Regulated Non-Quarantine Projects

Two EU funded projects for the benefit of the whole EPPO region

back...



NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Dickeya dianthicola (Erwinia chrysanthemi pv. dianthicola) ERWICD


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: 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?
 
No

Presence in the EU:
 
Yes

List of countries (EPPO Global Database):
 
Belgium (2011); Bulgaria (2014); Finland (2011); France (2011); Germany (2011); Romania (2011); United Kingdom (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/).

HOST PLANT N°1: Dianthus (1DING) 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):
 
Although the pest is listed in EPPO PM 4/2 Standard, evaluation continues because NL proposed deregulation of this pest/host combination (the industry already takes sufficient measures).

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:
 
Dickeya dianthicola has a world-wide distribution. Any strain may occur in temperate countries, where outdoor and glasshouse plants are produced. This pest is of particular concern in the EU for carnations, chrysanthemums, and, more recently, potatoes. The pathovar of Dickeya dianthicola involved here is only pathogenic on Dianthus.
Dianthus is mainly cultivated under a protected cropping system with strict sanitation processes that prevent infection from the surrounding environment or previous crops. Spread from outside a protected cropping system could potentially be by use of unclean equipment or tools, infected cut flowers, infested media or soil or non-disinfected irrigation water, but these are considered unlikely under present usage, and no examples of outbreaks arising from these were given (EFSA PLH, 2013).

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:
 
There are reports on the impact of Erwinia chrysanthemi on several crops (see EPPO datasheet). However, reports on the impact of D. dianthicola on Dianthus cannot be found. The lack of recent publications on this organism and the disease it causes indicates that its importance has now really decreased.

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

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?
 
No

Conclusion:
 
Not candidate

Justification:
 
The industry already takes sufficient measures. It is not a problem thanks to voluntary certification schemes aimed at Fusarium prevention.

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:
 
Strict attention to sanitation and plant hygiene in the nursery or glasshouse, and a rigidly controlled propagation programme to produce disease-free plants, are considered to be effective measures, as developped in voluntary certification schemes.

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

Justification:
 

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:
 
Disqualified: little evidence of impact now, substantial freedom will suffice.


8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
 
Yes

Proposed Tolerance levels:
 
Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

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

Proposed Risk management measure:
 
Delisting.


REFERENCES: