![](media/image1.png)

**Risk Assessment for the Importation of Fresh Lemon (*Citrus limon*
(L.) Burm. F.) Fruit from Northwest Argentina into the**

**Continental United States**

**August 6, 2007**

**Rev: Original**

**Agency Contact:**

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

United States Department of Agriculture

1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300

Raleigh, North Carolina 27606

**Executive Summary:**

This pest risk assessment was prepared by the Plant Epidemiology and
Risk Analysis Laboratory of the United States Department of Agriculture,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and
Quarantine, Center of Plant Health Science and Technology (USDA, APHIS,
PPQ, CPHST). It is a qualitative assessment of the plant pest risk
associated with the importation of commercially produced and
commercially packed fresh lemon fruit (*Citrus limon*) from Northwest
Argentina to the Continental United States.

The present assessment follows a quantitative assessment done by APHIS
in 1997 for the import of citrus (grapefruit, lemons, and oranges) from
Argentina. The previous assessment provided the basis for a program
authorizing the import of citrus from Argentina beginning in 2000. In
2001, the authorization was successfully challenged in court and imports
of citrus from Argentina were suspended.

This assessment is independent of the previous assessment. Although it
draws from information in the previous document, this assessment uses a
more familiar methodology (the USDA Guideline for Pathway-Initiated Pest
Risk Assessment, Version 5.02) and is limited to only lemon. The present
pest risk assessment also incorporates important new research,
experience, and other evidence gained over the past ten years.

Based on information from SENASA and our review of the scientific
literature, slightly more than 200 pests were found to be associated
with *Citrus spp*. in Argentina. Seven were determined to be quarantine
pests for the United States that could be associated with fresh lemon
fruit imported from Argentina. Two of these pests were fruit flies:
*Anastrepha fraterculus* (Wiedemann) and *Ceratitis capitata*
(Wiedemann). Two others were armored scales: *Parlatoria ziziphi*
(Lucas) and *Parlatoria cinerea* (Hadden). Three were plant diseases:
*Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *Citri* (Vauterin, *et al.*), *Elsinoë
australis* (Bitancourt & Jenk.) and *Guignardia citricarpa* (Kiely).

Both fruit flies ranked **high** based on the worst-case assumption of
possible conditions for becoming hosts. We believe however such
conditions are highly unlikely and SENASA has not reported fruit fly
interceptions in lemon during the entire history of the crop in
Argentina.

The armored scales ranked **medium** based on worst-case assumptions
about the likelihood of introduction. It is unlikely that commercially
produced lemons will have large numbers of scales and it is highly
unlikely that crawlers from such infestations would survive and find
conditions suitable for establishment.

All three diseases were also ranked **medium** based on worst-case
assumptions**,** but all are severly limited by the low probability of
introduction. Although a very low incidence of either disease may enter
on occasional symptomatic fruit, the evidence indicates that it is
highly unlikely that any of these diseases could establish via fuit as a
pathway.

**Table of Contents**

[1. Introduction 4](#__RefHeading___Toc174180294)

[**1.1 Regulatory Authority** 4](#__RefHeading___Toc174180295)

[**1.2 Previous PRAs** 4](#__RefHeading___Toc174180296)

[2. Risk Assessment 6](#__RefHeading___Toc174180297)

[**2.1 Assessment of Weediness Potential**
6](#__RefHeading___Toc174180298)

[**2.2 Pests Associated with** *Citrus* **spp. in Argentina**
6](#__RefHeading___Toc174180299)

[**2.2.1 Pest Categorization -- Identification of Quarantine Pests and
Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway**
6](#__RefHeading___Toc174180300)

[**2.2.2 Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway**
7](#__RefHeading___Toc174180301)

[**2.3 Pest Categorization** 21](#__RefHeading___Toc174180302)

[**2.4 Quarantine Pest Likely to Follow the Pathway**
22](#__RefHeading___Toc174180303)

[**2.5 Consequences of Introduction** 22](#__RefHeading___Toc174180304)

[**RE#1: Climate -- Host Interaction** 22](#__RefHeading___Toc174180305)

[**RE#2: Host range** 29](#__RefHeading___Toc174180306)

[**RE#3: Dispersal Potential** 31](#__RefHeading___Toc174180307)

[**RE#4: Economic Impact** 36](#__RefHeading___Toc174180308)

[**RE#5: Environmental Impact** 38](#__RefHeading___Toc174180309)

[**2.6 Likelihood of introduction** 41](#__RefHeading___Toc174180310)

[**Sub Element 1: Quantity imported annually**
41](#__RefHeading___Toc174180311)

[**Sub Element 2: Harvested fruit is infested/infected**
42](#__RefHeading___Toc174180312)

[**Sub Element 3: Survives packing and post harvest treatment**
46](#__RefHeading___Toc174180313)

[**Sub Element 4: Survives shipments** 50](#__RefHeading___Toc174180314)

[**Sub Element 5: Fruit moved to suitable habitat**
52](#__RefHeading___Toc174180315)

[**Sub Element 6: Pest find suitable host and establish or incite
disease** 53](#__RefHeading___Toc174180316)

[**2.7 Pest Risk Potential / Conclusion**
57](#__RefHeading___Toc174180317)

[Appendix 2 61](#__RefHeading___Toc174180318)

[Appendix 3 62](#__RefHeading___Toc174180319)

[APHIS Contact 63](#aphis-contact)

[SENASA Authors and Contributors 63](#__RefHeading___Toc174180321)

[APHIS Contributors and Reviewers 63](#__RefHeading___Toc174180322)

[References 63](#__RefHeading___Toc174180323)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180294 .anchor}**1. Introduction**

The Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory of the United States
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center of Plant Health Science and
Technology (USDA, APHIS, PPQ, CPHST) prepared this pest risk assessment
to examine plant pest risks associated with the importation of fresh
lemons, *Citrus limon* (L.) Burm. f. (Rutaceae), from Northwest
Argentina into the Continental United States.

This assessment estimates risk in qualitative terms: High, Medium, and
Low rather than probabilities or frequencies. Details of the methodology
and rating criteria can be found in the template document, Guideline for
Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment, Version 5.02 (USDA-APHIS, 2000;
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/commodity/cpraguide.pdf).

The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) of the United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) provides guidance for
conducting pest risk analyses. The methods used for this assessment are
consistent with guidelines provided by IPPC and the use of biological
and phytosanitary terms conforms to the IPPC Glossary of Phytosanitary
Terms (IPPC, 2007 ). The IPPC guidelines describe three stages of pest
risk analysis: Stage 1, Initiation, Stage 2, Risk Assessment, and Stage
3, Risk Management. This document addresses the requirements of IPPC
Stages 1 and 2.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180295 .anchor}**1.1 Regulatory Authority**

Under Title IV of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, also
known as the Plant Protection Act (Pub. L. 106-224, 114 Stat. 438, 7
U.S.C. 7701-7772), the USDA has broad authority to regulate the
importation and interstate movement of organisms that may directly or
indirectly injure, damage, or cause disease in plants. This Act repeals
11 previous laws and replaces them with one statutory framework that
enables the USDA to prohibit or restrict imports, exports, or interstate
movements of plant pests, plants, plant products, noxious weeds,
biological control agents, and means of conveyance. In a final rule,
published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2000 (65 FR 49471-49472,
Docket No. 00-063-1), the Secretary of Agriculture delegated to the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) the authority to
carry out the Plant Protection Act.

Quarantine 19 (7CFR §319.19, *Citrus Canker and Other Citrus Diseases*)
prohibits the importation of citrus plants or plant parts except fruit
into the United States. Quarantine 28 (7CFR §319.28, *Citrus Fruit*)
prohibits the importation of citrus fruit from Argentina. Quarantine 28
further promulgates a general prohibition against the importation of
citrus fruit from countries where citrus canker disease occurs.
Quarantine section 56 (§319.56) allows importation, under strict
mitigation measures, of citrus fruit from certain countries, *e.g.*,
Japan, where citrus canker is present.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180296 .anchor}**1.2 Previous PRAs**

APHIS previously allowed the importation of citrus from Argentina,
beginning in June 2000, based on a quantitative risk assessment (USDA,
1997). In September 2001, the authorization was successfully challenged
in court and importation was stopped.

The risk assessment completed by APHIS in 1997 was for citrus
(grapefruit, lemon, and orange), and was based on area freedom for
*Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *citri* (citrus canker). Since 2002,
Argentina's National Plant Protection Organization (SENASA) has reported
outbreaks of citrus canker in the export zone previously considered free
of the disease.

The present risk assessment is for the importation of commercially grown
and packed fresh *Citrus limon* (L.) Burm. f. (Rutaceae) fruit from
Northwest Argentina into the Continental United States. Northwest
Argentina (NOA) includes the provinces of Tucuman, Jujuy, and Catamarca.
Commercial production areas and packinghouses approved for export in
these provinces are defined by SENASA through a system of registration
that is required in Argentina for tracability
(http://www.sinavimo.gov.ar).

This assessment is independent of the previous assessment. It draws from
information in the previous assessment as a baseline for pest listing,
but it uses a different, more familiar methodology and is limited to
only lemon. The present pest risk assessment also incorporates important
new research, experience, and other evidence gained over the past ten
years. The pest list has been substantially updated based on new
information provided by SENASA or found by APHIS in the current
literature. New information and experience has also contributed to a
much better understanding of the main pest risks associated with lemons
from Argentina, including Citrus canker, Sweet orange scab, Citrus black
spot, fruit flies, and armored scales -- all pests of quarantine concern
identified in this assessment.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180297 .anchor}**2. Risk Assessment**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180298 .anchor}**2.1 Assessment of Weediness
Potential**

There is no evidence in the scientific literature that *Citrus* species
have significant potential as weeds. **Table 1** shows how weed
potential was assessed and presents the results for the *Citrus limon*.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Table 1. Weed potential of *Citrus limon* (L.) Burm f**.            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Plant Species: *Citrus limon* (L.) Burm. f. (Rutaceae) = Lemon**    |
|                                                                       |
| **Phase 1:** **Consider whether the genus is new to or not widely     |
| prevalent in the United States (exclude plants grown under USDA       |
| permit in approved containment facilities)**                          |
|                                                                       |
| ***Citrus limon* (L.) Burm. f. (lemon)** is grown in Arizona,         |
| California, and Florida (NASS, 2007a; USDA-NRCS, 2007a).              |
|                                                                       |
| **Phase 2: Weed Potential**                                           |
|                                                                       |
| > Is *Citrus* listed in:                                              |
| >                                                                     |
| > [NO]{.underline} *Geographical Atlas of World Weeds* (Ho*lm et      |
| > a*l., 1979)                                                         |
| >                                                                     |
| > [NO]{.underline} *World\'s Worst Weeds* (Ho*lm et a*l., 1977)       |
| >                                                                     |
| > [NO]{.underline} *Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate     |
| > Noxious Weeds; Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act* (Gunn and |
| > Ritchie, 1982)                                                      |
| >                                                                     |
| > [NO]{.underline} *Economically Important Foreign Weeds* (Reed,      |
| > 1977)                                                               |
| >                                                                     |
| > [NO]{.underline} Weed Science Society of America list (Weed Science |
| > Society of America, 1989)                                           |
| >                                                                     |
| > Is there any reference in the scientific literature indicating      |
| > potential weediness (*e.g.*, *AGRICOLA*, *CAB*, *Biological         |
| > Abstracts*, *AGRIS*; Internet search\")? [Yes]{.underline} Randall  |
| > (2002) listed the species with the following status:                |
| >                                                                     |
| > *C. limon*: weed, naturalized, garden escape, environmental weed,   |
| > cultivation escape, casual alien (Randall, 2002).                   |
|                                                                       |
| **Phase 3: Conclusion**                                               |
|                                                                       |
| Various species of *Citrus*, including *C. sinensis*, *C. x paradisi* |
| and *C. limon*, are grown throughout the United States. The evidence  |
| does not indicate strong tendencies for *Citrus limon* to be          |
| potentially invasive or a noxious weed.                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180299 .anchor}**2.2 Pests Associated with**
*Citrus* **spp. in Argentina**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180300 .anchor}**2.2.1 Pest Categorization --
Identification of Quarantine Pests and Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow
the Pathway**

Our procedures are based on ISPM 11 (IPPC, 2004, 2007 ). The first step
in identifying quarantine pests is to present a comprehensive list of
potential quarantine pests known to occur in the country or region from
which the commodity is to be exported. The list includes all pests in
the exporting country associated with the proposed export commodity.
Because all pests on the list are associated with the plant species,
they are considered to be "of potential economic importance" (IPPC, 2007
). The listed pests may or may not also occur in the United States.
Comprehensive pest lists are developed because of the dynamic nature of
quarantine species (for example, species move into new territories and,
on the other hand, eradication programs change their distribution).

There are two primary components to the definition of a quarantine pest
(IPPC, 2007 ). First, a pest must be "of potential economic importance"
to be included on the comprehensive list of potential quarantine pests.
An organism is considered to be of potential economic importance if
evidence demonstrates that the organism is harmful and has an
association with the plant species being assessed. Second, to be
considered a quarantine pest, an organism must satisfy geographic and
regulatory criteria, specifically, the pest must not yet be present in
the PRA area, or if present, it should be under official control (IPPC,
2007 ).

The risk assessment documents the evidence used to determine how each
organism satisfies the defining criteria for a quarantine pest.
Pertinent geographic and regulatory information with respect to the
exporting country and the United States is provided on the comprehensive
pest list. If none of the listed pests satisfy the geographic and
regulatory criteria for a quarantine pest, further assessment is not
necessary. Table 2 shows the comprehensive pest list for *Citrus limon*
from Argentina.

The pest list identifies the presence or absence of these pests in the
United States, the generally affected plant part or parts, the
quarantine status of the pest with respect to the United States, whether
the pest is likely to follow the pathway to enter the United States on
commercially exported *Citrus limon*; and pertinent citations for either
the distribution or the biology of the pest. A pest is considered to
follow the pathway if it is associated with the commodity and likely to
survive with the commodity until entry into the United States.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180301 .anchor}**2.2.2 Quarantine Pests Likely
to Follow the Pathway**

Quarantine pests identified as likely to be associated with the
potential export commodity are subject to Steps 5-7 of the USDA
Guidelines. The biology and pest potential for these pests are
documented as appropriate to inform the risk analysis; therefore, it is
reasonable to assume that these quarantine pests:

-   Will be present in the exporting country;

-   Will be associated with the commodity at the time of harvest;

-   Will remain with the commodity in viable form during harvesting,
    packing, and shipping procedures.

Because pests associated with the plant species are listed, there will
be quarantine pests not expected to follow the pathway. For example:

-   A pest may be only associated with plant parts other than commodity;

-   A pest may not be reasonably expected to remain with the commodity
    during harvest and packing.

The status of the pests listed in Table 2 assumes that the commodity
will be produced using commercial practices in the field and that
post-harvest measures will include culling, cleaning (removing foreign
matter and washing or dipping with chemical such as chlorine and/or
other disinfectants), and waxing.

Pests not expected to follow the pathway are not further considered.
Supporting information must be documented on the pest list or in the
text. The decision to not further analyze a particular pest only applies
to the current PRA; a pest may pose a different level of risk for the
same commodity from a different country, or from a different commodity
from the same host plant species. If any of the pests should be
intercepted in commodity shipments, quarantine action may be taken at
the port of entry, and additional risk analyses may be conducted.
Finally, the status of a pest may change (that is, global population
dynamics result in changes in the distribution of pests) and the current
document may need to be updated if significant changes occur in the
future. A significant change would include the appearance of a new
serious quarantine pest species in the exporting country or changes
occur in the quarantine status of an existing pest because that organism
becomes established in the United States and is deregulated.

**Table 2.** Pests Associated with *Citrus* spp. in Argentina

+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| **Pest**           | *    | *      | Quara | **F   | *             |
|                    | *Dis | *Plant | ntine | ollow | *References** |
|                    | trib | Part   | Pest  | the   |               |
|                    | u-ti | Affe   |       | Path  |               |
|                    | on** | cted** |       | way** |               |
+====================+======+========+=======+=======+===============+
| **Arthropods**     |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| **Acari**          |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Eriophyidae        |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Aceria sheldoni*  | AR,  | Buds,  | Yes   | N     | CABI, 2006a;  |
| (Ewing) \[=        | US   | fruit  |       | o[^1] | Jepps*on et   |
| *Eriophyes         | (CA, |        |       |       | a*l., 1975    |
| sheldoni*          | FL,  |        |       |       |               |
| (Ewing)\]          | HI)  |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Phyllocoptruta    | AR,  | L      | No    | No^1^ | Chiesa        |
| oleivora*          | US   | eaves, |       |       | Molinari,     |
| (Ashmead)          |      | fruit, |       |       | 1948;         |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       | Ebeling,      |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1959;         |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Jepps*on et   |
|                    |      |        |       |       | a*l., 1975    |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Tarsonemidae       |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *P                 | AR,  | Fl     | No    | No^1^ | CABI, 2006a   |
| olyphagotarsonemus | US   | owers, |       |       |               |
| latus*             |      | l      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
| (Banks)            |      | fruit, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | s      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Tenuipalpidae      |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Brevipalpus       | AR,  | L      | No    | No^1^ | CABI, 2006a;  |
| obovatus*          | US   | eaves, |       |       | Chiesa        |
| (Donnadieu) \[=    |      | fruit, |       |       | Molinari,     |
| *Tenuipalpus       |      | stems  |       |       | 1948;         |
| pseudocuneatus*\]  |      |        |       |       | Jepps*on et   |
|                    |      |        |       |       | a*l., 1975    |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Brevipalpus       | AR,  | L      | No    | No^1^ | CABI, 2006a   |
| phoenicis*         | US   | eaves, |       |       |               |
| (Geijskes)         |      | stems, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Tetranychidae      |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Eutetranychus     | AR,  | Leaves | No    | No^1^ | Jepps*on et   |
| banksi* (McGregor) | US   |        |       |       | a*l., 1975;   |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Migeon and    |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Dorkeld, 2007 |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Panonychus citri* | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | No^1^ | CABI, 2006a   |
| (McGregor)         | US   | l      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | s      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Panonychus ulmi   | AR,  | Leaves | No    | No^1^ | CABI, 2006a   |
| (*Koch)            | US   |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Tetranychus       | AR,  | Leaves | No    | No^1^ | CABI, 2006a   |
| urticae* (Koch)    | US   |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| **Insecta**        |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| [Coleo             |      |        |       |       |               |
| ptera]{.smallcaps} |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Anthribidae        |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Araecerus         | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a   |
| fasciculatus*      | US   | roots, |       |       |               |
| (DeGeer)           |      | seeds, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Cerambycidae       |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Ancylocera        | AR   | Wood   | No    | No    | Duffy, 1960;  |
| cardinalis*        |      | borer  |       |       | Harvard, 2006 |
| (Dalman)           |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Macropophora      | AR   | Wood   | Yes   | No    | Chiesa        |
| accentifer*        |      | borer  |       |       | Molinari,     |
| (Olivier)          |      |        |       |       | 1948; Duffy,  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1960          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Rhopalophora      | AR   | Wood   | Yes   | No    | Chiesa        |
| collaris* (Germar) |      | borer  |       |       | Molinari,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1948; Duffy,  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1960          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Stenodontes       | AR   | Wood   | Yes   | No    | Carrasco,     |
| spinibarbis* (L.)  |      | borer  |       |       | 1978; Chiesa  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Molinari,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1948; Duffy,  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1960          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Chrysomelidae      |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Diabrotica        | AR   | Fl     | Yes   | No    | Chiesa        |
| marginata*         |      | owers, |       |       | Molinari,     |
| (Harold)           |      |        |       |       | 1948          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Diabrotica        | AR   | F      | Yes   | No    | Chiesa        |
| significata*       |      | lowers |       |       | Molinari,     |
| (Jacoby)           |      |        |       |       | 1948          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Diabrotica        | AR   | L      | Yes   | N     | CABI, 2006a;  |
| speciosa* (Germar) |      | eaves, |       | o[^2] | Chiesa        |
|                    |      | fl     |       |       | Molinari,     |
|                    |      | owers, |       |       | 1948          |
|                    |      | fruit, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | roots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | s      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | vege   |       |       |               |
|                    |      | tative |       |       |               |
|                    |      | o      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | rgans, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Trachyderes       | AR   | Wood   | Yes   | No    | Duffy, 1960   |
| striatus* (F.)     |      | borer  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Trachyderes       | AR   | Wood   | Yes   | No    | Duffy, 1960;  |
| succinctus* (L.)   |      | borer  |       |       | Kliejun*as et |
|                    |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2001    |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Trachyderes       | AR   | Wood   | Yes   | No    | Duffy, 1960;  |
| thoracicus*        |      | borer  |       |       | Kliejun*as et |
| (Olivier)          |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2001    |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Curculionidae      |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Brachystylodes    | AR   | Leaves | Yes   | No    | Costilla,     |
| pilosus*           |      |        |       |       | 1994          |
| (Hustache)         |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Naupactus         | AR   | L      | Yes   | No^2^ | Bosq, 1934;   |
| xanthographus*     |      | eaves, |       |       | Whitehead and |
| (Germar)           |      | fruit, |       |       | Whittle, 1985 |
|                    |      | roots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | shoots |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Pantomorus        | AR,  | L      | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| cervinus*          | US   | eaves, |       |       | Metcalf and   |
| (Boheman)          |      | roots, |       |       | Metcalf,      |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       | 1993; Wibmer  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | and O\'Brien, |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1986          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Rhynchophorus     | AR   | Fruit, | Yes   | No^2^ | CABI, 2006a   |
| palmarum*          |      | fl     |       |       |               |
| (Linnaeus)         |      | owers, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | l      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | s      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Platypodidae       |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Platypus          | AR   | Wood   | Yes   | No    | Chiesa        |
| sulcatus* (Dejean) |      | borer  |       |       | Molinari,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1948;         |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Costilla and  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Venditti,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1992          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Platypus          | AR   | Wood   | Yes   | No    | Chiesa        |
| wesmaeli*          |      | borer  |       |       | Molinari,     |
| (Chapuis)          |      |        |       |       | 1948          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Scarabaeidae       |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Macrodactylus     | AR   | Fl     | Yes   | No    | Blackwelder,  |
| pumilio*           |      | owers, |       |       | 1945;         |
| (Burmeister)       |      | roots  |       |       | Mariconi and  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Zamith, 1962; |
|                    |      |        |       |       | P             |
|                    |      |        |       |       | ardo-Locar*no |
|                    |      |        |       |       | et a*l.,      |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 2005;         |
|                    |      |        |       |       | USDA-ARS,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 2007          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Scolytidae         |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Xyleborus         | AR,  | Wood   | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a   |
| volvulus*          | US   | borer  |       |       |               |
| [(]                |      |        |       |       |               |
| {.smallcaps}Fabric |      |        |       |       |               |
| ius[)]{.smallcaps} |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| [Di                |      |        |       |       |               |
| ptera]{.smallcaps} |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Muscidae           |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Atherigona        | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a   |
| orientalis*        | US   | l      |       |       |               |
| (Schiner)          |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | s      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | roots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | vege   |       |       |               |
|                    |      | tative |       |       |               |
|                    |      | o      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | rgans, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Tephritidae        |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Anastrepha        | AR   | Fruit  | Yes   | N     | Norrbom and   |
| alveatoides*       |      |        |       | o[^4] | Kim, 1988;    |
| (Blanchard) [^3]   |      |        |       |       | Oro*ño et     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2006    |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Anastrepha        | AR   | Fruit  | Yes   | No^4^ | CABI, 2006a;  |
| chiclayae*         |      |        |       |       | Norrbom and   |
| (Greene)^3^        |      |        |       |       | Kim, 1988     |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Anastrepha        | AR   | Fruit  | Yes   | No^4^ | Norrbom and   |
| daciformis*        |      |        |       |       | Kim, 1988;    |
| (Bezzi)^3^         |      |        |       |       | Oro*ño et     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2006    |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Anastrepha        | AR,  | Fruit  | Yes   | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| fraterculus*       | US   |        |       |       | Jir*ón et     |
| (Wiedemann)[^5]    | (TX) |        |       |       | a*l., 1988;   |
|                    | [^6] |        |       |       | Norrbom and   |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Kim, 1988;    |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Rizzo, 1977;  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Rosillo and   |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Portillo,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1971          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Anastrepha        | AR   | Fruit  | Yes   | No^4^ | CABI, 2006a;  |
| grandis*           |      |        |       |       | Norrbom, 2004 |
| (Macquart) [^7]    |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Anastrepha        | AR   | Fruit  | Yes   | N     | CABI, 2006a;  |
| obliqua*           |      |        |       | o[^8] | Norrbom and   |
| (Macquart)         |      |        |       |       | Kim, 1988     |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Anastrepha        | AR   | Fruit  | Yes   | No^4^ | Norrbom and   |
| punctata* (Hendel) |      |        |       |       | Kim, 1988     |
| ^3^                |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Anastrepha        | AR   | Fruit  | Yes   | No^4^ | Norrbom and   |
| rosilloi*          |      |        |       |       | Kim, 1988     |
| (Blanchard) ^3^    |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Anastrepha        | AR   | Fruit  | Yes   | No^4^ | Norrbom and   |
| schultzi*          |      |        |       |       | Kim, 1988;    |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Oro*ño et     |
| (Blanchard) ^3^    |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2006    |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Anastrepha        | AR   | Fruit  | Yes   | No^8^ | CABI, 2006a   |
| serpentina*        |      |        |       |       |               |
| (Wiedemann)        |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Ceratitis         | AR,  | Fruit  | Yes   | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| capitata*          | US   |        |       |       | Rizzo, 1977;  |
| (Wiedemann)^5^     |      |        |       |       | Rosillo and   |
|                    | (HI) |        |       |       | Portillo,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1971          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Tomoplagia        | AR   | Fruit  | Yes   | N     | Aczél, 1955   |
| costalimai*        |      |        |       | o[^9] |               |
| (Wiedemann)        |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Tomoplagia        | AR   | Fruit  | Yes   | No    | Aczél, 1955   |
| phaedra*           |      |        |       | [^10] |               |
| (Wiedemann)        |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| [Hetero            |      |        |       |       |               |
| ptera]{.smallcaps} |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Coreidae           |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Athaumastus       | AR   | Frui   | Yes   | No    | Chiesa        |
| haematicus* (Stal) |      | t[^11] |       | [^12] | Molinari,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1948          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Hypselonotus      | AR   | Fru    | Yes   | N     | Chiesa        |
| interruptus*       |      | it^11^ |       | o^12^ | Molinari,     |
| (Hahn)             |      |        |       |       | 1948          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Sphictyrtus       | AR   | Shoots | Yes   | No    | Chiesa        |
| fasciatus*         |      | (buds) |       |       | Molinari,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1948          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Lygaeidae          |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Oncopeltus stali* | AR   | Buds   | No    | No    | Chiesa        |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Molinari,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1948          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Pentatomidae       |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Edessa            | AR   | Fl     | Yes   | N     | CABI, 2006a;  |
| meditabunda* (F.)  |      | owers, |       | o^12^ | Chiesa        |
|                    |      | l      |       |       | Molinari,     |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       | 1948          |
|                    |      | stems, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | fruit, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | seeds  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Edessa            | AR   | Fruit, | Yes   | N     | Chiesa        |
| pictiventris*      |      | seeds  |       | o^12^ | Molinari,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1948;         |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Panizzi, 1997 |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Edessa polita*    | AR   | Fruit, | Yes   | N     | Chiesa        |
|                    |      | seeds  |       | o^12^ | Molinari,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1948;         |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Panizzi, 1997 |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Edessa            | AR   | Fruit, | Yes   | N     | Chiesa        |
| quadridens*        |      | seeds  |       | o^12^ | Molinari,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1948;         |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Panizzi, 1997 |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Nezara viridula*  | AR,  | L      | No    | N     | CABI, 2006a;  |
| (L.)               | US   | eaves, |       | o^12^ | Chiesa        |
|                    |      | fl     |       |       | Molinari,     |
|                    |      | owers, |       |       | 1948; Henry   |
|                    |      | fruit, |       |       | and           |
|                    |      | seeds, |       |       | Froeschner,   |
|                    |      | s      |       |       | 1988          |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Piesmatidae        |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Piesma cinereum*  | AR,  | Buds,  | No    | No    | Chiesa        |
| (Say)              | US   | l      |       |       | Molinari,     |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       | 1948; Henry   |
|                    |      | seeds, |       |       | and           |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       | Froeschner,   |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1988;         |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Mitchell,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 2004          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| [Homo              |      |        |       |       |               |
| ptera]{.smallcaps} |      |        |       |       |               |
|                    |      |        |       |       |               |
| Aleyrodidae        |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Aleurothrixus     | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | N     | CABI, 2006a;  |
| howardi*           | US   | fl     |       | o^12^ | Chiesa        |
| (Quaintance)       | (CA, | owers, |       |       | Molinari,     |
|                    | FL,  | l      |       |       | 1948;         |
| =*Aleurothrixus    | HI,  | eaves, |       |       | Metca*lf et   |
| floccosus*         | TX,  | stems  |       |       | a*l., 1962;   |
| (Maskell)          | U    |        |       |       | Metcalf and   |
|                    | SVI) |        |       |       | Metcalf,      |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1993; Mound   |
|                    |      |        |       |       | and Halsey,   |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1978; Rizzo,  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1977          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Aleurocathus      | AR,  | L      | Yes   | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| woglumi* (Ashby)   | US   | eaves, |       |       | Mill*er et    |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Bemisia tabci*    | AR,  | Leaves | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| (Gennadius)        | US   |        | [^13] |       | HYPPZ, 1998   |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Dialeurodes       | AR,  | Fruit  | No    | N     | CABI, 2006a   |
| citri* (Ashmead)   | US   | fl     |       | o^12^ |               |
|                    |      | owers, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | l      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Dialeurodes       | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | N     | CABI, 2006a   |
| citrifolii*        | US   | fl     |       | o^12^ |               |
| (Morgan)           |      | owers, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | l      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Aphididae          |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Aphis craccivora* | AR,  | L      | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a   |
| (Koch)             | US   | eaves, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | l      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Aphis fabae*      | AR,  | F      | No    | N     | CABI, 2006a   |
| (Scopoli)          | US   | lower, |       | o^12^ |               |
|                    |      | fo     |       |       |               |
|                    |      | liage, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | s      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Aphis gossypii*   | AR,  | Fl     | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| (Glover)           | US   | owers, |       |       | Metcalf and   |
|                    |      | l      |       |       | Metcalf,      |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       | 1993; Palmer, |
|                    |      | stems, |       |       | 1952; Rizzo,  |
|                    |      | s      |       |       | 1977          |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Aphis spiraecola* | AR,  | L      | No    | N     | CABI, 2006a   |
| (Patch)            | US   | eaves, |       | o^14^ |               |
|                    |      | fruit, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | fl     |       |       |               |
|                    |      | owers, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | l      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | s      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Brachycaudus      | AR,  | L      | No    | N     | CABI, 2006a   |
| helichrysi*        | US   | eaves, |       | o^14^ |               |
| (Kaltenbach)       |      | fruit, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | s      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Macrosiphum       | AR,  | L      | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| euphorbiae*        | US   | eaves, |       |       | Metca*lf et   |
| (Thomas)           |      | stems  |       |       | a*l., 1962;   |
| \[*=Macrosiphum    |      |        |       |       | Metcalf and   |
| solanifolii*\]     |      |        |       |       | Metcalf,      |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1993; Palmer, |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1952; Rizzo,  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1977          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Macrosiphum gei*  | AR,  | Leaves | No    | No    | Chiesa        |
| (Koch)             | US   |        |       |       | Molinari,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1948; Palmer, |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1952          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Myzus persicae*   | AR,  | Fl     | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| (Sulzer)           | US   | owers, |       | [^14] | Chiesa        |
|                    |      | l      |       |       | Molinari,     |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       | 1948; Palmer, |
|                    |      | s      |       |       | 1952          |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Rhopalosiphum     | AR,  | Fo     | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a   |
| maidis* (Fitch)    | US   | liage, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | s      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Toxoptera         | AR,  | Fl     | Yes   | N     | Blackman and  |
| citricidus*        | US   | owers, |       | o^14^ | Eastop, 1994; |
| (Kirkaldy)         |      | l      |       |       | Bro*wn et     |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       | a*l., 1988;   |
|                    |      | fruit, |       |       | CABI, 2006a;  |
|                    |      | s      |       |       | Cave, 1994;   |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       | EPPO/CABI,    |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       | 1997g; Rizzo, |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1977          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Cicadellidae       |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Empoasca* spp.    | AR,  | Leaves | Yes   | No    | CABI, 2006a   |
|                    | US   |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Coccidae           |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Ceroplastes       | AR   | Stems  | Yes   | No    | Chiesa        |
| grandis* (Hempel)  |      |        |       |       | Molinari,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1948; Rizzo,  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1977          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Ceroplastes       | AR,  | L      | Yes   | No    | Avidov and    |
| rusci* (L.)        | US   | eaves, |       |       | Harpaz, 1969; |
|                    |      | s      |       |       | Hamon and     |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       | Mason, 2001   |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Ceroplastes       | AR,  | L      | Yes   | No    | Ebeling,      |
| sinensis* (Del     | US   | eaves, |       |       | 1959; Hamon   |
| Guercio)           |      |        |       |       | and Williams, |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       | 1984;         |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Kosztarab,    |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1996; Rizzo,  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1977          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Coccus            | AR,  | L      | No    | No    | Ebeling,      |
| hesperidium* (L.)  | US   | eaves, |       |       | 1959; Hamon   |
| \[= *Lecanium      |      | stems  |       |       | and Williams, |
| hesperidum*\]      |      |        |       |       | 1984; Rizzo,  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1977          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Eulecanium        | AR   | Stems  | Yes   | No    | Chiesa        |
| perinflatum*       |      |        |       |       | Molinari,     |
| (Cockerell)        |      |        |       |       | 1948;         |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Panizzi, 1997 |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Melanaspis        | AR   | L      | Yes   | No    | Chiesa        |
| paulista* (Hempel) |      | eaves, |       |       | Molinari,     |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       | 1948; Foldi,  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 2001          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Parasaissetia     | AR,  | Fo     | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a   |
| nigra* (Nietner)   | US   | liage, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stem   |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Parthenolecanium  | AR,  | Fo     | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a   |
| corni* (Bouche)    | US   | liage, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | s      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Parthenolecanium  | AR   | Leaves | Yes   | No    | Ben-D*ov et   |
| perlatum*          |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| (Cockerell) \[=    |      |        |       |       | CABI, 2006a;  |
| *Lecanium deltae*  |      |        |       |       | Chiesa        |
| (Lizer y Trelles); |      |        |       |       | Molinari,     |
| *Mesolecanium      |      |        |       |       | 1948; Granara |
| deltae* (Lizzy y   |      |        |       |       | de Willink,   |
| Trelles)*; Coccus  |      |        |       |       | 1983; Rizzo,  |
| perlatus*          |      |        |       |       | 1977          |
| (Fernald)\]        |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Parthenolecanium  | AR,  | L      | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a   |
| persicae*          | US   | eaves, |       |       |               |
| (Nietner)          |      | stems  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Pulvinaria        | AR   | Leaves | Yes   | No    | Ben-D*ov et   |
| flavescens*        |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| (Brethes)          |      |        |       |       | Chiesa        |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Molinari,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1948; Granara |
|                    |      |        |       |       | de Willink,   |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1983; Rizzo,  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1977          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Saissetia         | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| coffeae* (Walker)  | US   | l      |       |       | Chiesa        |
| \[= *Saissetia     |      | eaves, |       |       | Molinari,     |
| hemisphaerica*\]   |      | stems  |       |       | 1948; Hamon   |
|                    |      |        |       |       | and Williams, |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1984; Rizzo,  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1977          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Saissetia         | AR,  | Fo     | No    | No    | Ben-D*ov et   |
| neglecta* DeLotto  | US   | liage, |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       | USDA-ARS-SEL, |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 2006          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Saissetia oleae*  | AR,  | Leaves | No    | No    | Chiesa        |
| (Bernard)          | US   |        |       |       | Molinari,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1948; Hamon   |
|                    |      |        |       |       | and Williams, |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1984; Rizzo,  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1977          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Diaspididae        |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Acutaspis         | AR,  | Leaves | Yes   | No    | Chiesa        |
| scutiformis*       | US   |        |       |       | Molinari,     |
| (Cockerell)        |      |        |       |       | 1948;         |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Nakahara,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1982          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Aonidiella        | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | Burger and    |
| auranti* (Maskell) | US   | l      |       |       | Ulenberg,     |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       | 1990;         |
|                    |      | stems, |       |       | Metca*lf et   |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       | a*l., 1962;   |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       | Metcalf and   |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Metcalf,      |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1993; Rizzo,  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1977          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Aonidiella        | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a   |
| citrina* (Craw)    | US   | l      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Aspidiotus nerii* | AR,  | Stems, | No    | Yes   | Chiesa        |
| (Bouché) \[=       | US   | l      |       |       | Molinari,     |
| *Aspidiotus        |      | eaves, |       |       | 1948;         |
| hederae*\]         |      | fruit  |       |       | Kosztarab,    |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1996;         |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Nakahara,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1982; Rizzo,  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1977          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Chrysomphalus     | AR,  | L      | No    | Yes   | Kosztarab,    |
| aonidum* (L.) \[=  | US   | eaves, |       |       | 1996;         |
| *Chrysomphalus     |      | fruit, |       |       | Nakahara,     |
| ficus*\]           |      | stems  |       |       | 1982; Pratt,  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1983; Rizzo,  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1977          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Chrysomphalus     | AR,  | Bra    | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| dictyospermi*      | US   | nches, |       |       | Nakahara,     |
| (Morgan)           |      | l      |       |       | 1982; Pratt,  |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       | 1983          |
|                    |      | fruit  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Chrysomphalus     | AR   | F      | Yes   | No    | Ben-D*ov et   |
| pinnulifer*        |      | oliage |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| (Maskell)          |      |        |       |       | Watson,       |
|                    |      |        |       |       | undated c     |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Hemiberlesia      | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a   |
| lataniae*          | US   | l      |       |       |               |
| (Signoret)         |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Hemiberlesia      | AR,  | L      | No    | No    | Chiesa        |
| rapax* (Comstock)  | US   | eaves, |       |       | Molinari,     |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       | 1948;         |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Kosztarab,    |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1996;         |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Nakahara,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1982          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Lecanodiaspis     | AR   | Stems  | Yes   | No    | Chiesa        |
| dendrobii*         |      |        |       |       | Molinari,     |
| (Douglas)          |      |        |       |       | 1948          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Lepidosaphes      | AR,  | Bra    | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| beckii* (Newman)   | US   | nches, |       |       | Dekle, 1976;  |
| \[= *Mytilococcus  |      | l      |       |       | Nakahara,     |
| beckii*\]          |      | eaves, |       |       | 1982          |
|                    |      | fruit  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Lepidosaphes      | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a   |
| gloverii*          | US   | l      |       |       |               |
| (Packard)          |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Parlatoria        | AR   | L      | Yes   | Yes   | Avidov and    |
| cinerea*           |      | eaves, |       |       | Harpaz, 1969; |
| (Hadden)[^15]      |      | fruit, |       |       | Miller, 1985; |
|                    |      | roots, |       |       | Watson,       |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       | undated b     |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Parlatoria        | AR,  | Bark,  | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| pergandii*         | US   | l      |       |       | Dekle, 1976;  |
| (Comstock)         |      | eaves, |       |       | Miller, 1985; |
| \[=*Parlatoria     |      | fruit, |       |       | Nakahara,     |
| pergandei*\]       |      | shoot, |       |       | 1982; Rizzo,  |
|                    |      | stem,  |       |       | 1977          |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Parlatoria        | AR,  | Fruit, | \[    | Yes   | Blackburn and |
| ziziphi*           | US   | stems  | Yes\] |       | Miller, 1984; |
| (Lucas)[^16]       |      |        | [^17] |       | CABI, 2006a;  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Miller, 1985  |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Pinnaspis         | AR,  | L      | No    | Yes   | Chiesa        |
| aspidistrae*       | US   | eaves, |       |       | Molinari,     |
| (Signoret)         |      | fruit, |       |       | 1948; Dekle,  |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       | 1976;         |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Nakahara,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1982; Rizzo,  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1977          |
|                    |      |        |       |       | []{.mark}     |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Pseudaonidia      | AR,  | F      | Yes   | No    | Ben-D*ov et   |
| trilobitiformis*   | US   | oliage |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| (Green)            |      |        |       |       | CABI, 2006a;  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | ZipcodeZoo,   |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 2007b         |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Quadraspidiotus   | AR,  | L      | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| perniciosus*       | US   | eaves, |       |       | Dekle, 1976;  |
| (Comstock) \[=     |      | fruit, |       |       | Nakahara,     |
| *Diaspidiotus      |      | stems, |       |       | 1982          |
| perniciosus*\]     |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Unaspis citri*    | AR,  | L      | No    | Yes   | CIE,          |
| (Comstock)         | US   | eaves, |       |       | 1962;Dekle,   |
|                    | (CA, | fruit, |       |       | 1976;         |
|                    | FL   | stems  |       |       | Nakahara,     |
|                    | LA)  |        |       |       | 1982; Rizzo,  |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1977          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Margarodidae       |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Icerya purchasi*  | AR,  | L      | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| (Maskell) \[=      | US   | eaves, |       |       | Chiesa        |
| *Pericerya         |      | s      |       |       | Molinari,     |
| purchasi*\]        |      | hoots, |       |       | 1948; Gill,   |
|                    |      | stems, |       |       | 1993; Pratt,  |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       | 1983; Rizzo,  |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       | 1977          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Psyllidae          |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Diaphorina citri* | AR,  | L      | Yes   | No    | Bové, 2006;   |
| (Kuwayama)         | US   | eaves, |       | [^18] | CABI, 2006a;  |
|                    |      | fruit, |       |       | Halbert and   |
|                    |      | s      |       |       | Nuñez, 2004   |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Ortheziidae        |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Orthezia          | AR,  | Fl     | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| insignis* (Browne) | US   | owers, |       |       | Chiesa        |
|                    | (FL) | l      |       |       | Molinari,     |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       | 1948;         |
|                    |      | s      |       |       | Morrison,     |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       | 1952          |
|                    |      | stems, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Orthezia          | AR   | L      | Yes   | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| praelonga*         |      | eaves, |       |       | Chiesa        |
| (Douglas)          |      | stems  |       |       | Molinari,     |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 1948; Le*ao   |
|                    |      |        |       |       | et a*l., 2006 |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Pseudococcidae     |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Dysmicoccus       | AR,  | L      | No    | N     | CABI, 2006a   |
| brevipes*          | US   | eaves, |       | o^18^ |               |
| (Cockerell)        |      | fruit, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | roots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | s      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Ferrisia virgata* | AR,  | L      | No    | N     | CABI, 2006a   |
| (Cockerell)        | US   | eaves, |       | o^18^ |               |
|                    |      | fruit, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | s      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Nipaecoccus       | AR,  | L      | No    | N     | CABI, 2006a   |
| nipae* (Maskell)   | US   | eaves, |       | o^18^ |               |
|                    |      | fruit, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | l      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | s      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Phenacoccus       | AR   | L      | Yes   | No    | CABI, 2006a   |
| manihoti*          |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
| (Matile-Ferrero)   |      | roots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | s      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Phenacoccus       | AR   | Leaves | Yes   | No    | Cul*ik et     |
| tucumanus*         |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2006;   |
| (Granara de        |      |        |       |       | Williams and  |
| Willink)           |      |        |       |       | Granara de    |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Willink, 1992 |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Planococcus       | AR,  | L      | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| citri* (Risso)     | US   | eaves, |       | [^19] | McKenzie,     |
|                    |      | roots, |       |       | 1967; Metcalf |
|                    |      | fruit, |       |       | and Metcalf,  |
|                    |      | s      |       |       | 1993; Rizzo,  |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       | 1977          |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Planococcus       | AR   | Fo     | Yes   | N     | CABI, 2006a;  |
| minor* (Maskell)   |      | liage, |       | o^19^ | IPM Thailand, |
|                    |      | fruit, |       |       | 2003;         |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       | ZipcodeZoo,   |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 2007a         |
|                    |      |        |       |       | []{.mark}     |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Pseudococcus      | AR,  | L      | No    | N     | CABI, 2006a;  |
| comstocki*         | US   | eaves, |       | o^19^ | Kosztarab,    |
| (Kuwana)           |      | fruit, |       |       | 1996          |
|                    |      | stems, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Pseudococcus      | AR,  | L      | Yes   | No    | Ben-Dov,      |
| cryptus* (Hempel)  | US   | eaves, |       |       | 1994; Lit     |
|                    | (HI, | roots, |       |       | Jr., 1992     |
|                    | VI)  | stems  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Pseudococcus      | AR,  | Fl     | No    | N     | CABI, 2006a;  |
| longispinus*       | US   | owers, |       | o^19^ | Kosztarab,    |
| (                  |      | l      |       |       | 1996          |
| Targioni-Tozzetti) |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | fruit, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems, |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| [Hymeno            |      |        |       |       |               |
| ptera]{.smallcaps} |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Eucharitidae       |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Orasema* sp.      | AR,  | Fl     | No    | Yes   | Carey, 2000;  |
|                    | US   | owers, |       |       | Chiesa        |
|                    |      | l      |       |       | Molinari,     |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       | 1948          |
|                    |      | fruit, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Formicidae         |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Acromyrmex* sp.   | AR,  | L      | Yes   | N     | CABI, 2006a   |
|                    | US   | eaves, |       | o^19^ |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Atta cephalotes*  | AR,  | L      | Yes   | N     | CABI, 2006a   |
| (Ewing)            | US   | eaves, |       | o^19^ |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Atta sexdens*     | AR,  | L      | Yes   | N     | CABI, 2006a   |
| (L.)               | US   | eaves, |       | o^19^ |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Atta* sp.         | AR,  | L      | Yes   | N     | CABI, 2006a   |
|                    | US   | eaves, |       | o^19^ |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Linepithema       | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | N     | CABI, 2006a;  |
| humile* (Mayr) \[= | US   | s      |       | o^19^ | Krushelnycky, |
| *Iridomyrmez       |      | hoots, |       |       | 2004; Rizzo,  |
| humilis*\]         |      | stems  |       |       | 1977          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Solenopsis        | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | N     | CABI, 2006a   |
| invicta* (Buren)   | US   | l      | [^20] | o^19^ |               |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | roots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | seeds, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | vege   |       |       |               |
|                    |      | tative |       |       |               |
|                    |      | o      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | rgans, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| [ISO               |      |        |       |       |               |
| PTERA]{.smallcaps} |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Termitidae         |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Nasutitermes      | AR   | Stems  | Yes   | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| costalis* Holmgren |      |        |       |       | Scheffra*hn   |
|                    |      |        |       |       | et a*l.,      |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 2002;         |
|                    |      |        |       |       | Scheffra*hn   |
|                    |      |        |       |       | et a*l., 2005 |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| [Lepido            |      |        |       |       |               |
| ptera]{.smallcaps} |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Gacillariidae      |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Phyllocnistis     | AR,  | Leaves | Yes   | No    | CABI, 2006a   |
| citrella*          | US   |        |       |       |               |
| (Stainton)         |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Limacodidae        |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Sibine            | AR   | Leaves | Yes   | No    | Chiesa        |
| trimaculata*       |      |        |       |       | Molinari,     |
| (Sepp)             |      |        |       |       | 1948          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Noctuidae          |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Agrotis ipsilon*  | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a   |
| (Hufnagel)         | US   | l      |       | [^21] |               |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Helicoverpa zea*  | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a   |
| (Boddie)           | US   | fl     |       |       |               |
|                    |      | owers, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | l      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | seeds, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | shoots |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Peridroma saucia* | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a   |
| (Hübner)           | US   | fl     |       | [^22] |               |
|                    |      | owers, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | l      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | seeds, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | s      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Spodoptera        | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | N     | CABI, 2006a   |
| eridania* (Stoll)  | US   | leaves |       | o^22^ |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Spodoptera        | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | N     | CABI, 2006a   |
| frugiperda*        | US   | fl     |       | o^22^ |               |
| (Smith)            |      | owers, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | l      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | s      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | hoots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Trichoplusia ni*  | AR,  | L      | No    | N     | CABI, 2006a   |
| (Hübner)           | US   | eaves, |       | o^22^ |               |
|                    |      | whole  |       |       |               |
|                    |      | plant  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Papilionidae       |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Papilio           | AR   | Leaves | Yes   | No    | Chiesa        |
| anchisiades capys* |      |        |       |       | Molinari,     |
| (Hubner)           |      |        |       |       | 1948          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Papilio thoas     | AR   | Leaves | Yes   | No    | Chiesa        |
| brasiliensis* (R.& |      |        |       |       | Molinari,     |
| J.)                |      |        |       |       | 1948          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Papilio thoas     | AR   | Leaves | Yes   | No    | Chiesa        |
| thoantiades*       |      |        |       |       | Molinari,     |
| (Burmeister)       |      |        |       |       | 1948          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| [Thysano           |      |        |       |       |               |
| ptera]{.smallcaps} |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Thripidae          |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Thrips palmi*     | AR,  | Fo     | Yes   | N     | Breithaupt,   |
| Karny              | US   | liage, |       | o^22^ | 2002; CABI,   |
|                    |      | fruit, |       |       | 2006a         |
|                    |      | shoots |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
|                    |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| **Algae**          |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Cephaleuros       | AR,  | L      | No    | No    | Wellman, 1977 |
| virescens* (Kunze) | US   | eaves, |       | [^23] |               |
| \                  |      | fruit, |       |       |               |
| [Trentepohliacae\] |      | twigs  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| **Fungi**          |      |        | []{.  | []{.  | []{.mark}     |
|                    |      |        | mark} | mark} |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Alternaria      | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| alternata***       | US   | leave, |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| (Keissl)           |      | stems, |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      | seeds  |       |       | Timmer and    |
| Pleosporales\]     |      |        |       |       | Chung, 2007a  |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Alternaria      | AR,  | L      | No    | Yes   | Fa*rr et      |
| citri*** (Ellis &  | US   | eaves, |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| Pierce)            |      | fruit, |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      | twigs  |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
| Pleosporales\]     |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Aspergillus     | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| niger*** (Tiegh)   | US   |        |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| Eurotiales\]       |      |        |       |       | Timm*er et    |
|                    |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Athelia         | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a   |
| rolfsii*** (Curzi) | US   | fl     |       |       |               |
| Tu & Kimbr.        |      | owers, |       |       |               |
| \[=*Corticium      |      | l      |       |       |               |
| rolfsii*\]         |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
| \[Anamorph:        |      | stems, |       |       |               |
| *Scerotium         |      | roots, |       |       |               |
| rolfsii* (Sacc.)\] |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[Basidiomycetes:  |      |        |       |       |               |
| Polyporales\]      |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Bionectria      | AR,  | twigs  | No    | No    | Fa*rr et      |
| ochroleuca***      | US   |        |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| (Schwein) Schroers |      |        |       |       | Wellman, 1977 |
| & Samuels          |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[=*Nectria        |      |        |       |       |               |
| ochroleuca*\]      |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[Anamorph:        |      |        |       |       |               |
| *Clonostachys      |      |        |       |       |               |
| rosea f. rosea*    |      |        |       |       |               |
| (Link: Fr.)        |      |        |       |       |               |
| Schroers et al.\]  |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       |               |
| Hypocreales\]      |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Botrytis cinerea* | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| (Pers. Fr.)        | US   | fl     |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| \[Anamorph*:       |      | owers, |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| **Botryotinia      |      | l      |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| fuckeliana*** (de  |      | eaves, |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
| Bary) Whetzel\]    |      | twigs  |       |       |               |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       |               |
| Helotiales\]       |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Capnodium       | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | N     | Fa*rr et      |
| citri*** (Mont.)   | US   | leaves |       | o^23^ | a*l., 2007;   |
| \[Ascomycetes,     |      |        |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| Capnodiales\]      |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Colletotrichum  | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| acutatum***        | US   | fl     |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| (Simmonds ex       |      | owers, |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| Simmonds)          |      | leaves |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
| Phyllachorales\]   |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Diaporthe       | AR,  | L      | No    | Yes   | Fa*rr et      |
| citri*** (F. A.    | US   | eaves, |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| Wolf) \[Anamorph:  |      | fruit  |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| *Phomopsis citri*  |      | twigs  |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
| H. Fawc.\]         |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       |               |
| Diaporthales\]     |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Elsinoë         | AR   | L      | Yes   | Yes   | Fa*rr et      |
| australis***       |      | eaves, |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| (Bitancourt &      |      | fruit, |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| Jenk). \[Anamorph: |      | twigs  |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
| *Sphaceloma        |      |        |       |       |               |
| australis*         |      |        |       |       |               |
| Bitancourt &       |      |        |       |       |               |
| Jenk.\]            |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       |               |
| M                  |      |        |       |       |               |
| yriangiales\][^24] |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Elsinoë         | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CMI, 1974;    |
| fawcettii***       | US   | l      |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| (Bitancourt &      |      | eaves, |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| Jenk.) \[Anamorph: |      | twigs  |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| *Sphaceloma        |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
| fawcettii var.     |      |        |       |       |               |
| fawcettii*         |      |        |       |       |               |
| Jenkins\]          |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       |               |
| Myriangiales\]     |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Fusarium        | AR,  | Roots, | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| oxysporum***       | US   | stems  |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| (Schlechtendahl)   |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| f. Sp. citri       |      |        |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
| Hypocreales\]      |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Galactomyces      | AR,  | Fruit  | No    | Yes   | Fa*rr et      |
| geotrichum* (E. E. | US   |        |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| Butler & L. J.     |      |        |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| Petersen) Redhead  |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
| & Malloch          |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[***Geotrichum    |      |        |       |       |               |
| candidum* var.     |      |        |       |       |               |
| *Citri-aurantii    |      |        |       |       |               |
| (*Ferraris) Cif.   |      |        |       |       |               |
| &F. Cif**\]        |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[Saccharomycetes: |      |        |       |       |               |
| S                  |      |        |       |       |               |
| accharomycetales\] |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Ganoderma       | AR,  | Roots, | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| lucidum***         | US   | stems  |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| (Curtis) P. Karst. |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| \[Basidiomycetes:  |      |        |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| Polyporales\]      |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Glomerella      | AR,  | L      | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| cingulata***       | US   | eaves, |       | [^25] | Fa*rr et      |
| (Stoneman) Spauld. |      | stems, |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| & H. Schrenk       |      | fl     |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| \[Anamorph:        |      | owers, |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
| ***Colletotrichum  |      | fruit  |       |       |               |
| gloeosporioides*** |      |        |       |       |               |
| (Penz.) Penz. &    |      |        |       |       |               |
| Sacc. in Penz.\]   |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[Ascomycetes,     |      |        |       |       |               |
| Incertae sedis\]   |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Guignardia      | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| bidwellii***       | US   | fl     |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| (Ellis) Viala &    |      | owers, |       |       | a*l., 2007    |
| Ravaz \[Anamorph:  |      | l      |       |       |               |
| *Phyllosticta      |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
| ampelicida*        |      | stems  |       |       |               |
| (Engelm) Aa.\]     |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       |               |
| Dothideales\]      |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Guignardia      | AR   | L      | Yes   | Yes   | CMI, 1964;    |
| citricarpa***      |      | eaves, |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| (Kiely)            |      | fruit  |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| \[Anamorph:        |      |        |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| ***Phyllosticta    |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2000;   |
| citricarpa***      |      |        |       |       | Wellman, 1977 |
| McAlpine =*Phoma   |      |        |       |       |               |
| citricarpa,        |      |        |       |       |               |
| Phyllosticta       |      |        |       |       |               |
| citricola*\]       |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       |               |
| Dothideales\]^24^  |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Guignardia      | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | Baay*en et    |
| mangiferae*** (A.  | US   | Leaves |       |       | a*l., 2002;   |
| J. Roy)            | (LA, |        |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| \[Anamorph:        | FL)  |        |       |       | a*l., 2007    |
| *Phyllosticta      |      |        |       |       |               |
| capitalensis*\]    |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       |               |
| Dothideales\]      |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Lasiodiplodia*  | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| *theobromae***     | US   | fl     |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| (Pat.) Griffon &   |      | owers, |       |       | a*l., 2007    |
| Maubl. \[=         |      | stems, |       |       |               |
| *Diplodia          |      | twigs, |       |       |               |
| natalensis*        |      | roots  |       |       |               |
| Pole-Evans\]       |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       |               |
| Dothideales\]      |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Mycosphaerella  | AR,  | L      | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| citri***           | US   | eaves; |       | [^26] | Fa*rr et      |
| (Whiteside)        | (TX) | fruit, |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| \[Anamorph:        |      | twigs  |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| *Stenella          |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
| citri-grisea* (F.  |      |        |       |       |               |
| E. Fisher)\]       |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       |               |
| M                  |      |        |       |       |               |
| ycosphaerellales\] |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Mycosphaerella  | AR   | L      | Yes   | N     | Fa*rr et      |
| loefgreni***       |      | eaves, |       | o^26^ | a*l., 2007;   |
| (Noack)            |      | fruit, |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      | twigs  |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
| M                  |      |        |       |       |               |
| ycosphaerellales\] |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Mycosphaerella  | AR,  | L      | No    | N     | Fa*rr et      |
| lageniformis***    | US   | eaves, |       | o^26^ | a*l., 2007;   |
| (Rehm)             |      | twigs  |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2000;   |
| M                  |      |        |       |       | Wellman, 1977 |
| ycosphaerellales\] |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Nectria         | AR,  | Roots  | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| haematococca***    | US   | ,stems |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| (Berk & Broome)    |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| Samuels & Rossman  |      |        |       |       | Nemec and     |
| \[Anamorph:        |      |        |       |       | Zablotowicz,  |
| *Fusarium solani*  |      |        |       |       | 1981; Timm*er |
| (Mart.) Sacc.\]    |      |        |       |       | et a*l., 2000 |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       |               |
| Hypocreales\]      |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Oidium          | AR,  | L      | No    | No    | Fa*rr et      |
| tingitaninum***    | US   | eaves, |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| (C. N. Carter)     | (CA) | twigs  |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2000;   |
| Erysiphales\]      |      |        |       |       | Wellman, 1977 |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Pellicularia    | AR,  | Leaves | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| koleroga*          | US   |        |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| (**Cooke)          | (KY, |        |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| \[Basidiomycetes:  | FL,  |        |       |       | Wellman, 1977 |
| Ceratobasidiales\] | LA)  |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Penicillium     | AR,  | Fruit  | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| digitatum***       | US   |        |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| (Pers.:Fr.) Sacc.  | (CA, |        |       |       | a*l., 2007    |
| \[Ascomycetes:     | FL)  |        |       |       |               |
| Eurotiales\]       |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Penicillium     | AR,  | Fruit  | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| italicum***        | US   |        |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| (Wehmer)           | (CA, |        |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| \[Ascomycetes:     | FL)  |        |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| Eurotiales\]       |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Penicillium     | AR,  | Fruit  | No    | Yes   | Carrillo,     |
| ulaiense***        | US   |        |       |       | 1995; Fa*rr   |
| (Hseih, Su &       | (CA) |        |       |       | et a*l.,      |
| Tzean)             |      |        |       |       | 2007; Holm*es |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       | et a*l.,      |
| Eurotiales\]       |      |        |       |       | 1993; Skar*ia |
|                    |      |        |       |       | et a*l., 1993 |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Phyllosticta*   | AR,  | L      | No    | No    | Fa*rr et      |
| *aurantiicola***   | US   | eaves, |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| (Berk. & Cooke)    | (LA) | twigs  |       |       | Wellman, 1977 |
| Sacc.              |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       |               |
| Dothideales\]      |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Phyllosticta    | AR,  | L      | No    | No    | Fa*rr et      |
| hesperidearum***   | US   | eaves, |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| (Cattaneo) Penz.   | (FL, | twigs  |       |       | Wellman, 1977 |
| \[Ascomycetes:     | AL,  |        |       |       |               |
| Dothideales\]      | LA)  |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Phyllosticta    | AR,  | L      | No    | No    | Fa*rr et      |
| longispora***      | US   | eaves, |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| (McAlpine)         |      | twigs  |       |       | Wellman, 1977 |
| \[Acomycetes:      |      |        |       |       |               |
| Dothideales\]      |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Phytophthora    | AR^  | Roots, | No    | No    | CMI, 1978b;   |
| boehmeriae***      | 12,^ | stems  |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| (Sawada)           | US   |        |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| \[Oomycetes,       | (CA) |        |       |       | Oudemans and  |
| Pythiales\]        |      |        |       |       | Coffey, 1991; |
|                    |      |        |       |       | SENASA, 1992  |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Phytophthora    | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| cactorum***        | US   | stems, |       |       | CMI, 1966;    |
| (Lebert & Cohn)    |      | roots, |       |       | Coo*ke et     |
| Schröt.            |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2000;   |
| \[Oomycetes:       |      |        |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| Pythiales\]        |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2007    |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Phytophthora    | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| citricola***       | US   | stems, |       |       | Erwin and     |
| (Sawada)           | (CA) | roots  |       |       | Ribeiro,      |
| \[Oomycetes:       |      |        |       |       | 1996; Fa*rr   |
| Pythiales\]        |      |        |       |       | et a*l.,      |
|                    |      |        |       |       | 2007; Timm*er |
|                    |      |        |       |       | et a*l., 2000 |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Phytophthora    | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| citrophthora***    | US   | stems  |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| (R. E. Sm. & E. H. |      | roots, |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| Sm.) Leonian       |      |        |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| \[Oomycetes:       |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
| Pythiales\]        |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Phytophthora    | AR,  | L      | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| cryptogea***       | US   | eaves, |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| (Pethybr. & Laff.) |      | roots, |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| \[Oomycetes:       |      | stems  |       |       | Vial and      |
| Pythiales\]        |      |        |       |       | Latorre, 2004 |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Phytophthora    | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| nicotianae***      | US   | l      |       |       | CMI, 1989;    |
| (Breda de Haan)    |      | eaves, |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| \[=*Phytophthora*  |      | roots, |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| *nicotianae* var.  |      | stems, |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| *parasitica*       |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
| (Dastur) G. M.     |      |        |       |       |               |
| Waterhouse\]       |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[Oomycetes:       |      |        |       |       |               |
| Pythiales\]        |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Phytophthora    | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | Alfie*ri et   |
| palmivora* var.    | US   | fl     |       |       | a*l., 1994;   |
| *palmivora ***(E.  |      | owers, |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| J. Butler)         |      | l      |       |       | a*l., 2007    |
| \[Oomycetes:       |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
| Pythiales\]        |      | roots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Pythium         | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| debaryanum***      | US   | seeds, |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| (Auct. non.) R.    | (CA, | stems, |       |       | a*l., 2007    |
| Hesse \[Oomycetes: | HI)  | roots  |       |       |               |
| Pythiales\]        |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Pythium         | AR,  | Roots, | No    | No    | Fa*rr et      |
| ultimum*** (Trow)  | US   | stems  |       |       | a*l., 2007    |
| \[Oomycetes:       | (FL, |        |       |       |               |
| Pythiales\]        | CA)  |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Pythium         | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| vexans*** (de      | US   | l      |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| Bary) \[Oomycetes: | (HI, | eaves, |       |       | a*l., 2007    |
| Pythiales\]        | CA)  | roots  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Rosellinia      | AR,  | Roots, | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a   |
| necatrix***        | US   | stems  |       |       |               |
| (Prill)            |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[Anamorph:        |      |        |       |       |               |
| *Dematophora       |      |        |       |       |               |
| necatrix* R.       |      |        |       |       |               |
| Hartig\]           |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[Acomycetes:      |      |        |       |       |               |
| Xylariales\]       |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Sclerotinia     | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a;  |
| sclerotiorum***    | US   | fl     |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| (Lib.) de Bary     | (CA) | owers, |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| \[Anamorph:        |      | l      |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| *Sclerotinia       |      | eaves, |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
| varium* Pers.      |      | stems, |       |       |               |
| Fr.\]              |      | twigs  |       |       |               |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       |               |
| Helotiales\]       |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Septoria        | AR   | Leaves | Yes   | No    | Fa*rr et      |
| arethusa***        |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| (Penz.)            |      |        |       |       | Wellman, 1977 |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       |               |
| M                  |      |        |       |       |               |
| ycosphaerellales\] |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Septoria        | AR,  | L      | No    | Yes   | Timm*er et    |
| citri*** (Pass).   | US   | eaves, |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      | fruit  |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| M                  |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| ycosphaerellales\] |      |        |       |       | Wellman, 1977 |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Septoria        | AR,  | Fruit  | No    | Yes   | Fa*rr et      |
| limonum*** (Pass). | US   |        |       |       | a*l., 2007    |
| \[Ascomycetes:     | (CA) |        |       |       |               |
| M                  |      |        |       |       |               |
| ycosphaerellales\] |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Spegazzinia     | AR,  | Leaves | No    | No    | Fa*rr et      |
| tessarthra***      | US   |        |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| (Berk. & Curt.)    | (FL) |        |       |       | Wellman, 1977 |
| Sacc. \[=          |      |        |       |       |               |
| *Spegazzinia       |      |        |       |       |               |
| ornata* Sacc.\]    |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       |               |
| Incertae sedis\]   |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Thanatephorus   | AR,  | L      | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| cucumeris*** (A.B. | US   | eaves, |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| Frank) Donk        |      | seed   |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| \[Anamorph:        |      | lings, |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| *Rhizoctonia       |      | stems  |       |       | a*l., 2000;   |
| solani* J. G.      |      |        |       |       |               |
| Kuhn\]             |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[Basidiomycetes:  |      |        |       |       |               |
| Ceratobasidiales\] |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| ***Thielaviopsis   | AR,  | Roots  | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| basicola*** (Berk. | US   |        |       |       | Fa*rr et      |
| & Broome) Farraris | (FL, |        |       |       | a*l., 2007;   |
| \[Ascomycetes:     | CA)  |        |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| Microascales\]     |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Hypocrea lixii*   | AR,  | Twigs  | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a   |
| (Pat.) \[Anamorph: | US   |        |       |       |               |
| ***Trichoderma     |      |        |       |       |               |
| harzianum***       |      |        |       |       |               |
| Rifai\]            |      |        |       |       |               |
| \[Ascomycetes:     |      |        |       |       |               |
| Hypocreales\]      |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| **Bacteria**       |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Agrobacterium     | AR,  | Roots, | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| tumefaciens*       | US   | twigs  |       |       | CMI, 1980     |
| (Smith & Town.)    |      |        |       |       |               |
| Conn               |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Pseudomonas       | AR,  | L      | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a;  |
| fluorescens*       | US   | eaves, |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| (Trevisan) Migula  |      | roots  |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Pseudomonas       | AR,  | L      | No    | Yes   | CMI, 1988     |
| syringae* pv.      | US   | eaves, |       |       |               |
| *syringae* (van    |      | fruit, |       |       |               |
| Hall)              |      | twigs  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Rhizobium         | AR,  | Fruit, | No    | Yes   | CABI, 2006a   |
| radiobacter*       | US   | roots  |       |       |               |
| (Beijerinck & van  |      | stems  |       |       |               |
| Delden) Young et   |      |        |       |       |               |
| al..               |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Xanthomonas       | AR,  | L      | Yes   | Yes   | Smi*th et     |
| axonopodis* pv.    | US   | eaves, |       |       | a*l., 1997;   |
| *citri* (Vauterin, |      | fruit, |       |       | S*un et a*l., |
| *et al.)* \[Syn.   |      | twigs  |       |       | 2001; Timm*er |
| *X. campestris*    |      |        |       |       | et a*l., 2000 |
| pv. *citri*        |      |        |       |       |               |
| (Hasse) Dye\]      |      |        |       |       |               |
| (Citrus canker     |      |        |       |       |               |
| A)[^27]            |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Xanthomonas       | AR   | L      | Yes   | No    | Smi*th et     |
| axonopodis pv.     |      | eaves, |       | [^28] | a*l., 1997;   |
| aurantifolii*      |      | fruit, |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| (Vauterin, *et     |      | twigs  |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
| al*.) \[Syn*. X.   |      |        |       |       |               |
| campestris pv.     |      |        |       |       |               |
| aurantifolii*      |      |        |       |       |               |
| (Hasse) Dye\]      |      |        |       |       |               |
| (Citrus canker B)  |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Xylella           | AR   | Twigs  | Yes   | No    | Brlans*ky et  |
| fastidiosa*        |      |        |       |       | a*l., 1991;   |
| (Wells, *et al.*)  |      |        |       |       | Hartu*ng et   |
| Citrus variegated  |      |        |       |       | a*l., 1994    |
| chlorosis strain   |      |        |       |       |               |
| (Syn.: Pecosita,   |      |        |       |       |               |
| declinamiento,     |      |        |       |       |               |
| fruta bolita)      |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| **Phytoplasmas and |      |        |       |       |               |
| Spiroplasmas**     |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Spiroplasma       | AR^  | Twigs  | No    | No    | CMI, 1993;    |
| citri* (Saglio,    | 10^, |        |       |       | Ramallo,      |
| *et al.*)          | US   |        |       |       | 1970; Timm*er |
|                    |      |        |       |       | et a*l., 2000 |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| **Virus and        |      |        |       |       |               |
| Viruslike Agents** |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Citrus cachexia    | AR,  | Twigs  | No    | No    | CMI, 1972;    |
| viroid (Syn.:      | US   |        |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| Xyloporosis)       |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Citrus exocortis   | AR,  | Bark,  | No    | No    | Timm*er et    |
| viroid             | US   | fruit, |       | [^29] | a*l., 2000    |
|                    |      | l      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | roots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | twigs  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Citrus leprosis    | AR,  | L      | No    | N     | Alfie*ri et   |
| rhabdovirus        | US   | eaves, |       | o^29^ | a*l., 1994;   |
|                    |      | fruit, |       |       | Timm*er et    |
|                    |      | twigs  |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Citrus psorosis    | AR   | L      | Yes   | No    | Garc*ia et    |
| associated virus   |      | eaves, |       |       | a*l., 1994;   |
| (naturally         |      | twigs  |       |       | Timm*er et    |
| transmitted        |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
| strain) Syn.:      |      |        |       |       |               |
| Psorosis           |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Citrus ringspot    | AR,  | L      | No    | No    | Alfie*ri et   |
| virus Syn.:        | US   | eaves, |       |       | a*l., 1994;   |
| Psorosis B         |      | twigs  |       |       | Timm*er et    |
|                    |      |        |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Citrus tristeza    | AR,  | Twigs  | No    | No    | Timm*er et    |
| closterovirus      | US   |        |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Eruptive gummosis  | AR   | Bark,  | Yes   | N     | CABI, 2006a;  |
| Syn.: Impietratura | ^10^ | l      |       | o^29^ | Timm*er et    |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
|                    |      | fl     |       |       |               |
|                    |      | owers, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | fruit, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | roots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | twigs  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| **Nematodes**      |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| [Tylen             |      |        |       |       |               |
| chida]{.smallcaps} |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Hopolaimidae       |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Helicotylenchus   | AR,  | Roots  | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a   |
| multicinctus*      | US   |        |       |       |               |
| (Cobb) Golden      |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Tylenchulidae      |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Criconemella* sp. | AR,  | Roots  | Yes   | No    | CABI, 2006a   |
| (De Grisse &       | US   |        |       |       |               |
| Loof))             |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Pratylenchus      | AR,  | L      | No    | No    | CABI, 2006a   |
| penetrans* (Cobb)  | US   | eaves, |       |       |               |
| Filipjev &         |      | roots  |       |       |               |
| Schuurmans         |      |        |       |       |               |
| Stekhoven          |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Tylenchulus       | AR,  | Roots  | No    | No    | Timm*er et    |
| semipenetrans*     | US   |        |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
| (Cobb)             |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Longidoridae       |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Xiphinema index*  | AR,  | Roots  | No    | No    | Westerdahl,   |
| (Thorne & Allen)   | US   |        |       |       | 2006          |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| **Diseases of      |      |        |       |       |               |
| unknown etiology** |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Marchitamiento     | AR,  | L      | No    | No    | EPPO/CABI,    |
| repentino Syn.:    | US   | eaves, |       |       | 1997c;        |
| Citrus blight      |      | fruit, |       |       | Timm*er et    |
|                    |      | roots, |       |       | a*l., 2000    |
|                    |      | stems  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| **Mollusca**       |      |        |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+
| *Helix aspersa*    | AR,  | Fruit, | \[    | No    | CABI, 2006a   |
| (Muller)           | US   | fl     | Yes\] |       |               |
|                    |      | owers, | [^30] |       |               |
|                    |      | l      |       |       |               |
|                    |      | eaves, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | stems, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | roots, |       |       |               |
|                    |      | seeds  |       |       |               |
+--------------------+------+--------+-------+-------+---------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180302 .anchor}**2.3 Pest Categorization**

The pests listed below satisfy the defining criteria for a quarantine
pest: *"A pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered
thereby, and not yet present there, or present but not widely
distributed and being officially controlled.* (IPPC, 1997)

Arthropods

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  *Anastrepha fraterculus* (Wiedemann)

  *Ceratitis capitata* (Wiedemann)

  *Parlatoria ziziphi* (Lucas)

  *Parlatoria cinerea* (Hadden)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bacteria

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  *Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *Citri* (Vauterin, *et al.*) \[Syn. *X.
  campestris* pv. *Citri* (Hasse) Dye\] (Citrus canker A)

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fungi

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  *Elsinoë australis* (Bitancourt & Jenk). Anamorph: *Sphaceloma
  australis* Bitancourt & Jenk. \[Ascomycetes: Myriangiales\]

  *Guignardia citricarpa* (Kiely) Anamorph: *Phoma citricarpa* McAlpine
  \[Loculoascomycetes, Dothideales\]
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

The fruit flies, *Anastrepha fraterculus* and *Ceratitus capitata*, are
included among the quarantine pests that are listed as infesting lemons
although most researchers (Bodenheimer, 1951; Greany, 1989; Greany and
Shapiro, 1993; Nguyen and Fraser, 1989; Spitl*er et a*l., 1984) do not
consider commercially grown *Citrus limon* to be a host for Tephritid
fruit flies. USDA/APHIS does not consider the Eureka, Lisbon and Villa
Franca cultivars of *Citrus limon* to be fruit fly hosts (CFR, 2006
Subpart 301.64-2). APHIS regulations have not established any
restrictions associated with *Ceratitis capitata* in smooth-skinned
lemons that are commercially grown, harvested, culled, cleaned, and
waxed (CFR, 2006 Subpart 301.78-2).

Lemons were not considered a host for Tephritid fruit flies based on
several studies (Back and Pemberton, 1915; Martelli, 1914). Back &
Pemberton (1915) observed that fruit fly larvae artificially and
naturally deposited in lemons were unable to hatch. Martelli (1914) did
not succeed in obtaining any successful development in lemon fruits
under forced laboratory conditions. As a general rule, the riper the
citrus fruit the more susceptible it is to fruit fly attacks; however,
*Citrus limon* is considered almost immune to Tephritidae, to the extent
that even over-ripe lemon fruits are not considered hosts (Greany,
1989).

Detailed host lists for the genus *Anastrepha,* based on both field and
laboratory data, do not list *Citrus limon* as a host (Norrbom, 2004;
Stone, 1942), however some lemon varieties are reported to be a host of
*A. fraterculus* in Brazil (Salles, 1995) and Argentina (Segu*ra et
a*l., 2006). CABI (2006) lists lemons as a host for *Anastrepha
serpentina*, whereas Norrbom (2004) does not.

Lemons have been observed to be a conditional host of *Ceratitus
capitata* in Spain (APHIS, 2006). *Ceratitus capitata* has been observed
in lemons when a combination of conditions occur including: lemons
harvested when fruit have reached complete yellow coloration at the time
of picking, harvest that includes over-ripe fruit, high population
pressure, and drought-stressed conditions. There is evidence that lemons
harvested entirely green in color have a low likelihood of being
infested. When they do become infested under extreme conditions, the
fruit fly eggs and larvae have a very low rate of survival (APHIS,
2006).

[]{.mark}

USDA concludes from the above evidence that some varieties of lemons,
when allowed to become ripe beyond what is considered commercially
mature, are conditional hosts for *Ceratitus capitata* and *Anastrepha
fraterculus*.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180303 .anchor}**2.4 Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow the Pathway**

Seven quarantine pests; *Anastrepha fraterculus,* *Ceratitis capitata,
Parlatoria cinerea, Parlatoria ziziphi, Elsinoë australis, Guignardia
citricarpa,* and *Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *citri* were selected for
further analysis because they:

-   meet the defining criteria for quarantine pests;

-   may be associated with the exported fruit; and

-   may have the potential to be introduced into the United States.

    []{#__RefHeading___Toc174180304 .anchor}**2.5 Consequences of
    Introduction**

This portion of the analysis considers negative outcomes that may occur
when the identified quarantine pests are associated with lemon fruit
from Argentina and are introduced into the continental United States.
The consequences of introduction for each pest were rated according to
the five risk elements (RE) described in the *"Guidelines for Pathway
Initiated Pest Risk Assessments"* version 5.02 (October 17, 2000). The
five risk elements are: RE#1 Climate -- Host Interaction; RE#2 Host
Range; RE#3 Dispersal Potential; RE#4 Economic Impact, and RE#5
Environmental Impact. RE 1-5 reflect the biology of the pest and its
hosts. For each RE, pest are assigned a rating of Low (1), Medium (2),
or High (3). A cumulative risk value is then calculated by summing the
ratings for each pest. These ratings are considered helpful in
interpreting the detailed results. However, the ratings are considered
supplemental information to be considered within the context of the
overall risk analysis document. These ratings are described in Table 3.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180305 .anchor}**RE#1: Climate -- Host
Interaction**

This RE considers ecological zonation and the interaction between the
geographic distribution of the pest and host. The ratings for this RE
are based on the relative number of United States Plant Hardiness Zones
(**Appendix 1**), where the pest could establish based on its known
climatic range.

***Anastrepha fraterculus***

*Anastrepha* *fraterculus* likely represents a species complex (CABI,
2006b; Steck, 1991). This group is widely distributed in Central and
South America (CABI, 2006b; Weems, 2002) and ranges from the south of
Texas to Argentina (Foo*te et a*l., 1993; Stone, 1942). The continental
United States spans a wide climatic range from Zone 1 in Fairbanks,
Alaska to Zone 10 in Miami, FL (USDA-NA, 2003). Based on *A*.
*fraterculus* current distribution, it is estimated that *A*.
*fraterculus* could establish in two Plant Hardiness Zones in the
continental United States (9 & 10). One or more of its potential hosts
occurs in these zones (USDA-NRCS, 2007). The rating for this risk
element is **Medium (2).**

***Ceratitis capitata***

*Ceratitis capitata* is found in southern Europe, west Asia, Africa,
South and Central America (CABI, 2006c), and northern Australia (Hassan,
1977). The area in which it survives is of Mediterranean climate,
coinciding with where citrus is grown (CABI, 2006c). Based on this
distribution and its predicted geographic range, it is estimated that
*C*. *capitata* could establish in U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 8-10
(Ve*ra et a*l., 2002). One or more of its potential hosts occur in these
Zones (USDA-NRCS, 2007). The rating for this risk element is **Medium
(2).**

***Parlatoria cinerea***

*Parlatoria cinerea* is a tropical species (Watson, undated b). *P.
cinierea* has been reported from countries in Asia, Africa, Europe,
South America, and North America (Ben-D*ov et a*l., 2007; Watson,
undated b). The continental United States spans a wide climatic range
from Zone 1 in Fairbanks, Alaska to Zone 10 in Miami, FL (USDA-NA,
2003). Based on this distribution it is estimated that *P. cinerea*
could establish in U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 8-10. One or more of its
potential hosts occurs in these regions (USDA-NRCS, 2007). According to
*Parlatoria cinerea's* potential U.S. distribution, the rating for this
RE is **Medium (2)**

***Parlatoria ziziphi***

*Parlatoria ziziphi* is distributed worldwide in tropical and temperate
regions (Watson, undated d). *P. ziziphi* is currently found in Europe,
Asia, Africa, South America, North America, and Australia (Ben-D*ov et
a*l., 2007; Watson, undated d). It currently has a limited distribution
in the United States, occurring only in Hawaii, Florida, and Mississippi
(CABI, 2006f). These regions roughly represent USDA Plant Hardiness
Zones 9 -- 13. The continental United States spans a wide climatic range
from Zone 1 in Fairbanks, Alaska to Zone 10 in Miami, FL (USDA-NA,
2003). It is estimated from *P. ziziphi* complete distribution that it
could potentially establish in Zones 7 -- 10. One or more of its
potential hosts occurs in these regions (USDA-NRCS, 2007). Based on
*Parlatoria ziziphi's* potential U.S. distribution, the rating for this
RE is **High (3)**

***Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *citri*** (Citrus Canker or Xac)

The highest rate of reproduction occurs on leaves in spring and early
summer, when conditions are warm (20-30^o^C) and wet, *i.e*., in areas
that receive \>1000 mm of rain per year (Gottwa*ld et a*l., 2002a;
Gottwa*ld et a*l., 1988; Mura*ro et a*l., 2001; Smi*th et a*l., 1997;
Vernie*re et a*l., 2003; Whiteside, 1988). Temperatures between 15 and
20°C and 35 to 40°C are conducive for infection and development of
citrus canker disease (Dalla Pr*ia et a*l., 2006; Koizumi, 1977b;
Peltier and Frederich, 1926). The infiltration of bacteria into stomata
on unwounded fruit or leaves is aided by wind-driven rain, in which wind
speeds are in excess of eight meters/second; as a result, this creates
enough impact force to drive inoculum infested water into the stomata
creating water congestion (Gottwa*ld et a*l., 2002a; Grah*am et a*l.,
2004). Epidemic development occurs on unwounded hosts when leaf flushes
coincide with ideal weather conditions (high moisture and wind
conditions in excess of eight meters per second), sufficient inoculum
and susceptible hosts are present (Grah*am et a*l., 1992a).

Based on a global examination of weather on the establishment of Xac,
Peltier and Frederich (1926) stated that Xac could develop in all of the
citrus regions of the world sometimeover the growing season, although
not all regions are equally favorable for disease development. In the
United States, Xac has successfully established several times. Xac was
first introduced into Florida in 1912 via infected trifoliate orange
seedlings; it was subsequently detected in Alabama, Georgia,
Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Texas (Civerolo, 1984;
Grah*am et a*l., 2004; Smi*th et a*l., 1997). The disease was
successfully eradicated in Florida by 1933 (Whiteside, 1988) and
nationwide by 1947 (Schubert and Sun, 2003). Citrus canker reappeared in
Florida in 1986, was eradicated again, and reappeared in Miami in 1995.
Schubert and Sun (2003) state "most scientists believe *X. axonopodis*
pv*. citri* was reintroduced in the early to mid-1980s, but a few
speculate that this outbreak might have resulted from perennial holdover
from the 1910 *X. axonopodis* pv*. citri* introduction." Xac is now
widespread throughout citrus producing areas in Florida and eradication
is infeasible. To date, Xac has not spread outside of Florida to other
U.S. citrus producing areas.

Borchert *et al.* (2007) developed a citrus canker spread model using
the North Carolina State University APHIS Plant Pest Forecast System
(NAPPFAST) to identify areas where citrus canker could become
established in the major citrus producing regions of the United States.
The study used three approaches to analyze the likelihood of
establishment: i) spread events for selected stations based on hourly
rain and wind data (Figure 1); ii) infection model using daily climate
data at a 10-km^2^ resolution (Figure 2); and iii) analysis of average
monthly climate data at a 55 km^2^ resolution. The study concluded that
the "... climate in Florida is highly favorable for citrus canker in
terms of predicted spread, favorable days for infection, and average
temperature. The Louisiana and Texas citrus growing areas have
temperature, favorable days for infection and wind-rain conditions
conducive for moderate to high Xac disease intensity, with conditions in
Louisiana more conducive than Texas. The Arizona citrus growing area has
temperature conditions conducive for Xac infection, but a low annual
precipitation, low favorable days for infection, and few spread events,
which results in low potential disease intensity. The California citrus
growing areas have fewer months of temperatures conducive for Xac
infection than the other citrus growing areas in the United States.
California also had the lowest number of wind-rain events and infection
days with the exception of Arizona. In California, these events occur
predominantly during the winter, while the warm summer months are dry,
accounting for less than 5% of the annual precipitation. The combination
of fewer months conducive for infection and lower frequency of spread
events, especially when trees are more susceptible (i.e., summer)
results in lower potential disease intensity of Xac in California
(Borche*rt et a*l., 2007)."

Due to the availability of both suitable host plants and suitable
climatic, citrus canker has potential to establish in two Plant
Hardiness Zones. The rating for Climate -- Host Interaction is therefore
**Medium (2)**.

**Figure 1.** Accumulated favorable events based upon hourly wind and
rain data (left) and proportion of citrus grown by county (right).
Proportion calculated by dividing total citrus acres per county by total
acres per county. The reporting weather stations used in citrus canker
spread event analysis are represented by red dots (Borchert et al.
2007).

  ---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image2.jpeg){width="3.376388888888889in"   ![](media/image3.jpeg){width="3.354861111111111in"
  height="2.626388888888889in"}                        height="2.592361111111111in"}

  ![](media/image4.jpeg){width="3.376388888888889in"   ![](media/image5.jpeg){width="3.354861111111111in"
  height="2.6173611111111112in"}                       height="2.609027777777778in"}

  ![](media/image6.jpeg){width="3.376388888888889in"   ![](media/image7.jpeg){width="3.354861111111111in"
  height="2.592361111111111in"}                        height="2.592361111111111in"}
  ---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------

**Figure 2.** Forecast potential for citrus canker disease in The United
States. The NAPPFAST Xac infection model shows the frequency of years
having a specific number of days favorable for infection based on both
moisture (wetness and rain) and temperature. Frequency of years
favorable for Xac infection at three thresholds, low (≥ 5 days), medium
(≥ 20 days) and high (≥ 40 days). Pink areas in California represent
primary citrus growing regions (Borchert et al. 2007).

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Low (5 days)                       | Moderate (20 days)              |
|                                    |                                 |
| ![](                               | ![](media/image9.jp             |
| media/image8.jpeg){width="3.575in" | eg){width="3.354861111111111in" |
| height="1.5298611111111111in"}     | height="1.4958333333333333in"}  |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| High (40 days)                     | ![](media/image11.p             |
|                                    | ng){width="2.107638888888889in" |
| ![](media/image10                  | height="1.6736111111111112in"}  |
| .jpeg){width="3.563888888888889in" |                                 |
| height="1.5208333333333333in"}     |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

***Elsinoë australis*** (Sweet Orange Scab)

*Elsinoë australis* overwinters in the tree canopy on limbs and fruit
that had been infected during the previous season. The pathogen will
survive if existing scab pustules retain the infectious conidia
(propagules) (EPPO/CABI, 1997h). Conidia are formed abundantly on wet
scabs (CABI, 2006d). Conidial germination can occur between 13-32^o^C,
and infection between 14-25^o^C (EPPO/CABI, 1997h) with an optimum
temperature between 24-29^o^C (Bitancourt and Jenkins, 1937).
Germination of conidia and infection do not require rainfall, but a
minimum wet period, via dew, fog, or other high moisture conditions of
2.5-3.5 hours, is necessary for conidial infection (CABI, 2006d;
EPPO/CABI, 1997h). When these favorable conditions are present,
infection and further conidial production may occur within 4-6 hours as
is the case with the closely related species *Elsinoë* *fawcettii*
(Whiteside, 1975). This disease is not likely to become established in
areas with limited annual rainfall (less than 1300 mm), warm
temperatures (mean monthly temperature above 24^o^C) and dry climates
like Arizona and California (EPPO/CABI, 1997h). The disease is more
likely to become established in the humid southeastern United States,
particularly Florida, which has the environmental requirements of this
fungal pathogen (EPPO/CABI, 1997h; Timm*er et a*l., 2000).

A climate risk model developed using the North Carolina State
University-APHIS Plant Pest Forecast (NAPPFAST) by Thayer *et al.*
(2003) examined the likely areas that *Elsinoë australis* could
establish in the United States. The pathogen requires moderately warm
temperatures (4-25°C) and a minimum wet period of 2.5-3.5 for infections
to occur. The model assumes presence of inoculum. The recommendations
for infection model parameters for *E. australis* are Tmin 14 C, Tmax 29
C, Topt = 24, Wmin 2.5 h (Thay*er et a*l., 2003).

**Figure 3.** Areas of the continental United States where greater than
1,000 acres of citrus are grown and infection risk \> 3 years out of 10
on May 15. Maps based upon 30-year climatic averages.

![](media/image12.wmf){width="5.995833333333334in" height="2.5625in"}

The suitable climate for *Elsinoë australis* development is limited to
the state of Florida, where there are suitable hosts. The areas of
potential establishment in Florida covers two plant hardiness zones
therefore the rating for Climate -- Host Interaction is **Medium (2)**

***Guignardia citricarpa*** (Citrus Black Spot or CBS)

This disease occurs in subtropical regions coinciding with summer
rainfall. Citrus black spot (CBS) is not known to develop in
Mediterranean countries (EPPO/CABI, 1997a; Kotzé, 2000). Factors such as
rainfall and temperature, the amount of available inoculum, and the
susceptibility of the fruit influence the survival, sporulation, and
dispersion of the pathogen. Wetting and drying of leaves is essential
for ascocarp development (Kiely, 1948; Kotzé, 1981). Rainfall is
positively correlated with disease development during susceptible
periods and disease development is negatively correlated with rainfall
after petal fall when infection occurs (Kiely, 1950). Rainfall (or
overhead irrigation) triggers the release of mature ascospores (Kotzé,
1963), but too much rainfall will disrupt ascospore discharge (Kotzé,
1981) and lead to the decomposition of the dead leaves eradicating CBS
(Lee and Huang, 1973). In addition, excess rain prevents pseudothecia
formation as the leaves become colonized by competing saprobes (CABI,
2006e). Temperature affects several aspects of CBS epidemiology.
Pseudothecia formation is optimal at temperatures between 21-28^o^C (Lee
and Huang, 1973). Pseudothecia formation ceases below 7^o^C and above
35^o^C (Lee and Huang, 1973). Ascospores are ejected at a higher rate at
high temperatures (25^o^C), but can still be expelled at temperatures as
low as 5^o^C (Kotzé, 1963). Lesion development on fruit is correlated
with temperature; as temperatures increase, lesion development also
increases (Kotzé, 1981).

Commercially grown *Citrus* spp. are susceptible to citrus black spot
(EPPO/CABI, 1997a; Fa*rr et a*l., 2007). Fruit are only susceptible to
infection for four to five months after fruit set (Kotzé, 1963, 2000). A
climate risk model developed using the North Carolina State
University-APHIS Plant Pest Forecast (NAPPFAST) by Magarey and Borchert
(2003) examined the potential distribution of CBS if it were to be
introduced into the United States. Based on the model parameters,
minimum temperature = 7^o^C, maximum temperature = 35^o^C, optimum
temperature = 27^o^C, minimum wetting hours = 6 h, and precipitation \>
2mm (Huang and Chang, 1972; Lee and Huang, 1973; Spotts, 1977; Sutton
and Waterston, 1996), predictive maps were developed for the months
during periods of fruit susceptiblity to CBS (April, May, and June -
determined by fruit set in Florida). Five accumulated infection days per
month was used as an arbitrary threshold for classifying a month as
favorable. According to the risk map, the Southeastern U.S. is highly
favorable for disease development, especially during June, and is lower
in the citrus producing areas of Texas in the Rio Grande Valley. The
risk appears to be minimal in California. The analysis does not consider
groves with overhead irrigation (Magarey and Borchert, 2003).

***Figure 4.** Frequency of years with at least five days favorable for
G. citricarpa infection during April, May and June, the period of peak
fruit susceptibility. Maps based on 10-year climatic data. (Magarey and
Borchert, 2003)*

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **April**                          | **May**                         |
|                                    |                                 |
| ![](me                             | ![](media/image14.pn            |
| dia/image13.png){width="3.24375in" | g){width="3.0680555555555555in" |
| height="1.4208333333333334in"}     | height="1.3222222222222222in"}  |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **June**                           | ![](media/image16.pn            |
|                                    | g){width="1.8402777777777777in" |
| ![](media/image15                  | height="1.5180555555555555in"}  |
| .png){width="3.3673611111111112in" |                                 |
| height="1.45625in"}                |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

Due to the availability of both suitable host plants and suitable
climate, citrus black spot has potential to establish in the Southeast
in two Plant Hardiness Zones. The rating for Climate -- Host Interaction
is **Medium (2)**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180306 .anchor}**RE#2: Host range**

The risk posed by a plant pest is determined by both its ability to
establish a viable, reproductive population and its potential for
causing plant damage. For pathogens, risk is more complex and is assumed
to depend on host range, aggressiveness, virulence, and pathogenicity.
This RE is rated as a function of host range and considers whether the
pest can attack a single species or multiple species within a single
genus, a single plant family, or multiple families.

***Anastrepha fraterculus***

*Anastrepha fraterculus* is extremely polyphagous. Preferred hosts are
Myrtaceae, including *Eugenia*, *Syzygium* spp. (CABI, 2006b), and
*Psidium guajava* (Alu*ja et a*l., 1987; CABI, 2006b). A few of the
species' many other hosts are *Terminalia catappa* (Combretaceae),
*Malus domestica* and *Prunus* spp. (Rosaceae), *Annona* spp.
(Annonaceae), *Coffea* spp. (Rubiaceae), *Citrus* spp. (Rutaceae),
*Ficus carica* (Moraceae), *Juglans* spp. (Juglandaceae), *Diospyros
kaki* (Ebenaceae), *Manilkara zapota* (Sapotaceae), *Persea americana*
(Lauraceae), *Solanum quitoense* (Solanaceae), *Theobroma cacao*
(Sterculiaceae), *Olea europaea* (Oleaceae), *Vitis vinifera* (Vitaceae)
(CABI, 2006b), *Passiflora* spp. (Passifloraceae) (Aguiar-Menez*es et
a*l., 2002). Under certain environmental conditions lemons (*Citrus
limon*) are conditional hosts for *Anastrepha fraterculus* (APHIS,
2006). The risk rating for this risk element is **High (3)**.

***Ceratitis capitata***

*Ceratitis capitata* is highly polyphagous, with hosts varying from
region to region (CABI, 2006c). *Ceratitis capitata's* host range
includes plant in the following families: Anacardiaceae, Arecaceae,
Chrysobalanaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Ebenaceae, Lauraceae, Longaniaceae,
Malpighiaceae, Meliaceae, Moraceae, Myrtaceae, Oleaceae, Passifloraceae,
Podocarpaceae, Rosaceae, Rubiaceae, Rutaceae, Sapotaceae, Solanaceae and
Sterculiaceae (Aguiar-Menez*es et a*l., 2002; CABI, 2006c; White and
Elson-Harris, 1992 Weems, 1981). Under certain environmental conditions
lemons (*Citrus limon*) are conditional hosts for *Ceratitis capitata*
(APHIS, 2006). The risk rating for this element is **High (3)**.

***Parlatoria cinerea***

*Parlatoria cinerea* is a polyphagous pest and attacks hosts in 14 plant
families (Ben-D*ov et a*l., 2007). *P. cinerea's* preferred hosts are
*Citrus* spp. (Rutaceae) (Watson, undated b; Williams and Watson, 1988).
In addition to plants in the Rutaceae family *P. cinerea's* hosts
include plants in the Anacardiaceae, Annonaceae, Apocynaceae,
Caprifoliaceae, Cupressaceae, Meliaceae, Nyctaginaceae, Oleaceae,
Rosaceae, Rubiaceae, Smilacaeae, Tiliaceae, and Vitaceae families
(Ben-D*ov et a*l., 2007). In Argentina *P. cinerea* has been reported
from *Citrus limon*, *Citrus paradisi*, *Citrus sinensis*, and
*Cupressus* sp. (Claps and Terán, 2001).

Due to *Parlatoria cinerea's* polyphagous nature and large host range
the rating for this risk element is **High (3)**

***Parlatoria ziziphi***

Reports regarding *Parlatoria ziziphi's* host range very greatly. All
reports do agree that *P. ziziphi's* preferred host is citrus and other
Rutaceae plants (Blackburn and Miller, 1984; Miller and Davidson, 2005;
Watson, undated d). Ben-Dov *et al.* (2007) reports 34 hosts belonging
to the following plant families: Apocynaceae, Arecaceae, Euphorbiaceae,
Moraceae, Myrtaceae, Oleaceae, Orchidaceae, Rhamnaceae, Rubiaceae,
Rutaceae, and Theaceae. While Blackburn and Miller, (1984) concluded
that *P. ziziphi* occurs only on the Rutaceous hosts *Citrus* spp.
*Poncirus* spp. and *Severinia* spp. (Blackburn and Miller, 1984; Miller
and Davidson, 2005). Whereas Watson (undated d) reports the following
hosts that span 5 plant familes: *Citrus* spp., *Codiaeum, Cymbidium,
Damnacanthus, Ligustrum, Murraya paniculata, Poncirus, Severinia
buxifolia*, and *Ziziphus*.

Due to the disagreement over *P. ziziphi's* host range, the risk rating
for this risk element errs on the side of caution and is rated **High
(3)**

***Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *citri*** (Citrus Canker or Xac)

Citrus canker is a bacterial disease that infects all above ground parts
of susceptible hosts, particularly young, actively growing leaves,
twigs, branches, trunks, thorns, and fruit (Brunnings and Gabriel, 2003;
Civerolo, 1984; Gottwald and Graham, 2000; Gottwald and Graham, 1992;
Grah*am et a*l., 1992b) (Appendix 2). Xac primary hosts belong to the
Rutaceae family. *Citrus* spp. is the main host of economic importance.
Grapefruits (*C. paradisi*), limes (*C. aurantifolia*), and trifoliate
orange (*Poncirus trifoliate*) are highly susceptible. Sour oranges (*C.
aurantium)*, lemons (*C. limon*), and most sweet oranges (*C. sinensis*)
are moderately susceptible (Civerolo, 1984; Gottwa*ld et a*l., 1993;
Gottwa*ld et a*l., 2002a; Grah*am et a*l., 1992b; Smi*th et a*l., 1997),
and most mandarin cultivars (*C. reticulata*) are moderately resistant
(Gottwa*ld et a*l., 1993; Grah*am et a*l., 1992b). In addition to plants
in the Rutaceae family, plants in several plant families (Asteraceae,
Convolvulaceae, Meliaceae, Poaceae, and Solanaceae) have been shown to
be artificially inoculated with Xac (CABI, 2006g; Goto, 1970; Go*to et
a*l., 1975a; Go*to et a*l., 1978).

The natural host range of citrus canker includes multiple species within
one plant family so the rating is **Medium (2)** for RE Host range.

***Elsinoë australis*** (Sweet Orange Scab)

*Elsinoë australis* infects many species of *Citrus,* including sweet
orange (*C. sinensis*,) lemon (*C. limon*), mandarin (*C. reticulata*),
tangerine (*C. reticulata*) satsuma orange (*C. reticulata*), kumquat
(*Fortunella margarita*), lime (*C. latifolia*), grapefruit (*C.
paradisi*), and pointed leaf papeda (*C. hystrix*) (CMI, 1998). Sour
orange, *C. aurantium,* is relatively resistant to *E. australis*
(EPPO/CABI, 1997h). The host range of Sweet orange scab includes
multiple species within a single genus so the rating for this RE is
**Low (1)**.

***Guignardia citricarpa*** (Citrus Black Spot or CBS)

CBS is primarily a disease of fruit (Kotzé, 2000), although leaves and
stems are also infected (CABI, 2006e). All commercially grown *Citrus*
spp. are susceptible to CBS, with the exception of sour orange (*C.
aurantium* L.) and its hybrids. Lemons (*Citrus limon*), are
particularly susceptible to CBS (Kotzé, 1981). Reports exist in the
literature indicating CBS infests non-citrus hosts (Kiely, 1948). While
the symptoms of CBS appear to occur on several non-citrus hosts, several
*Guignardia* spp. symptoms closely resemble *G. citricarpa* (McOnie,
1964b). Recent molecular studies have demonstrated that CBS does not
infect hosts outside of the genus *Citrus*. A cosmopolitan *Guignardia*
(*Phyllosticta*) species, which is not pathogenic, occurs on a wide
range of hosts and has previously been misidentified as *G. citricarpa*
(Baay*en et a*l., 2002). The host range of citrus black spot includes
multiple species within a single genus so the rating for this RE is
**Low (1)**.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180307 .anchor}**RE#3: Dispersal Potential**

Pests may disperse after introduction into a new area. The dispersal
potential is related to the pest's reproductive potential, inherent
mobility, and dispersal facilitation. Factors considered in rating the
dispersal potential include: the presence of multiple generations per
year or growing season, the relative number of offspring or propagules
per generation, any inherent capabilities for rapid movement, the
presence of natural barriers of enemies, and dissemination enhanced by
wind, water, vectors, or human assistance.

***Anastrepha fraterculus***

Females deposit from 200 to 400 eggs in host fruits (White and
Elson-Harris, 1992), and can lay up to 50 eggs in one fruit (Christenson
and Foote, 1960). The species is multivoltine, therefore several
generations occur per year. Reproduction is continuous, as adults are
present year-round (CABI, 2006b). Long-distance dispersal has not been
reported for adults of *A*. *fraterculus*, however, another member of
the genus (*Anastrepha ludens*) was trapped a 135 km away from its
origin. This suggests that *Anastrepha* spp. are capable of migrating
extensive distances in search of hosts (Fletcher, 1989). The major means
for introducing the species to previously uninfested areas is the
transport, in international trade, of fruit containing live larvae
(CABI, 2006b). By all indications, *A*. *fraterculus* exhibits high
reproductive and dispersal potentials, therefore the risk rating for
this risk element is **High (3)**.

***Ceratitis capitata* (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae)**

Females may deposit up to 22 eggs per day, and as many as 300-800 eggs

in a lifetime (Thom*as et a*l., 2005; White and Elson-Harris, 1992).
Eggs are inserted under the skin of host fruit as it begins to ripen
(Thom*as et a*l., 2005). Several females may deposit eggs in the same
egg cavity, and egg cavities may contain 75 or more eggs (Thom*as et
a*l., 2005). In warm climates breeding is continuous throughout the
year, as there are several overlapping generations (Hassan, 1977).
Natural dispersal occurs through flight. Adults are capable of flying
distances up to 20 km or more (Fletcher, 1989). *Ceratitis capitata* is
dispersed to uninfested areas through the movement of infested fruit
(CABI, 2006c). In addition, this species may disperse as pupae in soil,
or in the growing medium accompanying plants (CABI, 2006c). This species
has a high biotic potential and capability for rapid dispersal. It is
rated **High (3)** for this risk element.

***Parlatoria cinerea***

In laboratory studies completed at 24^o^C, 65% humidity, and 12:12 hour
light/dark schedule, *Parlatoria cinerea* females laid approximately 33
eggs (Grave*na et a*l., 1993). Natural dispersal occurs during the
crawler stage and may be aided by wind or animal contact (Watson,
undated b). The crawler stage for *P. cinerea* lasts approximately 6
hours under laboratory condition (Grave*na et a*l., 1993). Adults are
sessile and long distance dispersal occurs through the movement of
infested plant material (Watson, undated b). The rating for this risk
element is thus **Medium (2).**

***Parlatoria ziziphi***

*Parlatoria ziziphi* has 2 generations per year in Egypt (El-Bol*ok et
a*l., 1984-1985b), 3 to 5 generations per year in Spain (Gomez-Clemente,
1943; Miller and Davidson, 2005), and 7 generations per year in Taiwan
(Chang and Tao, 1963; Miller and Davidson, 2005), with fertilized
females capable of over wintering (El-Bol*ok et a*l., 1984-1985b). *P.
ziziphi* is not capable of parthenogenesis. Mated females lay anywhere
between 8 to 49 eggs, dependant on season (El-Bol*ok et a*l.,
1984-1985b; Miller and Davidson, 2005). El-Bolok et al. (1985)
determined, based on meteorological records, that the optimal condition
for *P. ziziphi* development is 18.7 to 26.7^o^C with 55 to 61.9%
relative humidity. Sweilem et al., (1985), however, found in the lab
that the optimal conditions for egg laying is 27.5^o^C and 53.4%
relative humidity, where *P. ziziphi* females lay an average of 1-2 eggs
per day. Females feeding on fruit produce more eggs then other females
feeding on bark or leaves (El-Bol*ok et a*l., 1984-1985b). Natural
dispersal occurs during the crawler stage, and may be aided by wind or
animal contact (Watson, undated d). *P. ziziphi* crawlers avoid
illumination in lab tests, and have been shown to crawl to shady
protected areas on grapefruit trees (Sala*ma et a*l., 1985a). Long
distance dispersal occurs through the movement of infested plant
material (Watson, undated d).

The rating for this risk element is **Medium (2).**

***Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *citri*** (Citrus Canker or Xac)

Bacteria survive in lesions formed on above-ground parts of susceptible
hosts, including fruit attached to the tree, leaves, twigs, stems, and
the bark of the trunk (Leite and Mohan, 1990). Xac can survive on
non-citrus weed and grass hosts, although the degree epidemiological
significance posed by this source is unclear (Goto, 1970; Go*to et a*l.,
1975a; Go*to et a*l., 1975b; Go*to et a*l., 1978; Perei*ra et a*l.,
1976; Perei*ra et a*l., 1978; Serizawa, 1981; Sta*ll et a*l., 1980).
Bacteria produced in leaf and twig lesions are epidemiologically
significant[^31] for secondary infections (Pruvo*st et a*l., 2002); stem
lesions can act as reservoirs of inoculum for longer periods than fruits
and leaves (Leite Jr. and Mohan, 1990; Vernie*re et a*l., 2003). The
amount of Xac bacteria present within active lesions decreases as the
lesions age. Timmer *et al.* (1991) demonstrated in laboratory studies
that young lesions (4-6 weeks old) exude \~10^4^-10^6^ cfu/ml in the
first 48 hours of wetting, while older lesions (4-6 months old) exude
\~10^2^-10^3^ cfu/ml in the same time period. Bacteria may survive for a
few weeks to several months on decomposing plant litter (fallen fruit,
leaves, and limbs) on the soil surface (Civerolo, 1984; Gottwa*ld et
a*l., 2002a; Grah*am et a*l., 1987; Leite Jr. and Mohan, 1990; Schube*rt
et a*l., 2001), or on plant material buried in the soil (Grah*am et
a*l., 1987). Survival in decomposing leaves, both in and on the soil
surface, is dependant on the moisture and temperature (Goto, 1992;
Grah*am et a*l., 1987). Xac bacteria do not survive for long periods of
time in the soil in the absence of host material (Grah*am et a*l., 1989;
Leite Jr. and Mohan, 1984). The bacterium is a facultative saprotroph on
some substrates including citrus debris, *Zoysia* sp. rhizomes, and rice
straw (Go*to et a*l., 1978; Grah*am et a*l., 1987). Viable bacteria have
been isolated from 5-7 year-old stem lesions (Schube*rt et a*l., 2001).
Asymptomatic citrus leaves still attached to the tree, are believed to
harbor citrus canker bacteria for several months. Late-season lesions
are capable of sustaining bacteria from one season into the next season
(Schube*rt et a*l., 2001), and bacteria residing on plant material in
the soil (as long as 2-4 years) has been shown to infect healthy trees
(Goto, 1992; Go*to et a*l., 1975a; Perei*ra et a*l., 1976). The
aforementioned conditions allow for the persistence of citrus canker
bacteria in areas where the disease is already established, providing
inoculum for the spread of the pathogen (Grah*am et a*l., 1987)
(Appendix 2).

Under conditions of wind-driven rain, bacteria dispersal can occur
within trees, and from tree to tree (Bock, 2005; Gottwald and Graham,
2000). The pathogen spread has been recorded from 32 meters to several
miles (Gottwald and Graham, 2000; Gottwa*ld et a*l., 1988; Gottwa*ld et
a*l., 2002b; Sta*ll et a*l., 1980). In Florida, pathogen spread was
detected within 579 m (1900 ft) from the source 95% of the time (Compton
and Fagan, 2000; Gottwa*ld et a*l., 2002a; Gottwa*ld et a*l., 2001;
McElroy, 2000). Citrus canker spread from an initial 50 square miles to
1,265 square miles area in the first five years following detection in
Florida. The epidemic centered on the Miami area (Gottwa*ld et a*l.,
2001). The spread possibly resulted from favorable environmental
conditions that included storms with high winds and wind-driven rain on
a regular basis, as well as limited management of the disease. For
example, a thunderstorm in 1989 spread inoculum that resulted in the
establishment of four new disease foci, 230 to 810 m from the infected
source trees (Gottwa*ld et a*l., 1992; Grah*am et a*l., 2004).

Long distance spread of the pathogen can occur via the movement of
infected planting and propagating material, such as budwood, rootstock
seedlings or budded trees from nurseries (Gottwa*ld et a*l., 2002a;
Graham and Leite, 2004; Smi*th et a*l., 1997; Timm*er et a*l., 2005).
There is no confirmed record of seed transmission (Smi*th et a*l.,
1997). Contaminated personnel, clothing, equipment, tools, field boxes
and other items associated with harvesting and post-harvest handling of
fruit may also provide a means of long distance dissemination,
especially when trees are wet (Civerolo, 1984; Timm*er et a*l., 2005;
USDA, 2002b). Bacteria can survive in plant debris and soil (Go*to et
a*l., 1978; Grah*am et a*l., 1987); thus, the removal of leaves, fruit,
and limbs from the grove floor and the removal of infected trees, help
reduce inoculum and diminish spread potential.

The movement of diseased fruit has often been considered a potential
means of long distance pathogen spread; however, there is no
authenticated record of this being related to the epidemiology of the
disease (Smi*th et a*l., 1997), despite a long global history of
commercial trade in citrus fruit. Likewise, infected culled fruit and
processed fruit pulp have also been identified as possibly facilitating
long-distance pathogen spread. The likelihood of this occurring is
unknown (Smi*th et a*l., 1997). There is no record that either infected
fruit with lesions or asymptomatic fruit are epidemiologically
significant with respect to the initiation of new infections (Anonymous,
2005a, 2005b; Canteros, 2004; Jett*er et a*l., 2000). Based on the
above, citrus canker is rated **Medium (2)** for the RE Dispersal
Potential.

***Elsinoë australis*** (Sweet Orange Scab)

Conidia dispersal is dependent on rain and/or irrigation (CMI, 1998;
EPPO/CABI, 1997h; Timm*er et a*l., 2000), and may be dispersed over
short distances by air (Chung and Timmer, 2005). The dispersal gradient
is short. Based on a study conducted by Whiteside (1975), the estimated
spread rate in Florida groves was no more than 100 to 300 meters per
year.

The primary window for infection is the early spring, when the tree puts
out new shoot growth and 'petal fall' commences (Timm*er et a*l., 2000).
Leaves are susceptible as they emerge from the bud; thereafter they
become immune to infection (Timm*er et a*l., 2000); however, when
lesions do develop on leaves, they typically remain small (2 mm
diameter) (Bitancourt and Jenkins, 1937). During the six to eight weeks
after 'petal fall,' fruits are highly susceptible to *Elsinoë australis*
(Timm*er et a*l., 2000). According to above information citrus canker is
rated **Low (1)** for the RE Dispersal Potential.

***Guignardia citricarpa*** (Citrus Black Spot or CBS)

The causal organism of citrus black spot has two stages: a sexual stage
represented by the ascospores of *Guignardia* *citricarpa* and an
asexual stage represented by the pycnidiospores of *Phyllosticta
citricarpa* (Appendix 3). Ascospores develop in infected leaf debris,
developing pseudothecium 40-180 days after infection (CABI, 2006e).
Alternate rainy and dry periods aid in disease development. Ascospores
have never been observed to develop on fruit attached to the tree
(Kiely, 1948; Kotzé, 1963, 1981). During rainfall mature ascospores are
forcibly ejected (Kiely, 1948; Kotzé, 1963). Ascospores are subsequently
spread by wind and water (Kiely, 1948; Kotzé, 1963). Wind can spread
ascospores over short distances (Whiteside, 1965). Upon depositing on
attached leaves, and fruit, in a susceptible stage, ascospores germinate
to form an appressorium. Leaves are susceptible up to 10 months of age
(Trut*er et a*l., 2007), while fruit are susceptible four to five months
after petal fall fruit, independent of rainfall, temperature, or
inoculum levels (Kotzé, 1963, 2000). Younger trees appear to be less
susceptible to CBS (Kiely, 1948), in trees up to 10 years of age the
susceptible period is limited to 3 months, and CBS is more easily
controlled (Kiely, 1969). An infection peg then penetrates the cuticle,
expanding into a small mass of mycelium in between the cuticle and
epidermal wall to form a quiescent infection (Kotzé, 2000). Typically
the infection in leaves remains latent, with no symptom development
until after the leaves die, although leaf spots occasionally occur on
older leaves still attached to the tree (Kiely, 1948; Whiteside, 1965).
In fruit the infection remains in the quiescent stage until the fruit
matures. Upon fruit maturation the infection grows into the skin
producing leaf spots and pycnidia, asexual phase of the fungus, although
not all spots produce pycnidia (Kotzé, 1963, 2000; McOnie, 1967). The
pycnidia produce pycnidiospores closely packed conidia in gelatinous
masses (Korf, 1998), which may be dispersed by water (Kiely, 1948;
Whiteside, 1965). The role of pycnidia in the disease cycle of CBS is
still unclear. Pycnidia washed from lesions can cause disease in young
susceptible fruit. (Kotzé, 1963).

A study performed by Agostini *et al.* (2006) showed that the peel of
mature fruit with lesions contained viable pycnidia, the asexual stage,
until decomposed by other organisms. Pycnidiospores are short-lived,
failing to germinate under laboratory conditions after 3-14 days
contingent on the procedure employed (Kiely, 1948; Korf, 1998). Pycnidia
are only dispersed through water. Infected tissue would need to be
within close proximity to a susceptible host at a susceptible stage and
then wetted to possibly cause infection (Agosti*ni et a*l., 2006).
"Pycnidiospores have no special mechanism of release into the
atmosphere, and those occurring on dead leaves, on the ground can reach
the susceptible fruits only by splashing of raindrops" (Kotzé, 1981).
Dry symptomatic fruit cannot release pycnidiospores, and require
multiple wetting and drying cycles for optimum pycnidiospore germination
(Kiely, 1948). Symptomatic fruit removed from the field washed for
pycnidiospores revealed that only 1% of the pycnidiospores germinated.
The same symptomatic fruit was then held in the lab and submerged in
water for 1 hour at 22^o^C then held for 24 hours at 25^o^C. This cycle
was repeated for 4 days and had a remarkable effect on the germination
success as it increased the success from less then 1% to 10%, 25%, 48%
and 78% respectively (Kiely, 1948). The conclusion of this study stated
"...fresh crops of pycnidiospores are produced and displace the spores
which had been formed earlier under less favorable conditions
...moisture conditions at the time of pycnidiospore formation influence
germination ability, and that such pycnidiospores in any case are
short-lived"(Kiely, 1948).

Even under ideal condition, pycnidiospores are not capable of infecting
non susceptible host material. Leaf litter, both old and newly detached
green leaves, are not susceptible to infection by pycnidiospores. Truter
et al. (2007), "demonstrated that viable pycnidiospores from a culture,
symptomatic fruit or peel were not able to infect and colonise freshly
detached green leaves or natural leaf litter from Eureka lemon under
controlled and field conditions. Even after exposure of the leaves to
high inoculum pressure under highly favorable environmental conditions,
*G. citricarpa* did not colonise any of the leaves. As Eureka lemon is
the most susceptible cultivar to CBS, we can assume that the same
results will be achieved on other susceptible cultivars." Mature intact
fruit and discarded citrus peels with CBS lesions are therefore not a
viable pathway for the introduction of CBS. It is, therefore, not
surprising that mature CBS infected fruit with CBS lesions do not spread
pycnidia to other mature uninfected fruit even when placed in direct
contact (Ko*rf et a*l., 2001a).

The sexual stage, ascospores, are the primary source of inoculum (Kotzé,
2000; McOnie, 1964d, 1965) and responsible for pathogen introduction
into new areas, while the secondary cycle of the disease or asexual
stage may be responsible for increasing the disease within the same or
nearby plant (Kotzé, 1981, 2000). Diseased fruit are not considered a
means of long distance dispersal (Trut*er et a*l., 2007). Fruit from CBS
infected regions were shipped for decades to CBS free citrus producing
regions without any reported disease spread (Kotzé, 2000). Long distance
dissemination of CBS is most likely through trade of infected nursery
stock and budwood (Whiteside, 1965). Citrus black spot is rated **Medium
(2)** for the RE Dispersal Potential.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180308 .anchor}**RE#4: Economic Impact**

Introduced pests are capable of causing a variety of direct and indirect
economic impacts such as reduced yield, reduced commodity value, and
loss of foreign or domestic markets. In 2006, the value of production
for citrus fruit produced in the United States reached 2.68 billion
dollars, with 11.6 million tons of utilized production (NASS, 2007).

***Anastrepha fraterculus***

*Anastrepha fraterculus* is the most economically important species of
*Anastrepha* in

Brazil and other South American countries, because of its broad host
range

(Foo*te et a*l., 1993; Weems, 2002). In Brazil for example, *A.
fraterculus* causes yield losses up to 2% in apples. Losses were the
result of direct damage to the fruit and in control costs (Sugaya*ma et
a*l., 1998). It has been estimated that the establishment of *A.
fraterculus* could result in approximately \$159 million in field losses
annually. With control, the cost of living with *A. fraterculus* could
reach \$888 to \$928 million dollars per year. Eradicating an
introduction of *A. fraterculus* could cost an average of \$2.4 million
dollars (USDA, 2002c). *Anastrepha fraterculus* is a quarantine pest for
several countries and regions including Europe (EPPO/CABI, 1997b); thus,
its introduction could result in a loss of foreign and domestic markets
for American-grown commodities. Introduction of *A. fraterculus* in the
United States will increase cost of production of susceptible crops due
to application of pesticides and the initiation of monitoring programs.
The rating for this risk element is **High (3)**.

***Ceratitis capitata***

*Ceratitis capitata* is one of the world\'s most destructive fruit
pests. Due to its wide distribution, its ability to tolerate cooler
climates, and its wide host range, it is ranked first among economically
important fruit fly species (Thom*as et a*l., 2005). *C*. *capitata*
infests more then 250 commercially produced fruit in the Mediterranean
(Fimiani, 1989). The introduction of *C*. *capitata* into Hawaii,
seriously affected small farmers as it attackes 72 commercial hosts in
Hawaii alone (Harris, 1989). In some Mediterranean countries, *C*.
*capitata* infests up to 100% of stone fruits (Thom*as et a*l., 2005).
In Central America, losses of 5 to 15% have been recorded for coffee, as
*C*. *capitata* infestations increase labor costs and reduce bean
quality (Enkerl*in et a*l., 1989). In addition to substantial yield
reductions, *C*. *capitata* lowers crop values by requiring costly
controls (Thom*as et a*l., 2005). Eradication of *C*. *capitata* has
occurred multiple times in the United States, and costs on average \$10
millions dollars per introduction. If *C*. *capitata* could not be
eradicated, it is estimated that living with *C*. *capitata* could reach
\$1.5 billion dollars in losses annually (USDA, 2002c). *C*. *capitata*
is of quarantine significance almost worldwide. Countries without the
pest use considerable resources to prevent the introduction of *C*.
*capitata*. The introduction of *C*. *capitata* into the United States
will lead to severe constraints for fruit export, resulting in losses of
foreign and domestic markets (CABI, 2006c). The rating for this risk
element is **High (3)**.

***Parlatoria cinerea***

Heavy *Parlatoria cinerea* infestations can cause gumming, flaking, and
splitting of bark, which can lead to stem and plant death (Watson,
undated b; Williams and Watson, 1988). In addition to yield reduction,
armored scales reduce fruit quality and market value (Rosen, 1990). When
*P*. *cinerea* is present on fruit, the fruit can only be sent to
certain markets (Rosen, 1990). Establishment of *P*. *cinerea* in the
United States could lead to a loss of foreign markets. The rating for
this risk element is **High (3).**

***Parlatoria ziziphi***

Heavy infestations of *Parlatoria ziziphi* can cause early senescence,
leaf drop, chlorosis, dieback of twigs and branches, stunting and
distortion of fruit and premature fruit drop (Blackburn and Miller,
1984; Miller and Davidson, 2005; Watson, undated d). *P. ziziphi* is
considered to be a serious pest in many regions (Foldi, 2001; Miller and
Davidson, 2005). In addition to yield reduction, *P. ziziphi* is nearly
impossible to remove from the fruit, which reduce fruit appearance and
market value (Chang and Tao, 1963; Fasulo and Brooks, 2004; Miller and
Davidson, 2005). *P. ziziphi* is widely distributed, and the
introduction of *P. ziziphi* into the United States may have a limited
impact on international trade, however it would negatively impact
official control efforts in the United States. The rating for this risk
element is **High (3).**

***Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *citri*** (Citrus Canker or Xac)

Xac lesions on fruit and stems are up to 1 mm deep and generally
resemble those on leaves (Gottwald and Graham, 2000). Lesions on fruit
only penetrate the rind and are variable in size (Schoulti*es et a*l.,
1987). The internal quality of the infected fruit, which ripens on the
trees, is not affected and the fruit are still suitable for the juice
market (Stall and Seymour, 1983). Severe infections of Xac can result in
die-back, defoliation, fruit deformation, and premature fruit drop
(Civerolo, 1981; Gottwald and Graham, 2000; Rossetti, 1977; Stall and
Seymour, 1983). The most significant effect of citrus canker is the loss
of commercial markets due to unmarketable fruit. While the internal
quality of the fruit is not affected, blemished fruit do not meet the
market standard for fresh fruit (Gottwa*ld et a*l., 2001; Mura*ro et
a*l., 2001). Citrus canker is rated **High (3)** for RE Economic
Impacts.

***Elsinoë australis*** (Sweet Orange Scab)

*Elsinoë australis* is a fungal pathogen that causes fruit disfigurement
and reduces fresh market value (Bitancourt and Jenkins, 1937; EPPO/CABI,
1997h). Culling diseased fruit increases handling costs and affects the
volume available for the export market. The majority of oranges grown in
Florida (some 95%) are utilized for processing, therefore the finding of
sweet orange scab in an orange grove would not likely cause a major
disruption to either the processed or fresh market. *Elsinoë australis*
may impact grapefruit, lime or tangerine grove as a large portion of
these crops goes to the fresh market (USDA, 2002c). "The cost of living
with SOS \[sweet orange scab\] would be primarily associated with
increased expenditures for field control to reduce disease symptoms,
post-harvest treatments, grove surveys, and the loss in export market of
fresh citrus from all states. Thus, a rough estimate of the cost of a
permanent establishment of SOS in Florida, including a loss in export
revenue of \$32 million per year, would be about \$55 million annually
(an amount which does not take into consideration the cost of
post-harvest treatments)" (USDA, 2002c). Citrus Black Spot is rated
**Low (1)** for RE Economic Impacts.

***Guignardia citricarpa*** (Citrus Black Spot or CBS)

CBS is mainly a disease of the fruit, producing unsightly lesions. CBS
does not cause post-harvest decay but the unappealing lesions render the
fruits unmarketable and unacceptable for export (EPPO/CABI, 1997a;
Kotzé, 1963, 1981). Symptomatic fruit, still attached to the tree fall
readily (Kiely, 1969). Large economic losses have been recorded in
groves not treated with prophylactic sprays to control CBS. In South
Africa in 1946, up to 90% of unprotected fruit were commonly deemed
unsuitable for export (McOnie, 1964d). Control of CBS is costly as
several propolaytic sprays are typically required throughout the growing
season (Brodrick and Rabie, 1970). The most significant effect of CBS is
the loss of commercial markets due to unmarketable fruit. Without
control, the establishment of CBS in the United States is estimated to
cause between \$95 and \$694 million dollars in losses (USDA, 2002c).
This estimate includes losses due to yield loss, lower revenue from
diverting fresh market fruits, and trade embargos. CBS is not present in
the EU (EPPO/CABI, 1997a). Introduction of the disease into the United
States would likely lead to the loss of foreign markets. Controlling CBS
in the United States is estimated to cost at least \$180 million dollars
annually (USDA, 2002c). Citrus Black Spot is rated **Medium (2)** for RE
Economic Impacts.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180309 .anchor}**RE#5: Environmental Impact**

The assessment of the potential of each pest to cause environmental
damage proceeds by considering factors such as ecological disruptions,
reduced biodiversity, direct impacts on species listed by Federal
Agencies as endangered or threatened (CFR, 2005 17.11 and 17.12) by
infesting/infecting a listed plant, indirect impacts on species listed
by Federal Agencies as endangered or threatened by disrupting sensitive,
critical habitat and triggering chemical or biological control programs.

***Anastrepha fraterculus***

*Anastrepha fraterculus* is an extremely polyphagous pest, and can
potentially impact numerous species listed as Threatened and Endangered
in the United States. In places where it could establish (Zones 9-10),
*A. fraterculus* could impact the congener of a current host, the
Endangered plant *Prunus geniculata* in Florida (USFWS, 2007). If
potential Threatened and Endangered plants are considered at the family
level, then *A.* *fraterculus* could impact an additional 30 taxa. *A.
fraterculus'* host range includes several economically important crops;
therefore, the establishment of this species in the United States would
likely result in the initiation of chemical and/or biological control
programs. The risk rating for this element is **High (3)**.

***Ceratitis capitata***

*Ceratitis capitata* is a polyphagous pest, with a large host range, as
a result there are many closely related congener species within the same
host genera and families listed as Threatened or Endangered in the
United States (USFWS, 2007) that *C. capitata* may also attack. These
include the following U. S. Threatened and Endangered species that are
congeners of known hosts of *C. capitata*: *Eugenia* *haematocarpa*,
*Eugenia koolauensis*, *Eugenia woodburyana*, *Flueggea* *neowawraea*,
*Juglans jamaicensis*, *Opuntia treleasei*, *Prunus geniculata*,
*Santalum freycinetianum* var. *lanaiense*, *Scaevola coriacea*,
*Solanum* *drymophilum*, *Solanum incompletum*, *Solanum sandwicense*,
and *Ziziphus* *celata* (USFWS, 2007). Its introduction and
establishment in the United States would almost certainly trigger
chemical or biological control programs. The rating for this risk
element is **High (3)**.

***Parlatoria cinerea***

*Parlatoria cinerea* could potentially negatively impact several
Threatened and Endangered species in the United States that are
congeners of current hosts; specifically, *Cupressus abramsiana,
Cupressus govenina ssp. govenina*, *Gardenia brighamii*, and *Gardenia
mannii* (USFWS, 2007). Introduction is likely to trigger chemical or
biological control programs because *P*. *cinerea* attacks economically
important crops like apple, citrus, and grape. The rating for this risk
element is **High (3)**.

***Parlatoria ziziphi***

It is difficult to determine the extent of *Parlatoria ziziphi's*
potential impact on Threatened and Endangered species as its host range
is disputed (Ben-D*ov et a*l., 2007; Blackburn and Miller, 1984; Miller
and Davidson, 2005; Watson, undated d). Erring on the side of caution,
*P. ziziphi* impact was based on all of the possible hosts reported.
Based on that information *P. ziziphi* could potentially negatively
impact the Endangered plant *Ziziphus celata* in the United States
(USFWS, 2007), *Ziziphus celata* is a congener of the reported (but
disputed) host *Ziziphus* sp. (Ben-D*ov et a*l., 2007). It is not
disputed that *Parlatoria ziziphi's* host range includes the
economically important crop, citrus; therefore, the establishment of
this species in the United States would likely result in the initiation
of chemical and/or biological control programs. The rating for this risk
element is **Medium (2)**.

***Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *citri*** (Citrus Canker or Xac)

The introduction of citrus canker in a new area may require specific
control programs which may negatively impact non-target pests and the
environment. Prophylactic sprays of copper oxychloride or other
copper-containing compounds are commonly used to provide protection
against initial infection in canker-endemic areas during growth flushes
and fruit development (2-6 cm diameter) (Das, 2003; Graham and Leite,
2004; Koizumi, 1977b; Kuhara, 1978; Leite Jr. and Mohan, 1990;
Medina-Urrutia and Stapleton, 1985; Mura*ro et a*l., 2001; Sta*ll et
a*l., 1980; Timmer, 1988). Additional copper fungicide sprays are often
necessary to avoid symptoms in generally infected areas because the
initial spray usually wears off reducing its efficacy in limiting
disease spread potential (Gottwa*ld et a*l., 2002a; Leite Jr. and Mohan,
1990; Sta*ll et a*l., 1980). In Japan, susceptible hosts are often
sprayed 5 to 7 times, while moderately susceptible cultivars are only
sprayed 4 times throughout the growing season. Five to six copper sprays
during the susceptible rainy season in Brazil results in a disease
incidence decrease of 90% in moderately susceptible cultivars (Leite
J*r. et a*l., 1987). In addition, the age of the citrus tree,
environmental conditions, and the application of other control methods
may alter the effectiveness of copper sprays (Leite Jr., 2000). Graham
and Gottwald (1991) state "in the absence of windbreaks, copper applied
at 1-month intervals slightly reduced canker spread during wind-blown
rain events." However, they found that copper applications did not
affect disease incidence when used in conjunction with windbreaks and
applied at one-month intervals (Graham and Gottwald, 1991). Citrus
canker is rated **Medium (2)** for RE Environmental Impacts.

***Elsinoë australis*** (Sweet Orange Scab)

The introduction of *Elsinoë australis* into a new area may require
specific chemical control programs, which can negatively impact
non-target pests and the environment. Copper oxychloride sprays during
new spring growth and flowering protect the young leaves and fruit by
preventing the spores from germinating and causing infection (Timm*er et
a*l., 2000; Whiteside, 1975). The three sprays recommended for areas
highly infested with citrus scab (Timmer and Chung, 2007b; Timm*er et
a*l., 2000). Growers in Florida are most likely already employing these
chemicals to control *Elsinoë fawcettii,* therefore there would likely
be little additional environmental impacts for controlling *Elsinoë
australis.* According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Threatened and
Endangered Species System (TESS), there are no threatened or endangered
species of citrus in the United States that CBS could impact. *Elsinoë
australis* is rated **Low (1)** for RE Environmental Impacts.

***Guignardia citricarpa*** (Citrus Black Spot or CBS)

The introduction of CBS into a new area may require specific chemical
control programs, which can negatively impact non-target pests and the
environment. A number of fungicides, such as copper products,
dithiocarbamates, benzimidazoles, and strobilurins are effective in
preventing CBS (Go*es et a*l., 1990; Kellerman and Kotzé, 1977; Kotzé,
2000). Prophylactic sprays of fungicides are administered to protect
fruit during periods of high susceptibility (Kellerman and Kotzé, 1977),
between fruit set and four to five months after petal fall (Kotzé, 1963,
2000). According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Threatened and Endangered
Species System (TESS), there are no threatened or endangered species of
citrus in the United States that CBS could impact. Citrus black spot is
rated **Medium (2)** for RE Environmental Impacts.

**Table 3. Risk Rating for Consequences of Introduction**

+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+--------+--------+
| **Pest**    | **Clim | **     | **Disp  | **    | **Envi | **     |
|             | ate-** | Host** | ersal** | Econo | ron-me | Risk** |
|             |        |        |         | mic** | ntal** |        |
|             | **Host | **R    | **Pote  |       |        | **Ra   |
|             | I      | ange** | ntial** | **Imp | **Im   | ting** |
|             | nterac |        |         | act** | pact** |        |
|             | tion** |        |         |       |        |        |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+--------+--------+
| **          |        |        |         |       |        |        |
| Arthropod** |        |        |         |       |        |        |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+--------+--------+
| **          | **Me   | **     | *       | **H   | **     | **     |
| *Anastrepha | dium** | High** | *High** | igh** | High** | High** |
| fra         |        |        |         |       |        |        |
| terculus*** | **2**  | **3**  | **3**   | **3** | **3**  | **14** |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+--------+--------+
| *           | **Me   | **     | *       | **H   | **     | **     |
| **Ceratitis | dium** | High** | *High** | igh** | High** | High** |
| capitata*** |        |        |         |       |        |        |
|             | **2**  | **3**  | **3**   | **3** | **3**  | **14** |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+--------+--------+
| **          | **Me   | **     | **M     | **H   | **     | **     |
| *Parlatoria | dium** | High** | edium** | igh** | High** | High** |
| cinereae*** |        |        |         |       |        |        |
|             | **2**  | **3**  | **2**   | **3** | **3**  | **13** |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+--------+--------+
| **          | **     | **     | **M     | **H   | **Me   | **     |
| *Parlatoria | High** | High** | edium** | igh** | dium** | High** |
| ziziphi***  |        |        |         |       |        |        |
|             | **3**  | **3**  | **2**   | **3** | **2**  | **13** |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+--------+--------+
| *           |        |        |         |       |        |        |
| *Bacteria** |        |        |         |       |        |        |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+--------+--------+
| ***         | **Me   | **Me   | **M     | **H   | **Me   | **Me   |
| Xanthomonas | dium** | dium** | edium** | igh** | dium** | dium** |
| axonopodis* |        |        |         |       |        |        |
| pv.         | **2**  | **2**  | **2**   | **3** | **2**  | **11** |
| *citri***   |        |        |         |       |        |        |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+--------+--------+
| **Fungi**   |        |        |         |       |        |        |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+--------+--------+
| ***Elsinoë  | **Me   | *      | **Low** | **    | *      | *      |
| a           | dium** | *Low** |         | Low** | *Low** | *Low** |
| ustralis*** |        |        | **1**   |       |        |        |
|             | **2**  | **1**  |         | **1** | **1**  | **6**  |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+--------+--------+
| **          | **Me   | *      | **M     | **Med | **Me   | **Me   |
| *Guignardia | dium** | *Low** | edium** | ium** | dium** | dium** |
| ci          |        |        |         |       |        |        |
| tricarpa*** | **2**  | **1**  | **2**   | **2** | **2**  | **9**  |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+--------+--------+
| Low = 5 to  |        |        |         |       |        |        |
| 8; Medium = |        |        |         |       |        |        |
| 9 to 12;    |        |        |         |       |        |        |
| High = 13   |        |        |         |       |        |        |
| to 15       |        |        |         |       |        |        |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+--------+--------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180310 .anchor}**2.6 Likelihood of
introduction**

This portion of the analysis considers two separate components. First,
we estimate the amount of commodity likely to be imported (which is the
same for all quarantine pests considered). Second, we consider five
biological features (i.e., sub-elements) concerning the pest and its
interactions with the commodity. The resulting risk ratings are specific
to each pest. For each pest, the sum of the sub elements produces a
cumulative risk rating for likelihood of introduction. The cumulative
risk rating for introduction is considered to be an indicator of the
likelihood that a particular pest would be introduced. These ratings and
the value for the Likelihood of Introduction are summarized in Table 4.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180311 .anchor}**Sub Element 1: Quantity
imported annually**

***Anastrepha fraterculus, Ceratitis capitata, Parlatoria cinereae*,
*Parlatoria ziziphi,* *Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *citri,*** ***Elsinoë
australis*** and ***Guignardia citricarpa***

The likelihood that an exotic pest will be introduced depends on the
amount of the potentially-infected commodity that is imported.
Argentinean exporters estimate that a total of 1,000,000 boxes (each box
18 kg) of lemons will be exported per year (Gatti and Cortese, 2007).
Each box is expected to contain approximately 150 fruit. In total,
approximately 600-800 standard 40-foot shipping containers are expected
annually, based on conversion factor of 20 metric tons per 40 foot
shipping containers. The national production of lemons in the entire
country is reported to be 1.2 M tons, with an export total for lemons in
2006 of 325,632 metric tons (Federcitrus, 2007).

The quantity of commodity imported is estimated \>100 containers per
year and may approximate the current export total, therefore the
Quantity Imported Annually is rated **High (3)** for all pests.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180312 .anchor}**Sub Element 2: Harvested fruit
is infested/infected**

It is assumed that infestation is likely if fruit originates in areas
where the pest/disease occurs, but the magnitude of the hazard at this
stage will depend in large part on the proportion of infested/infected
fruit and the nature of the infestation/contamination. The incidence of
infested/infected fruit will depend primarily on the variety,
environmental conditions, and field management.

***Anastrepha fraterculus* and *Ceratitis capitata***

There are several methods available for controlling fruit fly
populations in the field, including bait sprays, sterile insect
technique (SIT), and male annihilation (CABI, 2006b, 2006c). As lemons
are a conditional host, harvesting lemons prior to maturity should
practically eliminate the likelihood of fruit fly infestation as
*Ceratitis capitata*, for example, has only been detected in over ripe
lemons (APHIS, 2006). Argentina currently harvests green fruit in
Northwest areas between March and May, and yellow fruit between May and
August (Gatti, 2007). Green fruit harvested early in the seson (March to
May) have a very low risk of fruit fly infestation. Yellow fruit
harvested later in the season (May to August) has a slightly greater
risk of infestation, but SENASA has not reported finding fruit fly in
lemon despite more than a decade of surveillance. Lemons when allowed to
become ripe beyond what is considered commercially mature are more
susceptible as a conditional host for *Ceratitus capitata* and
*Anastrepha fraterculus* (APHIS, 2006).

Because lemons may be a conditional host for fruit flies, the rating for
this element is conservatively estimated to be **Medium (1)** for both
*Anastrepha fraterculus* and *Ceratitis capitata.*

***Parlatoria cinereae* and *Parlatoria ziziphi***

Field control of scale insects is plausible. Chemical control programs
are most effective when the spray timing coincides with the time of
invasion (Rodri*go et a*l., 2004). Effective control of *Parlatoria
ziziphi* was achieved with the pesticides omethoate, Lorsban
\[chlorpyrifos\], Supracide \[methidathion\], quinalphos, PP-321
\[lambda-cyhalothrin\], Sumicidin \[fenvalerate\] or 1Cymbush
\[cypermethrin\] (Hua*ng et a*l., 1988). Field applications of mineral
oil are also effective in significantly reducing field populations of
*Parlatoria ziziphi* (Coll and Abd-Rabou, 1998). The mineral oil
applications are effective against all life stages, however, it appears
to be most effective against the nymph stage (Coll and Abd-Rabou, 1998).
Chemical controls for *Parlatoria ziziphi* should be equally effective
for controlling *Parlatoria cinereae* populations. The risk rating for
both *Parlatoria cinereae* and *Parlatoria ziziphi* is **Medium (2)**.

***Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *citri*** (Citrus Canker or Xac)

Groves in infested areas may have citrus canker infected fruit at
varying levels, depending on the prevalence of inoculum, the
susceptibility of the variety, climatic, environmental, and cultural
conditions. Presence of the organism on fruit may be associated with
lesions, injuries, or blemishes, or it may be epiphytic (contamination).
Research does not indicate the existence of endophytic infection inside
the fruit, or any plant part that does not develop symptoms. The
prevalence of infected or contaminated, fruit will primarily depend on
the variety, environmental conditions, and field treatment regimes.

Prophylactic sprays of copper oxychloride or other copper-containing
compounds provide protection against initial infection in canker-endemic
areas during growth flushes and fruit development (2-6 cm diameter)
(Das, 2003; Graham and Leite, 2004; Koizumi, 1977b; Kuhara, 1978; Leite
Jr., 1990; Medina-Urrutia and Stapleton, 1985; Mura*ro et a*l., 2001;
Sta*ll et a*l., 1980; Timmer, 1988). Additional copper fungicide sprays
are often necessary to avoid symptoms in generally infected areas
because the initial spray usually wears or washes off reducing its
efficacy in limiting disease spread potential (Gottwa*ld et a*l., 2002a;
Leite Jr. and Mohan, 1990; Sta*ll et a*l., 1980). Well-timed field
treatments significantly reduce the incidence of disease, the level of
inoculum, and the number of symptomatic fruit in the field. Combinations
of prophylactic sprays and cultural control practices, such as
windbreaks and pruning diseased shoots, further reduce disease incidence
(Das, 2003; Kuhara, 1978; Leite Jr., 2000; Leite Jr. and Mohan, 1990).

Citrus canker is mainly a leaf spotting and fruit blemishing disease.
The disease produces obvious and characteristic symptoms on fruit,
except when uncharacteristic lesions may be associated with injuries
(Gottwald and Graham, 2000; Pruvo*st et a*l., 2002; Timm*er et a*l.,
2005). Typical lesions from natural infection are unlikely to occur on
mature fruit since the natural infection of healthy uninjured fruit
occurs as the fruit is enlarging (Civerolo, 1984; Grah*am et a*l.,
1992b; Graham and Leite, 2004; Vernie*re et a*l., 2003). Infection after
the 90-120 day period of fruit enlargement is, therefore, associated
with injuries, and may not result in typical symptoms. Mature fruit
exposed to the bacteria through an injury would not be expected to
express symptoms although it is possible that injured fruit could harbor
the bacteria. Fruit that is mature (not expanding) and is free of
injuries or blemishes are not known to express symptoms (Grah*am et
a*l., 1992b).

Resistance of fruit to infection by citrus canker is correlated with its
stage of maturity. The younger the fruit, the less resistant it is to
citrus canker (Grah*am et a*l., 1992b). Persistence of the citrus canker
pathogen depends on the location of the canker lesions (Schube*rt et
a*l., 2001). Fruit and leaves removed from trees sustain bacterial
populations in lesions for 1-2 months in the presence of antagonistic
microorganisms (Schube*rt et a*l., 2001; Timm*er et a*l., 1996b). Timmer
*et al.* (1991) inoculated grapefruit and Swingle citrumelo leaves with
*Xanthomonas camperstris* in the field, and then collected the leaves at
14, 21 and 49 days after inoculation to assess bacteria concentrations
within the active lesions. Fourteen day old lesions produced
significantly more bacteria than 49 day old lesions. Young leaves (4-6
weeks old) and mature leaves (4-6 months old) naturally infected with
*X. c.* pv. *citri* were removed from the infected tree and assessed in
the lab. Bacterial populations within the lesions were closely
correlated with lesion age. Young leaves exuded \~10^6^ cells/ml, while
older lesions exuded \~10^3^ cells/ml. After a 48-hour period, all
samples exuded fewer then 10^2^ cells/ml (Timm*er et a*l., 1991). Fruit
and leaves removed from trees sustain bacterial populations in lesions
for 1-2 months in the presence of antagonistic microorganisms (Schube*rt
et a*l., 2001). Diseased leaves removed from trees and placed on the
soil surface harbor bacteria populations for 90 to 120 days, with no
detectable bacteria after 120 days (Grah*am et a*l., 1987). Xac
populations within the lesions of infected fruit decline after harvest
(Civerolo, 1981; Koizumi, 1972).

Epiphytic populations of Xac on citrus tissue drop 3-5 orders of
magnitude in 24 hours during experimental testing (Timm*er et a*l.,
1996b). Timmer *et al.* (1996) states, "we detected epiphytic \[Xac\] on
asymptomatic plants, but the occurrence of epiphytic populations was not
related to subsequent appearance of symptoms," and additionally, "our
evidence indicates that \[Xac\] is highly unlikely to persist on hosts
or non-hosts in the absence of symptoms for long periods."

Populations decline rapidly within the lesions of infected fruit after
harvest (Civerolo, 1981). Researchers in Brazil sprayed asymptomatic
fruit, removed from trees, with a bacterial suspension of 10^6^ cfu/ml;
this resulted in non-recovery of inoculated bacteria after 5 days at
room temperature under lab conditions (Belasque Jr. and Rodriguez Neto,
2000). The survival of epiphytic Xac populations on asymptomatic fruit,
under natural conditions, would be expected to be further reduced due to
harsher environmental conditions.

In commercial operations, diseased, damaged, disfigured, and blemished
fruits are culled in the field and packinghouse. Current programs in
Argentina have demonstrated that culling of symptomatic citrus canker
fruit is highly effective in packinghouse operations. For example, trays
of fruit known to contain either 1% or 3% of symptomatic fruit were
visually inspected at three stages throughout the packing process,
resulting in extremely low (near 0) numbers of symptomatic, injured or
blemished fruit reaching the packing bench, and zero symptomatic fruit
packed in boxes (Plop*er et a*l., 2004). Because the survival of
bacteria on non-attached citrus fruit is significantly reduced (Koizumi,
1972), the likelihood of citrus canker spread through bacteria on
harvested commercial fruit is very low (Grah*am et a*l., 1992b). No
infection was observed on citrus fruits artificially inoculated with
*Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *citri* where used as an inoculum source,
even under ideal environmental conditions (Civerolo, personal
communication on unpublished research).

The evidence indicates that substantial amounts of healthy fruit can be
obtained in Xac endemic areas; for this reason the RE Harvested Fruit is
infected is rated **Low (1)**.

***Elsinoë australis*** (Sweet Orange Scab)

Infection occurs in the early spring, when there is new shoot growth and
'petal fall' commences (Timm*er et a*l., 2000). Leaves are only
susceptible as they emerge; thereafter they become immune to infection
(Timm*er et a*l., 2000). Lesions that do develop on leaves, typically
remain small (2 mm diameter) (Bitancourt and Jenkins, 1937). Tissue
susceptibility decreases as fruit mature. Six to eight weeks after petal
fall fruits are susceptible to *Elsinoë australis* (Timm*er et a*l.,
2000). Rind symptoms of initial infections typically display slightly
raised and pink to light brown scab prostulates. As the scab or
prostulate develop they become warty and cracked and yellowish brown to
dark gray in color (Bitancourt and Jenkins, 1937; Timm*er et a*l.,
2000).

Barrier zones around export groves help to reduce the spread of the
pathogen from one registered grove to another. Copper oxychloride sprays
during new spring growth and flowering protect the young leaves and
fruit by preventing the spores from germinating and causing infection
(Timm*er et a*l., 2000; Whiteside, 1975). Spray programs used to control
*Elsinoë fawcettii* should be effective in controlling *Elsinoë
australis.* In areas with old leaves that are heavily infested three are
sprays recommended for citrus scab control. If there is little carryover
of the disease from one season to the next then only two sprays are
typically necessary (Timmer and Chung, 2007b). Two fungicide sprays are
often applied in infected regions (Chung and Timmer, 2005). Copper
fungicides may be used to control citrus scab, but may not be as
effective in heavily infected groves (Timmer and Chung, 2007b). The
National Plant Board (NPB) recommends a systems approach to control
citrus scab pathogens that include copper fungicide sparys (NPB, 2002).

Other chemical treatments may be used in addition to copper, Benomyl,
fenbuconazole, and azoxystrobin. All are very effective as protectant
and postinfection sprays for control citrus scab (Bushong and Timmer,
2000). The evidence indicates that substantial amounts of healthy fruit
can be obtained in *Elsinoë australis* endemic areas; for this reason
the RE Harvested Fruit is infected is rated **Low (1)**.

***Guignardia citricarpa*** (Citrus Black Spot or CBS)

Adequate rainfall, temperatures, and inoculum must be present for
infection to occur (Huang and Chang, 1972; Kotzé, 1981; Lee and Huang,
1973). However, four to five months after petal fall fruit become
resistant, independent of rainfall, temperature, or inoculum levels
(Kotzé, 1963, 2000). Quiescent infections of fruit are common and
develop symptoms after fruit attains full size or becomes mature.
Therefore, asymptomatic fruit with a latent infection on the tree may
appear healthy but will develop active lesions post-harvest (Kotzé,
1963, 2000; McOnie, 1967).

Mechanically removing leaf litter from the orchard floor reduces the
amount of available CBS (CABI, 2006eCABI, 2006), especially when the
removed litter is mulched, in combination with a prophylactic spray
program. Mulching increases the number of export quality fruit by 13-16%
(Schutte and Kotzé, 1997). Mature fruit left on the tree should also be
removed before new fruit set to prevent pycnidia from spreading from the
old infected fruit (EPPO/CABI, 1997a; Kotzé, 1981). Prophylactic sprays
of fungicides are administered to protect fruit during periods of high
susceptibility (Goes, 1998), between fruit set and four to five months
after petal fall (Kotzé, 1963, 2000). Fungicide applications in the
field throughout the growing season significantly reduces the incident
of postharvest CBS development (Agosti*ni et a*l., 2006). Prophylactic
sprays are most effective when administered during times of ascospore
release. Spray timing is often determined by examining temperature,
rainfall (Kotzé, 2000; McOnie, 1964c), spore traps, and dew measurements
(Kotzé, 2000). Several fungicides are effective in reducing CBS
prevalence, such as copper products, dithiocarbamates, benzimidazoles,
mancozeb, phosphorous acid, iprodione, thiophanate methyl, and
strobilurins (CABI, 2006e; Goes, 2002; Go*es et a*l., 2000; Kellerman
and Kotzé, 1977; McOnie, 1964a; Mil*es et a*l., 2004; Rodriguez and
Mazza, 2004; Schutte, 2002). While these fungicides are effective in
reducing CBS incidence, no field treatment is likely to completely
eliminate quiescent infections (Agosti*ni et a*l., 2006).

Argentina currently utilizes copper fungicide sprays to control CBS in
the field (Rivadenei*ra et a*l., 2005). While one study by Seberry et
al. (1967) did not detect any reduction of CBS incidence after field
applications of copper, several more recent studies have detected
noticible CBS control using copper fungicides as part of a control
program (Agosti*ni et a*l., 2006; Foglia*ta et a*l., 2001; Schutte,
2002). Copper fungicide sprays provide excellent field control of CBS,
and when mixed with mineral oil does not cause phytotoxicity (Schutte,
2002). Spray programs often include the application of multiple
fungicides that include copper sprays. An experiment by Agostini *et
al.* (2006) examined the incidence of post harvest development of CBS
when a field spray program that included copper fungicides was utilized
during the growing season. For lemons the spray program included one
application of carbendazim and one application of trifloxstrobin +
copper hydroxide. CBS incidence in lemons was reduced from 69.5% in
untreated fruit to 5.5% disease incidence from treated groves (Agosti*ni
et a*l., 2006). In Argentina a spray program that consisted of applying
copper oxychloride at petal fall, mixture of copper oxychloride and
mancozeb at 30 and 60 days after petal fall, and benomyl or
difenoconazole at 90 days after petal fall provided the sufficient
control of CBS (Foglia*ta et a*l., 2001).

According to this information healthy fruit in endemic areas can be
obtained, however latent infections make it difficult to harvest only
health fruit and increase the risk of harvesting infected fruit. For
this reason the RE for Harvested Fruit is infected is rated **Medium
(2)**.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180313 .anchor}**Sub Element 3: Survives
packing and post harvest treatment**

The third Sub Element is the likelihood of pest/inoculum surviving the
packing process and post harvest treatment. Field culling would be
expected to remove symptomatic and damaged fruit prior to arrival.
Harvested fruit is transported to the packing house where it is
subjected to manual and/or optical scanner cullings. Citrus fruit is
washed when it enters the packing house as a normal part of any packing
process. This washing usually includes mechanical brushing, detergent,
and disinfectant with 200 ppm chlorine and/or SOPP. The fruit is also
chemically treated (Thiabendazole (TBZ), Imazalil) to control fungal and
bacterial growth. Finally, the fruit is dried and waxed.

***Anastrepha fraterculus* and *Ceratitis capitata***

Internally feeding arthropods are generally expected to survive minimal
post-harvest treatment, such as washing and culling. Because *Ceratitis
capitata* and *Anastrepha*

*fraterculus* are internal feeders, they are expected to survive
post-harvest culling, especially if the infestation of the fruit does
not result in obvious damage. Fruit fly infested fruit could have a high
probability of escaping detection during culling, as fruit fly-infested
fruit can go unrecognized (White and Elson-Harris, 1992). The rating for
this element is **High (3)** for both *Anastrepha fraterculus* and
*Ceratitis capitata.*

***Parlatoria cinereae* and *Parlatoria ziziphi***

Scales, as external feeders, may not survive post-harvest treatments;
however, depending on their stage (egg, nymph, or adult), they may find
shelter on fruit in cracks and crevices (Kosztarab, 1996). Culling
operations are expected to remove a most of the scale infested lemons.
"The scales are commonly removed from the pathway on commercially
produced fruit because they constitute blemishes that are removed as
part of quality control practices." (USDA, 2007c). Both *Parlatoria
cinereae* and *Parlatoria ziziphi* colorations should make them
noticeable on harvested fruit (Watson, undated d). Armored scales can be
difficult to remove from infested fruit. *Parlatoria ziziphi* in
particular is nearly impossible to dislodge from the fruit (Chang and
Tao, 1963; Fasulo and Brooks, 2004; Miller and Davidson, 2005). Washing
and brushing would likely have little effect on removing these scales
but such practices would be expected to inflict high mortality resulting
from damage to the scale's cover. The risk rating for both *Parlatoria
cinereae* and *Parlatoria ziziphi* is **Medium (3)**.

***Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *citri*** (Citrus Canker or Xac)

Harvested fruit is transported to the packinghouse where it is subjected
to one or more visual inspections. Field culling is highly effective in
removing symptomatic and blemished or injured fruit prior to arrival at
the packinghouse. Visual and/or mechanical inspection at the
packinghouse further reduce the possibility that symptomatic, injured,
or blemished fruit, as well as misshapen, off-color, damaged, and
otherwise low quality fruit, will be packed. Culling procedures in
Argentina are extremely effective in removing symptomatic fruit,
resulting in extremely low numbers (near 0) of symptomatic fruit
reaching the packing bench, and zero symptomatic fruit packed into boxes
(Plop*er et a*l., 2004).

Commercially packed citrus fruit is washed when it enters the
packinghouse as a normal part of the packing process. This washing
usually includes mechanical brushing and detergent (at least), which
will remove organic and other contaminants (such as soil) (Schube*rt et
a*l., 1999). Brushing increases the exposure of Xac to detergents or
other toxins (Brown and Schubert, 1987). The drying process, *i.e*., hot
air at 58 °C for 2.5 minutes, after washing further reduces epiphytic
Xac populations (Schube*rt et a*l., 1999).

When the washing process includes a disinfectant, such as 200 ppm
chlorine or sodium orthophenylphenate (SOPP) or both, Xac populations
are significantly reduced to epidemiologically insignificant or
undetectable levels (Brown and Schubert, 1987; Graham and Gottwald,
1991; Oba*ta et a*l., 1969). The packing house wash with disinfectants
can practically remove all epiphytic Xac from fruits without symptoms
(Canteros, 2004, (undated); Canter*os et a*l., 2000). The use of 200 ppm
Cl for two minutes reduces natural bacterial populations on citrus
fruits from 77-99% (Stapleton, 1986). The estimated reduction in
bacterial populations on the surface of citrus fruits brushed, washed,
and disinfected with Cl or SOPP is between 3 and 7 orders of magnitude,
according to research cited above. According to research by Verdier *et
al*. (unpublished) (Anonymous, 2005b), bacterial populations on
artificially infested fruits were 1.7x10^3^ cfu[^32]/ml and 39.4 cfu/ml
on naturally infested asymptomatic fruit prior to post-harvest treatment
in Uruguay. After treatment, these levels were reduced to 8 cfu/ml for
artificially infested fruit and 0.06 cfu/ml, respectively, for naturally
infested fruit detected through plating on artificial growing media. No
growth or disease developed on tests using susceptible leaf tissue.
Bacterial populations used for artificial inoculation of fruit are at
extremely high levels typically never found in natural conditions (\~43
times higher than naturally infected fruit) (Verdi*er et a*l.,
(undated)).

Such levels of bacterial presence, as used in these experiments, is
considered "high" because those levels are consistent with every tree in
a grove being infected (as all fruit in the experiments are inoculated
or exposed to Xac). That very high level of disease incidence is not
likely to be found in any commercial grove anywhere because the grove
would not be productive and the fruit would not be marketable. Studies
preformed in Argentina on the effectiveness of sodium hypochlorite on
mature symptom-less fruit, artificially inoculated with Xac, showed that
sodium hypochlorite levels as low as 8 ppm were effective in eliminating
epiphytic or surface bacteria from fruit (Canteros, (undated)). If small
epiphytic population of Xac did survive the post-harvest treatment it
would not survive on the surface of the fruit for long (Goto, 1969;
Timm*er et a*l., 1991; USDA and FDACS, 2000). Epiphytic bacteria do not
multiply in water, on leaf surfaces, or on dry leaves (Timm*er et a*l.,
1991; Timm*er et a*l., 1996b). Due to the packing process, the rating is
**Low (1)** for RE Survives packing and post harvest treatment.

***Elsinoë australis*** (Sweet Orange Scab)

Harvested fruit is visually inspected for disease symptoms. Fruits are
infected in the early stages of their development, grow misshapen and
are subject to premature fall (EPPO/CABI, 1997h). Lesions on young fruit
are round to irregular, 2 to 6 mm in diameter, raised and slightly
convex (Bitancourt and Jenkins, 1937). Rind symptoms of older scabs are
warty and cracked and yellowish brown to dark gray in color (Bitancourt
and Jenkins, 1937; Timm*er et a*l., 2000). Culling procedures used in
Argentina to remove symptomatic Xac fruit (Plop*er et a*l., 2004) should
be extremely effective in removing *Elsinoë australis* symptomatic
fruit.

Routine packing house treatments used to control CBS such as chlorine
dip, warm water bath, or chemical tank dip (1000 μg ml^-1^ guazatine,
503 μg ml^-1^ imazalil sulphate, 500 μg ml^-1^ 2,4-D sodium salt) and
combinations of these treatments (Ko*rf et a*l., 2001a), should be
effective in reduces the viability of the *Elsinoë australis*. In
addition, wax treatments that further reduce the viability of CBS
conidia (Ko*rf et a*l., 2001a; Seber*ry et a*l., 1967) should also
reduce the viability of *Elsinoë australis* conidia.

Due to the packing process, the rating is **Medium (2)** for RE Survives
packing and post harvest treatment.

***Guignardia citricarpa*** (Citrus Black Spot or CBS)

Infected symptomatic fruit produce the asexual stage of CBS, pycnidia.
Pycnidia are considered to play a minor role in the disease cycle of
CBS, as they are not a source of primary inoculum (Kotzé, 1981, 2000),
and are not dispersed through wind events (Kotzé, 1963).

Symptomatic citrus fruit may display four types of symptoms: hard spot,
melanose spots, freckle spot, and virulent spot (Kiely, 1948; Kotzé,
1963, 2000). The type of symptoms that develop is a result of the
temperature and stage of fruit maturity (Kotzé, 1963). Hard spot lesions
typically develop pre-harvest, and are characterized by circular
depressed lesions. Pycnidia are usually present in these lesions, but
not always (Kiely, 1948; Kotzé, 2000). Melanose spots typically develop
on green fruit and do not contain pycnidia (Kotzé, 1963, 2000). Freckle
spots are typically round, light brown to red (orange) and depressed
lesions. Pycnidia may be found within these lesions (Kotzé, 1963, 2000).
Virulent spots develop on either fruit reaching maturity or fully mature
fruit and are typically irregular in shape. Virulent spots may contain
numerous pycnidia, dependant on environmental conditions (Kiely, 1948;
Kotzé, 1963, 2000). All four symptoms are visible to the naked eye and
are culled during visual inspections in the packing house.

Post-harvest treatments are extremely effective in reducing the
viability of pycnidiospores in lesions on symptomatic fruit. Routine
packing house treatments such as chlorine dip, warm water bath, or
chemical tank dip (1000 μg ml^-1^ guazatine, 503 μg ml^-1^ imazalil
sulphate, 500 μg ml^-1^ 2,4-D sodium salt) and combinations of these
treatments, reduces the viability of the conidia to zero on fruit kept
at 4.5^o^C-25^o^C (Ko*rf et a*l., 2001a). In addition, wax treatments
will further reduce the viability of conidia (Ko*rf et a*l., 2001a;
Seber*ry et a*l., 1967). In general pycnidiospores are short-lived,
failing to germinate under laboratory conditions after 3-14 contingent
on the procedure employed (Kiely, 1948; Korf, 1998).

Quiescent infections of fruit are common and symptoms develop after
fruit attains full size or becomes mature (Kotzé, 1963, 1981, 2000;
McOnie, 1967). Therefore, apparently healthy asymptomatic fruit entering
the packing house may develop active lesions during packing, shipping,
or upon arrival at the final destination. Storage temperatures influence
the development rate of latent CBS infections. Low temperature (\~8^o^C)
delay symptom development (Agosti*ni et a*l., 2006), while high storage
temperatures (\~27^o^C) and 24 hour fluorescent lighting speed up
symptom development (Brodrick and Rabie, 1970; CABI, 2006e; Korf, 1998).
Wax treatments will also delay the onset of symptom development and
perhaps reduce the disease severity (Ko*rf et a*l., 2001a; Seber*ry et
a*l., 1967). Low storage temperatures and wax treatments do not prevent
or eradicate the disease; rather they only delay fungal growth as
quiescent infections can not be eliminated from the fruit once infection
has occurred (Agosti*ni et a*l., 2006). As these infected fruit are
asymptomatic, they are unlikely to be culled during visual inspections
at the packing house. To force symptom development, fruit may be held at
27^o^C and under continuous light prior to entering the packing house
(Brodrick and Rabie, 1970; CABI, 2006e; Korf, 1998). In one study under
these conditions, CBS lesions developed within 5 to 7 days on
naturally-infected Valencia oranges (Korf, 1998).

The rating for this risk element is **Medium (2)**.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180314 .anchor}**Sub Element 4: Survives
shipments**

The fourth Sub Element is concerned with the survival of inoculum in
fruit during shipping. Shipments of lemon are likely to be refrigerated
and spend two to four weeks in transit to the United States.

***Anastrepha fraterculus* and *Ceratitis capitata***

The shipping temperature, could significantly affect the ability of
*Ceratitis capitata* and *Anastrepha fraterculus* to survive shipment.
Both fruit flies are limited in distribution by cold tolerance (CABI,
2006b, 2006c). USDA has an approved probit 9 cold treatment for treating
*Ceratitis capitata*. The planned shipping temperatures for lemons from
Argentina are unknown. Recommended shipping and storage temperatures for
lemons are between 7°C and 10°C for one to six months (Cantwell, 2002).
In this situation it is unclear the effect shipping temperature will
have on fruit fly survival. *Anastrepha* spp. (over 65, 000
interceptions) and *Ceratitis capitata* (2, 875 interceptions) have been
intercepted at U. S. ports of entry thousands of times (AQAS, 2007) on
different host fruit from other countries. The high number of
interceptions is clear evidence that both fruit fly species are capable
of surviving shipment. The rating for this element is **High (3)** for
both *Anastrepha fraterculus* and *Ceratitis capitata.*

***Parlatoria cinereae* and *Parlatoria ziziphi***

The ability of *Parlatoria cinereae* and *Parlatoria ziziphi* to survive
shipping is unknown. *Parlatoria ziziphi* is capable of overwintering
(El-Bol*ok et a*l., 1984-1985b), which may indicate that it could
survive at low temperatures for extended periods of time. Due to the
lack of information regarding this risk element the risk rating for both
*Paraltoria cinereae* and *Parlatoria ziziphi* is **High (3)**.

***Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *citri*** (Citrus Canker or Xac)

Bacteria that may survive the packing process have not been shown to
occur on the surface of citrus fruit or under the wax coating applied to
the fruit. Any surviving bacteria are unlikely capable of causing
disease development under these circumstances. Fruit-to-fruit
post-harvest spread of bacteria has never been documented. According to
E. Civerolo (1997), Xac latent populations do not produce symptoms in
harvested fruit (Anonymous, 2005b; Civerolo, 1997), and there is no
evidence of epiphytic growth by Xac (Brunnings and Gabriel, 2003).

The multiplication of Xac bacteria associated with lesions is closely
related to lesion expansion. In expanding lesions, Xac bacteria multiply
abundantly, but as lesion expansion ceases, bacteria multiplication
noticeably decreases (Koizumi and Kuhara, 1982). As lesions expand, with
the exception of the early stages of lesion development, the cells in
the center of lesion disintegrate. In the late stages of lesion
expansion, bacteria multiplication becomes inhibited in the peripheral
area of the lesion (Koizumi, 1977a). Bacteria survive in the margin of
the lesions in citrus leaves and fruit, until it falls off or is removed
from the tree (Grah*am et a*l., 1992b). Xac bacteria do not increase in
number on fruit once the fruit is removed from the tree, but rather
populations decline within the lesions of infected fruit following
harvest (Civerolo, 1981; Koizumi, 1972).

Bacteria that may survive the packing process on the surface of citrus
fruit are unlikely to survive the shipping process. Epiphytic
populations of *X. axonopodis* pv*. citri* only survive for a limited
amount of time, 8-72 hours in sun and shade (Goto, 1962, 1969). No
variation of survival has been detected for epiphytic Xac bacteria on
varying plant or inorganic material. Gottwald examined epiphytic
bacteria survival on metal, wood, plastic, cloth, leather, and grass; he
did not detect Xac on any surface tested after 72 hours (USDA and FDACS,
2000). In one study, leaves inoculated with culture grown bacteria have
displayed a significant population decline (3-5 orders of magnitude) in
the first 24 hours following inoculation, but bacteria persisted in low
numbers (\<10^4^ cfu/leaf) for up to 5 days (Timm*er et a*l., 1996b). In
a laboratory study inoculating unwounded leaves via air pressure,
bacteria concentrations of less than 10^4^ cells per ml were unable to
cause infection (Gottwald and Graham, 1992). Wounded leaves are more
susceptible to infection and may only require a minimum of 10^2^ cells
per ml (Go*to et a*l., 1978). Epiphytic bacteria do not multiply in
water on leaf surfaces or on dry leaves (Timm*er et a*l., 1991; Timm*er
et a*l., 1996b). There is, therefore, a very limited window of time when
epiphytic population will pose an epidemiological threat. The rating is
**Low (1)** for RE Survives shipments.

***Elsinoë australis*** (Sweet Orange Scab)

The ability of *Elsinoë australis* to survive shipping is unknown. The
fungus overwinters in the tree canopy on limbs and fruit that had been
infected during the previous season. The pathogen will survive if
existing scab pustules retain the infectious conidia (propagules)
(EPPO/CABI, 1997h). Citrus scab can generally survive for periods of
time without susceptible tissue in pustules on old leaves and fruit
(Timm*er et a*l., 2000). Since *Elsinoë australis* is capable of
overwintering, it may indicate that it could survive at low temperatures
during fruit shipments. Due to the lack of information regarding this
risk element the risk rating for *Elsinoë australis* is **High (3)**.

***Guignardia citricarpa*** (Citrus Black Spot or CBS)

The peel of mature fruit with lesions contain viable pycnidia, the
asexual stage of CBS, until decomposed by other organisms (Agosti*ni et
a*l., 2006). In one study, pycnospores survived up to five months in
fruit lesions (Wager, 1949). Recommended shipping and storage
temperatures for lemons are between 7°C and 10°C for one to six months
(Cantwell, 2002). These shipment temperatures would likely delay the
onset of symptom development in CBS latent infected fruit (Agosti*ni et
a*l., 2006; CABI, 2006e). Upon arrival, it is very likely that fruit
will be subjected to higher temperatures for marketing. The increase in
temperature could dramatically increase the development of symptoms
(Agosti*ni et a*l., 2006). Considering the clear evidence of citrus
black spot latency, the rating is **High (3)** for fruit for RE Survives
shipments.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180315 .anchor}**Sub Element 5: Fruit moved to
suitable habitat**

The fifth Sub Element involves shipment of infested/infected fruit to a
suitable habitat for establishment/disease development and for this the
geographic location of likely markets is considered. Fruit that arrives
in the United States does not normally arrive at a single port; instead,
it is distributed according to market demand. Demographics derived from
United States Census data are useful in predicting the distribution of
imported citrus fruit by indicating population centers where demand may
be greatest.

***Anastrepha fraterculus*, *Ceratitis capitata,* *Parlatoria cinereae*,
*Parlatoria ziziphi,* *Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *citri,* *Elsinoë
australis* and *Guignardia citricarpa***

Fruit that arrives in the United States does not arrive at a single
state. Rather, the fruit is distributed according to market demands
through commercial distribution areas. The distribution channels and the
fact that all fruit is for consumption reduce the number of fruit that
end up in regions suitable to pests. U.S. demographics and the
distribution of markets are strong indicators of the ultimate
destination of fruit. The distribution of U.S. population according to
the 2000 U.S. Census is shown in Figure 5 and describes the likely
patterns of fruit destined for human consumption (US Census, 2000).
Based on their known distributions in warm temperate and tropical
climates, all of the arthropods are rated **Medium (2)** for their
ability to be moved to a Suitable Habitat due to their need for specific
temperature ranges.

Three of the four most populous states in the United States; Florida,
Texas, and California, are in the southern tier of the United States
where the climate most closely resembles the native climates for Xac and
CBS (US Census, 2000). If we assume that citrus is proportionally
distributed across the United States, in accordance with population,
then it is reasonable to assume that some fruit will be shipped to these
states; however, only a small portion of each state actually produces
citrus, and an even smaller portion has a climate suitable for Xac and
CBS disease development. *Elsinoë australis* is only likely to establish
in the state of Florida, with citrus proportionally distributed across
the United States the likelihood that *Elsinoë australis* infected fruit
will be shipped to a suitable habitat is even further limited than the
other citrus diseases.

Fruit moved to suitable habitat is rated **Medium (2)** for *Anastrepha
fraterculus*, *Ceratitis capitata,* *Parlatoria cinereae*, *Parlatoria
ziziphi,* *Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *citri* and *Guignardia
citricarpa*, and **Low (1)** for *Elsinoë australis.*

**Figure 5**. U.S. population density, by county (US Census, 2000)

![](media/image17.png){width="4.0125in"
height="2.9611111111111112in"}![](media/image18.png){width="1.3020833333333333in"
height="2.8333333333333335in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180316 .anchor}**Sub Element 6: Pest find
suitable host and establish or incite disease**

The sixth Sub Element is that imported infested fruit encounters a
suitable host within the suitable habitat and is able to complete its
life cycle. Furthermore, for disease development to occur, the host must
be at a stage that is susceptible to the pathogen, with proper
environmental conditions.

***Anastrepha fraterculus* and *Ceratitis capitata***

Hosts of the extremely polyphagous and highly mobile *Anastrepha
fraterculus* and *Ceratitis capitata* should be available throughout
their potential area of establishment. These fruit flies have become
sporadically established in the continental United States (CABI, 2006b,
2006c; Foo*te et a*l., 1993). (These pests have not become permanently
established and are subject to official control when detected.) These
species have a high probability of coming into contact with host
material suitable for reproduction, which is demonstrated clearly by the
fact that they already have done so.

The probability that these pests will encounter suitable host material
is considered **High (3)** for both *Anastrepha fraterculus* and
*Ceratitis capitata.*

***Parlatoria cinereae* and *Parlatoria ziziphi***

Two USDA reports have examined the likelihood of introduction of armored
scales associated with fresh fruit commodities for consumption entering
the United States (Miller, 1985 USDA 2007c). USDA, 2007c is an expansion
and critical review of the Miller, 1985 document, therefore, USDA, 2007c
supersedes Miller, 1985.

The successful establishment of scale insects in a new environment is
contingent on the probability of contaminated fruit coming into close
proximity with susceptible hosts and the presence on the imported fruit
of crawlers or other mobile forms capable of transferring to a new host.
"A critical review of the evidence indicates that the likelihood of
introduction via the specific pathway represented by commercially
produced fruit shipped without leaves, stems, or contaminants is low
because armored scales have a very poor ability to disperse from fruits
for consumption onto hosts" (USDA, 2007c). In addition, "dispersal from
fruit discarded in the environment is considered very unlikely because
of low wind speeds at ground level and low survival rate of crawlers on
the ground. There is a low probability of active dispersal of crawlers
by walking from their natal host because they are not capable of rapid
movement over bare soil and move over rough surfaces with extreme
difficulty. The duration of the crawler is also very short. Most armored
scales are genetically adapted to feeding on the same plants as their
parental female, which leads to increased survival within that plant and
decreased survival as they move beyond their origin" (USDA, 2007c).

Miller (1985) assessed the likelihood of the introduction of *Parlatoria
ziziphi* into the United States and rated it moderate to low. The
likelihood of introduction was re-analyzed in USDA, 2007c. The new
analysis determined that *P. ziziphi* should be rated low, due to its
low fecundity, restricted host range, and current geographical
distribution (USDA, 2007c). The risk rating for this risk element for
both *Parlatoria cinereae* and *Parlatoria ziziphi* is **Low (1)**.

***Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *citri***

The development of disease requires the inoculum to successfully infect
susceptible hosts, assuming the inoculum is available. The following
events must also occur for disease to develop:

-   A susceptible host must be available;

-   The host must be exposed during a time when infection can occur
    (varies with cultivar);

-   Free water must also be available on the surface of the citrus
    plants from rain, and sufficient force (i.e., wind) must be present
    to drive the bacteria into natural openings, or wounds must be
    present;

-   The causal organism must be in a stage that can cause disease onset;
    and

-   Enough time must elapse for key interactions to occur.

It is unlikely that viable bacteria from an infected fruit would
encounter a suitable host under the conditions required for disease
development for several reasons. First, the fifteen known hosts of Xac,
almost exclusively in the Rutaceae family (CABI, 2006g; Gottwa*ld et
a*l., 1993; Perei*ra et a*l., 1976; Smi*th et a*l., 1997), particularly
*Citrus* spp. occur in the U.S. (USDA, 2007a).

Second, the host would need to be in a susceptible form for infection to
occur. The majority of leaf infection occurs during enlargement
(Civerolo, 1984), over a short time interval of susceptibility with the
majority of infection occurring within the first six weeks (Gottwald and
Graham, 2000). Fruits are susceptible to infection from petal fall to
90-120 days thereafter. Fruit can be exposed to several infection cycles
(Civerolo, 1984; Gottwald and Graham, 2000; Gottwa*ld et a*l., 2002a;
Schube*rt et a*l., 2001). Fruits 2-6 cm in diameter are highly
susceptible to infection; however, susceptibility reduces as fruit
develops (Civerolo, 1984; Grah*am et a*l., 1992b; Graham and Leite,
2004; Vernie*re et a*l., 2003). Mature, unwounded fruit are not
susceptible to infection (Civerolo, 1984; Gottwald and Graham, 2000).
Mature fruit and leaves are relatively immune to citrus canker because a
waxy cuticle builds up on maturing fruit and leaves causing the stomata
and other natural openings to become plugged and less susceptible to
pathogen penetration (Albrigo, 1976; Gottwald and Graham, 2000; Grah*am
et a*l., 1992b; NPB, 2002).

Third, weather conditions must be appropriate for infection. The
infiltration of bacteria into stomata on unwounded fruit or leaves is
aided by wind-driven rain, in which wind speeds are in excess of eight
meters/second; as a result, this creates enough impact force to drive
inoculum infested water into the stomata creating water congestion
(Gottwa*ld et a*l., 2002a; Grah*am et a*l., 2004). Infection is likely
when high moisture and wind conditions occur in conjunction with the
presence of sufficient inoculum and susceptible hosts.

Additionally, there is no authenticated record for diseased fruit
playing a role in the epidemiology of citrus canker disease (Smi*th et
a*l., 1997). No record exists that either infected fruit with lesions or
asymptomatic fruit are epidemiologically significant with respect to the
initiation of new infections (Anonymous, 2005a, 2005b; Canteros, 2004;
Jett*er et a*l., 2000; USDA, 2007a). The rating is **Low (1)** for the
RE Pest find suitable host and is able to incite disease.

***Elsinoë australis*** (Sweet Orange Scab)

For successful transmission of CBS from fruit with active lesions to
susceptible hosts, several events must occur for the disease to develop:

-   A susceptible host must be available;

-   The host must be exposed during a time when infection can occur
    (varies with cultivar);

-   Fruit with lesions must be wetted;

-   The contaminated water must be brought into contact with a
    susceptible host; and

-   Enough time must elapse for key interactions to occur.

The suitable climate for *Elsinoë australis* development is limited to
the state of Florida (Thay*er et a*l., 2003), where hosts of *Elsinoë
australis* are present. Infection only occurs when there is new shoot
growth and 'petal fall' commences (Timm*er et a*l., 2000). Leaves are
only susceptible as they emerge; thereafter they become immune to
infection (Timm*er et a*l., 2000). Tissue susceptibility decreases as
fruit mature. Six to eight weeks after petal fall fruits are susceptible
to *Elsinoë australis* (Timm*er et a*l., 2000). The pathogen will
survive if existing scab pustules retain the infectious conidia
(propagules) (EPPO/CABI, 1997h). Conidia are formed abundantly on wet
scabs (CABI, 2006d). Germination of conidia and infection do not require
rainfall, but a minimum wet period, via dew, fog, or other high moisture
conditions of 2.5-3.5 hours, is necessary for conidial infection (CABI,
2006d; EPPO/CABI, 1997h). When these favorable conditions are present,
infection and further conidial production can occur within 4-6 hours
(Whiteside, 1975). As the closely related species *E. fawcetti*, is
already established in Florida it is likely that *Elsinoë australis*
encounter suitable conditions for disease development. The rating is
**High (3)** for this risk element.

***Guignardia citricarpa***

For successful transmission of CBS from fruit with active lesions to
susceptible hosts, several events must occur for the disease to develop:

-   A susceptible host must be available;

-   The host must be exposed during a time when infection can occur
    (varies with cultivar);

-   The causal organism must be in a stage that can cause disease onset;

-   Fruit with lesions must be wetted;

-   The contaminated water must be brought into contact with a
    susceptible host; and

-   Enough time must elapse for key interactions to occur.

It is unlikely that viable fungi from an infected fruit would encounter
a suitable host under the conditions required for disease development
for several reasons. First, hosts of CBS are exclusively in genus
*Citrus* spp. (Baay*en et a*l., 2002). Dry mature fruit are not capable
of infecting other uninfected mature fruit even when placed in direct
contact (Ko*rf et a*l., 2001a).

Second, the host would need to be in a susceptible form for infection to
occur. Young fruits are susceptible to infection only during the first
four to five months after petal fall (Kotzé, 1963, 2000).

Third, the source of innoculum available in symptomatic fruit would be
unlikely to spread to susceptible hosts. Lesions on infected symptomatic
fruit may produce the asexual stage of CBS, pycnidia, but not all spots
produce inoculum (Kotzé, 1981, 2000). Pycnidia are considered to play a
minor role in the disease cycle of CBS, as they are not a source of
primary inoculum (Kotzé, 1981, 2000), and are not dispersed through wind
events (Kotzé, 1963). Even under ideal condition, pycnidiospores are not
capable of infecting non susceptible host material. Leaf litter, both
old and newly detached green leaves, are not susceptible to infection by
pycnidiospores. Truter et al. (2007) "demonstrated that viable
pycnidiospores from a culture, symptomatic fruit or peel were not able
to infect and colonise freshly detached green leaves or natural leaf
litter from Eureka lemon under controlled and field conditions. Even
after exposure of the leaves to high inoculum pressure under highly
favorable environmental conditions, *G. citricarpa* did not colonise any
of the leaves. Eureka lemon is the most susceptible cultivar to CBS, we
can duduce that the same results will be achieved on other susceptible
cultivars."

Fourth, water needs to be present, as this secondary source of inoculum
is released from the lesions through wetting (Kotzé, 1963). Dry infected
fruit, with active lesions cannot infect susceptible plant tissue, as
the pycnidia do not spread from active lesions in the absence of water.
Dry mature fruit are not capable of infecting other uninfected mature
fruit even when placed in direct contact (Ko*rf et a*l., 2001a).
Furthermore, the moisture conditions at the time of pycnidiospore
formation greatly influence germination ability. Pycnidiospore
production and germination is enhanced by repeated wetting and drying
cycles. Fruit kept dry throughout the shipping process, are only likely
of releasing pycnidiospores with a 1% chance of germinating (Kiely,
1948). Symptomatic fruit needs to be wetted and dried over several days
to reach optimal pycnidiospore germination levels. The pycnidiospores
that are released upon wetting would need that infected water to come
into contact with susceptible fruit to cause infection. "Pycnidiospores
have no special mechanism of release into the atmosphere, and those
occurring on dead leaves, on the ground can reach the susceptible fruits
only by splashing of raindrops" (Kotzé, 1981). Therefore, infected
tissue would need to be within close proximity to a susceptible host at
a susceptible stage and then wetted to possibly cause infection (Kotzé,
2000). The rating is **Low (1)** for this risk element.

**Table 4.** Risk Rating for Likelihood of Introduction

+-----------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-----+--------+
| **Pest**  | **Qua | **    | **Su   | **Su   | *      | **P | **Cumu |
|           | ntity | Harve | rvives | rvives | *Fruit | est | lative |
|           | imp   | s-ted | p      | shipm  | s      | f   | Risk   |
|           | orted | fruit | acking | ents** | hipped | ind | Ran    |
|           | annua | is    | and    |        | to     | su  | king** |
|           | lly** | infec | post   |        | su     | ita |        |
|           |       | ted** | h      |        | itable | ble |        |
|           |       |       | arvest |        | hab    | hos |        |
|           |       |       | treat  |        | itat** | t** |        |
|           |       |       | ment** |        |        |     |        |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | **  |        |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | and |        |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | is  |        |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | a   |        |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | ble |        |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | to  |        |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | inc |        |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | ite |        |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | dis |        |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | eas |        |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | e** |        |
+-----------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-----+--------+
|           |       |       |        |        |        |     |        |
+-----------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-----+--------+
| **Ar      |       |       |        |        |        |     |        |
| thropod** |       |       |        |        |        |     |        |
+-----------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-----+--------+
| ***A      | **H   | **Med | **     | **     | **Me   | **  | **     |
| nastrepha | igh** | ium** | High** | High** | dium** | Hig | High** |
| frate     |       |       |        |        |        | h** |        |
| rculus*** | **3** | **2** | **3**  | **3**  | **2**  |     | **16** |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | **  |        |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | 3** |        |
+-----------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-----+--------+
| ***       | **H   | **Med | **     | **     | **Me   | **  | **     |
| Ceratitis | igh** | ium** | High** | High** | dium** | Hig | High** |
| ca        |       |       |        |        |        | h** |        |
| pitata*** | **3** | **2** | **3**  | **3**  | **2**  |     | **16** |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | **  |        |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | 3** |        |
+-----------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-----+--------+
| ***P      | **H   | **Med | **Me   | **     | **Me   | *   | **Me   |
| arlatoria | igh** | ium** | dium** | High** | dium** | *Lo | dium** |
| ci        |       |       |        |        |        | w** |        |
| nereae*** | **3** | **2** | **2**  | **3**  | **2**  |     | **13** |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | **  |        |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | 1** |        |
+-----------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-----+--------+
| ***P      | **H   | **Med | **Me   | **     | **Me   | *   | **Me   |
| arlatoria | igh** | ium** | dium** | High** | dium** | *Lo | dium** |
| z         |       |       |        |        |        | w** |        |
| iziphi*** | **3** | **2** | **2**  | **3**  | **2**  |     | **13** |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | **  |        |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | 1** |        |
+-----------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-----+--------+
| **B       |       |       |        |        |        |     |        |
| acteria** |       |       |        |        |        |     |        |
+-----------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-----+--------+
| ***Xa     | **H   | **    | *      | *      | **Me   | *   | *      |
| nthomonas | igh** | Low** | *Low** | *Low** | dium** | *Lo | *Low** |
| ax        |       |       |        |        |        | w** |        |
| onopodis* | **3** | **1** | **1**  | **1**  | **2**  |     | **9**  |
| pv        |       |       |        |        |        | **  |        |
| citri**   |       |       |        |        |        | 1** |        |
+-----------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-----+--------+
| **Fungi** |       |       |        |        |        |     |        |
+-----------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-----+--------+
| *         | **H   | **    | **Me   | **     | *      | **  | **Me   |
| **Elsinoë | igh** | Low** | dium** | High** | *Low** | Hig | dium** |
| aus       |       |       |        |        |        | h** |        |
| tralis*** | **3** | **1** | **2**  | **3**  | **1**  |     | **13** |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | **  |        |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | 3** |        |
+-----------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-----+--------+
| ***G      | **H   | **Med | **Me   | **     | **Me   | *   | **Me   |
| uignardia | igh** | ium** | dium** | High** | dium** | *Lo | dium** |
| citr      |       |       |        |        |        | w** |        |
| icarpa*** | **3** | **2** | **2**  | **3**  | **2**  |     | **13** |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | **  |        |
|           |       |       |        |        |        | 1** |        |
+-----------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-----+--------+
| Low = 6   |       |       |        |        |        |     |        |
| to 9;     |       |       |        |        |        |     |        |
| Medium =  |       |       |        |        |        |     |        |
| 10 to 14; |       |       |        |        |        |     |        |
| High = 15 |       |       |        |        |        |     |        |
| to 18     |       |       |        |        |        |     |        |
+-----------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-----+--------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180317 .anchor}**2.7 Pest Risk Potential /
Conclusion**

The sum of the values for the Consequences of Introduction and the
Likelihood of Introduction produce the Baseline Pest Risk Potential
(PRP). This cumulative total expresses the risk on the following scale:
Low = 11 to 18, Medium = 19 to 26 and High = 27 to 33. The Baseline PRP
for each quarantine pest is summarized in Table 5.

**Table 5. Pest Risk Potential**

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Pest**        | **Consequences  | **Likelihood of | **Pest Risk     |
|                 | of              | Introduction**  | Potential**     |
|                 | Introduction**  |                 |                 |
|                 |                 | **Cumulative    | **(Total)**     |
|                 | **Cumulative    | Risk Rating**   |                 |
|                 | Risk Rating**   |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Arthropod**   |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| ***Anastrepha   | **High**        | **High**        | **High**        |
| fraterculus***  |                 |                 |                 |
|                 | **14**          | **16**          | **30**          |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| ***Ceratitis    | **High**        | **High**        | **High**        |
| capitata***     |                 |                 |                 |
|                 | **14**          | **16**          | **30**          |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| ***Parlatoria   | **High**        | **Medium**      | **Medium**      |
| cinereae***     |                 |                 |                 |
|                 | **13**          | **13**          | **26**          |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| ***Parlatoria   | **High**        | **Medium**      | **Medium**      |
| ziziphi***      |                 |                 |                 |
|                 | **13**          | **13**          | **26**          |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Bacteria**    |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| ***Xanthomonas  | **Medium**      | **Low**         | **Medium**      |
| axonopodis* pv  |                 |                 |                 |
| *citri***       | **11**          | **9**           | **20**          |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Fungi**       |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| ***Elsinoë      | **Low**         | **Medium**      | **Medium**      |
| australis***    |                 |                 |                 |
|                 | **6**           | **13**          | **19**          |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| ***Guignardia   | **Medium**      | **Medium**      | **Medium**      |
| citricarpa***   |                 |                 |                 |
|                 | **9**           | **13**          | **22**          |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

The following guidelines are offered as an interpretation of the Low,
Medium, and High Pest Risk Potential ratings:

**Low:** Pest will typically not require specific mitigations measures;
the port of entry inspection to which all imported commodities are
subjected can be expected to provide sufficient phytosanitary security.

**Medium:** Specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary.

**High:** Specific phytosanitary measures are strongly recommended. Port
of entry inspection is not considered sufficient to provide
phytosanitary security. Identification and selection of appropriate
sanitary and phytosanitary measures to mitigate risk for pests with
particular Pest Risk Potential ratings is undertaken as part of the risk
management phase is not discussed in this document. The appropriate risk
management strategy for a particular pest depends on the risk posed by
that pest.

**Conclusion:**

Although the consequences of introduction associated with the fruit
flies ***Anastrepha fraterculus*** and ***Ceratitis capitata*** is high
under any circumstances, our ranking for the likelihood of introduction
represents the extreme high-range estimate based on assumptions
regarding worst-case conditions under which some lemons may be hosts.
These conditions are unlikely to exist with commercially produced lemons
from Argentina, namely the harvesting of overripe fruit under conditions
of high population pressure and drought stress.

Our rankings for the **armored scales** are likewise biased for the
worst-case condition. It is unlikely that commercially produced lemons
will have large numbers of scales and it is highly unlikely that
crawlers from such infestations would survive and find conditions
suitable for establishment.

The risk associated with **citrus canker** and **sweet orange scab** is
likewise severly limited by the low probability of introduction.
**Citrus black spot** may be slightly more likely to enter because of
latency, but the evidence indicates that it is highly unlikely any of
the diseases could establish via the fruit as a pathway.

**Appendix 1. USDA Plant Hardiness Zones**

> ![](media/image19.wmf){width="5.627083333333333in"
> height="4.751388888888889in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180318 .anchor}**Appendix 2**

> ![](media/image20.jpeg){width="2.3338582677165354in"
> height="1.9062992125984253in"}![](media/image21.jpeg){width="1.3346456692913387in"
> height="1.316535433070866in"}![](media/image22.png){width="1.7484251968503937in"
> height="1.389763779527559in"}![](media/image23.jpeg){width="1.7153543307086614in"
> height="1.405511811023622in"}![](media/image21.jpeg){width="0.9736220472440945in"
> height="0.960236220472441in"}![](media/image24.jpeg){width="1.2590551181102363in"
> height="1.3417322834645669in"}![](media/image25.jpeg){width="1.191732283464567in"
> height="1.9200787401574804in"}![](media/image26.jpeg){width="2.002755905511811in"
> height="1.7133858267716535in"}![](media/image27.jpeg){width="1.1515748031496063in"
> height="1.6279527559055118in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180319 .anchor}**Appendix 3**

![](media/image28.jpeg){width="3.810236220472441in"
height="1.5755905511811024in"}![](media/image29.png){width="1.4208661417322834in"
height="1.1661417322834646in"}![](media/image22.png){width="1.4771653543307086in"
height="1.2688976377952756in"}![](media/image30.png){width="1.6437007874015748in"
height="1.6590551181102362in"}![](media/image31.png){width="1.355511811023622in"
height="1.1208661417322834in"}![](media/image32.png){width="1.1791338582677164in"
height="1.4755905511811023in"}![](media/image33.jpeg){width="1.5271653543307087in"
height="0.7653543307086614in"}![](media/image34.png){width="1.094488188976378in"
height="0.8464566929133859in"}![](media/image35.png){width="0.95in"
height="1.1937007874015748in"}![](media/image36.jpeg){width="1.9507874015748032in"
height="1.5681102362204724in"}![](media/image37.png){width="1.3118110236220473in"
height="1.00748031496063in"}![](media/image26.jpeg){width="1.6153543307086615in"
height="1.580708661417323in"}![](media/image38.png){width="0.7665354330708661in"
height="0.49724409448818896in"}![](media/image39.png){width="1.3283464566929133in"
height="0.6480314960629922in"}

# APHIS Contact

> Robert Griffin

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180321 .anchor}**SENASA Authors and
Contributors**

Ing. Agr. María Elena Gatti

Ing. Agr. M. Sc. Pablo Cortese

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180322 .anchor}**APHIS Contributors and
Reviewers**

Ron Sequeira

Tara Holtz

Glen Fowler

Walter Gutierrez

Mike Hennessey

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc174180323 .anchor}**References**

[^1]: Surface feeders are not expected to survive post harvest cleaning,
    chemical dip, and waxing.

[^2]: Only adults feed on the fruit surface. Adults are highly mobile
    and unexpected to remain on the fruit through harvest.

[^3]: Citrus is listed as a doubtful host (Norrbom, 2004) but we
    included this fruit fly in the pest list as a precaution.

[^4]: This fruit fly's host range includes citrus but *Citrus lemon* is
    not considered a host according to Norrbom, 2004.

[^5]: Pests highlighted in gray are quarantine pests likely to follow
    the pathway and are analyzed below.

[^6]: Foote, et al. (1993) and White and Elson-Harris (1992) include
    south Texas in the distribution of *A. fraterculus*. However, the
    flies trapped occasionally in south Texas and identified as *A.
    fraterculus* are considered to be distinct from the *A. fraterculus*
    (South American fruit fly) found in Argentina and other South
    American countries (personal communication A. Norrbohm, R. L.
    Mangan). The fruit flies identified as *A. fraterculus* in South
    American do not occur in the United States.

[^7]: Citrus is listed as a doubtful host (Norrbom, 2004) but we
    included this fruit fly in the pest list as a precaution.

[^8]: USDA-APHIS does not consider Citrus as a host for this fruit fly
    (CFR, 2006 Subpart 301.64-2). It is included on the pest list as a
    precaution.

[^9]: *Tomoplagia costalimai* was reared from sweet orange, but no
    records indicate that lemon is a host. The fly remains on the pest
    list due to uncertainty of complete host range.

[^10]: *Tomoplagia phaedra* was reared from sweet orange, but no records
    indicate that lemon is a host. The fly remains on the pest list due
    to uncertainty of complete host range.

[^11]: These insects were documented causing damage to citrus in
    Argentina (Molinari, 1948) and we robustly assumed they attacked the
    fruit.

[^12]: Pests are not expected to survive post harvest cleaning, chemical
    dip, and waxing.

[^13]: *Bemisia tabaci* is only actionable on tomatoes from the
    Dominican Republic (AQAS, 2007).

[^14]: Pests are not expected to survive post harvest cleaning, chemical
    dip, and waxing.

[^15]: Pests highlighted in gray are quarantine pests likely to follow
    the pathway and are analyzed below.

[^16]: Pests highlighted in gray are quarantine pests likely to follow
    the pathway and are analyzed below.

[^17]: Brackets ("\[ \]") indicate that this is a quarantine significant
    species with limited distribution in the United States and is being
    considered by APHIS for official control (NIS, 2006).

[^18]: Pest is not expected to survive post harvest cleaning, chemical
    dip, and waxing.

[^19]: Pest is not expected to survive post harvest cleaning, chemical
    dip, and waxing.

[^20]: Non-reportable if commodity destination is AR, FL, GA, LA, MS,
    NC, SC, TA, and AL (AQAS, 2007).

[^21]: Pest is a surface feeder and expected to not remain with fruit
    after harvest.

[^22]: Pest is a surface feeder and expected to not remain with fruit
    after harvest.

[^23]: Assumed to not follow the pathway due to removal during fruit
    washing.

[^24]: Pests highlighted in gray are quarantine pests likely to follow
    the pathway and are analyzed below.

[^25]: Only infects wounded fruit, which are assumed to be generally
    absent from commercial groves. If wounding occurs it is targeted for
    removal by culling before packing.

[^26]: *Mycosphaerella* spp. does not produce fruiting bodies on fruit.
    Fruiting bodies are produced on decaying leaves (Timmer et al.,
    2000).

[^27]: Pests highlighted in gray are quarantine pests likely to follow
    the pathway and are analyzed below.

[^28]: *Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. aurantifolii* (Citrus canker B) was
    introduced into a limited area in Argentina in 1927 and was
    completely eradicated. *Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *citri* ( Citrus
    Canker A) (SENASA, 2007), is currently present in Argentina.

[^29]: Transmission through budwood and grafting.

[^30]: Quarantine action required for Florida, Alabama, and Puerto Rico
    (AQAS, 2007).

[^31]: The term "epidemiologically significant" refers to minimum
    conditions required for successful Xac transmission.

[^32]: cfu refers to colony forming unit.