Regulated non-quarantine pest Project

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

NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Phialophora cinerescens (PHIACI)


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

Pest category:

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?

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

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

  • Candidate: Ornamental sector
2 – Status in the EU:
Is this pest already a quarantine pest for the whole EU?

Presence in the EU:

List of countries (EPPO Global Database):
Belgium (2011); Croatia (2011); France (2011); Germany (2011); Greece (1996); Hungary (1992); Ireland (1992); Italy (1992); Poland (1992); Slovenia (2011); Spain (1996); United Kingdom (1996); United Kingdom/England (1994); United Kingdom/Northern Ireland (1994); United Kingdom/Scotland (1994)


Justification (if necessary):
Data of the presence of this pest on the EU territory are available in EPPO Global Database (

HOST PLANT N°1: Dianthus (1DING) for the Ornamental sector.

Origin of the listing:

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?
Evaluation continues

Justification (if necessary):
Although the pest is listed in EPPO PM 4/2 Standard, evaluation continues because the NL proposed deregulation of this pest/host combination in the replies to the RNQP questionnaire.

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

Phialophora wilt of carnation infects host plants of Dianthus spp. and this can be of infection in cuttings that are used for production of plants for flowers or transplanting. Other sources are by natural spread via infested soil, which is possible but very slow, and by infested irrigation water. The pathogen is able to survive for years in infested soil, most likely as a saprophyte. Nevertheless, the production techniques used in recent decades (certification schemes for planting material including testing of original material, meristem culture, growing on raised benches, unused media or treated soil, pathogen-free water) have reduced the probability of infestation on cuttings of susceptible Dianthus spp. Plants for propagation (rooted and unrooted cuttings of host plants) are therefore considered as a major pathway (EFSA 2013).

5 - Economic impact:

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

Impact of Phialophora cinerescens on the intended use of the plants for planting is concluded as high because this is the main source of infection, other mechanisms for introduction of the pest are unlikely under existing production systems (EU COM, 2016).
There are no recent reports on negative effects on currently grown carnation varieties under either natural or artificial inoculation conditions. Older work showed in an experiment carried out in naturally infested soil the proportion of infected plants at the end of the trial was 52.1 % in the control plots and 22.9 % in soil disinfested with dazomet, and the number of flowers produced per plant was 5.7 in control plots and 7.3 in disinfested plots (+ 21 %). In artificially inoculated soil, all the plants were killed at the end of the trial in the control plots; in plots drenched with 4 g/m2 of benomyl only 11.3 % of plants died.
The impact of P. cinerescens carnation wilt would be very high only if already infected rooted cuttings were imported on to a farm or nursery. The presence of the pathogen would have a significant impact on carnation production only in the absence of any control measures. In this case, the yield of each infected plant would be completely lost (EFSA PLH, 2013).

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?

Not candidate

Experts considered that there is no added value for regulation. In professional production systems, the pest is not known anymore. Organism does not occur in the modern production system, because of the application of voluntary certification systems aimed at Fusarium prevention. The substantially free from requirement is considered to be sufficient.

Disqualified: little evidence of impact now, substantial freedom will suffice.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

  • EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH) (2013) Scientific Opinion on the risk to plant health posed by Phialophora cinerescens (Wollenweber) van Beyma for the EU territory, with the identification and evaluation of risk reduction options. EFSA Journal 11, 3070. Available online:;
  • 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 Phialophora cinerescens;