NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Xylophilus ampelinus XANTAM

GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST

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

Pest category:

Bacteria

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: Vine 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: Vine 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):

France (1995); Greece (1996); Greece/Kriti (1994); Italy (1992); Italy/Sicilia (1994); Italy/Sardegna (1994); Slovenia (2005)

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: Vitis vinifera (Vitis) (1VITG) for the Vine 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):

X. ampelinus affects only V. vinifera (EFSA 2014). Evaluation is therefore only proposed for V. vinifera.

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 on the basis of visual inspections at appropriate times during the last growing season and sampling and testing of plants showing symptoms.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Yes

Proposed Risk management measure:

Based on visual examination carried out at least once during the last growing season at appropriate times for the expression of symptoms.
- Non-certified plants (‘standard’):
(a) Plants produced in areas known to be free from Xylophilus ampelinus;
or
(b) Place of production found free from Xylophilus ampelinus;
or
(c) Any plants showing symptoms have been uprooted and destroyed and appropriate hygiene measures taken to avoid spread within the nursery.

- Pre-basic (‘initial’), basic and certified:
Additional measures could include treatment after pruning with a bactericide, and restriction to first two options above.

Justification (if necessary):

Asymptomatic testing is not relevant because symptoms are very clear. The pest can be transmitted with pruning equipment. More stringent measures can be defined at national level.

REFERENCES:

EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH) (2014) Scientific Opinion on the pest categorisation of Xylophilus ampelinus (Panagopoulos) Willems et al. EFSA Journal 2014;12(12):3921, 26 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3921 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/3921.pdf;
EU COM (2016) 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 Xylophilus ampelinus (Panagopoulos) Willems et al.;