| Legend |
|---|
| Justification for qualification based on EPPO PM 4 Standards |
| Justification for disqualification |
| Additional or non-conclusive information |
| Standard text |
NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Mycosphaerella maculiformis {Mycosphaerella maculiformis and M. punctiformis} (MYCOMC)
GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST
Name as submitted in the project specification (if different):
Mycosphaerella punctiformis (Mycosphaerella
maculiformis)
maculiformis)
Pest category:
Fungi
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):
The assessment focuses on M. maculiformis, originally listed in the EU Marketing Directive. The two species Mycosphaerella maculiformis and M. punctiformis have been considered in the past as synonyms in EPPO GD based on Index Fungorum. Now, EPPO GD is following Mycobank and the more recent publications by NL teams, considering these two species as different. M. punctiformis (now Ramularia endophylla) was re-characterized in 2004. M. punctiformis may also be a complex of species (Verkley et al., 2004). Both species may be conspecific. In responses to the questionnaire, FR commented that 'the causative agent is unknown and does not seem to be present in EU nurseries. There is very little information available on this disease.
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):
Mycosphaerella maculiformis has been reported in Belgium (Sioen et al., 2016), Bulgaria (Filipova & Georgieva 2018), Greece (Diamandis & Perlerou, 2001), Hungary (Krenner, 1944), Italy (Raddi et al., 2019), Netherlands (Anonymous, 2024), Portugal (Branco et al, 2014), Slovakia (Juhasova, 1978) and Slovenia (Ogris & Jurc, 2013).
HOST PLANT N°1: Castanea sativa (CSNSA) 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):
No
Conclusion:
Not candidate
Justification:
Plant: uncertainty about the role of this pathway.
Seed: no other Mycosphaerella spp. are seed transmitted.
Spores: yes
The chestnut tree’s most common disease is ‘leaf spot’ (Mycosphaerella maculiformis). The symptoms of the disease usually appear in June as tiny white spots on the leaves, which increase in size and turn brown over time. The pathogens, which spend the winter in the white spots of the fallen leaves, re-infect the new leaves during spring time. By the end of the summer, the spots cover the entire leaf, which ultimately turns yellow. If the weather is rainy and humid, and there is great temperature fluctuation, the infection is followed by defoliation. In case of a e.g. dry and warm August, the infected leaves roll up, the arteries twist, and the dead leaves dry on the tree until defoliates. In Hungary the disease occurs annually, although the extent of the damage varies from year to year (Szentiványi, ?). In rainy summers the disease spreads rapidly, resulting in premature defoliation (Raddi et al., 1991).
As is the case for other leaf spot diseases, the Fruit SEWG considered that infection will occur with spores from the surrounding and that consequently plants for planting was not a significant pathway compared to others.
Seed: no other Mycosphaerella spp. are seed transmitted.
Spores: yes
The chestnut tree’s most common disease is ‘leaf spot’ (Mycosphaerella maculiformis). The symptoms of the disease usually appear in June as tiny white spots on the leaves, which increase in size and turn brown over time. The pathogens, which spend the winter in the white spots of the fallen leaves, re-infect the new leaves during spring time. By the end of the summer, the spots cover the entire leaf, which ultimately turns yellow. If the weather is rainy and humid, and there is great temperature fluctuation, the infection is followed by defoliation. In case of a e.g. dry and warm August, the infected leaves roll up, the arteries twist, and the dead leaves dry on the tree until defoliates. In Hungary the disease occurs annually, although the extent of the damage varies from year to year (Szentiványi, ?). In rainy summers the disease spreads rapidly, resulting in premature defoliation (Raddi et al., 1991).
As is the case for other leaf spot diseases, the Fruit SEWG considered that infection will occur with spores from the surrounding and that consequently plants for planting was not a significant pathway compared to others.
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
Yes
Justification:
Mycosphaerella maculiformis has not been considered a destructive parasite. However, in recent years epidemics have created remarkable loss in quantity and also in nut quality. Favorable weather conditions, such as moist and warm periods in May-June, may cause outbreaks of the disease. Chestnut producers use heavy and frequent spraying to deal with the disease. The biology of the disease and the host-pathogen interaction are poorly understood. It was not a priority issue (Stephanos & Vannacci, 2010).
What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)
Minor to 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?
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:
Justification:
Economic impact may not be acceptable. Although there are few reports of economic impacts, the reference suggests controls are being targeted to deal specifically with the pest.
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:
Justification:
Clear away affected leaves in autumn and burn them.
Chemical control (Szentiványi, ?, Raddi et al., 1991)
Choice of cultivar (Szentiványi, ?)
Chemical control (Szentiványi, ?, Raddi et al., 1991)
Choice of cultivar (Szentiványi, ?)
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 is not considered to be a significant pathway compared to others.
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:
- Anonymous (2024) Vlekpuntkogeltje, Mycosphaerella maculiformis. NMV Verspreidingsatlas Paddenstoelen. https://www.verspreidingsatlas.nl/0722190; occurrence: extremely rare, substrate: fallen leaves, found between 1990-2024, before not found. [Dutch: Zeldzaamheid: uiterst zeldzaam, substraat: blad, gevallen].
- Branco M, Bragança H, Sousa E & Phillips AJ (2014) Pests and diseases in Portuguese forestry: current and new threats. Forest Context and Policies in Portugal: Present and Future Challenges, 117-154.
- Diamandis S & Perlerou C (2001) The mycoflora of the chestnut ecosystems in Greece. Forest Snow and Landscape Research 76(3), 499-504.
- Filipova E & Georgieva M (2018) Complex of fungal pathogens established on Castanea sativa Mill. in Bulgaria. Poster at conference: Conference "Young Researchers and Contemporary Science Challenges“ University of Forestry, Sofia.
- Stephanos D & Vannacci G (2010) Diseases of sweet chestnut research: state of the art and future priorities. In Chestnut (Castanea sativa): a multipurpose European tree. Workshop procceedings- Brussels 30 Sept - 01 Oct 2010. 18-23.
- Juhasova G (1978) Evaluation of the health of chestnut (Castanea sativa) in Slovakia. Acta Dendrobiologica 251(1/2), 253-291.
- Krenner JA (1944) Studien aus dem Gebiete der mikroskopischen Pilze. II. Die Cylindrosporiose der Edelkastanie. Der Ursprung der Pilze [Studies in the field of microscopic fungi. II. Cylindrosporiosis of the Sweet Chestnut. The origin of the fungi]. Botanikai Közlemények 41 (3-5), 115-141.
- Ogris N & Jurc D (2013) Tree diseases determined by the reporting, prognostic and diagnostic service for forests in Slovenia 1982-2012. Acta Silvae et Ligni 102, 31-42.
- Raddi P, Capretti P & Tiberi R. (1991) Diseases and insect pests in forest nurseries in Italy. IUFRO Working Party 82.07-09 (Diseases and Insects in Forest Nurseries), 7, 69-77.
- Sioen G, Verschelde P & Roskam P (2016) Bosvitaliteitsinventaris 2016, Resultaten uit het bosvitaliteitsmeetnet (Level 1). Page 45. https://purews.inbo.be/ws/portalfiles/portal/12937745/Sioen_etal_2017_Bosvitaliteitsinventaris2016.pdf
- Szentiványi, P (?) The pest control of the chestnut tree. Website of Sharkpoint.cc (Accessed 22/Mar/2024). http://www.sarkpont.hu/webset32.