Risk to Plant Health of Flavescence Dorée for the EU Territory. 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., Bosco, D., Foissac, X., Strauss, G., Hollo, G., Mosbach-Schulz, O., & Grégoire, J. 14(12):4603+.
Risk to Plant Health of Flavescence Dorée for the EU Territory [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH) performed a quantitative analysis of the risk posed by the Flavescence dorée phytoplasma (FDp) in the EU territory. Three scenarios were analysed, one with current measures in place (scenario A0), one designed to improve grapevine propagation material phytosanitary status (scenario A1) and one with reinforced eradication and containment (scenario A2). The potential for entry is limited, FDp being almost non-existent outside the EU. FDp and its major vector, Scaphoideus titanus, have already established over large parts of the EU and have the potential to establish in a large fraction of the currently unaffected EU territory. With the current measures in place (A0), spread of FDp is predicted to continue with a progression of between a few and ca 20 newly infested NUTS 2 regions during the next 10 years, illustrating the limitations of the current control measures against spread. FDp spread is predicted to be roughly similar between scenarios A1 and A2, but more restricted than under scenario A0. However, even with reinforced control scenarios, stabilisation or reduction in the number of infested NUTS 2 regions has only relatively low probability. Under scenario A0, FDp has a 0.5-1\,% impact on the overall EU grapes and wine production, reflecting the effectiveness of the current control measures against impact. Under both scenarios A1 and A2, FDp impact is predicted to be reduced, by approximately one-third (A1) to two-thirds (A2) as compared to A0, but the associated uncertainties are large. The generalised use of hot water treatment for planting material produced in infected zones has the most important contribution to FDp impact reduction in scenario A1 and has high feasibility. Both increased eradication and containment measures contribute to impact reduction under scenario A2 but the overall feasibility is lower. [Excerpt:Summary] Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH) performed an analysis of the risk to plant health posed by the Flavescence dorée phytoplasma (FDp) in the European Union (EU) territory, with the evaluation of risk reduction options. The temporal scale of this assessment is a 10-year time horizon and three scenarios are analysed, one corresponding to the current situation, with all current official control measures in place (scenario A0) and two alternative scenarios, with either a reinforcement of the hot water treatment (HWT) control measure to improve the phytosanitary status of grapevine propagation material (scenario A1) or a reinforcement of eradication and containment measures (scenario A2). [] Concerning entry, the Panel did not analyse it in detail because, with the exception of Serbia and Switzerland, the disease does not exist outside of the EU and is, on the other hand, already established in eight of the main grape-growing EU countries (Austria, Croatia, France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain). [] Concerning 'establishment', the Panel determined that both FDp and the Scaphoideus titanus vector responsible for epidemic development in grapevine have already established over a large part of the EU territory, but are still spreading and have the potential to establish in at least a large fraction of the EU territory that is currently still unaffected. The Panel also reached the following additional conclusions: [::] FDp establishment does not appear to be severely constrained by ecoclimatic conditions and it is likely that the phytoplasma could successfully colonise grapevine wherever this crop is able to develop. [::] FDp ability to spread within vineyards, causing an epidemic disease, is limited under most circumstances by the availability of S. titanus vectors, which is subject to some ecoclimatic constraints. [::] The CLIMEX analysis performed by the Panel strongly suggests that S. titanus is likely to be able to establish over most of the EU territory and, in particular, in all northern and central European grapevine-growing areas. Uncertainties exist for the southernmost grapevine-growing areas, in which hot and dry conditions are likely to limit establishment in at least some areas. [] [] Concerning 'spread', the Panel reached the following conclusions: [::] With the current measures in place (scenario A0), spread of FDp is likely to continue during the forthcoming period with a progression of between a few and ca 20 newly infested NUTS 2 regions predicted for the 50\,% uncertainty interval. This analysis clearly illustrates the limitations of the currently deployed control measures, which have not allowed to halt so far the progression of FDp in the EU territory (Appendix A). [::] Spread of FDp is expected to be roughly similar between the two strengthened control scenarios (scenarios A1 and A2). The Panel confidently estimates that spread will be more restricted under these scenarios than under the current measures (scenario A0), with a 50\,% uncertainty interval of between stabilisation in the number of affected NUTS 2 regions and 10-15 newly infested regions. This corresponds roughly to a halving of the spread predicted under scenario A0. [::] Overall, a stabilisation or a reduction in the number of infested NUTS 2 regions is only envisioned under the A1 and A2 scenarios of reinforced control measures and then only with a relatively low probability. A combination of the reinforced control measures implemented in scenarios A1 and A2 is expected to have an even higher effectiveness to further limit the spread of FDp. [] [] Concerning impact, the Panel reached the following conclusions: [::] Under scenario A0, impact of FDp represents only a very small fraction of the EU table grapes or wine production (in the order of 0.5-1\,%), a situation which reflects the effectiveness of the currently deployed risk reduction options (RROs) at limiting impact and not the severity and epidemic nature of FDp, which has the potential to inflict major losses if left uncontrolled. [::] Under both scenarios A1 and A2, involving the reinforcement of control measures, FDp impact on wine and table grapes production is predicted to be reduced by approximately one-third (A1) and by two-thirds (A2) as compared to scenario A0. The uncertainties associated with these evaluations are, however, large, as indicated by 50\,% uncertainty intervals spanning roughly two orders of magnitude. [::] Concerning scenario A1, the generalisation of compulsory HWT to not only concern HWT of planting material entering protected zones, but also include any planting material leaving nurseries located in infested NUTS areas has the potential to significantly reduce the probability of FDp infection in traded grapevine plants for planting, and thus the initiation of new outbreaks. In addition, this measure is evaluated by the Panel as having a high feasibility because its implementation is relatively straightforward and does not meet important technical hurdles. [::] Concerning scenario A2, the more intense eradication and containment measures are expected to limit the local epidemic development of the disease. Both increased eradication and containment measures, in particular by targeting abandoned vineyards and wild grapevine populations are seen as contributing to the overall effectiveness of this scenario but the reinforced RROs involved will be more difficult to implement than the one included in scenario A1. [::] Impact of FDp on the production of nurseries is expected since FDp infestation results in the loss of Plant Passport and in the destruction of all involved production lots. However, in the absence of any precise data, the Panel could not make an uncertainty assessment of this specific impact. [::] Impact on grape products quality may in some cases be expected but is difficult to document and even more to quantify. Impact of FDp on environment, if any, is expected to be extremely limited. [] [...]
@article{jegerRiskPlantHealth2016,
  title = {Risk to Plant Health of {{Flavescence}} Dorée for the {{EU}} Territory},
  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 Bosco, Domenico and Foissac, Xavier and Strauss, Gudrun and Hollo, Gabor and Mosbach-Schulz, Olaf and Grégoire, Jean-Claude},
  date = {2016-12},
  journaltitle = {EFSA Journal},
  volume = {14},
  pages = {4603+},
  issn = {1831-4732},
  doi = {10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4603},
  url = {http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/14389845},
  abstract = {Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH) performed a quantitative analysis of the risk posed by the Flavescence dorée phytoplasma (FDp) in the EU territory. Three scenarios were analysed, one with current measures in place (scenario A0), one designed to improve grapevine propagation material phytosanitary status (scenario A1) and one with reinforced eradication and containment (scenario A2). The potential for entry is limited, FDp being almost non-existent outside the EU. FDp and its major vector, Scaphoideus titanus, have already established over large parts of the EU and have the potential to establish in a large fraction of the currently unaffected EU territory. With the current measures in place (A0), spread of FDp is predicted to continue with a progression of between a few and ca 20 newly infested NUTS 2 regions during the next 10 years, illustrating the limitations of the current control measures against spread. FDp spread is predicted to be roughly similar between scenarios A1 and A2, but more restricted than under scenario A0. However, even with reinforced control scenarios, stabilisation or reduction in the number of infested NUTS 2 regions has only relatively low probability. Under scenario A0, FDp has a 0.5-1\,\% impact on the overall EU grapes and wine production, reflecting the effectiveness of the current control measures against impact. Under both scenarios A1 and A2, FDp impact is predicted to be reduced, by approximately one-third (A1) to two-thirds (A2) as compared to A0, but the associated uncertainties are large. The generalised use of hot water treatment for planting material produced in infected zones has the most important contribution to FDp impact reduction in scenario A1 and has high feasibility. Both increased eradication and containment measures contribute to impact reduction under scenario A2 but the overall feasibility is lower.

[Excerpt:Summary]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH) performed an analysis of the risk to plant health posed by the Flavescence dorée phytoplasma (FDp) in the European Union (EU) territory, with the evaluation of risk reduction options. The temporal scale of this assessment is a 10-year time horizon and three scenarios are analysed, one corresponding to the current situation, with all current official control measures in place (scenario A0) and two alternative scenarios, with either a reinforcement of the hot water treatment (HWT) control measure to improve the phytosanitary status of grapevine propagation material (scenario A1) or a reinforcement of eradication and containment measures (scenario A2).

[] Concerning entry, the Panel did not analyse it in detail because, with the exception of Serbia and Switzerland, the disease does not exist outside of the EU and is, on the other hand, already established in eight of the main grape-growing EU countries (Austria, Croatia, France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain).

[] Concerning 'establishment', the Panel determined that both FDp and the Scaphoideus titanus vector responsible for epidemic development in grapevine have already established over a large part of the EU territory, but are still spreading and have the potential to establish in at least a large fraction of the EU territory that is currently still unaffected. The Panel also reached the following additional conclusions:

[::] FDp establishment does not appear to be severely constrained by ecoclimatic conditions and it is likely that the phytoplasma could successfully colonise grapevine wherever this crop is able to develop. [::] FDp ability to spread within vineyards, causing an epidemic disease, is limited under most circumstances by the availability of S. titanus vectors, which is subject to some ecoclimatic constraints. [::] The CLIMEX analysis performed by the Panel strongly suggests that S. titanus is likely to be able to establish over most of the EU territory and, in particular, in all northern and central European grapevine-growing areas. Uncertainties exist for the southernmost grapevine-growing areas, in which hot and dry conditions are likely to limit establishment in at least some areas.

[] [] Concerning 'spread', the Panel reached the following conclusions:

[::] With the current measures in place (scenario A0), spread of FDp is likely to continue during the forthcoming period with a progression of between a few and ca 20 newly infested NUTS 2 regions predicted for the 50\,\% uncertainty interval. This analysis clearly illustrates the limitations of the currently deployed control measures, which have not allowed to halt so far the progression of FDp in the EU territory (Appendix A). [::] Spread of FDp is expected to be roughly similar between the two strengthened control scenarios (scenarios A1 and A2). The Panel confidently estimates that spread will be more restricted under these scenarios than under the current measures (scenario A0), with a 50\,\% uncertainty interval of between stabilisation in the number of affected NUTS 2 regions and 10-15 newly infested regions. This corresponds roughly to a halving of the spread predicted under scenario A0. [::] Overall, a stabilisation or a reduction in the number of infested NUTS 2 regions is only envisioned under the A1 and A2 scenarios of reinforced control measures and then only with a relatively low probability. A combination of the reinforced control measures implemented in scenarios A1 and A2 is expected to have an even higher effectiveness to further limit the spread of FDp.

[] [] Concerning impact, the Panel reached the following conclusions:

[::] Under scenario A0, impact of FDp represents only a very small fraction of the EU table grapes or wine production (in the order of 0.5-1\,\%), a situation which reflects the effectiveness of the currently deployed risk reduction options (RROs) at limiting impact and not the severity and epidemic nature of FDp, which has the potential to inflict major losses if left uncontrolled. [::] Under both scenarios A1 and A2, involving the reinforcement of control measures, FDp impact on wine and table grapes production is predicted to be reduced by approximately one-third (A1) and by two-thirds (A2) as compared to scenario A0. The uncertainties associated with these evaluations are, however, large, as indicated by 50\,\% uncertainty intervals spanning roughly two orders of magnitude. [::] Concerning scenario A1, the generalisation of compulsory HWT to not only concern HWT of planting material entering protected zones, but also include any planting material leaving nurseries located in infested NUTS areas has the potential to significantly reduce the probability of FDp infection in traded grapevine plants for planting, and thus the initiation of new outbreaks. In addition, this measure is evaluated by the Panel as having a high feasibility because its implementation is relatively straightforward and does not meet important technical hurdles. [::] Concerning scenario A2, the more intense eradication and containment measures are expected to limit the local epidemic development of the disease. Both increased eradication and containment measures, in particular by targeting abandoned vineyards and wild grapevine populations are seen as contributing to the overall effectiveness of this scenario but the reinforced RROs involved will be more difficult to implement than the one included in scenario A1. [::] Impact of FDp on the production of nurseries is expected since FDp infestation results in the loss of Plant Passport and in the destruction of all involved production lots. However, in the absence of any precise data, the Panel could not make an uncertainty assessment of this specific impact. [::] Impact on grape products quality may in some cases be expected but is difficult to document and even more to quantify. Impact of FDp on environment, if any, is expected to be extremely limited.

[] [...]},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14389845,~to-add-doi-URL,agricultural-resources,ailanthus-altissima,alnus-spp,clematis-vitalba,dictyophara-europea,disturbances,efsa,efsa-scientific-opinion,flavescence-doree-phytoplasma,forest-resources,plant-pests,scaphoideus-titanus,vitis-spp},
  number = {12}
}
Downloads: 0
About
Documentation
Keywords
Search
Users
Terms and Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
© BibBase.org 2021