# Importation of **‘ Barhi**  **’ Date**  **, Phoenix**  **dactyl i** **fera , from**  **Israel into the United States** 

**A Pathw**  **ay -**  **initiated Commodity**  **Risk A ssessment** 

**Januar y**  **2008**

**Ag ency** **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, N orth C arolina 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 significanc e that exist in Is rael 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 moth s , one butterfly , one fruit fl y, three scale insects, one mite, and one fungus
. Arthropods: Arenipses sabella (Hampson) (Lepidoptera: Py ralidae) Asterolecanium phoenicis (Rao) (Homoptera: Asterolecaniidae) Batrachedra amydraula (Mey rick) (Lepidoptera: Coleop horidae) 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 (Ascomycet es) All o f 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 Pe st 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 phy

tosanitary 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 Likel y to Follow the Pathway (Tables 3 and 4 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Consequences of Introduction

**—**Economic/Environmental Importance (Table 5 )
. . . . . 1 3 6. Likelihood of Introduction

—Quantity

Imported and Pest Opportunity (Table 6)
. . . . . . 2 4 7. Conclusion

—Pest Risk Potential and Pests Requiring Phytosanitary Measures (Table 7 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 C. Author and Reviewer
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 D . Literature Cited
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7

### 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 . E stimates 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 I nterna tional 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 phy tosanitary terms (e.g., introduction , quarantine pest ) conform with the NAPPO Compendium of Phy tosanitary Terms (Hopper, 1995) and the Definitions and Abbreviations (I ntroduction Section) in International Standards for Phy

tosanitary Measures: Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis ( IP PC , 1996). Pest risk assessment is one component of an overall pest risk analysis. The Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis provided by IP PC (1996) describe three stage s 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 Pathway
Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (USDA, 2000 ). IP PC (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). I n 1999, 5000 tonnes were exported at a value ex ceeding $ 16 million (Sheskin & Regev, 2001). Approximately 1700 ha of date palms are under cultivation in I srael along the Sy rian
-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 A**

**ssessment 1. Initiating Event: Proposed A** **ction** This risk assessment is developed in response to a request b y the Is raeli 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, Secti on 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. A ssessment**  **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:** D ate 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, 2001 a)
. **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 Wee ds; 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 L ist 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 A** 

**ssessments, Current Status, and Pest Interceptions** There are no previous risk assessments for dates from I srael. Currently , date imports are not authorized by

7 CFR § 319.56
. Pest interceptions on Phoenix dactylifera from Is rael 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 presenc e 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
. **Tab le 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 Is rael Associated with Date (Phoenix dactylifera ). **Pest Geographic**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant p**  **art**

**a ffected**  **2 Quaran** 

**- tine**  **Pest Likely to** 

**Follow Pathway**  **References**
**ARTHROPODS ACARI**  **Acaridae** Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank) (= T

. lintneri [ Osborn ] ) IL, US (FL, TX) F, Sd No No 3 Bindra & Varma, 1972; CABI, 2002; Mumcuoglu & Lutsky, 1990

### PRA for Barhi dates from Israel

Rev. 003 January 30, 2008 5 **Pest Geographic**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant p**  **art**

**a ffected**  **2 Quaran** 

**- tine**  **Pest Likely to** 

**Follow Pathway**  **References Tenuipalpidae**  Phyllotetranychus aegyptia cus 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 No 5 Landshut, 2002 Oligonychus afrasiaticus (McGregor) IL F , L Yes Yes Landshut, 2002 ; Moore, 2001 Oligonychus senegalensis Gutierrez & Etienne IL F , L Yes No 6 Gutierrez & Etienne, 1981; Landshut, 2002 Oligonychus tylus Baker & Pritchard IL F Yes No 7 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 No 3 Bindra & Varma, 1972; CABI, 2002 **Bostrichidae** Apate monachus F
. IL L, S Yes No 8 CABI, 2002 ; Gentry, 1965 **Cucujidae** Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Stephens) IL, US F, Sd No No 9 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 No 10 CABI, 2002; Landshut, 2002 **Dermestidae** Trogoderma granarium Everts IL F, Sd Yes No 3 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**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant p**  **art**

**a ffected**  **2 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 No 1 1 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 No 9 Alhudaib, 2003; CABI, 2002 **Tenebrionidae** Tribolium castaneum Herbst IL, US F, S d No No 3 CABI, 2002 Tribolium confusum Jacquelin du Val IL, US F, Sd No No 3 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 No 1 2 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**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant p**  **art**

**a ffected**  **2 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 Yes 13 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 No 1 4 CABI, 2002; PPQ interception ; USDA, 2003b **Margarodidae** Icerya aegyptiaca ( Douglas ) IL F, L, S Yes No 1 5 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 No 16 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**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant p**  **art**

**a ffected**  **2 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** Om m atissus binotatus Fieber IL L Yes No Landshut, 2002 **HYMENOPTERA Vespidae**  Vespa orientalis L
. IL F , S Yes No 1 7 CABI, 2002; Gentry, 1965 ; Ostovan & Kamali, 1995 **ISOPTERA Termitidae**  Microcerotermes diversus Silvestri IL L, R, S Yes No 1 8 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 No 1 9 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 No 20 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**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant p**  **art**

**a ffected**  **2 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 No 2 1 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 No 2 2 Abdalla, 2001; CABI, 2002 **FUNGI** Alternaria alternata (Fries ) Ke issler (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**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant p**  **art**

**a ffected**  **2 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: Ustilagin ales) 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 Pole
Evans , 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**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant p**  **art**

**a ffected**  **2 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 Meloidogyn e arenaria (Neal ) Chitwood ( Meloidogynidae ) IL, US R No No CABI, 2002; Griffith & Koshy, 1990 Meloidogyn e 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

1 Distribution (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 5 Mites 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. 7 Locality 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 ha s not been recorded on Phoenix dactylifera (U . Gerson, in litt ., March 25, 2003)
. 8 Adult 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). 10 Larvae bore through the softer tissues of the trunk, crow n, and bases of petioles ( Murphy & Briscoe, 1999). 11 Pest is a stalk
- or trunk
-borer (Khoualdia et al ., 1997), and will not be present on harvested dates. 12 Species most likely is restricted to Malvales (Malvaceae, Sterculiaceae, and Tiliace ae) (Sweet, 2000); the single record on date fruit (Nakache & Klein, 1992) does not indicate a true host association. 13 Pest has been eradicated from the United States (Nakahara, 1982). 14 Host 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 o n palms are p ort interceptions (Howard, 2001b). 15 Although 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 si tes 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. 1 7 Mem bers of this genus are large, ac tive, social insects (Spradbery, 1973) , and are unlikely to remain with harvested dates
. 18 Species attacks roots, leaves, and trunk (Carpenter & Elmer, 1978). 19 Species is primarily a leaf
- feeder, occasionally attacking s tems 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 quarantin e pest by USDA
- APHIS, PPQ (P.A. Courneya, USDA
- APHIS, PPQ, in litt ., February 14, 2003). 21 Swarming adults may consume an entire date c rop (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
. 22 Bacterium 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 ., b e included in shipments of date fruit, are subjected to steps 5
- 7 (USDA, 2000 ) in the following sections of this risk assessment. The se pests are listed in Table 4. Other organi sms 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 as sociated 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 dy namic concept since pest distributions are fluid and pest mitigations evolve. As information on new hazards or new mitigations is identified, th e 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 clearl y 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: Py ralidae) Asterolecanium phoenicis (Rao) (Homoptera: Asterolecaniidae) Batrachedra amydraula (Mey rick) (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 (Ascomycet es )
**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 element s. 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 Arabia n 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, 2001 b)
. 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 capacit y 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 M iddle 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 de licate , 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 s everal fruits during its development ( Carpenter & Elmer, 1978 ) , thereby compounding the damage
. Despite this t

he p est 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)
. Contro l 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 f ruits, 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 ba tches of one to 10. B reeding 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 fruit
rotting fungi (CABI, 2002). The sp ecies is of quarantine significance throughout the world, especially for Japan and the United States It s 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 significan t 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 . Long
distance 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 range d 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 host s 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 dactylifer a (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 contamina ted 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). En try 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: Tetranyc**  **hidae) Risk**  **rating Risk Element #1: Climate**  **- Host Interaction**  Oligonychus afrasiaticu

s 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 b e 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
. afrasiaticu s . 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
-b iased (above 0.85) (Palevsky et al ., 2003). Fecundity of the related O. pratensis (Banks), which is said to be “similar to O
. afrasiaticu s ” (Moore, 2001; p. 256), was found to be as high as 230 eggs per female on corn ( Zea mays ), depending on temperature a

nd humidity (Perring et al ., 1984). Local dispersal of O
. afrasiaticu s 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
. afrasiaticu s . 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
. afrasiaticu s . 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 t his 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 tho se 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. Me dium (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 Ric o (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 rating s for Consequences of Introduction for Barhi Date , Phoenix dactylifera , from Is rael
.

**Pest Risk Elements**  **Cumulative Risk Rating**  **1 2**  **3 4**  **5 Climate/**  **Host Interaction**  **Host**

**Range Dispersal** 

**Potential Economic** 

**Impact Environ** ****

**mental 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 annuall y 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 b y 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 treatment s , 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 are as, such as cracks and crevices ; mealy bugs may seek out tunnels bored by other insects in stems (Kosztarab, 1996) . Their cry

ptic 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 a verage 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
-ha

rvest 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 degre e 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). Lo w 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 tempera tures 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 my celium 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, e stimating 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
. Cer

atitis 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 my celium 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 region s 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 poly phagous 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
. scae ttae , 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 occur ring: 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 rating s for Likelihood o f Introduction (Barhi Date , Phoenix dactylifera , from Israel ). **Pest Quantity** 

**Imported Annually**  **Survive**

**Postharvest Treatment**  **Survive**

**Ship**   ** ment** **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 phy tosanitary measures may

be necessary
. The PPQ Guidelines s tate that a High Pest Risk Potential means that specific phy tosanitary measures are strongl y recommended, and that port
- of
- entry inspection is not considered sufficient to provide phyt osanitary security . The choice of appropriate phy tosanitary 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 . A**  **uthor and Reviewer**  Written by T.W. Culliney , Entomologist, CPHST, PERAL Reviewed b y R.A. Sequeira, Acting Director, PERAL
**D . Literature Cited**  Abdalla, M.Y. 2001. Sudden decline of date palm trees caused b y 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., Py ralidae) 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. 199 2. New record of green pit scale insect, Asterolecanium phoenicis Rao, on date palm in the Sudan. FAO Pl. Protect. Bull. 40(2): 115. Anony mous. 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. Thro ne. 1997. Insect infestation of farm
- stored maize in South Carolina : toward s 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 Mey rick, 1885, new to the fauna of the Canary Islands; Ancylosis (

Ancylosis ) albidella Ragonot, 1888, new to the Spanish fauna (Lepidoptera: P yr alidae, 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. H arpaz. 1969. Plant Pests of I srael. Jerusalem: I srael 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 pectoly tic enzy mes 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 I srael. Alon Hanotea 47(4): 271
- 272. [in Hebrew; English summary] Ben
- Dov, Y. 1994. A S ystematic Catalogue of the Mealybu gs 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 . Phy

toparasitica 10(2): 73
- 78. Blumberg, D., Y. Ben
- Dov, and Z. Mendel. 2001. The citriculus meal ybug, 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 Pro tection 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 Biolo gy , 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 (Lu cas) (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
- ty pe date fruits with special referen ce to the effect of gamma irradiation. Egy pt. J. Hort. 5(2): 175
- 182. Elwan, A.A. 2000. Survey of the insect and mite pests associated with date palm trees in Al
Dakhliya region, Sultanate of Oman. Egy pt. 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. Ross man. 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: I srael Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Gentry , J.W. 1965. Crop insects of northeast Africa
- southwest Asia. USDA Agric. Handbk. 273. Gharib, A. 1974. Pal

maspis phoencis [sic] (Ramachandra Rao) = Asterolecanium phoenicis , Homoptera

– Asterolecanidae [sic]. Entomol. Phy topath. 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. L a 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 Sy mp. 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 Phy tosanitary Terms. Nepean, Ontario, Canada: North American Plant Protection Organization. Howard, F.W. 2001 a . 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. Giblin
Davis, 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 yi eld and fruit quality

of pomegranate (

Punica granatum , L .). Ann. Agric. Sci. Moshtohor 32(2): 949
- 957. IPPC. 1996. Guidelines for pest risk anal ys is. International Standards for Phy tosanitary Measures Publication No. 2. Rome: Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. IPPC. 2004. Pest ris k analysis for quarantine pests, including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms. International Standards for Phy tosanitary Measures Publication No. 11. Rome: Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, United Nati ons Food and Agriculture Organization. Izhar, Y., M. Wysoki, D. Blumberg, and E. Swirski. 1997. The flower chaffer Potosia angustata Germar, a pest on l ychee, pear, avocado and date palm in I srael (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Alon Hanotea 51(2): 60
- 62. [in Hebrew; English summary] John, E. 2003. Eddie John’s Butterflies of Cy prus; http://www.grayling.dircon.co.uk/page6.html [accessed March 20 03].

### 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

(Egy pt). 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 rhizo sphere 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 , Is rael Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development , to E
. Imai , USDA APHI S 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 M yc ology , University of Tübingen ; http://www.uni
- tuebingen.de/uni/bbm/mycology /hy phodon/sambuci.htm [accessed February

2003]. Lisker, N., R. Michaeli, and Z.R. Frank. 1993. M ycotoxigenic potential of Asper gillus 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 I srael 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 I srael. 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 fo r biological control as a component of IPM. Biocontr. News Info. 20(1): 35N
46N. 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.ny

bg.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. , (Hy

m. Vespidae) a pest of date fruits in Kazerun, Iran. J. Agric. Sci. I slamic 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. Phy

toparasitica 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 fr uit crops in I srael. Phy

toparasitica (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: Tetranyc hidae). 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 Compen dium of Weeds. Western Australia Dept. of Agric./Hawaii Ecosystems at Risk; http://www.hear.org/gcw/html/autogend/species/14576.HTM [ac cessed February 2003]. Rathore, Y.S. and C.S. Sengar. 1972. New records of nitidulid and r hizophagid 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. Handb k. 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 se edlings. 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 F orms; 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 enclo sing date bunches in plastic bags as key factor affecting infestations of Virachola livia and Cadra spp. in New Valley Governorate, Egy

pt. Assiut J. Agric. Sci. 31(5): 33
- 39. Sayed, A.A., S.A. Temerak, and P. Vergoulas. 2001. Comparative performance of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. k

urstaki , and the natural product, spinosad, for the control of the lesser date moth Batrachedra amydraula Meyer infesting date palm trees in New Valley , Egy pt. Assiut J. Agric. Sci. 32(3): 183
- 189. SBML . 2003 . USDA
- ARS. Systematic Botany & Mycology

L aboratory ; http://nt.ars
grin.gov/fungaldatabases/index.cfm [accessed February 2003 ]. Sharaf, N.S. and D.E. Meyerdirk. 1987. A review on the biology , ecology and contro l of Nipaecoccus viridis (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Entomo l . Soc. Am. Misc. Publ. No. 66. Sheskin, A. and A. Regev. 2001. I srael 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 f alse spider mites (Prostigmata: Tenuipalpidae) from Israel. I srael 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, APHI S, PPQ; http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/commodity /cpraguide.pdf USDA. 2003 a . Plants Database. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Serv.; http://plants.usda.gov/ [accessed February 2003 ]. USDA. 2003b. ScaleNet. U.S. Dept. Agric. S ys t. Entomol. L ab.; 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: P yralidae), 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 K enneth P. Werner, Assistant Trade Director, USDA
APHI S, 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 Id entification 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 butterfl y 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: T etranychidae). Int. J. Acarol. 8(2): 91
- 114.