Peru Papaya RA.docx · Web viewHandbook of the Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of America North...

Importation of Fresh Papaya, Carica papaya, from Peru into the Continental United States

A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment

March 27, 2012

Version 2

Agency Contact:

Center for Plant Health Science and TechnologyPlant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory

United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection ServicePlant Protection and Quarantine1730 Varsity Dr., Suite 300Raleigh, NC 27606

Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Executive Summary

In this pest risk analysis, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) analyzed the plant pest risks associated with importing papaya (Carica papaya) into the continental United States from Peru. Peru did not provide information on post harvest handling of fruit, so we assume minimal post harvest treatment. Information regarding pests affecting papaya in Peru indicates that quarantine pests could be introduced via the importation of fresh papaya into the continental United States. These pests include the following fruit flies in the family Tephritidae:

Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann)

We qualitatively analyzed these pests using the methodology described in the USDA-APHIS-PPQ Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment, Version 5.02. Following the guidelines, we examined pest biology to assess the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction, which we, in turn, used to estimate the baseline Pest Risk Potential. The baseline Pest Risk Potential for the two pests of concern is High.

Port-of-entry inspections are considered insufficient to safeguard from the introduction of pests with High Pest Risk Potential. We discussed available phytosanitary measures that might be chosen for risk mitigation.

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 i


Table of Contents

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................i

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................11.1. Commodity information....................................................................................................11.2. Potential Distribution in the United States...........................................................................1

2. Risk Assessment.........................................................................................................................22.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action........................................................................................22.2. Assessment of the Weed Potential of Papaya.......................................................................22.3. Previous Risk Assessments, Decision History, Current Status and Pest Interceptions........32.4. Pest Categorization...............................................................................................................52.5. Analysis of Quarantine Pests..............................................................................................152.6. Conclusion: Pest Risk Potential..........................................................................................19

3. Risk Mitigation Options..........................................................................................................193.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................193.2. Phytosanitary Measures......................................................................................................203.3. Mitigation requirements for Central America and Brazilian Papaya.................................23

4. Authors and Reviewers...........................................................................................................25

5. References.................................................................................................................................25

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 ii


1. Introduction

This risk analysis was prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to examine the plant pest risks associated with the importation of fresh fruits of papaya, Carica papaya L., from Peru into the continental United States.

This risk analysis is qualitative, with risk being expressed in terms of High, Medium or Low rather than probabilities or frequencies. The details of the methodology and rating criteria can be found in Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000).

The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) provides standards for conducting pest risk analyses. The methods used to initiate, conduct, and report this analysis, as well as the use of biological and phytosanitary terms, are consistent with these standards (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #2). This standard describes three stages of pest risk analysis: Stage 1, Initiation, Stage 2, Risk Assessment, and Stage 3, Risk Management. This document satisfies the requirements of all three stages, but APHIS will examine the appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk separately prior to making import decisions.

1.1. Commodity information

Carica papaya is native to Central America, but is widely cultivated around the world (CABI, 2003; Morton, 1987). Although it has a trunk and can reach heights of up to 30 feet, it is technically an herb (Morton, 1987). It is soft-wooded and grows rapidly in favorable conditions. Carica papaya produces large, musky or sweet smelling fruits that can reach sizes of about 50 by 20 cm. The fruits are usually eaten fresh or used in fruit beverages. Part of the U.S. demand for papayas has been for papain, an enzyme obtained from green fruits and used as a meat tenderizer (Simpson and M. Conner-Ogorzaly, 1986). Other countries use the flowers, leaves and young stems as vegetables (Morton, 1987). It is a major host for many pests (CABI, 2006)

Carica papaya produces numerous ovoid seeds that are about 5 mm (Morton, 1987). Birds sometimes peck at fruits and may thus contribute to seed dispersal if seeds are swallowed. Small mammals may also contribute to seed dispersal. Carica papaya readily germinates within three to five weeks from seeds given favorable conditions (Morton, 1987). Because of its rapid growth, papaya can displace native pioneer species during forest regeneration following disturbances (Horvitz et al., 1995; Kwit et al., 2000). Papaya is restricted to tropical and subtropical regions (between 32o north and south of the equator) due to frost sensitivity (Morton, 1987).

Peru did not provide information on post harvest handling of fruit. Without evidence to the contrary, we assume minimal post harvest treatment beyond a general inspection for quality.

1.2. Potential Distribution in the United States

Due to its popularity as a fruit crop, C. papaya is already distributed in the United States, including southern Texas and Florida (NRCS, 2008). Global warming will probably promote its

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 1


spread north as frost no longer becomes limiting. Papaya seeds are readily available on the internet for both personal and commercial planting (personal communication T. Koop, internet search 10-28-03).

2. Risk Assessment

2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action

This commodity-based, pathway-initiated pest risk analysis accompanies a request for USDA authorization to allow the importation of papaya grown in Peru (a potential pathway for plant pest introduction) into the continental United States. The United States Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR § 319, 2003; 319.56) provides regulatory authority for the importation of fruits and vegetables from foreign countries into the United States. The entry of papaya from Peru into United States is not currently authorized.

2.2. Assessment of the Weed Potential of Papaya

If the species considered for import poses a risk as a weed pest, then a “pest-initiated” risk assessment is conducted. The results of the weediness screening for papaya do not prompt a pest-initiated risk assessment because papaya plants are already present in the United States.

Table 1. Assessment of the weed potential of papayaCommodity: Carica papaya L. (Caricaceae)Synonyms: Papaya carica Gaertn.Common Names: Papaya, pawpaw (English); fruta bomba, mamon, mamona (Spanish).

Phase 1: Papaya is reported to occur in the United States, and is widely prevalent in Florida, where it is grown commercially (NRCS, 2008).

Phase 2: Is the species listed in:No Geographical Atlas of World Weeds (Holm et al., 1979).No The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and biology (Holm et al., 1997b).No Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds; Exotic Weeds for

the Federal Noxious Weed Act (Gunn and Ritchie, 1982).No Economically Important Foreign Weeds (Reed, 1977).No Composite List of Weeds (WSSA, 2008).Yes AGRICOLA, CAB, AGRIS.Other literature and database search indicating weediness:No World weeds: natural histories and distributions (Holm et al., 1997a).No World Economic Plants (Wiersema and Leon, 1999).No Noxious Weeds of Australia (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 2001).No Florida's Invasive Species List, Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC, 2007).No Federal Noxious Weed List (APHIS, 2000).

Phase 3: A weed-initiated risk assessment was not needed for C. papaya because the species is a widely prevalent crop in Florida

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 2


2.3. Previous Risk Assessments, Decision History, Current Status and Pest Interceptions

2.3.1. Previous Risk AssessmentsPrevious pest risk assessments for papaya from anywhere in the Western Hemisphere are given below (Table 2).

2.3.2. Decision HistoryWe summarized the decision history for papaya from the Western Hemisphere below (Table 3).

2.3.3. Pest interceptionsAPHIS maintains a database of interceptions made at U.S. ports since 1985 (PestID, 2008).

Table 2. Previous Risk Assessments for papaya, C. papaya.Year Origin Pests of Concern Risk Rating2007 Ecuador Ceratitis capitata

Anastrepha fraterculusPhoma caricae-papayae

HighHighMedium

2007 Colombia Ceratitis capitataAnastrepha fraterculus

HighHigh

2000 Central America Ceratitis capitataParacoccus marginatus

HighHigh

1999 Guatemala Ceratitis capitata High1998 Nicaragua Ceratitis capitata High1996 Brazil Ceratitis capitata

Anastrepha fraterculusCercospora mamaonisFrecklesPhomopsis carica-papaya

HighHighMediumMediumMedium

1996 Panama Ceratitis capitata High1996 Hawaii Ceratitis capitata

Bactrocera cucurbitaeBactrocera dorsalisCalacarus brionesae, Cercospora mamaonisPhomopsis caricae-papayae

HighHighHighMediumMediumMedium

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 3


Table 3. Decision history for papaya from Western Hemisphere countriesYear(s) Country Decision Comments1984 Ecuador Approved With treatment for Ceratitis capitata1984 Trinidad Approved1986 Guyana Approved Subject to inspection and treatment1990 Surinam Disapproved Bactrocera dorsalis complex1990 Panama Disapproved Ceratitis capitata1995 Belize Approved1996 Brazil Approved With mitigation program

Table 4. Quarantine pest interceptions on Papaya from South American countries, 1985-2008.Organism Country Interceptions (no.)Abgrallaspis sp. (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) Ecuador 1Agromyzidae, species of Brazil 1

Ecuador 1Venezuela 1

Anastrepha sp. (Diptera: Tephritidae) Bolivia 1Venezuela 4

Aonidiella comperei (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) Brazil 5Aonidiella inornata (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) Brazil 10Aonidiella sp. (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) Brazil 4Cicadellidae, species of Brazil 1Cladosporium sp. (Hyphomycetes) Brazil 9

Colombia 1Ecuador 1Venezuela 1

Clavaspis sp. (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) Brazil 1Coccidae, species of Brazil 4

Colombia 1Coccus hesperidum (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Brazil 17Coccus sp. (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Brazil 2Colletotrichum sp. (Coelomycetes) Brazil 1Cosmopterigidae, species of Brazil 1Ctenuchinae, species of Brazil 1Curculionidae, species of Chile 1Diaspididae, species of Brazil 4

Ecuador 1Diaspidiotus sp. (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) Brazil 1Dysmicoccus sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Brazil 6Empoasca sp. (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) Brazil 1

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 4


Organism Country Interceptions (no.)Eubulus sp. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Brazil 1Fusarium sp. (Hyphomycetes) Colombia 1Heteroptera, species of Brazil 3Homoptera, species of Brazil 1Lagriini, species of Brazil 1Lepidoptera, species of Brazil 3

Venezuela 1Pentatomidae, species of (Hemiptera) Brazil 1Philephedra sp. (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Colombia 1Phoma sp. (Coelomycetes) Brazil 1Pseudococcidae, species of Brazil 13Pseudococcus sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Brazil 1Succinea sp. (Mollusk - Succineidae) Brazil 2Tarsonemus sp. (Acari: Tarsonemidae) Brazil 1Tephritidae, species of Venezuela 2Tetranychus sp. (Acari: Tetranychidae) Venezuela 1Tineidae, species of Brazil 6

2.4. Pest Categorization

We listed the pests associated with papaya anywhere in the world and present in Peru (Table 5), with information about the following: 1) the presence or absence of these pests in the United States, 2) the generally affected plant part(s), 3) the quarantine status of the pest with respect to the continental United States, 4) whether the pest is likely to follow the pathway to enter the continental United States on commercially exported papaya fruit, and 5) pertinent citations for either the distribution or biology of the pest. In light of pest biology and distribution, we eliminated many organisms from further consideration of phytosanitary risk on papaya from Peru because they either did not satisfy the definition of a quarantine pest or were not associated with the commodity during harvest and processing.

Note: Even if non-quarantine pests are able to follow the pathway, phytosanitary measures against these pests would not be justified considering the pest already occurs in the United States. Therefore, information on plant part association and whether the pest is likely to follow the pathway is not needed for non-quarantine pests. Therefore, for the non-quarantine pests in Table 5, we put N/A (= Not Applicable) in the columns for “Plant Part(s)” and “Follow Pathway.”

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 5


Table 5: Pests reported on papaya, Carica papaya, anywhere in the world and present in Peru on any host. Organism Reported on

papayaPeru & US Distribution

Quaran-tine pest

Plant Part(s)1

Follow pathway

ARTHROPODSAcari: TarsonemidaePolyphagotarsonemus latus

BanksAubert et al., 1981

Peru (Chandler, 1980), US (Pena and Bullock, 1994)

No N/A N/A

Acari: TenuipalpidaeBrevipalpus phoenicis

(Geijskes)Nakasone and Paull, 2004

Peru, US (Jeppson et al., 1975)

No N/A N/A

Acari: TetranychidaeEotetranychus lewisi

(McGregor)Bolland et al., 1998

Peru, US (Jeppson et al., 1975)

No N/A N/A

Eutetranychus banksi (McGregor) (Acari: Tetranychidae)

Morton, 1987 Peru, US, (Bolland et al., 1998)

No N/A N/A

Oligonychus yothersi (McGregor)

Bolland et al., 1998

Peru, US (Bolland et al., 1998)

No N/A N/A

Panonychus citri (McGregor) Bolland et al., 1998

Peru, US (Bolland et al., 1998)

No N/A N/A

Tetranychus desertorum Banks Jeppson et al., 1975

Peru, US, (Jeppson et al, 1975)

No N/A N/A

Tetranychus gloveri Banks Migeon, 2006 Peru, US (Migeon, 2006)

No N/A N/A

Tetranychus mexicanus (McGregor)

Bolland et al, 1998

Peru, US (Bolland et al, 1998)

No N/A N/A

Tetranychus neocalidonicus Andre

Bolland et al, 1998

Peru, US, (Jeppson et al, 1975)

No N/A N/A

Tetranychus urticae Koch = T. cinnibarinus (Boisduval) Boudreaux

Bolland et al, 1998

Peru, US (Bolland et al, 1998)

No N/A N/A

Coleoptera: ChrysomelidaeDiabrotica speciosa (Germar) Walsh, 2003 Peru (CABI,

2007)Yes L, F

(Walsh, 2003)

No2

1 Plant Parts: Bk = Bark, F = Fruit, L = Leaf, R = Root, and S = Stem.2 Diabrotica speciosa feeds on the fruit as a winged adult (Walsh, 2003), and is highly unlikely to remain with the

fruit through harvest.

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 6


Organism Reported on papaya

Peru & US Distribution

Quaran-tine pest

Plant Part(s)

Follow pathway

Coleoptera: CurculionidaeMetamasius hemipterus L. Pantoja et al.,

2002Peru, US (Fl) (CABI, 2006)

Yes R (Pantoja et al., 2002)

No

Rhynchophorus palmarum (L.) McGuire and Crandall, 1967

Peru (CABI, 2006)

Yes L (OEPP/EPPO, 2005)

No

Coleoptera: ScolytidaeXyleborus volvulus (Fabricius) CABI, 2006 Peru, US (FL HI)

(CABI, 2006)No N/A N/A

Diptera: LonchaeidaeNeosilba batesi (Curran) McAlpine and

Steyskal, 1982PeruPeru1 (McAlpine and Steyskal, 1982), US (FL) (Thomas, 2000)

No N/A N/A

Diptera: MuscidaeAtherigona orientalis Schiner CABI, 2006 Peru, US (CABI,

2006)No N/A N/A

Diptera: TephritidaeAnastrepha fraterculus

(Wiedemann)Norrbom, 2008

Peru (CABI, 2006)

Yes F (CABI, 2006)

Yes

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) Pantoja et al., 2002

Peru, US (HI) (CABI, 2006)

Yes F (Pantoja et al., 2002)

Yes

Hemiptera: AleyrodidaeAleurocanthus woglumi Ashby Pantoja et al.,

2002Peru, US (FL, TX, HI) (CABI, 2006)

[Yes]2 L (Pantoja et al., 2002)

No

Aleurodicus dispersus Russell Pantoja et al., 2002

Peru, US (FL, HI) (CABI, 2006)

[Yes]4 L (CABI, 2007)

No

Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae)

CABI, 2006 Peru, US (CABI, 2006)

No N/A N/A

Tetraleurodes acaciae (Quaintance)

Pantoja et al., 2002

S. America, N. America (Pantoja et al., 2002)

No N/A N/A

Peru

1 McAlpine and Steyskal (1982) do not specifically state that Neosilba batesi occurs in Peru, but they examined specimens from Colombia, Mexico, and Panama, indicating that the insect may be widespread.

2 Quarantine significant species with a limited distribution in the United States (NIS, 2006; PestID, 2008)

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 7




Quaran-tine pest

Plant Part(s)

Follow pathway

Hemiptera: AphididaeAcyrthosiphon pisum Harris CABI (2007) Peru, US (CABI,

2007)No N/A N/A

Aphis gossypii Glover Pantoja et al., 2002

Peru, US (CABI, 2006)

No N/A N/A

Aphis nerii Boyer de Fonscolombe



No N/A N/A

Aphis spiraecola (Patch) Posada, 1989 Peru, US (CABI, 2006)

No N/A N/A

Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas)



No N/A N/A

Myzus persicae (Sulzer) Posada, 1989 Peru, US (CABI, 2006)

No N/A N/A

Rhopalosiphum maidis (Fitch) CABI (2007) Peru, US (CABI, 2007)

No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: AsterolecaniidaeRussellaspis pustulans pustulans

(Cockerell)Ben-Dov et al. 2008

Peru, US (Ben-Dov et al, 2008)

No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: CoccidaeCoccus hesperidum (L.) Pantoja et al.,

2002Peru, US (CABI, 2006)

No N/A N/A

Coccus viridis (Green) PestID, 2008 Peru, US (CABI, 2006)

[Yes]1 L, F (CABI, 2006)

No2

Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner) Pantoja et al., 2002


No N/A N/A

Philephedra tuberculosa Nakahara & Gill


S. America, N. America (Pantoja et al., 2002

No F N/A

Protopulvinaria pyriformis (Cockerell)



No N/A N/A

Saissetia coffeae (Walker) Pantoja et al., 2002


No N/A N/A

Saissetia oleae (Oliver) Pantoja et al., 2002


No N/A N/A

1 Quarantine significant species with a limited distribution in the United States (NIS, 2006; PestID, 2008)2 Although Coccus viridis reportedly attacks fruit (CABI, 2006), it mainly attacks the leaves of its hosts (Dekle,

1976). Coccus viridis has only been intercepted once on papaya (1984-2008), on a papaya leaf found in passenger baggage (PestID, 2008). Because of this, we concluded that the pest was highly unlikely to follow the pathway on papaya.

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 8




Quaran-tine pest

Plant Part(s)

Follow pathway

Hemiptera: ConchaspididaeConchaspis angraeci Cockerell Pantoja et al.,


No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: DiaspididaeAonidomytilus albus (Cockerell) CABI, 2006 Peru, US (CABI,

2006)No N/A N/A

Aspidiotus destructor Signoret Posada, 1989 Peru, US (CABI, 2006)

No N/A N/A

Chrysomphalus aonidum (Linnaeus)

CABI, 2007 Peru, US (Ben-Dov et al, 2008)

No N/A N/A

Chrysomphalus dictyospermi (Morgan)



No N/A N/A

Hemiberlesia lataniae (Signoret) PestID, 2008, Ben-Dov et al, 2008

Peru (PestID, 2008), US (von Ellenrieder, 2003)

No N/A N/A

Howardia biclavis (Comstock) Ben-Dov et al, 2008


No N/A N/A

Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Green)

Ben-Dov et al., 2008

Peru, US (FL) (Ben-Dov et al., 2008)

[Yes]1 Bk, S, L (Kosztarab, 1996); L, F (PestID, 2008)

Yes2

Pseudaulacaspis pentagona (Targioni-Tozzeti)

PestID, 2008 Peru, US (CABI, 2006)

No N/A N/A

Pseudoparlatoria ostreata Cockerell


S. America, N. America (Pantoja et al., 2002)

No N/A N/A

Selenaspidus articulatus (Morgan)

Ben-Dov et al, 2008


No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: MargarodidaeIcerya purchasi Maskell Pantoja et al.,


No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: PentatomidaePodisus sagitta (Fabricius) PestID, 2008 Peru, US (PestID,

2008)No N/A N/A

1 Quarantine significant species with limited distribution in the United States (NIS, 2006).2 This armored scale may enter the United States on commercial fruit for consumption, but is highly unlikely to

establish via this pathway. Please see discussion following the pest list for a detailed explanation. In addition, from 1985-2008 P. trilobitiformis has only been intercepted three times on papaya, in passenger baggage, twice from the Caribbean and once from South Africa.

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 9




Quaran-tine pest

Plant Part(s)

Follow pathway

Hemiptera: PseudococcidaeDysmicoccus brevipes

(Cockerell)PestID, 2008 Peru (PestID,

2008), US (CABI, 2006)

No N/A N/A

Dysmicoccus grassii (Leonardi) Ben-Dov et al, 2008

Peru (Ben-Dov et al, 2008)

No1 N/A N/A

Ferrisia virgata Cockerell PestID, 2008; CABI, 2007


No N/A N/A

Nipaecoccus nipae (Maskell) CABI, 2006 Peru, US (CABI, 2006)

No N/A N/A

Planococcus citri (Risso) McGuire and Crandall, 1967


No N/A N/A

Pseudococcus longispinus (Targioni Tozzetti)

Ben-Dov et al, 2008

Peru, US (CABI, 2007; Ben-Dov et al., 2008)

No N/A N/A

Pseudococcus viburni (Signoret) Ben-Dov et al, 2008


No N/A N/A

Hymenoptera: FormicidaeAtta texana (Buckley) McGuire and

Crandall, 1967Peru, US (LA, TX) (CABI, 2006)

No N/A N/A

Lepidoptera: NoctuidaeHelicoverpa zea (Boddie) {Robinson,

2008 #16928}Peru, US (CABI, 2007)

No N/A N/A

Spodoptera frugiperda J.E. Smith

{Robinson, 2008 #16928}


No N/A N/A

Lepidoptera: PyralidaeCadra cautella Walker PestID, 2008 Peru, US (CABI,

2006)No N/A N/A

Lepidoptera: SphingidaeErinnyis alope (Drury) Posada, 1989 Peru, US (CABI,

2006)No N/A N/A

Erinnyis ello (L.) McGuire and Crandall, 1967


No N/A N/A

Thysanoptera: PhlaeothripidaeGynaikothrips ficorum

(Marchal)PestID, 2008 Peru (PestID,

2008), US (Denmark et al., 2004)

No N/A N/A

1 Not considered a reportable pest by the NIS (PestID, 2008).

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 10




Quaran-tine pest

Plant Part(s)

Follow pathway

Thysanoptera: ThripidaeThrips tabaci Lindeman Pantoja et al.,


No N/A N/A

Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande)



No N/A N/A

BACTERIAErwinia carotovora subsp.

atroseptica (van Hall) Dye (Enterobacteriales)

Alfieri et al., 1994

Peru (CABI, 2006), US (Alfieri et al., 1994)

No N/A N/A

FUNGIAsperisporium caricae (Speg.)

Maubl. (Hyphomycetes) (Anamorphic fungi)

Ploetz, 2003 Peru (CABI, 2006), US (Ploetz et al., 1998)

No N/A N/A

Choanephora cucurbitarum (Berk. & Ravenel) Thaxt (Zygomycetes: Mucorales)

Ploetz, 2003 Peru (Bazan de Segura, 1973), US (CABI, 2006)

No N/A N/A

Cochliobolus lunatus R.R. Nelson & Haasis [teleomorph] (Dothideomycetes: Pleosporales)

Farr et al., 2008

Peru (CABI, 2006), US (Farr et al., 2008)

No N/A N/A

Colletotrichum gloesporioides (Penz.) Penz & Sacc. (teleomorph: Glomerella cingulata (Stonem.) Spauld. & Schrenk) (Coelomycetes: Melanoconiales)

Farr et al., 2008; Ploetz, 2003

Peru (CABI, 2006), US (Ploetz, 2003)

No N/A N/A

Corticium rolfsii Curzi [teleomorph] (Basidiomycetes: Aphyllophorales)

Farr et al., 2008; Ploetz, 2003


No N/A N/A

Fusarium solani (Wollenw.) Gerlach [teleomorph] (Sordariomycetes: Hypocreales)

Ploetz, 2003 Peru (Mont, 1998), US (Ploetz, 2003)

No N/A N/A

Lasiodiplodia theobromae Griffiths & Maubl. (Dothideomycetes :Xylariales)

Bazan de Segura, 1973; Farr et al., 2008

Peru (Bazan de Segura, 1973), US (Farr et al., 2008)

No N/A N/A

Leveillula taurica (Lév.) G. Arnaud (Leotiomycetes:Erysiphales)

Bazan de Segura, 1973; Farr et al., 2008

Peru (Bazan de Segura, 1973), US (CABI, 2006)

No N/A N/A

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 11




Quaran-tine pest

Plant Part(s)

Follow pathway

Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid (Dothideomycetes: Botryosphaeriales)

Bazan de Segura, 1973; Farr et al., 2008)

Peru (Bazan de Segura, 1973), US (Farr et al., 2008)

No N/A N/A

Monilinia fructicola (G. Winter) Honey (Leotiomycetes: Helotiales)

Ploetz, 2003 Peru (Bazan de Segura, 1973), US (Ploetz, 2003)

No N/A N/A

Oidium caricae F. Noack Syn: Sphaerotheca caricaepapayae Tanda & Braun (Hyphomycetes)

Ploetz, 2003 Peru (Franciosi Tijero, 1992 Garcia, US (Farr et al., 1989)

No N/A N/A

Phytophthora cinnamomi Rands (Oomycetes: Peronosporales)

Farr et al., 2008

Peru (Franciosi Tijero, 1992), US (Farr, et al., 2006)

No N/A N/A

Phytophthora nicotianae Breda de Haan (Oomycetes: Peronosporales)

Ploetz, 2003 Peru (CABI, 2006), US (Farr, et al., 2008)

No N/A N/A

Phytophthora palmivora (E. J. Butler) E. J. Butler (Oomycetes: Peronosporales)

Ploetz, 2003 Peru (Coronel et al., 1980), US (CABI, 2008)

No N/A N/A

Pseudoperonospora cubensis (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Rostovzev (Oomycetes: Peronosporales)

Farr et al., 2008


No N/A N/A

Pythium aphanidermatum (Edson) Fitzp. Syn: P. butleri (Oomycetes: Peronosporales)

Farr et al., 2008


No N/A N/A

Rhizopus stolonifer (Ehrenb.) Lind (Zygomycetes: Mucorales)

Farr et al., 2008

Widespread (Nakasone and Paull, 2004), US (Farr et al., 2008)

No N/A N/A

Thanatephorus cucumeris (A.B. Frank) Donk Anamorph: Rhizoctonia solani (Frank) Donk Basidiomycetes: Tulasnella les)

Farr et al., 2008

Peru (Mont, 1998), US (Farr et al., 2008)

No N/A N/A

Thielaviopsis basicola (Berk. & Broome) Ferraris (Hyphomycetes) (Anamorphic fungi)

Farr et al., 2008


No N/A N/A

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 12




Quaran-tine pest

Plant Part(s)

Follow pathway

NEMATODAHelicotylenchus dihystera

(Cobb, 1893) Sher, 1961 (Tylenchidae: Hoplolaimidae)

Starr, 1999 Peru (CABI, 2006), US (FDACS, 1999)

No N/A N/A

Helicotylenchus multicinctus (Cobb, 1893) Golden, (Tylenchidae: Hoplolaimidae)

CABI, 2006 Peru (CABI, 2006), US (SN, 1984)

No (PestID, 2006)

N/A N/A

Hemicriconemoides mangiferae Siddiqi (Tylenchidae: Criconematidae)

CABI, 2006; El-Borai and Duncan, 2005

Peru (CABI, 2006), US (CABI, 2006)

No N/A N/A

Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & White) Chitwood (Tylenchidae: Meloidogynidae)

Bazan de Segura, 1975; Ploetz, 2003

Peru (Bazan de Segura, 1975), US (Ploetz, 2003)

No N/A N/A

Meloidogyne javanica (Treub) Chitwood (Tylenchidae: Meloidogynidae)

Jaraba et al., 2007

Peru (Jaraba et al., 2007), US (Ploetz, 2003)

No N/A N/A

Rotylenchulus reniformis Linford & Oliveira (Tylenchidae: Hoplolaimidae)

Ploetz, 2003 Peru (Jaraba et al., 2007), US (Ploetz, 2003)

No N/A N/A

Scutellonema brachyurus Steiner (1938) Andrássy (Tylenchidae: Hoplolaimidae)

Ploetz, 2003 Peru (CABI, 2006), US (Ploetz et al, 1998)

No N/A N/A

VIRUSPapaya Ringspot Virus (PRSV)

Potyviridae = Papaya Mosaic Virus (Brunt et al., 2008)

Ploetz, 2003 S. America, US (Brunt et al., 2008)

No NA N/A

Tobacco streak virus (TSV) Bromoviridae

Brunt et al., 2008

Peru (CABI, 2006), US (Brunt et al., 2008)

No N/A N/A

Tomato spotted wilt virus Bunyaviridae.

Gonsalves, 1996

Peru (CABI, 2006), US (Gonsalves, 1996)

No N/A N/A

2.4.1. Discussion of Quarantine Pests Not Likely to Follow the PathwayWe only analyzed those quarantine pests that were reasonably expected to follow the pathway of commercial shipments of exported papaya. Some quarantine pests we did not include may be detrimental to U.S. agriculture, but we did not further analyze them for a variety of reasons.

Pests on different plant parts. Often, the primary association of the pest was with plant parts other than the commodity at harvest, such as Metamasius hemipterus, Aleurocanthus woglumi,

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 13


Oliarus sp., Lichtensia sp., Aulacaspis sp., and Aconophora pallescens, which are associated with leaf, stem, root, inflorescence or young fruit.

Pests not identified to species. We did not assess the risk associated with pests identified only to the order, family or generic levels, but if pests identified to higher taxa levels are intercepted in the future, their risk may be reevaluated. Generally, the biological hazard of organisms not identified to the species level is not assessed because a genus contains many species, and assuming that the biology of all species within a genus is identical is not reasonable. The lack of species’ identification may indicate the limits of the current taxonomic knowledge, the life stage, or the quality of the specimen submitted for identification. By necessity, pest risk assessments focus on the organisms for which biological information is available. The lack of identification at a specific level does not rule out the possibility that a high risk quarantine pest was intercepted or that the intercepted organism was not a quarantine pest. Conversely, developing detailed assessments for known pests that inhabit a variety of ecological niches, such as the surfaces and/or interiors of fruit, stems or roots, allows effective mitigation measures to eliminate known organisms, as well as similar, but incompletely identified organisms that inhabit the same niche.

Anastrepha distincta. We did not list Anastrepha distincta as a pest of papaya, despite one reference suggesting a host association (CABI, 2006), because it was based on data mining and was countermanded by other evidence showing papaya as a non-host (Aluja et al., 1987).

Armored scale. We did not further analyze the armored scale, Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis, because, although armored scales may enter on commercial fruit for consumption, they are not expected to become established, and therefore introduced, via this pathway (Miller, 1985; PERAL, 2007). A recent review of the literature, APHIS-PPQ operational data, and expert opinion concludes that, even assuming high quantities of imported fruit infested with armored scale species that could be parthenogenic, highly fecund, polyphagous, invasive, theoretically able to survive in most of the United States, and cause high level consequences, the specific pathway represented by commercially produced fruit shipped without leaves, stems or contaminants constitutes an extremely low risk (PERAL, 2007).

Other pests. Other quarantine pests were not selected for further analysis for a variety of reasons, including that they are external feeders, produce obvious damage, are visible on commodities, will move off the fruit when disturbed, or can be eliminated during standard post-harvest processing.

We excluded Neosilba batesi (Diptera: Lonchaeidae) from further analysis because it feeds only after a primary feeder has punctured the fruit. In that case, the ruined fruit is highly likely to be culled.

Diabrotica speciosa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) feeds on the papaya fruit as a mobile, winged adult. Because it would be highly unlikely to remain with the commodity after harvest, we excluded it from further analysis.

We excluded Coccus viridis (Hemiptera: Coccidae) from further analysis because it is primarily a leaf-feeder and infrequently attacks fruit (Dekle, 1976). This was corroborated by the fact that

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 14


C. viridis has never been specifically intercepted on papaya fruit; only once on leaves in passenger baggage (PestID, 2008).

2.4.2. Discussion of Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the PathwayWe included Anastrepha fraterculus in the pest list and, consequently, in the pathway in spite of the inconclusive evidence regarding the host suitability of papaya. Previous risk assessments have evaluated A. fraterculus for papaya. Current evidence suggests that papaya can become a field host for C. capitata (Medfly) (Norrbom, 2008), but only in ripe stages unsuitable for international trade. This information should be taken into account when developing a mitigation strategy for this fruit fly.

2.5. Analysis of Quarantine Pests

2.5.1. Consequences of Introduction In this section we assessed the undesirable consequences that may occur from the introduction of quarantine pests. For each quarantine pest, we rated the potential Consequences of Introduction in five areas called Risk Elements (PPQ, 2000): Climate-Host Interaction, Host Range, Dispersal Potential, Economic Impact and Environmental Impact. These Risk Elements reflect the biology, host range and climatic/geographic distribution of each pest and are supported by biological information on each of the pests analyzed in this section. For each Risk Element, we assigned pests a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points) or High (3 points), using the criteria in the risk assessment guidelines (PPQ, 2000). We then calculated a Cumulative Risk Value by summing the ratings (Table 6).

Anastrepha fraterculus Risk ratingsRisk Element #1: Climate-Host InteractionAnastrepha fraterculus is a species complex that has not yet been studied in sufficient detail to clearly separate the included species. Still, the population in Peru and the Andean region is distinct from other populations in South America (Steck, 1991), and probably a different species from the Mexican population (Hernández-Ortiz et al., 2004). The complex ranges from southern Texas to Argentina (Foote et al., 1993), including Uruguay, where it is widespread (CABI, 2006). These areas generally correspond to U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 7-11 (PERAL, 2008) (which counts as a total of three zones). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these zones (NRCS, 2008).

High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host RangeAnastrepha fraterculus is extremely polyphagous. Preferred hosts are Myrtaceae, including Eugenia and Syzygium spp. (CABI, 2006). Other hosts include Terminalia catappa (Combretaceae), Malus pumila and Prunus spp. (Rosaceae), Annona spp. (Annonaceae), Citrus spp. (Rutaceae), Coffea spp. (Rubiaceae), Ficus carica (Moraceae), Juglans spp. (Juglandaceae), Diospyros kaki (Ebenaceae), Manilkara zapota (Sapotaceae), Persea americana (Lauraceae), Solanum quitoense (Solanaceae), Theobroma cacao (Sterculiaceae), Olea europaea (Oleaceae), and Vitis vinifera (Vitaceae) (CABI, 2006).

High (3)

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 15


Anastrepha fraterculus Risk ratingsRisk Element #3: Dispersal PotentialFemales deposit from 200 to 400 eggs in host fruits (White and Elson-Harris, 1994). The species goes through several generations per year (CABI, 2006). Long-distance dispersal has not been reported for adults of A. fraterculus; however, another member of the genus was trapped 135 km away from its origin (Fletcher, 1989). The major means for introducing the species to previously uninfested areas is international transport of fruit containing larvae (CABI, 2006). For most regions, the fruits most likely to carry this species are mango and guava. Based on this evidence, we rated A. fraterculus High for dispersal potential.

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic ImpactAnastrepha fraterculus is the most economically important species of Anastrepha in Brazil and other South American countries because of its broad host range (Foote et al., 1993). In Brazil it causes severe yield losses in apple, is a major concern of growers, and represents a significant constraint to exporting fresh fruit to countries with quarantine barriers (Sugayama et al., 1998). The insect is also an important pest of guava and mango, and to some extent of Citrus and Prunus spp. (CABI, 2006). Anastrepha fraterculus is a quarantine pest for several countries and regions including Europe (EPPO, 2004); thus, its introduction into the continental United States could result in a loss of foreign markets for U.S. grown commodities.

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental ImpactAnastrepha fraterculus can attack plants in the genus Prunus, which includes one species, Prunus geniculata in Florida, that occurs in the continental United States and is listed as Endangered (USFWS, 2008). Growers might have to apply more pesticides if A. fraterculus became established in the United States (CABI, 2006).

High (3)

1Ceratitis capitata Risk ratingsRisk Element #1: Climate-Host InteractionCeratitis capitata is found in southern Europe, west Asia, Africa, South and Central America, and northern Australia (CABI, 2006). This species can establish in U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 8 – 11 (PERAL, 2008), where many of its hosts are available (NRCS, 2008). Because Zone 11 is so small, it does not count toward the total number of zones, and so the rating is Medium.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host RangeThis pest has been recorded on a wide variety of host plants in several families, including Rubiaceae (Coffea spp.), Solanaceae (Capsicum annuum), Rutaceae (Citrus spp.), Rosaceae (Malus pumila, Prunus spp.), Moraceae (Ficus carica), Myrtaceae (Psidium guajava), Sterculiaceae (Theobroma cacao), Arecaceae (Phoenix dactylifera) and Anacardiaceae (Mangifera indica) (CABI, 2006).

High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal PotentialThis pest deposits six to eight eggs in host fruit (Hassan, 1977). Females can lay

High (3)

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 16


1Ceratitis capitata Risk ratingsup to 300 eggs in their lifetime (Weems, 1981). In warm climates, breeding is continuous and there are several overlapping generations throughout the year (Hassan, 1977). Adults can fly distances over 20 kilometers (CABI, 2007). Transport of infested fruits is the major means of movement and dispersal to previously uninfested areas (CABI, 2006).Risk Element #4: Economic ImpactCeratitis capitata is an important pest in Africa, and can be spread in suitable climates worldwide, making it the single most important pest species in its family (CABI, 2005). In Mediterranean countries, the pest is particularly damaging to citrus and peach crops, increasing cost of production due to control program expenses. It may also transmit fruit-rotting fungi (CABI, 2006). Ceratitis capitata is of quarantine significance worldwide, especially for Japan and the United States, where we spend considerable resources in order to prevent introduction of this fly (CABI, 2006). Its presence can lead to severe constraints for fruit export, leading to losses of foreign markets (CABI, 2006).

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental ImpactThe introduction and establishment of C. capitata in the United States would initiate chemical control, particularly bait sprays. The species is highly polyphagous, and can attack plants from the following genera with species listed as Threatened or Endangered by the Federal government (USFWS, 2008): Prunus (P. geniculata, FL), Argemone (A. pleiacantha, NM), Asimina (A. tetramera, FL), Berberis (B. nevivii, B. pinnata, B. sonnei, CA), Cucurbita (C. okeechobeensis, FL), Echinocereus (E. chisoensis, E. reichenbachii, E. iridiflorus, TX; E. fendleri, NM; E. triglochidiatus, AZ), Euphorbia (E. telephioides, FL), Opuntia (O. treleasei, CA), Ribes (R. echinellum, FL, SC), and Ziziphus (Z. celata, FL).

High (3)

Table 6 . Summary of risk ratings and values for the Consequences of Introduction. Pest Climate

/HostHost Range

Dispersal Potential

Economic Impact

Environ-mental impact

Cumulative risk ratinga

Anastrepha fraterculus High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15)Ceratitis capitata Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)a Low is 5-8 points; Medium is 9-12 points; and High is 13-15 points

2.5.2. Likelihood of IntroductionThe value for the Likelihood of Introduction is the sum of the ratings for the Quantity Imported Annually and Pest Opportunity (Table 7).

Quantity Imported Annually. Peru exported an estimated 28 metric tons of papaya in 2006 and 14 metric tons in 2007 (GTI, 2008). The sea shipping containers that are typically used for estimating the volume of commodity shipments are 40 feet (12.2 m) in length and hold approximately 40,000

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 17


pounds (18 metric tons) (FAS, 2008). Based on this data, we project that the annual quantity of papaya shipped from Peru to the United States would fill approximately 1-2 40-foot shipping containers at a maximum. Consequently, the rating for this risk factor is Low.

Survival of Post-Harvest Treatment. With no statement from Peru, we assume no post harvest treatment of fruit beyond general inspection for quality before shipment. Anastrepha fraterculus and C. capitata are internal feeders that are likely to survive minimal post-harvest treatments. If only minimal postharvest treatments are used, the likelihood of fruit fly survival is High.

Survive shipment. Fruit fly larvae can survive shipment when exported without any mitigating treatment, demonstrated by numerous interceptions of live fruit fly larvae by U.S. agricultural inspectors at ports of entry (PestID, 2008). In the absence of a treatment, the risk associated with the survival of shipment of internal feeders is High.

Not detected at the port of entry. Internal feeders are difficult to detect during normal USDA inspection procedures at ports of entry (Gould, 1995). The risk associated with the inability to detect these pests is High.

Imported or moved to area with environment suitable for survival. The fruit flies A. fraterculus and C. capitata are highly likely to establish in parts of the United States. Populations of C. capitata have repeatedly invaded Florida and California (Davies et al., 1999). The risk associated with their importation into the United States is High.

Come into contact with host material suitable for reproduction. It is likely that if A. fraterculus and C. capitata enter the United States, they will find numerous hosts available for reproduction due to their polyphagous nature (CABI, 2006) and capacity for long range movement (up to 20 km) (Fletcher, 1989). Therefore, the rating is High for the risk that these imported fruit flies can find host material suitable for reproduction.

The likelihood that a particular pest will be introduced is reflected in the value for the Cumulative Risk Rating. The Cumulative Risk Rating is High for each of the pests (Table 7).

Table 7. Risk Rating for Likelihood of IntroductionPest Quantity

imported annually

Survive post-harvest treatment

Survive shipment

Not detected at port of entry

Moved to suitable habitat

Contact with host material

Cumulative risk ratinga

Anastrepha fraterculus

Low (1) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (16)

Ceratitis capitata

Low (1) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (16)

a Low = 6-9 points, Medium = 10-14 points and High = 15-18 points.

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 18


2.6. Conclusion: Pest Risk Potential

We summed the values for the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction to determine the Pest Risk Potential (Table 8). This is a baseline estimate of the risks associated with this importation in the absence of specific mitigation measures. Both pests analyzed in this risk assessment had High Pest Risk Potential. That rating means that port-of-entry inspection is not considered sufficient to provide phytosanitary security and specific phytosanitary measures are strongly recommended.

The reduction of risk occurs through the use of mitigation measures. The conclusions from pest risk assessment are used to consider whether risk management is required and the strength of measures to be used (Stage 2 of PRA) (IPPC, 2007; ISPM #11). Pest risk management (Stage 3 of PRA) is the process of identifying ways to react to a perceived risk, evaluating the efficacy of these procedures, and recommending the most appropriate options. The choice of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate risks is undertaken as part of Risk Management, and is not addressed in this document.

Table 8 . Pest Risk Potentials Pest Consequences of

IntroductionLikelihood of Introduction

Pest risk potential

Anastrepha fraterculus High (15) High (16) High (31)Ceratitis capitata High (14) High (16) High (30)

a Low = 11-18 points, Medium = 19-26 pts, and High = 27-33 pts.

3. Authors and Reviewers

Authors: Shawn Robertson – EntomologistFeridoon Mehdizadegan – Plant Pathologist

Reviewers:Scott Redlin – Plant PathologistLeah Millar - Entomologist

4. References

7 CFR § 319. 2007. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319 – Foreign Quarantine Notices).

7 CFR § 319.56-2w. 2007. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319 – Foreign Quarantine Notices).

Alfieri, S. A., K. R. Langdon, J. W. Kimbrough, N. E. El-Gholl, and C. Wehlburg. 1994. Bulletin No. 14, Diseases and disorders of plants in Florida {Papaya specific pages}. Division of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville, Florida. 1114 pp.

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 19


Aluja, M. 1994. Bionomics and management of Anastrepha. Annual Review of Entomology 39:155-178.

Aluja, M., J. Guillen, G. d. l. Rosa, M. Cabrera, H. Celedonio, P. Liedo, J. Hendrichs, G. De la Rosa, and G. d. La Rosa. 1987. Natural host plant survey of the economically important fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of Chiapas, Mexico. Florida Entomologist 70(3):329-330.

Alvarez, A. M., and W. T. Nishijima. 1987. Postharvest diseases of papaya. Plant Disease 71:681-686.

Aubert, B., P. Lossois, J. Marchal, J. Rabaud, and P. deBoisvilliers. 1981. Mise en evidence des degats causes par Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) sur papayer a l'ile de Ia Reunion. Fruits 36(1):9-24.

Bazan de Segura, C. 1973. Relación de enfermedades y microorganismos patógenos aislados de plantas cultivadas, forestales y ornamentales en el Peru. . Ministerio de Agricultura. 68 pp.

Bazan de Segura, C. 1975. Enfermedades de cultivos frutícolas y hortícolas. Editorial Jurídica S.A. Lima, Peru. 276 pp.

Bolland, H. R., J. Gutierrez, and C. H. W. Flechtmann. 1998. World catalogue of the spider mite family (Acari: Tetranychidae). Brill, Boston.

Brunt, A. A., K. Crabtree, M. J. Dallwitz, A. J. Gibbs, L. Watson, and E. J. Zurcher (eds.). 2008. Plant Viruses Online: Descriptions and Lists from the VIDE Database. http://image.fs.uidaho.edu/vide/.

CABI. 2003. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, UK.CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, UK.Chandler, L. D. 1980. Control of the carmine spider mite on greenhouse grown foliage plants.

Southwestern Entomologist 5:53.Coronel, L. E., D. Navarro, and O. R. Masías. 1980. Pythium butleri agente causal de la

pudrición radicular del papayo. Fitopatología 15(1):7-8.Couey, H. M., and C. F. Hayes. 1986. Quarantine procedure for Hawaiian papaya using fruit

selection and a two-stage hot-water immersion. Journal of Economic Entomology 79(5):1307-1314.

Davies, D., F. X. Villablanca, and G. K. Roderick. 1999. Bioinvasions of the medfly Ceratitis capitata: source estimation using DNA sequences at multiple intron level. Genetics 153:351-360.

Denmark, H. A., T. R. Fasulo, and J. E. Funderburk. 2004. Cuban Laurel Thrips, Gynaikothrips ficorum (Marchal) (Insecta: Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae) . Entomology Circular No. 59. 4 pp.

El-Borai, F. E., and L. W. Duncan. 2005. Nematode Parasites of Subtropical and Tropical Fruit Trees. Pages 467-491 in M. Luc, R. Sikora, and J. Bridge, (eds.). Parasitic Nematodes in Tropical & Subtropical Agriculture. CAB International, St. Albans, UK.

EPPO. 2004. EPPO Standard PM1/2(13). A1 and A2 Lists of pests recommended for regulation as quarantine pests (adopted in 2004-09). European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/lists.htm.

Farr, D. F., G. F. Bills, G. P. Chamuris, and A. Y. Rossman. 1989. Fungi on Plants and Plant Products in the United States. APS Press, St. Pau., MN. 152 pp.

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 20


Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and E. B. McCray. 2008. Fungal Databases. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory. http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/.

FAS. 2008. Glossary. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). http://www.fas.usda.gov/agexport/export_plan/glossary.htm.

FLEPPC. 2007. List of Florida's Invasive Species. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC). http://www.fleppc.org.

Fletcher, B. S. 1989. Movement of tephritid fruit flies. Pages 209-219 in A. S. Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit flies, their biology, natural enemies and control, World crop pests, Vol. 3b. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Fons, J. F. 1990. Quarantine barriers, treatments as a means to facilitate trade. Pages 435 in J. F. Fons, ed. Acta Horticulturae.

Foote, R. H., F. L. Blanc, and A. L. Norrbom. 1993. Handbook of the Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of America North of Mexico. Pages 94-97,124-127. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA.

Franciosi Tijero, R. 1992. El Cultivo del Papayo en el Peru. Ediciones Fundeagro, Lima. 89 pp.Gonsalves, D. 1996. Tomato spotted wilt virus in papaya and detection of the virus by ELISA.

Plant Disease 70:501-506.Gould, W. P. 1995. Probability of detecting Caribbean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae)

infestations by fruit dissection. Florida Entomologist 78(3):502-507.GTI. 2008. Global Trade Atlas. Global Trade Information Services (GTI), Inc.

http://www.gtis.com/gta.Gunn, C. R., and C. Ritchie. 1982. Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious

Weeds; Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act (unpublished).Hallman, G. J., and P. Loaharanu. 2002. Generic Ionizing Radiation Quarantine Treatments

Against Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) Proposed. Journal of Economic Entomology 95(5):893-901.

Hassan, E. 1977. Major Insect and Mite Pest of Australian Crops. Pages 73-89 in J. T. Swarbrick, (ed.). Ento Press, Gatton, Queensland.

Hernández-Ortiz, V., J. A. Gómez-Anaya, A. Sánchez, B. A. McPheron, and M. Aluja. 2004. Morphometric analysis of Mexican and South American populations of the Anastrepha fraterculus complex (Diptera:Tephritidae) and recognition of a distinct Mexican morphotype. Bulletin of Entomological Research 94(6):487-499.

Holm, L. G., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger. 1997a. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 1129 pp.

Holm, L. G., J. V. Pancho, J. P. Herberger, and D. L. Plucknett. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 391 pp.

Holm, L. G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger. 1997b. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and biology. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. 609 pp.

Horvitz, C. C., S. McMann, and A. Freedman. 1995. Exotics and hurricane damage in three hardwood hammocks in Dade County Parks, Florida. Journal of Coastal Research SI(21):145-158.

IPPC. 2007. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, 1 to 29 (2007 edition). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 376 pp.

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 21


Jaraba, J. d. D., Z. Lozano, and M. Espinosa. 2007. Nematodos agalladores asociados al cultivo de papaya (Carica papaya L.) en el departamento de Córdoba, Colombia. Agronomía Colombiana 25(1):124-130.

Jeppson, L. R., H. H. Keifer, and E. W. Baker. 1975. Mites injurious to economic plants. University of California Press, Berkeley. 614 pp.

Kwit, C., W.-J. Platt, and H.-H. Slater. 2000. Post-hurricane regeneration of pioneer plant species in south Florida subtropical hardwood hammocks. Biotropica 32(2):244-251.

Lance, D. R., and D. B. Gates. 1994. Sensitivity of detection trapping systems for Mediterranean fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in southern California. Journal of Economic Entomology 87(6):1377-1383.

Lara, F., and F. Marin. 1990. Infestation rates of papaya by fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in relation to degree of ripeness and effect of hot-water and cold-water storage treatment on egg survival. PPI Del Monte Trop. Fruit Co. 13 pp.

McAlpine, J. F., and G. C. Steyskal. 1982. A revision of Neosilba McAlpine with a key to the world genera of Lonchaeidae (Diptera). Canadian Entomologist 114(2):105-137.

McGuire, J. U. J., and B. S. Crandall. 1967. Survey of insect pests and plant diseases of selected food crops of Mexico, Central America, and Panama. USDA. 159 pp.

Miller, D. R. 1985. Pest risk assessment of armored scales on certain fruit (USDA-ARS Report submitted to USDA-APHIS-PPQ). USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD.

Morton, J. F. 1987. Fruits of warm climates. Julia F. Morton. http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/morton/index.html.

Nakasone, H. Y., and R. E. Paull. 2004. Papaya. Pages 239-269 Tropical Fruits. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.

Norrbom, A. L. 2008. Fruit Fly Host Plant Database. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Entomology Laboratory. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov. (Archived at PERAL)

NRCS. 2008. The PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), The National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov. (Archived at PERAL)

Pantoja, A., P. A. Follett, and J. A. Villanueva-Jimenez. 2002. Pests of papaya. Pages 131-156 in J.E. Pena, J. Sharp, and M. Wysoki, (ed.). Tropical fruit pests and pollinators. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.

Parsons, W., and E. Cuthbertson. 2001. Noxious weeds of Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. 698 pp.

Pena, J. E., and R. C. Bullock. 1994. Effects of feeding of broad mite (Acari: Tarsonemidae) on vegetative plant growth. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lah&AN=19951102163&site=ehost-live&scope=site

PERAL. 2007. Phytosanitary Risks Associated with Armored Scales in Commercial Shipments of Fruit for Consumption to the United States, Revision Original. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC.

PestID. 2008. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL)

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 22


Ploetz, R. C. 2003. Diseases of Tropical Fruit Crops CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 544 pp.

Posada, L. 1989. Lista de insectos dañinos y otras plagas en Colombia. (Boletín Técnico No. 43.). Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario, División de disciplinas agricolas, Seción de Entomología.

PPQ. 2003. Guidelines for Fruit Fly Systems Approach to Support the Movement of Regulated Articles between Mexico and the United States (Draft Document). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ).

PPQ. 2008. Treatment Manual. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/treatment.shtml. (Archived at PERAL)

Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically important foreign weeds, potential problems in the United States. Pages 746 Agriculture Handbook No. 498. Agricultural Research Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Simpson, B. B., and M.Conner-Ogorzaly. 1986. Economic Botany: Plants in our World. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York. 544 pp.

Steck, G. J. 1991. Biochemical systematics and population genetic structure of Anastrepha fraterculus and related species (Diptera: Tephritidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 84(1):10-28.

Sugayama, R. L., A. Kovaleski, P. Liedo, and A. Malavasi. 1998. Colonization of a new fruit crop by Anastrepha fraterculus (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Brazil: a demographic analysis. Environmental Entomology 27(3):642-648.

Thomas, M. C. 2000. The exotic invasion of Florida: a report on arthropod immigration into the sunshine state. (Florida) Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services http://doacs.state.fl.us/~pi/enpp/ento/exoticsinflorida.htm.

USFWS. 2008. Threatened and endangered species system (TESS). United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSWebpage. (Archived at PERAL)

von Ellenrieder, N. 2003. Latania scale (Hemiberlesia lataniae). California Department of Food and Agriculture. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov.

Walsh, G. C. 2003. Host range and reproductive traits of Diabrotica speciosa (Germar) and Diabrotica viridula (F.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), two species of South American pest rootworms, with notes on other species of Diabroticina. Environmental Entomology 32:276-285.Weems, H. V. 1981. Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Entomology Circular No. 230. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry.

White, I. M., and M. M. Elson-Harris. 1994. Fruit flies of economic significance: their identification and bionomics. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 601 pp.

Wiersema, J. H., and B. Leon. 1999. World economic plants: A standard reference. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

WSSA. 2008. Title. Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). http://www.wssa.net/. (Archived at PERAL)

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 23

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/

Peru Papaya RA.docx · Web viewHandbook of the Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of America North...

Documents

Transcript of Peru Papaya RA.docx · Web viewHandbook of the Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of America North...