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



NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina (XANTCY)


GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST

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

Pest category:
 
Bacteria


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?
 
Yes

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):
 
Croatia (2008); France (1996); Italy (2012); Italy/Sicilia (2006); Italy/Sardegna (2006); Netherlands (1993); Poland (2010); Portugal (2018); Slovenia (2008); Spain (2016)

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:
 
Evaluation continues

 
Justification (if necessary):
 
Inspection for 'Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina' is recommended in EPPO Standard PM 4-31 Certification scheme for hazelnut. In the responses to the questionnaire, DE supported deregulation in the EU, considering that no feasible and effective measures were available. Evaluation continues on this criteria.

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

 
Justification:
 
Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina damages both cultivated and wild hazelnut (Corylus sp.) plants (Scortichini et al., 2002). Bacterial blight is most significant on European hazelnut (Corylus avellana) which is commercially grown for nut production, but Corylus pontica, C. maxima [both now C. avellana], C. rostrata [C. cornuta], and C. colurna are also susceptible to the pathogen (Miller et al., 1949; EPPO, 1986; Ibarra et al., 2012; Lamichhane & Varvaro, 2014). The latter are considered minor hosts (EPPO, 1986; EPPO, 2004).

Two factors are involved with dispersal and movement of X. arboricola pv. corylina: (i) nurseries, and (ii) hazelnut production orchards. Traditionally hazelnut is propagated by layering. Layering produces large, well-rooted trees but the risk of contamination is high, since it allows a direct passage of the pathogen from latently infected mother plants to nursery material. Symptoms of plants affected by bacterial blight can be different in orchards and nurseries as a result of different growing systems. In orchards, suckers are pruned away every year, while suckering is encouraged in nurseries on the mother plants, to produce shoots for layering (Wu, 2013). Mother plants bearing densely crowded, long, young shoots create high moisture conditions, ideal for the increase and spread of the pathogen (Miller et al., 1949; EPPO, 2004; Lamichhane & Varvaro, 2014).

Once the latent-infected propagation material is introduced into new orchards, new infections occur rapidly. Buds in spring give first expression of symptoms and provide the main source of inoculum for subsequent more widespread infection. Penetration of buds, leaves and new shoots is through stomata and wounds. The presence of moisture on the host is a prerequisite for infection. Tissue is more susceptible when young and succulent. The bacterium multiplies on the young plants and spreads from plant to plant by pruning tools and/or by rain splash. The occurrence of secondary infection depends on the relative abundance of primary sources, and on the frequency and the amount of rainfall during the infection period, which extends late summer (buds are 75% grown) until they open in the following spring (Miller et al., 1949; CABI, 2022). An epiphytic phase of the bacterium occurs on leaf surfaces during the growing season. There is a possibility of transmission by pollen to female flowers. The bacterium has an epiphytic phase (Gardan & Devaux, 1987; EPPO, 2004; CABI, 2022). X. arboricola pv. corylina can survive in dormant buds and in cankers from 1 year to the next, though survival in cankers probably has little epidemiological importance. The bacterium can survive on fallen leaves but cannot overwinter in soil (Gardan, 1982, 1983; cited in Lamichhane & Varvaro, 2014).

Stress predisposes young Corylus trees to the disease (Moore et al., 1974; Lamichhane et al., 2013). Especially Adverse growing conditions, i.e., poor soil drainage, sunscald, cold and drought during the first few years of the life of an orchard predispose trees to infection (Miller et al., 1949). Moore et al. (1974) demonstrated that mortality of inoculated young hazelnut trees significantly increased without irrigation. In the presence of irrigation, plants grew vigorously and were tolerant to X. arboricola pv. corylina infection.

Seeds from fruits picked on infected trees can produce infected seedlings (EPPO, 1986).

Although many publications highlight importance of plants for planting as a pathway, the Fruit SEWG could not conclude on the relative importance of natural spread compared to plants for planting. Plants for planting was not considered as a significant pathway for Xanthomonas arboricola pv. juglandis because of high risk of infection from the surrounding area. In the case of X. arboricola pv. corylina, production practices of plants for planting (layering, no rotation, humidity conditions) may increase the risk with plants for planting. X. a. corylina is less widespread because less present and Corylus productions are less distributed.

5 - Economic impact:

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

Justification:
 
Four countries account for the bulk of world hazelnut production: Turkey, Italy, Spain and the USA (in decreasing order). In the USA, bacterial canker is considered to be the most serious disease of hazelnut in terms of economic importance (EPPO, 1986), until the devastating fungal canker disease, eastern filbert blight, made its way to the hazelnut-growing region in the mid-1970s (Webber, 2019). The greatest yield losses are seen in one- to four-year-old orchards, in which up to 10% mortality has been recorded. Losses are due to reduced yield and to the reduction in the development of young, non-bearing trees. Older plants are rarely killed. Economic losses depended on the disruption of buds and fruiting shoot, but less so on fruit lesions caused by the bacterium (Noviello, 1969; cited in CABI, 2022). Losses in yield varied from 1 to 10% (Miller et al., 1949). In France, over 250,000 young plants have been destroyed since 1975. In 1983, 1300 ha suffered the loss of about 50 seven- to eight-year-old trees and 2 ha of four-year-old trees were killed (EPPO, 1986).

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:
 
Candidate

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?
 
Yes
 
Conclusion:
 
Candidate

Justification:
 
Hazelnut protection from X. arboricola pv. corylina (hazelnut bacterial blight – HBB) is mainly based on the prevention and integration of various treatments and practices. The use of disease-free planting material is a primary condition for HBB prevention and control. Nursery material should be produced in pathogen-free areas. In addition, nurseries should be distant from areas where hazelnut commercial orchards are grown (Lamichhane & Varvaro, 2014).
Pisetta et al. (2016) significantly reduced the population of Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina in hazelnut suckers by treatment of the planting material with hot water. The authors concluded that after exposure to 42 °C for 45 min, the hazelnut propagative material could be safe enough for further trade and planting. However, due to the latent nature of the pathogen, the plants for planting should be tested prior to exportation to other countries, thus complying with existing phytosanitary legislation. Infection of young plants is considered a high risk due to their high susceptibility and lack of efficient postinfection treatment (cited from Kałużna et al., 2021).
The Fruit SEWG highlighted that the use of in vitro production (which represents nowadays about 90% of the propagation material of C. avellana produced nowadays in central Europe) is also a way to produce pest-free planting material.

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?
 
No
 
Conclusion:
 
Candidate by default

Justification:
 
Significance of plants for planting as a pathway was uncertain.

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:
 
Recommended for listing as an RNQP, by default (uncertainty on plants for planting being a significant pathway).


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:
 
Yes

Proposed Risk management measure:
 
The following measure was recommended for X. arboricola pv. corylina, for CAC (in addition to the substantially free from requirement for traded material):

1. Plants for planting produced in an area known to be free from X. arboricola pv. corylina
OR
2. Plants for planting produced in vitro
OR
2. Plants for planting
a. derived from mother plants which have been inspected and found free from symptoms of X. arboricola pv. corylina, and
b. no symptoms observed at the site of production during an inspection performed at appropriate time during the last growing season.

For Pre-basic, Basic and Certified: no additional measures recommended.

Justification (if necessary):
 
Hot water treatment (HWT) is available and may be used for desinfecting material to be used later as mother plants. However, the Fruit SEWG did not recommend HWT as a risk mitigation measure because it was considered less practical for 1-2 years-old plants: it is causing mortality, and it is not an option to sell dormant plants which may not grow after being planted in the field.

REFERENCES:
  • CABI (2022) Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina (bacterial blight of hazelnut). (Accessed 12/Aug/2024) https://www.cabi.org/cpc/datasheet/5693
  • EPPO (1986) Data sheets on quarantine organisms No. 134. Xanthomonas campestris pv. corylina. EPPO Bulletin 16, 13–16.
  • EPPO (2004) Diagnostic protocol Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina. PM7/22. EPPO Bulletin 34, 179–181.
  • Gardan L (1982) La Bactériose du Noisetier. 3éemes Journéees Françaises d’études et d’informations sur les Maladies des Plantes. Paris, France: ACTA, 489–95.
  • Gardan L (1983) Bacterial Blight of Hazel-Nut Caused by Xanthomonas corylina. Italy: Convegno Internazionale sul Nocciolo Avellino. Avellino, 443–50.
  • Gardan L & Devaux M (1987) Bacterial disease of hazelnut (Xanthomonas campestris pv. corylina): biology of the bacterium. [La bactériose du noisetier (Xanthomonas campestris pv. corylina): biologie de la bactérie]. EPPO Bulletin 17(2), 241-250. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2338.1987.tb00034.x.
  • Ibarra J, Snelling J, Alexander K & Tissera N (2012) Leaf spotting of Turkish filbert in Colorado caused by Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina and Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae. Plant Health Progress, May:PHP-2012-0517-01-BR. http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/sub/php/brief/2012/filbert/.
  • Kałużna M, Fischer-Le Saux M, Pothier JF, Jacques MA, Obradović A, Tavares F & Stefani E (2021) Xanthomonas arboricola pv. juglandis and pv. corylina: Brothers or distant relatives? Genetic clues, epidemiology, and insights for disease management. Molecular Plant Pathology 22, 1481–1499. DOI: 10.1111/mpp.13073.
  • Lamichhane JR & Varvaro L (2014) Xanthomonas arboricola disease of hazelnut: current status and future perspectives for its management. Plant Pathology 63, 243–254.
  • Lamichhane JR, Fabi A, Ridolfi R & Varvaro L (2013) Epidemiological study of hazelnut bacterial blight in central Italy by using laboratory analysis and geostatistics. PLoS ONE 8, e56298..
  • Miller PW, Bollen WB & Simmons JE (1949). Filbert bacteriosis and its control. Technical Bulletin of the Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station 16, 70 pp.
  • Moore LW, Lagerstedt HB, Hartmann N (1974) Stress predisposes young filbert trees to bacterial blight. Phytopathology 64, 1537–1540.
  • Noviello C (1969) Osservazioni sulle malattie parassitarie del Nocciolo. In Annali della Facolta di Scienze Agrarie della Universita degli Studi di Napoli, 3. Portici, Italy. 11-39.
  • Scortichini M, Rossi MP & Marchesi U (2002) Genetic, phenotypic and pathogenic diversity of Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina strains, question the representative nature of the type strain. Plant Pathology 51, 374–381.
  • Webber JB III (2019) Characterization and cultivar susceptibility assessment of bacterial blight in hazelnut caused by Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina. Masters Thesis. Oregon State University. https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/sb397f857.
  • Wu S (2013) Nursery Techniques Influence the Growth of Hazelnuts. Ontario, Canada: University of Guelph, MSc thesis.