| Legend |
|---|
| Justification for qualification based on EPPO PM 4 Standards |
| Justification for disqualification |
| Additional or non-conclusive information |
| Standard text |
NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Sobemovirus BSSV (blueberry shoestring virus) (BSSV00)
GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST
Name as submitted in the project specification (if different):
Blueberry shoestring 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:
- Null: 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:
No
List of countries (EPPO Global Database):
-
Conclusion:
Not candidate
Justification (if necessary):
So far blueberry shoestring virus has been mainly reported from Canada and the USA (Saad et al., 2021). There is one report from Poland (Paduch-Cichal, 2011). There are no other reports of BSSV in the European Union (CAB search 12/Aug/2024). The report from Poland was with ELISA kits on asymptomatic material, no confirmation with molecular methods was performed. The fruit SEWG considered that the reports from Poland would need to be confirmed.
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
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 4-18 Certification scheme for Vaccinium recommends testing for Blueberry shoestring virus. In responses to the questionnaire, NL and PL supported deregulation in the EU. NL arguing that the pest is not present in the EU (but causing severe impact, and therefore could qualify for quarantine status); PL considering that plant for planting is not the main pathway. Evaluation continues on these criteria.
4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):
Conclusion:
Justification:
Blueberry shoestring virus (BSSV) infects all types of blueberry (e.g. V. corymbosum, V. angustifolium, V. darrowii) but infection rates appear to be higher in certain northern highbush cultivars (Acquaah et al., 1995; Hancock et al. 1986; Martin et al., 2012).
It is vectored by the Eastern blueberry aphid, Illinoia pepperi, in a persistent circulatory manner. The aphid is monoecious and overwinters as eggs on blueberry bushes (Ramsdell et al., 2017). The aphid is not yet present in the EU (De Jong et al., 2015; PESI, 2024). Since transmitted in a non-persistent manner, if introduced in the EPPO region, many local aphid species may transmit the virus.
The initial mode of spread is through infected, vegetatively propagated planting stock. After the stock is planted, transmission from infected bushes is mediated by the Eastern blueberry aphid (Ramsdell, 1987).
Epidemiological studies have shown that field transmission of BSSV by aphids begins when the first aphid population emerges in the spring and ends just before leaf drop in the autumn. The disease tends to spread down the row from bush to bush. In most plantings, bushes touch each other within the row (0.9—1.2 m apart) but not between rows (3 m apart). Aphids move from infected bushes to adjacent healthy ones as they feed (Ramsdell et al., 2017). Aphids can be transported longer distances by over-the-row mechanical harvesters. Such movement was tracked in a study in which a bush was exposed to rubidium and aphids were captured at regular intervals down the row, immediately following the harvester, and tested. Aphids with rubidium were detected up to 67 bushes from the point source (Isaacs et al., 2008; Ramsdell et al., 2017).
It is vectored by the Eastern blueberry aphid, Illinoia pepperi, in a persistent circulatory manner. The aphid is monoecious and overwinters as eggs on blueberry bushes (Ramsdell et al., 2017). The aphid is not yet present in the EU (De Jong et al., 2015; PESI, 2024). Since transmitted in a non-persistent manner, if introduced in the EPPO region, many local aphid species may transmit the virus.
The initial mode of spread is through infected, vegetatively propagated planting stock. After the stock is planted, transmission from infected bushes is mediated by the Eastern blueberry aphid (Ramsdell, 1987).
Epidemiological studies have shown that field transmission of BSSV by aphids begins when the first aphid population emerges in the spring and ends just before leaf drop in the autumn. The disease tends to spread down the row from bush to bush. In most plantings, bushes touch each other within the row (0.9—1.2 m apart) but not between rows (3 m apart). Aphids move from infected bushes to adjacent healthy ones as they feed (Ramsdell et al., 2017). Aphids can be transported longer distances by over-the-row mechanical harvesters. Such movement was tracked in a study in which a bush was exposed to rubidium and aphids were captured at regular intervals down the row, immediately following the harvester, and tested. Aphids with rubidium were detected up to 67 bushes from the point source (Isaacs et al., 2008; Ramsdell et al., 2017).
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
BSSV has a latency period of four years between infection and expression of virus symptoms in the field. Several symptoms are associated with BSSV, the most prominent and reliable symptom is elongated reddish streaks about 3-20 mm long on current-year and 1-year-old stems, especially on the side directly exposed to the sun, the discoloration normally disappears as the season progresses. Flower ‘breaking’ can occur when longitudinal pink streaks appear on the petals. Infected leaves can be elongated or straplike, hence the name shoestring (Lesney et al., 1978; Ramsdell et al., 2017). Infected bushes bear less fruit than healthy bushes. In addition, the fruit does not ripen normally and remains reddish purple instead of turning blue (Fig. 147). On actively growing bushes that have been infected for many years, the terminal third of the stems may be crooked. Infected bushes slowly decline over time and may be stunted (Ransdell et al., 2017). Symptoms vary in intensity depending on the environment and there have been reports were bushes can be asymptomatic for several seasons (Martin et al., 2012). Nine highbush cultivars were susceptible to the virus, whereas the cultivars ‘Blueray’ and ‘Atlantic’ showed field resistance to the disease (Acquaah et al., 1995; Saad et al., 2021).
BSSV is one of the most common viruses in the USA, affecting cultivated highbush blueberries (V. corymbosum). In 1981, an estimated 145,000 bushes on 4,000 ha were infected in Michigan, which resulted in bush and crop losses of more than $3 million, making it one of the most economically significant diseases of highbush blueberries. By 2008, the disease was still widespread in this state, particularly in old ‘Jersey’ fields. Yield reductions of up to 25% have been documented on infected hushes. In addition, a high percent of the fruit from infected bushes is reddish purple at maturity rather than the desired blue color, which lowers the fruit grade (Morimoto et al., 1995; Ramsdell et al., 2017; Saad et al., 2021).
BSSV is one of the most common viruses in the USA, affecting cultivated highbush blueberries (V. corymbosum). In 1981, an estimated 145,000 bushes on 4,000 ha were infected in Michigan, which resulted in bush and crop losses of more than $3 million, making it one of the most economically significant diseases of highbush blueberries. By 2008, the disease was still widespread in this state, particularly in old ‘Jersey’ fields. Yield reductions of up to 25% have been documented on infected hushes. In addition, a high percent of the fruit from infected bushes is reddish purple at maturity rather than the desired blue color, which lowers the fruit grade (Morimoto et al., 1995; Ramsdell et al., 2017; Saad et al., 2021).
What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)
Medium to 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:
Justification:
Since the virus is rare in the EU, it is difficult to state what the consequences would be. On the infected plants in Poland no symptoms were recorded.
It could spread to native Vaccinium spp.
It could spread to native Vaccinium spp.
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:
Virus indexed material.
(since it was only reported once in the EU, plant material will be the main pathway into the EU)
(since it was only reported once in the EU, plant material will be the main pathway into the EU)
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: not reported to be present in the EPPO region. This pest should be further considered for the quarantine pest status. Further investigation should be performed on possible presence in Poland. Pending clarification, the regulator may decide to keep it listed in the EU as an RNQP.
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:
- Acquaah T, Ramsdell D & Hancock J (1995) Resistance to blueberry shoestring virus in southern highbush and rabbiteye cultivars. Horticultural Science 30, 1459–1460.
- De Jong Y, Kouwenberg J, Boumans L, Hussey C, Hyam T, Nicolson N, Kirk P, Paton A, Michel E, Guiry MD, Boegh PS, Ærenlund Pedersen H, Enghoff H, Von Raab-Straube E, Güntsch A, Geoffroy M, Müller A, Kohlbecker A, Berendsohn W, Appeltans W, Arvanitidis C, Vanhoorne B, Declerck G, Vandepitte L, Hernandez F, Nash R, Costello MJ, Ouvrard D, Bezard-Falgas P, Bourgoin T, Wetzel FT, Glöckler F, Korb G, Ring C, Hagedorn G, Häuser C, Aktaç N, Asan A, Ardelean A, Vieira Borges PA, Dhora D, Khachatryan H, Malicky M, Ibrahimov S, Tuzikov A, De Wever A, Moncheva S, Spassov N, Chobot K, Popov A, Boršić I, Sfenthourakis S, Kõljalg U, Uotila P, Olivier G, Dauvin JC, Tarkhnishvili D, Chaladze G, Tuerkay M, Legakis A, Peregovits L, Gudmundsson G, Ólafsson E, Lysaght L, Galil BS, Raimondo FM, Domina G, Stoch F, Minelli A, Spungis V, Budrys E, Olenin S, Turpel A, Walisch T, Krpach V, Gambin MT, Ungureanu L, Karaman G, Kleukers RMJC, Stur E, Aagaard K, Valland N, Loennechen Moen T, Bogdanowicz W, Tykarski P, Węsławski JM, Kędra M, De Frias Martins AM, Domingos Abreu A, Silva T, Medvedev S, Ryss A, Šimić S, Marhold K, Stloukal E, Tome D, Ramos MA, Valdés B, Pina F, Kullander S, Telenius A, Gonseth Y, Tschudin P, Sergeyeva O, Vladymyrov V, Bohdanovych Rizun V, Raper C, Lear D, Stoev P, Penev L, Casino Rubio A, Backeljau T, Saarenmaa H, Ulenberg S (2015) PESI - a taxonomic backbone for Europe. Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e5848. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.3.e5848.
- Hancock JF, Morimoto KM, Pritts MP & Ramsdell DC (1986) 1986. Blueberry shoestring virus in natural populations of highbush and lowbush blueberry. HortScience 21:1059-1060.
- Isaacs R, Schilder A, Miles T & Longstroth M (2008) .Michigan Blueberry Facts: Blueberry Aphid & Blueberry Shoestring Virus. Mich. State Univ. Ext. Bull. E-3050. https://archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/extension_publications/e3050/E3050.pdf
- Lesney MS, Ramsdell DC & Sun MD (1978) Etiology of blueberry shoestring disease and some properties of the causal virus. Phytopathology 68, 295-300.
- Martin RR, Polashock JJ & Tzanetakis IE (2012) New and emerging viruses of blueberry and cranberry. Viruses 2012, 4, 2831-2852; doi:10.3390/v4112831
- Morimoto KM & Ramsdell DC (1985) Aphid vector population dynamics and movement relative to field transmission of blueberry shoestring virus. Phytopathology 75, 1217-1222.
- Morimoto K, Ramsdell D, Gillett J & Chaney W (1985). Acquisition and transmission of blueberry shoestring virus by its aphid vector Illinoia pepperi. Phytopathology 75, 709-712.
- 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 Horticulture, Article 10 4.
- PESI (2024). Pan-European Species directories Infrastructure. Accessed through www.eu-nomen.eu/portal, at 20/Aug/2024
- Ramsdell DC (1987) Blueberry shoestring virus. In Virus disease of small fruits (ed Converse RH). United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Agriculture Handbook 631, 103-105.
- Ramsdell DC, Schilder AMC & Polashock (2017) Blueberry shoestring virus. In Compendium of Blueberry and Cranberry Diseases (eds Caruso FL & Ramsdell DC). American Phytopathological Society, St Paul, MN, USA pages: 73-76.
- Saad N, Olmstead JW, Jones JB, Varsani A & Harmon PF (2021) Known and new emerging viruses infecting blueberry. Plants 10(10), 2172, 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10102172
