Regulated Non-Quarantine Projects

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

back...



NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Chrysanthemum stunt viroid CSVD00


GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST

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

Pest category:
 
Viruses and viroids


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 (2014); Czech Republic (2010); Germany (1993); Italy (2011); Italy/Sicilia (1994); Netherlands (2015); Poland (1992); Slovenia (2010); Sweden (1993); United Kingdom (1993); United Kingdom/England (1994)

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: Chrysanthemum (Dendranthema) (1DDMG) 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:
 
Qualified

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

 
Justification:
 
Host plants intended for planting/grafting (excluding fruit and seeds) is a significant pathway. Other pathways are natural means and host plants and plant parts with foliage not intended for planting.

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:
 
As CSVd may cause both yield and quality losses in chrysanthemum, a major impact can be predicted for this crop in the absence of a widely used and efficient certification programme. Direct pest effects are expected to be different for the other potential host species, with a minimal impact predicted for alternative ornamental hosts (EFSA PLH, 2012).

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. Experts also recommended extrapolating this evaluation to Argyranthemum.


8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
 
No

Proposed Tolerance levels:
 
Zero tolerance based on the testing of propagation stock.

9 - Risk management measures:

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

Proposed Risk management measure:
 
Plants are derived within three generations of propagation from stock which has been found to be free from Chrysanthemum stunt viroid by testing.

Justification (if necessary):
 
Producers do not let mother plants flowering and symptoms are only visible on flowers. Therefore visual examination is not adapted to this pest. These risk management measures can be extrapolated to Argyranthemum.

REFERENCES: