Commodity risk assessment of Ullucus tuberosus tubers from Peru

EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH); Claude Bragard; Katharina Dehnen‐Schmutz; Francesco Di Serio; Paolo Gonthier; Marie‐Agnès Jacques; Josep Anton Jaques Miret; Annemarie Fejer Justesen; Alan MacLeod; Christer Sven Magnusson; Panagiotis Milonas; Juan Antonio Navas‐Cortes; Stephen Parnell; Roel Potting; Philippe Lucien Reignault; Hans‐Hermann Thulke; Wopke Van der Werf; Antonio Vicent Civera; Lucia Zappalà; Andrea Lucchi; Gregor Urek; Pedro Gómez; Olaf Mosbach‐Schulz; Andrea Maiorano; Eduardo de la Peña; Jonathan Yuen

doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6428

. 2021 Mar 10;19(3):e06428. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6428

Commodity risk assessment of Ullucus tuberosus tubers from Peru

EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH)^✉, Claude Bragard, Katharina Dehnen‐Schmutz, Francesco Di Serio, Paolo Gonthier, Marie‐Agnès Jacques, Josep Anton Jaques Miret, Annemarie Fejer Justesen, Alan MacLeod, Christer Sven Magnusson, Panagiotis Milonas, Juan Antonio Navas‐Cortes, Stephen Parnell, Roel Potting, Philippe Lucien Reignault, Hans‐Hermann Thulke, Wopke Van der Werf, Antonio Vicent Civera, Lucia Zappalà, Andrea Lucchi, Gregor Urek, Pedro Gómez, Olaf Mosbach‐Schulz, Andrea Maiorano, Eduardo de la Peña, Jonathan Yuen

PMCID: PMC7944563 PMID: 33732391

Abstract

The European Commission requested the EFSA Panel on Plant Health to prepare and deliver risk assessments for commodities listed in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 as ‘High risk plants, plant products and other objects. This Scientific Opinion covers plant health risks posed by tubers of Ullucus tuberosus imported from Peru, taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by Peru. The relevance of an EU quarantine pest for this opinion was based on evidence that: (i) the pest is present in Peru, (ii) U. tuberosus is a host of the pest and (iii) the pest can be associated with the commodity. The relevance of any other pest, not regulated in the EU, was based on evidence that: (i) the pest is present in Peru (ii) the pest is absent in the EU; (iii) U. tuberosus is a host of the pest; (iv) the pest can be associated with the commodity and (v) the pest may have an impact and can pose a potential risk for the EU territory. There are five pests i.e. one insect (Amathynetoides nitidiventris), two nematodes (Atalodera andina and Nacobbus aberrans) and two viruses (the Andean potato latent virus (APLV) and the potato virus T (PVT)) that fulfilled all relevant criteria were selected for further evaluation. For the five pests, the risk mitigation measures proposed in the technical dossier from Peru were evaluated taking into account the possible limiting factors. For each of the five pests, an expert judgement is given on the likelihood of pest freedom taking into consideration the risk mitigation measures acting on the pest, including uncertainties associated with the assessment. The degree of pest freedom varies among the pests evaluated, with PVT being the pest most frequently expected on the imported commodities. The Expert Knowledge Elicitation indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9,157 and 10,000 tubers out of 10,000 would be free of PVT.

Keywords: European Union, ulluco, olluco, melloco, papa lisa, illaco, plant health, edible tubers, high risk plants, quarantine, pathway analysis, import assessment

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Terms of Reference as provided by European Commission

1.1.1. Background

The new Plant Health Regulation (EU) 2016/20311, on the protective measures against pests of plants, has been applied from December 2019. Provisions within the above Regulation are in place for the listing of ‘high risk plants, plant products and other objects’ (Article 42) on the basis of a preliminary assessment, and to be followed by a commodity risk assessment. A list of ‘high risk plants, plant products and other objects’ has been published in Regulation (EU) 2018/20192. Scientific opinions are therefore needed to support the European Commission and the Member States in the work connected to Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, as stipulated in the terms of reference.

1.1.2. Terms of reference

In view of the above and in accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No. 178/20023, the Commission asks EFSA to provide scientific opinions in the field of plant health.

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

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

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

In view of the above and in accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002, the Commission asks EFSA to provide scientific opinion in the field of plant health for Ullucus tuberosus from Peru taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical dossier provided by Peru.

1.2. Interpretation of the Terms of Reference

The EFSA Panel on Plant Health (hereafter referred to as ‘the Panel’) was requested to conduct a commodity risk assessment of Ullucus tuberosus from Peru (PE) following the Guidance on commodity risk assessment for the evaluation of high‐risk plant dossiers (EFSA PLH Panel, 2019a).

The EU quarantine pests that are regulated as a group in the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 were considered and evaluated separately at species level. The references to ‘non‐European’ refer to all territories with exception of the Union territories as defined in Article 1 point 3 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031.

Pests listed as ‘Regulated Non‐Quarantine Pest’ (RNQP) in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 were not considered for further evaluation, in line with a letter from European Commission from 24 October 2019, Ref. Ares (2019)6579768 – 24/10/2019, on Clarification on EFSA mandate on High Risk Plants.

In its evaluation the Panel:

Checked whether the provided information in the technical dossier (hereafter referred to as ‘the Dossier’) provided by Peru (PE) was sufficient to conduct a commodity risk assessment. When necessary, additional information was requested to the Peruvian NPPO.
Selected the relevant union EU‐regulated quarantine pests and protected zone quarantine pests (as specified in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/20724, hereafter referred to as ‘EU quarantine pests’) and other relevant pests, absent and not regulated in the EU, present in Peru and associated with the commodity.
For those Union quarantine pests for which specific measures are in place for the import of the commodity from the specific country in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, the assessment was restricted to whether or not the applicant country applies those measures. The effectiveness of those measures was not assessed.
For those Union quarantine pests for which no specific measures are in place for the import of the commodity from the specific applicant country and other relevant pests present in applicant country and associated with the commodity, the effectiveness of the measures described by the applicant in the dossier was assessed.

Risk management decisions are not within EFSA's remit. Therefore, the Panel provided a rating based on expert judgement regarding the likelihood of pest freedom for each relevant pest given the risk mitigation measures proposed by Servicio Nacional de Sanidad Agraria del Perú (hereafter SENASA).

2. Data and methodologies

2.1. Data provided by SENASA, Peru

The Panel considered all the data and information in the Dossier provided by SENASA on 20 January 2020, including the additional information provided by SENASA on 07 July 2020, after EFSA's request. The Dossier is managed by EFSA.

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

Table 1.

Structure and overview of the Dossier

Dossier section	Overview of contents	Filename
1	Technical Dossier on Ullucus tuberosus (complete document)	REF2 CARTA N 0031‐2020‐DSV (IMP.TUBERCULOS OLLUCO‐UE).pdf
2	Additional information provided by SENASA on 07 July 2020	ADJ CARTA‐0329‐2020‐DSV (Ullucus tuberosus).pdf

Database name and service provider	URL of database	Justification for choosing database
CABI Crop Protection Compendium Provider: CAB International	https://www.cabi.org/cpc/	A database compiling scientific information on all aspects of crop protection, including extensive global coverage of pests, diseases, weeds and their natural enemies, the crops that are their hosts and the countries in which they occur
EPPO Global Database Provider: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization	https://gd.eppo.int/	Provides all pest‐specific information that has been produced or collected by EPPO
Alcázar J., Gonzalo A. y S. Mayta. 2004. Capítulo V ‐ Plagas y su Control. p. 59–71. “El cultivo del Olluco en la Sierra Central del Perú” editado por Glicerio López y Michael Hermann. 133 pp.	https://books.google.com.pe/	Scientific publication about ulluco in Peru
Avalos, C. 2008. Olluco: Sabrosa raíz andina. Revista Generacción, Lima – Perú. Volumen 78: p. 42–47. “Estabilidad genética de germoplasma de olluco (Ullucus tuberosus Caldas) conservado ex situ”, Tesis para optar el grado de Magister Scientiae en Mejoramiento Genético de Plantas.	http://repositorio.lamolina.edu.pe	Website (of the University of La Molina, Lima, Peru) that includes scientific and academic production on Andean crops and agricultural production
Brücher, H. 1967. Ullucus aborigineus spec. nov., die Wildform einer andinen Kulturpflanze. Ber Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 80(4): p. 376–381. “Estabilidad genética de germoplasma de olluco (Ullucus tuberosus Caldas) conservado ex situ”, Tesis para optar el grado de magister scientiae en mejoramiento genético de plantas.	http://repositorio.lamolina.edu.pe/
Cadima, X., G. Valdivia, V. Guzmán. 1997. Caracterización morfológica y bioquímica (pruebas preliminares). En: Informe anual 1996‐97 IBTA PROINPA. Technical information on Ulluco (Ulluco tuberosus) to export European Union 26 Cochabamba, Bolivia. p. 934–936. El cultivo del Olluco en la Sierra Central del Perú” editado por Glicerio López y Michael Hermann. 133 pp.	https://books.google.com.pe/	Website holding several scientific publications about ulluco in Peru
Calzada, J.; C. Mantari. 1954. Cultivo y variedades del olluco en Puno. Perú, La Vida Agrícola 31(363): p. 139–144. “El cultivo del Olluco en la Sierra Central del Perú” editado por Glicerio López y Michael Hermann. 133 pp.	https://books.google.com.pe/
Cárdenas, M. 1969. Manual de plantas económicas de Bolivia. Cochabamba, Imprenta Icthus, p. 54–60. “Estabilidad genética de germoplasma de olluco (Ullucus tuberosus Caldas) conservado ex situ”. Tesis para optar el grado de magister scientiae en mejoramiento genético de plantas.	http://repositorio.lamolina.edu.pe/	Website of the University of La Molina, (Lima, Peru) including academic publications on Andean crops and agricultural production
Chuquillanqui C., Fuentes S. y Holle M. 2004. Capitulo III – Las Enfermedades causadas por virus y su control. p. 20–38 “El cultivo del Olluco en la Sierra Central del Perú” editado por Glicerio López y Michael Hermann. 133 pp.	https://books.google.com.pe/	Website holding several scientific publications about ulluco in Peru
Farfán, A. 1998. Comparativo ecofisiológico preliminar de oca, ulluco y añu en diferentes altitudes de la C.C. Picol, Taray, Calca. Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco, Perú. 172 p.“Composición nutricional y de mucílago de tres variedades de olluco (Ullucustuberosus Loz.) para la obtención de chuño de olluco en el distrito de santotomás – cusco”. Tésis para optar al título profesional de ingeniero agropecuario.	http://repositorio.unsaac.edu.pe/
Frere, M.; J. Rea; J.Rijks. 1977. Ullucus tuberosus. En: M. Frere; J. Rea; J. Rijks (eds.). Estudio agroclimatológico de la zona andina. Organización de las NU para la Agricultura y la Alimentación (FAO), Roma, Italia. p. 331–337. “El cultivo del Olluco en la Sierra Central del Perú” editado por Glicerio López y Michael Hermann. 133 pp.	https://books.google.com.pe/
IPGRI/CIP, 2003. Descriptores del Ulluco (Ullucus tuberosus). Instituto Internacional de Recursos Fitogenéticos, Roma, Italia; Centro Internacional de la Papa, Lima Perú.	https://books.google.com.pe/
Jeffries CJ, 1998. FAO/IPGRI technical guidelines for the safe movement of germplasm. No. 19: Potato. FAO/IPGRI Technical Guidelines for the Safe Movement of Germplasm. No. 19. Potato, No. 19:177 pp.; many ref.	https://www.cabi.org/cpc/datasheet/42783.	A database compiling scientific information on all aspects of crop protection, including extensive global coverage of pests, diseases, weeds and their natural enemies, the crops that are their hosts and the countries in which they occur
Jones RAC; Fribourg CE, 1977. Beetle, contact and potato true seed transmission of Andean potato latent virus. Annals of Applied Biology, 86(1):123‐128	https://www.cabi.org/cpc/datasheet/42518
Jones RAC; Fribourg CE, 1981. Andean potato latent virus. In: Hooker WJ, ed. Compendium of Potato Diseases. St Paul, MN, USA: APS Press, 78.	https://www.cabi.org/cpc/datasheet/42518
King, SR. 1988. Economic Botany of the Andean Tuber Crop Complex: Lepidium Meyenii, Oxalis tuberosa, Tropaeolum Tuberosum and Ullucus tuberosus. Ph. D. Thesis, The City University, New York, 282 p. Name of the resource: “El cultivo del Olluco en la Sierra Central del Perú” editado por Glicerio López y Michael Hermann. 133 pp.	https://books.google.com.pe/	Website giving access to scientific publications about ulluco in Peru
León, J. 1964. Plantas alimenticias andinas. Instituto Interamericano de Ciencias Agrícolas, Zona Andina, Lima, Perú. 112 p. “El cultivo del Olluco en la Sierra Central del Perú” editado por Glicerio López y Michael Hermann. 133 pp.	https://books.google.com.pe/
Lizarraga C; Santa Cruz M; Salazar LF, 1996. First report of potato leafroll luteovirus in ulluco (Ullucus tuberosus Caldas). Plant Disease, 80(3):344. “El cultivo del Olluco en la Sierra Central del Perú” editado por Glicerio López y Michael Hermann. 133 pp.	https://books.google.com.pe/
Montaldo, A. 1972. Cultivo de raíces y tubérculos tropicales. Organización de Estados Americanos. Instituto Interamericano de Ciencias Agrícolas, Perú. p. 210–211.	https://books.google.com.pe/
Missouri Botanical Garden, 2008. “Trópicos”. www.tropicos.org, Saint Louis, Missouri ‐ EEUU. “Estabilidad genética de germoplasma de olluco (Ullucus tuberosus Caldas) conservado ex situ”, Tesis para optar el grado de magister scientiae en mejoramiento genético de plantas.	http://repositorio.lamolina.edu.pe/	Website of the University of La Molina, (Lima, Peru) including academic publications on Andean crops and agricultural production
National Research Council. 1989. Lost Crops of the Incas: Little‐Known Plants of the Andes with Promise for Worldwide Cultivation. National Academy Press. Washington D.C., USA. p. 106. “Estabilidad genética de germoplasma de olluco (Ullucus tuberosus Caldas) conservado ex situ”, Tesis para optar el grado de magister scientiae en mejoramiento genético de plantas.	http://repositorio.lamolina.edu.pe/
Pietilä, L; Tapia, M. 1991. Investigaciones sobre ulluku. Universidad de Turku, Finlandia, 67 p. “Estabilidad genética de germoplasma de olluco (Ullucus tuberosus Caldas) conservado ex situ”, tesis para optar el grado de magister scientiae en mejoramiento genético de plantas.	http://repositorio.lamolina.edu.pe/
Rousi, A; Jokela, P; Kalliola, R; Pietilä, L; Salo, J; Yli‐Rekola, M. (1989). Morphological variation among clones of ulluco (Ullucus tuberosus, Basellaceae) collected in southern Peru. Economic Bot. 43 (1): 58‐72. Name of the resource: “Estabilidad genética de germoplasma de olluco (Ullucus tuberosus Caldas) conservado ex situ”, Tesis para optar el grado de magister scientiae en mejoramiento genético de plantas.	http://repositorio.lamolina.edu.pe/
SIEA, 2012. Boletín del Sistema Integrado de Estadísticas Agrarias (SIEA). Oficina de Estudios Económicos y Estadísticos. Ministerio de Agricultura, Lima, Perú. Name of the resource: “Estabilidad genética de germoplasma de olluco (Ullucus tuberosus Caldas) conservado ex situ”, tesis para optar el grado de magister scientiae en mejoramiento genético de plantas.	http://repositorio.lamolina.edu.pe/
Tapia, M; Arbizu, C. 1991. Los sistemas de rotación de los cultivos andinos subexplotados en los Andes del Perú. En: VII Congreso Internacional sobre Cultivos Andinos. Centro Internacional de la papa. Lima, Perú. “Estabilidad genética de germoplasma de olluco (Ullucus tuberosus Caldas) conservado ex situ”. Tesis para optar el grado de magister scientiae en mejoramiento genético de plantas.	http://repositorio.lamolina.edu.pe/
Tapia, M. y Fries, A. 2007. Guía de campo de los cultivos andinos (En línea). Consultado 18 de junio. 2019. FAO y ANPE. Lima. “Composición nutricional y de mucílago de tres variedades de olluco (Ullucus tuberosus Loz.) para la obtención de chuño de olluco en el distrito de santo tomás – cusco”. Tesis para optar al título profesional de ingeniero agropecuario.	http://repositorio.unsaac.edu.pe/	Academic repository of the University of San Antonio Abad (Cusco, Peru) containing publications about ulluco in Peru.

Database	Platform/Link
A catalog of the Cecidomyiidae (Diptera) of the world	https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80420580/Gagne_2014_World_Cecidomyiidae_Catalog_3rd_Edition.pdf
A Catalog of the Eriophoidea (Acarina: Prostigmata) of the world	https://www.cabi.org/isc/abstract/19951100613
Aphids on World Plants	http://www.aphidsonworldsplants.info/C_HOSTS_AAIntro.htm
CABI Crop Protection Compendium	https://www.cabi.org/cpc/
Database of Insects and their Food Plants	http://www.brc.ac.uk/dbif/hosts.aspx
Database of the World's Lepidopteran Hostplants	https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/hostplants/search/index.dsml
EPPO Global Database	https://gd.eppo.int/
EUROPHYT	https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/europhyt/
TRACES NT	https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/tracesnt/
Leaf‐miners	http://www.leafmines.co.uk/html/plants.htm
Nemaplex	http://nemaplex.ucdavis.edu/Nemabase2010/PlantNematodeHostStatusDDQuery.aspx
New Zealand Fungi	https://nzfungi2.landcareresearch.co.nz/default.aspx?NavControl=search&selected=NameSearch
NZFUNGI ‐ New Zealand Fungi (and Bacteria)	https://nzfungi.landcareresearch.co.nz/html/mycology.asp?ID=
Plant Pest Information Network	https://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-and-resources/resources/registers-and-lists/plant-pest-information-network/
Plant Viruses Online	http://bio-mirror.im.ac.cn/mirrors/pvo/vide/famindex.htm
Scalenet	http://scalenet.info/associates/
Spider Mites Web	https://www1.montpellier.inra.fr/CBGP/spmweb/advanced.php
USDA ARS Fungi Database	https://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/fungushost/fungushost.cfm
Web of Science: All Databases (Web of Science Core Collection, CABI: CAB Abstracts, BIOSIS Citation Index, Chinese Science Citation Database, Current Contents Connect, Data Citation Index, FSTA, KCI‐Korean Journal Database, Russian Science Citation Index, MEDLINE, SciELO Citation Index, Zoological Record)	Web of Science https://www.webofknowledge.com
World Agroforestry	http://www.worldagroforestry.org/treedb2/speciesprofile.php?Spid=1749

Peruvian Region	Potato area	Ulluco area
Puno	59,469	2,772
Huanuco	43,210	2,186
Cuzco	30,901	4,251
Cajamarca	28,496	3,516
Huancavelica	28,240	2,797
Apurimac	24,941	2,686
La Libertad	23,864	1,581
Junin	23,837	2,549
Ayacucho	22,991	2,853
Ancash	9,813	676
Arequipa	9,604	31
Pasco	9,208	802
Lima	4,947	167
Amazonas	4,002	193
Piura	1,990	446
Lambayeque	746	340
Total	326,259	27,846

Region	Climate according to Köppen–Geiger
Cajamarca	Cwb
Huánuco	BSh
Pasco	Cfb and ET
Junín	Cfb and ET
Huancavelica	Cfb, ET and Bsk
Ayacucho	BSk
Apurímac	Cfb, ET, Cwb and Cwc
Cusco	Cwb
Puno	ET, Cfb and Cwc

Development phases	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul
Emerging
Plant establishment
Stolon initiation
Reproductive development
Flowering
Tuber filling
Maturity

Plant species	Region	Sample	Specialty	Pest species
Ullucus tuberosus	Ayacucho	Plant	Virology	Ullucus mild mottle virus
	Ayacucho	Leaf	Mycology	Peromospora sp.
	Ayacucho	Leaf	Virology	Tomato mosaic virus
	Apurimac	Leaf	Mycology	Aecidium sp.
	Puno	Leaf	Mycology	Rhizoctonia solani
	Puno	Leaf	Mycology	Phoma sp.
	Ancash	Leaf	Virology	Andean potato latent virus
	Ancash	Leaf	Virology	Potato virus T
	Ancash	Leaf	Virology	Potato leaf roll virus
	Ancash	Leaf	Virology	Papaya mosaic virus

No.	Pest name according to EU legislationa	EPPO Code	Group	Pest present in Peru	U. tuberosus confirmed as a host (reference)	Pest can be associated with the commodity	Pest relevant for the opinion
1	Nacobbus aberrans	NACOBA	Nematodes	Yes	Yes (CABI, online)	Yes	Yes
2	Andean potato latent virus (APLV)	APLV00	Virus and Viroids	Yes	Yes (CABI, online)	Yes	Yes
3	Potato virus T (PVT)	PVT000	Virus and Viroids	Yes	Yes (CABI, online)	Yes	Yes
4	Potato virus Y (PVY)b	PVY0	Virus and Viroids	Yes	Yes (Fox et al., 2019)	Noc	No

Destination	Net weight (kg)
Destination	2018	2019
Spain	34,438	45,002
Italy	19,504	8,659
France	530	4,146
Netherlands	5,214	2,094
Germany	83	82
Belgium	15	0
United Kingdom	6	0

Number	Current scientific name	EPPO code	Name used in the EU legislation	Taxonomic information	Group	Regulatory status
1	Amathynetoides nitidiventris	–	–	Coleoptera Curculionidae	Insects	Not regulated in the EU
2	Atalodera andina	ATADAN	–	Chromadorea Heteroderidae	Nematodes	Not regulated in the EU
3	Nacobbus aberrans	NACOBA	Nacobbus aberrans (Thorne) Thorne and Allen	Chromadorea Pratylenchidae	Nematodes	EU Quarantine Pest according to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072
4	Andean potato latent virus (APLV)	APLV00	Andean potato latent virus	Tymovirales Tymoviridae	Virus and Viroids	EU Quarantine Pest according to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072
5	Potato virus T (PVT)	PVT000	Potato virus T	Tymovirales Betaflexiviridae	Virus and Viroids	EU Quarantine Pest according to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072

Number	Risk mitigation measure	Implementation in Peru
1	Surveillance and monitoring	Personnel trained in SENASA regional offices travel daily to the highland's areas (crop‐producing areas) for the identification of anomalies in the ulluco growth, plant symptoms related to the presence of virus or other pests in order to support the producer for pest prevention and management, and also collect samples to the laboratory. Specific details on sampling intensity and protocols applied were not provided in the dossier.
2	Sampling and laboratory testing	The samples are registered in the database ‘Integrated System of Plant Health Management’ (SIGSVE) and sent the Unit of Diagnostic Center of Plant Health of SENASA, under adequate conditions of protection. The analyses are performed by the SENASA Plant Health Diagnostic Centers Unit, which has diagnostic methods based on pest morphology, ELISA and molecular biology (conventional PCR, real time and sequencing). If a pest is detected, SENASA headquarters and producers are informed and also corrective measures are applied. However, the details of these corrective measures are not specified.
3	Crop rotation	Ulluco production can be part of a rotation scheme with different crops e.g. oca, beans, barley
4	Selection of production sites	Ulluco is produced in sites at high altitudes with potentially temperate environmental conditions
5	Use of healthy propagation and production material	The use of ulluco as a vegetative seed is mainly based on an ocular selection of the harvested tubers. This selection allows farmers to obtain free of any pest or symptomatology that may be counterproductive in the crop. Seed tubers are produced in areas with low incidence of aphids (lower chances of virus transmission) and in these areas, symptomatic plants if present are discarded and not taken for production.
6	Elimination of volunteer plants and crop residues	Volunteer plants can be removed when they are small or their presence is avoided by making a good harvest and eliminating their residues. Damaged, rotten and small tubers left in the fields after harvest allowed weevil larvae and other pests to develop inside and complete their life cycle. These tubers instead must be collected and destroyed. A practical way to eliminate this waste is to introduce animals, such as pigs and sheep, to feed and thus get rid of these tubers
7	Mechanical measures	Manual capture of weevils Use of plastic barriers under stored ulluco tubers
8	Ash application	Application of ash to the neck of the plant during plant emergence and prior to hilling
9	Hilling (sic ‘stubble tillage’)	Hilling to support and protect plant growth
10	Application of plant extracts/repellent	Extracts of Lupinus mutabilis and Foeniculum vulgare are applied to prevent infestations of aphids and other insect pests
11	Timely harvest	Timely harvest to reduce the level of insect pest (e.g. weevils) infestation in tubers
12	Winter plough in harvested fields	Fields are ploughed between July and August to destroy weevils by exposing them to the sun and wild birds
13	Poultry use	During the selection of ulluco tubers and after soil removal chickens are used in the field (after harvest) as predators of larvae, pupae and wintering adults.
14	Sorting/grading/tuber selection	Only first category tubers (those for export) are selected in the field Tubers are individually and visually inspected
15	Brushing and cleaning of tubers	Brushing/cleaning of the tubers is carried out. Damaged ulluco tubers and tubers with symptoms of the pests are removed.
16	Pre‐consignment inspection	According to SENASA, 2% of tubers are visually inspected; tubers with symptoms are sent for laboratory testing.
17	Application of vegetal extracts/oils	Use Minthostachis mollis oil extracts/repellents to protect stored products
18	Storage temperature	Export tubers are shipped in containers with a temperature and relative humidity of 2°C, 90%–95% humidity.

	Pest freedom category	Pest‐free tubers out of 10,000	Legend of pest freedom categories
	Sometimes pest free	≤ 5,000	L	Pest freedom category includes the elicited lower bound of the 90% uncertainty range
	More often than not pest free	5,000–≤ 9,000	M	Pest freedom category includes the elicited median
	Frequently pest free	9,000–≤ 9,500	U	Pest freedom category includes the elicited upper bound of the 90% uncertainty range
	Very frequently pest free	9,500–≤ 9,900
	Extremely frequently pest free	9,900–≤ 9,950
	Pest free with some exceptional cases	9,950–≤ 9,990
	Pest free with few exceptional cases	9,990–≤ 9,995
	Almost always pest free	9,995–≤ 10,000
PANEL B

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Elicited values	1.00					40.00		80.00		140.00					200.00
EKE	0.98	2.76	6.03	13.23	23.70	37.59	52.30	84.08	118.79	137.33	157.01	174.09	187.99	195.66	200.78

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Values	9,800.00					9,860.00		9,920.00		9,960.00					9,999.00
EKE results	9,799.22	9,804.34	9,812.01	9,825.91	9,842.99	9,862.67	9,881.21	9,915.92	9,947.70	9,962.41	9,976.30	9,986.77	9,993.97	9,997.24	9,999.02

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Elicited values	20.00					200.00		400.00		630.00					900.00
EKE	19.22	29.72	47.61	84.26	134.63	198.68	264.49	402.55	550.00	628.14	711.11	783.53	843.28	876.89	899.88

Rating of the likelihood of pest freedom	Very frequently pest free (based on the median)
Percentile of the distribution	5%	25%	Median	75%	95%
Proportion of pest‐free tubers	9,549 out of 10,000 tubers	9,714 out of 10,000 tubers	9,856 out of 10,000 tubers	9,953 out of 10,000 tubers	9,996 out of 10,000 tubers
Proportion of infested tubers	4 out of 10,000 tubers	47 out of 10,000 tubers	144 out of 10,000 tubers	286 out of 10,000 tubers	451 out of 10,000 tubers
Summary of the information used for the evaluation	Possibility that the pest could become associate with the commodity N. aberrans is a currently regulated plant parasitic quarantine nematode that poses a high risk to EU agriculture when introduced either with infested plants (plants for planting) or with soil attached to plants. The nematode is widespread in oca and ulluco production areas (Bridge et al., 2005) and is considered the most common pest of potato and other Andean crops, including ulluco in the temperate Andean highlands (Manzanilla‐Lopez et al., 2002; Franco and Main, 2008). In the Andes it is associated with potatoes at temperatures of 15–18°C (Mai et al., 1981). Although ulluco roots can be severely attacked, information on the economic impact of N. aberrans as a limiting factor of ulluco production is poorly understood (Bridge et al., 2005). It is reported that N. aberrans causes damage to potatoes in Peru, but reports of such attacks are rare. It is uncertain how many fields in the potato‐, ulluco‐ and oka‐growing areas in Peru are affected by N. aberrans. The main pathways of this nematode are plants for planting, including tubers, water, soil and growing media attached to agricultural machinery, tools and shoes. This nematode may be present on ulluco plants or other host plants (e.g. oca) occurring in the environment and may infest the commodity mainly by human‐assisted dispersal.
	Measures taken against the pest and their efficacy The relevant proposed measures are: (i) Surveillance and monitoring, (ii) Sampling and laboratory testing, (iii) Use of healthy propagation and production material, (iv) Sorting/grading/tuber selection, (v) Removal of soil from tubers (brushing/washing) and vi) Pre‐consignment inspection. Interception records There are no records of interceptions from Peru, but see Section 4.3 above for details. Shortcomings of current measures/procedures Peru's answers to the questions raised by the working group state that the production areas of ulluco are located at high altitudes and therefore at low temperatures, which in their opinion means that the nematodes do not pose significant phytosanitary problems. The producers do not perceive the problems caused by pests and therefore do not apply specific phytosanitary measures against nematodes. In view of the process of inspection and phytosanitary certification developed by SENASA, a sample of 2% of the total quantity of ulluco tubers intended for export is taken. This sample is visually inspected and, if pests are suspected, it is destroyed at the laboratory analysis level. However, as there may be mobile stages of N. aberrans in the tubers, the visual inspection may not be sufficient for inspectors to identify infected tubers and send them for laboratory analysis. It is therefore uncertain to what extent this procedure is able to ensure the absence of N. aberrans in asymptomatic tubers. The undetected presence of this nematode during inspections may contribute to the spread of infection with N. aberrans. Main uncertainties No details are given on the distribution of N. aberrans and its frequency in the area of ulluco production. There is some uncertainty regarding the lack of data from official surveillance surveys and reports of problems caused by this nematode in the production of ulluco in Peru. There are uncertainties about the possible infestation with common weeds in the area, which is a good host for this nematode. The absence of nematode‐induced symptoms (bile) is possible in certain plants, so that the presence of N. aberrans in the ulluco tubers cannot be detected by visual inspection.

Rating of the likelihood of pest freedom	Pest free with exceptional cases (based on the median)
Percentile of the distribution	5%	25%	Median	75%	95%
Proportion of pest‐free tubers	9,938 out of 10,000 tubers	9,966 out of 10,000 tubers	9,980 out of 10,000 tubers	9,990 out of 10,000 tubers	9,997 out of 10,000 tubers
Proportion of infested tubers	3 out of 10,000 tubers	10 out of 10,000 tubers	20 out of 10,000 tubers	34 out of 10,000 tubers	62 out of 10,000 tubers
Summary of the information used for the evaluation	Possibility that the pest could become associated with the commodity A. andina (= T. andinus) is a non‐cyst‐forming heteroderid nematode belonging to the subfamily Ataloderinae. The species is a native to South America, where it infests some important Andean crops. A. andina was first described on oca plants collected in Peru at Lake Titicaca (Golden et al. 1983). It has a wide host range and has been reported from more than 30 plant species in 12 botanical families. Among them, oca, ulluco, potato, quinoa, wild quinoa, lupine, shepherd's purse, wild turnip (B. campestris), ragwort (S. vulgaris) and wild tobacco (N. paniculata) are considered effective hosts of A. andina (Franco and Mosquera, 1993). Although the roots of ulluco plants can be heavily infested by this species, information on its economic importance is lacking (Bridge et al., 2005). On the roots of ulluco plants, A. andina is often found in association with the root‐knot nematodes Meloidogyne spp. and the false root‐knot nematode N. aberrans. According to Jatala, A. andina is considered an important nematode species on potatoes in some Andean regions of Peru, but the crop losses it causes on potatoes and other tuber crops have not been adequately quantified (Scurrah et al., 2005). Although ulluco can be attacked by A. andina,
	(chemical) control of this nematode is rarely practiced because ulluco is mainly grown on economically less important small farms (Bridge et al., 2005). A. andina is therefore not considered a major problem in the production of these crops.The main pathways of this nematode are plants for planting, including tubers, water, soil and growing media attached to farm machinery, tools and footwear. A. andina may be present on ulluco plants or other host plants in the environment (e.g. oca) and may infest the commodity primarily by human‐assisted dispersal. Measures taken against the pest and their efficacy The relevant proposed measures are: (i) Surveillance and monitoring, (ii) Sampling and laboratory testing, (iii) Use of healthy propagation and production material, (iv) Sorting/grading/tuber selection, (v) Removal of soil from tubers (brushing/washing) and (vi) Pre‐consignment inspection. Interception records There are no records of interceptions from Peru, but see Section 4.3 above for details Shortcomings of current measures/procedures Peru's answers to the questions raised by the working group state that the production areas of ulluco are located at high altitudes and therefore at low temperatures, which in their opinion means that the nematodes do not pose significant phytosanitary problems. The producers do not perceive the problems caused by pests and therefore do not apply specific phytosanitary measures against nematodes. In view of the process of inspection and phytosanitary certification developed by SENASA, a sample of 2% of the total quantity of ulluco tubers intended for export is taken. This sample is visually inspected and, if pests are suspected, it is destroyed at the laboratory analysis level. However, as there may be mobile stages of A. andina in the tubers, the visual inspection may not be sufficient for inspectors to identify infected tubers and send them for laboratory analysis. It is therefore uncertain to what extent this procedure is able to ensure the absence of A. andina in asymptomatic tubers. The undetected presence of this nematode during inspections may contribute to the spread of infection with A. andina. Main uncertainties No details are given on the distribution of A. andina and its frequency in the area of ulluco production. There is some uncertainty regarding the lack of data from official surveillance surveys and reports of problems caused by this nematode in the production of ulluco in Peru. There are uncertainties about the possible infestation with common weeds in the area, which is a good host for this nematode. The absence of nematode‐induced symptoms is possible in certain plants, so that the presence of A. andina in the ulluco tubers cannot be detected by visual inspection.

Rating of the likelihood of pest freedom	Extremely frequently pest free (based on the median)
Percentile of the distribution	5%	25%	Median	75%	95%
Proportion of pest‐free tubers	9,812 out of 10,000 tubers	9,863 out of 10,000 tubers	9,916 out of 10,000 tubers	9,962 out of 10,000 tubers	9,994 out of 10,000 tubers
Proportion of infested tubers	6 out of 10,000 tubers	38 out of 10,000 tubers	84 out of 10,000 tubers	137 out of 10,000 tubers	188 out of 10,000 tubers
Summary of the information used for the evaluation	Possibility that the pest could become associated with the commodity The pest is present in Peru where it is considered one of the most important pests of ulluco causing at harvest between 2.5% and 50% of damage to tubers. This weevil is prevalent in ulluco‐producing areas throughout the year, and can complete the life cycle in other crops common in the ulluco producing areas such as oca and beans. Adults can fly and move both within the production field or from the surroundings. During storage infested tubers can also be a source of infestation for healthy ones. The main pathway is represented by infested tubers.
	Measures taken against the pest and their efficacy Crop rotation has been observed to reduce weevil damage to the crop. Use of healthy seed tubers may lower pest presence and pressure. Ash application to the neck of each plant to the emergency and before the stubble tillage reduces the weevil damage. Elimination of volunteer plants when they are small or avoiding their presence by making a good harvest and eliminating crop residues may lower pest pressure. High and timely stubble tillage may prevent the larvae from reaching the tubers. Timely harvest may decrease pest pressure. Elimination of crop residues (damaged, rotten and small tubers) introducing animals in the field after harvest, reduces pest pressure. Plough the soil of infested fields to destroy weevils by exposing them to the sun and wild birds. Poultry use during the selection of ulluco tubers and after soil removal to reduce pest populations. Manual capture of weevils can contribute to reduce the amount of weevils present. Tuber storage at 2°C and 90–95% humidity. Interception records There were no interceptions on ulluco, but see Section 4.3 above for details. Shortcomings of current measures/procedures From the dossier, it seems that the seed tubers come from the previous production cycle; therefore, the inspection is visual and the health status uncertain. Although crop rotation has been seen to be effective in controlling the pest, in some cases the crops rotating are also hosts of the pest. Limited scientific data on efficacy of ash applications, volunteer plants elimination, high stubble tillage, timely harvest and efficacy of animals in eliminating crop residues are available. Mechanical measures might not be effective enough. Storage conditions (2°C and 90–95% humidity) may only slow down the insect cycle and not kill it. Main uncertainties Other host plants cultivated jointly or in the proximity of ulluco fields can serve as a source of infestation. Although visually inspected, seed tubers with very small entry wounds are difficult to be detected and discarded and can therefore be a source of infestation.

Number	Group	Pest species	Frequently pest free	Very frequently pest free	Extremely frequently pest free	Pest free with some exceptional cases	Pest free with few exceptional cases	Almost always pest free
1	Nematode	Nacobbus aberrans		LM				U
2	Nematode	Atalodera andina			L	M		U
3	Virus	Andean potato latent virus (APLV)	L	M		U
4	Virus	Potato virus T (PVT)	L	M		U
5	Insect	Amathynetoides nitidiventris		L	M		U
PANEL A

Taxonomic information	Current valid scientific name: Amathynetoides nitidiventris (Hustache 1938) Synonyms: Adioristus nitidiventris Hustache, 1938; Amathynetes nitidiventris Kuschel, 1949; Puranius nitidiventris Kuschel, 1955; Macrostyphlus nitidiventris Kuschel, 1986 Name used in the EU legislation: N/A Order: Coleoptera Family: Curculionidae Common name: gorgojo del ulluco; ulluco weevil Name used in the Dossier: Amathynetoides nitidiventris
Group	Insects
EPPO code	N/A
Regulated status	The pest is not regulated in the EU, neither is listed by EPPO.
Pest status in Peru	Present. As a result of a diagnostic study carried out in the community of La Libertad, one of the main producing centres of ulluco in the central highlands, it was found that 96% of farmers consider the ‘ulluco weevil’ as the main pest of the culture, followed by the earthworms. The literature checked also points out that this species is one of the most important pests of ulluco (Alcazar et al., 2004; McCaffrey and Walker, 2012). The weevil causes at harvest between 2.5% and 50% of damage to tubers. The pest is also reported for Concepción and Junín.
Pest status in the EU	Absent (CABI CPC, online; EPPO online, Fauna Europaea, online).
Host status on U. tuberosus	U. tuberosus is reported as the main host plant of A. nitidiventris (Alcazar et al., 2004; McCaffrey and Walker, 2012).
PRA information	N/A
Other relevant information for the assessment
Biology	The life cycle of A. nitidiventris reared in the laboratory at 17 °C and 78% relative humidity has an egg‐adult life span of 243 days and the total cycle, including adult longevity, is 459 days (Aldana, 2003). Adult longevity averages 218.0 and 214.9 days for males and females respectively (Alcazar et al., 2004). The species has a pre‐oviposition phase lasting 18 days on average. Oviposition occurs during the months of October and November (lat 12°04′S 75°13′W), it lasts on average 155 days, during which the female lays a total of 373 eggs (Alcazar et al., 2004). Incubation lasts 28.8 days after which the larva emerges. The larval period has a duration of 102 days, going through 4 stages. The larvae feed on the tubers. After the larval period the species pupates passing through a pre‐pupal stage which lasts 31 days on average. During this period the larva stops feeding and exits or falls down the tuber to pupate in a pupal chamber made with soil at a depth of 16‐20 cm. Under laboratory conditions pupation can occur inside the tuber. The pupal stage lasts 32.3 days. It overwinters as adult between July and August (lat 12°04′S 75°13′W) in the soil inside the pupal chamber or inside the tubers in the field or in the warehouse. This phase ends when the adult emerges from the tuber or from the ground after the first rains in September‐October. To exit the tubers, the adults dig a hole both in storage and in the field. After emergence the adult weevils move looking for ulluco plants, being volunteer, the first option followed by migration to new fields. Adults feed on young leaves, rootlets, stolons and tubers close to the surface; very rarely they have been found feeding on stems. Females lay their eggs on the ground under soil clods in groups and in humid places near the plant. At harvest, almost 90% of the larvae remain in the soil representing the most important re‐infestation source for the next campaign, especially if ulluco is replanted. The remaining part of the larvae either fall from the tubers during storage or complete their development in the tubers (4%), being able to spread the pest to new growing areas.
Symptoms	Main type of symptoms	The larval stage causes greater damage in the field, feeding on the tubers producing holes, and subtracting quality. The adults are present in the field from September to July. The adult density in the field increases from the emergence of ulluco plants to reach its maximum in mid‐January, when the plant starts flowering, providing adults with food and shelter. Then the adult population begins to decline until July. The larvae of this weevil, cause holes on the tubers especially in the late stages of cultivation.
	Presence of asymptomatic tubers	It has been found that 4% of the larval weevil population infesting tubers in the field manage to complete their cycle within the tuber in warehouse. So, it is important to carefully select the ulluco seed tubers, avoiding planting damaged and infested tubers with weevil larvae. The holes made by the larvae can be of various size and although the selection process tries to eliminate the tubers with wounds, there are always tubers with small wounds that cannot be eliminated with the naked eye.
	Confusion with other pests	Premnotrypes spp., which attack potato, have been erroneously identified as ulluco weevil (Alcazar et al., 2004).
Host plant range	Although U. tuberosus is reported as the main host plant of A. nitidiventris, the species also attacks tubers and roots of oca, mashua, maca, carrot, fava bean and corn (Alcazar et al., 2004; McCaffrey and Walker, 2012).
Pathways	Infested tubers
Surveillance information	The applicant country declares to perform surveillance in accordance with the ‘Pest Prospecting Instructions’ and ‘Sampling and Handling Manual’ developed by SENASA to carry out the prospecting actions on ulluco, as well as the procedures for sampling and remission of samples to the laboratory of plant parts and/or pests. Personnel trained in SENASA regional offices travel daily to the crop‐producing areas for the identification of anomalies in their growth, which may be related to the presence of virus or other disease as well as the presence of insects which can be collected with vacuum cleaners, entomological meshes or plant parts. Specific details on sampling intensity and protocols applied were not provided in the Dossier. The samples collected in the field are registered in the database ‘Integrated System of Plant Health Management’ (SIGSVE) and sent to the Unit of Diagnostic Center of Plant Health of SENASA, under adequate conditions of protection. Laboratory analyses are performed by the SENASA Plant Health Diagnostic Centers Unit, which has diagnostic methods based on pest morphology, ELISA and molecular biology (conventional PCR, real time and sequencing).

No.	Risk mitigation measure	Effect on the pest	Evaluation and uncertainties
3	Crop rotation	Yes	Evaluation: It has been observed that in ulluco fields were crop rotation is applied there is no weevil damage to the crop. Pest pressure can be lowered. Uncertainties: In some cases, the crops rotating are also hosts of the pest.
5	Use of healthy seed tubers	Yes	Evaluation: Avoiding sowing tubers damaged and infested with weevils. Pest pressure can be lowered. Uncertainties: It seems that the seeds come from the previous production cycle; therefore, the inspection is visual and the health status uncertain.
6	Elimination of volunteer plants	Yes	Evaluation: Volunteer plants can be removed when they are small, or their presence can be avoided by making a good harvest and eliminating their residues. These plants are the first to emerge and provide adult weevils with food, shelter and place to oviposit. Pest pressure can be lowered. Uncertainties: No scientific data on efficacy.
6	Elimination of crop residues	Yes	Evaluation: Damaged, rotten and small tubers left in the fields after harvest allow weevil larvae and other pests to develop inside and complete their life cycle. These tubers instead must be collected and destroyed. A practical way to eliminate this waste is to introduce animals, such as pigs and sheep, to feed and thus get rid of these tubers. Pest pressure can be lowered. Uncertainties: Their strategy might not be the most effective to remove crop residues, No scientific data on efficacy.
7	Mechanical measures	Yes	Evaluation: Manual capture of weevils can contribute to reduce the amount of weevils present. Uncertainties: Might not be effective enough.
8	Ash application	Yes	Evaluation: The application of 10 g of ash to the neck of the plant to the emergency and before the stubble tillage reduces by 37% the damage by weevil. It can lower infestation. Uncertainties: Limited scientific data on efficacy.
9	Hilling	Yes	Evaluation: It is important to hill properly in order to prevent the larvae from reaching the tubers. Pest pressure can be lowered. Uncertainties: No scientific data on efficacy.
11	Timely harvest	Yes	Evaluation: The damage increases when ulluco is left in the field for longer than needed. Pest pressure can be lowered. Uncertainties: No scientific data on efficacy.
12	Winter plough in harvested fields	Yes	Evaluation: Plough the soil of infested fields between July and August to destroy weevils by exposing them to the sun and wild birds. Pest pressure can be lowered. Uncertainties: No scientific data on efficacy.
13	Poultry use	Yes	Evaluation: During the selection of ulluco tubers and after soil removal chickens are used such as predators of larvae, pupae and overwintering adults. Pest pressure can be lowered. Uncertainties: No scientific data on efficacy.
18	Storage temperature	No	Evaluation: The tubers are shipped in containers with a temperature and relative humidity of 2°C, 90%–95% humidity. The life cycle can be slowed down. Uncertainties: The temperature inside the tubers could be different from the one in the environment.

Taxonomic information	Current valid scientific name: potato virus T Synonyms: Potato T capillovirus, Potato T trichovirus Name used in the EU legislation: Potato virus T [PVT000]; Order: Tymovirales Family: Betaflexiviridae Common name: – Name used in the Dossier: Potato virus T (PVT)
Group	Virus
EPPO code	PVT000
Regulated status	Annex II: List of Union quarantine pests, Part A: Pests not known to occur in the Union territory Quarantine pest: Morocco (2018), Canada (2019), Mexico (2018), USA (1994), Israel (2009), Norway (2012), New Zealand (2000), A1 list: Argentina (2019), Brazil (2018), Jordan (2013), Kazakhstan (2017), Russia (2014), Turkey (2016), EAEU (2016), EPPO (1978)
Pest status in Peru	Present: widespread (EPPO, CABI CPC)
Pest status in the EU	Absent (EPPO, CABI CPC)
Host status on Ullucus tuberosus	According to CABI CPC, Ullucus tuberosus (ulluco) is one of the hosts of PVT.
PRA information	PRA on EU internal movement of true potato seed (TPS) of registered TPS varieties: probability of association of regulated pests and analysis of risk reduction options (Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, 2015) Assessment of Quarantine Pest Dispersal from Norwegian Potato and Root Vegetable Packing Plants with Evaluation of Risk Reducing Options, Opinion of the Panel on Plant Health of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment (2018)
Other relevant information for the assessment
Biology	The potato virus T (PVT) is an RNA virus with flexuous filamentous particles that belong to the related genus Tepovirus (Martelli et al., 1994). It is seed‐borne in some solanaceous species and is readily transmitted through vegetative propagation (true potato seeds) and pollen (Jones, 1982), in addition to be readily transmitted by sap inoculation to potato, as well as to tubers produced by infected plants. Vectors responsible for spreading PVT in potato crops are not known (Salazar and Harrison, 1978).
Symptoms	Main type of symptoms	PVT can be asymptomatic in potato and ullucus plant species. Some experimental plant species are used for PVT diagnosis: Chenopodium amaranticolor; Systemic necrosis in leaves. C. quinoa; Chlorotic spots in inoculated leaves, and mosaics in systemically infected leaves. Datura stramonium; mild mosaics in systemically infected leaves. Nicotiana debneyi; mottling in systemically infected leaves. Phaseolus vulgaris; necrosis in systemically infected leaves and recovery of plants.
	Presence of asymptomatic plants	PVT is symptomless in potato and ulluco.
	Confusion with other pests	N/A
Host plant range	Natural hosts include Mashua (Tropaeolum tuberosum), oca (Oxalis tuberosa), potato (Solanum tuberosum) and ulluco (Ullucus tuberosus). It has been transmitted mechanically to 46 species from 8 dicotyledonous families, including Amaranthaceae, Chenopodiaceae, Leguminosae and Solanaceae (Salazar and Harrison, 1978). Wild Solanum species are also susceptible.
Pathways	– Vegetative propagation material (tubers and true seeds) – Mechanically by sap and plant‐to-plant contact – Pollen
Surveillance information	Following the Peruvian NPPO Dossier, there are no phytosanitary regulations on viruses that affect ulluco, but SENASA carries out permanent phytosanitary surveillance of crop fields, which includes sampling for laboratory analysis and supporting the producer for pest prevention and management. These activities are carried out in accordance with the ‘Pest Prospecting Instructions’ and ‘Sampling and Handling Manual’ developed by SENASA to carry out the prospecting actions on crops, including olluco, as well as the procedures for sampling and remission of samples to the laboratory of plant parts and/or pests. Personnel trained in SENASA regional offices travel daily to the crop‐producing areas for the identification of symptoms or damage due to pests and the transfer of samples to the laboratory. In the case of ulluco, this crop is managed in the highland's areas, the fields are travelled in order to identify anomalies in their growth, which may be related to the presence of virus or other disease. The samples collected in the field are registered in the database ‘Integrated System of Plant Health Management’ (SIGSVE) and sent to the Unit of Diagnostic Center of Plant Health of SENASA, under adequate conditions of protection. Laboratory analyses are performed by the SENASA Plant Health Diagnostic Centers Unit, which has diagnostic methods based on pest morphology, ELISA and molecular biology (conventional PCR, real time and sequencing). According to the Dossier and geographical distribution of PVT in Peru, it has been reported in the Ayacucho Cusco, Ancash and Puno areas.

No	Risk mitigation measure	Effect on the pest	Evaluation and uncertainties
1	Surveillance and monitoring	Yes	Evaluation: Inspection activities in ulluco‐producing areas by SENASA follow ISPMs. Tubers are visually inspected, and when suspected of pests are sent to a diagnostic laboratory. If the pest is detected, SENASA headquarters and producers are informed and corrective measures are applied. Uncertainties: It is unclear to what extent the monitoring by visual inspection is effective to detect asymptomatic plants. This virus may remain asymptomatic in ulluco plants, and also in some other plant host species. It is uncertain the measures applied after diagnosis.
2	Sampling and laboratory testing	Yes	Evaluation: The samples are registered in the database ‘Integrated System of Plant Health Management’ (SIGSVE) and sent the Unit of Diagnostic Center of Plant Health of SENASA, under adequate conditions of protection. The analyses are performed by the SENASA Plant Health Diagnostic Centers Unit (UCDSV), which has diagnostic methods based on pest morphology, ELISA and molecular biology (conventional PCR, real time and sequencing). This diagnostic approach is methodologically appropriate. Uncertainties: It is unclear to what extent the detection and sampling strategies are effective to detect asymptomatic plants. This virus may remain asymptomatic in ulluco plants, and also in some other plant host species. Additionally, they stated that during the harvest, no analysis is done.
3	Crop rotation	Yes	Evaluation: Ulluco production can be part of a rotation scheme with different crops e.g. oca, beans, barley. However, the overlapping with alternative crops could favour the PVT dispersal in crops, as other alternative host plants may act as a source of viral inoculum. Uncertainties: It is unclear to what extent other cultivated host plants (potato) could be potential source of PVT inoculum.
4	Selection of production sites	Yes	Evaluation: The environmental conditions in the areas where ulluco is cultivated allow limited pest pressure. Uncertainties: Lack of information on the biology of PVT in ulluco. This control measure is considered of low relevance for the spread of the virus.
5	Use of healthy propagation material	Yes	Evaluation: The use of healthy propagation material is correct, and a visual selection during the cultivation may be useful, but virus may be unnoticed and ulluco plants are grown from non‐certified seeds. The use of certified virus‐free seed tubers would have been preferable. Uncertainties: It is unclear to which extent the implemented method is effective to prevent potential infections. Moreover, it is also uncertain the transmission of the virus to tubers, true seeds and pollen in ulluco.
14	Sorting/grading/tuber selection	Yes	Evaluation: There is a field selection for tubers that are used for export, but PVT infection can be asymptomatic. Uncertainties: Lack of information on the biology of PVT in ulluco (tubers). It is uncertain to what extent the inspection is effective to detect asymptomatic tubers.
16	Pre‐consignment inspection	Yes	Evaluation: SENASA is monitoring 2% of tubers and those with symptoms are sent for laboratory testing, but PVT infection can be asymptomatic. Uncertainties: It is uncertain to what extent visual inspection is effective in detecting infected tubers (as it is regarded as an asymptomatic virus). Additionally, it is stated that no analysis is done during harvest.

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Values	9,100.00					9,370.00		9,600.00		9,800.00					9,980.00
EKE results	9,100.12	9,123.11	9,156.72	9,216.47	9,288.89	9,371.86	9,450.00	9,597.45	9,735.51	9,801.32	9,865.37	9,915.74	9,952.39	9,970.28	9,980.78

Taxonomic information	Current valid scientific name: Andean potato latent virus Synonyms: Andean potato latent tymovirus, Eggplant mosaic tymovirus Andean potato latent str, Eggplant mosaic virus (Andean potato latent str.), potato (Andean) latent virus, Potato Andean latent tymovirus, Potato Andean latent virus Name used in the EU legislation: Andean potato latent virus [APLV00]; Order: Tymovirales Family: Tymoviridae Common name: Andean potato latent virus Name used in the Dossier: Andean potato latent virus (APLV)
Group	Virus
EPPO code	APLV
Regulated status	Annex II: List of Union quarantine pests, Part A: Pests not known to occur in the Union territory Quarantine pest: Morocco (2018), Canada (2019), Mexico (2018), USA (1989), Israel (2009), Norway (2012), New Zealand (2000) A1 list: Argentina (2019), Brazil (2018), Jordan (2013), Kazakhstan (2017), Uzbekistan (2008), Russia (2014), Turkey (2016), EAEU (2016), EPPO (1978)
Pest status in Peru	Present: widespread (EPPO, CABI CPC)
Pest status in the EU	Absent (EPPO, CABI CPC)
Host status on Ullucus tuberosus	According to CABI CPC, Ullucus tuberosus (ulluco) is one of the main hosts of APLV.
PRA information	Pest categorisation of non‐EU viruses and viroids of potato (EFSA, 2020). Biosecurity Guidance on Ulluco, Preventing the introduction and spread of ulluco viruses (DeFRA, 2017)
Other relevant information for the assessment
Biology	Andean potato latent virus (APLV) consists of a single‐stranded RNA genome of 6.0–6.7 kb in size and isometric particles of 30 nm in diameter, belonging to the tymovirus group, which is typically beetle‐transmitted (CABI CPC, Online). APLV can be transmitted by a flea beetle (Epitrix sp.) with low efficiency in experimental conditions. The virus is readily transmitted by contact, and its transmission to tubers is erratic. APLV was considered a strain of eggplant mosaic tymovirus, but nucleotide sequence comparison has showed to be distinct species. There are three major serological strain groups recognised; CCC, Col‐Cay and Hu (Fribourg et al., 1977; Koenig et al., 1979). Although, it has been recently suggested that APLV should be subdivided into two species, APLV and APMMV, based on comparison of the complete genomic RNA sequences of Hu and Col isolates (Kreuze et al. 2013; EPPO Standard, Diagnostics, 2018).
Symptoms	Main type of symptoms	APLV is usually latent in Solanum spp., but occasionally it causes chlorotic netting of minor veins or mild or even severe mosaic symptoms (Fribourg et al., 1977). Symptoms depend on the virus species, strain, plant species and environmental conditions (EPPO Standard, Diagnostics, 2018). Severe symptoms are also induced in mixed infections with other potato viruses (Jones and Fribourg, 1978). Some experimental plant species are used for APLV diagnosis. APLV causes chlorotic and necrotic local lesions in Nicotiana benthamiana, N. hesperis 67A and N. occidentalis P1 (EPPO Standard, Diagnostics, 2018).
	Presence of asymptomatic plants	According to CABI CPC, APLV appear to be latent on Solanum sp. and no symptoms are observed on ulluco (Lizárraga et al., 1996) (CABI CPC, Online).
	Confusion with other pests	N/A
Host plant range	The natural host range of APLV is restricted, its principal host is potato (Solanum tuberosum), and also includes Solanum acaule and ulluco (Ullucus tuberosus) (Lizarraga et al., 1996; Roenhorst and Verhoeven, 1998; EPPO Standard, Diagnostics, 2018). APLV can also be transmitted mechanically to species of Amaranthaceae, Chenopodiaceae, Cucurbitaceae and Solanaceae (Fribourg et al., 1977). According to EFSA pest categorisation on non‐EU viruses, APLV in U. tuberosus was reported to be distinct from APLV in potato (Fox et al., 2019), and additional natural hosts may exist.
Pathways	– Vegetative propagation material (true seeds and possibly through tubers) – Mechanically by sap and plant‐to-plant contact – Insect vector transmission (Epitrix sp.) – Pollen
Surveillance information	Following the Peruvian NPPO Dossier, there are no phytosanitary regulations on viruses that affect ulluco crops. SENASA carries out permanent phytosanitary surveillance of crop fields, which includes sampling for laboratory analysis and supporting the producer for pest prevention and management. These activities are carried out in accordance with the ‘Pest Prospecting Instructions’ and ‘Sampling and Handling Manual’ developed by SENASA to carry out the prospecting actions on crops, including ulluco, as well as the procedures for sampling and remission of samples to the laboratory of plant parts and/or pests. Personnel trained in SENASA regional offices travel daily to the crop‐producing areas for the identification of symptoms or damage due to pests and the transfer of samples to the laboratory. In the case of ulluco, this crop is managed in the highland's areas, the fields are travelled in order to identify anomalies in their growth, which may be related to the presence of virus or other disease. The samples collected in the field are registered in the database ‘Integrated System of Plant Health Management’ (SIGSVE) and sent the Unit of Diagnostic Center of Plant Health of SENASA, under adequate conditions of protection. Laboratory analyses are performed by the SENASA Plant Health Diagnostic Centers Unit, which has diagnostic methods based on pest morphology, ELISA and molecular biology (conventional PCR, real time and sequencing).
	According to the Dossier APLV in Peru has been reported in La Libertad and Acash. A survey for viruses’ detection on ulluco crops from certified plants and tubers (three field exposures) showed that a 28% and 57% of plants in the field were infected with APLV, among other viruses (Lizárraga et al., 1999).

PERMALINK

Commodity risk assessment of Ullucus tuberosus tubers from Peru

Claude Bragard

Katharina Dehnen‐Schmutz

Francesco Di Serio

Paolo Gonthier

Marie‐Agnès Jacques

Josep Anton Jaques Miret

Annemarie Fejer Justesen

Alan MacLeod

Christer Sven Magnusson

Panagiotis Milonas

Juan Antonio Navas‐Cortes

Stephen Parnell

Roel Potting

Philippe Lucien Reignault

Hans‐Hermann Thulke

Wopke Van der Werf

Antonio Vicent Civera

Lucia Zappalà

Andrea Lucchi

Gregor Urek

Pedro Gómez

Olaf Mosbach‐Schulz

Andrea Maiorano

Eduardo de la Peña

Jonathan Yuen

Abstract

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Terms of Reference as provided by European Commission

1.1.1. Background

1.1.2. Terms of reference

1.2. Interpretation of the Terms of Reference

2. Data and methodologies

2.1. Data provided by SENASA, Peru

Table 1.

Table 2.

2.2. Literature searches performed by EFSA

Table 3.

2.3. Methodology

2.3.1. Commodity data

2.3.2. Identification of pests potentially associated with the commodity

2.3.3. Listing and evaluation of risk mitigation measures

Figure 1.

3. Commodity data

3.1. Description of the commodity

3.2. Description of the production areas

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Figure 4.

3.3. Production and handling processes

3.3.1. Source of planting material

3.3.2. Production cycle

Figure 5.

Table 6.

3.3.3. Pest monitoring during production

Table 7.

3.3.4. Post‐harvest processes and export procedure

4. Identification of pests potentially associated with the commodity

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

Table 8.

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

4.3. Overview of interceptions

Table 9.

4.4. List of potential pests not further assessed

4.5. Summary of pests selected for further evaluation

Table 10.

5. Risk mitigation measures

5.1. Possibility of pest presence in the production places

5.2. Risk mitigation measures applied in Peru

Table 11.

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

5.3.1. Overview of the evaluation of Nacobbus aberrans

5.3.2. Overview of the evaluation of Atalodera andina

5.3.3. Overview of the evaluation of Andean potato latent virus (APLV)

5.3.4. Overview of the evaluation of potato virus T (PVT)

5.3.5. Overview of the evaluation of Amathynetoides nitidiventris

5.3.6. Outcome of Expert Knowledge Elicitation

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Elicited values	20.00					180.00		350.00		550.00					800.00
EKE	17.23	27.59	44.53	78.01	122.74	178.56	235.24	353.33	479.77	547.51	620.51	685.69	741.26	773.82	797.18

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Values	9,200.00					9,450.00		9,650.00		9,820.00					9,980.00
EKE results	9,202.82	9,226.18	9,258.74	9,314.31	9,379.49	9,452.49	9,520.23	9,646.67	9,764.76	9,821.44	9,877.26	9,921.99	9,955.47	9,972.41	9,982.77

Taxonomic information	Current valid scientific name: Nacobbus aberrans (Thorne, 1935) Thorne and Allen, 1944 Synonyms: Anguillulina aberrans Thorne, 1935, Nacobbus batatiformis Thorne and Schuster, Nacobbus serendipiticus Franklin, Nacobbus serendipiticus bolivianus Lordello, Zamith and Boock ame used in the EU legislation: Nacobbus aberrans (Thorne) Thorne and Allen Name used in the Dossier: – Order: Rhabditida Family: Pratylenchidae
Group	Nematoda
EPPO code	NACOBA
Regulated status	EU status: Annex IAI Non‐ EU: A1 list: Brazil (2018), Paraguay (1995), Uruguay (1995), Bahrain (2003), Jordan (2013), Uzbekistan (2008), Georgia (2018), Russia (2014), Turkey (2016), Ukraine (2010), EPPO (1981) A2 list: Argentina (2019) Quarantine pest: Morocco (2018), Israel (2009), Norway (2012)
Pest status in Peru	Present, restricted distribution (EPPO, online)
Pest status in the EU	Absent
Host status on Ullucus tuberosus	In CABI (2020) and EFSA Journal (2018), ulluco, Ullucus tuberosus is recorded as a host of Nacobbus aberrans.
PRA information	Nacobbus aberrans, the false root‐knot nematode is a species complex (=N. aberrans sensu lato) comprising more than one species (Reid et al., 2003; Vovlas et al., 2007). It is a root endoparasite with mobile (juveniles and immature adults) and immobile developmental stages (sedentary mature females). According to the host preferences N. aberrans is classified into three groups (potato, sugar beet and bean group) (Franco and Main, 2008, EFSA, 2018). According to the EFSA Scientific Opinion on pest categorization of N. aberrans published in 2018, all populations of N. aberrans sensu lato are highly polyphagous and could attack and cause severe damage to many important host plants in the EU. Yield losses reported on crops infected by N. aberrans depend on initial density, climatic conditions, soil type and crop cultivar and average 65% for potato in the Andean region of South America, and 55% and 36% for tomato and bean, respectively in Mexico (Inserra et al., 2004; EFSA, 2018). The false root‐knot nematode is adapted to different climatic conditions and has been reported from temperate and subtropical regions of North (USA, Mexico) and South America (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador and Peru) (EFSA Journal, 2018). South American populations are able to develop at temperatures of 10–25°C (Anthoine et al., 2006). N. aberrans is widely distributed in the areas of oca and ulluco production (Bridge et al., 2005) and is considered the most common pest of potato and other Andean crops including ulluco in the temperate highlands of the Andean regions (Manzanilla‐Lopez et al., 2002; Franco and Main, 2008). In the Andes, it is associated with potatoes at temperatures of 15–18°C (Mai et al., 1981). Although ulluco roots can be heavily attacked, information on the economic impact of N. aberrans as a limiting factor of ulluco production is poor (Bridge et al., 2005). According to Bridge et al. (2005), the response of ulluco to the attack of N. aberrans as well as Atalodera andina indicates the possibility of an available resistant gene base. In the answers provided by Peru to the questions raised by the working group, it is stated that distribution of false root‐knot nematode in Peru is restricted. The nematode causes damage to potatoes; however, its attacks are rare. According to SENASA, no false root‐knot nematode attacks were detected on ulluco. N. aberrans is quarantine plant parasitic nematode pest posing a high risk for the EU agriculture if introduced either with infested plants (plants for planting) or soil attached to plants. Unwashed/unbrushed ulluco tubers are contaminated with soil and could pose a significant risk of introduction of plant parasitic nematodes, including N. aberrans into the EU. Cleaned ulluco tubers intended for consumption, that are essentially free from soil present a lower risk for quarantine plant parasitic nematodes, but washing (or brushing) does not reduce the risk of nematodes associated with tubers infected with certain endoparasitic nematodes, including N. aberrans. Although N. aberrans may be present inside ulluco tubers, the risk which is generally associated with the end use of ulluco is considered low as the ulluco will be processed for consumption – tubers will be heat treated. Plant residues like peels or culled tubers may, however, still pose certain risk, if they are not properly removed of or treated.
Other relevant information for the assessment
Symptoms	Main type of symptoms	The above‐ground symptoms of N. aberrans attack are not very specific. They appear as irregular patchy areas of infested plants manifested in poor growth, wilting and leaf chlorosis. The symptoms caused by the false root‐knot nematode attack are more obvious on the roots, on which root galls are developed mainly along the root axis and at the root tips. These galls are similar to those caused by Meloidogyne spp. Gall shape may vary with nematode density, biological race and root size (Brodie et al., 2005). Galls are not so pronounced on tubers.
	Presence of asymptomatic plants	Tubers and roots inhabited by the vermiform and motile stages of N. aberrans escape any visual inspection. The absence of symptoms (galls) in certain plants is possible and the presence of N. aberrans within tubers of ulluco may be overlooked (EFSA, 2018).
	Confusion with other pathogens/pests	Galls formed by N. aberrans may be confused with symptoms caused by root‐knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.). For proper nematode identification, it is therefore necessary to use morphologic characters or molecular tools.
Host plant range	N. aberrans is a highly polyphagous nematode parasitising more than 90 plant species from 21 botanical families including potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.), sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.), tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) (EFSA Journal, 2018). Other hosts (EFSA Journal, 2018): Amaranthaceae (Amaranthus sp., A. hybridus L., A. hypochondriacus L., A. quitensis H.B. & K., A. retroflexus L., A. spinosus L., Bassia (=Kochia) scoparia (L.) Voss); Apiaceae (Daucus carota L.); Asteraceae (Eupatorium azangaroense Sch. Bip., Baccharis salicifolia (Ruiz and Pav) Pers., Gaillardia pulchella Fouger, Lactuca sativa L., Simsia amplexicaulis Pers., Tagetes mandonii Sch. Bip., Taraxacum officinale L., Tragopogon porrifolius L.); Basellaceae (Ullucus tuberosus Caldas); Brassicaceae (Brassica campestris L., B. juncea (L.) Czern. & Cass. (=B. japonica), B. napus (L.) Rchb. Napobrassica Group, B. nigra (L.) Koch, B. oleracea L., B. rapa L., Calandria albis Kunth., Capsella bursa‐pastoris (L.) Medic., Matthiola sp., Raphanus sativus L., Sisymbrium irio L.); Cactaceae (Coryphantha vivipara Britt. and Rose, Escobaria (=Mammillaria) vivipara (Nutt.) F. Buxb, Mamillaria vivipara (Nutt.) Haw., Opuntia fragilis Haw., O. macrorhiza Engelm. (= tortispina Nutt.); Caryophyllaceae (Spergula arvensis L., Stellaria media (L.) Vill.; Chenopodiaceae (Atriplex confertifolia (Torr. and Fr_em.) S. Wats, Chenopodium album L., Chenopodium ambrosioides L., Ch. murale L., Ch. nuttalliae Saff., Ch. quinoa Willd., Salsola kali L. var tenuifolia Tausch, Spinacia oleracea L.); Convolvulaceae (Ipomoea batatas Lam.); Cucurbitaceae (Cucumis sativus L., Cucurbita maxima Duchesne, C. pepo L.); Fabaceae (Physalis spp., Pisum sativum L., Trifolium sp.); Lamiaceae (Origanum vulgare L.); Malvaceae (Abelmoschus (=Hibiscus) esculentus Moench, Alcea rosea L., Anoda cristata (L.) Schlecht., Malva parviflora L.); Nyctaginaceae (Mirabilis jalapa L.); Oxalidaceae (Oxalis tuberosa Molina); Plantaginaceae (Plantago lanceolata L.); Polygonaceae (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench.); Portulaceae (Portulaca oleracea L.); Solanaceae (Solanum sp., Capsicum annuum L., C. annuum L. var. Glabriusculum (Dunal) Heiser & Pickersgill (=C. baccatum L.), C. frutescens L., C. pendulum Willd., C. pubescens Ruiz & Pav., Cestrum roseum H.B. & K., Cyphomandra betacea Sendt., Datura ferox L., D. stramonium L., Nicotiana tabacum L., Solanum acaule, S. andigena Juz. and Buk., S. chacoense Bitter, Solanum chmielewskii (C.M.Rick, Kesicki, Fobes & M.Holle) D.M.Spooner, G.J.Anderson & R.K.Jansen, Solanum hirsutum, Solanum hybrids, Solanum infundibuliforme, Solanum megistacrolobum, S. melongena L., S. nigrum L., Solanum peruvianum Mill., Solanum pimpinellifolium Mill., S. rostratum Dun., S. triquetrum Cav., Solanum sparsipilum); Tropaeolaceae (Tropaeolum tuberosum Ruiz. et Pav.); Zygophyllaceae (Tribulus terrestris L.).
Pathways	– Plants, plants for planting (tubers, roots) – Subterranean plant parts intended for consumption (e.g. edible ulluco tubers) – Soil and growing media as such or attached to plants – Soil and growing media attached to machinery, tools, packaging materials etc.
Surveillance information	In the dossier (Sections 1 and 2), it is stated that pest surveys are permanently carried out on various crops, including Andean tubers, such as ulluco. Staff of SENASA periodically inspect the fields for the presence of symptoms caused by specific pests and take samples that are sent to appropriate laboratory at SENASA. The results of the laboratory are sent to the nearby SENASA headquarters so that it communicates with the producer and appropriate management measures are taken. According to Peru, there are no information on nematode ‘outbreaks’ on ulluco. The nematodes are therefore considered minor pests of ulluco.

No.	Risk mitigation measures	Effect on pest	Evaluation and uncertainties
1	Surveillance and monitoring	Yes	Evaluation: Pest surveys are permanently carried out on various crops, including Andean tubers, such as ulluco. Pest survey is based on a series of periodic visits by SENASA staff to observe symptoms and take samples, which are then sent to the appropriate SENASA diagnostic laboratory. The results of laboratory testing are then sent to the nearby SENASA headquarters so that it communicates with the producer and appropriate management measures are taken. Uncertainties: The uncertainty relates to the lack of available data from official monitoring surveys for certain nematode species. N. aberrans occurs in Peru, but its distribution in the country is limited. It causes damage to potatoes, but its infestation is rare; there have been no reports of attacks of this species on potatoes (according to SENASA); the effects on the ulluco have no significant incidence. However, ulluco is a confirmed host of N. aberrans and is cultivated in association with the potato and some other Andean host plants.
2	Sampling and laboratory testing	Yes	Evaluation: Regarding the process of inspection and phytosanitary certification developed by SENASA, a sample of 2% of the total consignment to be exported is taken. This sample is visually inspected and if pests are suspected to be present, the sample is sent for further laboratory analysis. Uncertainties: Symptoms caused by N. aberrans may be overlooked. Symptomless tubers are not laboratory tested – infection may be overlooked. The consequences of pest presence in the sample are not described.
5	Use of healthy propagation and production material	Yes	Evaluation: The use of ulluco as a vegetative seed is mainly based on a visual selection of the harvested tubers. This selection allows farmers to select pest‐free tubers. Uncertainties: Symptoms caused by N. aberrans can be overlooked and infected tubers can be used for the further cultivation of ulluco.
14	Sorting/grading/tuber selection	Yes	Evaluation: Only first category tubers (those for export) are selected in the field. Tubers are individually and visually inspected. Uncertainties: Symptoms caused by N. aberrans (motile stages of N. aberrans within tubers) may be overlooked.
15	Brushing/washing (removal of soil from tubers)	Yes	Evaluation: Brushing/cleaning of the tubers is carried out. Damaged ulluco tubers and tubers with symptoms of the pests are removed. Uncertainties: Brushing/washing of the tubers does not reduce the nematode pest risk associated with edible ulluco tubers or seed tubers that are infested with endoparasitic or migratory endoparasitic nematodes (e.g. motile stages of N. aberrans). Symptomless tubers are not laboratory tested – infection may be overlooked.
16	Pre‐consignment inspection	Yes	Evaluation: According to SENASA, 2% of tubers are visually inspected; tubers with symptoms are sent for laboratory testing. Uncertainties: Symptomless tubers may be overlooked and are not sent for laboratory testing.

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Elicited values	1.00					60.00		120.00		300.00					500.00
EKE	1.04	1.99	4.43	11.69	25.33	47.38	74.50	143.54	232.62	285.58	345.98	402.27	451.44	480.39	500.94

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Values	9,500.00					9,700.00		9,880.00		9,940.00					9,999.00
EKE results	9,499.06	9,519.61	9,548.56	9,597.73	9,654.02	9,714.42	9,767.38	9,856.46	9,925.50	9,952.62	9,974.67	9,988.31	9,995.57	9,998.01	9,998.96

Taxonomic information	Current valid scientific name: Atalodera andina (Golden, Franco, Jatala and Astogaza, 1983) de Souza and Huang, 1994 Synonyms: Thecavermiculatus andinus Golden, Franco, Jatala and Astogaza, 1983 Name used in the EU legislation: – Name used in the Dossier: – Order: Rhabditida Family: Heteroderidae
Group	Nematoda
EPPO code	ATADAN
Regulated status	EU status: No status Non‐ EU: No status
Pest status in Peru	Present, widespread
Pest status in the EU	Absent
Host status on Ullucus tuberosus	Several nematode species are known to be associated with ulluco (Jatala, 1988). Ulluco is recorded as a good host of Atalodera (=Thecavermiculatus) andina.
PRA information	A. andina (round cystoid nematode) is a non‐cyst forming heteroderid nematode belonging to the subfamily Ataloderinae. It is an indigenous species in South America where it attacks some important Andean crops. A. andina was first described from oca plants Oxalis tuberosa collected in Peru near Lake Titicaca (Golden et al. 1983). Due to the fact that it multiplies intensively on oca plants and because it is very widespread on farms where this crop is grown, it is commonly known as the ‘nematode of the oca’ (Franco and Mosquera, 1993; Franco and Main, 2008). In addition to oca, ulluco, potato, quinoa, wild quinoa, lupine, Shepherds purse, wild turnip (B. campestris), common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) and wild tobacco (N. paniculata) are also considered to be effective hosts of A. andina (Franco and Mosquera, 1993). Although the roots of ulluco plants can be heavily attacked with this species information of its economic importance is lacking (Bridge et al., 2005). On the roots of ulluco plants A. andina is often found in association with root‐knot nematodes Meloidogyne spp. and false root‐knot nematode N. aberrans. The life cycle of A. andina consists of egg, four juvenile stages and an adult stage. The eggs spontaneously hatch inside female body at the end of the reproductive cycle and remain there, within the swollen females (Franco and Main, 2008). The first stage juveniles develop within the egg. Second‐stage juveniles (J2) hatch from eggs and after emerging from the female body move through the soil looking for roots of suitable host plant. After finding appropriate host plant, juveniles (J2) penetrate into the host roots inducing multinucleate giant cells – special feeding sites, called syncytium. After undergoing a series of three moults (J3 and J4 juvenile stages), they develop to swollen round–oval females; adult males remain vermiform. Females rupture root cortex and protrude from root surface (Baldwin and Mundo Ocampo, 1991). According to Jatala, A. andina (= T. andinus) is considered an important nematode species of potatoes in some Andean regions of Peru, but crop loss caused by it on potato and other tuber crops has not been adequately quantified (Scurrah et al., 2005). Based on greenhouse experiments, it was found that increasing the population density of A. andina in the soil negatively affects plant development and production of lupine, quinoa, oca and ulluco. This nematode has been reported to reduce quinoa yields significantly (Franco and Main, 2008). Although ulluco and oca can be severely attacked with some economically important plant parasitic nematodes such as N. aberrans, Meloidogyne spp. and A. andina, the control (chemical) of these nematodes is rarely practiced due to the fact that ulluco and oca are grown mainly on economically less important small farms (Bridge et al., 2005). A. andina, therefore, does not pose a major problem in production of these crops. According to Bridge et al. (2005), the response of ulluco to the attack of N. aberrans as well as A. andina indicates the possibility of an available resistant gene base. A. andina has been reported to reduce quinoa yield significantly (Franco and Main, 2008). According to Jatala, A. andina (= T. andinus) is considered an important nematode species of potatoes in some Andean regions of Peru, but information on crop loss caused by it on potato and other tuber crops is lacking (Scurrah et al., 2005). In the answers provided by Peru to the questions raised by the working group, it is stated that SENASA reported attacks of this nematode on potatoes but not on ulluco. It is also stated that A. andina is present in the highlands of the sierra attacking various species of tuberous plants, but its damage is minor. The impact on the ulluco is therefore negligible.
Other relevant information for the assessment
Symptoms	Main type of symptoms	The symptoms caused by A. andina are detected mainly on the roots, on which white spherical female bodies may appear.
	Presence of asymptomatic plants	The absence of symptoms (absence of females bodies in certain plants) is possible; therefore, the presence of A. andina can be overlooked.
	Confusion with other pathogens/pests	A. andina can be misidentified as Globodera spp. by the presence of white spherical females bodies attached to the roots of its host plant (Franco and Main, 2008). However, these females do not change colour nor become cysts (= non cyst forming heteroderid species).
Host plant range	A. andina has a broad host range. It has been reported from more than 30 plant species from 12 botanical families. As suitable hosts are considered: oca (Oxalis tuberosa Mol), quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd), wild quinoa (C. amaranticolor (H.J.Coste & A.Reyn.) H.J.Coste & A.Reyn.), ulluco (Ullucus tuberosus Loz) – fam. Basellaceae, potato (Solanum tuberosum subsp. Andigena Hawkes), wild tobacco (Nicotiana paniculata L.), Shepherd's purse (Capsella bursa‐pastoris L.) and lupin (Lupinus mutabilis Sweet) (Franco and Mosquera, 1993). Other possible hosts (Golden et al., 1983; Franco and Mosquera, 1993): Amaranthaceae: Amaranthus peruvianus Stadley, A. caudatus L.; Cruciferae: Brassica oleracea L. vr. Capitata, B. oleracea L. vr. Botrytis, B. napus, B. campestris L., Raphanus sativus L.; Cactaceae: Cereus geometricus, C. candelabrus, Opuntia sp.; Compositae: Senecio vulgaris L.; Chenopodiaceae: Chenopodium ambrosioides L., Beta vulgaris L.; Leguminosae: Phaseolus vulgaris L., Vicia faba L., Pisum sativum L., Lens esculenta L., Medicago hispida Garth, Trifolium repens L., T. pretense L., T. hybridum L., Medicago sativa L. Labiatae: Salvia sp.; Oxalidaceae: Oxalis solarensis Knuth; Solanaceae: Physalis peruviana L., Lycopersicon pimpinelifolium Mill, L. esculentum Mill, Solanum melongena L.; Tropaeolaceae: Tropaeolum tuberosum R. et P.; Malvaceae: Malvastrum corornandelianum L.
Pathways	– Plants, plants for planting (tubers, roots) – Subterranean plant parts intended for consumption (e.g. edible ulluco tubers) – Soil and growing media as such or attached to plants – Soil and growing media attached to machinery, tools, packaging materials etc.
Surveillance information	– Same as for N. aberrans

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Elicited values	0.00					10.00		20.00		35.00					70.00
EKE	0.77	1.56	2.69	4.69	7.17	10.17	13.24	20.04	28.62	34.21	41.67	50.60	61.99	72.79	86.38

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Values	9,930.00					9,965.00		9,980.00		9,990.00					10,000.0
EKE results	9,913.62	9,927.21	9,938.01	9,949.40	9,958.33	9,965.79	9,971.38	9,979.96	9,986.76	9,989.83	9,992.83	9,995.31	9,997.31	9,998.44	9,999.23

	Pest name	EPPO code	Group	Pest present in Peru	Present in the EU	U. tuberosus confirmed as a host (reference)	Pest can be associated with the commodity	Impact	Justification for inclusion in this list
1	Papaya mosaic virus‐U	PAPMV0	Virus	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Uncertainty	The impact is not demonstrated
2	Dematophora bunodes	–	Fungi	Yes	No	Uncertain	Uncertain	Yes	Only found in the warm tropical areas where ulluco is not cultivated