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?:
No
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?
Yes: Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) 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: Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector
Justification (if necessary):
This pest family has not been analysed for each species on this host, however including all the species in the Aphididae would make for practical application and avoid the need for full identification to species of any aphids found in the material to be eventually marketed.
Remark: FI indicated in the RNQP questionnaire, for Cucumis sativus, Lactuca sativa and Solanum lycopersicum, that there are many harmful polyphagous aphids in greenhouse production in the world, and considered that there is no point listing aphids individually.
2 – Status in the EU:
Is this pest already a quarantine pest for the whole EU?
No
Presence in the EU:
Yes
List of countries (EPPO Global Database):
Conclusion:
candidate
Justification (if necessary):
Aphididae are present worldwide.
HOST PLANT N°1: Brassica oleracea (BRSOX) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.
3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?
No
Conclusion:
Evaluation continues
4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):
No
Conclusion:
Not candidate
Justification:
Aphididae are widespread in the environment, in weeds and crops and are highly mobile by flight and/or by the wind (Blackman & Eastop, 2000). They have wide host range including vegetable crops and weeds. Some aphids, such as A. gossypii, are transferred to plants by ants. Observational data collected on genetic movement of Myzus persicae over time (a species which can live on brassica plug plants), and recent findings of Ericaphis scammelli on blueberry indicate that plants for planting may be a pathway for aphids across Europe. Highly mobile, the aphids are not strong flyers but they can be carried over large distance by wind. A. gossypii was collected at 150 m above a site using of a kytoon-supported net for insect sampling (Reynolds et al., 1999). Adults and nymphs of aphids are usually visible under light microscope. Therefore the ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants. On all hosts, plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances, even under protected conditions.
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
The main species infesting brassicas are Brevicoryne brassicae (cabbage aphid) and Myzus persicae (peach potato aphid). Aphids, especially Brevicoryne brassicae, are important and widespread pests of brassicas, especially Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower and swedes. Heavy infestations cause leaf distortion and the growth of young plants may be checked. Quite small infestations can reduce the quality of Brussels sprout buttons and cabbage. Heavy infestations of root brassicas, particularly when plants are under stress, can cause yield losses. Both aphid species transmit Cauliflower mosaic caulimovirus and Turnip mosaic potyvirus (see sections on CaMV and TuMV), which are widespread and damaging in some seasons.
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: plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances. The ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants.
8 - Tolerance level:
Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
No
Proposed Tolerance levels:
Delisting.
9 - Risk management measures:
Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:
No
Proposed Risk management measure:
Delisting.
REFERENCES:
Blackman RL & Eastop VF (2000) Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and Information Guide, 2nd Edition. Wiley, 476p;
EPPO (1998) Good plant protection practice PP 2/7 (1) Vegetable brassicas. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 26, 311-347;
HOST PLANT N°2: Brassica pekinensis (BRSPK) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.
3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?
No
Conclusion:
Evaluation continues
4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):
No
Conclusion:
Not candidate
Justification:
Aphididae are widespread in the environment, in weeds and crops and are highly mobile by flight and/or by the wind (Blackman & Eastop, 2000). They have wide host range including vegetable crops and weeds. Some aphids, such as A. gossypii, are transferred to plants by ants. Observational data collected on genetic movement of Myzus persicae over time (a species which can live on brassica plug plants), and recent findings of Ericaphis scammelli on blueberry indicate that plants for planting may be a pathway for aphids across Europe. Highly mobile, the aphids are not strong flyers but they can be carried over large distance by wind. A. gossypii was collected at 150 m above a site using of a kytoon-supported net for insect sampling (Reynolds et al., 1999). Adults and nymphs of aphids are usually visible under light microscope. Therefore the ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants. On all hosts, plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances, even under protected conditions.
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
The main species infesting brassicas are Brevicoryne brassicae (cabbage aphid) and Myzus persicae (peach potato aphid). Aphids, especially Brevicoryne brassicae, are important and widespread pests of brassicas, especially Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower and swedes. Heavy infestations cause leaf distortion and the growth of young plants may be checked. Quite small infestations can reduce the quality of Brussels sprout buttons and cabbage. Heavy infestations of root brassicas, particularly when plants are under stress, can cause yield losses. Both aphid species transmit Cauliflower mosaic caulimovirus and Turnip mosaic potyvirus (see sections on CaMV and TuMV), which are widespread and damaging in some seasons.
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: plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances. The ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants.
8 - Tolerance level:
Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
No
Proposed Tolerance levels:
Delisting.
9 - Risk management measures:
Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:
No
Proposed Risk management measure:
Delisting.
REFERENCES:
Blackman RL & Eastop VF (2000) Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and Information Guide, 2nd Edition. Wiley, 476p;
EPPO (1998) Good plant protection practice PP 2/7 (1) Vegetable brassicas. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 26, 311-347;
HOST PLANT N°3: Cichorium endivia (CICEN) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.
3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?
No
Conclusion:
Evaluation continues
4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):
No
Conclusion:
Not candidate
Justification:
Aphididae are widespread in the environment, in weeds and crops and are highly mobile by flight and/or by the wind (Blackman & Eastop, 2000). They have wide host range including vegetable crops and weeds. Some aphids, such as A. gossypii, are transferred to plants by ants. Observational data collected on genetic movement of Myzus persicae over time (a species which can live on brassica plug plants), and recent findings of Ericaphis scammelli on blueberry indicate that plants for planting may be a pathway for aphids across Europe. Highly mobile, the aphids are not strong flyers but they can be carried over large distance by wind. A. gossypii was collected at 150 m above a site using of a kytoon-supported net for insect sampling (Reynolds et al., 1999). Adults and nymphs of aphids are usually visible under light microscope. Therefore the ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants. On all hosts, plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances, even under protected conditions.
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
Aphids (Green peach aphid, Lettuce aphid, Plum aphid) (Myzus perisicae, Nasonovia ribisnigri & Brachycaudus helichrysi affect endive and cause leaves to yellow and/or distorted, necrotic spots on leaves and/or stunted shoots; aphids secrete a sticky, sugary substance called honeydew which encourages the growth of sooty mold on the plants (PlantVillage, 2017).
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: plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances. The ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants.
8 - Tolerance level:
Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
No
Proposed Tolerance levels:
Delisting.
9 - Risk management measures:
Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:
No
Proposed Risk management measure:
Delisting.
REFERENCES:
Blackman RL & Eastop VF (2000) Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and Information Guide, 2nd Edition. Wiley, 476p;
3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?
No
Conclusion:
Evaluation continues
4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):
No
Conclusion:
Not candidate
Justification:
Aphididae are widespread in the environment, in weeds and crops and are highly mobile by flight and/or by the wind (Blackman & Eastop, 2000). They have wide host range including vegetable crops and weeds. Some aphids, such as A. gossypii, are transferred to plants by ants. Observational data collected on genetic movement of Myzus persicae over time (a species which can live on brassica plug plants), and recent findings of Ericaphis scammelli on blueberry indicate that plants for planting may be a pathway for aphids across Europe. Highly mobile, the aphids are not strong flyers but they can be carried over large distance by wind. A. gossypii was collected at 150 m above a site using of a kytoon-supported net for insect sampling (Reynolds et al., 1999). Adults and nymphs of aphids are usually visible under light microscope. Therefore the ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants. On all hosts, plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances, even under protected conditions.
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
Aphids (Green peach aphid, Lettuce aphid, Plum aphid) (Myzus perisicae, Nasonovia ribisnigri & Brachycaudus helichrysi affect endive and cause leaves to yellow and/or distorted, necrotic spots on leaves and/or stunted shoots; aphids secrete a sticky, sugary substance called honeydew which encourages the growth of sooty mold on the plants (PlantVillage, 2017).
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: plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances. The ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants.
8 - Tolerance level:
Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
No
Proposed Tolerance levels:
Delisting.
9 - Risk management measures:
Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:
No
Proposed Risk management measure:
Delisting.
REFERENCES:
Blackman RL & Eastop VF (2000) Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and Information Guide, 2nd Edition. Wiley, 476p;
3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?
No
Conclusion:
Evaluation continues
4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):
No
Conclusion:
Not candidate
Justification:
Aphididae are widespread in the environment, in weeds and crops and are highly mobile by flight and/or by the wind (Blackman & Eastop, 2000). They have wide host range including vegetable crops and weeds. Some aphids, such as A. gossypii, are transferred to plants by ants. Observational data collected on genetic movement of Myzus persicae over time (a species which can live on brassica plug plants), and recent findings of Ericaphis scammelli on blueberry indicate that plants for planting may be a pathway for aphids across Europe. Highly mobile, the aphids are not strong flyers but they can be carried over large distance by wind. A. gossypii was collected at 150 m above a site using of a kytoon-supported net for insect sampling (Reynolds et al., 1999). Adults and nymphs of aphids are usually visible under light microscope. Therefore the ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants. On all hosts, plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances, even under protected conditions.
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
The main species infesting cucurbits are Aphis gossypii and Myzus persicae. Primary damage to plants results from the effects of colonies feeding on young tissues, which weakens and distorts new growth. Aphids cause chlorotic spotting, chlorosis and distortion of leaves, stunting and wilting of plants. Secondary damage arises from sooty mould growing on heavy honeydew secretions, which are deposited on leaves and fruit, resulting in reduced photosynthesis and fruit quality (EPPO, 2004).
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: plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances. The ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants.
8 - Tolerance level:
Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
No
Proposed Tolerance levels:
Delisting.
9 - Risk management measures:
Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:
No
Proposed Risk management measure:
Delisting.
REFERENCES:
Blackman RL & Eastop VF (2000) Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and Information Guide, 2nd Edition. Wiley, 476p;
EPPO (2004) Good plant protection practice PP 2/31 (1) Cucurbits under protected cultivation. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 34, 91–100;
HOST PLANT N°6: Cucumis melo (CUMME) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.
3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?
No
Conclusion:
Evaluation continues
4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):
No
Conclusion:
Not candidate
Justification:
Aphididae are widespread in the environment, in weeds and crops and are highly mobile by flight and/or by the wind (Blackman & Eastop, 2000). They have wide host range including vegetable crops and weeds. Some aphids, such as A. gossypii, are transferred to plants by ants. Observational data collected on genetic movement of Myzus persicae over time (a species which can live on brassica plug plants), and recent findings of Ericaphis scammelli on blueberry indicate that plants for planting may be a pathway for aphids across Europe. Highly mobile, the aphids are not strong flyers but they can be carried over large distance by wind. A. gossypii was collected at 150 m above a site using of a kytoon-supported net for insect sampling (Reynolds et al., 1999). Adults and nymphs of aphids are usually visible under light microscope. Therefore the ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants. On all hosts, plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances, even under protected conditions.
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
The main species infesting cucurbits are Aphis gossypii and Myzus persicae. Primary damage to plants results from the effects of colonies feeding on young tissues, which weakens and distorts new growth. Aphids cause chlorotic spotting, chlorosis and distortion of leaves, stunting and wilting of plants. Secondary damage arises from sooty mould growing on heavy honeydew secretions, which are deposited on leaves and fruit, resulting in reduced photosynthesis and fruit quality (EPPO, 2004).
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: plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances. The ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants.
8 - Tolerance level:
Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
No
Proposed Tolerance levels:
Delisting.
9 - Risk management measures:
Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:
No
Proposed Risk management measure:
Delisting.
REFERENCES:
Blackman RL & Eastop VF (2000) Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and Information Guide, 2nd Edition. Wiley, 476p;
EPPO (2004) Good plant protection practice PP 2/31 (1) Cucurbits under protected cultivation. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 34, 91–100;
HOST PLANT N°7: Cucumis sativus (CUMSA) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.
3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?
No
Conclusion:
Evaluation continues
4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):
No
Conclusion:
Not candidate
Justification:
Aphididae are widespread in the environment, in weeds and crops and are highly mobile by flight and/or by the wind (Blackman & Eastop, 2000). They have wide host range including vegetable crops and weeds. Some aphids, such as A. gossypii, are transferred to plants by ants. Observational data collected on genetic movement of Myzus persicae over time (a species which can live on brassica plug plants), and recent findings of Ericaphis scammelli on blueberry indicate that plants for planting may be a pathway for aphids across Europe. Highly mobile, the aphids are not strong flyers but they can be carried over large distance by wind. A. gossypii was collected at 150 m above a site using of a kytoon-supported net for insect sampling (Reynolds et al., 1999). Adults and nymphs of aphids are usually visible under light microscope. Therefore the ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants. On all hosts, plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances, even under protected conditions.
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
The main species infesting cucurbits are Aphis gossypii and Myzus persicae. Primary damage to plants results from the effects of colonies feeding on young tissues, which weakens and distorts new growth. Aphids cause chlorotic spotting, chlorosis and distortion of leaves, stunting and wilting of plants. Secondary damage arises from sooty mould growing on heavy honeydew secretions, which are deposited on leaves and fruit, resulting in reduced photosynthesis and fruit quality (EPPO, 2004).
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: plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances. The ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants.
8 - Tolerance level:
Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
No
Proposed Tolerance levels:
Delisting.
9 - Risk management measures:
Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:
No
Proposed Risk management measure:
Delisting.
REFERENCES:
Blackman RL & Eastop VF (2000) Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and Information Guide, 2nd Edition. Wiley, 476p;
EPPO (2004) Good plant protection practice PP 2/31 (1) Cucurbits under protected cultivation. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 34, 91–100;
HOST PLANT N°8: Cucurbita maxima (CUUMA) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.
3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?
No
Conclusion:
Evaluation continues
4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):
No
Conclusion:
Not candidate
Justification:
Aphididae are widespread in the environment, in weeds and crops and are highly mobile by flight and/or by the wind (Blackman & Eastop, 2000). They have wide host range including vegetable crops and weeds. Some aphids, such as A. gossypii, are transferred to plants by ants. Observational data collected on genetic movement of Myzus persicae over time (a species which can live on brassica plug plants), and recent findings of Ericaphis scammelli on blueberry indicate that plants for planting may be a pathway for aphids across Europe. Highly mobile, the aphids are not strong flyers but they can be carried over large distance by wind. A. gossypii was collected at 150 m above a site using of a kytoon-supported net for insect sampling (Reynolds et al., 1999). Adults and nymphs of aphids are usually visible under light microscope. Therefore the ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants. On all hosts, plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances, even under protected conditions.
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
The main species infesting cucurbits are Aphis gossypii and Myzus persicae. Primary damage to plants results from the effects of colonies feeding on young tissues, which weakens and distorts new growth. Aphids cause chlorotic spotting, chlorosis and distortion of leaves, stunting and wilting of plants. Secondary damage arises from sooty mould growing on heavy honeydew secretions, which are deposited on leaves and fruit, resulting in reduced photosynthesis and fruit quality (EPPO, 2004).
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: plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances. The ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants.
8 - Tolerance level:
Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
No
Proposed Tolerance levels:
Delisting.
9 - Risk management measures:
Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:
No
Proposed Risk management measure:
Delisting.
REFERENCES:
Blackman RL & Eastop VF (2000) Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and Information Guide, 2nd Edition. Wiley, 476p;
EPPO (2004) Good plant protection practice PP 2/31 (1) Cucurbits under protected cultivation. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 34, 91–100;
HOST PLANT N°9: Cucurbita pepo (CUUPE) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.
3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?
No
Conclusion:
Evaluation continues
4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):
No
Conclusion:
Not candidate
Justification:
Aphididae are widespread in the environment, in weeds and crops and are highly mobile by flight and/or by the wind (Blackman & Eastop, 2000). They have wide host range including vegetable crops and weeds. Some aphids, such as A. gossypii, are transferred to plants by ants. Observational data collected on genetic movement of Myzus persicae over time (a species which can live on brassica plug plants), and recent findings of Ericaphis scammelli on blueberry indicate that plants for planting may be a pathway for aphids across Europe. Highly mobile, the aphids are not strong flyers but they can be carried over large distance by wind. A. gossypii was collected at 150 m above a site using of a kytoon-supported net for insect sampling (Reynolds et al., 1999). Adults and nymphs of aphids are usually visible under light microscope. Therefore the ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants. On all hosts, plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances, even under protected conditions.
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
The main species infesting cucurbits are Aphis gossypii and Myzus persicae. Primary damage to plants results from the effects of colonies feeding on young tissues, which weakens and distorts new growth. Aphids cause chlorotic spotting, chlorosis and distortion of leaves, stunting and wilting of plants. Secondary damage arises from sooty mould growing on heavy honeydew secretions, which are deposited on leaves and fruit, resulting in reduced photosynthesis and fruit quality (EPPO, 2004).
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: plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances. The ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants.
8 - Tolerance level:
Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
No
Proposed Tolerance levels:
Delisting.
9 - Risk management measures:
Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:
No
Proposed Risk management measure:
Delisting.
REFERENCES:
Blackman RL & Eastop VF (2000) Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and Information Guide, 2nd Edition. Wiley, 476p;
EPPO (2004) Good plant protection practice PP 2/31 (1) Cucurbits under protected cultivation. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 34, 41–42;
HOST PLANT N°10: Cynara cardunculus (CYUCA) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.
3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?
No
Conclusion:
Evaluation continues
4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):
No
Conclusion:
Not candidate
Justification:
Aphididae are widespread in the environment, in weeds and crops and are highly mobile by flight and/or by the wind (Blackman & Eastop, 2000). They have wide host range including vegetable crops and weeds. Some aphids, such as A. gossypii, are transferred to plants by ants. Observational data collected on genetic movement of Myzus persicae over time (a species which can live on brassica plug plants), and recent findings of Ericaphis scammelli on blueberry indicate that plants for planting may be a pathway for aphids across Europe. Highly mobile, the aphids are not strong flyers but they can be carried over large distance by wind. A. gossypii was collected at 150 m above a site using of a kytoon-supported net for insect sampling (Reynolds et al., 1999). Adults and nymphs of aphids are usually visible under light microscope. Therefore the ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants. On all hosts, plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances, even under protected conditions.
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
Aphids pose a significant threat to the artichoke as they bring more issues with them. The aphid can cause a negative affect on growth, but also may cause a sooty mold on the buds. This results in a great loss in yield. The extremely infectious disease known as artichoke latent virus is also transmitted by an aphid, more specifically, Aphis fabae. Transmission occurs from artichoke seedlings to the vector at an extremely high efficiency. This is exemplified by the 75% re-infection rate over 2 years (University of Wisconsin, 2017) .
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: plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances. The ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants.
8 - Tolerance level:
Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
No
Proposed Tolerance levels:
Delisting.
9 - Risk management measures:
Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:
No
Proposed Risk management measure:
Delisting.
REFERENCES:
Blackman RL & Eastop VF (2000) Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and Information Guide, 2nd Edition. Wiley, 476p;
3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?
No
Conclusion:
Evaluation continues
4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):
No
Conclusion:
Not candidate
Justification:
Aphididae are widespread in the environment, in weeds and crops and are highly mobile by flight and/or by the wind (Blackman & Eastop, 2000). They have wide host range including vegetable crops and weeds. Some aphids, such as A. gossypii, are transferred to plants by ants. Observational data collected on genetic movement of Myzus persicae over time (a species which can live on brassica plug plants), and recent findings of Ericaphis scammelli on blueberry indicate that plants for planting may be a pathway for aphids across Europe. Highly mobile, the aphids are not strong flyers but they can be carried over large distance by wind. A. gossypii was collected at 150 m above a site using of a kytoon-supported net for insect sampling (Reynolds et al., 1999). Adults and nymphs of aphids are usually visible under light microscope. Therefore the ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants. On all hosts, plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances, even under protected conditions.
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
Aphids pose a significant threat to the artichoke as they bring more issues with them. The aphid can cause a negative affect on growth, but also may cause a sooty mold on the buds. This results in a great loss in yield. The extremely infectious disease known as artichoke latent virus is also transmitted by an aphid, more specifically, Aphis fabae. Transmission occurs from artichoke seedlings to the vector at an extremely high efficiency. This is exemplified by the 75% re-infection rate over 2 years (University of Wisconsin, 2017) .
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: plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances. The ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants.
8 - Tolerance level:
Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
No
Proposed Tolerance levels:
Delisting.
9 - Risk management measures:
Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:
No
Proposed Risk management measure:
Delisting.
REFERENCES:
Blackman RL & Eastop VF (2000) Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and Information Guide, 2nd Edition. Wiley, 476p;
3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?
No
Conclusion:
Evaluation continues
4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):
No
Conclusion:
Not candidate
Justification:
Aphididae are widespread in the environment, in weeds and crops and are highly mobile by flight and/or by the wind (Blackman & Eastop, 2000). They have wide host range including vegetable crops and weeds. Some aphids, such as A. gossypii, are transferred to plants by ants. Observational data collected on genetic movement of Myzus persicae over time (a species which can live on brassica plug plants), and recent findings of Ericaphis scammelli on blueberry indicate that plants for planting may be a pathway for aphids across Europe. Highly mobile, the aphids are not strong flyers but they can be carried over large distance by wind. A. gossypii was collected at 150 m above a site using of a kytoon-supported net for insect sampling (Reynolds et al., 1999). Adults and nymphs of aphids are usually visible under light microscope. Therefore the ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants. On all hosts, plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances, even under protected conditions.
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
Willow-carrot aphid (Cavariella aegopodii) infests fennel on the underside of leaves and/or stems of plant; usually green or yellow in color; if aphid infestation is heavy it may cause leaves to yellow and/or distorted, necrotic spots on leaves and/or stunted shoots; aphids secrete a sticky, sugary substance called honeydew which encourages the growth of sooty mold on the plants (PlantVillage, 2017).
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: plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances. The ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants.
8 - Tolerance level:
Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
No
Proposed Tolerance levels:
Delisting.
9 - Risk management measures:
Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:
No
Proposed Risk management measure:
Delisting.
REFERENCES:
Blackman RL & Eastop VF (2000) Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and Information Guide, 2nd Edition. Wiley, 476p;
3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?
No
Conclusion:
Evaluation continues
4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):
No
Conclusion:
Not candidate
Justification:
Aphididae are widespread in the environment, in weeds and crops and are highly mobile by flight and/or by the wind (Blackman & Eastop, 2000). They have wide host range including vegetable crops and weeds. Some aphids, such as A. gossypii, are transferred to plants by ants. Observational data collected on genetic movement of Myzus persicae over time (a species which can live on brassica plug plants), and recent findings of Ericaphis scammelli on blueberry indicate that plants for planting may be a pathway for aphids across Europe. Highly mobile, the aphids are not strong flyers but they can be carried over large distance by wind. A. gossypii was collected at 150 m above a site using of a kytoon-supported net for insect sampling (Reynolds et al., 1999). Adults and nymphs of aphids are usually visible under light microscope. Therefore the ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants. On all hosts, plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances, even under protected conditions.
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
Lettuce in protected cultivation is attacked by aphids, mainly Myzus persicae, Macrosiphum euphorbiae, Aulacorthum solani, Nasonovia ribisnigri and Hyperomyzus lactucae (the root-feeding aphid Pemphigus bursarius does not usually occur on glasshouse crops). These aphids feed on the lower side of the leaves and even in the heart of the plant. They cause poor growth, malformation and discoloration. Their physical presence is not acceptable on the marketed product, even after treatment when dead insects and shed skins remain. Myzus persicae is also the vector of LMV and CMV, and one of the objectives of aphid control is to treat early so as to prevent any virus transmission within the crop (EPPO, 2001).
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: plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances. The ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants.
8 - Tolerance level:
Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
No
Proposed Tolerance levels:
Delisting.
9 - Risk management measures:
Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:
No
Proposed Risk management measure:
Delisting.
REFERENCES:
Blackman RL & Eastop VF (2000) Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and Information Guide, 2nd Edition. Wiley, 476p;
EPPO (2001) Good plant protection practice PP 2/3 (2) Lettuce under protected cultivation. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 31, 201-210;
HOST PLANT N°14: Solanum lycopersicum (LYPES) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.
3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?
No
Conclusion:
Evaluation continues
4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):
No
Conclusion:
Not candidate
Justification:
Aphididae are widespread in the environment, in weeds and crops and are highly mobile by flight and/or by the wind (Blackman & Eastop, 2000). They have wide host range including vegetable crops and weeds. Some aphids, such as A. gossypii, are transferred to plants by ants. Observational data collected on genetic movement of Myzus persicae over time (a species which can live on brassica plug plants), and recent findings of Ericaphis scammelli on blueberry indicate that plants for planting may be a pathway for aphids across Europe. Highly mobile, the aphids are not strong flyers but they can be carried over large distance by wind. A. gossypii was collected at 150 m above a site using of a kytoon-supported net for insect sampling (Reynolds et al., 1999). Adults and nymphs of aphids are usually visible under light microscope. Therefore the ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants. On all hosts, plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances, even under protected conditions.
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
Aphids are sucking insects that can affect the health of tomato and aubergine crops directly by feeding damage and also indirectly by transmitting viruses. The main species infesting these crops are Aphis gossypii, Myzus persicae and Macrosiphum euphorbiae and Aulacorthum solani. Primary damage to plants results from the effects of colonies feeding on young tissues, which weakens and distorts new growth. Aphids cause chlorotic spotting, chlorosis and distortion of leaves, and stunting and wilting of plants. Secondary damage is from sooty mould growing on heavy honeydew secretions, which are deposited on leaves and fruit, resulting in reduced photosynthesis and fruit quality (EPPO, 2004).
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: plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances. The ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants.
8 - Tolerance level:
Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
No
Proposed Tolerance levels:
Delisting.
9 - Risk management measures:
Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:
No
Proposed Risk management measure:
Delisting.
REFERENCES:
Blackman RL & Eastop VF (2000) Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and Information Guide, 2nd Edition. Wiley, 476p;
EPPO (2004) Good plant protection practice PP 2/29 (1) Solanaceous crops under protected cultivation. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 34, 65-77;
HOST PLANT N°15: Solanum melongena (SOLME) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.
3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?
No
Conclusion:
Evaluation continues
4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):
No
Conclusion:
Not candidate
Justification:
Aphididae are widespread in the environment, in weeds and crops and are highly mobile by flight and/or by the wind (Blackman & Eastop, 2000). They have wide host range including vegetable crops and weeds. Some aphids, such as A. gossypii, are transferred to plants by ants. Observational data collected on genetic movement of Myzus persicae over time (a species which can live on brassica plug plants), and recent findings of Ericaphis scammelli on blueberry indicate that plants for planting may be a pathway for aphids across Europe. Highly mobile, the aphids are not strong flyers but they can be carried over large distance by wind. A. gossypii was collected at 150 m above a site using of a kytoon-supported net for insect sampling (Reynolds et al., 1999). Adults and nymphs of aphids are usually visible under light microscope. Therefore the ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants. On all hosts, plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances, even under protected conditions.
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
Aphids are sucking insects that can affect the health of tomato and aubergine crops directly by feeding damage and also indirectly by transmitting viruses. The main species infesting these crops are Aphis gossypii, Myzus persicae and Macrosiphum euphorbiae and Aulacorthum solani. Primary damage to plants results from the effects of colonies feeding on young tissues, which weakens and distorts new growth. Aphids cause chlorotic spotting, chlorosis and distortion of leaves, and stunting and wilting of plants. Secondary damage is from sooty mould growing on heavy honeydew secretions, which are deposited on leaves and fruit, resulting in reduced photosynthesis and fruit quality (EPPO, 2004).
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: plants for planting are not the major pathway for aphids, in most circumstances. The ‘substantially free’ requirement is highly appropriate for Aphididae on vegetable plants.
8 - Tolerance level:
Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
No
Proposed Tolerance levels:
Delisting.
9 - Risk management measures:
Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:
No
Proposed Risk management measure:
Delisting.
REFERENCES:
Blackman RL & Eastop VF (2000) Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and Information Guide, 2nd Edition. Wiley, 476p;
EPPO (2004) Good plant protection practice PP 2/29 (1) Solanaceous crops under protected cultivation. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 34, 65-77;
