| Legend |
|---|
| Justification for qualification based on EPPO PM 4 Standards |
| Justification for disqualification |
| Additional or non-conclusive information |
| Standard text |
NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Stralarivirus fragariae (strawberry latent ringspot virus) (SLRSV0)
GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST
Name as submitted in the project specification (if different):
Strawberry latent ringspot 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):
Strawberry latent ringspot virus (SLRSV) is a member of the family Secoviridae.
This virus can be detected and identified in host plants and nematode vectors by specific reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays (RT-PCR) and/or sequencing. Antisera are also available and widely used for virus surveys and monitoring as well as for indexing of planting materials to ensure freedom from viruses (EFSA PLH, 2013). RT-PCR is commonly used in olive, including in certification programs for the detection and characterization of such plant viruses (Faggioli et al., 2005; Çağlayan et al., 2008).
This virus can be detected and identified in host plants and nematode vectors by specific reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays (RT-PCR) and/or sequencing. Antisera are also available and widely used for virus surveys and monitoring as well as for indexing of planting materials to ensure freedom from viruses (EFSA PLH, 2013). RT-PCR is commonly used in olive, including in certification programs for the detection and characterization of such plant viruses (Faggioli et al., 2005; Çağlayan et al., 2008).
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):
Belgium (2015); Croatia (2016); Czech Republic (1994); Finland (1996); France (1992); Germany (1993); Greece (2020); Greece/Kriti (2020); Hungary (1995); Ireland (1993); Italy (1993); Luxembourg (1992); Netherlands (2022); Poland (1992); Portugal (1992); Spain (2011)
Conclusion:
Candidate
Justification (if necessary):
SLRSV is widely distributed in the EPPO region. 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: Prunus cerasus (PRNCE) 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?
Yes
Conclusion:
Evaluation continues
Justification (if necessary):
Listed as 'Strawberry latent ringspot nepovirus (SLRSV)' in EPPO Standard PM 4-29 Certification scheme for cherry; with testing recommended.
Although PL considered in responses to the questionnaire that plants for planting was not the main pathway, this was not supported by enough justification.
The Fruit SEWG decided to further analyse the data of economic impact available for this pest/host combination. Evaluation continues on this criteria.
Remark: The assessment performed covers the given host species as well as interspecific hybrids with other Prunus species.
Although PL considered in responses to the questionnaire that plants for planting was not the main pathway, this was not supported by enough justification.
The Fruit SEWG decided to further analyse the data of economic impact available for this pest/host combination. Evaluation continues on this criteria.
Remark: The assessment performed covers the given host species as well as interspecific hybrids with other Prunus species.
4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):
Conclusion:
Justification:
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
No
Justification:
There is very little precise information in the literature about the losses that may be caused by this virus in other host crops such as Prunus (EFSA PLH, 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?
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?
No
Conclusion:
Not candidate
Justification:
EFSA PLH (2013) states that certification programmes exist that greatly limit the prevalence and the actual impact of this virus in Prunus.
The Fruit SEWG commented that voluntary certification schemes are not widely used in all EU countries. For instance, in Spain, in 2021, only 2% of the production of Prunus avium, P. cerasus and P. persica was certified; most of the production being CAC material (Martinez Salas, pers. comm., 2025). Consequently, in absence of evidence for relevant symptoms and economic impact in the last decades, the Fruit SEWG concluded that economic impact should be considered as acceptable.
The Fruit SEWG commented that voluntary certification schemes are not widely used in all EU countries. For instance, in Spain, in 2021, only 2% of the production of Prunus avium, P. cerasus and P. persica was certified; most of the production being CAC material (Martinez Salas, pers. comm., 2025). Consequently, in absence of evidence for relevant symptoms and economic impact in the last decades, the Fruit SEWG concluded that economic impact should be considered as acceptable.
6 - Are there feasible and effective measures available to prevent the presence of the pest on the plants for planting at an incidence above a certain threshold (including zero) to avoid an unacceptable economic impact as regards the relevant host plants?
Conclusion:
Justification:
7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?
Conclusion:
Justification:
CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:
Disqualified: no data of economic impact
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:
- EFSA (2013) EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH). Scientific opinion on the risk to plant health posed by Arabis mosaic virus, Raspberry ringspot virus, Strawberry latent ringspot virus and Tomato blackring virus to the EU territory with the identification and evaluation of risk reduction options. EFSA Journal 11(10), 3377. Available at https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3377.