NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Aleyrodidae 1ALEYF

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: Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector, 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: Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector, Ornamental sector

Justification (if necessary):

When replying to the RNQP Questionnaire, for the Vegetable reproductive and planting material (excluding seeds) Sector as well as for the Vegetable seed Sector, no EU Member State identified this entry as important and justified to keep Aleyrodidae listed at a higher level than the species level. No EU Member State proposed to replace this entry by pests listed at the species level.
When replying to the RNQP Questionnaire, for the Ornamental Sector, only three EU Member States (DE, FI and FR) identified this entry as important. However these countries recommended to only list Bemisia tabaci on the concerned host plants. Therefore the evaluation only continues for B. tabaci. There is no justification for a listing of all Aleyrodidae at the family taxonomic level.

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: Begonia x hiemalis (BEGEH) 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:

This family are commonly referred to as whiteflies. Trialeurodes vaporariorum is very common worldwide in glasshouses and Bemisia tabaci (European populations) has become more present in recent years (EPPO, 1998). The latter is not listed on Begonia x hiemalis (EPPO Global Database; EFSA, 2013) though Begonia ravenii and B. simperflorens are listed elsewhere (EFSA, 2013). Also, no references could be found in a search for Trialeurodes vaporariorum, nor other whitefly species on this host, so, if they do occur occasionally, are presumably not significant.

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 gave justification(s) in the replies to the RNQP questionnaire for a listing at a higher level than the species level. The only pest considered to be important and suggested for evaluation is Bemisia tabaci (see corresponding summary sheet). 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:

EFSA Panel on Plant Health (2013) (PLH) Scientific Opinion on the risks to plant health posed by Bemisia tabaci species complex and viruses it transmits for the EU territory. EFSA Journal 11, 3162. Available online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3162/epdf;
EPPO (1998) PP 2/13 (1) Good plant protection practice. Ornamental Plants under Protected Cultivation. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 28, 363–386;

HOST PLANT N°2: Brassica oleracea (BRSOX) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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 Vegetable propagating and planting (excluding seeds) 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:

HOST PLANT N°3: Capsicum annuum (CPSAN) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

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:

HOST PLANT N°4: Chrysanthemum x grandiflorum (Dendranthema x grandiflorum) (CHYHO) 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:

This family are commonly referred to as whiteflies. Trialeurodes vaporariorum is very common worldwide in glasshouses and Bemisia tabaci (European populations) has become more present in recent years (EPPO, 1998). The latter is listed as occurring on this host (as Asteracae) (EPPO Global Database, EFSA 2013), and Trialeurodes vaporariorum is also a major problem. No references to other whitefly species on this host were found, so, if they do occur occasionally, are presumably not significant.

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Yes

Justification:

Glasshouse whitefly are sap-sucking insects that can reduce the vigour of plants and excrete a sticky, sugary substance, called honeydew, on the leaves, stems and fruits of its host plants; adults can also transmit virus diseases.

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

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:

EFSA Panel on Plant Health (2013) (PLH) Scientific Opinion on the risks to plant health posed by Bemisia tabaci species complex and viruses it transmits for the EU territory. EFSA Journal 11, 3162. Available online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3162/epdf;
EPPO (1998) PP 2/13 (1) Good plant protection practice. Ornamental Plants under Protected Cultivation. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 28, 363–386;

HOST PLANT N°5: Citrullus lanatus (CITLA) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

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:

HOST PLANT N°6: Cucumis melo (CUMME) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

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:

HOST PLANT N°7: Cucumis sativus (CUMSA) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

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:

HOST PLANT N°8: Cucurbita maxima (CUUMA) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

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:

HOST PLANT N°9: Cucurbita pepo (CUUPE) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

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:

HOST PLANT N°10: Cynara cardunculus (CYUCA) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

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:

HOST PLANT N°11: Cynara scolymus (CYUSC) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

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:

HOST PLANT N°12: 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:

This family are commonly referred to as whiteflies and Trialeurodes vaporariorum is very common worldwide in glasshouses and Bemisia tabaci (European populations) has become more so in recent years (EPPO, 1998). The latter is not listed on this host (EPPO Global Database) and is given as an unconfirmed host (EFSA 2013), though there was one reference in Spain, where it occurs on carnation (Beitia et al, 2016). No references could be found in a search for Trialeurodes vaporariorum or other whitefly species on this host, so, if they do occur occasionally, they are presumably not significant.

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

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:

Beitia F, Asís JD, Pedro L de, Goula M & Tormos J (2016) Importance of feeding behaviour on life cycle in the zoophytophagous bug Dicyphus geniculatus. Bulletin of Insectology 69, 173-180;
EPPO (1998) PP 2/13(1) Good plant protection practice. Ornamental Plants under Protected Cultivation. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 28, 363–386;

HOST PLANT N°13: Euphorbia pulcherrima (EPHPU) 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:

This family are commonly referred to as whiteflies and Trialeurodes vaporariorum is very common worldwide in glasshouses and Bemisia tabaci (European populations) has become more present in recent years (EPPO, 1998). Both are frequent on Euphorbia pulcherrima although, no references could be found in a search for other whitefly species on this host, so, if they do occur occasionally, are presumably not significant.

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Yes

Justification:

Both species are considered important as glasshouse whitefly are sap-sucking insects that can reduce the vigour of plants and excrete a sticky, sugary substance, called honeydew, on the leaves, stems and fruits of its host plants; adults can also transmit virus diseases.

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

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:

EPPO (1998) PP 2/13(1) Good plant protection practice. Ornamental Plants under Protected Cultivation. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 28, 363–386;

HOST PLANT N°14: Foeniculum vulgare (FOEVU) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

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:

HOST PLANT N°15: Gerbera (1GEBG) 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:

This family are commonly referred to as whiteflies and Trialeurodes vaporariorum is very common worldwide in glasshouses and Bemisia tabaci (European populations) has become more present in recent years (EPPO, 1998). The latter is listed as occurring on Gerbera spp. (as Asteracae) (EPPO Global Database; EFSA, 2013), and Trialeurodes vaporariorum is also a major problem; no references to other whitefly species on this host were found, so, if they do occur occasionally, are presumably not significant.

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Yes

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

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:

EFSA Panel on Plant Health (2013) (PLH) Scientific Opinion on the risks to plant health posed by Bemisia tabaci species complex and viruses it transmits for the EU territory. EFSA Journal 11, 3162. Available online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3162/epdf;
EPPO (1998) PP 2/13 (1) Good plant protection practice. Ornamental Plants under Protected Cultivation. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 28, 363–386;

HOST PLANT N°16: Pelargonium (1PELG) 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:

This family are commonly referred to as whiteflies and Trialeurodes vaporariorum is very common worldwide in glasshouses and Bemisia tabaci (European populations) has become more so in recent years (EPPO 1998). The latter is listed as occurring on this host (in Asteracae) (EPPO Global Database; EFSA, 2013), and Trialeurodes vaporariorum is also a major problem. No references to other whitefly species on this host were found.

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Yes

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

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:

EFSA Panel on Plant Health (2013) (PLH) Scientific Opinion on the risks to plant health posed by Bemisia tabaci species complex and viruses it transmits for the EU territory. EFSA Journal 11, 3162. Available online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3162/epdf;

HOST PLANT N°17: Solanum lycopersicum (LYPES) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

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:

HOST PLANT N°18: Solanum melongena (SOLME) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

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: