Abstract
The EFSA Panel on Plant Health performed a pest categorisation of Lepidosaphes malicola (Hemiptera: Diaspididae), the Armenian mussel scale, for the territory of the European Union, following commodity risk assessments of Prunus persica and P. dulcis plants for planting from Türkiye, in which L. malicola was identified as a pest of possible concern. L. malicola is a polyphagous insect of temperate and arid areas, feeding on more than 60 plant species belonging to 26 families. Important crops significantly affected by L. malicola in parts of Asia include stone fruits (Prunus armeniaca, P. persica), pome fruits (Malus domestica, Pyrus communis), grapes (Vitis vinifera), pomegranate (Punica granatum), walnuts (Juglans regia) and ornamental plants (Berberis spp., Cornus spp., Jasminum spp., Ligustrum spp.). L. malicola has two generations annually. The overwintered eggs hatch from late May to early June. First‐instar nymphs crawl on the host plant for a short period, then settle to feed. Nymphs reach maturity in late summer or early autumn. Plants for planting, fruits and cut flowers provide potential pathways for entry into the EU. Host availability and climate suitability suggest that southern, central and some parts of northern EU countries would be suitable for the establishment of L. malicola. Despite being a pest in Armenia, Iran and Tajikistan, there is no evidence of it being a pest in Türkiye. L. malicola was detected in Bulgaria and Greece over 30 years ago, but there have been no records since, and its status is uncertain. Its ability to cause an impact in the EU is also uncertain. It is not listed in Annex II of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072. Phytosanitary measures are available to reduce the likelihood of entry. Except for the criterion of having an economic or environmental impact, for which there is great uncertainty, L. malicola satisfies all other criteria that are within the remit of EFSA to assess for it to be regarded as a potential Union quarantine pest.
Keywords: apples, Armenian comma hard scale, Diaspididae, Hemiptera, pest risk, plant health, plant pest, quarantine
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor
1.1.1. Background
The new Plant Health Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, on the protective measures against pests of plants, is applying from 14 December 2019. Conditions are laid down in this legislation in order for pests to qualify for listing as Union quarantine pests, protected zone quarantine pests or Union regulated non‐quarantine pests. The lists of the EU regulated pests together with the associated import or internal movement requirements of commodities are included in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072. Additionally, as stipulated in the Commission Implementing Regulation 2018/2019, certain commodities are provisionally prohibited to enter in the EU (high risk plants, HRP). EFSA is performing the risk assessment of the dossiers submitted by exporting to the EU countries of the HRP commodities, as stipulated in Commission Implementing Regulation 2018/2018. Furthermore, EFSA has evaluated a number of requests from exporting to the EU countries for derogations from specific EU import requirements.
In line with the principles of the new plant health law, the European Commission with the Member States are discussing monthly the reports of the interceptions and the outbreaks of pests notified by the Member States. Notifications of an imminent danger from pests that may fulfil the conditions for inclusion in the list of the Union quarantine pest are included. Furthermore, EFSA has been performing horizon scanning of media and literature.
As a follow‐up of the above‐mentioned activities (reporting of interceptions and outbreaks, HRP, derogation requests and horizon scanning), a number of pests of concern have been identified. EFSA is requested to provide scientific opinions for these pests, in view of their potential inclusion by the risk manager in the lists of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 and the inclusion of specific import requirements for relevant host commodities, when deemed necessary by the risk manager.
1.1.2. Terms of Reference
EFSA is requested, pursuant to Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, to provide scientific opinions in the field of plant health.
EFSA is requested to deliver 53 pest categorisations for the pests listed in Annex 1A, 1B, 1D and 1E (for more details see mandate M‐2021‐00027 on the Open.EFSA portal). Additionally, EFSA is requested to perform pest categorisations for the pests so far not regulated in the EU, identified as pests potentially associated with a commodity in the commodity risk assessments of the HRP dossiers (Annex 1C; for more details see mandate M‐2021‐00027 on the Open.EFSA portal). Such pest categorisations are needed in the case where there are not available risk assessments for the EU.
When the pests of Annex 1A are qualifying as potential Union quarantine pests, EFSA should proceed to phase 2 risk assessment. The opinions should address entry pathways, spread, establishment, impact and include a risk reduction options analysis.
Additionally, EFSA is requested to develop further the quantitative methodology currently followed for risk assessment, in order to have the possibility to deliver an express risk assessment methodology. Such methodological development should take into account the EFSA Plant Health Panel Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment and the experience obtained during its implementation for the Union candidate priority pests and for the likelihood of pest freedom at entry for the commodity risk assessment of High Risk Plants.
1.2. Interpretation of the Terms of Reference
Lepidosaphes malicola is one of a number of pests relevant to Annex 1C of the Terms of Reference (ToR) to be subject to pest categorisation to determine whether it fulfils the criteria of a potential Union quarantine pest for the area of the EU excluding Ceuta, Melilla and the outermost regions of Member States (MSs) referred to in Article 355(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), other than Madeira and the Azores, and so inform EU decision‐making as to its appropriateness for potential inclusion in the lists of pests of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072. If a pest fulfils the criteria to be potentially listed as a Union quarantine pest, risk reduction options will be identified.
1.3. Additional information
This pest categorisation was initiated following the commodity risk assessments of Prunus persica and P. dulcis plants from Türkiye (EFSA PLH Panel, 2023), in which L. malicola was identified as a relevant non‐regulated EU pest of possible concern that could potentially enter the EU on P. persica and P. dulcis.
2. DATA AND METHODOLOGIES
2.1. Data
2.1.1. Information on pest status from NPPOs
In the context of the current mandate, EFSA is preparing pest categorisations for new/emerging pests that are not yet regulated in the EU. When official pest status is not available in the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) Global Database (EPPO, online), EFSA consults the NPPOs of the relevant MSs. To obtain information on the official pest status for L. malicola, EFSA has consulted the NPPOs of Bulgaria and Greece. The results of this consultation are presented in Section 3.2.2.
2.1.2. Literature search
A literature search on L. malicola was conducted at the beginning of the categorisation in the ISI Web of Science bibliographic database, using the scientific name of the pest as a search term. Papers relevant for the pest categorisation were reviewed, and further references and information were obtained from experts as well as from citations within the references and grey literature.
2.1.3. Database search
Data about the import of commodity types that could potentially provide a pathway for the pest to enter the EU and about the area of hosts grown in the EU were obtained from EUROSTAT (Statistical Office of the European Communities).
The Europhyt and TRACES databases were consulted for pest‐specific notifications on interceptions and outbreaks. Europhyt is a web‐based network run by the Directorate General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTÉ) of the European Commission as a subproject of PHYSAN (Phytosanitary Controls) specifically concerned with plant health information. TRACES is the European Commission's multilingual online platform for sanitary and phytosanitary certification required for the importation of animals, animal products, food and feed of non‐animal origin and plants into the European Union, as well as the intra‐EU trade and EU exports of animals and certain animal products. Up until May 2020, the Europhyt database (EUROPHYT, online) managed notifications of interceptions of plants or plant products that do not comply with EU legislation, as well as notifications of plant pests detected in the territory of the MSs and the phytosanitary measures taken to eradicate or avoid their spread. The recording of interceptions switched from Europhyt to TRACES in May 2020.
GenBank was searched to determine whether it contained any nucleotide sequences for L. malicola, which could be used as reference material for molecular diagnosis. GenBank® (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/) is a comprehensive publicly available database that, as of August 2019 (release version 227), contained over 6.25 trillion base pairs from over 1.6 billion nucleotide sequences for 450,000 formally described species (Sayers et al., 2020).
2.2. Methodologies
The Panel performed the pest categorisation for L. malicola following guiding principles and steps presented in the EFSA guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel, 2018), the EFSA guidance on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2017) and the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 11 (FAO, 2013).
The criteria to be considered when categorising a pest as a potential Union quarantine pest (QP) are given in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 Article 3 and Annex I, Section 1 of the Regulation. Table 1 presents the Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 pest categorisation criteria on which the Panel bases its conclusions. In judging whether a criterion is met, the Panel uses its best professional judgement (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2017) by integrating a range of evidence from a variety of sources (as presented above in Section 2.1) to reach an informed conclusion as to whether or not a criterion is satisfied.
TABLE 1.
Pest categorisation criteria under evaluation, as derived from Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants (the number of the relevant sections of the pest categorisation is shown in brackets in the first column).
| Criterion of pest categorisation | Criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union quarantine pest (article 3) |
| Identity of the pest (Section 3.1 ) | Is the identity of the pest clearly defined, or has it been shown to produce consistent symptoms and to be transmissible? |
| Absence/presence of the pest in the EU territory (Section 3.2 ) |
Is the pest present in the EU territory? If present, is the pest in a limited part of the EU or is it scarce, irregular, isolated or present infrequently? If so, the pest is considered to be not widely distributed |
| Pest potential for entry, establishment and spread in the EU territory (Section 3.4 ) | Is the pest able to enter into, become established in and spread within, the EU territory? If yes, briefly list the pathways for entry and spread |
| Potential for consequences in the EU territory (Section 3.5 ) | Would the pests' introduction have an economic or environmental impact on the EU territory? |
| Available measures (Section 3.6 ) | Are there measures available to prevent pest entry, establishment, spread or impacts? |
| Conclusion of pest categorisation (Section 4 ) | A statement as to whether (1) all criteria assessed by EFSA above for consideration as a potential quarantine pest were met and (2) if not, which one(s) were not met |
The Panel's conclusions are formulated respecting its remit and particularly with regard to the principle of separation between risk assessment and risk management (EFSA founding regulation (EU) No 178/2002); therefore, instead of determining whether the pest is likely to have an unacceptable impact, deemed to be a risk management decision, the Panel will present a summary of the observed impacts in the areas where the pest occurs and make a judgement about potential likely impacts in the EU. While the Panel may quote impacts reported from areas where the pest occurs in monetary terms, the Panel will seek to express potential EU impacts in terms of yield and quality losses and not in monetary terms, in agreement with the EFSA guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel, 2018). Article 3 (d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 refers to unacceptable social impact as a criterion for quarantine pest status. Assessing social impact is outside the remit of the Panel.
3. PEST CATEGORISATION
3.1. Identity and biology of the pest
3.1.1. Identity and taxonomy
Is the identity of the pest clearly defined, or has it been shown to produce consistent symptoms and/or to be transmissible?
Yes, the identity of the pest is established, and Lepidosaphes malicola (Borchsenius) is the accepted name.
The Armenian mussel scale, Lepidosaphes malicola (Borchsenius), is an insect within the order Hemiptera, suborder Sternorrhyncha, family Diaspididae. This insect was first described by Borchsenius in 1947 from Malus sp. in Armenia. It was also described by Borchsenius in 1949 as Lepidosaphes kirgisica on Berberis sp. in Kazakhstan (García Morales et al., 2016). Synonyms are Mytilococcus malicola (EFSA PLH Panel, 2023; EPPO, online), Mytilococcus kirgisica and Lepidosaphes kalandadzei (García Morales et al., 2016). Additional common names are Armenian comma hard scale, Armenian comma scale and Kirgis comma scale (García Morales et al., 2016). The EPPO code (EPPO, 2019; Griessinger & Roy, 2015) for this species is LEPSML (EPPO, online).
3.1.2. Biology of the pest
L. malicola is a temperate species, probably of Asian origin. It is reported to have two generations per year in Iran and in the former USSR (EFSA PLH Panel, 2023; Nazari, Poorjavad, & Izadi, 2020; Watson, 2002). Studies on its biology are extremely limited, and therefore, its biology is not known in detail. L. malicola overwinters as diapausing eggs under the waxy cover scale of females (Nazari, Poorjavad, & Izadi, 2020). It usually occurs on the trunk and branches of its host plants. The individuals of the summer generation spread also to the leaves and fruits (Biosecurity New Zealand, 2009; Watson, 2002). The damage to walnuts in Armenia decreased with altitude, suggesting that L. malicola may not thrive at higher altitudes (EFSA PLH Panel, 2023).
The key biological features of L. malicola summarised in Table 2.
TABLE 2.
Important features of the life history strategy of Lepidosaphes malicola.
| Life stage | Phenology and relation to host | Other relevant information |
|---|---|---|
| Egg | The eggs are laid under the waxy cover of females (Nazari, Poorjavad, & Izadi, 2020). Each female produces 14–140 eggs (Watson, 2002). The overwintered eggs hatch from late May to early June (Nazari, Poorjavad, & Izadi, 2020) | Dispersal of eggs occurs through human transport of infested plant material (Biosecurity New Zealand, 2009) |
| Nymph |
L. malicola males have five nymphal stages while females three (Rosen, 1990). First‐instar nymphs, which are known as crawlers, migrate to a suitable site of the host plant to settle, insert their mouthparts into the tissue and begin feeding (Nazari, Poorjavad, & Izadi, 2020) Nymphs reach maturity in late summer or early autumn (Nazari, Poorjavad, & Izadi, 2020) |
The crawlers are a mobile stage of the insect and disperse over the host plant to find a suitable place to settle on and feed. They are also dispersed over longer distances by wind or animal contact (Moghaddam & Watson, 2021; Watson, 2002) Crawlers are susceptible to extreme temperatures, desiccation, rain, predation and a lack of suitable settling sites, which can result in high mortality (Biosecurity New Zealand, 2009) |
| Adult |
Adults emerge in late summer or early autumn (Nazari, Poorjavad, & Izadi, 2020) Male adults lack functional mouthparts and have a single pair of wings (Moghaddam & Watson, 2021) |
Development lasts 51–57 days in Armenia (EFSA PLH Panel, 2023) Dispersal of adults over long distances occurs through human transport of infested plant material (Biosecurity New Zealand, 2009) |
3.1.3. Host range/Species affected
L. malicola has a relatively wide range of host plants. More than 60 plant species belonging to 26 families have been reported as hosts (EFSA PLH Panel, 2023; García Morales et al., 2016). It is showing a preference for Fabaceae and Rosaceae, and is a pest of deciduous fruit trees, particularly apple. The full list of host plant species is presented in Appendix A. Important crops in the EU may be affected by L. malicola, such as stone fruits (Prunus armeniaca, P. persica), pome fruits (Malus domestica, Pyrus communis), grapes (Vitis vinifera), walnuts (Juglans regia), pomegranate (Punica granatum) and ornamental plants (Berberis spp., Cornus spp., Jasminum spp., Ligustrum spp.). Forest trees with high environmental value, like Acer spp., Quercus spp. and Salix spp., may also be infested by the pest.
3.1.4. Intraspecific diversity
No intraspecific diversity is reported for this species.
3.1.5. Detection and identification of the pest
Are detection and identification methods available for the pest?
Yes, there are methods available for the detection and morphological identification of L. malicola.
Detection
Careful visual examination of plants is an effective way for the detection of L. malicola. The scales occur mainly on trunks and branches, but they might also be on the leaves and fruits (Watson, 2002). The individuals are visible on the trunks, branches and fruits as elongate and mussel‐shaped scales (EFSA PLH Panel, 2023). However, the size of the scales is small (less than 3 mm diameter) and if the infestation is small, it may be difficult to detect by visual inspection (Biosecurity New Zealand, 2009). Moreover, crawlers can hide in wounds or on the underside of the leaves (EFSA PLH Panel, 2023).
L. malicola can easily be confused with other Lepidosaphes species (see section Description below), already established in the EU, that share the same hosts. Watson (2002) noted that the appearance of the scale covers of L. malicola in life is very similar to that of L. ulmi. The latter is widespread and very common in the EU.
Identification
The identification of L. malicola requires microscopic examination of slide‐mounted female adults and verification of the presence of key morphological characteristics. A detailed morphological description and illustration of the adult female can be found in Moghaddam and Watson (2021) and in Watson (2002). How to separate three closely related species of the genus Lepidosaphes from L. malicola is also described in Moghaddam and Watson (2021). GenBank contains one gene nucleotide sequence for L. malicola (cytochrome oxidase subunit 1 (COI)) (NCBI, 2023) that could be used for molecular ID (EPPO, 2021).
Symptoms
The main symptoms of L. malicola infestation are:
Death of branches (Biosecurity New Zealand, 2009; EFSA PLH Panel, 2023)
Death of entire trees (Biosecurity New Zealand, 2009; EFSA PLH Panel, 2023)
Fruit red spotting (Biosecurity New Zealand, 2009; EFSA PLH Panel, 2023)
Note that the above symptoms are common to many other plant‐sap‐feeding insects and should not be considered as species‐specific.
Description
The scale of the female adult is elongate, convex, straight or slightly curved, dark yellow, 2.2–3.0 mm long and 0.9–1.4 mm wide, silvery‐grey or light brown initially but becoming purplish to coppery brown with age, sometimes banded with yellow‐brown exuviae at the narrow end. The scales may be curved when the population density is high, or plant surface is rough. The scale cover of the male, if present, is light brown, smaller, more slender and more parallel‐sided than that of the female, with yellow terminal exuviae (Watson, 2002).
3.2. Pest distribution
3.2.1. Pest distribution outside the EU
L. malicola is a species probably of Asian origin, and its distribution is mainly in areas with a temperate climate. Its distribution includes many countries in Asia, as well as some transcontinental countries located between western Asia and eastern Europe (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Türkiye) (García Morales et al., 2016) (Figure 1). For a detailed list of countries where L. malicola is present, see Appendix B.
FIGURE 1.
Global distribution of Lepidosaphes malicola (Source: García Morales et al., 2016; Watson, 2002) (for details, see Appendix B).
3.2.2. Pest distribution in the EU
Is the pest present in the EU territory? If present, is the pest in a limited part of the EU or is it scarce, irregular, isolated or present infrequently? If so, the pest is considered to be not widely distributed.
Yes, L. malicola is present in the EU territory, specifically in Greece (Kozar et al., 1991) and Bulgaria (Trenchev, 1987).
The Bulgarian NPPO considers the status of the pest in Bulgaria as ‘present, no details’. According to the Bulgarian NPPO: ‘In 1987, L. malicola was first reported by Trenchev during a study of the pest species composition in the “Kraishte” – region in Western Bulgaria on the border between Bulgaria and Serbia (Trenchev, 1987). During monitoring studies in the last 20 years on fruits and forests, conducted by the Central Laboratory for Plant Quarantine, L. malicola was not identified. No problems or economic losses have been reported by producers of fruit plants and fruit production’. The finding in 1987 was later reported by Trencheva and Tomov (2014), with no additional occurrences during that time period. Similarly, the insect was detected in Greece in 1991 (Kozar et al., 1991), and this unique finding was reported by Milonas et al. (2008), with no additional findings ever since.
3.3. Regulatory status
3.3.1. Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/2072
L. malicola is not listed in Annex II of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, an implementing act of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, or amendments to high‐risk plants Regulation (EU) 2018/2019, or in any emergency plant health legislation.
3.3.2. Hosts or species affected that are prohibited from entering the Union from third countries
TABLE 3.
List of plants, plant products and other objects that are Lepidosaphes malicola hosts whose introduction into the Union from certain third countries is prohibited (Source: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, Annex VI).
| List of plants, plant products and other objects whose introduction into the Union from certain third countries is prohibited | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Description | CN code | Third country, group of third countries or specific area of third country | |
| 2. | Plants of […] Quercus L., with leaves, other than fruit and seeds |
ex 0602 10 90 ex 0602 20 20 ex 0602 20 80 ex 0602 90 41 ex 0602 90 45 ex 0602 90 46 ex 0602 90 48 ex 0602 90 50 ex 0602 90 70 ex 0602 90 99 ex 0604 20 90 ex 1404 90 00 |
Third countries other than: 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 |
| 8. | Plants for planting of […] Malus Mill., Prunus L., Pyrus L. and Rosa L., other than dormant plants free from leaves, flowers and fruits |
ex 0602 10 90 ex 0602 20 20 ex 0602 20 80 ex 0602 40 00 ex 0602 90 41 ex 0602 90 45 ex 0602 90 46 ex 0602 90 47 ex 0602 90 48 ex 0602 90 50 ex 0602 90 70 ex 0602 90 91 ex 0602 90 99 |
Third countries other than: 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 |
| 9 | Plants for planting of […] Malus Mill., Prunus L. and Pyrus L. and their hybrids, […] other than seeds |
ex 0602 10 90 ex 0602 20 20 ex 0602 90 30 ex 0602 90 41 ex 0602 90 45 ex 0602 90 46 ex 0602 90 48 ex 0602 90 50 ex 0602 90 70 ex 0602 90 91 ex 0602 90 99 |
Third countries, other than: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Canary Islands, Egypt, Faeroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, New Zealand, 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, Syria, Tunisia, Türkiye, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and United States other than Hawaii |
| 10 | Plants of Vitis L., other than fruits |
0602 10 10 0602 20 10 ex 0604 20 90 ex 1404 90 00 |
Third countries other than Switzerland |
Plants for planting of Acer L., Fraxinus L., Juglans L., Malus L., Rosa L., Prunus L., Salix L. and Ulmus L., which are hosts of L. malicola (Appendix A), are considered High‐Risk Plants for the EU, and their import is prohibited pending risk assessment (EU 2018/2019).
3.4. Entry, establishment and spread in the EU
3.4.1. Entry
Is the pest able to enter into the EU territory? If yes, identify and list the pathways.
Yes, the pest has already entered the EU territory. It could enter the EU territory again with plants for planting, fruits and cut flowers.
Comment on plants for planting as a pathway.
Plants for planting are the main pathway for L. malicola to enter the EU (Table 4).
TABLE 4.
Potential pathways for Lepidosaphes malicola into the EU.
| Pathways | Life stage | Relevant mitigations (e.g. prohibitions [Annex VI], special requirements [Annex VII] or phytosanitary certificates [Annex XI] within Implementing Regulation 2019/2072) |
|---|---|---|
| Plants for planting | Eggs, nymphs and adults |
Plants for planting that are hosts of L. malicola and are prohibited from being imported from third countries (Regulation 2019/2072, Annex VI) are listed in Table 3 Plants for planting from third countries require a phytosanitary certificate (Regulation 2019/2072, Annex XI, Part A) |
| Fruits and cut flowers | Eggs, nymphs and adults | Fruits and cut flowers from third countries require a phytosanitary certificate to import into the EU (2019/2072, Annex XI, Part A) |
Potential pathways for L. malicola to enter the EU territory are presented in Table 4.
L. malicola has a wide range of host plants (Appendix A), and many of them are imported into the EU from areas where the pest occurs. Although there are some prohibitions in imports of some host plants for planting from third countries (Regulation 2019/2072, Annex VI), there are many other hosts that can be imported to the EU with a phytosanitary certificate.
Imported fruits and cut flowers may carry insects, and this pathway cannot be excluded. Detailed data of the annual imports of host plant commodities into the EU from countries where the pest occurs, and which provide potential pathways of introduction are provided in Appendix C. Fruits and cut flowers that are imported into the EU must have a phytosanitary certificate.
Notifications of interceptions of harmful organisms began to be compiled in Europhyt in May 1994 and in TRACES in May 2020. As of 23 November 2023, there were no records of interception of L. malicola in the Europhyt and TRACES databases.
3.4.2. Establishment
Is the pest able to become established in the EU territory?
Yes, the pest is already established in the EU (Bulgaria and Greece). Further establishment could occur in southern and central EU countries, where the climate is suitable and there are many available hosts.
Climatic mapping is the principal method for identifying areas that could provide suitable conditions for the establishment of a pest, taking key abiotic factors into account (Baker, 2002). The availability of hosts is considered in Section 3.4.2.1. Climatic factors are considered in Section 3.4.2.2.
3.4.2.1. EU distribution of main host plants
L. malicola is a polyphagous pest feeding on a wide range of plants (crops and ornamentals). The main hosts of the pest cultivated in the EU between 2018 and 2022 are shown in Table 5. The main cultivated host plants of the pest, which are economically important in the EU, are apples, pears, peaches, apricots, cherries, walnuts and grapes.
TABLE 5.
Crop area of Lepidosaphes malicola hosts in the EU in 1000 ha (Eurostat accessed on 10 November 2023).
| Crop | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apples | 506.27 | 491.08 | 489.19 | 492.56 | 477.97 |
| Pears | 113.54 | 110.66 | 108.29 | 106.96 | 103.07 |
| Peaches | 150.00 | 144.78 | 138.31 | 133.06 | 129.36 |
| Apricots | 72.57 | 73.22 | 76.13 | 73.48 | 72.04 |
| Cherries | 175.49 | 176.30 | 178.61 | 175.71 | 175.30 |
| Walnuts | 80.60 | 87.62 | 99.21 | 97.00 | 102.05 |
| Grapes | 3135.50 | 3155.20 | 3146.24 | 3120.22 | 3109.62 |
3.4.2.2. Climatic conditions affecting establishment
L. malicola occurs mainly in temperate and arid regions of Asia (García Morales et al., 2016). Figure 2 shows the world distribution of selected Köppen – Geiger climate types (Kottek et al., 2006) that occur in the EU, and which occur in countries where L. malicola has been reported (BSh, BSk, Cfa, Cfb, Csa and Csb). Southern, central and some parts of northern EU countries provide suitable climatic conditions for the establishment of L. malicola outdoors. Based on current distribution, establishment outdoors is unlikely only in Finland, Estonia and in parts of Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia. Nevertheless, L. malicola could survive in protected environments, such as nurseries or in heated greenhouses in those colder areas of the EU.
FIGURE 2.
World distribution of Köppen – Geiger climate types that occur in the EU and which occur in countries where Lepidosaphes malicola has been reported. Cfb exists in the Northern part of Türkiye and in Jammu & Kashmir territory (India), near Tadjikistan, as well as in Bulgaria. Dfb and Dfc were excluded as are considered too cold for the pest.
Scale insects are cryptic, difficult to identify to species and under recorded in most EU countries. Recognising that there have been no finds of L. malicola in Bulgaria over the past 30 years and no recent literature reporting L. malicola in Greece (see Section 3.2.2), it is possible that populations of L. malicola died out naturally, although the lack of records may be due to the lack of surveys for the insect. Figure 2 shows that most of the EU has climatic conditions that may be suitable for establishment.
3.4.3. Spread
Describe how the pest would be able to spread within the EU territory following establishment?
The scale insect could spread naturally and via infested hosts moved in trade.
Comment on plants for planting as a mechanism of spread.
The trade of infested plants for planting, fruits and cut flowers are the main pathways of L. malicola spread within the EU territory.
The pest is able to spread naturally by crawlers, which can move to new areas of the plant, or may be dispersed by wind or animal contact (EFSA PLH Panel, 2023; Nazari, Poorjavad, & Izadi, 2020). Pathways for long‐distance spread are primarily the trade of infested plants for planting, fruits and cut flowers.
3.5. Impacts
Would the pests' introduction have an economic or environmental impact on the EU territory?
This is a key uncertainty. L. malicola is a recognised pest in Armenia, Iran and Tajikistan. It also occurs in Türkiye, but there is a lack of evidence of it being regarded as a pest there. It may have been present in Bulgaria for 37 years and in Greece for at least 33 years, with no evidence of damage. It is possible that economic or environmental impacts could occur in the future, but there is no strong evidence to indicate this is likely in the near term.
Several hosts of L. malicola are cultivated plants with economic importance in the EU, including apples (M. domestica), pears (P. communis), peaches (Prunus persica), apricots (Prunus armeniaca), cherries (P. cerasus), walnuts (Juglans regia), grapes (Vitis vinifera) and ornamental plants such as roses (Rosa spp.) and jasmine (Jasminum spp.) (García Morales et al., 2016). The damage caused by L. malicola is due to direct feeding on the content of the cells. The commercial value of the fruits is reduced by the red spots on the infested ones. Heavy infestations may result in death of branches or even of the entire trees (Biosecurity New Zealand, 2009; Danzig, 1993 ). L. malicola is reported to have an impact on ornamental plants and crops in Armenia, Iran and Tajikistan. It is considered as one of the most important and widespread apple pests in Iran, very damaging to apple in Armenia and to Ribes and Salix in Tajikistan. The species is polyphagous, infesting all parts of apple, pear, peach, apricot, plum, cherry and many other fruit, walnuts and other trees and bushes (Biosecurity New Zealand, 2009; Watson, 2002). Interestingly there is a lack of evidence of impacts in Türkiye. No damage is reported by L. malicola in Bulgaria (Trencheva & Tomov, 2014, citing Trenchev, 1987) and Greece where the pest was detected more than 30 years ago (Milonas et al., 2008, citing Kozar et al., 1991). No evidence of economic or environmental damage in these EU countries was found in the literature. The NPPO of Bulgaria informed EFSA that ‘no problems or economic losses have been reported by producers of fruit plants and fruit production’. There is uncertainty as to whether introduction of the species elsewhere in the EU would cause any notable impact.
It is possible that lack of impacts in Bulgaria and Greece could be due to populations of L. malicola dying out naturally, although this is unlikely (see Section 3.4.2.2).
3.6. Available measures and their limitations
Are there measures available to prevent pest entry, establishment, spread or impacts such that the risk becomes mitigated?
Yes, for example plants of the genera Acer, Malus, Prunus, Pyrus, Quercus and Rosa are prohibited as high risk plants for planting from third countries, pending risk assessment (Section 3.3.2), while other species as well as fruits and cut flowers require a phytosanitary certificate to import into the EU territory (Section 3.4.1). There are also additional measures (Section 3.6.1) to mitigate the likelihood of L. malicola entry, establishment and spread within the EU.
3.6.1. Identification of potential additional measures
Phytosanitary measures (prohibitions) are currently applied to some host plants for planting (see Section 3.3.2).
Additional potential risk reduction options and supporting measures are shown in Sections 3.6.1.1 and 3.6.1.2.
3.6.1.1. Additional potential risk reduction options
Potential additional control measures are listed in Table 6.
TABLE 6.
Selected control measures (a full list is available in EFSA PLH Panel, 2018) for pest entry/establishment/spread/impact in relation to currently unregulated hosts and pathways. Control measures are measures that have a direct effect on pest abundance.
| Control measure/risk reduction option (blue underline = Zenodo doc, blue = WIP) | RRO summary | Risk element targeted (entry/establishment/spread/impact) |
|---|---|---|
| Require pest freedom | As a pest with low mobility, a risk reduction option could be to source plants from a pest free area, or place of production or production site | Entry/Spread |
| Growing plants in isolation | Growing plants in insect proof place of production or in a place with complete physical isolation could be an effective measure to mitigate the likelihood of entry and spread of L. malicola | Entry/Spread/Impact |
| Roguing and pruning | The scale insect L. malicola occurs commonly on the trunk and branches and also on the leaves and fruits (Biosecurity New Zealand, 2009; Watson, 2002). Roguing (removal of infested plants) and pruning (removal of infested plant parts only without affecting the viability of the plant) can reduce the population density of the pest | Entry/Spread/Impact |
| Biological control and behavioural manipulation | Several parasitoids, such as Aphytis mytilaspidis, A. libanicus, Physcus testaceus and Coccobius testaceus attack the pest and also the parasitic mite Hemisarcoptes malus (Hemisarcoptidae). As predators have been reported the species Chilocorus bipustulatus, Hemisarcoptes malus and Scymnus sp. (Plant pest of Middle East, 2023; Watson, 2002) | Spread/Impact |
| Chemical treatments on crops including reproductive material | Spirotetramat and flupyradifurone showed a significant effect on the L. malicola nymph's control (Nazari, Poorjavad, Izadi, & Sahhafi, 2020). The effectiveness of insecticide against L. malicola may be reduced due to the protective cover of the scale | Entry/Establishment/Spread/Impact |
| Chemical treatments on consignments or during processing | The chemical compounds that may be applied to plants or to plant products after harvest, during process or packaging operations and storage could mitigate the likelihood of infestation of pests susceptible to chemical treatment | Entry/Spread |
| Physical treatments on consignments or during processing | Brushing, washing and other mechanical cleaning methods can be used to reduce the likelihood of the presence of the pest in consignments to be exported | Entry/Spread |
| Heat and cold treatments | Controlled temperature treatments aimed to kill or inactivate pests without causing any unacceptable prejudice to the treated material itself | Entry/Spread |
| Controlled atmosphere |
Treatment of plants by storage in a modified atmosphere (including modified humidity, O2, CO2, temperature, pressure) could mitigate the likelihood of entry and spread of the pest Controlled atmosphere storage can be used in commodities such as fresh and dried fruits, cut flowers and vegetables |
Entry/Spread (via commodity) |
3.6.1.2. Additional supporting measures
Potential additional supporting measures are listed in Table 7.
TABLE 7.
Selected supporting measures (a full list is available in EFSA PLH Panel, 2018) in relation to currently unregulated hosts and pathways. Supporting measures are organisational measures or procedures supporting the choice of appropriate risk reduction options that do not directly affect pest abundance.
| Supporting measure (Blue underline = Zenodo doc, Blue = WIP) | Summary | Risk element targeted (entry/establishment/spread/impact) |
|---|---|---|
| Inspection and trapping |
ISPM 5 (FAO, 2023) defines inspection as the official visual examination of plants, plant products or other regulated articles to determine if pests are present or to determine compliance with phytosanitary regulations The effectiveness of sampling and subsequent inspection to detect pests may be enhanced by including trapping and luring techniques Any shipments of fresh plant material from an infested country to another that is not infested should be inspected thoroughly to detect L. malicola |
Entry/Establishment/Spread |
| Laboratory testing | Examination, other than visual, to determine if pests are present using official diagnostic protocols. Diagnostic protocols describe the minimum requirements for reliable diagnosis of regulated pests | Entry/Spread |
| Sampling |
According to ISPM 31 (FAO, 2008), it is usually not feasible to inspect entire consignments, so phytosanitary inspection is performed mainly on samples obtained from a consignment. It is noted that the sampling concepts presented in this standard may also apply to other phytosanitary procedures, notably selection of units for testing For inspection, testing and/or surveillance purposes the sample may be taken according to a statistically based or a non‐statistical sampling methodology |
Entry/Spread |
| Phytosanitary certificate and plant passport |
According to ISPM 5 (FAO, 2023) a phytosanitary certificate and a plant passport are official paper documents or their official electronic equivalents, consistent with the model certificates of the IPPC, attesting that a consignment meets phytosanitary import requirements: a) export certificate (import) b) plant passport (EU internal trade) |
Entry/Spread |
| Certified and approved premises | Mandatory/voluntary certification/approval of premises is a process including a set of procedures and of actions implemented by producers, conditioners and traders contributing to ensure the phytosanitary compliance of consignments. It can be a part of a larger system maintained by the NPPO in order to guarantee the fulfilment of plant health requirements of plants and plant products intended for trade. Key property of certified or approved premises is the traceability of activities and tasks (and their components) inherent the pursued phytosanitary objective. Traceability aims to provide access to all trustful pieces of information that may help to prove the compliance of consignments with phytosanitary requirements of importing countries | Entry/Spread |
| Certification of reproductive material (voluntary/official) | Plants come from within an approved propagation scheme and are certified pest free (level of infestation) following testing; Used to mitigate against pests that are included in a certification scheme | Entry/Spread |
| Surveillance | Surveillance to guarantee that plants and produce originate from a Pest Free Area could be an option | Spread |
3.6.1.3. Biological or technical factors limiting the effectiveness of measures
L. malicola is polyphagous, making the inspections of all consignments containing hosts from countries where the pest occurs difficult.
L. malicola occurs mainly on the trunk and branches of the trees, where they are camouflaged. The crawlers can hide in wounds or in the underside of the leaves. The scales are difficult to detect when the population density is low.
Limited effectiveness of contact insecticide treatments because of the protection of scale cover.
3.7. Uncertainty
Uncertainty exists as to the current presence of L. malicola in the EU, as it has not been reported for many years. There is uncertainty around its ability to cause impacts (a) in Greece and Bulgaria and (b) elsewhere in the EU.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Except for the criterion of having an economic or environmental impact in the EU, for which there is the greatest uncertainty, L. malicola satisfies the other criteria that are within the remit of EFSA to assess, for it to be regarded as a potential Union quarantine pest. Table 8 provides a summary of the PLH Panel conclusions.
TABLE 8.
The Panel's conclusions on the pest categorisation criteria defined in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants (the number of the relevant sections of the pest categorisation is shown in brackets in the first column).
| Criterion of pest categorisation | Panel's conclusions against criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union quarantine pest | Key uncertainties |
|---|---|---|
| Identity of the pest (Section 3.1 ) | The identity of the pest is clearly defined and Lepidosaphes malicola (Borchsenius, 1947) is the accepted name | None |
| Absence/presence of the pest in the EU (Section 3.2 ) | The pest has a restricted distribution in the EU territory, specifically it was found in Greece and Bulgaria more than 30 years ago. There have been no reports in recent decades | None |
| Pest potential for entry, establishment and spread in the EU (Section 3.4 ) |
L. malicola is able to enter into, become established and spread within the EU territory. The main pathways are:
|
None |
| Potential for consequences in the EU (Section 3.5 ) | L. malicola is considered as an important and widespread pest in some Asian countries. However, it occurs in Greece and Bulgaria and no evidence of economic or environmental damage in these EU countries was found in the literature | Uncertainty exists whether L. malicola will have an economic or environmental impact in the EU |
| Available measures (Section 3.6 ) | There are measures available to prevent the entry, establishment and spread of L. malicola within the EU. These measures include the inspections and chemical treatments on consignments of fresh plant material from infested countries | None |
| Conclusion (Section 4 ) | Except for the criterion of having an economic or environmental impact in the EU, for which there is great uncertainty, L. malicola satisfies all other criteria that are within the remit of EFSA to assess for it to be regarded as a potential Union quarantine pest | |
| Aspects of assessment to focus on/scenarios to address in future if appropriate: | Studies of L. malicola in Greece and Bulgaria would help reduce uncertainties within this pest categorisation | |
ABBREVIATIONS
- EPPO
European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization
- FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization
- IPPC
International Plant Protection Convention
- ISPM
International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures
- MS
Member State
- PLH
EFSA Panel on Plant Health
- TFEU
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
- ToR
Terms of Reference
GLOSSARY
- Containment (of a pest)
Application of phytosanitary measures in and around an infested area to prevent spread of a pest (FAO, 2023).
- Control (of a pest)
Suppression, containment or eradication of a pest population (FAO, 2023).
- 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, 2023).
- Eradication (of a pest)
Application of phytosanitary measures to eliminate a pest from an area (FAO, 2023).
- Establishment (of a pest)
Perpetuation, for the foreseeable future, of a pest within an area after entry (FAO, 2023).
- Greenhouse
A walk‐in, static, closed place of crop production with a usually translucent outer shell, which allows controlled exchange of material and energy with the surroundings and prevents release of plant protection products (PPPs) into the environment.
- Hitchhiker
An organism sheltering or transported accidentally via inanimate pathways including with machinery, shipping containers and vehicles; such organisms are also known as contaminating pests or stowaways (Toy & Newfield, 2010).
- 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, 2023).
- Pathway
Any means that allows the entry or spread of a pest (FAO, 2023).
- 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, 2023).
- 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, 2023).
- Risk reduction option (RRO)
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 RRO 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, 2023).
CONFLICT 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.
REQUESTOR
European Commission
QUESTION NUMBER
EFSA‐Q‐2024‐00038
COPYRIGHT FOR NON‐EFSA CONTENT
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.
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.
MAP DISCLAIMER
The designations employed and the presentation of material on any maps included in this scientific output do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Food Safety Authority concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
APPENDIX A. Lepidosaphes malicola host plants/species affected
A.1.
Source: García Morales et al. (2016), EFSA PLH Panel (2023), Yasaman et al. (2017), Moghaddam (2013) and Torabi et al. (2010).
| Host status | Host name | Plant family | Common name | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cultivated hosts | Amygdalus | Rosaceae | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Armeniaca vulgaris | Rosaceae | Armenian plum | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Berberis | Berberidaceae | Barberry | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Betula | Betulaceae | Birch | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Cephalotaxus harringtonii | Cephalotaxaceae | Japanese plum‐yew, Harrington's cephalotaxus, cowtail pine | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Cerasus | Rosaceae | García Morales et al. (2016) | ||
| Cercis | Fabaceae | Redbuds | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Cercis siliquastrum | Fabaceae | Judas tree, Mediterranean redbud | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Cornus | Cornaceae | Dogwoods | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Cotoneaster integerrimus | Rosaceae | Common cotoneaster | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Cotoneaster melanocarpus | Rosaceae | Black Cotoneaster | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Cotoneaster vulgaris | Rosaceae | Moghaddam (2013) | ||
| Daphne angustifolia | Thymelaeaceae | Moghaddam (2013) | ||
| Daphne mucronata | Thymelaeaceae | Kashmir Daphne, Kheweshk | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Elaeagnus angustifolia | Elaeagnaceae | Russian olive, silver Berry, oleaster, wild olive | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Elaeagnus rhamnoides | Elaeagnaceae | Sea‐buckthorn | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Euonymus | Celastraceae | Spindle burning‐bush, strawberry bush, wahoo, wintercreeper | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Fraxinus excelsior | Oleaceae | European ash, common ash | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Fraxinus | Oleaceae | Ash | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Jasminum | Oleaceae | Jasmine | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Juglans regia | Juglandaceae | Persian walnut, English walnut, Carpathian walnut, Madeira walnut, common walnut | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Hippophae | Elaeagnaceae | Sandthorn, sallowthorn, seaberry | EFSA PLH Panel (2023) | |
| Ligustrum | Oleaceae | Privet | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Lonicera | Caprifoliaceae | Honeysuckles | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Lycium | Solanaceae | Box thorn, desert thorn | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Malus domestica | Rosaceae | Apples | Torabi et al. (2010) | |
| Malus | Rosaceae | Apples | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Mespilus germanica | Rosaceae | Medlar, common medlar | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Populus nigra | Salicaceae | Black poplar, Lombardy poplar | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Populus tremula | Salicaceae | Aspen, common aspen, Eurasian Aspen, European aspen, quaking aspen | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Populus | Salicaceae | Poplar, aspen, cottonwood | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Prunus armeniaca | Rosaceae | Apricot | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Prunus cerasus | Rosaceae | Sour cherry, tart cherry, dwarf Cherry | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Prunus persica | Rosaceae | Peach | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Prunus serrulata | Rosaceae | Japanese cherry | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Punica granatum | Lythraceae | Pomegranate | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Pyrus communis | Rosaceae | Common pear | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Pyrus | Rosaceae | Pear | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Rhamnus | Rhamnaceae | Buckthorns | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Rhododendron | Ericaceae | Rhododendron | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Ribes rubrum | Grossulariaceae | Redcurrant, red currant | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Rosa canina | Rosaceae | Dog rose | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Rosa | Rosaceae | Rose | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Salix alba | Salicaceae | White willow, water willow, bat willow | Yasaman et al. (2017) | |
| Salix | Salicaceae | Willows, sallows, osiers | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Syringa | Oleaceae | Lilacs | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Taxus baccata | Taxaceae | Common yew, English yew, European yew | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Ulmus | Ulmaceae | Elms | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Vitis vinifera | Vitaceae | Grapes | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Wild/weed hosts | Acer monspessulanum | Sapindaceae | Montpellier maple | García Morales et al. (2016) |
| Acer negundo | Sapindaceae | Box elder, boxelder maple, Manitoba maple, ash‐Leaved maple | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Acer | Sapindaceae | Maples | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Apocynum | Apocynaceae | Dogbane, Indian hemp | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Astragalus | Fabaceae | Milkvetch, locoweed, goat's‐thorn | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Berberis heteropoda | Berberidaceae | García Morales et al. (2016) | ||
| Catalpa | Bignoniaceae | Catawba | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Malus sylvestris | Rosaceae | European crab apple, European wild apple, crab apple | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Quercus | Fagaceae | Oak tree | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Quercus petraea | Fagaceae | Sessile oak, Cornish oak, Irish Oak, durmast oak | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Quercus robur | Fagaceae | Pedunculate oak | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Robinia | Fabaceae | Locusts | García Morales et al. (2016) |
APPENDIX B. Distribution of Lepidosaphes malicola
B.1.
Distribution records based on the references indicated.
| Region | Country | Sub‐national (e.g. state) | Status | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EU | Greece | Present, no details | Kozar et al. (1991) | |
| Bulgaria | Present, no details | Trenchev (1987) | ||
| Asia | Armenia | Present, no details | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Azerbaijan | Present, no details | Watson (2002) | ||
| China | Xinjiang Uygur | Present, no details | García Morales et al. (2016) | |
| Georgia | Present, no details | García Morales et al. (2016) | ||
| India | Bihar | Present, no details | Watson (2002) | |
| Jammu & Kashmir | Present, no details | García Morales et al. (2016) | ||
| Iran | Present, no details | García Morales et al. (2016) | ||
| Israel | Present, no details | García Morales et al. (2016) | ||
| Kazakhstan | Present, no details | García Morales et al. (2016) | ||
| Kyrgyzstan | Present, no details | García Morales et al. (2016) | ||
| Tajikistan | Present, no details | Watson (2002) | ||
| Türkiye | Present, no details | Develioglu et al. (2018), Kaydan et al. (2013), Yiğit and Tunaz (2019) | ||
| Turkmenistan | Present, no details | Watson (2002) | ||
| Uzbekistan | Present, no details | Watson (2002) |
APPENDIX C. Import data
C.1.
TABLE C.1 Fresh Apricots, Cherries, Peaches incl. Nectarines, Plums and Sloes (CN code: 0809) imported in 100 kg into the EU from regions where Lepidosaphes malicola is known to occur (Source: Eurostat accessed on 17 November 2023).
| COYNTRY | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armenia | 40.24 | 31.30 | 15.67 | 214.00 | 38.71 |
| Azerbaijan | 134.52 | ||||
| China | 0.90 | 3.24 | 0.14 | 19.79 | |
| Israel | 91.11 | 46.42 | 3.80 | ||
| India | 0.45 | 0.00 | 3.76 | 0.81 | |
| Iran | 42.15 | 29.18 | 589.22 | 381.90 | 123.82 |
| Kyrgyzstan | 0.10 | 197.32 | |||
| Türkiye | 455,647.50 | 430,701.97 | 692,517.62 | 610,890.17 | 405,973.64 |
| Uzbekistan | 600.72 | 176.54 | 1574.77 | 1391.55 | 537.17 |
TABLE C.2 Fresh Apples, Pears and Quinces (CN code: 0808) imported in 100 kg into the EU from regions where Lepidosaphes malicola is known to occur (Source: Eurostat accessed on 17 November 2023).
| COYNTRY | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armenia | 5.83 | 2.00 | 1.00 | ||
| China | 132,532.46 | 83,521.99 | 104,250.97 | 92,797.41 | 90,970.30 |
| Israel | 936.63 | 2382.40 | 1539.87 | 2694.67 | 1525.01 |
| India | 0.45 | 0.16 | 24.15 | ||
| Iran | 2977.68 | 0.38 | 705.90 | ||
| Kazakhstan | 192.00 | ||||
| Kyrgyzstan | 395.20 | ||||
| Türkiye | 156,573.18 | 131,122.23 | 216,684.72 | 260,187.93 | 212,094.76 |
| Uzbekistan | 0.79 | 52.33 | 9.58 |
TABLE C.3 Grapes fresh or dried (CN code: 0806) imported in 100 kg into the EU from regions where Lepidosaphes malicola is known to occur (Source: Eurostat accessed on 17 November 2023).
| COYNTRY | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armenia | 544.00 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.06 | |
| China | 87,690.22 | 191,986.55 | 156,789.04 | 80,255.76 | 23,689.94 |
| Israel | 6433.57 | 320.43 | 1083.52 | 8.85 | 2.21 |
| India | 741,303.06 | 970,130.19 | 767,803.65 | 852,065.11 | 896,702.51 |
| Iran | 101,488.05 | 165,329.68 | 201,689.92 | 298,066.29 | 114,871.64 |
| Kazakhstan | 48.00 | ||||
| Kyrgyzstan | 0.26 | 5.00 | 9.90 | ||
| Türkiye | 1,650,673.26 | 1,505,665.12 | 1,410,795.14 | 1,507,167.06 | 1,571,786.79 |
| Uzbekistan | 74,951.18 | 113,826.20 | 69,333.46 | 72,907.11 | 91,856.96 |
TABLE C.4 Fresh cut roses and buds, of a kind suitable for bouquets or for ornamental purposes (CN code: 06031100) imported in 100 kg into the EU from regions where Lepidosaphes malicola is known to occur (Source: Eurostat accessed on 17 November 2023).
| COUNTRY | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armenia | 0.15 | 36.82 | 6.87 | ||
| China | 0.24 | 1.03 | 9.67 | 2.62 | 2.34 |
| Israel | 7.96 | 2.21 | 0.04 | 21.99 | 32.73 |
| India | 780.52 | 359.09 | 314.69 | 114.74 | 291.29 |
| Iran | 10.00 | 1.26 | 7.34 | 1.42 | 22.09 |
| Türkiye | 12.30 | 179.89 | 490.02 | 525.54 | 52.62 |
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health) , Bragard, C. , Baptista, P. , Chatzivassiliou, E. , Di Serio, F. , Gonthier, P. , Jaques Miret, J. A. , Justesen, A. F. , Magnusson, C. S. , Milonas, P. , Navas‐Cortes, J. A. , Parnell, S. , Potting, R. , Reignault, P. L. , Stefani, E. , Thulke, H.‐H. , Van der Werf, W. , Vicent Civera, A. , Yuen, J. , Zappalà, L. , … MacLeod, A. (2024). Pest categorisation of Lepidosaphes malicola . EFSA Journal, 22(3), e8665. 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8665
Adopted: 22 February 2024
REFERENCES
- Baker, R. H. A. (2002). Predicting the limits to the potential distribution of alien crop pests. In Hallman G. J. & Schwalbe C. P. (Eds.), Invasive arthropods in agriculture: Problems and solutions (pp. 207–241). Science Publishers Inc. [Google Scholar]
- Biosecurity New Zealand . (2009). Import Risk Analysis: Pears (Pyrus bretschneideri, Pyrus pyrifolia, and Pyrus sp. nr. communis) fresh fruit from China.
- Danzig, E. M. (1993). Fauna of Russia and neighbouring countries. Rhynchota, volume X: Suborder scale insects (coccinea): Families Phoenicococcidae and Diaspididae (p. 452). Nauka Publishing House, St. Petersburg. [Google Scholar]
- Develioğlu, U. , Muştu, M. , & Kaydan, M. B. (2018). Investigation on scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) on ornamental plants in Kayseri province. Türkiye Entomoloji Bülteni, 8, 3–13. [Google Scholar]
- EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health) , Jeger, M. , Bragard, C. , Caffier, D. , Candresse, T. , Chatzivassiliou, E. , Dehnen‐Schmutz, K. , Gregoire, J.‐C. , Jaques Miret, J. A. , MacLeod, A. , Navajas Navarro, M. , Niere, B. , Parnell, S. , Potting, R. , Rafoss, T. , Rossi, V. , Urek, G. , Van Bruggen, A. , Van Der Werf, W. , … Gilioli, G. (2018). Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment. EFSA Journal, 16(8), 5350. 10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5350 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health) , Bragard, C. , Baptista, P. , Chatzivassiliou, E. , Gonthier, P. , Jaques Miret, J. A. , Justesen, A. F. , MacLeod, A. , Magnusson, C. S. , Milonas, P. , Navas‐Cortes, J. A. , Parnell, S. , Potting, R. , Reignault, P. L. , Stefani, E. , Thulke, H.‐H. , Van der Werf, W. , Civera, A. V. , Zappalà, L. , … Yuen, J. (2023). Scientific opinion on the commodity risk assessment of Prunus persica and P. dulcis plants from Türkiye. EFSA Journal, 21(1), 7735. 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7735 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- EFSA Scientific Committee , Hardy, A. , Benford, D. , Halldorsson, T. , Jeger, M. J. , Knutsen, H. K. , More, S. , Naegeli, H. , Noteborn, H. , Ockleford, C. , Ricci, A. , Rychen, G. , Schlatter, J. R. , Silano, V. , Solecki, R. , Turck, D. , Benfenati, E. , Chaudhry, Q. M. , Craig, P. , … Younes, M. (2017). Scientific opinion on the guidance on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments. EFSA Journal, 15(8), 4971. 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization) . (2019). EPPO codes. https://www.eppo.int/RESOURCES/eppo_databases/eppo_codes
- EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization) . (2021). PM 7/129 (2) DNA barcoding as an identification tool for a number of regulated pests.
- EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization) . (online). EPPO Global Database. https://gd.eppo.int
- EUROPHYT . (online). Interceptions of harmful organisms in imported plants and other objects. https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/plant‐health‐and‐biosecurity/europhyt/interceptions_en
- FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) . (2008). ISPM (International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures) No 31. Methodologies for sampling of consignments. FAO, Rome, 19 pp. https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2016/11/ISPM_31_2008_Sampling_of_consignments_EN.pdf
- FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) . (2013). ISPM (International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures) No 11. Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests. FAO, Rome, 36 pp. https://www.ippc.int/sites/default/files/documents/20140512/ispm_11_2013_en_2014‐04‐30_201405121523‐494.65%20KB.pdf
- FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) . (2023). ISPM (International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures) No 5. Glossary of phytosanitary terms. FAO, Rome, 40 pp. https://assets.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2023/07/ISPM_05_2023_En_Glossary_PostCPM‐17_2023‐07‐12_Fixed.pdf
- García Morales, G. , Denno, B. D. , Miller, D. R. , Miller, G. L. , Ben‐Dov, Y. , & Hardy, N. B. (2016). ScaleNet: A literature‐based model of scale insect biology and systematics. Database. 10.1093/database/bav118, https://scalenet.info [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Griessinger, D. , & Roy, A.‐S. (2015). EPPO codes: A brief description. https://www.eppo.int/media/uploaded_images/RESOURCES/eppo_databases/A4_EPPO_Codes_2018.pdf
- Kaydan, M. , Ülgentürk, S. , & Erkiliç, L. (2013). Checklist of Turkish Coccoidea (Hemiptera: Sternorryncha) species. Türkiye Entomoloji Bülteni, 3, 157–182. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article‐file/64148 [Google Scholar]
- Kottek, M. , Grieser, J. , Beck, C. , Rudolf, B. , & Rubel, F. (2006). World map of the Köppen_Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 15, 259–263. 10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Kozar, F. , Paloukis, S. , & Papadopoulos, N. (1991). New scale insects (Homoptera: Coccoidea) in the Greek entomofauna. Entomologia Hellenica, 9, 63–68. 10.12681/eh.13991 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Milonas, P. , Kozár, F. , & Kontodimas, D. C. (2008). List of scale insects of Greece. Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Scale Insect Studies, Oeiras, Portugal, 24–27 September 2007. ISA Press Lisbon, Portugal 322 pp.
- Moghaddam, M. (2013). An annotated checklist of the scale insects of Iran (Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha, Coccoidea) with new records and distribution data. ZooKeys, 334, 1–92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Moghaddam, M. , & Watson, G. W. (2021). The scale insects of Iran part 1 the armoured scales (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Diaspididae). Zootaxa, 4907(1), 1–276. 10.11646/zootaxa.4907.1.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nazari, P. , Poorjavad, N. , & Izadi, H. (2020). Simultaneous occurrence of diapause and cold hardiness in overwintering eggs of the apple Oystershell scale, Lepidosaphes malicola Borchsenius (hem.: Diaspididae). Zoological Studies, 6(59), e25. 10.6620/ZS.2020.59-25 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nazari, P. , Poorjavad, N. , Izadi, H. , & Sahhafi, S. R. (2020). Comparing the efficacy of common insecticides against the apple armored scale, Lepidosaphes malicola (Hem.: Diaspididae) in apple orchards of Semirom, Iran. Plant Pest Research, 10(1), 17–29. [Google Scholar]
- NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information) . (2023). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1587049396
- Plant Pests of the Middle East . (2023). The Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. https://www.agri.huji.ac.il/mepests/
- Rosen, D. (1990). Armored scale insects. Their biology, natural enemies and control. Volume 4A (p. 384). Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. [Google Scholar]
- Sayers, E. W. , Cavanaugh, M. , Clark, K. , Ostell, J. , Pruitt, K. D. , & Karsch‐Mizrachi, I. (2020). Genbank. Nucleic Acids Research, 48(Database issue), D84–D86. 10.1093/nar/gkz956 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Torabi, M. , Vahedi, H. A. , & Hodgson, C. J. (2010). Preliminary survey of the scale insects fauna in Kermanshah, western Iran. Entomologia Hellenica, 19, 153–162. [Google Scholar]
- Toy, S. J. , & Newfield, M. J. (2010). The accidental introduction of invasive animals as hitchhikers through inanimate pathways: A New Zealand perspective. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics), 29(1), 123–133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Trenchev, G. (1987). Biologichni osobenosti na Lepidosaphes malicola Borchs.(Homoptera, Diaspididae) i sredstva za borva s neia. 1–173. (PhD thesis).
- Trencheva, K. G. , & Tomov, R. (2014). Checklist of scale insects in Bulgaria (Hemiptera, Coccoidea). Acta Zoologica Bulgarica Suppl, 6, 65–72. [Google Scholar]
- Watson, G. W. (2002). Arthropods of economic importance: Diaspididae of the world. (series title: World biodiversity database) ETI information services (expert Center for Taxonomic Identification). Amsterdam, Netherlands. https://diaspididae.linnaeus.naturalis.nl/linnaeus_ng/app/views/introduction/topic.php?id=3377&epi=155 [Google Scholar]
- Yasaman, S. H. , Reza, V. , Mohammed, R. Z. , & Bahman, S. H. (2017). Patterns of species richness and diversity of willow Salix alba pests in the West Azerbaijan Province of Iran. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 15(3), 1227–1242. [Google Scholar]
- Yiğit, T. , & Tunaz, H. (2019). Coccidae and Diaspididae (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) species and their prevalence status and density in Malatya apricot area. In XVII International Symposium on Apricot Breeding and Culture, 1290, 95–98. [Google Scholar]