Legend
Justification for qualification based on EPPO PM 4 Standards
Justification for disqualification
Additional or non-conclusive information
Standard text

back...

NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Ophiovirus citri (Citrus psorosis virus) (CPSV00)

GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST

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

Citrus psorosis virus

Pest category:

Viruses and viroids

1- Identity of the pest/Level of taxonomic listing:

Is the organism clearly a single taxonomic entity and can it be adequately distinguished from other entities of the same rank?

Yes

Is the pest defined at the species level or lower?:

Yes

Can listing of the pest at a taxonomic level higher than species be supported by scientific reasons or can species be identified within the taxonomic rank which are the (main) pests of concern?

Not relevant: Fruits (including hops) 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: Fruits (including hops) sector

Justification (if necessary):

Citrus psorosis virus has been characterized and specific molecular detection methods are available.
Remarks:
- Fortunella is considered to be a synonym of Citrus by some authors. Using SSRs markers, Fortunella clusters within the genus Citrus (Barkley et al., 2006). These should be considered the same genus.
- Poncirus is considered to be a synonym of Citrus by some authors, and is categorized as such in EPPO GD. However, when using SSRs markers, Poncirus is a sister genus to Citrus (Barkley et al., 2006). In addition, one chromosomal marker can be used to distinguish Poncirus from Citrus species (Brasileiro Vidal et al., 2007). Whether to consider these as synonym or not is still a matter of debate.

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):

France (1995); France/Corse (1995); Greece (1995); Italy (1995); Italy/Sicilia (1995)

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/).

HOST PLANT N°1: Citrus (Fortunella) (1FOLG) for the Fruits (including hops) sector.

Origin of the listing:

Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2014/98/EU and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072

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

Justification (if necessary):

Citrus ringspot virus and other members of the psorosis complex' is listed in the Standard PM 4/12 for Citrus, but this virus is not specifically listed. EPPO Standard PM 4/12 for Citrus dates back to 1995, when the viruses included in the psorosis complex were not yet characterized. The virus has now been characterized with its own entity (Achachi et al., 2014; Belabess et al., 2020).

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 main pathway is the propagation with infected material (Moreno et al., 2015). Although CPsV was confirmed to be seedborne, seed transmission has not been proven (D'Onghia et al., 2000). Hypothesis of CPsV natural dispersion by insects and/or soilborne vectors has been raised in several reports but none of them were conclusive (Gottwald et al., 2005).

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:

No information specific to Fortunella. However, Fortunella is considered to be a synonym of Citrus.

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:

Candidate

Justification:

Impact is clear in Citrus and phytosanitary measures can control the disease. Lack of data for Fortunella may relate to the more minor crop status. Fortunella and Citrus should be considered as synonyms. Remark: impact on ornamental Citrus plants is also unacceptable.

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:

Certification programmes are the most efficient method to limit further CPsV infections (Jeger et al., 2017)

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

Conclusion:

Candidate by default

Justification:

Lack of data on economic impact.

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Recommended for listing as an RNQP, by default (lack of data on economic impact). Conclusion was that there is insufficient evidence to recommend changes from the current regulation and measures.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

REFERENCES:

Achachi A, Ait Barka E, Ibriz M (2014) Recent advances in Citrus psorosis virus. Virus Disease 25(3), 261-76.
Barkley NA, Roose ML, Krueger RR, Federici CT (2006) Assessing genetic diversity and population structure in a citrus germplasm collection utilizing simple sequence repeat markers (SSRs). Theor Apple Genet. 112(8), 1519-31.
Belabess Z, Sagouti T, Rhallabi N, Tahiri A, Massart S, Tahzima R, Lahlali R, Jijakli MH (2020) Citrus Psorosis Virus: Current Insights on a Still Poorly Understood Ophiovirus. Microorganisms 8(8), 1197.
Brasileiro-Vidal AC, Dos Santos-Serejo JA, Soares Filho Wdos S, Guerra M. (2007) A simple chromosomal marker can reliably distinguishes Poncirus from Citrus species. Genética 129(3), 273-9.
D’Onghia AM, Djelouah K, Savino VN, Ceglie V (2000) Serological detection of Citrus psorosis virus in seeds but not in seedlings of infected mandarin and sour orange. Journal of Plant Pathology 82, 233-235.
EFSA (2017) Jeger M, Bragard C, Caffier D, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Gilioli G, Gregoire JC, Jaques Miret JA, MacLeod A, Navajas Navarro M, Niere B, Parnell S, Potting R, Rafoss T, Rossi V, Urek G, Van Bruggen A, Van der Werf W, West J, Chatzivassiliou E, Winter S, Catara A, Duran-Vila N, Hollo G, Candresse T. Pest categorisation of naturally-spreading psorosis. EFSA J. 30;15(11), e05076.
Gottwald TR, Palle SR, Miao H, Seyran M, Skaria M, da Graça JV (2005) Assessment of the possibility of natural spread of citrus psorosis disease in Texas. Int. Organ. Citrus Virol. Conf. Proc. 16, 240-250.
Moore PW, Nauer E, Yendo, W (1957) California scaly bark disease of citrus. Calif. Agric. 11, 8–9.
Moreno P, Guerri J, García ML (2015) The psorosis disease of citrus: A pale light at the end of the tunnel. J. Citrus Pathol. 2, 1-8.
Velázquez K, Alba L, Zarza O, Vives MC, Pina JA, Juárez J, Navarro L, Moreno P, Guerri J (2016) The response of different genotypes of citrus and relatives to Citrus psorosis virus inoculation. European Journal of Plant Pathology 144(1), 73-81.