Regulated non-quarantine pest Project

An EU funded project for the benefit of the whole EPPO region




NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Candidatus Phytoplasma mali (Apple proliferation mycoplasm) (PHYPMA)


GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST

Name as submitted in the project specification (if different to the preferred name):
 
Apple proliferation mycoplasm

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: Ornamental sector
Is it justified that the pest is listed at a taxonomic rank below species level?
 
Not relevant

Conclusion:
 
  • Candidate: Ornamental sector
Justification (if necessary):
 
Main host plant is the Apple tree (Malus x domestica). All cultivars and rootstocks are potential host plants, including ornamentals and wild plants belonging to the genus Malus (ANSES, 2012). This justifies a listing of host plants at the genus level.

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):
 
Austria (2011); Belgium (2013); Bulgaria (1993); Croatia (1996); Czech Republic (2013); Finland (2013); France (2011); Germany (2011); Greece (2011); Hungary (2010); Italy (2013); Netherlands (2015); Poland (2015); Romania (1992); Slovakia (1978); Slovenia (2011); Spain (2011)

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/). This pest is a candidate for the RNQP status according to the IIA2AWG

HOST PLANT N°1: Malus (1MABG) 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:
 
Evaluation continues

 
Justification (if necessary):
 
Decision by the HEWG to continue the evaluation in view of the problematic of vector transmission.

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

 
Justification:
 
Plants for planting can be a very efficient pathway, when propagated from infested plants. Vector transmission is also a pathway but it is considered less efficient than plants for planting.

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
 
No

Justification:
 
No information on impacts on ornamental Malus. Remark: There are reports of other ornamental plants being infected by this pathogen, e.g. Magnolia liliiflora (Kaminska & Sliwa, 2003), rose (Kaminska & Sliwa, 2004), dahlia, lilies (Kaminska & Sliwa, 2008a,b). There are no data on economic impact on these plants.

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

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?
 
Yes

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?
 
Yes

Conclusion:
 
Candidate

Justification:
 
There is probably no economic impact for the ornamental use. However ornamental plants may be produced at the same place of production than plants for the fruit production. It may be necessary to take measures on ornamental plants, in view of the risk they pose to the fruit sector (Celetti, 2013).

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?
 
Yes
 
Conclusion:
 
candidate

Justification:
 

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

Justification:
 

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:
 
Recommended for listing as an RNQP - based on data of possible indirect economic impacts for the fruit sector.


8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
 
No

Proposed Tolerance levels:
 
Zero tolerance approach, based on visual examination and/or testing.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:
 
Yes

Proposed Risk management measure:
 
(A) Derived from mother plants which have been inspected and found free from symptoms of 'Candidatus Phytoplasma mali';
AND
(B) (a) Plants produced in areas known to be free from 'Candidatus Phytoplasma mali';
or
(b) Site of production found free from 'Candidatus Phytoplasma mali' over the last complete growing season by visual inspection and any symptomatic plants in the immediate vicinity rogued out and destroyed immediately;
or
(c) No more than 2% of plants in the site of production showing symptoms during inspections at appropriate times during the last growing season, and those plants and any symptomatic plants in the immediate vicinity rogued out and destroyed immediately, and a representative sample of the remaining asymptomatic plants in the lots in which symptomatic plants were found has been tested and found free from 'Candidatus Phytoplasma mali'.

Justification (if necessary):
 
Experts recommended extrapolating measures from the fruit sector.

REFERENCES:
  • ANSES (2012) Rapport d'expertise collective. Groupe de travail "ARP phytoplasmes des arbres fruitiers". Available at https://www.anses.fr/fr/system/files/SVEG2011sa0137Ra.pdf;
  • Celetti M (2013) Apple Proliferation Disease. Orchard Network. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Available from: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/hort/news/orchnews/2013/on-0413a9.htm;
  • 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 Candidatus Phytoplasma mali [Apple Proliferation Mycoplasm];
  • Kaminska M & Sliwa H (2003) Effect of antibiotics on the symptoms of stunting disease of Magnolia liliiflora plants. Journal of Phytopathology, 151:59-63;
  • Kaminska M & Sliwa H (2004) First report of phytoplasma belonging to apple proliferation group in roses in Poland. Plant Disease, 88:1283;
  • Kaminska M & Sliwa H (2008a) Mixed infection of dahlia plants in Poland with apple proliferation and aster yellows phytoplasmas. Plant Pathology, 57:363;
  • Kaminska M & Sliwa H (2008b) First report of ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma mali’ in oriental lilies and its association with leaf scorch in Poland, Plant Pathology, 57:363;
  • Prima phacie (2012) Pest risk assessment for the European Community plant health: A comparative approach with case studies. External scientific report by group of authors: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/fr/supporting/doc/319e.pdf;