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: Idaeovirus rubi (raspberry bushy dwarf virus) (RBDV00)


GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST

Name as submitted in the project specification (if different):
 
Raspberry bushy dwarf 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:
 
  • Not evaluated: 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):
 
Czech Republic (2011); Finland (2011); France (1999); Germany (1987); Hungary (2018); Italy (1987); Latvia (2012); Lithuania (2005); Poland (2011); Romania (2008); Slovenia (2020); Sweden (2011)

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: 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 'Raspberry bushy dwarf virus (Idaeovirus)'. Flowering of raspberry propagation stock II should also preferably be prevented. In the case of primocane varieties, in which flowering cannot be prevented, the official organization may require additional sampling and testing for possible infestations with raspberry bushy dwarf virus.
Although PL considered in responses to the questionnaire that plants for planting was not the main pathway, this was not supported by enough justification.
The Fruit SEWG recommended to further assess the relative importance of the pathways as well as the economic impact of this virus alone. 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):
 
No
 
Conclusion:
 
Not candidate

 
Justification:
 
RBDV is pollen-borne. It occurs naturally in many Rubus species and cultivars, including wild species (Martin et al., 2013).
It is considered that natural (and usually symptomless) infestation of a healthy crop might occur quite easily, starting from the naturally infected vegetation surrounding a production plot.
The Fruit SEWG supported that plants for planting was not a significant pathways compared to natural spread (also valid for indoor cultivations).

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:
 
RBDV usually does not cause pollen abortion in single infection, but can cause drupelet abortion, which in turn leads to crumbly fruit in some red raspberry cultivars. RBDV is symptomless in many North American red raspberry cultivars in single infections, but in mixed infections can lead to severe crumbly fruit disease. In combination with BRNV, RBDV causes dwarfing and shoot proliferation in red raspberry, a typical bushy dwarf condition (Martin et al., 2013).

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

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:
 
No data are available in literature on economic impact of this individual virus, alone.

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:
 
Disqualified: economic impact on its own considered acceptable. No clear relation of co-infection with other particular viruses. Plants for planting is not considered to be a significant pathway compared to natural spread.


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: