EPPO RNQP

NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Opogona sacchari (OPOGSC)

GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST

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

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?:

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

Is it justified that the pest is listed at a taxonomic rank below species level?

Not relevant

Conclusion:

Candidate: Ornamental sector, Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector, Fruits (including hops) sector

Justification (if necessary):

Remark:
- fruit sector: O. sacchari has a wide host range with species in many different plant families. Musa (banana) and Ananas comosus (pine apple) crops are within the endangered area but are grown on a very limited scale in the PRA area with the exception of Madeira and Azores where the pest is already present. Apart from these host plants, impacts are only foreseen on ornamentals.
- ornamental sector: The list of ornamental hosts includes species from the families and genera of Cactaceae, Arecaceae (Palmae), Yucca, Dracaena, Beaucarnea, Pachira, Ficus, and various other plant species (mainly with “fleshy” stems) like Strelitzia, Bougainvillea, Sansevieria, Musa, Philodendron, Begonia, Dahlia, etc. (Van der Gaag et al., 2013). Although Capsicum annuum and/or Solanum melongena, which can also be marketed as ornamentals, have been suspected as hosts, no original sources were found reporting these species as natural host plants. Therefore, they were not included as hosts (Van der Gaag et al., 2013). Regulating 'all ornamental plants' would appear to be excessive, because most individual plant species are not known as host plants. It is suggested to regulate those ornamentals on which at least two interceptions have been made (and notified in Europhyt) at the genus level plus Musa. Plants of several genera of the Arecaceae (Palmae) family have been intercepted twice or more (Areca = Dypsis lutescens, Cycas, Howea, Ravenea, Washingtonia) and, to simplify matters, it is proposed to include this family as a whole. This results in the following list of host plants: Arecaceae (Palmae), Beaucarnea, Bougainvillea, Crassula, Crinum, Dracaena, Ficus, Musa, Pachira, Sansevieria and Yucca.

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):

Germany (2005); Italy (1992); Netherlands (2015); Poland (1992); Portugal (2008); Portugal/Azores (2005); Portugal/Madeira (2008); Spain (1996); Spain/Islas Canárias (1994)

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 a candidate for the RNQP status according to the IIA2AWG

HOST PLANT N°1: All plants () for the Fruits (including hops) sector.

Origin of the listing:

IIA2AWG

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting, other than seeds

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):

Yes

Conclusion:

Candidate

Justification:

Moths probably stay within a range of 100 m and possibly a much shorter range from the plants they emerged. Natural spread between greenhouses in areas where the pest cannot establish outdoors has not been documented. Trade of infested planting material is the main pathway for long-distance spread (van der Gaag et al., 2013).

5 - Economic impact:

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

Yes

Justification:

Generally, little information has been published on the economic impact of O. sacchari. For banana, pine apple and papaya, minor impacts were observed on the Canary Islands because it is controlled by insecticide sprays targeted against other pests. Impact also seems minor on Madeira. The impact is probably major on Hawaii. From other areas in the world, information on the impact under commercial conditions is very limited. Major impacts are observed on ornamental species, especially in areas with a more tropical climate (warm and humid) such as Hawaii and southern China (van der Gaag et al., 2013).

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?

Yes

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:

Not candidate

Justification:

Experts concluded that it is not an important pest for the fruit production and proposed to keep this pest only for discussions during the ornamental SEWG.

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: Experts concluded that it is not an important pest for the fruit production and proposed to keep this pest only for discussions during the ornamental SEWG.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Yes

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Yes

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

EU COM (2016) Recommendation of the Working Group on the Annexes of the Council Directive 2000/29/EC – Section II – Listing of Harmful Organisms as regards the future listing of Opogona sacchari (Bojer);
van der Gaag DJ, van der Straten M, Ramel J-M, Baufeld P & Schrader G (2013) Pest Risk Analysis for Opogona sacchari. Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Version 1,0.

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

Origin of the listing:

IIA2AWG

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting, other than seeds

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

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Not candidate

Justification:

The moth Opogona sacchari has a wide host range and is mainly known as a pest of tropical and subtropical plants like banana, pineapple and various ornamentals from (sub)tropical origin. However for vegetable species covered by EU directive 2008/72/EU, none are hosts according to a Dutch PRA prepared in 2013 (van der Gaag et al., 2013). In recent scientific literature (2013-2017), no information was found on the presence of Opogona sacchari on Capsicum annuum and Solanum melongena either. For this reason, it is concluded that no species in this vegetable sector are known to be host plants. Plants for planting of the vegetable sector are not considered to be a significant pathway.

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: no species in the vegetable sector are known to be host plants.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Yes

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Yes

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

EU COM (2016) Recommendation of the Working Group on the Annexes of the Council Directive 2000/29/EC – Section II – Listing of Harmful Organisms as regards the future listing of Opogona sacchari (Bojer);
van der Gaag DJ, van der Straten M, Ramel J-M, Baufeld P & Schrader G (2013) Pest Risk Analysis for Opogona sacchari. Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Version 1,0.

HOST PLANT N°3: Arecaceae (Palmae), Beaucarnea, Bougainvillea, Crassula, Crinum, Dracaena, Ficus, Musa, Pachira, Sansevieria and Yucca (All plants) () for the Ornamental sector.

Origin of the listing:

IIA2AWG

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting, other than seeds

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):

Yes

Conclusion:

Candidate

Justification:

The moth Opogona sacchari has a wide host range and is mainly known as a pest of tropical and subtropical plants like banana, pineapple and various ornamentals from (sub) tropical origin. The larvae of O. sacchari require host plants parts which are big enough for the larvae to tunnel in but the minimal diameter needed is not known. Larvae can be present in potting medium or soil in which the host plants are grown. Data on dispersal distance are very limited, but moths likely do not fly far from the plant from which they emerge. Distances will likely be within a range of 1 km or less. There is no documentation indicating that spread occurs between greenhouses in areas where the pest cannot establish outdoors (Van der Gaag et al., 2013).
In conclusion, only certain species of ornamental plants for planting are a host, and these are suggested to represent a significant pathway in relation to other pathways.

5 - Economic impact:

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

Yes

Justification:

Greenhouses with ornamental host plants: economic impact is generally medium, incidentally major.
O. sacchari has potentially a major impact because it can kill its host plant or damage the plants to the extent that they can no longer be marketed. In Northern Europe no damage is expected to occur outdoors given that the climate is not suitable for the pest.
Ornamental host plants outdoors in southern EU: economic impact is medium. It is uncertain to which extent plants in gardens, parks, or along roads etc. are endangered.
The limited information which is available suggests that locally or incidentally damage may occur in southern Europe. Damaged and dying plants infested with O. sacchari have been observed at some locations.
Control measures and associated costs include black light traps for monitoring (and trapping), pheromone lures and tulip bulbs as baits, plus insecticides (pyrethroids), biological control (nematodes) and removal and destruction of weak or suspected (infested) plants.

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Medium

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:

Candidate

Justification:

Incidentally, the economic impact can be relevant, in ornamental crops in glasshouse production.

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?

Yes

Conclusion:

candidate

Justification:

Official measures to prevent entry and spread of the pest by import and trade of infested plants have not been very effective, mainly because of the cryptic and polyphagous nature of the pest. The pest has been present in the EU for several decades, but there are no plant passport requirements for many of its host plants to control movement within the EU.
In order to reduce the incidence of the pest in the plants for planting, a monitoring regime is required followed by measures aimed at eradication of the pest, should the pest be found.

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Yes

Conclusion:

Candidate

Justification:

the pest has been present in the EU for several decades and a PRA is available (see above).

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Recommended for listing as an RNQP for the following ornamental plants, based on Europhyt data: Arecaceae (Palmae), Beaucarnea, Bougainvillea, Crassula, Crinum, Dracaena, Ficus, Pachira, Sansevieria and Yucca (genera with two or more interceptions notified on Europhyt) plus Musa.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Yes

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Zero tolerance based on visual examination.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Yes

Proposed Risk management measure:

(A) Plants produced in areas known to be free from Opogona sacchari;
OR
(B) The plant has been grown at a production site at which no symptoms or signs of Opgona sacchari have been observed in inspections carried out at least every three months during a period of at least 6 months prior to marketing;
OR
(C) (a) A regime is applied on the site of production aimed at monitoring and suppressing the population of Opogona sacchari and at removing infested plants;
and
(b) Each lot inspected before dispatch and found free from symptoms of Opogona sacchari.

Justification (if necessary):

The pest has a life cycle of 3 months at 15°C. These crops are generally grown indoors (temperature higher than 15°C). An inspection carried out at least every three months during a period of at least 6 months prior to marketing should be sufficient to detect the pest.

REFERENCES:

EU COM (2016) Recommendation of the Working Group on the Annexes of the Council Directive 2000/29/EC – Section II – Listing of Harmful Organisms as regards the future listing of Opogona sacchari (Bojer);
Van der Gaag DJ, van der Straten M, Ramel J-M, Baufeld P & Schrader G (2013) Pest Risk Analysis for Opogona sacchari. Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Version 1,0;