NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Plenodomus tracheiphilus (Phoma tracheiphila) DEUTTR

GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST

Name as submitted in the project specification (if different):

Phoma tracheiphila

Pest category:

Fungi

1- Identity of the pest/Level of taxonomic listing:

Is the organism clearly a single taxonomic entity and can it be adequately distinguished from other entities of the same rank?

Yes

Is the pest defined at the species level or lower?:

Yes

Can listing of the pest at a taxonomic level higher than species be supported by scientific reasons or can species be identified within the taxonomic rank which are the (main) pests of concern?

Not relevant: Ornamental sector

If necessary, please list the species:

Is it justified that the pest is listed at a taxonomic rank below species level?

Not relevant

Conclusion:

Candidate: Ornamental sector

Justification (if necessary):

2 – Status in the EU:

Is this pest already a quarantine pest for the whole EU?

Presence in the EU:

Yes

List of countries (EPPO Global Database):

Cyprus (2011); France (2011); France/Corse (2011); Greece (2015); Greece/Kriti (1994); Italy (2014); Italy/Sicilia (2011); Italy/Sardegna (1994)

Conclusion:

candidate

Justification (if necessary):

Data of the presence of this pest on the EU territory are available in EPPO Global Database (https://gd.eppo.int/).

HOST PLANT N°1: Fortunella hybrids (FOLHY) for the Ornamental sector.

Origin of the listing:

IIA2AWG

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting, other than seeds

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Yes

Conclusion:

Qualified

Justification (if necessary):

The interest in Citrus and related genera as ornamental plants has increased in recent years, and many varieties and hybrids are suitable for this purpose. No references could be found to the susceptibility or resistance of ornamental Citrus spp., Fortunella spp., Poncirus spp. and their hybrids to infection by Plenodomus tracheiphilus, as compared to fruiting species, so it is concluded they would react to the pathogen in a similar way. The main host is lemon, but some other Citrus species also have a high susceptibility rating (EFSA 2014). The EPPO PM 4 Standard for Citrus includes all species of Citrus, Poncirus, Fortunella and their hybrids, so it is assumed it can be recommended for the RNQP status for ornamental use based on the EPPO PM 4 Standard, and so this analysis does not need to continue.

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Is there unacceptable economic impact caused to other hosts (or the same host with a different intended use) produced at the same place of production due to the transfer of the pest from the named host plant for planting?

Conclusion:

Justification:

6 - Are there feasible and effective measures available to prevent the presence of the pest on the plants for planting at an incidence above a certain threshold (including zero) to avoid an unacceptable economic impact as regards the relevant host plants?

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Recommended for listing as an RNQP, based on EPPO PM 4 Standard.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Zero tolerance based on visual examination.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Yes

Proposed Risk management measure:

(a) Plants produced in areas known to be free from Plenodomus tracheiphilus;
or
(b) Site of production found free from Plenodomus tracheiphilus over the last complete growing season, by visual inspection at least twice at appropriate times during the last growing season, and any symptomatic plants in the immediate vicinity rogued out and destroyed immediately;
or
(c) No more than 2% of plants in the lot showing symptoms during inspections at least twice at appropriate times during the last growing season, and those plants and any symptomatic plants in the immediate vicinity rogued out and destroyed immediately.

Justification (if necessary):

Experts considered that risks of cross-contamination with plants produced for fruit production should be taken into consideration. Therefore same measures than for the fruit sector are proposed.

REFERENCES:

EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH) (2014) Scientific Opinion on the pest categorisation of Plenodomus tracheiphilus (Petri) Gruyter, Aveskamp & Verkley [syn. Phoma tracheiphila (Petri) L.A. Kantschaveli & Gikashvili]. EFSA Journal 2014;12(7):3775, 34 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3775;
EU COM (2014) Recommendation of the Working Group on the Annexes of the Council Directive 2000/29/EC – Section II – Listing of Harmful Organisms as regards the future listing of Plenodomus tracheiphilus [syn. Phoma tracheiphila];