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 and bundles of bare root plants or rooted cell grown young plants of Malus sylvestris imported from the UK, taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by the UK. 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 and Takahashia japonica) that fulfilled all relevant criteria were selected for further evaluation. For Erwinia amylovora, special requirements are specified in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072. Based on the information provided in the dossier, these specific requirements for E. amylovora are met. For the remaining six pests, the risk mitigation measures proposed in the technical Dossier from the UK were evaluated, taking into account the possible limiting factors. For these 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 (Eulecanium excrescens and Takahashia japonica) being the pests most frequently expected on the imported bundles of bare root plants or rooted cell grown young plants. The expert knowledge elicitation indicated with 95% certainty that between 9,976 and 10,000 bundles (one bundle consisting of 5–15 plants for bare root plants or 25–50 plants for cell grown young plants) per 10,000 would be free from the above‐mentioned scales.
Keywords: European crab 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 sylvestris from United Kingdom 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 M. sylvestris 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 the 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. pest 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 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 the UK 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 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 United Kingdom (DEFRA) in March 2022, including the additional information provided by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of United Kingdom DEFRA in January 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 | Malus sylvestris commodity information FINAL.docx |
| 2.0 | Pest list | UK_Malus_pest_list_final.xls |
| 3.0 | Additional information provided by the DEFRA of United Kingdom in January 2023 | Malus sylvestris additional information 17 Jan 2023.docx |
The data and supporting information provided by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of United Kingdom DEFRA formed the basis of the commodity risk assessment.
2.2. Literature searches performed by EFSA
Literature searches in different databases were undertaken by EFSA to complete a list of pests potentially associated with M. sylvestris. The following searches were combined: (i) a general search to identify pests of M. sylvestris in different databases and (ii) a tailored search to identify whether these pests are present or not in United Kingdom and the EU. The searches were run between 13 January 2023 and 27 March 2023. No language, date or document type restrictions were applied in the search strategy.
The search strategy and search syntax were adapted to each of the databases listed in Table 2, according to the options and functionalities of the different databases and CABI keyword thesaurus.
Table 2.
Databases used by EFSA for the compilation of the pest list associated to M. sylvestris
As for Web of Science, the literature search was performed using a specific, ad hoc established search string (see Appendix B). The string was run in ‘All Databases’ with no range limits for time or language filters. This is further explained in Section 2.3.2.
Additional searches, limited to retrieve documents, were run when developing the opinion. The available scientific information, including previous EFSA opinions on the relevant pests and diseases (see pest data sheets in Appendix A) and the relevant literature and legislation (e.g. Regulation (EU) 2016/2031; Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2018/2019; (EU) 2018/2018 and (EU) 2019/2072) were taken into account.
2.3. Methodology
When developing the opinion, the Panel followed the EFSA Guidance on commodity risk assessment for the evaluation of high‐risk plant dossiers (EFSA PLH Panel, 2019).
In the first step, pests potentially associated with the commodity in the country of origin (EU‐quarantine pests and other pests) that may require risk mitigation measures were identified. The EU non‐quarantine pests not known to occur in the EU were selected based on evidence of their potential impact in the EU. After the first step, all the relevant pests that may need risk mitigation measures were identified.
In the second step, the proposed risk mitigation measures for each relevant pest were evaluated in terms of efficacy or compliance with EU requirements as explained in Section 1.2.
A conclusion on the likelihood of the commodity being free from each of the relevant pest was determined and uncertainties identified using expert judgements.
2.3.1. Commodity data
Based on the information provided by the United Kingdom, the characteristics of the commodity were summarised.
2.3.2. Identification of pests potentially associated with the commodity
To evaluate the pest risk associated with the importation of M. sylvestris from the UK a pest list was compiled. The pest list is a compilation of all identified plant pests associated with M. sylvestris based on (1) information provided in the M. sylvestris UK dossier, (2) additional information provided by DEFRA, (3) as well as on searches performed by the Panel. The search strategy and search syntax were adapted to each of the databases listed in Table 3, according to the options and functionalities of the different databases and CABI keyword thesaurus.
Table 3.
Overview of the evaluation of the 27 EU‐quarantine pest species known to use M. sylvestris as a host plant for their relevance for this opinion
| No. | Pest name according to EU legislation (a) | EPPO code | Group | Pest present in the UK | Malus sylvestris confirmed as a host (reference) | Pest can be associated with the commodity (c) | Pest relevant for the opinion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aeolesthes sarta as Trirachys sartus | AELSSA | Insect | No | Yes (CABI, online) | NA | No |
| 2 | Anoplophora chinensis | ANOLCN | Insects | No | Yes (EPPO, online) | NA | No |
| 3 | Anoplophora glabripennis | ANOLGL | Insects | No | Yes (EPPO, online) | NA | No |
| 4 |
Aphis citricidus Toxoptera citricida |
TOXOCI | Insects | No | Yes (EPPO, online) | NA | No |
| 5 | Apriona germari | APRIGE | Insects | No | Yes (EPPO, online) | NA | No |
| 6 | Apriona rugicollis | APRIJA | Insects | No | Yes (EPPO, online) | NA | No |
| 7 | Bactrocera dorsalis | DACUDO | Insects | No | Yes (EPPO, online) | NA | No |
| 8 | Bactrocera jarvisi as Bactrocera spp. | BCTRJA | Insects | No | Yes (CABI, online) | NA | No |
| 9 | Bactrocera neohumeralis as Bactrocera spp. | BCTRNE | Insects | No | Yes (CABI, online) | NA | No |
| 10 | Bactrocera tryoni as Bactrocera spp. | DACUTR | Insects | No | Yes (EPPO, online) | NA | No |
| 11 | Bactrocera zonata as Bactrocera spp. | DACUZO | Insects | No | Yes (CABI, online) | NA | No |
| 12 | Cherry rasp leaf virus | CRLV00 | Viruses | No | Yes (CABI, online) | NA | No |
| 13 | Cryphonectria parasitica | ENDOPA | Fungi | Yes | Dossier (b) | No | No |
| 14 | Erwinia amylovora | ERWIAM | Bacteria | Yes | Yes (EPPO, online) | Yes | Yes |
| 15 | Grapholita inopinata | CYDIIN | Insects | No | Yes (EPPO, online) | NA | No |
| 16 | Grapholita packardi | LASPPA | Insects | No | Yes (EPPO, online) | NA | No |
| 17 | Grapholita prunivora | LASPPR | Insects | No | Yes (EPPO, online) | NA | No |
| 18 | Homalodisca vitripennis | HOMLTR | Insects | No | Yes (EPPO, online) | NA | No |
| 19 | Lopholeucaspis japonica | LOPLJA | Insects | No | Dossier (b) | NA | No |
| 20 | Oemona hirta | OEMOHI | Insects | No | Yes (EPPO, online) | NA | No |
| 21 | Phymatotrichopsis omnivora | Fungi | No | Yes (CABI, online) | NA | No | |
| 22 | Rhagoletis pomonella | RHAGPO | Insects | No | Yes (EPPO, online) | NA | No |
| 23 | Spodoptera litura | PRODLI | Insects | No | Dossier (b) | NA | No |
| 24 | Tobacco ringspot virus | TRSV00 | Viruses | Yes | Dossier (b) | Yes | Yes |
| 25 | Tomato ringspot virus | TORSV0 | Viruses | Yes | Yes (EPPO, online) | Yes | Yes |
| 26 | Xiphinema americanum sensu stricto | XIPHAA | Nematodes | No | Yes (CABI, online) | No | No |
| 27 | Xiphinema rivesi | XIPHRI | Nematodes | No | Yes (CABI, online) | NA | No |
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072.
Pests associated to Malus spp., genus included in the dossier.
NA – Not assessed.
The scientific name of the host plant (M. sylvestris) was used when searching in the EPPO Global database and CABI Crop Protection Compendium. The same strategy was applied to the other databases excluding EUROPHYT and Web of Science.
EUROPHYT was consulted by searching for the interceptions associated to commodities imported from United Kingdom, at species level, from 1998 to May 2020 and TRACES for interceptions from June 2020 to April 2023. For the pests selected for further evaluation a search in the EUROPHYT and/or TRACES was performed for the interceptions from the whole world, at species level.
The search strategy used for Web of Science Databases was designed combining common names for pests and diseases, terms describing symptoms of plant diseases and the scientific and common names of the commodity. All the pests already retrieved using the other databases were removed from the search terms in order to be able to reduce the number of records to be screened.
The established search string is detailed in Appendix B and was run on 2 February 2023.
The titles and abstracts of the scientific papers retrieved were screened and the pests associated with M. sylvestris were included in the pest list. The pest list was eventually further compiled with other relevant information (e.g. EPPO code per pest, taxonomic information, categorisation, distribution) useful for the selection of the pests relevant for the purposes of this opinion.
The compiled pest list (see Microsoft Excel® file in Appendix D) includes all identified pests that use M. sylvestris as host. According to the Interpretation of Terms of Reference.
The evaluation of the compiled pest list was done in two steps: first, the relevance of the EU‐quarantine pests was evaluated (Section 4.1); second, the relevance of any other plant pest was evaluated (Section 4.2).
Pests for which limited information was available on one or more criteria used to identify them as relevant for this opinion, e.g. on potential impact, are listed in Appendix C (List of pests that can potentially cause an effect not further assessed).
2.3.3. Listing and evaluation of risk mitigation measures
All proposed risk mitigation measures were listed and evaluated. When evaluating the likelihood of pest freedom at origin, the following types of potential infestation/infection sources for M. sylvestris in nurseries were considered (see also Figure 1):
pest entry from surrounding areas,
pest entry with new plants/seeds,
pest spread within the nursery.
Figure 1.
Conceptual framework to assess likelihood that plants are exported free from relevant pests.
Source: EFSA PLH Panel (2019)
The risk mitigation measures adopted in the plant nurseries (as communicated by the United Kingdom) were evaluated with expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) according to the Guidance on uncertainty analysis in scientific assessment (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2018).
Information on the pest biology, estimates of likelihood of entry of the pest to and spread within the nursery, and the effect of the measures on a specific pest were summarised in pest data sheets compiled for each pest selected for further evaluation (see Appendix A).
2.3.4. Expert knowledge elicitation
To estimate the pest freedom of the commodity an EKE was performed following EFSA guidance (Annex B.8 of EFSA Scientific Committee, 2018). The specific questions for each commodity type for EKE were:
‘Taking into account (i) the risk mitigation measures in place in the nurseries, and (ii) other relevant information, how many out of 10,000 bare root or potted M. sylvestris plants are expected to be infested/infected with the relevant pest/pathogen upon arrival in the EU?’.
‘Taking into account (i) the risk mitigation measures in place in the nurseries, and (ii) other relevant information, how many out of 10,000 bundles of bare root plants or rooted cell grown young plants of M. sylvestris are expected to be infested/infected with the relevant pest/pathogen upon arrival in the EU?’.
The risk assessment is based on either single potted plants and single bare root plants or bundles of 5–15 bare root plants or bundles of 25–50 rooted cell grown young plants, as the most suitable units. The EKE questions were common to all pests for which the pest freedom of the commodity was estimated.
The following reasoning is given:
There is no quantitative information available regarding clustering of plants during production;
Two commodities are handled as singular units (single plants in pots and single bare root plants) and the other two commodity types (bare root young plants and cell grown young plants) are grouped in bundles;
For the pests under consideration, a cross contamination during transport is possible.
The EKE questions were common to all pests for which the pest freedom of the commodity was estimated.
The uncertainties associated with the EKE were taken into account and quantified in the probability distribution applying the semi‐formal method described in Section 3.5.2 of the EFSA‐PLH Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel, 2018). Finally, the results were reported in terms of the likelihood of pest freedom. The lower 5% percentile of the uncertainty distribution reflects the opinion that pest freedom is with 95% certainty above this limit.
3. Commodity data
3.1. Description of the commodity
According to the dossier and the integration of additional information provided by DEFRA, the commodities to be imported are either single plants in pots, or bare root plants, or young plants grown in cells of M. sylvestris (common names: forest apple, Crab apple, European Crab Apple; family: Rosaceae).
Specifically, the commodities considered to be imported into EU from the UK are:
Single bare root trees, from 1 to 7 years old (from 4 to 40 mm in diameter).
Single potted plants, age ranging from 1 to 7 years old (from 4 to 40 mm in diameter).
Rooted cell grown young plants, ranging from 1 to 2 years old – grouped in bundles with 25–50 plants per bundle (from 4 to 10 mm in diameter) (Figures 2 and 3).
Bare root plants, age ranging from 1 to 2 years (whips) – grouped in bundles of 5–15 plants per bundle bare root (from 4 to 10 mm in diameter) (Figure 4).
Figure 2.
Malus sylvestris cell grown plants (photo provided by DEFRA)
Figure 3.
Malus sylvestris cell grown plants unwrapped (photo provided by DEFRA)
Figure 4.
Malus sylvestris bare root plants in bundles ready for dispatch (photo provided by DEFRA)
The potted plants and plants in cells may be exported with leaves, depending on the time of the export and the life cycle of M. sylvestris. Bare root plants exported to the EU may have some leaves at the time of export, in particular when exported in November. Plants will not bear fruit at the time of export.
3.2. Description of the production areas
According to the dossier and additional information provided, plants designated for export are grown in the entire UK and producers do not set aside separate areas for export production.
Plants are mainly grown outdoors, with limited production in glasshouses. All plants are grown on land which has no history of potato cultivation for the past 12 years and is therefore classed as free from potato cyst nematodes (Globodera pallida and G. rostochiensis) for which M. sylvestris is not a host.
Nurseries are mainly situated in the rural areas. The surrounding land would tend to be arable farmland with some pastures for animals and small areas of woodland. Hedges are often used to define field boundaries and grown along roadsides.
Arable crops: these are rotated in line with good farming practice and could include oilseed rape (Brassica napus), wheat (Triticum), barley (Hordeum vulgare), turnips (Brassica rapa subsp. rapa), potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) and maize (Zea mays).
Pasture: Predominantly ryegrass (Lolium).
Woodland: woodlands tend to be a standard UK mixed woodland, with a range of UK native trees such as oak (Quercus robur), pine (Pinus), poplar (Populus), ash (Fraxinus), sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), holly (Ilex), Norway maple (Acer platanus), field maple (Acer campestre).
Hedges: Hedges are made up of a range of species including hazel (Corylus avellana), yew (Taxus baccata), holly (Ilex), ivy (Hedera), alder (Alnus glutinosa), laurel (Prunus laurocerasus), hawthorn (Crataegus), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) and leylandii (Cupressus x leylandii).
3.3. Production and handling processes
3.3.1. Growing conditions
Most plants are grown in field (Figure 5) and containers outdoors, cell grown plants may be grown in greenhouses.
Figure 5.
Field grown Malus sylvestris plants (photo provided by DEFRA)
According to the submitted dossier:
In the production or procurement of plants, the use of growing media is assessed for the potential to harbour and transmit plant pests. Growers most commonly use virgin peat or peat‐free compost, which is a mixture of coir, tree bark, wood fibre, etc. This compost is heat‐treated by commercial suppliers during production to eliminate pests and pathogens. It is supplied in sealed bulk bags or shrink‐wrapped bales and stored off the ground on pallets. Where delivered in bulk, compost is kept in a dedicated bunker, either indoors, or covered by tarpaulin outdoors, and with no risk of contamination with soil or other material.
Growers must assess weeds and volunteer plants for the potential to host and transmit plant pests and have an appropriate programme of weed management in place in the nursery.
Growers are required to assess water sources, irrigation and drainage systems used in the plant production for the potential to harbour and transmit plant pests. Water may be obtained from the mains water supply, bore holes, rivers or reservoirs/lagoons. Water is routinely sampled and sent for analysis. No quarantine pests have been found so far.
General hygiene measures are undertaken as part of routine nursery production, including disinfection of tools and equipment between batches/lots.
All residues or waste materials are assessed for the potential to host, harbour and transmit pests.
3.3.2. Source of planting material
The starting material is a mix of seeds and seedlings depending on the nursery. The nurseries proposing to export to the EU do not use grafting or vegetative propagation to produce M. sylvestris.
Additionally, according to the submitted dossier, M. sylvestris and its hybrids are grown in Great Britain in line with the Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and the Plant Health (Phytosanitary Conditions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
3.3.3. Production cycle
As indicated in the submitted dossier, bare‐rooted plants are planted in the field from late autumn until early spring (November to March) and rooted plants in pots are planted at any time of year, with winter as the most common. The origin of the planting material has not been specified in the dossier. Flowering occurs during late spring (April–June), depending on the variety and weather conditions. Fruiting occurs from late summer to late autumn depending on the variety and weather conditions during the growing season.
Bare root plants are harvested in winter to be able to lift plants from the field, as plants are into a dormant phase.
Rooted plants in pots can be moved at any timepoint in during the year, but usually between September and May.
3.3.4. Pest monitoring during production
According to the submitted dossier and additional information provided, UK surveillance is based on visual inspection with samples taken from symptomatic material. Sometimes, asymptomatic material is also sampled to check latent infections.
Incoming plant material and other goods such as packaging material and growing media, that have the potential to be infected or harbour pests, are checked on arrival. Growers have procedures in place to quarantine any suspect plant material and to report findings to the authorities.
Growers keep records to allow traceability for all plant material handled. These records must allow a consignment or consignment in transit to be traced back to the original source, as well as forward to identify all trade customers to which those plants have been supplied.
Crop protection is achieved using a combination of measures including approved plant protection products, biological control or physical measures. Plant protection products are only used when necessary and records of all plant protection treatments are kept.
Separate to any official inspection, plant material is checked by growers for plant health issues prior to dispatch.
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.
The quarantine surveillance programme centres on a risk‐based selection of premises to visit, based on size, types of plants grown, source of plants and the producer's track record of pest and disease issues. Guidance on visit frequency is given to inspectors to ensure that those sites which present the greatest risk are visited more frequently than those of lower risk. The risk category assigned to a premise determines the frequency of visit.
very high risk (multiple visits per year);
high risk (two/three visits per year);
medium risk (annual visit);
low risk (once every 3 years).
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. The 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.
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.
Growers designate trained or qualified personnel responsible for the plant health measures within their business. Training records of internal and external training must be maintained, and evidence of continuing professional development (CPD) to maintain awareness of current plant health issues.
Post‐harvest and through the autumn and winter, nursery management is centred on pest and disease prevention and maintaining good levels of nursery hygiene. leaves, prunings and weeds are all removed from the nursery to reduce the number of over wintering sites for pests and diseases.
3.3.5. Post‐harvest processes and export procedure
It was assumed that bare‐rooted plants are washed to remove soil before they are bagged and distributed on certified wooden or metal pallets.
Rooted plants in pots are transported on Danish trolleys for smaller containers, or pallets, or individually in pots for larger containers. ISPM 15 compliant wood packing material is used when consignments are exported.
Plants are then transported by lorry (size dependant on load quantity). Sensitive plants are occasionally transported by temperature‐controlled lorry if weather conditions during transit are likely to be very cold.
4. Identification of pests potentially associated with the commodity
The search for potential pests associated to M. sylvestris rendered 1,179 species (see Microsoft Excel® file in Appendix D).
4.1. Selection of relevant EU‐quarantine pests associated with the commodity
The EU listing of union quarantine pests and protected zone quarantine pests (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072) is based on assessments concluding that the pests can enter, establish, spread and have potential impact in the EU.
Twenty‐seven EU‐quarantine species that are reported to use M. sylvestris as a host plant were evaluated (Table 3) for their relevance of being included in this opinion.
The relevance of an EU‐quarantine pest for this opinion was based on evidence that:
the pest is present in the UK.
M. sylvestris is a host of the pest.
one or more life stages of the pest can be associated with the specified commodity.
Pests that fulfilled all criteria were selected for further evaluation.
Table 3 presents an overview of the evaluation of the 27 EU‐quarantine pest species that are reported to use M. sylvestris as a host or were included in the dossier submitted by DEFRA in regards of their relevance for this Opinion.
Three species (E. amylovora, tobacco ringspot virus and tomato ringspot virus) known to use M. sylvestris as host, associated with the commodity and present in the UK were selected for further evaluation.
Since special requirements or emergency measures are specified for M. sylvestris with regard to E. amylovora, in Appendix X, item 9 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 the evaluation for this pest consisted of checking whether or not the exporting country applies these measures.
4.2. Selection of other relevant pests (non‐regulated in the EU) associated with the commodity
The information provided by the UK, integrated with the search EFSA performed, was evaluated in order to assess whether there are other potentially relevant pests of M. sylvestris present in the country of export. For these potential pests that are non‐regulated in the EU, pest risk assessment information on the probability of entry, establishment, spread and impact is usually lacking. Therefore, these pests were also evaluated to determine their relevance for this opinion based on evidence that:
the pest is present in the UK;
the pest is (i) absent or (ii) has a limited distribution in the EU;
M. sylvestris is a host of the pest;
one or more life stages of the pest can be associated with the specified commodity;
the pest may have an impact in the EU.
Pest species were excluded from further evaluation when at least one of the conditions listed above (a–e) was not met. Details can be found in the Appendix D (Microsoft Excel® file).
Of the evaluated pests not regulated in the EU, four were selected for further evaluation because these met all the selection criteria (Colletotrichum aenigma, Meloidogyne mali, Eulecanium excrescens, Takahashia japonica). More information on these pests can be found in the pest datasheets (Appendix A).
4.3. Overview of interceptions
Data on the interception of harmful organisms on plants of M. sylvestris can provide information on some of the organisms that can be present on M. sylvestris despite the current measures taken. According to EUROPHYT, online (accessed on 20 April 2023) and TRACES online (accessed on 20 April 2023) there were no interceptions of plants for planting of M. sylvestris from the UK destinated to the EU Member States due to presence of harmful organisms between the years 1998 and the 2023 (April).
4.4. List of potential pests not further assessed
The Panel highlighted four species (Archips semiferanus, Clover yellow mosaic virus, Dysaphis brancoi spp. rogersoni, Homona coffearia) for which the taxonomy, presence in the UK or the impact on M. sylvestris is uncertain (Appendix C).
4.5. Summary of pests selected for further evaluation
The pests identified to be present in the UK and having potential for association with the commodities destined for export are listed in Table 4.
Table 4.
List of relevant pests selected for further evaluation
| Number | Current scientific name | EPPO code | Name used in the EU legislation | Taxonomic information | Group | Regulatory status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Colletotrichum aenigma | COLLAE | NA |
Glomerallales 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 |
Some of the pest species that have been reported in the table and have been included in the submitted dossier are associated with M. domestica or other Malus spp. Taking into consideration the interfertility of M. sylvestris and M. domestica and the close genetic relationship of them to other Malus spp., the Panel has decided to evaluate these pests as potentially associated with M. sylvestris.
The effectiveness of the risk mitigation measures applied to the commodity was evaluated.
The Panel decided to group some species for the elicitations and graphical presentation of its outcome. This was the case of:
tobacco ringspot virus and tomato ringspot virus grouped as ‘Viruses’ due to similar biology, impact on the commodity, distribution in UK and regulatory status in EU.
Eulecanium excrescens and Takahashia japonica grouped as ‘Scales’ because of their similar biology, impact, taxonomy, risk mitigation measures and/or regulatory status in EU.
5. Risk mitigation measures
For the six selected pests (Table 4) the Panel assessed the possibility that they could be present in a M. sylvestris nursery and assessed the probability that pest freedom of a consignment is achieved by the proposed risk mitigation measures acting on the pest under evaluation.
The information used in the evaluation of the effectiveness of the risk mitigation measures is summarised in a pest data sheet (see Appendix A).
5.1. Possibility of pest presence in the export nurseries and production areas
For these six pests (Table 4), the Panel evaluated the likelihood that the pest could be present in a M. sylvestris nursery by evaluating the possibility that M. sylvestris in the export nursery are infested either by:
introduction of the pest from the environment surrounding the nursery;
introduction of the pest with new plants/seeds;
spread of the pest within the nursery.
5.2. Risk mitigation measures applied in the UK
With the dossier and additional information provided by the UK, the Panel summarised the risk mitigation measures (see Table 5) that are proposed in the production nurseries.
Table 5.
Overview of proposed risk mitigation measures for Malus sylvestris plants designated for export to the EU from the UK
| No. | Risk mitigation measure (name) | Implementation in United Kingdom |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Science and Advise for Scottish Agriculture (SASA), and are authorised to issue UK plant passports. |
| 2 | Phytosanitary certificates | APHA or SASA 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 |
Leaves, prunings and weeds are all removed from the nursery to reduce the number of overwintering sites for pests and diseases. No further details are available. |
| 5 | Pesticide application, biological and mechanical control |
Crop protection is achieved using a combination of measures including approved plant protection products, biological control or physical measures. Plant protection products are only used when necessary and records of all plant protection treatments are kept. No further details are available. |
| 6 | Surveillance and monitoring |
The Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate (PHSI), part of the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), execute plant health policy, except forestry matters, in England and Wales under a Memorandum of Understanding with DEFRA and with the Welsh Government. In Scotland, this role is carried out by inspectors in the Rural Payments and Inspections Division and the Horticulture and Marketing Unit, in SASA. PHSI and Scottish inspectors carry out import, export, monitoring and survey inspections, issue phytosanitary certificates and oversee import controls, issuing of plant passports and eradication campaigns. All producers are subject to regular inspections by plant health inspectors as part of either Plant Passporting audits, or a programme of general surveillance of all registered producers. UK plant health inspectors monitor for pests and diseases during crop certification and passporting inspections. In addition, the PHSI (in England and Wales) carry out a programme of Quarantine Surveillance in registered premises, inspecting plants grown and moving within the UK market. Similar arrangements operate in Scotland Imports from third countries are inspected at point of entry but may be additionally subject to quarantine surveillance check inspections as they move internally. The objective of the quarantine surveillance is to ensure that: • the plant passport regime is being operated effectively. • quarantine organisms are not spread on plants and plant produce which are not subject to plant passporting. • the UK plant health authorities have early warning of any new threat from a previously unknown pest or disease which has become established within the UK. • plant health authorities can take informed decisions on the scope and operation of the plant passport regime The quarantine surveillance programme centres on a risk‐based selection of premises to visit, based on size, types of plants grown, source of plants and the producer's track record of pest and disease issues. Guidance on visit frequency is given to inspectors to ensure that those sites which present the greatest risk are visited more frequently than those of lower risk. The risk category assigned to a premise determines the frequency of visit. • very high risk (multiple visits per year) • high risk (two/three visits per year) • medium risk (annual visit) • low risk (once every 3 years) 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. |
| 7 | 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. |
| 8 | Root washing | It is assumed that roots are washed prior to export to remove the soil. |
| 9 | Refrigeration and temperature control | Plants are transported by lorry (size dependent on load quantity). Sensitive plants will occasionally be transported by temperature‐controlled lorry if weather conditions during transit are likely to be very cold. |
| 10 | Pre‐consignment inspection | Separate to any official inspection, plant material is checked by growers for plant health issues prior to dispatch. |
5.3. Evaluation of the current measures for the selected relevant pests including uncertainties
For each evaluated pest, the relevant risk mitigation measures acting on the pest were identified. Any limiting factors on the effectiveness of the measures were documented.
All the relevant information including the related uncertainties deriving from the limiting factors used in the evaluation are summarised in a pest data sheet provided in Appendix A.
Based on this information, for each selected relevant pest, an expert judgement is given for the likelihood of pest freedom taking into consideration the risk mitigation measures and their combination acting on the pest.
An overview of the evaluation of each relevant pest is given in the sections below (Sections 5.3.1–5.3.6). The outcome of the EKE regarding pest freedom after the evaluation of the proposed risk mitigation measures is summarised in the Section 5.3.7.
5.3.1. Overview of the evaluation of Colletotrichum aenigma for all commodity types
| 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 single potted plants/single bare root trees | 9,978 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,985 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,990 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,995 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,999 out of 10,000 bundles |
| Proportion of infested single potted plants/single bare root trees | 1 out of 10,000 bundles | 5 out of 10,000 bundles | 10 out of 10,000 bundles | 15 out of 10,000 bundles | 22 out of 10,000 bundles |
| Proportion of pest‐free bundles of bare root plants or cell grown young plants | 9,989 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,991 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 root plants or cell grown young plants | 1 out of 10,000 bundles | 3 out of 10,000 bundles | 6 out of 10,000 bundles | 9 out of 10,000 bundles | 11 out of 10,000 bundles |
| Summary of the information used for the evaluation |
Possibility that the pest could become associate with the commodity Malus domestica is a host of C. aenigma. C. aenigma, has been reported in the UK (Baroncelli et al., 2015) C. aenigma can develop on leaves and cause a disease referred to as Glomerella leaf spot. 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 and plant debris 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
|
||||
For more details, see relevant pest data sheet on Colletotrichum aenigma (Section A.1 in Appendix A).
5.3.2. Overview of the evaluation of Meloidogyne mali for all commodity types
| 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 single potted plants/single bare root trees | 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 single potted plants/single bare root trees | 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 root plants or cell grown young plants | 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 bare root plants or cell grown young 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 | 5 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 the Dutch elm disease caused by Ophiostoma ulmi. The current range of M. 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 or M. sylvestris 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
|
||||
For more details, see relevant pest data sheet on Meloidogyne mali (Section A.2 in Appendix A).
5.3.3. Overview of the evaluation of Eulecanium excrescens for all commodity types
| 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 single potted plants/single bare root trees | 9,981 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,985 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,990 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,995 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,999 out of 10,000 bundles |
| Proportion of infested single potted plants/single bare root trees | 1 out of 10,000 bundles | 5 out of 10,000 bundles | 10 out of 10,000 bundles | 15 out of 10,000 bundles | 19 out of 10,000 bundles |
| Proportion of pest‐free bundles of bare root plants or cell grown young plants | 9,976 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,982 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,988 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,994 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,999 out of 10,000 bundles |
| Proportion of infested bundles of bare root plants or cell grown young plants | 1 out of 10,000 bundles | 6 out of 10,000 bundles | 12 out of 10,000 bundles | 18 out of 10,000 bundles | 24 out of 10,000 bundles |
| Summary of the information used for the evaluation |
Possibility that the pest could become associate with the commodity 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 pest 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. M. domestica is a host of E. excrescens (Deng, 1985). 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 E. excrescens during inspections may contribute to its spread.
Main uncertainties
E. excrescens is not under official surveillance in UK, as it does not meet criteria of quarantine pest for the UK. It is uncertain how many other UK sites may be infested though being undetected. |
||||
For more details, see relevant pest data sheet on E. excrescens (Section A.3 in Appendix A).
5.3.4. Overview of the evaluation of Takahashia japonica for all commodity types
| 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 single potted plants/single bare root trees | 9,981 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,985 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,990 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,995 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,999 out of 10,000 bundles |
| Proportion of infested single potted plants/single bare root trees | 1 out of 10,000 bundles | 5 out of 10,000 bundles | 10 out of 10,000 bundles | 15 out of 10,000 bundles | 19 out of 10,000 bundles |
| Proportion of pest‐free bundles of bare root plants or cell grown young plants | 9,976 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,982 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,988 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,994 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,999 out of 10,000 bundles |
| Proportion of infested bundles of bare root plants or cell grown young plants | 1 out of 10,000 bundles | 6 out of 10,000 bundles | 12 out of 10,000 bundles | 18 out of 10,000 bundles | 24 out of 10,000 bundles |
| Summary of the information used for the evaluation |
Possibility that the pest could become associate with the commodity 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 assumed for this pest to 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). Malus pumila (=domestica) is reported to be host for T. japonica (Limonta et al., 2022); however, it is not reported among the major hosts by the UK NPPO (DEFRA, online). 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) and (v) Pre‐consignment inspection. Interception records There are no records of interceptions from UK. Shortcomings of current measures/procedures The undetected presence of T. japonica during inspections may contribute to its spread.
Main uncertainties
T. japonica 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. |
||||
For more details, see relevant pest data sheet on Takahashia japonica (Section A.4 in Appendix A).
5.3.5. Overview of the evaluation of tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV) for all commodity types
| 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 single potted plants/single bare root trees | 9,998 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,999 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 single potted plants/single bare root trees | 0 out of 10,000 bundles | 0 out of 10,000 bundles | 1 out of 10,000 bundles | 1 out of 10,000 bundles | 2 out of 10,000 bundles |
| Proportion of pest‐free bundles of bare root plants or cell grown young plants | 9,998 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,998 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,999 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 root plants or cell grown young plants | 0 out of 10,000 bundles | 1 out of 10,000 bundles | 1 out of 10,000 bundles | 2 out of 10,000 bundles | 2 out of 10,000 bundles |
| Summary of the information used for the evaluation |
Possibility that the pest/pathogen could enter exporting nurseries TRSV has a wide host range, including herbaceous and woody plant species. Its occurrence in the UK is restricted. The dispersal range of TRSV infection by natural processes appears to be constrained, as the nematode‐vector species of the Xiphinema americanum group sensu lato (including X. americanum sensu stricto, X. californicum, X. rivesi, X. intermedium, X. tarjanense) have not been reported recently in the UK. Measures taken against the pest/pathogen and their efficacy Only certified class plant material is used at the production areas, and quarantine practices are carried out in accordance with the ‘Seedling Certification Regulation’ and ‘Regulation on the Registration of Plant Passports and Operators’. Interception records There are no records of interceptions of M. sylvestris plants for planting from the UK due to the presence of TRSV. Shortcomings of current measures/procedures Details on the inspections and surveillance to detect TRSV. Main uncertainties The certification process/status of the material. TRSV dispersal by other means (seeds or pollen to the mother plant) are unknown in woody plants. The extent of the inspections to detect TRSV infections is unknown. |
||||
For more details, see relevant pest data sheet on tobacco ringspot virus (Section A.5 in Appendix A).
5.3.6. Overview of the evaluation of tomato ringspot virus (ToRSV) for all commodity types
| 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 single potted plants/single bare root trees | 9,998 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,999 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 single potted plants/single bare root trees | 0 out of 10,000 bundles | 0 out of 10,000 bundles | 1 out of 10,000 bundles | 1 out of 10,000 bundles | 2 out of 10,000 bundles |
| Proportion of pest‐free bundles of bare root plants or plants in cells | 9,998 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,998 out of 10,000 bundles | 9,999 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 root plants in cells | 0 out of 10,000 bundles | 1 out of 10,000 bundles | 1 out of 10,000 bundles | 2 out of 10,000 bundles | 2 out of 10,000 bundles |
| Summary of the information used for the evaluation |
Possibility that the pest/pathogen could enter exporting nurseries ToRSV has a wide host range, including herbaceous and woody plant species. Its occurrence in the UK is restricted. The dispersal range of ToRSV infection by natural processes appears to be constrained, as the nematode‐vector species of the Xiphinema americanum group sensu lato (including X. americanum sensu stricto, X. californicum, X. rivesi, X. intermedium, X. tarjanense) have not been reported recently in the UK. Measures taken against the pest/pathogen and their efficacy Only certified class plant material is used at the production areas, and quarantine practices are carried out in accordance with the ‘Seedling Certification Regulation’ and ‘Regulation on the Registration of Plant Passports and Operators’. Interception records There are no records of interceptions of M. sylvestris plants for planting from the UK due to the presence of ToRSV. Shortcomings of current measures/procedures Details on the inspections and surveillance to detect ToRSV. Main uncertainties The certification process/status of the material. ToRSV dispersal by other means (seeds or pollen) are unknown in woody plants. The extent of the inspections to detect ToRSV infections is unknown. |
||||
For more details, see relevant pest data sheet on tomato ringspot virus (Section A.6 in Appendix A).
5.3.7. Outcome of expert knowledge elicitation
Table 6 and Figure 6 show the outcome of the EKE regarding pest freedom after the evaluation of the proposed risk mitigation measures for all the evaluated pests.
Table 6.
Assessment of the likelihood of pest freedom following evaluation of current risk mitigation measures against Colletotrichum aenigma, Meloidogyne mali, Eulecanium excrescens, Takahashia japonica, tobacco ringspot virus and tomato ringspot virus on Malus sylvestris plants designated for export to the EU. In panel A, the median value for the assessed level of pest freedom for each pest is indicated by ‘M', the 5% percentile is indicated by L and the 95% percentile is indicated by U. The percentiles together span the 90% uncertainty range regarding pest freedom. The pest freedom categories are defined in panel B of the table
| Number | Group | Pest species | Sometimes pest free | More often than not pest free | Frequently pest free | Very frequently pest free | Extremely frequently pest free | Pest free with some exceptional cases | Pest free with few exceptional cases | Almost always pest free |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fungi | Colletotrichum aenigma, single plants | L | M | U | |||||
| 2 | Fungi | Colletotrichum aenigma/plants in bundles | L | M | U | |||||
| 3 | Nematodes | Meloidogyne mali/single plants | LMU | |||||||
| 4 | Nematodes | Meloidogyne mali/plants in bundles | LMU | |||||||
| 5 | Insects | Eulecanium excrescens/single plants | L | M | U | |||||
| 6 | Insects | Eulecanium excrescens/plants in bundles | LM | U | ||||||
| 7 | Insects | Takahashia japonica/single plants | L | M | U | |||||
| 8 | Insects | Takahashia japonica/plants in bundles | LM | U | ||||||
| Viruses | tobacco ringspot virus/single plants | LMU | ||||||||
| 13 | Viruses | tobacco ringspot virus/plants in bundles | LMU | |||||||
| 15 | Viruses | tomato ringspot virus/single plants | LMU | |||||||
| 16 | Viruses | tomato ringspot virus/plants in bundles | LMU |
Figure 6.
Elicited certainty (y‐axis) of the number of pest‐free Malus sylvestris commodities (x‐axis; log‐scaled) out of 10,000 designated for export to the EU from the UK for all evaluated pests visualised as descending distribution function. Horizontal lines indicate the percentiles (starting from the bottom 5%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 95%). The Panel is 95% confident that 9,976, − (scales – plants in bundles), 9,978 (Colletotrichum aenigma – single plants), 9,981 (scales – single plants), 9,989 (Colletotrichum aenigma – plants in bundles), 9,995 (Meloidogyne mali – plants in bundles), 9,997 (Meloidogyne mali – single plants, 9,999 (viruses – single plants and plants in bundles) will be pest free
Figure 7 provides an explanation of the descending distribution function describing the likelihood of pest freedom after the evaluation of the proposed risk mitigation measures for M. sylvestris trees designated for export to the EU for C. aenigma, M. mali, E. excrescens, T. japonica, tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV) and tomato ringspot virus (ToRSV).
Figure 7.
Explanation of the descending distribution function describing the likelihood of pest freedom after the evaluation of the proposed risk mitigation measures for plants (in bundles of bare root plants or rooted cell grown young plants) designated for export to the EU based on based on the example of scales (E. excrescens and T. japonica)
PANEL A
| Pest freedom category | Pest free plants out of 10,000 | |
|---|---|---|
| Sometimes pest free | ≤ 5,000 | |
| More often than not pest free | 5,000–≤ 9,000 | |
| Frequently pest free | 9,000–≤ 9,500 | |
| Very frequently pest free | 9,500–≤ 9,900 | |
| Extremely frequently pest free | 9,900–≤ 9,950 | |
| Pest free with some exceptional cases | 9,950–≤ 9,990 | |
| Pest free with few exceptional cases | 9,990–≤ 9,995 | |
| Almost always pest free | 9,995–≤ 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 |
PANEL B
5.4. Evaluation of the application of specific measures in the United Kingdom
Annex X of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 specifies a list of plants, plant products and other objects, originating from third countries as well as from the EU and the corresponding special requirements for their introduction into the Union territory or Protected Zones.
Based on the information provided in the dossier, including the supplementary information, the exporting country does meet the specific requirements for a certificate regarding E. amylovora.
6. Conclusions
There are seven pests identified to be present in the UK and considered to be potentially associated with plants in pots, bare root plants, seedlings of M. sylvestris imported from United Kingdom and relevant for the EU.
The Panel concludes that for E. amylovora, the exporting country does meet the specific requirements for a certificate regarding this pest.
For the remaining six pests Colletotrichum aenigma, Meloidogyne mali, Eulecanium excrescens, Takahashia japonica, tobacco ringspot virus and tomato ringspot virus, the likelihood of pest freedom after the evaluation of the proposed risk mitigation measures for plants in pots, bare root plants, plants in cells of M. sylvestris designated for export to the EU was estimated.
For C. aenigma, the likelihood of pest freedom following evaluation of current risk mitigation measures was estimated as:
For single bare root or potted M. sylvestris plants ‘Pest free with few exceptional cases’ with the 90% uncertainty range reaching from ‘Pest free with some exceptional cases s’ to ‘Almost always pest free’. The EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9,978 and 10,000 units per 10,000 will be free from C. aenigma.
For bundles of bare root plants or rooted young plants in cells of M. sylvestris ‘Pest free with few exceptional cases’ with the 90% uncertainty range reaching from ‘Pest free with some exceptional cases s’ to ‘Almost always pest free’. The EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9,989 and 10,000 units per 10,000 will be free from C. aenigma.
For M. mali the likelihood of pest freedom following evaluation of current risk mitigation measures was estimated as:
For single bare root or potted M. sylvestris plants ‘Almost always pest free’ with the 90% uncertainty range reaching from ‘Almost always pest free’ to ‘Almost always pest free’. The EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9,997 and 10,000 units per 10,000 will be free from M. mali.
For bundles of bare root plants or rooted young plants in cells of M. sylvestris ‘Almost always pest free’ with the 90% uncertainty range reaching from ‘Almost always pest free’ to ‘Almost always pest free’. The EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9,995 and 10,000 units per 10,000 will be free from M. mali.
For the two scale species (E. excrescens and T. japonica) the likelihood of pest freedom following evaluation of current risk mitigation measures was estimated as:
single bare root or potted M. sylvestris plants ‘Pest free with few exceptional cases’ with the 90% uncertainty range reaching from ‘Pest free with some exceptional cases' to ‘Almost always pest free’. The EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9,981 and 10,000 units per 10,000 will be free from scales (E. excrescens, T. japonica).
For bundles of bare root plants or rooted young plants in cells of M. sylvestris ‘Pest free with some exceptional cases’ with the 90% uncertainty range reaching from ‘Pest free with some exceptional cases' to ‘Almost always pest free’. The EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9,976 and 10,000 units per 10,000 will be free from scales (E. excrescens, T. japonica).
For the two virus species (tobacco ringspot virus and tomato ringspot virus; TRSV and ToRSV), the likelihood of pest freedom following evaluation of current risk mitigation measures was estimated as:
single bare root or potted M. sylvestris plants ‘Almost always pest free’ with the 90% uncertainty range reaching from ‘Almost always pest free’ to ‘Almost always pest free’. The EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9,998 and 10,000 units per 10,000 will be free from both viruses.
For bundles of bare root plants or rooted young plants in cells of M. sylvestris ‘Almost always pest free’ with the 90% uncertainty range reaching from ‘Almost always pest free’ to ‘Almost always pest free’. The EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9,998 and 10,000 units per 10,000 will be free from both viruses.
Abbreviations
- APHA
Animal and Plant Health Agency
- CABI
Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International
- CPD
continuing professional development
- EKE
expert knowledge elicitation
- EPPO
European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization
- FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization
- ISPM
International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures
- PLH
Plant Health
- PRA
pest risk assessment
- QP
quarantine pest
- RNQPs
regulated non‐quarantine pests
- SASA
Science and Advise for Scottish Agriculture
Glossary
- 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)
Appendix A – Data sheets of pests selected for further evaluation via Expert Knowledge Elicitation
A.1. Colletotrichum aenigma
A.1.1. Organism information
| 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: Glomerellales 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 sylvestris. | 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:
|
|
| Other relevant information for the assessment | ||
| Biology |
Colletotrichum spp. are dispersed through asexual conidiospores which are produced on diseased plant tissue and plant debris via acervuli, but they can also, produce ascospores through sexual reproduction (Australian Government, 2020). Conidia and ascospores can be dispersed through rain drops, 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. The pathogen can over‐winter mainly on fresh/dry leaves and on fresh twigs. |
|
| Symptoms | Main type of symptoms |
Anthracnose symptoms can develop on flowers, stems, fruits, leaves and twigs (Velho et al., 2019). Leaves:
Shoots:
Flowers:
Fruits:
|
| 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 multi‐locus phylogenetic analyses by DNA sequencing (EFSA PLH Panel, 2022). | |
| Host plant range | Colletotrichum aenigma has been previously reported from a wide range of hosts including M. domestica, Camellia sinensis, Citrus sinensis, Fragaria x ananassa, 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 |
|
|
| 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. sylvestris 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. |
|
A.1.2. Possibility of pest presence in the nursery
A.1.2.1. Possibility of entry from the surrounding environment
Colletotrichum aenigma can infect a large number of plants, including fruits, vegetables and ornamentals (EFSA PLH Panel, 2022). The major source of inoculum is from infected plant material, which can be leaves, twigs and fruit of the affected plant species. While splash dispersal from rain or irrigation water is required to dislodge the conidia from the acervuli of the fungus, subsequent drying of the water droplets can lead to air‐borne inoculum, which can be further dispersed via wind. Therefore, the presence of host species in the environment of the nurseries with Malus sylvestris plants is an important factor for the possible movement of inoculum into the nursery.
Uncertainties:
-
–
There may be plants in private gardens and in the surroundings of the nurseries that can serve as hosts e.g. Fragaria × ananassa.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that it is possible for the pathogen to enter the nursery from the surrounding area. The pest/pathogens can be present in the surrounding areas and the transferring rate could be enhanced by suitable environmental conditions, including plant debris and irrigation practices.
A.1.2.2. Possibility of entry with new plants/seeds
The UK has regulations in place for fruit plant propagating material that are in line with those of European Union, and this equivalence has been recognised in Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/2219. Thus, only material fulfilling characteristics of certified, basic, or CAC levels of certification, including the origin of the material, can be marketed.
The starting materials used in the nurseries are seeds and seedlings. C. aenigma is not seed borne.
Uncertainties:
Many Colletotrichum species can have extended hemibiotrophic or quiescent phases of their life cycles in asymptomatic plants (De Silva et al., 2017). Latent infections might be present in the seedlings.
-
–
It is uncertain whether other species are grown within the same nursery.
-
–
The source of the seedlings is unknown
Taking the above evidence and uncertainties into consideration, the Panel considers it is possible but not very likely that the pathogen could enter the nursery with new plants
A.1.2.3. Possibility of spread within the nursery
If C. aenigma is present within the nursery it can spread to other plants via conidia. Conidia are disseminated from infected plants by rain splash or wind onto healthy leaves, young fruits or blossoms (De Silva et al., 2017). The fungi continue to produce conidia throughout the season resulting in a polycyclic disease cycle and further spread of the disease within the nursery. The fungi overwinter in plant tissue or on plant debris in the soil. If the sexual stage of the C. aenigma occurs, perithecia are formed, which can act as overwintering structures and source of inoculum. Planting of contaminated plants of other plant species in the nursery may also contribute to the spread of the disease. Contamination of pruning tools with spores may also contribute to the spread of disease.
Many Colletotrichum species can have extended hemibiotrophic or quiescent phases of their life cycles in asymptomatic plants, which can be overlooked by visual inspections and lead to an unintentional spread of the disease. (De Silva et al., 2017). Inspections are required once a year for Basic 1–3 and Certified materials. Trained nursery staff perform regular inspections of the material and implement relevant control measures but these apparently vary from nursery to nursery and no details were provided.
Uncertainties:
-
–
There is uncertainty of the length of a possible dormant phase of the Colletotrichum species and whether this will lead to undetected presence of Colletotrichum species in the exported plants and scions despite the regular inspections.
-
–
The Colletotrichum species have a wide host range. In the dossier, there is no information on whether other host plant species are present within the nursery from which the Colletotrichum spp. could potentially spread to the M. sylvestris plants.
Taking the above evidence and uncertainties into consideration, the Panel considers it is likely that the pathogen could spread within the nursery.
A.1.3. Information from interceptions
There are no records of interceptions of Colletotrichum aenigma plants for planting from the UK due to the presence of C. aenigma between 1998 and February 2023 (EUROPHYT, online; TRACES‐NT, online).
A.1.4. Evaluation of the risk mitigation measures
In the table below, all risk mitigation measures currently applied in UK are listed and an indication of their effectiveness on Colletotrichum aenigma is provided. The description of the risk mitigation measures currently applied in UK is provided in Table 5.
| No. | Risk mitigation measure | Effect on the pest | Evaluation and Uncertainties |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Certified material | Yes |
Uncertainties:
|
| 2 | Phytosanitary certificates | Yes |
Uncertainties:
|
| 3 | Cleaning and disinfection of facilities, tools and machinery | Yes |
Uncertainties:
|
| 4 | Rouging and pruning | Yes |
Uncertainties:
|
| 5 | Pesticide application and biological control | Yes |
Uncertainties:
|
| 6 | Surveillance and monitoring | Yes |
Uncertainties:
|
| 7 | Sampling and laboratory testing | Yes |
Uncertainties:
|
| 8 | Root washing | No | |
| 9 | Refrigeration and temperature control | Yes |
Uncertainties:
|
| 10 | Pre‐consignment inspection | Yes |
Uncertainties:
|
A.1.5. Overall likelihood of pest freedom
A.1.5.1. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number of infested consignments
-
–
Pest pressure is very low in the UK.
-
–
There are no other host plants present in the surroundings and within nursery.
-
–
Proper and effective application of fungicides to control fungal diseases; visual inspections are in place.
-
–
Apple rot is not so much reported in the UK – could be rare in the UK.
-
–
Growers and inspectors inspect plants and are effective in detecting and discarding infected materials.
-
–
Latent infections are rare (with leaves showing symptoms of infection if present).
-
–
Transport of the commodities is during the dormant stage.
A.1.5.2. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number of infested consignments
-
–
There are other host plants present in the surroundings and within nursery.
-
–
There is no targeted survey in the UK.
-
–
Growers are not trained and misidentification with other Colletotrichum species could happen.
-
–
Latent infections are common and could be overlooked.
-
–
Leaves will be present in potted plants at the time of export.
-
–
High pest pressure in the UK.
-
–
Applied fungicides are not efficient in controlling the disease.
A.1.5.3. Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over‐ or underestimate the number of infested consignments (median)
The Panel assumes a scenario in which infections if they should occur would be below the estimated midpoint value.
A.1.5.4. Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/interquartile range)
The main uncertainty is the presence of latent infections.
A.1.5.5. Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Colletotrichum aenigma
The elicited and fitted values for Colletotrichum aenigma agreed by the Panel are shown in Tables A.1, A.2, A.3–A.4 and in Figures A.1–A.2.
Table A.1.
Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation by Colletotrichum aenigma per 10,000 single potted or bare root plants
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elicited values | 0 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 25 | ||||||||||
| EKE | 0.367 | 0.764 | 1.34 | 2.36 | 3.63 | 5.13 | 6.63 | 9.75 | 13.2 | 15.2 | 17.5 | 19.8 | 22.1 | 23.6 | 25.0 |
The EKE results is the BetaGeneral(1.2604, 2.0485, 0, 27.5) distribution fitted with @Risk version 7.6.
Table A.2.
The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Colletotrichum aenigma per 10,000 single potted or bare root plants calculated by Table A1
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Values | 9,975 | 9,985 | 9,990 | 9,995 | 12 | ||||||||||
| EKE results | 9,975 | 9,976 | 9,978 | 9,980 | 9,982 | 9,985 | 9,987 | 9,990 | 9,993 | 9,995 | 9,996 | 9,997.6 | 9,998.7 | 9,999.2 | 12.0 |
The EKE results are the fitted values.
Table A.3.
Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation by Colletotrichum aenigma per 10,000 bundles of bare root plants or rooted young plants in cells
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elicited values | 0 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | ||||||||||
| EKE | 0.125 | 0.309 | 0.613 | 1.21 | 2.02 | 3.01 | 4.00 | 5.99 | 8.00 | 9.00 | 10.0 | 10.9 | 11.5 | 11.8 | 12.0 |
The EKE results is BetaGeneral(1.0142, 1.035, 0, 12.15) distribution fitted with @Risk version 7.6.
Table A.4.
The uncertainty distribution of bundles free of Colletotrichum aenigma per 10,000 bundles of bare root plants or rooted young plants in cells calculated by Table A.3
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Values | 9,988 | 9,991 | 9,994 | 9,997 | 10,000 | ||||||||||
| EKE results | 9,988 | 9,988 | 9,989 | 9,989 | 9,990 | 9,991 | 9,992 | 9,994 | 9,996 | 9,997 | 9,998.0 | 9,998.8 | 9,999.4 | 9,999.7 | 9,999.9 |
The EKE results are the fitted values.
Figure A.1.
(a) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 single potted or bare root plants (histogram in blue– vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (b) uncertainty of the proportion of pest‐free plants per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (c) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 plants
Figure A.2.
(a) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 bundles of bare root plants or rooted young plants in cells (histogram in blue– vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (b) uncertainty of the proportion of pest‐free bundles per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (c) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 bundles
Based on the numbers of estimated infested plants the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – the number of infested plants per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in Table A.2.
Based on the numbers of estimated infested bundles of bare root plants the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – the number of infested bundles per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in Table A.4.
A.1.6. References list
Australian Government, 2020. Final report for the review of biosecurity import requirements for fresh strawberry fruit from Japan. Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Canberra. 223 pp.
Baroncelli R, Zapparata A, Sarrocco S, Sukno SA, Lane CR, Thon MR, Vannacci G, Holub E and Sreenivasaprasad S, 2015. Molecular diversity of anthracnose pathogen populations associated with UK strawberry production suggests multiple introductions of three different Colletotrichum species. PLoS One, 10, 21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129140
Chen Y, Fu D, Wang W, Gleason ML, Zhang R, Liang X and Sun G, 2022. Diversity of Colletotrichum species causing apple bitter rot and Glomerella leaf spot in China. Journal of Fungi, 8, 740. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8070740
De Silva DD, Crous PW, Ades PK, Hyde KD and Taylor PW, 2017. Life styles of Colletotrichum species and implications for plant biosecurity. Fungal Biology Reviews, 31, 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbr.2017.05.001
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Bragard C, Baptista P, Chatzivassiliou E, Di Serio F, Gonthier P, Jaques Miret JA, Justesen AF, MacLeod A, Magnusson CS, Milonas P, Navas‐Cortes JA, Parnell S, Potting R, Stefani E, Thulke H‐H, Van der Werf W, Vicent Civera A, Yuen J, Zappalà L, Migheli Q, Vloutoglou I, Czwienczek E, Maiorano A, Streissl F and Reignault PL, 2022. Scientific Opinion on the pest categorisation of Colletotrichum aenigma, C. alienum, C. perseae, C. siamense and C. theobromicola. EFSA Journal 2022;20(8):7529, 80 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7529
EUROPHYT, online. European Union Notification System for Plant Health Interceptions ‐ EUROPHYT Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/europhyt/index_en.htm [Accessed: 17 February 2023].
Farr DF and Rossman AY. Fungal Databases, U.S. National Fungus Collections, ARS, USDA, online. Coniella castaneicola. Available online: https://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases [Accessed: 17 February 2023].
Fu M, Crous PW, Bai Q, Zhang PF, Xiang J, Guo YS, Zhao FF, Yang MM, Hong N, Xu WX and Wang GP, 2019. Colletotrichum species associated with anthracnose of Pyrus spp. in China. Persoonia‐Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution of Fungi, 42, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.3767/persoonia.2019.42.01
Han YC, Zeng XG, Xiang FY, Ren L, Chen FY and Gu YC, 2016. Distribution and characteristics of Colletotrichum spp. associated with anthracnose of strawberry in Hubei, China. Plant Disease, 100, 996–1006.
Lee SY, Ten LN, Ryu JJ, Kang IK and Jung HY, 2021. Colletotrichum aenigma associated with apple bitter rot on newly bred cv. RubyS Apple. Research in Plant disease, 27, 70–75. https://doi.org/10.5423/RPD.2021.27.2.70
Marais LJ, 2004. Avocado diseases of major importance worldwide and their management. In Diseases of Fruits and Vegetables: Volume II. Springer, Dordrecht, 1–36.
Schena L, Mosca S, Cacciola SO, Faedda R, Sanzani SM, Agosteo GE, Sergeeva V and Magnano di San Lio G, 2014. Species of the Colletotrichum gloeosporioides and C. boninense complexes associated with olive anthracnose. Plant Pathology, 63, 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.12110
Sharma G, Maymon M and Freeman S, 2017. Epidemiology, pathology and identification of Colletotrichum including a novel species associated with avocado (Persea americana) anthracnose in Israel. Scientific Reports, 7, 16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15946-w
TRACES‐NT, online. TRADE Control and Expert System. Available online: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/tracesnt [Accessed: 17 February 2023].
Velho AC, Stadnik MJ and Wallhead M, 2019. Unraveling Colletotrichum species associated with Glomerella leaf spot of apple. Tropical Plant Pathology, 44, 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40858-018-0261-x
Wang W, Fu DD, Zhang R and Sun GY, 2015. Etiology of apple leaf spot caused by Colletotrichum spp. Mycosystema, 34, 13–25. https://doi.org/10.13346/j.mycosystema.130273
Wang YC, Hao XY, Wang L, Xiao B, Wang XC and Yang YJ, 2016. Diverse Colletotrichum species cause anthracnose of tea plants (Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze) in China. Scientific Reports, 6, 13. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep35287
Weir BS, Johnston PR and Damm U, 2012. The Colletotrichum gloeosporioides species complex. Studies in Mycology, 73, 115–180. https://doi.org/10.3114/sim0011
Yan JY, Jayawardena MMRS, Goonasekara ID, Wang Y, Zhang W, Liu M, Huang JB, Wang ZY, Shang JJ, Peng YL, Bahkali A, Hyde KD and Li XH, 2015. Diverse species of Colletotrichum associated with grapevine anthracnose in China. Fungal diversity, 71, 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-014-0310-9
Yokosawa S, Eguchi N, Kondo KI and Sato T, 2017. Phylogenetic relationship and fungicide sensitivity of members of the Colletotrichum gloeosporioides species complex from apple. Journal of General Plant Pathology, 83, 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10327-017-0732-9
Zhang Z, Yan M, Li W, Guo Y and Liang X, 2021. First report of Colletotrichum aenigma causing apple Glomerella leaf spot on the Granny Smith cultivar in China. Plant Disease, 105, 1563.
A.2. Meloidogyne mali (Apple root‐knot nematode)
A.2.1. Organism information
| 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 M. sylvestris 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 sylvestris | Apples, M. domestica and M. sylvestris are considered as hosts EPPO, online_d, Ahmed 2013) | |
| PRA information | Available Pest Risk Assessments:
|
|
| 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 is a polyphagous nematode species that parasitises a wide range of plant species, including crops, ornamentals and weeds. The main hosts are apple (Malus domestica/pumila), mulberries (Morus alba, Morus bombycis, Morus latifolia) and elms (Ulmus chenmoui, Ulmus glabra) (EPPO Global Database). Other hosts are: Acer palmatum, Acer pseudoplatanus, Acer x freemanii, Achyranthes japonica, Apium graveolens, Arctium lappa, Brassica pekinensis, Broussonetia kazinoki, Broussonetia papyrifera, Castanea crenata, Citrullus lanatus, Cucumis sativus, Daucus carota, Dryopteris carthusiana, Dryopteris filix‐mas, Euonymus kiautschovicus, Fagus sylvatica, Ficus carica, Geranium robertianum, Geum coccineum, Glycine max, Impatiens parviflora, Lagerstroemia indica, Maclura tricuspidata, Malus hupehensis, Malus prunifolia, Malus sieboldii, Malus sylvestris, Malus toringo, Malus x purpurea, Prunus serrulata, Prunus x yedoensis, Pulmonaria officinalis, Quercus robur, Rosa, Rubus fruticosus, Rubus idaeus, Solanum lycopersicum, Solanum melongena, Sorbus aucuparia, Taraxacum officinale, Taxus baccata, Trifolium repens, Ulmus chenmoui, Ulmus davidiana var. japonica, Ulmus glabra, Ulmus parvifolia, Ulmus × hollandica, Urtica dioica, Vitis vinifera, Zelkova serrata and others (Ahmed, 2013; Ahmed et al., 2013; EPPO GD; EPPO Mini dataset, 2017; EPPO PRA, 2017) |
| 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 |
|
| Surveillance information |
Under plant passport audits or a programme of general surveillance of all registered growers, all growers in the UK 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. |
A.2.2. Possibility of pest presence in the nursery
A.2.2.1. Possibility of entry from the surrounding environment
When M. mali is present in the environment, it can enter Malus production sites with planting material, water, soil and growing media attached to agricultural machinery, tools and footwear. Agricultural machinery is a very important means of spreading the nematode within and between different plantations.
Root knot nematodes, Meloidogyne spp. can migrate from plant to plant through the roots. However, active dispersal of Meloidogyne species, including M. mali, is limited to short distances. Mobile stages (free‐living second‐stage juveniles) can move no more than 1–2 m per year (Tiilikkala et al., 1995). Transmission from the surrounding area to the production field is mainly passive through the spread of infected plants, contaminated soil and run‐off rain water.
Uncertainties:
-
–
M. mali has recently been detected at least two sites in southern England which received elm trees from The Netherlands as part of a breeding programme against Dutch elm disease. It is uncertain how many other UK sites may be infested but undetected.
-
–
M. mali is not under official surveillance in UK, as it does not meet criteria of quarantine pest (QP) for GB thus it could be overlooked.
In view of the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that it is possible that the nematode is present in the environment and could enter Malus sylvestris nurseries with new plants for planting or other human activities.
A.2.2.2. Possibility of entry with new plants/seeds
Plants for planting (roots) are important pathway. M. mali attacks the roots of host plants in which it lives, feeds and reproduces.
Planting material originating from production sites where the nematode is present may be infested. However, infestation of such plants may be overlooked if the infestation is low.
Uncertainties:
-
–
Symptoms caused by M. mali often go undetected initially because the nematodes are microscopic root parasites and when nematode infestation in the roots of host plants is low, symptoms are not very pronounced.
-
–
In addition, aboveground symptoms are often general signs of root stress in the plant. Therefore, the presence of M. mali in M. sylvestris roots cannot be detected by visual inspection.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers it is possible that the infestation could be overlooked and that the nematode could be introduced into M. sylvestris nurseries/orchards with new plants.
A.2.2.3. Possibility of spread within the nursery
Root‐knot nematodes (including M. mali) actively move only short distances. The main route of spread of this nematode within the nursery/production field is generally by human assistance. The nematode can be spread with plants for planting from infested production sites and by soil movement – with soil as such or with soil associated with tools and machinery, and with contaminated run‐off rainwater and irrigation water.
Uncertainties:
-
–
If M. mali is present, it is very likely that the nematode will spread within the production field. However, M. mali has not yet been detected in M. sylvestris production fields in the UK.
In view of the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that if the nematode is present in the field, it may be transmitted from one host plant to another.
A.2.3. Information from interceptions
There are no records of interceptions of M. domestica plants for planting from UK due to the presence of M. mali between 1998 and April 2023 (EUROPHYT, online; TRACES‐NT, online).
A.2.4. Evaluation of the risk mitigation measures
In the table below, all risk mitigation measures currently applied in UK are listed and an indication of their effectiveness on M. mali is provided. The description of the risk mitigation measures currently applied in UK is provided in Table 5.
| 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:
|
|
| 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:
|
| 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:
|
| 4 | Rouging and pruning | Yes |
Uncertainties:
|
| 5 | Pesticide application and biological and mechanical control | No | – |
| 6 | 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:
|
| 7 | 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:
|
| 8 | 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:
|
| 9 | Refrigeration and temperature control | No | |
| 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:
|
A.2.5. Overall likelihood of pest freedom
A.2.5.1. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number of infested consignments
-
–
Pest pressure is very low in the UK; the nematode has been detected in the rhizosphere of elms at only two sites in southern England.
-
–
The pest does not occur in M. sylvestris growing areas and has never been reported infesting M. sylvestris in the UK.
-
–
Regular inspections by plant health authorities are effective and further help to reduce infection pressure from this nematode.
-
–
Root washing is an effective means of controlling this nematode if juveniles are in ectoparasitic stage.
A.2.5.2. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number of infested consignments
-
–
Similar pest pressure exists throughout the country; the nematode is common in apple orchards and its infestation is homogeneous.
-
–
The pest is present in apple orchards, and M. sylvestris plants are likely to be infested with nematodes.
-
–
Visual selection of M. sylvestris plants for planting and visual inspections before export without laboratory tests are not effective and result in high infestation.
-
–
Washing the roots after harvest is not effective against this pest because it is endoparasitic.
A.2.5.3. Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over‐ or underestimate the number of infested consignments (median)
-
–
Uncertainty about pest pressure in the UK.
-
–
Information on infections with M. mali on M. sylvestris plants in the UK is uncertain.
-
–
Lack of reports of problems within the M. sylvestris growing area in the UK.
-
–
The likelihood of introduction into M. sylvestris production sites by natural means and human activities.
A.2.5.4. Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/interquartile range)
The major uncertainty factor is the absence of aboveground symptoms caused by nematodes, so the presence of the nematode in M. sylvestris roots may be overlooked; not detectable by visual inspection.
A.2.5.5. Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Meloidogyne mali
The elicited and fitted values for Meloidogyne mali agreed by the Panel are shown in Tables A.5, A.6, A.7–A.8 and in Figures A.3–A.4.
Table A.5.
Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation by Meloidogyne mali per 10,000 single potted or bare root plants
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elicited values | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | ||||||||||
| 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 |
The EKE results is the BetaGeneral (0.94432, 2.5871, 0, 4.85) distribution fitted with @Risk version 7.6.
Table A.6.
The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Meloidogyne mali per 10,000 single potted or bare root plants calculated by Table A5
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Values | 9,996 | 9,998 | 9,999 | 10,000 | 10,000 | ||||||||||
| EKE results | 9,996.0 | 9,996.4 | 9,996.7 | 9,997.2 | 9,997.6 | 9,998.1 | 9,998.4 | 9,998.9 | 9,999.4 | 9,999.5 | 9,999.7 | 9,999.8 | 9,999.92 | 9,999.96 | 9,999.99 |
The EKE results are the fitted values.
Table A.7.
Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation by Meloidogyne mali per 10,000 bundles of bare root plants or rooted young plants in cells
| 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 |
The EKE results is the BetaGeneral (1.4527, 4.0355, 0, 8.2) distribution fitted with @Risk version 7.6.
Table A.8.
The uncertainty distribution of bundles free of Meloidogyne mali per 10,000 bundles of bare root plants or rooted young plants in cells calculated by Table A.7
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Values | 9,994 | 9,997 | 9,998 | 9,999 | 10,000 | ||||||||||
| EKE results | 9,994.0 | 9,994.6 | 9,995.1 | 9,995.8 | 9,996.4 | 9,996.9 | 9,997.4 | 9,998.1 | 9,998.7 | 9,999.0 | 9,999.2 | 9,999.5 | 9,999.7 | 9,999.8 | 9,999.9 |
The EKE results are the fitted values.
Figure A.3.
(a) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 single potted or bare root plants (histogram in blue– vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (b) uncertainty of the proportion of pest‐free plants per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (c) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 plants
Figure A.4.
(a) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 bundles of bare root plants or rooted young plants in cells (histogram in blue– vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (b) uncertainty of the proportion of pest‐free bundles per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (c) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 bundles
Based on the numbers of estimated infested plants the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – the number of infested plants per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in Table A.6.
Based on the numbers of estimated infested bundles of bare root plants or rooted young plants in cells the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – the number of infested bundles per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in Table A.8.
A.2.6. References list
Ahmed M, 2013. On the Species Status of the Root‐Knot Nematode Meloidogyne ulmi Palmisano & Ambrogioni, 2000 (Nematoda: Meloidogynidae). Ghent University, Faculty of science, Department of biology, European Master of Science in Nematology (EUMAINE), Promoter: prof. dr. Gerrit Karssen, Plant Protection Service Wageningen, 43 pp.
Ahmed M, van de Vossenberg BTLH, Cornelisse C and Karssen G, 2013. On the species status of the root‐knot nematode Meloidogyne ulmi Palmisano & Ambrogioni, 2000 (Nematoda, Meloidogynidae). ZooKeys, 362, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.362.6352
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), online. UK risk register details for Meloidogyne mali. Available online: https://planthealthportal.defra.gov.uk/pests-and-diseases/uk-plant-health-risk-register/viewPestRisks.cfm?cslref=16542 [Accessed: 31 January 2023].
de Jong Y, et al., online. Fauna Europaea ‐ all European animal species on the web. Biodiversity Data Journal. Available online: https://fauna-eu.org/ [Accessed: 31 January 2023].
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), 2015. Scientific opinion on the risks to plant health posed by EU import of soil or growing media. EFSA Journal 2015;13(6):4132, 133 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4132
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), 2017. Pest risk analysis for Meloidogyne mali, apple root‐knot nematode. EPPO, Paris, 38 pp.
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), 2018. Diagnostics PM 7/136 (1) Meloidogyne mali. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO, 48, 438–445.
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), online_a. Meloidogyne mali (MELGMA), Categorization. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/MELGMA/categorization [Accessed: 31 January 2023].
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), online_b. Meloidogyne mali (MELGMA), Distribution. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/MELGMA/distribution [Accessed: 31 January 2023].
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), online_c. First report of Meloidogyne mali in the United Kingdom. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/reporting/article-6511 [Accessed: 31 January 2023].
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), online_d. Meloidogyne mali (MELGMA), Host plants. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/MELGMA/hosts [Accessed: 31 January 2023].
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), online_e. EPPO A2 List of pests recommended for regulation as quarantine pests, version 2022‐09. Available online: https://www.eppo.int/ACTIVITIES/plant_quarantine/A2_list [Accessed: 31 January 2023].
EUROPHYT, online. European Union Notification System for Plant Health Interceptions ‐ EUROPHYT Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/europhyt/index_en.htm [Accessed: 20 April 2023].
Inagaki H, 1978. Apple root‐knot nematode, Meloidogyne mali, its taxonomy, ecology, damage, and control. Kasetsart Journal, 12, 25–30.
Itoh Y, Ohshima Y and Ichinohe M, 1969. A root‐knot nematode, Meloidogyne mali n.sp. on apple‐tree from Japan (Tylenchida: Heteroderidae). Applied Entomology and Zoology, 4, 104–202.
Jones JT, Haegeman A, Danchin EGJ, Gaur HS, Helder J, Jones MGK, Kikuchi T, Manzanilla‐López R, Palomares‐Rius JE, Wesemael WML and Perry RN, 2013. Top 10 plant‐parasitic nematodes in molecular plant pathology. Molecular Plant Pathology, BSPP and John Wiley & Sons LTD, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12057
Palmisano A and Ambrogioni L, 2000. Meloidogyne ulmi sp. n., a root‐knot nematode from elm. Nematologia Mediterranea, 28, 279–293.
Prior T, Tozer H, Yale R, Jones EP, Lawson R, Jutson L, Correia M, Stubbs J, Hockland S and Karssen G, 2019. First report of Meloidogyne mali causing root galling to elm trees in the UK. New Disease Reports, 39, 10. https://doi.org/10.5197/j.2044-0588.2019.039.010
Pylypenko LA, 2016. A quickscan pest risk analysis for the Meloidogyne mali. Interdepartmental Thematic Scientific Collection of Plant Protection and Quarantine, 62, 188–200. https://doi.org/10.36495/1606-9773.2016.62.188-200
Subbotin, SA, Rius JEP, and Castillo P, 2021. Systematics of root‐knot nematodes (Nematoda: Meloidogynidae). Brill.
Tiilikkala K, Carter T, Heikinheimo M and Venalainen A, 1995. Pest risk analysis of Meloidogyne chitwoodi for Finland. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin, 25, 419–435.
Toida Y, 1991. Mulberry damages caused by a root‐knot nematode, Meloidogyne mali indigenous to Japan. Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly, 24, 300–305.
TRACES‐NT, online. TRADE Control and Expert System. Available online: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/tracesnt [Accessed: 20 April 2023].
A.3. Eulecanium excrescens
A.3.1. Organism information
| 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. E. 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 |
E. 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 scale 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 | E. excrescens is absent from the territory of the EU (García Morales et al., online). | |
| Host status on Malus sylvestris | Malus domestica and Malus spp. are reported as hosts of E. excrescens (Deng, 1985). | |
| PRA information | Pest Risk Assessments available:
|
|
| 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; eggs hatch in May–June and crawlers 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 sap sucker 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. 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 spp. (apple), Prunus spp. (peach/cherry) and Pyrus spp. (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 spp. 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 E. 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, Parthenocyssus 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 spp., Prunus spp. and Pyrus spp. (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. | |
A.3.2. Possibility of pest presence in the nursery
A.3.2.1. Possibility of entry from the surrounding environment
If present in the surroundings, the pest can enter the nursery (as UK is producing these plants for planting outdoors). Indeed, although only reported on ornamental plants in private gardens in the Greater London Area and in a few localities of the neighbouring county of Hertfordshire, E. excrescens may be more widespread than is currently known. The pest could enter the nursery either by passive dispersal (e.g. wind), especially crawlers, which can be easily uplifted by wind, infested plant material by nursery workers and machinery. Given that the pest is very polyphagous it could be associated with several plant species in the nursery surroundings.
Uncertainties:
-
–
No information on possible host plants of the pest in the nursery surroundings is available.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that it is possible, although unlikely, for the pest to enter the nursery.
A.3.2.2. Possibility of entry with new plants/seeds
The pest can be found on the trunk, stem, branches, leaves of plants for planting (scions, grafted rootstocks). Although adults can be relatively easily spotted during visual inspections, young stages can be difficult to detect. The pest can be hidden inside bark cracks. In case of initial low populations, the species can be overlooked. Introduction of the pest with certified material is very unlikely.
Uncertainties:
-
–
Uncertain if certified material is screened for this pest
Uncertain if the pest could enter with other incoming plants Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers it possible that the pest could enter the nursery although very unlikely.
A.3.2.3. Possibility of spread within the nursery
If the scale enters the nursery from the surroundings, it could spread within the nursery either by passive dispersal (e.g. wind), especially crawlers, that can be easily uplifted by wind, infested plant material, or by nursery workers and machinery. Active dispersal is possible and movement from plant to plant by mobile young instars is possible. Given that the pest is very polyphagous it could be associated with other crops in the nursery. During the production process, visual inspections are performed, with microscopic observations if needed. Chemical control is applied targeting other species but potentially effective towards E. excrescens. Pruning can also affect scale populations either directly by removal of infested branches and indirectly exposing the pest to biotic and abiotic control agents.
Uncertainties:
-
–
Uncertain if other plants are grown in the nurseries.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that the transfer of the pest within the nursery is possible.
A.3.3. Information from interceptions
There are no records of interceptions of M. sylvestris plants for planting from the UK due to the presence of E. excrescens between 1998 and April 2023 (EUROPHYT and TRACES‐NT, online).
A.3.4. Evaluation of the risk mitigation measures
In the table below, all risk mitigation measures currently applied in UK are listed and an indication of their effectiveness on E. excrescens is provided. The description of the risk mitigation measures currently applied in UK is provided in Table 5.
| 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:
|
| 2 | Phytosanitary certificates | Yes |
Evaluation: The procedures applied could be effective in detecting E. excrescens infestations, though low initial infestations might be overlooked.
Uncertainties:
|
| 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 | Pesticide application and biological control | Yes |
Evaluation: Chemicals listed in the dossier do not target specifically this pest, however they may be effective. Chemical applications can affect biological control agents.
Uncertainties:
|
| 6 | Surveillance and monitoring | Yes |
Evaluation: It can be effective Uncertainties: Low initial infestations (crawlers) might be overlooked. |
| 7 | Sampling and laboratory testing | Yes |
Evaluation: It can be effective and useful for specific identification.
Uncertainties:
|
| 8 | Root washing | No | |
| 9 | Refrigeration and temperature control | Yes |
Uncertainties:
|
| 10 | Pre‐consignment inspection | Yes |
Evaluation: It can be effective
Uncertainties:
|
A.3.5. Overall likelihood of pest freedom
A.3.5.1. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number of infested consignments
-
–
Registration and certification of propagation material ensure pest‐free production.
-
–
Most of nurseries are placed in areas where the pest is not present.
-
–
E. excrescens has not been reported on Malus spp. in the UK.
-
–
No other host plants are present in the nurseries and in the surroundings.
-
–
Visual inspections can easily detect pest presence at adult stage.
A.3.5.2. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number of infested consignments
-
–
Registration and certification of propagation material does not target this pest and therefore does not ensure pest‐freedom.
-
–
The pest spread in the UK from its first record site.
-
–
Malus spp. is a host of E. excrescens and could be infested in the UK as well.
-
–
Other host plants are present in the nurseries and in the surroundings.
-
–
Visual inspections cannot easily detect pest presence at crawler stage.
A.3.5.3. Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over‐ or underestimate the number of infested consignments (median)
-
–
Uncertainty about pest pressure in the UK.
-
–
Information on infestations on M. sylvestris plants in the UK is uncertain.
-
–
Lack of reports of infestation within the M. sylvestris growing area in the UK.
A.3.5.4. Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/interquartile range)
-
–
Presence of the pest in the surrounding areas is unknown.
A.3.5.5. Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Eulecanium excrescens
The elicited and fitted values for Eulecanium excrescens agreed by the Panel are shown in Tables A.9, A.10, A.11–A.12 and in Figures A.5–A.6.
Table A.9.
Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation by Eulecanium excrescens per 10,000 single potted or bare root plants
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elicited values | 0 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | ||||||||||
| EKE | 0.212 | 0.521 | 1.03 | 2.03 | 3.37 | 5.02 | 6.66 | 10.0 | 13.3 | 15.0 | 16.7 | 18.1 | 19.2 | 19.7 | 20.1 |
The EKE results is the BetaGeneral (1.019, 1.0443, 0, 20.3) distribution fitted with @Risk version 7.6.
Table A.10.
The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Eulecanium excrescens per 10,000 single potted or bare root plants calculated by Table A9
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Values | 9,980 | 9,985 | 9,990 | 9,995 | 10,000 | ||||||||||
| EKE results | 9,980 | 9,980 | 9,981 | 9,982 | 9,983 | 9,985 | 9,987 | 9,990 | 9,993 | 9,995 | 9,997 | 9,998.0 | 9,999.0 | 9,999.5 | 9,999.8 |
The EKE results are the fitted values.
Table A.11.
Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation by Eulecanium excrescens per 10,000 bundles of bare root plants or rooted cell grown young plants
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elicited values | 0 | 6 | 12 | 18 | 25 | ||||||||||
| EKE | 0.284 | 0.676 | 1.30 | 2.52 | 4.10 | 6.05 | 7.99 | 11.9 | 16.0 | 18.1 | 20.2 | 22.1 | 23.6 | 24.4 | 25.0 |
The EKE results is the BetaGeneral (1.0598, 1.1648, 0, 25.45) distribution fitted with @Risk version 7.6.
Table A.12.
The uncertainty distribution of bundles free of Eulecanium excrescens per 10,000 bundles of bare root plants or rooted cell grown young plants calculated by Table A.11
| 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 | 9,976 | 9,976 | 9,978 | 9,980 | 9,982 | 9,984 | 9,988 | 9,992 | 9,994 | 9,996 | 9,997 | 9,998.7 | 9,999.0 | 9,999.5 |
The EKE results are the fitted values.
Figure A.5.
(a) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 single potted or bare root plants (histogram in blue– vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (b) uncertainty of the proportion of pest‐free plants per 10,000 (i.e. =1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (c) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 plants
Figure A.6.
(a) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 bundles of bare root plants rooted cell grown young plants (histogram in blue– vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (b) uncertainty of the proportion of pest‐free bundles per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (c) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 bundles
Based on the numbers of estimated infested plants the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – the number of infested plants per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in Table A.10.
Based on the numbers of estimated infested bundles of bare root plants the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – the number of infested bundles per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in Table A.12.
A.3.6. References list
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), online. UK Risk Register Details for Eulecanium excrescens. Available online: https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/phiw/riskRegister/viewPestRisks.cfm?cslref=23301 [Accessed: 9 February 2023].
Deng DL, 1985. Anthribus niveovariegatus (Reolof–) ‐ a natural enemy of Eulecanium excrescens Ferris. Plant Protection, 11, 14–15.
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Bragard, C, Baptista, P, Chatzivassiliou, E, Di Serio, F, Gonthier, P, Jaques Miret, JA, Justesen, AF, Magnusson, CS, Milonas, P, Navas‐Cortes, JA, Parnell, S, Potting, R, Reignault, PL, Stefani, E, Thulke, H‐H, Van der Werf, W, Vicent Civera, A, Yuen, J, Zappalà, L, Grégoire, J‐C, Malumphy, C, Akrivou, A, Kertesz, V, Maiorano, A, Papachristos, D and MacLeod, A, 2023. Scientific Opinion on the pest categorisation of Takahashia japonica. EFSA Journal 2023;21(5):8000, 23 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8000
EUROPHYT, online. European Union Notification System for Plant Health Interceptio–s ‐ EUROPHYT Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/europhyt/index_en.htm [Accessed: 20 April 2023].
García Morales M, Denno BD, Miller DR, Miller GL, Ben‐Dov Y and Hardy NB, online. ScaleNet: A literature‐based model of scale insect biology and systematics, Eulecanium excrescens. Available online: https://scalenet.info/catalogue/eulecanium%20excrescens/ [Accessed 7 February 2023].
MacLeod A and Matthews L, 2005. Pest risk analysis for Eulecanium excrescens. CSL, Central Science Laboratory, UK. 7 pp.
Malumphy CP, 2005. Eulecanium excrescens (Ferris) (Hemiptera: Coccidae), an Asian pest of woody ornamentals and fruit trees, new to Britain. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History, 18, 45–49.
Murray K and Jepson P, 2018. An Integrated Pest Management Strategic Plan for Hazelnuts in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University, 57 pp.
Salisbury A, Halstead A and Malumphy C, 2010. Wisteria scale, Eulecanium excrescens (Hemiptera: Coccidae) spreading in South East England. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History, 23, 225–228.
TRACES‐NT, online. TRADE Control and Expert System. Available online: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/tracesnt [Accessed: 20 April 2023].
A.4. Takahashia japonica
A.4.1. Organism information
| 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. This insect was recently subjected to Pest categorisation by EFSA (EFSA PLH Panel, 2023) |
|
| Host status on Malus sylvestris |
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 a 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:
|
|
| 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 eggsacs 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 four‐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). T. japonica has been reported to cause significant damage on Acer sp. and Morus alba L., in Croatia, some of which suffered significant defoliation and crown decline (Landeka et al., 2021). |
|
| 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. | |
A.4.2. Possibility of pest presence in the nursery
A.4.2.1. Possibility of entry from the surrounding environment
If present in the surroundings, the pest can enter the nursery (as UK is producing these plants for planting outdoors). However, the only official record available is from one Magnolia plant in West Berkshire in 2018, and no further information is available on its distribution and presence in the country. The pest could enter the nursery either by passive dispersal (e.g. wind), especially crawlers, that can be easily uplifted by wind, infested plant material by nursery workers and machinery. Given that the pest is very polyphagous it could be associated with several plant species in the nursery surroundings.
Uncertainties:
-
–
The UK NPPO has not revisited the original site to determine if the pest is present or not so there is no evidence to prove that it is absent or it is spread from there.
-
–
No information on the specific host plants of the pest in the nursery surroundings is available.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that it is possible, although unlikely for the pest to enter the nursery.
A.4.2.2. Possibility of entry with new plants/seeds
The pest can be found on the trunk, stem, branches, leaves of plants for planting (scions, grafted rootstocks). Although adults can be relatively easily spotted during visual inspections, young stages can be difficult to detect. The pest can be hidden inside bark cracks. In case of initial low populations, the species can be overlooked. Introduction of the pest with certified material is very unlikely.
Uncertainties:
-
–
Uncertain if certified material is screened for this pest
-
–
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers it possible that the pest could enter the nursery although unlikely.
A.4.2.3. Possibility of spread within the nursery
If the scale enters the nursery from the surroundings, the pest could spread within the nursery either by passive dispersal (e.g. wind), especially crawlers than can be easily uplifted by wind, infested plant material or by nursery workers and machinery. Active dispersal is possible and movement from plant to plant by mobile young instars is possible. Given that the pest is very polyphagous the pest could be associated with other crops in the nursery. During the production process, visual inspections are performed, with microscopic observations if needed. Chemical control is applied targeting other species but potentially effective towards T. japonica. Pruning can also affect scale populations either directly by removal of infested branches and indirectly exposing the pest to biotic and abiotic control agents.
Uncertainties:
-
–
Uncertain if other plants are grown in the nurseries.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that the transfer of the pest within the nursery is possible.
A.4.3. Information from interceptions
There are no records of interceptions of M. sylvestris plants for planting from the UK due to the presence of T. japonica between 1998 and April 2023 (EUROPHYT and TRACES‐NT, online).
A.4.4. Evaluation of the risk mitigation measures
In the table below, all risk mitigation measures currently applied in UK are listed and an indication of their effectiveness on Takahashia japonica is provided. The description of the risk mitigation measures currently applied in UK is provided in Table 5.
| 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:
|
| 2 | Phytosanitary certificates | Yes |
Evaluation: The procedures applied could be effective in detecting T. japonica infestations though low initial infestations might be overlooked.
Uncertainties:
|
| 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 | Pesticide application and biological control | Yes |
Evaluation: Chemicals listed in the dossier do not target specifically this pest, however they may be effective. Chemical applications can affect biological control agents.
Uncertainties:
|
| 6 | Surveillance and monitoring | Yes |
Evaluation: It can be effective
Uncertainties:
|
| 7 | Sampling and laboratory testing | Yes |
Evaluation: It can be effective and useful for specific identification. Low initial infestations might be overlooked. |
| 8 | Root washing | No | |
| 9 | Refrigeration and temperature control | Yes |
Uncertainties:
|
| 10 | Pre‐consignment inspection | Yes |
Evaluation: It can be effective, though low initial infestations might be overlooked.
Uncertainties:
|
A.4.5. Overall likelihood of pest freedom
A.4.5.1. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number of infested consignments
-
–
Registration and certification of propagation material ensure pest‐free production.
-
–
Most of nurseries are placed in areas where the pest is not present.
-
–
T. japonica has not been reported on Malus spp. in the UK.
-
–
No other host plants are present in the nurseries and in the surroundings.
-
–
Visual inspections can easily detect pest presence at adult stage.
A.4.5.2. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number of infested consignments
-
–
Registration and certification of propagation material does not target this pest and therefore does not ensure pest‐freedom.
-
–
The pest spread in the UK from its first record site.
-
–
Malus spp. is a host of T. japonica and could be infested in the UK as well.
-
–
Other host plants are present in the nurseries and in the surroundings.
-
–
Visual inspections cannot easily detect pest presence at crawler stage.
A.4.5.3. Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over‐ or underestimate the number of infested consignments (median)
-
–
Uncertainty about pest pressure in the UK.
-
–
Information on infestations on M. sylvestris plants in the UK is uncertain.
-
–
Lack of reports of infestation within the M. sylvestris growing area in the UK.
A.4.5.4. Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/interquartile range)
-
–
Presence of the pest in the surrounding areas is unknown.
A.4.5.5. Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom Takahashia japonica
The elicited and fitted values for Takahashia japonica agreed by the Panel are shown in Tables A.13, A.14, A.15–A.16 and in Figures A.7–A.8.
Table A.13.
Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation by Takahashia japonica per 10,000 single potted or bare root plants
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elicited values | 0 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 15.00 | ||||||||||
| EKE | 0.212 | 0.521 | 1.03 | 2.03 | 3.37 | 5.02 | 6.66 | 10.0 | 13.3 | 15.0 | 16.7 | 18.1 | 19.2 | 19.7 | 14.98 |
The EKE results is the BetaGeneral (1.019, 1.0443, 0, 20.3) distribution fitted with @Risk version 7.6.
Table A.14.
The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Takahashia japonica per 10,000 single potted or bare root plants calculated by Table A13
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Values | 9,980 | 9,985 | 9,990 | 9,995 | 10,000 | ||||||||||
| EKE results | 9,980 | 9,980 | 9,981 | 9,982 | 9,983 | 9,985 | 9,987 | 9,990 | 9,993 | 9,995 | 9,997 | 9,998.0 | 9,999.0 | 9,999.5 | 9,999.8 |
The EKE results are the fitted values.
Table A.15.
Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation by Takahashia japonica per 10,000 bundles of bare root plants or rooted cell grown young plants
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elicited values | 0 | 6 | 12 | 18 | 25 | ||||||||||
| EKE | 0.284 | 0.676 | 1.30 | 2.52 | 4.10 | 6.05 | 7.99 | 11.9 | 16.0 | 18.1 | 20.2 | 22.1 | 23.6 | 24.4 | 25.0 |
The EKE results is the BetaGeneral (1.0598, 1.1648, 0, 25.45) distribution fitted with @Risk version 7.6.
Table A.16.
The uncertainty distribution of bundles free of Takahashia japonica per 10,000 bundles of bare root plants or rooted cell grown young plants calculated by Table A.15
| 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 | 9,976 | 9,976 | 9,978 | 9,980 | 9,982 | 9,984 | 9,988 | 9,992 | 9,994 | 9,996 | 9,997 | 9,998.7 | 9,999.3 | 9,999.7 |
The EKE results are the fitted values.
Figure A.7.
(a) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 single potted or bare root plants (histogram in blue – vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (b) uncertainty of the proportion of pest‐free plants per 10,000 (i.e. =1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (c) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 plants
Figure A.8.
(a) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 bundles of bare root plants or rooted cell grown young plants (histogram in blue – vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (b) uncertainty of the proportion of pest free bundles per 10,000 (i.e. =1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (c) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 bundles
Based on the numbers of estimated infested plants the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – the number of infested plants per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in Table A.14.
Based on the numbers of estimated infested bundles of bare root plants the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – the number of infested bundles per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in Table A.16.
A.4.6. References list
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), online. UK Risk Register Details for Takahashia japonica. Available online: https://planthealthportal.defra.gov.uk/pests-and-diseases/uk-plant-health-risk-register/viewPestRisks.cfm?cslref=27909 [Accessed: 20 April 2023].
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), online. First report of Takahashia japonica in Croatia. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/reporting/article-7127 [Accessed: 20 April 2023].
EUROPHYT, online. European Union Notification System for Plant Health Interceptions ‐ EUROPHYT Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/europhyt/index_en.htm [Accessed: 22 April 2023].
García Morales M, Denno BD, Miller DR, Miller GL, Ben‐Dov Y and Hardy NB, online. ScaleNet: A literature‐based model of scale insect biology and systematics, Takahashia japonica. Available online: https://scalenet.info/catalogue/Takahashia%20japonica/ [Accessed 20 April 2023].
Landeka N, Uzelac M, Poljuha D and Sladonja B, 2021. The first record of the Asiatic string cottony scale Takahashia japonica in Croatia. Journal of Forestry, 145, 263–267. https://doi.org/10.31298/sl.145.5-6.5
Limonta L and Pellizzari G, 2018. First record of the string cottony scale Takahashia japonica in Europe and its establishment in Northern Italy. Bulletin of Insectology, 71, 159–160.
Limonta L, Porcelli F and Pellizzari G, 2022. An overview of Takahashia japonica: present distribution, host plants, natural enemies and life‐cycle, with observations on its morphology. Bulletin of Insectology, 75, 306–314.
Malumphy C, Tuffen M and Andrew S, 2019. Plant Pest Factsheet: Cotton stringy scale insect: Takahashia japonica. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. 4 pp.
Tuffen M, Salisbury A and Malumphy CP, 2019. Cotton stringy scale insect, Takahashia japonica (Hemiptera: Coccidae), new to Britain. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History, 32, 1–4.
TRACES‐NT, online. TRADE Control and Expert System. Available online: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/tracesnt [Accessed: 20 April 2023].
A.5. Tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV)
A.5.1. Organism information
| 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 anemome (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. sylvestris | Malus domestica is reported as a host for TRSV in the EPPO Global Database (EPPO, online_c). | |
| PRA information | Available Pest Risk Assessments:
|
|
| 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). TRSV is transmitted by the ectoparasitic dagger nematode Xiphinema americanum sensu lato (including X. americanum sensu stricto, X. bricolense, X. californicum, X. intermedium, X. rivesi, X. inaequale and X. tarjanense) (Douthit and McGuire, 1978; Brown et al. 1995; EFSA PLH Panel, 2018). 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 vegetative propagation (Yang and Hamilton, 1974). Pollen transmission occurs also 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 and variety, as well as virus strain and environmental conditions. 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, depending on the virus strain, host species and/or environmental conditions. | |
| 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), including asymptomatic plants, infected nematodes, seeds, pollen and soil attached to the plants may also serve as potential pathway for the TRSV spread. | |
| 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 Anemome necrosis in Somerset in 1957 (Hollings, 1965). Then, it was occasionally reported in Iiris 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). |
|
A.5.2. Possibility of pest presence in the nursery
A.5.2.1. Possibility of entry from the surrounding environment
The natural host range of TRSV is wide, including herbaceous, woody plant and uncultivated plant species (EPPO, online_c). TRSV is naturally transmitted by Xiphinema americanum sensu lato, Xiphinema americanum sensu lato (including X. americanum sensu stricto, X. bricolense, X. californicum, X. intermedium, X. rivesi, X. inaequale and X. tarjanense) (Brown et al., 1995; EFSA PLH Panel, 2018). These vectors are not known to occur in UK, although the virus is still present DEFRA (2018). Most of TRSV infections are associated to ornamentals and its presence within Pelargonium and possibly other ornamental hosts is very likely in the UK. Based on the dossier information, TRSV is considered quarantine pest in the UK, and there is a set of standard precautions to ensure that no plants other than certified plants are present in the production facilities. Infected plants may not show symptoms, and TRSV can still establish via seed and pollen transmission (Scarborough and Smith, 1977; Card et al., 2007). But this aspect has been poorly studied and its efficiency is unclear, in particular in woody plants. There have been no other records in the UK (DEFRA, 2018), on any other hosts, including Prunus and Malus spp.
Uncertainties:
-
–
There is a lack of information about the particular plant species in the nurseries surroundings.
-
–
The presence of vector species in the nurseries and the surrounding area and the efficiency of pollen and seed transmission in woody plants is unknown.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that the possibility of the pest entry into the nursery infecting M. sylvestris plants from the surrounding orchards may be very unlikely.
A.5.2.2. Possibility of entry with new plants/seeds
At the nurseries, plant material is supervised and certified as virus‐free. TRSV host range is wide, and despite some infected hosts can be symptomless carriers, symptoms expression is often severe enough to ensure its detection. There is evidence that TRSV can establish via seed/pollen transmission in some few species (Scarborough and Smith, 1977; Card et al., 2007). TRSV can also spread in via clonally vegetatively propagated material and seed and pollen. However, there is scarce information of the efficiency of seed and pollen transmission, in particular in woody hosts, so these mechanisms maybe relevant only for other species possibly present in the nurseries.
Uncertainties:
-
–
It is uncertain to what extent detection and sampling strategies are effective to detect asymptomatic infections.
-
–
It is unknown whether TRSV can be transmitted from seed to M. sylvestris seedlings.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that the possibility of entry with seeds is very unlikely.
A.5.2.3. Possibility of spread within the nursery
M. sylvestris fruit‐tree propagating materials are produced under the certification scheme in nurseries, and the plant materials are monitored and inspected during the vegetation period. Although the pest is reported to be transmitted by pollen and seed, there is a paucity of data on the efficiency of seed/pollen transmission in woody plants.
Uncertainties:
-
–
It is unknown whether TRSV can be transmitted from seed to M. sylvestris seedlings.
-
–
It is unknown if other plant species are grown in the nurseries.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that the spread of the pathogen within the nursery is very unlikely.
A.5.3. Information from interceptions
There are no records of interceptions of M. sylvestris plants for planting from UK due to the presence of ToRSV between 1998 and April 2023 (EUROPHYT, online; TRACES‐NT, online).
A.5.4. Evaluation of the risk mitigation measures
In the table below, all risk mitigation measures currently applied in UK are listed and an indication of their effectiveness on TRSV is provided. The description of the risk mitigation measures currently applied in UK is provided in Table 5.
| 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:
|
| 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:
|
| 3 | Cleaning and disinfection of facilities, tools and machinery | No | |
| 4 | Rouging and pruning | Yes |
Evaluation: Only rouging is applicable. Identifying and removing suspicious plants could be effective to decrease the virus spread and further infections.
Uncertainties:
|
| 5 | Pesticide application, biological and mechanical control | No | |
| 6 | Surveillance and monitoring | Yes |
Visual inspections may be effective to delay viral spread.
Uncertainties:
|
| 7 | Sampling and laboratory testing | No | |
| 8 | Root washing | No | |
| 9 | Refrigeration and controlled temperature | No | Not relevant |
| 10 | Pre‐consignment inspection | Yes |
Evaluation: It can be effective, though early infection can be overlooked. |
A.5.5. Overall likelihood of pest freedom
A.5.5.1. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number of infested consignments
-
–
Registration and certification of propagation material ensure virus‐free production.
-
–
Most of nurseries are placed in areas where the virus has not been reported.
-
–
TRSV has not been reported in M. sylvestris.
-
–
Nematode vectors are the only efficient way to spread within the nurseries, and they are absent in the production areas.
-
–
No other vectors, human activities or plant material may spread the virus.
-
–
Visual inspections are effective because of official regulation, and virus symptoms seems easy to detect in diseased plants.
A.5.5.2. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number of infested consignments
-
–
The adherence to registration and certification criteria of propagation material for this pest is inappropriate and may increase the risk of entry and spread.
-
–
Unidentified virus outbreaks are present in the surrounding of M. sylvestris production areas, or the nurseries are placed in areas close to places where the TRSV is present.
-
–
Nematode vectors may be unidentified and present in the production areas.
-
–
Pest can enter by pollen and seed and other unknown mechanisms.
-
–
Visual inspection will not detect early stages of infections or asymptomatic plants.
-
–
Increasing numbers of plants in a bundle lead to increasing risks associated to the virus presence in the bundle.
A.5.5.3. Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over‐ or underestimate the number of infested consignments (median)
-
–
TRSV has not been reported in Malus or other fruiting crops in the UK.
-
–
Presence of the primary nematode vectors is very unlikely.
-
–
Introduction of the virus from the surrounding areas or from propagation material within the nurseries is very unlikely.
A.5.5.4. Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/interquartile range)
-
–
Transmission efficiency by other potential nematode vectors species is not well documented
-
–
Status of the virus in the surrounding areas is unknown.
A.5.5.5. Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for tobacco ringspot virus
The elicited and fitted values for tobacco ringspot virus agreed by the Panel are shown in Tables A.17, A.18, A.19–A.20 and in Figures A.9–A.10.
Table A.17.
Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation by tobacco ringspot virus per 10,000 potted plants or single bare root plants
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elicited values | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | ||||||||||
| EKE | 0.0212 | 0.0521 | 0.103 | 0.203 | 0.337 | 0.502 | 0.666 | 1.00 | 1.33 | 1.50 | 1.67 | 1.81 | 4.41 | 4.73 | 5.01 |
The EKE results is the BetaGeneral (1.019, 1.0443, 0, 2.03) distribution fitted with @Risk version 7.6.
Table A.18.
The uncertainty distribution of plants free of tobacco ringspot virus per 10,000 potted plants or single bare root plants calculated by Table A17
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Values | 9,998 | 9,999 | 9,999 | 10,000 | 10,000 | ||||||||||
| EKE results | 9,997.99 | 9,998.03 | 9,998.08 | 9,998.2 | 9,998.3 | 9,998.5 | 9,998.7 | 9,999.0 | 9,999.3 | 9,999.5 | 9,999.7 | 9,999.80 | 9,999.90 | 9,999.95 | 9,999.98 |
The EKE results are the fitted values.
Table A.19.
Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation by tobacco ringspot virus per 10,000 bundles of bare root plants or rooted cell grown young plants
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elicited values | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
| EKE | 0.0212 | 0.0521 | 0.103 | 0.203 | 0.337 | 0.502 | 0.666 | 1.00 | 1.33 | 1.50 | 1.67 | 1.81 | 1.92 | 1.97 | 2.01 |
The EKE results is the BetaGeneral (1.019, 1.0443, 0, 2.03) distribution fitted with @Risk version 7.6.
Table A.20.
The uncertainty distribution of bundles free of tobacco ringspot virus per 10,000 bundles of bare root plants or rooted cell grown young plants calculated by Table A.19
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Values | 9,998 | 9,999 | 9,999 | 10,000 | 10,000 | ||||||||||
| EKE results | 9,997.99 | 9,998.03 | 9,998.08 | 9,998.2 | 9,998.3 | 9,998.5 | 9,998.7 | 9,999.0 | 9,999.3 | 9,999.5 | 9,999.7 | 9,999.80 | 9,999.90 | 9,999.95 | 9,999.98 |
The EKE results are the fitted values.
Figure A.9.
(a) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 single potted or bare root plants (histogram in blue – vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (b) uncertainty of the proportion of pest‐free plants per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (c) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 plants
Figure A.10.
(a) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 bundles of bare root plants or rooted cell grown young plants (histogram in blue – vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (b) uncertainty of the proportion of pest‐free bundles per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (c) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 bundles
Based on the numbers of estimated infested plants the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – the number of infested plants per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in Table A.18.
Based on the numbers of estimated infested bundles of bare root plants the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – the number of infested bundles per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in Table A.20.
A.5.6. References list
Brown D, Robertson W and Trudgill D, 1995. Transmission of viruses by plant nematodes. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 33, 223–249.
Brunt AA, 1974. Viruses and virus diseases of irises in Britain. In II International Symposium on Flower Bulbs, 47, 45–50.
Card SD, Pearson MN and Clover GRG, 2007. Plant pathogens transmitted by pollen. Austra. Plant Pathology, 36, 455–461. https://doi.org/10.1071/ap07050
Cooper JI and Edwards ML, 1985. Mitteilungen, Biologischen Bundesanstalt fur Land‐ und Forstwirtschaft, Berlin‐Dahlem, 228, 89–91.
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), 2018. Rapid Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) for: Tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV). 23 pp. Available online: https://pra.eppo.int/pra/6e693e88-1a57-4e43-9bea-823b143c8a8c
Demski JW and Kuhn CW, 1989. Tobacco ringspot virus. Compendium of soybean diseases, 3rd Edition. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, USA, 57–59.
Douthit LB and McGuire JM, 1978. Transmission of tobacco ringspot virus by Xiphinema americanum to a wide range of hosts. Plant Disease Reporter, 62, 164–166.
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Jeger M, Bragard C, Caffier D, Candresse T, Chatzivassiliou E, Dehnen‐Schmutz K, Gilioli G, Gregoire J‐C, Jaques Miret JA, MacLeod A, Navajas Navarro M, Parnell S, Potting R, Rafoss T, Rossi V, Urek G, Van Bruggen A, Van der Werf W, West J, Winter S, Kaluski T and Niere B, 2018a. Pest categorisation of Xiphinema americanum sensu lato. EFSA Journal 2018;16(7):5298, 43 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5298
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Plant Health Panel), Bragard C, Dehnen‐Schmutz K,Gonthier P, Jacques M‐A, Jaques Miret JA, Justesen AF, MacLeod A, Magnusson CS, Milonas P,Navas‐Cortes JA, Parnell S, Potting R, Reignault PL, Thulke H‐H, Van der Werf W, Vicent Civera A, Yuen J, Zappalà L, Candresse T, Chatzivassiliou E, Finelli F, Winter S, Chiumenti M, Di Serio F, Kaluski T, Minafra Aand Rubino L, 2019. Scientific Opinion on the pest categorisation of non‐EU viruses and viroids of Cydonia Mill., Malus Mill. and Pyrus L. EFSA Journal 2019;17(9):5590, 81 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5590
EPPO/CABI, 1996. Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests: Tomato ringspot nepovirus. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/download/file/258_datasheet_TORSV0.pdf [Accessed: 7 February 2023].
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), online_a. Tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV00), Categorisation. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/TRSV00/categorization [Accessed: 31 January 2023].
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), online_b. Tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV00), Distribution. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/TRSV00/distribution [Accessed: 31 January 2023].
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), online_c. Tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV00), Host plants. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/TRSV00/hosts [Accessed: 31 January 2023].
EUROPHYT, online. European Union Notification System for Plant Health Interceptions ‐ EUROPHYT Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/europhyt/index_en.htm [Accessed: 20 April 2023].
Gonsalves D, 1988. Tomato ringspot virus decline; tobacco ringspot virus decline. In: Pearson RC and Goheen AC (eds.). Compendium of grape diseases. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, USA, 49–51.
Gooding GV, 1991. Diseases caused by viruses. Compendium of tobacco diseases, American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, USA, 41–46.
Hollings M, 1965. Anemone necrosis, a disease caused by a strain of Tobacco ringspot virus. Annals of Applied Biology, 55, 447–457.
Lana AF, Peterson JF, Rouselle GL and Vrain TC, 1983. Association of Tobacco ringspot virus with a union incompatibility of apple. Journal of Phytopathology, 106, 141–148.
Scarborough B and Smith S, 1977. Effects of Tobacco and Tomato ringspot viruses on the reproductive tissues of Pelargonium × hortorum. Phytopathology, 67, 292–297.
Sinclair JB and Walker JC, 1956. A survey of ringspot on cucumber in Wisconsin. Plant Disease Reporter, 40, 19–20.
Stace‐Smith R, 1985. Tobacco ringspot virus. AAB Descriptions of Plant Viruses, 309.
Stace‐Smith R and Hansen AJ, 1974. Occurrence of tobacco ringspot virus in sweet cherry. Canadian Journal of Botany, 52, 1647–1651.
Stone OM, Hollings and M, Barton RJ, 1981. Annual Report of the Glasshouse Crops Research Institute for 1979. Glasshouse Crops Research Institute, Littlehampton, UK, 150–151.
TRACES‐NT, online. TRADE Control and Expert System. Available online: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/tracesnt [Accessed: 20 April 2023].
Uyemoto JK, 1975. A severe outbreak of virus‐induced grapevine decline in Cascade grapevines in New York. Plant Disease Reporter, 59, 98–101.
Yang AF and Hamilton RI, 1974. The mechanism of seed transmission of tobacco ringspot virus in soybean, Virology, 62, 26–37.
A.6. Tomato ringspot virus
A.6.1. Organism information
| Taxonomic information |
Current valid scientific name: Tomato tomato ringspot virus Synonyms: ToRSV, Tomato ringspot, Tomato ringspot nepovirus. Name used in the EU legislation: Tomato ringspot virus [ToRSV] Category: Virus Order: Picornavirales Family: Secoviridae Common name: ringspot of tomato, union necrosis of apple, chlorosis mosaic of raspberry, chlorosis of pelargonium, stem pitting of Prunus, yellow vein of grapevine. Name used in the Dossier: Tomato ringspot virus (ToRSV) |
|
| Group | Virus and Viroids | |
| EPPO code | ToRSV0 | |
| Regulated status |
ToRSV 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), Moldova (2017), Norway (2012) (EPPO, online_a). A1 list: Egypt (2018), Argentina (2019), Brazil (2018), Paraguay (1995), Uruguay (1995), Bahrain (2003), China (1993), Kazakhstan (2017), Georgia (2018), Ukraine (2019), APPPC (1993) (EPPO, online_a). A2 list: Jordan (2013), Russia (2014), UK (2016), EAEU (2016), EPPO (1975) (EPPO, online_a). |
|
| Pest status in UK |
Present, few occurrences (EPPO, online_b; dated 2021) or absent, eradicated (CABI, online). According to the NPPO, ToRSV is regulated non‐quarantine pest (2020) and is present at very low levels, with only few occurrences detected in pelargonium (ornamentals). |
|
| Pest status in the EU | Present, no details (France, Lithuania, Poland). Few occurrences (Croatia). Transient under eradication (Germany and Netherlands) (EPPO, online_b). | |
| Host status on Malus sylvestris | Malus spp. and Malus domestica are reported as hosts for ToRSV in the EPPO Global Database (EPPO, online_c). | |
| PRA information | Available Pest Risk Assessment:
|
|
| Other relevant information for the assessment | ||
| Biology | ToRSV is a bipartite positive‐sense RNA virus, with isometric particles in Secoviridae family, Nepovirus genus (Sanfaçon et al., 2006). ToRSV has a wide range of hosts, infecting primarily plants such as tomato, tobacco, cucumber, pepper, peach, apple, grape, cherry, strawberry, raspberry, plum, geranium, walnut and ornamental plants (Stace‐Smith, 1984). Experimentally, its host diversity is also very high and about 35 families are susceptible to this virus (Zindović et al., 2014). ToRSV is transmitted by the ectoparasitic dagger nematode Xiphinema americanum sensu lato (including X. americanum sensu stricto, X. bricolense, X. californicum, X. intermedium, X. rivesi, X. inaequale, X. tarjanense) (EFSA PLH Panel, 2018). ToRSV is naturally spread by different species of the nematode Xiphinema americanum group, and can be also transmitted via seed, pollen and vegetative propagation (Bitterlin et al., 1987; Pinkerton et al., 2008). | |
| Symptoms | Main type of symptoms |
The most common symptom of ToRSV infection is the presence of annular spots on the leaves. However, symptom expression varies according to the plant species, virus isolate, the age of the plant at the time of infection and environmental conditions. In general, infected plants show typical symptoms such as a shock reaction. Plants can be seen as pale yellow and showing pale green spots on the leaves that develop along the major side veins, causing systemic chlorotic or necrotic ring stains, as well as deformation of the fruit growth. Chronically infected plants usually exhibit no obvious symptoms but show a general decline in productivity (Stace‐Smith, 1984; Gonsalves, 1988; EPPO, 2013). Major diseases caused by ToRSV on fruit crops include vein yellowing in grapevines and yellow bud mosaic in peach and almond which cause pale green to pale yellow blotches to develop along the main vein or large lateral veins of leaves (EPPO, 2005). In apple plants, ToRSV causes a delay in foliation, the leaves are small and sparse, showing a vein yellowing and pale green colour. Terminal shoot growth is reduced, and the stem internodes are short. And commonly often, there is a partial or complete separation of the graft union on severely affected trees (EPPO, 2013). In stone fruit, there can be severe pitting of the scion, rootstock, or both on either side of the graft union. The graft union can show various degrees of necrosis. Foliage symptoms slowly spread throughout the canopy as the virus moves up into scion wood and there is a general decline. (Uyemoto and Scott, 1992). |
| Presence of asymptomatic plants | In certain cases, ToRSV disease could be asymptomatic, depending on the viral strain, host species and /or environmental conditions. | |
| Confusion with other pests | Note that geographical distribution, natural host range and vector relations of ToRSV are closely parallel to Tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV) (EPPO/CABI, 1996). | |
| Host plant range |
In nature, ToRSV occurs mostly in vegetable and perennial crops, including vegetable, ornamental and woody plants, such as Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. (tomato), Cucumis sativus (cucumber), Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco), Solanum tuberosum (potato), Vitis vinifera (grapevine), Vaccinium corymbosum (blueberry), Fragaria vesca (strawberry), Pelargonium domesticum (geranium), Rubus idaeus (raspberry), Rubus fruticosus, Rubus sp. (blackberry), Malus sp. (apple), Hosta sp., Aquilegia vulgaris, Delphinium sp., Fragaria ananassa, Fraxina americana, Gladiolus sp., Heleborus foetidus, Hydrangea macrophylla, Iris sp., Punica granatum, Phaseolus vulgaris, Prunus persica, Prunus sp., Rosa sp., Trifolium sp., Vigna unguiculate and Viola cornuta (Samuitienė and Navalinskienė, 2001; Sanfaçon et al., 2006; EPPO, 2013). Additionally, other uncultivated hosts, such as Taraxacum officinale, Rumex acetosella, Stellaria spp., among other 21 species can be infected by ToRSV (Mountain et al., 1983; Powell et al., 1984). |
|
| Reported evidence of impact |
ToRSV causes severe decline in productivity. Trees grown on peach, almond, cherry and plum rootstocks become unproductive (Uyemoto and Scott, 1992; Adaskaveg and Caprile, online). ToRSV is listed as EU Quarantine pest (Annex II, Part A of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072). |
|
| Pathways and evidence that the commodity is a pathway | Plants for planting of Malus, Pelargonium, Prunus and Rubus are potential host commodities for ToRSV (EPPO, online_c). Thus, plants for planting coming from a country where ToRSV occurs can be the main pathway of entry, including asymptomatic plants, infected nematodes, seeds, pollen and soil attached to the plants may also serve as potential pathway for the TRSV spread. | |
| Surveillance information |
According to the information dated on 2021 from EPPO, as well as information provided by the UK NPPO, ToRSV has a restricted presence in UK, with only a few reported occurrences in Pelargonium (ornamentals). A survey in 1979–1980 found that ToRSV was distributed throughout the UK pelargonium industry, but only a small number of infected cultivars were present on individual holdings (DEFRA, additional information). Surveys conducted in the late 1990s found that the ToRSV was present in Pelargonium cultivars and was found in seven nurseries across 17 varieties (DEFRA, additional information). Surveys conducted in the early 2000s found eight positive findings for ToRSV. The most recent survey from 2018 to 2022 indicates that ToRSV has not been eradicated, since it has been found in pelargonium from old nursery stock plants, despite the nematode vectors responsible for transmission are not known to occur in the UK (DEFRA, additional information). |
|
A.6.2. Possibility of pest presence in the nursery
A.6.2.1. Possibility of entry from the surrounding environment
ToRSV has a wide natural host range. ToRSV is naturally transmitted by nematode vectors of the Xiphinema americanum group (including X. americanum sensu stricto, X. bricolense, X. californicum, X. intermedium, X. rivesi, X. inaequale, X. tarjanense) (Brown et al. 1995, EFSA PLH Panel, 2018). These vectors are not known to occur in UK, although there is no evidence of ToRSV eradication (DEFRA, 2018). Its occurrence in the UK is restricted to Pelargonium (ornamentals) at very low levels (NPPO, 2021). There have been no other records in the UK, on any other hosts, including Malus sp. Based on the dossier information, ToRSV is considered Regulated non‐quarantine pest with 0% tolerance on findings on propagating material of ornamental plants and fruit propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit production. Infected plants may not show symptoms. There have been no other records in the UK, on any other hosts, including Prunus and Malus sp.
Uncertainties:
-
–
There is a lack of information about the particular plant species in the nurseries surroundings.
-
–
The presence of vector species in the nurseries and the surrounding area and the efficiency of pollen and seed transmission in woody plants is unknown.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that the possibility of ToRSV entry into the nursery infecting M. sylvestris plants from the surrounding orchards may be very unlikely.
A.6.2.2. Possibility of entry with new plants/seeds
At the nurseries, plant material is supervised and certified as virus‐free. ToRSV host range is wide, and despite some hosts can be symptomless carriers, symptoms expression is often severe enough to ensure its detection. There is a set of standard precautions to ensure that no plants other than certified plants are present in the production facilities. Seed transmission has been reported in a range of test species (soybean, strawberry, raspberry and pelargonium) and pollen transmission in pelargonium (Kahn, 1956; Mellor and Stace‐Smith, 1963; Braun and Keplinger, 1973; Scarborough and Smith, 1977; Card et al., 2007). However, no seed transmission has been reported in woody hosts. However, there is scarce information of the efficiency of seed and pollen transmission, in particular in woody hosts, so these mechanisms maybe relevant only for other species possibly present in the nurseries.
Uncertainties:
-
–
It is uncertain to what extent detection and sampling strategies are effective to detect asymptomatic infections.
-
–
It is unknown whether ToRSV can be transmitted from seed to M. sylvestris seedlings.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that the possibility of entry with seeds is very unlikely.
A.6.2.3. Possibility of spread within the nursery
M. sylvestris fruit‐tree propagating materials are produced under the certification scheme in nurseries, and the plant materials are monitored and inspected during the vegetation period. Although the pest is reported to be transmitted by pollen and seed, there is a paucity of data on the efficiency of seed/pollen transmission in woody plants.
Uncertainties:
-
–
It is unknown whether ToRSV can be transmitted from seed to M. sylvestris seedlings.
-
–
It is unknown if other plant species are grown in the nurseries
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that the spread of the pathogen within the nursery is very unlikely.
A.6.3. Information from interceptions
There are no records of interceptions of M. sylvestris plants for planting from UK due to the presence of ToRSV between 1998 and April 2023 (EUROPHYT, online; TRACES‐NT, online).
A.6.4. Evaluation of the risk mitigation measures
In the table below, all risk mitigation measures currently applied in UK are listed and an indication of their effectiveness on ToRSV is provided. The description of the risk mitigation measures currently applied in UK is provided in Table 5.
| 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, ToRSV is not included in the list of viruses for testing.
Uncertainties:
|
| 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:
|
| 3 | Cleaning and disinfection of facilities, tools and machinery | No | |
| 4 | Rouging and pruning | Yes |
Evaluation: Only rouging is applicable. Identifying and removing suspicious plants could be effective to decrease the virus spread and further infections.
Uncertainties:
|
| 5 | Pesticide application, biological and mechanical control | No | |
| 6 | Surveillance and monitoring | Yes |
Evaluation: Visual inspections may be effective to delay viral spread.
Uncertainties:
|
| 7 | Sampling and laboratory testing | No | |
| 8 | Root washing | No | |
| 9 | Refrigeration and temperature control | No | Not relevant |
| 10 | Pre‐consignment inspection | Yes |
Evaluation: It can be effective, though early infection can be overlooked. |
A.6.5. Overall likelihood of pest freedom
A.6.5.1. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number of infested consignments
-
–
Registration and certification of propagation material ensure virus‐free production.
-
–
Most of nurseries are placed in areas where the virus has not been reported.
-
–
ToRSV has not been reported in M. sylvestris.
-
–
Nematode vectors are the only efficient way to spread within the nurseries, and they are absent in the production areas.
-
–
No other vectors, human activities or plant material may spread the virus.
-
–
Visual inspections are effective because of official regulation, and virus symptoms seems easy to detect in diseased plants.
A.6.5.2. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number of infested consignments
-
–
The adherence to registration and certification criteria of propagation material for this pest is inappropriate and may increase the risk of entry and spread.
-
–
Unidentified virus outbreaks are present in the surrounding of M. sylvestris production areas, or the nurseries are placed in areas close to places where the ToRSV is present.
-
–
Nematode vectors may be unidentified and present in the production areas.
-
–
Pest can enter by pollen and seed and other unknown mechanisms.
-
–
Visual inspection will not detect early stages of infections or asymptomatic plants.
-
–
Increasing numbers of plants in a bundle lead to increasing risks associated to the virus presence in the bundle.
A.6.5.3. Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over‐ or underestimate the number of infested consignments (median)
-
–
ToRSV has not been reported in M. sylvestris and other plant host species in the UK.
-
–
Presence of the primary nematode vectors is very unlikely.
-
–
Introduction of the virus from the surrounding areas or from propagation material within the nurseries is very unlikely.
A.6.5.4. Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/interquartile range)
-
–
Transmission efficiency by other potential nematode vectors species is not well documented.
-
–
Status of the virus in the surrounding areas is unknown.
A.6.5.5. Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for tomato ringspot virus
The elicited and fitted values for tomato ringspot virus agreed by the Panel are shown in Tables A.21, A.22, A.23–A.24 and in Figures A.11–A.12.
Table A.21.
Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation by tomato ringspot per 10,000 single potted or bare root plants
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elicited values | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
| EKE | 0.0212 | 0.0521 | 0.103 | 0.203 | 0.337 | 0.502 | 0.666 | 1.00 | 1.33 | 1.50 | 1.67 | 1.81 | 1.92 | 1.97 | 2.01 |
The EKE results is the BetaGeneral (1.019, 1.0443, 0, 2.03) distribution fitted with @Risk version 7.6.
Table A.22.
The uncertainty distribution of plants free of tomato ringspot per 10,000 single potted or bare root plants calculated by Table A21
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Values | 9,998 | 9,999 | 9,999 | 10,000 | 10,000 | ||||||||||
| EKE results | 9,997.99 | 9,998.03 | 9,998.08 | 9,998.2 | 9,998.3 | 9,998.5 | 9,998.7 | 9,999.0 | 9,999.3 | 9,999.5 | 9,999.7 | 9,999.80 | 9,999.90 | 9,999.95 | 9,999.98 |
The EKE results are the fitted values.
Table A.23.
Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation by tomato ringspot per 10,000 bundles of bare root plants or rooted cell grown young plants
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elicited values | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
| EKE | 0.0212 | 0.0521 | 0.103 | 0.203 | 0.337 | 0.502 | 0.666 | 1.00 | 1.33 | 1.50 | 1.67 | 1.81 | 1.92 | 1.97 | 2.01 |
The EKE results is the BetaGeneral (1.019, 1.0443, 0, 2.03) distribution fitted with @Risk version 7.6.
Table A.24.
The uncertainty distribution of bundles free of tomato ringspot virus per 10,000 bundles calculated by Table A.23
| Percentile | 1% | 2.5% | 5% | 10% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 83% | 90% | 95% | 97.5% | 99% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Values | 9,998 | 9,999 | 9,999 | 10,000 | 10,000 | ||||||||||
| EKE results | 9,997.99 | 9,998.03 | 9,998.08 | 9,998.2 | 9,998.3 | 9,998.5 | 9,998.7 | 9,999.0 | 9,999.3 | 9,999.5 | 9,999.7 | 9,999.80 | 9,999.90 | 9,999.95 | 9,999.98 |
The EKE results are the fitted values.
Figure A.11.
(a) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 single potted or bare root plants (histogram in blue – vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (b) uncertainty of the proportion of pest‐free plants per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (c) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 plants
Figure A.12.
(a) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 bundles of bare root plants or rooted cell grown young plants (histogram in blue – vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (b) uncertainty of the proportion of pest‐free bundles per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (c) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 bundles
Based on the numbers of estimated infested plants the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – the number of infested plants per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in Table A.22.
Based on the numbers of estimated infested bundles of bare root plants or rooted cell grown young plants the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – the number of infested bundles per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in Table A.20.
A.6.6. References list
Adaskaveg JE and Caprile JL, online. UC Pest Management Guidelines. Tomato Ringspot Virus. Available online: https://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/r105102811.html [Accessed: 17 February 2023].
Bitterlin MW, Gonsalves D and Scorza R, 1987. Improved mechanical transmission of tomato ringspot virus to Prunus seedlings. Phytopathology, 77, 560–563. https://doi.org/10.1094/phyto‐77‐560
Braun AJ and Keplinger JA, 1973. Seed transmission of tomato ringspot virus in raspberry. Plant Disease Reporter, 57, 431–432.
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), online. Tomato ringspot virus (ringspot of tomato). Available online: https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/10.1079/cabicompendium.54076 [Accessed: 17 February 2023].
Card S, Pearson M and Clover G, 2007. Plant pathogens transmitted by pollen. Australasian Plant Pathology, 36, 455–461.
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), 2018. Rapid Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) for: Tomato ringspot virus (ToRSV). Available online: https://planthealthportal.defra.gov.uk/assets/pras/ToRSV-PRA4.pdf [Accessed: 7 February 2023].
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Jeger M, Bragard C, Caffier D, Candresse T, Chatzivassiliou E, Dehnen‐Schmutz K, Gilioli G, Gregoire J‐C, Jaques Miret JA, MacLeod A, Navajas Navarro M, Parnell S, Potting R, Rafoss T, Rossi V, Urek G, Van Bruggen A, Van der Werf W, West J, Winter S, Kaluski T and Niere B, 2018a. Pest categorisation of Xiphinema americanum sensu lato. EFSA Journal 2018;16(7):5298, 43 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5298
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Plant Health Panel), Bragard C, Dehnen‐Schmutz K, Gonthier P, Jacques M‐A, Jaques Miret JA, Justesen AF, MacLeod A, Magnusson CS, Milonas P, Navas‐Cortes JA, Parnell S, Potting R, Reignault PL, Thulke H‐H, Van der Werf W, Vicent Civera A, Yuen J, Zappalà L, Candresse T, Chatzivassiliou E, Finelli F, Winter S, Chiumenti M, Di Serio F, Kaluski T, Minafra A and Rubino L, 2019a. Scientific Opinion on the pest categorisation of non‐EU viruses and viroids of Cydonia Mill., Malus Mill. and Pyrus L. EFSA Journal 2019;17(9):5590, 81 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5590I
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Plant Health Panel), Bragard C, Dehnen‐Schmutz K, Gonthier P, Jacques M‐A, Jaques Miret JA, Justesen AF, MacLeod A, Magnusson CS, Milonas P, Navas‐Cortes JA, Parnell S, Potting R, Reignault PL, Thulke H‐H, Van der Werf W, Vicent Civera A, Yuen J, Zappalà L, Candresse T, Chatzivassiliou E, Finelli F, Winter S, Bosco D, Chiumenti M, Di Serio F, Kaluski T, Minafra A and Rubino L, 2019b. Pest categorisation of non‐EU viruses and viroids of Prunus L. EFSA Journal 2019;17(9):5735, 84 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5735
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Plant Health Panel), Bragard C, Dehnen‐Schmutz K, Gonthier P, Jacques M‐A, Jaques Miret JA, Justesen AF, MacLeod A, Magnusson CS, Milonas P, Navas‐Cortes JA, Parnell S, Potting R, Reignault PL, Thulke H‐H, Van der Werf W, Vicent Civera A, Yuen J, Zappalà L, Candresse T, Chatzivassiliou E, Finelli F, Martelli GP, Winter S, Bosco D, Chiumenti M, Di Serio F, Kaluski T, Minafra A and Rubino L, 2019c. Scientific Opinion on the pest categorisation of non‐EU viruses and viroids of Vitis L. EFSA Journal 2019;17(9):5669, 94 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5669
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health) Bragard C, Dehnen‐Schmutz K, Gonthier P, Jacques M‐A, Jaques Miret JA, Justesen AF, MacLeod A, Magnusson CS, Milonas P, Navas‐Cortes JA, Parnell S, Potting R, Reignault PL, Thulke H‐H, Van der Werf W, Vicent Civera A, Yuen J, Zappalà L, Candresse T, Chatzivassiliou E, Finelli F, Winter S, Bosco D, Chiumenti M, Di Serio F, Kaluski T, Minafra A and Rubino L, 2019d. Scientific Opinion on the pest categorisation of non‐EU viruses of Fragaria L. EFSA Journal 2019;17(9):5766, 69 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5766
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Bragard C, Dehnen‐Schmutz K, Gonthier P, Jacques M‐A, Jaques Miret JA, Justesen AF, MacLeod A, Magnusson CS, Milonas P, Navas‐Cortes JA, Parnell S, Potting R, Reignault PL, Thulke H‐H, Van der Werf W, Civera AV, Yuen J, Zappalà L, Candresse T, Chatzivassiliou E, Finelli F, Winter S, Bosco D, Chiumenti M, Di Serio F, Ferilli F, Kaluski T, Minafra A and Rubino L, 2019e. Scientific Opinion on the pest categorisation ofnon‐EU viruses of Ribes L. EFSA Journal 2019;17(11):5859, 48 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5859
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Bragard C, Dehnen‐Schmutz K, Gonthier P, Jacques M‐A, Jaques Miret JA, Justesen AF, MacLeod A, Magnusson CS, Milonas P, Navas‐Cortes JA, Parnell S, Potting R, Reignault PL, Thulke H‐H, Van der Werf W, Vicent Civera A, Yuen J,Zappalà L, Candresse T, Chatzivassiliou E, Finelli F, Winter S, Bosco D, Chiumenti M, Di Serio F, Ferilli F, Kaluski T, Minafra A and Rubino L, 2020. Scientific Opinion on the pest categorisation of non‐EUviruses of Rubus L. EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5928, 69 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.5928
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), 2005. Tomato ringspot nepovirus. PM 7/49(1). Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin, 35, 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2338.2005.00831.x
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), 2013. Tomato ringspot virus in fruit trees and grapevine: inspection. Phytosanitary procedures. PM3/32 (2). Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin, 43, 397. https://doi.org/10.1111/epp.12073
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), online_a. Tomato ringspot virus (TORSV0), Categorisation. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/TORSV0/categorization [Accessed: 17 February 2023].
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), online_b. Tomato ringspot virus (TORSV0), Distribution. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/TORSV0/distribution [Accessed: 17 February 2023].
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), online_c. Tomato ringspot virus (TORSV0), Host plants. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/TORSV0/hosts [Accessed: 17 February 2023].
EPPO/CABI, 1996. Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests: Tobacco ringspot nepovirus. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/download/file/714_datasheet_TRSV00.pdf [Accessed: 17 February 2023].
EUROPHYT, online. European Union Notification System for Plant Health Interceptions ‐ EUROPHYT Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/europhyt/index_en.htm [Accessed: 20 April 2023].
FERA (The Food and Environment Research Agency), 2014. Rapid pest risk analysis for Xiphinema americanum s.l. (European populations). Available online: https://planthealthportal.defra.gov.uk/pests-and-diseases/uk-plant-health-risk-register/downloadExternalPra.cfm?id=4175 [Accessed: 17 February 2023].
Gonsalves D, 1988. Tomato ringspot virus decline; tobacco ringspot virus decline. In: Pearson RC and Goheen AC (eds.). Compendium of grape diseases. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, USA, 49–51.
Kahn RP, 1956. Seed transmission of the tomato ringspot virus in the Lincoln variety of soybeans. Phytopathology, 46, 295.
Mellor FC and Stace‐Smith R, 1963. Reaction of strawberry to a ringspot virus from raspberry. Canadian Journal of Botany, 41, 865–870.
Mountain W, Powell C, Forer L and Stouffer R, 1983. Transmission of Tomato ringspot virus from dandelion via seed and dagger nematodes. Plant Disease, 67, 867–868. https://doi.org/10.1094/pd-67-867
Pinkerton JN, Kraus J, Martin RR and Schreiner RP, 2008. Epidemiology of Xiphinema americanum and Tomato ringspot virus on red raspberry, Rubus idaeus. Plant Disease, 92, 364–371. https://doi.org/10.1094/pdis-92-3-0364
Powell C, Forer L, Stouffer R, Cummins J, Gonsalves D, Rosenberger D, Hoffman J and Lister R, 1984. Orchard weeds as hosts of Tomato ringspot and Tobacco ringspot viruses. Plant Disease, 68, 242–244. https://doi.org/10.1094/pd-69-242
Samuitienė M and Navalinskienė M, 2001. Nepoviruses and their influence on field floriculture. Biologija, 4, 43–45.
Sanfaçon H, Zhang G, Chisholm J, Jafarpour B and Jovel J, 2006. Molecular biology of Tomato ringspot nepovirus, a pathogen of ornamentals, small fruits and fruit trees. Floriculture, Ornamental and Plant Biotechnology, 540–547.
Scarborough BA and Smith SH, 1977. Effects of tobacco‐ and tomato ringspot viruses on the reproductive tissues of Pelargonium × hortorum. Phytopathology, 67, 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1094/phyto-67-292
Stace‐Smith R, 1984. Tomato ringspot virus. CMI/AAB Descriptions of Plant Viruses, AAB, Wellesbourne (GB), 290.
TRACES‐NT, online. TRADE Control and Expert System. Available online: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/tracesnt [Accessed: 20 April 2023].
Uyemoto JK and Scott SW, 1992. Important diseases of Prunus caused by viruses and other graft‐transmissible pathogens in California and South Carolina. Plant Disease, 76, 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1094/pd-76-0005
Zindović J, Marn VM and Pleško IM, 2014. Phytosanitary status of grapevine in Montenegro. EPPO Bulletin, 44, 60–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/epp.12084
Appendix B – Web of Science All Databases Search String
1.
In the table below the search string used in Web of Science is reported. In total, 122 papers were retrieved. Titles and abstracts were screened, and 10 pests were added to the list of pests (see Appendix D).
| Web of Science All databases |
TOPIC: (“Malus sylvestris” OR “M. Sylvestris” OR “wild apple tree$”) AND TOPIC: (“pathogen* OR pathogenic bacteria OR fung* OR oomycet* OR myce* OR bacteri* OR virus* OR viroid* OR insect$ OR mite$ OR phytoplasm* OR arthropod* OR nematod* OR disease$ OR infecti* OR damag* OR symptom* OR pest$ OR vector OR hostplant$ OR “host plant$” OR host OR “root lesion$” OR decline$ OR infestation$ OR damage$ OR symptom$ OR dieback* OR “die back*” OR malaise OR aphid$ OR curculio OR thrip$ OR cicad$ OR miner$ OR borer$ OR weevil$ OR “plant bug$” OR spittlebug$ OR moth$ OR mealybug$ OR cutworm$ OR pillbug$ OR “root feeder$” OR caterpillar$ OR “foliar feeder$” OR virosis OR viruses OR blight$ OR wilt$ OR wilted OR canker OR scab$ OR rot OR rots OR “rotten” OR “damping off” OR “damping‐off” OR blister$ OR smut OR “mould” OR “mold” OR “damping syndrome$” OR mildew OR scald$ OR “root knot” OR “root‐knot” OR rootkit OR cyst$ OR “dagger” OR “plant parasitic” OR “parasitic plant” OR “plant$parasitic” OR “root feeding” OR “root$feeding”) NOT TOPIC: (“heavy metal$” OR “pollut*” OR “weather” OR “propert*” OR probes OR “spectr*” OR “antioxidant$” OR “transformation” OR RNA OR “musca sylvestris” OR peel OR resistance OR gene OR DNA OR “Secondary plant metabolite$” OR metabolite$ OR Catechin OR “Epicatechin” OR “Rutin” OR “Phloridzin” OR “Chlorogenic acid” OR “Caffeic acid” OR “Phenolic compounds” OR “Quality” OR “Appearance” OR Postharvest OR Antibacterial OR Abiotic OR Storage OR Pollin* OR Ethylene OR Thinning OR fertil* OR Mulching OR Nutrient$ OR Pruning OR “human virus” OR “animal disease$” OR “plant extracts” OR “immunological” OR “purified fraction” OR “traditional medicine” OR “medicine” OR mammal$ OR bird$ OR “human disease$”) NOT TOPIC: (“Achlya conspicua” OR “Aculus schlechtendali” OR “Agrobacterium tumefaciens” OR “Agrotis segetum” OR “Allocotaphis quaestionis” OR “Cephalosporium roseum” OR “Alternaria alternata f. sp. mali” OR “Alternaria humicola” OR “Alternaria mali” OR “Alternaria malorum” OR “Alternaria pomicola” OR “Amaranthus blitum” OR “Ambrosiella hartigii” OR “Amphitetranychus viennensis” OR “Anarsia lineatella” OR “Anophococcus insignis” OR “Anoplophora chinensis” OR “Anoplophora glabripennis” OR “Anthonomus pomorum” OR “Anuraphis farfarae” OR “Aphidounguis mali” OR “Alternaria alternata” OR “Xyleborus dispar” OR “Aphis craccivora” OR “Aphis eugeniae” OR “Aphis fabae” OR “Aphis gossypii” OR “Aphis odinae” OR “Aphis pomi” OR “Aphis spiraecola” OR “Aphis spiraephaga” OR “Aploneura ampelinaOR Aphis aurantii” OR “Apple mosaic virus” OR “Apple scar skin viroid” OR “Apple stem grooving virus” OR “Apple stem pitting virus” OR “Apriona germari” OR “Apriona rugicollis” OR “Archips fuscocupreanus” OR “Argyrotaenia ljungiana” OR “Armillaria luteobubalina” OR “Armillaria mellea” OR “Aphis citricidus” OR “Armillariella mellea” OR “Ascochyta mali” OR “Ascochyta malvicola” OR “Ascochyta piricola” OR “Aspergillus clavatus” OR “Aspergillus elegans” OR “Aspergillus fumigatus” OR “Aspergillus niger” OR “Aspergillus sclerotiorum” OR “Aspergillus wentii” OR “Aspidiotus nerii” OR “Asteromella pomi” OR “Phyllosticta mali” OR “Aulacorthum solani” OR “Bactrocera dorsalis” OR “Bactrocera jarvisi” OR “Bactrocera neohumeralis” OR “Bactrocera tryoni” OR “Bactrocera zonata” OR “Berkeleyomyces basicola” OR “Bjerkandera adusta” OR “Diplodia mutila” OR “Physalospora mutila” OR “Botryosphaeria dothidea” OR “Botryosphaeria kuwatsukai” OR “Cylindrocladium floridanum” OR “Chalastospora gossypii” OR “Botryosphaeria prava” OR “Botryosphaeria quercuum” OR “Cladosporium malorum” OR “Colletotrichum fructigenum” OR “Gloeosporium cingulatum” OR “Botryosphaeria stevensii” OR “Botryotinia fuckeliana” OR “Botrytis cinerea” OR “Botrytis mali” OR “Brachycaudus cardui” OR “Brachycaudus helichrysi” OR “Bryobia angustisetis” OR “Bryobia rubrioculus” OR “Bryobia ulmophila” OR “Bryobia vasiljevi” OR “Cadophora luteo‐olivacea” OR “Calonectria kyotensis” OR “Calonectria morganii” OR “Camarosporium mali” OR “Candidatus Phytoplasma mali” OR “Carnation ringspot virus” OR “Carposina sasakii” OR “Cenangium tuberculiforme” OR “Cephalosporium carpogenum” OR “Gloeosporium fructigenum” OR “Cephalothecium roseum” OR “Ceratitis capitata” OR “Diapleella coniothyrium” OR “Ceratostomella mali” OR “Melanomma coniothyrium” OR “Cercospora malvarum” OR “Pellicularia koleroga” OR “Ceroplastes ceriferus” OR “Ceroplastes eugeniae” OR “Ceroplastes floridensis” OR “Ceroplastes rubens” OR “Chaetomium funicola” OR “Chaetomium globosum” OR “Chaetomium trilaterale” OR “Chaetosphaeronema coonsii” OR “Myxosporium corticola” OR “Cheiromycella chomatospora” OR “Cherry rasp leaf virus” OR “Chondrostereum purpureum” OR “Chrysobothris femorata” OR “Chrysobothris mali” OR “Chrysomphalus dictyospermi” OR “Cladosporium carpophilum” OR “Cladosporium cladosporioides” OR “Cladosporium dendriticum” OR “Leucostoma persoonii” OR “Cladosporium herbarum” OR “Cytospora ambiens” OR “Cladosporium pseudocladosporioides” OR “Clathrospora diplospora” OR “Climacodon septentrionalis” OR “Armillariella tabescens” OR “Clitocybe monadelpha” OR “Clover yellow mosaic virus” OR “Coccus hesperidum hesperidum” OR “Colletotrichum acutatum” OR “Clitocybe tabescens” OR “Colletotrichum fructicola” OR “Coniothyrium pirinum” OR “Colletotrichum fructus” OR “Colletotrichum gloeosporioides” OR “Comstockaspis perniciosa” OR “Coniella fragariae” OR “Coniella musaiaensis var. hibisci” OR “Coniophora puteana” OR “Coniothecium chomatosporum” OR “Coniothyrium convolutum” OR “Coniothyrium cydoniae” OR “Coniothyrium fuckelii” OR “Coniothyrium pyrinum” OR “Phoma macrostoma” OR “Coriolopsis gallica” OR “Phoma macrostoma var. incolorata” OR “Corticium centrifugum” OR “Corticium galactinum” OR “Corticium litschaueri” OR “Phoma macrostoma var. macrostoma” OR “Corticium stevensii” OR “Coryneum foliicola” OR “Coryneum longistipitatum” OR “Cristulariella moricola” OR “Cryptosporiopsis corticola” OR “Cucurbitaria acervata” OR “Cuscuta japonica” OR “Cylindrocarpon angustum” OR “Phoma pomorum” OR “Phyllosticta pirina” OR “Phyllosticta prunicola” OR “Phyllosticta pyrina” OR “Cylindrocladium scoparium” OR “Cyphella marginata” OR “Cystostereum murrayi” OR “Marssonina coronaria” OR “Cytospora chrysosperma” OR “Cytospora leucosticta” OR “Cytospora leucostoma” OR “Cytospora mali” OR “Cytospora mali‐sylvestris” OR “Cytospora microspora” OR “Cytospora parasitica” OR “Cytospora personata” OR “Fabraea maculata” OR “Cytospora schulzeri” OR “Dacrymyces minor” OR “Daedalea confragosa” OR “Daedalea unicolor” OR “Daldinia concentrica” OR “Daldinia occidentalis” OR “Dematophora necatrix” OR “Dendrophora erumpens” OR “Dendrophora versiformis” OR “Diabrotica undecimpunctata undecimpunctata” OR “Boreostereum radiatum” OR “Diaporthe ambigua” OR “Diaporthe eres” OR “Diaporthe perniciosa” OR “Diaspidiotus kaussarii” OR “Diaspidiotus marani” OR “Diaspidiotus ostreaeformis” OR “Diaspidiotus pyri” OR “Diatrype stigma” OR “Diatrypella favacea” OR “Dichroplus elongatus” OR “Didymella macrostoma” OR “Didymella mali” OR “Diplocarpon coronariae” OR “Diplodia bulgarica” OR “Diplodia intermedia” OR “Diplodia malorum” OR “Diplodia maura” OR “Botryosphaeria obtusa” OR “Physalospora cydoniae” OR “Diplodia pseudodiplodia” OR “Diplodia sarmentorum” OR “Diplodia seriata” OR “Discosia barrusii” OR “Dothiorella gregaria” OR “Dothiorella mali” OR “Dynaspidiotus abietis” OR “Dysaphis affinis” OR “Dysaphis anthrisci” OR “Dysaphis anthrisci majkopica” OR “Dysaphis armeniaca” OR “Dysaphis brachycyclica” OR “Dysaphis brancoi” OR “Dysaphis brancoi ssp. malina” OR “Dysaphis brancoi ssp. rogersoni” OR “Dysaphis bunii” OR “Dysaphis chaerophylli” OR “Dysaphis chaerophyllina” OR “Dysaphis devecta” OR “Dysaphis flava” OR “Dysaphis gallica” OR “Dysaphis malidauci” OR “Dysaphis meridialis” OR “Dysaphis mordvilkoi” OR “Dysaphis orientalis” OR “Dysaphis physocaulis” OR “Dysaphis plantaginea” OR “Dysaphis radicola” OR “Dysaphis sibirica” OR “Dysaphis zini” OR “Dysmicoccus brevipes” OR “Elsinoe piri” OR “Elsinoe pyri” OR “Enarmonia formosana” OR “Encoelia rhenana” OR “Endomyces mali” OR “Entoleuca callimorpha” OR “Entomosporium mespili” OR “Epicoccum granulatum” OR “Epidiaspis leperii” OR “Eriosoma lanigerum” OR “Eriosoma lanuginosum” OR “Erwinia amylovora” OR “Erysiphe malvae” OR “Erythricium salmonicolor” OR “Eudocima fullonia” OR “Eulecanium kunoense” OR “Eulecanium tiliae” OR “Eutypa lata” OR “Eutypella prunastri” OR “Euwallacea fornicatus sensu stricto” OR “Exidia thuretiana” OR “Corticium salmonicolor” OR “Filago gallica” OR “Gibberella baccata” OR “Gibberella moricola” OR “Fomes fomentarius” OR “Fomes igniarius” OR “Fomes pinicola” OR “Fomes pomaceus” OR “Fomitopsis pinicola” OR “Fumago vagans” OR “Fusarium acuminatum” OR “Fusarium avenaceum” OR “Fusarium graminum” OR “Fusarium lateritium” OR “Fusarium lateritium var. fructigenum” OR “Fusarium moniliforme var. subglutinans” OR “Fusarium oxysporum” OR “Fusarium roseum” OR “Fusarium scirpi” OR “Fusarium solani” OR “Fusicladium asperatum” OR “Fomes applanatus” OR “Lenzites sepiaria” OR “Fusicoccum aesculi” OR “Fusicoccum pyrorum” OR “Ganoderma applanatum” OR “Ganoderma curtisii” OR “Ganoderma lucidum” OR “Geosmithia fagi” OR “Lenzites trabea” OR “Lenzites vialis” OR “Gliocladium viride” OR “Gloeodes pomigena” OR “Fomes annosus” OR “Cylindrocarpon destructans” OR “Gloeosporium rufomaculans” OR “Glomerella cingulata” OR “Glomerella cingulata var. minor” OR “Glomerella rubicola” OR “Glomerella rufomaculans” OR “Glutinium macrosporum” OR “Glyphium corrugatum” OR “Golovinomyces cichoracearum” OR “Grapholita inopinata” OR “Grapholita molesta” OR “Grapholita packardi” OR “Grapholita prunivora” OR “Guepinia spathularia” OR “Gymnosporangium clavariiforme” OR “Gymnosporangium clavipes” OR “Gymnosporangium cornutum” OR “Gymnosporangium globosum” OR “Gymnosporangium juniperi‐virginianae” OR “Gymnosporangium libocedri” OR “Gymnosporangium nidus‐avis” OR “Gymnosporangium tremelloides” OR “Hedya nubiferana” OR “Heliotropium europaeum” OR “Helminthosporium papulosum” OR “Helminthosporium pyrorum” OR “Hemiberlesia lataniae” OR “Hemiberlesia rapax” OR “Hendersonia cydoniae” OR “Hendersonia mali” OR “Heterobasidion annosum” OR “Heterobasidion parviporum” OR “Heterosporium maculatum” OR “Homalodisca vitripennis” OR “Hop stunt viroid” OR “Hormodendrum cladosporioides” OR “Hyalomyzus eriobotryae” OR “Hydnum mucidum” OR “Hydnum ochraceum” OR “Hydnum setosum” OR “Hymenochaete agglutinans” OR “Hyphantria cunea” OR “Hypholoma sublateritium” OR “Hypoxylon atropunctatum” OR “Hypoxylon howeianum” OR “Hypoxylon mediterraneum” OR “Hypoxylon perforatum” OR “Hypoxylon rubiginosum” OR “Hypoxylon serpens” OR “Hysterium pulicare” OR “Hysteropatella prostii” OR “Eulecanium nocivum” OR “Illosporium malifoliorum” OR “Inonotus hispidus” OR “Lachnella alboviolascens” OR “Lasiodiplodia theobromae” OR “Lenzites betulina” OR “Botryodiplodia theobromae” OR “Diplodia natalensis” OR “Malacosoma americanum” OR “Lepidosaphes malicola” OR “Lepidosaphes pistaciae” OR “Lepidosaphes ulmi” OR “Lepidosaphes ussuriensis” OR “Leptographium alneum” OR “Leptosphaeria concentrica” OR “Leptosphaeria coniothyrium” OR “Phyllosticta limitata” OR “Leucoptera malifoliella” OR “Mycosphaerella tulasnei” OR “Lindingaspis rossi” OR “Longistigma xizangensis” OR “Lymantria obfuscata” OR “Maconellicoccus hirsutus” OR “Macroplodia cinerea” OR “Macrosiphum chukotense” OR “Macrosiphum euphorbiae” OR “Macrosiphum rosae” OR “Cercospora pyri” OR “Malacosoma disstria” OR “Malacosoma parallela” OR “Marasmius pyrinus” OR “Nectria ditissima” OR “Massaria pyri” OR “Megaplatypus mutatus” OR “Melanconium fuligineum” OR “Nectria galligena” OR “Melanopsamma improvisa” OR “Melanopsamma pomiformis” OR “Meloidogyne incognita” OR “Meloidogyne javanica” OR “Neonectria galligena” OR “Monilia cinerea f. americana” OR “Monilinia fructicola” OR “Monilinia fructigena” OR “Monilinia laxa” OR “Monilinia polystroma” OR “Monochaetia mali” OR “Morganella longispina” OR “Mucor mucedo” OR “Mucor piriformis” OR “Mucor racemosus” OR “Mycena citricolor” OR “Mycosphaerella pomi” OR “Mycosphaerella sentina” OR “Pezicula malicorticis” OR “Mycothyridium lividum” OR “Myriangium asterinosporum” OR “Myrmecridium schulzeri” OR “Neofabraea alba” OR “Myzus ornatus” OR “Myzus persicae” OR “Nearctaphis bakeri” OR “Nectria cinnabarina” OR “Nectria coccinea” OR “Pezicula alba” OR “Phlyctema vagabunda” OR “Nectria sanguinea” OR “Nematogonum aurantiacum” OR “Neocosmospora metavorans” OR “Botryosphaeria parva” OR “Neofabraea corticola” OR “Neofabraea malicorticis” OR “Neofabraea perennans” OR “Neofabraea vagabunda” OR “Neofusicoccum parvum” OR “Neonectria candida” OR “Neonectria ditissima” OR “Botryosphaeria ribis” OR “Neonectria ramulariae” OR “Nigrospora sphaerica” OR “Nippolachnus piri” OR “Nummularia discreta” OR “Botryosphaeria ribis f. chromogena” OR “Botryosphaeria ribis var. chromogena” OR “Oemona hirta” OR “Oospora mali” OR “Oospora otophila” OR “Operophtera brumata” OR “Ophiostoma novo‐ulmi” OR “Ophiostoma quercus” OR “Orgyia leucostigma” OR “Otthia amica” OR “Ovatus crataegarius” OR “Ovatus insitus” OR “Ovatus malisuctus” OR “Oxyporus latemarginatus” OR “Palaeolecanium bituberculatum” OR “Panellus serotinus” OR “Panonychus citri” OR “Panonychus ulmi” OR “Paraboeremia putaminum” OR “Paraphoma radicina” OR “Paratachardina pseudolobata” OR “Parlatoria cinerea” OR “Parlatoria oleae” OR “Parlatoria pergandii” OR “Parlatoria proteus” OR “Parthenolecanium cerasifex” OR “Icerya seychellarum” OR “Parthenolecanium glandi” OR “Pear blister canker viroid” OR “Cylindrocarpon mali” OR “Penicillium digitatum” OR “Penicillium expansum” OR “Penicillium glabrum” OR “Penicillium martensii” OR “Penicillium olivinoviride” OR “Penicillium puberulum” OR “Penicillium verrucosum” OR “Penicillium viridicatum” OR “Peniophora cinerea” OR “Peniophora violaceolivida” OR “Perenniporia fraxinea” OR “Pestalotia concentrica” OR “Pestalotia hartigii” OR “Pestalotia mali” OR “Pestalotia montellica” OR “Cylindrocarpon obtusisporum” OR “Cladosporium elatum” OR “Pezicula corticola” OR “Pezicula corylina” OR “Ochropsora ariae” OR “Pezicula neocinnamomea” OR “Pezicula pruinosa” OR “Peziza corticola” OR “Peziza regalis” OR “Peziza repanda” OR “Pezizella oenotherae” OR “Phacidiella discolor” OR “Phacidiopycnis malorum” OR “Phacidiopycnis washingtonensis” OR “Phaeosporis catacrypta” OR “Phellinus igniarius” OR “Phellinus pomaceus” OR “Phenacoccus aceris” OR “Phialophora malorum” OR “Ochropsora sorbi” OR “Pholiota adiposa” OR “Peyronellaea musae” OR “Phoma bismarckii” OR “Phoma fuliginea” OR “Phoma herbarum” OR “Phoma jolyana” OR “Phoma ambigua” OR “Phymatotrichum omnivorum” OR “Aposphaeria fuscomaculans” OR “Phoma mali” OR “Phoma pomi” OR “Cercospora mali” OR “Phoma putaminum” OR “Phoma pyrina” OR “Phoma radicina” OR “Phomopsis mali” OR “Phomopsis perniciosa” OR “Phorodon humuli” OR “Phyllactinia mali” OR “Phyllonorycter blancardella” OR “Phyllonorycter crataegella” OR “Phyllosticta clypeata” OR “Ceratitis rosa” OR “Rhopalosiphum insertum” OR “Leptothyrium pomi” OR “Athelia rolfsii” OR “Sclerotium rolfsii” OR “Phyllosticta solitaria” OR “Phyllotopsis nidulans” OR “Phymatotrichopsis omnivora” OR “Coriolus versicolor” OR “Cytospora rubescens” OR “Colletotrichum fructi” OR “Physalospora obtusa” OR “Physalospora rhodina” OR “Phytophthora boehmeriae” OR “Phytophthora cactorum” OR “Phytophthora cambivora” OR “Phytophthora citricola” OR “Phytophthora cryptogea” OR “Phytophthora drechsleri” OR “Phytophthora gonapodyides” OR “Phytophthora medicaginis” OR “Phytophthora megasperma” OR “Phytophthora syringae” OR “Plenodomus fuscomaculans” OR “Pleospora fructicola” OR “Pleospora herbarum” OR “Pleospora herbarum var. citrorum” OR “Pleospora mali” OR “Pleurotus corticatus” OR “Pleurotus ostreatus” OR “Pleurotus ulmarius” OR “Plocamaphis gyirongensis” OR “Podosphaera clandestina” OR “Podosphaera leucotricha” OR “Podosphaera oxyacanthae” OR “Polyporus admirabilis” OR “Polyporus adustus” OR “Polyporus albellus” OR “Polyporus albidus” OR “Polyporus biennis” OR “Polyporus caesius” OR “Polyporus fissilis” OR “Polyporus galactinus” OR “Polyporus gilvus” OR “Polyporus hirsutus” OR “Polyporus lacteus” OR “Polyporus pubescens” OR “Polyporus resinosus” OR “Polyporus spumeus” OR “Polyporus spumeus var. malicola” OR “Polyporus squamosus” OR “Polyporus sulphureus” OR “Polyporus tulipiferae” OR “Polyporus versicolor” OR “Poria ambigua” OR “Poria pannocincta” OR “Poria spissa” OR “Potebniamyces pyri” OR “Pratylenchus penetrans” OR “Pratylenchus thornei” OR “Pratylenchus vulnus” OR “Prociphilus caryae ssp. fitchii” OR “Prociphilus crataegicola” OR “Prociphilus kuwanai” OR “Prociphilus oriens” OR “Prociphilus pini” OR “Prociphilus sasakii” OR “Pseudaspidoproctus hyphaeniacus” OR “Pseudaulacaspis pentagona” OR “Pseudocercospora mali” OR “Pseudococcus calceolariae” OR “Pseudococcus comstocki” OR “Pseudococcus maritimus” OR “Pseudococcus viburni” OR “Pseudomonas syringae” OR “Pseudomonas syringae pv. papulans” OR “Pterochloroides persicae” OR “Puccinia heterospora” OR “Pulcherricium caeruleum” OR “Pullularia pullulans” OR “Punctularia strigosozonata” OR “Pycnoporus coccineus” OR “Pyrolachnus pyri” OR “Pythium afertile” OR “Pythium gracile” OR “Pythium intermedium” OR “Pythium irregulare” OR “Pythium middletonii” OR “Pythium spinosum” OR “Pythium splendens” OR “Pythium torulosum” OR “Pythium ultimum” OR “Pythium ultimum var. ultimum” OR “Pythium vexans” OR “Radulum aterrimum” OR “Ramularia eucalypti” OR “Ramularia macrospora” OR “Ramularia magnusiana” OR “Ramularia vizellae” OR “Rhizoctonia solani” OR “Rhizopus nigricans” OR “Rhizopus stolonifer” OR “Fusicladium dendriticum” OR “Rhopalosiphum oxyacanthae” OR “Rhopalosiphum padi” OR “Roesleria hypogaea” OR “Roesleria subterranea” OR “Rosellinia necatrix” OR “Rotylenchulus reniformis” OR “Sarcodontia crocea” OR “Saturnia pyri” OR “Schizoneurella indica” OR “Schizophyllum commune” OR “Schizothyrium perexiguum” OR “Schizothyrium pomi” OR “Sclerophoma mali” OR “Sclerotinia fructicola” OR “Sclerotinia fructigena” OR “Sclerotinia laxa” OR “Fusicladium pomi” OR “Scolicosporium pedicellatum” OR “Scytinostroma galactinum” OR “Septobasidium pseudopedicellatum” OR “Septoria piricola” OR “Septoria pyri” OR “Setaria viridis” OR “Sophonia orientalis” OR “Sphaeria bisphaerica” OR “Sphaerolecanium prunastri” OR “Sphaeropsis malorum” OR “Sphaeropsis pyriputrescens” OR “Spilocaea pomi” OR “Spodoptera littoralis” OR “Sporidesmium fructigenum” OR “Sporocadus mali” OR “Sporonema oxycocci” OR “Sporotrichum malorum” OR “Stagonospora biformis” OR “Stemphylium congestum” OR “Stemphylium congestum var. minor” OR “Stemphylium globuliferum” OR “Stemphylium graminis” OR “Stemphylium simmonsii” OR “Stereum albobadium” OR “Stereum erumpens” OR “Stereum gausapatum” OR “Stereum hirsutum” OR “Stereum murrayi” OR “Stereum purpureum” OR “Strasseria carpophila” OR “Taphrina bullata” OR “Teichospora cruentula” OR “Tetranychus mexicanus” OR “Tetranychus turkestani” OR “Tetranychus urticae” OR “Thrips flavus” OR “Thrips imaginis” OR “Thrips obscuratus” OR “Tomato bushy stunt virus” OR “Tomato ringspot virus” OR “Trametes hirsuta” OR “Trametes hispida” OR “Trametes malicola” OR “Trametes versicolor” OR “Trichoderma koningii” OR “Trichoderma viride” OR “Trichoferus campestris” OR “Trichoseptoria fructigena” OR “Trichothecium roseum” OR “Tripospermum myrti” OR “Trirachys sartus” OR “Truncatella laurocerasi” OR “Tympanis conspersa” OR “Ulocladium consortiale” OR “Valsa ambiens” OR “Valsa americana” OR “Valsa leucostoma” OR “Valsa malicola” OR “Valsa melastoma” OR “Valsa papyriferae” OR “Valsella melastoma” OR “Valsella papyriferae” OR “Venturia asperata” OR “Venturia inaequalis” OR “Watabura nishiyae” OR “Xiphinema americanum” OR “Xiphinema diversicaudatum” OR “Xiphinema index” OR “Xiphinema rivesi” OR “Xylaria longiana” OR “Xylaria mali” OR “Xylaria polymorpha” OR “Microthyriella rubi” OR “Xylochora nigropunctata” OR “Xylotrechus namanganensis” OR “Acanthococcus lagerstroemiae” OR “Aulacaspis rosae” OR “Parasaissetia nigra” OR “Ceroplastes japonicus” OR “Coccura comari” OR “Delottococcus aberiae” OR “Diaspidiotus africanus” OR “Diaspidiotus forbesi” OR “Diaspidiotus juglansregiae” OR “Drosicha corpulenta” OR “Drosicha turkestanica” OR “Dynaspidiotus britannicus” OR “Dysmicoccus debregeasiae” OR “Dysmicoccus wistariae” OR “Eulecanium rugulosum” OR “Ferrisia virgata” OR “Parthenolecanium corni corni” OR “Lepidosaphes conchiformis” OR “Melanaspis inopinata” OR “Mesolecanium nigrofasciatum” OR “Parlatoreopsis longispina” OR “Parlatoria desolator” OR “Phenacoccus madeirensis” OR “Phenacoccus transcaucasicus” OR “Planococcus ficus” OR “Pseudococcus scatoterrae” OR “Pulvinaria vitis” OR “Russellaspis pustulans pustulans” OR “Saissetia oleae oleae” OR “Suturaspis archangelskyae” OR “Vryburgia viator”) |
Appendix C – List of pests that can potentially cause an effect not further assessed
1.
Table C.1: List of potential pests not further assessed
| Pest name | EPPO code | Group | Pest present in United Kingdom | Present in the EU | Pest can be associated with the commodity | Impact | Justification for inclusion in this list | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Archips semiferanus | DICHPU | Insect | Intercepted | No | Yes | Uncertain | Presence in UK is uncertain |
| 2 | Clover yellow mosaic virus | CLYMV0 | Virus | Intercepted | Restricted | Yes | Uncertain | Presence in UK is uncertain |
| 3 | Dysaphis brancoi spp. rogersoni | Insect | Yes | Restricted | Yes | Uncertain | Taxonomy is uncertain | |
| 4 | Homona coffearia | HOMOCO | Insect | Yes | No | Yes | Uncertain | Distribution in UK is uncertain. Impact on Malus spp. is uncertain |
Appendix D – Excel file with the pest list of Malus sylvestris
1.
Appendix D can be found in the online version of this output (in the ‘Supporting information’ section).
Supporting information
Excel file with the pest list of Malus sylvestris
Suggested citation: EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health) , Bragard C, Baptista P, Chatzivassiliou E, Gonthier P, Jaques Miret JA, Justesen AF, MacLeod A, Magnusson CS, Milonas P, Navas‐Cortes JA, Parnell S, Potting R, Reignault PL, Stefani E, Thulke H‐H, Van der Werf W, Civera AV, Zappalà L, Lucchi A, Gómez P, Urek G, Bernardo U, Bubici G, Carluccio AV, Chiumenti M, Di Serio F, Fanelli E, Marzachì C, Kaczmarek A, Mosbach‐Schulz O and Yuen J, 2023. Scientific Opinion on the commodity risk assessment of Malus sylvestris plants from United Kingdom. EFSA Journal 2023;21(6):8076, 122 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8076
Requestor European Commission
Question number EFSA‐Q‐2022‐00210
Panel members Claude Bragard, Paula Baptista, Elisavet Chatzivassiliou, Francesco Di Serio, 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 L Reignault, Emilio Stefani, Hans‐Hermann Thulke, Wopke Van der Werf, Antonio Vicent Civera, Jonathan Yuen and Lucia Zappalà.
Declarations of interest If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu.
EFSA may include images or other content for which it does not hold copyright. In such cases, EFSA indicates the copyright holder and users should seek permission to reproduce the content from the original source.
Adopted: 24 May 2023
Notes
Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council of 26 October 2016 on protective measures against pests of plants, amending Regulations (EU) 228/2013, (EU) 652/2014 and (EU) 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 69/464/EEC, 74/647/EEC, 93/85/EEC, 98/57/EC, 2000/29/EC, 2006/91/EC and 2007/33/EC. OJ L 317, 23.11.2016, pp. 4–104.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 of 18 December 2018 establishing a provisional list of high risk plants, plant products or other objects, within the meaning of Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 and a list of plants for which phytosanitary certificates are not required for introduction into the Union, within the meaning of Article 73 of that Regulation C/2018/8877. OJ L 323, 19.12.2018, pp. 10–15.
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, pp. 1–24.
In accordance with the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 5(4) of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in conjunction with Annex 2 to that Protocol, for the purposes of this Annex, references to Member States include the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 of 28 November 2019 establishing uniform conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and the Council, as regards protective measures against pests of plants, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2008 and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019, OJ L 319, 10.12.2019, p. 1–279.
References
- Ahmed M, van de Vossenberg BTLH, Cornelisse C and Karssen G, 2013. On the species status of the root‐knot nematode Meloidogyne ulmi Palmisano & Ambrogioni, 2000 (Nematoda, Meloidogynidae). ZooKeys, 362, 1–27. 10.3897/zookeys.362.6352 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Baroncelli R, Zapparata A, Sarrocco S, Sukno SA, Lane CR, Thon MR, Vannacci G, Holub E and Sreenivasaprasad S, 2015. Molecular diversity of anthracnose pathogen populations associated with UK strawberry production suggests multiple introductions of three different Colletotrichum species. PLoS One, 10, 21. 10.1371/journal.pone.0129140 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International) , online. CABI Crop Protection Compendium Available online: https://www.cabi.org/cpc/ [Accessed: 17 February 2023].
- DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) , online. UK Risk Register Details for Takahashia japonica Available online: https://planthealthportal.defra.gov.uk/pests-and-diseases/uk-plant-health-risk-register/viewPestRisks.cfm?cslref=27909 [Accessed: 07 February 2023].
- Deng DL, 1985. Anthribus niveovariegatus (Reolofs) ‐ a natural enemy of Eulecanium excrescens Ferris. Plant Protection, 11, 14–15. [Google Scholar]
- EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health) , 2018. Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment. EFSA Journal 2018;16(8):5350, 86 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5350 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health) , 2019. Guidance on commodity risk assessment for the evaluation of high risk plants dossiers. EFSA Journal 2019;17(4):5668, 20 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5668 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- EFSA Scientific Committee , 2018. Scientific Opinion on the principles and methods behind EFSA's Guidance on Uncertainty Analysis in Scientific Assessment. EFSA Journal 2018;16(1):5122, 235 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization) , 2017. Pest risk analysis for Meloidogyne mali . EPPO, Paris. Available online: http://www.eppo.int/QUARANTINE/Pest_Risk_Analysis/PRA_intro.htm [Google Scholar]
- EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization) , online. EPPO Global Database Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/ [Accessed: 17 February 2023].
- EUROPHYT , online. European Union Notification System for Plant Health Interceptions – EUROPHYT Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/europhyt/index_en.htm [Accessed: 20 April 2023]
- FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) , 1995. ISPM (International standards for phytosanitary measures) No 4 Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas. Available online: https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/614/
- FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) , 2017. ISPM (International standards for phytosanitary measures) No. 5 Glossary of phytosanitary terms. FAO, Rome. Available online: https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/622/
- Itoh Y, Ohshima Y and Ichinohe M, 1969. A root‐knot nematode, Meloidogyne mali n. sp. on apple‐tree from Japan (Tylenchida: Heteroderidae). Applied Entomology and Zoology, 4, 104–202. [Google Scholar]
- Limonta L, Porcelli F and Pellizzari G, 2022. An overview of Takahashia japonica: present distribution, host plants, natural enemies and life‐cycle, with observations on its morphology. Bulletin of Insectology, 75, 306–314. [Google Scholar]
- Malumphy C, Tuffen M and Andrew S, 2019. Plant Pest Factsheet: Cotton stringy scale insect: Takahashia japonica . Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs., 4. [Google Scholar]
- Prior T, Tozer H, Yale R, Jones EP, Lawson R, Jutson L, Correia M, Stubbs J, Hockland S and Karssen G, 2019. First report of Meloidogyne mali causing root galling to elm trees in the UK. New Disease Reports, 39, 10. 10.5197/j.2044-0588.2019.039.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Salisbury A, Halstead A and Malumphy C, 2010. Wisteria scale, Eulecanium excrescens (Hemiptera: Coccidae) spreading in South East England. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History, 23, 225–228. [Google Scholar]
- TRACES‐NT , online. TRAde Control and Expert System Available online: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/tracesnt [Accessed: 20 April 2023]
- Tuffen M, Salisbury A and Malumphy CP, 2019. Cotton stringy scale insect, Takahashia japonica (Hemiptera: Coccidae), new to Britain. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History, 32, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Excel file with the pest list of Malus sylvestris