Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey

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 bare rooted and potted plants of Robinia pseudoacacia that are imported from Turkey, taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by the Turkish NPPO. The relevance of any pest for this opinion was based on evidence following defined criteria. Three species, the EU‐quarantine pests Anoplophora chinensis and Lopholeucapsis japonica, and the EU non‐regulated pest Phocazia shantungensis fulfilled all relevant criteria and were selected for further evaluation. For these pests, the risk mitigation measures proposed in the technical dossier from Turkey were evaluated taking into account the possible limiting factors. For these 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 estimated degree of pest freedom varies among the pests evaluated, with L. japonica being the pest most frequently expected on the imported plants. The Expert Knowledge Elicitation indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9,521 and 10,000 plants per 10,000 would be free of L. japonica.

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 (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 Robinia pseudoacacia from Turkey taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical dossier provided by Turkey.

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 R. pseudoacacia from Turkey following the Guidance on commodity risk assessment for the evaluation of high‐risk plant dossiers (EFSA PLH Panel, 2019).

The EU quarantine pests that are regulated as a group in the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 were considered and evaluated separately at species level.

Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 lists certain pests as non‐European populations or isolates or species. These pests are considered regulated quarantine pests. Consequently, the respective European populations, or isolates, or species are non‐regulated pests.

Annex VII of the same Regulation, in certain cases (e.g. point 32) makes reference to the following countries that are excluded from the obligation to comply with specific import requirements for those non‐European populations, or isolates, or species: Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canary Islands, Faeroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Russia (only the following parts: Central Federal District (Tsentralny federalny okrug), Northwestern Federal District (SeveroZapadny 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, Ukraine and United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland).4 Those countries are historically linked to the reference to ?non‐European countries’ existing in the previous legal framework, Directive 2000/29/EC. Consequently, for those countries, any pests identified, which are listed as non‐European species in Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 should be investigated as any other non‐regulated pest.

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 information in the technical dossier (hereafter referred to as ‘the Dossier’) provided by the applicant (Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, National Plant Protection Organization ‐ Turkish NPPO) was sufficient to conduct a commodity risk assessment. When necessary, additional information was requested to the applicant.

• Selected the relevant Union quarantine pests and protected zone quarantine pests (as specified in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/20725, hereafter referred to as ‘EU quarantine pests’) and other relevant pests present in Turkey and associated with the commodity.

• Did not assess the effectiveness of measures for 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 and/or in the relevant legislative texts for emergency measures and provided that the specific country is in the scope of those emergency measures. The assessment was restricted to whether or not the applicant country applies those measures.

• Assessed the effectiveness of the measures described in the dossier for those Union quarantine pests for which no specific measures are in place for the import of the commodity from the specific applicant country and other relevant pests present in applicant country and associated with the commodity.

Risk management decisions are not within EFSA's remit. Therefore, the Panel provided a rating based on expert judgement regarding the likelihood of pest freedom for each relevant pest given the risk mitigation measures proposed by the Turkish NPPO.

2. Data and methodologies

2.1. Data provided by the Turkish NPPO

The Panel considered all the data and information (hereafter called ‘the Dossier’) provided by the Turkish NPPO on 15 June 2020, including the additional information provided by the Turkish NPPO on 27 November 2020, 18 December 2020 and 15 February 2021, after EFSA's request. The Dossier is managed by EFSA.

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

Table 1.

Structure and overview of the Dossier

Dossier section	Overview of contents	Filename
1.0	Technical dossier on Robinia pseudoacacia (complete document)	EFSA_Dossier‐Q‐2020‐00091_Turkey_Robinia pseudoacacia.pdf
2.0	Additional information provided by the Turkish NPPO on date 27 November 2020	EFSA_Dossier‐Q‐2020‐00091_Turkey_Robinia pseudoacacia ‐ Answers to additional questions.pdf
3.0	Additional information on the eradication programme of Anoplophora chinensis on date 18 December 2020	EFSA_Dossier‐Q‐2020‐00091_Turkey_Robinia pseudoacacia ‐ Anoplophora Report‐ Robinia pseudoacacia_18_12_2020.pdf
4.0	Additional information on the status of Anoplophora chinensis in Istanbul province on date 15 February 2021	EFSA_Dossier‐Q‐2020‐00091_Turkey_Robinia pseudoacacia ‐ Additional information about Anoplophora chinensis in Istanbul_15_02_2021.pdf

The data and supporting information provided by the Turkish NPPO formed the basis of the commodity risk assessment.

The databases shown in Table 2 and the resources and references listed below are the main sources used by the Turkish NPPO to compile the Dossier (details on literature searches can be found in the Dossier Section 4):

Table 2.

Database sources used in the literature searches by the Turkish NPPO

Acronym/short title	Database name and service provider	URL of database	Justification for choosing database
PPTI	Name: Plant Protection Technical Instructions Provider: Turkish NPPO	https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/TAGEM/Belgeler/Bitki%20Zararl%C4%B1lar%C4%B1%20Zirai%20M%C3%BCcadele%20Teknik%20Talimatlar%C4%B1.pdf https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/TAGEM/Belgeler/Bitki%20Hastal%C4%B1klar%C4%B1%20ve%20Yabanc%C4%B1%20Ot%20Zirai%20M%C3%BCcadele%20Teknik%20Talimatlar%C4%B1.pdf	These instructions are prepared regarding pests in Turkey, which cause damages on their hosts economically. They cover total of 644 pests including bacteria, phytoplasmas, fungi, insects, viruses and viroids.
CABI ISC	CABI Invasive Species Compendium Provider: CAB International	https://www.cabi.org/ISC	EFSA recommendation
EPPO GD	EPPO Global Database Provider: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization	https://gd.eppo.int/	EFSA recommendation
Plant Protection Bulletin	Plant Protection Bulletin published by the Plant Protection Central Research Institute	https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/bitkorb	The journal is published four times a year with original research articles in English or Turkish languages on plant protection and health.
Fauna Europaea	Name: Fauna Europaea Provider: Museum für Naturkunde Leibniz‐Institut für Evolutions‐ und Biodiversitätsforschung	https://fauna-eu.org/	Fauna Europaea is Europe's main zoological taxonomic index. The database lists scientific names and distributions of all living, currently known, multicellular, European land and fresh water animal species

Other resources

National and EU legislations were used to determine pest status in Turkey and in EU. The regulations used are below:

• Regulation on the Registration of Plant Passport System and Operators, (https://kms.kaysis.gov.tr/Home/Goster/40074).

• Plant Quarantine Regulation, (https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/reportingobligation/2017/02/20/Regulation_on_Plant_Quarantine_-Turkey_2016.pdf).

• Plant Health Standards Instruction in Fruit and Grapevine Saplings and Production Materials (https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/Belgeler/Mevzuat/Talimatlar/BUGEM/Bitki_Sa%C4%9Fl%C4%B1%C4%9F%C4%B1_Talimat%C4%B1.pdf).

• Implementing Regulation on Certification and Marketing of Fruit Saplings and Production Materials (https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=7.5.13182&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=meyve%20fidan%C4%B1).

• Regulation on Authorization and Inspection in Seed Services, (https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=7.5.13052&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=tohumculuk).

• Seed Services Application Instruction.

• Seed Export Application Circular.

• Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32000L0029).

• Instructions of sampling.

• Regulation on Authorisation, Inspection and Forest Plant Passport in the Forest Plant Seed Marketing (https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=7.5.22699&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=orman%20bitki%20pasaportu).

• Regulation on The Trade of Forest Growing Materials (1999/105/Ec) (https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=7.5.9882&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=orman%20yeti%C5%9Ftirme).

References

Akıllı S, Zekai Katircioglu Y and Maden S, 2010. Available online: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/duzceod/issue/4825/291039

CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/5557

CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/6196

CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/6204

CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/7418

CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/113870

CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/18512

CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/24677

CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/27377

CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/28432

CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/45077

CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/45079

CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/45556

CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/115762

Callaway RM, Bedmar EJ, Reinhart KO and Klironomos J, 2011. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51208952

Casero, 2017. Available online: https://plurifor.efi.int/wpcontent/uploads/WP2/2.1.1/Fusarium/UVA_Julio_Diez_new_tools_monitoring_13Oct17.pdf

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), 2019. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/ANOLGL/distribution

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), 2019. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/HALYHA/distribution

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), 2019. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/1FUSAG

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), 2019. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/1PHOMG

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), 2019. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/1PYTHG

FAUNA‐EU, 2019. Available online: https://fauna-eu.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/7fe49dfc-e228-443f-9952‐ ea8b27906a4f

Halász, 2002. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12109155

Kaydan MB, Ulgenturk S and Erkılıc L, 2013. Checklist of Turkish Coccoidea (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha) species. Turkish Bulletin of Entomology, 3, 157–182.

Keçe ÇAFM and ve Ulusoy MR, 2017. Armored scale insects (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Diaspididae) on ornamental plants in Adana, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Entomology, 41, 333–346. https://doi.org/10.16970/entoted.298572. ISSN 1010‐6960

Risks Monographs, 2017. Available online: http://nnext.boku.ac.at/images/publications/NNEXT_WG4_2017_Risks_Monographs.pdf

Ulgentürk S and Çanakçıoğlu H, 2004. Scale insect pests on ornamental plants in urban habitats in Turkey. Jurnal of Pest Science, 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-003-0031-4

2.2. Literature searches performed by EFSA

Literature searches were undertaken by EFSA to complete a list of pests potentially associated to R. pseudoacacia in Turkey. Two searches were combined: (i) a general search to identify pests of Robinia, particularly R. pseudoacacia, in different databases; and (ii) a tailored search to identify whether these pests are present or not in Turkey. The searches were launched on the 25 August 2020 and concluded on 27 August 2020. No language, date or document type restrictions were applied in the search strategy.

The Panel used the databases indicated in Table 3 to compile the list of pests associated with Robinia. As for Web of Science, the literature search was performed using a specific, ad hoc established search string (see Appendix B). The search strategy used for Web of Science Databases was designed combining common names for pests and diseases, terms describing symptoms of plant diseases and the scientific and English common names of the commodity. All pests already retrieved using the other databases were removed from the search terms to be able to reduce the number of records to be screened. The string was run in ‘All Databases’ with no range limits for time or language filters.

Table 3.

Databases used by EFSA for the compilation of the pest list associated to the genus Robinia

Database	Platform/Link
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/
Leaf‐miners	http://www.leafmines.co.uk/html/plants.htm
Nemaplex	http://nemaplex.ucdavis.edu/Nemabase2010/PlantNematodeHostStatusDDQuery.aspx
Plant Viruses Online	http://bio-mirror.im.ac.cn/mirrors/pvo/vide/famindex.htm
International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) ‐ Master Species List	https://talk.ictvonline.org/files/master-species-lists/m/msl/9601
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
Index Fungorum	http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/Names.asp
Mycobank	https://www.mycobank.com
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)	https://www.webofknowledge.com
World Agroforestry	http://www.worldagroforestry.org/treedb2/speciesprofile.php?Spid=1749
Catalog of the Cecidomyiidae (Diptera) of the world	https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80420580/Gagne_2014_World_Cecidomyiidae_Catalog_3rd_Edition.pdf
Catalog of the Eriophyoidea (Acarina: Prostigmata) of the world.	https://www.cabi.org/isc/abstract/19951100613
Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)	https://www.gbif.org/

Additional searches, limited to retrieve documents, were run when developing the opinion. The available scientific information, including previous EFSA opinions on the relevant pests and diseases (see pest data sheets in Appendix A) and the relevant literature and legislation (e.g. Regulation (EU) 2016/2031; Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2018/2019; (EU) 2018/2018 and (EU) 2019/2072) were taken into account.

2.3. Methodology

When developing the Opinion, the Panel followed the EFSA Guidance on commodity risk assessment for the evaluation of high‐risk plant dossiers (EFSA PLH Panel, 2019).

In the first step, pests potentially associated with the commodity in the country of origin (EU‐regulated pests and other pests) that may require risk mitigation measures were identified. The EU non‐regulated pests not known to occur in the EU were selected based on evidence of their potential impact in the EU. After the first step, all the relevant pests that may need risk mitigation measures were identified.

In the second step, the proposed risk mitigation measures for each relevant pest were evaluated in terms of efficacy or compliance with EU requirements as explained in Section 1.2.

A conclusion on the likelihood of the commodity being free from each of the relevant pest was determined and uncertainties identified using expert judgements.

Pest freedom was assessed by estimating the number of infested/infected plants out of 10,000 exported plants.

2.3.1. Commodity data

Based on the information provided by the Turkish NPPO the characteristics of the commodity are summarised.

2.3.2. Identification of pests potentially associated with the commodity

To evaluate the pest risk associated with the importation of R. pseudoacacia from Turkey a pest list was compiled. The pest list is a compilation of all identified plant pests associated with R. pseudoacacia based on information provided in the Dossier Section 4.0 and on searches performed by the Panel.

The pest list (see Microsoft Excel^® file in Appendix D) is a document that includes pests that use the host plant at genus level (Robinia spp.), retrieved from EPPO Global Database, CABI Crop Protection Compendium. Other databases were consulted at plant species level. An overview of the consulted sources is listed in Table 3.

The search strategy used for Web of Science Databases was designed combining common names for pests and diseases, terms describing symptoms of plant diseases and the scientific and common English name of the commodity. All of the pests already retrieved using the other databases were removed from the search terms be able to reduce the number of records to be screened.

The established search string is detailed in Appendix B, and was run on 15 November 2019.

The titles and abstracts of the scientific papers retrieved were screened and the pests associated with Robinia were included in the pest list.

EUROPHYT and TRACES were investigated by searching for the interceptions associated to commodities imported from Turkey, at species and genus level, from 1995 to present.

The evaluation of the compiled pest list was carried out in two steps: first, the relevance of the EU‐quarantine pests was evaluated (Section 4.1); second, the relevance of any other plant pest was evaluated (Section 4.2).

For those Union quarantine pests for which specific measures are in place for the import of the commodity from Turkey in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, the assessment was restricted to whether Turkey applies those measures. The effectiveness of those measures was not assessed.

Pests for which limited information was available on one or more criteria used to identify them as relevant for this opinion, e.g. on potential impact, are listed in Appendix C (List of pests that can potentially cause an effect not further assessed).

2.3.3. Listing and evaluation of risk mitigation measures

The proposed risk mitigation measures were listed and evaluated. When evaluating the likelihood of pest freedom at origin, the following types of potential infection/infestation sources for R. pseudoacacia in nurseries and relevant risk mitigation measures were considered (see also Figure 1):

• pest entry from surrounding areas,

• pest entry with new plants/seeds,

• pest spread within the nursery.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework to assess likelihood that plants are exported free from relevant pests

Source: EFSA PLH Panel (2019).

The risk mitigation measures adopted in the plant nurseries (as communicated by the Turkish NPPO) were evaluated with Expert Knowledge Elicitation (EKE) according to the Guidance on uncertainty analysis in scientific assessment (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2018).

Information on the biology, estimates of likelihood of entry of the pest to the nursery and spread within the nursery, and the effect of the measures on a specific pest is summarised in pest data sheets compiled for each pest selected for further evaluation (see Appendix A).

2.3.4. Expert Knowledge Elicitation

To estimate the pest freedom of the commodities an Expert Knowledge Elicitation (EKE) was performed following EFSA guidance (Annex B.8 of EFSA Scientific Committee, 2018). The specific question for EKE was defined as follows: ‘Taking into account (i) the risk mitigation measures listed in the Dossier, and (ii) other relevant information, how many of 10,000 R. pseudoacacia plants (i.e. bare rooted plants or potted plants) will be infested with the relevant pest/pathogen when arriving in the EU?’.

The risk assessment uses individual plants as the most suitable unit. The following reasoning is given:

1. There is no quantitative information available regarding clustering of plants during production.

2. For the pests under consideration a cross contamination during transport is not likely.

3. Plants will be finally distributed to final consumers by wholesaler and retailers.

The uncertainties associated with the EKE were taken into account and quantified in the probability distribution applying the semi‐formal method described in Section 3.5.2 of the EFSA‐PLH Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel, 2018). Finally, the results were reported in terms of the likelihood of pest freedom. The lower 5% percentile of the uncertainty distribution reflects the opinion that pest freedom is with 95% certainty above this limit.

The EKE was performed together for bare rooted plants and plants in pots, if the biology of the pest, the production systems and the risk mitigation measures suggested the same likelihood of pest freedom for both commodities.

3. Commodity data

3.1. Description of the commodity

The commodities to be imported are R. pseudoacacia (common name: black locust family: Fabaceae) potted plants and bare rooted plants. Plants are either grafted (with rootstock of the same species) or not. The age of the plants at the time of export is from 3 to 7 years and the circumference width of the stem ranges from 8–10 cm to 20–25 cm.

• the potted plants are up to 7 years old, generally having circumference width from 14 to 16 cm up to 20–25 cm.

• the bare rooted plants are at least 3 years old, generally having circumference width from 8–10 cm to 14–16 cm.

The bare rooted plants are washed and packed in bags and in boxes (not specified number of plants per bag). The potted plants are loaded individually on trucks (not specified number of plants per truck). According to ISPM 36 (FAO, 2019). The commodities can be classified as ‘bare root plants’ and ‘rooted plants in pots’, respectively.

3.2. Description of the production areas

The R. pseudoacacia plants for export, are grown in open field plant nurseries, members of the Ornamental Plants Growers Union (SÜSBİR) (http://eng.susbir.org.tr/).

There is no information on physical separation between areas destined to the domestic production and areas destined to export, as well as separation from other species possibly grown in the same nursery.

The main production areas of R. pseudoacacia plants for export are Istanbul, Bursa and Sakarya. Additional production areas are located in Adana, Antalya, Izmir (not shown in Figure 2). Forest nurseries located throughout Turkey are the main provider of 1‐ to 2‐year‐old seedlings to the ornamental production growers.

Figure 2.

Main production areas (indicated in green) in Turkey of R. pseudoacacia plants for export (provided by the Turkish NPPO)

3.3. Production and handling processes

3.3.1. Growing conditions

Production starts with seeds collected from trees, between October and November. The seeds are subjected to a ‘sterilisation’ process (no information available on the method used) and sown in trays filled with growing media, in a greenhouse between April and May. Young seedlings are transplanted in larger pots filled with fertilised growing media. The seedlings (1‐ or 2‐year‐old) are mainly obtained from forest nurseries, located throughout Turkey, and are subsequently grown in export/producer companies for 1–6 years. All stages of the plants are grown in pots or seed trays. The growing media are a mixture of peat and pumice. However, from the pictures provided in the dossier older plants appear to be grown in soil, a common practice adopted for plants of this size. From those pictures it seems that the pots, at some stages, are in contact with soil. The Panel expresses uncertainty on whether the growing media comply with Annex VII of the Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072. When the rooting is completed, each plant is supported by bamboo canes to ensure proper trunk formation. Afterwards, trees (of not specified age) are pruned and transplanted into larger pots and brought to open fields.

Bare rooted plants: there is no specific information on the preparation and characteristics of bare rooted plants.

Rootstocks are produced from seeds of R. pseudoacacia, however there is no information about the scions (origin, age of the mother plants and proximity of other plant species).

There is limited information provided on any chemical, physical or biological phytosanitary measures adopted during the cultivation period.

3.3.2. Source of planting material

The source of propagating material mainly originates from Turkey (90%) and very few of them are imported from European countries as 1‐year‐old seedlings. Forest nurseries located throughout Turkey are the main provider for the supply of 1‐ to 2‐year‐old seedlings to the ornamental production growers.

3.3.3. Production cycle

Production starts with seeds collected from selected trees, between October and November. The seeds are sown between April‐May. Plants are transplanted once or more times depending on the age of the final product to be traded. No details on the period of transplanting are provided.

3.3.4. Pest monitoring during production

Forest nurseries affiliated with the General Directorate of Forestry (not directly exporting/importing nurseries) are inspected by forestry inspectors as a routine work (at least once a month). Forest nurseries are also inspected once a year for phytosanitary requirements by the Provincial Directorate of Agriculture.

Production nurseries are inspected at least once a year, regardless of whether they are exporting or not. In addition, producers submit a declaration every six months of what they produce.

In the production nurseries of ornamentals all plants are inspected visually, and samples are taken from symptomatic plants if necessary. There is no information on the frequency of these inspections. Traded ornamental plants are required to be free from any kind of disease symptoms or pests. No information is provided on actions taken in case a harmful organism is identified in the nursery.

3.3.5. Post‐harvest processes and export procedure

Bare rooted plants are prepared by washing the root system, placing them in plastic bags, in wooden boxes (as can be derived from the photographs provided). No information is provided on post‐harvest processes for potted plants before exporting.

Plants are loaded on trucks for export. The moisture content of the loaded trailer is between 85 and 95%. Trailer temperature is between 2°C and 4°C. However, from the pictures provided it is not clear if the trucks shown can ensure refrigeration. In addition, it is unclear if this refers to potted plants and/or bare rooted plants.

The planned production for export in the EU in 2020 was estimated to be 3,000 plants. The months on which the plants are to be exported to the EU are indicated in Table 4.

Table 4.

Scheduling of Robinia plants planned to be exported (indicated in grey)

	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct	Nov	Dec
Robinia

4. Identification of pests potentially associated with the commodity

The search for potential pests associated to R. pseudoacacia resulted in 983 species (see Microsoft Excel^® file in Appendix D).

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

The EU listing of union quarantine pests and protected zone quarantine pests (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072) is based on assessments concluding that the pests can enter, establish, spread and have potential impact in the EU.

Twelve EU‐quarantine species that are reported to use Robinia as a host plant were evaluated (Table 5) for their relevance of being included in this opinion.

Table 5.

Overview of the evaluation of the twelve EU‐quarantine pest species known to use Robinia as a host plant for their relevance for this Opinion

Number	Pest name according to the EU legislationa	EPPO code	Group	Presence in Turkey	Robinia confirmed as a host (reference)	Pest can be associated with the commodityb	Pest relevant for the opinion
1	Anoplophora chinensis	ANOLCN	Insects	Yes	CABI (online)	Yes	Yes
2	Anoplophora glabripennis	ANOLGL	Insects	No	Dossier, CABI (online)		No
3	Euwallacea fornicatus	XYLBFO	Insects	No	EPPO (online)		No
4	Lopholeucaspis japonica	LOPLJA	Insects	Yes	Scalenet	Yes	Yes
5	Phloeotribus liminaris (non‐European Scolitinae)	PHLBLI	Insects	No	WoS, Pennacchio et al. (2004)		No
6	Phymatotrichopsis omnivora	PHMPOM	Fungi	Noc	CABI (online)		No
7	Phytophthora ramorum	PHYTRA	Fungi	No	WoS, Tooley and Browning (2009)		No
8	Popillia japonica	POPIJA	Insects	No	EPPO (online)		No
9	Potato virus Y	PVY000	Virus	Yes	Abdalla et al. (2018)d		No
10	Thaumetopoea processionea	THAUPR	Insects	No	CABI (online)		No
11	Xylella fastidiosa	XYLEFA	Bacteria	No	EPPO (online)		No
12	Xylosandrus germanus (non‐European Scolitinae)	XYLBGE	Insects	No	Scholar, Castrillo et al. (2012)		No

^aCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072.

^bThe question if the pest can be associated with the commodity is evaluated if the previous two questions are answered with ‘yes’.

^cThere is one unconfirmed record of Phymatotrichopsis omnivora in Turkey (Azaz, 2003) in a non‐agricultural area in Bird Paradise National Park.(Bird Lake).However, the presence of the pathogen was only determined in the soil, with no record of disease in any cultivated plant. In addition, no clear information was given on how the species was identified and was not supported by DNA‐based methods.

^dHost status not confirmed. Robinia was used as test plant.

The relevance of an EU‐quarantine pest for this opinion was based on evidence that:

• a)the pest is present in Turkey;
• b) Robinia is a host of the pest;
• c)one or more life stages of the pest can be associated with the specified commodity.

Pests that fulfilled all three criteria were selected for further evaluation.

Of the twelve EU‐quarantine pest species evaluated, two pests (Anoplophora chinensis and Lopholeucaspis japonica), present in Turkey and known to use Robinia as host and to be associated with the commodity were selected for further evaluation (Table 6).

Table 6.

List of relevant pests selected for further evaluation

Number	Current scientific name	EPPO code	Name used in the EU legislation	Taxonomic information	Group	Regulatory status
1	Anoplophora chinensis	ANOLCN	Anoplophora chinensis	Cerambycidae	Insects	EU Quarantine Pest according to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072
2	Lopholeucaspis japonica	LOPLJA	Lopholeucaspis japonica	Diaspididae	Insects	EU Quarantine Pest according to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072
3	Pochazia shantungensis	POCZSH	N/A	Ricaniidae	Insects	Not regulated in EU

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

The information provided by the Turkish NPPO, integrated with the search EFSA performed, was evaluated in order to assess whether there are other potentially relevant pests of Robinia present in the country of export. For these potential pests that are not regulated in the EU, pest risk assessment information on the probability of introduction, establishment, spread and impact is usually lacking. Therefore, these non‐regulated pests that are potentially associated with Robinia were also evaluated to determine their relevance for this opinion based on evidence that:

• a)the pest is present in Turkey;
• b)the pest (i) is absent or (ii) has a limited distribution in the EU and it is under official control at least in one of the MSs where it is present;
• c) Robinia is a host of the pest;
• d)one or more life stages of the pest can be associated with the specified commodity;
• e)the pest may have an impact in the EU.

Pests that fulfilled all five criteria were selected for further evaluation.

Based on the information collected, 953 potential pests not regulated in the EU known to be associated with Robinia were evaluated for their relevance to this opinion. Species were excluded from further evaluation when at least one of the conditions listed above (a‐e) was not met. Details can be found in the Appendix D (Microsoft Excel^® file). Of the evaluated EU non‐regulated pests, one insect (Pochazia shantungensis), was selected for further evaluation because it met all of the selection criteria. More information on this pest species can be found in the pest datasheets (Appendix A).

4.3. Overview of interceptions

Data on the interception of harmful organisms on plants of Robinia can provide information on some of the organisms that can be present on Robinia plants in trade. According to EUROPHYT online and TRACES NT online, (accessed on 12 February 2021) there were no records of interceptions for plants for planting of Robinia from Turkey (1995 – 12/2/2021).

4.4. List of potential pests not further assessed

From the pests not selected for further evaluation, the Panel highlighted five species that can potentially have an impact (see Appendix C) but for which the currently available evidence does not provide reasons for further evaluation in this opinion. The detailed reason is provided for each species in Appendix C.

4.5. Summary of pests selected for further evaluation

The three pests identified to be present in Turkey and having potential for association with Robinia destined for export are listed in Table 7. The efficacy of the risk mitigation measures applied to the commodity was evaluated for these selected pests.

Table 7.

Overview of currently applied risk mitigation measures for R. pseudoacacia plants designated for export to the EU from Turkey

	Risk mitigation measure	Implementation in Turkey
1	Registration of the nursery and Phytosanitary management	Forest nurseries (producing young plants) are officially registered and inspected at least once a year with an unknown monitoring intensity. All nurseries producing ornamental plants are required to be a member of the ornamental plant grower union in Turkey and inspected at least once a year with an unknown monitoring intensity. A plant passport or export certificate is issued.
2	Physical protection	Some production of the early stages of plants, but not of the older ones, may take place in production places with netting.
3	Pest monitoring and inspections by the nursery staff during the production process	Nurseries are officially inspected at least once a year and for issuing the export certificate. There are no targeted inspections specified in the dossier for the actionable pests. There are guidelines available for detection of pests in agricultural crops (technical instructions for plant pests in agricultural crops – link in Dossier, Section 1).
4	Pesticide treatment	There is a database for registered insecticides in Turkey. There are no products registered for Robinia. There are guidelines available for the management of pests in agricultural crops (technical instructions for plant pests in agricultural crops – link in Dossier, Section 1).
5	Surveillance	There are no targeted inspections specified in the dossier for the actionable pests.
6	Washing of roots	Soil is removed by washing the roots of bare rooted plants.
7	Export inspection	Prior to export the consignment is visually inspected.

5. Risk mitigation measures

For each selected pest (Table 6) the Panel assessed the possibility that it could be present in nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia and assessed the probability that pest freedom of a consignment is achieved by the proposed risk mitigation measures acting on the pest under evaluation.

The information used in the evaluation of the efficacy of the risk mitigation measures is summarised in a pest data sheet (see Appendix A).

5.1. Possibility of pest presence in the export nurseries

For each selected pest (Table 6) the Panel evaluated the likelihood that the pest could be present in a R. pseudoacacia nursery by evaluating the possibility that R. pseudoacacia in the export nursery are infested either by:

• introduction of the pest from the environment surrounding the nursery

• introduction of the pest with new plants/seeds

• spread of the pest within the nursery.

5.2. Risk mitigation measures proposed

With the information provided by the Turkish NPPO (Dossier sections 3 and 7), the Panel summarised the risk mitigation measures (see Table 7) that are currently applied in the production nurseries.

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

For each pest, the relevant risk mitigation measures acting on the pest were identified. Any limiting factors on the efficacy of the measures were documented. All the relevant information including the related uncertainties deriving from the limiting factors used in the evaluation are summarised in a pest datasheet provided in Appendix A.

Based on this information, for each relevant pest, an expert judgement has been given for the likelihood of pest freedom of commodities taking into consideration the risk mitigation measures acting on the pest and their combination.

An overview of the evaluation of each relevant pest is given in the sections below (Sections 5.3.1–5.3.3). The outcome of EKE on pest freedom after the evaluation of the proposed risk mitigation measures is summarised in the Section 5.3.4.

5.3.1. Overview of the evaluation of Anoplophora chinensis

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 plants	9,813 out of 10,000 plants	9,850 out of 10,000 plants	9,889 out of 10,000 plants	9,930 out of 10,000 plants	9,974 out of 10,000 plants
Proportion of infested plants a	26 out of 10000 plants	70 out of 10000 plants	111 out of 10000 plants	150 out of 10000 plants	187 out of 10000 plants
Summary of the information used for the evaluation	Possibility that the pest could become associate with the commodity Anoplophora chinensis is a polyphagous woodboring beetle that attacks living trees. A. chinensis is reported to be ‘transient and under eradication’ in Turkey. The pest has been detected in public lanes, public landscaping areas, parks, gardens and recreation areas, where some of the nurseries producing Robinia plants are located. R. pseudoacacia is a host of A. chinensis, despite the fact that it is not listed as a preferred host. It is possible that local populations of A. chinensis are present in the neighbouring environment of nurseries producing Robinia plants destined for export, especially in the Istanbul area. Plants are grown in open fields and adult A. chinensis can enter from the surrounding environment. R. pseudoacacia plants destined for export to the EU are grown initially in forest nurseries located throughout the country and then transferred into the producing/exporting nurseries. Both, forest nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia seedlings and the producing/exporting nurseries can also produce several species of ornamental plants that are host plants of A. chinensis. It is possible that undetected populations of A. chinensis are present in outbreak areas in the neighbourhood of nurseries with R. pseudoacacia. Measures taken against the pest and their efficacy The relevant applied measures are: (i) regular inspections in the nurseries (at least 1 inspection per year) (ii) export inspections; (iii) surveillance at national level. Interception records There are no records of interceptions of A. chinensis from Turkey. Shortcomings of current measures/procedures There is no clear indication of a pesticides scheme or any other risk mitigation measure in place in the forest and in the exporting nurseries, effective against A. chinensis on Robinia. Main uncertainties The pest prevalence in the surrounding environment is unknown. No information is available regarding the presence of other host plant species of A. chinensis in nurseries producing Robinia.

^aThe “number of pest free plants per 10,000” is calculated as “10,000 – Number of infested plants per 10,000” and reordered from small to large to obtain the percentiles.

5.3.2. Overview of the evaluation of Lopholeucaspis japonica

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 plants	9,521 out of 10,000 plants	9,625 out of 10,000 plants	9,750 out of 10,000 plants	9,875 out of 10,000 plants	9,975 out of 10,000 plants
Proportion of infested plants a	25 out of 10,000 plants	125 out of 10,000 plants	250 out of 10,000 plants	375 out of 10,000 plants	479 out of 10,000 plants
Summary of the information used for the evaluation	Possibility that the pest could become associate with the commodity L. japonica is a polyphagous armoured scale feeding on plants belonging to 38 families. Robinia pseudoacacia has been reported as a host of L. japonica in Iran and South Korea. L. japonica is present in the Black Sea region of Turkey where some of the nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia are located. Due to its polyphagous nature the pest can be present in the surrounding environment of the nurseries producing Robinia. Plants are grown in the open field. The pest can enter the production fields as crawlers either with air currents or transported accidentally by human activities or hitchhiking on animals. Crawlers can walk a small distance of up to a few meters and mainly within a tree or between touching branches of neighbouring trees. Measures taken against the pest and their efficacy The relevant applied measures are: (i) regular inspections in the nurseries (at least 1 inspection per year) (ii) export inspections. Interception records There are no records of interceptions of L. japonica from Turkey. Shortcomings of current measures/procedures There is no clear indication of a pesticides scheme or any other risk mitigation measure in place in the forest and in the exporting nurseries, effective against L. japonica on Robinia. Main uncertainties The presence of the pest in the surrounding environment of the pest is uncertain. The distribution of the pest in other parts of Turkey is not known as there are no official surveys.

^aThe “number of pest free plants per 10,000” is calculated ad “10,000 – Number of infested plants per 10,000” and reordered from small to large to obtain the percentiles.

5.3.3. Overview of the evaluation of Pochazia shantungensis

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 plants	9,818 out of 10,000 plants	9,873 out of 10,000 plants	9,921 out of 10,000 plants	9,962 out of 10,000 plants	9,983 out of 10,000 plants
Proportion of infested plants a	7 out of 10,000 plants	38 out of 10,000 plants	79 out of 10,000 plants	127 out of 10,000 plants	182 out of 10,000 plants
Summary of the information used for the evaluation	Possibility that the pest could become associate with the commodity Pochazia shantungensis is a polyphagous planthopper present in the Marmara Region, where nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia are located. Plants are grown in the open field. Adults can spread and enter the nurseries by flying. R. pseudoacacia is reported to be a host for P. shantungensis and due to its polyphagous nature host plants can be widely available in the surrounding environment. Measures taken against the pest and their efficacy The relevant applied measures are: (i) regular inspections in the nurseries (at least 1 inspection per year) (ii) export inspections. Interception records There are no records of interceptions of P. shantungensis from Turkey. Shortcomings of current measures/procedures There is no clear indication of a pesticides scheme or any other risk mitigation measure in place in the forest and in the exporting nurseries, effective against P. shantungensis on Robinia. Main uncertainties The presence of the pest in the surrounding environment of the pest is uncertain. The distribution of the pest in other parts of Turkey is not known as there are no official surveys.

^aThe “number of pest free plants per 10,000” is calculated ad “10,000 ‐ Number of infested plants per 10,000” and reordered from small to large to obtain the percentiles.

5.3.4. Outcome of Expert Knowledge Elicitation

Table 8 and Figure 3 show the outcome of the EKE regarding pest freedom after the evaluation of the currently proposed risk mitigation measures for the selected pests.

Table 8.

Assessment of the likelihood of pest freedom following evaluation of current risk mitigation measures against Anoplophora chinensis, Lopholeucapsis japonica and Pochazia shantungensis on Robinia pseudoacacia bare rooted and potted plants designated for export to the EU. In panel A, the median value for the assessed level of pest freedom for each pest is indicated by ‘M’, the 5% percentile is indicated by L and the 95% percentile is indicated by U. The percentiles together span the 90% uncertainty range regarding pest freedom. The pest freedom categories are defined in panel B of the table

Figure 3.

Elicited certainty (y‐axis) of the number of pest‐free Robinia pseudoacacia plants (x‐axis; log‐scaled) out of 10,000 plants designated for export to the EU introduced from Turkey for all evaluated pests visualised as descending distribution function. Horizontal lines indicate the percentiles (starting from the bottom 5%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 95%). The Panel is 95% sure that 9,813, 9,521 and 9,818 or more plants per 10,000 will be free from Anoplophora chinensis, Lopholeucapsis japonica and Pochazia shantungensis, respectively

Figure 4 provides an explanation of the descending distribution function describing the likelihood of pest freedom after the evaluation of the currently proposed risk mitigation measures for R. pseudoacacia bare rooted and potted plants designated for export to the EU based on the example for Lopholeucapsis japonica.

Figure 4.

Explanation of the descending distribution function describing the likelihood of pest freedom after the evaluation of the currently proposed risk mitigation measures for plants designated for export to the EU based on based on the example of Lopholeucapsis japonica

6. Conclusions

There are three pests identified to be present in Turkey and considered to be potentially associated with bare rooted and potted plants of Robinia pseudoacacia imported from Turkey and relevant for the EU.

For these pests (A. chinensis, L. japonica and P. shantungensis), the likelihood of the pest freedom after the evaluation of the currently proposed risk mitigation measures for R. pseudoacacia designated for export to the EU was estimated.

For Anoplophora chinensis the likelihood of pest freedom following evaluation of current risk mitigation measures was estimated as ‘very frequently pest free’ with the 90% uncertainty range reaching from ‘very frequently pest free’ to ‘pest free with some exceptional cases’. The Expert Knowledge Elicitation (EKE) indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9,813 and 10,000 plants per 10,000 will be free from A. chinensis.

For Lopholeucapsis japonica the likelihood of pest freedom following evaluation of current risk mitigation measures was estimated ‘very frequently pest free’ with the 90% uncertainty range reaching from ‘very frequently pest free’ to ‘pest free with some exceptional cases’. The EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9,521 and 10,000 plants per 10,000 will be free from L. japonica.

For Pochazia shantungensis the likelihood of pest freedom following evaluation of current risk mitigation measures was estimated as ‘extremely frequently pest free’ with the 90% uncertainty range reaching from ‘very frequently pest free’ to ‘pest free with few exceptional cases’. The EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9,818 and 10,000 plants per 10,000 will be free from P. shantungensis.

Glossary

Control (of a pest)

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

Entry (of a pest)

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

Establishment (of a pest)

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

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 mitigation measures that do not directly affect pest abundance.

Pathway

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

Phytosanitary measures

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

Protected zone

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

Quarantine pest

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

Regulated non‐quarantine pest

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

Risk mitigation measure

A measure acting on pest introduction and/or pest spread and/or the magnitude of the biological impact of the pest should the pest be present. A risk mitigation measure may become a phytosanitary measure, action or procedure according to the decision of the risk manager

Spread (of a pest)

Expansion of the geographical distribution of a pest within an area (FAO, 2017)

Union quarantine pests

European Union quarantine pest

Abbreviations

CABI

Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International

EKE

Expert knowledge elicitation

EPPO

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization

ISPM

International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures

PPIS

Plant Protection & Inspection Services

PLH

Plant Health

PRA

Pest Risk Assessment

RNQPs

Regulated Non‐Quarantine Pests

Appendix A – Data sheets of pests selected for further evaluation via Expert Knowledge Elicitation

A.1. Anoplophora chinensis

A.1.1. Organism information

Taxonomic information	Current valid scientific name: Anoplophora chinensis Synonyms: Anoplophora macularia, Anoplophora malasiaca, Calloplophora macularia, Cerambyx chinensis, Cerambyx farinosus, Cerambyx punctator, Melanauster chinensis, Melanauster chinensis var. macularius, Melanauster macularius Name used in the EU legislation: Anoplophora chinensis (Thomson) [ANOLCN] Order: Coleoptera Family: Cerambycidae Common name: black and white longhorn, citrus long‐horned beetle, citrus longhorn, citrus root cerambycid, white‐spotted longicorn beetle Name used in the Dossier: Anoplophora chinensis
Group	Insects
EPPO code	ANOLCN
Regulated status	The pest is listed in Annex II/B of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 as Anoplophora chinensis (Thomson) [ANOLCN]. There are emergency measures in place in EU (Commission Implementing Decision 2012/138/EU) and this pest is listed as a Priority Pest.
Pest status in Turkey	Transient, under eradication (EPPO GD, online).
Pest status in the EU	Not relevant, listed as EU Quarantine pest (Annex II, part B).
Host status on Robinia pseudoacacia	R. pseudoacacia is not listed as a preferred host plant for A. chinensis (EPPO 2013). Sjöman et al. (2014) categorised Robinia spp. as a host for which there is evidence that unspecified Robinia species can support the complete life cycle of the beetles. Sjöman et al. (2014) categorised R. pseudoacacia as a host plant reported to be used as a feeding plant for adults, but without confirmation that it can support the complete life cycle of the beetles.
PRA information	van der Gaag DJ, Ciampitti M, Cavagna B, Maspero M and Hérard F, 2008. Pest Risk Analysis for Anoplophora chinensis. Plant Protection Service, The Netherlands.
Other relevant information for the assessment
Biology	A. chinensis is a woodboring beetle that attacks living trees. The beetle has a 1–2‐years life cycle in southern Europe. Depending on the temperature, adults emerge between April–May and August (sometimes later). Adults live between 30 and 70 days. Adults conduct maturation feeding for 10–15 days on twigs and the veins of leaves, before mate‐finding and copulation occurs.
Symptoms	Main type of symptoms	External signs of the presence of A. chinensis on or inside a tree include oviposition pits, deposited larval frass, signs of maturation feeding and exit holes. For more information on symptoms see EFSA (2019).
	Presence of asymptomatic plants	Plants can be infested with eggs and feeding larvae, without (evident) external signs or symptoms.
	Confusion with other pathogens/pests	Anoplophora glabripennis
Host plant range	A. chinensis is a polyphagous pest, see EPPO (2013) for a full host plant list. The preferred host plants of A. chinensis are (EPPO,2014): Acer spp., Aesculus hippocastanum, Alnus spp., Betula spp., Carpinus spp., Citrus spp., Cornus spp., Corylus spp., Cotoneaster spp., Crataegus spp., Fagus spp., Lagerstroemia spp., Malus spp., Platanus spp., Populus spp., Prunus laurocerasus, Pyrus spp., Rosa spp., Salix spp. and Ulmus spp.
Reported evidence of impact	Not relevant, listed as EU Quarantine pest (Annex II, part B).
Pathways and evidence that the commodity is a pathway	The assessed commodities consisting of potted or bare rooted plants of 3–7 years old can be a pathway for A. chinensis. The stem width of the exported plants is larger than 1 cm which is sufficient for larval development.
Surveillance information	A surveillance programme is in place in relation to outbreak management of A. chinensis in Turkey, following the guidelines in the EU Emergency Measures for A. chinensis.

A.1.2. Possibility of pest presence in the nurseries

A.1.2.1. Possibility of entry from the surrounding environment

The pest status of A. chinensis in Turkey is ‘transient, under eradication’ (EPPO, 2020). In Turkey, A. chinensis was first found on Acer palmatum, A. saccharum and Salix caprea in a nursery located in the Sile district near Istanbul in June 2014 (EPPO RS 2015/067). Since then, surveys have been carried out in Istanbul and across the country. According to the dossier (Section 3.0) phytosanitary measures, in line with the Decision 2008/840/EC, have been taken to eradicate the pest. All infested trees have been destroyed, an intensive survey and awareness raising programmes have been implemented. In the Istanbul area A. chinensis was detected on Acer sp. Salix caprea, Fagus orientalis, Aesculus hippocastanum, Platanus orientalis, Populus nigra and Salix babylonica. According to information provided in the dossier A. chinensis has also been found in the Bartın province in 2015 (on Acer palmatum, A. saccharum, Salix caprea and Lagerstromia indica) and in 2016 in Antalya province (on Acer spp. and Platanus spp.). According to information provided in the dossier, the outbreak in Bartin province has been eradicated, but A. chinensis is still under eradication in Istanbul and Antalya. In addition, there are three recent records of A. chinensis in the Istanbul area (one in 2019 and two in 2020) that have been reported on GBIF (GBIF, online).

In Decision 2012/138/EU requirements are specified for the import of specified preferred host plants of A. chinensis. Following EPPO (2014), these preferred hosts plant are: Acer spp., Aesculus hippocastanum, Alnus spp., Betula spp., Carpinus spp., Citrus spp., Cornus spp., Corylus spp., Cotoneaster spp., Crataegus spp., Fagus spp., Lagerstroemia spp., Malus spp., Platanus spp., Populus spp., Prunus laurocerasus, Pyrus spp., Rosa spp., Salix spp. and Ulmus spp. For the specified plant species the export country has to specify that the plants are produced in pest free areas for A. chinensis or that the plants have been produced in insect proof greenhouses.

Thus R. pseudoacacia is not mentioned in this list of specified plants and therefore, there are no specific requirements for the import of R. pseudoacacia plants from countries where A. chinensis is known to occur. So far, there are no reports of A. chinensis on R. pseudoacacia in Turkey. However, there is a possibility that nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia are present in the demarcated areas of the current outbreak areas of A. chinensis. The pest detected in public lanes, public landscaping areas, parks, gardens and recreation areas.

Both, forest nurseries producing seedlings of R. pseudoacacia and the production/exporting nurseries can also produce several species of ornamental plants that are host plants of A. chinensis.

A. chinensis has been reported in three nurseries in Turkey (on Acer palmatum, A. saccharum and Salix caprea) in the Istanbul area.

Uncertainties:

The intensity of the official national survey for A. chinensis.

The host plant species of A. chinensis present in nurseries.

The host plant status of R. pseudoacacia for A. chinensis.

Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that is possible that A. chinensis can enter the nursery from the surrounding area.

A.1.2.2. Possibility of entry with new plants/seeds

The R. pseudoacacia plants delivered by forest nurseries to export nurseries (for production to the desired age for export) can be a pathway for A. chinensis.

The plants delivered by forest nurseries have the age of at least one year and have an estimated stem width of more than 1 cm, which is large enough to be attractive as oviposition site and suitable for larval development of A. chinensis.

Uncertainties:

The intensity of the official national survey for A. chinensis.

The host plant status of R. pseudoacacia for A. chinensis.

The pest presence of A. chinensis in forest nurseries and its surrounding environment.

Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers it is possible that the pest could enter the nursery with new plants.

A.1.2.3. Possibility of spread within the nursery

If A. chinensis is present on preferred host plants in a nursery, there is a possibility that it can move to R. pseudoacacia plants. A. chinensis is reported to have a dispersal rate of 200 m/year (40–900 m/year 90% uncertainty range) (EFSA, 2019).

Once A. chinensis is present in a nursery it can develop unnoticed. Data from the Netherlands indicated that 25% of the plants present in a nursery of Acer palmatum (i.e. a preferred host species) were infested with A. chinensis.

Uncertainties:

The host plant status of R. pseudoacacia for A. chinensis.

The host plant species of A. chinensis present in nurseries.

Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that the spread of the pest within the nursery is possible.

A.1.3. Information from interceptions

In the EUROPHYT/TRACES NT database there are no interceptions of A. chinensis on plants for planting from Turkey.

There are no records of interception of A. chinensis on Robinia spp. (all origins).

A.1.4. Evaluation of the risk reduction options

In the table below, all the risk mitigation measures currently applied in Turkey are summarised and an indication of their effectiveness on Anoplophora chinensis is provided.

Number	Risk mitigation measures	Current measures in Turkey	Evaluation and uncertainties
1	Registration of the nursery and Phytosanitary management	Forest nurseries (producing young plants) are officially registered and inspected at least once a year. All nurseries producing ornamental plants are required to be a member of the ornamental plant grower union in Turkey and inspected at least once a year. A plant passport or export certificate is issued.	Nurseries are registered and inspected at least once a year with an unknown monitoring intensity.
2	Physical protection	Some production of the early stages of plants, but not of the older ones to be exported, may take place in production places with netting.	Adult beetles may enter open field nurseries. Adult beetles may be not able to enter production places with nettings Uncertainties No specific information is provided The proportion/stages of plants produced in production places with nettings is not known.
3	Pest monitoring and inspections by the nursery staff during the production process	Nurseries are officially inspected at least once a year and for issuing the export certificate. There are guidelines available for detection of pests in agricultural crops (technical instructions for plant pests in agricultural crops – link in Dossier, Section 1). A. chinensis has a quarantine status in Turkey and there are specific inspection instructions for A. chinensis.	Early infestation stages maybe missed by nursery staff Uncertainties No specific information is provided on how the nurseries are applying the inspection instructions. The intensity of R. pseudoacacia inspection in the nursery is probably low (i.e. is not listed as preferred host).
4	Pesticide treatment	There is a database for registered insecticides in Turkey. There are no products registered for Robinia. There are guidelines available for the management of pests in agricultural crops (technical instructions for plant pests in agricultural crops – link in Dossier, Section 1). There were pesticide applications targeted at A. chinensis in Istanbul areas on (apple, pear, cherry, hazelnut, poplar, plane, birch, horse chestnut, elm, alder, maple, hornbeam, mountain medlar and beech).	Uncertainties No detailed information is provided, it is unknown which insecticide are used in R. pseudoacacia production.
5	Surveillance	There are targeted national surveys for A. chinensis in Turkey related to the outbreak management. In case A. chinensis is found, eradication measures are to be applied following EU Decision 2012/138/EU	Uncertainties The intensity of the national survey is uncertain/unknown Not known if the surveillance is carried out also on R. pseudoacacia (i.e. not preferred host)
6	Washing of roots	Soil is removed by washing the roots (only on bare rooted plants). No detailed information is provided	Root washing has no effect on A. chinensis.
7	Export inspection	Prior to export the consignment is visually inspected	If individual plants are inspected A. chinensis may be detected. Uncertainty: Sampling intensity in the export inspections is not known

A.1.5. Overall likelihood of the pest freedom

A.1.5.1. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number of infested consignments

• There are no additional host plants of A. chinensis in the nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia and in the surrounding environment.

• R. pseudoacacia is not a preferred host plant for A. chinensis.

• A. chinensis is under official control; there are targeted surveys and all outbreaks are detected and managed.

A.1.5.2. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number of infested consignments

• There are preferred host plants of A. chinensis in the nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia and in the surrounding environment.

• A. chinensis was introduced in 2014 in the Istanbul area in a tree nursery. Since then, it has been reported in other parts of Istanbul as well as in Antalya and Bartin. In 2020 the pest is still under eradication in Istanbul and in Antalya. There are three recent records of findings of adults of A. chinensis in the Istanbul area (GBIF, online).

• The young plants used for the production of R. pseudoacacia can originate from nurseries throughout Turkey.

• It may take several years before a new outbreak is detected.

• There is uncertainty on the intensity of the official national surveys of A. chinensis.

• A. chinensis has been reported from tree nurseries in the same province where nurseries with R. pseudoacacia are located.

A.1.5.3. Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over‐ or underestimate the number of infested consignments (Median)

The value of the median is estimated based on:

• Based on the uncertainty on the efficacy of the eradication efforts, the Panel judge higher values for being more likely. Therefore, the median was placed closer to the highest scenario.

A.1.5.4. Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/interquartile range)

The main uncertainty is the population pressure in the surrounding environment.

A.1.5.5. Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Anoplophora chinensis

The following Tables show the elicited and fitted values for pest infestation/infection (Table A.1) and pest freedom (Table A.2).

Table A.1.

Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation by Anoplophora chinensis per 10,000 plants

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Elicited values	1					70		110		150					200
EKE	9.71	16.8	25.6	39.1	53.8	69.6	83.9	111	136	150	164	176	187	194	199

The EKE result is the Beta General distribution (1.6872, 1.4855) fitted with @Risk version 7.5.

Table A.2.

The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Anoplophora chinensis per 10,000 plants calculated by Table A.1

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Values	9,800					9,850		9,890		9,930					9,999
EKE results	9,801	9,806	9,813	9,824	9,836	9,850	9,864	9,889	9,916	9,930	9,946	9,961	9,974	9,983	9,990

The EKE results are the fitted values.

Based on the numbers of estimated infested plants the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – the number of infested plants per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in Table A.2.

Figure A.1.

(a) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 plants (histogram in blue– vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (b) uncertainty of the proportion of pest free plants per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (c) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 plants

A.1.6. Reference list

EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), Hoppe B, Schrader G, Kinkar M and Vos S, 2019. Pest survey card on Anoplophora chinensis. EFSA Supporting Publications, 16, 1747E.

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), onlinea. EPPO A2 List of pests recommended for regulation as quarantine pests, version 2019‐09. Available online: https://www.eppo.int/ACTIVITIES/plant_quarantine/A2_list [Accessed: 13 May 2020].

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), onlineb. Anoplophora chinensis (ANOLCN), Categorization. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/ANOLCN/categorization [Accessed: 13 May 2020].

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), onlinec. Anoplophora chinensis (ANOLCN), Distribution. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/ANOLCN/distribution [Accessed: 13 May 2020].

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), onlined. Anoplophora chinensis (ANOLCN), Host plants. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/ANOLCN/hosts [Accessed: 13 May 2020].

Sjöman H, Östberg J and Nilsson J, 2014. Review of host trees for the wood‐boring pests Anoplophora glabripennis and Anoplophora chinensis: an urban forest perspective. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 40, 143–164.

Van der Gaag DJ, Ciampitti M, Cavagna B, Maspero M and Hèrard F, 2008. Pest risk analysis Anoplophora chinensis [Internet]: Plant Protection Service. Wageningen, The Netherlands. Available online: http://edepot.wur.nl/117610

A.2. Lopholeucapsis japonica

A.2.1. Organism information

Taxonomic information	Current valid scientific name: Lopholeucaspis japonica Synonyms: Leucaspis hydrangea, Leucaspis japonica darwinensis Name used in the EU legislation: Lopholeucaspis japonica Cockerell [LOPLJA] Order: Hemiptera Family: Diaspididae Common name: Japanese long scale, Japanese maple scale, Japanese pear white scale Name used in the Dossier: Lopholeucaspis japonica
Group	Insects
EPPO code	LOPLJA
Regulated status	The pest is listed in Annex II of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 as Lopholeucaspis japonica Cockerell [LOPLJA]
Pest status in Turkey	Lopholeucaspis japonica is present in Turkey (EPPO, online) and it is located in the Black Sea Region (integration of information of the technical dossiers received on 27 November 2020). The pest has a quarantine status in Turkey (A2 list).
Pest status in the EU	Not relevant, listed as EU Quarantine pest (Annex II, part A).
Host status on Robinia pseudoacacia	Robinia pseudoacacia has been reported as a host of Lopholeucaspis japonica in Iran (Moghaddam, 2013) and South Korea (Suh, 2020).
PRA information	Pest Risk Assessments available: Final import risk analysis report for fresh apple fruit from the People's Republic of China (Biosecurity Australia, 2010), Scientific Opinion on the pest categorisation of Lopholeucaspis japonica (EFSA PLH Panel, 2018).
Other relevant information for the assessment
Biology	L. japonica is oyster shell‐shaped armoured scale, originating from Far East and it spread to tropical and semitropical areas (CABI, online). Females and males have different life cycle. The life stages of female are egg, two larval instars and adult, while male has additional two stages called pre‐pupa and pupa (CABI, online). Males are small and have wings (Bienkowski, 1993), while females are sessile covered by scale formed by wax filaments originating from the pygidium (Tabatadze and Yasnosh, 1999). The colour of females, eggs and crawlers is lavender. The wax which is covering the body of scales is white (Fulcher et al., 2011). Each female lay on average 25 eggs, which are laid underneath the female bodies (Addesso et al., 2016; Fulcher et al., 2011). Crawlers can be dispersed by wind or other insects (e.g. ants, flies and ladybirds), occasionally also by human transport (Magsig‐Castillo et al., 2010). L. japonica has one or two overlapping generations per year (Addesso et al., 2016). It was reported that occasionally there can be a third generation in Georgia (Tabatadze and Yasnosh, 1999). In India, first generation crawlers were observed from late Mach until the end of April. Females and male pupae were present from June till the end of August. Second generation crawlers occurred in September and matured females in October (Harsur et al., 2018). L. japonica overwinters as an immature stage on trunks and branches in Tennessee (Fulcher et al., 2011) and second instar males and females in Maryland (Gill et al., 2012). In addition, it has been reported to overwinter as fertilised females in Japan (Murakami, 1970) and in Pennsylvania (Stimmel, 1995). They can endure temperatures of ‐20 to ‐25°C (EPPO, 1997).
Symptoms	Main type of symptoms	L. japonica is usually on bark of branches and trunk but can be found also on leaves (Gill et al., 2012) and sometimes on fruits (EPPO, 1997). The scale feeds on plant storage cells, which causes them to collapse (Fulcher et al., 2011). When the population is high, the main symptoms on plants are premature leaf drop, dieback of branches and death of plants (Fulcher et al., 2011; Gill et al., 2012).
	Presence of asymptomatic plants	Early infestations are difficult to be detected.
	Confusion with other pests	L. japonica can be confused with other armoured scales. L. japonica is similar to L. cockerelli but can be differentiated by the number of macroducts (García Morales et al., online).
Host plant range	L. japonica is polyphagous armoured scale and feeds on plants belonging to 38 families (García Morales et al., online). Some of the many hosts of L. japonica are Acer palmatum, Acer pictum, Acer ukurunduense, Citrus junos, Citrus unshiu, Diospyros kaki, Distylium racemosum, Elaeagnus umbellata, Euonymus alatus, Euonymus japonicus, Gleditsia japonica, Ilex crenata, Magnolia denudata, Magnolia kobus, Malus pumila, Paeonia lactiflora, Poncirus trifoliata, Prunus × yedoensis, Pyrus pyrifolia, Robinia pseudoacacia, Rosa chinensis, Rosa multiflora, Salix sp., Staphylea bumalda, Syringa oblata and Ziziphus jujuba (Suh, 2020).
Reported evidence of impact	Not relevant, listed as EU Quarantine pest (Annex II, part B).
Evidence that the commodity is a pathway and other pathways	L. japonica can be present on stems, branches of bare rooted plants and on leaves, branches and stems of potted plants. Other pathways of entry for L. japonica are plants for planting of other species than R. pseudoacacia, cut flowers and cut branches (EFSA PLH Panel, 2018).
Surveillance information	No surveillance information for this pest is currently available from Turkey.

A.2.2. Possibility of pest presence in the nursery

A.2.2.1. Possibility of entry from the surrounding environment

L. japonica is present in the Black Sea Region in Turkey (Dossier, integration of information), where some of the nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia are located. It can spread with crawlers either with air currents or transported accidentally by human activities or hitchhiking on animals.

Crawlers can walk a small distance of up to a few meters and mainly within a tree or between touching branches of neighbouring trees (Biosecurity Australia, 2010).

Plants are grown in the open field. The pest is present in Turkey and due to its polyphagous nature host plants are widely available in the surrounding environment.

Uncertainties:

• –The distribution of the pest in other part of Turkey is not known as there are no official surveys.
• –The presence of the pest in the surrounding environment of the pest is uncertain.

Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that it is possible for the pest to enter the nursery from the surrounding area.

A.2.2.2. Possibility of entry with new plants/seeds

R. pseudoacacia plants in Turkey are grown mainly from seeds. However, some specific varieties (mainly ball acacia (Umbralificer) and pink flowers (Casquer roque)) are grafted with scions. The origin of the scions was not specified.

The R. pseudoacacia plants delivered by forest nurseries, located in areas where L. japonica is present, to export nurseries (for production to the desired age for export) can be a pathway for L. japonica.

Uncertainties:

• –The origin of scions in relation to the infested areas. The age of the plants where scions are taken from is not known.
• –The entry of other host plants in the export nursery

Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers it possible that the pest could enter the nursery with new plants.

A.2.2.3. Possibility of spread within the nursery

The pest can spread as crawlers either with air currents or transported accidentally as hitchhikers. The plants are grown in an open nursery and dispersal of crawlers by wind or human activities is possible. Other suitable host plants could be present in the nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia.

Uncertainties:

The likelihood of spread into the nursery by wind and human activity.

The presence and distribution of other host plants in the nursery.

Taking into consideration the above evidences and uncertainties, the Panel considers that the spread of the pest within the nursery is possible.

A.2.4. Information from interceptions

In the EUROPHYT/TRACES NT database there are no interceptions of L. japonica from Turkey. There was one interception of L. japonica on Acer sp. bonsai plants from China, indicating that trade of plants for planting can be a pathway for the pest (EUROPHYT online).

A.2.5. Evaluation of the risk mitigation options

In the table below, all the risk mitigation measures currently applied in Turkey are summarised and an indication of their effectiveness on L. japonica is provided.

Number	Risk mitigation measures	Current measures in Turkey	Evaluation of the measures on L. japonica
1	Registration of the nursery and Phytosanitary management	Forest nurseries (producing young plants) are officially registered and inspected at least once a year. All nurseries producing ornamental plants are required to be a member of the ornamental plant grower union in Turkey and inspected at least once a year. A plant passport or export certificate is issued.	Nurseries are registered and inspected at least once a year
2	Physical protection	Some production of the early stages of plants, but not of the older ones to be exported, may take place in production places with netting.	Crawlers may enter open field nurseries. Crawlers may be not able to enter production places with nettings Uncertainties No specific information is provided The proportion/stages of plants produced in production places with nettings is not known.
3	Pest monitoring and inspections by the nursery staff during the production process	Nurseries are officially inspected at least once a year and for issuing the export certificate. There are no targeted inspections for the actionable pest. There are guidelines available for detection of pests in agricultural crops (technical instructions for plant pests in agricultural crops – link in Dossier, Section 1).	Uncertainties No detailed information is provided
4	Pesticide treatment	There is a database for registered insecticides in Turkey. There are no products registered for Robinia. There are guidelines available for the management of pests in agricultural crops (technical instructions for plant pests in agricultural crops – link in Dossier, Section 1).	Uncertainties No detailed information is provided, it is unknown which insecticides are used in R. pseudoacacia production.
5	Surveillance	There are no targeted surveys for the actionable pests.	Uncertainties No detailed information is provided
6	Washing of roots	Soil is removed by washing the roots of bare rooted plants.	Root washing has no effect on L. japonica.
7	Export inspection	Prior to export the consignment is visually inspected	If individual plants are inspected L. japonica may be detected. In cases only L. japonica crawlers are present they may escape detection. Uncertainty: Sampling intensity in the export inspections

A.2.5. Overall likelihood of pest freedom

A.2.5.1. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number of infested consignments

• The pest has a restricted distribution in Turkey and has never been reported in the nurseries or their surrounding environment.

• Insecticide treatment against other scale insects is very effective.

• The distance between the nurseries and the alternative hosts of the pest in the surrounding environment is very large. Therefore, transfer from sources in the surrounding environment to the nursery plants is very difficult for a crawling insect.

• Suitable hosts are not present in the production area.

A.2.5.2. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number of infested consignments

• There are nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia located in the area where L. japonica is prevalent.

• There are no targeted insecticide treatments against L. japonica.

• There are suitable hosts in the production area, in close proximity with Robinia plants.

• The growers could be unaware of the presence of L. japonica in the area.

• The pest could go undetected during inspections of the nursery.

• Nursery workers could introduce hitchhiking insects to nursery.

• Crawlers are transported by wind currents from the surrounding environment to the nursery.

A.2.5.3. Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over‐ or underestimate the number of infested consignments (Median)

Regarding the lack of information on the pest, the Panel judge lower values for being more likely. Therefore, the median was placed closer to the lowest scenario.

A.2.5.4. Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/interquartile range)

The main uncertainty is the population pressure of L. japonica in the surrounding environment.

A.2.5.5. Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Lopholeucapsis japonica

The following Tables show the elicited and fitted values for pest infestation/infection (Table A.3) and pest freedom (Table A.4).

Table A.3.

Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation by Lopholeucapsis japonica per 10,000 plants

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Elicited values	5					125		250		375					500
EKE	5.20	12.8	25.5	50.5	84	125	166	250	333	375	418	452	479	492	500

The EKE result is the Beta General distribution (1.0129,1.0328) fitted with @Risk version 7.5.

Table A.4.

The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Lopholeucapsis japonica per 10,000 plants calculated by Table A.3

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Values	9,500					9,625		9,750		9,875					9,995
EKE results	9,500	9,508	9,521	9,548	9,582	9,625	9,667	9,750	9,834	9,875	9,916	9,949	9,975	9,987	9,995

The EKE results are the fitted values.

Based on the numbers of estimated infested plants the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – the number of infested plants per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in Table A.2.

Figure A.2.

(a) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 plants (histogram in blue – vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (b) uncertainty of the proportion of pest free plants per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (c) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 plants

A.2.6. Reference list

Addesso KM, Blalock A and O'Neal PA, 2016. Japanese Maple Scale Activity and Management in Field Nursery Production. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 34, 41–46. https://doi.org/10.24266/0738-2898-34.2.41

Bienkowski AO, 1993. Morphology and systematics of the adult male of Lopholeucaspis japonica (Cockerell) (Coccinea Diaspididae). Russian Entomological Journal, 2, 25–29.

Biosecurity Australia, 2010. Final import risk analysis report for fresh apple fruit from the People's Republic of China. Biosecurity Australia, Canberra.

CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), online. Lopholeucaspis japonica (Japanese baton shaped scale). Available online: https://www.cabi.org/cpc/datasheet/31328 [Accessed: 14 September 2020].

EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Jeger M, Bragard C, Caffier D, Candresse T, Chatzivassiliou E, Dehnen‐Schmutz K, Gilioli G, Gregoire J‐C, Jaques Miret JA, Navajas Navarro M, Niere B, Parnell S, Potting R, Rafoss T, Rossi V, Urek G, Van Bruggen A, Van der Werf W, West J, Winter S, Kertesz V and MacLeod A, 2018. Scientific Opinion on the pest categorisation of Lopholeucaspis japonica. EFSA Journal 2018;16(7):5353, 23 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5353

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), 1997. Lopholeucaspis japonica. In: Quarantine pests for Europe: data sheets on quarantine pests for the European Union and for the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. pp. 384–387. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), onlinea. EPPO A2 List of pests recommended for regulation as quarantine pests, version 2019‐09. Available online: https://www.eppo.int/ACTIVITIES/plant_quarantine/A2_list [Accessed: 26 May 2020].

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), onlineb. Lopholeucaspis japonica (LOPLJA), Categorization. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/LOPLJA/categorization [Accessed: 126 May 2020].

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), onlinec. Lopholeucaspis japonica (LOPLJA), Distribution. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/LOPLJA/distribution [Accessed: 26 May 2020].

EUROPHYT, online. European Union Notification System for Plant Health Interceptions ‐ EUROPHYT Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/europhyt/index_en.htm [Accessed: 26 May 2020].

Fulcher A, Hale F and Halcomb M, 2011. Japanese maple scale: An important new insect pest in the nursery and landscape. University of Tennessee, Extension Publications.

García Morales M, Denno BD, Miller DR, Miller GL, Ben‐Dov Y and Hardy NB, online. ScaleNet: A literature‐based model of scale insect biology and systematics, Lopholeucaspis japonica. Available online: http://scalenet.info/catalogue/Lopholeucaspis%20japonica/ [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Gill S, Shrewsbury P and Davidson J, 2012. Japanese maple scale (Lopholeucaspis japonica): a pest of nursery and landscape trees and shrubs. University of Maryland Extension fact sheet.

Harsur MM, Joshi S and Pal RN, 2018. Pomegranate: a new host for the invasive scale insect Lopholeucaspis japonica (Cockerell, 1897) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) from Gujarat, India. Oriental Insects. 1080/00305316.2018.1451783

Magsig‐Castillo J, Morse JG, Walker GP, Bi JL, Rugman‐Jones PF and Stouthamer R, 2010. Phoretic dispersal of armored scale crawlers (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 103, 1172–1179. https://doi.org/10.1603/ec10030

Miller DR, Davidson JA. 1990. A list of armoured scale pests. In: Rosen D (ed.). Armoured scale insects. Vol. 4B. Amsterdam: Elsevier; pp. 299–306.

Moghaddam M, 2013. An annotated checklist of the scale insects of Iran (Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha, Coccoidea) with new records and distribution data. ZooKeys, 334, 1. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.334.5818

Murakami Y, 1970. A review of biology and ecology of Diaspine scales in Japan (Homoptera, Coccoidea). Mushi, 43, 65–114.

Stimmel JF, 1995. “Japanese maple scale”, Lopholeucaspis japonica (Cockerell). Regulatory horticulture, entomology circular No. 176, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry. 21, 33–34.

Suh SJ, 2020. Host plant list of the scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) in South Korea. Insecta Mundi.

Tabatadze ES and Yasnosh VA, 2016. Population dynamics and biocontrol of the Japanese scale, Lopholeucaspis japonica (Cockerell) in Georgia. Entomologica, 33, 429–434.

A.3. Pochazia shantungensis

A.3.1. Organism information

Taxonomic information	Current valid scientific name: Pochazia shantungensis Synonyms: Ricania shantungensis Order: Hemiptera Family: Ricaniidae Common name:
Group	Insects
EPPO code	POCZSH
Regulated status	The pest is not regulated in the EU. Pochazia shantungensis is not included in any EPPO list and it is not regulated anywhere in the world.
Pest status in Turkey	Pochazia shantungensis is present in Turkey according to the paper of Hizal et al. (2019) as Ricania shantungensis. According to the information provided in the dossier (integration of information) the pest is present in the Marmara region.
Pest status in the EU	Pochazia shantungensis has been reported in France in 2018 (Bourgoin, 2020).
Host status on Robinia pseudoacacia	Robinia pseudoacacia is reported as a host of Pochazia shantungensis (CABI Crop Protection Compendium, online).
PRA information	No Pest Risk Assessments available.
Other relevant information for the assessment
Biology	Pochazia shantungensis lay eggs in zigzag rows and covers them with white wax filaments. The eggs hatch around mid‐May to early June with the spawning season occurring in mid‐August. This pest directly causes damage by sucking plant saps and laying eggs. It also indirectly induces sooty mold disease on leaves through its excretions. Lower developmental threshold, thermal constant, optimal developmental temperature and upper developmental threshold were estimated to be 12.1°C, 202 DD, 31°C and 36.9°C, respectively (Baek, 2019). The pest is overwintering in the egg stage. Adults started to lay eggs 3–4 weeks after they were transformed. From early September to October, they gave damage. As the temperature fell, the number of adults decreased. Two generation per year are reported for China and one generation/year in South Korea.
Symptoms	Main type of symptoms	The insect causes damage by its sap feeding activity. As phloem and xylem are destroyed by the habits of the female adults that lay eggs on the branch of 1–year–old host, it withers. In addition, sooty mould develops on honeydew excreted by P. shantungensis and the tree vigour declines (Choi et al., 2011).
	Presence of asymptomatic plants
	Confusion with other pathogens/pests
Host plant range	The species is highly polyphagous. Kim et al. (2015) reports about 138 species of host plants from 62 families. R. pseudoacacia is a known host plant for Pochazia shantungensis. In Turkey P. shantungensis was reported on Ligustrum lucidum and Liquidambar styraciflua (Hizal et al., 2019)
Reported evidence of impact	P. shantungensis is reported as an invasive pest in South Korea on several crops as apple, blueberries, chestnut (Jo et al., 2016).
Evidence that the commodity is a pathway and other pathways	Eggs can be present on the stems of bare rooted and potted plants. Feeding larvae can be present on the leaves of potted plants. Other pathways of entry for P. shantungensis are plants for planting of species other than R. pseudoacacia.
Surveillance information	No surveillance information for this pest is currently available from Turkey.

A.3.2. Possibility of pest presence in the nurseries

A.3.2.1. Possibility of entry from the surrounding environment

P. shantungensis is present in the Marmara Region (Dossier, integration of information), where nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia are located. Adults can spread by flying.

Plants are grown in the open field. The pest is present in Turkey and due to its polyphagous nature host plants are widely available in the surrounding environment.

P. shantungensis in South Korea has spread very fast after its introduction (Jo et al., 2018) and R. pseudoacacia it is reported to be a host.

Uncertainties:

The distribution range of the species in Turkey is not known.

The pest pressure in the surrounding environment is not known.

Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that it is possible for the pest to enter the nursery from the surrounding area.

A.3.2.2. Possibility of entry with new plants/seeds

P. shantungensis is present in the Marmara Region (Dossier, integration of information), where nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia are located. Adults can spread by flying.

The pest can be introduced in the production/exporting nurseries via infested young plants coming from forest nurseries or via infested plants of other host species entering the nursery to be grown in the vicinity of Robinia plants.

P. shantungensis in South Korea has spread very fast after its introduction (Jo et al., 2016) and R. pseudoacacia is reported to be a host.

Uncertainties:

• –The distribution of the pest in Turkey
• –The pest pressure in the surrounding environment

Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that it is possible for the pest to enter the nursery from the surrounding area.

A.3.2.3. Possibility of spread within the nursery

The pest can spread by flying. The plants are grown in an open nursery and dispersal of adults is possible. Other suitable host plant species could be present in the nursery producing R. pseudoacacia.

Uncertainties:

The presence of other host plant species in the nursery.

Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that the spread of the pest within the nursery is possible.

A.3.3. Information from interceptions

In the EUROPHYT/TRACES NT database there are no interceptions of P. shantungensis from Turkey.

There are no records of interception of P. shantungensis on Robinia spp. (all origins).

A.3.4. Evaluation of the risk reduction options

In the table below, all the RROs currently applied in Turkey are summarised and an indication of their effectiveness on P. shantungensis is provided.

Number	Risk mitigation measures	Current measures in Turkey	Evaluation of the measures on P. shantungensis
1	Registration of the nursery and Phytosanitary management	Forest nurseries (producing young plants) are officially registered and inspected at least once a year. All nurseries producing ornamental plants are required to be a member of the ornamental plant grower union in Turkey and inspected at least once a year. A plant passport or export certificate is issued.	Nurseries are registered and inspected at least once a year
2	Physical protection	Some production of the early stages of plants, but not of the older ones to be exported, may take place in production places with netting.	Adults may enter open field nurseries. Adults may be not able to enter production places with nettings Uncertainties No specific information is provided The proportion/stages of plants produced in production places with nettings is not known.
3	Pest monitoring and inspections by the nursery staff during the production process	Nurseries are officially inspected at least once a year and for issuing the export certificate. There are no targeted inspections for the actionable pest. There are guidelines available for detection of pests in agricultural crops (technical instructions for plant pests in agricultural crops – link in Dossier, Section 1).	Uncertainties No detailed information is provided
4	Pesticide treatment	There is a database for registered insecticides in Turkey. There are no products registered for Robinia. There are guidelines available for the management of pests in agricultural crops (technical instructions for plant pests in agricultural crops – link in Dossier, Section 1).	Uncertainties No detailed information is provided, it is unknown which insecticide are used in R. pseudoacacia production.
5	Surveillance	There are no targeted surveys for the actionable pests.	Uncertainties No detailed information is provided
6	Washing of roots	Soil is removed by washing the roots of bare rooted plants.	Root washing has no effect on P. shantungensis
7	Export inspection	Prior to export the consignment is visually inspected	If individual plants are inspected P. shantungensis may be detected. Uncertainty: Sampling intensity in the export inspections

A.3.5. Overall likelihood of pest freedom

A.3.5.1. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number of infested consignments

• The pest has a restricted distribution in Turkey and has never been reported in the nurseries or their surrounding environment.

• Insecticide treatments against other insects are effective. There are not many suitable hosts present in the production area.

A.3.5.2. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number of infested consignments

• There are nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia located in the area where P. shantungensis is present.

• There are no targeted insecticides treatments against P. shantungensis.

• There are suitable hosts in the production area and the pest is a good flyer.

• The growers could be unaware of the presence of P. shantungensis in the area.

• P. shantungensis is regarded as invasive pest and it could be more widespread in Turkey than currently known.

• There are no targeted surveys for P. shantungensis.

A.3.5.3. Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over‐ or underestimate the number of infested consignments (Median)

Based on the fact that an early infestation could be easily detected and removed, the Panel judges lower values for being more likely. Therefore, the median was placed closer to the lowest scenario.

A.3.5.4. Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/interquartile range)

The main uncertainty is the population pressure in the surrounding environment.

A.3.5.5. Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Pochazia shantungensis

The following Tables show the elicited and fitted values for pest infestation/infection (Table A.5) and pest freedom (Table A.6).

Table A.5.

Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation by Pochazia shantungensis per 10,000 plants

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Elicited values	1.0					40		75		130					200
EKE	1.5	3.8	7.5	15	25	38	51	79	110	127	147	165	182	192	200

The EKE result is the Beta General distribution (1.0184,1.5041) fitted with @Risk version 7.5.

Table A.6.

The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Pochazia shantungensis per 10,000 plants calculated by Table A.5

Percentile	1%	2.5%	5%	10%	17%	25%	33%	50%	67%	75%	83%	90%	95%	97.5%	99%
Values	9,800					9,870		9,925		9,960					9,999
EKE results	9,800	9,808	9,818	9,835	9,853	9,873	9,890	9,921	9,949	9,962	9,975	9,993	9,993	9,996	9,998

The EKE results are the fitted values.

Based on the numbers of estimated infested plants the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – the number of infested plants per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in Table A.2.

Figure A.3.

(a) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 plants (histogram in blue – vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (b) uncertainty of the proportion of pest free plants per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (c) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 plants

A.3.6. Reference list

Baek S, Koh SH and Lee JH, 2019. Occurrence model of first instars of Ricania shantungensis (Hemiptera: Ricaniidae). Journal of Asia‐Pacific Entomology, 22, 1040–1045.

Bourgoin T, Gros P and Stroiński A, 2020. Pochazia shantungensis (Chou & Lu, 1977), an important Asiatic invasive pest on fruit trees, first time reported from France (Hemiptera, Fulgoromorpha, Ricaniidae). Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France, 125, 271–272. https://doi.org/10.32475/bsef_2150

Choi YS, Hwang IS, Kang TJ, Lim JR and Choe KR, 2011. Oviposition characteristics of Ricania sp. (Homoptera: Ricaniidae), a new fruit pest. Korean Journal of Applied Entomology, 50, 367–372.

Kim DE, Lee H, Kim MJ and Lee DH, 2015. Predicting the potential habitat, host plants, and geographical distribution of Pochazia shantungensis (Hemiptera: Ricaniidae) in Korea. Korean Journal of Applied Entomology, 54, 179–189.

Hizal E, Oztemiz S and Gjonov I, 2019. Ricania shantungensis Chou & Lu 1977 (Hemiptera: Fulgomorpha: Ricanidae) A new invasive insect species in European Turkey. Fresenius Environmental Bullettin, 28, 9816–9820.

Jo SH, Ryu TH, Kwon H, Seo MJ, Yu YM, Yasunaga‐Aoki C and Youn YN, 2016. Ecological characteristics and environmentally friendly control strategies of Pochazia shantungensis (Hemiptera: Ricaniidae) in Korea. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, 61, 299–311.

Appendix B – Web of Science All Databases Search String

1.

In the table below the search string used in Web of Science is reported. Totally, 2206 papers were retrieved. Titles and abstracts were screened, and 158 pests were added to the list of pests (see Appendix D).

Web of Science All databases

TOPIC: “Robinia” OR “Robinia pseudoacacia” OR “R. pseudoacacia” OR “Robinia sp.” OR “Robinia spp.” OR “black locust” AND TOPIC: : “pathogen” OR “pathogenic bacteria” OR “fung*” OR oomycet* OR myce* OR bacteri* OR virus* OR viroid* OR insect$ OR mite$ OR phytoplasm* OR arthropod* OR nematod* OR disease$ OR infecti* OR damag* OR symptom* OR pest$ OR vector OR hostplant$ OR “host plant$” OR “host” OR “root lesion$” OR decline$ OR infestation$ OR damage$ OR symptom$ OR dieback* OR “die back*” OR “malaise” OR aphid$ OR curculio OR thrip$ OR cicad$ OR miner$ OR borer$ OR weevil$ OR “plant bug$” OR spittlebug$ OR moth$ OR mealybug$ OR cutworm$ OR pillbug$ OR “root feeder$” OR caterpillar$ OR “foliar feeder$” OR virosis OR viroses OR blight$ OR wilt$ OR wilted OR canker OR scab$ OR “rot” OR “rots” OR “rotten” OR “damping off” OR “damping‐off” OR blister$ OR “smut” OR “mould” OR “mold” OR “damping syndrome$” OR mildew OR scald$ OR “root knot” OR “root‐knot” OR rootknot OR cyst$ OR “dagger” OR “plant parasitic” OR “parasitic plant” OR “plant$parasitic” OR “root feeding” OR “root$feeding” NOT TOPIC: “fertil” OR “Mulching” OR “Nutrient” OR “Pruning” OR “drought” OR “human virus” OR “animal disease” OR “plant extracts” OR “immunological” OR “purified fraction” OR “traditional medicine” OR “medicine” OR “mammal” OR “bird” OR “human disease” OR “toxicity” OR “weed control” OR “salt stress” OR “salinity” OR “cancer” OR “pharmacology” OR “glucoside” OR “metabolites” OR “cross compatibility” OR “volatile” OR “anti‐inflammatory activity” OR “shelf life” OR “synthesis” OR “scent volatile” OR “biodiesel” OR “poisoning” OR “toxicity” OR “biofertilizer” OR “cold tolerance” OR “propagation” OR “nitrogen fixation” OR “biomass” OR “siviculture” OR “honey” OR “heavy metal pollution” OR “bacterial community” OR “honeybee” OR “pollinator” OR “ammino acids profile” OR “nutraceutical” OR “urban wastelands” OR “metals”) NOT TOPIC: (“Aphis craccivora” OR “Aulacorthum solani” OR “Alfalfa mosaic virus” OR “Apate monachus” OR “Appendiseta robiniae” OR “Armillaria mellea” OR “Armillaria ostoyae” OR “Bean yellow mosaic virus” OR “Bionectria ochroleuca” OR “Chaepus dorsalis” OR “Chalara elegans” OR “Clanis bilineata” OR “Cydia trasias” OR “Dereodus pollinosus” OR “Diplodia seriata” OR “Ecdytolopha insiticiana” OR “Elasmopalpus lignosellus” OR “Erysiphe trifolii” OR “Fomitiporia mediterranea” OR “Fusarium oxysporum” OR “Ganoderma lucidum” OR “Gibberella intricans” OR “Helicobasidium mompa” OR “Lymantria dispar” OR “Lymantria obfuscata” OR “Maconellicoccus hirsutus” OR “Macrosaccus robiniella” OR “Megacyllene robiniae” OR “Megaplatypus mutatus” OR “Metcalfa pruinosa” OR “Nectria cinnabarina” OR “Odontota dorsalis” OR “Orgyia leucostigma” OR “Parectopa robiniella” OR “Parthenolecanium corni” OR “Parthenolecanium persicae” OR “Phaeoisariopsis robiniae” OR “Phloeospora robiniae” OR “Phyllactinia guttata” OR “Phymatotrichopsis omnivora” OR “Phytophthora drechsleri” OR “Pratylenchus penetrans” OR “Pythium myriotylum” OR “Tobacco mosaic virus” OR “Tremex fuscicornis” OR “Xyleborus dispar” OR “euzera coffeae” OR “atocala vidua” OR “Colias philodice” OR “Hypercompe scribonia” OR “Acronicta americana” OR “Actias luna” OR “Acyrthosiphon caraganae” OR “Acyrthosiphon gossypii” OR “Acyrthosiphon pisum” OR “Aeolesthes sarta” OR “Aglaospora anomia” OR “Aglaospora profusa” OR “Agonopterix cratia” OR “Agonopterix robiniella” OR “Agonopterix sanguinella” OR “Alsophila pometaria” OR “Alternaria alternata” OR “Alternaria fasciculata” OR “Alternaria tenuis” OR “Alternaria tenuissima” OR “Amyelois transitella” OR “Anoplophora chinensis” OR “Anoplophora glabripennis” OR “Anticarsia gemmatalis” OR “Aonidiella aurantii” OR “Aphis solanella” OR “Aphis craccae” OR “Aphis craccivora” OR “Aphis craccivora ssp.” OR “Aphis fabae” OR “Aphis gossypii” OR “Aphis pseudoacaciae” OR “Aphis spiraecola” OR “Aplosporella chlorostroma” OR “Aplosporella robiniae” OR “Appendiseta robiniae” OR “Appendiseta robiniae” OR “Apriona germari” OR “Apriona rugicollis” OR “Archips argyrospila” OR “Arcyria magna var. rosea” OR “Armillaria mellea” OR “Arthrobotrys oligospora” OR “Ascalapha odorata” OR “Ascochyta robiniae” OR “Ascotis selenaria” OR “Aspidiotus nerii” OR “Auricularia polytricha” OR “Automerella flexuosa” OR “Automeris annulata” OR “Automeris banus” OR “Automeris cecrops” OR “Automeris complicata” OR “Automeris duchartrei” OR “Automeris excreta” OR “Automeris granulosa” OR “Automeris hamata” OR “Automeris harrisorum” OR “Automeris incarnata” OR “Automeris inornata” OR “Automeris io” OR “Automeris iris” OR “Automeris jucunda” OR “Automeris leucane” OR “Automeris liberia” OR “Automeris macphaili” OR “Automeris maeonia” OR “Automeris midea” OR “Automeris moloneyi” OR “Automeris montezuma” OR “Automeris moresca” OR “Automeris randa” OR “Automeris styx” OR “Automeris tridens” OR “Automeris zozine” OR “Barea confusella” OR “Batia lunaris” OR “Batia unitella” OR “Bean yellow mosaic potyvirus” OR “Bionectria ochroleuca” OR “Biston betularia” OR “Biston robustus” OR “Bjerkandera adusta” OR “Botryosphaeria abrupta” OR “Botryosphaeria australis” OR “Botryosphaeria berengeriana” OR “Botryosphaeria dothidea” OR “Botryosphaeria ribis” OR “Botryosphaeria sp” OR “Botrytis cinerea” OR “Bruchidius cisti” OR “Bryobia angustisetis” OR “Bryobia praetiosa” OR “Bryobia tadjikistanica” OR “Byssosphaeria xestothele” OR “Byturus tomentosus” OR “Cacoecimorpha pronubana” OR “Cactodera betulae” OR “Cadophora hiberna” OR “Calonectria dearnessii” OR “Calonectria kyotensis” OR “Caloptilia stigmatella” OR “Calycellina populina” OR “Calyculosphaeria collapsa” OR “Camarosporidiella celtidis” OR “Camarosporidiella mirabellensis” OR “Camarosporidiella robiniicola” OR “Camarosporidiella schulzeri” OR “Camarosporium caraganae” OR “Camarosporium elongatum” OR “Camarosporium hendersonioides” OR “Camarosporium pseudacaciae” OR “Camarosporium robiniae” OR “Camarosporium triacanthi” OR “Camillea tinctor” OR “Catocala amestris” OR “Catocala illecta” OR “Cecidomyia orbiculata” OR “Cecidomyia prunicola” OR “Celastrina argiolus” OR “Celiptera frustulum” OR “Ceraceomyces americanus” OR “Cerambyx cerdo” OR “Ceratomia amyntor” OR “Cercophora sulphurella” OR “Cercospora curvata” OR “Ceuthospora robiniae” OR “Chaetosphaerella fusca” OR “Chinavia hilaris” OR “Chionaspis gleditsiae” OR “Chondrostereum purpureum” OR “Chorostate oncostoma” OR “Chrysaster ostensackenella” OR “Chrysomphalus aonidum” OR “Chrysomphalus dictyospermi” OR “Chrysopeleia purpuriella” OR “Cilioplea coronata subsp. montana” OR “Cinabra hyperbius” OR “Citioica anthonilis” OR “Cladosporium allicinum” OR “Cladosporium epiphyllum” OR “Cladosporium fumago” OR “Cladosporium herbarum” OR “Cladosporium herbarum f. epixylon” OR “Cladosporium nigrellum” OR “Cladosporium robiniae” OR “Cladosporium sp.” OR “Clathrospora turkestanica” OR “Clavaspis ulmi” OR “Clitocybe illudens” OR “Coccus erion” OR “Coccus hesperidum” OR “Coccus hesperidum hesperidum” OR “Coccus trichodes” OR “Coeliades forestan” OR “Colias electo” OR “Colletotrichum destructivum” OR “Colletotrichum gloeosporioides” OR “Colletotrichum glycines” OR “Colletotrichum nymphaeae” OR “Colletotrichum truncatum” OR “Collybia velutipes” OR “Comstockaspis perniciosa” OR “Concaedes carinata” OR “Coniochaeta pulveracea” OR “Coniosporium sp.” OR “Coniothyrium acaciae” OR “Coniothyrium fuckelii” OR “Corticium rolfsii” OR “Coryneum trimerum” OR “Crepidotus sp.” OR “Crustoderma marianum” OR “Cryphonectria radicalis” OR “Cryptosphaeria millepunctata” OR “Cryptosporium robiniae” OR “Cryptovalsa nitschkei” OR “Cryptovalsa rabenhorstii” OR “Cucurbidothis pithyophila” OR “Cucurbitaria elongata” OR “Cucurbitaria spartii” OR “Cylindrocarpon destructans” OR “Cylindrocladium floridanum” OR “Cylindrosporium robiniae” OR “Cylindrosporium solitarium” OR “Cyphellopsis anomala” OR “Cytospora chrysosperma” OR “Cytospora coccinea” OR “Cytospora leucosperma” OR “Cytospora ludibunda” OR “Cytospora sp.” OR “Dacrymycella fertilissima” OR “Daedalea confragosa” OR “Daedalea quercina” OR “Daedalea unicolor” OR “Daldinia childiae” OR “Daldinia vernicosa” OR “Dasylophia anguina” OR “Datana integerrima” OR “Datana ministra” OR “Diaporthe fasciculata” OR “Diaporthe oncostoma” OR “Diaspidiotus africanus” OR “Diaspidiotus ancylus” OR “Diaspidiotus juglansregiae” OR “Diaspidiotus leguminosum” OR “Diaspidiotus osborni” OR “Diaspidiotus uvae” OR “Diatrype sp.” OR “Diatrypella sp.” OR “Dictyothyrina ananasicola” OR “Didymosphaeria robiniae” OR “Dinemasporium decipiens” OR “Dinemasporium hispidulum” OR “Dinemasporium hispidulum var. brachychaetum” OR “Dinemasporium pulvis‐pyrius” OR “Dinemasporium robiniae” OR “Diplodia photiniaecola” OR “Diplodia profusa” OR “Diplodia seriata” OR “Diplozythiella robiniae” OR “Dirphia panamensis” OR “Discosia jordanovii” OR “Dothidotthia robiniae” OR “Dothiorella glandulosa” OR “Dothiorella robiniae” OR “Dothiorella vidmadera” OR “Drosicha turkestanica” OR “Eacles imperialis” OR “Eacles oslari” OR “Ecdytolopha insiticiana” OR “Ecdytolopha punctidiscanum” OR “Ectomyelois ceratoniae” OR “Ectostroma robiniae” OR “Ectropis bistortata” OR “Ectropis obliqua” OR “Elasmopalpus lignosellus” OR “Enchenopa binotata” OR “Endothiella robinae” OR “Eotetranychus matthyssei” OR “Eotetranychus populi” OR “Eotetranychus sexmaculatus” OR “Eotetranychus tiliarium” OR “Eotrama orientalis” OR “Epargyreus clarus” OR “Epargyreus tmolis” OR “Epicallima formosella” OR “Epicoccum nigrum” OR “Epidiaspis leperii” OR “Erthesina fullo” OR “Erynnis funeralis” OR “Erynnis icelus” OR “Erynnis zarucco” OR “Erysiphe communis f. robiniae” OR “Erysiphe martii” OR “Erysiphe palczewskii” OR “Erysiphe polygoni” OR “Erysiphe polygoni f. robiniae‐hispidae” OR “Erysiphe pseudacaciae” OR “Erysiphe robiniae var. chinensis” OR “Erysiphe robiniae var. robiniae” OR “Erysiphe robiniicola” OR “Erysiphe sp.” OR “Erysiphe subtrichotoma” OR “Erysiphe trifolii” OR “Esperia oliviella” OR “Etiella zinckenella” OR “Euclea dolliana” OR “Eulecanium circumfluum” OR “Euparthenos nubilis” OR “Euproctis chrysorrhoea” OR “Eurema hecabe” OR “Eurema mexicana” OR “Eutypa heteracantha” OR “Eutypa lata” OR “Eutypa ludibunda” OR “Eutypa scoparia” OR “Eutypa subtecta” OR “Eutypella capillata” OR “Eutypella leprosa” OR “Eutypella microcarpa” OR “Eutypella scoparia” OR “Eutypella sp.” OR “Eutypella tumida” OR “Eutypella venusta” OR “Euwallacea fornicatus” OR “Exidiopsis calcea” OR “Exidiopsis paniculata” OR “Favolus squamosus” OR “Favolus squamosus var. squamosus” OR “Filatima ornatifimbriella” OR “Filatima pseudacaciella” OR “Filatima xanthuris” OR “Flammulina velutipes” OR “Fomes applanatus” OR “Fomes connatus” OR “Fomes cytisinus” OR “Fomes fraxineus” OR “Fomes igniarius” OR “Fomes leucophaeus” OR “Fomes rimosus” OR “Fomes robiniae” OR “Fomes robustus” OR “Fomes vinosus” OR “Fomitella fraxinea” OR “Fomitiporia punctata” OR “Fomitopsis ohiensis” OR “Fomitopsis pinicola” OR “Fomitopsis semilaccata” OR “Fracchiaea heterogenea” OR “Fulvifomes robiniae” OR “Fumago sp.” OR “Fusarium avenaceum” OR “Fusarium equiseti” OR “Fusarium herbarum” OR “Fusarium lateritium” OR “Fusarium oligoseptatum” OR “Fusarium oxysporum” OR “Fusarium pseudacaciae” OR “Fusarium sambucinum var. coeruleum” OR “Fusarium sarcochroum” OR “Fusarium scolecoides” OR “Fusarium solani f. sp. robiniae” OR “Fusarium sp.” OR “Fusarium sporotrichioides” OR “Fusarium spp” OR “Fusarium ventricosum” OR “Fusicladium robiniae” OR “Ganoderma applanatum” OR “Ganoderma lucidum” OR “Ganoderma resinaceum” OR “Gibberella baccata” OR “Gibberella lateritia” OR “Gloeosporium revolutum” OR “Glomerella cingulata” OR “Guignardia robiniae” OR “Gynanisa maja” OR “Gyrothrix pediculata” OR “Halyomorpha halys” OR “Halysidota tessellaris” OR “Hapalopilus croceus” OR “Harpographium fasciculatum” OR “Helicobasidium brebissonii” OR “Helicobasidium mompa” OR “Helicobasidium purpureum” OR “Helicotylenchus dihystera” OR “Heliococcus bohemicus” OR “Heliococcus destructor” OR “Heliomata cycladata” OR “Helminthosporium velutinum” OR “Hemiberlesia lataniae” OR “Hemiberlesia rapax” OR “Hemileuca lex” OR “Hemileuca rubridorsa” OR “Hemileuca tricolor” OR “Hendersonia obscura” OR “Hendersonia pseudacaciae” OR “Hendersonula macrosperma” OR “Herpotrichia lanuginosa” OR “Heterodera zeae” OR “Heterosporium robiniae” OR “Hirschioporus lacteus” OR “Homadaula anisocentra” OR “Hyadaphis foeniculi” OR “Hyalophora cecropia” OR “Hylesia lineata” OR “Hypena scabra” OR “Hyperchiria nausica” OR “Hyphantria cunea” OR “Hyphodontia aspera” OR “Hyphodontia sambuci” OR “Hysterium insidens” OR “Icerya purchase” OR “Icerya purchasi” OR “Imbrasia ertli” OR “Imbrasia oyemensis” OR “Inonotus hispidus” OR “Inonotus quercustris” OR “Irpex lacteus” OR “Isariopsis sp.” OR “Lachnus tropicalis” OR “Laetiporus sulphureus” OR “Laetiporus sulphureus var. miniatus” OR “Laetiporus versisporus” OR “Lampides boeticus” OR “Lasiosphaeria hispida” OR “Lecanodiaspis prosopidis” OR “Lecanodiaspis rufescens” OR “Leiopus nebulosus” OR “Lepidosaphes malicola” OR “Lepidosaphes ulmi” OR “Lepidosaphes yanagicola” OR “Leptoporus litschaueri” OR “Leptosphaeria petiolicola” OR “Leucanella aspera” OR “Leucanella leucane” OR “Leucanella memusae” OR “Leucodiaporthe robiniae” OR “Leucoptera robinella” OR “Leveillula taurica” OR “Libertella robiniae” OR “Liothula sp.” OR “Lonomia cynira” OR “Lopharia cinerascens” OR “Lophiotrema neohysterioides” OR “Lophocampa caryae” OR “Lophocampa maculata” OR “Lopholeucaspis japonica” OR “Ludia delegorguei” OR “Lycorma delicatula” OR “Lymantria dispar” OR “Maconellicoccus hirsutus” OR “Macrophoma numerosa” OR “Macrosiphum euphorbiae” OR “Macrosporium heteronemum” OR “Malacosoma americana” OR “Malacosoma californica” OR “Malacosoma disstria” OR “Marasmius robinianus” OR “Marasmius sp.” OR “Massaria anomia” OR “Massaria inquinans” OR “Massaria sp.” OR “Matsumuraeses falcana” OR “Megaplatypus mutatus” OR “Melanaspis corticosa” OR “Melanconium viscosum” OR “Meloidogyne incognita” OR “Meloidogyne sp.” OR “Mesocriconema xenoplax” OR “Mesosa nebulosa” OR “Metasphaeria pseudacaciae” OR “Microsphaera baumleri” OR “Microsphaera diffusa” OR “Microsphaera pseudacaciae” OR “Microsphaera robiniae” OR “Microsphaera subtrichotoma” OR “Microsphaera trifolii” OR “Microsphaera trifolii var. Trifolii” OR “Misturatosphaeria mariae” OR “Molippa nibasa” OR “Molippa rosea” OR “Molippa sabina” OR “Mononychellus virginiensis” OR “Mycosphaerella pseudacaciae” OR “Mycosphaerella sp.” OR “Myxormia convexula” OR “Myxosporium sp.” OR “Myzus persicae” OR “Nathrius brevipennis” OR “Nectria cinnabarina” OR “Nectria coccinea” OR “Nectria dematiosa” OR “Nectria galligena” OR “Nectria haematococca” OR “Nectria ochroleuca” OR “Nectria pallidula” OR “Nectria peziza” OR “Nectria pseudotrichia” OR “Nectria ventricosa” OR “Nematocampa filamentaria” OR “Nematocampa limbata” OR “Nematocampa resistaria” OR “Nematus tibialis” OR “Neocosmospora silvicola” OR “Neocosmospora sp.” OR “Neonectria punicea” OR “Neopeckia diffusa” OR “Neopulvinaria innumerabilis” OR “Neopulvinaria innumerabilis” OR “Nephopterix subcaesiella” OR “Nephopterix virgatella” OR “Neptis philyra” OR “Neptis sappho” OR “Nipaecoccus filamentosus” OR “Obolodiplosis robiniae” OR “Ocrisia robiniella” OR “Odontia alutacea” OR “Oidium ramosissimum” OR “Oidium sp.” OR “Oiketicus abbotii” OR “Oiketicus platensis” OR “Oiketicus toumeyi” OR “Oiketicus townsendi” OR “Oligoporus guttulatus” OR “Oncopodiella trigonella” OR “Orgyia leucostigma” OR “Orgyia mixta” OR “Orthosia hibisci” OR “Otiorhynchus ligustici” OR “Oxyporus latemarginatus” OR “Panonychus ulmi” OR “Papaipema nebris” OR “Papaya ringspot virus” OR “Paradirphia boudinoti” OR “Paradirphia hoegei” OR “Paradirphia lasiocampina” OR “Paradirphia semirosea” OR “Paralongidorus maximus” OR “Paranthrene robiniae” OR “Paraputo porosus” OR “Parectopa lespedezaefoliella” OR “Parectopa robiniella” OR “Parlatoreopsis chinensis” OR “Parlatoreopsis longispina” OR “Parlatoria oleae” OR “Parthenolecanium corni” OR “Parthenolecanium corni” OR “Parthenolecanium corni” OR “Parthenolecanium persicae” OR “Parthenolecanium pruinosum” OR “Parthenolecanium rufulum” OR “Passalora robiniae” OR “Peanut stunt cucumovirus” OR “Pellicularia filamentosa” OR “Peniophora firma” OR “Peniophora heterocystidia” OR “Perenniporia fraxinea” OR “Perenniporia medulla‐panis” OR “Perenniporia robiniophila” OR “Perenniporia tenuis” OR “Periphoba hircia” OR “Pero honestaria” OR “Peroneutypa scoparia” OR “Pestalotia sp” OR “Phaeoisariopsis robiniae” OR “Phakopsora pachyrhizi” OR “Phalera bucephala” OR “Phanerochaete ericina” OR “Phanerochaete filamentosa” OR “Phanerochaete sanguinea” OR “Phellinus gilvus” OR “Phellinus linteus” OR “Phellinus pomaceus” OR “Phellinus punctatus” OR “Phellinus rimosus” OR “Phellinus robiniae” OR “Phellinus robustus” OR “Phellinus torulosus” OR “Phenacoccus aceris” OR “Phialocephala hiberna” OR “Phlebia chrysocreas” OR “Phloeospora robiniae” OR “Pholiota squarrosa” OR “Phoma caraganae” OR “Phoma fuckelii” OR “Phoma hauderingii” OR “Phoma labens” OR “Phoma macrostoma” OR “Phoma sp.” OR “Phomopsis oncostoma” OR “Phomopsis pseudacaciae” OR “Phomopsis sp.” OR “Phyllactinia corylea” OR “Phyllactinia fraxini” OR “Phyllactinia guttata” OR “Phyllactinia robiniae” OR “Phyllactinia suffulta” OR “Phyllonorycter fitchella” OR “Phyllonorycter gemmea” OR “Phyllonorycter morrisella” OR “Phyllonorycter robiniella” OR “Phyllonorycter uhlerella” OR “Phyllosticta advena” OR “Phyllosticta capitalensis” OR “Phyllosticta neomexicana” OR “Phyllosticta pseudacaciae” OR “Phyllosticta robiniae” OR “Phyllosticta robiniella” OR “Phyllosticta sp.” OR “Phymatotrichum omnivorum” OR “Physalospora obtusa” OR “Phytophthora asiatica” OR “Phytophthora cactorum” OR “Phytophthora cambivora” OR “Phytophthora cinnamomi” OR “Phytophthora cinnamomi var. robiniae” OR “Phytophthora citrophthora” OR “Phytophthora drechsleri” OR “Phytophthora megasperma” OR “Phytophthora megasperma var. megasperma” OR “Phytophthora nicotianae” OR “Phytophthora parasitica” OR “Phytophthora plurivora” OR “Phytophthora richardiae” OR “Phytophthora sp.” OR “Planococcus citri” OR “Pleonectria austroamericana” OR “Pleospora aureliana” OR “Pleospora herbarum” OR “Pleospora leguminum” OR “Pleospora petiolorum” OR “Pleospora robineae” OR “Pleospora turkestanica” OR “Pleurotus ostreatus” OR “Polyporus alveolaris” OR “Polyporus biformis” OR “Polyporus compactus” OR “Polyporus gilvus” OR “Polyporus hirsutus” OR “Polyporus lucidus” OR “Polyporus obtusus” OR “Polyporus rhodophaeus” OR “Polyporus robiniophilus” OR “Polyporus squamosus” OR “Polyporus sulphureus” OR “Polyporus unitus” OR “Polyura sempronius” OR “Popillia japonica” OR “Poria ambigua” OR “Poria ferruginosa” OR “Poria incrassata” OR “Poria robusta” OR “Poria umbrina” OR “Poria unita” OR “Pratylenchus penetrans” OR “Pratylenchus vulnus” OR “Prionoxystus robiniae” OR “Proeulia auraria” OR “Prosopophora robiniae” OR “Psathyrella candolleana” OR “Pseudanthracia coracias” OR “Pseudaulacaspis pentagona” OR “Pseudautomeris latus” OR “Pseudocercospora sp.” OR “Pseudococcus adonidum” OR “Pseudococcus comstocki” OR “Pseudococcus longispinus” OR “Pseudococcus maritimus” OR “Pseudococcus viburni” OR “Pseudodirphia eumedide” OR “Pseudodirphia eumedidoides” OR “Pseudoidium sp.” OR “Pseudolachnea hispidula” OR “Pseudovalsa profusa” OR “Psilocorsis cryptolechiella” OR “Pterostoma sinicum” OR “Ptychogaster cubensis” OR “Pulvinaria regalis” OR “Pulvinaria vitis” OR “Pycnoporus coccineus” OR “Pyrosis undulosa” OR “Pyrrhia umbra” OR “Pythium myriotylum” OR “Pythium sp.” OR “Pythium spp” OR “Radulomyces confluens” OR “Rebentischia massalongii” OR “Rectifusarium robinianum” OR “Rhabdospora breviuscula” OR “Rhizina undulata” OR “Rhizoctonia bataticola” OR “Rhizoctonia solani” OR “Rhodocyphella cupuliformis” OR “Rosellinia aquila” OR “Rosellinia corticium” OR “Rosellinia mastoidea” OR “Rosellinia saccardoi” OR “Rosellinia subiculata” OR “Rungaspis capparidis” OR “Rungaspis macrolobis” OR “Russellaspis pustulans pustulans” OR “Schiffermuelleria procerella” OR “Schizura concinna” OR “Schizura unicornis” OR “Sclerodon strigosus” OR “Sclerotium bataticola” OR “Sclerotium rolfsii” OR “Scolicosporium pauciseptatum” OR “Scytinostroma hemidichophyticum” OR “Sebacina calcea” OR “Selenisa sueroides” OR “Semiothisa aemulataria” OR “Semiothisa nigrocomma” OR “Semiothisa ocellinata” OR “Septoria curvata” OR “Septoria pseudacaciae” OR “Septoria robiniae” OR “Septoria sp.” OR “Sharpius brouni” OR “Sicya snoviaria” OR “Sinoe robiniella” OR “Sitona lineatus” OR “Sitona ononidis” OR “Sitona waterhousei” OR “Situlaspis yuccae” OR “Sparganothis sulfureana” OR “Sphaerella pseudacaciae” OR “Sphaerella robiniae” OR “Sphaeropsis malorum” OR “Sphaeropsis robiniae” OR “Spongipellis unicolor” OR “Sporidesmium njalaense” OR “Steccherinum ochraceum” OR “Stereum gausapatum” OR “Stigmina trimera” OR “Stilbospora angustata” OR “Strawberry latent ringspot (?) nepovirus” OR “Streblote cristata” OR “Strickeria kochii” OR “Stysanus microsporus” OR “Syssphinx albolineata” OR “Syssphinx bicolor” OR “Syssphinx bisecta” OR “Syssphinx gomezi” OR “Syssphinx hubbardi” OR “Syssphinx molina” OR “Syssphinx montana” OR “Syssphinx petersii” OR “Teichospora hispida” OR “Teichospora nigrobrunnea” OR “Teichospora trabicola” OR “Tenuipalpoides dorychaeta” OR “Tetracis cachexiata” OR “Tetranychus canadensis” OR “Tetranychus kanzawai” OR “Tetranychus ludeni” OR “Tetranychus neocaledonicus” OR “Tetranychus pacificus” OR “Tetranychus schoenei” OR “Tetranychus turkestani” OR “Tetranychus urticae” OR “Thanatephorus cucumeris” OR “Thielavia basicola” OR “Thyridium vestitum” OR “Thyridopteryx ephemeraeformis” OR “Thyronectria austroamericana” OR “Thyrostroma negundinis” OR “Thyrostroma robiniae” OR “Tinocallis zelkowae” OR “Tomato black ring nepovirus” OR “Tomentella brunneorufa” OR “Tomentella bryophila” OR “Tomentella lateritia” OR “Tomentella punicea” OR “Toumeyella quadrifasciata” OR “Trametes robiniophila” OR “Trametes trogii” OR “Trechispora polyporoidea” OR “Trematosphaeria sp.” OR “Trichodorus giennensis” OR “Trichoferus campestris” OR “Trirachys sartus” OR “Tryblidiella rufula” OR “Tryblidiella sp.” OR “Tubercularia minor” OR “Tubercularia vulgaris” OR “Tylenchorhynchus claytoni” OR “Tympanis onpularis” OR “Urota sinope” OR “Valsa ceratophora” OR “Valsa cincta” OR “Valsa heteracantha” OR “Valsa personata” OR “Valsa sp.” OR “Valsa venusta” OR “Valsaria insitiva” OR “Vanduzeea arquata” OR “Vasates allotrichus” OR “Vasates robiniae” OR “Verticillium albo‐atrum” OR “Verticillium dahliae” OR “Volutella comata” OR “Watermelon mosaic virus” OR “Xanthochrous hispidus” OR “Xylaria carpophila” OR “Xylaria cornu‐damae” OR “Xylaria hypoxylon” OR “Xylaria longiana” OR “Xylaria polymorpha” OR “Xylella fastidiosa” OR “Xylella fastidiosa subsp. multiplex” OR “Zale undularis” OR “Zale unilineata” OR “Zeuzera pyrina” OR “Zythia moelleriana”)

Appendix C – List of pests that can potentially cause an effect not further assessed

1.

Table C.1.

List of potential pests not further assessed

Pest name	EPPO code	Group	Pest present in Turkey	Present in the EU	Robinia confirmed as a host (reference)	Pest can be associated with the commodity	Impact	Justification for inclusion in this list
Lepidosaphes malicola	LEPSML	Insects	Yes	Yes (Greece and Bulgaria)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Pest of apple, with restricted distribution in the EU (Greece and Bulgaria). No official measures in place in these MSs.
Botryosphaeria australis		Fungi	Yes	Portugal, Italy, Spain	Yes	Yes	Yes	Pathogen with restricted distribution in the EU, No official measures in place in these MSs. Possible impact.
Ectostroma robiniae		Fungi	Yes	Romania	Yes	Yes	Uncertain	Pathogen with restricted distribution in the EU, No official measures in place in these MSs. Uncertainty about the impact.
Fusicoccum depressum	FUSCDE	Fungi	Yes	Poland	Yes	Yes	Uncertain	Pathogen with restricted distribution in the EU, No official measures in place in these MSs. Uncertainty about the impact.
Phomopsis pseudacaciae	LEPSML	Fungi	Yes	Austria, Hungary and France	Yes	Yes	Uncertain	Pathogen with restricted distribution in the EU, No official measures in place in these MSs. Uncertainty about the impact.

Appendix D – Excel file with the pest list of Robinia.

1.

Appendix D can be found in the online version of this output (in the ‘Supporting information’ section): https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6568

Supporting information

Excel file with the pest list of Robinia.

Suggested citation: EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health) , Bragard C, Dehnen‐Schmutz K, Di Serio F, Gonthier P, Jacques M‐A, Jaques Miret JA, Justesen AF, MacLeod A, Magnusson CS, Milonas P, Navas‐Cortes JA, Parnell S, Reignault PL, Thulke H‐H, Van der Werf W, Vicent Civera A, Yuen J, Zappalà L, Chatzivassiliou E, Debode J, Manceau C, Gardi C, Mosbach‐Schulz O and Potting R, 2021. Scientific Opinion on the commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey . EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568, 54 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6568