NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Ustilaginaceae 1USTIF

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?:

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?

Yes: Cereals (including rice) sector

If necessary, please list the species:

Avena nuda: Ustilago avenae (CZ);
Avena sativa: Ustilago avenae (CZ, DE, GB);
Avena strigosa: Ustilago avenae (CZ);
Hordeum vulgare: Ustilago nuda (AT, CZ, DE, GB, SI), Ustilago hordei (CZ, DE), Tilletia controversa (DE);
Secale cereale: Urocystis occulta (DE), Tilletia controversa (DE);
Triticum aestivum: Ustilago nuda (AT, SI), Ustilago tritici (CZ, DE, GB, MT), Tilletia carries (DE, FR), Tilletia controversa (DE), TIlletia laevis (MT);
Triticum durum: Ustilago tritici (CZ), Tilletia controversa (DE), Tilletia tritici (MT), Tilletia laevis (MT);
Triticum spelta: Ustilago tritici (CZ);
Zea mays: Ustilago maydis (CZ), Sphacelotheca reiliana (ESA, FR).

Is it justified that the pest is listed at a taxonomic rank below species level?

Not relevant

Conclusion:

Not candidate: Cereals (including rice) sector

Justification (if necessary):

When answering to the RNQP Questionnaire, no Country justified to keep Ustilaginaceae listed at a higher level than the species level. The SEWG agreed not to propose the listing of the entire Ustilaginaceae family for the RNQP status because Ustilago species have host specificities and differences in term of impact. As a consequence the application of the methodology only continues on this list of pest/host combinations submitted within the RNQP Questionnaire and belonging to the Ustilaginaceae Family. Please note that some pests from other families were proposed. The evaluation of these species is not part of the RNQP project.
Avena nuda: Ustilago avenae (CZ);
Avena sativa: Ustilago avenae (CZ, DE, GB);
Avena strigosa: Ustilago avenae (CZ);
Hordeum vulgare: Ustilago nuda* (AT, CZ, DE, GB, SI), Ustilago hordei (CZ, DE) [please note that Tilletia controversa (DE) was also proposed];
Secale cereale: [please note that Urocystis occulta (DE) and Tilletia controversa (DE) were proposed];
Triticum aestivum: Ustilago nuda* (AT, SI), Ustilago tritici* (CZ, DE, GB, MT) [please note that Tilletia caries (DE, FR), Tilletia controversa (DE) and TIlletia laevis (MT) were also proposed];
Triticum durum: Ustilago tritici* (CZ) [Please note that also Tilletia controversa (DE), Tilletia tritici (MT) and Tilletia laevis (MT) were proposed];
Triticum spelta: Ustilago tritici* (CZ);
Zea mays: Ustilago maydis (CZ) [Please note that also Sphacelotheca reiliana (ESA, FR) was proposed].
*taxonomic note: 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:

List of countries (EPPO Global Database):

Conclusion:

Justification (if necessary):

HOST PLANT N°1: Zea mays (ZEAMX) for the Cereals (including rice) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Cereals sector: Council Directive 66/402/EEC

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:

Justification:

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: no justification for a listing at a higher level than the species level was submitted in the answers to the RNQP questionnaire. All EU Member States considering this entry as important proposed a list of pest/host combinations at the species level to continue the evaluation. Please refer to these pest/host combinations for the finalization of the evaluation of the RNQP status.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Yes

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Yes

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

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