NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Xylophilus ampelinus (XANTAM)
GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST
Name as submitted in the project specification (if different to the preferred name):
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
Is it justified that the pest is listed at a taxonomic rank below species level?
Not relevant
Conclusion:
- Candidate: Vine sector
2 – Status in the EU:
Is this pest already a quarantine pest for the whole EU?
No
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.
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:
No
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.
- 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.;