Regulated non-quarantine pest Project

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




NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Ustilago hordei (USTIHO)


GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST

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

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

Conclusion:
 
  • Candidate: Cereals (including rice) sector
2 – Status in the EU:
 
Is this pest already a quarantine pest for the whole EU?
 
No

Presence in the EU:
 
Yes

Conclusion:
 
candidate

Justification (if necessary):
 
This pest is present worldwide, including Europe (CABI, 1969).

HOST PLANT N°1: Avena strigosa (AVESG) for the Cereals (including rice) sector.


Origin of the listing:
 
Agricultural SEWG

Plants for planting:
 
Seeds


3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?
 
No
 
Conclusion:
 
Evaluation continues

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:
 
The SEWG recommended to also regulate U. hordei on this host. Reference to covered smut being present in most years on strigosa in wales was made by Moore and Moore, 1950. References were difficult to find as often U. avenae and A. hordei are not differentiated on seed as the spores are difficult to distinguish visually.

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:
 
The SEWG recommended to also evaluate U. hordei on this host, based on practical experience.

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?
 

Conclusion:
 
Not candidate

Justification:
 
The SEWG recommended to also evaluate U. hordei on this host. The SEWG concluded that losses may be unacceptable in some areas and under some conditions. After a last consultation, experts of the coreHEWGplus commented that Avena strigosa is mainly used in the EU for green manure. Therefore they concluded that impact should be considered as acceptable.


CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:
 
Disqualified: Avena strigosa is mainly used in the EU for green manure. Remark: A. strigosa is host to either U. avenae or U. hordei, but it is hard to distinguish spores, so records may not be correctly attributed.


8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
 
No

Proposed Tolerance levels:
 

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:
 
No

Proposed Risk management measure:
 


REFERENCES:
  • Moore WC & Moore FJ (1950) Cereal Diseases, Bulletin No. 129. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London;