| Legend |
|---|
| Justification for qualification based on EPPO PM 4 Standards |
| Justification for disqualification |
| Additional or non-conclusive information |
| Standard text |
NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Epidiaspis leperii (EPIDBE)
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):
The pest is reported from Austria (Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998), Belgium (Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998), Bulgaria (Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998), France (Foldi, 2001), Germany (Zimmermann et al., 2022), Hungary (Kozár et al., 2013), Italy (Longo et al., 1995; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998), Malta (Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998), Netherlands (Jansen, 1999), Portugal (Franco et al., 2011), Poland (Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998), Romania (Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998), Spain (Amparo Blay Golcoechea, 1993; Ben-Dov & Sánchez-García, 2015)
HOST PLANT N°1: Juglans regia (IUGRE) 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
Justification (if necessary):
Remark: Not mentioned in PM4/27(2), whereas it is a pest of apple and pear. Data on damage on apple and pear pre-date PM4/27 (2008)
4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):
?
Conclusion:
Justification:
[In responses to the questionnaire, NL and PL supported deregulation in the EU. NL considered that plants for planting was not the main pathway (since 'airborne and widespread in nature') and that Juglans was not a [true] host plant.]
The Fruit SEWG considered that Juglans should be considered as a host plant (ISIP, 2024).
The pest is established in some areas in Europe for over 100 years. It relies almost entirely on passive distribution of the mobile larval stages by wind, birds and propagation material. Accordingly, a slow further spreading of this species can be observed (Zimmerman et al., 2022). European / Italian pear scale overwinters mostly as a mature scale. The scale is hidden under moss and lichens and cannot survive without this natural shelter (UCANR, 2020), limiting the importance of plants for planting as a pathway.
The Fruit SEWG noted that movement of the pest is made possible by transport of infested planting material. Decision was made on the economic impact criteria.
The Fruit SEWG considered that Juglans should be considered as a host plant (ISIP, 2024).
The pest is established in some areas in Europe for over 100 years. It relies almost entirely on passive distribution of the mobile larval stages by wind, birds and propagation material. Accordingly, a slow further spreading of this species can be observed (Zimmerman et al., 2022). European / Italian pear scale overwinters mostly as a mature scale. The scale is hidden under moss and lichens and cannot survive without this natural shelter (UCANR, 2020), limiting the importance of plants for planting as a pathway.
The Fruit SEWG noted that movement of the pest is made possible by transport of infested planting material. Decision was made on the economic impact criteria.
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
Recorded impacts are due to pitting and deformation of branches caused by the insect’s feeding stopping plant tissue growth (UK Plant Health Register, 2022). This scale does not attack nuts, but feeds directly on the wood of the tree, affecting tree vigour. Light to moderate infestations do not seem to harm trees, but heavy scale aggregations may cause the bark to crack and can reduce tree vigour. Such large numbers, however, are seldom encountered in orchards that are regularly treated for blight. In California, USA, it is not particularly injurious except on walnut trees with heavy lichen growth, where large populations weaken trees and reduce nut size and yield (Gill, 1997; UC IPM, 2017). No reports of impact from Europe.
In responses to the questionnaire, PL supported deregulation in the EU since 'recorded in Poland in relatively low intensity'.
In responses to the questionnaire, PL supported deregulation in the EU since 'recorded in Poland in relatively low intensity'.
What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)
Minor
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:
Not candidate
Justification:
Remark: It is reported as causing damage on crops like apple, pear, prune, cherry, and olive (more information in the UK Plant Health Risk Register (2022)).
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:
No damage threshold levels are available to determine if an insecticide application is needed. The key to managing Italian pear scales is to control the lichens. Regular blight treatments in spring will provide control of moss and lichens (UC-ANR, 2020). As for scales in general, cultural, chemical and biological controls may be available.
7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?
Conclusion:
Justification:
There is enough data available to make a decision
CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:
Disqualified: impact is considered acceptable, plants for planting may not be a significant pathway.
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:
- Amparo Blay Golcoechea M (1993). La familia Diaspididae Targioni-Tozzetti, 1868 de España peninsular y Baleares (Insecta: Hemiptera: Coccoidea). PhD thesis. Madrid, Spain, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. 736 pp.
- CABI (2021) CABI Datasheet: Epidiaspis leperii (European pear scale). CABI Compendium. https://doi.org/10.1079/cabicompendium.21320
- Danzig EM, Pellizzari G (1998) Diaspididae. In: Kozár F (Ed.) Catalogue of Palaearctic Coccoidea. Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, 526 pp.
- Gill RJ (1997) The scale insects of California. Part 3. The armored scales (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae). Technical Series in Agricultural Biosystematics and Plant Pathology No. 3. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, California, USA. 307 pp.
- Foldi I (2001). Liste des cochenilles de France (Hemiptera, Coccoidea). Bulletin de la Société entomologique de France 106: 303-308.
- Franco JC, Russo A & Marotta S (2011). An annotated checklist of scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) of Portugal, including Madeira and Azores Archipelagos. Zootaxa 3004(1), 1-32.
- Jansen MGM (1999). An annotated list of the scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) of the Netherlands. Entomologica 33: 197-206.
- Kozár F, Konczné Benedicty Z, Fetykó K, Kiss B, Szita E (2013) An annotated update of the scale insect checklist of Hungary (Hemiptera, Coccoidea). ZooKeys 309: 49-66. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.309.5318
- Miller DR & Davidson JA (2005) Armored scale insect pests of trees and shrubs (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). Comstock Publishing Associates, pp 198–9.
- ScaleNet species page. Available from (accessed 2 December 2020): http://scalenet.info/catalogue/epidiaspis%20leperii/
- UC-ANR (2020). Italian pear scale. UC IPM Pest management guidelines Walnut. Publication 3471, 30-31. https://ipm.ucanr.edu/legacy_assets/pdf/pmg/pmgwalnut.pdf.
- UK Plant Health Risk Register (2022) UK Risk Register Details for Epidiaspis leperii. Available: UK Plant Health Risk Register (defra.gov.uk). Accessed: 16/08/2024.
- Watson GW (2002) Arthropods of Economic Importance - Diaspididae of the World 2.0. Naturalis biodiversity center. https://diaspididae.linnaeus.naturalis.nl/linnaeus_ng/app/views/species/taxon.php?id=113075&epi=155
- Zimmermann O, Lutsch B & Reißig A (2022) Monitoring and mapping invasive insect species: Results of the project ProgRAMM. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Organic Fruit-Growing, online 2022.02.21-23. Ed. FOEKO e.V. 2022: 135-137