| Legend |
|---|
| Justification for qualification based on EPPO PM 4 Standards |
| Justification for disqualification |
| Additional or non-conclusive information |
| Standard text |
NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Carlavirus vaccinii (blueberry scorch virus) (BLSCV0)
GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST
Name as submitted in the project specification (if different):
Blueberry scorch 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):
Italy (2004); Netherlands (2022)
Conclusion:
Candidate
Justification (if necessary):
Data of the presence of this pest on the EU territory (Italy, Netherlands) are available in EPPO Global Database (https://gd.eppo.int/). BlScV is also reported in Germany (Richtert-Pöggeler et al., 2015) and Poland (Paduch-Cichal et al., 2011).
HOST PLANT N°1: Vaccinium (1VACG) 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:
Qualified
Justification (if necessary):
EPPO Standard PM 4-18 Certification scheme for Vaccinium lists 'Blueberry scorch carlavirus' but indicates that it does 'not occur in vaccinium in the EPPO region, but form a potential risk'. However more recent information indicates that the pest is reported in Italy and the Netherlands. Although PL considered in responses to the questionnaire that plants for planting was not the main pathway, this was not supported by enough justification. After checking pest distribution, the pest/host combination qualifies as an RNQP based on PM 4 Standard. However, additional data was collected.
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:
In natural setting the host-plant range of blueberry scorch virus is limited to Vaccinium spp., like highbush blueberry - Vaccinium corymbosum, cranberry - V. macrocarpon, black huckleberry - V. membranaceum, (Wegener et al., 2006) and rabbit-eye blueberry - V. virgatum (V. ashei, Moretti et al., 2011).
BlScV is transmitted non-persistently by the common blueberry aphid, Ericaphis fimbriata (Richards) (Bristow et al., 2000). In Italy Ericaphis scammelli transmitted BlScV, but again not very efficiently (Pansa & Tavella., 2008). Illinoia pepperi (eastern blueberry aphid) also transmits BlScV (Polashock & Hillman, 2017). Within a field, aphids are responsible for spread between plants.
Ericaphis species are relatively inefficient vectors (Raworth et al., 2008), but high aphid populations increase the risk of virus transmission. The rate of spread is about 4% per year in the absence of aphid control. The virus is not transmitted by contact between plants or mechanical means (Schilder, 2019). Under laboratory circumstances also other aphid species were able to transmit BlScV (Martin, 2006).
BlScV can be spread over large distances and enter new areas by import and trade of infected plants for planting, other than seeds, of Vaccinium spp. Findings of BlScV in Italy, the Netherlands and Poland during the last 10 years indicate BlScV has been introduced with import of plants for planting (Anonymous, 2012).
Plants for planting is a pathway. Since BlScV is not yet widespread in the EU, plant material is also an important pathway for long distance spread.
No evidence for seed transmission has ever been found (Martin, 2006).
BlScV is transmitted non-persistently by the common blueberry aphid, Ericaphis fimbriata (Richards) (Bristow et al., 2000). In Italy Ericaphis scammelli transmitted BlScV, but again not very efficiently (Pansa & Tavella., 2008). Illinoia pepperi (eastern blueberry aphid) also transmits BlScV (Polashock & Hillman, 2017). Within a field, aphids are responsible for spread between plants.
Ericaphis species are relatively inefficient vectors (Raworth et al., 2008), but high aphid populations increase the risk of virus transmission. The rate of spread is about 4% per year in the absence of aphid control. The virus is not transmitted by contact between plants or mechanical means (Schilder, 2019). Under laboratory circumstances also other aphid species were able to transmit BlScV (Martin, 2006).
BlScV can be spread over large distances and enter new areas by import and trade of infected plants for planting, other than seeds, of Vaccinium spp. Findings of BlScV in Italy, the Netherlands and Poland during the last 10 years indicate BlScV has been introduced with import of plants for planting (Anonymous, 2012).
Plants for planting is a pathway. Since BlScV is not yet widespread in the EU, plant material is also an important pathway for long distance spread.
No evidence for seed transmission has ever been found (Martin, 2006).
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
Symptoms caused by BlScV in Vaccinium corymbosum range from complete necrosis – blighting – of flowers and young leaves and twig dieback in some cultivars (sensitive) to no visible damage in other cultivars (tolerant). Blighted flowers are initially brown and then tan and bleach to gray over time. They are retained through the summer and may be present the following spring if not removed by pruning during the dormant season. Severely blighted bushes bare little fruit. In cultivars with severe blossom blight, the twigs often die back 4 to 10 cm from the shoot apex. Twig dieback causes lateral buds below the point of necrosis to grow and produce branches later in the season. Over a period of several years, infected bushes become very twiggy and no longer resemble healthy plants of the same cultivar. The difference is especially striking just before harvest. Branches of healthy ‘Pemberton’ bushes droop under the weight of ripe fruit, whereas infected bushes have an upright habit because the branches are shorter and the fruit load is markedly reduced. The productivity of cultivars that exhibit symptoms declines each year, and plants of some cultivars, such as Berkeley, eventually die (Bristow et al., 2006).
Most field bushes showed symptoms during the year following infection, but a few did not show symptoms until the second or third year. Thirty out of 59 cultivars or selections infected with BlScV exhibited severe blighting of flowers and young leaves and dieback of twigs. Three cultivars showed only chlorosis of leaf margins. The virus was also detected in numerous cultivars (26 out of 59) that exhibited no symptoms, and they were considered tolerant of BlScV. BlScV reduced yield in ‘Pemberton’, with the loss being related to the number of years bushes displayed symptoms. Yield was reduced by more than 85% in the third year of symptom expression. The virus did not significantly reduce the yield of six tolerant cultivars that were infected with the virus but displayed no symptoms (Bristow et al., 2006).
In cranberry (V. macrocarpon) BlScV was symptomless (Wegener et al., 2006). However, infected cranberry plants could act as a source for BlScV in blueberry in its vicinity or act as an important pathway for long distance movement of BlScV into new areas (Martin, 2006).
Most field bushes showed symptoms during the year following infection, but a few did not show symptoms until the second or third year. Thirty out of 59 cultivars or selections infected with BlScV exhibited severe blighting of flowers and young leaves and dieback of twigs. Three cultivars showed only chlorosis of leaf margins. The virus was also detected in numerous cultivars (26 out of 59) that exhibited no symptoms, and they were considered tolerant of BlScV. BlScV reduced yield in ‘Pemberton’, with the loss being related to the number of years bushes displayed symptoms. Yield was reduced by more than 85% in the third year of symptom expression. The virus did not significantly reduce the yield of six tolerant cultivars that were infected with the virus but displayed no symptoms (Bristow et al., 2006).
In cranberry (V. macrocarpon) BlScV was symptomless (Wegener et al., 2006). However, infected cranberry plants could act as a source for BlScV in blueberry in its vicinity or act as an important pathway for long distance movement of BlScV into new areas (Martin, 2006).
What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)
Major
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?
No
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:
Candidate
Justification:
BlScV can have a major impact on blueberry harvest in sensitive cultivars. Infected tolerant blueberry cultivars and cranberry may act as a source. Remark: In the EU the occurrence of the virus is still limited, virus tested propagation material will also reduce the spread of BlScV.
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:
Candidate
Justification:
Control of BlScV is primarily through the production of virus-tested nursery plants and should not be based on virus symptoms, since many cultivars do not express symptoms in nursery stock (Martin, 2006).
Once a field has become infected a grower has two options to control BlScV.
• The first is removal of all plants in the field, which is recommended if the percentage of infected plants is high. If replanting with blueberries, it is important that the root system of the plants have been removed to prevent suckers growing from the infected roots system, which would provide a source of inoculum of BlScV (Martin, 2006).
• The second course of action is for cases where the incidence of infection is low, where a grower can combine aphid control with virus testing and removal. Aphid control should be implemented prior to removal of plants in order that aphids are not dispersed during the removal process. It is important to maintain aphid control for at least two years after the last infected plants have been removed to allow any recently infected plants to develop symptoms (Martin, 2006)
The existence of tolerant cultivars creates a dilemma in efforts to control the scorch disease. While tolerant cultivars remain productive once infected, they are a source of inoculum for further disease spread (Bristow et al., 2000).
Once a field has become infected a grower has two options to control BlScV.
• The first is removal of all plants in the field, which is recommended if the percentage of infected plants is high. If replanting with blueberries, it is important that the root system of the plants have been removed to prevent suckers growing from the infected roots system, which would provide a source of inoculum of BlScV (Martin, 2006).
• The second course of action is for cases where the incidence of infection is low, where a grower can combine aphid control with virus testing and removal. Aphid control should be implemented prior to removal of plants in order that aphids are not dispersed during the removal process. It is important to maintain aphid control for at least two years after the last infected plants have been removed to allow any recently infected plants to develop symptoms (Martin, 2006)
The existence of tolerant cultivars creates a dilemma in efforts to control the scorch disease. While tolerant cultivars remain productive once infected, they are a source of inoculum for further disease spread (Bristow et al., 2000).
7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?
Yes
Conclusion:
Candidate
Justification:
CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:
Recommended for listing as an RNQP, based on EPPO PM 4 Standard and additional data.
8 - Tolerance level:
Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:
No
Proposed Tolerance levels:
9 - Risk management measures:
Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:
No
Proposed Risk management measure:
REFERENCES:
- Anonymous (2012) Pest Risk Analysis for Blueberry scorch virus: Including an inventory of highbush blueberry pests and diseases present in North America and absent in the Netherlands. 44 pages.
- Bristow PR, Martin RR & Windom GE (2000) Transmission, field spread, cultivar response, and impact on yield in highbush blueberry infected with Blueberry scorch virus. Phytopathology 90: 474-479.
- Martin RR (2006) Blueberry scorch virus. Description Plant Viruses. no. 415. https://www.dpvweb.net/dpv/showdpv/?dpvno=415
- Moretti M, Ciuffo M, Gotta P, Prodorutti D, Bragagna P & Turina M (2011). Molecular characterization of two distinct strains of blueberry scorch virus (BlScV) in northern Italy. Archives of Virology 156, 1295–1297.
- Paduch-Cichal E, Kalinowska E, Chodorska M, Sala-Rejczak K, Nowak B (2011) Detection and identification of viruses of highbush blueberry and cranberry using serological ELISA test and PCR technique. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Hortorum Cultus. Hortorum Cultus 10(4), 201-215.
- Pansa MG & Tavella L (2008). Aphid population dynamics on highbush blueberry in relation to
- the spread of Blueberry scorch virus in Piedmont (NW Italy). Bulletin of Insectology 61(1), 205–206.
- Polashock JJ & Hillmand BI (2017) Scorch. In Compendium of blueberry, cranberry, and lingonberry diseases and pests (eds Polashock JJ, Caruso FL, Averill AL & Schilder AC). American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minesota, USA. Pages 70-72.
- Raworth DA, French CJ, Lowery DT, Bernardy MG, Bouthillier M, Mathur S, Cahn CK, Foottit RG, Maw E, Wegener LA & Sweeney M (2008). Temporal trends in the transmission of Blueberry scorch virus in British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology, 30(2), 345-350.
- Richert-Pöggeler KR, Turhal AK, Schuhmann S, Maaß C, Blockus S, Zimmermann E, Eastwell KC, Martin RR, Lockhart B (2015) Carlavirus biodiversity in horticultural host plants: Efficient virus detection and identification combining electron microscopy and molecular biology tools. Acta Horticulturae 1072, 37-45.
- Schilder, A (2019) National Pest alert, Blueberry scorch virus. North Central IPM Center (NCPA18). https://www.ncipmc.org/communications/pest-alerts/blueberry-scorch-virus/
- Wegener LA, Martin RR, Bernardy MG, MacDonald L & Punja ZK (2006) Epidemiology and identification of strains of Blueberry scorch virus on highbush blueberry in British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 28, 250-262.
