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. 2025;23:e9384.
|
1 of 113
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9384
efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/1831-4732
SCIENTIFIC OPINION
Commodity risk assessment of Salix caprea and Salix cinerea
plants from the UK
EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH) | Antonio VicentCivera | Paula Baptista | Anna Berlin |
Elisavet Chatzivassiliou | Jaime Cubero | Nik Cunniffe | Eduardo de la Peña |
Nicolas Desneux | Francesco DiSerio | Anna Filipiak | Beata Hasiów- Jaroszewska |
Hervé Jactel | Blanca B. Landa | Lara Maistrello | David Makowski | Panagiotis Milonas |
Nikos T. Papadopoulos | Roel Potting | Hanna Susi | Dirk Jan van Der Gaag | Andrea Battisti |
Claude Bragard | Christer Sven Magnusson | Hugo Mas | Daniel Rigling | Massimo Faccoli |
Alžběta Mikulová | Fabio Stergulc | Olaf Mosbach- Schulz | Franz Streissl | Paolo Gonthier
Adopted: 28 Ma rch 2025
DOI: 10.2903/j .efsa.2025.9384
Abstract
The European Commission requested the EFSA Panel on Plant Health to prepare
and deliver risk assessments for commodities listed in Commission Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 as ‘High risk plants, plant products and other objects’.
This Scientific Opinion covers plant health risks posed by plants of Salix caprea and
Salix cinerea imported from the United Kingdom (UK) as: (a) bundles of 1- to 2- year
old cuttings/graftwood, (b) 1- to 7- year- old bare root plants, (c) 1- to 2- year- old
cell grown plants and (d) 2- to 15- year- old plants in pots, taking into account the
available scientific information, including the technical information provided by
the UK. All pests associated with the commodities were evaluated against spe-
cific criteria for their relevance for this opinion. Two EU protected zone quaran-
tine pests, i.e. Bemisia tabaci (European populations) and Entoleuca mammata, and
one EU quarantine pest, i.e. Phytophthora ramorum (non- EU isolates), fulfilled all
relevant criteria and were selected for further evaluation. For the selected pests,
the risk mitigation measures described in the technical dossier from the UK were
evaluated. Expert judgements were given on the likelihood of pest freedom tak-
ing into consideration the risk mitigation measures acting on the pests, including
uncertainties associated with the assessment. The age of the plants was consid-
ered, reasoning that older trees are more likely to be infested mainly due to longer
exposure time and larger size. The degree of pest freedom varies between the
pests evaluated, with P. ramorum being the pest most frequently expected on the
imported plants. The Expert Knowledge Elicitation (EKE) indicated with 95% cer-
tainty that between 9738 and 10,000 rooted S. caprea and S. cinerea plants in pots
(2 to 15- year- old) per 10,000 will be free from P. ramorum.
KEYWORDS
commodity risk assessment, European Union, plant health, plant pest, willow
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.
© 2025 European Foo d Safety Authorit y. EFSA Journal p ublished by Wiley-VCH Gmb H on behalf of European Fo od Safety Authorit y.
Correspondence: plants@efsa.europa.eu
The declar ations of interest of all sci entific
exper ts active in EFSA's work are availabl e at
https:// open. efsa. europa. eu/ experts
2 of 113
|
COMMODITY RISK ASSESSMENT O F SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINEREA PL ANTS FROM THE UK
CONTENTS
Abstract................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1
1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................4
1.1. Background and Terms of Reference as provided by European Commission .......................................................................4
1.1.1. Background ....................................................................................................................................................................................4
1.1.2. Terms of Reference.......................................................................................................................................................................4
1.2. Interpretation of the Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................................................4
2. Data and Methodologies ......................................................................................................................................................................................5
2.1. Data provided by DEFRA of the UK .......................................................................................................................................................5
2.2. Literature searches performed by EFSA...............................................................................................................................................7
2.3. Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................................................8
2.3.1. Commodity data ...........................................................................................................................................................................8
2.3.2. Identification of pests potentially associated with the commodity ..........................................................................8
2.3.3. Listing and evaluation of risk mitigation measures .........................................................................................................9
2.3.4. Expert Knowledge Elicitation ...................................................................................................................................................9
3. Commodity Data .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
3.1. Description of the commodity ............................................................................................................................................................. 10
3.2. Description of the production areas ...................................................................................................................................................11
3.3. Production and handling processes ...................................................................................................................................................11
3.3.1. Source of planting material ....................................................................................................................................................11
3.3.2. Production cycle ........................................................................................................................................................................ 12
3.3.3. Pest monitoring during production ................................................................................................................................... 12
3.3.4. Pest management during production ............................................................................................................................... 13
3.3.5. Inspections before export ...................................................................................................................................................... 13
3.3.6. Export procedure ...................................................................................................................................................................... 14
4. Identification of Pests Potentially Associated With the Commodity ................................................................................................. 14
4.1. Selection of relevant EU- quarantine pests associated with the commodity ...................................................................... 14
4.2. Selection of other relevant pests (non- regulated in the EU) associated with the commodity .................................... 19
4.3. Overview of interceptions ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19
4.4. List of potential pests not further assessed ..................................................................................................................................... 19
4.5. Summary of pests selected for further evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 19
5. Risk Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
5.1. Risk mitigation measures applied in the UK ....................................................................................................................................20
5.2. Evaluation of the current measures for the selected relevant pests including uncertainties ...................................... 22
5.2.1. Overview of the evaluation of Bemisia tabaci (European populations) (Hemiptera; Aleyrodidae) ..............22
5.2.2. Overview of the evaluation of Entoleuca mammata (Xylariales; Xylariaceae) ......................................................24
5.2.3. Overview of the evaluation of Phytophthora ramorum (non- EU isolates) (Peronosporales;
Peronosporaceae)......................................................................................................................................................................26
5.2.4. Outcome of Expert Knowledge Elicitation .......................................................................................................................28
6. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................................................................32
Glossary ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 32
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Requestor ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Question numbers ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 33
Copyright for non- EFSA content.............................................................................................................................................................................. 33
Panel members .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33
References........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 33
|
3 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
Appendix A ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................36
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 106
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 107
Appendix D ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................111
Appendix E ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................112
Appendix F ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................113
4 of 113
|
COMMODITY RISK ASSESSMENT O F SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINEREA PL ANTS FROM THE UK
1 | INTRODUCTION
1.1 | Background and Terms of Reference as provided by European Commission
1.1.1 | Background
The Plant Health Regulation (EU) 2016/2031,1 on the protective measures against pests of plants, has been applied from
December 2019. Provisions within the above Regulation are in place for the listing of ‘high risk plants, plant products and
other objects’ (Article 42) on the basis of a preliminary assessment, and to be followed by a commodity risk assessment. A
list of ‘high risk plants, plant products and other objects’ has been published in Regulation (EU) 2018/2019.2 Scientific opin-
ions are therefore needed to support the European Commission and the Member States (MSs) in the work connected to
Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, as stipulated in the terms of reference.
1.1.2 | Terms of Reference
In view of the above and in accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002,3 the Commission asks EFSA to pro-
vide scientific opinions in the field of plant health.
In particular, EFSA is expected to prepare and deliver risk assessments for commodities listed in the relevant Implementing
Act as ‘High risk plants, plant products and other objects’. Article 42, paragraphs 4 and 5, establishes that a risk assessment
is needed as a follow- up to evaluate whether the commodities will remain prohibited, removed from the list and additional
measures will be applied or removed from the list without any additional measures. This task is expected to be on- going,
with a regular flow of dossiers being sent by the applicant required for the risk assessment.
Therefore, to facilitate the correct handling of the dossiers and the acquisition of the required data for the commodity
risk assessment, a format for the submission of the required data for each dossier is needed.
Furthermore, a standard methodology for the performance of ‘commodity risk assessment' based on the work already
done by MSs and other international organizations needs to be set.
In view of the above and in accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, the Commission asks EFSA to
provide scientific opinion in the field of plant health for Salix caprea and Salix cinerea from the UK taking into account the
available scientific information, including the technical dossier provided by the UK.
1.2 | Interpretation of the Terms of Reference
The EFSA Panel on Plant Health (hereafter referred to as ‘the Panel') was requested to conduct a commodity risk assess-
ment of S. caprea and S. cinerea from the UK following the Guidance on commodity risk assessment for the evaluation of
high risk plant dossiers (EFSA PLH Panel,2019) and the protocol for commodity risk assessments as presented in the EFSA
standard protocols for scientific assessments (EFSA PLH Panel,2024; Gardi etal.,2024), taking into account the available
scientific information, including the technical information provided by the UK.
The EU quarantine pests that are regulated as a group in the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/20724
were considered and evaluated separately at species level.
Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 lists certain pests as non- European populations or isolates or spe-
cies. These pests are regulated quarantine pests. Consequently, the respective European populations, or isolates, or species
are non- regulated pests.
Annex VII of the same Regulation, in certain cases (e.g. point 32) makes reference to the following countries that are
excluded from the obligation to comply with specific import requirements for those non- European populations, or iso-
lates, or species: 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 (SeveroZapadny federalny okrug),
1Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the Europe an Parliament of the Counci l of 26 October 2016 on protective me asures against pests o f plants, amending Re gulations (EU)
228/2013, (EU) 652/2014 and (EU) 1143/2014 of the Europea n Parliament and of the Counci l and repealing Council Di rectives 69/464/EEC, 74/647/EEC, 93/85/EEC, 98/57/EC,
2000/29/EC , 2006/91/EC and 2007/33/EC. OJ L 317, 23.11.2016, pp. 4–104.
2Commission Im plementing Regulati on (EU) 2018/2019 of 18 December 2018 establishing a pr ovisional list of high risk p lants, plant produc ts or other object s, within the
meaning of Ar ticle 42 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 and a list of pla nts for which phytosan itary certif icates are not required fo r introduction into the U nion, within the
meaning of Ar ticle 73 of that Regulati on C/2018/8877. OJ L 323, 19.12.2018, pp. 10–15.
3Regulatio n (EC) No 178/2002 of the Euro pean Parliament and of the Co uncil of 28 January 2002 lay ing down the general pri nciples and requireme nts of food law,
establish ing the European Food Saf ety Authority and l aying down procedures in m atters of food safe ty. OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, pp. 1–24.
4Commission Im plementing Regulati on (EU) 2019/2072 of 28 November 2019 establish ing uniform condition s for the implementatio n of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the
European Parliament and the Council, as regards protective measures against pests of plants, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2008 and amending
Commission Im plementing Regulati on (EU) 2018/2019. OJ L 319, 10.12.2019, p. 1–279.
|
5 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
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 (except Northern Ireland5).
Consequently, for those countries,
(i) any pests identified, which are listed as non- European species in Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU)
2019/2072 should be investigated as any other non- regulated pest.
(ii) any pest found in a European country that belongs to the same denomination as the pests listed as non- European popu-
lations or isolates in Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, should be considered as European populations
or isolates and should not be considered in the assessment of those countries.
Pests listed as ‘Regulated Non- Quarantine Pest' (RNQP) in Annex IV of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU)
2019/2072, and deregulated pests (i.e. pest which were listed as quarantine pests in the Council Directive 2000/29/EC and
were deregulated by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072) were not considered for further evaluation. In
case a pest is at the same time regulated as a RNQP and as a Protected Zone Quarantine pest, in this Opinion it should be
evaluated as Quarantine pest.
In its evaluation the Panel:
• Checked whether the provided information in the technical dossier (hereafter referred to as ‘the Dossier’) provided by
the applicant (United Kingdom, Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs – hereafter referred to as ‘DEFRA’)
was sufficient to conduct a commodity risk assessment. When necessary, additional information was requested to the
applicant.
• Selected the relevant Union quarantine pests and protected zone quarantine pests (as specified in Commission
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, hereafter referred to as ‘EU quarantine pests’) and other relevant pests present
in the UK and associated with the commodity.
• Did not assess the effectiveness of measures for Union quarantine pests for which specific measures are in place for the
import of the commodity from the UK in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 and/or in the relevant
legislative texts for emergency measures and if the specific country is in the scope of those emergency measures. The
assessment was restricted to whether or not the applicant country implements those measures.
• Assessed the effectiveness of the measures described in the Dossier for those Union quarantine pests for which no spe-
cific measures are in place for the importation of the commodity from the UK and other relevant pests present in the UK
and associated with the commodity.
Risk management decisions are not within EFSA's remit. Therefore, the Panel provided a rating based on expert judge-
ment regarding the likelihood of pest freedom for each relevant pest given the risk mitigation measures proposed by
DEFRA of the UK.
2 | DATA AND METHODOLOGIES
2.1 | Data provided by DEFRA of the UK
The Panel considered all the data and information (hereafter called ‘the Dossier’) provided by DEFRA of the United Kingdom
(UK) in September 2023 including the additional information provided by DEFRA in February 2025, after EFSA's request. The
Dossier is managed by EFSA.
The structure and overview of the Dossier is shown in Table1. The number of the relevant section is indicated in the
Opinion when referring to a specific part of the Dossier.
5In accordance w ith the Agreement on the wi thdrawal of the United Kin gdom of Great Britain an d Northern Irelan d from the European Union an d the European Atomic
Energy Commu nity, and in particular A rticle 5(4) of the Windsor Frame work in conjunction wit h Annex 2 to that Framework, f or the purposes of this Op inion, references to
the United Kingdom do not include Northern Ireland.
TABLE 1 Structure and overview of the Dossier.
Dossier section Overview of contents Filename
1.1 Technical dossier for Salix caprea Salix caprea commodity information final
1.2 Technical dossier for Salix cinerea Salix cinerea commodity information final
2.0 Pest list Salix_pest_list_final2
3.1 Producers sample product list for Salix caprea Salix_producers_sample_product_list
3.2 Producers sample product list for Salix cinerea Salix_producers_sample_product_list
(Continues)
6 of 113
|
COMMODITY RISK ASSESSMENT O F SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINEREA PL ANTS FROM THE UK
The data and supporting information provided by DEFRA formed the basis of the commodity risk assessment. Table2
shows the main data sources used by DEFRA of the UK to compile the Dossier (Dossier Sections1.1, 1.2, 2.0, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2,
5.1 and 5.2).
Dossier section Overview of contents Filename
4.1 Distribution of Salix caprea Salix_caprea_distribution
4.2 Distribution of Salix cinerea Salix_cinerea_distribution
5.1 Additional information: answers, 10 February Salix caprea and cinarea additional information 6 January 2025
amended
5.2 Additional information: pests Salix_EFSA_Query_Pest_Information- Feb25
TABLE 2 Databases used in the literature searches by DEFRA of the UK.
Database Platform/link
3I Interactive Keys and Taxonomic Databases https:// dmitr iev. speci esfile. org/ index. asp
Agromyzidae of Great Britain and Ireland https:// agrom yzidae. co. uk/
AHDB https:// ahdb. org. uk/
Animal Diversit y Web https:// anima ldive rsity. org/
Aphids on the World's Plants https:// www. aphid sonwo rldsp lants. info/
British Bugs https:// www. briti shbugs. org. uk/ index. html
British leafminers https:// www. leafm ines. co. uk/ index. htm
The British Plant Gall Society https:// www. briti shpla ntgal lsoci ety. org/
CABI Crop Protection Compendium https:// www. cabi. org/ cpc/
CABI Plantwise Plus https:// plant wisep luskn owled gebank. org/
Checklist of the British & Irish Basidiomycota https:// basid ioche cklist. scien ce. kew. org/
Current British Aphid Checklist https:// influ entia lpoin ts. com/ aphid/ Check list_ of_ aphids_ in_ Brita in. htm
Database of Insects and their Food Plants https:// dbif. brc. ac. uk/ homep age. aspx
Descriptions of Plant Viruses https:// www. dpvweb. net/
Dipterists Forum https:// dipte rists. org. uk/ home
Diaspididae of the World 2.0 https:// diasp ididae. linna eus. natur alis. nl/ linna eus_ ng/ app/ views/ intro ducti
on/ topic. php? id= 3377& epi= 155
EPPO Global Database https:// gd. eppo. int/
EU- Nomen https:// www. eu- nomen. eu/ portal/ index. php
FAO https:// agris. fao. org/
Fera https:// www. fera. co. uk/ ncppb
GBIF https:// www. gbif. org/
Hantsmoths https:// www. hants moths. org. uk/ index. php
HOSTS - a Database of the World's Lepidopteran Hostplants https:// data. nhm. ac. uk/ datas et/ hosts
ICAR – National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources https:// www. nbair. res. in/
Index Fungorum https:// www. index fungo rum. org/ names/ Names. asp
InfluentialPoints https:// influ entia lpoin ts. com/
Insects (Insecta) of the World https:// insec ta. pro/
L'Inventaire national du patrimoine naturel (INPN) https:// inpn. mnhn. fr/ accue il/ index
Lepidoptera and some other life forms https:// ftp. funet. fi/ pub/ sci/ bio/ life/ intro. html
Lepidoptera and their ecology https:// www. pyrgus. de/ index_ en. php
Lepiforum e.V. https:// lepif orum. org/
Mycobank https:// www. mycob ank. org/
Natural Histor y Museum https:// www. nhm. ac. uk/
Nemaplex https:// nemap lex. ucdav is. edu/ Nemab ase20 10/ Plant Nemat odeHo stSta
tusDD Query. aspx
NBN atlas https:// nbnat las. org/
NorfolkMoths https:// www. norfo lkmot hs. co. uk/
TABLE 1 (Continued)
|
7 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
2.2 | Literature searches performed by EFSA
Literature searches in different databases were undertaken by EFSA to complete a list of pests potentially associated with
S. caprea and S. cinerea. The following searches were combined: (i) a general search to identify pests reported on S. caprea
and S. cinerea in the databases, (ii) a search to identify any EU quarantine pest reported on Salix as genus and subsequently
(iii) a tailored search to identify whether the above pests are present or not in the UK. The searches were run between
November and December 2024. No language, date or document type restrictions were applied in the search strategy.
The Panel used the databases indicated in Tab le3 to compile the list of pests associated with S. caprea and S. cine-
rea. As for Web of Science, the literature search was performed using a specific, ad hoc established search string (see
AppendixB). The string was run in ‘All Databases’ with no range limits for time or language filters. This is further explained
in Section2.3.2.
Database Platform/link
Plant Parasites of Europe https:// bladm ineer ders. nl/
Scalenet https:// scale net. info/ catal ogue/
Spider Mites Web https:// www1. montp ellier. inra. fr/ CBGP/ spmweb/
The leaf and stem mines of British flies and other isects https:// www. ukfly mines. co. uk/ index. php
The Sawflies (Symphyta) of Britain and Ireland https:// www. sawfl ies. org. uk/
Thrips of the British Isles https:// keys. lucid centr al. org/ keys/ v3/ briti sh_ thrips/ overv iew. html
Tor tAI https:// idtoo ls. org/ id/ leps/ tortai/ index. html
Tortricid.net https:// www. tortr icidae. com/
UK Beetle Recording https:// coleo ptera. org. uk/ home
UKmoths https:// ukmot hs. org. uk/
UK Plant Health Risk Register https:// plant healt hport al. defra. gov. uk/ pests - and- disea ses/ uk- plant - healt
h- risk- regis ter/ index. cfm
USDA Fungal Databases https:// fungi. ars. usda. gov/
Woodland trust https:// www. woodl andtr ust. org. uk/
TABLE 2 (Continued)
TABLE 3 Databases used by EFSA for the compilation of the pest list associated with Salix caprea and Salix cinerea.
Database Platform/link
Aphids on World Plants https:// www. aphid sonwo rldsp lants. info/C_ HOSTS_ AAInt ro. htm
BIOTA of New Zealand https:// biota nz. landc arere search. co. nz/
CABI Crop Protection Compendium https:// www. cabi. org/ cpc/
Database of Insects and their Food Plants https:// www. brc. ac. uk/ dbif/ hosts. aspx
Database of the World's Lepidopteran Hostplants https:// www. nhm. ac. uk/ our- scien ce/ data/ hostp lants/ search/ index. dsml
EPPO Global Database https:// gd. eppo. int/
EUROPHYT https:// food. ec. europa. eu/ plants/ plant - healt h- and- biose curity/ europ hyt_ en
Leaf- miners https:// www. leafm ines. co. uk/ html/ plants. htm
Nemaplex https:// nemap lex. ucdav is. edu/ Nemab ase20 10/ Plant Nemat odeHo stSta tusDD
Query. aspx
Plant Parasites of Europe https:// bladm ineer ders. nl/
Plant Pest Information Network https:// www. mpi. govt. nz/ news- and- resou rces/ resou rces/ regis ters- and- lists/ plant
- pest- infor matio n- netwo rk/
Scalenet https:// scale net. info/ assoc iates/
Scolytinae hosts and distribution database https:// www. scoly tinae hosts datab ase. eu/ site/ it/ home/
Spider Mites Web https:// www1. montp ellier. inra. fr/ CBGP/ spmweb/
USDA ARS Fungal Database https:// fungi. ars. usda. gov/
Web of Science: All Databases (Web of Science Core
Collection, CABI: CAB Abstracts, BIOSIS Citation Index,
Chinese Science Citation Database, Current Contents
Connect, Data Citation Index, FSTA, KCI- Korean Journal
Database, Russian Science Citation Index, MEDLINE,
SciELO Citation Index, Zoological Record)
Web of Science https:// www. webof knowl edge. com
World Agroforestry https:// www. world agrof orest ry. org/ treed b2/ speci espro file. php? Spid= 1749
8 of 113
|
COMMODITY RISK ASSESSMENT O F SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINEREA PL ANTS FROM THE UK
Additional searches, limited to retrieve documents, were run when developing the Opinion. The available scientific
information, including previous EFSA opinions on the relevant pests and diseases (see pest data sheets in AppendixA)
and the relevant literature and legislation (e.g. Regulation (EU) 2016/2031; Commission Implementing Regulations (EU)
2018/2019; (EU) 2018/2018 and (EU) 2019/2072) were taken into account.
2.3 | Methodology
When developing the Opinion, the Panel followed the EFSA Guidance on commodity risk assessment for the evaluation of
high risk plant dossiers (EFSA PLH Panel,2019).
In the first step, pests potentially associated with the commodity in the country of origin (EU- quarantine pests and other
pests) that may require risk mitigation measures are identified. The EU non- quarantine pests not known to occur in the EU
were selected based on evidence of their potential impact in the EU. After the first step, all the relevant pests that may need
risk mitigation measures were identified.
In the second step, the implemented risk mitigation measures for each relevant pest were evaluated.
A conclusion on the pest freedom status of the commodity for each of the relevant pests was determined and uncer-
tainties identified using expert judgements.
Pest freedom was assessed by estimating the number of infested/infected units out of 10,000 exported units. Further
details on the methodology used to estimate the likelihood of pest freedom are provided in Section2.3.4.
2.3.1 | Commodity data
Based on the information provided by DEFRA the characteristics of the commodity were summarised.
2.3.2 | Identification of pests potentially associated with the commodity
To evaluate the pest risk associated with the importation of the commodity from the UK, a pest list was compiled. The pest
list is a compilation of all identified plant pests reported as associated with S. caprea and S. cinerea based on information
provided in the Dossier Sections1.1, 1.2, 2.0, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1 and 5.2 and on searches performed by the Panel. The search
strategy and search syntax were adapted to each of the databases listed in Table3, according to the options and function-
alities of the different databases and CABI keyword thesaurus.
The scientific names of the host plant (i.e. S. caprea and S. cinerea) were used when searching in the EPPO Global data-
base and CABI Crop Protection Compendium. The same strategy was applied to the other databases excluding EUROPHYT
and Web of Science.
EUROPHYT was investigated by searching for the interceptions associated with S. caprea and S. cinerea imported from
the whole world from 1995 to May 2020 and TRACES- NT from May 2020 to 30 November 2024, respectively. For the pests
selected for further evaluation, a search in the EUROPHYT and/or TRACES- NT was performed for the interceptions from the
whole world, at species level, for all the available years until 30 November 2024.
The search strategy used for Web of Science Databases was designed combining English common names for pests and
diseases, terms describing symptoms of plant diseases and the scientific and English common names of the commodity
and excluding pests which were identified using searches in other databases. The established search strings are detailed in
AppendixB and they were run on 15 November 2024.
The titles and abstracts of the scientific papers retrieved were screened and the pests associated with S. caprea and S.
cinerea were included in the pest list. The pest list was eventually further compiled with other relevant information (e.g.
EPPO code per pest, taxonomic information, categorisation, distribution) useful for the selection of the pests relevant for
the purposes of this Opinion.
The compiled pest list (see Microsoft Excel® in AppendixF) includes all identified pests that use as host S. caprea and S.
cinerea or that are reported as associated with Salix sp. and Salix spp. as well as all EU quarantine pests and protected zone
quarantine pests found to be associated with Salix as a genus.
The evaluation of the compiled pest list was done in two steps: first, the relevance of the EU- quarantine pests was eval-
uated (Section4.1); second, the relevance of any other plant pest was evaluated (Section4.2).
Pests for which limited information was available on one or more criteria used to identify them as relevant for this
Opinion, e.g. on potential impact, are listed in AppendixE (List of pests that can potentially cause an effect not further
assessed).
|
9 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
2.3.3 | Listing and evaluation of risk mitigation measures
All implemented risk mitigation measures were listed and evaluated. When evaluating the likelihood of pest freedom of
the commodity, the following types of potential infection/infestation sources for S. caprea and S. cinerea in export nursery
were considered (see also Figure1):
• pest entry from surrounding areas,
• pest entry with new plants/seeds,
• pest spread within the nursery.
The risk mitigation measures proposed by DEFRA of the UK were evaluated with Expert Knowledge Elicitation (EKE)
according to the Guidance on uncertainty analysis in scientific assessment (EFSA Scientific Committee,2018).
Information on the biology, likelihood of entry of the pest to the export nursery, of its spread inside the nursery and
the effect of measures on the specific pests were summarised in data sheets of pests selected for further evaluation (see
AppendixA).
2.3.4 | Expert Knowledge Elicitation
To estimate the pest freedom of the commodities an EKE was performed following EFSA guidance (Annex B.8 of EFSA
Scientific Committee,2018). The specific question for EKE was: ‘Taking into account (i) the risk mitigation measures in place
in the nurseries and (ii) other relevant information, how many of 10,000 commodity units, either single plants or bundles of
plants will be infested with the relevant pest when arriving in the EU? A unit is defined as either single plants or bundles of
plants, cuttings/graftwood, bare root plants or plants in pots, depending on the commodity.
For the purpose of the EKE, the commodities (see Section3.1) were grouped as follows:
1. Cuttings/graftwood of 1–2 years, in bundles of 10–20 items;
2. Bare root plants of 1–7 years as single trees or in bundles of 5, 10, 15, 25, 50 plants depending on the species and plant size;
3. Cell grown plants of 1–2 years as single plants or bundles of 10, 12 or 15 plants depending on the nursery choice;
4. Single rooted plants of 2–15 years in pots.
Single plants and bundles of plants were considered together during the EKE. The following reasoning is given for not
distinguishing bundles of bare root plants and bundles of cell grown plants from their respective single plants:
(i) There is no quantitative information available regarding clustering of plants during production;
(ii) Single plants are grouped in bundles after sorting;
(iii) For the pests under consideration, a cross- contamination during transport is possible;
(iv) Bundles of small plants resemble in their risk larger single plants.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual framework to assess likelihood that plants are expor ted free from relevant pests (Source: EFSA PLH Panel,2019).
10 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
The uncertainties associated with the EKE were taken into account and quantified in the probability distribution ap-
plying the semi- formal method described in section3.5.2 of the EFSA- PLH Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment
(EFSA PLH Panel,2018). Finally, the results were reported in terms of the likelihood of pest freedom. The lower 5% percentile
of the uncertainty distribution reflects the opinion that pest freedom is with 95% certainty above this limit.
3 | COMMODITY DATA
3.1 | Description of the commodity
The commodities to be imported from the UK to the EU are cuttings/graftwood, bare root plants, cell grown plants and
rooted plants up to 15 years old in pots of S. caprea (common names: pussy willow, goat willow, common sallow; Family:
Salicaceae) and S. cinerea (common names: grey willow, common sallow, grey sallow; Family: Salicaceae) as described in
the details below:
1. Cuttings/graftwood: the age of cuttings/graftwood is between 1–2 years (Dossier Sections 1.1 and 1.2). The di-
ameter is between 0.6 and 1.2 cm. They are grouped in bundles of 10–20 items. Cuttings/graftwood are strong
young shoots bearing buds which are suitable for use in chip budding or grafting. The shoots are approximately
between 35 and 40 cm long and will typically have 9, 10 or more buds present (Dossier Sections 1.2, 1.2 and 5.1).
Cuttings/graftwood are without leaves.
2. Bare root plants: the age of plants is between 1 and 7 years (Dossier Sections1.1, 1.2, and 5.1). The diameter is between
0.4 and 4 cm and height is between 20 and 200 cm. Bare root plants may have some leaves at the time of export, in par-
ticular when exported in early winter (Dossier Sections1.1, 1.2 and 5.1). Bare root plants will be exported as single trees or
in bundles of 5, 10, 15, 25, 50 (Dossier Sections1.1, 1.2 and 5.1).
3. Cell grown plants: the age of plants is between 1 and 2 years. The diameter is between 0.4 and 1 cm and height between
20 and 60 cm. Cell grown plants are plants grown in cells at one plant per cell, using EU- compliant growing media. These
may be grown in greenhouses initially but are subsequently grown outdoors in containers in metal frames above the
ground. Cell grown plants may be traded as individual plants or as bundles. Typically, bundles will include 10, 12 or 15
plants depending on the choice of the nursery. The cell grown plants may be exported with leaves based on the picture
‘cell grown Salix ready for export' provided by the applicant country (Dossier Sections1.1, 1.2 and 5.1).
4. Rooted plants in pots: the age of plants is between 2 and 15 years (Dossier Sections5.1). The diameter is between 1 and
14 cm and height between 0.6 and 10 m. Rooted plants in pots may be either grown in EU- compliant growing media in
pots for their whole life, or initially grown in the field before being lifted, root- washed to remove any soil and then potted
in EU- compliant growing media. The trees will be lifted from the field a minimum of one growing season prior to export
at no more than 6 years old. The plants in pots may be exported with leaves, depending on the timing of the export
(Dossier Sections1.1, 1.2 and 5.1).
The growing media used is either virgin peat or peat- free compost (a mixture of coir, tree bark, wood fibre, etc.) com-
plying with the requirements for growing media as specified in the Annex VII of the Commission Implementing Regulation
2019/2072. This growing medium is certified and heat- treated by commercial suppliers during production to eliminate
pests and diseases (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
According to ISPM 36 (FAO, 2019), the commodities can be classified as ‘bare root plants’ and ‘rooted plants in pots’.
The yearly average trade volume of the different commodities to the EU is reported in Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2 and
summarised in Table 4. The trade of these commodities will mainly be to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
According to the Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2, the intended use of the commodities is as follows. Plants are supplied
directly to professional operators and traders. Uses may include propagation, growing- on, onward trading or onward sales
to final customers but will generally fall into the following categories:
TABLE 4 Yearly average trade volumes of Salix caprea and Salix cinerea commodities.
Type of plant Number of items Seasonal timing
Salix caprea
Cuttings/graftwood 2000 January to March
Bare root plants 25,000 November to March
Rooted plants in pots (including cell grown plants) 20,000 Mainly September to May
Salix cinerea
Cuttings/graftwood 2000 January to March
Bare root plants 25,000 November to March
Rooted plants in pots (including cell grown plants) 22,000 Mainly September to May
|
11 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
1. Tree production and further growing- on by professional operators;
2. Landscapers and garden centres, for woodland and ornamental/landscape planting;
3. Direct sales to final users as ornamentals.
3.2 | Description of the production areas
There are three nurseries specified in the technical dossier from the UK producing the commodities (Dossier Sections1.1
and 1.2). Salix species are grown in Great Britain in line with the Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 20206
and the Plant Health (Phytosanitary Conditions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.7 These regulations are broadly
similar to the EU phytosanitary regulations. All plants within the UK nurseries are grown under the same phytosanitary
measures, meeting the requirements of the UK Plant Passporting regime (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
The size of the nurseries is between 8 and 150 ha for container stock (plants in pots) and up to 325 ha for field- grown
stock (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
The nurseries also grow other plant species as shown in the AppendixC. The minimum and maximum proportion of
Salix compared to the other plant species grown in the nurseries is between 1% and 3% for S. caprea and between 1% and
2% for S. cinerea (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2). The following plant species may be grown in some of the nurseries: Castanea
sativa, Larix spp., Fagus sylvatica, Fagus spp., Malus spp., Quercus petraea, Quercus pubescens, Quercus robur, Quercus spp.,
Rosa spp., Sorbus spp., Ulmus spp. and Viburnum spp. (Dossier Section5.1). There are nurseries which also produce plants
for the local market, and there is no distancing between production areas for the export and the local market (Dossier
Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Non- cultivated herbaceous plants grow on less than 1% of the nursery area. The predominant species is rye grass
(Lolium spp.). Other identified species include dandelions (Taraxacum officinale), hairy bittercress (Cardamine hirsuta), com-
mon daisy (Bellis perennis), creeping cinquefoil (Potentilla reptans) and bluebells (Hyacinthoides non- scripta). These are all
extremely low in number (Dossier Sections 1.1 and 1.2). In access areas, non- cultivated herbaceous plants are kept to a
minimum and only exist at nursery boundaries.
There are hedges surrounding the export nurseries made up of a range of species including hazel (Corylus avellana),
yew (Taxus baccata), holly (Ilex spp.), ivy (Hedera spp.), alder (Alnus glutinosa), cherry laurel (Prunus laurocerasus), hawthorn
(Crataegus spp.), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) and leylandii (Cupressus × leylandii) (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
The minimum distance in a straight line, between the growing area in the nurseries and the closest S. caprea and S. cine-
rea plants in the local surroundings is 20 metres (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Nurseries are predominately situated in rural areas. The surrounding land tend to be arable farmland with some pasture
for animals and small areas of woodland. Hedges are often used to define field boundaries and grown along roadsides
(Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Arable crops present around the nurseries are rotated in line with good farming practices and could include oilseed
rape (Brassica napus), wheat (Triticum spp.), barley (Hordeum vulgare), turnips (Brassica rapa subsp. rapa), potatoes (Solanum
tuberosum) and maize (Zea mays) (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Pastures present around the nurseries are predominantly ryegrass (Lolium spp.) (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Woodland is present around the nurseries. Woodlands tend to be a standard UK mixed woodland, with a range of UK
native trees such as oak (Quercus robur), pine (Pinus spp.), poplar (Populus spp.), ash (Fraxinus spp.), sycamore (Acer pseudo-
platanus), holly (Ilex spp.), Norway maple (Acer platanoides) and field maple (Acer campestre). The nearest woodland to one
of the nurseries borders the boundary fence (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
It is not possible to identify the plant species growing within the gardens of private dwellings around the nurseries
(Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
The following plant species may be grown within a 2 km zone surrounding the nurseries: Camellia spp., Castanea sativa,
Larix kaempferi, Larix spp., Fagus sylvatica, Fagus spp., Populus spp., Quercus spp., Rhododendron spp. and Viburnum spp.
(Dossier Section5.1).
Based on the global Köppen–Geiger climate zone classification (World Maps of Köppen- Geiger climate classification),
the climate of the production areas of S. caprea and S. cinerea in the UK is classified as Cfb, i.e. main climate (C): warm tem-
perate; precipitation (f): fully humid; temperature (b): warm summer.
3.3 | Production and handling processes
3.3.1 | Source of planting material
The starting material of the commodities is a mix of seeds and seedlings depending on the nursery (Dossier Sections1.1
and 1.2).
6Plant Health (Am endment etc.) (EU Exit) Re gulations 2020 of 14 December 2020, No. 1482, 80 p p. https:// www. legis lation. gov. uk/ uksi/ 2020/ 1482/ conte nts/ made.
7Plant Health (Phy tosanitary Cond itions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) R egulations 2020, No. 1527, 276 pp. https:// www. legis lation. gov. uk/ uksi/ 2020/ 1527/ conte nts/ made.
12 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
Seeds purchased in the UK are certified under the Forest Reproductive Material (Great Britain) Regulations 2002.
Seedlings sourced in the UK are certified with the UK Plant Passports. A small percentage of seedlings are obtained from
EU countries (the Netherlands, Belgium, France) and they are certified with phytosanitary certificates (Dossier Sections1.1
and 1.2).
3.3.2 | Production cycle
Plants are either grown in containers (cells, pots, tubes, etc.) or in the field. Cell grown plants can be grown in greenhouses;
however, most plants will be field- grown or field- grown in containers (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2). The minimum distance
between greenhouses and production fields of Salix is 30 m (Dossier Section5.1).
As the plants are intended for outdoor cultivation it is normally only the early growth stages that are maintained under
protection, such as young plants where there is an increased vulnerability due to climatic conditions including frost. The
commodity to be exported should therefore be regarded as outdoor grown. Growth under protection is primarily to pro-
tect against external climatic conditions rather than protection from pests. The early stages of plants grown under protec-
tion are maintained in plastic polytunnels, or in glasshouses which typically consist of a metal or wood frame construction
and glass panels (Dossier Sections1.1, 1.2 and 5.1).
Rooted plants in pots may be either grown in EU- compliant growing media in pots for their whole life, or initially grown
in the field before being lifted, root- washed to remove the soil and then potted in EU- compliant growing media. Trees will
be lifted from the field at no more than 6 years old, root- washed to remove the soil and transplanted into pots at least one
growing season before export (Dossier Sections1.1, 1.2 and 5.1).
Pruning is done on the commodities 1, 2 and 4 described above in 3.1 Pruning frequency depends on growth, age of
plant, nursery and customer preference. Cell grown plants are not pruned (Dossier Sections1.1, 1.2 and 5.1).
According to the Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2, bare root plants are harvested in winter to be able to lift plants from the
field, and because this is the best time to move dormant plants. Rooted plants in pots can be moved at any point in the
year to fulfil customer demand.
The growing media is virgin peat or peat- free compost. This compost is heat- treated by commercial suppliers during
production to eliminate pests and diseases. It is supplied in sealed bulk bags or shrink- wrapped bales and stored off the
ground on pallets; these are free from contamination. Where delivered in bulk, compost is kept in a dedicated bunker,
either indoors or covered by tarpaulin outdoors, and with no risk of contamination with soil or other material (Dossier
Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Overhead, sub irrigation or drip irrigation is applied. Water used for irrigation can be drawn from several sources, the
mains supply, bore holes or from rainwater collection or watercourses (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2). Additional information
on water used for irrigation is provided in AppendixD. Regardless of the source of the water used to irrigate, none of the
nurseries are known to have experienced the introduction of a pest/disease because of contamination of the water supply
(Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Growers are required to assess whether water sources, irrigation and drainage systems used in plant production could
harbour and transmit plant pests. Water is routinely sampled and sent for analysis (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Growers must have an appropriate programme of weed management in place in the nursery (Dossier Sections1.1 and
1.2).
General hygiene measures are undertaken as part of routine nursery production, including disinfection of tools and
equipment between batches/lots and different plant species. The tools are dipped in a disinfectant solution and wiped
with a clean cloth between trees to reduce the risk of pest transfer between subjects. There are various disinfectants
available, with Virkon S (active substance: potassium peroxymonosulfate and sodium chloride) being a common example
(Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Growers keep records to allow traceability for all plant material handled. These records must allow a consignment or
consignment in transit to be traced back to the original source, as well as forward to identify all trade customers to which
those plants have been supplied (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
3.3.3 | Pest monitoring during production
All producers are registered as professional operators with the UK Competent Authority via the Animal and Plant Health
Agency (APHA) for England and Wales, or with Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA) for Scotland, and are
authorised to issue UK plant passports, verifying they meet the required national sanitary standards. The Competent
Authority inspects crops at least once a year to check they meet the standards set out in the guides. The UK surveillance is
based on visual inspection with samples taken from symptomatic material, and where appropriate, samples are also taken
from asymptomatic material (e.g. plants, soil, watercourses) (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
The sanitary status of production areas is controlled by the producers as part of these schemes, as well as via offi-
cial inspections by APHA Plant Health and Seeds Inspectors (PHSI; England and Wales) or with SASA (Scotland) (Dossier
Sections1.1 and 1.2).
|
13 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
Plant material is regularly monitored for plant health issues. Pest monitoring is carried out visually by trained nursery
staff via regular crop walking and records are kept of this monitoring. Qualified agronomists also undertake crop walks to
verify the producer's assessments. However, no information is available on the frequency of these crop walks. Curative or
preventative actions as described below are implemented together with an assessment of phytosanitary risk. Unless a pest
can be immediately and definitively identified as non- quarantine, growers are required to treat it as a suspect quarantine
pest and notify the Competent Authority. All plants are also carefully inspected by nurseries on arrival and dispatch for any
plant health issues (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
The nurseries follow the Plant Health Management Standard issued by the Plant Healthy Certification Scheme which
DEFRA, the Royal Horticultural Society (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
During production, in addition to the general health monitoring of the plants by the nurseries, official growing season
inspections are undertaken by the UK Plant Health Service at an appropriate time, taking into consideration factors such as
the likelihood of pest presence and growth stage of the crop. Where appropriate this could include sampling and labora-
tory analysis. Official sampling and analysis could also be undertaken nearer to the point of export depending on the type
of analysis and the import requirements of the country being exported to. Samples are generally taken on a representative
sample of plants, in some cases, however, where the consignment size is quite small, all plants are sampled. Magnification
equipment is provided to all inspectors as part of their standard equipment and is used during inspections when appro-
priate (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
In the Dossier it is reported that in years 2020 to 2022 there has been a substantial level of inspection of registered S.
caprea and S. cinerea producers, both in support of the Plant Passporting scheme (checks are consistent with EU legislation,
with a minimum of 1 a year for authorised operators) and as part of the Quarantine Surveillance programme (Great Britain
uses the same framework for its surveillance programme as the EU). The number of inspected nurseries was three in 2020,
nine in 2021 and six in 2022. Inspections targeted P. ramorum but plants were also inspected for symptoms and signs of
other pests, including quarantine pests (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
All residues or waste materials are reported to be assessed for the potential to host, harbour and transmit pests (Dossier
Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Incoming plant material and other goods such as packaging material and growing media that have the potential to be
infected or harbour pests, are checked on arrival. Growers have procedures in place to quarantine any suspect plant mate-
rial and to report findings to the authorities (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
3.3.4 | Pest management during production
Crop protection is achieved using a combination of measures including approved plant protection products, biological
control or physical measures. Plant protection products are only used when necessary and records of all plant protection
treatments are kept (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Pest and disease pressure varies from season to season. Product application takes place only when required and de-
pends on situation (disease pressure, growth stage etc. and environmental factors) at that time. Subject to this variation in
pest pressure, in some seasons few, if any, pesticides are applied; in others it is sometimes necessary to apply preventative
and/or control applications of pesticides. In many circumstances also, biological control rather than chemical control is
reported to be used to manage pest outbreaks (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Examples of typical treatments used against rust, leaf spot, canker, spider mites, aphids and weeds are listed in the
Dossier Sections1.1, 1.2 and 5.1. These would be applied at the manufacturers recommended rate and intervals (Dossier
Sections1.1 and 1.2).
There are no specific measures/treatments against soil pests. However, containerised plants are grown in trays on top of
protective plastic membranes to prevent contact with soil. Membranes are regularly refreshed when needed. Alternatively,
plants may be grown on raised galvanised steel benches stood on gravel as a barrier between the soil and bench feet and/
or concreted surfaces (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Post- harvest and through the autumn and winter, nursery management is centred on pest and disease prevention and
maintaining good levels of nursery hygiene. Leaves, pruning residues and weeds are all removed from the nursery to re-
duce the number of over wintering sites for pests and diseases (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
3.3.5 | Inspections before export
The UK NPPO carries out inspections and testing where required by the country of destination's plant health legislation, to
ensure all requirements are fulfilled and a valid phytosanitary certificate with the correct additional declarations is issued
(Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Separate to any official inspection, plant material is checked by growers for plant health issues prior to dispatch (Dossier
Sections1.1 and 1.2).
A final pre- export inspection is undertaken as part of the process of issuing a phytosanitary certificate. These inspec-
tions are generally undertaken as near to the time of export as possible, usually within 1–2 days and not more than 2 weeks
14 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
before export. Phytosanitary certificates are only issued if the commodity meets the required plant health standards after
inspection and/or testing according to appropriate official procedures (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
The protocol for pest infested plants during pre- export inspections is to treat them if they are on site for a sufficient
period of time or to destroy them otherwise. All other host plants in the nursery would be treated. The phytosanitary cer-
tificate for export will not be issued until the UK Plant Health inspectors confirm that the plants are free from pests (Dossier
Sections1.1 and 1.2).
3.3.6 | Export procedure
Bare root plants, harvested from November to March, are lifted and washed free from soil with a low- pressure washer in
the outdoors nursery area away from packing/cold store area. In some cases, the plants may be kept in a cold store for up
to 5 months after harvesting prior to export (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Rooted plants in pots can be moved at any point in the year to fulfil customer demand. These will likely be destined for
garden centre trade rather than nurseries (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Cuttings/graftwood wrapped in plastic and packed in cardboard boxes or Dutch crates on ISPM certified wooden pal-
lets, or metal pallets, dependant on quantity. Cuttings/graftwood may be exported in bundles of 10–20 items (Dossier
Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Cell grown plants may be traded as individual plants or as bundles. Typically, bundles will include 10, 12 or 15 plants
depending on the size of plant (Dossier Section5.1).
Prior to export bare root plants can be placed in bundles 5, 10, 15, 25, 50 plants, depending on their size or single bare
root trees. They are then wrapped in polythene and packed and distributed on ISPM 15 certified wooden pallets or metal
pallets. Alternatively, they may be placed in pallets which are then wrapped in polythene. Small volume orders may be
packed in waxed cardboard cartons or polythene bags and dispatched via courier (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Rooted plants in pots are transported on Danish trolleys for smaller containers, or ISPM 15 certified pallets, or individu-
ally in pots for larger containers (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
The preparation of the commodities for export is carried out inside the nurseries in a closed environment, e.g. packing
shed (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Plants are transported by lorry (size dependant on load quantity). Cold sensitive plants are occasionally transported by
temperature- controlled lorry if weather conditions during transit are likely to be very cold (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
4 | IDENTIFICATION OF PESTS POTENTIALLY ASSOCIATED WITH
THE COMMODITY
The search for potential pests associated with the commodity rendered 1449 species (see Microsoft Excel® file in AppendixF).
4.1 | Selection of relevant EU- quarantine pests associated with the commodity
The EU listing of union quarantine pests and protected zone quarantine pests (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU)
2019/2072) is based on assessments concluding that the pests can enter, establish, spread and have potential impact in the
EU.
77 EU- quarantine species that are reported to use the commodities as host plants were evaluated (Table5) for their
relevance of being included in this opinion.
The relevance of an EU- quarantine pest for this opinion was based on evidence that:
a. the pest is present in the UK;
b. the commodity is host of the pest;
c. one or more life stages of the pest can be associated with the specified commodity.
Pests that fulfilled all criteria were selected for further evaluation.
Table5 presents an overview of the evaluation of the 77 EU- quarantine pest species that are reported as associated with
the commodities.
Of these 77 EU- quarantine pest species evaluated, 3 (Bemisia tabaci (European populations), Entoleuca mammata and
Phytophthora ramorum (non- EU isolates)) are present in the UK and can be associated with the commodities and hence
were selected for further evaluation.
There was one EU quarantine pest, i.e. Meloidogyne enterolobii that despite being reported to be associated with Salix
was not further evaluated. An association with Salix × pendulina f. salamonii was reported in EPPO. However, the consulta-
tion of the original literature (Brito etal.,2010) revealed that Salix is not reported as a host of M. enterolobii, but a host of
Meloidogyne spp. Moreover, the pest is not known to be present in the UK.
|
15 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
TABLE 5 Overview of the evaluation of the 77 EU- quarantine pest species for which information was found in the Dossier, databases and literature searches that use Salix as a host plant for their relevance for this
opinion.
No.
Pest name according to EU
legislationaEPPO code Group
Pest present
in the UK Salix confirmed as a host (reference)
Pest can be associated with
the commodity
Pest relevant for
the opinion
1Acleris issikii ACLRIS Insects No Salix integra (Byun & Yan,2004; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
2Acleris senescens ACLRSE Insects No Salix lasiolepis (Powell, 2004; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
3Aleurocanthus spiniferus ALECSN Insects No Salix sp. (Gillespie,2012; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
4Anoplophora chinensis ANOLCN Insects No Salix caprea (Oğuzoğlu etal.,2024; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
5Anoplophora glabripennis ANOLGL Insects No Salix caprea, S . cinerea (CABI,2025; Straw
etal.,2015)
Not assessed No
6Aphrophora angulata APHRAN Insects No Salix sp. (Severin,1950; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
7Apriona cinerea APRICI Insects No Salix (Singh & Prasad,1985; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
8Apriona germari APRIGE Insects No Salix babylonica (Lim etal.,2014; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
9Apriona rugicollis APRIJA Insects No Salix babylonica (EPPO,2024)bNot assessed No
10 Bemisia tabaci (non- European
populations)
BEMITA Insects No Salix matsudana (Bayhan etal.,2006)Not assessed No
11 Bemisia tabaci (European populations)cBEMITA Insects Yes Salix matsudana (Bayhan etal.,2006)Yes Yes
12 Candidatus Phytoplasma phoenicium PHYPPH Phytoplasmas No Salix alba (Zamhari,2017)Not assessed No
13 Candidatus Phytoplasma ziziphi PHYPZI Phytoplasmas No Salix babylonica (Lai etal.,2022; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
14 Choristoneura conflictana ARCHCO Insects No Salix sp. (Ciesla & Kruse,2009; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
15 Choristoneura rosaceana CHONRO Insects No Salix (Furniss & Carolin,1977; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
16 Diabrotica virgifera zeae DIABVZ Insects No Salix nigra (Clark etal.,2004; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
17 Entoleuca mammata HYPOMA Fungi Yes Salix caprea, S. cinerea (Granmo etal.,1999)Yes Yes
18 Eurhizococcus brasiliensis EURHBR Insects No Salix babylonica (Foldi,2005; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
19 Euwallacea fornicatus sensu lato XYLBFO Insects No Salix (DAFNAE,2025; Mendel etal.,2021)Not assessed No
20 Grapevine flavescence dorée
phytoplasma
PHYP64 Phytoplasmas No Salix spp. (Casati etal.,2017)Not assessed No
21 Grapho cephala atrop unctata GRC PAT Insects No Salix spp. (Purcell,1976; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
22 Graphocephala confluens GRCPCF Insects No Salix (Nielson,1968; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
23 Homalodisca v itripennis HOMLTR Insects No Salix spp. (Hoddle etal., 2003; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
24 Lopholeucaspis j aponica LOPLJA Insects No Salix babylonica (Batsankalashvili etal.,2017)Not assessed No
25 Lycorma delicatula LYCMDE Insects No Salix babylonica (Barringer & Ciafré,2020;
EPPO,2024)
Not assessed No
26 Neocosmospora euwallaceae FUSAEW Fungi No Salix sp. (Eskalen etal.,2013)Not assessed No
27 Neokolla hieroglyphica GRCPHI Insects No Salix sp. (Overall & Rebek,2017; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
28 Oemona hirta OEMOHI Insects No Salix caprea (Lu & Wang,2005; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
(Continues)
16 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
No.
Pest name according to EU
legislationaEPPO code Group
Pest present
in the UK Salix confirmed as a host (reference)
Pest can be associated with
the commodity
Pest relevant for
the opinion
29 Oncometopi a nigricans ONCMNI Insects No Salix caroliniana (Adlerz,1980; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
30 Oncometopia orbona ONCMUN Insects No Salix nigra (Turner,1959; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
31 Phymatotrichopsis omnivora PHMPOM Fungi No Salix nigra (Anonymous,1960; Farr &
Rossman,2025)
Not assessed No
32 Phytoph thora ramorum (non- EU
isolates)
PHYTRA Oomycetes Yes Salix caprea (APHIS USDA,2022; Cave etal.,2008)Yes Ye s
33 Popillia japonica POPIJA Insects No Salix discolor, S. viminalis (Fleming,1972;
EPPO,2024)
Not assessed No
34 Ralstonia pseudosolanacearum RALSPS Bacteria No Salix gracilistyla (EPPO,2024; Lin etal., 2014)Not assessed No
35 Scirtothrips citri SCITCI Insects No Salix (Bailey,196 4; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
36 Sphaerulina musiva MYCOPP Fungi No Salix lucida subsp. lucida (EPPO,2024; Feau &
Bernier, 2004)
Not assessed No
37 Spodoptera eridania PRODER Insects No Salix sp. (Montezano etal.,2014; EPPO,2024)Not assessed No
38 Trirachys sartus AELSSA Insects No Salix spp. (EPPO,2024; Farashiani etal.,20 01)Not assessed No
39 Xylella fastidiosa XYLEFA Bacteria No Salix alba (Casarin etal.,2022) – experimental
host
Not assessed No
Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
40 Ambrosiodmus le wisi
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
AMBDLE Insects No Salix (DAFNAE,2025; Wood & Bright,1992)Not assessed No
41 Ambrosiodmus minor
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
AMBDMI Insects No Salix (Lin etal.,2019; DAFNAE, 2025) Not assessed No
42 Ambrosiodmus rubricollis
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
AMBDRU Insects No Salix (Atkinson,2025; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
43 Anisandrus maiche
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
ANIDMA Insects No Salix (DAFNAE,2025; Mandelshtam etal.,2018)Not assessed No
44 Corthylus mexicanus
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix (Atkinson,2025; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
45 Corthylus nudus
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix babylonica (Bright & Skidmore,2002;
DAFNAE,2025)
Not assessed No
46 Corthylus papulans
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix (Atkinson,2025; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
47 Cryphalus exiguus
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix (Wood & Bright,1992; DAFNAE,2025 Not assessed No
48 Diuncus haberkorni
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix tetrasperma (DAFNAE,2025; Maiti &
Saha,2004)
Not assessed No
TABLE 5 (Continued)
|
17 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(Continues)
No.
Pest name according to EU
legislationaEPPO code Group
Pest present
in the UK Salix confirmed as a host (reference)
Pest can be associated with
the commodity
Pest relevant for
the opinion
49 Heteroborips seriatus
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
XYLBSE Insects No Salix (DAFNAE,2025; Mandelshtam etal.,2019)Not assessed No
50 Hylocurus hirtellus
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix (Atkinson,2025; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
51 Hylocurus microcornis
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix (Atkinson,2025; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
52 Hypothenemus atomus
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix (Atkinson,2025; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
53 Hypothenemus cali fornicus
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
HYOTCA Insects No Salix babylonica (DAFNAE,2025; Wood &
Bright,1992)
Not assessed No
54 Hypothenemus columbi
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
HYOTCO Insects No Salix (DAFNAE,2025; Wood & Bright,1992)Not assessed No
55 Hypothenemus crudiae
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
HYOTHI Insects No Salix (Atkinson,2025; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
56 Hypothenemus distinctus
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix nigra (Atkinson,2025; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
57 Hypothenemus interstitialis
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix (Atkinson,2025; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
58 Hypothenemus seriatus
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
STEHSE Insects No Salix (DAFNAE,2025; Wood & Bright,1992)Not assessed No
59 Lymantor decipiens
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix interior (Atkinson,2025; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
60 Micracis carinulatus
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix (DAFNAE,2025; Wood & Bright,19 92)Not assessed No
61 Micracis detentus
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix (Wood & Bright,1992; DAFNAE, 2025) Not assessed No
62 Micracis festivus
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix (Atkinson,2025; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
63 Micracis grandis
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix (Wood & Bright,1992; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
64 Micracis suturalis
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix interior (Atkinson,2025; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
65 Micracis swainei
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix (Wood & Bright,1992; DAFNAE, 2025) Not assessed No
66 Micracis tribulatus
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix (Atkinson,2025; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
TABLE 5 (Continued)
18 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
No.
Pest name according to EU
legislationaEPPO code Group
Pest present
in the UK Salix confirmed as a host (reference)
Pest can be associated with
the commodity
Pest relevant for
the opinion
67 Micracis unicornis
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix (Atkinson,2025; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
68 Micracisella knulli
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix (Wood & Bright,1992; DAFNAE, 2025) Not assessed No
69 Microcorthylus vicinus
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix (Atkinson,2025; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
70 Procryph alus utahensis
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix scouleriana (Wood & Bright,1992; DAFNAE,
2025)
Not assessed No
71 Pseudothysanoes hopkinsi
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix (Atkinson,2025; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
72 Scolytoplatypus minimus
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix tetrasperma (Wood & Bright,1992;
DAFNAE,2025)
Not assessed No
73 Scolytus schevyrewi
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
SCOLSH Insects No Salix (Wood & Bright,1992; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
74 Taphrorychus machnovskii
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix (Wood & Bright,1992; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
75 Taphrorychus picipennis
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix (Wood & Bright,1992; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
76 Trypophloeus nitid us
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix scouleriana (Wood & Bright,1992;
DAFNAE,2025)
Not assessed No
77 Trypophloeus salicis
as Scolytinae spp. (non- European)
Insects No Salix (Wood & Bright,1992; DAFNAE,2025)Not assessed No
aCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072.
bRepor ted in EPPO, 2024, but no origina l papers are cited in EPPO.
cB. tabaci (European popul ations) is regulated as a prote cted zone quarantine p est. Therefore B. tabaci is liste d twice, as European and no n- European p opulation. The assoc iation with Salix was assessed a t the pest species level a nd not at the
population level.
TABLE 5 (Continued)
|
19 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
4.2 | Selection of other relevant pests (non- regulated in the EU) associated
with the commodity
The information provided by the UK, integrated with the search performed by EFSA, was evaluated in order to assess
whether there are other relevant pests potentially associated with the commodity species present in the country of export.
For these potential pests that are non- regulated in the EU, pest risk assessment information on the probability of entry, es-
tablishment, spread and impact is usually lacking. Therefore, these pests were also evaluated to determine their relevance
for this Opinion based on evidence that:
a. the pest is present in the UK;
b. the pest is (i) absent or (ii) has a limited distribution in the EU;
c. commodity is a host of the pest;
d. one or more life stages of the pest can be associated with the specified commodity;
e. the pest may have an impact in the EU.
For non- regulated species with a limited distribution (i.e. present in one or a few EU MSs) and fulfilling the other criteria
(i.e. c, d and e), either one of the following conditions should be additionally fulfilled for the pest to be further evaluated:
• official phytosanitary measures have been adopted in at least one EU MS;
• any other reason justified by the working group (e.g. recent evidence of presence).
Pests that fulfilled the above listed criteria were selected for further evaluation.
Based on the information collected, 1372 potential pests known to be associated with the species commodity were eval-
uated for their relevance to this Opinion. Pests were excluded from further evaluation when at least one of the conditions
listed above (a–e) was not met. Details can be found in AppendixF (Microsoft Excel® file). None of the pests not regulated
in the EU was selected for further evaluation because none of them met all selection criteria.
4.3 | Overview of interceptions
Data on the interception of harmful organisms on plants of Salix can provide information on some of the organisms that
can be present on Salix despite the current measures taken. According to EUROPHYT(2024) (accessed on 10 December
2024) and TRACES- NT(2024) (accessed on 10 December 2024), there were no interceptions of plants for planting of Salix
from the UK destined to the EU MSs due to the presence of harmful organisms between the years 1995 and 30 November
2024. It should be noted that since Brexit the movement of Salix from UK to the EU has been banned according to the cur-
rent plant health legislation and therefore it is not expected to have interceptions after Brexit.
4.4 | List of potential pests not further assessed
From the list of pests not selected for further evaluation, the Panel highlighted one species Takahashia japonica (see
AppendixE) for which currently available information provides not enough evidence on impacts to select this species for
further evaluation in this opinion. T. japonica was not yet included in the list of Union quarantine pests because no signifi-
cant impact of the pest on its host plants was observed in areas where it is already present in Europe. However, there is
uncertainty on potential impacts once it reaches other areas in Europe with different environmental conditions and with
different natural enemies or abundance of enemies. The uncertainty on the impact is added as justification of the inclusion
in AppendixE.
4.5 | Summary of pests selected for further evaluation
The three pests satisfying all the relevant criteria listed above in the Sections4.1 and 4.2 are included in Table6. The effec-
tiveness of the risk mitigation measures applied to the commodity was evaluated for these selected pests.
20 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
5 | RISK MITIGATION MEASURES
For the selected pests (Tabl e6), the Panel evaluated the likelihood that it could be present in the S. caprea and S. cinerea
nurseries by evaluating the possibility that the commodity in the export nurseries is infested either by:
• introduction of the pest from the environment surrounding the nursery;
• introduction of the pest with new plants/seeds;
• spread of the pest within the nursery.
The information used in the evaluation of the effectiveness of the risk mitigation measures is summarised in pest data
sheets (see AppendixA).
5.1 | Risk mitigation measures applied in the UK
With the information provided by the UK (Dossier Sections1.1, 1.2 and 5.1), the Panel summarised the risk mitigation meas-
ures (see Table7) that are implemented in the production nursery.
TABLE 6 List of relevant pests selected for further evaluation
Number
Current
scientific
name
EPPO
code
Name used in the EU
legislation
Taxonomic
information Group Regulatory status
1Bemisia tabaci BEMITA Bemisia tabaci
Genn. (European
populations)
Hemiptera
Aleyrodidae
Insects Protected Zone Quarantine
Pest according
to Commission
Implementing Regulation
(EU) 2019/2072
2Entoleuca
mammata
HYPOMA Entoleuca mammata
(Wahlenb.) Rogers
and Ju
Xylariales
Xylariaceae
Fungi Protected Zone Quarantine
Pest according
to Commission
Implementing Regulation
(EU) 2019/2072
3Phytoph thora
ramorum
PHYTRA Phytophthora ra morum
(non- EU isolates)
Werres, De Cock &
Man in ‘t Veld
Peronosporales
Peronosporaceae
Oomycetes EU Quarantine Pest
according to Commission
Implementing Regulation
(EU) 2019/2072
TABLE 7 Overview of implemented risk mitigation measures for Salix caprea and Salix cinerea plants designated for export to the EU from the UK.
Number Risk mitigation measure Implementation in the UK
1Registration of production
sites
All producers are registered as professional operators with the UK Competent Authority via
APHA for England and Wales, or SASA for Scotland, and are authorised to issue the UK plant
passports, verifying they meet the required national sanitary standards (Dossier Sections1.1
and 1.2).
2Physical separation Most of the nurseries also produce plants for the local market, and there is no distancing between
production areas for the export and the local market. All plants within UK nurseries are
grown under the same phytosanitary measures, meeting the requirements of the UK Plant
Passporting regime (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
3Certified plant material Salix seeds purchased in the UK are certified under The Forest Reproductive Material (Great
Britain) Regulations 2002 (legis lation. gov. uk); seedlings sourced in the UK are certified with
UK Plant Passports. A small percentage of seed and young plants may be obtained from EU
(Netherlands, Belgium and France); seeds and planting material from the EU countries are
certified with phytosanitary certificates (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
4Growing media The growing media is virgin peat or peat- free compost. This compost is heat- treated by
commercial suppliers during production to eliminate pests and diseases. It is supplied in
sealed bulk bags or shrink- wrapped bales and stored off the ground on pallets, these are free
from contamination. Where delivered in bulk, compost is kept in a dedicated bunker, either
indoors, or covered by tarpaulin outdoors, and with no risk of contamination with soil or other
material (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
5 Surveillance, monitoring and
sampling
For additional information see Section3.3.3 Pest monitoring during production.
|
21 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
Number Risk mitigation measure Implementation in the UK
6Hygiene measures All nurseries have plant hygiene and housekeeping rules and practices in place, which are
communicated to all relevant employees.
General hygiene measures are undertaken as part of routine nursery production, including
disinfection of tools and equipment between batches/lots and dif ferent plant species. The
tools are dipped in a disinfectant solution and wiped with a clean cloth between trees to
reduce the risk of transfer of pests between subjects. There are various disinfectants available,
with Virkon S (active substance: potassium peroxymonosulfate and sodium chloride) being a
common example.
Growers must have an appropriate programme of weed management in place on the nurser y
(Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
7 Removal of infested plant
material
Post- harvest and through the autumn and winter, nurser y management is centred on pest and
disease prevention and maintaining good levels of nursery hygiene. Leaves, pruning residues
and weeds are all removed from the nursery to reduce the number of over wintering sites for
pests and diseases.
All residues or waste materials shall be assessed for the potential to host, harbour or transmit
pests (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
8Irrigation water Water for irrigation is routinely sampled and sent for analysis (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
9 Application of pest control
products
Crop protection is achieved using a combination of measures including approved plant
protection products, biological control or physical measures. Plant protection products are
only used when necessary and records of all plant protection treatments are kept.
Pest and disease pressure varies from season to season. Plant protection products are applied
application takes place only when required and depends on situation (disease pressure,
growth stage etc. and environmental factors) at that time. Subject to this variation in
pest pressure, in some seasons few, if any, pesticides are applied; in others it is sometimes
necessary to apply preventative and/or control applications of pesticides. In many
circumstances also, biological control is repor ted to be used to control outbreaks, rather than
using chemical treatments.
Examples of t ypical products used against rusts, leafspots and canker fungi, spider mites, aphids
and weeds are provided in the Dossier Sections1.1, 1.2 and 5.1. These would be applied at the
manufacturers recommended rate and inter vals (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
10 Measures against soil pests There are no specific measures/treatments against soil pests. However, containerised plants
are grown in trays on top of protective plastic membranes to prevent contact with soil.
Membranes are regularly refreshed when needed. Alternatively, plants may be grown on
raised galvanised steel benches stood on gravel as a barrier between the soil and bench feet
and/or concreted surfaces (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
11 Inspections and management
of plants before export
The UK NPPO carries out inspections and testing where required by the country of destination's
plant health legislation, to ensure all requirements are fulfilled and a valid phytosanitary
certificate with the correct additional declarations is issued (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Separate to any official inspection, plant material is checked by growers for plant health issues
prior to dispatch (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
A final pre- export inspection is undertaken as part of the process of issuing a phy tosanitary
certificate. These inspections are generally undertaken usually within 1–2 days, and not more
than 2 weeks before export. Phytosanitary certificates are only issued if the commodity meets
the required plant health standards after inspection and/or testing according to appropriate
official procedures (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2). The protocol for plants infested by pests during
inspections before export is to treat the plants, if they are on site for a suf ficient period of time
or to destroy any plants infested by pests otherwise. All other host plants in the nursery would
be treated. The phytosanitary certificate for export will not be issued until the UK Plant Health
inspectors confirm that the plants are fre e from pests (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
12 Separation during transport
to the destination
The commodities are dispatched as single plants in pots, single cell grown plants, single bare root
plants or in bundles (this applies also to cuttings/graftwood) as follows:
– bundles of 10–20 plants for cuttings/graftwood;
– 5, 10, 15, 25, 50 for bare root plants;
– 5–10 for cell grown plants.
Cuttings/graftwood is wrapped in plastic and packed in cardboard boxes or Dutch crates on ISPM
15 certified wooden pallets, or metal pallets, dependant on quantity (Dossier Sections1.1 and
1.2). Bare root plants are then wrapped in polythene and packed and distributed on ISPM 15
certified wooden pallets or metal pallets. Alternatively, they may be placed in pallets which
are then wrapped in polythene. Small volume orders may be packed in waxed cardboard
cartons or polythene bags and dispatched via (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Rooted plants in pots are transported on Danish trolleys for smaller containers, or ISPM 15
certified pallets, or individually in pots for larger containers (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
The preparation of the commodities for export is carried out inside the nurseries in a closed
environment, e.g. packing shed, except for the specimen trees, which are prepared outside in
an open field due to their dimensions (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Plants are transported by lorry (size dependant on load quantity). Sensitive plants are occasionally
transported by temperature- controlled lorry if weather conditions during transit are likely to
be very cold (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
TABLE 7 (Continued)
(Continues)
22 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
5.2 | Evaluation of the current measures for the selected relevant pests including
uncertainties
For each evaluated pest, the relevant risk mitigation measures acting on the pest were identified. Any limiting factors on
the effectiveness of the measures were documented.
All the relevant information including the related uncertainties deriving from the limiting factors used in the evaluation
are summarised in a pest data sheet provided in AppendixA. Based on this information, for each selected relevant pest, an
expert judgement is given for the likelihood of pest freedom taking into consideration the risk mitigation measures and
their combination acting on the pest.
An overview of the evaluation of each relevant pest is given in the sections below (Sections5.2.1–5.2.3). The outcome
of the EKE regarding pest freedom after the evaluation of the currently proposed risk mitigation measures is summarised
in Section5.2.4.
5.2.1 | Overview of the evaluation of Bemisia tabaci (European populations) (Hemiptera;
Aleyrodidae)
The same values as elicited in a previous opinion on Populus spp. were (EFSA PLH Panel,2025) considered applicable to
the commodities of Salix for the following reasons: Populus and Salix belong to the same plant family. Therefore, the host
preference of Bemisia tabaci is considered similar also taking into account that the pest is polyphagous. The commodities
of Salix are similar to those of Populus, and the maximum size of the commodities are identical. The surroundings of the
nurseries are similar. The minimum distance of the production fields to greenhouses is the same. The production condi-
tions, risk mitigation, inspection and surveillance, the presence of leaves on the exported plants are similar.
Overview of the evaluation of Bemisia tabaci (European populations) for bare root plants (1–7 years, single or bundles)
Rating of the likelihood
of pest freedom
Pest free with some exceptional cases (based on the median).
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of pest- free
plants/bundles
9959 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9976 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9987 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9994 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9999 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of infected
plants/bundles
1 out of 10,000
plants/ bundles
6 out of 10,000
plants/ bundles
13 out of 10,000
plants/ bundles
24 out of 10,000
plants/ bundles
41 out of 10,000
plants/ bundles
Summary of the
information used
for the evaluation
Possibility that the pest could become associated with the commodity
The pest is present in the UK, with few occurrences but continuously intercepted. UK outbreaks of B. tabaci have
been restricted to greenhouses. The pest is extremely polyphagous with a very wide host range. Other traded
plants present in the surroundings of the nurser y could be a source of the pest. Polytunnels and glasshouses in
the nurseries could act as a reservoir of the pest. The pest could go undetected during inspections.
Measures t aken against the pest and their efficac y
General measures taken by the nurseries are ef fective against the pest. These measures include (a) inspections,
surveillance, monitoring, sampling and laboratory testing; (b) hygiene measures; (c) application of pest control
products and (d) removal of infested plant material.
Interception records
In the EUROPHYT/TRACES- NT database there are no records of notification of Salix plants for planting neither from
the UK nor from other countries due to the presence of B. tabaci between the years 1995 and November 2024
(EUROPHYT,2024; TRACES- NT,2024).
There were four interceptions of B. tabaci from the UK in 2007 and 2015 on other non- Salix plants (EUROPHYT,2024).
Shortcomings of current measures/procedures
None.
Main uncertainties
– Possibility of development of the pest outside greenhouses.
– Pest abundance in the nursery and the surroundings.
– The precision of sur veillance and the application of measures targeting the pest.
– Whether yellow sticky traps are used for surveillance of B. tabaci.
– Host status of S. ca prea and S. cinerea to the pest.
Overview of the evaluation of Bemisia tabaci (European populations) for cell grown plants (1–2 years, single or bundles)
Rating of the likelihood
of pest freedom
Pest free with some exceptional cases (based on the median).
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of pest- free
bundles
9943 out of 10,000
bundles
9966 out of 10,000
bundles
9981 out of 10,000
bundles
9992 out of 10,000
bundles
9998 out of 10,000
bundles
|
23 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of infected
bundles
2 out of 10,000
bundles
8 out of 10,000
bundles
19 out of 10,000
bundles
34 out of 10,000
bundles
57 out of 10,000
bundles
Summary of the
information used for
the evaluation
Possibility that the pest could become associated with the commodity
The pest is present in the UK, with few occurrences but continuously intercepted. UK outbreaks of B. tabaci have
been restricted to greenhouses. The pest is extremely polyphagous with a very wide host range. Other traded
plants present in the surroundings of the nurser y could be a source of the pest. Polytunnels and glasshouses in
the nurseries could act as a reservoir of the pest. The pest could go undetected during inspections.
Measures t aken against the pest and their efficac y
General measures taken by the nurseries are ef fective against the pest. These measures include (a) inspections,
surveillance, monitoring, sampling and laboratory testing; (b) hygiene measures; (c) application of pest control
products and (d) removal of infested plant material.
Interception records
In the EUROPHYT/TRACES- NT database there are no records of notification of Salix plants for planting neither from
the UK nor from other countries due to the presence of B. tabaci between the years 1995 and November 2024
(EUROPHYT,2024; TRACES- NT,2024).
There were four interceptions of B. tabaci from the UK in 2007 and 2015 on other non- Salix plants
(EUROPHYT,2024).
Shortcomings of current measures/procedures
None.
Main uncertainties
– Possibility of development of the pest outside greenhouses.
– Pest abundance in the nursery and the surroundings.
– The precision of sur veillance and the application of measures targeting the pest.
– Host status of S. ca prea and S. cinerea to the pest.
Overview of the evaluation of Bemisia tabaci (European populations) for plants in pots (2–15 years, single trees)
Rating of the likelihood of
pest freedom
Pest free with some exceptional cases (based on the median).
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of pest- free
plants
9937 out of 10,000
plants
9961 out of 10,000
plants
9978 out of 10,000
plants
9991 out of 10,000
plants
9999 out of 10,000
plants
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of infected
plants
1 out of 10,000
plants
9 out of 10,000
plants
22 out of 10,000
plants
39 out of 10,000
plants
63 out of 10,000
plants
Summary of the
information used for
the evaluation
Possibility that the pest could become associated with the commodity
The pest is present in the UK, with few occurrences but continuously intercepted. UK outbreaks of B. tabaci have
been restricted to greenhouses. The pest is extremely polyphagous with a very wide host range. Other traded
plants present in the surroundings of the nurser y could be a source of the pest. Polytunnels and glasshouses in
the nurseries could act as a reservoir of the pest. The pest could go undetected during inspections.
Measures t aken against the pest and their efficac y
General measures taken by the nurseries are ef fective against the pest. These measures include (a) inspections,
surveillance, monitoring, sampling and laboratory testing; (b) hygiene measures; (c) application of pest control
products and (d) removal of infested plant material.
Interception records
In the EUROPHYT/TRACES- NT database there are no records of notification of Salix plants for planting neither from
the UK nor from other countries due to the presence of Bemisia tabaci between the years 1995 and November
2024 (EUROPHYT,2024; TRACES- NT,2024).
There were four interceptions of B. tabaci from the UK in 2007 and 2015 on other non- Salix plants
(EUROPHYT,2024).
Shortcomings of current measures/procedures
None.
Main uncertainties
– Possibility of development of the pest outside greenhouses.
– Pest abundance in the nursery and the surroundings.
– The precision of sur veillance and the application of measures targeting the pest.
– Host status of S. ca prea and S. cinerea to the pest.
For more details, see relevant pest data sheet on Bemisia tabaci (European populations) (Section A.1 in AppendixA).
(Continued)
24 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
5.2.2 | Overview of the evaluation of Entoleuca mammata (Xylariales; Xylariaceae)
The same values as elicited in a previous opinion on Populus spp. were (EFSA PLH Panel, 2025) were considered applicable
to the commodities of Salix for the following reasons: Populus and Salix belong to the same plant family. Salix is reported as
a secondary host of E. mammata. However, observational reports from Scandinavia point to the fungus to be prevalent on
Salix (Mathiassen,1993). Therefore, based on the available information, the susceptibility of Salix to E. mammata were con-
sidered similar to that of P. nigra and P. alba while the susceptibility of P. tremula is higher being the major host in Europe.
The commodities of Salix are similar to those of Populus, and the maximum size of the commodities are identical. The sur-
rounding of the nurseries is similar. The production conditions, risk mitigation, inspection and surveillance, the presence of
leaves on the exported plants are similar.
Overview of the evaluation of Entoleuca mammata for cuttings/graftwood (1–2 years, bundles)
Rating of the likelihood of
pest freedom
Pest free with some exceptional cases (based on the median).
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of pest- free
bundles
9947 out of 10,000
bundles
9971 out of 10,000
bundles
9983 out of 10,000
bundles
9992 out of 10,000
bundles
9998 out of 10,000
bundles
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of infected
bundles
2 out of 10,000
bundles
8 out of 10,000
bundles
17 out of 10,000
bundles
29 out of 10,000
bundles
53 out of 10,000
bundles
Summary of the
information used for
the evaluation
Possibility that the pest could become associated with the commodity
Entoleuca mammata is present in the UK, although not widely distributed. All willows (Salix spp.) are suitable
minor hosts. Mechanical wounds including pruning wounds are expected to be present and may represent
infection courts. The hosts can be present either inside or in the surroundings of the nurseries. Altogether, this
suggests that an association with the commodity is possible.
Measures t aken against the pest and their efficac y
General measures taken by the nurseries have an effect against the pathogen. These measures include (a) the use
of certified plant material; (b) inspections, surveillance, monitoring, sampling and laboratory testing; (c) the
removal of infec ted plant material and (d) application of pest control products.
Interception records
In the EUROPHYT/TRACES- NT database there are no records of notification of Salix plants for planting neither
from the UK nor from other countries due to the presence of E. mammata between the years 1995 and
November 2024 (EUROPHYT,2024; TRACES- NT,2024).
Shortcomings of current measures/procedures
None observed.
Main uncertainties
– The presence/abundance of the pathogen in the area where the nurseries are located.
– Whether the pest can reliably be detected via visual inspection.
– Effect of fungicide treatments against the pathogen.
Overview of the evaluation of Entoleuca mammata for bare root plants (1–7 years, single or bundles)
Rating of the likelihood of
pest freedom
Pest free with some exceptional cases (based on the median).
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of pest- free
plants/bundles
99 11 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9950 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9971 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9985 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9996 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of infected
plants/bundles
4 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
15 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
29 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
50 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
89 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
Summary of the
information used for
the evaluation
Possibility that the pest could become associated with the commodity
Entoleuca mammata is present in the UK, although not widely distributed. All willows (Salix spp.) are suitable
minor hosts. The hosts can be present either inside or in the surroundings of the nurseries. Infection may
occur through mechanically- induced wounds such as pruning wounds. Altogether, this suggests that an
association with the commodity is possible.
Measures t aken against the pest and their efficac y
General measures taken by the nurseries are ef fective against the pathogen. These measures include (a) the use
of certified plant material; (b) inspections, surveillance, monitoring, sampling and laboratory testing; (c) the
removal of infec ted plant material and (d) application of pest control products.
Interception records
In the EUROPHYT/TRACES- NT database there are no records of notification of Salix plants for planting neither
from the UK nor from other countries due to the presence of E. mammata between the years 1995 and
November 2024 (EUROPHYT,2024; TRACES- NT,2024).
|
25 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
Shortcomings of current measures/procedures
None observed.
Main uncertainties
– The presence/abundance of the pathogen in the area where the nurseries are located.
– Whether the pest can reliably be detected via visual inspection.
– Effect of fungicide treatments against the pathogen.
Overview of the evaluation of Entoleuca mammata for cell grown plants (1–2 years, single or bundles)
Rating of the likelihood of
pest freedom
Pest free with some exceptional cases (based on the median).
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of pest- free
plants/bundles
9930 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9961 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9979 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9991 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9998 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of infected
plants/bundles
2 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
21 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
39 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
70 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
Summary of the
information used for
the evaluation
Possibility that the pest could become associated with the commodity
Entoleuca mammata is present in the UK, although not widely distributed. All willows (Salix spp.) are suitable
minor hosts. Cell grown plants are in close proximit y to each other which increases the humidity and hence
provides good growth conditions for E. mammata. Mechanical wounds could be present and may represent
infection courts. The hosts can be present either inside or in the surroundings of the nurseries. Altogether, this
suggests that an association with the commodity may be possible.
Measures t aken against the pest and their efficac y
General measures taken by the nurseries are ef fective against the pathogen. These measures include (a) the use
of certified plant material; (b) inspections, surveillance, monitoring, sampling and laboratory testing; (c) the
removal of infec ted plant material and (d) application of pest control products.
Interception records
In the EUROPHYT/TRACES- NT database there are no records of notification of Salix plants for planting neither
from the UK nor from other countries due to the presence of E. mammata between the years 1995 and
November 2024 (EUROPHYT,2024; TRACES- NT,2024).
Shortcomings of current measures/procedures
None observed.
Main uncertainties
– The presence/abundance of the pathogen in the area where the nurseries are located.
– Whether the pest can reliably be detected via visual inspection.
– Effect of fungicide treatments against the pathogen.
Overview of the evaluation of Entoleuca mammata for plants in pots (2–15 years, single trees)
Rating of the likelihood of
pest freedom
Pest free with some exceptional cases (based on the median).
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of pest- free
plants
9865 out of 10,000
plants
9923 out of 10,000
plants
9958 out of 10,000
plants
9982 out of 10,000
plants
9997 out of 10,000
plants
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of infected
plants
3 out of 10,000
plants
18 out of 10,000
plants
42 out of 10,000
plants
77 out of 10,000
plants
135 out of 10,000
plants
Summary of the
information used for
the evaluation
Possibility that the pest could become associated with the commodity
Entoleuca mammata is present in the UK, although not widely distributed. All willows (Salix spp.) are suitable
minor hosts. Mechanical wounds including pruning wounds are expected to be present and may represent
infection courts. The hosts can be present either inside or in the surroundings of the nurseries. Altogether, this
suggests that an association with the commodity may be possible.
Measures t aken against the pest and their efficac y
General measures taken by the nurseries are ef fective against the pathogen. These measures include (a) the use
of certified plant material; (b) inspections, surveillance, monitoring, sampling and laboratory testing; (c) the
removal of infec ted plant material and (d) application of pest control products.
Interception records
In the EUROPHYT/TRACES- NT database there are no records of notification of Salix plants for planting neither
from the UK nor from other countries due to the presence of E. mammata between the years 1995 and
November 2024 (EUROPHYT,2024; TRACES- NT,2024).
Shortcomings of current measures/procedures
None observed.
Main uncertainties
– The presence/abundance of the pathogen in the area where the nurseries are located.
– Whether the pest can reliably be detected via visual inspection.
– Effect of fungicide treatments against the pathogen.
For more details, see relevant pest data sheet on Entoleuca mammata (Section A.2 in AppendixA).
(Continued)
26 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
5.2.3 | Overview of the evaluation of Phytophthora ramorum (non- EU isolates) (Peronosporales;
Peronosporaceae)
Overview of the evaluation of Phytop hthora ramorum (non- EU isolates) for cuttings/graftwood (1–2 years, bundles)
Rating of the likelihood of
pest freedom
Pest free with some exceptional cases (based on the median).
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of pest- free
bundles
9942 out of 10,000
bundles
9967 out of 10,000
bundles
9983 out of 10,000
bundles
9993 out of 10,000
bundles
9999 out of 10,000
bundles
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of infected
bundles
1 out of 10,000
bundles
7 out of 10,000
bundles
17 out of 10,000
bundles
33 out of 10,000
bundles
58 out of 10,000
bundles
Summary of the
information used for
the evaluation
Possibility that the pest could become associated with the commodity
Phytoph thora ramorum is present in the UK with a restricted distribution. The pathogen has a wide host range
including S. caprea. The main hosts (e.g. Larix spp., Rhododendron spp. etc.) can be present either inside or in
the surroundings of the nurseries. Aerial inoculum could be produced on these host plants and cause bark
infections on the commodity.
Measures t aken against the pest and their efficac y
Phytoph thora ramorum is a quarantine pest in the UK and under of ficial control. General measures taken by the
nurseries are effective against the pathogen. These measures include (a) the use of certified plant material and
growing media; (b) inspections, surveillance, monitoring, sampling and laboratory testing; and (c) application
of pest control products.
Interception records
In the EUROPHYT/TRACES- NT database there are no records of notification of Salix plants for planting neither
from the UK nor from other countries due to the presence of P. ramorum between the years 1995 and
November 2024 (EUROPHYT,2024; TRACES- NT,2024).
Shortcomings of current measures/procedures
None observed.
Main uncertainties
– Whether symptoms may be promptly detected.
– The presence/abundance of the pathogen in the area where the nurseries are located.
– Effect of fungicide treatments against the pathogen
– Host status of S. ci nerea.
Overview of the evaluation of Phytop hthora ramorum (non- EU isolates) for bare root plants (1–7 years, single or bundles)
Rating of the likelihood of
pest freedom
Extremely frequently pest free (based on the median).
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of pest- free
plants/bundles
9822 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9907 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9948 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9976 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9994 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of infected
plants/bundles
6 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
24 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
52 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
93 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
178 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
Summary of the
information used for
the evaluation
Possibility that the pest could become associated with the commodity
Phytoph thora ramorum is present in the UK with a restricted distribution. The pathogen has a wide host range
including S. caprea. The main hosts (e.g. Larix spp., Rhododendron spp. etc.) can be present either inside or in the
surroundings of the nurseries. Aerial inoculum could be produced on these host plants and cause bark and leaf
infections on the commodity.
Measures t aken against the pest and their efficac y
Phytoph thora ramorum is a quarantine pest in the UK and under of ficial control. General measures taken by the
nurseries are effective against the pathogen. These measures include (a) the use of certified plant material and
growing media; (b) inspections, surveillance, monitoring, sampling and laboratory testing; and (c) application of
pest control products.
Interception records
In the EUROPHYT/TRACES- NT database there are no records of notification of Salix plants for planting neither from
the UK nor from other countries due to the presence of P. ramorum between the years 1995 and November 2024
(EUROPHYT,2024; TRACES- NT,2024).
Shortcomings of current measures/procedures
None observed.
|
27 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
Main uncertainties
– The level of susceptibility of Salix spp. to the pathogen.
– Whether symptoms may be promptly detected.
– The practicability of inspections of older trees.
– The presence/abundance of the pathogen in the area where the nurseries are located.
– Effect of fungicide treatments against the pathogen.
– Host status of Salix cinerea.
Overview of the evaluation of Phytop hthora ramorum (non- EU isolates) for cell grown plants (1–2 years, single or bundles)
Rating of the likelihood
of pest freedom
Pest free with some exceptional cases (based on the median).
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of pest- free
plants/bundles
9853 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9920 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9955 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9978 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
9995 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of infected
plants/bundles
5 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
22 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
45 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
80 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
147 out of 10,000
plants/bundles
Summary of the
information used for
the evaluation
Possibility that the pest could become associated with the commodity
Phytoph thora ramorum is present in the UK with a restricted distribution. The pathogen has a wide host range
including S. caprea. The main hosts (e.g. Larix spp., Rhododendron spp. etc.) can be present either inside or in the
surroundings of the nurseries. Aerial inoculum could be produced on these host plants and cause bark and leaf
infections on the commodity.
Measures t aken against the pest and their efficac y
Phytoph thora ramorum is a quarantine pest in the UK and under of ficial control. General measures taken by the
nurseries are effective against the pathogen. These measures include (a) the use of certified plant material and
growing media; (b) inspections, surveillance, monitoring, sampling and laboratory testing; and (c) application of
pest control products.
Interception records
In the EUROPHYT/TRACES- NT database there are no records of notification of Salix plants for planting neither from
the UK nor from other countries due to the presence of P. ramorum between the years 1995 and November 2024
(EUROPHYT,2024; TRACES- NT,2024).
Shortcomings of current measures/procedures
None observed.
Main uncertainties
– The level of susceptibility of Salix spp. to the pathogen.
– Whether symptoms may be promptly detected.
– The practicability of inspections of older trees.
– The presence/abundance of the pathogen in the area where the nurseries are located.
– Effect of fungicide treatments against the pathogen.
– Host status of Salix cinerea.
Overview of the evaluation of Phytop hthora ramorum (non- EU isolates) for plants in pots (2–15 years, single trees)
Rating of the likelihood
of pest freedom
Extremely frequently pest free (based on the median).
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of pest- free
plants
9738 out of 10,000
plants
9860 out of 10,000
plants
9925 out of 10,000
plants
9968 out of 10,000
plants
9994 out of 10,000
plants
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of infected
plants
6 out of 10,000
plants
32 out of 10,000
plants
75 out of 10,000
plants
140 out of 10,000
plants
262 out of 10,000
plants
Summary of the
information used for
the evaluation
Possibility that the pest could become associated with the commodity
Phytoph thora ramorum is present in the UK with a restricted distribution. The pathogen has a wide host range
including S. caprea. The main hosts (e.g. Larix spp. etc.) can be present either inside or in the surroundings of the
nurseries. Aerial inoculum could be produced on these host plants and cause bark and leaf infections on the
commodity.
Measures t aken against the pest and their efficac y
P. ramorum is a quarantine pest in the UK and under official control. General measures taken by the nurseries are
effective against the pathogen. These measures include (a) the use of certified plant material and growing
media; (b) inspections, surveillance, monitoring, sampling and laborator y testing; and (c) application of pest
control products.
(Continued)
(Continues)
28 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
Interception records
In the EUROPHYT/TRACES- NT database there are no records of notification of Salix plants for planting neither from
the UK nor from other countries due to the presence of P. ramorum between the years 1995 and November 2024
(EUROPHYT, 2024; TRACES- NT, 2024).
Shortcomings of current measures/procedures
None observed.
Main uncertainties
– The level of susceptibility of Salix spp. to the pathogen.
– Whether symptoms may be promptly detected.
– The practicability of inspections of older trees.
– The presence/abundance of the pathogen in the area where the nurseries are located.
– Effect of fungicide treatments against the pathogen.
– Host status of Salix cinerea.
For more details, see relevant pest data sheet on Phytophthora ramorum (non- EU isolates) (Section A.3 in AppendixA).
5.2.4 | Outcome of Expert Knowledge Elicitation
Table8 and Figure2 show the outcome of the EKE regarding pest freedom after the evaluation of the implemented risk
mitigation measures for all the evaluated pests.
Figure3 provides an explanation of the descending distribution function describing the likelihood of pest freedom after
the evaluation of the implemented risk mitigation measures for S. caprea and S. cinerea plants in pots up to 15 years old
designated for export to the EU for Phytophthora ramorum (non- EU isolates).
(Continued)
|
29 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
PANEL A
Pest freedom category Pest fee plants out of 10,00 0
Sometimes pest free ≤ 5000
More often than not pest free 5000–≤ 9000
Frequently pest free 9000–≤ 9500
Very frequently pest free 9500–≤ 9900
Extremely frequently pest free 9900–≤ 9950
Pest free with some exceptional cases 9950–≤ 9990
Pest free with few exceptional cases 9990–≤ 9995
Almost always pest free 9995–≤ 10,000
PANEL B.
TABLE 8 Assessment of the likelihood of pest freedom following evaluation of current risk mitigation measures against pests on Salix caprea and S. cinerea plants designated for export to the EU. In panel A, the
median value for the assessed level of pest freedom for each pest is indicated by ‘M', the 5% percentile is indicated by ‘L' and the 95% percentile is indicated by ‘U'. The percentiles together span the 90% uncertaint y range
regarding pest freedom. The pest freedom categories are def ined in panel B of the table.
Number Group* Pest species
Sometimes
pest free
More often
than not pest
free
Frequently
pest free
Very
frequently
pest free
Extremely
frequently
pest free
Pest free
with some
exceptional
cases
Pest free
with few
exceptional
cases
Almost
always pest
free
1Insects Bemisia tabaci (European
populations), bare root plants
LM U
2Insects Bemisia tabaci (European
populations), cell grown plants
L M U
3Insects Bemisia tabaci (European
populations), plants in pots
L M U
4Fungi Entoleuca mammata, cuttings/
graftwood
L M U
5Fungi Entoleuca mammata, bare root plants L M U
6Fungi Entoleuca mammata, cell grown
plants
L M U
7Fungi Entoleuca mammata, plants in pots L M U
8Oomycetes Ph ytophthora ram orum (non- EU
isolates), cuttings/graftwood
L M U
9Oomycetes Ph ytophthora ram orum (non- EU
isolates), bare root plants
L M U
10 Oomycetes Ph ytophthora ram orum (non- EU
isolates), cell grown plants
L M U
11 Oomycetes Ph ytophthora ram orum (non- EU
isolates), plants in pots
L M U
Legend of pest freedom categories
LPest freedom category includes the elicited lower bound of the 90% uncertainty range
MPest freedom category includes the elicited median
UPest freedom category includes the elicited upper bound of the 90% uncertainty range
30 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
FIGURE 2 Elicited certainty (y- axis) of the number of pest- free plants/bundles of Salix caprea and S. ci nerea (x- axis; log- scaled) out of 10,000 plants/bundles designated for export to the EU from the UK for all
evaluated pests visualised as descending distribution function. Horizontal lines indicate the reported certainty levels (starting from the bottom 5%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 95%) Please see the reading instructions below.
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0.81.3 1.82.3 2.83.3 3.84.3 4.85.3 5.8
Elicited certainty level
[pesree plants out of 10,000] (logarithmic scale: ─ LOG(1-PF) )
Uncertainty distribuons of pest freedom for different pests
Phytophthora ramorum, plants in pots
Phytophthora ramorum, bare root plants
Phytophthora ramorum, cell grown plants
Entoleuca mammata, plants in pots
Phytophthora ramorum, cungs/grawood
Entoleuca mammata, cell grown plants
Bemisia tabaci, plants in pots
Bemisia tabaci, cell grown plants
Entoleuca mammata, bare root plants
Entoleuca mammata, cungs/grawood
Bemisia tabaci, bare root plants
Categories of pest freedom
|
31 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
FIGURE 3 Explanation of the descending distribution function describing the likelihood of pest freedom after the evaluation of the implemented risk mitigation measures for plants designated for export to the EU
based on based on the example of Phytop hthora ramorum (non- EU isolates), on Salix caprea and Salix cinerea plants in pots up to 15 years old.
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0.81.3 1.82.3 2.83.3 3.84.3 4.85.3 5.8
Elicited certainty level
[pesree plants out of 10,000] (logarithmic scale: ─ LOG(1-PF) )
Uncertainty distribuons of pest freedom of Salix plants in pots for Phytophthora ramorum
ThePanel is 95% certain that at least 9738 plants in pots of Salix
out of 10,000 are pest free of Phytophthora ramorum
The Panel is 50% certain that at least 9925 plants in pots of Salix
out of 10,000 are pest free of Phytophthora ramorum
The Panel is 5% certain that at least 9994plants in pots of Salix
out of 10,000 are pest free of Phytophthora ramorum
Categories of pest freedom
32 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
6 | CONCLUSIONS
There are three pests identified to be present in the UK and considered to be potentially associated with the commodities
imported from the UK and relevant for the EU.
These pests are Bemisia tabaci (European populations), Entoleuca mammata and Phytophthora ramorum (non- EU iso-
lates). The likelihood of the pest freedom after the evaluation of the implemented risk mitigation measures for the com-
modities designated for export to the EU was estimated. In the assessment of risk, the age of the plants was considered,
reasoning that older trees are more likely to be infested mainly due to longer exposure time and larger size.
Bemisia tabaci is not expected to be associated with cuttings/graftwood because the commodity is without leaves. For
B. tabaci, the likelihood of pest freedom for bare root plants/trees up to 7 years old of S. caprea and S. cinerea was estimated
as ‘pest free with some exceptional cases’ with the 90% uncertainty range reaching from ‘pest free with some exceptional
cases’ to ‘almost always pest free’. The EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9959 and 10,000 bare root plants/
trees up to 7 years old per 10,000 will be free from B. tabaci. The likelihood of pest freedom for cell grown plants of S. caprea
and S. cinerea up to 2 years old was estimated as ‘pest free with some exceptional cases’ with the 90% uncertainty range
reaching from ‘extremely frequently pest free’ to ‘almost always pest free’. The EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that
between 9943 and 10,000 cell grown plants up to 2 years old per 10,000 will be free from B. tabaci. The likelihood of pest
freedom for rooted plants in pots of S. caprea and S. cinerea from two to 15 years old was estimated as ‘pest free with some
exceptional cases’ with the 90% uncertainty range reaching from ‘extremely frequently pest free’ to ‘almost always pest
free’. The EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9937 and 10,000 rooted plants in pots from two to 15 years old
per 10,000 will be free from B. tabaci.
For E. mammata, the likelihood of pest freedom of cuttings/graftwood for S. caprea and S. cinerea, following evaluation
of current risk mitigation measures, was estimated as ‘pest free with some exceptional cases’ with the 90% uncertainty
range reaching from ‘extremely frequently pest free’ to ‘almost always pest free’. The EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that
between 9947 and 10,000 cuttings/graftwood per 10,000 will be free from E. mammata. The likelihood of pest freedom
for bare root plants/trees up to 7 years old of S. caprea and S. cinerea was estimated as ‘pest free with some exceptional
cases’ with the 90% uncertainty range reaching from ‘extremely frequently pest free’ to ‘almost always pest free’. The EKE
indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9911 and 10,000 bare root plants/trees up to 7 years old per 10,000 will be free
from E. mammata. The likelihood of pest freedom for cell grown plants of S. caprea and S. cinerea up to 2 years old was esti-
mated as ‘pest free with some exceptional cases’ with the 90% uncertainty range reaching from ‘extremely frequently pest
free’ to ‘almost always pest free’. The EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9930 and 10,000 cell grown plants up
to 2 years old per 10,000 will be free from E. mammata. The likelihood of pest freedom for rooted plants in pots of S. caprea
and S. cinerea from two to 15 years old was estimated as ‘pest free with some exceptional cases’ with the 90% uncertainty
range spanning from ‘very frequently pest free’ to ‘almost always pest free’. The EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that
between 9865 and 10,000 rooted plants in pots from two to 15 years old per 10,000 will be free from E. mammata.
For P. ramorum, the likelihood of pest freedom of cuttings/graftwood for S. caprea and S. cinerea, following evaluation
of current risk mitigation measures, was estimated as ‘pest free with some exceptional cases’ with the 90% uncertainty
range reaching from ‘extremely frequently pest free’ to ‘pest free with few exceptional cases’. The EKE indicated, with 95%
certainty, that between 9942 and 10,000 cuttings/graftwood per 10,000 will be free from P. ramorum. The likelihood of pest
freedom for bare root plants/trees up to 7 years old of S. caprea and S. cinerea was estimated as ‘extremely frequently pest
free’ with the 90% uncertainty range spanning from ‘very frequently pest free’ to ‘pest free with few exceptional cases’. The
EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9822 and 10,000 bare root plants/trees up to 7 years old per 10,000 will be
free from P. ramorum. The likelihood of pest freedom for cell grown plants of S. caprea and S. cinerea up to 2 years old was
estimated as ‘pest free with some exceptional cases’ with the 90% uncertainty range reaching from ‘very frequently pest
free’ to ‘pest free with exceptional cases’. The EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9853 and 10,000 cell grown
plants up to 2 years old per 10,000 will be free from P. ramorum. The likelihood of pest freedom for plants in pots from two
to 15 years old was estimated as ‘extremely frequently pest free’ with the 90% uncertainty range spanning from ‘very fre-
quently pest free’ to ‘pest free with few exceptional cases’. The EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9738 and
10,000 plants in pots from two to 15 years old per 10,000 will be free from P. ramorum.
GLOSSARY
Control (of a pest) Suppression, containment or eradication of a pest population (FAO,2024a, 2024b).
Entry (of a pest) Movement of a pest into an area where it is not yet present, or present but not widely
distributed and being officially controlled (FAO,2024b).
Establishment (of a pest) Perpetuation, for the foreseeable future, of a pest within an area after entry (FAO,2024b).
Impact (of a pest) The impact of the pest on the crop output and quality and on the environment in the
occupied spatial units.
Introduction (of a pest) The entry of a pest resulting in its establishment (FAO,2024b).
Measures Control (of a pest) is defined in ISPM 5 (FAO,2024b) as ‘Suppression, containment or erad-
ication of a pest population’ (FAO,2024a). Control measures are measures that have a
direct effect on pest abundance. Supporting measures are organisational measures or
procedures supporting the choice of appropriate risk mitigation measures that do not
directly affect pest abundance.
|
33 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
Pathway Any means that allows the entry or spread of a pest (FAO,2024b).
Phytosanitary measures Any legislation, regulation or official procedure having the purpose to prevent the in-
troduction or spread of quarantine pests, or to limit the economic impact of regulated
non- quarantine pests (FAO,2024b).
Protected zone A Protected zone is an area recognised at EU level to be free from a harmful organism,
which is established in one or more other parts of the Union.
Quarantine pest A pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet
present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled
(FAO,2024b).
Regulated non- quarantine pest A non- quarantine pest whose presence in plants for planting affects the intended use of
those plants with an economically unacceptable impact and which is therefore regulated
within the territory of the importing contracting party (FAO,2024b).
Risk mitigation measure A measure acting on pest introduction and/or pest spread and/or the magnitude of the
biological impact of the pest should the pest be present. A risk mitigation measure 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,2024b).
ABBREVIATIONS
APHA Animal and Plant Health Agency
CABI Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International
DEFRA Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
EKE Expert Knowledge Elicitation
EPPO European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
ISPM International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures
MS Member State
MSs Member States
NPPO National Plant Protection Organisation
PHSI Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate
PLH Plant Health
PRA Pest Risk Assessment
RNQPs Regulated Non- Quarantine Pests
SASA Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Scientific Opinion was prepared in cooperation with the Universita degli studi di Padova, Dipartimento Agronomia,
Animali, Alimenti, Risorse Naturali e Ambiente (Italy) under the EFSA Art. 36 Framework Partnership Agreement ‘GP/EFSA/
PLANTS/2022/11’ commodity risk assessment for forestry plants.
REQUESTOR
European Commission
QUESTION NUMBERS
EFSA- Q- 2023- 00591, EFSA- 2023- 00592
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.
PANEL MEMBERS
Antonio Vicent Civera, Paula Baptista, Anna Berlin, Elisavet Chatzivassiliou, Jaime Cubero, Nik Cunniffe, Eduardo de la Peña,
Nicolas Desneux, Francesco Di Serio, Anna Filipiak, Paolo Gonthier, Beata Hasiów- Jaroszewska, Hervé Jactel, Blanca B.
Landa, Lara Maistrello, David Makowski, Panagiotis Milonas, Nikos T. Papadopoulos, Roel Potting, Hanna Susi, and Dirk Jan
van Der Gaag.
REFERENCES
Adlerz, W. C. (1980). Ecological obse rvations on two leaf hoppers that transmit th e Pierce's disease bacterium. Pro ceedings of the Florida State Horticultural
Society, 93, 115–120 .
Anonymous. (1960). Index of plant diseases in the United States (Vol. 165, pp. 1–531). U.S.D.A. Agricalture Handbook.
34 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
APHIS USDA (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture). (2022). APHIS Lists of Proven Hosts of and Plants Associated
with Phytophthora ramorum. September 2022. 12 pp. https:// www. aphis. usda. gov/ plant_ health/ plant_ pest_ info/ pram/ downl oads/ pdf_ files/
usdap rlist. pdf
Atkinson, T. H. (2025). Bark and Ambrosia Beetles of the Americas. https:// www. barkb eetles. info/ index. php (accessed: 2025 - 03- 03).
Bailey, S. F. (1964). A revision of the genus Scirtothrips Shull (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Hilgardia, 35(13), 329–362. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3733/ hilg. v35n1 3p329
Barringer, L., & Ciafré, C. M. (2020). Worldwide feeding host plants of spotted lanternfly, with significant additions from North America. Envi ronmental
Entomology, 49(5), 999–1011. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ ee/ nvaa093
Batsankalashvili, M., Kaydan, M. B., Kirkitadze, G., & Japoshvili, G. O. (2017). Updated checklist of scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) in Sakartvelo
(Georgia). Annals of Agrarian Science, 15, 252–268. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. aasci. 2017. 05. 002
Bayhan, E., Ulusoy, M. R., & Brown, J. K. (2006). Host range, distribution, and natural enemies of Bemisia tabaci ‘B biotype’ (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in
Tur key. J ournal of Pest Science, 79, 233–240. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1034 0- 006- 0139- 4
Bright, D. E., & Skidmore, R. E. (2002). Catalog of Scolytidae and Plat ypodidae (Coleoptera), supplement 2 (1995–1999) (523). NRC Research Press.
Brito, J. A., Ka ur, R., Cetintas , R., Stanley, J. D., Mendes, M. L. , Powers, T. O., & Dickso n, D. W. (2010). Meloidoygne spp. infecting o rnamental plants in Florida .
Nematropica, 40, 87–103.
Byun, B. K., & Yan, S. (2004). Check list of the tribe Tortricini (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Northeast China, with two newly recorded species from China.
Korean Journal of Applied Entomology, 43(2), 91–101.
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International). (2025). CABI Compendium Crop Protection. https:// www. cabid igita llibr ary. org/ produ ct/ QC
(accessed 2025- 03- 03).
Casarin, N., H asbroucq, S., Pesenti, L., Gé radin, A., Emond, A., Ló pez- Mercadal, J. , Miranda, M. Á., Grégo ire, J. C., & Bragard, C. (2022). Salicaceae as pote n-
tial host plants of Xylella fastidiosa in European temperate regions. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 165(3), 489–507.
Casati, P., Jermini, M., Quaglino, F., Corbani, G., Schaerer, S., Passera, A., Bianco, P. A., & Rigamonti, I. E. (2017). New insights on Flavescence dorée phyto-
plasma ecology in the vineyard agro- ecosystem in southern Switzerland. Annals of Applied Biology, 71(1), 37–51. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ aab. 12359
Cave, G. L., Randall- Schadel, B., & Redlin, S. C. (2008). Risk analysis for Phytophthora ramorum Werres, de Cock & man in't veld, causal agent of sudden oak
death, ramorum leaf blight, and ramorum dieback (p. 88). US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
Ciesla, W. M., & Kruse, J. J. (2009). Large aspen tortrix [revised]. USDA Forest Service, Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 139 (revised), 8 pp.
Clark, S. M., LeDoux, D. G., Seeno, T. N., Riley, E. G., Gilbert, A. J., & Sullivan, J. M. (2004). Host plants of leaf be etle species occurring in the United States and
Canada (Coleoptera: Megalopodidae, Orsodacnidae, Chrysomelidae, excluding Bruchinae) (p. 615). Coleopterists Society, special Publication 2.
DAFNAE (Dipartimento di Agronomia, Animali, Alimenti, Risorse naturali e Ambiente). (2025). Scolytinae hosts and distribution database. https:// www.
scoly tinae hosts datab ase. eu/ site/ it/ home/ (accessed 2025- 03- 03).
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health). (2018). Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment. EFSA Journal, 16(8), 5350. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2903/j.
efsa. 2018. 5350
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Healt h). (2019). Guidance on commodi ty risk assessment for the eva luation of high risk plants dossie rs. EFSA Journal,
17(4), 5668. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2903/j. efsa. 2019. 5668
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.,
MacLeod, A., Magnusson, C. S., Milonas, P., Navas- Cor tes, J. A., Parnell, S., Potting, R., Reignault, P. L., Stefani, E., Van der Werf, W., Vicent Civera, A.,
Yuen, J., … Thulke, H.- H. (2024). Standard protocols for plant health scientific assessments. EFSA Journal, 22(9), 8891. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2903/j. efsa.
2024. 8891
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Vicent Civera, A., Baptista, P., Berlin, A., Chatzivassiliou, E., Cubero, J., Cunniffe, N., de la Peña, E., Desneux,
N., Di Serio, F., Filipiak, A., Hasiów- Jaroszewska, B., Jactel, H., Landa, B. B., Maistrello, L., Makowski, D., Milonas, P., Papadopoulos, N., Potting, R., …
Gonthier, P. (2025). Commodity risk assessment of Populus alba, Populus nigra and Populus tremula plants from the UK. EFSA Journal, 23(3), 9305.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 2903/j. efsa. 2025. 9305
EFSA Scientific Committee. (2018). Scientific opinion on the principles and methods behind EFSA's guidance on uncertainty analysis in scientific assess-
ment. EFSA Journal, 16(1), 5122 . https:// doi. org/ 10. 2903/j. efsa. 2018. 5122
EPPO (European and Mediterranean plant protection organization). (2024). EPPO Global Database. https:// gd. eppo. int/ (accessed 2025- 03- 03).
Eskalen, A., Stouthamer, R., Lynch, S. C., Rugman- Jones, P. F., Twizeyimana, M., Gonzalez, A., & Thibault, T. (2013). Host range of Fusarium dieback and
its ambrosia beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) vector in southern California. Plant Diseas e, 97(7), 938–951. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1094/ pdis- 11- 12- 1026- re
EUROPHYT (Europ ean Union Notificatio n System for Plant Health Interceptions). (2024). https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/plant-health-and-biosecurity/
europhyt_en (accessed 2024- 12- 10).
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2019). ISPM (international standards for phytosanitary measures) No 36. Integrated
measures for plants for planting. FAO, Rome. https:// www. ippc. int/ en/ publi catio ns/ 636
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2024a). ISPM (international standards for phytosanitary measures) No 4. Requirements
for the establishment of pest free areas. FAO, Rome. https:// www. ippc. int/ en/ publi catio ns/ 614/
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2024b). ISPM (international standards for phytosanitary measures) No. 5. Glossary of
phytosanitary terms. FAO, Rome. https:// www. ippc. int/ en/ publi catio ns/ 622/
Farashiani, M. E., S adeghi, S. E., & Abaii, M . (2001). Geographic distribu tion and hosts of sart l onghorn beetle, Aeolesthes sarta Solsky (Col .: Cerambycidae)
in Iran. Journal of Entomological Society of Iran, 20, 81–96.
Farr, D. F., & Rossman, A. Y. (2025). Fungal Databases, U.S. National Fungus Collections, ARS, USDA. https:// fungi. ars. usda. gov/ (accessed 2025- 03- 03).
Feau, N., & Berni er, L. (2004). First rep ort of shining willow as a host pl ant for Septoria musiva. Plant Disease, 88(7), 770. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1094/ PDIS. 20 04.
88.7. 770B
Fleming, W. E. (1972). Biology of the Japanese beetle. Technical Bulletin, Agricultural Research Ser vice, USDA no 1449, 129 pp.
Foldi, I. (2005). Ground pearls: A generic revision of the Margarodidae sensu stricto (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Coccoidea). Annales de la Societe
Entomologique de France, 41(1), 81–125. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00379 271. 2005. 10697442
Furniss, R. L., & Carolin, V. M. (1977). Western Forest Insects. USDA, Forest Service Miscellaneous Publication no. 1339, 654 pp.
Gardi, C., Kaczmarek, A., Streissl, F., Civitelli, C., Do Vale Correia, C ., Mikulová, A., Yuen, J., & Stancanelli, G. (2024). EFSA standard protocol for commodity
risk assessment. Zenodo. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5281/ zenodo. 13149775
Gillespie, P. S. (2012). A review of the whitefly genus Aleurocanthus Quaintance & Baker (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in Australia. Zootaxa, 3252(1), 1–42.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 11646/ zoota xa. 3252.1. 1
Granmo, A., Laessoe, T., & Schumacher, T. (1999). The genus Nemania s.l. (Xylariaceae) in Norden. Sommerfeltia, 27, 1–96. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2478/
som- 1999- 0002
Hoddle, M. S., Triapitsyn, S. V., & Morgan, D. J. (2003). Distribution and plant association records for Homalodisca coagulata (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) in
Florida. Florida Entomologis t, 86(1), 89–91. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1653/ 0015- 4040(2003) 086[0089: daparf] 2.0. co; 2
Lai, G. G. , Li, F. , Li, J. X., Zhang, P., & Zhu, T. S. (2022). Salix babylonica: A new host of ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma zizip hi’. Australasian Plant Disease Notes, 17(1) ,
38. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1331 4- 022- 00479 - 7
|
35 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
Lim, J., Jung, S.- Y., Lim, J.- S., Jang, J., K im, K.- M. , Lee, Y.- M ., & Lee, B.- W. (2014). A review of host pla nts of Cerambycidae (Coleoptera: Chr ysomeloidea) with
new host records f or fourteen Cerambycids, in cluding the Asian longhorn b eetle (Anoplophora glabripennis Motschulsky), in Korea. Korea n Journal
of Applied Entomology, 53(2), 111–13 3. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5656/ ksae. 2013. 11.1. 061
Lin, C. H., Tsai, K. C., Prior, P., & Wang, J. F. (2014). Phylogenetic relationships and population structure of Ralstonia solanacearum isolated from diverse
origins in Taiwan. Plant Pathology, 63(6), 1395–1403. ht tps:// do i. or g/ 10. 1111/ p pa. 12 20 9
Lin, W., Li, Y., Johnson, A. J., & Gao, L. (2019). New area records and new hosts of Ambrosiodmus minor (Stebbing) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae)
in mainland China. The Coleopterists Bulletin, 73(3), 684– 686. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1649/ 0010- 065x- 73.3. 684
Lu, W., & Wang, Q. I. A. O. (2005). Systematics of the New Zealand longicorn beetle genus Oemona Newman with discussion of the taxonomic position
of the Australian sp ecies, O. simplex White (Coleopter a: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae). Zootaxa, 971(1), 31. https:// doi. org/ 10. 11646/ zoota xa. 971.1. 1
Maiti, P. K., & Saha, N. (2004). Fauna of Ind ia - Scolytidae: Coleoptera (Vol. 1, p. 268). Zoological survey of India.
Mandelshtam, M. Y., Petrov, A. V., Smith, S. M., & Cognato, A. I. (2019). Resurrection of Heteroborips Reitter, 1913 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae)
from synonymy with Xyleborus Eichhoff, 1864. The Coleopterists Bulletin, 73(2), 387–394. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1649/ 0010- 065x- 73.2. 387
Mandelshtam, M. Y., Yakushkin, E. A., & Petrov, A. V. (2018). Oriental ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae): New inhabitants of
Primorsky krai in Russia. Russian Journal of Biological Invasions, 9(4), 355–365. ht tp s: // d oi. org/ 10. 1134 / s207 5 11171 80 400 82
Mathiassen, G. (1993). Corticolous and lignicolous Pyrenomycetes s. lat. (ascomycetes) on Salix along a mid- Scandinavian transect. Sommerfeltia, 20,
1–180. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2478/ som- 1993- 0006
Mendel, Z., Lynch, S. C., Eskalen, A., Protasov, A., Maymon, M., & Freeman, S. (2021). What determines host range and reproductive performance of an
invasive ambrosia beetle Euwallacea fornicatus; lessons from Israel and California. Frontiers in Forests and Global Chang e, 4, 29–43. https:// doi. org/
10. 3389/ ffgc. 2021. 654702
Montezano, D. G., Specht, A., Sosa- Gomez, D. R., Roque- Specht, V. F., & de Barros, N. M. (2014). Immature stages of Spodoptera eridania (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae): Developmental parameters and host plants. Journal of Insect Science, 14, 238. https://doi.org/10.1093/jisesa/ieu100
Nielson, M. W. (1968). The leafhopper vectors of phytopathogenic viruses (Homoptera, Cicadellidae): taxonomy, biology, and virus transmission (p. 384).
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. Technical Bulletin, 1382.
Oğuzoğlu, Ş., Harman, İ., & Avcı, M. (2024). Current situation of citrus Longhorned beetle [Anoplophora chinensis (Forster, 1771)] (Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae) in Türkiye and the world. Turkish Journal of Forestry, 25(1), 145–155. https:// doi. org/ 10. 18182/ tjf. 1408357
Overall, L. M., & Rebek, E. J. (2017). Insect vectors and current management strategies for diseases caused by Xylella fastidiosa in the southern United
States. Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 8(1), 12 . https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ jipm/ pmx005
Powell, J. A. (2004). Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies) at inverness ridge in central coastal California and their recovery following a wildfire. Essig
Museum of Entomology, Berkeley CA. 31 pp.
Purcell, A. H. (1976). Seasonal changes in host plant preference of the blue- green sharpshooter Hordnia circellata (Homoptera: Cicadellidae). The Pan-
Pacific Entomol ogist, 52(1), 33 –37.
Severin, H. H. P. (1950). Spittle- insect vectors of Pierce's disease virus. Hilgardia, 19(11), 3 57– 382.
Singh, P., & Prasad, G. (1985). Poplar stem borer, Apriona cinerea Chevrolat (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae): Its biology, ecology and control. Indian Forester,
111(7), 517–524.
Straw, N. A., Fielding, N. J., Tilbury, C., Williams, D. T., & Inward, D. (2015). Host plant selection and resource utilisation by Asian longhorn beetle
Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycida e) in southern England. Forestry (Oxford), 88(1), 84–95. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ fores try/ cpu037
Takahashi, R., & Tachikawa, T. (1956). Scale insects of Shikoku (Homoptera: Coccoidea). Transactions of the Shikoku Entomological Socie ty, 5, 1–17.
TRACES- NT. (2024). TRAde Control and Expert System. https:// webga te. ec. europa. eu/ tracesnt (a ccessed 2024- 12- 10).
Turner, W. F. (1959). Life histories and behavior of five insect vectors of phony peach disease. Technical Bulletin no. 1188. US Depar tment of Agriculture.
28 pp.
Wood, S. L., & Bright, D. E. (1992). A catalog of Scolytidae and Platypodidae (Coleoptera). Part 2: Taxonomic index. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs, 13,
1241–1348 .
Zamhari, M. G. (2017). First report of a ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma phoenicium'- related strain (16Sr IX) associated with Salix witches’ broom in Iran. New
Disease Reports, 35(1), 37.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article.
How to cite this article: EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Vicent Civera, A., Baptista, P., Berlin, A.,
Chatzivassiliou, E., Cubero, J., Cunniffe, N., de la Peña, E., Desneux, N., Di Serio, F., Filipiak, A., Hasiów- Jaroszewska, B.,
Jactel, H., Landa, B. B., Maistrello, L., Makowski, D., Milonas, P., Papadopoulos, N. T., Potting, R., … Gonthier, P. (2025).
Commodity risk assessment of Salix caprea and Salix cinerea plants from the UK. EFSA Journal, 23(4), e9384. https://doi.
org/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9384
36 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
APPENDIX A
Data sheets of pests selected for further evaluation
A.1 | BEMISIA TABACI EUROPEAN POPULATIONS
A.1.1 | Organism information
Taxonomic information Current valid scientific name: Bemisia tabaci
Synonyms: Aleurodes inconspicua, Aleurodes tabaci, Bemisia achyranthes, Bemisia bahiana, Bemisia costa- limai,
Bemisia emilia e, Bemisia goldingi, Bemisia gossypiperda, Bemisia gossypiperda m osaicivectura, Bemisia hibisci,
Bemisia inconspicu a, Bemisia longispina, Bemisia lo nicerae, Bemisia manihotis, Bemisia mi nima, Bemisia minuscula,
Bemisia nigeri ensis, Bemisia rhodesiaensis, Bemisia signata, Bemisia vayssieri
Name used in the EU legislation: Bemisia tabaci Genn. (European populations)
Order: Hemiptera
Family: Aleyrodidae
Common name: cassava whitefly, cotton whitefly, silver- leaf whitefly, sweet- potato whitefly, tobacco whitefly
Name used in the Dossier: –
Group Insects
EPPO code B EMI TA
Regulated status Bemisia tabaci Genn. (European populations) is listed in Annex III of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU)
2019/2072 as protected zone quarantine pest for Ireland and Sweden. The non- European populations of B.
tabaci are listed in Annex II.
Bemisia tabaci is included in the EPPO A2 list (EPPO, 2024a).
The species is a quarantine pest in Belarus, Moldova, Norway and New Zealand. It is on A1 list of Azerbaijan, Chile,
Georgia, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Switzerland, Ukraine and the UK. It is on A2 list of Bahrain, Russia, Türkiye, EAEU
(= Eurasian Economic Union – Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia) and OIRSA (= Organismo
Internacional Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria – Belize, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama) (EPPO, 2024b).
Pest status in the UK Bemisia tabaci (European populations) is present in the UK, with few occurrences (CABI, 2015; EPPO, 2024c) and it is
continuously intercepted to the UK. The intercepted populations were identified as B biotype Middle East- Asia
Minor 1 (=MEAM1) and Q biotype Mediterranean (=MED) (Cuthbertson, 2013).
From 1998 to 2015 there were between 7 and 35 outbreaks per year of B. tabaci in the UK and all the findings were
subject to eradication. The UK outbreaks of B. tabaci have been restricted to greenhouses and there are no
records of the whitefly establishing outdoors during summer (Bradshaw etal., 2019; Cuthbertson & Vänninen,
2015).
Pest status in the EU Bemisia tabaci is an alien species widespread in the EU – Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Republic of Cyprus,
Czechia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovenia and Spain (CABI, 2015; EPPO, 2024c).
It is absent from Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovakia and Sweden (CABI, 2015; EPPO,
2024c).
In the EU, B. tabaci is mainly present in the greenhouses, with exception of Mediterranean coastal region (Cyprus,
Greece, Malta, Italy, south of France, certain parts of Spain and Portugal), where the whitefly occurs also
outdoors (EFSA PLH Panel, 2013).
Host status on Salix
caprea and S. cinerea
Bemisia tabaci B biotype was found colonising on Salix matsudana plants in southern Türkiye (Bayhan etal., 2005).
There is no information on whether B. tabaci can also attack Salix caprea, S. cinerea or other Salix species.
PRA information Available Pest Risk Assessments:
– Scientific Opinion on the risks to plant health posed by Bemisia tabaci species complex and viruses it transmits
for the EU territor y (EFSA PLH Panel, 2013);
– UK Risk Register Details for Bemisia tabaci European populations (DEFRA, 2022);
– UK Risk Register Details for Bemisia tabaci non- European populations (DEFRA, 2023).
Other relevant information for the assessment
Biology Bemisia tabaci is a cosmopolitan whitef ly present on almost all continents except for Antarctica (CABI, 2015; EPPO,
2024c). In the literature it is reported as either native to Africa, Asia, India, North America or South America (De
Barro etal., 2011). However, based on mtCO1 (mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase 1) sequence its origin is most
likely to be sub- Saharan Africa (De Barro, 2012).
Bemisia tabaci is a complex of at least 40 cr yptic species that are morphologically identical but distinguishable at
molecular level (Khatun etal., 2018). The species differ from each other in host association, spread capacity,
transmission of viruses and resistance to insecticides (De Barro etal., 2011).
Bemisia tabaci develops through three life stages: egg, nymph (four instars) and adult (Walker etal., 2010). Nymphs
of B. tabaci mainly feed on phloem in minor veins of the underside leaf surface (Cohen etal., 1996). Adults
feed on both phloem and xylem of leaves (Janssen etal., 1989; Lei etal., 1997, 2001; Jiang etal., 1999 cited in
Walker etal., 2010). Honeydew is produced by both nymphs and adults (Davidson etal., 1994). Bemisia tabaci is
multivoltine with up to 15 generations per year (Ren etal., 2001). The life cycle from egg to adult requires from
2.5 weeks up to 2 months depending on the temperature (Norman etal., 1995) and the host plant (Coudriet
etal., 1985).
|
37 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
In the southern California desert on field- grown lettuce (from 27 October 1983 to 4 January 1984), B. tabaci
completed at least one generation (Coudriet etal., 1985). In Israel the reproduction of B. tabaci was much
reduced in winter months, but adults emerging in December survived and started ovipositing at the end of
the cold season (Avidov, 1956). The most cold- tolerant stage are eggs (−2°, −6°, −10°C) and the least tolerant are
large nymphs. Short periods of exposure in 0° to −6°C have little effect on mortality. As the temperature lowers
to −10°C, the duration of time required to cause significant mortality shortens dramatically (Simmons & Elsey,
1995).
Females can lay more than 300 eggs (Gerling etal., 1986), which can be found mainly on the underside of the
leaves (CABI, 2015). Females develop from fertilised and males from unfer tilised eggs (Gerling etal., 1986). Eggs
are yellowish white and with age turn golden brown. Their size is about 0.19–0.20 mm long and 0.10–0.12 mm
wide. First instar nymph (=crawler) is scale- like, elliptical, darker yellow in colour and about 0.26 mm long and
0.15 mm wide. Crawlers have legs and crawl actively on leaves before they settle down and moult through
second (0.38 mm long and 0.24 mm wide), third (0.55 mm long and 0.35 mm wide) and fourth instar nymph
(0.86 mm long and 0.63 mm wide) (Hill, 1969). Fourth instar nymph (=pupa) stops feeding and moults into an
adult (Walker etal., 2009, citing others). Adult emerges through a ‘T'- shaped rupture in the pupal case (El- Helaly
etal., 1971). Adults are pale yellow and have two pairs of white wings dusted with a white waxy powder (Hill,
1969). Female is approximately 1 mm long. Males are smaller about 0.8 mm long (EFSA PLH Panel, 2013).
Out of all life stages, only first instar nymph (=crawler) and adults are mobile. Movement of crawlers by walking
is very limited, usually within the leaf where they hatched (Price & Taborsky, 1992) or to more suitable
neighbouring leaves. The average distance was estimated within 10–70 mm (Summers etal., 1996). For these
reasons they are not considered to be good colonisers. On the contrary, adults can fly, reaching quite long
distances in search of a permanent host. According to a study done by Cohen etal. (1988) some of the marked
individuals were trapped 7 km away from the initial place after 6 days. Long- distance passive dispersal by wind
is also possible (Byrne, 1999).
Bemisia tabaci is an important agricultural pest able to transmit viruses (belonging to genera Begomovirus,
Crinivirus, Ipomovirus, Carlavirus and Torradovirus) causing significant damage to food crops such as tomatoes,
cucurbits, beans and ornamental plants (EFSA PLH Panel, 2013; Fiallo- Olivé etal., 2020). None of these viruses
are reported to infect Salix species.
Possible pathways of entr y for B. tabaci are plants for planting including cuttings and rooted ornamental plants; cut
flowers and branches with foliage; fruits and vegetables; human- assisted spread; natural spread such as wind
(EFSA PLH Panel, 2013).
Symptoms Main type of symptoms Main symptoms of B. tabaci on plants are chlorotic spotting, decrease of plant
growth, deformation of fruits, deformation of leaves, intervein yellowing,
leaf yellowing, leaf curling, leaf crumpling, leaf vein thickening, leaf enations,
leaf cupping, leaf loss, necrotic lesions on stems, plant stunting, reduced
flowering, reduced fruit development, silvering of leaves, stem twisting, vein
yellowing, wilting, yellow blotching of leaves, yellow mosaic of leaves, presence
of honeydew and sooty mould. These symptoms are plant responses to the
feeding of the whitefly and to the presence of transmitted viruses (EFSA PLH
Panel, 2013; EPPO, 2004; CABI, 2015).
There is no information on the symptoms caused to Salix plants.
Presence of
asymptomatic plants
Symptoms of B. tabaci being present on the plants are usually visible. However, B.
tabaci is a vector of several viruses and their infection could be asymptomatic.
Confusion with other
pests
Bemisia tabaci can be easily confused with other whitefly species such as B.
afer, Trialeurodes lauri, T. packardi, T. ricini, T. vaporariorum and T. variabilis. A
microscopic slide is needed for morphological identification (EPPO, 2004).
Different species of B. tabaci complex can be distinguished using molecular
methods (De Barro etal., 2011).
Host plant range Bemisia tabaci has a wide host range, including more than 1000 different plant species (Abd- Rabou & Simmons,
2010).
Some of the many hosts of B. tabaci are Abelmoschus esculentus, Amaranthus blitoides, A. retroflexus, Arachis
hypogaea, Atriplex semibaccata, Bellis perennis, Borago officinalis, Brassica oleracea var. botrytis, B. oleracea var.
gemmifera, B. oleracea var. italica, Bryonia dioica, Cajanus ca jan, Capsella bursa- pastoris, Capsicum annuum,
Citrus spp., Crataegus spp., Cucumis sativus, Cucurbita pepo, Erigeron canadensis, Euphorbia pulcherrima, Gerbera
jamesonii, Glycine max, Gossypium spp., G. hirsutum, Hedera helix, Ipomoea b atatas, Lactuca sativa, L. serriola,
Lavandula coronopifolia, Ligustrum lucidum, L. quihoui, L. vicaryiis, Manihot esculenta, Melissa officinalis, Nicotiana
tabacum, Ocimum basilicum, Origanum majorana, Oxalis pes- caprae, Phaseolus spp., P. vulgaris, Piper nigrum,
Potentilla spp., Prunus spp., Rosa spp., Rub us fruticosus, Salvia officinalis, S. rosmarinus, Senecio vulgaris, Sinningia
speciosa, Solanum lycopersicum, S. melongena, S. nigrum, S. tuberosum, Sonchus oleraceus, Stellaria media, Tagetes
erecta, Taraxacum officin ale, Thymus serpyllum, Urtica urens, Vitis vinifera and many more (CABI, 2015; EFSA PLH
Panel, 2013; EPPO, 2024c; Li etal., 2011).
For a full host list refer to CABI (2015), EFSA PLH Panel (2013), EPPO (2024c) and Li etal. (2011).
Reported evidence of
impact
Bemisia tabaci (European populations) is EU protected zone quarantine pest.
Evidence that the
commodit y is a
pathway
Salix sp. is a host of B. tabaci (Bayhan etal., 2005). Bemisia tabaci is frequently intercepted in the EU on different
commodities including plants for planting (EUROPHY T, 2024; TRACES- NT,2024). Salix plants can carry leaves
at the time of export which can host all life stages of the pest. Therefore, the Salix commodities could be a
pathway for B. tabaci.
(Continued)
(Continues)
38 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
Surveillance information Bemisia tabaci is a regulated quarantine pest in the UK. As such, the policy for any outbreak is to eradicate the
population. The UK makes many interceptions of B. tabaci and experiences a few outbreaks each year, but all
outbreaks are under protection and subject to eradication measures. This pest has never established outdoors
in the UK. As part of an annual survey at ornamental retail and production sites (frequency of visits determined
by a decision matrix) Bemisia tabaci is inspected for on common hosts plants. In addition, all tomato and
pepper production sites are subject to annual inspection (Dossier Section5.1). There is no information on
whether yellow sticky traps are used for sur veillance of B. tabaci.
A.1.2 | Possibility of pest presence in the nursery
A.1.2.1 | Possibility of entry from the surrounding environment
Bemisia tabaci (European populations) is present in the UK with few occurrences (location not specified) (CABI, 2015; EPPO,
2024c) and is continuously intercepted to the UK. The UK outbreaks of B. tabaci have been restricted to glasshouses and
there are no records of B. tabaci establishing outdoors during summer (Bradshaw etal., 2019; Cuthbertson & Vänninen,
2015). Bradshaw etal. (2019) indicate that theoretically B. tabaci (in summertime) could complete one generation across
most of Scotland, and 1–3 generations over England and Wales. However, the temperatures experienced during the cold
days and nights during summer may be low enough to cause chilling injury to B. tabaci, thereby inhibiting development
and preventing establishment in the UK. It is unlikely, therefore, that this pest will establish outdoors in the UK under cur-
rent climate conditions.
The possible entry of B. tabaci from surrounding environment to the nurseries may occur through adult dispersal and
passively on wind currents (Byrne, 1999; Cohen etal., 1988; EFSA PLH Panel, 2013). Greenhouses are reported to be present
at a minimum distance of 500 m from the nursery (Dossier Section5.1). The potential distance of spread of adult B. tabaci
can exceed that distance (Cohen etal. 1988).
Bemisia tabaci is polyphagous species that can infest a number of different plants. Suitable hosts of B. tabaci like Brassica
rapa, Fraxinus spp., Ilex spp., Quercus spp., Solanum spp. and Triticum spp. are present within 2 km from the nurseries.
Although B. tabaci has not been reported to be established outdoors in the UK so far, available information suggests that
theoretically B. tabaci could survive and reproduce during summer outdoors (Bradshaw etal., 2019; Dossier Sections1.1,
1.2 and 5.1).
Uncertainties:
– Exact locations where the whitefly is present.
– Possibility of spread beyond the infested greenhouses.
– Possibility of the whitefly to survive the UK summer in outdoor conditions.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that it cannot be excluded that the
pest can enter the nurseries mainly from greenhouses present in the surrounding environment.
A.1.2.2 | Possibility of entry with new plants/seeds
The starting materials of S. caprea and S. cinerea are either seeds, seedlings or cuttings. Seeds and seedlings are either from
the UK (certified with UK Plant Passports) or the EU (mostly the Netherlands, Belgium and France) (certified with phytosani-
tary certificates) (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2). Seeds are not a pathway for the whitefly.
In the nurseries many other plants are cultivated (Dossier Sections3.1, 3.2 and 5.1). Out of them Acer spp., Acacia spp.,
Crataegus spp., Hedera spp., Prunus spp., Pyrus spp., Rosa spp., Salvia spp., Viburnum spp. and many more plants are poten-
tial suitable hosts of the whitefly. However, there is no information on how and where the plants are produced. Therefore,
if the plants are first produced in another nursery, the whitefly could possibly travel with them.
The nurseries are using virgin peat or peat- free compost as a growing media, which is a mixture of coir, tree bark, wood
fibre, etc., heat- treated by commercial suppliers during production to eliminate pests and diseases (Dossier Sections1.1
and 1.2). Growing media is not a pathway for the whitefly.
Uncertainties:
– No information is available on the provenance of plants other than Salix used for plant production in the nurseries.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that it is possible for the pest to
enter the nurseries with new seedlings of Salix and new plants of other species used for plant production in the area. The
entry of the pest with seeds and the growing media the Panel considers as not possible.
(Continued)
|
39 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.1.2.3 | Possibility of spread within the nursery
Salix plants are grown both in containers outdoors and in fields. There are no mother plants present in the nurseries and
none of the nurseries expected to export to the EU produce plants from grafting (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
The whitefly can attack other suitable plants (such as Acer spp., Acacia spp., Crataegus spp., Hedera spp., etc.) and non-
cultivated herbaceous plants (Bellis perennis, Potentilla spp., Taraxacum officinale) present within the nurseries and hedges
surrounding the nurseries (Crataegus spp., Hedera helix, Ilex spp. and Prunus spp.) (Dossier Sections3.1, 3.2 and 5.1).
There are greenhouses within the nurseries (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2). The minimum distance from the greenhouses
to Salix production fields is 30 m (Dossier Section5.1).
The whitefly can spread within the nurseries by adult flight or wind. Spread within the nurseries through equipment and
tools is not relevant.
Uncertainties:
– Possibility of the whitefly to survive the UK summer in outdoor conditions.
– Possibility that greenhouses are heated which allows the pest to overwinter.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that the spread of the pest within
the nurseries is possible either by wind or by active flight.
A.1.3 | Information from interceptions
In the EUROPHYT/TRACES- NT database there are no records of notification of Salix plants for planting neither from the UK
nor from other countries due to the presence of B. tabaci between the years 1995 and November 2024 (EUROPHYT, 2024;
TRACES- NT,2024).
There were two interceptions of B. tabaci from the UK in 2007 and 2015 on other plants (EUROPHYT, 2024) and one inter-
ception on other live plants (including their roots) in October 2024 (TRACES- NT,2024).
A.1.4 | Evaluation of the risk mitigation measures
In the table below, all risk mitigation measures currently applied in the UK are listed and an indication of their effectiveness
on B. tabaci is provided. The description of the risk mitigation measures currently applied in the UK is provided in Table7.
NRisk mitigation measure Effect on the pest Evaluation and uncertainties
1Registration of production
sites
Yes As the plant passport is very similar to the EU one, plants shall be free from
quarantine pests.
Uncertainties:
– None.
2Physical separation No Not relevant, there is no separation between production areas for the export
and the local market.
3Certified plant material Yes Seeds are not a pathway for B. tabaci.
As the plant passport is very similar to the EU one, seedlings shall be free from
quarantine pests. Phytosanitary cer tificates should ensure that seedlings
are free from quarantine pests.
Uncertainties:
– None.
4Growing media No Not relevant, growing media is not a pathway of B. tabaci.
5 Surveillance, monitoring and
sampling
Yes Plant material is regularly monitored for plant health issues. They must meet
the required national sanitary standards. Monitoring should be affective in
finding infestation of B. tabaci.
Uncertainties:
– Difficulty of detecting low levels of infestation.
– Difficulty in the identification by morphological traits.
6Hygiene measures Yes Weeding can have some effect on the reduction of B. tabaci populations. The
other measures are not relevant.
Uncertainties:
– None.
7 Removal of infested plant
material
Yes Removing infested plant material can have some effect on the reduction of B.
tabaci populations.
Uncertainties:
– None.
8Irrigation water No Not relevant, water is not a pathway of B. tabaci.
(Continues)
40 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
NRisk mitigation measure Effect on the pest Evaluation and uncertainties
9 Application of pest control
products
Yes Plant protection products are only used when necessary and records of all
plant protection treatments are kept. It may have an effect on the pest.
Uncertainties:
– No information about the specific treatments.
– No information on the effect of treatments against the pest.
10 Measures against soil pests No Not relevant to the pest.
11 Inspections and management
of plants before export
Yes Exporting plants should meet phytosanitary certificate requirements.
Inspection before export should be affective in finding infestation of B.
tabaci. However, a low level of infestation by B. tabaci could go undetected.
Inspection is performed between 1 day and 2 weeks before the export, but a
reinfestation can occur during this period.
Uncertainties:
– Capacity of detection of low levels of infestation.
– Difficulty in the identification by morphological traits.
– Exact duration of the period between inspection and expor t.
12 Separation during transport to
the destination
Yes The pest could spread from infested plants to non- infested plants during
transport to the destination.
Uncertainties:
– None.
A.1.5 | Overall likelihood of pest freedom for bare root plants
A.1.5.1 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number of infected bare root plants
This scenario assumes that the pest is not present in the nursery area.
A.1.5.2 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number of infected bare root plants
This scenario assumes high pest pressure in and around nurseries. Leaves may be present and there is a high uncertainty of
probability of detection in the canopies. Seven- year- old plants have more leaves compared to younger plants and hence
more possibilities for the pest to hide and being overlooked.
A.1.5.3 | Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over- or underestimate the number of infected bare root
plants (Median)
The scenario assumes low values for the central scenario because B. tabaci is not expected to be present outdoors and
because of the uncertainty about the host status of B. tabaci on S. caprea or S. cinerea. However, it has been considered also
that the pest is repeatedly intercepted in the UK in the greenhouses, and that visual inspections could overlook the pest.
A.1.5.4 | Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/
interquartile range)
The Panel expresses the maximum uncertainty with the first quartile, and a lower uncertainty with the third quartile,
mainly because there is relatively high distance between the greenhouse and the commodity outside. It is very unlikely to
be present outdoors and Salix is not a major host. It is a quarantine pest in the UK and therefore more likely to be detected
in the greenhouse where measures must be taken.
(Continued)
|
41 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.1.5.5 | Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Bemisia tabaci (European populations) on bare root plants
The following Tables show the elicited and fitted values for pest infection (TableA.1) and pest freedom (TableA.2).
Based on the numbers of estimated infected bundles the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – number of infected plants/bundles per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncer-
tainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in TableA.2.
TABLE A.1 Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infection by Bemisia tabaci (European populations) per 10,000 plants/bundles.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17 % 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97.5% 99%
Elicited values 0 6 12 25 50
EKE 0.137 0.384 0.839 1.85 3.35 5.42 7. 70 13.1 19.9 24.1 29.4 35.0 41.0 45.6 49.9
Note: The EK E result is the BetaGene ral (0.89141, 2.423, 0.595) distributi on fitted with @Ris k version 7.6.
TABLE A.2 The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Bemisia tabaci (European populations) per 10,000 plants/bundles calculated by TableA.1.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97. 5% 99%
Values 9950 9975 9988 9994 10,000
EKE results 9950 9954 9959 9965 9971 9976 9980 9987 9992 9995 9997 9998 9999.2 9999.6 9999.9
Note: The EK E results are the fitte d values.
42 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(A)
02040608
01
00
Probability density
Infested plants/bundles [number out of 10,000]
Bemisia tabaci, bare root plants
EKE result Fied density
FIGURE A.1 (Continued)
|
43 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(B)
9900 9920 9940 9960 9980 10,000
Probability density
Pesree plants/bundles [number out of 10,000]
Bemisia tabaci, bare root plants
FIGURE A.1 (Continued)
44 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(C)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
9900 9920 9940 9960 9980 10,000
Certainty level
Pesree plants/bundles [number out of 10,000]
Bemisia tabaci, bare root plants
FIGURE A.1 (A) Elicited uncertainty of pest infection per 10,000 plants/bundles (histogram in blue – ver tical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and
distributional fit (red line); (B) uncertainty of the proportion of pest free bare root plants/bundles per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infection proportion expressed as percentage); (C) descending uncertainty distribution function
of pest infection per 10,000 plants/bundles.
|
45 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.1.6 | Overall likelihood of pest freedom for cell grown plants
A.1.6.1 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number of infected cell grown plants
This scenario assumes that the pest is not present in the nursery area.
A.1.6.2 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number of infected cell grown plants
This scenario assumes high pest pressure in and around nurseries. It also assumes, that cell grown plants may be stored
nearby the greenhouses or be grown inside the greenhouses at the beginning of the cultivation, which makes it more likely
that they could be infested with B. tabaci. Moreover, cell grown plants are exported with leaves.
A.1.6.3 | Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over- or underestimate the number of infected cell grown
plants (Median)
The scenario assumes low values for the central scenario because B. tabaci is not expected to be present outdoors and
because there is uncertainty about the host status of B. tabaci on Salix. In addition, cell grown plants are smaller compared
to potted plants, so they are easier to inspect. However, it has also been taken into account that the pest is repeatedly
intercepted in the UK in glasshouses, that visual inspections could miss the pest and that it is possible that there could be
spread to plants grown outdoors from the glasshouse.
A.1.6.4 | Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/
interquartile range)
The Panel expresses the maximum uncertainty with the first quartile, and a lower uncertainty with the third quartile, mainly
because plants are relatively small and easy to inspect. It is very unlikely to be present outdoors and Salix is not a major
host. The pest is a quarantine pest in the UK and therefore more likely to be detected in the greenhouse where measures
must be taken.
46 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.1.6.5 | Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Bemisia tabaci (European populations) on cell grown plants
The following Tables show the elicited and fitted values for pest infection (TableA.3) and pest freedom (TableA.4).
Based on the numbers of estimated infected bundles the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – number of infected plants/bundles per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncer-
tainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in TableA.4.
TABLE A.3 Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infection by Bemisia tabaci (European populations) per 10,000 plants/bundles.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17 % 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97.5% 99%
Elicited values 0 9 18 35 70
EKE 0.292 0.746 1.52 3.14 5.41 8.41 11.7 19.1 28.3 34.1 41.2 48.9 5 7.2 63.6 70.0
Note: The EK E results is the BetaGe neral (0.98178, 2.6842, 0, 85. 5) distribution fi tted with @Risk versio n 7. 6.
TABLE A.4 The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Bemisia tabaci (European populations) per 10,000 plants/bundles calculated by TableA.3.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10 % 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 9 7.5 % 99%
Values 9930 9965 9982 9991 10,000
EKE results 9930 9936 9943 9951 9959 9966 9972 9981 9988 9992 9995 9997 9998 9999.3 9999.7
Note: The EK E results are the fitte d values.
|
47 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(A)
02040608
01
00
Probability density
Infested plants/bundles [number out of 10,000]
Bemisia tabaci, cell grown plants
EKE result Fied density
FIGURE A.2 (Continued)
48 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(B)
9900 9920 9940 9960 9980 10,000
Probability density
Pesree plants/bundles [number out of 10,000]
Bemisia tabaci, cell grown plants
FIGURE A.2 (Continued)
|
49 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(C)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
9900 9920 9940 9960 9980 10,000
Certainty level
Pesree plants/bundles [number out of 10,000]
Bemisia tabaci, cell grown plants
FIGURE A.2 (A) Elicited uncertainty of pest infection per 10,000 plants/bundles (histogram in blue – vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and
distributional fit (red line); (B) uncertainty of the proportion of pest- free plants/bundles per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infection proportion expressed as percentage); (C) descending uncer tainty distribution function of pest
infection per 10,000 plants/bundles.
50 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.1.7 | Overall likelihood of pest freedom for plants in pots
A.1.7.1 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number of infected plants in pots
This scenario assumes that the pest is not present in the nursery area.
A.1.7.2 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number of infected plants in pots
This scenario assumes high pest pressure in and around nurseries especially when in proximity with greenhouses. It also as-
sumes, that plants in pots may be stored nearby the greenhouses or be grown inside the greenhouses at the beginning of
the cultivation, which makes it more likely that they could be infested with B. tabaci. Moreover, plants in pots are exported
with leaves. It also assumes high inspection difficulty in the canopy of large trees, so there are more possibilities that the
pest is unnoticed.
A.1.7.3 | Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over- or underestimate the number of infected plants in pots
(Median)
The scenario assumes low values for the central scenario because B. tabaci is not expected to be present outdoors and
because there is uncertainty about the host status of B. tabaci on Salix. However, it has also been considered that the pest is
repeatedly intercepted in the UK in glasshouses, that visual inspections could miss the pest and that it is possible that there
could be spread to plants grown outdoors from the glasshouse.
A.1.7.4 | Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/
interquartile range)
The Panel expresses the maximum uncertainty with the first quartile, and a slightly lower uncertainty with the third quar-
tile, mainly because there is relatively high distance between the greenhouse and the commodity outside. Moreover, it
is very unlikely that the pest is present outdoors and Salix is not a major host. The pest is a quarantine one in the UK and
therefore it is more likely to be detected in the greenhouse where measures must be taken.
|
51 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.1.7.5 | Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Bemisia tabaci (European populations) on plants in pots
The following Tables show the elicited and fitted values for pest infection (TableA.5) and pest freedom (TableA.6).
Based on the numbers of estimated infected bundles the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – number of infected plants per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncertainty
distribution of the pest freedom are shown in TableA.6.
TABLE A.5 Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infection by Bemisia tabaci (European populations) per 10,000 plants.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97.5% 99%
Elicited values 010 20 40 75
EKE 0.247 0.681 1.47 3.19 5.72 9.15 12.9 21.5 32.2 38.8 46.7 54.9 63.3 69.5 75.1
Note: The EK E result is the BetaGene ral (0.9073, 2.1215, 0, 85.5) distribution f itted with @Risk vers ion 7.6.
TABLE A.6 The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Bemisia tabaci (European populations) per 10,000 plants calculated by TableA.5.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10 % 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 9 7.5 % 99%
Values 9925 9960 9980 9990 10,000
EKE results 9925 9931 9937 9945 9953 9961 9968 9978 9987 9991 9994 9997 9998.5 9999.3 9999.8
Note: The EK E results are the fitte d values.
52 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(A)
02040608
01
00
Probability density
Infested plants [number out of 10,000]
Bemisia tabaci, plants in pots
EKE resultFied density
FIGURE A.3 (Continued)
|
53 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(B)
9900 9920 9940 9960 9980 10,000
Probability density
Pesree plants [number out of 10,000]
Bemisia tabaci, plants in pots
FIGURE A.3 (Continued)
54 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(C)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
9900 9920 9940 9960 9980 10,000
Certainty level
Pesree plants [number out of 10,000]
Bemisia tabaci, plants in pots
FIGURE A.3 (A) Elicited uncertainty of pest infection per 10,000 plants (histogram in blue – ver tical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red
line); (B) uncertainty of the proportion of pest- free plants per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infection proportion expressed as percentage); (C) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infection per 10,000 plants.
|
55 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.1.8 | Reference list
Abd- Rabou, S., & Simmons, A. M. (2010). Survey of reproductive host plants of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in Egypt, including new host
records. Entomological News, 121(5), 456–465. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3157/ 021. 121. 0507
Avidov, Z. (1956). Bionomics of the tobacco whitefly (Bemisia tabaci Cennad.) in Israel. Ktavin, 7, 25– 41.
Bayhan, E., Ulusoy, M. R., & Brown, J. K. (2006). Host range, distribution, and natural enemies of Bemisia tabaci ‘B biotype’ (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in
Tur key. J ournal of Pest Science, 79, 233–240. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1034 0- 006- 0139- 4
Bradshaw, C. D., Hemmin g, D., Baker, R., Everat t, M., Eyre, D., & Korycinska, A . (2019). A novel approach for explorin g climatic factors limiting current pest
distributions: A case study of Bemisia tabaci in north- west Europe and assessment of potential future establishment in the United Kingdom under
climate change. PLoS One, 14 (8), e0221057. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 0221057
Byrne, D. N. (1999). Migration and dispersal by the sweet potato whitef ly, Bemisia tabaci. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 97(4), 309–316. ht tps :// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/ s 0168 - 192 3(99) 00074 - x
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International). (2015). Bemisia tabaci (tobacco whitefly). https:// www. cabi. org/ cpc/ datas heet/ 8927# F8A36
FF8- D287- 4CBD- A0C8- B380F 2CFB753 (accessed: 2024/12/19).
Cohen, S., Kern, J., Harpaz, I., & Ben- Joseph, R. (1988). Epidemiological studies of the tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) in the Jordan Valley, Israel.
Phytoparasitica, 16 (3), 259. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ bf029 79527
Cohen, A. C., Henneberry, T. J., & Chu, C. C. (1996). Geometric relationships between whitefly feeding behavior and vascular bundle arrangements.
Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 78(2), 135–142. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1570- 7458. 1996. tb007 74. x
Coudriet, D. L., Prabhaker, N., Kishaba, A. N., & Meyerdirk, D. E. (1985). Variation in developmental rate on different host and overwintering of the sweet-
potato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Environmental Entomology, 14, 516 –519. https:// doi. o rg/ 10. 1093/ ee/ 14.4. 516
Cuthbertson, A. G. (2013). Update on the status of Bemisia tabaci in the UK and the use of entomopathogenic fungi within eradication programmes.
Insects, 4(2), 198–205. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ insec ts402 0198
Cuthbertson, A. G., & Vänninen, I. (2015). The importance of maintaining Protected Zone status against Bemisia tabaci. Insects, 6(2), 432–4 41. https: // doi.
org/ 10. 3390/ insec ts602 0432
Davidson, E. W., Seg ura, B. J., Steele, T., & Hendrix, D. L. (1994). Microorganisms i nfluence the composition o f honeydew produced by the silverl eaf white-
fl y, Bemisia argentifolii. Journa l of Insect Physiology, 40(12), 1069–1076. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0022- 1910(94) 90060 - 4
De Barro, P. J. (2012). The Bemisia tabaci species complex: questions to guide future research. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 11, 187–196. ht tps:// doi.
org / 10. 1016/ s2095 - 3119(12) 60003 - 3
De Barro, P. J., Liu, S. S., Boykin, L . M., & Dinsdale, A. B. (2011). Bemisia tabaci: a statement of species status. Annual Review of Entomology, 56, 1–19. ht tps://
doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev- ento- 11240 8- 085504
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). (2022). UK Risk Register Details for Bemisia tabaci European populations. https:// plant
healt hport al. defra. gov. uk/ pests - and- disea ses/ uk- plant - healt h- risk- regis ter/ viewP estRi sks. cfm? cslre f= 13756 & riskI d= 27242 (accessed: 2024/12/19).
DEFRA (Depar tment for Environment, Food a nd Rural Affairs). (2023). UK Risk Register Det ails for Bemisia tabaci non- European populations. https:// plant
healt hport al. defra. gov. uk/ pests - and- disea ses/ uk- plant - healt h- risk- regis ter/ viewP estRi sks. cfm? cslre f= 13756 & riskI d= 13756 (accessed: 2024/12/19).
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health). (2013). Scientific Opinion on the risks to plant health posed by Bemisia tabaci species complex and viruses
it transmits for the EU territory. EFSA Journal, 11(4): 3162. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2903/j. efsa. 2013. 3162
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., Potting, R., Reignault, P. L., Stefani, E., Thulke, H.- H., Van der Werf, W., Vicent Civera, A.,
Yuen, J., … Gonthier, P. (2024). Commodity risk assessment of Ligustrum ovalifolium and Ligustrum vulgare plants from the UK. EFSA Journal, 22(3),
e8648. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2903/j. efsa. 2024. 8648
El- Helaly, M. S., El- Shazli, A. Y., & El- Gayar, F. H. (1971). Biological Studies on Bemisia tabaci Genn. (Homopt., Aleyrodidae) in Egypt 1. Zeitschrift für ange -
wandte Entomologie, 69(1–4), 48–55. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1439- 0418. 1971. tb031 81. x
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation). (2004). Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests Bemisia tabaci, PM 7/35(1). OEPP/
EPPO Bulletin, 34, 281–288.
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). (2024a). EPPO A2 List of pests recommended for regulation as quarantine pests,
version 2024–09: https:// www. eppo. int/ ACTIV ITIES/ plant_ quara ntine/ A2_ list (accessed: 2024/12/19).
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). (2024b). Bemisia tabaci (BEMITA), Categorization. https:// gd. eppo. int/ taxon/
BEMITA/ categ oriza tion (accessed: 2024/12/19).
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). (2024c). Bemisia tabaci (BEMITA), Distribution. https:// gd. eppo. int/ taxon/ BEMITA/
distr ibution (accessed: 2024/12/19).
EUROPHYT (Europ ean Union Notificatio n System for Plant Health Interceptions).(2024). https:// food. ec. europa. eu/ plants/ plant - healt h- and- biose curity/
europ hyt_ en (a ccessed: 2024- 12- 10).
Fiallo- Olivé, E., Pan, L. L., Liu, S. S., & Navas- Castillo, J. (2020). Transmission of begomoviruses and other whitefly- borne viruses: Dependence on the
vector species. Phytopathology, 110 (1), 10–17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1094/ phyto - 07- 19- 0273- fi
Gerling, D., Horowitz, A. R., & Baumgaertner, J. (1986). Autecology of Bemisia tabaci. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 17 (1–2), 5–19. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/ 0167- 8809(86) 90022 - 8
Hill, B. G. (1969). A morphological comparison between two species of whitefly, Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Westw.) and Bemisia tabaci (Genn.)
(Homoptera: Aleurodidae) which occur on tobacco in the Transvaal. Phytophylactica, 1(3– 4), 127–146.
Janssen, J. A. M., Tjallingii, W. F., & van Lenteren, J. C. (1989). Electrical recording and ultrastructure of stylet penetration by the greenhouse whitefly.
Entomology Experience Apply, 52, 69–81. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1570- 7458. 1989. tb012 50. x
Jiang, Y. X., Lei, H., Collar, J. L., Martin, B., Muñiz, M., & Fereres, A. (1999). Probing and feeding behavior of two distinct biotypes of Bemisia tabaci
(Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on tomato plants. Journal of Economic Entomology, 92, 357–366. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ jee/ 92.2. 357
Khatun, M. F., Jahan, S. H., Lee, S., & Lee, K. Y. (2018). Genetic diversit y and geographic distribution of the Bemisia tabaci species complex in Bangladesh.
Ac ta Tro pica , 187, 28–36. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. actat ropica. 2018. 07. 021
Lei, H., Tjallingii, W. F., & van Lenteren, J. C. (1997). Effect of tethering during EPG recorded probing byadults of the greenhouse whitefly. Journal of
Applied Entomology, 121, 211–217. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1439- 0418. 1997. tb013 95. x
Lei, H., van Lenteren, J. C., & Xu, R. M. (2001). Effects of plant tissue factors on the acceptance of four greenhouse vegetable host plants by the green-
house whitefly: An electrical penetration graph (EPG) study. European Journal of Entomology, 98, 31–36. https:// doi. org / 10. 14411/ eje. 2001. 005
Li, S.- J., Xue, X., Ahmed, M. Z., Ren, S.- X., Du, Y.- Z., Wu, J.- H., Cuthbertson, A. G. S., & Qiu, B.- L. (2011). Host plants and natural enemies of Bemisia tabaci
(Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in China. Insect Science, 18(1), 101–120 . https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1744- 7917. 2010. 01395. x
Norman, J. W., Stansty, D. G., Ellsworth, P. A., & Toscano, N. C. P. C. (1995). Management of silverleaf whitefly: a comprehensive manual on the biology,
economic impact and control tactics. USDA/CSREES Grant Pub. 93- EPIX- 1- 0102. 13 pp.
Price, J. F., & Taborsky, D. (1992). Movement of immature Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on poinsettia leaves. The Florida Entomologist, 75(1),
151–153. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3495495
56 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
Ren, S.- X., Wang, Z.- Z., Qiu, B.- L., & Xiao, Y. (2001). The pest status of Bemisia tabaci in China and non- chemical control strategies. Insect Science, 8(3),
279–288. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1744- 7917. 2001. tb004 53. x
Simmons, A. M ., & Elsey, K. D. (1995). Overwintering and co ld tolerance of Bemisia argentifo lii (Homoptera: Aleyr odidae) in coastal South Carolin a. Journal
of Entomological Science, 30(4), 497–506. https:// doi. org/ 10. 18474/ 0749- 8004- 30.4. 497
Summers, C. G., Newton, Jr. A. S., & Estrada, D. (1996). Intraplant and interplant movement of Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) crawlers.
Environmental Entomology, 25(6), 1360 –1364. http s://dx. doi .org/10 .1093/ee/ 25. 6.136 0
TRACES- NT (TRAde Control and Expert System). (2024). https:// webga te. ec. europa. eu/ tracesnt (access ed: 2024 - 12- 10).
Walker, G. P., Perring, T. M., & Freeman, T. P. (2010). Life history, functional anatomy, feeding and mating behavior. In Stansly, P. A., & Naranjo, S. E. (eds.),
Bemisia: bionomics and management of a global pest, Springer, Dordrecht, 109–160. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978 - 90 - 481- 2460 - 2_ 4
A.2 | ENTOLEUCA MAMMATA
A.2.1 | Organism information
Taxonomic information Current valid scientific name: Entoleuca mammata
Synonyms: Anthostoma blakei, Anthostoma morsei, Fuckelia morsei, Hypoxylon blakei, Hypoxylon holwayi,
Hypoxylon mammatum, Hypoxylon morsei, Hypoxylon pauperatum, Hypoxylon pruinatum, Nemania
mammata, Rosellinia pruinata, Sphaeria mammata, Sphaeria pruinata (according to Index Fungorum)
Name used in the EU legislation: Entoleuca mammata (Wahlenb.) Rogers and JU
Order: Xylariales
Family: Xylariaceae
Common name: hypox ylon canker of poplar, canker of poplar, canker of aspen
Name used in the Dossier: Entoleuca mammata
Group Fungi
EPPO code HYPOMA
Regulated status Entoleuca mammata is listed in Annex III of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 as protected
zone quarantine pest for Ireland and the UK (Northern Ireland).
The pathogen is quarantine pest in China and Israel and is on the A1 list of Türkiye (EPPO, 2024a).
Pest status in the UK Entoleuca mammata is present in the UK, with few occurrences in England, Wales, Channel Islands and
Scotland (CABI, 2019; EPPO, 2024b; Granmo etal.,1999; Mathiassen,1993).
Pest status in the EU Entoleuca mammata is present in the following EU MS: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain
and Sweden (EFSA PLH Panel, 2023; EPPO, 2024b).
Host status on Salix caprea
and S. cinerea
Salix caprea and S. cinerea are hosts of E. mammata (Granmo etal.,1999). Other reported hosts of E. mammata
are S. daphnoides, S . myrsinifolia, S. pentandra, S. phylicifol ia and S. triandra (EPPO, 2024c; Granmo
etal.,1999; Mathiasen, 1993).
In North America Salix is reported as a secondary host of E. mammata together with several other host genera
(Manion & Griffin, 1986).
In the central and northern Scandinavia willows seem to be the main hosts of E. mammata, mostly S . caprea, S.
pentandra and S. myrsinifolia (Mathiasen, 1993). However, E. mammata is considered by Mathiasen (1993) as
primary saprophyte on Salix species.
PRA information Pest Risk Assessments available:
– Pest categorisation of Entoleuca mammata (EFSA PLH Panel, 2017);
– Express Pest Risk Analysis: Entoleuca mammata (Klejdysz etal., 2018);
– UK Risk Register Details for Entoleuca mammata (DEFRA, 2023).
Other relevant information for the assessment
Biology Entoleuca mammata causes canker disease in Populus tremuloides and P. tremula as primary hosts, but other
hardwood species can be also affected as minor hosts (EFSA PLH Panel, 2017). The fungus is also known
as primary saprophyte on several Salix species (Mathiasen, 1993) but it can become a pathogen under
certain conditions. E. mammata is thought to be native to North America and introduced into Europe
several centuries ago (Kasanen etal., 2004). It is now largely spread in the temperate zones of the northern
hemisphere in North America, Europe and Asia. Entoleuca mammata is present in Canada and in several
states of the USA, mostly in the north. In Asia, it is only found in South Korea on decayed wood (Lee etal.,
2000). In Europe, in addition to the mentioned EU MS and the UK (see above), it is also repor ted from
Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Russia (Southern Russia and Western
Siberia), Serbia, Switzerland, Ukraine (CABI, 2019; EPPO, 2024c) and Norway (Granmo etal.,1999; NBIC,
2021).
The ascospores of E. mammata can infect the living wood of the hosts penetrating in the periderm and
invading tissues under bark through mechanical wounds and injuries, often caused by woodpeckers and
insects (Anderson etal., 1979a; Ostry & Anderson, 1983); water stress can increase host susceptibility (EFSA
PLH Panel, 2017, 2023). The pathogen is most commonly found on trees 15–40 years old, but all ages can
be infected (EFSA PLH Panel, 2017; EPPO 2023). Infection usually starts from branches and twigs and then
can spread to the main stem. Entoleuca mammata is most frequently found on stems about 1.5–2.5 m
above the ground (Mathiasen, 1993). The cankers expand very rapidly (7–8 cm per month) in summer, and
more slowly during winter; branches and stems can be girdled causing drying and breakage. Entoleuca
mammata mostly develops in the range from 8 to 32°C; the optimum temperature is 28°C; toxins host-
specific produced by the fungus are involved in pathogenesis (EPPO, 2023; EFSA PLH Panel, 2017; Stermer
etal., 1984).
|
57 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
The pathogen overwinters in host tissues as both mycelium and spores. Conidia are produced 5–14 months
after infection, but their role in the disease transmission is considered not relevant and ascospores are the
main source of inoculum (EFSA PLH Panel, 2017; Ostry & Anderson, 2009; Ostr y, 2013).
Entoleuca mammata can spread over long distances via windborne ascospores, which are produced 2–3 years
after infection (Anderson etal., 1979b); cankers on felled trees on the ground continue to produce
ascospores for 23 months (Ostry & Anderson, 2009). Ascospores are dispersed with a temperature above
−4°C and wet weather; a minimum of 16°C is required for star ting germination, which became rapid at
28–32°C (EFSA PLH Panel, 2017). Infected wood, mostly with bark, may be a pathway for passive spread of
E. mammata in international trade; however, also young plants may carry ascospores or mycelium of the
fungus, which can survive as a latent infection on living material inadvertently moved (EFSA PLH Panel,
2017; EPPO, 2024c).
Entoleuca mammata is considered an important pathogen of poplars in the USA and Canada, causing
economic losses of millions of dollars a year (Anderson etal., 1979b; EFSA PLH Panel, 2017; Ostry, 2013). In
Europe, damage on Populus tremula has been reported in natural stands in France and Italy and in poplar
plantations in Sweden and Estonia (EFSA PLH Panel, 2017; Lutter etal., 2019); however, the pathogen is
generally known as a pest of low importance (EFSA PLH Panel, 2023).
Symptoms Main type of symptoms Symptoms of E. mammata infection have been described especially for Populus
species. Early symptoms of cankers on the bark appear as slightly sunken,
yellowish- orange areas with an irregular border. Young cankers can be
easily identified by removing the bark to expose the white mycelium in the
cambial zone. The outer bark in older cankers is then lifted into blister- like
patches and break s away, exposing blackened areas prominently visible
on green branches and trunks. Callus formation only occasionally develops
because cankers spread very quickly (Anderson etal., 1979b; EPPO, 2023).
Wilting of leaves may be observed when living trees are girdled by cankers,
as well as sprouting of new shoots on stem and branches. Infected trees
can be secondarily colonised by other fungi, accelerating the host decline
(EPPO, 2023).
Entholeuca mammata has been associated with canker in Salix in Wales
(Mathiasen, 1993 citing Granmo etal. 1989).
Presence of
asymptomatic plants
The disease caused by E. mammata has a latent period and symptoms can
appear only 2 years after the ascospore infection, therefore asymptomatic
plants can be found (Ostry & Anderson, 2009).
Confusion with other
pests
Some Hypoxylon species present in Europe on deciduous trees (H. confluens
and H. udum) show symptoms similar to those of E. mammata but can be
easily distinguished in laboratory by the ascospore characteristics (EFSA
PLH Panel, 2017).
Host plant range According to Ostry and Anderson (2009), several genera of hardwood trees have been reported as hosts of E .
mammata (Miller, 1961) but conclusive evidence for confirming saprophytic or pathogenic relationships on
many of these hosts is largely lacking.
The list of hosts of E. mammata includes: Alnus sinuata, Betula sp., Fagus sp., Malus sp., Ostrya sp., Populus
adenopoda, P. alba, P. balsamifera, P. grandidentata, P. nigra, P. tremula, P. tremuloides, P. trichocarpa,
P. × wettsteini, Populus hybrids, Salix caprea, S. cin erea, S. daphnoides, S. myrisinifolia , S. pentandra, S.
phylicifolia, S. triandra, Salix, sp. and Sorbus aucuparia (EFSA PLH Panel, 2023; EPPO, 2024c; Ostry, 2013).
In North America, E. mammata mainly infects the quacking aspen (Populus tremuloides); minor damage is
recorded on P. alleghaniensis, P. balsamifera, P. grandide ntata and various Populus hybrids. Other secondary
hosts in North America are Acer, Alnus, Betula, Carpinus, Fagus, Picea, Pyrus, Salix, Sorbus and Ulmus (Manion
& Griffin, 1986).
In Europe, the main hosts are poplars, mostly Populus tremula; other hosts are P. alba, P. nigra, P. trichocarpa and
the hybrid P. tremula × P. tremuloides (Ostry, 2013). In the central and northern Scandinavia willows seem to
be the main hosts of E. mammata, mostly Salix caprea, S. pentandra and S. myrsinifolia (Mathiasen, 1993).
Reported evidence of impact Entoleuca mammata is an EU protected zone quarantine pest.
Evidence that the commodity
is a pathway
Plants for planting may carry ascospores and mycelium of E . mammata also as asymptomatic plants (EFSA PLH
Panel, 2017; EPPO 2023) therefore the commodity is a pathway.
Surveillance information Entoleuca mammata is not a regulated pest for Great Britain and as such no specific measures are taken. This
pest has been a Protected Zone in Northern Ireland for many years and exports to North Ireland from other
areas of the UK are checked in accordance with the requirements (Dossier Section5.1).
A.2.2 | Possibility of pest presence in the nursery
A.2.2.1 | Possibility of entry from the surrounding environment
Entoleuca mammata is present in the UK in England, Wales, Channel Islands and Scotland (CABI, 2019; EPPO, 2024b). In
Wales the pathogen was found on Salix sp. (Mathiassen,1993).
Entoleuca mammata can easily spread with ascospores dispersed by air currents also over long distance and can infect
Acer campestre, A. pseudoplatanus, Fagus spp. and Populus spp., which are present within 2 km from the nurseries in wood-
lands and hedgerows (Dossier Sections1.1, 1.2 and 5.1).
(Continued)
58 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
Uncertainties:
– The presence of the pathogen on host plants in the surrounding area.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that it is possible for E. mammata to
enter the nurseries from surrounding environment via ascospores transported by wind and air currents.
A.2.2.2 | Possibility of entry with new plants/seeds
The starting materials of S. caprea and S. cinerea are either seeds, seedlings or cuttings. Seeds and seedlings are either from
the UK (certified with UK Plant Passports) or the EU (mostly the Netherlands, Belgium and France) (certified with phytosani-
tary certificates) (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
In addition to S. capera and S. cinerea plants, the nurseries also produce other plants (Dossier Sections3.1., 3.2 and 5.1).
Out of them, there are suitable hosts for the pathogen such as Alnus spp., Fagus spp., Malus spp., Pyrus spp., Populus spp.,
Sorbus aucuparia and Ulmus spp. However, there is no information on how and where the plants are produced. Therefore,
if the plants are first produced in another nursery, the pathogen could possibly travel with them.
The nurseries are using virgin peat or peat- free compost as a growing media, which is a mixture of coir, tree bark, wood
fibre, etc., heat- treated by commercial suppliers during production to eliminate pests and diseases (Dossier Sections1.1
and 1.2). There is no evidence that soil or growing media may be a pathway for E. mammata.
Uncertainties:
– Provenance of new plants other than Salix used for plant production in the nurseries.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that it is possible for the pathogen
to enter the nurseries via new seedlings of Salix spp. and plants of other species used for plant production in the area. The
entry of the pathogen with seeds and the growing media the Panel considers as not possible.
A.2.2.3. | Possibility of spread within the nursery
Salix plants are grown both in containers outdoors and in fields. There are no mother plants present in the nurseries and
none of the nurseries expected to export to the EU produce plants from grafting (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
The pathogen can infect other suitable plants, such as Alnus spp., Fagus spp., Malus spp., Populus spp., Sorbus spp., etc.
present within the nurseries (Dossier Sections3.1, 3.2 and 5.1).
Once entered, ascospores of E. mammata could be produced on infected plants and naturally spread within the nurser-
ies by air currents.
Uncertainties:
– Whether ascospores are produced on infected nursery plants.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that the spread of the pathogen
within the nurseries is possible by air currents.
A.2.3 | Information from interceptions
In the EUROPHYT/TRACES- NT database there are no records of notification of Salix plants for planting neither from the UK
nor from other countries due to the presence of E. mammata between the years 1995 and November 2024 (EUROPHYT,
2024; TRACES- NT,2024).
A.2.4 | Evaluation of the risk mitigation measures
In the table below, all risk mitigation measures currently applied in the UK are listed and an indication of their effectiveness on
E. mammata is provided. The description of the risk mitigation measures currently applied in the UK is provided in the Table7.
NRisk mitigation measure
Effect on the
pest Evaluation and uncertainties
1Registration of production sites Yes The risk mitigation measure is expected to be effective in reducing the
likelihood of presence of the pathogen on the commodity.
Uncertainties:
– None.
2Physical separation No Not applicable.
|
59 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
NRisk mitigation measure
Effect on the
pest Evaluation and uncertainties
3Certified plant material Yes The risk mitigation measure is expected to be effective in reducing the
likelihood of presence of the pathogen on the commodity.
Uncertainties:
– None.
4Growing media No Not applicable.
5 Surveillance, monitoring and
sampling
Yes This measure could have some effect. Entoleuca mammata is not a regulated
pest for Great Britain, and no specific measures on surveillance are taken.
The pest has been a protected zone quarantine pest in Northern Ireland
for many years and exports to North Ireland from other areas of the UK
are checked in accordance with the requirements.
Uncertainties:
– Whether plants are subjected to annual surveys.
6Hygiene measures No Not applicable.
7 Removal of infested plant material Yes This measure could have some effec t.
Uncertainties:
– None.
8Irrigation water No Not applicable.
9Application of pest control products Yes Although little information exists on the efficacy of chemical treatments
against E. mammata (Ostry, 2013), some of the fungicides used in the
nursery targeting canker pathogens (Azoxystrobin, Pyrimethanil,
Triazolinthione, Tebuconazole, Propamocarb Hydrochloride) could
reduce the likelihood of the infection by the pathogen.
Uncertainties:
– The level of efficacy of fungicides in reducing infection of E. mammata.
10 Measures against soil pests No Not applicable.
11 Inspections and management of
plants before export
Yes This measure could have some effect, although asymptomatic stages may
exist as reported on poplars.
Uncertainties:
– None.
12 Separation during transport to the
destination
No Not applicable.
A.2.5 | Overall likelihood of pest freedom for cuttings/graftwood
A.2.5.1. | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number of infected cuttings/graftwood
The scenario assumes the pathogen to be absent or with a low pressure of the pathogen in the nurseries and in the sur-
roundings. Younger plants are exposed to the pathogen for only short period of time. The scenario also assumes that
symptoms of the disease are visible and promptly detected during inspections.
A.2.5.2 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number of infected cuttings/graftwood
The scenario assumes a high pressure of the pathogen in the nurseries and in the surroundings as suitable hosts are pre-
sent. Older plants are exposed to the pathogen for longer period of time. The scenario also assumes that symptoms of the
disease are not easily recognisable during inspections and that infections are asymptomatic.
A.2.5.3 | Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over- or underestimate the number of infected cuttings/
graftwood (Median)
The scenario assumes a limited presence of the pathogen in the nurseries and the surroundings and that the plants are
exposed to the pathogen for a sufficient period of time to cause infection through mechanical wounds. Salix species are
suitable hosts.
A.2.5.4 | Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/
interquartile range)
The limited information on the occurrence of the pathogen in the UK including the nurseries and the surroundings results
in high level of uncertainties for infection rates below the median. Otherwise, the pest pressure from the surroundings is
expected to be low giving less uncertainties for rates above the median. The young age of plants would also leave less
uncertainty for estimates above the median.
(Continued)
60 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.2.5.5 | Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Entoleuca mammata on cuttings/graftwood
The following Tables show the elicited and fitted values for pest infection (TableA.7) and pest freedom (TableA.8).
Based on the numbers of estimated infected bundles the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – number of infected bundles per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncertainty
distribution of the pest freedom are shown in TableA.8.
TABLE A.7 Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infection by Entoleuca mammata per 10,000 bundles.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17 % 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97.5% 99%
Elicited values 0 8 16 30 70
EKE 0.405 0.912 1.70 3.20 5.19 7.7 2 10.4 16.5 24.4 29.5 36.1 43.8 53.0 61.0 70.2
Note: The EK E result is the BetaGene ral (1.1421, 5.5388, 0, 120) distribution f itted with @Risk ver sion 7.6.
TABLE A.8 The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Entoleuca mammata per 10,000 bundles calculated by TableA .7.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 9 7.5 % 99%
Values 9930 9970 9984 9992 10,000
EKE results 9930 9939 9947 9956 9964 9971 9976 9983 9990 9992 9995 9997 9998 9999.1 9999.6
Note: The EK E results are the fitte d values.
|
61 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(A)
02040608
01
00
Probability density
Infested bundles [number out of 10,000]
Entoleuca mammata, cungs/grawood
EKE resultFied density
FIGURE A.4 (Continued)
62 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(B)
9900 9920 9940 9960 9980 10,000
Probability density
Pesree bundles [number out of 10,000]
Entoleuca mammata, cungs/grawood
FIGURE A.4 (Continued)
|
63 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(C)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
9900 9920 9940 9960 9980 10,000
Certainty level
Pesree bundles [number out of 10,000]
Entoleuca mammata, cungs/grawood
FIGURE A.4 (A) Elicited uncertainty of pest infection per 10,000 bundles (histogram in blue – vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional
fit (red line); (B) uncertainty of the proportion of pest- free bundles per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infection proportion expressed as percentage); (C descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infection per 10,000
bundles.
64 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.2.6 | Overall likelihood of pest freedom for bare root plants
A.2.6.1 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number of infected bare root plants
The scenario assumes the pest to be absent or with a low pressure in the nurseries and in the surroundings. Younger plants
are exposed to the pathogen for only a short period of time. The scenario also assumes that symptoms of the disease are
visible and promptly detected during inspections.
A.2.6.2 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number of infected bare root plants
The scenario assumes a high pressure of the pathogen in the nurseries and in the surroundings as suitable hosts are pre-
sent. Older plants are exposed to the pathogen for a longer period of time. The scenario also assumes that symptoms of
the disease are not easily recognisable during inspections and that infections are asymptomatic.
A.2.6.3 | Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over- or underestimate the number of infected bare root
plants (Median)
The scenario assumes a limited presence of the pathogen in the nurseries and the surroundings and that the plants are
exposed to the pathogen for a sufficient period of time to cause infection through mechanical wounds. Salix species are
suitable hosts.
A.2.6.4 | Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/
interquartile range)
The limited information on occurrence of the pathogen in the UK including the nurseries and the surroundings results in
high level of uncertainties for infection rates below the median. Otherwise, the pest pressure from the surroundings is
expected to be low giving less uncertainties for rates above the median.
|
65 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.2.6.5 | Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Entoleuca mammata on bare root plants
The following Tables show the elicited and fitted values for pest infection (TableA.9) and pest freedom (TableA.10).
Based on the numbers of estimated infected bundles the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – number of infected plants/bundles per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncer-
tainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in TableA.10.
TABLE A.9 Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infection by Entoleuca mammata per 10,000 plants/bundles.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97. 5% 99%
Elicited values 015 29 50 120
EKE 1.25 2.45 4.11 7.00 10.6 14.9 19.3 29.2 41.7 49.8 60.5 73.1 88.8 103 120
Note: The EK E result is the BetaGene ral (1.3991, 10.013, 0, 290) distri bution fitted wi th @Risk version 7.6.
TABLE A.10 The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Entoleuca mammata per 10,000 plants/bundles calculated by TableA.9.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97. 5% 99%
Values 9880 9950 9971 9985 10,000
EKE results 9880 9897 9 911 9927 9940 9950 9958 9971 9981 9985 9989 9993 9996 9998 9999
Note: The EK E results are the fitte d values.
66 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(A)
050100 15
02
00
Probability density
Infested plants/bundles [number out of 10,000]
Entoleuca mammata, bare root plants
EKE resultFied density
FIGURE A.5 (Continued)
|
67 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(B)
9800 9850 9900 9950 10,000
Probability density
Pesree plants/bundles [number out of 10,000]
Entoleuca mammata, bare root plants
FIGURE A.5 (Continued)
68 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(C)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
9800 9850 9900 9950 10,000
Certainty level
Pesree plants/bundles [number out of 10,000]
Entoleuca mammata, bare root plants
FIGURE A.5 (A) Elicited uncertainty of pest infection per 10,000 plants/bundles (histogram in blue – vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and
distributional fit (red line); (B) uncertainty of the proportion of pest free bare root plants/bundles per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infection proportion expressed as percentage); (C) descending uncertainty distribution function
of pest infection per 10,000 plants/bundles.
|
69 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.2.7 | Overall likelihood of pest freedom for cell grown plants
A.2.7.1 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number of infected cell grown plants
The scenario assumes the pest to be absent or with a low pressure in the nurseries and in the surroundings. Younger plants
are exposed to the pathogen for only a short period of time. The scenario also assumes that symptoms of the disease are
visible and promptly detected during inspections.
A.2.7.2 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number of infected cell grown plants
The scenario assumes a high pressure of the pathogen in the nurseries and in the surroundings as suitable hosts are pre-
sent. Older plants are exposed to the pathogen for a longer period of time. Cell grown plants are in close proximity to each
other which increases the humidity and hence provides good growth conditions for E. mammata. The scenario also as-
sumes that symptoms of the disease are not easily recognisable during inspections and that infections are asymptomatic.
A.2.7.3 | Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over- or underestimate the number of infected cell grown
plants (Median)
The scenario assumes a limited presence of the pathogen in the nurseries and the surroundings and that the plants are ex-
posed to the pathogen for a sufficient period of time to cause infection through mechanical wounds. Plants are very young
and therefore they display a limited susceptibility to the pathogen. Salix species are suitable hosts.
A.2.7.4 | Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/
interquartile range)
The limited information on occurrence of the pathogen in the UK including the nurseries and the surroundings results
in high level of uncertainties for infection rates below the median. Otherwise, the pest pressure from the surroundings
is expected to be low giving less uncertainties for rates above the median. The young age of plants would also leave less
uncertainty for estimates above the median.
70 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.2.7.5 | Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Entoleuca mammata on cell grown plants
The following Tables show the elicited and fitted values for pest infection (TableA.11) and pest freedom (TableA.12).
Based on the numbers of estimated infected bundles the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – number of infected plants/bundles per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncer-
tainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in TableA.12.
TA BL E A .11 Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infection by Entoleuca mammata per 10,000 plants/bundles.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97.5% 99%
Elicited values 010 20 40 90
EKE 0.351 0.873 1.75 3.54 6.04 9.34 12.9 21.2 32.0 38.9 47.8 57.9 69.6 79.4 90.0
Note: The EK E results is the BetaGe neral (1.0126, 3.9819, 0, 131) distributio n fitted with @Ris k version 7.6.
TABLE A.12 The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Entoleuca mammata per 10,000 plants/bundles calculated by TableA .11.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 9 7.5 % 99%
Values 9910 9960 9980 9990 10,000
EKE results 9910 9921 9930 9942 9952 9961 9968 9979 9987 9991 9994 9996 9998 9999.1 9999.6
Note: The EK E results are the fitte d values.
|
71 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(A)
0306090120 150
Probability density
Infested plants/bundles [number out of 10,000]
Entoleuca mammata, cell grown plants
EKE result Fied density
FIGURE A.6 (Continued)
72 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(B)
9850 9880 9910 9940 9970 10,000
Probability density
Pesree plants/bundles [number out of 10,000]
Entoleuca mammata, cell grown plants
FIGURE A.6 (Continued)
|
73 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(C)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
9850 9880 9910 9940 9970 10,000
Certainty level
Pesree plants/bundles [number out of 10,000]
Entoleuca mammata, cell grown plants
FIGURE A.6 (A) Elicited uncertainty of pest infection per 10,000 plants/bundles (histogram in blue – vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and
distributional fit (red line); (B) uncertainty of the proportion of pest- free plants/bundles per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infection proportion expressed as percentage); (C) descending uncer tainty distribution function of pest
infection per 10,000 plants/bundles.
74 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.2.8 | Overall likelihood of pest freedom for plants in pots
A.2.8.1 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number of infected plants in pots
The scenario assumes the pest to be absent or with a low pressure in the nurseries and in the surroundings. Younger plants
are exposed to the pathogen for only a short period of time. The scenario also assumes that symptoms of the disease are
visible and promptly detected during inspections.
A.2.8.2 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number of infected plants in pots
The scenario assumes a high pressure of the pathogen in the nurseries and in the surroundings as suitable hosts are pre-
sent. Older plants are exposed to the pathogen for a longer period of time. The scenario also assumes that symptoms of
the disease are not easily recognisable during inspections and that infections are asymptomatic.
A.2.8.3 | Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over- or underestimate the number of infected plants in
pots (Median)
The scenario assumes a limited presence of the pathogen in the nurseries and the surroundings and that the plants are
exposed to the pathogen for a sufficient period of time to cause infection through mechanical wounds. Salix species are
suitable hosts.
A.2.8.4 | Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/
interquartile range)
The limited information on occurrence of the pathogen in the UK including the nurseries and the surroundings results in
high level of uncertainties for infection rates below the median. Otherwise, the pest pressure from the surroundings is
expected to be low giving less uncertainties for rates above the median.
|
75 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.2.8.5 | Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Entoleuca mammata on plants in pots
The following Tables show the elicited and fitted values for pest infection (TableA.13) and pest freedom (TableA.14).
Based on the numbers of estimated infected bundles the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – number of infected plants per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncertainty
distribution of the pest freedom are shown in TableA.14.
TABLE A.13 Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation by Entoleuca mammata per 10,000 plants.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10 % 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 9 7.5 % 99%
Elicited values 020 39 80 170
EKE 0.604 1.56 3.22 6.69 11.6 18. 2 25.4 42.2 63.6 77.3 94.6 114 135 153 171
Note: The EK E results is the BetaGe neral (0.96971, 3.2104, 0, 225) dist ribution fitte d with @Risk version 7.6.
TABLE A.14 The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Entoleuca mammata per 10,000 plants calculated by TableA.13.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97. 5% 99%
Values 9830 9920 9961 9980 10,000
EKE results 9829 9847 9865 9886 9905 9923 9936 9958 9975 9982 9988 9993 9997 9998 9999.4
Note: The EK E results are the fitte d values.
76 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(A)
050100 15
02
00
Probability density
Infested plants [number out of 10,000]
Entoleuca mammata, plants in pots
EKE result Fied density
FIGURE A.7 (Continued)
|
77 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(B)
9800 9850 9900 9950 10,000
Probability density
Pesree plants [number out of 10,000]
Entoleuca mammata, plants in pots
FIGURE A.7 (Continued)
78 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(C)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
9800 9850 9900 9950 10,000
Certainty level
Pesree plants [number out of 10,000]
Entoleuca mammata, plants in pots
FIGURE A.7 (A) Elicited uncertainty of pest infection per 10,000 plants (histogram in blue – vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red
line); (B) uncertainty of the proportion of pest- free plants per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infection proportion expressed as percentage); (C) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infection per 10,000 plants.
|
79 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.2.9 | Reference List
Anderson, N . A., Ostry, M. E., & Ander son, G. W. (1979a). Insect wounds as infection sites for Hypox ylon mammatum on trembling aspen. Phytopathology,
69, 476–479. ht tps: // doi. org/ 10. 1094/ p hyto - 69- 476
Anderson, R. L., Anderson, G. W., & Schipper, A. L. Jr. (1979b). Hypoxylon canker of aspen. USDA Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet, 6, 6.
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International). (2019). Hypoxylon mammatum (poplar canker). https:// www. cabi. org/ cpc/ datas heet/ 28323
(accessed: 2024- 12- 19).
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). (2023). UK risk register details for Entoleuca mammata. https:// plant healt hport al. defra.
gov. uk/ pests - and- disea ses/ uk- plant - healt h- risk- regis ter/ viewP estRi sks. cfm? cslre f= 11840 (accessed: 2024- 12- 19).
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Jeger, M., Bragard, C ., Caffier, D., Candresse, T., Chatz ivassiliou, E., Dehnen Schmutz, K., Gilioli, G ., Gregoire,
J.- C., Jaques Miret , J. A., MacLeod, A., Nava jas Navarro, M., Niere, B., Parne ll, S., Potting, R., Rafoss , T., Rossi, V., Urek, G., Van Br uggen, A., … Pautasso,
M. (2017). Scientific Opinion on the pest categorisation of Entoleuca mammata. EFSA Journal, 15(7), 4925. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2903/j. efsa. 2017. 4925
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., Potting, R., Reignault, P. L., Stefani, E., Thulke, H.- H., Van der Werf, W., Vicent Civera,
A., Yuen, J., … Gonthier, P. (2023). Commodity risk assessment of Acer campestre plants from the UK. EFSA Journal, 21(7), 8071. https:// doi. org/ 10.
2903/j. efsa. 2023. 8071
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). (1976). Outbreak in France of Aspen Canker caused by Hypoxylon mammatum
(Wahl) Mill. (= H. pruinatum (Klotz) Cke). https:// gd. eppo. int/ repor ting/ artic le- 5822 (accessed: 2024/12/19).
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). (2023). Datasheets on Quarantine Pests: Entoleuca mammata (HYPOMA), Datasheet.
https:// gd. eppo. int/ taxon/ HYPOMA/ datas heet (access ed: 2024 - 12- 19).
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). (2024a). Entoleuca mammata (HYPOMA), Categorization. https:// gd. eppo. int/ taxon/
HYPOMA/ categ oriza tion (acces sed : 2024- 12- 19).
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). (2024b). Entoleuca mammata (HYPOMA), Distribution. https:// gd. eppo. int/ taxon/
HYPOMA/ distr ibution (accessed: 2024- 12- 19).
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). (2024c). Entoleuca mammata (HYPOMA), Hosts. https:// gd. eppo. int/ taxon/
HYPOMA/ hosts (accessed: 2024- 12- 19).
EUROPHYT (Europ ean Union Notificatio n System for Plant Health Interceptions).(2024). https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/plant-health-and-biosecurity/
europhyt_en (a ccessed: 2024- 12- 10).
Granmo, A., Laessoe, T., & Schumacher, T. (1999). The genus Nemania s.l. (Xylariaceae) in Norden. Sommerfeltia, 27, 1–96. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2478/
som- 1999- 0002
Kasanen, R ., Hantula, J., Ostry, M. E. , Pinon, J., & Kurkela, T. (2004). North Americ an populations of Entoleuca mammata are genetically more variable than
populations in Europe. Mycological Research, 108, 766–774. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ s0953 75620 4000334
Klejdysz, T., Kubasik, W., Strażyński, P., Gawlak, M., Pruciak, A., Rzepecka, D., & Kałuski, T. (2018). Express pest risk analysis for Hypoxylon mammatum.
https:// www. plant quara ntine. pl/ pl/? node_ id= 1683& liter ka= E (a ccessed: 2024- 12- 19).
Lee, Y. S., Han, S. S., Shin, J. H ., Lee, Y. M., & Song, B. K . (2000). Germ tube formation of ascospores of two terrestrial higher ascomycetes, Hypoxylon mam-
matum and H. truncatum. Journal of Korean Woo d Science and Technology, 28, 10–16.
Lutter, R., Drenkhan, R., Tullus, A., Jürimaa, K ., Tullus, T., & Tullus, H. (2019). First record of Entoleuca mammata in hybrid aspen plantations in hemiboreal
Estonia and stand- environmental factors affecting its prevalence. European Journal of Forest Research, 138(2), 263–274. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s1034 2- 019- 01165 - 7
Manion, P. D., & Griffin, D. H. (1986). Sixty- five years of research on Hypoxylon canker of aspen. Plant Disease, 70(8), 803–808. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1094/
pd- 70- 803
Mathiassen, G. (1993). Corticolous and lignicolous Pyrenomycetes s. lat. (Ascomycetes) on Salix along a mid- Scandinavian transect. Sommerfeltia, 20,
1–180. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2478/ som- 1993- 0006
NBIC (Norwegian Biodiversity Information Center). (2021). Entoleuca mammata. https:// artsd ataba nken. no/ Taxon/ Entol euca% 20mam mata/ 82864 (ac-
cessed: 2024- 12- 19).
Ostry, M. E. (2013). Hypoxylon canker. In: P. Gonthier, & G. Nicolotti (eds.), Infectious Forest Diseases (pp. 407–419). CABI International, Wallingford.
Ostry, M. E., & Anderson, N. A. (2009). Genetics and ecology of the Entoleuca mammata–Populus pathosystem: Implications for aspen improvement and
management. Forest Ecology and Management, 257, 390–400. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. foreco. 2008. 09. 053
Stermer, B. A., Scheffer, R. P., & Hart, J. H. (1984). Isolation of toxins from Hypoxylon mammatum and demonstration of some toxin effects on selected
clones of Populus tremuloides. Phytopathology, 74, 654–658. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1094/ phyto - 74- 654
TRACES- NT (TRAde Control and Expert System). (2024). https:// webga te. ec. europa. eu/ tracesnt (access ed: 2024 - 12- 10).
A.3 | PHYTOPHTHORA RAMORUM NONEU ISOLATES
A.3.1 | Organism information
Taxonomic information Current valid scientific name: Phytophthora ra morum
Synonyms: –
Name used in the EU legislation: Phytophth ora ramorum (non- EU isolates) Werres, De Cock & Man in ‘t Veld
[PHY TRA]
Order: Peronosporales
Family: Peronosporaceae
Common name: Sudden Oak Death (SOD), ramorum bleeding canker, ramorum blight, ramorum leaf blight, twig
and leaf blight
Name used in the Dossier: Phytophtho ra ramorum
Group Oomycetes
EPPO code PHYTRA
(Continues)
80 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
Regulated status The pathogen is listed in Annex II of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 as Phytophthora
ramorum (non- EU isolates) Werres, De Cock & Man in ‘t Veld [PHYTRA]. The EU isolates of P. ramorum are
listed as regulated non- quarantine pest (RNQP).
The pathogen is included in the EPPO A2 list (EPPO, 2024a).
Phytoph thora ramorum is quarantine in Canada, China, Israel, Mexico, Morocco, South Korea and the UK . It is on
A1 list of Brazil, Chile, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Switzerland, Türkiye and EAEU (=Eurasian Economic Union:
Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia) (EPPO, 2024b).
Pest status in the UK Ph ytophthora ram orum is present in the UK (Brown & Brasier, 2007; Dossier Section2.0; CABI, 2020; EPPO, 2024c).
According to the Dossier Section2.0, European isolates of P. ramorum are present in the UK: not widely
distributed and under official control. It has been found in most regions of the UK, but it is more often
reported in wetter, western regions.
Pest status in the EU Phytop hthora ramorum is present in the EU and it is currently reported in the following EU MSs: Belgium, Croatia,
Denmark, Finland (transient), France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and
Slovenia (EPPO, 2024c).
Host status on Salix caprea
and S. cinerea
Salix caprea is reported as a proven host of P. ramorum as Koch's postulates have been completely fulfilled
(APHIS USDA, 2022; Cave etal.,2008). According to ANSES (2018) S. caprea has a low to moderate
susceptibility towards P. ramorum, with high uncertainty.
There is no information on whether P. ramorum can also attack Salix cinerea. However, the pathogen has been
reported as associated with another Salix species (i.e. Salix babylonica) (APHIS USDA, 2022).
PRA information Pest Risk Assessments available:
– Risk analysis for Phy tophthora ramo rum Werres, de Cock & Man in't Veld, causal agent of sudden oak death,
ramorum leaf blight and ramorum dieback (Cave etal.,2008);
– Risk analysis of Phy tophthora ramor um, a newly recognised pathogen threat to Europe and the cause of
sudden oak death in the USA (Sansford etal., 2009);
– Scientific opinion on the pest risk analysis on P hytophthora ram orum prepared by the FP6 project RAPRA
(EFSA Panel on Plant Health, 2011);
– Pest risk management for Phytophthora kernoviae and Phytop hthora ramorum ( EPPO, 2013);
– ANSES opinion and report on “Host species in the context of control of Phyto phthora ramoru m” (ANS ES, 2018);
– UK Risk Register Details for Phytophth ora ramorum (DEFRA, 2022);
– Risk of Phytop hthora ramorum to the United States (USDA, 2023);
– Updated pest risk assessment of Phytophth ora ramorum in Norway (Thomsen etal., 2023).
Other relevant information for the assessment
Biology Phytop hthora ramorum is most probably native to East Asia (Jung etal., 2021; Poimala & Lilja, 2013). The
pathogen is present in Asia (Japan, Vietnam), Europe (Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,
Guernsey, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, the UK), North
America (Canada, the US) and South America (Argentina) (EPPO, 2024c). So far there are 12 known lineages
of P. ramorum: NA1 and NA2 from North American, EU1 from Europe (including the UK) and North America
(Grünwald etal., 2009), EU2 from Northern Ireland and western Scotland (Van Poucke etal., 2012), IC1 to IC5
from Vietnam and NP1 to NP3 from Japan (Jung etal., 2021).
Phytoph thora ramorum is heterothallic oomycete species belonging to clade 8c (Blair etal., 2008) with two
mating types: A1 and A2 (Boutet etal., 2010).
Phytophthora species generally reproduce through (a) dormant (resting) spores which can be either sexual
(oospores) or asexual (chlamydospores); and (b) fruiting structures (sporangia) which contain zoospores
(Erwin & Ribeiro, 1996).
Phytoph thora ramorum produces sporangia on the surfaces of infected leaves and twigs of host plants. These
sporangia can be splash- dispersed to other close or carried by wind and rain to longer distances. The
sporangia germinate to produce zoospores that penetrate and initiate an infection on new hosts. In infected
plant material the chlamydospores are produced and can serve as resting structures (Davidson etal., 2005;
Grünwald etal., 2008). The pathogen is also able to sur vive in soil (Shishkoff, 2007). In the west of Scotland,
it persisted in soil for at least 2 years after its hosts were removed (Elliot etal., 2013). Oospores were only
observed in pairing tests under controlled laboratory conditions (Brasier & Kirk, 2004). Optimal temperatures
under laboratory conditions were 16–26°C for growth, 14–26°C for chlamydospore production and 16–22°C
for sporangia production (Englander etal., 2006).
Phytoph thora ramorum is mainly a foliar pathogen, however it was also reported to infect shoots, stems and
occasionally roots of various host plants (Grünwald etal., 2008, Parke & Lewis, 2007). According to Brown and
Brasier (2007), P. ramorum commonly occupies xylem beneath phloem lesions and may spread within xylem
and possibly recolonise the phloem from the x ylem. Phytophtho ra ramorum can remain viable within xylem
for two or more years after the overlying phloem had been excised.
Phytoph thora ramorum can disperse by aerial dissemination, water, movement of infested plant material and soil
containing propagules on footwear, tires of trucks and mountain bikes or the feet of animals (Davidson etal.,
2002; Brasier, 2008).
Infected foliar hosts can be a major source of inoculum, which can lead to secondary infections on nearby host
plants. Important foliar hosts in Europe are Rhododendron spp. and Larix kaempferi (Brasier & Webber, 2010,
Grünwald etal., 2008).
Possible pathways of entr y for P. ramorum are plants for planting (excluding seed and fruit) of known susceptible
hosts; plants for planting (excluding seed and fruit) of non- host plant sp ecies accompanied by contaminated
attached growing media; soil/growing medium (with organic matter) as a commodity; soil as a contaminant;
foliage or cut branches; seed and fruits; susceptible (isolated) bark and susceptible wood (EFSA PLH Panel, 2011).
Phytoph thora ramorum c aused rapid decline of Lithocarpus densiflorus and Quercus agrifolia in forests of California
and Oregon (Rizzo etal., 2005) and Larix kaempferi in plantations of southwest England (Brasier & Webber, 2010).
(Continued)
|
81 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
Symptoms Main type of symptoms Phy tophthora ramo rum causes different types of symptoms depending on the
host species and the plant tissue infected.
According to DEFRA (2008) P. ramorum causes three dif ferent types of disease:
a. ‘Ramorum bleeding canker’– cankers on trunk s of trees, which emit a dark
ooze. As they increase in size they can lead to tree death;
b. ‘Ramorum leaf blight'– infec tion of the foliage, leading to discoloured
lesions on the leaves;
c. ‘Ramorum dieback’– shoot and bud infections which result in wilting,
discolouration and dying back of affected parts.
According to Sandsford etal. (2009) P. ramorum causes leaf blight and dieback
on S. caprea.
There is no information on the symptoms caused to other Salix spp. plants.
Presence of asymptomatic
plants
If roots are infected by P. ramorum, the plants can be without aboveground
symptoms for months until environmental factors trigger disease
expression (Roubtsova & Bostock, 2009; Thompson etal., 2021).
Application of some fungicides may reduce symptoms and therefore mask
infection, making it more difficult to determine whether the plant is
pathogen- free (DEFRA, 2008).
Confusion with other pests Various symptoms caused by P. ramorum can be confused with other
pathogens, such as: canker and foliar symptoms caused by other
Phytophthora species (P. cinnamomi, P. citricola and P. cactorum); leaf lesions
caused by rust in early stages; leafspots caused by sunburn; dieback of
twigs and leaves caused by Botryosphaeria dothidea (Davidson etal., 2003).
Phytoph thora ramorum can be easily distinguished from other pathogens,
including Phytophthora species based on morphology (Grünwald etal.,
2008) and molecular tests (EPPO, 2006).
Host plant range Phyto phthora ramoru m has a very wide host range, which is expanding.
Main host plants include Camellia spp., Larix decidua, L. kaempferi, Pieris spp., Rhododendron spp., Syrin ga
vulgaris, Viburnum spp. and the North American trees species, Lithocarpus densiflorus and Quercus agrifolia
(EPPO 2024d).
Further proven hosts confirmed by Koch's postulates are Abies grandis, A. magnifica, Acer circinatum, A.
macrophyllum, A. pseudoplatanus, Adiantum aleuticum, A. jordani i, Aesculus californica, A. hippocastanum,
Arbutus menziesii, A. unedo, Arctostaphylos columbiana, A. glauca, A. hooveri, A . manzanita, A. montereyensis,
A. morro ensis, A. pilosula, A. pumila, A. silvicola, A . viridissima, Betula pendula, Calluna vulgaris, Castanea sativa,
Ceanothus thyrsiflorus, Chamaecyparis lawsoniana, Chrysolepis chrysophylla, Cinnamomum camphora, Cory lus
cornuta, Fagus sylva tica, Frangula californica, Frangula purshiana, Fraxinus excelsior, Gaultheria procumbens, G.
shallon, Griselinia littoralis, Hamamelis virginiana, Heteromeles arbutifolia, Kalmia spp., Larix × eurolepis, Laurus
nobilis,, Lonicera hispidula, Lophostemon confertus, Loropetalum chinense, Magnolia × loebneri, M. oltsopa,
M. stellata, Mahonia aquifolium, Maianthemum racemosum, Parrotia persica, Photinia fraseri, Phoradendron
serotinum subsp. macrophyllum, Photinia × fraseri, Prunus laurocerasus, Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii,
Quercus cerris, Q. chryso lepis, Q. falcata Q. ilex, Q. kelloggii, Q. parvula var. shrevei, Q. petraea, Q. robur, Rosa
gymnocarpa, Salix caprea, Sequoia sempervirens, Taxus bacca ta, Trientalis latifolia, Umbellularia californica,
Vaccinium myrtillus, V. ovatum, V. parvifolium and Vinca minor (Cave etal.,2008; APHIS USDA, 2022; EPPO,
2024d; Farr & Rossman, 2024).
Reported evidence of
impact
Phytoph thora ramorum is an EU quarantine pest.
Evidence that the
commodit y is a pathway
Phytoph thora ramorum was continuously intercepted in the EU on different plant species intended for planting
(EUROPHYT, 2024; TRACES- NT,2024) and according to EFSA PLH Panel (2011), P. ramorum can travel with
plants for planting. Therefore, plants for planting are a possible pathway of entry for P. ramorum.
Surveillance information Phyt ophthora ramoru m: at growing sites: infested plants are destroyed and potentially infested plants are ‘held’
(prohibited from moving). The UK has a containment policy in the wider environment with official action
taken to remove infec ted trees (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
As part of an annual survey at ornamental retail and production sites (frequency of visits determined by a
decision matrix), P. ramorum is inspected for on common hosts plants. An additional inspection, during the
growing period, is carried out at plant passport production sites. Inspections are carried out at a survey to
300 non- woodland wider environment sites annually (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Salix is a component of the annual ornamental survey which covers many taxa. Whilst Salix is primarily targeted
for Phytop hthora ramorum, the UK inspectors look for a range of symptoms that may indicate pest and
diseases across multiple hosts (Dossier Section5.1).
A.3.2 | Possibility of pest presence in the nursery
A.3.2.1 | Possibility of entry from the surrounding environment
Phytophthora ramorum is present in the UK, it has been found in most regions of the UK, but it is more often reported in
wetter, western regions (Dossier Section2.0).
The possible entry of P. ramorum from surrounding environment to the nurseries may occur through aerial dissemina-
tion, water, animals, machinery and footwear (Brasier, 2008; Davidson etal., 2002).
(Continued)
82 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
Phytophthora ramorum has wide host range and can infect number of different plants. Suitable plants like Acer pseu-
doplatanus, Camellia spp., Castanea sativa, Fagus sylvatica, Fraxinus spp., Larix kaempferi, Larix spp., Quercus robur, Quercus
spp., Prunus laurocerasus, Rhododendron spp., Taxus baccata and Viburnum spp. are present in hedges and woodland in the
surrounding areas of nurseries (Dossier Sections1.1, 1.2 and 5.1).
Uncertainties:
– The dispersal range of P. ramorum sporangia.
– distance of the nurseries to sources of pathogen in the surrounding environment.
– whether machinery from outside the nursery is used inside the nursery.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that it is possible for the pathogen
to enter the nurseries from surrounding environment. In the surrounding area, suitable hosts are present and the pathogen
can spread by wind, rain and infested soil propagules on feet of animals entering the nurseries.
A.3.2.2 | Possibility of entry with new plants/seeds
The starting materials of S. caprea and S. cinerea are either seeds, seedlings or cuttings. Seeds and seedlings are either from
the UK (certified with UK Plant Passports) or the EU (mostly the Netherlands, Belgium and France) (certified with phytosani-
tary certificates) (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
In addition to Salix plants, the nurseries also produce other plants (Dossier Sections3.1, 3.2 and 5.1). These include many
suitable hosts for the pathogen (such as Abies spp., Acer spp., Arbutus spp., Calluna spp., Castanea sativa, Castanea spp.,
Fagus sylvatica, Fagus spp., Larix spp., Quercus spp., Prunus spp., Viburnum spp., etc.). However, there is no information on
how and where the plants are produced. Therefore, if the plants are first produced in another nursery, the pathogen could
possibly travel with them.
The nurseries are using virgin peat or peat- free compost (a mixture of coir, tree bark, wood fibre, etc.) as a growing media
(Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2). Phytophthora ramorum is able to survive in soil (Shishkoff, 2007) and therefore could poten-
tially enter with infested soil/growing media. However, the growing media is certified and heat- treated by commercial
suppliers during production to eliminate pests and diseases (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Uncertainties:
– No information is available on the provenance of plants other than Salix used for plant production in the area of the
nurseries.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that it is possible for the pathogen
to enter the nurseries with new seedlings of Salix and new plants of other species used for plant production in the area. The
entry of the pathogen with seeds and the growing media the Panel considers as not possible.
A.3.2.3 | Possibility of spread within the nursery
Salix plants are grown both in containers outdoors and in fields. There are no mother plants present in the nurseries and
none of the nurseries expected to export to the EU produce plants from grafting (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
The pathogen can infect other suitable plants (such as Abies spp., Acer spp., Arbutus spp., Calluna spp., Castanea sativa,
Castanea spp., Fagus sylvatica, Fagus spp., Larix spp., Quercus spp., Prunus spp., Viburnum spp., etc.) present within the nurs-
eries and hedges surrounding the nurseries (Prunus spp., Taxus baccata) (Dossier Sections1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 3.2 and 5.1).
Phytophthora ramorum can spread within the nurseries by aerial dissemination, soil, water, movement of infested plant
material, machinery, footwear and animals (Davidson etal., 2002; Brasier, 2008).
Uncertainties:
– None.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that the spread of the pathogen
within the nurseries is possible either by aerial dissemination, animals, movement of infested plant material, soil and water.
A.3.3 | Information from interceptions
In the EUROPHYT/TRACES- NT database there are no records of notification of Salix plants for planting neither from the UK
nor from other countries due to the presence of P. ramorum between the years 1995 and November 2024 (EUROPHYT, 2024;
TRACES- NT,2024).
|
83 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.3.4 | Evaluation of the risk mitigation measures
In the table below, all risk mitigation measures currently applied in the UK are listed and an indication of their effectiveness
on P. ramorum is provided. The description of the risk mitigation measures currently applied in the UK is provided in the
Table7.
NRisk mitigation measure
Effect on
the pest Evaluation and uncertainties
1Registration of production
sites
Yes The registration and the release of the UK plant passport should be enough to
warrant pest- free plant material for a quarantine pest in the UK.
Phytoph thora ramorum is a quarantine organism in the UK and targeted by this
measure.
Uncertainties:
– Whether disease symptoms on Salix sp. and other host plants are recognisable
during plant passport inspections.
2Physical separation No Not relevant
3Certified plant material Yes Phytophthora ra morum is a quarantine organism in the UK and targeted by this
measure.
Uncertainties:
– Whether disease symptoms on Salix sp. and other host plants are recognisable,
particularly at an early stage of infection.
4Growing media Yes This measure should ensure pest- free growing media and is expected to prevent the
introduction of the pathogen into the nurseries with growing media.
Uncertainties:
– None.
5 Surveillance, monitoring and
sampling
Yes This measure has an effect as the pathogen would be detected on nursery- grown
plants, as well as on incoming plant material and growing media and suspected
plant material quarantined.
Uncertainties:
– Whether disease symptoms on Salix sp. and other host plants are recognisable,
particularly at an early stage of infection
6Hygiene measures Yes General hygiene measures will reduce the likelihood of the pathogen being spread
by tools and equipment, although this is not a major pathway for the pest.
Uncertainties:
– None.
7 Removal of infested plant
material
Yes This measure could have some effect by removing potentially infested plant material,
thus reducing the spread of the pathogen within the nursery.
Uncertainties:
– None.
8Irrigation water Yes Testing of irrigation water would detect the pathogen, which can spread by water.
Overhead irrigation could favour foliar infections and spread of the pathogen by
water splash.
Uncertainties:
– Whether irrigation water is tested for P. ramorum.
9 Application of pest control
measures
Yes Some fungicides could reduce the likelihood of foliar infection by the pathogen.
Uncertainties:
– No specific information on the fungicides used.
– The level of efficacy of fungicides in reducing infection of P. ramorum.
10 Measures against soil pests Yes This measure could have some effect by preventing root contact with soil where the
pathogen may be present.
Uncertainties:
– None.
11 Inspections and management
of plants before export
Yes Phy tophthora ramor um is a quarantine organism in the UK and the EU and this
measure is expected to reduce the likelihood of infested plants being exported.
Uncertainties:
– Whether disease symptoms on Salix sp. are recognisable, particularly at an early
stage of infection.
12 Separation during transport
to the destination
No Not relevant
A.3.5 | Overall likelihood of pest freedom for cuttings/graftwood
A.3.5.1 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number of infected cuttings/graftwood
The scenario assumes a low pressure of the pathogen in the nurseries and in the surroundings. The plants are exposed to
the pathogen for only short period of time. The scenario assumes Salix spp. to be minor hosts for the pathogen. The sce-
nario also assumes that symptoms of the disease are visible and promptly detected during inspections.
84 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.3.5.2 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number of infected cuttings/graftwood
The scenario assumes a high pressure of the pathogen in the nurseries and in the surroundings as suitable hosts are pre-
sent. The scenario assumes that the pathogen causes bark infections on the commodity. The scenario also assumes that
symptoms of the disease are not easily recognisable during inspections.
A.3.5.3 | Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over- or underestimate the number of infected cuttings/
graftwood (Median)
The scenario assumes a limited presence of the pathogen in the nurseries and the surroundings, and a limited susceptibil-
ity of Salix spp. The pathogen is a regulated quarantine pest in the UK and under official control.
A.3.5.4 | Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/
interquartile range)
The limited information on the occurrence of the pathogen in the nurseries and the surroundings and on the susceptibility
of Salix spp. results in high level of uncertainties for infection rates below the median. Otherwise, the pest pressure from
the surroundings is expected to be low giving less uncertainties for rates above the median.
|
85 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.3.5.5 | Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Phytophthora ramorum (non- EU isolates) on cuttings/graftwood
The following Tables show the elicited and fitted values for pest infection (TableA.15) and pest freedom (TableA.16).
Based on the numbers of estimated infected bundles the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – number of infected bundles per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncertainty
distribution of the pest freedom are shown in TableA.16 .
TABLE A.15 Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infection by Phytophthora ramorum (non- EU isolates) per 10,000 bundles.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17 % 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97.5% 99%
Elicited values 0 8 15 35 70
EKE 0.117 0.365 0.865 2.06 3.96 6.68 9.79 17. 3 27.1 33.3 41. 0 49.1 57.7 64 .1 70.1
Note: The EK E results is the BetaGe neral (0.80639, 2.2251, 0, 82) distribu tion fitted with @R isk version 7.6.
TABLE A.16 The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Ph ytophthora ram orum (non- EU isolates) per 10,000 bundles calculated by TableA.15.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17 % 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97.5% 99%
Values 9930 9965 9985 9992 10,000
EKE results 9930 9936 9942 9951 9959 9967 9973 9983 9990 9993 9996 9998 9999.1 9999.6 9999.9
Note: The EK E results are the fitte d values.
86 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(A)
02040608
01
00
Probability density
Infested bundles [number out of 10,000]
Phytophthora ramorum, cungs/grawood
EKE result Fied density
FIGURE A.8 (Continued)
|
87 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(B)
9900 9920 9940 9960 9980 10,000
Probability density
Pesree bundles [number out of 10,000]
Phytophthora ramorum, cungs/grawood
FIGURE A.8 (Continued)
88 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(C)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
9900 9920 9940 9960 9980 10,000
Certainty level
Pesree bundles [number out of 10,000]
Phytophthora ramorum, cungs/grawood
FIGURE A.8 (A) Elicited uncertainty of pest infection per 10,000 bundles (histogram in blue – vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional
fit (red line); (B) uncertainty of the proportion of pest- free bundles per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infection proportion expressed as percentage); (C) descending uncer tainty distribution function of pest infection per 10,000
bundles.
|
89 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.3.6 | Overall likelihood of pest freedom for bare root plants
A.3.6.1 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number of infected bare root plants
The scenario assumes a low pressure of the pathogen in the nurseries and in the surroundings. The plants are exposed to
the pathogen for only short period of time and are exported without leaves. The scenario assumes Salix spp. to be minor
hosts for the pathogen. The scenario also assumes that symptoms of the disease are visible and promptly detected during
inspections.
A.3.6.2 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number of infected bare root plants
The scenario assumes a high pressure of the pathogen in the nurseries and in the surroundings as suitable hosts are pre-
sent. The scenario assumes that the pathogen infects bark and leaves, which may still be present on the plants at the time
of export. Older trees are more likely to become infected due to longer exposure time and larger size. The scenario also
assumes that symptoms of the disease are not easily recognisable during inspections.
A.3.6.3 | Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over- or underestimate the number of infected bare root
plants (Median)
The scenario assumes a limited presence of the pathogen in the nurseries and the surroundings, and a limited susceptibil-
ity of Salix spp. The pathogen is a regulated quarantine pest in the UK and under official control.
A.3.6.4 | Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/
interquartile range)
The limited information on the occurrence of the pathogen in the nurseries and the surroundings and on the susceptibility
of Salix spp. results in high level of uncertainties for infection rates below the median. Otherwise, the pest pressure from
the surroundings is expected to be low giving less uncertainties for rates above the median.
90 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.3.6.5 | Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Phytophthora ramorum (non- EU isolates) on bare root plants
The following Tables show the elicited and fitted values for pest infection (TableA.17) and pest freedom (TableA.18).
Based on the numbers of estimated infected bundles the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – number of infected plants/bundles per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncer-
tainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in TableA.18.
TABLE A.17 Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infection by Phytophthora ra morum (non- EU isolates) per 10,000 plants/bundles.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97. 5% 99%
Elicited values 025 50 95 250
EKE 1.43 3 .10 5.60 10.3 16.4 24.2 32.5 51.5 76.6 93.4 116 143 17 8 211 251
Note: The EK E results is the BetaGe neral (1.2038, 12.944, 0, 78 0) distribution fit ted with @Risk version 7.6.
TABLE A.18 The uncertainty distribution of plants free of P hytophthora ram orum (non- EU isolates) per 10,000 plants/bundles calculated by TableA .17.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97. 5% 99%
Values 9750 9905 9950 9975 10,000
EKE results 9749 9789 9822 9857 9884 9907 9923 9948 9968 9976 9984 9990 9994 9997 9999
Note: The EK E results are the fitte d values.
|
91 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(A)
050100 150200 25
03
00
Probability density
Infested plants/bundles [number out of 10,000]
Phytophthora ramorum, bare root plants
EKE result Fied density
FIGURE A.9 (Continued)
92 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(B)
9700 9750 9800 9850 9900 9950 10,000
Probability density
Pesree plants/bundles [number out of 10,000]
Phytophthora ramorum, bare root plants
FIGURE A.9 (Continued)
|
93 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(C)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
9700 9750 9800 9850 9900 9950 10,000
Certainty level
Pesree plants/bundles [number out of 10,000]
Phytophthora ramorum, bare root plants
FIGURE A.9 (A) Elicited uncertainty of pest infection per 10,000 plants/bundles (histogram in blue – vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and
distributional fit (red line); (B) uncertainty of the proportion of pest- free plants/bundles per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infection proportion expressed as percentage); (C) descending uncer tainty distribution function of pest
infection per 10,000 plants/bundles.
94 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.3.7 | Overall likelihood of pest freedom for cell grown plants
A.3.7.1 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number of infected cell grown plants
The scenario assumes a low pressure of the pathogen in the nurseries and in the surroundings. Younger plants are exposed
to the pathogen for only short period of time. The scenario assumes Salix spp. to be a minor hosts for the pathogen. The
scenario also assumes that symptoms of the disease are visible and promptly detected during inspections.
A.3.7.2 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number of infected cell grown plants
The scenario assumes a high pressure of the pathogen in the nurseries and in the surroundings as suitable hosts are pre-
sent. The scenario assumes that the pathogen infects bark and leaves, which are present on the plants at the time of export.
The scenario also assumes that symptoms of the disease are not easily recognisable during inspections.
A.3.7.3 | Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over- or underestimate the number of infected cell grown
plants (Median)
The scenario assumes a limited presence of the pathogen in the nurseries and the surroundings, and a limited susceptibil-
ity of Salix spp. The pathogen is a regulated quarantine pest in the UK and under official control.
A.3.7.4 | Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/
interquartile range)
The limited information on the occurrence of the pathogen in the nurseries and the surroundings and on the susceptibility
of Salix spp. results in high level of uncertainties for infection rates below the median. Otherwise, the pest pressure from
the surroundings is expected to be low giving less uncertainties for rates above the median.
|
95 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.3.7.5 | Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Phytophthora ramorum (non- EU isolates) on cell grown plants
The following Tables show the elicited and fitted values for pest infection (TableA.19) and pest freedom (TableA.20).
Based on the numbers of estimated infected bundles the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – number of infected plants/bundles per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncer-
tainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in TableA.20.
TABLE A.19 Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infection by Phytophtho ra ramorum (non- EU isolates) per 10,000 plants/bundles.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97. 5% 99%
Elicited values 022 45 80 200
EKE 1.45 3.04 5.37 9.63 15.1 21.9 29.0 45.2 66.1 79.8 98.0 120 147 171 201
Note: The EK E results is the BetaGe neral (1.2583, 9.4279, 0, 480) dist ribution fitted w ith @Risk version 7.6.
TABLE A.20 The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Phytophtho ra ramorum (non- EU isolates) per 10,000 plants/bundles calculated by TableA.19.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10 % 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 9 7.5 % 99%
Values 9800 9920 9955 9978 10,000
EKE results 9799 9829 9853 9880 9902 9920 9934 9955 9971 9978 9985 9990 9995 9997 9999
Note: The EK E results are the fitte d values.
96 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(A)
050100 150200 25
03
00
Probability density
Infested plants/bundles [number out of 10,000]
Phytophthora ramorum, cell grown plants
EKE result Fied density
FIGURE A.10 (Continued)
|
97 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(B)
9700 9750 9800 9850 9900 9950 10,000
Probability density
Pesree plants/bundles [number out of 10,000]
Phytophthora ramorum, cell grown plants
FIGURE A.10 (Continued)
98 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(C)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
9700 9750 9800 9850 9900 9950 10,000
Certainty level
Pesree plants/bundles [number out of 10,000]
Phytophthora ramorum, cell grown plants
FIGURE A.10 (A) Elicited uncertainty of pest infection per 10,000 plants/bundles (histogram in blue – vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and
distributional fit (red line); (B) uncertainty of the proportion of pest- free plants/bundles per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infection proportion expressed as percentage); (C) descending uncer tainty distribution function of pest
infection per 10,000 plants/bundles.
|
99 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.3.8 | Overall likelihood of pest freedom for plants in pots
A.3.8.1 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number of infected plants in pots
The scenario assumes a low pressure of the pathogen in the nurseries and in the surroundings. Plants are exported without
leaves. The scenario assumes Salix spp. to be minor hosts for the pathogen. The scenario also assumes that symptoms of
the disease are visible and promptly detected during inspections.
A.3.8.2 | Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number of infected plants in pots
The scenario assumes a high pressure of the pathogen in the nurseries and in the surroundings as suitable hosts are pre-
sent. The scenario assumes that the pathogen infects bark and leaves, which are present on the plants at the time of export.
Older trees are more likely to become infected due to longer exposure time and larger size. The scenario also assumes that
symptoms of the disease are not easily recognisable during inspections.
A.3.8.3 | Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over- or underestimate the number of infected plants in
pots (Median)
The scenario assumes a limited presence of the pathogen in the nurseries and the surroundings, and a limited susceptibil-
ity of Salix spp. Most of the trees will be younger than 15 years at the time of export. The pathogen is a regulated quarantine
pest in the UK and under official control.
A.3.8.4 | Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/
interquartile range)
The limited information on the occurrence of the pathogen in the nurseries and the surroundings and on the susceptibility
of Salix spp. results in high level of uncertainties for infection rates below the median. Otherwise, the pest pressure from
the surroundings is expected to be low giving less uncertainties for rates above the median.
100 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.3.8.5 | Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Phytophthora ramorum (non- EU isolates) on plants in pots
The following Tables show the elicited and fitted values for pest infection (TableA. 21) and pest freedom (TableA.22).
Based on the numbers of estimated infected bundles the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. = 10,000 – number of infected plants per 10,000). The fitted values of the uncertainty
distribution of the pest freedom are shown in TableA.22.
TAB LE A.21 Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infection by Phyto phthora ramoru m (non- EU isolates) per 10,000 plants.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97. 5% 99%
Elicited values 035 70 145 350
EKE 1.17 2.94 5.93 12.1 20.8 32.4 45.1 75.0 114 140 174 214 262 303 350
Note: The EK E results is the BetaGe neral (1.0019, 5.1135, 0, 590) distr ibution fitted wi th @Risk version 7.6.
TABLE A.22 The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Phytophtho ra ramorum (non- EU isolates) per 10,000 plants calculated by TableA.21.
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10 % 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 9 7.5 % 99%
Values 9650 9855 9930 9965 10,000
EKE results 9650 9697 9738 9786 9826 9860 9886 9925 9955 9968 9979 9988 9994 9997 9999
Note: The EK E results are the fitte d values.
|
101 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(A)
0100 200300 400
Probability density
Infested plants [number out of 10,000]
Phytophthora ramorum, plants in pots
EKE result Fied density
FIGURE A.11 (Continued)
102 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(B)
9600 9700 9800 9900 10,000
Probability density
Pesree plants [number out of 10,000]
Phytophthora ramorum, plants in pots
FIGURE A.11 (Continued)
|
103 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(C)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
9600 9700 9800 9900 10,000
Certainty level
Pesree plants [number out of 10,000]
Phytophthora ramorum, plants in pots
FIGURE A.11 (A) Elicited uncertainty of pest infection per 10,000 plants (histogram in blue – ver tical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit
(red line); (B) uncertainty of the proportion of pest- free plants per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infection proportion expressed as percentage); (C) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infection per 10,000 plants.
104 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
A.3.9 | Reference list
ANSES (The French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety). (2018). ANSES opinion and report on “Host species in the con-
text of control of Phytophthora ram orum”. December 2018. 87. https:// www. anses. fr/ fr/ system/ files/ SANTV EG201 7SA02 59RaEN. pdf
APHIS USDA (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture).(2022). APHIS Lists of Proven Hosts of and Plants Associated
with Phytophthora ramorum. September 2022. 12 pp. https:// www. aphis. usda. gov/ plant_ health/ plant_ pest_ info/ pram/ downl oads/ pdf_ files/
usdap rlist. pdf
Blair, J. E., Coffey, M. D., Park, S. Y., Geiser, D. M., & Kang, S. (2008). A multi- locus phylogeny for Phytophthora utilizing markers derived from complete
genome sequences. Fungal Genetics and Biology, 45(3), 266–277. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fgb. 2007. 10. 010
Boutet, X., Vercauteren, A., Heungens, C., & Kurt, A. (2010). Mating of Phytophthora ramorum: functionality and consequences. In S. J. Frankel, J. T.
Kliejunas, & K. M. Palmieri (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sudden Oak Death Fourth Science Symposium (229, pp. 97–100). Albany, CA: US Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.
Brasier, C. (2008). Phyt ophthora ramo rum + P. kernoviae = international biosecuri ty failure. In S. J. Frankel, J. T. Kliejunas, & K . M. Palmieri (Eds), Proceedings
of the sudden oak death third science symposium (214, pp. 133–139). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA: US
Department of Agriculture.
Brasier, C., & Kirk , S. (2004). Production of gametangia by Phytophthora ra morum invitro. Mycological Research, 108(7), 823–827. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/
s0953 75620 4000565
Brasier, C., & Webber, J. (2010). Sudden larch death. Nature, 466, 824– 825. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ 466824a
Brown, A. V., & Brasier, C. M. (2007). Colonization of tree xylem by Phyto phthora ramorum , P. kernoviae and other Phytophthora species. Plant Pathology,
56(2), 227–241. ht tps:// do i. or g/ 10. 1111/j. 13 65 - 3 05 9. 20 06 . 0 1511. x
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International). (2020). Phytophthora ram orum (Sudden Oak Death (SOD). https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/
doi/10.1079/cabicompendium.40991 (access ed 2024- 12- 19).
Cave, G. L., Ran dall- Schadel, B., & R edlin, S. C. (2008). Risk analysis fo r Phytophthora ram orum Werres, de Cock & M an in't Veld, causal agent of sudden oa k
death, ramorum leaf blight, and ramorum dieback. US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspec tion Service, Raleigh, NC . 88 pp.
Davidson, J. M., Rizzo, D. M., Garbelotto, M., Tjosvold, S., & Slaughter, G. W. (2002). Phytophthora ramorum and sudden oak death in California: II.
Transmission and survival. In R. B. Standiford, D. McCreary, & K. L. Purcell (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth symposium on oak woodlands: Oaks
in California's challenging landscape (184, pp. 741–749). San Diego, California, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest
Research Station.
Davidson, J. M., Werres, S., Garbelotto, M., Hansen, E . M., & Rizzo, D. M. (2003). Sudden oak death and associated diseases caused by Phy tophthora ram o-
rum. Plant Health Progress, 4(1), 12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1094/ php- 2003- 0707- 01- dg
Davidson, J. M., Wickland, A. C., Patterson, H. A., Falk, K. R., & Rizzo, D. M. (2005). Transmission of Phytophthora ramorum in mixed- evergreen forest in
California. Phytopathology, 95, 587–596. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1094/ phyto - 95- 0587
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). (2008). Consultation on future management of risks from Phytophthora ramorum and
Phytophthora kernoviae. DEFRA and Forestry Commission, the UK, 24 pp.
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). (2015). FERA list of natural hosts for Phytophthora ramorum with symptom and loca-
tion. DEFRA and Fo restry Commission, the UK , 11 pp. https:// plant healt hport al. defra. gov. uk/ pests - and- disea ses/ high- profi le- pests - and- disea ses/
phyto phtho ra/
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). (2022). UK Risk Register Details for Phytophthora ramorum. https:// plant healt hport al.
defra. gov. uk/ pests - and- disea ses/ uk- plant - healt h- risk- regis ter/ viewP estRi sks. cfm? cslre f= 23022 (access ed 2024- 12- 19).
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health). (2011). Scientific Opinion on the Pest Risk Analysis on P hytophthora ram orum prepared by the FP6 project
RAPRA. EFSA Journal, 9(6), 2186. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2903/j. efsa. 2011. 2186
Elliot, M., Meagher, T. R., Harris, C., Searle, K., Purse, B. V., & Schlenzig, A. (2013). The epidemiology of Phytophthora ramorum and P. kernoviae at two
historic gardens in Scotland. In S. J. Frankel, J. T. Kliejunas, K. M. Palmieri, & J. M. Alexander (Eds.), Sudden oak death fifth science symposium (pp.
23–32). Albany, CA, USA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.
Englander, L., Browning, M., & Tooley, P. W. (2006). Growth and sporulation of Phytophthora ramorum invitro in response to temperature and light.
Mycologia, 98(3), 365–373. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3852/ mycol ogia. 98.3. 365
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). (2006). Phytophtho ra ramorum. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin, 36, 145 –155.
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). (2013). Pest risk management for Phytophthora kernoviae and Phytophthora ramo-
rum. EPPO, Paris. http:// www. eppo. int/ QUARA NTINE/ Pest_ Risk_ Analy sis/ PRA_ intro. htm
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). (2024a). EPPO A2 List of pests recommended for regulation as quarantine pests,
version 2023–09. https:// www. eppo. int/ ACTIV ITIES/ plant_ quara ntine/ A2_ list (accessed 2024- 12- 19).
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). (2024b). Phytophthora ramorum (PHYTRA), Categorization. https:// gd. eppo. int/
taxon/ PHYTRA/ categ oriza tion (accessed 2024 - 12- 19).
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). (2024c). Phytoph thora ramorum (PHY TRA), Distribution. https:// gd. eppo. int/ taxon/
PHYTRA/ distr ibution (accessed 2024 - 12- 19).
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). (2024d). Phytophthora ramorum (PHYTRA), Host plants. https:// gd. eppo. int/ taxon/
PHYTRA/ hosts (accessed 2024- 02- 09).
Erwin, D. C., & Ribeiro, O. K. (1996). Phytophthora diseases worldwide. St. Paul, Minnesota: APS Press, American Phytopathological Society, 562 pp.
EUROPHYT (Europ ean Union Notificatio n System for Plant Health Interceptions).(2024). https:// food. ec. europa. eu/ plants/ plant - healt h- and- biose curity/
europ hyt_ en (a ccessed 2024- 12- 10).
Farr D. F., & Rossman, A. Y. (2024). Fungal Databases, U.S. National Fungus Collections, ARS, USDA. https:// fungi. ars. usda. gov/ (acces sed 2024 - 12- 19).
Grünwald, N. J., Goss, E. M., & Press, C. M. (2008). Phytophthora ram orum: a pathogen with a remarkably wide host range causing sudden oak death on
oaks and ramorum blight on woody ornamentals. Molecular Plant Pathology, 9(6), 729–740. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1364- 3703. 2008. 00500. x
Grünwald, N. J. , Goss, E. M., Ivors, K ., Garbelotto, M., M artin, F. N., Prospero, S. , Hansen, E., Bonants, P. J. M., Hamelin, R . C., Chastagner, G., Werres , S., Rizzo,
D. M., Abad, G., Beales, P., Bilodeau, G. J., Blomquist, C. L., Brasier, C., Brière, S. C., Chandelier, A., … Widmer, T. L. (2009). Standardizing the nomen-
clature for clonal lineages of the sudden oak death pathogen, Phytophtho ra ramorum. Phytopathology, 99(7), 792–795.
Jung, T., Jung, M. H., Webber, J. F., Kageyama, K., Hieno, A., Masuya, H., Uematsu, S., Pérez- Sierra, A., Harris, A. R., Forster, J., Rees, H., Scanu, B., Patra, S.,
Kudláček, T., Janoušek, J., Corcobado, T., Milenković, I., Nagy, Z., Csorba, I., … Brasier, C. M. (2021). The destructive tree pathogen Phyto phthora
ramorum originates from the laurosilva forests of East Asia. Journal of Fungi, 7(3), 226. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ jof70 30226
Parke, J. L., & Lewis, C. (2007). Root and stem infection of Rhododendron from potting medium infested with Phy tophthora ramorum. Plant Disease, 91,
1265–1270. ht tps: // doi. org/ 10. 1094/ pdis- 91- 10- 1265
Poimala, A., & Lilja, A. (2013). NOBANIS – Invasive Alien Species Fact Sheet – Phy tophthora ram orum. From: Online Database of the European Network on
Invasive Alien Species. 14 pp. https:// www. noban is. org/ globa lasse ts/ speci esinfo/ p/ phyto phtho ra- ramor um/ phyto phtho ra_ ramor um. pdf
Rizzo, D. M., G arbelotto, M., & Hanse n, E. M. (2005). Phytophtho ra ramorum: inte grative research and manageme nt of an emerging pathogen in Ca lifornia
and Oregon forests. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 43(1), 13.1–13. 27. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev. phyto. 42. 040803. 140418
|
105 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
Roubtsova, T. V., & Bostock , R. M. (2009). Episodic abiotic s tress as a potential contributing fa ctor to onset and severit y of disease caused by Phyto phthora
ramorum in Rhododendron and Viburnum. Plant Disease, 93(9), 912–918. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1094/ pdis- 93- 9- 0912
Sansford, C. E., Inman, A. J., Baker, R., Brasier, C., Frankel, S., de Gruyter, J., Husson, C., Kehlenbeck, H., Kessel, G., Moralejo, E., Steeghs, M., Webber, J., &
Werres, S. (2009). Report on the risk of entry, establishment, spread and socio- e conomic loss and environmental impact and the appropriate level
of management for Phytophthora ram orum for the EU. Deliverable Report 28. EU Sixth Framework Project RAPRA. 310 pp.
Shishkoff, N. (2007). Persistence of Phytophthora ramorum in soil mix and roots of nursery ornamentals. Plant Disease, 91(10), 1245–1249. https:// doi. org/
10. 1094/ pdis- 91- 10- 1245
Thompson, C. H., McCartney, M. M., Roubtsova, T. V., Kasuga, T., Ebeler, S. E., Davis, C. E., & Bostock, R. M. (2021). Analysis of volatile profiles for tracking
asymptomatic infections of Phytop hthora ramorum and other pathogens in Rhododendron. Phytopathology, 111(10), 1818–1827. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1094/ phyto - 10- 20- 0472- r
Thomsen, I. M., Alsenius, B., Flø, D., Krokene, P., Wendell, P. H. M., Wright, S., Sæthre, M. G., Børve, J., Magnusson, C., Nicolaisen, M., Nybakken, L., &
Stenberg, J. A. (2023). Updated pest risk assessment of Phytophthora ramorum in Norway. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Plant Health of the
Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment. Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment (VKM), Oslo, Norway. 88
pp. https:// nmbu. brage. unit. no/ nmbu- xmlui/ handle/ 11250/ 3098330
TRACES- NT.(2024). TRAde Control and E xpert System. https:// webga te. ec. europa. eu/ tracesnt (acces sed 2024 - 12- 10).
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). (2023). Risk of Phytophtho ra ramorum to the United States. Version 2. 60.
Van Poucke, K., Franceschini, S., Webber, J., Vercauteren, A., Turner, J. A., Mccracken, A. R., Heungens, K ., & Brasier, C. (2012). Discovery of a fourth evolu-
tionary lineage of Phytophtho ra ramorum: EU2. Fungal Biology, 116, 1178 –1191. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. funbio. 2012. 09. 003
106 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
APPENDIX B
Web of Science All Databases Search String
In the TableB.1, the search string for Salix caprea used in Web of Science is reported. Totally, 392 papers were retrieved.
Titles and abstracts were screened, and 39 pests were added to the list of pests (see AppendixF).
In the TableB.2, the search string for Salix cinerea used in Web of Science is reported. Totally, 229 papers were retrieved.
Titles and abstracts were screened, and 25 pests were added to the list of pests (see AppendixF).
TABLE B.1 String for Salix caprea.
Web of Science All
databases
TOPIC: “Salix caprea” OR “S. caprea” OR “Capraea vulgaris” OR “Nectopix caprea” OR “Salix caprea var. tomentosa” OR “Salix
tomentosa” OR “common sallow” OR “goat willow” OR “great sallow” OR “palm willow” OR “pussy willow”
AND
TOPIC: pathogen* OR pathogenic bacteria OR fung* OR oomycet* OR myce* OR bacteri* OR virus* OR viroid* OR insect$
OR mite$ OR phytoplasm* OR arthropod* OR nematod* OR disease$ OR infecti* OR damag* OR symptom* OR pest$
OR vector OR hostplant$ OR “host plant$” OR host OR “root lesion$” OR decline$ OR infestation$ OR damage$ OR
symptom$ OR dieback* OR “die back*” OR “malaise” OR aphid$ OR curculio OR thrip$ OR cicad$ OR miner$ OR borer$
OR weevil$ OR “plant bug$” OR spittlebug$ OR moth$ OR mealybug$ OR cutworm$ OR pillbug$ OR “root feeder$” OR
caterpillar$ OR “foliar feeder$” OR virosis OR viroses OR blight$ OR wilt$ OR wilted OR canker OR scab$ OR rot OR rots
OR rotten OR “damping off” OR “damping- of f” OR blister$ OR “smut” OR mould OR mold OR “damping syndrome$” OR
mildew OR scald$ OR “root knot” OR “root- knot” OR rootknot OR cyst$ OR “dagger” OR “plant parasitic” OR “parasitic
plant” OR “plant$parasitic” OR “root feeding” OR “root$feeding”
NOT
TOPIC: “winged seeds” OR metabolites OR *tannins OR climate OR “maple syrup” OR syrup OR mycorrhiz* OR “carbon
loss” OR pollut* OR weather OR propert* OR probes OR spectr* OR antioxidant$ OR transformation OR RNA OR DNA OR
“Secondary plant metabolite$” OR metabol* OR “Phenolic compounds” OR Quality OR Abiotic OR Storage OR Pollen*
OR fertil* OR Mulching OR Nutrient* OR Pruning OR drought OR “human virus” OR “animal disease*” OR “plant extracts”
OR immunological OR “purified fraction” OR “traditional medicine” OR medicine OR mammal* OR bird* OR “human
disease*” OR biomarker$ OR “health education” OR bat$ OR “seedling$ survival” OR “anthropogenic disturbance” OR
“cold resistance” OR “salt stress” OR salinity OR “aCER method” OR “adaptive cognitive emotion regulation” OR nitrogen
OR hygien* OR “cognitive function$” OR fossil$ OR *toxicity OR Miocene OR postglacial OR “weed control” OR landscape
TABLE B.2 String for Salix cinerea.
Web of Science All
databases
TOPIC: “Salix cinerea” OR “S. cinerea” OR “Capraea cinerea” OR “Salix aurita var. cinerea” OR “Vimen cinerea” OR “common
sallow” OR “grey sallow” OR “grey willow”
AND
TOPIC: pathogen* OR pathogenic bacteria OR fung* OR oomycet* OR myce* OR bacteri* OR virus* OR viroid* OR insect$
OR mite$ OR phytoplasm* OR arthropod* OR nematod* OR disease$ OR infecti* OR damag* OR symptom* OR pest$
OR vector OR hostplant$ OR “host plant$” OR host OR “root lesion$” OR decline$ OR infestation$ OR damage$ OR
symptom$ OR dieback* OR “die back*” OR “malaise” OR aphid$ OR curculio OR thrip$ OR cicad$ OR miner$ OR borer$
OR weevil$ OR “plant bug$” OR spittlebug$ OR moth$ OR mealybug$ OR cutworm$ OR pillbug$ OR “root feeder$” OR
caterpillar$ OR “foliar feeder$” OR virosis OR viroses OR blight$ OR wilt$ OR wilted OR canker OR scab$ OR rot OR rots
OR rotten OR “damping off” OR “damping- of f” OR blister$ OR “smut” OR mould OR mold OR “damping syndrome$” OR
mildew OR scald$ OR “root knot” OR “root- knot” OR rootknot OR cyst$ OR “dagger” OR “plant parasitic” OR “parasitic
plant” OR “plant$parasitic” OR “root feeding” OR “root$feeding”
NOT
TOPIC: “winged seeds” OR metabolites OR *tannins OR climate OR “maple syrup” OR syrup OR mycorrhiz* OR “carbon
loss” OR pollut* OR weather OR propert* OR probes OR spectr* OR antioxidant$ OR transformation OR RNA OR DNA OR
“Secondary plant metabolite$” OR metabol* OR “Phenolic compounds” OR Quality OR Abiotic OR Storage OR Pollen*
OR fertil* OR Mulching OR Nutrient* OR Pruning OR drought OR “human virus” OR “animal disease*” OR “plant extracts”
OR immunological OR “purified fraction” OR “traditional medicine” OR medicine OR mammal* OR bird* OR “human
disease*” OR biomarker$ OR “health education” OR bat$ OR “seedling$ survival” OR “anthropogenic disturbance” OR
“cold resistance” OR “salt stress” OR salinity OR “aCER method” OR “adaptive cognitive emotion regulation” OR nitrogen
OR hygien* OR “cognitive function$” OR fossil$ OR *toxicity OR Miocene OR postglacial OR “weed control” OR landscape
|
107 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
APPENDIX C
Plant taxa reported to be present in the nurseries of Salix caprea and Salix cinerea
TABLE C.1 Plant taxa reported in the Dossier Sections3.1 and 3.2 to be present in the nurseries of Salix caprea and Salix cinerea.
Number Plant taxa Number Plant taxa
1Abelia 164 Knautia
2Abies alba 165 Kniphofia
3Abies fraserii 166 Laburnum
4Abies grandis 167 Lamium
5Abies nobilis 16 8 Larix
6Abies nordmanniana 169 Larix × decidua
7Acacia 170 Larix × eurolepsis
8Acanthus 171 Lavandula
9Acer 172 Lavatera
10 Acer campestre 173 Leucanthemum
11 Acer macrocarpa 174 Leucothoe
12 Acer platanoides 175 Leycesteria
13 Acer pseudoplatanus 176 Leymus
14 Achillea 177 Liatris
15 Acorus 178 Ligularia
16 Actaea 17 9 Ligustrum
17 Agapanthus 180 Liquidambar
18 Agastache 181 Liriope
19 Ajuga 182 Lithodora
20 Akebia 183 Lobelia
21 Alchemilla 184 Lonicera
22 Allium 185 Lonicera nitida
23 Alnus 186 Lonicera periclymenum
24 Alnus cord ata 187 Lupinus
25 Alnus glutinosa 188 Luzula
26 Alnus incana 189 Lysimachia
27 Alnus rubra 190 Magnolia
28 Alstroemeria 191 Mahonia
29 Amelanchier 192 Malus
30 Ammonophylla 193 Malus sylvestris
31 Anemanthele 194 Matteuccia
32 Anemone 195 Meconopsis
33 Aquilegia 196 Metasequoia glyptostroboides
34 Arbutus 197 Miscanthus
35 Armeria 198 Molinia
36 Artemisia 199 Monarda
37 Arum 200 Myrtus
38 Aruncus 201 Nandina
39 Asplenium 202 Nemesia
40 Astelia 203 Nepeta
41 Aster 204 Nothofagus
42 Astilbe 205 Olearia
43 Astrantia 206 Ophiopogon
44 Athyrium 207 Osmanthus
45 Aucuba 208 Osmunda
46 Baptisia 209 Pachysandra
(Continues)
108 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
Number Plant taxa Number Plant taxa
47 Berberis 210 Pachystegia
48 Bergenia 211 Paeonia
49 Betula 212 Panicum
50 Betula pendula 213 Pennisetum
51 Betula pubescens 214 Penstemon
52 Blechnum 215 Perovskia
53 Brachyglottis 216 Persicaria
54 Brunnera 217 Philadelphus
55 Buddleja 218 Phlomis
56 Buxus 219 Phlox
57 Calamagrostis 220 Phormium
58 Calluna 221 Photinia
59 Campanula 222 Phygelius
60 Carex 223 Physocarpus
61 Carpinus 224 Physostegia
62 Carpinus betulus 225 Picea abies
63 Caryopteris 226 Picea orientalis
64 Castanea 227 Picea ormorika
65 Castanea sativa 228 Picea sitchensis
66 Ceanothus 229 Pinus
67 Cedrus atlantica 230 Pinus peuce
68 Centaurea 231 Pinus pinaster
69 Centranthus 232 Pinus pungens glauca
70 Ceratostigma 233 Pinus sylvestris
71 Chaenomeles 234 Pittosporum
72 Chamaecyparis 235 Platanus
73 Choisya 236 Polemonium
74 Cistus 237 Polygonatum
75 Clematis 238 Polypodium
76 Convolvulus 239 Polystichum
77 Coprosma 240 Populus
78 Coreopsis 241 Po pulus nigra
79 Cornus 242 Populus tremula
80 Cornus sanguinia 243 Potentilla
81 Cortaderia 244 Primula
82 Corydalis 245 Prunus
83 Corylus 246 Prunus avium
84 Corylus avellana 247 Prunus cera
85 Cosmos 248 Prunus laurocerasus
86 Cotinus 249 Prunus lusitanica
87 Cotoneaster 250 Prunus padus
88 Cotoneaster lacteus 251 Prunus spin osa
89 Crataegus 252 Pseudotsuga menziesii
90 Crataegus monogyna 253 Pulmonaria
91 Crocosmia 254 Pyracantha
92 Cryptomeria japonica 255 Pyrus
93 Cupressocyparis 256 Quercus
94 Cupressocyparis leylandii 257 Quercus ilex
95 Cupressus 258 Quercus petraea
TABLE C.1 (Continued)
|
109 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
(Continues)
Number Plant taxa Number Plant taxa
96 Cynoglossum 259 Quercus robur
97 Cyt isus 260 Quercus rubra
98 Dahlia 261 Rhamnus
99 Daphne 262 Rhus
100 Delosperma 263 Ribes
101 Delphinium 264 Robinia
102 Deschampsia 265 Rosa
103 Deutzia 266 R osa canina
104 Dicentra 267 Rosa rugosa
105 Diervilla 268 Rosmarinus
106 Digitalis 269 Rudbeckia
107 Doronicum 270 Salix
108 Dryopteris 271 Salix aurita
109 Echinacea 272 Salix caprea
110 Echinops 273 Salix cinerea
111 Elaeagnus 274 Salix pentandra
112 Epimedium 275 Salix viminalis
113 Eremurus 276 Salvia
114 Erigeron 277 Sambucus
115 Eriophorum 278 Sanguisorba
116 Eriostemon 279 Santolina
117 Eryngium 280 Scabiosa
118 Erysimum 281 Schizostylis
119 Escallonia 282 Sedum
120 Eucalyptus 283 Senecio
121 Eucalyptus glaucescens 284 Sequoia sempervirens
122 Euonymus 285 Sequoiadendron giganteum
123 Euphorbia 286 Sesleria
124 Exochorda 287 Sorbaria
125 Fagus 288 Sorbus
126 Fagu s sylvatica 289 Sorbus aria
127 Fargesia 290 Sorbus aucu paria
128 Fatsia 291 Sorbus torminalis
129 Festuca 292 Spiraea
130 Filipendula 293 Stachys
131 Foeniculum 294 Stachyurus
132 Forsythia 295 Stipa
133 Fuchsia 296 Symphoricarpos
134 Galium 297 Sy mphytum
135 Garrya 298 Syringa
136 Gaura 299 Taxodium distichum
137 Genista 300 Taxu s
138 Geranium 301 Taxus baccata
139 Geum 302 Tellima
140 Griselinia 303 Thalictrum
141 Hakonechloa 304 Thuja
142 Halimium 305 Thuja plicata
143 Hebe 306 Thymus
144 Hedera 307 Tiarella
TABLE C.1 (Continued)
110 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
Number Plant taxa Number Plant taxa
145 Helenium 308 Tilia
146 Helichrysum 309 Tilia cordata
147 Helleborus 310 Tilia platanoides
148 Hemerocallis 311 Trachelospermum
149 Heuchera 312 Tradescantia
150 Heucherella 313 Tricyrtis
151 Hippophae 314 Trollius
152 Hosta 315 Tsuga heterophylla
153 Houttuynia 316 Ulex
154 Hydrangea 317 Ulmus
155 Hypericum 318 Ulmus glabra
156 Iberis 319 Uncinia
157 Ilex 320 Verbena
158 Imperata 321 Veronica
159 Iris 322 Viburnum
160 Jasminum 323 Viburnum opulus
161 Juglans nigra 324 Vinca
162 Juniperus 325 Weigela
163 Juniperus communis 326 Yucc a
TABLE C.1 (Continued)
|
111 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
APPENDIX D
Water used for irrigation
All mains water used meets the UK standard Water Supply (Water quality) regulation 2016 and the WHO/EU potable water
standards, (Drinking water Directive (98/83/EC and the revised Drinking Water Directive 2020/2184) which includes a total
freedom from both human and plant pathogens (Article 2- (7)). All mains water conducting pipework fully complies with
the UK Water Supply (Water Fittings) regulations of 1999 and the amendments of 2019. Irrigation water used is not stored in
any open tanks where air borne contamination could take place and is entirely isolated from any outside exposure (Dossier
Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Bore hole water supply: in some cases, where the underlying geology permits, nurseries can draw water directly from
bore holes drilled into underground aquafers. The water that fills these aquafers is naturally filtered through the layers of
rock (e.g. limestone) over long periods of time, many millennia in some cases. The water from such supplies is generally of
such high quality that it is fit for human consumption with little to no further processing and is often bottled and sold as
mineral water (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
Rainwater or freshwater watercourse supply: some nurseries contributing to this application for both environmental and
efficiency reasons use a combination of rain capture systems or abstract directly from available watercourses. All water
is passed through a sand filtration system to remove contaminants and is contained in storage tanks prior to use. One
nursery that operates this approach is currently in the process of installing additional nanobubble technology to treat the
water (Dossier Sections1.1 and 1.2).
112 of 113
|
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
APPENDIX E
List of pests that can potentially cause an effect not further assessed
TABLE E.1 List of potential pests not further assessed.
NPest name EPPO code Group
Pest present
in the UK
Present in
the EU
Salix confirmed as a host
(reference)
Pest can be associated with the
commodity Impact
Justification for
inclusion in this list
1Takahashia japonica TAKAJA TAKAJA Yes Limited Salix chaenomeloides (Takahashi &
Tachikawa,1956)
Yes Uncertain Uncertainty on the impact
|
113 of 113
COMMOD ITY RISK ASSE SSMENT OF SALIX CAPREA AND SALIX CINERE A PLANTS FROM T HE UK
APPENDIX F
Excel file with the pest list of Salix caprea and Salix cinerea
AppendixF is available in the Supporting Information section.
The EFSA Journal is a publication of the European Food Safety
Authority, a European agency funded by the European Union
