| 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: Prunus avium (PRNAV) 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 'Arabis nepovirus (ArMV)' in EPPO Standard PM 4-29 Certification scheme for cherry; with testing recommended. In responses to the questionnaire, SI and PL supported deregulation. SI commented that economic impact was acceptable for cherry and sweet cherry. PL commented that plants for planting was not the main pathway. Evaluation continues on these critaria.
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:
Arabis mosaic virus (ArMV) is a European nepovirus with a broad host rang. It occurs naturally in many species of wild and cultivated monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous plants. It also infects almost all commonly used herbaceous indicator plants, but isolates of the virus differ in virulence (Murrant, 1970). Cherry (Prunus avium) is a natural host of ArMV (Nemeth, 1987).
The virus is transmitted by the free-living, soil-inhabiting nematodes, Xiphinema diversicaudatum (Jha & Posnette, 1961; Harrison & Cadman, 1959; Trudgill et al., 1983). Larvae and adults of X. diversicaudatum both transmit, but the adult does not pass the virus to its progeny nor is the virus retained after molting (Jha & Posnette, 1961). The nematodes retain virus for at least 31 days when kept in fallow soil (Jha & Posnette, 1961) and for at least 8 months when kept on a virus-immune variety of raspberry (Harrison & Winslow, 1961).
ArMV is seedborne in many natural and experimental hosts, often to a high frequency (Lister & Murant, 1967; Murant & Lister, 1967). At least 15 species in 12 plant families are known to be infected through seed, although most infected seedlings show no obvious symptoms (Lister & Murant, 1967; Murant & Lister, 1967; Murant, 1983 cited in CABI, 2022).
The virus is transmitted by the free-living, soil-inhabiting nematodes, Xiphinema diversicaudatum (Jha & Posnette, 1961; Harrison & Cadman, 1959; Trudgill et al., 1983). Larvae and adults of X. diversicaudatum both transmit, but the adult does not pass the virus to its progeny nor is the virus retained after molting (Jha & Posnette, 1961). The nematodes retain virus for at least 31 days when kept in fallow soil (Jha & Posnette, 1961) and for at least 8 months when kept on a virus-immune variety of raspberry (Harrison & Winslow, 1961).
ArMV is seedborne in many natural and experimental hosts, often to a high frequency (Lister & Murant, 1967; Murant & Lister, 1967). At least 15 species in 12 plant families are known to be infected through seed, although most infected seedlings show no obvious symptoms (Lister & Murant, 1967; Murant & Lister, 1967; Murant, 1983 cited in CABI, 2022).
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
No
Justification:
As a single infection, there are no data on symptom development caused by ArMV in Prunus spp..
ArMV and/or raspberry ringspot virus (RpRSV) can be part of a disease complex known as “Pfeffinger disease” (CH), “Rasp leaf” (DE) or “Eckelrader disease” (NL), grouped under the name “European rasp leaf disease”. Together with other viruses, i.e. other nepoviruses like cherry leaf roll virus (CLRV) or ilarviruses (prunus necrotic ringspotvirus - PNRSV, prune dwarf virus - PDV) it can cause leaf enations usually parallel to the larger veins of the leaf, or interveinal, leading to small and cup-shaped leaves. Infected plants show delayed bud break, weakened shoots which bear rosettes of apical leaves. Fruits are few and misshapen (Nemeth, 1987; Martelli & Uyemoto, 2011).
ArMV and/or raspberry ringspot virus (RpRSV) can be part of a disease complex known as “Pfeffinger disease” (CH), “Rasp leaf” (DE) or “Eckelrader disease” (NL), grouped under the name “European rasp leaf disease”. Together with other viruses, i.e. other nepoviruses like cherry leaf roll virus (CLRV) or ilarviruses (prunus necrotic ringspotvirus - PNRSV, prune dwarf virus - PDV) it can cause leaf enations usually parallel to the larger veins of the leaf, or interveinal, leading to small and cup-shaped leaves. Infected plants show delayed bud break, weakened shoots which bear rosettes of apical leaves. Fruits are few and misshapen (Nemeth, 1987; Martelli & Uyemoto, 2011).
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:
Although ArMV is linked to symptom development on various Prunus host-plant species, all of these are in combination with other viruses.
Most of infections with ArMV alone are symptomless, often only the primary infections cause symptoms. The Fruit SEWG noted that ArMV was very polyphagous. Although strawberry fields may succeed to Prunus fruit production (e.g. in south of France), it was considered that there was no particular reasons for regulating ArMV on P. avium, P. cerasus, more than other species, for the possible indirect economic impact to other hosts. Many other hosts are also rotated in nurseries. The Fruit SEWG did not recommend listing ArMV on P. avium and P. cerasus as RNQP because of possible indirect economic impact.
Most of infections with ArMV alone are symptomless, often only the primary infections cause symptoms. The Fruit SEWG noted that ArMV was very polyphagous. Although strawberry fields may succeed to Prunus fruit production (e.g. in south of France), it was considered that there was no particular reasons for regulating ArMV on P. avium, P. cerasus, more than other species, for the possible indirect economic impact to other hosts. Many other hosts are also rotated in nurseries. The Fruit SEWG did not recommend listing ArMV on P. avium and P. cerasus as RNQP because of possible indirect economic impact.
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: virus indexed material, clean soil.
Remark: For olive, experts considered that testing only when producing the nuclear stock was sufficient (regular testing for the maintenance of the nuclear stock was not considered necessary in regard to the fairly limited risk of reinfection via natural spread).
Remark: For olive, experts considered that testing only when producing the nuclear stock was sufficient (regular testing for the maintenance of the nuclear stock was not considered necessary in regard to the fairly limited risk of reinfection via natural spread).
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 direct 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:
- CABI (2022) Arabis mosaic virus (hop bare-bine). CABI Crop Protection Compendium (accessed 12/Aug/2024). https://doi.org/10.1079/cabicompendium.7008
- Harrison BD & Cadman CH (1959) Role of a dagger nematode (Xiphinema sp.) in outbreaks of plant diseases caused by arabis mosaic virus. Nature, London 184, 1624-1626.
- Harrison BD & Winslow RD (1961). Laboratory and field studies on the relation of arabis mosaic virus to its nematode vector, Xiphinema diversicaudatum (Micoletzky). Annals of Applied Biology 49:621-633.
- Jha A & Posnette AF (1959) Transmission of a virus to strawberry plants by a nematode (Xiphinema sp.). Nature, Lond., 184, 962-963.
- Jha A & Posnette AF (1961) Transmission of arabis mosaic virus by the nematode Xiphinema diversicaudatum (Micol.). Virology 13(1), 119-123.
- Lister RM & Murant AF, 1967. Seed-transmission of nematode-borne viruses. Annals of Applied Biology 59, 49-62.
- Martelli GP & Uyemoto JK (2011) Nematode-borne viruses of stone fruits. In Virus and virus-like disease of pome and stone fruits (eds Hadidi A, Barba M, Candresse T & Jelkmann W). American Phytopathological Society, St Paul, Minnesota, USA. Pp 161-170.
- Murrant (1970) Arabis mosaic virus Nr 16. In Description of Plant Viruses. https://www.dpvweb.net/dpv/showdpv/?dpvno=16.
- Murant AF (1983) Seed and pollen transmission of nematode-borne viruses. Seed Science and Technology 11, 973-987.
- Murant AF & Lister RM (1967) Seed-transmission in the ecology of nematode-borne viruses. Annals of Applied Biology 59, 63-76.
- Nemeth (1987) Arabis mosaic virus in peach. In Virus, Mycoplasma and Rickettsia Diseases of Fruit Trees. Martinus Nijhof Publishers. Pages 449-450.
- Trudgill DL, Brown DJF & McNamara DG (1983) Methods and criteria for assessing the transmission of plant viruses by longidorid nematodes. Revue de Nematologie 6(1), 133-141.
- Valdez RB, McNamara DG, Ormerod PJ, Pitcher RS & Thresh JM (1974) Transmission of the hop strain of arabis mosaic virus by Xiphinema diversicaudatum. Annals of Applied Biology 76(1), 113-122