| 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 campestris pv. fici (XANTFI)
GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST
Name as submitted in the project specification (if different):
Xanthomonas campestris pv. fici
(Phytomonas fici)
(Phytomonas fici)
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?
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 in Italy where it was originally described in 1905.
HOST PLANT N°1: Ficus carica (FIUCA) 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):
No PM4 standard for Ficus carica.
4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):
?
Conclusion:
Justification:
No (recent) reports from Xanthomonas campestris pv. fici from Ficus carica in Europe.
No information on plants for planting being a pathway for Ficus carica.
No information on plants for planting being a pathway for Ficus carica.
5 - Economic impact:
Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?
No
Justification:
No (recent) publications from Europe on Ficus carica.
What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)
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?
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 specific details on Ficus carica
This pathogen is mainly reported on ornamental Ficus spp. elsewhere (Florida, Australia, India).
Ficus macrocarpa: severely infected plants dropped their leaves, with subsequent new growth remaining free for only a short time. Symptoms were more pronounced in wet season with a decline in the dry season (Duff, 1991).
Ficus elastica: Initial symptoms appear as small, water-soaked lesions near the leaf margin. After 7–14 days of initial symptoms, lesions enlarge, coalesce, and cover large portions of the leaf area. Eventually, the lesions turn brown with greenish-yellow borders, resulting in premature senescence and leaf drop (Campoverde & Palmateer, 2013).
This pathogen is mainly reported on ornamental Ficus spp. elsewhere (Florida, Australia, India).
Ficus macrocarpa: severely infected plants dropped their leaves, with subsequent new growth remaining free for only a short time. Symptoms were more pronounced in wet season with a decline in the dry season (Duff, 1991).
Ficus elastica: Initial symptoms appear as small, water-soaked lesions near the leaf margin. After 7–14 days of initial symptoms, lesions enlarge, coalesce, and cover large portions of the leaf area. Eventually, the lesions turn brown with greenish-yellow borders, resulting in premature senescence and leaf drop (Campoverde & Palmateer, 2013).
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: minimal economic impact in Europe.
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:
- Bradbury JF, 1986. Guide to Plant Pathogenic Bacteria. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
- Campoverde EV & Palmateer AJ (2013). Bacterial blight of Ficus elastica caused by Xanthomonas. Plant Pathology Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. PP305. 3 pages. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/PP305.
- Duff J (1991) Angular leaf spot of ornamental Ficus spp. due to Xanthomonas campestris pv. fici. Austrasian Plant Pathology 20, 1-2.