# Importation of Tomatoes, Solanum lycopersicum , from the Economic Community of West African

States (ECOWAS) into the Continental United States

A Qualitative, Pathway-Initia ted Pest Risk Assessment

June 5, 2009

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 1017 Main Campus Drive, Suite 1550 Raleigh, NC 27606Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 ii 

### Executive Summary

In this document we assessed th e potential pest risk associated with importing tomatoes from western Africa into the Continental United States . For the purpose of this assessment, western Africa includes the member countries of the Economic Community of West African States (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Cote d’Iv oire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Se negal, Sierra Leone, and Togo). We assumed that tomatoes from ECOWAS would be subjected to standard posthar vest treatment for tomatoes; that is, thorough culling of damaged fruit and washing. Three APHI S employees confirmed during a site visit that Senegal is following these practices. We also as sumed that tomatoes would be shipped without stems and calyces. Shipment of fresh tomatoes with these appendages would increase the number of pests following the pathway and the ove rall likelihood of introduc tion for many pests.

Tomatoes can be hosts to a wide variety of arthropods and pathoge ns, although many may be uncommon under commercial production. We iden tified the following pe sts as quarantine significant pests that could be introduced into the United States via the importation of fresh commercial tomato fruit:

Organism Pest Risk Potential Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillet) (Diptera: Tephritidae) High Bactrocera invadens (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae) High Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) ( Diptera: Tephritidae) High Ceratitis rosa Karsh (Diptera: Tephritidae) High Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) High Helicoverpa assulta (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) High Leucinodes orbonalis (Guenee) (Lepidopter a: Pyralidae) High Chrysodeixis chalcites Esper (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Medium Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Hemiptera: Ps eudococcidae) Medium Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Medium

We analyzed the risks associated with these pests based on relevant internati onal standards of the International Plant Protection Co nvention and PPQ Guidelines fo r Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (USD A, 2000). We examined pest biology in the context of Consequences of Introduc tion and Likelihood of Intr oduction, and used these elements to estimate the Pest Risk Potential. All of these pests pose phytosanita ry risks to U.S. agriculture and environment. We determined that the Pest Risk Po tential for seven of the ten pests above was High. Specific phytosanitary measures are highly reco mmended because port-of-entry inspections, as a sole mitigation measure, ar e considered insufficient to safeguard the U.S. from th e introduction of these pests; additional phytosanitary measures are ne cessary to reduce risks to acceptable levels. For the Medium risk pests, specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 iii 

### Table of Contents

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

2. Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................ ............. 2 2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action ........................................................................................ 2 2.2. Assessment of the Weed Potential of Solanum lycopersicum L. ......................................... 2 2.3. Previous Risk Assessments, Current Status, and Pest Interceptions ................................... 3 2.4. Pest Categorization–Identification of Quar antine Pests and Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway............................................................................................................. ........ 3 2.5. Consequences of Introduction—Ec onomic/Environmental Importance ........................... 15 2.6. Introduction Potential.................................................................................................... ..... 29 2.7. Conclusion – Pest Risk Potential and Pests Requiring Phytosanitary Option ................... 31

3. Author & Reviewers ......................................................................................................... ........ 31

4. Literature Cited ........................................................................................................... .............. 32 5. Appendices ................................................................................................................. ............... 46 Appendix A. Pest and pathogen interceptions on tomatoes from around the world and from ECOWAS countries on all commodities at U.S. ports ............................................................. 46 Appendix B. Pest Mitigation Options ....................................................................................... 54 Appendix C. Detailed assessment procedures for Consequences of Introduction .................... 67 Appendix D. Detailed assessment proce dures for Likelihood of Introduction ......................... 69Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 1 

### 1. Introduction

This risk assessment was prepar ed by the Animal and Plant Hea lth Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The USDA has the authority to regulate fruit and vegetable imports from foreign countries into the United States under Title 7, Part 319, Section 56 of the United States Code of Federa l Regulations (7 CFR §319.56). We examined the unmitigated risks associated with importing of fresh tomatoes ( Solanum lycopersicum ) without stems and calyces into the Continental Un ited States from the Econ omic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). We assu med the fruit would be subjected to standard harvest and postharvest treatments for tomatoes (c ulling and washing), but would not be subjected to any specific pest mitigation measures (unmitigated risk). We also assumed that tomatoes would be shipped without stems and calyces. Shipment of fresh toma toes with these appendages would increase the number of pests following the pathway and the overall likelihood of introduction for many pests. In the assessment, we expressed risk in terms of High, Medium or Low, rath er than as probabilities. The details of the methodo logy and rating criteri a can be found in the Pathway-Initiate d Pest Risk Assessments: Guidelines for Qual itative Assessments, Version 5.02 (USDA, 2000).

The International Plant Protection Convention has provided a standard for conducting pest risk analyses (ISPM #11; IPPC, 2006 ). The methods used to initia te, conduct, and report this assessment, as well as the use of biological and phytosanitary terms are based on this standard. ISPM #11 describes three st ages of pest risk analys is: Stage 1, Initiation; St age 2, Risk Assessment; and Stage 3, Risk Management. This document satisfies the requirement s of Stages 1 and 2. It also partially meets the requ irements of Stage 3 by identifying various risk management options.

The IPPC (2006) defines pest risk assessment as the “evaluation of the probability of the introduction and spread of a pe st and of the associated pote ntial economic consequences.” Quarantine pest is defined as “a pest of potential eco nomic importance to th e area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled”. Thus, pest risk assessments should co nsider both the consequences and likelihood of introduction of quarantine pests.

In standard industry practice, toma toes are culled and washed (Boyette et al

. , 2007). This reduces the risk of pests and pathogens following the pathway (e.g

. , Reitz, 2006a). Three APHIS employees confirmed in a site vi sit to tomato growing facilities and packi ng houses that Senegal is following this industry pract ice (Robertson, 2007a, 2007b). Tomatoes are culled in the field at harvest and in the packinghouse by multiple worker s. Some processing facilities are automated and have machinery that automatically detects an d rejects damaged tomatoes. Tomatoes are also washed and passed over special rollers that vibrate, which helps remove debris, dry the fruit, and dislodge debris or pests (R obertson, 2007a, 2007b). In Senegal, tomatoes are grown in screenhouses that exclude many me dium- to large-sized pests, in cluding fruit flies; however, because this risk assessment was based on unmitig ated risk, we intentionally disregarded the impact of the screenhouses on reducing pest ri sk. Screenhouses as a mitigating measure are considered in Appendix B: Risk Mitigation Options.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 2 

### 2. Risk Assessment

2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action

The USDA developed this risk assessment in re sponse to a request by Senegal for a permit to import tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum ) into the Continental United States, but all member countries of the Economic Community of West Af rican States (ECOWAS) were considered in the risk assessment, both to avoid duplication of work for each country and to ensure that the pest list was comprehensive. The ECOWAS coun tries include Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde Islands, Cote d’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo.

2.2. Assessment of the Weed Potential of Solanum lycopersicum L.

We assessed the weed potential of tomatoes below (Table 1).

Table 1 . Process for determining the weediness potential of Solanum lycopersicum (Solanaceae)

Common Name: Tomato (ARS, 2006) Synonyms: Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.; Lycopersicon lycopersicon (L.) H. Karst. , L. pyriforme Dunal (ARS, 2006; Marshall et al

. , 2001)

Phase 1: Distribution in the Continental United States: Solanum lycopersicum is native to Central and South Amer ica and has become established in the Continental United States, wher e it is widely cultivated (ARS, 2006; NRCS, 2006). Phase 2: Invasive / Weed St atus: Listing as weed

No (7 CFR § 360, 2006; Gunn and Ritchie, 1988; Holm et al

. , 1997; Holm et al

. , 1977; Reed, 1977; Skinner et al

. , 2007; Swearingen, 2005; Weber, 2003; WSSA, 2006) Yes A Global Compendium of Weeds (Randall, 2007). Yes A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds (Holm et al

. , 1979) Phase 3: Summary and Conclusions: Solanum lycopersicum has escaped from cultivation and naturalized in several countries, including Australia, New Zealand, the United States, the United Kingdom, Finland, Thailand and the Galapagos Islands (Holm et al

. , 1979; Randall, 2007); however, literature sources do not descri be the type of impacts or the severity of the invasio n. Tomato is likely just a casual alien and escape from fields and private gardens. Within the United States, tomato is widely cultivated and na turalized across most of the country (NRCS, 2006). Importation of fresh toma toes from West Africa is highly unlikely to change its status in the Unite d States. Furthermore, it is not listed as a Federal Noxious Weed (7 CFR § 360, 2006). Therefore, it is recommended that fresh fruits of Solanum lycopersicum be considered for import following an appropriate pest risk assessment. Conclusion Proceed with the pest risk assessment.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 3 2.3. Previous Risk Assessments, Current Status, and Pest Interceptions

2.3.1. Decision History for Solanum lycopersicum from Africa APHIS has completed two pest ri sk analyses for importation of S. lycopersicum from Senegal, one in 1986 (APHIS, 1986) and another in 1991 (A PHIS, 1991). The 1986 analysis identified the fruit fly Dacus ciliatus , for which there was no approved treatment. The assessment identified two additional internal feeding pests: Leucinodes orbonalis (Pyralidae), which attacks tomatoes, and Ceratitis capitata (Tephritidae), which rarely attack s tomatoes. The other quarantine pests identified were Acanthocoris fasciculatus (Coreidae), Helicoverpa armigera and H. assulta (Noctuidae), and Spodoptera littoralis (Noctuidae).

The 1991 analysis identified Dacus ciliatus [ Bactrocera ciliatus ] as the chief pest of concern. It included a list of ot her pests, including Ceratitis capitata , the noctuids mentioned in the first risk assessment, and some others, notably Thaumatotibia leucotreta (= Cryptophlebia leucotreta ), the false codling moth. There wa s no treatment available for D. ciliatus . At the time of this writing no approved treatment for D. ciliatus exists, however APHIS has proposed a rule that would allow irradiation as a standard treatment for fruit flies.

2.3.2. Pest Interceptions Between 1985 and 2006, U.S. agricultural inspectors intercepted numerous pests of tomato on passenger baggage, permit cargo and on other pa thways (Appendix A; PestID, 2008). We included pests that were intercepted on tomatoes fr om any where in the world and that also occur in West Africa in the following pest list. We in cluded pests identified only to the genus level when they originated in member countries of ECOWAS; pests identified to taxonomic levels above the genus level were not included.

2.4. Pest Categorization–Identification of Quaran tine Pests and Quaranti ne Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway

2.4.1. Pest list introduction For a pest to be able to follow the pathway on commercial shipments of tomato fruit, it must remain associated with the fruit from the field wh ere it is harvested to the United States where it is consumed. A pest is generally likely to follow this pathway when it is an internal pest (e.g., a fruit fly larvae), microscopic a nd uneasily seen (e.g., a fungal pat hogen), or when it is small and relatively immobile (e.g., a scale) . There are many pests that atta ck fruit and would not remain associated with the fruit as a re sult of their size and visibility (e.g., an external caterpillar), or because they are relatively mobile and would be readily dislodged from the fruit during handling and processing (e.g., a winged insect).

Pests that have been inte rcepted by U.S. inspectors on Lycopersicon in any type of pathway (e.g., commercial shipments, passenger baggage, etc.) were in cluded in the pest list, even if they were not listed in the literatu re as a pest of tomatoes. These pest s were included because interceptions demonstrate a possible pathway for entry into the United States. Generally, not all pests that have been intercepted on tomatoes (Appendix A) ar e considered likely follow the pathway in commercial shipments because many of these fruits did not go through commercial fruit processing. Furthermore, some of the pest interc eptions that are listed in Appendix A probablyPest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 4 represent rare hitchhikers or contaminants of commercial shipments. Only interceptions that occur regularly, especially on permit cargo, are cons idered as potential to mato pests likely to follow the pathway. Intercepted pests that were identified to only the family level were not included in the pest list.

Table 2. Pests commonly associated with Solanum lycopersicum in ECOWAS countries and adjacent countries in West Africa. Pest Distribution 1 Plant part affected 2 Quarantine pest Follow pathway References

Acari: Eriophyidae Aculops lycopersici (Massee) SN US S Fl L F No Yes CABI, 2004, 2005 Acari: Tarsonemidae Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) BF CI LB LB ML NG SN US L S F Fl No Yes CABI, 2004

Acari: Tetranychidae Mononychellus tanajoa (Bondar) BF BN CI GH GU LB LB ML NR NG SL TG L S Yes No CABI, 2004

Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval) CV TG US L No No CABI, 2004

Tetranychus neocaledonicus Andre BN CM CV CI NG SN US F L No Yes Bolland et al

. , 1998; Singh et al

. , 1983 Tetranychus urticae Koch AL BN CV CI NG SL US L No No Bolland et al

. , 1998; CABI, 2004 Coleoptera: Anobiidae Stegobium paniceum (Linnaeus) SN US F R Sd No Yes CABI, 2004

Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae Chaetocnema confinis Crotch GM GH SN US R S L No No CABI, 2004 Diptera: Agromyzidae Chromatomyia horticola (Goureau) CV GM SN L S Yes No CABI, 2004

Liriomyza sativae Blanchard CM NG US L No No CABI, 2004 Liriomyza trifolii Burgess In Comstock BN CI GU NG SN US L No No CABI, 2004

Diptera: Muscidae Atherigona orientalis Schiner BF BN CV CI GH ML NR SL SN TG US L S R F No Yes CABI, 2004

1 AL = Algeria; BF = Burkina Faso; BN = Benin; CH=Chad; CI = Côte d’Ivoire; CM = Cameroon; Cosmo=Cosmopolitan;

CV = Cape Verde; FL = Florida; GH = Ghana; GM = Gambia ; GU = Guinea; LB = Liberia; ML = Mali; MT = Mauritania; NG = Nigeria; NR = Niger; PR = Puerto Rico; SL = Sier ra Leone; SN = Senegal; STP = Sao Tome & Principe; TG = Togo; US = United States; VI = Virgin Islands; WA = Western Africa
2 F = Fruits; Fl = Flower; L = Leaves; R = Roots; S = Stems; Sd = Seeds; W = whole plants (direc tly or indirectly as a result

or crown or root destruction).Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 1 Pest Distribution 1 Plant part affected 2 Quarantine pest Follow pathway References

Diptera: Phoridae Megaselia sp. NG US F Yes Yes Nwankiti, 1977 Diptera: Tephritidae Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) CI GH GM GU ML NG F Yes Yes CABI, 2004; PestID, 2008

Bactrocera invadens GH NG SN TG F Yes Yes Drew et al

. , 2005; Mansel, 2005
Bactrocera sp. CI GH GM GU ML NG SN TG F Yes Yes PestID, 2008

Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann BN BF CV CI GH GU LB ML NR NG SN SL TG F Yes Yes CABI, 2004

Ceratitis rosa Karsh [ Pterandrus rosa ] GU ML NG F Yes Yes CABI, 2004; White and Elson-Harris, 1992 Dacus ciliatus (Loew) GH, GU, NG, NR, SN, SL, TG F Yes No 3 CABI, 2004; Matanmi, 1975

Rhagoletis sp

. 4 Weidemann GH F Yes Yes Youdeowei, 2002 Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae Aleurodicus dispersus Russell BN NG TG US L F [Yes] 5 No 6 CABI, 2004 Bemisia tabaci Gennadius BF BN CV CI GM GH GU NG SL SN TG US L No No CABI, 2004

Parabemisia myricae (Kuwana) CI GH US L No No CABI, 2004

Hemiptera: Aphididae Aphis craccivora Koch BN GM GH GU LB NG SL SN TG US L S Fl No No CABI, 2004, 2005

Aphis fabae Scopoli CI NR NG US L S Fl No No CABI, 2004

3 Dacus ciliatus is a pest of cucurbits. Although it has been reported on other hosts, including tomatoes, these occurrences are

either very rare or were errors due to misidentifications (see discussion by White & El son-Harris (1992)). For example. Matanmi (in White and Elson-Harris, 1992) found no tomato damage near heavily damaged cucurbits. Thus, this pest is highly unlikely to follow the pathway. Furthermore, mitigations for other fruit fly pests of tomato should also be effective against D. ciliatus

. 4 Youdeowei (2002) lists Rhagoletis ochraspis as a pest of tomatoes in Ghana, but other authors consider this a doubtful

species name (Foote, 1981; White and Elson-Harris, 1992).
5 This pest has a limited distribution in the United States and is considered a quarantine pest (Courneya, 2006)
6 The Crop Protection Compendium lists Aleurodicus dispersus as occurring on fruit, but it typically feeds on host leaves

(CABI, 2006). This external pest is not expected to follo w the pathway on smooth tomatoes without stems and calyces. If they do occur on tomato fruit, they should be readily noticed and eliminated from the pathway during washing and packing. This pest is white and produces white floculence (C ABI, 2006) that should be easily noticed on red tomato fruit.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 2 Pest Distribution 1 Plant part affected 2 Quarantine pest Follow pathway References

Aphis gossypii Glover BF CV CI GM GU ML NR NG SL SN TG US L S Fl No No CABI, 2004

Aulacorthum solani (Kaltenbach) Cosmo L S F No No 7 CABI, 2005; PestID, 2008

Brevicoryne brassicae Linnaeus NG US L Fl No No CABI, 2005; Millar, 1994

Myzus persicae Sulzer BN CI GH NG SL US L S Fl No No CABI, 2004

Rhopalosiphum rufiabdominale (Sasaki) CI GH NG US F S R No No 8 CABI, 2005; PestID, 2008

Hemiptera: Cicadellidae Jacobiasca lybica (De Bergevin) NG SN L Yes No CABI, 2004

Hemiptera: Coccidae Pulvinaria grabhami Cockerell CV GH L Yes No Ben-Dov et al

. , 2006 Hemiptera: Diaspididae Aspidiotus destructor Signoret BN CV CI GH GU GB NG SL SN TG US F L S No Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2006; CABI, 2004

Howardia biclavis (Comstock) GH US S No No Ben-Dov et al

. , 2006 Pinnaspis aspidistrae (Signoret) STP SL US L No No Ben-Dov et al., 2006; Tenbrink and Hara, 1992a Pinnaspis buxi (Bouche) CM GH STP SL TG US L S No No Ben-Dov et al

. , 2006; Tenbrink and Hara, 1992b Pinnaspis strachani (Cooley) BN CV CI GM LB NG SL SN TG US F L S No Yes CABI, 2004; Tenbrink and Hara, 1992c

Pseudaulacaspis pentagona (Targioni Tozzetti) WA US R L S No No Ben-Dov et al

. , 2006; Branscome, 1999; CABI, 2005 Hemiptera: Lygaeidae Nysius sp. NG SN L Yes No PestID, 2008

7 This pest is reported to feed on stems and leaves (CABI, 2005). It has been inte rcepted once on tomato fruit (PestID, 2008),

but is unlikely to be regularly associated with fruit..
8 Rhopalosiphum rufiabdominale is a generally a root feeding aphid. Its association with stems is most likely with stems that

are at or near the ground. This pest was intercepted once on a tomato fruit, however, given the general below ground biology of this pest, this is likely a rare occurrence. Thus, this pest is not expected to regularly follow the pathway on tomatoes with stems from western Africa.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 3 Pest Distribution 1 Plant part affected 2 Quarantine pest Follow pathway References

Oxycarenus hyalinipennis (Costa) AL BN BF CI GH GU ML MT NR NG SN TG F Yes No 9 PestID, 2008

Hemiptera: Margarodidae Icerya aegyptiaca (Douglas) BN CI NG SN TG L S Yes No CABI, 2004

Icerya seychellarum (Westwood) SN L S Yes No 10 CABI, 2004

Hemiptera: Miridae Nesidiocoris tenuis (Reuter) Syn: Cyrtopeltis tenuis (Reuter) CV GH ML NG SL SN US L S F Fl No Yes CABI, 2004; Wheeler and Henry, 1992

Hemiptera: Ortheziidae Orthezia insignis Browne CV GH NG SL US L S Fl No No CABI, 2004

Hemiptera: Pentatomidae Nezara viridula (Linnaeus) BF BN CV CI GH GU ML NR NG SL SN TG US S F L No No 11 CABI, 2004

Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell) BF CM CV CH CI GH GU ML NR NG SN SL TG US R No No Ben-Dov et al

. , 2006

Ferrisia virgata Cock CI GH GU NG SL SN TG US L S F No Yes Ben-Dov et al

. , 2006; CABI, 2004 Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) BF BN CI GM LB NR NG SN, US L S F Fl [Yes] 12 Yes Ben-Dov et al

. , 2006; CABI, 2004

Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) BN BF CI ML NG NR SN TG US(FL) F, S, L, R Yes Yes Ben-Dov et al

. , 2006

9 Lygaeids are medium sized insects that are either brown in coloration or may have brighter colors. They are frequently

intercepted on imported flowers and fruits with recessed cavities such as guavas and pomegranates. It is unlikely that they will follow that pathway on imported tomato fruit because they would likely be noticed and eliminated from the pathway during harvest, standard washing or packing.
10 I. aegyptiaca may infest the fruit of its major hosts (CABI, 2004), but tomato is a minor host for this pest and no record has

been found for this pest on tomato.
11 Because this pest tends to damage young and immature toma toes (CABI, 2005) and is rela tively large and noticeable, it is unlikely to follow the pathway on fresh tomatoes.
12 Listed as reportable in the PestID database. It has limited distribution in the United States and is under (or being

considered) for official control.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 4 Pest Distribution 1 Plant part affected 2 Quarantine pest Follow pathway References

Phenacoccus manihoti MatileFerrero BN CI GM GH GU GB LB LB ML NG SL SN TG L S R Yes No CABI, 2004

Phenacoccus madeirensis Green WA US L S No No Ben-Dov et al

. , 2006; CABI, 2004 Phenacoccus parvus Morrison Gabon SN F L S Yes No 13 Ben-Dov et al

. , 2006; PestID, 2008 Planococcus citri (Risso) BF BN CV CI GH GU LB LB ML NR NG SL SN STP TG US L S F Fl No Yes CABI, 2004

Pseudococcus sp. CI GH NG F L S Yes Yes PestID, 2008 Hemiptera: Tingidae Urentius hystricellus (Richter) GH NR NG SN S L Yes No CABI, 2004 Hymenoptera: Formicidae Solenopsis geminata Fabricius LB US S L Fl No No CABI, 2004 Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae Gnorimoschema sp. GM US F Yes Yes Arnett Jr., 2000; PestID, 2008 Phthorimaea operculella (Zeller) SN US F L S R No Yes CABI, 2004; PestID, 2008

Lepidoptera: Noctuidae Aburina sobrina Möschler GH F Yes No 14 Forsyth, 1966 Achaea catocaloides Guenée GH F L Yes No 15 Forsyth, 1966; Maisels, 2004; Srivastava, 1973 Achaea ezea Cram GH, STP F L Yes No 15 Forsyth, 1966; Srivastava, 1973; Wojtusiak, 1996 Achaea faber Holl. GH, STP F L Yes No 15 Forsyth, 1966; Srivastava, 1973; Wojtusiak, 1996 Achaea lienardi (Boisduval) GH F L Yes No 15 Forsyth, 1966; Srivastava, 1973 Achaea mormoides Walker GH, STP F L Yes No 15 Forsyth, 1966; Srivastava, 1973; Wojtusiak, 1996 Aegoceropsis rectilinea Syn: Aegocera rectilinea Boisduval NG S L F Yes No 16 Youdeowei and Oboite, 1972; Zhang, 1994

13 P. parvus, primarily a leaf and stem pest, has no t been intercepted on tomato fruit (PestID, 2008) and is unlikely to follow

the pathway.
14 Adults pierce fruits (Forsyth, 1966). They are not expected to follow the pathway.
15 Larvae feed on leaves and adult moths pi erce the skin of ripe fruit to suck th e juice. Adult moths feed nocturnally, are

highly mobile and unlikely to be packed with fruit.
16 Aegoceropsis rectilinea has never been intercepted at a US port of entr y (PestID query July 27, 2006). Because its damage to fruit is readily noticeable, it is likely to be detected during harvest or post-harvest processing of the fruit.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 5 Pest Distribution 1 Plant part affected 2 Quarantine pest Follow pathway References

Agrotis ipsilon Hufnagel BF BN CI LB ML SN TG US F L S R No No 17 Bernal, 1994; CABI, 2004; Varela et al

. , 2003 Agrotis segetum (Denis & Schiffermuller) BN CV CI ML SN TG F L S R Yes No 17 CABI, 2004; Varela et al

. , 2003 Anomis flava Fabricius Syn: Cosmophila flava (Fabricius) BF BN CI GM GH ML NR NG SN TG US F L S No No 18 CABI, 2004; USGS, 2004; Zhang, 1994

Anomis endochlora Hmps. GH, STP F L Yes No 18 Cochereau, 1973; Forsyth, 1966; Srivastava, 1997 Anomis leona (Schaus) GH, LB F L Yes No 18 Decazy et al

. , 1985; Forsyth, 1966; Srivastava, 1997 Chrysodeixis acuta (Walker) GM GH NG SL F L S Yes No 19 CABI, 2004; Daiber, 1996; Emms and Barnett, 2005 Chrysodeixis chalcites (Esper) AL CI CM CV GM GU NG SL SN F L S Yes Yes 20 CABI, 2004; PestID, 2008

Ercheia subsignata Walker GH, STP F L Yes No 15 Forsyth, 1966; Wojtusiak, 1996 Erebus walkeri (Butler) [ Nyctipao walkeri ] GH F L Yes No 15 Cochereau, 1973; Forsyth, 1966 Eudocima fullonia (Clerck) BN CI GH GU LB LB NG SL F L Yes No 21 CABI, 2004; Cochereau, 1973; Forsyth, 1966; Zhang, 1994 Eudocima materna Linnaeus SL F Yes No 21 Zhang, 1994 Hadula trifolii Hufnagel NR US L No No CABI, 2004 Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) BF BN CV CI GM GH GU ML NR NG SL SN TG F L Fl Yes Yes CABI, 2004; Forsyth, 1966; PestID, 2008

Helicoverpa assulta (Guenée) WA Fl L Yes Yes 22 CABI, 2006

17 Agrotis species are cutworms, that typically come out of the soil and other protective areas at night to feed on young stems

or leaves (Varela et al

. , 2003). Even though they sometimes feed on fruit, they are unlikely to be as sociated with fruit when it is harvested during the day.
18 Because Anomis species tend to damage young and immature tomatoes (CABI, 2004) and are relatively large and

noticeable, they are unlik ely to follow the pathway on fresh tomatoes.
19 Chrysodeixis acuta attacks fruit, but it is not expected to follow the pathway with minimal post-harvest processing.

Caterpillars are surface feeders that chew holes in tomato fr uit but do not bore into it (Annecke and Moran, 1982). Because they are green with pale longitudinal stripes, they should be readily seen on and removed from ripe tomatoes without stems and sepals.
20 CABI (2005) reports that it does not bore into tomato fruit, bu t this pest has been intercepted on/in tomato fruit 43 times in

permit cargo at U.S. ports (PestID query, October 10, 2006).
21 Adult moths pierce tomato fruit (CABI, 2005). They are unlikely to follow the pathway.
22 Recent experimental evidence from an oviposition stud y suggests that H. assulta prefers at least several other Solanaceous

hosts over tomatoes (ChengYi et al

. , 2002). Furthermore, Wu et al. (2006) showed that H. assulta larvae did not develop on tomatoes. As Wu et al. concluded, it may be that the reports of tomato as a host for H. assulta may be due to misidentifications of H. armigera as H. assulta . However, as a precaution ary approach and because H. assulta is stillPest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 6 Pest Distribution 1 Plant part affected 2 Quarantine pest Follow pathway References

Heliophisma catocalina Holl. GH F L Yes No 15 Cochereau, 1973; Forsyth, 1966 Heliothis peltigera Denis & Schiffermuller CV L Fl Yes No Grewal et al

. , 1985; Parvin, 1990; Zhang, 1994 Mythimna unipuncta Haworth ML NR SN TG US F S No Yes CABI, 2004

Othreis divitiosa Walker GH F L Yes No 15 Cochereau, 1973; Forsyth, 1966 Othreis materna (L.) GH F L Yes No 15 Cochereau, 1973; Forsyth, 1966 Parallelia sp. GH F L Yes No 15 Cochereau, 1973; Forsyth, 1966 Serrodes partita F. GH F L Yes No 15 Forsyth, 1966; Whitehead and Rust, 1972 Serrodes trispila Mab. GH F L Yes No 15 Forsyth, 1966; Whitehead and Rust, 1972 Spodoptera exigua (Hübner) BF BN CI GH GU ML NR SN TG US F Fl L No No 23 CABI, 2004

Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval) BN BF CV CI GM GH GU ML NR NG SN SL TG L F Yes No 24 CABI, 2004; Varela et al

. , 2003

Spodoptera litura (Fabricius) [ Prodenia litura ] GH F L Fl S Yes No 25 Forsyth, 1966; Obeng-Ofori and Sackey, 2003 Spodoptera sp. GM GH ML NG SN [F Fl L S] 26 Yes No 27 PestID, 2008

Thysanoplusia orichalcea (F.) GH ML NG L F Yes No 28 CABI, 2004 Trichoplusia ni (Hübner) CV GM NG SN US L S F No No 29 CABI, 2004; PestID, 2008

considered by CABI (2006) as a major pest of tomatoes, this pest was analyzed further below.
23 Larvae are unlikely to follow the pathway on tomato fruit for the same reasons described under S. littoralis and S. litura

. 24 Spodoptera littoralis is unlikely to follow the pathway on tomatoes fo r several reasons. First, the first few instars are

unlikely to be associated with fruit because they primarily feed on leaves (CABI, 2006). Seco nd, because larger larvae and instars migrate to the soil during the daytime (CABI, 2006), they are unlikely to be harvested with the fruit. Finally, larger instars (3-4 cm; CABI, 2006), or their damage should be re adily noticed during harvest and packing, thereby elminating them from the pathway. Spodoptera littoralis has never been intercepted at U.S. ports on tomatoes (Pest ID query, May 11, 2007).
25 Spodoptera litura is unlikely to follow the pathway for several reasons. First, larvae damage tomato fruit (Patnaik, 1998)

but generally feed on host leaves (CABI, 2006). Second, because larg er larvae and instars migrate to the soil during the daytime (CABI, 2006), they are unlikely to be harvested with th e fruit. Third, larvae are unlikel y to be associated with ripe fruit because they attack green tomatoes (Schreiner, 2000). Finally, because the la rvae are relatively large (2-3 cm; CABI, 2006) and do not bore into tomato fruit, any larvae on fruit should be readily noticed during harvest and culling.
26 We assumed the association with host plant organs was similar to other Spodoptera species listed.
27 Spodoptera sp. is unlikely to follow the pathway for the same reasons listed for S. littoralis and S. litura

. 28 Because this pest feeds on the outside of fruits, it should be readily detected during harvest or post-harvest processing of

the fruit.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 7 Pest Distribution 1 Plant part affected 2 Quarantine pest Follow pathway References

Lepidoptera: Plutellidae Plutella xylostella Linnaeus SN F L Fl S Yes No 30 Bourdouxhe, 1981 Lepidoptera: Pyralidae Crocidolomia pavonana (Fabricius) [ C. binotalis (Zell.)] BF, GH, ML, NG, SN, SL F L Fl Yes No 30 CABI, 2004; Forsyth, 1966

Duponchelia fovealis Zeller SN Fl L S Yes No DEFRA, 2004; Robinson et al

. , 2005 Haritalodes derogata (Fabricius) WA L Yes No CABI, 2004

Leucinodes orbonalis Guenée CI GM GH GU NG NR SL SN F Fl L S Yes Yes 31 CABI, 2004; PestID, 2008

Maruca vitrata Fabricius Syn: M. testulalis ; Crochiphora testulalis BN CH CI CM CV GH LB ML NG NR SL SN TG F Sd Yes No 32 PestID, 2008

Ostrinia nubilalis Hubner CI NG US S L F No Yes CABI, 2005; Ewete et al

. , 1996; Marchand, 1975 Lepidoptera: Sphingidae Acherontia atropos Linnaeus Syn: Sphinx atropos Linnaeus Africa L Yes No Youssef et al

. , 1968; Zhang, 1994

Coelonia solani Boisduval Syn Sphinx solani GH L 33 Yes No 34 Forsyth, 1966

Lepidoptera: Tortricidae Thaumatotibia leucotreta Meyrick Syn: Cryptophlebia leucotreta BN BF CM CV CH CI GM GH ML NR NG SN SL TG F Yes No 35 CABI, 2005; USDA, 1984

Cryptophlebia sp. GU F Yes No 36 PestID, 2008

29 Trichoplusia ni has been intercepted on fruit (PestID, 2008), but this was likely rare because this pest is primarily a leaf

feeder (CABI, 2004); most US interceptions have been on leaves (PestID, 2008).
30 Tomato is not listed as a host (CABI, 2004).
31 Moth larvae should be readily detectable on tomatoes, but L. orbonalis is considered likely to follow the pathway because

is is an internal pest that plugs its entry holes with excret a (Frempong, 1979), thereby making it more difficult to detect.
32 Maruca vitrata is almost exclusively a pest of legumes (CABI, 2005), which are unrelated to plants in the Solanaceae

family (Order Fabales vs. Order Solanales) (Mabberley, 1987). Only one interception record identifies tomatoes as a host of M. vitrata (PestID, 2008). This intercep tion record may be a mistake or a rare event. Therefore, M. vitrata is unlikely to regularly follow the pathway on fresh tomato fruit from western Africa. If port inspectors intercept additional individuals on tomato fruit, then a risk analysis may be required.
33 Host plant organ association was assumed to be similar to that of the other Sphingidae on this pest list.
34 Probably a misidentification. We found no other records of this insect in Africa.
35 This pest has a wide host range (Gunn, 1921), but no informa tion exists that tomatoes are a natural host (see CABI, 2005).

Thaumatotibia leucotreta is associated here with tomato es because it was intercepted on tomatoes from West Africa prior to 1984 (PestID, 2008). This interception did not occur on permit cargo (USDA, 1984), so the pest may have arrived from another host (e.g., Capsicum ) during transport. Therefore, T. leucotreta is unlikely to follow the pathway on commercial quality tomatoes.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 8 Pest Distribution 1 Plant part affected 2 Quarantine pest Follow pathway References

Orthoptera: Acrididae Diabolocatantops axillaris (Thunberg) WA L Yes No CABI, 2004

Zonocerus variegatus (L.) NG L Yes No Umeh et al

. , 2002 Thysanoptera: Thripidae Ceratothripoides brunneus Bagnall CI GH NG S L Fl F Yes No 37 Frame and Durou, 2001; PestID, 2008 Frankliniella schultzei (Trybom) BF CV GM GH NR NG SN TG US (FL) L F Fl [Yes] No 38 CABI, 2006

Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood CI US L Fl F Yes No 39 CABI, 2004, 2005 Thrips palmi Karny CI NG US L F [Yes] No 40 Hirano et al

. , 1994; PestID, 2008; Reitz, 2006b Thrips tabaci (Lindeman) GH NG SN US F L Fl S No Yes CABI, 2004 FUNGI Agonomycetes Sclerotium rolfsii Saccardo WA US L R S F Fl No Yes Asiegbu, 1991; ChimaWokocha, 1987; Farr et al

. , 1989; Latunde-Dada, 1993; Ofosu-Anim et al

. , 2000 Basidiomycetes Corticium rolfsii Curzi WA US L F fl Seed No Yes CABI, 2004 Thanatephorus cucumeris (Frank) Donk CI NG SL US L S R Fl F No Yes CABI, 2004

Coelomycetes Colletotrichum capsici (Syd.) E.J. Butler & Bisby BF CI NG US L Fl F No Yes CABI, 2004

Colletotrichum coccodes (Wallr.) Hughes NG US L Fl F No Yes CABI, 2004

36 One interception record of this pest on tomatoes in persona l baggage is not considered suffi cient evidence that tomatoes are

a host; therefore this pest is unlikely to follow the pathway.
37 Limited information exists on the ecology of Ceratothripoides brunneus , however in one study it fed on pollen grains and

pollinated host trees (Frame and Durou, 2001). This pest has been intercepted 28 times (P estID query October 10, 2006), most of which have been on flowers and leaves of hosts. It seems unlikely that this thrips would follow the pathway on a regular basis on fresh tomatoes.
38 Frankliniella schultzei attacks tomato fruit, but is unlikely to follow the pathway. “In general, the adult, larval or pupal

stages of any thrips would not be likely to stay on tomatoes during postharvest/p acking. These stages are free living on the surface of plants. The typical washing proc ess for tomatoes would remove these expos ed individuals from the fruit. These particular thrips species lay eggs internally in plant tissue, so that would be the only stage that could likely remain after packing. However, when eggs are laid in fruit, it is typically done in very young fruit and is not likely to occur in mature fruit at harvest time. Therefore, the risk of eggs being pres ent in harvested fruit would be extremely low.” (Reitz, 2006a).
39 S. dorsalis primarily attacks growing points of plants, which includes le aves, shoots and young fruit. It is unlikely to remain

associated with mature fruit.
40 Thrips palmi has been observed feeding and reproducing on tomatoes, but the host suitability of tomatoes is unclear

(CABI/EPPO, 2008; Cermeli and Montagne, 1993; Denoyes et al

. , 1986; Hirano et al

. , 1994; Reitz, 2006a). Regardless, this external pest is unlikely to follow the pathway on tomatoes without stems and calyces (Reitz, 2006a).Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 9 Pest Distribution 1 Plant part affected 2 Quarantine pest Follow pathway References

Colletotrichum dematium (Pers.) Grove BF NR NG US L Fl F No Yes CABI, 2004

Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid WA US L S R Seed No No CABI, 2004

Phoma sorghina (Sacc.) Boerema et al. [ P. insidiosa ] WA US F No Yes Adisa, 1985; Farr et al

. , 1989 Phomopsis longicolla Hobbs SN US Fl F L S No Yes CABI, 2004 Septoria lycopersici Speg. CI GH GU NG WA US L No No Abang and Iloba, 2002; CABI, 2004; Farr et al

. , 1989 Discomycetes Cochliobolus lunatus R.R.

Nelson & Haasis BF BN GH NR NG US L Fl F No No 41 CABI, 2004

Didymella lycopersici Kleb. [ Phoma lycopersici (ana.)] CI NG TG US F S Seed No Yes CABI, 2004; Farr et al

. , No Date Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) De Bary NG US F L R S No Yes CABI, 2004

Hyphomycetes
Acremonium strictum W. Gams NG US L No No CABI, 2004 Alternaria alternata (Fr.: Fr.) Keissl. [ A. tenuis ] WA US Fl L S No No CABI, 2004; Farr et al

. , 1989 Alternaria brassicae (Berk.) Sacc. CI SN US L S F Fl Seed No Yes CABI, 2004

Alternaria brassicicola (Schwein.) Wiltshire GM GH GU NG SL SN US L S F Fl Seed No Yes CABI, 2004

Alternaria dauci (J.G. Kühn) J.W. Groves & Skolko GM GH GU NG US L S F Fl Seed No Yes CABI, 2004

Alternaria solani Sorauer NG US L S F No Yes CABI, 2004 Aspergillus niger Tiegh. BF CI GU NR NG US L S F Fl Seed No Yes CABI, 2004

Cercospora nicotianae Ellis & Everh. GM NG SL US L S No No CABI, 2004

Curvularia lunata (Wakker) [ Cochliobolus lunatus ] NG US L F Fl No Yes Adisa, 1985; Bankole, 1996; Farr et al

. , 1989 Fulvia fulva (Cooke) Arx [ Cladosporium fulvum = Mycovellosiella fulva ] WA US L F Fl Seed No Yes Farr et al

. , 1989; Kankam, 1972

Fusarium chlamydosporum Wollenw. & Reinking [ Fusarium fusarioides ] WA US R No No Farr et al

. , 1989 ; Wokocha et al

. , 1986

Fusarium oxysporum Schlecht. WA US L R S No No CABI, 2004

41 Fruits are not known to carry the pe st in trade/transport (CABI, 2004)Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 10 Pest Distribution 1 Plant part affected 2 Quarantine pest Follow pathway References

Fusarium acuminatum Ellis & Everh. [ Gibberella acuminata Wollenweb. (tel.)] WA US S R No No Farr et al

. , 1989 ; Wokocha et al

. , 1986

Fusarium intricans (Wollenw.) (Corda) Saccardo [ Fusarium equiseti (Corda) Sacc. (ana.)] WA US L S No No Farr et al

. , 1989 ; Wokocha et al

. , 1986

Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. lycopersici (Sacc.) Snyder & Hansen NG US R S L No Yes Erinle, 1976; Farr et al

. , 1989

Fusarium solani (Mart.) Sacc. WA US R S No No 41 Abang and Iloba, 2002; Farr et al

. , 1989; Yeboah and Opoku-Asiamah, 2004 Myrothecium roridum Tode CI GH NG SL SN US F Seed No Yes CABI, 2004

Penicillium digitatum (Pers.: Fr.) Sacc. NG US F Fl L No Yes CABI, 2004

Penicillium oxalicum Currie & Thom WA US F No Yes CABI, 2004; Farr et al

. , 1989 Pseudocercospora fuligena (Roldan) Deighton CI GM NG SN TG US L S No No CABI, 2004

Stemphylium solani Weber WA US L No No CABI, 2004; Farr et al

. , 1989 Verticillium albo-atrum Reinke & Berthold NG US L R S Seed No Yes CABI, 2004

Verticillium dahliae Kleb. NG US L R S Seed No Yes CABI, 2004 Loculoascomycetes Setosphaeria rostrata Leonard NG US L No No CABI, 2004 Oomycetes Phytophthora cactorum (Lebert & Cohn) Schröter SN US R S L F No Yes CABI, 2004

Phytophthora capsici Leonian NG US R S L F No Yes CABI, 2004 Phytophthora infestans (Mont.) De Bary GH NG US R S L F No Yes CABI, 2004

Phytophthora nicotianae Breda De Haan CI GH NG SL SN US R S L F No Yes CABI, 2004

Phytophthora palmivora var.

palmivora (Butler) Butler TG US F L S No Yes CABI, 2004; Farr et al

. , No Date Pythium aphanidermatum (Edson) Fitzp. CI GH ML NG SL SN TG US F R S No Yes CABI, 2004

Pythium deliense Meurs NG US seedling No No CABI, 2004 Pythium myriotylum Drechsler NG SL US L R Vg No No CABI, 2004 Pythium vexans De Bary LB LB NG US L R No No CABI, 2004 Pyrenomycetes Diaporthe phaseolorum (Cooke & Ell.) Sacc. GH NG SL SN US S L Seed No No 41 CABI, 2004Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 11 Pest Distribution 1 Plant part affected 2 Quarantine pest Follow pathway References

Gibberella fujikuroi (Sawada) S. Ito WA US F Fl L R S Seed No Yes CABI, 2004

Gibberella xylarioides R. Heim & Saccas [ Fusarium xylarioides (ana.)] WA L S R F Fl Seed Yes No CABI, 2004

Glomerella cingulata (Stonem.) Spauld. & Schrenk CI GH NG TG US L S F No Yes CABI, 2004

Leveillula taurica (Lév.) G. Arnaud CI GM GH GU NR NG SL SN TG US F Fl LS No Yes CABI, 2004; Farr et al

. , 1989

Nectria haematococca (Woll.) Gerlach [ Fusarium solani (ana.)] WA US L R S No No CABI, 2004; Farr et al

. , 1989

Zygomycetes Rhizopus arrhizus A. Fischer [ R. oryzae ] WA, US F No Yes Adisa, 1985; Farr et al

. , 1989 MOLLUSKA Helicidae Helix aspersa Muller GM US F L Fl S No No 42 CABI, 2004 NEMATODA Criconematidae Hemicycliophora typica de Man CM LB R Yes No Kleynhans et al

. , 1996; Lamberti et al

. , 1991; Sakwe and Geraert, 1993
Mesocriconema curvatum (Raski) Loof & De Grisse LB US R No No Kleynhans et al

. , 1996; Lamberti et al

. , 1991 Heteroderidae Globodera rostochiensis (Woll.) Behrens SL US (NY) R [Yes] No CABI, 2004; 7 CFR § 301.85 Hoplolaimidae Helicotylenchus dihystera (Cobb) Sher BF CI LB NG SN US R No No CABI, 2004

Helicotylenchus pseudorobustus (Steiner) Golden AL BN CI GM GH GU LB NG US R No No CABI, 2004, 2005

Hoplolaimus seinhorsti Luc NG R Yes No Bridge, 1973; CABI, 2004 Rotylenchulus reniformis Linford & Oliveira CM CV CI GM GH LB NG SN TG US R No No CABI, 2004

Scutellonema brachyurus Steiner NG US R No No CABI, 2004

Scutellonema bradys (Steiner & Lehew) Andrassy CI GM GH GU NG SN TG US R No No CABI, 2004

42 In fruits, the pest is borne extern ally and visible to the naked eye.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 12 Pest Distribution 1 Plant part affected 2 Quarantine pest Follow pathway References

Scutellonema cavenessi Whitehead GM NG SN R Yes No Bridge et al

. , 1978; Diop et al

. , 2000; Netscher and Mauboussin, 1973; Sakwe and Geraert, 1991 Scutellonema clathricaudatum Whitehead BF BN CI ML NR NG SL R Yes No CABI, 2004

Longidoridae Longidorus pisi Edward, Misra & Singh CI CM NG R Yes No Kleynhans et al

. , 1996

Xiphinema americanum Cobb NG US R No No CABI, 2004 Xiphinema ifacolum Luc CI GU LB LB SL R Yes No CABI, 2004

Meloidogynidae Meloidogyne arenaria (Neal) Chitwood CI GM GH LB LB NG SN US R No No CABI, 2004

Meloidogyne hapla Chitwood CI NG US R No No CABI, 2004 Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & White) Chitwood BF CI GM GH GU LB LB NR NG SN US R No No Atu et al

. , 1988; Berthou et al

. , 1989; CABI, 2004; Chindo and Khan, 1990; Dalmasso et al

. , 1991;Yeboah and OpokuAsiamah, 2004 Meloidogyne javanica (Treub) Chitwood AL CI GM GH LB LB NG SN US R No No CABI, 2004

Meloidogyne mayaguensis Rammah & Hirschmann, 1988 SN US R No No CABI, 2004

Pratylenchidae Hirschmanniella oryzae (Van Breda De Haan) Luc&Goodey CI GM GH GU NR NG SL SN US R No No CABI, 2004

Pratylenchus brachyurus (Godfrey) Filipjev & Schuurmans Stekhoven BN CI GM GU MT NG SN TG US R No No CABI, 2004

Pratylenchus penetrans (Cobb) NG US R No No CABI, 2004 Pratylenchus zeae Graham BN BF CM CI GM GH GU NG SN TG US R No No CABI, 2003, 2005; Kleynhans et al

. , 1996

Radopholus similis (Cobb) Thorne BF BN CI GM GH GU GB NG SN US R No No CABI, 2004

Trichodoridae Paratrichodorus minor (Colbran) Siddiqi BF CV CI MT NG SN US R No No CABI, 2004Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 13 Pest Distribution 1 Plant part affected 2 Quarantine pest Follow pathway References

VIRUS AND VIROIDS Beet curly top virus CI US R S L Fl F No No 41 CABI, 2004 Citrus exocortis viroid CI GH NG SL US R S L Fl F No Yes CABI, 2004

Cowpea Mild Mottle Virus BF CI GH NG TG US(TX) R S L Fl F Yes No 43 APHIS, 2003; CABI, 2004

Cucumber mosaic virus CI GH NG SL TG US R S L Fl F No Yes CABI, 2004; Walter et al

. , 1980 Pepper mild mottle virus SN US R S L Fl F No Yes CABI, 2004 Pepper veinal mottle virus WA L Yes No CABI, 2004; Ladipo and Roberts, 1977; Walter et al

. , 1980 Potato spindle tuber viroid NG US R S L Fl Yes No CABI, 2004; Ladipo and Roberts, 1977 Tobacco etch virus NG US R S L Fl F No Yes CABI, 2004 Tobacco leaf curl virus BF GH NG SL US R S L Fl No No CABI, 2004

Tobacco ringspot virus NG US R S L Fl F No Yes CABI, 2004 Tomato apical stunt viroid NI NR SN R S L Fl F Yes No 43 Candresse and Marais, 2007; Walter, 1981, 1987 Tomato ringspot virus TG US L S No No CABI, 2004 Tomato spotted wilt virus BF CI NR NG SN US L F No No 41 CABI, 2004

Tomato yellow whitefly virus BF CV CI ML NG SN US R S L Fl F No No 43 CABI, 2004

Tomato mosaic virus WA US L S No Yes CABI, 2004; Walter et al

. , 1980 Tomato yellow leaf curl virus SN L S Yes No 43 D'-Hondt and Russo, 1985 BACTERIA Burkholderia cepacia (Ex Burkholder) Yabuuchi et al. NG US L S No No CABI, 2004

Cladosporium sp. CH GH GU LB NG SN F L R S Yes Yes PestID, 2008

Clavibacter michiganensis sub. michiganensis (Smith) Davis et al. TG US S L F Fl Seed No Yes CABI, 2004

Erwinia chrysanthemi Young et al. CI SN US R S L No No CABI, 2004

Pseudomonas marginalis pv. marginalis (Brown) Stevens NG US R S L F Fl No Yes CABI, 2004

Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae Van Hall SN US R S L F Fl No Yes CABI, 2004

43 The virus is not seed transmitted in tomatoes (Brunt and Phillips, 1981)Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 14 Pest Distribution 1 Plant part affected 2 Quarantine pest Follow pathway References

Ralstonia solanacearum (bacterial wilt of potato) (Smith) Yabuuchi et al. [ Pseudomonas solanacearum ] BF, GM, NG, SN, SL US L S F Fl No Yes CABI, 2004; Erinle, 1976

Ralstonia solanacearum race 1 GM, SN, SL, NG US L S F Fl Seed No Yes CABI, 2004

Xanthomonas vesicatoria (Doidge) Dowson NR NG SN TG US L S F Fl Seed No Yes CABI, 2004

Xanthomonas campestris (Pammel) Dowson NG, NR, SN US F L No Yes CABI, 2004

2.3.2. Notes on the pest list In a literature review, we identifi ed 217 pests that either are or may be associated with tomatoes from western Africa (Table 2). Not all of thes e pests are quarantine pests of the Continental United States. Furthermore, not all of these pe sts are likely to follow the pathway on fresh tomatoes from western Africa. Eighty are quaran tine pests for the Continental United States. Quarantine pests not expected to follow the pathwa y are not considered further, but if any of these pests are intercepted in shipments of the commodity, quarantine acti on may be taken at the port of entry and additional ri sk analyses may be conducted.

During pest categorization we iden tified 16 quarantine taxa likely to follow the pathway on fresh tomatoes (Table 3). Of these pests, six had been identified to only the genus level. Although the United States considers unidentif ied species as potential quaran tine species, we did not analyze these taxa further due to lim ited taxonomic and/or ecologica l knowledge. Lack of species identification may indicate limited taxonomic k nowledge about that gr oup, inappropriate life stage for full identification, or poor quality of the specimen. This lack of biological information on any given insect or pathogen should not be e quated with low risk. By necessity, pest risk assessments focus on those organisms for which biological information is available and for which effective mitigation procedures may be developed (FAO, 2004b). Agricultural inspectors at the port of entry will continue to take action against pests not identified to the species level if other species in the same genus are quarantine pe sts. Furthermore, if pests identified to only higher taxa are intercepted in the future , the USDA may re-evaluate their risk.

It is unclear which species of Rhagoletis is a pest of tomatoes in western Africa. The pest Rhagoletis ochraspis (Youdeowei, 2002) is a doubtful species (Foote, 1981; White and ElsonHarris, 1992). Rhagoletis tomatis and R. lycopersella are both tomato pests in South America, but are unknown from western Af rica. Without more informati on, it is difficult to perform a meaningful analysis of the pest risk from this genus. We analyzed four other major fruit flies. Mitigation measures crafted against these pest s would likely be effective against the unknown Rhagoletis . We selected ten pests for further analysis (Table 3).Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 15 Table 3. Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway on fresh tomato fruit from ECOWAS countries.

Pest (Order: Family) Analyzed Further? Bactrocera sp. (Diptera: Tephritidae) No Cladosporium sp. (Ascomycete: Mycosphaerellaceae) No Gnorimoschema sp. (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) No Megaselia sp. (Diptera: Phoridae) No Pseudococcus sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) No Rhagoletis sp. (Diptera: Tephritidae) No Bactrocera cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae) Yes B. invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae) Yes Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) Yes C. rosa Karsh (Diptera: Tephritidae) Yes Chrysodeixis chalcites (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Yes Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Yes H. assulta (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Yes Leucinodes orbonalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Yes Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Yes Nipaecoccus viridis (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Yes

2.5. Consequences of Introduction—Economic/Environmental Importance

We rated potential consequences of introduction using five risk el ements (Appendix C): 1) ClimateHost Interaction; 2) Host Range; 3) Dispersal Pote ntial; 4) Economic Impa ct; and 5) Environmental Impact. These elements reflect the biology, host ranges and climatic /geographic distributions of the pests. For each risk element, pe sts are assigned a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points) or High (3 points) (USDA, 2000). We then calculated the Cumulati ve Risk Rating as the sum of all risk element values (Table 4).

The major sources of uncertainty in this risk assessment are similar to those in other risk assessments: the use of a developing process (Orr et al

. , 1993; USDA, 2000), the approach used to combine risk elements (Bier, 1999; Morgan and Henrion, 1990), and the evaluation of risk by comparisons to lists of factors within the guidelines (Orr et al

. , 1993). To address this last source of uncertainty, factor lists were interpreted as illustrative and not exhaustive. Another source of uncertainty in a pest risk assessment is a nything that reduces the quality of biological information about a pest (Gallegos and B onano, 1993). For example, limited information on regional flora/faunas and inhere nt variation within populations introduce uncertainty (Morgan and Henrion, 1990).

Note for the analyses below that the Continental United States spans a wide climatic range: from Zone 1 in Fairbanks, Alaska, to Zone 10 in Miami, FL (USDA-NA, 2003).

For each pest, the sum of the five risk elements gives a Cumulative Risk Rating. This rating is considered to be a biological indicator of the pot ential of the pest to es tablish, spread, and causePest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 16 economic and environmental impacts. The summa ry of risk ratings for Consequences of Introduction is shown in Table 4.

Bactrocera cucurbitae Risk ratings Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction Bactrocera cucurbitae is present in subtropical a nd tropical Asia, eastern and western Africa, and some Pacific Isla nds, including Hawaii and Japan (CABI, 2005). These areas generally correspond to US Plant Hardiness Zones 10+. However, experimental evidence suggests that it could also establish on mainland Japan which at the southern end corresponds to Zone 9. We estimated that B. cucurbitae could establish in two Plant Ha rdiness Zones in the Continental United States (9 & 10). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these zones (NRCS, 2006). Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range Bactrocera cucurbitae has been recorded fr om over 125 different host species. Its primary hosts are from the family Cucurbitaceae and include Cucumis melo, Cucurbita maxima, C. pepo , and Trichosanthes cucumerina (CABI, 2002). Secondary hosts from the Cucurbitaceae include Benincasa hispida, Citrullus colocynthis and Cucumis anguria (CABI, 2005). Additional secondary hosts occur in the families Rosaceae ( Prunus persica ), Rutaceae ( Citrus sinensis ), Fabaceae ( Phaseolus vulgaris ), Loganiaceae ( Strychnos nux-vomica ), Malvaceae ( Abelmoschus moschatus ), Myrtaceae ( Psidium guajava ), Pandanaceae ( Pandanus odoratissimus ), Passifloraceae ( Passiflora edulis ), Rhamnaceae (e.g., Ziziphus jujube ), Sapotaceae ( Manilkara zapota ), and Solanaceae ( Solanum lycopersicum ) (CABI, 2005). High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Bactrocera spp. generally have a high reproduc tive rate and disperse over long distances. They appear to disperse immediately after a dults emerge and before sexual maturity (Fletcher, 1989b). Adults fly away from their host field within one hour after emergence from the pupal stage (Kazi, 1976). In a mark-recapture experiment, flies moved approximately 12-13 km over their lifetimes, and some moved as far as 24 km within three w eeks after emergence (Fletcher, 1989b). Individuals of B. cucurbitae flew as far as 82 km in a mark-recapture experiment (Kohoma and Kuba, 1996). Once flies find a host their behavior changes and the dispersal phase ends (Fletcher, 1989b) . Reported reproductive rates vary, and population doubling times range from 4.3 to 18.2 days, depending on the host and strain (Carey, 1989; Liedo and Care y, 1996). Because of these factors, we rated the dispersal potential of B. cucurbitae as High (3). High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Bactrocera cucurbitae has been considered the most de structive pest of cucurbits in the Indo-Malayan region, greatly reducing the production of melons, cucumbers, tomatoes, and similar vegetables in Hawa ii (USDA, 1983; Weems, 1964). Around 1915, B. cucurbitae caused a loss of n early $1 million annua lly in Hawaii, during which more than 95 percent of the pum pkin crop was destroyed (USDA, 1983). Damage levels up to 100 percent have b een reported in unprot ected fruit (CABI, High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 17 Bactrocera cucurbitae Risk ratings 2005). In addition to direct injury to fr uit from larval activity, the process of oviposition itself distorts and disfigures fruit (USDA, 1983), leading to a loss in marketability. Because this pest is not widely distributed around the world, its establishment in the Continental United States would likely cause a loss of foreign and domestic markets. Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact Examples of potential hosts listed as Th reatened or Endangered in 50 CFR §17.12

are: Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis
, Prunus geniculata , and Ziziphus celata (USFWS, 2005). As this fruit fly represents an important economic threat (CABI, 2005), its establishment in the Continental United States would probably trigger the initia tion of chemical and/or biological control programs. High (3)

Bactrocera invadens Risk ratings Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction Bactrocera invadens was recently described as a ne w species when it was detected for the first time in Kenya (Drew et al

. , 2005). Originating in Sri Lanka, it has spread rapidly through countries East and West Africa (Drew et al

. , 2005). It currently occurs in Sri Lanka, Benin, Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, the Grande Comores, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, and Uganda (PRPV, 2006; Drew et al

. , 2005; EPPO, 2006). This regions corresponds to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 10-13 (Maxwell, 2007). Based on its distribution, We estimated that B. invadens could survive in at least Zone 10 in the Continental United States; however, because it has not yet fully realized its potential distribution (Drew et al., 2005), it can likely su rvive in other Hardiness Zones, similar to B. cucurbitae . Therefore, we conserva tively estimated that B. invadens could establish in two Plant Hardine ss Zones in the continental U.S. (9 & 10). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these zones (NRCS, 2006). Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range This species is polyphagous, having been recorded on hosts from 17 families thus far: Anacardiaceae ( Anacardium
, Mangifera
, Sclerocarya
, Spondias ), Annonaceae ( Annona
, Annona ), Caricaceae ( Carica ), Combretaceae ( Terminalia ), Cucurbitaceae ( Citrullus, Cucumis, Cucurbita ), Dracaenaceae ( Dracaena ), Ebenaceae ( Diospyros ), Irvingiaceae ( Irvingia ), Musaceae ( Musa ), Myrtaceae ( Psidium
, Syzygium ), Oxalidaceae ( Averrhoa ), Rosaceae ( Eriobotrya ), Rutaceae ( Citrus ), Sapindaceae ( Blighia ), Sapotaceae ( Chrysophyllum
, Vitellaria ), Solanaceae ( Capsicum
, Lycopersicon ), Strychnaceae ( Strychnos ) (Goergen, 2006; Hanna and et al., 2006; White, 2006). High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Very little is known about th e reproductive biology of B. invadens , however, it should be similar to its close relative B

. dorsalis (Drew et al

. , 2005), which has a high reproductive pote ntial (Fletcher, 1989a). One study of B. invadens reported a mean generation time of 31 days and a daily population incr ease of 11 percent (Ekesi et al

. , 2006). With multiple generations per year (CABI, 2004) populations High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 18 Bactrocera invadens Risk ratings can build up very quickly. Bactrocera invadens has spread very rapidly across Africa (Drew et al

. , 2005). It was first detected in Kenya in February 2003 (Drew et al

. , 2005). Assuming it was in troduced into Africa only a few years before that, it has spread to 22 countries in eastern and western Africa in only five years (Goergen, 2006; Hanna and et al., 2006). Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Bactrocera invadens is economically important in East Africa where it attacks guavas, mangoes, citrus, pa paya and other hosts (Drew et al

. , 2005). It and other fruit flies in Benin are destroying 12 to 50 percent of mangoes in production (Vayssieres, 2005 #4807; Mwatawala et al

. , 2004). Economic losses will probably be similar to those caused by B. dorsalis (EPPO, 2005) including: 1) loss of fruit quality caused by oviposition “s tings,” which spoil the appearance of fruits, including those unfavorable for larv al survival; 2) fruit spoilage caused by larval tunneling and secondary infecti ons; and 3) loss of markets due to quarantine restrictions (CABI, 2005). High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact Because B. invadens was recently described (Drew et al

. , 2005), its host range is not yet well known. Furthermore, as its distribution continues to expand rapidly, it will contact hundreds of new species, some of which may become its hosts. Thus, B. invadens may negatively impact Federa l Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species. One T&E congener of a current host is Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis which is located in central Florida (USFWS, 2005). At the family level, B. invadens may impact an additional 12 T&E species in the Continental United St ates that are distributed throughout the southern latitudes (USFWS, 2005). Because of the potential economic impact this pest may have on Continental Unite d States agriculture , its introduction to the Continental United States would lik ely stimulate chemical or biological control programs. High (3)

Ceratitis capitata Risk ratings Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction Ceratitis capitata is found in Africa, southern Europe, west Asia, northern Australia, and South & Central America (CABI, 2004; Weems, 1981). It can tolerate colder climates better than mo st other fruit fly species (Weems, 1981). We estimated that C

. capitata could establish in areas of the Continental United States corresponding to Plan t Hardiness Zones 8-10 (CABI, 2004). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these Zones (NRCS, 2006). Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range This pest has a wide range of host speci es and attacks over 400 different species across several family and genera, including: Anacardiaceae ( Mangifera ), Arecaceae ( Phoenix ), Lauraceae ( Persea ), Moraceae ( Ficus ), Myrtaceae ( Psidium ), Rosaceae ( Malus
, Prunus ), Rubiaceae ( Coffea ), Rutaceae ( Citrus ), Solanaceae ( Capsicum, Lycopersicon ), and Sterculiaceae ( Theobroma ) High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 19 Ceratitis capitata Risk ratings ({Capinera, 2001 #5455; Weems, 1981 #4812). Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Eggs are deposited on fruits in clusters of 3-9 eggs, with an average of 300 eggs laid per female (CABI, 2004). The species breeds continuously throughout the year, with several overlapping generations (Capinera, 2001). Under ideal conditions, it only takes 18 days to co mplete a generation, but 30-40 days is common (Bedford et al

. , 1998). Up to 15 generations can be observed per year (Capinera, 2001). Adult C. capitata are mobile, flying two km under somewhat windy conditions (CABI, 2003); additional evid ence exists that it can fly at least 20 km (CABI, 2003,Fletcher 1989b). Transpor t of infested fruits is a major means of movement and dispersal to pr eviously un-infested areas (NASS, 2003). High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Ceratitis capitata is an important pest in Africa and has spread to almost every other continent to become the single most impo rtant pest species in its family. It is a serious pest of Prunus and Citrus . In 2002, CA, TX, and FL produced over $2.3 billion worth of Citrus and $333 million worth of Prunus (CABI, 2004). In Mediterranean countries, it is particular ly damaging to citrus and peach crops. Bedford et al

. (1998) stated that susceptible d eciduous fruits crops can suffer losses up to 80 percent when cont rol measures are not applied. Ceratitis capitata may also transmit fruit-rottin g fungi (CABI, 2004 ). The species is of quarantine significance throughout the world, especial ly for Japan and the Continental United States. Its presence, even when under eradication or official control, can lead to severe additional constraints for export of fr uits to uninfested areas in other parts of the world. In this respect, C. capitata is one of the most si gnificant quarantine pests for any tropical or warm temperate areas in which it is no t yet established. High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact Ceratitis capitata may negatively impact seve ral Federal Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species. T&E cong eners of current hosts include Prunus geniculata (FL), Argemone pleiacantha (NM), Asimina tetramera (FL), Berberis nevivii (CA), B. pinnata (CA), B. sonnei (CA), Cucurbita okeechobeensis (FL), Echinocereus chisoensis (TX), E. reichenbachii (TX), E iridiflorus (TX), E. fendleri (NM), E. triglochidiatus (AZ), E. telephioides (FL), Opuntia treleasei (CA), Solanum drymophilum (PR), Ribes echinellum (FL, SC), and Ziziphus celata (FL) (Clausen, 1978; Smith et al

. , 1997). Fruit flies harm plants directly by damaging seeds (Minchinton and Dal by-Ball, 2001; Webber and Woodrow, 2004) and indirectly by a ltering patterns of frugivor y and dispersal, and ultimately seedling recruitment (Traveset et al

. , 1995; Vivian-Smith et al

. , 2006). Ceratitis capitata represents a significant threat to citrus and peach production, so its establishment in the Continental United States would trigger chemical or biological control programs, as in Hawa ii and California (CABI, 2004). High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 20 Ceratitis rosa Risk ratings Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction Ceratitis rosa , the Natal fly, occurs throughout southern and eastern Africa (White and Elson-Harris, 1992), with isolat ed populations in West Africa (CABI, 2005). It also occurs in Mauritius an d Reunion (White and Elson-Harris, 1992). These areas correspond to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 9-13. Based on its distribution, we estimated that C. rosa would be able to establish in Zones 9-10 in the Continental United States. One or mo re of its potential hosts occur in these zones (USDA, 2001). Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range This species is polyphagous, feeding on species in several families and genera, including Anacardiaceae ( Mangifera ), Annonaceae ( Annona ), Apocynaceae ( Carissa ), Caricaceae ( Carica ), Clusiaceae ( Garcinia ), Combretaceae ( Terminalia catappa ), Lauraceae ( Persea ), Moraceae ( Ficus ), Myrtaceae ( Eugenia
, Psidium
, Syzygium ), Oxalidaceae ( Averrhoa ), Rhamnaceae ( Ziziphus ), Rosaceae ( Cydonia
, Eriobotrya
, Malus, Prunus
, Pyrus ), Rubiaceae ( Coffea ), Rutaceae ( Citrus ), Sapindaceae ( Litchi ), Sapotaceae ( Manilkara ), Solanaceae ( Capsicum
, Lycopersicon ), Sterculiaceae ( Theobroma ), and Vitaceae ( Vitis ) (CABI, 2005; White and Elson-Harris, 1992). High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential We found no detailed biological data on C. rosa , but this species presumably resembles C. capitata in biology and survival cap acity (CABI, 2005; Du Toit, 1998). Given its tropical distribution, it is probably less tolerant of winter cold. Female C. rosa lay 10-20 eggs at a time into host fruit, and adults may live for several months (Du Toit, 1998; USDA, 1963). In the laboratory, oviposition continues for about a month, and females la y an average of 520 eggs (Nadel and Monty, 1973). In summer, the life cycle is completed in three to four weeks (Du Toit, 1998). Adult flight and the transport of infested fruit are the major means of movement and dispersal to previ ously uninfested areas (CABI, 2005). High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Ceratitis rosa , the Natal fly, is a major pest sp ecies feeding on many high value crops, like apples, citrus, grapes, and mangoes (White and Elson-Harris, 1992). In Mauritius, the Natal fly became establ ished in the 1950’s, and has superseded C. capitata as an economic pest (White and Elson-Harris, 1992) through competition (Duyck et al

. , 2004). The damage it causes is similar to that of C. capitata . Tunneling larvae ruin fr uit, and even in fruit where larvae fail to develop, the oviposition stings reduce mark etability. Ovipositi on also leads to secondary infection by pathogens causing a soft rot of the fruit (Du Toit, 1998). Markets can also be lost due to qua rantine restrictions (CABI, 2005). High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact Ceratitis rosa may negatively impact several Federal Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species. T&E congener s of current hosts include Prunus geniculata and Ziziphus celata which are located in Florid a (USFWS, 2005). Because of the potential economic impact this pest may have on U.S. agriculture, its introduction to the Continental United States would likely stimulate chemical or biological control programs (e.g., Du Toit, 1998) as has occurred for C. capitata in Hawaii. High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 21 Chrysodeixis chalcites Risk ratings Risk Element #1: Climate – Host Interaction Chrysodeixis chalcites is present in southern Eu rope, Mediterranean countries and much of Africa (CABI, 2005). Th ese areas correspond to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 8 – 13, and possibly Zone 7. Based on this, we estimated that C. chalcites would be able to establish in Z ones 8-10 in the Continental United States. Chrysodeixis chalcites has a large host range (CABI, 2005), of which many species are present throughout these Zones (NRCS, 2006). Because C. chalcites is a greenhouse pest in more nor thern latitudes, where winter temperatures are generally unsuitable for its establishment (Sannino et al

. , 2005), it has to the potential to be a pest throughout the entire Continental United States and it may spread from greenhouses to field crops each warm season. Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range Chrysodeixis chalcites has many hosts across multiple families and genera, including: Apiaceae ( Anethum ), Asteraceae ( Aster, Chrysanthemum
, Cynara scolymus
, Dahlia
, Dianthus
, Helianthus
, Lactuca ), Brassicaceae ( Brassica ), Cucurbitaceae ( Cucumis ), Fabaceae ( Arachis
, Glycine
, Medicago
, Phaseolus ), Liliaceae ( Hippeastrum
, Trifolium ), Geraniaceae ( Pelargonium ), Lamiaceae ( Salvia ), Malvaceae ( Gossypium ), Moraceae ( Ficus ), Musaceae ( Musa ), Poaceae ( Triticum
, Zea ), Rosaceae ( Fragaria ), Solanaceae ( Capsicum
, Lycopersicon
, Nicotiana
, Solanum ), Verbenaceae ( Stachytarpheta ) (CABI, 2005). High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Chrysodeixis chalcites is a polyvoltine species with multiple generations per year (up to 9; CABI, 2005). Females lay 150 to 600 eggs on the undersides of leaves (Gasim and Younis, 1989; Harakly and Fa rag, 1975). In a glasshouse experiment, populations of C. chalcites increased by as much as 33 to 50 times in the next generation (Linden, 1998). Adult C. chalcites have repeatedly invaded the United Kingdom from southern Europe, partic ularly under strong prevailing winds (CABI, 2005). Eggs, larvae, and pupae may be moved considerable distances in trade. For example, since 1985, C. chalcites has been intercepted 232 times at Continental United States ports (PestID, 2008). High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Chrysodeixis chalcites larvae feed on leaves and fr uit of a variety of hosts, both in the field and in greenhouses (Sannino et al

. , 2005). Larvae cause serious damage to tomatoes in Sicily (Garzi a and Siscaro, 2003). Feeding reduces yield and marketability for several species (CABI, 2005; Daricheva et al

. , 1983; Sannino et al

. , 2005). This pest has also imp acted growers by increasing their costs of control (CABI, 2005; Vacante et al

. , 2001). Markets can also be lost due to quarantine restrictions designed to keep the pest out (CABI, 2005). High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact Chrysodeixis chalcites may harm several Federal Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species that are located in the s outhern portion of the Continental United States (Zones 8-10). T&E species that are congeners of hosts include Helianthus paradoxus
, Helianthus schweinitzii
, Solanum drymophilum
, Solanum High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 22 Chrysodeixis chalcites Risk ratings incompletum
, Solanum sandwicense
, Trifolium amoenum , and Trifolium trichocalyx (USFWS, 2005). Severa l lepidopteran pests of tomatoes already occur in the Continental United Stat es (Rude, 1982), but establishment of C. chalcites there may necessitate the use of a dditional control measures such as pesticide applications on other hosts.

Helicoverpa armigera Risk ratings Risk Element #1: Climate – Host Interaction This insect is widely distributed thro ughout Europe, the Middle East, Central and South Asia, the Far East, Africa, Aust ralia, and Oceania (CABI, 2003). Based on its distribution, we estimated that H. armigera could establish in Zones 5-10 in the Continental United States. One or more of its potential hosts occur in these zones (NRCS, 2006). High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range Helicoverpa armigera is polyphagous, infesting cr op and non-crop hosts in over ten genera and four families (Zhang, 1994). It is a major pest of cotton ( Gossypium spp.), pigeon pea ( Cajanus cajan ), chickpea ( Cicer arietinum ), tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum ), sorghum ( Sorghum spp.) and cowpea ( Vigna unguiculata ). Other hosts include Fabaceae ( Arachis, Glycine, Pisum ), Linaceae ( Linum ), Poaceae ( Zea ), Rosaceae ( Prunus ), Rutaceae ( Citrus ), and Solanaceae ( Nicotiana
, Solanum ) (CABI, 2004). High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Females may lay over 700 eggs during their lifetime and up to six generations per year can occur depending on clim atic conditions (CABI, 2004; Smith et al

. , 1997). As with other noctuids, this pest can fly long distan ces of many miles on its own. Although larvae have limited mobility, they may be dispersed long distances in fruits (CABI, 2004; Smith et al

. , 1997). Larvae are frequently imported into Britain in fresh tomato es and other produce (Carter, 1984). High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Helicoverpa armigera is a major pest everywhere it is established. Larvae attack several crops, including tomato, maize, cotton, cabba ge, and potato (CABI, 2005; Carter, 1984), that are of considerable economic importance in the Continental United States. Damage is caused by larv ae boring into flower buds and fruits (Hill, 1983). In India, losses of up to 50 percent of the potato crop have been recorded (CABI, 2005). In tomato crops, yield losses exceeding 70 percent have been reported in Pakistan (Aheer et al

. , 1998). Insecticides routinely have been used for control (e.g., Ahmad, 1998), whic h increases costs of crop production. Because it is an A2 pest for Europe, establishment of H. armigera in the Continental United States could lead to loss of export markets (EPPO, 2003). High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact A wide range of wild plant spec ies support larval development of H. armigera

. Larvae can feed on the genera Allium
, Amaranthus
, Helianthus
, Prunus, Solanum, and Vigna (CABI, 2004), which contain threatened or endangered High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 23 Helicoverpa armigera Risk ratings species (USFWS, 2002). Although several lepi dopteran pests of tomatoes already occur in the Continental United St ates (Rude, 1982), establishment of H. armigera there may require additional cont rol measures such as pesticide applications on other hosts.

Helicoverpa assulta Risk ratings Risk Element #1: Climate – Host Interaction Helicoverpa assulta is distributed from the temperat e zone to the tropics of the Old World (CABI, 2006). It occurs in sub-Saharan Africa, throughout South, Southeast, and East Asia, and ranges sout h through Oceania to Australasia. In addition, its distribution incl udes areas that experience continental climates (e.g., China [Beijing, Hebei]). These region s correspond to US DA Plant Hardiness zones 6-13 (Maxwell, 2007; Widrlechner, 1997). Thus, we expect this pest to survive in five hardiness zones in th e U.S. (6-10; USDA-NA, 2003). Several potential hosts occur in this region (NRCS, 2007). High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range Helicoverpa assulta mainly attacks members of the Solanaceae ( Capsicum
, Datura
, Nicotiana, Physalis, Solanum ), but it will attack plants in other plant families. All hosts include: Asteraceae ( Carthamus ), Brassicaceae ( Lactuca ), Capparaceae ( Cleome ), Cucurbitaceae ( Cucurbita ), Fabaceae ( Cajanus
, Pisum
, Vigna ), Iridaceae ( Crocosmia ), Lamiaceae ( Perilla ), Malvaceae ( Corchorus, Gossypium ), Papaveraceae ( Argemone ), Piperaceae ( Piper ), and Poaceae ( Zea ) (CABI, 2006; Robinson et al

. , 2001; Zhang, 1994) High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Fecundity ranges from 423 to 505 eggs per female, and may depend upon host plant (Nandihalli and Lee, 1995b). Up to three generations per year have been reported in Japan (CABI, 2006). Helicoverpa spp. (e.g., H

. zea ) may fly many miles (Metcalf et al

. , 1962). Larvae can spread in commercial tomatoes (NPQS, 2000). The pest has been intercepted at U.S. ports in various commodities on at least 18 occasions (PestID, 2008). Eviden ce suggests that this pest has high reproductive and dispersal potentials. High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Helicoverpa assulta larvae eat plant leaves and shoots. They also bore into and feed within stems and fruit (CABI, 2006), thereby promoting infection by pathogens. In Korea, this moth is the most important pest of Capsicum annuum (Kim et al

. , 2002). In unprotected tobacco crops, H. assulta damaged 24 percent of leaves in one study (Nandihalli a nd Lee, 1995a). Due to its importance, chemical and biocontrol programs are used to control it (Wei, 1987; Yang et al

. , 2004). Establishment of this pest in th e United States is likely to lead to phytosanitary restrictions on U.S. exports or loss of some foreign markets. High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact Helicoverpa assulta may attack several Threatened and Endangered species that are congeners of currents hosts, including Argemone pleicantha ssp. pinnatisects High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 24 Helicoverpa assulta Risk ratings (NM), and Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis (FL). Its establishment is likely to lead to indire ct environmental effects due to the use of insecticides and biocontrol agents (e.g

., Wei, 1987; Yang et al

. , 2004).

Leucinodes orbonalis Risk ratings Risk Element #1: Climate – Host Interaction Leucinodes orbonalis occurs in sub-Saharan Afri ca, India and southeast Asia (CABI, 2005) which correspond to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 9 through 13. It is widespread in the in the Chinese province of Jiangsu (CABI, 2005) which encompasses Zones 7 and 8 as well (Widrlechner, 1997). Thus, we estimated that L. orbonalis would be able to establish in Zones 7-10 in the Continental United States. One or more of its potential hosts occur in these zones (NRCS, 2006). High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range The major hosts of L. orbonalis are Solanum melongena (eggplant) and S. tuberosum (potato), while minor hosts include Ipomoea batatas (sweet potato), Pisum sativum var. arvense (Austrian winter pea), S. lycopersicon (tomato), S. gilo
, S. indicum
, S. myriacanthum
, S. nigrum , and S. torvum (turkey berry) (CABI, 2005; Das and Patnaik, 1970). In addition, the United States has intercepted L. orbonalis on other hosts, including Cucurbita sp. (18 times on passenger baggage; PestID, 2008). Despite th ese records, no evidence exists in the literature that these non-Solana ceous taxa are hosts (query of CAB Abstracts). In a detailed risk analysis , the Plant Protection Service of the Netherlands found that it was uncertain if L. orbonalis had hosts outside of the Solanaceae family. We considered here that L. orbonalis is primarily restricted to Solanaceae hosts, and thus merits a risk rating of Medium. Medium (2)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Climatic conditions are important in the life cycle of the eggplant borer. As temperature increases and humidity decreases, fecundity increases and the duration of the life-cycle decreases (CAB I, 2006). Females lay an average of 200 eggs in China and 121 in the Philippines (CABI, 2006). In other reports, Suresh et al

. (1996) recorded 62 to 164 eggs pe r female, and Singh and Singh (2001) found an average of 174 eggs per female . Oviposition takes place at night and the eggs are laid separately on the lo wer surface of young leaves. Upon hatching, larvae bore inside the top shoot and tender fruits. The fruits are always preferred over the shoot (CABI, 2006). Adult behavior has not been well studied, but other moths in the family Pyralidae can fly medium to long range distances (Cherry and Wilson, 2005; Shirai, 1998). Additional l ong-distance dispersal by this species could be accomplished via the tr ansport of infested fruit. High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Leucinodes orbonalis bores into stems, flower s and young fruit, causing yield loss, weakening plants and fruits, a nd rendering fruit unmarketable (Bharadiya and Patel, 2005; CABI, 2005). Because no information was available on its economic impact on tomatoes, we used da ta for effects on eggplant. Rates of High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 25 Leucinodes orbonalis Risk ratings eggplant infestation in fruit range from 13 to 95 percent, depending on the season (CABI, 2005; Prabhu et al

. , 2005). Leucinodes orbonal is better under high temperature and humidity (Atwal and Ve rma, 1972). In life table studies on eggplant, tomatoes, and potatoes, pest populations increased by factors of 2.7- 3.8 every week (Srinivasan and Babu, 1998) . Economic impact due to yield loss began at around 6 percent infestation levels (Tewari and Rao, 1989), but an 1 percent infestations also reportedly ca used yield loss (CABI, 2005). Due to the threat posed by this insect, the Unit ed States drafted New Pest Response Guidelines for it in 1984 (http:/ /www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ep/nprg.html). Establishment of L. orbonalis in the Continental Unite d States would increase costs of production as pesticides and ot her mitigative measures would be required (e.g., CABI, 2005). Because L. orbonalis is not globally distributed (CABI, 2005), its establishment in the Continental United States may result in a loss of foreign or domestic markets. Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact Assuming that Solanum is the only true host genus of L. orbonalis , there are no Threatened and Endangered (T&E) congeners in the Continental United States. If Pisum and Ipomaea were considered as well, th ere still would be no potential T&E hosts in the Continental United States. Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis is endangered in Florida, but the only evidence for this host association are port interception record s; no evidence exists in the primary literature that this genus is a host. Ther efore, we did not consider here that L. orbonalis was associated with this genus. Insecticides are currently the main method of control for L. orbonalis (CABI, 2005). Several lepidopteran pests of tomatoes already occur in the Contin ental United States (Rude, 1982), but establishment of L. orbonalis there may require additional control measures such as pesticide applica tions on other hosts. Medium (2)

Maconellicoccus hirsutus Risk ratings Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction Maconellicoccus hirsutus is reported in Northern Africa, parts of sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, the Far East, the Caribbean, Central America, Australia and Oceania (CABI, 2004). It currently has a limited distribution in the United States: Hawa ii, California (CABI, 2004), and Florida (Hoy et al

. , 2003). All of these regions roughl y represent USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 9 – 13, but we estimated that M. hi rsutus could establish in Zones 9 – 10. One or more potential hosts occu rs in these regions (NRCS, 2005). Medium (2)

Risk Element 2: Host Range Maconellicoccus hirsutus is very pol yphagous. It has been recorded feeding on plants from 73 plant families and over 200 plant genera ; it shows some preference for hosts in the families Ma lvaceae, Fabaceae and Moraceae (CABI, 2004). Following are some of the genera and families listed as hosts (CABI, 2004): Acanthaceae ( Acanthus ), Aceraceae ( Saccharum ), Anacardiaceae ( Mangifera
, Spondias ), Annonaceae ( Annona ), Apiaceae ( Angelica
, Aralia ), High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 26 Maconellicoccus hirsutus Risk ratings Apocynaceae ( Allamanda
, Nerium ), Araceae ( Anthurium
, Colocasia
, Xanthosoma ), Arecaceae ( Phoenix ), Asparagaceae ( Asparagus ), Asteraceae ( Chrysanthemum
, Cosmos
, Dahlia
, Helianthus
, Lactuca
, Parthenium ), Bignoniaceae ( Bignonia
, Jacaranda ), Bombacaceae ( Ceiba ), Brassicaceae ( Brassica ), Cactaceae ( Opuntia ), Chenopodiaceae ( Beta
, Chenopodium ), Combretaceae ( Quisqualis
, Terminalia ), Cucurbitaceae ( Cucumis
, Cucurbita ), Dilleniaceae ( Tetracera ), Ebenaceae ( Diospyros ), Ericaceae ( Rhododendron ), Euphorbiaceae ( Acalypha
, Codiaeum
, Hevea
, Macaranga
, Manihot
, Phyllanthus ), Fabaceae ( Acacia
, Albizia
, Arachis
, Bauhinia
, Cajanus
, Ceratonia
, Clitoria
, Crotalaria
, Erythrina
, Gliricidia
, Glycine
, Leucaena
, Medicago
, Mimosa
, Parkinsonia
, Phaseolus
, Robinia
, Samanea
, Senna
, Tephrosia ), Heliconiaceae ( Heliconia ), Lamiaceae ( Lantana ), Lauraceae ( Persea ), Malpighiaceae ( Malpighia ), Malvaceae ( Abelmoschus
, Abutilon
, Gossypium
, Hibiscus
, Sida
, Thespesia
, Meliaceae ( Azadirachta ), Moraceae ( Artocarpus
, Ficus
, Morus ), Musaceae ( Musa ), Myrtaceae ( Myrtus ), Myrtaceae ( Psidium
, Syzygium ), Nyctaginaceae ( Bougainvillea ), Oleaceae ( Jasminum ), Oxalidaceae ( Averrhoa ), Passifloraceae ( Passiflora ), Poaceae ( Zea ), Punicaceae ( Punica ), Rhamnaceae ( Ziziphus ), Rosaceae (Malus, Prunus), Rubiaceae ( Coffea
, Ixora
, Mussaenda ), Rutaceae ( Citrus ), Sapindaceae ( Dodonaea ), Solanaceae ( Capsicum
, Lycopersicon ), Sterculiaceae ( Theobroma ), Tiliaceae ( Corchorus
, Grewia ), Urticaceae ( Boehmeria ), Verbenaceae ( Duranta
, Tectona ), Vitaceae ( Vitis ), Zingiberaceae ( Alpinia ). Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential Adult females lay 150-600 eggs per week (CABI, 2004). A generation is completed in five weeks under warm conditions, and the species can survive cold conditions as eggs or other stages on th e host plant or in the soil. Up to 15 generations occur per year (CABI, 2004). Local moveme nt of this species is accomplished by the first instar (crawler) (CABI, 2004). Crawlers are very small and light and can survive a day or so w ithout feeding. They are unable to walk far, but are ideally suited for trans port by water, wind and animal agents, including domestic animals and humans. Accidental introdu ctions into new countries can occur via infested plant material (CABI, 2004). High (3)

Risk Element 4: Economic Impact Crops seriously damaged by this scal e include the following (CABI, 2004):

● cotton in Egypt (growth can be arrested)

● tree cotton in India (yield is reduced)

● the fiber crops Hibiscus sabdariffa var. altissima (roselle), H. cannabinus (mesta), and Boehemeria nivea in India and Bangladesh (roselle fiber yield was reduced by 21-40 percent)

● grapes in India (up to 90 percent of bunches destroyed or so heavily infested that they are unfit for consumption). Estimated annual losses in Grenada due to M. hirsutus are $3.5 million (CABI, 2004). Feeding by this scale can cause se vere stunting, crinkling of leaves, thickening of stems and a bunchy-top app earance of shoots. Honeydew excreted by M. hirsutus often leads to sooty mold contamin ation of fruit, which reduces its High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 27 Maconellicoccus hirsutus Risk ratings value (CABI, 2004). Establishment of this pest in the Continental United States beyond where it is already reported coul d cause a loss of foreign or domestic markets and would likely stimulate chemical and/or biological control programs, which would increase production costs and lower value. Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact If M. hirsutus is introduced into the Continental United States beyond where it is already present, it is likely to affect numerous Threatened and Endangered plants, particularly those taxa that are restricted to Texas (e.g., Helianthus paradoxus and Manihot walkerae ) (USFWS, 2005). Because of its potential to harm endangered taxa and economically importa nt plants (e.g. cotton, grapes) if M. hirsutus widely established in the Continental United St ates, conservation managers, farmers and horticulturalists woul d likely need to use chemical and/or biological control programs (CABI, 2005). High (3)

Nipaecoccus viridis Risk ratings Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction Nipaecoccus viridis is widespread in tropical and s ubtropical Asia, Africa, and in in Hawaii and parts of Oceania (Ben-Dov et al

. , 2006; CABI, 2005). These regions roughly correspond to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 9-12 (e .g., Widrlechner, 1997). Based on its distribution, we estimated that N. viridis would only survive in the warmer, southern parts of the Continenta l United States, or Zones 9-10. One or more of its potential hosts occu rs in these regions (NRCS, 2005). Medium (2)

Risk Element 2: Host Range The major hosts of N. viridis are citrus, coffee and co tton, but it is polyphagous, feeding on hosts in 20 families and 33 genera (CABI, 2005). These include: Anacardiaceae ( Mangifera ), Apocynaceae ( Nerium ), Asteraceae ( Parthenium ), Bignoniaceae ( Spathodea ), Euphorbiaceae ( Euphorbia
, Manihot
, Jacaranda
, Phyllanthus ), Fabaceae ( Acacia
, Albizia
, Cajanus
, Glycine
, Leucaena
, Tamarindus ), Liliaceae ( Asparagus ), Malvaceae ( Alcea
, Gossypium
, Hibiscus ), Moraceae ( Artocarpus
, Ficus
, Morus ), Myrtaceae ( Psidium ), Proteaceae ( Grevillea ), Rhamnaceae ( Ziziphus ), Rosaceae ( Eriobotrya
, Punica ), Rubiaceae ( Coffea ), Rutaceae ( Citrus ), Solanaceae ( Solanum ), Tamaricaceae ( Tamarix ), Tiliaceae ( Corchorus ), Verbenaceae ( Clerodendrum ), Vitaceae ( Vitis ) (CABI, 2005). High (3)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential At one site fecundity ranged from 90 to 138 eggs per female, and as many as three generations occur per year (CABI, 2005) . Local dispersal is accomplished by crawlers, which often settle in protected areas (e.g

. , under the sepals of fruitlets); this behavior predisposes them to diss emination on exported plants or plant products (CABI, 2005). High (3)

Risk Element 4: Economic Impact This insect causes bulbous outgrowths on young twigs, which under heavy infestations stunt the growth of young trees (CABI, 2005 ). Heavy infestations on High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 28 Nipaecoccus viridis Risk ratings fruit lead to discoloration, disfigurat ion and fruit-drop (C ABI, 2005). Copious quantities of honeyde w may contaminate fruit and othe r plant parts, which can serve as a medium for the growth of sooty molds (CABI, 2005). This mealybug was responsible for losses of up to 5 percent in vineyards in India (CABI, 2005). Losses in citrus orchards are due firstly to fruit-drop caused by large infestations of mealybugs; in South Africa, 50 percent or more of the navel orange crop has been lost in this way (CABI, 2005). In addition, deformed fruit are culled in the packinghouse, resulting in gr eater production losses (CAB I, 2005). Based on this evidence, the establis hment of this insect in the Continental United States would likely cause a loss of foreign and domes tic markets and would likely stimulate chemical and/or biological control program s, which would lowe r the value of the commodity by increasing production costs. Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact This pest poses a pote ntial threat to plants listed as Threatened and Endangered in 50 CFR § 17.12. Within the C ontinental United States, N. viridis may impact Euphorbia telephioides
, Manihot walkerae and Ziziphus celata (USFWS, 2005). The widespread es tablishment of N

. viridis in the Continental Un ited States is likely to stimulate chemical and/or biological c ontrol programs because it is a pest of the economically important crop citrus (CABI, 2005). High (3)

Table 4. Risk ratings for Consequences of Introduction. Pest Risk Element Cumulative risk rating a Climate/Host Interaction Host
range Dispersal potential Economic Impact Environ. Impact
Bactrocera cucurbitae Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Bactrocera invadens Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14) Ceratitis capitata Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)
Ceratitis rosa Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14) Chrysodeixis chalcites Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Helicoverpa armigera High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15)

Helicoverpa assulta High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15) Leucinodes orbonalis High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (13)

Maconellicoccus hirsutus Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Nipaecoccus viridis Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

a Low = 5-8 points, Medium = 9-12 points, High = 13-15 pointsPest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 29 2.6. Introduction Potential

The likelihood of a pest being introduced and establishing a reproductive population depends on a series of six independent even ts: 1) the quantity of the commod ity imported, the ability of the pest to survive 2) post-harvest treatment and 3) shipment, 4) the probability the pest will not be detected at the port of entry, 5) the likelihood that it will be moved to a suitable habitat, and 6) the probability that it will come into contact w ith suitable host material (USDA, 2000). For each pest, we considered the following six sub-elem ents (see Appendix D for more details). A summary of the ratings for Likelihood of Introduction is shown in Table 5.

2.6.1. Quantity of commodity imported annually The combined tomato export potential of all th e African countries with in ECOWAS is Medium (10 to 100 containers/year; Regulatory Projec t Management System (RPMS) query July 9, 2007).

2.6.2. Survive postharvest treatment Tomatoes are delicate fruits that will not stand up to harsh post harvest treatments. Tomatoes are typically culled and washed (Boyette et al

. , 2007). Generally, internally feeding arthropods such as tephritid fruit flies are expected to survive minimal post-harvest treatment, whereas externally feeding arthropods are not expected to survive standard post-harvest treatment and processing. Consequently, we rated the f our tephritid fruit flies ( Bactrocera & Ceratitis ) High for this element. Leucinodes orbonalis is an internal pest that pl ugs its entry holes with excreta (Frempong, 1979); it was rated High. Chrysodeixis chalcites , a relatively large pest, feeds on the surface of fruit and thus should be more noticeable; it is rated Low. Helicoverpa are sometimes internal pests of fruit, and fruit damaged by lepidopteran larvae of ten develop secondary infections and degrade quickly (Rude, 1982). Thus, the larger lepidopteran larvae are more likely to cause noticeable injury and are rated Medi um for this sub-element. Finally, mealybugs ( M. hirsutus , and N. viridis ) are external pests, but because they are small, they may not be seen during culling (Medium risk).

2.6.3. Survive Shipment The shipping conditions of tomato from West Africa are unknown, but would probably be short in duration owing to the perishab le nature of fresh tomatoes. Consequently, we rated all pests High for this risk element.

2.6.4. Not be detected at the port of entry We rated the four tephritid fruit flies as High because they are internal pests, and the moth, L. orbonalis as High because it is an internal pest that plugs its entry holes with excreta (Frempong, 1979). We rated the moth C. chalcites as Low because it is an external pest. Even though the Helicoverpa moth are internal feeders, their dama ge and entry points should be readily noticeable (Low risk), especia lly on a perishable commodity as tomatoes (Rude, 1982). Finally, we rated the two mealybugs as Medium because small individuals may escape detection

2.6.5. Imported or moved subsequently to an area with an environment suitable for survival Because tomatoes are a widely consumed fruit in the United States, they will likely be distributed throughout the entire Contin ental United States. Cons equently, we focused onPest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 30 environmental/climate suitability to evaluate th is sub-element. We already discussed climate suitability under the Consequences of Introduction for each pest; our ratings for this sub-element mirrored those.

2.6.6. Come into contact with host ma terial suitable for reproduction Multiple fruit flies often infest one host plant, so larvae may emerge as adults and find mates. Because of their mobility, fruit flie s are likely to find hosts if the infested fruit were shipped to an area where hosts are prevalent. For these reasons we rated the Ceratitis and Bactrocera species as High for this sub-element. We rated Chrysodeixis chalcites, Helicoverpa assulta
, and Helicoverpa armigera as High for similar reasons. All six of these pests a have wide range of host species. Leucinodes orbonalis attacks a more limited group of commodities that are grown through the Continental United States, so we rated it Medium. Mealybugs may be distributed great distances on host material, but their dispersa l is limited because they are sedentary insects (Williams, 2004) and the host material is fruit fo r consumption. Fruit for consumption would not be clustered so the number of pests would be low. Only the crawlers are capable of dispersal, and their transport to suitab le hosts depends entirely on vector s (wind, birds, and other insects) (Williams, 2004). Thus, mealybugs are unlikely to c ontact suitable hosts for establishment (Low risk rating).

Table 5. Risk ratings for Likelihood of Introduction (Risk Element #6). Pest Quantity imported annually Survive postharvest treatment Survive shipment Not detected at port of entry Moved to suitable habitat Contact with host material Cumulative Risk Rating

Bactrocera cucurbitae Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16)

Bactrocera invadens Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16)

Ceratitis capitata Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16)

Ceratitis rosa Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16) Chrysodeixis chalcites Med (2) Low (1) High (3) Low (1) Med (2) High (3) Medium (12) Helicoverpa armigera Med (2) Med (2) High (3) Low (1) High (3) High (3) Medium (14) Helicoverpa assulta Med (2) Med (2) High (3) Low (1) High (3) High (3) Medium (14)
Leucinodes orbonalis Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (16)

Maconellicoccus hirsutus Med (2) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Medium (12) Nipaecoccus viridis Med (2) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Medium (12)Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 31 2.7. Conclusion – Pest Risk Potential a nd Pests Requiring Phytosanitary Option

To estimate the Pest Risk Potential for each pe st, we summed the Cumulative Risk Ratings for both the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction. The Pest Potential rating is as follows (Table 6):

Pest Risk Potential ratings ha ve the following suggested meanings (APHIS, 2000): Low: Pest will typically not require sp ecific mitigation procedures. The port-ofentry inspection to which all imported commodities are subjected can be expected to provide suffici ent phytosanitary security. Medium: Specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary. High: Specific phytosanitary measures are strongly recomme nded. Port-of-entry inspection is not considered sufficien t to provide phytosanitary security.

Table 6. Summary of pest risk potentials Pest Consequences of Introduction Likelihood of Introduction Pest Risk Potential Score Risk rating a
Bactrocera cucurbitae High (14) High (16) 30 High Bactrocera invadens High (14) High (16) 30 High Ceratitis capitata High (14) High (16) 30 High Ceratitis rosa High (14) High (16) 30 High Chrysodeixis chalcites High (14) Medium (12) 26 Medium Helicoverpa armigera High (15) Medium (14) 29 High Helicoverpa assulta High (15) Medium (14) 29 High Leucinodes orbonalis High (13) High (16) 29 High Maconellicoccus hirsutus High (14) Medium (12) 26 Medium Nipaecoccus viridis High (14) Medium (12) 26 Medium

a Low = 11 – 18 points, Medium = 19 – 26 points, High = 27 – 33 points



### 3. Author & Reviewers

Author: Shawn Robertson – Entomologist, APHIS-IS

Reviewers Anthony L. Koop – Botanist, APHIS-PPQ-CPHST-PERAL Feridoon Mehdizadegan - Plant Pathologist, APHIS-PPQ-CHPSTPest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 32 

### 4. Literature Cited

7 CFR § 319.28. 2007. Code of Federal Regulati ons, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319.28, Notice of quarantine [Subpart_Citrus fruit]). 7 CFR §319.56-2dd. 2007. Code of Federal Regula tions, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR §319.56-2dd, Administrative instructio ns: conditions governing th e entry of tomatoes). 7 CFR § 319.56-2u. 2007. Code of Federal Regula tions, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319.56-2u, Conditions governing the entry of le ttuce and peppers from Israel). 7 CFR § 360. 2006. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 360 (7 CFR §360 - Noxious Weed Regulations). Abang, M. M., and C. Iloba. 2002. Potential of seed treatment fungicides for the control of foliar diseases of tomato under late short growi ng season conditions of a tropical derived savanna. Journal of Agriculture in th e Tropics and Subtr opics 103(1):29-38. Adisa, V. A. 1985. Control of four post-harvest tomato fruit rots in Nigeria by oils. Indian Phytopathology 38(2):270-277. Aheer, G. M., M. Latif, and M. Saeed. 1998. Quan titative losses of tomato fruits caused by tomato fruit borer, Heliothis armigera (H b.). Pakistan Entomol ogist 20(1/2):87-88. Ahmad, F. 1998. Plant protection strategies for cotton in Paki stan. Pakistan Entomologist 20(1/2):110-115. Annecke, D. P., and V. C. Moran. 1982. Insects and mites of cultivated plants in South Africa. Butterworths, Durban, South Africa. 383 pp. APHIS. 1986. Decision sheet for Lycopersicon esculentum from Senegal. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), United Stat es Department of Agriculture, Riverdale, Maryland. APHIS. 1991. Decision sheet fo r Lycopersicon esculentum from Senegal. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Pl ant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Riverdale, Maryland. APHIS. 1997. Irradiation for phytosanitary regula tory treatment: Enviro nmental assessment, October 1997. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Se rvice (APHIS). 12 pp. APHIS. 2003. Widely prevalent virus list by state 2002-2003. As Prepared by APS-APHIS Virus Working Group of The Plant Virology Comm ittee of The American Phytopathological Society For U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Last accessed July 2005, http ://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/stvir02.html. Arnett Jr., R. H. 2000. American Insects: A Handbook of the Insects of America North of Mexico, Second edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, U.S.A. 1003 pp. ARS. 2006. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN), Online Database. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) , Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Systematic Botany and Mycology Labor atory. Last accessed November 3, 2006, http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi -bin/npgs/html/paper.pl. Asiegbu, J. E. 1991. Response of tomato and eggpl ant to mulching and nitrogen fertilization under tropical conditions. Scientia Horticulturae 46(1-2):33-41. Atu, U. G., T. Enyinnia, and C. C. Chinaka. 1988. Grass and sedge weed hosts of Meloidogyne incognita. Nigerian Journal of Weed Science 1(1):17-20.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 33 Atwal, A. S., and N. D. Verma. 1972. Developm ent of Leucinodes orbona lis Guen. (Lepidoptera: Pyraustidae) in relation to different levels of temperature and humidity. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 42(9):849-854. Baker, J. R. 2005. Insect and Related Pests of Flowers and Foliage Plants. Some Important, Common, and Potential Pests in the Southeastern United St ates. North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Service., Ra leigh, NC, U.S.A. Last accessed December 18, 2006, http://mrec.ifas.ufl.edu/Foliag e/entomol/ncstate/nccredit.htm. Bankole, S. A. 1996. The distribution and pathogen icity of the seed mycoflora of two tomato varieties cultivated in western Nigeria [Abstract]. African Crop Journal 4:491-496. Barclay, H. J., and J. W. Hargrove. 2005. Probability models to facilitate a declaration of pestfree status, with special reference to tset se (Diptera: Glossinidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 95(1):1-11. Bartz, J. A. 1999. Washing fresh fruits and vegeta bles: lessons from treatment of tomatoes and potatoes with water [Abstract]. Dairy, F ood and Environmental Sanitation 19(12):853- 864. Bedford, E. C. G., M. A. van den Berg, and E. A. d. Villiers. 1998. Citrus Pests in the Republic of South Africa (2nd edition). Agricultural Re search Council, Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops, Nelspr uit, South Africa. 288 pp. Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gi bson. 2006. ScaleNet. United St ates Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Systematic Entomology Laboratory (SEL). Last a ccessed November 20, 2006, http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/ scalenet/scalenet.htm. Bernal, J. 1994. Plagas y enfermedades de la gr anadilla. Pages 29-34+ in I. C. Agropecuario, (ed.). Plagas y Enfermedades en Frutales Tropicales, Boletin Sanidad Vegetal 11. Instituto Colombiano Ag ropecuario, Colombia. Berthou, F., A. Ba-Diallo, L. d. Maeyer, and G. d. Guiran. 1989. Characterization of virulent (Mi gene resistance breaking) biotypes of root-knot ne matodes Meloidogyne Goeldi (Tylenchida) in two vegetable growing ar eas of Senegal. Agronomie 9(9):877-884. Bharadiya, A. M., and B. R. Patel. 2005. Succession of insect pests of brinjal in north Gujarat. Pest Management and Economic Zoology 13(1):159-161. Bier, V. M. 1999. Challenges to the acceptance of probabilistic risk analysis. Risk Analysis 19(4):703-710. Bloem, K. A., S. Bloem, and J. E. Carpenter. 2005. 7.3 Impact of Moth Suppression/Eradication Programmes using the Sterile Insect Technique or Inherited Sterility. . Pages 677-700 in V. A. Dyck, J. Hendrichs, and A. S. Robinson, (eds.). Sterile Insect Technique. Principles and Practice in Area- Wide Integrated Pest Management. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria Bolland, H. R., J. Gutierrez, and C. H. W. Fl echtmann. 1998. World Catalogue of the Spider Mite Family (Acari: Tetranychidae). Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands. 392 pp. Bourdouxhe, L. 1981. Utilisation du pulverisateur a di sque rotatif pour insecticides en cultures maraicheres methode ULV [The use of the rota ting disc sprayer to ap ply insecticides in market garden crops - ULV method]. Centre pour le Developpement de l'Horticulture., Dakar, Senegal. 41 pp. Boyette, M. D., D. C. Sanders, and E. A. Estes. 2007. Post harvest cooling and handling of fieldand greenhouse-grown tomatoes. North Carolin a State University, Raleigh, NC, U.S.A.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 34 Last accessed July 3, 2007, http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extensi on/publicat/postharv/tomatoes/tomat.html. Branscome, D. 1999. Featured creatures. Ps eudaulacaspis pentagona (Targioni) (Insecta: Hemiptera: Diaspididae). University of Fl orida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Department of Entomology and Nematology, Gainesville, FL. Last accessed July 2005, http://creatures.ifas.ufl.e du/orn/scales/white_peach_scale.htm. Bridge, J. 1973. Hoplolaimus seinhor sti, an endoparasitic nematode of cowpea in Nigeria. Plant Disease Reporter 57(9):798-799. Bridge, J., P. J. Terry, J. P. Tunstall, and J. M. Waller. 1978. A survey of crop pests, diseases and weeds of the Gambia. Overseas Developmen t Administration, on behalf of the Gambian Government., London. 46 pp. Byrne, P. 1998. Exclusion of Plant Pests with Screen: Training Handout for USDA, APHIS Containment Facility Quarantine Officer Training. PPQ, Riverdale, MD. CABI. 2003. Crop Protection Co mpendium. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, UK. CABI. 2004. Crop Protection Co mpendium. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, UK. CABI. 2005. Crop Protection Co mpendium. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, UK. CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Co mpendium. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, UK. CABI/EPPO. 2008. Datasheets on quarantine pests: Thrips palmi. CAB International (CABI) & the European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), Paris, France. Last accessed March 7, 2008, http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/insects/Thrips_palmi/THRIPL_ds.pdf. Calkins, C. O. 1998. Review of the codling moth area wide suppression pr ogram in the western United States [Abstract]. Journal of Agricultural Entomology 15(4):327-333. Candresse, T., and A. Marais. 2007. First report of the pr esence of tomato apical stunt viroid on tomato in Sénégal. Plant Disease 91:330. Last accessed April 5, 2007, http://www.apsnet.org/pd/searc hnotes/2007/PDIS-91-3-0330C.asp. Capinera, J. L. 2001. Handbook of Vegetable Pests. Academic Press., San Diego, CA, U.S.A. 729 pp. Carey, J. R. 1989. Bioclimatic potential, demographic analysis of fruit flies. Pages 209-219 in A. S. Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit Flies; Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton Mi fflin Company Bo ston, MA, U.S.A. Carter, D. J. 1984. Pest Lepidoptera of Europe: With Special Refere nce to the British Isles. Dr W. Junk, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 431 pp. Cermeli, M., and A. Montagne. 1993. Situacion actual de Thrips palmi Karny (Thysanoptera, Thripidae) en Venezuela. Manejo Integrado de Plagas 29:22-23. ChengYi, C., Y. Konno, and K. Matsuda. 2002. St udies on the ovipositional preferences and feeding preferences in Helicov erpa assulta and Helicoverpa armigera [Abstract]. Tohoku Journal of Agricultural Re search 53(1/2):111-124. Cherry, R., and A. Wilson. 2005. Flight activity of tropical sodworms (L epidoptera: Pyralidae). Florida Entomologist 88(102-103). Chima-Wokocha, R. 1987. Effect of soil type on the damping-off of tomato seedlings caused by Sclerotium rolfsii in the Nigerian savanna. Plant and Soil 98(3):443-444. Chindo, P. S., and F. A. Khan. 1990. Control of root-knot nematodes, Meloidogyne spp. on tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill., with poultry manure. Tropical Pest Management 36(4):332-335.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 35 Clausen, C. P. 1978. Tephritidae (Trypetidae, Trup aneidae): Introduced parasites and predators of arthropod pests and weeds: A wo rld review. Agricultural Handbook 480:320-335. Cochereau, P. 1973. Controle biologique nature l des papillons piqueurs de fruits. Fruits 28(5):367-375. Courneya, P. 2006. Quarantine status confirma tion. Personal communication to L. Millar on October 12, 2006, from Paul Courneya (US DA, National Identific ation Services). Culliney, T. W. 2003. Survey for parasitic honey bee mites in Hawaii (Acariformes: Tarsonemidae; Parasitiformes: Laelapidae, Varroidae). Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 36:103-109. D'-Hondt, M. D., and M. Russo. 1985. Tomato yellow leaf curl in Senegal. Phytopathologische Zeitschrift 112(2):153-160. Daiber, K. C. 1996. Injurious insects, spider mites and nematodes on tomatoes in southern Africa. Zeitschrift fur Pflanzenkrankh eiten und Pflanzenschutz 103(1):94-110. Dalmasso, A., P. Castagnone-Sereno, M. Bongi ovanni, and A. d. Jong. 1991. Acquired virulence in the plant parasitic nematode Meloidogyne incognita. 2. Two-dimensional analysis of isogenic isolates. Revue de Nematologie 14(2):277-283. Daricheva, M. A., Z. F. Klyuchko, and A. Sa kchiev. 1983. A Pest of Tomatoes [Abstract]. Zashchita Rastenii (7):44-45. Das, M. S., and B. H. Patnaik. 1970. A New Host of the Brinjal Shoot and Fruit Borer Leucinodes orbonalis Guen, and its Biology [Abs tract]. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 67(3):601-603. Decazy, B., N. Coulibaly, G. Mossu, and D. Paulin. 1985. Long-term effect of insecticide treatments on pollination conditions and on the yield of cocoa trees in the Ivory Coast. The Cafe, Cacao 29(2):99-106. DEFRA. 2004. Pests and diseases. Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the UK government, Central Science La boratory. Last accessed July 2005, http://www.defra.gov.uk/. Denoyes, B., D. Bordat, H. De Bon, and P. Daly. 1986. Un nouveau ravageur des cultures legumieres a la martinique: Thrips palmi (Karny). L'Agronomie Tropicale 41-2:167-169. Diop, M. T., S. Ndiaye, D. Mounport, and T. Mateille. 2000. Developm ent of Meloidogyne javanica and Scutellonema cavenessi populations in vegetable crop systems in Senegal. Nematology 2(5):535-540. Drew, R. A. I., K. Tsuruta, and I. M. White . 2005. A new species of pest fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) from Sri Lanka a nd Africa. African Entomology 13(1):149–154. Du Toit, W. J. 1998. Fruit flies. Pages 229-233 in E. C. G. Bedford, M. A. van den Berg, and E. A. de Villiers, (eds.). Citrus Pests in th e Republic of South Africa (2nd (revised)). Institute for Tropical and Subtropica l Crops, Nelspruit, South Africa. Duyck, P.-F., P. David, and S. Quilici. 2004. A revi ew of relationships between interspecific competition and invasions in fruit flies (Dip tera: Tephritidae). Ecological Entomology 29:511-520. Ekesi, S., P. W. Nderitu, and I. Rwomusha na. 2006. Field infestati on, life history and demographic parameters of the fruit fly Bact rocera invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Africa. Bulletin of Entomol ogical Research 96(4):379-386. Emms, C., and L. K. Barnett. 2005. Gambian biodive rsity: a provisional check list of all species recorded within the Gambia, West Africa. Darwin Initiative, Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK government, Serrekunda, The Gambia. 35 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 36 Engindeniz, S. 2004. The economic analysis of growing greenhouse cucu mber with soilless culture system: The case of Turkey. Journa l of Sustainable Agri culture 23(3):5-19. EPPO. 2003. EPPO Standard PM1/2(12) A1 and A2 Quarantine Lists. Eur opean Plant Protection Organization. Paris, France. Last accessed 3 December 2003, http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/lists.html. EPPO. 2005. Bactrocera invadens (Diptera: Teph ritidae): A new fruit fly species (EPPO RS 2005 - 085). European Plant Protection Organi zation (EPPO). Last accessed October 17, 2006, http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/A lert_List/insects/BCTRIN.htm. EPPO. 2006. Bactrocera invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae). A new fruit fly species. European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). Last accessed http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/Alert_Lis t/insects/bactrocera_invadens.htm. Erinle, I. D. 1976. A preliminary report on bacteria l wilt in Nigeria. Samaru Miscellaneous Paper 60:19. Ewete, F. K., J. T. Arnason, J. Larson, and B. J. R. Philogene. 1996. Biological activities of extracts from traditionally used Nigerian plan ts against the European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis [Abstract]. Entomologia Experi mentalis Et Applicata 80(3):531-537. Farr, D. F., G. F. Bills, G. P. Chamuris, a nd A. Y. Rossman. 1989. Fungi on Plants and Plant Products in the United States. APS Press, St. Paul, MN. 1252 pp. Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, a nd E. B. McCray. No Date. Fungal Databases. Systematic Botany & Mycology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. Last accessed March 1, 2004, http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/. Fletcher, B. S. 1989a. Life histor y strategies of tephritid fru it flies. Pages 195-208 in A. S. Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit flies, their biology, natural enemies and control, World crop pests, Vol. 3 b. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Fletcher, B. S. 1989b. Movements of tephritid fruit flies. Pages 209-219 in A. S. Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit flies: their biol ogy, natural enemies, and control (Vol. 3b). Elsevier, Amsterdam. Follett, P. A. 2004. Generic vapor heat treatme nts to control Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) [Abstract]. Journal of Economic Entomology 97(4):1263- 1268. Follett, P. A., and L. G. Neven. 2006. Current tr ends in quarantine entomology. Annual Review of Entomology 51:359-385. Foote, R. H. 1981. The genus Rhagoletis Loew sout h of the United States (Diptera: Tephritidae). Science and Education Administration, United St ates Department of Agriculture, United States. 75 pp. Forsyth, J. 1966. Agricultural Insects of Ghana. Ghana Universities Press, Accra, Ghana. 163 pp. Frame, D., and S. Durou. 2001. Morphol ogy and biology of Napoleonaea vogelii (Lecythidaceae) flowers in relation to the natu ral history of insect visitors. Biotropica 33(3):458-471. Frempong, E. 1979. The nature of damage to egg plant (Solanum melongena L.) in Ghana by two important pests, Leucinodes orbona lis Gn. and Euzophera villora (Fldr.) (Lepidoptera Pyralidae) [Abstract]. Bulle tin de l'Institut Fondamental d'Afrique 41(2):408-416. Gallegos, D. P., and E. J. Bonano. 1993. Consider ation of uncertainty in the performance assessment of radioactive waste disposal from an international regulatory perspective. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 42:111-123.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 37 Gardner, S. N., J. Gressel, and M. Mangel. 1998. A revolving dose strategy to delay the evolution of both quantitative vs major monoge ne resistances to pe sticides and drugs. International Journal of Pe st Management 44(3):161-180. Garzia, G. T., and G. Siscaro. 2003. Notes on natu ral enemies of armyworms infesting tomato protected crops in South-Eastern Sic ily. Acta Horticulturae 2(614):837-841. Gasim, G. Y., and H. T. Younis. 1989. Biological studies on tomato leafworm Plusia chalcytes L. (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera) unde r effect of constant temperatures. Mesopotamia Journal of Agriculture 21(2):325-334. Ghidiu, G. M., and W. J. Roberts. 2002. Gree nhouse Screening for Insect Control, Factsheet FS640. The State University of New Jersey, Rutgers Cooperative Extension, NJ, U.S.A. Goergen, G. 2006. Bactrocera invadens, a new fruit fly problem in the Afro tropics: distribution and host-plant range in West and Central Africa [Poster Pres entation]. 7th International Symposium on Fruit Flies of Economic Significance, Salvad or, Brazil. 10-15 September 2006. Gould, W. P., and R. G. McGuire. 2000. Hot Wa ter treatment and insec ticidal coatings for disinfesting limes of mealybugs (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 93(3):1017-1020. Grewal, G. S., G. Singh, and S. S. Sandhu. 1985. Control of Heliothis peltigera Denis and Schiffermuller on sunflower [Abstract]. In ternational Pest Co ntrol 27(3):67, 71. Gunn, C. R., and C. A. Ritchie. 1988. Identificati on of disseminules listed in the Federal Noxious Weed Act (Technical Bulletin Number 1719.). Un ited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.A. 313 pp. Gunn, D. 1921. The false codling-moth (Argyrop loce leucotreta Meyr.) (Science Bulletin No. 21). Department of Agriculture, Union of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa. Hallman, G. J. 2000. Expanding radiation quarantin e treatments beyond fru it flies. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 2:85-95. Hanna, R., and et al. 2006. Infestations of citrus fruits by Bactrocera invadens and other fruit flies in Benin, West Africa [Poster Presenta tion]. 7th International Symposium on Fruit Flies of Economic Significance, Salvador, Brazil. 10-15 September 2006. Hansen, J. D., A. H. Hara, and V. L. Tenbr ink. 1992. Vapor heat: a potential treatment to disinfest tropical cut flowers and folia ge [Abstract]. HortScience 27(2):139-143. Harakly, F. A., and S. S. Fa rag. 1975. Biological studies on th e tomato looper Chrysodeixis chalcytes (Esper) in Egypt. Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique d'Egypte 59:295-299. Hill, D. S. 1983. Agricultural Insect Pests of th e Tropics and their Control (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.S.A. 746 pp. Hirano, C., K. Yasumi, E. Itoh, C. S. Kim, and M. Horiike. 1994. A feeding deterrent for Thrips palmi (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) found in tomato leaves: isolation and identification [Abstract]. Japanese Journal of A pplied Entomology and Zoology 38(2):109-120. Holm, L., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Rancho, and J. Herberger. 1997. World W eeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. 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. 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.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 38 Hoy, M. A., A. Hamon, and R. Nguyen. 2003. Pink hibiscus mealybug: Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Insecta: Homoptera: Pse udococcidae). University of Florida and the Florida Department of Agriculture and C onsumer Services, Gainesville, FL. Last accessed July 18, 2005, http://creatures.i fas.ufl.edu/orn/mealybug/mealybug.htm. IPPC. 1997. 1997 - International Plant Protection C onvention (New Revised Text). International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 28 pp. IPPC. 2002. International standards for phytos anitary measures (ISPM#14): The use of integrated measures in a systems approach fo r pest risk management. International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), and the Food a nd Agriculture Organiza tion of the United Nations, Rome. 21 pp. IPPC. 2006. International standards for phytosan itary measures: 1 - 27. International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and the Food and Agriculture Organiza tion of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Jones, J. B. 1999. Tomato Plant Culture: in th e Field, Greenhouse, and Home Garden. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Fl. 199 pp. Jovicich, E., J. J. VanSickle, D. J. Cantliffe , and P. J. Stoffella. 2005. Greenhouse-grown colored peppers: A profitable alternative for vegeta ble production in Fl orida? Horttechnology 15(2):355-369. Kakinohana, H., H. Kuba, T. Kohama, K. Kinjo, M. Taniguchi, H. Nakamori, A. Tanahara, and Y. Sokei. 1997. Eradication of the melon fl y, Bactrocera cucurbitae Coquillett, by mass release of sterile flies in Okinawa Prefecture, Japan. Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly 31(2):91-100. Kankam, J. S. 1972. Evaluation of two maneb fungic ides for the control of tomato leaf mould. Ghana Journal of Agricultural Science 5(3):229-231. Kazi, A. S. 1976. Studies on the field habits of a dult melon fruit fly Dacus (Strumeta) cucurbitae, Coquillet. Pakistan Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 19(2):71-76. Kim, T., M. Kwon, B. Park, and H. Park. 2002. De velopment of hot pepper lines resistant to oriental tobacco budworm (Heliothis assulta) by transformation of modified cry1Ac gene [Abstract]. Journal of the Korean Soci ety for Horticultural Science 43(1):34-38. Kleynhans, K. P. N., E. Van den Berg, A. Swar t, M. Marais, and N. H. Buckley. 1996. Plant nematodes in South Africa. ARC-Plant Prot ection Research Institute, Pretoria, South Africa. 165 pp. Kohoma, T., and H. Kuba. 1996. Movement of ster ile melon flies in Okinawa, Japan. Pages 415- 423 in B. A. McPheron and G. J. Steck, (eds .). Fruit Fly Pests: A World Assessment of their Biology and Management. St. Lu cie Press, Delray Beach, Florida. Kumar, V., A. Abdul-Baki, J. D. Anders on, and A. K. Mattoo. 2005. Cover crop residues enhance growth, improve yield, and dela y leaf senescence in greenhouse-grown tomatoes. HortScience 40(5):1307-1311. Ladipo, J. L., and I. M. Roberts. 1977. Pepper veinal mottle virus associated with a streak disease of tomato in Nigeria. Annals of Applied Biology 87(2):133-138. Lamberti, F., A. Ciancio, D. K. Tuopay, J. B. Boiboi, N. Vovlas, T. Bleve-Zacheo, and F. Elia. 1991. Nematode threats to rice in Liberia. Nematologia Medite rranea 19(2):291-303. Latunde-Dada, A. O. 1993. Biological control of southern blight disease of tomato caused by Sclerotium rolfsii with simp lified mycelial formulations of Trichoderma koningii. Plant Pathology 42(4):522-529.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 39 Liedo, P., and J. R. Carey. 1996. Demography of fru it flies and implications to action programs. Pages 299-308 in B. A. McPheron and G. J. Steck, (eds.). Fruit fly pests: a world assessment of their biology and management. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida. Linden, A. v. d. 1998. Effect of releasing the pr edatory stinkbug Podisus maculiventris (Say) against the noctuid Chrysodeixis chalcites (E sper) in sweet pepper. Proceedings of the Section Experimental and Applied Entomo logy of the Netherlands Entomological Society 9:145-149. Liu, T. X., and P. A. Stansly. 2000. Insecticidal Activity of Surfactants and Oils Against Silverleaf Whitefly (Bemisia argentifolii) Ny mphs (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on Collards and Tomato. Pest Management Science 56(10):861-866. Maisels, F. 2004. Defoliation of a monodominant rain-forest tree by a no ctuid moth in Gabon. Journal of Tropical Ecology 20(2):239-241. Mansel. 2005. New invasive Bactrocera invadens officially named as it extends its distribution and host range across Africa. United States Department of Agricu lture, South Africa. 3
pp. Marchand, J. L. 1975. Recurrent selection. Aims and methods / La selection recurrente. Objectifs et methodes [Abstract]. Agrono mie Tropicale 30(3):217-230. Marshall, J. A., S. Knapp, M. R. Davey, J. B. Po wer, E. C. Cocking, M. D. Bennett, and A. V. Cox. 2001. Molecular systematics of Solanu m section Lycopersicum (Lycopersicon) using the nuclear ITS rDNA region. Theoreti cal and Applied Gene tics 103(8):1216-1222. Matanmi, B. A. 1975. The biology of tephritid fruit flies (Diptera, Tephritidae) attacking cucurbits at Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Department of Plant Science, If e University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Maxwell, B. 2007. Brandt's palm and tropical/sub tropical tree page. Br andt Maxwell. Last accessed May 1, 2007, http://www.geocities.com/westcornersville/. McInnis, D. O., S. Tam, R. Lim, J. Ko matsu, R. Kurashima, and C. Albrecht. 2004. Development of a pupal color-bas ed genetic sexing strain of the melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera : Tephritidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 97(5):1026-1033. Metcalf, C. L., W. P. Flint, and R. L. Metc alf. 1962. Destructive and Us eful Insects. McGrawHill Book Co., New York. 1087 pp. Millar, I. M. 1994. A Catalogue of the Aphids (Homoptera: Aphidoi dea) of sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa. 130 pp. Minchinton, T. E., and M. Dalby-Ball. 2001. Frugivory by insects on mangrove propagules: effects on the early life history of Av icennia marina. Oecologia 129(2):243-252. Moore, S. D., T. Pittaway, G. Bouwer, and J. G. Fourie. 2004. Evaluation of Helicoverpa armigera nucleopolyhedroviru s (HearNPV) for the contro l of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on citrus in Sout h Africa [Abstract]. Bi ocontrol Science and Technology 14(3):239-250. Morgan, M. G., and M. Henrion. 1990. Uncertainty : A guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 332 pp. Murphy, G., and G. Ferguson. 2000. Screening of Greenhouses for Insect Exclusion. Factsheet 00-021. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture a nd Food. Government of Ontario, Ontario, Canada. Last accessed December 18, 2006, http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/eng lish/crops/facts/00-021.htm.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 40 Mwatawala, M. W., I. M. White, A. P. Maerere, F. J. Senkondo, and M. De Meyer. 2004. A new invasive Bactrocera species (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Tanzania. African Entomology 12:154-156. Nadel, D., and J. Monty. 1973. Rearing the Natal fruit-fly Ceratitis (Pterandrus) rosa Karsch (Diptera, Trypetidae) in the laboratory. Revue Agricole et Sucriere de l'Ile Maurice 52(3):133-135. Nandihalli, B. S., and J.-H. Lee. 1995a. Seasonal occurrence of Campoletis chlorideae Uchida and its control efficacy on the oriental t obacco budworm, Helicoverpa assulta (Guenée), in tobacco fields in Suwon. Korean Journal of Applied Entomology 34(2):147-153. Nandihalli, B. S., and J. H. Lee. 1995b. Effect of host food plants on the biology of the host, Helicoverpa assulta (Guenée), and its para sitoid, Campoletis chlorideae Uchida [Abstract]. Advances in Agricult ural Research in India 3:22-32. NASS. 2003. Census of Agricultur e. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Last accessed December 2003, http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/. Netscher, C., and J. C. Mauboussin. 1973. Results of an investigation of the comparative efficiency of a resistant tomato variety and certain nematicides against Meloidogyne javanica / Resultats d'un essai concernant l'e fficacite comparee d'une variete de tomate resistante et de certains nematicides contre Meloidogyne javanica. Cahiers de l'Office de la Recherche Scientifique et T echnique Outre-Mer, Biologie. 97 pp. NPQS. 2000. Data sheet: Insect pe sts associated with hotpepper, dr opwort, and tomato in Korea. Republic of Korea, National Plant Quaranti ne Service (NPQS) [O n file with APHISPPQ-CPHST] [Unpublished data sheet] 164. NRCS. 2005. The PLANTS Database. United Stat es Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (N RCS), National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA. Last accessed June 27, 2005, http://plants.usda.gov/cgi_bin/. NRCS. 2006. The PLANTS Database. United Stat es Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS ), The National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA. Last accessed November 6, 2006, http://plants.usda.gov/java/index.html. NRCS. 2007. The PLANTS Database. United Stat es Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (N RCS), National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA. Last accessed September 6, 2007, http://plants.usda.gov/cgi_bin/. Nwankiti, O. C. 1977. Incidence of dipterous f lies on pepper (Capsicum sp.); Solanum sp. and tomato (Lycopersicom sp.) in the Eastern States of Nigeria [Abstract]. Occasional Publication, Nigerian Soci ety for Plant Protection:57. Obeng-Ofori, D., and J. Sackey. 2003. Field eval uation of non-synthetic insecticides for the management of insect pests of okra Abelmo schus esculentus (L.) Moench in Ghana [Abstract]. Sinet, Ethiopian J ournal of Science 26(2):145-150. Ofosu-Anim, J., K. G. Budu, E. T. Blay, and S. K. Offei. 2000. Effect of transplanting seedlings in compost on yield, fruit quality and incidence of wilt diseases in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Advances in Horticultural Science 14(3):143-146. Orr, R. L., S. D. Cohen, and R. L. Griffi n. 1993. Generic non-indigenous pest risk assessment process: "The generic process" (For estimating pest risk a ssociated with the introduction of non-indigenous organisms). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inpsection Se rvice, Policy and Program Development, MD. 40 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 41 Ortu, S., A. Lentini, and A. Cocco. 2005. Control me thods of Ceratitis capita ta (Wied.) in citrus groves. Informatore Fitopa tologico 55(1):28-34. Parvin, A. 1990. Some biological features of Heli othis peltigera Schiff on safflower [Abstract]. Applied Entomology and P hytopathology 57(1-2):11-12. Patnaik, H. P. 1998. Pheromone trap catches of Spodoptera litura F. and extent of damage on hybrid tomato in Orissa. Advances in IPM for horticultural crops. Proceedings of the First National Symposium on Pest Manageme nt in Horticultural Crops: environmental implications and thrusts, Bangalo re, India, 15-17 October 1997:68-72. Peck, S. L., and S. P. Ellner. 1997. The effect of economic thresholds and life-history parameters on the evolution of pesticide resistance in a regional setting. American Naturalist 149(1):43-63. PestID. 2008. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Plant Protection and Quarantine . Last accessed March 7, 2008, https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. PPQ. 2003. Guidelines for fruit fly systems appro ach to support the movement of regulated articles between Mexico and the United Stat es. United States Department of Agriculture, Plant Protection and Quarantine, U.S.A. PPQ. 2006. Treatment manual (v. Dec 18, 2006). Unite d States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service , Plant Protection and Quarantine, Riverdale, MD. 794 pp. Prabhu, M., D. Veeraragavathatham, K. Srinivas an, and K. Kannan. 2005. Effect of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Application on the Incidence of Fruit Borer in Hybrid Brinjal COBH 1 [Abstract]. Agricultural Sc ience Digest 25(4):301-302. PRPV. 2006. Bactrocera invade ns aux Comores. Programme Régional de Protection des Végétaux (PRPV) dans l'Océan Indien. Last accessed http://www.prpv.org/index.php/fr/conseils_phytosa nitaires/fiches_phyt osanitaires/alerte_ un_nouvel_organisme_nuisible_est_entre_dans_une_ile_du_sud_ouest_de_l_ocean_indie n/bactrocera_invadens_aux_comores. Randall, R. P. 2007. A Global Compendium of Weeds, Online Database. Department of Agriculture of Western Australi a. Last accessed January 12, 2007, http://www.hear.org/gcw/. Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically Important Forei gn Weeds. Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture., U.S.A. 746 pp. Reitz, S. 2006a. Thrips palmi and Frankliniella schultzei. Personal communication to A. L. Koop on July 3, 2007, from Marina Zlotina (APHIS- PPQ). Email was originally sent by Stuart Reitz (ARS). Archived at the PERAL Library. Reitz, S. 2006b. Thrips palmi and Frankliniella schultzei on tomatoes and eggplant. Personal communication to M. Zlotin a on August 18, 2006, from Robertson, S. 2007a. APHIS site visit to tomato, melon, and green-bean fields and packinghouses in Senegal [CD video]. Anim al and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Accra, Ghana. Robertson, S. 2007b. ECOWAS tomatoes - standard harvest and post-harvest treatment. Personal communication to A. L. Koop on June 28, 2007, from Shawn Robertson (APHIS advisor to USAID).Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 42 Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitching, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernandez. 2001. Host plants of the Moth and Butterfly Caterpillars of the Oriental Region. The Natural History Museum & Southdene Sdn Bhd, Ku ala Lumpur, Malaysia. 744 pp. Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitchi ng, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernandez. 2005. HOSTS - A database of the host plants of the world's Lepidoptera. The Natural History Museum. London, United Kingdom. Last accessed July 2005, http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/hostplants. Rude, P. A. (ed.). 1982. Integrated Pest Management for Tomatoes. Regents of the University of California Berkeley, CA, U.S.A. Sakwe, P. N., and E. Geraert. 1991. Some plan t parasitic nematodes from Cameroon with a description of Criconemella pelerentsi sp. n. (Tylenchida: Criconematidae). Nematologica 37(3):263-274. Sakwe, P. N., and E. Geraert. 1993. Cricone matidae Taylor, 1936 (Nematoda) from Cameroon. Afro-Asian Journal of Nematology 3(1):22-38. Sannino, L., B. Espinosa, S. Vicidomini, F. Ro tellini, and G. Caricato. 2005. Chrysodeixis chalcites (Esper) harmful to greenhouse ornamental plants. Informatore Fitopatologico 55(9):34-37. Schreiner, I. 2000. Cluster caterp illar (Spodoptera litura [Fabricius ]). Agricultural Development in the American Pacific (ADAP). Last accessed July 13, 2007, http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/adap 2/Publications/ADAP_pubs/2000-3.pdf. Shimabukuro, S., A. Ishikawa, M. Iwata, T. Sa kaguchi, S. Makiguchi, and H. Katsumata. 1997. Efficacy of vapor heat treatme nt on sweet potato infested wi th sweet potato weevil, Cylas formicarius (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Bren tidae), West Indian sweet potato weevil, Euscepes postfasciatus (Fairmaire) (Coleopt era: Curculionidae), and sweet potato vine borer, Omphisa anastomosalis Guenee (Lepidop tera: Pyralidae) [Abstract]. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protecti on Service, Japa n (33):35-41. Shirai, Y. 1998. Laboratory evaluation of flight ability of the Oriental corn borer Ostrinia furnacalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Bulleti n of Entomological Research 88:327-333. Singh, S. P., N. S. Rao, and K. K. Kumar. 1983. Occurrence of vegeta ble mite, Tetranychus neocaledonicus Andre on passion fruit, Passiflo ra edulis Sims and evaluation of certain acaricides against it [Abstr act]. Pestology 5(1):25-27. Singh, Y. P., and P. P. Singh. 2001. Biology of s hoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.) of egg plant (Solanum melongena L.) at medium high altitude hills of Meghalaya. (B) Development of shoot and fruit borer. In dian Journal of Ento mology 63(3):360-368. Siscaro, G., S. Longo, G. Mazzeo, P. Suma, L. Zappala, and G. Samperi. 2006. Side-effects of insecticides on natural enemies of citrus scale pests in Italy. Bulletin OILB/SROP 29(3):55-64. Skinner, K., L. Smith, and P. Rice. 2007. Noxious weeds in the US and Canada. University of Montana. Last accessed January 23, 2007, http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/Noxious_Weeds/. Smith, I. M., D. G. McNamara, P. R. Scott, and M. Holderness. 1997. Quarantine pests for Europe, 2nd Edition. CAB International., Wallingford, UK. 1425 pp. Srinivasan, G., and P. C. S. Babu. 1998. Life tabl e studies on shoot and fruit borer Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee (Lepidoptera: Pyrallidae) on br injal, tomato and potato. Advances in IPM for horticultural crops. Proceedings of the First National Symposium on Pest Management in Horticultural Crops: environm ental implications and thrusts, Bangalore, India, 15-17 October 1997:94-97.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 43 Srivastava, O. S. 1973. First record of I cerya seychellarum Westwood (Hemiptera: Margarodidae) infesting crotons from Madhya Pradesh. Indian Journal of Entomology 35(4):348. Srivastava, R. P. 1997. Mango Insect Pest Mana gement. International Book Distributing Co, Lucknow, India. 272 pp. Suresh, M., P. Bijaya, B. Prasad, and T. K. Singh. 1996. Seasonal incidence of insect-pests on brinjal and a note on the biology of Le ucinodes orbonalis Guen. (Lepidoptera: Pyraustidae) in Manipur. Uttar Pradesh Journal of Zoology 16(3):151-155. Swearingen, J. 2005. Alien plant invaders of natu ral areas. National Park Service. Last accessed May 2, 2005, http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/list/all.htm. Tenbrink, L., and A. H. Hara. 1992a. Pinnaspis as pidistrae (Signoret). Crop Knowledge Master. University of Hawaii. Last accessed July 2005, http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/p_aspidi.htm. Tenbrink, L., and A. H. Hara. 1992b. Pinnaspis buxi (Bouche). Crop Knowledge Master. University of Hawaii. Last accessed July 2005, http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/p_buxi.htm. Tenbrink, L., and A. H. Hara. 1992c. Pinnaspis strachani (Cooley). Crop Knowledge Master. University of Hawaii, Hilo, HI., U.S.A. Last accessed July 17, 2006, http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/ kbase/crop/type/p_strach.htm. Tewari, G. C., and G. S. P. Rao. 1989. Establishing a Sequential Sampling Plan and Economic Injury Level for Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. Infesting Egg-plant [Abstract]. Giornale Italiano di Entomologia 4(22):229-234. Townsend, L. 2006. Houseplant Insect Control (E ntfact-405). University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture, KY, U.S.A. Last accessed December 21, 2006, http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Entomology /entfacts/pdfs/ entfa406.pdf. Traveset, A., M. F. Willson, and J. C. Gaither. 19 95. Avoidance by birds of insect-infested fruits of Vaccinium ovalifolium [Abstract]. Oikos 73(3):381-386. Umeh, V. C., F. O. Kuku, E. I. Nwanguma, O. S. Adebayo, and A. A. Manga. 2002. A survey of the insect pests and farmers' practices in th e cropping of tomato in Nigeria. Tropicultura 20(4):181-186. USDA-NA. 2003. The 2003 US National Arboretum "web version" of the USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map. United States Depart ment of Agriculture (USDA), National Arboretum (NA), U.S.A. La st accessed October 20, 2006, http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap.html. USDA. 1963. Insects not known to o ccur in the United States: Nata l fruit fly (Ceratitis rosa Karsch). United States Department of Agricu lture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Hyattsville, MD. USDA. 1983. Pests not known to occur in the United States or of limited distribution, No. 33: Melon Fly (Dacus cucurbitae (Coquillett)). Un ited States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Hyattsville, MD. USDA. 1984. Pests not known to occur in the United States or of limited distribution, No. 48: False Codling Moth (Cryptophleb ia leucotreta (Meyrick)). Un ited States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Hyattsville, MD.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 44 USDA. 2000. Guidelines for pathway-initiated pe st risk assessments (v. 5.02). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .Last accessed November 18, 2004, http:/ /www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/. USFWS. 2002. Threatened and endangered specie s system (TESS). United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Last accessed Fe bruary 2004, http://endangered.fws.gov/. USFWS. 2005. Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Last accessed March 24, 2005, http ://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html#Species. USGS. 2004. Moths of North America. United St ates Geological Survey (USGS), Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Ja mestown, ND. Last accessed July 2005, http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov. Vacante, V., M. Benuzzi, V. Palmeri, and G. Br afa. 2001. Experimental trials of microbiological control of the Turkey moth (Chrysodeixis chalcites (Esper )) in Sicilian greenhouse crops [Abstract]. Informatore F itopatologico 51(7/8):73-76. Varela, A. M., A. Seif, and B. Lohr. 2003. A Guid e to IPM in Tomato Pr oduction in Eastern and Southern Africa. The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), Nairobi, Kenya. Vivian-Smith, G., C. R. Gosper, A. Wilson, a nd K. Hoad. 2006. Lantana camara and the fruitand seed-damaging fly, Ophiomyia lantanae (A gromyzidae): Seed predator, recruitment promoter or dispersal disrupter ? Biological Control 36(2):247-257. Vreysen, M. J. B., H. J. Barclay, and J. He ndrichs. 2006. Modeling of preferential mating in areawide control programs that integrate the re lease of strains of sterile males only or both sexes. Annals of the Entomologi cal Society of America 99(3):607-616. Walter, B. 1981. Un viroide de la tomate en Afrique de I'ouest: identite avec le vioride du "potato Psindle Tuber"? C.R. Acad. Sci. 292:537. Walter, B. 1987. Tomato apical stunt. Pages 321-328 in T. O. Diener, (ed.). The Viorids. Plenum Press, New York. Walter, B., J. C. Thouvenel, and C. Fauquet. 19 80. Tomato viruses in the Ivory Coast. Annales de Phytopathologie 12(3):259-275. Webber, B. L., and I. E. Woodrow. 2004. Casso wary frugivory, seed defleshing and fruit fly infestation influence the transition from seed to seedling in the rare Australian rainforest tree, Ryparosa sp nov 1 (A chariaceae). Functional Plant Biology 31(5):505-516. Weber, E. 2003. Invasive Plant Species of the World: A Reference Guide to Environmental Weeds. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. 548 pp. Weems, H. V., Jr. 1964. Melon fly (Dacus cucurbita te Coquillett) (Diptera : Tephritidae). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Entomology Circular No. 29. Weems, H. V., Jr. 1981. Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) - Circular No. 230. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service - Division of Plant Industry, U.S.A. Wei, Z. G. 1987. A three-year experiment on releasing Tricho gramma confusum against the tobacco budworm, Heliothis assulta, on hot pepper. Chinese Journal of Biological Control 3(2):78-80. Wheeler, A. G., Jr., and T. J. Henry. 1992. A Synthe sis of the Holartic Mi ridae (Heteroptera): Distribution, Biology, and Origin, with Em phasis on North America. The Thomas Say Foundation, Lanham, MD, U.S.A. 282 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 45 White, I. M. 2006. Taxonomy of the Dacina (Dip tera: Tephritidae) of Africa and the Middle East. African Entomology Memoir 2:1-156 (CD ROM). White, I. M., and M. M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Fr uit Flies of Economic Significance: Their Identification and Bioeconomics. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 601 pp. Whitehead, V. B., and D. J. Rust. 1972. Control of the fruit-piercing moth Serrodes partita (Fabr.) (Lepidoptera: Noctui dae). Phytophylac tica 4:9-12. Widrlechner, M. P. 1997. Hardiness zones in Chin a. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Ames, IA, U.S.A. Williams, D. J. 2004. Mealybugs of Southern Asia . The Natural History Museum & Southdene SDN. BHD., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 896 pp. Wojtusiak, J. 1996. The Checklist of the Noctuidae moths of São Tomé and Príncipe islands in the Gulf of Guinea, with notes on their geog raphical distribution. Part III. Catocalinae, Ophiderinae, Hypeninae, Hypenodinae. Lambillionea Lambillionea 96(3):683-693. Wokocha, R. C., A. C. Ebenebe, and I. D. Erin le. 1986. Biological control of the basal stem rot disease of tomato caused by Corticium rolfsii (Sacc.) Curzi in Northern Nigeria [Abstract]. Tropical Pest Management 32(1):35-39. WSSA. 2006. Weed List. Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). Last accessed November 28, 2006, http://www.wssa.net/weednames/common.asp. Wu, K. J., P. Y. Gong, and Y. M. Ruan. 2006. Is tomato plant the host of the oriental tobacco budworm, Helicoverpa assulta (Guenée)? [Abstract]. Acta Entomologica Sinica 49(3):421-427. Yang, C., H. Jeon, M. Cho, D. Kim, and M. Yiem . 2004. Seasonal occurrence of oriental tobacco budworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuida e) male and chemical cont rol at red pepper fields. Korean Journal of Applied Entomology 43(1):49-54. Yeboah, M. A., and Y. Opoku-Asiamah. 2004. Effect of Meloidogyne incognita and Fusarium solani on the growth and yield of three to mato cultivars. Acta Horticulturae 635:175 182. Youdeowei, A. 2002. Integrated pest management practices for the production of vegetables. Ghana Ministry of Food and Agriculture- Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate with German Developm ent Cooperation, Accra, Ghana. 49 pp. Youdeowei, A., and A. U. Oboite. 1972. Caterpil lars of Aegocera rectilin ea Bdv. (Agaristidae) and Hippotion celerio (L.) (Sphingidae) feedin g on Boerhaavia difusia in Ibadan, Nigeria [Abstract]. Nigerian Entomol ogists' Magazine 2(4):151-152. Youssef, K. E. H., M. A. Assem, and S. M. Hammad. 1968. On the biology of Acherontia atropos L. in Egypt [Abstract]. Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique d'Egypte 52:503- 504. Zhang, B. C. 1994. Index of economically im portant Lepidoptera. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 599 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 46 

### 5. Appendices

Appendix A. Pest and pathogen interceptions on tomatoes from around the world and from ECOWAS44 countries on all commodities at U.S. ports Data for dates between 1985 and 2006 (PestID, 2007). Pest Tomato West Africa Total Baggage Cargo 45 Misc. 46 Total Acalymma sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 1 Acizzia sp. (Psyllidae) 1 1 Acremonium sp. 1 1 Aeolus sp. (Elateridae) 2 2 Agriolimax sp. (Agriolimacidae) 1 1 Agromyzidae, species of 18 1535 7 1560 64 Aleyrodidae, species of 31 31 18 Aleyrodinae, species of (Aleyrodidae) 2 2 2 Alternaria solani Sorauer 1 1 2 Alternaria sp. 1 1 1 Altica sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 1 Amphipyrinae, species of (Noctuidae) 1 1 Anastrepha sp. (Tephritidae) 1 1 2 12 Anthocoridae, species of 4 4 14 Anthrenus sp. (Dermestidae) 1 1 1 Aphididae, species of 35 1 36 150 Aphidoletes aphidimyza (Rondani) (Cecidomyiidae) 1 1 2 Aphis craccivora Koch (Aphididae) 1 1 Aphis fabae Scopoli (Aphididae) 1 1 Aphis gossypii Glover (Aphididae) 1 1 3 Arctiidae, species of 1 1 11 Arma custos (Fabricius) (Pentatomidae) 1 1 Arterus sp. (Curculionidae) 1 1 Aspergillus sp. 1 1 Asteraceae, species of 1 2 3 6 Atherigona sp. (Muscidae) 1 1 9 Aulacorthum solani (Kaltenbach) (Aphididae) 1 1 Aureobasidium sp. 1 1 Autographa gamma (Linnaeus) (Noctuidae) 7 7 1 Autographa sp. (Noctuidae) 1 1 1

44 Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, GuineaBissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo.
45 Includes permit and general cargo.
46 Holds, mail, miscellaneous, quarters and ship storesPest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 47 Pest Tomato West Africa Total Baggage Cargo 45 Misc. 46 Total Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Tephritidae) 16 1 1 18 19 Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Tephritidae) 10 10 1 Bactrocera latifrons (Hendel) (Tephritidae) 5 5
Bactrocera sp. (Tephritidae) 8 8 27 Blapstinus sp. (Tenebrionidae) 8 8 1 Blissus sp. (Blissidae) 1 1 1 Bostrichidae, species of 2 2 2 Braconidae, species of 2 2 7 Bradysia sp. (Sciaridae) 1 1 Bruchidae, species of 1 1 25 Bryocorinae, species of (Miridae) 1 1 Cacoecimorpha pronubana (Hubner) (Tortricidae) 1 2 3 Calocoris sp. (Miridae) 1 1 Carabidae, species of 1 1 Carnidae, species of 1 1 Catocalinae, species of (Noctuidae) 1 1 1 Cecidomyiidae, species of 1 1 2 54 Ceratitini, species of (Tephritidae) 1 1 936 Ceratothripoides brunneus Bagnall (Thripidae) 1 1 14 Chaetocnema sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 1 Chloropidae, species of 2 2 10 Chrysobothris sp. (Buprestidae) 1 1 Chrysodeixis chalcites (Esper) (Noctuidae) 1 52 53 Chrysodeixis sp. (Noctuidae) 8 8 Chrysomelidae, species of 1 1 2 11 Chrysopidae, species of 1 1 Chyromyidae, species of 1 1 Cicadellidae, species of 5 5 48 Cladosporium oxysporum Berk & Curt 1 1 1 Cladosporium sp. 2 5 20 27 43 Clepsis sp. (Tortricidae) 1 1 Colaspis sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 1 Coleophoridae, species of 1 1 2 Coleoptera, species of 1 1 17 Colletotrichum coccodes 1 1 Colletotrichum sp. 1 1 29Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 48 Pest Tomato West Africa Total Baggage Cargo 45 Misc. 46 Total Columbonirvana sp. (Cicadellidae) 1 1 Condica mobilis (Walker) (Noctuidae) 1 1 Conoderus sp. (Elateridae) 1 1 1 Conotrachelus sp. (Curculionidae) 1 1 4 Copitarsia sp. (Noctuidae) 2 2 4 Corticariidae, species of 2 2 Corylophidae, species of 10 10 1 Corythucha ciliata (Say) (Tingidae) 1 1 Crambidae, species of 1 1 44 Cryptophlebia sp. (Tortricidae) 1 1 1119 Curculionidae, species of 1 1 3 5 162 Cyclocephala sp. (Scarabaeidae) 1 3 4 Cyclorrhapha, species of 1 1 11 Cydnidae, species of 1 1 1 Cyrtopeltis sp. (Miridae) 5 5 Dacus cucurbitae Coquillet (Tephritidae) 10 10 1 Dacus dorsalis Hendel (Tephritidae) 1 1 Dendroctonus sp. (Scolytidae) 1 1
Deraeocoris sp. (Miridae) 1 1 Diabrotica speciosa (Germar) (Chrysomelidae) 1 1 Diaphania sp. (Crambidae) 1 1 63 Dictyonota tricornis Schrank (Tingidae) 1 1 Dicyphinae, species of (Miridae) 1 1 Dicyphus sp. (Miridae) 3 3 Didymella lycopersici (Brun.) Klebahn 1 1 Digitaria sp. (Poaceae) 1 1 Diptera, species of 6 2 8 79 Discus rotundatus (Muller) (Discidae) 1 1 Drosophilidae, species of 3 35 38 7 Duponchelia fovealis Zeller (Crambidae) 2 2 Dysdercus andreae (Linnaeus) (Pyrrhocoridae) 1 1 Eleodes sp. (Tenebrionidae) 1 1 Engytatus modestus (Distant) (Miridae) 1 1 Entomobryidae, species of 1 1 Ephydridae, species of 1 1 Etiella sp. (Pyralidae) 1 1 9 Eulophidae, species of 1 1 Euschistus crenator (Fabricius) (Pentatomidae) 1 1Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 49 Pest Tomato West Africa Total Baggage Cargo 45 Misc. 46 Total Frankliniella intonsa (Trybom) (Thripidae) 1 1 2 Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) (Thripidae) 6 6 Frankliniella sp. (Thripidae) 1 1 2 15
Fusarium sp. 2 2 43 Gelechiidae, species of 2 7 12 21 875 Geometridae, species of 2 1 3 11 Globodera rostochiensis (Woll.) Behrens 1 1 Gnathotrichus sp. (Scolytidae) 1 1 Gnathotrichus sulcatus Leconte (Scolytidae) 1 1 Gnorimoschema sp. (Gelechiidae) 1 2 3 1 Gryllus sp. (Gryllidae) 28 28 1 Hadeninae, species of (Noctuidae) 1 1 1 Helicidae, species of 1 1 1 Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Noctuidae) 2 2 4 8 Helicoverpa sp. (Noctuidae) 5 1 1 7 90 Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) (Noctuidae) 1 1 Heliothis sp. (Noctuidae) 1 1 67 Hemiptera, species of 3 3 4 Hesperiidae, species of 1 1 Heterogaster urticae (Fabricius) (Heterogastridae) 1 1 Heteropsylla sp. (Psyllidae) 1 1 Heteroptera, species of 18 1 19 7
Homoeosoma sp. (Pyralidae) 1 1 1 Hylastes cunicularius Erichson (Scolytidae) 1 1 Hylastes sp. (Scolytidae) 1 1 Hymenoptera, species of 1 1 7 Hypera brunnipennis (Boheman) (Curculionidae) 1 1 Ichneumonidae, species of 1 1 Insecta, species of 1 1 16 Ips integer (Eichhoff) (Scolytidae) 1 1 Ips lecontei Swaine (Scolytidae) 1 1 Ips pini (Say) (Scolytidae) 1 1 Ips sp. (Scolytidae) 1 1 Ischaemum rugosum Salisbury (Poaceae) 1 1 2 Keiferia lycopersicella (Walsingham) (Gelechiidae) 2 1 3 Keiferia sp. (Gelechiidae) 4 3 7Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 50 Pest Tomato West Africa Total Baggage Cargo 45 Misc. 46 Total Laestadia minuscula (Lev.) Sacc. 1 1 Lamiinae, species of (Cerambycidae) 1 1 4 Lathridiidae, species of 1 1 Lauxaniidae, species of 1 1 Lepidoptera, species of 2 6 1 9 76 Lestodiplosis sp. (Cecidomyiidae) 1 1 1 Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee (Crambidae) 5 1 6 Leucinodes sp. (Crambidae) 1 1 48 Limothrips cerealium (Haliday) (Thripidae) 2 2 Lineodes integra (Zeller) (Pyralidae) 2 1 3 Liorhyssus hyalinus (Fabricius) (Rhopalidae) 1 1 Liriomyza bryoniae Kaltenbach (Agromyzidae) 1 1 2 Liriomyza sp. (Agromyzidae) 14 14 Lonchaeidae, species of 2 2 203 Lygaeidae, species of 1 1 3 Lygus gemellatus (Herrich-Schaeffer) (Miridae) 1 1 Macrolophus caliginosus Wagner (Miridae) 1 1 Macrolophus costalis Fieber (Miridae) 5 5 Macrolophus melanotoma Costa (Miridae) 121 121 Macrolophus nubilus Herrich-Schaeffer (Miridae) 1 1 Macrolophus pygmaeus Rambun (Miridae) 1 47 48 Macrolophus sp. (Miridae) 4 924 928 Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) (Aphididae) 2 22 24 Macrosiphum sp. (Aphididae) 2 2 Macrotylus sp. (Miridae) 1 1 Mamestra brassicae (Linnaeus) (Noctuidae) 2 2 2
Maruca vitrata (Fabricius) (Crambidae) 1 1 39 Megapenthes sp. (Elateridae) 1 1 Meloidae, species of 1 1 Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & White) Chitwood (Heteroderidae) 1 1 2 Metachroma sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 1 Micrapate sp. (Bostrichidae) 1 1 Mikania sp. (Asteraceae) 1 1 Miridae, species of 10 497 1 508 54Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 51 Pest Tomato West Africa Total Baggage Cargo 45 Misc. 46 Total Muscidae, species of 1 1 29 Mycetophagidae, species of 1 1 Mycetophilidae, specie s of 1 1 1 Myochrous sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 1 Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Aphididae) 1 1 Myzus sp. (Aphididae) 1 1 1 Nasonovia ribisnigri (Mosley) (Aphididae) 1 1 Neoleucinodes elegantalis (Guenee) (Crambidae) 4 48 52 Neoleucinodes sp. (Crambidae) 2 4 6 Nesidiocoris tenuis (Reuter) (Miridae) 1 1 Nesosteles sp. (Cicadellidae) 1 1 Noctuidae, species of 5 31 3 39 166 Nodonota sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 1 Notodontidae, species of 1 1 1 Nysius sp. (Lygaeidae) 1 6 7 3 Oecanthus sp. (Gryllidae) 1 1 Orthotylinae, species of (Miridae) 1 1 Oxalis sp. (Oxalidaceae) 1 1 Oxycarenus hyalinipennis (Costa) (Oxycarenidae) 1 1 7 Panonychus sp. (Tetranychidae) 1 1 Paragonatas divergens (Distant) (Rhyparochromidae) 1 1 Parasitidae, species of 2 2 Parthenicus sp. (Miridae) 1 1 Penicillium sp. 1 1 2 Pennisetum sp. (Poaceae) 1 1 5 Pentatomidae, species of 2 1 3 8 Phlaeothripidae, species of 2 2 34 Phthorimaea operculella (Zeller) (Gelechiidae) 1 3 4 3 Phthorimaea sp. (Gelechiidae) 1 1 Phycitinae, species of (Pyralidae) 1 1 138 Phytocoris sp. (Miridae) 1 1 Phytoseiidae, species of 1 1 Pilemia sp. (Pyralidae) 1 1 Pityophthorus sp. (Scolytidae) 6 6 Planococcus ficus (Signoret) (Pseudococcidae) 1 1 Planococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 1 1 125 Platynota sp. (Tortricidae) 1 1 2Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 52 Pest Tomato West Africa Total Baggage Cargo 45 Misc. 46 Total Platypus sp. (Platypodidae) 1 1 Plusiinae, species of (Noctuidae) 11 11 14 Polydrusus sp. (Curculionidae) 1 1 Portulaca oleracea Linnaeus (Portulacaceae) 1 1 Pseudaulacaspis pentagona (Targoni-Tozzetti) (Diaspididae) 1 1 Pseudococcidae, species of 7 1 8 448 Pseudococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 2 2 4 15 Pseudococcus viburni (Signoret) (Pseudococcidae) 4 4 Pseudomonas syringae Hall 4 4 Pseudopachybrachius basalis (Dallas) (Lygaeidae) 1 1 Psocoptera, species of 1 1 6 Psychodinae, species of (Psychodidae) 1 1 Psyllidae, species of 2 2 10 Pterophoridae, species of 1 1 7 Ptochiomera nodosa Say (Lygaeidae) 1 1 Pyralidae, species of 1 2 2 5 218 Pyraustinae, species of (Crambidae) 2 2 1 5 117 Rhagoletis sp. (Tephritidae) 3 3 1 Rhopalosiphum rufiabdominalis (Sasaki) (Aphididae) 1 1 Scarabaeidae, species of 1 1 2 Schizomyia sp. (Cecidomyiidae) 1 1 2 Sciaridae, species of 4 4 Scolytidae, species of 8 8 15 Smarididae, species of 1 1 Sorghum sp. (Poaceae) 1 1 3 Sphaeroceridae, species of 1 1 Sphecidae, species of 1 1 Spodoptera eridania (Cramer) (Noctuidae) 1 1 Spodoptera exigua (Hubner) (Noctuidae) 1 1 Spodoptera sp. (Noctuidae) 2 2 4 15 Stemphylium sp. 10 10 Stephanopachys sp. (Bostrichidae) 3 3 Sympycninae, species of (Dolichopodidae) 1 1 Syrphidae, species of 1 1
Tarsonemus sp. (Tarsonemidae) 1 1 2 7 Tephritidae, species of 12 1 13 1478 Tetranychus sp. (Tetranychidae) 2 2 4Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 53 Pest Tomato West Africa Total Baggage Cargo 45 Misc. 46 Total Theba pisana (Muller) (Helicidae) 1 1 2 4 Thrips palmi Karny (Thripidae) 1 1 Thrips tabaci Lindeman (Thripidae) 2 1 3 6 Tingidae, species of 1 1 2 Tortricidae, species of 1 4 5 149 Tortricinae, species of (Tortricidae) 1 1 2 36 Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Westwood) (Aleyrodidae) 2 2 Trichoplusia ni (Hubner) (Noctuidae) 2 2 Trichoplusia orichalcea (Fabricius) (Noctuidae) 1 1 Trichoplusia sp. (Noctuidae) 2 2 Trogossitidae, species of 1 1 2 Tropidosteptes sp. (Miridae) 1 1 Trypodendron signatum (Fabricius) (Scolytidae) 1 1 Typhaea stercorea (Linnaeus) (Mycetophagidae) 1 1 Typhlocybinae, species of (Cicadellidae) 1 1 1 Ulus sp. (Tenebrionidae) 1 1 Urochloa sp. (Poaceae) 2 4 6 Veronicella sp. (Veronicellidae) 1 1 1 Xanthomonas campestris Pv. citri (Hasse) Dye 2 2 9 Xanthomonas campestris Pv. vesicatoria (Doidge) Dows. 1 1 Xyleborus sp. (Scolytidae) 1 1 3 Zonitoides arboreus (Say) (Gastrodontidae) 1 1 Zygogramma sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 1Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 54 Appendix B. Pest Mitigation Options

B1. Introduction In this pest risk assessment for tomatoes ( Solanum lycopersicum ) from the Economic Community of West Af rican States (ECOWAS 47 ) we identified nine quara ntine pests likely to follow the pathway to the Continental United States (Table B1). Further an alysis indicated these pests pose High to Medium risk potentials to th e Continental United States. Other than some minimal post-harvest washing and culling, we eval uated pest risk potentials on the unmitigated importation of tomatoes.

Table B1. Quarantine pests likely to follow the path way on fresh tomatoes from ECOWAS (the Economic Community of West African States ). Also shown are estimated USDA Plant Hardiness Zones and risk level. Pest Zone Risk rating
Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillet) (Diptera: Tephritidae) 9, 10 High Bactrocera invadens (Drew et al.) (Dipte ra: Tephritidae) 9, 10 High Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) 8 - 10 High Ceratitis rosa Karsh (Diptera: Tephritidae) 9, 10 High Chrysodeixis chalcites Esper (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) 8 - 10 Medium Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) 5 - 10 High Helicoverpa assulta (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) 6 - 10 High Leucinodes orbonalis (Guenee) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) 8 - 10 High Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) 9, 10 Medium Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) 9, 10 Medium

According to the International Pl ant Protection Convention, countries have the sovereign right to use risk mitigation strategies that minimize pest risks to a scientif ically justified level (Article VII; IPPC, 1997). The appropr iate level of phytosanitary protection for an imported commodity can be achieved by the applicati on of a single phytosanitary meas ure, such as inspection or a quarantine treatment, or a combination of m easures through a systems approach (IPPC, 2002). While developing mitigation strategies, it is im portant to understand that risk can never be eliminated, but it can be reduced and managed. Selection of the appropriate risk mitigation 48 options must consider not only the efficacy of the various risk mitigation strategies, but also the potential impact that such stra tegies would have to the importi ng and exporting countries. Risk mitigation strategies must also minimize impacts on the international movement of people, commodities and conveyances (ISPM #2; IPPC, 2006) . IPPC standards outline two steps in risk mitigation: 1) identification of risk mitigation op tions and 2) analysis of the efficacy and impact of the different options (ISPM #2; IPPC, 2006). Th is appendix provides the first step in risk

47 Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Cote d’Ivoire, Gambia , Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissa u, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo
48 Pest risk management is the “evaluation and selection of options to reduce the risk of introduction and spread of a

pest.” (ISPM #5; IPPC, 2006).Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 55 mitigation, i.e., the identification of phytosanitary options.

B2. Phytosanitary Options Many types of risk mitigation procedures may be used to minimize the risk of the establishment of quarantine pests in the importing country. Specif ic mitigations may be selected from a range of pre-harvest and post-harvest options, and ot her safeguarding measures such detection and certification. In cases where the number and divers ity of quarantine pests ar e particularly high or where a particular mitigation strategy alone can not reduce pest risk to an acceptable level, a systems approach may be more appropriate. A systems approach to pest risk mitigation integrates two or more independent mitigation op tions to cumulatively reduce pest risk to an acceptable level (ISPM #14; IPPC, 2006). Combining specific mitigation measures in a way that provides overlapping or sequentia l safeguards is distinctly di fferent from applying single mitigation methodologies such as fumigation or inspection. In a systems approach, mitigation measures may be added or the strength of measur es increased to compensate for uncertainty and changing pest dynamics. While the quantification of the effectiveness of each measure may not be practical in all cases, the aim is to ensure that the overall effectiv eness of the combined components reduces pest risk to an acceptable level (ISPM #14; IPPC, 2006).

In this PRA we considered export of fresh tomato es from 15 countries in western Africa. A site visit to Senegal by two APHIS personnel in Februa ry 2007 showed that in addition to standard harvest and packinghouse procedures (i.e., cullin g and washing), tomatoes are cultivated in enclosed screenhouses (Robertson, 2007a, 2007b). Sc reenhouses reduce or eliminate the risk of many large- and medium-sized becoming associat ed with the commodity by excluding the pests (Jones, 1999). Below, we considered screenhous e exclosures as a mitigation option, but also considered other options because other EC OWAS countries may not use screenhouses.

The aim of this appendix is to assist PPQ risk mitigation decisi on makers by presenting available phytosanitary measures that can provide, or po tentially provide, an appropriate level of phytosanitary protection against the quarantine pests of concern. We list phytosanitary measures based on evidence of their pest mitigation capability and without consideration of their effect on the plant commodity, which is beyond the scope of this document. Below we describe phytosanitary options that may be used to redu ce the risk of quarantine pests entering and establishing in the Continental United States on fr esh tomatoes from western Africa (Table B4).

B2.1. Inspection & Monitoring and Phytosanitary Certification Inspection and Monitoring. Fruit inspection and monitoring is an important mitigation measure that can be used alone or in conjunction with other mitigation measures. Through inspection and monitoring, pest infestations can be identified an d managed before pests have an opportunity to follow the pathway to the importing country. Co ntinuous monitoring can be used at production sites to ensure pest free areas or areas of low pest prev alence (ISPMs #10, #22; IPPC, 2006). Inspection of fruit during the growing season is us eful to identify particul ar pests before they become problematic. Following harvest and post-ha rvest treatment, additi onal inspections help insure quarantine significant pests have been eliminated from the pathway. Finally, at U.S. ports, additional inspections in crease our assurance that a commodity is free from quarantine pests before entering the country. Statistical procedur es are available to verify, to a specifiedPest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 56 confidence level, the pest-free status of an ar ea or commodity, given negative sampling results (e.g., Barclay and Hargrove, 2005; Culliney, 2003).

Due to the presence of C. capitata and other fruit flies, curren t regulations (7 CFR§319.56-2dd) for tomatoes from Spain, France, Morocco and We stern Sahara and Australia require the national plant protection organizations to inspect production greenhouses and their surrounding areas at least two months prior to shippi ng to establish their freedom from high risk quarantine pests (see 7 CFR§319.56-2dd for sampling details). Under such inspection programs, survey results must be negative for larvae of fruit flies, moths and external pests. Within a registered greenhouse, capture of a single fruit fly or other quaranti ne pest result in the immediate cancellation of exports from that greenhouse until the source of th e infestation is determined, the infestation has been eradicated, and measures have been taken to preclude any future in festation. Furthermore, each shipment of tomatoes should be accompanie d by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization (7 CFR§319.56-2dd). The inspection and monitoring program used by these countries is part of a la rger systems approach to mitigate pest risk. Mitigation measures for tomatoes from Chile do not include inspection and monitoring because Chilean tomato producers trea t their tomatoes with met hyl bromide (7 CFR§319.56-2dd).

Phytosanitary Certification. A phytosanitary (plant he alth) certificate is an official document issued by an exporting country, verifying that th e shipment conforms to the phytosanitary import requirements of the importing country, whateverthose may be (e.g., pre-harvest inspection, postharvest treatment, etc.). The in tended purpose of a phytosanitary ce rtificate is to expedite the entry of plants or plant products into a country while protecting the country’s agriculture and natural environment. Thus, phytosanitary certific ation is a mitigation measure that provides additional oversight; it is always used in conjunction with other mitigation measures.

B2.2. Pest Freedom and Areas of Low Pest Prevalence Establishment of Pest Free Areas. A pest free area is “an area in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated by scientif ic evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained” (ISPM #4; IPPC, 2006) . Pest free areas can be defined within a region of a country or for a group of countries co mprising a certain region. To establish a pest free area, 1) the area must be readily delimite d/determined, 2) there must be phytosanitary measures in place to establish and maintain the pe st free status, and 3) there must be checks to verify that freedom has been maintained (ISPM #4; IPPC, 2006). As a sole mitigative measure, the establishment of pest-free areas may be effective in satis fying an importing country’s appropriate level of phytosanitar y protection. Because the exporting region c onsidered in this PRA is very large and heterogeneous, the plan t pests considered here do not occur in all countries (see the Pest list; Table B2) or all region s within a country 49 . Thus, this mitigation option may be very appropriate to consider for so me of the pests. Establishment and maintenance of pest-free areas should be in compliance with internati onal standards (e. g., ISPM #4; IPPC, 2006).

49 A literature search did not indicate the presence of any of the nine quarantine pests in Guinea-Bissau. This likely reflects limited survey data in the country rather than th e true distribution of pests. Both Senegal and Guinea, which border and surround Guinea-Bissau, have several of the nine quarantine pests (Table A2b); therefore, it is highly likely, Guinea-Bissau does as well.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 57 Table B2. Distribution a of quarantine pests in western Af rica (ECOWAS countries) as reported in the scientific literature (X = present). Pest BF BN CI CV GB GH GM GU LB ML NG NR SN SL TG
Bactrocera cucurbitae X X X X X X Bactrocera invadens X X X X Ceratitis capitata X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Ceratitis rosa X X X Chrysodeixis chalcites X X X X X X Helicoverpa armigera X X X X X X X X X X X X Helicoverpa assulta X X X X X X X X Leucinodes orbonalis X X X X X X X X X Maconellicoccus hirsutus X X X X X X X X Nipaecoccus viridis X X X X X X X

a BF = Burkina Faso; BN = Benin; CI = Côte d’Ivoire ; CV = Cape Verde; GH = Ghana; GM = Gambia; GU =

Guinea; GB = Guinea-Bissau; LB = Liberia; ML = Mali; NG = Nigeria; NR = Niger; SL = Sierra Leone; SN = Senegal; TG = Togo

Establishment of a Pest Free Producti on Site or Place of Production. A pest free place of production or production site is a “place of produc tion in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in wh ich, where appropriate, th is condition is being officially maintained for a defined period” (ISPM #10; IPPC, 2006). This definition is similar to the previous one for pest free areas; however, they differ in degree of scale. A place of production is much more localized in scope a nd can only include places /sites that are being managed in the same way, usually by the producer . Pest free areas are usually managed by the national plant protection organization and are main tained pest-free over an extended period of time. In contrast, pest free production sites ar e managed by the producer and may be maintained pest free for as little as a seas on or two. Pest free production sites ar e established similarly to pest free areas, but with the added re quirement that all products are adequately labeled to identify the particular production site. Once a pest free produ ction site or place of production has been established, the producer must ma intain the site pest free (I SPM #10; IPPC, 2006). As a sole mitigative measure, the establishment of pest-f ree production sites or places of production may be effective in satisfying an importing country’s appropriate level of phyt osanitary protection for any of the nine pests considered here.

Currently, U.S. import regulations for tomatoes from Spain, France, Morocco, Western Sahara and Australia require that produc tion greenhouses remain free of C. capitata ( 7 CFR § 319.56 2dd) . In addition, Australia must maintain pest freedom from Bactrocera aquilonis, B. cucumis, B. jarvis, B. neohumeralis, B. tryoni, Chry sodeixis argentifera, C. erisoma, Helicoverpa armigera, H. punctigera, Lamprolonc haea brouniana, Sceliodes cordalis, and Spodoptera litura

. For all countries, the Code of Federal Regulations describes how the countries must survey for these pests to ensure pest freedom, when they must begin surveys, and how they should respond to pest detection ( 7 CFR § 319.56 2dd)

.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 58 Establishment of Areas of Low Pest Prevalence. An area of low pest prevalence (ALPP) is “an area, whether all of a country, part of a country, or all or parts of severa l countries, as identified by the competent authorities, in wh ich a specific pest occurs at low levels and which is subject to effective surveillance, control or eradication measures” (ISPM #22; IPPC, 2006). Establishment and maintenance of ALPPs mitigate pest risk by assuring the importing countries that pest prevalence (a contributor to pest risk) is mainta ined at some predetermined low level that is acceptable. Thus, monitoring is a key component of this strategy. Should pest prevalence cross a certain threshold, then specific control measures would be executed to reduce pest prevalence. Any protocol for establishing and maintaining an area of low pest preval ence should also include a pest-reporting procedure and em ergency action plan to address target pest detections (ISPM #22; IPPC, 2006). Procedures for the establishment and maintenance of ALPPs should comply with international standards. The IPPC (ISPM #22; IPPC, 2006) recommends that the exporting country consult with the importing country in the early stages of implementation to ensure the importing country requirement’s are met. In part icular, target or thre shold population densities defining an area of low pest pr evalence should be established in consultation with the importing country.

B2.3. Suppression, Control and Prevention

. Cultural, chemical, or mechanical means (e.g

., orchard sanitation, pruning of dead and diseased branches, pre-harvest application of pesticides, fruit bagging) may be used to prevent, reduce or suppress pest populations in crops. These techniques are useful in maintaining pest free areas and sites of production or suppressing pest populations to beneath certain levels.

Sterile Insect Release. Sterile insect release is an effectiv e pest control strategy that works by disrupting pest mating (Vreysen et al

. , 2006). Effectiveness of this control strategy increases as the wild pest population d ecreases because it becomes increasi ngly difficult for a wild female to find a wild (non-sterilized male). Sterile inse ct programs have been developed and used for Ceratitis capitata (PPQ, 2003) and Bactrocera cucurbitae (Kakinohana et al

. , 1997; McInnis et al

. , 2004), however, they have not for any of the other quarantine pests id entified in this risk assessment. Successful programs could probably be developed for the other two fruit flies, B. invadens and C. rosa following PPQ guidelines (PPQ, 2003). B ecause sterile insect techniques have been used to control populations of codlin g moth (e.g., Calkins, 19 98), similar techniques could also be developed for the four quarantin e lepidoptera. To our know ledge, sterile insect release programs have not been developed for mealybugs.

Chemical Application. Pesticides, including those based on microbiological agents can control and suppress pests, especially wh en strategically used; however, their widespread and prolific use can impact the environment (Carson, 1962), fo ster pesticide resistance in pests (Gardner et al

. , 1998; Peck and Ellner, 1997) and kill natural enemies (Siscaro et al

. , 2006). There are a large variety of pesticides available for pest mitigation in general, and several that could be used to mitigate against the high risk pests considered here. For example, Bacillus thuringiensis sprays offer 100 percent control of Chrysodeixis chalcites (Vacante et al

. , 2001); and sprays of nucleopolyhedrovirus reduced Helicoverpa armigera damage on tomatoes by 69 to 81 percent (Moore et al

. , 2004). It is beyond the scope of this docum ent to give a detailed summary of the pesticides that have been us ed against the ten quarantine pe sts listed above. Overall, it is expected that pesticides will be effective at reducing, or perhaps even eliminating pestPest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 59 populations of surface-feeding pests on tomato fru it, particularly moths. However, pesticide applications (i.e., foliar sprays) may not be as effective for the meal ybugs or the internally feeding fruit flies, unless the pe sticides are systemic (CABI, 2005). Bait sprays that target adult fruit flies are more economically effec tive than foliar spra ys (CABI, 2005; Ortu et al

. , 2005). It is also important to consider that all pesticides are not necessarily equally effective against the same target species (Raga 2006).

Shadehouse / Greenhouse Production. Greenhouse / shadehouse production of vegetables is not an uncommon practice (e.g

. , Engindeniz, 2004; Jovicich et al

. , 2005; Kumar et al

. , 2005). It allows producers to control the growing environment of the crop a nd ultimately produce better or higher quality commodities. Greenhouse production of tomatoes protects fruit from most pests that would require the use of pe sticides and fungicides as if they were field-grown, thereby providing another mitigation technique (Jone s, 1999). Current quarantine regulations (7CFR§319.56-2dd) require that to matoes from Spain, France, Morocco and Western Sahara, Chile be grown in insect-proof, pest-free gree nhouses. To prevent pests from entering, the greenhouses are required to be equipped with do uble self-closing doors. Furthermore, vents and openings (other than the double cl osing doors) are to be covered with screening to prevent the entry of pests.

To exclude plant pests, the mesh size of the gr eenhouse/shadehouse screening is critical (Byrne, 1998). According to two recent publications, the me sh size would have to be 0.2 mm or smaller to eliminate all insects from entering greenhouses through the screening (Table B3). Smaller sizes are problematic because they increase h eat and fungal problems through reduced air flow (Ghidiu and Roberts, 2002; Murphy and Ferguson , 2000). The standard screen size of 0.6 mm for tomato greenhouses effectively excludes medium to large insects, such as moths and fruit flies. Although some of the sma llest pests may not be excluded by 0.6 mm screening, most pests would be excluded. Additionally, some pests may encounter the screening material, not recognize it and fly off in search of a suitable host (2005). Since th e start of the tomato systems approach in Spain and France, pest interceptions have been very low (PestID, 2008). Screening effectiveness is demonstrated by the lack of in terceptions of large insects and the overall low numbers of interceptions; only very small pests such as Agromyzidae and nymphal Miridae have been intercepted from these countries (PestID, 2008).

Table B3: Screen Hole Size (microns) to Prevent Pest Entry. 1mm = 1000microns Pest Ghidiu and Roberts, 2002 Murphy and Ferguson, 2000 Leafminers 640 608 Whiteflies 462 239 Aphids 340 355 Flower thrips 192 215

B2.4. Post-harvest Safeguards and Packinghouse Procedures

. Because fruit harvest, grading and packing pro cedures sometimes require a lot of “hands-on” handling of fruit, these processes provide an excellent opportunity for mitigative measures to eliminate pests from the pathway, particularly external surface pests like moths and mealybugs.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 60 For example, harvested tomatoes could be covered with screens, plastic ta rpaulins, or other pestproof covers while in transit to the packing house and while awaiting packing. When receiving and packing tomatoes for export to the Contin ental United States, the packing house should only accept tomatoes from registered approved pr oduction sites that follow U.S. phytosanitary regulations. In the packinghouse, tomatoes should be sized and culled (to remove damaged and deformed fruit). The fruit could also unde rgo mechanical brushing and cleansing using compressed air or other treatment to remove extern al pests, particularly from the region of the stem and calyx. The calyx could also be removed, if possible, to eliminate any hiding places for small insects. Like current regulations for to matoes from Spain, France, Morocco and West Sahara, and Australia (7 CFR§319.5 6- 2dd), the tomatoes should be packed within 24 hours of harvest in a pest exclusionary packing house. Exporters could also pack tomatoes in pest proof containers as an additional phytosanitary measure.

Immersion of the fruit in a water bath containi ng either a detergent (surfactant) or a surface sterilant, such as chlorine bleach can remove and kill many surface pests. One study that used an insecticidal soap as a dip for mealybug-infested limes found that the soap killed approximately 30 percent of the mealybugs and caused 74 percent of them (alive and dead) to fall off the fruit (Gould and McGuire, 2000). In contrast, a pe troleum based oil (Ampol) caused 94 percent mortality and 82 percent removal (Gould and McGuire, 2000). Surfactan ts, such as common dishwashing detergent, may show a high degree of insecticidal activity with minimal risk of phytotoxicity. For example, Liu & Stansly (2000) achieved mortali ties of 95-99 percent in leafinfesting populations of silverleaf whitefly ( Bemisia argentifolii ) treated with detergent-water solutions ranging in concentration from 2-30 ml L -1 . Detergent-water solutions of about 1 ml/L are effective in killing mealybugs and other Coccoidea on plants (Townsend, 2006). Washing may also be effective at dislodging larvae of le pidoptera. Additional research is required to evaluate the efficacy of washing treatments on toma to fruit, particularly if it may promote fruit decay (Bartz, 1999).

Overall, these methods should remove or kill th e majority of surface pests on tomatoes. Fruit inspection prior to packing will he lp ensure the fruit are free of pests. Inspection, treatment, or other mitigative measures performed in the field and packinghouse should be conducted under the direct supervision of qua lified APHIS and national plant protection organization (NPPO) personnel, in accordance with specified phytos anitary procedures. Such programs require monitoring of all aspects of required phytosanitar y measures, and aim to identify shortcomings or opportunities for program improvement. Inspection procedures should be overseen by the NPPO of the exporting country.

B2.5. Quarantine Treatments. Methyl bromide fumigation. Methyl bromide (CH3Br) is a colo rless, odorless fumigant with relatively low solubility in wate r (PPQ, 2006). As a fumigant, it is very effective at treating a wide variety of pests on a range of different hosts , including eggs and larv ae of internal Diptera and Lepidoptera. It can also be used to devitalize plants at higher concentrations. Methyl bromide fumigation involves exposing the commodity to the fumigant in a somewhat enclosed space over a relatively short peri od of time (e.g., a few hours). Following treatment, sufficient time must be given to allow the fumigant to diffuse from the commod ity. APHIS has developed and approved a methyl bromide treatment schedule for C. capitata on tomatoes, but not for anyPest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 61 of the other pests (PPQ, 2006). Me thyl bromide is approved for B. cucurbitae on avocados. Given their similar biology and relatedness, it is likely that methyl brom ide schedules could be developed for the other fruit flies on tomatoes. Me thyl bromide is also used to treat external pests, including some lepidoptera (PPQ, 2006) . Thus, following some research, specific treatment schedules could be de veloped for the other pests.

Irradiation. Irradiation consists of exposing the commod ity to gamma-emitting isotopes such as Cobalt-60 or Cesium-137) or to electron beams (beta rays) produced by linear accelerators (APHIS, 1997). Irradiation has been demonstrated to be effective at sterilizing organisms that may contaminate commodities and yet pose no significant danger to human health or the environment (Hallman, 2000; APHIS, 1997). Since th e object of irradiation is sterilization and not necessarily mortality, documentation of the do sage must accompany all irradiated shipments. APHIS has approved irradiation as a treatment for all tephritid fruit flies in fruit, including C. capitata in tomatoes from Hawaii (minimum abso rbed pest dose = 150 Gy; PPQ, 2006). All other insects, except lepidoptera pupae and adults can be treated at a minimum dose of 400 Gy. Thus, irradiation would be an effective pest quarantine treatment for fruit flies and mealybugs, but not necessarily lepidoptera, depending on their life history stage. Because pupae of C. chalcites have been frequently intercepted in permit cargo on tomatoes (PestID, 2008), irradiation would not be an effective qua rantine treatment against this pest.

Vapor Heat Treatment. Vapor heart treatment consists of raising the temperature of fruit by satuated water vapor at 112oF over several hours until the center of the fruit reaches 112oF (PPQ, 2006). The fruit is held at 112oF for a period of time and then cooled immediately (PPQ, 2006). Pretreatment conditioning is optio nal but may prolong the life of th e fruit. Vapor heat treatments for C. capitata and B. cucurbitae have been approved for tomatoes from Hawaii (T106-b-7 Vapor Heat). Treatment consists of raising the temperature to 112oF and th en maintaining it there for 8.75 hours (PPQ, 2006). A similar treatment sche dule may be effective against the other two fruit flies, but more research is required. A vapor heat treatment of 47oC for 45 minutes is effective at killing all M. hirsutus on the fruit surface (Follett, 2004), while a very similar schedule is effective at killing Nipaecoccus on cut flowers (Hansen et al

. , 1992)

. Research is needed to determine specific tr eatment schedules for the four qu arantine lepidoptera considered here, but vapor heat treatment is expected to work against lepidoptera as well (e.g., Shimabukuro et al

. , 1997).

Cold Treatment. Cold treatment involves maintaining fr uit near freezing conditions for an extended period (PPQ, 2006). Temperature sensors pl aced in the storage compartment and within fruit insure that cold treatment procedures we re followed and that fruit reached the required temperature. Cold treatments for C. capitata
, C. rosa and B. cucurbitae on various commodities have been approved APHIS. These consist of chill ing the fruit to 33-35oC and maintaining that temperature for 15-22 days, depending on the co mmodity (PPQ, 2006). Specific research for the optimal treatment schedule for these flies including B. invadens in tomatoes is required. With respect to the other pests, cold storage treatmen t options for fruit have not been investigated.

B2.6. Limited Entry & Distribution

. Limiting the quantity of a product imported to sma ller but perhaps more frequent shipments can also reduce the risk of pest establishment by minimizing the risk of a mating pair formingPest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 62 (Follett and Neven, 2006). This woul d be critical for fruit flies and moths which use pheromones to find their mates. Also, limiting the distribution of pests to climatically unsuitable areas would also prevent their permanent establishment in th e Continental United States . Because most of the quarantine pests analyzed in this pest risk asse ssment are tropical species (Table B1), limiting the distribution of ECOWAS tomatoes to norther n ports would also grea tly reduce pest risk.

Table B4. Mitigation options for pests of tomatoes ( Solanum lycopersicum ) from ECOWAS countries in western Africa. Mitigation Option Pests Efficacy Inspection & Monitoring and Phytosanitary Certification Foreign inspection & monitoring All Inspection and monitoring at production sites and packing houses can safeguard against all pests. This mitigation measure is currently used in a systems approach for the export of tomatoes from France, Spain, Morocco & Western Sahara, and Au stralia (7 CFR§319.56-2dd). Commodity must be accompani ed with a phytosanitary certificate from the national pl ant protection organization of the exporting country. US port inspections All Satisfies requirements for appropriate level of phytosanitary protection for Low risk pests and some Medium risk pests (USDA, 2000). Phytosanitary Certification All Certification is effective in that it provides additional oversight in safeguarding. Pest Freedom and Areas of Low Pest Prevalence Pest free areas All Satisfies requirements for appropriate level of phytosanitary protection Pest free production sites or places of production All Satisfies requirements for appropriate level of phytosanitary protection

Areas of Low Pest Prevalence All May satisfy requirements for appropriate level of phytosanitary protection alone or in combination with other measures Suppression / Control / Prevention Sterile insect release Fruit flies This techni que is already approved for use on fruit flies (PPQ, 2003) and has been used for mitigation of C. capitata and B. cucurbitae (Kakinohana et al

. , 1997; McInnis et al

. , 2004; PPQ, 2003). Production methods would need to be developed for C. rosa and B. invadens. Moths This technique has already been used for moths (Bloem et al

. , 2005), but production methods and efficacy studies would be needed for all four moths examined here. Mealybugs Sterile insect release is not a recognized mitigation technique for mealybugs.Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 63 Mitigation Option Pests Efficacy Pesticides Moths & fruit flies Several different pesticides are described in the literature that may be efficacious against moths and fruit flies (see text above). Mealybugs In general, pesticides are not as effective against mealybugs as they can hide in crevices were foliar pesticides do not readily penetrate (CABI, 2005) Greenhouse / shadehouse production Moths & fruit flies, but not mealybugs Screen mesh sizes of 0.6 mm or less, effectively prevent moths and fruit flies from entering, but not necessarily smaller insects such as m ealybugs (crawlers are 0.3mm long) (CABI, 2005; Ghidiu and Roberts, 2002; Murphy and Ferguson, 2000). In general, guidelines for greenhouse mitigation should follow those already in place for tomatoes from other countries (7CFR§319.56- 2dd). Post-Harvest Safeguards a nd Packinghouse Procedures Transport, packing & washing Mealybugs & moths Should eliminate the majority of surface pests from following the pathway (see text). Fruit flies Unlikely to be effective Quarantine Treatments Methyl Bromide Fruit flies Methyl bromide treatme nt is approved for C. capitata on tomatoes (T101-c-3 & T101-c-3-1) (PPQ, 2006). Further research is required to determine if treatment would be effective against the other fruit flies. Moths & mealybugs Methyl bromide, in general is used for external feeders, including lepidoptera (PPQ, 2006). Further research is needed to identify which treatment schedules would be appropriate for moths and mealybugs. Irradiation Fruit flies & mealybugs Irradiation is already approved for use on fruit flies at 150 Gy (APHIS, 1997). All other in sects, including mealybugs would require a minimum absorbed dose of 400 Gy. Moths Irradiation is not approved for pupae and adults of lepidoptera (APHIS, 1997). Because, Chrysodeixis chalcites has been frequently intercepted in permit cargo as pupae (PestID, 2008), irradi ation, alone, would not be an effective quarantine treatment against this particular pest. Vapor Heat Treatment Fruit flies Vapor heat treatments for C. capitata and B. cucurbitae have been approved for tomatoes from Hawaii (T106-b-7 Vapor Heat). Further research needed to determine the efficacy of this treatment on the other two fruit fly species Mealybugs A vapor heat treatment of 47oC for 45 minutes is effective at killing all M. hirsutus on the fruit surface (Follett, 2004), while a very similar schedu le is effective at killingPest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 64 Mitigation Option Pests Efficacy Nipaecoccus on cut flowers (Hansen et al

. , 1992)

. Moths No specific treatment for Chrysodeixis
, Helicoverpa , or Leucinodes was identified, but va por heat treatment in general should be effective against Lepidoptera (e.g., Shimabukuro et al

. , 1997) Cold Treatment Fruit flies Cold treatments for C. capitata
, C. rosa and B. cucurbitae on various commodities have been approved APHIS (PPQ, 2006). Specific research for the optimal treatment schedule for these flies and B. invadens in tomatoes is required. With respect to the other pests, cold storage treatment options for fruit ha ve not been investigated. Moths and mealybugs Cold treatment options for these pests in fruit have not been identified. Limited Pest Entr y & Distribution Limited Pest Entry Fruit flies & moths Would be effective agains t flying insects that use pheromones to find mates. Mealybugs Most likely ineffective, es pecially given that gravid adult females may follow the pathway. Limited Distribution B. cucurbitae, B. invadens, C. rosa, M. hirsutus, N. viridis Because these five pests are subtropical/tropical species (Zones 9 & 10), limiting the distribution of ECOWAS tomatoes to northern ports would significantly limit the establishment of these pests.

C. capitata, C. chalcites, H. armigera, H. assulta, L. orbonalis Given the wider climatic range of these pests, limiting their entry and distribution to northern ports would not appreciably reduce their ri sk of establishment.

B3 Conclusion In this risk assessment we identified four fru it flies, four moths, and two mealybugs that are likely to be associated with fresh tomatoes e xported from ECOWAS to the Continental United States. These could threaten U.S. agriculture and natural resources should they establish in the Continental United States. In this appendix, we have identified a variety of risk mitigation strategies that can reduce the ri sk of these pests establishing in the Continental United States. Selecting a mitigation strategy is complicated b ecause this pest risk assessment encompasses a diverse region where not only pest status differs among countries, but where cultural practices and resources may differ. Furthermore, because th e pests represent three di stinct life forms with different biologies, a single risk mitigation option may not be sufficient to reduce pest risk to an acceptable level for all three pest groups. A systems approach with specific mitigations targeting these three pest groups may be more appropr iate. PPQ uses system approaches for the importation of many commodities including Unshu oranges from Japan (7 CFR § 319.28, U.S. Federal Register, 1997), tomatoes from Spain, France, Morocco, and Western Sahara (7 CFRPest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 65 §319.56-2dd, U.S. Federal Register, 1997), and peppe rs from Israel (7 CFR § 319.56-2u U.S. Federal Register, 1997). These programs have pe rformed successfully for many years based on pest and pathogen intercepti on records (PestID, 2008).

Port import specialists will decide the choice of the appropriate mitigation option or combination of options in consultation with the exporting country. The speci fication and implementation of phytosanitary measures, as would be present in an operational work plan, is beyond the scope of this document. As a further aid for risk manage rs, Table B5 lists phytosanitary mitigations that are required from foreign countries that export tomatoes to the Continental United States.PRA fort ECOWAS tomatoesRev: 005 June 5, 200966Table B5.Required phytosanitary mitigations for tomato exports to theUnited States. The permitted plant parts are fruit, stems, andleaves in every case. The CFR reference is 7 CFR § 319.562dd, except that for Mexico and Poland it is 7 CFR § 319.56 2t.Spain France Morocco & W.SaharaChile Australia Mexico PolandFruit type permittedPink or red Pink or red Pink Green, pink or red NA Green GreenMitigation measuresGrown in greenhouses x x x xGrown in particular areas x x xLimited shipping dates x xMedfly monitoring, mitigation &record keepingx x x xFruit packed within 24 hours x x x x xShipping in insect proof containers x x x x xPhytosanitary certificates required x x x xMethyl bromide treatment xYearly trust fund agreement for preclearance servicesxOther pest monitoring, mitigation &record keepingxPests of concernNA see Notes see Notes see Notes see Notes NA NANotes: Quarantine pests selected for further analysis in the respective PRAs as follows:France(Bryotropha plebejella,Ceratitis capitata, Helicoverpa armigera,Heliothis peltigera, H. viriplaca, Lacanobia oleraceae, Spodoptera littoralis);Morocco(Ceratitis capitata, Autographa gamma, Helicoverpa armigera,Spodoptera littoralis);Chile(Rhagoletis tomatis, Tuta absoluta, Liriomyza huidobrensis, Ceratitis capitata); andAustralia(Bactrocera aquilonis, B. cucumis,B. jarvis, B. neohumeralis, B. tryoni, Ceratitis capitata, Chrysodeixis argentifera, C. erisoma, Helicoverpa armigera, H. punctigera, Lamprolonchaeabrouniana, Sceliodes cordalis, and Spodoptera litura). PRAs for Spain, Mexico and Poland were not availablePRA fort ECOWAS tomatoes

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 67 Appendix C. Detailed assessment procedures for Consequences of Introduction

Risk Element #1- Climate-Host Interactions If a species encounters suitable climate and hosts in the area where it is introduced, the organism may survive and achieve pest status in the new environment. This risk element is evaluated on the minimum number of U.S. “Plant Hardiness Z ones” in which the species might achieve pest status (USDA, 2000). Risk ratings are based on the following criteria: Low (1): the species is only likely to b ecome established in one hardiness zone Medium (2): the species is likely to become established in two or three hardiness zones High (3): the species is likely to become established in f our or more hardiness zones

Risk Element #2- Host Range The risk posed by a plant pest depends on its abil ity to establish a viab le, reproductive population and its potential to injure plants. For arthropods, risk is a ssumed to be positively correlated with host range. For pathogens, risk is assumed to depend on host range, aggressiveness, virulence and pathogenicity; for simplicity, risk is rated as a function of host range: Low (1): pest attacks a single species or multiple species within a single genus Medium (2): pest attacks multiple sp ecies within a single plant family High (3): pest attacks multiple species among multiple plant families

Risk Element #3-Dispersal Potential A pest may disperse after arrivi ng in a new area. The following items are considered in regard to dispersal potential: reproductiv e patterns of the pest (e.g

. , voltinism, biotic potential); inherent powers of movement; factors fac ilitating dispersal, wind, water, presence of vectors, humans,
etc

. Low (1): pest has neither high reproductive potential nor rapid di spersal capability Medium (2): pest has either high reproductive potential OR the species can rapidly disperse High (3): Pest has high biotic potential, e.g

. , many generations per year, many offspring per reproduction (“r-selected” species ), AND evidence exists that th e pest can rapidly disperse,
e.g

. , over 10 km/year under its own power; via natural forces, wind, water, vectors, etc

. , or human-assistance.

Risk Element #4-Economic Impact Introduced pests can cause a variet y of direct and indi rect economic impacts. These impacts are divided into three primary categories (other type s of impacts may occur): lower yield of the host
crop, e.g

. , by causing plant mortality, or by acting as a disease vector; lower value of the commodity, e.g

. , by increasing costs of production, lowering market price, or a combination; and loss of foreign or domestic markets due to the presence of a new quarantine pest. Low (1): pest causes any one or none of the above impacts Medium (2): pest causes any two of the above impacts High (3): pest causes all th ree of the above impacts

Risk Element #5- Environmental Impact A pest may cause significant, direct consequences to the environment, e.g

., cause an ecological disaster or reduce biodiversity. In the context of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (7CFR§372), significance is qualitative and enco mpasses the likelihood a nd severity of an environmental impact. The act describes an envi ronmental pest as: “expected to have directPRA fort ECOWAS tomatoes

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 68 impacts on species listed by Federal Agencies as endangered or thre atened (50CFR§17.11 and §17.12), by infesting/infecting a listed plant. If the pest attacks othe r species within the genus or other genera within the family, and preference/no preference tests have not been conducted with the listed plant and the pest, then the plant is assumed to be a host; pest is expected to have indirect impacts on species listed by Federal Agencies as endangere d or threatened by disrupting sensitive, critical habitat; introduction of the pe st would stimulate chemical or biological control programs.” Low (1): none of the above would occur Medium (2): one of the above would occur High (3): two or more of the above would occur.PRA fort ECOWAS tomatoes

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 69 Appendix D. Detailed assessment procedu res for Likelihood of Introduction

Quantity of commodity imported annually: The likelihood that an exotic pest will be in troduced depends on the amount of potentially infested commodity that is imported. For qua litative pest risk asse ssments, the amount of commodity imported is estimated in units of stan dard 40 foot long shipping containers. In those cases where the quantity of a commodity importe d is provided in terms of kilograms, pounds, number of items, etc., the number of units is conv erted into terms of 40 fo ot shipping containers. Low (1 point): < 10 containers/year Medium (2 points): 10 – 100 containers/year High (3 points): > 100 containers/year

Survive postharvest treatment: For this sub-element, postharvest treatment refers to any industry- standard manipulation, handling, or specific phytosanitary treatment to which the commod ity is subjected. Examples of postharvest treatment include culli ng, washing, chemical treatment, cold storage, etc. If there is no postharvest treatment, pest su rvival is estimated to be High.

Survive Shipment: This element depends on factors such as the length of time to ship and the environmental conditions.

Not be detected at the port of entry: The likelihood that a pest will not be detected at a port-of-entry is dependent on several factors including pest size, mobility, and degree of concealment. In general, internal pests of fruits are highly likely to escape detection, while ex ternally feeding pests are less likely.

Imported or moved subsequently to an area with an enviro nment suitable for survival: The likelihood that a pest will be moved to an ar ea with a suitable environment for survival is dependent on the potential distribution of markets for the host commodity throughout the importing country and the presence of suita ble habitats for the pest/pathogen.

Come into contact with host material suitable for reproduction: Even if the final destination of infested commoditie s is suitable for pest survival, pests must still come in contact with suitable host material. This process is dependent on two factors, the pest’s potential for dispersal, and the pres ence of host material in the region.

Overall scoring: Low: 6 – 9 points Medium: 10 – 14 points High: 15 – 18 points