Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 1

Pest Risk Assessment for Fresh Fruits of Baby Kiwi 

(Actinidia arguta) from Chile Imported into the 

Continental United States 

A Qualitative, Pathway-initiated Risk Assessment 

May 16, 2008 

Agency Contact: 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal Plant Health Inspection Services 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology 

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory 

1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 

Raleigh, NC 27606 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 i

Executive Summary 

In this document we assessed the risk associated with the importation of fresh baby kiwi fruit, 

Actinidia arguta, from Chile into the continental United States. Baby kiwi, also known as hardy 

kiwi, is a different species from the more commonly known and larger kiwi fruit, A. deliciosa. 

We searched both print and electronic sources of information, and identified one quarantinesignificant pest, Brevipalpus chilensis, that could be introduced into the United States in 

consignments of this commodity. In a risk assessment, we considered the likelihood and 

consequences of introducing this pest, and rated B. chilensis as Medium risk for the continental 

United States. 

Following the assessment, we identified potential risk mitigation options that could minimize the 

risk of this pest. In particular, methyl bromide fumigation, irradiation, and a soapy water/wax 

treatment have already been approved by USDA APHIS PPQ for use on B. chilensis. However, it 

is unknown how effective these treatments would be on fresh baby kiwi and whether the 

treatments would adversely affect the fruit. 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 ii

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 

II. Risk Assessment......................................................................................................................... 2 

2.1 Initiating Event: Proposed Action......................................................................................... 2

2.2 Assessment of Weed Potential.............................................................................................. 2

2.3 Previous Risk Assessment, Current Status, Pest Interceptions and Decision History 

Potential ............................................................................................................................... 3 

2.4 Pest Categorization: Identification of Quarantine Pests and Quarantine Pests Likely to 

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

2.5 Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway................................................................... 5 

2.6 Consequences of Introduction............................................................................................... 5 

2.7 Likelihood of Introduction.................................................................................................... 7 

2.8 Conclusion: Pest Risk Potential............................................................................................ 9 

III. Risk Mitigation Options.......................................................................................................... 10 

3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 10 

3.2 Phytosanitary Options......................................................................................................... 10 

3.3 Conclusions......................................................................................................................... 13 

IV. Authors and Reviewers........................................................................................................... 13 

V. Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................ 14 

VI. Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 18 

6.1 Appendix 1: Baby Kiwi Production and Export in Chile ................................................... 18 

6.2 Appendix 2: Description of Risk Elements and Rating Criteria......................................... 20 

6.3 Appendix 3: Mean Monthly Temperature and Mean Absolute Minimum Temperature for 

Representative Chilean Cities and Regions....................................................................... 22 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 1

1. Introduction 

A first draft of this pest risk assessment was prepared by the Chilean Servicio Agrícola y 

Ganadero (SAG), and the Association of Exporters of Chile (ASOEX). SAG is the official 

bureau of the Ministry of Agriculture of Chile. Support for this PRA was provided by the 

PROCHILE Export Promotions Fund and carried out by the Fruit Development Foundation 

(FDF). Following completion of this document by Chile, this PRA was reviewed and 

significantly updated by staff at the Pest Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL) 

of the United States Department of Agriculture. PERAL developed the final version of this 

document. 

In this document we examined the risks associated with the importation of fresh baby kiwi fruit, 

Actinidia arguta, into the continental United States from Chile1

 in the absence of specific 

phytosanitary measures. Baby kiwi, also known as hardy kiwi, is a different species from the 

more commonly known and larger kiwi fruit, A. deliciosa. Other than standardized post-harvest 

cleaning and culling associated with quality control, we assumed that baby kiwi fruit from Chile 

would not undergo any special post-harvest treatment or cleaning (i.e., unmitigated risk). This 

document is a qualitative or descriptive risk assessment in which risk is expressed in terms such 

as high, medium, and low rather than in numerical terms, such as probabilities or frequencies. 

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

Assessments: Guidelines for Qualitative Assessments, Version 5.02 (USDA, 2000). 

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

Organization (NAPPO) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) provide 

standards for conducting pest risk analyses. The methods we used to initiate, conduct, and report 

this assessment, as well as the biological and phytosanitary terms used, are based on these 

standards (IPPC, 2004, 2006, 2007; NAPPO, 2004). The IPPC standards describe three stages of 

pest risk analysis: 1) Initiation; 2) Risk Assessment; and 3) Risk Management. This document 

satisfies the requirements of Stages 1 and 2, and provides mitigation options for Stage 3. 

Baby kiwi, A. arguta, is closely related to the widely cultivated and recognized kiwi fruit, A. 

deliciosa. Unlike kiwi fruit, however, baby kiwi fruit are smooth and small when mature (about 

the size of grapes). Furthermore, they grow on vines that must be supported by trellises. 

Approximately 12 hectares of baby kiwi fruit are planted in Chile, located primarily in Chilean 

Regions V and VI, as well as the Metropolitan Region. Production is concentrated in Region VI 

(Appendix 1), from January to May. Chile expects to export 15,000 boxes per year to the 

continental United States. In the absences of specific information, we have assumed based on 

common box sizes that each box weighs ten to twenty kg for a total of 150,000 to 300,000 kg 

expected initially. During the 2001/2002 season, Chile produced 2.26 tons of fruit that were 

shipped to Canadian, Far Eastern, and European markets. Baby kiwi is native to northern China, 

Korea, Siberia, and Japan. . 

 

1

 Initially, the PRA request included export to Hawaii, however, it was later limited to the continental United States 

(Roman, 2007). 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 2

2. Risk Assessment 

2.1 Initiating Event: Proposed Action 

The first draft of this pest risk assessment was developed by the Chilean Servicio Agrícola y 

Ganadero (SAG) as part of its request to export fresh baby kiwi fruit to the continental United 

States. Their use of USDA guidelines was intended to facilitate the transmission of pest-related 

information as part of WTO reporting requirements. Entry of this commodity into the United 

States presents a potential pathway for the introduction of plant pests. Title 7, Part 319, Section 

56 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR §319.56) grants regulatory authority 

to the United States Department of Agriculture for the importation of fruits and vegetables from 

foreign sources. Importation of fruits and vegetables is regulated because plant pests have the 

potential to follow the pathway into the United States and become established pests that impact 

our agricultural and natural resources. 

2.2 Assessment of Weed Potential 

The potential of the commodity to become a weed after it enters the United States was examined 

in this step (Table 1). A weed risk assessment was not conducted because the analysis did not 

indicate that the commodity had a significant weed potential. 

Table 1. The Weed Potential of Baby Kiwi, Actinidia arguta 

Actinidia arguta (Siebold & Zucc.) Planch. ex Miq. (Actinidiaceae)

Common Names: Baby kiwi, taravine, vine-pear, bower actinidia, yang tao, actinidier, and 

hardy kiwi (USDA-ARS, 2006). 

Synonyms: A. arguta var. megalocarpa (Nakai) Kitag., A. cordifolia Miq., A. giraldii

Diels, A. megalocarpa Nakai, A. platyphylla A. Gray ex Miq., A. purpurea Rehder, and 

Trochostigma argutum Siebold & Zucc (USDA-ARS, 2006). 

Phase 1: Distribution in the United States: A. arguta is native to northeastern Asia in Japan, 

China and Korea (USDA-ARS, 2006). It has been introduced to the United States, is 

under cultivation, and has escaped or naturalized in three states: Massachusetts, Ohio 

and Maine (MBG, 2006; USDA-FS, 2006; USDA-NRCS, 2006). This species is 

hardy to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 3-9 (MBG, 2006; Page and Olds, 2001). 

Phase 2: Invasive / Weed Status: Listing as weed 

No

(7 CFR § 360, 2005; Gunn and Ritchie, 1988; Holm et al., 1997; Holm et al., 1979; 

Holm et al., 1977; Reed, 1977; Skinner et al., 2005; Swearingen, 2005; Weber, 2003; 

WSSA, 2005) 

Yes A Global Compendium of Weeds (Randall, 2007). This reference cites the following 

two references. 

Yes Other: (USDA-FS, 2006; USDA-NRCS, 2006). 

Phase 3: Summary and Conclusions: Actinidia arguta is a vigorous fast-growing woody vine 

that has escaped from cultivation in the United States (MBG, 2006; USDA-FS, 

2006). Because this species is already under cultivation in the United States 

(KiwiKorners, 2006; MBG, 2006) and is not under official control, we concluded 

that it cannot be considered a weed beyond what constitutes an existing level of 

exposure. 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 3

2.3 Previous Risk Assessment, Current Status, Pest Interceptions and Decision History 

Potential 

There are no previous entry applications for baby kiwi (A. arguta) fruit from Chile or any other 

country into the United States; as a result, there are no previous regulatory decisions. 

APHIS-PPQ maintains a database (Agricultural Quarantine Activity Systems) of all the 

interceptions of pests and pathogens on commodities entering the United States. The database 

includes interceptions on permit cargo, general cargo, ship’s quarters, ship’s holds, passenger 

baggage, ship stores, mail, and other pathways. This database was examined to determine which 

pests and pathogens have been intercepted on Actinidia arguta fruit. According to the database, 

no pests have been intercepted on this species between 1985 and 2005 (PestID, 2007). A lack of 

pest interceptions does not necessarily indicate that no pests will be following the pathway on 

fresh baby kiwi; rather, it may also indicate that the fruit has never entered the United States. 

2.4 Pest Categorization: Identification of Quarantine Pests and Quarantine Pests Likely to 

Follow the Pathway 

Below we present a list of pests potentially associated with A. arguta in Chile (Table 2). The list 

identifies: 1) the presence or absence of the pests in the United States; 2) the references 

supporting an association between the pest and A. arguta; 3) the plant organs where the pest can 

be found; 4) the U.S. quarantine status of the pests; and 5) the likelihood the pest would follow 

the pathway into the United States through commercial baby kiwi shipments. 

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

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

controlled” (IPPC, 2006). A pest is likely to follow the pathway on baby kiwi fruit if the pest is 

present in Chile, if the pest is associated with the fruit at the time of harvest, or if the pest 

remains with the fruit in viable form during harvesting, packing, and shipping procedures. The 

possibility that a quarantine pest following the pathway could establish and spread throughout 

the United States depends on the presence of appropriate climatic and ecological conditions, 

including protected areas (such as greenhouses), where the presence of primary or alternative 

hosts and vectors are influential. 

Table 2. Pests potentially associated with Actinidia arguta in Chile. 

Pest Geographic 

distribution2 

Host 

Association

Plant Part 

Association

Quarantine pest 

status 

Follows 

pathway

ACARI: Tenuipalpidae 

Brevipalpus chilensis Baker CL (CABI, 

2006) 

FDF, 2003; 

SAG, 2004 

Bark, Twigs, 

Leaves & Fruit 

(CABI, 2006; 

Jeppson et al., 

1975) 

Yes Yes 

HEMIPTERA: Aphididae

 

2

Geographic Distribution: CL = Chile; U.S. = United States. 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 4

Pest Geographic 

distribution2 

Host 

Association

Plant Part 

Association

Quarantine pest 

status 

Follows 

pathway

Aphis gossypii Glover CL, U.S. 

(CABI, 

2006) 

Blackman 

and Eastop, 

2000 

N/A No N/A 

Toxoptera aurantii Boyer de 

Fonscolombe

CL, U.S. 

(CABI, 

2006) 

Blackman 

and Eastop, 

2000 

N/A No N/A 

HEMIPTERA: Diaspididae

Aspidiotus nerii Bouché CL, U.S. 

(Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007) 

SAG, 2002b N/A No N/A 

Diaspidiotus perniciosus 

(Comstock) Cockerell; 

Danzig. Syn:

Quadraspidiotus 

pernicious 

CL, U.S. 

(CABI, 

2006) 

SAG, 2002b N/A No N/A 

Hemiberlesia lataniae 

Signoret Syn: Diaspidiotus 

lataniae; Euaspidiotus 

lataniae; Aspidiotus 

lataniae

CL, U.S. 

(Ben-Dov et 

al., 2006; 

CABI, 

2006) 

Mauchline 

and Hill, 

2005 

N/A No N/A 

Pseudaulacaspis pentagona

(Targioni Tozzetti) 

MacGillivray Syn: 

Aspidiotus lanatus 

CL, U.S. 

(Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

N/A No N/A 

HEMIPTERA: Pseudococcidae

Pseudococcus viburni

(Maskell) 

CL, U.S. 

(Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007) 

SAG, 2002a N/A No N/A 

THYSANOPTERA: Thripidae

Frankliniella occidentalis

(Pergande) 

CL, U.S. 

(CABI, 

2006) 

FDF, 2003 N/A No N/A 

Heliothrips haemorrhoidalis

(Bouche)

CL, U.S. 

(CABI, 

2006) 

MAF, 2003 N/A No N/A 

Thrips tabaci Lindeman CL, U.S. 

(CABI, 

2006; Prado, 

1991) 

FDF, 2003 N/A No N/A 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 5

Pest Geographic 

distribution2 

Host 

Association

Plant Part 

Association

Quarantine pest 

status 

Follows 

pathway

NEMATODES: Pratylenchidae

Pratylenchus vulnus Allen 

& Jensen 

CL, U.S. 

(CABI, 

2006; Mella 

Pezo, 2004) 

CABI, 2006 Roots (CABI, 

2006; Mella 

Pezo, 2004) 

No No 

FUNGI

Botrytis cinerea Pers.ex Fr. 

(teleomorph:. Botryotinia 

fuckeliana (of Bary) 

Whetzel) (= Sclerotinia 

fuckeliana (de Bary) 

Fuckel)

CL, U.S. 

(CABI, 

2006) 

SAG, 2002b N/A No N/A 

Fusarium sp. CL, U.S. 

(CABI, 

2006; SAG, 

2002b) 

SAG, 2002b Roots (SAG, 

2002b) 

Yes No 

Thanatephorus cucumeris 

(Frank) Donk Syn:

Corticium solani 

[teleomorph]; Rhizoctonia 

solani [anamorph]; 

Pellicularia filamentosa

CL, U.S. 

(CABI, 

2006; Farr et 

al., 2006) 

Farr et al., 

2006 

N/A No N/A 

2.5 Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway 

A review of the literature indicated that very few pests and pathogens are potentially associated 

with A. arguta (Reich, 2005), particularly in Chile. This is not surprising for two reasons. First, 

because A. arguta is not widely cultivated, less is known about it than other more widely 

cultivated species (e.g., A. deliciosa). Second, because A. arguta is not native and relatively new 

to South America, it most likely has not accumulated a large and diverse pest load in its new 

environment. 

We found fifteen pests and pathogens potentially associated with A. arguta in Chile (Table 2). 

We determined that only one of those, Brevipalpus chilensis, was a quarantine-significant pest 

likely to the follow the pathway to the continental United States. Brevipalpus chilensis is likely 

to the follow on commercial fruits of baby kiwi because it would be relatively safe from postharvest processing and detection in the recessed cavity at the distal end of the fruit. 

Consequently, we selected B. chilensis for further analysis. 

2.6 Consequences of Introduction 

The negative impacts resulting from the introduction and establishment of quarantine pests are 

considered in this assessment. The potential Consequences of Introduction are rated using five 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 6

risk elements, which consider the biology, host range and climate/geographic distribution of each 

pest as supported by the literature. For each risk element, the pests are rated: Low (1 point), 

Medium (2 points) or High (3 points). A Cumulative Risk Rating score, considered to be a 

biological indicator of the potential of the pest to establish, spread, and cause economic and 

environmental impacts, is calculated by adding all of the risk element values (Table 3) (USDA, 

2000). Appendix 2 describes in greater detail each of the risk elements and their rating criteria.

Brevipalpus chilensis Baker (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) Risk rating 

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction 

When introduced to new areas, pests often behave as they do in their native 

ranges, if host plants and climate are similar. The wide availability of suitable 

host plants and climatic conditions poses a high potential for pest establishment. 

This risk element considers the number of geographic areas of the United States 

that are climatically suitable based on USDA “Plant Hardiness Zones” (USDANA, 2003). Brevipalpus chilensis is restricted in Chile to Regions III-X (CABI, 

2006; Gonzalez, 1989). The mean minimum annual temperature (Appendix 3) of 

these regions corresponds to three U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones, 9-10 (USDA-NA, 

2003). Because B. chilensis has a wide host range, we estimate it could establish 

in Plant Hardiness Zones 9-10 (USDA-NA, 2003), giving a Medium rating. 

Medium (2) 

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

Brevipalpus chilensis is polyphagous, attacking multiple species across a variety 

of taxa. Known host families and genera include: Actinidiaceae (Actinidia); 

Annonaceae (Annona); Apiaceae (Apium); Apocynaceae (Vinca); Asteraceae 

(Chrysanthemum); Bignoniaceae (Catalpa); Chenopodiaceae (Chenopodium); 

Convolvulaceae (Convolvulus); Ebenaceae (Diospyros); Geraniaceae (Geranium, 

Pelargonium); Grossulariaceae (Ribes); Moraceae (Ficus); Oleaceae 

(Ligustrum); Rosaceae (Cydonia, Malus, Prunus); Rutaceae (Citrus); Solanaceae 

(Cestrum); and Vitaceae (Ampelopsis, Vitis) (CABI, 2006). We rated this risk 

element as High. 

High (3) 

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential 

If the recipient environment is suitable for the establishment of a pest, the pest 

may then spread across the landscape; the greater the dispersal potential of a pest, 

the faster it will impact the recipient system. The spread potential of pest is 

directly related to its reproductive potential, inherent mobility, and dispersal 

ability. Brevipalpus chilensis has high reproductive potential, with four to five 

generations per year (multivoltine) (González, 1958). Its dispersal potential is not 

very high, however, because the Tenuipalpidae family, and mites in general, 

move relatively slowly (Doreste, 1988; Jeppson et al., 1975). Like other mites, B. 

chilensis disperses mainly across adjacent plants. We rated this element as 

Medium. 

Medium (2) 

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact 

Jeppson et al. (1975) and Gallasch et al. (1999) describe B. chilensis as harmful 

on wine grapes. High population levels can result in tissue dehydration (Gallasch

et al., 1999), and B. chilensis distorts and discolors leaves, and causes rachis 

necrosis. New leaves are small and the new shoots are short, giving lower crop 

High (3) 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 7

Brevipalpus chilensis Baker (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) Risk rating 

yields (Pearson and Goheen, 1988). However, despite its polyphagous nature, B. 

chilensis does not appear to cause significant damage to species other than V. 

vinifera. Brevipalpus chilensis has only been detected on A. arguta at specific 

sites, and at low population levels (FDF, 2003). It is not an economically 

important pest for this crop, although it does scar kiwi fruit (CABI, 2006). We 

also found no evidence of economic impact on other hosts, like Citrus spp., or 

cherimoya (Peralta et al., 2002). Chemical applications used for other similar 

mite species could properly control B. chilensis (Anonymous, 1991) if it did 

become economically important (e.g., Childers, 1994; French and Rakha, 1994). 

Because B. chilensis is an important pest for grapes (CABI, 2006) and because it 

is restricted to Chile, many countries would consider this a quarantine pest. Thus, 

although B. chilensis does not appear to significantly damage A. arguta, it could 

impact domestic grape production, and increase U.S. safety measures on grape 

exports. Consequently, this risk element was rated High. 

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact 

Brevipalpus chilensis could attack two Threatened and Endangered species in the 

continental United States that are congeners of current hosts: Ribes echinellum and 

Prunus geniculata (USFWS, 2007). It is unknown if B. chilensis would reduce 

community biodiversity or disrupt ecological processes in natural areas, however, it 

has not been reported as an environmental pest. Introduction of this species is 

unlikely to result in the imposition of new biological or chemical controls, as those 

now targeting mite pests of domestically produced fruits, such as grapes (UC IPM, 

2005), would probably be equally effective against any new mite pest, including B. 

chilensis. Consequently, this risk element was rated Medium.

Medium (2) 

Table 3. Summary of risk ratings for Consequences of Introduction 

Pest Risk elements 

1. Climate/ 

Host 

interaction 

2. Host 

Range 

3. Dispersal 

potential 

4. Economic 

impact 

5. Environ. 

Impact 

Cumulative 

Risk Ratinga

Brevipalpus 

chilensis 

Medium (2) High 

(3) 

Medium (2) High (3) Medium 

(2) 

Medium (12)

a

 5-8 points = Low; 9-12 points = Medium; 13-15 points = High. 

2.7 Likelihood of Introduction 

The likelihood of a pest being introduced and establishing a reproductive population is 

dependent on a series of six independent events: 1) the quantity of the commodity imported, 2) 

the ability of the pest to survive post-harvest treatment and 3) the ability of the pest to survive 

shipment, 4) the probability the pest will not be detected at the port of entry, 5) the likelihood 

that it will be moved to a suitable habitat, and 6) the probability that it will come into contact 

with suitable host material (USDA, 2000). These six elements of the Likelihood of Introduction 

were evaluated below. 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 8

2.7.1: Quantity of product imported annually 

An estimated volume of 15 boxes per year, in two kilogram packets, of baby kiwi fruit, will be 

exported from Chile to the United States. Because this is less than ten 40-foot shipping 

containers a year, this risk sub-element was rated Low. 

2.7.2: Survive post harvest treatment 

Post-harvest treatment refers to any standard handling or specific phytosanitary treatment to 

which a commodity is subjected. This sub-element evaluated the efficacy of post-harvest 

handling to eliminate pests from the pathway. In Chile, baby kiwi are selectively harvested to 

meet export standards. After harvest, the fruit are sorted by size and visually inspected. In this 

process, damaged and low-quality fruit are discarded. Once the fruit are sorted by size, they are 

packed into clamshell-like containers, where they undergo a final damage and weight check for 

each market. The fruit are stored at temperatures ranging from 0o to 0.5oC, and then delivered to 

their destination in containers with 40 trays at 0o C. This process is unlikely to appreciably 

reduce the presence of B. chilensis on fruit, especially because these small mites may hide in the 

cavity at the distal end of the fruit, where the inflorescence was previously located.

Consequently, this sub-element was rated High.

2.7.3: Surviving shipment 

Survival of pests and pathogens during shipment is dependent on several factors, including 

duration of shipment period, ambient conditions during shipment and application of any 

particular mitigation procedures. Because we considered only unmitigated risk in this risk 

assessment, the latter factor is not relevant. Shipments of fresh baby kiwi are cooled at 0°C and 

will take between two to four days to arrive at the United States. Because B. chilensis can 

survive temperatures ranging from 0o to 2oC for a 15 day period (Jadue et al., 1966), they will 

most likely survive shipment to the United States. This is supported by 164 interceptions of live 

B. chilensis at U.S. ports on other commodities3

. Based on this evidence, B. chilensis merited a 

High risk rating for this element. 

2.7.4: Not detected at ports of entry 

The likelihood that a pest will not be detected at a port-of-entry is dependent on several factors 

including pest size, mobility, and degree of concealment. No specific protocols have been 

developed for the standard inspection of baby kiwi at ports of entry4. In general, internal pests of 

fruits are highly likely to escape detection, while externally feeding pests are less likely. Even 

though port interception records show that B. chilensis can be detected (PestID, 2007), it is 

reasonable to assume that many contaminated consignments are passing undetected. Brevipalpus 

chilensis is a small arthropod, with a body measuring 320-340 μm (less than 1 mm, CABI, 

2006). These pests could be readily missed, especially if they are hiding in cavity left behind by 

the flower. Consequently, this pest is rated High for this risk element. 

 

3

 From 1985 to today (PestID, 2007) 

4

 In Chile, the United States Department of Agriculture is using a method known as “dragging wash” to inspect kiwi 

fruit (Actinidia chinensis) prior to import into the U.S. for the presence of B. chilensis. This technique is used for 

Chilean inspections, but is not a routine inspection method at U.S. ports of entry. 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 9

2.7.5: Imported or Moved Subsequently to an Area with an Environment Suitable for 

Survival 

The likelihood a pest will be moved to an area with a suitable environment for survival is 

dependent on the potential distribution of markets for the host commodity throughout the country 

and the presence of suitable habitats for the pest/pathogen. Fruit arriving at U.S. ports does not 

arrive at one port, but is distributed according to market demand. Three of the four more 

populated U.S. states (California, Florida, and Texas) are located in the southern part of the 

country (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006), where climatic conditions are conducive for survival of B. 

chilensis (USDA-NA, 2003). These three states represent about 25 percent of the total U.S. 

population. If it is assumed that baby kiwi would be proportionally distributed across the U.S., 

according to the population, the score for this pest sub-element would be High.

2.7.6: Contact with Host Material Suitable for Reproduction

Even if the final destination of infested commodities is suitable for pest survival, pests must still 

come in contact with suitable host material. This process is dependent on two main factors, the 

pest’s potential for dispersal, and the presence of host material in the region (IPPC, 2004). While 

B. chilensis has a wide taxonomic host range, the actual number of hosts is relatively small 

(CABI, 2006). Three suitable host genera include Convolvulus, Vitis and Ribes, which are widely 

distributed and common genera (USDA-NRCS, 2007). Brevipalpus chilensis is a very small 

arthropod with limited natural dispersal ability. Spread occurs mainly through plant to plant 

contact, although humans can facilitate spread. This small arthropod is unlikely to disperse to 

suitable host material, particularly when it would be imported on fruit for consumption. 

Therefore, this sub-element was rated Low. 

2.7.8. Cumulative Risk Rating 

A Cumulative Risk Rating for the Likelihood of Introduction was obtained by summing the six 

sub-elements together. Overall, B. chilensis has a Medium likelihood of being introduced into 

the United States and encountering a suitable host. 

Table 4. Summary of Risk Ratings for Likelihood of Introduction 

Pest Quantity 

imported 

annually 

Survive 

postharvest 

treatment 

Survive 

shipment 

Not detected 

at port of 

entry 

Moved to 

suitable 

habitat 

Contact 

with host 

material 

Cumulative 

Risk Ratinga 

Brevipalpus 

chilensis 

Low (1) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) Low (1) Medium (14)

a

 6–9 points = Low; 10–14 points = Medium; 15–18 points = High 

2.8 Conclusion: Pest Risk Potential 

Pest Risk Potential is an estimation of the risk associated with importation in the absence of 

mitigation. The overall Risk Potential of a pest is the summation of the Consequences of 

Introduction and Likelihood of Introduction values for that pest. According to the Guidelines for 

Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (USDA, 2000), port of entry inspection 

provides sufficient phytosanitary security for pests assigned Low pest risk potentials, while 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 10

specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary for Medium pest risk potentials and are 

strongly recommended for High pest risk potentials. With a Consequence of Introduction score 

of 12 and a Likelihood of Introduction score of 14, the overall Pest Risk Potential for 

Brevipalpus chilensis is Medium (Table 5). A list of potential risk mitigation options are 

described below. 

Table 5. Pest Risk Potential 

Pest Consequences of 

Introduction 

Likelihood of 

Introduction 

Cumulative Risk 

Ratinga 

Brevipalpus chilensis Medium (12) Medium (14) Medium (26) 

a

 11-18 points = Low; 19-26 points = Medium; 27-33 points = High 

3. Risk Mitigation Options 

3.1 Introduction 

This pest risk analysis for baby kiwi (Actinidia arguta) from Chile identified one quarantine pest 

likely to follow the pathway to the continental United States (Table 3). Further analysis revealed 

this pest poses a Medium risk potential to the United States (Table 5). Other than standard postharvest washing and culling, this risk assessment evaluated pest risk on the assumption that baby 

kiwi would not receive any special phytosanitary treatments to reduce pest risk (i.e., unmitigated 

risk). 

According to the International Plant Protection Convention, countries have the right to use risk 

mitigation strategies that minimize pest risks to a scientifically justified level (Article VII; IPPC, 

1997). The appropriate level of protection for an imported commodity can be achieved by the 

application of a single phytosanitary measure, such as inspection or a quarantine treatment, or a 

combination of measures through a systems approach (IPPC, 2002). While developing mitigation 

strategies, it is important to understand that risk can never be eliminated, but it can be reduced 

and managed. Selection of the appropriate risk management5

 options must consider not only the 

efficacy of the various risk management strategies, but also the potential impact that such 

strategies would have on the importing and exporting countries. Risk management strategies 

must also minimize impacts on the international movement of people, commodities and 

conveyances (IPPC, 2007). IPPC standards outline two steps in risk management: 1) 

identification of risk management options and 2) analysis of the efficacy and impact of the 

different options (IPPC, 2007). This appendix provides the first step in risk management, i.e., the 

identification of phytosanitary options. 

3.2 Phytosanitary Options 

There are many types of risk mitigation procedures that may be used to minimize the risk of the 

establishment of quarantine pests in the importing country. Specific mitigations may be selected 

from a range of pre-harvest and post-harvest options, or from other safeguarding measures such 

 

5 Pest risk management is the “evaluation and selection of options to reduce the risk of introduction and spread of a 

pest.” (IPPC, 2006). 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 11

detection and certification. In cases where the number and diversity of quarantine pests are 

particularly high or where a particular mitigation strategy alone can not reduce pest risk to an 

acceptable level, a systems approach may be more appropriate. A systems approach to pest risk 

management integrates two or more independent mitigation options to cumulatively reduce pest 

risk to an acceptable level (IPPC, 2002). Combining specific mitigation measures in a way that 

provides overlapping or sequential safeguards is distinctly different from applying single 

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

measures may be added or the strength of measures increased to compensate for uncertainty and 

changing pest dynamics. While the quantification of the effectiveness of each measure may not 

be practical in all cases, the aim is to ensure that the overall effectiveness of the combined 

components reduces pest risk to an acceptable level (IPPC, 2002). 

Pest risk assessment of fresh baby kiwi fruit (Actinidia arguta) from Chile identified Brevipalpus 

chilensis as a quarantine pest likely to follow the pathway. A few treatments have already been 

developed to kill or mitigate against B. chilensis on other commodities such as table grapes and 

citrus (USDA-APHIS, 2006); however, it is unknown how effective these treatments would be 

on fresh baby kiwi and whether the treatments would adversely affect the fruit. Below, several 

mitigation options are listed that may be effective at eliminating B. chilensis from the pathway. 

3.2.1. Inspection and Phytosanitary Certification

Either before harvest or right after, a random sample of fruit can be carefully inspected to ensure 

detection of infected fields or lots, usually for some minimum infestation level. Statistical 

procedures are available to verify, to a specified confidence level, the pest-free status of an area, 

given negative survey or trapping results (e.g., Barclay and Hargrove, 2005; Culliney, 2003). 

The commodity must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate from the national plant 

protection organization of the exporting country. In general, certification is effective in that it 

provides additional oversight in safeguarding. 

3.2.2. Pest Free Sites of Production 

A pest free area/production-site is a place “in which a specific pest does not occur as 

demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being 

officially maintained for a defined period.” (IPPC, 1999). Such a measure provides the importing 

country with some assurance that the commodity will be free from the pest. Maintenance of pest 

free areas and/or pest free sites of production is a mitigation option recognized the by the IPPC 

(IPPC, 1999). Because B. chilensis is widely distributed throughout Chile (Regions III-X; 

Gonzalez, 1989) in areas where baby kiwi is grown (Appendix 1), pest free sites of production 

(vs. pest free areas) would need to be established. While the limited dispersal capability of mites 

(Doreste, 1988; Jeppson et al., 1975) favors the maintenance of a pest free place of production, 

their minute size makes it more difficult to determine their presence, especially at low population 

numbers. 

3.2.3. Suppression / Control / Prevention 

To minimize the risk of importing B. chilensis into the United States, mitigative measures that 

maintain low population sizes of mites would reduce the likelihood that mites would be 

imported. For example, some pesticides have been identified as providing some control over 

populations of B. chilensis (e.g., Gonzalez, 1983; Herrera Villamil, 1958). Instead of or in 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 12

addition to pesticides, predatory mites could also be used to exert some population control over 

B. chilensis (Vargas et al., 2005); see Gonzalez (1983) for a discussion of how to use an 

acaricide in combination with a beneficial mite. 

3.2.4. Post-harvest Treatment. 

USDA’s Plant Protection and Quarantine has approved a soapy water/wax treatment (T 102-b) 

for B. chilensis on three different fruit commodities imported from Chile (cherimoya, limes and 

passion fruit) (USDA-APHIS, 2006). While this may be an effective treatment for removing 

mites from the fruit surface, mites may survive the treatment if they are located in the recessed 

cavity at the distal end of baby kiwi fruit, where the inflorescence was located. Therefore, testing 

is required to further evaluate the efficacy of this particular treatment. 

3.2.5. Quarantine Treatments 

Methyl bromide fumigation. Methyl bromide (CH3Br) is a colorless, odorless fumigant with 

relatively low solubility in water (USDA-APHIS, 2006). As a fumigant, it is very effective at 

treating a wide variety of pests on a variety of hosts. It can also be used to devitalize plants at 

higher concentrations. Methyl bromide fumigation involves exposing the commodity to the 

fumigant in a somewhat enclosed space over a relatively short period of time (e.g., a few hours). 

Following treatment, sufficient time is given to allow the fumigant to diffuse from the 

commodity. APHIS has already developed and approved a methyl bromide treatment schedule 

for B. chilensis on Chilean lemons and limes (T 101-n-2-1); however, it is unknown how A. 

arguta would respond to this treatment, especially if it is heated simultaneously (USDA-APHIS, 

2006). 

Irradiation. Irradiation consists of exposing the commodity to gamma-emitting isotopes such as 

Cobalt-60 or Cesium-137, or to electron beams produced by linear accelerators (USDA-APHIS, 

1997). Irradiation has been demonstrated to be effective in killing or devitalizing organisms, and 

yet pose no significant danger to human health or the environment (USDA-APHIS, 1997). A 

dose of 300 Gy irradiation is already approved for use on B. chilensis (USDA-APHIS, 2006), 

however, it is unknown how baby kiwi fruit will respond to irradiation. 

Table 6. Mitigation Options for Brevipalpus chilensis on Baby Kiwi (Actinidia arguta) from 

Chile. 

Mitigation Option Efficacy 

Inspection & Monitoring and Phytosanitary Certification 

Foreign inspection & 

monitoring 

Inspection and monitoring at production sites and packing houses can 

safeguard against all pests. Commodity must be accompanied by a 

phytosanitary certificate from the national plant protection organization 

of the exporting country. 

Phytosanitary 

Certification 

Certification is effective in that it provides additional oversight in 

safeguarding. 

Pest Freedom and Areas of Low Pest Prevalence 

Pest free areas Not feasible given the wide distribution of B. chilensis in Chile. 

Pest free production May be feasible with appropriate monitoring and mitigation measures. 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 13

Mitigation Option Efficacy 

sites or places of 

production 

Suppression / Control / Prevention 

Pesticides Some pesticides have been identified as providing some control over 

populations of B. chilensis; however, efficacy would need to be 

monitored on a regularly basis. 

Post-Harvest Safeguards and Packinghouse Procedures 

Soapy water / was 

treatment 

While, PPQ has approved a soapy water/wax treatment (T 102-b) for B. 

chilensis on three different fruit commodities imported from Chile 

(USDA-APHIS, 2006), this treatment may be ineffective on baby kiwi 

due to fruit morphology. Testing is required to further evaluate the 

efficacy of this particular treatment. 

Quarantine Treatments 

Methyl Bromide APHIS has already developed and approved a methyl bromide 

treatment schedule for B. chilensis on other commodities (T 101-n-2-

1); however, it is unknown how A. arguta would respond to this 

treatment, particularly if it is heated simultaneously (USDA-APHIS, 

2006). 

Irradiation While a dose of 300 Gy irradiation is already approved for use on B. 

chilensis (USDA-APHIS, 2006), it is unknown how baby kiwi fruit 

will respond to irradiation. 

3.3 Conclusions 

We identified several possible risk mitigation options for B. chilensis on baby kiwi, A. arguta. 

The choice of the appropriate option or combination of options will be based on this information 

and in consultation with the exporting country. In this document we identified the risks 

associated with importing baby kiwi from Chile and identified some possible risk mitigation 

options. The specification and implementation of phytosanitary measures, as would be present in 

an operational work plan, is beyond the scope of this document. 

4. Authors and Reviewers 

Prepared by: 

David Castro, Agricultural Engineer, Foundation for the Fruit Development 

Jimena López, Agricultural Engineer, Association of Exporters of Chile 

Marcela Triviño, Agricultural Engineer, Association of Exporters of Chile 

Juan Carlos Quichavil, Bachelor of Agronomy 

Adrián Wagner, Agricultural Engineer, Foundation for the Fruit Development 

Reviewed by (in alphabetical order): 

Rina Acuña, Agricultural Engineer, Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero 

Anthony L. Koop, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST-PERAL 

Kenneth Lakin, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST-PERAL 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 14

Ron Sequeira, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST 

Carlota Vergara, Agricultural Engineer, Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero 

5. Literature Cited 

7 CFR § 360. 2005. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 360, (7 CFR §360 - Noxious 

Weed Regulations). United States Government. 

Anonymous. 1991. Integrated Pest Management for Citrus (2nd edition). University of 

California, CA, U.S.A. 144 pp. 

Barclay, H. J., and J. W. Hargrove. 2005. Probability models to facilitate a declaration of pestfree status, with special reference to tsetse (Diptera: Glossinidae). Bulletin of 

Entomological Research 95(1):1-11. 

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

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

Laboratory (SEL). http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm. (Archived at 

PERAL). 

Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 2007. ScaleNet. United States Department of 

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

Laboratory (SEL). http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm. (Archived at 

PERAL). 

Blackman, R. L., and V. F. Eastop. 2000. Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and 

Information Guide. Wiley, Chichester, United Kingdom. 466 pp. 

CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, UK. 

Childers, C. C. 1994. Feeding injury to 'Robinson' tangerine leaves by Brevipalpus mites (Acari: 

Tenuipalpidae) in Florida and evaluation of chemical control on citrus. Florida 

Entomologist 77:265-271. 

Culliney, T. W. 2003. Survey for parasitic honey bee mites in Hawaii (Acariformes: 

Tarsonemidae; Parasitiformes: Laelapidae, Varroidae). Proceedings of the Hawaiian 

Entomological Society 36:103-109. 

Doreste, E. 1988. Acarologia. Instituto Internacional de Cooperacion para la Agricultura (IICA), 

San Jose, Costa Rica. 410 pp. 

Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and E. B. McCray. 2006. Fungal Databases. Systematic 

Botany & Mycology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/. 

(Archived at PERAL). 

FDF. 2003. Foundation for fruit development: Prospeccion de plagas en frutos para Actinidia 

arguta. Chilean Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG), Chile. 

French, J., and M. Rakha. 1994. False spider mite damage and control on Texas citrus. 

Subtropical Plant Science 46:16-19. 

Gallasch, P., J. Ortuzar, and C. Anderson. 1999. The Chilean citrus industry. SARDI Research 

Report Series No. 52. South Australian Research and Development Institute, Adelaide, 

Australia. 51 pp. 

Gonzalez, R. H. 1983. The false grape mite Brevipalpus chilensis Baker (Acarina, 

Tenuipalpidae). Revista Fruticola 4(2):61-65. 

Gonzalez, R. H. 1989. Insectos y Acaros de Importancia Agricola y Cuarentenaria en Chile 

[Insects and Mites of Agricultural and Quarantine Importance in Chile]. Universidad de 

Chile, Santiago, Chile. 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 15

González, R. H. 1958. Biología y control de la falsa arañita de la vid Brevipalpus chilensis Baker 

(Acarina: Phytoptipalpidae) (Technical Bulletin No 1 Agronomical Experimental Station). 

Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 31 pp. 

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

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

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

Herrera Villamil, G. 1958. Bionomics and control of the false spider mite of vines (B. chilensis). 

Agricultura Tecnica 28(1):35-42. 

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

and Distribution. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 1129 pp. 

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

World Weeds. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, U.S.A. 391 pp. 

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

Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, U.S.A. 

69 pp. 

IPPC. 1997. 1997 - International Plant Protection Convention (New Revised Text). IPPC & Food 

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 28 pp. 

IPPC. 1999. International standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM #10): Requirements for 

the establishment of pest free places of production and pest free production sites. 

International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) & Food and Agriculture Organization 

of the United Nations, Rome. 10 pp. 

IPPC. 2002. International standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM#14): The use of 

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

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

Nations, Rome. 21 pp. 

IPPC. 2004. International standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM#11): Pest risk analysis for 

quarantine pests, including analysis of environmental risks and living modified 

organisms. International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) & Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 41 pp. 

IPPC. 2006. International standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM#5): Glossary of 

phytosanitary terms. International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) & Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 23 pp. 

IPPC. 2007. International standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM#2): Framework for pest 

risk analysis. International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) & the Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 15 pp. 

Jadue, Y., C. Vargas, T. Rubio, and J. E. Araya. 1966. Effects of cold stroage on the false grape 

mite, Brevipalpus chilensis Baker. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection 103:403-408. 

Jeppson, L. R., H. H. Keifer, and E. W. Baker. 1975. Mites injurious to economic plants. 

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A. 614 pp. 

KiwiKorners. 2006. Kiwiberry.com. Kiwi Korners, Danville, PA, U.S.A. Last accessed June 9, 

2006, http://www.kiwiberry.com/index.html. 

MAF. 2003. New organism records: 21/06/03 – 08/08/03. Biosecurity (46):1-24. Last accessed 

May 22, 2007, http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/publications/biosecurity-magazine/2003. 

Mauchline, N. A., and M. G. Hill. 2005. Settlement of armoured scale insects on fruit of 

commercial Actinidia spp. [Abstract]. Pages 294-298 in S. M. Zydenbos, (ed.). 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 16

Proceedings of the New Zealand Plant Protection Conference Vol. 58. Rotorua New 

Zealand: New Zealand Plant Protection Society., Wellington, New Zealand. 

MBG. 2006. Kemper Center for home gardening: Actinidia arguta. Missouri Botanical Garden 

(MBG), St. Louis, MO, U.S.A. Last accessed June 6, 2006, 

http://www.mobot.org/gardeninghelp/plantfinder/Plant.asp?code=R320. 

Mella Pezo, P. I. 2004. Evaluacion de la resistencia a nematodos Meloidogyne spp. y 

Pratylenchus spp. en nuevos protainjertos para duraznero. Ingeniero Agrónomo, 

Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Facultad de Agronomía e Ingeniería Forestal, 

Departamento de Fruticultura y Enología, Chile. 

NAPPO. 2004. NAPPO regional standards for phytosanitary measures: RSPM#5: NAPPO 

glossary of phytosanitary terms. North American Plant Protection Organization 

(NAPPO), Ottawa, Canada. 9 pp. 

Page, S., and M. Olds (eds.). 2001. The Plant Book: The World of Plants in a Single Volume. 

Mynah, Hong Kong. 1020 pp. 

Pearson, R. C., and A. C. Goheen (eds.). 1988. Compendium of Grape Diseases. The American 

Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A. 93 pp. 

Peralta, L., V. Irribarra, and J. Farias. 2002. Observaciones de la biologia de Brevipalpus 

chilensis Baker, (AC. Tenuipalpidae) en huertos de Kiwi (Actinidia decliciosa (Chv.) 

Liang & Ferguson). 

PestID. 2007. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture - 

Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. 

(Archived at PERAL). 

Prado, E. C. 1991. Arthropodos y sus enemigos naturlaes asociados a plantas cultivadas en Chile 

(Boletin Tecnico No. 169.). Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA), Santiago, 

Chile. 

Randall, R. P. 2007. A Global Compendium of Weeds, Online Database. Department of 

Agriculture of Western Australia. http://www.hear.org/gcw/. (Archived at PERAL). 

Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically Important Foreign Weeds. Agricultural Research Service, 

United States Department of Agriculture., U.S.A. 746 pp. 

Reich, L. 2005. Hardy kiwifruit: Emerald gems. Berry Notes 17(1):9-11. 

Roman, J. 2007. Chile: Pomegranate, baby kiwi and fig. Personal communication to A. L. Koop 

on June 14, 2007, from Juan Roman, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations 

(CIAO). 

SAG. 2002a. Pest interception in shipment ports. Chilean Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG), 

Chile. 

SAG. 2002b. Phytosanitary laboratory surveilance reports. Chilean Servicio Agrícola y 

Ganadero (SAG), Chile. 

SAG. 2004. Pest risk assessment for baby kiwi (Actinidia arguta) fresh fruits entry from Chile 

into the United States [DRAFT]. Chilean Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG), Chile. 

Skinner, K., L. Smith, and P. Rice. 2005. Noxious Weeds in the US and Canada, Online 

Database. University of Montana. http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/Noxious_Weeds/. 

(Archived at PERAL). 

Swearingen, J. 2005. Alien plant invaders of natural areas. National Park Service. Last accessed 

May 2, 2005, http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/list/all.htm. 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 17

UC IPM. 2005. UC IPM Online: Pest Management Guidelines. Statewide IPM Program, 

Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California. Last accessed January 5, 

2005, http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/crops-agriculture.html. 

U. S. Census Bureau. 2006. U.S. population. U. S. Census Bureau. Last accessed June 21, 2007, 

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. 

USDA-APHIS. 1997. Irradiation for phytosanitary regulatory treatment: Environmental 

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

and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 12 pp. 

USDA-APHIS. 2006. Treatment manual (v. June 19, 2006). United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Washington, 

D.C. 

USDA-ARS. 2006. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN), Online Database. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), 

Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory. http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgibin/npgs/html/paper.pl. (Archived at PERAL). 

USDA-FS. 2006. Eastern region invasive plants, ranked by degree of invasiveness as based on 

information from States. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest 

Service (FS), Milwaukee, WI, U.S.A. Last accessed June 6, 2006, 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/range/weed/?open=Sec3B.htm. 

USDA-NA. 2003. The 2003 US National Arboretum "web version" of the USDA Plant 

Hardiness Zone Map. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National 

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

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

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

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

http://plants.usda.gov/java/index.html. (Archived at PERAL). 

USDA-NRCS. 2007. The PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

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

http://plants.usda.gov/cgi_bin/. (Archived at PERAL). 

USDA. 2000. Guidelines for pathway-initiated pest risk assessments (v. 5.02). Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Last accessed 

November 18, 2004, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/. 

USFWS. 2007. Threatened and endangered animals and pants. United Stated Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS). Last accessed January 3, 2007, 

http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html#Species. 

Vargas, M. R., P. N. Olivares, and O. A. Cardemil. 2005. Postembryonic development and life 

table parameters of Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten, Cydnodromus californicus (McGregor) 

(Acarina: Phytoseiidae) and Brevipalpus chilensis Baker (Acarina: Tenuipalpidae) 

[Abstract]. Agricultura Tecnica 65(2):147-156. 

Weber, E. 2003. Invasive Plant Species of the World: A Reference Guide to Environmental 

Weeds. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. 548 pp. 

WSSA. 2005. Weed List. Weed Science Society of America. Last accessed February 24, 2005, 

http://www.wssa.net/weednames/common.asp. 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 18

6. Appendices 

6.1 Appendix 1: Baby Kiwi Production and Export in Chile 

Figure A1. Administrative Regions in Chile. 

Obtained from: Klein Koch, C., and D. F. 

Waterhouse. 2000. The distribution and 

importance of arthropods associated with 

agriculture and forestry in Chile 

(Distribucion e importancia de los 

artropodos asociados a la agricultura y 

silvicultura en Chile). Australian Centre 

for International Agricultural Research 

(ACIAR), Canberra, Australia. 234 pp. 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 19

Table A1. Surface Area Planted with Baby Kiwi (hectares). 

Commodity Area by region (ha) 

Regions: III IV V (1999) RM (2000) VI (1999) VII VIII 

Actinidia arguta 3.5 3.5 5.0 

Source: National Fruit Cadastre – CIREN. 

Table A2. Baby Kiwi Exports (tons) by Destination / Region (2001-2002). 

Commodity Exports (tons) 

Far East Europe Canada Total

Actinidia arguta 0.09 1.70 0.47 2.26

Source: Servicio Agricola y Ganadero. 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 20

6.2 Appendix 2: Description of Risk Elements and Rating Criteria 

Risk Element #1- Climate-Host Interactions

If a species encounters suitable climate and hosts in the area where it is introduced, the organism 

may survive and achieve pest status in the new environment. This risk element is evaluated on 

the minimum number of USDA “Plant Hardiness Zones” in which the species might achieve pest 

status (USDA, 2000). Risk ratings are based on the following criteria: 

Low (1): the species is only likely to become established in one hardiness zone 

Medium (2): the species is likely to become established in two or three hardiness zones 

High (3): the species is likely to become established in four or more hardiness zones 

Risk Element #2- Host Range 

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

and its potential to injure plants. For arthropods, risk is assumed to be positively correlated with 

host range. For pathogens, risk is assumed to depend on host range, aggressiveness, virulence 

and pathogenicity; for simplicity, risk is rated as a function of host range: 

Low (1): pest attacks a single species or multiple species within a single genus 

Medium (2): pest attacks multiple species within a single plant family 

High (3): pest attacks multiple species among multiple plant families 

Risk Element #3-Dispersal Potential 

A pest may disperse after arriving in a new area. The following items are considered for 

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

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

Low (1): pest has neither high reproductive potential nor rapid dispersal capability 

Medium (2): pest has either high reproductive potential OR the species is capable of rapid 

dispersal 

High (3): pest has high biotic potential, e.g., many generations per year, many offspring per 

reproduction (“r-selected” species), AND evidence exists that the pest is capable of rapid 

dispersal, e.g., over 10km/year under its own power; via natural forces, wind, water, 

vectors, etc., or human-assistance. 

Risk Element #4-Economic Impact 

Introduced pests can cause a variety of direct and indirect economic impacts. These impacts are 

divided into three primary categories (other types of impacts may occur): lower yield of the host 

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

commodity, e.g., by increasing costs of production, lowering market price, or a combination; and 

loss of foreign or domestic markets due to the presence of a new quarantine pest. 

Low (1): pest causes any one or none of the above impacts 

Medium (2): pest causes any two of the above impacts 

High (3): pest causes all three of the above impacts 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 21

Risk Element #5- Environmental Impact 

A pest may cause significant, direct consequences to the environment, e.g., cause an ecological 

disaster or reduce biodiversity. In the context of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

(7CFR§372), significance is qualitative and encompasses the likelihood and severity of an 

environmental impact. The act describes an environmental pest as: “expected to have direct 

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

§17.12), by infesting/infecting a listed plant. If the pest attacks other species within the genus or 

other genera within the family, and preference/no preference tests have not been conducted with 

the listed plant and the pest, then the plant is assumed to be a host; pest is expected to have 

indirect impacts on species listed by Federal Agencies as endangered or threatened by disrupting 

sensitive, critical habitat; introduction of the pest would stimulate chemical or biological control 

programs.” 

Low (1): none of the above would occur 

Medium (2): one of the above would occur 

High (3): two or more of the above would occur. 
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 22

6.3 Appendix 3: Mean Monthly Temperature and Mean Absolute Minimum Temperature 

for Representative Chilean Cities and Regions 

Table A3. Temperature 

Locality Region

E F M A M J J A S O N D ° C ° F

Arica

Lat. 18 ° 28' S and Long. 70° 02' W I 17,8 18,2 16,9 15,4 14,5 13,8 13,1 13,2 14,0 14,5 15,3 16,4 15,26 59,47

Iquique

Lat. 29 ° 54' S and Long. 71° 15' W I 16,8 16,6 15,6 14,3 13,7 13,1 12,5 12,6 13,2 13,8 14,8 15,8 14,40 57,92

Copiapó

Lat. 27 ° 21' S and Long. 70° 21' W III 15,5 15,7 13,8 11,8 8,7 7,0 6,5 8,0 9,2 11,9 13,0 13,6 11,23 52,21

La Serena

Lat. 29 ° 54' S and Long. 71° 15' W IV 13,5 12,8 11,8 9,9 8,8 7,7 7,0 7,3 8,1 9,1 10,7 11,3 9,83 49,70

Ovalle

Lat. 30 ° 03' S and Long. 71° 01' W IV 13,2 13,1 11,2 9,2 7,7 6,6 6,3 6,8 7,8 8,7 10,0 11,7 9,36 48,85

La Ligua

Lat. 32 ° 27' S and Long. 71° 16 ' W V 11,0 9,5 8,5 7,5 5,0 4,6 4,5 6,0 6,5 7,0 7,0 8,0 7,09 44,77

Quillota

Lat. 32 ° 43' S and Long. 71° 16 ' W V 11,5 11,2 9,8 8,1 7,4 5,8 5,5 5,8 6,9 8,2 9,1 10,7 8,33 47,00

Santiago

Lat. 33° 34' S and Long. 70 ° 38 ' W RM 10,3 9,5 8,3 5,7 4,8 3,0 2,8 3,1 4,2 6,0 7,8 9,7 6,27 43,28

Rengo

Lat. 34° 24' S and Long. 70° 52 ' W VI 11,4 10,1 7,7 4,9 5,7 4,1 2,9 3,9 4,2 6,6 8,4 10,4 6,69 44,05

Talca

Lat. 35° 26' S and Long. 71° 40 ' W VII 12,6 11,8 9,8 7,1 5,6 4,2 3,8 4,0 5,3 7,4 9,5 11,3 7,70 45,86

Chillan

Lat. 36° 34' S and Long. 72° 06' W VIII 12,6 11,5 9,6 7,3 6,6 4,8 3,5 4,1 5,1 6,7 8,7 10,7 7,60 45,68

Angol

Lat. 37° 47' S and Long. 72° 42' W IX 10,9 10,6 9,0 6,7 5,3 4,3 4,4 4,0 5,0 6,9 8,1 8,7 6,99 44,59

Remehue

Lat. 40° 35' S and Long. 73° 09' W X 8,6 7,7 7,0 5,6 5,9 3,2 3,8 3,6 3,6 4,9 6,0 7,7 5,63 42,14

Puerto Aysen

Lat. 45° 24' S and Long. 72° 42' W XI 9,9 9,4 7,8 6,1 4,1 2,4 2,5 2,1 3,8 5,5 7,0 8,3 5,74 42,34

Punta Arenas

Lat. 53° 10' S and Long. 70° 54' W XII 7,1 6,7 5,4 3,8 1,9 0,3 -0,3 0,5 1,6 3,4 4,5 6,1 3,42 38,15

Source: Novoa et al. 1989. Agroclimatic Map of Chile. Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias. 

Months Yaer Average
Baby kiwi from Chile 

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 23

Table A4. Monthly Absolute Minimum Temperatures of Chilean Cities 

Locality Region

EFMAM J J A SON D ° C ° F

Arica

Lat. 18 ° 28' S and Long. 70° 02' W I 11,0 12,0 11,5 10,2 8,3 8,5 5,2 6,5 8,0 9,0 10,5 11,0 5,2 41,36

Iquique

Lat. 29 ° 54' S and Long. 71° 15' W I 13,0 12,0 9,0 8,4 9,0 9,6 8,1 8,0 9,0 10,0 11,2 11,5 8,0 46,40

Caldera

Lat. 27 ° 03' S and Long. 70° 51' W III 11,4 11,4 10,0 4,8 6,0 4,0 2,8 3,0 4,0 6,3 6,5 9,0 2,8 37,04

Ovalle

Lat. 30 ° 03' S and Long. 71° 01' W IV 9,4 9,3 7,5 6,1 3,7 2,0 1,5 1,8 2,9 4,0 6,4 8,3 1,5 34,70

Quillota

Lat. 32 ° 43' S and Long. 71° 16 ' W V 8,4 7,8 5,3 3,6 2,7 0,9 0,4 0,1 2,4 3,3 5,2 6,7 0,1 32,18

Santiago

Lat. 33° 34' S and Long. 70 ° 38 ' W RM 7,1 6,2 3,8 1,5 0,0 -1,8 -2,5 -2,1 -0,8 0,6 3,6 5,4 -2,5 27,50

Rengo

Lat. 34° 24' S and Long. 70° 52 ' W VI 10,2 6,7 5,6 0,6 -1,0 -3,0 -3,2 -0,6 -1,1 1,6 2,2 6,7 -3,2 26,24

Talca

Lat. 35° 26' S andc Long. 71° 40 ' VII 9,7 8,7 5,7 2,0 -0,9 -1,9 -2,0 -1,8 1,8 2,6 5,7 9,1 -2,0 28,40

Chillan

Lat. 36° 34' S and Long. 72° 06' W VIII 7,0 5,1 2,5 -0,4 -2,3 -2,0 -3,6 -2,4 -1,5 0,3 3,5 4,1 -3,6 25,52

Angol

Lat. 37° 47' S and Long. 72° 42' W IX 6,4 5,5 2,8 0,4 -2,0 -2,3 -2,3 -2,6 -0,5 0,6 1,9 3,7 -2,6 27,32

Remehue

Lat. 40° 35' S and Long. 73° 09' W X 2,4 2,4 0,3 -1,7 -1,3 -4,2 -3,5 -2,8 -2,6 -1,0 0,0 1,8 -4,2 24,44

Chile Chico

Lat. 46° 36' S and Long. 71° 43' W XI 5,5 5,2 3,2 -0,9 -4,4 -8,0 -6,9 -5,5 -3,4 -0,5 3,4 5,6 -8,0 17,60

Punta Arenas

Lat. 53° 10' S and Long. 70° 54' W XII 2,0 0,8 -1,0 -3,2 -5,0 -6,4 -9,3 -6,5 -6,0 -2,5 -2,5 -0,2 -9,3 15,26

Source: Novoa et al. 1989. Analityc Map of Chile. Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias. 

Months Year minimum