![](media/image1.png)

**Movement of Dragon Fruit (*Hylocereus*, *Selenicereus)* from Hawaii
into the**

**Continental United States**

**A Qualitative Pathway-initiated Risk Assessment**

**September 11, 2006**

**Rev: Original**

**Agency Contact:**

**United States Department of Agriculture**

**Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service**

**Plant Protection and Quarantine**

**Center for Plant Health Science and Technology**

**Plant Epidemiology and Risk Assessment Laboratory (Hawaii)**

**300 Ala Moana Blvd., Rm. 8-109**

**Honolulu, Hawaii 96850**

**Executive Summary**

This document assesses the risks associated with the movement of fresh
dragon fruit, *Hylocereus*, *Selenicereus*, and associated genera of
Cactaceae, including *Acanthocereus*, *Cereus*, *Echinocereus*,
*Lemairocereus*, *Marshallocereus*, *Pachycereus*, and *Stenocereus*,
from Hawaii into the continental United States. A search of both print
and electronic sources of information identified five pests of
quarantine significance that exist in Hawaii and could be introduced
into the continental United States in shipments of fresh dragon fruit.

Quarantine-significant pests likely to follow the pathway:

*Bactrocera dorsalis* (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae)

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

*Dysmicoccus neobrevipes* (Beardsley) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae)

*Maconellicoccus hirsutus* (Green) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae)

*Pseudococcus cryptus* Hempel (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae)

The quarantine pests were analyzed based on international principles and
internal guidelines as described in the PPQ Guidelines for
Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (USDA, 2005a).
This document examined pest biology in the context of the Consequences
and Likelihood of Introduction. The pests that are likely to follow the
pathway pose phytosanitary risks to U.S. agriculture. The two fruit
flies, *Bactrocera dorsalis* and *Ceratitis capitata*, have a High Pest
Risk Potential. The three Homopterans, *Dysmicoccus neobrevipes*,
*Maconellicoccus hirsutus*, and *Pseudococcus cryptus*, received a Pest
Risk Potential of Medium. Port-of-entry inspection, as a sole mitigative
measure, is insufficient to safeguard U.S. agriculture from these pests;
additional phytosanitary measures are necessary to reduce risk.

**Table of Contents**

[**I. Introduction** 1](#__RefHeading___Toc145640624)

[**II. Risk Assessment** 1](#__RefHeading___Toc145640625)

[**2.1 Initiating Event** 1](#__RefHeading___Toc145640626)

[**2.2 Assessment of the Weediness of Dragon fruit**
1](#__RefHeading___Toc145640627)

[**2.3 Previous Risk Assessments, Decision History, and Pest
Interceptions** 3](#__RefHeading___Toc145640628)

[**2.4 Pest Categorization---Identification of pests associated with
dragon fruit in Hawaii** 4](#__RefHeading___Toc145640629)

[**2.5 Quarantine Pests that are Likely to Follow the Pathway**
8](#__RefHeading___Toc145640630)

[**2.6** **Consequences of Introduction---Economic/Environmental
Importance** 8](#__RefHeading___Toc145640631)

[**2.7 Likelihood of Introduction---Quantity Imported and Pest
Opportunity** 14](#__RefHeading___Toc145640632)

[**2.8 Conclusion---Pest Risk Potential and Pests Requiring
Phytosanitary Measures** 15](#__RefHeading___Toc145640633)

[**III. Authors and Reviewers** 16](#__RefHeading___Toc145640634)

[**IV. Literature Cited** 16](#__RefHeading___Toc145640635)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc145640624 .anchor}**I. Introduction**

This pest risk assessment was prepared by the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) to examine plant pest risks associated with the
importation of fresh dragon fruit from Hawaii into the continental
United States. This risk assessment examines the genera *Hylocereus*,
*Selenicereus,* and associated genera of Cactaceae (cactus), because the
terms "pitaya" and "pitahaya" commonly refer to a number of
taxonomically related genera (Jacobs, 1999; Mizrahi *et al*., 1997;
Popenoe, 1939). This risk assessment considers the risks associated with
"pitahaya," "pitajaya," "pitajuia," "pitalla" or "pithaya" (Popenoe,
1939; *see* Section C for the complete listing with synonymies). The
plant pest risk for these crops, and any hybrids among these plants
(Mejia *et al*., 2002; Mizrahi and Nerd, 1999; Raveh *et al*., 1993;
Tel-Zur *et al*., 2001; Tel-Zur *et al*., 1999; Weiss *et al*., 1995),
is assessed within this document. The term "dragon fruit" is used
throughout this document to refer to all of these botanically related
cacti that produce edible fruit, except for the species of *Opuntia*
(USDA, 2005b). The cacti referred to as "dragon fruit" and assessed in
this document include the following genera: *Acanthocereus*, *Cereus*,
*Echinocereus*, *Hylocereus*, *Lemairocereus*, *Marshallocereus*,
*Pachycereus*, *Selenicereus*, and *Stenocereus*.

This qualitative pest risk assessment estimates risk in the qualitative
terms of "High," "Medium" and "Low" rather than probabilities or
frequencies. The details of the methodology and rating criteria can be
found in the document: *Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment:
Guidelines for Qualitative Assessments, Version 5.02* (USDA, 2005a).

International plant protection organizations, such as the North American
Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) and the International Plant
Protection Convention (IPPC) of the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), provide guidance for conducting pest risk analyses.
The methods used for initiating, conducting and reporting information in
this pest risk assessment are consistent with these guidelines.
Biological and phytosanitary terms are taken from the NAPPO Glossary of
Phytosanitary Terms (Anonymous, 1999b) and the Definitions and
Abbreviations (Introduction Section) in International standards for
Phytosanitary Measures, Import Regulations: Guidelines for Pest Risk
Analysis (IPPC, 1996) and the Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (IPPC,
2005).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc145640625 .anchor}**II. Risk Assessment**

Pest risk assessment is a component of an overall pest risk analysis.
The Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis (IPPC, 1996) describe three stages
in pest risk analysis. This document satisfies the requirements of FAO
Stages 1, Initiation and 2, Risk Assessment, by separately considering
each area of inquiry.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc145640626 .anchor}**2.1 Initiating Event**

This pest risk assessment is commodity-based or "pathway-initiated"
because the USDA was requested by the Hawaii Department of Agriculture
to authorize importations of fresh dragon fruit from Hawaii into the
continental United States. This is a potential pathway for the
introduction of plant pests on the fruit. The authority to regulate the
movement of fruit and vegetable from Hawaii into the continental United
States is codified at 7 C.F.R. § 318.13.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc145640627 .anchor}**2.2 Assessment of the
Weediness of Dragon fruit**

If dragon fruit poses a risk as a weed pest, then a "pest-initiated"
pest risk assessment is initiated. The cacti that produce dragon fruit
fruit pose a risk of becoming weeds from abandoned plants; however,
APHIS believes the risk of weediness associated with the consumption of
dragon fruit is Low.

Introductions of the "Night-blooming Cereus," *H. undatus* (Haw.)
Britton & Rose, became naturalized stands in 10 parks/preserves in six
counties in south Florida; these stands were treated and are no longer a
factor affecting the native plant community; *H. undatus* was
reclassified from a Category II invasive species to the "to be watched"
list (Burks, 2001). The naturalized stands in Florida grew from
abandoned cultivation or discarded landscaping material (Burks, 2001).
In the 1800's, this plant was introduced into Hawaii as an ornamental,
but was not listed as a weed (Morton, 1987).

This same species (*H. undatus*) is naturalized in Vietnam and called
"thanh long" (Mizrahi *et al*., 1997). It is cultivated in many tropical
and subtropical areas, and considered to be an escape from cultivation
in parts of Latin America (Kimnach, 1984). Australia permits four
species of *Hylocereus* (*H. guatemalensis*, *H. ocamponis*, *H.
polyrhizus*, and *H. undatus*) into the country, but bans other members
of the genus. The exception is the state of Western Australia, which
restricts all members of the genus, except for the cultivated *H.
undatus* as an ornamental (Randall, 2001).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Table 1. Assessment of the Weediness Potential**                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Commodity:** Fruit from *Hylocereus* species (Cactaceae)            |
|                                                                       |
| **Phase 1:** Species of *Hylocereus* are not native in Hawaii. The    |
| following species of *Hylocereus* produce dragon fruit: *H.           |
| costaricensis* (synonym = *Cereus trigonus* var. *costaricensis*),    |
| *H. ocamponis* (= *C.* *ocamponis*), *H. polyrhizus* (= *C.           |
| polyrhizus* and *H. lemairei*), and *H. undatus* (Haw.) Britton &     |
| Rose (= *C. triangularis, C. tricostatus, C. trigonus* var.           |
| *guatemalensis*, *C. undatus*, *H. guatemalensis*, *Cactus*           |
| *triangularis*, and *H. tricostatus*). The members of this genus are  |
| not native to the United States, but *H. undatus* was introduced as a |
| cultivated ornamental (ARS, 2001; Solomon, 2002). Native populations  |
| of other genera are distributed within the United States              |
| (*Acanthocereus tetragonus*, *Stenocereus thurberi*); and *Cereus     |
| hildmannianus* (= *Cactus peruvianus, = C. uruguayanus*) is on the    |
| Hawaiian Noxious Weed and Seed list (ARS, 2005).                      |
|                                                                       |
| **Phase 2:** Is the species listed in:                                |
|                                                                       |
| [No]{.underline} Geographical Atlas of World Weeds (Holm *et al*.,    |
| 1979)                                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| [No]{.underline} World's Worst Weeds (Holm *et al*., 1977; Holm *et   |
| al*., 1997)                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| [No]{.underline} Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate        |
| Noxious 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 (WSSA, 1989)    |
|                                                                       |
| [Yes]{.underline} Are there any references indicating weediness?      |
| *e.g.,* AGRICOLA, CAB, Biological Abstracts, AGRIS; search on         |
| "species name" combined with "weed."                                  |
|                                                                       |
| **Phase 3:** Some members of the dragon fruit genera are listed and   |
| known to be weeds, including *H. undatus*. Populations of this plant  |
| became weedy in Florida until it was eradicated (Burks, 2001).        |
| Discarded fruits are not known to cause problems as weeds, but        |
| abandoned plants can naturalize in suitable environments. There is    |
| evidence that seeds can pass through the human digestive system       |
| intact (Nabhan, 1985), but the viability of the seed is unknown. If   |
| the rejected fruit is properly disposed of and edible fruit is        |
| consumed, then the potential for these cacti to demonstrate weediness |
| will be low.                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc145640628 .anchor}**2.3 Previous Risk Assessments,
Decision History, and Pest Interceptions**

There are no previous risk assessments for dragon fruit from Hawaii.

In 1997, the entry of *Hylocereus undatus* from Vietnam was denied
because of the lack of an approved treatment for *Bactrocera dorsalis*
and *B*. *cucurbitae*.

In 1996, the entry of *Acanthocereus* from Nicaragua was denied because
of *Ceratits capitata*.

In 1992, the entry of *Acanthocereus* spp., *Hylocereus* spp.,
*Lemaireocereus* spp., and *Selenicereus* spp. from Belize were denied
entry as the result of the lack of an approved treatment for
*Anastrepha* spp., *A. ludens*, and *C. capitata*.

In 1988, the entry of *Hylocereus* spp. from Colombia was denied because
of the lack of an approved treatment for *C*. *capitata*.

Pest interceptions under the name *Hylocereus* reflect only a portion of
the total interceptions on imported dragon fruit (PIN 309, 2005). Port
officers are likely to ascribe the interception to the genus
*Acanthocereus*; this is typically based on a good faith reliance on the
illustrated fruit guide in the manual for non-propagative material
(USDA, 2004), which states that the fruit of *H. undatus* is
*Acanthocereus* fruit. With an unsettled botanical nomenclature, there
are many synonyms (ARS, 2005; Solomon, 2002). The fruit of cacti
referred to as "dragon fruit" are assessed in this document, and include
the following genera: *Acanthocereus*, *Cereus*, *Echinocereus*,
*Hylocereus*, *Lemairocereus*, *Marshallocereus*, *Pachycereus*,
*Selenicereus*, and *Stenocereus*.

+---------------------+------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Table 2. Pests    |            |                                   |
| intercepted on      |            |                                   |
| dragon fruit from   |            |                                   |
| other parts of the  |            |                                   |
| world and present   |            |                                   |
| in Hawaii (PIN 309, |            |                                   |
| 2005)**             |            |                                   |
+---------------------+------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Pest**            | **Host**   | **Country, Dates^1^**             |
+---------------------+------------+-----------------------------------+
| *Cactoblastis       | Cactaceae  | Haiti, 1993 (2)                   |
| cactorum*           |            |                                   |
+---------------------+------------+-----------------------------------+
| *Ceratitis          | Cactaceae  | Argentina, 1994; Greece, 1989;    |
| capitata*           |            | Italy, 1989 (2); Portugal, 1989   |
+---------------------+------------+-----------------------------------+
| *Dysmicoccus        | *H         | Hong Kong, 2004; Unknown, 2003;   |
| neobrevipes*        | ylocereus* | Vietnam, 2001, 2002, 2003         |
+---------------------+------------+-----------------------------------+
|                     | *Acan      | Vietnam, 1994 (2), 1998;          |
|                     | thocereus* | Cambodia, 1995;                   |
|                     |            |                                   |
|                     |            | Singapore, 1995; Thailand, 2003   |
+---------------------+------------+-----------------------------------+
| *Maconellicoccus    | *Acan      | Cambodia, 1995                    |
| hirsutus*           | thocereus* |                                   |
+---------------------+------------+-----------------------------------+
|                     | *Cereus*   | Mexico, 1994 (2), 1995, 1997,     |
|                     |            | 1998, 1999 (7), 2000 (6), 2001    |
|                     |            | (6), 2002 (2), 2003 (2)           |
+---------------------+------------+-----------------------------------+
|                     | *Ech       | Mexico, 1995 (2), 1996 (3), 1997, |
|                     | inocereus* | 1999 (2), 2002                    |
+---------------------+------------+-----------------------------------+
| *Pseudococcus       | *Acan      | Vietnam, 2003                     |
| cryptus*            | thocereus* |                                   |
+---------------------+------------+-----------------------------------+

^1^The number of interceptions is seen in parentheses if more than one
interception occurred that year.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc145640629 .anchor}**2.4 Pest
Categorization---Identification of pests associated with dragon fruit in
Hawaii**

In this risk assessment, Table 3 reports the pests associated with
dragon fruit if, and only if, populations of that pest are also reported
in Hawaii. This table should not be interpreted to infer that all pests
known to affect dragon fruit are listed. This table only presents
information of a pest's prevalence relative to the risks associated with
the importation of dragon fruit from Hawaii, along with host
associations, and regulatory data used to select the quarantine pests
(given detailed biological analysis).

  --------------------- ------------------- ----------- -------------- ----------- ----------------
  **Table 3: Summary of                                                            
  pests associated with                                                            
  dragon fruit in                                                                  
  Hawaii.**                                                                        

  **Organism**          **Geographic        **Plant     **Quarantine   **Follow    **References**
                        Distribution^1^**   Part(s)**   Pest**         Pathway**   

  **ARTHROPODA**                                                                   

  **ACARI**                                                                        

  **Tetranychidae**                                                                

  *Tetranychus          HI, US              Fruit,      No             Yes         Bolland, *et
  desertorum* Banks                         Leaves                                 al.,* 1998

  **COLEOPTERA**                                                                   

  **Anthribidae**                                                                  

  Anthribidae sp.^2^    HI, US              Fruit,      No             Yes         CPC, 2004; HTAC,
                                            Flower,                                2004; PIN 309,
                                            Leaves,                                2004
                                            Stem                                   

  []{.mark}             []{.mark}           []{.mark}   []{.mark}      []{.mark}   []{.mark}

  **DIPTERA**                                                                      

  **Drosophilidae**                                                                

  *Drosophila           HI, US              Fruit       No             No          CPC, 2004: HTAC,
  melanogaster* Meigen                                                             2004

  **Tephritidae**                                                                  

  *Bactrocera dorsalis* HI                  Fruit       Yes            Yes         Conant, 2004;
  (Hendel)                                                                         GPDD, 2005

  *Ceratitis capitata*  HI                  Fruit       Yes            Yes         GPDD, 2005;
  (Wiedemann)                                                                      Hill, 1994;
                                                                                   Liquido *et
                                                                                   al*., 1998; PIN
                                                                                   309, 2004
  --------------------- ------------------- ----------- -------------- ----------- ----------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Organism**          **Geographic        **Plant   **Quarantine   **Follow    **References**
                        Distribution^1^**   Part**    Pest**         Pathway**   
  --------------------- ------------------- --------- -------------- ----------- ----------------
  **HOMOPTERA**                                                                  

  **Aphidae**                                                                    

  *Aphis gossypii*      HI, US              Fruit,    No             Yes         CPC, 2004;
  Glover                                    Flower,                              Conant, 2004;
                                            Leaves,                              HTAC, 2004; PIN
                                            Stem                                 309, 2005

  **Diaspididae**                                                                

  *Diaspis echinocacti* HI, US              Fruit,    No             Yes         HTAC, 2004;
  (Bouché)                                  Leaves,                              ARS-SEL, 2005
                                            Stem                                 

  *Lopholeucaspis       HI, US              Fruit,    No             Yes         HTAC, 2004;
  cockerelli* (Grandpré                     Leaves,                              ARS-SEL, 2005
  & Charmoy)                                Stem                                 

  **Eriococcidae**                                                               

  *Eriococcus           HI, US              Fruit,    No             Yes         Hill, 1994;
  coccineus* Cockerell                      Leaves,                              HTAC, 2004;
                                            Stem                                 ARS-SEL, 2005

  **Pseudococcidae**                                                             

  *Dysmicoccus          HI                  Fruit     Yes            Yes         CPC, 2004; GPDD,
  neobrevipes*                                                                   2005; HTAC,
  (Beardsley)                                                                    2004; PIN 309,
                                                                                 2005

  *Maconellicoccus      HI, (US Virgin      Fruit,    Yes            Yes         CPC, 2004; Hill,
  hirsutus* (Green)     Islands)            Flower,                              1994; HTAC,
                                            Leaves,                              2005; ARS-SEL,
                                            Stem                                 2005

  *Pseudococcus         HI, (US Virgin      Fruit,    Yes            Yes         CPC, 2004; Hill,
  cryptus* Hempel       Islands)            Flower,                              1994; HTAC,
                                            Leaves,                              2005; ARS-SEL,
                                            Stem                                 2005

  *Pseudococcus         HI, US              Fruit,    No             Yes         CPC, 2004; Hill,
  longispinus* Targioni                     Flower,                              1994; HTAC, 2004
  and Tozzetti                              Leaves,                              
                                            Stem                                 

  *Pseudococcus         HI, US              Fruit,    No             Yes         Conant, 2004;
  viburni* (Signoret)                       Flower,                              HTAC, 2004;
                                            Leaves,                              ARS-SEL, 2004
                                            Stem                                 
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| **Organism**       | **Geo   | **P  | **Quar | **Fo | **           |
|                    | graphic | lant | antine | llow | References** |
|                    | Dis     | Pa   | Pest** | P    |              |
|                    | tributi | rt** |        | athw |              |
|                    | on^1^** |      |        | ay** |              |
+====================+=========+======+========+======+==============+
| **LEPIDOPTERA**    |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| **Noctuidae**      |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| *Agrotis ipsilon*  | HI, US  | Fr   | No     | Yes  | CPC, 2004;   |
| (Hufnagel)         |         | uit, |        |      | HTAC, 2004   |
|                    |         | Stem |        |      |              |
| (Lepidoptera:      |         |      |        |      |              |
| Noctuidae)         |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| **LEPIDOPTERA**    |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| **Gracillariidae** |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| Gracillariidae     | HI, US  | Fr   | No     | Yes  | Borror *et   |
| sp.^2^             |         | uit, |        |      | al.*, 1992;  |
|                    |         | Stem |        |      | HTAC, 2004;  |
|                    |         |      |        |      | PIN 309,     |
|                    |         |      |        |      | 2004         |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| **THYSANOPTERA**   |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| *                  |         |      |        |      |              |
| *Phlaeothripidae** |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| *Hoplothrips*      | HI      | Flo  | No     | Yes  | Conant, 2004 |
| sp.^2^             |         | wer, |        |      |              |
|                    |         | F    |        |      |              |
|                    |         | ruit |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| **MOLLUSCA**       |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| *Milax* *gagates*  | HI, US  | Fr   | No     | Yes  | HTAC, 2004;  |
| (Draparnaud)       |         | uit, |        |      | MREC, 2005   |
|                    |         | Stem |        |      |              |
| (Mollusca:         |         |      |        |      |              |
| Milacidae)         |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| **BACTERIA**       |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| *Erwinia           | HI, US  | Lea  | No     | No   | Anonymous,   |
| carotovora* subsp. |         | ves, |        |      | 1994;        |
| *carotovora*       |         | Ro   |        |      | Casti        |
| (Jones 1901)       |         | ots, |        |      | llo-Martinez |
| Bergey *et al.*    |         | Stem |        |      | *et al*.,    |
| 1923               |         |      |        |      | 1996; CPC,   |
| (Proteobacteria:   |         |      |        |      | 2004         |
| E                  |         |      |        |      |              |
| nterobacteriaceae) |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| *Rhizobium         | HI, US  | Ro   | No     | No   | CPC, 2004    |
| radiobacter*       |         | ots, |        |      |              |
| (Beijerinck van    |         | Stem |        |      |              |
| Delden 1902) Young |         |      |        |      |              |
| *et al.* 2001      |         |      |        |      |              |
|                    |         |      |        |      |              |
| =*Agrobacterium    |         |      |        |      |              |
| tumefaciens* (E.   |         |      |        |      |              |
| F. Sm. & Town.)    |         |      |        |      |              |
| Conn.              |         |      |        |      |              |
|                    |         |      |        |      |              |
| (Proteobacteria:   |         |      |        |      |              |
| Rhizobiaceae)      |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| *Rhizobium         | HI, US  | Ro   | No     | No   | CPC, 2004    |
| rhizogenes* (Riker |         | ots, |        |      |              |
| et al. 1930) Young |         | Stem |        |      |              |
| et al. 2001        |         |      |        |      |              |
|                    |         |      |        |      |              |
| (Proteobacteria:   |         |      |        |      |              |
| Rhizobiaceae)      |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| **FUNGI**          |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| *Fusarium          | HI, US  | Ro   | No     | No   | CPC, 2004;   |
| oxysporum*         |         | ots, |        |      | Farr, *et    |
| (Schlechtend. ex   |         | Stem |        |      | al*., 1989;  |
| Fries)             |         |      |        |      | Farr, *et    |
|                    |         |      |        |      | al.,* 2005   |
| (Ascomycota:       |         |      |        |      |              |
| Helotiales)        |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| *Gibberella        | HI, US  | W    | No     | Yes  | CPC, 2004;   |
| fujikuroi*         |         | hole |        |      | Farr, *et    |
| (Sawada) Ito in    |         | p    |        |      | al.*, 1989;  |
| Ito & K. Kimura    |         | lant |        |      | Farr, *et    |
| \[teleomorph\]     |         |      |        |      | al.*, 2005   |
| =*Fusarium         |         |      |        |      |              |
| moniliforme* J.    |         |      |        |      |              |
| Sheld.             |         |      |        |      |              |
| \[anamorph\]       |         |      |        |      |              |
|                    |         |      |        |      |              |
| (Ascomycota:       |         |      |        |      |              |
| Hypocreales)       |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| *Glomerella        | HI, US  | Fr   | No     | No   | CPC, 2004;   |
| cingulata*         |         | uit, |        |      | Farr *et     |
| (Stoneman)         |         | Flo  |        |      | al*., 1989   |
| Spaulding &        |         | wer, |        |      |              |
| Schrenk            |         | L    |        |      |              |
| \[teleomorph\]     |         | eaf, |        |      |              |
|                    |         | S    |        |      |              |
| =*Colletotrichum   |         | tem, |        |      |              |
| gloeosporioides*   |         | Seed |        |      |              |
| Penz. & Sacc.      |         |      |        |      |              |
| \[anamorph\]       |         |      |        |      |              |
|                    |         |      |        |      |              |
| (Ascomycota:       |         |      |        |      |              |
| Phyllachorales)    |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| *Phomopsis* sp.^2^ | HI, US  | Fr   | No     | [    | Farr, 2005;  |
| (Sacc.) Bubák      |         | uit, |        | ]{.m | CABI         |
| \[anamorph\]       |         | Flo  |        | ark} | Bioscience   |
|                    |         | wer, |        |      | Databases,   |
| (Coelomycete)      |         | Stem |        | Yes  | 2005         |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| *Phytophthora      | HI, US  | W    | No     | [    | CPC, 2004;   |
| cactorum* (Lebert  |         | hole |        | ]{.m | Raabe *et    |
| & Cohn) Schröter   |         | p    |        | ark} | al.,* 1981   |
| (Oomycota:         |         | lant |        |      |              |
| Pythiales)         |         |      |        | Yes  |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| *Pichia            | HI, US  | Fr   | []{    | [    | Farr, 2005;  |
| cactophila*        |         | uit, | .mark} | ]{.m | Fogleman and |
|                    |         | Flo  |        | ark} | Starmer,     |
| (Ascomycota:       |         | wer, | No     |      | 1985         |
| Saccharomycetales) |         | Stem |        | Yes  |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| *Sclerotinia       | HI, US  | W    | No     | Yes  | Bibliowicz   |
| sclerotiorum*      |         | hole |        |      | and          |
| (Lib.) de Bary     |         | p    |        |      | Hernandez,   |
|                    |         | lant |        |      | 1998; CPC,   |
| (Ascomycota:       |         |      |        |      | 2004; Farr   |
| Helotiales)        |         |      |        |      | *et al.*,    |
|                    |         |      |        |      | 1989         |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| **NEMATODA**       |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| *Criconemoides*    | HI, US  | Root | Yes    | No   | CPC, 2004;   |
| sp.^2^             |         |      |        |      | USDANC, 2005 |
|                    |         |      |        |      |              |
| (Tylenchida:       |         |      |        |      |              |
| Criconematidae)    |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| *Helicotylenchus   | HI, US  | Root | No     | No   | CPC, 2004;   |
| dihystera* (Cobb)  |         |      |        |      | Castaña, *et |
| Sher               |         |      |        |      | al.,* 1991;  |
|                    |         |      |        |      | USDANC, 2005 |
| (Tylenchida:       |         |      |        |      |              |
| Hoplolaimidae)     |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| *Meloidogyne       | HI, US  | Root | No     | No   | Castaña, *et |
| incognita* (Kofoid |         |      |        |      | al.,* 1991;  |
| & White, 1919)     |         |      |        |      | CPC, 2004;   |
| Chitwood 1949      |         |      |        |      | USDANC, 2005 |
|                    |         |      |        |      |              |
| (Tylenchida:       |         |      |        |      |              |
| Meloidogynidae)    |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| *Trichodorus*      | HI, US  | Root | No     | No   | CPC, 2004    |
| sp.^2^             |         |      |        |      |              |
|                    |         |      |        |      |              |
| (Dorylaimida:      |         |      |        |      |              |
| Trichodoridae)     |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+
| *Tylenchorhynchus  | HI, US  | Root | No     | No   | CPC, 2004;   |
| annulatus*         |         |      |        |      | Castaña, *et |
| (Cassidy 1930)     |         |      |        |      | al.,* 1991;  |
| Golden 1971        |         |      |        |      | USDANC, 2005 |
| *=Tylenchorhynchus |         |      |        |      |              |
| martini* Fielding  |         |      |        |      |              |
| 1956               |         |      |        |      |              |
|                    |         |      |        |      |              |
| (Tylenchida:       |         |      |        |      |              |
| Dolichodoridae)    |         |      |        |      |              |
+--------------------+---------+------+--------+------+--------------+

^1^HI = Hawaii; US = United States

^2^Quarantine pests identified to the order, family or generic levels
are not further analyzed in this risk assessment (*See* Section 2.5
discussion).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc145640630 .anchor}**2.5 Quarantine Pests that are
Likely to Follow the Pathway**

The quarantine pests of *Hylocereus* and *Selenicereus* spp. that are
reasonably expected to follow the pathway on fruit are further analyzed
in this risk assessment (Table 4). Other organisms included on the pest
list, but (Table 3) were not chosen for further scrutiny for one or more
of the following reasons: they are well established and widespread in
the United States; they are associated mainly with plant parts other
than the commodity; they may be associated with the commodity, but it
was not considered reasonable to expect these pests to remain with the
commodity during processing; or they have been intercepted on rare
occasions as biological contaminants by APHIS-PPQ Officers during
inspections of the commodity and would not be expected to be commonly
found with commercial shipments. Although organisms listed in Table 3
(at the genus level) are quarantine pests, they are not considered for
further analysis because their identity is not clearly defined in order
to insure that the risk assessment is performed on that distinct
organism (IPPC, 2005).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Table 4. Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway and Selected |
| for Further Analysis**                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Bactrocera dorsalis* (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae)                 |
|                                                                       |
| *Ceratitis capitata* (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae)               |
|                                                                       |
| *Dysmicoccus neobrevipes* (Beardsley) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae)     |
|                                                                       |
| *Maconellicoccus hirsutus* (Green) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae)        |
|                                                                       |
| *Pseudococcus cryptus* Hempel (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae)             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc145640631 .anchor}**2.6** **Consequences of
Introduction---Economic/Environmental Importance**

Potential Consequences of Introduction are rated using five Risk
Elements: Climate-Host Interaction, Host Range, Dispersal Potential,
Economic Impact, and Environmental Impact. These elements reflect the
biology, host ranges, and climatic/geographic distributions of the
pests. For each Risk Element, pests are assigned a rating of Low (1
point), Medium (2 points), or High (3 points) (USDA, 2005a). A
Cumulative Risk Rating is then calculated by summing all Risk Element
values. Table 5 summarizes the values determined for the Consequences of
Introduction for each pest.

+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Consequences of Introduction: *Bactrocera dorsalis*      | **Risk  |
| (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae)**                          | Value** |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction**              | Medium  |
|                                                            | (2)     |
| Except for adventive populations in Guam and Hawaii, *B*.  |         |
| *dorsalis* is restricted to subtropical and tropical Asia  |         |
| (White & Elson-Harris, 1992). It is estimated that this    |         |
| species could become established in the continental United |         |
| States in areas corresponding to Plant Hardiness Zones     |         |
| 9-11.                                                      |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #2: Host Range**                            | High    |
|                                                            | (3)     |
| This species is extremely polyphagous. Recorded hosts      |         |
| include *Coffea* sp. (Rubiaceae), *Ficus* sp. (Moraceae),  |         |
| *Prunus* spp. (Rosaceae), *Eugenia uniflora* (Myrtaceae),  |         |
| *Mangifera* spp. (Anacardiaceae), *Citrus* spp.            |         |
| (Rutaceae), *Areca catechu* (Arecaceae), *Chrysophyllum    |         |
| cainito* (Sapotaceae), *Cucumis* spp. (Cucurbitaceae),     |         |
| *Dimocarpus longan* (Sapindaceae), *Diospyros* *kaki*      |         |
| (Ebenaceae), *Flacourtia indica* (Flacourtiaceae), *Punica |         |
| granatum* (Punicaceae), *Ziziphus* spp. (Rhamnaceae),      |         |
| *Annona* spp. (Annonaceae), *Averrhoa carambola*           |         |
| (Oxalidaceae), *Carica papaya* (Caricaceae), *Malpighia*   |         |
| *glabra* (Malpighiaceae), *Muntingia calabura*             |         |
| (Elaeocarpaceae), *Persea americana* (Lauraceae),          |         |
| *Terminalia catappa* (Combretaceae), *Musa* x              |         |
| *paradisiaca* (Musaceae) (CPC, 2004); *Passiflora          |         |
| mollisima* (Passifloraceae), *Juglans hindsii*             |         |
| (Juglandaceae), *Quassia* *simarouba* (Simaroubaceae),     |         |
| *Solanum seaforthianum* (Solanaceae), and *Clausena        |         |
| lansium* (Rutaceae) (White & Elson-Harris, 1992).          |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential**                   | High    |
|                                                            | (3)     |
| Females deposit 3-30 eggs per host fruit; total fecundity  |         |
| per female may exceed 1000 eggs (Fletcher, 1989a). There   |         |
| are several generations per year. Adult flight (*B*.       |         |
| *dorsalis)* is capable of flying distances up to 65 km     |         |
| (Fletcher, 1989b), and the transport of infested fruit are |         |
| the major means of movement and dispersal to previously    |         |
| uninfested areas (CPC, 2004). Like other dacine            |         |
| tephritids, *B*. *dorsata* exhibits high reproductive and  |         |
| dispersal potentials.                                      |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #4: Economic Impact**                       | High    |
|                                                            | (3)     |
| There are three kinds of economic losses that result from  |         |
| this pest (Harris, 1989): downgrading of fruit quality,    |         |
| which is caused by oviposition "stings" that spoil the     |         |
| fruits' appearance, including those unfavorable for larval |         |
| survival; fruit spoilage caused by larval tunneling and    |         |
| the entry of organisms that cause decay; and indirect      |         |
| damage in the form of lost markets resulting from the      |         |
| imposition of quarantine restrictions. In Hawaii, annual   |         |
| losses in major fruit crops caused by *B*. *dorsalis* may  |         |
| exceed 13%, or \$3 million (Culliney, 2002).               |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact**                  | High    |
|                                                            | (3)     |
| Because of its extremely broad host range, *B*. *dorsalis* |         |
| represents a potential threat to plants listed as          |         |
| Threatened or Endangered in Title 50, Part 17, Section 12  |         |
| of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR   |         |
| §17.12), and that occur in southern areas of the United    |         |
| States (*e.g*., *Prunus geniculata*, *Ziziphus* *celata*). |         |
| As the species is a pest of numerous crops of economic     |         |
| significance in the continental United States (*e.g*.,     |         |
| apple, peach, pear, citrus), its entry and establishment   |         |
| could stimulate the initiation of chemical or biological   |         |
| control programs, as has occurred in Hawaii.               |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+

+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Consequences of Introduction: *Ceratitis capitata*       | **Risk  |
| (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae)**                       | Value** |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction**              | High    |
|                                                            | (3)     |
| *Ceratitis capitata* is found in southern Europe and west  |         |
| Asia, throughout Africa and South and Central America      |         |
| (CPC, 2004), and in northern Australia (Hassan, 1977).     |         |
| This species has the capacity to tolerate colder climates  |         |
| better than most other fruit fly species (Weems, 1981). It |         |
| is estimated that *C*. *capitata* could establish in areas |         |
| of the United States corresponding to Plant Hardiness      |         |
| Zones 8-11.                                                |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #2: Host Range**                            | High    |
|                                                            | (3)     |
| This pest has been recorded from a wide variety of host    |         |
| plants in several families, including *Coffea* sp.         |         |
| (Rubiaceae), *Capsicum annuum* (Solanaceae), *Citrus* spp. |         |
| (Rutaceae), *Malus* *pumila*, *Prunus* spp. (Rosaceae),    |         |
| *Ficus carica* (Moraceae), *Psidium guajava* (Myrtaceae),  |         |
| *Theobroma cacao* (Sterculiaceae), *Phoenix dactylifera*   |         |
| (Arecaceae), and *Mangifera* *indica* (Anacardiaceae)      |         |
| (CPC, 2004).                                               |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential**                   | High    |
|                                                            | (3)     |
| Females may deposit as many as 800 eggs in a lifetime,     |         |
| although 300 is the more typical number (Weems, 1981).     |         |
| Eggs are inserted into host fruit in small batches of one  |         |
| to 10. Breeding is continuous throughout the year, the     |         |
| species exhibits several overlapping generations (Hassan,  |         |
| 1977). Adult flight (with a range of 20 km or more) and    |         |
| the transport of infested fruit are the major means of     |         |
| movement and dispersal to previously uninfested areas      |         |
| (CPC, 2004).                                               |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #4: Economic Impact**                       | High    |
|                                                            | (3)     |
| *Ceratitis capitata* is an important pest in Africa and    |         |
| has spread nearly worldwide to become the single most      |         |
| important pest species in its family. In Mediterranean     |         |
| countries, it is particularly damaging to citrus and peach |         |
| crops. It may also transmit fruit-rotting fungi (CPC,      |         |
| 2004). The species is of quarantine significance           |         |
| worldwide, especially in Japan and the United States. Its  |         |
| presence, even as temporary adventive populations, can     |         |
| lead to severe additional constraints for the export of    |         |
| fruits to uninfested areas in other parts of the world. In |         |
| this respect, *C. capitata* is one of the most significant |         |
| quarantine pests for any tropical or warm temperate areas  |         |
| in which it is not yet established (CPC, 2004).            |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact**                  | High    |
|                                                            | (3)     |
| As it represents a significant threat to citrus and peach  |         |
| production, the wider establishment of *C. capitata* in    |         |
| the continental United States would undoubtedly trigger    |         |
| the initiation of chemical or biological control programs, |         |
| as has occurred in California and Hawaii. This species is  |         |
| highly polyphagous and, thus, has the potential to attack  |         |
| plants listed as Threatened or Endangered (*e.g.,*         |         |
| *Opuntia* *treleasei*, *Prunus geniculata*).               |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+

+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Consequences of Introduction: *Dysmicoccus neobrevipes*  | **Risk  |
| Beardsley (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae)**                    | Value** |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction**              | Medium  |
|                                                            | (2)     |
| *Dysmicoccus neobrevipes* occurs throughout Central        |         |
| America, northern South America, the Caribbean,            |         |
| Indo-China, the Philippines, and Oceania (ARS-SEL, 2005;   |         |
| CPC, 2004). Outside of greenhouse or other artificial      |         |
| situations, this species should be able to survive in the  |         |
| warmer, southern parts of the continental United States    |         |
| (Plant Hardiness Zones 9-11).                              |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #2: Host Range**                            | High    |
|                                                            | (3)     |
| This species is extremely catholic in its host plant       |         |
| preferences, which extend across at least 31 families.     |         |
| Hosts include *Ananas comosus* (Bromeliaceae), *Malus      |         |
| pumila* (Rosaceae) (CPC, 2004); *Colocasia esculenta*      |         |
| (Araceae), *Ficus* sp. (Moraceae), *Musa* *paradisiaca*    |         |
| (Musaceae), *Opuntia ficus-indica* (Cactaceae),            |         |
| *Pritchardia* sp. (Arecaceae), *Acacia* *koa* and *Samanea |         |
| saman* (Fabaceae), *Helianthus annuus* (Asteraceae)        |         |
| (Nakahara, 1981); *Agave sisalana* (Agavaceae), *Cucurbita |         |
| maxima* (Cucurbitaceae), *Zea* *mays* (Poaceae),           |         |
| *Heliconia latispatha* (Heliconiaceae), *Citrus* spp.      |         |
| (Rutaceae), and *Lycopersicon esculentum* (Solanaceae)     |         |
| (ARS-SEL, 2005).                                           |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential**                   | High    |
|                                                            | (3)     |
| Ito (1938) reported females of the "gray form" of *D*.     |         |
| *brevipes* (considered by Beardsley (1959) to be *D*.      |         |
| *neobrevipes*) to produce an average of 347 progeny. Their |         |
| life span averaged about 95 days, with several generations |         |
| per year. The main dispersal stage of mealybugs is the     |         |
| first-instar crawler, which may be locally transported by  |         |
| wind or other animals. All life stages may be dispersed    |         |
| over longer distances through the movement of infested     |         |
| plant materials in commerce.                               |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #4: Economic Impact**                       | High    |
|                                                            | (3)     |
| *Dysmicoccus neobrevipes* attacks a number of valuable     |         |
| commercial crops, and is a particularly serious pest of    |         |
| pineapple, *Ananas comosus*. Like *D*. *brevipes*, it is a |         |
| vector of the virus causing pineapple wilt disease         |         |
| (Rohrbach *et al*., 1988). Feeding by large mealybug       |         |
| populations may cause a loss of host plant vigor. Also,    |         |
| honeydew deposited on leaves and fruit by mealybugs serves |         |
| as a medium for the growth of black sooty molds, which     |         |
| interfere with photosynthesis, and reduce the market value |         |
| of the crop. Biological and chemical controls are often    |         |
| implemented to control these mealybugs (or the attending   |         |
| ants) that aid in their spread, and interfere with their   |         |
| biological control. Because many of the host plants        |         |
| attacked by *D*. *neobrevipes* are commercially or         |         |
| environmentally important to the states of Texas, Arizona, |         |
| and California, introduction might cause the loss of       |         |
| international and domestic markets.                        |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact**                  | High    |
|                                                            | (3)     |
| The introduction of *D*. *neobrevipes* would likely result |         |
| in the initiation of chemical or biological control        |         |
| programs, as has occurred in Hawaii. The species is        |         |
| polyphagous, and has the potential to infest plants listed |         |
| as Threatened or Endangered in the continental United      |         |
| States (*e.g.*, *Opuntia treleasei*, *Cucurbita            |         |
| okeechobeensis* ssp. *okeechobeensis*).                    |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+

+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Consequences of Introduction: *Maconellicoccus hirsutus* | **Risk  |
| (Green) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae)**                      | Value** |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction**              | Medium  |
|                                                            | (2)     |
| *Maconellicoccus hirsutus* is probably native to southern  |         |
| Asia (CPC, 2004). Its range extends from south Asia        |         |
| through southeast and east Asia, the Philippines,          |         |
| Indonesia, Oceania, and southern Australia. It occurs as   |         |
| far north as Lebanon, Africa, northern South America,      |         |
| Central America, and the Caribbean. It should only be able |         |
| to become established in the southern United States (Plant |         |
| Hardiness Zones 9-11).                                     |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #2: Host Range**                            | High    |
|                                                            | (3)     |
| This species is extremely polyphagous. It has been         |         |
| recorded on plants in over 200 genera from 73 families,    |         |
| showing some preference for hosts in the Malvaceae,        |         |
| Fabaceae, and Moraceae (CPC, 2004). Primary hosts include  |         |
| the species of *Hibiscus* and *Gossypium* (Malvaceae),     |         |
| *Glycine max* (Fabaceae), *Artocarpus* spp. (Moraceae),    |         |
| *Persea americana* (Lauraceae), *Annona* spp.              |         |
| (Annonaceae), *Citrus* spp. (Rutaceae), *Averrhoa          |         |
| carambola* (Oxalidaceae), *Passiflora edulis*              |         |
| (Passifloraceae), *Musa paradisiaca* (Musaceae),           |         |
| *Theobroma cacao* (Sterculiaceae), *Vitis vinifera*        |         |
| (Vitaceae), *Bougainvillea* sp. (Nyctaginaceae), and       |         |
| *Boehmeria nivea* (Urticaceae). Included among secondary   |         |
| hosts are *Asparagus officinalis* (Liliaceae), *Brassica   |         |
| oleracea* (Brassicaceae), *Codiaeum variegatum*            |         |
| (Euphorbiaceae), *Malus pumila* and *Prunus insititia*     |         |
| (Rosaceae), *Coffea arabica* (Rubiaceae), *Lycopersicon    |         |
| esculentum* (Solanaceae), *Phoenix* spp. (Arecaceae),      |         |
| *Terminalia catappa* (Combretaceae), *Syzygium cumini*     |         |
| (Myrtaceae), *Cucurbita moschata* (Cucurbitaceae),         |         |
| *Opuntia* sp. (Cactaceae), *Zea mays* (Poaceae),           |         |
| *Parthenium hysterophorus* (Asteraceae), and *Chenopodium  |         |
| album* (Chenopodiaceae).                                   |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential**                   | High    |
|                                                            | (3)     |
| Fecundity ranges from 150-600 eggs per female (CPC, 2004). |         |
| There may be as many as 15 generations per year. Local     |         |
| dispersal is accomplished by the first-instar crawler,     |         |
| most efficiently via air, water, or on animals (CPC,       |         |
| 2004). All stages may be dispersed over longer distances   |         |
| through the transport of infested plant materials.         |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #4: Economic Impact**                       | High    |
|                                                            | (3)     |
| *Maconellicoccus hirsutus* attacks a wide range of         |         |
| (usually woody) plants, including agricultural,            |         |
| horticultural, and forest species (CPC, 2004). Feeding on  |         |
| young growth causes severe stunting and leaf distortion,   |         |
| the thickening of stems, and a bunchy-top appearance of    |         |
| shoots; in severe cases, the leaves may prematurely fall.  |         |
| Honeydew and sooty mold contamination of fruit may reduce  |         |
| its value. In Grenada, the estimated annual losses to      |         |
| crops and the environment from this mealybug were \$3.5    |         |
| million before biological controls were implemented (CPC,  |         |
| 2004). Other crops seriously damaged by *M*. *hirsutus*    |         |
| include cotton in Egypt, with growth sometimes virtually   |         |
| halted; tree cotton in India, with reduction in yield; the |         |
| fiber crop *Hibiscus sabdariffa* var. *altissima*          |         |
| (roselle) in India and Bangladesh, with reduction in       |         |
| yields of between 21 and 40%; and grapes in India, with up |         |
| to 90% of bunches destroyed.                               |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact**                  | High    |
|                                                            | (3)     |
| Because of its extreme polyphagy, this pest poses a threat |         |
| to plants in the continental United States listed as       |         |
| Threatened or Endangered (*e.g.*, *Cucurbita               |         |
| okeechobeensis* ssp. *okeechobeensis*, *Opuntia            |         |
| treleasei*, *Prunus geniculata*). As it is a potential     |         |
| threat to a number of crops of considerable economic value |         |
| in the United States (*e.g*., soybean, cotton, corn; CPC,  |         |
| 2004), its introduction into additional mainland states    |         |
| would likely lead to the initiation of chemical or         |         |
| biological control programs.                               |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+

+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Consequences of Introduction: *Pseudococcus cryptus*     | **Risk  |
| Hempel (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae)**                       | Value** |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction**              | Medium  |
|                                                            | (2)     |
| This species exhibits a subtropical to tropical            |         |
| distribution (ARS-SEL, 2005). It occurs in Kenya and       |         |
| Zanzibar in Africa; from Israel to Japan in Asia; South    |         |
| and Central America; the Caribbean; and various island     |         |
| groups in the Pacific. It should be able to establish in   |         |
| the warmer, southern parts of the continental United       |         |
| States (Plant Hardiness Zones 9-11).                       |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #2: Host Range**                            | High    |
|                                                            | (3)     |
| *Pseudococcus cryptus* has been recorded on hosts in more  |         |
| than 20 families, including *Mangifera indica*             |         |
| (Anacardiaceae), *Plumeria* sp. (Apocynaceae), *Dahlia*    |         |
| sp. (Asteraceae), *Hevea brasiliensis* (Euphorbiaceae),    |         |
| *Persea americana* (Lauraceae), *Erythrina* sp.            |         |
| (Fabaceae), *Crinum asiaticum* (Liliaceae), *Artocarpus    |         |
| altilis* (Moraceae), *Musa* sp. (Musaceae), *Psidium       |         |
| guajava* (Myrtaceae), *Cocos nucifera* (Arecaceae),        |         |
| *Pandanus upoluensis* (Pandanaceae), *Passiflora foetida*  |         |
| (Passifloraceae), *Piper methysticum* (Piperaceae),        |         |
| *Coffea* spp. (Rubiaceae), *Citrus* spp. (Rutaceae)        |         |
| (ARS-SEL, 2005); *Hibiscus* sp. (Malvaceae), and various   |         |
| Orchidaceae (Hill, 1994). In laboratory tests, the species |         |
| has been found to complete development on *Pyrus* spp.,    |         |
| *Malus pumila*, and *Cydonia oblonga* (Rosaceae), *Solanum |         |
| tuberosum* (Solanaceae), *Aralia cachemirica*              |         |
| (Araliaceae), and *Eugenia* spp. (Avidov & Harpaz, 1969).  |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential**                   | High    |
|                                                            | (3)     |
| Avidov & Harpaz (1969) outlined the reproductive biology   |         |
| of this species. Fecundity ranges from 200-500 eggs per    |         |
| female; at least six generations per year are recorded.    |         |
| The insect is only capable of limited dispersal under its  |         |
| own power. Long-distance spread would be accomplished via  |         |
| the movement of infested plant materials.                  |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #4: Economic Impact**                       | High    |
|                                                            | (3)     |
| *Pseudococcus cryptus* is a major pest of citrus (Hill,    |         |
| 1994). The insect produces copious quantities of honeydew, |         |
| on which sooty molds develop, sometimes reaching a         |         |
| thickness of 5-8 mm (Avidov & Harpaz, 1969). In heavy      |         |
| infestations, entire trees may be contaminated, and leaves |         |
| and fruit will prematurely shed. High population densities |         |
| on coconut palm may cause the drying of the inflorescence  |         |
| and button shedding (Moore, 2001). In Israel, both         |         |
| biological and chemical controls have succeeded in         |         |
| maintaining populations below economically damaging        |         |
| densities (Avidov & Harpaz, 1969; Blumberg *et al*.,       |         |
| 2001).                                                     |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact**                  | Medium  |
|                                                            | (2)     |
| Although it attacks a broad range of plant species, *P*.   |         |
| *cryptus* is not expected to pose a threat to vulnerable   |         |
| native plants in the continental United States, although   |         |
| close relatives of some of its known hosts that occur in   |         |
| Puerto Rico (*i.e*., *Eugenia haematocarpa*, *E*.          |         |
| *woodburyana*, *Solanum drymophilum*) are listed as        |         |
| Endangered in 50 CFR §17.12. As it is a known pest of      |         |
| citrus, its introduction into citrus-growing regions of    |         |
| the United States could spur the initiation of biological  |         |
| or chemical control programs.                              |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+

**Table 5. Risk Rating for Consequences of Introduction (Dragon fruit
from Hawaii).**

+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+----------+--------+
| **Pest**  | **Risk | **Risk | **Risk | **Risk | **Risk   | **Cumu |
|           | E      | E      | E      | E      | Element  | lative |
|           | lement | lement | lement | lement | 5**      | Risk   |
|           | 1**    | 2**    | 3**    | 4**    |          | Ra     |
|           |        |        |        |        | **Envir  | ting** |
|           | **Clim | **Host | **Dis  | **Ec   | onmental |        |
|           | ate/** | R      | persal | onomic | Impact** |        |
|           |        | ange** | Poten  | Im     |          |        |
|           | **Host |        | tial** | pact** |          |        |
|           | I      |        |        |        |          |        |
|           | nterac |        |        |        |          |        |
|           | tion** |        |        |        |          |        |
+===========+========+========+========+========+==========+========+
| *B        | Medium | High   | High   | High   | High (3) | High   |
| actrocera | (2)    | (3)    | (3)    | (3)    |          | (14)   |
| dorsalis* |        |        |        |        |          |        |
| (Hendel)  |        |        |        |        |          |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+----------+--------+
| *         | High   | High   | High   | High   | High (3) | High   |
| Ceratitis | (3)    | (3)    | (3)    | (3)    |          | (15)   |
| capitata* |        |        |        |        |          |        |
| (W        |        |        |        |        |          |        |
| iedemann) |        |        |        |        |          |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+----------+--------+
| *Dy       | Medium | High   | High   | High   | High (3) | High   |
| smicoccus | (2)    | (3)    | (3)    | (3)    |          | (14)   |
| neo       |        |        |        |        |          |        |
| brevipes* |        |        |        |        |          |        |
| Beardsley |        |        |        |        |          |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+----------+--------+
| *Macone   | Medium | High   | High   | High   | High (3) | High   |
| llicoccus | (2)    | (3)    | (3)    | (3)    |          | (14)   |
| hirsutus* |        |        |        |        |          |        |
| (Green)   |        |        |        |        |          |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+----------+--------+
| *Pse      | Medium | High   | High   | High   | Medium   | High   |
| udococcus | (2)    | (3)    | (3)    | (3)    | (2)      | (13)   |
| cryptus*  |        |        |        |        |          |        |
| Hempel    |        |        |        |        |          |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+----------+--------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc145640632 .anchor}**2.7 Likelihood of
Introduction---Quantity Imported and Pest Opportunity**

Likelihood of Introduction is a function of both the quantity of the
commodity imported annually and pest opportunity, which consists of five
criteria that consider the potential for pest survival along the pathway
(USDA, 2005a) (Table 6).

**Quantity imported annually**

The rating for the quantity imported annually is based on the amount
reported by the exporter, and is then converted into standard units of
40-foot long shipping containers. The projected initial volume of dragon
fruit to be shipped from Hawaii to the mainland United States is
estimated to be no more than 100 cases (Conant, 2005), which would not
fill a single standard 40-foot long shipping container.

**Survive post-harvest treatment**

Both fruit flies *(Bactrocera dorsalis* and *Ceratitis capitata)* are
internal pests and would be expected to survive minimal post-harvest
treatment, such as washing and culling, especially if infestation damage
was obvious. The remaining pests, scale insects *Dysmicoccus
neobrevipes*, *Maconellicoccus hirsutus*, and *Pseudococcus cryptus*,
are external feeders, and would have less of a probability of surviving
post-harvest treatments; however, depending on their stage (egg, larva
or nymph, adult) or instar, these diminutive insects might find shelter
on fruit. For example, many scales prefer tight, protected areas, such
as cracks and crevices (Kosztarab, 1996). Their cryptic behavior, small
size (most scales are less than 5 mm long) (Gullan & Kosztarab, 1997),
and water-repellent, waxy coverings make them difficult to see or
dislodge, particularly if dragon fruit is harvested with sepals
attached.

**Survive shipment**

Dragon fruit is typically stored at 10°C (Wall, 2005). Under such benign
conditions, all of the pests are expected to have a High probability of
surviving shipment.

**Not detected at port-of-entry**

As with assessing the risk of dragon fruit pests surviving post-harvest
treatment, estimating the risk that these pests will not be detected at
a port-of-entry involves consideration of pest size, mobility, and
degree of concealment. Again, depending on the age of infestation, the
internal feeders could have a high probability of escaping detection at
a port-of-entry, unless the fruit is cut open. *Bactrocera dorsalis* and
*C*. *capitata*, in particular, might readily evade detection, as fruit
fly-infested fruit commonly go unrecognized (White & Elson-Harris,
1992). Large, conspicuous infestations could lead to the easy detection
of the scale insects; however, sparser populations of these small
insects, particularly if concealed on fruits or in packing materials,
would be more difficult to discover.

**Moved to suitable habitat**

Based on their distribution in warm temperate to tropical environments,
it is estimated that climates suitable for the establishment of
permanent pest populations can only be in a rather narrow swath of
territory in the south, and along the west coast of the continental
United States. These regions would comprise an estimated 10-12% of the
total land area of the country.

**Contact with host material**

Hosts of the highly polyphagous species (*i.e*., *B*. *dorsalis*, *C*.
*capitata*, *D*. *neobrevipes*, *M*. *hirsutus*, *P*. *cryptus*, and
*T*. *florum*), in addition to citrus, include temperate-zone or widely
cultivated plants (USDA, 2003) that should be available throughout the
potential geographic range in the continental United States.

Even if hosts are available for colonization, biological attributes of
some of the arthropods reduce their probability of successful
establishment. Specifically, the sessile nature of the scales would
severely limit their chances of coming into contact with hosts (Miller,
1985; Gullan & Kosztarab, 1997). Successful establishment of these
insects in a new environment is contingent on the likelihood of at least
two necessary conditions occurring: close proximity of susceptible hosts
and their presence on the imported fruit of crawlers or other mobile
forms to transfer to new hosts. Since these circumstances are highly
unlikely to co-occur (Miller, 1985), these particular pests receive a
risk rating of Low.

**Table 6. Risk Rating for Likelihood of Introduction (Dragon fruit**
from Hawaii).

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Pest**           **Quantity   **Survive      **Survive    **Not detected at **Moved to  **Contact    **Cumulative
                     imported     post-harvest   shipment**   port-of-entry**   suitable    with host    Risk Rating**
                     annually**   treatment**                                   habitat**   material**   
  ------------------ ------------ -------------- ------------ ----------------- ----------- ------------ --------------
  *Bactrocera        Low (1)      High (3)       High (3)     High (3)          Medium (2)  High (3)     High (15)
  dorsalis* (Hendel)                                                                                     

  *Ceratitis         Low (1)      High (3)       High (3)     High (3)          Medium (2)  High (3)     High (15)
  capitata*                                                                                              
  (Wiedemann)                                                                                            

  *Dysmicoccus       Low (1)      Medium (2)     High (3)     Medium (2)        Medium (2)  Low (1)      Medium (11)
  neobrevipes*                                                                                           
  Beardsley                                                                                              

  *Maconellicoccus   Low (1)      Medium (2)     High (3)     Medium (2)        Medium (2)  Low (1)      Medium (11)
  hirsutus* (Green)                                                                                      

  *Pseudococcus      Low (1)      Medium (2)     High (3)     Medium (2)        Medium (2)  Low (1)      Medium (11)
  cryptus* Hempel                                                                                        
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc145640633 .anchor}**2.8 Conclusion---Pest Risk
Potential and Pests Requiring Phytosanitary Measures**

The summation of the values for the Consequences of Introduction and the
Likelihood of Introduction yield Pest Risk Potential values (USDA,
2005a) (Table 7). This is an estimate of the risks associated with
importation.

**Table 7. Pest Risk Potential**

  ------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------
  **Pest**                  **Consequences   **Likelihood of  **Pest Risk
                            of               Introduction**   Potential**
                            Introduction**                    

  *Bactrocera dorsalis*     High (14)        High (15)        High (29)
  (Hendel)                                                    

  *Ceratitis capitata*      High (15)        High (15)        High (30)
  (Wiedemann)                                                 

  *Dysmicoccus neobrevipes* High (14)        Medium (11)      Medium (25)
  Beardsley                                                   

  *Maconellicoccus          High (14)        Medium (11)      Medium (25)
  hirsutus* (Green)                                           

  *Pseudococcus cryptus*    High (13)        Medium (11)      Medium (24)
  Hempel                                                      
  ------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------

Pests with a Pest Risk Potential value of Low do not require mitigation
measures, whereas a value within the Medium range indicates that
specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary. The PPQ Guidelines
state that a High Pest Risk Potential means that specific phytosanitary
measures are strongly recommended, and that port-of-entry inspection is
not considered sufficient to provide phytosanitary security.

**Risk Mitigation Options**

1\. Irradiation treatment at a dose of 400 Gy (7 CFR §305.31a) for all
quarantine-significant insect pests.

2\. Irradiation treatment at a dose of 150 Gy (7 CFR §305.31a) for
*Bactrocera dorsalis* and C*eratitis capitata*; warm, soapy water wash
and brushing, T102-c (PPQ Treatment Manual), for *Dysmicoccus
neobrevipes*, *Maconellicoccus hirsutus*, and *Pseudococcus cryptus*.

3\. Irradiation treatment at a dose of 150 Gy (7 CFR §305.31a) for
*Bactrocera dorsalis* and *Ceratitis capitata*; inspection for
*Dysmicoccus neobrevipes*, *Maconellicoccus hirsutus*, *and Pseudococcus
cryptus*.

4\. Vapor heat, T106-e (PPQ Treatment Manual), for *Bactrocera dorsalis*
and *Ceratitis capitata*; inspection for *Dysmicoccus neobrevipes*,
*Maconellicoccus hirsutus*, *and Pseudococcus cryptus*.

5\. Methyl bromide fumigation, T101-e-3 (PPQ Treatment Manual), for
*Bactrocera dorsalis* and *Ceratitis capitata*; inspection for
*Dysmicoccus neobrevipes*, *Maconellicoccus hirsutus*, *and Pseudococcus
cryptus*.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc145640634 .anchor}**III. Authors and Reviewers**

Written by: Christie A. Hurt, Entomologist, CPHST-PERAL

Reviewed by: Michael K. Hennessey, Entomologist, CPHST-PERAL

Feridoon Mehdizadegan, Plant Pathologist, CPHST-PERAL

Nicanor J. Liquido, Senior Risk Analyst (Lead Scientist), CPHST-PERAL

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc145640635 .anchor}**IV. Literature Cited**

Anonymous. 1999. North American plant protection organization compendium
of phytosanitary terms. Doc. No. 96-027. NAPPO Secretariat, Canada,
[\<http://www.nappo.org\>]{.underline} *last accessed* 10 Mar. 2005.

Anonymous. 1994. Catalogo de Plagas (Bacterias, Hongos, Nematodos e
Insectos) de la Pitahaya (*Hylocereus undatus* Brit & Rose) en Nicaragua
1993-1994. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia Direccion de Sanidad
Vegetal Centro de Diagnostico Fitosanitario, Nicaragua 4 pp.

ARS. 2005. GRIN Online database. USDA-ARS, Nat\'l. Genetic Resources
Program, Germplasm Resources Info. Network, DC.
[\<www.ars-grin.gov\>]{.underline}, *last accessed* 10 Mar. 2005.

ARS-SEL. 2005. ScaleNet: Database of the scale insects of the world.
USDA-ARS, Systematic Entomol. Lab., DC
[\<http://www/sel.barc.usda.gov\>]{.underline} *last accessed* 10 Mar.
2005.

Avidov, Z. and I. Harpaz. 1969. Plant Pests of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel
Univ. Press.

Bibliowicz, A. and Hernández, S. M. 1998. Organismos fungosos presentes
en las estructuras reproductivas de la pitaya amarilla. Tesis de
Agronomia. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Santefe de Bogata.

Blumberg, D., Y. Ben-Dov, and Z. Mendel. 2001. The citriculus mealybug,
*Pseudococcus cryptus* Hempel, and its natural enemies in Israel:
history and present situation. Entomologica 33: 233-242.

Bolland, H. R., J. Gutierrez, C. H. W. Flechtmann. 1998. World Catalogue
of the Spider Mite Family (Acari: Tetranychidae). Brill, Boston, 392 pp.

Borror, D.; Triplehorn, C. and Johnson, N. 1989. Introduction to the
study of insects, 6ed. Saunders College Pub., 875 pp.

Boyle, T. H., D. E. Mayhew, and A. L. Wiens. 1997. Viruses in cactus
grafting stocks. Cactus and Succulent Journal. 69: 40-41.

[Brunt, A.A., K. Crabtree, M. J. Dallwitz, A. J. Gibbs, L. Watson, and
E. J. Zurcher (eds.)](http://image.fs.uidaho.edu/vide/refs.htm#authors).
1996 onwards. Plant Viruses Online: Descriptions and Lists from the VIDE
Database. Version: 20^th^ August 1996.
[\<]{.underline}[[http://biology.anu.edu.au/Groups/MES/vide/]{.underline}](http://biology.anu.edu.au/Groups/MES/vide/)
[\>]{.underline} *last accessed* 10 Mar. 2005.

Burks, K. 2001. Personal communication (on file with USDA-APHIS-PPQ,
subject: weediness of *Hylocereus* spp. and eradication in Florida).

CABI Bioscience Databases. 2005. © CABI *Bioscience*, Egham, UK, 2004.
Sourced from \<www.cabi-bioscience.org\> *last accessed* 04 Mar. 2005.

Castaña, S. P., A. Rincón, F. Varón de Agudelo. 1991. Identificación de
nematodos asociados con pitaya *Acanthocereus pitahaya* Jacq Dugand.
Revista ICA 26(1): 91-101.

Castillo-Martinez, R.; De Dios, H.C. and Canto, A.R. 1996. Guia tecnica
para el cultivo de pitahaya. Quintana Roo, Mexico pp.20-105.

Conant, Patrick. 2005. Personal communication: Dragon fruit pest survey
for PRA preparation.

CPC. 2004. Crop Protection Compendium, 2ed. CAB Int'l, United Kingdom.

Culliney, T. W. 2002. The aliens have landed: invasive species threaten
Hawaii agriculture. Agric. Hawaii 3(1): 6-9.

El-Gholl, N. E., T. S. Schubert, and N. C. Coile. 1997. Diseases and
Disorders of Plants in Florida, Supplement No. 1. Bulletin No. 14,
Florida Dept. Agr. and Cons. Serv. Gainesville, FL.

Farr, D.F.; Bills, G.F.; Chamuris, G.P. and Rossman, A.Y. 1989. Fungi on
plants and plant products in the United States. APS Press, MN. 1251 pp.

Farr, D.F., Rossman, A.Y., Palm, M.E., & McCray, E.B. (n.d.) Fungal
Databases, Systematic Botany & Mycology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. Retrieved
January 26, 2005, from \<http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/\> *last
accessed* 10 Mar. 2005.

Fletcher, B. S. 1989a. Life history strategies of tephritid flies, pp.
195-208. *In* A. S. Robinson and G. Hooper (eds.). Fruit Flies: Their
Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. (World Crop Pests, Vol. 3B).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Fleter, B.S. 1989b. Movements of tephritid fruit flies, pp. 209-219.
*In* A. S. Robinson and G. Hooper (eds.). Fruit Flies: Their Biology,
Natural Enemies and Control. (World Crop Pests, Vol. 3B). Amsterdam:
Elsevier.

Fogleman, J.C. and Starmer, W.T. 1985. Analysis of the community
structure of yeasts associated with the decaying stems of cactus. III.
*Stenocereus thurberi*. Microb. Ecol. 11:165-173.

Foote, R.H.; Blanc, F.L and Norrbom, A.L. 1993. Handbook of the Fruit
Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of America North of Mexico, NY.

Fudl-Allah, A. E.-S. A., L. G. Weathers, and F. C. Greer, Jr. 1983.
Characterizations of a potexvirus isolated from night-blooming cactus.
Plant Disease. 67:438-440.

GPDD. 2005. Global Pest and Disease Database.
[\<https://www.gpdd.info/\>]{.underline} *last accessed* 10 Mar. 2005.

Gullan, P. J. and M. Kosztarab. 1997. Adaptations in scale insects.
Annual Rev. Entomol. 42: 23-50.

Gunn, C.R. and Ritchie, C. 1982. Report of the technical committee to
evaluate noxious weeds. Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act
(unpublished).

Harris, E. J. 1989. Hawaiian islands and North America, pp. 73-81. *In*
A. S. Robinson and G. Hooper (eds.). Fruit Flies: Their Biology, Natural
Enemies and Control. (World Crop Pests, Vol. 3A). Amsterdam, Elsevier.

Hassan, E. 1977. Major Insect and Mite Pest \[sic\] of Australian Crops.
Gatton, Qld.: Ento Press.

Hill, D.S. 1994. Agricultural entomology. Timber Press, Portland, OR 635
pp.

Holm, L.G.; Plucknett, D.L.; Pancho, J.V. and Herberger, J.P. 1977.
World's worst weeds. Univ. Hawaii Press, HI 608 pp.

Holm, L.G.; Pancho, J.V.; Herberger, J.P. and Plucknett, D.L. 1979.
Geographical atlas of the world's weeds. John Wiley and Sons, NY 391 pp.

Holm, L.G.; Doll, J.; Holm, E.; Pancho, J. and Herberger, J. 1997. World
weeds: natural histories and distribution. John Wiley and Sons, NY 1129
pp.

HTAC. 2005. Hawaiian Terrestrial Arthropod Checklist. Hawaii Biological
Survey. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii.
[\<http://www.bishopmuseum.org/research/natsci/ento/entodbhome.html\>]{.underline}
*last accessed* 10 Mar. 2005.

IPPC. 1996. International standards for phytosanitary measures,
Guidelines for pest risk analysis. Secretariat of the Int'l. Plant
Protec. Convention, United Nations - FAO, Italy,
[\<http://www.fao.org\>]{.underline} *last accessed* 10 Mar. 2005.

IPPC. 2005. International standards for phytosanitary measures, Glossary
of phytosanitary terms. Secretariat of the Int'l Plant Protec.
Convention, United Nations - FAO, Italy,
[\<http://www.fao.org\>]{.underline} *last accessed* 10 Mar. 2005.

Jacobs, D. 1999. Pitaya (*Hylocereus undatus*), a potential new crop for
Australia. Australian New Crops Newsletter No. 11: 16.3
[\<http:www.newcrops.uq.edu.au/\>]{.underline} *last accessed* 10 Mar.
2005.

Kimnach, M.. 1984. *Hylocereus escuintlensis,* a new species from
Guatemala. Cactus Succulent J. 56 (4): 177-180.

Kosztarab, M. 1996. Scale Insects of northeastern North America:
Identification, biology, and Distribution. (Va. Mus. Nat. Hist. Spec.
Publ. No. 3). Martinsville, VA: Virginia Museum of Natural History.

Liou, M. R., C. L. Hung, and R. F. Liou. 2001. First Report of *Cactus
virus X* on *Hylocereus undatus* (Cactaceae) in Taiwan. Plant Disease.
85: 229.

Liquido, N. J., P. G. Barr, R. T. Cunningham. 1998. MEDHOST: An
Encyclopedic Bibliography of the Host Plants of the Mediterranean Fruit
Fly, *Ceratits capitata* (Wiedemann). USDA-ARS.

Mejia, M.; Arango, H. and Miller, C. E. 2002. Importation of fresh
yellow pitaya (*Selenicereus megalanthus* Haw.) from Colombia into the
United States. USDA/APHIS/PPQ Pest Risk Analysis \[Draft\].

Miller, D. R. 1985. Pest Risk Assessment of Armored Scales on Certain
Fruit. Unpublished report. USDA Agric. Res. Serv.

Miller, D.R.; Blackburn, V.L.; Davidson, J.A. and Gimpel, W.F. 1985.
Pest risk assessment of armored scales on certain fruit. USDA-ARS
(letter to C.E. Miller, USDA-APHIS-PPD; on file with USDA-APHIS-PPQ).

Mizrahi, Y. and Nerd, A. 1999. Climbing and columnar cacti: New arid
land fruit crops. *In*: Perspectives on new crops and new uses (Janick,
J., ed.) ASHS Press, VA pp. 358-366.

Mizrahi, Y.; Nerd, A. and Nobel, P.S. 1997. Cacti as crops. Hortic.
Reviews 18: 291-320.

Moore, D. 2001. Insects of palm flowers and fruits, pp. 233-266. *In* F.
W. Howard, D. Moore, R. Giblin-Davis, and R. Abad. Insects on Palms.
Wallingford, U.K.: CABI Publ.

Morton, J.F. 1987. Strawberry pear. *In*: Fruits of warm climates.
Creative Resource Systems, Inc., NC.
[\<http://hort.purdue.edu/NewCropCenter\>]{.underline} *last accessed* 3
Jan. 2002.

MREC. 2005. Mid-Florida Research and Education Center. University of
Florida, IFAS.
[\<http://www.mrec.ifas.ufl.edu/Foliage/entomol/ncstate/slug4.htm\>]{.underline}
*last accessed* 10 Mar. 2005.

Nabhan, G.P. 1985. Gathering the desert. Univ. Arizona Press, AZ 209pp.

Nakahara, S. 1981. List of the Hawaiian Coccoidea (Homoptera:
Sternorhyncha). Proc. Hawaii Entomol. Soc. 23(3): 387-424.

PIN 309. 2005. Port Information Network. USDA-APHIS, MD.

Popenoe, W. 1939. Manual of tropical and subtropical fruits. MacMillan
Co., NY p. 451.

Randall, R.P. 2001. Personal communication (on file with USDA-APHIS-PPQ,
subject: weediness of *Hylocereus* spp. in Australia).

Raveh, E.; Weiss, J.; Nerd, A. and Mizrahi, Y. 1993. Pitayas (genus
*Hylocereus*): New fruit crop for the Negev Desert of Israel.
[\<http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/default.html \>]{.underline} *last
accessed* 10 Mar. 2005.

Reed, C.F. 1977. Ecologically important foreign weeds. Agric. Handbk.
No. 498, US Gov't. Printing Office 746 pp.

Rohrbach, K.G.; Beardsley, J.W.; German, T.L.; Reimer, N.J. and Sanford,
W.G. 1988. Mealybug wilt, mealybugs, and ants on pineapple. Plant
Disease 72(7): 558-565.

Solomon, J.C. 2002. w3TROPICOS, Missouri Botanical Garden,
[\<http://www.mobot.org\>]{.underline} *last accessed* 10 Mar. 2005.

Starmer, W. T. 1982. Analysis of the community structure of yeasts
associated with the decaying stems of cactus. I. *Stenocereus gummosus.*
Microb. Ecol. 8:71-81.

Tel-Zur, N.; Abbo, S.; Bar-Zvi, D. and Mizrahi, Y. 2001. Hybridization
between species and genera of fruit-crop vine cacti of the genera
*Hylocereus* and *Selenicereus*. Hortscience, 36(3): 441.

Tel-Zur, N.; Abbo, S.; Myslabodski, D. and Mizrahi, Y. 1999. Modified
CTAB procedure for DNA isolation from epiphytic cacti of the genera
*Hylocereus* and *Selenicereus* (Cactaceae). Plant Molec. Biol. Reporter
17: 249-254 \[Abstr\].

USDA. 2003. Plants Database. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Serv.
\<http://plants.usda.gov/cgi_bin\> *last accessed* 10 Mar. 2005.

USDA. 2005a. Guidelines for pathway-initiated pest risk assessments
(version 5.02), USDA-APHIS-PPQ, MD,
[\<http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/\>]{.underline} *last accessed* 10
Mar. 2005.

USDA. 2005b. Fruits and Vegetables Manual, USDA-APHIS-PPQ, MD,
\<[http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/pdf_files/FV_Chapters.htm]{.underline}\>
*last accessed* 31 May 2005.

USDA. 2004. Plant import: Nonpropagative manual, 5ed., USDA-APHIS-PPQ,
MD, [\<http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals\>]{.underline} *last
accessed* 10 Mar. 2005.

USDANC. 2005. USDA Nematode Collection.
[\<http://www.nem.barc.usda.gov/database/search.cfm\>]{.underline} *last
accessed* 10 Mar. 2005.

Wall, Marisa. 2005. Personal communication: Research Postharvest
Physiologist.

Weems, R.V. 1981. Mediterranean fruit fly, *Ceratitis capitata*
(Wiedemann). Entomol. Circ. No. 230. FL Dept. Agric Consumer Serv. 12pp.

Weiss, J.; Scheinvar, L. and Mizrahi, Y. 1995. *Selenicereus
megalanthus* (the yellow pitaya), a climbing cactus from Colombia and
Peru. Cactus Succulent J., 67(5): 280-283.

White, I.M. and Elson-Harris, M.M. 1992. Fruit flies of economic
significance: Identification and bionomics. CAB Int'l., United Kingdom
601 pp.

WSSA. 1989. Composite List of Weeds. Weed Science Society of America.