Access to this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from EFSA Journal
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
EFSA Journal. 2024;22:e8831.
|
1 of 26
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8831
efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/1831-4732
SCIENTIFIC OPINION
Pest categorisation of Monema flavescens
EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH) | Claude Bragard | Paula Baptista | Elisavet Chatzivassiliou |
Francesco DiSerio | Paolo Gonthier | Josep Anton JaquesMiret | Annemarie Fejer Justesen |
Christer Sven Magnusson | Panagiotis Milonas | Juan A. Navas- Cortes | Stephen Parnell |
Roel Potting | Philippe Lucien Reignault | Emilio Stefani | Hans- Hermann Thulke |
Wopke VanderWerf | Antonio Vicent Civera | Jonathan Yuen | Lucia Zappalà |
Jean- Claude Grégoire | Chris Malumphy | Alex Gobbi | Dejana Golic | Virag Kertesz |
Oresteia Sfyra | Alan MacLeod
Adopted: 23 M ay 2024
DOI: 10.2903/j .efsa.2024.8831
This is an ope n access article under th e terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License, whi ch permits use and distr ibution in any medium, pr ovided the
original work is properly cited and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2024 European Food S afety Authority. EFSA Jo urnal published by W iley-VCH GmbH on behalf of Eu ropean Food Safet y Authority.
Correspondence: plants@efsa.europa.eu
Abstract
The EFSA Panel on Plant Health performed a pest categorisation of Monema fla-
vescens (Lepidoptera, Limacodidae), following the commodity risk assessment
of Acer palmatum plants grafted on A. davidii from China, in which M. flavescens
was identified as a pest of possible concern to the European Union. This species
can be identified by morphological taxonomic keys and by barcoding. The adults
of the overwintering generation emerge from late June to late August. The eggs
are laid in groups on the underside of the host- plant leaves, on which the larvae
feed throughout their six to eight larval instars. Pupation occurs in ovoid cocoons
at the junction between twigs and branches, or on the trunk. Overwintering oc-
curs as fully grown larvae or prepupae in their cocoon. There are one or two gen-
erations per year. M. flavescens is polyphagous and feeds on broadleaves; it has
been reported on 51 plant species belonging to 24 families. It mainly occurs in
Asia (Bhutan, China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Japan, Nepal, the
Republic of Korea), Russia (Eastern Siberia) and Taiwan. It is also present in the USA
(Massachusetts). The pest's flight capacities are unknown. The main pathway for
entry and spread is plants for planting with cocoons attached. This is partially
closed by prohibition of some hosts. In several EU member states climatic con-
ditions are conducive for establishment and many host plants are widespread.
Introduction of M. flavescens may result in defoliations influencing tree health
and forest diversity. The caterpillars also have urticating spines affecting human
health. Phytosanitary measures are available to reduce the likelihood of entry, es-
tablishment and spread, and there is a definite potential for classical biological
control. Recognising that natural enemies prevent M. flavescens being regarded as
a pest in Asia, there is uncertainty regarding the magnitude of potential impact in
EU depending on the influence of natural enemies. All criteria assessed by EFSA for
consideration as a potential quarantine pest are met.
KEYWORDS
Cnidocampa flavescens, pest risk, plant health, plant pest, quarantine
2 of 26
|
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
CONTENTS
Abstract................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1
1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................4
1.1. Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor .........................................................................................4
1.1.1. Background ....................................................................................................................................................................................4
1.1.2. Terms of reference ........................................................................................................................................................................4
1.2. Interpretation of the Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................................................4
1.3. Additional information ..............................................................................................................................................................................4
2. Data and methodologies ......................................................................................................................................................................................5
2.1. Data ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................5
2.1.1. Literature search ...........................................................................................................................................................................5
2.1.2. Database search ............................................................................................................................................................................5
2.2. Methodologies..............................................................................................................................................................................................5
3. Pest categorisation .................................................................................................................................................................................................6
3.1. Identity and biology of the pest .............................................................................................................................................................6
3.1.1. Identity and taxonomy ...............................................................................................................................................................6
3.1.2. Biology of the pest .......................................................................................................................................................................6
3.1.3. Host range/species affected .....................................................................................................................................................7
3.1.4. Intraspecific diversity ..................................................................................................................................................................7
3.1.5. Detection and identification of the pest .............................................................................................................................7
3.2. Pest distribution ...........................................................................................................................................................................................8
3.2.1. Pest distribution outside the EU .............................................................................................................................................8
3.2.2. Pest distribution in the EU .........................................................................................................................................................9
3.3. Regulatory status .........................................................................................................................................................................................9
3.3.1. Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/2072 ..........................................................................................................9
3.3.2. Hosts or species affected that are prohibited from entering the Union from third countries .........................9
3.4. Entry, establishment and spread in the EU .......................................................................................................................................11
3.4.1. Entry ................................................................................................................................................................................................11
3.4.2. Establishment ..............................................................................................................................................................................11
3.4.2.1. EU distribution of main host plants ....................................................................................................................11
3.4.2.2. Climatic conditions affecting establishment ................................................................................................. 12
3.4.3. Spread ............................................................................................................................................................................................13
3.5. Impacts ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
3.6. Available measures and their limitations ......................................................................................................................................... 14
3.6.1. Identification of potential additional measures ............................................................................................................. 14
3.6.1.1. Additional potential risk reduction options ................................................................................................... 14
3.6.1.2. Additional supporting measures ........................................................................................................................ 15
3.6.1.3. Biological or technical factors limiting the effectiveness of measures ................................................ 16
3.7. Uncertainty.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16
4. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................................................................16
Glossary ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 16
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17
Conflict of interest ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17
Requestor ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Question number .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Copyright for non- EFSA content.............................................................................................................................................................................. 17
Panel members .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17
Map disclaimer ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
References........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17
|
3 of 26
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
Appendix A ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix B ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Appendix C ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix D ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................25
4 of 26
|
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
1 | INTRODUCTION
1.1 | Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor
1.1.1 | Background
The new Plant Health Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, on the protective measures against pests of plants, is applying from
14 December 2019. Conditions are laid down in this legislation in order for pests to qualify for listing as Union quar-
antine pests, protected zone quarantine pests or Union regulated non- quarantine pests. The lists of the EU regulated
pests together with the associated import or internal movement requirements of commodities are included in Commission
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072. Additionally, as stipulated in the Commission Implementing Regulation
2018/2019, certain commodities are provisionally prohibited to enter in the EU (high risk plants, HRP). EFSA is performing
the risk assessment of the dossiers submitted by exporting to the EU countries of the HRP commodities, as stipulated in
Commission Implementing Regulation 2018/2018. Furthermore, EFSA has evaluated a number of requests from exporting
to the EU countries for derogations from specific EU import requirements.
In line with the principles of the new plant health law, the European Commission with the Member States are discussing
monthly the reports of the interceptions and the outbreaks of pests notified by the Member States. Notifications of an im-
minent danger from pests that may fulfil the conditions for inclusion in the list of the Union quarantine pest are included.
Furthermore, EFSA has been performing horizon scanning of media and literature.
As a follow- up of the above- mentioned activities (reporting of interceptions and outbreaks, HRP, derogation requests
and horizon scanning), a number of pests of concern have been identified. EFSA is requested to provide scientific opinions
for these pests, in view of their potential inclusion by the risk manager in the lists of Commission Implementing Regulation
(EU) 2019/2072 and the inclusion of specific import requirements for relevant host commodities, when deemed necessary
by the risk manager.
1.1.2 | Terms of reference
EFSA is requested, pursuant to Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, to provide scientific opinions in the field of
plant health.
EFSA is requested to deliver 53 pest categorisations for the pests listed in Annex 1A, 1B, 1D and 1E (for more details see
mandate M- 2021- 00027 on the Open.EFSA portal). Additionally, EFSA is requested to perform pest categorisations for the
pests so far not regulated in the EU, identified as pests potentially associated with a commodity in the commodity risk as-
sessments of the HRP dossiers (Annex 1C; for more details see mandate M- 2021- 00027 on the Open.EFSA portal). Such pest
categorisations are needed in the case where there are not available risk assessments for the EU.
When the pests of Annex 1A are qualifying as potential Union quarantine pests, EFSA should proceed to phase 2 risk
assessment. The opinions should address entry pathways, spread, establishment, impact and include a risk reduction op-
tions analysis.
Additionally, EFSA is requested to develop further the quantitative methodology currently followed for risk assessment,
in order to have the possibility to deliver an express risk assessment methodology. Such methodological development
should take into account the EFSA Plant Health Panel Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment and the experience
obtained during its implementation for the Union candidate priority pests and for the likelihood of pest freedom at entry
for the commodity risk assessment of High Risk Plants.
1.2 | Interpretation of the Terms of Reference
Monema flavescens is one of a number of pests relevant to Annex 1C of the Terms of Reference (ToR) to be subject to pest
categorisation to determine whether it fulfils the criteria of a potential Union quarantine pest (QP) for the area of the EU
excluding Ceuta, Melilla and the outermost regions of Member States referred to in Article 355(1) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), other than Madeira and the Azores, and so inform EU decision making as to its
appropriateness for potential inclusion in the lists of pests of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/ 2072. If a
pest fulfils the criteria to be potentially listed as a Union QP, risk reduction options will be identified.
1.3 | Additional information
This pest categorisation was initiated following the commodity risk assessment of Acer palmatum plants grafted on A. davi-
dii from China (EFSA PLH Panel,2022) in which M. f lavescens was identified as a relevant non- regulated EU pest which could
potentially enter the EU on Acer spp. plants.
|
5 of 26
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
A large amount of the information in this categorisation has been published in the above commodity risk assessment
(EFSA PLH Panel, 2022). This information, when relevant, has been largely reproduced here, with modifications when
deemed useful, and additional information from a literature search since 2022.
2 | DATA AND METHODOLOGIES
2.1 | Data
2.1.1 | Literature search
A literature search on M. flavescens was conducted at the beginning of the categorisation in the ISI Web of Science biblio-
graphic database, using the scientific name of the pest as search term (AppendixA). Papers relevant for the pest categori-
sation were reviewed, and further references and information were obtained from experts, as well as from citations within
the references and grey literature.
2.1.2 | Database search
Pest information, on host(s) and distribution, was retrieved from the CABI Crop Protection Compendium (CABI,online) and
scientific literature databases as referred above in Section2.1.1.
Data about the import of commodity types that could potentially provide a pathway for the pest to enter the EU and
about the area of hosts grown in the EU were obtained from EUROSTAT (Statistical Office of the European Communities).
The Europhyt and TRACES databases were consulted for pest- specific notifications on interceptions and outbreaks.
Europhyt is a web- based network run by the Directorate General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTÉ) of the European
Commission as a subproject of PHYSAN (Phyto- Sanitary Controls) specifically concerned with plant health information.
TRACES is the European Commission's multilingual online platform for sanitary and phytosanitary certification required
for the importation of animals, animal products, food and feed of non- animal origin and plants into the European Union,
and the intra- EU trade and EU exports of animals and certain animal products. Up until May 2020, the Europhyt database
managed notifications of interceptions of plants or plant products that do not comply with EU legislation, as well as notifi-
cations of plant pests detected in the territory of the Member States and the phytosanitary measures taken to eradicate or
avoid their spread. The recording of interceptions switched from Europhyt to TRACES in May 2020.
GenBank was searched to determine whether it contained any nucleotide sequences for Monema flavescens which
could be used as reference material for molecular diagnosis. GenBank® (www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ genba nk/ ) is a comprehen-
sive publicly available database that as of August 2019 (release version 227) contained over 6.25 trillion base pairs from over
1.6 billion nucleotide sequences for 450,000 formally described species (Sayers etal.,2020).
2.2 | Methodologies
The Panel performed the pest categorisation for M. flavescens, following guiding principles and steps presented in the
EFSA guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel,2018), the EFSA guidance on the use of the weight
of evidence approach in scientific assessments (EFSA Scientific Committee,2017) and the International Standards for
Phytosanitary Measures No. 11 (FAO,2013).
The criteria to be considered when categorising a pest as a potential Union QP is given in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031
Article 3 and Annex I, Section1 of the Regulation. Table1 presents the Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 pest categorisation cri-
teria on which the Panel bases its conclusions. In judging whether a criterion is met, the Panel uses its best professional
judgement (EFSA Scientific Committee,2017) by integrating a range of evidence from a variety of sources (as presented
above in Section2.1) to reach an informed conclusion as to whether or not a criterion is satisfied.
The Panel's conclusions are formulated respecting its remit and particularly with regard to the principle of separation
between risk assessment and risk management (EFSA founding regulation (EU) No 178/2002); therefore, instead of deter-
mining whether the pest is likely to have an unacceptable impact, deemed to be a risk management decision, the Panel
will present a summary of the observed impacts in the areas where the pest occurs, and make a judgement about poten-
tial likely impacts in the EU. Whilst the Panel may quote impacts reported from areas where the pest occurs in monetary
terms, the Panel will seek to express potential EU impacts in terms of yield and quality losses and not in monetary terms, in
agreement with the EFSA guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel,2018). Article 3 (d) of Regulation
(EU) 2016/2031 refers to unacceptable social impact as a criterion for QP status. Assessing social impact is outside the remit
of the Panel.
6 of 26
|
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
3 | PEST CATEGORISATION
3.1 | Identity and biology of the pest
3.1.1 | Identity and taxonomy
M. f lavescens Walker, 1855 is an insect of the family Limacodidae, order Lepidoptera. It is commonly known as the oriental
moth (EFSA PLH Panel,2022; Pan etal.,2013).
Several synonyms exist: Cnidocampa flavescens, Cnidocampa johanibergmani, Knidocampa flavescens, Miresa flavescens,
Monema flavescens var. nigrans, Monema melli, Monema nigrans (Dyar,1909; EFSA PLH Panel,2022; Pan etal.,2013).
The synonym, Cnidocampa flavescens Dyar, 1905, is still frequently found in the literature, including publications dating
around one century from that description (e.g. Tang ZhiXiang,2001; Lammers & Stigter,2004; Huang etal.,2010; Yuan etal.,
2015; Peng etal.,2017 ), which is a cause of confusion.
The EPPO code1 (EPPO,2019; Griessinger & Roy,2015) for this species is: CNIDFL (EPPO,online).
3.1.2 | Biology of the pest
This section has largely drawn from EFSA PLH Panel(2022).
M. flavescens develops through four life stages: egg, larva, pupa and adult (Collins,1933; Dyar,1909) (Figures1, 2A,B).
During the summer, recently emerged females use a sex pheromone to attract males for mating (Shibasaki etal.,2013;
Yang,2022; Yang etal.,2016). Mated females lay between 500 and 1000 eggs on the underside of the leaves (Clausen,1978;
Collins,1933). The eggs are laid in masses (Clausen,1978). They hatch in about 1 week. The larvae live through 6 to 8 instars.
Young larvae feed on small patches of green tissue from the underside of the leaf. Instead, the older larvae consume the
entire leaf except for the main veins (Collins,1933). After some time, the fully grown larva stops feeding and moves from
the leaf to the bark of the tree, usually to axils of twigs and branches, where it forms its cocoon (Collins,1933). Cocoons can
be found also on trunks (Furukawa etal.,2 017). Pupation occurs in the spring, and adults emerge from the cocoons during
summer (Collins,1933). Adults are active at night and fly only short distances (Dowden,1946).
Depending on environmental conditions, there are between one (e.g. in USA) and two (e.g. in Japan) generations per
year (Collins,1933; Yamada,1992). The overwintering stage is either fully grown larva or prepupal stage in cocoons lo-
cated in axils of twigs and branches (Clausen,1978). In USA, the adults appear during late June and July. Cocoons are
1An EPPO code, forme rly known as a Bayer code, is a u nique identifier lin ked to the name of a plant or plan t pest important in ag riculture and plant prote ction. Codes are
based on ge nus and species names. H owever, if a scientific name is c hanged the EPPO code remai ns the same. This provide s a harmonised system to f acilitate the
managemen t of plant and pest names in co mputerised databas es, as well as data exchange b etween IT systems (EPP O,2019; Griessin ger & Roy,2015).
Is the identity of the pest clearly defined, or has it been shown to produce consistent symptoms and/or to be
transmissible?
Yes , the pest is known as Monema flavescens Walker. However, the synonym Cnidocampa flavescens Dyar, is still
regularly used, even in recent literature causing some confusion.
TABLE 1 Pest categorisation criteria under evaluation, as derived from Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants
(the number of the relevant sections of the pest categorisation is shown in brackets in the first column).
Criterion of pest categorisation Criterion in regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding union quarantine pest (article 3)
Identit y of the pest (Section3 .1)Is the identity of the pest clearly defined, or has it been shown to produce consistent
symptoms and to be transmissible?
Absence/pre sence of the pest in the EU territory
(Section3.2)
Is the pest present in the EU territory?
If present, is the pest in a limited part of the EU or is it scarce, irregular, isolated or
present infrequently? If so, the pest is considered to be not widely distributed
Pest potential for entry, establishment and spread
in the EU territory (Section 3.4)
Is the pest able to enter into, become established in, and spread within, the EU territory?
If yes, briefly list the pathways for entry and spread
Potential for consequences in the EU territory
(Section 3.5)
Would the pests' introduction have an economic or environmental impact on the EU
territory?
Available measures (Section 3.6)Are there measures available to prevent pest entry, establishment, spread or impacts?
Conclusion of pest categorisation (Section 4)A statement as to whether (1) all criteria assessed by EFSA above for consideration as a
potential quarantine pest were met and (2) if not, which one(s) were not met
|
7 of 26
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
formed between early August and early October. The larvae within the cocoons transform to pupae in May (Collins,1933;
Dowden,1946). In Japan, the first generation- adults appear in June and the second generation in mid to late August
(Yamada,1992).
Table 2 summarises key features of the life history of M. flavescens.
3.1.3 | Host range/species affected
According to EFSA PLH Panel(2022), host plants of M. f lavescens are Acer spp., A. palmatum, A. platanoides, A. pseudoplatanus,
Betula lenta, B. nigra, Castanea spp., C. crenata, C. sativa, Celtis spp., Citrus reticulata, Diospyros spp., D. malabarica, Gleditsia
triacanthos, Hicoria spp., Juglans spp., J. regia, Malus spp., Platanus spp., Populus spp., Prunus spp., Pyrus spp., Quercus spp., Q.
acutissima, Q. serrata, Q. variabilis, Rhamnus spp., Salix spp., S. chaenomeloides, Ulmus spp., Zelkova sp., Z. serrata and Ziziphus
sp. (CABI,online; Collins,1933; EUROPHYT,online; Lammers & Stigter,2004; Robinson etal.,online).
The moth was reported to attack blueberry plants (Vaccinium spp.) in South Korea (Choi etal.,2018), Ziziphus jujuba in
China (Tang ZhiXiang,2001), Diospyros kaki (Togashi & Ishikawa,199 4) and Salix subfragilis in Japan (Yamada,1992).
According to Furukawa etal.(2017) in Japan, the overwintering cocoons were found on additional plant species such as
Acer buergerianum, Alnus hirsuta var. sibirica, Cerasus x yedoensis, C. spachiana var. spachiana, Cercis chinensis, Cornus kousa,
Diospyros kaki, Eriobotrya japonica, Hamamelis japonica, Lagerstroemia indica, Photinia glabra, Styrax japonica and Ulmus
parvifolia.
A full list of host plants is provided in AppendixB.
3.1.4 | Intraspecific diversity
Pan etal.(2013) described one subspecies based on morphological characters, Monema flavescens rubriceps (Matsumura).
Japanese and Chinese populations of M. flavescens differ in their responses to sex pheromone blends (see Section3.1.5
below).
3.1.5 | Detection and identification of the pest
Detection
Visual detection. The fully grown larvae and cocoons have very distinctive features (see below). The damage of the mature
larvae is also conspicuous: only the main veins remain from the otherwise fully consumed leaves. The cocoons are usually
located on the axils of twigs and branches and can be found also on the trunks.
Remote sensing. In the Republic of Korea, the cocoons have been successfully detected during specifically designed win-
ter aerial surveys of Zelkova trees using a drone equipped with a camera sensitive to visible light, 3–5 m above the canopy,
with an accuracy and precision higher to that of conventional ground surveys (Park etal.,2021).
Pheromones. An attractive blend of female sex pheromones has been identified in Japan (Shibasaki etal.,2013). It proved
inactive in China, but another, locally active blend was successfully tested (Yang,2022; Yang etal., 2016). It is unknown
whether these pheromones are commercially available.
Are detection and identification methods available for the pest?
Yes , the pest can be detected directly or remotely by its symptoms and adults can be captured using pheromone
traps. Identification keys are available.
TABLE 2 Important features of the life history strategy of Monema flavescens.
Life stage Phenology and relation to host Other relevant information
Egg Oviposition in summer, on the underside of the leaves. 500/1000 eggs/female,
laid in groups
Larva/Nymph 6–8 larval instars
Young larvae graze the underside of the leaves, older larvae skeletonize the
leaves
Overwintering as either fully grown
larva or prepupal stage in cocoons
Pupa In cocoons Cocoons located on branches or trunks
Adult Japan (two generations/year): first generation- adults appear in June, second
generation in mid- August
USA (one generation/year): adults appear in late June and July
8 of 26
|
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
Identification
Morphological identification. Pan et al. (2013) provide an identification key for the species of the genus Monema, and
Dyar(19 09) describes very precisely all stages of M. flavescens. The eggs are oval, flattened, transparent and their size is
about 1.8 × 1.2 mm. The first instar larva is semi- transparent/white and approximately the same length as the eggs. With
each moult, the larva takes on a greater variety of colours (Collins,1933). Details on each larval instar can be found in
Dyar(190 9). The fully grown larva has spiny horns and a very striking appearance, with yellow, blue, green, and purple
markings (Collins, 1933). Its length is about 18–24 mm (Dyar,1909). The cocoon is greyish brown with white markings,
smooth, hard and oval, resembling a small bird's egg (Collins,1933). According to Furukawa etal.(2017), there are two types
of cocoons: bold striped (entirely covered with black and white stripes) and non- bold striped (entirely or partly covered
with nonbold stripes, or entirely brownish). The adult is light yellow (thorax and inner portion of the wings above) and
light reddish brown (other portions of the body and wings) (Collins,1933). Wing expanse is 35–39 mm in adult females and
30–32 mm in adult males (Pan etal.,2013).
Molecular identification. The complete mitochondrial genome of M. flavescens has been sequenced by Liu etal.(2016)
and Peng etal.(2017 ).
3.2 | Pest distribution
3.2.1 | Pest distribution outside the EU
M. f lavescens mainly occurs in Asia: Bhutan (Peng etal.,2017); China (Yang etal.,2016; Zhao and Chen, 1992); the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea (Kawada, 1930); Japan (Asahina etal.,1954; Dowden,1946; Peng etal.,2017; Shibasaki etal.,2013;
Togashi & Ishikawa,1994; Yamada,1992; Yang etal.,2016); Nepal (Peng etal.,2017 ); the Republic of Korea (Peng etal.,2017);
Russia (Eastern Siberia) (Yang etal.,2016); Taiwan (Kawada, 1930).
FIGURE 1 Larva of Monema flavescens (Size: 18–24 mm. Source: Pan etal.(2013). CC BY 3.0, https:// commo ns. wikim edia. org/w/ index. php? curid=
26502833).
FIGURE 2 (A) Monema flavescens cocoon intercepted in the UK on Acer palmatum imported from China and (B) the adult that emerged (Image
courtesy of Fera).
|
9 of 26
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
In the United States, the species is restricted to Massachusetts (Dowden, 1946) (Figure3, AppendixC). The distribution
of the pest appears stable since the early 1900s. The fact that there is no recent record of occurrence raises uncertainty as
to the presence of M. flavescens in the country.
3.2.2 | Pest distribution in the EU
3.3 | Regulatory status
3.3.1 | Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/2072
M. flavescens is not listed in Annex II of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, an implementing act of
Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, or in any emergency plant health legislation.
3.3.2 | Hosts or species affected that are prohibited from entering the Union from third countries
According to the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, Annex VI, introduction of several M. flavescens
hosts in the Union from certain third countries is prohibited (Table3). However, plants for planting of Cydonia Mill., Malus
Mill., Prunus L. and Pyrus L. and their hybrids, and […] other than seeds (i.e. item 9.), are permitted from United States where
M. flavescens is present.
Is the pest present in the EU territory? If present, is the pest in a limited part of the EU or is it scarce, irregular, isolated or
present infrequently? If so, the pest is considered to be not widely distributed.
No, the pest is absent from the EU territory.
FIGURE 3 Global distribution of Monema flavescens (Source: literature; for details see AppendixC).
10 of 26
|
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
TABLE 3 List of plants, plant products and other objects that are Monema flavescens hosts whose introduction into the Union from certain third
countries is prohibited (Source: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, Annex VI).
List of plants, plant products and other objects whose introduction into the Union from certain third countries is prohibited
Description CN code Third country, group of third count ries or specific area of third country
2. Plants of Castanea Mill. and Quercus
L., with leaves, other than fruit
and seeds
ex 0602 10 90
ex 0602 20 20
ex 0602 20 80
ex 0602 90 41
ex 0602 90 45
ex 0602 90 46
ex 0602 90 48
ex 0602 90 50
ex 0602 90 70
ex 0602 90 99
ex 0604 20 90
ex 1404 90 00
Third countries other than Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canary Islands, Faeroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland,
Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway,
Russia (only the following parts: Central Federal District (Tsentralny
federalny okrug), Northwestern Federal District (Severo- Zapadny
federalny okrug), Southern Federal District (Yuzhny federalny okrug),
North Caucasian Federal District (Severo- Kavkazsky federalny okrug) and
Volga Federal District (Privolzhsky federalny okrug)), San Marino, Serbia,
Switzerland, Türkiye, Ukraine and the United Kingdom
3. Plants of Populus L., with leaves,
other than fruit and seeds
ex 0602 10 90
ex 0602 20 20
ex 0602 20 80
ex 0602 90 41
ex 0602 90 45
ex 0602 90 46
ex 0602 90 48
ex 0602 90 50
ex 0602 90 70
ex 0602 90 99
ex 0604 20 90
ex 1404 90 00
Third countries other than Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canary Islands, Faeroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland,
Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway,
Russia (only the following parts: Central Federal District (Tsentralny
federalny okrug), Northwestern Federal District (Severo- Zapadny
federalny okrug), Southern Federal District (Yuzhny federalny okrug),
North Caucasian Federal District (Severo- Kavkazsky federalny okrug) and
Volga Federal District (Privolzhsky federalny okrug)), San Marino, Serbia,
Switzerland, Türkiye, Ukraine and the United Kingdom
8. Plants for planting of […]
Cydonia Mill., Malus Mill., Prunus
L., Pyrus L. and […] other than
dormant plants free from leaves,
flowers and fruits
ex 0602 10 90
ex 0602 20 20
ex 0602 20 80
ex 0602 40 00
ex 0602 90 41
ex 0602 90 45
ex 0602 90 46
ex 0602 90 47
ex 0602 90 48
ex 0602 90 50
ex 0602 90 70
ex 0602 90 91
ex 0602 90 99
Third countries other than Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canary Islands, Faeroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland,
Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway,
Russia (only the following parts: Central Federal District (Tsentralny
federalny okrug), Northwestern Federal District (Severo- Zapadny
federalny okrug), Southern Federal District (Yuzhny federalny okrug),
North Caucasian Federal District (Severo- Kavkazsky federalny okrug) and
Volga Federal District (Privolzhsky federalny okrug)), San Marino, Serbia,
Switzerland, Türkiye, Ukraine and the United Kingdom
9. Plants for planting of Cydon ia Mill.,
Malus Mill., Prunus L. and Pyrus L.
and their hybrids, and […] other
than seeds
ex 0602 10 90
ex 0602 20 20
ex 0602 90 30
ex 0602 90 41
ex 0602 90 45
ex 0602 90 46
ex 0602 90 48
ex 0602 90 50
ex 0602 90 70
ex 0602 90 91
ex 0602 90 99
Third countries other than Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Armenia, Australia,
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Canary Islands,
Egypt, Faeroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya,
Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, New Zealand,
North Macedonia, Norway, Russia (only the following parts: Central
Federal District (Tsentralny federalny okrug), Northwestern Federal
District (Severo- Zapadny federalny okrug), Southern Federal District
(Yuzhny federalny okrug), North Caucasian Federal District (Severo-
Kavkazsk y federalny okrug) and Volga Federal District (Privolzhsky
federalny okrug)), San Marino, Serbia, Switzerland, Syria, Tunisia, Türkiye,
Ukraine, the United Kingdom (1) and United States other than Hawaii
11. Plants of Citrus L., […] and their
hybrids, other than fruits and
seeds
ex 0602 10 90
ex 0602 20 20
0602 20 30
ex 0602 20 80
ex 0602 90 45
ex 0602 90 46
ex 0602 90 47
ex 0602 90 50
ex 0602 90 70
ex 0602 90 91
ex 0602 90 99
ex 0604 20 90
ex 1404 90 00
All third countries
|
11 of 26
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
3.4 | Entry, establishment and spread in the EU
3.4.1 | Entry
Potential entry pathways are listed in Table4.
Acer L., Alnus L., Castanea Mill., Diospyros L., Juglans L., Malus Mill., Populus L., Prunus L, Quercus L., Salix L., and Ulmus L.,
host plants of M. flavescens, are included in the list of high- risk plants (EU 2018/2019) whose introduction is prohibited until
a third country- specific full risk assessment has been carried out.
Notifications of interceptions of harmful organisms began to be compiled in Europhyt in May 1994 and in TRACES in
May 2020. As at 19.3.2024, there were no records of interception of M. flavescens in the Europhyt and TRACES databases.
Lammers and Stigter (2004) report that 'the [Dutch] Plant Protection Service intercepted M. flavescens reported as
Cnidocampa flavescens “several times” in consignments of Acer and Zelkova plants originating from Asian countries'. M. fla-
vescens was also intercepted once on Ziziphus sp. plants originating from China to Canada (Lammers & Stigter,2004, citing
others). The pest has also been intercepted as cocoons on Acer palmatum in the UK (DEFRA, unpublished).
3.4.2 | Establishment
Climatic mapping is the principal method for identifying areas that could provide suitable conditions for the establishment
of a pest taking key abiotic factors into account (Baker,2002). Availability of hosts is considered in Section3.4.2.1. Climatic
factors are considered in Section3.4.2.2.
3.4.2.1 | EU distribution of main host plants
The main hosts of the pest cultivated in the EU between 2018 and 2022 are shown in Table5. M. flavescens can attack 51
species belonging to 24 families. Among others, apples, cherries, plums, peaches, pears are important crops in the EU.
M. flavences also attacks plants of Acer spp. which are present in the EU (Figure4).
Is the pest able to enter into the EU territory? If yes, identify and list the pathways.
Comment on plants for planting as a pathway.
Yes , the pest is able to enter the EU on plants for planting and cut branches. It has been intercepted as cocoons on
plants for planting.
The main pathway for entry is plants for planting with cocoons attached.
Is the pest able to become established in the EU territory?
Yes , following entry on plants for planting, M. flavescens could become established in the EU as the hosts are avail-
able and the climate in most of the EU is suitable.
TABLE 4 Potential pathways for Monema flavescens into the EU.
Pathways
(e.g. host/intended
use/source) Life stage
Relevant mitigations [e.g. prohibitions (Annex VI), special requirements
(Annex VII) or phytosanitary certificates (Annex XI) within Implementing
Regulation 2019/2072]
Plants for planting Cocoons on branches and
trunks eggs
Plants for planting that are hosts of M. flavescens and are prohibited from being
imported from third countries are listed in Table 3 (Regulation 2019/2072, Annex VI)
Cut branches Cocoons on branches eggs Introduction of foliage, branches and other parts of plants of various hosts without
flowers or f lower buds, being goods of a kind suitable for bouquets or for
ornamental purposes, fresh) from third countries require a phytosanitary certificate
(Regulation 2019/2072, Annex XI, Part A)
12 of 26
|
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
3.4.2.2 | Climatic conditions affecting establishment
The climate in the current area of distribution of the pest is well represented in the EU, especially the Köppen- Geiger
climatic zones Cfa, Cfb and Dfb, and to a lesser extent Bsh and Bsk (Kottek etal.,2006). Collectively these zones are repre-
sented in 66.5% of EU 27 five arcmin grid cells (MacLeod & Korycinska,2019) (Figure5).
TABLE 5 Crop area of Monema flavescens main hosts in the EU in 10,000 ha (Eurostat accessed on 8 April 2024).
Crop Code 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Apples F1110 506.27 491.08 48 9.19 492.56 4 77.98
Cherries F124 0 175. 49 176.30 178.61 175.71 175 .31
Plums F1250 153.43 154 .51 160.38 157. 68 156.63
Chestnuts F4400 132.72 142. 55 145. 36 141.15 144.17
Peaches F1210 150.8 0 144.78 138.31 133 .06 129.37
Pears F1120 113.5 4 110 .6 6 108.29 106.96 103.09
Raspberries F3200 41.37 41.10 29.03 30.50 31.92
FIGURE 4 Left panel: Relative probability of the presence (RPP) of the genus Acer in Europe, mapped at 100 km2 resolution. The underlying
data are from European- wide forest monitoring data sets and from national forestry inventories based on standard observation plots measuring in
the order of hundreds m2. RPP represents the probability of finding at least one individual of the taxon in a standard plot placed randomly within
the grid cell. For details, see AppendixC (courtesy of JRC, 2017). Right panel: Trustability of RPP. This metric expresses the strength of the underlying
information in each grid cell and varies according to the spatial variability in forestry inventories. The colour scale of the trustability map is obtained
by plotting the cumulative probabilities (0–1) of the underlying index (for details on methodology, see AppendixD).
|
13 of 26
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
3.4.3 | Spread
The moth, following introduction to the USA, spread only 25–30 miles during the first 40 years (Dowden,1946). Intriguingly,
to date, it still appears confined to Massachusetts.
3.5 | Impacts
The moth was reported to attack blueberr y plants (Vaccinium spp.) in South Korea (Choi etal.,2018), Ziziphus jujuba in China
(Tang ZhiXiang,2001), Diospyros kaki (Togashi & Ishikawa,1994) and Salix subfragilis in Japan (Yamada,1992). According to
EFSA PLH Panel(2022), M. flavescens causes damage to its hosts occasionally. In Japan the moth causes defoliation of host
trees only rarely, because it is controlled by its parasitoid Praestochrysis (= Chrysis) shanghaiensis. In Russia, it is sometimes
a pest in gardens and nurseries (Lammers & Stigter,2004). In the early 20th century in the USA, the moth caused tree defo-
liation, including Prunus, Pyrus and Acer platanoides (Collins,1933; Dowden,1946). Since 1946, there is no record of a serious
damage caused by M. flavescens in Massachusetts. An introduced and established parasitoid from Japan, Chaetexorista ja-
vana Brauer & Bergenstamm (Diptera, Tachinidae) may have an impact on the population density of the moth in the USA
(Dowden,194 6; Lammers & Stigter,2004).
Recognising that natural enemies prevent M. flavescens being regarded as a pest in Asia, there is uncertainty regarding
the magnitude of potential impact in EU depending on the influence of natural enemies present in the EU, and the possi-
bility to introduce specific natural enemies from the area of origin.
The larvae of M. flavescens have urticating spines that cause serious irritation and inflammation in human skin
(Collins,1933; Dowden,1946; Lammers & Stigter,2004).
Describe how the pest would be able to spread within the EU territory following establishment?
Comment on plants for planting as a mechanism of spread.
Yes , the pest could spread within the EU territory following establishment, either by flight or with plants for plant-
ing. The main pathway for spread is plants for planting with cocoons attached.
Would the pests' introduction have an economic or environmental impact on the EU territory?
Yes , impact could be expected if contrary to what occurs in native areas and in the US, where native or introduced
parasitoids successfully control the pest, native or introduced natural enemies would not exert the same control.
FIGURE 5 World distribution of five Köppen–Geiger climate types that occur in the EU and which occur in countries where Monema flavescens
has been reported.
14 of 26
|
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
3.6 | Available measures and their limitations
3.6.1 | Identification of potential additional measures
Phytosanitary measures (prohibitions) are currently applied to some host plants for planting (see Section3.3.2).
Additional potential risk reduction options and supporting measures are shown in Sections3.6.1.1 and 3.6.1. 2.
3.6.1.1 | Additional potential risk reduction options
Potential additional control measures are listed in Table6.
Are there measures available to prevent pest entry, establishment, spread or impacts such that the risk becomes
mitigated?
Yes , see Sections3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.6.1.
TABLE 6 Selected control measures (a full list is available in EFSA PLH Panel,2018) for pest entry/establishment/spread/impact in relation to
currently unregulated hosts and pathways. Control measures are measures that have a direct effect on pest abundance.
Control measure/risk
reduction option
(blue underline = Zenodo
doc, blue = WIP) RRO summar y
Risk element targeted (entry/
establishment/spread/impact)
Require pest freedom • Plant or plant product comes from country officially free from pest,
• Pest free area,
• Pest free place of production (e.g. place of produc tion and its immediate
vicinity is free from pest over an appropriate time period, e.g. since the
beginning of the last complete cycle of vegetation, or past 2 or 3 cycles).
• Pest free production site
Entry/Spread
Growing plants in
isolation
This measure covers possible exclusion conditions that could be
implemented to isolate the crop from pests and if applicable relevant
vectors. E.g. a dedicated structure such as glass or plastic greenhouses.
• Place of production is insect proof
• Originate in a place of production with complete physical isolation
Entry (reduce contamination/
infestation)/Spread
Managed growing
conditions
• Plants collected directly from natural habitats, have been grown, held
and trained for at least 2 consecutive years prior to dispatch in officially
registered nurseries, which are subject to an officially supervised control
regime
Entry (reduce contamination/
infestation)/Spread
Roguing and pruning Roguing is defined as the removal of infested plants and/or uninfested host
plants in a delimited area, whereas pruning is def ined as the removal of
infested plant parts only without affecting the viability of the plant.
• Plants which have shown symptoms giving rise to the suspicion of
contamination by the pests have been rogued out at that place and the
plants have undergone appropriate treatment to rid them of specified
pests
Entry/Spread/Impact
Biological control
and behavioural
manipulation
Classical biological control
Two family- specific natural enemies are known: the fly Chaetexorista javana
(Tachinidae) and the wasp Chr ysis shanghaiensis Smith (Chrysididae).
Both were introduced in the USA (Massachusets) in the early 1900s,
following the entry and establishment of the pest, and C. javana
established. C. javana rapidly achieved high levels of parasitisation
(ca 50%) and is considered a major reason why the pest never spread
beyond Massachusetts (Clausen,1978 ; Dowden,194 6, 1962)
Entry/Establishment/Spread/
Impact
Chemical treatments
on crops including
reproductive material
A mixture of Avermectin 5% and Cypermethrin SRP 8% is used in nurseries
against larvae of M. flavescens in June, July and August (EFSA PLH
Panel,2022)
Entry/Establishment/Spread/
Impact
Physical treatments on
consignments or
during processing
This measure covers the following categories of physical treatments:
irradiation/ionisation; mechanical cleaning (brushing, washing); sorting
and grading, and; removal of plant parts (e.g. debarking wood). The
following treatments are not addressed under this measure: heat and
cold treatment; roguing and pruning.
• Mechanical removal of cocoons is possible
Entry/Spread
Waste management • Treatment of the waste (deep burial, composting, incineration, chipping,
production of bio- energy, etc.) in authorised facilities and off icial
restriction on the movement of waste
Establishment/Spread
|
15 of 26
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
3.6.1.2 | Additional supporting measures
Potential additional supporting measures are listed in Table7.
Control measure/risk
reduction option
(blue underline = Zenodo
doc, blue = WIP) RRO summar y
Risk element targeted (entry/
establishment/spread/impact)
Heat and cold treatments Controlled temperature treatments aimed to kill or inactivate pests without
causing any unacceptable prejudice to the treated material itself. The
measures covered here are autoclaving, steam, hot water, hot air, and
cold treatment.
• Thermal treatments appear difficult. Prepupae suffer little mortality at
temperatures as low as −31° (Clausen,1978).
Entry/Spread
Conditions of transport Specific requirements for mode and timing of transport of commodities to
prevent escape of the pest and/or contamination.
a. Insect- proof physical protection of consignment
b. Timing of transport/trade, restricted to periods when all cocoons have
hatched (late summer to early autumn)
Entry
Controlled atmosphere Treatment of plants by storage in a modified atmosphere (including
modified humidity, O2, CO2, temperature, pressure)
Entry/Spread (via commodity)
Post- entry quarantine
and other restrictions
of movement in the
importing country
Post- entry quarantine for 1 year Entry/Establishment/Spread
TABLE 6 (Continued)
TABLE 7 Selected supporting measures (a full list is available in EFSA PLH Panel,2018) in relation to currently unregulated hosts and pathways.
Supporting measures are organisational measures or procedures supporting the choice of appropriate risk reduction options that do not directly
affect pest abundance.
Supporting measure
(blue underline = Zenodo
doc, blue = WIP) Summary
Risk element targeted
(entry/establishment/
spread/impact)
Inspection and trapping ISPM 5 (FAO,2023) defines inspection as the official visual examination of plants,
plant products or other regulated articles to determine if pests are present or to
determine compliance with phytosanitary regulations
The effectiveness of sampling and subsequent inspection to detect pests may be
enhanced by including trapping and luring techniques
Establishment/Spread
Laboratory testing Examination, other than visual, to determine if pests are present using of ficial
diagnostic protocols. Diagnostic protocols describe the minimum requirements
for reliable diagnosis of regulated pests
Entry/Spread
Sampling According to ISPM 31 (FAO,2008), it is usually not feasible to inspect entire
consignments, so phytosanitary inspection is performed mainly on samples
obtained from a consignment. It is noted that the sampling concepts presented in
this standard may also apply to other phytosanitary procedures, notably selection
of units for testing
For inspection, testing and/or surveillance purposes the sample may be taken
according to a statistically based or a non- statistical sampling methodology
Entry/Spread
Phytosanitar y certificate
and plant passport
According to ISPM 5 (FAO,2023) a phytosanitar y certificate and a plant passport
are official paper documents or their official electronic equivalents, consistent
with the model certificates of the IPPC, attesting that a consignment meets
phytosanitary import requirements:
a) export cer tificate (import)
b) plant passport (EU internal trade)
Entry/Spread
Certified and approved
premises
Mandatory/voluntary certification/approval of premises is a process including a set of
procedures and of actions implemented by producers, conditioners and traders
contributing to ensure the phytosanitary compliance of consignments. It can
be a part of a larger system maintained by the NPPO in order to guarantee the
fulfilment of plant health requirements of plants and plant products intended for
trade. Key property of certified or approved premises is the traceability of activities
and tasks (and their components) inherent the pursued phytosanitary objective.
Traceability aims to provide access to all trustful pieces of information that may
help to prove the compliance of consignments with phytosanitary requirements of
importing countries
Entry/Spread
(Continues)
16 of 26
|
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
3.6.1.3 | Biological or technical factors limiting the effectiveness of measures
The effectiveness of biocontrol in the EU would be delayed if natural enemies from outside the EU had to be introduced.
Recognising the time taken to identify appropriate natural enemies, pre- emptive biocontrol (to select, screen and poten-
tially pre- approve natural enemies prior to a pest establishing) could be implemented as part of a contingency plan.
3.7 | Uncertainty
No key uncertainties have been identified.
4 | CONCLUSIONS
Monema flavescens satisfies all the criteria that are within the remit of EFSA to assess for it to be regarded as a potential
Union quarantine pest (Tabl e8).
GLOSSARY
Containment (of a pest) Application of phytosanitary measures in and around an infested area to prevent spread of a
pest (FAO,2023).
Control (of a pest) Suppression, containment or eradication of a pest population (FAO,2023).
Entry (of a pest) Movement of a pest into an area where it is not yet present, or present but not widely distrib-
uted and being officially controlled (FAO,2023).
Eradication (of a pest) Application of phytosanitary measures to eliminate a pest from an area (FAO,2023).
Establishment (of a pest) Perpetuation, for the foreseeable future, of a pest within an area after entry (FAO,2023).
Supporting measure
(blue underline = Zenodo
doc, blue = WIP) Summary
Risk element targeted
(entry/establishment/
spread/impact)
Certification of
reproductive material
(voluntary/official)
Plants come from within an approved propagation scheme and are certified pest
free (level of infestation) following testing; Used to mitigate against pests that are
included in a certification scheme
Entry/Spread
Delimitation of Buffer
zones
ISPM 5 (FAO,2023) defines a buffer zone as “an area surrounding or adjacent to an
area officially delimited for phytosanitary purposes in order to minimise the
probability of spread of the target pest into or out of the delimited area, and
subject to phytosanitary or other control measures, if appropriate”. The objectives
for delimiting a buffer zone can be to prevent spread from the outbreak area and
to maintain a pest free production place (PFPP), site (PFPS) or area (PFA)
Spread
Surveillance Surveillance to guarantee that plants and produce originate from a Pest Free Area
could be an option
Spread
TABLE 8 The Panel's conclusions on the pest categorisation criteria defined in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of
plants (the number of the relevant sections of the pest categorisation is shown in brackets in the first column).
Criterion of pest categorisation
Panel's conclusions against criterion in regulation (EU)
2016/2031 regarding union quarantine pest
Key
uncertainties
Identit y of the pest (Section 3 .1)The identity of the pest is clearly defined None
Absence/pre sence of the pest in the EU (Section 3.2)The pest is absent from the EU territory None
Pest potential for entry, establishment and spread in
the EU (Section 3.4)
The pest is able to enter, establish and spread in the EU territory. Its
main pathway is plants for planting
None
Potential for consequences in the EU (Section 3.5)Impact could be expected if contrary to what occurs in native
areas and in the US, where native or introduced parasitoids
successfully control the pest, native or introduced natural
enemies would not exert the same control
None
Available measures (Section 3.6)Measures exist to prevent pest entry, establishment, spread or
impacts
None
Conclusion (Section 4)All criteria assessed by EFSA above for consideration as a potential
quarantine pest are met
Aspects of assessment to focus on/scenarios to address
in future if appropriate:
Focused impact studies could clarify the present uncertainty
TABLE 7 (Continued)
|
17 of 26
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
Greenhouse A walk- in, static, closed place of crop production with a usually translucent outer shell, which
allows controlled exchange of material and energy with the surroundings and prevents re-
lease of plant protection products (PPPs) into the environment.
Hitchhiker An organism sheltering or transported accidentally via inanimate pathways including with
machinery, shipping containers and vehicles; such organisms are also known as contaminat-
ing pests or stowaways (Toy & Newfield,2010).
Impact (of a pest) The impact of the pest on the crop output and quality and on the environment in the occu-
pied spatial units.
Introduction (of a pest) The entry of a pest resulting in its establishment (FAO,2023).
Pathway Any means that allows the entry or spread of a pest (FAO,2023).
Phytosanitary measures Any legislation, regulation or official procedure having the purpose to prevent the intro-
duction or spread of quarantine pests, or to limit the economic impact of regulated non-
quarantine pests (FAO,2023).
Quarantine pest A pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet pres-
ent there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled (FAO,2023).
Risk reduction option (RRO) A measure acting on pest introduction and/or pest spread and/or the magnitude of the bi-
ological impact of the pest should the pest be present. A RRO may become a phytosanitary
measure, action or procedure according to the decision of the risk manager
Spread (of a pest) Expansion of the geographical distribution of a pest within an area (FAO,2023).
ABBREVIATIONS
EPPO European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation
IPPC International Plant Protection Convention
ISPM International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures
MS Member State
PLH EFSA Panel on Plant Health
PZ Protected Zone
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
ToR Terms of Reference
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact
interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu.
REQUESTOR
European Commission
QUESTION NUMBER
EFSA- Q- 2023- 00344
COPYRIGHT FOR NON EFSA CONTENT
EFSA may include images or other content for which it does not hold copyright. In such cases, EFSA indicates the copyright
holder and users should seek permission to reproduce the content from the original source. Figure 1: Courtesy of Pan et al.
(2013) CC BY 3.0, Figure 2A, 2B: Courtesy of Fera.
PANEL MEMBERS
Claude Bragard, Paula Baptista, Elisavet Chatzivassiliou, Francesco Di Serio, Paolo Gonthier, Josep Anton Jaques Miret,
Annemarie Fejer Justesen, Alan MacLeod, Christer Sven Magnusson, Panagiotis Milonas, Juan A. Navas- Cortes, Stephen
Parnell, Roel Potting, Philippe L. Reignault, Emilio Stefani, Hans- Hermann Thulke, Wopke Van der Werf, Antonio Vicent
Civera, Jonathan Yuen, and Lucia Zappalà.
MAP DISCLAIMER
The designations employed and the presentation of material on any maps included in this scientific output do not imply
the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Food Safety Authority concerning the legal status of
any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
REFERENCES
Asahina, E., Aoki, K., & Shinozaki, J. (1954). The freezing process of frost- hardy caterpillars. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 45(2), 329–339.
Baker, R. H. A. (2002). Predicting the limits to the potential distribution of alien crop pests. In G. J. Hallman & C. P. Schwalbe (Eds.), Invasive arthropo ds in
agriculture: Problems and sol utions (pp. 207–241). Science Publishers Inc.
18 of 26
|
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
Bossard, M., Feranec, J., & Otahel, J. (2000). CORINE land cover technical guide - addendum 2000. Technical Report 40. European Environment Agency.
https:// www. eea. europa. eu/ ds_ resol veuid/ 032TF UPGVR
Büttner, G., Kosztra, B., Maucha, G., & Pataki, R. (2012). Implementation and achievements of CLC2006. Technical report. European Environment Agency.
https:// www. eea. europa. eu/ ds_ resol veuid/ GQ4JE CM8TB
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International). (online). CABI. Crop Protection Compendium. https:// www. cabi. org/ cpc/
Cai, P., Bai, L. J., Xiang, R. L., & Zhang, L. (2005). The biological characteristics of the leading pests of loquat and their control. South China Fruits, 2, 38 –41.
Choi, S. H., Jeong, M. G., & Lee, D. W. (2018). Insecticidal activity of plant extracts against lepidopteran insect pests (Latoia hilarata, Monema flavescens
and Euproctis si milis) in blueberry. The Korean Journa l of Pesticide Science, 22, 255–260. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7585/ kjps. 2018. 22.4. 255
Clausen, C. P. (1978). Limacodidae. Oriental m oth (Cnidocampa flavescens (Walker)). In: Introduced parasites an d predators of arthrop od pests and weeds:
A world review. Agriculture Handbook, 480, 19 3–194.
Collins, C. W. 1933. The oriental moth (Cnidocampa [Monema] flavescens walk.) and its control, Circular. United States Department of Agriculture, 8 pp.
de Rigo, D. (2012). Semantic Array programming for environmental modelling: Application of the Mastrave library. In R. Seppelt, A. A. Voinov, S. Lange,
& D. Bankamp (Eds.), International env ironmental modelling and software so ciety (iEMSs) 2012 international congress on environmental modelli ng and
software - managing Resources of a limited planet: Pathways and visions under uncertainty, sixth biennial meeting (pp. 1167–1176). Brigham Young
University, BYU ScholarsArchive. https:// schol arsar chive. byu. edu/ iemss confe rence/ 2012/ Stream-B/ 69
de Rigo, D., Caudullo, G., Busetto, L., & San- Miguel- Ayanz, J. (2014). Supporting EFSA assessment of the EU environmental suitability for exotic forestry
pests: Final report. EFSA Supporting Publications, 11 (3), EN- 434+. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2903/ sp. efsa. 2014. EN- 434
de Rigo, D., Caudullo, G., Houston Durrant, T., & San- Miguel- Ayanz, J. (2016). The European atlas of Forest tree species: Modelling, data and information
on forest tree species. In J. San- Miguel- Ayanz, D. de Rigo, G. Caudullo, T. Houston Durrant, & A. Mauri (Eds.), European atlas of Forest tree species.
Publ. Off (e01aa69+). EU. https:// w3id. org/ mtv/ FISE- Comm/ v01/ e01aa69
de Rigo, D., Caudullo, G., San- Miguel- Ayanz, J., & Barredo, J. I. (2017). Robust modelling of the impacts of climate change on the habitat suitability of
forest tree species. Publication Office of the European Union, 58 pp. ISBN: 978–92–79- 66704- 6. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2760/ 296501
DEFRA (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs). (Unpublished). UK.
Dowden, P. B. (1946). Parasitization of the oriental moth (Cnidocampa flavescens (walk.)) by Chaetexorista javana B. And B. Annals of the Entomological
Society of America, 39(2), 225–241. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ aesa/ 39.2. 225
Dowden, P. B. (1962). Parasites and predators of forest insects liberated in the United States through 1960 (No. 226). Agriculture handbook. No. 226. US
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 70 pp.
Dyar, H. G. (1909). New species of American lepidoptera. Proceedings of the Entom ological Society of Washington, 11, 19–29.
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Bragard, C., Baptista, P., Chatzivassiliou, E., Di Serio, F., Jaques Miret, J. A., Justesen, A. F., MacLeod, A.,
Magnusson, C. S., Milonas, P., Navas- Cortes, J. A., Parnell, S., Pot ting, R., Reignault, P. L., Stefani, E., Thulke, H.- H., Van der Werf, W., Vicent Civera, A.,
Yuen, J., … Gonthier, P. (2022). Scientific opinion on the commodity risk assessment of Acer palmatum plants grafted on Acer davidii from China.
EFSA Journal, 20(5), 7298. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2903/j. efsa. 2022. 7298
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Jeger, M., Bragard, C., Caffier, D., Candresse, T., Chatzivassiliou, E., Dehnen- Schmutz, K., Gregoire, J.- C.,
Jaques Miret, J. A ., MacLeod, A., Navajas Navarro, M., Niere, B., Parnell, S., Potting, R ., Rafoss, T., Rossi, V., Urek, G., Van Brugge n, A., Van Der Werf, W.,
… Gilioli, G. (2018). Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment. EFSA Journal, 16(8), 5350. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2903/j. efsa. 2018. 5350
EFSA Scientific Committee, Hardy, A., Benford, D., Halldorsson, T., Jeger, M. J., Knutsen, H. K., More, S., Naegeli, H., Noteborn, H., Ockleford, C., Ricci, A.,
Rychen, G., Schlatter, J. R., Silano, V., Solecki, R., Turck, D., Benfenati, E., Chaudhry, Q. M., Craig, P., … Younes, M. (2017). Scientific opinion on the
guidance on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments. EFSA Journal, 15 (8), 4971. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2903/j. efsa. 2017.
4971
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). (2019). EPPO codes. https:// www. eppo. int/ RESOU RCES/ eppo_ datab ases/ eppo_
codes
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). (online). EPPO Global Database. https:// gd. eppo. int
EUFGIS (European Information System on Forest Genetic Resources). (online). EUFGIS Database. https:// portal. eufgis. org
EUROPHYT. (online). European Union Notification System for Plant Health Interceptions - EUROPHYT. https:// ec. europa. eu/ food/ plant/ plant_ health_
biose curity/ europ hyt/ index_ en. htm
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organi zation of the United Nations). (2008). ISPM (Internati onal Standards for Phytosanit ary Measures) No 31. Methodologies
for sampling of consignments. FAO, Rome, 19 pp. https:// www. ippc. int/ static/ media/ files/ publi cation/ en/ 2016/ 11/ ISPM_ 31_ 2008_ Sampl ing_ of_
consi gnmen ts_ EN. pdf
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2013). ISPM (International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures) No 11. Pest risk anal-
ysis for quarantine pests. FAO, Rome, 36 pp. https:// www. ippc. int/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ docum ents/ 20140 512/ ispm_ 11_ 2013_ en_ 2014- 04- 30_ 20140
51215 23- 494. 65% 20KB. pdf
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2023). ISPM (International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures) No 5. Glossary of
phytosanitary terms. FAO, Rome, 40 pp. https:// assets. ippc. int/ static/ media/ files/ publi cation/ en/ 2023/ 07/ ISPM_ 05_ 2023_ En_ Gloss ary_ PostC PM-
17_ 2023- 07- 12_ Fixe d. pdf
Fu, J., Fu, C., Yan, X., Yu, S., & Han, X. (2009). Preliminary report of pests and diseases on raspberry in Liaoning province. Journal of Jilin Agricultural
University, 31(5), 661–665.
Furukawa, M., N akanishi, K., Honma, A ., Takakura, K . I., Matsuyama, K. , Hidaka, N., Sawada, H ., & Nishida, T. (2021). Differ ential performance of contr asting
defensive traits of cocoons of two moth species against bird predation. Entomological Science, 24, 261–269.
Furukawa, M., Nakanishi, K., & Nishida, T. (2017). Relationships between environmental factors and cocoon color morphs of a slug moth, Monema fla-
vescens in the field. Japanese Journal of Environmental Entomology and Zoology, 27, 133–139.
Griessinger, D., & Roy, A.- S. (2015). EPPO codes: a brief description. https:// www. eppo. int/ media/ uploa ded_ images/ RESOU RCES/ eppo_ datab ases/ A4_
EPPO_ Codes_ 2018. pdf
Hiederer, R., Houston Durrant, T., Granke, O., Lambot te, M., Lorenz, M., Mignon, B., & Mues, V. (2007). Forest focus monitoring database system - valid ation
methodology. Vol. EUR 23020 EN of EUR – Scientific and Technical Research. Of fice for Official Publications of the European Communities. https: // doi.
org / 10. 2788/ 51364
Hiederer, R., Houston Durrant, T., & Micheli, E. (2011). Evaluation o f BioSoil demonstration project - so il data analysis. Vol. 24729 of EUR - scientific and te chni-
cal research. Publications Office of the European Union. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2788/ 56105
Hong, Y. (2015). Control efficiency analysis of plant source pesticides on Castanopsis fissarehd leaf eating pest. Journal of Southwest Forestry University,
35, 71–76.
Houston Durrant, T., & Hiederer, R. (2009). Applying quality assurance procedures to environmental monitoring data: A case study. Journal of
Environmental Monitoring, 11(4), 774–781. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1039/ b818274b
Houston Durrant, T., San- Miguel- Ayanz, J., Schulte, E., & Suarez Meyer, A. (2011). Evaluation of BioSoil demonstration project: Forest biodiversity
- analysis of biodiversity module. Vol. 24777 of EUR – Scientific and Technical Research. Publications Office of the European Union. https:// doi .
org / 10. 2788/ 84823
|
19 of 26
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
Huang, W., Siemann, E., Wheeler, G. S., Zou, J., Carrillo, J., & Ding, J. (2010). Resource allocation to defence and growth are driven by different responses
to generalist and specialist herbivory in an invasive plant. Journal of Ecology, 98, 1157–1167.
INRA. (online). INRA, Biogeco, EvolTree. GD2 database. http:// gd2. pierr oton. inra. fr
Ju, R. T., Wang, F., Li, Y. Z., & Wu, S. Y. (2007). Niche and interspecies competition of four Limacodidae species on green belt plants in Shanghai. Chinese
Journal of Ecology, 26(04), 523–527.
Kawada, A. (1930). A List of Cochlidionid [Limacodid] Moths in Japan, with Descriptions of two new Genera and six new Species. Journal of the Imperial
Agricultural Experimental Station, 1(3), 231–262.
Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Ru dolf, B., & Rubel, F. (2006). World map of the Köppen_Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorologische Zeitschrift,
15, 259–263. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1127/ 0941- 2948/ 2006/ 0130
Lammers, J. W., & Stigter, H. (2004). Report of a Pest Risk Analysis - Cnidocampa flavescens. Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority,
Plant Protection Service, The Netherlands. 18 pp. https:// engli sh. nvwa. nl/ docum ents/ plant/ plant- health/ pest- risk- analy sis/ docum ents/ pest- risk-
analy sis- cnido campa- flave scens
Liu, Q. N., Xin, Z. Z., Bian, D. D., Chai, X. Y., Zhou, C. L., & Tang, B. P. (2016). The first complete mitochondrial genome for the subfamily Limacodidae and
implications for the higher phylogeny of lepidoptera. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 35878. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ srep3 5878
MacLeod, A., & Korycinska, A. (2019). Detailing Köppen- Geiger climate zones at a country and regional level: A resource for pest risk analysis. EPPO
Bulletin, 49(1), 73– 82.
Mevzos, N. (1935). Coehlidiidae (Limacodidae) injurious to fruit trees.
Nagano, E. (1916). Life- history of some Japanese lepidoptera containing new genera and species. Bull. Nawa Entom. Laborator y, 1 –27.
Pan, Z., Zhu, C., & Wu, C. (2013). A review of the genus Monema Walker in China (lepidoptera, Limacodidae). ZooKeys, 306, 23. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3897/
zooke ys. 306. 5216
Park, Y. L., Cho, J. R., Lee, G. S., & Seo, B. Y. (2021). Detection of Monema flavescens (lepidoptera: Limacodidae) cocoons using small unmanned aircraft
system. Journal of Economic Entomology, 114(5), 192 7–1933. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ jee/ toab060
Peng, S., Zhang, Y., Zhang, X., Li, Y., Huang, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhang, X., Ding, J., Geng, X., & Li, J. (2017). Complete mitochondrial genome of Cnidocampa
flavescens (Lepidoptera: Limacodidae). Mitochondrial DNA Part B Re sources, 2, 534–535. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 23802 359. 2017. 1365651
Piel, O., & Covillard, P. (1933). Contribution à l'étude de Monema flavescens Wkr. et de ses parasites. [Contribution towards the study of Monema fla-
vescens Wkr. and its parasites]. Musée Heude, Notes d'entomologie chinoise.
Robinson, G. S., Ackery, P. R., Kitching, I. J., Beccaloni, G. W., & Hernandez, L. M. (online). HOSTS – a database of the world's Lepidopteran hostplants.
Natural History Museum, London. https:// www. nhm. ac. uk/ oursc ience/ data/ hostp lants/ search/ index. dsml
San- Miguel- Ayanz, J. (2016). The European Union Forest strategy and the Forest information system for Europe. In J. San- Miguel- Ayanz, D. de Rigo, G.
Caudullo, T. Houston Durr ant, & A. Mauri (Eds.), European atlas of Forest tree sp ecies. Publ. Off (e012228+). EU. https:// w3id. org/ mtv/ FISE- Comm/ v01/
e012228
San- Miguel- Ayanz, J., de Rigo, D., Cau dullo, G., Houston Durrant , T. , & Mauri, A. (Eds.). (2016). European atlas of Forest tree specie s. Publication Off ice of the
European Union, . ISBN: 978–92–79- 36740- 3. https:// w3id. org/ mtv/ FISE- Comm/ v01
Sayers, E. W., Cavanaugh, M., Clark, K., Ostell, J., Pruitt, K. D., & Karsch- Mizrachi, I. (2020). Genbank. Nucleic Acids Research, 48(Database issue), D84–D86.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ nar/ gkz956
Shibasaki, H., Yamamoto, M., Yan, Q., Naka, H., Suzuki, T., & Ando, T. (2013). Identification of the sex pheromone secreted by a nettle moth, Monema
flavescens, using gas chromatography/Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 39, 350–357.
Song WenJun, S. W. (2000). Studies on the introduction of Populus deltoides to the coastal beaches in northern Zhejiang Province.
Sugiharti, M ., Ono, C., Ito, T., Asano, S. I. , Sahara, K., Pujias tuti, Y., & Bando, H. (2011). Isolation of the T hosea asigna virus (TaV) from the e pizootic Setothosea
asigna larvae collected in South Sumatra and a study on its pathogenicity to Limacodidae larvae in Japan. Journal of Insect Biotechnology and
Sericology, 79(3), 3_117–3_124.
Tang ZhiXiang, T. Z. (2001). Occurrence and control of Cnidocampa flavescens in Zizyphus jejuba. Journal of Zhejiang Forestr y and Technology, 21, 46 –4 7.
Togashi, I., & Ishikawa, T. (1994). Parasites reared from cocoons of Monema flavescens Walker and Latola sinica (Moore) (lepidoptera: Limacodidae) in
Ishikawa prefecture. Transactions of the Shikoku Entomolo gical Society, 20, 321–325.
Togashi, I., & Ishikawa, T. (1995). Is Eurytoma monemae RUSCHKA (Hymenoptera: Eurytomidae) an effective parasitoid for control of Monema flavescens
WALKER or Parasa sinica (MOORE)(lepidoptera: Limacodidae)? Applied Entomology and Zoology, 30(3), 493–494.
Toy, S. J., & Newfield, M. J. (2010). The accidental introduction of invasive animals as hitchhikers through inanimate pathways: A New Zealand perspec-
tive. Revue Scientif ique et Technique (International Of fice of Epizootics), 29(1), 123–13 3.
Yamada, Y. (1992). Spatio - temp oral analysis of the populatio n dynamics of the oriental mot h, Monema flavescens (lepidoptera: Limacodidae). Researches
on Population Ecology, 34, 109–130. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ BF025 13525
Yang, C. Y. (2022). Current status and future directions of pheromone research on orchard pests in Korea. Korean Journal of Applied Entomology, 61(1),
51–62.
Yang, P., Guo, R. H. , Sun, B. J., Liu, E., & Tao, Y. L. (2007). Four insect pests da maging Acanthopanax sessil iflorus and their contro l. Entomological Knowledge,
44(4), 577–578.
Yang, S., Liu, H., Zheng, H., Yang, M., Ren, Y., & Zhang, J. (2016). Attraction of Monema flavescens males to synthetic blends of sex pheromones. Bulletin
of Insectolo gy, 69, 193 –198.
Yoshida, T., & Matsumoto, R. (2015). A revision of the genus Chlorocryptus Cameron (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae), with the first record of the genus
from Japan. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 62(1), 81– 99.
Yu, K., Zou, Y. D., Bi, S. D., Zhao, P., Zhao, X. J., Dang, F. H., & Yu, X. B. (2010). Relationship b etween five major phy tophaga pests and their nat ural predatory
enemies in pomegranate field. Zhongguo Shengtai Nongye Xuebao/Chinese J ournal of Eco- Agriculture, 18, 1317–132 3.
Yuan, H., Wei, Y., Sun, C., Ding, Y., Qi, X., Liu, J., & Ye, H. (2015). Main pest species and their population dynamics of blueberry in Changchun District.
Journal of Jilin Agricultural University, 37(2), 160–165.
Zhao, B. G., & Chen, J. J. (1992). Genetic variation among five common species of Limacocidae in the Nanjing area.
How to cite this article: EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Bragard, C., Baptista, P., Chatzivassiliou, E., Di
Serio, F., Gonthier, P., Jaques Miret, J. A., Justesen, A. F., Magnusson, C. S., Milonas, P., Navas- Cortes, J. A., Parnell, S.,
Potting, R., Reignault, P. L., Stefani, E., Thulke, H.-H., Van der Werf, W., Vicent Civera, A., Yuen, J., … MacLeod, A. (2024).
Pest categorisation of Monema flavescens. EFSA Journal, 22(7), e8831. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8831
20 of 26
|
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
APPENDIX A
Literature search methodology
|
21 of 26
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
APPENDIX B
Monema flavescens host plants
Source: CABI CPC (CABI,online) and literature as indicated.
Host status Host name Plant family Common name ReferenceA
Cultivated hosts
Acanthopanax
sessiliflorus
Araliaceae – Yang etal. (2007)
Acer palmatum Aceraceae Japanese maple Furukawa etal.(2021)
Acer platanoides Aceraceae Norway maple Dowden(194 6)
Acer pseudoplatanus Aceraceae Sycamore maple Collins(1933)
Alnus japonica Betulaceae Japanese alder Nagano(1916)
Ampelopsis Vitaceae –Piel and Covillard (1933)
Aphanannthe asp era Cannabaceae Scabrous aphananthe Nagano(1916)
Artemisia a rgyi Asteraceae – Ju etal. (2007)
Betula lenta Betulaceae Cherry birch Collins(1933)
Castanea sativa Fagaceae Chestnut CABI(online)
Castanopsis fissa Fagaceae Breaking fruit evergreen
chinkapin
Hong (2015)
Celtis occidentalis Cannabaceae Western hackberry Collins(1933)
Celtis sinensis Cannabaceae Japanese hackberry Nagano(1916)
Citrus x junos Rutaceae Yuzu Park etal.(2021)
Cydonia japonica Rosaceae Japanese flowering quince Piel and Covillard (1933)
Diospyros kaki Ebenaceae Persimmon Togashi and Ishikawa(19 95)
Eriobotrya japonica Rosaceae Japanese medlar Cai etal.(2005)
Gleditsia triacanthos Fabaceae Honey locust Collins(1933)
Juglans regia Juglandaceae Walnut Yang etal.(2016)
Kelreuteria bipinnata Sapindaceae Chinese flame tree Piel and Covillard (1933)
Lagerstroemia indica Lythraceae Cannonball Yang etal.(2016)
Malus domestica Rosaceae Apple Yang etal. (2016)
Melia azedarach Meliaceae Bead tree Piel and Covillard (1933)
Morus alba Moraceae Mulberry Park etal.(2021)
Mytilaria laosensis Hamamelidaceae – Ju etal. (2007)
Platanus acerifolia Platanaceae London plane Ju etal. (2007)
Populus deltoides Salicaceae American black poplar Song (2000)
Prunus avium Rosaceae Cherry Collins(1933)
Prunus domestica Rosaceae European plum Sugiharti etal. (2011)
Prunus mume Rosaceae Japanese apricot Shibasaki etal.(2013)
Prunus persica Rosaceae Peach Yang etal. (2016)
Prunus x yedoensis Rosaceae Japanese flowering cherry Furukawa etal.(2021)
Pterocarya stenoptera Juglandaceae Chinese wingnut Piel and Covillard (1933)
Punica granatum Lythraceae Pomegranate Yu etal.(2010)
Pyrus communis Rosaceae Pear Collins (1933)
Pyrus pyrifolia Rosaceae Chinese pear Nagano(1916)
Quercus serrata Fagaceae Gland- bearing oak Furukawa etal.(2021)
Rhamnus cathartica Rhamnaceae Buckthorn Collins(1933)
Rhamnus davurica Rhamnaceae Dahurian buckthorn Ju etal. (2007)
Ribes nigrum Grossulariaceae Black currant Mevzos (1935)
Rubus idaeus Rosaceae Raspberry Fu etal.(2009)
Salix babylonica Salicaceae Chinese willow Yang etal.(2016)
Salix chaenomeloides Salicaceae Giant pussy willow Yamada(1992)
Salix subfragilis Salicaceae – Yamada(1992)
(Continues)
22 of 26
|
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
Host status Host name Plant family Common name ReferenceA
Sapium sebiferum Euphorbiaceae Chinese tallow tree Ju etal. (2007)
Sophora japonica Fabaceae Japanese pagoda tree Piel and Covillard (1933)
Triadica sebifera Euphorbiaceae Chinese tallow Huang etal.(2010)
Ulmus Ulmaceae Elms CABI(online)
Ziziphus jujuba Rhamnaceae Chinese date Yang etal.(2016)
Zelkova ser rata Ulmaceae Japanese zelkova Park etal.(2021)
Wild weed hosts Alternanthera
philoxeroides
Amaranthaceae Alligator weed Ju etal. (2007)
(Continued)
|
23 of 26
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
APPENDIX C
Distribution of Monema flavescens
Distribution records based on literature.
Region Country Sub- national (e.g. state) Status References
Asia
Bhutan Present, no details Peng etal.(2017)
China Present, no details
Anhui Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Beijing Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Chongming Island Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Chongqing Shi Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Fujian Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Gansu Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Guangdong Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Guangxi Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Guizhou Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Hainan Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Hebei Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Heilongjiang Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Henan Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Hubei Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Hunan Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Inner Mongolia Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Jiangsu Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Jiangxi Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Jilin Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Liaoning Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Luanxian Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Nanjing Present, no details Zhao and Chen (19 92)
Nei Mongol Zizhiqu Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Ningxia Huizu Zizhiqu Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Qinghai Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Shaanxi Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Shandong Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Shanghai Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Shanxi Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Sichuan Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Tianjin Shi Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Xinjiang Uygur Zizhiqu Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Yunnan Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Zhejiang Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Democratic People's
Republic of Korea
Present, no details Kawada (1930)
Japan Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Gifu Present, no details Shibasaki etal.(2013)
Hikone Present, no details Furukawa etal.(2021)
Hokkaido Present, no details Nagano(1916)
Honshu Present, no details Nagano(1916)
Isikawa Present, no details Togashi and Ishikawa(199 4)
Kanagawa Present, no details Dowden(194 6)
Kyoto Present, no details Yamada(1992)
(Continues)
24 of 26
|
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
Region Country Sub- national (e.g. state) Status References
Kyushu Present, no details Nagano(1916)
Nagasaki Present, no details Yoshida and Matsumoto(2015)
Nonoitimati (Nonoichi- machi) Present, no details Togashi and Ishikawa (1995)
Sapporo Present, no details Asahina etal.(195 4)
Shikoku Present, no details Nagano(1916)
Tot tori Present, no details Shibasaki etal.(2013)
Nepal Present, no details Peng etal.(2017)
Republic of Korea Present, no details Peng etal.(2017)
Russia Eastern Siberia Present, no details Yang etal.(2016)
Taiwan Present, no details Kawada (1930)
United States Massachusetts Present, no details Dowden (194 6)
(Continued)
|
25 of 26
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
APPENDIX D
Methodological notes on Figure4
The relative probability of presence (RPP) reported here and in the European Atlas of Forest Tree Species (de Rigo etal.,2016;
San- Miguel- Ayanz etal.,2016) is the probability of a species, and sometimes a genus, occurring in a given spatial unit (de
Rigo etal.,2017). The maps of RPP are produced by spatial multi- scale frequency analysis (C- SMFA) (de Rigo etal., 2014,
2016) of species presence data reported in geolocated plots by different forest inventories.
D.1 | GEOLOCATED PLOT DATABAS ES
The RPP models rely on five geo- databases that provide presence/absence data for tree species and genera (de Rigo
etal.,2014; de Rigo etal.,2016; de Rigo etal.,2017). The databases report observations made inside geo- localised sample
plots positioned in a forested area, but do not provide information about the plot size or consistent quantitative informa-
tion about the recorded species beyond presence/absence.
The harmonisation of these datasets was performed as activity within the research project at the origin of the European
Atlas of Forest Tree Species (de Rigo etal.,2016; San- Miguel- Ayanz,2016; San- Miguel- Ayanz etal.,2016). All datasets were
harmonised to an INSPIRE compliant geospatial grid, with a spatial resolution of 1 km2 pixel size, using the ETRS89 Lambert
Azimuthal Equal- Area as geospatial projection (EPSG: 3035, http:// spati alref erence. org/ ref/ epsg/ etrs89- etrs- laea/ ).
European National Forestry Inventories database This dataset derived from National Forest Inventory data and pro-
vides information on the presence/absence of forest tree species in approximately 375,000 sample points with a spatial
resolution of 1 km2/pixel, covering 21 European countries (de Rigo etal.,2014; de Rigo etal.,2016).
Forest Focus/Monitoring data set This project is a Community scheme for harmonised long- term monitoring of air
pollution effects in European forest ecosystems, normed by EC Regulation No. 2152/2003.2 Under this scheme, the moni-
toring is carried out by participating countries on the basis of a systematic network of observation points (Level I) and a
network of observation plots for intensive and continuous monitoring (Level II). For managing the data, the JRC imple-
mented a Forest Focus Monitoring Database System, from which the data used in this project were taken (Hiederer
etal.,2007; Houston Durrant & Hiederer,2009). The complete Forest Focus dataset covers 30 European Countries with more
than 8600 sample points.
BioSoil data set This data set was produced by one of a number of demonstration studies initiated in response to the
“Forest Focus” Regulation (EC) No. 2152/2003 mentioned above. The aim of the BioSoil project was to provide harmonised
soil and forest biodiversity data. It comprised two modules: a Soil Module (Hiederer etal.,2011) and a Biodiversity Module
(Houston Durrant etal.,2011). The dataset used in the C- SMFA RPP model came from the Biodiversity module, in which
plant species from both the tree layer and the ground vegetation layer was recorded for more than 3300 sample points in
19 European Countries.
European Information System on Forest Genetic Resources (EUFGIS) is a smaller geo- database that provides infor-
mation on tree species composition in over 3200 forest plots in 34 European countries. The plots are part of a network of
forest stands managed for the genetic conservation of one or more target tree species. Hence, the plots represent the
natural environment to which the target tree species are adapted (EUFGIS,online).
Georeferenced Data on Genetic Diversity (GD2) is a smaller geo- database as well. It provides information about a 63
species that are of interest for genetic conservation. It counts 6254 forest plots that are located in stands of natural popula-
tions that are traditionally analysed in genetic surveys. While this database covers fewer species than the others, it does
covers 66 countries in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East, making it the data set with the largest geographic extent
(INRA, online).
D.2 | MODELLING METHODOLOGY
For modelling, the data were harmonised in order to have the same spatial resolution (1 km2) and filtered to a study area
that comprises 36 countries in the European continent. The density of field observations varies greatly throughout the
study area and large areas are poorly covered by the plot databases. A low density of field plots is particularly problematic
in heterogenous landscapes, such as mountainous regions and areas with many different land use and cover types, where
a plot in one location is not representative of many nearby locations (de Rigo etal.,2014). To account for the spatial varia-
tion in plot density, the model used here (C- SMFA) considers multiple spatial scales when estimating RPP.
C- SMFA preforms spatial frequency analysis of the geolocated plot data to create preliminary RPP maps (de Rigo
etal.,2014). For each 1 km2 grid cell, it estimates kernel densities over a range of kernel sizes to estimate the probability
that a given species is present in that cell. The entire array of multi- scale spatial kernels is aggregated with adaptive weights
based on the local pattern of data density. Thus, in areas where plot data are scarce or inconsistent, the method tends to
put weight on larger kernels. Wherever denser local data are available, they are privileged ensuring a more detailed local
RPP estimation. Therefore, a smooth multi- scale aggregation of the entire arrays of kernels and datasets is applied instead
2Regulatio n (EC) No 2152/2003 of the Euro pean Parliament and of th e Council of 17 November 2003 concernin g monitoring of forest s and environmental inte ractions in
the Communit y (Forest Focus). Off icial Journal of the Europ ean Union 46 (L 324), 1–8.
26 of 26
|
MONEMA FLAVESCENS: PEST CATEGORISATION
of selecting a local “best preforming” one and discarding the remaining information. This array- based processing, and the
entire data harmonisation procedure, are made possible thanks to the semantic modularisation which define Semantic
Array Programming modelling paradigm (de Rigo,2012).
The probability to find a single species in a 1 km2 grid cell cannot be higher than the probability of presence of all the
broadleaved (or coniferous) species combined, because all sample plots are localised inside forested areas. Thus, to im-
prove the accuracy of the maps, the preliminary RPP values were constrained to not exceed the local forest- type cover frac-
tion (de Rigo etal.,2014). The latter was estimated from the “Broadleaved forest”, “Coniferous forest”, and “Mixed forest”
classes of the Corine Land Cover (CLC) maps (Bossard etal.,2000; Büttner etal.,2012), with “Mixed forest” cover assumed to
be equally split between broadleaved and coniferous.
The robustness of RPP maps depends strongly on sample plot density, as areas with few field observations are mapped
with greater uncertainty. This uncertainty is shown qualitatively in maps of ‘RPP trustability’. RPP trustability is computed
on the basis of aggregated equivalent number of sample plots in each grid cell (equivalent local density of plot data). The
trustability map scale is relative, ranging from 0 to 1, as it is based on the quantiles of the local plot density map obtained
using all field observations for the species. Thus, trustability maps may vary among species based on the number of data-
bases that report it (de Rigo etal.,2014; de Rigo etal.,2016).
The RPP and relative trustability range from 0 to 1 and are mapped at 1 km spatial. To improve visualisation, these maps
can be aggregated to coarser scales (i.e. 10 × 10 pixels or 25 × 25 pixels, respectively summarising the information for ag-
gregated spatial cells of 100 and 625 km2) by averaging the values in larger grid cells.
The EFSA Journal is a publication of the European Food Safety
Authority, a European agency funded by the European Union
