Rating of the likelihood of pest freedom	Almost always pest free (based on the Median)
Percentile of the distribution	5%	25%	Median	75%	95%
Proportion of pest free plants	9,999 out of 10,000 bundles	9,999.3 out of 10,000 bundles	9,999.5 out of 10,000 bundles	9,999.8 out of 10,000 plants	9,999.9 out of 10,000 bundles
Proportion of infested plants	0.1 out of 10,000 bundles	0.2 out of 10,000 bundles	0.5 out of 10,000 bundles	0.7 out of 10,000 bundles	1 out of 10,000 bundles
Summary of the information used for the evaluation	Possibility that the pest could become associate with the commodity The only host reported is Malus domestica. Eggs are laid in small twigs and nymphs feed on the roots. Measures taken against the pest and their efficacy The relevant proposed measures are: (i) Inspection, certification and surveillance, (ii) Roguing and pruning, (iii) Pesticide application, (iv) Refrigeration and (v) Pre‐consignment inspection. Interception records In the EUROPHYT/TRACES NT database, there are /no interceptions of C. persica on plants for planting from Turkey. Shortcomings of current measures/procedures Visual detection of pest presence is difficult, due to egg laying inside stems and small branches. This causes twigs to split and die, causing a symptom called flagging which is also due to other pests. To confirm that a plant is infested by C. persica and not by another pests, it is essential to identify the species by morphological or molecular analyses. Chemical control of eggs and nymphs is usually not very effective because the eggs are laid inside tissue and the nymphs stay in the soil. No details are given on which pesticides are applied from those listed in Dossier, Section 2.0 on the pesticide application schedule and on the application methods. Low temperatures can slow down its development but not kill the insect. Main uncertainties – Eggs can be overlooked – Symptoms may be misclassified with other pests – The insecticide applications are not targeted to C. persica and may not be effective