| Legend |
|---|
| Justification for qualification based on EPPO PM 4 Standards |
| Justification for disqualification |
| Additional or non-conclusive information |
| Standard text |
NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Dasineura tetensi (DASYTE)
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):
-
Conclusion:
Candidate
Justification (if necessary):
Dasineura tetensi occurs in most areas where black-currant is cultivated in Europe: Austria (Böhm, 1970), Belgium (Skuhravá & Skuhravý 2021 & CABI, 2019), Bulgaria, Czeck Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands (De Jong et al., 2025; PESI, 2024), Poland (Piotrowski et al., 2021), Romania (De Jong et al., 2025; PESI, 2024) and Sweden (Hellqvist, 2001b).
Remark: The pest is also present in the United Kingdom: D. tetensi was first recorded as a pest in Kent in 1928 and subsequently has spread throughout the UK, becoming one of the most important pests of blackcurrants (Mitchell et al., 2011, citing Massee, 1931 and Barnes, 1948).
It is also reported in Belarus, Norway, Russia (European part), Switzerland (Skuhravá & Skuhravý 2021 & CABI, 2019).
Remark: The pest is also present in the United Kingdom: D. tetensi was first recorded as a pest in Kent in 1928 and subsequently has spread throughout the UK, becoming one of the most important pests of blackcurrants (Mitchell et al., 2011, citing Massee, 1931 and Barnes, 1948).
It is also reported in Belarus, Norway, Russia (European part), Switzerland (Skuhravá & Skuhravý 2021 & CABI, 2019).
HOST PLANT N°1: Ribes (1RIBG) 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):
Listed in Standard PM 4-9 Certification scheme for Ribes. However, in responses to the questionnaire, NL and SI supported deregulation in the EU because 'no serious impact' on fruit production. The Fruit SEWG also assessed whether plants for planting was a significant 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:
Candidate by default
Justification:
Dasineura tetensi has a limited host range, affecting mainly Ribes nigrum (blackcurrant) (Ellis, 2001-2024; Gagné & Jaschhof, 2021; Skuhravá & Skuhravý, 2021).
It also attacks Ribes uva-crispa (gooseberry) (Barnes, 1948 - under the name Dasineura ribicola (Kieffer); Ellis, 2001-2024) but there are doubts while it is an important pest for gooseberry (Gagné & Jaschhof (2021) doesn’t list it as a host for the species).
It may also attack Ribes rubrum (redcurrant) (Piotrowski et al., 2021 & Hellqvist, 2001a) but this has yet to be confirmed that this would occur naturally. Indeed, Barnes (1948) ruled out R. rubrum as an oviposition host for D. tetensi after conducting host preference experiments. A potential association of D. tetensi with R. rubrum is also reported in Hungary (Veszelka, 1981: https://agris.fao.org/search/en/providers/123819/records/64735f732c1d629bc97dcf66). In addition, a gall midge species that is currently a nomina dubia and formerly referred to as Asphodylia ribesii (Meigen) (syn. Cecidomyia ribesii) is described in Austria as causing leaf curling in R. rubrum (Barnes, 1948). This is also a potential record of Dasineura tetensi, but this cannot be confirmed because the type-material has been lost (Gagné & Jaschhof, 2021). In addition, there are references of D. tetensi from the hosts Arctostaphylos uva-ursi, Ribes alpinum and Ribes bracteosum in continental Europe (https://dbif.brc.ac.uk/invertebratesresults.aspx?insectid=2858).
The gall midge is associated with the leaves of plants for planting. It overwinters as larvae in cocoons in the soil beneath blackcurrant bushes, predominantly within the uppermost centimeter of the soil profile (Goncharova, 1967; Cross & Crook, 1999; cited in Hellqvist, 2001b). Adults emerge in late spring. The time of emergence is reported to vary greatly from year to year, even in relation to the development of black currant (Pitcher, 1958, Cross & Crook, 1999; cited in Hellqvist, 2001b). The number of generation per year varies according to the geographical situation, weather conditions and the availability of actively growing shoots for oviposition and larval development. Three or four generations appears to be normal in Western, Central and Eastern Europe (Hellqvist, 2001b; Ellis, 2001-2024).
The Fruit SEWG considered that there was insufficient information presented to be confident on whether plants for planting is a significant pathway. However, given the limited host range, plants for planting could be a significant pathway for Ribes plants, particularly those under protection.
It also attacks Ribes uva-crispa (gooseberry) (Barnes, 1948 - under the name Dasineura ribicola (Kieffer); Ellis, 2001-2024) but there are doubts while it is an important pest for gooseberry (Gagné & Jaschhof (2021) doesn’t list it as a host for the species).
It may also attack Ribes rubrum (redcurrant) (Piotrowski et al., 2021 & Hellqvist, 2001a) but this has yet to be confirmed that this would occur naturally. Indeed, Barnes (1948) ruled out R. rubrum as an oviposition host for D. tetensi after conducting host preference experiments. A potential association of D. tetensi with R. rubrum is also reported in Hungary (Veszelka, 1981: https://agris.fao.org/search/en/providers/123819/records/64735f732c1d629bc97dcf66). In addition, a gall midge species that is currently a nomina dubia and formerly referred to as Asphodylia ribesii (Meigen) (syn. Cecidomyia ribesii) is described in Austria as causing leaf curling in R. rubrum (Barnes, 1948). This is also a potential record of Dasineura tetensi, but this cannot be confirmed because the type-material has been lost (Gagné & Jaschhof, 2021). In addition, there are references of D. tetensi from the hosts Arctostaphylos uva-ursi, Ribes alpinum and Ribes bracteosum in continental Europe (https://dbif.brc.ac.uk/invertebratesresults.aspx?insectid=2858).
The gall midge is associated with the leaves of plants for planting. It overwinters as larvae in cocoons in the soil beneath blackcurrant bushes, predominantly within the uppermost centimeter of the soil profile (Goncharova, 1967; Cross & Crook, 1999; cited in Hellqvist, 2001b). Adults emerge in late spring. The time of emergence is reported to vary greatly from year to year, even in relation to the development of black currant (Pitcher, 1958, Cross & Crook, 1999; cited in Hellqvist, 2001b). The number of generation per year varies according to the geographical situation, weather conditions and the availability of actively growing shoots for oviposition and larval development. Three or four generations appears to be normal in Western, Central and Eastern Europe (Hellqvist, 2001b; Ellis, 2001-2024).
The Fruit SEWG considered that there was insufficient information presented to be confident on whether plants for planting is a significant pathway. However, given the limited host range, plants for planting could be a significant pathway for Ribes plants, particularly those under protection.
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
Dasineura tetensi is an important pest in young blackcurrant plantations as well as nurseries. Its larvae cause curling and twisting of young leaves into distinctive leaf galls, older galls become necrotic. In established crops infestation with larvae reduces bush vigour, killing the terminal shoot and causing a proliferation of side shoots from lateral buds. In mother plantations, D. tetensi attack may cause up to 60% reduction in the growth of shoots, and in the nurseries the infested plants are weakened and do not grow to a suitable size (Piotrowski et al., 2020).
The blackcurrant leaf midge has become a more frequent pest of blackcurrants since the withdrawal of the broad-spectrum insecticide (a synthetic pyrethroid) that was routinely used for blackcurrant gall mite control and provided incidental control of leaf midge. The importance of the damage varies, depending on the bush/plantation age or growth phase. Attacks are of greatest significance in nurseries where new growth is critical, in new plantations where stunting of growth delays establishment, in fruiting bushes where the number of replacement shoots developing from the base is insufficient, or on regrowth in plantations that have been cut back (Mitchell et al. 2011; Fountain et al., 2015).
Sprays of synthetic pyrethroid (SP) insecticides caused substantial reductions in catches of Dasineura tetensi in sex pheromone traps and galling injury (72% and 75% resp.). However, they did not result in increases in yield or shoot growth in established commercial blackcurrant plantations.
In cut-down, re-growing bushes, SP sprays largely prevented galling injury which caused severe stunting and multiple branching (Cross et al., 2016). Failure to control leaf midge in the first year of regrowth in the untreated plots resulted in severely stunted shoot growth and branch proliferation, which was so severe that bushes failed to recover adequately in the second year, indicating the need to use insecticides to control leaf midge in re-growing bushes and by implication, in young establishing bushes (Fountain et al., 2015).
[Remark: In responses to the questionnaire, NL and SI considered that impact was 'not serious' and 'insignificant'.]
Damage reported on other Ribes species than R. nigrum are infrequent.
The blackcurrant leaf midge has become a more frequent pest of blackcurrants since the withdrawal of the broad-spectrum insecticide (a synthetic pyrethroid) that was routinely used for blackcurrant gall mite control and provided incidental control of leaf midge. The importance of the damage varies, depending on the bush/plantation age or growth phase. Attacks are of greatest significance in nurseries where new growth is critical, in new plantations where stunting of growth delays establishment, in fruiting bushes where the number of replacement shoots developing from the base is insufficient, or on regrowth in plantations that have been cut back (Mitchell et al. 2011; Fountain et al., 2015).
Sprays of synthetic pyrethroid (SP) insecticides caused substantial reductions in catches of Dasineura tetensi in sex pheromone traps and galling injury (72% and 75% resp.). However, they did not result in increases in yield or shoot growth in established commercial blackcurrant plantations.
In cut-down, re-growing bushes, SP sprays largely prevented galling injury which caused severe stunting and multiple branching (Cross et al., 2016). Failure to control leaf midge in the first year of regrowth in the untreated plots resulted in severely stunted shoot growth and branch proliferation, which was so severe that bushes failed to recover adequately in the second year, indicating the need to use insecticides to control leaf midge in re-growing bushes and by implication, in young establishing bushes (Fountain et al., 2015).
[Remark: In responses to the questionnaire, NL and SI considered that impact was 'not serious' and 'insignificant'.]
Damage reported on other Ribes species than R. nigrum are infrequent.
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:
Candidate
Justification:
Assessment of economic impact was provided for R. nigrum (blackcurrant): significant damage recorded on this host, requiring targeted control measures. The susceptibility of blackcurrant to D. tetensi varies with cultivar variety and hybrid cross (Barnes, 1948 & Keep,1985).
Although damage reported on other Ribes species than R. nigrum are infrequent, these other species may be source of infestation if the plants are cultivated in the field or on reused substrate.
Although damage reported on other Ribes species than R. nigrum are infrequent, these other species may be source of infestation if the plants are cultivated in the field or on reused substrate.
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:
Certification schemes and other control measures (e.g. roguing out of infested plants). Its occurrence in many growing areas, particularly in Europe, has reduced due to the widespread use of broad-spectrum pesticides for control of gall mite. However, the progressive withdrawal of such chemicals and the increasing interest in IPM strategies mean that an increase in leaf midge levels has already begun. Work to identify suitable natural predators of the midge such as Platygaster spp. that can be used in an integrated control system is in progress (James Hutton Institute, 2024).
In absence of treatments, the Fruit SEWG highlighted that the only measure available in a nursery would be the removal of infested plants and questioned whether this measure (as regulated at present in the EU Marketing Directive) was really cost effective.
Differences in susceptibility exist between blackcurrant cultivars, and resistance in R. nigrum cultivars such as 'Ben Connan' appears to be due to larval antibiosis, rather than differences in volatile profiles. A dominant gene for resistance, Dt, was identified in R. dikuscha by Keep (1985).
In absence of treatments, the Fruit SEWG highlighted that the only measure available in a nursery would be the removal of infested plants and questioned whether this measure (as regulated at present in the EU Marketing Directive) was really cost effective.
Differences in susceptibility exist between blackcurrant cultivars, and resistance in R. nigrum cultivars such as 'Ben Connan' appears to be due to larval antibiosis, rather than differences in volatile profiles. A dominant gene for resistance, Dt, was identified in R. dikuscha by Keep (1985).
7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?
No
Conclusion:
Candidate by default
Justification:
Insufficient data available to determine whether plants for planting is a significant pathway. There is doubt whether it is an important pest for R. uva-crispa (gooseberry).
CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:
Recommended for listing as an RNQP, by default (insufficient data available to determine whether plants for planting is a significant pathway). Conclusion was that there is insufficient evidence to recommend changes from the current regulation and measures. Recommendation for regulation applies to R. nigrum (blackcurrant) because of direct impact, and other Ribes hosts because of possible indirect economic impact. The Fruit SEWG highlighted that the only measure available in a nursery would be the removal of infested plants and questioned whether this measure (as regulated at present in the EU Marketing Directive) was really cost effective.
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:
- Barnes HF (1948) Gall Midges of Economic Importance. Vol. III. Gall Midges of Fruit; Crosby Lockwood: London, UK, pp. 63–69
- Böhm H (1970) Control of the black-currant leaf gall-midge not to be neglected [Die Bekämpfung der Johannisbeerblattgallmücke nicht vernachlässigen]. Pflanzenarzt 23(5) 46-47.
- Cross JV, Harris AL, Farman DI & Hall DR (2016) Assessment of the effects of crop injury by blackcurrant leaf midge, Dasineura tetensi (Rübsaamen) (Cecidomyiidae) on yield and growth in commercial blackcurrant plantations. Crop Protection 82, 51-59.
- Cross JV & Crook DJ (1999) Predicting spring emergence of blackcurrant leaf midge (Dasineura tetensi) from air temperatures. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 91, 421-430.
- 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 21/Aug/2024).
- Fountain M, Berrie A & Raffle S (2015) Blackcurrant leaf midge. Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) website (accessed 05/Aug/2024). https://horticulture.ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/blackcurrant-leaf-midge.
- Gagné RJ & Jaschhof M (2021) A Catalog of the Cecidomyiidae (Diptera) of the World. Fifth Edition. Digital. 816 pp.
- Goncharova NG (1967) Biological and ecological features of the development of the black-currant gall midge. Izvestija Timirjazevskoj Sel'skohozjajstvennoj Akademii 3, 159-172.
- Hellqvist S (2001a) Biotypes of Dasineura tetensi, differing in ability to gall and develop on black currant genotypes. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 98, 85–94.
- Hellqvist S (2001b) Phenology of the Blackcurrant Leaf Midge ( Dasineura tetensi ) in Northern Sweden. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B — Soil & Plant Science 51(2), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/090647101753483804.
- James Hutton Institute (2024) Soft fruit pests and diseases Leaf Curling Midge (Dasineura tetensi). Available: FruitDisease - Pests and Diseases (Blackcurrant leaf curling midge) (hutton.ac.uk). Accessed: 18/10/2024.
- Keep E (1985) The black currant leaf curling midge, Dasineura tetensi Rubs.; Its host range and the inheritance of resistance. Euphytica 34(3), 801-809.
- Mitchell C, Brennan RM, Cross JV & Johnson SN (2011) Arthropod pests of currant and gooseberry crops in the UK: their biology, management and future prospects. Agricultural and Forest Entomology. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-9563.2010.00513.x.
- PESI (2024) Pan-European Species directories Infrastructure. Accessed through www.eu-nomen.eu/portal, at 2024-07-10
- Piotrowski W, Łabanowska BH & Kozak M (2021) Assessment of infestation of selected blackcurrant (Ribes nigrum L.) genotypes by the blackcurrant leaf midge (Dasineura tetensi Rübs.) in Poland. Insects 12(6), 492. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12060492.
- Piotrowski W, Łabanowska BH & Cross JV (2020) Efficacy of spirotetramat for control of blackcurrant leaf midge Dasineura tetensi (Rübs.), its effects on phytoseiid predatory mites and residues in fruits. European Journal of Horticultural Science 85(6), 455-470. DOI: 10.17660/eJHS.2020/85.6.10.
- Pitcher RS (1958) The biology of the black currant leaf rnidge Dasyneura tensi (Rubs.) in relation to the planning of control measures. Annual Report of the East Malling Research Station for 1957, 136-139.
- Skuhravá M (1989) Taxonomic changes and records in Palaearctic Cecidomyiidae (Diptera). Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca 86.
- Skuhravá M & Skuhravý V (2021) The gall midges of Europe. Published by KNNV, 456 pp.
- Veszelka A (1981) Forecasting of red currant leaf midge (Dasineura tetensi). (A ribiszke-levelszunyog (Dasyneura tetensi) elorejelzese izolatorokkal). Novenyvedelem, Vol. 17, No. 8, 345-346.
