Pest categorisation of Anthonomus quadrigibbus

Abstract

The Panel on Plant Health performed a pest categorisation of the weevil Anthonomus quadrigibbus Say, (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), for the EU. A. quadrigibbus is a well‐defined and distinguishable species, recognised as an occasional pest of apples, pears and sour cherries in North America where it also feeds on a range of wild rosaceous plants such as Crataegus and Amelanchier. Adults feed on leaves, flowers and fruit. Feeding damage to fruit reduces quality. Females oviposit into young fruit, causing surface blemishes and resulting in distortion as the fruit develops. Marketability is subsequently reduced. Larvae and pupae develop within host fruit. Most infested fruit fall prematurely, reducing yield. A. quadrigibbus was regarded as a more serious pest in the early 20th century. A. quadrigibbus is not known to occur in the EU and is listed in Annex IIAI of Council Directive 2000/29/EC under the synonym Tachypterellus quadrigibbus. Host plants for planting and infested fruit could potentially provide a pathway into the EU. Considering the climatic similarities between North America and Europe, and that wild and commercial hosts occur widely within the EU, A. quadrigibbus has the potential to establish within the EU. There would be one generation per year, as in North America. Impacts could be expected in apple, pear and perhaps sour cherry orchards. The level of impacts would be uncertain. There is also uncertainty regarding whether A. quadrigibbus would extend its host range to include other Rosaceae within the EU. Phytosanitary measures are available to reduce the likelihood of introduction of A. quadrigibbus. All criteria assessed by EFSA for consideration as a potential Union quarantine pest are met. As A. quadrigibbus is not known to occur in the EU, this criterion assessed by EFSA to consider it as a Union regulated non‐quarantine pest is not met.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor

1.1.1. Background

Council Directive 2000/29/EC1 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community establishes the present European Union plant health regime. The Directive lays down the phytosanitary provisions and the control checks to be carried out at the place of origin on plants and plant products destined for the Union or to be moved within the Union. In the Directive's 2000/29/EC annexes, the list of harmful organisms (pests) whose introduction into or spread within the Union is prohibited, is detailed together with specific requirements for import or internal movement.

Following the evaluation of the plant health regime, the new basic plant health law, Regulation (EU) 2016/20312 on protective measures against pests of plants, was adopted on 26 October 2016 and will apply from 14 December 2019 onwards, repealing Directive 2000/29/EC. In line with the principles of the above mentioned legislation and the follow‐up work of the secondary legislation for the listing of EU regulated pests, EFSA is requested to provide pest categorizations of the harmful organisms included in the annexes of Directive 2000/29/EC, in the cases where recent pest risk assessment/pest categorisation is not available.

1.1.2. Terms of Reference

EFSA is requested, pursuant to Article 22(5.b) and Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/20023, to provide scientific opinion in the field of plant health.

EFSA is requested to prepare and deliver a pest categorisation (step 1 analysis) for each of the regulated pests included in the appendices of the annex to this mandate. The methodology and template of pest categorisation have already been developed in past mandates for the organisms listed in Annex II Part A Section II of Directive 2000/29/EC. The same methodology and outcome is expected for this work as well.

The list of the harmful organisms included in the annex to this mandate comprises 133 harmful organisms or groups. A pest categorisation is expected for these 133 pests or groups and the delivery of the work would be stepwise at regular intervals through the year as detailed below. First priority covers the harmful organisms included in Appendix 1, comprising pests from Annex II Part A Section I and Annex II Part B of Directive 2000/29/EC. The delivery of all pest categorisations for the pests included in Appendix 1 is June 2018. The second priority is the pests included in Appendix 2, comprising the group of Cicadellidae (non‐EU) known to be vector of Pierce's disease (caused by Xylella fastidiosa), the group of Tephritidae (non‐EU), the group of potato viruses and virus‐like organisms, the group of viruses and virus‐like organisms of Cydonia Mill., Fragaria L., Malus Mill., Prunus L., Pyrus L., Ribes L., Rubus L. and Vitis L. and the group of Margarodes (non‐EU species). The delivery of all pest categorisations for the pests included in Appendix 2 is end 2019. The pests included in Appendix 3 cover pests of Annex I part A section I and all pests categorisations should be delivered by end 2020.

For the above mentioned groups, each covering a large number of pests, the pest categorisation will be performed for the group and not the individual harmful organisms listed under “such as” notation in the Annexes of the Directive 2000/29/EC. The criteria to be taken particularly under consideration for these cases, is the analysis of host pest combination, investigation of pathways, the damages occurring and the relevant impact.

Finally, as indicated in the text above, all references to ‘non‐European’ should be avoided and replaced by ‘non‐EU’ and refer to all territories with exception of the Union territories as defined in Article 1 point 3 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031.

1.1.2.1. Terms of Reference: Appendix 1

List of harmful organisms for which pest categorisation is requested. The list below follows the annexes of Directive 2000/29/EC.

Annex IIAI
(a) Insects, mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development
Aleurocantus spp.	Numonia pyrivorella (Matsumura)
Anthonomus bisignifer (Schenkling)	Oligonychus perditus Pritchard and Baker
Anthonomus signatus (Say)	Pissodes spp. (non‐EU)
Aschistonyx eppoi Inouye	Scirtothrips aurantii Faure
Carposina niponensis Walsingham	Scirtothrips citri (Moultex)
Enarmonia packardi (Zeller)	Scolytidae spp. (non‐EU)
Enarmonia prunivora Walsh	Scrobipalpopsis solanivora Povolny
Grapholita inopinata Heinrich	Tachypterellus quadrigibbus Say
Hishomonus phycitis	Toxoptera citricida Kirk.
Leucaspis japonica Ckll.	Unaspis citri Comstock
Listronotus bonariensis (Kuschel)
(b) Bacteria
Citrus variegated chlorosis	Xanthomonas campestris pv. oryzae (Ishiyama) Dye and pv. oryzicola (Fang. et al.) Dye
Erwinia stewartii (Smith) Dye
(c) Fungi
Alternaria alternata (Fr.) Keissler (non‐EU pathogenic isolates)	Elsinoe spp. Bitanc. and Jenk. Mendes
Anisogramma anomala (Peck) E. Müller	Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. albedinis (Kilian and Maire) Gordon
Apiosporina morbosa (Schwein.) v. Arx	Guignardia piricola (Nosa) Yamamoto
Ceratocystis virescens (Davidson) Moreau	Puccinia pittieriana Hennings
Cercoseptoria pini‐densiflorae (Hori and Nambu) Deighton	Stegophora ulmea (Schweinitz: Fries) Sydow & Sydow
Cercospora angolensis Carv. and Mendes	Venturia nashicola Tanaka and Yamamoto
(d) Virus and virus‐like organisms
Beet curly top virus (non‐EU isolates)	Little cherry pathogen (non‐ EU isolates)
Black raspberry latent virus	Naturally spreading psorosis
Blight and blight‐like	Palm lethal yellowing mycoplasm
Cadang‐Cadang viroid	Satsuma dwarf virus
Citrus tristeza virus (non‐EU isolates)	Tatter leaf virus
Leprosis	Witches’ broom (MLO)
Annex IIB
(a) Insect mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development
Anthonomus grandis (Boh.)	Ips cembrae Heer
Cephalcia lariciphila (Klug)	Ips duplicatus Sahlberg
Dendroctonus micans Kugelan	Ips sexdentatus Börner
Gilphinia hercyniae (Hartig)	Ips typographus Heer
Gonipterus scutellatus Gyll.	Sternochetus mangiferae Fabricius
Ips amitinus Eichhof
(b) Bacteria
Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens pv. flaccumfaciens (Hedges) Collins and Jones
(c) Fungi
Glomerella gossypii Edgerton	Hypoxylon mammatum (Wahl.) J. Miller
Gremmeniella abietina (Lag.) Morelet

1.1.2.2. Terms of Reference: Appendix 2

List of harmful organisms for which pest categorisation is requested per group. The list below follows the categorisation included in the annexes of Directive 2000/29/EC.

Annex IAI
(a) Insects, mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development
Group of Cicadellidae (non‐EU) known to be vector of Pierce's disease (caused by Xylella fastidiosa), such as:
1) Carneocephala fulgida Nottingham	3) Graphocephala atropunctata (Signoret)
2) Draeculacephala minerva Ball
Group of Tephritidae (non‐EU) such as:
1) Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann)	12) Pardalaspis cyanescens Bezzi
2) Anastrepha ludens (Loew)	13) Pardalaspis quinaria Bezzi
3) Anastrepha obliqua Macquart	14) Pterandrus rosa (Karsch)
4) Anastrepha suspensa (Loew)	15) Rhacochlaena japonica Ito
5) Dacus ciliatus Loew	16) Rhagoletis completa Cresson
6) Dacus curcurbitae Coquillet	17) Rhagoletis fausta (Osten‐Sacken)
7) Dacus dorsalis Hendel	18) Rhagoletis indifferens Curran
8) Dacus tryoni (Froggatt)	19) Rhagoletis mendax Curran
9) Dacus tsuneonis Miyake	20) Rhagoletis pomonella Walsh
10) Dacus zonatus Saund.	21) Rhagoletis suavis (Loew)
11) Epochra canadensis (Loew)
(c) Viruses and virus‐like organisms
Group of potato viruses and virus‐like organisms such as:
1) Andean potato latent virus	4) Potato black ringspot virus
2) Andean potato mottle virus	5) Potato virus T
3) Arracacha virus B, oca strain	6) non‐EU isolates of potato viruses A, M, S, V, X and Y (including Yo, Yn and Yc) and Potato leafroll virus
Group of viruses and virus‐like organisms of Cydonia Mill., Fragaria L., Malus Mill., Prunus L., Pyrus L., Ribes L.,Rubus L. and Vitis L., such as:
1) Blueberry leaf mottle virus	8) Peach yellows mycoplasm
2) Cherry rasp leaf virus (American)	9) Plum line pattern virus (American)
3) Peach mosaic virus (American)	10) Raspberry leaf curl virus (American)
4) Peach phony rickettsia	11) Strawberry witches’ broom mycoplasma
5) Peach rosette mosaic virus	12) Non‐EU viruses and virus‐like organisms of Cydonia Mill., Fragaria L., Malus Mill., Prunus L., Pyrus L., Ribes L., Rubus L. and Vitis L.
6) Peach rosette mycoplasm
7) Peach X‐disease mycoplasm
Annex IIAI
(a) Insects, mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development
Group of Margarodes (non‐EU species) such as:
1) Margarodes vitis (Phillipi)	3) Margarodes prieskaensis Jakubski
2) Margarodes vredendalensis de Klerk

1.1.2.3. Terms of Reference: Appendix 3

List of harmful organisms for which pest categorisation is requested. The list below follows the annexes of Directive 2000/29/EC.

Annex IAI
(a) Insects, mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development
Acleris spp. (non‐EU)	Longidorus diadecturus Eveleigh and Allen
Amauromyza maculosa (Malloch)	Monochamus spp. (non‐EU)
Anomala orientalis Waterhouse	Myndus crudus Van Duzee
Arrhenodes minutus Drury	Nacobbus aberrans (Thorne) Thorne and Allen
Choristoneura spp. (non‐EU)	Naupactus leucoloma Boheman
Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst)	Premnotrypes spp. (non‐EU)
Dendrolimus sibiricus Tschetverikov	Pseudopityophthorus minutissimus (Zimmermann)
Diabrotica barberi Smith and Lawrence	Pseudopityophthorus pruinosus (Eichhoff)
Diabrotica undecimpunctata howardi Barber	Scaphoideus luteolus (Van Duzee)
Diabrotica undecimpunctata undecimpunctata Mannerheim	Spodoptera eridania (Cramer)
Diabrotica virgifera zeae Krysan & Smith	Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith)
Diaphorina citri Kuway	Spodoptera litura (Fabricus)
Heliothis zea (Boddie)	Thrips palmi Karny
Hirschmanniella spp., other than Hirschmanniella gracilis (de Man) Luc and Goodey	Xiphinema americanum Cobb sensu lato (non‐EU populations)
Liriomyza sativae Blanchard	Xiphinema californicum Lamberti and Bleve‐Zacheo
(b) Fungi
Ceratocystis fagacearum (Bretz) Hunt	Mycosphaerella larici‐leptolepis Ito et al.
Chrysomyxa arctostaphyli Dietel	Mycosphaerella populorum G. E. Thompson
Cronartium spp. (non‐EU)	Phoma andina Turkensteen
Endocronartium spp. (non‐EU)	Phyllosticta solitaria Ell. and Ev.
Guignardia laricina (Saw.) Yamamoto and Ito	Septoria lycopersici Speg. var. malagutii Ciccarone and Boerema
Gymnosporangium spp. (non‐EU)	Thecaphora solani Barrus
Inonotus weirii (Murril) Kotlaba and Pouzar	Trechispora brinkmannii (Bresad.) Rogers
Melampsora farlowii (Arthur) Davis
(c) Viruses and virus‐like organisms
Tobacco ringspot virus	Pepper mild tigré virus
Tomato ringspot virus	Squash leaf curl virus
Bean golden mosaic virus	Euphorbia mosaic virus
Cowpea mild mottle virus	Florida tomato virus
Lettuce infectious yellows virus
(d) Parasitic plants
Arceuthobium spp. (non‐EU)
Annex IAII
(a) Insects, mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development
Meloidogyne fallax Karssen	Popillia japonica Newman
Rhizoecus hibisci Kawai and Takagi
(b) Bacteria
Clavibacter michiganensis (Smith) Davis et al. ssp. sepedonicus (Spieckermann and Kotthoff) Davis et al.	Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al.
(c) Fungi
Melampsora medusae Thümen	Synchytrium endobioticum (Schilbersky) Percival
Annex I B
(a) Insects, mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development
Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say	Liriomyza bryoniae (Kaltenbach)
(b) Viruses and virus‐like organisms
Beet necrotic yellow vein virus

1.2. Interpretation of the Terms of Reference

The subject of this pest categorisation is listed in Appendix 1 of the terms of reference (ToR) as Tachypterellus quadrigibbus Say. It also appears in Annex II AI of 2000/29 EC in this format. We assume that the ToR and Annex II AI have mistakenly not used brackets around the name of the authority, and what was intended should appear as Tachypterellus quadrigibbus (Say). Furthermore, what is listed in ToR as Tachypterellus quadrigibbus Say, is assumed to be the organism which was originally described and named Anthonomus quadrigibbus by Thomas Say in 1831 (Crandal, 1905). Later it was placed in a new genus, Tachypterellus, by Dietz to become Tachypterellus quadrigibbus (Say). However, the revision was not sustained (e.g. Burke and Anderson, 1989) and the original classification by Say remains valid. For the purposes of this pest categorisation, the valid name Anthonomus quadrigibbus Say will be used. It is to be subject to pest categorisation to determine whether it fulfils the criteria of a quarantine pest or those of a regulated non‐quarantine pest (RNQP) for the area of the EU excluding Ceuta, Melilla and the outermost regions of Member States (MS) referred to in Article 355(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), other than Madeira and the Azores.

2. Data and methodologies

2.1. Data

2.1.1. Literature search

A literature search in the ISI Web of Science bibliographic database, using the names Anthonomus quadrigibbus and Tachypterellus quadrigibbus as search terms was conducted at the beginning of the categorisation. Relevant papers were reviewed and further references and information were obtained from experts, as well as from citations within the references and grey literature.

2.1.2. Database search

Pest information, on host(s) and distribution, was retrieved from the European and Mediterranean Plan Protection Organization (EPPO) Global Database (EPPO, 2017) and relevant publications.

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 database was 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, and is a subproject of PHYSAN (Phyto‐Sanitary Controls) specifically concerned with plant health information. The Europhyt database manages 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 MS and the phytosanitary measures taken to eradicate or avoid their spread.

2.2. Methodologies

The Panel performed the pest categorisation for A. quadrigibbus following guiding principles and steps presented in the EFSA guidance on the harmonised framework for pest risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel, 2010) and as defined in the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures No 11 (FAO, 2013) and No 21 (FAO, 2004).

In accordance with the guidance on a harmonised framework for pest risk assessment in the EU (EFSA PLH Panel, 2010), this work was initiated following an evaluation of the EU plant health regime. Therefore, to facilitate the decision‐making process, in the conclusions of the pest categorisation, the Panel addresses explicitly each criterion for a Union quarantine pest and for a Union RNQP in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants, and includes additional information required in accordance with the specific terms of reference received by the European Commission. In addition, for each conclusion, the Panel provides a short description of its associated uncertainty.

Table 1 presents the Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 pest categorisation criteria on which the Panel bases its conclusions. All relevant criteria have to be met for the pest to potentially qualify either as a quarantine pest or as a RNQP. If one of the criteria is not met, the pest will not qualify. A pest that does not qualify as a quarantine pest may still qualify as a RNQP that needs to be addressed in the opinion. For the pests regulated in the protected zones only, the scope of the categorisation is the territory of the protected zone; thus, the criteria refer to the protected zone instead of the EU territory.

Table 1.

Pest categorisation criteria under evaluation, as 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	Criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union quarantine pest	Criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding protected zone quarantine pest (articles 32–35)	Criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union regulated non‐quarantine pest
Identity of the pest (Section 3.1)	Is the identity of the pest established, or has it been shown to produce consistent symptoms and to be transmissible?	Is the identity of the pest established, or has it been shown to produce consistent symptoms and to be transmissible?	Is the identity of the pest established, 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 widely distributed within the EU? Describe the pest distribution briefly!	Is the pest present in the EU territory? If not, it cannot be a protected zone quarantine organism.	Is the pest present in the EU territory? If not, it cannot be a regulated non‐quarantine pest. (A regulated non‐quarantine pest must be present in the risk assessment area)
Regulatory status (Section 3.3)	If the pest is present in the EU but not widely distributed in the risk assessment area, it should be under official control or expected to be under official control in the near future.	The protected zone system aligns with the pest free area system under the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). The pest satisfies the IPPC definition of a quarantine pest that is not present in the risk assessment area (i.e. protected zone).	Is the pest regulated as a quarantine pest? If currently regulated as a quarantine pest, are there grounds to consider its status could be revoked?
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!	Is the pest able to enter into, become established in, and spread within, the protected zone areas? Is entry by natural spread from EU areas where the pest is present possible?	Is spread mainly via specific plants for planting, rather than via natural spread or via movement of plant products or other objects? Clearly state if plants for planting is the main pathway!
Potential for consequences in the EU territory (Section 3.5)	Would the pests’ introduction have an economic or environmental impact on the EU territory?	Would the pests’ introduction have an economic or environmental impact on the protected zone areas?	Does the presence of the pest on plants for planting have an economic impact, as regards the intended use of those plants for planting?
Available measures (Section 3.6)	Are there measures available to prevent the entry into, establishment within or spread of the pest within the EU such that the risk becomes mitigated?	Are there measures available to prevent the entry into, establishment within or spread of the pest within the protected zone areas such that the risk becomes mitigated? Is it possible to eradicate the pest in a restricted area within 24 months (or a period longer than 24 months where the biology of the organism so justifies) after the presence of the pest was confirmed in the protected zone?	Are there measures available to prevent pest presence on plants for planting such that the risk becomes mitigated?
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.	A statement as to whether (1) all criteria assessed by EFSA above for consideration as potential protected zone quarantine pest were met, and (2) if not, which one(s) were not met.	A statement as to whether (1) all criteria assessed by EFSA above for consideration as a potential regulated non‐quarantine pest were met, and (2) if not, which one(s) were not met.

It should be noted that 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, the Panel will present a summary of the observed pest impacts. Economic impacts are expressed in terms of yield and quality losses and not in monetary terms, whereas addressing social impacts is outside the remit of the Panel, in agreement with EFSA guidance on a harmonised framework for pest risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel, 2010).

The Panel will not indicate in its conclusions of the pest categorisation whether to continue the risk assessment process, but following the agreed two‐step approach, will continue only if requested by the risk managers. However, during the categorisation process, experts may identify key elements and knowledge gaps that could contribute significant uncertainty to a future assessment of risk. It would be useful to identify and highlight such gaps so that potential future requests can specifically target the major elements of uncertainty, perhaps suggesting specific scenarios to examine.

3. Pest categorisation

3.1. Identity and biology of the pest

3.1.1. Identity and taxonomy

Is the identity of the pest established, or has it been shown to produce consistent symptoms and to be transmissible? (Yes or No)

Yes, the identity of the pest is established.

Anthonomus quadrigibbus Say is an insect in the Order Coleoptera (beetles) and the family Curculionidae (weevils).

Keys to identify the genus in North America are available (e.g. Kissinger, 1964; Anderson, 2002; Hernández et al., 2013). Clark (1991) provides a key to the Anthonomus–Curvirostris species group. List (1932) provides a key and a detailed description of the species under the synonym T. quadrigibbus.

A description of eggs, larva, pupa and adults is provided in Smith et al. (1997) and CABI (2017).

3.1.2. Biology of the pest

Anthonomus quadrigibbus has one generation per year. Adults emerge in the spring from their overwintering sites, such as leaf litter and orchard debris, and from within the soil beneath previously infested host trees (Ritcher, 1936; Hahn, 2007). In Iowa and New York State, adult emergence takes place from late April to mid‐May when the temperature at ground level is at or above approximately 16°C (List, 1932; Hammer, 1933). On warm spring days, adults can fly and readily disperse to feed on hosts. Adults first feed on leaf petioles and shoot tips, flower buds then flowers, and finally on the developing small fruits (Smith et al., 1997). Adults mate, then females oviposit in host fruit. A female will puncture a host fruit and create a cavity with her rostrum. One egg is laid per fruit. The cavity is sealed with frass to protect the egg (Buckell, 1930; St. Pierre and Lehmkuhl, 1990). Crandal (1905) reported females laid eggs over a period of approximately 35 days, the average number of eggs laid per female was 66 (range 4–122). In Wisconsin, Ritcher (1936) reported most adult feeding activity and egg laying occurred in late May and early June. Depending on temperature, eggs usually hatch four or five days after oviposition, depending on temperature (Crandal, 1905). Larvae eat the flesh of infested fruit creating irregular tunnels, eventually reaching the core where larvae eat the ovules (Campbell et al., 1989). Larval development takes 20–30 days. There are three larval instars (Smith et al., 1997). Larvae remain within their host fruit and develop into pupae. Infested fruit generally drop prematurely (Campbell et al., 1989). If infested fruit do not drop, pressure on larvae and pupae caused by the continued growth and swelling of the fruit causes significant mortality to the immature stages, although some specimens will develop successfully (Smith et al., 1997). The likelihood of infested fruit being harvested is therefore reduced but not eliminated (Biosecurity Australia, 2009). Pupae develop over four to eight days (Ritcher, 1936) after which adults eat their way out of the fruit. In Maine (USA), the majority of adults emerge by mid‐August; in New York State, adults can emerge up to mid‐September (Smith et al., 1997). Once free from the host in which it developed, the adult may also feed on other host fruit. These activities last from mid to late summer until adults make their way to leaf litter to find an overwintering site (St. Pierre and Lehmkuhl, 1990).

3.1.3. Intraspecific diversity

List (1932) reported variation in the size of a number of morphological features within T. quadrigibbus and also variation in the number of setae on sternum VIII. He used the variation to distinguish two subspecies, T. quadrigibbus magna and T. quadrigibbus quadrigibbus. However, Burke and Anderson (1989) concluded that variation in the size of structural features is dependent on the size of host plant fruit within which development takes place, and that the variation in the number of setae overlapped between proposed subspecies. Overall such variation did not provide any justification for the recognition of subspecies.

3.1.4. Detection and identification of the pest

Are detection and identification methods available for the pest?

Yes, A. quadrigibbus can be detected in the field. Yellow sticky traps can be used to capture flying adults. Visual inspection of host fruit can detect damage symptoms and fruit suspected of being infested can be cut open to find immature stages. The species can be identified by examining morphological features, for which keys exist.

Visual inspection of host fruit can detect damage symptoms e.g. small, round oviposition punctures (Hahn, 2007). Fruit suspected of being infested can be cut open to find immature stages (British Colombia MAF, 2016).

3.2. Pest distribution

3.2.1. Pest distribution outside the EU (Table 2)

Table 2.

Distribution of Anthonomus quadrigibbus outside the EU

Region	Country	Sub‐national distribution (e.g. States/Provinces)	Occurrence
North America	Canada		Present, restricted distribution
		Alberta	Present, no details
		British Columbia	Present, no details
		Manitoba	Present, no details
		New Brunswick	Present, no details
		Nova Scotia	Present, no details
		Ontario	Present, no details
		Québec	Present, no details
		Saskatchewan	Present, no details
	Mexico		Present, restricted distribution
	USA		Present, widespread
		Alabama	Present, no details
		Arizona	Present, no details
		Arkansas	Present, no details
		California	Present, no details
		Colorado	Present, no details
		Connecticut	Present, no details
		Delaware	Present, no details
		Florida	Present, no details
		Georgia	Present, no details
		Idaho	Present, no details
		Illinois	Present, no details
		Indiana	Present, no details
		Iowa	Present, no details
		Kansas	Present, no details
		Kentucky	Present, no details
		Louisiana	Present, no details
		Maine	Present, no details
		Maryland	Present, no details
		Massachusetts	Present, no details
		Michigan	Present, no details
		Minnesota	Present, no details
		Mississippi	Present, no details
		Missouri	Present, no details
		Montana	Present, no details
		Nebraska	Present, no details
		New Hampshire	Present, no details
		New Jersey	Present, no details
		New Mexico	Present, no details
		New York	Present, no details
		North Carolina	Present, no details
		North Dakota	Present, no details
		Ohio	Present, no details
		Oklahoma	Present, no details
		Oregon	Present, no details
		Pennsylvania	Present, no details
		Rhode Island	Present, no details
		South Carolina	Present, no details
		South Dakota	Present, no details
		Tennessee	Present, no details
		Texas	Present, no details
		Utah	Present, no details
		Vermont	Present, no details
		Virginia	Present, no details
		Washington	Present, no details
		West Virginia	Present, no details
		Wisconsin	Present, no details

Sources: EPPO Global database (2017); Bousquet (1991).

3.2.2. Pest distribution in the EU

Is the pest present in the EU territory? If present, is the pest widely distributed within the EU?

No, the pest is not known to occur in the EU.

The pest is not known to occur in the EU. Slovenia declared that A. quadrigibbus was absent from its territory on the basis that there were no records of it in the country (EPPO, 2017).

3.3. Regulatory status

3.3.1. Council Directive 2000/29/EC

Tachypterellus (=Anthonomus) quadrigibbus is listed in Council Directive 2000/29/EC. Details are presented in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3.

Tachypterellus (=Anthonomus) quadrigibbus in Council Directive 2000/29/EC

Annex II
Part A	Harmful organisms whose introduction into, and spread within, all Member States shall be banned if they are present on certain plants or plant products
Section I	Harmful organisms not known to occur in the Community and relevant for the entire Community
(a)	Insects, mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development
	Species	Subject of contamination
29	Tachypterellus quadrigibbus Say	Plants of Cydonia Mill., Malus Mill., Prunus L. and Pyrus L., other than seeds, originating in non‐European countries

3.3.2. Legislation addressing the hosts of Tachypterellus (=Anthonomus) quadrigibbus

Table 4.

Regulated hosts and commodities that may involve Tachypterellus (=Anthonomus) quadrigibbus in Annexes III, IV and V of Council Directive 2000/29/EC

Annex III
Part A	Plants, plant products and other objects the introduction of which shall be prohibited in all Member States
	Description	Country of origin
9.	Plants of … Cydonia Mill., Crateagus L., Malus Mill., Prunus L., Pyrus L.,…., intended for planting, other than dormant plants free from leaves, flowers and fruit	Non‐European countries
18.	Plants of Cydonia Mill., Malus Mill., Prunus L. and Pyrus L. and their hybrids, …, intended for planting, other than seeds	Without prejudice to the prohibitions applicable to the plants listed in Annex III A (9), where appropriate, non‐European countries, other than Mediterranean countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the continental states of the USA
Annex IV	The special requirements on host plants of Tachypterellus (=Anthonomus) quadrigibbus that are listed in Annex IV do not relate specifically to A. quadrigibbus but to other pests of those host plants.
Annex V	Plants, plant products and other objects which must be subject to a plant health inspection (at the place of production if originating in the Community, before being moved within the Community—in the country of origin or the consignor country, if originating outside the Community) before being permitted to enter the Community
Part A	Plants, plant products and other objects originating in the community
Part B	Plants, plant products and other objects originating in territories, other than those territories referred to in part A
Section I	Plants, plant products and other objects which are potential carriers of harmful organisms of relevance for the entire Community Plants, intended for planting, ….Prunus L. …. Parts of plants, other than fruits and seeds of : Prunus L. originating in non‐European countries Fruits of: … Cydonia Mill., … Malus Mill., … Prunus L., …. Pyrus L.,… originating in non‐European countries

3.4. Entry, establishment and spread in the EU

3.4.1. Host range

Anthonomus quadrigibbus has a range of hosts within Rosaceae. The earliest records are from hawthorn (Crataegus spp.) and crab apples (Malus spp.) (Burke and Anderson, 1989). Apples (Malus), pears (Pyrus) and sour cherries (Prunus cerasus) are hosts of economic importance. Maier (1990) collected adult A. quadrigibbus emerging from native wild rosaceous fruits including Amelanchier arborea (downy juneberry), Amelanchier canadensis (common juneberry), Amelanchier obovalis (thicket shadbush), Crataegus sp. (hawthorn), Prunus pensylvanica (pin cherry) and Prunus serotina (black cherry). Maier (1990) noted that A. quadrigibbus had expanded its host range to include rosaceous fruits introduced into North America. There is therefore some potential, and uncertainty, that if the pest were introduced into the EU it could further expand its host range to feed on a wider range of plants within the Rosaceae, some of which could be commercially important in the EU.

Malus, Prunus and Pyrus plants for planting are largely prohibited from entering the EU from non‐European countries; however, dormant plants (free from leaves, flowers and fruit) can be imported from the continental USA. Fortunately, A. quadrigibbus are unlikely to be closely associated with dormant hosts.

Wild hosts are not covered by 2000/29 EC in relation to A. quadrigibbus. However, no information about trade of wild hosts could be retrieved and so there is high uncertainty if they provide a pathway.

3.4.2. Entry

Is the pest able to enter into the EU territory? (Yes or No) If yes, identify and list the pathways!

Yes, eggs, larvae and pupae could potentially enter via imports of infested fruit, such as apples and pears from the USA and Canada.

Pathways for entry

• Fruit of Malus, Pyrus, Prunus cerasus;

• Plants for planting of Malus, Pyrus, Prunus cerasus and other rosaceous hosts, particularly if transported as potted plants with soil (e.g. bonsai plants).

EU import data for apples (HS 080810) and pears (HS 080830) from USA and Canada, 2012–2016, are shown in Table 5. There has been a noticeable decline in imports of apples over this period.

Table 5.

EU 28 imports of fresh apple and pear fruit from USA and Canada, 2012–2016. (Hundreds of kg)

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Fresh apples USA	104,901	120,811	90,047	62,117	42,906
Canada	8,292	1,250	1,980	2,450	2,354
Fresh pears USA	18,152	13,001	9,190	3,677	437
Canada	–	–	145	–	–

Source: Eurostat

Apples and pears are amongst the fruit from non‐European countries that are inspected at import into the EU. There are no records of interception of A. quadrigibbus in the Europhyt database.

At harvest, some infested fruits may remain on the trees and some larvae may continue to develop (Smith et al., 1997), therefore fruit is a potential pathway (Biosecurity Australia, 2009).

Eurostat trade data poorly discriminates between species of plants for planting. Fortunately, the Netherlands NPPO kindly provided EFSA with detailed trade inspection data regarding plants for planting from 2012 to 2014 (Table 6). These data show that a number of host genera of plants for planting were imported from Canada and USA over the period 2012–2014, indicating that potential pathways exist for the entry of A. quadrigibbus.

Table 6.

Imports of Anthonomus quadrigibbus host genera of plants for planting from Canada and USA into the Netherlands 2012–2014

Host genus	Canada			USA
	2012	2013	2014	2012	2013	2014
Amelanchier	✓	✓	✓	–	–	✓
Malus	–	–	–	–	–	✓
Prunus	–	–	–	–	–	✓
Pyrus	–	–	–	–	–	✓

Nevertheless, current measures aimed at the import of plants for planting in a dormant stage with no soil/growing medium/debris attached, decreases the likelihood of A. quadrigibbus being carried with imports of these plants.

3.4.3. Establishment

Is the pest able to become established in the EU territory? (Yes or No)

Yes, host plants are available throughout the EU and host distribution overlaps with suitable climatic regions to support long term survival of A. quadrigibbus within the EU.

3.4.3.1. EU distribution of main host plants

Anthonomus quadrigibbus hosts such as Malus and Pyrus occur widely over the EU growing as commercial crops and in small orchards and home‐gardens (de Rougemont, 1989). Hosts also occur as wild plants (e.g. Crataegus, Prunus, Sorbus). Figure 2 illustrates the agricultural area used to produce dessert apples in the EU. Note that the two NUT 1 areas in northern Italy that are shaded grey, indicating no data were available when the map was produced by EUROSTAT in 2012, are known to be regions with a large amount of apple production, e.g. Trentino Alto‐Adige and Emilia‐Romagna. Appendix 1 details the area of dessert apples and pears grown in individual EU Member States.

Figure 2.

Production area for dessert apples within EU NUTS 1 regions (2012) (Source: Eurostat)

3.4.3.2. Climatic conditions affecting establishment

Anthonomus quadrigibbus is distributed across North America (see Figure 1) within a variety of Köppen–Geiger climate zones. The global Köppen–Geiger climate zones (Kottek et al., 2006) describe terrestrial climate in terms of average minimum winter temperatures and summer maxima, amount of precipitation and seasonality (rainfall pattern). In North America, A. quadrigibbus occurs in a number of zones such as Cfa (warm temperate, fully humid, hot summer) and Cfb (warm temperate, fully humid, warm summer), climate zones that also occur in the EU where Malus, Pyrus and Prunus are grown. We assume that climatic conditions in the EU will not limit the ability of A. quadrigibbus to establish.

Figure 1.

Global distribution of Anthonomus quadrigibbus (EPPO Global Database, Feb. 2017)

3.4.4. Spread

Is the pest able to spread within the EU territory following establishment? (Yes or No) How?

Yes, A. quadrigibbus is a free living organism, adults can walk and will fly in warm conditions. Dispersal is generally localised.

RNQPs: Is spread mainly via specific plants for planting, rather than via natural spread or via movement of plant products or other objects?

Spread would not primarily be via plants for planting. Natural dispersal would be the main mechanism for spread.

Adults are good fliers (Smith et al., 1997). Eggs, larvae and pupae could be carried in infested fruit although most infested fruit drops prematurely. Disposal of fallen fruit could facilitate spread of A. quadrigibbus away from orchards. Where there are recent reports of A. quadrigibbus causing damage in orchards, it is noted that the damage occurs at the edges of orchards, where wild hosts in hedgerows are nearest to commercial production (British Columbia MAF, 2016). This suggests that adults do not disperse widely throughout orchards.

3.5. Impacts

Would the pests’ introduction have an economic or environmental impact on the EU territory?

Yes, the introduction of A. quadrigibbus into EU apple and pear orchards could potentially impact on yield and fruit quality.

RNQPs: Does the presence of the pest on plants for planting have an economic impact, as regards the intended use of those plants for planting? 4

A. quadrigibbus is not normally associated with host plants for planting (i.e. dormant fruit plants), instead it feeds on hosts when actively growing.

In the early 20th century, A. quadrigibbus was considered a major pest that caused serious injury to apple crops with up to 50% of apples in some Canadian orchards being damaged (Campbell et al., 1989). Most of the damage occurred in uncultivated orchards, presumably where wild hosts were also present. However, since the 1940s and 1950s, the significance of the organism has declined, presumably due to the use of pesticides in fruit orchards, with only occasional outbreaks being reported. Nevertheless, A. quadrigibbus still occasionally causes local damage in some parts of North America (Burke, 1976). Steeves et al. (1979) reported A. quadrigibbus as an emerging pest of Amelanchier alnifolia, a native North American shrub of the prairie regions, bearing fruit known as juneberries. The plant has been brought into cultivation and named varieties are commercially available. A Minnesota extension worker, Hahn (2007) described A. quadrigibbus as uncommon and of no general concern in Minnesota. In British Columbia, Canada, A. quadrigibbus is considered an occasional pest of apples grown towards the edges of orchards (British Columbia MAF, 2016).

Adults damage fruit by making small punctures as they feed and oviposit. The damage can cause the fruit to become lumpy and misshapen, damage is worst on young fruit (British Columbia MAF, 2016). Infested fruit that drop early result in a loss in yield (British Columbia MAF, 2016).

Newly developed adults emerging in the summer feed on fruit that is larger and more developed. Feeding damage causes shallow excavations over the surface of the fruit. The feeding area can become brown and shrunken as moisture evaporates through the damaged surface (Ritcher, 1936). Wounds close together on a fruit can result in deadened depressions resulting in low fruit quality, reducing marketability (Hahn, 2007; British Columbia MAF, 2016).

CABI (2017) concludes that A. quadrigibbus is an occasional, sometimes significant, pest in commercial apple, pear and possibly sour cherry orchards.

3.6. Availability and limits of mitigation measures

Are there measures available to prevent the entry into, establishment within or spread of the pest within the EU such that the risk becomes mitigated?

Yes, entry could be inhibited if plants for planting are sourced from pest free areas or checked for pest presence (overwintering adults) in growing media. Existing measures could be applied to all other hosts.

Consignments of fruit that could potentially carry the pest could be inspected.

RNQPs: Are there measures available to prevent pest presence on plants for planting such that the risk becomes mitigated?

A. quadrigibbus does not occur in the EU so RNQP status is not being considered.

3.6.1. Phytosanitary measures

• Existing measures for Cydonia Mill., Crateagus L., Malus Mill., Prunus L. and Pyrus L., could be applied to other hosts (import only when dormant).

3.6.1.1. Biological or technical factors limiting the feasibility and effectiveness of measures to prevent the entry, establishment and spread of the pest

• Eggs, larvae and pupae develop inside fruit where they are protected from contact insecticides and natural enemies.

• If adults overwinter in the soil/growing media around plants for planting, the overwintering adults could be transported with the dormant plants.

3.6.2. Pest control methods

• Alternative (wild) hosts should be removed from around orchards (Maier, 1990).

• Leaf litter and debris should be cleared from beneath trees to reduce overwintering sites (Spencer and Morton, 2017).

• Chemical control would best be applied in the spring against ovipositing adults or during the summer when newly developed adults are feeding.

3.7. Uncertainty

While there are uncertainties around the seriousness of this pest in North America, it does satisfy the criteria that the EFSA Panel on Plant Health has been asked to consider as regards its potential status as a Union quarantine pest.

Literature describing impacts report the damage in apples and list pears and occasionally sour cherries as other commercial crop hosts. There is uncertainty regarding the significance of A. quadrigibbus in pear and sour cherry orchards today.

4. Conclusions

Anthonomus quadrigibbus meets the criteria assessed by the EFSA Plant Health Panel required to satisfy the definition of a Union quarantine pest (Table 7).

Table 7.

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	Panel's conclusions against criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union regulated non‐quarantine pest	Key uncertainties
Identity of the pest (Section 3.1)	The identity of the pest is well established; it can be identified to species using conventional entomological keys.	The identity of the pest is well established; it can be identified to species using conventional entomological keys.	None
Absence/presence of the pest in the EU territory (Section 3.2)	The pest is not known to occur in the EU	The pest is not known to occur in the EU. (A criterion to satisfy the definition of a regulated non‐quarantine pest is that the pest must be present in the risk assessment area)	None
Regulatory status (Section 3.3)	The pest is listed in II AI of 2000/29 EC and is currently regulated on Cydonia, Malus, Prunus and Pyrus from non‐European countries	The pest is listed in II AI of 2000/29 EC and is currently regulated on Cydonia, Malus, Prunus and Pyrus from non‐European countries	None
Pest potential for entry, establishment and spread in the EU territory (Section 3.4)	The pest could potentially enter, establish and spread in the EU. Pathways include larvae and pupae in infested host fruit and overwintering adults in the soil around the roots of dormant plants for planting. Pathways involving unregulated hosts, represent unmanaged risk	If A. quadrigibbus established within the EU, plants for planting would not be the principle mechanism for further spread. As a mobile insect, capable of flight, spread would occur naturally. (A criterion to satisfy the definition of a RNQP is that spread should primarily be via plants for planting – A. quadrigibbus does not meet this criterion)	None
Potential for consequences in the EU territory (section 3.5)	The establishment of the pest in the EU could potentially cause yield and quality losses to apples, pears and perhaps sour cherries	A. quadrigibbus is not normally associated with host plants for planting (i.e. dormant fruit plants), instead it feeds on hosts when actively growing	Literature focusses on impacts on apples although pears and sour cherries are noted as hosts of commercial importance too. There is uncertainty regarding the significance of yield and quality losses in pears and sour cherries
Available measures (Section 3.6)	Phytosanitary measures are available to reduce the likelihood of entry into the EU, e.g. sourcing fruit from pest free areas; sourcing host plants for planting from pest free areas; prohibiting soil from being carried with host plants for planting	Host plants for planting should be imported soil free to minimise the likelihood that overwintering adults are carried with dormant hosts	None
Conclusion on pest categorisation (Section 4)	Anthonomus quadrigibbus satisfies all of the criteria assessed by EFSA PLH Panel to satisfy the definition of a Union quarantine pest	Anthonoimus quadrigibbus does not meet the criteria of (a) occurring in the EU territory, and (b) plants for planting being the principal means of spread. Hence it does not satisfy all of the criteria that are within the remit of EFSA PLHP to assess to be regarded as a Union RNQP	None
Aspects of assessment to focus on/scenarios to address in future if appropriate	Any future assessment should focus on likelihood of entry, either via fruit or plants for planting. Smith et al. (1997) noted that measures already in place to protect against other North American fruit pests would adequately protect against the introduction on A. quadrigibbus

Abbreviations

EPPO

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization

IPPC

International Plant Protection Convention

MS

Member State

PLH

EFSA Panel on Plant Health

RNQP

regulated non‐quarantine pest

TFEU

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

ToR

Terms of Reference

Appendix A – Area of apple and pear orchards in EU Member States 2012–2016

A.1. Dessert apple orchard area (Thousand ha)

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
EU (28 countries)	548.36	558.62	536.75	524.50	538.00
Belgium	7.75	7.14	7.06	7.07	6.87
Bulgaria	4.90	4.62	4.81	3.95	4.77
Czech Republic	9.30	9.37	8.98	8.96	8.31
Denmark	1.56	1.43	1.38	1.38	1.39
Germany	31.76	31.74	31.74	31.74	31.74
Estonia	0.90	0.70	0.90	0.90	0.60
Ireland	0.62	0.62	0.62	0.64	0.64
Greece	13.48	12.47	12.93	12.26	11.85
Spain	31.51	30.79	30.79	30.73	30.72
France	52.80	51.79	50.68	50.17	49.65
Croatia	6.55	5.78	5.80	5.94	5.27
Italy	54.07	54.13	53.01	52.00	52.16
Cyprus	0.84	0.86	0.63	0.61	0.61
Latvia	2.80	2.50	2.80	2.70	2.40
Lithuania	10.11	11.83	11.67	11.27	10.68
Luxembourg	0.24	0.24	0.24	0.24	0.24
Hungary	33.09	32.04	33.36	33.26	32.80
Malta	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Netherlands	8.27	7.95	7.91	7.85	7.60
Austria	6.05	6.05	6.97	6.76	6.62
Poland	183.50	194.70	162.40	163.10	180.40
Portugal	12.54	12.90	13.66	13.85	14.01
Romania	52.72	55.37	60.28	56.13	55.88
Slovenia	2.73	2.70	2.64	2.55	2.47
Slovakia	2.29	2.91	3.65	2.56	2.38
Finland	0.67	0.59	0.59	0.60	0.63
Sweden	1.31	1.41	1.26	1.29	1.33
United Kingdom	16.00	16.00	20.00	16.00	16.00

Source: Eurostat.

A.2. Pear orchard area (Thousand ha)

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
EU (28 countries)	124.66	120.38	117.01	117.59	116.76
Belgium	8.58	8.92	9.08	9.34	9.69
Bulgaria	0.44	0.45	0.34	0.53	0.41
Czech Republic	0.93	0.90	0.88	0.79	0.74
Denmark	0.37	0.35	0.36	0.34	0.30
Germany	1.93	1.93	1.93	1.93	1.93
Estonia	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Ireland	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Greece	4.91	4.80	4.97	4.95	4.08
Spain	25.48	24.24	23.64	22.88	22.55
France	5.54	5.35	5.36	5.37	5.30
Croatia	1.17	0.80	1.04	0.69	0.94
Italy	34.24	31.53	30.15	30.86	32.29
Cyprus	0.10	0.09	0.08	0.07	0.07
Latvia	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20
Lithuania	0.85	0.86	0.90	0.87	0.80
Luxembourg	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02
Hungary	2.79	3.00	2.89	2.88	2.88
Malta	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Netherlands	8.17	8.51	8.60	9.23	9.40
Austria	0.40	0.48	0.44	0.45	0.46
Poland	10.90	9.50	9.20	9.20	7.49
Portugal	11.23	12.01	12.01	12.12	12.11
Romania	3.90	3.91	3.46	2.91	3.15
Slovenia	0.21	0.22	0.21	0.20	0.20
Slovakia	0.16	0.17	0.13	0.11	0.11
Finland	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.04	0.04
Sweden	0.15	0.14	0.13	0.13	0.12
United Kingdom	2.00	2.00	1.00	1.48	1.50

Source: Eurostat (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/refreshTableAction.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=tag00120&language=en).

Suggested citation: EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health) , Jeger M, Bragard C, Caffier D, Candresse T, Chatzivassiliou E, Dehnen‐Schmutz K, Gilioli G, Grégoire J‐C, Jaques Miret JA, Navarro MN, Niere B, Parnell S, Potting R, Rafoss T, Rossi V, Urek G, Van Bruggen A, Van der Werf W, West J, Winter S, Gardi C and MacLeod A, 2018. Scientific Opinion on the pest categorisation of Anthonomus quadrigibbus . EFSA Journal 2018;16(4):5245, 24 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5245