Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Pest risk assessment of Eotetranychus lewisi for the EU territory

2017; Wiley; Volume: 15; Issue: 10 Linguagem: Inglês

10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4878

1831-4732

Michael Jeger, Claude Bragard, David Caffier, Thierry Candresse, Elisavet Chatzivassiliou, Katharina Dehnen‐Schmutz, Gianni Gilioli, Jean‐Claude Grégoire, Josep Anton Jaques Miret, Alan MacLeod, B. Niere, Stephen Parnell, Roel Potting, Trond Rafoss, Vittorio Rossi, Gregor Urek, Ariena Van Bruggen, Wopke Van der Werf, J. S. West, Stephan Winter, Filippo Bergeretti, Niklas Björklund, Olaf Mosbach‐Schulz, Sybren Vos, María Navajas Navarro,

Insect and Pesticide Research

EFSA JournalVolume 15, Issue 10 e04878 Scientific OpinionOpen Access Pest risk assessment of Eotetranychus lewisi for the EU territory EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH), Corresponding Author EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH) alpha@efsa.europa.eu Correspondence: alpha@efsa.europa.euSearch for more papers by this authorMichael Jeger, Michael JegerSearch for more papers by this authorClaude Bragard, Claude BragardSearch for more papers by this authorDavid Caffier, David CaffierSearch for more papers by this authorThierry Candresse, Thierry CandresseSearch for more papers by this authorElisavet Chatzivassiliou, Elisavet ChatzivassiliouSearch for more papers by this authorKatharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Katharina Dehnen-SchmutzSearch for more papers by this authorGianni Gilioli, Gianni GilioliSearch for more papers by this authorJean-Claude Grégoire, Jean-Claude GrégoireSearch for more papers by this authorJosep Anton Jaques Miret, Josep Anton Jaques MiretSearch for more papers by this authorAlan MacLeod, Alan MacLeodSearch for more papers by this authorBjoern Niere, Bjoern NiereSearch for more papers by this authorStephen Parnell, Stephen ParnellSearch for more papers by this authorRoel Potting, Roel PottingSearch for more papers by this authorTrond Rafoss, Trond RafossSearch for more papers by this authorVittorio Rossi, Vittorio RossiSearch for more papers by this authorGregor Urek, Gregor UrekSearch for more papers by this authorAriena Van Bruggen, Ariena Van BruggenSearch for more papers by this authorWopke Van Der Werf, Wopke Van Der WerfSearch for more papers by this authorJonathan West, Jonathan WestSearch for more papers by this authorStephan Winter, Stephan WinterSearch for more papers by this authorFilippo Bergeretti, Filippo BergerettiSearch for more papers by this authorNiklas Bjorklund, Niklas BjorklundSearch for more papers by this authorOlaf Mosbach-Schulz, Olaf Mosbach-SchulzSearch for more papers by this authorSybren Vos, Sybren VosSearch for more papers by this authorMaria Navajas Navarro, Maria Navajas NavarroSearch for more papers by this author EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH), Corresponding Author EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH) alpha@efsa.europa.eu Correspondence: alpha@efsa.europa.euSearch for more papers by this authorMichael Jeger, Michael JegerSearch for more papers by this authorClaude Bragard, Claude BragardSearch for more papers by this authorDavid Caffier, David CaffierSearch for more papers by this authorThierry Candresse, Thierry CandresseSearch for more papers by this authorElisavet Chatzivassiliou, Elisavet ChatzivassiliouSearch for more papers by this authorKatharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Katharina Dehnen-SchmutzSearch for more papers by this authorGianni Gilioli, Gianni GilioliSearch for more papers by this authorJean-Claude Grégoire, Jean-Claude GrégoireSearch for more papers by this authorJosep Anton Jaques Miret, Josep Anton Jaques MiretSearch for more papers by this authorAlan MacLeod, Alan MacLeodSearch for more papers by this authorBjoern Niere, Bjoern NiereSearch for more papers by this authorStephen Parnell, Stephen ParnellSearch for more papers by this authorRoel Potting, Roel PottingSearch for more papers by this authorTrond Rafoss, Trond RafossSearch for more papers by this authorVittorio Rossi, Vittorio RossiSearch for more papers by this authorGregor Urek, Gregor UrekSearch for more papers by this authorAriena Van Bruggen, Ariena Van BruggenSearch for more papers by this authorWopke Van Der Werf, Wopke Van Der WerfSearch for more papers by this authorJonathan West, Jonathan WestSearch for more papers by this authorStephan Winter, Stephan WinterSearch for more papers by this authorFilippo Bergeretti, Filippo BergerettiSearch for more papers by this authorNiklas Bjorklund, Niklas BjorklundSearch for more papers by this authorOlaf Mosbach-Schulz, Olaf Mosbach-SchulzSearch for more papers by this authorSybren Vos, Sybren VosSearch for more papers by this authorMaria Navajas Navarro, Maria Navajas NavarroSearch for more papers by this author First published: 06 October 2017 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4878Citations: 3 Requestor: European Commission Question number: EFSA-Q-2015-00270 Panel members: Claude Bragard, David Caffier, Thierry Candresse, Elisavet Chatzivassiliou, Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Gianni Gilioli, Jean-Claude Grégoire, Josep Anton Jaques Miret, Michael Jeger, Alan MacLeod, Maria Navajas Navarro, Bjoern Niere, Stephen Parnell, Roel Potting, Trond Rafoss, Vittorio Rossi, Gregor Urek, Ariena Van Bruggen, Wopke Van Der Werf, Jonathan West and Stephan Winter. Acknowledgements: The Panel wishes to thanks the hearing expert Anna D Howell from the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Cooperative Extension Ventura County for the provision of crucial data and information to perform the assessment. The Panel wishes to acknowledge all European competent institutions, Member State bodies and other organisations that provided data for this scientific output in particular Alejandro Lorca from the Spanish Ministry of Rural Affairs And Agriculture, and Ana Paula Cruz de Carvalho, from the Portuguese General Directorate of Food and Veterinary. The Panel wishes to thanks Anastasia Korycinska, from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for the assistance provided in the host maps development. The Panel also wishes to thanks EFSA staff members Ciro Gardi from the EFSA Animal and Plant Health Unit, Fulvio Barrizone and José Cortinas Abrahantes from the EFSA Assessment Methodology Unit for the support provided to this scientific output. Adopted: 24 May 2017 Reproduction of the images listed below is prohibited and permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder: Figure 2: © EPPO AboutSectionsPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract Following the 2014 EFSA's Panel on Plant Health scientific opinion on the pest categorisation of the spider mite Eotetranychus lewisi, the European Commission requested the Panel to perform a pest risk assessment and evaluate the risk reduction options. A stochastic model was used to assess entry, establishment and spread and related uncertainties. In the EU, E. lewisi has only been reported to occur in Portugal (Madeira). Entry pathways assessed were strawberry plants for planting from the USA, poinsettia and raspberry plants for planting, and orange and lemon fruits from third countries. Entry is most likely via poinsettia. Under current EU phytosanitary requirements, there is around a one in ten chance that E. lewisi will establish outdoors over the next 10 years. Although unlikely, establishment would most likely occur in southern Europe where environmental conditions, temperature and host density, are most suitable. If E. lewisi did establish, pest spread is expected to be mainly human assisted, most likely the mite being transported long distances on plants for planting. Nevertheless, while remaining a regulated pest, spread would be slow and most likely confined to one NUTS 2 area after 10 years. Under a scenario with enhanced measures (pest free place of production) at origin, the Panel's assessment indicate that it is extremely unlikely that E. lewisi would establish within 10 years hence spread is also extremely unlikely. The absence of trade of host plants from Madeira to other parts of the EU could explain why E. lewisi has not spread to other EU Member States. E. lewisi is reported as reducing yield and quality of peaches and poinsettia and is regarded as a growing concern for strawberry and raspberry growers in the Americas. The Panel concludes that should E. lewisi be introduced in the EU similar impacts could be expected. 1 Introduction 1.1 Terms of Reference (ToR) as provided by the requestor The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is requested, pursuant to Article 22(5.b) and Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/20021, to provide a scientific opinion in the field of plant health. Specifically, as a follow up to the request of 29 March 2014 (Ares(2014)970361) and the pest categorisations (step 1) delivered in the meantime for 38 regulated pests, EFSA is requested to complete the pest risk assessment (PRA), to identify risk reduction options and to provide an assessment of the effectiveness of current EU phytosanitary requirements (step 2) for (1) Ceratocystis platani (Walter) Engelbrecht et Harrington, (2) Cryphonectria parasitica (Murrill) Barr, (3) Diaporthe vaccinii Shaer, (4) Ditylenchus destructor Thorne, (5) Eotetranychus lewisi (McGregor), (6) Grapevine Flavescence dorée and (7) Radopholus similis (Cobb) Thorne. During the preparation of these opinions, EFSA is requested to take into account the recommendations, which have been prepared on the basis of the EFSA pest categorisations and discussed with Member States in the relevant Standing Committee. In order to gain time and resources, the recommendations highlight, where possible, some elements which require further work during the completion of the PRA process. Recommendation of the Working Group2 on the Annexes of the Council Directive 2000/29/EC3 – Section II – Listing of Harmful Organisms as regards the future listing of Eotetranychus lewisi (McGregor) Based on the pest categorisation prepared by EFSA, E. lewisi has the potential to be both a quarantine pest, as it fulfils all ISPM 11 criteria, and a Non-Regulated Quarantine Pest, as it fulfils all ISPM 21 criteria. However, it is noted that information on the potential impact is very limited. At the same time, the organism is currently regulated only for plants of Citrus L., Fortunella Swingle, Poncirus Raf. and their hybrids. However, the affected host range is broader than what is currently covered. There are major hosts such as plants of Euphorbia, Rubus, Fragaria, Prunus, Vitis, etc. which are not regulated for this specific organism. In the European Union (EU), it has been found, for example, also on plants of Corokia cotoneaster in 1999. The pathways of spreading are numerous. The Working Group2 recommends to keep this organism as Union Quarantine Pest. To support further decisions on risk reduction options, the PRA process has to continue. In particular, EFSA is asked to focus further work on the probability of entry of the pest (identification of the pathways), its establishment, as well as further spread after its establishment in the EU. It is important to explore as well the reasons for its absence in the EU. Additional information as regards the degree of impact would be also relevant even though the Working Group2 above acknowledges the absence of data in this respect. At the same time, the Working Group2 highlights for further analysis and consideration that it is important to address all possible host plants in the future legislation. Internal movement requirements on the host plants for planting from the infested areas (Madeira) would be needed (plant passport). Specific Annex IVAI and Annex IVAII requirements are considered to be important, particularly because it is difficult to detect the organism by naked eye. Specific measures could include Pest Free Area (PFA) or pest free place of production or site, or removal of diseased plants and appropriate treatments. Lastly, the Working Group2 believes that if surveys demonstrated that the organism has a much wider distribution than is officially known, the Regulated Non-Quarantine Pest status could be considered. However, at the present, this status has to be excluded. 1.2 Interpretation of the Terms of Reference 1.2.1 Pest categorisation In 2014, the Panel on Plant Health performed a pest categorisation of the Lewis spider mite, E. lewisi for the EU (EFSA PLH Panel, 2014a). The Lewis spider mite is a well-defined and distinguishable pest species that has been reported from a wide range of hosts, including cultivated species. Its distribution in the EU territory is restricted to Madeira in Portugal. In the UK, an outbreak was reported and eradicated as confirmed by MacLeod A., DEFRA, UK (personal communication). The pest is listed in Annex IIAI to Council Directive 2000/29/EC.3 A potential pathway of introduction and spread is plants traded from outside Europe and between EU Member States. The Lewis spider mite has the potential to establish in large parts of the EU territory based on climate similarities with the distribution area outside the EU and the widespread availability of hosts present both in open fields and in protected cultivations. With regard to the potential consequences, a few studies provide quantitative data on impact showing that the pest can reduce yield and affect quality of peaches and poinsettias, while a few studies describe the general impact of the pest on cultivated hosts. Although chemical treatments are reported to be effective in controlling the Lewis spider mite, it is mentioned as a growing concern for peaches, strawberries, raspberries and vines in the Americas. Based on the pest categorisation of E. lewisi, and in the context of the revision of the listing of harmful organisms in the Annexes to Council Directive 2000/29/EC3 – Section II – the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF Committee) – section Plant health –, provided recommendations to EFSA to take into account in the risk assessment of E. lewisi. 1.2.2 Interpretation of ToR The scope of this scientific opinion is to assess the risk posed to plant health in the EU territory of E. lewisi. Information already provided in the pest categorisation of E. lewisi (EFSA PLH Panel, 2014a) is not repeated here unless necessary. The pest distribution in the EU is currently restricted to Madeira Island in Portugal. The Panel first considers reasons why E. lewisi has not spread from Madeira before, then focusing the assessment on the probability of introduction from Third Countries and on the potential impact of the pest as a consequence of introduction in the PRA area. The Panel on Plant Health (hereinafter referred to as the Panel) interprets the ToR as a request from the European Commission to conduct a full PRA, to identify risk reduction options and to provide an assessment of the effectiveness of current EU phytosanitary requirements. In view of the recommendations provided by the PAFF committee to continue the risk assessment process, several objectives and related questions have been defined for performing the assessment: Assess the distribution of E. lewisi - Is E. lewisi currently present in Madeira? - What is the distribution of E. lewisi in the EU excluding Madeira? - What is the world distribution of E. lewisi? Assess the potential impact of E. lewisi in the EU - What is the host range for the pest? - What is the host-pest association in the world? - What is the host occurrence in Madeira? - What is the host occurrence in the EU excluding Madeira? - What is the trade activity and the main flows related to the hosts from Madeira to the rest of the EU? - What is the trade activity and the main flows related to the hosts from third countries to the EU excluding Madeira? Conduct a full pest risk assessment under different scenarios - What are the scenarios to be considered? - What is the probability of entry? - What is the probability of establishment? - What area is the pest likely to establish in during the time horizon of the risk assessment? - What is the magnitude of the potential consequences? Explore reasons for a possible absence of E. lewisi in the EU (excluding Madeira) - Which are the pathways that remain open for internal movement? In this scientific opinion, the PRA area is defined as the area of application of Council Directive 2000/29/EC3 composed of the continental territory of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as the EU) with 28 Member States (hereinafter referred to as EU MSs), excluding the overseas countries and territories and outermost regions except Madeira and Açores islands. 2 Data and methodologies 2.1 Methodologies 2.1.1 Pilot case for new pest risk assessment methodology The Panel performed the risk assessment for E. lewisi following the guiding principles defined in the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 11 (FAO, 2013), and in, the EFSA guidance documents. PLH Panel guidance on a harmonised framework for risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel, 2010); Scientific Committee Guidance on Transparency in the Scientific Aspects of risk assessments carried out by EFSA. Part 2: General Principles (EFSA, 2009); Scientific Committee Guidance on the structure and content of EFSA's scientific opinions and statements (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2014a); Scientific Committee Guidance on Statistical Reporting (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2014b); Scientific Committee working draft of the guidance on uncertainty (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2016); Guidance on Expert Knowledge Elicitation in Food and Feed Safety Risk Assessment (EFSA, 2014a). Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to support decision making (EFSA, 2010). EFSA recommends that efforts should be made to work towards more quantitative expression of both risk and uncertainty whenever possible (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2012), i.e. where possible the expression of the probability of the negative effect and the consequences of the effect should be reported quantitatively. In this context, a quantitative approach for pest risk assessment is currently being developed by the Panel to increase the transparency and objectivity of the assessment. At the time of the finalisation of this opinion, the framework for quantitative assessment is still under development, and this pest risk assessment constitutes a test case for the new approach and it is anticipated that further refinements may be made to the method before it is published in 2018 as a new guidance document for the EFSA PLH Panel. The methodology used for this risk assessment is quantitative and produces quantitative results (Gilioli et al., in press). As in all quantitative science, the results are reported in a manner that appropriately reflects the degree of precision or approximation of the data used. Plant health risk assessment data are often limited and some input parameters have been assessed by expert judgement, which is necessarily approximate in nature. The risk assessment outputs are thus also approximate. Therefore, outputs have been rounded to an appropriate degree to reflect the degree of approximation that is present in the assessment. Although the model outputs generated by the spreadsheet model are precise numbers for each point in a distribution, given the uncertainties feeding into the outputs, they should not be taken as absolute values but do reflect, express and show, the Panel's thinking, with supporting text and reasoning. Therefore, outputs have been rounded to an appropriate degree to reflect the degree of approximation that is present in the assessment. In this assessment, a stochastic model for risk assessment with quantitative expression of the risks and probabilities and related uncertainties is used. This opinion uses probability to express knowledge, belief and related uncertainty of experts about parameters in models for entry, establishment and spread. The outcomes of the models are in the form of probability distributions of calculated measures of entry, establishment and spread. These distributions reflect the Panel's expectation of the event under scrutiny and are expressions of uncertainty of the calculated outcome variables. Both available data and expert judgement were considered in the estimated distributions. Each distribution is characterised by a median value and four additional percentiles of the distribution. The median is the value for which the probability of over- or underestimation of the actual true value is judged as equal. Calculations with the model are made by stochastic simulation, whereby values are drawn randomly from the distribution specified for each parameter. The Monte Carlo simulations are repeated at least 20,000 times to generate a probability distribution of outcomes, i.e. the outcome of the entry process in a given time period in the future. The Panel used the @Risk software version 7.5.14 for this work. In the model calculation, the uncertainty of each component is passed through the model equation, so that its contribution to the uncertainty of the final result can be shown. The decomposition of uncertainty calculates the relative contribution of each individual input to the overall uncertainty of the result. Section 3 of the assessment reports the outcomes of the analyses for the different scenarios. The distributions indicate the possible range of outcomes at the time horizon of the opinion. The distributions of the uncertain components are characterised by different values and ranges: The median is a central value with equal probability of over- or underestimating the actual value. In the opinion, the median is also referred as 'best estimate'. The interquartile range is an interval around the median, where it is as likely that the actual value is inside as it is likely that the actual value is outside that range. The interquartile range is bounded by the 1st and 3rd quartile (the 25th and 75th percentile) of the distribution. This range expresses the precision of the estimation of interest. The wider the interquartile range, the greater is the uncertainty on the estimate. In this opinion, we refer to the interquartile range by using the term 'uncertainty interval'. For experimental designs, it is common to report the mean (m) and the standard error (s) for the precision of the estimate of a measured parameter. The interval: m ± s ([m − s, m + s]) is used to express an interval of likely values. This estimation concept is based on replicated measurements. In the context of uncertainty, it is not reasonable to assume replicated judgements. Therefore, the median and interquartile ranges are used instead of the mean and the interval m ± s, but the interpretation of the precision of judgements is similar. In addition to the median and interquartile range, a second range is reported: the credibility range. The credibility range is formally defined as the range between the 1st and 99th percentile of the distribution allowing the interpretation that it is extremely unlikely that the actual value is above the range, and it is extremely unlikely that it is below the range. Further intervals with different levels of coverage could be calculated from the probability distribution, but these are not reported as standard in this opinion. Please note that the number of significant figures used to report the characteristics of the distribution does not imply the precision of the estimation. For example, the precision of a variable with a median of 13 could be reported using the associated interquartile range, perhaps 3–38, which means that the actual value is below a few tens. In the opinion, an effort was made to present all results both as a statement on the model outcome in numerical expressions and as an interpretation in verbal terms. The fitted distributions for all the estimated parameters are presented in the Annex B (EFSA, 2017b). Annex B is the calculation file developed in @RISK that was used for running the Monte Carlo simulations and that provides the models run used by the Panel to perform the risk assessment. 2.1.2 Pilot case for EFSA PROMETHEUS project Moreover, this pest risk assessment is performed in accordance to the principles described in the EFSA PROMETHEUS (PROmoting METHods for Evidence Use in Scientific assessments) project where recommendations are provided both for the systematic and reasoned search of the evidence required by the risk assessors and the use of such evidence in the risk assessment (EFSA, 2015). This is an organisational development project which aims to improve further the methods for 'evidence use' (collecting, appraising and integrating data and evidence) in EFSA's scientific assessments and to increase their consistency. Drawing upon EFSA's mission and core values, the project promotes innovation in EFSA's scientific assessments and fosters the principles of impartiality, scientific excellence, transparency, openness and at the same time responsiveness. Greek for 'Forethought', in particular PROMETHEUS emphasises the importance of planning in a protocol the strategy for the scientific assessment (i.e. what evidence to use and how to use it). In the context of this pilot exercise, a protocol for the risk assessment has been prepared and is presented in the PROMETHEUS protocol for E. lewisi of this scientific opinion in Annex A5 (EFSA, 2017a). 2.1.3 Specification of the scenarios The different scenarios assessed within the pest risk assessment were identified based on the interpretation of the ToR and after discussion with the European Commission so as to provide a 'fit for purpose' risk assessment for European phytosanitary risk managers (European Commission and EU Member States). The detailed scenarios are briefly presented below and more in details in Section 3.2.1. Scenario A0: Current regulation in place: specific requirements laid down in Annex IIAI of Council Directive 2000/29/EC3 for the pest (only for plants of the genera Citrus, Fortunella and Poncirus, and their hybrids, other than fruit and seeds) and host prohibitions according to Annex IIIA to Council Directive 2000/29/EC3. Scenario A1: Current regulation in place without the E. lewisi specific requirements (Annex IIAI to Council Directive 2000/29/EC3) and in addition all imported host commodities should come from Pest Free Areas (PFA) in the country at origin (ISPM 4 (FAO, 1995)) and enforced measures on specific pathways. Scenario A2: Current regulation in place without the E. lewisi specific requirements (Annex IIAI to Council Directive 2000/29/EC3) and in addition all imported host commodities should come from Pest Free Places of Production (PFPP)/Pest Free Production Sites (PFPS) in the country at origin (ISPM 10 (FAO, 1999)) enforced measures on specific pathways. 2.1.4 Specification of the pathways Within the pest categorisation of E. lewisi (EFSA PLH Panel, 2014a), the Panel provided a list of 69 plants species on which E. lewisi had been reported. The Panel indicated that the report of the mite on a plant did not mean that the plant was a true host, i.e. a plant on which the mite can complete its life cycle. Therefore, uncertainty was expressed regarding the exact host status of many species on the list. However, on the basis of the initial scoping activities conducted when developing the pest categorisation, poinsettia plants for planting seemed to be the most likely pathway for introduction, this pathway includes both potted plants and cuttings. E. lewisi is reported as a rising concern in the USA on strawberry and raspberry. Importing strawberry plants and raspberry plants for planting from regions where the mite occurs provides an additional potential pathway. Such pathways remain open for import into the EU and are therefore considered as relevant pathways. The pest is reported as having impact on citrus fruits (lemons and oranges) and this is an open pathway and therefore considered as relevant. Plants for planting of the genera Prunus and Vitis are also potential pathways. However, these commodities are prohibited for import into the EU as laid down in Annex III to Council Directive 2000/29/EC3. As a consequence, these pathways are considered closed and therefore are not addressed in this pest risk assessment. In conclusion, the potential pathways for entry of the pest that were retained for the assessment are: poinsettia plants (unrooted cuttings and rooted cuttings and young plants) imported from third countries where the pest occurs; strawberry plants for planting imported from the USA; raspberry plants for planting imported from third countries where the pest occurs; citrus (oranges and lemons) fruits imported from third countries where the pest occurs. 2.1.5 Specification of different units used Table 1 provides a summary of the units that have been used for each risk assessment step. The choice of the units was performed in order to perform the analyses on homogeneous pathway, transfer and production units in terms of exposure and potential infestation with the E. lewisi. Table 1. Summary table of the specifications of the assessment Pathways Poinsettia plants (unrooted cuttings and rooted cuttings and young plants) imported from third countries where the pest occurs Strawberry plants for planting imported from the USA Raspberry plants for planting imported from third countries where the pest occurs Citrus (oranges and lemons) fruits imported from third countries where the pest occurs Units for entry No infested packs imported per year No of infested fruits per year Units for establishment No of infested glasshouses with at least one established population No of infested ha with at least one established population Units for spread No of newly infested NUTS 2 areas for 10 years Units for impact Yield losses on host crops Produ