Regulated Non-Quarantine Projects

Two EU funded projects for the benefit of the whole EPPO region

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: Ceroplastes rusci (CERPRU)


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?:
 
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):
 
Croatia (2007); Cyprus (2020); France (2020); France/Corse (1993); Greece (2011); Greece/Kriti (2011); Hungary (2013); Italy (2011); Italy/Sicilia (1993); Italy/Sardegna (2011); Malta (2012); Netherlands (2021); Poland (2020); Portugal (2011); Portugal/Azores (2011); Portugal/Madeira (2011); Spain (1993); Spain/Islas Canárias (1993); Spain/Islas Baleares (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: Ficus carica (FIUCA) 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?
 
No
 
Conclusion:
 
Evaluation continues

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:
 
Fig wax scale frequently moves long distances in the trade of infested palm trees and other host plant products (Jansen, 2004; Malumphy & Anderson, 2011; Wilstermann, 2019). It can be transported by birds. Once present, scale insects have high reproductive potential (Leathers, 2016). Ceroplastes rusci has a wide host range, it is not only a pest on Ficus carica, but also on citrus.
The Fruit SEWG considered that plants for planting was a significant pathway.

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:
 
Damage from fig wax scale occurs in 2 ways 1) directly through feeding and 2) indirectly by buildup of sooty mold fungi on leaf surfaces, reducing photosynthesis. Both of these actions can weaken plants, causing leaf loss, dieback, and death. It can cause skin defects to the fig, but there is no damage to the flesh. Although direct damage is minor (Anonymous, 2023; OECD, 2015), it is an important pest which reduces the marketability of fig fruits.
In addition Ceroplastes rusci can transmit viruses like fig leaf mottle-associated virus 1 in Ficus (Yorganci & Açıkgöz, 2019) and Grapevine leafroll associated virus-3 and GLRaV-5 in grapevine (Mahfoudhi et al., 2009).

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)
 
Medium

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:
 
Candidate

Justification:
 
Targeted controls are needed in orchards against scale insects. Since the pest is already present in production areas, such treatments are already needed. The Fruit SEWG concluded that the 'substantially free from' requirement for quality pests is enough. Remark: Ceroplastes rusci has been reported from other crops like citrus. Report of damage in Citrus vary from occasional pest (Franco et al., 2006) to “serious pest” (in CABI).

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:
 
Scouting
The thickness of the wax is greater for females than for nymphs. Crawlers have no wax covering and are the most susceptible stage of the wax scale insect for control by insecticides (Joseph, 2023).
Chemical control
A thorough spray of contact insecticides, such as horticultural oil, insecticidal soap, or synthetic insecticides (dependent on legislation) is necessary, especially when the crawlers are present on the twig for effective control. Contact insecticides can harm beneficial insects, such as predators and parasitoids, which can cause problems with resurging secondary pests otherwise regarded as minor pests. The dead wax scales may not naturally fall off the twigs, squishing the wax scale insect will indicate whether the treatment was effective (if no liquid oozes out, than the wax scale insects are dead. Systemic insecticides could be harmful to pollinators, such as foraging bees seeking pollen and nectar from the plant. Insect growth regulators can also be effective control options. They reduce the egg hatch or viability and normal development of the nymphs (Hamon & Mason, 2020; Joseph, 2023).

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 data. However, the substantially free from requirement is considered enough.


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: