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: Foveavirus latensarmeniacae (apricot latent virus) (ALV000)

GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST

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

Apricot latent 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):

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):

Conclusion:

Candidate

Justification (if necessary):

HOST PLANT N°1: Prunus armeniaca (PRNAR) 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, except seeds

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

Yes

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

Justification (if necessary):

The virus is listed in the corresponding PM 4 Standard as peach astroid spot agent. However, this was noted in a later stage of the RNQP project part 2 and a full assessment was performed. In the responses to the questionnaire.
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):

Yes

Conclusion:

Candidate

Justification:

Plants for planting seems to be the only pathway (Grimová & Ryšánek , 2012). Seed transmission is likely absent: seed from ApLV infected and clearly infected GF-305 plants did not result in ApLV infected seedlings; the seedlings were observed for two years (Zemcic, 2006, cited in Nemchinov et al., 2011).

5 - Economic impact:

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

Yes

Justification:

Prunus armeniaca is mostly a symptomless host of ApLV, with exception of a few cultivars like Tirynthos and Haward. In these cultivars, it induces symptoms of chlorotic blotching and/or a malformation of the new leaves and shoots (Grimová et al., 2010). In Spain, Leaf and fruit samples from 160 trees from 40 orchards were collected randomly for reverse transcription (RT)-PCR analysis, out of which 2 trees tested positive for ApLV. None of them showed visual disease symptoms. Even though no symptoms were observed in apricot in Spain, the authors could not discard that the infection could affect fruit production or flowering or cause a synergistic effect in mixed infection with other stone fruit viruses, a risk especially relevant considering the total area of cultivated apricot (García-Ibarra et al. 2010). In a field survey in Turkey, an overall incidence of 1.3% was detected for ApLV, but no tree was symptomatic (Usta et al. 2007).
[Remark: In responses to the questionnaire, AT commented that economic impact was not clear. Consequently, AT supported that measures are restricted to (pre-basic) mother plants.]

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

Minimal

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:

All damage noted comes from laboratory experiments. Apricot (P. armeniaca) is mostly a symptomless host of ApLV, with exception of a few cultivars like Tirynthos and Haward (Grimová et al., 2010). The EWG noted that these cultivars are not used commercially but mainly for laboratory research. Graft experiments have shown that ApLV can infect other Prunus spp. but remains symptomless, except for peach (Grimová & Ryšánek, 2012). Natural hosts from the American peach asteroid spot disease isolates include Prunus persica, P. armeniaca, P. andersonii., P. avium, P. amygdalis, P. domestica, P. myrobolana, P. salicina, P. spinosa, P. mume, P. mahaleb, P. bokhariensis, P. angustifolia (in Nemchinov et al., 2011).

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:

Inclusion in a certification scheme can prevent introduction of ApLV in apricot. Inspection is not reliable. Development of a serological test is likely not feasible due to low particle density in Prunus plants. Molecular test methods would have to be evaluated/developed. RT PCR testing in the frame of a certification scheme would likely be suitable. However, currently there are no commercially available tests and no validated diagnostic protocols (Peiro et al. 2005; Grimová and Ryšánek 2012).

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: mostly symptomless causing minimal 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:

EPPO (2001) Certification scheme for almond, apricot, peach and plum. EPPO Bulletin 31, 463-478
García-Ibarra A, Martínez-Gómez P, Rubio M, Dicenta F, Soler A, Pallás V & Sánchez-Navarro JA (2010) First Report of Apricot latent virus and Plum bark necrosis stem pitting-associated virus in Apricot from Spain. Plant Disease 94(2) 275.
Gentit P, Foissac X, Svanella-Dumas L, Peypelut M, Candresse T (2001) Variants of Apricot latent foveavirus
(ApLV) isolated from south European orchards associated with peach asteroid spot and peach sooty ringspot diseases. Acta Horticulturae 550: 213–219.
Grimová L & Ryšánek P (2012) Apricot latent virus – Review. Horticultural Science (Prague) 39(3): 144–148.
Grimová L, Bazzoni A, Rysánek P, Palmisano F, Zouhar M, Minafra A & Savino V (2010) Biological characterization and variability In the coat protein gene of an isolate of Apricot latent virus. Journal of Plant Pathology 92(1): 109-114
Nemchinov LG, Gentit P, Zemcic E, Candresse T & Hadidi A (2011) Chapter 19 Apricot latent virus. In Virus and Virus-Like Diseases of Pome and Stone Fruits (eds Hadidi A, Barba M, Candresse T & Jelkmann W), pp. 49-52. American Phytopathological Society American Phytopathological Society, St Paul, Minnesota USA.
Peiró A, Pallás V & Sánchez-Navarro JÁ (2012) Simultaneous detection of eight viruses and two viroids affecting stone fruit trees by using a unique polyprobe. European Journal of Plant Pathology 132, 469–475. https://doi-1org-100028fwi0999.pisces.boku.ac.at/10.1007/s10658-011-9893-0
Usta M, Sipahioglu HM, Ocak M & Myrta A (2007) Detection of Apricot latent virus and Plum bark necrosis stem pitting-associated virus by RT-PCR in Eastern Anatolia (Turkey). EPPO Bulletin 37, 181–185.
Zemic E (2006) Două virusuri serologic comune cu diferite gazde din speciile pomicule. “Certări în pomicultură”. [Two serologically related fruit tree vriruses in different hosts]. Research in Pomiculture 5, 251-258.