List of non‐EU viruses and viroids of Cydonia Mill., Fragaria L., Malus Mill., Prunus L., Pyrus L., Ribes L., Rubus L. and Vitis L.

et al. 2019

EFS2

Self Cite

Following a request from the EU Commission, the Panel on Plant Health addressed the pest categorisation of the viruses and viroids of Prunus L. determined as being either non-EU or of undetermined standing in a previous EFSA opinion. These infectious agents belong to different genera and are heterogeneous in their biology. With the exclusion of Ilarvirus S1 and Ilarvirus S2, for which very limited information exists, the pest categorisation was completed for 26 viruses and 1 viroid having acknowledged identities and available detection methods. All these viruses are efficiently transmitted by vegetative plant propagation techniques, with plants for planting representing the major pathway for long-distance dispersal and thus considered as the major pathway for entry. Depending on the virus, additional pathway(s) can also be Prunus seeds, pollen and/or vector(s). Most of the viruses categorised here are known to infect only one or few plant genera, but some of them have a wide host range, thus extending the possible entry pathways. Apple scar skin viroid, American plum line pattern virus, cherry mottle leaf virus, cherry rasp leaf virus, cherry rosette virus, cherry rusty mottle-associated virus, cherry twisted leaf-associated virus, peach enation virus, peach mosaic virus, peach rosette mosaic virus, tobacco ringspot virus and tomato ringspot virus meet all the criteria evaluated by EFSA to qualify as potential Union quarantine pests (QPs). With the exception of impact in the EU territory, on which the Panel was unable to conclude, apricot vein clearing virus, Asian prunus virus 1, Asian prunus virus 2, Asian prunus virus 3, Caucasus prunus virus, cherry virus B, Mume virus A, nectarine stem pitting-associated virus, nectarine virus M, peach chlorotic mottle virus, peach leaf pitting-associated virus, peach virus D, prunus virus F and prunus virus T satisfy all the other criteria to be considered as potential Union QPs. Prunus geminivirus A does not meet the criterion of having negative impact in the EU. For several viruses, especially those recently discovered, the categorisation is associated with high uncertainties mainly because of the absence of data on their biology, distribution and impact. Since this opinion addresses specifically the non-EU viruses, in general these viruses do not meet the criteria assessed by EFSA to qualify as potential Union regulated non-quarantine pests.

Section: Interpretation Of the Terms Of Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Interpretation Of the Terms Of Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

Pest categorisation of non‐EU viruses and viroids of Prunus L.

Bragard¹,

et al. 2019

EFS2

Self Cite

“…The process has been detailed in a recent Scientific Opinion (EFSA PLH Panel, ), in which it has been also clarified that ‘ In the process, three groups of viruses were distinguished: non‐EU viruses, viruses with significant presence in the EU (known to occur in several MSs, frequently reported in the EU, widespread in several MSs) or so far reported only from the EU, and viruses with undetermined standing for which available information did not readily allow to allocate to one or the other of the two above groups. A non‐EU virus is defined by its geographical origin outside of the EU territory.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pest categorisation of non‐EU viruses of Rubus L.

Bragard¹,

et al. 2020

EFS2

Self Cite

The Panel on Plant Health of EFSA conducted a pest categorisation of 17 viruses of Rubus L. that were previously classified as either non-EU or of undetermined standing in a previous opinion. These infectious agents belong to different genera and are heterogeneous in their biology. Blackberry virus X, blackberry virus Z and wineberry latent virus were not categorised because of lack of information while grapevine red blotch virus was excluded because it does not infect Rubus. All 17 viruses are efficiently transmitted by vegetative propagation, with plants for planting representing the major pathway for entry and spread. For some viruses, additional pathway(s) are Rubus seeds, pollen and/or vector(s). Most of the viruses categorised here infect only one or few plant genera, but some of them have a wide host range, thus extending the possible entry pathways. Cherry rasp leaf virus, raspberry latent virus, raspberry leaf curl virus, strawberry necrotic shock virus, tobacco ringspot virus and tomato ringspot virus meet all the criteria to qualify as potential Union quarantine pests (QPs). With the exception of impact in the EU territory, on which the Panel was unable to conclude, blackberry chlorotic ringspot virus, blackberry leaf mottle-associated virus, blackberry vein banding-associated virus, blackberry virus E, blackberry virus F, blackberry virus S, blackberry virus Y and blackberry yellow vein-associated virus satisfy all the other criteria to be considered as potential QPs. Black raspberry cryptic virus, blackberry calico virus and Rubus canadensis virus 1 do not meet the criterion of having a potential negative impact in the EU. For several viruses, the categorisation is associated with high uncertainties, mainly because of the absence of data on biology, distribution and impact. Since the opinion addresses non-EU viruses, they do not meet the criteria to qualify as potential Union regulated non-quarantine pests.

“…The EFSA PLH Panel decided to address the pest categorisation of this large group of infectious agents in several steps, the first of which has been to list non‐EU viruses and viroids, herein called viruses, of Cydonia Mill., Fragaria L., Malus Mill., Prunus L., Pyrus L., Ribes L., Rubus L. and Vitis L. (EFSA PLH Panel, 2019a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The process has been detailed in a recent Scientific Opinion (EFSA PLH Panel, 2019a), in which it has been also clarified that ‘In the process, three groups of viruses were distinguished: non‐EU viruses, viruses with significant presence in the EU (known to occur in several MSs, frequently reported in the EU, widespread in several MSs) or so far reported only from the EU, and viruses with undetermined standing for which available information did not readily allow to allocate to one or the other of the two above groups. A non‐EU virus is defined by its geographical origin outside of the EU territory.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pest categorisation of non‐EU viruses of Ribes L.

Bragard¹,

et al. 2019

EFS2

Self Cite

Following a request from the EU Commission, the Panel on Plant Health addressed the pest categorisation of the viruses of Ribes L. determined as being either non‐EU or of undetermined standing in a previous EFSA opinion. These infectious agents belong to different genera and are heterogeneous in their biology. Alaska vitivirus 1 and Ribes virus F were excluded from categorisation because these are very poorly characterised viruses. The pest categorisation was completed for seven viruses with clear identity and for which detection methods are available. All these viruses are efficiently transmitted by vegetative propagation techniques, with plants for planting representing the major pathway for long‐distance dispersal and thus considered as the major pathway for entry. Depending on the virus, additional pathway(s) can also be Ribes seeds, pollen and/or vector(s). Most of the viruses categorised here are known to infect only one or few plant genera, but tomato ringspot virus (ToRSV) has a wide host range, thus extending the possible entry pathways. ToRSV meets all the criteria evaluated by EFSA to qualify as potential Union quarantine pest (QP). With the exception of impact in the EU territory, on which the Panel was unable to conclude, Actinidia virus X, blackcurrant leaf chlorosis‐associated virus, blackcurrant leafroll‐associated virus, black currant‐associated rhabdovirus, blackcurrant waikavirus A and Ribes americanum virus A satisfy all the other criteria to be considered as potential Union QPs. For several viruses, especially those recently discovered, the categorisation is associated with high uncertainties mainly because of the absence of data on their biology, distribution and impact. Since this opinion addresses specifically the non‐EU viruses, in general these viruses do not meet the criteria assessed by EFSA to qualify as potential Union regulated non‐quarantine pests.