NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Potato spindle tuber viroid PSTVD0

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: Seed potato 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 evaluated: Seed potato sector

Justification (if necessary):

2 – Status in the EU:

Is this pest already a quarantine pest for the whole EU?

Yes

Presence in the EU:

Yes

List of countries (EPPO Global Database):

Austria (2011); Croatia (2014); Czech Republic (2014); Germany (2011); Italy (2011); Malta (2013); Poland (2016); Slovenia (2013); Spain (2011)

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/).
This pest is considered to be already a quarantine pest for the whole EU (annex IA1 of the directive 2000/29/EC). However, in view of its presence in the EU (see data of the presence of this pest on the EU territory available in EPPO Global Database: https://gd.eppo.int/), classification within the directive should be revised. This pest is not evaluated in the context of the EU RNQP Project but because it was submitted for evaluation by the Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulation (WPPR, 2016). As a consequence, evaluation continues.

HOST PLANT N°1: Solanum tuberosum (SOLTU) for the Seed potato sector.

Origin of the listing:

PM 4/28 (1)

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting, other than [true] seeds

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

Yes

Conclusion:

Qualified

Justification (if necessary):

Remark: This pest is considered to be already a quarantine pest for the whole EU (annex IA1 of the directive 2000/29/EC). However, in view of its presence in the EU (see data of the presence of this pest on the EU territory available in EPPO Global Database: https://gd.eppo.int/), classification within the directive should be revised. This pest was not submitted for evaluation by the European Commission in the context of the EU RNQP Project but was submitted by the Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulation (WPPR, 2016).

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:

Recommended for listing as an RNQP, based on EPPO PM 4 Standard, if the Quarantine Pest Status is changed. Evaluation is performed for the EPPO region. The SEWG is not competent to advise on whether the quarantine status of this organism should be changed, and is not recommending any such change. If the quarantine status of the organism were to change based on its distribution within relevant parts of the EPPO region then it would clearly qualify for RNQP status.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Zero tolerance for all categories (Nuclear stock, Pre-Basic, Basic and Certified).

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Nuclear stock (zero tolerance by testing):
This material should be tested or derived from mother plants which have been tested (it is particularly important to check that starting material is free);

Prebasic and basic material:
No symptoms should have been seen at the place of production since the last complete cycle of vegetation or, for each lot, post-harvest testing of tubers should be performed. Lots testing positive should not be marketed as seed potatoes.

Certified material:
Zero tolerance by visual inspection (testing in case any symptoms are seen);

The SEWG also recommended that occurrence should continue to be reported to EPPO so that the effect of any change of status can be monitored.

Justification (if necessary):

Symptoms may be seen in the growing crop or in tubers, but in some varieties the pathogen may be latent for several generations.

REFERENCES:

EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH) (2011) Scientific Opinion on the assessment of the risk of solanaceous pospiviroids for the EU territory and the identification and evaluation of risk management options. EFSA Journal 2011;9(8):2330 [132 pp.]. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011. 2330; www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal;