## Importation of Oversized Dracaena Spp. as Ornamental Plants from Costa Rica into the Continental United States

A Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment

September 28, 2011

Version 3

Agency contact

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

United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, North Carolina, 27606Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 ii 

## Executive Summary

We assessed the risks associated with the importation of oversized Dracaena spp. plants from Costa Rica into the continental United States. Dracaena spp. plants are currently enterable into the United States, but the size of the plants are regulated in 7 CFR 319.37-2(b)(6)(i) and 7 CFR 319.37-2(b)(4). Dracaena spp. plants regulated in 7 CFR 319.37-2(b)(6)(i) cannot ex ceed 460 mm (18 inches) in length from the soil line (top of rooting zone for plants produced by air layering) to the farthest terminal growing point. The National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) of Cost a Rica, the National Phytosanitary Service of the Ministry of Agriculture and Husbandry (MAG-SFE), h as requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) increase the size restriction to 1.37 m (54 inches). Plants regulated in 7 CFR 319.37-2(b)(4) include single-stem canes without leaves, roots, sprouts, and branches, not to exceed 1.83 m (6 feet) in length. No change in size was requested for the single-stem canes, and they will therefore not be affected by the proposed rule change for 7 CFR 319.37-2(b)(6)(i).

We estimated plant pest risks associat ed with the importation of oversized Dracaena spp. plants from Costa Rica into the continental United States, i.e. Dracaena plants larger than 460 mm from the soil line or top of the root zone to the farthest terminal gr owth and up to 1.37 m (54 inches). We identified fifteen quarantine-significant pests likely to follow the pathwa y and pose phytosanitary risk s to agriculture in the United States, as listed below.

Type Organism Taxonomy Arthropod Ancistrocercus circumdatus Walker Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae
Caldwelliola reservata (Fowler) Hemiptera: Cicadellidae Chaetanaphothrips signipennis (Bagnall) Thysanoptera: Thripidae
Coccus viridis (Green) Hemiptera: Coccidae
Erioloides consobrinus Saussure and Pictet Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae Neoconocephalus affinis (Beauvois) Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae Oncometopia clarior (Walker) Hemiptera: Cicadellidae
Planococcus minor (Maskell) Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae
Pseudococcus landoi (Balachowsky) Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae Xylosandrus morigerus (Blandford) Coleoptera: Scolytidae
Mollusk Diplosolenodes occidentalis (Guilding) Soleolifera: Veronicellidae Ovachlamys fulgens (Gude) Stylommatophora: Helicarionidae Pallifera costaricensis (Mörch) Stylommatophora: Philomycidae Sarasinula plebeia (Fisher) Soleolifera: Veronicellidae
Succinea costaricana (Von Martens) Stylommatophora: Succineidae

We estimated both the Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood of Introduction, and overall Pest Risk Potentials based on those, which es timate risks in the absence of mitigation. Ancistrocercus circumdatus, Chaetanaphothrips signipennis, Er ioloides consobrinus, Neoconocephalus affinis, and Pallifera costaricensis had Medium pest risk potentials, while the remaining pests were High risk. Specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary for pests with Medium pest risk potentials, and are strongly recommended for pests with High pest risk potentials.

Pest monitoring, plant health, and prophylactic insecticide programs are recommended to safeguard against the introduction of quarantine-significant pest s. Mitigations are also recommended to reduce thePest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 iii number of biological contaminants arriving in the United States in shipments of Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica. Possible programs are discussed under the heading Mitigation Options.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 iv 

## Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. ......... ii

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... .................1

2. Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................ .............1 2.1. Initiating Event ......................................................................................................... ........... 1 2.2. Assessment of the Weed Potential of Dracaena spp. .......................................................... 1 2.3. Current Status, Previous Risk Asse ssments, and Pest Interceptions ................................... 2 2.4. Pest Categorization ...................................................................................................... ........ 3 2.5. Consequences of Introduction ........................................................................................... 2 0 2.6. Likelihood of Introduction ............................................................................................... .. 32 2.7. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... .......... 34
3. Mitigation Options ......................................................................................................... ..........35 3.1. Costa Rica Clean Stock Program: Overview of 2006 Site Visit ........................................ 35 3.2. General Requirements ..................................................................................................... ... 37 3.3. Biological Contamination ................................................................................................. . 37 3.4. Ambrosia Beetles ......................................................................................................... ...... 38 3.5. Scale and Mealybugs ...................................................................................................... ... 38 3.6. Thrips ................................................................................................................... .............. 39 3.7. Snails and Slugs ......................................................................................................... ........ 40 3.8. Caldwelliola reservata, Oncometopia clarior (Cicadellidae), Ancistrocercus circumdatus

, Erioloides consobrinus, Neoconocephalus affinis (Tettigoniidae) ........................................... 40

4. Authors and Reviewers ...................................................................................................... ......41

5. Literature Cited ........................................................................................................... ............42
6. Appendices ................................................................................................................. ...............54 Appendix A: Pest Interceptions on Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica ....................................... 54Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 1 

## 1. Introduction

The United States Department of Agriculture (US DA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Ce nter for Plant Health Science and Technology (CPHST), Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Labo ratory (PERAL) prepared this risk assessment at the request of the Ministerio de Agricultura y Gana dería, San José, Costa Rica. We estimated the plant pest risks associated with the importation of oversized Dracaena spp. plants from Costa Rica into the continental United States, i.e. Dracaena plants larger than 460 mm from the soil line or top of the root zone to the farthest terminal growth and up to 1. 37 m (54 inches). We assigned the qualitative terms High, Medium, or Low in accordance with th e Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, v. 5.02 (PPQ, 2000).

The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), administered by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, provid es guidance for conducting pest risk assessments (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #2) and the use of biological and phytosanitary terms (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #5). The terms and methods used to initiate, conduct, a nd report this assessment is consistent with these international guidelines. This document satisfies th e requirements of the three stages of the FAO guidelines (Initiation, Risk Assessment, and Risk Manage ment), and is consistent with applicable U.S. regulations, e.g., 7 CFR § 319.40-11 and 7 CFR § 319.37-8(g).

The genus Dracaena is indigenous to Africa and Asia, but the plan ts are grown in most tropical regions of the world (Chase, 1987). There are approximately forty described species of Dracaena , but only six of them are grown commercially as ornamentals: D

. deremensis

, D

. fragrans

, D

. godseffiana (= D

. surculosa ), D

. marginata

, D

. reflexa, and D

. sanderiana (Chen et al., 2002). These species are widely used in interior landscapes because th ey thrive in low light, require minimal care, and provide a diversity of colors, shapes, and sizes (Chen et al., 2002; Poole et al., 2003). Dracaena spp. production in the United States is concentrated in Florida and Hawaii (Chen et al., 2002; DeNeve, 1999).



## 2. Risk Assessment

2.1. Initiating Event

We developed this risk assessment in response to a requ est by the government of Costa Rica, Ministro de Agricultura y Ganadería, San José, Costa Rica, for USDA authorization to permit importation of oversized Dracaena spp. into the United States. Entry of this commodity into the United States presents a potential pathway for the introduction of plant pests. The Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. § 7701- 7786, 2000) and Title 7, Part 319, Section 37 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR § 319.37, 2010) provide regulatory authority for th e importation of propagative materials from foreign sources into the United States.



### 2.2. Assessment of the Weed Potential of Dracaena spp.

Here we examined the potential of the commodity to become a weed after it enters the United States.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 2 Table 1. Assessment of the weed potential of Dracaena spp. Commodity: Dracaena spp

. (Liliaceae)

Phase 1: Is the species new to or not widely prevalent in the United States? Dracaena spp. are widely used in the United States as interior ornamentals (Chen et al., 2002; Poole et al., 2003). They are commercially grown in Florida and Ha waii (Chen et al., 2002; DeNeve, 1999).

Phase 2: Is the species listed in: No Geographical Atlas of World Weeds (Holm et al., 1979)
No World’s Worst Weeds (Holm et al., 1977) or World Weeds : Natural Histories and Distribution (Holm et al., 1997)
No Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds: Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act (Gunn and Ritchie, 1982) No Economically Important Foreign Weeds (Reed, 1977)
No Weed Science Society of America Composite List of Weeds (WSSA, 2003)
No Does any literature indicate weed potential, e.g., AGRICOLA, CAB, Biological Abstracts, AGRIS search on “species name” combined with “weed”

Phase 3: Conclusion: A pest-initiated risk assessment is not necessary because the above species and their cultivars are grown in the United Stat es, and they are not considered weeds.



### 2.3. Current Status, Previous Risk A ssessments, and Pest Interceptions

Current status, previous decisions, and pest intercepti ons are examined in this section. Title 7, Part 319, Section 37 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR § 319.37, 2010) specifically prohibits importation of Dracaena spp. from foreign sources that are in excess of 460 mm from the soil line or top of the root zone to the farthest terminal growth, unless 

### they are imported under the conditions set forth in § 319.37-2(c). No change in size was request ed for the single stem canes regulated in 7 CFR 319.37-2(b)(4), and they will therefor e not be affected by the proposed rule change for 7 CFR 319.37-2(b)(6)(i).

We found no documents in the APHIS-PPQ Biologi cal Assessment and Taxonomic Support (BATS) library regarding previous decisions on requests to import Dracaena spp.

Since 1984, over 11,000 pests have been intercepted on Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica (Appendix A). There were 679 interceptions of pests identified to species level (122 species), 632 interceptions identified to genera level (153 genera), a nd 9,689 interceptions identified to family level (107 families). Among interceptions identified to the family level, 5,23 2 interceptions were undetermined species within the family Ciccadellidae, and 2,214 interceptions were unknown individuals within the family Tettigoniidae. Although pests identified to higher taxa (above speci es level) are not usually considered for further analysis (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #2), the large number of interceptions of these pests with the commodity (eggs, adults, and immature stages) should be considered to reduce the number of interceptions in future shipments. Unless there is a methodology to allow us to identify the species of these immature stages, the possibility of introduction of a quarantine pest belonging to these families is High; therefore, the high number of interceptions belonging to these families are addressed in the risk management section.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 3 2.4. Pest Categorization

Here we determine whether or not pests are quarantin e pests. First, we develop a comprehensive list of potential quarantine pests known to occur in the countr y or region from which the commodity is to be exported that are associated with the commodity. To be a quarantine pest, the organism must be “of potential economic importance” and must not yet be present in the area being assessed, or if present, should be under official control (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #5). Because all pests on the list are associated with the plant species, they are considered to be “o f potential economic importance” (IPPC, 2007). The listed pests may or may not also occur in the United States.

We list pests associated with Dracaen a spp. plants in Costa Rica below (Table 2). We produced the list based on information provided by the National Phytosan itary Service of the Ministry of Agriculture and Husbandry (MAG-SFE) and our review of the scientific literature. In this list we identify (1) the presence or absence of these pests in the United States; (2) hosts; (3) the generally affected plant part or parts; (4) the quarantine status of the pest with respect to th e United States; (5) the likelihood of the pest following the pathway on the importation of oversized Dracaena spp. plants; and (6) pertinent citations for the distribution or the biology of the pest. We shaded rows containing quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway and selected for further analysis.

Even if non-quarantine pests are ab le to follow the pathway, phyto sanitary measures against these pests would not be justified. Therefore, for those pests we do not need information on plant part association and whether the pest is likely to follow the pathway. Accordingly, in those cases we put N/A (= Not Applicable) in the columns for “Plant Part(s) Association” and “Likely to Follow Pathway.”



### Table 2. Pests that occur in Costa Rica associated with Dracaena spp

. Pest Geographic distribution 1 Hosts Quarantine pest Plant part affected Follow pathway References

ARTHROPODA
ACARI
Acaridae Tyrophagus

putrescentiae (Schrank) CR, US D. fragans,
Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007, ; Canfield and Wrenn, 2009 , ; Halbert, 1998, 2000; PestID, 2010
Tarsonemidae Polyphagotarsonemus latus Banks CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007 ; Jeppson et al., 1975; Sibaja and Sanabria, 2002 Tarsonemus confusus Ewing CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Delfinado, 1976; Halbert, 1997; PestID, 2010; Zalom et al., 2008

1 CR= Costa Rica, US= United States, CA= Califor nia, FL= Florida, HI= Hawaii, TX= Texas.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 4 Pest Geographic distribution 1 Hosts Quarantine pest Plant part affected Follow pathway References

Tetranychidae Oligonychus yothersi McGregor CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Jeppson et al., 1975; Sibaja and Sanabria, 2002 Tetranychus urticae Koch CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Bolland et al., 1998 ; CABI, 2007; Jeppson et al., 1975; Sibaja and Sanabria, 2002 Tenuipalpidae Brevipalpus obovatus Donnadieu CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Jeppson et al., 1975; Sibaja and Sanabria, 2002 Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Jeppson et al., 1975; Sibaja and Sanabria, 2002
INSECTA Coleoptera: Brentidae Brentus anchorago Linnaeus CR, US D. marginata No N/A N/A BugGuide, 2010a; PestID, 2010; Thomas, 2007 Coleoptera: Curculionidae

Pantomorus cervinus (Boheman) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Johnson and Lyon, 1991; O'Brien and Wibmer, 1982 Scyphophorus acupunctatus Gyllenhal CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007

Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae
Metamasius hemipterus Linnaeus CR, US (FL) D. fragrans,
Dracaena sp. Yes Fruit, leaf,

stem Yes 2 Anderson, 2002; CABI, 2007; PestID, 2010; Weissling et al., 2003; Woodruff and Baranowski, 1985
Metamasius hemipterus sericeus (Olivier) CR, US (FL) D. marginata

. Yes Fruit, leaf,

stem Yes 2 PestID, 2010;Weissling and GiblinDavis, 2007 Coleoptera: Platypodidae Euplatypus parallelus (Fabricius) CR, US D. fragrans No N/A N/A Atkinson, 2009; PestID, 2010

2 The only evidence that this pest was associated with the commodity is one interception on Dracaena sp. at a U.S. port-ofentry (PestID, 2010). One or a few intercep tions is not sufficient evidence that the pe st occurs in Costa Rica, or that it has a host association with the commodity, therefore we did not further analyze this pest.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 5 Pest Geographic distribution 1 Hosts Quarantine pest Plant part affected Follow pathway References

Coleoptera: Scolytidae Xyleborus affinis (Eichhoff) CR, US D. fragrans,
Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; INBio, 2001; Peck and Thomas, 1998; PestID, 2010 Xyleborus ferrugineus Fabricius CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; INBio, 2001; Peck and Thomas, 1998; PestID, 2010; Sibaja and Sanabria, 2002 Xylosandrus morigerus (Blandford) CR, US (HI) Dracaena sp. Yes Stem Yes CABI, 2007; Sibaja and Sanabria, 2002; Walker, 2008 Hemiptera: Aphididae Hysteroneura setariae (Thomas) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Nuessly and Nagata, n.d. ; PestID, 2010; Stoetzel and Miller, 2001 Myzus persicae Sulzer CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Blackman and Eastop, 2000; CABI, 2007; Sibaja and Sanabria, 2002 Hemiptera: Cicadellidae
Caldwelliola

reservata (Fowler ) CR Dracaeana sp. Yes Leaf Yes SFE-MAG n.d., Wilson et al., 2009 Empoasca kraemeri Ross and Moore CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Saunders et al., 1998 Oncometopia clarior (Walker, 1851) CR, US (TX) Dracaena sp Yes Leaf Yes BugGuide, 2010c; Maes and Godoy, 1993; Protecnet, 2010; Wilson et al., 2009 Hemiptera: Coccidae Coccus hesperidum Linnaeus CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Ben-Dov et al., 2001; CABI, 2007
Coccus viridis (Green) CR, US (FL, HI) Dracaena sp. Yes Leaf,

stem Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2001;, Bullock, 1989; CABI, 2010; Nakahara, 1981 Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Ben-Dov et al., 2001; CABI, 2007 Protopulvinaria

pyriformis (Cockerell) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Ben-Dov et al., 2001; CABI, 2007

Saissetia coffeae (Walker) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Saunders et al., 1998 Hemiptera: CydnidaePest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 6 Pest Geographic distribution 1 Hosts Quarantine pest Plant part affected Follow pathway References

Pangaeus bilineatus (Say) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Chapin et al., 2006; PestID, 2010

Tominotus unisetosus Froeshner CR, US D. deremensis No N/A N/A PestID, 2010; Rider, 2009 Hemiptera: Diaspididae Abgrallaspis cyanophylli [Syn Hemiberlesia cyanophyll i] CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A PestID, 2010; Watson, n.d.

Aonidiella aurantii (Maskell) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; IIE, 1996
Aonidiella orientalis (Newstead) CR, US D. marginata, Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; IIE, 1996; PestID, 2010 Aspidiotus nerii Bouche CR, US D. marginata, No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; PestID, 2010; Watson, n.d. Chrysomphalus aonidum (Linnaeus) CR, US D. marginata, Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; EPPO, 2001; Sibaja and Sanabria, 2002; PestID, 2010 Chrysomphalus dictyospermi (Morgan ) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A PestID, 2010; Watson, n.d.

Ischnaspis longirostris (Signoret) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Ben-Dov et al., 2001; CABI, 2007 Lopholeucaspis cockerelli (Grandpré and Charmoy) CR, US D. fragrans No N/A N/A Ben-Dov et al., 2001; CABI, 2007

Pinnaspis aspidistrae (Signoret). CR, US D. marginata, Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A PestID, 2010; Watson, n.d. Pinnaspis buxi (Bouche) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A PestID, 2010; Watson, n.d.; Miller and Gimpel, 2001 Pinnaspis strachani (Cooley) CR, US D. marginata, Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Ben-Dov et al., 2001; CABI, 2007; Coto and Saunders, 2001; PestID, 2010; Tenbrick and Hara, 1992 Pseudaulacaspis cockerelli (Cooley) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A PestID, 2010; CABI, 2007 Pseudaulacaspis

pentagona (Targioni Tozzetti) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Kosztarab, 1996; Kosztarab and Kozar, 1988Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 7 Pest Geographic distribution 1 Hosts Quarantine pest Plant part affected Follow pathway References

Pseudoparlatoria

parlatorioides (Comstock) CR, US D. marginata No N/A N/A Burke et al., 1994; PestID, 2010; Weaver and Anderson, 2008 Hemiptera: Flatidae Metcalfa pruinosa (Say) CR, US D. marginata No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; EPPO, 2001 Hemiptera: Lygaeidae Melanocoryphus lateralis (Dallas) CR US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A BugGuide, 2010b; GBIF, 2010c; PestID, 2010 Melanopleurus bistrangularis (Say) CR, US D. marginata, Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A ITIS, 2010; PestID, 2010
Ochrimnus carnosulus (Van Duzee) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Ashlock, 1975; PestID, 2010 Hemiptera: Miridae
Collaria oleosa (Distant). CR, US D. fragans cv No N/A N/A MEM, 2010; PestID, 2010 Hemiptera: Ortheziidae Orthezia insignis Browne CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Ben-Dov et al., 2001; CABI, 2007 Hemiptera: Pentatomidae Berecynthus hastator Fabricius CR, US D. marginata Yes Leaf Yes 2 INBio, 1997a; PestID, 2010; Rider, 2009
Loxa viridis (palisot de Beauvois) CR, US D. fragans No N/A N/A Eger II, 1978; Saunders et al., 1998 Nezara viridula (Linnaeus) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Saunders et al., 1998 Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; PestID, 2010 Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell) CR, US D. marginata, Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Ben-Dov et al., 2001; CABI, 2007; PestID, 2010 Nipaecoccus nipae (Maskell CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Ben-Dov et al., 2001; CABI, 2007
Planococcus citri (Risso) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Sibaja and Sanabria, 2002
Planococcus minor (Maskell, 1897) CR Dracaena sp. Yes Leaf Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2001; Granara de Willink, 1991; Williams and Granara de Willink, 1992
Pseudococcus

jackbeardsleyi Gimpel and Miller CR, US D. marginata, Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Ben-Dov et al., 2001; CABI, 2007Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 8 Pest Geographic distribution 1 Hosts Quarantine pest Plant part affected Follow pathway References

Pseudococcus landoi (Balachowsky) CR D. marginata, Dracaena sp. Yes Leaf, stem Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2001; PestID, 2010; Williams and Granara de Willink, 1992
Pseudococcus longispinus Targioni Tozzetti CR, US D. deremensis,

g odseffiana, D. reflexa, D. sanderiana,
Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Ben-Dov et al., 2001; CABI, 2007; Sibaja and Sanabria, 2002

Hemiptera: Rhyparochromidae Neopamera neotropicalis (Kirkaldy) CR, US D. marginata No N/A N/A PestID, 2010; Slater and Baranowski, 1983

Paragonatas divergens (Distant) CR, US D. fragrans, D. marginata, Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Baranowski and Slater, 1998; Dobbs and Brambilla, 2004; Dobbs and Henry, 2008; PestID, 2010 Hemiptera: Tingidae Dichosysta pictipes Champion CR, US D. reflexa No N/A N/A Barber, 1910; PestID, 2010 Hymenoptera: Formicidae
Pheidole

punctatissima Mayr CR D. marginata, Dracaena sp. Yes Stem Yes 2 Brown Jr., 1981; Longino and Cover, 1997; PestID, 2010 Tapinoma melanocephallum (Fabricius) CR, US D. marginata No N/A N/A GISD, 2010; Nickerson and Bloomcamp, 2009; PestID, 2010
Tetramoriun bicarinatum (Nylander) CR, US D. marginata No N/A N/A PestID, 2010; TAMU, 2008

Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae Coptotermes crassus Snyder CR, US D. marginata, Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Constantino, 2000; PestID, 2010; Sibaja and Sanabria, 2002 Isoptera: Termitidae Nasutitermes corniger (Motschulsky) CR, US (FL) Dracaena sp. [Yes] Stem Yes 3 CABI, 2007; Constantino, 2000; Gush et al., 1985; Scheffrahn et al., 2005; Van Rossem et al., 1982

3 Species of the Termitidae family prefer decomposing rather than fresh wood as food source (Vasconcellos and Moura, 2010). Moreover, termites may prefer plant material in decomposition due to the presence of microorganisms (principallyPest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 9 Pest Geographic distribution 1 Hosts Quarantine pest Plant part affected Follow pathway References

Lepidoptera: Noctuidae Bagisara rapanda Fabricius CR, US D. marginata No N/A N/A PestID, 2010

Caenurgia togataria Walker CR, US (CA) Dracaena sp. Yes Leaf Yes 2 BSCIT, 2010; PestID, 2010; VanDyk, 2010 Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Sibaja and Sanabria, 2002
Leucania latiuscula (Herrich-Shaeffer) CR, US D. marginata No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; PestID, 2010 Pseudaletia sequax Franclemont CR, US D. fragrans No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Ferguson et al., 1999; PestID, 2010 Pseudoplusia includens (Walker) Syn: Chrysodeixis includens (Walker) CR, US D. sanderiana No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; FUNET, 2010; PestID, 2010

Spodoptera eridania (Cramer) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Capinera, 2001; PestID, 2010 Spodoptera exigua (Hübner) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Sibaja and Sanabria, 2002 Lepidoptera: Plutellidae Plutella xylostella (Linneaus) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; PestID, 2010 Orthoptera: Gryllidae Gryllodes sigillatus (Walker, F.) CR, US D. marginata

. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; PestID, 2010 Gryllus assimilis Fabricius CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Sibaja and Sanabria, 2002
Orocharis saltator Uhlu CR, US D. marginata No N/A N/A PestID, 2010; Walker and Moore, 2010 Orthoptera: Tetrigoidae Tettigidea lateralis (Say) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A PestID, 2010; Poole and Gentili, 1997 Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae
Ancistrocercus circumdatus Walker. CR Dracaena sp. Yes Leaves Yes Morris and Beier, 1982; PestID, 2010; Savin and Morris, 1999
Erioloides consobrinus Saussure and Pictet CR D. marginata Yes Leaf Yes GBIF, 2010a; INBio, 1997b; Naskrecki, 2000; PestID, 2010

fungi) that can provide additional sources of nitrogen (Spears and Veckert 1979 in Vasconcellos and Moura, 2010). Most interceptions of Termitidae may result from human activity during packing procedures or contamination by hitch-hiking organisms not normally associated with the commodity. Therefore we did not further analyze them.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 10 Pest Geographic distribution 1 Hosts Quarantine pest Plant part affected Follow pathway References

Lirometopum

coronatum Scudder CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A GBIF, 2010b; PestID, 2010 Neoconocephalus affinis (Beauvois) CR, US (FL) D. marginata Yes Leaf Yes Naskrecki, 2000; PestID, 2010; Walker and Greenfield, 1983; Walker and Moore, 2010; Snyder et al., 2009 Thysanoptera: Thripidae Caliothrips fasciatus (Pergande) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Mason, 1981; Saunders et al., 1998 Chaetanaphothrips orchidii (Moulton) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; PestID, 2010 Chaetanaphothrips signipennis (Bagnall) CR, US 4 (HI, FL) Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Hara et al., 2002; PestID, 2010, Denmark and Osborne, 1985.
Frankliniella minuta (Moulton) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A PestID, 2010; University of California, 2010 Heliothrips haemorrhoidalis Bouché CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Sibaja and Sanabria, 2002

MOLLUSKS
Soleolifera: Veronicellidae Diplosolenodes occidentalis (Guilding) CR D. marginata, Dracaena sp. Yes Leaf Yes Barker, 2002; CABI, 2007; Coto and Saunders, 1987; INBio, 2001; PestID, 2010 Sarasinula plebeia (Fisher) CR, US (FL TX) D. dermensis, D. fragrans, D. marginata, Dracaena sp. Yes Leaf Yes Barrientos, 2003; CABI, 2007; Neck, 1990 ; PestID, 2010; Thompson, 2008 Stylommatophora: Agriolimacidae Agriolimax reticulatus Müller CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A PestID, 2010; Pilsbry, 1948

4 Chaetanaphothrips signipennis is widely distributed in Florida (Denmark, 1985; Frank, 1992). Records of this pest affecting Dracaena sp. was from Florida (Denmark, 1985).Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 11 Pest Geographic distribution 1 Hosts Quarantine pest Plant part affected Follow pathway References

Deroceras leave Müller CR, US D. deremensis, D. fragans cv, D. godseffiana, D. marginata, D. sanderiana, D. warneckii,
Dracaena sp

. No N/A N/A PestID, 2010; Thompson, 2008

Stylommatophora: Bradybaeenidae Bradybaena similaris (Ferussac) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A PestID, 2010; Stange, 2006 Stylommatophora: Bulimulidae
Bulimulus corneus (Sowerby) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A PestID, 2010

Drymaeus (Mesembrinus) alternans (Beck) CR, US D. warneckii No N/A N/A Driesler, 2008; PestID, 2010

Drymaeus (Mesembrinus)
inusitatus (Fulton) CR, US D. marginata No N/A N/A Driesler, 2008; PestID, 2010

Drymaeus (Mesembrinus) recluzianus (Pfeiffer) CR, US D. warneckii No N/A N/A Driesler, 2008; PestID, 2010

Drymaeus (Mesembrinus) sulfureuss (Pfeiffer) CR, US D. marginata, Dracaena sp., D. warneckii No N/A N/A Driesler, 2008; PestID, 2010

Drymaeus (Mesembrinus) sulfureuss citronellas (Angas) CR, US D. marginata, Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Driesler, 2008; PestID, 2010

Drymaeus (Mesembrinus) transluscens (Broderip) CR, US D. marginata No N/A N/A Driesler, 2008; PestID, 2010

Stylommatophora: Euconulidae Guppya gundlachi (Pfeiffer) CR, US D. dermensis,
D. godseffiana, D. marginata, D. reflexa, D. sanderiana,
Dracaena sp., D. surculosa, D. warneckii No N/A N/A 

### PestID, 2010; White-McLean, 2011

Stylommatophora: GastrodontidaePest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 12 Pest Geographic distribution 1 Hosts Quarantine pest Plant part affected Follow pathway References

Zonitoides arboreus (Say) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Frank, 2010; INBio, 2001; PestID, 2010 Stylommatophora: Helicarionidae Ovachlamys fulgens (Gude) CR, US (FL, HI) D. dermensis, D. fragrans,
D. godseffiana, D. marginata, D. reflexa,
Dracaena sp. Yes Leaf Yes Barrientos, 1998; Cowie, 2000; PestID, 2010; Robinson, 2003; Stange, 2006

Stylommatophora: Philomycidae Pallifera costaricensis (Mörch) CR D. deremensis, D. fragrans

cv., D. marginata, Dracaena sp., D. warneckii Yes Leaf Yes INBio, 2001; PestID, 2010

Stylommatophora: Polygyridae Praticolella griseola (Pfeiffer) CR, US D. fragans No N/A N/A Frank, 2010; Miller, 1994; PestID, 2010 Stylommatophora: Pupillidae Pupisoma dioscoricola (C.B. Adams) CR, US D. deremensis, D. marginata, Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Frank, 2010; Hausdorf, 2007; PestID, 2010 Stylommatophora: Subulinidae Allopeaa gracilis (Hutton) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A PestID, 2010 

### ; Lee, 1975 Allopeaa micra (D’Orbigny) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A PestID, 2010

Subulina octona (Bruguière) CR, US D. marginata, Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Barrientos, 2003; Godan, 1983 ; PestID, 2010 Stylommatophora: Succineidae
Succinea costaricana (Von Martens) CR D. deremensis, D. fragrans,
D. godseffiana, D. marginata, D. reflexa, D. sanderiana,
Dracaena sp., D. surculosa, D. warneckii Yes Leaf Yes Barrientos, 2003; PestID, 2010; Villalobos et al., 1995

NEMATODES – TYLENCHIDA
HeteroderidaePest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 13 Pest Geographic distribution 1 Hosts Quarantine pest Plant part affected Follow pathway References

Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid and White) Chitwood CR, US D. marginata, Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Marban and Flores, 1993; Solano et al., 2002 Meloidogyne javanica (Treub) Chitwood CR, US D. marginata, Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Marban and Flores, 1993; Solano et al., 2002 Hoplolaimidae Rotylenchulus reniformis Linford and Oliveira CR, US D. dermensis, D. fragrans, D. sanderiana,
Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Ferris, 1999; Inserra et al., 1999

Paratylenchidae Pratylenchus brachyurus (Godfrey) Filipjev and Schuurmans Stekhoven CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Lopez and Salazar, 1990

Pratylenchus coffeae (Zimmermann) Filipjev and Schuurmans Steckhoven CR, US D. dermensis,
D. godseffiana, D. marginata, D. sanderiana No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; CaswellChen and Westerdahl, 2003; Chase, 1987; Ferris, 1999

Pratylenchus penetrans (Cobb) Filipjev and Schuurmans Stekhoven CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Chase, 1987

FUNGI Aspergillus niger Tiegh. (Ascomycetes: Eurotiales) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Villalobos Calderon and Cardenas Diaz, 2002 Botryotinia fuckeliana (de Bary) Whetzel (= Botrytis cinerea Pers.: Fr) (Ascomycetes: Helotiales) CR, US D. godseffiana No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Chase, 1987; Villalobos Calderon and Cardenas Diaz, 2002

Calonectria pteridis Crous, M.J. Wingfield and Alfenas (= Cylindrocladium pteridis F. A. Wolf) (Ascomycetes: Hypocreales) CR, US D. marginata No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Farr and Rossman, 2010Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 14 Pest Geographic distribution 1 Hosts Quarantine pest Plant part affected Follow pathway References

Chalara elegans Nag Raj and W.B. Kendr. (= Thielaviopsis basicola (Berk. & Broome) Ferraris) (Ascomycetes: Incertae sedis) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Farr and Rossman, 2010; Villalobos Calderon and Cardenas Diaz, 2002

Cochliobolus lunatus Nelson & Haasis. (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) CR, US D. fragans

. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; PestID, 2010

Colletotrichum crassipes (Speg) Arx. (Ascomycetes: Phyllachorales) CR, US D. deremensis, D. sanderiana,
Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Farr and Rossman, 2010; PestID, 2010

Colletotrichum dematium (Pers., Fr.) Grove. (Ascomycetes: Phyllachorales) CR, US D. marginata, Dracaena sp., D. warneckii No N/A N/A Farr and Rossman, 2010; PestID, 2010

Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Penz. & Sacc (Ascomycetes: Phyllachorales) CR, US D. deremensis, D. fragans cv, D. marginata, Dracaena sp., D. sanderiana No N/A N/A Farr and Rossman, 2010; PestID, 2010

Coniothyrium fuckellie Sacc. (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Koike and Wilen, 2009; PestID, 2010; PPDC, 2006 Coniothyrium henriquesi (Thuem) tassi (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A PestID, 2010

Corticium rolfsii Curzi (= Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc.) (Basidiomycetes: Polyporales) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Chase, 1987; Villalobos Calderon and Cardenas Diaz, 2002

Didymosphaeria rubicola Berl. (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) CR, US D. fragrans, D. marginata, Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Barr, 2009; Farr and Rossman, 2010; Palm, 2004

Fusarium oxysporum Schlechtendahl (Ascomycetes: Hypocreales) CR, US D. dermensis, D. marginata, D. reflexa, D. warneckii No N/A N/A Farr and Rossman, 2010; PestID, 2010; Villalobos Calderon and Cardenas Diaz, 2002Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 15 Pest Geographic distribution 1 Hosts Quarantine pest Plant part affected Follow pathway References

Gibberella fujikuroi (Sawada) S. Ito (=
Fusarium moniliforme Sheldon) (Ascomycetes: Hypocreales) CR, US D. dermensis, D. fragrans, D. sanderiana, D. marginata, D. reflexa,
Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Chase, 1987; Villalobos Calderon and Cardenas Diaz, 2002

Glomerella cingulata (Stonem.) Spauld. & Schrenk (= Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Sacc.) (Ascomycetes: Incertae sedis) CR, US D. dermensis, D. fragrans,
D. godseffiana, D. sanderiana No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Farr and Rossman, 2010; PestID, 2010; Villalobos Calderon and Cardenas Diaz, 2002

Lasiodiplodia theobromae (Pat.) Griffiths & Maubl. (= Botryodiplodia theobromae Pat.) (Ascomycetes: Dothideales) CR, US D. fragrans No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Farr and Rossman, 2010

Microsphaeropsis

fuckelli (Sacc) (Ascomycetes: Dothideales) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A PestID, 2010

Myrothecium roridum Tode (Ascomycetes: Hypocreales) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Chase, 1987; PestID, 2010

Nectria haematococca (Wollenw.) Gerlach (= Fusarium solani (Martius) Sacc.) (Ascomycetes: Hypocreales) CR, US D. dermensis, D. marginata, D. sanderiana No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Farr and Rossman, 2010; Villalobos Calderon and Cardenas Diaz, 2002

Paraphaeosphaeria obtusispora (Speg.) Erikss (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) CR, US D. marginata, Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Farr and Rossman, 2010; PestID, 2010

Phoma draconis (Berk. Ex. Cooke) Boerema (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Farr and Rossman, 2010; PestID, 2010Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 16 Pest Geographic distribution 1 Hosts Quarantine pest Plant part affected Follow pathway References

Phyllosticta cordylinophila P.A. Young (Ascomycetes: Dothideales) CR D. fragans cv , Dracaena sp. Yes Leaf Yes 2 Farr and Rossman, 2010; PestID, 2010

Phyllosticta draconis Berk. (= P. dracaenae Griff. & Maubl.) (Ascomycetes: Dothideales) CR, US D. dermensis, D. fragrans,
Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Chase, 1987; Farr and Rossman, 2010; PestID, 2010; Villalobos Calderon and Cardenas Diaz, 2002 Phytophthora
cinnamomi Rands (Oomycetes: Pythiales) CR, US D. marginata No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Chase, 1987

Phytophthora
nicotianae Breda de Haan (Oomycetes: Pythiales) CR, US D. dermensis No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Chase, 1987

Pythium aphanidermatum (Edson) Fitzp. (Oomycetes: Pythiales) CR, US D. dermensis No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Farr and Rossman, 2010

Schizophyllum

commune Fr. (Basidiomycetes: Agaricales) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Farr and Rossman, 2010; Villalobos Calderon and Cardenas Diaz, 2002
Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary (Ascomycetes: Helotiales) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Farr and Rossman, 2010

Thanatephorus
cucumeris (Frank) Donk (= Rhizoctonia solani Kuehn.) (Basidiomycetes: Ceratobasidiales) CR, US D. fragrans, D. marginata No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Farr and Rossman, 2010; Villalobos Calderon and Cardenas Diaz, 2002

Trullula melanochlora ( Desm.) Höhn. 1915 (Ascomycetes) CR Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A PestID, 2010

Volutella buxi (Fr) (Berk. & Br.) (Ascomycetes: Hypocreales) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Villalobos Calderon and Cardenas Diaz, 2002Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 17 Pest Geographic distribution 1 Hosts Quarantine pest Plant part affected Follow pathway References

BACTERIA
Pectobacterium carotovorum subsp.

carotovorum (Jones, 1901) Hauben et al. 1999 [Syn : Erwinia

carotovora subsp.

carotovora (Jones) Bergey et al. ] (Enterobacteriales) CR, US D. dermensis, D. marginata, D. sanderiana,
Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Bradbury, 1986; CABI, 2007; Chase, 1987; Villalobos Calderon and Cardenas Diaz, 2002

Dickeya chrysanthemi (Burkholder et al. 1953) Samson et al. 2005. [Syn: Erwinia chrysanthemi (Burkh.) Young et al

. ] (Enterobacteriales) CR, US D. marginata, D. sanderiana,
Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Bradbury, 1986; CABI, 2007; Chase, 1987; Villalobos Calderon and Cardenas Diaz, 2002

Dickeya zeae Samson et al. 2005 [ Syn:
Erwinia chrysanthemi pv.

zeae (Sabet) Victoria et al

. ] (Enterobacteriales) CR, US D. marginata, Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A Bradbury, 1986; CABI, 2007

Pseudomonas cichorii (Swingle) Stapp (Pseudomonadales) CR, US Dracaena sp. No N/A N/A CABI, 2007; Villalobos Calderon and Cardenas Diaz, 2002
Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. dieffenbachiae ( McCulloch & Pirone 1939) Vauterin et al. 1995 [Syn : X. campestris
pv. dieffenbachiae (McCulloch and Pirone) Dye (Xanthomonadales) CR, US D. fragrans Bradbury, 1986; CABI, 2007; Villalobos Calderon and Cardenas Diaz, 2002; EPPO, 1997,



### 2.4.1. Pests not following the pathway The biological hazard of organisms identified only to the genus level (Table 2; Appendix A) is not directly assessed in this document, because of the unc ertainty due to the lack of species identification. This applies to the following genera: (Acari) Brevipalpus, Pediculaster, Tarsonemus, and Tetranychus; (Insecta) Abgrallaspis, Acrolophus, Agallia, Agroicono ta, Alphitobius, Amblyrhetus, Anaulacomera, Anchonus, Anomala, Aonidiella, Aspi diotus, Bagnalliella, Blapstinus, Bo tocudo, Brachybaenus, Brentus,Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 18 Caliothrips, Ceraspis, Charidotella, Cicadella, Clinodiplosis, Cocconotus, Coccotrypes, Colaspis, Conocephalus, Conoderus, Conotrachelus, Crematogast er, Cryptocephalus, Cyclocephala, Cyrtoxypha, Dallasiellus, Disonycha, Ditaphronotus, Dyscinetu s, Dysmicoccus, Ecpantheria, Empoasca, Epitragus, Eubulus, Euetheola, Eurychilella, Euschistus, Exophthal mus, Ferrisia, Frankliniella, Fulvius, Geraeus, Glyphonyx, Gonatoides, Gongrocnemis, Gryllus, Gy pona, Heteropsylla, Histiostoma, Homorocoryphus, Hoplosphyrum, Hypothenemus, Lagoc heirus, Lepidosaphes, Lepturges, Leucothrips, Leucothyreus, Listronotus, Lobometopon, Megapenthes, Meso cordylus, Myochrous, Myodocha, Naupactus, Neoconocephalus, Neopamera, Nysius , Opogona, Orocharis, Oxythyrea, Ozophora, Paratrechina, Pheidolermes, Pheloconus, Phileurus, Phyllophaga, Physorhinus, Pinnaspis, Platynota, Platypus, Pseudococcus, Pulvinaria, Rhabdopterus, Spodopt era, Stenodontes, Strabala, Tenebrionidae, Trentepholia, Typophorus, Valtissius, and Xyleborus; (Mollusca) Bulimulus, Deroceras, Drymaeus, Euglandina, Gastrocopta, Liardettia, Lymnaea, and Succinea; (Nematoda) Aphelenchoides, Aphelenchus, Criconemella, Dorylaimoides, Helicotylenchus, Hete rodera, Meloidogyne, Mononchus, Paratylenchus, Pratylenchus, Rotylenc hus, Tylenchorhynchus, and Tylenchus; (Fungi) Alternaria, Ascochyta, Botryosphaeria, Cercospora, Cladosporium, Cochliobo lus, Colletotrichum, Coniothyrium, Cordiceps, Curvularia, Didymella, Didymosphaeria, Diplodi a, Discula, Elsinoë, Fusarium, Fusicoccum, Gloeosporium, Glomerella, Guignardia, Helminth osporium, Hendersonia, Hysterium, Lasiodiplodia, Leptosphaeria, Leptosphaerulinas, Macrophoma, Meliola, Microsphaeropsis, Mycosphaerella, Ophiobolus, Ophiodothella, Ophi osphaerella, Paraphaeosphaeria, Penicillium, Pestalotiopsis, Phaeoseptoria, Phaeosphaeria, Phoma, Phomatos pora, Phomopsis, Phyllachora, Phyllosticta, Phytophthora, Pleospora, Pseudorobillar da, Pythium, Rosellinia, Septoria, and Verticillium; (Bacteria) Burkholderia, Erwinia, and Xanthomonas. According to the IPPC, 2007: ISPM #11), “The identity of the pest should be clearly defined to ensure that the assessment is being performed on a distinct organism, and that biological and other information used in the assessment is relevant to the organism in question.” The taxonomic level for organisms considered in risk assessments is usually sp ecies. Assessment of organisms of a higher or lower taxonom ic level should be supported by a scientifically sound rationale. In cases where organisms below the species level are being an alyzed, the rationale for this distinction should include evidence of reported significant variation in factors such as virulen ce, pesticide resistance, environmental adaptability, host range, or its ro le as a vector (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #2, #11).

Without other evidence, single or a few interceptions of known species on the commodity is not sufficient evidence of a host association, of the species’ presence in Costa Rica, or may not indicate an effective pathway for these pests to be intr oduced into new areas. We theref ore did not further analyze species intercepted only once or at most a few times, as follows: (Insecta) Berecynthus hastator, Caenurgia togatera, Ceraspis centralis, Cicadella viridis 5

, Conoderus pictus, C. rodriguezi, C. varians, Cyclocephala amazona, C. fulvipeeis, Dictyla monotropidia

, Dysmicoccus mackenziei, Exophthalmus jekelianus

, Haplia fusculalis, Ischnocodia annulus, Meta masius hemipterus carbonarius, Nasutitermes colombinicus, N. ephratae, N. guayanae, Ochleru s cinctus, Ozophora concava, Pangaeus piceatus, Paroecanthus annulatus, Platyarthron chilense, and Pseudococcus elisae ; (Mollusca) Deroceras panormitanum, Leidyula moreleti, and Leptinaria unilamellata ; (Fungi) Coniothyrium dracaenae, Mycosphaerella dracaenae , Phomopsis dracaenae, and Phyllosticta cordylinophila . If any of these pests are intercepted at higher rates in future, or we fi nd additional evidence of their presence in Costa Rica and association with Dracaena spp., we may re-evaluate their risk.

Some pests may not be associated with the commodity during transport or processing because of their inherent high mobility and/or instinct to avoid lig ht. Human activity during packing procedures in the country of origin may also cause contamination by organisms not normally associated with the commodity, as for Nasutitermes columbicus

, N. corniger, N. ephratae

, N. guayanae , and Pheidole

5 This pest has been intercepted twice coming from Costa Rica (1998 and 2003), the identification was made from eggs (PestID, 2010). However, we found no records of its presence in Costa Rica (CABI, 2007, Protectnet, 2010).Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 19 punctatissima. Therefore we did not further analyze them. If more interceptions occur in future, we may re-evaluate their risk.

Many of the pests infrequently intercepted on Dracaena spp. are considered bi ological contaminants because they are highly mobile, i.e., adults ar e capable of flight, or are associated with Dracaena spp. only by interception, i.e., not listed as pests of Dracaena spp. Many of the genera considered biological contaminants in this document are commonl y collected in light traps. For example, Neoconocephalus (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae), Empoasca (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae), Euschistus (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), Myodocha (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae), Blapstinus (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), Phyllophaga (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), Anomala (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), Cyclocephala (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), Phileurus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), Rhabdopterus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), and Conotrachelus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) have been collected in light trap s in Florida (Frost, 1964). Members of the orders Orthoptera and Lepidoptera were observed flying ar ound illumination towers at the Juan Santamaría International Airport in Costa Rica (Gonzalez, 2003). Biological contamination of Costa Rican cargo aircraft due to the practice of loading commodities at night under white light is well documented, and Costa Rica is working with USDA-APHIS Internationa l Services to resolve the problem (Gonzalez, 2003; PPQ, 2004a).

The fungi Coniothyrium dracaenae F. Stevens and Weedon (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales), Mycosphaerella dracaenae Tass (Ascomycetes: Dothideales), and Phomopsis dracaenae Sahni (Ascomycetes: Diaporthales) were previously reported as pests of Dracaena spp. in Costa Rica. Despite that, no records exist of their presence in Costa Rica ( 

### CABI, 2007; Farr and Rossman, 2010; MAGSFE, 2009 ). The only evidence of these pathogens affecting Dracaena spp. is a few interceptions at the port-of-entry (PestID, 2010). For these reasons, we di d not list these species above. If more interceptions occur in future, or additional evidence is found of their presence in Costa Rica and their association with
Dracaena spp., we may re-evaluate their risk.

Lastly, we did not include the pests Dictyla monotropidia (Stal.) [Hemiptera: Tingidae] or Opogona sacchari Bojer [Lepidoptera: Tineidae] in the list above. Dracaena is not considered a host for D. monotropidia (FAO, 2007; PestID, 2010; Rosa et al., 2008). Opogona sacchari was previously considered present in Costa Rica. No records exist for its presence in Costa Rica, however (CABI, 2007). The government of Costa Rica has developed a plant pest response for O. sacchari in the event of its introduction (Sanabria, 2006).



### 2.4.2. Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway We analyzed the pests listed below (Table 3) because they are quarantine pests of the United States, they are likely to accompany shipments of Dracaena spp., and scientifically sound reasons exist for their analysis.

Mealybugs like Pseudococcus landoi are small, i.e., less than 4 mm (CABI, 2007; Kosztarab, 1996), and can be found on almost every part of their host plant (Borror et al., 1989. Pseudococcus landoi is generally regarded as polyphagous (Williams and Granar a de Willink, 1992) and has been intercepted on
Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica (PestID, 2010).

The ambrosia beetle, X

. morigerus , is reported as a pest of Dracaena spp. in Costa Rica (Sibaja and Sanabria, 2002). Ambrosia beetles excavate galleries in live trees (Arnett Jr. et al., 2002; Borror et al., 1989).

Snails and slugs do not move well; most are generalist feeders that spend little time searching for specific foods (Speiser, 2001). Many of them are herbivorous and considered agricultural pests, but mostPest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 20 terrestrial gastropods feed on microorganisms associat ed with decaying vegetation (Speiser, 2001). Some snails that appear to be primarily detritivorous, such as O

. fulgens (Barrientos, 1998), are still considered quarantine and agricultural pest s because a small amount of gastropod feeding may cause a disproportionate amount of economic damage (Speiser, 2001). The slugs, D

. occidentalis and P

. costaricensis , and the snails, O

. fulgens and S

. costaricana , have been intercepted multiple times on
Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica (Barrientos, 1999; P estID, 2010; Villalobos et al., 1995).



### Table 3. Quarantine pests selected for further analysis. Type Organism Taxonomy Arthropod Ancistrocercus circumdatus Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae
Caldwelliola reservata Hemiptera: Cicadellidae Chaetanaphothrips signipennis Thysanoptera: Thripidae
Coccus viridis Hemiptera: Coccidae
Erioloides consobrinus Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae Neoconocephalus affinis Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae Oncometopia clarior Hemiptera: Cicadellidae
Planococcus minor Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae
Pseudococcus landoi Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae Xylosandrus morigerus Coleoptera: Scolytidae
Mollusk Diplosolenodes occidentalis Soleolifera: Veronicellidae Ovachlamys fulgens Stylommatophora: Helicarionidae Pallifera costaricensis Stylommatophora: Philomycidae Sarasinula plebeia Soleolifera: Veronicellidae
Succinea costaricana Stylommatophora: Succineidae



### 2.5. Consequences of Introduction

We rated Consequences of Introductio n using five risk elements: clim ate-host interaction, host range, dispersal potential, economic impact and environmen tal impact. We assigned pests ratings of Low (1 point), Medium (2 pts), or High (3 pts) for each risk element, and calculated a Cumulative Risk Rating by summing all risk elements for each pest (PPQ, 2000). We summarized the Consequences of Introduction values for each pest below (Table 4).



### 2.5.1. Ancistrocercus circumdatus, Erioloides consobrinus, and Neoconocephalus affinis Climate-Host Interaction. Ancistrocercus circumdatus is reported in Mexico (COL, 2008). Erioloides consobrinus was reported from Costa Rica (INBio, 1997b), Guatemala (ZipCodeZoo, 2010), South and Central America (COL, 2008). Neoconocephalus affinis is a Neotropical species that occurs in Costa Rica (INBio, 2001, PestID, 2010), Cuba, Dominican Repub lic, Ecuador, Brazil, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Puerto Rico, and Surinam (Walker and Moore, 2010). It is common throughout the Caribbean but in the United States is known only from northern Key Largo (Walker and Moore, 2010). 

### Neoconocephalus affinis is characteristic of forest margins and lush secondary growth. It does not occur in dry or completely open habitats (Walker and Greenfield, 1983). Based on these distributions, we estimated that these Neotropical species could establish in U. S. Hardiness Zones 10-11. Thus, we assigned these species Low risk ratings for Climate-Host Interaction.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 21 Host Range . Most katydids are primarily grass and foliage feeders, feeding on the seeds, leaves, and flowers of numerous plant species (Gangwere et al., 1997). Not all katydids are generalist plant-eaters, however. Some Tettigoniidae species from the Neotropical regions are predaceous ( Conocephalus sp.) (Gurney, 1959). The creosote bush katydid ( Bootettix argentatus ) is the only one among the more than 8000 species of katydids worldwide that feeds on a single species of plant—the creosote bush ( Larrea tridentate ) (Davidowitz, 2010). Adults of Neoconocephalus feed nearly exclusively on the seeds of grasses; juveniles apparently feed on grass flower s and developing seeds. Other foods-such as sedge fruits, grass leaves, and living insects-have been not ed occasionally (Walker and Moore, 2010). Based on the above information the risk rating for Host Range is High.

Dispersal Potential

. We found no records on the fecundity of A. circumdatus, E. consobrinus, or N. affinis in the literature. The fecundity of Orthoptera is, however, known to de crease with smaller body size, lower temperatures, or shorter growing seasons (Gangwere et al., 1997) . The climate in the United States should be less favorable for orthopteran reproduction than the climate in Costa Rica. Members of these genera that could be introduced into the United Stat es from Costa Rica are, therefore, assumed to have low to moderate fecundities. Voltinism was also not re ported in the literature. Orthopterans are, however, known to exhibit plasticity in life history traits (Gangw ere et al., 1997). The migratory locust, Locusta migratoria (Orthoptera: Acrididae), for example, is univoltine in northern Japan, bivoltine in middle Japan, and multivoltine in southern Japan (Gangwere et al., 1997). We consider that these three species will behave as univoltine when introduced into the United States. The reproductive potentials of these two species that could be introduced into the United States from Costa Rica are, therefore, assumed to be low or moderate, with much uncertainty.

Unlike reproductive potential, members of this genus are known for their rapid dispersal potential. Adults are capable of flight, and eggs, which are deposited on plant tissue, can be transported over long distances in infested commodities (Kessing and Mau, 1992; PestID, 2010).

Therefore, although there is uncertainty about the reproductive potential of A. circumdatus

, E. consobrinus, and N. affinis , it is known that species in these three genera are capable of rapid dispersal, and we assigned a High risk rating for Dispersal Potential.

Economic Impact. Katydid species feed on other insects (Gur ney, 1959; Kessing and Mau, 1992), seeds, leaves and flowers of numerous plants, and are cons idered pests when their populations are large (Bittenbender and Hirae, 1990; Kessing and Mau, 1992). The damage that they inflict on flower buds can reduce crop yield. Some other katydid species (e.g., Conocephalus saltator ) cause minimal damage to macadamia flowers, yet these flowers fail to yi eld nuts (Bittenbender and Hirae, 1990). Other impacts could include stimulation of biological control programs (Kessing and Mau, 1992) and a loss of foreign and domestic markets. Therefore, we assigned these species a Medium risk rating for Economic Impact.

Environmental Impact. Ancistrocercus circumdatus, E. consobrinus , and N. affinis may have direct or indirect impacts on plants listed as Threatened or Endangered in the United States and their presence may stimulate biological control programs (Kessing and Mau, 1992). These Tettigoniidae species are, therefore, assigned a Medium risk rating for Environmental Impact.



### 2.5.2. Caldwelliola reservata and Oncometopia clarior Climate-Host Interaction. Caldwelliola reservata is reported from Honduras, Belize, Costa Rica, Panama, Ecuador (Wilson et al., 2009), and from Maza tlan and Tampico in Mexico (Maes and Godoy, 1993). Oncometopia clarior is reported from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, and Brazil (Maes and Godoy, 1993; Wilson et al., 2009). The (neotropical) climatic regions where these pests ar e found correspond to plant hardiness zones 10 to 13.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 22 These pests may establish in plant ha rdiness zones 10 and 11 in the contiguous U.S. Because zone 11 is so small, that distribution warranted a rating of Low for these pests.

Host Range. Leafhoppers have evolved several behavioral a nd physiological adaptations to utilize xylem fluid of variable composition, including polyphagy an d high assimilation efficiency (Tipping et al., 2004). Oncometopia clarior was reported on Coffea sp. (Rojas et al., 2001; Garita-Cambronero et al., 2008), Cucurbita sp., Glycine sp., Vigna sp., Citrus sp., Lantana sp. (Maes and Godoy, 1993), and Dracaena sp. (von Marschall-Murillo, 2007). Caldwelliola reservata was reported on Coffea sp. (Rojas et al., 2001; Garita-Cambronero et al., 2008), and Dracaena sp. (von Marschall-Murillo, 2007). Based on this information, the risk rating for Host Range is High.

Dispersal Potential. Insect dispersal is a species-specific trait th at can be influenced by numerous factors such as population density, reproductive status, biased sex ratio, host breadth, declining host quality, and changing environmental conditions (Taylor and Reling, 1986; Blackmer et al., 2004). Adults are capable of flight, and eggs, which are deposited on plant tissue, can be transported over long distances in infested commodities (Taylor and Reling, 1986; PestID, 2010). Therefore, although there is uncertainty about the reproductive potential of C. reservata and O. clarior , it is known that species in these genera are capable of rapid dispersal, and we assigned a High risk rating for Dispersal Potential.

Economic Impact. Their direct feeding damage, while it disfigures plants, is minor in comparison to the damage caused to numerous vegetable crops by transmission of several important diseases (Munyaneza, 2003). Other impacts could include potential vector of vi rus and bacterial diseases, stimulation of control programs (biological, regulatory, chemical) which co sts may be prohibitive, and a loss of foreign and domestic markets. These two genera are, therefore, assigned a High risk rating for Economic Impact.

Environmental Impact. There is not enough information to determine if these pests will cause a significant environmental impact, but the potential use of chemical or biological control programs may indirectly affect the environment. Therefore, we rated these pests Medium risk for Environmental Impact.



### 2.5.3. Chaetanaphothrips signipennis Climate-Host Interaction

. Chaetanaphothrips signipennis is distributed throughout the Tropics. Countries in which it is found include: Australia, Fiji, Papua New Guinea in Oceania, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, and Sri Lanka in Asia, Mexico and the U.S. (HI, FL) in North America, Costa Rica, Guadaeloupe, Honduras, Martinique, Panama, Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Tobago in Central America and the Caribbean, and Brazil, in Sout h America (CABI, 2010; Denmark and Osborne, 1985). One or more of its potential hosts occur in these zones (NRCS, 2009). Based on the above information, we estimated that this species could establish in U. S. Hardiness Zones 9-11. This warrants a Medium risk rating for Climate-Host Interaction.

Host Range

. Chaetanaphothrips signipennis , the green scale, attacks a wide host range of fruit and ornamental crops, including five families and mo re than 200 plant species. Plant hosts of economic importance include banana, and citrus , while feeding has also been recorded on tomato and a number of weed species (Simmonds, 1959). The host range includes the following: Agavaceae: Cordiline sp., Dracaena sp.; Araceae: Anthurium sp .; Marantaceaee: Maranta leuconeura ; Musaceae: Musa sp., Musa x paradisiacal ; and Strelitzacea: Strelitzia reginae (CABI, 2010; Denmark and Osborne, 1985). Based on the above information the risk rating for Host Range is High

.
Dispersal Potential

. Chaetanaphothrips signipennis lays egg under the epidermis of the plant on shoots, edges of sheaths, and young leaves. On the fruit, eggs are also laid in sheltered bases and between fruits for protection. The eggs hatch in 1-2 weeks and th e larvae crawl and feed for about one week before going to the soil to pupate. The pupae live for 7-12 days and the adults for 27-112 days (average 50-55Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 23 days). The adults live on any sheltered part of th e plant: in the bunch, under the sheaths, or on young leaves and petioles. Adult thrips reproduce sexually and there are more females than males in field populations. Under cool day conditions, the life cycle is prolonged (Caripest, n.d.). Thrips are among the weakest flying insects, yet their finely fringed wings enable them to remain airborne long enough for the wind to blow them to great heights and for long dist ances. Migration by flight from breeding sites is a regular event in the life cycle of many species. Although it produces widespread scattering, resulting in the loss of millions of individuals, it nevertheless en sures that breeding populations find fresh food and sheltered sites for protection during unfavorab le seasons (Lewis, 1997). This species has a high reproductive rate with several generations per year, Th e movement of infected plant material enables long distance dispersal. Overall, we assigned a High risk rating for Dispersal Potential.

Economic Impact

. Chaetanaphothrips signipennis is a pest of bananas in northern Queensland, Australia, but protecting bunches of fruit with impr egnated bags during production appears to have reduced the importance of the pest (Pinese, 1987; CABI, 2010). Damages are usually minor, (CABI, 2010). Therefore, we assigned this species a Low risk rating for Economic Impact.

Environmental Impact. There are no direct or indirect impacts on plants listed as Threatened or Endangered in the United States (NRCS, 2010). We also found no evidence for other environmental impacts, and therefore rated this species Low risk for this element.



### 2.5.4. Coccus viridis Climate-Host Interaction. Coccus viridis is cosmopolitan in distribution throughout the Tropics except for Australia. Countries in which it exists include the following: Portugal, and the Netherlands in Europe, Angola, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo, Ethiopia, Gh ana, Guinea; Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Yemen, Zaire, Zambia in Africa, Australia, Fiji, French Polynesia (Tahiti), Guam, Hawaiian Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands , Tonga, Tuvalu; Vanuatu, Western Samoa in Oceania, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Burma China, India, Indonesia, Sumatra, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam in Asia, Barbados, Costa Ri ca, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, French Guiana, Guatemala; Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica; Martinique, Panama, Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Tobago in Central America and the Caribean; Barbados , Mexico, United States of America (Florida) in north America and Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Perú, Venezuela in South America. This scale was first found on Oahu in 1905, and is now present on all islands at eleva tions below 3500 feet (Mau and Kessing, 2007). Based on this, we estimated that C,. viridis could establish in U.S. Hardiness Zones 9-11. One or more of its potential hosts occur in these zones (NRCS, 2009). This warrants a Medium risk rating for Climate-Host Interaction.

Host Range

. Coccus viridis , the green scale, has a wide host range of more than 50 families and more than 200 plant species. Plant hosts of economic impo rtance include avocado, citrus, celery, coffee, and other vegetables, fruits, and ornamental crops. Its host range includes the following: Agavaceae:
Dracaena sp.; Acanthaceae: Jacobinia mohintli, Odontonema sp ., Sanchezia nobilis; Amaranthaceae: Gomphrena globate, G. globosa; Anacardiaceae: Campnosperma brevipetiolata, Mangifera indica

, Schinus sp., S. molle

, S. terebinthifolius; Annonaceae: Annona sp.; Apocynaceae: Alstonia macrophylla, Alyxia olivaeformis, Carissa grandiflora, Nerium sp., N. oleander, Ochrosia nakaiana

, Plumeria sp, P. acutifolia, P. obtusa

, P. rubra

, P. tricolor

, Rauwolfia vomitoria

, Thevetia nereifolia; Aquifoliaceae: Ilex chinensis

, I. macrothyrsa; Araceae: Caladium sp.; Araliaceae: Aralia sp., A. guilfoylei, Meryta macrophylla, Polyscias sp., P. guilfoylei

, Schefflera sp.; Arecaceae: Areca catechu

, Cocos sp., Cocos nucifera; Asclepiadaceae: Cryptostegia grandiflora; Asteraceae: Arctotis sp., Fitchia sp., Gerbera sp., G. jamesonii

, Pluchea indica

, Senecio sp.; Bignoniaceae: Tecomaria capensis; Boraginaceae: Cordia sp., C. alba, C. alliodora

, C. myxa

, C. nitida ; Bromeliaceae: Ananas comosus; Celastraceae: Maytenus sp.; Clusiaceae: Mammea Americana; Combretaceae: Terminalia catappa ; Commelinaceae: Commelina sp.;Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 24 Crassulaceae: Bryophyllum sp., B. pinnatum; Cucurbitaceae: Cucurbita pepo; Dioscoreaceae: Dioscorea sp.; Ehretiaceae: Ehretia tinifolia; Euphorbiaceae: Carissa sp., C. carandas

, Codiaeum sp., Croton sp., Manihot ceara

, M. para

, M. utilissima; Fabaceae: Cassia sp., Gliricidia sp., Inocarpus fagifer

, Tipuana sp.; Flacourtiaceae: Dovyalis sp.; Goodeniaceae: Scaevola taccada; Hydrangeaceae: Hydrangea sp.; Lauraceae: Persea americana ; Lecythidaceae: Barringtonia speciosa; Liliaceae: Cordyline terminalis; Loganiaceae: Strychnos nuxvomica ; Loranthaceae: Loranthus sp.; Lythraceae: Lagerstroemia indica ; Malpighiaceae: Hiptage madablota ; Malvaceae: Hibiscus sp.; Melastomataceae; Meliaceae: Melia azedarach ; Moraceae: Ficus elastic; Myristicaceae: Myristica sp.; Myrsinaceae: Ardisia crispa, Moesa indica, Myrtaceae: Eucalyptus sp., Eugenia caryophyllata

, E. malaccensis

, E. uniflora, Melaleuca sp., Myricaria sp., Myrtella sp., Psidium friedrichsthalianum, P. guajava, P. littorale

, P. pyriferum; Nyctaginaceae: Ceodes umbellifera; Orchidaceae: Broughtonia sp., Lissochilus sp.; Pandanaceae: Pandanus sp., Phyllanthaceae: Antidesma bunius ; Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum sp., P. tobira; Podocarpaceae: Podocarpus sp., Polygonaceae: Coccoloba uvifera, Homalocladium sp., Muehlenbeckia platyclada, Polygonum convolvulus; Rubiaceae: Bobea mauaii; B. laevis

, Canthium odoratum

, Chioccoca racemosa, Cinchona sp., C. calisaya

, C. succirubra

, Coffea arabica

, C. canephora, C. robusta

, Faramea odoratissima

, Gardenia. florida

, G. jasminoides

, G. taitensis, Genipa americana

, Ixora

sp. I. bandhuca

, I. chinensis

, I. coccinea

, I. macrothyrsa, Morinda citrifolia , Platanocephalus chinensis P. morindaefolius

, Psychotria boninensis

, P. laurifolia, Randia nigrescens, R. tahitensis

, Timonius sp., Rutaceae Aegle sp., A. chevalieri, A. marmelos, Atalantia citrioides, Balsamocitrus dawei, B. paniculata

, Boninia grisea, Chaetospermum glutinosa, Citropsis schweinfurthii, Citrus aurantifolia

, C. aurantium, C. aurantium bigaradia, C. decumanus, C. grandis, C. histrix, C. limon, C. nobilis, C. paradise, C. reticulata, C. sinensis, Clausena excavata, C. lansium

, C. lunulata

, Feroniella oblate, Hesperethusa crenulata, Lavanga scandens, Micro citrus australis, Murraya sp., M. exotica

, Poncirus trifoliata, Triphasia trifolia; Sapindaceae: Dodonaea eriocarpa, Euphoria longana, Litchi chinensis, Melicoccus bijuga; Sapotaceae: Achras sapota

, Chrysophyllum cainito

, Lucuma mammosa, L. nervosa, Manilkara zapota, Mimusops sp., Palaquium formosanum, Planchonella sp., Pouteria obovata ; Solanaceae: Brunfelsia nitida, Cestrum sp.; Sterculiaceae: Heritiera littoralis, Theobroma cacao; Theaceae: Camellia sinensis; Umbelliferae: Apium graveolans; Verbenaceae: Callicarpa lanata, Clerodendrum sp., Lantana

camara , Verbena sp., Zingiberaceae: Alpinia sp., A. purpurataingiber officinale (Ben-Dov et al., 2001; CABI, 2010). Based on the above information the risk rating for Host Range is High

.
Dispersal Potential

. Coccus viridis can lay up to 500 eggs. Larvae se ttle on the undersurface of leaves, on shoots and fruit. Once eggs hatch into crawlers th ey will wander around the plant or disperse to other hosts (Mau and Kessing, 2007). Once a suitable leaf or green shoot is found the nymphs settle and begin to feed and usually remain in this same spot un less their position becomes unfavorable. Mature females do not move (Mau, 2007). So, adults have very low motility and crawlers can only move to short distances within the infected plant or neighboring plants. Generation time varies from one to several months depending on temperature and food supply (CABI, 2010)., so that multiple generations are usually produced in a year. In Florida, one genera tion is completed in 50-70 days in the late summer (Hamon and Williams, 1984) and in Queensland, Austra lia 3-4 generations occur per year (Smith et al.,1997. The movement of infected plant material en ables long distance dispersal. Overall, we assigned a High risk rating for Dispersal Potential.

Economic Impact

. Sap sucking and excretion of honey-dew attracts ants and tends to produce sooty moulds (CABI, 2010), which may reduce the growth of infected plants. Although damage is usually minor, C. viridis can be extremely devastating depending on place and crop (CABI, 2010). Therefore, we assigned it a Medium risk rating for Economic Impact.

Environmental Impact. Coccus viridis may have direct or indirect impacts on plants listed as Threatened or Endangered in the United States. Plants that could be directly impacted by the introduction of C. viridisPest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 25 include Ochrosia kilaueaensis, Ilex amelanchier, I. collina, I. cooki, I. glabra, I. krugiana, I. montana, I. opaca, I. verticillata, Cordia belloni s, C. globosa, Maytenus phyllanthoides, Cucurbita okeechobeensis, Croton glandulosus, C. humilis, C. willdenowii , and Manihot walkerae (NRCS, 2010). The presence of C. viridis may stimulate control programs. Thus, we assigned this pest a High risk rating.



### 2.5.5. Diplosolenodes occidentalis Climate-Host Interaction

. Diplosolenodes occidentalis is a tropical species that occurs in Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, and Puerto Rico (Caballero et al., 1991; CABI, 2007; Mijail Pérez and Adolfo López, 2003). Based on this distribution, we estimated that D

. occidentalis could establish in U.S. Hardiness Zones 10 and 11. One or more of its potential hosts occur in these zones (NRCS, 2009). Because Zone 11 is so small, we assigned D. occidentalis a Low risk rating.

Host Range . Slugs are opportunistic feeders (Capinera, 2001). Diplosolenodes occidentalis reportedly feeds on plants in the families Asteraceae (e.g., Helianthus and Lactuca ), Brassicaceae (e.g., cruciferous crops), Fabaceae (e.g. Phaseolus ), and Solanaceae (e.g., Solanum ) (CABI, 2007; MAG., 1991). Thus, we rated D. occidentalis High risk for Host Range.

Dispersal Potential. Slugs typically mature in a few months and produce an average of 100-200 eggs during their life, which can remain viable for more than one year (Capinera, 2001). They cease development during unfavorable conditions, so distinct generations are not usually apparent, but as many as three overlapping generations may be pr esent at any given time (Capinera, 2001). Diplosolenodes occidentalis appears to be extremely prolific, with individua ls depositing an average of 270 eggs in five days (Coto and Saunders, 1987). Slugs are not capable of long-distance dispersal under their own power, but they can be transported in shipments of inf ested commodities (Branson, 1980; PestID, 2010). We

gave D. occidentalis a High risk rating for this element.

Economic Impact. Veronicellid slugs cause considerable dama ge in tropical locations (Capinera, 2001). They kill seedlings by cutting them off near the surface of the soil, re duce marketable yields by feeding on the surfaces of vegetables, roots, tubers, and fruits , and increase production costs by requiring controls (Capinera, 2001). Contamination of commercial commodities with slugs and their slime can be as damaging as surface feeding (Capinera, 2001) because contaminated shipments must be treated or rejected at the port-of-entry (Prasher et al., 2002). Hence, we rated this pest High risk for this element.

Environmental Impact

. Diplosolenodes occidentalis could attack plants that are listed as Threatened or Endangered in 50 CFR § 17.12, such as Helianthus paradoxus and Solanum incompletum . Introduction of
D

. occidentalis into the United States may stimulate chemical and/or biological control programs because slugs are opportunistic feeders that cause considerab le damage to cultivated crops (Capinera, 2001). Thus,

we gave D. occidentalis a High risk rating for Environmental Impact.



### 2.5.6. Ovachlamys fulgens Climate-Host Interaction

. Ovachlamys fulgens was originally described from the Ryukyu Islands of Japan, but it has been introduced into other countries in shipments of ornamental plants (Barrientos, 1999). It currently occurs in Amer ican Samoa (Vargo, 2000), Costa Ri ca (Barrientos, 1999), the Ryukyu Islands of Japan, Thailand, and Ha waii (Cowie, 2000). Based on this information, we estimated that O

. fulgens could establish in U.S. Hardiness Zones 9-11. Ovachlamys fulgens , therefore, is Medium risk for Climate-Host Interaction.

Host Range. Ovachlamys fulgens is an important pest of orchids, and attacks a wide range of ornamental plants (Stange, 2006). It is typically found in l eaf litter, but it has been collected on avocado, Persea americana (Lauraceae); mango, Mangifera (Anacardiaceae); Heliconia (Heliconiaceae); and Dracaena (Agavaceae) (Stange, 2006). Thus, we rated it High risk for this element.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 26 Dispersal Potential

. Ovachlamys fulgens reproduces without mating, and matures and deposits about 165 eggs during its nine-month life (Barrientos, 1998). It can jump when disturbed (Barrientos, 1998), but it is not capable of long-distance dispersal under its own power. Ovachlamys fulgens can, however, be transported over long distances in shipments of in fested commodities (Barrientos, 1999; Cowie, 2000; PestID, 2010). Consequently, we rated it High risk for Dispersal Potential.

Economic Impact

. Ovachlamys fulgens is an important pest of orchids and other ornamental plants (Stange, 2006). Even small amounts of gastropod feeding can cause a disproportionate amount of economic damage (Speiser , 2001). Introduction of O

. fulgens into the continental United States is likely to cause a loss of markets because commodities contamin ated with snails and slugs are not allowed to cross international borders (Villa lobos et al., 1995). We rated it High risk for Economic Impact.

Environmental Impact

. Ovachlamys fulgens could attack plants that are listed as Threatened or Endangered in the United States, e.g., Helianthus paradoxus . Introduction may stimulate chemical and/or biological control programs because O

. fulgens is an important pest of orchids and other ornamental plants (Stange, 2006). Therefore, we gave O. fulgens a High risk rating here.



### 2.5.7. Pallifera costaricensis Climate-Host Interaction

. Pallifera costaricensis is a Central American species (Barrientos, 2004). It has been intercepted at U.S. ports-of-entry on a va riety of commodities from Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and Trinidad and Tobago (PestID, 2010). Based on this, we estimated that P

. costaricensis could establish in U.S. Hardiness Zones 9-11. One or more of its potential hosts occur in these zones (NRCS, 2009). This warrants a Medium risk rating.

Host Range . Members of the family Philomycidae usually feed on fungi (Martin, 2000), and P. costaricensis is typically found on fungi and bromeliads in Costa Rican forests (Barrientos, 2004). There is no evidence that P

. costaricensis is phytophagous (Robinson, 2004), e.g., economic damage has not been reported in the primary literature. Nonetheless, slugs tend to be omnivorous (Capinera, 2001). Thus,

we gave P. costaricensis a Low risk rating for Host Range.

Dispersal Potential. We found no published information on the reproductive potential of P

. costaricensis . Slugs, however, typically mature in a few months and produce 100-200 eggs during their life, which can remain viable for more than one year (Capinera, 2001). They cease development during unfavorable conditions, so distinct generations are not usually appare nt, but as many as three overlapping generations may be present at any given time (Capin era, 2001). Slugs are not capable of long-distance dispersal under their own power, but they can be tran sported over long distances in shipments of infested commodities (Branson, 1980; PestID, 2010). Based on this general informati on about slugs, we rated P. costaricensis High risk for Dispersal Potential.

Economic Impact . Reports of economic damage caused by P

. costaricensis are scarce (Robinson, 2004). Introduction of P

. costaricensis into the United States may still cause a loss of markets because commodities contaminated with snails and slugs are no t allowed to cross international borders (Villalobos et al., 1995). Thus, we gave this pest a Low risk rating.

Environmental Impact

. Pallifera costaricensis is unlikely to impact plants listed as Threatened or Endangered in the United States. Introduction is also unlikely to stimulate chemical and/or biological control programs because P

. costaricensis appears to be mycetophagous. Consequently, we rated this pest

as Low risk for this element.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 27 2.5.8. Planococcus minor Climate-Host Interaction

. Planococcus minor is cosmopolitan in distribution throughout the Tropics. Countries include Madagascar, Mauritius in Africa; Me xico and Bermuda in North America, Antigua, Barbados, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Virgin Islands in Central America and the Caribbean; Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, and Uruguay in South America; Bangladesh, Borneo, Brunei, Burma, India, Japan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauriti us, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka , Sumatra, Suriname, Taiwan, Tamil Nadu, Thailand in Asia; Aust ralia, American Samoa, Fiji, French Polynesia, Papua New Guinea, New South Wales, and Solomon Islands in Oceania (Ben-Dov 2001; CABI 2007). Based on this, we estimated that P. minor could establish in U.S. Hardiness Zones 9-11. One or more of its potential hosts occur in these zones (NRCS, 2009). This warrants a Medium risk rating for ClimateHost Interaction.

Host Range . This pest is highly polyphagous and feeds on a variety of wild and cultivated plants. There are more than 250 reported host plants in nearly 80 families, including: Agavaceae: Dracaena sp.; Acanthaceae: Aphelandra sp., Graptophyllum sp., Justica carnea

, Odontonema sp., Pachystachys coecinea; Amaranthaceae: Amaranthus sp.; Anacardiaceae: Anacardium occidentale, Mangifera indica, Spondias dulcis; Annonaceae: Annona muricata, A. reticulata, A. squamosa

, Cananga odorata ; Apiaceae: Apium graveolen; Apocynaceae: Plumeria rubra; Araceae: Aglaonema sp., Alocasia sp., A. macrorhiza, Colocasia esculenta

, Cryptosperma chamissonis, Dieffenbachia

, Epipremnum pinnatum, Philodendron fonzii

, Pistia stratioites, Rhaphidophora vitiens is, Xanthosoma nigrum, X. sagittifolium ; Araliaceae: Aralia sp., Hedera helix, Polyscias guilfoylei, Schefflera actinphylla ; Asclepiadaceae: Araujia sericofera, Hoya sp.; Balsaminaceae: Impatiens balsamina

, I. sultani; Barringtoniaceae: Barringtonia asiatica; Bignoniaceae: Bignonia sp.; Bischofiaceae: Bischofia javanica; Boraginaceae: Cordia alliodora, Tournefortia argentata ; Bromeliaceae: Ananas comosus; Burseraceae: Canarium harveyi, Canarium indicum ; Cactaceae: Harrisia portoricensis; Casuarinaceae: Casuarina equisetifolia; Combretaceae: Lumnitzera coccinea, Terminalia catappa; Commelinaceae: Commelina sp., Tradescantia sp.; Compositae: Bidens pilosa, Cichorium endivia, Dahlia sp., Emilia sonchifolia, Helianthus sp., Mikania scandens, Pluchea odorata, Synedrella nodiflora, Tagetes patula, Tithonia sp., Wedelia biflora Zinnia elegans; Convolvulaceae: Ipomoea batatas

, I.pes-caprae, Merremia peltata ; Corynocarpaceae: Corynocarpus sp.; Cruciferae: Brassica chinensis

, B. oleracea

, Raphanus sativus; Cucurbitaceae: Citrullus lanatus, Cucumis melo, C. sativus

, C. maxima

, C. moschata, C. pepo, Sechium edule; Cyperaceae: Cyperus rotundus ; Dioscoreaceae: Dioscorea alata, Euphorbiaceae: Acalypha godseffiana, A. hispida, A. tricolor, Aleurites moluccana, Antidesma sp., Codiaeum variegatum, Croton sp., Euphorbia

atoto
, E. geniculata, E. heterophylla, E. pulcherrima

, Excoecaria agallocha

, Glochidion ramiflorum, Hevea brasiliensis

, Jatropha curcas, Macaranga aleuritoides, M. harveyana, M. macrophylla, M. tanarius, Mallotus japonicus, Manihot esculenta, Phyllanthus niruri, Ricinus communis, Geraniaceae: Pelargonium sp., Poaceae: Saccharum officinarum, Zea mayz; Guttiferae: Calophyllum inophyllum; Heliconiaceae: Heliconia aurantiaca ; Iridaceae: Gladiolus sp.; Labiatae: Coleus blumei

, Epimeredi indicum

, Salvia officinalis; Lamiaceae: Hyptis pectinata, Ocimum basilicum; Lauraceae: Persea americana; Fabaceae: Acacia confuse, A. farnesiana, A. holoseri cea, A. spirobis, Ad enanthera pavonina, Arachis hypogaea, Bauhinia monandra, Cajanus cajan, C. indicus, Calliandra houstoniana, Cassia alata, C. imperialis, Centrosema pubescens, Erythrina sp., F lemingia sp., Gliricidia maculate, G. sepium, Glycine max, Inocarpus fagifer, Leucaena glauca, L. leucocephala, Mimosa pigra, M. pudica, Mucuna pruriens, Phaseolus atropurpureus, Phaseolus lunatus, P. vulgaris, Wisteria sp.; Liliaceae: Asparagus plumosus, Caesia parviflo ra, Crinum asiaticum; Loganiaceae: Fagraea racemosa; Lythraceae: Lagerstroemia indica, Pemphis acidula; Magnoliaceae: Michelia figo; Malvaceae: Abutilon sp., Gossypium sp., Hibiscus manihot, H. tiliaceus, Pavonia sp.; Marantaceae: Maranta sp., Moraceae: Artocarpus altilis, A. heterophyllus, Broussonetia papyrifera, Castill oa elastic, Ficus benjamina, F. carica, F. congesta, F opositica

, Morus alba; Musaceae: Musa sapientum, M. velutina; Myristiaceae: Myristica macrantha; Myrtaceae: Eucalyptus deglupta, Eugenia cumini, E. malaccensis, PsidiumPest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 28 guajava, P. guajava; Oleaceae: Jasminum sp.; Onagraceae: Ludwigia octovalis; Orchidaceae: Dendrobium veratrifolium; Palmae: Areca catechu, Balaka seemanni, Chrysalidocarpus

, Cocos nucifera, Howeia forsteriana; Pandanaceae: Pandanus edulis, P. foetida, P. maliformis, P. odoratissimus; Passifloraceae: Passiflora edulis; Piperaceae: Piper aduncum, P. methysticum, P. puberulum; Proteaceae: Macadamia tetraphylla; Rhamnaceae: Alphitonia zizyphoides; Rosaceae: Pyrus serotina, Rosa chinensis; Rubiaceae: Borreria laevis, Coffea arabica

, C

. canephora, C. liberica, Gard enia jasminoides, Guettarda speciosa, Ixora coccinea, Morinda citrifolia, Randia tahitensis; Rutaceae: Citrus aurantifolia, C. aurantium, C. grandis, C. limon, C.paradisi, C. reticulata, C. sinensis, Evodia hortensis; Sapotaceae: Manilkara zapota,

, Pometia pinnata; Scrophulariaceae: Russelia equisetiformis; Solanaceae: Brunfelsia hispida, Capsicum annuum, C. frutescens, Datura metel, D. suaveolens, Lycopersicon esculentum, Solanum indicum, S. melongena, S. torvum, S. tuberosum ; Sterculiaceae: Kleinhovia hospital, Theobroma

cacao; Theaceae: Camellia sinensis, Tiliaceae: Triumfetta rhomboidea; Urticaceae: Boehmeria sp., Leucosyke sp., Pipturus argenteus, Procris pedunculata; Verbenaceae: Clerodendrum disparifolium, C. fallax, C. paniculatum, Premna obtusifolia, P. taitensis, Stac hytarpheta, Tectona grandis, Verbena sp., Vitex trifolia, Vitidaceae: Vitis vinifera; Zingiberaceae: Alpinia nutans, A. purpurata, Elettaria cardamomum, Hedychium coronarium, Nicolaia speciosa, Zingiber officinale. Although Planococcus
minor has a very broad host range, not all host records are necessarily reliable. Recent literature suggests that earlier records may be erroneous in certain re gions due to misidentification of easily confused mealybugs, namely P. citri (Cox 1989, Williams and Granara de Willink 1992). Based on the above information the risk rating for Host Range is High.

Dispersal Potential. We found very little specific information on the biology of P. minor . Females lay from 600 to 800 eggs, in large masses (IPM Th ailand 2003), and may depo sit eggs on non-hosts (Meyerdirk, 2003). Mealybugs can have 2 to 3 gene rations per year. Females are wingless, while the males are winged. Trade of commodities and propagativ e material appear to be the most likely pathway of P. minor into the United States. Therefore we assigned a Medium risk rating for Dispersal Potential.

Economic Impact . It is difficult to determine the economic impact that P. minor may have on U.S. agriculture. While P. minor is a pest of several economically important hosts (such as potato, grapevine, corn, avocado, soybean, cotton, and citr us), the exact damage contributed to P. minor is difficult to assess as it is often found in scale complexes with other Planococcus species. Planococcus minor is a well known pest in cocoa growing regions, co-occurring with other closely related species (Cox, 1989). In New Guinea, P. minor made up 90 percent of a scale complex, which reduced the yield of coffee by 70- 75 percent (Williams and Watson, 1988). Planococcus minor ’s host range currently includes 250 plant species, but it could expand its host range to include native pl ants in the United States (Meyerdirk, 2003).

Planococcus minor is a phloem feeder, and in general this ma y cause reduced yield, reduced plant or fruit quality; stunting, discoloration and defoliation. Indi rect or secondary damage is caused by sooty mold growth on honeydew produced by the mealybug. Im portant plant viruses may also be vectored by P. minor (Cox, 1989). The establishment of any new pests of fruits and vegetables destined for fresh markets is likely to stimulate greater use of either chemical or biological controls to ensure market access. Therefore, we assigned these species a High risk rating for Economic Impact.

Environmental Impact. Planococcus minor may have direct or indirect impacts on plants listed as threatened or endangered in the United States, including Acacia choriophylla, Acalypha deamii, A. virginica, Amaranthus brownie, A. pumilus, Bidens beck ii, B. bidentoides, B. discoidea, B. eatonii, B. hyperborean, B. hyperborea var . hyperborean, B. laevis, B. mitis, B. wiebke, Centrosema virginianum, Commelina erecta, Cordia bellonis, C. sebestena, Croton alabamensis, C. glandulosus, and Cucurbita okeechobeensis (NRCS, 2010)

. In general, newly established species may adversely affect the environment in a number of ways. Introduced sp ecies may reduce biodiversity, disrupt ecosystemPest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 29 function, jeopardize endangered or threatened plants, de grade critical habitat, or stimulate use of chemical or biological controls. Therefore, we assigned this mealy bug species a High risk rating.



### 2.5.9. Pseudococcus landoi Climate-Host Interaction

. Pseudococcus landoi occurs in Antigua and Barbados, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, and Trinidad and Tobago (BenDov et al., 2001; Williams and Granara de Willink, 1992) . Based on this distribution, we estimated that P

. landoi could establish in U.S. Hardiness Zones 9-11. On e or more of its potential hosts occur in these zones (NRCS, 2009). Therefore, we rated P. landoi Medium risk.

Host Range

. Pseudococcus landoi is a widespread and polyphagou s species in the Neotropics (Williams and Granara de Willink, 1992). It has been reported on the following plants: Yucca (Agavaceae); Philodendron (Araceae); Anthurium and Dieffenbachia (Araliaceae); Licania (Chrysobalanaceae); Codiaeum and Mabea (Euphorbiaceae); Phaseolus (Fabaceae); Heliconia (Heliconiaceae); Abelmoschus (Malavaceae); Artocarpus and Ficus (Moraceae); Musa (Musaceae); orchids (Orchidaceae); Passiflora (Passifloraceae); Piper (Piperaceae); Coffea and Sickingia (Rubiaceae); Theobroma (Sterculiaceae); Vochysia (Vochysiaceae); and Alpinia (Zingiberaceae) (Ben-Dov et al., 2001; Williams and Granara de Willink, 1992). This warrants a High risk rating for Host Range.

Dispersal Potential . We found no specific information about th is species in the literature, but female mealybugs may produce more than 100 eggs during thei r lives (Osborne, 2000). They can have up to nine generations a year depending on the weather and th e exact species (CABI, 2007). Immature mealybugs can disperse on air currents, but long-distance disper sal occurs primarily in shipments of infested commodities (Kosztarab, 1996; Williams and Granara de Willink, 1992). We gave P. landoi a High risk rating for disperal potential.

Economic Impact . As above, we found no specific information on impacts by P. landoi . Feeding by scale insects often results in poor growth, branch deat h, leaf drop, and sometimes plant death (Kosztarab, 1996). These insects also excrete honeydew, which promotes the growth of sooty mold (Kosztarab, 1996). Sooty mold reduces photosynthesis, may cause poor growth and leaf drop, and may render commodities unmarketable (Daane and Bentley, 2003 ; Kosztarab , 1996). Some mealybugs have toxic saliva that discolors leaves and fruit, deforms branches, and ma y induce plant galls (Kosztarab, 1996). Mealybugs may also transmit devastating plant diseases (Kosztar ab, 1996). Scale insects, including mealybugs, are estimated to cost North America growers $500 million annually in crop losses and control efforts (Kosztarab, 1996). Mealybugs can cause a loss of fore ign and domestic markets because infested plants are often rejected at ports-of-ent ry (CABI, 2007). Thus, we rated P. landoi High risk for this element.

Environmental Impact

. Pseudococcus landoi is a polyphagous pest that could potentially attack plants that are listed as Threatened or Endangered within the Moraceae and Orchidacea e families in the United States (Williams and Granara de Willink, 1992). Its introduction might stimulate chemical or biological control programs because it attacks a wide range of economically important plants (Williams and Granara de Willink, 1992). We gave this pest a High risk rating for Environmental Impact.



### 2.5.10. Sarasinula plebeia Climate-Host Interaction

. Sarisinula plebeia is a tropical species that occurs in Costa Rica, Honduras, Trinidad and Tobago, the United States [TX (CAB I, 2007), FL (NAPIS, 2010)], Mexico, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama, and Belize ( Naranjo-García et al., 2007). It can endure sub-freezing temperatures and rebuild its population within two months and one week, suggesting that S

. plebeia is cold tolerant (Neck, 1990). This species of slug is likely to become established in human settlements, since it has an ample range of temperature toleran ce, and human activities such as the introduction andPest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 30 watering of exotic plants promote its introduction and survival. Based on this distribution, we estimated that S

. plebeia could establish in U.S. Hardiness Zones 9 and 11. Because Zone 11 is so small, this

warrants a Medium risk rating.

Host Range. This pest reportedly feeds on plants in the families Asteraceae ( Lactuca) , Brassicaceae (cruciferous crops), Cucurbitaceae ( Cucurbita sp.), Fabaceae ( Phaseolus sp.), and Solanaceae ( Solanum

sp. , Lycopersicon sp.) (CABI, 2007; Naranjo-García et al., 2007) . It has been observed feeding on mahogany (Meliacae) and red cedar (Cupressaceae) trees in nurseries (Naranjo-García et al., 2007). This receives a High risk rating.

Dispersal Potential

. In Texas, introduced populations of S. plebeia occur close to human habitation where the watering of plants provides the necessary humid conditions for its survival (Neck, 1990) which may be dispersed by humans. This species of slug is li kely to become established in human settlements, since it has an ample range of temperature toleran ce, and human activities such as the introduction and watering of exotic plants promote its intr oduction, survival, and spread. This slug has less potential for spread since it is non-burrowing and is reported to be viviparous (Baker 1925 in Stange et al., 2009 ). Sarisinula plebeia is therefore assigned a Medium risk rating for Dispersal Potential.

Economic Impact . This species is probably the most destructiv e threat to Florida agriculture of the three known Florida veronicellid slugs, (NAP IS, 2010; Stange et al., 2009). Where this slug is established, control measures may be necessary (Deisler and Stange, 1984; Stange et al., 2009). Sarisinula plebeia is assigned a High risk rating for Economic Impact.

Environmental Impact

. Sarisinula plebeia could attack plants that are listed as Threatened or Endangered in 50 CFR § 17.12, e.g., Solanum incompletum . Introduction of S. plebeia into the United States may stimulate chemical and/or biological c ontrol programs because slugs are opportunistic feeders that cause considerable damage to cultivated crops (Capinera, 2001). Therefore, we rated S. plebeia High risk for this element.



### 2.5.11. Succinea costaricana Climate-Host Interaction. Succinea costaricana occurs in Central America from Mexico through Costa Rica (Villalobos et al., 1995). Based on th is distribution, we estimated that S

. costaricana could establish in U.S. Hardiness Zones 9-11. One or more of its potential hosts occur in these zones (NRCS, 2009). This

warrants a Medium risk rating.

Host Range

. Succinea costaricana is primarily a detritivore, but it will feed on live plants when food is scarce or young growth is available (Barrientos, 2004 ; Robinson, 2004). For example, in Costa Rica, S

. costaricana was observed feeding on the roots of orchids (Orchidaceae) and the young growth of several unidentified plants (Robins on, 2004). In addition, S

. costaricana has been reared in the laboratory on
Lactuca (Villalobos et al., 1995). Hence, we rated S. costaricana High risk for Host Range.

Dispersal Potential

. Succinea costaricana can reproduce without mating, and may deposit up to 396 eggs during its 44-week lifespan (Villalobos et al., 1995). Succinea costaricana is not capable of longdistance dispersal under its own power, but it can be transported over long distances in shipments of infested commodities (PestID, 2010; Villalobos et al., 1995). Succinea costaricana is therefore assigned a High risk rating for Dispersal Potential.

Economic Impact . Reports of economic damage caused by S

. costaricana are scarce, but it has been observed feeding on the roots of orchids (Robinson, 2004). In general, snails tend to be omnivorous (Capinera, 2001), and a small amount of feeding may cause a disproportionate amount of economic damage (Speiser, 2001). Introduction of S

. costaricana into the United States ma y cause a loss of marketsPest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 31 because commodities contaminated with snails and slugs are not allowed to cross international borders (Villalobos et al., 1995). For these reasons, we rated S. costaricana High risk for Economic Impact.

Environmental Impact

. Succinea costaricana could attack plants that are listed as Threatened or Endangered in the United States, such as Piperia yadonii . Introduction may stimulate chemical and/or biological control programs because orchids are economi cally important plants. Therefore, we rated this pest High risk.



### 2.5.12. Xylosandrus morigerus Climate-Host Interaction

. Xylosandrus morigerus , the brown coffee twig beetle, is a widespread pest that occurs in Africa: the Congo, Madagascar, Maur itius, and Réunion; Asia: India, Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam; Central America: Costa Rica, Honduras, Panama, and the Campeche, Chiapas, Tabasco, and Vera cruz areas of Mexico; the Caribbean: Puerto Rico and Trinidad and Tobago; Europe: Austria, the C zech Republic, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom; South America: Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela; and Oceania: American Samoa, Australia, Micronesia, Fiji, Guam, Papua New Guinea, the So lomon Islands, and Hawaii (Bright and Skidmore, 1997; CABI, 2007; Cibrián Tovar et al., 1995 ; Jordal and Kirkendall, 1998; Wood and Bright, 1992). Based on this distribution, we estimated that X

. morigerus could establish in U.S. Hardiness Zones 6-11. One or more of its potential hosts occur in these zones (NRCS, 2009). This warrants a High risk rating for X. morigerus for this element.

Host Range. Xylosandrus morigerus is extremely polyphagous, attack ing hundreds of different hosts (Wood, 1982). Thirty-nine plant families and 85 genera contain at least one reported host (Beaver, 1976; Bright and Skidmore, 1997; CABI, 2007; Figueroa Pot es, 1977; Jordal and Kirkendall, 1998; Kalshoven, 1961; Schedl, 1962; Wood and Bright, 1992). Thus, we gave this pest a High risk rating.

Dispersal Potential

. Xylosandrus morigerus is a parthenogenetic species (CABI, 2007; Wood, 1982). A female can mature and deposit up to 59 eggs during her life (Jordal and Kirkendall, 1998). Multiple generations can occur each year because members of the genus Xylosandrus typically complete their life cycle in about one month (Wood, 1982). Females ar e strong fliers and can be transported over long distances in shipments of infested commod ities (CABI, 2007). Accordingly, we gave X. morigerus a High risk rating here.

Economic Impact

. Xylosandrus species are known to attack actively growing stems of healthy plants (Wood, 1982). In Mexico, X

. morigerus attacks and kills young healthy trees with great economic value, such as mahogany and red cedar (Cibrián Tovar et al., 1995). It is an important pest of coffee, tea, and cacao in other countries (Cibrián Tovar et al., 1995). Control efforts, which lower the value of the commodity, include the removal and destruction of infested plants and the application of contact insecticides (Cibrián Tovar et al., 1995). Establishment of X

. morigerus in the continental United States is likely to lead to a loss of fo reign and domestic markets because X

. morigerus is considered a high-risk quarantine pest (CABI, 2007). Consequently, we rated X. morigerus High risk for Economic Impact.

Environmental Impact

. Xylosandrus morigerus could attack plants that are listed as Threatened or Endangered in 50 CFR § 17.12 (50 CFR§17.12, 2005), such as Baccharis vanessae and Crotalaria
avonensis . Introduction of X

. morigerus is likely to stimulate chemical or biological control programs because this pest kills economically valuable trees (C ibrián Tovar et al., 1995), and it is considered a high-risk quarantine pest (CABI, 2007). Therefore, we rated this pest High risk for Environmental Impact.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 32 Table 4. Risk Rating for Consequences of Introduction.
Pest Risk Elements Cumulative Risk Rating a Climate-Host interaction Host

range Dispersal potential Economic impact Environmental impact
Ancistrocercus circumdatus Low (1) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (11)

Caldwelliola reservata Low (1) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (12)
Coccus viridis Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (13) Chaetanaphothrips signipennis Med (2) High (3) High (3) Low (1) Low (1) Med (10)

Diplosolenodes occidentalis Low (1) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (13)

Erioloides consorbrinus Low (1) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (11) Neoconocephalus affinis Low (1) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (11) Oncometopia clarior Low (1) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (12) Ovachlamys fulgens Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14) Pallifera costaricensis Med (2) Low (1) High (3) Low (1) Low (1) Low (8)
Planococcus minor Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (13)
Pseudococcus landoi Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14) Sarisinula plebeia Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (13)
Succinea costaricana Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14) Xylosandrus morigerus High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15)

a Low = 5-8 points, Medium = 9-12, and High = 13-15.



### 2.6. Likelihood of Introduction

Cumulative Risk Ratings for the Likelihood of Introduction are estimated from the quantity of the commodity that is expected to be imported annuall y and the probabilities that a pest would survive postharvest treatment and shipment, enter the United Stat es undetected, and arrive in an area with a climate and host plants capable of supporting reproduction (PPQ, 2000). We summarized the cumulative risk ratings for Likelihood of Introduction below (Table 5).



### 2.6.1. Quantity Imported Annually Costa Rica intends to export two 40-foot -long shipping containers of oversized Dracaena spp. each week to the United States (Sibaja, 2004b). This quantity represents a High risk.



### 2.6.2. Survive Post-Harvest Treatment Arthropods that feed internally and pathogens that produce latent infections are expected to survive minimal post-harvest treatments, such as washing and culling. Therefore, we rated Xylosandrus morigerus High for this sub-element.

Externally feeding arthropods and mollusks are l ess likely to survive post-harvest treatments than internally feeding organisms. However, minute organi sms, like mites, nematodes, scales, thrips, and eggs, may survive minimal post-harvest treatments by hidi ng in recesses on the plant (Jacobsen and Hara, 2003; Lewis, 1997). Thus, we rated C. signipennis, C. viridis, P. minor, and P.landoi Medium risk.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 33 Based on U.S. interception history (see Appendix A), all five mollusks seem likely to survive the postharvest treatments currently applied to Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica, although some will likely be removed. Thus, we rated D. occidentalis

, P. costaricensis, S. plebeia, and S. costaricana as Medium risk.

Cicadellidae and Tettigoniidae adults are very mobile insects that are unlikely to remain with the commodity during harvesting, handling, and shipping, because they most likely will fly away, but eggs attached to the leaves will survive treatments. Inspectors at ports–of-entry intercepted viable eggs of Cicadellidae and Tettigonidae species on Dracaena leaves, that were dip-treated with a pesticide solution at the packinghouse (PestID, 2010; Lenis, 2006). Therefore we assigned High risk ratings to C. reservata , O. clarior, A. circumdatus

, E. consobrinus, and N. affinis

.


### 2.6.3. Survive Shipment
Dracaena spp. are typically shipped at 16-18°C (Poole et al., 2003). All pests are likely to survive these conditions, so we rated them all as High risk.



### 2.6.4. Not Detected at Port-of-Entry The probability that a pest is detected at the por t-of-entry is a function of its size and degree of concealment. Internal feeders and latent diseases are mo re likely to escape detection. Therefore, we rated X. morigerus High risk.

Minute pests are unlikely to be noticed, especially if hidden in recesses on the plant. For this reason, we also rated C. signipennis, C. viridis, P. minor and P. landoi as High risk.

Caldwelliola reservata , O. clarior, A. circumdatus

, E. consobrinus, and N. affinis lay eggs on Dracaena leaves in groups that are more easily detect ed by port inspectors. Therefore, we assigned Low risk ratings for not detected at ports-of-entry to these pests.

The remaining external feeders—i.e., snails and slugs —may be visibly large, and slime trails may be evident even when the gastropods themselves are not visible. Still, they often escape detection on commercial commodities and become established outsi de of their native ranges (Branson, 1980). For these reasons, we gave them Medium risk ratings.



### 2.6.5. Moved to Suitable Habitat
Dracaena species are widely used in interior landscapes becau se they thrive in low light and require minimal care (Chen et al., 2002; Poole et al., 2003). Consequently, Dracaena spp. are popular with U.S. consumers, and markets for these plants exist in all pa rts of the United States. Therefore, we rated this sub-element based on the estimated area in which each pest could establish (above).

Because it could establish in half or more of the area of the United States, we gave Xylosandrus morigerus a High risk rating.

Chaetanaphothrips signipennis, C.s viridis, P. minor

, P. landoi

, D. occidentalis

, O. fulgens

, P. costaricensis

, S. plebeia, and S. costaricana

, C. reservata , O. clarior, A. circumdatus

, E. consobrinus, and N. affinis, could establish in only about 10 percent of the United States (Zones 9-11). Thus, we rated them Medium risk.



### 2.6.6. Contact with Host Material Chaetanaphothrips signipennis, C. viridis, P. minor

, P. landoi

, C. reservata , O. clarior, A. circumdatus

, E. consobrinus, N. affinis, and X. morigerus have wide host ranges and are capable of aerial dispersal. Thus, we gave them High risk ratings.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 34 Snails and slugs are opportunistic feeders (Barker et al., 1998; Capinera, 2001) and suitable host material should be available in all areas of the United States. Because of this, we also gave them High risk ratings.



### 2.7. Conclusion

We summarized the Pest Risk Potentials for each p est below (Table 6). These ratings estimate the risk associated with importation of the commodity in th e absence of mitigation. Additional, more specific phytosanitary measures beyond port-of-entry inspection may be necessary for Medium risk pests, and are strongly recommended for High risk pests.



### Table 5. Risk Rating for Likelihood of Introduction. Th e ratings for all pests for ‘Quantity imported annually,’ ‘Survive shipment,’ a nd ‘Contact with host material’ was High. aPest Survive postharvest treatment Not detected at port-of-entry Moved to suitable habitat Cumulative Risk Rating b

Ancistrocerus circundatus High (3) Low (1) Med (2) High (15)
Caldwelliola reservata High (3) Low (1) Med (2) High (15)
Coccus viridis High (3) Low (1) Med (2) High (15) Chaetanaphothrips signipennis Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (16)

Diplosolenodes occidentalis Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) High (15)
Erioloides consobrinus High (3) Low (1) Med (2) High (15) Neoconocephalus affinis High (3) Low (1) Med (2) High (15) Oncometopia clarior High (3) Low (1) Med (2) High (15) Ovachlamys fulgens Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) High (15) Pallifera costaricensis Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) High (15)
Planococcu minor Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (16)
Pseudococcus landoi Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (16) Sarisinula plebeia Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) High (15)
Succinea costaricana Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) High (15) Xylosandrus morigerus High (3) High (3) High (3) High (18)

a These ratings add a total of 9 pts (= 3 + 3 + 3) to each row total.

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



### Table 6. Pest Risk Potentials, ranked by score Pest Consequences of Introduction Likelihood of Introduction Pest Risk Potential a

Xylosandrus morigerus High (15) High (18) High (33)
Pseudococcus landoi High (14) High (16) High (30)
Planococcus minor High (13) High (16) High (29) Ovachlamys fulgens High (14) High (15) High (29)
Succinea costaricana High (14) High (15) High (29)
Coccus viridis High (13) High (15) High (28) Diplosolenodes occidentalis High (13) High (15) High (28) Sarasinula plebeia High (13) High (15) High (28)Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 35 Pest Consequences of Introduction Likelihood of Introduction Pest Risk Potential a

Caldwelliola reservata Med (12) High (15) High (27) Oncometopia clarior Med (12) High (15) High (27)
Ancistrocercus circumdatus Med (11) High (15) Med (26)
Erioloides consobrinus Med (11) High (15) Med (26) Chaetanaphothrips signipennis Med (10) High (16) Med (26) Neoconocephalus affinis Med (11) High (15) Med (26) Pallifera costaricensis Low (8) High (15) Med (23)

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



## 3. Mitigation Options

This section describes the phytosanitary measur es recommended for the importation of oversized
Dracaena spp. plants from Costa Rica into th e continental United States, i.e. Dracaena plants larger than 460 mm from the soil line or top of the root zone to the farthest terminal growth and up to 1.37 m (54 inches). The pest risks identified above are the baseline risk associat ed with the unmitigated importation of Dracaena spp. The mitigations described therein comprise a systems approach ( ‘ Clean Stock Program’) designed to establish and maintain a pest-free production environment and ensure the use of pest-free plants. When applied to this importation, these measures may effectivel y mitigate the pest risk associated with this pathway.

A written agreement between the government of Costa Rica and USDA-APHIS, which is called a bilateral work plan, will describe the details of a ny resulting importation program, including applicable mitigation measures.



### 3.1. Costa Rica Clean Stock Progra m: Overview of 2006 Site Visit

During the process of Central America Free Trade Agreement ( CAFTA) negotiations, Costa Rica identified as one of its main priorities for the agricultural sector the exportation of Dracaena spp. plants over eighteen inches in length. The cu rrent regulation for the importation of such plants limits the size to eighteen inches. To accomplish this priority, the Unite d States has requested that Costa Rica implement a ‘Clean Stock Program’ that proves effective in reduc ing the risk of introducing pests into the United States prior to making any changes to the regulations. The main objective of this program is to reduce the number of pests that are being intercepted in commercial shipments of Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica (Lenis, 2006, Appendix A).



### 3.1.1. Field Production
Dracaena spp. production takes place mostly in open fields where air layers and unrooted cuttings (URC) are harvested. Very large cuttings and layers generally have exposed stems at the base. In most cases, rooted cuttings (RC) are produced in raised beds. Air layered cuttings and URC are harvested directly from the field (Lenis, 2006). At every farm visited in 2006, there were Dracaena spp. plants of various sizes, shapes and age. Large plants had the lower part of the stems without leaves.

Most farms are located in fields surrounded by areas not being cultivated and/or managed to control the incidence of pests. Some are located within clear ed areas surrounded by natural growing plants such as trees, brush and grasses which serve as natural borde rs, fences, and wind breaks. The proximity ofPest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 36 weeded areas in many of the fields was observed al most in all the farms visited. Weeds were also observed in and around some of the greenhouses and sh aded field cultivation areas. This may contribute to the incidence of cicadellids and tettigoniids in Dracaena spp. plants (Lenis, 2006).



### 3.1.2. Packinghouses Packing facilities and the sophistication of the operati ons varied from farm to farm (Lenis, 2006). Some facilities had receiving areas which are completely scr eened, though gaps and holes could be observed in the enclosures. In some cases, Dracaena spp. plants are processed in open areas. Most were small to midsize operations with minimal practices to control weeds and create buffer zones with the surrounding natural vegetation composed of wooded areas, brush, et c. However, the growers apparently assumed that plants brought to the receiving/greenhouses areas are clean.

In general, the packing facilities need to be safegua rded more efficiently to keep pests out of the enclosure. Some of the farms have made a substa ntial investment in screening the packing area and providing double doors for access into the facility. Some gaps and single-entry doors were observed in some farms and it would help greatly if those cond itions are improved by closing as many gaps in the screening as possible (Lenis, 2006).

Inspection Facilities. Lenis (2006) observed that all growers/farms visited at the time needed to improve their facilities for inspection of the material prior to shipping. Some facilities had inspection tables which consist of a glass top with fluorescent lighting from undern eath. This set up is inappropriate to inspect the plant material. All of the inspections are being con ducted inside the packinghouse. Therefore, if any material is infested, the pests are being brought into the packing facility where th e plants are packaged for shipping. The work flow must be changed to ma intain the pest-freedom of the packinghouse. The inspection must be conducted in an area separated from the packinghouse and procedures established to handle rejected material and clean material. Some sanitation practices need to be followed to prevent cross contamination such as cleaning the insp ection table after each inspection (Lenis, 2006)

.

Treatments. Many packing plants conduct a dip just befo re the plants are packaged in cardboard boxes for export. This method is used to eliminate pests that may be present with the plants. During the site visit a random sample of cuttings of Codiaeum plants

, already treated and packaged , was inspected. It took no longer than 30 seconds to find abundant live thri ps larvae on the leaves of the cuttings. The same experience was observed with Dracaena spp. plants that were ready for shipment to the United States (Lenis, 2006).

Conclusions . Based on the site visit report (Lenis, 2006), Dracaena spp. producers in Costa Rica should implement the recommendations provided during the visit. Infestations might be prevented by eliminating or minimizing conditions that favor the entry and mu ltiplication of the pests. Residue after harvest or natural leaf fall should be cleaned up from the plants or the ground. Leaving the debris promotes the presence of pests, such as snails, which feed on the decaying plant material. Where pests are already in the cultivated areas and the greenhouses, steps should be taken to reduce their populations and/or eradicate them. Field workers need to be trained to prevent the spread of disease via contaminated tools and/or entering other fields or areas where the contam inant can be transported. Contamination of plants with weeds and cross-contamination of plants durin g harvesting needs to be addressed. Finally, control methods should be applied in th e packing and inspection areas where grading, selection, discarding, and inspection of the plants take place. This may include cleaning and sterilizing inspection tables. Refuse/debris must be bagged and removed for dest ruction by burial or incineration. Areas in the packinghouse found with high infestation rates need to be considered for total removal to prevent further spread of the infestation.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 37 3.2. General Requirements

The families, genera, or species of plants examin ed in this risk assessment are not listed in the Nursery Stock Restrictions Manual (USDA, 2004). They are, therefore, generally admissible but subject to sections 2(b), 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of 7 CFR § 319.37 (USDA, 2004) .



### 3.2.1. Prohibited articles in 7 CFR § 319.37-2(b)(6)(i) Importation of Dracaena spp. plants from foreign sources that are in excess of 460 mm from the soil line or top of the root zone to the farthest terminal gr owth are prohibited articles, except as provided in 7 CFR 319.37-2(c). This risk assessment was conducted to sp ecifically determine if 7 CFR § 319.37-2(b)(6)(i) could be amended to allow the importation of Dracaena cuttings from Costa Rica up to 1.37 m (54 inches). The single-stem Dracaena spp. canes without leaves, roots, sprouts, and branches, regulated in 7 CFR 319.37-2(b)(4) will not be affected by the proposed rule change.



### 3.2.2. Permits (7 CFR § 319.37-3) Restricted articles that are listed in this section or 7 CFR § 319.37-6 or 7 CFR § 319.37-7 can be imported into the United States only after issuance of a permit written by USDA-APHIS-PPQ.



### 3.2.3. Inspection, treatment, and phytosanitary ce rtificates of inspection (7 CFR § 319.37-4) A phytosanitary certificate of inspection must accompan y restricted articles. Restricted articles may be inspected at the port of first arrival. They must undergo any treatment that is ordered by the inspector and contained in the Treatment Manual (USDA-APHIS, 2007). Restricted artic les that are contaminated with a plant pest that cannot be eliminated by treatment will be denied entry at the port of first arrival.



### 3.2.4. Approved packing mate rial (7 CFR § 319.37-9) Restricted articles must not be packed in packing ma terial unless they were packed immediately prior to shipment in material listed in this section that w as never used and is free from sand, soil or earth.



### 3.2.5. Marking and identity (7 CFR § 319.37-10)
Restricted articles must be marked and identifie d with all information re quired by this section.



### 3.2.6. Arrival identification (7 CFR § 319.37-11) The importer must promptly notify PPQ upon arrival of a restricted article.



### 3.2.7. Prohibited articles accompanying rest ricted articles (7 CFR § 319.37-12) Prohibited articles must not be packed in the same container as restricted articles.



### 3.2.8. Ports-of-entry 7 CFR § 319.37-14 Restricted articles imported under a written permit mu st be imported to a designated port-of-entry.



### 3.3. Biological Contamination

PPQ (2004) demonstrated that loading commodities onto aircraft during the day might reduce the biological contamination rate by 32 percent. Daytime loading should be used as mitigation in conjunction with other strategies that limit arthropod access to cargo (PPQ, 2004a). Gonzalez (2003) recommended the following changes at Costa Rican airports to limit arthropod access to cargo and reduce the biological contamination rate: 1) Replace white lights in air port illumination towers and warehouses with yellow or insect repellent bulbs. 2) Use air or plastic curtains on warehouse doors to restrict the entry of arthropod pests. 3) Cover commodities with a fine m esh when they are on the airport runway.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 38 Improved sanitation and careful handling of the commod ity should also reduce biological contamination. For example, the weevil Metamasius hemipterus is primarily a pest of coconut, banana, and sugarcane (CABI, 2007), but it has been intercepted three times on Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica (PestID, 2010). M. hemipterus is attracted to and oviposits in many plants that are not its primary host because they are damaged or contain rotten material (Weissling et al., 2003; Woodruff and Baranowski, 1985). Requiring the commodity to be free of rotten material and requi ring wounds from intentionally stripped leaves to be dry prior to loading onto aircraft should, in th eory, also reduce the biological contamination rate. Mitigations recommended to reduce the number of biol ogical contaminants arriving in the United States in shipments of Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica are:

 Airport illumination towers and warehouses s hould use yellow or insect-repellent bulbs

 Warehouse doors should have air or plastic curtains that restrict the entry of arthropod pests

 The commodity should be covered with a fine mesh when it is on the airport runway

 Cargo flights should be loaded during the day

 The commodity should be free of rotten material , and wounds from intentionally stripped leaves should be dry prior to loading onto aircraft



### 3.4. Ambrosia Beetles

Ambrosia beetles are difficult to control (Oliver a nd Mannion, 2001). Measures should therefore be taken to prevent initial borer infestation (Pirone, 1978). In addition to trapping, a monitoring program should include careful field inspections for signs of infesta tion. Visible symptoms of an infestation may include wilted leaves and compressed columns of mastic ated wood and frass projecting outwards from the entrance hole (Drees and Jackman, 1999; Drees et al., 1994). If trees infested with X

. morigerus are discovered in a plantation, they should be removed a nd burnt or removed and treated with an insecticide dissolved in mineral oil (Cibrián Tovar et al., 1995).

Any measure that improves plant health and remov es conditions that favor an attack by wood-boring insects should be employed. This includes regular fe rtilization, watering during a temporary drought, and controlling all pests and pathogens that attack the tr ee (Pirone, 1978). Immediate pruning of any dead or dying plant part is strongly recommended to discourag e colonization by ambrosia beetles (Drees et al., 1994; Pirone, 1978; Tenbrick and Hara, 1994). Wounds should be immediately dressed with paint to further discourage an attack (Drees et al., 1994; Pir one, 1978). Recently transplanted trees are particularly susceptible to borer attack, so their trunks should be wrapped in burlap or a specialty paper (Pirone, 1978).

Timing of insecticide applications to control ambr osia beetles is critical and must be determined experimentally for the region and species of concern (O liver and Mannion, 2001). Chlorpyrifos is used to control ambrosia beetles in the United States (Drees et al., 1994). It effectively k illed 100% of adults and 83% of all Xylosandrus compactus life stages in efficacy trials (Tenbrick and Hara, 1994). Chlorpyrifos is therefore a promising control for X

. morigerus , if applied at the appropriate time.



### 3.5. Scale and Mealybugs

Scale insects and mealybugs have similar life histories and are controlled using similar management practices (Dreistadt, 1994). Successful control programs typically include monitoring, cultural, biological, and chemical components (Dreistadt, 1994).

Direct observation, pheromone traps, and adhesive traps have all been used to monitor scale insect populations (Rosen, 1990). Direct observation of crawler emergence is used to time subsequent control efforts (Rosen, 1990). Pheromone traps are the most sophisticated method of monitoring (Rosen, 1990).Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 39 However, pheromones have not yet been develope d for every pest species, and a lack of male identification manuals impedes their use (Rosen, 1990). Adhesive traps are the simplest and most inexpensive method of monitoring (Rosen, 1990).

Cultural methods, such as regular watering and fertiliza tion, should be employed to keep plants vigorous (Dreistadt, 1994). Ants should also be controlled because some of them tend scales and favor high pest populations (Dreistadt, 1994). Ants can be denied access to scale insects by coating the lower portion of plant stems with a sticky material and pruning plan t parts that contact other objects (Dreistadt, 1994). High pressure water sprays can be used to physically remove mealybugs from infested plant material, but they are ineffective against most other scale insects (Dreistadt, 1994). If scales are localized to just a portion of the plant, then the infested area s hould be removed and destroyed (Dreistadt, 1994).

Insecticidal soaps and narrow-range oils are effectiv e against scale eggs and crawlers (Dreistadt, 1994; Rosen, 1990). Augmentive releases of commercially ava ilable natural enemies can severely reduce pest populations (Dreistadt, 1994; Rosen, 1990). Narrow spectrum or systemic insecticide may be needed when all else fails (Capinera, 2001; Dreistadt, 1994).

In addition to inspection at the por t of first arrival, post-entry insp ections may be necessary to detect exotic scales and prevent them from establishing in the importing country (Rosen, 1990).



### 3.6. Thrips

Thrips cannot be effectively controlled with in secticides ( Dreistadt and Phillips, 2001). A successful control program should, therefore, include monitori ng, cultural, biological and chemical components. Thrips are extremely small, so monitoring requires a hand lens. Any plant part that is stippled, flecked with pale dots or distorted should be carefully exam ined (Dreistadt, 1994). Dama ge may persist long after the thrips population has been eradicated or controlle d by natural forces (Dreistadt, 1994). For this reason, damage alone should not stimulate additional control measures (Dreistadt, 1994). In addition to inspecting damage, thrips can be sampled by beating foliage and branches (Dreistadt, 1994) . Adult populations can also be monitored using yellow or blue sticky traps; th e color depends on the species of interest (Dreistadt and Phillips, 2001).

Any measure that improves plant health and removes conditions that favor increases in thrips populations should be employed. This includes the use of a fertiliz er that releases nitrogen slowly, regular watering and selective pruning. Plants with high foliar nitrogen le vels favor high thrips po pulations (Dreistadt and Phillips, 2001). Drought-stressed plants also favor high thrips populations (Dreis tadt and Phillips, 2001). For this reason, regular watering is encouraged. Over head watering is beneficial because it removes dust particles that interfere with natural predators (Dre istadt, 1994). Infested and damaged plant parts should be removed and destroyed (Dreistadt and Phillips, 2001). Old flowers should also be collected and destroyed (Dreistadt and Phillips, 2001). Additional cultu ral methods, such as weed control and the use of reflective mulch, are encouraged because they can reduce the population of pest thrips (Dreistadt and Phillips, 2001).

Insecticidal soaps and narrow-range oils are effec tive against thrips (Dreistadt and Phillips, 2001). Augmentive releases of predaceous mites can sever ely reduce thrips populations (Dreistadt, 1994). A systemic insecticide may be need when a ll else fails (Dreistadt and Phillips, 2001).Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 40 3.7. Snails and Slugs

Chemicals alone rarely provide cr ops with adequate protection agai nst pestiferous snails and slugs (Symondson, 1996). A combination of monitoring, cult ural, and chemical controls are, therefore, recommended to manage pest species.

The presence of snails and slugs can be detected us ing a variety of inexpensive and easily constructed traps. Inverted flower pots baited with grain or metaldehyde pellets, boards placed on the ground, and pitfall traps baited with beer or milk have all been used with some success (Capinera, 2001; Pirone, 1978; Symondson, 1996). Board traps are useful monitoring tool s that also provide refugia for natural predators, like centipedes and ground beetles (Symondson, 1996). Th e rim of baited pitfall traps should be 1-2 cm above the soil line to avoid killing ground-dwelling beneficial arthropods (Sym ondson, 1996). In addition to providing a useful monitoring tool, pitfall traps can effectively reduce snail and slug populations when they are placed about a meter apart (Symondson, 1996).

Any cultural control that redu ces the favorability of the cultivated environment for snail and slug colonization or actively seeks to reduce snail and slug populations should be employed. This includes regular tilling of soil, ensuring that soil is properly dr ained, controlling weeds, removing crop debris, the use of barriers, and collecting snails and slugs by hand (Capinera, 2001; Pirone, 1978; Symondson, 1996). Snails and slugs are attracted to heavy wet soils, especially for oviposition (Capinera, 2001; Symondson, 1996). Regular tilling and proper drainage makes soil s less attractive to snail and slug populations (Capinera, 2001; Symondson, 1996). Tilling may also kill dormant snails and slugs and expose them and their eggs to natural predators (Pirone, 1978; Symond son, 1996). Weeds and crop debris act as refugia for snails and slugs, so they should be removed from the plantation (Coto and Saunders, 1987; Symondson, 1996). Agricultural debris is actually used in Costa Rica as a trap for the slug Diplosolenodes occidentalis (Coto and Saunders, 1987). Physical barriers of ash, copper, diatomaceous earth, egg shells, and sand may keep snails and slugs away from valuable plants (Capinera, 2001; Symondson, 1996). Finally, collecting snails and slugs at night by hand and killing them with salt or in boiling water can successfully reduce their populations (Symondson, 1996).

Aluminum sulfate, copper sulfate, metaldehyde, and methiocarb are all used for snail and slug control (Capinera, 2001; Pirone, 1978; Symondson, 1996). Me taldehyde, unlike aluminum and copper sulfate, does not affect plant growth, and it is effective against most mollusks (Symondson, 1996). Metaldehyde pellets typically attract mollusks, but they should be sp read thinly over an infested area to avoid repelling these organisms (Symondson, 1996). In addition to chemic al control, a biological control program may be initiated (Symondson, 1996).



### 3.8. Caldwelliola reservata, Oncometopia clarior (Cicadellidae), Ancistrocercus circumdatus , Erioloides consobrinus, Neoconocephalus affinis 

### (Tettigoniidae)

In addition to the Cicadellidae and Tettigoniidae speci es identified in this risk assessment, since 1984, over 7,000 pests belonging to these tw o familes have been intercepted on Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica (PestID, 2010, Appendix A). More than 5,000 intercep tions were undetermined species within the family Ciccadellidae, and more than 2,000 interceptions were unknown individuals within the family Tettigoniidae. The interceptions comprised mostly eggs of these pests and most interceptions have been made from the leaves of Dracaena plants. Although pests identified to higher taxa (above species level) are not usually considered for further analysis (I PPC, 2007: ISPM #2), it is necessary to reduce the large number of interceptions of these pests (eggs, adults, a nd immature stages) with the commodity in future shipments. The possibility of introduction of a quaran tine pest belonging to any of these identified speciesPest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 41 within these families seems high. Th erefore, in this section we recommend mitigation options for these families.

Management strategies are poorly defined or non-ex istent for many Orthoptera (Capinera, 2001). A typical integrated pest management program that re lies on monitoring, cultural and chemical controls is therefore recommended.

Visual inspection of the crop and nearby weedy areas is the only method available to detect orthopteran pest populations (Capinera, 2001). It is essential to identify all collected specime ns to the specific level because many of the Orthoptera that occur in and around crops are not pests (Capinera, 2001). Land management is the most important element of an orthopteran pest control program (Capinera, 2001). Large patches of weedy vegetation that include a mixture of annual and perennial grasses favor orthopteran survival (Capinera, 2001). These areas should, therefore, be eliminated. Tillage is an effective method to remove weeds because it destroys the eggs of some pest species (Capinera, 2001). Tillage does not, however, remove eggs from the edges of fields, irrigation ditches, and roadways, which are favorite oviposition sites for some Orthoptera (Capinera, 2001). Ph ysical barriers, like netting, have been used, but Orthoptera can chew through nets that are not cons tructed from metal screens (Capinera, 2001). Trenches with steep sides and vertical metal barriers topped with deflectors can prevent crickets from invading crops (Capinera, 2001). In addition to chemical cont rol, biological control has been used (Capinera, 2001).

Recommendations were provided after the site visit to Dracaena spp. growers in Costa Rica in 2006 (Lenis, 2006). To keep cicadellids and tettigoniids fr om entering the packinghouses and screened growing areas, the following measures could be taken: • Use appropriate screens • Enclose the area completely, avoiding gaps • Create a double-door system for entry and exit to the facility • Examine propagative material carefully prior to its introduction into the growing and packing areas • Place notices in the access doors warning pers onnel to keep doors closed at all times



## 4. Authors and Reviewers

Authors

Keith E. Colpetzer, Entomologist , USDA, APHIS, PPQ, CPHST, PERAL Guillermo Sibaja Chinchilla, Entomologist, Minist erio de Agricultura y Ganaderia, Costa Rica Walter A. Gutierrez, Ph.D., Plant Pathol ogist, USDA, APHIS, PPQ, CPHST, PERAL

Reviewers

Gary L. Cave, Ph.D., Entomologist , USDA, APHIS, PPQ, CPHST, PERALPest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 42 

## 5. Literature Cited

7 CFR § 319.37. 2010. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Subpart—Nursery Stock, Plants, Roots, Bulbs, Seeds, and Other Plant Products.60. 7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786. 2000. Plant Protection Act. 50 CFR§17.12. 2005. Endangered and threatened plants. http://vlex.com/vid/19893507. (Archived at PERAL). Anderson, R. S. 2002. The Dryophthoridae of Costa Rica and Panama: Checkli st with keys, new synonymy and descriptions of new species of Cactophagus

, Mesocordylus

, Metamasius and Rhodbaenus (Coleoptera; Curculi onoidea). Zootaxa 80:1-2. Arnett Jr., R. H., M. C. Thomas, P. E. Skelle y, and J. H. Frank. 2002. American Beetles Volume 2: Polyphaga: Scarabaeoidea th rough Curculionoidea. Pages 861. CRC Press LCC, Boca Raton, Florida. Ashlock, P. D. 1975. Toward a Classification of North American Lygaeinae (HemipteraHeteroptera: Lygaeidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 48(1):27-30. Atkinson, T. H. 2009. Bark and ambrosia beetles of the southeastern U. S.: Expanded Checklist. http://www.barkbeetles.info/seus_chklist_expanded.php Last accessed: 3/23/2010. Baranowski, R. M., and J. A. Slater. 1998. The Lygaeidae of the Cayman Islands with the description of a new species of Ochrimnus (Hemiptera). Florida Entomologist 81(1):75- 92. Barber, H. G. 1910. Some Mexican Hemiptera-He teroptera New to the Fauna of the United States. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 18:34-39. Barker, K. R., G. A. Pederson, and G. L. Windham. 1998. Plant and Nematode Interactions. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin. Barker, M. G. (ed.). 2002. Mollusc a as crop pest. CABI publishing. Barr, M. E. 2009. A nomenclator of Loculoascomy cetous fungi from the Pacific Northwest. . North American Fungi 4(1):1-94. Barrientos, Z. 1998. Life histor y of the terrestrial snail Ovachlamys fulgens (Stylommatophora: Helicarionidae) under laboratory conditions. Re vista de Biologia Tropical 46(2):369-384. Barrientos, Z. 1999. Population dynamics and spa tial distribution of th e terrestrial snail Ovachlamys fulgens (Stylommatophora: Helicarionidae) in a tropical environment. Rev. Biol. Trop. 48(1):71-87. Barrientos, Z. 2003. Lista de Especies de Moluscos Terrestres (Archaeogastroda, Mesogastropoda, Archaeopulmonata, Stylommat ophora, Soleolifera) Informadas para Costa Rica. Rev. Biol. Trop. 51(3):293-304. Barrientos, Z. 2004. Letter from Zaidett Barrient os 29 June 2004. On file with USDA, APHIS, PPQ, CPHST, PERAL. Raleigh, North Carolina Personal comm unication to C. Sanabria on from Beaver, R. A. 1976. The biology of Samoan bark a nd ambrosia beetles (Col eoptera, Scolytidae and Platypodidae). Bull. ent. Res. 65:531-548. Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 2001. ScaleNet. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/ scalenet/scalenet.htm Bittenbender, H. C., and H. Hirae. 1990. Common problems of macadamia in Hawaii University of Hawaii, Manoa, Hawaii.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 43 Blackman, R. L., and V. F. Eastop. 2000. Aphids on the World ́s Crops. An identification and Information Guide. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. , West Sussex. 466 pp. Blackmer, J., J. R. Hagler, G. S. Sommons, and L. A. Caña. 2004. Comparative Dispersal of Homalodisca coagulata and Homalodisca liturata (Homoptera: Cicadellidae). . Environmental Entomol ogy. 33(1): 88-99 33(1):88-89. Bolland, H. R., J. Gutierrez, and C. H. W. Flech tmann. 1998. World catalogue of the spider mite family (Acari: Tetranychidae). Bril l, Leiden - Boston - Koln. 392 pp. Borror, D. J., C. A. Triplehorn, and N. F. J ohnson. 1989. An introduction to the study of insects (6th ed.). Harcourt Brace College Pub lishers, Fort Worth, Texas, U.S.A. Bradbury, J. F. 1986. Guide to Pl ant Pathogenic Bacteria. CAB International Mycological Institute, Kew - Surrey. Branson, B. A. 1980. The recent Gastropoda of Oklahoma, Part VIII: The slug families Limacidae, Arionidae, Veronicellidae and Philomycidae. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science 60 29-35. Bright, D. E., and R. E. Skidmore. 1997. A Cata log of Scolytidae and Pl atypodidae (Coleoptera), Supplement 1 (1990-1994). NRC Research Press, Ontario, Canada. 368 pp. Brown Jr., W. L. 1981. Preliminary Contributions toward a Revision of the Ant Genus Pheidole (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Part I Journa l of the Kansas Entomological Society 54(3):523-530. BSCIT. 2010. California Moth Specimens Da tabase. Biodiversity Sciences Technology (BSCIT). Berkeley Natural History Museum s at UC Berkeley. (Archived at PERAL). BugGuide. 2010a. Brentus anchorago . Iowa State University Entomology. http://bugguide.net/node/view/199513?pr intable=1. (Archived at PERAL). BugGuide. 2010b. Melacoryphus lateralis . Iowa State University Entomology. http://bugguide.net/node/view/77763?pri ntable=1. (Archived at PERAL). BugGuide. 2010c. Oncometopia clario r. Iowa State University Entomology. http://bugguide.net/node/view/115216?prin table=1 8/ (Archived at PERAL). Bullock, R. C. 1989. Split aldicarb application fo r pest suppresion on navel orange trees in Florida. Proceeding of the Florida State Horticulture Society 102:41-44. Burke, H. R., J. A. Jackman, and M. Rose. 1994. Insects associated with woody ornamental plants in Texas. Texas A&M University. Te xas Agricultural Extension Service and the Texas. Caballero, R., J. W. Thome, K. L. Andrew s, and A. Rueda. 1991. Babosas de Honduras (Soleolifera: Veronicellidae): Biología, ecología, distribuci ón, descripción, importancia económica, y claves para su identificación. CEIBA 32(2). CABI. 2007. Crop Protection Comp endium. Commonwealth Agricult ural Bureau International (CABI), Wallingford, UK. CABI. 2010. Crop Protection Comp endium. Commonwealth Agricult ural Bureau International (CABI), Wallingford, UK. http://www.cabi.org/cpc/. Canfield, M. S., and W. J. Wrenn. 2009. Tyr ophagus putrescentiae mites grown in dog food cultures and the effect mould growth has on mite survival and reproduction. Veterinary Dermatology 21:58-63. Capinera, J. L. 2001. Handbook of Vegetable Pe sts. Academic Press, San Diego. 729 pp. Caripest. n.d. Chaetanaphothrips signipennis . Caribbean Pest Information Network. (Archived at PERAL).Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 44 Caswell-Chen, E. P., and B. B. Westerdahl. 200 3. Nemabase University of California. Davis, California, Davis, California. Chapin, J. W., T. H. Sanders, L. O. Dean, K. W. Hendrix, and J. S. Thomas. 2006. Effect of Feeding by a Burrower Bug, Pangaeus bilineatus (Say) (Heteroptera : Cydnidae), on Peanut Flavor and Oil Quality'. Journa l of Entomological Science 41(1):33-39. Chase, A. R. 1987. Compendium of Ornamental Foliage Plant Diseases. The American Phytopathological Societ y, St. Paul, Minnesota. Chen, J., R. J. Henny, and D. B. McConnell. 2002. Development of new foliage plant cultivars. Pages 466-472 in J. Janick and A. Whipkey, (eds.). Trends in New Crops and New Uses. ASHS Press, Alexandria, V.A. Cibrián Tovar, D., J. T. Méndez Montiel, R. Campos Bolaños, H. O. Yates III, and J. E. Flores Lara. 1995. Forest Insects of Mexico. Un iversidad Autónoma Chanpingo, Chanpingo, Mexico. COL. 2008. A ncistrocercus circumdatus . Catalogue of Life : 2008 Annual Checklist.http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annualchecklist/2008/show_species _details.php?r ecord_id=... Constantino, R. 2000. On-Line Catalog of the Li ving termites of the New World. Universidade de Brasília. Last accessed Coto, D. A., and J. L. Saunders. 2001. Insectos plaga de la guanábana ( Annona muricata ) en Costa Rica. Revista Manejo Integrado de Plagas 61. Coto, T. D., and J. L. Saunders. 1987. Biologi a y Conportamiento de las Babosas en el Laboratorio y su Medio Am biente. CEIBA 28(2):179-192. Cowie, R. H. 2000. New records of alien land sna ils and slugs in the Ha waiian Islands. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 64:51-53. Cox, J. M. 1989. The mealybug genus Planococcus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natur al History) 58(1):1-78. Daane, K. M., and W. J. Bentley. 2003. Meal ybug ID and General Biology University of California, Parlier, California. Last ac cessed http://vinemealybug.uckac.edu/ID-biologydamage.htm. Davidowitz, G. 2010. Grasshoppers. Arizona-Son ora Desert Museum (Tucson, Arizona). http://www.desertmuseum.org/books/nhsd_grasshopper_new.html. Deisler, J. E., and L. A. Stange. 1984. The Veronicellid Slugs of Fl orida. (Gasteropoda: Veronicellidae). Entomology Circular No. 261. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service. Divi sion of Plant Industry. Delfinado, M. D. 1976. Terrestrial Mites of New York. V- Tarsonemidae. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 84(4):255-274. DeNeve, B. 1999. Hawaiian Dracaenas . Sunborne Nursery, San Fran cisco, California. Last accessed http://www.sunborne.com/home/hawaiian.html. Denmark, H. A., and L. S. Osborne. 1985. Chaetanaphothrips signipennis (Bagnall) in Florida (Entomology Circular No. 274). Florida Depa rtment of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Dobbs, T. T., and J. Brambilla. 2004. Paragonatas divergens (Hemiptera:Rhyparochromidae):First confirmed record for Florida and the United States. Florida Entomologist 87(4):591-592. Dobbs, T. T., and T. J. Henry. 2008. Update on the stablishment of Paragonata divergens (Hemiptera:Rhyparochromidae) in Florid a. Florida Entomologist 91(3):477-478.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 45 Drees, B. M., and J. A. Jackman. 1999. Field guide to Texas insects. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston,Texas. Drees, B. M., J. A. Jackman, and M. E. Me rchant. 1994. Wood-boring insects of trees and shrubs. Texas A&M University, Coll ege Station, Texas. Last accessed http://insects.tamu.edu/exte nsion/bulletins/b-5086.html. Dreistadt, S. H. 1994. Pests of landscape trees an d shrubs: an integrated pest management guide. University of California, Davis, California. Dreistadt, S. H., and P. A. Phillips. 2001. Thrips (Pest Notes No. 7429). University of California, Davis, California. Driesler, J. E. 2008. Tree Snails (of Florida), Drymaeus

, Orthalicus

, Liguus spp. (Gastropoda: Bulimulidae. EENY-148. DPI Entomology Circular 246. Eger II, J. E. 1978. Revision of the Genus Loxa (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Journal of the New York Entomological Society 86(3):224-259. EPPO. 1997. Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. dieffenbachiae in D. G. M. M. Smith, P.R. Scott, and M. Holderness (Eds.), (ed.). Quaran tine Pests for Europe, 2nd Edition. CAB International, Walli ngford, United Kingdom. EPPO. 2001. EPPO report on notifications of no n-compliance (detection of regulated pests). European Plant Protection Organiza tion, Paris, France. Last accessed http://www.eppo.org/PUBLICATIONS/EPPO_DOCS/eppo_docs.html. Farr, D. F., and A. Y. Rossman. 2010. Fungal Databases, Systematic Botany & Mycology Laboratory, USDA, ARS. Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Last accessed http: //nt.ars-grin.gov/f ungaldatabases/. Ferguson, D. C., C. E. Harp, P. A. Opler, R. S. Peigler, M. Pogue, J. A. Powell, and M. J. Smith. 1999. Moths of North America (Version 12DEC2003). Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Last accessed January 2006, http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/d istr/lepid/moths/mothsusa.htm. Ferris, H. 1999. Nemaplex. University of Ca lifornia, Davis, Calif ornia. Last accessed http://plpnemweb.ucdavis.edu/ nemaplex/Uppermnus/topmnu.htm. Figueroa Potes, A. 1977. Insectos y Acarinos de Colombia. Graficas Fénix, Cali, Colombia. Frank, B. 2010. Jacksonville Shells. http://www. jaxshells.org/index.html. last accessed 5/5/2010. www.jacksonvilleshells.or g. . (Archived at PERAL). Frost, S. W. 1964. Insects taken in light trap s at the Archbold Biologi cal Station, Highlands County, Florida. Florida Entomologist 47(2):129-161. FUNET. 2010. Chrysodeixis. Finnish research and educatio n network and service provider (FUNET)http://ftp.funet.fi/index/Tree_of_life/insecta/lepidoptera/ditrysia/noctuoidea/noc tuidae/plusii... Last accessed 3/3/2010. Gangwere, S. K., M. C. Muralirangan, and M. Muralirangan (eds.). 1997. The Bionomics of Grasshoppers, Katydids and Thei r Kin, Wallingford, United Kingdom. Garita-Cambronero, J., W. Villalobos, C. Godoy, and C. Rivera. 2008. Diversidad de Cicadélidos y Clastoptéridos (Hemiptera) en Tres Zonas Productoras de Café Afectadas

por Xylella fastidiosa Wells et al. en Cost a Rica. Neotropical En tomology 37(4):436-448. GBIF. 2010a. Erioloides consobrinus. Global Biodiversity Inform ation Facility (GBIF). Biodiversity occurrence data pr ovided by: Field Museum of Natural History, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of Washingt on Burke Museum, and University of Turku (Accessed through GBIF Data Po rtal, data.gbif.org, 2010-03-04).Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 46 GBIF. 2010b. Lirometopum coronatum. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) Biodiversity occurrence data pr ovided by: Field Museum of Natural History, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of Washingt on Burke Museum, and University of Turku (Accessed through GBIF Data Po rtal, data.gbif.org, 2010-03-04). GBIF. 2010c. Melacoryphus lateralis. Global Biodiversity Inform ation Facility (GBIF). Biodiversity occurrence data pr ovided by: Field Museum of Natural History, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of Washingt on Burke Museum, and University of Turku (Accessed through GBIF Data Po rtal, data.gbif.org, 2010-04-22). GISD. 2010. Tapinoma melanocephalum (insect). Global Invasive Species Database (GISD). Compiled by: National Biological Informa tion Infrastructure (NBII) & IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG). (Archived at PERAL). Godan, D. 1983. Pest Slugs and Snails . Pages 135. Springer-Verlag, New York. Gonzalez, M. 2003. Report on the Evaluation of Cargo Areas and Cargo Airplanes. USDA, APHIS, International Services. San Jose, Costa Rica. Granara de Willink, M. C. 1991. Cochinillas harinos as de importancia ec onómica encontradas en la Argentina: actualización sistemática y nue va lista de hospederos. Boletín de la Académia Nacional de Ciencias de Córdova, Argentina 59(3-4): 259-271. Gunn, C. R., and C. A. Ritchie. 1982. 1982 Repor t of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Exotic Noxious Weeds: Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act. 335 pp. Gurney, A. B. 1959. New records of Orthoptera and Dermaptera from the United States. The Florida Entomologist 42(2):75-80. Gush, T. J., B. L. Bentley, G. D. Prestwich, and B. L. Thorne. 1985. Chemical variation in defensive secretions of four species of Nasutitermes Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 13(3):329-336. Halbert, S. E. 1997. TRI-OLOGY 36(2) Entomol gy Section. Department of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Servivces. Halbert, S. E. 1998. TRI-OLOGY 37(5) Entomol gy Section. Department of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Servivces. Halbert, S. E. 2000. TRI-OLOGY 39(4) Entomol gy Section. Department of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Servivces. Hamon, A. B., and M. J. Williams. 1984. Arthr opods of Florida and Neighboring Land Areas. The Soft Scale Insects of Florida (Homopt era: Coccoidea: Coccidae), 11. Gainesville, FL: Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Serv ices, Division of Plant Industry. Retrieved September 24, 2010,. Hara, A. H., R. F. L. Mau, C. M. Jacobsen, and R. Y. Niino-DuPonte. 2002. Chaetanaphothrips signipenni s. Crop Knowledge Master. University of Hawaii. Manoa, Hawaii. Available: http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/ kbase/crop/Type/BR_thrips.htm. Hausdorf, B. 2007. Revision of the American Pupisoma species (Gastropoda: Pupilloidea). Journal of Natural History, 2007; 41(21–24): 1481–1511 41(21-24):1481-1511. Holm, L. G., J. Doll, P. Holm, Juan V., and J. P. Herberger. 1997. World Weeds: Natural histories and distribut ion. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York. 1129 pp. Holm, L. G., J. V. Pancho, J. P. Herberger, and D. L. Plucknett. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. Krieger Publishing Comp any, Malabar, Florida, U.S.A. 391 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 47 Holm, L. G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biol ogy. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, U.S.A. 69 pp. IIE. 1996. Distribution Maps of Pests. No. 2. Aonidiella aurantii (Maskell). International Institute of Entomology (IIE). Wallingford, United Kingdom. INBio. 1997a. Lista de especímenes de Berecynthus hastator . In ATTA Database. Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (INBio). Santo Domingo, Costa Rica. Available: http://www.inbio.ac.cr/bims/k02/p05/ c029/o0122/f01094/g005208/s015851.htm. Last accessed 2/25/10, INBio. 1997b. Lista de especímenes de Erioloides consobrinus . In ATTA Database. Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (INBio). Sa nto Domingo, Costa Rica. Available: http://www.inbio.ac.cr/bims/k02/p05/ c029/o0114/f00918/g040678/s040679.htm. Last accessed 2/25/10, INBio. 2001. Biodiversity of Costa Rica. In ATTA Database. Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (INBio). Santo Do mingo, Costa Rica. Available: http://www.inbio.ac.cr/atta/. Inserra, R. N., N. C. Coile, S. E. Walk er, and W. W. Smith. 1999. Host status of Dracaena spp.
to Rotylenchulus reniformis . Nematology Circular (220):1-2. IPPC. 2007. International Standards for Phytosan itary Measures: 1 to 29 (2007 edition). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nati ons, Secretariat of the International Plant protection Convention (IPPC). 434 pp, Rome, Italy. ITIS. 2010. ITIS Report: Melanopleurus bistriangularis. Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS)http://www.itis.gov/se rvlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?sea rch_topic=TSN&search_value =107822 4/22/2010. Jacobsen, C. M., and A. H. Hara. 2003. Irradiation of Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) for phytosanitation of agri cultural commodities. Journal of Economic Entomology 96:1334-1339. Jeppson, L. R., H. H. Keifer, and E. Baker, W. 1975. Mites Injurious to Economic Plants. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London. 614 pp. Johnson, W. T., and H. H. Lyon. 1991. Insects that Feed on Trees and Shrubs. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York. Jordal, B. H., and L. R. Kirkendall. 1998. Ecological relationships of a guild of tropical beetles breeding in Cecropia petioles in Costa Rica. Journal of Tropical Ecology. 14: 153-176. Kalshoven, L. G. E. 1961. A study of the twig borer Xyleborus morigerus Blandford, mainly based on observations in Java. Tijdschrift Voor Entomologie 104(7):93-110. Kessing, J. L. M., and R. F. L. Mau. 1992. Conocephalus saltator . In Crop Knowledge Master. University of Hawaii. Manoa, Hawaii. Ava ilable: http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/ crop/ Type/c_salta.htm. Koike, S. T., and C. A. Wilen. 2009. Floriculture and Ornamental Nurseries. Rose (Rosa spp.). Disease Control Outlines. UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines: Floriculture and Ornamental Nurseries UC ANR Publication 3392. Kosztarab, M. 1996. Scale Insects of Northeaste rn North America: Identification, biology, and distribution. Virginia Museum of Na tural History, Martinsville. 650 pp. Kosztarab, M., and F. Kozar. 1988. Scale Insects of Central Europe. Dr. W. Junk Publishers. Boston, Massachusetts.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 48 Lee, H. G. 1975. North East Florida Terrestrial mollusks. updated 7/27/2010. http://www.jaxshells.org/checkli s.htm. (Archived at PERAL). Lenis, F. E. 2006. Clean Stock Program, Farm Visit Report. Costa Rica April17-21, 2006. Lewis, T. 1997. Thrips as Crop Pest . CAB International, Wallington. Longino, J. T., and S. Cover. 1997. Pheidole punctatissima Mayr 1870. Ants of Costa Rica. Evergreen State College. Olympia, Washi ngton. Available: http://www.evergreen.edu/ ants/genera/pheidole/SPECIES/punc tatissima/punctatissima.html. Lopez, R., and L. Salazar. 1990. Morphology of some Pratylenchus spp. (Nemata: Pratylenchidae) found in Costa Rica, as seen with the electron microscope. Agronomia Costarricense 14(2):189-195. Maes, J.-M., and C. Godoy. 1993. Catalago de los Cicadellidae (Homoptera) de Nicaragua. Revista Nicaraguense de Entomología 24:5-34. MAG-SFE. 2009 Lista de enfermedades de los culti vos agrícolas y forestales de Costa Rica, 2009. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería (MAG), Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado (SFE), Diagnostico Fitosanitario. MAG. 1991. Aspectos Técnicos sobre Cuarenta y Cinco Cultivos Agrícolas de Costa Rica. Dirección General de Investig ación y Extensión Agrícola. Mi nisterio de Agricultura y Ganadería. San José, Costa Rica. 1991. Marban, M. N., and L. Flores. 1993. Prospección f itonematológica en ornamentals de follaje de Costa Rica. Manejo Integr ado de Plagas 32(1-4). Martin, S. M. 2000. Terrestrial snails and slugs (Mollusca: Gastropoda) of Maine. Northeastern Naturalist. 77 1(33-38). Mason, D. C. M. 1981. Some significa nt interceptions. Weta 4(2):15. Mau, R. L. F., and J. L. M. Kessing. 2007. Coccus viridis ( Green). Crop Knowledge Master. University of Hawaii. Manoa, Hawaii. Available: http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/ kbase/crop/Type/c_viridi.htm. MEM. 2010. Cooperative Agriculture Pest Survey (CAPS): Pests of Expor t Concern. Mississippi Entomological Museum (MEM). Mississippi State University. Meyerdirk, D. E. 2003. Cont rol of Pacific Mealybug, Planococcus minor (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae): Environmental Assessment. USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CHPST. Mijail Pérez, A., and S. J. Adolfo López. 2003. Li stado de la malacofauna continental (Mollusca: Gastropoda) del Pacífico de Nicaragua. Intern ational Journal of Tr opical Biodiversity and Conservation 51:405-451. Miller, D. L., and M. E. Gimpel. 2001 ScaleNet, Pinnaspis buxi ( Bouché) http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/catalogs/diasp idi/Pinnaspisbuxi.htm. Last accesed 10/29/2010. Miller, S. E. 1994. Dispersal of Plant Pest into the Virgin Is lands. Florida Entomologist 77(4):520-521. Morris, G. K., and M. Beier. 1982. Song structure and description of some Costa Rican katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Transactions of the American Entomological Society 108(287):314. Munyaneza, J. E. 2003. Leafhopper identification and biology. . Pacific Northwest Vegetable Association Proceedings. pp 89-91. Nakahara, S. 1981. List of the Hawaiian Coccoidea (Homoptera: Sternorhyncha). Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 23(3):387-424.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 49 NAPIS. 2010. Bean Slug, Sarasinula plebeia . Pest Tracker-National Agricultural Pest Information System (NAPIS). http://pest.ceris.purdue.edu/searchpest .php?selectName=IGDQAVA last accessed: 4/26/2010. Naranjo-García, E., J. W. Willibaldo Thomé, and J. Castillejo. 2007. A review of the Veronicellidae from Mexico (Gastropoda: Soleolifera). Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 78:41-50. Naskrecki, P. 2000. Katydids of Costa Rica, Volu me 1: Systematics and Bioacoustics of the Cone-Head Katydids. Orthopterists' So ciety. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Neck, R. W. 1990. Differential freeze-related mo rtality in feral populations of introduced veronicellid slugs in extreme southern Texa s. Southwestern Naturalist 35(1):94-95. Nickerson, J. C., and C. L. Bloomcamp. 2009. Ghost ant - Tapinoma melanocephalum . EENY310, DPI Entomology Circular 307. NRCS. 2009. The PLANTS Database. United Stat es Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), The National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov/. (Archived at PERAL). NRCS. 2010. Threatened & Endangere d. Protected Plants for All Sc ientific Names. United Staes Deparment of Agriculture and National Re source and conservation service (USDANRCS). (Archived at PERAL). Nuessly, G., and R. Nagata. n.d. Rusty Plum Aphid, Hysteroneura setariae , on Seashore Paspalum Turfgrass. niversity of Florida. IFAS. O'Brien, C. W., and G. J. Wibmer. 1982. Annotat ed Checklist of the Weevils (Curculionidae sensu lato ) of North America, Central America, and the West Indies (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). The American Entomological Institute, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Oliver, J. B., and C. M. Mannion. 2001. Ambrosia beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) species attacking chestnut and captured in et hanol-baited traps in middle Tennessee. Environmental Entomology 30(5):909-918. Osborne, L. S. 2000. Mealybugs. University of Florida. Apoka, Florida. Available: http://mrec.ifas.ufl.edu/lso/Mealybugs.htm. Palm, M. 2004. E-mail from Mary Palm to Keith Colpetzer dated 19 August 2004. On file with USDA, APHIS, PPQ, CPHST, PERA L, Raleigh, North Carolina. Peck, S. B., and M. C. Thomas. 1998. A Distributi onal Checklist of the Be etles (Coleoptera) of Florida. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Gainesville. PestID. 2010. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/l ogin.jsp. (Archived at PERAL). Pilsbry, H. A. 1948. Land Mollusca of North Ameri ca (North of Mexico). Wichersham Printing Company. Lancaster Pensylvania, U. S. pp 1086. Pinese, B. 1987. Chlorpyrifos-impregnated bunch cove rs and insecticides control banana rust thrips. Queensland Journal of Agricultur al and Animal Sciences 44(2):113-116. Pirone, P. P. 1978. Diseases and Pests of Orname ntal Plants. A Wiley-In terscience Publication, John Wiley &Sons, New York. 566 pp. Poole, R. T., A. R. Chase, and L. S. Osborne. 2003. Dracaena Production Guide. Central Florida Research and Education Center. Apopka, Florid a. Available; http: //mrec.ifas.ufl.edu/ Foliage/folnotes/d racaena.htm.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 50 Poole, R. W., and P. Gentili (eds.). 1997. Nomina Insecta Nearctica: a check list of the insects of North America. Volume 4 (non-holometabol ous orders). Entomological Information Services, Rockville, MD. . PPDC. 2006. 2006 Annual Report. Pathogens of tr ees and other woody hosts identified. Plant Pest Diagnostic Center (PPDC). California pe st Diagnostic center. PPQ. 2000. Guidelines for pathway-initiated pest risk assessments, version 5.02. in R. USDA APHIS PPQ, MD, ed. PPQ. 2004. Quantitative Analysis of Insect Pest Ri sks from the International Cargo Aircraft Pathway to Miami. USDA, APHIS, PPQ, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, Raleigh, NC. Prasher, D., J. Molongoski, P. Welder, and D. Robinson. 2002. Identification of mollusk taxa at U.S. ports of entry: Help from molecular biology. pp. 87. In R.T. Dillon Jr. (Ed.) Abstracts of the 68th Meeting of the Ameri can Malacological Soci ety. Charleston, South Carolina. Protecnet. 2010. Listado de plagas (insectos y acaraos) en culti vos de importancia económica en en Costa Rica (P). Diagnostico Fitosanita rio. Dirección de Servicios de Fitoprotección Fitosanitaria. http://www .protecnet.go.cr/SFE/laborator ios/plagcul/cultivop.htm. Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically Important Forei gn Weeds. Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture., U.S.A. 746 pp. Rider, D. A. 2009. Pentatomoidea Species Collec ted at Lights. North Dakota State University. Robinson, D. 2004. E-mail from David Robinson to Ke ith Colpetzer, dated 09 July 2004. On file with USDA, APHIS, PPQ, CPHST, PERAL. Raleigh, North Carolina. Robinson, D. G. 2003. Invasive Mollusk Survey of Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, Florida June 2003. Division of Plant Industry; Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Rojas, L., C. Godoy, P. Hanson, and L. Hilje. 2001. A survey of homopteran species (Auchenorrhyncha) from coffee shrubs and poró and laurel trees in shaded coffee plantations, in Turrialba, Costa Rica. Rev. Biol. Trop. 49(3-4):1057-1065. Rosen, D. 1990. Armored Scale Insects: Their Bi ology, Natural Enemies and Control. Volume 4B. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 688 pp. Sanabria, C. 2006. Plan de Acción de Opogona sacchari (Borje). CR-SFE-PA-03-06. Versión: 01. Saunders, J. L., D. T. Coto, and A. B. S. Ki ng. 1998. Plagas Invertebrades de Cultivos Anuales Alimenticios en America Central. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigacíon y Enseñanza (CATIE). Seri Técnica. Manua l Técnico No. 29. Turrialba, Costa Rica. Savin, T., and G. K. Morris. 1999. Acoustic a nd vibratory signali ng and postcopulatory behaviour in the Costa Rican katydid Ancistrocercus circumdatus. in Annual Meeting Proceedings.Animal Bahaviour Society Me eting, Bucknell University, Lewisbourg, Pensylvania. Schedl, K. E. 1962. Scolytidae und Platypodidae Afrikas. Revista de Entomologia de Mocambique 5(2):I-II, 595-1352. Scheffrahn, R. H., J. Krecek, A. L. Szalski, and J. W. Austin. 2005. S ynonymy of Neotropical Arboreal Termites Nasutitermes corniger and N. costalis (Isoptera: Termitidae: Nasutitermitinae), with Evidence from Mor phology, Genetics, and Biogeography. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 98(3):273-281.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 51 Sibaja, G. 2004b. E-mail from Guillermo Siba ja Chinchilla to Keith Colpetzer dated 07 September 2004. On file with USDA, APHIS, PPQ, CPHST, PERAL, Raleigh, North Carolina. Sibaja, G., and C. Sanabria. 2002. Principales Plagas de Insectos, Acaros y Moluscos de Cultivos Agrícolas y Forestales de Costa Rica. Minist ero de Agricultura y Ganaderia. San José, Costa Rica. Simmonds, N. W. 1959. Bananas. Gr eat Britain. Longman Publishers. Slater, J. A., and R. M. Baranowski. 1983. The Genus Ozophora in Florida (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae). The Florida Entomologist 66(4):416-440. Snyder, R. L., K. H. Frederick-Hudson, and J. Schul. 2009. Molecular Phylogenetics of the Genus Neoconocephalus (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae) and th e Evolution of Temperate Life Histories. PLoS ONE 4(9):1-9. Solano, O. M. F., F. P. Rojas, and A. S. Q. Solís. 2002. Nemátodos Asociados a los Cultivos Agrícolas de Costa Rica. Ministero de Agri cultura y Ganaderia. San José, Costa Rica. Speiser, B. 2001. Food and feeding behaviour. Pages 259-288 in G. M. Barker, (ed.). The Biology of Terrestrial Molluscs. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. Stange, L. A. 2006. Snails and Sl ugs of Regulatory Significance to Florida. Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Servi ces, Division of Plant Industry. Stange, L. A., J. E. Deisler, and T. Fasul o. 2009. Slugs of Florida. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Divisi on of Plant Industry, and University of Florida. Stoetzel, M. B., and G. L. Mill er. 2001. Aerial feeding aphis of corn in the United States with preference to the root-feeding Aphis maidiradicis (Homoptera:Aphididae). Florida Entomologist 84:83-98. Symondson, W. 1996. Slug Control. Cardiff University. Cardiff, United Kingdom. Available: http://www.cf.ac.uk/biosi/researc h/biodiversity/staff/wocs2.html. TAMU. 2008. Tramp Ant, Tetramorium bicarinatum . Texas A&M University (TAMU), Department of Entomology, Center for Urba n & Structural Entomology. (Archived at PERAL). Taylor, R. A. J., and D. Reling. 1986. Prefe rred Wind Direction of Long-Distance Leafhopper (Empoasca fabae) Migrants and its Relevance to the Return Migration of Small Insects. ournal of Animal Ecology 55(3):1103-1114. Tenbrick, V. L., and A. H. Hara. 1992. Pinnaspis strachani (Cooley). Crop Knowledge Master. University of Hawaii. Manoa, Hawaii. Av ailable: http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/ kbase/crop/Type/p_strach.ht. Tenbrick, V. L., and A. H. Hara. 1994. Xylosandrus compactus (Eichoff). In Crop Knowledge Master. University of Hawaii. Manoa, Hawa ii. Available: http:// www.extento.hawaii.edu/ kbase/crop/Type/xylosand.htm. Thomas, M. C. 2007. Primitive Weevils of Florida (Insecta: Coleoptera: Brentidae: Brentinae). Publication # EENY-440. University of Florisa. IFAS Extension. Thompson, F. G. 2008. An Annotated Checklist a nd Bibliography of the Land and Freshwater Snails of Mexico and Central America. 903 p. Available: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/malacology/mexicocen tral-america_snail_ch ecklist/ [Online: 16 June 2008].Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 52 Tipping, C., R. F. Mizelli III, and P. C. Anderse n. 2004. Dispersal adaptation of inmature stages of three species of leafho pper (Hemipterea: Auchenorync ha:Cicadellidae). Florida Entomologist 87(3):372-379. University of California. 2010. Thrips of California. Frankliniella minuta. http://keys.lucidcentral.org/keys/v3/thrips_of_california/data/key/thysanoptera/Media/Ht ml/... Last Accessed: 3/4/2010. (Archived at PERAL). USDA-APHIS. 2007. Treatment manua l (v. July 26, 2007). Animal a nd Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. USDA. 2004. Nursery Stock Restrictions. United St ates Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Washington, D.C. 478 pp. Van Rossem, G., H. C. Burger, and L. J. W. de Goffau. 1982. Interesting infestations of insects in 1981 the Netherlands Entomologisc he Berichten Amsterdam. 4296): 84-87. VanDyk, J. 2010. Identification, Images, & Informa tion. For Insects, Spiders & Their Kin. For the United States & Canada. BugGuide.h ttp://bugguide.net/user/v iew/1?printable=1 2/26/2010. (Archived at PERAL). Vargo, D. L. 2000. Soil invertebrates of Am erican Samoa. Micronesica 33(1/2):1-10. Vasconcellos, A., and F. d. M. Moura. 2010. Wo od litter consumption by three species of
Nasutitermes termites in an area of the Atlantic Coastal Forest in northeastern Brazil. Journal of Insect Science 10(72):1-9. Villalobos Calderon, J. L., and F. Cardenas Di az. 2002. Lista de Enfermedades de Los Cultivos Agricolas de Costa Rica. Pages 1-82 in . MAG, San Jose, Costa Rica. Villalobos, C. M., J. Monge-Najera, Z. Barrien tos, and J. Franco. 1995. Life cycle and field abundance of the snail Succinea costaricana (Stylommatophora: Succ ineidae), a tropical agricultural pest. Rev. Bi ol. Trop. 43(1-3):183-188. von Marschall-Murillo, C. 2007. Protocolo de muestr eo secuencial para la evaluación de la población de plagas en la producción de Dracaena marginata

. . Walker, K. 2008. Brown coffee twig beetle ( Xylosandrus morigerus ) Pest and Diseases Image Library. updated on 5/26/2008 8:57:40 PM. Av ailable online: http://www.padil.gov.au. Walker, T. J., and M. D. Greenfield. 1983. Songs and Systematics of Caribbean Neoconocephalus (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Transactions of the American Entomological Society 109(4):357-389. Walker, T. J., and T. E. Moore. 2010. Singing Ins ects of North America. University of Florida. Gainesville, Florida. Available: h ttp://buzz.ifas.ufl. edu/index.htm. Watson, G. W. n.d. Abgrallaspis cyanophylli in S. A. Ulenberg, (ed.). Arthropods of Economic Importance - Diaspididae of the World. NLBIF Dutch national node of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). Weaver, R. E., and P. J. Anderson. 2008. Entomo lgy Section. Department of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Servivces. Weissling, T. J., R. M. Giblen-Davis, B. Cent er, R. R. Heath, and J. Pena. 2003. Oviposition by Metamasius hemipterus sericeus ( Coleoptera:Dryophtoridae: Rhynchophorinae). Florida Entomologist 86(2):174-177. Weissling, T. J., and R. M. Gib lin-Davis. 2007. Silky Cane Weevil, Metamasius hemipterus
sericeus (Oliver) (Insecta: Coleoptera: Dr yophthoridae). Publication # EENY-053. University of Florisa. IFAS Extension.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 53 White-McLean, J. A. 2011. Terrestrial Mollusc Tool: Guppya gundlachi (Pfeiffer, 1839) USDA/APHIS/PPQ Center for Plant Health Science and Te chnology and the University of Florida. [09/19/11 - < http ://idtools.org/id/mollusc >

Williams, D. J., and C. M. Granara de Willink. 1992. Mealybugs of Central and South America. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 635 pp. Williams, D. J., and G. W. Watson. 1988. The S cale Insects of the Tropical South Pacific Region: Part 2 the Mealybugs (Pseudoco ccidae). Wallingford, CABI International Institute of Entomology. Wilson, M. R., J. A. Turner, and S. H. Mc Kamey. 2009. Sharpshooter Leafhoppers of the World (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae subfamily Ci cadellinae). Amgueddfa Cymru - National Museum Wales. Available online at http://naturalhistory.museu mwales.ac.uk/Sharpshooters. Wood, S. L. 1982. The Bark and Ambrosia Beetles of North and Central America (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), a Taxonomic Monograph. Brigha m Young University, Provo, Utah. 1359 pp. Wood, S. L., and D. E. Bright, Jr. 1992. A catalog of Scolytidae and Platypodidae (Coleoptera), Part 2: Taxonomic Index Volume A. Brigham Young Univers ity, Provo, Utah. 833 pp. Woodruff, R. E., and R. M. Baranowski. 1985. Metamasius hemipterus (Linnaeus) recently established in Florida. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Entomology Circular No. 272. WSSA. 2003. Composite List of weeds. Weed Science Society of America. Last accessed http://www.wssa.net/. Zalom, F. G., M. P. Bolda, and P. A. Phillip s. 2008. Strawberry, Cyclamen Mite. UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines: Strawberry. UC ANR Publication 3468. Insects and Mites. ZipCodeZoo. 2010. Erioloides consortinus. dhttp://zipcodezoo.com/Animals/E/Erioloide s_consobrinus/ttp://z ipcodezoo.com/Animal s/E/Erioloides_consobrinus/.Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 54 

## 6. Appendices

Appendix A: Pest Interceptions on Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica

Table A1 . Pest interceptions for the period of 1984 to February 8, 2010 (PestID, 2010). Pest Host Interceptions Cutting Leaf Plant Stem Other N/A Total Abgrallaspis cyanophylli (Signoret) (Diaspididae) Dracaena sp. 0 2 2

Abgrallaspis sp. (Diaspididae) D. marginata 1 0 1 2 Acari, species of D. marginata 2 0 2

Dracaena sp. 4 0 2 6 Acrolophus sp. (Acrolophidae) D. marginata 2 0 2 Agallia sp. (Cicadellidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Agriolimax reticulatus (Müller) (Agriolimacidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 2 3

Agroiconota sp. (Chrysomelidae) D. marginata 1 0 1 Agromyzidae, species of D. marginata 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 2 0 2 Aleyrodidae, species of D. marginata 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 2 0 2 Allopeas gracile (Hutton) (Subulinidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Allopeas micra (D’Orbigny) (Subulinidae) D. deremensis 1 0 1 Alphitobius sp. (Tenebrionidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1
Alternaria sp. (Hyphomycetes) D. fragans cv 1 0 1
D. sanderiana 1 0 1 Amblyrhetus sp. (Gryllidae) Dracaena sp. 0 2 2
Anaulacomera sp. (Tettigoniidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1
Anchonus sp. (Curculionidae) D. fragrans 0 3 3 D. marginata 1 2 3

Dracaena sp. 0 1 1
Ancistrocercus circumdatus Walker (Tettigoniidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1

Anobiidae, species of Dracaena sp. 0 1 1

Anomala sp. (Scarabaeidae) D. marginata 0 3 3

Dracaena sp. 1 0 4 5 Anthophoridae, species of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1
Aonidiella orientalis (Newstead) (Diaspididae) D. marginata 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1
Aonidiella sp. (Diaspididae) D. marginata 1 0 1 Aphididae, species of D. marginata 2 0 2

Dracaena sp. 1 1 2 Aphodiinae, species of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 2 Araneae, species of D. reflexa 1 0 1Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 55 Pest Host Interceptions Cutting Leaf Plant Stem Other N/A Total Arctiidae, species of D. fragrans 1 0 1 D. marginata 2 0 1 3

Dracaena sp. 0 2 2 Arctiinae, species of (Noctuidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Ascochyta sp. (Coelomycetes) D. deremensis 1 0 1 D. fragrans 0 1 1 D. marginata 0 1 1 Ascomycete sp. Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Aspidiotus nerii Bouche. (Diaspididae) D. marginata 0 1 1 Aspidiotus sp. (Diaspididae) D. marginata 1 0 1 Asteraceae, species of D. marginata 0 1 1 Auchenorrhyncha, species of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 2 Bagisara repanda Fabricius (Noctuidae) D. marginata 0 1 1 Bagnalliella sp. (Phlaeothripidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Baridinae, species of (Curculionidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Berecynthus hastator (Fabricius) (Pentatomidae) D. marginata 1 0 1

Blapstinus sp. (Tenebrionidae) D. fragrans 1 0 1 2 D. fragrans cv. 0 1 1 D. marginata 0 3 3
D. sanderiana 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 1 2 0 8 11 Blattodea, species of D. marginata 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1
Botocudo sp. (Lygaeidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Botryosphaeria sp. (Botryosphaeriaceae) D. marginata 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Brachybaenus sp. (Gryllacrididae) D. marginata 0 1 1 Braconidae, species of D. marginata 1 0 1 Bradybaena similaris (Férrusac) (Bradybaenidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1

Brentus anchorago (Linnaeus) (Brentidae) D. marginata 0 1 1

Brentus sp. (Brentidae) D. massangeana 0 1 1 Brevipalpus sp. (Tenuipalpidae) Dracaena sp. 3 0 3 Bulimulidae, sp. of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1
Bulimulus corneus (Sowerby) (Bulimulidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1
Bulimulus sp. (Bulimulidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Caenurgia togateria Walker (Noctuidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Crabidae, sp. of D. marginata 1 1 0 2 Crabodidae, sp. of D. marginata 1 0 1 Cassidinae, species of (Chrysomelidae) D. marginata 0 1 1 Cecidomyiidae, species of Dracaena sp. 2 0 2 Cephaleuros virescens Kunze (Trentepohliaceae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1

Cerambycidae, species of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 56 Pest Host Interceptions Cutting Leaf Plant Stem Other N/A Total Ceraspis centralis Sharp (Scarabaeidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Ceraspis sp. (Scarabaeidae) D. fragrans cv. 2 0 2 D. marginata 1 0 1 2

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 2 Cercopidae, species of D. marginata 5 0 5

Dracaena sp. 2 0 2 Cercospora sp. (Hyphomycetes) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Cetoniinae, species of (Scarabaeidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Chaetanaphothrips orchidii (Moulton) (Thripidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1

Chaetanaphothrips signipennis (Bagnall) (Thripidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1

Charidotella sp. (Chrysomelidae) D. fragrans 0 1 1
Cholulu sp. (Heterogastridae) D. marginata 0 1 1 Chrysomelidae, species of D. marginata 4 0 4

Dracaena sp. 0 3 3 Chrysomphalus aoniidum (Linneaus) D. fragans 1 0 1 (Diaspididae) D. marginata 2 0 3 5

Dracaena sp. 1 7 1 13 22 Chrysomphalus dictyospermi (Morgan) (Diaspididae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1

Cicadella sp. (Cicadellidae) D. marginata 7 0 1 8

Dracaena sp. 1 0 3 4
Cicadella viridis (Linnaeus) (Cicadellidae) D. marginata 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Cicadellidae, species of D. bicolor 16 0 16
D. deremensis 4 0 1 5 D. fragrans 1 0 1 2 D. marginata 3 2353 3 4 0 189 2551 D. massangeana 3 0 3 D. reflexa 1 0 1
D. sanderiana 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 8 2366 8 2 1 268 2653
D. warneckii 1 0 1 Cicadellinae, species of (Cicadellidae) D. marginata 1 0 1 Cicadellini, species of (Cicadellidae) D. marginata 0 1 1 Cicadidae, species of D. marginata 2 0 2 Cixiidae, species of D. warneckii 1 0 1 Cladosporium sp. (Hyphomycetes) D. marginata 0 1 1
D. sanderiana 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Clinodiplosis sp. (Cecidomyiidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 57 Pest Host Interceptions Cutting Leaf Plant Stem Other N/A Total Coccidae, species of D. bicolor 1 0 1
D. deremensis 2 0 1 3 D. marginata 41 0 4 45

Dracaena sp. 21 1 0 5 27
D. warneckii 1 0 1 Coccinrllidae, species of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Coccoidea, species of D. marginata 2 0 2

Dracaena sp. 12 0 12

Cocconotus sp. (Tettigoniidae) D. marginata 0 1 1 Coccotrypes sp. (Scolytidae) D. marginata 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 0 3 3
Cochliobolus lunatus R. R. Nelson & Haasis (Pleosporaceae) D. fragans 1 0 1

Cochliobolus sp. Dracaena sp. 2 0 2 Colaspis sp. (Chrysomelidae) D. marginata 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 2 0 1 3 Coleoptera, species of D. fragans 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 5 1 0 5
Collaria oleosa (Distant) (Miridae) D. fragrans cv. 1 0 1 Collembola, species of Dracaena sp. 2 0 1 3 Colletotrichum crassipes (Speg.) Arx D. deremensis 1 0 1 (Coelomycetes) D. sanderiana 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 5 0 1 6
Colletotrichum dematium (Pers.:Fr.) Grove D. marginata 0 1 1 (Coelomycetes) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1
D. warneckii 1 0 1 Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Penz D. deremensis 1 0 1 & Sacc. (Coelomycetes) D. fragrans cv. 1 0 1 D. marginata 1 0 1
D. sanderiana 2 0 2

Dracaena sp. 6 0 6
Colletotrichum sp. (Coelomycetes) D. sanderiana 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 11 3 0 14 Coniothyrium dracaenae F. L. Stevens & D. fragrans cv. 1 0 1 Weedon (Coelomycetes) D. marginata 1 0 1 Coniothyrium fuckelli Sacc (Coelomycetes) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 2 Coniothyrium henriquesi (Thuem.) Tassi (Coelomycetes) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1

Coniothyrium sp. (Coelomycetes) D. fragrans 0 1 1 D. marginata 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Conocephalus sp. (Tettigoniidae) D. marginata 45 0 45

Dracaena sp. 49 1 0 2 52 Conoderus pictus (Candeze) (Elateridae) D. marginata 0 1 1Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 58 Pest Host Interceptions Cutting Leaf Plant Stem Other N/A Total Conoderus rodriguezi Candeze (Elateridae) Dracaena sp. 1 1 2
Conoderus sp. (Elateridae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1
Conoderus varians (Steinheil) (Elateridae) D. marginata 0 1 1
Conotrachelus sp. (Curculionidae) D. fragrans cv. 0 1 1 Copitarsia sp. (Noctuidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Coptotermes crassus Snyder (Rhinotermitidae) D. marginata 0 1 1

Cordyceps sp. Acomycetes Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Coreidae, species of D. marginata 12 0 2 14

Dracaena sp. 10 0 3 13 Crematogaster sp. (Formicidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Cryptocephalus sp. (Chrysomelidae) D. deremensis 1 0 1 D. marginata 0 1 1 Cryptorhynchinae, species of (Curculionidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Cryptotermes sp. (Kalotermitidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Curculionidae, species of D. fragrans 1 0 1 D. marginata 0 3 3 D. massangeana 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 3 4
Curvularia sp. (Hyphomycetes) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1

Cuscuta sp. (Convolvulaceae) D. fragrans 0 1 1 Cyclocephala amazona (Linnaeus) D. sanderiana 0 1 1 (Scarabaeidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Cyclocephala fulvipennis Burmeister (Scarabaeidae) D. marginata 0 1 1

Cyclocephala sp. (Scarabaeidae) D. marginata 0 4 4 D. massangeana 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 1 1 1 0 4 7 Cyrtoxipha sp. (Gryllidae) D. marginata 0 1 1
Dallasiellus sp. (Cydnidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1
Deroceras leave (Muller) (Agriolimacidae) D. deremensis 3 0 1 4 D. fragans cv 1 0 1 D. godseffiana 1 0 1 D. marginata 1 0 1
D. sanderiana 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 7 0 8 15
D. warneckii 0 1 1 Deroceras panormitanum (Lessona & Pollonera) (Agriolimacidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1

Deroceras sp. (Agriolimacidae) Dracaena sp. 1 2 0 2 5 Diaspididae, species of D. deremensis 16 0 16 D. fragrans 0 1 1 D. marginata 1 120 0 7 128

Dracaena sp. 179 0 25 204 Diastatidae, species of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 59 Pest Host Interceptions Cutting Leaf Plant Stem Other N/A Total Dichocysta pictioes Champion (Tingidae) D. reflexa 0 1 1 Dictyla monotropidia (Stal.) (Tingidae) D. marginata 0 1 1 Didymella sp. (Pleosporaceae) D. fragrans cv. 1 0 1 Didymosphaeria rubicola Berl D. fragans 8 0 1 9 (Didymosphaeriaceae) D. fragans cv 3 0 3

Dracaena sp. 7 0 2 9 Didymosphaeria sp. (Didymosphaeriaceae) D. fragrans 1 0 1 D. fragrans cv. 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 1 1 0 2 Diplopoda sp. Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Diplosolenodes occidentalis (Guilding) D. marginata 1 0 1 (Veronicellidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 2 Diptera, species of D. deremensis 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 2
Discula sp. Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Disonycha sp. (Chrysomelidae) D. marginata 0 1 1 Ditaphronotus sp. (Tenebrionidae) D. fragans 1 0 1 Dorylaimoides sp. (Dorylaimiae) D. fragansa 1 0 1 Drymaeus (Mesembrinus) alternans (Beck) (Bulimulidae) D. warneckii 1 0 1

Drymaeus (Mesembrinus) inusitatus (Fulton) (Bulimulidae) D. marginata 1 0 1

Drymaeus (Mesembrinus) recluzianus (Pfeiffer) (Bulimulidae) D. warneckii 1 0 1

Drymaeus (Mesembrinus) sulfureuss D. marginata 1 0 1 2 (Pfeiffer) (Bulimulidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1
D. warneckii

. 1 0 1 Drymaeus (Mesembrinus) sulfureuss D. marginata 1 0 1
citronellus (Angas) (Bulimulidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Drymaeus (Mesembrinus) transluscens (Broderip) (Bulimulidae) D. marginata 1 0 1 2

Drymaeus sp. (Bulimulidae) D. marginata 6 0 2 8

Dracaena sp. 3 0 3 6 Dyscinetus sp. (Scarabaeidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell) (Pseudococcidae) Dracaena sp. 2 2

Dysmicoccus mackenziei Beardsley (Pseudococcidae) D. marginata 1 1

Dysmicoccus sp. (Pseudococcidae) D. marginata 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Ecpantheria sp. (Arctiidae) D. marginata 0 1 1 Elateridae, species of D. marginata 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Elaterinae, species of (Elateridae) D. marginata 0 1 1
Elsinoe sp. (Elsinoaceae) D. fragrans cv. 1 0 1Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 60 Pest Host Interceptions Cutting Leaf Plant Stem Other N/A Total Empoasca sp. (Cicadellidae) D. marginata 4 0 3 7

Dracaena sp. 3 0 1 4 Entiminae, species of (Curculionidae) D. massangeana 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Epitragus sp. (Tenebrionidae) D. marginata 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1
Erioloides consobrinum (S.& P.) (Tettigoniidae) D. marginata 0 2 2

Erwinia sp. (Enterobacteriaceae) D. reflexa 0 1 1
Eubulus sp. (Curculionidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1

Euetheola sp. (Scarabaeidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Euglandina sp. (Oleacinidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 2 Euplatypus parallelus (Fabricius) (Platipodidae) D. marginata 0 1 1

Eurychilella sp. (Miridae) D. marginata 0 3 3

Dracaena sp. 0 1 1
Euschistus sp. (Pentatomidae) D. sanderiana 1 0 1 Exophthalmus jekelianus (White) D. marginata 0 1 1 (Curculionidae) D. massangeana 1 0 1 2

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Exophthalmus sp. (Curculionidae) D. marginata 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 0 1 1

Ferrisia sp. (Pseudococcidae) D. marginata 2 0 2

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell) (Pseudococcidae) D. marginata 5 0 5

Dracaena sp. 5 2 7 Flatidae, species of D. reflexa 0 1 1
Frankliniella minuta (Moulton) (Thripidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1

Frankliniella sp. (Thripidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Fulgoridae, species of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 2
Fulvus sp. (Miridae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Fusarium oxysporum Schlech (Hyphomycetes) D. warneckii 1 0 1

Fusarium sp. (Hyphomycetes) D. deremensis 0 1 1 D. fragrans cv. 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 3 0 4 7
D. warneckii 1 0 1

Fusicoccum sp. (Coelomycetes) D. reflexa 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 2 Gastrocopta sp. (Pupillidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Gelechiidae, species of D. marginata 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 2 Gelechioidea, species of Dracaena sp. 0 1 1Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 61 Pest Host Interceptions Cutting Leaf Plant Stem Other N/A Total Geometridae, species of D. marginata 1 0 1 D. massangeana 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 0 1 1

Geraeus sp. (Curculionidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Glomerella cingulata (Stoneman) D. deremensis 2 0 2 (Glomerellaceae) Dracaena sp. 3 1 0 4
Glomerella sp. (Glomerellaceae) D. fragrans 1 0 1
D. sanderiana 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 5 0 3 8 Glyphonyx sp. (Elateridae) D. marginata 1 0 1 2

Gonatocerus sp. (Mymaridae) D. marginata 0 1 1
Gonatoides sp. (Rhyparochromidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Gongrocnemis sp. (Tettigoniidae) D. marginata 1 0 1 Gracillariidae, species of D. marginata 3 0 1 4

Dracaena sp. 3 0 3 Gryllidae, species of D. fragrans 2 0 1 3 D. fragrans cv. 2 0 2 D. marginata 4 0 4 8 D. massangeana 1 0 1 D. reflexa 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 8 0 23 31 Gryllodes sigillatus (Walker, F.) (Gryllidaeae) D. marginata 1 0 1 Gryllus sp. (Gryllidae) D. fragrans 1 0 1 D. marginata 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 2 0 2 Guignardia sp. (Botryosphaeriaceae) D. deremensis 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Guppya gundlachi (Pfeiffer) (Euconulidae) D. deremensis 4 1 5 D. godseffiana

. 1 0 1 D. marginata 2 0 2 4 D. reflexa 0 1 1
D. sanderianaa 1 0 1

Dracaena sp 1 21 1 0 18 41
D. surculosa 0 1 1
D. warneckii 1 0 1 Gypona sp. (Cicadellidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Haplia fusculalis (Hampson) (Pyralidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Hemiptera, species of) D. marginata 1 0 1 2

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Hemisphaeriales, species of D. fragrans 2 0 2
Hendersonias sp. (Coelomycetes) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Hepialidae, species of D. fragrans 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 4 0 4Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 62 Pest Host Interceptions Cutting Leaf Plant Stem Other N/A Total Herminiinae, species of (Noctuidae) D. fragrans 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 0 1 1
Heterodera sp. (Heteroderidae) D. marginata 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 2 0 2 Heteropsylla sp. (Psyllidae) D. marginata 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Heteroptera, species of D. deremensis 1 0 1 D. fragrans 2 0 2 D. marginata 46 0 4 50

Dracaena sp. 29 0 3 32

Histiostoma sp. (Psyllidae) D. deremensis 1 1 Homophoeta cyanipennis octomaculata (Crotch) (Chrysomelidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1

Homoptera, species of D. deremensis 1 0 1 D. fragrans 1 0 1 2 D. marginata 22 0 2 24

Dracaena sp. 21 0 5 26 Homorocoryphus sp. (Tettigoniidae) D. marginata 1 0 1 Hoplosphyrum sp. (Gryllidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Hymenoptera, species of D. marginata 2 0 2

Dracaena sp. 3 0 3 6 Hypothenemus sp. (Scolytidae) Dracaena sp. 2 0 2 Hysterium sp. D. fragrans 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Hysteroneura setariae (Thomas) (Aphididae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Insect, species of D. marginata 1 0 1 Insecta, species of D. bicolor 1 0 1
D. deremensis 1 0 1 D. fragrans 1 1 0 2 D. marginata 51 0 4 55 D. massangeana 1 0 1
D. sanderiana 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 38 0 3 41
Ischnocodia annulus (Fabricius) (Chrysomelidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1

Isopoda, species of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Lagocheirus sp. (Cerambycidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Lasiocampidae, species of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Lasiodiplodia sp. (Coelomycetes) Dracaena sp. 1 1 Leidyula moreleti (Fischer) (Veronicellidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 63 Pest Host Interceptions Cutting Leaf Plant Stem Other N/A Total Lepidoptera, species of D. deremensis 2 0 1 3 D. fragrans 0 2 2 D. marginata 32 0 9 41
D. sanderiana 4 0 4

Dracaena sp. 48 0 11 59
D. warneckii 1 0 1 Lepidosaphes sp. (Diaspididae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Leptinaria unilamellata (D'Orbigny) (Subulinidae) Dracaena sp. 2 0 3 5

Leptosphaeria sp. (Leptosphaeriaceae) D. deremensis 1 0 1 D. marginata 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 1 1 2 Leptosphaerulina sp. (Pleosporaceae) Dracaena sp. 1 1 0 2 Lepturges sp. (Cerambicidae) D. marginata 0 1 1
Leucania latiuscula (Herrich-Shaeffer) (Noctuidae) D. marginata 0 1 1

Leucothrips sp. (Thripidae) D. marginata 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 3 0 3 Leucothyreus sp. (Scarabaeidae) D. fragrans 1 0 1
Liardettia sp. (Euconulidae) Dracaena sp. 0 2 2 Limacodidae, species of Dracaena sp. 2 1 0 3
D. surculosa 0 1 1 Lirometopum coronatum (Tettigoniidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1

Listronotus sp. (Curculionidae) D. marginata 0 1 1 Lobometopon sp. (Tenebrionidae) Dracaena sp. 0 2 2
Loxa viridis (palisot de Beauvois) (Pentatomidae) D. fragrans 0 1 1

Lycaenidae, species of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Lygaeidae, species of D. marginata 0 1 1 Lygaeoidea, species of D. deremensis 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 3 0 1 4 Lymantriidae, species of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Lymnaea sp. (Lymnaeidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Lymnaeidae, species of Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Lyonetiidae, species of D. marginata 1 0 1 Macrophoma sp. (Coelomycetes) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Margarodidae, species of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Megapenthes sp. (Elateridae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Melanocoryphus lateralis (Dallas) (Lygaeidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1

Melanopleurus bistrangularis (Say) D. marginata 2 0 5 7 (Lygaeidae) Dracaena sp. 2 1 0 2 5 Melyridae, species of D. fragrans 0 1 1 Membracidae, species of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 2 Mesocordylus sp. (Dryophthoridae) D. fragrans 0 1 1Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 64 Pest Host Interceptions Cutting Leaf Plant Stem Other N/A Total Metamasius hemipterus (Linnaeus) D. fragrans 0 1 1 (Dryophthoridae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 2 Metamasius hemipterus carbonarius (Chevrolat) (Dryophthoridae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1

Metamasius hemipterus sericeus (Olivier) (Dryophthoridae) D. marginata 0 2 2

Microsphaeropsis fuckelli (Sacc) (Coelomycetes) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1

Microsphaeropsis sp. (Coelomycetes) D. marginata 0 1 1
D. sanderiana 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 7 2 0 5 14

Mikania sp. (Asteraceae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Miridae, species of D. marginata 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 1 1 2 Mollusca, species of D. sanderiana 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 2 0 1 3
Mononchus sp. (Mononchidae) D. fragans 0 2 2 Mycosphaerella dracaenae Tass (Mycosphaerellaceae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1

Mycosphaerella sp. (Mycosphaerellaceae) D. marginata 1 1 0 2

Dracaena sp. 5 0 2 7 Myochrous sp. (Chrysomelidae) D. marginata 0 2 2 Myodocha sp. (Rhyparochromidae) D. marginata 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 2 Myrothecium roridum FR. (Mononchidae) D. marginata 0 1 1 Nasutitermes ephratae (Holmgren) D. marginata 1 0 1 (Termitidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Nasutitermes guayanae Columbicus Holmgren (Termitidae) D. marginata 1 0 1

Nasutitermes sp. (Termitidae) D. marginata 0 2 2

Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Naupactus sp. (Curculionidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Neoconocephalus affinis (Beauvois) (Tettigoniidae) D. marginata 0 1 1

Neoconocephalus sp. (Tettigoniidae) D. marginata 0 3 3

Dracaena sp. 2 1 0 3 Neopamera neotropicalis (Kirkaldy) (Rhyparochromidae) D. marginata 1 0 1

Neopamera sp. (Rhyparochromidae) D. sanderiana 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Neuroptera, species of Dracaena sp. 3 0 3 Nitidulidae, species of D. marginata 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 0 2 2Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 65 Pest Host Interceptions Cutting Leaf Plant Stem Other N/A Total Noctuidae, species of D. bicolor 1 0 1 D. marginata 83 0 5 88
D. sanderiana 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 94 1 1 0 18 114 Noctuinae, species of (Noctuidae) D. marginata 1 0 1 Notodontidae, species of Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Nysius sp. (Lygaeidae) D. fragrans 1 0 1
Ochlerus cinctus Spinola (Pentatomidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 2
Ochrimnus carnosulus (Van Duzee) (Lygaeidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1

Oecophoridae, species of D. marginata 0 1 1 Oligosita sp. (Trichogrammatidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Ophiobolus sp. D. fragrans 1 0 1 Ophiodothella sp. (Phyllachoraceae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Ophiosphaerella sp. D. fragrans 0 1 1
D. sanderiana 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Opogona sp. (Tineidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Oribatida, species of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1
Orocharis saltator Uhlu (Gryllidae) D. marginata 0 1 1
Orocharis sp. (Gryllidae) D. marginata 1 0 1 2 Orthoptera, species of D. fragrans cv. 0 1 1 D. marginata 45 0 1 46

Dracaena sp. 46 2 0 3 51 Ovachlamys fulgens (Gude) (Helicarionidae) D. deremensis 3 0 3 D. fragrans 0 1 1 D. godseffiana 3 0 3 D. marginata 11 0 1 12 D. reflexa 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 50 2 1 29 82
D. surculosa 0 1 1
D. warneckii 2 0 1 3 Oxythyrea sp. (Scarabaeidae) D. marginata 1 0 1 Ozophora concava (Distant) D. marginata 0 1 1 (Rhyparochromidae) Dracaena sp. 1 1 Ozophora sp. (Rhyparochromidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 2 Pallifera costaricensis (Mörch) D. deremensis 1 0 1 (Philomycidae) D. fragrans cv. 0 1 1 D. marginata 1 0 1 2

Dracaena sp. 9 1 0 2 12
D. warneckii 1 0 1 Pangaeus bilineatuss (Say) (Cydnidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Pangaeus piceatus Stal (Cydnidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 66 Pest Host Interceptions Cutting Leaf Plant Stem Other N/A Total Paragonatas divergens (Distant) D. fragrans 1 0 1 (Rhyparochromidae) D. marginata 0 2 rs
Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 2 Paraphaeosphaeria obtusispora (Speg.) Erikss D. marginata 4 0 1 5

(Phaeosphaeriaceae) Dracaena sp. 10 0 2 12 Paraphaeosphaeria sp. (Phaeosphaeriaceae) D. bicolor 1 0 1 D. marginata 2 0 2

Dracaena sp. 7 0 7
Paratrechina sp. (Formicidae) D. marginata 0 2 1
Paroecanthus annulatus (Scudder) (Gryllidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1

Paroecanthus sp. (Gryllidae) D. sanderiana 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1
Pediculaster sp. (Pygmephoridae) D. fragans 0 1 1
Penicillium sp. (Hyphomycetes) D. fragans 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Pentatomidae, species of D. cordyline 1 0 1
D. deremensis 4 0 4 D. fragrans 2 0 2 4 D. marginata 106 0 14 120
D. sanderiana 3 0 3

Dracaena sp. 128 1 0 21 150 Pentatomoidea, species of D. bicolor 1 0 1 D. marginata 21 0 21

Dracaena sp. 44 0 44 Pestalotiopsis sp. (Coelomycetes) Dracaena sp. 1 1 2 Phaeoseptoria sp. (Coelomycetes) D. fragrans 0 2 2 D. marginata 0 2 2
D. sanderiana 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 8 0 5 13 Phaeosphaeria sp. (Phaeosphaeriaceae) D. deremensis 1 0 1 D. marginata 1 0 1
D. sanderiana 0 2 2

Dracaena sp. 12 2 0 3 17 Pheidole punctatissima Mayr (Formicidae) D. marginata 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 0 1 1
Pheidole sp. (Formicidae) D. fragrans 1 0 1 D. marginata 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 0 2 2
Pheloconus sp. (Curculionidae) D. marginata 1 0 1
Phileurus sp. (Scarabaeidae) D. fragrans cv. 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1
Phoma draconis (Berk. Ex. Cooke) Boerema (Coelomycetes) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 67 Pest Host Interceptions Cutting Leaf Plant Stem Other N/A Total
Phoma sp. (Coelomycetes) D. deremensis 1 0 1 2 D. fragrans 0 1 1 D. fragrans cv. 1 0 1 D. marginata 1 0 1 D. massangeana 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 9 0 9 18
D. warneckii 2 0 2 Phomatospora sp. D. sanderiana 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Phomopsis dracaenae Sahni (Coelomycetes) D. fragrans 1 0 1 Phomopsis sp. (Coelomycetes) D. fragrans 1 0 2 3
D. sanderiana 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 8 4 0 4 16 Phyllachora sp. (Phyllachoraceae) D. fragrans cv. 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Phyllophaga sp. (Scarabaeidae) D. fragrans 2 0 2 D. fragrans cv. 1 0 1 D. marginata 1 0 1 2

Dracaena sp. 1 0 4 5 Phyllosticta cordylinophila P.A. Young D. marginata

. 1 0 1 (Phyllachoraceae) Dracaena sp. 0 2 2 Phyllosticta dracaenae P. Henn. D. compacta 1 0 1 (Coelomycetes) D. marginata 1 0 1 Phyllosticta sp. (Coelomycetes) Dracaena sp. 3 0 1 4 Physorhinus sp. (Elateridae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Pinnaspis aspidistrae (Signoret). D. marginata 1 0 1 (Diaspididae) Dracaena sp. 4 0 1 5 Pinnaspis buxi (Bouche). (Diaspididae) Dracaena sp. 2 0 2 Pinnaspis sp. (Diaspididae) D. marginata 8 0 1 9

Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Pinnaspis strachani (Cooley). (Diaspididae) D. marginata 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 2 1 0 3 Platyarthron chilense Thompson (Cerambycidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1

Platynota sp. (Tortricidae) D. marginata 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 2 Platypodidae, species of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 2 Platypus sp. (Platypodidae) D. fragrans 1 0 1 2

Dracaena sp. 5 0 5 Pleospora sp. (Pleosporaceae) Dracaena sp. 2 0 2 Plusiinae, species of (Noctuidae) D. marginata 1 0 1 Plutella xylostella (Linneaus) (Plutellidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 68 Pest Host Interceptions Cutting Leaf Plant Stem Other N/A Total Plutellidae, species of D. bicolor 0 1 1 D. marginata 5 0 1 6

Dracaena sp. 5 0 1 6 Praticolella griseola (Pfeiffer) (Polygyridae) D. fragrans 1 0 1 Pseudalacapsis cockerelli (Cooley) (Diaspididae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1

Pseudococcidae, species of D. cordyline 1 0 1
D. deremensis 11 0 11 D. fragrans 1 0 1 2 D. fragrans cv. 0 1 1 D. godseffiana 3 0 3 D. marginata 201 6 1 26 234
D. sanderiana 5 0 1 6

Dracaena sp. 1 228 4 8 0 54 295

D. surculosa 1 0 1
D. warneckii 1 0 1
Pseudococcus elisae Borchsenius D. marginata 1 0 1 2 (Pseudococcidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi Gimpel & D. marginata 2 0 1 3 Miller (Pseudococcidae) Dracaena sp. 4 0 4
Pseudococcus landoi (Balachowsky) D. marginata 2 0 1 3 (Pseudococcidae) Dracaena sp. 1 1 0 2 Pseudococcus longipinus (Targioni -Tozzetti) D. deremensis 3 0 3 Pseudococcidae) D. marginata 8 0 8
D. sanderiana 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 9 0 9
Pseudococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) D. fragrans 0 1 1 D. marginata 3 0 3

Dracaena sp. 1 2 1 1 0 5 Pseudomassaria, species of D. fragans cv 1 0 1 Pseudoparlatoria parlatorioides (Comstock) (Diaspididae) D. marginata 1 0 1

Pseudophyllinae, species of (Tettigoniidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Pseudoplusia includens (Walker) (Noctuidae) D. sanderiana 0 1 1
Pseudorobillarda sp. Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Psocidae, species of D. marginata 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 2 0 2 Psocoptera, species of D. marginata 3 0 1 4

Dracaena sp. 3 0 1 4 Psychidae, species of D. marginata 1 0 1 Psyllidae, species of D. marginata 0 1 1 Pterophoridae, species of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Ptinidae, species of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1
Pulvinaria sp. (Coccidae) D. marginata 1 0 1Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 69 Pest Host Interceptions Cutting Leaf Plant Stem Other N/A Total Pupisoma dioscoricola (C.B. Adams) D. deremensis 2 0 2 (Valloniidae) D. marginata 2 1 3

Dracaena sp. 2 3 5 Pyralidae, species of D. fragrans 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 1 1 0 2 Pyraustinae, species of (Crambidae) D. marginata 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 2 0 2
D. warneckii 1 0 1
Reduviidaes sp. D. marginata 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 2 0 2 4 Rhabditidae, species of (Crambidae) D. marginata 1 1 0 2 Rhabdopterus sp. (Chrysomelidae) D. marginata 0 2 2
D. sanderiana 0 1 1 Rhyparochrominae, species of (Rhyparochromidae) D. marginata 0 1 1

Rottboellia cochinchinensis (Lour.) Clayton D. deremensis 1 0 1 (Poaceae) D. marginata 1 3 1 0 10 15

Dracaena sp. 1 1 0 14 16 Saissetia coffeae (Walker) (Coccidae) D. sanderiana 0 1 1 Sarasinula plebeia (Fischer) (Veronicellidae) D. deremensis 1 0 1 D. fragrans 0 1 1 D. marginata 1 0 2 3

Dracaena sp. 5 1 0 8 14 Saturniidae, species of D. fragrans 1 0 1 Scarabaeidae, species of D. fragrans 0 1 1 Sciaridae, sp. (Coelomycetes) D. marginata 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 2 5 7 Septoria sp. (Coelomycetes) D. fragrans 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Silvanidae, species of Dracaena sp. 0 1 1
Solanum torvum Swartz (Solanaceae) D. fragrans 1 0 1 Spodoptera eridania (Cramer) (Noctuidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Spodoptera sp. (Noctuidae) D. marginata 0 1 1
Stenodontes sp. (Cerambicidae) D. fragans 0 1 1 Sternorrhyncha, species of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1
Strabala sp. (Chrysomelidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Stratiomyidae, species of D. massangeana 0 1 1
Subulina octona (Burguiere) (Subulinidae) D. marginata 2 0 2

Dracaena sp. 0 5 5 Subulinidae, species of Dracaena sp. 2 0 2

Succinea cf. costaricana Von Martens (Succineidae) Dracaena sp. 1 1 2 4Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 70 Pest Host Interceptions Cutting Leaf Plant Stem Other N/A Total

Succinea costaricana Von Martens D. deremensis 4 0 6 10 (Succineidae) D. fragrans 2 0 1 3 D. godseffiana 3 26 1 0 9 39 D. marginata 90 0 40 130 D. reflexa 0 2 2
D. sanderiana 1 0 4 5

Dracaena sp. 3 260 3 5 1 202 474
D. surculosa 2 0 2
D. warneckii 1 0 1

Succinea sp. (Succineidae) D. deremensise 0 1 1 D. fragans 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 3 1 1 5 Syrphidae, species of D. marginata 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 4 0 1 5 Tapinoma melanocephallum (Fabricius) (Formicidae) D. marginata 1 1

Tarsonemus confuses Ewing (Tarsonemidae) Dracaena sp. 1 1

Tarsonemus sp. (Tarsonemidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Tenebrionidae, species of D. marginata 1 0 1

Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Termitidae, species of D. marginata 0 2 2

Dracaena sp. 0 1 1

Tetramoriun bicarinatum (Nylander) (Formicidae) D. marginata 1 1

Tetranychidae, species of D. cordyline 3 0 3 D. marginata 14 0 2 16
D. sanderiana 3 0 3

Dracaena sp. 64 0 1 65 Tetranychus sp. (Tetranychidae) Dracaena sp. 21 1 0 1 23 Tettigidea lateralis (Say) (Tetrigidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Tettigidea sp. (Tetrigidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Tettigometridae, species of D. marginata 3 0 1 4

Dracaena sp. 1 5 1 0 4 11 Tettigoniidae, species of D. bicolor 9 0 9 D. cordyline 0 1 1
D. deremensis 5 0 5 D. fragrans 1 0 2 3 D. fragrans cv. 0 1 1 D. marginata 982 2 0 80 1064 D. massangeana 2 0 2 D. reflexa 5 0 5
D. sanderiana 5 0 5

Dracaena sp. 1 1026 4 1 0 86 1118
D. warneckii 1 0 1Pest Risk Assessment for Oversized Dracaena spp. from Costa Rica



### Ver. 3 September 28, 2011 71 Pest Host Interceptions Cutting Leaf Plant Stem Other N/A Total Tettigoniinae, species of (Tettigoniidae) Dracaena sp. 2 0 1 3 Thripidae, species of D. marginata 2 0 2

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Tineidae, species of D. fragrans 0 1 1 D. marginata 2 0 1 3

Dracaena sp. 1 3 0 4

Totinotus unicetosuss Froeshner (Cynidae) D. deremensis 0 1 1 Tortricidae, species of D. marginata 3 0 6 9
D. sanderiana 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 9 0 2 11 Tortricinae, species of (Tortricidae) D. marginata 1 0 1 2

Dracaena sp. 2 0 2 Ttrentepholia sp. (Chrysomelidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 Trichoptera, species of (Tortricidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1

Trullula melanchlora sp. (Chrysomelidae) Dracaena sp. 2 0 2 Typhlocybinae, species of (Cicadellidae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 2 Typophorus sp. (Chrysomelidae) D. marginata 0 1 1 Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank) D. fragrans 1 0 1 (Acaridae) Dracaena sp. 1 0 1
Valtissius sp. (Rhyparochromidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Veronicellidae, species of D. deremensis 1 0 1 D. marginata 1 0 2 3

Dracaena sp. 0 2 2 Vertiginidae, species of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1
Volutella buxi (Fr) (Berk. & Br. Acomycetes Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Xyleborus afinis Eichhof (Scolytidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1 Xyleborus ferrugineus (Fabricius) (Scolytidae) Dracaena sp. 0 1 1

Xyleborus sp. (Scolytidae) D. fragrans 0 1 1 D. marginata 0 1 1

Dracaena sp. 1 0 1 2 Zonitidae, species of Dracaena sp. 1 0 1
Zonitoides arboreus (Say) (Gastrodontidae) Dracaena sp. 2 0 3 5
Grand totals 23 9,415 38 134 14 1,548 11,172