Pest categorisation of Xiphinema americanum sensu lato.

The Panel on Plant Health performed a pest categorisation of Xiphinema americanum sensu lato (Nematoda: Longidoridae) for the EU. Sixty-one species in this group are recognised. They are polyphagous pests found in soil associated with a number of plant species. As a migratory ectoparasitic species, it punctures cells of plant roots. Nematodes were classified in four categories based on their distribution and ability to transmit viruses. Category I contains the seven virus vector species present outside the EU: X. americanum sensu stricto, X. bricolense, X. californicum, X. inaequale, X. intermedium, X. rivesi (non-EU populations) and X. tarjanense. Category II contains the 28 species not present in the EU and not known to transmit any virus. Twenty-six species are present in the EU and are not known to be virus vectors (category III). Category IV contains the species present in the EU, which is a virus vector (EU populations of X. rivesi). All nematodes known to be virus vectors occurring outside the EU (category I) satisfy all the criteria that are within the remit of EFSA to assess to be regarded as Union quarantine pests. This is mainly due to their association with non-EU virus isolates. Categories II and III contain species that are not reported to transmit viruses or cause economic damage to crop plants. Although uncertainty concerning their ability to transmit viruses exists, those species do not satisfy all the criteria to be regarded as Union quarantine pests. Category IV contains the EU populations of X. rivesi. The species is a virus vector but current EU populations of X. rivesi have not been reported to be associated with any of the EU viruses or their non-EU isolates under field conditions. Xiphinema rivesi (EU populations) is widespread in some Member States and does not satisfy all the criteria to be regarded as a Union quarantine. None of the species can be regarded as a regulated non-quarantine pest.

Introduction

Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor

Background

Council Directive 2000/29/EC1 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community establishes the present European Union plant health regime. The Directive lays down the phytosanitary provisions and the control checks to be carried out at the place of origin on plants and plant products destined for the Union or to be moved within the Union. In the Directive's 2000/29/EC annexes, the list of harmful organisms (pests) whose introduction into or spread within the Union is prohibited, is detailed together with specific requirements for import or internal movement.

Following the evaluation of the plant health regime, the new basic plant health law, Regulation (EU) 2016/20312 on protective measures against pests of plants, was adopted on 26 October 2016 and will apply from 14 December 2019 onwards, repealing Directive 2000/29/EC. In line with the principles of the above mentioned legislation and the follow‐up work of the secondary legislation for the listing of EU regulated pests, EFSA is requested to provide pest categorizations of the harmful organisms included in the annexes of Directive 2000/29/EC, in the cases where recent pest risk assessment/pest categorisation is not available.

Terms of Reference

EFSA is requested, pursuant to Article 22(5.b) and Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/20023, to provide scientific opinion in the field of plant health.

EFSA is requested to prepare and deliver a pest categorisation (step 1 analysis) for each of the regulated pests included in the appendices of the annex to this mandate. The methodology and template of pest categorisation have already been developed in past mandates for the organisms listed in Annex II Part A Section II of Directive 2000/29/EC. The same methodology and outcome is expected for this work as well.

The list of the harmful organisms included in the annex to this mandate comprises 133 harmful organisms or groups. A pest categorisation is expected for these 133 pests or groups and the delivery of the work would be stepwise at regular intervals through the year as detailed below. First priority covers the harmful organisms included in Appendix 1, comprising pests from Annex II Part A Section I and Annex II Part B of Directive 2000/29/EC. The delivery of all pest categorisations for the pests included in Appendix 1 is June 2018. The second priority is the pests included in Appendix 2, comprising the group of Cicadellidae (non‐EU) known to be vector of Pierce's disease (caused by Xylella fastidiosa), the group of Tephritidae (non‐EU), the group of potato viruses and virus‐like organisms, the group of viruses and virus‐like organisms of Cydonia Mill., Fragaria L., Malus Mill., Prunus L., Pyrus L., Ribes L., Rubus L. and Vitis L.. and the group of Margarodes (non‐EU species). The delivery of all pest categorisations for the pests included in Appendix 2 is end 2019. The pests included in Appendix 3 cover pests of Annex I part A section I and all pests categorisations should be delivered by end 2020.

For the above mentioned groups, each covering a large number of pests, the pest categorisation will be performed for the group and not the individual harmful organisms listed under “such as” notation in the Annexes of the Directive 2000/29/EC. The criteria to be taken particularly under consideration for these cases, is the analysis of host pest combination, investigation of pathways, the damages occurring and the relevant impact.

Finally, as indicated in the text above, all references to ‘non‐European’ should be avoided and replaced by ‘non‐EU’ and refer to all territories with exception of the Union territories as defined in Article 1 point 3 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031.

Terms of Reference: Appendix 1

List of harmful organisms for which pest categorisation is requested. The list below follows the annexes of Directive 2000/29/EC.

Terms of Reference: Appendix 2

List of harmful organisms for which pest categorisation is requested per group. The list below follows the categorisation included in the annexes of Directive 2000/29/EC.

Terms of Reference: Appendix 3

List of harmful organisms for which pest categorisation is requested. The list below follows the annexes of Directive 2000/29/EC.

Interpretation of the Terms of Reference

Xiphinema americanum sensu lato (non–EU populations) is one of a number of pests listed in the Appendices to the Terms of Reference (ToR) to be subject to pest categorisation to determine whether it fulfils the criteria of a quarantine pest or those of a regulated non‐quarantine pest for the area of the EU excluding Ceuta, Melilla and the outermost regions of Member States (MS) referred to in Article 355(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), other than Madeira and the Azores.

For the purpose of this pest categorisation, the Panel considers all species within the Xiphinema americanum sensu lato group, including species that are also present in the EU.

Data and methodologies

Data

Literature search

A literature search on X. americanum sensu lato was conducted at the beginning of the categorisation in the ISI Web of Science bibliographic database, using the scientific name of the pest and the combination of scientific name of the nematode species and “virus” as search terms (details can be found in Appendix A). Relevant papers were reviewed and further references and information were obtained from experts, as well as from citations within the references.

Database search

Pest information, on host(s) and distribution, was retrieved from the European and Mediterranean Plan Protection Organization (EPPO) Global Database (EPPO, 2017) and relevant publications.

Data about the import of commodity types that could potentially provide a pathway for the pest to enter the EU and about the area of hosts grown in the EU were obtained from EUROSTAT (Statistical Office of the European Communities).

The Europhyt database was consulted for pest‐specific notifications on interceptions and outbreaks. Europhyt is a web‐based network run by the Directorate General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTÉ) of the European Commission, and is a subproject of PHYSAN (Phyto‐Sanitary Controls) specifically concerned with plant health information. The Europhyt database manages notifications of interceptions of plants or plant products that do not comply with EU legislation, as well as notifications of plant pests detected in the territory of the MS and the phytosanitary measures taken to eradicate or avoid their spread.

Methodologies

The Panel performed the pest categorisation for X. americanum sensu lato following guiding principles and steps presented in the EFSA guidance on the harmonised framework for pest risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel, 2010) and as defined in the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures No 11 (FAO, 2013) and No 21 (FAO, 2004).

In accordance with the guidance on a harmonised framework for pest risk assessment in the EU (EFSA PLH Panel, 2010), this work was initiated following an evaluation of the EU plant health regime. Therefore, to facilitate the decision‐making process, in the conclusions of the pest categorisation, the Panel addresses explicitly each criterion for a Union quarantine pest and for a Union regulated non‐quarantine pest in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants, and includes additional information required in accordance with the specific terms of reference received by the European Commission. In addition, for each conclusion, the Panel provides a short description of its associated uncertainty.

Table 1 presents the Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 pest categorisation criteria on which the Panel bases its conclusions. All relevant criteria have to be met for the pest to potentially qualify either as a quarantine pest or as a regulated non‐quarantine pest. If one of the criteria is not met, the pest will not qualify. A pest that does not qualify as a quarantine pest may still qualify as a regulated non‐quarantine pest that needs to be addressed in the opinion. For the pests regulated in the protected zones only, the scope of the categorisation is the territory of the protected zone; thus, the criteria refer to the protected zone instead of the EU territory.

Table 1

Pest categorisation criteria under evaluation, as defined in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants (the number of the relevant sections of the pest categorisation is shown in brackets in the first column)

Criterion of pest categorisation	Criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union quarantine pest	Criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding protected zone quarantine pest (articles 32‐35)	Criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union regulated non‐quarantine pest
Identity of the pest (Section 3.1)	Is the identity of the pest established, or has it been shown to produce consistent symptoms and to be transmissible?	Is the identity of the pest established, or has it been shown to produce consistent symptoms and to be transmissible?	Is the identity of the pest established, or has it been shown to produce consistent symptoms and to be transmissible?
Absence/presence of the pest in the EU territory (Section 3.2)	Is the pest present in the EU territory? If present, is the pest widely distributed within the EU? Describe the pest distribution briefly!	Is the pest present in the EU territory? If not, it cannot be a protected zone quarantine organism	Is the pest present in the EU territory? If not, it cannot be a regulated non‐quarantine pest. (A regulated non‐quarantine pest must be present in the risk assessment area)
Regulatory status (Section 3.3)	If the pest is present in the EU but not widely distributed in the risk assessment area, it should be under official control or expected to be under official control in the near future	The protected zone system aligns with the pest free area system under the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). The pest satisfies the IPPC definition of a quarantine pest that is not present in the risk assessment area (i.e. protected zone).	Is the pest regulated as a quarantine pest? If currently regulated as a quarantine pest, are there grounds to consider its status could be revoked?
Pest potential for entry, establishment and spread in the EU territory (Section 3.4)	Is the pest able to enter into, become established in, and spread within, the EU territory? If yes, briefly list the pathways!	Is the pest able to enter into, become established in, and spread within, the protected zone areas? Is entry by natural spread from EU areas where the pest is present possible?	Is spread mainly via specific plants for planting, rather than via natural spread or via movement of plant products or other objects? Clearly state if plants for planting is the main pathway!
Potential for consequences in the EU territory (Section 3.5)	Would the pests’ introduction have an economic or environmental impact on the EU territory?	Would the pests’ introduction have an economic or environmental impact on the protected zone areas?	Does the presence of the pest on plants for planting have an economic impact, as regards the intended use of those plants for planting?
Available measures (Section 3.6)	Are there measures available to prevent the entry into, establishment within or spread of the pest within the EU such that the risk becomes mitigated?	Are there measures available to prevent the entry into, establishment within or spread of the pest within the protected zone areas such that the risk becomes mitigated? Is it possible to eradicate the pest in a restricted area within 24 months (or a period longer than 24 months where the biology of the organism so justifies) after the presence of the pest was confirmed in the protected zone?	Are there measures available to prevent pest presence on plants for planting such that the risk becomes mitigated?
Conclusion of pest categorisation (Section 4)	A statement as to whether (1) all criteria assessed by EFSA above for consideration as a potential quarantine pest were met and (2) if not, which one(s) were not met	A statement as to whether (1) all criteria assessed by EFSA above for consideration as potential protected zone quarantine pest were met, and (2) if not, which one(s) were not met	A statement as to whether (1) all criteria assessed by EFSA above for consideration as a potential regulated non‐quarantine pest were met, and (2) if not, which one(s) were not met

It should be noted that the Panel's conclusions are formulated respecting its remit and particularly with regard to the principle of separation between risk assessment and risk management (EFSA founding regulation (EU) No 178/2002); therefore, instead of determining whether the pest is likely to have an unacceptable impact, the Panel will present a summary of the observed pest impacts. Economic impacts are expressed in terms of yield and quality losses and not in monetary terms, whereas addressing social impacts is outside the remit of the Panel, in agreement with EFSA guidance on a harmonised framework for pest risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel, 2010).

The Panel will not indicate in its conclusions of the pest categorisation whether to continue the risk assessment process, but following the agreed two‐step approach, will continue only if requested by the risk managers. However, during the categorisation process, experts may identify key elements and knowledge gaps that could contribute significant uncertainty to a future assessment of risk. It would be useful to identify and highlight such gaps so that potential future requests can specifically target the major elements of uncertainty, perhaps suggesting specific scenarios to examine.

Pest categorisation

Identity and biology of the pest

Identity and taxonomy

Is the identity of the pest established, or has it been shown to produce consistent symptoms and to be transmissible? (Yes or No)

Yes, the identity of the pest is established. It is a group of morphologically similar nematode species some of which are important virus vectors.

Xiphinema americanum sensu lato is a group of morphologically closely related nematode species in the family Longidoridae. The group comprises several species and the number of species is constantly changing; at present 61 species are recognised (EPPO, 2017). The group includes some virus‐transmitting nematodes: X. americanum (sensu stricto), X. bricolense, X. californicum, X. inaequale, X. intermedium, X. rivesi and X. tarjanense. For the majority of species, little or no information on virus transmission is available.

For the purpose of this pest categorisation, the group is clustered into four categories based on their distribution (see Section 3.2) and their ability to transmit viruses (see Section 3.5).

Category I contains the non‐EU species, which are known virus vectors (7 species, including non‐EU populations of X. rivesi).

Category II contains the non‐EU species, which are not known to be virus vectors (28 species).

Category III contains the species present in the EU, which are not known to be virus vectors (26 species).

Category IV contains the species present in the EU, which is a virus vector nematode species (X. rivesi – EU populations), but virus transmission has not been shown under field conditions in the EU.

Biology of the pest

Nematodes belonging to the X. americanum sensu lato group are migratory ectoparasites of plant roots. All nematode stages are found in soil but there is no specialised survival stage except in X. pachtaicum, which may survive under dry conditions in an anhydrobiotic state (Dalmasso, 1970). They may survive in soil at cool temperatures for several years (Bitterlin and Gonsalves, 1987) but only poorly in dry soils (Griffin and Barker, 1966). Their life cycle lasts approximately 1 year and they are assumed to reproduce parthenogenetically; males do not exist or are extremely rare. Optimum temperatures for reproduction are 20–24°C.

The life cycle of X. americanum sensu lato consists of five or six tages: the egg, three or four juvenile stages and adult (male and female). Species with four juvenile stages are most often observed but some, e.g. X. californicum, have only three (Brown et al., 1994). Brown and Trudgill (1997) speculated that the American species have three juvenile stages (which are the only ones transmitting nepoviruses) while those from other continents have four.

All juvenile stages and adults have a stylet typical for the family Longidoridae consisting of two parts: the anterior odontostyle and a supporting structure (odontophore). X. americanum sensu lato have a long odontostyle (up to 150 μm) which is used for feeding on epidermal cells. During feeding, juveniles and adults may acquire and transmit viruses, that may persist for several months and up to 2 years (Bitterlin and Gonsalves, 1987).

Some species are important vectors of some American nepoviruses including Tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV), Tomato ringspot virus (ToRSV), Peach rosette mosaic virus (PRMV) and Cherry rasp leaf virus (CRLV) (genus Chelarivirus) (Brown et al., 1993, 1994).

Intraspecific diversity

Xiphinema americanum sensu lato is a complex of 61 species (EPPO, 2017). Within this group, minor differences are used to distinguish species and the number of species is constantly changing. Although within this species group, diversity may be considered high it may not be considered intraspecific diversity.

The most important characteristic is that some species are important virus vectors while others may not transmit any virus (although there is some uncertainty). There are also differences among different populations of the same nematode species in their ability to transmit viruses (Griesbach and Maggenti, 1989).

Detection and identification of the pest

Are detection and identification methods available for the pest?

Yes, detection and identification methods are available. Detection follows standard protocols such as the EPPO Standard PM 7/119 for migratory nematodes larger than 1 mm. Identification is extremely difficult and can be only carried out by trained personnel using the international diagnostic protocol for regulated pests (FAO, 2016).

Nematodes can be isolated from the soil or growing media by different extraction techniques, e.g. the Flegg‐modified Cobb technique, Oostenbrink elutriator or other elutriation methods (EPPO, 2013).

Identification of species in the X. americanum sensu lato group is based on morphological and morphometric analyses (Lamberti et al., 2000; FAO, 2016), but species differentiation is extremely difficult due to only minor differences.

Because of the difficulties to discriminate species of X. americanum sensu lato based on their morphology, the use of molecular approaches is recommended (Brown et al., 1995; Lamberti et al., 2000). However, at present, there is no reliable molecular test to distinguish between members of X. americanum sensu lato. Such molecular diagnostic method are reported in the Q‐bank website (http://www.q-bank.eu/Nematodes/DefaultInfo.aspx?Page=MolecularDS), but have not been included in the relevant IPPC and EPPO diagnostic protocols yet (FAO, 2016; EPPO, 2017).

Pest distribution

Pest distribution outside the EU

Xiphinema americanum sensu lato is a complex of 61 nominal species many of which are widespread throughout the world, while some others have been reported from only certain geographic areas (Tables 2 and 3, Figures 1 and 2). Among those species, the ones known to transmit viruses of the genera Nepovirus and Cheravirus are listed in the Annex I.A.I and Table 2.

Table 2

Distribution of non‐EU species or populations of Xiphinema americanum sensu lato that are vectors of economically important plant viruses (Category I) based on EPPO (2017)

Species	Africa	North America	Central and South America	Asia	Oceania	Europe (non EU)
X. americanum sensu stricto	√	√
X. bricolense		√
X. californicum		√	√
X. inaequale			√	√
X. intermedium		√
X. tarjanense		√
X. rivesi (non‐EU populations)	√ a	√	√	√		√

Canary Islands.

Table 3

Distribution of non‐EU species of Xiphinema americanum sensu lato, which are not known to be virus vectors of economically important plant viruses (Category II) according to EPPO (2017) and a literature search specified in Appendix A

Species	Africa	North America	Central and South America	Asia	Oceania	Europe (non EU)
X. bacaniboia					√
X. citricolum		√
X. floridae		√
X. franci	√			√
X. georgianum		√	√
X. himalayense				√
X. incognitum	√			√
X. kosaigudense				√
X. laevistriatum		√
X. lambertii				√
X. luci	√		√
X. minor				√
X. neoelongatum				√
X. occiduum		√
X. oxycaudatum	√		√	√
X. pacificum		√
X. pakistanense				√
X. paramanovi						√ a
X. parvum			√
X. penevi	√
X. peruvianum			√
X. pseudoguirani	√			√	√
X. sheri		√		√
X. silvaticum	√			√
X. tenuicutis		√
X. thornei		√		√		√ a
X. utahense		√
X. waimungui					√

Former Soviet Union.

Figure 1

Global distribution map for X. americanum sensu stricto (extracted from the EPPO Global Database accessed on 23.4.2018)

Figure 2

Global distribution map for X. rivesi (extracted from the EPPO Global Database accessed on 23.4.2018)

Distribution of species of Xiphinema americanum sensu lato not known to transmit non‐EU viruses are shown in Table 3.

Pest distribution in the EU

Is the pest present in the EU territory? If present, is the pest widely distributed within the EU?

Yes, 27 nematode species of X. americanum sensu lato have been reported from the EU. Twenty‐six species are not reported as virus vectors. Only X. rivesi (all populations) has been shown to transmit TRSV, ToRSV, PRMV and CRLV; this nematode species has a wide distribution.

As shown below, 27 nematode species of X. americanum sensu lato have been reported from the EU (Tables 4 and 5). Twenty‐six species are not reported as virus vectors (Category III). Some of them have only been reported from the EU. In case the species occur in other regions of the world as well, this is indicated in the footnotes of Table 4. X. rivesi, the only virus vector present in the EU (Category IV) has a worldwide distribution and is therefore also listed in Table 2.

Table 4

EU distribution of species belonging to Xiphinema americanum sensu lato which are not known to be virus vectors (Category III) according to EPPO (2017). In the footnotes, the distribution of the species outside the EU is indicated

Species	MS	Source
Xiphinema astaregiense	Spain	Archidona‐Yuste et al. (2016)
X. brevicolle a , b , c , d	Bulgaria, Portugal, Germany, Poland, Slovakia	Szczygiel (1974); Lamberti and Bleve‐Zacheo (1979); Brown and Taylor (1987); Gutiérrez‐Gutiérrez et al. (2016)
X. browni	Czech Republic, Slovakia	Lazarova et al. (2016)
X. brevisicum	Portugal	Lamberti et al. (1994)
X. diffusum a , b , c , d , e	Portugal	Lamberti et al. (2000)
X. duriense	Spain, Portugal	Lamberti et al. (2002); Gutierrez‐Gutierrez et al. (2012); Archidona‐Yuste et al. (2016); Gutiérrez‐Gutiérrez et al. (2016)
X. exile	Portugal	Roca et al. (1988); Gutiérrez‐Gutiérrez et al. (2016)
X. fortuitum	Italy	Roca et al. (1987); Lamberti et al. (2000)
X. incertum d	Bulgaria, Croatia, Spain	Lamberti et al. (1983); Peneva and Choleva (1992); Lamberti et al. (2002); Gutierrez‐Gutierrez et al. (2012)
X. lafoense	Portugal	Roca et al. (1987); Gutiérrez‐Gutiérrez et al. (2016)
X. longistilum	Portugal	Lamberti et al. (1994, 2000); Gutiérrez‐Gutiérrez et al. (2016)
X. madeirense	Portugal	Brown et al. (1992); Lamberti et al. (1994); Gutiérrez‐Gutiérrez et al. (2016)
X. mesostilum	Portugal	Lamberti et al. (1994); Gutiérrez‐Gutiérrez et al. (2016)
X. microstilum	Portugal	Lamberti et al. (1994); Gutiérrez‐Gutiérrez et al. (2016)
X. opisthohysterum d	Spain, Portugal;	Sturhan (1983); Gutierrez‐Gutierrez et al. (2012); Gutiérrez‐Gutiérrez et al. (2016)
X. pachtaicum a , b , c , d	Bulgaria, Spain, Germany, Portugal, Hungary, England	Lamberti et al. (1983); Barsi and Lamberti (2002); Gutierrez‐Gutierrez et al. (2012); Sturhan (2014); Palomares Rius et al. (2015); Lazarova et al. (2016)
X. pachydermum	Portugal	Sturhan (1983); Lamberti et al. (2000); Gutiérrez‐Gutiérrez et al. (2016)
X. parabrevicolle	Italy	Gutierrez‐Gutierrez et al. (2012)
X. parapachydermum	Spain	Gutierrez‐Gutierrez et al. (2012); Archidona‐Yuste et al. (2016)
X. parasimile d	Bulgaria, Romania	Bonta (Groza) et al. (2012); Lazarova et al. (2016)
X. paratenuicutis	Spain	Gutierrez‐Gutierrez et al. (2012)
X. plesiopachtaicum	Spain	Archidona‐Yuste et al. (2016)
X. santos a	Spain, Portugal	Lamberti et al. (1993, 2000); Gutierrez‐Gutierrez et al. (2012)
X. simile a , d	Bulgaria; Slovakia, Czech Republic; Crete, Romania	Lamberti et al. (1983, 2000); Bonta (Groza) et al. (2012); Lazarova et al. (2016)
X. taylori c , d	Slovakia; Germany, Romania, Italy	Lamberti et al. (1993); Roca and Lamberti (1994); Lišková et al. (1995); Lamberti et al. (2000); Lišková et al. (2007); Bonta (Groza) et al. (2012); Sturhan (2014); Barsalote et al. (2017)
X. vallense	Spain	Archidona‐Yuste et al. (2016)

None of the species is reported from Oceania.

Present also in Africa.

Present also in Central and South America.

Present also in Asia.

Present also in Europe (non‐EU).

Present also in North America.

Table 5

Current distribution of X. rivesi in the 28 EU Member States based on the EPPO Global Database and additional references

Country	EPPO Global Database Last update: Date accessed: 23. 03. 2018	Other sources
Bulgaria	Not reported	Lamberti et al. (2000); Bello et al. (2005); Gutierrez‐Gutierrez et al. (2011)
France	Present, no details	Bello et al. (2005); Gutierrez‐Gutierrez et al. (2011)
Germany	Present, no details	Sturhan (2014)
Italy	Present, widespread	Lazarova et al. (2016)
Portugal	Present, widespread	Lamberti et al. (1994, 2000); Gutiérrez‐Gutiérrez et al. (2016)
Slovenia	Present, restricted distribution	Urek et al. (2005); Širca et al. (2007); Peneva et al. (2012)
Spain	Present, widespread	Lamberti et al. (2000); Bello et al. (2005); Gutierrez‐Gutierrez et al. (2011)

Among species belonging to X. americanum sensu lato group that are identified as virus vectors, only X. rivesi has been reported from several locations in the EU (Table 5). Although the populations of X. rivesi present in the EU can transmit ToRSV and TRSV under experimental conditions (Širca et al., 2007), their presence in the EU has never been associated with the respective viral diseases under field conditions.

Regulatory status

Council Directive 2000/29/EC

X. americanum sensu lato is listed in Council Directive 2000/29/EC. Details are presented in Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6

Xiphinema americanum sensu lato in Council Directive 2000/29/EC

Annex I, Part A	Harmful organisms whose introduction into, and spread within, all member states shall be banned
Section I	Harmful organisms not known to occur in any part of the community and relevant for the entire community
(a)	Insects, mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development
	Species
26.	Xiphinema americanum Cobb sensu lato (non‐European populations)

Table 7

Regulated hosts and commodities that may involve Xiphinema americanum sensu lato in Annexes III, IV and V of Council Directive 2000/29/EC

Annex III, Part A	Plants, plant products and other objects the introduction of which shall be prohibited in all Member States
	Description	Country of origin
Annex IV, Part A	Special requirements which must be laid down by all member states for the introduction and movement of plants, plant products and other objects into and within all member states
	Plants, plant products and other objects	Special requirements
31.	Plants of Pelargonium L'Herit. ex Ait., intended for planting, other than seeds, originating in countries where Tomato ringspot virus is known to occur:	Without prejudice to the requirements applicable to the plants listed in Annex IV(A)(I)(27.1 and) (27.2),
	(a) where Xiphinema americanum Cobb sensu lato (non‐European populations) or other vectors of Tomato ringspot virus are not known to occur	official statement that the plants: (a) are directly derived from places of production known to be free from Tomato ringspot virus; or (b) are of no more than fourth generation stock, derived from mother plants found to be free from Tomato ringspot virus under an official approved system of virological testing.
	(b) where Xiphinema americanum Cobb sensu lato (non‐European populations) or other vectors of Tomato ringspot virus are known to occur	official statement that the plants: (a) are directly derived from places of production known to be free from Tomato ringspot virus in the soil or plants; or(b) are of no more than second generation stock, derived from mother plants found to be free from Tomato ringspot virus under an officially approved system of virological testing.

Legislation addressing the organisms vectored by Xiphinema americanum sensu lato (Directive 2000/29/EC)

Four plant viruses belonging to two plant virus genera, Cheravirus and Nepovirus, are vectored by X. americanum sensu lato:

CRLV is listed in Annex I, AI, position (d) 5b.

CRLV is also listed in Annex IV, AI:

22.1 – Plants of Malus Mill., intended for planting, other than seeds, originating in countries where the relevant harmful organisms are known to occur on Malus Mill.

23.2 – Plants of Prunus L., intended for planting (b) other than seeds, originating in countries where the relevant harmful organisms are known to occur

24 – Plants of Rubus L., intended for planting (b) other than seeds, originating in countries where the relevant harmful organisms are known to occur

PRMV is listed in Annex I, AI, position (d) 5e

TRSV is listed in Annex I, AI, position (d) 3.

ToRSV is listed in Annex I, AI, position (d) 4.

Entry, establishment and spread in the EU

Host range

X. americanum sensu lato are free‐living ectoparasitic nematodes and have been found associated with a wide range of herbaceous and woody host plants. They are able to parasitise essentially all plants but economically important are only the plant species which are host plants to the viruses (EPPO, 2017).

The transmission of viruses is the major damage caused by certain species of X. americanum sensu lato. For the list of viruses which are vectored by X. americanum sensu lato, see Table 8. Important host plants of these viruses are, among others, apple, plum, grapevine, cherry and peach (Taylor and Brown, 1997).

Table 8

List of nematode species from the Xiphinema americanum sensu lato group known to be vectors of some economically important plant viruses (Taylor and Brown, 1997; Verma et al., 2003)

Vector nematode	CRLV a	PRMVb	TRSVc	ToRSVd
X. americanum sensu lato	+	+	+	+
X. americanum sensu stricto	+		+	+
X. bricolense				+
X. californicum	+		+	+
X. inaequale				+
X. intermedium			+	+
X. rivesi	+	+	+	+
X. tarjanense			+	+

Cherry rasp leaf virus.

Peach rosette mosaic virus.

Tobacco ringspot virus.

Tomato ringspot virus.

Entry

Is the pest able to enter into the EU territory? (Yes or No) If yes, identify and list the pathways!

Yes, soil and growing media, soil and growing media attached to planting material and soil and growing media attached to machinery and packaging material.

Species of X. americanum sensu lato are ectoparasitic pests and do not invade plant tissue. They are only found in soil or growing media. The following pathways have been identified:

Soil and growing media as such from areas where the nematode occurs. This pathway is closed because of Annex III, Part A, No. 14 of EU 2000/29.

Soil and growing media attached to plants (hosts or non‐host plants) from areas where the nematode occurs. This pathway is not closed as plants may be imported with soil or growing media attached to sustain their live.

Soil and growing media attached to (agricultural) machinery, tools, packaging materials. This pathway is not considered an important pathway for entry because the volume of trade of used machinery is considered low. Furthermore, soil adhering to agricultural machinery during transport (if relevant) may dry and subsequently lead to decreased viability of the pest.

Until 15.3.2018, there were 67 records of interceptions of X. americanum sensu lato and sensu stricto in the Europhyt database.

Establishment

Is the pest able to become established in the EU territory?

Yes, the pest is able to establish in the EU territory. Some species are already present in the EU.

EU distribution of main host plants

The nematode species within this group have a wide host range and are associated with several herbaceous and woody host plants. Important host plants such as apple, plum, grapevine, cherry and peach are present throughout the EU (see Appendix B).

Climatic conditions affecting establishment

Twenty‐seven species of the X. americanum sensu lato group are already present in the EU (see Table 4). Other X. americanum group species, most importantly those transmitting viruses (Category I, see Table 2) are present mainly in North, Central and South America where climatic conditions (warm temperate) similar to those in the EU can be found. The climate in many parts of the EU is therefore considered suitable for pest establishment.

Spread

Vectors and their distribution in the EU (if applicable)

Is the pest able to spread within the EU territory following establishment? (Yes or No) How?

Yes, soil and growing media either alone, attached to planting material or attached to machinery and packaging material.

RNQPs: Is spread mainly via specific plants for planting, rather than via natural spread or via movement of plant products or other objects?

No, the pest is not mainly spread with specific plants for planting. It can however be spread in soil attached to plants for planting and other objects or soil as such.

Species of the X. americanum group are migratory ectoparasites found in the soil. Movement in soil is restricted to short (< 1 m) distances (EPPO GD 26.10.2017). The pest never invades plant tissue (except by puncturing root plant cells with its stylet). Spread may therefore mainly occur with moist soil or growing media (soil as such or soil attached to plants, machinery, tools, shoes, animals, packaging material) or run‐off water but not by plants without soil. Soil attached to agricultural machinery, tools, etc., may contribute to spread, but this may be mostly relevant for within field spread or spread to adjacent fields.

X. americanum sensu lato includes some virus transmitting (CRLV, PRMV, ToRSV and TRSV) nematodes (see Table 8) and their spread may also lead to spread of those viruses.

According to EPPO PQR, TRSV and ToRSV are present in some EU MS, but the exact distribution of those viruses is not known. CRLV and PRMV are not known to be present in the EU according to EPPO PQR. Viruliferous nematodes may be a pathway not only for the entrance of CLRV and PRMV in the EU, but also for the entry of additional isolates or spread in new areas of both TRSV and ToRSV.

Impacts

Would the pests’ introduction have an economic or environmental impact on the EU territory?

Yes, Xiphinema americanum sensu lato can cause damage to certain host plants but data on the extent of such damage are missing. In addition to causing direct damage, certain species of this nematode group are capable of transmitting certain economically important plant viruses such as TRSV, ToRSV, PRMV and CRLV.

RNQPs: Does the presence of the pest on plants for planting have an economic impact, as regards the intended use of those plants for planting? 4

Yes, if the pest is present in soil associated with plants for planting of important host plants such as grapes, apples and plums, those plants may not be marketed as plants for planting anymore.

Nematode species from the group known as X. americanum sensu lato can cause damage to a wide range of wild and cultivated plants with direct feeding on the roots, causing bent or swollen root tips (EPPO GD, 26.10.2017). Above ground symptoms are unclear and are most often similar to those resulting from water and nutrient deficiencies and are shown as stunted plant growth and patchy fields (Heve et al., 2015). Direct damage can occur only in the case of high population densities. Besides causing direct damage to plants, certain species of X. americanum sensu lato can also transmit some economically important plant viruses such as TRSV, ToRSV, PRMV and CRLV (Brown et al., 1993). However, not all species from this group of nematodes have been reported to transmit viruses. According to Taylor and Brown (1997) the following species are considered as virus‐vectors: X. americanum sensu stricto, X. bricolense, X. californicum, X. intermedium, X. rivesi and X. tarjanense (Table 8). Verma et al. (2003) reported that also X. inequale may transmit ToRSV showing that more nematode species of the group may be virus‐vectors. This indicates that viruses can also be transmitted by nematode species from the X. americanum group which are currently not recognised as virus vectors.

Availability and limits of mitigation measures

Are there measures available to prevent the entry into, establishment within or spread of the pest within the EU such that the risk becomes mitigated?

Yes, prohibition of import of soil and growing media and plants for planting or machinery with soil attached from areas where nematodes known to transmit non‐EU viruses are present would prevent their introduction into and spread within the PRA area.

RNQPs: Are there measures available to prevent pest presence on plants for planting such that the risk becomes mitigated?

The nematodes do not invade plants (ectoparasites), therefore plants for planting are not the main pathway. Measures are therefore not considered.

Phytosanitary measures

The following phytosanitary measures are considered:

Prohibition of import from areas where both, non‐EU viruses and their vector nematodes are known to be present,

Phytosanitary certificate for which a general plant health inspection must be done prior to export, which is generally based on sampling,

Pest‐free production site, inspection and testing, and soil treatment

Biological or technical factors limiting the feasibility and effectiveness of measures to prevent the entry, establishment and spread of the pest

Sampling and testing procedures – a very high accuracy is required for the purpose of issuing a phytosanitary certificate; detection of nematodes in soil depends on spatial and seasonal nematode distribution, sampling intensity, sampling depth and sample volume.

Correct identification of the pest is required for the implementation of appropriate measures to prevent its introduction and spread. Species identification of X. americanum sensu lato is based on a detailed morphological observations and morphometric measurements of individual species, and is a challenge even for experienced, well‐trained staff due to general similarity of these nematodes (Taylor and Brown, 1997). Currently, no appropriate routine molecular tools for the identification of X. americanum sensu lato is available, therefore the whole diagnostic procedure is based on morphological identification (FAO, 2016; EPPO, 2017).

Biological or technical factors limiting the ability to prevent the presence of the pest on plants for planting

Sampling and testing procedures – a very high accuracy is required for the purpose of issuing a phytosanitary certificate; detection of nematodes in soil depends on spatial and seasonal nematode distribution, sampling intensity, sampling depth and sample volume.

Removal of soil from plants for planting or other objects may not be feasible and therefore not fully effective.

Pest control methods

The use of certified or tested plants for planting, grown under conditions that assure corresponding plant health helps to reduce the risk of introducing and spreading of non‐EU viruses: TRSV, ToRSV, PRMV and CRLV and their vector nematodes (X. americanum sensu lato). Only planting material originating from areas where these viruses and their vector nematodes have not been reported, and where surveillance is carried out to confirm the absence of the pest (Pest Free Area, Pest Free Production Site) could be declared as pest free material and could be therefore used in the EU.

Disinfection of soil by physical (heat, steam) or chemical (nematicides) measures – the efficacy of these measures is limited (it is considered that the efficacy never reaches 100%) and the nematodes that remain in soil can still transmit viruses to the roots of the host plants.

Uncertainty

Uncertainty exists about the number and identity of species within the X. americanum sensu lato group.

Uncertainty exists about the species of the X. americanum sensu lato group that transmit plant viruses.

The distribution of viruses transmitted by X. americanum sensu lato group and their vectors in countries of origin and in the EU is not exactly known.

Specificity of virus transmission has been reported but is unclear whether non EU viruses and virus strains can be transmitted by X. americanum sensu lato group species present in the EU. It is also not clear if non‐EU populations of the nematodes are efficient vectors of the respective viruses already present in the EU.

Efficiency of virus transmission under field conditions has not been studied in detail. The nematodes move only over short distances and within field spread is expected to be limited and may require several years. Uncertainty exists about population build‐up (one generation per year) which may affect virus spread. Although Xiphinema species are known to retain viruses for long periods (transmission after 9 months has been experimentally proven), uncertainty on virus persistence exists.

The extent of direct damage caused by the nematode is not known. Xiphinema species are able to damage root systems (galling and stunting) leading to considerable crop losses (Taylor, 1978). Although there is some uncertainty on the extent of damage caused, this may not influence the assessment as the main damage is the transmission of viruses. Direct damage may be similar to direct damage caused by indigenous (European) Xiphinema species.

Conclusions

Four categories of species within the Xiphinema americanum sensu lato were considered for the purpose of this pest categorisation. The main damage caused by nematodes in this group is the transmission of plant viruses.

Category I contains the non‐EU species, which are known virus vectors: X. americanum sensu stricto, X. bricolense, X. californicum, X. inaequale, X. intermedium, X. rivesi (non‐EU populations) and X. tarjanense (Table 2). Those species satisfy all the criteria that are within the remit of EFSA to assess to be regarded as Union quarantine pests (Table 9).

Table 9

The Panel's conclusions on the pest categorisation criteria defined in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants (the number of the relevant sections of the pest categorisation is shown in brackets in the first column) for category I (X. americanum sensu stricto, X. bricolense, X. californicum, X. inaequale, X. intermedium, X. rivesi (non‐EU populations) and X. tarjanense) that are vectors of plant viruses

Criterion of pest categorisation	Panel's conclusions against criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union quarantine pest	Panel's conclusions against criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union regulated non‐quarantine pest	Key uncertainties
Identity of the pest (Section 3.1)	Yes the identities of X. americanum sensu stricto, X. bricolense, X. californicum, X. inaequale, X. intermedium, X. rivesi (non‐EU populations) and X. tarjanense are established	Yes the identities of X. americanum sensu stricto, X. bricolense, X. californicum, X. inaequale, X. intermedium, X. rivesi (non‐EU populations) and X. tarjanense are established	Identification is only possible for experienced nematologists. Molecular methods are not available for routine diagnostics. The distinction of EU‐populations of X. rivesi from non‐EU‐populations is not possible
Absence/presence of the pest in the EU territory (Section 3.2)	No, the pests are not known to be present in the EU	No, the pests are not known to be present in the EU	No systematic surveillance in all MSs
Regulatory status (Section 3.3)	Nematodes belonging to the X. americanum sensu lato group are currently regulated by Council Directive 2000/29/EC as harmful organisms whose introduction into, and spread within, all member states shall be banned	Nematodes belonging to the X. americanum sensu lato group are currently regulated by Council Directive 2000/29/EC as harmful organisms whose introduction into, and spread within, all member states shall be banned
Pest potential for entry, establishment and spread in the EU territory (Section 3.4)	X. americanum sensu stricto, X. bricolense, X. californicum, X. inaequale, X. intermedium, X. rivesi (non‐EU populations) and X. tarjanense are able to enter and spread with soil, soil attached to plants for planting or to machinery, tools etc	X. americanum sensu stricto, X. bricolense, X. californicum, X. inaequale, X. intermedium, X. rivesi (non‐EU populations) and X. tarjanense are able to enter and spread with soil attached to plants but plants for planting are not the main pathway	No uncertainties
Potential for consequences in the EU territory (Section 3.5)	X. americanum sensu stricto, X. bricolense, X. californicum, X. inaequale, X. intermedium, X. rivesi (non‐EU populations) and X. tarjanense are vectors of important plant viruses. Introduction of the nematodes may also lead to the introduction of viruses or new strains not present in the EU. Economic impacts are expected	The presence of the pest on plants for planting would have an economic impact	Introduction of the nematodes may also lead to the introduction of viruses which may also be vectored by nematode species already present in the EU (e.g., X. rivesi EU populations)
Available measures (Section 3.6)	Measures are available to inhibit entry via traded commodities (e.g. prohibition on the importation of soil and the introduction of plants for planting with soil or growing media attached)	Pest‐free area and pest free places/sites of production reduce the risk of the pest being present in soil attached to plants for planting	No uncertainties
Conclusion on pest categorisation (Section 4)	X. americanum sensu stricto, X. bricolense, X. californicum, X. inaequale, X. intermedium, X. rivesi (non‐EU populations) and X. tarjanense do satisfy all the criteria that are within the remit of EFSA to assess to be regarded as a Union quarantine pest	X. americanum sensu stricto, X. bricolense, X. californicum, X. inaequale, X. intermedium, X. rivesi (non‐EU populations) and X. tarjanense do not meet the criteria of (a) occurring in the EU territory, and (b) plants for planting being the main means of spread
Aspects of assessment to focus on/scenarios to address in future if appropriate	Routine identification methods (molecular tools) for species identification are needed. There is no method available at present to distinguish non‐EU and EU populations of X. rivesi

Category II contains the non‐EU species, which are not known to be virus vectors (28 species): X. bacaniboia, X. citricolum, X. floridae, X. franci, X. georgianum, X. himalayense, X. incognitum, X. kosaigudense, X. laevistriatum, X. lambertii, X. luci, X. minor, X. neoelongatum, X. occiduum, X. oxycaudatum, X. pacificum, X. pakistanense, X. paramanovi, X. parvum, X. penevi, X. peruvianum, X. pseudoguirani, X. sheri, X. silvaticum, X. tenuicutis, X. thornei, X. utahense, and X. waimungui (Table 3). Those species do not satisfy all the criteria specifically the criterion of causing a significant impact to be regarded as Union quarantine pests. Uncertainty exists whether species in this category can transmit viruses once compatible viruses were introduced into the EU (Table 10).

Table 10

The Panel's conclusions on the pest categorisation criteria defined in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants (the number of the relevant sections of the pest categorisation is shown in brackets in the first column) for category II (X. bacaniboia, X. citricolum, X. floridae, X. franci, X. georgianum, X. himalayense, X. incognitum, X. kosaigudense, X. laevistriatum, X. lambertii, X. luci, X. minor, X. neoelongatum, X. occiduum, X. oxycaudatum, X. pacificum, X. pakistanense, X. paramanovi, X. parvum, X. penevi, X. peruvianum, X. pseudoguirani, X. sheri, X. silvaticum, X. tenuicutis, X. thornei, X. utahense, and X. waimungui)

Criterion of pest categorisation	Panel's conclusions against criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union quarantine pest	Panel's conclusions against criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union regulated non‐quarantine pest	Key uncertainties
Identity of the pest (Section 3.1)	Yes the identities of above‐mentioned species are established	Yes the identities of above‐mentioned species are established	Identification is only possible for experienced nematologists. Molecular methods are not available for routine diagnostics
Absence/presence of the pest in the EU territory (Section 3.2)	No, abovementioned pests are not present in the EU	No, abovementioned pests are not present in the EU	No systematic surveillance in all MSs
Regulatory status (Section 3.3)	Nematodes belonging to the X. americanum sensu lato group are currently regulated by Council Directive 2000/29/EC as harmful organisms whose introduction into, and spread within, all member states shall be banned	Nematodes belonging to the X. americanum sensu lato group are currently regulated by Council Directive 2000/29/EC as harmful organisms whose introduction into, and spread within, all member states shall be banned
Pest potential for entry, establishment and spread in the EU territory (Section 3.4)	Species mentioned above are able to enter and spread with soil, soil attached to plants for planting or to machinery, tools etc	Species mentioned above are able to spread with soil attached to plants but plants are not the only pathway	No uncertainties
Potential for consequences in the EU territory (Section 3.5)	Species mentioned above are not reported to transmit economically important viruses. Direct damage due to nematode feeding activity is limited. No impact is expected	The presence of the pest on plants for planting is not reported to cause economic damage therefore no impact is expected	Transmission of viruses and damage potential of the nematodes species in the EU is not known
Available measures (Section 3.6)	Measures are available to inhibit entry via traded commodities (e.g. prohibition on the importation of soil and the introduction of plants for planting with soil or growing media attached)	Pest‐free area and pest free places/sites of production reduce the risk of the pest being present on plants for planting	No uncertainties
Conclusion on pest categorisation (Section 4)	Species mentioned above do not satisfy all the criteria that are within the remit of EFSA to assess to be regarded as a Union quarantine pest. The species are not known to cause economic or environmental damage	Species mentioned above do not meet the criteria of (a) occurring in the EU territory, and (b) plants for planting being the only means of spread	Transmission of viruses and damage potential of the nematodes species in the EU is not known. More species, which are currently not recognised as vectors may transmit viruses
Aspects of assessment to focus on/scenarios to address in future if appropriate	Routine identification methods (molecular tools) for species identification are needed

Category III contains the species present in the EU, which are not known to be virus vectors (26 species): Xiphinema astaregiense, X. brevicolle, X. brevisicum, X. browni, X. diffusum, X. duriense, X. exile, X. fortuitum, X. incertum, X. lafoense, X. longistilum, X. madeirense, X. mesostilum, X. microstilum, X. opisthohysterum, X. pachtaicum, X. pachydermum, X. parabrevicolle, X. parapachydermum, X. parasimile, X. paratenuicutis, X. plesiopachtaicum, X. santos, X. simile, X. taylori and X. vallense (Table 4). Those species do not satisfy the criteria of being absent from the EU and causing significant impact to be regarded as Union quarantine pests. Uncertainty exists on the vector status of these species (Table 11).

Table 11

The Panel's conclusions on the pest categorisation criteria defined in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants (the number of the relevant sections of the pest categorisation is shown in brackets in the first column) for category III (Xiphinema astaregiense, X. brevicolle, X. brevisicum, X. browni, X. diffusum, X. duriense, X. exile, X. fortuitum, X. incertum, X. lafoense, X. longistilum, X. madeirense, X. mesostilum, X. microstilum, X. opisthohysterum, X. pachtaicum, X. pachydermum, X. parabrevicolle, X. parapachydermum, X. parasimile, X. paratenuicutis, X. plesiopachtaicum, X. santos, X. simile, X. taylori and X. vallense)

Criterion of pest categorisation	Panel's conclusions against criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union quarantine pest	Panel's conclusions against criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union regulated non‐quarantine pest	Key uncertainties
Identity of the pest (Section 3.1)	Yes the identities of above‐mentioned species are established	Yes the identities of above‐mentioned species are established	Identification is only possible for experienced nematologists. Molecular methods are not available for routine diagnostics
Absence/presence of the pest in the EU territory (Section 3.2)	Abovementioned pests are present in the EU	Abovementioned pests are present in the EU	No systematic surveillance in all MSs
Regulatory status (Section 3.3)	Nematodes belonging to the X. americanum sensu lato group are currently regulated by Council Directive 2000/29/EC as harmful organisms whose introduction into, and spread within, all member states shall be banned	Nematodes belonging to the X. americanum sensu lato group are currently regulated by Council Directive 2000/29/EC as harmful organisms whose introduction into, and spread within, all member states shall be banned
Pest potential for entry, establishment and spread in the EU territory (Section 3.4)	Species mentioned above are present in the EU	Species mentioned above are present in the EU	No uncertainties
Potential for consequences in the EU territory (Section 3.5)	Species mentioned above are not reported to transmit economically important viruses. Direct damage due to nematode feeding activity is limited. No impact is expected	The presence of the pest on plants for planting is not reported to cause economic damage therefore no impact is expected	Transmission of viruses and damage potential of the nematodes species in the EU is not known
Available measures (Section 3.6)	Measures are available to inhibit entry via traded commodities (e.g. prohibition on the importation of soil and the introduction of plants for planting with soil or growing media attached). However all species in this category are present in the EU	Pest‐free area and pest free places/sites of production reduce the risk of the pest being present on plants for planting	No uncertainties
Conclusion on pest categorisation (Section 4)	Species mentioned above do not satisfy all the criteria that are within the remit of EFSA to assess to be regarded as a Union quarantine pest. The species are present in the EU and are not known to cause economic or environmental damage	Species mentioned above do not meet the criteria of plants for planting being the only means of spread	Transmission of viruses and damage potential of the nematodes species in the EU is not known
Aspects of assessment to focus on/scenarios to address in future if appropriate	Routine identification methods (molecular tools) for species identification are needed

Category IV contains the species X. rivesi (EU populations), which is present in the EU and able to transmit viruses under experimental conditions (Table 5). However, the species is not associated with EU viruses under field conditions and non‐EU viruses or strains are not present under field conditions in the EU. The introduction of new plant viruses or strains into the EU would have major consequences as X. rivesi is an efficient virus vector of TRSV, ToRSV, PRMV and CRLV. X. rivesi does not satisfy the criterion of being absent from the EU to be regarded as a Union quarantine pest (Table 12).

Table 12

The Panel's conclusions on the pest categorisation criteria defined in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants (the number of the relevant sections of the pest categorisation is shown in brackets in the first column) for category IV (Xiphinema rivesi (EU‐populations))

Criterion of pest categorisation	Panel's conclusions against criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union quarantine pest	Panel's conclusions against criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union regulated non‐quarantine pest	Key uncertainties
Identity of the pest (Section 3.1)	Yes the identity of Xiphinema rivesi is established. The distinction of EU‐populations from non‐EU‐populations is not possible	Yes the identity of Xiphinema rivesi is established. The distinction of EU‐populations from non‐EU‐populations is not possible	Identification is only possible for experienced nematologists. Molecular methods are not available for routine diagnostics. The distinction of EU‐populations from non‐EU‐populations is not possible
Absence/presence of the pest in the EU territory (Section 3.2)	Yes, the pest is present in the EU	Yes, the pest is present in the EU	No uncertainties
Regulatory status (Section 3.3)	Nematodes belonging to the X. americanum sensu lato group are currently regulated by Council Directive 2000/29/EC as harmful organisms whose introduction into, and spread within, all member states shall be banned	Nematodes belonging to the X. americanum sensu lato group are currently regulated by Council Directive 2000/29/EC as harmful organisms whose introduction into, and spread within, all member states shall be banned	No uncertainties
Pest potential for entry, establishment and spread in the EU territory (Section 3.4)	Xiphinema rivesi is already present in the EU and is non‐EU populations are also able to enter and spread with soil, soil attached to plants for planting or to machinery, tools etc	Xiphinema rivesi is already present in the EU and is also able to enter and spread with soil and soil attached to plants for planting but plants for planting are not the main pathway	No uncertainties
Potential for consequences in the EU territory (Section 3.5)	Xiphinema rivesi populations present in the EU are vectors of important plant viruses. EU‐populations have not been reported to transmit viruses under field conditions because these nematode populations are not associated with non‐EU viruses or strains.	The presence of the pest on plants for planting is not reported to cause economic damage	Tomato ringspot virus has been reported to be present in the EU. Distribution of X. rivesi has also been reported from several locations in the EU. Association between these two organisms in the EU has not been reported
Available measures (Section 3.6)	No measures are available for populations that are already present in EU. Measures to inhibit entry via traded commodities are available for non‐EU populations (e.g. prohibition on the importation of soil and plants for planting with soil or growing media attached)	Not relevant for EU populations	No uncertainties
Conclusion on pest categorisation (Section 4)	Xiphinema rivesi (EU‐populations) does not satisfy all the criteria that are within the remit of EFSA to assess to be regarded as a Union quarantine pest because it is already present in the EU. At present this species is not known to cause economic damage in the EU but the situation may change completely once compatible viruses or virus strains were to be introduced into the EU	Xiphinema rivesi (EU populations) does not meet the criteria of plants for planting being the main means of spread	Virus introduction would lead to a different assessment: a distinction of EU and non‐EU populations
Aspects of assessment to focus on/scenarios to address in future if appropriate	Routine identification methods (molecular tools) for species identification are needed. Assessment of virus transmission specificity by X. rivesi

The nematodes do not invade plants (ectoparasites); therefore, none of the 61 species satisfies the criteria that are within the remit of EFSA to assess to be regarded as regulated non‐quarantine pests as plants for planting are not the main pathway.

Abbreviations

Directorate General for Health and Food Safety

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization

Food and Agriculture Organization

International Plant Protection Convention

Member State

EFSA Panel on Plant Health

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Terms of Reference

Appendix B – Global distribution of the density of harvested grapes, apples, plums, cherries, nectarines and peaches

Global distribution of the density of harvested grapes (ha crop/km2) (source CAPRA database accessed on 23 April 2018)

Global distribution of the density of harvested apples (ha crop/km2) (source CAPRA database accessed on 23 April 2018)

Global distribution of the density of harvested plums (ha crop/km2) (source CAPRA database accessed on 23 April 2018)

Global distribution of the density of harvested cherries (ha crop/km2) (source CAPRA database accessed on 23 April 2018)

Global distribution of the density of harvested peaches and nectarines (ha crop/km2) (source CAPRA database accessed on 23 April 2018)

Annex IIAI
(a) Insects, mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development
Aleurocantus spp.	Numonia pyrivorella (Matsumura)
Anthonomus bisignifer (Schenkling)	Oligonychus perditus Pritchard and Baker
Anthonomus signatus (Say)	Pissodes spp. (non‐EU)
Aschistonyx eppoi Inouye	Scirtothrips aurantii Faure
Carposina niponensis Walsingham	Scirtothrips citri (Moultex)
Enarmonia packardi (Zeller)	Scolytidae spp. (non‐EU)
Enarmonia prunivora Walsh	Scrobipalpopsis solanivora Povolny
Grapholita inopinata Heinrich	Tachypterellus quadrigibbus Say
Hishomonus phycitis	Toxoptera citricida Kirk.
Leucaspis japonica Ckll.	Unaspis citri Comstock
Listronotus bonariensis (Kuschel)
(b) Bacteria
Citrus variegated chlorosis	Xanthomonas campestris pv. oryzae (Ishiyama) Dye and pv. oryzicola (Fang. et al.) Dye
Erwinia stewartii (Smith) Dye
(c) Fungi
Alternaria alternata (Fr.) Keissler (non‐EU pathogenic isolates)	Elsinoe spp. Bitanc. and Jenk. Mendes
Anisogramma anomala (Peck) E. Müller	Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. albedinis (Kilian and Maire) Gordon
Apiosporina morbosa (Schwein.) v. Arx	Guignardia piricola (Nosa) Yamamoto
Ceratocystis virescens (Davidson) Moreau	Puccinia pittieriana Hennings
Cercoseptoria pini‐densiflorae (Hori and Nambu) Deighton	Stegophora ulmea (Schweinitz: Fries) Sydow & Sydow
Cercospora angolensis Carv. and Mendes	Venturia nashicola Tanaka and Yamamoto
(d) Virus and virus‐like organisms
Beet curly top virus (non‐EU isolates)	Little cherry pathogen (non‐ EU isolates)
Black raspberry latent virus	Naturally spreading psorosis
Blight and blight‐like	Palm lethal yellowing mycoplasm
Cadang‐Cadang viroid	Satsuma dwarf virus
Citrus tristeza virus (non‐EU isolates)	Tatter leaf virus
Leprosis	Witches’ broom (MLO)
Annex IIB
(a) Insect mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development
Anthonomus grandis (Boh.)	Ips cembrae Heer
Cephalcia lariciphila (Klug)	Ips duplicatus Sahlberg
Dendroctonus micans Kugelan	Ips sexdentatus Börner
Gilphinia hercyniae (Hartig)	Ips typographus Heer
Gonipterus scutellatus Gyll.	Sternochetus mangiferae Fabricius
Ips amitinus Eichhof
(b) Bacteria
Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens pv. flaccumfaciens (Hedges) Collins and Jones
(c) Fungi
Glomerella gossypii Edgerton	Hypoxylon mammatum (Wahl.) J. Miller
Gremmeniella abietina (Lag.) Morelet

Annex IAI
(a) Insects, mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development
Group of Cicadellidae (non‐EU) known to be vector of Pierce's disease (caused by Xylella fastidiosa), such as:
1) Carneocephala fulgida Nottingham	3) Graphocephala atropunctata (Signoret)
2) Draeculacephala minerva Ball
Group of Tephritidae (non‐EU) such as:
1) Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann)	12) Pardalaspis cyanescens Bezzi
2) Anastrepha ludens (Loew)	13) Pardalaspis quinaria Bezzi
3) Anastrepha obliqua Macquart	14) Pterandrus rosa (Karsch)
4) Anastrepha suspensa (Loew)	15) Rhacochlaena japonica Ito
5) Dacus ciliatus Loew	16) Rhagoletis completa Cresson
6) Dacus curcurbitae Coquillet	17) Rhagoletis fausta (Osten‐Sacken)
7) Dacus dorsalis Hendel	18) Rhagoletis indifferens Curran
8) Dacus tryoni (Froggatt)	19) Rhagoletis mendax Curran
9) Dacus tsuneonis Miyake	20) Rhagoletis pomonella Walsh
10) Dacus zonatus Saund.	21) Rhagoletis suavis (Loew)
11) Epochra canadensis (Loew)
(c) Viruses and virus‐like organisms
Group of potato viruses and virus‐like organisms such as:
1) Andean potato latent virus	4) Potato black ringspot virus
2) Andean potato mottle virus	5) Potato virus T
3) Arracacha virus B, oca strain	6) non‐EU isolates of potato viruses A, M, S, V, X and Y (including Yo, Yn and Yc) and Potato leafroll virus
Group of viruses and virus‐like organisms of Cydonia Mill., Fragaria L., Malus Mill., Prunus L., Pyrus L., Ribes L.,Rubus L. and Vitis L., such as:
1) Blueberry leaf mottle virus	8) Peach yellows mycoplasm
2) Cherry rasp leaf virus (American)	9) Plum line pattern virus (American)
3) Peach mosaic virus (American)	10) Raspberry leaf curl virus (American)
4) Peach phony rickettsia	11) Strawberry witches’ broom mycoplasma
5) Peach rosette mosaic virus	12) Non‐EU viruses and virus‐like organisms of Cydonia Mill., Fragaria L., Malus Mill., Prunus L., Pyrus L., Ribes L., Rubus L. and Vitis L.
6) Peach rosette mycoplasm
7) Peach X‐disease mycoplasm
Annex IIAI
(a) Insects, mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development
Group of Margarodes (non‐EU species) such as:
1) Margarodes vitis (Phillipi)	3) Margarodes prieskaensis Jakubski
2) Margarodes vredendalensis de Klerk

Annex IAI
(a) Insects, mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development
Acleris spp. (non‐EU)	Longidorus diadecturus Eveleigh and Allen
Amauromyza maculosa (Malloch)	Monochamus spp. (non‐EU)
Anomala orientalis Waterhouse	Myndus crudus Van Duzee
Arrhenodes minutus Drury	Nacobbus aberrans (Thorne) Thorne and Allen
Choristoneura spp. (non‐EU)	Naupactus leucoloma Boheman
Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst)	Premnotrypes spp. (non‐EU)
Dendrolimus sibiricus Tschetverikov	Pseudopityophthorus minutissimus (Zimmermann)
Diabrotica barberi Smith and Lawrence	Pseudopityophthorus pruinosus (Eichhoff)
Diabrotica undecimpunctata howardi Barber	Scaphoideus luteolus (Van Duzee)
Diabrotica undecimpunctata undecimpunctata Mannerheim	Spodoptera eridania (Cramer)
Diabrotica virgifera zeae Krysan & Smith	Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith)
Diaphorina citri Kuway	Spodoptera litura (Fabricus)
Heliothis zea (Boddie)	Thrips palmi Karny
Hirschmanniella spp., other than Hirschmanniella gracilis (de Man) Luc and Goodey	Xiphinema americanum Cobb sensu lato (non‐EU populations)
Liriomyza sativae Blanchard	Xiphinema californicum Lamberti and Bleve‐Zacheo
(b) Fungi
Ceratocystis fagacearum (Bretz) Hunt	Mycosphaerella larici‐leptolepis Ito et al.
Chrysomyxa arctostaphyli Dietel	Mycosphaerella populorum G. E. Thompson
Cronartium spp. (non‐EU)	Phoma andina Turkensteen
Endocronartium spp. (non‐EU)	Phyllosticta solitaria Ell. and Ev.
Guignardia laricina (Saw.) Yamamoto and Ito	Septoria lycopersici Speg. var. malagutii Ciccarone and Boerema
Gymnosporangium spp. (non‐EU)	Thecaphora solani Barrus
Inonotus weirii (Murril) Kotlaba and Pouzar	Trechispora brinkmannii (Bresad.) Rogers
Melampsora farlowii (Arthur) Davis
(c) Viruses and virus‐like organisms
Tobacco ringspot virus	Pepper mild tigré virus
Tomato ringspot virus	Squash leaf curl virus
Bean golden mosaic virus	Euphorbia mosaic virus
Cowpea mild mottle virus	Florida tomato virus
Lettuce infectious yellows virus
(d) Parasitic plants
Arceuthobium spp. (non‐EU)
Annex IAII
(a) Insects, mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development
Meloidogyne fallax Karssen	Rhizoecus hibisci Kawai and Takagi
Popillia japonica Newman
(b) Bacteria
Clavibacter michiganensis (Smith) Davis et al. ssp. sepedonicus (Spieckermann and Kotthoff) Davis et al.	Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al.
(c) Fungi
Melampsora medusae Thümen	Synchytrium endobioticum (Schilbersky) Percival
Annex I B
(a) Insects, mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development
Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say	Liriomyza bryoniae (Kaltenbach)
(b) Viruses and virus‐like organisms
Beet necrotic yellow vein virus

ID	Species	Is it transmitting viruses? Which one?	Is it present in EU28? Which country?(ISI web of Science and Google)	EPPO (PM7/95(2)) Xiphinema americanum sensu lato (presence in Europe‐ not specified EU28)
1	X. americanum (sensu stricto)	‘Xiphinema americanum AND sensu stricto AND virus’ (4 hits) cherry rasp leaf (CRLV), tobacco ringspot (TobRSV), and two strains of tomato ringspot (TomRSV) (Brown et al., 1994; Wang and Gergerich, 1998) 3 or 4 viruses (Taylor and Brown, 1997)	NO ‘Xiphinema americanum AND sensu stricto’ (8 hits) South Africa (Loots and Heyns, 1984 in Lamberti et al., 2000), USA Arizona (Wang and Gergerich, 1998), USA Pennsylvania (Halbrendt and Brown, 1994), USA: Arkansas, California, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia (Robbins, 1993)	NO
2	X. astaregiense	‘Xiphinema astaregiense AND virus’ (0 hits)	YES ‘Xiphinema astaregiense AND virus’ (2 hints) Spain (Archidona‐Yuste et al., 2016)	YES (only in Europe)
3	X. bacaniboia	‘Xiphinema bacaniboia AND virus’ (0 hits)	NO ‘Xiphinema bacaniboia’ (2 hits) (Coomans and Luc, 1998), Fiji (Williams, 1984)	NO
4	X. brevicolle	‘Xiphinema brevicolle AND virus’ (4 hits) not clear from the abstracts	YES ‘Xiphinema brevicolle’ (15 hits) China (Barsalote et al., 2017), California in the USA (Robbins, 1993; Orlando et al., 2016), Florida (Robbins, 1993), Japan (Sakai et al., 2011), Brazil (Oliveira et al., 2004), Malaysia, Israel (Brown and Taylor, 1987) Kenya (Coomans and Heyns, 1997), Guiana and Martinique (Luc and Coomans, 1992) (Luc and Coomans, 1992), Germany (Brown and Taylor, 1987), Poland (Szczygiel, 1974; Lamberti and Bleve‐Zacheo, 1979), Slovakia (Lišková et al., 1995), ex USSR (Brown et al., 1990)	YES
5	X. brevisicum	‘Xiphinema brevisicum AND virus’ (0 hits)	YES ‘Xiphinema brevisicum’ (3 hits) no clear distribution from the abstracts Portugal (Lamberti et al., 1994)	YES (only in the EU)
6	X. bricolense	‘Xiphinema bricolense AND virus’ (0 hits) ‘Xiphinema bricolensis AND virus’ cherry rasp leaf (CRLV), tobacco ringspot (TobRSV), tomato ringspot (TomRSV). (Brown et al., 1994; in (Lamberti et al., 2000), Peach rosette mosaic virus (PRMV) (Ozturk et al., 2017)	NO ‘Xiphinema bricolense’ (0 hits) ‘Xiphnema bricolensis’ (6 hits) North America: Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Florida, Oklahoma, California, and North Dakota (Cho and Robbins, 1991), Canada (Graham et al., 1988) No papers from EU28	NO
7	X. browni	‘Xiphinema browni AND virus’ (0 hits)	YES ‘Xiphinema browni’ (1 hit) Czech Republic, Morocco, Slovakia (Lazarova et al., 2016)	YES (only in Europe) (Lazarova et al., 2016)
8	X. californicum	‘Xiphinema californicum AND virus’ (8 hits) cherry rasp leaf (CRLV), tobacco ringspot (TobRSV), and two strains of tomato ringspot (TomRSV) (Brown et al., 1994)	NO ‘Xiphinema californicum’ (13 hits) California (Orlando et al., 2016)	NO
9	X.citricolum	‘Xiphinema citricolum AND virus’ (0 hits)	NO ‘Xiphinema citricolum’ (2 hits) Florida (Lamberti et al., 2002)	NO
10	X. diffusum	‘Xiphinema diffusum AND virus’ (2 hits) not clear/no info in the abstracts	YES ‘Xiphinema diffusum’ (10 hits) Brazil (Oliveira et al., 2003) Not in ISI web of knowledge: Portugal (Lamberti et al., 1994)	YES
11	X. duriense	‘Xiphinema duriense AND virus’ (1 hit)	YES ‘Xiphinema duriense’ (3 hits), Spain (Archidona‐Yuste et al., 2016), Portugal (Lamberti et al., 2002)	YES (only in Europe)
12	X. exile	‘Xiphinema exile AND virus’ (0 hits)	YES ‘Xiphinema exile’ (0 hits) In google: Portugal (Roca et al., 1988)	YES
13	X. floridae	‘Xiphinema florida AND virus’ (0 hits)	NO ‘Xiphinema floridae’ (2 hits) Florida (Gozel et al., 2003)	NO
14	X. fortuitum	‘Xiphinema fortuitum AND virus’ (1 hit)	YES ‘Xiphinema fortuitum’ (4 hits) Italy (Roca et al., 1987)	YES (only in Europe)
15	X. franci	‘Xiphinema franci AND virus’ (0 hits)	NO ‘Xiphinema franci’ (3 hits) Madagascar (Razak and Loof, 1998)	NO
16	X. georgianum	‘Xiphinema georgianum AND virus’ (0 hits)	NO ‘Xiphinema georgianum’ (7 hits) Florida USA (Gozel et al., 2006), Brazil (Lamberti et al., 2000)	NO
17	X. himalayense	‘Xiphinema himalayense’ AND virus’ (0 hits)	NO ‘Xiphinema himalayense’ (2 hits) India (Ahmad et al., 1998)	NO
18	X. inaequale	‘Xiphinema inaequale AND virus’ (2 hits) tomato ringspot virus ToRSV (Verma et al., 2003)	NO ‘Xiphinema inaequale’ (11 hits) India (Srivastava et al. 2000), Peru and Chile (Lamberti et al., 2000)	NO
19	X. incertum	‘Xiphinema incertum AND virus’ (2 hits) raspberry ring spot nepovirus (Choleva et al., 1992)	YES ‘Xiphinema inaequale’ (13 hits) Bulgaria and Croatia (Peneva and Choleva, 1992; Lamberti et al., 2000), Serbia (Barsi and Lamberti, 2002)	YES (only in Europe)
20	X. incognitum	‘Xiphinema incognitum AND virus’ (2 hits)	NO ‘Xiphinema incognitum’ (15 hits) Egypt (Lamberti et al., 1996), Japan (Lamberti et al., 2000),Taiwan (Chen et al., 2005)	NO
21	X. intermedium	‘Xiphinema intermedium AND virus’ (3 hits) Tomato ringspot virus (in the lab on tomato and tobacco), Bermuda grass decline (Leone et al. 1997)	NO ‘Xiphinema intermedium’ (9 hits) Pakistan (Lamberti et al., 1987), Florida and Mississippi	NO
22	X. kosaiguadense	‘Xiphinema kosaiguadense AND virus’ (0 hits)	NO ‘Xiphinema kosaiguadense’ (0 hits) India (Lamberti et al., 2000)	NO
23	X. laevistriatum	‘Xiphinema laevistriatum AND virus’ (0 hits)	NO ‘Xiphinema laevistriatum’ (6 hits) Florida (only) (Lamberti and Bleve‐Zacheo, 1979)	NO
24	X. lafoense	‘Xiphinema lafoense AND virus’ (0 hits)	YES ‘Xiphinema lafoense’ (1 hit) Portugal (Roca et al., 1987)	YES
25	X. lambertii	‘Xiphinema lambertii AND virus’ (0 hits)	NO ‘Xiphinema lambertii’ (8 hits) India (Bajaj and Jairajpuri, 1976)	NO
26	X. longistilum	‘Xiphinema longistilum AND virus (0 hits)	YES ‘Xiphinema longistilum’ (2 hits), Portugal (Lamberti et al., 1994)	YES (only in Europe)
27	X. luci	‘Xiphinema luci AND virus (1 hit – not relevant from the abstract)	NO ‘Xiphinema luci’ (16 hits) Brazil (Silva et al., 2008), Senegal (Lamberti and Bleve‐Zacheo, 1979)	NO
28	X. madeirense	‘Xiphinema madeirense AND virus’ (1 hit – not clear?)	YES ‘Xiphinema madeirense’ (5 hits) Madeira (Brown et al., 1992), Portugal mainland (Lamberti et al., 1994)	YES (only in Europe)
29	X. mesostilum	‘Xiphinema mesostilum AND virus’ (0 hits)	YES ‘Xiphinema mesostilum’ (2 hits) Portugal (Lamberti et al., 1994)	YES (only in Europe)
30	X. microstilum	‘Xiphinema microstilum AND virus’ (0 hits)	YES ‘Xiphinema microstilum’ (2 hits) Portugal (Lamberti et al., 1994)	YES (only in Europe)
31	X. minor	‘Xiphinema minor AND virus’ (19 hits) not specific for X.minor	NO ‘Xiphinema minor’ (186 hits) not specific because of the word'minor’ India (Ahmad et al., 1998)	NO
32	X. neoelongatum	‘Xiphinema neoelongatum AND virus’ (0 hits)	NO ‘Xiphinema neoelongatum’ (3 hits) India (Bajaj and Jairajpuri, 1976; Luc et al., 1984)	NO
33	X. occiduum	‘Xiphinema occiduum AND virus’ (1 hit) probably yes, but not confirmed (Vrain and Yorston, 1987; Lamberti et al., 2000)	NO ‘Xiphinema occiduum’ (3 hits) Canada (Ebsary et al., 1984)	NO
34	X. opisthohysterum	‘Xiphinema opisthohysterum AND virus’ (3 hits)	YES ‘Xiphinema opisthohysterum’ (17 hits) Bulgaria (Stoyanov, 1964), Spain (Gutierrez‐Gutierrez et al., 2012), Portugal (Sturhan, 1983), India (Siddiqi, 1961; Lamberti and Bleve‐Zacheo, 1979)	YES
35	X. oxycaudatum	‘Xiphinema oxycaudatum AND virus’ (1 hit) not relevant	NO ‘Xiphinema oxycaudatum’ (5 hits) Brazil (Oliveira et al., 2004), Iran (Fadaei et al., 2003), Kenya (Coomans and Heyns, 1997), Taiwan (Chen et al., 2005)	NO
36	X. pachtaicum	‘Xiphinema pachtaicum AND virus’ (19 hits), ‘yellow mosaic’ disease’ (Tzortzakakis et al., 2001)	YES ‘Xiphinema pachtaicum’ (49 hits) Spain (Palomares Rius et al., 2015), ‘from southern England, Germany, Portugal, Switzerland, Hungary and Bulgaria. X. pachtaicum has also been found in soil in a glasshouse near Oslo, Norway ‘(Brown and Taylor, 1987), Africa, Asia, Former Soviet Union, Central and South Africa, In google Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia (Barsi and Lamberti, 2002)	YES
37	X. pachydermum	‘Xiphinema pachydermum AND virus’ (0 hits)	YES ‘Xiphinema pachydermum’ (3 hits) Not in ISI web of science: Portugal in Lamberti et al., 2000 and Sturhan, 1983)	YES (only in Europe)
38	X. pacificum	‘Xiphinema pacificum AND virus’ (1 hit) possible: uncertainty about species determination ans transmission of viruses in Vrain, 1993;	NO ‘Xiphinema pacificum’ (3 hits) Canada (Graham et al., 1988; Vrain, 1993)	NO
39	X. pakistanense	‘Xiphinema pakistanense AND virus’ (0 hits) Xiphinema pakistanensis AND virus’ (0 hits)	NO ‘Xiphinema pakistanense’ (0 hits) Other name: ‘Xiphinema pakistanensis’ (10 hits) Pakistan (Nasira and Maqbool, 1998)	NO
40	X. parabrevicolle	‘Xiphinema parabrevicolle AND virus’ (1 hit)	YES ‘Xiphinema parabrevicolle’ (1 hit) Italy (Gutierrez‐Gutierrez et al., 2012)	YES (only in Europe)
41	X. paramanovi	‘Xiphinema paramanovi AND virus’ (0 hits) ‘Xiphinema paramonovi AND virus’ (0 hits)	NO ‘Xiphinema paramanovi’ (0 hits) ‘Xiphinema paramonovi’ (5 hits) former Soviet Union (Lamberti et al., 2000)	NO
42	X. parapachydermum	‘Xiphinema parapachydermum AND virus’ (0 hits)	YES ‘Xiphinema parapachydermum’ (3 hits) Spain (Archidona‐Yuste et al., 2016)	YES (only in Europe)
43	X. parasimile	‘Xiphinema parasimile AND virus’ (1 hit) not relevant?	YES ‘Xiphinema parasimile’ (5 hits) Bulgaria (Lazarova et al., 2016), Romania (Bonta (Groza) et al., 2012); Serbia (Lazarova et al., 2008)	YES (only in Europe)
44	X. paratenuicutis	‘Xiphinema paratenuicutis AND virus’ (1 hit – not relevant)	YES ‘Xiphinema paratenuicutis’ (1 hit) Spain (Gutierrez‐Gutierrez et al., 2012)	YES (only in Europe)
45	X. parvum	‘Xiphinema parvum AND virus’ (1 hit – not relevant)	NO ‘Xiphinema parvum’ (5 hits) Jamaica (Lamberti et al., 1991)	NO
46	X. penevi	‘Xiphinema penevi AND virus’ (0 hits)	NO ‘Xiphinema penevi’ (1 hit) Morocco (Lazarova et al., 2016)	NO
47	X. peruvianum	‘Xiphinema peruvianum AND virus’ (3 hits) not relevant	NO ‘Xiphinema peruvianum’ (10 hits) Chile (Lamberti et al., 1988), Peru (Alkemade and Loof, 1990; Lamberti et al., 1987; Venezuela (Crozzoli et al., 1998)	NO
48	X. plesiopactaicum	‘Xiphinema plesiopactaicum AND virus’ (0 hits) ‘Xiphinema plesiopachtaicum AND virus’ (0 hits)	YES ‘Xiphinema plesiopactaicum’ (0 results) ‘Xiphinema plesiopachtaicum’(results) Spain (Archidona‐Yuste et al., 2016)	YES (only in Europe)
49	X. pseudoguirani	‘Xiphinema pseudoguirani AND virus’ (0 hits)	NO ‘Xiphinema pseudoguirani’ (3 hits) Madagascar (Lamberti et al., 1991), islands in the Western Indian Ocean (Heyns and Coomans, 1994)	NO
50	X. rivesi	‘Xiphinema rivesi AND virus’ (63 hits) TRSV and ToRSV cherry rasp leaf (CRLV), tobacco ringspot (TobRSV), and two strains of tomato ringspot (TomRSV) (Brown et al., 1994) ‐ Transmits Tomato ringspot virus to Cucumber (Auger et al., 2009), Tobacco ringspot virus and Tomato ringspot virus to cucumber (Širca et al., 2007)	YES ‘Xiphinema rivesi’ (128 hits) France, Bulgaria, Spain (Bello et al., 2005; Gutierrez‐Gutierrez et al., 2011), Portugal (Lamberti et al., 2000), Slovenia (Urek et al., 2005; Širca et al., 2007; Peneva et al., 2012), Italy (Lazarova et al., 2016), Moldova (Poiras et al., 2014), North America (Robbins, 1993), Pakistan (Khan and Tareen, 2012), Egypt (Handoo et al., 2015), interception from China to Italy (Gao et al., 2013), Argentina (Chaves and Mondino, 2013), Chile (Auger et al., 2009), Guadeloupe, Martinique et Guyane (Quénéhervé and Van den Berg, 2005), Australia (Sharma et al., 2003), Iran (Fadaei et al., 2003), Canada (Van Driel et al., 1990), Peru (Alkemade and Loof, 1990)	YES
51	X. santos	‘Xiphinema santos AND virus’ (1 hit) not relevant	YES ‘Xiphinema santos’ (5 hits) Spain (Gutierrez‐Gutierrez et al., 2012), Portugal (Lamberti et al., 1993), Egypt (Lamberti et al., 2000)	YES
52	X. sheri	‘Xiphinema sheri AND virus’ (0 hits)	NO ‘Xiphinema sheri’ (9 hits) Thailand (Lamberti and Bleve‐Zacheo, 1979), USA Florida (Robbins, 1993)	NO
53	X. silvaticum	‘Xiphinema silvaticum AND virus’ (0 hits)	NO ‘Xiphinema silvaticum’ (4 hits)Mauritius (Lamberti et al., 1987) In google: Mauritius (Luc and Williams, 1978)	NO
54	X. simile	‘Xiphinema simile AND virus’ (10 hits) not relevant	YES ‘Xiphinema simile’ (43 hits) Bulgaria (Lazarova et al., 2016), Czech Republic (Lazarova et al., 2016), Serbia (Lazarova et al., 2016), Crete – Greece (Lazarova et al., 2016), Hungary (Repasi et al., 2008), Kenya (Coomans and Heyns, 1997), Moldova (Lazarova et al., 2016), Slovakia (Lazarova et al., 2016), Romania (Bonta (Groza) et al., 2012) In google: Serbia (Barsi and Lamberti, 2002)	YES
55	X. tarjanense	‘Xiphinema tarjanense AND virus’ (1 hit OEPP Bulletin) in laboratory transmitted tomato and tobacco ringspot viruses (Brown et al., 1993)	NO ‘Xiphinema tarjanense’ (9 hits) USA Florida (Gozel et al., 2006)	NO
56	X. taylori	‘Xiphinema taylori AND virus’ (11 hits) not vector (Subikova et al., 2002)	YES ‘Xiphinema taylori’ (29 hits) Italy (Lamberti et al., 1993; Roca and Lamberti, 1994), Slovakia (Lišková et al., 2007; Barsalote et al., 2017), Romania (Bonta (Groza) et al., 2012); former Yugoslavia (Barsi, 1994), China (Wang et al., 1996) (Barsalote et al., 2017), Poland and Hungary (Lamberti et al., 2002) previously determined as brevicolleIn google: Serbia (Barsi and Lamberti, 2002),	YES
57	X. tenuicutis	‘Xiphinema tenuicutis AND virus’ (0 hits)	NO ‘Xiphinema tenuicutis’ (2 hits) USA‐Tennessee (Lamberti and Bleve‐Zacheo, 1979), Arkansas (Lamberti et al., 2000)	NO
58	X. thornei	‘Xiphinema thornei AND virus’ (10 hits) not relevant	NO ‘Xiphinema thornei’ (81 hits – many of them are Pratylenchus thornei) USA: Colorado and Idaho (Lamberti and Morgan Golden, 1986), Pakistan (Nasira and Maqbool, 1998 in Lamberti et al., 2002), Far East of Russia (Lamberti et al., 2000), China (Chang, 1993)	NO
59	X. utahense	‘Xiphinema utahense AND virus’ (0 hits)	NO ‘Xiphinema utahense’ (5 results) USA‐Utah (Lamberti and Bleve‐Zacheo, 1979),USA‐Oregon (Lamberti and Morgan Golden, 1986) Chile (Lamberti et al., 1988)	NO
60	X. vallense	‘Xiphinema vallense AND virus’ (0 hits)	YES ‘Xiphinema vallense’ (2 hits) Spain (Archidona‐Yuste et al., 2016)	YES
61	X. waimungui	‘Xiphinema waimungui AND virus’ (0 hits)	NO ‘Xiphinema waimungui’ (2 hits) New Zealand (Yeates et al., 1997; Sturhan and Wouts, 2008)	NO