Regulated Non-Quarantine Projects

Two EU funded projects for the benefit of the whole EPPO region

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



NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Podosphaera aphanis (PODOAP)


GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST

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

Pest category:
 
Fungi


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):
 
-

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):
 
The pest is reported from several EU countries and other countries from the EPPO region: Austria (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Belgium (Fraiture & Vanderweyen, 2009), Bosnia-Herzegovina (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Bulgaria (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Croatia (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Czech Republic (Mieslerová et al., 2020), Denmark (Scholler et al., 1996), Estonia (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Finland (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Germany (Braun et al., 2009), Greece (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Hungary (Sz Nagy G & Kiss L, 2006), Ireland (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Iceland (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Italy (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Kosovo (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Lithuania (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Latvia (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Montenegro (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Netherlands (Roskam, 2009), Norway (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Poland (Czerniawska, 2001), Portugal (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Republic of North Macedonia (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Romania (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Serbia (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Russia (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Slovakia (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Slovenia (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Spain (Losa España, 1942), Sweden (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Switzerland (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020), Türkiye (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020) and Ukraine (UK Plant Health Risk Register, 2020).

HOST PLANT N°1: Fragaria (1FRAG) 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?
 
No
 
Conclusion:
 
Evaluation continues

 
Justification (if necessary):
 
EPPO Standard PM 4/11 Certification scheme for strawberry recommends that plants should be substantially free from other pests (e.g. Sphaerotheca
alchemillae and Tetranychus urticae). Because this is understood as a general requirement, a full assessment of the RNQP status is performed. Remark: In responses to the questionnaire, DE supported deregulation in the EU considering that plants for planting was not the main pathway, that the pest can easily be controlled by the operator and that absence by visual examination on the material marketed/moved ('practically free from' requirement) would suffice.

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:
 
Main sources of Podosphaera aphanis are spores from old foliage or fruit mummies of strawberry from the previous year and spores spread by wind (e.g. Anonymous, 2021, AGES, 2023, Hall et al., 2019). Podosphaera aphanis is a polyphagous powdery mildew, infecting plants from the family Rosaceae and others (Gentianaceae, Myrtaceae).
The fungus readily infects living, green leaves in the nursery. Thus, infected transplants can be the primary source of inoculum for fruiting fields e.g. in Florida. When conditions are favourable, conidia produced on infected plants are wind dispersed. Powdery mildew development and spread are favoured by moderate to high humidity and temperatures between 60°F and 80°F. Rain, dew, and overhead irrigation inhibit fungal development (University of Florida Extension, 2022).
The Fruit SEWG considered that plants for planting was not a significant pathway compared to air/wind transmission from other hosts in the environment, even under tunnels or glasshouses which needs airflow.

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:
 
Podosphaera aphanis infects leaves, flowers, and fruit.
Early foliage infections are characterised by small white patches of fungus growing on the lower leaf surface. On susceptible plants, dense mycelial growth and numerous chains of conidia (spores) give these patches a powdery appearance. Under favourable conditions, the patches expand and coalesce until the entire lower surface of the leaf is covered. Under such conditions, when infections occur early in the season, massive damage can occur to the leaves, affecting flower set and yield in the crop year.
The fungus also infects flowers, which may produce aborted or malformed fruit.
Via blossom and fruit infections, infestation can also directly affect the crop.
If the disease does not occur until late summer, flower bud set has already occurred and powdery mildew may not affect the crop even if the infestation is more severe. In this case, however, problems must be expected next spring and appropriate measures must be taken (AGES, 2023).
In some strawberry cultivars, relatively little mycelium is produced, making it difficult to see the white patches. Instead, irregular yellow or reddish-brown spots develop on colonized areas on the lower leaf surface and eventually break through to the upper surface. The edges of heavily infected leaves curl upward. At times, dark round structures (cleistothecia) are produced in the mycelia on the undersides of leaves. These cleistothecia are initially white but turn black as they mature.

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

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:
 
Impact is highly dependent on measures taken by the grower. It can undoubtedly be a severe disease, but many factors play a role, the situation in one region might be different from the situation in another region, which can be linked to e.g. weather conditions, cultural practices and availability of crop protection products.

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:
 

Justification:
 
Climate control: Greenhouse: Appropriate venting will help to reduce crop humidity and help to reduce reliance on fungicides. Venting decisions should be based upon on-farm weather condition forecasts and adjusted in response to observations in the tunnels (Hall et al., 2019). In the field: wind-protected, enclosed sites and multi-row planting systems are favorable to powdery mildew and should be avoided (AGES, 2023).
Fungicides: Fungicide applications should be applied at first sign of symptoms when conditions are conducive to disease (longer periods with temperatures above 15-18 °C, intensive new leaf formation, susceptible cultivars). Rotate between products with different modes of action to reduce the risk of resistance build-up in a field should be avoided in order to reduce the risk on developing fungicide resistance by the pathogen (Hall et al., 2019, AGES, 2023, Anonymous, 2021). Decision Support Systems (DSSs) can help growers identify optimum timing of pesticide applications. Also alternative for fungicides are being researched (for DSS and alternatives overview see Aldrighetti & Pertot, 2023).
New plantings may have low incidence of infection without any visible symptoms. Early application of potassium bicarbonate should be used to control existing infection on new plants, although it provides no protection against further infection. Complementary use of the nutrient silicon helps to modify the cuticle and wax structure of the leaf, which inhibits further infection (Hall et al., 2019).
Scouting: Leaf cupping is associated with early infection and should be treated as a possible first symptom of powdery mildew infection. It should prompt further leaf assessment for the presence of mycelium (Hall et al., 2019).
Cultural control: Manage weeds within the field to help increase air flow and reduce humidity. Renovate June-bearing plantings as soon as harvest is complete to destroy infected tissue, as the disease will overwinter on old plant tissue and persist into the next season. Cleanup last year’s leaves in day-neutral plantings in the spring by pruning out old tissue around the new leaf growth (Anonymous, 2021)
Resistance: avoid using susceptible varieties (AGES, 2023).

Using powdery mildew-free transplants would be a good method to control the disease, but these are difficult to find and even disease-free fields can become infected by conidia blown in from neighboring fields. Cultivars differ in their resistance to powdery mildew. Fields with susceptible cultivars should be surveyed regularly for powdery mildew, especially early in the season. Fungicides should be applied preventively or at the first sign of disease to control powdery mildew on susceptible cultivars. This is especially important when using protectant fungicides, such as elemental sulfur. Systemic fungicides have some limited curative action. In the USA, these include quinoxyfen and cyflufenamid, which have different modes of action and can be applied in alternation. Another group of active substances include myclobutanil; triflumizole; propiconazole; and tetraconazole. These products are treated as a group since they belong to the same fungicide class and have similar properties. For this reason, they should be rotated with other fungicides with different properties to avoid the development of resistance. Other rotational options include pyraclostrobin + fluxapyroxad and penthiopyrad. None of these products should be applied more than four times per season. Usually, controlling foliar infection helps to prevent fruit infection (University of Florida Extension, 2022).

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

Justification:
 
The data are enough to make a decision

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:
 
Disqualified: plants for planting is not considered to be a significant pathway compared to others.


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:
  • Aldrighetti A & Pertot I (2023) Epidemiology and control of strawberry powdery mildew: a review. Phytopathologia Mediterranea 62(3), 427-453. doi: 10.36253/phyto-14576
  • Anonymous (2021) Powdery mildew in strawberries: IPM guide. Climate Change Adaptation Program, BC Canada. https://www.bcclimatechangeadaptation.ca/library/powdery-mildew-in-strawberries-ipm-guide/ (last accessed on 24/Apr/2024).
  • AGES (2023) Strawberry powdery mildew, Sphaeroteca macularis.
  • https://www.ages.at/en/plant/plant-health/pests-from-a-to-z/strawberry-powdery-mildew (last accessed 23/Apr/2024)
  • Braun U, Ale-Agha N, Bolay A, Boyle H, Brielmaier-Liebetanz U, Emgenbroich D, Kruse J & Kummer V (2009) New records of powdery mildew fungi (Erysiphaceae). Schlechtendaliana 19, 39-46. [Exacum]
  • Czerniawska B (2001). Erysiphales of the Drawski landscape park (NW Poland). Acta Mycologica 36(1), 67-80. [Sphaerotheca aphanis – Potentilla, Rubus caesius]
  • Fraiture A & Vanderweyen A (2009). Trois Erysiphales intéressantes récoltées dans la région des Hautes Fagnes. - Revue du Cercle de Mycologie de Bruxelles 9: 13-19. [Sphaerotheca aphanis: Alchemilla]
  • Hall AM, Jin X & Dodgson J (2019) Control of strawberry powdery mildew under protection. Factsheet Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) 19/16.
  • https://archive.ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/control-of-strawberry-powdery-mildew-under-protection. (last accessed on 27/Apr/2024)
  • Losa España DM (1942). Aportación al estúdio de la flora micológica española. - Anales del Jardín botánico de Madrid 2: 87-142.
  • Mieslerová B, Sedlářová M, Michutová M, Petřeková V, Cook R & Lebeda A (2020). Powdery mildews on trees and shrubs in botanical gardens, parks and urban green areas in the Czech Republic. Forests 11(967): 1-22.
  • NatureSpot (2024) Podosphaera aphanis. Available: Podosphaera aphanis | NatureSpot. Accessed: 16/08/2024.
  • Roskam HC (ed) (2009). WM Docters van Leeuwen, Gallenboek: overzicht van door dieren en planten veroorzaakte Nederlandse gallen, ed. 4; pp 352. KNNV, Utrecht [in Dutch].
  • Scholler M, Reinhard A & Schubert M (1996). Phytoparasitic microfungi from Bornholm. - Feddes Repertorium 107(3/4): 277-283. [Sphaerotheca aphanis: Alchemilla, Geum, Potentilla, Rubus caesius, Rubus sp.]
  • Sz Nagy G & Kiss L (2006) A Check-list of Powdery Mildew Fungi of Hungary. Acta Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungarica 41
  • UK Plant Health Risk Register (2020) UK Risk Register Details for Podosphaera aphanis. Available: UK Plant Health Risk Register (defra.gov.uk). Accessed: 16/08/2024.
  • University of Florida Extension (2022) Powdery mildew of Strawberry. University of Florida. IFAS Extension. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/PP129. Accessed: 20/08/2024.