NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Scale insects NULL1

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?:

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?

No: Ornamental 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: Ornamental sector

Justification (if necessary):

In the replies to the RNQP Questionnaire, DE justified a listing at a higher level than the species level arguing that 'several species of pests are important and cause similar damage and have an unacceptable economic impact. Listing at this level allows decision on visual inspection instead of sampling and testing/identification'. On the contrary, FI considered that the only scale insect to be listed should be Quadraspidiotus perniciosus on Malus and Prunus. However, earlier in the Questionnaire, FI recommended the deregulation of this pest.
Scale insects of pome and stone fruits (both for production and for ornamental purpose) include a large number of species belonging to three main families: Coccidae, Pseudococcidae and Diaspidinae. Generally members of these families are polyphagous, widespread and with limited movement. Their damages are only occasional and not related to specific host species. All members of Coccidae and Pseudococcidae have little economic impact in ornamental pome and stone fruits. Within the Diaspidinae family, only Quadraspidiotus perniciosus is really impacting. Q. perniciosus is listed in EPPO A2 list and in several EPPO PM 4 Standards (PM 4/27, PM 4/29 and PM 4/30) (scalenet.info). Therefore experts did not consider that a listing at a higher level than the species level was justified.

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):

Conclusion:

candidate

Justification (if necessary):

HOST PLANT N°1: Malus (1MABG) for the Ornamental sector.

Origin of the listing:

Commission Directive 93/49/EEC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

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:

Not candidate

Justification:

Quadraspidiotus perniciosus, Q. ostreaeformis, Q. pyri and Lepidosaphes ulmi are species of concern in apple fruit production and Q. ostreaeformis and Lepidosaphes ulmi may also be present (EPPO, 1999). Epidiaspis leperii (European pear scale) also occurs on Malus. All are highly polyphagous and widespread in the environment and are spread by natural or other means on fruits, debris, foliage or plants. The first-instar larva is the dispersal phase and can be distributed by wind, birds or flying insects (CABI, 2017). As such, infestation can easily spread from natural hosts or established trees and they are controlled by pesticide treatments, pheromone traps, biological control and presence of natural enemies, such as parasitic wasps and predators of the families Coccinellidae and Chrysopidae (EPPO, 1999; EPPO, 2004).
Plants for planting are a pathway, however due to the longer term life span of fruit trees and the widespread presence of the pests in the environment on many hosts, it is suggested plants for planting are not a significant pathway relative to natural infestation.

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.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

CABI (Centre for Agricultural Bioscience International) (2017) Datasheets Diaspidiotus perniciosus (San José scale). Invasive species compendium. CABI, Wallingford, UK. Available online from http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/46224;
EPPO (1999) PP 2/18 (1) Good plant protection practice. Pome fruits. Bulletin OEP/EPPO Bulletin 29,379–406;
EPPO (2004) PP 2/33 (1) Good plant protection practice. Stone fruits. Bulletin OEP/EPPO Bulletin 34,427-438;