Access to this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from EFSA Journal
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
SCIENTIFIC OPINION
ADOPTED: 25 March 2021
doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6568
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants
from Turkey
EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH),
Claude Bragard, Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Francesco Di Serio, Paolo Gonthier,
Marie-Agn
es Jacques, Josep Anton Jaques Miret, Annemarie Fejer Justesen, Alan MacLeod,
Christer Sven Magnusson, Panagiotis Milonas, Juan A Navas-Cortes, Stephen Parnell,
Philippe Lucien Reignault, Hans-Hermann Thulke, Wopke Van der Werf, Antonio Vicent Civera,
Jonathan Yuen, Lucia Zappal
a, Elisavet Chatzivassiliou, Jane Debode, Charles Manceau,
Ciro Gardi, Olaf Mosbach-Schulz and Roel Potting
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
bare rooted and potted plants of Robinia pseudoacacia that are imported from Turkey, taking into
account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by the Turkish
NPPO. The relevance of any pest for this opinion was based on evidence following defined criteria.
Three species, the EU-quarantine pests Anoplophora chinensis and Lopholeucapsis japonica, and the
EU non-regulated pest Pochazia shantungensis fulfilled all relevant criteria and were selected for
further evaluation. For these pests, the risk mitigation measures proposed in the technical dossier from
Turkey were evaluated taking into account the possible limiting factors. For these pests, an expert
judgement is given on the likelihood of pest freedom taking into consideration the risk mitigation
measures acting on the pest, including uncertainties associated with the assessment. The estimated
degree of pest freedom varies among the pests evaluated, with L. japonica being the pest most
frequently expected on the imported plants. The Expert Knowledge Elicitation indicated, with 95%
certainty, that between 9,521 and 10,000 plants per 10,000 would be free of L. japonica.
©2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf
of European Food Safety Authority.
Keywords: robinia, black locust, plants for planting, plant health, plant pest, quarantine, European
union
Requestor: European Commission
Question number: EFSA-Q-2020-00091
Correspondence: alpha@efsa.europa.eu
EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal
Panel members: Claude Bragard, Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Francesco Di Serio, Paolo Gonthier,
Marie-Agn
es Jacques, Josep Anton Jaques Miret, Annemarie Fejer Justesen, Alan MacLeod, Christer
Sven Magnusson, Panagiotis Milonas, Juan A Navas-Cortes, Stephen Parnell, Roel Potting, Philippe L
Reignault, Hans-Hermann Thulke, Wopke Van der Werf, Antonio Vicent Civera, Jonathan Yuen and
Lucia Zappal
a.
Declarations of interest: The declarations of interest of all scientific experts active in EFSA’s work
are available at https://ess.efsa.europa.eu/doi/doiweb/doisearch.
Acknowledgements: EFSA wishes to acknowledge the important contribution of the trainee Laura
Carotti. L. Carotti provides an essential contribute to the literature search, the compilation of the pest
list and the pest datasheets and provided support in drafting and reviewing the Opinion. EFSA wishes
to acknowledge the important contribution of the trainee Laura Carotti. L Carotti provides an essential
contribute to the literature search, the compilation of the pest list and the pest datasheets and
provided support in drafting and reviewing the Opinion.
Suggested citation: EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Bragard C, Dehnen-Schmutz K,
Di Serio F, Gonthier P, Jacques M-A, Jaques Miret JA, Justesen AF, MacLeod A, Magnusson CS, Milonas
P, Navas-Cortes JA, Parnell S, Reignault PL, Thulke H-H, Van der Werf W, Vicent Civera A, Yuen J,
Zappal
a L, Chatzivassiliou E, Debode J, Manceau C, Gardi C, Mosbach-Schulz O and Potting R, 2021.
Scientific Opinion on the commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey. EFSA
Journal 2021;19(5):6568, 54 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6568
ISSN: 1831-4732
©2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf
of European Food Safety Authority.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License,
which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and no
modifications or adaptations are made.
The EFSA Journal is a publication of the European Food Safety
Authority, a European agency funded by the European Union.
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 2 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Table of 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 the Turkish NPPO ................................................................................................. 5
2.2. Literature searches performed by EFSA............................................................................................ 8
2.3. Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 9
2.3.1. Commodity data............................................................................................................................. 9
2.3.2. Identification of pests potentially associated with the commodity ....................................................... 10
2.3.3. Listing and evaluation of risk mitigation measures............................................................................. 10
2.3.4. Expert Knowledge Elicitation ........................................................................................................... 11
3. Commodity data............................................................................................................................. 11
3.1. Description of the commodity.......................................................................................................... 11
3.2. Description of the production areas ................................................................................................. 12
3.3. Production and handling processes .................................................................................................. 12
3.3.1. Growing conditions......................................................................................................................... 12
3.3.2. Source of planting material ............................................................................................................. 13
3.3.3. Production cycle ............................................................................................................................. 13
3.3.4. Pest monitoring during production ................................................................................................... 13
3.3.5. Post-harvest processes and export procedure ................................................................................... 13
4. Identification of pests potentially associated with the commodity ....................................................... 13
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 ................. 16
4.3. Overview of interceptions................................................................................................................ 16
4.4. List of potential pests not further assessed....................................................................................... 16
4.5. Summary of pests selected for further evaluation ............................................................................. 16
5. Risk mitigation measures ................................................................................................................ 17
5.1. Possibility of pest presence in the export nurseries ........................................................................... 17
5.2. Risk mitigation measures proposed.................................................................................................. 17
5.3. Evaluation of the current measures for the selected pests including uncertainties................................ 17
5.3.1. Overview of the evaluation of Anoplophora chinensis ........................................................................ 18
5.3.2. Overview of the evaluation of Lopholeucaspis japonica...................................................................... 19
5.3.3. Overview of the evaluation of Pochazia shantungensis ...................................................................... 19
5.3.4. Outcome of Expert Knowledge Elicitation ......................................................................................... 20
6. Conclusions.................................................................................................................................... 23
References............................................................................................................................................... 24
Glossary .................................................................................................................................................. 24
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................... 25
Appendix A –Data sheets of pests selected for further evaluation via Expert Knowledge Elicitation ................ 26
Appendix B –Web of Science All Databases Search String ........................................................................... 48
Appendix C –List of pests that can potentially cause an effect not further assessed ...................................... 53
Appendix D –Excel file with the pest list of Robinia. ................................................................................... 54
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 3 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
1. Introduction
1.1. Background and Terms of Reference as provided by European
Commission
1.1.1. Background
The new 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 (EU) 2018/2019
2
. Scientific opinions are
therefore needed to support the European Commission and the Member States 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 provide 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 Member States 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 Robinia pseudoacacia
from Turkey taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical dossier
provided by Turkey.
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 assessment of R. pseudoacacia from Turkey following the Guidance on commodity risk
assessment for the evaluation of high-risk plant dossiers (EFSA PLH Panel, 2019).
The EU quarantine pests that are regulated as a group in the Commission Implementing Regulation
(EU) 2019/2072 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 species. These pests are considered 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 isolates, or species: Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canary Islands, Faeroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Moldova,
1
Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council of 26 October 2016 on protective measures against
pests of plants, amending Regulations (EU) 228/2013, (EU) 652/2014 and (EU) 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of
the Council and repealing Council Directives 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.
2
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 of 18 December 2018 establishing a provisional list of high risk plants,
plant products or other objects, within the meaning of Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 and a list of plants for which
phytosanitary certificates are not required for introduction into the Union, within the meaning of Article 73 of that Regulation
C/2018/8877. OJ L 323, 19.12.2018, pp. 10–15.
3
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general
principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in
matters of food safety. OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, pp. 1–24.
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 4 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Monaco, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Russia (only the following parts: Central Federal
District (Tsentralny federalny okrug), Northwestern Federal District (SeveroZapadny federalny okrug),
Southern Federal District (Yuzhny federalny okrug), North Caucasian Federal District (Severo-Kavkazsky
federalny okrug) and Volga Federal District (Privolzhsky federalny okrug), San Marino, Serbia,
Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland).
4
Those countries are
historically linked to the reference to ‘non-European countries’existing in the previous legal framework,
Directive 2000/29/EC. Consequently, for those countries, 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.
Pests listed as ‘Regulated Non-Quarantine Pest’(RNQP)’in Commission Implementing Regulation
(EU) 2019/2072 were not considered for further evaluation, in line with a letter from European
Commission from 24 October 2019, Ref. Ares (2019)6579768 –24/10/2019, on Clarification on EFSA
mandate on High Risk Plants.
In its evaluation the Panel:
•Checked whether the information in the technical dossier (hereafter referred to as ‘the
Dossier’) provided by the applicant (Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry,
National Plant Protection Organization - Turkish NPPO) 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
5
, hereafter referred to as ‘EU quarantine
pests’) and other relevant pests present in Turkey 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 specific country in
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 and/or in the relevant legislative texts
for emergency measures and provided that the specific country is in the scope of those
emergency measures. The assessment was restricted to whether or not the applicant country
applies those measures.
•Assessed the effectiveness of the measures described in the dossier for those Union quarantine
pests for which no specific measures are in place for the import of the commodity from the
specific applicant country and other relevant pests present in applicant country and associated
with the commodity.
Risk management decisions are not within EFSA’s remit. Therefore, the Panel provided a rating
based on expert judgement regarding the likelihood of pest freedom for each relevant pest given the
risk mitigation measures proposed by the Turkish NPPO.
2. Data and methodologies
2.1. Data provided by the Turkish NPPO
The Panel considered all the data and information (hereafter called ‘the Dossier’) provided by the
Turkish NPPO on 15 June 2020, including the additional information provided by the Turkish NPPO on
27 November 2020, 18 December 2020 and 15 February 2021, after EFSA’s request. The Dossier is
managed by EFSA.
The structure and overview of the Dossier is shown in Table 1. The number of the relevant section
is indicated in the opinion when referring to a specific part of the Dossier.
4
In accordance with the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the
European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 5(4) of the Protocol on Ireland/
Northern Ireland in conjunction with Annex 2 to that Protocol, for the purposes of this Opinion, references to Member States
include the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland.
5
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 of 28 November 2019 establishing uniform conditions for the
implementation 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 Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2018/2019, OJ L 319, 10.12.2019, p. 1–279.
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 5 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
The data and supporting information provided by the Turkish NPPO formed the basis of the
commodity risk assessment.
The databases shown in Table 2and the resources and references listed below are the main
sources used by the Turkish NPPO to compile the Dossier (details on literature searches can be found
in the Dossier Section 4):
Table 1: Structure and overview of the Dossier
Dossier
section Overview of contents Filename
1.0 Technical dossier on Robinia pseudoacacia
(complete document)
EFSA_Dossier-Q-2020-00091_Turkey_Robinia
pseudoacacia.pdf
2.0 Additional information provided by the
Turkish NPPO on date 27 November 2020
EFSA_Dossier-Q-2020-00091_Turkey_Robinia
pseudoacacia - Answers to additional questions.pdf
3.0 Additional information on the eradication
programme of Anoplophora chinensis on
date 18 December 2020
EFSA_Dossier-Q-2020-00091_Turkey_Robinia
pseudoacacia - Anoplophora Report- Robinia
pseudoacacia_18_12_2020.pdf
4.0 Additional information on the status of
Anoplophora chinensis in Istanbul province
on date 15 February 2021
EFSA_Dossier-Q-2020-00091_Turkey_Robinia
pseudoacacia - Additional information about
Anoplophora chinensis in Istanbul_15_02_2021.pdf
Table 2: Database sources used in the literature searches by the Turkish NPPO
Acronym/
short title
Database name and
service provider URL of database Justification for choosing
database
PPTI Name: Plant Protection
Technical Instructions
Provider: Turkish NPPO
https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/TAGEM/Be
lgeler/Bitki%20Zararl%C4%B1lar%C4%
B1%20Zirai%20M%C3%BCcadele%20Te
knik%20Talimatlar%C4%B1.pdf
https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/TAGEM/Be
lgeler/Bitki%20Hastal%C4%B1klar%C4%
B1%20ve%20Yabanc%C4%B1%20Ot%
20Zirai%20M%C3%BCcadele%20Teknik%
20Talimatlar%C4%B1.pdf
These instructions are
prepared regarding pests in
Turkey, which cause
damages on their hosts
economically. They cover
total of 644 pests including
bacteria, phytoplasmas,
fungi, insects, viruses and
viroids.
CABI ISC CABI Invasive Species
Compendium
Provider: CAB
International
https://www.cabi.org/ISC EFSA recommendation
EPPO GD EPPO Global Database
Provider: European
and Mediterranean
Plant Protection
Organization
https://gd.eppo.int/ EFSA recommendation
Plant
Protection
Bulletin
Plant Protection
Bulletin published by
the Plant Protection
Central Research
Institute
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/bitkorb The journal is published four
times a year with original
research articles in English or
Turkish languages on plant
protection and health.
Fauna
Europaea
Name: Fauna
Europaea
Provider: Museum f€
ur
Naturkunde Leibniz-
Institut f€
ur Evolutions-
und
Biodiversit€
atsforschung
https://fauna-eu.org/ Fauna Europaea is Europe’s
main zoological taxonomic
index. The database lists
scientific names and
distributions of all living,
currently known,
multicellular, European land
and fresh water animal
species
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 6 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Other resources
National and EU legislations were used to determine pest status in Turkey and in EU. The
regulations used are below:
•Regulation on the Registration of Plant Passport System and Operators, (https://kms.kaysis.
gov.tr/Home/Goster/40074).
•Plant Quarantine Regulation, (https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/reportingobligation/2017/
02/20/Regulation_on_Plant_Quarantine_-Turkey_2016.pdf).
•Plant Health Standards Instruction in Fruit and Grapevine Saplings and Production Materials
(https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/Belgeler/Mevzuat/Talimatlar/BUGEM/Bitki_Sa%C4%9Fl%C4%
B1%C4%9F%C4%B1_Talimat%C4%B1.pdf).
•Implementing Regulation on Certification and Marketing of Fruit Saplings and Production
Materials (https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=7.5.13182&MevzuatIliski=
0&sourceXmlSearch=meyve%20fidan%C4%B1).
•Regulation on Authorization and Inspection in Seed Services, (https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Me
tin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=7.5.13052&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=tohumculuk).
•Seed Services Application Instruction.
•Seed Export Application Circular.
•Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction
into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread
within the Community (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32
000L0029).
•Instructions of sampling.
•Regulation on Authorisation, Inspection and Forest Plant Passport in the Forest Plant Seed
Marketing (https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=7.5.22699&MevzuatIliski=
0&sourceXmlSearch=orman%20bitki%20pasaportu).
•Regulation on The Trade of Forest Growing Materials (1999/105/Ec) (https://www.mevzuat.
gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=7.5.9882&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=orman%20yeti%
C5%9Ftirme).
References
AkıllıS, Zekai Katircioglu Y and Maden S, 2010. Available online: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/duzceod/issue/
4825/291039
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/data
sheet/5557
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/data
sheet/6196
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/data
sheet/6204
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/data
sheet/7418
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/data
sheet/113870
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/data
sheet/18512
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/data
sheet/24677
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/data
sheet/27377
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/data
sheet/28432
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/data
sheet/45077
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/data
sheet/45079
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/data
sheet/45556
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), 2019. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/data
sheet/115762
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 7 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Callaway RM, Bedmar EJ, Reinhart KO and Klironomos J, 2011. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/51208952
Casero, 2017. Available online: https://plurifor.efi.int/wpcontent/uploads/WP2/2.1.1/Fusarium/UVA_Julio_Diez_new_
tools_monitoring_13Oct17.pdf
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), 2019. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/
ANOLGL/distribution
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), 2019. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/
taxon/HALYHA/distribution
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), 2019. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/
taxon/1FUSAG
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), 2019. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/
taxon/1PHOMG
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), 2019. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/
taxon/1PYTHG
FAUNA-EU, 2019. Available online: https://fauna-eu.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/7fe49dfc-e228-443f-9952- ea8b279
06a4f
Hal
asz, 2002. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12109155
Kaydan MB, Ulgenturk S and Erkılıc L, 2013. Checklist of Turkish Coccoidea (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha) species.
Turkish Bulletin of Entomology, 3, 157–182.
Kec
ßeC
ßAFM and ve Ulusoy MR, 2017. Armored scale insects (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Diaspididae) on
ornamental plants in Adana, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Entomology, 41, 333–346. https://doi.org/10.16970/
entoted.298572. ISSN 1010-6960
Risks Monographs, 2017. Available online: http://nnext.boku.ac.at/images/publications/NNEXT_WG4_2017_Risks_
Monographs.pdf
Ulgent€
urk S and C
ßanakc
ß
ıo
glu H, 2004. Scale insect pests on ornamental plants in urban habitats in Turkey. Jurnal
of Pest Science, 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-003-0031-4
2.2. Literature searches performed by EFSA
Literature searches were undertaken by EFSA to complete a list of pests potentially associated to
R. pseudoacacia in Turkey. Two searches were combined: (i) a general search to identify pests of
Robinia, particularly R. pseudoacacia, in different databases; and (ii) a tailored search to identify
whether these pests are present or not in Turkey. The searches were launched on the 25 August 2020
and concluded on 27 August 2020. No language, date or document type restrictions were applied in
the search strategy.
The Panel used the databases indicated in Table 3to compile the list of pests associated with
Robinia. As for Web of Science, the literature search was performed using a specific, ad hoc
established search string (see Appendix B). The search strategy used for Web of Science Databases
was designed combining common names for pests and diseases, terms describing symptoms of plant
diseases and the scientific and English common names of the commodity. All pests already retrieved
using the other databases were removed from the search terms to be able to reduce the number of
records to be screened. The string was run in ‘All Databases’with no range limits for time or language
filters.
Table 3: Databases used by EFSA for the compilation of the pest list associated to the genus
Robinia
Database Platform/Link
Aphids on World Plants http://www.aphidsonworldsplants.info/C_HOSTS_AAIntro.
htm
CABI Crop Protection Compendium https://www.cabi.org/cpc/
Database of Insects and their Food Plants http://www.brc.ac.uk/dbif/hosts.aspx
Database of the World’s Lepidopteran Hostplants https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/hostplants/searc
h/index.dsml
EPPO Global Database https://gd.eppo.int/
EUROPHYT https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/europhyt/
Leaf-miners http://www.leafmines.co.uk/html/plants.htm
Nemaplex
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 8 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
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 Appendix A) 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-
regulated pests and other pests) that may require risk mitigation measures were identified. The EU
non-regulated 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 proposed risk mitigation measures for each relevant pest were evaluated in
terms of efficacy or compliance with EU requirements as explained in Section 1.2.
A conclusion on the likelihood of the commodity being free from each of the relevant pest was
determined and uncertainties identified using expert judgements.
Pest freedom was assessed by estimating the number of infested/infected plants out of 10,000
exported plants.
2.3.1. Commodity data
Based on the information provided by the Turkish NPPO the characteristics of the commodity are
summarised.
Database Platform/Link
http://nemaplex.ucdavis.edu/Nemabase2010/PlantNema
todeHostStatusDDQuery.aspx
Plant Viruses Online http://bio-mirror.im.ac.cn/mirrors/pvo/vide/famindex.htm
International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses
(ICTV) - Master Species List
https://talk.ictvonline.org/files/master-species-lists/m/msl/
9601
Scalenet http://scalenet.info/associates/
Spider Mites Web https://www1.montpellier.inra.fr/CBGP/spmweb/advanced.
php
USDA ARS Fungi Database https://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/fungushost/
fungushost.cfm
Index Fungorum http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/Names.asp
Mycobank https://www.mycobank.com
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)
https://www.webofknowledge.com
World Agroforestry http://www.worldagroforestry.org/treedb2/speciesprofile.
php?Spid=1749
Catalog of the Cecidomyiidae (Diptera) of the world https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80420580/Gagne_
2014_World_Cecidomyiidae_Catalog_3rd_Edition.pdf
Catalog of the Eriophyoidea (Acarina: Prostigmata)
of the world.
https://www.cabi.org/isc/abstract/19951100613
Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) https://www.gbif.org/
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 9 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
2.3.2. Identification of pests potentially associated with the commodity
To evaluate the pest risk associated with the importation of R. pseudoacacia from Turkey a pest list
was compiled. The pest list is a compilation of all identified plant pests associated with
R. pseudoacacia based on information provided in the Dossier Section 4.0 and on searches performed
by the Panel.
The pest list (see Microsoft Excel
®
file in Appendix D) is a document that includes pests that use
the host plant at genus level (Robinia spp.), retrieved from EPPO Global Database, CABI Crop
Protection Compendium. Other databases were consulted at plant species level. An overview of the
consulted sources is listed in Table 3.
The search strategy used for Web of Science Databases was designed combining common names
for pests and diseases, terms describing symptoms of plant diseases and the scientific and common
English name of the commodity. All of the pests already retrieved using the other databases were
removed from the search terms be able to reduce the number of records to be screened.
The established search string is detailed in Appendix B, and was run on 15 November 2019.
The titles and abstracts of the scientific papers retrieved were screened and the pests associated
with Robinia were included in the pest list.
EUROPHYT and TRACES were investigated by searching for the interceptions associated to
commodities imported from Turkey, at species and genus level, from 1995 to present.
The evaluation of the compiled pest list was carried out in two steps: first, the relevance of the EU-
quarantine pests was evaluated (Section 4.1); second, the relevance of any other plant pest was
evaluated (Section 4.2).
For those Union quarantine pests for which specific measures are in place for the import of the commodity
from Turkey in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, the assessment was restricted to
whether Turkey applies those measures. The effectiveness of those measures was not assessed.
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 Appendix C(List of pests that can
potentially cause an effect not further assessed).
2.3.3. Listing and evaluation of risk mitigation measures
The proposed risk mitigation measures were listed and evaluated. When evaluating the likelihood
of pest freedom at origin, the following types of potential infection/infestation sources for
R. pseudoacacia in nurseries and relevant risk mitigation measures were considered (see also
Figure 1):
•pest entry from surrounding areas,
•pest entry with new plants/seeds,
•pest spread within the nursery.
The risk mitigation measures adopted in the plant nurseries (as communicated by the Turkish
NPPO) were evaluated with Expert Knowledge Elicitation (EKE) according to the Guidance on
uncertainty analysis in scientific assessment (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2018).
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 10 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Information on the biology, estimates of likelihood of entry of the pest to the nursery and spread
within the nursery, and the effect of the measures on a specific pest is summarised in pest data sheets
compiled for each pest selected for further evaluation (see Appendix A).
2.3.4. Expert Knowledge Elicitation
To estimate the pest freedom of the commodities an Expert Knowledge Elicitation (EKE) was
performed following EFSA guidance (Annex B.8 of EFSA Scientific Committee, 2018). The specific
question for EKE was defined as follows: ‘Taking into account (i) the risk mitigation measures listed in
the Dossier, and (ii) other relevant information, how many of 10,000 R. pseudoacacia plants (i.e. bare
rooted plants or potted plants) will be infested with the relevant pest/pathogen when arriving in the
EU?’.
The risk assessment uses individual plants as the most suitable unit. The following reasoning is
given:
i) There is no quantitative information available regarding clustering of plants during production.
ii) For the pests under consideration a cross contamination during transport is not likely.
iii) Plants will be finally distributed to final consumers by wholesaler and retailers.
The uncertainties associated with the EKE were taken into account and quantified in the probability
distribution applying the semi-formal method described in Section 3.5.2 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.
The EKE was performed together for bare rooted plants and plants in pots, if the biology of the
pest, the production systems and the risk mitigation measures suggested the same likelihood of pest
freedom for both commodities.
3. Commodity data
3.1. Description of the commodity
The commodities to be imported are R. pseudoacacia (common name: black locust family:
Fabaceae) potted plants and bare rooted plants. Plants are either grafted (with rootstock of the same
Figure 1: Conceptual framework to assess likelihood that plants are exported free from relevant pests
Source: EFSA PLH Panel (2019).
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 11 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
species) or not. The age of the plants at the time of export is from 3 to 7 years and the circumference
width of the stem ranges from 8–10 cm to 20–25 cm.
•the potted plants are up to 7 years old, generally having circumference width from 14 to
16 cm up to 20–25 cm.
•the bare rooted plants are at least 3 years old, generally having circumference width from
8–10 cm to 14–16 cm.
The bare rooted plants are washed and packed in bags and in boxes (not specified number of
plants per bag). The potted plants are loaded individually on trucks (not specified number of plants
per truck). According to ISPM 36 (FAO, 2019). The commodities can be classified as ‘bare root plants’
and ‘rooted plants in pots’, respectively.
3.2. Description of the production areas
The R. pseudoacacia plants for export, are grown in open field plant nurseries, members of the
Ornamental Plants Growers Union (S
€
USB
_
IR) (http://eng.susbir.org.tr/).
There is no information on physical separation between areas destined to the domestic production
and areas destined to export, as well as separation from other species possibly grown in the same
nursery.
The main production areas of R. pseudoacacia plants for export are Istanbul, Bursa and Sakarya.
Additional production areas are located in Adana, Antalya, Izmir (not shown in Figure 2). Forest
nurseries located throughout Turkey are the main provider of 1- to 2-year-old seedlings to the
ornamental production growers.
3.3. Production and handling processes
3.3.1. Growing conditions
Production starts with seeds collected from trees, between October and November. The seeds are
subjected to a ‘sterilisation’process (no information available on the method used) and sown in trays
filled with growing media, in a greenhouse between April and May. Young seedlings are transplanted in
larger pots filled with fertilised growing media. The seedlings (1- or 2-year-old) are mainly obtained
from forest nurseries, located throughout Turkey, and are subsequently grown in export/producer
companies for 1–6 years. All stages of the plants are grown in pots or seed trays. The growing media
are a mixture of peat and pumice. However, from the pictures provided in the dossier older plants
appear to be grown in soil, a common practice adopted for plants of this size. From those pictures it
seems that the pots, at some stages, are in contact with soil. The Panel expresses uncertainty on
whether the growing media comply with Annex VII of the Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072.
Figure 2: Main production areas (indicated in green) in Turkey of R. pseudoacacia plants for export
(provided by the Turkish NPPO)
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 12 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
When the rooting is completed, each plant is supported by bamboo canes to ensure proper trunk
formation. Afterwards, trees (of not specified age) are pruned and transplanted into larger pots and
brought to open fields.
Bare rooted plants: there is no specific information on the preparation and characteristics of bare
rooted plants.
Rootstocks are produced from seeds of R. pseudoacacia, however there is no information about the
scions (origin, age of the mother plants and proximity of other plant species).
There is limited information provided on any chemical, physical or biological phytosanitary
measures adopted during the cultivation period.
3.3.2. Source of planting material
The source of propagating material mainly originates from Turkey (90%) and very few of them are
imported from European countries as 1-year-old seedlings. Forest nurseries located throughout Turkey
are the main provider for the supply of 1- to 2-year-old seedlings to the ornamental production
growers.
3.3.3. Production cycle
Production starts with seeds collected from selected trees, between October and November. The
seeds are sown between April-May. Plants are transplanted once or more times depending on the age
of the final product to be traded. No details on the period of transplanting are provided.
3.3.4. Pest monitoring during production
Forest nurseries affiliated with the General Directorate of Forestry (not directly exporting/importing
nurseries) are inspected by forestry inspectors as a routine work (at least once a month). Forest
nurseries are also inspected once a year for phytosanitary requirements by the Provincial Directorate
of Agriculture.
Production nurseries are inspected at least once a year, regardless of whether they are exporting or
not. In addition, producers submit a declaration every six months of what they produce.
In the production nurseries of ornamentals all plants are inspected visually, and samples are taken
from symptomatic plants if necessary. There is no information on the frequency of these inspections.
Traded ornamental plants are required to be free from any kind of disease symptoms or pests. No
information is provided on actions taken in case a harmful organism is identified in the nursery.
3.3.5. Post-harvest processes and export procedure
Bare rooted plants are prepared by washing the root system, placing them in plastic bags, in
wooden boxes (as can be derived from the photographs provided). No information is provided on post-
harvest processes for potted plants before exporting.
Plants are loaded on trucks for export. The moisture content of the loaded trailer is between 85
and 95%. Trailer temperature is between 2°C and 4°C. However, from the pictures provided it is not
clear if the trucks shown can ensure refrigeration. In addition, it is unclear if this refers to potted
plants and/or bare rooted plants.
The planned production for export in the EU in 2020 was estimated to be 3,000 plants. The months
on which the plants are to be exported to the EU are indicated in Table 4.
4. Identification of pests potentially associated with the commodity
The search for potential pests associated to R. pseudoacacia resulted in 983 species (see Microsoft
Excel
®
file in Appendix D).
Table 4: Scheduling of Robinia plants planned to be exported (indicated in grey)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Robinia
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 13 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
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.
Twelve EU-quarantine species that are reported to use Robinia as a host plant were evaluated
(Table 5) 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 Turkey;
b) Robinia is a host of the pest;
c) one or more life stages of the pest can be associated with the specified commodity.
Pests that fulfilled all three criteria were selected for further evaluation.
Of the twelve EU-quarantine pest species evaluated, two pests (Anoplophora chinensis and
Lopholeucaspis japonica), present in Turkey and known to use Robinia as host and to be associated
with the commodity were selected for further evaluation (Table 6).
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 14 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Table 5: Overview of the evaluation of the twelve EU-quarantine pest species known to use Robinia as a host plant for their relevance for this Opinion
Number Pest name according to the
EU legislation
(a)
EPPO
code Group Presence in
Turkey
Robinia confirmed as a host
(reference)
Pest can be associated
with the commodity
(b)
Pest relevant for
the opinion
1Anoplophora chinensis ANOLCN Insects Yes CABI (online) Yes Yes
2Anoplophora glabripennis ANOLGL Insects No Dossier, CABI (online) No
3Euwallacea fornicatus XYLBFO Insects No EPPO (online) No
4Lopholeucaspis japonica LOPLJA Insects Yes Scalenet Yes Yes
5Phloeotribus liminaris
(non-European Scolitinae)
PHLBLI Insects No WoS, Pennacchio et al. (2004) No
6Phymatotrichopsis omnivora PHMPOM Fungi No
(c)
CABI (online) No
7Phytophthora ramorum PHYTRA Fungi No WoS, Tooley and Browning (2009) No
8Popillia japonica POPIJA Insects No EPPO (online) No
9Potato virus Y PVY000 Virus Yes Abdalla et al. (2018)
(d)
No
10 Thaumetopoea processionea THAUPR Insects No CABI (online) No
11 Xylella fastidiosa XYLEFA Bacteria No EPPO (online) No
12 Xylosandrus germanus
(non-European Scolitinae)
XYLBGE Insects No Scholar, Castrillo et al. (2012) No
(a): Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072.
(b): The question if the pest can be associated with the commodity is evaluated if the previous two questions are answered with ‘yes’.
(c): There is one unconfirmed record of Phymatotrichopsis omnivora in Turkey (Azaz, 2003) in a non-agricultural area in Bird Paradise National Park.(Bird Lake).However, the presence of the
pathogen was only determined in the soil, with no record of disease in any cultivated plant. In addition, no clear information was given on how the species was identified and was not
supported by DNA-based methods.
(d): Host status not confirmed. Robinia was used as test plant.
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 15 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
4.2. Selection of other relevant pests (non-regulated in the EU)
associated with the commodity
The information provided by the Turkish NPPO, integrated with the search EFSA performed, was
evaluated in order to assess whether there are other potentially relevant pests of Robinia present in
the country of export. For these potential pests that are not regulated in the EU, pest risk assessment
information on the probability of introduction, establishment, spread and impact is usually lacking.
Therefore, these non-regulated pests that are potentially associated with Robinia were also evaluated
to determine their relevance for this opinion based on evidence that:
a) the pest is present in Turkey;
b) the pest (i) is absent or (ii) has a limited distribution in the EU and it is under official control
at least in one of the MSs where it is present;
c) Robinia 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.
Pests that fulfilled all five criteria were selected for further evaluation.
Based on the information collected, 953 potential pests not regulated in the EU known to be
associated with Robinia were evaluated for their relevance to this opinion. Species were excluded from
further evaluation when at least one of the conditions listed above (a-e) was not met. Details can be
found in the Appendix D(Microsoft Excel
®
file). Of the evaluated EU non-regulated pests, one insect
(Pochazia shantungensis), was selected for further evaluation because it met all of the selection
criteria. More information on this pest species can be found in the pest datasheets (Appendix A).
4.3. Overview of interceptions
Data on the interception of harmful organisms on plants of Robinia can provide information on
some of the organisms that can be present on Robinia plants in trade. According to EUROPHYT online
and TRACES NT online, (accessed on 12 February 2021) there were no records of interceptions for
plants for planting of Robinia from Turkey (1995 –12/2/2021).
4.4. List of potential pests not further assessed
From the pests not selected for further evaluation, the Panel highlighted five species that can
potentially have an impact (see Appendix C) but for which the currently available evidence does not
provide reasons for further evaluation in this opinion. The detailed reason is provided for each species
in Appendix C.
4.5. Summary of pests selected for further evaluation
The three pests identified to be present in Turkey and having potential for association with Robinia
destined for export are listed in Table 7. The efficacy of the risk mitigation measures applied to the
commodity was evaluated for these selected pests.
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
1Anoplophora
chinensis
ANOLCN Anoplophora
chinensis
Cerambycidae Insects EU Quarantine Pest
according to Commission
Implementing Regulation
(EU) 2019/2072
2Lopholeucaspis
japonica
LOPLJA Lopholeucaspis
japonica
Diaspididae Insects EU Quarantine Pest
according to Commission
Implementing Regulation
(EU) 2019/2072
3Pochazia
shantungensis
POCZSH N/A Ricaniidae Insects Not regulated in EU
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 16 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
5. Risk mitigation measures
For each selected pest (Table 6) the Panel assessed the possibility that it could be present in
nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia and assessed the probability that pest freedom of a consignment
is achieved by the proposed risk mitigation measures acting on the pest under evaluation.
The information used in the evaluation of the efficacy of the risk mitigation measures is
summarised in a pest data sheet (see Appendix A).
5.1. Possibility of pest presence in the export nurseries
For each selected pest (Table 6) the Panel evaluated the likelihood that the pest could be present in
aR. pseudoacacia nursery by evaluating the possibility that R. pseudoacacia in the export nursery are
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.
5.2. Risk mitigation measures proposed
With the information provided by the Turkish NPPO (Dossier sections 3and 5), the
Panel summarised the risk mitigation measures (see Table 7) that are currently applied in the
production nurseries.
5.3. Evaluation of the current measures for the selected pests including
uncertainties
For each pest, the relevant risk mitigation measures acting on the pest were identified. Any limiting
factors on the efficacy 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
datasheet provided in Appendix A.
Table 7: Overview of currently applied risk mitigation measures for R. pseudoacacia plants
designated for export to the EU from Turkey
Risk mitigation
measure Implementation in Turkey
1 Registration of
the nursery and
Phytosanitary
management
Forest nurseries (producing young plants) are officially registered and inspected at least
once a year with an unknown monitoring intensity.
All nurseries producing ornamental plants are required to be a member of the
ornamental plant grower union in Turkey and inspected at least once a year with an
unknown monitoring intensity. A plant passport or export certificate is issued.
2 Physical
protection
Some production of the early stages of plants, but not of the older ones, may take place
in production places with netting.
3 Pest monitoring
and inspections
by the nursery
staff during the
production
process
Nurseries are officially inspected at least once a year and for issuing the export
certificate.
There are no targeted inspections specified in the dossier for the actionable pests.
There are guidelines available for detection of pests in agricultural crops (technical
instructions for plant pests in agricultural crops –link in Dossier, Section 1).
4 Pesticide
treatment
There is a database for registered insecticides in Turkey. There are no products
registered for Robinia.
There are guidelines available for the management of pests in agricultural crops
(technical instructions for plant pests in agricultural crops –link in Dossier, Section 1).
5 Surveillance There are no targeted inspections specified in the dossier for the actionable pests.
6 Washing of roots Soil is removed by washing the roots of bare rooted plants.
7 Export inspection Prior to export the consignment is visually inspected.
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 17 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Based on this information, for each relevant pest, an expert judgement has been given for the
likelihood of pest freedom of commodities taking into consideration the risk mitigation measures acting
on the pest and their combination.
An overview of the evaluation of each relevant pest is given in the sections below (Sections 5.3.1–
5.3.3). The outcome of EKE on pest freedom after the evaluation of the proposed risk mitigation
measures is summarised in the Section 5.3.4.
5.3.1. Overview of the evaluation of Anoplophora chinensis
Rating of the likelihood
of pest freedom
Very frequently pest free (based on the Median)
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of
pest free plants
9,813
out of 10,000
plants
9,850
out of 10,000
plants
9,889
out of 10,000
plants
9,930
out of 10,000
plants
9,974
out of 10,000
plants
Proportion of infested
plants
(a)
26
out of 10000
plants
70
out of 10000
plants
111
out of 10000
plants
150
out of 10000
plants
187
out of 10000
plants
Summary of the
information used
for the evaluation
Possibility that the pest could become associate with the commodity
Anoplophora chinensis is a polyphagous woodboring beetle that attacks living
trees. A. chinensis is reported to be ‘transient and under eradication’in Turkey.
The pest has been detected in public lanes, public landscaping areas, parks,
gardens and recreation areas, where some of the nurseries producing Robinia
plants are located. R. pseudoacacia is a host of A. chinensis, despite the fact that
it is not listed as a preferred host. It is possible that local populations of
A. chinensis are present in the neighbouring environment of nurseries producing
Robinia plants destined for export, especially in the Istanbul area. Plants are grown
in open fields and adult A. chinensis can enter from the surrounding environment.
R. pseudoacacia plants destined for export to the EU are grown initially in forest
nurseries located throughout the country and then transferred into the producing/
exporting nurseries. Both, forest nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia seedlings
and the producing/exporting nurseries can also produce several species of
ornamental plants that are host plants of A. chinensis. It is possible that
undetected populations of A. chinensis are present in outbreak areas in the
neighbourhood of nurseries with R. pseudoacacia.
Measures taken against the pest and their efficacy
The relevant applied measures are: (i) regular inspections in the nurseries (at least
1 inspection per year) (ii) export inspections; (iii) surveillance at national level.
Interception records
There are no records of interceptions of A. chinensis from Turkey.
Shortcomings of current measures/procedures
There is no clear indication of a pesticides scheme or any other risk mitigation
measure in place in the forest and in the exporting nurseries, effective against
A. chinensis on Robinia.
Main uncertainties
The pest prevalence in the surrounding environment is unknown.
No information is available regarding the presence of other host plant species of
A. chinensis in nurseries producing Robinia.
(a): The “number of pest free plants per 10,000”is calculated as “10,000 –Number of infested plants per 10,000”and
reordered from small to large to obtain the percentiles.
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 18 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
5.3.2. Overview of the evaluation of Lopholeucaspis japonica
Rating of the
likelihood
of pest freedom
Very frequently pest free (based on the Median)
Percentile of the
distribution
5% 25% Median 75% 95%
Proportion of pest
free plants
9,521
out of 10,000
plants
9,625
out of 10,000
plants
9,750
out of 10,000
plants
9,875
out of 10,000
plants
9,975
out of 10,000
plants
Proportion of
infested
plants
(a)
25
out of 10,000
plants
125
out of 10,000
plants
250
out of 10,000
plants
375
out of 10,000
plants
479
out of 10,000
plants
Summary of the
information used
for the evaluation
Possibility that the pest could become associate with the commodity
L. japonica is a polyphagous armoured scale feeding on plants belonging to 38 families.
Robinia pseudoacacia has been reported as a host of L. japonica in Iran and South
Korea. L. japonica is present in the Black Sea region of Turkey where some of the
nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia are located. Due to its polyphagous nature the
pest can be present in the surrounding environment of the nurseries producing Robinia.
Plants are grown in the open field. The pest can enter the production fields as crawlers
either with air currents or transported accidentally by human activities or hitchhiking on
animals. Crawlers can walk a small distance of up to a few meters and mainly within a
tree or between touching branches of neighbouring trees.
Measures taken against the pest and their efficacy
The relevant applied measures are: (i) regular inspections in the nurseries (at least 1
inspection per year) (ii) export inspections.
Interception records
There are no records of interceptions of L. japonica from Turkey.
Shortcomings of current measures/procedures
There is no clear indication of a pesticides scheme or any other risk mitigation measure
in place in the forest and in the exporting nurseries, effective against L. japonica on
Robinia.
Main uncertainties
The presence of the pest in the surrounding environment of the pest is uncertain. The
distribution of the pest in other parts of Turkey is not known as there are no official
surveys.
(a): The “number of pest free plants per 10,000”is calculated ad “10,000 –Number of infested plants per 10,000”and
reordered from small to large to obtain the percentiles.
5.3.3. Overview of the evaluation of Pochazia shantungensis
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
9,818
out of 10,000
plants
9,873
out of 10,000
plants
9,921
out of 10,000
plants
9,962
out of 10,000
plants
9,983
out of 10,000
plants
Proportion of
infested plants
(a)
7
out of 10,000
plants
38
out of 10,000
plants
79
out of 10,000
plants
127
out of 10,000
plants
182
out of 10,000
plants
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 19 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Summary of
the information
used for the
evaluation
Possibility that the pest could become associate with the commodity
Pochazia shantungensis is a polyphagous planthopper present in the Marmara Region,
where nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia are located. Plants are grown in the open
field. Adults can spread and enter the nurseries by flying. R. pseudoacacia is reported
to be a host for P. shantungensis and due to its polyphagous nature host plants can be
widely available in the surrounding environment.
Measures taken against the pest and their efficacy
The relevant applied measures are: (i) regular inspections in the nurseries (at least 1
inspection per year) (ii) export inspections.
Interception records
There are no records of interceptions of P. shantungensis from Turkey.
Shortcomings of current measures/procedures
There is no clear indication of a pesticides scheme or any other risk mitigation measure
in place in the forest and in the exporting nurseries, effective against P. shantungensis
on Robinia.
Main uncertainties
The presence of the pest in the surrounding environment of the pest is uncertain. The
distribution of the pest in other parts of Turkey is not known as there are no official
surveys.
(a): The “number of pest free plants per 10,000”is calculated ad “10,000 - Number of infested plants per 10,000”and
reordered from small to large to obtain the percentiles.
5.3.4. Outcome of Expert Knowledge Elicitation
Table 8and Figure 3show the outcome of the EKE regarding pest freedom after the evaluation of
the currently proposed risk mitigation measures for the selected pests.
Figure 4provides an explanation of the descending distribution function describing the likelihood of
pest freedom after the evaluation of the currently proposed risk mitigation measures for
R. pseudoacacia bare rooted and potted plants designated for export to the EU based on the example
for Lopholeucapsis japonica.
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 20 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Table 8: Assessment of the likelihood of pest freedom following evaluation of current risk mitigation measures against Anoplophora chinensis,
Lopholeucapsis japonica and Pochazia shantungensis on Robinia pseudoacacia bare rooted and potted 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% uncertainty range regarding pest freedom. The pest freedom
categories are defined in panel B of the table
PANEL A
rebmuN
Group
*
Pest species
Somemes
pest free
More oen than not
pest free
Frequently
pest free
Very frequently
pest free
Extremely
frequently
pest free
Pest free with some
exceponal cases
Pest free with few
exceponal cases
Almost always
pest free
1Anoplophora chinensis LM U
2Lopholeucapsis japonica LM U
3Pochazia shantungensis LM U
PANEL B
Pest freedom category
Some mes
pest free L
More o en t ha n not
pest free M
Frequ ently
pest free U
Very frequently
pest free
Extremely frequently
pest free
Pest free with some
exceponal case s
Pest free with few
exceponal case s
Alm ost al way s
pest free
9,950 – ≤ 9,990
≤ 5,000
5,000 – ≤ 9,000
9,000 – ≤ 9,500
9,500 – ≤ 9,900
9,900 – ≤ 9,950
Legend of pest freedom categories
Pest freedom category includes the elicited
lower bound of the 90% unce rtainty range
Pest freedom category includes
the elicited median
Pest freedom category includes the elicited
upper bound of the 90% uncerta inty range
9,990 – ≤ 9,995
9,995 – ≤ 10,000
Pest fee plants
out of 10,000
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 21 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Figure 3: Elicited certainty (y-axis) of the number of pest-free Robinia pseudoacacia plants (x-axis;
log-scaled) out of 10,000 plants designated for export to the EU introduced from Turkey for
all evaluated pests visualised as descending distribution function. Horizontal lines indicate
the percentiles (starting from the bottom 5%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 95%). The Panel is 95%
sure that 9,813, 9,521 and 9,818 or more plants per 10,000 will be free from Anoplophora
chinensis, Lopholeucapsis japonica and Pochazia shantungensis, respectively
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 22 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
6. Conclusions
There are three pests identified to be present in Turkey and considered to be potentially associated
with bare rooted and potted plants of Robinia pseudoacacia imported from Turkey and relevant for the
EU.
For these pests (A. chinensis,L. japonica and P. shantungensis), the likelihood of the pest freedom
after the evaluation of the currently proposed risk mitigation measures for R. pseudoacacia designated
for export to the EU was estimated.
For Anoplophora chinensis the likelihood of pest freedom following evaluation of current risk
mitigation measures was estimated as ‘very frequently pest free’with the 90% uncertainty range
reaching from ‘very frequently pest free’to ‘pest free with some exceptional cases’. The Expert
Knowledge Elicitation (EKE) indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9,813 and 10,000 plants per
10,000 will be free from A. chinensis.
For Lopholeucapsis japonica the likelihood of pest freedom following evaluation of current risk
mitigation measures was estimated ‘very frequently pest free’with the 90% uncertainty range reaching
from ‘very frequently pest free’to ‘pest free with some exceptional cases’. The EKE indicated, with
95% certainty, that between 9,521 and 10,000 plants per 10,000 will be free from L. japonica.
For Pochazia shantungensis the likelihood of pest freedom following evaluation of current risk
mitigation measures was estimated as ‘extremely frequently pest free’with the 90% uncertainty range
reaching from ‘very frequently pest free’to ‘pest free with few exceptional cases’. The EKE indicated,
with 95% certainty, that between 9,818 and 10,000 plants per 10,000 will be free from
P. shantungensis.
Figure 4: Explanation of the descending distribution function describing the likelihood of pest
freedom after the evaluation of the currently proposed risk mitigation measures for plants
designated for export to the EU based on based on the example of Lopholeucapsis japonica
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 23 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
References
Abdalla OA, Eraky AI, Mohamed SA and Fahmy FG, 2018. Management of Potato virus Y (PVY–NTN) causing
potato tuber necrotic ringspot disease (PTNRD) in potato by prior treatment with a mild PVY strain. Journal of
Plant Protection Research.
Azaz AD, 2003. Investigation of the Microfungal Flora of the Bird Paradise National Park in Bandırma, Balıkesir
(Turkey). Turkish Journal of Biology, 27, 117–123.
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), online. CABI Crop Protection Compendium. Available
online: https://www.cabi.org/cpc/ [Accessed: 15 November 2020].
Castrillo LA, Griggs MH and Vandenberg JD, 2012. Brood production by Xylosandrus germanus (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae) and growth of its fungal symbiont on artificial diet based on sawdust of different tree species.
Environmental Entomology, 41, 822–827.
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), 2018. Guidance on quantitative Pest Risk Assessment. EFSA Journal
2018;16(8):5350, 86 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5350
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), 2019. Guidance on commodity risk assessment for the evaluation of
high risk plants dossiers. EFSA Journal 2019;17(4):5668, 20 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5668
EFSA Scientific Committee, 2018. Scientific Opinion on the principles and methods behind EFSA’s Guidance on
Uncertainty Analysis in Scientific Assessment. EFSA Journal 2018;16(1):5122,235 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/
j.efsa.2018.5122. ISSN:1831-4732
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), online. EPPO Global Database. Available
online: https://www.eppo.int/ [Accessed: 26 October 2019].
EUROPHYT, online. European Union Notification System for Plant Health Interceptions - EUROPHYT. Available
online: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/europhyt/index_en.htm [Accessed: 12 February
2021].
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 1995. ISPM (International standards for
phytosanitary measures) No 4. Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas. Available online: http://
www.ippc.int/en/publications/614/
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2017. ISPM (International standards for
phytosanitary measures) No. 5. Glossary of phytosanitary terms. FAO, Rome. Available online: https://www.
ippc.int/en/publications/622/
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, 22 pp. Available
online: https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/636/
Pennacchio F, Faggi M, Gatti E, Caronni F, Colombo M and Roversi PF, 2004. First record of Phloeotribus liminaris
(Harris) in Europe (Coleoptera Scolytidae). Redia, 87, 85–89.
Tooley PW and Browning M, 2009. Susceptibility to Phytophthora ramorum and inoculum production potential of
some common eastern forest understory plant species. Plant Disease, 93, 249–256.
TRACES NT, online. TRAde Control and Expert System. Available online: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/tracesnt/
index. [Accessed: 12 February 2021].
Glossary
Control (of a pest) Suppression, containment or eradication of a pest population (FAO,
1995, 2017). Suppression, containment or eradication of a pest
population (FAO, 1995, 2017).
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, 2017).
Establishment (of a pest) Perpetuation, for the foreseeable future, of a pest within an area
after entry (FAO, 2017).
Greenhouse A walk-in, static, closed place of crop production with a usually
translucent outer shell, which allows controlled exchange of
material and energy with the surroundings and prevents release of
plant protection products (PPPs) into the environment.
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, 2017)
Measures Control (of a pest) is defined in ISPM 5 (FAO 2017) as ‘Suppression,
containment or eradication of a pest population’(FAO, 1995).
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 24 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
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.
Pathway Any means that allows the entry or spread of a pest (FAO, 2017)
Phytosanitary measures Any legislation, regulation or official procedure having the purpose
to prevent the introduction or spread of quarantine pests, or to
limit the economic impact of regulated non-quarantine pests (FAO,
2017)
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, 2017)
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, 2017).
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, 2017)
Union quarantine pests European Union quarantine pest
Abbreviations
CABI Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International
EKE Expert knowledge elicitation
EPPO European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
ISPM International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures
PPIS Plant Protection & Inspection Services
PLH Plant Health
PRA Pest Risk Assessment
RNQPs Regulated Non-Quarantine Pests
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 25 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Appendix A –Data sheets of pests selected for further evaluation via
Expert Knowledge Elicitation
A.1. Anoplophora chinensis
A.1.1. Organism information
Taxonomic
information
Current valid scientific name: Anoplophora chinensis
Synonyms: Anoplophora macularia,Anoplophora malasiaca,Calloplophora macularia,
Cerambyx chinensis,Cerambyx farinosus,Cerambyx punctator,Melanauster chinensis,
Melanauster chinensis var. macularius,Melanauster macularius
Name used in the EU legislation: Anoplophora chinensis (Thomson) [ANOLCN]
Order: Coleoptera
Family: Cerambycidae
Common name: black and white longhorn, citrus long-horned beetle, citrus longhorn, citrus
root cerambycid, white-spotted longicorn beetle
Name used in the Dossier: Anoplophora chinensis
Group Insects
EPPO code ANOLCN
Regulated status The pest is listed in Annex II/B of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 as
Anoplophora chinensis (Thomson) [ANOLCN]. There are emergency measures in place in EU
(Commission Implementing Decision 2012/138/EU) and this pest is listed as a Priority Pest.
Pest status in
Turkey
Transient, under eradication (EPPO GD, online).
Pest status in
the EU
Not relevant, listed as EU Quarantine pest (Annex II, part B).
Host status on
Robinia
pseudoacacia
R. pseudoacacia is not listed as a preferred host plant for A. chinensis (EPPO 2013). Sj€
oman
et al. (2014) categorised Robinia spp. as a host for which there is evidence that unspecified
Robinia species can support the complete life cycle of the beetles. Sj€
oman et al. (2014)
categorised R. pseudoacacia as a host plant reported to be used as a feeding plant for
adults, but without confirmation that it can support the complete life cycle of the beetles.
PRA information van der Gaag DJ, Ciampitti M, Cavagna B, Maspero M and H
erard F, 2008. Pest Risk
Analysis for Anoplophora chinensis. Plant Protection Service, The Netherlands.
Other relevant information for the assessment
Biology A. chinensis is a woodboring beetle that attacks living trees. The beetle has a 1–2-years life
cycle in southern Europe. Depending on the temperature, adults emerge between April–May
and August (sometimes later). Adults live between 30 and 70 days. Adults conduct
maturation feeding for 10–15 days on twigs and the veins of leaves, before mate-finding
and copulation occurs.
Symptoms Main type
of symptoms
External signs of the presence of A. chinensis on or inside a tree
include oviposition pits, deposited larval frass, signs of maturation
feeding and exit holes. For more information on symptoms see EFSA
(2019).
Presence of
asymptomatic
plants
Plants can be infested with eggs and feeding larvae, without (evident)
external signs or symptoms.
Confusion with
other
pathogens/pests
Anoplophora glabripennis
Host plant range A. chinensis is a polyphagous pest, see EPPO (2013) for a full host plant list.
The preferred host plants of A. chinensis are (EPPO,2014): Acer spp., Aesculus
hippocastanum, Alnus spp., Betula spp., Carpinus spp., Citrus spp., Cornus spp., Corylus
spp., Cotoneaster spp., Crataegus spp., Fagus spp., Lagerstroemia spp., Malus spp.,
Platanus spp., Populus spp., Prunus laurocerasus, Pyrus spp., Rosa spp., Salix spp. and
Ulmus spp.
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 26 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Reported
evidence
of impact
Not relevant, listed as EU Quarantine pest (Annex II, part B).
Pathways and
evidence that the
commodity is a
pathway
The assessed commodities consisting of potted or bare rooted plants of 3–7 years old can
be a pathway for A. chinensis. The stem width of the exported plants is larger than 1 cm
which is sufficient for larval development.
Surveillance
information
A surveillance programme is in place in relation to outbreak management of A. chinensis in
Turkey, following the guidelines in the EU Emergency Measures for A. chinensis.
A.1.2. Possibility of pest presence in the nurseries
A.1.2.1. Possibility of entry from the surrounding environment
The pest status of A. chinensis in Turkey is ‘transient, under eradication’(EPPO, 2020). In Turkey,
A. chinensis was first found on Acer palmatum, A. saccharum and Salix caprea in a nursery located in
the Sile district near Istanbul in June 2014 (EPPO RS 2015/067). Since then, surveys have been carried
out in Istanbul and across the country. According to the dossier (Section 3.0) phytosanitary measures,
in line with the Decision 2008/840/EC, have been taken to eradicate the pest. All infested trees have
been destroyed, an intensive survey and awareness raising programmes have been implemented. In
the Istanbul area A. chinensis was detected on Acer sp. Salix caprea,Fagus orientalis,Aesculus
hippocastanum,Platanus orientalis,Populus nigra and Salix babylonica. According to information
provided in the dossier A. chinensis has also been found in the Bartın province in 2015 (on Acer
palmatum, A. saccharum, Salix caprea and Lagerstromia indica) and in 2016 in Antalya province (on
Acer spp. and Platanus spp.). According to information provided in the dossier, the outbreak in Bartin
province has been eradicated, but A. chinensis is still under eradication in Istanbul and Antalya. In
addition, there are three recent records of A. chinensis in the Istanbul area (one in 2019 and two in
2020) that have been reported on GBIF (GBIF, online).
In Decision 2012/138/EU requirements are specified for the import of specified preferred host
plants of A. chinensis. Following EPPO (2014), these preferred hosts plant are: Acer spp., Aesculus
hippocastanum, Alnus spp., Betula spp., Carpinus spp., Citrus spp., Cornus spp., Corylus spp.,
Cotoneaster spp., Crataegus spp., Fagus spp., Lagerstroemia spp., Malus spp., Platanus spp., Populus
spp., Prunus laurocerasus, Pyrus spp., Rosa spp., Salix spp.and Ulmus spp.For the specified plant
species the export country has to specify that the plants are produced in pest free areas for
A. chinensis or that the plants have been produced in insect proof greenhouses.
Thus R. pseudoacacia is not mentioned in this list of specified plants and therefore, there are no
specific requirements for the import of R. pseudoacacia plants from countries where A. chinensis is
known to occur. So far, there are no reports of A. chinensis on R. pseudoacacia in Turkey. However,
there is a possibility that nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia are present in the demarcated areas of
the current outbreak areas of A. chinensis. The pest detected in public lanes, public landscaping areas,
parks, gardens and recreation areas.
Both, forest nurseries producing seedlings of R. pseudoacacia and the production/exporting
nurseries can also produce several species of ornamental plants that are host plants of A. chinensis.
A. chinensis has been reported in three nurseries in Turkey (on Acer palmatum, A. saccharum and
Salix caprea) in the Istanbul area.
Uncertainties:
The intensity of the official national survey for A. chinensis.
The host plant species of A. chinensis present in nurseries.
The host plant status of R. pseudoacacia for A. chinensis.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that is possible
that A. chinensis can enter the nursery from the surrounding area.
A.1.2.2. Possibility of entry with new plants/seeds
The R. pseudoacacia plants delivered by forest nurseries to export nurseries (for production to the
desired age for export) can be a pathway for A. chinensis.
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 27 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
The plants delivered by forest nurseries have the age of at least one year and have an estimated
stem width of more than 1 cm, which is large enough to be attractive as oviposition site and suitable
for larval development of A. chinensis.
Uncertainties:
The intensity of the official national survey for A. chinensis.
The host plant status of R. pseudoacacia for A. chinensis.
The pest presence of A. chinensis in forest nurseries and its surrounding environment.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers it is possible
that the pest could enter the nursery with new plants.
A.1.2.3. Possibility of spread within the nursery
If A. chinensis is present on preferred host plants in a nursery, there is a possibility that it can
move to R. pseudoacacia plants. A. chinensis is reported to have a dispersal rate of 200 m/year
(40–900 m/year 90% uncertainty range) (EFSA, 2019).
Once A. chinensis is present in a nursery it can develop unnoticed. Data from the Netherlands
indicated that 25% of the plants present in a nursery of Acer palmatum (i.e. a preferred host species)
were infested with A. chinensis.
Uncertainties:
The host plant status of R. pseudoacacia for A. chinensis.
The host plant species of A. chinensis present in nurseries.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that the spread
of the pest within the nursery is possible.
A.1.3. Information from interceptions
In the EUROPHYT/TRACES NT database there are no interceptions of A. chinensis on plants for
planting from Turkey.
There are no records of interception of A. chinensis on Robinia spp. (all origins).
A.1.4. Evaluation of the risk reduction options
In the table below, all the risk mitigation measures currently applied in Turkey are summarised and
an indication of their effectiveness on Anoplophora chinensis is provided.
Number
Risk
mitigation
measures
Current measures in Turkey Evaluation and uncertainties
1 Registration of
the nursery and
Phytosanitary
management
Forest nurseries (producing young
plants) are officially registered and
inspected at least once a year.
All nurseries producing ornamental
plants are required to be a member
of the ornamental plant grower union
in Turkey and inspected at least once
a year. A plant passport or export
certificate is issued.
Nurseries are registered and inspected at
least once a year with an unknown
monitoring intensity.
2 Physical
protection
Some production of the early stages
of plants, but not of the older ones to
be exported, may take place in
production places with netting.
Adult beetles may enter open field
nurseries.
Adult beetles may be not able to enter
production places with nettings
Uncertainties
No specific information is provided
The proportion/stages of plants
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 28 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Number
Risk
mitigation
measures
Current measures in Turkey Evaluation and uncertainties
produced in production places with
nettings is not known.
3 Pest monitoring
and inspections
by the nursery
staff during the
production
process
Nurseries are officially inspected at
least once a year and for issuing the
export certificate.
There are guidelines available for
detection of pests in agricultural crops
(technical instructions for plant pests
in agricultural crops –link in Dossier,
Section 1).
A. chinensis has a quarantine status
in Turkey and there are specific
inspection instructions for
A. chinensis.
Early infestation stages maybe missed by
nursery staff
Uncertainties
No specific information is provided on
how the nurseries are applying the
inspection instructions. The intensity of
R. pseudoacacia inspection in the
nursery is probably low (i.e. is not listed
as preferred host).
4 Pesticide
treatment
There is a database for registered
insecticides in Turkey. There are no
products registered for Robinia.
There are guidelines available for the
management of pests in agricultural
crops (technical instructions for plant
pests in agricultural crops –link in
Dossier, Section 1).
There were pesticide applications
targeted at A. chinensis in Istanbul
areas on (apple, pear, cherry,
hazelnut, poplar, plane, birch, horse
chestnut, elm, alder, maple,
hornbeam, mountain medlar and
beech).
Uncertainties
No detailed information is provided, it is
unknown which insecticide are used in
R. pseudoacacia production.
5 Surveillance There are targeted national surveys
for A. chinensis in Turkey related to
the outbreak management.
In case A. chinensis is found,
eradication measures are to be
applied following EU Decision 2012/
138/EU
Uncertainties
The intensity of the national survey is
uncertain/unknown
Not known if the surveillance is carried
out also on R. pseudoacacia (i.e. not
preferred host)
6 Washing of roots Soil is removed by washing the roots
(only on bare rooted plants).
No detailed information is provided
Root washing has no effect on
A. chinensis.
7 Export
inspection
Prior to export the consignment is
visually inspected
If individual plants are inspected
A. chinensis may be detected.
Uncertainty:
Sampling intensity in the export
inspections is not known
A.1.5. Overall likelihood of the pest freedom
A.1.5.1. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number
of infested consignments
•There are no additional host plants of A. chinensis in the nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia
and in the surrounding environment.
•R. pseudoacacia is not a preferred host plant for A. chinensis.
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 29 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
•A. chinensis is under official control; there are targeted surveys and all outbreaks are detected
and managed.
A.1.5.2. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number
of infested consignments
•There are preferred host plants of A. chinensis in the nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia and
in the surrounding environment.
•A. chinensis was introduced in 2014 in the Istanbul area in a tree nursery. Since then, it has
been reported in other parts of Istanbul as well as in Antalya and Bartin. In 2020 the pest is
still under eradication in Istanbul and in Antalya. There are three recent records of findings of
adults of A. chinensis in the Istanbul area (GBIF, online).
•The young plants used for the production of R. pseudoacacia can originate from nurseries
throughout Turkey.
•It may take several years before a new outbreak is detected.
•There is uncertainty on the intensity of the official national surveys of A. chinensis.
•A. chinensis has been reported from tree nurseries in the same province where nurseries with
R. pseudoacacia are located.
A.1.5.3. Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over- or underestimate
the number of infested consignments (Median)
The value of the median is estimated based on:
•Based on the uncertainty on the efficacy of the eradication efforts, the Panel judge higher
values for being more likely. Therefore, the median was placed closer to the highest scenario.
A.1.5.4. Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining
uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/interquartile range)
The main uncertainty is the population pressure in the surrounding environment.
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 30 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
A.1.5.5. Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Anoplophora chinensis
The following Tables show the elicited and fitted values for pest infestation/infection (Table A.1) and pest freedom (Table A.2).
Based on the numbers of estimated infested plants the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. =10,000 –the number of infested plants per 10,000). The
fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in Table A.2.
Table A.1: Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation by Anoplophora chinensis per 10,000 plants
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97.5% 99%
Elicited values 1 70 110 150 200
EKE 9.71 16.8 25.6 39.1 53.8 69.6 83.9 111 136 150 164 176 187 194 199
The EKE result is the Beta General distribution (1.6872, 1.4855) fitted with @Risk version 7.5.
Table A.2: The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Anoplophora chinensis per 10,000 plants calculated by Table A.1
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97.5% 99%
Values 9,800 9,850 9,890 9,930 9,999
EKE results 9,801 9,806 9,813 9,824 9,836 9,850 9,864 9,889 9,916 9,930 9,946 9,961 9,974 9,983 9,990
The EKE results are the fitted values.
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 31 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
(a)
(b)
(c)
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 32 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
A.1.6. Reference list
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), Hoppe B, Schrader G, Kinkar M and Vos S, 2019. Pest survey card on
Anoplophora chinensis. EFSA Supporting Publications, 16, 1747E.
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), onlinea. EPPO A2 List of pests recommended
for regulation as quarantine pests, version 2019-09. Available online: https://www.eppo.int/ACTIVITIES/plant_
quarantine/A2_list [Accessed: 13 May 2020].
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), onlineb. Anoplophora chinensis (ANOLCN),
Categorization. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/ANOLCN/categorization [Accessed: 13 May 2020].
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), onlinec. Anoplophora chinensis (ANOLCN),
Distribution. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/ANOLCN/distribution [Accessed: 13 May 2020].
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), onlined. Anoplophora chinensis (ANOLCN),
Host plants. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/ANOLCN/hosts [Accessed: 13 May 2020].
Sj€
oman H,
€
Ostberg J and Nilsson J, 2014. Review of host trees for the wood-boring pests Anoplophora
glabripennis and Anoplophora chinensis: an urban forest perspective. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 40, 143–
164.
Van der Gaag DJ, Ciampitti M, Cavagna B, Maspero M and H
erard F, 2008. Pest risk analysis Anoplophora chinensis
[Internet]: Plant Protection Service. Wageningen, The Netherlands. Available online: http://edepot.wur.nl/
117610
A.2. Lopholeucapsis japonica
A.2.1. Organism information
Taxonomic
information
Current valid scientific name: Lopholeucaspis japonica
Synonyms: Leucaspis hydrangea,Leucaspis japonica darwinensis
Name used in the EU legislation: Lopholeucaspis japonica Cockerell [LOPLJA]
Order: Hemiptera
Family: Diaspididae
Common name: Japanese long scale, Japanese maple scale, Japanese pear white
scale
Name used in the Dossier: Lopholeucaspis japonica
Group Insects
EPPO code LOPLJA
Regulated status The pest is listed in Annex II of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU)
2019/2072 as Lopholeucaspis japonica Cockerell [LOPLJA]
Pest status in
Turkey
Lopholeucaspis japonica is present in Turkey (EPPO, online) and it is located in the
Black Sea Region (integration of information of the technical dossiers received on
27 November 2020). The pest has a quarantine status in Turkey (A2 list).
Pest status in the EU Not relevant, listed as EU Quarantine pest (Annex II, part A).
Host status on Robinia
pseudoacacia
Robinia pseudoacacia has been reported as a host of Lopholeucaspis japonica in Iran
(Moghaddam, 2013) and South Korea (Suh, 2020).
PRA information Pest Risk Assessments available:
•Final import risk analysis report for fresh apple fruit from the People’s Republic
of China (Biosecurity Australia, 2010),
Scientific Opinion on the pest categorisation of Lopholeucaspis japonica (EFSA PLH
Panel, 2018).
Figure A.1: (a) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation 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 infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (c)
descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 plants
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 33 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Other relevant information for the assessment
Biology L. japonica is oyster shell-shaped armoured scale, originating from Far East and it
spread to tropical and semitropical areas (CABI, online).
Females and males have different life cycle. The life stages of female are egg, two
larval instars and adult, while male has additional two stages called pre-pupa and
pupa (CABI, online). Males are small and have wings (Bienkowski, 1993), while
females are sessile covered by scale formed by wax filaments originating from the
pygidium (Tabatadze and Yasnosh, 1999). The colour of females, eggs and crawlers is
lavender. The wax which is covering the body of scales is white (Fulcher et al., 2011).
Each female lay on average 25 eggs, which are laid underneath the female bodies
(Addesso et al., 2016; Fulcher et al., 2011).
Crawlers can be dispersed by wind or other insects (e.g. ants, flies and ladybirds),
occasionally also by human transport (Magsig-Castillo et al., 2010).
L. japonica has one or two overlapping generations per year (Addesso et al., 2016). It
was reported that occasionally there can be a third generation in Georgia (Tabatadze
and Yasnosh, 1999). In India, first generation crawlers were observed from late Mach
until the end of April. Females and male pupae were present from June till the end of
August. Second generation crawlers occurred in September and matured females in
October (Harsur et al., 2018).
L. japonica overwinters as an immature stage on trunks and branches in Tennessee
(Fulcher et al., 2011) and second instar males and females in Maryland (Gill et al.,
2012). In addition, it has been reported to overwinter as fertilised females in Japan
(Murakami, 1970) and in Pennsylvania (Stimmel, 1995). They can endure
temperatures of -20 to -25°C (EPPO, 1997).
Symptoms Main type
of symptoms
L. japonica is usually on bark of branches and trunk but can be
found also on leaves (Gill et al., 2012) and sometimes on fruits
(EPPO, 1997).
The scale feeds on plant storage cells, which causes them to
collapse (Fulcher et al., 2011). When the population is high, the
main symptoms on plants are premature leaf drop, dieback of
branches and death of plants (Fulcher et al., 2011; Gill et al.,
2012).
Presence of
asymptomatic
plants
Early infestations are difficult to be detected.
Confusion with
other pests
L. japonica can be confused with other armoured scales.
L. japonica is similar to L. cockerelli but can be differentiated by
the number of macroducts (Garc
ıa Morales et al., online).
Host plant
range
L. japonica is polyphagous armoured scale and feeds on plants belonging to 38
families (Garc
ıa Morales et al., online).
Some of the many hosts of L. japonica are Acer palmatum,Acer pictum,Acer
ukurunduense,Citrus junos,Citrus unshiu,Diospyros kaki,Distylium racemosum,
Elaeagnus umbellata,Euonymus alatus,Euonymus japonicus,Gleditsia japonica,Ilex
crenata,Magnolia denudata,Magnolia kobus,Malus pumila,Paeonia lactiflora,
Poncirus trifoliata,Prunus 9yedoensis,Pyrus pyrifolia,Robinia pseudoacacia,Rosa
chinensis,Rosa multiflora,Salix sp., Staphylea bumalda,Syringa oblata and Ziziphus
jujuba (Suh, 2020).
Reported evidence of
impact
Not relevant, listed as EU Quarantine pest (Annex II, part B).
Evidence that
the commodity
is a pathway
and other pathways
L. japonica can be present on stems, branches of bare rooted plants and on leaves,
branches and stems of potted plants.
Other pathways of entry for L. japonica are plants for planting of other species than
R. pseudoacacia, cut flowers and cut branches (EFSA PLH Panel, 2018).
Surveillance
information
No surveillance information for this pest is currently available from Turkey.
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 34 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
A.2.2. Possibility of pest presence in the nursery
A.2.2.1. Possibility of entry from the surrounding environment
L. japonica is present in the Black Sea Region in Turkey (Dossier, integration of information), where
some of the nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia are located. It can spread with crawlers either with
air currents or transported accidentally by human activities or hitchhiking on animals.
Crawlers can walk a small distance of up to a few meters and mainly within a tree or between
touching branches of neighbouring trees (Biosecurity Australia, 2010).
Plants are grown in the open field. The pest is present in Turkey and due to its polyphagous nature
host plants are widely available in the surrounding environment.
Uncertainties:
–The distribution of the pest in other part of Turkey is not known as there are no official
surveys.
–The presence of the pest in the surrounding environment of the pest is uncertain.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that it is
possible for the pest to enter the nursery from the surrounding area.
A.2.2.2. Possibility of entry with new plants/seeds
R. pseudoacacia plants in Turkey are grown mainly from seeds. However, some specific varieties
(mainly ball acacia (Umbralificer) and pink flowers (Casquer roque)) are grafted with scions. The origin
of the scions was not specified.
The R. pseudoacacia plants delivered by forest nurseries, located in areas where L. japonica is
present, to export nurseries (for production to the desired age for export) can be a pathway for
L. japonica.
Uncertainties:
–The origin of scions in relation to the infested areas. The age of the plants where scions are
taken from is not known.
–The entry of other host plants in the export nursery
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers it possible that
the pest could enter the nursery with new plants.
A.2.2.3. Possibility of spread within the nursery
The pest can spread as crawlers either with air currents or transported accidentally as hitchhikers.
The plants are grown in an open nursery and dispersal of crawlers by wind or human activities is
possible. Other suitable host plants could be present in the nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia.
Uncertainties:
The likelihood of spread into the nursery by wind and human activity.
The presence and distribution of other host plants in the nursery.
Taking into consideration the above evidences and uncertainties, the Panel considers that the
spread of the pest within the nursery is possible.
A.2.4. Information from interceptions
In the EUROPHYT/TRACES NT database there are no interceptions of L. japonica from Turkey.
There was one interception of L. japonica on Acer sp. bonsai plants from China, indicating that trade
of plants for planting can be a pathway for the pest (EUROPHYT online).
A.2.5. Evaluation of the risk mitigation options
In the table below, all the risk mitigation measures currently applied in Turkey are summarised and
an indication of their effectiveness on L. japonica is provided.
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 35 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Number
Risk
mitigation
measures
Current measures in Turkey Evaluation of the measures on
L. japonica
1 Registration of
the nursery and
Phytosanitary
management
Forest nurseries (producing young plants)
are officially registered and inspected at least
once a year.
All nurseries producing ornamental plants are
required to be a member of the ornamental
plant grower union in Turkey and inspected
at least once a year. A plant passport or
export certificate is issued.
Nurseries are registered and
inspected at least once a year
2 Physical
protection
Some production of the early stages of
plants, but not of the older ones to be
exported, may take place in production
places with netting.
Crawlers may enter open field
nurseries.
Crawlers may be not able to enter
production places with nettings
Uncertainties
No specific information is provided
The proportion/stages of plants
produced in production places with
nettings is not known.
3 Pest monitoring
and inspections
by the nursery
staff during the
production
process
Nurseries are officially inspected at least
once a year and for issuing the export
certificate.
There are no targeted inspections for the
actionable pest.
There are guidelines available for detection
of pests in agricultural crops (technical
instructions for plant pests in agricultural
crops –link in Dossier, Section 1).
Uncertainties
No detailed information is provided
4 Pesticide
treatment
There is a database for registered
insecticides in Turkey. There are no products
registered for Robinia.
There are guidelines available for the
management of pests in agricultural crops
(technical instructions for plant pests in
agricultural crops –link in Dossier, Section 1).
Uncertainties
No detailed information is provided, it
is unknown which insecticides are
used in R. pseudoacacia production.
5 Surveillance There are no targeted surveys for the
actionable pests.
Uncertainties
No detailed information is provided
6 Washing of roots Soil is removed by washing the roots of bare
rooted plants.
Root washing has no effect on
L. japonica.
7 Export
inspection
Prior to export the consignment is visually
inspected
If individual plants are inspected
L. japonica may be detected. In cases
only L. japonica crawlers are present
they may escape detection.
Uncertainty:
Sampling intensity in the export
inspections
A.2.5. Overall likelihood of pest freedom
A.2.5.1. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number
of infested consignments
•The pest has a restricted distribution in Turkey and has never been reported in the nurseries or
their surrounding environment.
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 36 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
•Insecticide treatment against other scale insects is very effective.
•The distance between the nurseries and the alternative hosts of the pest in the surrounding
environment is very large. Therefore, transfer from sources in the surrounding environment to
the nursery plants is very difficult for a crawling insect.
•Suitable hosts are not present in the production area.
A.2.5.2. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number
of infested consignments
•There are nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia located in the area where L. japonica is
prevalent.
•There are no targeted insecticide treatments against L. japonica.
•There are suitable hosts in the production area, in close proximity with Robinia plants.
•The growers could be unaware of the presence of L. japonica in the area.
•The pest could go undetected during inspections of the nursery.
•Nursery workers could introduce hitchhiking insects to nursery.
•Crawlers are transported by wind currents from the surrounding environment to the nursery.
A.2.5.3. Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over- or underestimate
the number of infested consignments (Median)
Regarding the lack of information on the pest, the Panel judge lower values for being more likely.
Therefore, the median was placed closer to the lowest scenario.
A.2.5.4. Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining
uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/interquartile range)
The main uncertainty is the population pressure of L. japonica in the surrounding environment.
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 37 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
A.2.5.5. Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Lopholeucapsis japonica
The following Tables show the elicited and fitted values for pest infestation/infection (Table A.3) and pest freedom (Table A.4).
Based on the numbers of estimated infested plants the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. =10,000 –the number of infested plants per 10,000). The
fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in Table A.2.
Table A.3: Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation by Lopholeucapsis japonica per 10,000 plants
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97.5% 99%
Elicited values 5 125 250 375 500
EKE 5.20 12.8 25.5 50.5 84 125 166 250 333 375 418 452 479 492 500
The EKE result is the Beta General distribution (1.0129,1.0328) fitted with @Risk version 7.5.
Table A.4: The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Lopholeucapsis japonica per 10,000 plants calculated by Table A.3
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97.5% 99%
Values 9,500 9,625 9,750 9,875 9,995
EKE results 9,500 9,508 9,521 9,548 9,582 9,625 9,667 9,750 9,834 9,875 9,916 9,949 9,975 9,987 9,995
The EKE results are the fitted values.
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 38 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
(a)
(b)
(c)
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 39 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
A.2.6. Reference list
Addesso KM, Blalock A and O’Neal PA, 2016. Japanese Maple Scale Activity and Management in Field Nursery
Production. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 34, 41–46. https://doi.org/10.24266/0738-2898-34.2.41
Bienkowski AO, 1993. Morphology and systematics of the adult male of Lopholeucaspis japonica (Cockerell)
(Coccinea Diaspididae). Russian Entomological Journal, 2, 25–29.
Biosecurity Australia, 2010. Final import risk analysis report for fresh apple fruit from the People’s Republic of
China. Biosecurity Australia, Canberra.
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), online. Lopholeucaspis japonica (Japanese baton
shaped scale). Available online: https://www.cabi.org/cpc/datasheet/31328 [Accessed: 14 September 2020].
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Jeger M, Bragard C, Caffier D, Candresse T, Chatzivassiliou E,
Dehnen-Schmutz K, Gilioli G, Gregoire J-C, Jaques Miret JA, Navajas Navarro M, Niere B, Parnell S, Potting R,
Rafoss T, Rossi V, Urek G, Van Bruggen A, Van der Werf W, West J, Winter S, Kertesz V and MacLeod A, 2018.
Scientific Opinion on the pest categorisation of Lopholeucaspis japonica. EFSA Journal 2018;16(7):5353, 23 pp.
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5353
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), 1997. Lopholeucaspis japonica. In: Quarantine
pests for Europe: data sheets on quarantine pests for the European Union and for the European and
Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. pp. 384–387. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), onlinea. EPPO A2 List of pests recommended
for regulation as quarantine pests, version 2019-09. Available online: https://www.eppo.int/ACTIVITIES/plant_
quarantine/A2_list [Accessed: 26 May 2020].
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), onlineb. Lopholeucaspis japonica (LOPLJA),
Categorization. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/LOPLJA/categorization [Accessed: 126 May 2020].
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), onlinec. Lopholeucaspis japonica (LOPLJA),
Distribution. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/LOPLJA/distribution [Accessed: 26 May 2020].
EUROPHYT, online. European Union Notification System for Plant Health Interceptions - EUROPHYT Available
online: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/europhyt/index_en.htm [Accessed: 26 May
2020].
Fulcher A, Hale F and Halcomb M, 2011. Japanese maple scale: An important new insect pest in the nursery and
landscape. University of Tennessee, Extension Publications.
Garc
ıa Morales M, Denno BD, Miller DR, Miller GL, Ben-Dov Y and Hardy NB, online. ScaleNet: A literature-based
model of scale insect biology and systematics, Lopholeucaspis japonica. Available online: http://scalenet.info/ca
talogue/Lopholeucaspis%20japonica/ [Accessed 26 May 2020].
Gill S, Shrewsbury P and Davidson J, 2012. Japanese maple scale (Lopholeucaspis japonica): a pest of nursery and
landscape trees and shrubs. University of Maryland Extension fact sheet.
Harsur MM, Joshi S and Pal RN, 2018. Pomegranate: a new host for the invasive scale insect Lopholeucaspis
japonica (Cockerell, 1897) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) from Gujarat, India. Oriental Insects. 1080/
00305316.2018.1451783
Magsig-Castillo J, Morse JG, Walker GP, Bi JL, Rugman-Jones PF and Stouthamer R, 2010. Phoretic dispersal of
armored scale crawlers (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 103, 1172–1179. https://
doi.org/10.1603/ec10030
Miller DR, Davidson JA. 1990. A list of armoured scale pests. In: Rosen D (ed.). Armoured scale insects. Vol. 4B.
Amsterdam: Elsevier; pp. 299–306.
Moghaddam M, 2013. An annotated checklist of the scale insects of Iran (Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha, Coccoidea)
with new records and distribution data. ZooKeys, 334, 1. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.334.5818
Murakami Y, 1970. A review of biology and ecology of Diaspine scales in Japan (Homoptera, Coccoidea). Mushi,
43, 65–114.
Stimmel JF, 1995. “Japanese maple scale”,Lopholeucaspis japonica (Cockerell). Regulatory horticulture,
entomology circular No. 176, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry. 21, 33–34.
Suh SJ, 2020. Host plant list of the scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) in South Korea. Insecta Mundi.
Tabatadze ES and Yasnosh VA, 2016. Population dynamics and biocontrol of the Japanese scale, Lopholeucaspis
japonica (Cockerell) in Georgia. Entomologica, 33, 429–434.
Figure A.2: (a) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation 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 infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (c)
descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 plants
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 40 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
A.3. Pochazia shantungensis
A.3.1. Organism information
Taxonomic
information
Current valid scientific name: Pochazia shantungensis
Synonyms: Ricania shantungensis
Order: Hemiptera
Family: Ricaniidae
Common name:
Group Insects
EPPO code POCZSH
Regulated status The pest is not regulated in the EU. Pochazia shantungensis is not included in any
EPPO list and it is not regulated anywhere in the world.
Pest status in Turkey Pochazia shantungensis is present in Turkey according to the paper of Hizal et al.
(2019) as Ricania shantungensis. According to the information provided in the dossier
(integration of information) the pest is present in the Marmara region.
Pest status in the EU Pochazia shantungensis has been reported in France in 2018 (Bourgoin, 2020).
Host status on
Robinia pseudoacacia
Robinia pseudoacacia is reported as a host of Pochazia shantungensis (CABI Crop
Protection Compendium, online).
PRA information No Pest Risk Assessments available.
Other relevant information for the assessment
Biology Pochazia shantungensis lay eggs in zigzag rows and covers them with white wax
filaments. The eggs hatch around mid-May to early June with the spawning season
occurring in mid-August. This pest directly causes damage by sucking plant saps and
laying eggs. It also indirectly induces sooty mold disease on leaves through its
excretions. Lower developmental threshold, thermal constant, optimal developmental
temperature and upper developmental threshold were estimated to be 12.1°C, 202
DD, 31°C and 36.9°C, respectively (Baek, 2019). The pest is overwintering in the egg
stage. Adults started to lay eggs 3–4 weeks after they were transformed. From early
September to October, they gave damage. As the temperature fell, the number of
adults decreased. Two generation per year are reported for China and one generation/
year in South Korea.
Symptoms Main type
of symptoms
The insect causes damage by its sap feeding activity. As
phloem and xylem are destroyed by the habits of the
female adults that lay eggs on the branch of 1–year–old
host, it withers. In addition, sooty mould develops on
honeydew excreted by P. shantungensis and the tree
vigour declines (Choi et al., 2011).
Presence of
asymptomatic plants
Confusion with other
pathogens/pests
Host plant range The species is highly polyphagous. Kim et al. (2015) reports about 138 species of host
plants from 62 families. R. pseudoacacia is a known host plant for Pochazia
shantungensis.
In Turkey P.shantungensis was reported on Ligustrum lucidum and Liquidambar
styraciflua (Hizal et al., 2019)
Reported evidence of
impact
P.shantungensis is reported as an invasive pest in South Korea on several crops as
apple, blueberries, chestnut (Jo et al., 2016).
Evidence that the
commodity is a
pathway and other
pathways
Eggs can be present on the stems of bare rooted and potted plants.
Feeding larvae can be present on the leaves of potted plants.
Other pathways of entry for P. shantungensis are plants for planting of species other
than R. pseudoacacia.
Surveillance
information
No surveillance information for this pest is currently available from Turkey.
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 41 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
A.3.2. Possibility of pest presence in the nurseries
A.3.2.1. Possibility of entry from the surrounding environment
P. shantungensis is present in the Marmara Region (Dossier, integration of information), where
nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia are located. Adults can spread by flying.
Plants are grown in the open field. The pest is present in Turkey and due to its polyphagous nature
host plants are widely available in the surrounding environment.
P. shantungensis in South Korea has spread very fast after its introduction (Jo et al., 2018) and
R. pseudoacacia it is reported to be a host.
Uncertainties:
The distribution range of the species in Turkey is not known.
The pest pressure in the surrounding environment is not known.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that it is
possible for the pest to enter the nursery from the surrounding area.
A.3.2.2. Possibility of entry with new plants/seeds
P. shantungensis is present in the Marmara Region (Dossier, integration of information), where
nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia are located. Adults can spread by flying.
The pest can be introduced in the production/exporting nurseries via infested young plants coming
from forest nurseries or via infested plants of other host species entering the nursery to be grown in
the vicinity of Robinia plants.
P. shantungensis in South Korea has spread very fast after its introduction (Jo et al., 2016) and R.
pseudoacacia is reported to be a host.
Uncertainties:
–The distribution of the pest in Turkey
–The pest pressure in the surrounding environment
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that it is
possible for the pest to enter the nursery from the surrounding area.
A.3.2.3. Possibility of spread within the nursery
The pest can spread by flying. The plants are grown in an open nursery and dispersal of adults is
possible. Other suitable host plant species could be present in the nursery producing R. pseudoacacia.
Uncertainties:
The presence of other host plant species in the nursery.
Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that the spread
of the pest within the nursery is possible.
A.3.3. Information from interceptions
In the EUROPHYT/TRACES NT database there are no interceptions of P. shantungensis from Turkey.
There are no records of interception of P. shantungensis on Robinia spp. (all origins).
A.3.4. Evaluation of the risk reduction options
In the table below, all the RROs currently applied in Turkey are summarised and an indication of
their effectiveness on P. shantungensis is provided.
Number
Risk
mitigation
measures
Current measures in Turkey Evaluation of the measures on
P. shantungensis
1 Registration of
the nursery and
Forest nurseries (producing young plants)
are officially registered and inspected at
least once a year.
Nurseries are registered and
inspected at least once a year
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 42 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Number
Risk
mitigation
measures
Current measures in Turkey Evaluation of the measures on
P. shantungensis
Phytosanitary
management All nurseries producing ornamental plants
are required to be a member of the
ornamental plant grower union in Turkey
and inspected at least once a year. A plant
passport or export certificate is issued.
2 Physical
protection
Some production of the early stages of
plants, but not of the older ones to be
exported, may take place in production
places with netting.
Adults may enter open field
nurseries.
Adults may be not able to enter
production places with nettings
Uncertainties
No specific information is provided
The proportion/stages of plants
produced in production places with
nettings is not known.
3 Pest monitoring
and inspections
by the nursery
staff during the
production
process
Nurseries are officially inspected at least
once a year and for issuing the export
certificate.
There are no targeted inspections for the
actionable pest.
There are guidelines available for detection
of pests in agricultural crops (technical
instructions for plant pests in agricultural
crops –link in Dossier, Section 1).
Uncertainties
No detailed information is
provided
4 Pesticide
treatment
There is a database for registered
insecticides in Turkey. There are no
products registered for Robinia.
There are guidelines available for the
management of pests in agricultural crops
(technical instructions for plant pests in
agricultural crops –link in Dossier,
Section 1).
Uncertainties
No detailed information is
provided, it is unknown which
insecticide are used in R.
pseudoacacia production.
5 Surveillance There are no targeted surveys for the
actionable pests.
Uncertainties
No detailed information is
provided
6 Washing of roots Soil is removed by washing the roots of
bare rooted plants.
Root washing has no effect on
P. shantungensis
7 Export
inspection
Prior to export the consignment is visually
inspected
If individual plants are inspected
P. shantungensis may be detected.
Uncertainty:
Sampling intensity in the export
inspections
A.3.5. Overall likelihood of pest freedom
A.3.5.1. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number
of infested consignments
•The pest has a restricted distribution in Turkey and has never been reported in the nurseries or
their surrounding environment.
•Insecticide treatments against other insects are effective. There are not many suitable hosts
present in the production area.
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 43 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
A.3.5.2. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number
of infested consignments
•There are nurseries producing R. pseudoacacia located in the area where P. shantungensis is
present.
•There are no targeted insecticides treatments against P. shantungensis.
•There are suitable hosts in the production area and the pest is a good flyer.
•The growers could be unaware of the presence of P. shantungensis in the area.
•P. shantungensis is regarded as invasive pest and it could be more widespread in Turkey than
currently known.
•There are no targeted surveys for P. shantungensis.
A.3.5.3. Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over- or underestimate
the number of infested consignments (Median)
Based on the fact that an early infestation could be easily detected and removed, the Panel judges
lower values for being more likely. Therefore, the median was placed closer to the lowest scenario.
A.3.5.4. Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining
uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/interquartile range)
The main uncertainty is the population pressure in the surrounding environment.
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 44 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
A.3.5.5. Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Pochazia shantungensis
The following Tables show the elicited and fitted values for pest infestation/infection (Table A.5) and pest freedom (Table A.6).
Based on the numbers of estimated infested plants the pest freedom was calculated (i.e. =10,000 –the number of infested plants per 10,000). The
fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of the pest freedom are shown in Table A.2.
Table A.5: Elicited and fitted values of the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation by Pochazia shantungensis per 10,000 plants
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97.5% 99%
Elicited values 1.0 40 75 130 200
EKE 1.5 3.8 7.5 15 25 38 51 79 110 127 147 165 182 192 200
The EKE result is the Beta General distribution (1.0184,1.5041) fitted with @Risk version 7.5.
Table A.6: The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Pochazia shantungensis per 10,000 plants calculated by Table A.5
Percentile 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 17% 25% 33% 50% 67% 75% 83% 90% 95% 97.5% 99%
Values 9,800 9,870 9,925 9,960 9,999
EKE results 9,800 9,808 9,818 9,835 9,853 9,873 9,890 9,921 9,949 9,962 9,975 9,993 9,993 9,996 9,998
The EKE results are the fitted values.
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 45 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
(a)
(b)
(c)
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 46 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
A.3.6. Reference list
Baek S, Koh SH and Lee JH, 2019. Occurrence model of first instars of Ricania shantungensis (Hemiptera:
Ricaniidae). Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology, 22, 1040–1045.
Bourgoin T, Gros P and Stroi
nski A, 2020. Pochazia shantungensis (Chou & Lu, 1977), an important Asiatic invasive
pest on fruit trees, first time reported from France (Hemiptera, Fulgoromorpha, Ricaniidae). Bulletin de la
Soci
et
e Entomologique de France, 125, 271–272. https://doi.org/10.32475/bsef_2150
Choi YS, Hwang IS, Kang TJ, Lim JR and Choe KR, 2011. Oviposition characteristics of Ricania sp. (Homoptera:
Ricaniidae), a new fruit pest. Korean Journal of Applied Entomology, 50, 367–372.
Kim DE, Lee H, Kim MJ and Lee DH, 2015. Predicting the potential habitat, host plants, and geographical
distribution of Pochazia shantungensis (Hemiptera: Ricaniidae) in Korea. Korean Journal of Applied Entomology,
54, 179–189.
Hizal E, Oztemiz S and Gjonov I, 2019. Ricania shantungensis Chou & Lu 1977 (Hemiptera: Fulgomorpha: Ricanidae)
A new invasive insect species in European Turkey. Fresenius Environmental Bullettin, 28, 9816–9820.
Jo SH, Ryu TH, Kwon H, Seo MJ, Yu YM, Yasunaga-Aoki C and Youn YN, 2016. Ecological characteristics and
environmentally friendly control strategies of Pochazia shantungensis (Hemiptera: Ricaniidae) in Korea. Journal
of the Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, 61, 299–311.
Figure A.3: (a) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation 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 infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (c)
descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 plants
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 47 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Appendix B –Web of Science All Databases Search String
In the table below the search string used in Web of Science is reported. Totally, 2206 papers were
retrieved. Titles and abstracts were screened, and 158 pests were added to the list of pests (see
Appendix D).
Web of Science All
databases
TOPIC: “Robinia”OR “Robinia pseudoacacia”OR “R. pseudoacacia”OR “Robinia sp.”
OR “Robinia spp.”OR “black locust”
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-off”
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:“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 “toxicity”OR “weed control”OR “salt stress”OR “salinity”OR “cancer”OR
“pharmacology”OR “glucoside”OR “metabolites”OR “cross compatibility”OR “volatile”
OR “anti-inflammatory activity”OR “shelf life”OR “synthesis”OR “scent volatile”OR
“biodiesel”OR “poisoning”OR “toxicity”OR “biofertilizer”OR “cold tolerance”OR
“propagation”OR “nitrogen fixation”OR “biomass”OR “siviculture”OR “honey”OR
“heavy metal pollution”OR “bacterial community”OR “honeybee”OR “pollinator”OR
“ammino acids profile”OR “nutraceutical”OR “urban wastelands”OR “metals”)
NOT
TOPIC: (“Aphis craccivora”OR “Aulacorthum solani”OR “Alfalfa mosaic virus”OR
“Apate monachus”OR “Appendiseta robiniae”OR “Armillaria mellea”OR “Armillaria
ostoyae”OR “Bean yellow mosaic virus”OR “Bionectria ochroleuca”OR “Chaepus
dorsalis”OR “Chalara elegans”OR “Clanis bilineata”OR “Cydia trasias”OR “Dereodus
pollinosus”OR “Diplodia seriata”OR “Ecdytolopha insiticiana”OR “Elasmopalpus
lignosellus”OR “Erysiphe trifolii”OR “Fomitiporia mediterranea”OR “Fusarium
oxysporum”OR “Ganoderma lucidum”OR “Gibberella intricans”OR “Helicobasidium
mompa”OR “Lymantria dispar”OR “Lymantria obfuscata”OR “Maconellicoccus
hirsutus”OR “Macrosaccus robiniella”OR “Megacyllene robiniae”OR “Megaplatypus
mutatus”OR “Metcalfa pruinosa”OR “Nectria cinnabarina”OR “Odontota dorsalis”OR
“Orgyia leucostigma”OR “Parectopa robiniella”OR “Parthenolecanium corni”OR
“Parthenolecanium persicae”OR “Phaeoisariopsis robiniae”OR “Phloeospora robiniae”
OR “Phyllactinia guttata”OR “Phymatotrichopsis omnivora”OR “Phytophthora
drechsleri”OR “Pratylenchus penetrans”OR “Pythium myriotylum”OR “Tobacco mosaic
virus”OR “Tremex fuscicornis”OR “Xyleborus dispar”OR “euzera coffeae”OR “atocala
vidua”OR “Colias philodice”OR “Hypercompe scribonia”OR “Acronicta americana”OR
“Actias luna”OR “Acyrthosiphon caraganae”OR “Acyrthosiphon gossypii”OR
“Acyrthosiphon pisum”OR “Aeolesthes sarta”OR “Aglaospora anomia”OR “Aglaospora
profusa”OR “Agonopterix cratia”OR “Agonopterix robiniella”OR “Agonopterix
sanguinella”OR “Alsophila pometaria”OR “Alternaria alternata”OR “Alternaria
fasciculata”OR “Alternaria tenuis”OR “Alternaria tenuissima”OR “Amyelois transitella”
OR “Anoplophora chinensis”OR “Anoplophora glabripennis”OR “Anticarsia gemmatalis”
OR “Aonidiella aurantii”OR “Aphis solanella”OR “Aphis craccae”OR “Aphis craccivora”
OR “Aphis craccivora ssp.”OR “Aphis fabae”OR “Aphis gossypii”OR “Aphis
pseudoacaciae”OR “Aphis spiraecola”OR “Aplosporella chlorostroma”OR “Aplosporella
robiniae”OR “Appendiseta robiniae”OR “Appendiseta robiniae”OR “Apriona germari”
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 48 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
OR “Apriona rugicollis”OR “Archips argyrospila”OR “Arcyria magna var. rosea”OR
“Armillaria mellea”OR “Arthrobotrys oligospora”OR “Ascalapha odorata”OR “Ascochyta
robiniae”OR “Ascotis selenaria”OR “Aspidiotus nerii”OR “Auricularia polytricha”OR
“Automerella flexuosa”OR “Automeris annulata”OR “Automeris banus”OR “Automeris
cecrops”OR “Automeris complicata”OR “Automeris duchartrei”OR “Automeris excreta”
OR “Automeris granulosa”OR “Automeris hamata”OR “Automeris harrisorum”OR
“Automeris incarnata”OR “Automeris inornata”OR “Automeris io”OR “Automeris iris”
OR “Automeris jucunda”OR “Automeris leucane”OR “Automeris liberia”OR “Automeris
macphaili”OR “Automeris maeonia”OR “Automeris midea”OR “Automeris moloneyi”
OR “Automeris montezuma”OR “Automeris moresca”OR “Automeris randa”OR
“Automeris styx”OR “Automeris tridens”OR “Automeris zozine”OR “Barea confusella”
OR “Batia lunaris”OR “Batia unitella”OR “Bean yellow mosaic potyvirus”OR “Bionectria
ochroleuca”OR “Biston betularia”OR “Biston robustus”OR “Bjerkandera adusta”OR
“Botryosphaeria abrupta”OR “Botryosphaeria australis”OR “Botryosphaeria
berengeriana”OR “Botryosphaeria dothidea”OR “Botryosphaeria ribis”OR
“Botryosphaeria sp”OR “Botrytis cinerea”OR “Bruchidius cisti”OR “Bryobia
angustisetis”OR “Bryobia praetiosa”OR “Bryobia tadjikistanica”OR “Byssosphaeria
xestothele”OR “Byturus tomentosus”OR “Cacoecimorpha pronubana”OR “Cactodera
betulae”OR “Cadophora hiberna”OR “Calonectria dearnessii”OR “Calonectria
kyotensis”OR “Caloptilia stigmatella”OR “Calycellina populina”OR “Calyculosphaeria
collapsa”OR “Camarosporidiella celtidis”OR “Camarosporidiella mirabellensis”OR
“Camarosporidiella robiniicola”OR “Camarosporidiella schulzeri”OR “Camarosporium
caraganae”OR “Camarosporium elongatum”OR “Camarosporium hendersonioides”OR
“Camarosporium pseudacaciae”OR “Camarosporium robiniae”OR “Camarosporium
triacanthi”OR “Camillea tinctor”OR “Catocala amestris”OR “Catocala illecta”OR
“Cecidomyia orbiculata”OR “Cecidomyia prunicola”OR “Celastrina argiolus”OR
“Celiptera frustulum”OR “Ceraceomyces americanus”OR “Cerambyx cerdo”OR
“Ceratomia amyntor”OR “Cercophora sulphurella”OR “Cercospora curvata”OR
“Ceuthospora robiniae”OR “Chaetosphaerella fusca”OR “Chinavia hilaris”OR
“Chionaspis gleditsiae”OR “Chondrostereum purpureum”OR “Chorostate oncostoma”
OR “Chrysaster ostensackenella”OR “Chrysomphalus aonidum”OR “Chrysomphalus
dictyospermi”OR “Chrysopeleia purpuriella”OR “Cilioplea coronata subsp. montana”
OR “Cinabra hyperbius”OR “Citioica anthonilis”OR “Cladosporium allicinum”OR
“Cladosporium epiphyllum”OR “Cladosporium fumago”OR “Cladosporium herbarum”
OR “Cladosporium herbarum f. epixylon”OR “Cladosporium nigrellum”OR
“Cladosporium robiniae”OR “Cladosporium sp.”OR “Clathrospora turkestanica”OR
“Clavaspis ulmi”OR “Clitocybe illudens”OR “Coccus erion”OR “Coccus hesperidum”OR
“Coccus hesperidum hesperidum”OR “Coccus trichodes”OR “Coeliades forestan”OR
“Colias electo”OR “Colletotrichum destructivum”OR “Colletotrichum gloeosporioides”
OR “Colletotrichum glycines”OR “Colletotrichum nymphaeae”OR “Colletotrichum
truncatum”OR “Collybia velutipes”OR “Comstockaspis perniciosa”OR “Concaedes
carinata”OR “Coniochaeta pulveracea”OR “Coniosporium sp.”OR “Coniothyrium
acaciae”OR “Coniothyrium fuckelii”OR “Corticium rolfsii”OR “Coryneum trimerum”OR
“Crepidotus sp.”OR “Crustoderma marianum”OR “Cryphonectria radicalis”OR
“Cryptosphaeria millepunctata”OR “Cryptosporium robiniae”OR “Cryptovalsa nitschkei”
OR “Cryptovalsa rabenhorstii”OR “Cucurbidothis pithyophila”OR “Cucurbitaria
elongata”OR “Cucurbitaria spartii”OR “Cylindrocarpon destructans”OR
“Cylindrocladium floridanum”OR “Cylindrosporium robiniae”OR “Cylindrosporium
solitarium”OR “Cyphellopsis anomala”OR “Cytospora chrysosperma”OR “Cytospora
coccinea”OR “Cytospora leucosperma”OR “Cytospora ludibunda”OR “Cytospora sp.”
OR “Dacrymycella fertilissima”OR “Daedalea confragosa”OR “Daedalea quercina”OR
“Daedalea unicolor”OR “Daldinia childiae”OR “Daldinia vernicosa”OR “Dasylophia
anguina”OR “Datana integerrima”OR “Datana ministra”OR “Diaporthe fasciculata”OR
“Diaporthe oncostoma”OR “Diaspidiotus africanus”OR “Diaspidiotus ancylus”OR
“Diaspidiotus juglansregiae”OR “Diaspidiotus leguminosum”OR “Diaspidiotus osborni”
OR “Diaspidiotus uvae”OR “Diatrype sp.”OR “Diatrypella sp.”OR “Dictyothyrina
ananasicola”OR “Didymosphaeria robiniae”OR “Dinemasporium decipiens”OR
“Dinemasporium hispidulum”OR “Dinemasporium hispidulum var. brachychaetum”OR
“Dinemasporium pulvis-pyrius”OR “Dinemasporium robiniae”OR “Diplodia
photiniaecola”OR “Diplodia profusa”OR “Diplodia seriata”OR “Diplozythiella robiniae”
OR “Dirphia panamensis”OR “Discosia jordanovii”OR “Dothidotthia robiniae”OR
“Dothiorella glandulosa”OR “Dothiorella robiniae”OR “Dothiorella vidmadera”OR
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 49 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
“Drosicha turkestanica”OR “Eacles imperialis”OR “Eacles oslari”OR “Ecdytolopha
insiticiana”OR “Ecdytolopha punctidiscanum”OR “Ectomyelois ceratoniae”OR
“Ectostroma robiniae”OR “Ectropis bistortata”OR “Ectropis obliqua”OR “Elasmopalpus
lignosellus”OR “Enchenopa binotata”OR “Endothiella robinae”OR “Eotetranychus
matthyssei”OR “Eotetranychus populi”OR “Eotetranychus sexmaculatus”OR
“Eotetranychus tiliarium”OR “Eotrama orientalis”OR “Epargyreus clarus”OR
“Epargyreus tmolis”OR “Epicallima formosella”OR “Epicoccum nigrum”OR “Epidiaspis
leperii”OR “Erthesina fullo”OR “Erynnis funeralis”OR “Erynnis icelus”OR “Erynnis
zarucco”OR “Erysiphe communis f. robiniae”OR “Erysiphe martii”OR “Erysiphe
palczewskii”OR “Erysiphe polygoni”OR “Erysiphe polygoni f. robiniae-hispidae”OR
“Erysiphe pseudacaciae”OR “Erysiphe robiniae var. chinensis”OR “Erysiphe robiniae
var. robiniae”OR “Erysiphe robiniicola”OR “Erysiphe sp.”OR “Erysiphe subtrichotoma”
OR “Erysiphe trifolii”OR “Esperia oliviella”OR “Etiella zinckenella”OR “Euclea dolliana”
OR “Eulecanium circumfluum”OR “Euparthenos nubilis”OR “Euproctis chrysorrhoea”
OR “Eurema hecabe”OR “Eurema mexicana”OR “Eutypa heteracantha”OR “Eutypa
lata”OR “Eutypa ludibunda”OR “Eutypa scoparia”OR “Eutypa subtecta”OR “Eutypella
capillata”OR “Eutypella leprosa”OR “Eutypella microcarpa”OR “Eutypella scoparia”OR
“Eutypella sp.”OR “Eutypella tumida”OR “Eutypella venusta”OR “Euwallacea
fornicatus”OR “Exidiopsis calcea”OR “Exidiopsis paniculata”OR “Favolus squamosus”
OR “Favolus squamosus var. squamosus”OR “Filatima ornatifimbriella”OR “Filatima
pseudacaciella”OR “Filatima xanthuris”OR “Flammulina velutipes”OR “Fomes
applanatus”OR “Fomes connatus”OR “Fomes cytisinus”OR “Fomes fraxineus”OR
“Fomes igniarius”OR “Fomes leucophaeus”OR “Fomes rimosus”OR “Fomes robiniae”
OR “Fomes robustus”OR “Fomes vinosus”OR “Fomitella fraxinea”OR “Fomitiporia
punctata”OR “Fomitopsis ohiensis”OR “Fomitopsis pinicola”OR “Fomitopsis
semilaccata”OR “Fracchiaea heterogenea”OR “Fulvifomes robiniae”OR “Fumago sp.”
OR “Fusarium avenaceum”OR “Fusarium equiseti”OR “Fusarium herbarum”OR
“Fusarium lateritium”OR “Fusarium oligoseptatum”OR “Fusarium oxysporum”OR
“Fusarium pseudacaciae”OR “Fusarium sambucinum var. coeruleum”OR “Fusarium
sarcochroum”OR “Fusarium scolecoides”OR “Fusarium solani f. sp. robiniae”OR
“Fusarium sp.”OR “Fusarium sporotrichioides”OR “Fusarium spp”OR “Fusarium
ventricosum”OR “Fusicladium robiniae”OR “Ganoderma applanatum”OR “Ganoderma
lucidum”OR “Ganoderma resinaceum”OR “Gibberella baccata”OR “Gibberella lateritia”
OR “Gloeosporium revolutum”OR “Glomerella cingulata”OR “Guignardia robiniae”OR
“Gynanisa maja”OR “Gyrothrix pediculata”OR “Halyomorpha halys”OR “Halysidota
tessellaris”OR “Hapalopilus croceus”OR “Harpographium fasciculatum”OR
“Helicobasidium brebissonii”OR “Helicobasidium mompa”OR “Helicobasidium
purpureum”OR “Helicotylenchus dihystera”OR “Heliococcus bohemicus”OR
“Heliococcus destructor”OR “Heliomata cycladata”OR “Helminthosporium velutinum”
OR “Hemiberlesia lataniae”OR “Hemiberlesia rapax”OR “Hemileuca lex”OR
“Hemileuca rubridorsa”OR “Hemileuca tricolor”OR “Hendersonia obscura”OR
“Hendersonia pseudacaciae”OR “Hendersonula macrosperma”OR “Herpotrichia
lanuginosa”OR “Heterodera zeae”OR “Heterosporium robiniae”OR “Hirschioporus
lacteus”OR “Homadaula anisocentra”OR “Hyadaphis foeniculi”OR “Hyalophora
cecropia”OR “Hylesia lineata”OR “Hypena scabra”OR “Hyperchiria nausica”OR
“Hyphantria cunea”OR “Hyphodontia aspera”OR “Hyphodontia sambuci”OR
“Hysterium insidens”OR “Icerya purchase”OR “Icerya purchasi”OR “Imbrasia ertli”OR
“Imbrasia oyemensis”OR “Inonotus hispidus”OR “Inonotus quercustris”OR “Irpex
lacteus”OR “Isariopsis sp.”OR “Lachnus tropicalis”OR “Laetiporus sulphureus”OR
“Laetiporus sulphureus var. miniatus”OR “Laetiporus versisporus”OR “Lampides
boeticus”OR “Lasiosphaeria hispida”OR “Lecanodiaspis prosopidis”OR “Lecanodiaspis
rufescens”OR “Leiopus nebulosus”OR “Lepidosaphes malicola”OR “Lepidosaphes
ulmi”OR “Lepidosaphes yanagicola”OR “Leptoporus litschaueri”OR “Leptosphaeria
petiolicola”OR “Leucanella aspera”OR “Leucanella leucane”OR “Leucanella memusae”
OR “Leucodiaporthe robiniae”OR “Leucoptera robinella”OR “Leveillula taurica”OR
“Libertella robiniae”OR “Liothula sp.”OR “Lonomia cynira”OR “Lopharia cinerascens”
OR “Lophiotrema neohysterioides”OR “Lophocampa caryae”OR “Lophocampa
maculata”OR “Lopholeucaspis japonica”OR “Ludia delegorguei”OR “Lycorma
delicatula”OR “Lymantria dispar”OR “Maconellicoccus hirsutus”OR “Macrophoma
numerosa”OR “Macrosiphum euphorbiae”OR “Macrosporium heteronemum”OR
“Malacosoma americana”OR “Malacosoma californica”OR “Malacosoma disstria”OR
“Marasmius robinianus”OR “Marasmius sp.”OR “Massaria anomia”OR “Massaria
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 50 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
inquinans”OR “Massaria sp.”OR “Matsumuraeses falcana”OR “Megaplatypus mutatus”
OR “Melanaspis corticosa”OR “Melanconium viscosum”OR “Meloidogyne incognita”OR
“Meloidogyne sp.”OR “Mesocriconema xenoplax”OR “Mesosa nebulosa”OR
“Metasphaeria pseudacaciae”OR “Microsphaera baumleri”OR “Microsphaera diffusa”
OR “Microsphaera pseudacaciae”OR “Microsphaera robiniae”OR “Microsphaera
subtrichotoma”OR “Microsphaera trifolii”OR “Microsphaera trifolii var. Trifolii”OR
“Misturatosphaeria mariae”OR “Molippa nibasa”OR “Molippa rosea”OR “Molippa
sabina”OR “Mononychellus virginiensis”OR “Mycosphaerella pseudacaciae”OR
“Mycosphaerella sp.”OR “Myxormia convexula”OR “Myxosporium sp.”OR “Myzus
persicae”OR “Nathrius brevipennis”OR “Nectria cinnabarina”OR “Nectria coccinea”OR
“Nectria dematiosa”OR “Nectria galligena”OR “Nectria haematococca”OR “Nectria
ochroleuca”OR “Nectria pallidula”OR “Nectria peziza”OR “Nectria pseudotrichia”OR
“Nectria ventricosa”OR “Nematocampa filamentaria”OR “Nematocampa limbata”OR
“Nematocampa resistaria”OR “Nematus tibialis”OR “Neocosmospora silvicola”OR
“Neocosmospora sp.”OR “Neonectria punicea”OR “Neopeckia diffusa”OR
“Neopulvinaria innumerabilis”OR “Neopulvinaria innumerabilis”OR “Nephopterix
subcaesiella”OR “Nephopterix virgatella”OR “Neptis philyra”OR “Neptis sappho”OR
“Nipaecoccus filamentosus”OR “Obolodiplosis robiniae”OR “Ocrisia robiniella”OR
“Odontia alutacea”OR “Oidium ramosissimum”OR “Oidium sp.”OR “Oiketicus abbotii”
OR “Oiketicus platensis”OR “Oiketicus toumeyi”OR “Oiketicus townsendi”OR
“Oligoporus guttulatus”OR “Oncopodiella trigonella”OR “Orgyia leucostigma”OR
“Orgyia mixta”OR “Orthosia hibisci”OR “Otiorhynchus ligustici”OR “Oxyporus
latemarginatus”OR “Panonychus ulmi”OR “Papaipema nebris”OR “Papaya ringspot
virus”OR “Paradirphia boudinoti”OR “Paradirphia hoegei”OR “Paradirphia
lasiocampina”OR “Paradirphia semirosea”OR “Paralongidorus maximus”OR
“Paranthrene robiniae”OR “Paraputo porosus”OR “Parectopa lespedezaefoliella”OR
“Parectopa robiniella”OR “Parlatoreopsis chinensis”OR “Parlatoreopsis longispina”OR
“Parlatoria oleae”OR “Parthenolecanium corni”OR “Parthenolecanium corni”OR
“Parthenolecanium corni”OR “Parthenolecanium persicae”OR “Parthenolecanium
pruinosum”OR “Parthenolecanium rufulum”OR “Passalora robiniae”OR “Peanut stunt
cucumovirus”OR “Pellicularia filamentosa”OR “Peniophora firma”OR “Peniophora
heterocystidia”OR “Perenniporia fraxinea”OR “Perenniporia medulla-panis”OR
“Perenniporia robiniophila”OR “Perenniporia tenuis”OR “Periphoba hircia”OR “Pero
honestaria”OR “Peroneutypa scoparia”OR “Pestalotia sp”OR “Phaeoisariopsis robiniae”
OR “Phakopsora pachyrhizi”OR “Phalera bucephala”OR “Phanerochaete ericina”OR
“Phanerochaete filamentosa”OR “Phanerochaete sanguinea”OR “Phellinus gilvus”OR
“Phellinus linteus”OR “Phellinus pomaceus”OR “Phellinus punctatus”OR “Phellinus
rimosus”OR “Phellinus robiniae”OR “Phellinus robustus”OR “Phellinus torulosus”OR
“Phenacoccus aceris”OR “Phialocephala hiberna”OR “Phlebia chrysocreas”OR
“Phloeospora robiniae”OR “Pholiota squarrosa”OR “Phoma caraganae”OR “Phoma
fuckelii”OR “Phoma hauderingii”OR “Phoma labens”OR “Phoma macrostoma”OR
“Phoma sp.”OR “Phomopsis oncostoma”OR “Phomopsis pseudacaciae”OR “Phomopsis
sp.”OR “Phyllactinia corylea”OR “Phyllactinia fraxini”OR “Phyllactinia guttata”OR
“Phyllactinia robiniae”OR “Phyllactinia suffulta”OR “Phyllonorycter fitchella”OR
“Phyllonorycter gemmea”OR “Phyllonorycter morrisella”OR “Phyllonorycter robiniella”
OR “Phyllonorycter uhlerella”OR “Phyllosticta advena”OR “Phyllosticta capitalensis”OR
“Phyllosticta neomexicana”OR “Phyllosticta pseudacaciae”OR “Phyllosticta robiniae”
OR “Phyllosticta robiniella”OR “Phyllosticta sp.”OR “Phymatotrichum omnivorum”OR
“Physalospora obtusa”OR “Phytophthora asiatica”OR “Phytophthora cactorum”OR
“Phytophthora cambivora”OR “Phytophthora cinnamomi”OR “Phytophthora cinnamomi
var. robiniae”OR “Phytophthora citrophthora”OR “Phytophthora drechsleri”OR
“Phytophthora megasperma”OR “Phytophthora megasperma var. megasperma”OR
“Phytophthora nicotianae”OR “Phytophthora parasitica”OR “Phytophthora plurivora”
OR “Phytophthora richardiae”OR “Phytophthora sp.”OR “Planococcus citri”OR
“Pleonectria austroamericana”OR “Pleospora aureliana”OR “Pleospora herbarum”OR
“Pleospora leguminum”OR “Pleospora petiolorum”OR “Pleospora robineae”OR
“Pleospora turkestanica”OR “Pleurotus ostreatus”OR “Polyporus alveolaris”OR
“Polyporus biformis”OR “Polyporus compactus”OR “Polyporus gilvus”OR “Polyporus
hirsutus”OR “Polyporus lucidus”OR “Polyporus obtusus”OR “Polyporus rhodophaeus”
OR “Polyporus robiniophilus”OR “Polyporus squamosus”OR “Polyporus sulphureus”OR
“Polyporus unitus”OR “Polyura sempronius”OR “Popillia japonica”OR “Poria ambigua”
OR “Poria ferruginosa”OR “Poria incrassata”OR “Poria robusta”OR “Poria umbrina”OR
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 51 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
“Poria unita”OR “Pratylenchus penetrans”OR “Pratylenchus vulnus”OR “Prionoxystus
robiniae”OR “Proeulia auraria”OR “Prosopophora robiniae”OR “Psathyrella
candolleana”OR “Pseudanthracia coracias”OR “Pseudaulacaspis pentagona”OR
“Pseudautomeris latus”OR “Pseudocercospora sp.”OR “Pseudococcus adonidum”OR
“Pseudococcus comstocki”OR “Pseudococcus longispinus”OR “Pseudococcus
maritimus”OR “Pseudococcus viburni”OR “Pseudodirphia eumedide”OR
“Pseudodirphia eumedidoides”OR “Pseudoidium sp.”OR “Pseudolachnea hispidula”OR
“Pseudovalsa profusa”OR “Psilocorsis cryptolechiella”OR “Pterostoma sinicum”OR
“Ptychogaster cubensis”OR “Pulvinaria regalis”OR “Pulvinaria vitis”OR “Pycnoporus
coccineus”OR “Pyrosis undulosa”OR “Pyrrhia umbra”OR “Pythium myriotylum”OR
“Pythium sp.”OR “Pythium spp”OR “Radulomyces confluens”OR “Rebentischia
massalongii”OR “Rectifusarium robinianum”OR “Rhabdospora breviuscula”OR “Rhizina
undulata”OR “Rhizoctonia bataticola”OR “Rhizoctonia solani”OR “Rhodocyphella
cupuliformis”OR “Rosellinia aquila”OR “Rosellinia corticium”OR “Rosellinia mastoidea”
OR “Rosellinia saccardoi”OR “Rosellinia subiculata”OR “Rungaspis capparidis”OR
“Rungaspis macrolobis”OR “Russellaspis pustulans pustulans”OR “Schiffermuelleria
procerella”OR “Schizura concinna”OR “Schizura unicornis”OR “Sclerodon strigosus”
OR “Sclerotium bataticola”OR “Sclerotium rolfsii”OR “Scolicosporium pauciseptatum”
OR “Scytinostroma hemidichophyticum”OR “Sebacina calcea”OR “Selenisa sueroides”
OR “Semiothisa aemulataria”OR “Semiothisa nigrocomma”OR “Semiothisa ocellinata”
OR “Septoria curvata”OR “Septoria pseudacaciae”OR “Septoria robiniae”OR “Septoria
sp.”OR “Sharpius brouni”OR “Sicya snoviaria”OR “Sinoe robiniella”OR “Sitona
lineatus”OR “Sitona ononidis”OR “Sitona waterhousei”OR “Situlaspis yuccae”OR
“Sparganothis sulfureana”OR “Sphaerella pseudacaciae”OR “Sphaerella robiniae”OR
“Sphaeropsis malorum”OR “Sphaeropsis robiniae”OR “Spongipellis unicolor”OR
“Sporidesmium njalaense”OR “Steccherinum ochraceum”OR “Stereum gausapatum”
OR “Stigmina trimera”OR “Stilbospora angustata”OR “Strawberry latent ringspot (?)
nepovirus”OR “Streblote cristata”OR “Strickeria kochii”OR “Stysanus microsporus”OR
“Syssphinx albolineata”OR “Syssphinx bicolor”OR “Syssphinx bisecta”OR “Syssphinx
gomezi”OR “Syssphinx hubbardi”OR “Syssphinx molina”OR “Syssphinx montana”OR
“Syssphinx petersii”OR “Teichospora hispida”OR “Teichospora nigrobrunnea”OR
“Teichospora trabicola”OR “Tenuipalpoides dorychaeta”OR “Tetracis cachexiata”OR
“Tetranychus canadensis”OR “Tetranychus kanzawai”OR “Tetranychus ludeni”OR
“Tetranychus neocaledonicus”OR “Tetranychus pacificus”OR “Tetranychus schoenei”
OR “Tetranychus turkestani”OR “Tetranychus urticae”OR “Thanatephorus cucumeris”
OR “Thielavia basicola”OR “Thyridium vestitum”OR “Thyridopteryx ephemeraeformis”
OR “Thyronectria austroamericana”OR “Thyrostroma negundinis”OR “Thyrostroma
robiniae”OR “Tinocallis zelkowae”OR “Tomato black ring nepovirus”OR “Tomentella
brunneorufa”OR “Tomentella bryophila”OR “Tomentella lateritia”OR “Tomentella
punicea”OR “Toumeyella quadrifasciata”OR “Trametes robiniophila”OR “Trametes
trogii”OR “Trechispora polyporoidea”OR “Trematosphaeria sp.”OR “Trichodorus
giennensis”OR “Trichoferus campestris”OR “Trirachys sartus”OR “Tryblidiella rufula”
OR “Tryblidiella sp.”OR “Tubercularia minor”OR “Tubercularia vulgaris”OR
“Tylenchorhynchus claytoni”OR “Tympanis onpularis”OR “Urota sinope”OR “Valsa
ceratophora”OR “Valsa cincta”OR “Valsa heteracantha”OR “Valsa personata”OR
“Valsa sp.”OR “Valsa venusta”OR “Valsaria insitiva”OR “Vanduzeea arquata”OR
“Vasates allotrichus”OR “Vasates robiniae”OR “Verticillium albo-atrum”OR “Verticillium
dahliae”OR “Volutella comata”OR “Watermelon mosaic virus”OR “Xanthochrous
hispidus”OR “Xylaria carpophila”OR “Xylaria cornu-damae”OR “Xylaria hypoxylon”OR
“Xylaria longiana”OR “Xylaria polymorpha”OR “Xylella fastidiosa”OR “Xylella fastidiosa
subsp. multiplex”OR “Zale undularis”OR “Zale unilineata”OR “Zeuzera pyrina”OR
“Zythia moelleriana”)
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 52 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Appendix C –List of pests that can potentially cause an effect not further assessed
Table C.1: List of potential pests not further assessed
Pest name EPPO
code Group
Pest
present in
Turkey
Present in the
EU
Robinia
confirmed as a
host (reference)
Pest can be
associated with
the commodity
Impact Justification for inclusion in this list
Lepidosaphes
malicola
LEPSML Insects Yes Yes (Greece and
Bulgaria)
Yes Yes Yes Pest of apple, with restricted distribution in
the EU (Greece and Bulgaria). No
official measures in place in these MSs.
Botryosphaeria
australis
Fungi Yes Portugal, Italy,
Spain
Yes Yes Yes Pathogen with restricted distribution in the
EU, No official measures in place in
these MSs. Possible impact.
Ectostroma
robiniae
Fungi Yes Romania Yes Yes Uncertain Pathogen with restricted distribution in the
EU, No official measures in place in
these MSs. Uncertainty about the impact.
Fusicoccum
depressum
FUSCDE Fungi Yes Poland Yes Yes Uncertain Pathogen with restricted distribution in the
EU, No official measures in place in
these MSs. Uncertainty about the impact.
Phomopsis
pseudacaciae
LEPSML Fungi Yes Austria, Hungary
and France
Yes Yes Uncertain Pathogen with restricted distribution in the
EU, No official measures in place in
these MSs. Uncertainty about the impact.
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 53 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
Appendix D –Excel file with the pest list of Robinia.
Appendix Dcan be found in the online version of this output (in the ‘Supporting information’section): https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6568
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 54 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6568
Commodity risk assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia plants from Turkey
Content uploaded by Francesco Di Serio
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Francesco Di Serio on May 07, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
