Pest categorisation of Haplaxius crudus

Abstract

The EFSA Panel on Plant Health performed a pest categorisation of the planthopper Haplaxius crudus (Hemiptera: Cixiidae) for the EU. This species occurs from south‐eastern USA to Northern Brazil and on many Caribbean islands. Adults oviposit on grasses, mostly Poaceae and Cyperaceae in the vicinity of palms (Arecaceae). The pest can also be found on plants of the families Arecaceae, Heliconiaceae, Pandanaceae and Verbenaceae. Preimaginal development takes place on the roots of grasses, where nymphs feed. Upon emergence, adults move to palms for feeding and return to grasses for oviposition. H. crudus is regulated in Annex IIA of Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/2072 as Myndus crudus, a junior synonym. This species is a competent vector of Candidatus Phytoplasma palmae, the causal agent of coconut lethal yellowing, a disease also regulated in Annex IIA of the same regulation. Within this regulation, potential entry pathways for H. crudus, such as Arecaceae and Poaceae plants for planting with foliage and soil/growing medium, and soil/growing media by themselves can be considered as closed. However, plants for planting of the families Cyperaceae, Heliconiaceae, Pandanaceae and Verbenaceae are not specifically regulated. Should H. crudus arrive in the EU, climatic conditions and availability of susceptible hosts in a small area in southern EU (e.g. eastern Cyprus and south‐western Spain) may provide conditions for limited establishment, and further spread to neighbouring areas in the Mediterranean basin during summer months. Economic impact is anticipated only if Candidatus Phytoplasma palmae is also introduced into the EU. Phytosanitary measures are available to reduce the likelihood of entry. H. crudus satisfies the criteria that are within the remit of EFSA to assess for this species to be regarded as a potential Union quarantine pest. This species does not meet the criteria of being present in the EU and plants for planting being the main pathway for spread for it to be regarded as a potential non‐quarantine pest.

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 established the previous European Union plant health regime. The Directive laid 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 was prohibited, was 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 applied 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 categorisations 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 pest 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	Rhizoecus hibisci Kawai and Takagi
Popillia japonica Newman
(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

Myndus crudus Van Duzee is one of a number of pests listed in the Appendices to the Terms of Reference (ToR) 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.

Following the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/20314 on 14 December 2019 and the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 for the listing of EU regulated pests, the Plant Health Panel interpreted the original request (ToR in Section 1.1.2) as a request to provide pest categorisations for the pests in the Annexes of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/20725.

A taxonomic revision now considers Myndus crudus Van Duzee, 1907 a junior synonym of Haplaxius crudus (Bourgoin, 2019), which is the current preferred scientific name. Therefore, in this categorisation the insect under scrutiny will be referred to as Haplaxius crudus (Van Duzee).

2. Data and methodologies

2.1. Data

2.1.1. Literature search

A literature search on H. crudus was conducted at the beginning of the categorisation in the ISI Web of Science bibliographic database, using the scientific name of the pest as search term. 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 Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) Global Database (EPPO, 2020) 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 Haplaxius crudus following guiding principles and steps presented in the EFSA guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel, 2018) and in the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures No 11 (FAO, 2013) and No 21 (FAO, 2004).

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 RNQP. (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 RNQP 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.

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

3.1.1.1.

Is the identity of the pest established, or has it been shown to produce consistent symptoms and to be transmissible?

Yes, the identity of the pest is well established.

Haplaxius crudus (Van Duzee, 1907) (Hemiptera: Fulguromorpha: Cixiidae) is a planthopper originally described by Van Duzee in 1907 as Myndus crudus from specimens collected in Jamaica in 1906 (Bourgoin, 2019). In 1946, Caldwell designated the North American species within the genus Myndus as members of the genus Haplaxius Fowler, 1904, thus creating the binomial Haplaxius crudus, which remains the preferred name for this cixiid (Tsai, 2005). As well as Myndus crudus Van Duzee, 1907, other junior synonyms include Haplaxius cocois (Fennah, 1945); Haplaxius pallidus Caldwell, 1946; Paramyndus cocois Fennah, 1945, and Paramyndus crudus Van Duzee, 1907; (University of Delaware, 2020). The EPPO code6 (Griessinger and Roy, 2015; EPPO, 2019) for this species is MYNDCR (EPPO, 2020). It is also known as the American palm cixiid and the pallid cane leafhopper.

3.1.2. Biology of the pest

The planthopper H. crudus (Figure 1) is most probably native to the American tropics and its relevance is directly related to its role as competent vector of Candidatus Phytoplasma palmae, the causal agent of the coconut lethal yellowing (EFSA PLH Panel, 2017). The immature stages are subterranean and occur in the field in the thatch layer and on the roots of different grasses (mostly Poacaeae and Cyperaceae, see Appendix A) in both cultivated and natural habitats. Mature adults fly to palms to feed and mate and return to the grasses for oviposition (CABI, 2020). Eggs (whitish; 0.54 × 0.17 mm) are laid singly or in rows of up to five on the lower fronds of grasses, near to the root collar or on moist soil adjacent to roots or grass stolons (Reinert, 1977). After hatching, the nymphs move down to the soil surface and develop in the root zone of grasses, often beneath small clumps of leaf litter and other organic matter at soil depths of 3 cm (Howard and Gallo, 2019). Moist sites and longer grasses are preferred over drier sites and short‐cut grasses (Howard and Gallo, 2019). Organic mulching also encourages nymph development (Howard and Gallo, 2019). Nymphs (5 instars) secrete a cottony wax material from their abdominal glands producing a sort of nest (1 cm in diameter), where they live in groups of 10–20 specimens protected from moisture, disease and predation. If disturbed, nymphs can jump approximately 5–10 cm (Tsai and Kirsch, 1978; Howard and Gallo, 2019).

Figure 1.

Adult Haplaxius crudus. (J.D. de Filippis, University of Florida, Bugwood.org)

Mature adults, which are active at night and during the day, remain at the bases of the host grasses for a few hours before flying to palm foliage to feed from the phloem with their piercing‐sucking mouthparts (Kramer, 1979; Howard and Gallo, 2019). Mating also occurs on palm foliage. After mating, they return to grasses, where further mating may take place and where females oviposit. H. crudus reproduces throughout the year and the annual number of generations depends on temperature (Smith et al., 1997). Parthenogenic reproduction has not been observed (Tsai and Kirsch, 1978).

H. crudus is a warmth loving insect. Tsai and Kirsch (1978) examined development of H. crudus on the grass Stenotaphrum secundatum at 15, 24 and 30°C. Nymphs reared at 15°C failed to moult to adults. At 24°C, the mean time taken from oviposition to adult was 80.8 days whilst at 30°C complete development took 52.6 days. At 24°C, adults live for approximately 7 or 8 days. Adult longevity was much longer on Arecaceae, with up to 50 days in Christmas palm (Veitchia merrillii) and 37 days on coconut palm (Cocos nucifera) (Tsai and Kirsch, 1978).

3.1.3. Intraspecific diversity

There is no evidence of intraspecific diversity within H. crudus.

3.1.4. Detection and identification of the pest

3.1.4.1.

Are detection and identification methods available for the pest?

Yes, detection and identification methods to species level for H. crudus exist

Detection

According to CABI (2020), H. crudus does not appear to cause visible damage to its host plants in the adult or nymphal stage, which could facilitate the location of their feeding and breeding places. Since no pheromones have been discovered for this species, different monitoring systems have been used. These include the use of adhesive applied to palm fronds, sweep net sampling, and sticky traps (CABI, 2020).

Identification

According to Redford et al. (2010), as H. crudus is the only species within the Cixiidae family occurring on palm foliage in Florida and the Caribbean, the typical features of this family support the identification of this planthopper. These include the occurrence of a barrel‐like basal segment (scape) bearing a seta‐like flagellum on the antennae, clusters of tibial spines, and three parallel elevated ridges (carinae) along the prothorax.

According to CABI (2020), the head and thorax of the adults vary in colour from straw‐coloured to pale‐brown, the forewings are hyaline with pale or light‐brown veins. Abdomen is pale green (Figure 1). Adults measure 4.2–5.1 mm long, with females tending to be larger than males. Characters of the male genitalia are essential for species‐specific identification (Kramer, 1979).

The egg and pre‐imaginal stages of H. crudus have been described by Wilson and Tsai (1982), who provide a key to the five nymphal stages. Kramer (1979) provides a key to males of species of Haplaxius occurring in the USA, Mexico and the Neotropics.

Nymphs of H. crudus are tan to grey in colour, with a reddish blush on the front of the head and rostrum. The legs are also reddish, grading to bright red distally. The foretibia are flattened. Nymphs produce wax threads, which coat their excrement and isolates the nymphs from them (Wilson and Tsai, 1982; Howard, 1987; Howard and Gallo, 2019). The eyes of the nymphs are maroon and do not change colour with light intensity (Howard and Gallo, 2019).

3.2. Pest distribution

3.2.1. Pest distribution outside the EU

H. crudus is native to the Caribbean and south Florida, throughout Central America and into northern South America (Bartlett et al., 2014). Hill et al. (2018) reported H. crudus from Ocean Springs, coastal Mississippi, where the climate is humid and sub‐tropical. Howard and Wilson (2001) suggested that reports of small, transient, populations in southern Texas (Lower Rio Grande Valley) are seasonal migrants from more southerly areas (i.e. Mexico). The current known distribution of H. crudus is shown in Figure 2 and in Table 2.

Figure 2.

Global distribution map for Haplaxius crudus (extracted from the EPPO Global Database accessed on 6/7/2020)

Table 2.

Distribution of Haplaxius crudus (Source: EPPO Global Database, 2020, other sources are indicated in the table

Continent	Country	Sub‐national area e.g. State	Status
America	Bahamas		Present (CABI 2020)
	Belize		Present (CABI 2020)
	Brazil		Present, restricted distribution
		Pará	Present, no details (da Silva et al., 2019)
	Cayman Islands		Present, no details (University of Delaware, 2020)
	Colombia
	Costa Rica		Present (CABI 2020)
	Cuba		Present, widespread (CABI 2020)
	Dominican Republic		Present, no details
	Haiti		Present (CABI 2020)
	Honduras		Present, no details
	Jamaica		Present, widespread (CABI 2020)
	Mexico		Present, no details (University of Delaware)
		Baja California Sur, Morelos, Quintana Roo, Veracruz, Yucatán	Present (Kramer, 1979; Howard et al., 1984; Pérez‐Hernández et al., 2004)
	Panama		CABI (2020)
	Puerto Rico		CABI (2020)
	Trinidad and Tobago		Present, no details
	United States of America	Florida, Mississippi, Texas,	Present, restricted distribution
			Present, no details
	Venezuela		Kramer (1979)

3.2.2. Pest distribution in the EU

3.2.2.1.

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

No, H. crudus is not known to occur in the EU.

H. crudus is not known to occur in the EU. The NPPO of the Netherlands confirmed to EPPO in April 2018 that H. crudus was absent from its territory on the basis of surveys for harmful pests. Slovenia (July 2017) declared to EPPO that H. crudus was absent from its territory on the basis that there are no records of it in the country (EPPO, 2020).

3.3. Regulatory status

3.3.1. Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/2072

H. crudus is listed in Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/2072 as Myndus crudus. Details are presented in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3.

Haplaxius (Myndus) crudus in Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/2072

Annex II	List of Union quarantine pests and their respective codes
Part A	Pests not known to occur in the Union territory
	Quarantine Pests and their codes assigned by EPPO
C	Insects and mites
41.	Myndus crudus Van Duzee [MYNDCR]

Table 4.

Regulated hosts and commodities that may involve Haplaxius (Myndus) crudus in Annexes of Commission Implementing Regulation 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
14.	Plants for planting of the family Poaceae, other than plants of ornamental perennial grasses of the subfamilies Bambusoideae and Panicoideae and of the genera Buchloe, Bouteloua Lag., Calamagrostis, Cortaderia Stapf., Glyceria R. Br., Hakonechloa Mak. ex Honda, Hystrix, Molinia, Phalaris L., Shibataea, Spartina Schreb., Stipa L. and Uniola L., other than seeds	ex 0602 90 50 ex 0602 90 91 ex 0602 90 99	Third countries other than: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canary Islands, Egypt, Faeroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, 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, Turkey and Ukraine
Annex VII	List of plants, plant products and other objects, originating from third countries and the corresponding special requirements for their introduction into the Union territory
	Plants, plant products and other objects	CN code	Origin	Special requirements
6.	Plants for planting, of the family Poaceae of ornamental perennial grasses of the subfamilies Bambusoideae, Panicoideae and of the genera Buchloe Lag., Bouteloua Lag., Calamagrostis Adan., Cortaderia Stapf, Glyceria R. Br., Hakonechloa Mak. ex Honda, Hystrix L., Molinia Schnrak, Phalaris L., Shibataea Mak. Ex Nakai, Spartina Schreb., Stipa L. and Uniola L., other than seeds	ex 0602 90 50 ex 0602 90 91 ex 0602 90 99	Third countries other than Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canary Islands, Egypt, Faeroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, 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, Turkey, and Ukraine	Official statement that the plants: (a) have been grown in nurseries; (b) are free from plants debris, flowers and fruits; (c) have been inspected and prior to export; (d) are found to be free from symptoms of harmful bacteria, viruses and virus‐ like organisms; and (e) are found to be free from signs or symptoms of harmful nematodes, insects, mites and fungi, or have been subjected to appropriate treatment to eliminate such organisms. EN L 319/98 Official Journal of the European Union 10.12.2019
Annex VII	List of plants, plant products and other objects, originating from third countries and the corresponding special requirements for their introduction into the Union territory
	Plants, plant products and other objects	CN codes	Origin	Special requirement
55.	Plants for planting of Palmae other than 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 47 ex 0602 90 48 ex 0602 90 50 ex 0602 90 70 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, Turkey and Ukraine	Official statement that: (a) either the plants originate in an area known to be free from Palm lethal yellowing phytoplasmas and Coconut cadang‐cadang viroid, and no symptoms have been observed at the place of production or in its immediate vicinity since the beginning of the last complete cycle of vegetation, or (b) no symptoms of Palm lethal yellowing phytoplasmas and Coconut cadang‐cadang viroid have been observed on the plants since the beginning of the last complete cycle of vegetation, and plants at the place of production which have shown symptoms giving rise to the suspicion of contamination by the pests have been rogued out at that place and the plants have undergone appropriate treatment to rid them of Myndus crudus Van Duzee, EN L 319/130 Official Journal of the European Union 10.12.2019

3.3.2. Legislation addressing the hosts of Haplaxius crudus

Based on Annex VI, 14, the following subfamilies of Poaceae are prohibited from third countries which include countries where H. crudus occurs: Anomochlooideae, Aristidoideae, Arundinoideae, Chloridoideae, Danthonioideae, Micrairoideae, Oryzoideae (=Ehrhartoideae), Pharoideae, Pooideae, Puelioideae.

Ornamental perennial grasses in Bambusoideae and Panicoideae are permitted from third countries given they comply with conditions in Annex VII, 6.

Additionaly, Palmae hosts are regulated for another pest species, the red palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), and are listed in:

• Annex IV, Part D, RNQPs concerning propagating material of ornamental plants and other plants for planting intended for ornamental purposes

• Annex V, Part C, Measures to prevent the presence of RNQPs on propagating material of ornamental plants and plants for planting intended for ornamental purposes

• Annex X, List of plants, plant products and other objects, whose introduction into, or moved within protected zones and corresponding special requirements for protected zones

• Annex XIV, List of plants, plant products and other objects for which a plant passport with the designation ʽPZ’ is required for introduction into, and movement within certain protected zones.

3.3.3. Legislation addressing the organisms vectored by Haplaxius crudus (Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/2072)

H. crudus is known to vector Coconut lethal yellowing phytoplasma (EPPO code PHYP56) (EFSA PLH Panel, 2017). Additionally, H. crudus has been referred to as a potential vector of the unidentified phytoplasma causing Texas phoenix palm disease/decline also referred to as lethal bronzing (no EPPO code) (Harrison et al., 2009; Halbert et al., 2018); and the virus causing coconut foliar decay (EPPO code CFDV00) (CABI, 2020). However, there is no strong evidence supporting this.

From these diseases, the coconut lethal yellowing phytoplasma is listed in Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/2072. Details are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Legislation in Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/2072 addressing the organisms vectored by Haplaxius crudus

Annex II	List of Union quarantine pests and their respective codes
Part A	Pests not known to occur in the Union territory
	Quarantine Pests and their codes assigned by EPPO
F.	Viruses, viroids and phytoplasmas
	Palm lethal yellowing phytoplasma [PHYP56]

3.4. Entry, establishment and spread in the EU

3.4.1. Host range

True hosts, i.e. those on which H. crudus can complete its life cycle (see Appendix A), are mostly grasses, either wild or cultivated as turf or forage, mostly in the family Poaceae (81.8%), but also in Cyperaceae (7.4%) and Verbenaceae (3.7%). Adults may additionally feed on other plants (feeding hosts), mostly Arecaceae (93.3%) grown in association with those grasses. Adults have been also observed on dicotyledonous shrubs but such cases are rare and they may correspond to vagrants from nearby palms (CABI 2020). Consequently, present regulations are not comprehensive of the host range of H. crudus, as plants for planting of the families Cyperaceae, Heliconiaceae, Pandanaceae, and Verbenaceae other than seeds from third countries (where H. crudus occurs) are not specifically regulated.

3.4.2. Entry

3.4.2.1.

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

Yes, H. crudus could enter into the EU. The main pathways would be plants for planting of the families Arecaceae, Heliconiaceae, Pandanaceae, Poaceae and Cyperaceae, as well as Verbenaceae (excluding true seeds) and soil imported from countries where H. crudus occurs. These pathways can be considered as partially closed with current regulations in place.

According to EPPO (2020), H. crudus is less likely to be carried by palms and palm‐like species (i.e. Pandanaceae), which are the adult feeding hosts and which are infested by mobile adults only. Adults would be expected to hop off such plants when disturbed by moving the plants. H. crudus is more likely to move in international trade as nymphs on roots of breeding hosts (i.e. grasses) or in the soil accompanying palm plants for planting.

A search of Europhyt interceptions database did not reveal any interception of H. crudus (accessed 14 May 2020). Adults of this planthopper, though, have been intercepted twice at USA ports of entry on cut flowers, once from Australia and another time from Costa Rica (CABI, 2020). There is some uncertainty regarding the interception reported to be from Australia because neither EPPO (2020) nor CABI (2020) list Australia as a country where H. crudus occurs.

Potential entry pathways are shown in Table 6.

Table 6.

Potential pathways for Haplaxius crudus and existing mitigations (if any)

Pathways	Life stage	Relevant mitigations [e.g. prohibitions (Annex VI) or special requirements (Annex VII) within Implementing Regulation 2019/2072]
Plants for planting with foliage and growing medium	Eggs and nymphs on roots/soil Adults on foliage	Annex VI (14). Bans the introduction of plants for planting of the family Poaceae from third countries (with some exceptions, see Table 4). Annex VII (6). Requires official statement that Poaceae plants for planting excluded in Annex VI (14.) (a) have been grown in nurseries (…) and (e) are found to be free from signs or symptoms of harmful (…) insects (…) or have been subjected to appropriate treatment to eliminate such organisms. Annex VII (55.) Requires official statement that plants for planting of the family Arecaceae from third countries (with some exceptions but including all countries where H. crudus occurs, see Table 4): (a) either the plants originate in an area known to be free from Palm lethal yellowing phytoplasmas (…) and no symptoms have been observed at the place of production or in its immediate vicinity since the beginning of the last complete cycle of vegetation, or (b) (…) plants have undergone appropriate treatment to rid them of Haplaxius crudus. Annex VII (1.). The growing medium attached to or associated with plants, intended to sustain the vitality of the host plants are mostly covered by the CN codes listed in Annex VII of Regulation 2019/2072 and require a general freedom from symptoms of quarantine pests.
Soil & growing media	Immature stages	Annex VI (19. and 20.) bans the introduction of soil and growing media as such into the Union from third countries other than Switzerland
Soil on machinery	Immature stages	Annex VII (2.) Official statement that machinery or vehicles are cleaned and free from soil and plant debris.

The plants for planting with foliage and growing medium pathway can be considered as partially closed because plants for planting of Poaceae and Arecaceae from countries where H. crudus occurs are either prohibited (Annex VI) or subjected to official statement ensuring freedom from this planthopper (Annex VII). Although plants for planting with foliage and growing medium of the families Cyperaceae, Heliconiaceae, Pandanaceae and Verbenaceae require a phytosanitary certificate and, therefore, should be free from quarantine pests, they are not specifically regulated in relation to H. crudus.

The soil/growing media pathway can be considered as closed because soil can only enter the EU from Switzerland (Annex VI). H. crudus is not known to occur in Switzerland.

Live plants from the countries where the pest occurs are imported into the EU. However, the exact identity of these plants cannot be ascertained using specific CN codes (see Appendix B). In the EFSA Scientific Opinion on pest categorisation of Palm lethal yellowing phytoplasmas (EFSA PLH Panel, 2017), where the main pathway for entry identified was palm plants for planting, imports of coconut plants from the Caribbean between 2000 and 2011 was documented.

3.4.3. Establishment

3.4.3.1.

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

Yes, a relatively very small area of the EU might provide suitable conditions for establishment of H. crudus, which is primarily a tropical and semi‐tropical pest. Some host palms and grasses are widely available in the southern EU. However, establishment will be confined to areas that do not suffer frosts and which accumulate sufficient thermal energy to facilitate continuous development. Parts of Cyprus and Andalusia have been identified as areas where biotic and abiotic conditions may enable establishment.

3.4.3.2. EU distribution of main host plants

In many places in southern Europe around the Mediterranean, palms (Arecaceae) are an essential component of the urban landscape. They are planted in large numbers along streets, in public parks, hotel grounds and private gardens providing important ecosystem services (MacLeod and Hussein, 2017). When describing the relative abundance of palms in the EuroMed region Rochat et al. (2014) categorised palms into three groups:

• Group 1 are species that are highly abundant and widespread in the EuroMed area,

• Group 2 are species that are widespread and locally abundant, but the total number are much less than species of group 1,

• Group 3 are rare species compared to those in Groups 1 or 2; they are scattered in the environment within the EuroMed.

Table 7 places H. crudus palm hosts into the groups described by Rochat et al. (2014) and lists those palm hosts that are absent outdoors or only grow indoors/within protection in Europe.

Table 7.

Relative abundance of Haplaxius crudus palm hosts in the Euro‐Med area

Group	Relative abundance	Host
1	Very abundant & widely distributed	Phoenix canariensis
		Phoenix dactylifera
2	Locally abundant	Trachycarpus fortunei
		Washingtonia robusta
3	Rare	Sabal palmetto
–	Absent outdoors (indoor/protected ornamental)	Pritchardia pacifica
		Adonidia (=Veitchia) merrillii
		Dypsis lutescens
		Pritchardia thurstonii
–	Absent	Cocos nucifera
		Roystonea regia

According to EFSA PLH Panel (2017), the only native palm species that grow on the European mainland are the European fan palm (Chamaerops humilis, with a distribution mainly in coastal areas of the western half of the Mediterranean basin) and the Cretan date palm (Phoenix theophrasti, endemic to Crete (Greece) and a few east Aegean islands) (Vamvoukakis, 1988). Many other palm species, including among others C. humilis, the Canary Islands date palm (Phoenix canariensis) the date palm (Phoenix dactylifera), Trachycarpus fortunei, Washingtonia filifera, and W. robusta, are widely used as ornamentals for landscaping in southern Europe (Cohen, 2017). Some of these species are also grown in the EU under protected cultivation conditions for ornamental purposes. Spain produces about 2 million palm trees annually with P. canariensis (1.2 million plants) being the predominant species, followed by other species such as P. dactylifera, Phoenix reclinata, W. filifera, W. robusta, C. humilis and T. fortunei (Armengol et al., 2005). There is also a significant ornamental palm production in nurseries in the Marche region of Italy (Nardi et al., 2009).

3.4.3.3. Climatic conditions affecting establishment

Smith et al. (1997) are not sure that H. crudus would survive in southern Europe. 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 et al., 2000). As noted in Section 3.1.2 above, H. crudus is a warmth loving insect. H. crudus is not cold hardy, and nymphs reared at 15°C failed to develop into adults (Tsai and Kirsch, 1978). In Brazil, Bastos et al. (2019) reported that the abundance of H. crudus was positively correlated with temperature between 25 and 28°C and negatively correlated with rainfall. The pest was most abundant in months when monthly rainfall was below 200 mm and average monthly temperatures were above 25°C. Kramer (1979) reports that in the Americas the northern limit of H. crudus is determined by the distribution of its tropical palm hosts. Given that no life stages undergo a winter diapause H. crudus is limited to areas with mild winters (Purcell, 1985). Together, these factors suggest that maps showing the number of frost days per year and accumulated temperature could be examined when considering whether H. crudus could establish in the EU. Figure 3 shows the mean number of frost days per year in North America and indicates three locations in the USA where H. crudus may be at the margin of its distribution. In Florida H. crudus is reported as far north as Gainesville (Halbert et al., 2014) (marked A in Figure 3). H. crudus is also reported from Ocean Springs, Jackson County, Mississippi (Hill et al., 2018) (B in Figure 3) and the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas (Meyerdirk and Hart (1982)) (C in Figure 3). These locations have up to 10 days of frost per year and have over 3,000 accumulated degree days above a threshold of 10°C (Baker et al., 2000) (Figure 4).

Figure 3.

Mean annual number of frost days in North America and the northern Caribbean (1988–2017). Map created from data for the 30‐year period 1988–2017, sourced from the Climatic Research Unit high resolution gridded data set CRU TS v. 4.03 at 0.5° resolution (https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/hrg/)

Figure 4.

Accumulated degree days above 10°C in North America (from Baker, 2002; part of the original figure)

Regions of Europe with up to 10 days of frost per year are shown in Figure 5. Figure 6 shows accumulated degree days above a threshold of 10°C. Parts of Cyprus and south‐western Spain, in the Autonomous Community of Andalusia, around the Guadalquivir River south of Seville, accumulate over 3000 degree‐days annually. Where host grasses and palms coincide with these areas, establishment of H. crudus may be possible.

Figure 5.

Areas of Europe with up to 10 frost days per year. Map created from data for the 30‐year period 1988–2017, sourced from the Climatic Research Unit high resolution gridded data set CRU TS v. 4.03 at 0.5° resolution (https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/hrg/)

Figure 6.

Accumulated degree days above threshold of 10°C (from Baker, 2002; part of the original figure) (Same colour scale as Figure 3)

3.4.4. Spread

3.4.4.1.

Is the pest able to spread within the EU territory following establishment?

Yes, H. crudus could spread within the EU following establishment. Adults can fly and immature stages could be inadvertently moved with plants for planting.

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

Both natural spread (i.e. flying adults) and human‐assisted dispersal (i.e. immature stages attached to the roots of the host plant) could contribute to the spread of this planthopper. Therefore, the latter cannot be considered as the main pathway for spread.

According to CABI (2020), adults, either actively flying or passively carried by wind currents, can disperse. In addition, human‐assisted dispersal of infested plants for planting (i.e. immature stages on roots/in soil) could also contribute to the spread of this insect. CABI (2020) notes that H. crudus not only prefers tropical climates but also tolerates Cs climates (Mediterranean climates as in Köppen–Geiger system (Kottek et al., 2006)). Therefore, it is possible that in summer H. crudus could spread from areas where it is established all year round to other areas where Cs climates occur.

3.5. Impacts

3.5.1.

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

Yes, should the causal agent of the coconut lethal yellowing be introduced into the EU, the introduction of H. crudus would most probably have an economic and an environmental impact on the EU territory.

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? ⁷

Yes, should the causal agent of the coconut lethal yellowing be introduced into the EU, the presence of H. crudus on plants for planting would most likely have an economic impact on their intended use.

H. crudus does not cause visible damage to its host plants (Tsai and Kirsch, 1978; Smith et al., 1997). However, it is a vector of lethal yellowing diseases in palms. H. crudus is the confirmed primary vector of the 16SrIV‐A ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma palmae’ strain, which causes coconut lethal yellowing in coconut palms in Florida (EFSA PLH Panel, 2017; Howard and Gallo, 2019). The phytoplasma is transmitted in a persistent (circulative‐propagative) manner. Additionally, H. crudus has been referred to as a potential vector of the causal agents of Texas phoenix palm disease and coconut foliar decay (CABI, 2020). However, there is no strong evidence supporting this.

Palm lethal yellowing phytoplasmas are a serious economic threat for coconut cultivation. A number of other palm species are susceptible to lethal yellowing but the pathogen does not seem to be widespread or severe in these other palm species. For some species grown in the EU, such as the date palm (P. dactylifera) and the Canary Island date palm (P. canariensis), susceptibility has been observed and some symptoms and damage could be expected should the pathogen be introduced. Information is lacking for other species, in particular the two EU native palms (Chamaerops humilis and Phoenix theophrasti). The Palm lethal yellowing phytoplasmas could potentially have severe economic and environmental impacts in a limited area of the EU, but this judgement is highly uncertain (see pest categorisation for lethal yellowing EFSA PLH Panel, 2017).

3.6. Availability and limits of mitigation measures

3.6.1.

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 , the existing measures (see Section 3.3) can mitigate the risk of entry. The pathways identified (plants for planting excluding seeds of the families Arecaceae, Cyperaceae, Heliconiaceae, Verbenaceae and Poaceae, and soil; see Section 3.4.2) are partially regulated and can be considered as partly closed (i.e. Arecaceae and Poaceae). However, plants for planting excluding seeds the families Cyperaceae, Heliconiaceae, Pandanaceae and Verbenaceae are not specifically regulated.

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

Yes, sourcing of plants from PFA would reduce the risk of the pest being present on plants for planting.

3.6.2. Identification of additional measures

Phytosanitary measures are currently applied to plants for planting and soil (see Section 3.3). Therefore, the entry pathways can be considered as partially closed (i.e. soil and Poaceae and Arecaceae plants for planting). Extending these measures to plants for planting of the families Cyperaceae, Heliconiaceae, Pandanaceae and Verbenaceae would further reduce the risk of entry of H. crudus into the EU.

3.6.2.1. Additional control measures

A number of hosts are currently prohibited for import (see Table 4). The prohibition could be extended to all hosts (e.g. plants for planting with foliage and soil/growing medium of the families Cyperaceae, Heliconiaceae, Pandanaceae and Verbenaceae) from countries where H. crudus occurs (i.e. extension of regulations in Annex VI. 14). If prohibition is not going to be extended, then potential additional control measures are listed in Table 8.

Table 8.

Selected control measures (a full list is available in EFSA PLH Panel et al., 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

Information sheet title (with hyperlink to information sheet if available)	Control measure summary	Risk component (entry/establishment/spread/impact)
Heat and cold treatments	As a tropical pest it is expected that H. crudus would be sensitive to cold treatment. Controlled temperature treatments aimed to kill or inactivate pests without causing any unacceptable prejudice to the treated material itself. The measures addressed in this information sheet are: autoclaving; steam; hot water; hot air; cold treatment	Entry, spread
Controlled atmosphere	Treatment of plants by storage in a modified atmosphere (including modified humidity, O2, CO2, temperature, pressure).	Entry, spread
Chemical treatments on consignments or during processing	Use of chemical compounds that may be applied to plants or to plant products after harvest, during process or packaging operations and storage. The treatments addressed in this information sheet are: a) fumigation; b) spraying/dipping pesticides; c) surface disinfectants; d) process additives; e) protective compounds	Entry, spread

3.6.2.2. Additional supporting measures

Potential additional supporting measures are listed in Table 9.

Table 9.

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

Information sheet title (with hyperlink to information sheet if available)	Supporting measure summary	Risk component (entry/establishment/spread/impact)
Phytosanitary certificate and plant passport	Extension of the official statement required for Arecaceae in Annex VII.55 (I.e. plants for planting have undergone appropriate treatment to rid them of Haplaxius crudus) to the families Cyperaceae, Heliconiaceae, Pandanaceae and Verbenaceae.	Entry

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

• Immature stages can remain hidden on the roots of/in the soil attached to host plants, hampering their detection by external visual inspection.

• Adults could be present as hitchhikers on non‐host plants.

• Adults can actively fly.

3.6.2.4. Biological or technical factors limiting the ability to prevent the presence of the pest on plants for planting

• Immature stages can remain hidden on the roots of/in the soil attached to host plants, hampering their detection by external visual inspection.

3.7. Uncertainty

There are no uncertainties affecting the conclusions of this categorisation. However, it should be taken into account that establishment, if possible at all, is likely only in small areas of the southern EU.

4. Conclusions

H. crudus satisfies the criteria that are within the remit of EFSA to assess for this species to be regarded as a potential Union quarantine pest. This species does not meet the criteria of being present in the EU and plants for planting being the main pathway for spread for it to be regarded as a potential non‐quarantine pest. Pest categorisation conclusions are presented in Table 10.

Table 10.

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 pests (Section  3.1 )	The identity of H. crudus is established	The identity of H. crudus is established
Absence/presence of the pest in the EU territory (Section  3.2 )	H. crudus is not known to occur in the EU territory	H. crudus is not known to occur in the EU territory. Therefore, it doesn't meet the criterion of being present in the EU to qualify for RNQP is not met
Regulatory status (Section  3.3 )	H. crudus is not known to occur in the EU	H. crudus is currently regulated as a quarantine pest. There are no grounds to consider the revoking of this status
Pest potential for entry, establishment and spread in the EU territory (Section  3.4 )	H. crudus could enter into, establish in, and spread within the EU territory.Main pathways are: plants for planting of the families Arecaceae, Cyperaceae, Heliconiaceae, Poaceae, and,Pandanaceae with growing medium, and Soil and growing medium as such or attached to machinery These pathways can be considered as partially closed by present legislation, as plants for planting of the families Cyperaceae, Heliconiaceae, Pandanaceae and Verbenaceae other than seeds are not specifically regulated for import into the EU	H. crudus could spread within the EU territory. Adults can fly and nymphs could spread with plants for planting. The latter, though, cannot be considered as the main pathway	Establishment of H. crudus in the EU is uncertain and would be most likely restricted to small areas in southern EU
Potential for consequences in the EU territory (Section  3.5 )	Should the causal agent of the coconut lethal yellowing be introduced into the EU, the introduction of H. crudus into the EU territory would most likely have an economic and/or environmental impact	Should the causal agent of the coconut lethal yellowing be introduced into the EU, the presence of H. crudus on plants for planting would most likely have an economic impact on their intended use
Available measures (Section  3.6 )	There are measures to prevent the entry, establishment and spread of H. crudus within the EU territory, like sourcing plants for planting from PFA	There are measures to prevent the presence of H. crudus in plants for planting, like sourcing plants for planting from PFA
Conclusion on pest categorisation (Section  4 )	H. crudus fulfils all criteria assessed by EFSA above for consideration as a quarantine pest	Neither the criterion of plants for planting being the main means of spread for consideration as a RNQP, nor that of the pest being present in the EU territory are met. Therefore, H. crudus does not fulfil the criteria for consideration as a potential RNQP
Aspects of assessment to focus on/scenarios to address in future if appropriate

Abbreviations

DG SANTÉ

Directorate General for Health and Food Safety

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

PZ

Protected Zone

RNQP

regulated non‐quarantine pest

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, 1995, 2017)

Control (of a pest)

Suppression, containment or eradication of a pest population (FAO, 1995, 2017)

Entry (of a pest)

Movement of a pest into an area where it is not yet present, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled (FAO, 2017)

Eradication (of a pest)

Application of phytosanitary measures to eliminate a pest from an area (FAO, 2017)

Establishment (of a pest)

Perpetuation, for the foreseeable future, of a pest within an area after entry (FAO, 2017)

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.

Impact (of a pest)

The impact of the pest on the crop output and quality and on the environment in the occupied spatial units

Introduction (of a pest)

The entry of a pest resulting in its establishment (FAO, 2017)

Measures

Control (of a pest) is defined in ISPM 5 (FAO 2017) as “Suppression, containment or eradication of a pest population” (FAO, 1995).
Control measures are measures that have a direct effect on pest abundance.
Supporting measures are organisational measures or procedures supporting the choice of appropriate Risk Reduction Options that do not directly affect pest abundance.

Pathway

Any means that allows the entry or spread of a pest (FAO, 2017)

Phytosanitary measures

Any legislation, regulation or official procedure having the purpose to prevent the introduction or spread of quarantine pests, or to limit the economic impact of regulated non‐quarantine pests (FAO, 2017)

Protected zones (PZ)

A Protected zone is an area recognised at EU level to be free from a harmful organism, which is established in one or more other parts of the Union.

Quarantine pest

A pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled (FAO, 2017)

Regulated non‐quarantine pest

A non‐quarantine pest whose presence in plants for planting affects the intended use of those plants with an economically unacceptable impact and which is therefore regulated within the territory of the importing contracting party (FAO, 2017)

Risk 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, 2017)

Appendix A – Host plants for Haplaxius crudus

1.

True hosts of Haplaxius crudus, where life cycle is complete (= nymphal hosts)

Family	Host	Common name	Reference
Cyperaceae	Cyperus sp.	flatsedge	CABI (2020)
	Cyperus esculentus	yellow nutsedge	CABI (2020)
	Fimbristylis cymosa	tropical fimbry	CABI (2020)
Poaceae	Andropogon bicornis	West Indian foxtail grass	CABI (2020)
	Andropogon virginicus	broomsedge	CABI (2020)
	Cenchrus ciliaris	Buffel grass	CABI (2020)
	Chloris barbata	purpletop chloris	CABI (2020)
	Cynodon dactylon	Bermuda grass	CABI (2020)/EPPO (2020)
	Digitaria eriantha	pangola grass	CABI (2020)
	Distichlis spicata		CABI (2020)
	Eragrostis curvula	weeping lovegrass	CABI (2020)
	Eremochloa ophiuroides	centipedegrass	CABI (2020)
	Eustachys petraea		CABI (2020)
	Megathyrsus maximus	Guinea grass	CABI (2020)
	Panicum bartowense		CABI (2020)
	Saccharum officinarum	sugarcane	CABI (2020)
	Setaria	foxtailmillet	CABI (2020)
	Setaria viridis	green foxtail	CABI (2020)
	Stenotaphrum secundatum	buffalo grass	CABI (2020)/EPPO GD (2020)
	Zoysia		CABI (2020)
	Paspalum notatum	bahiagrass	CABI (2020)/EPPO (2020)
Verbenaceae	Verbena scabra	sandpaper vervain	CABI (2020)

Additional adult feeding hosts of H. crudus (i.e. life cycle cannot be completed on these hosts).

Family	Host	Common name	Reference
Arecaceae	Cocos nucifera	coconut	CABI (2020)/EPPO (2020)
	Phoenix canariensis	Canary Island date palm	CABI (2020)/EPPO (2020)
	Phoenix dactylifera	date‐palm	CABI (2020)
	Pritchardia		CABI (2020)
	Pritchardia pacifica		CABI (2020)
	Pritchardia thurstonii	Thurston palm	CABI (2020)
	Sabal palmetto	cabbage palmetto	CABI (2020)
	Trachycarpus fortunei	Chinese windmill palm	CABI (2020)
	Veitchia merrillii	Christmas palm	CABI (2020)
	Washingtonia	Washington‐palm	CABI (2020)
	Washingtonia robusta	Mexican washington‐palm	CABI (2020)
	Dypsis lutescens		CABI (2020)
	Roystonea regia	Cuban royal palm	CABI (2020)
Heliconiaceae	Heliconia bihai	Macaw flower	CABI (2020)
Pandanaceae	Pandanus utilis		CABI (2020)

Appendix B – Trade of potential host plants with countries where the pest occurs

1.

	Live outdoor plants, incl. their roots (excl. bulbs, tubers, tuberous roots, corms, crowns and rhizomes, incl. chicory plants and roots, unrooted cuttings, slips, rhododendrons, azaleas, roses, mushroom spawn, pineapple plants, vegetable and strawberry plants, trees, shrubs and bushes)					Live indoor plants and cacti (excl. rooted cuttings, young plants and flowering plants with buds or flowers)
Year	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
BAHAMAS
BRAZIL	1	900	0	2,838	2,510	537	644	13	329	6
BELIZE				24
CAYMAN ISLANDS
COLOMBIA		3	11	0	2	11	3	9	3	2
COSTA RICA	3,584	3,707	1,616	3,061	2,467	73,726	140,448	175,417	189,571	216,029
CUBA				0				0
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC	0		3	7		41	484	142	514	5706
HAITI
HONDURAS		215		342	858	21,269	16,223	21,443	14,477	19,678
JAMAICA				0
MEXICO	1,440	520	964	416	237	712	648	331	230	1,210
PANAMA				0				0		3
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO			0	0
UNITED STATES	3,153	2,224	2,478	1,888	2,394	2,858	2,101	1,667	2,470	2,990
VENEZUELA

Source: Eurostat (EASY COMEXT) trade data, accessed 15/06/2020.

Suggested citation: EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH) , Bragard C, Dehnen‐Schmutz K, Di Serio F, Gonthier P, Jacques M‐A, Jaques Miret JA, Fejer Justesen A, Magnusson CS, Milonas P, Navas‐Cortes JA, Parnell S, Potting R, Reignault PL, Thulke H‐H, Van der Werf W, Civera AV, Yuen J, Zappalà L, Czwienczek E, Kertész V, Streissl F and MacLeod A, 2020. Scientific Opinion on the pest categorisation of Haplaxius crudus . EFSA Journal 2020;18(7):6224, 31 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6224