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: Ilarvirus ApMV (apple mosaic virus) (APMV00)

GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST

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

Apple 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):

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):

Austria (1993); Belgium (2015); Bulgaria (1993); Cyprus (2007); Czech Republic (2020); Denmark (2001); Finland (2011); France (1992); Germany (2018); Greece (1996); Hungary (1992); Italy (1993); Latvia (2011); Netherlands (1963); Poland (2016); Portugal (2001); Romania (1963); Slovakia (2001); Slovenia (2001); Spain (2012); Sweden (1992)

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: Corylus avellana (CYLAV) 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:

Qualified

Justification (if necessary):

Listed as 'Apple mosaic ilarvirus (ApMV)' in EPPO Standard PM 4-31 Certification scheme for hazelnut; with testing recommended.
Although PL considered in responses to the questionnaire that plants for planting was not the main pathway, this was not supported by enough justification.

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

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

Recommended for listing as an RNQP, based on EPPO PM4 Standards.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°2: Malus (1MABG) 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:

Qualified

Justification (if necessary):

Testing for 'Apple mosaic ilarvirus' recommended in EPPO Standard PM4-27 Pathogen-tested material of Malus, Pyrus and Cydonia.
Although PL considered in responses to the questionnaire that plants for planting was not the main pathway, this was not supported by enough justification.

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

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

Recommended for listing as an RNQP, based on EPPO PM4 Standards.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°3: Prunus armeniaca (PRNAR) 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:

Qualified

Justification (if necessary):

Listed as 'Apple mosaic ilarvirus (ApMV)' in EPPO Standard PM 4-30 Certification scheme for almond, apricot, peach and plum; and testing is recommended.
Although PL considered in responses to the questionnaire that plants for planting was not the main pathway, this was not supported by enough justification.
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):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

Recommended for listing as an RNQP, based on EPPO PM4 Standards.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°4: 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:

Qualified

Justification (if necessary):

Listed as 'Apple mosaic ilarvirus (ApMV)' in EPPO Standard PM 4-29 Certification scheme for cherry; with testing recommended.
Although PL considered in responses to the questionnaire that plants for planting was not the main pathway, this was not supported by enough justification.
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):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

Recommended for listing as an RNQP, based on EPPO PM4 Standards.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°5: Prunus cerasus (PRNCE) 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:

Qualified

Justification (if necessary):

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

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

Recommended for listing as an RNQP, based on EPPO PM4 Standards.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°6: Prunus domestica (PRNDO) 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:

Qualified

Justification (if necessary):

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

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

Recommended for listing as an RNQP, based on EPPO PM4 Standards.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°7: Prunus dulcis (PRNDU) 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:

Qualified

Justification (if necessary):

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

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

Recommended for listing as an RNQP, based on EPPO PM4 Standards.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°8: Prunus persica (PRNPS) 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:

Qualified

Justification (if necessary):

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

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

Recommended for listing as an RNQP, based on EPPO PM4 Standards.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°9: Prunus salicina (PRNSC) 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:

Qualified

Justification (if necessary):

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

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:

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?

Conclusion:

Justification:

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:

Recommended for listing as an RNQP, based on EPPO PM4 Standards.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°10: Rubus (1RUBG) 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 4-10 Certification scheme for Rubus recommends testing for Apple mosaic virus in R. idaeus and R. fruticosus. However, in the responses to the questionnaire, FR considered that economic impact was acceptable on this host plant. PL considered that plants for planting was 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:

Apple mosaic virus (ApMV) is an ilarvirus which infects the genera Betula, Aesculus, Humulus and members of the family Rosaceae. ApMV was found in samples of symptomless plants of Rubus ursinus, R. idaeus and R. occidentalis on both coasts of the United States (Converse & Casper, 1975) and in red raspberry (R. idaeus) in Germany (Baumann et al., 1982) and Rubus canescens from Turkey (Arli-Sokmen, 2008). ApMV in one plant of red raspberry cv. 'Schoenemann’ in Germany showed yellow mottling and line-pattern symptoms (cited Baumann et al., 1982; 1987).
ApMV is not pollen-borne, has no known recognized vector, does not occur in seedling rootstocks, and has not been recorded from naturally infected weeds. ApMV does not seem to spread naturally in the field (Fulton, 1981; Howell et al., 2014; CABI, 2021).
In pome fruits and Prunus spp. ApMV is only transmitted by vegetative propagation and by grafting (Paunovic et al., 2011; Petrzik & Lenz, 2011). Also, slow natural spread in nurseries via root grafting occurs (Dhingra, 1972; Hunter et al., 1958).
The virus can be sap transmitted by mechanical inoculation to herbaceous plants, but not easily (Paunovic et al., 2011; Petrzik & Lenz, 2011).
Converse and Casper (1975; in Baumann et al., 1987) stated that field transmission of ApMV in Rubus occurred in Oregon where root graft transmissions were unlikely to have occurred when plants of red raspberry, black raspberry, and blackberry that had indexed free from ApMV were planted in the field. About 92% of red raspberry plants became infected by ApMV within 24 months and 16% of the blackberry plants became infected after 12 months. Thus, the mode of field transmission of ApMV in its Rubus hosts requires further investigation (Baumann et al., 1987).

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:

ApMV has been reported in symptomless plants of native and cultivated Rubus in eastern and western United States and from Germany (Converse & Casper, 1975; Baumann et al., 1982). In cv. Schoenemann in Germany, ApMV caused a yellow mottling and line pattern, but no fruit symptoms were observed and there appeared to be no significant reduction in growth of canes showing symptoms (Baumann et al., 1987). ApMV is not known to impact cane growth or fruit yield. In field settings, the virus has been reported to spread quickly in red raspberry with up to 92% incidence in plants just two years after planting (Converse & Casper, 1975). Martin et al (2013) indicated that ApMV in Rubus is less common.

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?

Conclusion:

Not candidate

Justification:

No documented report of economic impact. Indirect economic impact seems unlikely, given that the main mode of transmission recorded is vegetative propagation and grafting. Other hosts it is listed on include Corylus avellana, Malus, Prunus avium, Prunus armeniaca, Prunus cerasus, Prunus domestica, Prunus dulcis, Prunus persica, Prunus salicina and Castanea sativa. These may not be produced at the same place of production as Rubus spp.

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: no economic impact reported in Rubus.

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:

Arli-Sokmen M, Kutluk Yilmaz ND, Mennan H & Sevik MA (2008). RT-PCR detection of Apple mosaic virus infection in some weed hosts found in hazelnut orchards in Turkey. Acta Horticulturae 781, 155-160.
Baumann G, Casper R & Converse RH (1982) The occurrence of apple mosaic virus in red and black raspberry and in blackberry cultivars. Acta Horticulturae 129, 13-20.
Baumann G, Casper R & Converse RH (1987) Apple mosaic virus in Rubus. In Virus diseases of small fruit (ed Converse RH). US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Handbook 631. Pages 246-248.
Converse RH & Casper R (1975) A member of the apple mosaic virus group occurring in Rubus. Acta Horticulturae 44, 63-64.
Digiaro M, Savino V & Di Terlizzi B (1992) Ilarviruses in apricot and plum pollen. Acta Horticulturae 309, 93-98. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1992.309.10.
Fulton RW (1981) Ilarviruses. In Handbook of Plant Virus Infections and Comparative Diagnosis (ed Kurstak E). Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. pages 377-421