Importation of ‘Barhi’ Date, Phoenix 

dactylifera, from Israel into the United States

A Pathway-initiated Commodity Risk Assessment

January 2008

Agency contact:

Thomas W. Culliney

United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory

1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300

Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 i

Executive Summary

This document assesses the risks associated with the importation, from Israel into the United 

States, of fresh fruits of date, Phoenix dactylifera L., on branches. A search of both print and 

electronic sources of information identified 12 pests of date of quarantine significance that exist 

in Israel and could be introduced into the United States in shipments of that commodity. A 

Consequences of Introduction value was estimated by assessing five elements that reflect the 

biology and ecology of the pests: climate/host interaction, host range, dispersal potential, 

economic impact, and environmental impact. A Likelihood of Introduction value was estimated 

by considering both the quantity of the commodity imported annually and the potential for pest 

introduction and establishment. The two values were summed to estimate an overall Pest Risk 

Potential, which is an estimation of risk in the absence of mitigation measures.

Quarantine-significant pests likely to follow the pathway (i.e., accompany shipments of dates) 

include two moths, one butterfly, one fruit fly, three scale insects, one mite, and one fungus.

Arthropods:

Arenipses sabella (Hampson) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

Asterolecanium phoenicis (Rao) (Homoptera: Asterolecaniidae)

Batrachedra amydraula (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Coleophoridae)

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Deudorix livia (Klug) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)

Oligonychus afrasiaticus (McGregor) (Acari: Tetranychidae)

Parlatoria blanchardi (Targioni Tozzetti) (Homoptera: Diaspididae)

Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae)

Fungus:

Mauginiella scaettae Cavara (Ascomycetes)

All of the identified quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway pose phytosanitary risks to 

agriculture in the United States. Of these, one, C. capitata, was given a Pest Risk Potential value 

of High; the remaining pests were estimated to be of medium risk. Port-of-entry inspection, as a 

sole mitigation measure, is insufficient to safeguard U.S. agriculture from these pests, and 

additional phytosanitary measures are considered necessary to reduce the risk.
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

B. Risk Assessment

1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Assessment of Weediness Potential of Sand Pear (Table 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3. Previous Risk Assessments, Current Status and Pest Interceptions (Table 2) . . . . . . . . . 3

4. Pest Categorization—Identification of Quarantine Pests and Quarantine Pests 

Likely to Follow the Pathway (Tables 3 and 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

5. Consequences of Introduction—Economic/Environmental Importance (Table 5) . . . . . 13

6. Likelihood of Introduction—Quantity Imported and Pest Opportunity (Table 6). . . . . . 24

7. Conclusion—Pest Risk Potential and Pests Requiring Phytosanitary Measures

(Table 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

C. Author and Reviewer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

D. Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 1

A. Introduction

This risk assessment has been prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), 

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology (CPHST) to examine plant pest risks associated 

with importation into the United States of fresh fruit of date, Phoenix dactylifera L. (variety

‘Barhi’), from Israel. Estimates of risk are expressed in terms of high, medium, or low. The risk 

assessment is “pathway-initiated” in that it is based on the potential pest risks associated with the 

commodity as it enters the United States

International plant protection organizations, such as the North American Plant Protection 

Organization (NAPPO) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) of the United 

Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), provide guidance for conducting pest risk 

analyses. The methods used to initiate, conduct, and report this plant pest risk assessment are 

consistent with guidelines provided by NAPPO, IPPC, and FAO. Biological and phytosanitary

terms (e.g., introduction, quarantine pest) conform with the NAPPO Compendium of Phytosanitary

Terms (Hopper, 1995) and the Definitions and Abbreviations (Introduction Section) in International 

Standards for Phytosanitary Measures: Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis (IPPC, 1996).

Pest risk assessment is one component of an overall pest risk analysis. The Guidelines for Pest Risk 

Analysis provided by IPPC (1996) describe three stages in pest risk analysis. This document 

satisfies the requirements of FAO Stages 1 (initiation) and 2 (risk assessment). Details of the 

methodology and rating criteria can be found in the template document, Guidelines for PathwayInitiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (USDA, 2000).

IPPC (1996) defines pest risk assessment as “Determination of whether a pest is a quarantine pest 

and evaluation of its introduction potential.” Quarantine pest is defined as “A pest of potential 

economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not 

widely distributed and being officially controlled” (IPPC, 1996; Hopper, 1995). Thus, pest risk 

assessments should consider both the consequences and likelihood of introduction of quarantine 

pests. Both issues are addressed in this document.

Israel is a relatively small producer of dates, falling far behind Egypt, which leads the world with an 

annual production of over 1.1 million tonnes (2002 figures; FAOSTAT, 2003). Date production in 

Israel totaled over 9100 tonnes in 2002 (FAOSTAT, 2003). In 1999, 5000 tonnes were exported at a 

value exceeding $16 million (Sheskin & Regev, 2001). Approximately 1700 ha of date palms are 

under cultivation in Israel along the Syrian-African rift, from the Sea of Galilee (Lake Tiberias) to 

the Gulf of Aqaba (Southern Arava Valley) (see Fig. 1). Nine cultivars are grown, the most 

important of which are ‘Medjool,’ ‘Hayany’ (primarily in the north), ‘Deglet Noor,’ and ‘Barhi,’

comprising 49, 12, 11, and 7 percent of the area, respectively (Anon., 2001; cited in Palevsky et al., 

2003). Barhi dates are grown in the Jordan and Bet-She’an Valleys (Landshut, 2002), situated 

between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea. Harvest occurs throughout August and September.
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 2

Figure 1. State of Israel.

B. Risk Assessment

1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action

This risk assessment is developed in response to a request by the Israeli government for USDA 

authorization to permit imports of Barhi fresh dates on branches into the United States. Entry of 

this commodity into the United States presents the risk of introduction of exotic plant pests. Title 

7, Part 319, Section 56 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR §319.56) 

provides regulatory authority for the importation of fruits and vegetables from foreign countries 

into the United States.
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 3

2. Assessment of Weed Potential of Date Palm (Phoenix dactylifera)

This step examines the potential of the commodity to become a weed after it enters the United 

States (Table 1). If the assessment indicates significant weed potential, then a “pest-initiated” 

risk assessment is conducted.

Table 1. Assessment of the Weed Potential of Date Palm.

Commodity: Date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) (Arecaceae).

Phase 1: Date palm occurs in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, the gulf states from Florida to Texas, 

and in Maryland and Massachusetts (Floridata, 1999; CABI, 2002; USDA, 2003a), in the latter 

two states presumably only in greenhouses. Dates are grown commercially in Arizona and

California (ASU, 2000; NASS, 2003). The industry in both states dates from the late 19th century

(ASU, 2000; Howard, 2001a).

Phase 2: Is the species listed in:

No Geographical Atlas of World Weeds (Holm et al., 1979)

No World's Worst Weeds (Holm et al., 1977) or World Weeds: Natural Histories and 

Distribution (Holm et al., 1997)

No Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds; Exotic Weeds for 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (Gunn and Ritchie, 1982) 

No Economically Important Foreign Weeds (Reed, 1977)

No Weed Science Society of America Composite List of Weeds (WSSA, 2003)

Yes Is there any literature reference indicating weediness, e.g., AGRICOLA, CAB, 

Biological Abstracts, AGRIS; search on “species name” combined with “weed.”

Phase 3: Phoenix dactylifera is listed by Randall (2003) as a weed of the following statuses: naturalized, 

introduced, garden escape, environmental weed, and casual alien. Binggeli (1998) lists P. dactylifera as a

moderately invasive “tree.” The species can become a serious weed in parts of Western Australia, where 

it may form dense thickets, impeding water flow and displacing native vegetation (PPS, 2003). However, 

the species is widespread in the southern United States, where it is of value as a food crop and ornamental 

plant, and there is no indication that it constitutes a pest of any economic or ecological significance there. 

Importation of fresh dates should not increase risks of spreading this plant beyond its present range in the 

United States A pest-initiated risk assessment for the species therefore is not necessary.

3. Previous Risk Assessments, Current Status, and Pest Interceptions

There are no previous risk assessments for dates from Israel. Currently, date imports are not 

authorized by 7 CFR §319.56. Pest interceptions on Phoenix dactylifera from Israel are 

summarized in Table 2.

4. Pest Categorization–Identification of Quarantine Pests and Quarantine Pests 

Likely to Follow the Pathway

Common pests associated with date that occur in Israel are listed in Table 3. This list includes 

information on the presence or absence of these pests in the United States, the affected plant 
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 4

part(s), the quarantine status of the pest with respect to the United States, an indication of the 

pest-host association, and pertinent references for pest distribution and biology.

Table 2. PPQ Interceptions on Phoenix dactylifera from Israel (1984-2001).

Organism Plant Part Infested Location of 

Interception

Purpose Interceptions

(no.)

INSECTS

HOMOPTERA

Asterolecaniidae

Asterolecanium phoenicis 

(Rao) Fruit Baggage Consumption 1

Diaspididae

Fiorinia sp. Leaf Baggage Consumption (!) 1

Parlatoria blanchardi

(Targioni Tozzetti)

Fruit Baggage Consumption 20

Fruit General cargo Consumption 1

Leaf Baggage Consumption 350

Leaf Baggage Non-entry 3

Leaf Mail Propagation 1

Leaf General cargo Consumption 25

Leaf Permit cargo Consumption 12

Stem General cargo Consumption 1

? Baggage Consumption 7

? General cargo Consumption 1

Parlatoria ziziphi (Lucas) Leaf Baggage Consumption 1

? Baggage Consumption 1

LEPIDOPTERA

Pyralidae

Pyralidae, species of Leaf General cargo Consumption 1

Table 3. Pests in Israel Associated with Date (Phoenix dactylifera).

Pest Geographic

distribution1

Plant part

affected2

Quaran

-tine

Pest

Likely to 

Follow 

Pathway

References

ARTHROPODS

ACARI

Acaridae

Tyrophagus putrescentiae

(Schrank) (= T. lintneri

[Osborn])

IL, US (FL, 

TX)

F, Sd No No3 Bindra & Varma, 1972; 

CABI, 2002; 

Mumcuoglu & Lutsky, 

1990
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 5

Pest Geographic

distribution1

Plant part

affected2

Quaran

-tine

Pest

Likely to 

Follow 

Pathway

References

Tenuipalpidae

Phyllotetranychus 

aegyptiacus Sayed

IL L Yes No Landshut, 2002; Smith 

Meyer & Gerson, 1981

Raoiella indica Hirst IL L Yes No Landshut, 2002

Tenuipalpus pareriophyoides

Meyer & Gerson

IL L

4 Yes No Landshut, 2002

Tetranychidae

Eutetranychus orientalis

(Klein)

IL L Yes No Bolland et al., 1998; 

CABI, 2002

Eutetranychus palmatus

Attiah

IL F Yes No5 Landshut, 2002

Oligonychus afrasiaticus

(McGregor)

IL F, L Yes Yes Landshut, 2002; Moore, 

2001

Oligonychus senegalensis

Gutierrez & Etienne

IL F, L Yes No6 Gutierrez & Etienne, 

1981; Landshut, 2002

Oligonychus tylus Baker & 

Pritchard

IL F Yes No7 Bolland et al., 1998; 

Moore, 2001

Tetranychus urticae Koch IL, US L No No Bolland et al., 1998; 

CABI, 2002

COLEOPTERA

Anobiidae

Lasioderma serricorne F. IL, US F No No3 Bindra & Varma, 1972; 

CABI, 2002

Bostrichidae

Apate monachus F. IL L, S Yes No8 CABI, 2002; Gentry, 

1965

Cucujidae

Cryptolestes ferrugineus

(Stephens)

IL, US F, Sd No No9 CABI, 2002; Carpenter 

& Elmer, 1978; Gonen 

& Kashanchi, 1978

Cryptolestes pusillus

Schönherr

IL, US F, Sd No Yes CABI, 2002; El-Haidari 

et al., 1981

Curculionidae

Rhynchophorus ferrugineus

(Olivier)

IL S Yes No10 CABI, 2002; Landshut, 

2002

Dermestidae

Trogoderma granarium

Everts

IL F, Sd Yes No3 CABI, 2002; PPQ 

interception

Nitidulidae

Carpophilus dimidiatus F. IL, US F, Sd No Yes Avidov & Harpaz, 1969; 

CABI, 2002

Carpophilus hemipterus (L.) IL, US F, I No Yes CABI, 2002; Hammad et 

al., 1981; Landshut, 

2002
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 6

Pest Geographic

distribution1

Plant part

affected2

Quaran

-tine

Pest

Likely to 

Follow 

Pathway

References

Carpophilus humeralis

(Fabricius) (= Urophorus 

humeralis F.)

IL, US F, I No Yes CABI, 2002; Hammad et 

al., 1981; Landshut, 

2002

Carpophilus mutilatus

Erichson

IL, US (CA, 

SC)

F, Sd No Yes Arbogast & Throne, 

1997; Bartelt et al., 

1994; CABI, 2002; 

Landshut, 2002

Haptoncus luteolus

(Erichson)

IL, US (CA, 

FL)

F, I, Sd No Yes Bartelt et al., 1994; 

Landshut, 2002; Nadel 

& Peña, 1994; Rathore 

& Sengar, 1972

Scarabaeidae

Oryctes agamemnon (Burm.) IL R, S Yes No11 Landshut, 2002

Potosia angustata Germar IL L Yes No Izhar et al., 1997

Scolytidae

Coccotrypes dactyliperda

(F.)

IL, US (CA, 

FL)

F, I, Sd No Yes Blumberg & Kehat, 

1982; Hammad et al., 

1981; Landshut, 2002; 

Peck & Thomas, 1998

Silvanidae

Oryzaephilus surinamensis

(L.)

IL, US F, I, Sd No No9 Alhudaib, 2003; CABI, 

2002

Tenebrionidae

Tribolium castaneum Herbst IL, US F, Sd No No3 CABI, 2002

Tribolium confusum

Jacquelin du Val

IL, US F, Sd No No3 Bindra & Varma, 1972; 

CABI, 2002; Gentry, 

1965

DIPTERA

Tephritidae

Ceratitis capitata

(Wiedemann)

IL, US (HI) F Yes Yes CABI, 2002

HETEROPTERA

Lygaeidae

Oxycarenus hyalinipennis

Costa

IL F, Sd Yes No12 CABI, 2002; Nakache & 

Klein, 1992; Sweet, 

2000

HOMOPTERA

Asterolecaniidae

Asterolecanium phoenicis

(Rao) (= Palmaspis phoenicis

[Rao])

IL Whole 

plant

Yes Yes Landshut, 2002

Coccidae

Ceroplastes actiniformis

Green

IL L, Sd Yes No Chua, 1997; USDA, 

2003b
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 7

Pest Geographic

distribution1

Plant part

affected2

Quaran

-tine

Pest

Likely to 

Follow 

Pathway

References

Coccus hesperidum L. IL, US L, S No Yes CABI, 2002; USDA, 

2003b

Saissetia coffeae (Walker) IL, US L, S No Yes CABI, 2002; USDA, 

2003b

Saissetia oleae (Olivier) IL, US L, S No Yes CABI, 2002; USDA, 

2003b

Diaspididae

Aonidiella orientalis

(Newstead)

IL, US (FL) F, I, L, S No Yes CABI, 2002; Hammad et 

al., 1981

Aspidiotus nerii Bouché (= A. 

hederae Signoret)

IL, US (CA, 

HI)

F, L, S No Yes CABI, 2002; Gentry, 

1965

Chrysomphalus aonidum (L.) IL, US F, L, S No Yes CABI, 2002

Chrysomphalus dictyospermi

(Morgan)

IL, US F, L, S No Yes Bindra & Varma, 1972; 

CABI, 2002

Fiorinia sp. IL L Yes No PPQ interception

Fiorinia fioriniae (Targioni 

Tozzetti)

IL, US F, L No Yes USDA, 2003b; Wysoki 

et al., 2002

Hemiberlesia lataniae

(Signoret)

IL, US F, L, S No Yes CABI, 2002; 

Murlidharan, 1993

Parlatoria blanchardi

(Targioni Tozzetti)

IL, US F, L, S Yes13 Yes CABI, 2002; Hill, 1983;

Landshut, 2002

Parlatoria proteus (Curtis) IL, US F, L, S No Yes Davidson & Miller, 

1990; USDA, 2003b

Parlatoria ziziphi (Lucas) IL, US (FL, 

HI)

F, L, S No No14 CABI, 2002; PPQ 

interception; USDA, 

2003b

Margarodidae

Icerya aegyptiaca (Douglas) IL F, L, S Yes No15 CABI, 2002; Muzaffar, 

1970

Icerya purchasi Maskell IL, US L, S No Yes Bitaw & Ben-Saad, 

1990; CABI, 2002

Phoenicococcidae

Phoenicococcus marlatti

Cockerell

IL, US (AZ, 

CA, FL, TX)

Whole 

plant

No Yes Howard, 2001b; 

Landshut, 2002; USDA, 

2003b

Pseudococcidae

Dysmicoccus brevipes

(Cockerell)

IL, US (CA, 

FL, HI, LA)

F, L, R, S No Yes CABI, 2002; Landshut, 

2002

Nipaecoccus viridis

(Newstead)

IL, US (HI) F, I, L, S Yes No16 Sharaf & Meyerdirk, 

1987

Planococcus citri (Risso) IL, US F, I, L, R, 

S

No Yes CABI, 2002; USDA, 

2003b

Planococcus ficus (Signoret) IL, US F, L, S No Yes Duso, 1989; Duso et al., 

1985; USDA, 2003b
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 8

Pest Geographic

distribution1

Plant part

affected2

Quaran

-tine

Pest

Likely to 

Follow 

Pathway

References

Pseudococcus cryptus

Hempel (= P. citriculus

Green)

IL F, L, R Yes Yes Avidov & Harpaz, 1969; 

Ben-Dov, 1993, 1994; 

Moore, 2001

Pseudococcus longispinus

Targioni Tozzetti (= P. 

adonidum [L.])

IL, US F, I, L, S No Yes CABI, 2002; Gentry, 

1965

Tropiduchidae

Ommatissus binotatus Fieber IL L Yes No Landshut, 2002

HYMENOPTERA

Vespidae

Vespa orientalis L. IL F, S Yes No17 CABI, 2002; Gentry, 

1965; Ostovan & 

Kamali, 1995

ISOPTERA

Termitidae

Microcerotermes diversus

Silvestri

IL L, R, S Yes No18 Carpenter & Elmer, 

1978; Halperin, 1973

LEPIDOPTERA

Coleophoridae

Batrachedra amydraula

(Meyrick)

IL F, I Yes Yes Hammad et al., 1981; 

Landshut, 2002

Lycaenidae

Deudorix livia (Klug) (= 

Virachola livia Klug)

IL F Yes Yes Gentry, 1965; Wisam & 

Mazen, 2002

Noctuidae

Spodoptera littoralis

(Boisduval)

IL F, L Yes No19 CABI, 2002

Pyralidae

Apomyelois ceratoniae Zeller

(= Ectomyelois ceratoniae

Zeller)

IL, US (CA, 

FL)

F No Yes CABI, 2002; Carpenter 

& Elmer, 1978;

Landshut, 2002; Warner 

et al., 1990

Arenipses sabella (Hampson) IL F, I, S Yes Yes Landshut, 2002

Cadra calidella (Guenée) (= 

Ephestia calidella Guenée)

IL F No20 Yes CABI, 2002; Landshut, 

2002

Cadra cautella (Walker) (= 

Ephestia cautella Walker)

IL, US F, R, Sd No Yes CABI, 2002; Landshut, 

2002

Cadra figulilella Gregory IL, US F No Yes Carpenter & Elmer, 

1978; Landshut, 2002

Ephestia elutella Hübner IL, US (NC) F, L, Sd No Yes CABI, 2002; Landshut, 

2002

Ephestia kuehniella Zeller IL, US F, I, R, Sd No Yes Ahmad & Ali, 1995; 

CABI, 2002
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 9

Pest Geographic

distribution1

Plant part

affected2

Quaran

-tine

Pest

Likely to 

Follow 

Pathway

References

Plodia interpunctella

(Hübner)

IL, US F, Sd No Yes CABI, 2002; Landshut, 

2002

ORTHOPTERA

Acrididae

Schistocerca gregaria

(Forskål)

IL F, I, L, S, 

Sd

Yes No21 CABI, 2002

BACTERIA

Burkholderia caryophylli

(Burkholder) Yabuuchi et al.

(= Pseudomonas caryophylli

[Burkholder] Starr & 

Burholder) (Burkholderiales)

IL, US I, L, R, S No Yes CABI, 2002; Lamari & 

Sabaou, 1993

Erwinia chrysanthemi

(Burkholder) Young et al. 

(Enterobacteriales)

IL,21 US L, R, S No No22 Abdalla, 2001; CABI, 

2002

FUNGI

Alternaria alternata (Fries) 

Keissler (Hyphomycetes)

IL, US F, I, L No Yes CABI, 2002, Ploetz et 

al., 1994

Alternaria citri Ellis & N. 

Pierce (Hyphomycetes)

IL, US (AZ, 

CA, FL, TX)

F, L No Yes CABI, 2002; SBML, 

2003

Aspergillus flavus Link 

(Hyphomycetes)

IL, US F, L, R, S, 

Sd

No Yes CABI, 2002; SBML, 

2003

Aspergillus niger Tiegh. (= 

Aspergillus phoenicis [Corda]

Thom) (Hyphomycetes)

IL, US F, I, L, R, 

S, Sd

No Yes CABI, 2002; Landshut, 

2002

Aspergillus parasiticus

Speare (Hyphomycetes)

IL, US S No Yes CABI, 2002; Lisker et 

al., 1993; SBML, 2003

Bispora sp. (Hyphomycetes) IL F, S Yes Yes Farr et al., 1989; 

Landshut, 2002

Botrytis cinerea Pers.: Fr. 

(Hyphomycetes)

IL, US F No Yes CABI, 2002; El-Sayed, 

1978

Cladosporium sp. 

(Hyphomycetes)

IL L, S, Sd Yes Yes Agrios, 1997; Landshut, 

2002

Colletotrichum 

gloeosporioides (Penz.) Sacc.

(Coelomycetes) (teleomorph: 

Glomerella cingulata

[Stonem.] Spauld. & 

Schrenk)

IL, US F, I, L, S No Yes CABI, 2002; SBML, 

2003

Coniothyrium palmarum

Corda (Coelomycetes)

IL L Yes No Palti et al., 1977

Diplodia phoenicum (Sacc.) 

Fawe. & Klotz 

(Coelomycetes)

IL, US (CA, 

FL)

L No No Farr et al., 1989; 

Landshut, 2002
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 10

Pest Geographic

distribution1

Plant part

affected2

Quaran

-tine

Pest

Likely to 

Follow 

Pathway

References

Fusarium sp. (Ascomycetes: 

Hypocreales)

IL I Yes No Palti et al., 1977

Fusarium oxysporum

Schlechtendahl

(Ascomycetes: Hypocreales)

IL, US L, S No Yes Agrios, 1997; CABI, 

2002

Fusarium proliferatum

(Matsushima) Nirenberg

(Ascomycetes: Hypocreales)

IL, US (AR, 

CA, CT)

L, R No No Abdalla et al., 2000; 

CABI, 2002; Pivonia et 

al., 1997

Gibberella fujikuroi

(Sawada) S. Ito

(Pyrenomycetes: 

Hypocreales) (= Fusarium 

moniliforme Sheldon)

IL, US F, L, R, S, 

Sd

No Yes CABI, 2002, Khatri, 

1997; SBML, 2003

Graphiola phoenicis (Moug.) 

Poit. (Basidiomycetes: 

Ustilaginales)

IL, US (CA, 

FL, HI, MS, 

TX)

L No No Landshut, 2002; SBML, 

2003

Hyphodontia sambuci

(Pers.:Fr.) J. Eriksson 

(Basidiomycetes: 

Aphyllophorales)

IL, US (AZ, 

CO, NM, MN, 

WA)

S No Yes Langer, 1995; NYBG, 

2003; SBML, 2003

Lasiodiplodia theobromae

(Pat.) Griffiths & Maubl. (= 

Diplodia natalensis PoleEvans, Botryodiplodia 

theobromae Pat.) 

(Coelomycetes)

IL, US (AL, 

CA, GA)

F, I, L, R, 

S, Sd

No Yes CABI, 2002; Landshut, 

2002

Macrophomina phaseolina

(Tassi) Goidanich 

(Coelomycetes)

IL, US L, R, S, 

Sd

No Yes CABI, 2002; Khatri, 

1997

Mauginiella scaettae Cavara

(Ascomycetes)

IL I, S Yes Yes Carpenter & Elmer, 

1978; Landshut, 2002

Phomopsis sp. 

(Coelomycetes)

IL F, L, S Yes Yes Agrios, 1997; Landshut, 

2002; Ploetz et al., 1994

Pleospora herbarum

(Pers.:Fr.) Rabenh. 

(Loculoascomycetes: 

Dothideales)

IL, US L, S, Sd No Yes Landcare Research, 

2001; Partridge, 1997;

SBML, 2003

Pseudodiplodia sp. 

(Coelomycetes)

IL L Yes No Palti et al., 1977

Stemphylium sp. 

(Hyphomycetes)

IL F Yes Yes Landshut, 2002
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 11

Pest Geographic

distribution1

Plant part

affected2

Quaran

-tine

Pest

Likely to 

Follow 

Pathway

References

Thanatephorus cucumeris

(Frank) Donk

(Basidiomycetes: 

Tulasnellales) (= Corticium 

solani [Prillieux & 

Delacroix] Bourdot & 

Galzin)

IL, US F, I, L, R, 

S, Sd

No Yes CABI, 2002; Saaidi & 

Rodet, 1974

Thielaviopsis paradoxa (De 

Seynes) Höhn.

(Hyphomycetes) 

(teleomorph: Ceratocystis 

paradoxa [Dade] C. Moreau)

IL, US (CA, 

FL, HI)

Whole 

plant

No Yes CABI, 2002; Landshut, 

2002

Torula sp. (Hyphomycetes) IL F Yes Yes Landshut, 2002

Trichoderma viride Pers.:Fr. 

(Hyphomycetes)

IL, US L, R, S No Yes SBML, 2003

Verticillium dahliae Kleb.

(Hyphomycetes)

IL, US L, S No Yes Bahkali, 1987; CABI, 

2002

NEMATODES

Helicotylenchus dihystera

(Cobb) Sher (Hoplolaimidae)

IL, US R No No CABI, 2002

Hemicriconemoides 

mangiferae Siddiqi

(Criconematidae)

IL, US (CA, 

FL)

R No No CABI, 2002

Longidorus taniwha Clark 

(Longidoridae)

IL R Yes No CABI, 2002; Palti et al., 

1977

Meloidogyne arenaria (Neal) 

Chitwood (Meloidogynidae)

IL, US R No No CABI, 2002; Griffith & 

Koshy, 1990

Meloidogyne hapla Chitwood

(Meloidogynidae)

IL, US R No No CABI, 2002; Griffith & 

Koshy, 1990

Meloidogyne incognita

(Kofoid & White) Chitwood

(Meloidogynidae)

IL, US R No No Alhudaib, 2003; CABI, 

2002

Meloidogyne javanica

(Treub) Chitwood

(Meloidogynidae)

IL, US R No No CABI, 2002; Landshut, 

2002

Rotylenchulus reniformis

Linford & Oliveira

(Hoplolaimidae)

IL, US R No No CABI, 2002

1Distribution (specific states are listed only if distribution is limited): AL = Alabama; AR = Arkansas; AZ = 

Arizona; CA = California; CO = Colorado; CT = Connecticut; FL = Florida; GA = Georgia; HI = Hawaii; IL = 

Israel; LA = Louisiana; MN = Minnesota; MS = Mississippi; NC = North Carolina; NM = New Mexico; SC = 

South Carolina; TX = Texas; US = United States (widespread); WA = Washington

2

Plant Parts: F = Fruit; I = Inflorescence; L = Leaf; R = Root; S = Stem; Sd = Seed

3

Species is a stored-product pest (CABI, 2002), unlikely to be associated with fresh fruit.

4U. Gerson (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), in litt., February 24, 2003.
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 12

5Mites are found on young, green dates, and are unlikely to be present on the mature fruit, which is harvested when 

it turns yellow (Landshut, 2002).

6

Species likely is restricted to Poaceae (e.g., rice, sorghum); it has been found on date fruit only in Israel and only in 

extremely low numbers (Palevsky et al., 2003). It is unlikely to be present on harvested dates.

7Locality and host records are erroneous, and stem from a misidentification of O. senegalensis (Palevsky et al., 

2003). Oligonychus tylus does not occur in Israel and has not been recorded on Phoenix dactylifera (U. Gerson, in 

litt., March 25, 2003).

8Adult females (4-6 mm in width) oviposit into, and larvae develop and pupate within, dried branches or limbs of 

host plants (Avidov & Harpaz, 1969). As the stalks, to which imported dates are attached, will be no greater than 

3 mm in diameter (Werner, 2006), they are considered too narrow for larvae to complete development.

9

Species typically is a stored-product pest, and seldom is found in newly harvested dates (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978).

10Larvae bore through the softer tissues of the trunk, crown, and bases of petioles (Murphy & Briscoe, 1999).

11Pest is a stalk- or trunk-borer (Khoualdia et al., 1997), and will not be present on harvested dates.

12Species most likely is restricted to Malvales (Malvaceae, Sterculiaceae, and Tiliaceae) (Sweet, 2000); the single 

record on date fruit (Nakache & Klein, 1992) does not indicate a true host association.

13Pest has been eradicated from the United States (Nakahara, 1982).

14Host range of this species apparently is restricted to Rutaceae, particularly Citrus spp.; authenticity of records for 

other hosts is questionable (Dekle, 1976; Blackburn & Miller, 1984). The only records of this species on palms 

are port interceptions (Howard, 2001b).

15Although this scale occasionally has been recorded on fruit of breadfruit, Artocarpus altilis (Williams & Watson, 

1990; Waterhouse, 1993), the weight of evidence suggests that leaves and stems are the typical feeding sites on 

hosts (e.g., Beardsley, 1966; Hill, 1983; Waterhouse, 1993).

16Although Sharaf & Meyerdirk (1987) listed P. dactylifera as a host of Nipaecoccus viridis, neither source cited by 

them (Abdul Rassoul, 1970; Bartlett, 1978) supports such a claim.

17Members of this genus are large, active, social insects (Spradbery, 1973), and are unlikely to remain with 

harvested dates.

18Species attacks roots, leaves, and trunk (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978).

19Species is primarily a leaf-feeder, occasionally attacking stems as a cutworm; in some crops (e.g., tomato), larvae 

may bore into fruit (CABI, 2002). There is no information suggesting that this species attacks date fruit.

20Although the species does not occur in the United States, it is not regarded as a quarantine pest by USDA-APHIS, 

PPQ (P.A. Courneya, USDA-APHIS, PPQ, in litt., February 14, 2003).

21Swarming adults may consume an entire date crop (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978). However, this is a large (♂: 4.6-5.5 

cm in length; ♀: 5.6-6.0 cm), active insect (Talhouk, 1969), and is unlikely to remain with dates through harvest 

and processing.

22Bacterium has been reported occasionally to be introduced into Israel in imported seed potatoes, but apparently has 

failed to become established (e.g., Lumb et al., 1986).

Quarantine pests that reasonably can be expected to follow the pathway, i.e., be included in 

shipments of date fruit, are subjected to steps 5-7 (USDA, 2000) in the following sections of this 

risk assessment. These pests are listed in Table 4. Other organisms on the pest list (Table 3), but

not chosen for further scrutiny, were excluded for a variety of reasons: they are well established 

and widespread in the United States; they are associated mainly with plant parts other than the 

commodity; they may be associated with the commodity, but it was not considered reasonable to 

expect these pests to remain with the commodity during processing; or they have been 

intercepted on rare occasions, as biological contaminants, by APHIS-PPQ Officers during

inspections of the commodity and would not be expected to be found frequently with commercial 

shipments. However, risk is a dynamic concept since pest distributions are fluid and pest 

mitigations evolve. As information on new hazards or new mitigations is identified, the findings 

of this assessment may be updated.
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 13

Organisms listed at the level of genus, although regarded as quarantine pests because of their 

uncertain identity, are not considered for further analysis as their identity is not defined clearly 

enough to ensure that the risk assessment is performed on a distinct organism (IPPC, 2004).

Table 4. Quarantine Pests Selected for Further Analysis.

ARTHROPODS

Arenipses sabella (Hampson) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

Asterolecanium phoenicis (Rao) (Homoptera: Asterolecaniidae)

Batrachedra amydraula (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Coleophoridae)

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Deudorix livia (Klug) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)

Oligonychus afrasiaticus (McGregor) (Acari: Tetranychidae)

Parlatoria blanchardi (Targioni Tozzetti) (Homoptera: Diaspididae)

Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae)

FUNGUS

Mauginiella scaettae Cavara (Ascomycetes)

5. Consequences of Introduction—Economic/Environmental Importance

Potential consequences of introduction are rated in the tables below using five risk elements: 

Climate-Host Interaction, Host Range, Dispersal Potential, Economic Impact, and Environmental 

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

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

or High (3 points) (USDA, 2000). A Cumulative Risk Rating is then calculated by considering

all risk elements.

The values determined for the Consequences of Introduction for each pest are summarized in 

Table 5.

Arenipses sabella (Hampson) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Risk rating

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Arenipses sabella has been reported from Algeria, the Arabian peninsula, Egypt, India, Iran,

Iraq, Libya, and southern Spain, as well as from Israel (Talhouk, 1969; Carpenter & Elmer, 

1978; Al-Azawi, 1986; Wiltshire, 1988; Asselbergs, 1999). Based on this subtropical to 

tropical distribution, it is estimated that this species could become established in areas of the 

United States corresponding to Plant Hardiness Zones 9-11.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

This species has been recorded only on Phoenix dactylifera (CABI, 2002).

Low (1)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

No information is available on the fecundity of A. sabella. Females oviposit on or near 

unopened spathes (Moore, 2001). There are two or more generations per year (Talhouk, 

1969), larvae of the second being present from July to September (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978). 

Information on mobility of this species is lacking. However, its recent discovery in southern 

Spain (Asselbergs, 1999) suggests that A. sabella may be dispersed widely through 

High (3)
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 14

Arenipses sabella (Hampson) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Risk rating

commerce. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the species’ reproductive and dispersal 

potentials, this element is rated high.

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Larvae attack the inflorescence, spathes, fruit stalks, and young and ripening fruit (Talhouk, 

1969; Carpenter & Elmer, 1978). The species also may infest stored fruit (Carpenter & Elmer, 

1978). Attacked fruit turns from green to yellow or grey, and withers on the strand (Talhouk, 

1969). The severity of attack may vary among date palm varieties, with Deglet Noor, Sayer, 

and Zahidi suffering greater losses than Khadrawy, Halawy, and Barhi. In Iraq, 50 percent of 

spathes and fruit bunches on 70 percent of the palms in some localities may be attacked; crop 

losses of 5-15 percent have been reported from Iran (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978). However, on 

the whole, this moth seems to be regarded only as a minor pest of dates (Talhouk, 1969; Hill, 

1983).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Because it is monophagous, this pest is not expected to pose a threat to plants listed as 

Threatened or Endangered in Title 50, Part 17, Section 12 of the United States Code of 

Federal Regulations (50 CFR §17.12). However, as dates are a crop of some economic 

importance in the United States, with the value of California production alone approaching 

$31 million (NASS, 2003), introduction of A. sabella could prompt the initiation of chemical 

or biological programs for its control.

Medium (2)

Asterolecanium phoenicis (Rao) (Homoptera: Asterolecaniidae) Risk rating

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

This insect is North African and Middle Eastern in distribution (i.e., Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, 

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan) (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978; Al-Azawi, 1986; Ali & El-Nasr, 

1992). It is estimated that it would be able to establish only in southern areas of the United 

States (Plant Hardiness Zones 9-11).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

This species is restricted to Phoenix dactylifera (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978; Howard, 2001b).

Low (1)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Scale insects (Coccoidea) often exhibit high fecundity (Gullan & Kosztarab, 1997). Little 

information is available specifically on the reproductive capacity of A. phoenicis. As many as 

three generations per year are known (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978). Newly emerged first-instar 

nymphs (crawlers) are the main dispersal agents in Coccoidea. Passive dispersal on wind may 

carry crawlers distances of a few meters to several kilometers (Gullan & Kosztarab, 1997).

Longer-range dissemination would be accomplished through the transport of infested plant 

materials. Because of the uncertainty surrounding reproduction and dispersal potential in this 

species, the risk value for this element is considered high.

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Asterolecanium phoenicis is considered a serious pest of date palms in the Middle East

(Howard, 2001b). Feeding causes chlorosis (yellowing) and culminates in desiccation of 

fronds and shriveling and dropping of fruits. Infestations cover the date clusters and shoots, 

preventing normal respiration and photosynthesis (Gharib, 1974). Heavily infested fruits 

become scarred, and are downgraded in value (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978). The species is 

considered a serious pest in Sudan (Howard, 2001b). In southern Iran, as much as 70 percent

of palms have been reported to be infested (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978). Control is achieved 

through the application of insecticides and oil, particularly in early summer and autumn when 

nymphs are most abundant (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978). Introduction of this pest into the 

High (3)
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 15

Asterolecanium phoenicis (Rao) (Homoptera: Asterolecaniidae) Risk rating

United States could cause the loss of domestic or foreign markets.

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Because of its monophagy, this pest is not expected to pose a threat to endangered native 

plants in the United States However, because it is a potential pest of dates in the United States, 

its introduction could stimulate the initiation of chemical or biological control programs.

Medium (2)

Batrachedra amydraula (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Coleophoridae) Risk rating

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Batrachedra amydraula is found in North Africa (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia), the Middle East

(Iran, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Yemen), and India (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978; Riedl, 1990;

CABI, 2002). From this tropical to subtropical distribution, it is estimated that this species

could survive only in areas of the United States corresponding to Plant Hardiness Zones 9-11.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

This species is restricted to Phoenix dactylifera (CABI, 2002).

Low (1)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Little information is available about the reproductive biology of this moth. The species

produces at least three generations (Talhouk, 1969) and possibly more (Carpenter & Elmer, 

1978) per year, the last beginning to appear in July. Adults are small and delicate, with a 

wing-span of 10-13 mm (Moore, 2001), and probably have a limited flight range. Long 

distance dispersal likely would happen when infested dates are shipped attached to branches. 

Because of the lack of information on the reproductive capacity of this species, risk associated 

with its dispersal potential is considered high.

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Larvae feed on flowers and within immature dates just before ripening, both on the plant and 

in storage (Talhouk, 1969; Carpenter & Elmer, 1978). Floral damage can be great as 20

percent, and fruit yield losses exceeding 90 percent (Talhouk, 1969). A larva may attack 

several fruits during its development (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978), thereby compounding the 

damage. Despite this the pest status of the species is disputed. Hill (1983) lists the moth as a 

minor pest. In contrast, other reports cite almost complete crop loss from attack, and it has 

even been considered to increase harvestable yield by thinning the fruits (Moore, 2001). 

Control is achieved through the application of various insecticides (Al-Mhemid, 2001; Sayed 

et al., 2001) and sanitation measures (Kamel et al., 1977), which increases production costs.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Because of its monophagy, B. amydraula is not expected to pose a threat to endangered native 

plants in the United States However, because it is a potential pest of dates in the United States, 

its introduction could stimulate the initiation of chemical or biological control programs.

Medium (2)

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk rating

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Ceratitis capitata is found in southern Europe and west Asia, throughout Africa and South 

and Central America (CABI, 2002), and in northern Australia (Hassan, 1977). This species 

has the capacity to tolerate colder climates better than most other species of fruit fly 

(Weems, 1981). It is estimated that C. capitata could become established in areas of the 

United States corresponding to Plant Hardiness Zones 8-11.

High (3)
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 16

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk rating

Risk Element #2: Host Range

This pest has been recorded from a wide variety of host plants in several families, including 

Coffea sp. (Rubiaceae), Capsicum annuum (Solanaceae), Citrus spp. (Rutaceae), Malus

pumila, Prunus spp. (Rosaceae), Ficus carica (Moraceae), Psidium guajava (Myrtaceae), 

Theobroma cacao (Sterculiaceae), Phoenix dactylifera (Arecaceae), and Mangifera indica

(Anacardiaceae) (White & Elson-Harris, 1992; Freidberg & Kugler, 1989). In Israel, 

populations of the fly are well able to maintain themselves on native summer fruits, such as 

fig, grape, and date (Avidov & Harpaz, 1969).

High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Females may deposit as many as 800 eggs in a lifetime, although 300 is the more typical 

number (Weems, 1981). Eggs are inserted into host fruit in small batches of one to 10. 

Breeding is continuous throughout the year, the species exhibiting several overlapping 

generations (Hassan, 1977). Adult flight (with a range of 20 km or more) and the transport of 

infested fruit are the major means of movement and dispersal to previously uninfested areas 

(CABI, 2002).

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Ceratitis capitata is an important pest in Africa and has spread to almost every other 

continent to become the single most important pest species in its family. In Mediterranean 

countries, it is particularly damaging to citrus and peach crops. It may also transmit fruitrotting fungi (CABI, 2002). The species is of quarantine significance throughout the world, 

especially for Japan and the United States Its presence, even as temporary adventive 

populations, can lead to severe additional constraints for export of fruits to uninfested areas in 

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

pests for any tropical or warm temperate areas in which it is not yet established (CABI, 2002).

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

As it represents a significant threat to citrus and peach production, the wider establishment of 

C. capitata in the United States undoubtedly would trigger the initiation of chemical or 

biological control programs, as has occurred in California and Hawaii. This species is highly 

polyphagous and thus has the potential to attack plants listed as Threatened or Endangered 

(e.g., Opuntia treleasei, Prunus geniculata).

High (3)

Deudorix livia (Klug) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) Risk rating

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Deudorix livia is reported from Aden, Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon,

Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Tunisia, as well as from Israel 

(Gentry, 1965; Talhouk, 1969; Savela, 1999; John, 2003; Jones, 2003). Given this subtropical 

to tropical distribution, it is estimated that this pest could become established in areas of the 

United States corresponding to Plant Hardiness Zones 9-11.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

Known hosts include Punica granatum (Punicaceae), Eriobotrya japonica (Rosaceae), Acacia

spp. (Fabaceae), as well as date (Arecaceae) (Gentry, 1965).

High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Little information is available on the reproductive potential of this species. Eggs are laid on 

fruit; there are 3-4 generations per year (Talhouk, 1969). Although no information is available 

on the fecundity of D. livia, that of a related species, D. isocrates (F.), ranged from 27-32 eggs 

per female, and female:male sex ratio was slightly greater than 2:1, on Phyllanthus emblica

(Euphorbiaceae) in laboratory studies (Singh & Singh, 2001). Species of Lycaenidae tend to 

Medium (2)
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 17

Deudorix livia (Klug) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) Risk rating

be small in size (CABI, 2002); adults probably do not have strong powers of flight. Longdistance dispersal would be accomplished by larvae, which bore into fruits (Talhouk, 1969).

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

This butterfly is considered a serious pest of pomegranate in the Middle East (Gentry, 1965). 

Infestation levels in that crop have ranged from 55-70 percent in the absence of controls 

(Gentry, 1965; Hussein et al., 1994). Control measures include insecticidal sprays and 

bagging of fruit (Hussein et al., 1994; Sayed, 2000; Wisam & Mazen, 2002), which increase 

costs of production.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Compared to some other date pests, D. livia has a restricted host range, with known hosts

occurring in only four families. This relative oligophagy suggests that this species does not 

constitute a significant threat to threatened or endangered plants in the United States No 

species of Punica, Eriobotrya, Acacia, or Phoenix currently is listed in 50 CFR §17.12.

However, introduction of this pest into pomegranate- or date-producing areas of the United 

States could spur the development of chemical or biological control programs.

Medium (2)

Mauginiella scaettae Cavara (Ascomycetes) Risk rating

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

This fungus has been reported from North Africa, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Italy 

(Carpenter & Elmer, 1978; SBML, 2003). It is estimated that this pathogen could become 

established in areas of the United States, in which date palms grow (Plant Hardiness Zones 

9-11).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

Mauginiella scaettae is restricted to Phoenix dactylifera (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978).

Low (1)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Carpenter & Elmer (1978) summarized information concerning the epidemiology of M. 

scaettae. Prolonged wet weather promotes pathogenicity. The fungus attacks flowers and 

strands, and may move on to the stalk of the inflorescence. Inflorescences of both sexes 

harbor the fungus, which may persist for at least five years in inoculated palms. Hand 

pollination may spread the pathogen in contaminated pollen from infected to healthy palms, 

although the disease does not appear to spread rapidly. Spores are considered to be short-lived 

and not of much importance in the persistence or long-distance spread of the fungus, which 

presumably survives in old tissues as mycelium (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978). The fungus may 

occur as a rot of packed date fruit where a piece of infected floral strand is present as a 

decoration, and thus be spread widely in commerce.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

The disease caused by this fungus, called “khamedj,” although common, is said usually to be 

of minor concern (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978). Major outbreaks occur sporadically, during 

which losses may be significant. More than 65 percent of palms may be affected by the 

disease in some areas. Losses of up to 40 percent of the crop have been reported. Sanitation 

(disposal of all parts of the inflorescence after harvest) and application of fungicides usually 

provide good control of the pest (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978). Entry of this pathogen into the 

United States is unlikely to cause loss of markets for domestically produced dates as practices 

already employed for the control of other inflorescence rots of date palm (e.g., Ceratocystis, 

Fusarium; Carpenter & Elmer, 1978) should be equally effective against M. scaettae.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Because of its monophagy, this pest is not expected to pose a threat to endangered native 

Low (1)
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 18

Mauginiella scaettae Cavara (Ascomycetes) Risk rating

plants in the United States Its introduction into the United States should not result in the 

initiation of biological or chemical control programs. Measures established for the control of 

other inflorescence rots are likely to be equally effective against it.

Oligonychus afrasiaticus (McGregor) (Acari: Tetranychidae) Risk rating

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Oligonychus afrasiaticus occurs in Africa and the Middle East wherever date palms are grown 

(Moore, 2001). It has been reported from Algeria, Chad, Egypt, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, 

Morocco, Niger, Tunisia, Iran, Iraq, Oman, and Saudi Arabia, as well as Israel (Carpenter & 

Elmer, 1978; Zaher et al., 1982; Elwan, 2000; Palevsky et al., 2003), and should be able to 

survive in warmer areas of the United States where date palms are cultivated or naturalized 

(Plant Hardiness Zones 9-11).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

This species is restricted to Phoenix dactylifera (CABI, 2002).

Low (1)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

No information is available on the fecundity of O. afrasiaticus. There may be as many as 12 

generations per year, and mites are present on palms throughout the year (Carpenter & Elmer, 

1978). Sex ratio can be highly female-biased (above 0.85) (Palevsky et al., 2003). Fecundity 

of the related O. pratensis (Banks), which is said to be “similar to O. afrasiaticus” (Moore, 

2001; p. 256), was found to be as high as 230 eggs per female on corn (Zea mays), depending 

on temperature and humidity (Perring et al., 1984). Local dispersal of O. afrasiaticus is aided 

by the transfer of individuals from palm to palm during hand pollination (Edongali et al., 

1988). As in all spider mites (Tetranychidae), long distance dispersal occurs by wind-borne 

individuals and in the movement of infested plant parts (CABI, 2002). Available information 

indicates that O. afrasiaticus may have high reproductive and dispersal capacities.

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

This species is considered to be the most important mite pest of dates in Israel (Landshut, 

2002). Green, unripe fruits are attacked, causing discoloration, cracking, and shriveling 

(Moore, 2001). Infested dates are smaller in size, malformed, and have lower contents of 

water and sugars compared with healthy ones (Ba Angood & Bass’haih, 2000). Destruction of 

40 percent or more of the crop has been reported (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978). Miticides, such 

as sulfur and dicofol, are recommended for control of this pest (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978; 

Landshut, 2002). Its introduction into the United States, however, is unlikely to result in the 

loss of domestic or foreign markets as O. pratensis, a major pest of dates (Carpenter & Elmer, 

1978), is well established in the United States and measures already in place for its control 

would be equally effective against O. afrasiaticus.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Because of its monophagy, this pest is not expected to pose a threat to endangered native 

plants in the United States Its introduction into the United States should not result in the 

initiation of biological or chemical control programs. Measures established for the control of 

O. pratensis in the United States are likely to be equally effective against O. afrasiaticus.

Low (1)

Parlatoria blanchardi (Targioni Tozzetti) (Homoptera: Diaspididae) Risk rating

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Parlatoria blanchardi is subtropical and tropical in distribution (CABI, 2002). It is found in 

northern Africa, West and South Asia, Australia, and parts of South America and the 

Medium (2)
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 19

Parlatoria blanchardi (Targioni Tozzetti) (Homoptera: Diaspididae) Risk rating

Caribbean. The estimated potential range of this species in the United States corresponds to 

Plant Hardiness Zones 9-11.

Risk Element #2: Host Range

Primary hosts are palms in the genera Hyphaene, Latania, Neowashingtonia, Phoenix, 

Pritchardia, and Washingtonia (CABI, 2002). Other reported hosts are Jasminum sp. 

(Oleaceae) and Vinca sp. (Apocynaceae).

High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Fecundity averages about 10 eggs per female, with a maximum of 29 recorded (Howard, 

2001b); there are three to five overlapping generations annually (CABI, 2002). Dispersal of 

this species may occur locally via wind, birds, or insects, or long distances in the transport of 

infested plants. It was introduced into the United States in 1890 on date palm offshoots from 

Algeria and Egypt, but later eradicated (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978). High scale densities 

towards the end of the season may result in infestation of fruit just prior to harvest (Howard, 

2001b), also facilitating spread. Although the reproductive capacity of this species is rather 

low, it has the potential to spread rapidly into new regions in which its principal hosts occur.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Howard (2001b) summarized the damage caused by this pest. Feeding on fronds causes 

necrosis of tissues and dieback. Heavily infested offshoots become stunted; attacked fruit 

shrivels, resulting in downgrading or rejection. Yield losses as high as 70-80 percent have 

been reported. Palms five-10 years of age may be killed outright. Both chemical and 

biological means have been employed to control this pest (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

This pest has the potential to attack endangered palms, such as Pritchardia spp., in the United 

States As insecticides effective against P. blanchardi are similar to those used against other 

diaspidid scales (Howard, 2001b), and two related Parlatoria pests of date palm already are 

present in the United States, introduction of P. blanchardi is unlikely to result in the initiation 

of additional programs for its control.

Medium (2)

Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) Risk rating

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

This species exhibits a subtropical to tropical distribution (Ben-Dov, 1994). It occurs in Kenya 

and Zanzibar in Africa; in Asia from Israel in the west to Japan in the east; in parts of South 

and Central America, and the Caribbean; and in various island groups of the Pacific. It should 

be able to establish only in the warmer, southern parts of the continental United States (Plant 

Hardiness Zones 9-11).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

Pseudococcus cryptus has been recorded on hosts in more than 20 families. Included are 

Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), Plumeria sp. (Apocynaceae), Dahlia sp. (Asteraceae), 

Hevea brasiliensis (Euphorbiaceae), Persea americana (Lauraceae), Erythrina sp. (Fabaceae), 

Crinum asiaticum (Liliaceae), Artocarpus altilis (Moraceae), Musa sp. (Musaceae), Psidum 

guajava (Myrtaceae), Cocos nucifera (Arecaceae), Pandanus upoluensis (Pandanaceae), 

Passiflora foetida (Passifloraceae), Piper methysticum (Piperaceae), Coffea spp. (Rubiaceae), 

Citrus spp. (Rutaceae) (Ben-Dov, 1994); Hibiscus sp. (Malvaceae), and various Orchidaceae 

(Hill, 1983). In laboratory tests, the species has been found to complete development on Pyrus

spp., Malus pumila, and Cydonia oblonga (Rosaceae); Solanum tuberosum (Solanaceae); 

Aralia cachemirica (Araliaceae); and Eugenia spp. (Avidov & Harpaz, 1969).

High (3)
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 20

Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) Risk rating

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Avidov & Harpaz (1969) outlined the reproductive biology of this species. Fecundity ranges 

from 200-500 eggs per female; at least six generations per year have been recorded. The 

insect is capable only of limited dispersal under its own power. Long-distance spread would 

be accomplished via the movement of infested plant materials.

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Pseudococcus cryptus is considered a major pest of citrus (Hill, 1983). The insect produces 

copious quantities of honeydew, on which sooty molds develop, sometimes reaching a 

thickness of 5-8 mm (Avidov & Harpaz, 1969). In heavy infestations, entire trees may be 

contaminated, and leaves and fruit prematurely shed. High population densities on coconut 

palm may cause drying of the inflorescence and button shedding (Moore, 2001). In Israel, 

both biological and chemical controls have succeeded in maintaining populations generally 

below economically damaging densities (Avidov & Harpaz, 1969; Blumberg et al., 2001).

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Although it attacks a broad range of plant species, P. cryptus is not expected to pose a threat 

to vulnerable native plants in the continental United States, although close relatives of some of 

its known hosts, that occur in Puerto Rico (i.e., Eugenia haematocarpa, E. woodburyana, 

Solanum drymophilum), are listed as Endangered in 50 CFR §17.12. However, as it is a 

known pest of citrus, its introduction into citrus-growing regions of the United States could 

spur the initiation of biological or chemical control programs.

Medium (2)

Table 5. Risk ratings for Consequences of Introduction for Barhi Date, Phoenix dactylifera, from Israel.

Pest Risk Elements Cumulative 

1 2 3 4 5 Risk Rating

Climate/

Host 

Interaction

Host 

Range

Dispersal 

Potential

Economic 

Impact

Environmental 

Impact

Arenipses sabella (Hampson) Medium (2) Low (1) High (3) Medium (2) Medium (2) Medium (10)

Asterolecanium phoenicis

(Rao)

Medium (2) Low (1) High (3) High (3) Medium (2) Medium (11)

Batrachedra amydraula

(Meyrick)

Medium (2) Low (1) High (3) Medium (2) Medium (2) Medium (10)

Ceratitis capitata

(Wiedemann)

High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15)

Deudorix livia (Klug) Medium (2) High (3) Medium (2) Medium (2) Medium (2) Medium (11)

Mauginiella scaettae Cavara Medium (2) Low (1) Medium (2) Medium (2) Low (1) Low (8)

Oligonychus afrasiaticus

(McGregor)

Medium (2) Low (1) High (3) Medium (2) Low (1) Medium (9)

Parlatoria blanchardi 

(Targioni Tozzetti)

Medium (2) High (3) Medium (2) Medium (2) Medium (2) Medium (11)

Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Medium (2) High (13)
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 24

6. Likelihood of Introduction—Quantity Imported and Pest Opportunity

Likelihood of introduction is a function of both the quantity of the commodity imported annually 

and pest opportunity, which consists of five criteria that consider the potential for pest survival 

along the pathway (USDA, 2000) (Table 6).

Quantity imported annually

The rating for the quantity imported annually usually is based on the amount reported by the 

exporting country, and is converted into standard units of 40-foot-long shipping containers. The 

projected initial volume of dates to be exported to the United States from Israel is approximately

100 tonnes (Landshut, 2002), which would fill approximately four standard 40-foot-long shipping 

containers.

Survive post-harvest treatment

Barhi dates are harvested fully mature, but unripened (Hadiklaim, 2003). In the packing house, date 

bunches are washed in pure water and inspected, and defective fruit and branches are discarded.

Among the arthropods, the internal fruit infesting species Arenipses sabella (which also may bore 

through stems), Batrachedra amydraula, Ceratitis capitata, and Deudorix livia, would be expected 

to survive the above-mentioned minimal post-harvest treatments, especially if infestation was not of 

such great age that damage was obvious. The remaining pests, the scale insects Asterolecanium 

phoenicis, Parlatoria blanchardi, and Pseudococcus cryptus, and the mite Oligonychus afrasiaticus, 

are external feeders, and would have a lesser probability of surviving post-harvest treatments.

However, depending on their stage (egg, larva, adult) or instar, these diminutive arthropods might 

find shelter on fruit or among branches. For example, many scales prefer tight, protected areas, such 

as cracks and crevices; mealybugs may seek out tunnels bored by other insects in stems (Kosztarab, 

1996). Their cryptic behavior, small size (most scales are less than 5 mm long; Gullan & Kosztarab, 

1997), and water-repellent, waxy coverings could make them difficult to see or dislodge. The 

average tetranychid mite is tiny (0.8 mm; CABI, 2002), making it similarly difficult to detect on a 

host.

The fungus Mauginiella scaettae may occur within the branches (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978), so it 

also would have a high probability of surviving post-harvest treatments.

Survive shipment

Barhi dates on branches will be shipped in 5-kg-sized cartons at a temperature of 1°C (Landshut, 

2002). As it is known to exhibit a degree of cold hardiness (Weems, 1981), C. capitata is estimated 

to have a high probability of surviving such conditions. Probability of survival of the remaining 

arthropods under these conditions is more difficult to estimate. Arthropod survival at low 

temperatures is influenced by the duration of exposure (Chapman, 1998). Low temperatures above 

freezing are not immediately fatal for most insects; some may remain alive for many days even 

at temperatures close to 0°C. Published information on the effects of low, non-freezing 

temperatures on tropical insects is rare. However, as temperatures drop, physiological adjustments 
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 25

that occur in the process of acclimation may lengthen the period during which insects (and 

presumably other arthropods) can withstand the deleterious effects of chilling (Salt, 1961). Given 

the uncertainties surrounding the capacity of the other pests to tolerate and survive the chilling that 

will occur during shipment, risk associated with this criterion is estimated to be medium.

As mycelium may survive a range of temperatures from approximately -5° to 45°C (Agrios, 1997), 

M. scaettae is highly likely to survive shipment.

Not detected at port-of-entry

As with assessing the risk of date pests surviving post-harvest treatment, estimating the risk that 

these pests will not be detected at a port-of-entry involves consideration of pest size, mobility, and 

degree of concealment. Among the arthropods, again depending on the age of infestation, the 

internal feeders could have a high probability of escaping detection at a port-of-entry, unless the 

fruit is cut open. Ceratitis capitata, in particular, might readily evade detection, as fruit fly-infested 

fruit commonly go unrecognized (White & Elson-Harris, 1992). Large, conspicuous infestations 

could lead to the easy detection of the scale insects. However, sparser populations of these small 

insects and the mite, particularly if concealed on fruits, among branches, or in packing materials, 

would be more difficult to discover.

Because it could be present as mycelium within branches (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978), M. scaettae

also would have a high probability of escaping detection at a port-of-entry.

Moved to suitable habitat

Based on their known warm temperate to tropical distributions, it is estimated that climates would 

be suitable for the arthropods and fungus to establish permanent populations only in a rather narrow 

swath of territory in the south and along the west coast of the continental United States, and in 

Hawaii. These regions would comprise an estimated 10-12 percent of the total land area of the 

country.

Contact with host material

Availability of hosts in the potential geographic range within the United States would vary among 

the arthropods. Hosts of the extremely polyphagous species, i.e., C. capitata and Pseudococcus 

cryptus, include temperate-zone or widely cultivated plants (USDA, 2003a), which should be 

available throughout the potential range. Hosts of the oligophagous D. livia, which include Acacia

(Gentry, 1965), species of which occur in at least 18 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

are of more limited distribution in the United States, and thus less likely to be encountered and 

colonized within the potential geographic range. The remaining pests, including M. scaettae, are 

restricted to date palm or to that host and a few other, mainly tropical species. Based on the known 

distributions of their hosts within the United States (USDA, 2003a), these pests would be able to 

establish permanent populations only in a few states in the southernmost United States

Even if hosts are available for colonization, biological attributes of some of the arthropods should 

reduce their probability of successful establishment in the United States Specifically, the sessile 
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 26

nature of the scales would severely limit their chances of coming into contact with hosts (Miller, 

1985; Gullan & Kosztarab, 1997). Successful establishment of these insects in a new environment is 

contingent on the likelihood of at least two necessary conditions occurring: close proximity of 

susceptible hosts and presence on the imported fruit of crawlers or other mobile forms to transfer to 

new hosts. Since these circumstances are highly unlikely to co-occur (Miller, 1985), these particular 

pests are given a risk rating of low for this element.

Table 6. Risk ratings for Likelihood of Introduction (Barhi Date, Phoenix dactylifera, from Israel).

Pest Quantity 

Imported 

Annually

Survive 

Postharvest 

Treatment

Survive 

Shipment

Not 

Detected 

at Port of 

Entry

Moved to 

Suitable 

Habitat

Contact 

with Host 

Material

Cumulative 

Risk Rating

Arenipses sabella

(Hampson)

Low (1) High (3) Medium 

(2)

High (3) Medium 

(2)

Low (1) Medium (12)

Asterolecanium 

phoenicis (Rao)

Low (1) Medium (2) Medium 

(2)

Medium 

(2)

Medium 

(2)

Low (1) Medium (10)

Batrachedra 

amydraula (Meyrick)

Low (1) High (3) Medium 

(2)

High (3) Medium 

(2)

Low (1) Medium (12)

Ceratitis capitata

(Wiedemann)

Low (1) High (3) High (3) High (3) Medium 

(2)

High (3) High (15)

Deudorix livia (Klug) Low (1) High (3) Medium 

(2)

High (3) Medium 

(2)

Medium 

(2)

Medium (13)

Mauginiella scaettae

Cavara

Low (1) High (3) High (3) High (3) Medium 

(2)

Low (1) Medium (13)

Oligonychus 

afrasiaticus

(McGregor)

Low (1) Medium (2) Medium 

(2)

Medium 

(2)

Medium 

(2)

Low (1) Medium (10)

Parlatoria blanchardi 

(Targioni Tozzetti)

Low (1) Medium (2) Medium 

(2)

Medium 

(2)

Medium 

(2)

Low (1) Medium (10)

Pseudococcus cryptus

Hempel

Low (1) Medium (2) Medium 

(2)

Medium 

(2)

Medium 

(2)

Low (1) Medium (10)

7. Conclusion—Pest Risk Potential and Pests Requiring Phytosanitary Measures

The summation of the values for the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of 

Introduction yields Pest Risk Potential values (USDA, 2000) (Table 7). This is an estimate of 

the risks associated with this importation.

Pests with a Pest Risk Potential value of Low do not require mitigation measures, whereas a 

value within the Medium range indicates that specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary. 

The PPQ Guidelines state that a High Pest Risk Potential means that specific phytosanitary

measures are strongly recommended, and that port-of-entry inspection is not considered 

sufficient to provide phytosanitary security. The choice of appropriate phytosanitary measures to 

mitigate risks is undertaken as part of Risk Management, and is not addressed in this document.
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 24

Table 7. Pest Risk Potentials

Pest Consequences of 

Introduction

Likelihood of 

Introduction

Pest Risk 

Potential

Arenipses sabella (Hampson) Medium (10) Medium (12) Medium (22)

Asterolecanium phoenicis (Rao) Medium (11) Medium (10) Medium (21)

Batrachedra amydraula (Meyrick) Medium (10) Medium (12) Medium (22)

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

Deudorix livia (Klug) Medium (11) Medium (13) Medium (24)

Mauginiella scaettae Cavara Low (8) Medium (13) Medium (21)

Oligonychus afrasiaticus (McGregor) Medium (9) Medium (10) Medium (19)

Parlatoria blanchardi (Targioni Tozzetti) Medium (11) Medium (10) Medium (21)

Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel High (13) Medium (10) Medium (23)

C. Author and Reviewer

Written by T.W. Culliney, Entomologist, CPHST, PERAL

Reviewed by R.A. Sequeira, Acting Director, PERAL

D. Literature Cited

Abdalla, M.Y. 2001. Sudden decline of date palm trees caused by Erwinia chrysanthemi. Plant 

Dis. 85(1): 24-26.

Abdalla, M.Y., A. Al-Rokibah, A. Moretti, and G. Mulè. 2000. Pathogenicity of toxigenic 

Fusarium proliferatum from date palm in Saudi Arabia. Plant Dis. 84(3): 321-324.

Abdul Rassoul, M.S. 1970. Notes on Nipaecoccus vastator (Maskell) (Coccidae: Homoptera): a 

serious pest of citrus trees and various plants—first record from Iraq. Bulletin of the Iraq 

Natural History Museum 4(4): 105-108.

Agrios, G.N. 1997. Plant Pathology, 4th ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Ahmad, T.R. and M.A. Ali. 1995. Forecasting emergence and flight of some Ephestia spp. (Lep., 

Pyralidae) based on pheromone trapping and degree-day accumulations. J. Appl. Entomol. 

119(9): 611-614.

Al-Azawi, A.F. 1986. A survey of insect pests of date palms in Qatar. Date Palm J. 4(2): 247-

266.

Al-Mhemid, A. 2001. Efficiency of certain insecticides for controlling “Batrachedra 

amydraula.” Mey and their effects on dates. Arab Univ. J. Agric. Sci. 9(2): 522. [in Arabic; 

English summary]

Alhudaib, K.A. 2003. List of Diseases and Pests of Palm; 

http://www.redpalmweevil.com/index2.htm [accessed February 2003].

Ali, A.A. and Y.E.S. El-Nasr. 1992. New record of green pit scale insect, Asterolecanium 

phoenicis Rao, on date palm in the Sudan. FAO Pl. Protect. Bull. 40(2): 115.

Anonymous. 2001. Date Orchard Census. Fruit Bd. of Israel. Min. Agric. Rur. Develop. Tel 

Aviv.
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 25

Arbogast, R.T. and J.E. Throne. 1997. Insect infestation of farm-stored maize in South Carolina: 

towards characterization of a habitat. J. Stored Prod. Res. 33(3): 187-198.

Asselbergs, J.E.F. 1999. Arenipses sabella Hampson, 1901, from South Spain: new to the 

European fauna; Thylacoptila paurosema Meyrick, 1885, new to the fauna of the Canary

Islands; Ancylosis (Ancylosis) albidella Ragonot, 1888, new to the Spanish fauna 

(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae, Galleriinae, Phycitinae). Soc. Hisp. Luso Amer. Lepidopt. 27: 105, 

125-129.

ASU. 2000. Date palm collection. Arizona State University Facilities Management Department; 

http://www.asu.edu/fm/Arboretum/datepalmcollection.htm [accessed February 2003].

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

Ba Angood, S.A. and G.S. Bass’haih. 2000. A study on the effect of date palm dust mite 

Oligonychus afrasiaticus (McGregor) (Acarina: Tetranychidae) on the physiochemical 

characters of three different date varieties in Wadi Hadhramout, Yemen. Arab J. Pl. Protect. 

18(2): 82-85. [in Arabic; English summary]

Bahkali, A.H. 1987. Degradation of date palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.) cell walls by extracellular 

pectolytic enzymes produced by Verticillium albo-atrum and Verticillium dahliae. Int. J. 

Trop. Plant Dis. 5(2): 165-172.

Bartelt, R.J., R.S. Vetter, D.G. Carlson, and T.C. Baker. 1994. Responses to aggregation 

pheromones for five Carpophilus species (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) in a California date 

garden. Environ. Entomol. 23(6): 1534-1543.

Bartlett, B.R. 1978. Pseudococcidae, pp. 137-170. In C.P. Clausen (ed.). Introduced parasites and 

predators of arthropod pests and weeds: a world review. USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 

480.

Beardsley, J.W., Jr. 1966. Homoptera: Coccoidea. Insects of Micronesia 6(7): 377-562.

Ben-Dov, Y. 1993. Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel in Israel. Alon Hanotea 47(4): 271-272. [in 

Hebrew; English summary]

Ben-Dov, Y. 1994. A Systematic Catalogue of the Mealybugs of the World (Insecta: Homoptera: 

Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae) With Data on Geographical Distribution, Host 

Plants, Biology and Economic Importance. Andover, UK: Intercept Ltd.

Bindra, O.S. and G.C. Varma. 1972. Pests of date-palm. Punjab Hort. J. 12(1): 14-24.

Binggeli, P. 1998. An overview of invasive woody plants in the tropics. Univ. Wales Sch. Agric. 

For. Sci. Publ. 13; http://www.bangor.ac.uk/~afs101/iwpt/web1-99.pdf [accessed February

2003].

Bitaw, A.A. and A.A. Ben-Saad. 1990. Survey of date palm trees insect pests in Libya. Arab J. 

Pl. Protect. 8(2): 72-76. [in Arabic; English summary]

Blackburn, V.L. and D.R. Miller. 1984. Black parlatoria scale: Parlatoria ziziphi (Lucas). Pests 

Not Known to Occur in the United States or of Limited Distribution No. 44. USDA-APHIS, 

PPQ.

Blumberg, D. and M. Kehat. 1982. Biological studies of the date stone beetle, Coccotrypes 

dactyliperda. Phytoparasitica 10(2): 73-78.

Blumberg, D., Y. Ben-Dov, and Z. Mendel. 2001. The citriculus mealybug, Pseudococcus 

cryptus Hempel, and its natural enemies in Israel: history and present situation. Entomologica 

33: 233-242.

Bolland, H.R., J. Guitierrez, and C.H.W. Flechtmann. 1998. World Catalogue of the Spider Mite 

Family (Acari: Tetranychidae). Leiden: Brill.
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 26

CABI. 2002. Crop Protection Compendium, 2002 ed. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International

[CD-ROM].

Carpenter, J.B. and H.S. Elmer. 1978. Pests and diseases of the date palm. USDA Agric. 

Handbk. 527.

Chapman, R.F. 1998. The Insects: Structure and Function, 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. 

Press.

Chua, T.H. 1997. Coconut, pp. 393-394. In Y. Ben-Dov and C.J. Hodgson (eds.). Soft Scale 

Insects: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control (World Crop Pests, Vol. 7B). 

Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Davidson, J.A. and D.R. Miller. 1990. Ornamental plants, pp. 603-632. In D. Rosen (ed.). 

Armored Scale Insects: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. (World Crop Pests, 

Vol. 4B). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Dekle, G.W. 1976. Black parlatoria scale, Parlatoria ziziphi (Lucas) (Homoptera: Diaspididae). 

Fla. Dept. Agric. Consumer Serv. Div. Plant Ind. Entomol. Circ. 171.

Duso, C. 1989. Indagini bioecologiche su Planococcus ficus (Sign.) nel Veneto. Boll. Lab. 

Entomol. Agr. ‘Filippo Silvestri’ 46: 3-20. [in Italian; English summary]

Duso, C., R. Trentin, M. Borgo, and E. Egger. 1985. Influenza della termoregolazione estiva 

mediante acqua sulle popolazioni di Planococcus ficus Sign. su vite. Rivta. Viticolt. Enol. 

38(12): 567-607. [in Italian; English summary]

Edongali, E.A., H.M. Kerra, and B.O. Gashira. 1988. Distribution and control of date mite 

(Oligonychus afrasiaticus) McGregor in Libya. Arab Nr. East Pl. Protect. Newsl. (7): 25.

El-Haidari, H.S., H.M. Al-Saud, M. Al-Banna, M.A. Fawzia, and A. Khuthair. 1981. New 

records of insects attacking date palms treated with growth regulators in Iraq. Date Palm J. 

1(1): 134-135.

El-Sayed, S.A. 1978. Control of post-harvest storage decay of soft-type date fruits with special 

reference to the effect of gamma irradiation. Egypt. J. Hort. 5(2): 175-182.

Elwan, A.A. 2000. Survey of the insect and mite pests associated with date palm trees in AlDakhliya region, Sultanate of Oman. Egypt. J. Agric. Res. 78(2): 653-664.

FAOSTAT. 2003. Agricultural Production: Crops, Primary; 

http://apps.fao.org/page/collections?subset=agriculture [accessed March 2003].

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

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

Floridata. 1999. Phoenix dactylifera; http://www.floridata.com/ref/p/phoe_dac.cfm [accessed 

February 2003].

Freidberg, A. and J. Kugler. 1989. Fauna Palaestina. Insecta IV—Diptera: Tephritidae. 

Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Gentry, J.W. 1965. Crop insects of northeast Africa-southwest Asia. USDA Agric. Handbk. 273.

Gharib, A. 1974. Palmaspis phoencis [sic] (Ramachandra Rao) = Asterolecanium phoenicis, 

Homoptera – Asterolecanidae [sic]. Entomol. Phytopath. Appl. (36): 1-11. [in Persian]

Gonen, M. and Y. Kashanchi. 1978. Changes in temperature, composition and dispersion of an 

insect population in a naturally occurring hot spot deep in a wheat bulk. Israel Min. Agric. 

Spec. Publ. No. 105: 10, 87-93. [in Hebrew; English summary]

Griffith, R. and P.K. Koshy. 1990. Nematode parasites of coconut and other palms, pp. 363-386. 

In M. Luc, R.A. Sikora, and J. Bridge (eds.). Plant Parasitic Nematodes in Subtropical and 

Tropical Agriculture. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International.
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 27

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

50.

Gunn, C.R. and C. Ritchie. 1982. 1982 Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious 

Weeds; Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act (unpublished).

Gutierrez, J. and J. Etienne. 1981. A new species of the genus Oligonychus (Acari: 

Tetranychidae) attacking rice in Senegal. Agron. Trop. 36(4): 389-390. [in French; English 

summary]

Hadiklaim. 2003. Barhi dates harvest, procedures and specifications. Date Growers Cooperative 

Ltd. Tel Aviv, Israel. 2 leaves.

Halperin, J. 1973. Termites in forest and ornamental trees in Israel. La Yaaran 23(1/2): 21-34. [in 

Hebrew; English summary]

Hammad, S.M., A.A. Kadous, and M.M. Ramadan. 1981. Studies on insects and mites attacking 

date palm in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. Proc. 5th Symp. Biol. Aspects of Saudi 

Arabia: 99.

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

Hill, D.S. 1983. Agricultural Insect Pests of the Tropics and Their Control, 2nd ed. Cambridge: 

Cambridge Univ. Press.

Holm, L., J.V. Pancho, J.P. Herberger, and D.L. Plucknett. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World 

Weeds. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Holm, L., D.L. Plucknett, J.V. Pancho, and J.P. Herberger. 1977. The World’s Worst Weeds. 

Honolulu: Univ. of Hawaii Press.

Holm, L., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Pancho, and J. Herberger. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories 

and Distribution. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Hopper, B.E. (ed.). 1995. NAPPO Compendium of Phytosanitary Terms. Nepean, Ontario, 

Canada: North American Plant Protection Organization.

Howard, F.W. 2001a. The animal class Insecta and the plant family Palmae, pp. 1-32. In F.W. 

Howard, D. Moore, R. Giblin-Davis, and R. Abad. Insects on Palms. Wallingford, U.K.: 

CABI Publ.

Howard, F.W. 2001b. Sap-feeders on palms, pp. 109-232. In F.W. Howard, D. Moore, R. GiblinDavis, and R. Abad. Insects on Palms. Wallingford, U.K.: CABI Publ.

Hussein, A.A., A.G. Abdel-Rahman, and R.B. Ahmed. 1994. Effectiveness of fruit bagging on 

yield and fruit quality of pomegranate (Punica granatum, L.). Ann. Agric. Sci. Moshtohor 

32(2): 949-957.

IPPC. 1996. Guidelines for pest risk analysis. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures 

Publication No. 2. Rome: Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, United 

Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

IPPC. 2004. Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests, including analysis of environmental risks and 

living modified organisms. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures Publication 

No. 11. Rome: Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, United Nations 

Food and Agriculture Organization.

Izhar, Y., M. Wysoki, D. Blumberg, and E. Swirski. 1997. The flower chaffer Potosia angustata

Germar, a pest on lychee, pear, avocado and date palm in Israel (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). 

Alon Hanotea 51(2): 60-62. [in Hebrew; English summary]

John, E. 2003. Eddie John’s Butterflies of Cyprus; http://www.grayling.dircon.co.uk/page6.html

[accessed March 2003].
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 28

Jones, G. 2003. Butterflies from the Sultanate of Oman; 

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/1465/oman-bfly.htm [accessed March 2003].

Kamel, A.H., A. Badawi, and M.R.A. Saleh. 1977. Control of insect pests of date bunches in the 

New Valley (Egypt). II.-Effect of collection and destruction of fallen dates and other residues 

on infestation with certain pests. Agric. Res. Rev. 55(1): 19-22.

Khatri, N.K. 1997. Identification of diseases of datepalm in quarantine. J. Mycol. Plant Pathol. 

27(2): 217-218.

Khoualdia, O., A. Rhouma, J.P. Marro, and J. Brun. 1997. First observations on the date palm 

pest Oryctes agamemnon in Tunisia. Fruits Paris 52(2): 111-115.

Kosztarab, M. 1996. Scale Insects of Northeastern North America: Identification, Biology, and 

Distribution. (Va. Mus. Nat. Hist. Spec. Publ. No. 3). Martinsville, VA: Virginia Museum of 

Natural History.

Lamari, L. and N. Sabaou. 1993. Comparative study of the bacterial rhizosphere flora of two 

cultivars of date palms sensitive and resistant to fusariosis. Can. J. Microbiol. 39(9): 874-881. 

[in French; English summary]

Landcare Research. 2001. Pleospora herbarum (Per.:Fr.) Rabenh. Subantarctic Fungi, Slime 

Moulds and Beetles. New Zealand Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research; 

http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/biodiversity/antarctica/html/pleher.html

[accessed February 2003].

Landshut, E. 2002. [Letter from E. Landshut, Israel Ministry of Agriculture and Rural 

Development, to E. Imai, USDA APHIS PPQ]. July 24, 2002. 1 leaf; enclosed table.

Langer, E. 1995. Hyphodontia sambuci. In E. Langer, G. Langer, and F. Oberwinkler (eds.). 

Digital Exsiccate of Fungi 1995. Chair of Special Botany and Mycology, University of 

Tübingen; http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/uni/bbm/mycology/hyphodon/sambuci.htm

[accessed February 2003].

Lisker, N., R. Michaeli, and Z.R. Frank. 1993. Mycotoxigenic potential of Aspergillus flavus

strains isolated from groundnuts growing in Israel. Mycopathologia 122(3): 177-183.

Lumb, V.M., M.C.M. Pérombelon, and D. Zutra. 1986. Studies of a wilt disease of the potato 

plant in Israel caused by Erwinia chrysanthemi. Plant Pathol. 35(2): 196-202.

Miller, D.R. 1985. Pest Risk Assessment of Armored Scales on Certain Fruit. Unpublished 

report. USDA Agric. Res. Serv.

Moore, D. 2001. Insects of palm flowers and fruits, pp. 233-266. In F.W. Howard, D. Moore, R. 

Giblin-Davis, and R. Abad. Insects on Palms. Wallingford, U.K.: CABI Publ.

Mumcuoglu, K.Y. and I. Lutsky. 1990. A prevalence survey of poultry house mites in Israel. 

Acarologia 31(1): 51-56.

Murlidharan, C.M. 1993. Scale insects of date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) and their natural 

enemies in the date groves of Kachchh (Gujarat). Plant Protect. Bull. Faridabad 45(2/3): 31-

33.

Murphy, S.T. and B.R. Briscoe. 1999. The red palm weevil as an alien invasive: biology and the 

prospects for biological control as a component of IPM. Biocontr. News Info. 20(1): 35N46N.

Muzaffar, N. 1970. A note on the monophlebid, Icerya aegyptiaca (Dgl.), and its natural enemies 

in West Pakistan. Commonw. Inst. Biol. Contr. Tech. Bull. (13): 91-93.

Nadel, H. and J.E. Peña. 1994. Identity, behavior, and efficacy of nitidulid beetles (Coleoptera: 

Nitidulidae) pollinating commercial Annona species in Florida. Environ. Entomol. 23(4): 

878-886.
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 29

Nakache, Y. and M. Klein. 1992. The cotton seed bug, Oxycarenus hyalinipennis, attacked 

various crops in Israel in 1991. Hassadeh 72(6): 773-775. [in Hebrew; English summary]

Nakahara, S. 1982. Checklist of the Armored Scales (Homoptera: Diaspididae) of the 

Conterminous United States. USDA-APHIS, PPQ.

NASS. 2003. Noncitrus fruits and nuts: 2002 preliminary summary. USDA Natl. Agric. Stat. 

Serv. Fr Nt 1-3 (03); http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/fruit/pnf-bb/ncit0103.pdf

[accessed February 2003].

NYBG. 2003. Hyphodontia sambuci (Pers.) J. Erikss. New York Botanical Garden; 

http://scisun.nybg.org:8890/searchdb/owa/wwwcatalog.detail_list?this_id=2933926

[accessed February 2003].

Ostovan, H. and K. Kamali. 1995. Some aspects of behavioral biology of hornet wasp, Vespa 

orientalis L., (Hym. Vespidae) a pest of date fruits in Kazerun, Iran. J. Agric. Sci. Islamic 

Azad Univ. 1(1): 33-43, 72. [in Persian; English summary]

Palevsky, E., O. Ucko, S. Peles, S. Yablonski, and U. Gerson. 2003. Species of Oligonychus

infesting date palm cultivars in the Southern Arava Valley of Israel. Phytoparasitica 31(2): 

144-153.

Palti, J., Z. Solel, A. Sztejnberg, Z. Arenstein, M. Bar-Joseph, R. Barkai-Golan, R. Cohn, Z. 

Fleischer, Y. Golan, D. Orion, S. Pappo, Y. Pinkas, M. Schiffmann-Nadel, E. Shabi, and E. 

Tanne. 1977. A check list of diseases of fruit crops in Israel. Phytoparasitica (Suppl. No. 1): 

6-53.

Partridge, J.E. 1997. Stemphylium Leaf Spot of Alfalfa. Univ. Nebraska Dept. Plant Pathol.; 

http://plantpath.unl.edu/peartree/homer/disease.skp/agron/alfalfa/ALfStemLfSpt.html

[accessed February 2003].

Peck, S.B. and M.C. Thomas. 1998. Family Curculionidae: the weevils. In Arthropods of Florida 

and Neighboring Land Areas. Vol. 16. A Distributional Checklist of the Beetles (Coleoptera) 

of Florida; http://www.fsca-dpi.org/Coleoptera/Mike/curculio.htm [accessed February 2003].

Perring, T.M., T.O. Holtzer, J.A. Kalisch, and J.M. Norman. 1984. Temperature and humidity

effects on ovipositional rates, fecundity, and longevity of adult female Banks grass mites 

(Acari: Tetranychidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 77(5): 581-586.

Pivonia, S., R. Cohen, U. Kafkafi, I.S. Ben Ze’ev, and J. Katan. 1997. Sudden wilt of melons in 

southern Israel: fungal agents and relationship with plant development. Plant Dis. 81(11): 

1264-1268.

Ploetz, R.C., G.A. Zentmyer, W.T. Nishijima, K.G. Rohrbach, and H.D. Ohr (eds.). 1994. 

Compendium of Tropical Fruit Diseases. St. Paul, MN: APS Press.

PPS. 2003. Western Weeds. Plant Protection Society of Western Australia; 

http://members.iinet.net.au/~weeds/western_weeds/areca_asphodela.htm [accessed February

2003].

Randall, R.P. 2003. A Global Compendium of Weeds. Western Australia Dept. of Agric./Hawaii 

Ecosystems at Risk; http://www.hear.org/gcw/html/autogend/species/14576.HTM [accessed 

February 2003].

Rathore, Y.S. and C.S. Sengar. 1972. New records of nitidulid and rhizophagid beetles on maize 

cobs in the U.P. Tarai. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 69(1): 208-209.

Reed, C.F. 1977. Economically important foreign weeds. USDA Agric. Handbk. 498.

Riedl, T. 1990. New data on the distribution of some Palaearctic Gelechioidea (Lepidoptera). 

Polsk. Pismo Entomol. 60(3/4): 265-267. [in French; English summary]
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 30

Saaidi, M. and J. Rodet. 1974. Preliminary observations on damping-off in date-palm seedlings. 

Awamia (53): 113-119. [in French]

Salt, R.W. 1961. Principles of insect cold-hardiness. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 6: 55-74.

Savela, M. 1999. Lepidoptera and Some Other Life Forms; 

http://www.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/insecta/lepidoptera/ditrysia/papilionoidea/lycaenidae/thec

linae/deudorix/index.html#livia [accessed March 2003].

Sayed, A.A. 2000. Timing of enclosing date bunches in plastic bags as key factor affecting 

infestations of Virachola livia and Cadra spp. in New Valley Governorate, Egypt. Assiut J. 

Agric. Sci. 31(5): 33-39.

Sayed, A.A., S.A. Temerak, and P. Vergoulas. 2001. Comparative performance of Bacillus 

thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki, and the natural product, spinosad, for the control of the lesser 

date moth Batrachedra amydraula Meyer infesting date palm trees in New Valley, Egypt. 

Assiut J. Agric. Sci. 32(3): 183-189.

SBML. 2003. USDA-ARS. Systematic Botany & Mycology Laboratory; http://nt.arsgrin.gov/fungaldatabases/index.cfm [accessed February 2003].

Sharaf, N.S. and D.E. Meyerdirk. 1987. A review on the biology, ecology and control of 

Nipaecoccus viridis (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Entomol. Soc. Am. Misc. Publ. No. 66.

Sheskin, A. and A. Regev. 2001. Israel Agriculture: Facts and Figures, 2nd ed. State of Israel 

Min. Agric. Rur. Develop.; http://www.moag.gov.il/english [accessed March 2003].

Singh, S.B. and H.M. Singh. 2001. Biology of Deudorix isocrates on its new potential host—

aonla (Emblica officinalis). Indian J. Entomol. 63(1): 19-25.

Smith Meyer, M.K.P. and U. Gerson. 1981. Some false spider mites (Prostigmata: 

Tenuipalpidae) from Israel. Israel J. Entomol. 15: 67-81.

Spradbery, J.P. 1973. Wasps: An Account of the Biology and Natural History of Solitary and 

Social Wasps. Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press.

Sweet, M.H. II. 2000. Seed and chinch bugs (Lygaeoidea), pp. 143-264. In C.W. Schaefer and 

A.R. Panizzi (eds.). Heteroptera of Economic Importance. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Talhouk, A.S. 1969. Insects and mites injurious to crops in Middle Eastern countries. Monogr. 

Ang. Entomol. (21): 1-239.

USDA. 2000. Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02. USDA, 

APHIS, PPQ; http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/commodity/cpraguide.pdf

USDA. 2003a. Plants Database. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Serv.; 

http://plants.usda.gov/ [accessed February 2003].

USDA. 2003b. ScaleNet. U.S. Dept. Agric. Syst. Entomol. Lab.; 

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm [accessed February 2003].

Warner, R.L., M.M. Barnes, and E.F. Laird. 1990. Chemical control of a carob moth, 

Ectomyelois ceratoniae (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), and various nitidulid beetles (Coleoptera) 

on ‘Deglet Noor’ dates in California. J. Econ. Entomol. 83(6): 2357-2361.

Waterhouse, D.F. 1993. Biological Control: Pacific Prospects—Supplement 2 (ACIAR 

Monograph Series No. 20). Canberra, Australia: Australian Centre for International 

Agricultural Research.

Weems, H.V., Jr. 1981. Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: 

Tephritidae). Fla. Dept. Agric. Consumer Serv. Div. Plant Ind. Entomol. Circ. 230.

Werner, K. 2006. E-mail message from Kenneth P. Werner, Assistant Trade Director, USDAAPHIS, PPQ, February 1, 2006.
PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 31

White, I.M. and M.M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Fruit Flies of Economic Importance: Their 

Identification and Bionomics. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International.

Williams, D.J. and G.W. Watson. 1990. The Scale Insects of the Tropical South Pacific Region. 

Part 3. The Soft Scales (Coccidae) and Other Families. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB 

International.

Wiltshire, E.P. 1988. The larger moths (macro-Heterocera) of the Wahiba Sands. J. Oman Stud. 

(3): 347-360.

Wisam, O. and A. Mazen. 2002. Bionomics and control of pomegranate butterfly Virachola

(Deudorix) livia (Klug) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in Northern Jordan. Dirasat. Agric. Sci. 

29(1): 1-12.

WSSA. 2003. Composite List of Weeds. Weed Science Society of America; 

http://www.wssa.net/ [accessed February 2003].

Wysoki, M., M.A. van den Berg, G. Ish-Am, S. Gazit, J.E. Peña, and G.K. Waite. 2002. Pests 

and pollinators of avocado, pp. 223-293. In J.E. Peña, J.L. Sharp and M. Wysoki (eds.). 

Tropical Fruit Pests and Pollinators: Biology, Economic Importance, Natural Enemies and 

Control. Wallingford, U.K.: CABI Publ.

Zaher, M.A., E.A. Gomaa, and M.A. El-Enany. 1982. Spider mites of Egypt (Acari: 

Tetranychidae). Int. J. Acarol. 8(2): 91-114.