NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Fusarium (anamorphic genus) 1FUSAG

GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST

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

Fusarium spp.

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?

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 RNQP Questionnaire, for the 'Oil and Fibre plant' Sector, no EU MS justified a listing at a higher level than the Species level. CZ proposed to only list Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Lini on Linum usitatissimum. The Agricultural species SEWG considered that at least three species could infect Linum usitatissimum: Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lini, Fusarium equiseti and Fusarium avenaceum.
For the 'Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds)' Sector, FR is the only EU MS requiring, for Asparagus officinalis, to keep such a listing (without any justification). Experts agreed with this proposal for Asparagus officinalis, based on the publication by Gossmann et al. (2001) showing that more than 15 Fusarium species are involved. Nine of them are of phytopathological relevance: F. acuminatum [Gibberella acuminata], F. avenaceum [G. avenacea], F. culmorum, F. oxysporum, F. proliferatum, F. redolens [F. oxysporum var. redolens], F. sambucinum [G. pulicaris], F. solani and F. subglutinans [G. fujikuroi var. subglutinans. The listing at a higher level than the species level is justified on Asparagus officinalis by the difficulty to differentiate them soundly, unless by molecular tools. For cucurbits, there is generally one main Fusarium oxysporum forma specialis for each host species. In aubergine, it is mainly Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. melongenae. For cucurbits and aubergine the listing at a higher level than the species level is not justified.
For the 'Seed potato' Sector, experts agreed that, even F. solani var. coeruleum, F. sulphureum (=F. sambucinum) and F. avenaceum are the main encountered species in potato, there are many other species present in the soil (some are not pathogenic directly). More investigations and efforts to diagnose pest at the species level is needed. This would be necessary for a listing at the species level. Experts concluded that, as long as measures are only based on symptoms for this pest, a listing at the genus level is appropriate.
For the ornamental sector, no EU Member State considered this entry as important in the replies to the RNQP Questionnaire and gave justification(s) for a listing at a higher level than the species level. This entry will be covered by the 'substantially free from' requirement that will remain in the Ornamental EU Marketing Directives.

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: Dianthus caryophyllus (DINCA) 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:

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 EU Member State considered this entry as important in the answers to the RNQP Questionnaire and gave justification(s) for a listing at a higher level than the species level. This entry will be covered by the 'Substantially free from' requirement that will remain in the Ornamental EU Marketing Directives.

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: