| Legend |
|---|
| Justification for qualification based on EPPO PM 4 Standards |
| Justification for disqualification |
| Additional or non-conclusive information |
| Standard text |
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?
No
Presence in the EU:
Yes
List of countries (EPPO Global Database):
-
Conclusion:
Candidate
Justification (if necessary):
HOST PLANT N°1: Prunus persica (PRNPS) 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.
Remark: the assessment performed covers the given host species as well as interspecific hybrids with other Prunus species.
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). Infected but symptomless stone fruit cultivars could constitute a major virus reservoir for the spread of ApLV throughout fruit-growing regions (Grimová et al. 2010).
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
Some Prunus persica cultivars (peach/nectarine) infected with ApLV show leaves symptoms ranging fron chlorosis to severe defoliation (Nemchinov et al., 2011).
In Prunus persica, ApLV can lead to yellow asteroid or sooty ring spots on the leaves, which later became encircled by reddish rings that turn dark. When eleven cultivars of peach were graft-inoculated with ApLV, all cultivars showed symptoms (Grimová et al., 2010). No symptoms were observed on the bark, wood or fruits (in Grimová & Ryšánek, 2012), although Nemchinov et al (2011) reported some discolored asteroid spots on fruits from peach cv. Springtime at the ripening stage. The plant was inoculated with the original isolate of ApLV.
Symptoms may be stronger in association with common viruses (PDV, PNRSV, ACLSV) (Nemchinov et al., 2011).
[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.]
In Prunus persica, ApLV can lead to yellow asteroid or sooty ring spots on the leaves, which later became encircled by reddish rings that turn dark. When eleven cultivars of peach were graft-inoculated with ApLV, all cultivars showed symptoms (Grimová et al., 2010). No symptoms were observed on the bark, wood or fruits (in Grimová & Ryšánek, 2012), although Nemchinov et al (2011) reported some discolored asteroid spots on fruits from peach cv. Springtime at the ripening stage. The plant was inoculated with the original isolate of ApLV.
Symptoms may be stronger in association with common viruses (PDV, PNRSV, ACLSV) (Nemchinov et al., 2011).
[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?
No
Conclusion:
Not candidate
Justification:
The pathogen is characterised by a narrow host range, and in Europe natural infections have only been reported for apricot trees (P. armeniaca). In peach, symptoms have been observed, however all infections of peach reported so far were artificial, following graft inoculation of infected apricot material. After chip budding of infected apricot buds (originating from latently infected apricots in Moldova) to healthy peach seedlings, chlorotic lesions and green spots became apparent on the peach seedlings (Zemtchik et al. 1998). In further studies, graft inoculated P. persica was found to develop yellow asteroid or sooty ring spots on the leaves (Grimová and 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).
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?
Yes
Conclusion:
Justification:
Inclusion in a certification scheme can prevent introduction of ApLV in peach. Inspection not reliable. Development of serological test 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: no reports on natural infections leading to visual disease symptoms, in consequence economic impact is considered acceptable.
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 & Hadidi A (1998) Apricot latent virus: A novel stone fruit pathogen and its relationship to apple stem pitting virus. Acta Horticulturae 472, 159-173.
- 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.
- 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.
- Zemtchik EZ, Verderevskaya TD & Kalashian YA (1998) Apricot latent virus: Transmsmission, purification and serology. Acta Horticulturae 472, 153-158.