<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="1"?>
<pra datepubli="2018-07-25" lastupdate="2018-07-27">
 <uuid>35ec76bf-257f-4efc-8c39-15f989543c7c</uuid>
 <country>EU</country>
 <datepra>2011-12-22</datepra>
 <title>Scientific Opinion on the phytosanitary risk associated with some coniferous species and genera for the spread of pine wood nematode</title>
 <description><![CDATA[<p>The European Commission requested the Panel on Plant Health to deliver a scientific opinion on the phytosanitary risk of plants (other than fruits and seeds) of&nbsp;<em>Pinus pinea</em> and of the genera&nbsp;<em>Chamaecyparis</em>,&nbsp;<em>Cryptomeria&nbsp;</em>and&nbsp;<em>Juniperus&nbsp;</em>for the spread of pine wood nematode (PWN) via movement of infested plants or untreated plant products or by supporting natural spread of PWN in conjunction with European species of the vector. The Panel analysed the data submitted by Portugal regarding surveys on the Tr&oacute;ia Peninsula where&nbsp;<em>P.</em> <em>pinaster</em> and&nbsp;<em>P</em>.&nbsp;<em>pinea</em>co-occur, and the related laboratory results of Naves et al. (2006) on feeding and oviposition preferences of&nbsp;<em>Monochamus galloprovincialis</em>. The Panel also undertook a comprehensive review of the literature. The zero infestation of PWN recorded on&nbsp;<em>P</em>.&nbsp;<em>pinea</em> on the Tr&oacute;ia Peninsula was not significantly different from the result for&nbsp;<em>P</em>.&nbsp;<em>pinaster</em>, because of the small&nbsp;<em>P</em>.&nbsp;<em>pinea</em> sample. Hence, the conclusion that&nbsp;<em>P</em>.&nbsp;<em>pinea</em> is not a host plant for PWN is not supported by the data submitted, principally because of low statistical confidence arising from the few&nbsp;<em>P. pinea</em> trees present. Moreover, the limited presence of&nbsp;<em>P</em>.&nbsp;<em>pinea</em> in the study areas means that the results are representative neither of the Tr&oacute;ia Peninsula nor of other parts of Portugal. Naves et al. (2006) recorded some oviposition by&nbsp;<em>M</em>.&nbsp;<em>galloprovincialis&nbsp;</em>on&nbsp;<em>P.</em> <em>pinea</em>, but less than on other hosts. No differences in feeding of&nbsp;<em>M</em>.&nbsp;<em>galloprovincialis</em> on&nbsp;<em>P</em>.&nbsp;<em>pinaster</em> and&nbsp;<em>P</em>.&nbsp;<em>pinea</em> were detected, thus potentially allowing PWN transmission to trees by this route. The available information regarding the genera&nbsp;<em>Chamaecyparis</em>,&nbsp;<em>Cryptomeria</em> and&nbsp;<em>Juniperus</em> as potential hosts of&nbsp;<em>Monochamus</em> spp. and PWN suggests overall a low susceptibility to PWN or its vectors; the uncertainty concerning PWN is high and would require supplementary research. </p>]]></description>
 <author id="16">
  <fullname>EPPO Secretariat (EPPO entered these PRAs in the platform but please contact EFSA if you have questions)</fullname>
  <institute id="8">European Food Safety Authority</institute>
 </author>
 <tags>
  <tag>host range</tag>
 </tags>
 <organisms>
  <organism eppocode="BURSXY">Bursaphelenchus xylophilus</organism>
  <organism eppocode="1MONCG">Monochamus</organism>
  <organism eppocode="MONCGA">Monochamus galloprovincialis</organism>
 </organisms>
 <hosts>
  <host eppocode="1CHCG">Chamaecyparis</host>
  <host eppocode="1CMYG">Cryptomeria</host>
  <host eppocode="1IUPG">Juniperus</host>
  <host eppocode="1PIUG">Pinus</host>
  <host eppocode="PIUPL">Pinus pinaster</host>
  <host eppocode="PIUPN">Pinus pinea</host>
 </hosts>
 <praarea>
  <area isocode="9L">EU</area>
 </praarea>
 <files>
  <file type="1" size="0">
   <title>link</title>
   <url>https://pra.eppo.int/getfile/6c104b93-156b-43b7-9fc5-b4b8d59bc1c3</url>
  </file>
 </files>
</pra>
