Pest Categorisation of Cephalcia~Lariciphila. Jeger, M., Bragard, C., Caffier, D., Candresse, T., Chatzivassiliou, E., Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Gilioli, G., Jaques Miret, J. A., MacLeod, A., Navajas Navarro, M., Niere, B., Parnell, S., Potting, R., Rafoss, T., Rossi, V., Urek, G., Van Bruggen, A., Van der Werf, W., West, J., Winter, S., Battisti, A., Kertész, V., Aukhojee, M., & Grégoire, J. 15(12):e05106+.
Pest Categorisation of Cephalcia~Lariciphila [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
The Panel on Plant health performed a pest categorisation of the larch web-spinning sawfly Cephalcia lariciphila (Hymenoptera: Pamphiliidae) for the EU. The insect has been reported in 11 EU Member States (MSs). It is a quarantine pest listed in Annex IIB of Council Directive 2000/29/EC. Protected zones are in place in Ireland and the UK (Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and Jersey). C. lariciphila can feed on all species of the genus Larix. There have been reported outbreaks in the Czech Republic, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK (England and Wales) in plantations of European larch (Larix decidua) and Japanese larch (Larix kaempferi = Larix leptolepis). C. lariciphila is absent in the protected zones. The pest can enter the protected zones by human-assisted spread or by natural spread from EU areas where the pest is present. Plants for planting are considered the most important pathway for the pest. The pest can establish in the protected zones because the climatic conditions are similar to those of the 11 MSs where C. lariciphila is established, and the pest's main host plants are present. The prepupae overwinter in the litter, the adults emerge during May-June, and each female lays 30-40 eggs in slits in mature needles. The larvae feed on the needles through four instars. There is one generation per year; some of the prepupae undergo prolonged diapause for more than 1 year. The impact where the pest occurs is mainly related to the loss of tree growth following defoliation, while tree mortality was locally observed only after repeated defoliation. However, impact is likely to be mitigated by local biological control agents. All criteria assessed by EFSA above for consideration as a potential protected zone quarantine pest and as a potential regulated non-quarantine pest were met. [Excerpt: Conclusions] [...] [::Identity of the pest] The identity of the pest is established. It can be identified at species level using conventional entomological keys. However, Shinohara (1997) described two subspecies and there might be sibling species still to be considered. [...] [::Absence/presence of the pest in the EU territory] Cephalcia lariciphila is present in the EU and has been reported from 11 MS. It is absent from the protected zones (Ireland and the UK: Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and Jersey). [] [...] [] From several MS, no information was available on pest presence confirmed by surveillance. [...] [::Regulatory status] The pest is currently officially regulated by 2000/29/EC on plants of Larix, intended for planting other than seeds [] C. lariciphila is regulated as a quarantine pest in protected zones (Annex IIB): Ireland and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and Jersey) [] Currently, there are no requirements for EU-internal trade outside protected zones [...] [::Pest potential for entry, establishment and spread in the EU territory] The pest can enter the protected zones by human assisted spread or by natural spread from EU areas where the pest is present [] Although C. lariciphila does not seem to fly long distances, it is theoretically able to disperse by natural spread in the absence of geographic barriers. [...] [] Plants for planting are the most important pathway for the pest. [...] [::Potential for consequences in the EU territory] The impact is mainly related to the loss of tree growth following defoliation, while tree mortality was locally observed only after repeated defoliation. However, impact is likely to be mitigated by local biological control agents. [...] [] For EU internal trade of forest plants, there is no significant impact because the pest is already present in most forest areas within the EU (excluding protected zones). [...] [] Key uncertainties: The effect of local natural enemies on reducing impact in the protected zones. In relation to the RNQP status, the acceptable level of impact for forest nurseries cannot be judged by EFSA. [...] [::Available measures] Entry on plants for planting can be prevented by allowing only the movement into protected zones of nursery plants with no soil attached and during the winter. Entry by natural dispersal can only be fully prevented when the protected zone is isolated by a geographical barrier, as is the case for the islands that make up the PZ. [...] [] Production in pest-free nurseries or a restricted trade period (winter time) and movement without soil can mitigate the risk. [...] [::Conclusion on pest categorisation] All criteria assessed by EFSA above for consideration as potential protected zone quarantine pest were met. [...] [] All criteria assessed by EFSA above for consideration as potential regulated non-quarantine pest were met. [...] [::Aspects of assessment to focus on/scenarios to address in future if appropriate] The effect of local natural enemies on reducing impact in the protected zones. Clarification of the situation on subspecies/sibling species [...]
@article{jegerPestCategorisationCephalcia2017,
  title = {Pest Categorisation of {{Cephalcia}}~Lariciphila},
  author = {Jeger, Michael and Bragard, Claude and Caffier, David and Candresse, Thierry and Chatzivassiliou, Elisavet and Dehnen-Schmutz, Katharina and Gilioli, Gianni and Jaques Miret, Josep A. and MacLeod, Alan and Navajas Navarro, Maria and Niere, Björn and Parnell, Stephen and Potting, Roel and Rafoss, Trond and Rossi, Vittorio and Urek, Gregor and Van Bruggen, Ariena and Van der Werf, Wopke and West, Jonathan and Winter, Stephan and Battisti, Andrea and Kertész, Virág and Aukhojee, Mitesha and Grégoire, Jean-Claude},
  date = {2017-12},
  journaltitle = {EFSA Journal},
  volume = {15},
  pages = {e05106+},
  issn = {1831-4732},
  doi = {10.2903/j.efsa.2017.5106},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.5106},
  abstract = {The Panel on Plant health performed a pest categorisation of the larch web-spinning sawfly Cephalcia lariciphila (Hymenoptera: Pamphiliidae) for the EU. The insect has been reported in 11 EU Member States (MSs). It is a quarantine pest listed in Annex IIB of Council Directive 2000/29/EC. Protected zones are in place in Ireland and the UK (Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and Jersey). C. lariciphila can feed on all species of the genus Larix. There have been reported outbreaks in the Czech Republic, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK (England and Wales) in plantations of European larch (Larix decidua) and Japanese larch (Larix kaempferi = Larix leptolepis). C. lariciphila is absent in the protected zones. The pest can enter the protected zones by human-assisted spread or by natural spread from EU areas where the pest is present. Plants for planting are considered the most important pathway for the pest. The pest can establish in the protected zones because the climatic conditions are similar to those of the 11 MSs where C. lariciphila is established, and the pest's main host plants are present. The prepupae overwinter in the litter, the adults emerge during May-June, and each female lays 30-40 eggs in slits in mature needles. The larvae feed on the needles through four instars. There is one generation per year; some of the prepupae undergo prolonged diapause for more than 1 year. The impact where the pest occurs is mainly related to the loss of tree growth following defoliation, while tree mortality was locally observed only after repeated defoliation. However, impact is likely to be mitigated by local biological control agents. All criteria assessed by EFSA above for consideration as a potential protected zone quarantine pest and as a potential regulated non-quarantine pest were met.

[Excerpt: Conclusions] [...] [::Identity of the pest] The identity of the pest is established. It can be identified at species level using conventional entomological keys. However, Shinohara (1997) described two subspecies and there might be sibling species still to be considered. [...]

[::Absence/presence of the pest in the EU territory] Cephalcia lariciphila is present in the EU and has been reported from 11 MS. It is absent from the protected zones (Ireland and the UK: Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and Jersey). 

[] [...]

[] From several MS, no information was available on pest presence confirmed by surveillance. [...]

[::Regulatory status] The pest is currently officially regulated by 2000/29/EC on plants of Larix, intended for planting other than seeds

[] C. lariciphila is regulated as a quarantine pest in protected zones (Annex IIB): Ireland and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and Jersey)

[] Currently, there are no requirements for EU-internal trade outside protected zones [...] 

[::Pest potential for entry, establishment and spread in the EU territory] The pest can enter the protected zones by human assisted spread or by natural spread from EU areas where the pest is present

[] Although C. lariciphila does not seem to fly long distances, it is theoretically able to disperse by natural spread in the absence of geographic barriers. [...]

[] Plants for planting are the most important pathway for the pest. [...]

[::Potential for consequences in the EU territory] The impact is mainly related to the loss of tree growth following defoliation, while tree mortality was locally observed only after repeated defoliation. However, impact is likely to be mitigated by local biological control agents. [...]

[] For EU internal trade of forest plants, there is no significant impact because the pest is already present in most forest areas within the EU (excluding protected zones). [...]

[] Key uncertainties: The effect of local natural enemies on reducing impact in the protected zones. In relation to the RNQP status, the acceptable level of impact for forest nurseries cannot be judged by EFSA. [...]

[::Available measures] Entry on plants for planting can be prevented by allowing only the movement into protected zones of nursery plants with no soil attached and during the winter. Entry by natural dispersal can only be fully prevented when the protected zone is isolated by a geographical barrier, as is the case for the islands that make up the PZ. [...]

[] Production in pest-free nurseries or a restricted trade period (winter time) and movement without soil can mitigate the risk. [...]

[::Conclusion on pest categorisation] All criteria assessed by EFSA above for consideration as potential protected zone quarantine pest were met. [...] [] All criteria assessed by EFSA above for consideration as potential regulated non-quarantine pest were met. [...]

[::Aspects of assessment to focus on/scenarios to address in future if appropriate] The effect of local natural enemies on reducing impact in the protected zones. Clarification of the situation on subspecies/sibling species [...]},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14505958,~to-add-doi-URL,cephalcia-lariciphila,disturbances,efsa,efsa-scientific-opinion,europe,forest-pests,larix-decidua,larix-kaempferi,larix-spp,plant-pests},
  number = {12}
}
Downloads: 0