NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Diaporthe phaseolorum (Diaporthe phaseolorum var. phaseolorum) DIAPPH

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?

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: Oil and fibre plants 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:

Not candidate: Oil and fibre plants sector

Justification (if necessary):

No scientific references to D. phaseolorum var. phaseolorum by itself could be found for soybean, but information for the new preferred name D. phaseolorum will cover the pathogen D. phaseolorum var. sojae and D. phaseolorum var. caulivora (now known as D. caulivora) which have been analysed in a specific summary sheet. The SEWG proposed the only listing of D. caulivora and D. phaseolorum var. sojae on Glycine max. As Risk management measures will be based on visual examination and testing for the Phomopsis complex, measures will indirectly cover D. phaseolorum var. meridionalis.

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: Glycine max (GLXMA) for the Oil and fibre plants sector.

Origin of the listing:

3 - Oil and fibre plants sector: Council Directive 2002/57/EC

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:

Remark: DE indicated in the RNQP Questionnaire that relevance of the disease should be reconsidered (deregulation is proposed).
No scientific references to D.phaseolorum var.phaseolorum by itself could be found for soyabean, but information for the new preferred name D. phaseolorum will cover the pathogen D. phaseolorum var. sojae and D. phaseolorum var. caulivora (now known as D. caulivora) which have been analysed above. Therefore this pathogen name will include that information above and the same conclusion can be reached.

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: D. phaseolorum var. phaseolorum is not a valid name. Experts proposed to only recommend D. caulivora and D. phaseolorum var. sojae on Glycine max for the RNQP status. Risk management measures are proposed for the Phomopsis complex and will indirectly cover D. phaseolorum var. meridionalis.

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:

Pioli RN, Morandi EN, Martínez MC, Lucca F, Tozzini A, Bisaro V & Hopp EH (2003) Morphologic, Molecular, and Pathogenic Characterization of Diaporthe phaseolorum Variability in the Core Soybean-Producing Area of Argentina 93, 136-146. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO.2003.93.2.136;
Udayanga D, Castlebury L, Rossman A, Chukeatirote E & Hyde K (2005) The Diaporthe sojae species complex: phylogenetic re-assessment of pathogens associated with soybean, cucurbits and other field crops. Fungal Biology 119, 383-407. Available at: https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20153197023;