Regulated Non-Quarantine Projects

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

back...



NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Bruchus pisorum BRCHPI


GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST

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

Pest category:
 
Insecta


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: Vegetable seed 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: Vegetable seed 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):
 

Conclusion:
 
candidate

Justification (if necessary):
 
The pest is present worldwide (Canadian Grain Commission, 2013), and in all EU Member States (Fauna Europaea, 2017).

HOST PLANT N°1: Phaseolus vulgaris (PHSVX) for the Vegetable seed sector.


Origin of the listing:
 
1 - Vegetable seed sector: Council Directive 2002/55/EC

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):
 
No
 
Conclusion:
 
Not candidate

 
Justification:
 
No references to evidence of infestation of seeds of Phaseolus vulgaris by Bruchus pisorum could be found. Bruchus pisorum (L.) reproduces only on pea, though there is evidence they feed on flowers of faba bean (Vicia faba) and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) (Annis & O'Keeffe, 1984).

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:
 

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: Bruchus pisorum (L.) reproduces only on pea.


8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
 
No

Proposed Tolerance levels:
 
Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

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

Proposed Risk management measure:
 
Delisting.


REFERENCES: