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-in itiated 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 27606Baby 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 brom ide fumigation, irradiation, and a soapy water/wax treatment have already been a pproved by USDA APHIS PPQ for use on B. chilensis . However, it is unknown how effective these treatments w ould 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: Identi fication of Quarantine Pests an d 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 Absolu te Minimum Temperature for Representative Chilean Cities and Regions....................................................................... 22Baby kiwi from Chile

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 1 1. Introduction

A first draft of this pest risk assessment wa s prepared by the Chilean Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG), and the Association of Exporte rs 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 carri ed out by the Fruit Development Foundation (FDF). Following completion of this documen t by Chile, this PRA was reviewed and significantly updated by staff at the Pest Epidem iology 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 ri sks associated with the importation of fresh baby kiwi fruit, Actinidia arguta , into the continental United States from Chile 1 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 w ith 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 assess ment 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 Qual itative Assessments, Version 5.02 (USDA, 2000).

International plant protection organizations, su ch as the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) and the International Plant Protectio n Convention (IPPC) provide standards for conducting pest risk analyses. The methods we used to ini tiate, 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 I PPC standards describe three stages of pest risk analysis: 1) Initiatio n; 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 fru it 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 concen trated 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, howev er, 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 wa s 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 requirement s. Entry of this commodity into the United States presents a potential pathway for the introd uction of plant pests. Title 7, Part 319, Section 56 of the United States Code of Federal Regula tions (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 St ates 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 c onducted because the analysis did not indicate that the commodity ha d 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, actin idier, 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 be en introduced to the United States, is under cultivation, and has escaped or naturali zed 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 re ference 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 cultivati on 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 (Agricultura l Quarantine Activity Systems) of all the interceptions of pests and pathogens on commod ities entering the United States. The database includes interceptions on permit cargo, general cargo, ship’s quar ters, ship’s holds, passenger baggage, ship stores, mail, and other pathways. Th is database was examined to determine which pests and pathogens have been intercepted on Actinidia arguta fruit. According to the database, no pests have been intercepte d on this species between 1985 a nd 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 Quar antine Pests and Quaran tine 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 th rough commercial baby kiwi shipments.

A quarantine pest is defined as “a pest of pot ential 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 sh ipping procedures. The possibility that a quarantine pe st following the pathway could establish and spread throughout the United States depends on the presence of a ppropriate climatic a nd 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 Geographicdistribution 2 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 Geographicdistribution 2 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/ABaby kiwi from Chile

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 5 Pest Geographicdistribution 2 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 literatu re 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 accumula ted 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 recesse d 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 fr om the introduction and establis hment of quarantine pests are considered in this assessment. The potential Co nsequences of Introduction are rated using fiveBaby kiwi from Chile

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 6 risk elements, which consider the biology, host ra nge and climate/geographi c 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 Cumula tive Risk Rating score, considered to be a biological indicator of the poten tial of the pest to establis h, 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 a nd their rating criteria.

Brevipalpus chilensis Baker (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) Risk rating Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction When introduced to new areas, pests of ten behave as they do in their native ranges, if host plants and climate are si milar. 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 multip le species across a variety of taxa. Known host families a nd 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 sy stem. The spread potential of pest is directly related to its reproductive pote ntial, inherent mobility, and dispersal ability. Brevipalpus chilensis has high reproductive poten tial, with four to five generations per year (multivoltine) (Gonzál ez, 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). Howe ver, despite its polyphagous nature, B. chilensis does not appear to cause signifi cant damage to species other than V

. vinifera

. Brevipalpus chilensis has only been detected on A. arguta at specific sites, and at low population levels (F DF, 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 economi c 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 woul d consider this a quarantine pest. Thus, although B. chilensis does not appear to significantly damage A. arguta , it could impact domestic grape production, and incr ease 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 environmenta l 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 Risk elements Pest 1. Climate/ Host interaction 2. Host Range 3. Dispersal potential 4. Economic impact 5. Environ. Impact Cumulative Risk Rating a

Brevipalpus chilensis Medium (2) High (3) Medium (2) High (3) Medium (2) Medium (12)

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

2.7 Likelihood of Introduction The likelihood of a pest bei ng introduced and establishi ng 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 surviv e 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). Thes e 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 k ilogram packets, of baby kiwi fruit, will be exported from Chile to the United States. Becau se 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-el ement evaluated the efficacy of post-harvest handling to eliminate pests from the pathway. In Chile, baby kiwi are se lectively harvested to meet export standards. After harvest, the fruit ar e sorted by size and visually inspected. In this process, damaged and low-quality fruit are discar ded. Once the fruit are sorted by size, they are packed into clamshell-like containers, where th ey 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 th ese 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 shipme nt is dependent on several factors, including duration of shipment period, ambient conditions during shipment and application of any particular mitigation procedures. Because we cons idered only unmitigated risk in this risk assessment, the latter factor is not relevant. Ship ments 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 1 64 interceptions of live B. chilensis at U.S. ports on other commodities 3 . 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 inspectio n of baby kiwi at ports of entry 4 . In general, internal pests of fruits are highly likely to escap e detection, while externally feed ing 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 contaminat ed consignments are passing undetected. Brevipalpus chilensis is a small arthropod, with a body measur ing 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 dist ribution of markets for the host commodity throughout the country and the presence of suitable habi tats for the pest/pathogen. Fruit arriving at U.S. ports does not arrive at one port, but is di stributed according to market demand. Three of the four more populated U.S. states (California, Florida, and Te xas) are located in the southern part of the country (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006), where clima tic conditions are conducive for survival of B. chilensis (USDA-NA, 2003). These thr ee 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 Materi al Suitable for Reproduction Even if the final destination of infested commoditie s is suitable for pest survival, pests must still come in contact with suitable host material. Th is 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 actua l number of hosts is relatively small (CABI, 2006). Three suitable host genera include Convolvulus, Vitis and Ribes , which are widely distributed and common ge nera (USDA-NRCS, 2007). Brevipalpus chilensis is a very small arthropod with limited natural di spersal ability. Spread occurs mainly th rough plant to plant contact, although humans can facil itate 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 Rating a

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 va lues 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, whileBaby kiwi from Chile

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 10 specific phytosanitary measures may be necessa ry 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 Rating a
Brevipalpus chilensis Medium (12) Medium (14) Medium (26)

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

3. Risk Mitigation Options

3.1 Introduction This pest risk anal ysis for baby kiwi ( Actinidia arguta ) from Chile identified one quarantine pest likely to follow the pathway to the continental Un ited 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 phytosan itary treatments to reduce pest risk (i.e

. , unmitigated risk).

According to the International Pl ant 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 comm odity can be achieved by the application of a single phytosanit ary measure, such as inspection or a quarantine treatment, or a combination of measures through a systems appr oach (IPPC, 2002). While developing mitigation strategies, it is important to unde rstand that risk can never be eliminated, but it can be reduced and managed. Selection of the appropriate risk management 5 options must consider not only the efficacy of the various risk ma nagement strategies, but also the potential impact that such strategies would have on the importing and expo rting countries. Risk management strategies must also minimize impacts on the interna tional movement of people, commodities and conveyances (IPPC, 2007). IPPC standards outli ne 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 phytos anitary 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 importi ng 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 nu mber and diversity of quarantine pests are particularly high or where a particular mitigati on 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). Combini ng specific mitigation measures in a way that provides overlapping or sequentia l safeguards is distinctly di fferent from applying single mitigation methodologies such as fumigation or inspection. In a systems approach, mitigation measures may be added or the strength of measur es 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 effectiv eness 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 unkn own 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 af ter, 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-f ree 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 phytosan itary certificate from the national plant protection organization of the expor ting country. In general, certifi cation 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 specif ic pest does not occur as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in wh ich, where appropriate, th is 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 site s 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 establis hed. 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 determ ine 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 woul d reduce the likelihood th at mites would be imported. For example, some pesticides have be en identified as providing some control over populations of B. chilensis (e.g., Gonzalez, 1983; Herrera Vill amil, 1958). Instead of or inBaby 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 w ith a beneficial mite.

3.2.4. Post-harvest Treatment. USDA’s Plant Protection and Quarantine has ap proved 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 th e treatment if they are located in the recessed cavity at the distal end of baby ki wi fruit, where the inflorescence was located. Therefore, testing is required to further evaluate the e fficacy of this particular treatment.

3.2.5. Quarantine Treatments Methyl bromide fumigation . Methyl bromide (CH3Br) is a co lorless, odorless fumigant with relatively low solubility in wate r (USDA-APHIS, 2006). As a fumiga nt, 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 ap proved 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 simulta neously (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 eff ective 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 fru it 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 producti on sites and packing houses can safeguard against all pests. Commodity must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate from the na tional 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 gi ven 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 id entified 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 deve loped 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 irradi ation 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 combinati on of options will be based on this information and in consultation with the e xporting country. In this docum ent we identified the risks associated with importing baby kiwi from Chile and identified some possible risk mitigation options. The specification and implementation of phyt osanitary 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-PERALBaby kiwi from Chile

Rev. 002 May 16, 2008 14 Ron Sequeira, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST Carlota Vergara, Agricultural Engin eer, Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero

5. Literature Cited

7 CFR § 360. 2005. Code of Federal Regulatio ns, Title 7, Part 360, (7 CFR §360 - Noxious Weed Regulations). United States Government. Anonymous. 1991. Integrated Pest Management fo r 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 tset se (Diptera: Glossinidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 95(1):1-11. Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gi bson. 2006. ScaleNet. United St ates 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. Gi bson. 2007. ScaleNet. United St ates 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, Ch ichester, United Kingdom. 466 pp. CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Co mpendium. 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 contro l 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. Institu to 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: Pr ospeccion 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. Th e Chilean citrus industry. SARDI Research Report Series No. 52. South Australian Res earch 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 Im portancia 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 E xperimental Station). Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 31 pp. Gunn, C. R., and C. A. Ritchie. 1988. Identificati on of disseminules listed in the Federal Noxious Weed Act (Technical Bulletin Number 1719.). Un ited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.A. 313 pp. Herrera Villamil, G. 1958. Bionomics and contro l 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 W eeds: 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 Comp any, 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 Biol ogy. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, U.S.A. 69 pp. IPPC. 1997. 1997 - International Plant Protection C onvention (New Revised Text). IPPC & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 28 pp. IPPC. 1999. International standard s 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 phytos anitary measures (ISPM#14): The use of integrated measures in a systems approach fo r pest risk management. International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) & Food and Ag riculture 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 Pl ant Protection Convention (IPPC) & Food and Agriculture Organization of the Unit ed Nations, Rome. 41 pp. IPPC. 2006. International standards for phytos anitary measures (ISPM#5): Glossary of phytosanitary terms. International Plan t Protection Conventio n (IPPC) & Food and Agriculture Organization of th e United Nations, Rome. 23 pp. IPPC. 2007. International standard s for phytosanitary measures (ISPM#2): Framework for pest risk analysis. International Plant Pr otection Convention (I PPC) & the Food and Agriculture Organization of th e 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 Di seases and Protection 103:403-408. Jeppson, L. R., H. H. Keifer, and E. W. Ba ker. 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/pub lications/biosecuri ty-magazine/2003. Mauchline, N. A., and M. G. Hill. 2005. Settlem ent 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 Pr otection Conference Vol. 58. Rotorua New Zealand: New Zealand Plant Protec tion 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/Plan t.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, F acultad de Agronomía e Ingeniería Forestal, Departamento de Fruticultura y Enología, Chile. NAPPO. 2004. NAPPO regional st andards 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. Pa ul, 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. http s://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL). Prado, E. C. 1991. Arthropodos y sus enemigos naturl aes asociados a plantas cultivadas en Chile (Boletin Tecnico No. 169.). Inst ituto de Investigaciones Ag ropecuarias (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/. (A rchived at PERAL). Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically Important Forei gn 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: Pomegranat e, baby kiwi and fig. Personal communication to A. L. Koop on June 14, 2007, from Juan Roman, Commod ity Import Analysis and Operations (CIAO). SAG. 2002a. Pest interception in shipment ports. Chilean Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG), Chile. SAG. 2002b. Phytosanitary laboratory surveila nce 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. ht tp://invader.dbs.umt.edu/Noxious_Weeds/. (Archived at PERAL). Swearingen, J. 2005. Alien plant invaders of natu ral 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 Manage ment 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 phytosanitar y regulatory treatment: Environmental assessment, October 1997. United States Depa rtment 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 Hea lth Inspection Service (APHIS), Washington, D.C. USDA-ARS. 2006. Germplasm Resources Inform ation Network (GRIN), Online Database. United States Department of Agriculture (US DA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Systematic Botany and Mycology Labor atory. http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgibin/npgs/html/paper.pl. (Archived at PERAL). USDA-FS. 2006. Eastern region inva sive plants, ranked by degree of invasiveness as based on information from States. United States De partment 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 Depart ment of Agriculture (USDA), National Arboretum (NA), U.S.A. La st accessed October 20, 2006, http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap.html. USDA-NRCS. 2006. The PLANTS Database. United St ates Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (N RCS), The National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov/java/index.h tml. (Archived at PERAL). USDA-NRCS. 2007. The PLANTS Database. United St ates 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 e ndangered animals and pants. Un ited 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 arthropod s 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 De stination / Region (2001-2002). Exports (tons) Commodity 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 Z ones” 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 b ecome 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 f our or more hardiness zones

Risk Element #2- Host Range The risk posed by a plant pest depends on its abil ity to establish a viab le, reproductive population and its potential to injure plants. For arthropods, risk is a ssumed 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 sp ecies 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 ar riving in a new area. The follo wing items are considered for dispersal potential: repr oductive patterns (e.g

. , voltinism, biotic potential); inherent powers of movement; factors facilitating dispersal, wi nd, water, presence of vectors, humans, etc

. Low (1): pest has neither high reproductive potential nor rapid di spersal 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 th e 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 variet y of direct and indi rect economic impacts. These impacts are divided into three primary categories (other type s 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 th ree of the above impactsBaby 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 enco mpasses the likelihood a nd severity of an environmental impact. The act describes an envi ronmental pest as: “expected to have direct impacts on species listed by Federal Agencies as endangered or thre atened (50CFR§17.11 and §17.12), by infesting/infecting a listed plant. If the pest attacks othe r 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 endangere d or threatened by disrupting sensitive, critical habitat; introduction of the pe st 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. Yaer Average MonthsBaby 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

I q ui q ue 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

Q uillota 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

Santia g o 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

Ren g o 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

An g ol 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