and soybean, particularly where the nematode vectors are present. Minor damage has been reported to ornamentals and capsicum. Although, it has been also reported in grapevines (Uyemoto, 1975), the economic importance in these crops is lower than in other crops. TRSV is listed as EU Quarantine pest (Annex II, part A).
Pathways and evidence that the commodity is a pathway	Plants for planting of Malus, Pelargonium, Prunus and Rubus are potential host commodities for TRSV (EPPO, online_c). Thus, plants for planting coming from a country where TRSV occurs can be the main pathway of entry (EFSA PLH Panel, 2019).
Surveillance information	According to the information dated on 1984 and 2018 from CABI and EPPO, as well as information provided by the UK NPPO, TRSV has a restricted presence in UK, with only a few reported occurrences. TRSV was first reported from an outbreak of Anemone necrosis in Somerset in 1957 (Hollings, 1965). Then, it was occasionally reported in iris rhizomes and bulbs imported from other countries (Brunt, 1974). In 1981, TRSV was detected in Pelargonium in the UK (Stone et al., 1981) and also from amenity grasses (Cooper and Edwards, 1985). In 2011, during pre‐export testing, TRSV was found on lettuce seeds originated from France. Several findings have been reported in Pelargonium stocks in the UK, with the most recent survey from 2018 to 2022 by a Rapid Pest Risk Analysis for TRSV indicating no evidence of eradication, despite the nematode vectors responsible for transmission are not known to occur in the UK (DEFRA, unpublished).

No.	Risk mitigation measure	Effect on the pest	Evaluation and uncertainties
1	Certified material	Yes	Evaluation: The UK has a Fruit Propagation Certification Scheme, and practices for inspections and detections are applied according to the UK regulations and guidelines 2017. In particular, an explanatory guide on how these are applied to Malus is provided. However, TRSV is not included in the list of viruses for testing. Uncertainties: – There is a lack of details for the surveillance and monitoring process including the TRSV detection during production cycle.
2	Phytosanitary certificates	Yes	Evaluation: The UK has a Fruit Propagation Certification Scheme, and practices for inspections and detections are applied according to the UK regulations and guidelines 2017. Uncertainties: – There is a lack of details in the survey protocols and laboratory methodologies for the certification process.
3	Cleaning and disinfection of facilities, tools and machinery	Yes	Hygiene practices can help to prevent the spread of virus transmission.
4	Rouging and pruning	Yes	Evaluation: Identifying and removing suspicious plants could be effective to decrease the virus spread and further infections. Uncertainties: – It is unclear the effectiveness of visual inspections to detect early infections, including the presence of latent infections.
5	Biological and mechanical control	No
6	Pesticide application	No
7	Surveillance and monitoring	Yes	Evaluation: Visual inspections may be effective to delay viral spread. Uncertainties: – The effectiveness of visual inspections to detect early infections, including the presence of latent infections, is questionable.
8	Sampling and laboratory testing	No
9	Root washing	No
10	Refrigeration	Yes	Not relevant, but low temperatures may reduce the multiplication of the virus, but will not eliminate it.

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Elicited values	0					1		2		3					5
EKE	0.0733	0.153	0.267	0.472	0.725	1.03	1.33	1.95	2.65	3.04	3.50	3.96	4.41	4.73	5.01