Importation of Tomatoes, Solanum lycopersicum,

from the Economic Community of West African 

States (ECOWAS) into the Continental United 

States 

A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated 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 27606 
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 ii

Executive Summary 

In this document we assessed the 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’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, 

Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo). We assumed that tomatoes from 

ECOWAS would be subjected to standard postharvest treatment for tomatoes; that is, thorough 

culling of damaged fruit and washing. Three APHIS employees confirmed during a site visit that 

Senegal is following these practices. We also assumed 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 overall likelihood of introduction for many pests. 

Tomatoes can be hosts to a wide variety of arthropods and pathogens, although many may be 

uncommon under commercial production. We identified the following pests 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) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) High 

Chrysodeixis chalcites Esper (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Medium 

Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Medium 

Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Medium 

We analyzed the risks associated with these pests based on relevant international standards of the 

International Plant Protection Convention and PPQ Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk 

Assessments, Version 5.02 (USDA, 2000). We examined pest biology in the context of 

Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood of Introduction, and used these elements to estimate 

the Pest Risk Potential. All of these pests pose phytosanitary risks to U.S. agriculture and 

environment. We determined that the Pest Risk Potential for seven of the ten pests above was High. 

Specific phytosanitary measures are highly recommended because port-of-entry inspections, as a 

sole mitigation measure, are considered insufficient to safeguard the U.S. from the introduction of 

these pests; additional phytosanitary measures are necessary 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 Quarantine Pests and Quarantine Pests Likely to 

Follow the Pathway..................................................................................................................... 3 

2.5. Consequences of Introduction—Economic/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 procedures for Likelihood of Introduction ......................... 69 
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 1

1. Introduction 

This risk assessment was prepared by the Animal and Plant Health 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 Federal 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 United States from the Economic Community of West 

African States (ECOWAS). We assumed the fruit would be subjected to standard harvest and postharvest treatments for tomatoes (culling 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 tomatoes 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, rather than as probabilities. 

The details of the methodology and rating criteria can be found in the Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk 

Assessments: Guidelines for Qualitative 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 initiate, conduct, and report this 

assessment, as well as the use of biological and phytosanitary terms are based on this standard. 

ISPM #11 describes three stages of pest risk analysis: Stage 1, Initiation; Stage 2, Risk Assessment; 

and Stage 3, Risk Management. This document satisfies the requirements of Stages 1 and 2. It also 

partially meets the requirements 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 pest and of the associated potential economic consequences.” 

Quarantine pest is defined as “a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered 

thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially 

controlled”. Thus, pest risk assessments should consider both the consequences and likelihood of 

introduction of quarantine pests. 

In standard industry practice, tomatoes 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 visit to tomato growing facilities and packing houses that Senegal 

is following this industry practice (Robertson, 2007a, 2007b). Tomatoes are culled in the field at 

harvest and in the packinghouse by multiple workers. Some processing facilities are automated 

and have machinery that automatically detects and 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 (Robertson, 2007a, 2007b). In Senegal, tomatoes are grown in 

screenhouses that exclude many medium- to large-sized pests, including fruit flies; however, 

because this risk assessment was based on unmitigated risk, we intentionally disregarded the 

impact of the screenhouses on reducing pest risk. 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 response 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 African 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 countries 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 America and has become established in 

the Continental United States, where it is widely cultivated (ARS, 

2006; NRCS, 2006). 

 

Phase 2: Invasive / Weed Status: 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 describe the type of 

impacts or the severity of the invasion. Tomato is likely just a casual alien 

and escape from fields and private gardens. Within the United States, 

tomato is widely cultivated and naturalized across most of the country 

(NRCS, 2006). Importation of fresh tomatoes from West Africa is highly 

unlikely to change its status in the United 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 risk analyses for importation of S. lycopersicum from Senegal, 

one in 1986 (APHIS, 1986) and another in 1991 (APHIS, 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 attacks 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 other 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 was 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 pathways (Appendix A; PestID, 2008). We 

included pests that were intercepted on tomatoes from any where in the world and that also occur 

in West Africa in the following pest list. We included 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 Quarantine Pests and Quarantine 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 where 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 and uneasily seen (e.g., a fungal pathogen), or when it is small and 

relatively immobile (e.g., a scale). There are many pests that attack fruit and would not remain 

associated with the fruit as a result 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 intercepted by U.S. inspectors on Lycopersicon in any type of pathway (e.g., 

commercial shipments, passenger baggage, etc.) were included in the pest list, even if they were 

not listed in the literature as a pest of tomatoes. These pests 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) are 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 interceptions that are listed in Appendix A probably 
Pest 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 considered as potential tomato 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 Distribution1 Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

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 = Sierra 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 (directly 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 Distribution1 Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

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 No3 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 No6 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 & Elson-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 follow 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 (CABI, 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 Distribution1 Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

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 No7

 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 No8

 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 intercepted 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 Distribution1 Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References 

Oxycarenus hyalinipennis

(Costa) 

AL BN BF CI 

GH GU ML MT 

NR NG SN TG 

F Yes No9

 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 No10 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 No11 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 tomatoes (CABI, 2005) and is relatively 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 Distribution1 Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

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 No13 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 No14 Forsyth, 1966 

Achaea catocaloides Guenée GH F L Yes No15 Forsyth, 1966; Maisels, 

2004; Srivastava, 1973 

Achaea ezea Cram GH, STP F L Yes No15 Forsyth, 1966; Srivastava, 

1973; Wojtusiak, 1996 

Achaea faber Holl. GH, STP F L Yes No15 Forsyth, 1966; Srivastava, 

1973; Wojtusiak, 1996 

Achaea lienardi (Boisduval) GH F L Yes No15 Forsyth, 1966; Srivastava, 

1973 

Achaea mormoides Walker GH, STP F L Yes No15 Forsyth, 1966; Srivastava, 

1973; Wojtusiak, 1996 

Aegoceropsis rectilinea 

Syn: Aegocera rectilinea

Boisduval 

NG S L F Yes No16 Youdeowei and Oboite, 

1972; Zhang, 1994 

 

13 P. parvus, primarily a leaf and stem pest, has not 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 pierce the skin of ripe fruit to suck the 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 entry (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 Distribution1 Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References 

Agrotis ipsilon Hufnagel BF BN CI LB 

ML SN TG US 

F L S R No No17 Bernal, 1994; CABI, 2004; 

Varela et al., 2003 

Agrotis segetum (Denis & 

Schiffermuller) 

BN CV CI ML 

SN TG 

F L S R Yes No17 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 No18 CABI, 2004; USGS, 2004; 

Zhang, 1994 

Anomis endochlora Hmps. GH, STP F L Yes No18 Cochereau, 1973; Forsyth, 

1966; Srivastava, 1997 

Anomis leona (Schaus) GH, LB F L Yes No18 Decazy et al., 1985; 

Forsyth, 1966; Srivastava, 

1997 

Chrysodeixis acuta (Walker) GM GH NG SL F L S Yes No19 CABI, 2004; Daiber, 1996; 

Emms and Barnett, 2005 

Chrysodeixis chalcites (Esper) AL CI CM CV 

GM GU NG SL 

SN 

F L S Yes Yes20 CABI, 2004; PestID, 2008 

Ercheia subsignata Walker GH, STP F L Yes No15 Forsyth, 1966; Wojtusiak, 

1996 

Erebus walkeri (Butler) 

[Nyctipao walkeri] 

GH F L Yes No15 Cochereau, 1973; Forsyth, 

1966 

Eudocima fullonia (Clerck) BN CI GH GU 

LB LB NG SL 

F L Yes No21 CABI, 2004; Cochereau, 

1973; Forsyth, 1966; 

Zhang, 1994 

Eudocima materna Linnaeus SL F Yes No21 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 Yes22 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 associated 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 unlikely 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 fruit 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, but 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 study 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 precautionary approach and because H. assulta is still 
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 6

Pest Distribution1 Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References 

Heliophisma catocalina Holl. GH F L Yes No15 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 No15 Cochereau, 1973; Forsyth, 

1966 

Othreis materna (L.) GH F L Yes No15 Cochereau, 1973; Forsyth, 

1966 

Parallelia sp. GH F L Yes No15 Cochereau, 1973; Forsyth, 

1966 

Serrodes partita F. GH F L Yes No15 Forsyth, 1966; Whitehead 

and Rust, 1972 

Serrodes trispila Mab. GH F L Yes No15 Forsyth, 1966; Whitehead 

and Rust, 1972 

Spodoptera exigua (Hübner) BF BN CI GH 

GU ML NR SN 

TG US 

F Fl L No No23 CABI, 2004 

Spodoptera littoralis

(Boisduval) 

BN BF CV CI 

GM GH GU 

ML NR NG SN 

SL TG 

L F Yes No24 CABI, 2004; Varela et al., 

2003 

Spodoptera litura (Fabricius) 

[Prodenia litura] 

GH F L Fl S Yes No25 Forsyth, 1966; Obeng-Ofori 

and Sackey, 2003 

Spodoptera sp. GM GH ML 

NG SN 

[F Fl L 

S]26

Yes No27 PestID, 2008 

Thysanoplusia orichalcea (F.) GH ML NG L F Yes No28 CABI, 2004 

Trichoplusia ni (Hübner) CV GM NG SN 

US 

L S F No No29 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 for several reasons. First, the first few instars are 

unlikely to be associated with fruit because they primarily feed on leaves (CABI, 2006). Second, 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 readily 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 larger larvae and instars migrate to the soil during the 

daytime (CABI, 2006), they are unlikely to be harvested with the fruit. Third, larvae are unlikely to be associated with ripe 

fruit because they attack green tomatoes (Schreiner, 2000). Finally, because the larvae 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 Distribution1 Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References 

Lepidoptera: Plutellidae 

Plutella xylostella Linnaeus SN F L Fl S Yes No30 Bourdouxhe, 1981 

Lepidoptera: Pyralidae 

Crocidolomia pavonana

(Fabricius) [C. binotalis 

(Zell.)] 

BF, GH, ML, 

NG, SN, SL 

F L Fl Yes No30 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 Yes31 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 No32 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 L33 Yes No34 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 No35 CABI, 2005; USDA, 1984 

Cryptophlebia sp. GU F Yes No36 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 excreta (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 interception 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 information exists that tomatoes are a natural host (see CABI, 2005). 

Thaumatotibia leucotreta is associated here with tomatoes 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 Distribution1 Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

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 No37 Frame and Durou, 2001; 

PestID, 2008 

Frankliniella schultzei

(Trybom) 

BF CV GM GH 

NR NG SN TG 

US (FL) 

L F Fl [Yes] No38 CABI, 2006 

Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood CI US L Fl F Yes No39 CABI, 2004, 2005 

Thrips palmi Karny CI NG US L F [Yes] No40 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 personal baggage is not considered sufficient 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 (PestID 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/packing. These stages are free living on the 

surface of plants. The typical washing process for tomatoes would remove these exposed 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 present in harvested fruit would be extremely low.” (Reitz, 2006a). 39 S. dorsalis primarily attacks growing points of plants, which includes leaves, 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 Distribution1 Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

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 No41 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 pest in trade/transport (CABI, 2004) 
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 10

Pest Distribution1 Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

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 No41 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 No41 CABI, 2004 
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 11

Pest Distribution1 Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

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 No42 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 externally and visible to the naked eye. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 12

Pest Distribution1 Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

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, 2004 
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 13

Pest Distribution1 Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References 

VIRUS AND VIROIDS 

Beet curly top virus CI US R S L Fl F No No41 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 No43 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 No43 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 No41 CABI, 2004 

Tomato yellow whitefly virus BF CV CI ML 

NG SN US 

R S L Fl F No No43 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 No43 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 Distribution1 Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

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 identified 217 pests that either are or may be associated with tomatoes 

from western Africa (Table 2). Not all of these pests are quarantine pests of the Continental 

United States. Furthermore, not all of these pests are likely to follow the pathway on fresh 

tomatoes from western Africa. Eighty are quarantine pests for the Continental United States. 

Quarantine pests not expected to follow the pathway are not considered further, but if any of 

these pests are intercepted in shipments of the commodity, quarantine action may be taken at the 

port of entry and additional risk analyses may be conducted. 

During pest categorization we identified 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 unidentified species as potential quarantine species, we did not analyze 

these taxa further due to limited taxonomic and/or ecological knowledge. Lack of species 

identification may indicate limited taxonomic knowledge about that group, 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 equated 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 pests. 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 Africa. Without more information, 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 pests 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 elements (Appendix C): 1) ClimateHost Interaction; 2) Host Range; 3) Dispersal Potential; 4) Economic Impact; and 5) Environmental 

Impact. These elements reflect the biology, host ranges and climatic/geographic distributions of the 

pests. For each risk element, pests are assigned a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points) or 

High (3 points) (USDA, 2000). We then calculated the Cumulative 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 anything that reduces the quality of biological 

information about a pest (Gallegos and Bonano, 1993). For example, limited information on 

regional flora/faunas and inherent 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 potential of the pest to establish, spread, and cause 
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 16

economic and environmental impacts. The summary 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 and tropical Asia, eastern and 

western Africa, and some Pacific Islands, 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 Hardiness 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 from 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 reproductive rate and disperse over long 

distances. They appear to disperse immediately after adults 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 weeks 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 Carey, 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 destructive pest of cucurbits in 

the Indo-Malayan region, greatly reducing the production of melons, cucumbers, 

tomatoes, and similar vegetables in Hawaii (USDA, 1983; Weems, 1964). Around 

1915, B. cucurbitae caused a loss of nearly $1 million annually in Hawaii, during 

which more than 95 percent of the pumpkin crop was destroyed (USDA, 1983). 

Damage levels up to 100 percent have been reported in unprotected 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 fruit 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 Threatened 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 initiation 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 new 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 survive in other Hardiness 

Zones, similar to B. cucurbitae. Therefore, we conservatively estimated that B. 

invadens could establish in two Plant Hardiness 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 the 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 potential (Fletcher, 1989a). One study of B. invadens reported 

a mean generation time of 31 days and a daily population increase 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 introduced 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, papaya 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 “stings,” which spoil the appearance of 

fruits, including those unfavorable for larval survival; 2) fruit spoilage caused by 

larval tunneling and secondary infections; 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 Federal 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 States that are distributed throughout the 

southern latitudes (USFWS, 2005). Because of the potential economic impact 

this pest may have on Continental United States agriculture, its introduction to 

the Continental United States would likely 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 most other fruit fly species (Weems, 1981). 

We estimated that C. capitata could establish in areas of the Continental United 

States corresponding to Plant 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 species 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 complete 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 evidence exists that it can fly at least 

20 km (CABI, 2003,Fletcher 1989b). Transport of infested fruits is a major 

means of movement and dispersal to previously 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 important 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 particularly damaging to citrus and peach crops. 

Bedford et al. (1998) stated that susceptible deciduous fruits crops can suffer 

losses up to 80 percent when control measures are not applied. Ceratitis capitata

may also transmit fruit-rotting fungi (CABI, 2004). The species is of quarantine 

significance throughout the world, especially 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 fruits to uninfested areas in other parts of 

the world. In this respect, C. capitata is one of the most significant quarantine pests 

for any tropical or warm temperate areas in which it is not yet established. 

High (3) 

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact 

Ceratitis capitata may negatively impact several Federal Threatened and 

Endangered (T&E) species. T&E congeners 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 Dalby-Ball, 2001; Webber and Woodrow, 

2004) and indirectly by altering patterns of frugivory 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 Hawaii 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 isolated populations in West Africa (CABI, 

2005). It also occurs in Mauritius and 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 more 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 capacity (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 lay 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 previously uninfested areas (CABI, 2005). 

High (3) 

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact 

Ceratitis rosa , the Natal fly, is a major pest species feeding on many high value 

crops, like apples, citrus, grapes, and mangoes (White and Elson-Harris, 1992). 

In Mauritius, the Natal fly became established 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 fruit, and even in fruit where larvae fail to 

develop, the oviposition stings reduce marketability. Oviposition also leads to 

secondary infection by pathogens causing a soft rot of the fruit (Du Toit, 1998). 

Markets can also be lost due to quarantine 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 congeners of current hosts include Prunus geniculata and

Ziziphus celata which are located in Florida (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 Europe, Mediterranean countries 

and much of Africa (CABI, 2005). These 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 Zones 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 northern 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 Farag, 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, particularly 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 fruit of a variety of hosts, both 

in the field and in greenhouses (Sannino et al., 2005). Larvae cause serious 

damage to tomatoes in Sicily (Garzia 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 impacted 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 southern 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). Several lepidopteran pests of tomatoes already 

occur in the Continental United States (Rude, 1982), but establishment of C. 

chalcites there may necessitate the use of additional control measures such as 

pesticide applications on other hosts. 

Helicoverpa armigera Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate – Host Interaction 

This insect is widely distributed throughout Europe, the Middle East, Central and 

South Asia, the Far East, Africa, Australia, 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 crop 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 climatic conditions (CABI, 2004; Smith et al., 

1997). As with other noctuids, this pest can fly long distances 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 tomatoes 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, cabbage, and potato (CABI, 2005; 

Carter, 1984), that are of considerable economic importance in the Continental 

United States. Damage is caused by larvae 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), which 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 species 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 lepidopteran pests of tomatoes already 

occur in the Continental United States (Rude, 1982), establishment of H. 

armigera there may require additional control measures such as pesticide 

applications on other hosts. 

Helicoverpa assulta Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate – Host Interaction 

Helicoverpa assulta is distributed from the temperate zone to the tropics of the 

Old World (CABI, 2006). It occurs in sub-Saharan Africa, throughout South, 

Southeast, and East Asia, and ranges south through Oceania to Australasia. In 

addition, its distribution includes areas that experience continental climates (e.g., 

China [Beijing, Hebei]). These regions correspond to USDA Plant Hardiness 

zones 6-13 (Maxwell, 2007; Widrlechner, 1997). Thus, we expect this pest to 

survive in five hardiness zones in the 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). Evidence 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 and 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 the 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 indirect 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 Africa, 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 these records, no evidence exists in 

the literature that these non-Solanaceous 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 (CABI, 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 per 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 lower 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 long-distance dispersal by this species 

could be accomplished via the transport of infested fruit. 

High (3) 

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact 

Leucinodes orbonalis bores into stems, flowers and young fruit, causing yield 

loss, weakening plants and fruits, and rendering fruit unmarketable (Bharadiya 

and Patel, 2005; CABI, 2005). Because no information was available on its 

economic impact on tomatoes, we used data 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 Verma, 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 caused yield loss (CABI, 2005). Due to the 

threat posed by this insect, the United 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 United States would increase 

costs of production as pesticides and other 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, there 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 records; no evidence exists in the primary 

literature that this genus is a host. Therefore, 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 Continental United States (Rude, 1982), but 

establishment of L. orbonalis there may require additional control measures such 

as pesticide applications 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: Hawaii, California (CABI, 2004), and Florida 

(Hoy et al., 2003). All of these regions roughly represent USDA Plant Hardiness 

Zones 9 – 13, but we estimated that M. hirsutus could establish in Zones 9 – 10. 

One or more potential hosts occurs in these regions (NRCS, 2005). 

Medium (2) 

Risk Element 2: Host Range 

Maconellicoccus hirsutus is very polyphagous. 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 Malvaceae, 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 the host plant or in the soil. Up to 15 

generations occur per year (CABI, 2004). Local movement 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 without feeding. They are unable to walk 

far, but are ideally suited for transport by water, wind and animal agents, 

including domestic animals and humans. Accidental introductions into new 

countries can occur via infested plant material (CABI, 2004). 

High (3) 

Risk Element 4: Economic Impact 

Crops seriously damaged by this scale 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 severe stunting, crinkling of leaves, 

thickening of stems and a bunchy-top appearance of shoots. Honeydew excreted 

by M. hirsutus often leads to sooty mold contamination 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 could 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 important plants (e.g. cotton, grapes) if M. 

hirsutus widely established in the Continental United States, conservation 

managers, farmers and horticulturalists would 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 subtropical 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 Continental United States, or Zones 9-10. One or 

more of its potential hosts occurs in these regions (NRCS, 2005). 

Medium (2) 

Risk Element 2: Host Range 

The major hosts of N. viridis are citrus, coffee and cotton, 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 dissemination 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, disfiguration and fruit-drop (CABI, 2005). Copious 

quantities of honeydew may contaminate fruit and other 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 greater production losses (CABI, 2005). Based on this 

evidence, the establishment of this insect in the Continental United States would 

likely cause a loss of foreign and domestic markets and would likely stimulate 

chemical and/or biological control programs, which would lower the value of the 

commodity by increasing production costs.

Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact 

This pest poses a potential threat to plants listed as Threatened and Endangered in 

50 CFR § 17.12. Within the Continental United States, N. viridis may impact 

Euphorbia telephioides, Manihot walkerae and Ziziphus celata (USFWS, 2005). 

The widespread establishment of N. viridis in the Continental United States is likely 

to stimulate chemical and/or biological control 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 points 
Pest 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 events: 1) the quantity of the commodity 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 with suitable host material (USDA, 2000). For each 

pest, we considered the following six sub-elements (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 the African countries within ECOWAS is Medium 

(10 to 100 containers/year; Regulatory Project 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 four tephritid fruit flies (Bactrocera & Ceratitis) High for this 

element. Leucinodes orbonalis is an internal pest that plugs 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 often develop secondary 

infections and degrade quickly (Rude, 1982). Thus, the larger lepidopteran larvae are more likely 

to cause noticeable injury and are rated Medium 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 perishable 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 damage and entry points should be readily 

noticeable (Low risk), especially 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 Continental United States. Consequently, we focused on 
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 30

environmental/climate suitability to evaluate this 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 material 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 flies 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 dispersal is limited because they are sedentary insects 

(Williams, 2004) and the host material is fruit for 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 suitable hosts depends entirely on vectors (wind, birds, and other insects) 

(Williams, 2004). Thus, mealybugs are unlikely to contact 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 and Pests Requiring Phytosanitary Option 

To estimate the Pest Risk Potential for each pest, 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 have the following suggested meanings (APHIS, 2000): 

Low: Pest will typically not require specific mitigation procedures. The port-ofentry inspection to which all imported commodities are subjected can be 

expected to provide sufficient phytosanitary security. 

Medium: Specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary. 

High: Specific phytosanitary measures are strongly recommended. Port-of-entry 

inspection is not considered sufficient to provide phytosanitary security. 

Table 6. Summary of pest risk potentials

Pest Consequences 

of Introduction 

Likelihood of 

Introduction 

Pest Risk Potential 

Score Risk ratinga 

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-CHPST 
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 32

4. Literature Cited 

 7 CFR § 319.28. 2007. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319.28, Notice 

of quarantine [Subpart_Citrus fruit]). 

7 CFR §319.56-2dd. 2007. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR §319.56-2dd, 

Administrative instructions: conditions governing the entry of tomatoes). 

7 CFR § 319.56-2u. 2007. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319.56-2u, 

Conditions governing the entry of lettuce 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 growing season conditions of a tropical derived 

savanna. Journal of Agriculture in the Tropics and Subtropics 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. Quantitative losses of tomato fruits caused by 

tomato fruit borer, Heliothis armigera (Hb.). Pakistan Entomologist 20(1/2):87-88. 

Ahmad, F. 1998. Plant protection strategies for cotton in Pakistan. 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 States Department of Agriculture, Riverdale, 

Maryland. 

APHIS. 1991. Decision sheet for Lycopersicon esculentum from Senegal. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), 

Riverdale, Maryland. 

APHIS. 1997. Irradiation for phytosanitary regulatory treatment: Environmental assessment, 

October 1997. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (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 Committee 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 Laboratory. Last accessed November 3, 2006, 

http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/paper.pl. 

Asiegbu, J. E. 1991. Response of tomato and eggplant 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. Development of Leucinodes orbonalis 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 States. North Carolina State 

University Cooperative Extension Service., Raleigh, NC, U.S.A. Last accessed December 

18, 2006, http://mrec.ifas.ufl.edu/Foliage/entomol/ncstate/nccredit.htm. 

Bankole, S. A. 1996. The distribution and pathogenicity 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 tsetse (Diptera: Glossinidae). Bulletin of 

Entomological Research 95(1):1-11. 

Bartz, J. A. 1999. Washing fresh fruits and vegetables: lessons from treatment of tomatoes and 

potatoes with water [Abstract]. Dairy, Food 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 Research Council, Institute for Tropical and 

Subtropical Crops, Nelspruit, South Africa. 288 pp. 

Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 2006. ScaleNet. United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Systematic Entomology 

Laboratory (SEL). Last accessed November 20, 2006, 

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm. 

Bernal, J. 1994. Plagas y enfermedades de la granadilla. Pages 29-34+ in I. C. Agropecuario, 

(ed.). Plagas y Enfermedades en Frutales Tropicales, Boletin Sanidad Vegetal 11. 

Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario, 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 nematodes Meloidogyne Goeldi 

(Tylenchida) in two vegetable growing areas 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. Flechtmann. 1998. World Catalogue of the Spider 

Mite Family (Acari: Tetranychidae). Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands. 392 pp. 

Bourdouxhe, L. 1981. Utilisation du pulverisateur a disque rotatif pour insecticides en cultures 

maraicheres methode ULV [The use of the rotating disc sprayer to apply 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 Carolina 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/extension/publicat/postharv/tomatoes/tomat.html. 

Branscome, D. 1999. Featured creatures. Pseudaulacaspis pentagona (Targioni) (Insecta: 

Hemiptera: Diaspididae). University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural 

Sciences, Department of Entomology and Nematology, Gainesville, FL. Last accessed 

July 2005, http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/orn/scales/white_peach_scale.htm. 

Bridge, J. 1973. Hoplolaimus seinhorsti, 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 Development 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 Compendium. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, UK. 

CABI. 2004. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, UK. 

CABI. 2005. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, UK. 

CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Compendium. 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 program in the western 

United States [Abstract]. Journal of Agricultural Entomology 15(4):327-333. 

Candresse, T., and A. Marais. 2007. First report of the presence of tomato apical stunt viroid on 

tomato in Sénégal. Plant Disease 91:330. Last accessed April 5, 2007, 

http://www.apsnet.org/pd/searchnotes/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 Mifflin Company Boston, MA, U.S.A. 

Carter, D. J. 1984. Pest Lepidoptera of Europe: With Special Reference 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. Studies on the ovipositional preferences and 

feeding preferences in Helicoverpa assulta and Helicoverpa armigera [Abstract]. Tohoku 

Journal of Agricultural Research 53(1/2):111-124. 

Cherry, R., and A. Wilson. 2005. Flight activity of tropical sodworms (Lepidoptera: 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, Trupaneidae): Introduced parasites and predators 

of arthropod pests and weeds: A world review. Agricultural Handbook 480:320-335. 

Cochereau, P. 1973. Controle biologique naturel des papillons piqueurs de fruits. Fruits 

28(5):367-375. 

Courneya, P. 2006. Quarantine status confirmation. Personal communication to L. Millar on 

October 12, 2006, from Paul Courneya (USDA, National Identification 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 Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz 103(1):94-110. 

Dalmasso, A., P. Castagnone-Sereno, M. Bongiovanni, 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. Sakchiev. 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 [Abstract]. 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 Laboratory. 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. Development 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 and 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 the Republic of South Africa (2nd (revised)). 

Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops, Nelspruit, South Africa. 

Duyck, P.-F., P. David, and S. Quilici. 2004. A review of relationships between interspecific 

competition and invasions in fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Ecological Entomology 

29:511-520. 

Ekesi, S., P. W. Nderitu, and I. Rwomushana. 2006. Field infestation, life history and 

demographic parameters of the fruit fly Bactrocera invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae) in 

Africa. Bulletin of Entomological Research 96(4):379-386. 

Emms, C., and L. K. Barnett. 2005. Gambian biodiversity: a provisional checklist 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 cucumber with soilless 

culture system: The case of Turkey. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 23(3):5-19. 

EPPO. 2003. EPPO Standard PM1/2(12) A1 and A2 Quarantine Lists. European Plant Protection 

Organization. Paris, France. Last accessed 3 December 2003, 

http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/lists.html. 

EPPO. 2005. Bactrocera invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae): A new fruit fly species (EPPO RS 

2005 - 085). European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). Last accessed October 17, 

2006, http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/Alert_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_List/insects/bactrocera_invadens.htm. 

Erinle, I. D. 1976. A preliminary report on bacterial 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 plants against the European corn borer, Ostrinia 

nubilalis [Abstract]. Entomologia Experimentalis Et Applicata 80(3):531-537. 

Farr, D. F., G. F. Bills, G. P. Chamuris, and A. Y. Rossman. 1989. Fungi on Plants and Plant 

Products in the United States. APS Press, St. Paul, MN. 1252 pp. 

Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and 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 history strategies of tephritid fruit flies. Pages 195-208 in A. S. 

Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit flies, their biology, natural enemies and control, 

World crop pests, Vol. 3b. 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 biology, natural enemies, and control (Vol. 3b). 

Elsevier, Amsterdam. 

Follett, P. A. 2004. Generic vapor heat treatments to control Maconellicoccus hirsutus 

(Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) [Abstract]. Journal of Economic Entomology 97(4):1263-

1268. 

Follett, P. A., and L. G. Neven. 2006. Current trends in quarantine entomology. Annual Review 

of Entomology 51:359-385. 

Foote, R. H. 1981. The genus Rhagoletis Loew south of the United States (Diptera: Tephritidae). 

Science and Education Administration, United States 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. Morphology and biology of Napoleonaea vogelii 

(Lecythidaceae) flowers in relation to the natural 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 orbonalis Gn. and Euzophera villora (Fldr.) 

(Lepidoptera Pyralidae) [Abstract]. Bulletin de l'Institut Fondamental d'Afrique 

41(2):408-416. 

Gallegos, D. P., and E. J. Bonano. 1993. Consideration 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 monogene resistances to pesticides and drugs. 

International Journal of Pest Management 44(3):161-180. 

Garzia, G. T., and G. Siscaro. 2003. Notes on natural enemies of armyworms infesting tomato 

protected crops in South-Eastern Sicily. Acta Horticulturae 2(614):837-841. 

Gasim, G. Y., and H. T. Younis. 1989. Biological studies on tomato leafworm Plusia chalcytes 

L. (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera) under effect of constant temperatures. Mesopotamia Journal 

of Agriculture 21(2):325-334. 

Ghidiu, G. M., and W. J. Roberts. 2002. Greenhouse 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 Afrotropics: distribution 

and host-plant range in West and Central Africa [Poster Presentation]. 7th International 

Symposium on Fruit Flies of Economic Significance, Salvador, Brazil. 10-15 September 

2006. 

Gould, W. P., and R. G. McGuire. 2000. Hot Water treatment and insecticidal 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]. International Pest Control 27(3):67, 71. 

Gunn, C. R., and C. A. Ritchie. 1988. Identification of disseminules listed in the Federal Noxious 

Weed Act (Technical Bulletin Number 1719.). United States Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service, U.S.A. 313 pp. 

Gunn, D. 1921. The false codling-moth (Argyroploce leucotreta Meyr.) (Science Bulletin No. 

21). Department of Agriculture, Union of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa. 

Hallman, G. J. 2000. Expanding radiation quarantine treatments beyond fruit 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 Presentation]. 7th International Symposium on Fruit 

Flies of Economic Significance, Salvador, Brazil. 10-15 September 2006. 

Hansen, J. D., A. H. Hara, and V. L. Tenbrink. 1992. Vapor heat: a potential treatment to 

disinfest tropical cut flowers and foliage [Abstract]. HortScience 27(2):139-143. 

Harakly, F. A., and S. S. Farag. 1975. Biological studies on the 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 the 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 Applied Entomology and Zoology 38(2):109-120. 

Holm, L., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Rancho, and J. Herberger. 1997. World Weeds: 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 Company, 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 Biology. 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: Pseudococcidae). University of Florida and the 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville, FL. Last 

accessed July 18, 2005, http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/orn/mealybug/mealybug.htm. 

IPPC. 1997. 1997 - International Plant Protection Convention (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 phytosanitary measures (ISPM#14): The use of 

integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management. International Plant 

Protection Convention (IPPC), and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations, Rome. 21 pp. 

IPPC. 2006. International standards for phytosanitary measures: 1 - 27. International Plant 

Protection Convention (IPPC) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations, Rome, Italy. 

Jones, J. B. 1999. Tomato Plant Culture: in the 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 vegetable production in Florida? 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 fly, 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 fungicides 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 adult 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. Development of hot pepper lines resistant to 

oriental tobacco budworm (Heliothis assulta) by transformation of modified cry1Ac gene 

[Abstract]. Journal of the Korean Society for Horticultural Science 43(1):34-38. 

Kleynhans, K. P. N., E. Van den Berg, A. Swart, M. Marais, and N. H. Buckley. 1996. Plant 

nematodes in South Africa. ARC-Plant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria, South 

Africa. 165 pp. 

Kohoma, T., and H. Kuba. 1996. Movement of sterile 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. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida. 

Kumar, V., A. Abdul-Baki, J. D. Anderson, and A. K. Mattoo. 2005. Cover crop residues 

enhance growth, improve yield, and delay 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 Mediterranea 19(2):291-303. 

Latunde-Dada, A. O. 1993. Biological control of southern blight disease of tomato caused by 

Sclerotium rolfsii with simplified 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 fruit 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 predatory stinkbug Podisus maculiventris (Say) 

against the noctuid Chrysodeixis chalcites (Esper) in sweet pepper. Proceedings of the 

Section Experimental and Applied Entomology 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) Nymphs (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 noctuid 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 Agriculture, South Africa. 3 

pp. 

Marchand, J. L. 1975. Recurrent selection. Aims and methods / La selection recurrente. Objectifs 

et methodes [Abstract]. Agronomie Tropicale 30(3):217-230. 

Marshall, J. A., S. Knapp, M. R. Davey, J. B. Power, E. C. Cocking, M. D. Bennett, and A. V. 

Cox. 2001. Molecular systematics of Solanum section Lycopersicum (Lycopersicon) 

using the nuclear ITS rDNA region. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 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, Ife University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. 

Maxwell, B. 2007. Brandt's palm and tropical/subtropical tree page. Brandt Maxwell. Last 

accessed May 1, 2007, http://www.geocities.com/westcornersville/. 

McInnis, D. O., S. Tam, R. Lim, J. Komatsu, R. Kurashima, and C. Albrecht. 2004. 

Development of a pupal color-based 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. Metcalf. 1962. Destructive and Useful Insects. McGrawHill Book Co., New York. 1087 pp. 

Millar, I. M. 1994. A Catalogue of the Aphids (Homoptera: Aphidoidea) 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 Avicennia marina. Oecologia 129(2):243-252. 

Moore, S. D., T. Pittaway, G. Bouwer, and J. G. Fourie. 2004. Evaluation of Helicoverpa 

armigera nucleopolyhedrovirus (HearNPV) for the control of Helicoverpa armigera 

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on citrus in South Africa [Abstract]. Biocontrol 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 and Food. Government of Ontario, Ontario, 

Canada. Last accessed December 18, 2006, 

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/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 tobacco 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 parasitoid, Campoletis chlorideae Uchida 

[Abstract]. Advances in Agricultural Research in India 3:22-32. 

NASS. 2003. Census of Agriculture. 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'efficacite comparee d'une variete de tomate 

resistante et de certains nematicides contre Meloidogyne javanica. Cahiers de l'Office de 

la Recherche Scientifique et Technique Outre-Mer, Biologie. 97 pp. 

NPQS. 2000. Data sheet: Insect pests associated with hotpepper, dropwort, and tomato in Korea. 

Republic of Korea, National Plant Quarantine Service (NPQS) [On file with APHISPPQ-CPHST] [Unpublished data sheet] 164. 

NRCS. 2005. The PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), National Plant Data Center, Baton 

Rouge, LA. Last accessed June 27, 2005, http://plants.usda.gov/cgi_bin/. 

NRCS. 2006. The PLANTS Database. United States 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 States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 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 flies on pepper (Capsicum sp.); Solanum sp. and 

tomato (Lycopersicom sp.) in the Eastern States of Nigeria [Abstract]. Occasional 

Publication, Nigerian Society for Plant Protection:57. 

Obeng-Ofori, D., and J. Sackey. 2003. Field evaluation of non-synthetic insecticides for the 

management of insect pests of okra Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench in Ghana 

[Abstract]. Sinet, Ethiopian Journal 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. Griffin. 1993. Generic non-indigenous pest risk assessment 

process: "The generic process" (For estimating pest risk associated with the introduction 

of non-indigenous organisms). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and 

Plant Health Inpsection Service, 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 methods of Ceratitis capitata (Wied.) in citrus 

groves. Informatore Fitopatologico 55(1):28-34. 

Parvin, A. 1990. Some biological features of Heliothis peltigera Schiff on safflower [Abstract]. 

Applied Entomology and Phytopathology 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 Management in Horticultural Crops: environmental 

implications and thrusts, Bangalore, 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 approach to support the movement of regulated 

articles between Mexico and the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, 

Plant Protection and Quarantine, U.S.A. 

PPQ. 2006. Treatment manual (v. Dec 18, 2006). United States Department of Agriculture, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service , Plant Protection and Quarantine, Riverdale, 

MD. 794 pp. 

Prabhu, M., D. Veeraragavathatham, K. Srinivasan, and K. Kannan. 2005. Effect of Nitrogen and 

Phosphorus Application on the Incidence of Fruit Borer in Hybrid Brinjal COBH 1 

[Abstract]. Agricultural Science Digest 25(4):301-302. 

PRPV. 2006. Bactrocera invadens aux Comores. Programme Régional de Protection des 

Végétaux (PRPV) dans l'Océan Indien. Last accessed 

http://www.prpv.org/index.php/fr/conseils_phytosanitaires/fiches_phytosanitaires/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 Australia. Last accessed January 12, 2007, 

http://www.hear.org/gcw/. 

Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically Important Foreign 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. Zlotina on August 18, 2006, from 

Robertson, S. 2007a. APHIS site visit to tomato, melon, and green-bean fields and 

packinghouses in Senegal [CD video]. Animal 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, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 744 pp. 

Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitching, 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 plant 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. Criconematidae Taylor, 1936 (Nematoda) from Cameroon. 

Afro-Asian Journal of Nematology 3(1):22-38. 

Sannino, L., B. Espinosa, S. Vicidomini, F. Rotellini, and G. Caricato. 2005. Chrysodeixis 

chalcites (Esper) harmful to greenhouse ornamental plants. Informatore Fitopatologico 

55(9):34-37. 

Schreiner, I. 2000. Cluster caterpillar (Spodoptera litura [Fabricius]). Agricultural Development 

in the American Pacific (ADAP). Last accessed July 13, 2007, 

http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/adap2/Publications/ADAP_pubs/2000-3.pdf. 

Shimabukuro, S., A. Ishikawa, M. Iwata, T. Sakaguchi, S. Makiguchi, and H. Katsumata. 1997. 

Efficacy of vapor heat treatment on sweet potato infested with sweet potato weevil, Cylas 

formicarius (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Brentidae), West Indian sweet potato weevil, 

Euscepes postfasciatus (Fairmaire) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), and sweet potato vine 

borer, Omphisa anastomosalis Guenee (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) [Abstract]. Research 

Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service, Japan (33):35-41. 

Shirai, Y. 1998. Laboratory evaluation of flight ability of the Oriental corn borer Ostrinia 

furnacalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 88:327-333. 

Singh, S. P., N. S. Rao, and K. K. Kumar. 1983. Occurrence of vegetable mite, Tetranychus 

neocaledonicus Andre on passion fruit, Passiflora edulis Sims and evaluation of certain 

acaricides against it [Abstract]. Pestology 5(1):25-27. 

Singh, Y. P., and P. P. Singh. 2001. Biology of shoot 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. Indian Journal of Entomology 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 table studies on shoot and fruit borer Leucinodes 

orbonalis Guenee (Lepidoptera: Pyrallidae) on brinjal, tomato and potato. Advances in 

IPM for horticultural crops. Proceedings of the First National Symposium on Pest 

Management in Horticultural Crops: environmental 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 Icerya seychellarum Westwood (Hemiptera: 

Margarodidae) infesting crotons from Madhya Pradesh. Indian Journal of Entomology 

35(4):348. 

Srivastava, R. P. 1997. Mango Insect Pest Management. 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 Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. (Lepidoptera: 

Pyraustidae) in Manipur. Uttar Pradesh Journal of Zoology 16(3):151-155. 

Swearingen, J. 2005. Alien plant invaders of natural 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 aspidistrae (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 (Entfact-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. 1995. 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 the 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 Department of Agriculture (USDA), National 

Arboretum (NA), U.S.A. Last accessed October 20, 2006, 

http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap.html. 

USDA. 1963. Insects not known to occur in the United States: Natal fruit fly (Ceratitis rosa 

Karsch). United States Department of Agriculture, 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)). United 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 (Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyrick)). United 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 pest 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 species system (TESS). United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Last accessed February 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 States Geological Survey (USGS), Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Last accessed July 2005, 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov. 

Vacante, V., M. Benuzzi, V. Palmeri, and G. Brafa. 2001. Experimental trials of microbiological 

control of the Turkey moth (Chrysodeixis chalcites (Esper)) in Sicilian greenhouse crops 

[Abstract]. Informatore Fitopatologico 51(7/8):73-76. 

Varela, A. M., A. Seif, and B. Lohr. 2003. A Guide to IPM in Tomato Production in Eastern and 

Southern Africa. The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), 

Nairobi, Kenya. 

Vivian-Smith, G., C. R. Gosper, A. Wilson, and K. Hoad. 2006. Lantana camara and the fruitand seed-damaging fly, Ophiomyia lantanae (Agromyzidae): Seed predator, recruitment 

promoter or dispersal disrupter? Biological Control 36(2):247-257. 

Vreysen, M. J. B., H. J. Barclay, and J. Hendrichs. 2006. Modeling of preferential mating in 

areawide control programs that integrate the release of strains of sterile males only or 

both sexes. Annals of the Entomological 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. 1980. Tomato viruses in the Ivory Coast. Annales 

de Phytopathologie 12(3):259-275. 

Webber, B. L., and I. E. Woodrow. 2004. Cassowary frugivory, seed defleshing and fruit fly 

infestation influence the transition from seed to seedling in the rare Australian rainforest 

tree, Ryparosa sp nov 1 (Achariaceae). 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 cucurbitate 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 Trichogramma 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 Synthesis of the Holartic Miridae (Heteroptera): 

Distribution, Biology, and Origin, with Emphasis 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 (Diptera: Tephritidae) of Africa and the Middle 

East. African Entomology Memoir 2:1-156 (CD ROM). 

White, I. M., and M. M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Fruit 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: Noctuidae). Phytophylactica 4:9-12. 

Widrlechner, M. P. 1997. Hardiness zones in China. 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 geographical distribution. Part III. Catocalinae, 

Ophiderinae, Hypeninae, Hypenodinae. Lambillionea Lambillionea 96(3):683-693. 

Wokocha, R. C., A. C. Ebenebe, and I. D. Erinle. 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: Noctuidae) male and chemical control 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 tomato 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 Development Cooperation, Accra, Ghana. 49 pp. 

Youdeowei, A., and A. U. Oboite. 1972. Caterpillars of Aegocera rectilinea Bdv. (Agaristidae) 

and Hippotion celerio (L.) (Sphingidae) feeding on Boerhaavia difusia in Ibadan, Nigeria 

[Abstract]. Nigerian Entomologists' 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 important 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 

 Baggage Cargo Total 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 stores 
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 47

Pest Tomato West Africa 

 Baggage Cargo Total 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 29
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 48

Pest Tomato West Africa 

 Baggage Cargo Total 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 1 
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 49

Pest Tomato West Africa 

 Baggage Cargo Total 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 7 
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 50

Pest Tomato West Africa 

 Baggage Cargo Total 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 54
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 51

Pest Tomato West Africa 

 Baggage Cargo Total 45 Misc.46 Total 

Muscidae, species of 1 1 29

Mycetophagidae, species of 1 1 

Mycetophilidae, species 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 2 
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 52

Pest Tomato West Africa 

 Baggage Cargo Total 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 4
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 53

Pest Tomato West Africa 

 Baggage Cargo Total 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 1 
Pest 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 African States (ECOWAS47) we identified nine quarantine pests likely to 

follow the pathway to the Continental United States (Table B1). Further analysis indicated these 

pests pose High to Medium risk potentials to the Continental United States. Other than some 

minimal post-harvest washing and culling, we evaluated pest risk potentials on the unmitigated 

importation of tomatoes. 

Table B1. Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway 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.) (Diptera: 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 Plant Protection Convention, countries have the sovereign right to 

use risk mitigation strategies that minimize pest risks to a scientifically justified level (Article 

VII; IPPC, 1997). The appropriate level of phytosanitary protection for an imported commodity 

can be achieved by the application of a single phytosanitary measure, such as inspection or a 

quarantine treatment, or a combination of measures through a systems approach (IPPC, 2002). 

While developing mitigation strategies, it is important to understand that risk can never be 

eliminated, but it can be reduced and managed. Selection of the appropriate risk mitigation48

options must consider not only the efficacy of the various risk mitigation strategies, but also the 

potential impact that such strategies would have to the importing 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 options and 2) analysis of the efficacy and impact 

of the different options (ISPM #2; IPPC, 2006). This appendix provides the first step in risk 

 

47 Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Cote d’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, 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. Specific mitigations may be selected from a range 

of pre-harvest and post-harvest options, and other safeguarding measures such detection and 

certification. In cases where the number and diversity of quarantine pests are 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 options to cumulatively reduce pest risk to an 

acceptable level (ISPM #14; IPPC, 2006). Combining specific mitigation measures in a way that 

provides overlapping or sequential safeguards is distinctly different from applying single 

mitigation methodologies such as fumigation or inspection. In a systems approach, mitigation 

measures may be added or the strength of measures 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 effectiveness of the combined 

components reduces pest risk to an acceptable level (ISPM #14; IPPC, 2006). 

In this PRA we considered export of fresh tomatoes from 15 countries in western Africa. A site 

visit to Senegal by two APHIS personnel in February 2007 showed that in addition to standard 

harvest and packinghouse procedures (i.e., culling and washing), tomatoes are cultivated in 

enclosed screenhouses (Robertson, 2007a, 2007b). Screenhouses reduce or eliminate the risk of 

many large- and medium-sized becoming associated with the commodity by excluding the pests 

(Jones, 1999). Below, we considered screenhouse exclosures as a mitigation option, but also 

considered other options because other ECOWAS countries may not use screenhouses. 

The aim of this appendix is to assist PPQ risk mitigation decision makers by presenting available 

phytosanitary measures that can provide, or potentially 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 reduce the risk of quarantine pests entering and 

establishing in the Continental United States on fresh 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 and managed before pests have an opportunity to 

follow the pathway to the importing country. Continuous monitoring can be used at production 

sites to ensure pest free areas or areas of low pest prevalence (ISPMs #10, #22; IPPC, 2006). 

Inspection of fruit during the growing season is useful to identify particular pests before they 

become problematic. Following harvest and post-harvest treatment, additional inspections help 

insure quarantine significant pests have been eliminated from the pathway. Finally, at U.S. ports, 

additional inspections increase our assurance that a commodity is free from quarantine pests 

before entering the country. Statistical procedures are available to verify, to a specified 
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 56

confidence level, the pest-free status of an area 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, current regulations (7 CFR§319.56-2dd) 

for tomatoes from Spain, France, Morocco and Western Sahara and Australia require the national 

plant protection organizations to inspect production greenhouses and their surrounding areas at 

least two months prior to shipping 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 quarantine pest result in the immediate cancellation of 

exports from that greenhouse until the source of the infestation is determined, the infestation has 

been eradicated, and measures have been taken to preclude any future infestation. Furthermore, 

each shipment of tomatoes should be accompanied 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 larger systems approach to mitigate pest risk. 

Mitigation measures for tomatoes from Chile do not include inspection and monitoring because 

Chilean tomato producers treat their tomatoes with methyl bromide (7 CFR§319.56-2dd). 

Phytosanitary Certification. A phytosanitary (plant health) certificate is an official document 

issued by an exporting country, verifying that the shipment conforms to the phytosanitary import 

requirements of the importing country, whatever those may be (e.g., pre-harvest inspection, postharvest treatment, etc.). The intended purpose of a phytosanitary certificate is to expedite the 

entry of plants or plant products into a country while protecting the country’s agriculture and 

natural environment. Thus, phytosanitary certification 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 scientific 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 comprising a certain region. To establish a pest 

free area, 1) the area must be readily delimited/determined, 2) there must be phytosanitary 

measures in place to establish and maintain the pest 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 satisfying an importing country’s 

appropriate level of phytosanitary protection. Because the exporting region considered in this 

PRA is very large and heterogeneous, the plant pests considered here do not occur in all 

countries (see the Pest list; Table B2) or all regions within a country49. Thus, this mitigation 

option may be very appropriate to consider for some of the pests. Establishment and maintenance 

of pest-free areas should be in compliance with international 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 the 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. Distributiona

 of quarantine pests in western Africa (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 Production Site or Place of Production. A pest free place of 

production or production site is a “place of production in which a specific pest does not occur as 

demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this 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 and 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 maintained pest-free over an extended period of 

time. In contrast, pest free production sites are managed by the producer and may be maintained 

pest free for as little as a season or two. Pest free production sites are established similarly to pest 

free areas, but with the added requirement that all products are adequately labeled to identify the 

particular production site. Once a pest free production site or place of production has been 

established, the producer must maintain the site pest free (ISPM #10; IPPC, 2006). As a sole 

mitigative measure, the establishment of pest-free production sites or places of production may 

be effective in satisfying an importing country’s appropriate level of phytosanitary 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 production 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, Chrysodeixis argentifera, C. erisoma, Helicoverpa 

armigera, H. punctigera, Lamprolonchaea 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 several countries, as identified 

by the competent authorities, in which 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 maintained 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 prevalence should also include 

a pest-reporting procedure and emergency 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 particular, target or threshold population densities 

defining an area of low pest prevalence 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 effective pest control strategy that works by 

disrupting pest mating (Vreysen et al., 2006). Effectiveness of this control strategy increases as 

the wild pest population decreases because it becomes increasingly difficult for a wild female to 

find a wild (non-sterilized male). Sterile insect 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 identified 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). Because sterile insect techniques 

have been used to control populations of codling moth (e.g., Calkins, 1998), similar techniques 

could also be developed for the four quarantine lepidoptera. To our knowledge, 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 when strategically used; however, their widespread and prolific 

use can impact the environment (Carson, 1962), foster 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 document to give a detailed summary of the 

pesticides that have been used against the ten quarantine pests listed above. Overall, it is 

expected that pesticides will be effective at reducing, or perhaps even eliminating pest 
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 59

populations of surface-feeding pests on tomato fruit, particularly moths. However, pesticide 

applications (i.e., foliar sprays) may not be as effective for the mealybugs or the internally 

feeding fruit flies, unless the pesticides are systemic (CABI, 2005). Bait sprays that target adult 

fruit flies are more economically effective than foliar sprays (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 and ultimately produce better or 

higher quality commodities. Greenhouse production of tomatoes protects fruit from most pests 

that would require the use of pesticides and fungicides as if they were field-grown, thereby 

providing another mitigation technique (Jones, 1999). Current quarantine regulations 

(7CFR§319.56-2dd) require that tomatoes from Spain, France, Morocco and Western Sahara, 

Chile be grown in insect-proof, pest-free greenhouses. To prevent pests from entering, the 

greenhouses are required to be equipped with double self-closing doors. Furthermore, vents and 

openings (other than the double closing doors) are to be covered with screening to prevent the 

entry of pests. 

To exclude plant pests, the mesh size of the greenhouse/shadehouse screening is critical (Byrne, 

1998). According to two recent publications, the mesh 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 heat 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 smallest 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 the 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 interceptions 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 procedures 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 tarpaulins, or other pestproof covers while in transit to the packing house and while awaiting packing. When receiving 

and packing tomatoes for export to the Continental United States, the packing house should only 

accept tomatoes from registered approved production 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 undergo mechanical brushing and cleansing using 

compressed air or other treatment to remove external 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 tomatoes from Spain, France, Morocco and West 

Sahara, and Australia (7 CFR§319.56- 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 containing 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 petroleum based oil (Ampol) caused 94 percent 

mortality and 82 percent removal (Gould and McGuire, 2000). Surfactants, such as common 

dishwashing detergent, may show a high degree of insecticidal activity with minimal risk of 

phytotoxicity. For example, Liu & Stansly (2000) achieved mortalities 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 lepidoptera. Additional research is required to 

evaluate the efficacy of washing treatments on tomato fruit, particularly if it may promote fruit 

decay (Bartz, 1999). 

Overall, these methods should remove or kill the majority of surface pests on tomatoes. Fruit 

inspection prior to packing will help 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 qualified APHIS and national plant protection organization (NPPO) 

personnel, in accordance with specified phytosanitary procedures. Such programs require 

monitoring of all aspects of required phytosanitary 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 colorless, odorless fumigant with 

relatively low solubility in water (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 larvae 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 period of time (e.g., a few hours). Following treatment, sufficient 

time must be given to allow the fumigant to diffuse from the commodity. APHIS has developed 

and approved a methyl bromide treatment schedule for C. capitata on tomatoes, but not for any 
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 61

of the other pests (PPQ, 2006). Methyl bromide is approved for B. cucurbitae on avocados. 

Given their similar biology and relatedness, it is likely that methyl bromide schedules could be 

developed for the other fruit flies on tomatoes. Methyl bromide is also used to treat external 

pests, including some lepidoptera (PPQ, 2006). Thus, following some research, specific 

treatment schedules could be developed for the other pests. 

Irradiation. Irradiation consists of exposing the commodity 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 the object of irradiation is sterilization and 

not necessarily mortality, documentation of the dosage 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 absorbed 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 quarantine 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 optional but may prolong the life of the 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 then maintaining it there 

for 8.75 hours (PPQ, 2006). A similar treatment schedule 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 treatment schedules for the four quarantine 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 fruit near freezing conditions for an 

extended period (PPQ, 2006). Temperature sensors placed in the storage compartment and within 

fruit insure that cold treatment procedures were 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 chilling the fruit to 33-35oC and maintaining that 

temperature for 15-22 days, depending on the commodity (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 treatment options for fruit have not been investigated. 

B2.6. Limited Entry & Distribution. 

Limiting the quantity of a product imported to smaller but perhaps more frequent shipments can 

also reduce the risk of pest establishment by minimizing the risk of a mating pair forming 
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 62

(Follett and Neven, 2006). This would 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 the Continental United States. Because most of the 

quarantine pests analyzed in this pest risk assessment are tropical species (Table B1), limiting 

the distribution of ECOWAS tomatoes to northern ports would also greatly 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 Australia (7 CFR§319.56-2dd). 

Commodity must be accompanied with a phytosanitary 

certificate from the national plant 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 technique 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 mealybugs (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 and 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 treatment 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 insects, 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), irradiation, 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 schedule is effective at killing 
Pest 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 vapor 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 have not been investigated. 

Moths and 

mealybugs 

Cold treatment options for these pests in fruit have not 

been identified. 

Limited Pest Entry & Distribution 

Limited Pest Entry Fruit flies & 

moths 

Would be effective against flying insects that use 

pheromones to find mates. 

Mealybugs Most likely ineffective, especially 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 risk of establishment. 

B3 Conclusion 

In this risk assessment we identified four fruit flies, four moths, and two mealybugs that are 

likely to be associated with fresh tomatoes exported 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 risk of these pests establishing in the Continental United States. 

Selecting a mitigation strategy is complicated because 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 the pests represent three distinct 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 appropriate. 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 CFR 
Pest Risk Assessment for Tomatoes from ECOWAS Countries 

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 65

§319.56-2dd, U.S. Federal Register, 1997), and peppers from Israel (7 CFR § 319.56-2u U.S. 

Federal Register, 1997). These programs have performed successfully for many years based on 

pest and pathogen interception 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 specification 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 managers, Table B5 lists phytosanitary mitigations that 

are required from foreign countries that export tomatoes to the Continental United States. 
PRA fort ECOWAS tomatoes

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 Table B5. Required phytosanitary mitigations for tomato exports to the United States. The permitted plant parts 

leaves in every case. The CFR reference is 7 CFR § 319.56 2dd, except that for Mexico and Poland it is 7 CFR § 

Spain France Morocco & W. 

Sahara 

Chile Austr

Fruit type permitted Pink or red Pink or red Pink Green, pink or red NA Mitigation measures 

Grown in greenhouses x x x x Grown in particular areas x x x Limited shipping dates x x Medfly monitoring, mitigation & record keeping 

x x x x 

Fruit packed within 24 hours x x x x x Shipping in insect proof containers x x x x x Phytosanitary certificates required x x x x Methyl bromide treatment x Yearly trust fund agreement for preclearance services x Other pest monitoring, mitigation & record keeping 

 x 

Pests of concern NA see Notes see Notes see Notes see NNotes: Quarantine pests selected for further analysis in the respective PRAs as follows: France (Bryotropha plebejella, Ceratitis capitaHeliothis peltigera, H. viriplaca, Lacanobia oleraceae, Spodoptera littoralis); Morocco (Ceratitis capitata, Autographa gamma, Helic

Spodoptera littoralis); Chile (Rhagoletis tomatis, Tuta absoluta, Liriomyza huidobrensis, Ceratitis capitata); and Australia (Bactrocer

B. jarvis, B. neohumeralis, B. tryoni, Ceratitis capitata, Chrysodeixis argentifera, C. erisoma, Helicoverpa armigera, H. punctigera, Labrouniana, Sceliodes cordalis, and Spodoptera litura). PRAs for Spain, Mexico and Poland were not available 
PRA 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 Zones” 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 become 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 four or more hardiness zones 

Risk Element #2- Host Range 

The risk posed by a plant pest depends on its ability to establish a viable, reproductive population 

and its potential to injure plants. For arthropods, risk is assumed 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 species 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 arriving in a new area. The following items are considered in regard to 

dispersal potential: reproductive patterns of the pest (e.g., voltinism, biotic potential); inherent 

powers of movement; factors facilitating dispersal, wind, water, presence of vectors, humans, 

etc. 

Low (1): pest has neither high reproductive potential nor rapid dispersal 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 the 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 variety of direct and indirect economic impacts. These impacts are 

divided into three primary categories (other types 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 three 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 encompasses the likelihood and severity of an 

environmental impact. The act describes an environmental pest as: “expected to have direct 
PRA fort ECOWAS tomatoes

Rev: 005 June 5, 2009 68

impacts on species listed by Federal Agencies as endangered or threatened (50CFR§17.11 and 

§17.12), by infesting/infecting a listed plant. If the pest attacks other 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 endangered or threatened by disrupting 

sensitive, critical habitat; introduction of the pest 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 procedures for Likelihood of Introduction 

Quantity of commodity imported annually: 

The likelihood that an exotic pest will be introduced depends on the amount of potentially 

infested commodity that is imported. For qualitative pest risk assessments, the amount of 

commodity imported is estimated in units of standard 40 foot long shipping containers. In those 

cases where the quantity of a commodity imported is provided in terms of kilograms, pounds, 

number of items, etc., the number of units is converted into terms of 40 foot 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 commodity is subjected. Examples of 

postharvest treatment include culling, washing, chemical treatment, cold storage, etc. If there is 

no postharvest treatment, pest survival 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 externally feeding pests are less likely. 

 

Imported or moved subsequently to an area with an environment suitable for survival: 

The likelihood that a pest will be moved to an area 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 suitable habitats for the pest/pathogen. 

Come into contact with host material suitable for reproduction: 

Even if the final destination of infested commodities 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 presence of host material in the region. 

Overall scoring: 

Low: 6 – 9 points 

Medium: 10 – 14 points 

High: 15 – 18 points