ArticlePDF Available

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

May 2021
EFSA Journal 19(5)

May 2021
19(5)

DOI:10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6571

License
CC BY-ND 4.0

Authors:

Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz

Coventry University

Francesco Di Serio

Italian National Research Council

Marie-Agnes Jacques

French National Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE)

Show all 23 authorsHide

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 the plant health risks posed by the two following hazelnut commodities to be imported from Serbia. 1. Bare rooted plants: 1- to 3-year-old plants of Corylus avellana or C. avellana grafted on C. colurna, without leaves. 2. Plants in pots: 2-year-old plants of C. avellana, without leaves. The assessment was performed by taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by Serbia. The relevance of any pest for this Opinion was based on evidence following defined criteria. One EU quarantine pest, i.e. Flavescence dorée phytoplasma, fulfilled all relevant criteria and was selected for further evaluation. For this pathogen, the risk mitigation measures proposed in the Technical Dossier from Serbia were evaluated separately for bare rooted plants and for plants in pots, taking into account the possible limiting factors. For the selected pathogen, an expert judgement was given on the likelihood of pest freedom of plants for planting, for both commodities taken together, considering the risk mitigation measures, including uncertainties associated with the assessment. The Expert Knowledge Elicitation indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9,837 and 10,000 bare rooted plants and plants in pots per 10,000 would be free of Flavescence dorée phytoplasma.

General factors considered for the estimation of pest freedom

…

Location of the nurseries intending to export hazelnut plants for planting to the EU

…

Hazelnut planting material production process for the five different production technologies as explained in the submitted Dossier (H1, H2, H3, H4, H5)

…

Elicited certainty (y‐axis) of the number of pest‐free bare rooted plants of Corylus avellana and C. avellana grafted on C. colurna, and plants in pots of C. avellana (x‐axis; log‐scaled) out of 10,000 plants designated for export to the EU introduced from Serbia 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 9,837 or more plants per 10,000 will be free from Flavescence dorée phytoplasma

…

(a) Comparison of judged values for the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation per 10,000 plants (histogram in blue) and fitted distribution (red line); (b) density function to describe the uncertainties of the likelihood of pest freedom; (c) descending distribution function of the likelihood of pest freedom

…

Figures - available from: EFSA Journal

This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.

Access to this full-text is provided by Wiley.

Learn more

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.2021.6571

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus

colurna plants from Serbia

EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH),

Claude Bragard, Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Francesco Di Serio, 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 Lucien Reignault, Hans-Hermann Thulke, Wopke Van der Werf,

Antonio Vicent Civera, Jonathan Yuen, Lucia Zappal

a, Andrea Battisti, Hugo Mas,

Daniel Rigling, Olaf Mosbach-Schulz and Paolo Gonthier

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 the plant health risks posed

by the two following hazelnut commodities to be imported from Serbia. 1. Bare rooted plants: 1- to

3-year-old plants of Corylus avellana or C. avellana grafted on C. colurna, without leaves. 2. Plants in

pots: 2-year-old plants of C. avellana, without leaves. The assessment was performed by taking into

account the available scientiﬁc information, including the technical information provided by Serbia. The

relevance of any pest for this Opinion was based on evidence following deﬁned criteria. One EU

quarantine pest, i.e. Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma, fulﬁlled all relevant criteria and was selected for

further evaluation. For this pathogen, the risk mitigation measures proposed in the Technical Dossier

from Serbia were evaluated separately for bare rooted plants and for plants in pots, taking into

account the possible limiting factors. For the selected pathogen, an expert judgement was given on

the likelihood of pest freedom of plants for planting, for both commodities taken together, considering

the risk mitigation measures, including uncertainties associated with the assessment. The Expert

Knowledge Elicitation indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9,837 and 10,000 bare rooted plants

and plants in pots per 10,000 would be free of Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma.

of European Food Safety Authority.

Keywords: Corylus avellana,Corylus colurna, hazelnut, plants for planting, bare rooted plants, plants

in pots, European Union

Requestor: European Commission

Question number: EFSA-Q-2020-00448

Correspondence: alpha@efsa.europa.eu

EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571www.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

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 Panel on Plant Health wishes to thank Sv

etla Kozelsk

a for the support

during the whole process of the Opinion development and to acknowledge the important contribution

of the trainee Al

zb

eta Mikulov

a, who provided an essential contribution to the literature search, the

compilation of the pest list and the pest datasheets and drafting and reviewing the Opinion.

Suggested citation: EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Bragard C, Dehnen-Schmutz K,

Di Serio F, Jacques M-A, Jaques Miret JA, Justesen AF, MacLeod A, Magnusson CS, Milonas P, Navas-

Cortes JA, Parnell S, Potting R, Reignault PL, Thulke H-H, Van der Werf W, Vicent Civera A, Yuen J,

Zappal

a L, Battisti A, Mas H, Rigling D, Mosbach-Schulz O and Gonthier P, 2021. Scientiﬁc Opinion on

the commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia. EFSA

Journal 2021;19(5):6571, 55 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6571

ISSN: 1831-4732

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 Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 2 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

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 PPD of Serbia................................................................................................. 5

2.2. Literature searches performed by EFSA............................................................................................ 8

2.3. Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 10

2.3.1. Commodity data............................................................................................................................. 10

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............................................................................................................................. 12

3.1. Description of the commodity.......................................................................................................... 12

3.2. Description of the production areas ................................................................................................. 12

3.3. Production and handling processes .................................................................................................. 13

3.3.1. Growing conditions......................................................................................................................... 13

3.3.2. Source of planting material ............................................................................................................. 14

3.3.3. Production cycle ............................................................................................................................. 15

3.3.4. Post-harvest and export procedures................................................................................................. 17

3.4. Surveillance system in Serbia .......................................................................................................... 17

4. Identiﬁcation of pests potentially associated with the commodity ....................................................... 20

4.1. Selection of relevant EU quarantine pests associated with the commodity........................................... 20

4.2. Selection of other relevant pests (not regulated in the EU) associated with the commodity .................. 23

4.3. Overview of interceptions................................................................................................................ 23

4.4. List of potential pests not further assessed....................................................................................... 23

4.5. Summary of pests selected for further evaluation ............................................................................. 23

5. Risk mitigation measures ................................................................................................................ 24

5.1. Possibility of pest presence in the export nurseries ........................................................................... 24

5.2. Risk mitigation measures proposed.................................................................................................. 24

5.3. Evaluation of the current measures for the selected relevant pests including uncertainties ................... 27

5.3.1. Overview of the evaluation of Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma .......................................................... 27

5.3.2. Outcome of Expert Knowledge Elicitation ......................................................................................... 28

6. Conclusions.................................................................................................................................... 31

References............................................................................................................................................... 31

Glossary .................................................................................................................................................. 32

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................... 32

Appendix A –Data sheets of pests selected for further evaluation................................................................ 33

Appendix B –Web of Science All Databases Search Strings ......................................................................... 46

Appendix C –Personal communication ....................................................................................................... 52

Appendix D –List of pests that can potentially cause an effect not further assessed...................................... 53

Appendix E –Excel ﬁle with the pest list of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna .......................................... 54

Appendix F –Excel ﬁle with additional information provided by Serbia on exporting nurseries ........................ 55

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 3 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

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

, on the protective measures against pests of

plants, has been applied from December 2019. Provisions within the above Regulation are in place for

the listing of ‘high risk plants, plant products and other objects’(Article 42) on the basis of a

preliminary assessment, and to be followed by a commodity risk assessment. A list of ‘high risk plants,

plant products and other objects’has been published in Regulation (EU) 2018/2019

. 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

, 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 organisations 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 Corylus avellana from

Serbia taking into account the available scientiﬁc information, including the technical dossier provided

by Serbia.

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 Corylus avellana from Serbia following the Guidance on commodity risk

assessment for the evaluation of high-risk plant dossiers (EFSA PLH Panel, 2019). After assessing the

Dossier, one of the commodities (i.e. bare rooted plants) turned out to be produced also by grafting

Corylus avellana on Corylus colurna rootstock. Therefore, the assessment was extended to C. colurna.

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 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

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

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.

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.

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.

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 4 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

non-European populations, or isolates, or species: Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canary Islands, Faeroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Moldova,

Monaco, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Russia (only the following parts: Central Federal

District (Tsentralny federalny okrug), Northwestern Federal District (SeveroZapadny federalny okrug),

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

). 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 Annex IV of the Commission

Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, and deregulated pests (i.e. pests that were listed as

quarantine pests in the Council Directive 2000/29/EC and were deregulated by Commission

Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072) were not considered for further evaluation.

In its evaluation, the Panel:

•Checked whether the information included in the technical dossier (hereafter referred to as

‘the Dossier’) provided by Serbian Authority (Plant Protection Directorate; Ministry of

Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management; Republic of Serbia –the PPD) was sufﬁcient to

conduct a commodity risk assessment. When necessary, additional information was requested

to the applicant.

•Selected the relevant Union quarantine pests and protected zone quarantine pests (as speciﬁed

in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072

, hereafter referred to as ‘EU

quarantine pests’) and other relevant pests present in Serbia 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 on the likelihood of pest freedom for each relevant pest given the risk

mitigation measures proposed by the PPD of Serbia.

2. Data and methodologies

2.1. Data provided by the PPD of Serbia

The Panel considered all the data and information (hereafter called ‘the Dossier’) provided by the

PPD of Serbia on 9 June 2020, including the additional information provided by the PPD of Serbia on

6 October 2020, 31 December 2020 and 12 February 2021, after EFSA’s requests. The Dossier is

managed by EFSA.

The structure and overview of the Dossier are shown in Table 1. The number of the relevant

section is indicated in the Opinion when referring to a speciﬁc part of the Dossier.

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

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 Annex, references to Member States

include the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland.

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.

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 5 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Table 1: Structure and overview of the Dossier

Dossier

section Overview of contents Filename

1.0 Technical Dossier Serbia Hazelnut Planting Material

Dossier 290520.pdf

2.0 Annex I ANNEX I Hazelnut phenological

phases

2.1 Overview of phenological phases from December 2017

till April 2020 for Plot no 1061

Hazelnut orchard- Plot no 1061 (100

ha).xlsx

2.2 Overview of phenological phases from December 2017

till April 2020 for Plot no 910

Hazelnut orchard- Plot no 910 (148 ha).xlsx

2.3 Description of catkin phenological phases Phenology.catkins.pdf

2.4 Description of female phenological phases Phenology.Female.pdf

2.5 Description of vegetation phenological phases Phenology.Vegetation.pdf

3.0 Annex II ANNEX II –MoU and Protocol import

requirements

3.1 Memorandum of understanding between NPPO of

Italy and NPPO of Serbia on cooperation in the plant

health ﬁeld

MoU-eng..PDF

3.2 Protocol between NPPO of Italy and NPPO of Serbia

on the phytosanitary requirements for export of

hazelnut propagating material and hazelnut fruit

plants from Italy to Serbia

Protocol -eng..PDF

3.3 Technical regulations for the production of plants and

multiplication materials of “certiﬁed”material of

hazelnut to be exported in Serbia

Technical Annex - ENG.pdf

4.0 Annex III ANNEX III –Literature search and

Reference list with scanned scientiﬁc

papers

4.1 Review of registered pests and pathogens, literature

source and the main topic of the research and

relevance in regards of planting material of hazelnut

Harmful organisms HAZELNUT.pdf

4.2 References of harmful organisms registered in Serbia

on hazelnut

Reference list HAZELNUT.pdf

4.3 Folder with 23 papers Scientiﬁc papers HAZELNUT

5.0 Annex IV ANNEX IV –Protocols

5.1 Protocol for detection and identiﬁcation of

Xanthomonas arboricola pv corylina from plant

material

Protocol for detection and identiﬁcation of X

a pv corylina.pdf

5.2 Protocol for inspection for hazelnut mother plants and

nurseries

PROTOCOL FOR INSPECTION FOR

HAZELNUT MOTHER PLANTS AND

NURSERIES1.pdf

6.0 Annex V ANNEX V –Production procedure

control reference documents

6.1 Application of Agriser d.o.o for production fruit trees

from 24/4/2019 (in Serbian)

1. Application for production fruit trees.pdf

6.2 Application of Agriser doo for plant health control (in

Serbian)

2. Application for plant health control.pdf

6.3 Laboratory report on nematodes for Agriser d.o.o (in

Serbian)

3. Lab report on nematodes.pdf

6.4 Documentation on origine for Agriser d.o.o (in

Serbian)

4. Documentation on origine.pdf

6.5 Records on I and II ﬁeld control performed on 30/7/

2018 and 6/11/2018 for Agriser d.o.o (in Serbian)

5. Records on I and II ﬁeld control.pdf

6.6 Plant health certiﬁcate from 18/11/2019 for Agriser

d.o.o (in Serbian)

6. Plant health certiﬁcate.pdf

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 6 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

The data and supporting information provided by the PPD of Serbia formed the basis of the

commodity risk assessment. The below overview reports the references relevant for harmful organisms

present in Serbia as listed in Dossier Section 4.2.

Cvrkovi

c T, Chetverikov P, Vidovi

c B and Petanovi

c R, 2016. Cryptic speciation within Phytoptus avellanae

(Eriophyoidea: Phytoptidae) revealed by molecular data and observation on molting Tegonotus-like nymphs.

Experimental and Applied Acarology, 68, 83–96.



Cali

cA,Ga



si

c K, Ivanovi

c M, Kuzmanovi

c N and Obradovi

c A, 2010. Ponovna pojava plamenja

ce leske. X

Savetovanje o za

stiti bilja, Zlatibor, pp. 33–34. (in Serbian).



Cali

cA,Ga



si

c K, Ivanovi

c M, Kuzmanovi

c N and Obradovi

c A, 2011. Prou

cavanje osetljivosti sojeva Xanthomonas

arboricola pv. corylina prema baktericidima. XI Savetovanje o za

stiti bilja, Zlatibor, pp. 31–32. (in Serbian).

Graora D, Dervi

sevi

c M and Spasi

c D, 2016. Prilog poznavanju Anthribus fasciatus (Coleoptera: Anthribidae),

predatora 

stitastih va

siju (Hemiptrera: Coccidae). XV Simpozijum o za

stiti bilja, Zlatibor, pp. 39. (in Serbian).

Konjevi

c A, Petrovi

c M, Nikoli

c M and Milova



Z, 2019. Monitoring of brown marmorated stink bug (Halyomorpha

halys Stal) in Serbia and ﬁrst record of damage. VIII Congress on Plant Protection, Zlatibor, pp. 197.

(Abstract).

Dossier

section Overview of contents Filename

6.7 Certiﬁcate on production from 25/11/2019 for Agriser

d.o.o (in Serbian)

7. Certiﬁcate on production.pdf

7.0 Annex VI ANNEX VI –Labels of registered

pesticides

7.1 Label of Abastate (in Serbian) Abastate_1L_260x140mm.pdf

7.2 User guide for Abastate (in Serbian) Abastate uputstvo 21.10.2019.pdf

7.3 Label of Amon 020 EW (in Serbian) Amon 020 EW - etiketa.pdf

7.4 User guide of Amon 020 EW (in Serbian) Amon 020 EW - Uputstvo.pdf

7.5 Label of Dentamet (in Serbian) Dentamet 160x155.pdf

7.6 Label of Nitropol S (in Serbian) Nitropol S- 1 l-za ganu.pdf

7.7 Label of Nordox 75 WG (in Serbian) Nordox_SRB_200x287_10kg_2020.pdf

8.0 Response for clariﬁcation from 6 October 2020

8.1 Response for clariﬁcation on the information provided

in the Dossier submitted by the Plant Protection

Directorate of Serbia on plants for planting of Corylus

avellana

1_PPD Response for clariﬁcation on the

information provided in the Dossier

submitted by the Plant Protection

Directorate of Serbia on plants for planting

of Corylus avellana EFSA.DOC

8.2 General_Guidelines for the use of substrates and FAQ,

Klasmann-Deilmann

2_8667_KD_General_Guidelines_FAQ_2018_

Aufb_v07_RZ_WEB(1).PDF

8.3 Phytosanitary certiﬁcate of Hungary for peat

Sphagnum sp. to be exported to Serbia from 22/1/

2020

3_FITO (1).pdf

8.4 Characteristics of product group TS 3 4_Slika1 (1).jpg

8.5 Declaration (EN standard) TS 3 (in Croatian) 5_Slika2.jpg

8.6 Declaration (EN standard) TS 3 (in Serbian) 6_Slika3 (1).jpg

8.7 Picture of a package of Klasmann-Deilmann substrate

TS 3

7_Slika4.jpg

9.0 Additional information provided by Serbia on

31 December 2020

9.1 Response of Plant Protection Directorate (NPPO

Serbia)

ANNEX I Response Plant Protection

Directorate MAFWM of Serbia to the request

for clariﬁcation on the information provided

in the dossir Corylus avellana.PDF

9.2 Translated ﬁles for Appendix V (Dossier Section 6.0) ANNEX II –Appendix V

9.3 Translated ﬁles for Appendix VI (Dossier Section 7.0) ANNEX II –Appendix VI

10. Clariﬁcation on pests status for selected pests

received on 12 February 2021

Response of the PPD on pest status

for listed pest

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 7 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Marinkovi

c S, Chetverikov PE, Cvrkovi

c T, Vidovi

c B and Petanovi

c R, 2019. Supplementary description of ﬁve

species from the genus Cecidophyopsis (Eriophyoidea: Eriophydae: Cecidophyinae). Systematic and Applied

Acarology, 24, 1555–1578.

Milenkovi

c S and Mitrovi

c M, 2001. Hazelnut pests in Serbia. Acta Horticulturae, 556, 403–406. (Abstract)

Mladenovi

c K, Stojni

c B, Vidovi

c B and Radulovi

c Z, 2013. New records of the tribe Bryobiini Berlsese (Acari:

Tretranychidae: Bryobiinae) from Serbia, with notes about associated predators (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Archives

of Biological Sciences, 65, 1199–1210.

Obradovi

c A and Ivanovi

c M, 2008. Bakterioze leske. IX Savetovanje o za

stiti bilja, Zlatibor, pp. 140–141. (in

Serbian).

Obradovi

c A, Ivanovi

c M and



Cali

c A, 2010. Bacterial diseases of hazelnut. Biljni lekar, 38, 192–201. (in Serbian,

English abstract).

Petanovi

c R, Dobrivojevi

c K and Bo

skovi

c R, 1989. Life cycle of hazelnut big bud mite Phytoptus avellanae (Nal.)

(Acarida: Eriophyoidea) and the results of its control. Za

stita bilja, 40, 442–451. (in Serbian, English abstract).

Petanovi

cR,Pe



si

c M, Stamenkovi

c S and Milenkovi

c S, 1997. Erioﬁde vo

caka: rasprostranjenosti, zna

caj i

suzbijanje. Book of abstracts III Yugoslavean Symposia on Plant Protection, Vrnja

cka Banja, pp. 31–32. (in

Serbian).

Petrovi

c A, Juri

si

c A and Rajkovi

c D, 2010. The most common species of tetranychid mites (Acari: Tetranychidae)

on stone fruits. Biljni lekar, 38, 381–386. (in Serbian, English abstract).

Proki

c A, 2014. Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina –identiﬁcation of the pathogen and the population biodiversity.

Doctoral Dissertation. University of Belgrade –Faculty of Agriculture, Belgrade –Zemun, pp. 1–139. (in Serbian,

English abstract).

Proki

cA,Ga



si

c K, Ivanovi

c M, Kuzmanovi

c N, Blagojevi

c N and Obradovi

c A, 2012a. Metode detekcije i

identiﬁkacije Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina, patogena gajene leske. XIV Simpozijum o za

stiti bilja i IX

Kongres o korovima, Zlatibor, pp. 114–115. (in Serbian).

Proki

cA,Ga



si

c K, Ivanovi

c M, Kuzmanovi

c N, Blagojevi

c N and Obradovi

c A, 2012b. Modiﬁkacija protokola za

izolaciju i testiranje patogenosti Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina. XIV Simpozijum o za

stiti bilja i IX Kongres

o korovima, Zlatibor, pp. 115–116. (in Serbian).

Proki

cA,Ga



si

c K, Ivanovi

cN,



Sevi

c M, Pulawska J and Obradovi

c A, 2012c. Detection and identiﬁcation methods

and new tess as developed and used in the framework of COST873 for bacteria pathogenic to stone fruits and

nuts: Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina. Journal of Plant Pathology 94 ediyioni ETS, S, 127–133. (Abstract).

Proki

c A, Kuzmanovi

c N, Ivanovi

c M, Blagojevi

cN,Ga



si

c K and Obradovi

c A, 2014. Molecular differentiation of

Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina stranis isolated from hazelnut in Serbia. VII Congress on Plant Protection:

Integrated Plant Protection Knowledge –Based Step Towards Sustainable Agriculture, Forestry and Landscape

Architecture, Zlatibor, pp. 307–308.

Stamenkovi

c S, Milenkovi

cS,Pe



si

c M and Mitrovi

c M, 1997. Population dynamic, harmfulness and control of

Phytoptus avellanae (Nalepa) in western Serbia. Acta Horticulturae, 445, 521–526. (Abstract).

Stojni

c B, Mladenovi

c K, Milanovi

c S, Mari

c I and Milenkovi

c I, 2014. Spieder mites and predatory mites (Acari:

Tetranychidae, Phytoseiidae) on hazels in Serbia. VII Congress on Plant Protection: Integrated Plant Protection

Knowledge –Based Step Towards Sustainable Agriculture, Forestry and Landscape Architecture, Zlatibor,

pp. 242–243.

Thalji R, 2010. Aphids and their predators on fruit trees in gardens and treelined roadsides. Biljni lekar, 38, 15–27.

(in Serbian, English abstract).

Vasi

c T, Jevremovi

c D, Krnjaja V, Leposavi

c A, Andjelkovi

cS,



Zivkovi

c S and Paunovi

c S, 2017. Morphological

description and molecular detection of Pestalotiopsis sp. on hazelnut in Serbia Spanish Journal of Agricultural

Research, 15, e10SC02, 5 pp. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2017153-11297

Vukajlovi

c FN, Predojevi

c DZ, Miljkovi

c KO, Tanaskovi ST, Gvozdenac SM, Perisi

c VM, Grbovi

c FJ and Pe

si

c SB,

2019. Life history of Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on dried fruits and nuts: Effects of

macronutrients and secondary metabolites on immature stages. Journal of Stored Products Research, 83, 243–

253.

2.2. Literature searches performed by EFSA

The following searches were combined: i) a general search to identify pests of Corylus avellana and

C. colurna in different databases and ii) a general search to identify pests associated with Corylus as a

genus. The general searches were run between 13 July and 6 August 2020 using the databases

indicated in Table 2. No language, date or document type restrictions were applied in the search

strategy.

The search strategy and search syntax were adapted to each of the databases listed in Table 2,

according to the options and functionalities of the different databases and CABI keyword thesaurus.

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 8 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

As for Web of Science, the literature search was performed using a speciﬁc, ad hoc established

search string (see Appendix B). The string was run in ‘All Databases’with no range limits for time or

language ﬁlters.

Finally, the pest list that was assessed included all the pests associated with C. avellana and

C. colurna and all EU quarantine pests associated with Corylus as genus.

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

and the relevant literature and legislation [e.g. Regulation (EU) 2016/2031; Commission Implementing

Regulations (EU) 2018/2019; (EU) 2018/2018

, (EU) 2019/2072] were taken into account.

Table 2: Databases used by EFSA for the compilation of the pest list associated with Corylus,

C. avellana and C. colurna

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 plant pests in Israel https://www.moag.gov.il/en/Pages/SearchNegaim.aspx

Database of the World’s Lepidopteran

Hostplants

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/hostplants/search/index.dsm/

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 http://nemaplex.ucdavis.edu/Nemabase2010/PlantNematodeHostSta

tusDDQuery.aspx

New Zealand Fungi https://nzfungi2.landcareresearch.co.nz/default.aspx?NavControl=searc

h&selected=NameSearch

NZFUNGI - New Zealand Fungi (and

Bacteria)

https://nzfungi.landcareresearch.co.nz/html/mycology.asp?ID=

Plant Pest Information Network New

Zealand

https://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-and-resources/resources/registers-and-

lists/plant-pest-information-network/

Plant Viruses Online http://bio-mirror.im.ac.cn/mirrors/pvo/vide/famindex.htm

Scalenet http://scalenet.info/associates/

Spider Mites Web https://www1.montpellier.inra.fr/CBGP/spmweb/advanced.php

TRACES https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/tracesnt/login

USDA ARS Fungi Database https://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/fungushost/fungushost.cfm

Web of Science: All Databases (Web of

Science Core Collection, CABI: CAB

Abstracts, BIOSIS Citation Index,

Chinese Science Citation Database,

Current Contents Connect, Data

Citation Index, FSTA, KCI-Korean

Journal Database, Russian Science

Citation Index, MEDLINE, SciELO

Citation Index, Zoological Record)

Web of Science

https://www.webofknowledge.com

World Agroforestry http://www.worldagroforestry.org/treedb2/speciesprofile.php?Spid=1749

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) (EU) 2018/2018 of 18 December 2018 laying down speciﬁc rules concerning the

procedure to be followed in order to carry out the risk assessment of high-risk plants, plant products and other objects within

the meaning of Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council. OJ L 323,

19.12.2018, p. 7–9.

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 9 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

2.3. Methodology

When developing the Opinion, the Panel followed the EFSA Guidance on commodity risk

assessment for the evaluation of high-risk plant dossiers (EFSA PLH Panel, 2019).

In the ﬁrst step, pests potentially associated with the commodity in the country of origin (EU

quarantine pests and other pests) that may require risk mitigation measures were identiﬁed. The EU

non-quarantine pests not known to occur in the EU were selected based on evidence of their potential

impact in the EU. After the ﬁrst step, all the relevant pests that may need risk mitigation measures

were identiﬁed.

In the second step, the overall efﬁcacy of the proposed risk mitigation measures for each pest is

evaluated. A conclusion on the pest-freedom status of the commodity for each of the relevant pests is

achieved and uncertainties are identiﬁed. Pest freedom was assessed by estimating the number of

infested/infected plants out of 10,000 exported plants. Further details on the methodology used to

estimate the likelihood of pest freedom are provided in Section 2.3.3.

2.3.1. Commodity data

Based on the information provided by the PPD of Serbia, the characteristics of the commodities

were summarised.

2.3.2. Identiﬁcation of pests potentially associated with the commodity

To evaluate the pest risk associated with the importation of C. avellana and C. colurna from Serbia,

a pest list was compiled. The pest list is a compilation of all identiﬁed plant pests associated with C.

avellana and C. colurna based on information provided in Dossier Sections 4.1 and 4.2 and on

searches performed by the Panel. In addition, all EU quarantine pests associated with any species of

Corylus were added to the list.

The scientiﬁc names of the host plants (i.e. Corylus avellana,Corylus colurna and Corylus) were

used when searching in the EPPO Global database and CABI Crop Protection Compendium. The same

strategy was applied to the other databases excluding EUROPHYT, TRACES-NT and Web of Science.

EUROPHYT was investigated by searching for the interceptions associated with C. avellana and

C. colurna commodities imported from Serbia from 1995 to May 2020 and TRACES-NT from May 2020

to January 2021, respectively.

The search strategy used for Web of Science Databases was designed combining English common

names for pests and diseases, terms describing symptoms caused by pests on plants, and the scientiﬁc

and common names of the commodity (i.e. Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna) and excluding pests

that were identiﬁed using searches in other databases. The search strings are detailed in Appendix B.

The searches in Web of Science Databases were run on 13 July 2020.

The titles and abstracts of the scientiﬁc papers retrieved were screened and the pests associated

with C. avellana and C. colurna were included in the pest list.

The compiled pest list (see Microsoft Excel

ﬁle in Appendix E) includes all identiﬁed agents

associated with C. avellana and/or C. colurna, potentially including predators and parasitoids of insects

and not harmful microorganisms, and all quarantine pests that use Corylus as host.The pest list was

eventually further compiled with other relevant information (e.g. EPPO Codes, taxonomic information,

categorisation, distribution) useful for the selection of the pests relevant for the purposes of this

Opinion.

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 pests was

evaluated (Section 4.2).

Pests for which limited information was available on one or more criteria used to identify them as

relevant for this Opinion, e.g. on potential impact, are listed in Appendix D(List of potential pests not

further assessed).

2.3.3. Listing and evaluation of risk mitigation measures

The proposed risk mitigation measures were listed and evaluated separately for the commodities

considered in the Opinion, which are bare rooted plants and plants in pots as speciﬁed in Section 3.1.

When evaluating the potential pest freedom of the commodity, the following types of potential

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 10 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

infestation/infection sources for C. avellana and C. colurna plants in export nursery 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 proposed by the PPD of Serbia were evaluated.

Information on the biology, likelihood of entry of the pest to the export nursery, of its spread inside

the nursery and the effect of measures on the speciﬁc pests were summarised in pest sheet of pests

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 the 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 C. avellana and C. colurna

plants (i.e. bare rooted plants or plants in pots) will be infested with the relevant pest/pathogen when

arriving in the EU?’.

The risk assessment uses individual plants as most suitable granularity. The following reasoning is

given:

i) There is no quantitative information available on 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.

Figure 1: General factors considered for the estimation of pest freedom

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 11 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

3. Commodity data

3.1. Description of the commodity

The commodities to be imported into the EU from Serbia are:

1) bare rooted plants of C. avellana (common name: hazelnut; family: Betulaceae) and of

C. avellana grafted on C. colurna (common name: Turkish hazelnut; family: Betulaceae); and

2) plants in pots of C. avellana (common name: hazelnut; family: Betulaceae).

Bare rooted plants: Dormant plants without leaves and washed roots either 1- to 3-year-old

plants (depending on production technology) of C. avellana or 3-year-old plants of C. avellana grafted

on C. colurna.

Plants in pots: Dormant plants of C. avellana without leaves, 2-year-old, cultivated in pots with

substrate for one year.

According to Dossier Section 9.1, production of plants for planting using the different production

technologies occurs in open ﬁelds in all nurseries intended to export hazelnut plants for planting to the

EU.

The plants in pots are grown in commercial growing medium ‘TS 3 ﬁne “Aquasave”’ (Klasmann-

Deilmann, composition: 100% Sphagnum peat moss, lime, mineral fertiliser).

The hazelnut planting material is commercialised in dormant phenological phase. The intended use

of the commodity is distribution to ﬁnal consumers by wholesaler and retailers. Both commodities are

marketable from October to May, although export of planting material to the EU should occur from

October to March–April (Dossier Section 1.0). In 2019, 16,345 hazelnut plants for planting were

exported to the EU. The planned volumes in 2020 and in the next years will be based on market

requirements, but the operators are expecting a positive trend. Expectation of the major nursery is

that there is a potential that export will increase over 300,000 plants for planting per year (Dossier

Section 1.0). The total annual production volume intended to be exported to the EU is around one

million plants ranging from 10,000 to 400,000 plants per nursery as speciﬁed in Appendix F(Dossier

Section 9.1).

Although the phytosanitary management undertaken is different among the producers, the sanitary

status of the plants reﬂects the standard required by the national legislation of the Republic of Serbia.

The phytosanitary status of the production is controlled by the producers as well by ofﬁcial inspection

controls. The plants produced for export are certiﬁed plants according to the legislation listed in

Dossier Section 1.0. All marketed plants are produced only in registered nurseries under the ofﬁcial

inspections. Various available measures are applied to reduce the risks at the place of production.

The varieties of C. avellana that are expected to be exported into the EU according to Dossier

Section 9.1 are the following: ‘Tonda Gentile Romana’,‘Tonda di Giffoni’,‘Tonda Gentile delle Langhe’,

‘Fertil de Coutard (Barcelona)’,‘Nocchione’,‘Tonda Francescana’,‘Halls Giant’

,‘Rimski’,‘Istrian oblong’,

‘Pauetet’,‘Segorbe’,‘Cosfort’,‘Avellino’,‘Kubanj’,‘So

ci-1’,‘Prezident (Karamanovski)’,‘Cosford’,‘Ludolf’,

‘Istarski duguljasti’,‘Mogul’,‘Multiﬂorum’,‘Istrian round’,‘Redleaf Lambert’,‘Istarski Okrugli’(Dossier

Section 9.1).

The diameter at the collar of the plants ranges from 1 to 2 cm and their height from 65 to 220 cm

(Dossier Section 9.1).

According to Dossier Section 9.1, only one nursery (Agriser d.o.o.) plans to export Certiﬁed and

Standard planting material while all other nurseries are planning to export Standard.

3.2. Description of the production areas

The whole territory of Serbia is a production area for hazelnut planting material, but the production

is very much concentrated in two regions: the Vojvodina region (north of Serbia) and the Rasina

district (central Serbia) (Dossier Section 1.0). Vojvodina is a ﬁeld crop growing region. Therefore, the

nurseries are using the opportunity to rotate the production plots and to settle them in isolation out of

other horticulture production and plants. In the Rasina region, the nurseries are settled in valleys,

where, due to winter and spring frost risks, there is no fruit and grape production, this occurs several

kilometres away on hilly slopes (Dossier Section 9.1).

In Serbia, there are 92 registered nurseries that produced the hazelnut plants for planting from the

2014/15 to 2020/21 growing seasons. Twenty-one of these registered nurseries intend to export

hazelnut plants for planting from Serbia to the EU. According to Dossier Section 9.1, phytosanitary

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 12 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

requirements and quality standards for production intended for the domestic market that are

prescribed by national legislation correspond to EU requirements, so that the production management

is the same for exports and for the domestic market. Two of the twenty-one export nurseries are

specialised in the production of hazelnut, and two in hazelnut and walnut, while the remaining

nurseries also produce other woody and fruit plants. The surface area of nurseries varies between 0.2

and 61 ha. The plants are grown in rows that are placed at a distance of 50–120 cm and plants in

rows are 10–40 cm from one another. For more details, see Dossier Section 9.1.

Figure 2shows the nurseries that declared intention to export hazelnut plants for planting to the EU.

The list of nurseries that declared the intention to export hazelnut plants for planting to the EU is

presented in Appendix Ftogether with further speciﬁc information provided in Dossier Section 9.1.

Based on the global K€

oppen–Geiger climate zone classiﬁcation (Kottek et al., 2006), the climate of

the production areas of the hazelnut planting material regions in Serbia is reported as Cold-summer

Mediterranean climate (Csc), i.e. main climate (C): warm temperate; precipitation (s): summer dry;

temperature (c): cool summer (Dossier Section 1.0). However, according to Milovanovi

c et al. (2017),

the most common climate type in Serbia is Dfb, i.e. main climate (D): snow climate; precipitation (f):

fully humid; temperature (b): warm summer, followed by Cfb, i.e. main climate (C): warm temperate

climate; precipitation (f): fully humid; temperature (b): warm summer.

3.3. Production and handling processes

3.3.1. Growing conditions

The growing medium used for the production is soil (according to the ISPM 40, FAO 2017). The soil

tests are the obligatory prerequisite for establishment of the nursery production in Serbia (Dossier

Figure 2: Location of the nurseries intending to export hazelnut plants for planting to the EU

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 13 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Section 1.0). The speciﬁc soil treatment applied in the nurseries intending to export hazelnut plants for

planting to the EU can be found in Appendix F.

One nursery (Agriser, owned by Ferrero Trading Lux S.A.) declared the export of potted hazelnut

planting material. This nursery purchased substrate (‘TS 3 ﬁne “Aquasave”‘growing medium in the

last growing period) from the EU (producer German company, Klasmann-Deilmann, export from

Hungary, country of origin Lithuania) that is accompanied by the Phytosanitary certiﬁcate issued by the

country of substrate origin. The imported substrate from the EU is not further disinfected as in the

producer’s catalogue (https://klasmann-deilmann.com/vp-content/uploads/8667_KD_General_Guidelines_

FAK_2018_Aufb_v07_RZ_VEB.pdf) disinfection of the substrate is not recommended because it destroys

useful organisms. The producer guarantees that the substrate is free from harmful organisms and

nematodes (Dossier Section 8.1). The composition of the growing medium is 100% Sphagnum peat

moss, lime and mineral fertiliser (Dossier Section 9.1).

According to Dossier Section 9.1, production of plants for planting using the different production

technologies occurs in open ﬁelds in all nurseries intending to export hazelnut plants for planting to

the EU. Soil treatments in open ﬁelds in nurseries intending to export to the EU can be found in

Appendix F.

In most nurseries, the plants are irrigated by drip irrigation with water from deep wells and in one

nursery irrigation was with artiﬁcial rain (Dossier Section 9.1). For more details on the irrigation system

and source of water in different nurseries, see Appendix F.

3.3.2. Source of planting material

According to Dossier Sections 1.0 and 8.1, in production technologies H1, H2, H3 and H4 (see

Section 3.3.3. for a description of production technologies), the rooted shoots are produced in mother

plantations from mother plants of C. avellana. Rooted shoots are removed from the mother plants

during the dormant period of vegetation. Grafting of C. avellana varieties on C. colurna rootstock

concerns only the production process H5 (see Section 3.3.3).

Mother plants are located either within or outside nurseries and are 1–20 years old depending on

the nursery, see Appendix Ffor more details. The mother plants originate from Serbia, the EU and

Russia. Some nurseries obtain the propagation material from other nurseries in Serbia or from the EU

(Dossier Section 9.1, see also Appendix F).

According to Dossier Section 9.1, the phytosanitary status of the mother plants is visually assessed

every year during ofﬁcial control. Mother plants are sampled and tested in case of symptoms.

According to Dossier Section 9.1, mother plants are pruned at the start of the vegetation period to

the ground level. Mother plants are cultivated constantly keeping in mind soil maintenance (four to ﬁve

times), pesticide treatments (four to ﬁve times), manual and mechanical weeding (three to four

times), irrigation and fertigation. The mother plants can be used for 1) direct propagation of shoots, or

2) scions for grafting. During May, metal rings are placed around new shoots at their base, and this

area of mother plants is covered with soil. The metal rings encourage the formation of a new and

better developed root system during the rest of vegetation period. At the end of the vegetation period,

after the plants drop their foliage, those shoots for which the metal ring triggered the development of

new roots, are harvested. Some nurseries do not place metal rings, but just covering the shoots with

soil, twice in May and June. In autumn, or at the latest in February, scions used for grafting are cut to

2–3 cm from the base. They are stored in cold storage, at temperature of 1–3°C at high relative

humidity (Dossier Section 9.1). The age and position of mother plants in nurseries intended to export

in the EU are speciﬁed in Appendix F.

Dossier Section 9.1 speciﬁes: ‘the origin of seeds of C. colurna intended for rootstock production is

as follows. Each nursery producing grafted plants for planting has their own C. colurna plants. During

the vegetation period, these plants are subjected to treatment with pesticide in accordance with

recommendation of the extension service. The plants serve exclusively to produce seeds intended to

produce rootstocks. After collection, they are placed in a refrigerator for stratiﬁcation at a temperature

of 0–2°C. Germination is carried out after their removal from the refrigerator. To prevent the

appearance of pathogens and pests, regular protection is applied during the vegetation period. The

mother plants of C. colurna are subjects of ofﬁcial inspection every year as for other mother plants,

and for sampling if any suspicious symptoms are seen. Rootstocks are produced in the open ﬁeld.

Sowing is carried out with germinated seeds at distance of 60 920 cm.’

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 14 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

3.3.3. Production cycle

Five different production technologies (i.e. H1, H2, H3, H4 and H5) as designated in the Serbian

Dossier Section 1.0 are used in Serbia (see Figure 3). Production processes on plants for planting

differs on i) the propagation from rooted suckers in mother plantation or grafted rootstocks by

hazelnut variety scions and ii) 1- or 3-year-old plants production. According to Dossier Section 9.1,

production of plants for planting using the different production technologies occurs in open ﬁelds in all

nurseries that intended to export hazelnut plants for planting to the EU.

The production cycles for the ﬁve technologies (H1–H5) performed in Serbia are described below.

Only technology H3 refers to plants for planting in pots, while all the others are intended to be bare

rooted plants. Technology H5 refers to C. avellana grafted on rootstock of C. colurna.

1) H1 –Hazelnut planting material production technology 1 (one vegetation, production

of rooted shoots in mother plantation from mother plants)

•March: Cutting-back (shortening) the mother plants; preventive pest and disease control.

•April: Irrigation, preventive disease and pest control, weed management.

•May: Shoot selection and placement of metal rings; wrapping, covering of ringed shoots

with soil; irrigation, fertigation, weed management, soil cover, preventive disease and

pest control.

•June to October: Irrigation, fertigation, weed management, soil cover, preventive disease

and pest control; ofﬁcial inspection controls in June and August–September.

•November to February: Removal of the plants from soil; plant selection and storage in a

trap with sawdust.

2) H2 –Hazelnut planting material production technology 2 (two vegetations,

production of rooted shoots in mother plantation from mother plants, replanting in open ﬁeld

and second vegetation growth)

Figure 3: Hazelnut planting material production process for the ﬁve different production technologies

as explained in the submitted Dossier (H1, H2, H3, H4, H5)

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 15 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

•Previous vegetation: Production of annual shoots –planting material plants from mother

plants; preventive pest and disease control; soil analysis for the presence of quarantine

nematodes; land preparation for planting (ploughed at 35 cm, disc harrowed and tilled

using a cultivator).

•December to March: Planting 1-year-old rooted shoots from December to March in an

open ﬁeld; irrigation systems installation; preventive pest and disease control.

•April to October: Ofﬁcial inspection controls in June and August–September; irrigation,

fertigation, weed management, disease and pest control.

•November: Preventive pest and disease control.

•December: Removal of the plants from soil; plant selection and storage in a trap with

sawdust.

3) H3 –Hazelnut planting material production technology 3 (two vegetations,

production of rooted shoots in mother plantation from mother plants, replanting in pots with

substrate and second vegetation growth)

•Previous vegetation: Production of shoot planting material plants from mother plants.

•December to March: Planting the 1-year-old shoots –planting material plants to the pots

with substrate; preventive plant and disease control.

•April to September: Irrigation, fertigation, preventive diseases and pests control; ofﬁcial

inspection controls in June and August–September.

•October to December: Marketing.

4) H4 –Hazelnut planting material production technology 4 (three vegetations,

production of rooted shoots in mother plantation from mother plants, replanting in open ﬁeld

and additional two vegetation growth in the open ﬁeld)

•Two previous vegetations: Production of 1-year-old shoots from mother plants; second

vegetation in open ﬁled growth on its own root.

•December to March: Cutting plants; preventive pest and disease control.

•April to September: Irrigation, fertigation, weed management, preventive disease and

pest control; ofﬁcial inspection controls in June and August–September.

•October: Preventive disease and pest control.

•November to December: Removal of the plants from soil; plant selection and storage in a

trap with sawdust; marketing.

5) H5 –Hazelnut planting material production technology 5 (three vegetations, grafting

cultivars on Turkish hazelnut Corylus colurna L.)

•Two vegetations: Turkish hazelnut Corylus colurna L. rootstock seedlings growth; ofﬁcial

control.

•January to February: Whip and tongue grafting according to cultivar request.

•March: Planting the grafted rootstocks to open ﬁeld; preventive pest and disease control.

•April to September: Irrigation, fertigation, weed management, preventive disease and

pest control; ofﬁcial inspection controls in June and August–September.

•October: Preventive disease and pest control.

•November to December: Removal of the plants from soil; plant selection and storage in a

trap with sawdust.

Complementary to the above overview on the production cycles for the ﬁve technologies (H1–H5)

performed in Serbia, Dossier Section 9.1 provides the following additional information on some steps

or terms.

The grafting tools are disinfected by 70% alcohol or Cl products. The graft wound is protected

against infections with stretch foil and graft wax. The grafting site is protected after removing the graft

foil with FUNGURAN 500 g of copper as active substance per 1 kg of formulation.

Soil covering is the basic for the hazelnut multiplication from mother plants. The soil cover is

mentioned as an operation performed in May when metal rings are placed around the new shoots at

their base, and this area of mother plants is covered by soil.

After removal of the plants from the ﬁeld, some nurseries for the short-term conservation of roots

and their protection from sun and wind trapping (covering) the roots in sawdust. The root system and

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 16 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

the root neck are buried. The temperature is as the temperature in the ﬁeld, trapping with sawdust

keeps temperature at the root zone above 0°C.

Fertigation concerns the fact that some nurseries use an irrigation system for fertiliser application.

Inspections mentioned are ofﬁcial.

For technology H3, Dossier Section 8.1 speciﬁes the procedure for the plants in pots as follows:

‘while uprooting the one-year old plant produced in the nursery, the uprooting machine has a shaker

that shakes the soil from the plant. Additionally, the rest of the soil is removed by washing the plant

individually. Individual plants are washed with clean water that is under pressure without any added

chemicals. The plants are potted in pots for the next growing vegetation. Planting in the growing

substrate occurs at the beginning of the last vegetation period. The growing medium is a substrate

from the EU (TS 3 ﬁne ‘Aquasave’) which is accompanied by the Phytosanitary certiﬁcate issued by the

country of substrate origin. The imported substrate from the EU is not further disinfected.’

3.3.4. Post-harvest and export procedures

The following information was provided by the PPD of Serbia (Dossier Section 1.0).

The planting material is taken from the soil from October onwards. Once the plants are uprooted

by the machine, they are immediately sorted and placed in bundles. Behind the plant uprooting

machine, the tractor with a metal pallet moves where the bundles are placed. During the day, pallets

are used for root washing, each plant is washed separately, the pallets are re-packed and the plants

are taken to the storage (2°C). At the plant uprooting machine, there is a shaker that shakes the soil

from the plant. Additionally, the rest of the soil is removed by washing the plant individually. Individual

plant is washed by clean water that is under pressure without any added chemical.

The plants are classiﬁed based on the quality of adherence at the joint site, the development of the

root system and the above-ground part and the age of the plants. Classiﬁcation of seedlings is carried

out in two classes. First class includes seedlings with good developed root system, normally developed

and well-developed graft connection site.

Labelling takes place after quality check per each plant or as a 10-plant package. The bundles

consisting of 10 (or 20) plants are placed on the pallet. After the pallet is packed, an additional paper

label is added describing what is on the pallet (e.g. variety name, pallet number, plant class and total

number of plants per pallet). Usually the paper labels are on both sides of the pallet. The number of

plants per pallet depends on planting material quality class. The consignment consists of 6,000–9,000

plants per truck. The planting material is stored in cold chambers at a controlled temperature of 1–3°C

and relative humidity over 95% until the export delivery (Dossier Section 1.0 and 9.1). The plants are

packed into wooden box pallets (dimensions: 1,000 91,200 91,000 mm), with around 300 plants

per pallet. Pallets are made of heat-treated wood with a mark/stamp that indicates that they have

been heat-treated. After packing of plants and before the export, each pallet is coated with

transparent stretch wrap from all four sides. The top of the pallet is coated with black mulch ﬁlm. The

plants for export are shipped by frigo trucks that secure transport conditions of 5–10°C and humidity

around 80% (Dossier Section 9.1).

Before export delivery, the producer is obliged to inform the PPD of Serbia of the shipment and the

ofﬁcial inspection consists of a documentation check; visual inspection and sampling of suspicious

plants is also carried out. The export inspection is carried out at the place of loading of propagating

material of Corylus intended for export to the EU. The Phyto certiﬁcate for export is issued after ofﬁcial

inspection.

3.4. Surveillance system in Serbia

According to Dossier Section 1.0, hazelnut planting material is under permanent surveillance and

monitoring. The process is under ofﬁcial controls and there are ofﬁcial records of the production

surveillance in all registered nurseries. The procedures and protocols for the commodity, hazelnut

planting material are in line with EPPO Standards PM 4/31 (1) Certiﬁcation scheme on pathogen-tested

material of hazelnut and PM 3/72 (1) Elements common to inspection of places of production, area-

wide surveillance, inspection of consignments and lot identiﬁcation.

oRegistration

•Planting material production can be performed only by a legal person and entrepreneur

registered in the Register of propagating material producers.

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 17 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

•The register is maintained by the PPD of Serbia (66 active registered hazelnut producers, total

number of all registered producers of planting material is 400).

•The producer has to annually report the production of propagating material.

•The producer is keeping all records of production and marketing of propagating material.

•The Plant Protection Directorate issues a decision by which the producer of the planting

material is registered in this Register and assigns a unique registration number.

oApplication

•The registered producer of the planting material in the approval process must submit a

production application as well as an application for plant health inspections on the prescribed

forms and within the prescribed deadlines.

•The application shall be accompanied by appropriate documentation. Applications are

submitted for each location where production is made, separately. Document check on the

origin of used propagating material determines the origin of the used propagating material,

species, variety and category.

•The producer is obliged to submit a detailed production plan.

•The application shall be accompanied by proof of the origin of the planting material used.

•The producer of the planting material is obliged to provide the certiﬁcates of the health

inspection of the soil and substrates, as well as the certiﬁcates of health status of the

rootstocks and scions (buds) for the planting material within the prescribed deadlines.

•A health inspection of the soil and substrate for the presence of nematodes is carried out once

a year, 30 days before the beginning of production –the establishment of planting, and every

fourth year in the mother plantation, before vegetation starts.

•Applications are submitted on the prescribed forms in two copies.

oOfﬁcial inspection (mandatory)

Inspections are conducted on the basis of the application by the producer. They are conducted by

categories and by plant species at least two times per vegetation. A document check is performed to

determine the origin of the used propagating material, species, variety and category.

Plant health checks in objects for production of propagating material are carried out during the

growing season to determine the presence of disease and pests at a time when the symptoms can be

observed. Records for every inspection are made. If the propagating material meets the prescribed

requirements, the Certiﬁcates on propagating material production and Certiﬁcate on plant health

condition are issued.

Health checks applies to:

•Hazelnut planting material;

•Soil and substrate;

•Plants that are potential host of harmful organisms, as well as plants located in the immediate

environment of plantings or facilities.

At least two visual inspections are mandatory, ﬁrst when the plants characteristics of species and

cultivars are the most pronounced and when symptoms of plant diseases and pests can be best seen;

second, when plants express a uniform development and it is possible to estimate the general

appearance of plant material and yield.

Plant health checks can be performed more than two times per year, if this is needed due to

unfavourable conditions for production of propagating material or speciﬁcity of harmful organisms.

Plant health checks of crops and facilities are performed in the presence of producers. A report is

written on each control, and signed by the responsible person from the producer side and authorised

persons.

Plant health checks of soil and substrates for the presence of nematodes is performed once a year,

30 days before the starting the production (establishment of crops, 30 days before establishment of

facilities and every fourth year in mother plantations, before the starting of vegetation).

The report on the results of completed testing on the presence of nematodes, as well as tests for

viruses, is an integral part of the records.

If the inspection determines that the propagating material does not meet the conditions speciﬁed in

the law and it is implementing regulations, the plant material must be destroyed in the presence of

phytosanitary inspectors.

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 18 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

If the inspection determines that the planting material meets all the requirements prescribed, the

authorised Agricultural Service issues Certiﬁcate on plant health condition, and Plant Protection

Directorate, Certiﬁcate on propagating material production.

oLabelling

After obtaining the Certiﬁcate on production, the producer ﬁles an application for phytosanitary

inspection for printing labels for all categories of propagating material. The label has a unique serial

number and it guarantees that each plant for planting is produced under ofﬁcial inspection by an ofﬁcial

certiﬁcation procedure including at least two visual surveys per vegetation. The number of labels indicates

the number of inspected plants; the label is issued based on the PPD of Serbia Certiﬁcate, which conﬁrms

that the plants were produced according to ofﬁcial procedures. The hazelnut plants for planting that did

not pass the certiﬁcation procedure (visual controls) are forbidden from being placed on the market.

Printing of labels is carried out by only one authorised organisation. The colour of label describes

each category of plant material. The authorised organisation shall keep a record of issued labels.

When marketing, propagating material must match the declared variety, the prescribed standards of

quality, health and how originally packaged and labelled (individually or in a group).

Categories of plant material are:

•Pre-basic: A pre-basic propagating material is a reproductive material produced under the

responsibility of the breeder or his agents, it is used for the production of basic plant material,

and has been tested according to the latest international standards for the presence of

diseases and pests. It is held under strict conditions with no possibility for infection.

•Basic: The basic planting material is a reproductive material derived from pre-basic propagating

material used for the production of certiﬁed planting material, it is produced in mother

plantations under the control of an authorised organisation. It is marked with a white label.

•Certiﬁed: Certiﬁed planting material is propagating material created from the basic planting

materials and intended for the production of certiﬁed plants or production of standard plant

material. It is marked with a blue label.

•Standard: Standard planting material is reproductive planting material that originated from

reproduction of certiﬁed material and is intended for the production of standard plants. It is

marked with an orange certiﬁcate.

•Standard marked with the label S-A in distribution: Standard planting material that originated

from reproduction of standard plants, or from mother plants approved in accordance with the

Law on Seeds and Propagating Material (Ofﬁcial Gazette of RS No. 54/93), it is marked in

distribution with an orange coloured certiﬁcate and with the special label S-A.

oNational surveys

Every year the PPD prepares and organises activities for conducting two programmes:

1) Programme of Measures for Plant Health

2) Programme of monitoring, forecasting and reporting of pests, as part of the support to

producers and exporters related to improving the plant health status.

The Programme of Measures for Plant Health aims at the prevention, early detection, monitoring,

suppression and eradication of harmful organisms on the plants. This programme deﬁnes the actual

measures, time limits, manner of implementing those measures, the entities that will implement them,

sources of funds and manner of provision and use of the funds, as well as the manner of controlling

the implementation of the measures.

In accordance with the Programme of Measures for Plant Health, a speciﬁc survey to verify the

status of harmful organisms in soil is carried out every year. This includes pests as Globodera pallida,

G. rostochiensis, Clavibacter michiganensis sp sepedonicus and Synchytrium endobioticum, which are

prescribed EU requirements for the import of hazelnut planting material. There is no speciﬁc survey of

the above harmful organisms in hazelnuts plants.

Additionally, through the programme of monitoring, forecasting and reporting of pests, the PPD of

Serbia ﬁnances the gathering of biological, meteorological and other data to predict the occurrence of

harmful organisms and reporting on the presence, occurrence and spread of harmful organisms and

forecast the occurrence of harmful organisms, the development and movement of their populations,

and indicate optimal timeframes for their suppression using tools such as: Automatic Weather Stations,

pheromone traps, light traps and spore traps.

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 19 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

oInspection before export

After at least two on-site inspections carried out in that year during the vegetation in registered

nurseries, prior to export, an additional export inspection is carried out at the place of loading of

propagating material of Corylus material intended for export to the EU.

Before export, roots of bare rooted plants are washed to remove all soil.

Inspection is performed in accordance with ISPM 23 and implies:

–examination of documents associated with a consignment.

–veriﬁcation of consignment identity and integrity.

–visual examination for pests and other phytosanitary requirements (such as freedom from

soil) (Dossier Section 1.0).

The examination for pests and other phytosanitary requirements (such as freedom from soil) before

export is performed using naked eye inspection. In case of any suspicion of the presence of pests,

samples are taken for laboratory analysis. Measures depending on the type of pest can be chemical

treatment if appropriate or destruction of infested plants (Dossier Section 9.1).

According to Dossier Section 1.0, the PPD of Serbia provides technical information to the staff

involved in ofﬁcial plant health controls and certiﬁcation for export on plant health status of harmful

organisms and new ﬁndings and risks, measures, notiﬁcations, speciﬁc phytosanitary requirements and

additional declarations for import/export, acting in speciﬁc cases in international trade according to

relevant International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM), as well as communication with

National Plants Protection Organisations (NPPOs) of other countries.

The PPD of Serbia issues phytosanitary certiﬁcates in accordance with ISPM 7 (Export certiﬁcation

system) and ISPM 12 (Guidelines for phytosanitary certiﬁcates) as well as the speciﬁc requirements of

the importing country.

4. Identiﬁcation of pests potentially associated with the commodity

The compiled pest list (see Microsoft Excel

ﬁle in Appendix E) including all agents associated with

Corylus avellana or Corylus colurna and all EU quarantine pests associated with Corylus yielded 894

pests. That list also included 26 RNQPs and 3 deregulated pests that were subsequently excluded from

the evaluation, as indicated in Section 1.2.

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.

Seventeen EU quarantine pests that are reported in the compiled pest list were evaluated (Table 3).

The relevance of an EU quarantine pest for this Opinion was based on evidence that:

1) the pest is present in Serbia;

2) Corylus avellana and/or C. colurna and/or other species belonging to the genus Corylus are

hosts of the pest;

3) 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.

Out of the 17 EU quarantine pests evaluated, 1 pest (Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma, FDp),

present in Serbia and known to be associated with the commodities was selected for further evaluation

(see Table 3).

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 20 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Table 3: Overview of the evaluation of the 17 EU quarantine pest species known to be associated with C. avellana, C. colurna or to the genus Corylus for

their relevance for this Opinion

Number Pest name according to

EU legislation

(a)

EPPO

code Group

Pest

present in

Serbia

Corylus conﬁrmed as a

host (reference)

Pest can be

associated with

bare rooted

plants

(b)

Pest can be

associated with

plants in pots

(b)

Pest

relevant for

the

Opinion

1Anisogramma anomala

(synonym: Apioporthe

anomala)

CRSPAN Fungi No Yes, as C. avellana (EPPO,

online)

Not evaluated Not evaluated No

2Anoplophora chinensis ANOLCN Insects No Yes, as C. avellana (EPPO,

online)

Not evaluated Not evaluated No

3Anoplophora glabripennis ANOLGL Insects No Yes, as C. colurna (EPPO,

online)

Not evaluated Not evaluated No

4Choristoneura conﬂictana ARCHCO Insects No Yes, as Corylus (Robinson

et al., online)

Not evaluated Not evaluated No

5Choristoneura rosaceana CHONRO Insects No Yes, as C. avellana (EPPO,

online)

Not evaluated Not evaluated No

6Cryptosporella anomala CRSPAN Fungi No Yes, as Corylus (Farr and

Rossman, online)

Not evaluated Not evaluated No

7 Grapevine ﬂavescence dor

phytoplasma (synonym:

Flavescence dor

phytoplasma)

PHYP64 Phytoplasma Yes Yes, as C. avellana (Casati

et al., 2017; Mehle et al.,

2019)

Yes Yes Yes

8Lopholeucaspis japonica LOPLJA Insects No Yes, as C. avellana (Garc



ıa

Morales et al., online)

Not evaluated Not evaluated No

9Naupactus leucoloma GRAGLE Insects No Yes, as C. avellana (Snare,

2006)

Not evaluated Not evaluated No

10 Oemona hirta OEMOHI Insects No Yes, as Corylus (EPPO,

online)

Not evaluated Not evaluated No

11 Phymatotrichopsis omnivora PHMPOM Fungi No Yes, as C. avellana (Snare,

2006)

Not evaluated Not evaluated No

12 Phytophthora ramorum

(non-EU isolates)

PHYTRA Oomycetes No

(c)

Yes, as C. avellana (Denman

et al., 2005)

Yes Yes No

13 Popillia japonica POPIJA Insects No Yes, as C. avellana (EPPO,

online)

Not evaluated Not evaluated No

14 Thaumetopoea processionea THAUPR Insects Yes Yes, as Corylus (CABI,

online)

No No No

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 21 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

Number Pest name according to

EU legislation

(a)

EPPO

code Group

Pest

present in

Serbia

Corylus conﬁrmed as a

host (reference)

Pest can be

associated with

bare rooted

plants

(b)

Pest can be

associated with

plants in pots

(b)

Pest

relevant for

the

Opinion

15 Tulare apple mosaic virus

(synonym: Tulare apple

mosaic ilarvirus)

as non-European viruses,

viroids and phytoplasmas of

Cydonia Mill., Fragaria L.,

Malus Mill., Prunus L., Pyrus

L., Ribes L., Rubus L. and

Vitis L.

TAMV00 Virus No Yes, as C. avellana (Brunt

et al., online)

Not evaluated Not evaluated No

16 Xyleborus xylographus

as Scolytidae non-European

XYLBXY Insects No Yes, as C. avellana (Snare,

2006)

Not evaluated Not evaluated No

17 Xylosandrus compactus

as Scolytidae non-European

XYLSCO Insects No Yes, as C. avellana (Faccoli,

2021)

Not evaluated Not evaluated No

(a): Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072.

(b): The question whether the pest can be associated with the commodity was evaluated only if the questions on the presence in Serbia and the association with Corylus,C. avellana or C. colurna

were answered with ‘Yes’.

(c): Phytophthora ramorum is indicated as present in Serbia by EPPO (online), CABI (online), and Farr and Rossman (online). However, NPPO of Serbia considers the pathogen as absent/

eradicated based on intensive surveys conducted from 2009 to 2020 (Dossier Section 9.1). Therefore, the Panel considers Phytophthora ramorum as no longer present in Serbia.

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 22 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

4.2. Selection of other relevant pests (not regulated in the EU)

associated with the commodity

The information provided by the PPD of Serbia, integrated with the search EFSA performed, was

evaluated to assess whether there are other potentially relevant pests of C. avellana or C. colurna

present in the country of export. For these potential pests not regulated in the EU, pest risk

assessment information on the probability of introduction, establishment, spread and impact is usually

lacking. Therefore, these pests that are potentially associated with C. avellana or C. colurna were also

evaluated to determine their relevance for this Opinion based on evidence that:

1) the pest is present in Serbia;

2) the pest is (i) absent or (ii) has a limited distribution in the EU and phytosanitary measures

are in place in at least of one of the relevant EU MS or all evidence of introduction is recent

(no older than ﬁve years);

3) Corylus avellana and/or C. colurna is a host of the pest;

4) one or more life stages of the pest can be associated with the speciﬁed commodity;

5) 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, 848 not regulated potential pests known to be associated with

C. avellana and/or C. colurna were evaluated for their relevance to this Opinion. Species were

excluded from further evaluation when at least one of the conditions listed above (1–5) was not met.

Details can be found in the Appendix E(Microsoft Excel

ﬁle). None of the pests not regulated in the

EU was selected for further evaluation because none of them met all selection criteria.

4.3. Overview of interceptions

Data on the interception of harmful organisms on plants of C. avellana or C. colurna can provide

information on some of the organisms that can be present on C. avellana or C. colurna despite the

current measures taken.

According to EUROPHYT online (accessed on 6 August 2020) and TRACES-NT online (accessed on

5 February 2021), there were no interceptions of plants for planting of C. avellana or C. colurna from

Serbia destinated to the EU Member States due to the presence of harmful organisms between 1995

and January 2021.

4.4. List of potential pests not further assessed

From the list of pests not selected for further evaluation, the Panel highlighted two species (see

Appendix D) for which the currently available evidence provides no reason to select these species for

further evaluation in this Opinion. A speciﬁc justiﬁcation of the inclusion in this list is provided in

Appendix Dfor each species.

4.5. Summary of pests selected for further evaluation

One pest identiﬁed to be present in Serbia while having potential for association with the

commodities destined for export is listed in Table 4. The effectiveness of the risk mitigation measures

proposed for the commodities by the Serbia was evaluated for this selected pest.

Table 4: 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

1 Flavescence

dor

phytoplasma

PHYP64 Grapevine

ﬂavescence

dor

phytoplasma

Acholeplasmatales,

Acholeplasmataceae

Phytoplasma EU quarantine pest

according to

Commission

Implementing

Regulation (EU) 2019/

2072

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 23 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

5. Risk mitigation measures

For the selected pest (see Table 4), the Panel assessed the possibility that it could be present in the

exporting nurseries and assessed the probability that pest freedom is achieved by the proposed risk

mitigation measures acting on the pest under evaluation.

The information used in the evaluation of the effectiveness 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 the selected pest (see Table 4), the Panel assessed the likelihood that the pest could be present

in the exporting nurseries by evaluating the possibility that C. avellana and/or C. colurna in the export

nurseries are infested either by:

•introduction of the pest from the environment surrounding the nurseries;

•introduction of the pest with new plants/seeds;

•spread of the pest within the nurseries.

5.2. Risk mitigation measures proposed

With the information provided by the PPD of Serbia (Dossier Sections 1.0, 8.0 and 9.1), the

Panel summarised the risk mitigation measures (see Table 5) proposed by Serbia on the hazelnut

planting material production.

Table 5: Overview of proposed risk mitigation measures for Corylus avellana and/or C. colurna

plants designated for export to the EU from Serbia

Risk

mitigation

measure

Implementation

1 Introduction of

controlled

planting material

Introduction of planting material for establishment of mother plantations, nurseries and

plantations is based on Memorandum of Understanding and Protocol on the

phytosanitary requirements for the export of hazelnut propagating material and hazelnut

fruit plants from the Italian Republic to Republic of Serbia, signed in February 2018. It

speciﬁes the speciﬁc phytosanitary measures and procedures in Italy to export hazelnut

propagating material and hazelnut fruit plants, genus Corylus to the Republic of Serbia.

The protocol guarantees the plant health, traceability and commercial quality of the

planting material to be marketed on the territory of the Republic of Serbia, starting from

the 2017–2018 export campaign (Dossier Section 1.0). The status of mother plants

imported from countries different from Italy is obtained after tests in a similar way as

speciﬁed above (Dossier Section 9.1).

2 Mandatory

laboratory

testing

Mandatory laboratory testing of plants for planting for Xanthomonas coryllina on

imports.

3 Certiﬁcation

scheme

Certiﬁcation scheme was established in 2005 by the Regulation (Law on propagating

material of fruits, vine and hops) and harmonised with the EPPO. Throughout the

certiﬁcation scheme, the origin of each plant is known so that health or trueness to type

may be traced. The use of propagation material in nurseries to produce plant

propagation material (certiﬁed and CAC) is checked by an ofﬁcially authorised service

that controls the plant health, origin and amount of such material on the basis of ﬁeld

inspections and of the records and documents presented by the nursery. The nursery

plant protection program and the ﬁeld check inspections take into account other

important pests that can affect quality, so that the certiﬁed plants and plants of

category CAC delivered to the fruit grower are substantially free from quarantine pests

and RNQPs. Plants leaving the scheme carry an ofﬁcial certiﬁcate (label) indicating the

certifying authority, the plant producer and the certiﬁcation status of the plants as well

as the nursery (producer) registration number and number of certiﬁcate.

According to Dossier Section 9.1, the phytosanitary requirements and quality standards

for production intended for the domestic market that are prescribed by national

legislation correspond to the EU requirements, so that the production management is

the same for exports and for the domestic market.

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 24 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Risk

mitigation

measure

Implementation

4 Soil inspections

and treatments

Soil analyses are obligatory steps in the process of establishment of nursery production

each year and the soil analyses are mandatory in the process of application for the

production each year.

Also, Serbia can guarantee requested ofﬁcial statements for Clavibacter sepedonicus

(Spieckermann and Kottho) Nouioui et al. Synchytrium endobioticum (Schilb.) Percival,

Globodera pallida (Stone) Behrens, Globodera rostochiensis (Wollenweber) Behrens in

accordance with pest status of these pathogens in Serbia.

According to Dossier Section 9.1, the soil is not treated.

5 Visual

inspections

The competent authority, and the professional operator under the ofﬁcial supervision of

the competent authority, shall carry out checks and take any other actions to ensure

that:

(a) the plants shall at least appear, on visual inspection, to be practically free from

pests,

(b) any plants showing visible signs or symptoms of the pests speciﬁed in Dossier

Section 1.0, at the stage of the growing crop, have been treated properly

immediately upon their appearance or, when appropriate, have been eliminated.

According to ‘Protocol for inspection for hazelnut mother plants and nurseries’(Dossier

Section 5.2), two visual inspections of mother plantation (in the period May–June and

August–September), and two visual inspections of nursery (in the period June and

August–September) have to be performed. The following pests are monitored during

these visual inspections: symptoms of Pseudomonas avellanae,Xanthomonas arboricola

pv. corylina,Phytoptus avellanae,Armillariella mellea, Verticillium alboatrum, Verticillium

dahlia.

Visual inspections are performed in nurseries by the naked eye twice a year. In spring–

summer for the ﬁrst time and for the second time before the end of vegetation.

Sampling occurs only when there is suspicion of the presence of viruses and

phytoplasma.

Visual assessment of the mother plants occurs every year during ofﬁcial control. Mother

plants are sampled and tested in case of symptoms.

6 Pesticide

treatments

The nurseries perform chemical (pesticide) treatments. Several pesticides are used in a

preventative way against targeted pest species (i.e.: Phytoptus avellanae and

Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina), e.g. Abamectin, Copper oxide, Sulfur, Parafﬁn oil

(Dossier Sections 1.0 and 9.1). Details on pesticide treatment can be found in Table E1

of Dossier Section 1.0.

7 Inspection

before export

The examination for pests and other phytosanitary requirements (such as freedom from

soil) before export is performed by naked eye inspection. If there is any suspicion of the

presence of pests, samples are taken for the laboratory analysis. Measures depending

on the type of pest can be chemical treatment if appropriate or destruction of infested

plants (Dossier Section 9.1).

For more details see Section 3.4. part ‘Inspection before export’.

8 Checks

performed by

the PPD

The PPD of Serbia carry out checks and take any other actions to ensure that the plants

appear, on visual inspection, to be practically free from quarantine pests and regulated

non quarantine pests.

9 Surveillance and

monitoring

According to Dossier Section 1.0, hazelnut planting material is under permanent

surveillance and monitoring. The process is under ofﬁcial controls and there are ofﬁcial

records of the production surveillance in all registered nurseries. The procedures and

protocols for the commodity, hazelnut planting material are in line with EPPO Standards

PM 4/31 (1) and PM 3/72 (1).

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 25 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Risk

mitigation

measure

Implementation

As in Dossier Section 5.2, mother plants and plants for planting are inspected and

monitored for the presence of the following pests: Pseudomonas avellanae,

Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina, Phytoptus avellanae, Armillariella mellea,

Verticillium alboatrum, Verticillium dahlia. In addition, according to Dossier Section 9.1,

other inspection targets in the nursery are: Clavibacter sepedonicus, Synchytrium

endobioticum, Globodera pallida, Globodera rostochiensis, Apple mosaic ilarvirus,

Anisogramma anomala, Popilia japonica, Anoplophora chinensis. Details of the inspection

and monitoring are speciﬁed in Dossier Section 9.1.

10 Root treatment Bare rooted plants: Uprooting, removal of soil. Additionally, the rest of the soil is

removed by washing the plant individually. Individual plants are washed with clean

water that is under pressure without any added chemicals.

Plants in pots: Uprooting, removal of soil. Additionally, the rest of the soil is removed by

washing the plant individually. Individual plants are washed with clean water that is

under pressure without any added chemicals. Planting in pots in commercial growing

substrate for the next growing vegetation.

11 Rotation The production of plants for planting is in strict crop rotation. The rotation of the plant

for planting production ﬁelds is obligatory by the Serbian regulation. Nursery production

can occur on the same plot for a maximum of 3 years. The crop history at the ﬁeld is

presented when registering production every year. Given the availability of large areas of

land on which nursery plants can be produced in the Vojvodina region, new production

is always on ‘virgin land’on which no nursery has ever been produced before. In the

Rasina districts, the common practice is for leguminous crops for 2–3 years and then

again different fruit species then hazelnut plants for planting (Dossier Section 9.1).

12 Isolation Isolation is a Good Agriculture Practice measure applied by nurseries to set the planting

material plots at least of 500 m from fruit plantations of the same species, even when

this is not regulated, as in the case of hazelnut. The inspectors, during ofﬁcial controls

inspect the vicinity of the nursery for the presence of fruit growing plantations (Dossier

Section 9.1).

13 Measures taken

to avoid

recontamination

or re-infestation

of growing

medium in pots

According to Dossier Section 9.1, in the nursery, the following measures are taken to

avoid recontamination or re-infestation of growing medium during the last growing

season for plants in pots:

–physical isolation of the growing medium from soil and other possible sources of

contamination;

–use agro-textile foil, geographical distance from other host plants, removal of

infested plants and plant debris;

–hygiene measures, using clean tools, equipment, containers, disinfection of tools

and equipment, personal hygiene, routines for use of packaging material and

packaging facilities. —using water free from EU quarantine pests, such as

Ralstonia solanacearum and other harmful bacteria and viruses, - uncontaminated

water sources;

–Pesticide applications to prevent or treat pest and diseases as well as possible

vectors (Dossier Section 9.1).

14 Management of

fallen leaves

Fallen leaves are generally collected and removed from the nurseries (Dossier

Section 9.1). For more details, see Appendix F.

15 Hygiene

measures

applied to plants

grown in pots

All tools and devices are disinfected with alcohol (Dossier Section 9.1).

16 Management of

non-cultivated

herbaceous

plants and

weeds

Some of the nurseries are regularly cultivated, and the access roads are ﬁlled with

gravel. In other nurseries, there are no weeds, because the land is regularly maintained

by inter-row tillage with machines, and in-line tillage is carried out manually, with hoes.

In general, all nurseries that are intending to export plants manage weeds mechanically

by hand tools cultivation depending on the appearance of weeds (Dossier Section 9.1).

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 26 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

5.3. Evaluation of the current measures for the selected relevant pests

including uncertainties

The relevant risk mitigation measures acting on the selected pest were identiﬁed. Any limiting

factors on the effectiveness of the measures were documented.

All the relevant information including the related uncertainties deriving from the limiting factors

used in the evaluation are summarised in a pest data sheet provided in Appendix A. Based on this

information, for the selected pest, an expert judgement is given for the likelihood of pest freedom

taking into consideration the risk mitigation measures and their combination acting on the pest.

An overview of the evaluation of the relevant pest is given in Section 5.3.1. The outcome of the

EKE regarding pest freedom after the evaluation of the proposed risk mitigation measures is

summarised in Section 5.3.2.

The biology of the pest, the production systems and the risk mitigation measures suggested the

same likelihood of pest freedom for both commodities; therefore, the EKE was performed together for

bare rooted plants and plants in pots.

5.3.1. Overview of the evaluation of Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma

Overview of the evaluation of Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma for bare rooted plants and plants in pots

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

9,837

out of 10,000

plants

9,903

out of 10,000

plants

9,946

out of 10,000

plants

9,977

out of 10,000

plants

9,996

out of 10,000

plants

Percentile of

the distribution

5% 25% Median 75% 95%

Proportion of

infested plants

out of 10,000

plants

out of 10,000

plants

out of 10,000

plants

out of 10,000

plants

163

out of 10,000

plants

Summary of

the information

used for the

evaluation

Possibility that the pest could become associated with the commodity

The pest could be present in the surrounding of the nurseries at the distance of over 1 km and

could be introduced into the nurseries by means of insect vectors. The pest could also enter the

nurseries with infected plant material. Plants intended for export to the EU may become infected

directly by means of vectors or through infected plant material from mother plants.

Measures taken against the pest and their efﬁcacy

FDp and its vectors are ofﬁcially controlled in vineyard and this may reduce the inoculum

pressure in the surrounding of the nurseries. Although not targeting speciﬁcally FDp vectors,

preventative treatments with some insecticides are expected to reduce the level of vector

population in the nurseries.

Risk

mitigation

measure

Implementation

17 Measure to

reduce

Flavescence

dor

phytoplasma

outside the

nurseries

Speciﬁc control measures applied against FDp and its vector S. titanus include:

1) Removal and destruction of infected plants with roots;

2) Destruction of abandoned vineyards and other hosts plants in the immediate and

wider environment of production or mother plantations;

3) Destruction of wild grape vines in the immediate and wider vicinity of active vineyards;

4) Control of weeds and wild grape plants as potential reservoirs of phytoplasma, including

Clematis vitalba and Alnus glutinosa;

5) Control of S. titanus in vineyards in accordance with recommendations of the Plant

protection forecast and report service (PIS) (Dossier Section 9.1).

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 27 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Interception records

In the EUROPHYT/TRACES-NT database, there are no records of notiﬁcation of C. avellana and

C. colurna plants for planting neither from Serbia nor from other countries due to the presence

of FDp between 1995 and January 2021 (EUROPHYT/TRACES-NT, online).

Shortcomings of current measures/procedures

FDp has been recently reported on hazelnut. Therefore, current measures in place in the

nurseries including inspections do not target speciﬁcally the pest. The disease has been

described so far as asymptomatic on hazelnut. As inspections are carried out on visual basis,

there is little chance that the disease is detected.

Main uncertainties

•The level of susceptibility of C. avellana to FDp.

•Host status of C. colurna.

•The efﬁciency of the vectors in transmitting FDp to hazelnut.

5.3.2. Outcome of Expert Knowledge Elicitation

Table 6and Figure 4show the outcome of the EKE regarding pest freedom after the evaluation of

the proposed risk mitigation measures for the evaluated pest including an explanation of the

descending distribution function describing the likelihood of pest freedom after the evaluation of the

proposed risk mitigation measures for bare rooted plants and plants in pots designated for export to

the EU.

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 28 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Table 6: Assessment of the likelihood of pest freedom following evaluation of current risk mitigation measures against Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma

on commodities designated for export to the EU. In panel A, the median value for the assessed level of pest freedom for the 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

Number Group Pest species Sometimes

pest free

More often

than not

pest free

Frequently

pest free

Very

frequently

pest free

Extremely

frequently

pest free

Pest free with

some

exceptional

cases

Pest free with

few

exceptional

cases

Almost

always

pest free

1 Phytoplasma Flavescence

dor

phytoplasma

LM U

PANEL A

Pest freedom category Pest-free plants out of 10,000 Legend of pest freedom categories

Sometimes pest free ≤5,000 LPest freedom category includes the elicited

lower bound of the 90% uncertainty range

More often than not pest free 5,000–≤9,000 MPest freedom category includes the elicited median

Frequently pest free 9,000–≤9,500 UPest freedom category includes the elicited upper

bound of the 90% uncertainty range

Very frequently pest free 9,500–≤9,900

Extremely frequently pest free 9,900–≤9,950

Pest free with some exceptional cases 9,950–≤9,990

Pest free with few exceptional cases 9,990–≤9,995

Almost always pest free 9,995–≤10,000

PANEL B

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 29 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

25%

50%

75%

100%

Elicited certainty level

[pestfree plants out of 10,000] (logarithmic scale: ─ LOG(1-PF) )

Uncertainty distribution of pest freedom of the commodities from Flavescence dorée phytoplasma

The panel is 95% certain that at least 9,837 Plants

out of 10,000 are pest free of Flavescence dorée

phytoplasma

The panel is 50% certain that at least 9,946 Plants

out of 10,000 are pest free of Flavescence dorée

phytoplasma

The panel is 5% certain that at least 9,996 Plants

out of 10,000 are pest free of Flavescence dorée

phytoplasma

Categories of pest freedom

Figure 4: Elicited certainty (y-axis) of the number of pest-free bare rooted plants of Corylus avellana and C. avellana grafted on C. colurna, and plants in

pots of C. avellana (x-axis; log-scaled) out of 10,000 plants designated for export to the EU introduced from Serbia 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 9,837 or more plants per 10,000 will be free from Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma

COLOR

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 30 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

6. Conclusions

There is one quarantine pest in the EU identiﬁed to be present in Serbia and considered as

potentially associated with bare rooted plants of C. avellana and C. avellana grafted on C. colurna, and

with plants in pots of C. avellana imported from Serbia: Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma.

For Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma, the likelihood of pest freedom for bare rooted plants and

plants in pots following evaluation of proposed risk mitigation measures was estimated as ‘extremely

frequently pest free’with the 90% uncertainty range spanning from ‘very frequently pest free’to

‘almost always pest free’. The Expert Knowledge Elicitation indicated, with 95% certainty, that between

9,837 and 10,000 plants per 10,000 will be free from Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma.

References

Brunt A, Crabtree K, Dallwitz M, Gibbs A, Watson L and Zurcher E, online. Plant Viruses Online. Available online:

http://bio-mirror.im.ac.cn/mirrors/pvo/vide/famindex.htm [Accessed: 4 February 2021].

CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), online. CABI Crop Protection Compendium. Available

online: https://www.cabi.org/cpc/ [Accessed: 4 February 2021].

Casati P, Jermini M, Quaglino F, Corbani G, Schaerer S, Passera A, Bianco PA and Rigamonti IE, 2017. New insights

on Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma ecology in the vineyard agro-ecosystem in southern Switzerland. Annals of

Applied Biology, 171, 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/aab.12359

Denman S, Kirk SA, Brasier CM and Webber JF, 2005. In vitro leaf inoculation studies as an indication of tree

foliage susceptibility to Phytophthora ramorum in the UK. Plant Pathology, 54, 512–521. https://doi.org/

10.1111/j.1365-3059.2005.01243.x

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.2018.5122ISSN:1831-4732

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), online. EPPO Global Database. Available

online: https://www.eppo.int/ [Accessed: 4 February 2021]

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: 6 August 2020]

Faccoli M, 2021. Xylosandrus compactus, un nuovo parassita forestale invade l’Italia. Forest@, 18, 8–14. https://

doi.org/10.3832/efor3711-018

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: https://

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/

Farr DF and Rossman AY, online. Fungal Databases, U.S. National Fungus Collections, ARS, USDA. Available online:

https://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/ [Accessed: 4 February 2021].

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. Available online: http://scalenet.info/associates/ [Accessed:

4 February 2021].

Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Rudolf B and Rubel F, 2006. World map of K€

oppen –Geiger climate classiﬁcation

updated. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 15, 259–263.

Mehle N, Jako

sN,Me



sl M, Miklavc J, Matko B, Rot M, Ferle

z Rus A, Brus R and Dermastia M, 2019. Phytoplasmas

associated with declining of hazelnut (Corylus avellana) in Slovenia. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 155,

1117–1132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-019-01839-3

Migeon A and Dorkeld F, online. Spider Mites Web, Bryobia angustisetis. Available online: https://www1.montpellier.

inra.fr/CBGP/spmweb/notespecies.php?id=76 [Accessed: 4 February 2021].

Milovanovi

c B, Duci

c V, Radovanovi

c M and Milivojevi

c M, 2017. Climate regionalization of Serbia according to

K€

oppen climate classiﬁcation. Journal of the Geographical Institute “Jovan Cviji

c”SASA, 67, 103–114.

Robinson GS, Ackery PR, Kitching IJ, Beccaloni GW and Hern

andez LM, online. HOSTS –A Database of the World’s

Lepidopteran Hostplants. Natural History Museum, London. Available online: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-scie

nce/data/hostplants/search/index.dsml [Accessed: 4 February 2021].

Snare L, 2006. Pest and Disease Analysis in Hazelnuts. Horticulture Australia Ltd, Hazelnut Growers of Australia

Ltd, N.S.W. Department of Primary Industries. 68 pp.

TRACES-NT, online. TRAde Control and Expert System. Available online: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/tracesnt

[Accessed: 5 February 2021]

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 31 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Glossary

Control (of a pest) 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).

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). 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).

Abbreviations

CABI Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International

CAC Conformitas Agraria Communitatis

EKE Expert Knowledge Elicitation

EPPO European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FDp Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma

ISPM International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures

MAFWM Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management

MLO Mycoplasma-like organism

NPPO National Plants Protection Organisation

PLH Plant Health

PPD Plant Protection Directorateaaaa Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water

Managementaaa Republic of Serbia

PRA Pest Risk Assessment

RNQPs Regulated Non-Quarantine Pests

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 32 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Appendix A –Data sheets of pests selected for further evaluation

A.1. Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma

A.1.1. Organism information

Taxonomic

information

Current valid scientiﬁc name: Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma (FDp)

For the purposes of this document, the distinction between the two FDp subgroups 16SrV-C

and 16SrV-D was not taken into account.

Synonyms: Grapevine ﬂavescence dor

ee phytoplasma, Flavescence dor

ee MLO, Flavescence

dor

ee mycoplasma-like organism, Grapevine yellows

Name used in the EU legislation: Grapevine ﬂavescence dor

ee phytoplasma [PHYP64]

Order: Acholeplasmatales

Family: Acholeplasmataceae

Common name: baco 22A disease, ﬂavescence dor

ee of grapevine

Name used in the Dossier: –

Group Phytoplasma

EPPO code PHYP64

Regulated

status

The pest is listed in Annex II of Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 as Grapevine ﬂavescence dor

phytoplasma [PHYP64].

The pest is included in the EPPO A2 list (EPPO, online_a).

Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma is quarantine in Canada, Israel, Mexico, Morocco, Tunisia, and

United States of America (EPPO, online_b).

Pest status

in Serbia

Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma is present with restricted distribution in Serbia (EPPO,

online_c, Dossier Section 9.1). Its presence is reported in seven vineyard production areas,

with incidence ranging from less than 5–97% by Kuzmanovic et al. (2011).

Pest status in

the EU

Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma is listed under Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/2072

in Annex II, Part B, as a Union quarantine pest known to occur in the EU. Moreover, Annex VI

prohibits the introduction of Vitis L. plants from third countries other than Switzerland, and Annex

VIII details the internal movement requirements for Vitis plants. The general requirements for

surveys of quarantine organisms in the EU territory are laid down in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031.

Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma is present with restricted distribution in Austria, Croatia, France,

Hungary, Italy, Portugal and Slovenia (EPPO, online_c).

Host status of

Corylus

avellana

Corylus avellana was reported as host very recently by Casati et al. (2017): Flavescence dor

phytoplasma has been found in asymptomatic association with C. avellana and Orientus

ishidae as vector. Mehle et al. (2019) have also evidenced hazelnut decline, in association with

different phytoplasmas including 16SrV and isolates considered identical to those causing

grapevine ﬂavescence dor

ee disease.

PRA

information

Available Pest Risk Assessment:

–Analysis of the pest risk from Grapevine ﬂavescence dor

ee phytoplasma to Austrian

viticulture (Steffek et al., 2007),

–Risk to plant health of Flavescence dor

ee for the EU territory (EFSA PLH Panel, 2016).

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 33 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Other relevant information for the assessment

Biology Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma is endemic to Europe and naturally associated with European

Alnus spp. (Malembic-Maher et al., 2020). Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma are pleomorphic,

non-culturable bacteria with no cell walls, known as phloem-obligate parasites. In infected

plants, FDp multiplies and stays within the phloem sieve tubes. It survives during winter into the

canes and roots from where it then moves, during spring, to the upper parts of the plants (EFSA

PLH Panel, 2014). Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma is acquired from the phloem by sap ingestion

by the insects (Scaphoideus titanus on Vitis sp., Dictyopharida europea,Orientus ishidae and

Phlogotettix cyclops). Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma passes through the vector’s alimentary

canal and multiplies in the midgut. Then, it colonises the haemolymph before entering and

multiplying in the salivary gland. Finally, it is delivered to another host plant through saliva (Lefol

et al., 1993, 1994). Between the acquisition by the insect and its transmission to another host

plant, there is a temperature-dependent latency period between 10 and 45 days long. The

transmission mode is termed ‘persistent and propagative’because, after phytoplasma

acquisition and the latency period, the insect vector remains infectious for life, also during

moulting. Transovarial transmission has never been reported. Transmission is also possible

through grafting (Boudon-Padieu, 2002). There are no reports of transmission by root grafting.

Following infection, it takes one year for the symptoms to become visible in susceptible hosts.

The maximum distance expected to be covered in one year by FDp disease was estimated at

44 m (with a 95% uncertainty range of 1–1,300 m), with S. titanus being the main limiting

factor on disease progression (EFSA, 2020).

Most of the information including that reported above, comes from the pathosystem on Vitis.

However, other pathosystems are known but poorly described.

Symptoms Main type

of symptoms

On C. avellana, the FDp has only been reported recently in

asymptomatic tissues (Casati et al., 2017). The pathogen has been

reported in declining plants (leaf yellowing or curling, leaf drops and in a

limited number of cases, proliferation of sprouts from roots and or

trunks, witches’broom symptoms) in association with other

phytoplasmas (Mehle et al., 2019). The role of FDp in the elicitation of

symptoms still needs to be deﬁned.

Presence of

asymptomatic

plants

Asymptomatic association with C. avellana reported (Casati et al., 2017).

Confusion with

other

pathogens/pests

Infection by different phytoplasma reported, e.g. Candidatus

Phytoplasma fragariae (Mehle et al., 2019).

Host plant

range

Species belonging to the genus Vitis are the most economically important FDp hosts: V. vinifera,

V. armurensis, V. champinii, V. doaniana, V. labrusca, V. longii, V. pentagona, V. riparia, V. rubra,

V. rupestris, V. simpsonii, V. sylvestris and interspeciﬁc hybrids used as rootstocks (EFSA PLH

Panel, 2014; EPPO, 1996). Other hosts are Ailanthus altissima,Alnus spp. and Clematis vitalba

(EFSA PLH Panel, 2014). In addition, FDp was recently reported from C. avellana and Salix sp.

(Casati et al., 2017).

Reported

evidence of

impact

Impact range was estimated by EFSA PLH Panel (2016). Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma and

its insect vectors are already widely present in the EU. Additional impact would occur if FDp

was introduced in areas where it does not yet occur.

Pathways and

evidence that

the commodity

is a pathway

Possible pathways of entry for FDp are plants for planting and insect vectors, both as

hitchhikers and actively ﬂying insects (Scaphoideus titanus on Vitis sp., Dictyopharida europea,

Orientus ishidae and Phlogotettix cyclops). Orientus ishidae is a vector of FDp commonly

associated with C. avellana.

Corylus avellana was reported as a host very recently by Casati et al. (2017). Flavescence

dor

ee phytoplasma was reported from leaves and even petioles of C. avellana. Therefore, the

Panel assumes that the pathogen moves systemically throughout the phloem of the plant as

repeatedly documented in other hosts (EFSA PLH Panel, 2014; EFSA PLH Panel, 2016),

making the commodity a pathway, despite the scarcity of information available about the

presence of FDp in phloem of stems and roots of C. avellana.

Surveillance

information

Ofﬁcial surveillance on FDp phytoplasma and Scaphoideus titanus, with the undertaking of

measures has been implemented since 2005 with the adoption of the Order on measures to

control FDp in Serbia. Surveillance of FDp and its main vector Scaphoideus titanus is carried

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 34 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

out throughout the country in all districts and vine regions (Dossier Section 9.1).

Surveillance of the FDp is carried out by visual inspection of facilities for production of

grapevine planting material (mother blocks, nursery and isolation belt), visual inspection of

production plantations and their immediate surroundings (Dossier Section 9.1).

In 2009–2020, more than 4,500 samples of grapevine (Vitis vinifera) were tested by molecular

analysis performed by the laboratory of Plant Protection Institute Zemun-Belgrade (Dossier

Section 9.1).

A.1.2. Possibility of pest presence in the nursery

A.1.2.1. Possibility of entry from the surrounding environment

Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma is present with restricted distribution in Serbia (EPPO, online_c;

Dossier Section 9.1). The possibility of entry of FDp from the surrounding environment is through sap-

sucking insect vectors. After having acquired FDp on host plants (e.g. Ailanthus altissima,Alnus sp.,

Clematis alba,Corylus avellana,Salix sp., Vitis sp.), insect vectors remain infectious for the rest of their

lives. Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma presence in grapevine can be observed about one year after the

infection but may remain asymptomatic in other host plants. The infection of a few plants could be

caused by occasional vectors, such as Dictyophara europaea,Orientus ishidae and Phlogotettix

cyclops, which can transfer FDp to grapevines from other plant species (EFSA, 2020).

Dictyophara europaea (Hemiptera: Dictyopharidae): the European lantern ﬂy is a polyphagous

species widely distributed in the western Palaearctic. It is able to transmit FDp from Clematis vitalba to

grapes under natural conditions (Filippin et al., 2009), although the latter is not among its preferred

hosts (Lessio and Alma, 2008). Even if its vector ability seems to be proven, it is considered only an

occasional vector of FDp (Lessio and Alma, 2008; Linder and Cavadini, 2014). The presence of

D. europaea on hazelnut has been recorded (personal communication by Francesco Sanna, 2020).

Orientus ishidae (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae): the mosaic leafhopper is a polyphagous species. First

reported in the EU in 1998, its vector ability was conﬁrmed in laboratory experiments (Lessio et al.,

2016; Malembic-Maher et al., 2020), although with limited efﬁciency compared to S. titanus. Orientus

ishidae is widespread in vineyard agroecosystems. Its eggs can be found on Vitis spp. However, the

insect does not move frequently to grapevine and is therefore considered only a very occasional vector

of FDp (Jermini et al., 2019; Lessio et al., 2019). Nevertheless, O. ishidae has been associated with

Corylus avellana and FDp by Casati et al. (2017) in Switzerland. The development cycle of the insect is

done on C. avellana (personal communication by Francesco Sanna, 2020).

Phlogotettix cyclops (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae): this Asian leafhopper species is currently present in

some EU grapevine-growing countries (Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Italy and

Romania). Recent ﬁndings from Austria highlighted its putative vector role (Strauss and Reisenzein,

2018) and infected specimens have been found on grapevines as well as on C. vitalba and Ulmus

laevis that were growing near the vineyards (Reisenzein and Strauss, 2019). The ﬁrst transmission

trials proved its capacity to acquire FDp from C. vitalba (Reisenzein and Strauss, 2019) and other

preliminary results support the hypothesis that P. cyclops has the capacity to infect grapevines with

FDp. However, further studies are needed to verify whether this species serves as a vector of FDp

(EFSA, 2020).

All mentioned vectors of FDp are present in Serbia (Dossier Section 9.1), Orientus ishidae (



S

ciban

and Kosovac, 2020) sporadically on Vitis sp., Populus alba,Salix alba,Malus sylvestris,Prunus

cerasifera and Amorpha fruticose (Dossier Section 9.1), Dictyophara europaea (EPPO, online_d; Fauna

Europaea, online) widespread (Dossier Section 9.1) and Scaphoideus titanus (EPPO, online_e) with

restricted distribution (Dossier Section 9.1). In addition, Phlogotettix cyclops has also been reported in

Serbia (Fauna Europaea, online;



S

ciban and Kosovac, 2020).

The rate of transfer of FDp from the wild compartment to vineyards (EFSA PLH Panel, 2016), and

similarly, from the vineyards to the wild compartment, by vectors other than S. titanus, are unknown

but are likely to be very low.

The maximum distance expected to be covered in one year by FDp disease was estimated at 44 m

(with a 95% uncertainty range of 1–1,300 m), with S. titanus being the main limiting factor on disease

progression (EFSA, 2020).

The nurseries intended to export the commodities to the EU are surrounded by other nurseries and

agricultural crops. According to Dossier Section 9.1, nurseries intended for export of hazelnut to the

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 35 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

EU are located in isolated area without FDp, but there is not ofﬁcially declared pest-free area.

Minimum distance in a straight line between the export nurseries and vineyards and the infested area

of the FDp is at least 1 km (Dossier Section 9.1).

There are windbreak treelines around some nurseries consisting either of Populus nigra var. italica

or Robinia pseudoacacia, but these are not reported as hosts of FDp.

Possibility of hitchhiking activity of insect vectors through cars, vehicles and humans cannot be

excluded.

Uncertainties:

–level of susceptibility of C. avellana to FDp;

–presence of FDp in phloem of stems and roots of C. avellana;

–abundance of FDp-contaminated plants (grapevine or alternative hosts) in the surroundings of

the nursery;

–rate of transfer from grapevine or wild compartment to C. avellana;

–presence and abundance of the insect vectors around the nurseries;

–role of Dictyophara europaea, Orientus ishidae and Phlogotettix cyclops as potential insect

vectors;

–role of Dictyophara europaea, Orientus ishidae and Phlogotettix cyclops as hitchhikers is not

known.

Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that it is

possible for the pathogen to enter the nursery from the surrounding area. The pathogen can be

present in the surrounding areas and the transfer rate could be enhanced by the presence of efﬁcient

insect vectors.

A.1.2.2. Possibility of entry with new plants/seeds

Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma has been shown to be transmitted by grafting in grapevine, and is

likely to be transmitted by grafting in other host plants. Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma might

therefore enter the nursery through the introduction of infected and asymptomatic plants of

C. avellana or other susceptible hosts (e.g. grapevine), although this is expected to occur only very rarely.

It is known that production processes may rely on plant material coming from outside the nurseries

(Dossier Sections 1.0 and 9.1).

The origin of the mother plants is Italy, Serbia, Bulgaria, Russia and France. There are some

nurseries that introduce scions and rootstocks from other Serbian nurseries or import from European

countries. Mother plants are visually assessed every year during ofﬁcial controls and sampled and

tested in case of symptoms (Dossier Section 9.1).

Uncertainties:

–level of susceptibility of C. avellana for FDp,

–presence of FDp in phloem of stems and roots of C. avellana,

–host status of C. colurna for FDp,

–contamination of C. avellana in a nursery has never been reported.

Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that it is

possible for the pathogen to enter the nursery with new plants/seeds or soil growing medium.

A.1.2.3. Possibility of spread within the nursery

If FDp is present within the nursery either on plants to be exported or on mother plants, spread

would occur by phloem feeding insect vectors or grafting. Potential insect vectors are insects such as

O. ishidae, D. europaea and P. cyclops (Casati et al., 2017).

Uncertainties:

–level of susceptibility of C. avellana to FDp;

–presence of FDp in phloem of stems and roots of C. avellana;

–abundance of FDp-contaminated plants inside the nurseries;

–presence and abundance of the insect vectors in the nurseries;

–role of Dictyophara europaea, Orientus ishidae and Phlogotettix cyclops as potential insect

vectors;

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 36 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

–effect of the insecticide treatments on the insect vectors;

–contamination of C. avellana in a nursery has never been reported;

–rate of successful transmission of FDp through grafting.

Taking into consideration the above evidence and uncertainties, the Panel considers that the

transfer of the pathogen within the nursery is possible.

A.1.3. Information from interceptions

In the EUROPHYT/TRACES-NT database, there are no records of notiﬁcation of Corylus avellana

and C. colurna plants for planting neither from Serbia nor from other countries due to the presence of

FDp between the years 1995 and January 2021 (EUROPHYT/TRACES-NT, online).

A.1.4. Evaluation of the risk mitigation measures

In the table below, all risk mitigation measures proposed in Serbia are summarised and an

indication of their effectiveness on Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma is provided.

NRisk mitigation

measure

Effect on

the pest

Evaluation and uncertainties

on bare rooted plants

Evaluation and uncertainties

on plants in pots

1 Introduction of

controlled planting

material

Yes The risk mitigation measure is

considered to have some effect;

however, the report of hazelnut as

host is recent and no symptoms

have been associated with FDp so

far.

Uncertainties:

–It is uncertain if the infected

hazelnut plants show symptoms.

The risk mitigation measure is

considered to have some effect;

however, the report of hazelnut as

host is recent and no symptoms

have been associated with FDp so

far.

Uncertainties:

–It is uncertain if the infected

hazelnut plants show

symptoms.

2 Mandatory

laboratory testing

No Not applicable Not applicable

3 Certiﬁcation scheme Yes The risk mitigation measure is

considered to have some effect;

however, the report of hazelnut as

host is recent and no symptoms

have been associated with FDp so

far.

Uncertainties:

–It is uncertain if the infected

hazelnut plants show symptoms.

The risk mitigation measure is

considered to have some effect;

however, the report of hazelnut as

host is recent and no symptoms

have been associated with FDp so

far.

Uncertainties:

–It is uncertain if the infected

hazelnut plants show

symptoms.

4 Soil inspections and

treatments

No Not applicable Not applicable

5 Visual inspections Yes The risk mitigation measure is

considered to have some effect;

however, the report of hazelnut as

host is recent and no symptoms

have been associated with FDp so

far.

Uncertainties:

–It is uncertain if the infected

hazelnut plants show

symptoms.

The risk mitigation measure is

considered to have some effect;

however, the report of hazelnut as

host is recent and no symptoms

have been associated with FDp so

far.

Uncertainties:

–It is uncertain if the infected

hazelnut plants show

symptoms.

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 37 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

NRisk mitigation

measure

Effect on

the pest

Evaluation and uncertainties

on bare rooted plants

Evaluation and uncertainties

on plants in pots

6 Pesticide

treatments

Yes, indirectly

on the vector

The pesticides have no direct

effect on FDp.

The risk mitigation measure is

considered to have some effect on

the vectors (at the egg stage

Parafﬁn oil) or to be very effective

against the young stages

(Abamectin).

Uncertainties:

–It is uncertain if the Parafﬁn oil

may reach the egg when it is

laid in the bark.

The pesticides have no direct

effect on FDp.

The risk mitigation measure is

considered to have some effect on

the vectors (at the egg stage

Parafﬁn oil) or to be very effective

against the young stages

(Abamectin).

Uncertainties:

–It is uncertain if the Parafﬁn oil

may reach the egg when it is

laid in the bark.

7 Inspection before

export

No Not applicable Not applicable

8 Checks performed

by the PPD of

Serbia

Yes The risk mitigation measure is

considered to have some effect;

however, the report of hazelnut as

host is recent and no symptoms

have been associated with FDp so

far.

Uncertainties:

–It is uncertain if the infected

hazelnut plants show

symptoms.

The risk mitigation measure is

considered to have some effect;

however, the report of hazelnut as

host is recent and no symptoms

have been associated with FDp so

far.

Uncertainties:

–It is uncertain if the infected

hazelnut plants show

symptoms.

9 Surveillance and

monitoring

Yes The risk mitigation measure is

considered to have some effect;

however, the report of hazelnut as

host is recent and no symptoms

have been associated with FDp so

far.

Uncertainties:

–It is uncertain if the infected

hazelnut plants show

symptoms.

The risk mitigation measure is

considered to have some effect;

however, the report of hazelnut as

host is recent and no symptoms

have been associated with FDp so

far.

Uncertainties:

–It is uncertain if the infected

hazelnut plants show

symptoms.

10 Root treatment No Not applicable Not applicable

11 Rotation No Not applicable Not applicable

12 Isolation Yes This risk mitigation measure may

have some effect.

Uncertainties:

–The level of susceptibility of

hazelnut to FDp is not known.

This risk mitigation measure may

have some effect.

Uncertainties:

–The level of susceptibility of

hazelnut to FDp is not known.

13 Measures taken to

avoid

recontamination or

re-infestation of

growing medium in

pots

No Not applicable Not applicable

14 Management of

fallen leaves

No Not applicable Not applicable

15 Hygienic measures

applied to plants

grown in pots

No Not applicable Not applicable

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 38 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

NRisk mitigation

measure

Effect on

the pest

Evaluation and uncertainties

on bare rooted plants

Evaluation and uncertainties

on plants in pots

16 Management of

non-cultivated

herbaceous plants

and weeds

Yes, indirectly

on the vector

Some vectors are polyphagous;

therefore, the removal of weeds is

expected to lower the vector

population.

Uncertainties:

–Association of the vector with

the herbaceous plants is

unknown.

–The abundance of the vector is

not known.

Some vectors are polyphagous;

therefore, the removal of weeds is

expected to lower the vector

population.

Uncertainties:

–Association of the vector with

the herbaceous plants is

unknown.

The abundance of the vector is

not known.

17 Measure to reduce

FDp outside the

nurseries

Yes The removal of infected Vitis

plants or other host plants that

could serve as reservoir from the

surrounding of the nurseries is

expected to reduce the inoculum

potential in the environment.

Uncertainties:

–No uncertainty

The removal of infected Vitis plants

or other host plants that could

serve as reservoir from the

surrounding of the nurseries is

expected to reduce the inoculum

potential in the environment.

Uncertainties:

–No uncertainty

A.1.5. Overall likelihood of pest freedom for bare rooted plants and

plants in pots

A.1.5.1. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably low number

of infested bare rooted plants and plants in pots

Main production area is located in areas with few vineyards and this would result in a limited

likelihood of entry from the surrounding. The vectors that might be efﬁcient are only sporadically

present in Serbia. The scenario also assumes that hazelnut is poorly susceptible, and disease is

associated with the development of symptoms allowing measures to be promptly undertaken.

Insecticide treatments are efﬁcient in reducing vector populations in the nurseries.

A.1.5.2. Reasoning for a scenario which would lead to a reasonably high number

of infested bare rooted plants and plants in pots

Most nurseries are located in grape vine production areas and the pest is present in some of those

production areas in Serbia. In addition, infested areas have been reported in a range of a few

kilometres from the nurseries. At least one vector is reported as widespread in Serbia. This may result

in a relevant likelihood of entry from the surrounding. In addition, the scenario assumes hazelnut to be

a suitable host for FDp and disease to be fully asymptomatic hampering detection and control.

Insecticide treatments are not sufﬁcient to completely prevent infestation by insect vectors.

A.1.5.3. Reasoning for a central scenario equally likely to over- or underestimate

the number of infested bare rooted plants and plants in pots (Median)

The median is closer to lower values because there is little evidence that hazelnut is a suitable host

of the pathogen and the probability of introduction from the surroundings of nurseries is most likely to

be low.

A.1.5.4. Reasoning for the precision of the judgement describing the remaining

uncertainties (1st and 3rd quartile/interquartile range)

There are main uncertainties about the level of susceptibility of C. avellana to FDp and the host

status of C. colurna. In addition, there is uncertainty on the efﬁciency of the vectors in transmitting

FDp to hazelnut and on the abundance of vectors in the production areas.

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 39 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

A.1.5.5. Elicitation outcomes of the assessment of the pest freedom for Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma on bare rooted

plants and plants in pots

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 –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 Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma 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 25 50 100 200

EKE 0.712 1.88 3.95 8.34 14.7 23.1 32.3 53.6 80.3 96.9 117 140 163 181 199

The EKE result is the BetaGeneral(0.9458,2.5598,0,240) distribution ﬁtted with @Risk version 7.6.

Table A.2: The uncertainty distribution of plants free of Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma 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 9,900 9,950 9,975 9,999

EKE results 9,801 9,819 9,837 9,860 9,883 9,903 9,920 9,946 9,968 9,977 9,985 9,992 9,996 9,998 9,999

The EKE results are the ﬁtted values.

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 40 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

0 100 200 300 400 500

Probability density

Infested plants [number out of 10,000]

Flavescence dorée phytoplasma

EKE result Fitted density

(a)

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 41 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

9,500 9,600 9,700 9,800 9,900 10,000

Probability density

Pestfree plants [number out of 10,000]

Flavescence dorée phytoplasma

(b)

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 42 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

25%

50%

75%

100%

9,500 9,600 9,700 9,800 9,900 10,000

Certainty level

Pestfree plants [number out of 10,000]

Flavescence dorée phytoplasma

(c)

Figure A.1: (a) Comparison of judged values for the uncertainty distribution of pest infestation per 10,000 plants (histogram in blue) and ﬁtted distribution

(red line); (b) density function to describe the uncertainties of the likelihood of pest freedom; (c) descending distribution function of the

likelihood of pest freedom

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 43 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

A.1.6. Reference list

Boudon-Padieu E, 2002. Flavescence dor

ee of the grapevine: knowledge and new developments in epidemiology,

etiology and diagnosis. ATTI Giornate Fitopatologiche, 1, 15–34.

Casati P, Jermini M, Quaglino F, Corbani G, Schaerer S, Passera A, Bianco PA and Rigamonti IE, 2017. New insights

on Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma ecology in the vineyard agro-ecosystem in southern Switzerland. Annals of

Applied Biology, 171, 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/aab.12359

EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), Tramontini S, Delbianco A and Vos S, 2020. Pest survey card on

ﬂavescence dor

ee phytoplasma and its vector Scaphoideus titanus. EFSA supporting publication 2020;EN-1909,

36 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1909

EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), 2014. Scientiﬁc Opinion on pest categorisation of Grapevine

Flavescence Dor

ee. EFSA Journal 2014;12(10):3851, 31 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3851

EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Jeger M, Bragard C, Cafﬁer D, Candresse T,Chatzivassiliou E,

Dehnen-Schmutz K, Gilioli G, Jaques Miret JA, Mac Leod A, Navajas Navarro M, Niere B,Parnell S, Potting R,

Rafoss T, Urek G, Rossi V, Van Bruggen A, Van Der Werf W, West J, Winter S,Bosco D, Foissac X, Strauss G,

Hollo G, Mosbach-Schu lz O and Gregoire J-C, 2016. Scientiﬁc opinion on the risk to plant health of

Flavescence dor

ee for the EU territory. EFSA Journal 2016;14(12):4603, 83 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.

2016

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), online_a. 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: 9 November 2020]

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), online_b. Grapevine ﬂavescence dor

phytoplasma (PHYP64), Categorization. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/PHYP64/categorization

[Accessed: 9 November 2020]

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), online_c. Grapevine ﬂavescence dor

phytoplasma (PHYP64), Distribution. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/PHYP64/distribution [Accessed:

9 November 2020]

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), online_d. Epiptera europaea (EPPTEU),

Distribution. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/EPPTEU/distribution [Accessed: 15 January 2021]

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), online_e. Scaphoideus titanus (SCAPLI),

Distribution. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/SCAPLI/distribution [Accessed: 15 January 2021]

EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization), 1996. Data Sheet on Quarantine Pest

Grapevine ﬂavescence dor

ee phytoplasma. In: Smith IM, McNamara DG, Scott PR and Holderness M.

Quarantine pests for Europe. 2nd Edition. CABI/EPPO, Wallingford, 1425 pp.

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: 6 August 2020]

Fauna Europaea, online. Museum f€

ur Naturkunde Leibniz-Institut f€

ur Evolutions- und Biodiversit€

atsforschung,

Berlin, Germany. Available online: https://fauna-eu.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/980bdb71-7e22-42d8-8b78-8d3a

33880f94 [Accessed: 15 January 2021]

Filippin L, Jovic J, Cvrkovi

c T, Forte V, Clair D, To

sevski I, Boudon-Padieu E, Borgo M and Angelini E, 2009.

Molecular characteristics of phytoplasmas associated with Flavescence dor

ee in clematis and grapevine and

preliminary results on the role of Dictyophara europaea as a vector. Plant Pathology, 58, 826–837. https://doi.

org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2009.02092.x

Jermini M, Conedera M, Rizzoli A, Belgeri E, Filippin L and Angelini E, 2019. Potential role of Orientus ishidae in the

‘ﬂavescence dor

ee’epidemics in Ticino, Switzerland. Phytopathogenic Mollicutes, 9, 67–68. https://doi.org/10.

5958/2249-4677.2019.00034.3

Kuzmanovic S, Josic D, Starovic M, Ivanovic Z, Popovic T, Trkulja N, Bajic-Raymond S and Stojanovic S, 2011.

Detection of Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma strain C on different grapevine cultivars in Serbian vineyards.

Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 17, 325–332.

Lefol C, Caudwell A, Lherminier J and Larrue J, 1993. Attachment of the Flavescence dor

ee pathogen (MLO) to

leafhopper vectors and other insects. Annals of Applied Biology, 123, 611–622. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-

7348.1993.tb04931.x

Lefol C, Lherminier J, Boudon-Padieu E, Larrue J, Louis C and Caudwell A, 1994. Propagation of the Flavescence

dor

ee mycoplasma-like organism in the leafhopper vector Euscelidius variegatus Kbm. Journal of Invertebrate

Pathology, 63, 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1006/jipa.1994.1053

Lessio F and Alma A, 2008. Host plants and seasonal presence of Dictyophara europaea in the vineyard agro-

ecosystem. Bulletin of Insectology, 61, 199–200.

Lessio F, Picciau L, Gonella E, Mandrioli M, Tota F and Alma A, 2016. The mosaic leafhopper Orientus ishidae: Host

plants, spatial distribution, infectivity, and transmission of 16SrV phytoplasmas to vines. Bulletin of Insectology,

69, 277–289.

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 44 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Lessio F, Bocca F and Alma A, 2019. Development, spatial distribution, and presence on grapevine of nymphs of

Orientus ishidae (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae), a new vector of Flavescence Dor

ee phytoplasmas. Journal of

Economic Entomology, 112, 2558–2564. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toz177

Linder C and Cavadini M, 2014. Dictyopara europaea an alternative host of ﬂavescence dor

ee in Switzerland?

Proceedings of the IOBC/WPRS Working Group ‘Integrated protection and production in Viticulture’, Ascona,

Switzerland, 13–17 October 2013. IOBC/WPRS Bulletin, 105, 191–194.

Malembic-Maher S, Desqu

e D, Khalil D, Salar P, Bergey B, Danet J-L, Duret S, Dubrana-Ourabah M-P, Beven L,

Ember I, Acs Z, Della Bartola M, Materazzi A, Filippin L, Krnjajic S, Krstic O, To

sevski I, Lang F, Jarausch B,

K€

olber M, Jovic J, Angelini E, Arricau-Bouvery N, Maixner M and Foissac X, 2020. When a Palearctic bacterium

meets a Nearctic insect vector: Genetic and ecological insights into the emergence of the grapevine

Flavescence dor

ee epidemics in Europe. PLoS Pathogens, 16, e1007967. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.

1007967

Mehle N, Jako

sN,Me



sl M, Miklavc J, Matko B, Rot M, Ferle

z Rus A, Brus R and Dermastia M, 2019. Phytoplasmas

associated with declining of hazelnut (Corylus avellana) in Slovenia. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 155,

1117–1132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-019-01839-3

Reisenzein H and Strauss G, 2019. Sporadic outbreaks of ‘ﬂavescence dor

ee’in Austrian vineyards and the role of

Phlogottetix cyclops as a potential vector. Phytopathogenic Mollicutes, 9, 61–62. https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-

4677.2019.00031.8



S

ciban M and Kosovac A, 2020. New records and updates on alien Auchenorrhyncha species in Serbia. Pesticidi i

ﬁtomedicina, 35, 9-17. https://doi.org/10.2298/pif2001009s

Steffek R, Reisenzein H and Zeisner N, 2007. Analysis of the pest risk from Grapevine ﬂavescence dor

phytoplasma to Austrian viticulture. EPPO bulletin, 37, 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2338.2007.

01102.x

Strauss G and Reisenzein H, 2018. First detection of Flavescence dor

ee phytoplasma in Phlogotettix cyclops

(Hemiptera, Cicadellidae) and considerations on its possible role as vector in Austrian vineyards. Integrated

Protection in Viticulture IOBC-WPRS Bulletin, 139, 12–21.

TRACES-NT, online. TRAde Control and Expert System. Available online: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/tracesnt

[Accessed: 5 February 2021]

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 45 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Appendix B –Web of Science All Databases Search Strings

In Table B.1, the search string for Corylus avellana used in Web of Science is reported. Totally, 89

papers were retrieved. Titles and abstracts were screened, and 43 pests were added to the list of

pests (see Appendix E).

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

Table B.1: Search string for Corylus avellana

Web of Science

All databases

TOPIC: (“Corylus avellana”OR “C. avellana”)

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”

OR “gall”OR “ambrosia beetle$”OR “gall$”OR “bark beetle$”)

NOT

TOPIC: (“winged seeds”OR metabolites OR *tannins OR climate OR “maple syrup”OR syrup

OR mycorrhiz* OR “carbon loss”OR pollut* OR weather OR propert* OR probes OR spectr* OR

antioxidant$ OR transformation OR RNA OR DNA OR “Secondary plant metabolite$”OR

metabol* OR “Phenolic compounds”OR Quality OR Abiotic OR Storage OR Pollen* OR fertil* OR

Mulching OR Nutrient* OR Pruning OR drought OR “human virus”OR “animal disease*”OR

“plant extracts”OR immunological OR “puriﬁed fraction”OR “traditional medicine”OR medicine

OR mammal* OR bird* OR “human disease*”OR biomarker$ OR “health education”OR bat$ OR

“seedling$ survival”OR “anthropogenic disturbance”OR “cold resistance”OR “salt stress”OR

salinity OR “aCER method”OR “adaptive cognitive emotion regulation”OR nitrogen OR hygien*

OR “cognitive function$”OR fossil$ OR *toxicity OR Miocene OR postglacial OR “weed control”

OR landscape)

NOT

TOPIC: (“Acanalonia conica”OR “Agrobacterium tumefaciens”OR “Anisogramma anomala”OR

“Anoplophora chinensis”OR “Apple mosaic virus”OR “Choristoneura rosaceana”OR

“Colletotrichum acutatum”OR “Corythucha arcuata”OR “Curculio nucum”OR “Gnomoniopsis

smithogilvyi”OR “Malacosoma americanum”OR “Malacosoma disstria”OR “Megaplatypus

mutatus”OR “Monilinia fructigena”OR “Oemona hirta”OR “Orgyia leucostigma”OR “Oxycarenus

lavaterae”OR “Popillia japonica”OR “Pseudomonas avellanae”OR “Xanthomonas arboricola pv.

corylina”OR “Xyleborinus attenuatus”OR “Xylosandrus germanus”OR “Anisogramma anomala”

OR “Apple mosaic virus”OR “Choristoneura rosaceana”OR “Curculio nucum”OR “Cydia

latiferreana”OR “Erysiphe corylacearum”OR “Gonocerus acuteangulatus”OR “Lymantria dispar”

OR “Melolontha melolontha”OR “Myzocallis coryli”OR “Nematospora coryli”OR “Phyllactinia

guttata”OR “Phytoptus avellanae”OR “Pratylenchus vulnus”OR “Pseudomonas avellanae”OR

“Pucciniastrum coryli”OR “Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina”OR “Xyleborus dispar”OR

“Amphitetranychus viennensis”OR “Archips rosana”OR “Armillaria mellea”OR “Armillaria

ostoyae”OR “Aspergillus niger”OR “Candidatus Phytoplasma asteris”OR “Chinavia hilaris”OR

“Colletotrichum ﬁoriniae”OR “Diaporthe australafricana”OR “Diplodia seriata”OR “Eulecanium

tiliae”OR “Euproctis chrysorrhoea”OR “Eutypa lata”OR “Fomitiporia mediterranea”OR

“Fomitopsis pinicola”OR “Fusicoccum amygdali”OR “Gibberella baccata”OR “Heterobasidion

annosum”OR “Heterobasidion annosum sensu lato”OR “Hyphantria cunea”OR “Lymantria

monacha”OR “Malacosoma neustria”OR “Monilinia fructigena”OR “Neonectria ditissima”OR

“Operophtera brumata”OR “Orgyia antiqua”OR “Orthosia cerasi”OR “Otiorhynchus armadillo”

OR “Parthenolecanium corni”OR “Penicillium digitatum”OR “Phytoplasma fragariae”OR

“Phytoplasma mali”OR “Phytoplasma pyri”OR “Prunus necrotic ringspot virus”OR “Rosellinia

necatrix”OR “Tortrix viridana”OR “Xyleborinus saxesenii”OR “Pratylenchus penetrans”OR

“Rhizobium radiobacter”OR “Rhizobium rhizogenes”OR “Saturnia pyri”OR “Aspergillus ﬂavus”

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 46 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

OR “Penicillium notatum”OR “Alternaria alternata”OR “Alternaria tenuissima”OR “Dothiorella

iberica”OR “Dothiorella parva”OR “Megaplatypus mutatus”OR “Sphaeropsis sapinea”OR

“Corylobium avellanae”OR “Macrosiphum euphorbiae”OR “Macrosiphum corylicola”OR

“Mesocallis corylicola”OR “Myzocallis coryli”OR “Neochromaphis coryli”OR “Aculus comatus”OR

“Cecidophyopsis vermiformis”OR “Tegonotus depressus”OR “Vasates comatus”OR “Vasates

comatus”OR “Phytocoptella avellanae”OR “Eotetranychus carpini”OR “Eotetranychus pruni”OR

“Eotetranychus tiliarum”OR “Tetranychopsis horridus”OR “Attelabus nitens”OR “Byctiscus

betulae”OR “Deporaus betulae”OR “Deporaus mannerheimi”OR “Rhynchites sericeus”OR

“Apoderus coryli”OR “Agrilus angustulus”OR “Agrilus laticornis”OR “Agrilus viridis”OR “Trachys

minutus”OR “Phytoecia cylindrica”OR “Pogonocherus hispidulus”OR “Saperda populnea”OR

“Gonioctena pallida”OR “Gonioctena viminalis”OR “Phytodecta pallida”OR “Cryptocephalus

bipunctatus”OR “Cryptocephalus coryli”OR “Cryptocephalus primarius”OR “Cryptocephalus

sexpunctatus”OR “Agelastica alni”OR “Galerucella lineola”OR “Altica brevicollis”OR “Luperus

ﬂavipes”OR “Coeliodes ruber”OR “Curculio nucum”OR “Ramphus pulicarius”OR “Rhynchaenus

avellanae”OR “Rhynchaenus stigma”OR “Otiorhynchus singularis”OR “Peritelus sphaeroides”

OR “Phyllobius argentatus”OR “Phyllobius calcaratus”OR “Phyllobius maculicornis”OR

“Phyllobius oblongus”OR “Phyllobius pyri”OR “Polydrusus cervinus”OR “Polydrusus mollis”OR

“Polydrusus pterygomalis”OR “Polydrusus sericeus”OR “Polydrusus undatus”OR “Strophosomus

melanogrammus”OR “Gonodera luperus”OR “Contarinia coryli”OR “Contarinia cybelae”OR

“Dasineura corylina”OR “Lestodiplosis aprimiki”OR “Mikomya coryli”OR “Oligotrophus

tympanifex”OR “Arboridia ribauti”OR “Edwardsiana avellanae”OR “Edwardsiana frustrator”OR

“Edwardsiana hippocastani”OR “Edwardsiana ishidai”OR “Edwardsiana lethierryi”OR

“Edwardsiana plebeja”OR “Edwardsiana rosae”OR “Edwardsiana spinigera”OR “Erythroneura

angusta”OR “Fagocyba cruenta”OR “Alebra coryli”OR “Alebra wahlbergi”OR “Alnetoidia alneti”

OR “Lindbergina aurovittata”OR “Oncopsis avellanae”OR “Ribautiana cruciata”OR “Ribautiana

debilis”OR “Ribautiana tenerrima”OR “Ribautiana ulmi”OR “Typhlocyba quercus”OR “Zygina

ﬂammigera”OR “Zygina tiliae”OR “Cicadetta montana”OR “Acanthosoma haemorrhoidale”OR

“Coniortodes salicellus”OR “Deraeocoris scutellaris”OR “Lygocoris pabulinus”OR “Lygocoris

viridis”OR “Malacocoris chlorizans”OR “Miris striatus”OR “Orthops cervinus”OR “Orthotylus

marginalis”OR “Orthotylus prasinus”OR “Orthotylus tenellus”OR “Pantilius tunicatus”OR

“Phylus coryli”OR “Phytocoris longipennis”OR “Psallus perrisi”OR “Psallus variabilis”OR

“Palomena prasina”OR “Pentatoma ruﬁpes”OR “Eulecanium tiliae”OR “Parthenolecanium corni”

OR “Chionaspis salicis”OR “Lepidosaphes conchyformis”OR “Corylobium avellanae”OR

“Myzocallis coryli”OR “Asterobemisia avellanae”OR “Pealius quercus”OR “Pamphilius

fumipennis”OR “Allantus coryli”OR “Croesus brischkei”OR “Hemichroa crocea”OR “Nematinus

acuminatus”OR “Nematinus willigkiae”OR “Nematus leucotrochus”OR “Pachyprotasis rapae”

OR “Tenthredo fagi”OR “Tenthredo livida”OR “Thecla betulae”OR “Polygonia c-album”OR

“Abraxas sylvata”OR “Biston strataria”OR “Cabera exanthemata”OR “Cabera pusaria”OR

“Campaea margaritata”OR “Aethalura punctulata”OR “Colotois pennaria”OR “Agriopis

aurantiaria”OR “Agriopis marginaria”OR “Ectropis bistortata”OR “Ennomos autumnaria”OR

“Epione repandaria”OR “Erannis defoliaria”OR “Alcis repandata”OR “Hypomecis punctinalis”OR

“Lomaspilis marginata”OR “Odontopera bidentata”OR “Opisthograptis luteolata”OR “Paradarisa

extersaria”OR “Parectropis similaria “OR “Phigalia pilosaria”OR “Plagodis pulveraria”OR

“Selenia dentaria”OR “Selenia tetralunaria”OR “Apocheima hispidaria”OR “Abraxas

grossulariata”OR “Geometra papilionaria”OR “Hemithea aestivaria”OR “Jodis lactearia”OR

“Asthena albulata”OR “Epirrita autumnata”OR “Epirrita christyi”OR “Epirrita dilutata”OR

“Eulithis testata”OR “Hydrelia sylvata”OR “Hydriomena furcata”OR “Mesoleuca albicillata”OR

“Operophtera brumata”OR “Lasiocampa quercus”OR “Malacosoma neustria”OR “Trichiura

crataegi”OR “Heterogenea asella”OR “Calliteara pudibunda”OR “Dicallomera fascelina”OR

“Euproctis similis”OR “Orgyia antiqua”OR “Orgyia recens”OR “Acronicta alni”OR “Craniophora

ligustri”OR “Eupsilia transversa”OR “Cosmia trapezina”OR “Amphipyra pyramidea”OR

“Phlogophora meticulosa”OR “Pseudoips fagana”OR “Pseudoips fagana”OR “Pseudoips

prasinana”OR “Brachionycha sphinx”OR “Dryobotodes eremita”OR “Xylena exsoleta”OR

“Lacanobia contigua”OR “Lacanobia oleracea”OR “Melanchra persicariae”OR “Orthosia cerasi”

OR “Orthosia cruda”OR “Orthosia incerta”OR “Orthosia miniosa”OR “Polia nebulosa”OR

“Pyrrhia umbra”OR “Herminia grisealis”OR “Paracolax tristalis”OR “Pechipogo strigilata”OR

“Diarsia mendica”OR “Noctua ﬁmbriata”OR “Noctua janthina”OR “Xestia ditrapezium”OR

“Xestia triangulum”OR “Colocasia coryli”OR “Notodonta dromedarius”OR “Phalera bucephala”

OR “Ptilodon capucina”OR “Stauropus fagi”OR “Saturnia pavonia”OR “Mimas tiliae”OR

“Habrosyne pyritoides”OR “Ochropacha duplaris”OR “Coleophora anatipennella”OR

“Coleophora binderella”OR “Coleophora currucipennella”OR “Coleophora fuscocuprella”OR

“Coleophora milvipennis”OR “Coleophora orbitella”OR “Coleophora serratella”OR “Coleophora

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 47 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

violacea”OR “Eriocrania chrysolepidella”OR “Dichomeris ustalella”OR “Hypatima rhomboidella”

OR “Parachronistis albiceps”OR “Recurvaria nanella”OR “Teleiodes wagae”OR “Parornix

devoniella”OR “Phyllonorycter coryli”OR “Phyllonorycter nicellii”OR “Incurvaria pectinea”OR

“Bucculatrix demaryella”OR “Ectoedemia minimella”OR “Stigmella ﬂoslactella”OR “Stigmella

microtheriella”OR “Esperia oliviella”OR “Alabonia geoffrella”OR “Oecophora bractella”OR

“Telechrysis tripuncta”OR “Endotricha ﬂammealis”OR “Epinotia brunnichana”OR “Epinotia

solandriana”OR “Epinotia tenerana”OR “Gypsonoma dealbana”OR “Hedya pruniana”OR

“Cacoecimorpha pronubana”OR “Choristoneura hebenstreitella”OR “Pandemis cerasana”OR

“Pandemis corylana”OR “Tortricodes alternella”OR “Tortrix viridana”OR “Acleris emargana”OR

“Argyresthia ivella”OR “Ypsolopha parenthesella”OR “Diurnea fagella”OR “Dryocoetinus alni”

OR “Lymantor coryli”OR “Apion vorax”OR “Drepana curvatula”OR “Hypatima rhomboidella”OR

“Asthena albulata”OR “Chloroclysta siterata”OR “Crocallis elinguaria”OR “Epirrita autumnata”

OR “Epirrita christyi”OR “Erannis defoliaria”OR “Geometra papilionaria”OR “Operophtera

brumata”OR “Operophtera brumata”OR “Parornix avellanella”OR “Parornix devoniella”OR

“Phyllonorycter coryli”OR “Phyllonorycter coryli”OR “Phyllonorycter danica”OR “Phyllonorycter

nicellii”OR “Phyllonorycter sp.”OR “Incurvaria intermediella”OR “Eriogaster lanestris”OR

“Poecilocampa populi”OR “Trichiura crataegi”OR “Calliteara pudibunda”OR “Lymantria dispar”

OR “Stigmella ﬂoslactella”OR “Stigmella ﬂoslactella”OR “Stigmella microtheriella”OR “Stigmella

microtheriella”OR “Acronicta alni”OR “Acronicta leporina”OR “Acronicta psi”OR “Acronicta

rumicis”OR “Agrochola helvola”OR “Cosmia trapezina”OR “Eupsilia transversa”OR “Lacanobia

suasa”OR “Orthosia gothica”OR “Pseudoips praninana”OR “Datana ministra”OR “Notodonta

dromedaria”OR “Stauropus fagi”OR “Polygonia c-album”OR “Polygonia c-album”OR “Colocasia

coryli”OR “Elasmopalpus lignosellus”OR “Euzophera osseatella”OR “Plodia interpunctella”OR

“Aglia tau”OR “Anisota stigma”OR “Anisota virginiensis”OR “Automeris io”OR “Automeris io”

OR “Citheronia regalis”OR “Hyalophora cecropia”OR “Saturnia lindia”OR “Synanthedon codeti”

OR “Synanthedon spuleri”OR “Acleris cristana”OR “Acleris emargana”OR “Acleris rhombana”

OR “Acleris variegana”OR “Adoxophyes orana”OR “Archips betulana”OR “Archips crataegana”

OR “Archips rosana”OR “Archips xylosteana”OR “Capua vulgana”OR “Choristoneura

hebenstreitella”OR “Cydia latiferreana”OR “Eulia ministrana”OR “Gypsonoma dealbana”OR

“Pandemis cerasana”OR “Pandemis corylana”OR “Tortricodes alternella”OR “Trachys minutus”

OR “Orchestes signifer”OR “Orchestes stigma”OR “Coleophora binderella”OR “Coleophora

fuscopretella”OR “Coleophora orbitella”OR “Coleophora violacea”OR “Ectoedemia minimella”

OR “Paracrania chrysolepidella”OR “Incurvaria pectinea”OR “Parornix devoniella”OR

“Phyllonorycter coryli”OR “Phyllonoryceter nicellii”OR “Stigmella ﬂoslactella”OR “Stigmella

microtheriella”OR “Xiphinema pyrenaicum”OR “Meloidogyne sp.”OR “Paralongidorus maximus”

OR “Pratylenchus vulnus”OR “Pratylenchus penetrans”OR “Xanthomonas arboricola pv.

corylina”OR “Cladosporium sp.”OR “Gibberella avenacea”OR “Gibberella gordonia”OR

“Glomerella acutata”OR “Ampagia rudis”OR “Liothula omnivora”OR “Myzocallis coryli”OR

“Oemona hirta”OR “Stigmella microtheriella”OR “Tulare apple mosaic ilarvirus”OR “Chionaspis

lintneri”OR “Comstockaspis perniciosa”OR “Diaspidiotus distinctus”OR “Diaspidiotus

ostreaeformis”OR “Eulecanium rugulosum”OR “Eulecanium tiliae”OR “Kerria lacca lacca”OR

“Lepidosaphes conchiformis”OR “Lepidosaphes ulmi”OR “Lopholeucaspis japonica”OR

“Parthenolecanium corni corni”OR “Parthenolecanium rufulum”OR “Peliococcus serratus”OR

“Phenacoccus aceris”OR “Pulvinaria vitis”OR “Rhodococcus turanicus”OR “Amphitetranychus

viennensis”OR “Bryobia rubrioculus”OR “Eotetranychus carpini”OR “Eotetranychus coryli”OR

“Eotetranychus pruni”OR “Oligonychus caucasicus”OR “Oligonychus kobachidzei”OR

“Panonychus ulmi”OR “Tetranychus canadensis”OR “Tetranychus turkestani”OR “Tetranychus

urticae”OR “Tetranycopsis horridus”OR “Tetranycopsis iranensis”OR “Acanthonitschkea tristis”

OR “Actinocladium rhodosporum”OR “Allantoporthe decedens”OR “Alternaria alternata”OR

“Alternaria arborescens”OR “Alternaria tenuis”OR “Alternaria tenuissima”OR “Angustimassarina

coryli”OR “Anisogramma anomala”OR “Annulohypoxylon multiforme var. multiforme”OR

“Anthostoma dubium”OR “Apioporthe anomala”OR “Apiosporium persoonii”OR “Armillaria

gallica”OR “Armillaria mellea”OR “Arthopyrenia antecellens”OR “Arthrobotrys superba”OR

“Ascochyta coryli”OR “Aspergillus glaucus”OR “Asteroma coryli”OR “Asteromella gorholtii”OR

“Bertia moriformis”OR “Biscogniauxia anceps”OR “Biscogniauxia mediterranea”OR

“Botryobasidium pruinatum”OR “Botryosphaeria obtusa”OR “Botrytis cinerea”OR

“Brachysporium nigrum”OR “Brunnipila calyculiformis”OR “Calosphaeria corylina”OR

“Camarops lutea”OR “Camarosporium propinquum”OR “Candelabrum spinulosum”OR

“Cenangium dolosum”OR “Ceratostoma venetum”OR “Cercospora coryli”OR “Cerrena unicolor”

OR “Chaetosphaerella phaeostroma”OR “Chaetosphaeria myriocarpa”OR “Chaetosphaeria

ovoidea”OR “Chalara afﬁnis”OR “Chalara insignis”OR “Chloridium clavaeforme”OR

“Chondrostereum purpureum”OR “Ciboria coryli”OR “Cladobotryum fungicola”OR

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 48 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

“Cladosporium aphidis”OR “Cladosporium exile”OR “Cladosporium fumago”OR “Cladosporium

fumago f. coryli”OR “Cladosporium fusiforme”OR “Cladosporium herbarum”OR “Cladosporium

inversicolor”OR “Cladosporium lycoperdinum”OR “Cladosporium perangustum”OR

“Cladosporium phyllactiniicola”OR “Cladosporium psychrotolerans”OR “Codinaea fertilis”OR

“Colletotrichum acutatum”OR “Colletotrichum ﬁoriniae”OR “Coniothecium complanatum”OR

“Coniothecium sp.”OR “Conoplea olivacea”OR “Coronophora angustata”OR “Coronophora

ovipara”OR “Corynesporopsis quercicola”OR “Creopus gelatinosus”OR “Cristinia gallica”OR

“Cryptadelphia fusiformis”OR “Cryptocoryneum condensatum”OR “Cryptodiaporthe

pyrrhocystis”OR “Cryptospora corylina”OR “Cryptosporella corylina”OR “Cryptosporiopsis coryli”

OR “Cryptosporiopsis grisea”OR “Cryptosporiopsis tarraconensis”OR “Cylindrosporium coryli”

OR “Cytospora ambiens”OR “Cytospora corylicola”OR “Cytospora fuckelii”OR “Cytospora fugax”

OR “Cytospora phlyctaenoides”OR “Cytospora sp.”OR “Cytosporina sp.”OR “Daedaleopsis

confragosa”OR “Daldinia decipiens”OR “Daldinia ﬁssa”OR “Daldinia lloydii”OR “Daldinia

vernicosa”OR “Dasyscyphus calyculiformis”OR “Dasyscyphus virgineus”OR “Diaporthe

amygdali”OR “Diaporthe australafricana”OR “Diaporthe conjuncta”OR “Diaporthe decedens”

OR “Diaporthe eres”OR “Diaporthe foeniculina”OR “Diaporthe revellens”OR “Diaporthe sp.”OR

“Diaporthella cryptica”OR “Diaporthella sp.”OR “Diatrype bullata”OR “Diatrype decorticata”OR

“Diatrype disciformis”OR “Diatrype ﬂavovirens”OR “Diatrype stigma”OR “Diatrype subafﬁxa

var. rappazii”OR “Diatrype undulata”OR “Diatrypella favacea”OR “Diatrypella guceviczii”OR

“Diatrypella pulvinata”OR “Diatrypella verrucaeformis”OR “Diatrypella verruciformis”OR

“Didymella corylicola”OR “Diplococcium lawrencei”OR “Diplodia coryli”OR “Diplodia corylina”

OR “Diplodia herbarum”OR “Diplodia sapinea”OR “Diplodia sarmentorum”OR “Discosia

artocreas”OR “Dothichiza turgida”OR “Dothiorella iberica”OR “Dothiorella omnivora”OR

“Dothiorella parva”OR “Dothiorella sp.”OR “Dothiorella symphoricarposicola”OR “Dothiorella

vidmadera”OR “Eichleriella deglubens”OR “Elsinoe coryli”OR “Encoelia fascicularis”OR

“Encoelia furfuracea”OR “Endophragmiella boothii”OR “Endophragmiella uniseptata”OR

“Endothia gyrosa”OR “Endoxyla cirrhosa”OR “Epicoccum nigrum”OR “Eremothecium coryli”OR

“Eremothecium cymbalariae”OR “Erysiphe corylacearum”OR “Eutypa ﬂavovirens”OR “Eutypa

lata”OR “Eutypa lejoplaca”OR “Eutypella leprosa”OR “Eutypella sorbi”OR “Fenestella

macrospora”OR “Flagelloscypha merxmuelleri”OR “Fomes annosus”OR “Fomes fomentarius”

OR “Fomes igniarius”OR “Fomes ungulatus”OR “Fomitiporia mediterranea”OR “Fomitiporia

punctata”OR “Fusarium lateritium”OR “Fuscoporia ferrea”OR “Fusidium rhodospermum”OR

“Fusisporium episphaericum”OR “Ganoderma lucidum”OR “Genea hispidula”OR “Genea

sphaerica”OR “Genea verrucosa”OR “Gloeocystidiellum porosum”OR “Gloeosporium coryli”OR

“Gloeosporium corylinum”OR “Gloeosporium perexiguum”OR “Gloeosporium rostratum”OR

“Gloeosporium vogelianum”OR “Gnomonia amoena”OR “Gnomonia coryli”OR “Gnomonia

gnomon”OR “Gnomonia incrassata”OR “Gnomonia ischnostyla”OR “Gnomonia monodii”OR

“Gnomonia nervisequa”OR “Gnomonia pseudoamoena”OR “Gnomonia setacea”OR “Gnomonia

tubiformis”OR “Gnomonia vulgaris”OR “Gnomoniella avellanae”OR “Gnomoniella coryli”OR

“Gnomoniella vulgaris”OR “Helminthosporium macrocarpum”OR “Helminthosporium

rhopaloides”OR “Helminthosporium sp.”OR “Helminthosporium velutinum”OR “Helotium

sulphurinum”OR “Heteroconium tetracoilum”OR “Hydnobolites cerebriformis”OR

“Hymenochaete cinnamomea”OR “Hymenoscyphus fructigenus”OR “Hyphoderma

praetermissum”OR “Hyphoderma radula”OR “Hyphoderma setigerum”OR “Hyphodontia

breviseta”OR “Hyphodontia sambuci”OR “Hypocrea aureoviridis”OR “Hypocrea crystalligena”

OR “Hypocrea estonica”OR “Hypocrea gelatinosa”OR “Hypocrea lixii”OR “Hypocrea longipilosa”

OR “Hypocrea parestonica”OR “Hypocrea rufa”OR “Hypocrea strictipilosa”OR “Hypomyces

rosellus”OR “Hypoxylon cohaerens”OR “Hypoxylon conﬂuens”OR “Hypoxylon fragiforme”OR

“Hypoxylon fuscum”OR “Hypoxylon howeanum”OR “Hypoxylon multiforme”OR “Hypoxylon

perforatum”OR “Hypoxylon pulcherrimum”OR “Hysterographium ﬂexuosum”OR

“Hysterographium fraxini”OR “Kirschsteiniothelia aethiops”OR “Labrella coryli”OR

“Laeticorticium roseum”OR “Lasiosphaeria caudata”OR “Lasiosphaeria punctata”OR

“Lasiosphaeria vestita”OR “Lentomita hirsutula”OR “Leotia lubrica”OR “Leptopodia elastica”OR

“Leptosphaeria avellanae”OR “Leptosphaeria vagabunda”OR “Letendraea helminthicola”OR

“Lindtneria trachyspora”OR “Lophiostoma compressum”OR “Macrophoma corylina”OR

“Mamiania coryli”OR “Mamianiella coryli”OR “Massarina microcarpa”OR “Melampsoridium

carpini”OR “Melanconiella ﬂavovirens”OR “Melanconis ﬂavovirens”OR “Melanogaster

broomeanus”OR “Melanomma pulvis-pyrius”OR “Melogramma campylosporum”OR

“Microdiplodia coryli”OR “Microdiplodia microsporella”OR “Microsphaera alni”OR “Mollisia

benesuada”OR “Monilia coryli”OR “Monilia fructigena”OR “Monilia laxa”OR “Moniliopsis

foliicola”OR “Monochaetia concentrica”OR “Monochaetia coryli”OR “Monodictys putredinis”OR

“Monostichella coryli”OR “Monostichella sp.”OR “Mycena alcalina”OR “Mycena haematopoda”

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 49 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

OR “Mycena pseudocorticola”OR “Mycoporum quercus var. ilicis”OR “Mycosphaerella caricae”

OR “Mycosphaerella punctiformis”OR “Myxosporium griseum”OR “Myxosporium roumeguerei”

OR “Naemospora sp.”OR “Nectria cinnabarina”OR “Nectria coryli”OR “Nectria ditissima”OR

“Nectria punicea”OR “Nemania serpens”OR “Nematospora coryli”OR “Nitschkia cupularis”OR

“Ophiognomonia ischnostyla”OR “Ophiovalsa corylina”OR “Otthia corylina”OR “Otthia spiraeae”

OR “Penicillium aurantiogriseum”OR “Penicillium glaucum”OR “Penicillium sp.”OR “Peniophora

sp.”OR “Peroneutypa heteracantha”OR “Pestalotia coryli”OR “Pestalotiopsis guepinii”OR

“Pezicula aesculea”OR “Pezicula corylina”OR “Pezicula sp.”OR “Phaeoblastophora peckii”OR

“Phaeodothis winteri”OR “Phanerochaete tuberculata”OR “Phellinus alni”OR “Phellinus

contiguus”OR “Phellinus ferruginosus”OR “Phellinus igniarius”OR “Phoma exigua”OR “Phoma

pomorum”OR “Phomatospora leptasca”OR “Phomopsis avellana”OR “Phomopsis decedens var.

conjuncta”OR “Phomopsis revellens”OR “Phomopsis sp.”OR “Phyllactinia corylea”OR

“Phyllactinia guttata”OR “Phyllactinia suffulta”OR “Phyllosticta corylaria”OR “Physalospora

obtusa”OR “Phytophthora cactorum”OR “Phytophthora citricola”OR “Phytophthora syringae”

OR “Piggotia coryli”OR “Pleonectria coryli”OR “Pleospora henningsiana”OR “Pleospora vulgaris

var. putaminum”OR “Pleurostoma vibratile”OR “Polydesmia pruinosa”OR “Polyporus brumalis”

OR “Polyporus ciliatus”OR “Polyporus lepideus”OR “Polyporus leptocephalus”OR “Polyporus

melanopus”OR “Polyporus tubaeformis”OR “Polyporus tuberaster”OR “Polyporus varius”OR

“Polyscytalum fecundissimum”OR “Pseudophacidium necans”OR “Pseudospiropes nodosus”OR

“Pseudospiropes obclavatus”OR “Pucciniastrum coryli”OR “Pyramidospora herculiformis”OR

“Pyrenula coryli”OR “Ramularia coryli”OR “Ramularia inaequalis”OR “Rhinocladiella coryli”OR

“Rosellinia corticium”OR “Rosellinia helvetica”OR “Rosellinia necatrix”OR “Rosellinia subsimilis”

OR “Saccosoma farinaceum”OR “Sarcoscypha coccinea”OR “Schizophyllum commune”OR

“Schizopora paradoxa”OR “Sclerotinia fructigena”OR “Scytinostromella heterogenea”OR

“Septomyxa fagicola”OR “Septoria avellanae”OR “Septoria coryli”OR “Sillia ferruginea”OR

“Sillia karstenii”OR “Sistotremastrum niveocremeum”OR “Skeletocutis nivea”OR “Sphaeropsis

coryli”OR “Splanchnonema loricatum”OR “Sporidesmium coronatum”OR “Sporidesmium

ehrenbergii”OR “Sporormiella pulchella”OR “Steccherinum ochraceum”OR “Stereum hirsutum”

OR “Stereum rugosum”OR “Stictis confusum”OR “Strigula lateralis”OR “Strossmayeria atriseda”

OR “Stylonectria applanata”OR “Synaptospora olandica”OR “Taeniolella scripta”OR “Taeniolina

scripta”OR “Tapesia lividofusca”OR “Taphrina coryli”OR “Thyridaria sp.”OR “Thyronectria

coryli”OR “Thyronectria rhodochlora”OR “Tomasellia gelatinosa”OR “Trabutia quercina”OR

“Trametes hirsuta”OR “Trametes multicolor”OR “Trametes pubescens”OR “Trametes versicolor”

OR “Trematosphaeria pertusa”OR “Trichoderma lignorum”OR “Trichoderma sp.”OR

“Trichosphaeria melanostigmoides”OR “Trichosphaeria notabilis”OR “Trichothecium roseum”OR

“Trimmatostroma salicis”OR “Tubercularia vulgaris”OR “Tyromyces semipileatus”OR “Uncinula

sp.”OR “Valdensia heterodoxa”OR “Valsa ambiens”OR “Valsa ceratosperma”OR “Valsa fuckelii”

OR “Velutarina rufo-olivacea”OR “Veronaea botryosa”OR “Vuilleminia comedens”OR

“Vuilleminia coryli”OR “Wettsteinina coryli”OR “Winterella corylina”OR “Xylaria hypoxylon”OR

“Zignoella ovoidea”OR “Contarinia cybelae”OR “Dasineura corylina”OR “Mikomya coryli”OR

“Aculus comatus”OR “Anthocoptes loricatus”OR “Cecidophyopsis vermiformis”OR “Coptophylla

lamimani”OR “Eriophyes betulae”OR “Phyllocoptes coryli”OR “Phytoptus avellanae”OR

“Phytoptus coryli”OR “Phytoptus coryligallorum”OR “Phytoptus pseudogallarum”OR “Tegonotus

depressus”OR “Vasates comatus”OR “Xiphinema pyrenaicum”OR “Trichodorus

pseudobursatus”OR “Megaplatypus mutatus”OR “Anisogramma anomala”OR “Aspergillus

glaucus”OR “Chondrostereum purpureum”OR “Ciboria amentacea”OR “Clonostachys rosea”OR

“Coniothecium complanatum”OR “Cryptosporella corylina”OR “Cryptosporella corylina”OR

“Cucurbitaria coryli”OR “Cylindrosporella coryli”OR “Cytospora fuckelii”OR “Diaporthe revellens”

OR “Discosporium”OR “Elsinoe”OR “Fenestella macrospora”OR “Fusarium”OR “Fusarium

poae”OR “Glomerella acutata”OR “Gnomonia gnomon”OR “Hymenochaetopsis corrugata”OR

“Hymenochaetopsis tabacina”OR “Hypoxylon fuscum”OR “Infundibulicybe geotropa”OR

“Lactarius pyrogalus”OR “Mamianiella coryli”OR “Melogramma campylosporum”OR

“Microdiplodia coryli”OR “Monostichella coryli”OR “Mycosphaerella corylaria”OR “Myxosporium

roumeguerei”OR “Paxillus involutus”OR “Peniophora cinerea”OR “Phanerochaete sordida”OR

“Phyllactinia guttata”OR “Piggotia coryli”OR “Pseudomonas avellanae”OR “Pseudomonas

syringae pv. coryli”OR “Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae”OR “Scleroderma bovista”OR

“Septoria”OR “Sillia ferruginea”OR “Skeletocutis nivea”OR “Thelonectria mammoidea”OR

“Trametes”OR “Trametes versicolor”OR “Tuber borchii”OR “Tyromyces chioneus”OR “Valsa

auerswaldii”OR “Vuilleminia comedens”OR “Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina”OR

“Apioporthe anomala”OR “Aspergillus glaucus”OR “Chondrostereum purpureum”OR “Ciboria

amentacea”OR “Coniothecium complanatum”OR “Cryptospora corylina”OR “Cucurbitaria coryli”

OR “Cytospora fuckelii”OR “Diaporthe revellens”OR “Discosporium”OR “Elsinoe”OR “Fenestella

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 50 EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6571

In Table B.2, the search string for Corylus colurna used in Web of Science is reported. Totally, four

papers were retrieved. Titles and abstracts were screened, and 0 pests were added to the list of pests

(see Appendix E).

Commodity risk assessment of Corylus avellana and Corylus colurna plants from Serbia

macrospora”OR “Fusarium”OR “Gloeosporium coryli”OR “Glomerella acutata”OR “Gnomoniella

vulgaris”OR “Hymenochaete corrugata”OR “Hymenochaete tabacina”OR “Hypoxylon fuscum”

OR “Mamianiella coryli”OR “Melogramma campylosporum”OR “Microdiplodia coryli”OR

“Monostichella coryli”OR “Mycosphaerella corylaria”OR “Myxosporium roumeguerei”OR “Nectria

mammoidea”OR “Nectria ochroleuca”OR “Ophiovalsa corylina”OR “Paxillus involutus”OR

“Peniophora cinerea”OR “Peniophora cremea”OR “Phomopsis”OR “Phyllactinia guttata”OR

“Phyllactinia suffulta”OR “Phyllactinia suffulta f. coryli-avellanae”OR “Polystictus versicolor”OR

“Pseudomonas avellanae”OR “Pseudomonas syringae pv. coryli”OR “Pseudomonas syringae pv.

syringae”OR “Septoria”OR “Septoria avellanae”OR “Sillia ferruginea”OR “Skeletocutis nivea”

OR “Trametes”OR “Tuber borchii”OR “Tyromyces chioneus”OR “Valsa auerswaldii”OR

“Vuilleminia comedens”OR “Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina”)

Table B.2: Search string for Corylus colurna

Web of Science

All databases

TOPIC: (“Corylus colurna”OR “C. colurna”)