| Legend |
|---|
| Justification for qualification based on EPPO PM 4 Standards |
| Justification for disqualification |
| Additional or non-conclusive information |
| Standard text |
NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Nepovirus arabis (arabis mosaic virus) (ARMV00)
GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST
Name as submitted in the project specification (if different):
Arabis mosaic 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):
Arabis mosaic virus (ArMV) is a member of the family Secoviridae and belongs to the genus Nepovirus.
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).
Remark for olive: 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).
Remark for olive: 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):
Austria (2014); Belgium (2017); Bulgaria (1995); Croatia (2012); Czech Republic (2007); Denmark (2019); Finland (2011); France (2000); Germany (2009); Greece (2020); Greece/Kriti (2020); Hungary (2009); Ireland (1997); Italy (2007); Latvia (1990); Lithuania (2006); Luxembourg (1996); Netherlands (2022); Poland (2018); Romania (2011); Slovenia (2017); Spain (2011); Sweden (1993)
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: 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?
Yes
Conclusion:
Evaluation continues
Justification (if necessary):
EPPO Standard PM 4/11 Certification scheme for strawberry recommends testing for arabis mosaic virus (ArMV).
The Fruit SEWG decided to further analyse the data of economic impact available for this pest/host combination. Evaluation continues on this criteria.
The Fruit SEWG decided to further analyse the data of economic impact available for this pest/host combination. Evaluation continues on this criteria.
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?
Yes
Justification:
In general very few reports on nepoviruses of berries can be found, most references dating before 1995.
Martin & Tzanetakis (2006) reported that most cultivars do not exhibit symptoms when infected only with ArMV; however, in some cultivars ArMV infection can cause a chlorotic leaf mottle and mild to severe stunting or death of plants in the field.
The incidence of virus-infected plants generally remains localised because of limited spread by the nematode vectors (EFSA PLH, 2013).
EFSA (2013) refers to Murant & Lister (1987) as part of a general statement on the impact of nepoviruses on Fragaria and Rubus. On checking, this article only relates specifically to RRV and TBRV alone or as a mixed infection on strawberry, and even then it states "with large outbreaks economic loss may...be considerable", and then proceeds to describe symptoms rather than economic impacts in sensu stricto.
Martin & Tzanetakis (2006) reported that most cultivars do not exhibit symptoms when infected only with ArMV; however, in some cultivars ArMV infection can cause a chlorotic leaf mottle and mild to severe stunting or death of plants in the field.
The incidence of virus-infected plants generally remains localised because of limited spread by the nematode vectors (EFSA PLH, 2013).
EFSA (2013) refers to Murant & Lister (1987) as part of a general statement on the impact of nepoviruses on Fragaria and Rubus. On checking, this article only relates specifically to RRV and TBRV alone or as a mixed infection on strawberry, and even then it states "with large outbreaks economic loss may...be considerable", and then proceeds to describe symptoms rather than economic impacts in sensu stricto.
What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)
Minimal to minor
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?
No
Conclusion:
Not candidate
Justification:
Cultivation practices strongly limit this potential for impact. According to EFSA (2013), the most significant factor is certainly that efficient voluntary certification schemes for strawberry and raspberry are in place and ensure that healthy planting materials are used by growers. Additional factors contributing to a reduction of the impact are (1) the significantly shorter cycles of modern strawberry and raspberry cultivation practices (one to two seasons), which limit the potential for disease build-up, (2) the increasingly frequent use of soil-less cultivation practices, which limit the impact of nematode vectors and (3) the availability of resistant or tolerant cultivars of raspberry. As a consequence of the conjunction of these various factors, these nematode-transmitted viruses are found only occasionally in these crops and the diseases they cause are considered of minor significance by growers as illustrated during the hearing of industry experts. Current impact of these viruses (under existing regulatory framework) in Fragaria, Rubus and Ribes hosts was considered by EFSA (2013) to be minimal to minor, with low uncertainty.
The Fruit SEWG commented that voluntary certification schemes are not widely used in all EU countries. For instance, in Spain, between 60-70% of the material is certified in Fragaria, and practically nothing in Rubus and Ribes (certification started in 2024). 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, between 60-70% of the material is certified in Fragaria, and practically nothing in Rubus and Ribes (certification started in 2024). 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 economic impact reported in the last decade.
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.
- Martin RR & Tzanetakis IE (2006) Characterization and recent advances in detection of strawberry viruses. Plant disease 90(4). DOI: 10.1094/PD-90-0384.
- Murant & Lister (1987) Nematode-borne diseases. European nepoviruses in strawberry. 46-52. In Converse (1987). Virus Disease of Small Fruits. University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Available at https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1394&context=bioscifacpub