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: Cacopsylla (1CCPSG)

GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST

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

Pest category:

Insecta

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?:

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?

No: Fruits (including hops) sector

If necessary, please list the species:

Cacopsylla species feeding on Pyrus in the west Paleartic are C. bidens, C. fera, C. notata, C.permixta, C. pyri, C. pyricola, C. pyrisuga (Burckhardt and Hodkinson, 1986). Economically relevant species in Europe on pear are C. bidens, C. pyri, C. pyricola and C. pyrisuga
There are few data on Cacopsylla species on Cydonia: C. mali (Ellis, 2001-2024) and C. melanoneura (Ossianilsson 1992).
Species with economic relevance in apple are C. melanoneura (Förster, 1948), C. mali (Schmidberger, 1836) and C. picta (Förster 1848). Additionally, 13 other Cacopsylla species have been found on apples (in Italy, Fischnaller et al. 2017). Regarding the reported developmental hosts of these insect species, however, it rather seems that these psyllids are only occasionally present on apple.

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):

Species of Cacopsylla differ substantially from one another in biology. Some species are economically important, others not. Evaluation continues at species level.
In the responses to the questionnaire, AT, DE, ES, FR, NL and SI considered that Cacopsylla was a pest of concern. AT supported listing at genus since species identification was not providing any extra value for control; whereas most of the responding countries (DE, ES, FR and NL) supported listing at species level (host specificity, morphological differentiation is possible). SI supported deregulation in the EU (see pathway). Assessment will continue providing information (when possible) at species level.

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):

For Pyrus (Ossianilsson, 1992; Burckhard and Hodkinson 1986; Etropolska et al. 2015): Pear sucker species are widespread relevant pests in European pear orchards (Civolani et al. 2023 for review)
- C. bidens: Bulgaria, France, Grece, Italy.
- C. pyri: Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta, The Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey.
- C. pyricola: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey.
- C. pyrisuga: Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Slovakia, Switzerland, Italy, Georgia, Denmark, Sweden, Norway

For Cydonia (De Jong et al., 2015, Ellis, 2001-2024, Ossianilsson, 1992): The mentioned Cacopsylla species are widespread in Europe, however data for Cydonia as a (reproductive) host are rare.
- C. mali (Schmidberger, 1836): On Malus, occasionally found on Cydonia and Pyrus. It is reported in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden Austria, Denmark, Italy, Sweden,
- C. melanoneura (Förster 1948): On Rosaceae, occasionally on Cydonia. Austria (Riedle-Bauer, personal observation), Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany (Jarausch B., personal communication), Italy, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, Spain, Türkiye.

For Malus (De Jong et al. 2015, Ellis, 2001-2024, Ossianilsson, 1992): C. picta, C. melanoneura and C. mali are regularly occuring in wide parts of Europe.
- C. mali (Schmidberger, 1836) on Malus, occasionally found on Cydonia and Pyrus. It is reported in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden Austria, Denmark, Italy, Sweden.
- C. melanoneura (Förster 1948): On Rosaceae, mainly Crataegus but regularly on Malus. It is present in Austria (Riedle-Bauer, personal observation), Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany (Jarausch B., personal communication), Italy, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, Spain, Türkiye.
- C. picta (Förster 1848): On Malus, present in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Spain

HOST PLANT N°1: Cydonia oblonga (CYDOB) for the Fruits (including hops) sector.

Origin of the listing:

Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2014/98/EU (previous version)

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

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

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Not candidate

Justification:

C. melanoneura has a migratory life cycle. It estivates and overwinters on conifers. In early spring, the overwintered adults migrate to pome fruits on a regional scale. Plants for planting are not the major pathway for insect distribution.
C. mali lives on apples all year round and also reproduces there (Ossianilsson 1992). It is unclear to which extent C. mali breeds on quince or whether there is an occasional feeding activity of adults during their migration activities only (which has no relevance for plants for planting).
Quince plants for planting are not reported as a pest source (C. melanoneura) or considered very unlikely (C. mali). Due to frequent and widespread presence of the two psyllid species in Europe, the probability of natural infestation in the field is very high.
[Remark: In the responses to the questionnaire, SI commented that Cacopsylla spp. are not mainly transmitted by plants for planting.]
For all these species, the Fruit SEWG considered that plants for planting should not be considered as a significant pathway.

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:

Quince (Cydonia oblonga) is used as rootstock for pear; information on impact of Cacopsylla as vectors of ‘Ca. P. pyri’ is linked to pear not to quince. Psyllid species reported on quince are C. melanoneura (oligophagous, but mostly on Crataegus spp.) and C. mali (monophagous on Malus, but occasionally on Cydonia) (Ellis, 2001-2024).
C. melanoneura is a confirmed vector of ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma mali’, individuals carrying ‘Ca. P. pyri’ have been observed (Tedeschi et al. 2004, Tedeschi and Nardi, 2010). Cydonia, however is not a host for ‘Ca. P. mali’. Neither C. melanoneura nor C. mali are confirmed vectors of ‘Ca. P.pyri’ (Jarausch et al. 2019). This phytoplasma is transmitted by three pear sucker species (C. pyri, C. pyricola, C. pyrisuga; Riedle-Bauer et al., 2022), but these pear sucker species are not known to use quince as reproductive host. C. mali feeding activity may cause damage in apple orchards, however, reports of damage in quince are absent.

[Remark: In the responses to the questionnaire, AT questioned whether direct damage was acceptable. DE expressed reservations to list them as vectors of RNQPs.]

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:

Justification:

Economic damage due to the two psyllid species is not proven. Infections of quince (rootstocks) with ‘Ca. P. pyri’ are of high economic relevance, but the Cacopsylla species reported on quince are no known vectors for this phytoplasma.

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:

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: plants for planting are not considered to be a significant pathway and no impact reported on quince.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

No (listed in a previous version of Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2014/98/EU)

Proposed Tolerance levels:

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

REFERENCES:

Brittain WH (1922) The apple sucker (Psyllia mali, Schmidberger). Journal of Economic Entomology 15(1), 96-101.
Čermák V & Lauterer P (2008) Overwintering of psyllids in South Moravia (Czech Republic) with respect to the vectors of the apple proliferation cluster phytoplasmas. Bulletin of Insectology 61(1), 147-148.
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.
Ellis WN (2001-2024). Plant parasites of Europe: leafminers, galls and fungi. https://bladmineerders.nl/parasites/animalia/arthropoda/insecta/hemiptera/sternorrhyncha/psylloidea/psyllidae/psyllinae/cacopsylla/ (accessed 10/Jul/2024).
Horton DR, Burts EC, Lewis TM & Coop LB (1995) Sticky trap catch of winterform and summerform pear psylla (homoptera: psyllidae) over non-orchard habitats. Pan-Pacific Entomologist 71(3), 176-189.
Horton DR, Lewis TM (1996). Tethered flight activity of pear psylla, Cacopsylla pyricola: seasonal, host, and morphotypic effects. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 78(1), 39-49.
Jarausch B, Tedeschi R, Sauvion N, Gross J & Jarausch W (2019) Psyllid vectors. In: Bertaccini A, Weintraub PG, Rao GP, Mori N (eds) Phytoplasmas: Plant Pathogenic Bacteria - II: Transmission and Management of Phytoplasma - Associated Diseases, Springer Singapore, pp 53–78
Jarausch B, Schwind N, Fuchs A & Jarausch W (2011) Characteristics of the spread of apple proliferation by its vector Cacopsylla picta. Phytopathology 101, 1471-1480.
Kharizanov A (1966) Studies on the bionomics and ecology of the common pear psyllid, Psylla pyri L. [Bulgarian] Gradinarska i Lozarska Nauka 1966. 3(3), 325-340.
Malenotti E (1924) Phytopathological and entomological questions of the three Venetias. Inst. Federale Credito per il Risorgi-mento dette Venezie, Cuaderno mensile (2), 60 pp.
PESI (2024). Pan-European Species directories Infrastructure. www.eu-nomen.eu/portal (accessed 10/Jul/2024)
Süle S, Jenser G & Szita E (2007) Management of pear decline caused by 'Candidatus Phytoplasma pyri' in Hungary. Bulletin of Insectology 60(2), 319-320
Tedeschi R, Alma A (2004) Transmission of apple proliferation phytoplasma by Cacopsylla melanoneura (Homoptera: Psyllidae). J Econ Entomol 97:8–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/97.1.8
Tedeschi R, Nardi F (2010) DNA-based discrimination and frequency of phytoplasma infection in the two hawthorn-feeding species, Cacopsylla melanoneura and Cacopsylla affinis, in northwestern Italy. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 2010;100(6):741-747. doi:10.1017/S0007485310000118