NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Grapevine fanleaf virus GFLV00

GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST

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

Pest category:

Viruses and viroids

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: Vine 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: Vine sector

Justification (if necessary):

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):

Austria (2000); Bulgaria (2000); Croatia (2000); Cyprus (2000); Czech Republic (2000); France (2000); Germany (2000); Greece (2000); Greece/Kriti (2000); Hungary (2000); Italy (2000); Italy/Sicilia (2000); Italy/Sardegna (2000); Malta (2000); Portugal (2000); Portugal/Azores (2000); Romania (2000); Slovakia (2000); Slovenia (2000); Spain (2000); Spain/Islas Canárias (2000)

Conclusion:

candidate

Justification (if necessary):

Data of the presence of this pest on the EU territory are available in EPPO Global Database (https://gd.eppo.int/).

HOST PLANT N°1: Vitis (1VITG) for the Vine sector.

Origin of the listing:

Council Directive 68/193/EEC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting, other than seeds

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

Yes

Conclusion:

Qualified

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:

ES declared in the RNQP questionnaire that this pest can have 80% of yield impact.

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:

Recommended for listing as an RNQP, based on EPPO PM 4 Standard.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Yes

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Zero tolerance based on visual examination for the marketed plants, and on testing stock nurseries for Pre-basic, Basic and Certified material. Experts also agreed to below the failure rate for nepoviruses from 10% to 5% for the non-certified material (within a 10 % overall limit for virus symptoms).

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Yes

Proposed Risk management measure:

Based on visual examination carried out at least twice during the last growing season at appropriate times for the expression of symptoms.
- Non-certified ('standard'): not more than 5% [reduced from current 10%] of plants showing symptoms of nepoviruses (Arabis mosaic virus, Grapevine fanleaf virus and Cherry leaf roll virus) and not more than 10% of plants showing any virus symptoms and all plants showing symptoms rogued out and destroyed within two weeks.
- Pre-basic (“initial”), Basic, Certified: additional measures (in addition to non-certified) could include an isolation distance from other vines and other host plants for Arabis mosaic virus, a periodic testing of mother plants, a soil testing for virus vector nematodes, and a rest period from host plants of the virus before planting.

REFERENCES: