NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Ustilago tritici USTINT

GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST

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

Pest category:

Fungi

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: Cereals (including rice) 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: Cereals (including rice) sector

Justification (if necessary):

Ustilago tritici and U. nuda differ only in pathogenicity [ibid., 23, p. 170] they should be united in one species (U. nuda) (Ainsworth & Sampson, 1950). U. tritici and U. nuda are synonyms according to Index Fungorum (http://www.indexfungorum.org/names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=141349).

2 – Status in the EU:

Is this pest already a quarantine pest for the whole EU?

Presence in the EU:

Yes

List of countries (EPPO Global Database):

Conclusion:

candidate

Justification (if necessary):

This pest is present worldwide, including Europe (CABI, 1993).

HOST PLANT N°1: Triticum spelta (TRZSP) for the Cereals (including rice) sector.

Origin of the listing:

RNQP Questionnaire

Plants for planting:

Seeds

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

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

Conclusion:

Not candidate

Justification:

No records of U.tritici (U. segetum var. tritici) [or U. nuda] could be found infecting Spelt wheat (T. spelta). Therefore it is considered not to be a host and therefore seed for planting is not a pathway.

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:

No records of U.tritici (U. segetum var. tritici) [or U. nuda] could be found infecting Spelt wheat (T. spelta).

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:

Disqualified: spelt is not considered to be a host plant.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Yes

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Not recommended for the RNQP status.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Yes

Proposed Risk management measure:

Not recommended for the RNQP status.

REFERENCES:

Ainsworth G G & Sampson K (1950) The British smut fungi (Ustilaginales). The Commonwealth Mycological Institute, 137 pp;