Pest Risk Assessment 

of the Importation into 

the United States of 

Unprocessed Eucalyptus

Logs and Chips from 

South America 

United States

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Forest 

Products 

Laboratory 

General 

Technical 

Report 

FPL−GTR−124
Abstract 

In this report, we assess the unmitigated pest risk potential of 

importing Eucalyptus logs and chips from South America 

into the United States. To do this, we estimated the likelihood and consequences of introducing representative insects 

and pathogens of concern. Nineteen individual pest risk 

assessments were prepared, eleven dealing with insects and 

eight with pathogens. The selected organisms were representative examples of insects and pathogens found on the foliage, on the bark, in the bark, and in the wood of Eucalyptus

spp. Among the insects and pathogens assessed, eight were 

rated a high risk potential: purple moth (Sarsina violescens), 

scolytid bark and ambrosia beetles (Scolytopsis brasiliensis, 

Xyleborus retusus, Xyleborus biconicus, Xyleborus spp.), 

carpenterworm (Chilecomadia valdiviana) on Eucalyptus

nitens, round-headed wood borers (Chydarteres striatus, 

Retrachyderes thoracicus, Trachyderes spp., Steirastoma

breve, Stenodontes spinibarbis), eucalyptus longhorned borer 

(Phoracantha semipunctata), Botryosphaeria cankers (Botryosphaeria dothidea, Botryosphaeria obtusa, Botryosphaeria ribi), Ceratocystis canker (Ceratocystis fimbriata), and 

pink disease (Erythricium salmonicolor). 

April 2001 

Kliejunas, John T.; Tkacz, Borys M.; Burdsall, Harold H., Jr.; DeNitto, 

Gregg A.; Eglitis, Andris; Haugen, Dennis A.; Wallner, William E. 2001. 

Pest risk assessment of the importation into the United States of unprocessed Eucalyptus logs and chips from South America. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

FPL-GTR-124. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 134 p. 

A limited number of free copies of this publication are available to the

public from the Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, 

Madison, WI 53705–2398. Laboratory publications are sent to hundreds 

of libraries in the United States and elsewhere.

The Forest Products Laboratory is maintained in cooperation with the 

University of Wisconsin. 

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information 

and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of

any product or service. 

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national

origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or 

marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication 

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact 

the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a 

complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA

is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

A moderate pest risk potential was assigned to eleven other 

organisms or groups of organisms: eucalypt weevils 

(Gonipterus spp.), carpenterworm (Chilecomadia valdiviana) on two Eucalyptus species other than E. nitens, platypodid ambrosia beetle (Megaplatypus parasulcatus), yellow

phorancantha borer (Phoracantha recurva), subterranean 

termites (Coptotermes spp., Heterotermes spp.), foliar 

diseases (Aulographina eucalypti, Cryptosporiopsis 

eucalypti, Cylindrocladium spp., Phaeophleospora spp., 

Mycosphaerella spp.), eucalyptus rust (Puccinia psidii), 

Cryphonectria canker (Cryphonectria cubensis), Cytospora 

cankers (Cytospora eucalypticola, Cytospora eucalyptina), 

Coniothyrium canker (Coniothyrium zuluense), and root and 

stem rots (Armillaria spp., Phellinus spp., Ganoderma sp., 

Gymnopilus spectabilis). For those organisms of concern that 

are associated with logs and chips of South American Eucalyptus spp., specific phytosanitary measures may be required 

to ensure the quarantine safety of proposed importations. 

Keywords Pest risk assessment, Eucalyptus, South America, 

log importation, chip importation
Pest Risk Assessment of the 

Importation into the United States 

of Unprocessed Eucalyptus Logs 

and Chips from South America 

John T. Kliejunas 

Borys M. Tkacz 

Harold H. Burdsall, Jr. 

Gregg A. DeNitto 

Andris Eglitis 

Dennis A. Haugen 

William E. Wallner 
ii 
iii 

Contents 

 Page 

Wood Import Pest Risk Assessment and 

 Mitigation Evaluation Team ............................................iv 

Acknowledgments................................................................v 

Executive Summary ...........................................................vii 

Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................1 

Background ......................................................................1 

Statement of Purpose........................................................1 

Scope of Assessment ........................................................1 

Pest Risk Assessment Process ..........................................1 

Outreach ...........................................................................5 

Site Visits .........................................................................7 

Resources at Risk .............................................................7 

Chapter 2. Eucalyptus Resources of South America...........9 

Eucalyptus Plantations in South America.........................9 

Characteristics of the Proposed Importation ..................11 

Previous Interceptions of Quarantine Organisms ...........13 

Chapter 3. Insects and Pathogens Posing Risk..................15 

Introduction....................................................................15 

Analysis Process.............................................................15 

Individual Pest Risk Assessments...................................15 

Insects.............................................................................27 

Leafcutting Ants..........................................................27 

Eucalyptus Weevil ......................................................30 

Flea of the Tifa Leaf ...................................................33 

Purple Moth ................................................................35 

Scolytid Bark and Ambrosia Beetles ..........................38 

Carpenterworm ...........................................................41 

Platypodid Ambrosia Beetle .......................................44 

Round-Headed Wood Borers......................................46 

Eucalyptus Longhorned Borer ....................................49 

Yellow Phoracantha Borer..........................................52 

Subterranean Termites ................................................55 

 Page 

Pathogens .......................................................................57 

Foliar Diseases............................................................57 

Eucalyptus Rust ..........................................................61 

Cryphonectria Canker .................................................64 

Botryosphaeria and Cytospora Cankers......................68 

Ceratocystis Canker ....................................................72 

Coniothyrium Canker..................................................75 

Pink Disease ...............................................................77 

Root and Stem Rots ....................................................80 

Chapter 4. Summary and Conclusions ..............................85 

Background ....................................................................85 

Pest Risk Assessment .....................................................85 

Major Pests of Eucalyptus Species on Imported 

 Logs or Chips ..............................................................86 

Factors Influencing Risk Potential..................................88 

Conclusions ....................................................................89 

Chapter 5. Bibliography....................................................91 

Appendix A—Team’s Site Visits to South America........101 

Brazil: March 15–April 2, 1998 ...................................101 

Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile: April 13–30, 1998 .....106 

Appendix B—Scientific Authorities for Species 

 of Eucalyptus ................................................................125 

Appendix C—Summary of Reviewers’ Comments 

 and Team’s Responses..................................................126 

Introduction..................................................................126 

General Comments From Reviewers............................126 

Major Issues of Reviewers ...........................................127 

Issue 1: Geographical Scope of Assessment.............127 

Issue 2: Biological Scope of Assessment..................128 

Issue 3: Definition of a Quarantine Pest ...................129 

Issue 4: Lack of Adequate Background Information 130 

Issue 5: Crossover of Pests (Alternate Hosts) ...........131 

Issue 6: Import of Potential Pests on Chips ..............131 

Issue 7: Pest Risk Criteria.........................................132 

Issue 8: Pest Risk Potentials .....................................133 

Issue 9: Unknown Virulence–Genetic Variability 

 of Pests...................................................................133 

Issue 10: Unknown (Sleeper) Pests...........................134 

Issue 11: Issue of Tropical Hardwoods.....................134 
iv 

Wood Import Pest Risk Assessment and 

Mitigation Evaluation Team

Dr. Harold H. Burdsall, Jr. 

Forest Mycologist (retired) 

USDA Forest Service 

Forest Products Laboratory 

One Gifford Pinchot Dr. 

Madison, WI 53705-2398 

Dr. Gregg A. DeNitto 

Forest Pathologist 

USDA Forest Service, CFFHP 

P.O. Box 7669 

Missoula, MT 59807 

Dr. Andris Eglitis 

Forest Entomologist 

USDA Forest Service 

Central Oregon Insect and Disease Field Office 

1645 Highway 20 East 

Bend, OR 97701 

Dr. Dennis A. Haugen 

Forest Entomologist 

USDA Forest Service, St. Paul Field Office 

1992 Folwell Avenue 

St. Paul, MN 55108 

Dr. John T. Kliejunas 

Forest Pathologist 

USDA Forest Service, SPF 

1323 Club Drive 

Vallejo, CA 94592 

Mr. Borys M. Tkacz, Team Leader 

USDA Forest Service 

Forest Health Protection 

P.O. Box 96090 

Washington, DC 20090 

Dr. William E. Wallner 

Forest Entomologist (retired) 

USDA Forest Service 

Northeastern Center for Forest Health Research 

51 Mill Pond Road 

Hamden, CT 06514 
v 

Acknowledgments 

Numerous individuals made valuable contributions to the 

success of the risk assessment project and to the site visits. 

Everywhere the team visited, we were warmly received by 

the local officials and consultants who helped us understand 

the local forestry and resource management issues. Some of 

the key individuals who had prominent roles in coordinating 

the site visits and who accompanied the team are listed by 

country: 

Argentina: Norberto Echeverría and Diego Quiroga of 

SENASA (Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria); Martin Sanchez Acosta of INTA (Instituto 

Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria) in Concordia 

Brazil: Erich Schaitza and Edson Tadeu Iede of EMBRAPA 

(Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria) in Curitiba; 

Charles S. Hodges (North Carolina State University) 

Chile: Marcos Beeche Cisternas and Miguel Angel Poisson 

(Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero) 

Uruguay: Juan F. Porcile and Nora Telechea (Division Forestal, Dirección General de Recursos Naturales Renovables) 

Other individuals and organizations that provided valuable 

contributions are named in the site visit reports in 

Appendix A. 

Portions of this document were extracted from the Chilean 

pest risk assessment (USDA Forest Service 1993) and the 

Mexican pest risk assessment (Tkacz and others 1998). 

We thank the following colleagues for providing critical 

reviews of an earlier draft of this document: 

Dr. Ronald F. Billings 

Forest Resource Development Department 

Texas Forest Service 

2127 S. First – Highway 59 South 

Lufkin, TX 75902–0310 

Dr. George M. Blakeslee 

School of Forest Resources and Conservation 

118 Newins Ziegler Hall 

University of Florida 

Gainesville, FL 32611–0410 

Dr. Brian J. Cabrera 

Department of Entomology 

219 Hodson Hall, University of Minnesota 

1980 Folwell Avenue 

St. Paul, MN 55108 

Dr. R. Scott Cameron 

Forest Research & Biotechnology 

International Paper 

1201 West Lathrop Avenue 

Savannah, GA 31402 

Professor Alejandro Madrigal Cardeño 

Facultad de Ciencias 

Universidad Nacional de Colombia 

Apartado Aéreo 3840 

Medellín, Colombia 

Charles Crosthwaite Eyre 

Eyre Associates 

The Old Malthouse, Upper Clatford 

Andover, Hampshire SP 11 7 QL 

Great Britain 

Robert B. Floyd 

Program Leader, Natural Resources and Biodiversity 

CSIRO Entomology 

GPO Box 1700 

Canberra ACT 2601 

Australia 

Diana Maria Guillen 

Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentación 

Ministerio de Economía 

Paséo Colón 367 P11 CP 1067 

Buenos Aires, Argentina 

Dr. Lawrence M. Hanks 

Department of Entomology 

320 Morrill Hall 

University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign 

Urbana, IL 61801 

Dr. Everett Hansen 

Botany and Plant Pathology Department 

2082 Cordley Hall 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, OR 97331 

Dr. Charles S. Hodges, Jr. 

Department of Plant Pathology 

North Carolina State University 

P.O. Box 7616 

Raleigh, NC 27695 

Dr. William Jacobi 

Department of Bioagricultural Sciences & Pest Management 

Colorado State University 

Ft. Collins, CO 80523–1177 

Dr. Kathleen Johnson 

Supervisor, PP&D Programs 

Oregon Department of Agriculture 

635 Capitol Street NE 

Salem, OR 97310–2532 

Dr. John D. Lattin 

Department of Entomology 

2046 Cordley Hall 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, OR 97331–2907 
vi 

Dr. Emmanuel Mireku 

Plant Quarantine Policy Branch 

Australian Quarantine & Inspection Service (AQIS) 

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 

GPO Box 858, Canberra ACT 2601 

Australia 

Dr. Nancy Osterbauer 

Survey Plant Pathologist 

Oregon Department of Agriculture 

635 Capitol Street NE 

Salem, OR 97310–2532 

Dr. Don Owen 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 

6105 Airport Road 

Redding, CA 96002 

Dr. Timothy D. Paine 

Department of Entomology 

University of California, Riverside 

Riverside, CA 92521–0314 

Dr. J.H. Pedrosa–Macedo 

Departamento de Ciências Florestais 

Universidade Federal do Paraná 

80060–000—Curitiba, Paraná 

Brazil 

Juan F. Porcile 

Dirección Forestal 

Avenida 18 de Julio 1455, 6o Piso 

Montevideo, Uruguay 

Fernando Peña Royo 

Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero 

Departamento Protección Agrícola 

Santiago, Chile 

Dr. Stephen J. Seybold 

Department of Entomology 

219 Hodson Hall, University of Minnesota 

1980 Fowell Avenue 

St. Paul, MN 55108 

Nora Telechea 

Dirección Forestal 

Avenida 18 de Julio 1455, 6o Piso 

Montevideo, Uruguay 

Ms. Dorthea Zadig 

Division of Plant Industry, Pest Exclusion Branch 

Department of Food and Agriculture 

1220 N Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 
vii 

Executive Summary 

Background and Objectives 

Current regulations require that unprocessed temperate 

hardwood logs from countries in South America may be 

imported if they are fumigated with methyl bromide prior to 

arrival in the United States to eliminate pests (Title 7, CFR 

part 319.40-5(d)). Chips are required to be of tropical origin 

from healthy, plantation-grown, tropical species, or if of 

temperate origin, must be fumigated with methyl bromide, 

heat-treated, or heat-treated with moisture reduction (Title 7, 

CFR part 319.40-6 (c)). Because of several requests from 

forest industries in the United States to import chips of Eucalyptus species from countries in South America, Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) requested that the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service 

prepare a pest risk assessment. The objectives of the risk 

assessment were to identify potential pests of Eucalyptus in 

South America, estimate the likelihood of their entry on 

South American logs and chips into the United States, and 

evaluate the economic, environmental, and social consequences of such an introduction. 

The Risk Assessment Team 

A USDA Forest Service Wood Import Pest Risk Assessment 

and Mitigation Evaluation Team (WIPRAMET) conducted 

the assessment. The team was chartered in 1995 by the Chief 

of the Forest Service to provide a permanent source of technical assistance to APHIS in conducting pest risk assessments. In 1998, two delegations of WIPRAMET members 

and an APHIS representative traveled to South America, one 

team to Brazil and the other team to Argentina, Chile, and 

Uruguay. Each team met with local agricultural, quarantine, 

and forestry officials, entomologists, pathologists, and forest 

industry representatives to gather information. Each team 

toured harvest areas, inspected processing plants and ports, 

and viewed pest problems in Eucalyptus plantations and 

forests. The pest risk assessment document prepared by 

the team also takes into consideration comments by 

individuals who provided critical reviews of an earlier draft 

(Appendix C). 

Pest Risk Assessment 

The team compiled lists of insects and microorganisms 

known to be associated with South American species of 

Eucalyptus. From these lists, insects and pathogens that have 

the greatest risk potential as pests on imported logs or chips 

were identified. Nineteen individual pest risk assessments 

(IPRAs) were prepared, 11 dealing with insects and 8 dealing 

with pathogens. The objective was to include in the IPRAs 

representative examples of insects and pathogens found on 

the foliage, on the bark, in the bark, and in the wood. By 

necessity, this pest risk assessment focuses on those insects 

and pathogens for which biological information is available. 

However, by developing IPRAs for known organisms that 

inhabit a variety of different niches on logs, effective mitigation measures can subsequently be identified by APHIS to 

eliminate the recognized pests. It is anticipated that any 

similar unknown organisms that inhabit the same niches 

would also be eliminated by the application of these 

mitigation measures. 

Conclusions 

There are numerous potential pest organisms found on 

Eucalyptus spp. in South America that have a high likelihood 

of being inadvertently introduced into the United States on 

unprocessed logs and chips. The potential mechanisms of log 

or chip infestation by nonindigenous pests are complex. 

These complex mechanisms may be affected by countryspecific differences in harvesting and processing practices 

and differences in the distribution and prevalence of pest 

organisms. Differences in the distribution and prevalence of 

pest organisms are noted in the IPRAs. These differences 

may change the risk potential of organisms from one country 

to another. The scope of this assessment is, however, the 

entire South American continent. Differences in cultural and 

processing procedures or pest distribution and prevalence 

may warrant country-specific mitigation measures. Where 

warranted, country-specific mitigation measures would be 

recommended by APHIS during the risk management phase 

based on data provided in the IPRAs. 

Among the insects and pathogens found on Eucalyptus spp. 

in South America, eight were rated a high risk potential: 

purple moth (Sarsina violescens), scolytid bark and ambrosia 

beetles (Scolytopsis brasiliensis, Xyleborus retusus, Xyleborus biconicus, Xyleborus spp.), carpenterworm (Chilecomadia valdiviana) on Eucalyptus nitens, round-headed wood 

borers (Chydarteres striatus, Retrachyderes thoracicus, 

Trachyderes spp., Steirastoma breve, Stenodontes spinibarbis), eucalyptus longhorned borer (Phoracantha semipunctata), Botryosphaeria cankers (Botryosphaeria dothidea, 

Botryosphaeria obtusa, Botryosphaeria ribis), Ceratocystis 

canker (Ceratocystis fimbriata), and pink disease (Erythricium salmonicolor). All of these, except Botryosphaeria 

dothidea, Botryosphaeria obtusa, Botryosphaeria ribis, and

Ceratocystis fimbriata are nonindigenous to the United 

States and would be classified as quarantine pests under the 

log import regulations. 

A moderate pest risk potential was assigned to 11 organisms 

(or groups of organisms) found on Eucalyptus spp. in South 

America: eucalypt weevils (Gonipterus spp.), carpenterworm 

(Chilecomadia valdiviana) on two Eucalyptus species other 

than E. nitens (E. camaldulensis and E. gunnii), platypodid 

ambrosia beetle (Megaplatypus parasulcatus), yellow 

phorancantha borer (Phoracantha recurva), subterranean 

termites (Coptotermes spp., Heterotermes spp.), foliar diseases (Aulographina eucalypti, Cryptosporiopsis eucalypti, 
viii 

Cylindrocladium spp., Phaeophleospora spp., Mycosphaerella spp.), eucalyptus rust (Puccinia psidii), Cryphonectria 

canker (Cryphonectria cubensis), Cytospora cankers 

(Cytospora eucalypticola, Cytospora eucalyptina), Coniothyrium canker (Coniothyrium zuluense), and root and stem 

rots (Armillaria spp., Phellinus spp., Ganoderma sp., 

Gymnopilus spectabilis). While some of these organisms do 

occur in the United States, they may be capable of further 

dissemination or differ in their capacity for causing damage 

based on the genetic variation exhibited by the species. 

Several factors suggest that eucalypt logs or chips destined 

for export from South America may be relatively free of most 

damaging organisms. Commercial Eucalyptus plantations are 

well managed for maximum production, closely monitored to 

detect and control damaging pests, and grow under conditions that do not generally lead to a high incidence of damage 

by insects or pathogens. There appears to be a good working 

knowledge of forest insects and pathogens and the ability to 

recognize problem situations when they occur. However, 

some of the pest organisms of concern are those native to 

South America that have been capable of attacking introduced Eucalyptus. This characteristic suggests an ability to 

have a wider host range and adaptability for new hosts. Introduction into the United States of these organisms and the 

array of new hosts that would then be available could result 

in unforeseen consequences. 

For those organisms of concern that are associated with 

Eucalyptus spp. in South America, specific phytosanitary 

measures may be required to ensure the quarantine safety of 

proposed importations. Detailed examination and selection of 

appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk is 

the responsibility of APHIS and is beyond the scope of this 

assessment. 
Chapter 1. Introduction 

Background 

There is an increasing interest in importing large volumes of 

unmanufactured wood articles into the United States from 

abroad. The United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) is the government agency charged with preventing 

the introduction of exotic pests on plant material brought 

into the United States via international commerce. The 

Forest Service (FS) has provided assistance to APHIS in 

conducting pest risk assessments of the importation of logs 

from Russia (USDA Forest Service 1991), New Zealand 

(USDA Forest Service 1992), Chile (USDA Forest Service 

1993), and Mexico (Tkacz and others 1998) according to a 

memorandum of understanding between the two agencies 

signed in February 1992. 

In September 1995, the Chief of the Forest Service chartered 

the Wood Import Pest Risk Assessment and Mitigation 

Evaluation Team (WIPRAMET) made up of FS employees 

to provide a permanent source of technical assistance to 

APHIS in conducting pest risk assessments of exotic pests 

that may move with logs. On November 28, 1997, APHIS 

requested that WIPRAMET conduct a pest risk assessment 

of plantation-grown Eucalyptus species from South America 

to evaluate the risks associated with the importation of logs 

and chips into the United States. 

Statement of Purpose 

The specific objectives of this risk assessment are to 

• identify the potential pest organisms that may be introduced with imported unprocessed Eucalyptus logs and 

chips from South America (the baseline for this pest risk 

assessment is raw, unprocessed Eucalyptus logs with 

subsequent consideration of the effect of chipping on 

potential pest organisms), 

• assess the potential for introduction (entry and establishment) in the United States of selected representative 

South American pests of Eucalyptus, 

• estimate the potential economic and environmental impacts these pests may have on forest resources and urban 

trees if established in the United States. 

Scope of Assessment 

This risk assessment estimates the likelihood that exotic 

pests will be introduced into the United States as a direct 

result of the importation of unprocessed Eucalyptus logs and 

chips from South America. Site visits by the team and 

APHIS were made to Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay 

(Appendix A), where the preponderance of Eucalyptus

plantations in South America occur (Chap. 2). For other 

South American countries, the team relied on personal 

contacts and available literature rather than site visits to 

assess risk. Pests addressed in this report are phytophagous 

insects and plant pathogens. Major emphasis is placed on 

pests with the potential to be transported on, in, or with 

unprocessed Eucalyptus logs and chips destined for export 

from South America to the United States. This assessment 

also estimates the economic and environmental impact of the 

more potentially destructive organisms if introduced into the 

United States. 

This risk assessment is developed without regard to available mitigation measures. Once the potential risks are identified, suitable mitigation measures may be formulated, if 

needed, to reduce the likelihood that destructive pests will 

be introduced into the United States on Eucalyptus logs and 

chips from South America. The prescription of mitigation 

measures, however, is beyond the scope of this assessment 

and is the responsibility of APHIS. 

Pest Risk Assessment Process

International plant protection organizations (for example, 

North American Plant Protection Organization [NAPPO] 

and the International Plant Protection Commission [IPPC] of 

the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO]) provide guidance for conducting pest risk 

analyses. Further guidance pertinent to U.S. wood importation is contained in Title 7, CFR 319.40-11. This risk assessment conforms to the standards for plant pest risk assessments as described therein. The general process is as 

follows: 

1. Collect Commodity Information 

• Evaluate permit applications and other sources for information describing the origin, processing, treatment, and 

handling of Eucalyptus logs and chips from South 

America. 

• Evaluate data from United States and foreign countries on 

the history of plant pest interceptions or introductions associated with Eucalyptus logs and chips from South 

America. 
2 

2. Catalog Pests of Concern 

• Determine what plant pests or potential plant pests are 

associated with Eucalyptus logs and chips in South 

America. A plant pest that meets one of the following 

categories is a quarantine pest according to Title 7, 

CFR 319.40-11 and will be further evaluated: 

Category 1—Nonindigenous plant pest not present in 

the United States; 

Category 2—Nonindigenous plant pest, present in the 

United States and capable of further dissemination in 

the United States; 

Category 3—Nonindigenous plant pest that is present in 

the United States and has reached probable limits of its 

ecological range, but differs genetically (for example, 

biotypes, pathovars, strains) from the plant pest in the 

United States in a way that demonstrates a potential for 

greater damage in the United States; 

Category 4—Native species of the United States that 

has reached probable limits of its ecological range, but 

differs genetically from the plant pest in the United 

States in a way that demonstrates a potential for greater 

damage in the United States; 

Category 5—Nonindigenous or native plant pest capable of vectoring another plant pest that meets one of the 

above criteria. 

In addition to these criteria for quarantine pests as specified 

in the log import regulations, WIPRAMET determined that 

a broader definition of genetic variation was needed for 

Category 4. The definition of this category was expanded to 

include native species that have reached the probable limits 

of their range but may differ in their capacity for causing 

damage, based on the genetic variability exhibited by the 

species (Category 4a). There are uncertainties and unknowns 

about the genetic variability and damage potential of many 

pest organisms in forest ecosystems. Because of these unanswered questions, the team was cautious in its assessments 

and included additional pests of concern not considered 

under the requirements of the log import regulations. For 

Category 2, the team added native organisms with limited 

distributions within the United States but capable of further 

dissemination (Category 2a). The team believes that some of 

these organisms currently occupy a limited distribution only 

because they have not been afforded the opportunity to 

exploit additional environments. 

3. Determine Which Pests of Concern 

to Assess 

• Arrange pests of concern identified using cataloging 

criteria by location on host (such as, foliage–branches, 

bark–cambium, sapwood, heartwood). 

• Evaluate the plant pests in each location on the host 

according to pest risk, based on the available biological 

information and demonstrated or potential plant pest importance. 

• Conduct IPRAs for the pests of concern. Identify any 

quarantine plant pests for which plant pest risk assessments have been previously performed in accordance with 

7 CFR 319.40-11 and determine their applicability to the 

proposed importation from South America. Pests with 

similar biology and that attack similar plant parts were 

evaluated in the same IPRA because they would react 

similarly to the same mitigation measures. The lack of 

biological information on any given insect or pathogen 

should not be equated with low risk (USDA Forest Service 1993). By necessity, pest risk assessments focus on 

those organisms for which biological information is available. By developing detailed assessments for known pests 

that inhabit different locations on imported logs (namely, 

on the surface of the bark, within the bark, and deep 

within the wood), effective mitigation measures can subsequently be developed to eliminate the known organisms 

and any similar unknown ones that inhabit the same 

niches. 

4. Evaluate Likelihood of Introduction 

and Consequences of Introduction 

for each IPRA 

• Assign a risk value (high, moderate, or low) for each of 

the seven elements. 

Risk value is based on available biological information and 

subjective judgment of the assessment team. The seven 

elements and the rating criteria used to determine risk value 

for each element are listed in the following sections. 

Each specific element in the pest risk assessment is assigned 

a certainty code (Table 1) as described in Orr and others 

(1993). The seven elements have different critical components, the combination of which is used to determine rating 

levels. Rating criteria serve as guidelines for assigning 

values of high, moderate, or low pest risk for the seven 

elements that make up the determination of pest risk potential. If scientific information is lacking for a criterion for a 

Table 1—Description of certainty codes used 

with specific elements in the individual pest 

risk assessment process 

Certainty code Symbol 

Very certain VC 

Reasonably certain RC 

Moderately certain MC 

Reasonably uncertain RU 

Very uncertain VU 
3 

particular organism, an evaluation of the criterion’s appropriateness may be made based upon characteristics of 

closely related organisms. Organism complexes such as an 

insect vector and associated pathogen are to be rated as a 

unit; therefore, the term organism as used herein pertains to 

the complex of concern. The risk value for an element may 

be modified based upon knowledge of important biological 

characteristics not addressed by the criteria following each 

element. The seven elements are broken into two parts, 

likelihood of introduction and consequences of introduction. 

Likelihood of Introduction 

In this section, the elements pertain to estimating the likelihood that the pest will enter and become established in the 

United States. Exotic organisms are considered established 

once they have formed a self-sustaining, free-living population at a given location (U.S. Congress 1993). 

Element 1. Pest with host or commodity at origin potential—Likelihood of the plant pest being on, with, or in 

Eucalyptus logs and/or chips at the time of importation. 

The affiliation of the pest with the host or commodity, both 

temporally and spatially, is critical to this element. 

High risk = Criterion a applies, or five or more of 

criteria b through h apply. 

Moderate risk = Criterion a does not apply, and two to 

four of criteria b through h apply. 

Low risk = Criterion a does not apply, and one or none 

of criteria b through h apply. 

Rating criteria: 

a. Organism has been repeatedly intercepted at ports of 

entry in association with host materials. 

b. Organism has capability for large-scale population 

increases. 

c. Populations of organism are widely distributed 

throughout range of host(s). 

d. Organism has multiple or overlapping generations per 

year or an extended period (several months or more) of 

colonization activity, thereby having capability to infest 

or infect new host material throughout at least one 

quarter of a year. 

e. One or more stages of the organism may typically 

survive in the plant host for an extended period 

of time. 

f. Organism has active, directed host searching capability 

or is vectored by such an organism. Colonization activity may be directed by attraction to host volatiles, 

pheromones, or lights. Organism may be generally 

associated with recently cut or damaged host material. 

g. Organism has wide host range, or primary plant hosts 

are widely distributed in several regions of the world. 

h. Organism is unlikely to be dislodged from host or 

destroyed during standard harvesting and handling operations. 

Element 2. Entry potential—Likelihood of the plant pest 

surviving in transit and entering the United States undetected. Important components of this element include the 

pest’s ability to survive transport, which includes such 

things as the life stage and number of individuals expected 

to be associated with the logs, chips, or transport vehicles. 

High risk = Criterion a applies, or two or more of 

criteria b through d apply. 

Moderate risk = Criterion a does not apply, and one of 

criteria b through d applies. 

Low risk = None of the following four criteria apply. 

Rating criteria: 

a. Multiple interceptions of live specimens of organism 

have been made at ports of entry in association with 

host materials. 

b. One or more stages of the organism are likely to 

survive in the plant host during transportation. 

c. Organism is protected within host material or is unlikely 

to be dislodged from host or destroyed during standard 

handling and shipping operations. 

d. Organism is difficult to detect (for example, concealment within host material, small size of organism, 

cryptic nature of organism, random distribution of 

organism in, on, or associated with host material). 

Element 3. Establishment potential—Likelihood that the 

plant pest will successfully colonize once it has entered the 

United States. Some characteristics of this element include 

the number and life stage of the pest translocated, host 

specificity, and likelihood of encountering a suitable environment in which the pest can reproduce. 

High risk = Criterion a applies, or three or more of 

criteria b through f apply, including criterion b or c. 

Moderate risk = Criterion a does not apply, or two 

or fewer of criteria b through f apply. 

Low risk = None of criteria a, b, or c apply. 

Rating criteria: 

a. Organism has successfully established in location(s) 

outside its native distribution. 

b. Organism has high probability of encountering 

favorable climatic conditions throughout the ranges of 

potential hosts(s). 
4 

c. Suitable climatic conditions and suitable host material 

coincide with ports of entry or major destinations. 

d. Organism has demonstrated ability to utilize new hosts. 

e. Organism has active, directed host searching capability 

or is vectored by an organism with directed host 

searching capability. 

f. Organism has high inoculum potential or high 

likelihood of reproducing after entry. 

Element 4. Spread potential—Likelihood of the plant pest 

spreading beyond any colonized area. Factors to consider 

include the pest’s ability for natural dispersal, the pest’s 

ability to use human activity for dispersal, the pest’s ability 

to develop races or strains, the distribution and abundance of 

suitable hosts, and the estimated range of probable spread. 

High risk = Five or more of the following eight criteria 

apply. 

Moderate risk = Two to four of the following eight 

criteria apply. 

Low risk = One or none of the following eight criteria 

apply. 

Rating criteria: 

a. Organism is capable of dispersing more than several 

kilometers per year through its own movement or by 

abiotic factors (such as wind, water, or vectors). 

b. Organism has demonstrated ability for redistribution 

through human-assisted transport. 

c. Organism has a high reproductive potential. 

d. Potential hosts have contiguous distribution. 

e. Newly established populations may go undetected for 

many years due to cryptic nature, concealed activity, 

slow development of damage symptoms, or 

misdiagnosis. 

f. Eradication techniques are unknown, infeasible, or 

expected to be ineffective. 

g. Organism has broad host range. 

h. Organism has potential to be a more efficient vector of 

a native or introduced pest. 

Consequences of Introduction 

In this section, the elements pertain to estimating the potential consequences if the pest were to become established in 

the United States. 

Element 5. Economic damage potential—Estimate of the 

potential economic impact if the pest were to become 

established. Factors to consider include economic importance of hosts, crop loss, effects on subsidiary industries, 

and availability of eradication or control methods. 

High risk = Four or more of the following six criteria 

apply. 

Moderate risk = Two or three of the following six criteria 

apply. 

Low risk = One or none of the following six criteria apply. 

Rating criteria: 

a. Organism attacks hosts or products that have significant 

commercial value (such as timber, pulp, wood products, 

wooden structures, Christmas trees, fruit or nut trees, 

syrup-producing trees, etc.). 

b. Organism directly causes tree mortality or predisposes 

host to mortality by other organisms. 

c. Damage by organism causes a decrease in value of the 

host affected, for instance, by lowering its market price; 

increasing cost of production, maintenance, or mitigation; or reducing value of property where it is located. 

d. Organism may cause loss of markets (foreign or 

domestic) due to presence of pests and quarantinesignificant status. 

e. Organism has demonstrated ability to develop more 

virulent strains or damaging biotypes. 

f. No known control measures exist. 

Element 6. Environmental damage potential—Estimate of 

the potential environmental impact if the pest were to become established in the United States. Factors to consider 

include potential for ecosystem destabilization, reduction in 

biodiversity, reduction or elimination of keystone species, 

reduction or elimination of endangered or threatened 

species, and nontarget effects of control measures. 

High risk = Criterion a or b applies, or two or more of 

criteria c through f apply. 

Moderate risk = One of criteria c through f applies, and 

neither criterion a nor b applies. 

Low risk = None of the following six criteria apply. 

Rating criteria: 

a. Organism is expected to cause significant direct 

environmental effects, such as extensive ecological 

disruption or large-scale reduction of biodiversity. 

b. Organism is expected to have direct impacts on 

species listed by Federal or state agencies as endangered, threatened, or candidate. An example would be 

feeding on a listed plant species. 

c. Organism is expected to have indirect impacts on species listed by Federal or state agencies as endangered, 

threatened, or candidate. This may include disruption of 

sensitive or critical habitat. 
5 

d. Organism may attack host with limited natural 

distribution. 

e. Introduction of the organism would probably result in 

control or eradication programs that may have potential 

adverse environmental effects. 

f. Organism has demonstrated ability to develop more 

virulent strains or damaging biotypes. 

Element 7. Social and political considerations—Estimate of 

the impact from social and/or political influences, including 

the potential for aesthetic damage, consumer concerns, 

political repercussions, and implications for international 

trade. 

High risk = Two or more of the following four 

criteria apply. 

Moderate risk = One of the following four 

criteria applies. 

Low risk = None of the following four criteria apply. 

Rating criteria: 

a. Damage by organism would probably result in public 

concerns (aesthetic, recreational, concern about urban 

plantings). 

b. Presence of organism would probably cause domestic 

political repercussions. 

c. Presence of organism would probably have international trade implications. 

d. Known effective control measures are likely to 

have limited acceptance. 

5. Estimate Unmitigated Pest Risk 

Potential 

The assessment team developed an estimate of the unmitigated plant pest risk for each individual pest risk assessment 

based on the compilation of the risk values for the seven risk 

elements. The method for compilation is presented in Orr 

and others (1993). 

• Determine the likelihood of introduction: The overall risk 

rating for the likelihood of introduction acquires the same 

rank as the single element with the lowest rating. 

• Determine the consequences of introduction: Table 2 

presents a method for ascertaining consequences of introduction for a specific pest organism or group of organisms 

with similar habits, based on the individual ratings for 

economic and environmental damage potentials and social 

and political considerations. 

• Determine the pest risk potential: The pest risk potential 

for each IPRA is determined based on the ratings for 

likelihood of introduction and consequences of introduction (Table 3). 

Outreach 

In an effort to gather information pertinent to the pest risk 

assessment, WIPRAMET contacted scientists and specialists 

in the fields of forestry, forest entomology, and forest pathology and in the timber industry throughout the United 

States, South America, Australia, New Zealand, South 

Africa, and Morocco. A preliminary list of potential organisms of concern was compiled and mailed to 124 individuals 

for review. Suggested revisions to the list were incorporated 

into the final list prepared by WIPRAMET. 

Table 2—Method for estimating consequences of 

introduction for an individual pest risk assessmenta

Economic 

damage 

potential 

Environmental 

damage 

potential 

Social and 

political 

considerations Consequences 

of introduction 

H L, M, or H L, M, or H H 

L, M, or H H L, M, or H H 

M M L, M, or H M 

M L L, M, or H M 

L M L, M, or H M 

L L M or H M 

L L L L 

a L, low; M, moderate; H, high. 

Table 3—Method for determining pest risk potentiala

Likelihood of 

introduction b Consequences 

of introduction 

Pest risk 

potential 

H H H 

M H H 

L H M or L c

H M H 

M M M 

L M M or L c

H L M 

M L M 

L L L 

a

L, low; M, moderate; H, high. 

b

The overall risk rating for the likelihood of introduction 

 acquires the same rank as the single element with the 

 lowest risk rating. 

c If two or more of the single elements that determine 

 likelihood of introduction are low, pest risk potential is 

 considered low, rather than moderate, for this 

 assessment. 
6 

Site Visits 

Site visits to the subject countries were an integral part of 

previous pest risk assessments. Teams of FS and APHIS 

specialists traveled to Russia (USDA Forest Service 1991), 

New Zealand (USDA Forest Service 1992), Chile (USDA 

Forest Service 1993), and Mexico (Tkacz and others 1998) 

while working on pest risk assessments of those countries. 

Those site visits allowed the assessment teams to meet with 

local agricultural, quarantine, and forestry officials and 

entomologists, pathologists, and forest industry representatives to gather information on the proposed importation. The 

teams also visited harvest areas, inspected processing plants 

and ports, viewed pest problems in plantations and forests, 

and evaluated mitigation procedures. The site visits allowed 

assessment teams to gather information that is not readily 

available in the literature and to verify pest risk assessments. 

For this pest risk assessment, two site visits to South America (Fig. 1) were conducted by members of WIPRAMET 

and APHIS officials. The first delegation traveled to Brazil 

(Fig. 2) from March 15 to April 2, 1998, and a second delegation traveled to Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay (Fig. 3–5) 

from April 13 to April 30, 1998. See Appendix A for the 

trip reports. 

Resources at Risk 

Eucalyptus species are members of the family Myrtaceae 

(Myrtles) and are native to Australia, Philippines, Papua 

New Guinea, and Indonesia. There are no members of the 

Myrtaceae native to the continental United States. Several 

species are native to Hawaii, with Metrosideros polymorpha

(Gaud.) Rock (ohia-lehua) the most significant. Species of 

Eucalyptus, Leptospermum, and Luma (members of the 

Myrtaceae) have been introduced into the continental United 

States, and in certain areas, some species have naturalized. 

Numerous species of Myrtaceae have been introduced into 

Hawaii, some of which are agricultural crops [such as 

Psidium guajava L. (guava), and Pimenta dioica (L.) 

Merrill (allspice)]. 

Eucalyptus species were first introduced into the continental 

United States in the mid-1800s. The earliest introduction 

was of E. globulus into California in 1856 where it has since 

become naturalized (Skolmen and Ledig 1990). Since then, 

additional introductions of this and other Eucalyptus species 

have been made, principally into California, Florida, and 

Arizona. In Arizona, they were the most widely planted 

evergreen shade tree in the southern part of the state (Mariani and others 1978). The earliest plantings in Florida occurred in 1878 on Merritt Island (Geary and others 1983). 

During the 1960s, there was an effort by public agencies and 

private pulp and paper companies in Florida to expand 

plantings. This led to the development of a research cooperative, which planted nearly 6,500 hectares (16,000 acres) 

with 8.8 million seedlings of E. grandis between 1972 and 

1982 in southwestern Florida (Meskimen 1983). Some test 

plantings have been made in other southeastern states, but 

freezing temperatures appear to limit the success of such 

Figure 1—South America. Figure 2—Brazil. 
7 

plantings (Jahromi 1982). The species most commonly and 

widely planted are E. globulus, E. grandis, and E. robusta. 

The first record of Eucalyptus planted in Hawaii is from 

1909, although earlier introductions probably occurred 

(Ziegner 1996). The planting of Eucalyptus in Hawaii has 

expanded in recent years in anticipation of a chip market. 

Much of the planting has been for ornamental and landscape 

purposes, especially in coastal areas of California and in 

southern Florida. However, some commercial plantations 

have been attempted in both states. At the end of 1973, 

about 110,000 hectares (271,800 acres) of Eucalyptus had 

been planted in the United States, with 80,000 (197,700 

acres) in California, 12,000 (29,700 acres) in Hawaii, and 

18,000 (44,500 acres) in other states (Jacobs 1979). There 

was an estimated 38,900 hectares (96,000 acres) of Eucalyptus type in California in 1985, plus an additional 3,200 

hectares (8,000 acres) of Eucalyptus in conifer type 

(Bolsinger 1988). Forest type is a classification of land 

based on the tree species forming a plurality of live tree 

stocking. Of this, about 24,700 hectares (61,000 acres) of 

Eucalyptus woodland (areas where timber species make up 

less than 10% of the stocking) had some evidence of harvesting. Estimates of the volume of Eucalyptus in California 

have been developed. In timberland situations (timber 

species make up more than 10% of the stocking), there 

was approximately 283,000 m3

 (10 million ft3) in 1988. 

Figure 3—Chile. Figure 4—Argentina. 
8 

In woodlands, this volume was 6.26 million m3

 (221 million 

ft3

). The majority of this is in the central coast area, San 

Joaquin valley, and southern California (Bolsinger 1988). 

Much of this is in small woodlot situations, but in the early 

1990s, Simpson Timber Co. (Arcata, CA) planted 

4,000 hectares (10,000 acres) of E. camaldulensis and 

E. viminalis in the Sacramento Valley of northern California 

to provide a source of pulp. This plantation has been identified as surplus to the needs of Simpson and is to be sold to a 

Florida company (Flynn and Shield 1999). Other suggested 

uses for eucalypt trees include effluent remediation, storm 

water remediation, irrigation remediation, and energy 

production (Rockwood 1996). 

A significant use of Eucalyptus in the United States is in the 

floriculture trade. Plants are grown for their foliage, which is 

used in arts and crafts and by the floral industry. A current 

estimate of production was not available, but consumption 

of cut cultivated greens in 1996 was 2.3 billion stems 

(billion = 109

), of which 79% were comprised of two nonEucalyptus species (Economic Research Service 1997). 

An estimate of E. pulverulenta in California in 1990 ranged 

from 400 to 1,200 hectares (1,000 to 3,000 acres) (Dahlsten 

and others 1998). Most of this was in small parcels. 

The latest horticultural census was in 1987 and did not 

include Eucalyptus as a specific product. A census was 

begun in 1999 by USDA, which will include the Eucalyptus

market (Nancy L. Swaim, National Agricultural Statistics 

Service, Washington, DC, 1998, personal communication). 

Another use of the plant material is for the production of 

Eucalyptus oils that are used in medicines, flavorings, and 

cosmetics. This market provides about 2,000 to 3,000 tons 

per year worldwide. Lawrence (1993) listed Eucalyptus as 

the third top essential oil produced in the world with production of 3,728 tons and a value of US$29.8 million dollars. 

The major producers of cineole-rich oils, which are valued 

for their medicinal qualities, are China, Portugal, Spain, 

Chile, the Republic of South Africa, and Swaziland (Boland 

and others 1991). In the United States, there is currently no 

known production of these oils or production of Eucalyptus

for these oils. 

Some of the damaging organisms that could be introduced 

to the United States on Eucalyptus may not be limited to this 

genus of host. A thorough knowledge of which native or 

introduced species in the United States could be hosts is not 

available, but individual assessments may identify specific 

species. The native forests of the United States and the 

associated resources have been described in previous risk 

assessments (Tkacz and others 1998; USDA Forest Service 

1991; USDA Forest Service 1992; USDA Forest Service 

1993). This information may provide some general knowledge of the potential resources at risk in addition to 

Eucalyptus. 

A number of the insects and pathogens discussed in this 

assessment are recorded on agricultural hosts in addition to 

Eucalyptus. Most of these other hosts are woody in nature. 

Few herbaceous hosts were identified. A number of the 

damaging organisms are actually more significant economically on these agricultural hosts in South America than they 

are on Eucalyptus (for example, Ceratocystis fimbriata, 

Erythricium salmonicolor). Their introduction into the 

United States could have more significant economic impacts 

on the agricultural industry than on the forestry or floriculture industries. The greatest agricultural impacts may be on 

subtropical and tropical woody plants because these 

organisms tend to be more severe in tropical conditions. 

However, climate alone should not be the deciding factor 

when considering potential impacts because it is not known 

how they would react under United States conditions or how 

irrigation practices in the United States might influence pest 

epidemiology. 

Figure 5—Uruguay. 
9 

Chapter 2. Eucalyptus Resources 

of South America 

Eucalyptus Plantations 

in South America 

The genus Eucalyptus is one of the most widely propagated 

trees in the world. This genus contains more than 500 species 

(Chippendale 1988) with the most important, in terms of 

growth potential, being E. grandis, E. camaldulensis, 

E. tereticornis, E. globulus, E. urophylla, E. viminalis, 

E. saligna, E. deglupta, E. exserta, E. citriodora, E. paniculata, and E. robusta (Eldridge and others 1993). See 

Appendix B for scientific authorities of Eucalyptus species 

discussed in this assessment. While eucalypts are native to 

Australia and its northern neighbors, they can be grown in 

most of the tropical and temperate climatic regions of the 

world between latitudes 45oS and 40oN (Eldridge and others 

1993). Planting of fast-growing trees, such as the eucalypts, 

has been encouraged by various South American governments (Table 4). 

Brazil 

Brazil has the largest area of eucalypt plantations in the 

world, with nearly three million hectares planted with various 

species of Eucalyptus (Flynn and Shield 1999) (Table 4). 

The eucalypts were introduced into Brazil before 1900 to 

substitute for native tree species in providing firewood for 

the railroad companies. From 1909 to 1965, about 470 thousand hectares (1,161,370 acres) of eucalypts were planted in 

Brazil, with 80% of these in the state of São Paulo (Couto 

and Betters 1995). Two fiscal incentives introduced in 1966 

and 1970 spurred a tremendous expansion of plantation area. 

These incentives allowed companies to use up to 50% of any 

tax liability for investment into tourism and afforestation 

projects. From 1967 to 1986, 5.5 million hectares 

(13.6 million acres) of forest plantations were established, 

mainly eucalypts (52%) and pines (30%) (Evans 1992). 

Eucalypts were planted throughout the country (Table 5). 

The most common species planted was E. grandis, with other 

significant species being E. saligna, E. alba (misidentified 

when first introduced in early 1900s; the species widely 

planted was actually E. urophylla or a E. urophylla hybrid), 

and E. urophylla. During the early stages of this planting 

spree, plantations were established in varying soil and climatic conditions, and no consideration was given to ecological zoning or use of certified seeds of correct provenance 

(Couto and Betters 1995). Consequently, survival was very 

low in some regions that have low rainfall. 

Table 4—Area of Eucalyptus plantations in 

South America by Country 

Country 

Area of Eucalyptus plantationsa

hectares (acres) 

Brazil 2,900,000 (7,165,900) 

Chile 317,000 (783,300) 

Uruguay 302,000 (746,200) 

Argentina 236,000 (583,150) 

Peru 211,000 (521,400) 

Colombia 50,000 (123,550) 

Venezuela 50,000 (123,550) 

Ecuador 44,000 (108,700) 

Paraguay 8,000 (19,800) 

a

 Flynn and Shield 1999. 

Table 5—Area of Eucalyptus plantations in Brazil 

by state 

State 

Area of Eucalyptus plantationsa

hectares (acres) 

Minas Gerais 1,524,000 (3,765,800) 

São Paulo 574,000 (1,418,400) 

Bahia 213,000 (526,300) 

Espírito Santo 152,000 (375,600) 

Rio Grande do Sul 116,000 (286,600) 

Mato Grosso do Sul 80,000 (197,700) 

Paraná 67,000 (165,600) 

Para 46,000 (113,700) 

Santa Catarina 42,000 (103,800) 

Amapa 13,000 (32,100) 

Other 129,000 (318,800) 

Total 2,955,000 (7,301,800) 

a Flynn and Shield 1999. 

Productivity varied from 6 to 30 m3 of wood per hectare per 

year (86 to 429 ft3

/ac/yr) depending on site quality. Yields 

often declined in second rotations, and intensive insect and 

fungal attacks occurred, especially in the E. grandis plantations. The situation improved in the late 1970s because of 

ecological zoning and provenance trials conducted by the 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 
10 

(FAO) and has continued to improve with introduction of 

new species, better silvicultural and management practices, 

and genetic improvement programs. The current average 

productivity is approximately 35 m3

 per hectare per year 

(500 ft3

/ac/yr) with some plantations producing at the incredible rate of 90 to 100 m3

 per hectare per year (1,286 to 

1,429 ft3

/ac/yr) (Couto and Betters 1995). The harvest of 

eucalypts in Brazil was estimated at 67 million m3

 (2,366 ft3) 

in 1994–1995 (Flynn 1996). More than half of this volume 

was used to produce charcoal. 

With the improved gains realized through genetic improvement, Brazil’s pulp and paper companies are designing plantations to yield large volumes of long-fiber pulpwood in 

rotations as short as seven years. More than 100,000 hectares 

(247,100 acres) are being planted in the state of Amapa, 

north of the Amazon River, by a subsidiary of Champion 

International Corp. This project is expected to produce 2.6 

million tons of chips a year with exports projected to begin in 

2004 (Blackman 1997). The projected yields for these plantations are 28 m3

/ha/yr (400 ft3/ac/yr) in the first rotation 

increasing to 36 m3

/ha/yr (514 ft3/ac/yr) in the second. Trees 

being planted are Eucalyptus uro-grandis, a hybrid formed 

by crossing E. grandis and E. urophylla. Farther south, in the 

state of Bahia, higher yields (60 m3

/ha/yr (857 ft3/ac/yr)) are 

projected by Varacruz Forestal for their 30,000-hectare 

(74,130-acre) pulpwood plantation. Most of the older eucalypt plantations in the state of Minas Gerais were planted to 

provide energy for the steel industry. As the steel industry 

changed over to coke, forest industries began planting eucalypts for pulpwood. Minas Gerais currently has more than 

400,000 hectares (988,400 acres) of good quality plantations 

of E. grandis, E. urophylla, and E. uro-grandis. Good rail 

service makes these plantations attractive for commercial 

development. According to Brazil’s Association of Pulp and 

Paper Manufacturers, 70% of the new pulpwood plantings 

will be eucalypts with an estimated annual planting rate of 

90,000 to 120,000 hectares (222,390–296,520 acres) from 

1995 to 2001 (Blackman 1997). 

Interest is growing in using eucalypts in Brazil for the manufacture of solid wood products, such as structural components and packaging (Blackman 1997, Flynn and Shield 

1999). Growing high quality logs will require longer rotations (12 to 15 years) than pulpwood (6 to 8 years). The best 

potential areas are in the states of Espírito Santo on the central coast and Paraná and Rio Grande do Sul in the south. 

Chile 

Eucalypts were introduced to Chile as early as 1823 (FAO 

1982). The first species planted were E. globulus and 

E. camaldulensis. Between 1962 and 1974, more than 

75 species of Eucalyptus were tested by the Instituto Forestal 

throughout Chile (Jayawickrama and others 1993). These 

trials indicated that eight species showed the greatest promise 

and that growth varied depending on climatic conditions 

(which differ in the 12 regions of Chile). The species best 

adapted to dry conditions in Region IV (200 to 300 mm 

(8 to 12 in.) annual precipitation) were E. cladocalyx and 

E. sideroxylon. Regions V and VI average 300 to 500 mm 

(12 to 20 in.) of precipitation and are subject to hot dry 

summers. The best species for these regions was E. camaldulensis, which can be planted up to elevations of 1,000 m 

(3,280 ft) with frost-free seasons of 7 to 12 months. The most 

widely planted species, E. globulus, grows rapidly in the 

coastal areas from Regions VIII to X and inland areas not 

subject to severe frosts. This species does best in areas with 

800 mm (31 in.) or more of precipitation. Eucalyptus 

regnans and E. fastigata are recommended for planting in 

Regions VIII and IX and the northern portions of Region X. 

Farther south, in areas with possible occurrence of frost and 

snowfall during 7 months of the year, the preferred species 

are E. delegatensis and E. nitens. The latter species has been 

widely planted because of its rapid growth, desirable pulping 

properties, and resistance to cold. 

The earliest plantings of eucalypts were for shelter on farms 

in coastal areas. Industrial plantings began in the 1930s in the 

coastal areas of Region VIII to complement coal mining 

(Jayawickrama and others 1993). As the global demand for 

wood increased, planting of eucalypts escalated in the 1980s, 

subsidized by government loans. The rate of planting increased from 753 hectares (1,860 acres) in 1974 to 

82,000 hectares (202,622 acres) in 1992. By 1997, an estimated 300,000 hectares (741,300 acres) were planted to 

Eucalyptus, according to the Chilean Instituto Forestal 

(INFOR) (Blackman 1997). More than two-thirds of the 

plantations are under 5 years old. The highest concentrations 

of eucalypt plantations are in Regions V, VIII, IX, and X 

(Table 6). INFOR predicts that by the year 2000, the total 

area in eucalypt plantations may exceed 400,000 hectares 

(988,400 acres) (Blackman 1997). Average volume 

increments on god sites are 30 to 40 m3

/ha/yr (429 to 

572 ft3

/ac/yr) (Jayawickrama and others 1993). 

Table 6—Area of Eucalyptus 

plantations in Chile by region, 

1996 (Blackman 1997) 

Region Hectares (acres) 

I–II 1,002 (2,476) 

IV 2,135 (5,276) 

V/MRa 44,471 (109,888) 

VI 21,146 (52,252) 

VII 21,171 (52,314) 

VIII 106,637 (263,500) 

IX 66,766 (164,979) 

X 38,920 (96,171) 

XI — 

XII — 

a

MR = Santiago Metropolitan Region 
11 

Chile’s eucalypt plantations primarily provide wood for pulp 

production and fuel. Other uses include the manufacture of 

parquet flooring, veneers, moldings, furniture, and structural 

elements. Harvest of plantation-grown eucalypts in Chile is 

predicted to increase from 2 million m3 (71 million ft3

) in 

1995 to more than 7 million m3

 (247 million ft3) by 2004 

(Flynn 1996). 

Uruguay 

Uruguay has about 302,000 hectares (746,242 acres) of 

eucalypt plantations and already exports eucalypt pulp logs 

to Europe (Flynn and Shield 1999). The dominant species 

now established in Uruguay are E. grandis and E. globulus, 

covering 42% and 46% of planted area, respectively. Productivity ranges from 21 m3

/ha/yr (300 ft3/ac/yr) in the southeast 

to 45 m3

/ha/yr (643 ft3/ac/yr) in the central north (Flynn and 

Shield 1999). Most of the plantations of Eucalyptus in 

Uruguay are less than 5 years old, which is the result of a 

very successful fiscal incentive program for plantation establishment initiated by the government of Uruguay in 1988. 

Uruguay has been successful in attracting substantial foreign 

investment for plantation management from companies in 

Europe, Canada, and the United States. Eucalyptus log harvests are projected to increase dramatically in the first decade 

of the 21st century. The Division Forestal anticipates that 

harvest volumes could achieve levels of 8 million m3

 

(282.5 million ft3

) by the middle of that decade (Flynn and 

Shield 1999). There are no pulping or paper manufacturing 

facilities in Uruguay. However, mills may be constructed in 

the near future. Exports of pulplogs to mills in Spain, Portugal, Norway, Morocco, and Finland commenced in 1987 with 

combined shipments of logs from both Uruguay and Argentina. Annual volumes of exports for Uruguay and Argentina 

combined have varied from 0.3 million m3

 (10.6 million ft3) 

to 2 million m3

 (70.6 million ft3) (Flynn and Shield 1999). 

Argentina 

Grown from seeds originally imported from South Africa, 

Eucalyptus grandis is well adapted to the Mesopotamia 

region of Argentina in the provinces of Entre Ríos, Corrientes, and Misiones (Dalla Tea 1995). Typical planting sites 

include alluvial sands along the Uruguay and Paraná Rivers. 

Depending on soil depth, mean annual increment ranges from 

20 to 50 m3

/ha/yr (286 to 715 ft3/ac/yr). The growth and 

yield of E. grandis has been significantly increased through 

genetic improvement. Genetic trials have demonstrated a 

20% increase in yield in plantations established with South 

African clonal seed orchard seed compared with local seed 

sources. 

Plantation-grown timber is a major source of fiber for the 

pulp and solid wood industries in Argentina. Harvest of 

plantation timber had climbed to nearly 7 million metric tons 

by 1996, with 46% being eucalypts (Blackman 1997). 

The major timber-producing province is Misiones, although 

Corrientes is seeing a rapid increase in plantings in recent 

years. Growth rates for eucalypts range from 12 to 

20 m3

/ha/yr (171 to 286 ft3/ac/yr). By one projection, the 

United States will import 200,000 bone dry metric tons 

(BDMT) of hardwoods from Argentina by the year 2000, 

and that number will increase to 2 million BDMT by 2005 

(Miklos 1997). 

Peru 

Peru has more than 200,000 hectares (494,200 acres) of 

Eucalyptus plantations of predominantly E. grandis (Flynn 

and Shield 1999). These plantations are all small-scale plantings to produce subsistence fuelwood and poles for indigenous communities in the Andes. Although several groups are 

seeking financial support to establish industrial-scale 

Eucalyptus plantations, no large-scale industrial plantations 

are known at this time (Flynn and Shield 1999). 

Colombia 

Eucalyptus in Colombia is used for fuelwood–charcoal or 

internal pulp production. Due to the political instability and 

lack of large land areas suitable for planting, there is little 

likelihood of any large-scale expansion in plantations (Flynn 

and Shield 1999). 

Venezuela 

There are approximately 40,000 to 45,000 hectares (99 to 

111,000 acres) of Eucalyptus plantations in Venezuela 

(Flynn and Shield 1999). The most common species planted 

are E. urophylla and E. urograndis. 

Ecuador 

Most Eucalyptus plantations in Ecuador are small, 10 to 

20 hectares (25 to 50 acres) in size. However, Ecuador has 

established a woodchip export business based on these 

scattered plantations (Flynn and Shield 1999). 

Paraguay 

An unstable political environment and distance from seaports 

have restricted the development of Eucalyptus plantations 

in Paraguay (Flynn and Shield 1999). However, several 

multinational companies are investing in plantation establishment to take advantage of inexpensive land available 

for development. 

Characteristics of the 

Proposed Importation 

APHIS has received written and verbal indication of interest 

to import Eucalyptus spp. from Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and 

Uruguay. The commodities proposed for import into the 

United States could include raw lumber, unprocessed logs, 

and wood chips, which would be expected to arrive by 
12 

marine transport to any ports of entry in the United States. 

The amount of wood commodities exported from South 

America to the United States is unpredictable and will depend on, among other factors, market prices and demand 

from Asian, European, and other South American countries. 

The production of forest products varies from country to 

country in South America (Fig. 6). Brazil has sustained the 

highest levels of eucalypt harvest in South America. An 

estimated 67 million m3

 (2,366 million ft3) of Eucalyptus

were harvested in 1994–1995 (Flynn 1996). Most of this 

volume (53%) was used to produce charcoal. Future 

Figure 6—Industrial roundwood production in Argentina, 

Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay for 5 years (Source: Food & 

Agriculture Organization FAOSTAT Database). 

Figure 7—Volume of wood exported from Argentina 

(IND RWD WIR = industrial roundwood—wood in the 

rough, includes sawlogs, veneer logs, and pulpwood; 

C = coniferous, NC = nonconiferous). 

harvests are expected to expand to almost 120 million m3

(4,237 million ft3

) by 2002 (Flynn 1996). The harvest of 

Eucalyptus in Chile is projected to increase from 2 million 

m3

 (71 million ft3) in 1995 to 7 million m3 (247 million ft3) 

by 2003. Similar expansions can be expected for Argentina 

and Uruguay. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay have 

registered increases in exports of roundwood, chips, and 

particles in recent years, primarily from plantations 

(Figs. 7–10). The main markets for roundwood and chips 

are Europe (Spain, Portugal, Finland, and Norway), Asia 

(Japan and Korea), and the United States. 

Figure 8—Volume of wood exported from Brazil 

(IND RWD WIR = industrial roundwood—wood in the 

rough, includes sawlogs, veneer logs, and pulpwood; 

C = coniferous, NC = nonconiferous). 

Figure 9. Volume of wood exported from Chile 

(IND RWD WIR = industrial roundwood—wood in the 

rough, includes sawlogs, veneer logs, and pulpwood; 

C = coniferous, NC = nonconiferous). 







 





















 





















 





















 





















 





















































     

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Year

Roundwood production (x106 m3

)

  Argentina

 Brazil

 Chile

Uruguay











 



 









 



 





 



 



 











 



 





 



 









 



 





 



  0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Year

IND RWD WIR NC

IND RWD WIR C

Wood for charcoal 

 Chips + particles

Wood exports (x106 m3

)







































0 

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

IND RWD WIR NC 

IND RWD WIR NC tropical

IND RWD WIR C

 Wood for charcoal

 Chips + particles

Wood exports (x106 m3

)

1988 1989 1990 19911992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Year

 



































 



  



    













 















 















 























0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1988 1989 1990 199119921993 19941995 1996 1997

Year

Wood exports (x103 m3

)



 IND RWD WIR NC 

IND RWD WIR C 

 Wood for charcoal

 Chips + particles
13 

Figure 10—Volume of wood exported from Uruguay 

(IND RWD WIR = industrial roundwood—wood in the 

rough, includes sawlogs, veneer logs, and pulpwood; 

C = coniferous, NC = nonconiferous). 

Previous Interceptions of 

Quarantine Organisms 

Very few records of interceptions of quarantine organisms on 

Eucalyptus wood were found following inquiries with quarantine officials in Europe and Asia. Interception records for 

the European Plant Protection Organization since 1990 

yielded only one interception of a pest on Eucalyptus wood, 

that of a nonspecified Coleoptera specimen from Argentina 

by Spain in 1990 (Anne–Sophie Roy, European Plant Protection Organization, Paris, France, 1998, personal communication). Eucalyptus wood is not a regulated material in the 

European Community. The Korean Plant Quarantine Service 

reportedly intercepted Xyleborus spp. on logs from Chile 

(Yun–Hee Kim, Information Services, APHIS, Seoul, Korea, 

1998, personal communication). Japan reported only two 

interceptions of pests on Eucalyptus lumber from South 

America for the period from April 1992 to March 1997. 

Specimens were only identified to family level. One was 

Cerambycidae and the other was Scolytidae (Ralph Iwamoto, 

Information Services, APHIS, Tokyo, Japan, 1998, personal 

communication). 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Year

Wood exports (x103 m3

)

IND RWD WIR NC 

IND RWD WIR C

Wood for charcoal
14 
15 

Chapter 3. Insects and 

Pathogens Posing Risk 

Introduction 

The likelihood of pest introduction is determined by several 

related factors, including the likelihood of a pest traveling 

with and surviving on a shipment from the place of origin, 

the likelihood of a pest colonizing suitable hosts at the point 

of entry and during transport to processing sites, and the 

likelihood of subsequent pest spread to adjacent territories. 

Many insects and pathogens could be introduced on Eucalyptus logs or chips from South America into the United States. 

Because it would be impractical to analyze the risk of all of 

them, some form of selection was necessary. Selection was 

based on the likelihood of the pest being on or in the logs or 

chips and on their potential risk to resources in the United 

States. The pest risk assessment team compiled and assessed 

pertinent data using the methodology outlined in Pest Risk 

Assessment Process in Chapter 1 and as used in previous 

pest risk assessments (Tkacz and others 1998; USDA 1991, 

1992, 1993). 

Analysis Process 

Information on organisms associated with South American 

species of Eucalyptus was collected. Lists of insects and 

microorganisms that have been reported to inhabit Eucalyptus in South America were compiled from the literature, from 

information provided by South American forest entomologists and pathologists, from information received from reviewers of a preliminary list prepared by the team, and from 

information described in Chapter 1. Available information on 

Eucalyptus pests varies among the South American countries. The team broadened some of the categories identified 

in the log import regulations (Title 7 CFR 319.40-11) 

(Table 7). These organisms were assessed as described previously in Chapter 1, under the heading Pest Risk Assessment Process. 

Individual Pest Risk 

Assessments 

The species of insects and pathogens associated with Eucalyptus in South America and identified as potential pests of 

concern are presented in Tables 8 and 9. The lists include 

175 insects and 58 pathogens. Tables 8 and 9 are not meant 

to be all-definitive or all-inclusive lists, but are a result of 

literature searches and information provided by colleagues in 

South America. The tables represent a list of potential pests 

of concern and do not represent, or judge, quarantine status 

of any of the organisms listed. Nineteen individual pest risk 

assessments (IPRAs) were prepared, 11 dealing with insects 

and 8 with pathogens. The objective was to include in the 

IPRAs representative examples of insects and pathogens 

found on the bark, in the bark, and in the wood that would 

have the greatest potential risk to forests and other tree resources of the United States. The team recognized that these 

might not be the only organisms associated with Eucalyptus

spp. in South America. They are, however, representative of 

the diversity of insects and pathogens that inhabit logs and 

chips. By necessity, the IPRAs focus on those insects and 

pathogens for which biological information is available. 

Assessing the risks associated with known organisms that 

inhabit a variety of niches on logs and chips will enable the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) to identify effective mitigation 

measures to eliminate both the known organisms and any 

similar heretofore unknown organisms that inhabit the same 

niches. 

Table 7—Pest categories and descriptions 

Category Description 

1 Nonindigenous plant pest not present in the United States 

2 Nonindigenous plant pest present in the United States and 

capable of further dissemination in the United States 

2a Native plant pest of limited distribution in the United States 

but capable of further dissemination in the United States 

3 Nonindigenous plant pest present in the United States that 

has reached probable limits of its ecological range but 

differs genetically from the plant pest in the United States 

in a way that demonstrates a potential for greater damage 

in the United States 

4 Native species of the United States that has reached 

probable limits of its ecological range but differs genetically from the plant pest in the United States in a way that 

demonstrates a potential for greater damage in the United 

States 

4a Native pest organisms that may differ in their capacity for 

causing damage, based on genetic variation exhibited by 

the species 

5 Nonindigenous or native plant pest that may be able to 

vector another plant pest that meets one of the above 

criteria 
16 

Table 8—Potential insects of concern associated with Eucalyptus spp. in South America, including names of hosts, 

location on host, and pest category 

 Location on host 

Species Country Hosts 

Seedlings 

in nursery 

Foliage/ 

branches 

Bark/ 

cambium 

Sapwood Heartwood Pest 

categorya

Acrocinus longimanus

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

Venezuela Eucalyptus spp. x x 1 

Acromyrmex ambiguous 

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp.; 

Pinus spp.

Up to first 

2 years 

x 1 

Acromyrmex lobicornis 

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp.; 

Pinus spp.

Up to first 

2 years 

x 1 

Acromyrmex lundi 

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp. Coppice and 

<6 mo old 

x 1 

Acromyrmex octospinosus 

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 

Venezuela Eucalyptus spp. Coppice and 

<6 mo old 

x 1 

Acromyrmex spp. 

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. Coppice and 

<6 mo old 

x 1 

Aeschoroteryx incaudata 

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Aetalion sp. 

(Homoptera: Aetalionidae) 

Ecuador Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Alchisme sp. 

(Homoptera: Membracidae) 

Colombia E. globulus x 1 

Amitermes foreli 

(Isoptera: Termitidae) 

Colombia E. tereticornis x 1 

Anomala pyropyga

(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) 

Colombia E. grandis; Pinus oocarpa, 

Pinus patula, Cupressus 

lusitanica, Cordia alliodora 

 x 1 

Anomala sp. 

(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) 

Colombia E. grandis; Pinus oocarpa x 1 

Apatelodes sericea 

(= Hygrochroa sericea) 

(Lepidoptera: Apatelodidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp., E. grandis x 1 

Atta cephalotes

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 

Colombia E. grandis x 1 

Atta laevigata

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Atta sexdens

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 

Argentina, 

Brazil, Uruguay 

Eucalyptus spp.; Citrus sp. Coppice and 

<6 mo old 

x 1 

Atta vollenweideri

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Atta sp. 

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 

Colombia, 

Ecuador 

E. deglupta, E. grandis, 

E. tereticornis 

Coppice and 

<6 mo old 

x 1 

Automeris illustris 

(Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Automeris sp. 

(Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) 

Venezuela Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Blera varana 

(Lepidoptera: Notodontidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Blycapsis brimblecombei 

(Homoptera: Psyllidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 2 

(California) 

Bolax flavolineatus

(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x x 1 

Callideriphus laetus

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

Chile, 

Argentina 

Eucalyptus spp.; Pinus 

radiata, native hardwoods

 x 1 

Cargolia arana

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Colombia E. grandis; Pinus patula, 

Pinus oocarpa 

 x 1 

Carmenta sp. 

(Lepidoptera: Aegeridae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x x 1 
17 

Table 8—Potential insects of concern associated with Eucalyptus spp. in South America, including names of hosts, 

location on host, and pest category—con.

 Location on host 

Species Country Hosts 

Seedlings 

in nursery 

Foliage/ 

branches 

Bark/ 

cambium 

Sapwood Heartwood Pest 

categorya

Cephaisus siccifolius 

(Homoptera: Cercopidae) 

Argentina E. alba, E. botryoides, E. grandis, 

E. saligna, E. tereticornis; Acacia 

spp., Robinia pseudoacacia 

 x 1 

Ceresa ustulata 

(Homoptera: Membracidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Ceresa vitulus 

(Homoptera: Membracidae) 

Ecuador Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Ceresa sp. 

(Homoptera: Membracidae) 

Colombia E. globulus, E. grandis; 

Pinus patula 

 x 1 

Chalcophana sp. 

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

Colombia E. grandis; Pinus spp., 

Cordia alliodora 

 x 1 

Chibchacris sp. 

(Orthoptera: Acrididae) 

Colombia E. grandis x 1 

Chilecomadia valdiviana 

(Lepidoptera: Cossidae) 

Argentina, 

Chile 

E. camaldulensis, E. gunnii, E. 

nitens; Nothofagus spp., fruit trees

 x x x x 1 

Chlorocoris complanatus 

(Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) 

Colombia E. grandis x 1 

Chromacris speciosa 

(Orthoptera: Acrididae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Chydarteres striatus 

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

Brazil, 

Uruguay 

Eucalyptus spp.; Acacia spp., 

Cassia spp., Citrus spp., hardwoods, fruit trees

 x 1 

Chrysomima semilutearia 

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Colombia E. grandis; Cupressus lusitanica, 

Pinus patula 

 x 1 

Citheronia lobesis lobesis 

(Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) 

Brazil E. camaldulensis, E. urophylla x 1 

Citheronia marion 

(Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) 

Brazil E. camaldulensis E. urophylla x 1 

Clastoptera biguttata 

(Homoptera: Clastopteridae) 

Colombia E. saligna x 1 

Clastoptera sp. 

(Homoptera: Clastopteridae) 

Colombia E. grandis x 1 

Colaspis spp. 

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

Brazil, Colombia 

Eucalyptus spp., E. tereticornis x 1 

Colaspoide vulgata 

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp.; Salix spp. x x 1 

Cornitermes spp. 

(Isoptera: Termitidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp., E. grandis x x 1 

Compsosoma perpulchrum 

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

Brazil E. grandis x 1 

Compsus sp. 

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) 

Colombia E. tereticornis;Tabebuia rosea x 1 

Coptotermes havilandi 

(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 2 

(Florida) 

Coptotermes testaceus

(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Coptotermes spp. 

(Isoptera: Rhinetermitidae) 

Colombia Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Cosmosoma auge 

(Lepidoptera: Arctiidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Costalimaita ferruginea vulgata

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp., E. grandis, 

E. urophylla 

 x 1 

Crematogaster sp. 

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 

Colombia E. tereticornis x 1 

Cryptocephalus sp. near anceps 

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

Colombia E. tereticornis; Cordia alliodora x 1 
18 

Table 8—Potential insects of concern associated with Eucalyptus spp. in South America, including names of host, 

location on host, and pest category—con.

 Location on host 

Species Country Hosts 

Seedlings 

in nursery 

Foliage/ 

branches 

Bark/ 

cambium 

Sapwood Heartwood Pest 

categorya

Ctenarytaina eucalypti

(Homoptera: Psyllidae) 

Chile, Bolivia, 

Brazil, 

Uruguay 

E. camaldulensis, E. cinerea, 

E. globulus, E. gunnii, E. nitens, 

E. pulverulenta, E. viminalis 

 x 2 

(California) 

Ctenarytaina spatulata

(Homoptera: Psyllidae) 

Uruguay Eucalyptus spp. x 2 

(California) 

Cyclocephala sp. 

(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) 

Colombia E. grandis x 1 

Diabrotica sp. 

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

Colombia E. tereticornis; Tabebuia rosea, 

Bombacopsis quinatum 

 x 1 

Dilobobderus abderus

(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Dirphia avicula

(Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) 

Brazil E. urophylla x 1 

Dirphia rosacordis

(Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) 

Brazil E. urophylla x 1 

Dirphiopsis trisignata

(Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp., E. saligna x 1 

Eacles imperialis magnifica 

(Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp., E. grandis x 4 

Enchenopa sp. 

(Homoptera: Membracidae) 

Colombia E. grandis x 1 

Eumolpus sp 

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Eupseudosoma aberrans 

(Lepidoptera: Arctiidae) 

Brazil E. cloeziana, E. urophylla; 

fruit trees

 x 1 

Eupseudosoma involutum 

(Lepidoptera: Arctiidae) 

Brazil E. camaldulensis, E. citriodora, 

E. cloeziana, E. grandis, 

E. saligna, E. urophylla 

 x 1 

Eurymerus eburoides

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Euryscopa cingulata

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

Colombia E. tereticornis; Bombacopsis 

quinatum, Cordia alliodora 

 x 1 

Euselasia apisaon

(Lepidoptera: Riodinidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Euselasia eucerus

(Lepidoptera: Riodinidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp., E. paniculata, 

E. saligna 

 x 1 

Fulgurodes spp. 

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp.; Pinus spp. x 1 

Glena bisulca

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Colombia, 

Venezuela 

Eucalyptus spp., E. grandis; 

Pinus patula 

 x 1 

Glena spp. 

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Glyptoscelis sp. 

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

Colombia E. tereticornis, E. tessellaris, 

E. torreliana 

 x 1 

Gonipterus gibberus

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) 

Argentina, 

Brazil, 

Uruguay 

Eucalyptus spp., E. globulus, 

E. saligna, E. viminalis 

 x 1 

Gonipterus platensis

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Gonipterus scutellatus

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) 

Argentina, 

Brazil, Chile, 

Uruguay 

E. dunnii, E. eugenioides, 

E. fastigata, E. globulus, E. macarthurii, E. obliqua, E. viminalis 

 x 2 

(California) 

Gryllus assimilis

(Orthoptera: Gryllidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 1 
19 

Table 8—Potential insects of concern associated with Eucalyptus spp. in South America, including name of hosts, 

location on host, and pest category—con.

 Location on host 

Species Country Hosts 

Seedlings 

in nursery 

Foliage/ 

branches 

Bark/ 

cambium 

Sapwood Heartwood Pest 

categorya

Gryllus sp. 

(Orthoptera: Gryllidae) 

Argentina, 

Colombia 

Eucalyptus spp., E. grandis x 1 

Halisidota interlineata

(Lepidoptera: Arctiidae) 

Brazil E. grandis x 1 

Halisidota sp. 

(Lepidoptera: Arctiidae) 

Colombia E. grandis; Pinus patula x 1 

Hepialus sp. 

(Lepidptera: Hepialidae) 

Colombia, 

Ecuador 

E. globulus, E. tereticornis x 1 

Heterotermes tenuis 

(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp., E. grandis x 1 

Heterotermes sp. 

(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) 

Colombia E. tereticornis; Cordia alliodora x 1 

Homophoeta sp. 

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

Colombia E. tessellaris; Cordia alliodora, 

Bombacopsis quinatum 

 x 1 

Hylesia nigricans (= H. nanus) 

(Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) 

Argentina, 

Brazil, 

Uruguay 

Eucalyptus spp.; Acacia spp., Ilex 

spp., fruit trees, Quercus spp.

 x 1 

Idalus affinis (= I. admirabilis) 

(Lepidoptera: Arctiidae) 

Brazil E. camaldulensis, E. urophylla x 1 

Idalus herois 

(Lepidoptera: Arctiidae) 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Isoneurothrips australis 

(Thysanoptera: Thripidae) 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Kalotermes gracilitnathus

(Isoptera: Kalotermitidae) 

Chile 

(Juan Fernandez Isl.) 

Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Leucolopsis parvistrigata 

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Ecuador E. viminalis x 1 

Lichnoptera gulo

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) 

Colombia E. grandis, E. globulus; Pinus 

patula, Pinus oocarpa, Cupressus 

lusitanica, Cordia alliodora 

 x 1 

Megachile sp. 

(Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Megalostomis anacoreta 

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

Colombia E. tereticornis; Cordia alliodora, 

Tabebuia rosea 

 x 1 

Megaplatypus parasulcatus

(=Platypus sulcatus) 

(Coleoptera: Platypodidae) 

Argentina, 

Brazil, 

Uruguay 

Eucalyptus spp., E. urophylla; 

Pinus spp., Acacia spp., Quercus 

spp., Casuarina spp., Populus 

spp., Ulmus spp., Persea spp., 

Citrus spp.

 x x x 1 

Melanolophia commotaria 

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Colombia Eucalyptus spp.; Cupressus 

lusitanica, Pinus patula 

 x 1 

Membracis foliata 

(Homoptera: Membracidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Membracis mexicana

(Homoptera: Membracidae) 

Colombia E. grandis x 1 

Membracis sp. 

(Homoptera: Membracidae) 

Colombia E. grandis x 1 

Metcalfiella jaramillorum 

(Homoptera: Membracidae) 

Ecuador Eucalyptus spp.; Baccharis spp., 

Salix spp., Pyrus spp., Persea 

spp., Juglans spp.

 x 1 

Metcalfiella monogramma 

(Homoptera: Membracidae) 

Colombia E. grandis; Pinus patula x 1 

Metriona sp. 

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 1 
20 

Table 8—Potential insects of concern associated with Eucalyptus spp. in South America, including names of hosts, 

location on host, and pest category—con.

 Location on host 

Species Country Hosts 

Seedlings 

in nursery 

Foliage/ 

branches 

Bark/ 

cambium 

Sapwood Heartwood Pest 

categorya

Mimallo amilia

(Lepidoptera: Mimallonidae) 

Brazil, 

Colombia, 

Ecuador 

Eucalyptus spp., E. deglupta, 

E. globulus, E. grandis, 

E. saligna; Cordia alliodora 

 x 1 

Misogada blerura

(Lepidoptera: Notodontidae) 

Brazil E. urophylla x 1 

Naupactus spp. 

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) 

Brazil, 

Colombia 

Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Neotermes castenaeus

(Isoptera: Kalotermitidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Neotermes chilensis

(Isoptera: Kalotermitidae) 

Chile Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Neotermes wagneri

(Isoptera: Kalotermitidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Nodonota sp. 

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

Colombia E. grandis; Pinus patula, 

Pinus kesiya, Pinus oocarpa 

 x 1 

Nystalea nyseus

(Lepidoptera: Notodontidae) 

Brazil E. camaldulensis, E. urophylla x 1 

Oiketicus kirbyi 

(Lepidoptera: Psychidae) 

Brazil, 

Colombia 

E. globulus, E. grandis, E. saligna; 

Pinus oocarpa, Pinus patula, 

Tabebuia rosea, Tectona grandis, 

Bombacopsis quinatum, Cordia 

alliodora, Cassia siamia 

 x 1 

Oiketicus platensis

(Lepidoptera: Psychidae) 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Oiketicus sp. 

(Lepidoptera: Psychidae) 

Ecuador E. camaldulensis x 1 

Omophoita transversa

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Oncideres impulviata

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Oncometopia sp. 

(Homoptera: Cicadellidae) 

Colombia E. microcorys, E. tereticornis, 

E. tessellaris, E. torreliana, 

E. urophylla; Tectona grandis, 

Bombacopsis quinatum, Cordia 

alliodora, Albizzia falcataria 

 x x 1 

Oxydia apidania

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Brazil E. camaldulensis, E. urophylla x 1 

Oxydia platypterata

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Colombia E. saligna; Pinus patula x 1 

Oxydia trychiata

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Colombia E. grandis, E. saligna; Cupressus 

lusitanica, Pinus patula 

 x 1 

Oxydia vesulia

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Brazil E. camaldulensis, E. urophylla x 1 

Pachybrachis sp. near reticulata

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

Colombia E. tereticornis; Cordia alliodora, 

Tectona grandis 

 x 1 

Pantomorus subbimaculatus

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Pantomorus spp. 

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) 

Uruguay, 

Brazil 

Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Paramallocera ilinizae

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

Ecuador E. globulus; Fraxinus spp., Pinus 

radiata, Prunus spp., Salix spp.

 x x 1 

Parandra glabra

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

Ecuador E. globulus x x 1 

Pelidnota sp. 

(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) 

Colombia E. tereticornis; Bombacopsis 

quinatum, Sesbania grandiflora 

 x 1 
21 

Table 8—Potential insects of concern associated with Eucalyptus spp. in South America, including names of hosts, 

location on host, and pest category—con.

 Location on host 

Species Country Hosts 

Seedlings 

in nursery 

Foliage/ 

branches 

Bark/ 

cambium 

Sapwood Heartwood Pest 

categorya

Pendeleteius sp. near nodifer

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) 

Colombia E. grandis; Pinus oocarpa, Pinus 

patula, Cupressus lusitanica 

 x 1 

Pero sp. 

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Colombia E. saligna; Pinus patula x 1 

Phaedropus suturellus

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) 

Brazil E. saligna x 1 

Phaops spp. 

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) 

Brazil E. saligna x x 1 

Phobetron hipparchia 

(Lepidoptera: Limacodidae) 

Brazil, 

Colombia, 

Venezuela 

Eucalyptus spp., E. grandis, 

E. saligna 

 x 1 

Phoracantha recurva 

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

Chile Eucalyptus spp. x x 2 

(California) 

Phoracantha semipunctata 

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

Argentina, 

Bolivia, 

Brazil, Chile, 

Peru, 

Uruguay 

Eucalyptus spp., E. camaldulensis, 

E. globulus, E. gomphocephala, 

E. resinifera, E. saligna, 

E. viminalis 

 x x 2 

(California) 

Plusia sp. 

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp. x 

Porotermes quadricollis 

(Isoptera: Kalotermitidae) 

Chile Eucalyptus spp.; Pinus spp., 

Nothofagus spp., Populus spp., 

Salix spp., Laurelia spp., 

Aextoxicon punctatum, Pseudotsuga menziesii 

 x x x 1 

Prosarthria teretrirostris 

(Orthoptera: Proscopidae) 

Colombia E. tereticornis x 1 

Psiloptera hirtomaculata 

(Coleoptera: Buprestidae) 

Colombia E. tereticornis, E. tessellaris, 

E. torreliana 

x x x x 1 

Psiloptera pardalis

(Coleoptera: Buprestidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp.; Pinus tropicalis, 

Casuarina spp., citrus

x x x x 1 

Psorocampa denticulate 

(Lepidoptera: Notodontidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp., E. grandis x 1 

Pteroplatus adustus

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

Bolivia Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Pyrrhopyge pelota

(Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Retrachyderes thoracicus

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

Argentina, 

Brazil, 

Uruguay 

Eucalyptus spp.; hardwoods, fruit 

trees

 x 1 

Rhabdopterus sp. 

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

Colombia E. tereticornis; Cordia alliodora x 1 

Sabulodes aegrotata

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp., E. grandis x 1 

Sabulodes caberata

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp., E. grandis x 1 

Sabulodes glaucularia (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Colombia Eucalyptus spp.; Pinus patula, 

Cupressus lusitanica 

 x 1 

Sabulodes sp. 

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Colombia E. saligna x 1 

Sarsina purpurascens

(Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) 

Argentina E. alba, E. camaldulensis, 

E. globulus 

 x 

Sarsina violascens

(Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) 

Argentina, 

Brazil 

Eucalyptus spp., E. grandis x 1 

Scaptocoris castanea

(Hemiptera: Cydnidae) 

Brazil E. uro-grandis x 1 
22 

Table 8—Potential insects of concern associated with Eucalyptus spp. in South America, including names of hosts, 

location on host, and pest category—con.

 Location on host 

Species Country Hosts 

Seedlings 

in nursery 

Foliage/ 

branches 

Bark/ 

cambium 

Sapwood Heartwood Pest 

categorya

Scolytopsis brasiliensis

(Coleoptera: Scolytidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Sonesimia grossana

(Homoptera: Cicadellidae) 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp. <6 mo old x x 1 

Spodoptera frugiperda

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Spodoptera ornithogalli

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) 

Colombia E. tereticornis; Bombacapsis 

quinatum 

 x 1 

Spodoptera sunia

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) 

Colombia E. tereticornis x 1 

Spodoptera sp. 

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) 

Colombia E. grandis, E. saligna; 

Tectona grandis 

 x 1 

Steirastoma breve

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

Argentina, 

Brazil 

Eucalyptus spp. x x x 1 

Stenalcidia grosica

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Brazil E. urophylla x 1 

Stenodontes spinibarbis

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

Argentina, 

Brazil, 

Ecuador 

Eucalyptus spp. x x 1 

Stephanoderes obscurus

(Coleoptera: Scolytidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Sternocolaspis quatuordecimcostata 

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Stilpnochlora quadrata 

(Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) 

Colombia E. grandis; Pinus kesiya, 

Pinus oocarpa 

 x 1 

Strepsicrates marcopetana

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Tetanorhynchus leonardosi

(Orthoptera: Proscopiidae) 

Brazil E. urophylla x 1 

Tettigades sp. 

(Homoptera: Cicadidae) 

Chile Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Thyrinteina arnobia

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Argentina, 

Brazil, 

Columbia, 

Ecuador, 

Venezuela 

E. camaldulensis, E. grandis, 

E. saligna, E. tereticornis, 

E. urophylla; Acacia spp.

 x 1 

Thyrinteina leucoceraea 

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Brazil E. camaldulensis, E. urophylla x 1 

Timocratica palpalis

(Lepidoptera: Stenomatidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp., E. saligna x 1 

Trachyderes succinctus 

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

Brazil, 

Ecuador 

Eucalyptus spp.; fruit trees x 1 

Trachyderes variegatus

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

Argentina, 

Brazil 

Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Trigona silvestriana

(Hymenoptera: Meliponiae) 

Ecuador E. globulus, E. saligna x 1 

Tropidacris latreillei

(Orthoptera: Acrididae) 

Colombia E. tereticornis x 

Typophorus sp. 

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

Colombia E. tereticornis x 1 

Xylopertha pica

(Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. x 1 

Xyleborus retusus

(Coleoptera: Scolytidae) 

Argentina 

Brazil 

E. dunnii, E. grandis x x 1 

a = See Table 7 for pest category descriptions.
23 

Table 9—Potential pathogens of concern associated with Eucalyptus spp. in South America, including names of hosts, 

location on host, and pest category 

 Location on host 

Species Country Hosts 

Seedlings 

in nursery 

Foliage/ 

other 

Bark/ 

cambium 

Sapwood Heartwood Pest 

categorya

Armillaria spp.b Argentina, 

Brazilc

, 

Chile 

Eucalyptus spp.; hardwoods 

 X X 1 

Aulographina eucalypti 

(Cooke & Massee) 

v. Arx & Muller 

Brazil, 

Chile 

E. globulus, 

E. punctata, 

E. saligna 

 X 2 (Hawaii) 

Botryosphaeria dothidea 

(Moug.:Fr.) Ces. & De Not. 

(anamorph Fusicoccum 

aesculi Corda) 

Colombia, 

Venezuela, 

Uruguay 

E. grandis, 

E. uro-grandis 

E. grandis 

 X X 4a 

Botryosphaeria obtusa

(Schwein.) Shoemaker 

(anamorph Sphaeropsis sp.) 

Chile Eucalyptus sp. X X 4a 

Botryosphaeria ribis

(Tode.:Fr.) Grossenb. & 

Dugger (anamorph 

Fusicoccum sp.) 

Argentina, 

Brazil, 

Colombia, 

Venezuela 

Eucalyptus spp.; about 

100 additional genera, 

temperate regions

 X X 4a 

Calonectria clavata 

El-Gholl, Alfieri & Barnard 

(anamoprh Cylindrocladium 

clavatum Hodges & May) 

Brazil E. saligna; Pinus spp.; 

Araucaria angustifolia; 

soybeans; cowpeas; 

potato; lupine; alfalfa

X X (root 

rot) 

X 2 (Florida, 

Hawaii) 

Calonectria ilicicola 

Boedijn & Reitsma (anamorph 

Cylindrocladium parasiticum

Crous, Wingf. & Alfenas) 

Brazil, 

Venezuela 

Eucalyptus spp. X 2 (CA) 

Calonectria morganii Crous, 

Alfenas & M.J. Wingfield 

(anamorph Cylindrocladium 

scoparium Morgan) 

Argentina, 

Brazil, 

Colombia 

Eucalyptus spp. X X 2 (Florida) 

Calonectria ovata Crous, 

Alfenas & Junghans (anamorph Cylindrocladium ovatum

El-Gholl, Alfenas, Crous & 

T.S. Schub.) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. X 2 (Florida) 

Calonectria pteridis Crous, 

Wingf. & Alfenas (anamorph 

Cylindrocladium pteridis Wolf) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. X 2 (Florida) 

Calonectria pyrochroa (Desm.) 

Sacc. [anamorph Cylindrocladium ilicicola (Hawley) 

 Boedijn & Reitsma] 

Brazil E. alba, E. globulus, 

E. grandis, E. robusta, 

E. saligna, E. tereticornis, E. viminalis 

 X 2 (Florida) 

Calonectria quinqueseptatum

Figueiredo & Namekata 

(anamorph Cylindrocladium 

quinqueseptatum Boedijn & 

Reitsma) 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. X 1 

Calonectria scoparia Ribeiro & 

Matsuoka ex Peerally 

(anamorph Cylindrocladium 

candelabrum Viegas) 

Brazil Eucalyptus sp. X 1 

Calonectria spathulata 

El-Gholl, Kimbr., E.L. Barnard, 

Alfieri, & Schoult. (anamorph 

Cylindrocladium spathulatum

El-Gholl, Kimbr., E.L. Barnard, 

Alfieri & Schoult.) 

Brazil E. viminalis X 1 

Ceratocystis fimbriata 

Ellis & Halsted 

Brazil E. uro-grandis X X 4a 
24 

Table 9—Potential pathogens of concern associated with Eucalyptus spp. in South America, including names of hosts, 

location on host, and pest category—con. 

 Location on host 

Species Country Hosts 

Seedlings 

in nursery 

Foliage/ 

other 

Bark/ 

cambium 

Sapwood Heartwood Species 

Cercospora epicoccoides

Cooke. & Massee 

Argentina E. globulus X 2 (Florida) 

Cercospora eucalyptorum

Crous 

Paraguay Eucalyptus sp. X 1 

Coniella fragariae (Oudem.) 

B. Sutton (synonym Coniothyrium fragariae Oudem.) 

Argentina, 

Brazil, 

Venezuela 

Eucalyptus spp.; Castanea, Fragaria; cosmopolitan 

 X 2 

Coniothyrium zuluense Wingfield, Crous, and Coutinho 

Argentina E. grandis X X 1 

Cryphonectria cubensis

(Bruner) Hodges 

Bolivia, 

Brazil, 

Colombia, 

Peru, 

Venezuela 

E. angulosa, E. botryoides, E. camaldulensis, 

E. citriodora, E. globulus, E. grandis, E. 

longifolia, E. maculata, 

E. microcorys, E. paniculata, E. pilularis, E. 

propinqua, E. robusta, 

E. saligna, E. tereticornis, E. trabutii, E. urophylla, E. uro-grandis; 

Syzygium aromaticum 

 X X 2 (Florida 

Hawaii) 

Cryptosporiopsis eucalypti

Sankaran & Sutton 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. X 2 (Hawaii) 

Cylindrocladiella camelliae

(Venkatar. & Venkata Ram) 

Boesew. [ = Cylindrocladiella 

peruviana (Batista, Benzerra & 

Herrera) Boesew.] 

Brazil E. grandis, 

E. tereticornis 

 X 2 (Florida) 

Cytospora eucalypticola 

Van der Westhuizen 

Uruguay, 

Venezuela 

E. camaldulensis, 

E. grandis, E. urophylla, 

E. uro-grandis 

 X X 1 

Cytospora eucalyptina Speg. Argentina E. ficifolia, E. globulus, 

E. grandis, E. nitens, 

E. viminalis 

 X X 1 

Diplodia australiae Speg. Argentina E. globulus X 2 (CA) 

Erythricium salmonicolor

(Berk. & Br.) Burdsall 

(synonym Corticium salmonicolor Berk. & Broome) 

Brazil, 

Peru 

E. alba, E. grandis, 

E. kitsoniana, E. tereticornis; about 104 additional genera

 X X 2 (FL, LA, 

MS) 

Falcocladium sphaero- pedunculatum Crous, Kendrick & 

Alfenas 

Brazil E. pellita x brassiana X 1 

Fusicoccum eucalypti 

Sousa da Carnara 

Uruguay Eucalyptus sp. X 1 

Ganoderma spp.d Argentina, 

Uruguay 

Eucalyptus spp. X 1 

Glomerella cingulata 

(Stoneman) Spauld. & H. 

Schrenk (anamorph Colletotrichum gloeosporioides

(Penz.) Penz. & Sacc. 

Brazil, 

Uruguay 

E. pellita X 1 

Gymnopilus spectabilis

(Fr.:Fr.) A. H. Sm. [synonym 

Pholiota spectabilis (Fr.:Fr.) 

A.H. Sm.] 

Argentina Eucalyptus spp.; widespread in northern 

hemisphere, on conifers 

and hardwoods

 X 2a 

Hainesia lythri 

(Desmaz.) Hohn. 

Brazil E. citriodora, E. grandis; 

cosmopolitian

X 4a 
25 

Table 9—Potential pathogens of concern associated with Eucalyptus spp. in South America, including names of hosts, 

location on host, and pest category—con.

 Location on host 

Species Country Hosts 

Seedlings 

in nursery 

Foliage/ 

other 

Bark/ 

cambium 

Sapwood Heartwood Species 

Innonotus rheades (Pers.) 

Bondartzev & Singer 

Brazil Eucalyptus sp.; on 

Fagus, Populus, and 

Quercus in temperate 

northern hemisphere

 X 2 

Laetiporus sulphureus (Bull.) 

Murrill 

Brazil E. saligna; widespread 

on Quercus, other 

hardwoods, and conifers 

in the U.S.

 X 4a 

Mycosphaerella africana

Crous & M.J. Wingf. 

Colombia E. grandis X 1 

Mycosphaerella colombiensis

Crous & M.J. Wingf. (anamorph Pseudocercospora 

colombiensis Crous & 

 M.J. Wingf. 

Colombia E. urophylla X 1 

Mycosphaerella cryptica

(Cooke) Hansf. [anamorph 

Colletogloeopsis nubilosum

(Ganap. & Corbin) Crous.] 

Chile E. bicostata, E. globulus, E. maidenii, 

E. nitens 

 X 1 

Mycosphaerella flexuosa

Crous & M.J. Wingf. 

Colombia E. globulus X 1 

Mycosphaerella longibasalis 

Crous & M.J. Wingf. 

Colombia E. grandis X 1 

Mycosphaerella marksii 

Carnegie & Keane 

Uruguay E. globulus X 1 

Mycosphaerella parkii Crous, 

M.J. Wingf., F.A. Ferreira & 

A. Alfenas 

Brazil 

Colombia 

E. dunnii, E. grandis, 

E. saligna 

 X 1 

Mycosphaerella suberosa

Crous, F.A. Ferreira, A. 

Alfenas, & M.J. Wingf. 

Brazil 

Colombia 

E. dunnii, E. globulus, E. 

grandis, E. moluccana 

 X 1 

Mycosphaerella suttoniae

Crous & M.J. Wingf. [anamorph Phaeophleospora 

epicoccoides (Cooke & Massee) Crous, F.A. Ferreira & B. 

Sutton [synonym Kirramyces 

epicoccoides (Cooke & Massee) J. Walker, B. Sutton & 

Pascoe] 

Argentina 

Brazil 

Uruguay 

Venezuela 

E. bicostata, E. 

camaldulensis, E. 

globulus, E. grandis, 

E. tereticornis 

 X 2 (Hawaii) 

Mycosphaerella walkeri 

R.F. Park & Keane (anamorph 

Sonderhenia eucalypticola

A.R. Davis, H. Swart & 

J. Walker) 

Chile 

Colombia 

Ecuador 

Peru 

E. globulus, E. maidenii, 

E. nitens 

 X 2 (CA) 

Mycovellosiella eucalypti

Crous & A.C. Alfenas 

Brazil E. saligna X 1 

Phaeophleospora eucalypti

(Cooke & Massee) Crous, 

F.A. Ferreira & B. Sutton 

[synonym Kirramyces eucalypti (Cooke & Massee) J. 

Walker, B. Sutton & Pascoe] 

Argentina 

Brazil 

Paraguay 

Peru 

E. camaldulensis, 

E. globulus 

 X 1 

Phellinus spp.d Argentina 

Brazil 

Myrtaceae, hardwoods X X X 1 
26 

Table 9—Potential pathogens of concern associated with Eucalyptus spp. in South America, including names of hosts, 

location on host, and pest category—con.

 Location on host 

Species Country Hosts 

Seedlings 

in nursery 

Foliage/ 

other 

Bark/ 

cambium 

Sapwood Heartwood Species 

Phyllosticta eucalyptorum

Crous, M.J. Wingf., 

F.A. Ferreira & A. Alfenas 

Brazil E. grandis (unidentified 

species reported on E. 

tereticornis in Colombia) 

 X 1 

Pseudocercospora basitruncata Crous 

Colombia Eucalyptus sp. X 1 

Pseudocercospora eucalyptorum Crous, M.J. Wingf., 

Marasas & B. Sutton 

Argentina, 

Brazil, 

Venezuela 

Eucalyptus spp. X 2 (Florida) 

Pseudocercospora irregularis

Crous 

Peru Eucalyptus sp. X 1 

Pseudocercospora paraguayensis (Kobayashi) Crous 

(synonym Cercospora paraguayensis Kobayashi) 

Paraguay Eucalyptus spp. X 1 

Puccinia psidii Winter Argentina, 

Brazil 

E. camaldulensis, 

E. citriodora, 

E. cloeziana, E. grandis, 

E. maculata, 

E microcorys, 

E. paniculata, E. pellita, 

E. phaeotricha, 

E. pyrocarpa, 

E. punctata, E. saligna, 

E. tereticornis, 

E. urophylla; additional

Myrtaceae hosts include

Callistemon speciosus, 

Eugenia brasilensis, 

E. jambolana, E. malaccensis, E. uniflora, 

E. uvalha, Marlierea 

edulis, Melaleuca leucodendron, Myrcia 

jaboticaba, Myrcia spp., 

Myrciaria sp., Pimenta 

acris, P. dioica, 

P. officialis, Psidium 

araca, P. guajava, 

P. pomiferum, and

Syzygium jambos 

 X 2 (Florida) 

Ralstonia solanacearum

(Smith) Yabuuchi, Kosako, 

Yano, Hotta & Nishiuchi 

(synonym Pseudomonas 

solanacearum Smith 

Brazil, 

Venezuela 

E. deglupta, E. grandis X 4a 

Sphaerotheca pannosa

(Wallr.) Lev. (anamorph 

Oidium eucalypti Rostr.) 

Argentina, 

Brazil 

Eucalyptus spp. X 2 (Florida) 

Stereum albomarginatum

Schw. 

Uruguay Eucalyptus sp. X X 2 (CA) 

Thyriopsis sphaerospora

Marasas 

Brazil Eucalyptus uro-grandis, 

E. urophylla 

 X 1 

Trimmatostroma excentricum

B. Sutton & Ganap. 

Brazil Eucalyptus spp. X 1 

a See Table 7 for pest category descriptions. 

b

 Unknown species; see Table 11 for species of Armillaria in South America. c

 Observed only once in Brazil. 

d

 Unknown species; see individual pest resk assessment for root and stem rots for South America Ganoderma species. e

 Unknown species; see Table 12 for species of Phellinus in South America 
27 

Insects 

Leafcutting Ants 

Assessor—William E. Wallner 

Scientific name of pest—Atta sexdens (Linné) and 

Acromyrmex lundi (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 

Scientific names of hosts—Various Eucalyptus spp. and 

citrus are preferred, but the host list is quite extensive since 

leafcutting ants tend to harvest leaf tissue from a variety of 

plants (Craighead 1950, Cibrián–Tovar and others 1995). 

Distribution—Members of this genus are widely distributed 

throughout South America including Argentina (Fiorentino 

and Medena 1991), Brazil (Edson Tadeu Iede, EMPRAPA, 

Curitiba, Brazil, 1998, personal communication), and 

Uruguay (W. Wallner, 1998, personal observation). Formicidae are considered major Eucalyptus pests in Chile (Ramirez 

and others 1992) although the genus Atta is not specifically 

mentioned. Nonetheless, the Formicidae have similar behavior and bioecology and will be discussed as a group for 

purposes of this assessment. Atta texana and A. mexicanus

occupy limited distributions within southern United States, 

presumably because of an inability to survive in cooler climates (R. Scott Cameron, International Paper Company, 

Savannah, GA, 2000, personal communication). However, 

A. texana is a serious pest of southern pine seedlings in 

Texas and Louisiana (Cameron and Riggs 1985) and often 

requires chemical control (Moser 1984). 

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pest—As their name implies, leafcutting ants harvest foliage 

tissue from a variety of plants then carry these cuttings to 

their underground nests. Each leaf is transformed into small 

pellets within the nest and placed in a mass that provides the 

substrate for fungal growth. This fungus provides food for 

the colony and is routinely replenished by foraging workers 

who often utilize common trails, mostly at night. 

Atta spp. are social insects whose colonies survive up to 

20 years in underground nests some 3 to 4 m deep. Colony 

initiation begins with a winged mated female who flies to and 

selects a site. Her wings then become detached, and she lays 

her eggs in a small chamber in the ground. In less than a 

month, they give rise to the first workers who proceed to 

construct a nest and gather leaf portions for the developing 

colony. Following successful nest establishment, the colony 

increases in size, and after 3 years, the first reproductive 

females appear and disperse to form new colonies. A robust 

colony consists of thousands of polymorphic workers (three 

castes) and reproductives (winged and wingless). Wingless 

reproductives never leave the nest. Winged reproductives are 

16 mm long, red–brown, reasonably strong flyers, and the 

principal dispersal life stage. While workers forage up to 

200 m from the nest, they cannot found a new colony 

(Cibrián–Tovar and others 1995). 

Leafcutting ants are capable of inhabiting a variety of sites 

including agricultural fields, urban areas, fruit orchards, as 

well as Eucalyptus plantations. Because they utilize a variety 

of host plant foliage for fungal propagation, they can colonize a range of sites. Trees of different sizes may be partially 

or completely defoliated, although young eucalypt plantings 

of less than 3 m high are most seriously affected (Ramirez 

and others 1992). Defoliation is not necessarily continuous 

out from the nest since certain trees are preferentially harvested. The principal impact is growth reduction, although 

repeated defoliation can kill tree parts or entire seedlings 

(Cibrián–Tovar and others 1995). Atta sexdens rubropilosa

is on the quarantine pest list for Australia (Floyd and others 

1998). 

Specific information relating to risk elements 

A. Likelihood of introduction 

1. Pest with host–commodity at origin potential: Low 

(RC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: c) 

Leafcutting ants are widely distributed throughout 

South America in a variety of sites including eucalypt 

plantations. They are considered the most important 

pest in Brazil (Genesio Ribeiro, Federal University of 

Viçosa, Brazil, 1998, personal communication) and 

will be a common insect component in most eucalypt 

plantings. However, the low ranking is based on the 

fact that winged female reproductives constitute the 

principal initiator of a new colony. Since workers are 

incapable of founding a colony and wingless 

reproductives remain in the underground nests, 

winged reproductives are crucial to colony 

establishment. Thus, this life stage, which is fragile 

but mobile, could find a resting location on logs or 

their transporter. Even though the number of emerging 

winged reproductives from any colony might be high, 

they would have a low likelihood of survival. 

2. Entry potential: Low (RC) (Applicable rating criteria, 

from Chap. 1: None) 

Leafcutting winged reproductives have proved to be 

resilient life stages capable of surviving dispersal and 

establishing nests in a variety of habitats. The period 

elapsing from harvest to shipment would determine 

survivability; the shorter the time the higher the anticipated adult female survival. The current practice of 

rapid transit after harvesting Eucalyptus might increase likelihood of entry for reproductive adults. 

Given that no Atta or Acromyrmex species have been 

previously intercepted at ports of entry leads one to 

conclude that entry potential is low. 

3. Colonization potential: High (RC) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, c) 
28 

Most Atta spp. have demonstrated a propensity to 

utilize a variety of hosts in different sites. Thus, a 

successfully transported reproductive could be 

expected to select a suitable founding location. The 

establishment of the Argentine ant Iridodiyrmex humilis (Mayr) in Louisiana (Craighead 1950) is evidence 

that Formicid ants are portable and invasive when introduced into a compatible environment. 

4. Spread potential: Moderate (RC) (Applicable risk 

criteria, from Chap. 1: b, c, e) 

Vagile females are not likely to disperse more than 

several hundred meters. Once a colony is established, 

3 years would elapse before winged reproductives 

would emerge to enlarge the infestation. Since nests 

are surrounded by discarded leaf tissue, this could 

increase the possibility of detection and lead to early 

eradication efforts. 

B. Consequences of introduction 

5. Economic damage potential: Moderate (RC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, c)

According to Edson Tadeu Iede (EMBRAPA, 

Curitiba, Brazil, 1998, personal communication), ants 

are the most serious pest problem in plantation Eucalyptus in Brazil. Annual costs to eliminate nests or 

protect foliage are more than US$600,000; previously, 

it cost US$3 million annually when all plantations 

were treated. Fertilization of seedling eucalypts is 

done to accelerate growth to avoid attack by ants but 

at an additional cost. The Eucalyptus resources at risk 

in the United States are not commercial fiber plantations as in South America, but rather, they are urban 

and foliage plantings. Given the polyphagous habits of 

Atta spp., it is likely that other plant associates of 

these U.S. plantings might be attacked at an unknown 

cost. Mortality and growth reduction of Eucalyptus

probably would be secondary to the defoliation disfigurement that would severely impact a relatively small 

(1,215 hectares (3,000 acres)) but highly valuable U.S. 

cut-foliage industry (Dahlsten and others 1998). Still 

another potential high value resource that might be 

threatened is the citrus industry since citrus is a preferred host. 

6. Environmental damage potential: High (RC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, e) 

Colonization by leafcutting ants could seriously 

disrupt ecosystems leading to the displacement or 

exclusion of native plants and organisms. An example 

of this can be found with another group of introduced 

ground nesting ants, the imported fire ants Solenopsis

spp. in the southern United States, which have caused 

enormous economic and ecologic damage (Williams 

1998). These ants, like Atta spp., spread as reproductives or by humans and their activities. Thus, if established, leafcutting ants would require application of 

chemicals to eliminate nests and protect foliage 

(Moser 1984), thereby risking environmental disruption and damage, and risking such programs as biological control for pests of citrus. The extended geographic distribution of Atta spp. in South America and 

the presence of two Atta species in the southern 

United States portends that introduction of additional 

leafcutting ants would have undesirable environmental 

impacts. 

7. Social and political considerations: Moderate (RC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a) 

This genus of pests would cause aesthetic damage to 

high value cut-foliage plantations as well as pose a 

much broader environmental risk. Establishment of 

these two Atta spp. is unlikely to cause debilitating 

economic losses. However, they could constitute a 

major threat to fragile ecosystems by their aggressive 

colonization potential. The introduction of yet another 

ground nesting highly visible ant species would be 

unacceptable to most people. 

C. Pest risk potential: Low (RC) (Likelihood of introduction 

= Low; Consequences of introduction = High) 

Selected bibliography 

Cameron, S.; Riggs, C. 1985. Distribution, impact, and 

control of the Texas leaf-cutting ant—1983 survey 

results. Texas Forest Service Pub. 139. 6 p. 

Cibrián–Tovar, D.; Méndez Montiel, J.T.; Campos Bolaños, 

R.; [and others]. 1995. Insectos forestales de México—

Forest insects of Mexico. Publicatión 6. Chapingo, 

México: Universidad Autónoma. 453 p. 

Craighead, F.C. 1950. Insect enemies of eastern forests. 

Misc. Pub. 657. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 679 p. 

Dahlsten, D.L.; Hansen, E.P.; Zuparko, R.L.; Norgaard, R.B. 

1998. Biological control of the blue gum psyllid proves 

economically beneficial. California Agriculture. 

52: 35–40. 

Fiorentino, D.C.; Medina, D.L. de. 1991. Breve panorama 

de las plagas entomológicas forestales Argentinas. Investigación Agraria: Sistemas y Recursos Forestales. 16: 

181–190. 

Floyd, R.; Wylie, R.; Old, K. [and others]. 1998. Pest risk 

analysis of Euclayptus spp. at risk from incursions of 

plant pests and pathogens through Australia’s northern 

border. Contracted Rep. 44, for Australian Quarantine 

Inspection Service, by CSIRO Australia. 73 p. 
29 

Moser, J.C. 1984. Town ant. In: Payne, T.L.; Billings, R.F.; 

Coulson, R.N.; Kulhavy, D.L., eds. History, status, and 

future needs for entomological research in southern forests. Proceedings, 10th Anniversary, East Texas Forest 

Entomol. Sem. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station 

MP-1553: 47–52. 

Ramirez Grez, O.; Baldini Urrutia, A.; Friz Cacares, R. 1992. 

Daños Bióticos y Abióticos en Eucalipto: Guía de 

Reconocimiento. 92 p. 

Williams, D.F. 1998. Imported ants in the Southeast. In: 

Britton, K.O. (tech. coord.) Exotic pests of eastern 

forests. 1997 April 8–10; Nashville, TN; 115 p. 

Reviewers’ comments—“The bottom line is that ‘pest with 

host at origin’ is low and, more importantly, the entry potential for Atta and Acromyrmex is extremely low if not zero. 

Thus, unlike bark beetles, wood borers, and certain lepidopterous pests, these insects pose an extremely low risk to the 

U.S.” (Billings) 

“The assigned probabilities of establishment and environmental damage consequences for leaf-cutting ants are probably too high. Leaf-cutting ant queens are particularly vulnerable to mortality factors during the nuptial/dispersal flight. 

Although queens are long lived, they fly only once, during 

one day, and do not spend any time above ground in association with Eucalyptus trees. The nuptial flight is precisely 

timed to coincide with appropriate weather and soil conditions so that mated females can immediately burrow into the 

soil to establish new nests. In addition, leaf-cutting ants are 

tropical and sub-tropical in distribution. Atta texana, and 

A. mexicanus have limited distributions in the southern U. S., 

presumably due to an inability to survive in cooler climates. 

If introduced, leaf-cutting ants are not likely to become 

widely distributed throughout the U.S.” (Cameron) 

“No Atta or Acromyrmex adults have been intercepted at 

U.S. ports of entry and never will be unless brought in 

intentionally by humans.” (Moser, USDA Forest Service, 

Pineville LA, 2000, personal communication) 

“Even though three of the risk elements are met with reasonable certainty, it is unlikely that this defoliator would be 

associated with host logs or chips at origin and this is supported by the author’s remarks. None of the entry elements 

seem to apply, including ‘d’ as this organism would be a 

contaminant thus capable of detection by visible inspection. 

Under colonization potential, the elements listed apply only 

if reproductives are successfully introduced. Therefore a 

rating of high with reasonable certainty is misleading absent 

an ability to represent that critical element. Under spread 

potential, in California element ‘e’ applies as well. After its 

introduction, the eucalyptus borer spread naturally via contiguous freeway landscape plantings of Eucalyptus. Indeed 

continuous ornamental plantings of Eucalyptus occur 

throughout southern and coastal California. Even with nests 

surrounded by leafy material, it is unlikely that public 

awareness would lead to early detection.” (Zadig) 

“Though economic damage to the US cut foliage industry is 

mentioned, there is no mention of the potential economic 

impact to the citrus industry even though this is listed as a 

preferred host. In this case the disruption of biological 

control programs for citrus would result in environmental 

damage and disruption as well.” (Zadig) 

Response to comments—We assessed the risk of Atta spp. 

and Acromyrmex spp. host at origin and entry potential as 

moderate based upon the common occurrence of these ants in 

most South American Eucalyptus plantations. However, after 

considering the comments and opinions of Cameron, 

Billings, Zadig, and Moser, the association with host at 

origin and entry potential that were initially rated as moderate were reduced to low. This changed the overall pest risk 

potential to low. As suggested, the potential impact on the 

citrus industry was referenced even though no direct assessment of the resource was undertaken. 
30 

Eucalyptus Weevil 

Assessor—William E. Wallner 

Scientific names of pests—Gonipterus scutellatus 

Gyllenhal (synonymous with G. platensis) and G. gibberus

(Boisduval) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) 

Scientific names of hosts—E. globulus and E. viminalis are 

preferred, but various other eucalypts are attacked including 

E. robusta, E. sideroxylon, E. radiata, E. gunnii, E. eugenioides, E. fastigata, E. macarthurii, and E. obliqua. Narrowleafed species such as E. linearis and E. amygdalina are 

seldom attacked. 

Distribution—Gonipterus scutellatus is generally distributed throughout Brazil. Outbreaks occurred in Rio Grande do 

Sul in 1956, Santa Catarina and Paraná in 1978, and São 

Paulo in the 1990s (Edson Tadeu Iede, EMBRAPA, Curitiba, 

Brazil, 1998, personal communication), as well as Argentina 

and Uruguay; it has only recently been introduced into Chile 

from Argentina. Gonipterus gibberus shares the same distribution except it does not occur in Chile. The genus Gonipterus is not endemic to the United States, but G. scutellatus

was introduced into California in 1994 (Cowles and Downer 

1995) and is now found in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Santa 

Barbara Counties (Hanks and others 2000). Gonipterus 

scutellatus, native to Australia, also was introduced into the 

European Mediterranean in 1975 where it has been principally a pest of ornamental eucalypts along the French and 

Italian Riviera. 

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pest—Gonipterus scutellatus and G. gibberus belong to the 

order Coleoptera, family Curculionidae, which contains 

numerous forest pests. Curculionids have various feeding 

habits. Some feed on the foliage of trees and shrubs, while 

others feed in wood or under the bark or on seeds. The most 

destructive species attack young trees or new foliage on older 

trees. Eucalyptus snout beetles have life history traits peculiar to this subfamily of which there are no examples native 

to North America (Cowles and Downer 1995). Both Gonipterus spp. feed on the foliage of Eucalyptus as adults and 

larvae, have similar biologies and habits, and will be discussed accordingly. There usually are two generations each 

year in neotropical regions and only one in more temperate 

regions. Winter is spent as hibernating adults under loose 

bark on Eucalyptus trunks, especially E. globulus. In the 

spring, adults emerge and lay clusters of 7 to 16 eggs in small 

black cases (3 mm long) on the foliage. Eggs hatch in 7 to 

15 days, and the legless, green–yellow larvae feed on the leaf 

blades causing characteristic slits. The presence of several 

larvae on a leaf completely destroys the leaf. As larvae mature (they have four instars), they consume entire leaves 

starting at the edge and feeding inward. It is at this time that 

they produce a black trail of excrement. Larvae mature in 

4 to 5 weeks, drop to the soil, and pupate. Adults emerge in 

approximately 30 days. Adults feed on the leaf margins of 

young foliage, giving them a scalloped appearance. Adults 

also may feed on the bark of young shoots (Pedrosa–Macedo 

and others 1993, Clark 1937, Bain 1977, Freitas 1991). 

Both Gonipterus spp. weaken trees by defoliating them and 

give trees a stunted appearance. Trees weakened by feeding 

of Gonipterus spp. were considered to be more susceptible to 

attack by the eucalyptus longhorned beetle, Phoracantha 

semipunctata (Fab.) (Cowles and Downer 1995). However, 

Hanks and others (2000) found no evidence that attack by the 

weevil increases susceptibility to attack by the eucalyptus 

longhorned borer. Although Gonipterus spp. are acknowledged only as a pest of Eucalyptus, adults have been observed feeding on the stems of apples when orchards and 

Eucalyptus plantations are adjacent to one another. Major 

problems with Gonipterus spp. occur in regions with frequent 

frosts. New shoots are most susceptible after frost damage 

(José Henrique Pedrosa-Macedo, Federal University of 

Paraná, Paraná, Brazil, 1998, personal communication). 

Thus, Gonipterus spp. are likely to be a problem if introduced into temperate climates. 

These weevils have demonstrated a propensity to be translocated. For example, G. scutellatus was introduced from 

Australia into New Zealand in 1890 (Bain 1977), into South 

Africa in 1916 (Tooke 1955), into Argentina in 1925 

(Fiorentino and Medina 1991), into Mauritius in 1935–1940 

(Williams and others 1951), into Madagascar in 1950 

(Frappa 1950), into Mediterranean Europe in 1975 (Cadahia 

1986), into Spain in 1992 (Vasquez 1992), into Brazil in 

1992 (Neto 1993), into California in 1994 (Cowles and 

Downer 1995), and into Chile in 1998 (Miguel Angel Poisson, Ministry of Agriculture (SAG), Santiago, Chile, 1998, 

personal communication). This genus of weevils has consistently demonstrated a close affiliation with Eucalyptus and 

its defoliation as well as a capacity to get around. They must, 

therefore, be considered a serious invasive group. 

Specific information relating to risk elements 

A. Likelihood of introduction 

1. Pest with host–commodity at origin potential: High 

(RC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, c, d, 

e, f, h) 

The extensive global redistribution of these eucalyptus 

weevils, their common association with a number of 

Eucalyptus spp., and their past successful incursions 

into new environments attest to their potential threat. 

There is little evidence of polyphagy, and all life 

stages other than pupae are associated with Eucalyptus

foliage. 

2. Entry potential: High (RC) (Applicable rating criteria, 

from Chap. 1: a, c, d) 
31 

The long-lived adults (3–6 months) as hitchhikers on 

or under the bark or in shipping containers or vessels 

of transport would be the principal pathway for introduction. The cryptic-colored adults would be difficult 

to detect and could be located on logs or vehicles 

related to their transport. 

3. Colonization potential: High (RC) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, c, e) 

Gonipterus spp. have demonstrated their capacity to 

be transported and established on a global scale. 

While most adult weevils are not renowned for longdistance flight, Gonipterus spp. have demonstrated 

strong dispersal capability. They also actively crawl 

and seek resting sites under loose bark or other secretive locations. Despite the genus-specific host habits, 

the capacity to colonize new environments is judged to 

be high based on the past history of these two weevil 

species. Temperate climates, or those regions that are 

subject to the cold-stressing of Eucalyptus spp., appear to be most amenable to colonization. Availability 

of suitable hosts and synchronized emergence and 

mating of adult pairs are major factors that will 

influence successful colonization. 

4. Spread potential: Moderate (RC) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, e) 

Natural movement by adults in California has demonstrated an ability for infestations to spread rapidly 

(Cowles and Downer 1995). Larval dispersal is not an 

important factor. Human activities facilitate spread. It 

is believed that the establishment of G. scutellatus in 

Los Andes, Chile, occurred from vehicular transport 

of adults over the Andes from Argentina (Miguel Angel Poisson, Ministry of Agriculture, (SAG), Santiago, 

Chile, 1998, personal communication). 

B. Consequences of introduction 

5. Economic damage potential: Moderate (RC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, c) 

Narrow-leafed eucalypts are not preferred as hosts. 

Therefore, others, such as E. globulus, E. viminalis, 

and E. gunnii, would be threatened with defoliation. 

Gonipterus spp. are regarded as serious defoliators in 

New Zealand (Clark 1937, Bain 1977), Brazil 

(Pedrosa-Macedo and others 1993), and Africa 

(Naude 1940), often requiring chemical intervention. 

Defoliation reduces growth rate and tree vigor, making 

trees more susceptible to attack by other organisms. 

The seriousness of defoliation by G. scutellatus has 

prompted the importation and release of the Australian 

egg parasite Anaphes nitens (Girault) into New Zealand and Africa. In the absence of these and other 

natural enemies, Gonipterus spp. could be a serious 

problem. Presently, Chile has Gonipterus sp. listed as 

a quarantine pest. 

6. Environmental damage potential: Low (RC) 

Both Gonipterus spp. feed exclusively on broad-leafed 

eucalypts. Thus, impacts on other plant species seem 

unlikely. In the event of an introduction, chemical 

controls could cause environmental impacts, but this 

would probably be confined to the foliage industry 

and ornamental plantings. Following any Gonipterus

establishment, a program for releasing its native parasites would need to be undertaken with the potential 

risk to endemic North American insects. 

7. Social and political considerations: Moderate (RC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a) 

Defoliation would have only modest impact on a limited number of Eucalyptus spp. The major threat 

would be to the floral industry and urban and ornamental plantings. Evidence in California suggests that 

defoliation can be severe in Eucalyptus windbreaks 

and urban plantings (Hanks and others 2000). The removal of foliage will not kill trees but can weaken 

them and destroy their appearance. The fact that they 

have already been introduced into the United States is 

evidence of the portability of Gonipterus spp. However, G. scutellatus has not yet achieved its full 

geographic range in North America. 

C. Pest risk potential: Moderate (Likelihood of introduction 

= Moderate; Consequences of introduction = Moderate) 

Selected bibliography 

Bain, J. 1977. Gonipterus scutellatus Gyllenhal (Coleoptera: 

Curculionidae), gum tree weevil. Forest and Timber Insects in New Zealand. No. 8. 

Cadahia, D. 1986. The importance of insect pests of eucalyptus in the Mediterranean region. Bull. OEPP. 

16(2): 265–283. 

Clark, A.F. 1937. A survey of the insect pests of Eucalypts in 

New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Science and 

Technology 19: 750–761. 

Cowles, R.S.; Downer, J.A. 1995. Eucalyptus snout beetle 

detected in California. California Agriculture. 

49(1): 38–40. 

Fiorentino, D.C.; Medina, D.L. de. 1991. Breve panorama de 

las plagas entomológicas forestales Argentinas. Investigación Agraria: Sistemas y Recursos Forestales. 

16: 181–190. 
32 

Frappa, C. 1950. Sur las presence de Gonipterus scutellatus

Gyll. dan les peupelments d’Eucalyptus de Madagascar et 

l’accilmatement d’Anmophoidea nitens Gir. insecte 

auxiliaire parasite. Revue Pathologique Vegetale. 

29: 183–189. 

Freitas, S. de. 1991. The biology of Gonipterus gibberus

(Boisduval 1835) (Coleoptera:Curculionidae) on eucalyptus. Annals Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil. 

20: 181–190. 

Hanks, L.M.; Millar, J.G.; Paine, T.D.; Campbell, C.D. 2000. 

Classical biological control of the Australian weevil, Gonipterus scutellatus Gyll. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in 

California. Environmental Entomology. 29: 369–375. 

Naude, T.J. 1940. Work on the control of insect pests. Annual Report, Division of Entomology Fmg. South Africa 

Report 87. 4 p. 

Neto, R.G.H. 1993. Gonipterinae of Eucalyptus: first record 

of Gonipterus scutellatus for the state of São Paulo, 

Brazil, and some considerations on G. gibberus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Revista Brasileira de Entomologia. 

7(3): 465–467. 

Pedrosa–Macedo, J.H. 1991. Protection of forests—the 

danger from overseas. O desafio das florestas neotropicais 

Brasil. Curitiba, Paraná: Universidade Federal do Paraná: 

177–187. 

Pedrosa–Macedo, J.H.; Berti Filho, E.; Santos, H.R. dos; 

[and others]. 1993. Pragas Florestais do sul do Brasil. 

Vol. 2. 110 p. 

Ramirez Grez, O.; Baldini Urrutia, A.; Friz Cacares, R. 1992. 

Daños Bióticos y Abióticos en Eucalipto: Guia de 

Reconocimiento. 92 p. 

Tooke, F.G.C. 1955. The Eucalyptus snout-beetle, Gonipterus scutellatus Gyll. A study of its ecology and control 

by biological means. Entomological Memoires, Department of Agriculture Pretoria 3. 282 p. 

Vasquez, J.P.M. 1992. Presence on Eucalyptus globulus

Labill of Gonipterus scutellatus Gyll. (Col.: Curculionidae) in Galicia. Boletin-de-Sanidad-Vegetal, Plagas. 

18(3): 547–554. 

Williams, J.R.; Moutia, L.A.; Hermelin, P.R. 1951. The 

biological control of Gonipterus scutellatus Gyll. 

(Col.:Curculionidae) in Mauritius. Bull. Entomological 

Research. 42(1): 23–28. 

Reviewers’ comments—“I suggest adding a reference that 

presents information on the distribution of this pest, host 

range, and biological control in California: Hanks, L.M.; 

Millar, J.G.; Paine, T.D.; Campbell. C.D. 2000. Classical 

biological control of the Australian weevil Gonipterus scutellatus Gyll. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in California. 

Environmental Entomology (in press).” (Hanks) 

“P.52: Authors listed in the above reference did not find any 

evidence that attack by the weevil increases susceptibility to 

attack by the eucalyptus longhorned borer This was a speculation in the early literature.” (Hanks) 

“Suggest adding ‘a’ to applicable risk criteria for element #7, 

Social and political considerations.” (Hanks) 

“The egg parasitoid Anaphes nitens only attacks weevil 

species in the family Gonipterinae, of which there are no 

native species in North America; therefore, introduction of 

the parasitoid would pose little threat to native species.” 

(Hanks) 

Response to comments—Since there is evidence that the 

Eucalyptus weevil can cause substantial defoliation in windrows in California (Hanks and others 2000), it has the potential to cause concerns to the public. As suggested, “a” was 

added to this element, which raised its rating from low to 

moderate. 

In response to the second comment, while it may be true that 

A. nitens may not present any risk to endemic North American insects, the point still stands that it may not be the only 

biocontrol agent introduced. There still would be attendant 

risk with other introduced biocontrol organisms. 
33 

Flea of the Tifa Leaf 

Assessor—William E. Wallner 

Scientific name of pest—Cephisus siccifolius Walker 

(Homoptera: Cercopidae) 

Scientific names of hosts—Native hosts include Tipuana 

tipa (Benth.) Kuntze (Tipa), Acacia spp., Ceiba pentandra

(L.) Gaertner (Kapok tree), Caesalpina peltophoroides

Benth. (false Pernambucco), and Erythrina cristagalli L. 

(seibo). Eucalyptus species commonly attacked are E. 

saligna, E. grandis, E. alba, E. botryoides, E. rostrata, and

E. tereticornis (Fiorentino and Medina 1991, Golfari 1963). 

Distribution—A species native to Argentina, Cephisus 

siccifolius is generally distributed throughout the provinces 

of Misiones, Corrientes, La Pampa, Catamarca, and Buenos 

Aires (Fiorentino and Medina 1991). The only other reports 

of its presence were for São Paulo, Brazil (Paschoal and 

others 1985, Berti Filho 1981). 

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pest—Typically, cercopids, or spittlebugs, produce copious 

masses of foamy froth beneath which the immature nymphs 

can be found. In North America, the most important genus is 

Aphrophora, which includes the pine spittlebug, western pine 

spittlebug, and Saratoga pine spittlebug, which are serious 

pests of pines (Craighead 1950). The genus Clastoptera has 

more than 20 species in western North America that feed on 

broad-leaved plants (alder, dogwood, etc.) and conifers 

(juniper, pine, etc.) (Furniss and Carolin 1977). However, the 

genus Cephisus has no known representatives in North 

America. 

Most spittlebugs feed on succulent vegetation and may or 

may not be monophagous. The "flea of the Tifa leaf" demonstrated its polyphagy by adapting its feeding from native 

broad-leaved trees to a number of introduced Eucalyptus spp. 

Leaf wilting on mature Eucalyptus trees and death of seedlings is caused by C. siccifolius adults feeding on twigs and 

branches less than 3 cm in diameter (Cozzo 1960). Feeding 

damage by sap-sucking nymphs and adults can cause partial 

or complete defoliation of Eucalyptus (Fiorentino and Medina 1991). Certainly, feeding on succulent new growth 

inhibits shoot elongation and reduces and distorts foliage. 

Only sporadic outbreaks have been noted, namely in Argentina (Missiones 1960, Paraná 1984) and in Brazil (São Paulo 

1930 and 1984) (Edson Tadeu Iede, EMBRAPA, Curitiba, 

Brazil, 1998, personal communication; Paschoal and others 

1985, Cozzo 1960). Past infestations of C. siccifolius have 

not killed large tracts of Eucalyptus in South America, and 

C. siccifolius is unlikely to be any different in the United 

States. More likely, high value trees such as those in the cutfoliage industry and ornamental or streetside trees would be 

most adversely affected. More worrisome is the potential 

impact on additional, yet unknown, host affiliates of Eucalyptus; C. siccifolius already has demonstrated its capability 

to colonize several tree genera (Fiorentino and Medina 1991, 

Paschoal and others 1985). 

Lack of specific studies on the biology of C. siccifolius

makes a definitive description of its biology difficult. However, generalizations can be made in respect to the bioecology of cercopids. Winter is passed as eggs laid by ovipositing females in sites they cut in twigs. The egg stage can last 

8 to 9 months. Nymphs hatching from these eggs in the 

spring commence feeding by inserting their beak-like mouthparts into leaves or twigs and sucking out plant sap. Subsequently, they produce a white frothy covering on Eucalyptus

leaves that covers their hyaline bodies and protects them as 

they develop through five nymphal stages. These masses 

often contain several nymphs. Once mature, nymphs move 

out from under the spittle and molt into gray-brown wedge 

shaped adults 6 to 12 mm long. Adults actively fly or jump 

when disturbed. They are very mobile and may migrate from 

Eucalyptus to feed on other hosts. 

Specific information relating to risk elements 

A. Likelihood of introduction 

1. Pest with host–commodity at origin potential: Low 

(RC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: d) 

The limited geographic distribution of C. siccifolius in 

Argentina (Fiorentino and Medina 1991) and in Brazil 

(Paschoal and others 1985) indicates that the likelihood is low that it occurs routinely on Eucalyptus

elsewhere in South America. Being a polyphagous 

species is of concern since native forests are reported 

to harbor abundant populations (Golfari 1963). 

2. Entry potential: Low (RU) (Applicable rating criteria, 

from Chap. 1: None) 

Despite the fact that C. siccifolius would have a low 

likelihood of being introduced on logs based on its 

feeding and oviposition habits, its adult behavior 

could be more troublesome. Adult C. siccifolius are 

active (jumping and flying), which increases the possibility of being transported in the process of yarding 

and shipping. Cercopids are attracted to lights, which 

could attract them to storage and transportation centers and provide an entry pathway on shipping vehicles and containers as a hitchhiker. Since adults are 

gray–brown, they would not be easily detected. Still, 

the potential for any life stage being present on logs 

is low because nymphs and adults are foliage inhabitants and eggs are likely to be deposited within small 

(<0.3-cm-diameter) twigs. 

3. Colonization potential: Moderate (RC) (Applicable 

rating criteria, from Chap. 1: c, e) 
34 

Mobile adults, polyphagous feeding habits, and endophytic ovipositional habits would ensure that cercopids would find suitable hosts for establishment. 

Spittle bugs are noted for utilizing a variety of hosts 

(woody and herbaceous). Thus, colonization is perceived to be moderately possible. 

4. Spread potential: Moderate (RC) (Applicable risk 

criteria, from Chap. 1: e, h) 

Adults would be the sole life stage for enlarging populations. Active adults could disperse several hundred 

meters per dispersal episode, which suggests that 

spread could be reasonably rapid. In fact, Golfari 

(1963) recommended planting Eucalyptus as far away 

as possible from native forests because of the mobility 

of C. siccifolius. 

B. Consequences of introduction 

5. Economic damage potential: Moderate (RC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, c) 

Spittlebugs seldom cause extensive economic losses. 

In the case of C. siccifolius, only limited reversible 

damage to mature trees and occasional seedling mortality occur (Golfari 1963). Damage to ornamental and 

shade tree eucalypts in the United States probably 

would be ephemeral and limited. However, the cutfoliage industry could be impacted by this insect because it would reduce and deform growth and diminish the ornamental value of E. pulverulenta. 

6. Environmental damage: Low (RC) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: None) 

Damage to native subtropical South American forests 

is not serious. The major noticeable damage is to nonnative Eucalyptus, suggesting that the natural resistance inherent in native forests renders it benign. Several plant genera can be attacked by C. siccifolius, and 

its host range is unknown. Thus, there is a threat that, 

if established, this insect could utilize other subtropical species in the United States. This threat is considered minimal since few cercopids native to North 

America are serious pests. 

7. Social and political considerations: Low (RC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: None) 

Infestations would have only modest impact on ornamental and urban plantings. The most serious threat 

would be to E. pulverulenta and E. globulus plantings, 

but the performance of C. siccifolius on these species 

is unknown. Introduction of another spittle bug probably would result in low to moderate social concern. 

C. Pest risk potential: Low (Likelihood of introduction = 

Low; Consequences of introduction = Moderate) 

Selected bibliography 

Berti Filho, E. 1981. Insetos associados a plantaçãoes de 

especies do genero Eucalyptus nos estados da Bahia, 

Espírito Santo, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais e São 

Paulo. Tese apresentada a Escola Superior de Agricultura 

“Luiz de Queiroz,” da Universidad de São Paulo, Piracicaba. 176 p. 

Cozzo, D. 1960. A disorder of Eucalypts in the province of 

Misiones. Revista Forestal Argentina. 4: 101–102. 

Craighead, F.C. 1950. Insect enemies of eastern forests. 

Misc. Pub. 657. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 679 p. 

Fiorentino, D.C.; Medina, D.L. de. 1991. Breve panorama 

de las plagas entomológicas forestales Argentinas. Investigación Agraria: Sistemas y Recursos Forestales 

16: 181–190. 

Furniss, R.L.; Carolin, V.M. 1977. Western forest insects. 

Misc. Pub. 1339. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 654 p. 

Golfari, L. 1963. Cephisus siccifolius on Eucalypts in 

Misiones. IDIA. 189: 9–14. 

Paschoal, I.; Rodrigues–Netto, S.M.; Bergmann, E.C. 1985. 

Occurrence of Cephisus siccifolius (Walker) (Homoptera: 

Aphrophoridae) in sibipiruna (Caesalpinia peltophoroides). Biologico. 51(7): 193–195. 

Reviewers’ comments—“The probability of pest establishment is low based on the association of this organism with 

leaves and twigs, therefore it is unlikely to be associated with 

the pathway, yet the elements provided for assessment do not 

provide for this.” (Zadig) 

Response to comments—This statement is most applicable 

to entry potential (element 2) and has been moved from 

element 1. 
35 

Purple Moth 

Assessor—William E. Wallner 

Scientific name of pest—Sarsina violascens HerrichSchaeffer (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) 

Scientific names of hosts—Various Eucalyptus spp. but 

especially E. cloeziana, E. citriodora, E. nesophilia, 

E. grandis, Psidium spp., Mikania spp. (Compositae), and 

Osmanthus spp. (Oleacae) 

Distribution—Brazil: widely distributed from Rio Grande 

do Sul to northern Brazil. It is most important in Brazil’s 

central regions. It also has been reported defoliating 

Eucalyptus in various regions of Argentina, Peru, and 

Paraguay (Zanuncio and others 1993), as well as Mexico 

(C.S. Hodges, North Carolina State University, personal 

observation). 

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pest—Sarsina violascens belongs to the order Lepidoptera, 

family Lymantriidae, which includes numerous pest species 

from around the world (gypsy moth, nun moth, browntail 

moth, pine caterpillar, etc.). The name purple moth is ascribed to this moth despite the fact that it apparently has two 

adult color forms, brown and the more common violet 

(Zanuncio and others 1993). It is not possible to discriminate 

between these color forms based on larval appearance since 

all larvae are light brown to beige. Sarsina violascens is one 

of several lepidopterans endemic to Brazil’s Myrtaceae that 

seriously defoliate introduced Eucalyptus (Berti Filho 1983, 

Zanuncio 1976). The genus Sarsina is considered neotropical 

with no known species north of Mexico (Ferguson 1978). 

Sarsina violascens, reported as a major pest in southeastern 

Brazil, also is found in Argentina, Peru, and Uruguay 

(Zanuncio and others 1993). In Brazil, adults are active from 

March to December depending on the regional climate. The 

spherical, milky-white eggs are deposited singly or in one 

layer of up to 40 eggs on Eucalyptus leaves. In Mexico, egg 

masses were commonly found on the lower trunks of trees. 

Eggs in heavily infested areas were 90% parasitized while 

those outside defoliated plantations were not parasitized 

(C.S. Hodges, North Carolina State University, personal 

observation). Embryonic development is completed in 

11 days and larval development in 37 days. The brown–beige 

hairy larvae are voracious nocturnal feeders that congregate 

on the lower third of the tree trunks during the day. Pupation 

lasts 11 days and occurs on the leaves of dry branches, tree 

trunks, or understory plants. The humpbacked, reddishbrown pupae are 17 mm long for the male and 34 mm for the 

female (Zanuncio and others 1993). While not stated in any 

of the literature reviewed, it is assumed to be univoltine and 

that eggs are the sustaining intergenerational life stage, as it 

is with other Lymantriidae. 

In Brazil, S. violascens is one of the most important defoliators of Eucalyptus plantations (Zanuncio and others 1992,

Berti Filho 1983); populations fluctuate widely due to control by parasites (Evóneo Berti Filho, Universidad de São 

Paulo, Piracicaba, Brazil, 1998, personal communication). 

Trees are weakened by defoliation, their growth rate is reduced, and they are susceptible to further attack by secondary 

organisms. Clearly, this insect has been among the top five 

defoliators of Eucalyptus plantations in South America. It 

also is on the potential quarantine pest list for Australia 

(Floyd and others 1998). 

Specific information relating to risk elements 

A. Likelihood of introduction 

1. Pest with host–commodity at origin potential: 

High (RC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: 

b, c, d, e, h) 

The large geographical range of this insect and its 

broad host range are guarantors that it will be affiliated with Eucalyptus or other subtropical hardwoods. 

All life stages are found on the tree (eggs, larvae, and 

pupae on the foliage and eggs and larvae on the trunk, 

but pupae can be found anywhere on or off the tree) 

(Jose Cola Zanuncio, Federal University of Viçosa, 

Viçosa, Brazil, 1988, personal communication). Despite its high rating due to host affiliation, it tends to 

be episodic in its outbreaks within defined areas and 

apparently is susceptible to natural controls. 

2. Entry potential: High (RC) (Applicable rating criteria, 

from Chap. 1: b, c, d) 

Eggs or egg masses would appear to be the major risk 

for providing entry and, because of their small size 

and color, would be difficult to detect. Little information is extant on this insect’s bioecology but it is likely 

that it will behave as other lymantriids; oviposition 

sites will vary with little fidelity to a specific location. 

Evidence of this was reported for S. violascens

(Zanuncio and others 1993) in rearing studies where 

egg masses were deposited on flat sheets of paper 

rearing material. In general, lymantriid adults are attracted to lights and that can result in egg masses being transported into the United States on nonhost material and vehicles (Wallner and others 1995). An 

enclosed lymantriid egg mass, comparable in appearance to S. violascens, was found on the cut end of a 

Eucalyptus log in a Montevideo, Uruguay, port by 

members of the Wood Import Pest Risk Assessment 

and Mitigation Evaluation Team (WIPRAMET). Pupae can be found anywhere on the tree, but the probability of both sexes surviving and emerging concurrently to ensure mating is of low probability. Late 

stage larvae tend to rest on the lower trunk and could 

be transported, but the likelihood of successful translocation is believed to be low. 
36 

3. Colonization potential: High (RC) (Applicable risk 

criteria, from Chap. 1: b, d, e) 

Sarsina violascens is a polyphagous, neotropical species that has already demonstrated its ability to attack 

a new host, such as Eucalyptus (Zanuncio 1976). 

Thus, when encountering a Eucalyptus species or another myrtaceous or oleaceous host, colonization 

would be reasonably certain. Given that most lymantriids are very mobile in the larval and adult stages, 

host finding would be aggressive. Hosts growing under cool, dry conditions would be most vulnerable to 

colonization (Zanuncio and others 1994a). 

4. Spread potential: High (RC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: b, c, e, f, g) 

Dispersability of lymantriids has been well documented; both neonates and adults can be expected to 

disperse several hundred meters to a kilometer or 

more with each episode. Populations would be expected to expand rapidly following initial colonization, and spread could be accelerated if adult females 

are attracted to artificial lighting. 

B. Consequences of introduction 

5. Economic damage potential: Moderate (RU) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b) 

The impact of defoliation on plantation Eucalyptus in 

South America is poorly understood. Defoliation is 

likely to reduce vigor and growth, temporarily despoil 

the appearance of trees, and could weaken them making attack by other organisms more likely. Perhaps the 

biggest impact would be on the U.S. Eucalyptus foliage industry, although it is not known if S. violascens

attacks E. globulus or E. pulverulenta. 

6. Environmental damage potential: Moderate (RC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: d) 

Because S. violascens is an episodic defoliator, its 

damage would not be expected to be protracted. In 

South America, populations are regulated by natural 

enemies (Zanuncio and Lima 1975). If S. violascens

were introduced into the United States, it is not known 

if its dynamics would change in the absence of these 

natural controls. This could necessitate application of 

chemical controls, presenting an environmental hazard. One bothersome feature of S. violascens is its 

polyphagy, which could have serious impacts on U.S. 

forest–plant ecosystems other than Eucalyptus. 

7. Social and political considerations: Moderate (RC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a) 

Most lymantriid moths are outbreak species and tend 

to be periodically numerous. The majority of species 

have urticating hairs that can cause irritating encounters with humans. Sarsina violascens has caused localized defoliation in Brazil (hundreds of hectares) 

(Zanuncio and Lima 1975). Defoliation probably 

would not kill Eucalyptus but would reduce growth 

rates and could be aesthetically unsightly. The major 

impact would be on high value urban plantings and 

those used for the floral industry. A major unknown is 

the impact on other trees or shrubs since S. violascens

is so polyphagous. 

C. Pest risk potential: High (Likelihood of introduction = 

High; Consequences of introduction = Moderate) 

Selected bibliography 

Berti Filho, E. 1983. Insects of the Lepidoptera associated 

with Eucalyptus spp. in Brazil. Silvicultura. 

8(32): 623–624. 

Ferguson, D.C. 1978. The moths of America north of Mexico. Noctuidae, Lymantriidae. Fascicle 22.2. E.W. 

Classey, Ltd. & Wedge. Entomol. Res. Found. 110 p. 

Floyd, R.; Wylie, R.; Old, K. [and others]. 1998. Pest risk 

analysis of Eucalyptus spp. at risk from incursions of 

plant pests and pathogens through Australia’s northern 

border. Contracted Rep. 44. for Australian Quarantine 

Inspection Service, by CSIRO Australia. 73 p. 

Wallner, W.E.; Humble, L.M.; Levin, R.E.;[and others]. 

1995. Response of adult Lymantriid moths to illumination 

devices in the Russian Far East. Journal of Economic Entomology. 88: 347–352. 

Zanuncio, J.C. 1976. Efeito do controle químico e microbiológico sobre três pragas de Eucalipto e outros insetos. 

ESALQ/USP, Piracicaba. 76 p. (Tese M.S.). 

Zanuncio, J.C.; Lima, J.O.G. de; 1975. Occorência de 

Sarsina violascens (Herrick–Schaeffer, 1856) (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) em eucaliptos de Minas Gerais. 

Brasil Forestal. 6(23): 48–50. 

Zanuncio, J.C.; Santana, D.L.Q.; Santos, G.P.; Sartorio, R.C. 

1991. Levantamento e Fluctuação populational de Lepidopteros associato a eucaliptocultura: II—Região do Alto 

São Francisco, M.E. Annais da Sociedade Entomologica 

do Brasil. 20(2): 283–292. 

Zanuncio, J.C.; Fagundes, M.; Zanuncio, T.V.; Medeiros, 

A.G. de B. 1992. Principais Lepidópteros, pragas 

primárias e secundárias, de Ecualyptus grandis na região 

de Guanhaes, Minas Gerais, durante o período de Junho 

de 1989 a Maio 1990. Cientifica, São Paulo. 

20(1): 145–155. 
37 

Zanuncio, J.C.; Santana, D.L.Q.; Nascimento, E.C. do; [and 

others]. 1993. Lepidoptera Desfolhadores de eucalypto, 

biologia, ecologia e controle. Manual de pragas em 

Florestas. Vol. 1. 140 p. 

Zanuncio, J.C.; Nascimento, E.C. do; Garcia, J.F.; Zanuncio, 

T.V. 1994a. Major lepidopterous defoliators of eucalypt 

in southeast Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management. 65: 

53–63. 

Zanuncio, T.V.; Nascimento, E.C. do; Zanuncio, J.C.; Lobo, 

P.R.R. 1995. Lepidoptera Associated with Eucalyptus 

grandis Hill ex Maiden in Correntina, Bahia. Anais da 

Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil. 24(3): 639–643. 

Reviewers’ comments—“The species Sarsina violascens

(Herrich–Schaeffer, 1856) (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) 

deserves a special item. Justifiably, the family Lymantriidae 

contains a species (Lymantria dispar) (=gypsy moth) of high 

risk to the United States and Canada. For this reason the 

authors of this report have done a detailed analysis of this 

insect. Accordingly, the species Thyrinteina arnobia (Stoll., 

1782) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) should have warranted, 

also, a special item, given that it is a major defoliator of 

Eucalyptus spp. in Brazil. It is currently also one of the 

defoliators of Eucalyptus ‘eurograndis’ in Venezuela. In this 

manner, I justify my suggestion that it be included in the 

same category of risk as 

S. violascens.” (Pedrosa-Macedo) 

Response to comments—We concur with reviewer comments that there are numerous potentially dangerous defoliators of Eucalyptus that might be introduced. While it is 

agreed that Thyrinteina arnobia also is a serious pest, it is 

among a long list of potential defoliating pests that would be 

impossible to cover comprehensively in this assessment. 

Many lepidopterous defoliators share similar habits relative 

to pathway analysis and potential pest risk. Hence, analysis 

of Sarsina violascens is representative of this extremely large 

group of defoliating pests for the purpose of this 

assessment. We believe our comprehensive analysis of 

S. violascens serves as an example for other lepidopterous 

defoliators in pest–pathway evaluation for mitigation 

purposes. 
38 

Scolytid Bark and Ambrosia Beetles 

Assessor—Andris Eglitis 

Scientific names of pests—Scolytopsis brasiliensis Eggers; 

Xyleborus retusus Eichhoff; X. biconicus Eggers; Xyleborus 

spp. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) 

Scientific names of hosts—Xyleborus spp.: Eucalyptus 

grandis, E. dunnii, E. citriodora, Pinus elliottii Engelm. 

(slash pine), Acacia mearnsii Willd. (black wattle), Mimosa 

scabrella Benth. (Bracatinga); 

Scolytopsis brasiliensis: Eucalyptus grandis, Prunus 

sellowii Koehne (pessegueiro-bravo) 

Distribution—Xyleborus retusus, X. biconicus: northeastern 

provinces of Argentina (Formosa, Misiones), Brazil (Rio 

Grande do Sul); Scolytopsis brasiliensis: southern Brazil 

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pests—Scolytids are generally not common in South America, largely because there are few native conifers on the 

continent (José Henrique Pedrosa-Macedo, Federal University of Paraná, Brazil, 1998, personal communication). Only 

300 species have been identified and only one (Scolytopsis 

brasiliensis) is a bark beetle specifically associated with 

Eucalyptus (José Henrique Pedrosa-Macedo, Federal University of Paraná, Brazil, 1998, personal communication). 

Scolytopsis brasiliensis attacks cut logs and limbs and has 

been found killing its Eucalyptus host on one occasion (José

Henrique Pedrosa-Macedo, Federal University of Paraná, 

1998, Brazil, personal communication). With regard to the 

Eucalyptus host in South America, ambrosia beetles (Xyleborus spp.) tend to be slightly more common than bark beetles. In general, however, Eucalyptus does not appear to be a 

common host for ambrosia beetles either (José Henrique 

Pedrosa-Macedo, Federal University of Paraná, Brazil, 1998, 

personal communication). 

Viana (1964) reported that 120 species of scolytids occur in 

Argentina and described some of those host associations. 

Among these, he lists four species of Xyleborus (X. biconicus, X. fuscobrunneus, X. retusus, and X. linearicollis) that 

also occur in Brazil, occasionally in association with Eucalyptus. Many of the ambrosia beetles are polyphagous, and 

Eucalyptus is typically just one of the many hosts that these 

beetles infest. For example, Nunes Marques (1999) reported 

X. retusus as a secondary beetle in Acacia mearnsii and

Mimosa scabrella, both heavily infested by cerambycid 

beetles. Pedrosa-Macedo (Federal University of Paraná, 

Brazil, 1998, personal communication) says that X. retusus is 

associated with Eucalyptus in Brazil. Fiorentino and others 

(1988) reported capturing Xyleborus linearicollis and other 

species of Xyleborus in “scolytid traps” placed in young 

plantations of Eucalyptus tereticornis and E. camaldulensis 

in Santiago del Estero, Argentina. Xyleborus linearicollis

was also captured in traps placed in a plantation of Pinus 

halepensis (Fiorentino and others 1988). Other unidentified 

scolytids were also common in the traps. 

Wood (1982) describes the genus Xyleborus as being exceedingly large and complex. More than 70 species occur in 

North and Central America, but those represent a small 

portion of the species occurring worldwide (possibly 1,500 

species). Most of the American species are tropical or subtropical although numerous species also occur in the northernmost states of the United States. The taxonomy of the 

genus is also extremely complex, in part because of the 

beetles’ unique reproductive behavior (arrhenotokous parthenogenesis) that can lead to difficulties in distinguishing 

species (Wood 1982). The males are relatively rare and are 

flightless. Females select new host material and establish 

galleries. An unmated female apparently produces only male 

offspring. She may later mate with some of these offspring to 

produce additional females (Wood 1982). Some mating 

between siblings also occurs in the brood chambers. The 

developing brood helps to enlarge the galleries, which can 

sometimes be highly complex and branched or may be much 

simpler in some species (Wood 1982). In the North American species, the mature brood overwinters in the galleries 

(Furniss and Carolin 1977). 

The genus Xyleborus includes an array of insects whose hosts 

range from healthy trees to old logs, but most of the species 

prefer recently cut, injured, or unthrifty material (Wood 

1982). All of the species feed on an associated ambrosial 

fungus that grows on the walls of their tunnels. The moisture 

content of host material is critical to ensure proper growth 

and survival of this associated fungus. If host material is too 

dry, the fungus dies; if too wet, the fungal growth overwhelms the galleries and the developing insects suffocate. 

Damage associated with these insects is in the form of wood 

degrade due to the fungal staining that occurs in association 

with adult and brood tunneling. Ambrosia beetles in this 

genus are generally not considered to be tree killers. 

Xyleborus ferrugineus, considered the most destructive 

scolytid in the tropics (Wood 1982) attacks a wide variety of 

woody plants. Although common host material includes cut 

logs and unhealthy trees and stumps, the insects will also 

attack living trees on occasion and hasten their death (Wood 

1982). Economic effects are greatest in cut logs where the 

insect tunnels reduce the value of the sapwood (Wood 1982). 

In addition to the damage it produces directly, X. ferrugineus

is a principal vector of Ceratocystis fimbriata, which causes 

a wilt disease of cacao (Wood 1982). 

The life cycles of most Brazilian species of Xyleborus are not 

well known. A Eucalyptus-inhabiting species in New Zealand (X. truncatus) is thought to have a life cycle of less than 

one year and may complete two generations in a year (Zondag 1977). José Henrique Pedrosa-Macedo (Federal University of Paraná, Brazil, 1998, personal communication) stated 

that X. biconicus has a 4- to 5-week life cycle in Brazil. 
39 

Specific information relating to risk elements 

A. Likelihood of introduction 

1. Pest with host–commodity at origin potential: High 

(MC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, d, f, 

g, h) 

In Brazil, scolytids are seldom associated with logs 

and are not considered to be a significant problem in 

Eucalyptus (José Henrique Pedrosa-Macedo, Federal 

University of Paraná, Brazil, 1998, personal communication). The bark beetle Scolytopsis brasiliensis only 

occurs in Brazil and would not be associated with 

Eucalyptus logs from the other countries under consideration. While the Xyleborus ambrosia beetles are 

more widespread, they appear to have a weak association with Eucalyptus and occur more commonly with 

their other hosts. Although there is insufficient information available to rate these specific organisms as 

High, the scolytids as a group warrant a high degree 

of concern for their potential to be associated with 

recently cut, untreated host material. 

2. Entry potential: High (MC) (Applicable risk 

criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, c, d) 

As a group, the scolytids are the most commonly intercepted family of beetles in association with wood 

commodities coming into the United States. Some 

members of the genus Xyleborus have been intercepted in ports of the United States and other countries, in association with various commodities including solid wood packing material (15 interceptions in 

the United States between 1995 and 1998). José Henrique Pedrosa-Macedo (Federal University of Paraná, 

Brazil, 1998, personal communication) stated that X. 

biconicus could infest freshly cut Eucalyptus logs. 

However, these insects have a very short life cycle of 

4- to 5-weeks (José Henrique Pedrosa-Macedo, Federal University of Paraná, Brazil, 1998, personal 

communication), which reduces their chances of being 

transported to a new environment. Other unidentified 

species of Xyleborus may represent a higher risk of 

entry than X. biconicus. 

3. Colonization potential: High (MC) (Applicable risk 

criteria, from Chap. 1: b, c, e, f) 

Within the genus Xyleborus, there are at least two species that have been introduced into the United States 

from elsewhere. One of these, X. dispar, has a very 

wide host range. Even though they are polyphagous, 

most of the South American species of Xyleborus appear to be tropical, which would limit the possible locations of successful establishment within the United 

States. 

4. Spread potential: High (MC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: b, c, d, e, g) 

The high reproductive potential and polyphagous nature of the Xyleborus ambrosia beetles would be important factors in their ability to spread. The bark beetle S. brasiliensis would be less likely to spread due to 

fewer host species. 

B. Consequences of introduction 

5. Economic damage potential: High (MC) (Applicable 

rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, c, d, f) 

With the exception of X. ferrugineus, the ambrosia 

beetles in the genus Xyleborus native to the United 

States are not considered to be very serious damage 

agents (Furniss and Carolin 1977). Damage by 

X. ferrugineus and other ambrosia beetles is primarily 

caused by the tunneling of adults and developing 

brood as they construct their tunnels and chambers in 

cut wood or in severely wounded or weakened hosts. 

These tunnels are stained by the darkly colored ambrosia fungus that lines the walls of the tunnels and 

degrades the quality of the wood. Some other ambrosia beetles (Trypodendron sp.; Gnathotrichus sp.) are 

important as pests of conifers in the forest industry 

and cause serious losses each year in Canada (Nijholt 

1978). For logs, the degree of value loss through lumber degrade is a function of the degree of infestation 

by ambrosia beetles and the original grade of the log 

(McBride and Kinghorn 1960). Typically, even a light 

level of infestation can cause dramatic value loss in a 

high-value log (McBride and Kinghorn 1960). It is not 

known whether foreign species of Xyleborus, if introduced into the United States, would behave more like 

native X. ferrugineus or like the less aggressive native 

species of Xyleborus. 

Another area of concern for insects such as Xyleborus

is the capacity of some of them to vector disease organisms. If exotic Xyleborus became associated with 

the wilt disease pathogen Ceratocystis fimbriata that 

occurs in California and were to become an efficient 

vector of this pathogen, there could be important implications to California agriculture. 

6. Environmental damage potential: Moderate (RU) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: d) 

Despite having numerous hosts in South America, ambrosia beetles do not appear to be a significant 

problem in their local environments. With the exception of X. ferrugineus (already present in the United 

States), the genus presents few problems in terms of 

environmental damage. Potential problems could 

arise, however, if an introduced species were to infest 

a U.S. host with limited distribution. 
40 

7. Social and Political Considerations: Moderate (RU) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: c) 

The introduction of new scolytids could affect international trade for the United States. 

C. Pest risk potential: High (Likelihood of introduction = 

High; Consequences of introduction = High) 

Selected bibliography

Fiorentino, D.C.; Iturre de Toscano, M.C.; Darchuk de Durant, G.E. 1988. Inventario de insectos forestales en 

plantaciones de Pinus y Eucalyptus en Santiago del Estero. In: Proceedings of the “6to Congreso Forestal Argentino”, Santiago del Estero, Argentina: 714–718. 

Furniss, R.L.; Carolin, V.M. 1977. Western forest insects. 

Misc. Pub. 1339. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 654 p. 

McBride, C.F.; Kinghorn, J.M. 1960. Lumber degrade 

caused by ambrosia beetles. B. C. Lumberman. 

40–52 (July).

Nijholt, W.W. 1978. Ambrosia beetle: A menace to the forest 

industry. Rep. BC–P–25. Victoria, BC: Canadian Forest 

Service Pacific Forest Research Centre. 8 p.

Nunes Marques, E.; Nilton, J.; Andrioli Bittencourt, S.J. 

1999. Level of infestation of Coleoptera (Cerambycidae) 

in Acacia mearnsii and Mimosa scabrella. Poster 161 

(http://info.metla.fi/iufro95abs/d2pos81.htm). 

Pedrosa–Macedo, J.H. 1984. Riscos da não utilização de 

residous florestais. In: Malinkovski, J.R., ed. V Curso de 

atualização sobre sistemas de exploração e transporte florestal. Curitiba, Brazil: Fundação de Pesquisas Florestais 

do Paraná. 40–49.

Viana, M.J. 1964. Datos ecológicos de Scolytidae Argentinos (Coleoptera). Revista Sociedad de Entomologia 

Argentina. 27(1–4):119–130.

Wood, S.L. 1982. The bark and ambrosia beetles of North 

and Central America (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), a taxonomic monograph. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs 6. 

Provo UT: Brigham Young University. 1,359 p.

Zondag, R. 1977. Xyleborus truncatus Erichson (Coleoptera: 

Scolytidae). Forest and timber insects in New Zealand. 

Rotorua. 21. New Zealand Forest Service, Forest 

Research Institute. 4 p. 

Reviewers’ comments—“Purple moth/Scolytid Bark and 

Ambrosia Beetles. Even though in the case of the scolytids 

tendency to be associated with recently cut and untreated 

host material, the probability of pest association with host at 

origin and entry for these pests is dependent upon whether or 

not debarking is a standard harvesting practice and the probability of pest establishment assessment hinges on this element.” (Zadig) 

“. . .I believe that C. fimbriata is also a wilt disease of apricots in the Central Valley of CA (it is vectored in part by 

nitidulid beetles). This connection might be important if 

exotic Xyleborus beetles are reunited with the disease in 

California and then impact California agriculture. It would be 

good to bring out this scenario here.” (Seybold) 

Response to comments—In this assessment, we do not 

presume that logs will be debarked. Thus, the likelihood of 

association between the organism and host is considered as if 

bark were present on the logs. The standards for debarking 

still permit a small percentage of bark to be present in a 

shipment, and history has shown that phloem feeders such as 

bark beetles can be associated with and survive on logs even 

when they are considered to be “well-debarked” (Schroeder 

1990). Even though South American Eucalyptus logs are 

normally debarked, either before felling (E. grandis in Argentina) or shortly thereafter, we observed numerous log 

decks where small pieces of bark remained on some logs, and 

occasionally some smaller logs still contained all of their 

bark. 

The comment referring to the possibility of a connection 

between exotic Xyleborus and C. fimbriata and a potential 

effect on agriculture in California was included in the 

Economic Damage Potential element of the risk assessment. 
41 

Carpenterworm 

Assessor—Andris Eglitis 

Scientific names of pest—Chilecomadia valdiviana 

(Philippi) (Lepidoptera: Cossidae) 

Scientific names of hosts—Chile: Eucalyptus nitens; occasionally E. gunnii and E. camaldulensis; Nothofagus pumilio 

(Poepp. et Endl.) Krasser; N. dombeyi (Mirb.) Oerst.; N. 

antarctica (Forst.); N. alpina (Poepp. et Endl.) Krasser; Salix 

babilonica L.; Salix spp.; Alnus glutinosa Gaertn.; Quercus 

robur L.; Maytenus boaria Mol.; Weinmannia trichosperma 

Cav.; Trevoa trinervis Miers; Ulmus glabra var. pendula; 

numerous fruit trees including Malus, Persea, Pyrus, Prunus, 

Olea. Argentina: Nothofagus antarctica (Forst.); Weinmannia trichosperma Cav.; various other forest and fruit trees. 

Distribution—Occurs on a variety of sites and hosts 

throughout Chile from Region III to Region XII (Copiapo to 

Punta Arenas). Within this range in Chile, C. valdiviana is 

found on its Eucalyptus hosts in Regions VIII and IX (Concepción to Osorno). Also occurs in Argentine provinces of 

Neuquen, Rio Negro, and Santa Cruz. Elevation ranges from 

sea level to 1,700 m above sea level. 

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pest—The carpenterworm has been known in the native 

hardwood forests of Chile for more than 150 years. The 

insect has an extremely broad host range, feeding on several 

of the native beeches (Petersen 1988), other hardwoods, 

various fruit trees (Gonzalez 1989), and some shrubby species. Until recently, however, there has been little known 

about the basic behavior and life cycle of this insect (Cerda 

1996). After C. valdiviana was discovered in an economically important host (Eucalyptus nitens) in 1992, there was 

increased interest in studying the biology of the insect. 

Within the Eucalyptus host, C. valdiviana is found in the 

foothills of the Andes, the central valley, and the coast range. 

The insect infests live trees from 4 cm diameter at breast 

height (dbh) and larger, with attacks occurring in all portions 

of the bole. Tree stress is not a prerequisite for attack. 

The life cycle of the carpenterworm is still not entirely clear, 

but is believed to require more than one year. In one instance, experimentally induced attacks produced a generation 

in 14 months (Luis A. Cerda, University of Concepción, 

Chile, 1998, personal communication). Overlapping generations are also suspected, since there are several months during the year when all four life stages can be found in the 

same tree (Cerda 1996). The adult stage is found from early 

spring to late summer (mid-August to mid-February). In 

Argentina, adults have been reported in March and April as 

well (Gentili 1989). Eggs can be found during the same 

months as the adults. The larval stage is present throughout 

the entire year and pupae are found from the beginning of 

May through the end of January (fall to mid-summer). 

Attacks on host trees begin in the spring. The female lays 

eggs in groups of 30 to 50 at branch axils or in natural bark 

crevices. Each female is capable of laying up to 200 eggs. 

The recently hatched larvae feed gregariously beneath the 

bark near the point of oviposition. Their feeding produces a 

sap flow on the bark that is an ideal substrate for the development of sooty mold fungi. Trees with multiple attacks are 

easily recognized from a distance by the darker color of the 

bole resulting from the sooty mold. Toward the end of summer, the larvae leave the phloem and begin boring deeply 

into the heartwood. They feed individually and orient their 

galleries upward. These galleries, up to 27 cm long and 1 cm 

wide, are kept free of frass and are open until the mature 

larvae plug them prior to pupation. With time, the boring 

dust expelled from the gallery accumulates at the base of the 

tree and serves as another diagnostic clue of carpenterworm 

infestation. Pupation takes place within the larval gallery, 

with the pupa protruding slightly outside. The nocturnal 

adults mate shortly after emerging from their host, and lay 

eggs within 24 h of mating. The females, heavy with eggs, 

are considered to be weak fliers (Luis A. Cerda, University 

of Concepción, Chile, 1998, personal communication) but 

males of the cossid family are strong fliers (Solomon 1995). 

The open larval galleries provide easy entry for a number of 

stain and decay fungi that grow rapidly in the moist wood. 

Stain and decay within infested trees have been measured as 

far as 4 m beyond the end of the larval gallery (Luis A. 

Cerda, University of Concepción, Chile, 1998, personal 

communication). (This feature of rapid staining and decay 

appears to be much more pronounced in E. nitens than in 

other species infested by the carpenterworm). The species of 

stain and decay fungi associated with the galleries of C. 

valdiviana have not been identified. Cerda (1995) believes 

that the fungi may serve as a food source for developing 

larvae. 

Infestation by C. valdiviana does not kill the host tree directly, although the larval galleries often weaken the bole and 

make it more susceptible to wind breakage. Staining and 

decay damage produced by the fungi also reduces the wood 

value of infested eucalypts. Reinfestation of the same trees is 

common, which can lead to extensive damage over time. 

The distribution of carpenterworm infestation centers appears 

to be random. The first infestation centers to be found in E. 

nitens were close to native host forests (beeches and willows), but subsequent infestations have been found in areas 

not particularly close to these native hosts. Within an infested 

stand, the percentage of trees attacked has not exceeded 5%. 
42 

Specific information relating to risk elements 

A. Likelihood of introduction 

1. Pest with host–commodity at origin potential: Moderate (MC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: d, 

e, g, h) 

Since the only commercial Eucalyptus host for C. valdiviana is E. nitens, the assumption for this element is 

that E. nitens is the only substrate being evaluated. 

(This element would be rated low for other commercial species of Eucalyptus in Chile). Advanced or 

heavy infestations are easily recognized by sawdust at 

the base of the tree and sooty mold on the bark. It is 

reasonable to assume that heavily infested trees would 

be recognized during harvest and separated out from 

uninfested trees. However, incipient or light attacks 

may be more difficult to recognize, especially if the 

host material is not debarked. Even though the current 

level of occurrence of the carpenterworm seems to be 

low in plantations of E. nitens, the association with 

this host is fairly recent, and the insect populations 

cannot be presumed to have stabilized yet. 

2. Entry potential: High (MC) (Applicable rating criteria, 

from Chap. 1: b, c) 

Advanced larval stages can probably survive in a log 

and develop to adulthood. The biology of C. valdiviana seems to compare well with the leopard moth, 

Zeuzera pyrina, which entered the United States in 

1882 (Anderson 1966). 

3. Colonization potential: High (MC) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: b, c, d) 

Chilecomadia valdiviana has a very broad host range 

and a wide geographic distribution within various environments. Host genera for the carpenterworm are 

found throughout most of the United States, such that 

finding a host could be possible in most geographical 

regions of introduction. The association of the insect 

with Eucalyptus is a strong testimonial to its 

adaptability and is a factor that also elevates concern 

about potential hosts to which it has not yet been 

exposed. The introduction of the leopard moth, 

Zeuzera pyrina, into the United States from Europe 

(Anderson 1966) also shows the adaptability of some 

cossids to new environments. 

4. Spread potential: High (RU) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: c, d, e, f, g) 

The rate of spread of the carpenterworm would depend largely on the nature and distribution of host material in the United States. Contiguous stands of hosts 

would be more conducive to spread than scattered or 

isolated hosts. The inherent spread potential of C. valdiviana seems to be limited by poor flight capability 

of the female, particularly when carrying her full load 

of eggs. In Chile, the same trees are often reinfested, 

which also suggests a slower rate of spread. 

In Chile, C. valdiviana in its eucalypt host was initially found close to native host stands but subsequently has been found in plantations of E. nitens

where native hosts are not particularly close by. This 

observation suggests that the dispersal capabilities of 

the insect may be fairly good. 

B. Consequences of introduction 

5. Economic damage potential: High (MC) (Applicable 

rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, c, d, f) 

Even though Chileans have known about the association of C. valdiviana with its many hosts for a long 

time, there have not been any control measures developed, even in fruit trees, which have always been economically important for Chile. This suggests that in its 

native environment, the insect has not produced intolerable losses. Nonetheless, the pest potential is now 

being recognized for one species of Eucalyptus. The 

association of the carpenterworm with its Eucalyptus

host is a very recent one that probably has not realized 

its full potential. At this time, however, this insect is 

more common in its other hosts than in E. nitens. 

The broad native host range of the carpenterworm is 

of concern if the insect were to become established in 

the United States. Comparable potential hosts in the 

United States have importance in the agricultural 

industry (fruit trees) and as ornamentals (eucalypts, 

oaks, beeches). 

An important consideration for this element is the 

strong association of the carpenterworm with numerous unidentified fungi that are considered to produce 

even more damage than the insect in E. nitens. Even 

though the behavior of these fungi is more pronounced 

in Eucalyptus than in native hosts, we are concerned 

about the lack of information on them and their damage potential if introduced into a new host in the 

United States. 

6. Environmental damage potential: Moderate (MC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: d) 

The biggest concern for this element is the association 

of the insect with several fungi that have not been 

identified. We were told that the rapid rate of staining 

and decay were a function of the wetness of the wood 

of Eucalyptus and that a comparable rate of decay 

does not occur in other hosts (Luis A. Cerda, 

University of Concepción, Chile, 1998, personal 
43 

communication). Nonetheless, the fact that these fungi 

are not known but seem to be present in all eucalypts 

infested by the carpenterworm elevates this element to 

a moderate. An additional environmental concern with 

this and all other introductions is the inevitable increase in pesticide use and inadvertent misuse by 

homeowners and others concerned with protecting 

their plants from pests. 

7. Social and Political Considerations: Moderate (MC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a) 

The greatest concern would probably come from 

homeowners interested in protecting their ornamental 

plantings. 

C. Pest risk potential: High for E. nitens (Likelihood of 

introduction = Moderate; Consequences of introduction = 

High); Moderate for two other host species of Eucalyptus 

(E. camaldulensis and E. gunnii) (Likelihood of introduction = Low; Consequences of introduction = High) 

Selected bibliography 

Anderson, R.F. 1966. Forest and shade tree entomology. 

New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 428 p. 

Cerda M., L. 1995. Estudio y seguimiento del taladrador de 

la madera Chilecomadia valdiviana (Lep.: Cossidae) en 

plantaciones de Eucalyptus nitens en el patrimonio de 

FORMIN S.A. Informe de Avance Temporada 1994–

1995. Concepción, Chile. 15 p. 

Cerda M., L. 1996. Chilecomadia valdiviana (Philippi) 

(Lepidoptera, Cossidae). Insecto taladrador de la madera 

asociado al cultivo del Eucalyptus spp. en Chile. Nota 

Técnica, Año 16. Corporación Nacional Forestal, Depto. 

de Programas y Proyectos, Programa Protección, Sanitaria Forestal. No. 32. 7 p. 

Gentili, P. 1989. Revisión sistematica de los Cossidae (Lepidoptera) de la Patagonia andina. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Revista de la Sociedad de Entomología de Argentina. 45(1–4): 3–75. 

Gonzalez, R.H. 1989. Insectos y ácaros de importancia 

agrícola y cuarentenaria en Chile. Santiago, Chile: Universidad de Chile, BASF Chile S. A. 210 p. 

Petersen, J. 1988. Chilecomadia valdiviana (Philippi) 

(Lepidoptera: Cossidae), asociado a Nothofagus pumilio

(Poepp. et Endl.) Krasser (lenga) en la región de Magallanes. Anuales del Instituto de Patagonia. 18: 51–55. 

Solomon, J.D. 1995. Guide to insect borers in North American broadleaf trees and shrubs. Agric. Handb. AH–706. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 735 p. 

Reviewers’ comments—“In the evaluation of the Pest Risk 

Potential of Ch. valdiviana, it was determined that this insect 

has a Pest Risk Potential of Moderate for other species of 

Eucalyptus [besides E. nitens], among them, E. globulus. We 

believe that the Pest Risk Potential for Ch. valdiviana in E. 

globulus should be non-existent because this insect has never 

been associated with this species of eucalypt, the principal 

species of this genus being cultivated in Chile.” (Peña Royo) 

(translated from Spanish) 

“The lack of presence of Ch. valdiviana in plantations of 

E. globulus is something that has been studied in Chile [including] in situations where infested plantations of E. nitens

have been found growing adjacent to plantations of E. globulus without ever having observed the moth attacking the 

latter species.” 

“In the process of Pest Risk Assessment, special attention 

must be given to pest/host associations, considering that even 

when the pest being examined is an insect with a wide host 

range, as is Ch. valdiviana, it cannot be assumed that plant 

species in which the pest has never been observed will be 

hosts for the pest. This is the case for Ch. valdiviana with 

respect to E. globulus, in which a Pest Risk Potential of 

Moderate has been assumed without the existence of observations and/or publications that support an association between both species.” (Peña Royo) (translated from Spanish) 

“Like the WIPRAMET Team, we are very concerned about 

the unknown pathogens found associated with the carpenterworm damage in Chile and with the unidentified bluestain 

observed on logs in Argentina (Appendix A – Reports on 

Team’s site visits to South America). Their presence suggests 

that APHIS should require the heat treatment (71.1 degrees C 

for 75 min at the core) of all shipments of prior to entering 

the U.S. Heat treatment is the only mitigation method proven 

effective against all potential pests.” (Johnson and Osterbauer) 

Response to comments—The pest risk potential rating of 

moderate for “other species” of Eucalyptus was clarified to 

refer to the other two occasional hosts in which C. valdiviana 

has been reported – E. camaldulensis and E. gunnii. The pest 

risk potential for other species of Eucalyptus including 

E. globulus would be low. 

The unknown fungi associated with C. valdiviana are an 

important factor in rating this organism as having a high pest 

risk potential. 
44 

Platypodid Ambrosia Beetle

Assessor—Andris Eglitis 

Scientific names of pest—Megaplatypus parasulcatus 

(=Platypus sulcatus Chapuis) (Coleoptera: Platypodidae) 

Scientific names of hosts—Argentina: Various conifers and 

hardwoods including Populus and occasionally Eucalyptus

Brazil: Populus, Eucalyptus urophylla (São Paulo), 

E. robusta (Rio Grande do Sul) 

Uruguay: Populus and occasionally Eucalyptus 

Other South American hosts include Casuarina, Pinus, 

Acacia, Citrus, and Persea. 

Distribution—Argentina (region of Paraná River Delta); 

Brazil (states of Rio Grande do Sul, Paraná, Santa Catarina, 

and São Paulo); Uruguay 

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pest—Most members of the Platypodidae are tropical and 

subtropical. They are generally larger than scolytid ambrosia 

beetles and tend to bore more deeply into the wood (Solomon 1995) where they cultivate and feed on fungi as larvae 

and adults. 

Biological information on M. parasulcatus is scarce. In 

Argentina, Santoro (1967) reports that attacks occur between 

November and March. Pedrosa–Macedo (1993) describes the 

biology of “P. sulcatus” in Brazil as follows: Between November and January, the adults abandon the galleries in 

which they developed and search for a new host. Females 

construct galleries in the wood of the new host and lay eggs. 

Egg-laying begins in March and continues for several 

months. Up to 100 eggs may be laid by each female. The 

males make galleries at the rate of 10 to 15 cm per month and 

mate in these tunnels. The total development time is one 

year. As such, an infested host may contain various developmental stages from eggs to larvae and adults of both sexes. 

Larvae develop for 5 to 6 months and then construct pupal 

chambers, beginning in July. Symbiotic fungi associated with 

M. parasulcatus belong to the genus Raffaela (PedrosaMacedo 1993). 

This ambrosia beetle will attack live trees through wounds or 

when they are unhealthy for other reasons. In Brazil, M. 

parasulcatus is native and highly polyphagous (Edson 

Tadeu Iede, EMBRAPA, Curitiba, Brazil, 1998, personal 

communication). It attacks stressed trees, usually not killing 

them but causing degrade in the wood through fungal staining. Clark (1937, cited by Gibson [1979]) reported that in 

Minas Gerais, Brazil, eucalypts between 5 and 9 years old 

suffered 1% mortality after the tops of infested trees snapped 

off 2 m above the ground. (Numerous species of Scolytidae, 

Platypodidae, and Bostrichidae were involved in the infestation, but their roles as primary or secondary agents were not 

identified). Although M. parasulcatus aggressively infests 

other hosts in Brazil, Jose C. Zanuncio (Federal University of 

Viçosa, Brazil, 1998, personal communication) stated that 

the only place it was a problem in Eucalyptus was where a 

tree had been climbed with spikes. In this case, concentrated 

attacks by M. parasulcatus caused weakening and wind 

breakage of the bole. Gibson (1979) says that damage has 

been reported in eucalypt plantations in Argentina and Uruguay, but the association with this host appears to be far less 

common than with Populus in both countries (Norma Vaccaro, INTA-Concordia, Argentina, 1998, personal communication; Juan F. Porcile, Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture 

and Fisheries, Uruguay, 1998, personal communication). 

In Brazil, José H. Pedrosa-Macedo (Federal University of 

Paraná, Brazil, 1998, personal communication) stated that 

M. parasulcatus must have a live host or it will exit infested 

material within a week or two. 

Specific information relating to risk elements 

A. Likelihood of introduction 

1. Pest with host–commodity at origin potential: Moderate (RU) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: 

f, g) 

The association of the ambrosia beetle is much 

stronger with poplars than with Eucalyptus, according 

to the forestry professionals we contacted in Brazil, 

Argentina, and Uruguay. The typical commercial plantation with healthy trees is rarely infested by M. 

parasulcatus. 

2. Entry potential: Low (MC) (Applicable rating criteria, 

from Chap. 1: none) 

Megaplatypus parasulcatus appears to require live or 

very fresh host material to complete its development 

(José Henrique Pedrosa-Macedo, Federal University 

of Paraná, Brazil, 1998, personal communication). 

Servicio Agricola y Ganadero (SAG) officials reported that although M. parasulcatus is often intercepted at the Chilean border in crating material (presumably made from poplar), the insects have always 

been dead (Marcos A. Beeche, SAG, Chile, 1998, 

personal communication). 

3. Colonization potential: High (MC) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: c, d, e) 

Given the polyphagous nature of this insect, its broad 

range of hosts, and the fact that it has adapted to a new 

host (Eucalyptus), there is a reasonable likelihood that 

it could find a suitable host in the southern portions of 

the United States. 

4. Spread potential: High (MC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: c, d, e, f, g) 
45 

The polyphagous nature of this insect and its dispersal 

capability could aid in spread potential once introduced into a new environment. 

B. Consequences of introduction 

5. Economic damage potential: High (RU) (Applicable 

rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, c, d, f) 

Although M. parasulcatus is generally not considered 

a serious mortality agent, it can on occasion be damaging enough to warrant special control programs. Such 

a program is being implemented in Argentine poplar 

plantations in the Paraná River Delta, where biological 

control agents are being used to combat the insect. 

Some potential hosts for M. parasulcatus within the 

United States have important economic value (for example, pines, citrus, and avocado), and the establishment of the ambrosia beetle in these resources could 

lead to the need for expensive control programs. 

Within the United States, this ambrosia beetle is likely 

to become established only in those areas with a subtropical climate. 

6. Environmental damage potential: Moderate (MC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: e) 

Damage could occur in poplar plantations and on citrus trees and could require special control measures 

(for example, application of insecticides to bark surface) with potentially unacceptable environmental 

consequences. 

7. Social and Political Considerations: Moderate (MC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: c) 

Megaplatypus parasulcatus is on the quarantine pest 

list for some countries including Chile. Its presence in 

the United States could affect trade with those countries where the ambrosia beetle does not occur. 

C. Pest risk potential: Moderate (Likelihood of introduction 

= Low; Consequences of introduction = High) 

Selected bibliography

Gibson, I.A.S. 1979. Diseases, pests and disorders. Ch. 9. In: 

Food and Agriculture Organization. Eucalypts for planting. United Nations FAO Forestry Series 11: 215–241. 

Pedrosa–Macedo, J.H., coord. 1993. Pragas florestais do Sul 

de Brasil. Vol. 2, Manual de pragas em florestas. Programa Cooperativo de Monitoramento de Insetos em Florestas. Instituto de Pesquisas e Estudios Florestais. 111 p. 

Santoro, F.H. 1967. Nuevo antecedente sobre lucha manual 

contra “Platypus sulcatus” Chapuis (Coleoptera–

Platypodidae). IDIA—Suplemento Forestal. 4: 70–74.

Solomon, J.D. 1995. Guide to insect borers in North American broadleaf trees and shrubs. Agric. Handb. AH–706. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 735 p. 

Reviewers’ comments—“As this organism is known to also 

attack pine, citrus and avocado while biological information 

is scarce, it seems imprudent in this case to state that there 

are relatively few places within the US where it could become established. Moreover this appears to be in contradiction with a high colonization potential based on the likelihood of finding suitable hosts in the southern U.S. If special 

control measures for citrus would potentially produce unacceptable environmental conditions, impacts to citrus production, including biological control, should be considered under 

economic damage potential.” (Zadig) 

Response to comments—Some changes were made in the 

draft narrative for Economic damage potential, and the rating 

for this element remains high. 
46 

Round-Headed Wood Borers 

Assessor—Andris Eglitis 

Scientific names of pests—Chydarteres striatus (Burmeister); Retrachyderes thoracicus (Olivier); Trachyderes spp; 

Steirastoma breve Sulzer; Stenodontes spinibarbis (Linnaeus) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

Scientific names of hosts—Eucalyptus grandis; many fruit 

trees including Citrus, Ficus, Prunus, and others; Populus

spp.; many native hardwoods including Myrciaria, Psidium 

guajava L. (guava), Caesalpinea echinata Lamarck (paubrasil), Pyrus, Castanea, Morus alba L. (white mulberry),

Acacia mearnsii de Wild. (black wattle), Mimosa scabrella

Benth. (Bracatinga), and others. 

Distribution—Steirastoma breve: Brazil (Rio Grande do 

Sul, Paraná), Argentina. Stenodontes spinibarbis, Chydarteres striatus, and Retrachyderes thoracicus: Argentina, 

Brazil, Uruguay. Trachyderes spp.: Argentina, Brazil, 

Ecuador. T. succinctus: Argentina, Ecuador. 

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pests—Most of the wood borers considered in this group 

have tree species other than Eucalyptus as their primary hosts 

but have on occasion been reported in association with Eucalyptus. As a general rule, there is little biological information 

available on their life cycles or host selection behavior, even 

for those cases where they have some economic importance 

(fruit trees, ornamentals). Most of the published information 

does little more than list collection points and report host 

associations. Some of these host associations are either 

disputed or might be based on a single observation. 

These round-headed borers generally infest the boles or 

branches of recently cut trees or are associated with trees 

under extreme stress. Hosts that have wounds or are affected 

by some other biological agent may also be secondarily 

infested by these borers. For example, in Uruguay, we were 

told that certain cerambycids attacking Eucalyptus were only 

found in those trees previously infested by Phoracantha 

semipunctata (Juan F. Porcile, Ministry of Livestock, 

Agriculture and Fisheries, Uruguay, 1998, personal 

communication). 

Duffy (1960) lists three species of Trachyderes as being 

associated with citrus in Argentina; all are secondarily associated with Eucalyptus. (Two have since been placed in 

different genera [Chydarteres striatus and Retrachyderes 

thoracicus]). Both C. striatus and R. thoracicus also occur in 

Uruguay where they have very broad host ranges that include 

fruit trees, acacias, willows, and occasionally Eucalyptus. 

Both species appear to be common, but little is known about 

the damage they might produce (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 

n.d.). Retrachyderes thoracicus attacks live Ficus in Argentina and often kills host trees by burrowing in the bole 

(Duffy 1960). The Trachyderes species occurring in Brazil 

(probably including Retrachyderes thoracicus and 

Chydarteres striatus) are also secondary beetles with a broad 

host range, which occasionally includes the larger branches 

of Eucalyptus (José Henrique Pedrosa-Macedo, Federal 

University of Paraná, Brazil, 1998, personal communication) 

but are not found in logs (Edson Tadeu Iede, EMBRAPA, 

Curitiba, Brazil, 1998, personal communication). Adults of 

R. thoracicus emerge in January and February in Brazil and 

in December and January in Argentina (Duffy 1960). Several 

specimens of Trachyderes sulcata were captured in young 

plantations of Eucalyptus camaldulensis in Santiago del 

Estero, Argentina (Fiorentino and others 1988). In this 

Argentine trapping study, adult beetles were found between 

February and April. 

In the United States, the genus Stenodontes is represented by 

three species of large wood borers that attack live trees 

(Solomon 1995). One species not found in the United States, 

S. spinibarbis, occurs in South America where it has a large 

host range that includes Eucalyptus. In Ecuador, S. spinibarbis is typically associated with diseased and dead trees 

(Gara and Onore 1989). The insect does not appear to have 

economic importance in South America. 

In Brazil, Steirastoma breve has a broad host range including 

cacao and palm but is uncommon in Eucalyptus (José Henrique Pedrosa-Macedo, Federal University of Paraná, Brazil, 

1998, personal communication; Edson Tadeu Iede, EMBRAPA, Brazil, 1998, personal communication). Little 

biological information is available on this insect although it 

is considered an important pest of cacao in the tropics. In 

southern Brazil, S. breve requires 16 months to complete its 

life cycle; further north in the tropical portion of the country, 

there are four generations per year (Edson Tadeu Iede, EMBRAPA, Curitiba, Brazil, 1998, personal communication). 

Further north in Ecuador, S. breve is widely distributed from 

sea level to 1,800 m in elevation and completes its development in 3 to 5 months (Gara and Onore 1989). In Ecuador, 

S. breve has hosts from five genera, but Eucalyptus is not 

among them (Gara and Onore 1989).

Since very little specific information is available about the 

biology of these insects, the evaluation of the following risk 

elements is largely based on characteristics that apply to the 

cerambycid family as a whole. 

Specific information relating to risk elements 

A. Likelihood of introduction 

1. Pest with host–commodity at origin potential: High 

(RU) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: d, e, 

f, g, h) 

The host association of wood borers with Eucalyptus

appears to be a weak one, even though some of these 
47 

insects are fairly common. Interception records from 

1995 to 1998 indicate that there has been only one interception of any of these beetles in U.S. ports. That 

interception was of a Stenodontes sp., associated with 

solid wood packing material of unspecified origin. In 

general, however, cerambycids are among the most 

commonly intercepted insects in association with solid 

wood. The biological requirements of these insects coincide well with commodities such as logs, and if large 

volumes of logs are transported, there is a reasonable 

likelihood of association even if infestation levels are 

low. 

2. Entry potential: High (MC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: b, c, d) 

Although the biology of these South American cerambycids is poorly known, it is likely that they have a life 

cycle that includes a prolonged period in the larval 

stage within the wood that is sufficient to survive 

transport to a new location. 

3. Colonization potential: High (MC) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, c, e) 

Most of these beetles have a broad host range that 

covers numerous genera. Even if Eucalyptus were the 

medium for transport into the United States, there 

could be numerous other potential hosts such as fruit 

trees and assorted other hardwoods closely related to 

hosts in the native range of these wood borers. Within 

the United States, these borers would probably be restricted to the warmer parts of the country, comparable 

with the warmer climates of their native habitats in 

South America. 

4. Spread potential: High (MC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, d, e, g, h) 

A broad host range together with strong flight capabilities and prolonged survival within host material 

would all aid in the spread of some of these wood 

borers. 

B. Consequences of introduction 

5. Economic damage potential: High (RU) (Applicable 

rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, c, d, f) 

Most of these beetles attack recently cut wood and 

would probably not kill trees. Some, such as Steirastoma breve and possibly species of Stenodontes could 

potentially infest live trees, as S. breve occasionally 

does in its native environment and as Stenodontes

does in the United States. Infestations in recently cut 

logs could reduce the value of lumber cut from this 

material. 

6. Environmental damage potential: Low (RU) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: none) 

Based on the predominant host selection habits of 

these beetles (secondary infestation of dead wood), 

the environmental effects would probably not be 

significant. 

7. Social and political considerations: Moderate (RU) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: c) 

The presence of a new wood borer could have 

implications on international trade. 

C. Pest risk potential: High (MU) (Likelihood of introduction = High; Consequences of introduction = High) 

Selected bibliography 

Bentancourt, C.M.; Scatoni, I.B. [n.d.] Catálogo de insectos 

y ácaros de importancia agrícola y forestal en el Uruguay. 

Notas Técnicas No. 10. Montevideo, Uruguay. 

DiIorio, O.R. 1994. Phytophagous insects of Argentina. 

Chapter: Cerambycidae, host plants, parasitoids and 

predators. (unpublished data) 

Duffy, E.A.J. 1960. A monograph of the immature stages of 

neotropical timber beetles (Cerambycidae). London. 

England: Commonwealth Inst. Ent., British Museum of 

Natural History. 327 p. 

Fiorentino, D.C.; Iturre de Toscano, M.C.; Darchuk de 

Durant, G.E. 1988. Inventario de insectos forestales en 

plantaciones de Pinus y Eucalyptus en Santiago del 

Estero. In: Proceedings of the “6to Congreso Forestal 

Argentino”, Santiago del Estero, Argentina: p. 714-718. 

Solomon, J.D. 1995. Guide to insect borers in North American broadleaf trees and shrubs. Agric. Handb. AH–706. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 735 p. 

Reviewers’ comments—“P. 79, bottom of page: Applicable 

risk criteria, add ‘d’.” (Hanks) 

“P. 80, paragraph 2: Applicable risk criteria, add ‘e’ to be 

consistent with #1.” (Hanks) 

“P. 80, paragraph 3: Applicable risk criteria, add ‘g’ to be 

consistent with #1.” (Hanks) 

“As these species generally infest the boles or branches of 

recently cut trees, at least one species is known not to infest 

logs, and the association of these borers with Eucalyptus is 

weak, the assignment of high risk for the pest with host at 

origin and entry potential elements seems unsupported by the 

assessment provided.” (Zadig) 
48 

“With respect to the list of Potential Insects Associated with 

the commodity of Eucalyptus cited for Argentina (Table 8), 

we have the following comments: 

Callideriphus laetus, Eu[ry]merus eburoides,..., Steirastoma 

breve ..., 

From the bibliography consulted there are no references that 

mention these as being present in the country, not have these 

pests been detected in areas where eucalypts are grown in 

Argentina.” (Guille (translated from Spanish) 

“Retrachyderes thoracicus

Borer of fruit trees. Observed in Argentina producing damage only in peach and fig trees.” (Guillen) (translated from 

Spanish) 

“Perhaps you might comment that these roundheaded borers 

might be more restricted to the warmer parts of the U.S.?” 

(Seybold) 

Response to comments—The applicable rating criteria 

relating to difficulty in detection, broad host range, and 

active host-finding capability were added to the appropriate 

elements. 

While it is true that each of these wood borers is weakly 

associated with its Eucalyptus host, the cerambycid family is 

one of the two groups most well represented in port interceptions with solid wood products. The criteria that we use to 

evaluate the risk potential of organisms consistently led to 

ratings of high risk for these insects as a group, due to their 

strong association with freshly cut host material, capacity for 

survival in drying wood, polyphagous nature, etc. Our criteria for likelihood of introduction are such that cerambycids, 

when considered as a group, fit all of the criteria, and most 

individuals within the group fit enough of the criteria to be 

rated as high for each of the four establishment elements. 

The reference that lists the cerambycids mentioned above as 

being associated with eucalypts in Argentina is Duffy (1960). 

A second reference, DiIorio (1994) lists Eurymerus 

eburoides on Eucalytpus saligna in Argentina and was added 

to the literature citations as the draft assessment was revised. 

Duffy (1960) also lists R. thoracicus (then called Trachyderes thoracicus) as being associated with Eucalyptus in 

Argentina. 

A sentence was added to the Colonization Potential section 

to indicate that the borers would probably be more likely to 

colonize the warmer parts of the United States, consistent 

with their native habitats in South America. 
49 

Eucalyptus Longhorned Borer 

Assessor—Andris Eglitis

Scientific names of pest—Phoracantha semipunctata 

(Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

Scientific names of hosts—Chile: Various species of 

Eucalyptus including E. globulus, E. camaldulensis, 

E. gomphocephala, E. viminalis, E. resinifera, E. oleosa 

Argentina: E. grandis, E. saligna, E. camaldulensis, 

E. globulus, E. viminalis

Uruguay: E. grandis, E. globulus

Brazil: E. viminalis 

United States: E. globulus, E. viminalis, E. diversicolor, 

E. grandis, E. nitens, E. saligna

Distribution—In Brazil, the eucalyptus longhorned borer 

occurs in the states of Rio Grande do Sul and São Paulo. In 

Chile, the insect is distributed from Region III (Copiapó) in 

the north to Region IX (Temuco) in the south. 

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pest—The eucalyptus longhorned borer is typically associated with trees under moisture stress. As such, the greatest 

damage occurs in semiarid regions. Trees in other areas are 

also affected during drought periods. These wood borers 

infest recently dead trees, freshly cut logs (Scriven and others 

1986), and are also able to kill weakened trees. Early signs of 

infestation include branch dieback and flagging or sprouting 

from inactive buds along the bole (Solomon 1995). Heavily 

infested trees may die suddenly with leaves discoloring and 

remaining on the tree for a month (Solomon 1995). When 

healthy trees are infested, they may produce a dark brown 

exudate (kino) that stains the bark. 

Wood from infested trees loses some of its mechanical properties and is not suitable for certain uses such as mining 

timbers and flooring (Servicio Agricola y Ganadero 1998). 

Not all species of Eucalyptus have the same level of susceptibility to P. semipunctata. In California, the most susceptible 

species are E. diversicolor, E. globulus, E. grandis, E. nitens, 

E. saligna, and E. viminalis while E. camaldulensis, E. 

citriodora, E. cladocalyx, E. robusta, E. sideroxylon, and 

E. trabutii appear to be more resistant (Hanks and others 

1995). Nonetheless, most species can be infested if they are 

exposed to severe moisture stress or are growing in poor 

soils. In Chile, E. globulus is among the more susceptible 

species and E. camaldulensis is considered susceptible as 

well (Artigas 1994). 

Species grown in Chile that can tolerate dry conditions and 

hence are considered more resistant include E. astringens, 

E. brockwayi, E. campaspe, E. flocktoniae, E. lesouefii, and

E. stoatei. In Chile, there is a strong relationship between the 

regional moisture regime and significance of Phoracantha; 

mortality from the eucalyptus borer is far more important in 

the drier northern regions than in the south where there are 

virtually no dry months. Similarly, entomologists from 

Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay report that P. semipunctata is 

opportunistic in their countries as well, colonizing recently 

dead or moribund trees. 

The life cycle of P. semipunctata is variable, ranging from 

one year in most countries of South America to two to three 

overlapping generations per year in southern California. 

Adults can be found during a long portion of the year 

(August to May in Chile; February to November in California). These beetles are nocturnal, hiding under loose bark 

during the daytime and feeding on the flowers of eucalypts at 

night. Individual females may live for 40 days in the summer 

and up to 180 days in the winter (Solomon 1995) and are 

capable of laying up to 300 eggs. The eggs are laid beneath 

the bark in small groups of 3 to 30 and hatch within 10 to 

14 days. The newly hatched larvae penetrate the bark and 

move into the phloem where they feed until maturity. The 

larval galleries in the cambium are gradually widened to 

three times the head width of the larva and may be a meter or 

more in length (Solomon 1995). Extensive larval feeding 

eventually girdles the tree (Pérez 1998). Larval development 

requires about 70 days in fresh host material and extends to 

about 180 days in dry logs (Solomon 1995). When mature, 

the larvae burrow 6 to 10 cm into the wood and construct 

pupation chambers. The pupal stage lasts about 3 weeks. 

Specific information relating to risk elements 

A. Likelihood of introduction 

1. Pest with host–commodity at origin potential: High 

(RC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, c, d, 

e, f, g, h) 

Although widespread, P. semipunctata does not occur 

with high frequency throughout much of its range. 

Chileans report low incidence of the wood borer 

within some of the moister regions and a low percentage of trees affected even in some of the semiarid regions. Forest insect specialists in Argentina and Uruguay have said that P. semipunctata infested trees are 

readily identified and separated out from uninfested 

ones. In Argentina, the primary species of Eucalyptus

(E. grandis) is routinely debarked before the trees are 

harvested. Since the larvae spend most of their time 

feeding in the phloem and only enter the wood when 

they are mature, debarking reduces the likelihood of 

association of P. semipunctata with the host. (However, late-instar larvae and pupae could still be 

associated with the host in the wood). 

In spite of these considerations, we must give weight 

to the fact that this insect has been successfully 

transported throughout the world and consider this as 
50 

compelling evidence of its introduction potential into 

new environments. 

2. Entry potential: High (VC) (Applicable rating criteria, 

from Chap. 1: a, b, c, d) 

The insect has been introduced into many countries in 

both hemispheres, indicating that it can survive in its 

host even as this material is drying out. Native to 

Australia, the insect has become established throughout the world [New Zealand (1870); South Africa 

(1906); Argentina (1917); Israel (1945); Egypt (1950); 

Brazil (1952); Turkey (1959); Tunisia (1962); Peru 

(1967); Chile (1970); Italy (1971); Algeria (1976); 

Portugal (1980); United States (1984)]. It has also 

been detected in Angola, Bolivia, Cyprus, Spain, Morocco, Mozambique, Lesotho, Uruguay, Zambia (Barria 1994), Ethiopia, Mauritius, and Zimbabwe. 

3. Colonization potential: High (VC) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, c, e, f) 

The eucalyptus longhorned borer has a fairly broad 

range of host species and has shown its adaptability by 

becoming established in many countries around the 

world. 

4. Spread potential: High (VC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, c, d, e, f, g) 

Once established in its new environment, P. semipuctata has spread very rapidly. In particular, this spread 

potential has been demonstrated in Chile and the 

United States. In Chile, the first damaged trees were 

found in 1973 in the northern city of San Felipe, and a 

survey conducted 8 years later found that the insect 

was present throughout the country’s Eucalyptus

plantations (Pérez 1998). In California, the insect 

spread within 5 years from the southern portion of the 

state into the San Francisco Bay area. 

B. Consequences of introduction 

5. Economic damage potential: High (VC) (Applicable 

rating criteria: a, b, c, d, f) 

Considerable effort has been expended in California in 

studying and combating the eucalyptus longhorned 

borer. Many of the hosts grow in areas where moisture 

availability is a problem in the summer, and drought 

effects will increase the susceptibility of these trees. 

Damage to trees has been severe, especially in urban 

areas. 

6. Environmental damage potential: High (VC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: d, e) 

Eucalypts have become valuable for more reasons than 

just their economical value. They have become accepted as a part of the landscape, and their loss is not 

acceptable. Although most chemical controls are impractical, some homeowners and other caretakers of 

the eucalypt resource apply these measures against 

P. semipunctata (for example, fumigation of firewood) and may produce undesirable environmental effects in the process. 

7. Social and Political Considerations: High (VC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, d) 

The U.S. public is very concerned about the apparently increasing rate at which exotic organisms are becoming established in the nation’s forests. The introduction of P. semipunctata into new areas cultivated 

with eucalypts would be viewed as very undesirable 

by many people. 

C. Pest risk potential: High (Likelihood of introduction = 

High; Consequences of introduction = High) 

Selected bibliography 

Artigas, J. 1994. Entomólogía económica: insectos de interés 

agrícola, forestal, médico y veterinario (nativos, introducidos y susceptibles de ser introducidos). Concepción, 

Chile: Ediciones Universidad de Concepción. 

1,126 p. 

Bain, J. 1976. Phoracantha semipunctata (Fabricius) 

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Forest and Timber Insects 

in New Zealand. No. 4. 4 p. 

Barria P., G.; Curkovic S., T.; Gonzalez R., R.H. 1994. El 

taladrador de Eucalipto: Phoracantha semipunctata Fabr. 

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) en Chile. Chile Forestal. 

Documento Técnico. 

Cogollor, G.; Poblete, M. 1987. Evaluación del daño producido por Phoracantha semipunctata Fabr. Insecto 

taladrador en las plantaciones de eucalipto en Chile y 

recomendaciones para el control. Santiago, Chile: 

Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y 

Forestales, Departamento de Silvicultura. 16 p. 

Cogollor, G.; Contreras, J.; Navarro, M. 1989. Un estudio de 

control de Phoracantha semipunctata en plantaciones de 

eucalipto. Documento de Trabajo No. 20. 

FO:DP/CHI/83/017–PNUD–FAO–CONAF. 37 p. 

Dreistadt, S.H. 1994. Pests of landscape trees and shrubs: an 

integrated pest management guide. Agricultural Natural 

Resources Pub. 3359. Oakland CA: University of California. 

Gibson, I.A.S. 1979. Diseases, pests and disorders. Ch. 9. In: 

Food and Agriculture Organization. Eucalypts for planting. United Nations FAO Forestry Series 11: 

215–241. 
51 

Hanks, L.M.; Paine, T.D.; Millar, J.G.; Horn, J.L. 1995. 

Variation among Eucalyptus species in resistance to eucalyptus longhorned borer in Southern California. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 74: 185–194. 

Huerta F., A.; Perez S., C. 1995. Calculo de días-grado para 

emergencia de adultos del taladrador del eucalipto 

(Phoracantha semipunctata Fabr.) (Región Metropolitana). Documento Técnico 7. Corporación Nacional Forestal, Departamento Manejo y Desarrollo Forestal. Informe 

Proyecto. 21 p. 

Jayawickrama K., J.S.; Schlatter V., J.E.; Escobar R., R. 

1993. Eucalypt plantation forestry in Chile. Australian 

Forestry. 56(2): 179–192. 

Paine, T.; Millar, J.; Hanks, L. 1995. Integrated program 

protects trees from eucalyptus longhorned borer. California Agriculture. 49(1): 34–37. 

Pérez S., C. 1998. Situación fitosanitaria de Phoracantha 

semipunctata Fbr. en Chile. Corporación Nacional Forestal, Depto. De Programas y Proyectos, Programa Protección Sanitaria Forestal. Rev. Pap. 13 p. 

Scriven, G.T.; Reeves, E.L.; Luck, R.F. 1986. Beetle from 

Australia threatens eucalyptus. California Agriculture. 

40 (7,8): 4–6. 

Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero. 1998. Revisión de insectos y 

enfermedades asociados al genero Eucalyptus en Chile. 

Departamento Protección Agrícola, Subdepto. Vigilancia 

Fitosanitaria. Office Rep. 43 p. 

Solomon, J.D. 1995. Guide to insect borers in North American broadleaf trees and shrubs. Agric. Handb. AH–706. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 735 p. 

Reviewers’ comments—“The wood borers Phoracantha

semipunctata and P. recurva limit their attacks to species of 

Eucalyptus under moisture stress and are already established 

in California where much of the Eucalyptus is found. The 

threat of these insects to forests or urban landscape outside 

California would be less than for other insect pests that have 

a much wider host range that cover multiple genera (e.g. 

scolytid bark and ambrosia beetles, carpenter worm, etc.). 

Thus, from a national perspective, I would rank the colonization potential, consequences of pest establishment and environmental change potential as moderate, rather than high, for 

these potential pests.” (Billings) 

“Common name is ‘Eucalyptus longhorned borer;’ correct 

throughout.” (Hanks) 

“P. 83, paragraph 2: ‘The newly hatched larvae feed initially 

in the bark. . .’; only penetrate the bark to reach the cambium 

where they restrict their feeding.” (Hanks) 

“Pest with host at origin potential, Applicable risk criteria, 

add ‘h’.” (Hanks) 

“Entry potential, Applicable risk criteria, add ‘d’.” (Hanks) 

“Colonization potential, Applicable risk criteria, add ‘e’.” 

(Hanks) 

“Spread potential, Applicable risk criteria, add ‘a’ and ‘d’.” 

(Hanks) 

“The two species of the genus Phoracantha present in Chile 

are also present and established in the United States; as such, 

it is believed that the probability of dissemination of both 

pests, starting from the populations already established in 

said country [U.S.], should be greater than the eventual 

introduction through infested wood coming from South 

America. It is important to point out that Chile has been 

exporting logs of Eucalyptus for many years with no reports 

of Phoracantha in commercial loads arriving in the country 

of destination.” (Peña Royo) (translated from Spanish) 

“If neither species of Phoracantha is being subjected to 

official control in the United States, as established by the 

International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), then they 

do not qualify as quarantine pests and as such it would not be 

appropriate to establish mitigation measures of phytosanitary 

risk against them, for wood coming from South America.” 

(Peña Royo) (translated from Spanish) 

“It is appropriate to point out as well that in the specific case 

of Chile, during next February there will be an introduction 

one of the principal natural enemies of Phoracantha spp., 

known as Avetianella longoi, with the expectation that the 

populations of Phoracantha will be reduced significantly.” 

(Peña Royo) (translated from Spanish) 

Response to comments—The editorial comments and additions of rating criteria proposed by Dr. Hanks were incorporated into the assessment. 

Even though P. semipunctata may have less dramatic consequences than some other organisms associated with Eucalyptus, we believe the longhorned borer merits a rating of high 

based on the damage it has caused and on the amount of 

resources that have been dedicated to its control and management. Although the insect is widely distributed in California and occurs throughout the distribution of Eucalyptus in 

that state, it is not as strongly associated with other Eucalyptus plantings established in Arizona and Florida. As such, 

P. semipunctata, although widely distributed, is not established throughout the range of its potential hosts. 

At this time, APHIS is in the process of reviewing the control 

programs of individual states to eventually sanction those 

programs as “official control” as defined by the IPPC. Once 

this is done, P. semipunctata and P. recurva will be considered under official control in the state of California. 
52 

Yellow Phoracantha Borer 

Assessor—Andris Eglitis

Scientific names of pests—Phoracantha recurva 

(Newman) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

Scientific names of hosts—Eucalyptus globulus, 

E. grandis, Eucalyptus spp., Angophora, Syncarpia, 

Cupressus lindleyi Klotsch 

Distribution—Native to Australia; recently introduced into 

Chile in 1997 (Santiago) and the United States in 1995 

(California). The distribution within Chile is still limited to 

Metropolitan Park in the capital city of Santiago because of 

an aggressive eradication program that began almost immediately after the insect was detected. In California, the borer 

now occurs in Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, San 

Diego, and Los Angeles Counties. 

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pest—As with P. semipunctata, the yellow phoracantha 

borer is typically associated with trees under moisture stress. 

In California where the two borers occur together, it has been 

observed that both species infest large branches and boles of 

their host trees (Tim Paine, University of CaliforniaRiverside, CA, 2000, personal communication). 

The life cycle of P. recurva, as reported from South Africa, 

involves two partially overlapping generations. Adult beetles 

are present in spring (September to November) and late 

summer and autumn (February to April). The eggs require 

2 weeks to develop. Larvae feed for 2 to 6 months and represent the most common stage found during the winter. The 

pupal stage lasts for 10 days prior to the emergence of the 

new adults. 

In California, P. recurva is supplanting P. semipunctata in 

areas where the two species occur together (Tim Paine, 

University of California-Riverside, CA, 1998, personal 

communication). The primary reason for the competitive 

advantage of P. recurva is the fact that it emerges earlier in 

the spring and is prepared to colonize available host material 

before P. semipunctata has taken flight. In California, 

P. recurva is proving to be more difficult to manage than 

P. semipunctata. Phoracantha recurva does not appear to 

require diapause and thus is active whenever temperatures 

are suitable. As such, the tree management guidelines recommended to minimize the effects of P. semipunctata 

(timing of pruning, etc.) are not as effective for P. recurva

(Tim Paine, University of California-Riverside, CA, 1999, 

personal communication). An additional problem is that the 

egg parasitoid Avetianella longoi, introduced for biological 

control, is less effective against P. recurva than P. semipunctata for eggs more than 12 h old (Tim Paine, University of 

California-Riverside, CA, 1999, personal communication). 

Specific information relating to risk elements 

A. Likelihood of introduction 

1. Pest with host–commodity at origin potential: Low 

(RC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: d, e, f) 

Although three of the rating criteria apply, this element 

is still rated low due to the extremely limited distribution of P. recurva in Chile (Servicio Agricola y 

Ganadero 1998). The yellow phoracantha borer does 

not occur in the production forests of Eucalyptus. As 

such, P. recurva would have a lower likelihood of being associated with export logs than P. semipunctata. 

However, if the eradication efforts in Chile are not 

successful and if P. recurva becomes established outside the Santiago metropolitan area, the risk it poses 

would increase significantly. 

2. Entry potential: High (VC) (Applicable rating criteria, 

from Chap. 1: b, c) 

The yellow phoracantha borer has recently been introduced into several countries in both the northern and 

southern hemispheres, indicating that it can survive in 

its host even as this material is drying out. 

3. Colonization potential: High (VC) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, c, d, e, f) 

The yellow phoracantha borer may not have as broad a 

host range as P. semipunctata but nonetheless has 

shown its adaptability by becoming established in several countries around the world. In South Africa, the 

phoracantha borer has been recorded in noneucalypt 

hosts including gum myrtle (Angophora sp.), turpentine tree (Syncarpia sp.), and Cupressus lindleyi. In 

the southern counties of California, the yellow phoracantha borer has been found in the same eucalypt 

hosts as those infested by P. semipunctata (Tim Paine, 

University of California-Riverside, CA, 1999, personal communication). 

4. Spread potential: High (VC) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, c, d, e, f) 

Once established in its new environment, P. recurva

has spread very rapidly. In particular, this spread potential has been demonstrated in South Africa and in 

the United States. The borer now occurs in five counties in southern California after initially being 

detected in the mid-1990s. 

B. Consequences of introduction 

5. Economic damage potential: High (VC) (Applicable 

rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, c, d, f) 
53 

Considerable effort has been expended in California in 

studying and combating both P. semipunctata and 

P. recurva. Many of the hosts grow in areas where 

moisture availability is a problem in the summer and 

drought effects will increase the susceptibility of these 

trees. Damage to trees has been severe, especially in 

urban areas. Phoracantha recurva may be even more 

difficult to control than P. semipunctata due to its ability to take advantage of warm temperatures and become active earlier and later in the year than the 

eucalyptus borer. 

6. Environmental damage potential: High (VC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: d, e) 

Eucalypts have become valuable for more reasons than 

just their economical value. Eucalypts have become 

accepted as a part of the landscape, and their loss is 

not acceptable. Although most chemical controls are 

impractical, some homeowners and other caretakers of 

the eucalypt resource apply these measures against the 

wood borer (for example, fumigation of firewood) and 

may produce undesirable environmental effects in the 

process. 

7. Social and Political Considerations: High (VC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, c, d) 

The U.S. public is very concerned about the apparently increasing rate at which exotic organisms are becoming established in the nation’s forests. The introduction of these borers into new areas cultivated with 

eucalypts would be viewed as very undesirable by 

many people. 

C. Pest risk potential: Moderate (Likelihood of introduction 

= Low; Consequences of introduction = High) 

Selected bibliography 

California Forest Pest Council. 1997. Forest pest conditions 

in California—1997. 

Dreistadt, S.H. 1994. Pests of landscape trees and shrubs: an 

integrated pest management guide. Agricultural Natural 

Resources Pub. 3359. Oakland CA: University of California. 

Paine, T.; Millar, J.; Hanks, L. 1995. Integrated program 

protects trees from eucalyptus longhorned borer. California Agriculture. 49(1): 34–37. 

Pérez S., C. 1998. Situación fitosanitaria de Phoracantha 

semipunctata Fbr. En Chile. Corporación Nacional 

Forestal, Depto. De Programas y Proyectos, Programa 

Protección Sanitaria Forestal. Rev. Pap. 13 p. 

Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero. 1998. Revisión de insectos y 

enfermedades asociados al género Eucalyptus en Chile. 

Departamento Protección Agrícola, Subdepto. Vigilancia 

Fitosanitaria. Office Rep. 43 p. 

Reviewers’ comments—“The wood borers Phoracantha

semipunctata and P. recurva limit their attacks to species of 

Eucalyptus under moisture stress and are already established 

in California where much of the Eucalyptus is found. The 

threat of these insects to forests or urban landscape outside 

California would be less than for other insect pests that have 

a much wider host range that cover multiple genera (e.g. 

scolytid bark and ambrosia beetles, carpenter worm, etc.). 

Thus, from a national perspective, I would rank the colonization potential, consequences of pest establishment and environmental change potential as moderate, rather than high, for 

these potential pests.” (Billings) 

 “P. 87, top: host ranges includes several other Eucalyptus

species besides two listed.” (Hanks) 

“P. 87, natural history section: Both P. semipunctata and 

P. recurva attack branches and the bole where they co-occur 

in California.” (Hanks) 

“P. 88, paragraph 1: Pest with host at origin potential, change 

rating to ‘Moderate’ and add ‘f’ to Applicable risk criteria.” 

(Hanks) 

“P. 88, paragraph 2: Colonization potential, Applicable risk 

criteria, add ‘e’.” (Hanks) 

“P. 88, paragraph 3: Spread potential rating should be ‘High’ 

and add ‘a’ and ‘d’ to Applicable risk criteria.” (Hanks) 

“P. 89, paragraph 4: Pest risk potential, change rating to 

‘Moderate’.” (Hanks) 

“p. 90: P. recurva has proven to be a very significant problem in California because it emerges earlier and flies longer 

than P. semipunctata. Consequently, the timing period for 

pruning activities when beetles are most active is much narrower than for P. semipunctata. Our experience [in California] also suggests that the host range for the two beetles is 

not different, particularly because they both concentrate on 

stressed trees. It is probably not appropriate to suggest that 

P. recurva has a narrower host range. We also have not 

observed the anecdotal distinction in what parts of the tree 

are colonized in a new environment. Consequently, I think 

P. recurva represents at least as significant a threat as 

P. semipunctata.” (Paine) 

“As indicated in the report of the specialists that visited 

Chile, Phoracantha recurva has a very restricted distribution 

and is the subject of an intensive campaign of control, [reasons] for which we believe the Risk Potential is low for chips 

and wood of Eucalyptus coming from Chile.” (Peña Royo) 

(translated from Spanish) 
54 

Response to comments—The additions of applicable rating 

criteria (suggested by Dr. Hanks) were made to the appropriate elements in the assessment. However, the Pest with Host 

at Origin element was still judged to be low due to the extremely limited distribution of P. recurva in Chile and its 

absence from production areas of Eucalyptus in that country. 

The combination of a low rating for Likelihood of Introduction and a high rating for Consequences of Introduction result 

in a Pest Risk Potential of moderate for P. recurva. 

Other changes were made in the text regarding the host range 

and biology of P. recurva as suggested by Paine and Hanks. 

At this time, APHIS is in the process of reviewing the control 

programs of individual states to eventually sanction those 

programs as “official control” as defined by the IPPC. Once 

this is done, P. semipunctata and P. recurva will be considered under official control in the state of California. 

Phoracantha recurva is not currently distributed throughout 

the range of its potential hosts. 
55 

Subterranean Termites 

Assessor—Dennis Haugen 

Scientific name of pest—Subterranean termites (Isoptera: 

Rhinotermitidae) in the genera Coptotermes [including 

C. havilandi Holmgren and C. testaceus L.] and Heterotermes [including H. tenuis (Hagen) and H. longiceps (Snyder)]. 

These genera have species that can be found in the boles of 

trees, while other subterranean termites (Isoptera: Termitidae) are found below ground level (Berti Filho 1993). 

Scientific names of hosts—Most hardwoods and softwoods 

can be infested. All species of Eucalyptus are probably susceptible. 

Distribution—Coptotermes and Heterotermes are pantropical genera. Coptotermes havilandi is native to Southeast 

Asia. It is well established in Brazil and very recently established in Florida (Su and others 1997). Coptotermes testaceus occurs in northern South America, including the Brazilian states of Amazonas and Pará. Heterotermes tenuis is 

endemic to South America, and it is found in the Brazilian 

states from Rio de Janeiro to Pará (Berti Filho 1993). Also, 

subterranean termites have been documented on eucalyptus

in Colombia (Madrigal 1989a). 

Summary of natural history and biology of the pest—

Subterranean termites are the most destructive and economically important insect pests of wood products. The costs of 

control have been estimated from US$2 billion to 

US$3.5 billion per year in the United States (billion = ×109

) 

(Beal and others 1989, Potter 1997). They are found 

throughout the tropical and temperate regions of the world, 

but they are more prevalent in tropical and subtropical areas. 

In the United States, the highest hazard areas are in the 

southeastern states and California. 

All species of Coptotermes and Heterotermes are subterranean termites, which means that they must have access to 

moisture. The moisture source is usually maintained by a 

connection with the soil. However, these termites can survive 

long-distance transportation in moist wood. Coptotermes

species generally occur in tropical or subtropical areas. 

Coptotermes havilandi has been introduced into new localities and has caused extensive damage to buildings. This 

species can feed on live trees, causing damage to the root 

system. Heterotermes species feed on wood in contact with 

the soil but they can bridge gaps with foraging tubes to reach 

wood above ground level. In Brazilian eucalypt plantations, 

termite nests are found in the heartwood within the first 

meter of the tree bole (Jose C. Zanuncio, Federal University 

of Viçosa, Brazil, 1998, personal communication). 

Termites are social insects and live in colonies. Each colony 

has a highly organized caste system, which includes workers, 

soldiers, and reproductives. New colonies are initiated by 

alate reproductives from parent colonies at a particular time 

of the year. This flight period may be as brief as a few days 

to a few weeks. In general, the reproductives are weak fliers, 

and the flight is short in distance and duration. After alighting, the wings are shed, and a suitable site is sought for colony initiation. The founding reproductives (king and queen) 

may live for many years. It takes several years for the colony 

to mature and produce alate reproductives (Watson and Gay 

1991). 

Specific information relating to risk elements

A. Likelihood of introduction 

1. Pest with host–commodity at origin potential: 

Moderate (RC) (Applicable rating criteria, from 

Chap. 1: c, e, g, h) 

These species of subterranean termites can be found in 

eucalypt plantations in tropical and subtropical areas 

of South America. However, the infestation rate is 

very low in vigorously growing plantations. Attacks 

are usually confined to dead and dying trees (Genesio 

Ribeiro, Federal University of Viçosa, Brazil, 1998, 

personal communication). When trees are harvested, 

inspection should reveal any evidence of a termite 

colony in the butt ends of the logs. 

2. Entry potential: High (MC) (Applicable rating criteria, 

from Chap. 1: b, c) 

Subterranean termites could survive the transit from 

South America to the United States, especially with 

rapid transit after harvesting. However, eucalypt logs 

dry out while on log decks, which would lower the 

survivability of a colony. Also, a colony would be 

very evident during inspection of the cut surface of a 

butt log. Coptotermes formosanus Shiraki has been introduced into the United States from Asia, and was 

found established in the southeastern states during the 

1960s and later in southern California (Potter 1997). 

3. Colonization potential: High (MC) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, c, d) 

Colonization in the United States would depend 

greatly upon climate and food resources at the destinations of the imported logs. The highest risk would be 

in the southeastern states, due to the warm moist climate in that area. Suitable moist wood for colony establishment would probably be abundant at most destinations. The critical condition for colonization is the 

maturity of the colony. So, not only must the colony 

survive transit, but it must have matured to a stage 

when reproductives are being produced. Next, favorable conditions must occur to trigger and synchronize 

the flight period among the colonies. Coptotermes 

havilandi, an exotic in South America and Florida, has 

demonstrated the ability to establish and adapt to new 

environments. 
56 

4. Spread potential: High (VC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: b, c, d, e, f, g) 

Alate reproductives are generally weak fliers, so new 

colonies are likely to be within a few hundred meters 

of the founding colonies. A new colony takes years to 

grow and mature before it can produce its own reproductives. Thus, natural spread of an established termite population would be very slow. However, once 

established in other commodities, the colonies would 

be less obvious and could be further distributed by 

human transportation. 

B. Consequences of introduction 

5. Economic damage potential: Moderate (RU) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, c) 

Subterranean termites are serious pests of untreated 

wood in use. The greatest economic impact is to 

wooden houses and other structures. Considerable 

damage may occur to wooden poles and posts. However, the addition of another species of subterranean 

termite to the fauna of the United States may or may 

not increase the economic impact. Damage would depend on the aggressiveness of the new species and 

how well it can adapt to a new niche. The Formosan 

subterranean termite, C. formosanus, is a very aggressive termite that has become established in the United 

States. It is the major termite pest where it has become 

established, often displacing the native species of subterranean termites (Potter 1997). Control methods for 

infestations of subterranean termites can be expensive, 

so any expansion of a niche would have a significant 

economic impact. Preventative measures (for example, 

insecticidical barriers) currently used for subterranean 

termites also would be effective for any of these 

potential new species. 

6. Environmental damage potential: Moderate (MC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: e) 

Though these termites infest eucalypt trees, they usually only attack dead and dying trees. They are 

unlikely to cause significant mortality to tree species 

in the United States. Potentially, these termites could 

infest urban trees in poor vigor, causing a more rapid 

decline and greater risk of tree failure. Competition 

and displacement of native termite species is also a 

possibility. Introduction of a new termite species may 

increase the use of insecticides for termite control and 

potentially have some environmental impacts. 

7. Social and political considerations: Moderate (MC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a) 

Introduction and establishment of an exotic species of 

termite could cause concerns among homeowners. 

Use of insecticides for termite control would probably 

increase. Also potential regulatory actions could disrupt movement and increase the cost of commercial 

wood products, if quarantines were implemented. 

C. Pest risk potential: Moderate (Likelihood of introduction 

= Moderate, Consequences of introduction = Moderate) 

Selected bibliography 

Beal, R.H.; Mauldin, J.K.; Jones, S.C. 1989. Subterranean 

termites—Their prevention and control in buildings. 

Home and Garden Bull. 64 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 36 p. 

Berti Filho, E., ed. 1993. Cupins ou Térmitas. Manual de 

Pragas em Florestas Vol. 3. IPEF–SIF (Instituto de Pesquisas e Estudos Florestais—Sociedade de Investigações 

Florestais). 56 p. 

Madrigal C., A. 1989a. Reconocimiento de insectos dañinos 

en plantaciones forestales de la costa Atlantica Colombiana. Socolen, Bogotá, Colombia: Miscelanea Sociedad 

Colombiana de Entomología, No. 12. 24 p. 

Potter, M.F. 1997. Termites, Ch. 6. In: Mallis handbook of 

pest control. Cleveland, OH: Mallis Handbook and 

Training Company: 233–333. 

Su, N.; Scheffrahn, R.H.; Weissling, T. 1997. A new introduction of a subterranean termite, Coptotermes havilandi 

Holmgren (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae), in Miami, Florida. 

Florida Entomologist. 80: 408–411. 

Watson, J.A.L.; Gay, F.J. 1991. Isoptera. In: CSIRO, Division of Entomology. The insects of Australia, 2nd ed. 

Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press. 

330–347. 

Reviewers’ comments—“It is interesting to note that in this 

individual pest risk assessment the consequences of establishment is considered moderate, whereas in the draft risk 

assessment for solid wood packing materials the consequences of establishment is rated high. The species under 

consideration are largely the same; the difference appears to 

be in the estimation of the economic damage potential.” 

(Zadig) 

Response to comments—The economic damage potential 

for this assessment was rated moderate, while the economic 

damage potential for the draft risk assessment for solid wood 

packing material was rated high. The assessment for solid 

wood packing material was based on more genera and species of subterranean termites than this assessment. The potential economic damage would vary depending upon which 

species actually became established and its adaptability to a 

new environment. 
57 

Pathogens 

Foliar Diseases 

Assessor—John Kliejunas

Numerous fungi have been described on foliage of Eucalyptus spp. in South America and throughout the world. In this 

section, the name of the fungus and its hosts, the distribution, 

and a summary of natural history and basic biology for five 

foliar diseases are described. Aulographina, Cryptosporiopsis, Cylindrocladium, Phaeophleospora (Kirramyces), and Mycosphaerella are used as examples. Foliar diseases of Eucalyptus spp. are then discussed as a group for 

specific information relating to risk elements. 

Aulographina leaf spot 

Scientific name of pest—Aulographina eucalypti (Cooke & 

Massee) v.Arx & Muller (Dothideales, Dothideaceae)

Scientific names of host—many Eucalyptus spp.

Distribution—Australia, Brazil, Chile, Great Britain, 

Madagascar, New Zealand, South Africa, and Hawaii.

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pest—Aulographina eucalypti is a common leaf pathogen in 

natural forests and plantations, causing moderate to severe 

premature defoliation. In addition to characteristic, roughly 

circular, corky leaf spots, symptoms also develop on petioles, 

twigs, and sometimes on fruits and bark. Rain and low temperatures (15°C to 20°C) predispose trees to infection. 

Splashing rain and blowing wind are the major routes for 

fungal spore dispersal. Infection occurs primarily in the 

lower crown. 

Cryptosporiopsis leaf spot 

Scientific name of pest—Cryptosporiopsis eucalypti

Sankaran & Sutton (Coelomycetes)

Scientific names of hosts—Numerous species, including 

E. camaldulensis, E. camphora, E. cinerea, E. cypellocarpa, 

E. globulus, E. grandis, E. microcorys, E. nicholii, E. nitens, 

E. nova-anglicae, E. robusta, E. tereticornis, and 

E. viminalis

Distribution—On Eucalyptus spp. in Australia, Brazil, 

India, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, and Hawaii.

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pest—The pathogen infects leaves and occasionally small 

twigs. Infection can result in severe defoliation and dieback 

of young Eucalyptus shoots. Infection occurs through stomata or small mechanical wounds. Rain and wind are the 

major factors involved in localized dissemination of the 

fungus. 

Cylindrocladium leaf spot and blight 

Scientific name of pest, hosts, and distribution—

Cylindrocladium clavatum Hodges & May [teleomorph 

Calonectria clavata El-Gholl, Alfieri & Barnard]; E. grandis

(leaf spot, blight; seedling blight, damping off), E. saligna

(root rot), E. tereticornis (leaf spot, blight; seedling blight), 

Eucalyptus sp. (seedling decay); Brazil, India, South Africa; 

numerous additional hosts in the genera Araucaria, Callistemon, and Rhododendron in Florida and Hawaii (Moniliales, Moniliaceae). 

Cylindrocladium ilicicola (Hawley) Boedijn & Reitsma 

[teleomorph Calonectria pyrochroa (Desm.) Sacc.]. Worldwide in tropical regions; on E. alba, E. globulus, E. grandis, 

E. robusta, E. saligna, E. tereticornis, and E. viminalis in 

Brazil; worldwide on species of Araucaria, Cissus, and 

Vaccinium in tropical regions (Moniliales, Moniliaceae). 

Cylindrocladium ovatum El-Gholl, Alfenas, Crous & T.S. 

Schub. [teleomorph Calonectria ovata El-Gholl, Alfenas, 

Crous & T.S. Schub.]; Brazil, Florida; E. grandis (leaf, 

stem), E. tereticornis (leaf, stem), E. torelliana (stem), 

E. urophylla (leaf spot) (Moniliales, Moniliaceae). 

Cylindrocladium quinqueseptatum Boedijn & Reitsma 

(teleomorph Calonectria quinqueseptatum Figueiredo & 

Namekata); on Eucalyptus spp. in Brazil (Moniliales, 

Moniliaceae). 

Cylindrocladium scoparium Morgan [syn. Cylindrocladium 

scoparium var. brasiliense Bat. & Cif.] (teleomorph Calonectria morganii Crous, Alfenas & M.J. Wingfield); on 

Eucalyptus spp. in Argentina, Brazil, and Florida; 

cosmopolitan on Abies, Pinus, and numerous genera of 

hardwoods (Moniliales, Moniliaceae). 

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pest—Various species of Cylindrocladium (teleomorph = 

Calonectria) cause leaf spots and blight to various degrees 

on Eucalyptus spp. throughout the world. Leaf spots range 

from small, discrete lesions to irregular necrotic areas. 

Young stems can be infected and girdled, resulting in shoot 

blight. These species of Cylindrocladium occur in soil and 

litter as mycelia, hyphae, chlamydospores, and microsclerotia. Foliage and branches are contaminated with vegetative 

structures and spores by splashed rain, insects, and other 

microfauna. Frequent precipitation and temperatures ranging 

between 23°C and 30°C provide favorable conditions for 

infection. 

Phaeophleospora leaf spot 

Scientific name of pest—The name Phaeophleospora has 

recently been resurrected for Kirramyces (Crous and others 

1997), a genus established for a group of taxa centered on the 

fungus Phaeoseptoria eucalypti Hansford (Walker and others 

1992) (Coelomycetes). 
58 

Mycosphaerella suttoniae Crous & M.J. Wingf. [anamorph 

Phaeophleospora epicoccoides (Cooke & Massee) Crous, 

F.A. Ferreira & B. Sutton (syn. Kirramyces epicoccoides

(Cooke & Massee) Walker, Sutton & Pascoe)]; 

Phaeophleospora eucalypti (Cooke & Massee) Crous, F.A. 

Ferreira & B. Sutton (syn. Kirramyces eucalypti (Cooke & 

Massee) J. Walker, B. Sutton & Pascoe); 

Phaeophleospora destructans (M.J. Wingf. & Crous) Crous, 

F.A. Ferreira & B. Sutton (syn. Kirramyces destructans

Wingfield and Crous);

Phaeophleospora lilianiae (J. Walker, B. Sutton, & Pascoe) 

Crous, F.A. Ferreira & B. Sutton (syn. Kirramyces lilianiae 

J. Walker, B. Sutton & Pascoe)

Scientific names of hosts—E. bicostata, E. camaldulensis, 

E. globulus, E. grandis, E. tereticornis, Eucalyptus spp.

Distribution—Phaeophleospora epicoccoides (syn. Kirramyces epicoccoides) is found in Argentina, Australia, Bhutan, Brazil, Ethiopia, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Italy, 

Madagascar, Malawi, Myanmar, New Zealand, Philippines, 

South Africa, Taiwan, Tanzania, Zambia, and in the state of 

Hawaii; P. lilianiae (syn. K. lilianiae) in Australia. Phaeophleospora eucalypti (syn. K. eucalypti) is found in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, India, Italy, New Zealand, Paraguay, 

Peru, Taiwan, and Zaire. Phaeophleospora destructans (syn. 

K. destructans) is found in Indonesia.

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pests—These pathogens are capable of causing severe premature defoliation, which affects growth and vigor of seedlings. Infection results in characteristic purple to brownishpurple amphigenous spots that are angular and marked by 

veins. Infection gradually progresses upward in the crown. 

Late in the season, spots occur on younger leaves and all 

mature leaves drop. Dispersal is by airborne conidia. Warm 

weather and heavy dew favor infection. 

Mycosphaerella leaf spot 

Scientific name of pest—Numerous species of Mycosphaerella have been described on Eucalyptus foliage; Crous 

(1998) covers 57 species in a recent monograph. Mycosphaerella molleriana (Thum.) Lindau. and M. cryptica (Cooke) 

Hansf. are the most common and damaging. Mycosphaerella 

cryptica (Cooke) Hansf. occurs in Chile. Mycosphaerella

africana Crous & M.J. Wingf., M. colombiensis Crous & 

M.J. Wingf., M. flexuosa Crous & M.J. Wingf., and M. 

longibasalis Crous & M.J. Wingf. have been reported in 

Colombia; Mycosphaerella parkii Crous, M.J. Wingf., F.A. 

Ferreira & A. Alfenas and M. suberosa Crous, F.A. Ferreira, 

A. Alfenas, & M.J.Wingf. have been reported in Brazil and 

Colombia; and M. walkeri R.F. Park & Keane has been 

described in Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. 

(Dothidiales, Dothidiaceae)

Scientific names of hosts—Eucalyptus spp.

Distribution—The fungal genus is worldwide wherever 

Eucalyptus is grown, common in native eucalypt forests as 

well as in Eucalyptus plantations.

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pest—Pathogenicity of the numerous species in the heterogeneous genus Mycosphaerella ranges from minor saprophytes to extremely damaging pathogens. They may cause 

loss of foliage or leaf spots, and reduced growth. Disease 

symptoms vary greatly between fungal species and host. 

Infection of leaves results in necrotic spots or patches and 

presence of crinkled and distorted foliage. Occurrence is 

most severe in summer rainfall areas. 

Specific information relating to risk elements 

A. Likelihood of introduction 

1. Pest with host–commodity at origin potential: Moderate (RC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: d, 

e, g)

Although most of these fungi are restricted to leaf tissue, some do occur in young shoots and twigs. These 

leaf fungi are rarely damaging in mature plantations 

(A.C. Alfenas, Federal University of Viçosa, Brazil, 

1998, personal communication; C.G. Auer, EMBRAPA, Curitiba, Brazil, 1998, personal communication; F.A. Ferreira, Federal University of Viçosa, Brazil, 1998, personal communication). However, if 

present, they may survive for extended time periods. 

2. Entry potential: High (VC) (Applicable rating criteria, 

from Chap. 1: b, d) 

These leaf fungi could survive transit to the United 

States in infected foliage remaining on any shoots 

transported with logs or in leaves lodged in bark crevices. Because some of these fungi survive in soil, 

propagules may also be transported in any soil adhering to the logs. The spores of these leaf pathogens are 

microscopic and would be undetectable. 

3. Colonization potential: High (RC) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, c, f)

These fungi have spores that are both waterborne and 

windborne and could be carried for great distances. 

Colonization would depend on the presence of suitable hosts growing near ports of entry. Favorable environmental conditions, including moisture and temperature, would need to be present for infection and 

colonization to occur. 
59 

4. Spread potential: Moderate (RC) (applicable risk 

criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, c)

Most leaf pathogens sporulate prolifically and are easily dispersed by wind or water. However, subsequent 

colonization would depend on favorable environmental conditions and the presence of susceptible 

hosts. 

B. Consequences of introduction 

5. Economic damage potential: Moderate (RC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, c) 

Some species of Cylindrocladium and Mycosphaerella 

are present in the United States. Some species in other 

areas of the world have been damaging in young plantations. Infection of Eucalyptus spp. used in the foliage industry may result in a decrease in value of the 

affected host and increased costs due to use of pesticides to control undesirable leaf spotting. 

6. Environmental damage potential: Moderate (RC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: e) 

Establishment of these leaf pathogens would have little direct effect on biodiversity or on the ecosystem as 

a whole. However, increased use of pesticides in the 

foliar industry may have the potential to adversely affect the environment. 

7. Social and political considerations: Low (MC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: none) 

If Eucalyptus leaf diseases were to successfully establish in new locations as a result of log importation, 

perceived damage potential would be low. Because 

numerous leaf fungi are already present on Eucalyptus

spp. in the United States, social and political impact 

would be minimal. 

C. Pest risk potential: Moderate (Likelihood of introduction 

= Moderate; Consequences of introduction = Moderate)

Selected bibliography 

Alfenas, A.C.; Ferreira, F.A. 1979. A mancha das folhas de 

eucalipto no Brasil causada por três espécies de Cylindrocladium. Uma revisão da descrição da doença. 

Rev. Arvore 3: 47–56. 

Ciesla, W.M.; Diekmann, M.; Putter, C.A.J. 1996. 

FAO/IPGRI technical guidelines for the safe movement 

of germplasm. No. 17. Eucalyptus spp. Rome, Italy: 

United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

Rome/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. 

66 p. 

Crous, P.W. 1998. Mycosphaerella spp. and their anamorphs 

associated with leaf spot diseases of Eucalyptus. 

Mycologia Memoir 21. St. Paul, MN: The Mycological 

Society of America. APS Press. 170 p. 

Crous, P.W.; Wingfield, M.J. 1994. A monograph of 

Cylindrocladium, including anamorphs of Calonectria. 

Mycotaxon. 51: 341–453. 

Crous, P.W.; Knox–Davies, P.S.; Wingfield, M.J. 1989. A 

summary of fungal leaf pathogens of Eucalyptus and the 

diseases they cause in South Africa. South African 

Forestry Journal. 159: 9–16. 

Crous, P.W.; Ferreira, F.A.; Alfenas, A.; Wingfield, M.J. 

1993a. Mycosphaerella suberosa associated with corky 

leaf spots on Eucalyptus in Brazil. Mycologia. 

85: 705–710. 

Crous, P.W.; Wingfield, M.J.; Ferreira, F.A.; Alfenas, A. 

1993b. Mycosphaerella parkii and Phyllosticta eucalyptorum, two new species from Eucalyptus leaves in Brazil. 

Mycological Research. 97: 582–584. 

Crous, P.W.; Ferreira, F.A.; Sutton, B. 1997a. A comparison 

of the fungal genera Phaeophleospora and Kirramyces

(Coelomycetes). South African Journal of Botany. 

 63: 111–115. 

Ferreira, F.A. 1989. Patologia florestal: principais doenças 

florestais no Brasil. Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil: Sociedade de Investigações Florestais. 570 p. 

Park, R.F.; Keane, P.J. 1982. Leaf diseases of Eucalyptus

associated with Mycosphaerella species. Transactions of 

the British Mycological Society. 79: 101–115. 

Sankaran, K.V.; Sutton, B.C.; Minter, D.W. 1995a. A checklist of fungi recorded on Eucalyptus. International Mycological Institute, Mycological Papers 170. Eynsham, UK: 

Information Press. 376 p. 

Sankaran, K.V.; Sutton, B.C.; Balasundaran, M. 1995b. 

Cryptosporiopsis eucalypti sp. nov., causing leaf spots of 

eucalypts in Australia, India and USA. Mycological 

Research. 99: 827–830. 

Walker, J.; Sutton, B.C.; Pascoe, I.G. 1992. Phaeoseptoria 

eucalypti and similar fungi on Eucalyptus, with description of Kirramyces gen. nov. (Coelomycetes). 

Mycological Research. 96: 911–924. 

Wall, E.; Kean, P.J. 1984. Leaf spot of eucalyptus caused by 

Aulographina eucalypti. Transactions British 

Mycological Society. 82: 257–273. 
60 

Wingfield, M.J.; Crous, P.W.; Peredo, H.L. 1995. A preliminary, annotated list of foliar pathogens of Eucalyptus spp. 

in Chile. South African Forestry Journal. 173: 53–57. 

Reviewers’ comments—“Probability of pest establishment: 

I have trouble lumping all these groups of pathogens together 

since they vary so much in part of the hosts affected, and in 

factors influencing their spread and modes of infection.” 

(Hodges) 

“I would agree with most of this assessment but I am worried 

that these pathogens may move to other hardwood species in 

NA. This was not addressed as I can see.”(Jacobi) 

“Foliar Diseases and Eucalyptus rust. The pest with host at 

origin and entry potential elements do not seem to warrant a 

moderate and high rating respectively in these two situations. 

Here it would again be helpful to know the standard harvesting practices to get an idea of the likelihood that leaf and 

twig material accompanying log shipments as contaminants. 

For eucalyptus rust, it is worth noting that the assessor noted 

that the rating criteria did not include the environmental 

requirements for infection and colonization.” (Zadig) 

Response to comments—Although this risk assessment 

discusses 14 species of leaf-infecting fungi as a group, there 

is little variation in part of the host affected or in factors 

influencing their spread and mode of infection. Cylindrocladium spp. differ in causing shoot blight of young stems, but 

they were included here because most species also infect 

leaves. All leaf pathogens evaluated for risk here have similar 

modes of spread (rain-splashed and wind-blown spores) and 

have similar requirements for infection (relatively warm, 

moist microenvironment). 

Species of Cylindrocladium have a wide host range while 

other leaf pathogens included here are generally restricted to 

Eucalyptus spp. Additional hosts for species of Cylindrocladium were added to the text. 

The moderate rating for pest with host–commodity at origin 

potential is based on the association of the pest with the host. 

Risk is assigned without regard to available mitigation measures or harvesting practice; thus, the presence of bark, which 

could harbor leaf or twig material infested with these pathogens, is assumed. The high entry potential rating is based on 

the ability of these fungi to survive on the host during transit 

and the difficulty of detection. Rating criteria for entry potential do not consider the likelihood of association of the pest 

with the host. 
61 

Eucalyptus Rust 

Assessor—John Kliejunas 

Scientific name of pest—Puccinia psidii Winter (Uredinales, Pucciniaceae)

Scientific names of hosts—Eucalyptus spp.; other hosts, all 

in the Myrtaceae, include Callistemon speciosus (Sims) DC, 

Eugenia brasilensis Lam., E. jambolana Lam, E. malaccensis L. (ataheite apple), E. uniflora L. (Surinam cherry), E. 

uvalha Camb., Marlierea edulis Niedz., Melaleuca leucodendron (L.) L., Myrcia jaboticaba Berg, Myrciaria sp., 

Pimenta acris Kostel. (bay rum), P. dioica (L.) Merr. (allspice), P. officialis Lindl. (pimento), Psidium araca Raddi,

P. guajava L. (guava), P. pomiferum L., and Syzygium jambos (L.) L. (rose apple).

Distribution—On Eucalyptus spp. in Argentina (A.C. 

Alfenas, Federal University of Viçosa, Brazil, 1998, personal 

communication) and Brazil (Ferreira 1989). Reports of the 

rust on E. nitens in South Africa (Knipscher and Crous 1990) 

and on E. camaldulensis in Taiwan (Wang 1992) have not 

been confirmed as P. psidii. Puccinia psidii has been reported on Callistemon speciosus, Eugenia sp., Marlierea 

edulis, Melaleuca leucodendra, Myrciaria sp., and Myrciaria 

jaboticaba in Brazil (Puttemans 1930, Thurston 1940); 

Eugenia spp. in Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto 

Rico (Spaulding 1961); Pimenta dioica and P. racemosa in 

Jamaica (MacLachlan 1936); Syzygium jambos in Columbia 

(Kern and Chardon 1927); and Pimenta dioica (Marlatt and 

Kimbrough 1979) and Melaleuca quinquenervia (Rayachhetry and Elliott 1997) in Florida. A complete host distribution with citations is given in Coutinho and others (1998).

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pest—The autoecious, macrocyclic, rust, first described by 

Winter (1884) on Psidium pomiferum in Brazil can be severely limiting to the growth of highly susceptible species 

and provenances of Eucalyptus in Brazil. Eucalypts less than 

2 years of age are most susceptible. Aeciospores are unknown in nature and have been produced only once in the 

laboratory. Eucalypts 4 years and older are rarely infected 

(T. Krügner, University of São Paulo, Piracicaba, Brazil, 

1998, personal communication). Urediniospores penetrate 

susceptible tissues directly. Presence of free water for more 

than 3 h and temperatures of 18°C to 23°C are favorable for 

urediniospore germination. First symptoms appear 2 to 4 

days after infection. Sporulation starts 2 to 5 days later, with 

a peak 10 days after infection. Three weeks later, dried pustules and necrosis are observed on the affected organs. 

Symptoms include golden yellow uredial pustules on 

branches and terminal shoots as well as on young sprouts or 

leaves. Severity of infection varies with susceptibility of the 

host and weather conditions. Most spread is by urediospores, 

and to a much lesser degree, by sporidia. Spores are spread 

by wind, insects, and splashed rain (Ferreira 1989). Because 

P. psidii is autoecious, no alternate host is involved in the 

disease cycle. 

The rust rarely kills its host. Plants recover by producing new 

growth that may become infected under favorable environmental conditions. Stunting may result from continued infection. 

Eucalyptus spp. vary in their susceptibility to P. psidii

(Dianese and others 1984, 1986). From most to least susceptible are E. cloeziana, E. phaeotricha, E. grandis, E. citriodora, E. camaldulensis, E. tereticornis, E. urophylla, E. 

maculata, E. paniculata, E. punctata, E. pyrocarpa, E. microcorys, E. pellita, and E. saligna. The disease is controlled 

in Brazil by selecting and planting resistant clones of Eucalyptus. 

Evidence of races of P. psidii exists. Cross inoculations 

among hosts indicate considerable physiological variability 

within the species (Ferreira 1989). 

Specific information relating to risk elements 

A. Likelihood of introduction 

1. Pest with host–commodity at origin potential: 

Moderate (VC) (Applicable rating criteria, from 

Chap. 1: d, e)

The rust pathogen is rarely seen and is not damaging 

in Eucalyptus plantations older than 4 years 

(T. Krügner, University of São Paulo, Piracicaba, 

Brazil, 1998, personal communication). That, along 

with the fact that P. psidii infects only leaves and occasionally petioles (J.C. Dianese, Federal University 

of Brasilia, Brazil, 1998, personal communication) 

makes it unlikely that inoculum of the pathogen would 

be present on harvested logs. 

2. Entry potential: High (VC) (Applicable rating criteria, 

from Chap. 1: b, d)

Spores of P. psidii could survive in transit, in bark 

crevices, or on attached leaf tissues. The microscopic 

spores would be undetectable. 

3. Colonization potential: Moderate (RC) (Applicable 

rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, d)

Even though P. psidii has successfully established in 

locations outside its native distribution, the environmental requirements needed by the pathogen for infection to occur would limit colonization potential. Inoculum would have to reach susceptible species of 

Myrtaceae, and favorable environmental conditions 

(free water; temperatures between 18°C and 23°C) 

would have to occur for infection and colonization to 

take place. Therefore, the colonization potential is 

rated as moderate. The rust has demonstrated ability to 

utilize new hosts within the Myrtaceae. 
62 

4. Spread potential: Moderate (RC) (Applicable risk 

criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, c)

If infection did occur, the limited distribution of 

Myrtaceae hosts in the continental United States 

would limit spread of the disease. However, the occurrence of numerous Myrtaceae in Hawaii, the rust’s 

known ability for natural spread, and its high reproductive potential increases spread potential to moderate. 

B. Consequences of introduction 

5. Economic damage potential: Moderate (VC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: c, e)

The current distribution of the disease in the United 

States is limited to southern Florida on two species of 

Pimenta (species of allspice grown as ornamentals).

The rust fungus has demonstrated the ability to develop races or strains. The pathogen has been damaging on non-Eucalyptus hosts, for example, on Pimenta 

dioica in Jamacia and Melaleuca quinquenervia in 

Florida. Costs may be incurred to control the disease 

if it became established on an economically significant 

host or on Eucalyptus species used in the foliar 

industry. 

6. Environmental damage potential: High (RC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: e, d, f)

Species of Myrtaceae have limited distribution in the 

continental United States but are common, both as endemic and as introduced species, in the state of Hawaii. Establishment of the rust could have an effect on 

the biodiversity of Hawaiian plants or on the ecosystem as a whole. The use of systemic, protectant fungicides to control the disease in the Eucalyptus foliar industry may occur and could result in increased risk of 

environmental damage. Races of the pathogen that 

differ in pathogenicity exist. 

7. Social and political considerations: Moderate (MC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: c)

Economic or environmental damage following successful establishment of the disease in new locations, 

or on new hosts, as a result of log importation would 

have a moderate social and political impact. Presence 

of the rust in the United States in areas other than its 

present distribution may affect export of the host(s) to 

countries where the rust is not yet present; Australia 

for example. 

C. Pest risk potential: Moderate (Likelihood of introduction 

= Moderate; Consequences of introduction = Moderate) 

Selected bibliography 

Ciesla, W.M.; Diekmann, M.; Putter, C.A.J. 1996. 

FAO/IPGRI technical guidelines for the safe movement 

of germplasm. No. 17. Eucalyptus spp. Rome, Italy: 

United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

Rome/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. 

66 p. 

Coutinho, T.A.; Wingfield, M.J.; Alfenas, A.C.; Crous, P.W. 

1998. Eucalyptus rust: a disease with the potential for serious international implications. Plant Disease. 

82: 819–825. 

Dianese, J.C.; Moraes, T.S. de; Silva, A.R. 1984. Response 

of Eucalyptus species to field infection by Puccinia 

psidii. Plant Disease. 68: 314–316. 

Dianese, J.C.; Moraes, T.S. de; Silva, A.R. 1986. Screening 

Eucalyptus species for rust resistance in Bahia, Brazil. 

Tropical Pest Management. 32: 292–295. 

Ferreira, F.A. 1983. Ferrugem do eucalipto. Revista Árvore. 

7: 91–109. 

Ferreira, F.A. 1989. Patologia florestal: principais doenças 

florestais no Brasil. Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil: Sociedade de Investigatções Florestais. 570 p. 

Kern, F.D.; Chardon, C.E. 1927. Notes on some rusts of 

Colombia. Mycologia. 19: 268–276. 

Knipscheer, N.; Crous, P. 1990. First record of a rust disease 

on Eucalyptus. Forestry News. 2/90: 22–23. 

Laundon, G.F.; Waterston, J.M. 1965. Puccinia psidii. CMI 

Descriptions of Pathogenic Fungi and Bacteria 56. Surrey, England: Commonwealth Mycological Institute. 1 p. 

MacLachlan, J.D. 1936. The pimento rust disease. Journal 

Jamaica Agricultural Society. 40: 277–281. 

Marlatt, R.B.; Kimbrough, J.W. 1979. Puccinia psidii on 

Pimenta dioica in south Florida. Plant Disease Reporter. 

63: 510–512. 

Puttemans, A. 1930. Uma ferrugem nova em planta australiana cultivada no Brasil. Bol. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro. 

6: 312–314. 

Rayachhetry, M.B.; Elliott, M.L. 1997. Natural epiphytotic 

of the rust Puccinia psidii on Melaleuca quinquenervia in 

Florida. Plant Disease. 81: 831. 

Spaulding, P. 1961. Foreign diseases of forest trees of the 

world: an annotated list. Agric. Handb. 197. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

361 p. 
63 

Thurston, H.W., Jr. 1940. The rusts of Minas Geraes (sic), 

Brazil, based on collections by A.S. Müller. Mycologia. 

32: 290–309. 

Wang, W.–Y. 1992. Survey of Eucalyptus diseases in 

Taiwan. Bull. Taiwan Forestry Research Institute. 

7: 179–194. 

Winter, G. 1884. Repertorium. Rabenhorstii fungi europaei 

et extraeuraopaei. Cent. XXXI et XXXII. Hedwigia. 

 23: 164–172. 

Reviewers’ comments—“Probably should be mentioned 

somewhere that aeciospores of the fungus have only been 

produced once in the laboratory and that they are unknown in 

nature. Most spread is by urediniospores, and to a much less 

degree, sporidia.” (Hodges) 

“I was not clear as to what parts of the tree this rust attacked. 

Maybe I missed it somewhere. I assume it was a leaf rust. 

Maybe you could state that up front somewhere.”(Jacobi) 

“Foliar Diseases and Eucalyptus rust. The pest with host at 

origin and entry potential elements do not seem to warrant a 

moderate and high rating respectively in these two situations. 

Here it would again be helpful to know the standard harvesting practices to get an idea of the likelihood that leaf and 

twig material accompanying log shipments as contaminants. 

For eucalyptus rust, it is worth noting that the assessor noted 

that the rating criteria did not include the environmental 

requirements for infection and colonization.” (Zadig) 

Response to comments—Reviewers’ comments regarding 

the role of aeciospores in the life cycle and on the parts of the 

tree attacked were incorporated. As with foliar diseases, risk 

of pest with host–commodity at origin for this rust is assigned without regard to available mitigation measures or 

harvesting practices, and risk of entry potential is based on 

the ability of the pathogen to survive during transit and 

difficulty of detection. 
64 

Cryphonectria Canker 

Assessor—John Kliejunas 

Scientific name of pest—Cryphonectria cubensis (Bruner) 

Hodges (Diaporthales, Diaporthaceae) ( = Diaporthe cubensis Bruner) [ ≡ Endothia eugeniae (Nutman & Roberts) Reid 

& Booth]

Scientific names of hosts—Table 10 lists Eucalyptus hosts 

by geographic location. In addition to Eucalyptus, Cryphonectria cubensis has been reported on Psidium cattleianum Sabine (Hodges 1988) and, as Endothia eugeniae, 

on clove [Syzygium aromaticum (L.) Merr. & Perry] (Hodges 

and others 1986). A nonMyrtaceous host, Tibouchina granulosa (in the family Melastomataceae) was found near 

Visçosa, Minas Gerais in 1974 (C.S. Hodges, North Carolina 

State University, 1999, personal communication). Cryphonectria cubensis has since been collected on the same 

host in Brazil (F.A. Ferreira, Federal University of Viçosa, 

Brazil, 1998, personal communication) and on a Tibouchina

sp. in Venezuela (M.J. Wingfield, University of Pretoria, 

Republic of South Africa, 1999, personal communication). 

Distribution—In South America, C. cubensis has been 

reported in Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, and Venezuela. 

It occurs in all major Eucalyptus growing areas between 

30° north and south of the equator. Table 10 shows distribution by geographic location. On clove, C. cubensis has been 

reported as a weak pathogen in most areas where clove is 

grown, including, among others, Africa, Brazil (states of 

Bahia and Espírito Santo), Indonesia, Malaysia, Sumatra, and 

Zanzibar (Hodges and others 1986). 

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pest—The fungus is taxonomically closely related to the 

chestnut blight fungus, Cryphonectria parasitica (Murrill) 

Barr. Infection is through wounds or natural openings in the 

bark and is favored by high rainfall and humidity distributed 

throughout the year as well as temperatures that average 

23°C or higher (Hodges and others 1979). Natural growth 

cracks at the bases of young trees are an important infection 

court. The most common infection propagules appear to 

differ in different parts of the world, with both ascospores 

and conidia being common in South America but conidia 

predominant in South Africa. Perithecia have not been

Table 10—Geographical distribution and species names of major Eucalyptus hosts of Cryphonectria cubensis

Location Host Reference 

Africa 

(Cameroon) 

E. urophylla Gibson 1981 

Australia E. marginata Davidson and Coates 1991 

Bolivia Eucalyptus spp. Condori 1980 

Brazil E. angulosa, E. botryoides, E. camaldulensis, E. citriodora, 

E. grandis, E. longifolia, E. maculata, E. microcorys, 

E. paniculata, E. pilularis, E. propinqua, E. robusta, E. saligna, 

E. tereticornis, E. trabutii, E. urophylla 

Hodges and others 1973, 1976, 

Hodges 1980 

China Eucalyptus spp. Hodges unpublished 

Colombia Eucalyptus spp. Sankaran and others 1995a 

Cuba Eucalyptus spp. Bruner 1916 

Florida E. camaldulensis, E. grandis Hodges and others 1979, Hodges 1980 

Hawaii E. deglupta, E. grandis, E. saligna Hodges 1980 

Hong Kong Eucalyptus spp. Hodges and others 1986 

India E. brassiana, E. camaldulensis, E. citriodora, E. cloeziana, 

E. deglupta, E. grandis, E. pellita, E. saligna, E. tereticornis, 

E. torelliana 

Florence and others 1986, Sharma and 

others 1985a, b 

Mexico Eucalyptus spp. Hodges unpublished 

Peru Eucalyptus spp. Sankaran and others 1995a 

Puerto Rico E. deglupta, E. urophylla Hodges and others 1979 

Surinam E. citriodora, E. grandis, E. maculata, E. saligna Boerboom and Maas 1970, Hodges 

1980 

Trinidad E. saligna Hodges 1980 

Venezuela Eucalyptus spp. Condori 1980 

Vietnam Eucalyptus spp. Hodges unpublished 

Western Samoa E. saligna Hodges 1980 
65 

reported in South Africa. Conidia, formed in pycnidia produced on the dead bark, are dispersed by rain splash; and 

ascospores, formed in perithecia, are dispersed by wind 

(Ciesla and others 1996). 

Infection results in elongated cankers, either at the base of 

trees or on the main trunk. In Brazil, the principal symptom 

is basal cankers (Hodges and others 1976). Basal cankers are 

almost always present, but cankers higher on the tree only 

occur in areas where the climate (humidity) is very favorable 

for infection. The cankers higher on the tree usually occur 

through infection of senescing branches. Infections are also 

occasionally observed at the site of branch stubs on the lower 

bole. The pathogen attacks the cambium and sapwood, causing a depression in the bark. As the infection spreads, the 

sapwood becomes stained brown and longitudinal cracks 

appear in the bark. Gummosis, due to injury of the cambium, 

is generally observed. Infection and resulting cankers can kill 

young trees during the first 2 years of growth or can result in 

extensive and long-lived cankers that extend from the base to 

breast height and higher on the bole. Multiple cankers are 

occasionally found on trunks. Girdled trees wilt and appear 

to die suddenly in summer during hot dry periods. 

Variation in resistance to C. cubensis exists within and 

among Eucalyptus spp. (Alfenas and others 1983, Hodges 

and others 1979, Krügner 1983). Alfenas and others (1983) 

showed that the variation in resistance of Eucalyptus spp. is 

quantitatively isolate specific and the variation in virulence is 

quantitatively host specific. Isolates of C. cubensis with the 

same isoenzyme patterns showed a similar degree of virulence to Eucalyptus spp. (Alfenas and others 1984). In Brazil, stable resistance to C. cubensis has been obtained by 

intensive field selection of E. grandis that displayed some 

measure of resistance to the pathogen followed by vegetative 

propagation (Campinhos and Ikemori 1983). 

Specific information relating to risk elements 

A. Likelihood of introduction 

1. Pest with host–commodity at origin potential: High 

(RC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: c, d, e, 

g, h) 

The pathogen is common and widely distributed in 

many Brazilian Eucalyptus plantations and is found in 

the tropical and subtropical areas of all countries in 

South America. Although it is unlikely that trees with 

obvious stem cankers would be harvested for sawlog 

exports, stem infections would remain on any infected 

tree harvested. 

2. Entry potential: High (VC) (Applicable rating criteria, 

from Chap. 1: b, c, d)

Cryphonectria cubensis would survive in logs in 

transit. Inspectors would have difficulty detecting incipient cankers. 

3. Colonization potential: Moderate (RC) (Applicable 

rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, f)

Substantial inoculum may be present on logs, and the 

pathogen has successfully established in locations outside its native distribution. However, a suitable host 

would need to be present near the port of entry for the 

pathogen to colonize and maintain a population. Infection of Eucalyptus hosts would require the development of fruiting bodies of the fungus and subsequent 

spread of the spores to suitable hosts. The pathogen 

produces spores adapted to dispersal by rain splash 

and wind-blown rain. Infection of susceptible hosts 

would depend on favorable environmental conditions 

at the time of inoculum availability. 

4. Spread potential: Moderate (RC) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: a, c) 

If colonization by C. cubensis occurred on Eucalyptus, the pathogen would spread principally on trees in 

situations where environmental conditions are conducive for infection. The current world distribution is 

probably determined by the tropical climate needed 

for growth and spread of the pathogen (Conradie and 

others 1990). The lack of continuity of hosts in the 

United States would permit only limited spread. 

B. Consequences of introduction 

5. Economic damage potential: Moderate (VC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, c) 

The disease is a limiting factor in the commercial cultivation of certain species of Eucalyptus growing in 

climates suitable for infection. In Brazil, 30% of the 

stems in some plantations of Eucalyptus spp. have 

been killed by this pathogen (Alfenas and others 

1983). Infection rates in high rainfall and high temperature areas of Brazil can reach 80%. In cooler or 

drier areas of the country, infection rates are much 

lower, as is the extent of canker development (Hodges 

and others 1979). In addition to mortality as a result of 

girdling, infection can result in reduced coppicing. 

Basal cankers reduce the sprouting of stumps 10% to 

20% in Brazil (Hodges and Reis 1974) and about 35% 

in Kerala (Sharma and others 1985a). In a southern 

Florida plantation, C. cubensis was associated with 

coppice failure of 44% of E. grandis stumps (Barnard 

and others 1987). 

The current distribution of the disease in the continental United States is limited to southern Florida. Because the disease causes heavy losses only in areas 
66 

where high rainfall occurs most of the year and temperatures average 23°C or higher, damage has not 

been great in southern Florida (Hodges and others 

1979). Hodges and others (1979) did not find the disease in southern Georgia or northern Florida. If the 

pathogen were introduced into California, damage 

would probably be minimal because of the state’s 

Mediterranean climate, and because E. globulus, 

the principal species planted there, is resistant to 

the pathogen. 

6. Environmental damage potential: Low (MC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: none)

 The potential environmental impact if the canker 

pathogen were to become established in the United 

States in areas where it is not already present would be 

low. Spread of the pathogen to areas in California 

where Eucalyptus has become naturalized may result 

in some deformity and possible mortality, but climatic 

conditions unfavorable to the pathogen would limit its 

affect on the ecosystem. 

7. Social and political considerations: Moderate (MC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a)

Environmental damage following successful establishment of the disease in new locations as a result of 

log importation would have a moderate social and political impact. An increase in the number of deformed 

Eucalyptus as a result of cankers may increase public 

concern in areas where the host is grown as an ornamental, such as in urban plantings. 

C. Pest risk potential: Moderate (Likelihood of introduction 

= Moderate; Consequences of introduction = Moderate)

Selected bibliography 

Alfenas, A.C.; Jeng, R.S; Hubbes, M. 1983. Virulence of 

Cryphonectria cubensis on Eucalyptus species differing 

in resistance. European Journal of Forest Pathology. 

13: 197–205. 

Alfenas, A.C.; Jeng, R; Hubbes, M. 1984. Isoenzyme and 

protein patterns of isolates of Cryphonectria cubensis differing in virulence. Canadian Journal of Botany. 

62: 1756–1762. 

Barnard, E.L.; Geary, T.; English, J.T.; Gilly, S.P. 1987. 

Basal cankers and coppice failure of Eucalyptus grandis

in Florida. Plant Disease. 71: 358–361. 

Boerboom, J.H.A.; Maas, P.W.T. 1970. Canker of Eucalyptus grandis and E. saligna in Surinam caused by Endothia havanensis. Turrialba. 20: 94–99. 

Bruner, S.C. 1916. A new species of Endothia. Mycologia. 

8: 239–242. 

Campinhos, E., Jr.; Ikemori, Y.K. 1983. Mass production of 

Eucalyptus spp. by rooting cuttings. Silvicultura. 

8: 770–775. 

Ciesla, W.M.; Diekmann, M.; Putter, C.A.J. 1996. 

FAO/IPGRI technical guidelines for the safe movement 

of Germplasm. No. 17. Eucalyptus spp. Rome, Italy: 

United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

Rome/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. 

66 p. 

Condori, L.V. 1980. Variation in relative resistance and 

susceptibility to the Eucalyptus canker caused by Diaporthe cubensis Bruner. In: Proceedings, international 

symposium held by the International Union of Forestry 

Research Organizations S1–97–09 working group at the 

Institute of Tropical Forestry; 1980, September 8–12; Rio 

Piedras, Puerto Rico: 23–24. 

Conradie, E.; Swart, W.J.; Wingfield, M.J. 1990. Cryphonectria canker of Eucalyptus, an important disease in plantation forestry in South Africa. South African Forestry 

Journal. 152: 43–49. 

Conradie, E.; Swart, W.J.; Wingfield, M.J. 1992. Susceptibility of Eucalyptus grandis to Cryphonectria cubensis. 

European Journal of Forest Pathology. 22: 312–315. 

Davison, E.M.; Coates, D.J. 1991. Identification of Cryphonectria cubensis and Endothia gyrosa from eucalypts 

in Western Australia using isozyme analysis. Australasian 

Plant Pathology. 20: 157–160. 

Ferreira, F.A. 1989. Patologia florestal: principais doenças 

Florestais no Brasil. Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil: Sociedade de Investigações Florestais. 570 p. 

Florence, E.J.M.; Sharma, J.K.; Mohanan, C. 1986. A stem 

canker disease of Eucalyptus caused by Cryphonectria 

cubensis in Kerala. Scientific Pap. 66. Kerala Forest Research Institute: 384–387. 

Gibson, I.A.S. 1981. A canker disease of Eucalyptus new to 

Africa. Food and Agriculture Organization. Forest Genetics Resources Information. 10: 23–24. 

Hodges, C.S. 1980. The taxonomy of Diaporthe cubensis. 

Mycologia. 72: 542–548. 

Hodges, C.S. 1988. Preliminary exploration for potential 

biological control agents for Psidium cattleianum. Tech. 

Rep. 66. Hawaii: Cooperative National Park Resources 

Unit. Mimeo. 
67 

+RGJHV/ &161> 5HLV/ 0161 4<:71 ,GHQWLILF%Fão do fungo 

causador do cancro de Eucalyptus spp. no Brasil. Brasil 

Florestal. 4: 5–19. 

Hodges, C.S.; Reis, M.S.; May, L.C. 1973. Duas enfermidades en plantações de essências florestais exóticas no 

Brasil. Brasil Florestal. 4: 5–12. 

Hodges, C.S.; Reis, M.S.; Ferreira, F.A.; Henfling, J.D.M. 

1976. O cancro do eucalipto causado por Diaporthe 

cubensis. Fitopatologia Brasileira. 1: 129–170. 

Hodges, C.S.; Geary, T.F.; Cordell, C.E. 1979. The occurrence of Diaporthe cubensis on Eucalyptus in Florida, 

Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Plant Disease Reporter. 63: 

216–220. 

Hodges, C.S.; Alfenas, A.C.; Ferreira, F.A. 1986. The conspecificity of Cryphonectria cubensis and Endothia 

eugeniae. Mycologia. 78: 343–350. 

Krügner, T.L. 1983. Variação na resistência do hospedeiro e 

no grau de pathogenicidade do patógeno no sistema 

Eucalyptus grandis Hill ex Maiden—Cryphonectria 

cubensis (Bruner) Hodges. Fitopatologia Brasileira. 

8: 47–64. 

Sankaran, K.V.; Sutton, B.C.; Minter, D.W. 1995a. A checklist of fungi recorded on Eucalyptus. International Mycological Institute, Mycological Papers 170. Eynsham, UK: 

Information Press. 376 p. 

Sharma, J.K.; Mohanan, C.; Florence, E.J.M. 1985a. Disease 

survey in nurseries and plantations of forest trees species 

grown in Kerala. Res. Rep. 36. India: Kerala Forest 

Research Institute. 268 p. 

Sharma, J.K.; Mohanan, C.; Florence, E.J.M. 1985b. Occurrence of Cryphonectria canker disease of Eucalyptus in 

Kerala, India. Annals of Applied Biology. 106: 265–276. 

Wingfield, M.J.; Swart, W.J.; Abear, B.J. 1989. First record 

of Cryphonectria canker of Eucalyptus in South Africa. 

Phytophylactica. 21: 311–313. 

Reviewers’ comments—“Host Names: Add Psidium 

cattleianum Sabine (Hodges, Charles S. 1988. Preliminary 

Exploration for Potential Biological Control Agents for 

Psidium cattleianum. Cooperative National Park Resources 

Unit, Hawaii, Tech. Rep. 66. Mimeo. The fungus was quite 

common on this host in one area of the state of Santa 

Catarina in Brazil. (Mike Wingfield has successfully inoculated Psidium guajava with the fungus. This has been published, but I can’t readily find the reference.” (Hodges) 

“Add also Tibouchina granulosa, collected near Viçosa, 

Minas Gerais in 1974 by C. S. Hodges, This was never published, but the specimen is listed on p. 31 in Roane, et al. 

1986. Chestnut Blight, Other Endothia Diseases, and the 

Genus Endothia. APS Press, St. Paul, MN. Francisco 

Ferreira has since collected it on this host in Brazil, and Mike 

Wingfield has collected it on a Tibouchina sp. in Venezuela 

where he is currently doing some inoculation studies. 

Tibouchina is in the Melastomataceae, which I believe is 

closely related to the Myrtaceae. As far as I know, this is the 

only host for the fungus outside the Myrtaceae.” (Hodges) 

“P. 108, Section A 3: I don’t believe there would be a high 

colonization potential since susceptible hosts are not very 

likely to be in the vicinity of the port of entry.” (Hodges) 

“This seems like a good assessment.” (Jacobi) 

“Cryphonectria Canker and Pink Disease. If these pathogens 

primarily cause damage to very young trees, it seems likely 

that it could have an impact on nursery stock. If so, this 

impact should be addressed under the economic damage 

potential element.” (Zadig) 

Response to comments—Reviewer’s comments regarding 

additional hosts for C. cubensis were incorporated. The 

rating criteria used in the draft automatically gave a high risk 

for colonization potential if the organism had successfully 

established outside its native distribution. The reviewer is 

correct in pointing out that the rating criteria used in the draft 

did not take into account the need for a suitable host to be 

present at the port of entry. The rating criteria were changed 

to reflect the need for suitable climatic conditions and suitable host material to be present if risk is to be high. This 

change in the rating criteria changed colonization potential 

from high to moderate. 
68 

Botryosphaeria and Cytospora Cankers 

Assessor—Gregg DeNitto 

Scientific names of pests—Botryosphaeria dothidea

(Moug.:Fr.) Ces. & De Not. [= Botryosphaeria berengeriana

de Not. = Physalospora suberumpens Ellis & Everh.] (anamorph = Fusicoccum aesculi Corda); Botryosphaeria obtusa 

(Schwein.) Shoemaker [=Physalospora corni Ellis & Everh. 

= Physalospora everhartii Sacc. = Physalospora obtusa

(Schwein.) Cooke] (anamorph = Sphaeropsis sp.); Botryosphaeria ribis (Tode.:Fr.) Grossenb. & Dugger (anamorph = 

Fusicoccum sp.) (Pleosporales, Botryosphaeriaceae); 

Cytospora eucalyptina Speg. (Coelomycetes); Cytospora 

eucalypticola Van der Westhuizen (teleomorph = Valsa 

ceratosperma (Tode:Fr.) Maire) (Coelomycetes) 

Scientific names of hosts—Botryosphaeria spp.: Eucalyptus

spp.; wide range of woody plants, including forest and agricultural trees (for example, Acer, Betula, Carya, Citrus, 

Malus, Picea, Pinus, Prunus, Quercus, Salix); Cytospora 

eucalyptina: Eucalyptus ficifolia, E. globulus, E. grandis, 

E. nitens, E. viminalis; C. eucalypticola: E. camaldulensis, 

E. grandis, E. urophylla, E. uro-grandis hybrid 

Distribution—B. dothidea: Colombia, Venezuela, United 

States 

B. obtusa: Chile, United States 

B. ribis: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, United 

States 

C. eucalyptina: Argentina 

C. eucalypticola: Uruguay, Venezuela 

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pest—Each of the Botryosphaeria spp. have been reported in 

different parts of the United States on an array of hosts, as 

well as elsewhere in the world (Farr and others 1989). They 

cause a stem canker and may also cause a twig canker and 

dieback (Smith and others 1994). These species tend to be 

associated with weakened or stressed hosts and infect 

through fresh wounds. Canker development in Botryosphaeria may take many months from the time of infection, suggesting an endophytic relationship (Bettucci and Alonso 

1997b, Smith and others 1996). Botryosphaeria dothidea is 

considered one of the most important pathogens of Eucalyptus in South Africa, especially of stressed trees (Smith and 

others 1996). Dispersal of conidia of the anamorphs of Botryosphaeria is by rain splash. Ascospores are dispersed by 

wind and water. Conidia probably initiate most infections. 

There is debate on the validity of species differences and 

genetic variability within these groups. For example, 

B. dothidea and B. ribis are considered by some to be the 

same species. Jacobs and Rehner (1998) examined ITS sequences between the putative species and found incongruencies between the data and traditional characters. They considered them subspecific variants of B. dothidea sensu lato 

until more data supporting separation becomes available. 

Recent genetic work within Botryosphaeria in the United 

States suggests that B. ribis and B. dothidea are distinct 

groups, possibly species. Preliminary isozyme and RAPD 

work in Botryosphaeria suggests a very diversified group of 

organisms possibly with sufficient differences to be considered separate species (J. Micales, USDA Forest Service, 

Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WI, 2000, personal 

communication; G. Stanosz, University of Wisconsin–

Madison, 2000, personal communication). The botryosphaeriaceous fungi are difficult to separate into species because of 

the difficulty of distinguishing morphological characteristics, 

the absence of the teleomorph often on natural substrates, 

and the inconsistent association with an anamorph. The 

anamorphs of B. dothidea and B. ribis, which are Fusicoccum aesculi and Sphaeropsis sp., respectively, have also 

been debated with uncertainty about the relationships without 

further studies (Morgan-Jones and White 1987, Rayachhetry 

and others 1996). The taxonomic debate within this group 

only helps to demonstrate the uncertainty in species identification and what genetic material may be present in other 

parts of the world that has morphological similarities to that 

present in the United States but may differ in hosts and 

pathogenicity. 

Little information is available on Cytospora eucalyptina. It 

was originally described from decaying branches of E. globulus in Argentina (Farr 1973). It has not been identified elsewhere. A teleomorph state has not been clearly identified, but 

other Cytospora species have teleomorphs that are in the 

genus Valsa. There are questions about the nomenclature of 

this fungus. Sankaran and others (1995a) identify C. eucalyptina and C. sacculus (Schwein.) Gvritischvili as anamorphs of Valsa ceratosperma. Cytospora sacculus has been 

identified mainly in Russia, including on Eucalyptus (Farr 

and others 1989). It has not been reported in South America, 

however. Spielman (1985) associated V. ceratosperma with 

C. sacculus as its anamorph and as being found worldwide. 

She did not believe there was conclusive evidence of the 

association between the two. A closer study of this group is 

needed to clarify the situation. It is not known if C. eucalyptina is pathogenic, but many Cytospora species are at least 

facultative pathogens that invade weakened tissue. Another 

Cytospora, C. eucalypticola, has been recorded as a stem 

pathogen of Eucalyptus in South Africa, and it has been 

reported on symptomatic twigs of E. grandis in Uruguay 

(Bettuci and Alonso 1997b). Pathogenicity tests of this species indicated that it is not aggressive and is capable of only 

limited invasion of Eucalyptus in Australia (Old and others 

1991, Yuan and Mohammed 1999). Valsa ceratosperma has 

been identified as its possible teleomorph in Australia on 

eucalypts (Old and others 1991). This association of the 

same teleomorph with three anamorphs raises the question of 

validity of identification of the correct species. The taxonomic uncertainty in this group of fungi is similar to that in 

Botryosphaeria. Old and others (1991) suggested that the 

anamorph of V. ceratosperma on eucalypts be referred to as 
69 

C. eucalypticola until further studies are completed. Valsa 

ceratosperma is widely distributed, including in the United 

States (Spielman 1985). The biology of spore dissemination 

and infection processes of Valsa species is generally similar 

to that of Botryosphaeria. 

Specific information relating to risk elements

A. Likelihood of introduction 

1. Pest with host–commodity at origin potential: 

Botryosphaeria spp.—High (MC) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: c, d, e, g, h) 

C. eucalyptina and C. eucalypticola—Moderate (MC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: d, e, h) 

Botryosphaeria spp. have been reported in Argentina, 

Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Venezuela. They are 

generally considered to be worldwide in distribution 

on a wide range of woody hosts and are probably present in most South American countries, although not 

necessarily on Eucalyptus. Infections can occur on 

both branches and main stems. Botryosphaeria 

dothidea is of some significance on Eucalyptus in 

Brazil. Cytospora eucalyptina and C. eucalypticola

appear to be of limited occurrence on Eucalyptus. 

2. Entry potential: High (MC) (Applicable rating criteria, 

from Chap. 1: b, c, d) 

As with most canker fungi, these organisms can readily survive in a reproductive state on host material as 

long as there is not excessive heating or drying. It is 

likely they can survive transport either on logs or 

chips. The cankers that are produced could be small 

and virtually invisible on logs. There would not be 

anything recognizable in chips. 

2. Colonization potential: 

Botryosphaeria spp.—High (MC) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: b, c, f) 

C. eucalyptina and C. eucalypticol —Moderate (MC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: b, f) 

The colonization potential for Botryosphaeria spp. is 

high because of their wide host range and range of environments they could encounter upon entry. Following transport in a container or hold of a ship, it is 

probable that fructifications would have developed 

and be ready for spore dispersal. Since only Eucalyptus spp. are known as hosts for C. eucalyptina and 

C. eucalypticola, there is a lowered probability that a 

suitable host would be present at ports of entry. 

3. Spread potential: 

Botryosphaeria spp.—High (MC) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: a, c, d, e, f, g) 

C. eucalyptina and C. eucalypticola—Moderate (MC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, c, 

e, f) 

Most canker fungi that are air and water dispersed 

have a great capability for spreading long distances 

over short periods of time. Limiting factors include 

availability of suitable hosts and adequate environmental conditions. The broad host range of Botryosphaeria would minimally limit its spread. The limited 

host range for C. eucalyptina and C. eucalypticola 

would certainly limit their spread unless unknown 

hosts were encountered. Survival of these fungi in 

harvested material could allow for increased spread 

through human-assisted transport to areas with hosts 

and suitable climate. 

B. Consequences of introduction 

4. Economic damage potential: 

Botryosphaeria spp.—Moderate (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: a, c) 

C. eucalyptina and C. eucalypticola—Low (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a) 

The Botryosphaeria species are present in the United 

States. They tend to affect all tree sizes depending on 

the particular host. Considerable damage occurs from 

B. ribis on apple (Malus pumila). Additional economic damage is dependent on the introduction of new 

strains or genetic variants that may be more pathogenic or have new hosts in the United States. Botryosphaeria spp. normally cause symptoms in plants that 

are under some type of environmental stress. In agricultural situations, they usually cause adverse impacts 

only where the crop is not well managed or maintained. The limited host range of the Cytospora spp. 

reduces the economic damage potential to low. This 

limited range and their apparent low level of pathogenicity would result in minimal economic damage to 

a relatively minor industry. 

6. Environmental damage potential: Low (Applicable 

rating criteria, from Chap. 1: none) 

Because of the lack of information on potential hosts 

and the degree of pathogenicity, the environmental 

damage is unknown. The amount of recognized damage from these fungi on Eucalyptus in South America 

is limited. Exposure to new hosts in more temperate 

climates could result in significant levels of damage in 

the United States. The introduction of new strains 

could increase the level of damage to existing hosts. 
70 

Research into the differences in the strains and species 

and their hosts must be completed before firm conclusions regarding the actual impact can be stated. 

7. Social and Political Considerations Low (RU) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: none) 

Based on the presence of Botryosphaeria in many 

areas of the United States, further introductions may 

not cause major impacts. Therefore, social and political impacts would be minimal. However, if new, more 

virulent strains are introduced that significantly affect 

United States resources, especially ornamental and 

high value plantings, then social and political considerations could increase to at least a moderate rating. 

Similarly, the Cytospora spp. do not appear to be particularly damaging in South America. Exposure to new 

hosts and new environments in the United States could 

result in increased levels of damage and increased 

social and political considerations. 

C. Pest risk potential: 

Botryosphaeria spp.: High (Likelihood of introduction 

= High; Consequences of introduction = Moderate) 

Cytospora spp.: Moderate (Likelihood of introduction 

= Moderate; Consequences of introduction = Low) 

Selected bibliography 

Bettucci, L.; Alonzo, R. 1997b. A comparative study of 

fungal populations in healthy and symptomatic twigs of 

Eucalyptus grandis in Uruguay. Mycological Research. 

101: 1060–1064. 

Farr, D.R.; Bills, G.F.; Chamuris, G.P.; Rossman, A.Y. 1989. 

Fungi on plants and plant products in the United States. 

St. Paul, MN: American Phytopathological Society Press. 

1,252 p. 

Farr, M.L. 1973. An annotated list of Spegazinni’s fungus 

flora. Bibliotheca Mycologica. 35: 1–823. 

Jacobs, K.A.; Rehner, S.A. 1998. Comparison of cultural and 

morphological characters and ITS sequences in anamorphs of Botryosphaeria and related taxa. Mycologia. 

90: 601–610. 

Morgan–Jones, G.; White, J.F., Jr. 1987. Notes on Coelomycetes. II Concerning the Fusicoccum anamorph of 

Botryosphaeria ribis. Mycotaxon. 30: 117–125. 

Old, K.M.; Yuan, Z.Q.; Kobayashi, T. 1991. A Valsa teleomorph for Cytospora eucalypticola. Mycological 

Research. 95: 1253–1256. 

Rayachhetry, M.B.; Blakeslee, G.M.; Webb, R.S.; 

Kimbrough, J.W. 1996. Characteristics of the Fusicoccum anamorph of Botryosphaeria ribis, a potential biological control agent for Melaleuca quinquenervia in 

south Florida. Mycologia. 88: 239–248. 

Sankaran, K.V.; Sutton, B.C.; Minter, D.W. 1995a. A checklist of fungi recorded on Eucalyptus. International Mycological Institute, Mycological Papers 170. Eynsham, UK: 

Information Press. 376 p.

Smith, H.; Kemp, G.H.J.; Wingfield, M.J. 1994. Canker and 

die-back of Eucalyptus in South Africa caused by Botryosphaeria dothidea. Plant Pathology. 43: 1031–1034. 

Smith, H.; Wingfield, M.J.; Petrini, O. 1996. Botryosphaeria 

dothidea endophytic in Eucalyptus grandis and Eucalyptus nitens in South Africa. Forest Ecology and Management. 89: 189–195. 

Speilman, L.J. 1985. A monograph of Valsa on hardwoods in 

North America. Canadian Journal of Botany. 63: 1355–

1387. 

Yuan, Z.Q.; Mohammed, C. 1999. Pathogenicity of fungi 

associated with stem cankers of eucalypts in Tasmania, 

Australia. Plant Disease. 83: 1063–1069. 

Reviewers’ comments—“p. 114, last p., 1.3: Valsa or 

Leucostoma. I think the paragraph on Cytospora spp. may 

have to be revisited....” (Hodges) 

“Pest Names: Why was Botryosphaeria obtusa not included? 

It has been reported on eucalyptus from Chile (See table). 

Anamorphs of B. dothidea, B. obtusa and B. ribis are 

Fusicoccum aesculi Corda, Sphaeropsis sp., and Fusicoccum

sp., respectively. Some consider B. dothidea and B ribis

synonymous, and I am inclined to agree.”(Hodges) 

“Distribution: There are reports of B. dothidea from 

Venezuela and Colombia as well. It is probably universally 

present in South America.” (Hodges) 

“As a general comment, I am having trouble with several of 

the chapters, especially this one and the preceding one on 

Cytospora and Coniothyrium that include together diseases 

with greatly differing symptoms and basic biologies. Writing 

a coherent summary is therefore made very difficult. In the 

cases at hand, Botryosphaeria and Valsa cankers would have 

made a much more logical pairing with regard to their symptomatology and biology.” (Hodges) 

“Well done, but having worked with Cytospora sp. over the 

last decade makes me more apprehensive about importing 

new genetic material that may have other NA hosts. Cytospora fungi are more aggressive than we give them credit 

when trees are mildly stressed.” (Jacobi) 
71 

“Coniothyrium and Cytospora Cankers; Botryosphaeria and 

Ceratocystis Cankers. It is unclear from the assessment what 

part of the tree these diseases infect. If infection were limited 

to branches it would seem less likely that these would be 

present on logs.” (Zadig) 

Response to comments—The IPRAs on Botryosphaeria–

Ceratocystis and Cytospora–Coniothyrium were reorganized 

to better reflect similarities in biology rather than in pest 

categories. This results in differences in pest ratings within 

this IPRA, but the fungi act similarly enough to be considered together. Ceratocystis fimbriata and Coniothyrium 

zuluense differ and are analyzed in separate IPRAs. This 

should improve the understanding of the basic biologies and 

how this affects the pest ratings. It was clarified in the IPRA 

what parts of the tree are affected by each of these fungi. 

Also, B. obtusa was added to the assessment, although it did 

not alter the pest risk elements. Likewise, the range of 

B. dothidea was expanded to include Venezuela and Colombia. The discussion on the species differences and genetic 

variability within these groups was expanded to explain the 

complexity and uncertainty related to the associations between anamorphs and teleomorphs. This explanation did not 

result in a more positive identification of the actual teleomorphs and anamorphs because those relationships remain 

uncertain. 
72 

Ceratocystis Canker 

Assessor—Gregg DeNitto 

Scientific names of pests—Ceratocystis fimbriata Ellis & 

Halstead [= Sphaeronaema fimbriatum (Ellis & Halstead) 

Sacc. =Ceratostomella fimbriata (Ellis & Halstead) Elliot, 

=Ophiostoma fimbriata (Ellis & Halstead) Nannf. 

=Endoconidiophora fimbriata (Ellis & Halstead) Davidson 

=Rostrella coffeae Zimmerman =Endoconidiophora variospora Davidson =Ceratocystis variospora (Davidson) 

Moreau =Ophiostoma variosporum (Davidson) von Arx].

anamorph = Chalara (Microascales, Ophiostomataceae) 

Scientific names of hosts—Eucalyptus uro-grandis; Coffea 

arabica L.; Hevea brasiliensis (Willd.) Muell.-Arg.; Mangifera indica L. are some of the significant hosts in South 

America

Distribution—Brazil, United States 

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pest—Ceratocystis fimbriata has been identified on Eucalyptus in Brazil and has also been reported in different parts of 

the United States on an array of hosts, as well as elsewhere in 

the world. In addition to numerous woody hosts, it also 

causes a serious disease of sweet potato (Ipomea batatas (L.) 

Lam.). Ceratocystis fimbriata may be better considered a wilt 

pathogen in Eucalyptus, although cankers can develop. It 

tends to be associated with weakened or stressed hosts and 

infects through fresh wounds. Ceratocystis fimbriata can be 

an aggressive primary pathogen in native plant communities 

on some hosts (Kile 1993). Ascospores and conidia of 

C. fimbriata appear to be transmitted by insects, mainly 

members of the Nitidulidae (Hinds 1972, Kile 1993). Local 

spores may disperse by splashing water. Moist conditions are 

needed for fruit body development and spore formation. 

Spores and fruiting bodies are produced on canker faces and 

on the cut surfaces of infected wood. In addition to canker 

formation, wood affected by C. fimbriata becomes darkly 

stained. 

Recent genetic work suggests that identified morphological 

species may in fact be comprised of several to numerous 

distinct strains or variants. A form species, C. fimbriata f. sp. 

platani, has been recognized primarily on Platanus spp. in 

North America (Walters and others 1952). Differences in 

pathogenicity, growth rate, colony type, and conidial states 

have been identified among isolates of C. fimbriata; however, these strains are cross-fertile, suggesting they comprise 

the same species (Webster and Butler 1967). Molecular 

taxonomic work in Ceratocystis has identified a South 

American clade that includes the Eucalyptus strain. Various 

representatives from this clade have been found in other parts 

of the world on a variety of hosts, including rubber in Malaysia, Acacia in South Africa, and sweet potato in Asia and in 

the United States (T. Harrington, University of Iowa, 1999, 

personal communication). 

Ceratocystis fimbriata f. sp. platani is native to sycamores in 

the United States and has been introduced to Europe where it 

is a major pathogen of Platanus × acerifolia. It is suspected 

that C. fimbriata was introduced to Malaysian rubber and to 

Australia (Kile 1993). 

Specific information relating to risk elements

A. Likelihood of introduction 

1. Pest with host–commodity at origin potential: High

(MC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: c, d, e, 

f, g, h) 

Ceratocystis fimbriata has only recently been observed in Brazil on Eucalyptus, and it is unknown to 

what extent it will spread or become better established. Losses are significant in plantations where it is 

present. Ceratocystis fimbriata is vectored by insects 

with host-finding abilities. Because limbs and 

branches will be removed at harvest, only stem infections will remain on the logs. If chips are produced in 

the field and include branch material, then those infections would be included. Visual evidence of cankers 

would also not be present with chips. 

2. Entry potential: High (RC) (Applicable rating criteria, 

from Chap. 1: b, c, d) 

Transit of logs will not affect fungus survival. The 

likelihood that inspectors would detect the fungus is 

low. The pathogen can cause some staining in the 

wood and may be present in material without canker 

formation. Sporulation on the wood surface would 

probably occur in ship holds and containers. 

3. Colonization potential: High (RU) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: b, c, d, e, f) 

The presence of Eucalyptus hosts near possible ports 

of entry will be minimal, except ports in California, 

Hawaii, and Florida. Other host species in the United 

States are uncertain because of questions about genetic 

variability and host susceptibility. Numerous hosts are 

reported for C. fimbriata in the United States (Farr 

and others 1989), and this species is reported to have a 

wide host range around the world (Kile 1993). This 

wide range of hosts, including herbaceous species, 

could significantly increase the potential for colonization around port areas in the United States. Ceratocystis fimbriata is vectored by insects with host-finding 

abilities. Introduced hosts, especially those from subtropical areas, may be more vulnerable if new strains 

or geographic variants of this species are introduced 

from South America. 

4. Spread potential: High (MC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, c, d, f, g) 
73 

If C. fimbriata colonizes hosts in the United States, 

spread would occur mainly to trees that are stressed. 

This assumes a level of virulence similar to the genotypes already present in the United States. Landscape 

trees and vegetation may be more at risk since they 

tend to be introduced species that are planted in situations less than conducive to optimum growth. The rate 

and extent of spread would depend on the environmental conditions and insect vectors the particular 

genetic variants might require. 

B. Consequences of introduction 

5. Economic damage potential: High (RU) (Applicable 

rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, c, e) 

This fungus is present in the United States. Aspen 

(Populus tremuloides Michx.) is affected by 

C. fimbriata across much of the Rocky Mountains, but 

because this is not a major commercial species, economic impact is limited. Also, tree mortality is not a 

common result. The pathogen infects stone fruits in 

the Central Valley of California. However, because 

the strains in South America may be different in 

pathogenicity than those in the United States, there is a 

potential for increased economic damage. This potential is increased because of the potential of other hosts 

that are not currently known or recognized, including 

herbaceous and woody species. Taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott) and Syngonium podophyllum Schott 

are two herbaceous hosts of C. fimbriata in Hawaii. 

The fungus has not been found there on woody plants. 

The introduction of new strains to Hawaii could expose a wide range of woody plants to infection. 

6. Environmental damage potential: Moderate (RU) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: f) 

Because of the lack of information on potential hosts 

and degree of pathogenicity, the environmental damage is unknown. The amount of recognized damage in 

South America is limited. Exposure to new hosts in 

more temperate climates could result in significant 

levels of damage in the United States. The introduction of new strains could increase the level of damage 

to existing hosts, such as aspen and stone fruits in 

California. Research into the differences in the strains 

and their hosts must be completed before firm conclusions regarding the actual impact can be stated. Until 

that is done, a high rating appears appropriate. 

7. Social and Political Considerations: Low (RU) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: none) 

Further introductions may not cause major impacts. 

Therefore, social and political impacts would be 

minimal. However, if new, more virulent strains are 

introduced that significantly affect United States resources, especially ornamental and high-value plantings, then perceived damage would greatly increase. 

This would increase the social and political damage 

potential to at least a moderate rating. 

C. Pest risk potential: High (Likelihood of introduction = 

High; Consequences of introduction = High) 

Selected bibliography 

Farr, D.R.; Bills, G.F.; Chamuris, G.P.; Rossman, A.Y. 1989. 

Fungi on plants and plant products in the United States. 

St. Paul, MN: American Phytopathological Society Press. 

1,252 p. 

Hinds, T.E. 1972. Insect transmission of Ceratocystis species 

associated with aspen cankers. Phytopathology. 

62: 221–225. 

Kile, G.A. 1993. Plant diseases caused by species of Ceratocystis sensu stricto and Chalara. In: Wingfield, M.J.; 

Seifert, K.A.; Webber, J.F., eds. Ceratocystis and Ophiostoma. Taxonomy, ecology, and pathogenicity. St. Paul, 

MN: American Phytopathological Society Press: 

173–183. 

Walters, J.M.; Rex, E.G.; Schreiber, R. 1952. The rate of 

progress and destructiveness of canker stain of planetrees. 

Phytopathology. 42: 236–239. 

Webster, R.K.; Butler, E.E. 1967. A morphological and 

biological concept of the species Ceratocystis fimbriata. 

Canadian Journal of Botany. 45: 1457–1468. 

Reviewers’ comments—“As a general comment, I am having trouble with several of the chapters, especially this one 

and the preceding one on Cytospora and Coniothyrium that 

include together diseases with greatly differing symptoms 

and basic biologies. Writing a coherent summary is therefore 

made very difficult. In the cases at hand, Botryosphaeria and 

Valsa cankers would have made a much more logical pairing 

with regard to their symptomatology and biology.” (Hodges) 

“Well done. I am a bit worried about a pathogen that we do 

have and thus can easily infect our trees such as our aspen 

and potentially bring in new aggressive strains. You have 

rated this group high on all aspects. This is good.” (Jacobi) 

“For example, Ceratocystis fimbriata is apparently comprised of several interfertile strains; some that attack herbaceous hosts (e.g. sweet potato) and some that attack woody 

hosts (e.g. Populus). The economic and environmental effects of this pathogen on potential herbaceous hosts are not 

considered in the Consequences of Establishment. Ceratocystis fimbriata’s ability to attack herbaceous hosts is also 

ignored in the Probability of Pest Establishment.” (Johnson/Osterbauer) 
74 

“Genetic variability can be critical in pests like Ceratocystis

fimbriata with its interfertile pathogenic strains.” (Johnson/Osterbauer) 

“Coniothyrium and Cytospora Cankers; Botryosphaeria and 

Ceratocystis Cankers. It is unclear from the assessment what 

part of the tree these diseases infect. If infection were limited 

to branches it would seem less likely that these would be 

present on logs.” (Zadig) 

Response to comments—The IPRAs on Botryosphaeria–

Ceratocystis and Cytospora–Coniothyrium were reorganized 

to better reflect similarities in biology rather than in pest 

categories. Ceratocystis fimbriata became a separate IPRA 

because of this reorganization. This provided improved 

consistency between the IPRAs in the analysis and should 

reduce some of the confusion that was previously present. 

Additional recognition of herbaceous hosts and their potential for damage was added to the IPRA, although it did not 

alter the already high ratings. It is believed that the genetic 

variability within the species was discussed adequately for 

regulatory purposes and did not require further elaboration 

since definitive data are lacking. The IPRA was revised to 

give increased recognition of new hosts in the United States 

with the introduction of new strains. 
75 

Coniothyrium Canker 

Assessor—Gregg DeNitto 

Scientific names of pests—Coniothyrium zuluense 

Wingfield, Crous, and Coutinho (Coelomycetes) 

Scientific names of hosts—Eucalyptus grandis 

Distribution—Coniothyrium zuluense in Argentina; 

Coniothyrium sp. in Brazil, Colombia, and Uruguay 

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pest—A stem disease of E. grandis has been reported in 

South America caused by Coniothyrium zuluense. A similar 

fungus was isolated from Eucalyptus in Argentina and has 

been identified only recently through DNA techniques as 

being C. zuluense (M. Wingfield, University of Pretoria, 

Republic of South Africa, 1999, personal communication). 

Isolates from Uruguay are also being examined. A similar 

disease caused by Coniothyrium sp. has been observed in 

Brazil (states of São Paulo and Minas Gerais) on E. grandis, 

but its identity to species has not been confirmed (F. Ferreira, 

Federal University of Viçosa, Brazil, 1999, personal communication). An unidentified species of Coniothyrium causes 

branch cankers on E. globulus and E. tereticornis in Colombia (Orozco 1985). Coniothyrium zuluense causes a serious 

canker of the main stem of E. grandis in South Africa 

(Wingfield and others 1996). 

Infections of C. zuluense are initiated on young green intact 

stems and can coalesce into larger necrotic patches. These 

patches can crack and exude large amounts of red–brown 

kino. Girdling of the stem can occur. Pycnidia readily develop on infected tissue. It is unknown how the fungus 

spreads, but it is thought that conidia are dispersed by rain 

and wind (Coutinho and others 1997). Infection occurs directly through the epidermis after the conidia germinate. 

Coniothyrium canker is more severe in the subtropical climate of South Africa than in temperate areas. Areas with 

high rainfall appear to be more conducive to the development 

of disease (Coutinho and others 1997). The origin of this 

disease is uncertain. It is not known to be from Australia and 

has not been identified in other hosts (Coutinho and others 

1997). Examination of isolates from South Africa found a 

genetically diverse population, suggesting a well-established 

and possibly endemic fungus that has moved from a native 

host to Eucalyptus (Zyl and others 1997). 

Specific information relating to risk elements 

A. Likelihood of introduction 

1. Pest with host–commodity at origin potential: Moderate (RU) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: d, 

e, h) 

Coniothyrium zuluense was recently identified from 

Argentina. Collections of a similar species (possibly 

C. zuluense) have been found in Brazil, Colombia, and 

Uruguay. This suggests it may be a recent introduction 

or a recent exposure to Eucalyptus. It is possible that 

levels of damage similar to that experienced in South 

Africa will occur in the more tropical areas of South 

America. The considerable amount of E. grandis and 

its hybrids in Brazil and Argentina are especially susceptible. If C. zuluense becomes more widely distributed on Eucalyptus in South America, the rating 

would increase to high. 

2. Entry potential: High (RC) (Applicable rating criteria, 

from Chap. 1: b, c, d) 

Most canker fungi readily survive on dead trees as 

long as the wood does not dry for an extended period. 

The time required for transport to the United States 

(weeks at most) would not limit this survival. 

3. Colonization potential: High (RU) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: a, d, f) 

The recent identification of C. zuluense in limited locations in South America suggests it is a new arrival. 

Spore-producing pycnidia will be present on logs 

when they arrive in the United States. The occurrence 

of a warm, humid climate, such as in subtropical Florida and Hawaii, would increase the probability of 

spore production and spread. It is unknown what other 

hosts exist for C. zuluense, so the opportunities for 

colonization may be limited, especially if Eucalyptus

are infrequent. 

4. Spread potential: High (RU) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, c, e, f) 

The potential for spread of C. zuluense depends on the 

point of introduction and the occurrence of unknown 

hosts. If the occurrence of the fungus in South America is a recent introduction, then obviously, it is 

through human assistance. If the fungus is introduced 

into a subtropical climate, the spread potential may be 

significant, through wind dispersal of the spores. Areas with cooler climates and lower rainfall may not 

experience any spread. If Eucalyptus are the only 

hosts in the United States, then spread will be limited, 

if at all. 

B. Consequences of introduction 

5. Economic damage potential: Moderate (RU) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, c, f) 
76 

The most significant potential economic damage is 

likely on the floriculture trade if additional hosts, including E. pulverulenta, are identified. However, the 

need for warm, wet conditions for infection may limit 

the opportunities for significant disease progression in 

California. If the floriculture trade increased in Hawaii, conditions may be more conducive to infection. 

If this disease became established in commercial 

Eucalyptus plantations established for pulpchip production, some economic loss might be experienced. 

Trees that become cankered may not be desirable for 

pulp chips because of the kino present. The potential 

for unknown hosts native in the United States could 

increase the potential for economic damage, especially 

in the wetter areas of the southeast. 

6. Environmental damage potential: Moderate (RU) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: d) 

The level of environmental damage is dependent on 

the host range of C. zuluense. If a few species of 

Eucalyptus remain the only hosts, then the damage 

will be nearly nonexistent. If another species is a host, 

then it is possible that significant damage could occur. 

Environmental damage may be limited to subtropical 

areas, which are primarily Florida and Hawaii. This 

could expose unknown hosts that are endemic in 

Hawaii to infection. 

7. Social and Political Considerations: Low (RU) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: none) 

Overall, social and political damage will be low. If an 

unknown host develops, then the political impacts 

might increase, at least locally in Florida or Hawaii. 

Individual owners of Eucalyptus plantations or groves 

that might be affected could raise some political 

issues. 

C. Pest risk potential: Moderate (Likelihood of introduction 

= Moderate; Consequences of introduction = Moderate) 

Selected bibliography 

Coutinho, T.A.; Wingfield, M.J.; Crous, P.W.; van Zyl, L.M. 

1997. Coniothyrium canker: a serious new disease in 

South Africa. In: Proceedings, IUFRO conference on silviculture and improvement of eucalypts; 1997 August 24–

29; Salvador, Brazil. Colombo, Brazil: Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária: 3: 78–83. 

Orozco, C. 1985. Determinación y Control de las principales 

enfermedades que afectan viveros y plantaciones forestales en Colombia. Instituto Nacional de los Recursos 

Naturales Renovables y del Ambiente. 16 p. 

Wingfield, M.J.; Crous, P.W.; Coutinho, T.A. 1996. A serious canker disease of Eucalyptus in South Africa caused 

by a new species of Coniothyrium. 

Mycopathologia. 136: 139–145. 

Zyl, L.M. van; Wingfield, M.J.; Coutinho, T.A. 1997. Diversity among isolates of Coniothyrium zuluense: a newly 

recorded Eucalyptus stem canker pathogen in South Africa. In: Proceedings, IUFRO conference on silviculture 

and improvement of eucalypts; 1997 August 24–29; Salvador, Brazil. Colombo, Brazil: Empresa Brasileira de 

Pesquisa Agropecuária: 3: 135–141. 

Reviewer’s comments—“The last sentence of p. 1 on page 

115 is on kind of shaky ground since C. zuluense can infect 

through intact bark. I doubt if that is the case with Valsa and 

Cytospora.” (Hodges) 

“Sections A and B: Only C. zuluense is mentioned in any of 

the subsections.” (Hodges) 

“I just got a copy of a newsletter from South Africa (ICFR 

Newsletter, February 1999) (ICFR=Institute of Commercial 

Forestry Research) which has a very succinct writeup on the 

disease (p. 18) under the title “Disease Profile: Coniothyrium 

canker of eucalyptus (no author).” (Hodges) 

“Coniothyrium and Cytospora Cankers; Botryosphaeria and 

Ceratocystis Cankers. It is unclear from the assessment what 

part of the tree these diseases infect. If infection were limited 

to branches it would seem less likely that these would be 

present on logs.” (Zadig) 

Response to comments—The IPRAs on Botryosphaeria–

Ceratocystis and Cytospora–Coniothyrium were reorganized 

to better reflect similarities in biology rather than in pest 

categories. This resulted in the creation of a separate IPRA 

for Coniothyrium canker since it has different biological 

characteristics from the other three fungi. This should improve the understanding of the basic biologies and how this 

affects the pest ratings. It also resolves some of the questions 

on some statements in the IPRA. The new IPRA specifies the 

location of the disease associated with C. zuluense. 
77 

Pink Disease 

Assessor—Gregg DeNitto 

Scientific name of pest—Erythricium salmonicolor (Berk. 

& Br.) Burdsall (= Corticium salmonicolor Berk. & Br. 

=Pellicularia salmonicolor (Berk. & Br.) Daster. 

=Botryobasidium salmonicolor (Berk. & Br.) Venkatarayon); anamorph: Necator decretus Massee (Stereales, 

Corticiaceae) 

Scientific names of hosts—More than 141 species in 104 

genera. Eucalyptus species include E. alba, E. grandis, E. 

kitsoniana, and E. tereticornis (Ciesla and others 1996). Host 

species reported in the United States include Cercis canadensis L. (redbud), Citrus, Ficus carica L. (fig), Malus 

pumila Mill. (apple), and Pyrus communis L. (pear) (Farr 

1973, Hepting 1971, Tims 1963). Other economic hosts 

include Hevea brasiliensis (Willd.) Meull.-Arg. (rubber), 

Citrus, Theobroma cacao L. (cocoa), and Camellia sinensis

(L.) Kuntze (tea). 

Distribution—Brazil, Peru, United States (Florida, 

Louisiana, Mississippi) 

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pest—Pink disease, caused by the fungus Erythricium salmonicolor, is widely distributed in the tropics and subtropics 

of both hemispheres. It is considered one of the most important diseases of Eucalyptus, although it has not been identified on Eucalyptus in Australia (Jacobs 1979). This disease 

has been reported on Eucalyptus in Brazil (Gibson 1975). It 

has also been identified in the southeastern United States 

from Florida to Texas on fig, apple, pear (Tims 1963), and 

redbud (Hepting 1971). In parts of India, Eucalyptus plantations in areas with high rainfall (>200 cm annually) have 

suffered nearly 100% mortality (Seth and others 1978). It 

causes a stem and branch canker that can girdle the main 

stem of young trees causing repeated dieback and possibly 

tree mortality. Older trees with larger diameter stems can 

develop nongirdling cankers. 

Erythricium salmonicolor is able to penetrate intact bark 

through lenticels (Seth and others 1978) and then attack the 

cambium, or it can infect through wounds. Four disease 

stages of the fungus have been identified on most hosts (Seth 

and others 1978). The first form observed after infection is a 

thin, shiny mycelial growth on the surface of the bark, the 

cobwebby stage. The second form, the pustule stage, is sterile, pink pustules and crusts on the bark and in bark cracks. 

The third form, known as the necator stage, develops after 

canker formation and as the branch is dying. This form is the 

conidial stage (sporodochia) with orange–red fruiting structure development. Conidia are probably rain-splash disseminated. The importance of this stage varies with host, and its 

importance with Eucalyptus is not known. These spores can 

remain viable for up to 20 days under dry conditions, but 

high humidities are required for germination. A pink incrustation with basidiospore formation is the last stage to form in 

the fall. Development of the basidioma is dependent on 

heavy rainfall. Basidiospores are dispersed through rain 

splash and air currents. Basidiospore viability is reduced by 

low humidities, and spores probably lose viability after 24 h 

under field conditions. Of these four forms, only the first and 

last have been identified in the United States (Tims 1963). In 

addition to the two spore forms, it has been suggested that 

the fungus may also be disseminated in the air by the sterile 

stages when dead bark flakes off of the infected tissue (Seth 

and others 1978). 

Evaluation of the culture filtrates of two isolates of E. salmonicolor collected from different areas of India showed 

differential responses on Eucalyptus shoots. The behavior of 

the two isolates suggested they were different strains of the 

fungus, with one of the strains being more aggressive 

(Sharma and others 1988). 

Specific information relating to risk elements 

A. Likelihood of introduction 

1. Pest with host–commodity at origin potential: High

(RC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: c, d, e, 

g, h) 

Pink disease has been observed on Eucalyptus in Brazil, but there are no records on this host from other 

South American countries. The fungus occurs on other 

hosts in Columbia and Peru. Because of the widespread distribution of this fungus in the world and the 

large number of hosts, it is likely that Eucalyptus in 

other South American countries are, or will become, 

infected. A high incidence of pink disease only occurs 

in climates with very high levels of rainfall. This may 

limit the number of diseased stems harvested from areas with moderate rainfall. Cankers on larger stems 

may be visible during harvesting, but because much of 

this material may become chips, it is probable there 

will be little effort to select against cankered trees. 

This is especially true if trees are harvested with 

mechanical harvesters. 

2. Entry potential: High (RC) (Applicable rating criteria, 

from Chap. 1: b, c, d) 

Transit of logs will not affect fungus survival. The 

likelihood of detection by inspectors is low. Erythricium salmonicolor does penetrate and grow through 

the sapwood in addition to the bark and cambium 

(Subramaniam and Ramaswamy 1987). Transport of 

chips in sealed containers will result in humid conditions that are conducive to fungal fruiting and spore 

production. 
78 

3. Colonization potential: High (MC) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: c, d, f) 

Pink disease has a very wide host range, including 

several hosts known to be widespread in the United 

States. The more suitable environment for colonization to occur is in the southeast and Hawaii. Western 

areas are probably too dry for successful colonization 

to occur. In the southeast, the areas susceptible to 

colonization are coastal areas and Florida because of 

the high amounts of moisture and warmer temperatures. 

4. Spread potential: Moderate (MC) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: a, c, f, g) 

Spread of pink disease beyond the colonized area will 

be localized because of the requirement for high rainfall. Transport of any infected material in the form of 

logs or chips could distribute the fungus farther, but 

subsequent colonization will be dependent on environmental conditions. Host presence probably will not 

be a limiting factor because of the wide host range. 

Control techniques have been developed for some 

high value crops using fungicides, but it is not known 

if these would be effective at eradication. 

B. Consequences of introduction 

5. Economic damage potential: Moderate (MC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, c) 

The most significant economic damage potential of 

E. salmonicolor is on the floriculture trade. Loss of 

branches and limbs from infection will reduce the production of materials for this trade. Some economic 

loss could occur in the forestry trade from reduced 

production, but infected trees would still be available 

for chip production. Tree mortality is limited and usually occurs at early ages. The reported presence of this 

fungus in the conterminous United States and the lack 

of significant damage suggest that additional introductions will not increase the economic damage. However, if differences in pathogenicity exist, then introductions of new strains into the United States could 

result in some level of damage beyond what is currently being experienced. Introduction into Hawaii 

could result in significant economic damage to 

agricultural crops. 

6. Environmental damage potential: High (RC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: c, d) 

The presence of pink disease in the southeastern 

United States suggests that further environmental 

damage will be minimal in the conterminous United 

States. Although E. salmonicolor has been identified 

on a wide number of hosts, the majority of damaging 

situations has been with introduced hosts. Further establishment and spread in the United States may damage exotic hosts, such as Eucalyptus and fruit trees, 

but impacts on natural systems are expected to be 

minimal. However, introduction into Hawaii with its 

unique ecosystems and plant life could expose plants 

with limited distributions to this damaging fungus. 

7. Social and Political Considerations: High (RC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, d) 

Overall, social and political considerations will be low 

in the conterminous United States. Some political effects could develop if damage from introduction of 

this fungus occurred on ornamental Eucalyptus. Damage to the floriculture trade could have some shortterm effects, but alternative materials would probably 

replace Eucalyptus foliage. If this fungus were introduced into Hawaii, there could be social and political 

repercussions if there were impacts to agricultural and 

ornamental plantings, as well as damage to native 

plants of limited distribution or those listed as endangered, threatened, or candidate species. Although of 

limited consequence to the United States as a whole, 

the social and political effects in Hawaii could be 

substantial. 

C. Pest risk potential: High (Likelihood of introduction = 

Moderate; Consequences of introduction = High) 

Selected bibliography 

Ciesla, W.M.; Diekmann, M.; Putter, C.A.J. 1996. 

FAO/IPGRI technical guidelines for the safe movement 

of germplasm. No. 17 Eucalyptus spp. Rome, Italy: 

United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

Rome/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. 

66 p. 

Farr, M.L. 1973. An annotated list of Spegazzini's fungus 

flora. Bibliotheca Mycologica. 35: 1–823. 

Gibson, I.A.S. 1975. Diseases of forest trees widely planted 

as exotics in the tropics and southern hemisphere. Important members of the Myrtaceae, Leguminosae, Verbenaceae and Meliaceae. Kew, Surrey, UK: Commonwealth 

Mycological Institute. 51 p. 

Hepting, G.H. 1971. Diseases of forest and shade trees of the 

United States. Agric. Handb. 386. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 658 p. 

Jacobs, M.R. 1979. Eucalypts for planting. Forestry Series 

11. Rome, Italy: United Nations, Food and Agriculture 

Organization. 677 p. 
79 

Seth, S.K.; Bakshi, B.K.; Reddy, M.A.R.; Singh, S. 1978. 

Pink disease of Eucalyptus in India. European Journal of 

Forest Pathology. 8: 200–216. 

Sharma, J.K.; Maria Florence, E.J.; Sankaran, K.V.; Mohanan, C. 1988. Differential phytotoxic response of cut 

shoots of eucalypts to culture filtrates of pink disease fungus, Corticium salmonicolor. Forest Ecology and Management. 24: 97–111. 

Subramaniam, S.V.; Ramaswamy, V. 1987. Histopathological observations on pink disease of eucalyptus. Current 

Science. 56: 1042–1044. 

Tims, E.C. 1963. Corticium salmonicolor in the United 

States. Plant Disease Reporter. 47: 1055–1059. 

Reviewers’ comments—“Well done. I am a bit worried 

about a pathogen that we do have and thus can easily infect 

our trees such as our aspen and potentially bring in new 

aggressive strains. You have rated this group high on all 

aspects. This is good.” (Jacobi) 

“The report states that Erythricium salmonicolor has not 

been identified in Australia. Available records show that E. salmonicolor occurs in New South Wales (Australia) as 

‘pink limb disease’ on fruit trees, albeit, not on eucalypts. 

The pathogen is also recorded in New Zealand and southern 

Japan on citrus (Oniki and others, 1985; Transactions of the 

Mycological Society of Japan 26: 441-448).” (Mireku) 

“Cryphonectria Canker and Pink Disease. If these pathogens 

primarily cause damage to very young trees, it seems likely 

that it could have an impact on nursery stock. If so, this 

impact should be addressed under the economic damage 

potential element.” (Zadig) 

Response to comments—The distribution presented for each 

pest is based on known locations on Eucalyptus relevant to 

this risk assessment. Locations outside of the United States 

and South America on other hosts are not included since they 

do not influence the assessment. The reference to Australia 

was on Eucalyptus. The intent was to suggest that E. salmonicolor is not a pathogen on Eucalyptus in its native state 

and may have crossed over from some other host in South 

America. Pink disease on Eucalyptus has been observed on 

younger trees in plantations. Common ages range from 2 to 

5 years. However, no reports were found of this being a 

nursery disease problem. 
80 

Root and Stem Rots 

Assessor—Harold Burdsall 

Scientific names of pests—Armillaria spp., Phellinus spp., 

Ganoderma spp., Gymnopilus spectabilis (Fr.) A.H. Smith, 

Inonotus spp. (Basidiomycetes). 

Scientific names of hosts—Many conifer and deciduous tree 

species (including Eucalyptus spp.), both temperate and 

tropical. 

Distribution—Worldwide 

Summary of natural history and basic biology of the 

pests—Armillaria, Phellinus, Ganoderma, Gymnopilus, and

Inonotus species are being treated together here because they 

function similarly in the ecosystem, and mitigation procedures taken against one will be equally effective or ineffective against all. Species of heart-rot and root-rot fungi, represented by the fungus genera listed above, are distributed 

worldwide, and many of the species are not found in the 

United States. Nearly every country in the world, including 

those in South America, is home to a number of species that 

are exotic to the United States (Tables 11 and 12) (Buchanan 

and others 1995, Larsen and Cobb 1990, Volk and Burdsall 

1995). Little information is available in the literature regarding the currently recognized species of these decay fungi that 

occur in South America. Ganoderma australis, G. applanatus, and G. cf. lucidum are, overall, the most frequently 

reported (Lopez 1983, 1988), but whether the last two 

species are actually the same species as those in North America or merely similar morphologically has not been rigorously tested. Gymnopilus spectabilus was encountered frequently during the site visit as a root/butt-rot species in 

E. globulus, especially in Argentina, where it is commonly 

referred to as “the Eucalyptus fungus” (J. Wright, University 

of Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1998, personal communication). 

South America is also home to numerous species of 

Phellinus (Larsen and Cobb 1990, Lopez 1983, 1988) and 

several species of Armillaria and Inonotus (Lopez 1983, 

1988). Many of these species are not known from North 

America and the species said to be conspecific with those in 

North America have not been submitted to intense biosystematic investigation to assure this. 

In South America, Armillaria procera, A. novo-zealandica, 

and A. luteobubalina are well known for pathogenic capability (Kile and others 1991). All species examined to date have 

the ability to cause disease in some situations, frequently on a 

broad range of host species. They are also adept at surviving 

as saprophytes in dead wood for long periods of time (Kile 

1980, Rishbeth 1972, Shaw 1975). During one site visit, an 

Armillaria infection center was observed in a young 

Eucalyptus plantation near Escuadrón, Chile. How these 

species would function in the North American ecosystem is, 

of course, not obvious, but to date, all are known to have 

some pathogenic capability that would accompany them. 

The genus Phellinus is equally well represented in South 

America. The species differ substantially from one country to 

another, and new species are being described regularly. 

Many of these species are not found in North America. 

Species of Ganoderma are also potential pests. They cause 

root- and butt-rot of either conifers or hardwoods, depending 

on the species. South America has species unknown in the 

United States (Martinez and others 1995). In many of these 

countries, G. applanatum (Pers.) Pat. and G. lucidum 

(W. Curt.:Fr.) Karst. are reported to occur. These species are 

also reported to occur in the United States. However, recent 

studies using molecular techniques have demonstrated that 

the species being called by those names are not conspecific, 

with many countries, including those of South America, all 

possessing taxa biologically different from those in the 

United States, even though they may carry the same name 

(Moncalvo and others 1995). 

Armillaria and Phellinus species exist to one degree or another as rhizomorphs or mycelium (possibly chlamydospores), either in the soil itself or in woody debris and 

stumps. Recent data indicate that at least some species of 

Armillaria depend almost entirely on rhizomorphs as their 

principal means of dispersal (Smith and others 1992). 

Ganoderma species are not known to produce either chlamydospores or rhizomorphs. The mode of infection by the 

species in most of these genera is not known. Species of all 

of these genera and those of others that cause root- and heartrot are thought to primarily use a root to root transmission in 

the formation of infection centers. However, basidiospores 

are the means by which long distance spread of the fungus is 

accomplished, and this could be very effective in an 

ecosystem that lacks the normal competitors.

Most root- and heart-rot fungi act similarly. In the case of the 

attack of a tree beyond an infection center, the mycelium or 

rhizomorphs in the soil or debris are in close proximity to the 

root system. In the case of rhizomorphs, they may be attached but causing no damage (Wargo 1984). When the tree 

is stressed, the root is penetrated and the mycelium grows 

through the root. It continues growth toward the root crown, 

killing roots until the complete root system is dead. Spread 

occurs by means of growth from one root system to another, 

causing “infection centers” that increase in size with time. 

Mushrooms and conks, the spore-producing part of the life 

cycle, are formed in the fall and discharge spores into the air, 

where they are carried by wind. Although the basidiospores 

are not important in the localized spread of the fungus or in 

the formation of infection centers, they probably are the 

means of long distance spread of the fungus into new areas. 

No anamorphic (conidiospore) state exists in the life cycle of 

Armillaria or Ganoderma species, but there are indications 

that some Phellinus species may form chlamydospores in the 

soil. 
81 

Table 11—Armillaria species, hosts, and distribution 

Species name Host Distribution 

Armillaria affinis (Singer) Volk & Burds. Hardwoods Central America, Caribbean 

Armillaria griseomellea (Singer) Kile & Watl. Unknown South America 

Armillaria melleo-rubens (Berk. & Curt.) Sacc. Unknown Central America 

Armillaria montagnei (Singer) Herink Unknown South America, Europe 

Armillaria novae-zealandiae (G. Stev.) Herink Hardwoods, 

conifers 

New Zealand, New Guinea, 

Australia, South America 

Armillaria procera Speg. Hardwoods South America 

Armillaria puiggarii Speg. Hardwoods South America 

Armillaria sparrei (Singer) Herink Hardwoods South America 

Armillaria tigrenis (Singer) Volk & Burds. Hardwoods South America 

Armillaria viridiflava (Singer) Volk & Burds. Hardwoods South America 

Armillaria yungensis (Singer) Herink Hardwoods South America 

Table 12—Phellinus species, hosts, and distribution 

Species name Host Distribution 

Phellinus andinopatagonicus Wright & Desch. Nothofagus, 

Austrocedrus 

South America 

Phellinus andinus Plank & Ryv. Myrtaceae Argentina 

Phellinus apiahynus (Speg.) Rajch. & Wright Ocotea Argentina 

Phellinus calcitratus (Berk. & Curt.) Ryv. Hardwoods South America, 

Caribbean Islands 

Phellinus linteus (Berk. & Curt.) Teng Hardwoods Nicaragua, Mexico, tropical 

South America 

Phellinus lividus (Kalchbr.) Ahmad Hardwoods South American tropics 

Phellinus melanoderma (Pat.) O. Fidalgo Hardwoods Brazil 

Phellinus noxius (Corner) Cunn. Hardwoods Circumglobal tropics 

Phellinus pachyphloeus (Pat.) Pat. Hardwoods, 

conifers 

Circumglobal tropics 

Phellinus resinaceus Kotl. & Pouz. Eucalyptus spp. New Guinea 
82 

Specific information relating to risk elements 

A. Likelihood of introduction 

1. Pest with host–commodity at origin potential: High 

(VC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: c, d, e, 

g, h) 

Because Armillaria, Phellinus, Ganoderma, and other 

root-rot species are common worldwide and occur as 

cambium, root-, and butt-rots, any log harvested could 

be infected with one of these fungi. Incipient infections could easily escape detection. Because these 

species are excellent saprophytes, they do not need the 

living tree to exist. 

2. Entry potential: High (VC) (Applicable rating criteria, 

from Chap. 1: b, c, d) 

The root- and heart-rot fungi can survive well as saprophytes. Therefore, they would easily be able to survive during harvest and transport to the United States. 

Given the likelihood of significant moisture availablity 

(in holds of ships, docks, holding areas, etc.) the conditions could well be ideal for growth of these fungi in 

the transported logs. Additional entry potential exists 

because rhizomorphs and mycelium of these species 

could be under the bark on poorly debarked material. 

3. Colonization potential: Moderate (RC) (Applicable 

rating criteria, from Chap. 1: c, d) 

Because most of the root- and heart-rot fungi do not 

produce conidiospores or other easily disseminated 

propagules and are not vectored by insects, the probability of dissemination of these fungi from imported 

logs to appropriate substrates in the United States is 

low. However, basidiomes and basidiospores may be 

produced if these materials are exposed to extended or 

repeated periods of moisture. Although unlikely, such 

a possibility does exist. However, the opportunities for 

colonization appear to be moderate at the highest. 

4. Spread potential: High (MC) (Applicable rating 

criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, c, d, e, f, g) 

Spread of these fungi depends heavily on the effectiveness of the basidiospores in infecting an appropriate substrate–host. Because logs can be stored or 

moved from the port to some other part of the United 

States, the potential availability of a susceptible host is 

increased. If the logs are not kept sufficiently dry in 

storage, basidiomes could be formed, basidiospores 

produced, and the spread potential greatly increased. 

B. Consequences of introduction 

5. Economic damage potential: Moderate (RC) (Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: a, b, c) 

These fungi could result in tree mortality by causing 

root-rots on stressed trees. Because of the predominant 

root-to-root spread of these species and the usual restriction to infection centers, spread would be slow. 

The economic impact also would be slow to develop 

and probably never be major. However, if introduced 

species of these fungi are effective at long distance 

dispersal and establishment of populations by basidiospores the economic impact could be much greater. 

6. Environmental damage potential: Moderate (MC) 

(Applicable risk criteria, from Chap. 1: a) 

The environmental damage caused by root-rot species 

likely to be imported is low because of their assumed 

ability to spread at only slow rates (Smith and others 

1992). The probable restriction to infection centers 

will result in only minor environmental damage. However, under certain conditions and in certain areas, infection centers could cause significant damage, especially in ornamental and specimen trees. This raises 

the potential to moderate. A factor that is difficult to 

evaluate but should certainly be considered is the 

competition with native species and the impact on 

other elements of the ecosystem. 

7. Social and political considerations: Moderate (MC) 

(Applicable rating criteria, from Chap. 1: d) 

Increased mortality in native forests and horticultural 

plantings could have significant social and political 

impacts only if the fungus spreads rapidly, which is 

not expected for the species of root- and heart-rot 

fungi being discussed. 

C. Pest risk potential: Moderate (Likelihood of introduction 

= Moderate; Consequences of introduction = Moderate)

Selected bibliography 

Buchanan, P.K.; Hseu, R.S.; Moncalvo, J.M. 1995. Proceedings, Symposium 59A,B. 5th International Mycological 

Congress, Vancouver. 

Kile, G.A. 1980. Behavior of an Armillaria in some Eucalyptus obliqua—Eucalyptus regnans forests in Tasmania and 

its role in their decline. European Journal Forest Pathology. 10: 278–296. 
83 

Kile, G.A.; McDonald, G.I.; Byler, J.W. 1991. Ecology of 

disease in natural forests. In: Shaw, C.G. III, and Kile, 

G.A. (ed.) Armillaria root disease. Agric. Handb. 691. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. p. 102–121. 

Larsen, M.J.; Cobb, L.A. 1990. Phellinus (Hymenochateaceae): a survey of the world taxa. Synopsis Fungorum 

3: 1–206. 

Lopez, S.E. 1983. Sucesión fungica en madera de Eucalyptus 

viminalis (Myrtaceae) I. Basidiomycetes sobre árbol vivo 

y troncos en estiba. Boletín de la Sociedad Argentina de 

Botánica 22: 21–39. 

Lopez, S.E. 1988. Sucesión fungica en madera de Eucalyptus 

viminalis (Myrtaceae) II. Basidiomycetes sobre tocones. 

Boletín de la Sociedad Argentina de Botánica 

25: 425–448. 

Martinez, A.T.; Barrasa, J.M.; Martinez, M.J. [and others]. 

1995. Ganoderma australe: a fungus responsible for extensive delignification of some austral hardwoods. In: 

Buchanan, P.K.; Hseu, R.S.; Moncalvo, J.M., eds. Proceedings, 59A,B. 5th International Mycological Congress. 

Vancouver. p. 67–77. 

Moncalvo, J.M.; Huei–Fang, W.; Hsi–hua, W.; Ruey–

Shyang, H. 1995. The use of ribosomal DNA sequence 

data for species identification and phylogeny in the Ganodermataceae. In: Buchanan, P.K.; Hseu, R.S.; Moncalvo, 

J.M. Proceedings, 59A,B. 5th International Mycological 

Congress. Vancouver. p. 31–44. 

Rishbeth, J. 1972. The production of rhizomorphs by 

Armillaria mellea from stumps. European Journal 

Forest Pathology. 2: 193–205. 

Shaw, C.G., III. 1975. Epidemiological insights into 

Armillaria mellea root rot in a managed ponderosa pine 

forest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 201 p. 

Ph.D. dissertation. 

Smith, M.L.; Bruhn, J.N.; Anderson, J.B. 1992. The fungus 

Armillaria bulbosa is among the largest and oldest living 

organisms. Nature. 356: 428–431. 

Volk, T.J.; Burdsall, H.H., Jr. 1995. A nomenclatural study 

of Armillaria and Armillariella. Synopsis Fungorum. 

8: 1–121. 

Wargo, P.M. 1984. How stress predisposes trees to attack by 

Armillaria mellea—a hypothesis. In: Proceedings, sixth 

international conference on root and butt rot of forest 

trees. Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO. p. 115–121. 

Wargo, P.M.; Shaw, C.G. III. 1985. Armillaria root rot: the 

puzzle is being solved. Plant Disease. 69: 826–832. 

Reviewers’ comments—“I just noticed in the Checklist that 

Laetiporus sulphureus is reported on eucalypts in Brazil and 

Argentina. I knew about Brazil before, but forgot to put it on 

the list. Maybe it should be included in this chapter.” 

(Hodges) 

“The PRA process for individual pests is explained clearly 

on pp. 2-10. However, those directions are not necessarily 

followed in the IPRA. For example, according to the documented PRA process, the colonization potential for root and 

stem rots (pp. 128-134) should be ‘high’. Despite this, it is 

listed as a ‘medium’ risk in its IPRA. The reason for this is 

not clearly explained.” (Johnson/Oesterbauer) 

“Under colonization potential, if the probability of dissemination to appropriate substrates is low, the selection of ‘b’ as 

applicable risk criteria appears contradictory, as it would not 

then be likely that the organism would encounter favorable 

climatic conditions. If the spread potential depends upon the 

effectiveness of basidiospore production, and this likelihood 

remains uncertain, the rating on both nodes appears to be 

high.” (Zadig) 

Response to comments—Risk criterion b under colonization 

potential, “organism has high probability of encountering 

favorable climatic conditions throughout the ranges of potential hosts(s)”, was removed as a selection. As stated in the 

text and pointed out by the reviewer, most of the root- and 

heart-rot fungi do not produce conidiospores or other easily 

disseminated propagules and are not vectored by insects; 

thus, the probability of dissemination, and the likelihood of 

encountering favorable climatic conditions, is moderate at 

best. 

Although reported on Euculyptus in Argentina and Brazil,

Laetiporus sulphureus was not included in Table 9 because 

of its cosmopolitan occurrence, including the United States. 

Any mitigation measures effective against the pathogens 

discussed in this individual pest risk assessment would also 

be effective against L. sulphureus. 
84 
85 

Chapter 4. Summary and Conclusions 

Background 

Several U.S. forest industries propose to import logs and 

chips of Eucalyptus from South America for processing in 

various localities in the United States. Current regulations 

require that unprocessed temperate logs from countries in 

South America be fumigated with methyl bromide to eliminate pests. Logs must be stored and handled to exclude access by pests after treatment (Title 7, CFR Part 319.40-6(a)). 

Chips of tropical origin are required to be from healthy, 

plantation grown, tropical species or must be fumigated with 

methyl bromide, heat-treated, or heat-treated with moisture 

reduction (Title 7, CFR Part 319.40-6(c)). The Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) requested that the 

Forest Service prepare a pest risk assessment that identifies 

the potential insects and pathogens of plantation-grown 

Eucalyptus throughout South America, that estimates the 

likelihood of their entry on logs or chips of Eucalyptus 

species into the United States, and that estimates the potential 

for these pests to establish and spread within the United 

States. The pest risk assessment also evaluates the economic, 

environmental, social, and political consequences of any 

introduction. This risk assessment includes the conterminous 

United States and Hawaii as potential ports of entry. The 

assessment and conclusions are expected to be applicable 

to these areas. 

The genus Eucalyptus is one of the most widely propagated 

trees in the world because of its fast growth rate, environmental adaptability, and high quality for pulp production. 

The planting of fast-growing trees, such as Eucalyptus, has 

been encouraged by various South American governments. 

Brazil has the largest amount of Eucalyptus plantations with 

more than 2.7 million hectares. Other countries with significant plantings include Argentina, Chile, Peru, and Uruguay. 

The pests of Eucalyptus in South America include those that 

have been introduced from other parts of the world, as well 

as those that have crossed over from native hosts in South 

American countries. Most of the potential hosts in the United 

States are Eucalyptus or other Myrtaceae, especially in 

Hawaii. However, other suspected hosts may be present that 

have not yet been exposed to these pest agents. 

Pest Risk Assessment 

The Wood Import Pest Risk Assessment and Mitigation 

Evaluation Team, a group of pest specialists from various 

USDA Forest Service offices, compiled this pest risk assessment. The team of specialists provided technical expertise 

from the disciplines of forestry, entomology, plant pathology, 

and mycology. All team members worked on previous pest 

risk assessments related to log imports. Representatives from 

APHIS, USDA Forest Service, Forest Service retirees, and 

the governments of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay 

assisted the team. In March 1998, three members of the team 

traveled to Brazil, accompanied by a former Forest Service 

employee knowledgeable of the country and its Eucalyptus

plantings and pests and by an APHIS representative. Officials of the Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria 

(EMBRAPA) coordinated the site visit. The team visited 

numerous plantings of Eucalyptus in various parts of the 

country, including in temperate and tropical conditions. They 

also visited processing mills and ports. The team spoke with 

various government officials, industry representatives, and 

members of academia to discuss the risk assessment and 

conditions in Brazil. A second team of three members traveled to Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay in April 1998. An 

APHIS representative accompanied them. Members of 

SENASA (Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad) in 

Argentina; Ministerio de Ganaderia, Agricultura y Pesca in 

Uruguay; and SAG (Servicio Agricola y Ganadero) in Chile 

assisted the team in coordinating the visit. This team also 

visited a number of plantations, ports, and mills, as well as 

persons involved in Eucalyptus management and pest 

management in each of the countries. 

The team began the risk assessment process by compiling a 

list of organisms reported to be associated with Eucalyptus

species in South America. From this list, insects and pathogens that have the greatest risk potential as pests on logs or 

chips were identified using risk analysis procedures recommended by APHIS (Orr and others 1993). Two of the five 

criteria that were identified in the log import regulations for 

identifying potential pests of concern were expanded in this 

assessment (Table 7). Criterion 2 was expanded to include 

2a, pests that are present in both South America and the 

United States but with restricted distribution in the United 

States and little chance of being internally spread within the 

United States because of the lack of reason for movement of 

contaminated material from the restricted area. Imports of 

such materials could well traverse and break these barriers. 

Criterion 4 was expanded to include 4a, native species that 

have reached the probable limits of their range but may differ 

in their capacity for causing damage, based on the genetic 

variation exhibited by the species. The team also used a new 

set of criteria in determining the level of risk associated with 

each risk element. These criteria were developed by a team 

under the leadership of APHIS who are assessing the risk of 

the importation of pests associated with solid wood packing 

material. 
86 

Nineteen individual pest risk assessments (IPRAs) were 

prepared for pests of Eucalyptus, eleven dealing with insect 

pests and eight with pathogens. The organisms from these 

assessments are grouped in Table 13 according to the substrate they are likely to occupy (on bark, in or under bark, or 

inside wood). The team recognizes that these organisms may 

not be the only ones associated with logs, but they are representative of the diversity of insects and pathogens that inhabit 

logs. The lack of biological information on a given insect or 

pathogen should not be equated with low risk (USDA 1993). 

However, by necessity, this pest risk assessment focuses on 

those insects and pathogens for which biological information 

is available. By developing IPRAs for known organisms that 

inhabit a variety of niches on logs, APHIS can subsequently 

identify effective mitigation measures to eliminate the recognized pests and any similar unknown organisms that inhabit 

the same niches. 

Major Pests of Eucalyptus

Species on Imported Logs 

or Chips 

Some of the organisms of concern on eucalypts (for example, 

the leaf cutting ants [Atta spp., Acromyrmex spp.], Gonipterus spp., Cephisus siccifolius, Sarsina violascens, the foliar 

pathogens, and Puccinia psidii) would only be associated 

with logs as hitchhikers, most likely confined to the bark 

surface. Although these hitchhiking organisms are generally 

not considered likely to be found on logs, several were identified in the risk assessment as a moderate risk potential. 

These include Gonipterus spp., the fungi that cause foliar 

diseases, and Puccinia psidii. They merit a moderate rating 

because of their possible association with bark and their 

colonization potential, not because of severe consequences 

once introduced. Sarsina violescens, a lepidopteran that 

feeds on a range of hosts and is widely distributed, was 

identified as a high risk potential. The hitchhiking lepidopteran is representative of organisms that could use eucalypts 

as a vehicle to gain access to host plants of a different genus 

in the United States. It has characteristics somewhat similar 

to gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar, with its large host range 

and ease of spread. This suggests a high risk potential. 

Insects and pathogens that inhabit the inner bark and wood 

have a higher likelihood of being imported with logs than do 

organisms on the bark, particularly in the absence of mitigation measures. Seven of these groups of organisms were rated 

as a high risk potential. The scolytid bark and ambrosia 

beetles (Scolytopsis brasiliensis, Xyleborus retusus, 

Xyleborus biconicus, and Xyleborus spp.) have not been 

identified as significant pests of eucalypts in South America. 

However, because of the broad host range of the ambrosia 

beetle, past records of human-assisted movement, and the 

ability to move in logs, they are of concern to other potential 

hosts in the United States. The carpenterworm, Chilecomadia 

valdiviana, is a native organism in South America that has 

crossed over to E. nitens from Nothofagus. The amount of 

damage it has caused is limited, even in other nonEucalyptus agricultural products that it infests. It is rated 

high because of the presence of unknown associated fungi, 

which appear to produce more damage in the wood than the 

insect itself. The round-headed wood borers (Chydarteres 

striatus, Retrachyderes thoracicus, Trachyderes spp., 

Steirastoma breve, Stenodontes spinibarbis) are occasional 

inhabitants of Eucalyptus. Normally, they are secondary 

inhabitants of felled or weakened trees. The limited association of these insects with eucalypts in South America lessens 

the risk of introduction, although if they are infesting logs, 

they could enter the United States. They have been intercepted at United States ports. Phoracantha semipunctata is 

another high-risk organism that is known to be present in part 

of the United States. Phoracantha semipunctata was noted as 

one of the more significant insect pests of Eucalyptus during 

site visits. However, it was mostly a concern in trees under 

stress, especially associated with drought. This insect has 

been transported to numerous locations in the world, including South America and the United States. Its ability for ready 

transport, wide host range, high rate of spread, and significant damage where introduced merited a high rating. The 

Botryosphaeria canker fungi (Botryosphaeria dothidea, 

B. obtusa, B. ribis) were rated as a high risk potential because of their wide host range and their genetic variability. 

Another canker pathogen, Ceratocystis fimbriata, has demonstrated its ability to infect a wide range of hosts and cause 

considerable economic damage to some of these hosts. It is 

currently widespread in the United States. However, the 

concern arises from the genetic diversity of this organism and 

the potential for this diversity to be reflected in varying 

levels of virulence on different hosts. A population genetically different from that found in the United States has been 

identified in South America. The consequence of the introduction of new strains or pathotypes of C. fimbriata into the 

United States is not known. Erythricium salmonicolor is a 

concern because of its broad host range and the high level of 

damage it causes under certain environmental conditions. Its 

introduction into Hawaii could result in major losses to the 

agricultural industry, as well as potential adverse effects to 

native ecosystems. 

Several groups of insects and pathogens that inhabit the bark 

or wood of Eucalyptus were rated as having a moderate risk 

potential. The ambrosia beetle, Megaplatypus parasulcatus, 

is infrequently an inhabitant of eucalypts, preferring poplars 

as its hosts. It requires live host tissue to survive and oceanic 

transport would probably result in mortality of the insects as 

identified in crating material in Chile. These factors reduced 

the probability of establishment to moderate. If introduced 

into the United States, it could cause damage primarily to 

poplars in subtropical areas. Subterranean termites 

(Coptotermes spp., Heterotermes spp.) were rated moderate 
87 

Table 13—Summary of risk potentials for South American pests of concern for unprocessed Eucalyptus logs 

(on bark, in or under bark, or in wood) and chipsa

Likelihood of introduction Consequences of introduction 

Common name 

(Scientific name) 

Host 

association 

Entry 

potential 

Colonization 

potential 

Spread 

potential Economic 

damage 

Environmental 

damage 

Social/ 

political 

Pest risk 

potential 

On bark 

Insects 

Leaf cutting ants (Atta spp., 

Acromyrmex spp.) L L H M M H M L 

Eucalypt weevils (Gonipterus spp.) H H H M M L M M 

Flea of the tifa leaf 

(Cephisus siccifolius) L L M M M L L L 

Purple moth (Sarsina violescens) H H H H M M M H 

Pathogens 

Foliar diseases (Aulographina eucalypti, 

Cryptosporiopsis eucalypti, 

Cylindrocladium spp., Phaeophleospora 

spp., Mycosphaerella spp.) 

M H H M M M L M 

Eucalyptus rust 

(Puccinia psidii) M H M M M H M M 

In or under bark 

Insects 

Scolytid bark and ambrosia beetles (Scolytopsis brasiliensis, Xyleborus retusus, 

Xyleborus biconicus, Xyleborus spp.) 

H H H H H M M H 

Pathogens 

Cryphonectria canker 

(Cryphonectria cubensis) H H M M M L M M 

Botryosphaeria cankers (Botryosphaeria 

dothidea, B. obtusa, B. ribis) H H H H M L L H 

Cytospora cankers (Cytospora eucalypticola, Cytospora eucalyptina) M H M M L L L M 

Ceratocystis canker 

(Ceratocystis fimbriata) H H H H H M L H 

Coniothyrium canker 

(Coniothyrium zuluense) M H H H M M L M 

Pink disease (Erythricium salmonicolor) H H H M M H H H 

In wood 

Insects 

Carpenterworm 

(Chilecomadia valdiviana) 

M H H H H M M H (E. nitens) 

M (2 other 

species) 

Platypodid ambrosia beetle 

(Megaplatypus parasulcatus) M L H H H M M M 

Round-headed wood borers (Chydarteres 

striatus, Retrachyderes thoracicus, 

Trachyderes spp., Steirastoma breve, 

Stenodontes spinibarbis) 

H H H H H L M H 

Subterranean termites 

(Coptotermes spp., Heterotermes spp.) M H H H M M M M 

Eucalypt longhorned borer 

(Phoracantha semipunctata) H H H H H H H H 

Yellow phoracantha borer 

(Phoracantha recurva) L H H H H H H M 

Pathogens 

Root and stem rots (Armillaria spp., 

Phellinus spp., Ganoderma spp., 

Gymnopilus spectabilis) 

H H M H M M M M 

a

H = high rating; M = moderate rating; L = low rating 
88 

because their addition to the United States fauna may not 

increase the economic damage already done by subterranean 

termites already present. Also, termite colonies would be 

very evident in eucalypt logs and could be excluded from 

entry by inspection. Although Phoracantha recurva represents a threat similar to that of P. semipunctata to eucalypts 

in the United States, it was rated as moderate rather than high 

because of its extremely limited distribution in Chile and its 

absence from production areas of Eucalyptus in that country. 

Cryphonectria canker, caused by C. cubensis, has been reported in Florida and Hawaii on eucalypts. The climate 

associated with these states is what is conducive to infection, 

so further new introductions would probably be limited, 

possibly to some Gulf Coast states. The limit for additional 

spread beyond its current occurrence reduced its risk potential to moderate. Because the Cytospora canker fungi 

(Cytospora eucalypticola, C. eucalyptina) appear to be of 

limited occurrence in South America and occur only on 

Eucalyptus, they received a moderate rating. Coniothyrium 

canker, caused by C. zuluense, is apparently a recent introduction to South America. Currently, its limited damage and 

distribution reduces the risk potential to moderate. Over 

time, if this fungus spreads, the potential may increase to 

high; although the area of damage in the United States would 

probably be principally in the warm, moist climates. The root 

and stem rots received a moderate risk potential rating. Limited occurrences of this group of organisms on Eucalyptus

were reported, but their location in the wood and survival 

capability increase the opportunity for transport. The limiting 

factor in their establishment in the United States may be their 

restricted dissemination ability once they arrive. 

In assessing the risk of potential pests, the fact that insects 

and microorganisms invade logs in a predictable temporal 

sequence, dictated by the condition of the host, is important. 

At the time of felling, logs will contain any pathogens and 

borers present in the bole of the living tree. Also certain life 

stages of defoliating insects may be attached to the bark. 

Within the first several weeks after felling, beetles and borers, such as M. parasulcatus, may colonize logs. Also, certain wood borers may deposit eggs on the bark of logs shortly 

after harvest. Whether bark- and wood-boring insects will be 

common on export logs will depend in part on how rapidly 

the logs are removed from harvest sites and loaded onto 

ships, trains, or trucks for transport to the United States. We 

recognize that other potential pathways exist for the introduction of forest pests. Though deserving of examination, these 

pathways may be difficult if not impossible to predict and are 

not a focus of this assessment. 

Factors Influencing 

Risk Potential 

During site visits, we were informed of and observed 

differences in harvesting and processing practices among 

countries. These differences, such as debarking, can influence the risk potential for certain pests, especially hitchhikers 

and those that invade the inner bark. Other practices, such as 

chip production, can also influence the likelihood of pest 

occurrence and transport. The risk rating of potential pest 

species was based on the concept of whole log importation. 

Clearly, debarking and reducing logs to chips will seriously 

impact the survival and hence the risk of importing certain 

pests. Some pests, primarily insects, will be adversely affected by chipping because of the actual destruction of living 

organisms or disruption of host material so that life stages 

cannot be completed. Thus, of the IPRAs for insects, all 

would be rated at moderate or low risk of surviving chipping 

and transport. Other organisms, such as fungi, may not be 

affected by chipping or could be positively or negatively 

affected. The production of chips will result in considerably 

more surface area on which fructifications could develop. It 

would also make it impossible to visually inspect for certain 

defects, such as cankers and decay. The smaller the size of 

the wood chips, the quicker they would dry out, and the less 

the risk of potential pests surviving. Smaller chips would 

probably not provide an adequate food base to permit fruiting of decay fungi, but these fungi could survive as mycelia 

or rhizomorphs. On the other hand, large piles of chips will 

generate heat internally and possibly have large areas under 

anaerobic conditions that may be damaging to fungal pathogens, either directly or through the encouragement of thermophilic fungi that may be antagonistic to the pathogens. 

Internal temperatures of hardwood chip piles have been 

reported to reach 49°C to 82°C after 5 to 7 days (Fuller 

1985), temperatures sufficiently high to inhibit or kill most 

fungal pathogens. Chips on the surface of undisturbed chip 

piles will be unaffected by heating. Although chipping, piling, storage, and transporting Eucalyptus may alter the risk 

of pest importation, other risks such as insect hitchhikers on 

transport vehicles would remain unchanged. 

In addition to harvesting practices, some differences were 

noted among countries in the occurrence and extent of certain pest organisms. These differences are noted in the individual pest risk assessments. They may influence the risk 

potential for certain organisms from specific countries. This 

is compounded by the fact that certain species of Eucalyptus

are preferentially planted in certain countries. For example, 

most of the export from Argentina is expected to be E. grandis, E. saligna, and E. dunnii, while E. grandis and E. globulus are exported from Uruguay. Eucalyptus globulus is the 

only one of the above species commonly grown in Chile. The 

remaining species in Chile are not principal species in the 

other countries we visited. 

Several factors suggest that eucalypt logs destined for export 

from South America may be relatively free of most damaging 

organisms. Commercial Eucalyptus plantations are well 

managed with the intent of maximizing production. This has 

resulted in the selection of species, provenances, and clones 
89 

that are more resistant to insect and pathogen attack and in 

close monitoring to detect and control damaging pests. 

Eucalyptus is not native to South America; therefore many of 

its native pests are not present. Those that are present have 

been introduced. Of more concern, however, may be the pest 

organisms native to South America that have crossed over to 

Eucalyptus. This characteristic suggests an ability to have a 

wider host range and adaptability for new hosts. In fact, 

many of the organisms analyzed in the IPRAs are native to 

South American hosts and have crossed over to Eucalyptus.

Some of these organisms are found in many areas of the 

world and have a broad host range, such as the Formicidae, 

subterranean termites, Botryosphaeria spp., Cryphonectria 

cubensis, Erythricium salmonicolor, and root and stem rots. 

Other native organisms have a more limited host range in 

South America but still are found on Eucalyptus. Some of 

these organisms have hosts only in the Myrtaceae family and 

include Sarsina violascens and Puccinia psidii. Organisms 

such as Chilecomadia valdiviana, Megaplatypus parasulcatus, Cephisus siccifolius, and ambrosia beetles are native to 

South America and are found occasionally in Eucalyptus but 

have other native and nonnative principal hosts. This indicates the ability of many of the insects and pathogens assessed to move to hosts other than Eucalyptus and, in some 

cases, in families other than Myrtaceae. Most of these other 

hosts are broadleafs, which suggests an increased risk to 

broadleaf species in the United States, especially in the East 

and Midwest. Introduction of these native South American 

insects and pathogens into the United States with the array 

of potential new host species could result in significant 

economic and ecological consequences. 

Conclusions 

There are numerous potential pest organisms found on 

Eucalyptus in South America that have a high likelihood of 

being inadvertently introduced into the United States on 

unprocessed logs or chips. Some of these organisms are 

attracted to recently harvested logs while others are affiliated 

with logs in a peripheral fashion but nonetheless pose serious 

threats to forest or agricultural hosts in the United States. 

Thus, the potential mechanisms of log infestation by nonindigenous pests are complex. Several of the rated organisms 

are more tropical in nature. Their ability to colonize hosts in 

much of the United States, therefore, may be more limited. 

However, consequences to Hawaii if introduced could be 

considerable because of the state’s more tropical nature and 

the extent of endemic species, especially Myrtaceae, that are 

present there. Previous log import risk assessments have not 

included Hawaii as a potential port of entry. Because of the 

elevated risk to this state, we decided to include it in this 

assessment. 

The situation of plantation-grown Eucalyptus in South America bears similarities to previous log import risk assessments, 

notably Pinus radiata and Douglas-fir from New Zealand 

and P. radiata from Chile. In all of these situations, the 

proposed export crop is relatively free of insects and pathogens because of the exotic nature of the host. The risk may 

be less in this assessment than the previous assessments since 

Eucalyptus is also not native to the United States. Also, 

Eucalyptus occurs in limited locations, notably California, 

Hawaii, and Florida. Any introductions of pest organisms, if 

limited to Eucalyptus, would have limited consequences. 

However, crossovers to native hosts could result in more 

significant adverse effects. 

For those organisms of concern that are associated with 

South American Eucalyptus, specific phytosanitary measures 

may be required to ensure the quarantine safety of proposed 

importations. Detailed examination and selection of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk is the 

responsibility of APHIS as part of the pest risk management 

phase (Orr and others 1993) and is beyond the scope of this 

assessment. 
90 
91 

 Chapter 5. Bibliography 

This is an inclusive bibliography meant to provide the reader 

with an extensive list of possible sources of information on 

the subject of pests of Eucalyptus in the United States and 

South America. 

Alfenas, A.C. 1983. Virulence and isoenzyme patterns of 

Cryphonectria cubensis (Bruner) Hodges, causal agent of the 

eucalyptus canker. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto. 

86 p. Ph.D. Thesis. 

Alfenas, A.C.; Ferreira, F.A. 1979. A mancha das folhas de 

eucalipto no Brasil causada por três espécies de 

Cylindrocladium. Uma revisão da descrição da doença. 

Rev. Arvore 3: 47–56. 

Alfenas, A.C.; Jeng, R.S; Hubbes, M. 1983. Virulence of 

Cryphonectria cubensis on Eucalyptus species differing in 

resistance. European Journal of Forest Pathology. 13: 

197–205. 

Alfenas, A.C.; Jeng, R; Hubbes, M. 1984. Isoenzyme and 

protein patterns of isolates of Cryphonectria cubensis differing in virulence. Canadian Journal of Botany 62: 1756–1762. 

Anderson, R.F. 1966. Forest and shade tree entomology. 

New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 428 p. 

Artigas, J. 1994. Entomólogía económica: insectos de interés 

agrícola, forestal, médico y veterinario (nativos, introducidos 

y susceptibles de ser introducidos). Concepción, Chile: 

Ediciones Universidad de Concepción. 1,126 p. 

Auer, C.G.; Krugner, T.L. 1993. Grau de patogenicidade de 

Valsa ceratosperma em relacao a Cryphonectria cubensis em 

Eucalyptus grandis. Summa Phytopathologica. 19: 174–176. 

Bain, J. 1976. Phoracantha semipunctata (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Forest and Timber Insects in New 

Zealand. No. 4. 4 p. 

Bain, J. 1977. Gonipterus scutellatus Gyllenhal (Coleoptera: 

Curculionidae), gum tree weevil. Forest and Timber Insects 

in New Zealand. No. 8. 

Barnard, E.L.; Geary, T.; English, J.T.; Gilly, S.P. 1987. 

Basal cankers and coppice failure of Eucalyptus grandis in 

Florida. Plant Disease. 71: 358–361. 

Barria P., G.; Curkovic S., T.; Gonzalez R., R.H. 1994. El 

taladrador de Eucalipto: Phoracantha semipunctata Fabr. 

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) en Chile. Chile Forestal. 

Documento Tecnico. 

Bazan de Segura, C. 1969. Root rot of Eucalyptus globulus. 

Revista Forestal de Peru. 3: 58–60. (In Spanish) 

Beal, R.H.; Mauldin J.K.; Jones, S.C. 1989. Subterranean 

termites—Their prevention and control in buildings. Home 

and Garden Bull. 64. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 36 p. 

Bentancourt, C.M.; Scatoni, I.B. [n.d.] Catálogo de insectos 

y ácaros de importancia agrícola y forestal en el Uruguay. 

Notas Técnicas 10. Montevideo, Uruguay. 

Berti Filho, E. 1981. Insetos associados a plantaçãoes de 

especies do genero Eucalyptus nos estados de Bahia, Espírito 

Santo, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais e São Paulo. Tese 

apresentada a Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz,” da Universidad de São Paulo, Piracicaba. 176 p. 

Berti Filho, E. 1983. Insects of the Lepidoptera associated 

with Eucalyptus spp. in Brazil. Silvicultura. 8(32): 623–624. 

Berti Filho, E., ed. 1993. Cupins ou Térmitas. Manual de 

Pragas em Florestas Vol. 3. IPEF–SIF (Instituto de Pesquisas 

e Estudos—Sociedade de Investigações Florestais). 56 p. 

Berti Filho, E.; Milani, D.; Cerignoni, J.A. 1996. Ocorrencia 

de Scaptocoris castanea Perty 1839 (Hemiptera–

Heteropthera, Cydnidae) em Eucalyptus sp. (Myrtaceae). 

Revista de Agricultura Piracicaba 71: 126. 

Bettucci, L.; Alonzo, R. 1997a. A comparative study of 

fungal populations in healthy and symptomatic twigs and 

seedlings of Eucalyptus globulus in Uruguay. Sydowia. 

49: 109–117.

Bettucci, L.; Alonzo, R. 1997b. A comparative study of 

fungal populations in healthy and symptomatic twigs of 

Eucalyptus grandis in Uruguay. Mycological Research. 

101: 1060–1064. 

Bettucci, L.; Alonzo, R.; Tiscornia, S. 1999. Endophytic 

mycobiota of healthy twigs and the assemblae of species 

associated with twig lesions of Eucalyptus globulus and E. 

grandis in Uruguay. Mycological Research. 103: 468–472. 

Blackman, T. 1997. The forestry and wood processing industries of the ABC countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile. Second 

Edition. San Francisco, CA: Miller Freeman. 367 p. 

Boerboom, J.H.A.; Maas, P.W.T. 1970. Canker of Eucalyptus grandis and E. saligna in Surinam caused by Endothia 

havanensis. Turrialba. 20: 94–99. 
92 

Boland, D.J.; Brophy, J.J.; House, A.P.N., eds. 1991. Eucalyptus leaf oils. Use, chemistry, distillation and marketing. 

Melbourne, Australia: Inkata Press. 252 p. 

Bolsinger, C.L. 1988. The hardwoods of California's timberlands, woodlands, and savannas. Res. Bull. PNW–RB–148. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 148 p. 

Briceo–Vergara, A.J. 1987. Consideraciones generales sobre 

ataques de insectos en bosques y plantaciones de la región 

occidental de Venezuela. Revista Forestal Venezolana. 

21: 57–64. 

Bruner, S.C. 1916. A new species of Endothia. Mycologia. 

8: 239–242. 

Buchanan, P.K.; Hseu, R.S.; Moncalvo, J.M. 1995. In: Proceedings, Symposium 59A,B. 5th International Mycological 

Congress, Vancouver. 

Cadahia, D. 1986. The importance of insect pests of eucalyptus in the Mediterranean region. Bull. OEPP 16(2): 265–283. 

California Forest Pest Council. 1997. Forest pest conditions 

in California—1997. 

Cameron, S.; Riggs, C. 1985. Distribution, impact, and control of the Texas leaf-cutting ant—1983 survey results. Texas 

Forest Service Pub. 139. 6 p. 

Campinhos, E., Jr.; Ikemori, Y.K. 1983. Mass production of 

Eucalyptus spp. by rooting cuttings. Silvicultura. 8: 770–775. 

Castro, H.A. de; Krügner, T.L. 1984. Microorganismos 

associadas a podridao do cerne de arvores vivas de Eucalyptus spp. na regiao de Guaiba, RS. Fitopathologia Brasileira. 

9: 227–232. 

Cerda M., L. 1995. Estudio y seguimiento del taladrador de 

la madera Chilecomadia valdiviana (Lep.: Cossidae) en 

plantaciones de Eucalyptus nitens en el patrimonio de 

FORMIN S.A. Informe de Avance Temporada 1994–1995. 

Concepción, Chile. 15 p. 

Cerda M., L. 1996. Chilecomadia valdiviana (Philippi) 

(Lepidoptera, Cossidae). Insecto taladrador de la madera 

asociado al cultivo del Eucalyptus spp. en Chile. Nota 

Técnica, Año 16. Corporación Nacional Forestal, Depto. de 

Programas y Proyectos, Programa Protección, Sanitaria 

Forestal. No. 32. 7 p. 

Chippendale, G. 1988. Eucalyptus, Angophorra (Myrtaceae). 

Flora of Australia 19. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service. 

Cibrián–Tovar, D.; Méndez Montiel, J.T.; Campos Bolaños, 

R.; Yates III, H.O.; Flores Lara, J. 1995. Insectos forestales 

de México—Forest insects of Mexico. Publicatión 6. 

Chapingo, México: Universidad Autónoma. 453 p. 

Ciesla, W.M.; Diekmann, M.; Putter, C.A.J. 1996. 

FAO/IPGRI technical guidelines for the safe movement of 

germplasm. No. 17. Eucalyptus spp. Rome, Italy: United 

Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

Rome/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. 66 p. 

Clark, A.F. 1937. A survey of the insect pests of Eucalypts in 

New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Science and 

Technology 19: 750–761. 

Cogollor, G.; Poblete, M. 1987. Evaluación del daño producido por Phoracantha semipunctata Fabr. Insecto taladrador en las plantaciones de eucalipto en Chile y recomendaciones para el control. Santiago, Chile: Universidad de Chile, 

Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales, Departamento de 

Silvicultura. 16 p. 

Cogollor, G.; Contreras, J.; Navarro, M. 1989. Un estudio de 

control de Phoracantha semipunctata en plantaciones de 

eucalipto. Documento de Trabajo No. 20. FO:DP/CHI/ 

83/017–PNUD–FAO–CONAF. 37 p. 

Condori, L.V. 1980. Variation in relative resistance and 

susceptibility to the Eucalyptus canker caused by Diaporthe 

cubensis Bruner. In: Proceedings, international symposium 

held by the International Union of Forestry Research Organizations S1–97–09 working group at the Institute of Tropical 

Forestry; 1980 September 8–12; Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico: 

23–24. 

Conradie, E.; Swart, W.J.; Wingfield, M.J. 1990. Cryphonectria canker of Eucalyptus, an important disease in plantation 

forestry in South Africa. South African Forestry Journal. 

152: 43–49. 

Conradie, E.; Swart, W.J.; Wingfield, M.J. 1992. 

Susceptibility of Eucalyptus grandis to Cryphonectria 

cubensis. European Journal of Forest Pathology. 22: 312–

315. 

Coutinho, T.A.; Wingfield, M.J.; Crous, P.W.; van Zyl, L.M. 

1997. Coniothyrium canker: a serious new disease in South 

Africa. In: Proceedings, IUFRO conference on silviculture 

and improvement of eucalypts; 1997 August 24–29; Salvador, Brazil. Colombo, Brazil: Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa 

Agropecuária: 3: 78–83. 

Coutinho, T.A.; Wingfield, M.J.; Alfenas, A.C.; Crous, P.W. 

1998. Eucalyptus rust: a disease with the potential for serious 

international implications. Plant Disease. 82: 819–825. 

Couto, L.; Betters, R. 1995. Short-rotation eucalypt planations in Brazil: Social and environmental issues. Oak Ridge, 

TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

(http://www.esd.ornl.gov/bfdp/reports/euc-braz/toc.html). 
93 

Cowles, R.S.; Downer, J.A. 1995. Eucalyptus snout beetle 

detected in California. California Agriculture. 49(1): 38–40. 

Cozzo, D. 1960. A disorder of Eucalypts in the province of 

Misiones. Revista Forestal Argentina. 4: 101–102. 

Craighead, F.C. 1950. Insect enemies of eastern forests. 

Misc. Pub. 657. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 679 p. 

Crous, P.W. 1998. Mycosphaerella spp. and their anamorphs 

associated with leaf spot diseases of Eucalyptus. Mycologia 

Memoir 21. St. Paul, MN: The Mycological Society of 

America. APS Press. 170 p. 

Crous, P.W.; Braun, U. 1996. Cercosporoid fungi from South 

Africa. Mycotaxon. 57: 233–321. 

Crous, P.W.; Wingfield, M.J. 1994. A monograph of 

Cylindrocladium, including anamorphs of Calonectria. 

Mycotaxon. 51: 341–453. 

Crous, P.W.; Knox–Davies, P.S.; Wingfield, M.J. 1989. A 

summary of fungal leaf pathogens of Eucalyptus and the 

diseases they cause in South Africa. South African Forestry 

Journal. 159: 9–16. 

Crous, P.W.; Ferreira, F.A.; Alfenas, A.C.; Wingfield, M.J. 

1993a. Mycosphaerella suberosa associated with corky leaf 

spots on Eucalyptus in Brazil. Mycologia. 85: 705–710. 

Crous, P.W.; Wingfield, M.J.; Ferreira, F.A.; Alfenas, A. 

1993b. Mycosphaerella parkii and Phyllosticta eucalyptorum, two new species from Eucalyptus leaves in Brazil. 

Mycological Research. 97: 582–584. 

Crous, P.W.; Ferreira, F.A.; Sutton, B. 1997a. A comparison 

of the fungal genera Phaeophleospora and Kirramyces

(Coelomycetes). South African Journal of Botany. 

63: 111–115. 

Crous, P.W.; Kendrick, W.B.; Alfenas, A.C. 1997b. New 

species of hyphomycetes associated with Eucalyptus. South 

African Journal of Botany. 63: 286–290. 

Crous, P.W.; Alfenas, A.C.; Junghans, T.H. 1998. Variability 

within Calonectria ovatum and its anamorph Cylindrocladium ovatum in Brazil. Sydowia. 50: 1–13. 

Dahlsten, D.L.; Hansen, E.P.; Zuparko, R.L.; Norgaard, R.B. 

1998. Biological control of the blue gum psyllid proves 

economically beneficial. California Agriculture. 

52: 35–40. 

Dalla Tea, F. 1995. Effects of intensive silviculture on Eucalyptus grandis productivity in northeastern Argentina. Poster 

presented at IUFRO XX World Congress; 1995 

August 6–12, 1995;Tampere, Finland. 

(http://www.info.metla.fi/iufro95abs/d2pos99.htm). 

Davison, E.M.; Coates, D.J. 1991. Identification of Cryphonectria cubensis and Endothia gyrosa from eucalypts in 

Western Australia using isozyme analysis. Australasian Plant 

Pathology. 20: 157–160. 

Dianese, J.C.; Moraes, T.S. de; Silva, A.R. 1984. Response 

of Eucalyptus species to field infection by Puccinia psidii. 

Plant Disease. 68: 314–316. 

Dianese, J.C.; Haridason, M.; Moraes, T.A. de. 1985. 

Colletotrichum gloeosporioides associated with lesions on 

branches of Eucalyptus pellita affected by the ‘mal de Rio 

Doce’ disease. Turrialba. 35: 29–32. 

Dianese, J.C.; Moraes, T.S. de; Silva, A.R. 1986. Screening 

Eucalyptus species for rust resistance in Bahia, Brazil. 

Tropical Pest Management. 32: 292–295. 

DiIorio, O.R. 1994. Phytophagous insects of Argentina. 

Chapter: Cerambycidae, host plants, parasitoids and 

predators. (unpublished data). 

Dreistadt, S.H. 1994. Pests of landscape trees and shrubs: an 

integrated pest management guide. Agricultural Natural 

Resources Pub. 3359. Oakland CA: University of California. 

Duffy, E.A.J. 1960. A monograph of the immature stages of 

neotropical timber beetles (Cerambycidae). London, England: Commonwealth Inst. Ent., British Museum of Natural 

History. 327 p. 

Economic Research Service. 1997. Floriculture and Environmental Horticulture Yearbook. FLO–97. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Eldridge, K.; Davidson, J.; Harwood, C.; Van Wyk, G. 1993. 

Eucalyptus domestication and breeding. Oxford, England: 

Oxford University Press. 288 p. 

El–Gholl, N.E.; Kimbrough, J.W.; Barnard, E.L. [and others]. 1986. Calonectria sphathulata sp. n. Mycotaxon. 

26: 151–164. 

El–Gholl, N.E.; Alfieri, S.A., Jr.; Barnard, E.L. 1993a. Description and pathogenicity of Calonectria clavata sp. nov. 

Mycotaxon. 48: 201–216. 

El–Gholl, N.E.; Alfenas, A.C.; Crous, P.W.; Schubert, T.S. 

1993b. Description and pathogenicity of Cylindrocladium 

ovatum sp. n. Canadian Journal of Botany. 71: 466–470. 

EMBRAPA. 1997. Proceedings of the IUFRO conference on 

silviculture and improvement of eucalypts. 24–29 August 

1997, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. Colombo, Paraná: EMBRAPA. Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Florestas. 4 vol. 

Evans, J. 1992. Plantation Forestry in the Tropics. Oxford, 

England: Oxford University Press. 403 p. 
94 

FAO. 1982. Les eucalyptus das les reboisements. Forets 

No. 11. Collection Food and Agriculture Organization. 

Farr, D.R.; Bills, G.F.; Chamuris, G.P.; Rossman, A.Y. 1989. 

Fungi on plants and plant products in the United States. St. 

Paul, MN: American Phytopathological Society Press. 

1,252 p. 

Farr, M.L. 1973. An annotated list of Spegazinni’s fungus 

flora. Bibliotheca Mycologica. 35: 1–823. 

Ferguson, D.C. 1978. The moths of America north of Mexico. Noctuidae, Lymantriidae. Fascicle 22.2. E.W. Classey, 

Ltd. & Wedge. Entomol. Res. Found. 110 p. 

Ferreira, F.A. 1981. Ferrugem do eucalipto–ocorrência, 

temperatura para geminação de uredosporos, produção de 

teliosporos, hospedeira alternative e resistência. Fitopatologia Brasileira. 6: 603–604. 

Ferreira, F.A. 1983. Ferrugem do eucalipto. Revista Árvore. 

7: 91–109. 

Ferreira, F.A. 1989. Patologia florestal: principais doenças 

Florestais no Brasil. Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil: Sociedade 

de Investigações Florestais. 570 p. 

Ferreira, F.A. 1998. Hainesia lythri, a wound pathogen 

causing leaf lesions on eucalyptus seedlings in Brazil. 

Fitopatologia Brasileira. 23: 3415. (In Portuguese) 

Ferreira, F.A.; Silveira, S.F.; Alfenas, A.C.; Demuner, A.M. 

1998. Eucalyptus leaf spot in Brazil caused by Cryptosporiopsis eucalypti. Fitopatologia Brasileira. 23: 414. 

Fiorentino, D.C.; Medina, D.L. de. 1991. Breve panorama de 

las plagas entomológicas forestales Argentinas. Investigación 

Agraria: Sistemas y Recursos Forestales. 16: 181–190. 

Fiorentino, D.C.; Iturre de Toscano, M.C.; Darchuk de Durant, G.E. 1988. Inventario de insectos forestales en 

plantaciones de Pinus y Eucalyptus en Santiago del Estero. 

In: Proceedings of the “6to Congreso Forestal Argentino”, 

Santiago del Estero, Argentina: 714–718. 

Flechtmann, C.A.H.; Ottati, A.L.T. 1997. Tetanorhynchus 

leonardosi (Mello–Leitao) (Orthoptera: Proscopiidae), a new 

eucalyptus pest. Annais da Sociedade Entomologica do 

Brasil 26: 583–587. 

Florence, E.J.M.; Sharma, J.K.; Mohanan, C. 1986. A stem 

canker disease of Eucalyptus caused by Cryphonectria 

cubensis in Kerala. Scientific Pap. 66. Kerala Forest 

Research Institute: 384–387. 

Floyd, R.; Wylie, R.; Old, K. [and others]. 1998. Pest risk 

analysis of Eucalyptus spp. at risk from incursions of plant 

pests and pathogens through Australia’s northern border. 

Contracted Rep. 44, for Australian Quarantine Inspection 

Service, by CSIRO Australia. 73 p. 

Flynn, R. 1996. Latin American fiber exports. In: Proceedings, international woodfiber conference; 1996 May 13–14; 

Atlanta, GA. Sponsored by Miller Freeman Pulp and Paper 

Wood Report. (http://www.latco.org/flynn/atlan96.htm). 

Flynn, R.; Shield, E. 1999. Eucalyptus: progress in higher 

value utilization A global rev. Tacoma, WA and Annerley, 

Queensland: Robert Flynn & Associates and Economic 

Forestry Associates. 212 p. 

Frappa, C. 1950. Sur las presence de Gonipterus scutellatus

Gyll. dan les peupelments d’Eucalyptus de Madagascar et 

l’accilmatement d’Anmophoidea nitens Gir. insecte auxiliaire 

parasite. Revue Pathologique Vegetale. 29: 183–189. 

Freitas, S. de. 1991. The biology of Gonipterus gibberus

(Boisduval 1835) (Coleoptera:Curculionidae) on eucalyptus. 

Annals Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil. 20: 181–190. 

Fuller, W.S. 1985. Chip pile storage—a review of practices 

to avoid deterioration and economic losses. Tappi. 

68: 49–52. 

Furniss, R.L.; Carolin, V.M. 1977. Western forest insects. 

Misc. Pub. 1339. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 654 p. 

Gara, R.I.; Onore, G. 1989. Entomologia Forestal. Proyecto 

DINEF-AID, Quito, Ecuador. 267 p. 

Geary, T.F.; Meskimen, G.F.; Franklin, E.C. 1983. Growing 

eucalyptus in Florida for industrial wood production. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. SE–23. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment 

Station. 43 p. 

Gentili, P. 1989. Revisión sistemática de los Cossidae (Lepidoptera) de la Patagonia andina. Buenos Aires, Argentina: 

Revista de la Sociedad de Entomología de Argentina. 

45(1–4): 3–75. 

Gibson, I.A.S. 1975. Diseases of forest trees widely planted 

as exotics in the tropics and southern hemisphere. Important 

members of the Myrtaceae, Leguminosae, Verbenaceae and 

Meliaceae. Kew, Surrey, UK: Commonwealth Mycological 

Institute. 51 p. 

Gibson, I.A.S. 1979. Diseases, pests and disorders. Ch. 9. In: 

Food and Agriculture Organization. Eucalypts for planting. 

United Nations FAO Forestry Series 11: 215–241. 

Gibson, I.A.S. 1981. A canker disease of Eucalyptus new to 

Africa. Food and Agriculture Organization. Forest Genetics 

Resources Information. 10: 23–24. 
95 

Golfari, L. 1963. Cephisus siccifolius on Eucalypts in 

Misiones. IDIA. 189: 9–14. 

Gonzalez, R.H. 1989. Insectos y ácaros de importancia agricola y cuarentenaria en Chile. Santiago, Chile: Universidad 

de Chile, BASF Chile S. A. 210 p. 

Hanks, L.M.; Paine, T.D.; Millar, J.G.; Horn, J.L. 1995. 

Variation among Eucalyptus species in resistance to eucalyptus longhorned borer in Southern California. Entomologia 

Experimentalis et Applicata. 74: 185–194. 

Hanks, L.M.; Millar, J.G.; Paine, T.D.; Campbell, C.D. 2000. 

Classical biological control of the Australian weevil, Gonipterus scutellatus Gyll. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in 

California. Environmental Entomology. 29:369–375. 

Hepting, G.H. 1971. Diseases of forest and shade trees of the 

United States. Agric. Handb. 386. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 658 p. 

Hinds, T.E. 1972. Insect transmission of Ceratocystis species 

associated with aspen cankers. Phytopathology. 62: 221–225. 

Hodges, C.S. 1980. The taxonomy of Diaporthe cubensis. 

Mycologia. 72: 542–548. 

Hodges, C.S. 1988. Preliminary exploration for potential 

biological control agents for Psidium cattleianum. Tech. 

Rep. 66. Hawaii: Cooperative National Park Resources Unit. 

Mimeo. 

Hodges, C.S.; Reis, M.S.; May, L.C. 1973. Duas enfermidades en plantações de essêcias florestais exóticas no Brasil. 

Brasil Florestal. 4: 5–12. 

Hodges, C.S.; Reis, M.S. 1974. Identificacãs do fungo 

causador do cancro de Eucalyptus spp. no Brasil. Brasil 

Florestal. 4: 5–19. 

Hodges, C.S.; Reis, M.S.; Ferreira, F.A.; Henfling, J.D.M. 

1976. O cancro do eucalipto causado por Diaporthe 

cubensis. Fitopatologia Brasileira. 1: 129–170. 

Hodges, C.S.; Geary, T.F.; Cordell, C.E. 1979. The occurrence of Diaporthe cubensis on Eucalyptus in Florida, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Plant Disease Reporter. 63: 216–220. 

Hodges, C.S.; Alfenas, A.C.; Ferreira, F.A. 1986. The conspecificity of Cryphonectria cubensis and Endothia 

eugeniae. Mycologia. 78: 343–350. 

Huerta F., A.; Perez S., C. 1995. Cálculo de días-grado para 

emergencia de adultos del taladrador del eucalipto (Phoracantha semipunctata Fabr.) (Región Metropolitana). Documento Técnico 7. Corporación Nacional Forestal, Departamento Manejo y Desarrollo Forestal. Informe Proyecto. 21 p. 

Jacobs, K.A.; Rehner, S.A. 1998. Comparison of cultural and 

morphological characters and ITS sequences in anamorphs of 

Botryosphaeria and related taxa. Mycologia. 90: 601–610. 

Jacobs, M.R. 1979. Eucalypts for planting. Forestry Series 

11. Rome, Italy: United Nations, Food and Agriculture 

Organization. 677 p. 

Jahromi, S.T. 1982. Variation in cold resistance and growth 

in Eucalyptus viminalis. Southern Journal of Applied 

Forestry. 6(4): 221–225. 

Jayawickrama K., J.S.; Schlatter V., J.E.; Escobar R., R. 

1993. Eucalypt plantation forestry in Chile. Australian 

Forestry. 56(2): 179–192. 

Joffily, J. 1944. Ferrugem do eucalipto. Bragantia. 

4:475–487. 

Kern, F.D.; Chardon, C.E. 1927. Notes on some rusts of 

Colombia. Mycologia. 19: 268–276. 

Kile, G.A. 1980. Behavior of an Armillaria in some Eucalyptus oblique—Eucalyptus regnans forests in Tasmania and its 

role in their decline. European Journal Forest Pathology. 

10: 278–296. 

Kile, G.A. 1993. Plant diseases caused by species of Ceratocystis sensu stricto and Chalara. In: Wingfield, M.J.; Seifert, 

K.A.; Webber, J.F., eds. Ceratocystis and Ophiostoma. 

Taxonomy, ecology, and pathogenicity. St. Paul, MN: 

American Phytopathological Society Press: 173–183. 

Kile, G.A.; McDonald, G.I.; and Byler, J.W. 1991. Ecology 

of disease in natural forests. In: Shaw, C.G. III, and Kile, 

G.A. (ed.) Armillaria root disease. Agric. Handb. 691. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

p. 102–121. 

Knipscheer, N.; Crous, P. 1990. First record of a rust disease 

on Eucalyptus. Forestry News. 2/90: 22–23. 

Krügner, T.L. 1983. Variação na resistência do hospedeiro e 

no grau de pathogenicidade do patógeno no sistema Eucalyptus grandis Hill ex Maiden—Cryphonectria cubensis

(Bruner) Hodges. Fitopatologia Brasileira. 8: 47–64. 

Larsen, M.J.; Cobb, L.A. 1990. Phellinus (Hymenochateaceae): a survey of the world taxa. Synopsis Fungorum. 

3: 1–206. 

Laundon, G.F.; Waterston, J.M. 1965. Puccinia psidii. CMI 

Descriptions of Pathogenic Fungi and Bacteria 56. Surrey, 

England: Commonwealth Mycological Institute. 1 p. 

Lawrence, B. 1993. A planning scheme to evaluate new 

aromatic plants for the flavor and fragrance industries. In: 

Janick, J.; Simon, J.E., eds. New Crops. New York: Wiley 

Press. 620–627. 
96 

Lopez, S.E. 1983. Sucesión fungica en madera de Eucalyptus 

viminalis (Myrtaceae) I. Basidiomycetes sobre árbol vivo y 

troncos en estiba. Boletín de la Sociedad Argentina de 

Botánica. 22: 21–39. 

Lopez, S.E. 1988. Sucesión fungica en madera de Eucalyptus 

viminalis (Myrtaceae) II. Basidiomycetes sobre tocones. 

Boletín de la Sociedad Argentina de Botánica. 25: 425–448. 

McBride, C.F.; Kinghorn, J.M. 1960. Lumber degrade 

caused by ambrosia beetles. B. C. Lumberman. 40–52 (July). 

McKamey, S.H.; Deitz, L.L. 1991. Revision of the Neotropical treehopper genus Metcalfiella (Homoptera: Membracidae). Tech. Bull. 294. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Agricultural Research Service. 89 p. 

MacLachlan, J.D. 1936. The pimento rust disease. Journal 

Jamaica Agricultural Society. 40: 277–281. 

Madrigal C., A. 1983. Manejo de plantaciones y su relación 

con la incidencia de plagas de ciprés, pino patula y eucalipto 

en Colombia. Primer Seminario Internacional sobre manejo 

de plagas forestales. Medellín: 37–50. 

Madrigal C., A. 1985. Reconocimiento de Fauna Insectil en 

Plantaciones Forestales de la Costa Atlantica. Informe de 

Avance 2, Medellín. Mimeograph. 

Madrigal C., A. 1986. Inventario de insectos daniños a la 

reforestación en los departamentos de Cauca y Valle. Miscelanea Sociedad Colombiana de Entomología, Socolén, 

Bogotá, Colombia. 29 p. 

Madrigal C., A. 1989a. Reconocimiento de insectos daniños 

en plantaciones forestales de la costa Atlantica Colombiana. 

Socolen, Bogotá, Colombia: Miscelanea Sociedad Colombiana de Entomología. No. 12. 24 p. 

Madrigal C., A. 1989b. Enfoque crítico al manejo de plagas 

forestales en Colombia. Cronica Forestal y del Medioambienta. 7: 25–31. 

Mariani, E.O.; Wood, W.A.; Kouchoukos, P.C.; Minton, 

M.B.; Marelco, Inc. 1978. The Eucalyptus energy farm. 

Feasibility study and demonstration. Phase 1: Site and species selection. Prepared for U.S. Dept. of Energy (Contract 

No. EG–77–C–-01–2557). HCP/T2557–01 UC–61. June 

1978. 

Marlatt, R.B.; Kimbrough, J.W. 1979. Puccinia psidii on 

Pimenta dioica in south Florida. Plant Disease Reporter. 

63: 510–512. 

Martinez, A.T.; Barrasa, J.M.; Martinez, M.J. [and others]. 

1995. Ganoderma australe: a fungus responsible for extensive delignification of some austral hardwoods. In: Buchanan, P.K.; Hseu, R.S.; Moncalvo, J.M., eds. Proceedings, 

59A,B. 5th International Mycological Congress. Vancouver. 

p. 67–77. 

May, L.C. 1962. Podridão pardo-cíbica do eucalipto causada 

por Polyporus sulphureus (Bull.)Fr. Silvicultura em São 

Paulo. 1: 151–157. 

Meskimen, G. 1983. Realized gain from breeding Eucalyptus 

grandis in Florida. In: Standiford, R.B.; Ledig, F.T., tech. 

eds. Proceedings of a workshop on Eucalyptus in California. 

1983, June 14–16; Sacramento, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW–

69. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station: 121–128. 

Miklos, J. 1997. Emerging fiber suppliers from South America. In: Proceedings, Southern Forest Industries Conference; 

1997 May 13–14; Birmingham, AL. 

Moncalvo, J.M.; Huei–Fang, W.; Hsi–hua, W.; Ruey–

Shyang, H. 1995. The use of ribosomal DNA sequence data 

for species identification and phylogeny in the Ganodermataceae. In: Buchanan, P.K.; Hseu, R.S.; Moncalvo, J.M. Proceedings, 59A, B. 5th International Mycological Congress. 

Vancouver. p. 31–44. 

Morgan–Jones, G.; White, J.F., Jr. 1987. Notes on Coelomycetes. II Concerning the Fusicoccum anamorph of Botryosphaeria ribis. Mycotaxon. 30: 117–125. 

Moser, J.C. 1984. Town ant. In: Payne, T.L.; Billings, R.F.; 

Coulson, R.N.; Kulhavy, D.L., eds. History, status, and 

future needs for entomological research in southern forests. 

Proceedings, 10th Anniversary, East Texas Forest 

47–52. 

Naude, T.J. 1940. Work on the control of insect pests. Annual Report, Division of Entomology Fmg. South Africa 

Report 87. 4 p. 

Neto, R.G.H. 1993. Gonipterinae of Eucalyptus: first record 

of Gonipterus scutellatus for the state of São Paulo, Brazil, 

and some considerations on G. gibberus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Revista Brasileira de Entomologia. 37(3): 

465–467. 

Nijholt, W.W. 1978. Ambrosia beetle: A menace to the 

forest industry. Rep. BC–P–25. Victoria, BC: Canadian 

Forest Service Pacific Forest Research Centre. 8 p. 

Nunes Marques, E.; Nilton, J.; Andrioli Bittencourt, S.J. 

1999. Level of infestation of Coleoptera (Cerambycidae) in 

Acacia mearnsii and Mimosa scabrella. Poster 161. 

(http://info.metla.fi/iufro95abs/d2pos81.htm) 

Old, K.M.; Yuan, Z.Q.; Kobayashi, T. 1991. A Valsa teleomorph for Cytospora eucalypticola. Mycological Research. 

95: 1253–1256. 
97 

Oliveira, O. dos S.; Antonielli, Z.I.; Moraes, de, S.B.Z. 1991. 

Occorrencia de agente fungico Pestalotia dichaeta Speg. em 

povoamentos de Eucalyptus spp. Ciencia Florestal. 1: 40–45. 

Orozco, C. 1985. Determinación y control de las principales 

enfermedades que afectan viveros y plantaciones forestales 

en Colombia. Instituto Nacional de los Recursos Naturales 

Renovables y del Ambiente. 16 p. 

Orozco, J.C. 1980. Some aspects of the health of Colombian 

forests. Investigaciones Forestales, Instituto Nacional de los 

Recursos Naturales Renovables y del Ambiente No. 4. 21 p. 

(In Spanish). 

Orr, R.L.; Cohen, S.D.; Griffin, R.L. 1993. Generic nonindigenous pest risk assessment process (for estimating pest 

risk associated with the introduction of non-indigenous organisms). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 40 p. 

Paine, T.; Millar, J.; Hanks, L. 1995. Integrated program 

protects trees from eucalyptus longhorned borer. California 

Agriculture. 49(1): 34–37. 

Park, R.F.; Keane, P.J. 1982. Leaf diseases of Eucalyptus

associated with Mycosphaerella species. Transactions of the 

British Mycological Society. 79: 101–115. 

Paschoal, I.; Rodrigues–Netto, S.M.; Bergmann, E.C. 1985. 

Occurrence of Cephisus siccifolius (Walker) (Homoptera: 

Aphrophoridae) in sibipiruna (Caesalpinia peltophoroides). 

Biologico. 51(7): 193–195. 

Pedrosa–Macedo, J.H. 1984. Riscos da não utilização de 

residous florestais. In: Malinkovski, J.R., ed. V Curso de 

atualização sobre sistemas de exploração e transporte florestal. Curitiba, Brazil: Fundação de Pesquisas Florestais do 

Paraná. 40–49.

Pedrosa–Macedo, J.H. 1991. Protection of forests—the 

danger from overseas? O desafio das florestas neotropicais 

Brasil. Curitiba, Paraná: Universidade Federal do Paraná: 

177–187. 

Pedrosa–Macedo, J.H., coord. 1993. Pragas florestais do Sul 

de Brasil. Vol. 2, Manual de pragas em florestas. Programa 

Cooperativo de Monitoramento de Insetos em Florestas. 

Instituto de Pesquisas e Estudios Florestais. 111 p. 

Pedrosa–Macedo, J.H.; Schönherr, J. 1985. Manual dos 

Scolytidae nos Reflorestamentos Brasileiros. Curitiba, 

Paraná: Universidade Federal do Paraná. 71p. 

Pedrosa–Macedo, J.H.; Berti Filho, E.; Santos, H.R. dos; 

[and others]. 1993. Pragas Florestais do sul do Brasil. Vol. 2. 

110 p. 

Pedrosa–Macedo, J.H.; Rosales, C.J.; de Sousa, J.L.; de 

Oliveira, E.P. 1998. Presencia de Thyrinteilna arnobia (Stoll 

1782) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) el ‘medidor pardo’ en 

plantaciones de Eucalyptus urophylla (Myrtaceae) en San 

Carlos, Estado Cojedes, Venezuela. Boletín de Entomología 

Venezolana, Serie Monografías. 13: 87–89. 

Pérez S., C. 1998. Situación fitosanitaria de Phoracantha 

semipunctata Fbr. en Chile. Corporación Nacional Forestal, 

Depto. De Programas y Proyectos, Programa Protección 

Sanitaria Forestal. Rev. Pap. 13 p. 

Petersen, J. 1988. Chilecomadia valdiviana (Philippi) (Lepidoptera: Cossidae), asociado a Nothofagus pumilio (Poepp. 

et Endl.) Krasser (lenga) en la region de Magallanes. Anuales 

del Instituto de Patagonia. 18: 51–55. 

Potter, M.F. 1997. Termites, Ch. 6. In: Mallis handbook of 

pest control. Cleveland, OH: Mallis Handbook and Training 

Company: 233–333. 

Puttemans, A. 1930. Uma ferrugem nova em planta australiana cultivada no Brasil. Bol. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro. 6: 

312–314. 

Ramirez Grez, O.; Baldini Urrutia, A.; Friz Cacares, R. 1992 

Daños Bióticos y Abióticos en Eucalipto: Guía de Reconocimiento. 92 p. 

Rayachhetry, M.B.; Elliott, M.L. 1997. Natural epiphytotic 

of the rust Puccinia psidii on Melaleuca quinquenervia in 

Florida. Plant Disease. 81: 831. 

Rayachhetry, M.B.; Blakeslee, G.M.; Webb, R.S.; 

Kimbrough, J.W. 1996. Characteristics of the Fusicoccum 

anamorph of Botryosphaeria ribis, a potential biological 

control agent for Melaleuca quinquenervia in south Florida. 

Mycologia. 88: 239–248. 

Rico L.,W.; Madrigal C., A. 1984. Principales plagas del 

ciprés, Pinus patula y eucalipto en Colombia. Primer Seminario International Sobre Manejo de Plagas Forestales, 

Medellín. Sociedad Colombiana de Entomología: 1–36. 

Rishbeth, J. 1972. The production of rhizomorphs by Armillaria mellea from stumps. European Journal of Forest 

Pathology. 2: 193–205. 

Rockwood, D.L. 1996. Using fast-growing hardwoods in 

Florida. Fact Sheet EES–328. Gainesville, FL: University of 

Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service. 6 p. 

Rodas, C.A. 1994. Chrysomima semilutearia (Felder & 

Rogenhofer) nuevo defoliador de plantaciones forestales en 

Colombia. Smurfit Carton de Colombia–Investigación Forestal, Informe de Investigación 164. 7 p. 
98 

Rodas, C.A. 1997. Manejo de defoliadores en plantaciones 

forestales. Smurfit Carton de Colombia–Investigación 

Forestal, Informe de Investigación 185. 13 p. 

Sankaran, K.V.; Sutton, B.C.; Minter, D.W. 1995a. A checklist of fungi recorded on Eucalyptus. International Mycological Institute, Mycological Papers 170. Eynsham, UK: 

Information Press. 376 p. 

Sankaran, K.V.; Sutton, B.C.; Balasundaran, M. 1995b. 

Cryptosporiopsis eucalypti sp. nov., causing leaf spots of 

eucalypts in Australia, India and USA. Mycological 

Research. 99: 827–830. 

Santoro, F.H. 1967. Nuevo antecedente sobre lucha manual 

contra “Platypus sulcatus” Chapuis (Coleoptera–

Platypodidae). IDIA–Suplemento Forestal. 4: 70–74. 

Santos, G.P.; Zanuncio J.C.; Santana, D.L.Q.; Zanuncio, 

T.V. 1993. Descrição das lagartas desfolhadoras. In: Lagartas desfolhadoras de eucalipto: Biologia, ecologia e controle. 

Sociedade de Investigações Florestais: 12–66. 

Santos, G.P.; Zanuncio, J.C.; Zanuncio, T.V. 1996. Pragas de 

eucalipto. Informe Agropecuário. 18: 63–71. 

Schroeder, L.M. 1990. Occurrence of insects in coniferous 

roundwood imported into Sweden from France and Chile. 

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization 

Bull. 20: 591–596. 

Scriven, G.T.; Reeves, E.L.; Luck, R.F. 1986. Beetle from 

Australia threatens eucalyptus. California Agriculture. 

40 (7,8): 4–6. 

Servicio Agricola y Ganadero. 1998. Revisión de insectos y 

enfermedades asociados al género Eucalyptus en Chile. 

Departamento Protección Agrícola, Subdepto. Vigilancia 

Fitosanitaria. Office Rep. 43 p. 

Seth, S.K.; Bakshi, B.K.; Reddy, M.A.R.; Singh, S. 1978. 

Pink disease of Eucalyptus in India. European Journal of 

Forest Pathology. 8: 200–216. 

Sharma, J.K.; Mohanan, C.; Florence, E.J.M. 1985a. Disease 

survey in nurseries and plantations of forest trees species 

grown in Kerala. Res. Rep. 36. India: Kerala Forest Research 

Institute. 268 p. 

Sharma, J.K.; Mohanan, C.; Florence, E.J.M. 1985b. Occurrence of Cryphonectria canker disease of Eucalyptus in 

Kerala, India. Annals of Applied Biology. 106: 265–276. 

Sharma, J.K.; Maria Florence, E.J.; Sankaran, K.V.; Mohanan, C. 1988. Differential phytotoxic response of cut 

shoots of eucalypts to culture filtrates of pink disease fungus, 

Corticium salmonicolor. Forest Ecology and Management. 

24: 97–111. 

Shaw, C.G., III. 1975. Epidemiological insights into Armillaria mellea root rot in a managed ponderosa pine forest. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 201 p. Ph.D. 

dissertation. 

Skolmen, R.G.; Ledig, F.T. 1990. Eucalyptus globulus Labill. In: Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H., tech. coord. Silvics of 

North America. Vol. 2, Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 299–304. 

Smith, H.; Kemp, G.H.J.; Wingfield, M.J. 1994. Canker and 

die-back of Eucalyptus in South Africa caused by Botryosphaeria dothidea. Plant Pathology. 43: 1031–1034. 

Smith, H.; Wingfield, M.J.; Petrini, O. 1996. Botryosphaeria 

dothidea endophytic in Eucalyptus grandis and Eucalyptus 

nitens in South Africa. Forest Ecology and Management. 

89: 189–195. 

Smith, M.L.; Bruhn, J.N.; Anderson, J.B. 1992. The fungus 

Armillaria bulbosa is among the largest and oldest living 

organisms. Nature. 356: 428–431. 

Solomon, J.D. 1995. Guide to insect borers in North American broadleaf trees and shrubs. Agric. Handb. AH–706. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Departament of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 735 p. 

Sousa, N.J.; de M. Correa, R.; Pedrosa–Macedo, J.H. [and 

others]. 1995. Anelamento de arvores de Eucalyptus grandis, 

causado por Composoma perpulchrum (Coleoptera: 

Cerambycidae). Revista do Setor de Ciencias Agrarias. 

14: 231–233. 

Spaulding, P. 1961. Foreign diseases of forest trees of the 

world: an annotated list. Agric. Handb. 197. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 361 p. 

Speilman, L.J. 1985. A monograph of Valsa on hardwoods in 

North America. Canadian Journal of Botany. 63: 1355–1387. 

Squires, F.A. 1972. Entomological problems in Bolivia. 

PANS 18: 256–259. 

Su, N.; Scheffrahn, R.H.; Weissling, T. 1997. A new introduction of a subterranean termite, Coptotermes havilandi 

Holmgren (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae), in Miami, Florida. 

Florida Entomologist. 80: 408–411. 

Subramaniam, S.V.; Ramaswamy, V. 1987. Histopathological observations on pink disease of eucalyptus. Current 

Science. 56: 1042–1044. 

Taylor, K.L. 1997. A new Australian species of Ctenarytaina

Ferris and Klyver (Hemiptera: Psyllidae; Spondyliaspidinae) 

established in three other countries. Australian Journal of 

Entomology. 36: 113–115. 
99 

Thurston, H.W., Jr. 1940. The rusts of Minas Geraes (sic), 

Brazil, based on collections by A.S. Müller. Mycologia. 

32: 290–309. 

Tims, E.C. 1963. Corticium salmonicolor in the United 

States. Plant Disease Reporter. 47: 1055–1059. 

Tkacz, B.M.; Burdsall, H.H., Jr.; DeNitto, G.A. [and others]. 

1998. Pest risk assessment of the importation into the United 

States of unprocessed Pinus and Abies logs from Mexico. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL–GTR–104. Madison, WI: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products 

Laboratory. 116 p. 

Tooke, F.G.C. 1955. The Eucalyptus snout-beetle, Gonipterus scutellatus Gyll. A study of its ecology and control by 

biological means. Entomological Memoires, Department of 

Agriculture Pretoria 3. 282 p. 

Uribe, J.E.; Rodas, C.A. 1996. Study of inoculation methods 

and indicators of resistance in Eucalyptus grandis to two 

fungal pathogens. Informe de Investigación, Smurfit Carton 

de Columbia Investigación Forestal 176. 11 p. (In Spanish) 

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. 

Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States. OTA–

F–565. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

391 p. 

USDA. 1991. Pest risk assessment of the importation of larch 

from Siberia and the Soviet Far East. Misc. Pub. 1495. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 

USDA. 1992. Pest risk assessment of the importation of 

Pinus radiata and Douglas-fir logs from New Zealand. 

Misc. Pub. 1508. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 

USDA. 1993. Pest risk assessment of the importation of 

Pinus radiata, Nothofagus dombeyi, and Laurelia philippiana logs from Chile. Misc. Pub. 1517. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 248 p. 

Vaccaro, N.C. 1986. A review of insects recorded on pine 

and eucalypt species in the Mesopotamian area of Argentina 

(Entre Rios, Corrientes and Misiones). 18th IUFRO 

Conference, Div. 2. 

Vanin, S.A. 1983. Revision of Phaedropus Schoenherr with 

notes on the male genitalia of Entimini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae; Leptopiinae). Coleopterists Bull. 37: 283–298. 

Vasquez, J.P.M. 1992. Presence on Eucalyptus globulus

Labill of Gonipterus scutellatus Gyll. (Col.: Curculionidae) 

in Galicia. Boletin–de–Sanidad–Vegetal, Plagas. 18(3): 547–

554. 

Velez, A.R. 1974. The cypress defoliator, Glena bisulca

Rindge. Revista, Facultad Nacional de Agronomia Medellin. 

29: 5–63. 

Viana, M.J. 1964. Datos ecológicos de Scolytidae Argentinos (Coleoptera). Revista Sociedad de Entomología 

Argentina. 27(1–4): 119–130. 

Volk, T.J.; Burdsall, H.H., Jr. 1995. A nomenclatural study 

of Armillaria and Armillariella. Synopsis Fungorum. 

8: 1–121. 

Walker, J.; Sutton, B.C.; Pascoe, I.G. 1992. Phaeoseptoria 

eucalypti and similar fungi on Eucalyptus, with description 

of Kirramyces gen. nov. (Coelomycetes). Mycological 

Research. 96: 911–924. 

Wall, E.; Kean, P.J. 1984. Leaf spot of eucalyptus caused by 

Aulographina eucalypti. Transactions British Mycological 

Society. 82: 257–273. 

Wallner, W.E.; Humble, L.M.; Levin, R.E.; Baranchikov, 

Y.N.; Cardé, R.T. 1995. Response of adult Lymantriid moths 

to illumination devices in the Russian Far East. Journal of 

Economic Entomology. 88: 347–352. 

Walters, J.M.; Rex, E.G.; Schreiber, R. 1952. The rate of 

progress and destructiveness of canker stain of planetrees. 

Phytopathology. 42: 236–239. 

Wang, W.–Y. 1992. Survey of Eucalyptus diseases in Taiwan. Bull. Taiwan Forestry Research Institute. 7: 179–194. 

Wargo, P.M. 1984. How stress predisposes trees to attack by 

Armillaria mellea—a hypothesis. In: Proceedings, sixth 

international conference on root and butt rot of forest trees. 

Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO. p. 115–121. 

Wargo, P.M.; Shaw, C.G. III. 1985. Armillaria root rot: the 

puzzle is being solved. Plant Disease. 69: 826–832. 

Watson, J.A.L.; Gay, F.J. 1991. Isoptera. In: CSIRO, Division of Entomology. The insects of Australia, 2nd ed. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press. 330–347. 

Webster, R.K.; Butler, E.E. 1967. A morphological and 

biological concept of the species Ceratocystis fimbriata. 

Canadian Journal of Botany. 45: 1457–1468. 

Williams, D.F. 1998. Imported ants in the Southeast. In: 

Britton, K.O. (tech. coord.) Exotic pests of eastern forests. 

1997 April 8–10; Nashville, TN. 115 p. 

Williams, J.R.; Moutia, L.A.; Hermelin, P.R. 1951. The 

biological control of Gonipterus scutellatus Gyll. 

(Col.:Curculionidae) in Mauritius. Bull. Entomological 

Research. 42(1): 23–28. 
100 

Wingfield, M.J.; Swart, W.J.; Abear, B.J. 1989. First record 

of Cryphonectria canker of Eucalyptus in South Africa. 

Phytophylactica. 21: 311–313. 

Wingfield, M.J.; Crous, P.W.; Peredo, H.L. 1995. A preliminary, annotated list of foliar pathogens of Eucalyptus spp. in 

Chile. South African Forestry Journal. 173: 53–57. 

Wingfield, M.J.; Crous, P.W.; Coutinho, T.A. 1996. A serious canker disease of Eucalyptus in South Africa caused by 

a new species of Coniothyrium. Mycopathologia. 

136: 139–145. 

Winter, G. 1884. Repertorium. Rabenhorstii fungi europaei 

et extraeuraopaei. Cent. XXXI et XXXII. Hedwigia. 

23: 164–172. 

Wood, S.L. 1982. The bark and ambrosia beetles of North 

and Central America (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), a taxonomic 

monograph. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs 6. Provo UT: 

Brigham Young University. 1,359 p. 

Yuan, Z.Q.; Mohammed, C. 1999. Pathogenicity of fungi 

associated with stem cankers of eucalypts in Tasmania, 

Australia. Plant Disease. 83: 1063–1069. 

Zanuncio, J.C. 1976. Efeito do controle químico e microbiológico sobre três pragas de Eucalipto e outros insectos. 

ESALQ/USP, Piracicaba. 76 p. (Tese M.S.). 

Zanuncio, J.C., ed. 1993. Lepidoptera Desfolhadores de 

Eucalipto: Biologia, Ecologia e Controle. Instituto de Pesquisas e Estudos Florestais e Sociedade de Investigações 

Florestais. 140 p.

Zanuncio, J.C.; Lima, J.O.G. de; 1975. Occorência de 

Sarsina violascens (Herrick–Schaeffer, 1856) (Lepidoptera: 

Lymantriidae) em eucaliptos de Minas Gerais. Brasil Forestal. 6(23): 48–50. 

Zanuncio, J.C.; Santana, D.L.Q.; Santos, G.P.; Sartorio, R.C. 

1991. Levantamento e Fluctuação populational de Lepidopteros associato a eucaliptocultura: II – Região do Alto São 

Francisco, M.E. Annais da Sociedade Entomologica do 

Brasil. 20(2): 283–292. 

Zanuncio, J.C.; Fagundes, M.; Zanuncio, T.V.; Medeiros, 

A.G. de B. 1992. Principais Lepidópteros, pragas primárias e 

secundárias, de Eucalyptus grandis na região de Guanhaes, 

Minas Gerais, durante o período de Junho de 1989 a Maio 

1990. Cientifica, São Paulo. 20(1): 145–155. 

Zanuncio, J.C.; Santana, D.L.Q.; Nascimento, E.C. do. [and 

others]. 1993. Lepidoptera Desfolhadores de eucalypto, 

biologia, ecologia e controle. Manual de pragos em 

Florestas. Vol. 1. 140 p. 

Zanuncio, J.C.; Nascimento, E.C. do; Garcia, J.F.; Zanuncio, 

T.V. 1994a. Major lepidopterous defoliators of eucalypt in 

southeast Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management. 

65: 53–63. 

Zanuncio, T.V.; Zanuncio, J.C.; Meira, I.A.; da S. Araujo, F. 

1994b. Caracterização das fases de Dirphia avicula (Leptidoptera: Saturniidae) em folhas de Eucalyptus urophylla. 

Revista Arvore. 18: 153–158. 

Zanuncio, T.V.; Nascimento, E.C. do; Zanuncio, J.C.; Lobo, 

P.R.R. 1995. Lepidoptera Associated with Ecualyptus grandis Hill ex Maiden in Correntina, Bahia. Anais da Sociedade 

Entomologica do Brasil. 24(3): 639–643. 

Zanuncio, T.V.; Zanuncio, J.C.; Porto-Santos, G.; da Conceicao-Antunes, E. 1998. Biological and morphological 

aspects of Misogada blerura Schaus (Lepidoptera: Notodontidae). Revista Brasileira de Entomologia. 41: 527–530. 

Ziegner, K. 1996. Eucalypts in Hawaii...friend or foe. 

(http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/bot350/196/Kini/k7.htm.) 

11 p. 

Zondag, R. 1977. Xyleborus truncatus Erichson (Coleoptera: 

Scolytidae). Forest and timber insects in New Zealand. Rotorua. 21. New Zealand Forest Service, Forest Research Institute. 4 p. 

Zyl, L.M. van; Wingfield, M.J.; Coutinho, T.A. 1997. Diversity among isolates of Coniothyrium zuluense: a newly recorded Eucalyptus stem canker pathogen in South Africa. In: 

Proceedings, IUFRO conference on silviculture and improvement of eucalypts; 1997 August 24–29; Salvador, 

Brazil. Colombo, Brazil: Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa 

Agropecuária: 3: 135–141. 
101 

Appendix A—Team’s Site Visits 

to South America 

Brazil: March 15–April 2, 1998 

March 15 

Five members of the Wood Import Pest Risk Assessment and 

Mitigation Evaluation Team departed on various flights from 

across the United States to Miami. We continued with an 

international flight to São Paulo, Brazil. The team members 

were Borys Tkacz, USDA Forest Service (team leader); 

Dennis Haugen, USDA Forest Service (trip coordinator); 

John Kliejunas, USDA Forest Service; David Reeves, 

APHIS; and Charles Hodges, retired from USDA Forest 

Service (interpreter). 

March 16 

The team was picked up at the São Paulo airport and driven 

to the campus “Luiz de Queiroz” at the University of São 

Paulo in Piracicaba. We met with Dr. Evoneo Berti Filho 

(entomologist) and Dr. Tasso Krügner (plant pathologist). 

Borys presented background information on the risk assessment process and our objectives. The draft lists of potential 

insects and pathogens of concern were discussed in detail. 

About 300 species of insects are reported on eucalypts in 

Brazil, but only a few were introduced into Brazil (Phoracantha, Gonipterus, Ctenarytaina). All of the Lepidoptera 

species on the list are native to Brazil and their native host 

range is generally limited to the Myrtaceace family (which 

includes Eucalyptus). Dr. Berti Filho stated that the defoliating lepidopterans have egg stages that last 10 to 15 days; 

thus, transportation of eggs on export logs from the plantation to a U.S. port is very unlikely. Sarsina violascens is a 

significant pest in the state of Sao Paulo, and large population fluctuations have been observed. These sharp population 

decreases are thought to be due to parasites. These leafcutting ants are the major pest in the establishment of eucalypt 

plantations in Brazil. However, Atta sexdens probably could 

not establish in the United States because of the climate. 

Dr. Krügner stated that most fungi on Eucalyptus in Brazil 

are part of pest complexes, with predisposing environmental 

factors involved in disease expression. Cryphonectria cubensis was a problem when E. saligna was the major species 

planted, but other resistant species and clones have largely 

replaced E. saligna. He stated that Puccinia rust is a problem 

only the first 2 years on plantation trees and is limited to 

foliage and small twigs. 

We were given four forest insect manuals. The manuals deal 

with defoliating lepidopterans of eucalypts (Vol. 1), forest 

insects of southern Brazil (Vol. 2), termites (Vol. 3), and 

Scolytidae of tropical conifers (Vol. 4). We also viewed a 

leaf cutting ant colony, Cryphonectria canker, Puccinia rust, 

and several leaf pathogens of Eucalyptus. The team spent the 

night at the prefeitura on campus. 

March 17 

The team departed for the São Paulo airport and the flight to 

Curitiba, the capital of the state of Paraná. We were met by 

Sergio Ahrens (international coordinator, EMBRAPA). 

EMBRAPA (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária) 

is analogous to the USDA Agriculture Research Service 

(ARS), and the Curitiba offices include the National Center 

for Forest Research. 

In the afternoon, we met with Francisco Bellote (deputy chief 

of research and development) and explained the purpose of 

our visit. Erich Schaitza (research wood technologist) gave 

us an overview of eucalypt plantations in southern Brazil (the 

three southern states, Paraná, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande 

do Sul). Of approximately 1,770,000 ha of forests in the 

three southern states, 270,000 ha are Eucalyptus plantations, 

mostly E. grandis but also E. dunnii, E. saligna, and the urograndis hybrid. Erich also presented an overview of the 

Eucalyptus plantation situation in other areas of the country. 

Erich provided us with the proceedings from the IUFRO 

Conference on Silviculture and Improvement of Eucalypts 

(EMBRAPA 1997), which contained several papers related 

to insects and pathogens of eucalypts in Brazil. 

Celso Garcia Auer (plant pathologist) reviewed the draft list 

of potential pathogens of concern with us and provided the 

team with a list of pathogens on Eucalyptus that he had 

prepared. It was pointed out by Celso that Puccina rust, 

Cryphonectria canker, and the numerous leaf pathogens are 

problems only on young trees and are usually absent from 

plantations more than 2 years old. Heart-rot fungi have been 

studied little anywhere in Brazil. 

March 18 

In the morning, we met with the entomologists at EMBRAPA 

(Edson Tadeu Iede, Susete do Rocio Chiarello Penteado, and 

Dalva Luiz de Queiroz Santana). We discussed the species 

on the insect list in detail. Leafcutting ants are considered the 

most important insect pest of eucalypt plantations in southern 

Brazil. The weevil, Gonipterus scutellatus, has caused some 

outbreaks in Rio Grande do Sul (1956), Paraná (1978), and 

São Paulo (1990s). Adults have been found overwintering on 

pines (but not egg laying or feeding on pines). A very good 
102 

egg parasite, Patasson nitens (=Anaphoidea nitens) 

(Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), has been introduced into Brazil. 

Sarsina violascens has a wide distribution—from Rio Grande 

do Sul to Para in northern Brazil. It is most important in the 

states of Minas Gerais and São Paulo. The ambrosia beetle, 

Megaplayptus parasulcatus (Platypus sulcatus), is native to 

Brazil and is very polyphagous. It attacks stressed trees, but 

it usually does not kill the tree. However, it does cause a 

defect in the wood. Its northern range is São Paulo, where it 

attacks E. urophylla, and it extends through southern Brazil 

where E. robusta is a host. 

A number of cerambycids are found on eucalypts. Phoracantha semipunctata is an introduced pest from Australia. In the 

1950s, it was found in Rio Grande do Sul, and it was found 

later in São Paulo in the 1990s. No record of establishment 

has been recorded for the states of Paraná or Santa Catarina. 

Native cerambycids have been found attacking eucalypts but 

are not likely to be associated with eucalypt logs. Oncideres 

species (O. amputator, O. dejeani, O. vermiculata) are twig 

girdlers; the adult beetle cuts the branch and then oviposits in 

the fallen branch. Trachyderes species (T. striatus, T. succinctus, T. thoracicus) are also twig girdlers, and their host 

range includes citrus, cassia, acacia, mimosa, scabrella, and 

eucalypts. Another longhorned beetle species, Steirastoma 

breve, rarely attacks eucalypts, and its life cycle is not well 

known. A generation takes 16 months in southern Brazil, but 

it can have four generations per year in tropical Amazon. 

Edson gave us a tour of the entomology labs and a briefing 

on the biological control program for Sirex noctilio, an exotic 

woodwasp in the pine plantations of southern Brazil. 

In the afternoon, we met with Dr. José Henrique PedrosaMacedo (forest entomologist, Federal University of Paraná). 

His specialty is Scolytidae. He has seldom found bark beetles 

and ambrosia beetles with eucalypt logs. Overall, there is a 

general lack of Scolytidae in the Southern Hemisphere—only 

300 species collected over 60 years. The species present in 

Brazil have little potential to adapt to the climate in the 

United States. The ambrosia beetle, Platypus sulcatus, has 

been renamed Megaplatypus parasulcatus. It must have a 

living tree for a host. If the tree is cut, it will exit within a 

week and its brood will not survive. Brazil does not have 

quarantines on log imports. From his view, the greatest risk 

of Scolytidae introductions into Brazil are associated with the 

pallet material from the United States to South America. Dr. 

Pedrosa–Macedo reviewed the draft of the insects of concern 

table (Table 8) with the team and provided considerable 

information on those listed. He pointed out that although 

Armillaria is common on pines and Araucaria, he has observed the fungus only once on Eucalyptus. He stated that of 

approximately 4 million ha of Eucalyptus plantations in 

Brazil, 70% are E. grandis. 

In the evening, the team flew from Curitiba to Belo 

Horizonte in the state of Minas Gerais. After a delay in 

São Paulo due to stormy weather, our flight arrived at the 

Belo Horizonte airport. The team spent the night in the town 

of Vespasiano. 

March 19 

In the morning, we drove to Viçosa in two rental cars. 

The Federal University of Viçosa is one of the major agricultural universities in Brazil. Profa. Rosangela D’Arc Lima de 

Oliveira (head of Plant Pathology Department) welcomed 

us to Viçosa. Borys presented an overview of the risk 

assessment process. 

We met with Prof. Acelino Alfenas and Prof. Francisco 

Ferreira (forest pathologists) and discussed the list of potential pathogens of concern on eucalypts. Because both have 

published extensively on Eucalyptus diseases and have current, active research programs, the team received extremely 

useful and first-hand information regarding eucalypt pathogens present in Brazil. The team also learned about their 

relative importance and strategies used to manage them. 

During discussions of the pathogens of concern (Table 9), the 

professors pointed out that although species of Cylindrocladium and most other leaf pathogens are common up to the 

second year in plantations, they become hard to find after 

that. They have never observed Armillaria on Eucalyptus. 

We viewed ongoing lab studies on a recently described leaf 

spot of Eucalyptus caused by Rhizoctonia. Acelino and 

Francisco were students of team member Chuck Hodges 

when Chuck was at the university in the early 1970s on an 

FAO assignment. 

March 20 

Prof. Jose Zanuncio (forest entomologist) presented his 

research on Lepidoptera of eucalypts and the biological 

control project with hemipteran predators. All of the lepidopterans feeding on eucalypts are native to Brazil, and their 

hosts are the native Myrtaceae species. Generally these lepidopterans have short outbreaks (only a few generations), then 

their populations collapse because of physiological factors 

between the insect and host or because of biological control. 

Frequently, they have observed outbreaks in only a small part 

of a plantation (with same clone and soil factors), but they 

have not found the reason. They are studying population 

trends of the species by light trap collections in plantations. 

Inconsistent fluctuations have been common for most species—high in one year, then very low the following year. The 

geometrids, Glena spp., are a major concern in eucalypt 

plantations. They lay eggs under the bark (single eggs, very 

small) and can complete a life cycle in about 40 days. 

Sarsina violascens is found throughout Brazil and also has a 

short life cycle. However, biological control usually prevents 

outbreaks. Timocratica palpalis feeds on inner bark of living 

eucalypts and constructs a gallery in the wood for protection. 

Genesio Ribeiro (consulting forester with the university) 

joined us, and we discussed the list of potential insects of 

concern associated with eucalypts. The subterranean termite, 

Coptotermes, is only found in the first meter of butt logs of 
103 

E. urophylla and E. grandis in Minas Gerais. They are starting to find more scales and other Homoptera on eucalypts, 

but none have reached pest status yet. Most species have not 

been identified, and no research has been started. Dr. Zanuncio pointed out that removing the bark and foliage would 

eliminate many pests as a concern. Some foliar fungi could 

survive on dried foliar specimens exported for ornamental 

use. Apparently, there are no restrictions on importation into 

the United States of dried foliage. 

Prof. Robert Barreto, director of the new Plant Disease 

Clinic, gave us a tour of the new laboratories. We also had a 

short meeting with Prof. Carlos Sediyama (vice president of 

the university) and Profa. Maria Cristina Pimentel Campos 

(international affairs). We all agreed that the stop in Viçosa 

has benefited both parties, and we thanked the university for 

their cooperation and assistance. Prof. Ferreira presented 

information to the team, illustrated with slides, on the numerous leaf fungi and other pathogens of Eucalyptus. The day 

was concluded with a seminar to a packed auditorium of 

students and faculty. John gave an overview of the U.S. 

Forest Service and the mission of forest health protection. 

Dennis presented the case history of gypsy moth (an exotic 

pest) and Forest Service programs that help manage it. Borys 

talked about the general process of a pest risk assessment and 

the specific intent for this assessment. 

March 21 and 22 

We drove to Ouro Prêto, a historic gold mining town in the 

Serra do Espinhaço range on Saturday. The entire city is a 

World Cultural Heritage Site. We spent the remainder of the 

day walking the cobblestone streets and visiting the numerous churches and museums. On Sunday, we continued on to 

Belo Horizonte. 

March 23 

We were picked up by CAF Santa Barbara Ltda., the forestry 

subsidiary of Belgo Mineira Company, and driven to Bom 

Despacho, one of their regional environmental education 

centers. Roosevelt Almado (pest manager) and Augusto 

Rodriguez (forester) were our hosts. This region has 

27,000 ha of eucalypt plantations. Eucalypt plantations were 

established to supply fuelwood to the ore refineries. Now, 

they are shifting their plantation management to produce saw 

timber, in addition to fuelwood. The current sawmill in the 

region has an output of 32,000 m3

 per year. A new sawmill is 

being constructed in the state of Bahia. The saw timber is for 

the Brazilian market. However, CAF is exporting pulpwood 

logs from Bahia to Europe (Finland, Sweden, Portugal, 

Spain, and Morocco). The logs are generally debarked mechanically the day the tree is cut. Approximately 60 days 

pass from the time of cutting until the logs leave the port for 

export. 

The team was presented with a packet of information prepared by CAF, including tables of insect occurrence on 

Eucalyptus and other data on pests. Leafcutting ants are the 

major pest of plantations. CAF has an ant monitoring program and will enter a plantation to spot treat the ant nests 

every 15 months. They use a sulfluramide bait on big nests 

and dig up new nests. This program costs about US$600,000 

per year. The former program, which treated 100% of the 

plantations every 6 months, spent US$3 million per year. 

Outbreaks of lepidopterans are sprayed by airplane, mistblower (manual or tractor-mounted), or tractor with applicator (liquid or powder insecticide). The main insecticides are 

Bt or Deltamethrin (Decis-25 CE). Most common treatment 

is Bt with a tractor mist-blower usually covering 50 to 

100 ha. Outbreaks have been limited. Sarsina violascens is 

only found in two of the CAF regions, and less than 1,000 ha 

have been attacked over the years. A geometrid, Sabulodes 

caberata caberata, has only occurred on 14,000 ha of plantations over the years, about 11% of the total area. Another 

geometrid, Thyrinteina arnobia mostly occurs in the Bom 

Despacho region. Its largest outbreak in one year was 

1,500 ha (out of 126,000 ha of plantations). 

We were given a tour of the Unidade de Industrialização de 

Madeira sawmill by Marcelo de Souza, the mill manager. 

The mill operates 44 h per week. Eucalyptus grandis and 

E. cloeziana are the two species. Logs with bark are trucked 

to the mill and stored in decks. The average storage time is 

5 to 6 days in the dry season and up to 20 days in the wet 

season. The sawmill processes about 1,500 m3

 of log each 

month, all for the Brazilian market (about 70% for furniture 

and 30% for crates and pallets). The sawmill has a new 

facility for kiln drying. We did notice a few galleries and exit 

holes of a wood-boring beetle in E. cloeziana logs that had 

been on a deck for 30 days. They were not familiar with this 

borer, but it is most likely Phoracantha semipunctata. 

A blue stain fungus was observed fruiting on the cut end of 

several E. grandis logs. Blue stain is caused by either a 

species of Ophiostoma or Ceratocystis. Blue stain on eucalypt logs has not been reported previously. The team returned 

to Belo Horizonte that evening. 

March 24 

We flew to Salvador, the capital of Bahia and were met by 

Genesio Ribeiro (consulting forester from the Federal University of Viçosa) and the van driver from COPENER Florestal Ltda. We were driven to a COPENER office in Alagoinhas. We met with Jacyr Mesquita Alves (director of research 

and forest development). He briefed us on COPENER operations and provided team members with a packet of written 

materials on the company's operations, including information 

on insects and pathogens in their plantations. The most 

damaging pest is the leafcutting ant. Ants do not prefer 

E. camaldulensis, E. citriodora, or E. maculata, but these 

species have lower productivity than E. grandis, E. urophylla, and uro-grandis hybrids. 

COPENER started eucalypt plantations in 1981 to produce 

fuelwood. Since 1985, the emphasis has been changed to 

pulpwood. Current production is 550,000 m3

 per year for 
104 

domestic market and 330,000 m3

 per year for export to 

Europe, mainly Portugal. Logs for the local fuelwood market 

are not debarked. Logs destined for foreign countries (80% 

go to Portugal) are debarked in the field as soon after cutting 

as possible. Aracaju Port (in Sergipe) is used for the export 

logs. A new port facility is being planned at Aratu Port (in 

Bahia), just north of Salvador. Most existing ports in Brazil 

are government-owned and expensive; thus, private companies are building their own ports. Their breeding program, 

done with other private companies through a cooperative, is 

centered on E. grandis, E. urophylla, and uro-grandis hybrids. Clones are selected for growth rate, percentage cellulose, drought tolerance, and disease resistance. Growth rates 

of 60 to 65 m3

 per hectare per year have been achieved. 

Genesio talked about the Forest Protection Program at 

COPENER, which includes fire, environmental preservation, 

and pest management. Insect and disease concerns are integrated into an overall program for forest protection, which 

includes fire and environment. Plantations are monitored for 

insect and pathogen problems once a month for the first 

2 years. After 2 years, pests, including the leaf-cutting ants, 

are no longer present. Defoliating insects, which may be a 

problem during the dry season, have been controlled through 

the application of Bt. The largest outbreak occurred in 1988 

by Thyrinteina arnobia, which defoliated 1,500 ha. They 

aerially applied a pyrethroid to control this outbreak, but now 

they use Bt (Dipel 400 g per hectare) for lepidopteran defoliators. In 1994, a complex of Thyrinteina, Sarsina, Eacles,

and Eupseudosoma defoliated 300 ha. This defoliation was 

spotty in the plantations, and E. cloeziana was the most 

susceptible eucalypt species. 

No direct control for pathogens is done, or needed. Disease 

problems are localized and sporadic and are nonexistent 

during periods of low rainfall. Diseases are being controlled 

through an aggressive genetic program that selects resistant 

clones. Because susceptibility to C. cubensis is the first trait 

looked for when selecting clones, the canker pathogen has 

not been a problem since the early 1980s. 

The team spent the night in the town of Alagoinhas (and 

assisted Chuck with the celebration of his birthday). 

March 25 

Genesio took us to an 8-year-old uro-grandis plantation that 

was being harvested. The logs were being mechanically 

debarked in the field. The machine can debark logs up to 

40 cm in diameter. Logs are usually debarked within one day 

of cutting. Logs are removed from the plantation within 

7 days after felling, so the stump sprouts that develop will not 

be damaged by the machinery. We saw termite galleries in 

eucalypt logs stacked on the decks. The termites are present 

in the standing tree but only in the first meter. When the tree 

is cut, the galleries are very evident. The nests are usually 

only found in dead trees, so termites are not common in 

vigorous plantations. 

The team then visited the Aracaju Port. Logs for export are 

trucked to the port and off-loaded in bundles containing 5 m3

of logs (about 4 metric tons). Bundles are stacked in the port 

before being loaded on ships. The importer from Portugal 

allows 5% bark. We noticed that most of the logs were 

cleanly debarked. A few logs with stem deformities were not 

completely debarked, and an occasional log was not debarked at all. Galleries and exit holes of a wood-boring 

beetle were visible on a few debarked logs. A few logs had 

cut ends with cavities from decay that were large enough for 

termite nests to be present. Brazil inspectors have never 

refused to issue a certificate; Portugal has never refused a 

shipment from Brazil. The team arrived back at Salvador at 

10:00 p.m. that night. 

March 26 

With an early morning flight from Salvador, we arrived in 

Brasilia, Distrito Federal, at 9:00 a.m. We were met at the 

airport by a driver from EMBRAPA and were taken to the 

EMBRAPA/CENARGEN (do Centro Nacional de Pesquisa 

de Genéticas e Biotecnologia) Center (Plant Quarantine 

Laboratories for Brazil). We met with Maria de Fatima 

Batista (virologist and head of the Plant Health Group), 

Arailde Fontes Urban (mycologist), and Denise Mavia 

Magalhaes Ferreira (entomologist). Borys presented background information on the risk assessment process and on 

our objectives. Though this group does not specifically work 

on forest or plantation pests, they were able to provide us 

with a list of quarantine pests from the Southern Cone countries. The pests are given an A-1 rating (do not have and do 

not want) or an A-2 rating (have in limited areas). The A-1 

list had 19 species listed as forest pests but only one for 

eucalypts (Xyleutes magnifica, Lepidoptera). The draft list of 

potential insects of concern was discussed. Maria commented 

that hitchhiking insects may be of concern, in route to and at 

the port, and that foliar feeding Lepidoptera would not be a 

problem. 

In the afternoon, we met with Dr. Jose C. Dianese, plant 

pathologist with the Federal University of Brasilia. He has 

done research on bacterial wilt, Puccinia rust, and other 

diseases of Eucalyptus and is now concentrating on the 

taxonomy of fungi associated with native vegetation of the 

cerrado. Jose, a graduate of University of California-Davis, 

provided the team with extensive information on the draft 

version of the pathogens of concern (Table 9) and with personal insights on the Eucalyptus diseases in tropical Brazil, 

including bacterial wilt, Puccinia rust, and pink disease. 

Bacterial wilt, caused by Ralstonia (Pseudomonas) solanacearum, can cause local problems on recently cleared land in 

the Jari area, causing up to 35% loss of cuttings in some 

areas. The bacterium is an indigenous organism associated 

with the rhizosphere of numerous native plants. Three biovars of the organism are present in Brazil; the banana wilt 

biovar is not. The tropical rust Puccinia psidii is a very 

minor problem and only on juvenile growth. Jose pointed out 
105 

that there are biotypes of P. psidii and that the rust is much 

more virulent on the introduced Eucalyptus host than on the 

native guava (Psidium) host. Jose stated, as had others the 

team had visited, that most diseases of Eucalyptus in Brazil 

are controlled by genetics (if one provenance is susceptible, 

select another one). A discussion of the “seca de ponteiros”, 

or dieback, problem followed. The problem occurred primarily in the valley of the Rio Doce, east and northeast of Belo 

Horizonte. Symptoms include a general dieback of the tree, 

followed by attack of one or more secondary fungi in the 

crown. Although soil and environmental factors have been 

suggested as the cause, the exact etiology of the dieback has 

not been determined. The problem can be avoided by growing provenances suited to the site. 

March 27 

Our next appointment was with the Ministry of Agriculture. 

We were greeted by Joao Carlos de Souza Carvalho, the 

plant protection coordinator, and two members of his staff, 

Paccelli Jose Maracci Zahler (chief of Plant Quarantine and 

Transit Division) and Odilson Ribeiro e Silva (chief of Prevention and Pest Control Division). Discussions centered on 

regulations for movement of wood products within Brazil 

and port inspections for wood exports. The Division of Plant 

Quarantine and Transit has representatives in all states, at all 

ports of entry, and at all border crossings. Phytosanitary 

certificates are issued based on information from field inspections and from inspections at the port. This Division has 

agreements with EMBRAPA and with the universities to 

identify any unknown insects found. As part of any inspection, this Division has a work plan containing a checklist of 

all requirements of the importing country. 

We had hoped to meet with IBAMA (the Federal Natural 

Resource Agency) in the afternoon, but the major forest fires 

occurring in the Amazon Basin (state of Roraima) had 

occupied the staff. Therefore, we were not able to meet with 

the appropriate people. 

March 28 

Borys departed the team and took a series of flights back to 

Phoenix. The remainder of the team had the day to see sites 

of interest in Brasilia, including the Houses of Congress, 

Kubitschek Memorial, Catedral Metropolitana, Temple da 

Boa Vontade, Sanctuario Dom Bosco, presidential Palacio da 

Alvorada, and the native cerrado vegetation surrounding the 

city. 

March 29 

Sunday was spent flying from Brasilia to Monte Dourado in 

the Amazon Basin. After a 2.5-h flight to Belem, capital of 

Para, and a 4-h layover, our flight departed for Monte 

Dourado through lightning and thunderstorms. We arrived 

in Monte Dourado at 9:30 p.m. 

March 30 

Jari Celulose S.A. arranged a guide for us, Euclides Luiz 

Reckziegel, a forestry research technician. Euclides has been 

with Jari for more than 30 years and was very knowledgeable 

about the forestry operations. He took us to one of eight 

genetic reserves of tropical rainforest that Jari has set aside. 

The reserve is 2,000 ha and has more than 430 tree species, 

of which 56 species are commercial. The eight reserves 

(35,000 ha total) contain 8,500 marked trees. Ten percent of 

these are observed monthly, and phenological characteristics 

are recorded. We saw a Brazil nut tree (pollinated by a large 

brown moth called mamagaba) and a quinine tree (bark is 

used to make a tea for treatment of malaria). 

Jari mostly uses E. urophylla and the uro-grandis hybrids. 

The best growth is from clonal material with the best performer producing 118 m3

 per ha per year at age 6. Eucalypt 

plantations produce an average of 33 metric tons per hectare 

per year. We viewed Jari’s nursery, which produces 7 million 

rooted cuttings per year. Plantations are established during 

the wet season (April and May are the wettest months), and 

97% to 98% seedling survival is expected. Blocks are 

planted with a single clone, and these blocks are limited to a 

maximum of 80 ha. We inspected several log decks for pests, 

and found them to be quite clean. Normally, the logs are in 

the field decks for 1 to 2 weeks (4 weeks maximum) before 

being transported, via the road system or the 70 km of railway, to the mill. 

Jari also has a bauxite mine. After mining, the land reclamation is done by the Forestry Section and eucalypt plantations 

are established. Topsoil is piled separately and is added back 

to the top before planting. 

We saw one of the last melina (Gmelina arborea) plantations. This species was initially the primary plantation species for Jari. In 1980, 68% of the plantations were melina, 

and 3% were eucalypts. After trial plantations on the various 

soils, only about 20% of the land for plantations was suitable 

for melina, which was not enough for viable pulp production. 

Melina was also susceptible to a canker disease, caused by 

Ceratocystis fimbriata. More emphasis was put into pine 

production and later into eucalypt production (currently 

about 85% of the plantations are eucalypts). 

March 31 

Euclides took us to eucalypt plantations on the better soils. 

We viewed more log decks and found the logs to be quite 

clean with only a few termites and a blue stain fungus 

(similar to the fungus seen at CAF). Euclides also took us 

to a huge Brazil nut tree (Bertholietia exceisa) that was 

approximately 30 m tall and more than 14.5 m in circumference. Jari is evaluating trees for nut production and is selecting trees that are consistent producers. A mature tree can 

produce 400 L of nuts per year. 
106 

At Jari’s Education Center in Monte Dourado, we saw the 

collections of wood from trees native to Jari land (430 

species), fruits, herbarium sheets, and insects. 

In the afternoon, Roberto Pacheco (research manager) gave 

us a tour of the pulp mill at Munguba. Jari has 1,682,000 ha 

of land, but only 70,000 ha are in plantations for pulp production (85% eucalypts and 15% pine). The pulp mill is 

currently producing 290,000 metric tons per year, but it has 

the capacity to produce 400,000 metric tons per year. Thus, 

Jari will continue to use its eucalypt logs for pulping and not 

be an exporter of eucalypt logs for the foreseeable future. Jari 

is currently harvesting plantations at age 5.5 years. They 

want to extend that to 6.0 years in 1999 and to 6.5 years in 

2000. Logs are debarked and chipped at the mill site. They 

maintain a chip pile to supply the mill, and the maximum 

storage time is 8 days. A metric ton of pulp is produced from 

4.4 metric tons of eucalypt log with bark. The pulp is packaged in 250-kg boxes for export. The main destination of the 

pulp is Europe, but some is also sent to Japan and the United 

States. The processed pulp is then reconstituted to produce 

writing paper and tissues. The port can take ships up to 

30,000 metric tons. Jari is unique in its low transport distances. The average haul for logs from the plantations to the 

mill is 45 km, and the mill is adjacent to the port. 

Jari and the story of this pulp mill have been featured in 

National Geographic (May 1980: “Jari: A Billion Dollar 

Gamble”). The pulp mill was constructed in Japan on two 

barges, then pulled by tugboats across 25,000 km of oceans 

for 87 days to its permanent site on the Jari River in 1978. 

Jari was the vision of Daniel Keith Ludwig, an American 

industrialist. He bought the land in 1967 at the age of 70. Jari 

built the town of Monte Dourado and its infrastructure to 

support the workers (current population 8,000). In addition to 

its forestry operations, Jari has projects in water buffalo 

management, hydroelectric generation, bauxite and kaolin 

mining, and rice production. Jari is now owned by the Caemi 

Group, a Brazilian consortium. 

April 1 

Our Nordeste flight left Monte Dourado and arrived in 

Belém. The team spent the remainder of the day at the Museu 

Emílo Goeldi. The museum, which consists of a park with 

many native and exotic trees, permanent cultural exhibits, 

zoo, and aquarium, is a research institution for the study of 

the flora, fauna, peoples, and physical environment of the 

Amazon. The visit provided the team with an excellent 

summary of what we had observed during our visit to the 

Amazon. 

April 2 

Our international flight departed from Belém to Miami 

(with a stop in Manaus). In Miami, team members caught 

their domestic flights and arrived home that evening. 

Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile: 

April 13–30, 1998 

April 14 

Three members of the Wood Import Pest Risk Assessment 

and Mitigation Evaluation Team (WIPRAMET) (Andris 

Eglitis, Harold Burdsall, and William Wallner), accompanied 

by APHIS/International Services Deputy Assistant Director 

for Preclearance Carolyn Cohen, arrived in Buenos Aires, 

Argentina. In the afternoon, the team met with several officials from the Direction of Forestry within the Ministry of 

Agriculture (Dirección de Forestación, Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentación [SAGPyA]). The 

director of the Direction of Forestry, Jose Luis Darraidou, 

introduced other participants in the meeting including Eduardo Cosenzo (director of Plant Health), Cynthia Ruiz (staff 

member from Plant Quarantine), Diego Quiroga (staff member from National Direction of Plant Protection and Argentina’s representative to COSAVE, Comite de Sanidad Vegetal del Cono Sur), and Elvira Bedrai (staff member from 

Silviculture). Director Darraidou explained the structure and 

role of the Ministry of Agriculture (SAGPyA). SAGPyA 

manages all aspects of forestry that relate to protection and 

production. National parks, reserves, and the wildlife resources are all managed through the Ministry of Natural and 

Renewable Resources (Secretaria de Recursos Naturales y 

Renovables). Within the Ministry of Agriculture, the National Service of Agricultural Health and Quality (Servicio 

Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria [SENASA]) 

contains programs in forestry, silviculture, and agriculture. It 

also includes the plant health agency, Dirección de Sanidad 

Vegetal. SENASA is in charge of phytosanitary inspections 

in forest plantations and takes the lead in all pest programs 

involving Argentina’s forest resource. At this time, SENASA 

does not have a specific program for pests of Eucalyptus

because there have not been any major problems associated 

with the host. 

COSAVE is the Southern Cone Plant Health Committee that 

has Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, and Paraguay as 

members. The committee was officially formed in 1989 to 

address pest problems at the regional level. The member 

countries of COSAVE all have their own protocols on subjects such as regulating crating and dunnage, but work together and share reports of pest interception records. COSAVE also has seven permanent working groups dealing 

with plant quarantine, forest and plant health, biological 

control, vegetative propagation, analytical methods, pesticides, and phytosanitary certification. The permanent work 

group dealing with forest and plant health has developed 

regional A1 and A2 quarantine pest lists for forest species, 

has identified potential pathways of introduction of these 

pests, and has formed a project of technical cooperation for 

monitoring and control of the woodwasp Sirex noctilio. This 

committee provides technical advice to MERCOSUR. 
107 

MERCOSUR (Mercado Comun del Sur; the Common Market of the South) is an organization intended to promote free 

trade. Currently, the member countries are Brazil, Uruguay, 

Paraguay, and Argentina, with Chile, Bolivia, and Peru soon 

to join. MERCOSUR contains several working groups and 

advisory committees that address diverse aspects of trade 

such as transit, economics, and harmonization of legislation. 

Mr. Darraidou described the forest resource in Argentina. 

At the beginning of the 20th century, about one-third of the 

country was covered by native forests (100 million ha). In the 

north, much of this forest resource consisted of dry mesquite 

(Prosopis spp.) and related species such as quebracho blanco 

(Aspidiosperma quebracho-blanco) and quebracho colorado 

(Schinopsis quebracho-colorado). Elsewhere, the native 

forest included diverse species known by their Argentine 

common names as walnut, cedar, laurel, Araucaria, and 

others. Many of the native forests were heavily exploited in 

the first few decades of the 20th century to provide railroad 

ties and other products for a growing nation. Now, about 

35 million ha of native forest remain, and only half of that 

total is manageable as a sustainable resource. 

The practice of forestry is fairly recent in Argentina. Intensive plantation-based forestry began in the 1940s, and there 

are currently almost 800,000 ha of plantations in the country. 

About 86% of this resource is composed of comparable 

amounts of pines (primarily Pinus elliottii and P. taeda) and 

eucalypts. 

The Eucalyptus resource, according to Mr. Darraidou, now 

covers 120,000 ha in Argentina. Most of the plantations are 

found in the northeastern provinces of Corrientes and Entre 

Ríos, with others in Buenos Aires province. The primary 

species are Eucalyptus grandis and E. globulus. Lesser but 

still important species of Eucalyptus in Argentina include 

E. saligna, E. viminalis, and E. camaldulensis. There are 

various levels of processing for Eucalyptus, and about 35% 

of the production is exported in the form of logs and chips. 

Argentina’s export trade of Eucalyptus began in 1988. Key 

markets include Japan (which receives logs and chips of 

E. grandis from the provinces of Entre Ríos and Corrientes), 

and Spain, Morocco and Finland. The port of Concepción del 

Uruguay in the province of Corrientes is one of the key ports 

for export. We inquired if there had been any pest interceptions or complaints from importers regarding the phytosanitary condition of Eucalyptus products from Argentina and 

were told that there were none. 

Other key areas of intensive forestry include the pine (Pinus 

elliottii and P. taeda) plantations of Misiones province, the 

Delta of the Paraná River where poplars and willows are 

planted, and the Patagonia region with ponderosa pine 

(Pinus ponderosa) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). 

Thus far, the limitations to forestry are purely those associated with site quality rather than with biotic factors. Intensive 

forestry in Argentina has considerable room for expansion, as 

the total area suitable for plantation forestry has been identified at an additional 20 million ha. 

Currently, local needs for wood are generally being met by 

local production, although some wood flooring is imported 

from Chile. 

We asked a number of questions regarding the COSAVE 

quarantine list of organisms and the means available to deal 

with potential pests in Argentina. Mr. Darraidou explained 

that quarantine organisms are studied by the universities and 

by INTA (Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuária), 

the national research organization under the Ministry of 

Agriculture (SAGPyA). There are also diagnostic laboratories at both the national and provincial levels. Some of the 

key quarantine pests for Eucalyptus in Argentina include 

Cryphonectria (=Diaporthe) cubensis, Ctenarytaina sp., and 

Armillaria spp. Argentina is also concerned about the introduction of the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar. Current problems associated with forestry include the woodwasp Sirex 

noctilio in pines and the ambrosia beetle Megaplatypus 

parasulcatus in poplars. Specific organisms of concern in 

Eucalyptus include ants (Atta spp., Acromyrmex spp.) and 

weevils (Gonipterus spp.) in recently established plantations 

and the cerambycid wood borer Phoracantha semipunctata

in stressed trees. There are active programs of biological 

control for both the woodwasp in pines and the weevil on 

Eucalyptus.

April 15 

In the morning, the team traveled to Concordia in the province of Entre Ríos. This province, together with Corrientes 

and Misiones to the northeast, forms the Mesopotamic Region of Argentina, so named for the two large rivers that 

border the region to the east and west. The Uruguay River 

separates this region from Brazil and Uruguay to the east, 

and the Paraná River forms the western border with other 

provinces of Argentina and the northern border with Paraguay. The Mesopotamic Region is very important for plantation forestry with Eucalyptus predominating in Entre Ríos, 

pines being more important in Misiones, and an equal mixture of the two genera in Corrientes. 

We were met in Concordia by Martin Sanchez from the local 

research station (Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuária–INTA) and Ricardo Tommasi from the Entre 

Ríos provincial office of SENASA. Mr. Sanchez had arranged for the team to meet with experiment station entomologist Norma Vaccaro and plant pathologist Sergio Garrán. Both of these specialists work primarily with pests of 

citrus and deal with forest pests on an occasional basis as the 

needs arise. We discussed our preliminary pest list with both 

specialists. Norma Vaccaro added a native defoliating insect, 

Pyrrhopyge pelota (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae), which is the 

only known defoliator of Eucalyptus grandis in Entre Ríos 

Province. Feeding damage by this insect is sporadic and 
108 

usually of little consequence. Pyrrhopyge pelota also 

defoliates some fruit trees including Psidium guajava.

Phoracantha semipunctata is considered the most important 

insect associated with Eucalyptus. The wood borer infests 

only trees that are dying or debilitated. Stand-level problems 

only arise under extreme conditions such as those brought 

about by droughts. Wood infested by Phoracantha is easily 

recognized since the larvae make meandering galleries in the 

cambium before entering the sapwood. Sawmills and export 

sort yards both require that borer-infested wood be separated 

out from sound wood. 

Since our preliminary list of insects of concern (Table 8) 

included several other wood borers (Trachyderes spp.), we 

inquired about their status in Argentina. We were told that 

these other species occur in Acacia and citrus but are not 

found in Eucalyptus. 

Another important problem associated with Eucalyptus in 

this area concerns ants of the genus Acromyrmex, particularly 

A. lundi. These insects feed aggressively on foliage in young 

plantations and resprouts and require control for plantations 

to be successful. Typically, damage is most severe in the first 

6 months of tree growth. Similarly, young eucalypts are also 

infested by weevils of the genus Gonipterus. The female 

weevils deposit eggs on the foliage, and developing larvae 

consume the leaves. These insects, although abundant in 

plantations, do not have an association with the bark or wood 

of their hosts. (These weevils also feed on the foliage of 

pines in the first 3 years after a plantation is established.) 

During the Brazilian visit, termites were found in the base of 

standing Eucalyptus trees. We were told that this does not 

occur in Argentina. Another association we questioned involves the ambrosia beetle Megaplatypus parasulcatus, 

which has Eucalyptus as a primary host in New Zealand and 

Australia. In Argentina, M. parasulcatus occurs on poplars, 

particularly in the Delta of the Paraná River and the only 

association with Eucalyptus has occurred when freshly cut 

lumber from Entre Ríos has been transported to that region. 

Given its severity in poplar, there is a regional program of 

biological control for M. parasulcatus administered by 

SENASA. Another ambrosia beetle, Xyleborus sp., is found 

in Argentina but is not associated with Eucalyptus. 

Diseases also do not appear to be important on Eucalyptus in 

this province. Neither Phytophthora nor Armillaria have 

been found in Entre Ríos. Only Coniothyrium has been found 

and is being studied by M.J. Wingfield, University of Pretoria, Republic of South Africa. 

Some manufacturing of Eucalyptus occurs in Entre Ríos, 

although production is relatively minor in terms of the 

world market. A local mill called Fiplasto makes highdensity hardboard from a mixture of E. camaldulensis, 

E. tereticornis, E. viminalis, and E. grandis. Other products 

from this area include peeled and sliced veneers. A Chilean 

manufacturing company called Masisa is also in the area, 

producing lumber, medium-density fiberboard, and particleboard from pine and Eucalyptus. Other Chilean companies 

presently with holdings in the area include Alto Paraná, Shell 

Oil, and Arauco. Dry kiln capacity is fairly limited but does 

exist. There are 30 kilns in Argentina, all associated with 

sawmills. 

In the afternoon, we visited the experiment station’s Eucalyptus plantations. Since 1982, INTA-Concordia has been conducting extensive field trials of seed sources and performance for several species of Eucalyptus including E. grandis, 

E. dunnii, and E. saligna. Martin Marco, the principal investigator, has worked with 150 different clones from Australia. 

Considerable variation in tree growth and frost resistance has 

been found during these trials. To maintain genetic diversity 

within the preferred provenance, seeds for outplanting are 

collected directly from Australia and from seed orchards in 

South Africa. Some work is also being done with hybrids (for 

example, E. robusta × E. botryoides) but on a smaller scale. 

The proper selection of seed sources and treatments such as 

fertilization are enabling growers to harvest Eucalyptus 

within 10 to 14 years after planting. 

We discussed the import–export regulations in Argentina. 

Imports and exports must be accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate. Wood products entering the country must be free 

of bark. There are special regulations for tissue culture and 

Christmas trees, although a pest risk assessment has been 

done for Christmas trees from Canada and the United States, 

and those can be brought into the country. There are no 

special regulations for research materials; these must follow 

the standard protocols for entry. The question was raised to 

our team about regional differences that might exist in the 

pest status of Eucalyptus from one country to another and 

how we would deal with this issue. We speculated that our 

report would recognize those differences and might recommend distinct mitigation measures depending on numerous 

factors such as the level of interaction of the countries, the 

nature of the pests, and other factors. 

April 16 

The team traveled with Martin Sanchez to visit the port of 

Concepción del Uruguay. En route to the port, we learned a 

number of things about the province and its forest resources. 

Paraná is the provincial capital and largest city in Entre Ríos, 

with 200,000 inhabitants. Concordia has a population of 

140,000, while most other towns in the province are considerably smaller. The countryside along the Uruguay River 

between Concordia and Concepción del Uruguay is savannalike with scattered palm trees and coarse grasses. Eucalyptus

plantations of all sizes are scattered throughout the area. 

Many of these plantations are owned by people primarily 

involved in some business other than forestry. 
109 

Over the years, the Argentine government has sponsored 

various programs that offered financial incentives to landowners for forestation. Between the 1960s and 1975, the 

government offered tax breaks for investing in plantations. 

This system was replaced in 1975 by a payment subsidy 

where 75% of the total cost of site preparation, planting, and 

thinning were subsidized. Under the current system that 

began in 1990, the landowner is reimbursed about half of the 

cost of establishing a plantation provided that certain conditions are met. To qualify for reimbursement, the land must be 

suitable for forestry and the trees to be planted must be selected from a list of species determined to be appropriate for 

that site. Once the plantation has been established, there are 

additional subsidies for pruning and thinning later in the 

rotation. These subsidies apply for the entire country and for 

all species of trees. Foreign investors are also able to receive 

these subsidies, generally for the first 10 years. 

The Province of Entre Ríos has about 3 million ha of goodquality forestable land, 2 million of which could produce 20 

to 30 m3 of volume per hectare per year. About 200,000 ha 

could produce more than 30 m3

 of volume per hectare per 

year. Land suitable for forestry is more readily available and 

cheaper than in Chile or Brazil. Current costs for forestable 

land in Entre Ríos range from US$400 per hectare to 

US$800 per hectare, depending on the site quality. Forest 

land is even cheaper in Corrientes province, but owners 

receive lower stumpage prices because they are further from 

transportation facilities and lack the industrial infrastructure 

of Entre Ríos. 

There are more than 100 sawmills in Entre Ríos and less than 

20 in Corrientes. The sawmills in Entre Ríos buy logs from 

Corrientes, sometimes from more than 200 km away. 

The growth rates of Eucalyptus in Entre Ríos rival those of 

Chile, Uruguay, and the Republic of South Africa. On a 

10-year rotation, the growth averages 35 m3

 per hectare per 

year and in some cases reaches 55 m3

 per hectare per year. 

The key product derived from Eucalyptus grown in Entre 

Ríos is lumber, although other parts of Argentina produce 

rustic furniture and poles. 

The clearcut is a common form of harvest for Eucalyptus. 

The stems sprouting from the stumps are then managed as a 

second rotation. We learned that there are occasionally 

problems with decays from the original stump entering the 

resprouting stems. 

We were met at the port of Concepción del Uruguay by 

Mr. Enrique Papetti of the local office of SENASA. He 

showed us the facilities and explained that this is a key port 

for the transport of wood. The harbor is very shallow and 

only allows ships to be filled to 60% capacity. The loads are 

topped off downriver in the port of Ibicuy with wood of the 

same species. Typically 13,000 to 19,000 tons can be loaded 

in this port, and the final load will be around 25,000 tons 

after Ibicuy. The government has plans to dredge the harbor 

and increase the depth from 5.8 to 6.7 m. This key port lies 

300 km from Río de la Plata and another 50 km from the 

ocean. 

We had an opportunity to view a load of pulp logs of Eucalyptus grandis ready to be transported from the sort yard of 

Savinor, S. A., owned by Mr. Saverio Gualtieri. We saw that 

large bundles of logs were sitting on a dirt surface and contained soil, grasses, leaves, and small branches. We were told 

that the soil is not washed from these logs before they are 

shipped. Most of the logs were free of bark, but some had 

extensive bark remaining. We noted some superficial decay 

and extensive checking in the logs. We inquired if Mr. Papetti ever rejected logs for any reason and he informed us 

that he had done so on occasion for decay. He said that in his 

inspections of logs he had not come across evidence of ambrosia beetles. These logs were destined for Spain and 

Finland. We learned that each company has its own sort yard 

and that it is not uncommon for wood to be in storage for 1 to 

3 months until sufficient quantities have been accumulated to 

fill a ship (15,000 bundles). 

There is considerable variation in the effort required to debark different species of Eucalyptus. Eucalyptus grandis is 

the easiest species to debark, and the bark is often peeled 

before the tree is felled. However, if bark is not removed 

from the tree within 3 days of felling, debarking becomes 

extremely difficult. For this reason, the debarking of 

E. grandis either before or immediately after felling is an 

essential standard practice for this species. Other species 

such as E. camaldulensis and E. tereticornis are harder to 

debark than E. grandis. 

We visited Paul Forestal, the largest tree nursery in the area. 

The nursery can produce 8 million seedlings per year grown 

in two rotations of 4 million each. Pinus elliottii, Eucalyptus 

grandis, and E. dunnii are produced for sale to private individuals and companies who order these seedlings for establishing plantations. Eucalypts are produced from seeds imported from Australia and South Africa and are ready for sale 

3 months after seeding. Pines are grown for 5 months before 

being sold. The nursery uses ectomycorrhizal fungi applied 

through the watering system for both pine and eucalypt seedlings. We inquired about pest problems associated with the 

nursery and were told that damping off sometimes occurs. 

The nursery has its own diagnostic capabilities for pest problems and does not rely on specialists from SENASA. 

Paul Forestal also has extensive plantations on their property 

of 650 ha. We examined an 11-year-old Eucalyptus plantation next to the nursery. The plantation had suffered frost 

damage when 2 years old, and had been cut at that time, 

leaving the stumps to resprout and grow for the past 9 years. 

The original stumps had begun to show signs of decay, and 

we speculated that the decay might be present in the bases of 

the new shoots as well. Some carpenter ant (Camponotus

sp.?) nests were also evident at the bases of live trees, but the 
110 

ants were apparently not infesting the wood. We also found 

some fruiting bodies of a root fungus, possibly Gymnopilus

sp., at the base of a live eucalypt in the plantation. 

In the evening, we flew to the town of Paso de los Libres in 

the southern portion of the province of Corrientes. 

April 17 

In the morning, we met with provincial SENASA representative Luis Ezama and with personnel from the Direction of 

Forest Resources Carlos Jacobo (director) and Wilda Ramirez (coordinator of services for Plant Health) for the province 

of Corrientes. Our plan for the day was to travel the highway 

from Paso de los Libres to the city of Corrientes. We planned 

to visit a number of plantations and learn about processing 

facilities for Eucalyptus along the way. 

We visited a plantation of E. grandis established in 1977 

using seeds from INTA. The plantation was located adjacent 

to a site where a large multiproduct mill is being proposed to 

be built. The mill will produce lumber from the larger logs 

and will chip smaller logs for pulp. The wood supply for the 

mill will come from the adjacent landholdings of Mr. Gualtieri (owner of the mill) and from other growers in the area. 

Two harvest entries are planned for this plantation; the first 

to remove material for poles, and secondly a clearcut of the 

remaining stems in 5 years. The first resprout from the 

stumps will also be managed to a harvestable age and then 

new seedlings of genetically improved stock will be planted 

between the old stumps. We inquired about problems associated with various plantations such as these. (Bill Wallner 

found a leafroller here. Although it was not identified, we 

were told that these insects only occur in small trees in the 

first year of the plantation). Decay in wood is not normally 

associated with old stumps and is apparently only a problem 

when a plantation is subjected to a fire. We once again found 

evidence of fruiting bodies of a fungus similar to Gymnopilus, a root pathogen. There were problems with ants during 

the establishment of the plantation, but once the trees reached 

1.2 m in height, the problem subsided. In some areas, the 

cost of controlling ants is around US$300 per hectare. At one 

time, heptachlor was used for control but it has been replaced 

by permethrin and chlorpyriphos, which are less effective, 

especially on moist sites. There have been significant problems with soil compaction in some areas, and a subsoiler has 

been used to reduce the problem. 

A second plantation in the area was 9 years old and originated from sprouts after the harvest of the initial plantation. 

Typically, there are numerous sprouts per stump, and all but 

two are usually thinned out to concentrate growth onto fewer 

stems. In this plantation, we noted numerous termite nests 

made of hardened mud and usually located near an old 

stump. The termites appeared to be contained entirely within 

their mud nests and not associated with the live trees in the 

plantation. We were unable to determine the species of these 

termites. Our hosts told us that stumps from some of the 

South African seed sources break down after 3 years. We 

noted high numbers of biting ants living in some of these 

decomposing stumps. Some problems occur with compaction, especially in the heavier soils, and replanting is occasionally necessary. Ant hills and termite mounds are used to 

judge site quality for planting; when termite mounds are 

abundant, the soil is generally heavy and wet and not suitable 

for forestry. We examined another plantation established as a 

clonal study from INTA-Bahia. There appears to be a strong 

emphasis to maximize growth rates, and such clonal studies 

as these are quite common. This plantation was alongside 

another trial of a hardwood from Australia, Grevilea robusta, 

which grows almost as well as Eucalyptus and is being tested 

as a possible wood for furniture. 

We also had the opportunity to view a plantation that had 

been affected by a wildfire. We learned that Eucalyptus is 

very sensitive to fire but will resprout vigorously after being 

damaged. The trees damaged by fire were infested by Phoracantha semipunctata within about 8 days. The infested wood 

is easily separated from sound wood. 

We drove along a 1-million-ha marsh on the way to Corrientes. We passed by a phytosanitary control checkpoint that 

spot-checks cars, and they waved us through. Some of the 

land is planted in blocks of Eucalyptus to provide shade for 

cattle. The area around Corrientes has an extensive cattle 

industry and is also famous for a variety of fish. 

Mr. Jacobo described some of the native forests in the province. These cover from 300,000 to 500,000 ha and include 

such species as Tabebuia, Jacaranda, Canafistula, cedars, 

Prosopis, Enterolobium, and Tipuana tipa. Much of the area 

forested by native species is in the form of riparian stringers. 

In Corrientes, much of the land suitable for forestry is not 

forested, unlike the province of Misiones to the north, where 

native forest is removed to plant pines. This year in Corrientes, there are 48,000 ha projected for planting, including 

39,000 ha in pine and 8,000 in Eucalyptus.

In the evening, we arrived in the city of Corrientes and met 

with a number of officials from the provincial offices of the 

Ministry of Agriculture. In addition to the people we traveled 

with during the day, our meeting was attended by Dardo F. 

Decoppet from the Subsecretary of Coordination, Programming and Sector Development, Julio Cesar Vera, from Fire 

Prevention and in charge of the control program for Sirex 

noctilio, Susana Sten from the Seeds section, and Segundo 

Morales Barturen from the Direction of Forestry. We described our pest risk assessment process for the group and 

then discussed the forest resource and its management in the 

province. One of the issues concerning foresters in Corrientes 

is the management of the second rotation of Eucalyptus. 

Foresters are trying to encourage reforestation on better sites 

with carefully selected planting stock, rather than managing 

the resprouts from the original plantation. Currently, there 

are very few phytosanitary problems associated with 
111 

Eucalyptus plantations. Defoliating ants (Atta spp. and 

Acromyrmex spp.) and the wood borer Phoracantha semipunctata are the primary concerns, and no diseases have 

been detected. We discussed the possible importance of soilborne organisms such as Armillaria and Gymnopilus in 

future rotations on the same sites. These are not significant 

yet since many sites are being forested for the first time. A 

new program of vigilance and monitoring is being installed 

because the level of forestation is increasing. We participated 

in a fairly lengthy discussion of the philosophy of vigilance 

programs and approaches that should be taken to optimize 

the efforts expended. In this province, as in Entre Ríos, the 

INTA research station works closely with the plant health 

agency to identify their management concerns that require 

research efforts by INTA personnel. As in Entre Ríos, the 

INTA scientists work on agricultural problems as well as 

forestry. Mr. Vera discussed the program for controlling 

Sirex noctilio, the woodwasp introduced into Buenos Aires 

in 1986 and detected in Corrientes in 1993. There has been 

success with the biological control program using the 

parasitic nematode Deladenus siricidicola. 

Another current concern for the Plant Health agency is the 

boll weevil, which was recently introduced into Formosa 

Province and is the subject of an intensive program of 

trapping and monitoring. 

The team spent the evening in the city of Corrientes. 

April 18 

In the morning, the team returned to Buenos Aires and was 

met at the airport by Mr. Norberto Echeverría of SENASA’s 

Direction of Plant Health. Mr. Echeverría was the person 

responsible for coordinating our site visit in Argentina. We 

were taken by Mr. Echeverría to the University of Buenos 

Aires where we met with Dr. Jorge E. Wright and Dr. Jorge 

R. Deschamps. Dr. Wright is a mycologist at the University 

of Buenos Aires and his colleague Dr. Deschamps is an 

ecologist at the University of Belgrano. The two work closely 

together and have co-authored a book called “Patología 

Forestal del Cono-Sur de America” (Forest Pathology of the 

Southern Cone of America). 

We spent several hours with the specialists discussing some 

of the things we had seen in the field and their impressions 

about the status of the pathology of Eucalyptus in Argentina. 

Drs. Wright and Deschamps pointed out that there is a shortage of specialists in the country and as such, pathologists and 

entomologists need to be generalists in their work. There is 

no pest database, and reports of certain pest–host associations are sometimes difficult to verify. Following our initial 

letter, they canvassed the entomologists and pathologists, and 

their general conclusion was that Eucalyptus plantations are 

mostly free of pests. Furthermore, since young trees are 

involved, the likelihood of importing noxious pests seems 

low. The feeling seemed to be that the only Eucalyptus 

species likely to be exported from Argentina would be 

E. grandis, E. saligna, and E. dunnii. This was based on the 

fact that those species have the best growth rates, and hence, 

the least likelihood of the pest problems that are associated 

with poorer growth rates. Eucalyptus globulus, for example, 

has been planted along the coast and rivers for windbreaks 

and ornamental uses and has performed rather poorly in 

Argentina, with some occurrence of Rosellinia sp. on windthrown trees. This species of Eucalyptus would probably not 

be exported from Argentina. 

They identified the large orange mushroom we had seen in 

plantations as Gymnopilus spectabilis s.sp. pampianum. This 

organism is already present in the United States and is not 

considered a problem. In Argentina, it can sometimes cause 

significant damage in young trees but is generally not 

considered to be important. 

We inquired about stump rot in plantations and its potential 

significance as a source of decay in new coppice shoots. 

Dr. Deschamps said that this had not been seen enough to 

warrant study. He did add, however, that not treating stumps 

to prevent infection could potentially cause some problems in 

the future. Stumps are currently not being treated in Argentina or Brazil. Dr. Deschamps did not know if Eucalyptus

stumps are treated in other countries. 

We also discussed the state of knowledge of Armillaria in 

Argentina. The genus has been found in association with 

Nothofagus in Patagonia but has not been verified on 

Eucalyptus thus far. There are no specialists in the Agaricales in South America although Cardozo May from São 

Paulo did some work in the 1960s, citing Armillaria mellea

on Eucalyptus in Brazil. (Dr. Rolf Singer, however, has 

reported that A. mellea does not occur in South America). 

Other organisms we inquired about specifically included 

Ceratocystis (a problem in elms but not on Eucalyptus in 

Argentina) and Diaporthe (Cryphonectria) cubensis (strictly 

tropical and not believed to occur in Argentina except possibly in the extreme northern province of Jujuy, which has 

some Eucalyptus grown for charcoal production). We inquired about other literature citations for organisms associated with Eucalyptus (for example, Phytophthora nicotiniana) and were told by Dr. Wright that the literature contains 

many improper citations. 

Dr. Wright has been collecting information for another book 

and provided the team with a list of organisms associated 

with Eucalyptus from his search of the literature. His parting 

message for us was that the presently benign phytosanitary 

condition of Eucalyptus could change over time as the number of plantations increases and native organisms have more 

opportunities to adapt to a new host. 

The team spent the afternoon and evening in Buenos Aires 

and prepared to travel to Uruguay on Sunday. 
112 

April 19 

The team flew to Montevideo, Uruguay, and was met at the 

airport by Mr. Juan F. Porcile from the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries (Ministerio de Ganadería, 

Agricultura y Pesca). Mr. Porcile took us to our hotel in 

downtown Montevideo and briefed us on the agenda we 

would follow while in Uruguay. 

April 20 

We were met in the morning by Juan F. Porcile (entomologist) and Nora Telechea (pathologist) who work in the Pests 

and Diseases Department of the Forestry Division within the 

Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries. Mr. Porcile 

had organized our two days in Uruguay. 

We traveled to the port of Montevideo and met Nelson 

Ledesma from the private industry, Tile, S. A. Mr. Ledesma 

is Director of Harvesting for this company that owns some 

forest land and exports wood to several countries. Tile, S. A. 

owns about 25,000 ha, mostly in Uruguay, but has some 

holdings in Entre Ríos Province in Argentina as well. For the 

past 10 years, the company has exported pulp logs of Eucalyptus grandis and globulus to Norway, Sweden, Finland, 

Morroco, South Africa, Spain, and Portugal. Tile, S. A. is the 

first Uruguayan company to have exported Eucalyptus. At 

this time, no company is exporting chips, although some may 

do so in the future. 

In the sort yard at the port, we met Joaquin Abel, another 

employee of Tile, S. A., who showed us some logs destined 

for Finland and Norway and explained some of the procedures carried out at the port. Eucalyptus logs are debarked on 

site immediately after the trees are harvested and thus always 

arrive at the port free of bark. At the port, logs are visually 

inspected prior to shipment and a phytosanitary certificate 

will accompany the shipment if requested by the importer. 

(There appears to be considerable variation in the requirements placed on log shipments by different countries. Spain 

and Portugal require phytosanitary certificates, while the 

Scandinavian countries have no inspection requirements). If 

required, the exporter could provide phytosanitary certificates at the harvest site or packing and loading areas. Fumigation with methyl bromide can be carried out at the port 

facility using a tarpaulin but is rarely done because it is an 

expensive procedure and is generally not requested. Logs are 

typically stored in the port from 1 to 2 months, depending on 

shipping schedules. This company presently transports some 

export wood 500 km, mostly by truck but occasionally by 

train. Wood exports are expected to increase greatly within 

the next 2 to 3 years. 

At the time of our visit, there were about 30,000 m3

 of wood 

in the sort yard, and we were able to do a visual inspection. 

Some of the E. globulus logs had a star-shaped pattern of 

checking in the heartwood but seemed to be relatively free of 

visible organisms. We did, however, find a lymantriid egg 

mass (species unknown) on the end of one log. In addition, 

we noted an unusual reddish stain associated with the heartwood of E. globulus. This stain was sometimes accompanied 

by a sappy reddish residue oozing from numerous holes 

along the annual rings. This condition is believed to have an 

abiotic cause, perhaps resulting from the tree’s response to 

cold temperatures. Dacromyces, a saprophyte, was found on 

the end of a log. We observed that there was soil on some of 

the logs and were told that it is not cleaned off before the 

logs are loaded for shipment. Although most logs were barkfree, there were occasional stems in the log decks with some 

bark present. We also observed some leaves and occasional 

twigs mixed in among the decked logs. 

The team asked about the inspection history in the port—if 

pests had ever been found or if shipments had ever been 

rejected by the importer for phytosanitary reasons. We were 

told that there had been no insects or decay found on any 

logs. Logs infested by Phoracantha semipunctata are not 

accepted for export. Another important insect, Megaplatypus 

parasulcatus, occurs primarily in poplars and has very limited association with Eucalyptus. We also inquired about 

ambrosia beetles of the genus Xyleborus and were told that 

they do not occur in Uruguay. We were told that Armillaria

is not found with Eucalyptus in Uruguay, but that Fusarium

and Pythium do occur on seedlings in plantations. Gymnopilus spectabilis is associated with old ornamental Eucalyptus as a weak pathogen, but it has not been a problem in 

young commercial plantations. 

In total, there are four companies working with wood exports 

in Montevideo. In a typical year, about 300,000 m3

 of wood 

are exported. In 1997, Tile, S. A. exported about 30% of the 

wood exported by Argentina and Uruguay for the year. 

About 50% of the wood they export is from their own land; 

they purchase the rest from other growers throughout the 

country. These other growers must meet certain quality standards to sell their logs to Tile, S. A. Most forests are more 

than 400 km from the port in Montevideo. The wood from 

Entre Ríos, Argentina, comes through the port of Concepción 

del Uruguay. Two other ports used for export are Fray Ventos and Nicochea. All logs in the port were being exported 

for pulp. Typically, a shipment for export is partially filled 

with logs in Concepción del Uruguay (a shallow port) and 

then topped off downriver at deeper ports. We learned that 

no sawlogs are exported from Uruguay. Occasionally, some 

sawn wood is exported, mainly to Italy for construction of 

pallets. We were also told that a test shipment of kiln-dried 

lumber was sent to Miami in the previous week. 

There are about 50,000 ha (120,000 acres) planted each year 

in Uruguay (80% Eucalyptus and 20% pines). Eucalyptus 

grandis was first planted in 1978, and most of the current 

plantations are first generation. Most of the E. globulus, 

however, is in regeneration. Eucalyptus globulus has about a 

50% higher value than E. grandis but is used only for paper, 

whereas E. grandis is used for both paper and sawn wood. 
113 

Because the pulp market has been fairly unstable in recent 

years, there has been an emphasis on diversification and 

development of new forest products for the future. Poles 

treated with chromated copper arsenate (CCA) are being 

shipped to Argentina. There is also a medium-density fiberboard (MDF) plant in Argentina. In the northern part of 

Uruguay, they are doing finger jointing and developing other 

new products as well to utilize E. grandis. Currently, green 

Eucalyptus lumber is shipped untreated to Italy and Japan. 

Pine lumber destined for Japan is treated to prevent infection 

by bluestain. 

In 1987, Uruguay passed a forestry law (ley forestal) designed to promote forestation in the country. The law subsidizes the establishment of plantations, provided that three 

conditions are met: (1) suitable sites are selected for planting, 

(2) proper species are planted, and (3) the area to be planted 

is at least 10 contiguous hectares in size. If the forestation 

proposal is approved, the government pays half of the planting cost. Several companies including some from the United 

States and Canada have purchased land in Uruguay to establish forest plantations. Unlike Argentina, there has not been 

competition in Uruguay between applicants for state support; 

all parties requesting subsidies have received support thus 

far. The forestry law requires that all pest problems be reported. To keep abreast of the phytosanitary situation, the 

existing plantations are stratified by soil and climatic regimes 

and are surveyed periodically to determine their pest status. 

This survey system has been in place for 4 years and is administered by the Direction of Forestry. Mr. Juan F. Porcile 

(entomologist) carries out the survey and is assisted by Nora 

Telechea (plant pathologist). There is close cooperation 

between the Plant Protection Service and the Direction of 

Forestry to prevent the introduction of pests presently not in 

the country. 

Future rotations of Eucalyptus will probably come from new 

plantings rather than from coppice cuttings. This will enable 

foresters to take advantage of advances that may occur in the 

selection of seed sources. The National Institute for Agricultural Technology (Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones 

Agropecuária (INIA)) has a program of genetic tree improvement. Seeds are currently imported from the Republic 

of South Africa (E. grandis) and Chile (E. globulus). 

Eucalyptus grandis is the primary Eucalyptus species being 

planted in Uruguay. INIA is also studying the suitability of 

E. dunnii and various species of pines. Changes are not 

anticipated in rotation ages or the selection of species, but the 

total area planted is very likely to increase, based on the 

current rate of 40,000 to 50,000 ha planted per year. About 

90% of these plantings are for wood production. There are 

3.2 million ha considered suitable for forestry and less than 

10% of those are currently planted. 

There are also about 600,000 ha of native forests in Uruguay, 

consisting of 200 species of Rhamnaceae, Myrtaceae, and 

Leguminosae. These forests are generally protected from 

harvest with small exceptions for some local production. 

We later met with Mr. Peter Lyford–Pike, Director of Tile 

S. A.; two officials from the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries (Ministerio de Ganadería Agricultura y 

Pesca - MGAP), Mr. Felipe Canale, Director of the Plant 

Protection Service (Servicio de Protección Agrícola) and 

Mr. Atilio Ligrone, Director of Forestry within the General 

Direction of Renewable Natural Resources (Dirección General de Recursos Naturales Renovables); and a pathologist 

from the Plant Protection Service, Mr. Luis Diaz. The team 

discussed various aspects of the relationship between the 

forest industry, the government, and pest regulatory issues in 

general. The government takes the responsibility of pest 

eradication when this becomes an issue on forested lands. 

Mr. Lyford–Pike pointed out that the industry participates in 

an Association of Forestry Growers, which has a committee 

that deals with the government–industry relationship and 

with the universities so as not to duplicate efforts in dealing 

with pest issues. Regarding quarantine regulations, we 

learned that import permits are issued by the Plant Protection 

Service, taking into account the origin of the commodity. 

Through participation in COSAVE, there is the harmonization of procedures between participant countries, while each 

country also maintains its own quarantine pest list. 

We inquired about specific organisms occurring on Eucalyptus in Uruguay. Atta sexdens is associated with foliage of 

young eucalypts, as is the weevil Gonipterus gibberus. The 

weevil is believed to have been introduced into the country 

via infested seedlings. It is currently being controlled by a 

parasitic wasp, Anaphes nitens, through a biological control 

program. The wood borer Phoracantha semipunctata occurs 

throughout the country but is only considered a problem 

during drought conditions. The parasitic wasp Avetianella 

longoi has been introduced from South Africa as a biological 

control agent and appears to be successfully established. 

Other longhorned wood borers including Chydarteres 

striatus, Trachyderes sp., and Retrachyderes thoracicus are 

mostly found in fruit trees and only in those eucalypts previously killed or infested by P. semipunctata. Xyleborus has 

not been found in Uruguay. Some leaf rollers have been 

found but only along the edges of plantations, and they are 

not considered important. A defoliating weevil, Pantomorus

sp., came from grassy fields that were converted to plantations of eucalypts. Megaplatypus parasulcatus is native in 

Uruguay, but it is rare in Eucalyptus and is more common in 

other hosts, including pines on occasion. A new species of 

Ctenarytaina (spatulata) has recently been found on juvenile 

foliage of Eucalyptus. No mortality has been caused yet by 

the psyllid. Of the diseases, there have been no records of 

Armillaria, Cryphonectria, Uruphlyctia, or Ceratocystis on 

Eucalyptus in Uruguay. Stereum (=Dendrophorium) albobadia is found in association with hibiscus and Ligustrum but 
114 

never on Eucalyptus. Harknessia hawaiiensis causes leaf 

spot on Eucalyptus.

April 21 

Juan F. Porcile and Nora Telechea took the team on a field 

trip to observe some Eucalyptus plantations and some of the 

associated organisms. We traveled eastward to Minas, northeast of Montevideo, then to the coast and returned in the late 

afternoon to Montevideo. 

Our hosts showed us the form they use for surveying plantations for the incidence of damaging organisms. A typical 

plantation survey consists of 50 trees per transect, with the 

total number of transects depending on the size of the plantation (desired sampling intensity is 0.1% to 0.2%). Each 

plantation is inspected periodically. 

We learned that the earliest plantings of Eucalyptus in 

Uruguay were carried out by Thomas Tompkinson in 1853 

for fuelwood for the city of Montevideo. 

Some studies are being carried out at the university on soil 

productivity. The effects of Eucalyptus and pines on nutrient 

depletion are currently unknown. At this time, the only fertilization that takes place for Eucalyptus is done at the time 

of planting. 

Forestable land in this area costs about US$700 to US$1,000 

per hectare, and half of the planting cost is subsidized by the 

government under the Forestry Law of 1987. 

We stopped at a 6- to 7-year-old plantation of E. grandis that 

had been established to protect the soil on a site previously 

used for growing sugar beets. Trees in the plantation appeared to be growing well and pest-free even though the site 

was heavily compacted. The trees will be harvested for fuel 

when they are 10 years old. 

A second plantation contained 4-year-old E. globulus planted 

at 2- by 4-m spacing. This plantation is typical of a common 

agroforestry practice in Uruguay where grazing and forestry 

are combined. These trees were being defoliated by the 

weevil Gonipterus gibberus. We saw small, orange adults 

laying eggs (6 to 10 eggs per mass) and feeding on the 

leaves. Some larvae were present also. We were told that the 

weevils are capable of completely defoliating the trees but 

that the trees resprout. During drought periods, the affected 

trees may be killed by Phoracantha semipunctata (we observed one dead tree in this plantation with evidence of 

subcortical wood borer galleries). 

We visited a third plantation of E. tereticornis that was established in the 1930s. This plantation had been harvested nine 

times from the original stumps, and numerous logs were still 

on the ground from the most recent harvest 1 month earlier. 

The wood is used for fuel and for telephone poles. Some of 

these logs contained fresh boring dust from one or two 

genera of secondary wood borers (Retrachyderes sp. and 

Chydarteres sp.). Both genera normally attack weakened 

fruit trees. The females require bark to be present on their 

hosts for egg laying and thus would not be associated with 

freshly peeled logs. We also found a parasitic wasp, Leobracon sp., on one of the logs. There were also some ants (Acromyrmex sp.) on foliage that was sprouting from the freshly 

cut stumps. 

We noted that even though the stumps were very old, there 

was little evidence of decay in them. Mr. Porcile speculated 

that this was probably due to the high cold tolerance of this 

eucalypt species. 

The countryside along our route featured rolling hills with 

some plantations of Australian pine (Casuarina sp.). We also 

noted plantations of Pinus elliottii planted from seeds from 

Georgia. Native forest had been removed in some areas to 

provide for cattle grazing. 

We visited another plantation of 5-year-old E. globulus. The 

foliage contained some evidence of feeding by Gonipterus

weevils. Feeding damage was light because the biological 

control agent had been released in this plantation. We 

learned that these weevils are specific to eucalypts. Eggs are 

laid on the foliage, and the mature larvae pupate in the soil. 

In this plantation, we also noted trees with twisted boles (a 

result of j-rooting in the nursery) and some evidence of the 

same resinosis that we had seen earlier on logs in the port of 

Montevideo (thought to have an abiotic cause). 

We observed that the draws are usually not planted with 

eucalypts. These are kept clear as natural pathways for 

“ecological flows” and to avoid problems with frost. 

We returned to Montevideo along the coast and saw some 

plantations along the way that were established at tight spacing to stabilize sand dunes. Pinus pinaster is an important 

species that has been planted along the coast using seeds 

from France, Spain, and Portugal. We also saw coastal plantations of E. grandis and E. globulus on very sandy soils. 

We returned to Montevideo in the afternoon and flew to 

Santiago, Chile, in the evening. 

April 22 

The team met with Marcos Beeche, a forester in the Plant 

Defense Project (Proyecto Defensa Agrícola) of the Department of Plant Protection within the Agriculture and Livestock Service of the Ministry of Agriculture (Departamento 

Protección Agrícola, Servicio Agricola y Ganadero (SAG)). 

SAG performs the same functions in Chile that APHIS does 

in the United States. Mr. Beeche had arranged our itinerary 

for the week in Chile. He introduced the team to other officials from SAG including Orlando Morales, director of the 

Plant Protection Department, Miguel Angel Poisson, a forester in the Subdepartment of Diagnosis and Survey 
115 

(Subdepartamento Diagnostico y Vigilancia), and Alvaro 

Sapag, an attorney and director of the Judicial Department 

for SAG. We traveled from the central office of SAG to their 

diagnostic laboratory facility in Lo Aguirre, west of Santiago, 

for a day of meetings. The meeting in Lo Aguirre was also 

attended by officials from other government agencies including Corporación Nacional Forestal (CONAF, the Chilean 

Forest Service within the Ministry of Agriculture) and Instituto Forestal, the agency that conducts forestry research in 

Chile. Also present were representatives from some private 

forest industries and from the Corporación Chilena de 

Madera (CORMA), a private organization that assists Chile’s 

forestry companies in dealing with national forest production 

issues. Numerous local employees of SAG were also present 

at the meeting. The following people attended the introductory meeting: 

Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero: Alvaro Sapag Rajevic, 

attorney; Daniel Claro. 

SAG Plant Protection Department: Orlando Morales 

Valencia, director; Marcos Beeche Cisternas, forester; 

Miguel Angel Poisson S., forester; Ariel Sandoval, 

entomologist. 

SAG Lo Aguirre Laboratory: Luis Brucher Alvarez, operations director; Margarita Villanueva, head of pathology; Ana 

Maria Paraguez, nematologist and laboratory chief; Angela 

Tortora, pathologist; Sergio Rothman, entomologist and joint 

inspector with APHIS for the Metropolitan Region (Santiago); Patricia Jimenez, entomologist. 

Instituto Forestal: Sandra Perret Duran, subdirector of 

silvicultural technologies; Patricio Parra, forester. 

Corporación Nacional Forestal (CONAF): Jose Antonio 

Prado Donoso, executive director; Cristian Pérez Soto, chief 

of Forest Health Protection Program; Maria Aida Alvarez de 

Araya; Alex Arancibia. 

Corporación Chilena de Madera (CORMA): Juan Eduardo Correa Bulnes, executive vice-president; Maria Teresa 

Arana S., chief of studies. 

Monte Águila, S. A.: Deric Quaile, general director. 

Orlando Morales began the meeting with a review of the 

itinerary that had been proposed and then discussed the day’s 

agenda, which was dedicated to the discussion of phytosanitary aspects and forest production in Chile. In his overview, 

Mr. Morales pointed out that we would learn about the plant 

quarantine system in Chile, the survey, inspection programs, 

and the actual phytosanitary status of Eucalyptus in Chile. 

Marcos Beeche discussed the Chilean plant quarantine system that protects the country’s resources from invasive pests. 

The quarantine system includes surveys, legal actions, phytosanitary certification, diagnostic systems, and control actions 

against specific organisms once they are introduced. The 

principal actions include establishing import rules and regulations based on risk assessments, issuing phytosanitary 

certificates for exports, and establishing and maintaining 

internal and external barriers where inspectors examine 

plants and products in transit. SAG is organized to operate at 

three levels: national, regional, and sectoral. The sectors 

carry out work on the ground. The Chilean Plant Quarantine 

System employs 1,500 people, 692 of them professionals, 

405 technicians, and 293 administrators. There are checkpoints of phytosanitary control throughout the country at 

each marine, air, and terrestrial entry point into Chile, totaling 72 in all. Chileans believe that their country is an island 

because of significant geographical barriers such as the 

Atacama Desert to the north, the wide range of the Andes 

Mountains to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. 

These natural barriers have in large part enabled the country 

to remain relatively free of invasive pests to date. This isolation is further supported by the fact that the plants and insects 

in Chile have more in common with New Zealand than with 

the rest of South America. 

Considerable emphasis is also placed on surveys within the 

country to detect organisms that may have gained entry. 

When necessary, outbreaks are delimited and an action plan 

of eradication is developed. 

No wood is imported into Chile, except in the form of crating. Specific regulations regarding imported crating are 

addressed in Resolution #1826, a law passed in 1994. This 

law requires that the crating wood be free of bark, without 

insect holes, and free of insects. Inspectors at each entry 

checkpoint have manuals that guide the inspection process 

and identify the organisms on the quarantine list. Crating 

with evidence of problems is held and a record of interception is made. Samples are taken for identification and the 

crating is either fumigated or destroyed. The exporter is 

notified of the interception. Certain specialized inspection 

procedures are applied to those shipments that originate from 

areas of particular concern. We were shown a videotape that 

highlighted the inspection process. 

We learned that control measures have only been taken on 

one species of forest insect so far in Chile. The European 

pine shoot moth (Rhyacionia buoliana) was discovered in the 

mid-1980s in Monterey pine plantations. It was treated initially with insecticides and later with biological control techniques. More recently, the weevil Gonipterus scutellatus has 

been introduced into Chile and will be treated later this year. 

Miguel Angel Poisson discussed the five programs that comprise the Vigilance–Surveillance function of SAG. These 

programs include (1) forest survey, (2) pest risk assessment, 

(3) gypsy moth, (4) Sirex noctilio woodwasp, and (5) Scolytid bark beetles. 
116 

The objectives of the forest survey program are to monitor 

areas with pest incidents and to detect new forest pests. 

Systematic surveys are carried out both in plantations and 

natural forests. Some parameters of evaluation include symptoms, pest identification, tree section, and damage intensity. 

These surveys are done throughout forested areas with special emphasis on high-risk areas. 

The gypsy moth detection program classifies the ports according to the likelihood of entry and monitors these ports 

with delta traps baited with disparlure. At present, trapping is 

being done at six ports including Lirquen, Puerto Williams, 

San Vicente, Valparaiso, and two others. Trapping density is 

two traps per square kilometer, the same as in New Zealand. 

The traps are monitored at 15-day intervals during the flight 

period of gypsy moth. In 1997, US$27,000 were spent on the 

trapping materials. Three months ago, the Chileans signed an 

Asian gypsy moth agreement with Russia much like the 

agreement between the United States, Canada, and Australia 

regarding ship certification. All ships that have been in Russian Far East ports within the last two years and Russian 

railway containers are thoroughly inspected for egg masses 

and other life stages. Other moths of concern in this detection 

program include the nun moth (Lymantria monacha) and the 

rosy gypsy moth (L. mathura). Through another agreement, 

New Zealand notifies Chile when it rejects a Russian ship. 

The forests are also surveyed for gypsy moth. 

The objective of the scolytid trapping system is to detect bark 

beetles on the quarantine list. The monitoring is carried out 

during beetle flight periods at all airports and seaports, dunnage storage centers, and in high-risk stands of P. radiata. 

Funnel traps of various sizes (10, 15, and 20 cm) are baited 

with a mixture of alpha-pinene and ethanol deployed as a 

general bait. More specific lures include lanierone for Ips 

pini and frontalin for Dendroctonus frontalis. About 200 

traps, costing US$50 per trap, are deployed between Regions 

IV and XII (Valparaiso to Puerto Montt). 

The most likely pathways of introduction of the woodwasp 

Sirex noctilio are believed to be crating and dunnage. To 

detect early introductions in Chile, the Sirex monitoring 

program utilizes 5 to 10 trap trees in high-risk stands of P. 

radiata. The trap trees are stressed with an herbicide to make 

them susceptible to the opportunistic woodwasp that attacks 

weakened trees. The bait trees are harvested after the flight 

period of the woodwasp and examined for attacks. Special 

bait tree plantations have been established near areas where 

dunnage is stored. High-risk stands are also surveyed to see if 

natural attacks have occurred. Sea and air ports are classified 

according to the risk of introduction and trap tree density is 

adjusted accordingly. International barriers have been established in Regions IX and X because the insect is presently 

found in Bariloche, Argentina. Trapping densities in this area 

are one plot per 2,500 ha of forested land, a radius of 50 km. 

The plot density in dunnage storage areas is one plot per 

5,000 ha of forest. 

The pest risk assessment program has dealt with numerous 

insects in the recent past including the weevil Gonipterus 

scutellatus. In cooperation with other agencies, hot spots of 

infestation have been identified. Since 1994, the program has 

been tracking all interceptions at all checkpoints of wood 

products. During that time period, the Coleoptera represent 

about 85% of the insects intercepted, with comparable levels 

coming from Europe, North America, and South America. 

The United States shows the highest risk of introduction at 

22% of the total interceptions, with Germany, Italy, Argentina, and Brazil each at a risk of about 9%. These interception records are comparable with those of New Zealand. (The 

interception records from New Zealand, compiled over the 

past 25 years, suggest that the families most often represented among the live insects collected are the Bostrichidae, 

Cerambycidae, Curculionidae, Siricidae, Scolytidae, and 

Platypodidae). With regard to the woodwasp interceptions in 

Chile, more Sirex noctilio came from South America in the 

past but now more come from Europe due to the relatively 

effective biological controls implemented in South America. 

Within the PRA program, a systematic procedure exists to 

identify risk of introduction of certain organisms and to 

develop a set of mitigation measures. 

Mr. Morales discussed the participation of Chile in COSAVE. Member countries in COSAVE include Argentina, 

Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, and Paraguay. There are eight working groups with two professionals from each participating 

country. The Forest Health Working Group is centered in 

Chile and has recently produced a number of products. The 

group has developed two pest lists, a regional list and a 

specific country list. The protocols for inspecting crating also 

came from this working group. Chile is probably the only 

country currently inspecting crating, but the other countries 

will soon be doing this. The forestry working group also 

develops programs for specific insects such as S. noctilio. In 

some cases, bilateral agreements are drawn up, such as the 

one between Chile and Argentina where money from the 

private sector is being brought in to address control of 

S. noctilio near Bariloche. 

Patricio Parra described a cooperative genetic improvement 

study established from Region IV to Region XI by Instituto 

Forestal and private forest companies. Several species with 

different seed sources were tested in a variety of locations. 

The species performing best in Chile included Eucalyptus 

camaldulensis, E. nitens, E. delegatensis, E. viminalis, and 

E. globulus. In connection with this study, the Instituto Forestal conducted a phytosanitary survey of Eucalyptus throughout the country. The specific objectives of the survey were to 

detect the principal damage agents associated with Eucalyptus and describe their symptoms, to determine the magnitude 

of damage caused by these agents by measuring growth 
117 

reduction, to identify research priorities to reduce pestinduced losses, and to publish the results of the survey. In 

addition, a detailed manual was prepared describing all of the 

symptoms associated with various damage agents. The manual is used to pinpoint the occurrence of pest organisms and 

the association with different provenances or seed sources. 

As the relationship between susceptibility and certain biotypes is determined, the Instituto Forestal will be able to 

recommend certain types with reduced growth rates but 

greater resistance to pests. Although it was originally developed for evaluating trees in genetic improvement studies, the 

manual has broader application and can be used in industrial 

plantations as well. 

Miguel Angel Poisson provided an overview of the current 

pest situation for Eucalyptus in Chile. In general, the phytosanitary condition of Eucalyptus plantations appears to be 

very good with very few problems. Of the insects associated 

with Eucalyptus in Chile, only four species are considered 

capable of causing problems at some level. These include 

two species of Phoracantha wood borers (P. semipunctata

and P. recurva), the cossid wood borer Chilecomadia valdiviana, and the recently introduced weevil Gonipterus 

scutellatus. Two of these are very limited in terms of geographical distribution (P. recurva and G. scutellatus) and 

another is limited in terms of host (C. valdiviana), affecting 

only one species of Eucalyptus (E. nitens). Gonipterus 

scutellatus was just discovered in Chile on February 14, 

probably having entered the country on a truck from Argentina. Intensive surveys have shown that the infestation presently covers about 1,700 ha. An eradication program will be 

undertaken this summer. The fungi most commonly found on 

Eucalyptus in plantations include Sonderhenia eucalypticola, 

Harknessia eucalypti, and Mycosphaerella cryptica. All 

three are foliar pathogen and have several hosts within the 

genus. In the nursery setting, there are some fungi that cause 

damping off and require chemical control. 

Cristian Pérez of CONAF gave a detailed presentation on the 

longhorned borer, Phoracantha semipunctata, in Chile. 

Since the 1980s, CONAF has been involved in the evaluation 

of damage and in determining management options for the 

wood borer. As a collaborator with SAG and others on the 

National Forest Health Committee, CONAF has been involved in technology transfer to ensure that managers are 

aware of the latest information. 

The wood borer was first detected in Chile in 1957, but 

damage was not noted in trees until 1973 near San Felipe in 

northern Chile. Other small infestations were noted in 1974 

and 1975 in E. globulus and E. camaldulensis in Region IV, 

Region V, and the Metropolitan Region (Region VI). By 

1977, CONAF reported that the wood borer was distributed 

through almost 80% of the eucalypt plantations in the country. Various surveys were done to delimit the distribution, 

including one in 1986 that examined the relationship between 

insect occurrence and soil types. The insect now occurs 

between Regions III and X, with greatest concentrations in 

the drier north. In addition, P. semipunctata, a native of 

Australia, is also found in Bolivia, Peru, Argentina, Uruguay, 

Brazil, Republic of South Africa, Israel, Turkey, Cyprus, 

Tunisia, Italy, Portugal, Spain, New Zealand, and the 

United States. 

The insect has a 1-year life cycle with the adult stage present 

in the spring and summer between November and May. Eggs 

are laid in mid-summer and fall (January–May), and larvae 

are present between December and October. The early larval 

stage feeds in the cambium and girdles the tree. The wood 

borer infests seven species of Eucalyptus in Chile 

(E. globulus, E. gomphocephala, E. resinifera, E. torquata, 

E. camaldulensis, E. viminalis, and E. oleosa), with 

E. globulus being one of the most susceptible. Since the 

wood borer is an opportunist that takes advantage of weakened trees, there is a very strong relationship between its 

presence and the incidence of drought. As such, the eucalyptus borer is far more common in the northern, drier part of 

the country (Regions III to VI) than in the south with its 

abundant rainfall. 

Some of the control measures that have been applied for the 

eucalyptus borer include silviculture and the use of bait trees. 

Thinnings and prunings are carried out to maintain high tree 

vigor. Whenever trees are killed, they are cut and destroyed 

before new adults can disperse from the host material. In 

some areas, trees are mechanically girdled to make them 

attractive to the borer, and once infested, the trees are cut and 

debarked while the larvae are still developing beneath the 

bark. Chemical controls have not been applied effectively 

against any stage of P. semipunctata. 

We also had an opportunity to discuss a second species of 

Phoracantha, P. recurva, which was recently introduced into 

Chile (March 1997). Phoracantha recurva is presently found 

in the Metropolitan Park in Santiago, with the infestation 

covering about 112 ha. About 89 ha of the park contain pure 

forests of Eucalyptus while 23 ha are mixed-species forest. 

An aggressive eradication program has been undertaken, and 

about 95% of the affected area has already been treated. The 

city has removed and chipped the infested eucalypts. The 

remaining uninfested trees are being monitored to see if the 

insect populations are being successfully controlled. Bait 

trees will also be used as another form of monitoring. 

Deric Quaile from the private forestry company Monte 

Aguila discussed the industry perspective and provided some 

insights into why Chile is a desirable location for investments 

in Eucalyptus forestry. Monte Águila, S. A. is a Shell Oil 

company and a CORMA member, which has been associated 

with Eucalyptus for 20 years. Along with Forestal Mininco 

and Forestal Arauco, Monte Águila is one of the three largest 

forestry companies in Chile. Sixty percent of the Eucalyptus

in Chile is grown by large companies. There are several 
118 

reasons why companies have invested in Chile for agroforestry. These include a proximity to Pacific Rim markets, 

desirable characteristics of tree species, fertile soils, high 

rainfall during the growing season, political stability, and a 

high level of professionalism, which leads to an efficient 

timber industry. 

Although Eucalyptus was first planted in Chile in 1881 for 

mining timbers, large-scale production did not begin until 

almost a century later. Currently there are about 349,000 ha 

in Chile planted with Eucalyptus (195,000 with E. globulus

and 139,000 with E. nitens). Of these plantations, 260,000 ha 

contain trees less than 5 years old. More than two-thirds of 

the Eucalyptus plantations are in Regions VIII and IX 

(southern Chile). Pulp is the primary product, with 50% of 

the output for local consumption and 50% for export. The 

export trade of Eucalyptus is currently more than 1.2 million 

m3

 per year, 80% of which is in form of pulpwood chips to 

the Asian market. By the year 2005, the export market is 

expected to double in volume and will probably include 

additional products such as sawlogs, sawtimber, mouldings, 

veneer, pulpwood, and wood for energy. Both of the key 

species of Eucalyptus belong to the globulinae group that has 

a very high pulp yield (3.0 to 3.8 m3

 of pulp per dry ton of 

chips). Wood production has increased from 18 to 25 m3

 per 

hectare per year in 1988 to 30 to 45 m3

 per hectare per year 

in 1998. Much of this increase is due to greater knowledge of 

appropriate seed sources and other improvements in genetics. 

Following the day of presentations, the team was given a tour 

of the laboratory and diagnostic facilities at SAG’s Lo 

Aguirre site. This laboratory is the diagnostic center for 

processing all of the samples collected at the phytosanitary 

checkpoints throughout the country. 

The evening was spent in Santiago. 

April 23 

The team traveled by air to the city of Concepción and was 

met at the airport by Ricardo Medina, a local functionary of 

SAG for Region VIII. We were taken to the Escuadrón experiment station, a research facility for one of the largest 

private forestry companies in Chile, Forestal Mininco (a 

company of CMPC (Compañia Manufacturera de Papeles y 

Cartones)). We were received by Luis de Ferari, head of the 

Department of Phytosanitary Protection for the company 

within the silviculture department. Mr. de Ferari introduced 

us to other company employees including Claudio Goycoolea, head of laboratories for Phytosanitary Protection, Jose 

Alvarez, head of the Department of Site Productivity, and 

Carlos Gantz from the Genetics Department. Mr. de Ferari 

presented an overview of the organizational structure of 

Forestal Mininco and some of its programs. As of 1997, 

Forestal Mininco owned more than 500,000 ha of forest land 

in Chile, 12% of which was dedicated to Eucalyptus (E. 

globulus and E. nitens) (58,400 ha). In addition, the company 

owns 20,000 ha of Eucalyptus and pine in Argentina. The 

company has four divisions, silviculture, production, industry, and marketing. The company first became involved in 

phytosanitary protection in 1985 when the European pine 

shoot moth (Rhyacionia buoliana) was discovered in Monterey pine plantations. The discovery served as valuable 

evidence of the vulnerability of the forest resource and has 

highlighted the need for technical and professional readiness 

for newly arising pest problems. In 1997, Forestal Mininco 

dedicated a budget of US$1.7 million to the phytosanitary 

protection program. At this time, the company employs 

22 people in the Phytosanitary Protection Program. The most 

important forest pests for the company are in Monterey pine 

(Rhyacionia buoliana and Dothistroma pini), and thus far, 

Eucalyptus has been relatively free of important pests. At this 

time, the most important organisms associated with Eucalyptus are the cossid moth Chilecomadia valdiviana, the eucalypt borer Phoracantha semipunctata, and various foliar 

fungi including Mycosphaerella spp. Now that Gonipterus 

scutellatus has been introduced into northern Chile, the 

company is putting considerable effort into surveying its 

plantations for presence of the weevil. 

The forests are all intensively managed for maximum yield. 

The total company production is around 3.5 million m3

, with 

60% as boards and 40% as logs for pulp. Each year Forestal 

Mininco produces 20 million pine seedlings and 5 million 

Eucalyptus seedlings and plants 4,000 ha per year in Eucalyptus (3:1 ratio of E. nitens to E. globulus). Eucalyptus 

globulus is planted on coastal sites, and E. nitens, a coldtolerant species, is best for the interior, the central valley, and 

the volcanic soils of the pre-cordillera foothills. Appropriate 

sites are carefully chosen, and in some cases, pre- and postplanting weed control is necessary. Fertilizers are sometimes 

applied at the time of planting. The objective is a growth rate 

of 28 m3

 per hectare per year and a rotation age of 14 years. 

For pulp plantations, 1,250 trees are planted per hectare, and 

establishment costs are around US$710 per hectare. 

Carlos Gantz presented some information on the genetics 

program for Forestal Mininco. The genetic improvement 

program for Eucalyptus began about 8 years ago. The objectives of the recurring selection are to increase productivity 

and improve bole and branch form. Other goals are to increase the frost resistance of E. globulus, increase the wood 

density of E. nitens, and obtain new races by hybridizing the 

two species. The experiment station at Escuadron maintains a 

seed orchard and clone bank. There is also work being done 

with vegetative propagation. The genetics staff consists of 

five people at the Escuadron station, but they have many 

contacts elsewhere including the University of Florida, University of North Carolina, University of Chile-Santiago, 

University of Concepción, and INIA Chillán. Currently, the 

genetics trials cover more than 262 ha including progeny 

trials, biodiversity plantings, and provenance studies. The 

future will also include advanced tissue culture using elite 
119 

materials and sprouts from source trees. The goal of the 

genetics program is for 40% genetic gain for E. nitens and 

60% gain for E. globulus by 2005. 

In the afternoon, we traveled to the University of Concepción 

to meet with Professor Luis Cerda, forest entomologist. 

Mr. Cerda has been studying the cossid moth Chilecomadia 

valdiviana since its discovery in Eucalyptus nitens 6 years 

ago. (A number of surveys have been done, and no other 

eucalypts were found to be affected although the literature 

lists E. gunnii and E. camaldulensis as occasional hosts). The 

team was briefed on the biology of C. valdiviana, which is an 

insect native to Chile that feeds on a variety of hardwoods 

and fruit trees. The insects attack live trees, laying eggs at the 

branch axils. The initial larval stages feed gregariously in the 

bark for 1 to 2 months, moving later into the sapwood and 

then deep into the heartwood where they eventually construct 

individual galleries. The larval tunnels in the heartwood can 

be numerous and fairly extensive. (The longest gallery has 

been measured at 27 cm.) Numerous stain and decay fungi 

are associated with the larvae, and the fungi appear to grow 

throughout the wood well beyond the feeding zone of the 

larvae. Although the fungi have not been specifically identified, there may be as many as 12 species of fungi associated 

with the infested wood. Even though the insect does not kill 

trees, the boles of infested trees are commonly subject to 

wind breakage. Detection of attacks is often difficult. Sawdust will sometimes be present on the ground beneath the exit 

hole of the moth. Since reinfestation of the same trees is 

common, there will be a buildup of the boring dust at the 

base of the tree over time. When trees are heavily infested, 

they will exude a sappy material that covers the bole and 

provides a medium for growth of sooty fungi, giving the bole 

a blackish appearance. Adult emergence comes in two distinct periods, about 6 months apart. The insects are weak 

fliers. Within a stand, the amount of trees attacked has not 

exceeded 5%. The distribution of infestation centers appears 

to be random, with no connection to road networks or harvesting practices. (Early detection was near native forests, 

but subsequently, infestations have been found in areas far 

removed from native forests). Chilecomadia valdiviana has a 

1- to 2-year life cycle, depending on the flight period. Adults 

can be found between the months of August and February, 

with the majority between August and October. Females lay 

about 200 eggs in groups of 30 to 70 eggs (August–March). 

The larval stage can be found throughout the year. Pupation 

occurs between May and January. 

At this time, a key research priority is the determination of 

chemical attractants for the insect. Various foliar chemicals 

have been tested so far, and some antennal response has been 

demonstrated. If an attractant can be identified, it may have 

some application in pest management, perhaps as a bait. 

Insects are being raised in the laboratory to test for pheromones and to conduct other chemical bioassays. Other management questions have been examined, such as sanitation 

treatments to reduce infestation, but with no success so far. 

Damage symptoms are the same in other hosts, but the wood 

of Eucalyptus appears to break down faster due to the high 

level of moisture in the wood. We inquired about the quarantine implications of shipping infested wood and were told 

that logs with C. valdiviana are easily recognized and can be 

readily separated from those not infested. Debarking, if done 

early in the infestation, could kill larvae in the phloem. Once 

inside the wood, the larvae would be able to complete their 

development even though the tree is dead, but the emerging 

adults will be smaller. Prof. Gastón Gonzalez from the University of Concepción is working on identification of the 

associated decay fungi. We expressed our concerns about the 

polyphagous nature of the insect and a lively discussion 

ensued. We were reminded that polyphagy in an herbivore 

should not be taken to mean that all species might be 

susceptible. 

Later in the day, we traveled to the community of Arauco and 

met with Miguel Poblete, head forest health specialist for the 

large company Forestal Arauco. Mr. Poblete explained the 

structure of his company, which has three parts: a pulp company called Celco, consisting of three plants, two for pines 

and one for Eucalyptus; a forestry company in Arauco called 

Bosques Arauco; and a forestry company in Valdivia called 

Forestal Valdivia. The company Bosques Arauco owns about 

500,000 ha of plantations, of which 15,000 are E. globulus

and 2,600 are E. nitens. The trees in virtually all of these 

plantations are less than 10 years old. The company has a 

goal of 25,000 ha of Eucalyptus and will plant about 2,000 to 

2,500 ha per year toward that end. Since these plantings are 

all for pulp, the rotation age will be 11 to 12 years. Mr. 

Poblete described the forest health monitoring program for 

the company, which involves systematic surveys by trained 

personnel called guardabosques, or forest caretakers. Each of 

these forest caretakers covers about 5,000 ha as part of their 

responsibility. 

We visited a plantation of E. globulus with trees 4 to 5 years 

old and 15.2 m tall, which is typical of the local growing 

sites. Growth rates here are 40 m3

 per hectare per year, and 

this is one of the highest sites available. Mr. Poblete pointed 

out that the most important biological agent here has been the 

foliar pathogen Mycosphaerella cryptica, but yield does not 

appear to be affected. Given the high moisture regime in this 

area, the wood borer Phoracantha semipunctata is not an 

important factor. In the recent past, the Asian market has 

been the key destination for Chilean pulp, but sales have 

been low for more than a year. Morocco is being considered 

as a future market. 

At another plantation, we met Francisco Pérez, in charge of 

the genetics program for Bosques Arauco, researchers Arnoldo Villaroel and Patricio Parra from Instituto Forestal, 

and Luis Manso from Bosques Arauco. We were shown a 

trial plantation at Los Hermanos where 35 provenances and 
120 

various families are being tested for growth performance. 

Most of the provenances are from Australia and are being 

tested to increment the genetic base of Eucalyptus by incorporating material from natural areas. The test was established 

in 1989 in this location near Arauco, with two other replicate 

installations, one in Valdivia and one in Talca. The trials are 

managed intensively to test tree performance with fertilization, herbicide application for weed control, and thinning 

regimes. The best trees will be selected for the second generation. After 9 years, it is possible to see distinct differences 

in the performance of the provenances. The tallest tree grows 

about 3 m per year in height. The Apollo provenance from 

Victoria, Tasmania, seems best suited for these sites. In 

addition to growth rates, the provenances will also be tested 

for pulp quality. The phytosanitary condition of these trees 

appeared to be very good. We were told that the only problems appear to be a leaf fungus and occasional wind breakage. Some of the progeny trials are addressing the relationship between growth rates and resistance to Mycosphaerella, 

with the intention of combining the traits. 

We learned that this is the region where the four largest 

companies have forest land—Forestal Mininco, Forestal 

Bio-Bio, Forestal Arauco, and Monte Águila, S. A. 

We returned to Concepción for the evening. 

April 24 

In the morning, the team traveled from Concepción to Los 

Angeles. Along the way, we discussed various aspects of the 

Eucalyptus resource with Marcos Beeche. We learned that 

the different eucalypt species are kept separate due to their 

different pulping characteristics. As such, the likelihood of 

E. nitens being mixed with E. globulus at any point is very 

low. The team asked about debarking and learned that there 

is not a universal standard practice. Some countries such as 

Japan prefer pulp logs to have bark because the bark helps 

the logs retain maximum moisture, which makes them easier 

to chip than when they are dry. Chile would prefer to export 

dry chips rather than moist logs but does not always have that 

option. Logs are also not debarked for local pulp uses in 

Chile. Debarking, when done, is always mechanical. We saw 

some areas where former pine plantations are being replanted 

to Eucalyptus. The main motivation for this change of species is the belief that short fiber pulp will be more valuable in 

the future than the longer conifer fiber. 

The team visited the forest nursery at Colicheo, belonging to 

Forestal Mininco. We were met by the nursery manager 

Claudio Herrera and by Luis de Ferari, Marcelo Donoso, and 

Miguel Castillo, all from Forestal Mininco. Mr. Herrera 

explained the nursery operations to us and described the 

production schedule. This nursery is one of four belonging to 

Forestal Mininco and is used to grow Pinus radiata, 

Eucalyptus nitens, and E. globulus. The nursery presently 

has 4.5 million containerized seedlings and 900,000 bareroot seedlings of E. nitens and 1.3 million containerized 

seedlings of E. globulus. The future trend is toward producing more hybrids between the two species of eucalypts and 

more genetic propagation. Problems are fairly limited, with 

some damping off and Botrytis. Eucalyptus nitens appears to 

have fewer problems than E. globulus. In the future, this 

nursery will be closed and Forestal Mininco will consolidate 

its seedling production into two nurseries. 

In Los Angeles, we visited the private company Controladora 

de Plagas Forestales, S. A. (CPF) and met with the director 

of the company, Osvaldo Ramirez Grez. Mr. Ramirez described the mission and objectives of this company, which 

was formed in 1992 to address pest management issues for 

the country’s private industrial forestry companies. Originally, 13 of the largest forestry companies from Regions VII 

to X formed CPF to combat the European pine shoot moth, 

Rhyacionia buoliana. Now there are 25 companies that have 

ownership in CPF, representing a land base of 800,000 ha of 

pine plantations. This group of companies decides the priorities for CPF. The mission of CPF is to keep pest damage 

below economic thresholds and to provide any sales and 

services that the parent companies might need in the way of 

pest-related matters. The objectives presently include to mass 

produce Orgilus obscurator (the parasitic wasp used in the 

biological control program for the European pine shoot 

moth), to provide various services, to develop survey protocols, and to order supplies as needed. The company has a 

board of directors, which receives input from a technical 

advisory committee (which is chaired by Luis de Ferari) 

regarding the technical feasibility of plans and designs to 

meet the mission of the company. Other work in the biological control arena includes looking for other natural enemies 

of the European pine shoot moth and the woodwasp Sirex 

noctilio. In addition, CPF is also involved in carrying out, 

coordinating, and contracting research, conducting training 

sessions as a center for technology transfer, carrying out 

extension work, standardizing approaches to common pests, 

producing information brochures, and representing the parent 

companies in other arenas including state and public forums. 

The future for CPF will probably involve participation in 

developing problems such as the recently introduced weevil 

Gonipterus scutellatus. The company has a staff of 19 people 

including 5 administrators and 14 laboratory employees. 

Recently, CPF signed an agreement with SAG and with 

EMBRAPA (Brazil) to maintain a stock of the parasitic 

nematode Deladenus siricidicola, which is the biological 

control agent for Sirex noctilio.

Following the meeting, we visited a sort yard to inspect logs 

of Eucalyptus viminalis and E. delegatensis. The trees had 

been harvested from a test plantation and were destined for 

the local pulp market. Although the logs had not been debarked and were sitting on a dry soil surface, we found them 

to be very clean. Some logs contained soil and a few showed 

signs of the reddish heartwood stain we had seen in Uruguay. 
121 

We were not able to find evidence of stain or decay fungi, 

ambrosia beetles, or wood borers. The team was told that 

these logs would be sorted by diameter and debarked at the 

chipping site near the pulp plant. 

Next we traveled to Fundo Porvenir to examine a plantation 

of E. nitens that was infested by Chilecomadia valdiviana. 

The plantation was established in 1989, and the infestation 

was discovered in 1995. The local forest caretaker showed us 

the larval tunnels in infested logs. Other symptoms of attack 

were also readily evident, including the sawdust at the base 

of the infested tree and the exudate on the bole. The blackish 

sooty mold growing on the moistened bark surface helped to 

identify an infested tree from a considerable distance. We 

learned that trees greater than 5 cm in diameter are likely to 

be attacked and that the associated decay fungi appear within 

2 to 4 months after the infestation. The fungi grow well 

ahead of the larval tunnels (as much as 4 m beyond the gallery) and render the wood useless even for fuel by the following year. The insect is not believed to be a vector for the 

decay fungi. Rather, airborne spores enter through the larval 

galleries, which are kept clear of frass by the feeding insects. 

Although we saw numerous infested trees within the plantation, there did not appear to be a discernible pattern to the 

attacks. Some trees in the stand had been marked and subsequently wounded mechanically to see if the insects prefer 

weakened trees. Only one of the wounded trees was attacked, 

leading to the conclusion that stress in the tree may not necessarily be involved in host selection. We inquired about the 

infestation pattern in other hosts and how it compares to the 

symptoms we had seen in E. nitens. We were told that the 

Nothofagus hosts have more extensive galleries than 

E. nitens, but that damage by fungi is far greater in E. nitens

than in the beeches because of much higher moisture content 

in the eucalypt host. Neither Nothofagus nor Salix chilensis, 

(another important host for C. valdiviana) show the sap flow 

and sooty mold symptom that is so pronounced on E. nitens. 

In another location, 400 infested trees had been removed in a 

sanitation harvest in April, and later in October, another 100 

needed to be removed because they had been overlooked in 

the first entry. The reason is that initial attacks often occur 

high in the tree and may not be as readily evident as in a tree 

that has been reinfested. The insect attack is at least 2 months 

old before the blackish mold appears on the bark surface. 

We stopped briefly at another plantation (Fundo Verdún) that 

had been established in 1994 and 1996. The young trees were 

planted at a 3- by 3-m spacing, which will be the planting 

convention for the future (1,300 trees per hectare). The 

plantation had been treated with glyphosate to control weeds 

and had been fertilized with calcium and phosphorous. Subsoiling had been done prior to planting because the field had 

previously been planted in wheat. 

We returned in the evening to Concepción. 

April 25 

In the morning, one of our traveling companions, Miguel 

Angel Poisson, was replaced by another SAG functionary, 

Ariel Sandoval. The team traveled with Mr. Sandoval and 

Marcos Beeche to the port of San Vicente near Talcahuano. 

We were met by Alejandro Sesnic, chief inspector at this port 

for SAG. This is a key port for the export of Eucalyptus

chips and pine lumber to numerous countries. We noted that 

all export products were on a concrete surface and that the 

adjacent hillside was devoid of trees. At the time of our visit, 

there was a large pile of Eucalyptus chips in the port. The 

pile was wet and cool on the surface but very hot inside 

(70°C). This heat probably limits the development of most 

organisms except certain fungi such as Trichoderma spp. 

Japan is currently the only country that imports Eucalyptus

chips from Chile. We were told that Japan does not require 

that the chips be treated prior to shipping. The team was also 

told that if chips needed treatment, it would not be economical to export them. The short-fiber Eucalyptus pulp is used 

for high-quality computer paper, whereas the long-fiber pine 

pulp is best for newsprint and tissue paper. It takes a full 

month to accumulate a sufficient quantity of chips to fill a 

ship. A ship can be loaded in 3 days (9 shifts) to a typical 

capacity of 45,000 tons. As chips spend more time in the 

pile, the lignin begins to break down, and thus less energy is 

required at the pulping plant to break it down. 

We inquired about the capabilities for fumigating chips. The 

port of San Vicente does not export any products requiring 

fumigation. As such, if fumigation were needed, it would 

need to be done aboard the ship or beneath a tarp because 

there are no chambers available. Mr. Sesnic pointed out that 

phytosanitary certificates will be written at the port if 

requested by the importer. 

In the afternoon, we traveled to the city of Temuco. Along 

the way, we discussed various phytosanitary issues with 

Marcos Beeche. He mentioned that Megaplatypus parasulcatus has been intercepted in Chile many times in crating made 

of poplar. In particular, interceptions have been common at 

the border in Mendoza, Argentina. Thus far, the insects have 

always been dead. (Crating is not ideal host material for the 

insects because it dries out and the symbiotic fungus cannot 

develop for the insects to feed on.) Megaplatypus parasulcatus is of particular concern because it has many hosts including pear trees and sycamores. (In some areas, M. parasulcatus attacks and kills the branches of Platanus occidentalis

street trees.) 

Other species of Platypus have also been intercepted in Chile 

in crating from Brazil and Ecuador. 

April 26 

Visited native Araucaria forests near Argentine border. 
122 

April 27 

The team met in the local offices of SAG with District Head 

Cesar Hidalgo; Hector Espinosa, regional director of Agricultural Protection; and Veronica Torres, plant health specialist for SAG in region IX. Marcos Beeche explained our 

mission to the director, and the team gave an overview of 

their impressions so far. Mr. Espinosa pointed out that there 

are four international points of entry into Region IX, including three border points with Argentina (Liucura-Malleco, 

Icalma, and Puesco) and the international airport Manquehue. Ms. Torres explained the surveillance system that is in 

place at these international checkpoints. Bark beetle pheromone traps are used for detection of Dendroctonus and Ips. 

Trapping is also done in native and exotic forests and in 

sawmills. Samples collected in these traps or intercepted 

during routine inspections are sent to the regional diagnostic 

laboratory that is staffed by Jaime Luna (entomologist) and 

Orlando Lara (plant pathologist). The laboratory maintains 

an extensive diagnostic collection of specimens to support 

the surveillance and inspection programs within the Region. 

Region IX does not receive many containers but inspects all 

that do arrive here. Crating is inspected for presence of bark, 

evidence of boring, and the organisms themselves. Phytosanitary personnel from SAG visit the companies within the 

Region who receive products likely to be crated or likely to 

involve dunnage and train them as to the protocols for dealing with wood material. They are asked to ensure that no 

crating or dunnage is allowed outside the premises of the 

receiving company. 

We inquired about the early detection program for Sirex 

noctilio and learned that although the program is in place 

throughout the entire country, bait trees are just along international borders with Argentina and in the airports. The 

program has been in place for 5 years and concentrates on 

those points of high risk for entry. 

We also inquired about special survey protocols for eucalypt 

plantations. All are surveyed in the normal fashion, but those 

in high-risk areas are surveyed more intensively. The principal mission of surveys of both Eucalyptus plantations and 

elsewhere is the early detection of quarantine pests. 

The team discussed many of the specific insects on our preliminary list with SAG entomologist Jaime Luna. He said 

there are no ants of the genera Acromyrmex or Atta in Chile. 

Chilecomadia valdiviana is only found on E. nitens and only 

occurs in isolated locations. His feeling was that the cossid 

moth was associated with weakened trees. He also noted its 

occurrence in Salix and Nothofagus hosts. Two of the cerambycids on the list were dismissed as having no significance as 

pests on Eucalyptus: Acanthinodera (decomposer) and 

Callideriphus (not found on Eucalytpus). We also discussed 

four genera of termites that appear on our preliminary list: 

Cryptotermes (strictly a drywood termite, of restricted 

distribution and limited to wood in use), Kalotermes (only on 

Juan Fernandez Islands), Neotermes chilensis (a wood decomposer), and Porotermes (a wood decomposer with no 

record on Eucalyptus). Phoracantha semipunctata occurs in 

Region IX but is far less significant here than further north. 

Phorancantha recurva does not occur here nor does the 

defoliator we encountered in Argentina, Pyrrophyge pelota. 

Other insects on our list that do not occur on Eucalyptus

include Xyleborus spp. and Rhyephenes spp. Mr. Luna added 

a weevil, Naupactus xanthographus to the preliminary list as 

a marginal associate of Eucalyptus. The weevil generally 

prefers fruit trees but will occasionally feed on leaves and 

deposit eggs on the roots of E. viminalis. We asked Mr. Lara 

about the presence of Gymnopilus in Chile, which he has not 

seen. He has also not encountered Ceratocystis and does not 

see much Mycosphaerella. Other organisms he had not seen 

on Eucalyptus included Ophiostoma and Cryphonectria. The 

conclusion of the two specialists was that there is generally 

very little Eucalyptus material sent to their laboratory for 

diagnosis unless the trees have been stressed. 

Following our meeting with SAG in Temuco, we traveled to 

Valdivia to meet with entomologists and pathlogists from the 

Universidad Austral de Chile. We were welcomed by entomologists Angelica Aguilar and Dolly Lanfranco and by 

pathologist Hernán Peredo. Also present in the meeting were 

Sergio Rothman and Angela Tortora from the Central Lab of 

SAG in Santiago and Pablo Gonzalez from the SAG office in 

Puerto Montt. We discussed the preliminary pest list and 

confirmed much of the information we had received elsewhere regarding associations of various organisms with 

Eucalyptus. There was considerable discussion of the fact 

that our risk assessment covers four countries that are very 

different in terms of the organisms associated with Eucalyptus and perhaps more importantly, different in terms of their 

ability to evaluate the phytosanitary condition of the forest 

resource. Chile takes great pride in its plant quarantine and 

surveillance systems and expressed the concern that a 

broadly applied generic regulation of imported Eucalyptus

would not be sensitive to their ability to regulate the phytosanitary condition of their particular resource. We also had a 

particularly lively discussion on the philosophy of risk assessments and the conflict between free trade and protection 

of resources. 

We asked the university scientists which organisms they 

thought were the most important associates of Eucalyptus. 

Although two insects were mentioned (Phoracantha semipunctata and Chilecomadia valdiviana), both were named 

with the caveat that they are of limited importance, either in 

terms of host associations or distribution. Mr. Peredo stated 

that there are no diseases of Eucalyptus in Chile, only fungal 

associates. 

Mr. Gonzalez from the SAG office in Puerto Montt described the operations at the port of Calbuco. The port is an 
123 

important one for the export of wood products. Only chips 

are being shipped at this time, but the port has the capability 

to ship logs as well. The surface is paved and thus free of 

soil. There are presently no installations in this port or in any 

other port for fumigation, except for that of crating. (Only the 

United States is requiring fumigation). At present, Japan is 

the primary recipient of chips (mostly native hardwood and 

12% Eucalyptus). When required, phytosanitary certificates 

are written at the port. The team inquired about the debarking 

procedure for Eucalyptus and learned that it is variable and 

dependent on how the wood will be used. Pulp logs are 

generally debarked, but debarking well ahead of the pulping 

process makes the logs harder to chip. Sawlogs are generally 

not debarked. We were told that if debarking were required 

as a mitigation measure, then it would be done, and there 

should be no problem in meeting the standard of 2% to 5% 

bark remaining on debarked logs. 

Following the meeting at Universidad Austral, we returned to 

Santiago. 

April 28 

The team traveled north from Santiago to the towns of Los 

Andes and San Felipe, where the weevil Gonipterus scutellatus was discovered 2 months earlier. At present, the weevil is 

distributed across an area of 1,770 km2

 within the drainage of 

the Aconcagua River, leading SAG officials to believe that it 

has been in Chile for at least 2 years. Eucalypts in this area 

are sparse and fairly widely scattered, but the infestation is 

just 130 km from the production forests of Region V. 

Eucalyptus globulus is presently the only host in Chile for 

G. scutellatus although hosts in other countries also include 

E. viminalis, E. camaldulensis, and E. regnans. A large ridge 

to the south of the present infestation and the lack of contiguous host material are currently keeping the insect contained and out of the Santiago Valley. A two-pronged control 

program will be undertaken. Beginning in September, SAG 

will carry out a chemical control with three sprays of a 

microencapsulated formulation of a pyrethrin insecticide 

applied from a helicopter to the early larval stages. The 

second phase of control will involve mass rearing and release 

of a natural egg parasite, Patasson nitens, to be collected 

from South Africa. (The weevil was introduced into Uruguay, Brazil, and Argentina with its native parasite, but came 

to Chile without the parasite.) The chemical application is 

expected to cost US$30,000 for three applications, and the 

biological control should be US$75,000. 

This is the second introduction in recent years from 

Argentina. The elm leaf beetle, Xanthogalerucella luteola, 

was introduced into Chile in 1992. 

We met with the three SAG personnel in charge of surveying 

this area to determine the distribution of the weevil (Juan 

Ravenales, Gema Olivera, and Erica Ereche). We were taken 

to a plantation that had extensive feeding on the foliage. The 

feeding does not kill the host but reduces the rate of growth. 

All the feeding damage in this area was new since the previous July, indicating that the insect is multiplying and spreading rapidly. We learned that three applications of the insecticide will be necessary because of the staggered life stages of 

the insect and the rapid growth of the host plant. Karate is 

apparently a feeding repellent as well as a larvicide and 

adulticide. 

We discussed the question of taxonomic synonymy between 

Gonipterus scutellatus and G. gibberus, which we had 

learned about in Uruguay. SAG entomologists felt that there 

were noticeable differences between the two species 

(G. scutellatus with two stripes on the larvae and adults 

brown; G. gibberus with no stripes on the larvae and adults 

orange). 

We returned to Santiago to visit the crating inspection program at Pudahuel International Airport. The team was met by 

two wood and dunnage inspectors for SAG, Luis Alarcon and 

Miriam Vega. We also met local APHIS inspector Ximena 

Preto and entomologists Juan Carlos Moroni and Ruben 

Zuñiga. Miriam Vega explained the crating inspection process at the airport. Most of the crates (60%–70%) arriving at 

the airport are visually inspected for presence of bark, insect 

signs, and damage in the wood. If any of these signs are 

found, the inspectors invoke the “Act of Retention” and all of 

the shipping information from the manifest is entered into the 

computer. The inspector or customs agent notifies a contractor who will fumigate the crating with methyl bromide or 

phosphamine. The cost of the fumigation is borne by the 

importer. The importer is given the opportunity to remove 

the contents of the crating before the fumigation is done. 

After the treatment has been done, a sample of the crating is 

brought to the diagnostic laboratory to determine if pests are 

present and if the treatment was successful. About 200 to 300 

crates require fumigation at Pudahuel in a typical year, which 

is about 70% of the crates inspected. If live insects are intercepted in the initial inspection, the crating and its contents 

are sprayed before fumigation. Typically, not many live 

insects are found. We learned that in Valparaiso and other 

large ports, the percentage of crating that is inspected is far 

lower (10%) and suspicious crating is burned instead of 

fumigated. Crates not inspected at the port of entry will be 

inspected on arrival at their destination. 

The evening was spent in Santiago. 

April 29 

In the morning, we met with Jim Mackley, regional director 

for APHIS International Services (U.S. Embassy), and his 

staff to discuss our impressions of the site visit to Chile. 

In the afternoon, we were asked to meet with SAG officials 

for a closeout meeting. That meeting was also attended by 

people from numerous other agencies, private forestry companies, and specialists from Universidad Austral de Chile. 
124 

Present at the closeout were Orlando Morales, Marcos 

Beeche, Miguel Angel Poisson, Ariel Sandoval, and Pablo 

Gonzalez from SAG; Patricio Parra and Sandra Perret from 

Instituto Forestal; Jose Antonio Prado and Cristian Pérez 

from CONAF; Angelica Aguilar from Universidad Austral; 

Maria Teresa Arana from CORMA; and Luis de Ferari from 

Forestal Mininco. 

We thanked SAG and the rest of our hosts for their cooperation and for spending the time with us to enable us to evaluate the risks associated with the importation of Eucalyptus

into the United States. We then described the process we will 

need to follow to complete the actual pest risk assessment 

report, including the development of Individual Pest Risk 

Assessments (IPRAs) that form the backbone of the risk 

assessment. Mr. Morales pointed out that IPRAs should only 

be drawn up for pests on the quarantine list or those interfering with the establishment of plantations. We reiterated the 

respective positions of the U.S. Forest Service and APHIS 

with regard to risk assessment and risk management, emphasizing that the role of WIPRAMET was to analyze the organisms associated with different ecological niches on Eucalyptus (on the bark, beneath the bark, in the wood) and that 

APHIS would determine risk management based on those 

individual assessments. We also described the model for 

analysis, the seven elements of the probability of establishment and the consequences of establishment. We assured our 

hosts that they would have an opportunity to comment on the 

risk assessment and that the pathways to our conclusions 

would be readily transparent. 

Other subjects of interest were the timelines for our document and the development of regulations by APHIS. There 

was also concern expressed that the four countries included 

in our assessment be treated individually and not with a 

“broad brush.” 

In a final overview, we summarized our general impressions, 

which were that there appear to be very few phytosanitary 

problems associated with the Eucalyptus resource, the system 

of vigilance and survey in Chile is very good, and that a solid 

infrastructure exists to deal with developing problems. On 

the other hand, we pointed out that where biological information is lacking (for example, the decay fungi associated with 

Chilecomadia valdiviana), we needed to take a conservative 

approach in our assessments. 

In the evening, the team returned to the United States. 
125 

Appendix B—Scientific Authorities for 

Species of Eucalyptus 

alba Reinw. ex Blume 

amygdalina Labill. 

angulosa Schauer 

astringens Maiden (Maiden) 

bicostata Maiden 

botryoides Smith 

brassiana S.T. Blake 

brockwayi C. Gardner 

camaldulensis Dehnh. 

campaspe S. Moore 

camphora R. Baker 

cinerea F. Muell. ex Benth. 

citriodora Hook. 

cladocalyx F. Muell.

cloeziana F. Muell.

cypellocarpa L. Johnson 

deglupta Blume 

delegatensis R. Baker 

diversicolor F. Muell. 

dunnii Maiden

eugenioides Sieber ex Sprengel 

exserta F. Muell. 

fastigata Deane & Maiden 

ficifolia F. Muell.

flocktoniae (Maiden) Maiden 

globulus Labill. 

gomphocephala DC. 

grandis Hill ex Maiden 

gunnii Hook. 

kitsoniana Maiden 

lesouefii Maiden 

linearis Dehnh. 

longifolia Link 

macarthurii Deane & Maiden 

maculata Hook. 

maidenii F. Muell. 

marginata Donn ex Smith 

microcorys F. Muell. 

moluccana Roxb. 

nesophilia Blakely 

nicholii Maiden & Blakely 

nitens (Deane & Maiden) Maiden 

nova-anglicae Deane & Maiden 

obliqua L’Her. 

oleosa F. Muell. ex Miq. 

paniculata Smith 

pellita F. Muell. 

phaeotricha Blakely & McKie 

pilularis Smith 

propinqua Deane & Maiden 

pulverulenta Sims 

punctata DC. 

pyrocarpa L. Johnson & Blaxell 

radiata Sieber ex DC. 

regnans F. Muell. 

resinifera Smith 

robusta Smith 

rostrata Cav. 

saligna Smith 

sideroxylon Cunn. ex Woolls

stoatei C. Gardner

tereticornis Smith 

tessellaris F. Muell. 

torquata Luehm. 

torelliana F. Muell. 

trabutii A. Vilm. ex Trab. 

urophylla S. T. Blake 

viminalis Labill. 
126 

Appendix C—Summary of Reviewers’ 

Comments and Team’s Responses 

Introduction 

A draft of the South America pest risk assessment was 

provided to 63 reviewers in various countries, including 

Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Great 

Britain, Morocco, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, 

the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Individual reviewers were selected on the basis of their interest and participation in previous pest risk assessments for imported logs, 

their expertise in specific taxonomic groups of pest organisms, or their knowledge of pests of Eucalyptus. 

Responses were received from 24 reviewers or organizations 

(see Acknowledgments for their names and addresses): 15 

from the United States, two from Australia, two from Uruguay, and one each from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, 

and Great Britain. The review from Chile was provided 

through a working group of representatives from The Agriculture and Livestock Service (SAG), the National Forestry 

Corporation (CONAF), the Chilean Wood Corporation 

(CORMA), the Forestry Institute (INFOR), and the private 

companies Forest Pest Control (CPF-SA) and Forestal 

MININCO. 

The pest risk assessment team read all reviewer responses 

and, as a group, discussed the comments or concerns of each 

reviewer. Where deemed appropriate, the team made changes 

to the document using information derived from the reviewers’ comments as well as additional information the team 

members had developed after distribution of the draft. 

Comments from reviewers that pertain to specific pests are 

included at the end of individual pest risk assessments, 

followed by a brief response from the assessment team. 

General Comments From 

Reviewers 

In summarizing their general impressions of the draft document, most reviewers were favorably impressed with the 

quality and comprehensiveness of the draft document. A 

representative sample of reviewer comments is listed below. 

“Overall, except as noted above, I believe the team has done 

a thorough and commendable job of assessing the pest risk 

associated with importation of Eucalyptus logs and chips 

from South America.” (Billings) 

“The team has made a commendable effort in addressing the 

enormous variety of potential pests found over a very large 

and diverse geographical area on a large number of 

Eucalyptus species.” (Cameron) 

“...the summary information on pests is valuable and well 

presented and I would congratulate you on it.” (Eyre) 

“Congratulations on a job well done. I am particularly impressed with the rigorous method of risk assessment you have 

used in the IPRA’s. I am going to talk to our Quarantine 

authority about using your approach for a similar PRA we 

did for Australia.” (Floyd) 

“...I congratulate the Team on an excellent presentation. 

It is thorough and clearly written.” (Hansen) 

“You folks have such a daunting task with limited data to go 

on. I congratulate you.” (Jacobi) 

“For the most part, we were impressed with the document. 

The WIPRAMET team did a good job of choosing pests that 

reflect the various ‘habitats’ of potential exotic invaders on 

imported logs and chips.” (Johnson/Osterbauer) 

“This is an excellent report that clearly reflects the expertise 

and experience of the group to address the real and potential 

risks of the importation of Eucalyptus into the United States 

from South America. It is very well balanced between the 

two potential groups of pests—insects and diseases.” “In 

summary, this is an excellent examination of the problems, 

potential and real of the importation of raw wood from Eucalyptus plantations now growing at a wide variety of locations 

in South America. Certainly, our own natural resources 

deserve the best efforts by our scientists—as evidenced by 

this report.” (Lattin) 

“Firstly, may I congratulate the Wood Import Pest Risk 

Assessment and Mitigation Team (WIPRAMET) on an 

excellent piece of work. The report is well written, concise 

and comprehensive, covering representatives of important 

insect pests and diseases of eucalypts that may pose quarantine threats to the USA. The trip report is very informative, 

providing a useful contribution to the pest risk assessment 

process. I strongly support the assessment and conclusions 

proposed by the assessment team (WIPRAMET).” (Mireku) 

“The document is very good! And I think that the document 

will be very important for us in South America, because it is 

a synopsis of all forestry protection problems, and represents 

an overview of all experts in Brazil, Argentina, Chile and 

Uruguay. Wonderful document!” “All of those who research 
127 

and work with Forest protection in South America will use 

the report as a guide.” (Pedrosa–Macedo) 

“The report will be very useful as it includes in one document the general information and the risk elements that make 

up the determination of pest risk criteria applied for the 

determination the pest risk in the United States; so it will 

help to coordinate actions in the future.” (Telechea/Porcile) 

(translated from Spanish) 

“As with other risk assessments, the trip reports are very 

helpful.” “I commend the team for the work that they’ve 

done. This is a very well done initial effort.” (Zadig) 

Major Issues of Reviewers 

Other comments from reviewers not pertaining to specific 

pests were organized into 11 major issues. The following 

section identifies these issues, summarizes specific reviewer 

comments with respect to each issue, and provides a response 

to each issue from this Wood Import Pest Risk Assessment 

and Mitigation Evaluation Team. 

Issue 1: Geographical Scope of Assessment 

Reviewers’ comments—Concern was expressed by Chilean 

reviewers and others that, because of numerous differences 

among countries, separate risk assessments should be done 

for each South American country. Others felt that the risk 

assessment should be expanded to include additional 

countries. 

“Why wasn’t this pest risk assessment extended to include 

Central American countries and Mexico? At least one U.S. 

company has recently established large plantations of 

Eucalyptus in Mexico with plans to bring chips and logs into 

Texas for processing.” (Billings) 

“Although it would greatly complicate this PRA, a regional 

approach might provide a more accurate assessment of risk. 

In South America there is substantial regional variation in the 

distribution of the pests, Eucalyptus species present, and 

plantation management practices. For example, Chilecomadia valdiviana is restricted to certain parts of Chile and 

the Andean region in Argentina and would not be a risk from 

anywhere else in South America.” (Cameron) 

“The authors state that Eucalyptus plantations in South 

America are well-kept and prompt action is taken when pest 

problems occur. This is true in many of the commercial 

plantations, however, in many areas, Eucalyptus has been 

planted as part of government incentives programs by private 

landowners and has subsequently been unattended. This is 

another reason that regional or more specific assessments 

would more accurately assess potential pest risks.” 

(Cameron) 

“Finally, we were happy to see some of our more vulnerable 

ecosystems (e.g. Hawaii) receive attention. The impact of 

potential exotic pests on Hawaii, Alaska, and the U.S. territories is often not considered in PRA.” (Johnson/Osterbauer) 

“The inclusion of the Hawaiian Islands into consideration is 

excellent. Far too long we have excluded this State from 

consideration.” “The results of introduction of a wide variety 

of organisms have resulted in extinction and drastic reduction 

of the native biota.” (Lattin) 

“In its overall structure, the reviewed document considers the 

development of the process of Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) for 

an entire subcontinent—South America—within which there 

are significant differences with respect to the species of 

Eucalyptus planted from one country to another, the species 

of insects and fungi associated with the Eucalyptus present in 

those different countries, the distribution and diversity of 

those species, climatological differences, differences in 

biogeographic aspects, difference with respect to the official 

and non-official phytosanitary institutions, differences with 

respect to the characteristics of wood-loading ports, etc.” 

(Peña Royo) (translated from Spanish) 

“For the reasons just stated, we believe the Pest Risk 

Assessment should be carried out independently for each of 

the countries that have an interest in exporting chips and logs 

of Eucalyptus to the United States. This becomes especially 

significant when Step 3 of the Risk Management process is 

undertaken—that of proposing mitigation measures, which 

should reflect the stated differences of phytosanitary risk 

between countries.” (Peña Royo) (translated from Spanish) 

“As an example, in Tables 8 and 9 there are 135 insects and 

60 fungi shown to be associated with Eucalyptus in South 

America. Of these, Chile has 9 and 7 species of insects and 

fungi respectively, which represents 6.6% and 11.6 % of the 

total for the region analyzed (one species of insect lives 

exclusively in the archipelago of Juan Fernandez Islands), 

which reflects a significant difference with respect to the 

diversity of species associated with Eucalyptus in Chile 

compared to the rest of the region.” (Peña Royo) (translated 

from Spanish) 

Response to comments—The scope of this pest risk assessment was based on a request by APHIS that the U.S. Forest 

Service Wood Import Pest Risk Assessment Team conduct a 

“pest risk assessment of Eucalyptus species from several 

South American countries” (A. Elder, APHIS, 1997, personal 

communication). This pest risk assessment primarily focused 

on the countries of Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay 

since these countries have the largest Eucalyptus resources 

and are most likely to export logs or chips to the United 

States. Information on Eucalyptus resources and pests for the 

other countries in South America are provided where available. Country-specific differences in the condition, pests, and 

management of the Eucalyptus resources are discussed in the 
128 

pest risk assessment. This pest risk assessment does not 

attempt to assign an overall risk level to the continent of 

South America nor to any specific country. Consideration of 

the factors that distinguish one country from another with 

regard to the risks associated with the particular organism of 

concern is the responsibility of APHIS. As stated in the 

Conclusions of this pest risk assessment, detailed examination and selection of phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest 

risk is the responsibility of APHIS and is beyond the scope 

of this assessment. 

Issue 2: Biological Scope of Assessment 

Reviewers’ comments—Reviewers felt that the insects and 

pathogens of concern tables (Tables 8 and 9) and the pest 

categories were confusing or inadequate. Some pointed out 

that organisms were listed as occurring on Eucalyptus in 

their country without citations, were listed to genus only, 

were secondary organisms on Eucalyptus and should not be 

listed, or were organisms already present in the United 

States. Others suggested that all organisms occurring on 

Eucalyptus in South America be included in tabular format. 

One reviewer pointed out that several insects that were not 

listed occur in California. 

“With respect to the list of Potential Insects Associated with 

the commodity of Eucalyptus cited for Argentina (Table 8), 

we have the following comments: 

Callideriphus laetus, Eurymerus eburoides, Sarsina 

violascens, Steirastoma breve and Strepsicrates marcopetana: From the bibliography consulted there are no 

references that mention these as being present in the country, nor have these pests been detected in areas where 

eucalypts are grown in Argentina. 

Colaspoide vulgata: Listed for Argentina, present in the 

province of Misiones, only affects foliage and seedlings 

(young nursery plants). 

Retrachyderes thoracicus: Borer of fruit trees. Observed in 

Argentina producing damage only in fig and peach trees.” 

(Guillen) (translated from Spanish) 

“With reference to the list of Potential Pathogens Associated 

with eucalypts (Table 9) we have the following comments for 

some of the pathogens cited as being present in Argentina: 

Armillaria spp., Botryosphaeria spp., Ganoderma sp., 

Phellinus spp.: It is requested that citations of pests include 

both the genus and species, since from the perspective of 

plant quarantine, the proper taxonomic position of the 

pathogen is of great importance for the development of the 

corresponding risk assessment. 

Botryotinia fuckeliana. Present in Argentina. Eucalyptus is 

a secondary host. Cerospora epicoccoides, Coniella fragariae (syn.: Coniothyrium fragariae), Cytospora eucalipticola, Diplodia australiae, Gymnopilus spectabilis (syn.: 

Pholiota spectabilis), Mycosphaerella suttoniae (syn.: 

Phaeophleospora epicoccoides), Phaeophleospora 

eucalypti, Pseudocercospora eucalyptorum, Sphaerotheca

pannosa: From the bibliography consulted, no citations 

arose which mention these pathogens as being present in 

the country, nor have they been detected in areas where 

eucalypts are grown in Argentina.” (Guillen) (translated 

from Spanish) 

“In accordance with the comments just expressed, I would 

ask you to please send us the scientific foundation which 

supports the citations of the aforementioned pests in the 

Document and on which we have made comments.” (Guillen) 

(translated from Spanish) 

“This is the document that APHIS will turn to when someone 

asks for a permit to import green Eucalyptus lumber from 

South America. Therefore, the PRA should include pests 

found on green lumber and other wood products. The risk 

associated with the importation of these products will differ 

from the risk associated with chips and logs. The PRA should 

reflect that.” (Johnson/Osterbauer) 

“It would be extremely useful to include tables such as those 

that appear in Appendix A from the ‘Pest Risk Assessment of 

the Importation of Pinus radiata and Douglas-fir Logs from 

New Zealand’. Such tables would be excellent, quick references for APHIS inspectors when a potential pest is intercepted on imported Eucalyptus. For example, Rosellina, 

Pythium and Fusarium are mention in Appendix A—Reports 

on Team’s Site Visits to South America—as other pathogens 

found on Eucalyptus seedlings. These and similar pests 

should be listed in the PRA. We know that whenever a 

potential pest is intercepted on Pinus radiata logs from New 

Zealand, APHIS used the tables in Appendix A of the New 

Zealand PRA to make their regulatory decisions. If a pest is 

not listed, it may be considered unimportant.” (Johnson/Osterbauer) 

“As pointed out in my previous comment on the preliminary 

pest list, the list of potential pests of concern (Table 8, 

pp 29–37) only deals with insects and not arthropod pests. 

There are many serious arthropod pests which are not 

insects (e.g. mites) and therefore the list should include all 

arthropods and not just insects.” (Mireku) 

“I note that the list of potential insect pests and diseases of 

concern presented in Tables 8 and 9 (pp 29-45) may not 

encompass all pests associated with eucalypts in South 

America. However, as stated in the assessment, it is very 

difficult to collect biological data on all possible pests (particularly root- and stem rots). Selecting representative pests 

that inhabit a variety of niches on logs will certainly enable 

APHIS to identify effective mitigation options that will 

control both the known pests and unknowns. I support this 

principle, provided mitigation measures to manage the 

known pests are effective against the full spectrum of 

possible unknown pests.” (Mireku) 
129 

“Table 7—Pest categories and descriptions. In recent years 

California has discovered a number of introduced species 

associated with Eucalyptus. Of the species listed in this table 

the following have been found in California infesting Eucalyptus: Ctenarytaina eucalypti, Gonipterus scutellatus, 

Phoracantha semipunctata, and Trachymela sloanei 

(California Plant Pest and Disease Report, January-June 

1998).” (Zadig) 

Response to comments—The objectives and scope of this 

pest risk assessment are identified in Chapter 1. The scope of 

the assessment includes the importation of unprocessed 

Eucalyptus logs and chips from South America and does not 

extend to manufactured wood products. Some of the pest 

organisms that are considered in the risk assessment are 

probably also associated with green lumber and other wood 

products. The biological information provided in the individual pest risk assessments may be helpful in determining risk 

levels for these types of material, but this was not the intent 

of this assessment. Although this assessment attempted to be 

thorough in determining the possible insects and pathogens 

that are present in the South American countries on Eucalyptus, it should not be considered complete. Tables 8 and 9 are 

lists of potential insects and pathogens of concern, not lists of 

quarantine pests, nor inclusive lists of organisms found on 

Eucalyptus in South America. Collecting the needed 

information on all possible pests present is not possible 

because many of the organisms have not been identified 

adequately and may have limited, if any, biological 

information available. The pest risk assessment process takes 

the approach of identifying a spectrum of organisms that 

occupy various habitats and represent potential avenues of 

entrance into the United States on the resource being 

considered. The intent is to provide an assessment of 

representative organisms that could enter the United States so 

that APHIS can develop appropriate mitigation measures. It 

is not the intent of this assessment to be inclusive of all 

insects and pathogens that are known to be present on 

Eucalyptus. Even less information is known about arthropods 

than insects. These were not included within the scope of this 

assessment, but it is assumed that mitigation measures that 

are effective against insects in the different niches would be 

effective against other arthropods. 

Reviewer comments regarding specific insects and pathogens 

in Argentina were addressed directly in subsequent correspondence between the team and the reviewer. Literature 

citations referring to the presence of specific organisms on 

Eucalyptus in Argentina were provided. The four insect 

species mentioned as having recently been found in California are identified in pest category 2 in Table 8. This acknowledges that they are not native to the United States but 

are present and may be capable of further spread. Information on the states where non-native insects are present in the 

United States has been added to Table 8. 

Issue 3: Definition of a Quarantine Pest 

Reviewers’ comments—Reviewers from Chile requested 

clarification of the classification of pests considered in the 

draft document and how these categories comply with 

international standards for quarantine pests. 

“The reviewed draft document shows a classification of the 

pests considered into five categories [the categories are 

listed]. On this aspect, we have the following comments: 

The revised text of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) (Rome, 1999) defines a Quarantine Pest as 

‘Pest of potential economic importance for the area at risk 

when the pest is not present, or if present, is not extensive 

and is under official control’ (See Enclosure 1). Taking into 

account the IPPC definition of Quarantine Pest, species that 

are present in the United States and are not under official 

control should not be considered as quarantine pests, according to the criteria established through the IPPC. It is appropriate to point out that only quarantine pests and regulated 

non-quarantine pests can be the subject of phytosanitary 

regulations that govern the importation of plant products.” 

(Peña Royo) (translated from Spanish) 

“As stated previously, those pests that do not qualify as 

quarantine pests should not be considered as pests to be 

controlled under the regulations established for the 

importation of chips and logs of Eucalyptus. 

In this sense, not all of the pests listed in Categories 2 and 2a 

should be considered as quarantine for the United States 

unless they are officially being controlled in the United 

States. For the reasons previously stated, it should be clarified if the following pests which are present in the United 

States as well as in Chile are under official control: Gonipterus scutellatus, Phoracantha semipunctata, Phoracantha

recurva, Aulographina eucalypti and Mycosphaerella 

walkeri.” (Peña Royo) (translated from Spanish) 

“If these pests are presently being subjected to official control in the United States, the measures of quarantine control 

applied to Chile should be equivalent to the phytosanitary 

measures already established within the United States to limit 

the further dissemination of these pests from states/counties 

where they occur into states/counties where they do not 

occur. Following from previous discussion, we believe that it 

is not possible to determine the Pest Risk Potential for species whose quarantine status within the United States has not 

been previously clarified; such as is the case for Gonipterus

scutellatus, Phoracantha semipunctata, Phoracantha recurva, Aulographina eucalypti and Mycosphaerella walkeri, 

which have been classified with Pest Risk Potentials of High, 

Moderate, Moderate and Moderate, respectively.” (Peña 

Royo) (translated from Spanish) 

Response to comments—The criteria for categorizing potential insects and pathogens of concern were biological and 

do not strictly reflect plant protection policy. Determination 
130 

of quarantine status for any organism is the responsibility of 

APHIS and is beyond the scope of this assessment. 

Although Phoracantha semipunctata, P. recurva, and 

Gonipterus scutellatus are found in California, the latter two 

species are still not widely distributed. Even P. semipunctata, 

the most widely distributed of the three species, is not found 

throughout the range of Eucalyptus in the United States. The 

eucalyptus borer is still not reported to occur in Florida and 

may be of limited distribution in Arizona. Currently, there 

are active control and management programs in place in the 

state of California for all three of these exotic pests of Eucalyptus. APHIS is in the process of reviewing these programs 

to determine if they can be sanctioned as programs of 

Official Control as defined by IPPC. 

Issue 4: Lack of Adequate Background Information 

Reviewers’ comments—Reviewers described sections of the 

draft document that provided insufficient information to the 

reader and offered suggestions for improvement. 

“Clearly, APHIS is responsible for examining the information presented in this report and suggesting appropriate 

phytosanitary measures to mitigate risk associated with the 

importation of Eucalyptus logs and chips. However, additional information about life cycles and habits as they relate 

to mitigating procedures would be very appropriate. There is 

little information presented on how different methods of 

harvesting, handling, and processing of logs would affect the 

pests evaluated in this PRA. Descriptions of specific inspection procedures available for Eucalyptus plantations that 

would adequately detect potential pests also would be useful 

information to have in the pest risk assessment.” (Cameron) 

“I would have appreciated some more background and justification for this particular Risk Assessment. The opening line 

states that ‘current regulations require that logs and chips 

from SA must be treated before importation’. Is there a 

proposal to import without treatment?” (Hansen) 

“The section on Previous Interceptions is very brief and not 

helpful. I presume this is because there is so little information, and essentially no regulation in other countries, but 

more explicit descriptions of laws and practice would provide context for judgment. Is there a history of interception 

in the United States? It would be useful to summarize the 

known cases where Eucalyptus pests have moved, and the 

local consequences.” (Hansen) 

“Perhaps more could be said about the current situation in 

California where many Eucalyptus trees have been growing. 

As I recall, certain Homoptera and perhaps a weevil are now 

causing damage. A brief review of this situation could be of 

considerable value since it represents a case study of the 

situation.” (Lattin) 

“Considerable work has been done on Eucalyptus plants in 

the United Kingdom (e.g. Evans, 1980). There might be 

some useful knowledge there on what happens in the upper 

part of Holarctic Region.” (Lattin) 

“Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 (pages 23-26): Abbreviations ‘IND, 

RWD, WIR, C, NC in the legends and tables are difficult to 

understand. They are not explained anywhere in the assessment. I suggest that you provide footnotes to explain what 

these abbreviations stand for.” (Mireku) 

“Resources at Risk. Entry pathways for Eucalyptus pests 

pose a risk of entry and establishment for harmful invasive 

pests of other agricultural crops as well. Even though these 

impacts are discussed in the individual pest risk assessments, 

for purposes of transparency these impacts need to be captured and thoroughly described within this section. Agricultural crops mentioned in the individual pest risk assessments 

in addition to the other Myrtaceae previously mentioned 

(guava and allspice) include citrus, avocado, fig, olive, 

various stone and pome fruit species, rose apple, coffee, 

mango, cocoa, tea, and rubber.” (Zadig) 

“Eucalyptus Plantations in South America. As Eucalyptus is 

an introduced species to this continent, it would be helpful to 

describe the reaction of native organisms to its introduction 

and any pest problems that arose. Although there is some 

discussion within the trip reports, here it would be additionally helpful if the standard harvesting practices, including 

debarking can be discussed. This would be particularly helpful when reviewing the risk via movement of chips. In other 

words, would chips include branch material? The individual 

pest risk assessment for eucalyptus longhorn borer states that 

debarking is done routinely as a harvesting practice in 

Argentina.” (Zadig) 

Response to comments—Additional background information was added to the appropriate section of the document. 

References to specific attributes of certain organisms (distribution, nomenclature, typos) were considered and changes 

made in the individual pest risk assessments. Concerns regarding agricultural resources at risk were addressed by 

providing additional information to the Resources at Risk 

section of the document and to individual pest risk 

assessments. 

Two reviewers comments refer to the effects of certain procedures that would be considered pest mitigation measures. 

These measures and their effects on pest risk are beyond the 

scope of this assessment. Our charge was to evaluate the 

risks associated with raw logs and chips, and our discussion 

of debarking was only intended to identify that practice as 

being a normal part of processing for only one species of 

Eucalyptus (E. grandis) in one country (Argentina). 

We typically refer to interception records because they can 

be a useful source of information for identifying potentially 
131 

invasive insects. In the case of Eucalyptus, this source of 

information has been of rather limited use for three possible 

reasons: (1) the relatively limited amount of Eucalyptus raw 

wood moving through the international market, (2) the status 

of Eucalyptus as unregulated in the European market, which 

limits the amount of inspection that is done on the commodity, and (3) Eucalyptus appears to be a relatively clean 

commodity. 

Issue 5: Crossover of Pests (Alternate Hosts) 

Reviewers’ comments—Reviewers expressed concern that 

the organisms that crossed over from native hosts to the 

introduced Eucalyptus in South America may cross over to 

other hosts if introduced into the United States. Some felt 

that alternative host species should be listed for known pests 

that occur on Eucalyptus in South America. Chilean reviewers stated that even when an insect has a wide host range, it 

cannot be assumed that plant species in which the pest has 

never been observed will be hosts for the pest. 

“The potential seems to exist that Eucalyptus may be a conduit of indigenous South American pests not normally found 

on Eucalyptus in other areas to other trees in North America. 

This is an important aspect not normally considered.” 

(Jacobi) 

“I wonder if any of these listed pathogens would cross over 

to native southern hardwood species. I did not see any evidence that these fungi (pathogen ipras) had any other hosts 

other than pink disease or Ceratocystis.” (Jacobi) 

“As noted, Eucalyptus is an introduced species in South 

America. Many of the pests on Eucalyptus are native organisms attacking a new host (pp. vii, 135, 139). Unfortunately, 

the native hosts for these pests are rarely or inconsistently 

listed within the PRA. A list of alternate host species may 

help identify other susceptible hosts in the U.S. (p. 13). 

These alternate hosts, including potential herbaceous hosts 

(e.g., for Armillaria spp.), should be included either in 

Tables 8 and 9 or in the IPRA.” (Johnson/Osterbauer) 

“Also, the ability of native South American pests to cross 

over to the introduced Eucalyptus was an important issue 

that was covered quite well in the PRA.” (Johnson and 

Osterbauer) 

“Again, the alternate hosts for the Eucalyptus pests must be 

included in the PRA. An accurate prediction of the economic 

and environmental impacts of these pests cannot be made 

without this information.” (Johnson/Osterbauer) 

“The second lesson brought out by this report is that some 

organisms native to South America have made the host shift 

onto these non-indigenous trees—this too, is an alarm not to 

be ignored. Far too often we are told that such host shifts are 

not likely to occur—but they do.” (Lattin) 

“The lack of presence of Ch. valdiviana in plantations of 

E. globulus is something that has been studied in Chile 

[including] in situations where infested plantations of 

E. nitens have been found growing adjacent to plantations of 

E. globulus without ever having observed the moth attacking 

the latter species. In the process of Pest Risk Assessment, 

special attention must be given to pest/host associations, 

considering that even when the pest being examined is an 

insect with a wide host range, as is Ch. valdiviana, it cannot 

be assumed that plant species in which the pest has never 

been observed will be hosts for the pest. This is the case for 

Ch. valdiviana with respect to E. globulus, in which a Pest 

Risk Potential of Moderate has been assumed without the 

existence of observations and/or publications that support an 

association between both species.” (Peña Royo) (translated 

from Spanish) 

Response to comments—The adaptation of native South 

American organisms to the introduced Eucalyptus is a key 

part of this risk assessment. The issue of crossover pests is 

significant since the commodity under consideration 

(Eucalyptus spp.) is not native to the area of import (the 

United States). This was recognized during the assessment 

and was addressed in the summary (Chap. 4). Because of 

concerns raised by reviewers’ comments, the discussion in 

the summary was expanded to point out the large number of 

pests that fit into this category. Many of the organisms of 

concern in South America are indeed native to those 

environments and have utilized Eucalyptus as an occasional 

host. In many cases, their entire native host range is poorly 

known. However, if they have been reported on various 

genera of hosts as well as on Eucalyptus, they were likely to 

be rated high for colonization and spread potential, on the 

basis of their polyphagous habits and their demonstrated 

adaptability by utilizing Eucalyptus as a new host. In 

addition, each assessor reviewed their IPRA to assure that 

known South American hosts other than Eucalyptus were 

included in their assessment. 

Issue 6: Import of Potential Pests on Chips 

Reviewers’ comments—Several reviewers felt that the risk 

of importing pests on untreated chips was higher than the 

draft risk assessment suggested or was unclear and that some 

IPRAs did not consider chips as a pathway. 

“Another troublesome area in this PRA is that logs and chips 

generally are lumped together, even though APHIS regulations treat them differently. The authors stated that ‘the riskrating of potential pest species was based on the concept of 

whole log importation.’ They also pointed out that ‘clearly, 

debarking and reducing logs to chips will seriously impact 

the survival and hence the risk of importation of certain 

pests.’ ‘Thus, of the IPRAs for insects, all would be rated at 

moderate to low risk of surviving chipping and transport.’ 

The effect of chipping on fungi is not clear. Further research 
132 

on the presence and persistence of potential pests in wood 

chips is strongly encouraged.” (Cameron) 

“Several of the individual pest risk assessments (IPRA) 

(e.g. root and stem rots and most of the insects) only consider 

introduction, spread, and establishment from Eucalyptus

logs. Since many companies are planning to import chips, the 

IPRA should also consider this pathway especially for the 

fungi. We realize that hot and anaerobic conditions may 

occur in the centers of piles of chips (p. 139). However, 

chips on or near the surface or edges would not be subject 

to those conditions.” (Johnson/Osterbauer) 

“Recent research on the survival of insects and the pitch 

canker pathogen in chipped Monterey pine branch material is 

relevant to your document and hence you may wish to reference the findings (chipping reduced the emergence of 

branch-infesting insects by about 95%; the pitch canker 

pathogen was readily isolated from chipped material, including asymptomatic branches; phoresy rates among insects that 

survived chipping was quite high—up to 67%) and consider 

the consequences in your discussion.” “Given that approximately 5% of the insects survived and emerged from chips, 

I have concern that chips could pose a significant risk for 

insect establishment as well. The shear volume of chips that 

are likely to be imported would suggest that 5% survival 

could easily translate into a significant number of insects.” 

(Owen) 

Response to comments—The team discussed the research 

findings of William McNee, who noted that 5% of the beetles 

in branches infected with the pitch canker pathogen survived 

the chipping process. His research was conducted on very 

small branches, mostly less than 2.54 cm in diameter. These 

branches contained tiny Pityophthorus spp. bark beetles. 

Mr. McNee felt that the surviving insects were probably 

callow adults or young adults at the time the host material 

was chipped and that earlier developmental stages would be 

less likely to survive the chipping process due to the drying 

of the host material. He also felt that larger insects present in 

the bole would be less likely to survive chipping than the 

insects in his study. In this assessment, the team evaluated 

bark and wood boring insects that would be sensitive to the 

drying of their host material that would result from the chipping process. For insects under the bark or inside the wood 

of the bole, we would still consider the entry potential to be 

low after chipping of infested host material. 

Mr. McNee’s work found a higher level of viable Fusarium

circinatum in branch chips than in unchipped material. This 

would be expected, because more surface area suitable for 

sporulation is available. In general, the smaller the wood 

chips, the quicker they would dry out and the less the risk of 

pathogens of concern surviving. An exception would be the 

canker-causing fungi, which can survive for long periods in a 

desiccated state. Chipping can have different effects on 

different fungi, both positive and negative with respect to 

survival, and generalities cannot be made. 

Issue 7: Pest Risk Criteria 

Reviewers’ comments—One reviewer provided suggestions 

for improving the pest risk criteria used in the draft to assign 

ratings for risk elements. 

“Presence with host at origin potential. The ‘host’ should be 

clarified to specify the part/s of the host under assessment 

and associated with the pathway. The pest may well be associated with the host at origin and intercepted with the host 

repeatedly. But, if that part of the plant isn’t the plant part 

being transported for the purposes of this assessment, that 

element is irrelevant. For purposes of transparency, it would 

be helpful here to include an element such as ‘Organism is 

associated with plant part to be imported’.” (Zadig) 

“’Organism can cause catastrophic outbreaks’ needs to be 

clarified if it means that outbreaks can result in a larger level 

of inoculum, if that is its intended meaning. It would be 

helpful to clarify whether or not debarking is/not, under 

criterion ‘h’, part of standard harvesting and handling, 

and/or itemize anticipated standard harvesting and handling 

activities.” (Zadig) 

“Entry potential. Here standard practices, particularly debarking, will greatly influence the probability of the organism 

surviving transit and entering undetected, thus the ranking of 

the elements.” (Zadig) 

“Spread potential. ‘Eradication techniques are unknown, 

infeasible, or expected to be ineffective’ seems more appropriate, and indeed is essentially repeated under economic 

damage potential. ‘Mitigation measures’ might work better 

than ‘eradication’ here. Where high rainfall is necessary for 

the spread of disease pathogens, a review of orchard irrigation practices, or even greenhouse production, would be 

helpful where applicable as an artificially produced humidity 

could facilitate spread. Irrigation practices for citrus in California often create a humid microclimate, Eucalyptus is 

planted as windbreak with citrus orchards throughout large 

part of the state, particularly along the coast.” (Zadig) 

“Environmental damage potential. Disruption of biological 

control should be considered as an element here.” (Zadig) 

Response to comments—The pathway (commodity) evaluated in this risk assessment was Eucalyptus logs and chips, 

with the presumption that bark would be associated with the 

commodity. Although debarking is generally done in conjunction with harvesting of Eucalyptus, there are sometimes 

individual logs in export decks that contain some or all of 

their bark. The tolerances for debarked logs allow for a small 

percentage of the material to contain bark, an allowance that 

takes into account the difficulty of removing absolutely 

100% of the bark from a log. In South America, the team 

noted only one situation where debarking could be considered a standard harvesting procedure, the case of E. grandis

in Argentina where trees are debarked before they are felled. 

In other situations, logs are debarked, generally within 3 days 
133 

after felling, but some pieces of bark may remain on the logs. 

In general, Eucalyptus logs are debarked, but we cannot say 

with certainty that 100% of the bark is removed. Shipments 

of well-debarked logs can still harbor insects associated with 

bark, given the allowance of 5% bark within a shipment. 

At the suggestion of the reviewer and others, the wording 

“presence with host at origin potential” was changed to 

“presence with host–commodity at origin potential” and the 

wording “organism can cause catastrophic outbreaks” was 

changed to “organism has capability for large-scale 

population increases.” 

Issue 8: Pest Risk Potentials 

Reviewers’ comments—One reviewer felt that in some 

instances, assessment of risk was higher than warranted. 

“The authors generally take the ‘safe approach’ by assigning 

a higher assessment of risk when there is uncertainty. However, this process results in higher than likely risk potentials 

due to the compounding of conservative estimates. For example, the authors speculated that several pest species 

(Ceratocystis, Botryosphaeria, Phoracantha) that already are 

established in the U.S. might be genetically different. The 

authors followed with the assumption that all of the South 

American pests would be more virulent than the U.S. 

counterparts, or they would spread farther than those already 

present.” (Cameron) 

“The summary of risk potentials presented in Table 13 includes eight out of 18 high-risk pests, nine mediums, and one 

low. This might logically lead to the conclusion that importing Eucalyptus logs or chips from South America would be 

highly risky. However, the authors conclude: ‘the risk is 

probably less in this assessment than the previous assessments.’ The authors point out that pest risk is likely to be 

reduced in this case because: 1) the proposed export crop is 

relatively free of insects and pathogens because of the exotic 

nature of the host, 2) Eucalyptus is not native to the U.S., and 

3) Eucalyptus occurs in limited locations in the U.S.” 

(Cameron) 

“In Hawaii, increased risk has been assumed for some pests 

because of increased risk of establishment and spread associated with climate and native hosts. This risk would be eliminated by not considering Hawaii as a potential port of entry. 

In addition, the need to import Eucalyptus logs and chips in 

Hawaii is probably very limited due to a paucity of forest 

industry operations in that state.” (Cameron) 

Response to comments—The team followed a cautious 

approach when assigning pest risks. The reviewer is correct 

in stating that, when uncertainty as to risk was encountered, a 

higher rating was assigned. The USDA Forest Service risk 

assessment team and APHIS recognize that organisms demonstrating a high degree of biological uncertainty do represent a real risk. The need to balance demonstrated risks 

against biological uncertainty is and will continue to be a 

difficult issue to address. The wording in Chapter 4 (Conclusions) was changed to correct the inconsistency between the 

text and Table 13 pointed out by the reviewer. Hawaii was 

included in this pest risk assessment because the current log 

import regulations are applicable to that state, because 

Hawaii is developing a Eucalyptus chipping industry and 

because the state’s climate increases risk from Eucalyptus

pests that are more tropical in nature. 

Issue 9: Unknown Virulence–Genetic Variability 

of Pests 

Reviewers’ comments—Several reviewers commented that 

the individual pest risk assessments for certain pathogens 

should include more consideration of unknown virulence and 

should assume existence of different strains. Others felt that 

genetic differences or variations must be demonstrated 

through scientific evidence and not assumed. 

“My major concern is that we do not forget that species of 

insects, fungi etc. are not clones. These organisms have great 

genetic variability and there may be races that are more 

virulent so that the risk is high even if we already have the 

same species present in North America. You do seem to 

address this issue in the document.” (Jacobi) 

“Thank you for taking the genetic variability of the pest 

organisms into consideration in the PRA. Genetic variability 

can be critical in pests like Ceratocystis fimbriata with its 

interfertile pathogenic strains.” (Johnson and Osterbauer) 

“The definition of Category 3 makes reference to non-native 

plant pests present in the United States that differ genetically 

from the plant pests present in the United States. In this 

sense, we believe that possible genetic differences between 

populations of a pest should be supported scientifically 

through published studies that demonstrate these differences, 

such as [studies] of population genetics, molecular biology, 

and others.” (Peña Royo) (translated from Spanish) 

“The definition of Category 3 makes reference to species 

native to the United States which differ genetically from 

plant pests present in the United States. Similarly to the 

previous case, we consider that the eventual genetic differences between populations of the same pest species should 

be supported through scientific studies that show these 

differences.” (Peña Royo) (translated from Spanish) 

“The definition of Category 4a makes reference to plant pests 

native to the United States which could differ in their ability 

to cause damage, based on genetic variation exhibited by the 

species. We consider that any genetic difference between 

populations of a pest should be supported scientifically 

through published studies that demonstrate [those differences].” (Peña Royo) (translated from Spanish) 

“In the case where the pest is a species native to the United 

States, the totality of the genetic variation for the pest should 

be known throughout its entire range of natural distribution 
134 

beforehand, and that variation should be compared afterwards to genetic variations of the pest populations outside of 

the United States.” (Peña Royo) (translated from Spanish) 

“As indicated before, we believe that the fungal species 

Botryosphaeria obtusa and Botryotinia fuckeliana (anamorph Botrytis cinerea), both classified in Pest Category 4a, 

would not qualify as quarantine pests until scientific studies 

are made available that judiciously demonstrate the existence 

of such genetic differences.” (Peña Royo) (translated from 

Spanish) 

Response to comments—The individual pest risk assessments for a number of the fungal pathogens discuss the possibility of more virulent strains or different strains in South 

America. The possible existence of virulent or new strains 

was the basis for increases in the economic, environmental, 

and political and social consequences potentials in individual 

pest risk assessments. The assumption of possible other 

strains was made where there was some indication that this 

variation may exist in the species. Because of limited research on this subject, especially in South America, a cautious approach was taken when assessing risk. Whether the 

strains of fungal pathogens are different than those in the 

United States and if so, whether the different strains are more 

virulent remains unknown. When uncertainty as to virulence 

was encountered, a higher rating was assigned. 

Issue 10: Unknown (Sleeper) Pests 

Reviewers’ comments—One review pointed out that organisms not recognized as pests in their country of origin may 

reach pest status when introduced into a new environment 

and that maximum mitigation measures should be required 

to assure against introduction of unknowns. 

“Like the WIPRAMET team, we are very concerned about 

the unknown pathogens found associated with carpenterworm (pp. 70-74) damage in Chile and with the unidentified 

blue stain observed on logs in Argentina (Appendix A—

Reports on Team’s Site Visits to South America). Their 

presence suggests that APHIS should require the heat treatment (71.1oC for 75 minutes at the core) of all shipments of 

Eucalyptus prior to entering the U.S. Heat treatment is the 

only mitigation method proven effective against all potential 

pests.” (Johnson and Osterbauer) 

Response to comment—Members of the assessment team, 

and APHIS recognize that unknown organisms may pose the 

greatest risk to our forests. One of the main functions of 

preparing this risk assessment is to address the issue of uncertainty. If uncertainty did not exist, there would not be a 

need for a risk assessment. One of the team’s responsibilities 

is to communicate this concern about unknowns to APHIS. 

From the standpoint of APHIS, a pest risk must be demonstrated in order to regulate a commodity. The reason for this 

is that a regulation takes away the freedom of an individual 

or individuals to do something they wish to do. Therefore, 

APHIS has to show an absolute demonstrable pest risk to 

meet the legal requirements of placing a regulation into law. 

It is the responsibility of APHIS to weigh the degree of 

uncertainty along with the known risks in developing mitigation measures. With this pest risk assessment as a foundation, 

APHIS determines which specific mitigating procedures are 

needed to prevent unreasonable risk to the resources of the 

United States associated with the import of Eucalyptus logs 

and chips from South America. 

In response to the reviewer, the specific concern about unknown pathogens associated with carpenterworm in Chile 

was addressed in the individual pest risk assessment. 

Issue 11: Issue of Tropical Hardwoods 

Reviewers’ comments—Several reviewers suggested that 

the document should include an explanation of the current 

regulation that discusses requirements for tropical versus 

temperate hardwoods and where species of Eucalyptus, and 

other hardwoods, would fit into those regulations. 

“Under section 319.40-6, Universal Importation Options, 

logs must be debarked and heat treated. On the other hand, 

wood chips or bark chips from outside of Asia, derived from 

live, healthy, tropical species of plantation-grown trees 

grown in tropical areas that are processed within 30 days in a 

manner that will destroy any plant pests are allowed to enter 

the U.S. It is unclear as to whether Eucalyptus species would 

be considered tropical. Questions may arise in the future 

about the possibility of importing logs or chips from other 

species (Gmelina, Paulownia) grown in plantations in South 

America and for Eucalyptus grown in Central America countries. These questions are outside the limitations of this PRA, 

but are still pending.” (Cameron) 

“Chapter 4, Background: Wasn’t there something in the 

current regulations about treating logs of tropical species 

differently? You might recall the discussions on which 

species of eucalypts were tropical and which were not.” 

(Hodges) 

Response to comments—The risk assessment team recognizes that the genus Eucalyptus contains species that grow in 

a wide range of environmental conditions. The team made no 

attempt to distinguish between temperate or tropical species 

in this document. Rather, our task was to assess the risk of 

importation into the United States of pests on all species of 

Eucalyptus that may be exported from South America, regardless of the climate in which they may be growing. The 

risk assessment team evaluated the pest risk of Eucalyptus

spp. without regard to any existing or future APHIS regulations. As one reviewer pointed out, the question of which tree 

species are tropical and which are temperate is outside the 

scope of this risk assessment. The question is regulatory in 

nature and falls within the purview of APHIS to determine.