## Importation of **Fresh Fruit of Pomegranate**  **, Punica granatum**  **L. ,**  **from India into the Continental United States**  **A Qualitative, Pathway -**  **initiated Pest**  **Risk Assessment** 

**May 1 1**  **, 2011 Ver**  **sion 6** 

**Agency Contact:** Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology United States Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Health Inspection Services Plant Protection and Quarantine 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 ii 

### Executive Summary India has requested approval to export fresh pomegranate fruit , Punica granatum L. **,** into the continental United States , including Alaska. Because this commodity has not been imported from India before, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) , Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) conducted a pathway
- initiated risk assessment to determine the unmitigated risks associated with importing fresh pomegranate fruit from India. APHI S anal ys ts first prepared a list of pests in India that are known to be associated with Punica granatum. We compiled the pest list from standard sources , including documents submitted by India, records of intercepted pests, and scientific literature. We determined which quarantine pests were likel y to follow the pomegranate pathway , and qualitatively analy zed them to determine the unmitigated risk each poses to the United States. We identified the following pests with **H igh**  pest risk potential: Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Conogethes punctiferalis (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Cryptoblabes gnidiella Millière (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Deudorix epijarbas (Moore) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) Deudorix isocrates Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) Drosicha dalbergiae (Green) (Hemiptera: Margarodidae) Euzophera bigella Zeller (Lepidoptera: P yr alidae) Icerya seychellarum Westwood (Hemiptera: Margarodidae) Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Planococcus lilacinus (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) We identified the following pests w ith **M edium**  risk potential: Bactrocera carambolae (Drew & Hancock) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Ceroplastes rubens (Maskell) (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Ceroplastes rusci (Linnaeus) (Hemiptera : Coccidae) Dichocrocis megillalis Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Icerya aegyptiaca (Douglas) (Hemiptera: Margarodidae) Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Planococcus angkorensis (Takahashi) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus Hood (Thy sanoptera: Thripidae) Scirtothrips oligochaetus Kary ny (Thys anoptera: Thripidae) Tenuipalpus granati Sayed (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) Tenuipalpus punicae Pritchard & Baker (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. Punicae (Hingorani & Singh) (Xanthomonads)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 iii 

### Table of Contents **Executive Summary ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **...................... ii**  **1. Introduction ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ 1**  **2. 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 Likel y to Follow the Pathway ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 4 2.5. Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway ................................ .............................. 29 2.6. Consequences of Introductio n ................................ ................................ .......................... 31 2.7. Likelihood of Introduction ................................ ................................ ............................... 63 **3. Conclusion ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ 68**  **4. References ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ .**  **69 5. Authors and Reviewers**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ............**  **86 Appendix: Risk Mitigation Options for Importation of Fresh Pomegranates (**  **Punica granatum**  **) Fruit from India into the Continental United States including Alaska ..........**  **87** 1. Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 87 2. Risk Mitigation Options ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 88 3. Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 93 4. Literature Cite d ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 95Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 1 

### 1 **. Introduction**  This pest risk assessment was written and reviewed by staff at the Pest Epidemiology and Risk Analy sis Laboratory

(PERAL) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). We examined the unmitigated risks associated with the importation of fresh pomegranate fruit, Punica granatum L. , into the continental United States from India. This document is a qualitative risk assessment , and we expressed risk in terms of “high, ” “medium, ” and “ low ,” rather than in numerical terms (e.g., probabilities or frequencies ) . The details of the methodology and rating criteria can be found in Pathway
-In itiated 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 anal ys es. The methods used to initiate, conduct, and report this assessment, as well as the use of biological and phy tosanitary terms are based on these standards ( IP PC, 2007 : I SPM #s 2, 4, and 11 ; NAPPO, 2004 ). The IPPC standards describe three stages of pest risk anal ys is: Stage 1, Initiation; Stage 2, Risk Assessment; and Stage 3, Risk Management. This document satisfies the requirements of Stages 1 and 2, and provides mitigation options for Stage 3. Pom egranate is a small tree or shrub that is 20
- 30 feet high ( Morton, 1987 ). The fruit are approximately

6 - 12 cm in diameter. It has a thick, leathery rind that protect 5
- 6 compartments filled with tightly

packed sacks filled with a red or white fleshy fruit , called arils, surrounding a 2 - 3 cm oblong, hard seed ( Morton, 1987 ). S eeds are ty picall y about 52 percent of the total weight of a pomegranate ( Morton, 1987 ). Insect pests are frequentl y found under the sepals surrounding the area where the stem j oins the fruit . Diseases are usuall y not visible unless they directly affect the rind, because the thick rind prevents observ ation of internal damage . Pomegranate fruit are harvested by hand and the peduncle is removed to avoid fruit damage (USEP, 2007 ). Pomegranates are produced in India November through June. India expects to initially ship approximately

1500 tons of pomegranates per ye ar to the United States. Shipments will be made primarily by sea in 4 kg corrugated open tray boxes. Temperature will be maintained at 5 to 7 degrees Celcius (India market access request). Other than minimal post
- harvest cleaning and culling, we assumed for the purposes of this risk assessment, that pomegranate fruit from India would not undergo any s pecial post
- harvest tre atment or cleaning. Strategies for pest management of pomegranates in India include cultural controls such as field sanitation and the removal of weeds that may serve as an alternate host for many pests; mechanical controls such as the hand removal of caterpillars and other pests, traps for monitoring of Lepidopteran pests, and phy sical barriers; biological control agents including predators and pathogens; and chemical controls (India market access request).Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 2 

### 2 **. Risk**  **Assessment 2.1**  **. Initiating Event:**  **Proposed Action** India requested export of fresh pomegranates to the continental United States. 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 U.S. agricultural and natural resources. **2.2 .**  **Assessment of Weed Potential** We assessed the potential of pomegranates to become weeds after they enter the United States ( Table 1 ) . A formal weed risk assessment was not conducted because the baseline assessments did not indicate that the commodity had a significant weed potential above existing levels. **Table 1.** The Weed Potential of Pomegranate **Scientific name:** Punica granatum L. (Ly thraceae) (Graham et al
. , 2005) **Common Names:** Pomegranate, grenadier, Granatapfelbaum, Granatapfelstrauch, zakuro, romanzeiro, romã, romã - de
- flor
- dobrada, romeira, romeira
- da
- granada, granado, mangrano (ARS, 2007). **Synonyms:** None (ARS, 2007). **Phase 1:** Distribution in the United States: P
. granatum is native to western Asia

(Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey , Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Pakistan) (ARS, 2007). It is under cultivation in the United States, at least in California and Arizona (CRFG, 2007), and has escaped or naturalized in AL , CA, FL, LA, NC, UT (NRCS , 2007). This species is hardy to USDA Plant H ardiness Zones 7
- 11 (Page and Olds, 2001). **Phase 2:** Invasive / Weed Status: Listing as weed No 7 CFR § 360, 2007; Gunn and Ritchie, 1988; Holm et al
. , 1997; Holm et al
. , 1979; Holm et al
. , 1977; Reed, 1977; Skinner et al
. , 2005; Weber, 2003; WSSA, 2006 Yes Alien plant invaders of natural areas (Swearingen, 2005). Yes A Global Compendium of W eeds (Randall, 2007). Yes Other: (Liogier and Martorell, 2000; LR, 2005; NRCS , 2007) . **Phase 3:** Summary

and Conclusions: Punica granatum is a warm temperate species that has escaped from cultivation in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Puerto Rico (Liogier and Martorell, 2000; Randall, 2007; Swearingen, 2005); however, the literature does not indicate that it is invasive (i.e., with self
sustaining populations that are expanding, spreading, and causing environmental harm). Because P. granatum is widely distributed in the continental United States and not under official control, it does not meet the IPPC definition of a quarantin e pest (IPPC, 2007: I SPM #5). Thus, this pest risk assessment continues.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 3 **2.3 .**  **Previous Risk Assessment, Current Status, Pest Interceptions and Decision History Potential**  2.3.1 . Decision History

and Current Status Several countries have requested permission to export pomegranates to the United States (USDA, 2007a). Most of these were approved, but Iran, Ital y, and Greece were denied for various reasons ( Table 2 ) . **Table 2.** P rior decisions by the United S tates about requests to import Punica granatum . **Year Country**  **Decision Reasons / Conditions**  1924 Mexico Approved From fruit fl y- free areas of Mexico only ; with inspection and a phyt osanitary certificate. 1925 Ital y Denied Several major pests may be associated with pomegranate 1925 Greece Approved Inspection; T107(a) treatment mandatory for fruit fly . 1969 Argentina Approved Entry into or through California 1971 Haiti Approved North Atlantic & Pacific ports; cold treatment 1987 Greece Approved Inspection and treatment 1988 Turkey Approved Inspection; T107(a) treatment mandatory for fruit fly . 1988 Iran Denied No acceptable treatment for two species of fruit fly . 1988 Colombia Approved Inspection and treatment (T107
- c) for Anastrepha fraterculus & A. ludens . 1990 Mexico Approved Inspection and treatment if necessary 1997 Is rael Approved Treat for Medfl y 2.3.2 . Previous Risk Assessments The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHI S) conducted a pest risk assessment on P
. granatum once before: “ Importation of Pomegranate Fruits, Punica granatum from Israel into the United States ” ( PPQ, 1997 ). This risk assessment found that Ceratitis capitata , Deudorix isocrates , and Planococcus lilacinus posed a high risk to the United States, while Sphaceloma punic ae and Cryptoblabes gnidiella posed a medium risk . 2.3.3 . Current Import Status According to Plant Protection and Quarantine’s Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Import Manu al ( PPQ, 2007 ), pomegranates are currentl y enterable from Argentina, Colombia, Greece, Haiti, and Israel after irradiation (T105
- d) or cold treatment (T107
- a - 1, T107 - a, or T107 - c) . Pomegranates are enterable from Mexico from fruit fly free areas. 2.3.4 . United States Pest Interceptions APHI S - PPQ records all interceptions of pests and pathogens on commodities entering the United States ( PestID , 2007) . The database includes interceptions since 1985 on permit cargo, general cargo, mail , passenger baggage , ships ’ quarters , stores and holds, and other locations . WePest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 4 searched this database for pests and pathogens intercepted on pomegranate fruit from the world . O ver 99 percent of the interceptions were on baggage and cargo, with the vast majority of interceptions on passenger baggage (6927 , vs. 37 in cargo ). Of the 345 taxa that have been intercepted, 26 have been intercepted 20 times or more ( Table 3 ). **Table 3.** Pest taxa most frequentl y intercepted on Punica granatum at U.S. Ports of Entry , from 1985 to 2007. **Pest Baggage**  **Cargo** Sphaceloma punicae Bitanc. & Jenkins (Coelomycetes) 4175 4 Pseudococcidae, species of 452 5 Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Milliere) (Py ralidae) 311 2 Anastrepha sp. (Tephritidae) 246 1 Ectomyelois ceratoniae (Zeller) (P yr alidae) 114 2 Cryptoblabes sp. (Py

ralidae) 89 1 Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Tephritidae) 84 Planococcus citri (Risso) (Pseudococcidae) 65 Oxycarenus hyalinipennis (Costa) (Ox yc arenidae) 60 Planococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 59 1 Pseudocercospora punicae (Henn.) Deighton (Hyphomycetes) 57 Pseudococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 54 2 Tortricidae, species of 50 1 Py ralidae, species of 44 2 Phycitinae, species of (Py ralidae) 39 Planococcus ficus (Signoret) (Pseudococcidae) 39 Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Green) (Diaspididae) 35 Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Pseudococcidae) 32 Lycaenidae, species of 29 Olethreutinae, species of (Tortricidae) 27 Tephritidae, species of 24 Ectomyelois sp. (P yralidae) 22 1 Crematogaster sp. (Formicidae) 21 Cryptophlebia sp. (Tortricidae) 21 2 **2.4 .**  **Pest Categorization: Identification of Quarantine Pests and Quarantine Pests Likely to**  **Follow the Pathway** We developed a list of pests potentially associated with pomegranate in India (Table 4) . 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 the host; (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 continental United States through commercial shipments of pomegranate.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 5 A quarantine pest is defined as “a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereb y, but not yet pres ent, or present, but not widely distributed and being officiall y controlled” ( IPPC, 200 7: ISPM #5 ). A pest is likely to follow the pathway

on pomegranate fruit if the pest is present in India, if the pest is associated with the fruit at the time of harvest , and 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 app ropriate climatic and ecological conditions, including protected areas (such as greenhouses), where the presence of primary or alternative hosts and vectors are influential. **Table 4.** Pests associated with pomegranate , Punica granatum, anywhere in the world and present in India **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Arthropods**  **Acari :**  **Acaridae Tyrophagus putrescentiae**  (Schrank) IN , U.S. (CABI, 2007) PestID , 2007 N/A No N/A **Acari :**  **Eriophyidae Eriophyes granati**  (Canestrini & Massalongo) Sy n: Aceria granati IN(Prasad,

1971); U.S. (CA, FL) (Baker et al
. , 1996) Davis et al
. , 1982;

Dhooria and Bhullar, 2003 L (Baker et al
. ,

1996; Jeppson et al
. , 1975) No No
**Acari :**  **Tenuipalpidae Brevipalpus phoenicis**  Geijskes Sy n: B. papayensis IN(Prasad,

1971); U.S. (FL) (CABI, 2007) Maes, 2004 N/A No N/A **Tenuipalpus granati** Sayed IN(Meena et al
. , 2004) Jeppson et al
. ,

1975 St , L , F (Jeppson

et al
. , 1975) Yes Yes **Tenuipalpus punicae** Pritchard & Baker IN(Prasad, 1971) Dhooria, 2003;

Jeppson et al
. , 1975 St , L , F (del

Rivero, 1991; Jeppson et al
. , 1975) Yes Yes

1 Plant parts: Bk = Bark, F = fruit, I = inflorescence, L = leaf, Sh = Shoot, S t = Stem , R = root , Tr = Trunk 2 N/A= Not Applicable. Even if non
- quarantine pests are able to follow the pathway, phytosanitary measures against these pests would not be justified considering the pest already occurs in the United States. Therefore, information on plant part association and whether the pest is “likely to follow the pathway” is not needed for non
- quarantine pests.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 6 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Acari**  **: Tetranychidae**  **Eutetranychus orientalis** (Klein) Sy n: E
. monodi ; E
. sudanicus ; E
. anneckei Anychus orientalis ; A
. ricini IN(Bolland et al
. , 1998) Bolland et al
. ,

1998; Kumawat and Singh, 2002 L (Hill, 1983) Yes No

**Oligonychus coffeae** Nietner Sy n: Acarus coffeae ; Paratetranychus bioculatus IN , U.S. (Bolland et al
. , 1998) Bolland et al
. ,

1998 N/A No N/A
**Oligonychus mangiferus** (Rahman & Sapra) IN(Bolland et al
. , 1998) Bolland et al
. ,

1998 L (Jeppson et al
. ,

1975; Waite, 2002) Yes No **Oligonychus punicae** (Hirst) Sy n: Paratetranychus punicae IN , U.S. (Bolland et al
. , 1998) Bolland et al
. ,

1998; Jeppson et al
. , 1975 N/A No N/A **Tetranychus kanzawai** Kishida IN(Bolland et al
. , 1998); U.S. (Bolland et al
. , 1998) Bolland et al
. ,

1998 N/A No N/A **Tetranychus urticae** Koch Sy n: T. aduncus, T. arabicus, T. cinnabarinus, T. ricinus, T. telarius IN , U.S. (Bolland et al
. , 1998) Bolland et al
. ,

1998 N/A No N/A
**Coleoptera :**  **Cerambycidae Celosterna spinator**  Fabricius IN(Sheikh, 2006) Sheikh, 2006 St, Tr (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No **Cerosterna scabrator** Fabr. IN(Biradar et al
. , 2005) Biradar et al
. ,

2005 St (Biradar et al
. ,

2005) Yes No **Olenecamptus bilobus** F. IN(Hill, 1983) Hill, 1983; Patil et al
. , 2002 Tr, St (Hill, 1983;

Patil et al
. , 2002) Yes No **Coleoptera :**  **Curculionidae Hypera postica**  (G yl lenhal) Sy n: H. brunnipennis IN , U.S. (CABI,

2007) PestID , 2007 N/A No N/A **Myllocerus discolor** Boheman IN(Srivastava, 1997) Srivastava, 1997 Sh , L, I (Srivastava, 1997) Yes NoPest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 7 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Myllocerus lactivirens**  Marshall IN(Sheikh, 2006) Sheikh, 2006 R , L (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No **Myllocerus maculosus** (Pesbrocher) IN(Butani and Verma, 1981) Nair, 1975 L (Nair, 1975) Yes No **Myllocerus sp.**  IN(Hill, 1983) Hill, 1983 L (Hill, 1983) Yes 3 No **Myllocerus undecimpustulatus**  Desbrocher IN(Sheikh, 2006) Sheikh, 2006 R , L (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No **Coleoptera :**  **Dryophthoridae Sitophilus oryzae**  (Linneaus) IN(CABI, 2007); U.S. (Arnett Jr., 1997) PestID , 2007 N/A No N/A **Coleoptera :**  **Scarabaeidae Anomala dimidiata**  Hope IN(Sheikh, 2006) Sheikh, 2006 R , L (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No **Anomala sp.**  IN(Hill, 1983) 4 ; U.S. (Arnett Jr. et al
. , 2002; Krauth, 2002) Hill, 1983 N/A No N/A
**Holotrichia insularis** Brenske IN(Butani and Verma, 1981) Nair, 1975 L (Butani and Verma, 1981; Nair, 1975) Yes No **Hoplasoma sexmaculata** Hope IN(Sheikh, 2006) Sheikh, 2006 R , L (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No **Mimastra cyanura** Hope IN(Sheikh, 2006) Sheikh, 2006 R , L (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No **Coleoptera :**  **Scolytidae Euwallacea**  **fornicatus** Sy n: Xyleborus fornicatus IN , U.S. (CA, FL) (CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007; Mote

and Tambe, 2000 St (CABI, 2007) [Yes] 5 No **Xyleborus dispar** Fabricius IN , U.S. (Cognato, 2007) Cognato, 2007 N/A No N/A

3 The only species of Myllocerus in the United States is M. hilleri . Because M. hilleri does not appear to occur in India, the Myllocerus sp. taxon that attacks pomegranate in India is most likely a different species fro m that in the U.S. Thus this taxon is a quarantine pest. 4 At least 33 species of Anomala occur in the United States (Arnett Jr., 1997). It is unknown if this particular taxon on pomegranate occurs in the United States. 5 This pest has a limited distribution in the United States and is considered a quarantine pest ( Courneya, 2006 ) .Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 8 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Xyleborus perforans**  (Wollaston) Sy n: X. kraatzi IN(Jagginavar

and Naik, 2005) Jagginavar and

Naik, 2002, 2005) St (Wood) (CABI,

2007); R (Jagginavar and Naik, 2002) Yes No **Diptera : Cecidomyiidae**  **Aphidoletes aphidimyza** (Rondani) IN , U.S. (CABI, 2007) PestID, 2007 N/A 6 No N/A **Diptera :**  **Tephritidae Bactrocera carambolae**  IN(CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007 F (Waite, 2002) Yes Yes **Bactrocera dorsalis** (Hendel) Sy n: Dacus dorsalis IN(Srivastava,

1997) CABI, 2007;

Sheikh, 2006; PestID, 2007 F (CABI, 2007) Yes Yes **Bactrocera zonata** Sy n: Dacus zonatus IN(CABI, 2007;

Srivastava, 1997) CABI, 2007;

Sheikh, 2006 F (Waite, 2002) Yes Yes **Dacus sp.**  **7** IN(Hill, 1983) Hill, 1983 F (Hill, 1983) Yes Yes **Hemiptera : Aleyrodidae**  **Acaudaleyrodes rachipora** (Singh) Sy n: A. citri IN(Evans, 2007) CABI, 2007; Meeta et al, 1999 L (Sundararaj and

Murugesan, 1996; Verma, 2006) Yes No **Aleurocanthus woglumi** Ashby Sy n: Aleurodes woglumi IN(CABI, 2007)

U.S. (AZ, CA, FL, MS, TX) (Evans, 2007) Hill, 1983; Mound

and Halsey , 1978 L (Mound and

Halsey , 1978) [Yes] 5 No **Aleurodicus dispersus** Russell IN(Evans, 2007); U.S. (FL) (CABI, 2007) Mani et al
. , 2003 L, F (CABI, 2007); L (Mani et al, 2003) [Yes] 5 No 8 **Aleurothrixus floccosus** (Maskell) IN(CABI, 2007); U.S. (CA FL LA TX) (Evans, 2007) Ulusoy et al
. , 2003 N/A No N/A
**Dialeurodes citri** (Ashmead) IN , U.S.(CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007;

Mound and Halsey , 1978 N/A No N/A

6 This species is not a true plant pest, because it feeds on aphids and other species (CABI, 2007). 7 In 1989, R.A.I. Drew

revised the Dacinae o f Australasian and Oceanian regions and placed most Dacus into the genus Bactrocera . Post 1989, references to Dacus spp. would be species that are highly unlikely to attack pomegranate. References to Dacus spp. before 1989 would include all of the species that are now placed in the genus Bactrocera (many of which might attack pomegranate) . 8 primarily a foliage pest and that fruit for consumption is unlikely to be a good pathway for movement into the United StatesPest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 9 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Siphoninus phillyreae**  (Haliday) Sy n: S. finitimus, S. granati IN , U.S. (CA) (CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007;

Klein Koch and Waterhouse, 2000; Mound and Halsey , 1978 Sh (Sheikh,

2006); L (CABI, 2007) [Yes] 5 No

**Trialeurodes vaporariorum**  Westwood IN , U.S. (CABI, 2007) Vergara and

Castro, 2006 N/A No N/A **Hemiptera : Aphididae**  **Aphis craccivora**  Koch IN(Anjaneya Murthy and Regupathy, 1989); U.S. (CABI, 2007) Blackman and

Eastop, 2000 N/A No N/A
**Aphis fabae** Scopoli Sy n: A. rumicis IN , U.S.(CABI,

2007 Blackman and

Eastop, 2000 N/A No N/A **Aphis gossypii** Glover IN , U.S. (CABI, 2007) Blackman and

Eastop, 2000; CABI, 2007 N/A No N/A **Aphis punicae** Passerini IN(Hill, 1983) Blackman and Eastop, 2000; Millar, 1994 L (Hill, 1987) Yes No **Aphis spiraecola** Patch Sy n: A. citricola IN , U.S. (CABI,

2007) Blackman and

Eastop, 2000; Maes, 2004 N/A No N/A **Aulacorthum circumflexum**  Kaltenbach Sy n: Neomyzus circumflexus IN(CABI, 2007); U.S. (USDA, 2007b) Blackman and

Eastop, 2000 N/A No N/A
**Brachycaudus helichrysi** Kaltenbach IN , U.S. (CABI, 2007) Blackman and

Eastop, 2000 N/A No N/A **Myzus ornatus** Laing IN(Blackman and Eastop, 2000); U.S. (Leonard et al
. , 1971) Blackman and

Eastop, 2000 N/A No N/A
**Myzus persicae** Sulzer Sy n: Aphis persicae IN , U.S. (CABI,

2007) Blackman and

Eastop, 2000; CABI, 2007 N/A No N/APest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 10 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Shivaphis celti**  Das (Aphididae) IN(Bhagat, 1982; Raychaudhuri et al
. , 1981); U.S. (FL & GA) (Halbert and Choate, 2003) PestID , 2007 N/A No N/A

**Toxoptera aurantii** Boyer de Fonscolombe IN , U.S. (CABI, 2007) Blackman and

Eastop, 2000 N/A No N/A **Hemiptera : Coccidae**  **Ceroplastes floridensis** Comstock Sy n: Cerostegia floridensis ; Paracerostegia floridensis IN(CABI, 2007); U.S. (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007; CABI, 2007 N/A No N/A

**Ceroplastes pseudoceriferus**  Green IN(Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 Sh , L (Ali, 1978) Yes No **Ceroplastes rubens** Maskell IN , U.S. (FL) (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 St , L , F (CABI,

2007) [Yes] 5 Yes 9 **Ceroplastes rusci** (Linnaeus) IN(Butani, 1993); US (FL) (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 St , L , F (CABI,

2007) [Yes] 5 Yes **Coccus hesperidum** Linnaeus IN(Butani, 1993); U.S. (CABI, 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 N/A No N/A **Parasaissetia nigra** Nietner Sy n: Lecanium signatum ; Saissetia nigra ; S. persea e IN(Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007); U.S. (CABI, 2007) Shevale and

Kaulgud, 1998 N/A No N/A

**Parthenolecanium corni** (Bouché) IN , U.S. (Ben
Dov et al
. , 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 N/A No N/A **Parthenolecanium persicae**  (Fabricius) Sy n: Coccus elongatus IN , U.S. (Ben
Dov et al
. , 2007) CABI, 2007 N/A No N/A

9 This pest has been intercepted 4527 time s, 22 of which were on fruit (PestID, 2007).Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 11 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Pulvinaria psidii**  Maskell Sy n: Chloropulvinaria psidii IN , U.S. (Ben
Dov et al
. , 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 N/A No N/A **Saissetia coffeae** Walker Sy n: S. hemisphaerica (Targioni) IN; U.S. (CABI, 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 N/A No N/A **Saissetia miranda** (Cockerell & Parrott in Cockerell) IN , U.S. (Ben
Dov et al
. , 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 N/A No N/A **Saissetia oleae** (Olivier) Sy n: Coccus oleae IN , U.S. (Ben
Dov et al
. , 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007; CABI, 2007 N/A No N/A **Hemiptera : Coreidae**  **Leptoglossus gonagra** Fabricius Sy n: L. australis ; Theognis gonagra IN(CABI, 2007; Jhala et al
. , 2003); U.S. (Froeschner, 1998) DEWR, 2007;

Jhala et al
. , 2003; Maes, 2004 N/A No N/A
**Leptoglossus me**  **mbranaceus** (Fabricius) IN(Jadhav et al
. , 1976) Patil et al
. , 2002 F (Patil et al
. , 2002) 19 Yes No 10 **Hemiptera : Diaspididae**  **Abgrallaspis cyanophylli** (Signoret) IN(Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007); U.S. (BMESD, 2003; Kessing and Mau, 1993) Maes, 2004 N/A No N/A
**Andaspis hawaiiensis** (Maskell) Sy n: Lepidosaphes hawaiiensis IN(Sheikh, 2006); U.S. (FL) (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007) Sheikh, 2006 N/A No N/A **Andaspis leucophleae** Rao in Rao & Ferris IN(Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 St epidermis

(Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007); L (Sheikh, 2006) 11 Yes No
**Aonidiella aurantii** Maskell IN , U.S. (Ben
Dov et al
. , 2007) Maes, 2004 N/A No N/A

10 Because coreids in general are large and nymphs are gregarious (Borror et al
. , 1989), these pests should be readily seen during harvest and culling, and eliminated from the pathway. Furthermore, Leptoglossus membranaceus can cause pomegranate fruit to drop pr ematurely (Patil et al
. , 2002), making it unlikely that this pest will follow the pathway on fruit. 11 Due to limited information available on this taxon, we based the plant part association on the congener A. hawaiiensis , which also attacks pomegranate.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 12 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Aonidiella orientalis**  (Newstead) Sy n: Aspidiotus orientalis IN(CABI, 2007); U.S. (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 N/A No N/A **Aspidiotus destructor** Signoret Sy n: A. transparens ; A. watanabei ; Temnaspidiotus destructor IN; U.S. (CABI, 2007) Bruner et al
. , 1945 N/A No N/A

**Aspidiotus nerii** Bouche Sy n: A. unipectinatus, A
. hederae IN(Butani, 1993); U.S. (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007; CABI, 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007; Hill, 1987 N/A No N/A
**Chrysomphalus aonidum** Linnaeus Sy n: C
. ficus, Aonidiella ficorum , Aspidiotus aonidum IN(Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007); U.S. (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007; CABI, 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 N/A No N/A
**Diaspidiotus perniciosus** (Comstock) Cockerell; Danzig. Sy n: Quadraspidiotus pernicious (Comstock) IN , U.S.(Ben
Dov et al
. , 2007; CABI, 2007) Vergara and

Castro, 2006 N/A No N/A
**Duplaspidiotus tesseratus**  (de Charmo y) IN(Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007); U.S. (FL) (Dekle and Kuitert, 1975) Sheikh, 2006 N/A No N/A **Hemaspidoproctus cinereus**  (Green) Sy n: Aspidoproctus cinerea IN(Sheikh, 2006) Nair, 1975;

Sheikh, 2006 L (Sheikh, 2006) Yes NoPest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 13 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Hemiberlesia lataniae**  Signoret Sy n: Aspidiotus lataniae, Diaspidiotus lataniae , Euaspidiotus lataniae IN(Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007); U.S. (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007; CABI, 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 N/A No N/A
**Hemiberlesia punicae** (Signoret) 12 IN (Sheikh, 2006) Sheikh, 2006 L (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No **Hemiberlesia rapax** (Comstock) IN(Butani, 1993); U.S. (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007) Johnson and Lyon,

1991 N/A No N/A **Lepidosaphes ulmi** (Linnaeus) IN , U.S. (Ben
Dov et al
. , 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 N/A No N/A **Lindingaspis greeni** (Brain & Kell y) IN(Sheikh, 2006) Sheikh, 2006 L (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No **Lindingaspis rossi** (Maskell) Sy n: Aspidiotus rossi , Chrysomphalus rossi IN(Hill, 1983; Sheikh, 2006); U.S. (CA) (Ben
Dov et al
. , 2007) Hill, 1983 N/A No N/A
**Parlatoria oleae** (Colvée) IN(Hill, 1983; Sheikh, 2006); U.S. (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 N/A No N/A **Pinnaspis buxi** (Bouche) IN , U.S. (Ben
Dov et al
. , 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 N/A No N/A **Pinnaspis strachani** Cooley Sy n: P. gossypii ; P. marchali; P. temporaria IN , (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007); U.S. (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007; CABI, 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 N/A No N/A
**Pinnaspis theae** (Maskell) Sy n: Hemichionaspis theae IN(Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007) Sheikh, 2006 L (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007; Sheikh, 2006) Yes No **Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis**  Green Sy n: Aspidiotus trilobitiformis IN(Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007); U.S.FL (Ben
Dov et al
. , 2007; Coile, 2000) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 L (Gallego and

Velez, 1992; Hill, 1983); F PestID , 2007) [Yes] 5 Yes

12 This pest name does not appear anywhere else in the literature, including ScaleNet (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2 007), abstracting databases (e.g., Cab Abstracts, Agricola), Google, or other texts of pests in India (Butani, 1993; Nair, 1975; Srivastava, 1997). Thus, this pest was likely a misidentification of H
. rapax or another diaspid scale.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 14 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Selenaspidus articulatus**  Morgan IN(Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007); U.S. (CA & FL) (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007; CABI, 2007) Maes, 2004 N/A No N/A

**Howardia biclavis** (Comstock) IN(Ben
- Dov and Hodgson, 1997); U.S. (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 N/A No N/A **Hemiptera : Kerridae**  **Kerria lacca (Kerr)** IN(Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 St (Chen et al
. ,

2004) Yes No **Hemiptera : Margarodidae**  **Drosicha dalbergiae** IN(Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007) CABI, 2007 R (Masoodi et al
. , 1988); Twigs (Vijay et al
. , 2000a); F (Rawat et al
. , 1989) Yes Yes
**Drosicha mangiferae** (Stebbing) IN(Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007) Hill, 1983;

Srivastava, 1997 Sh , L, I

(Srivastava, 1997) Yes No **Icerya aegyptiaca** (Douglas) IN(CABI, 2007) Ben Dov et al, 2007; CABI, 2007 St , L , F (CABI,

2007) Yes Yes **Icerya purchasi** Maskell IN; U.S. (CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007;

Johnson and Lyon, 1991 N/A No N/A **Icerya seychellarum** Westwood Sy n: Dorthesia seychellarum ; I. okadae IN(CABI, 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. , 2007; CABI, 2007 St , L (CABI,

2007); I (USDA, 1982); F (USDA, 1982; PestID , 2007) Yes Yes
**Hemiptera : Pentatomidae**  **Jurtina indica** D. IN(Nair, 1975) Nair, 1975 F (Nair, 1975) Yes No 13 **Halyomorpha picus** Fabricius IN(Nair, 1975) Nair, 1975 F (Nair, 1975) Yes No 1 3 **Hemiptera : Pseudococcidae**  **Dysmicoccus brevipes** (Cockerell) IN , U.S. (Ben
Dov et al
. , 2007) PestID , 2007 N/A No N/A

13 Pentatomids are medi um - sized insects, sometimos gregarious, that should be readily seen and elminated from the pathway during harvest and post
- harvest.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 15 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Dysmicoccus neobrevipes**  Beardsley IN(Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 R, St, L , I , F

(PestID, 2007) Yes Yes **Ferrisia malvastra** (McDaniel) Sy n: F. consobrina IN(Ben
- Dov et

al
. , 2007) ; US Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 F (Shevale, 1994);

[ St , and L (CABI, 2007)] 14 No Yes **Ferrisia virgata** (Cockerell) Sy n: Pseudococcus virgatus IN(Hill, 1983); U.S. (CABI, 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007; Hill, 1983 N/A No N/A
**Maconellicoccus hirsutus** Greene Sy n: Paracoccus pasaniae; M. perforatus ; M. pasaniae IN , U.S. (CA, FL) (CABI, 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 St , L , I , F (CABI,

2007) [Yes] 5 Yes
**Nipaecoccus viridis** (Newstead) IN(Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007) Kulkarni et al
. ,

2003; Shevale, 1994 R , St , L , F (Ben
Dov et al
. , 2007); F (Shevale, 1994 **)** Yes Yes **Planococcus angkorensis** (Takahashi) Sy n: P. dorsospinus Ezzat & Mcconnell IN(Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 [ L (Hill, 1983), I

(Williams and Watson, 1988), and F (Murray , 1976; PestID , 2007)] 15 Yes Yes

**Planococcus citri** Risso IN , U.S. (Ben
Dov et al
. , 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007; Klein Koch and Waterhouse, 2000 N/A No N/A **Planococcus ficus** (Signoret) IN , U.S. (Ben
Dov et al
. , 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007; CABI, 2007 N/A No N/A

14 Ferrisia malvastra attacks host fruit ( Shevale, 1994 ), but we assumed that it could also attack stems and leaves , like it s congener F. virgata , with which it is often confused (CABI, 2007). 15 Due to limited information on this pest, we assumed its association with host plant organs was similar to other Planococcus included in this pest list.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 16 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Planococcus lilacinus**  (Cockerell) Sy n: Pseudococcus crotonis IN (CABI, 2007) Ben - Dov et al
. , 2007; Hill, 1983 L (Hill, 1983), F

(Nair, 1975) Yes Yes
**Planococcus minor** Maskell Sy n: P. pacificus IN(Ben
- Dov et

al
. , 2007) PestID , 2007 16 L (Aguiar
Menezes et al
. , 2002; PestID , 2007); I (Williams and Watson, 1988); F ( PestID , 2007) Yes No 17

**Pseudococcus cryptus** Hempel Sy n: P. citriculus IN(Ben
- Dov,

1994) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 F (Williams and

Watson, 1988) ; L (Avidov and Harpaz, 1969); R (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007); Sh (Ben
Dov et al
. , 2007; Williams and Watson, 1988) Yes Yes

**Pseudococcus longispinus** (Targioni Tozzetti) Sy n: P. adonidum IN(CABI,

2007); U.S. (McKenzie, 1967) Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2007 N/A No N/A **Isoptera : Termitidae**  **Odontotermes obesus** (Rambur) IN(Sheikh, 2006) Sheikh, 2006 Bk (Paul et al
. , 1993) Yes No **Trinervitermes biformis** (Wasmann) IN(Patel and Patel, 1952) Patel and Patel,

1952 R (Butani and

Varma, 1976) No Yes **Lepidoptera : Arctiidae**  **Creatonotus gangis** (Linnaeus) IN(Sheikh, 2006) Robinson et al
. ,

2001; Sheikh, 2006 L (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No **Lepidoptera :**  **Cosmopterigidae Anatrachyntis simplex**  Walsingham Sy n: Pyroderces simplex IN(Heckford,

2004; Robinson et al
. , 2007) Heckford, 2004;

Robinson et al
. , 2001 F (Heckford,

2004) Yes No 18

16 All interceptions on passenger baggage; no other evidence of host association could be found in the scientific literature. 17 Given the only weak evidence for host association (e.g., interceptions on passenger baggage), we conclude that pomegranate fruit for consumption is unlikely to be a good pathway for movement into the United States . 18 Anatrachyntis simplex is unlikely to follow the pathway on fresh, commercial quality pomegranate fruit because it feeds on already damaged or rotten plant tissue (Heckford, 2004).Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 17 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Lepidoptera**  **: Cossidae**  **Zeuzera coffeae** Neitn. IN(Hill, 1983) Hill, 1983; Robinson et al
. , 2007 St (Hill, 1983;

Sheikh, 2006) Yes No **Lepidoptera :**  **Crambidae Conogethes punctiferalis**  (Guenée) Sy n: Dichocrocis punctiferalis (CABI, 2007) IN(CABI, 2007; Hill, 1983) CABI, 2007; Hill,

1983 L (Ramakrishna

Ayyar, 1936); St (CABI, 2007), and F (CABI, 2007; Hill, 1983) Yes Yes
**Lepidoptera :**  **Gelechiidae Phthorimaea operculella**  (Zeller) IN , U.S. (CABI, 2007) USDA, 2007a N/A No N/A **Lepidoptera :**  **Lasiocampidae Streblote siva**  (Lef.) IN(Robinson et al
. , 2007) Robinson et al
. ,

2007 L (Parui, 1971) Yes No **Suana concolor** (Walker) IN(Robinson et al
. , 2007) Robinson et al
. ,

2001; Robinson et al
. , 2007 L (Hutson and

Jardine, 1923) Yes No **Trabala vishnou** (Lefevere) IN(Mani et al
. , 2001) Mani et al
. , 2001;

Robinson et al
. , 2001 L (Hill, 1987) Yes No **Lepidoptera :**  **Limacodidae Latoia lepida**  (Cram.) IN(Hill, 1983) Hill, 1983 L (Hill, 1987) Yes No **Parasa lepida** Cramer IN(CABI, 2007) Robinson et al
. , 2007 L (Nair, 1975;

Robinson et al
. , 2001) Yes No **Thosea sinensis** IN(Robinson et al
. , 2007) CABI, 2007;

Robinson et al
. , 2007 L (Nair, 1975) Yes No **Thosea unifascia** IN(Robinson et al
. , 2007) Robinson et al
. ,

2007 L (I saac, 1925;

Robinson et al
. , 2001) Yes NoPest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 18 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Lepidoptera**  **: Lycaenidae**  **Deudorix epijarbas** (Moore) IN(Hill, 1983) CABI, 2007; Hill, 1983 F (Hill, 1983) Yes Yes **Deudorix isocrates** Fabricius Sy n: Virachola isocrates IN(CABI, 2007;

Hill, 1983) Morton, 1987;

Patil et al
. , 2002 I , F (Morton,

1987), F (Patil et al
. , 2002) Yes Yes 19 **Iraota timoleon** Stoll IN(Savela, 2007) Savela, 2007 St , L , I Yes No **Lepidoptera :**  **Lymantriidae Euproctis flava**  (Bremer) IN(Sheikh, 2006) Sheikh, 2006 L (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No **Euproctis fraterna** (Moore) IN(Robinson et al
. , 2007; Sheikh, 2006) Sheikh, 2006 L (Cantelo et al
. , 1965; Robinson et al
. , 2001) Yes No **Euproctis lunata** Walker IN(Subramanian and Krishnamurthy, 2002) Sheikh, 2006 L (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No **Euproctis scintillans** Walker Sy n : Porthesia scintillans , Somena scintillans IN(Robinson et al
. , 2007; Sheikh, 2006) Sheikh, 2006 L, I (Robinson et al
. , 2001) Yes No
**Euproctis sp.**  IN(Hill, 1983) Hill, 1983 L (Hill, 1987) Yes No **Euproctis subflava** Bremer IN(Robinson et al
. , 2007) Robinson et al
. ,

2007 L (Ahn et al
. ,

1989; Robinson et al
. , 2001) Yes No **Lymantria ampla** (Walker) IN(Srivastava, 1997) Srivastava, 1997 L (Srivastava, 1997) Yes No **Lymantria beatrix** Stoll IN (Robinson et al
. , 2007) Robinson et al
. ,

2001; Robinson et al
. , 2007 L (Srivastava,

1997) Yes No **Olene mendosa** Hubner Sy n: Dasychira mendosa IN(Robinson et

al
. , 2007) Cantelo et al
. ,

1965; Robinson et al
. , 2001 L (Cantelo et al
. ,

1965 Yes No

19 Deudorix isocrates

—an internal pest which pupates inside of the fruit

—is one of the most important and destructive pests of pomegranate in India (Nair, 1975 ). In general, entry holes and exreta make this pest easy to detect (Patil et al
. , 2002), Infested fruit gene rally fall off the tree prematurely, but such fruit, when harvested before they have fallen off the tree, may occasionally escape detection, particularly if the pest enters the fruit from the calyx end , .Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 19 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Lepidoptera**  **: Metarbelidae**  **Indarbela dea** Swinhoe IN(CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007 St , Bk (CABI, 2007) Yes No **Indarbela quadrinotata** (Walker, 1856) IN(NHM, 2006) Patil et al
. , 2002; Robinson et al
. , 2001 Bk (Sen
- Sarma,

1987); Yes No **Indarbela sp.**  IN(Hill, 1983) Hill, 1983 Bk (Hill, 1983) Yes No **Indarbela tetraonis** (Moore) IN(Butani and Verma, 1981; NHM, 2006) Patil et al
. , 2002;

Robinson et al
. , 2001 St , Bk (Butani

and Verma, 1981) Yes No **Lepidoptera :**  **Noctuidae Achaea janata**  (L .) IN(CABI, 2007) Robinson et al
. , 2001 L , F (Hill, 1994;

Robinson et al
. , 2001; Sheikh, 2006) Yes No 20 **Arcyophora dentula** (Lederer) IN(Sheikh, 2006 ; Anony mous, 1941) Sheikh, 2006 ;

Robinson et al
. , 2001; Robinson et al
. , 2007 L (Sheikh, 2006 ;

Anony mous, 1941 ) Yes No **Dysgonia algira** (Linnaeus) IN(Robinson et al
. , 2007) CABI, 2007;

Robinson et al
. , 2007 L (Robinson et

al
. , 2007) Yes No **Ercheia diversipennis** Walker IN(Robinson et al
. , 2001; Robinson et al
. , 2007) Robinson et al
. ,

2007 F (Robinson et al
. ,

2001; Susainathan, 1924) Yes No 21 **Eudocima fullonia** Clerck Sy n: Ophideres fullonia ; O. fullonica ; O threis fullonia ; O. fullonica IN(Hill, 1983) CABI, 2007 L (CABI, 2007); F (CABI, 2007; Fors yth, 1966; Hill, 1983) Yes No 22

**Eudocima homaena** Hubner Sy n: Othreis homaena IN(CABI, 2007;

Robinson et al
. , 2007) Bhumannavar and

Viraktamath, 2001; CABI, 2007; Robinson et al
. , 2007 F (Bhumannavar

and Viraktamath, 2001) Yes No 23

20 Adults of A. janata feed on the fruit of pomegran ate, while larvae feed on the leaves (Sheikh, 2006). Thus, A
. janata is not expected to follow

the pathway because adults are relatively large and mobile. 21 Because only adults feed on fruit (Susainathan, 1924), this pest is not expected to follow the pathway on fresh pomegranates. 22 Only adults are associated with fruit (CABI, 2007; Hill, 1983) and consequently are not expected to follow the pathway. 23 Because only adults are associated with fruit (Bhumannavar and Viraktamath, 2001), this pest is not exp ected to follow the pathway.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 20 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Eudocima materna**  Linnaeus Sy n: Othreis materna IN(CABI, 2007;

Robinson et al
. , 2007) CABI, 2007;

Robinson et al
. , 2007 L (Mohite et al
. ,

2004); F (Fay

and Halfpapp, 2006; Fors yth, 1966; Zhang, 1994) Yes No 24
**Helicoverpa armigera** (Hübner) Sy n: Heliothis armigera IN(Teggelli et

al
. , 2002) Teggelli et al
. ,

2002 Sh , L , I (CABI,

2007); F (Teggelli et al
. , 2002; CABI, 2007) Yes No 25 **Ophiusa tirhaca** Cramer IN(Robinson et al
. , 2007) Robinson et al
. ,

2007 L (Robinson et

al
. , 2001) Yes No **Lepidoptera :**  **Oecophoridae Stathmopoda auriferella**  Walker IN(Robinson et al
. , 2007) Robinson et al
. ,

2007 F (Park et al
. ,

1994) Yes No 26 **Lepidoptera :**  **Psychidae Acanthopsyche cana**  Hampson IN(Robinson et al
. , 2007) Robinson et al
. ,

2007 L (Robinson et

al
. , 2007) Yes No **Acanthopsyche sp**  **.** 27 IN(Robinson et al
. , 2001; Sheikh, 2006) Sheikh, 2006 L (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No **Eumeta crameri** Westwood IN(Hill, 1983; Robinson et al
. , 2007) Hill, 1983; Patil et

al
. , 2002 Bk (Robinson et

al
. , 2001); L (Hill, 1983; Patil et al
. , 2002; Robinson et al
. , 2001) Yes No

**Pteroma sp**  . IN(Nair, 1975) Nair, 1975 L (Nair, 1975) Yes No **Lepidoptera :**  **Py ralidae**  **Apomyelois ceratoniae** Zellar Sy n: Ectomyelois ceratoniae IN(Singh, 1991); U.S. (Robinson et al
. , 2007) CABI, 2007; Patil

et al
. , 2002; Robinson et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A

24 Because only the adult life form is associated with fruits (Fay and Halfpapp, 2006), this moth is not expected to follow the pathway. 25 On pomegranate, H. armigera inserts its head and anterior parts into the fruit (Teggelli et al
. , 2002). Therefore, this pest should be readily noticed and eliminated from the pathway during harvest and post
- harvest processing. 26 Stathmopoda auriferilla, like many members of the family Oecophoridae **,** generally only feeds on decaying plant materi al. It appears to only be associated with rotten fruit of pomegranate (Robinson et al
. , 2001) and would not be associated with fresh fruit. 27 Sheikh ( 2006 ) reports that the bag worm “ Acantho psyche ” attacks pomegranate in India. We considered the extra sp ace to be a typographical error and that the true name was Acanthopsyche , which is a genus of bagworms.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 21 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Cadra cautella**  (Walker) Sy n: Ephestia cautella IN(CABI,

2007); U.S. (Arnett Jr., 2000) Carter, 1984;

Robinson et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A **Cryptoblabes gnidiella** Millière Sy n: Albinia casazzar ; A. gnidiella ; Ephestia gnidiella IN(CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007; Robinson et al
. , 2007 St , L , F (CABI,

2007); F (Carter, 1984) Yes Yes
**Dichocrocis megillalis** Walker IN(CABI, 2007) Robinson et al
. , 2007 F (Cantelo et al
. ,

1965; Robinson et al
. , 2001) Yes Yes **Ephestia elutella** Hubner IN(Robinson et al
. , 2007); U.S. (NC) (CABI, 2007) Robinson et al
. ,

2007 N/A No N/A **Euzophera bigella** Zeller Sy n: E. punicaeella (Pasuki, 1975) IN(Robinson et al
. , 2007) Robinson et al
. ,

2007 L , F (Nazeer

Ahmad, 1942; Robinson et al
. , 2001); F (Robinson et al
. , 2001) Yes Yes

**Paralipsa gularis** (Zeller) Sy n: Aphomia gularis IN(Butani,

1978; Joseph and Oommen, 1961; Robinson et al
. , 2001); U.S. (Arnett Jr., 1997 **)** Robinson et al
. ,

2007 N/A No N/A

**Plodia interpunctella** (Hubner) IN , U.S. (CABI, 2007) Robinson et al
. ,

2007 N/A No N/A **Pyralis farinalis** Linnaeus IN(Robinson et al
. , 2007); U.S. (Arnett Jr., 2000) Robinson et al
. ,

2007 N/A No N/A **Lepidoptera :**  **Saturniidae Actias selene**  Hubner IN(NHM, 2006) Robinson et al
. , 2001 L (Robinson et

al
. , 2001; Viqar et al
. , 2005) Yes No **Attacus atlas** Linnaeus IN(Robinson et al
. , 2007) Robinson et al
. ,

2001 L (CABI, 2007;

Robinson et al
. , 2001) Yes NoPest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 22 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Lepidoptera**  **: Tortricidae**  **Archips micaceana** Walker IN(Manjunatha et al
. , 2003) Robinson et al
. ,

2001 L (Manjunatha et

al
. , 2003; Robinson et al
. , 2001) Yes No **Cydia pomonella** Linnaeus IN , U.S. (CABI, 2007) Robinson et al
. ,

2007 N/A No N/A **Thysanoptera :**  **Thripidae Megalurothrips distalis**  (Karny) IN(CABI, 2007; Robinson et al
. , 2001) CABI, 2007 L , I , F (CABI, 2007) Yes No 28 **Retithrips syriacus** (Mayet) IN(Hill, 1983; Sheikh, 2006); U.S. (FL) (CABI, 2007) Hill, 1983 L (Hill, 1987; Sheikh, 2006) [Yes] 5 No **Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus**  (grapevine thrips) IN(Sheikh, 2006) CABI, 2007;

Sheikh, 2006 L (Sheikh, 2006);

L , F (CABI, 2007) Yes Yes **Scirtothrips oligochaetus** Kary ny Sy n: Anaphothrips oligochaetus Kary

ny IN(Karny, 1926; Sheikh, 2006) Sheikh, 2006 L (Palmer et al
. , 1990); I (Sheikh, 2006); F (Nair, 1975) Yes Yes **Thrips subnudula** Karny Sy n : Ramaswamiahiella subnudula (Mound, 2007) IN(Karny, 1926; Sheikh, 2006) Sheikh, 2006 L (Morton, 1987); I (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No
**WEEDS Loranthaceae**  **Loranthus spp.**  IN(Kumar, 1944) Kumar, 1944 St (Mabberley , 1987) Yes No **PATHOGENS Alternaria alternate**  (Fr.) Kiesl. (Dothideomycetes, Pleosporales) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007); U.S. (CABI, 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A

28 Although CABI (2007) lists M. distalis as a “minor” host of pomegranate, we found no other reference to substantiate this. Megalurothrips distalis app ears to be mainly a pest of legumes, and only occasionally attacks fruit trees such as pome and stone fruit trees. Furthermore, M. distalis generally feeds on the flowers and leaves. These factors led us to conclude that this pest is unlikely to be in the pathway.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 23 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Aspergillus flavus**  Link Teleomorph: Emericella ( Eurotiomycetes, Eurotiales) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007); U.S. (CABI, 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A **Aspergillus nidulans** (Eidam) G. Winter Teleomorph: Emericella ( Eurotiomycetes, Eurotiales) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007); U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A
**Aspergillus niger** Tiegh Teleomroph: Emericella ( Eurotiomycetes, Eurotiales) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007); U.S. (CABI, 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A **Aspergillus niveus** Blochwitz Teleomorph: Emericella ( Eurotiomycetes, Eurotiales) IN( Sheikh, 2006); U.S. (Schering, 1990 ) Sheikh, 2006 N/A No N/A
**Aspergillus versicolor** (Vuill.) Tirabosch Teleomorph: Emericella ( Eurotiomycetes , Eurotiales) IN( Sheikh, 2006 ), U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2007) Sheikh, 2006 N/A No N/A

**Beltraniella humicola** P. Rama Rao Anamorph: Leiosphaerella (Sordariomycetes, Xylariales) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 L (Farr et al
. , 2007) Yes No
**Botryodiplodia theobromae**  Pat (Incertae sedis) Lasiodiplodia theobromae (Pat.) Griffon & Maubl. Fungi Imperfecti: Coelomycetes IN(Farr et al
. , 2007); U.S. (CABI, 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/APest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 24 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Botryotinia fuckeliina**  (de Bary) Whetzel Sy n : Ascom yc etes: Helotiales Anamorph: Botrytis fuckeliana cinerea Pers.: Fr. (Leotiomycetes, Helotiales) IN; U.S. (CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007 N/A No N/A

**Ceratocystis fimbriata** Ellis & Halst. Ceratocy stidaceae (Sardariomyc etes, Microascales) Anamorph: Chalara sp. IN(Farr et al
. , 2007); U.S. (CABI, 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 St , F , L , wood (Harrington, 2004 #11) Yes 29 No 30

**Cercospora granati** Rawla Sy n: Pseudocercosporella granati (Rawla) Teleomorph; Mycosphaerella (Dothideomycetes, Capnodiales) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 L (Rawla, 1971) Yes No

29 Ceratocystis fimbriata cause s a highly destructive wilt on pomegranate (Somasehara, 1999). The taxonomy of C
. fimbriata is very complex (Harrington and Baker, 2004). Its host range is very broad and recent research indicates that C. fimbriata may contain more than one species (Baker et al
. , 2003). We found no indication of which genotype(s) of C. fimbriata causes pomegranate wilt. Ceratocystis fimbriata is already present in the United S tates, where it infects Populus, Platanus , and Ipomea sp (Harrington and Baker, 2004). However, molecular evidence indicates that the North American clade of C. fimbrata is genetically distinct from the clades in Latin America and Asia ( Baker et al
. , 2003; Harrington and Baker, 2004; Johnson et al
. , 2005 ). In addition, pomegranate is cultivated in the same county and even same field as infected almonds in California (Harrington, 2004) and the pomegranate has not become infected ( Edwards and Davis, 1988 ). Th at may mean that C. fimbriata in North America differ s from the other clades. Thus, an infective strain of C. fimbriata could still be introduced from abroad . Based on similar reasoning, a U . S . Forest Service risk analysis of Eucalyp tus wood chips and untreated logs im

ported from South America rated C. fimbri ata as H igh risk , and requiring some form of management or risk mediation (Kleijunus et al
. , 2001). 30 We found no evidence that C. fimbriata is present in pomegranate fruit. C. fimbriata is typically a pathogen of wood or fiberous fruit, such as cacao (Harrington, 2004). Additionally, C. fimbriata causes a wilt of the bush and there has has been no description of a fruit rot (Huang et al, 2003). Based on the lack of observations of fruit rot and the description of the disease as a wilt rather than a fruit rot, it seems that fruit is not infected by the fungus and makes a poor pathway . If additional observations contradict this, a reanalysis can be done.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 25 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Cercospora punicae**  Henn . Sy n: Pseudocercospora punicae (Henn.) Deighton Teleomorph: Mycosphaerella lythracearum F. A. Wolf (Dothideomycetes, Capnodiales) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007); U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A

**Cladosporium oxysporum** Berk. & M. A. Curtis Fungi Imperfecti: Hy phom yc etes IN( Sheikh,

2006 ); U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2007) Sheikh, 2006 N/A No N/A
**Cochliobolus lunatus** R.R. Nelson & Haasis Ascomycetes: Dothideales Anamorph: Pleosporaceae Curvularia lunata (Wakk.) Boedijn (Dothideomycetes, Pleosporales) IN(CABI, 2007); U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A

**Coleophoma em** 

**petri** (Rostr.) Petr. Fungi Imperfecti: Coelomycetes IN( Sheikh, 2006 ); U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2007) Sheikh, 2006 N/A No N/A
**Colletotrichum gloeosporioides**  (Penz.) Penz. & Sacc. in Penz. Fungi Imperfecti: Coelomycetes IN( Sheikh, 2006 ); U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2007) Sheikh, 2006 N/A No N/A
**Coniella granati** (Sacc.) Petr. & S yd. Anamorph: Schizoparme (Sordariomycetes, Diaporthales) IN(CABI, 2007); U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No 31 N/A
**Coniothyrium sp.**  Anamorph: Leptosphaeria (Dothideomycetes, Pleosporales) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 L , St (Farr et al
. , 2007) Yes No

31 Coniella granati is described alternately as a saprophyte ( PestID , 2007) and as a pathogen ( Weber, 1973 ) . Consequently , we included it on the pest list, but its presence in the United S tates prevents its designation as a quarantine pest.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 26 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Curvularia pallescens**  Boedijn (Dothideomycetes, Pleosporales) Teleomorph: Cochliobolus pallescens (Tsuda & Ueyama) Sivan. IN , U.S.(Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A

**Discosia punicae** Schreem . & M. Reddy (Sordariomycetes, Xylariales) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 L (Madhukar and Reddy , 1988) Yes No **Fusarium equiseti** (Corda) Sacc. Fungi Imperfecti: Hy phom yc etes IN( Sheikh,

2006 ); U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2007) Sheikh, 2006 N/A No N/A **Fusarium fusarioides** (Gonz. Frag. & Cif.) C. Booth Teliomorph: Gibberalla (Sordariomycetes, Hy pocreales) IN(Farr et al
. ,

2007); U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A

**Gloeosporium sp.**  (Leotiomycetes, Helotiales) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 L (Farr et al
. , 2007) Yes No **Leptosphaeria punicae** A.K. Kar & Maity Teleomorph: (Dothideomycetes, Pleosporales) Leptosphaeriaceae Loculoascomyc etes: Dothideales IN (Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 R , L Yes No

**Nigrospora oryzae** (Berk. & Broome) Petch (Sordariomycetes In certae sedis) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007); U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A
**Oidium** sp. IN(Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 L , F (Farr et al
. , 2007) Yes Yes **Penicillium chrysogenum** Thom Fungi Imperfecti: Hy phom yc etes IN( Sheikh,

2006 ), U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2007) Sheikh, 2006 N/A No N/APest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 27 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Penicillium expansum**  Link Teleomorph: Eupenicillium(Eurotiom yc etes, Eurotiales) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007), U.S. (CABI, 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A
**Penicillium sp**  **.** Teleomorph: Eupenicillium (Eurotiomycetes, Eurotiales) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 F (Farr et al
. , 2007) Yes Yes
**Pestalotia jodhpurensis** Bilgrami & Purohit Teleomorph: Broomella (Sordariomycetes, Xylariales) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 L (Misra, 2004) Yes No
**Pestalotiopsis versicolor** ( Speg.) Steyaert Teleomorph: Pestalosphaeria (Sordariomycetes, Xylariales) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 L (Madhukar and Reddy , 1988) Yes No

**Phaeoramularia legrellei** V.G. Rao & B.R.D. Yadav (Dothideomycetes, Capnodiales) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 L (Rao and Yadav, 1991) Yes No

**Phoma** sp. IN(Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A Yes Yes **Phomopsis aucubicola** (Brunaud) Grove Sy n : Phoma lirelliformis Sacc. var. aucubicola Brunaud Teleomorph: Diaporthe (Sordariomycetes, Diaporthales) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007), U.S.( Ny vall and Hu, 1997) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A

**Phomopsis** sp**.** IN (Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 Twigs (Farr et al
. , 2007) Yes No **Phomopsis versoniana** Sacc. Teleomorph: Diaporthe (Sordariomycetes, Diaporthales) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007); U.S. (Dodge, 1936) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/APest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 28 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Phyllosticta sp.**  IN(Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 L (Farr et al
. , 2007) Yes No **Rhizopus arrhizus** A. Fisch A. Fischer Sy n : Rhizopus oryzae Went & Prins. Geerl. Prinsen Geerligs (Zygom yc etes, Mucorales ) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007); U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A

**Rhizopus stolonifer** (Ehrenb.) Vuill. (Ehrenb.: Fr.) Vuill. (Zygom yc etes, Mucorales) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007); U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A
**Sclerotium rolfsii** Sacc. Sy n : Teleomorph: Athelia rolfsii (Curzi) C.C. Tu & Kimbrough (Agaricomyc etes, Agaricales) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007); U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A

**Setosphaeria rostrata** K. J. Leonard (Dothideomycetes, Pleosporales) IN(Bose et al
. , 2002); U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A **Sphaceloma punicae** Bitanc. & JenkinsTeleomorph Elsinöe (Dothideomycetes, My riangiales) IN(Farr et al
. ,

2007); U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A

**Sphaeropsis punicae** Unknown taxonomy IN(Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 L (Mathur, 1979) Yes No **Spicaria sp**  . Unknown taxonomy IN(Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A Yes Yes **Syncephalastrum racemosum**  Cohn ex. J. Schrot. Zygom yc etes: Mucorales IN( Sheikh, 2006 ); U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2007) Sheikh, 2006 N/A No N/APest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 29 **Pest Distribution**  **Host Association Plant p**  **arts affected**  **1 Q**  ****

**Status Follows**  **p athway** **2 Chromistidae**  **Phytophthora nicotianae** Breda de Haan (Oomycetes, Peronosporales) IN(Farr et al
. , 2007); U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A **Phytophthora palmivora var.**  **palmivora** (E .J. Butler) E.J. Butler (Oomycetes, Peronosporales) IN ( Farr et al
. , 2007); U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2007) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A

**BACTERIA Xanthomonas axonopodis**  **pv. Punicae**  (Hingorani & Singh 1959) Xanthomonads IN(Upasana and Verma, 2002) Upasana and

Verma, 2002 L , F , St (Upasana

and Verma, 2002) Yes Yes
**NEMATODES Heliocotylenchus**  **pseudorobustus** IN(CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007 R (CABI, 2007) Yes No **Heliocotylenchus spp**  **.** (Steiner) Golden ( Hoplolaiminae ) ( Hoplolaiminae ) IN(Darekar et al
. , 1989) Darekar et al
. ,

1989 R (Darekar et al
. ,

1989) Yes No **Meloidogyne incognita** Kofoid & White ( Heteroderidae) IN(Darekar et al
. , 1989); U.S. (Maggenti, 1981) Darekar et al
. ,

1989 R (Darekar et al
. ,

1989) No No **Xiphinema insigne** Lo os ( Lo ngidoridae) IN(Darekar et al
. , 1989) Darekar et al
. ,

1989 R (Darekar et al
. ,

1989) Yes No **VIROIDS Hop Stunt Viroid**  Pospiviroidae IN(Roy et al
. , 2005); U.S. (Sano et al
. , 1986) Astruc et al
. , 1996 N/A No N/A
**VIRUSES Cucumber mosaic virus**  Bromoviridae IN(Verma et al
. , 2004); U.S. (CABI, 2007) Verma et al
. , 2004 N/A No N/A

**2.5 .**  **Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway** Most of the pests identified in Table 4 are found in the conterminous United States, so are not quarantine pests . Furthermore, not all of the quarantine pests identified are likely to follow thePest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 30 pathway of fresh pomegranate fruit. Quarantine pests not expected to follow the pathway were not considered for further anal ys is . S hould any of these pests be intercepted in shipments of the commodity , however, quarantine action may be taken and additional risk analyses may be done . The quarantine pests that were considered likely to follow the pathway

are listed below (Table 5). The armored scale, Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) was not anal yz ed because although armored scales may enter on commercial fruit for consumption, they are not expected to establish via this pathway (Miller, 1985; Zlotina et al
. , 2007). In a recent review, Zlotina and Hennessey

(2 007) concluded that even if high quantities of imported fruit are infested with armored scale species, there is a very low risk that an armored scale would establish along a commercial fruit pathway32
. This low risk is explained by the poor ability

of armored scales to disperse to new host plants from fruits for consumption (Zlotina et al
. , 2007). The following characteristics of armored scales contribute to their poor dispersal capabilities:  Legs and wings are absent in females and in feeding immature forms ; only short
- lived m ales possess wings, and they do not feed and tend to mate with nearby females.  Self
- dispersal of armored scales occurs b y immature forms, or “crawlers”. They are the most vulnerable life stage, survival of which decreases with lon g distance wind dispersal. Crawlers passivel y disperse b y wind from one plant to another for onl y about 24 hours. After crawlers start feeding, they do not disperse further because they soon lose their legs and are anchored firml y t o the host by their mouthparts.  Dispersal from fruit discarded in the environment is considered very unlikely because of low wind speeds at ground level , and low survival rate of crawlers , either on the ground , on decaying fruit , or on fruit peel s . Crawlers are highl y unlikely to walk away from their natal host because they cannot move rapidly over bare soil or rough surfaces. **Table 5** . Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway

on fresh pomegranate f

ruit from India. **Group: Family Pest name(s)**  Acari: Eriophyi dae Tenuipalpus granati, T. punicae Diptera: Tephritidae Bactrocera carambolae, B. dorsalis, B. zonata Hemiptera: Coccidae Ceroplastes rubens, C. rusci Hemiptera: Margarodidae Drosicha dalbergiae, Icerya aegyptiaca, I. seychellarum Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae Dysmicoccus neobrevipes, Maconellicoccus hirsutus, Nipaecoccus viridis, Planococcus angkorensis, P. lilacinus, Pseudococcus cryptus Lepidoptera: Crambidae Conogethes punctiferalis Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae Deudorix epijarbas, D. isocrates Lepidoptera: P yralidae Cryptoblabes gnidiella, Dichocrocis megillalis, Euzophera bigella Thy sanoptera: Thripidae Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus, Scirtothrips oligochaetus Bacteria Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae

32 Their conclusions apply to commercial fruit shipped without leaves, stems, or contaminants.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 31 **2.6 .**  **Consequences of Introduction** The undesirable consequences that may occur from the introduction of quarantine pests are assessed in this section. For each quarantine pest, the potential consequences of introduction were rated in five areas called “Risk Elements.” The Risk Elements include: Climate/Host Interaction, Host Range, Dispersal Potential, Economic Impact and Environmental Impact. These Risk Elements reflect the biology , host range and climatic/geographic distribution of each pest and are supported b y biological information on e ach of the analyzed pests summarized in this section. For each risk element, pests were assigned a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points) or High (3 points). The ratings were determined using the criteria in the Risk Assessment Guidelines, Version 5.02 (USDA, 2000). A cumulative risk value was then calculated by summing the ratings. The following scale was used to interpret this total: 5
- 8 points = low risk, 9 - 12 points = medium risk, and 13
- 15 points = high risk. The ratings are summarized in Table 6 . The major sources of uncertainty present in this risk assessment are similar to those in other risk assessments. They

include the use of a developing or evolving process (Orr et al
. , 1993; USDA, 2000), the approach used to combine risk elements (Bier, 19 99; Morgan and Henrion, 1990), and the evaluation of risk b y comparisons to lists of factors within the guidelines (Kaplan, 1992; Orr et al
. , 1993). To address this last source of uncertainty , the lists of factors were interpreted as illustrative and not e xhaustive. This implies that additional biological information, even if not explicitly part of the criteria, can be used when it is relevant to a rating. Other sources of uncertainty are the quality of the biological information and the amount of informati on available on the regional flora and fauna. Inherent biological variation within a population of organisms introduces uncertainty

as well (Morgan and Henrion, 1990).
**Bactrocera carambolae Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction**  Bactrocera carambolae is found in Brunei Darussalam, tropical India, Indonesia, Malay sia, Singapore, and Thailand . It also ha s restricted distributions in Brazil, French Guiana, and Suriname . It was apparentl y eradicated from Guyana (CABI, 2007). Based on this distribution we estimate that B. carambolae could only become established in the areas of the United States corresponding to Plant Hardiness Zone 10 (USDA, 1990). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in this zone ( NRCS , 2007). Low (1)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** This pest attack s many species in multiple families including: **Anacardiaceae** ( Anacardium occidentale, Mangifera spp. , Spondias purpurea ), **Annonaceae** ( Annona spp., Rollinia pulchrinervis ), **Apocynaceae** ( Thevetia peruviana ), **Arecaceae** ( Arenga spp.), **Caricaceae** ( Carica papaya ), **Clusiaceae** ( Garcinia mangostana ), **Combretaceae** ( Terminalia catappa ), **Lauraceae** (Persea americana ), **Moraceae** ( Artocarpus spp), **Myrtaceae** (

Eugenia uniflora, Psidium spp. , Syzygium spp.), **Oxalidaceae** ( Averrhoa spp.), **Punicaceae** (

Punica granatum ), **Rhamnaceae** (Ziziphus spp.), **Rhizophoraceae** ( Rhizophora spp.), **Rutaceae** ( Citrofortunella mitis, Citrus spp, Fortunella margarita ), **Sapotaceae** ( Chrysophyllum cainito, Mimusops elengi, Pouteria campechiana ), **Solanaceae** ( Capsicum annuum, Solanum lycopersicum ) (CABI, 2007). High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 32 **Bactrocera carambolae Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential**  Tephritid fruit flies have a relativel y high biotic potential. For example, in laboratory studies, the f

ecundity of female B. tryoni and B. dorsalis fruit flies was over 1000 eggs (Fletcher, 1989a). Like other Bactrocera, B. carambolae disperses readily by flight (Hely et al
. , 1982); many Bactrocera species can fl y 50 - 100 km (Fletcher, 1989b). Bactrocera f ruit flies can also disperse via infested plant materials, such as fruits and flowers (Fletcher, 1989b; CABI, 2007). For example, since 1985, species of Bactrocera have been intercepted at U.S. ports of entry over 12,000 times, in a variety of commodities ( PestID , 2007). High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** B. carambolae attacks several economicall y important crops , including avocado, tomato, pepper and Citrus spp. , and would likely be a major pest on these crops in the United States (Drew et al
. , 1982; White and Elson
- Harris, 1992). Up to 100 percent of unprotected crops may

be damaged (CABI, 2007). The introduction of B. carambolae in the continental United States would likely stimulate eradication or control programs, similar to those that have been implemented in the past for other Tephritid fruit flies (CABI, 2007; Clausen, 1978). Additionally , its presence in the United States, even as a temporary adventive population, could lead to severe export restrictions of host commodities to markets out side of this pest’s known distribution (Drew et al
. , 1982). High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** B. carambolae may

have direct impacts on Federal listed endangered species such as Ziziphus celata (in Florida), which is closel y related to other hosts known to be attacked by B. carambolae (USFWS, 2007). Because it represents a potential threat to the Citrus and other crop industries, the establishment of B. dorsalis in the United States would likely initiat e eradication or chemical/biological control programs, similar to those that have occurred in Hawaii and California, and Florida for other Tephritid fruit flies (CABI, 2007; Clausen, 1978). High (3)

**Bactrocera dorsalis Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction**  Bactrocera dorsalis is found in Bhutan, southern China, northern India, Myanmar, northern Thailand, Guam, and the Hawaiian Islands (White and Elson
- Harris, 1992). Based on this distribution we estimate that B. dor salis could become established in the areas of the United States corresponding to Plant Hardiness Zone 9 - 10 (USDA, 1990). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in this zone ( NRCS , 2007). Medium (2)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** B. dorsalis attack s multiple species in multiple families including the following : **Anacardiaceae** (

Anacardium occidentale, Mangifera foetida, Spondias purpurea, Mangifera indica ), **Annonaceae** ( Annona spp.), **Arecaceae** ( Areca catechu ), High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 33 **Bactrocera dorsalis Risk**  **r ating**  **s Caricaceae**  ( Carica papaya ), **Combretaceae** ( T erminalia catappa ), **Cucurbitaceae** ( Cucumis melo, Cucumis sativus, Momordica charantia ), **Ebenaceae** ( Diospyros kaki), **Flacourtiaceae** (

Flacourtia indica ), **Lauraceae** (Persea americana ), **Malpighiaceae** ( Malpighia glabra ), **Moraceae** ( Artocarpus spp. , Ficus racemos a ), **Musaceae** ( Musa ), **Myrtaceae** (Syzygium spp. , Psidium guajava ), **Oxalidaceae** ( Averrhoa carambola ), **Punicaceae** (

Punica granatum ), **Rhamnaceae** (Ziziphus spp.), **Rosaceae** (Prunus spp., Malus pumila, Pyrus communis ), **Rubiaceae** ( Coffea Arabica ), **Rutaceae** ( Aegle marmelos, Citrus spp.), **Sapindaceae** ( Dimocarpus longan , Nephelium lappaceum, Litchi chinensis ), **Sapotaceae** ( Chrysophyllum cainito, Mimusops elengi, Manilkara zapota ), **Solanaceae** ( Capsicum annuum ), and **Tiliaceae** ( Muntingia calabura ) (CABI, 2007; White and Elson
- Harris, 1992). **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** Tephritid fruit flies have a relativel y high biotic potential. Depending on climate, B. dorsalis may

have five or more overlapping generations per year (Shi et al
. , 2005). In laborato ry

studies, the fecundity

of female B. tryoni and B. dorsalis fruit flies was estimated to be over 1000 eggs (Fletcher, 1989a). Many Bactrocera species can fl y 50 - 100 km (Fletcher, 1989b), and B. dorsalis also disperses readily

by flight (Hely et al
. , 1982) . Additionally, Bactrocera can be dispersed by infested plant materials, such as fruits and flowers (Fletcher, 1989b; CABI, 2007). For example, since 1985, Bactrocera species have been intercepted at U.S. ports of entry in a variety

of commodities over 12,000 times ( PestID , 2007). High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Bactrocera dorsalis has been reported on several economicall y important crops including apple, peach, pear, strawberry , and Citrus spp. , and could be a major pest on these crops in the United States (Drew et al
. , 1982; White and Elson
- Harris, 1992). It may damage u

p to 100 percent of unprotected crops (CABI, 2007). The introduction of B. dorsalis in the continental United States would likely stimulate eradication or control programs, as has been done in the recent past for other Tephritid fruit flies (CABI, 2007; Clausen, 1978). Its presence in the United States, even as a temporary

adventive population, could lead to severe expo rt restrictions of host commodities to markets outside of this pest’s known distribution (Drew et al
. , 1982). High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** Bactrocera dorsalis may

directly affect Federal listed endangered species such as Prunus geniculata and Ziziphus celata (in Florida), which are closel y related to other hosts known to be attacked by B. dorsalis (USFWS, 2007). Because it threat ens Citrus, stone fruit, and other crop industries, the establishment of B. dorsalis in the United States could trigger the initiation of eradication or chemical and biological control programs, similar to those that have occurred in Hawaii, Florida and California (CABI, 2007; Clausen, 1978). High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 34 **Bactrocera zonata Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction**  Bactrocera zonata is found in India, Indonesia (Sumatra), Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam (White and Elson
- Harris, 1992). Based on this distribution we estimate that B. zonata could become established in United States Plant Hardiness Zone s 9 - 10 (USDA, 1990). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in this zone ( NRCS , 2007). Medium

(2) **Risk Element #2: Host Range** B actrocera zonata attack s multiple species in multiple families including: **Annonaceae** ( Annona spp.), **Arecaceae** ( Phoenix dactylifera ), **Caricaceae** ( Carica papaya ), **Combretaceae** ( Terminalia catappa ), **Cucurbitaceae** ( Cucumis melo, Citrullus lanatus, Momordica spp.), **Lythraceae** (Punica granatum ), **Malvaceae** ( Abelmoschus esculentus, Grewia asiatica ), **Moraceae** ( Ficus spp.), **Myrtaceae** (Syzygium spp. , Psidium guajava ), **Rosaceae** ( Cydonia oblonga , Malus spp., Prunus spp.), **Rhamnaceae** (Ziziphus spp.), **Rutaceae** ( Aegle marmelos, Citrus spp.), **Solanaceae** (Solanum melongena, Solanum lycopersicum ) (CABI, 2007; White and Elson
- Harris, 1992). High (3)

**Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** The reproductive potential, active dispersal potential, and the potential for being dispersed on infested plant materials for B. zonata is no different from B. dorsalis above. High (3) **Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** B actrocera zonata has been reported on several economically important crops including stonefruit, Citrus spp. and Solanum spp. and could be a major pest on these crops in the United States (Drew et al
. , 1982; White and Elson
- Harris, 1992). The introduction of B. zonata in the continental United States would likely stimulate eradication or control programs, similar to those that have been implemented in the past for other Tephritid fruit flies (CABI, 2007; Cla usen, 1978). Its presence in the United States, even as a temporary adventive population, could lead to severe export restrictions of host commodities to markets outside of this pest’s known distribution (Drew et al
. , 1982). High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact**  This risk element is the same for B. zonata as it was for B. dorsalis above. High (3) **Ceroplastes rubens Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction**  Ceroplastes rubens is distributed from warm temperate zones to the tropics. It is found in east and south Asia, Oceania (including Australia), eastern and southern parts of Africa, and sporadically

through the Caribbean (CABI , 2007; Dekle, 2001) . In the United States, it occurs in Florida and Hawaii. This corresponds to Plant Hardiness Zones 8
- 12 (Anony mous, 2007; Maxwell, 2007) , or Zones 8 - 10 in the continental United States. One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these zones in the United States ( NRCS , 2007). Medium (2)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Ceroplastes rubens is highly poly phagous, attacking numerous host families and genera, including: **Acanthaceae** (Strobilanthes ), **Aceraceae** ( Acer), **Am aranthaceae**  ( Celosia ), High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 35 **Ceroplastes rubens Risk**  **r ating**  **s Anacardiaceae**  (

Anacardium , Mangifera , Rhus , Schinus ), **Annonaceae** ( Annona ), **Apocynaceae** (

Allamanda , Alyxia , Melodinus , Nerium , Plumeria , Thevetia ) **Aquifoliaceae** (

Ilex ), **Araceae** (

Aglaonema , Anthurium , Dieffenbachia , Epipremnum , Philodendron , Syngonium , Monstera , Zantedeschia ), **Araliaceae** ( Aralia , Brassaia , Dizy gotheca , Fatsia , Hedera , Meryta , Polyscias , Schefflera ), **Arecaceae** ( Cocos ), **Aspleniaceae** (

Asplenium ), **Asteraceae** ( Artemisia , Chrysanthemum , Fitchia , Gerbera , Helianthus ), **Barringtoniaceae** ( Barringtonia ), **Berberidaceae** ( Nandina ), **Bischofiaceae** (

Bischofia ), **Bixaceae** (

Bixa ), **Blechnaceae** (

Blechnum ), **Buxaceae** ( Buxus ), **Campanulaceae** (Siphonodon ), **Caprifoliaceae** ( Viburnum ), **Celastraceae** ( Celastrus , Elaeodendron , Euonymus ), **Cephalotaxaceae** ( Cephalotaxus ), **Clusiaceae** ( Calophyllum , Garcinia , Montrouziera ), **Cunoniaceae** ( Weinmannia ), **Cycadaceae** ( Cycas ), **Davalliaceae** (

Arthropteris , Davallia ), **Dicksoniaceae** ( Cibotium ), **Ebenaceae** ( Diospyros ), **Elaeocarpaceae** (Elaeocarpus ), **Ericaceae** (Rhododendron ), **Euphorbiaceae** (

Euphorbia ), **Fabaceae** (

Acacia , Cytisus , Dioclea , Ino carpus , Palaquium , Spartium ), **Gleicheniaceae** ( Dicranopteris , Gleichenia ), **Heliconiaceae** ( Heliconia ), **Hernandiaceae** ( Hernandia ), **Hypoxidaceae** ( Molineria ), **Lauraceae** ( Cinnamomum , Cryptocarya , Laurus , Lindera , Machilus , Persea ), **Lomariopsidaceae** ( Elaphoglossum ), **Loranthaceae** ( Loranthus ), **Magnoliaceae** ( Illicium , Magnolia ), **Malvaceae** (

Hibiscus ), **Melastomataceae** ( Astronidium ), **Monimiaceae** ( Wilkiea ), **Moraceae** (

Artocarpus , Cudrania , Ficus , Morus ), **Musaceae** ( Musa ), **Myristicaceae** ( Myristica ), **Myrsinaceae** ( Ardisia , Myrsine , Rapanea ), **Myrtaceae** ( Agonis , Callistemon , Eucalyptus , Eugenia , Feijoa , Melaleuca , Metrosideros , Pimenta , Psidium , Rhodomyrtus , Syzygium ), **Nyctaginaceae** ( Bougainvillea ), **Oleaceae** ( Ligustrum , Olea ), **Oleandraceae,** Nephrolepis ), **Orchidaceae** ( Grammatophyllum , Stanhopea ), **Pinaceae** ( Pinus ), **Piperaceae** (

Peperomia Macropiper , Piper), **Pittosporaceae** ( Pittosporum ), **Poaceae** ( Tristania ), **Polygonaceae** ( Coccoloba ), **Polypodiaceae** ( Belvisia , Phymatodes , Platycerium , Polypodium ), **Pteridaceae** ( Acrostichum ), **Punicaceae** ( Punica ), **Rhizophoraceae** ( Rhizophora ), **Rosaceae** ( Chaenomeles , Eriobotrya , Malus , Photinia , Prunus , Pyrus , Spiraea ), **Rubiaceae** ( Coffea , Gardenia , Gouldia , Ixora , Paederia , Psychotria , Randia , Straussia ), **Rutaceae** ( Citrus , Eremocitrus , Evodia , Flindersia , Pelea , Poncirus ), **Santalaceae** ( Exocarpos ), **Sapindaceae** ( Cupaniopsis , Dimocarpus , Euphoria , Litchi , Nephelium ), **Sapotaceae** ( Calocarpum , Pouteria ), **Schisandraceae** (

Kadsura ), **Sinopteridaceae** ( Aspidotis , Pellaea ), **Stilaginaceae** ( Antidesma ), **Symplocaceae** (Symplocos ), **Tamaricaceae** ( Tamarix), **Taxaceae** ( Podocarpus ), **Theaceae** ( Camellia , Cleyera , Eurya , Ternstroemia ), **Thymelaeaceae** ( Daphne), **Ulmaceae** ( Celtis ), **Verbenaceae** ( Premna ), **Zingiberaceae** ( Alpinia , Zingiber) (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007). **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** With a mean fecundity

of approximately

300 eggs per female and two generations per y ear (CABI , 2007), C. rubens has high reproductive potential. InAustralian studies approximately

50 percent of the hatchings were lost (CABI, 2003). S oft scales (Coccoidea) in general (Greathead, 1997) and C. rubens in particular (I tioka and I

noue, 1991; Loch and Zalucki, 1996), have a limited ability for natural dispers al , their potential may nevertheless be high due to transport of infested plant material (CABI , 2007). This is indicated b y the fact that it has been introduced to many different parts of the world High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 36 **Ceroplastes rubens Risk**  **r ating**  **s** outside its native Africa and India (CABI, 2007; EPPO, 2004). Since 1985, C. rubens has been intercepted at U.S. ports
- of
- entry over 4,700 times on plants and other plant materials (PestID , 2007). **Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Ceroplastes rubens is a pest of citrus, coffee, tea, cinnamon, mango, avocado, and litchi. I t damages its hosts b y piercing and sucking plant tissues (leaves, shoots, and fruit) (CABI , 2007). Under severe infestations, leaves and fruit will prematurely drop resulting in y

ield loss (van den Berg et al
. , 2001). Ceroplastes rubens also indirectly damages plant tissues by produc ing honey

dew , which promotes the growth of sooty mold. Sooty

mold reduces photosy nthetic rates and reduces the market value of fruit (van den Berg et al
. , 2001). Ceroplastes rubens has a limited distribution in Florida but is not currentl y under any apparent official control; further introductions and spread are unlikel y to result in the loss of additional foreign markets for domestically produced commodities. Medium (2)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** It is unknown if establishment of C. rubens in natural areas would reduce community biodiversity

or disrupt ecological processes; at least one other scale insect has shown the potential to be particularly invasive and damaging in natural areas (Howard et al
. , 2004). Because of its broad host range, C. rubens is likely to harm numerous federally Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species in the United States, particularly congeners of current hosts. Additional T&E species it may impact, beyond those already present in Florida, include Asplenium sc olopendrium var. americanum (AL, M I, NY, TN), Helianthus paradoxus (NM, TX), H. schweinitzii (NC, SC), Rhus michauxii (GA, NC, SC, VA), Spiraea virginiana (GA, KY, NC, OH, PA, TN, VA, WV) (USFWS, 2007). Because C. ruben s is a major pest of citrus (van den Berg et al
. , 2001) , its wider establishment in the United States, particularl y California, may result in the initiation of chemical and/or biological control programs as it has in other places where this pest has invaded (CABI , 2007). High (3)

**Ceroplast es rusci**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  **Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction** Ceroplastes rusci is present in many countries of Africa, the Middle East, southern Europe, and the Caribbean; parts of Asia (Indonesia, India); and parts of South America (Argentina, Brazil , Guyana, and Uruguay) (CABI, 2007). In 1994, it was discovered in Florida; it is currentl y present in Broward, Dade, Manatee, Palm Beach, Pasco, and Pinellas counties (Hamon and Mason, 2001). Based on its distribution, we estimate it could survive in Plant Hardiness Zones 8
- 10 in the continental United States (USDA, 1990). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these Zones (NRCS , 200 7 ). Medium (2)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Ceroplastes rusci is highly pol yphagous, with host plants belonging to 45 genera in 42 different plant families (CABI, 2007) including **Annonaceae** ( Annona , Annona cherimola , Annona muricata , Annona reticulata , Annona squamosa ), **Rutaceae** ( Citrus , Citrus aurantium , Citrus limo n , Citrus x paradise ), **Moraceae** ( Ficus carica, Ficus, Morus ), **Actinidiaceae** (

Actinidia chinensis ), **Rosaceae** ( Crataegus , Cydonia , Mespilus High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 37 **Ceroplast es rusci**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  germanica , Prunus , Pyrus communis ), **Euphorbiaceae** (Euphorbia longana ), **Malvaceae** ( Gossypium ), **Araliaceae** ( Hedera helix), **Aquifoliaceae** ( Ilex aquifolium ), **Convolvulaceae** (

Ipomoea batatas ), **Juncaceae** ( Juncus ), **Sapindaceae** (

Litchi chinensis , Nephelium lappaceum ), **Anacardiaceae** ( Mangifera indica , Pistacia ), **Musaceae** (

Musa ), **Myrtaceae** (

Myrtus communis , Psidium guajava ), **Laurac eae**  ( Persea americana ), **Piperaceae** ( Piper nigrum ), **Platanaceae** ( Platanus ), **Salicaceae** ( Populus ), **Liliaceae** (

Ruscus ), **Vitaceae** ( Vitis vinifera ), and **Apocynaceae** ( Nerium oleander) (CABI, 2007). **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** The biotic potential of C
. rusci is relatively high, with one or two generations per year, depending on the climate (Ben
- Dov, 1993; CABI, 2007). Females usually lay between 800 and 1500 eggs (CABI, 2007). S oft scales (Coccoidea) in general (Greathead, 1990), and C. rusci in particular, have limited natural mobility (Hamon and Mason, 2001; Vu et al
. , 2006) . Adult males can fly , but females can only crawl to suitable feeding sites as first instar nymphs (“crawlers”) (CABI, 2007). Dispersal of the crawlers can be aided by wind and other animals (CABI, 2007; Gullan and Kosztarab, 1997). Scale insects, in general, can be transferred b y wind a distance of a few meters up to several km from the original plant (Gullan and Kosztarab, 1997). High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Attack s by C. rusci weaken and kill leaves and shoots; its excreted honeydew provides a medium for the development of a sooty fungal film, which impairs photosy nthesis. Ceroplastes rusci frequently injures crops and ornamental plants, particularly when introduced into new areas lacking natural enemies (CABI, 2007). It is a pest of cultivated citrus and figs (Hamon and Mason, 2001) , and while it is usually only a minor pest of citrus, it can sometimes be serious (Ben
- Dov, 1993). Infrequent major local outbreaks in citrus have been reported in Ital y and Greece, but have been controlled by the application of oils (Hamon and Mason, 2001). In addition, C. rusci attacks other economicall y important U.S. crops, such as cotton, sweet potato, banana, Prunus species, and grapes (CABI, 2007). In Florida , it is a pest of ornamental plants in the genus Ixora , but is found infrequentl y on other host plants (Hamon and Mason, 2001). Ceroplastes rusci has a limited distribution in Florida but is apparentl y not under official control; further introductions an d spread are unlikely to result in the loss of additional foreign markets for domestically produced commodities. Medium (2)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** As a poly phagous species, C. rusci can attack species listed as Threatened or Endangered (50 CFR §17.12) and present in the continental United States (outside Florida, where it already occurs) that are climatically suitable for this scale species, including Allium munzii, Brodiaea filifolia, B
. pallida, Callirhoe scabriuscula, Calochortus tiburonensis, Calystegia stebbinsii, Cercocarpus traskiae, Chlorogalum purpureum, and Eremalche kernensis (USFWS, 2007). These plants occur in plant families containing host genera for C. rusci ; as preference tests with these plants and C. rusci are unknown, we assume C. rusci could use one or more of these plants as hosts. High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 38 **Ceroplast es rusci**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  Considering it is an important economic pest, biological or chemical control may be impl emented if introduced into the United States. **Conogethes punctiferalis Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction**  Conogethes punctiferalis is found in Australia (Northern Territory , Queensland, northern New South Wales) India; China (Anhui, Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Hebei, Henan, Hubei, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Liaoning, Shaanxi, Shandong, Shanxi, Sichuan, Xizhang (Tibet), Yunnan, Zhejiang); Japan; and Indonesia (CABI, 2007; Common, 1990). Based on this , we estimate that C. punctiferalis could become established in Plant Hardiness Zone s 5 - 10 (USDA, 1990). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these zones ( NRCS , 2007). High (3)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Conogethes rubens attack s multiple species in multiple families including: **Anacardiaceae** (

Magniera spp.); **Bixaceae** ( Bixa orellana ); **Bombacaceae** ( Ceiba pentandra, Durio zibethinus ); **Burseraceae** ( Garuga pinnata ); **Compositae** ( Helianthus annuus ); **Euphorbiaceae** ( Endospermum diadenum, Mallotus philippensis, Ricinus spp.); **Fagaceae** ( Castanea sativa ); **Gramineae** ( Andropogon sorghum, Sorghum spp., Zea mays ); **Lecythidaceae** ( Planchonia careya ); **Loranthaceae** ( Dendropthoe glabrescens ); **Malvaceae** ( Gossypium spp.); **Moraceae** (Ficus carica, Morus spp.); **Myrtaceae** (

Psidium spp.); **Pinaceae** ( Abies spp., Cedrus deodara, Pinus spp.); **Proteaceae** (

Ma cadamia spp.); **Rosaceae** ( Eriobotrya japonica , Malus pumila, Prunus persica, Pyrus communis ); **Rubiaceae** ( Mitragyna diversifolia, Morinda citrifolia, Nauclea orientalis ); **Rutaceae** ( Citrus spp.); **Sapindaceae** ( Dimocarpus longan, Lepisanthes rubiginosa, Nephelium spp.); **Sterculiaceae** ( Theobroma cacao ); **Verbenaceae** ( Tectona grandis ); **Zingiberaceae** ( Alpinia spp., Curcuma spp.) (Robinson et al
. , 2001.) High (3)

**Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** Conogethes punctiferalis has high biotic potential , with up to five generations per year (CABI, 2007). . F emale s lay 20 - 30 eggs on the surface of fruits . Eggs hatch 5
- 8 day s after oviposition. The hatching rate may be 100 percent. Like other species of Crambidae, C. punctiferalis is presumed to be capable of long distance flight (Showers et al
. , 2001), although like other Crambidae we assume it would not disperse out of favorable habitats (Cohen et al
. , 2000; Qureshi et al
. , 2005). Additionally , C. puncterferalis c an be dispersed by infested plant materials, such as fruits and seeds. S ince 1985, species of Conogethes have been intercepted at U.S. ports in a variety of commodities , including Prunus , over 700 times ( PestID , 2007). High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Im** **pact** Conogethes punctiferalis is one of the most important insect pests on peaches in southern China , and an important pest on apples in northern China. Infestations cause stunting, scorching and falling of fruit. Conogethes punctiferalis excretions, which cover the fruit surface and have a high sugar content, attract other insect pests and diseases High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 39 **Conogethes punctiferalis Risk**  **r ating**  **s** which damage fruit (CABI, 2007). In Andhra Pradesh, India, it is a major pest of castor. In Gujarat, India, Kapadia (1996) estimated the percentage weight loss of damaged seeds of castor was 63 percent . In maize and sorghum, pollination is reduced because of damage from C. punctiferalis feeding on tassels and maize ear silk. Stems bored b y C. punctiferalis are easil y broken by the wind and farming practices, resulting in a decrease in yield. O ver 5 percent maize loss was caused b y C. punctiferalis and Ostrinia furnacalis in Zhejiang, China (CABI, 2007). C. punctiferalis is listed as a regulated/quarantine pest by the European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) (CFIA, 2007; EPPO, 2000b). Its presence in the United States, even as a temporary adventive population, could lead to severe export restrictions of host commodities to these and other markets outside of this pest’s known distribution. **Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** Conogethes punctiferalis could damage Federall y listed threatened and endangered species, such as Prunus genuclata (FL). This species is closely related to other hosts known to be attacked b y C. punctiferalis (USFWS, 2007). Because it represents a potential threat to the Citrus, stone fruit, and other important crop industries, the establishment of C. punctiferalis in the United States coul d trigger the initiation of eradication or chemical/biological control programs, similar to those that have occurred elsewhere (CABI, 2007). High (3)

**Cryptoblabes gnidiella Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction**  This is a cosmopolitan species in warm climates, unable to survive winters in cooler temperate areas (CABI, 2007). It is distributed south of Western Europe (France, Austria), the Middle East (Turkey , Israel), South Asia, Northern Africa, Uruguay , and New Zealand (CABI, 2007). Establishment is possible in Plant Hardiness Zones 7
- 11 (USDA, 1990). High (3)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Cryptoblabes gnidiella is poly phagous , and often encountered on commercial crops (CABI, 2007). Hosts include citrus ( Citrus spp.), avocado ( Persea americana ), grapes ( Vitis spp.), pomegranate ( Punica granatum ), rice ( Oryza sativa ), cotton ( Gossypium spp.), garlic (

Allium sativum ), beans (

Phaseolus spp.), coffee ( Coffea spp.), maize (Zea mays ), mango (

Mangifera indica ), and sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum ) (CABI, 2007). High (3)

**Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** About 100 eggs per female are laid on the fruit or foliage and hatch in 4
- 7 day s. There are three or four generations per year in Southern Europe and up to five in North Africa (CABI, 2007 ). Larvae are internal feeders of fruits or stems (CABI, 2007), therefore, their dispersal is possible with the commodities and plant material. Like other Py ralids, adults are capable of flight and may disperse long distances. High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 40 **Cryptoblabes gnidiella Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #4: E**  **conomic Impact** Cryptoblabes gnidiella is an important pest of citrus ( Citrus spp.), grapes ( Vitis spp.) and pomegranates (

Punica granatum ) in the Mediterranean (CABI, 2007). It is most noted as a pest of avocado ( Persea americana ) in Israel, of azolla ( Azo lla sp.), sorghum (Sorghum spp.) and rice ( Oryza sativa ) in India, and sporadicall y of corn (Zea mays ) or other crops in any warm part of the world (CABI, 2007). The losses caused by this pest have not been quantified. Because C. gnidiella affects some important export crops (including citrus, cotton, beans, grapes, etc.) its presence in the United States, even as a temporary adventive population, could lead to severe export restrictions of host commodities to markets outside of this pest’s known distribution. High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** Chemical and biological control are likel y to be implemented after introduction of this pest. For example, s ynthetic pyrethroids as well as biological control agents such as Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki are useful against this pest (CABI, 2007). As a poly phagous insect, it is potentially capable of attacking Endangered and Threatened species from the genus Allium (USFWS, 2007). High (3)

**Deudorix epijarbas Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1:**  **Climate/Host Interaction** Deudorix epijarbas is found in several countries in southeast Asia and Oceania, including: China (Guangdong, Hainan, Hong Kong), Fiji, India (Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttar, Uttaranchal), Indonesia, Laos, Malay sia, the Ph ilippines, Sri L anka, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Australia (Queensland), New Guinea, Solomon I slands, and Samoa (CABI, 2007; Common and Waterhouse, 1972; DAFF, 2004; Marsh, 1960; Waite and Hwang, 2002; Zaka
- ur - Rab, 1980). Based on this distribution we esti mate that D. epijarbas could establish in Plant Hardiness Zone s 7 - 10 (USDA, 1990) . Several hosts and potential hosts of D. epijarbas are present in these zones ( NRCS , 2007). High (3)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Deudorix epijarba attack s multiple species in multiple families including: **Arecaceae** ( Caryota ), **Celastraceae** (Salacia ), **Connaraceae** ( Connarus ), **Elaeocarpaceae** ( Elaeocarpus ), **Proteaceae** ( Macadamia ), **Punicaceae** (Punica ), **Sapindaceae** ( Dimocarpus, Harpullia, Litchi, Nephelium, Pometia, Sapindus, Sarcopteryx) (CABI, 2007; Common and Waterhouse, 1972; Herbison
- Evans and Crossley , 2002; Savela, 2007; Waite and Hwang, 2002). High (3)

**Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** Very little is known about the biology of this pest. One report indicates that females can lay up to four eggs inside the cal yxcup of pomegranate fruit (Zaka
- ur- Rab, 1980). As a congener of D. isocrates , we expect that D. epijarbas females can lay several dozen eggs during their lifetime (Karuppuchamy et al
. , 1998). B ecause this pest, has 3
- 4 generations per year (Verma, 1985), we consider that its reproductive potential is high. High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 41 **Deudorix epijarbas Risk**  **r ating**  **s** Lycaenidae are strong, rapid fliers (Borror et al
. , 1989), and in some cases, dispersal may be aided by

wind (Robbins and Small Jr., 1981). Deudorix spp. can also be artificially

spread in infested fruit (Waite and Hwang, 2002; W ynter- Bl yth, 1957). **Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Deudorix epijarbas is a serious pest of pomegranates (Zaka
- ur- Rab, 1980). Larvae bore into fruit, feeding on the seeds and their arils (Verma, 1985; Zaka
- ur - Rab, 1980). The accumulation of opportunistic fungi on the resulting wounds causes the fruit to rot (Zaka
- ur- Rab, 1980). In the Jammu region of India, D. epijarbas caused immature pomegranate fruit to drop and damaged an average of 25 percent of the fruit that remained on the tree (Thakur et al
. , 1995). In the Himachal Pradesh region, pomegranate infestation varied from 8 to 96 percent during the active months of May to October (Prasad et al
. , 1987). Similar levels of damage occurred elsewhere in India (e.g., Zaka
ur- Rab, 1980). In addition, D. epijarbas infestations indirectly impact when growers use chemical and biological control programs ( e.g . , Dubey et al
. , 1993; Mani et al
. , 2005). Consequently , this pest poses a significant economic threat to producers of pomegranates and other large
- seeded fruit, particularly in arid regions. With the exception of macadamia nuts, the United States is not a major producer or exporter of any commodities known to be hosts of this pest. P roduction of macadamia nuts in the United States occurs almost exclusively in Hawaii . Thus , the establishment of this pest in the conterminous United States is unlikel y would lead to a loss of foreign markets or increased trade restrictions. Medium (2)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** Compared to other pests, D . epijarbas has a restricted host range and feeds on few plants found in the United States . This relative oligophagy suggests that this species does not constitute a significant threat to threatened or endangered plants in the United States ; n o Federal Threatened or Endangered species are congeners of reported hosts (USFWS, 2007) . The introduction of Deudorix epijarbas into the United States may lead to the initiation of chemical or biological control programs, which could have indirect environmental impacts. Medium (2)

**Deudorix isocrates Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate/Host**  **Interaction** Deudorix isocrates has been reported from Bangladesh and I ndia , below 8000 feet elevation (CABI , 2007; Wy nter- Bly th, 1957). W e estimate that D. isocrates could become established in Plant Hardiness Zone s 8 - 10 (USDA, 1990) , where s everal hosts a nd potential hosts of D. isocrates are present ( NRCS , 2007). Medium (2)
**Risk Element #2: Host Range** D. isocrates attack s multiple species in multiple families including: **Anacardiaceae** ( Mangifera ); **Euphorbiaceae** (Emblica ); **Fabaceae** ( Tamarindus ); **Loganiaceae** (Strychnos ); **Myrtaceae** ( Psidium ); **Punicaceae** (Punica ); **Rhamnaceae** (Ziziphus ); **Rosaceae** (

Eriobotrya , Malus , Prunus, Pyrus ); **Rubiaceae** ( Gardenia, Randia ); **Rutaceae** ( Citrus ); **Sapindaceae** ( Litchi); and **Sapotaceae** (Sapota ) (CABI, 2007; High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 42 **Deudorix isocrates Risk**  **r ating**  **s** Srivastava, 1 997; Wy

nter - Bl yth, 1957). **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** Deudorix isocrates has a relativel y high biotic potential, producing up to four generations per year on pomegranate in India (Karuppuchamy et al
. , 1998). Depending on climate and host conditions, females can lay 6 - 46 eggs with a mean generation time of 45 day s. Females lay

eggs singly

or in groups of 2 to 7 eggs, on the flowers, fruit, leaves, stem, and stalk (Karabhantanal, 2005; Karuppuchamy et al
. , 1998; Srivastava, 1997 ). P opul ations can increase b y a factor of 1.5 each week, and double every 11 day s (Shevale, 2003). Deudorix isocrates is also assumed to have a moderate to high dispersal potential. Lycaenidae are strong, rapid fliers (Borror et al
. , 1989; Wy nter- Bly th, 1957), and dispersal may sometimes be aided b y wind (Robbins and Small Jr., 1981). Deudorix spp. can also spread in infested fruit (Waite and Hwang, 2002; Wy nter - Bl yth, 1957). High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Deudorix isocrates is a serious pest of some fruits, especiall y pomegranate, guava, and aonla (Haseeb, 2007; Srivastava and Jain, 1973; Wy nter- Bl yth, 1957). It is unknown how serious it is on citrus. Larvae bore into fruit, feeding on the flesh and seeds. This reduce s crop yi eld (Haseeb, 2007) and also attracts bacteria and fungi whose growth produces a bad smell in the fruit , making it unmarketable (Karabhantanal, 2005). Larval feeding deforms and weakens fruit, promotes decay , and leads to fruit drop (Haseeb, 2007). In Tamil Nadu, India, D. iso crates damaged 38.5 percent of the pomegranate fruit at harvest (Murugan and Thirumurugan, 2001). On aonla in MadhyaPradesh, India, D. isocrates damaged more than 70 percent of the fruit (Srivastava and Jain, 1973). On guava in Uttar Pradesh, D
. isocrates attacked 2.5
- 23 percent of the crops, resulting in 5
- 35 percent yi eld loss (Haseeb, 2007). Finally , on orange in India, it damaged 4.5 percent of the fruit (Verma et al
. , 1995). Establishment of D. isocrates in the United States could lead to a loss of foreign and domestic markets in countries that regulate this pest. One important U.S. export that could be affected is citrus. High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** Deudorix isocrates may

directly impact Federal listed endangered species such as Prunus geniculata (FL) and Ziziphus celata (FL) , which are closel y related to other hosts known to be attacked by D. isocrates (USFWS, 2007). Because it represents a potential threat to the Citrus, stone f ruit, and other crop industries, the establishment of D. isocrates in the United States could trigger the initiation of eradication or chemical/biological control programs, similar to those that have occurred in Hawaii and California, and Florida for other Tephritid fruit flies (CABI, 2007; Clausen, 1978). High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 43 **Dichocrocis megillalis Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction**  Dichocrocis megillalis is in several countries in tropical Asia , including Malaysia, West Malay sia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and India (CABI, 2007; Robinson et al
. , 2007). Consequently , we estimate that it could only establish in Plant Hardiness Zone 10 in the United States (USDA, 1990). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in this zone ( NRCS , 2007). L ow (1)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Dichocrocis megillalis attack s species in several different families including: **Lauraceae** (

Litsea castanea ); **Lythraceae** ( Punica granatum ); **Solanaceae** (Solanum melongena ); **Verbenaceae** ( Tectona grandis ); and **Rubiaceae** ( Uncaria gambier) (CABI, 2007; Robinson et al
. , 2007). High (3)

**Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential**  We found v ery little information on the biology of this species. In general , Py ralid moths have a medium to high reproductive potential. We presumed that D. megillalis is capable of long distance flight (Showers et al
. , 2001), although like other Py ralidae we assume it would tend not to disperse out of favorable habitats (Cohen et al
. , 2000; Qureshi et al
. , 2005). Larvae are internal feeders of fruits or stems (Robinson et al
. , 2001) and may

be able to disperse long distances inside infested commodities. High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Due to the lack of information about this pest, its potential economic impact is very uncertain. Some py

ralid moths have cause d severe economic damage on certain crops. This species seems to have a narrow host range, and is not known to attack any major U.S. export crop. Based on its current geographical distribution, very few areas of the United Sates would be suitable for its establishment. Medium (2)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** Dichocrocis megillalis has a restricted host range , which indicates that this species likely i s not a significant threat to threatened or endangered plants in the United States . N o Federal Threatened or Endangered species are congeners of reported hosts (USFWS, 2007) . Still , introduction of this pest into pomegranate
- or date
- producing areas of the United States could initiate chemical or biological control programs. Medium (2)

**Drosicha dalbergiae Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction**  Drosicha dalbergiae has only been reported from India and Taiwan (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007). In India, it occurs in the states of Jammu & Kashmir, and Himachal Pradesh where almonds and pomegranates are grown (Gaffar, 1989; Rawat et al
. , 1989). Based on this , we estimate that this pest could only become established in Plant Hardiness Zones 8 - 10 of the United States (USDA, 1990). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in the se Zones (

NRCS , 2007). Medium (2)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** We found little information about D. dalbergiae . Currently , onl y a few hosts are known: **Anacardiaceae** (

Mangifera ); **Caricaceae** ( Carica ); **Bromeliaceae** ( Ananas ), **Fabaceae** ( Dalbergia ), **Junglandaceae** ( Junglans ), **Myrtaceae** (

Psidium, Syzygium ), **Punicaceae** High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 44 **Drosicha dalbergiae Risk**  **r ating**  **s** ( Punica ), **Rosaceae** (

Malus , Prunus ), **Rutaceae** ( Citrus ), **Sapindaceae** ( Litchi), and **Sapotaceae** (

Achras , Manilkara ) (Ali, 1968; Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007; Butani, 1993; CABI, 2007; Masoodi et al
. , 1988). **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** Aside from one report of the biology of D. dalbergiae on almonds (Koul et al
. , 2000), we found no information on the reproductive and dispersal potential of D. dalbergiae . Gravid females lay

approximately 100
- 150 eggs in a cluster; occasionally, they may produce 2
- 3 egg clusters (Koul et al
. , 2000). After eclosing, the first instar ny mphs feed on their host’s R s, and then overwinter in the soil. Once their host becomes phenologically active in the spring, ny mphs emerge, continue feeding, and complete their development (Koul et al
. , 2000). Other Drosicha species feed on their hosts, lay eggs in the soil, overwinter in the soil, and return to their hosts when conditions become favorable again (Arkhangel'Skaya, 1931; Prasad and Singh, 1976; Rahman, 1939). Because it apparently produces only one generation per year, we estimate D . dalbergiae ’s reproductive potential to be medium . Drosicha dalbergiae is somewhat mobile; all life stages are able to move within their host, and between their host and the soil. However, because the first instars emerge underground, feed underground or near the surface where they will not be exposed to high winds, we do not expect them to readily undergo long
- distance dispers al by wind. It s restricted global distribution indicates this species probably has a relatively

limited dispersal potential. Medium (2)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** We found little information about the economic impact of D
. dalbergiae. It attacked 25 percent of pomegranate fruit (Rawat et al
. , 1989). On almonds, it reduces nut yield and quality (Koul et al
. , 2000). Because of its impact, researchers are try ing to identify

suitable pesticides to control this pest (Gaffar, 1989). In general, Drosic ha species attack R s, stems, shoots, leaves, and fruit of hosts (Masoodi et al
. , 1988; Rawat et al
. , 1989; Vijay et al
. , 2000b). Drosicha corpulenta causes serious damage in China (Qu et al
. , 1996) , a nd D. mangiferae causes considerable damage to several economically

important fruit trees, including mangoes (Lakra et al
. , 1980; Prasad and Singh, 1976). Establishment of D. dalbergiae in the United States may result in a loss of some foreign and domestic markets, or at the very least, in trade restrictions. High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** Because we know so little about D. dalbergiae , including its host range, we do not know which federall y Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species it may harm. Based on it s currently known host range, it may affect one T&E species in Florida, Prunus geniculata (FL) (USFWS, 2007). Because the genus Drosicha does not occur in the United States (Arnett Jr., 2000), its introduction may necessitate the use of pesticides to control it, as elsewhere (Gaffar, 1989; Patyal and Nath, 1993). Because of its potential impact on Prunus geniculata and the uncertainty described above, we gave a risk rating of High. High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 45 **Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1:**  **Climate/Host Interaction** Dysmicoccus neobrevipes occurs throughout Central America, northern South America, the Caribbean, Indo
- China, the Philippines, and Oceania (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007). Within the United States , it occurs in Florida, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and Hawaii (Miller, 2005; Miller and Miller, 2002). These regions roughl y correspond to Plant Hardiness Zones 9
- 10 (Maxwell, 2007; Widrlechner, 1997). Thus, o utside of greenhouse or other artificial situations, this species should be able to survive in the warmer, southern United States. One or more hosts of D. neobrevipes are present in these zones ( NRCS , 2007). Medium (2)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Host species of D. neobrevipes include the following plant families and genera: **Agavaceae** (

Agave, Polianthes, Yucca ), **Anacardiaceae** ( Mangifera ), **Annonaceae** ( Annona ), **Apocynaceae** ( Plumeria ), **Araceae** (

Aglaonema, Colocasia, Philodendron, **Araliaceae** (

Nothopanax ), **Arecaceae** ( Chrysalidocarpus, Cocos ), **Asteraceae** ( Helianthus ), **Balsaminaceae** ( Impatiens ), **Barringtoniaceae** ( Barringtonia ), **Bignoniaceae** ( Crescentia, Millingtonia, Spathodea ), **Boraginaceae** ( Cordia , Messerschmidia, Tournefortia, **Bromeliaceae** ( Ananas ), **Brassicaceae** (

Brassica ), **Cactaceae** ( Opuntia ), **Clusiaceae** ( Garcinia ), **Cucurbitaceae** ( Cucurbita ), **Euphorbiaceae** ( Codiaeum ), **Heliconiaceae** ( Heliconia ), **Fabaceae** (

Acacia, Albizia, Arachis, Cajanus, Machaerium, Phaseolus, Piscidia, Samanea, Tamarindus, Vigna ), **Lauraceae** (

Persea ), **Liliaceae** (

Allium ), **Malvaceae** ( Gossypium, Thespesia ), **Meliaceae** (

Lansium ), **Moraceae** (

Artocarpus, Ficus ), **Musaceae** ( Musa ), **Myrtaceae** ( Psidium, Syzygium ), **Orchidaceae** ( Brassavola ), **Pandanaceae** (Pandanus ), **Pinaceae** ( Pinus ), **Poaceae** (Zea ), **Polygonaceae** ( Coccoloba ), **Punicaceae** ( Punica ), **Rubiaceae** ( Coffea, Guettard

a, Mussaenda ), **Rutaceae** ( Citrus ), **Sapindaceae** ( Nephelium ), **Sapotaceae** (

Manilkara ), **Solanaceae** ( Lycopersicon, Solanum ), **Sterculiaceae** ( Theobroma ), **Urticaceae** ( Pipturus ), **Verbenaceae** ( Clerodendrum, Tectona ), **Zingiberaceae** (

Alpinia ) (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007; Chia and Evans, 1997). High (3)

**Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** The life span of D. neobrevipes ranges from 59 to 117 day s, averaging 90 day s (Martin
Kessing and Mau, 2007). This mealy bug is ovoviviparous, meaning the eggs hatch within the female; females produce about 350 larvae over 30 day s, but some produce up to 1000 larvae (Martin
- Kessing and Mau, 2007). There are three instars for females, and four for males. The total larval period for females varies from 26 to 52 day s, averaging 35 day s; the l arval period for males lasts from 22 to 53 day s. The primary dispersal stage is the larval stage. Dysmicoccus neobrevipes can be dispersed b y wind (Martin
Kessing and Mau, 2007). Lo ng distance dispersal is accomplished via the movement of infested plant materials. S ince 1985, inspectors at U.S. ports
- of
- entry have intercepted D. neobrevipes 3,100 times on fruit, 100 of which were in permit cargo ( PestID , 2007). High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Dysmicoccus neobrevipes attacks numerous commercial crops, such as pineapple, citrus, banana, coffee, and coconut (Williams, 2004) . Itis one of the most economically important mealy

bug pests in Hawaii because it vector s meal ybug wilt on pineapples (Sether et al
. , 1998) . This is the most serious ty pe of damage, and is the principal cause of crop failure in Hawaii (Martin
- Kessing and Mau, 2007). Feeding b y mealybugs may Medium (2)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 46 **Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Risk**  **r ating**  **s** cause a loss of host plant vigor or die
- back of plant organs (Martin
- Kessing and Mau, 2007; Williams, 2004 ). Consequently, any country that grows pineapples would most likely consider D. neobrevipes to be a quarantine pest. Our literature review showed that D. neobrevipes is primarily known for damaging pineapples and may not be an economicall y important pest of other fruits and vegetables. **Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** It is unknown if establishment of D. neobrevipes would reduce community biodiversity

or disrupt ecological processes in natural areas. Pest interception data suggest that Pinus may be host for this pest (p. 206; Williams, 2004). If Pinus is indeed a good host for this pest, then D. neobrevipes may

have a significant environmental impact in the continental United S tates because pine trees are an important component of many p lant communities, particularly

in the southeast (Myers, 1990). Dysmicoccus neobrevipes may affect several F ederal Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species (ouside of Floirda and Hawaii, where it is already present) that are congeners of current hosts, including: Allium munzii (CA), Helianthus paradoxus (NM, TX), H
. schweinitzii (NC, SC), and Opuntia treleasei (CA) (USFWS, 2007). Because this pest only seems to be economically important on pineapple, the wider establishment of this species in the continental United States would not likely stimulate the initiation of chemical or biological control programs or increase the use of chemical pesticides already in place to control other scale species. Medium (2)

**Euzophera bigella Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction**  Euzophera bigella is currently distributed through out the Mediterranean, Europe from UK to Republic of Georgia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, and Central Asia (Zhang, 1994). Based on this distribution we estimat e that E. bigella could only establish in Plant Hardiness Zone s 8 - 10 in the United States (USDA, 1990). One or more of its hosts occurs in this zone (

NRCS , 2007). Medium (2)

**Risk Element #2: Climate/Host Interaction** Euzophera bigella has been reported on several different species in several different families. Reported hosts include: **Juglandaceae** ( Juglans regia ), **Lythraceae** ( Punica granatum ), **Rosaceae** (

Malus , Osteomeles , Prunus ), **Vitaceae** ( Vitis ) (Robinson et al
. , 2001; Robinson et al
. , 2007) High (3)
**Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** We found little information on the biology of this species. Py

ralid moths generall y have a medium to high reproductive potential and a high dispersal potential . We presume that E
. bigella , l ike other Py

ralidae, is capable of long distance flight (Showers et al
. , 2001), but would tend not to disperse out of favorable habitats (Cohen et al
. , 2000; Qureshi et al
. , 2005). Larvae are internal feeders of fruits or stems (Nazeer Ahmad, 1942) and therefore may dispers e via commodities and plant material. High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Due to the lack of information about this pest, its potential economic impact is very uncertain. Euzophera bigella attacks several important U.S. crops, including the major export crops, peache s, apples, and grapes . Some py ralid moths have cause d severe High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 47 **Euzophera bigella Risk**  **r ating**  **s** economic damage on certain crops. Establishment of this pest in the United States may result in a loss of some foreign and domestic markets, or at t he very least, in trade restrictions. **Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** Euzophera bigella may

have direct impacts on Federal listed endangered species such as Prunus geniculata (in Florida), which is closel y related to other hosts known to be attacked b y B. zonata (USFWS, 2007). Because it is a potential threat to grapes, stone fruit, and other crop industries, the establishment of E. bigella in the United States could initiat e eradication or chemical/biological control programs, similar to those that have occurred for other moths in California. High (3)

**Icerya aegyptiaca Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction**  Icerya aegyptiaca is distributed in western and eastern Africa, tropical Asia, Australia, and numerous South Pacific islands (CABI, 2007). These regions roughly correspond to Plant Hardiness Zones 10
- 11 (Maxwell, 2007; Widrlechner, 1997). We e stimate I. aegyptiaca could only

survive in the continental United States in Zone 10. One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these zones ( NRCS , 2007). Low (1)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Icerya aegyptiaca has a wide variety of hosts, especiall y woody plants. The host list includes, but is not limited to , the following families and genera: **Acanthaceae** ( Asystasia , Barleria , Barleria , Eranthemum 33 **,** Justicia **,** Pseuderanthemum , Sanchezia, Strobilanthes, Thunbergia ), **Alangiaceae** ( Alangium ), **Am aranthaceae**  (Bragantia ), **Anacardiaceae** (

Mangifera , Schinus ), **Annonaceae** ( Annona , Polyalthia ), **Apocynaceae** ( Carissa , Holarrhena , Nerium , Ochrosia ), **Araceae** ( Colocasia , Cyrtosperma , Monstera ), **Arecaceae** ( Caryota , Cocos , Hyophorbe , Latania , Phoenix , Rhapis ), **Aristolochiaceae** (Aristolochia) , **Asclepiadaceae** ( Cryptostegia ), **Asteraceae** ( Aster , Bidens , Pluchea , Synedrella , Vernonia ), **Blechnaceae** ( Blechnum ), **Bombacaceae** ( Ceiba , Cullenia ), **Boraginaceae** ( Cordia ), **Caricaceae** ( Carica ), **Casuarinaceae** ( Casuarina ), **Clusiaceae** ( Calophyllum , Hypericum ), **Convolvulaceae** ( Ipomoea ), **Cupressaceae** ( Thuja ), **Cyatheaceae** ( Cyathea ), **Euphorbiaceae** ( Acalypha , Aleurites , Codiaeum , Croton , Drypetes , Euphorbia , Glochidion , Jatropha , Macaranga , Vemicia ), **Fabaceae** (

Acacia , Alhagi, Caesalpinia, Cajanus , Cassia , Dalbergia , Genista , Indigofera , Jacaranda , Parkinsonia , Pithecolobium , Poinciana , Vigna ), **Flacourtiaceae** ( Oncoba ), **Flagellariaceae** ( Flagellaria ), **Goodeniaceae** (Scaevola ), **Lamiaceae** ( Coleus , Lavandula , Leucas , Ocimum , Rosmarinus ), **Lauraceae** ( Cinnam omum , Laurus , Persea ), **Liliaceae** (

Asparagus ), **Lythraceae** ( Heimia , Lawsonia , Nesaea , Pemphis ), **Malpighiaceae** (

Malpighia ), **Malvaceae** ( Hibiscus ), **Meliaceae** (

Melia ), **Melostomataceae** (

Memecylon ), **Montiniaceae** ( Montinia ), **Moraceae** (

Artocarpus , Ficus , Morus ), **Musaceae** ( Musa ), **Myrtaceae** (

Eugenia , Myrtus , Psidium , Syzygium ), High (3)

33 Current name of the genus DaedalacanthusPest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 48 **Icerya aegyptiaca Risk**  **r ating**  **s Oleaceae**  (

Jasminum ), **Onagraceae** ( Ludwigia ), **Pandanaceae** ( Pandanus ), **Piperaceae** ( Piper) **Pittosporaceae** (Pittosporum ), **Plumbaginaceae** ( Plumbago ), **Poaceae** (Zea ), **Polemoniaceae** (Pterospermum ), **Punicaceae** ( Punica ), **Rhamnaceae** (

Rhamnus , Ziziphus ), **Rosaceae** (

Eriobotrya , Malus , Osteomeles , Prunus , Pyrus , Raphiolepis , Rosa ), **Rubiaceae** ( Coffea , Psychotria , Rubia ), **Rutaceae** ( Boninia , Citrus , Glycosmis ), **Salicaceae** (Salix), **Sapindaceae** ( Dodonaea ), **Sapotaceae** ( Achras , Manilkara , Pouteria , Sapota , Sideroxylon ), **Solanaceae** ( Capsicum , Lycopersicon , Solanum ), **Theaceae** ( Camellia , Thea ), **Tiliaceae** ( Corchorus ), **Ulmaceae** ( Trema ), **Verbenaceae** ( Carypoteris , Lantana , Petrea , Tectona ), **Vitaceae** ( Vitis ) (Azab et al
. , 1968; Ben - Dov et al
. , 2007; CABI, 2007). **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** Icerya aegyptiaca has high reproductive potential. Females are parthenogenetic and produce from 70 to 143 eggs per female (Azab et al
. , 1968; CABI, 2007; Waterhouse, 1991). With an average life cycle of 105 day s, there are two to three generations per ye ar (Azab et al
. , 1968). Very little information is available on the dispersal potential of I. aegyptiaca . One source indicates that ny mphs are very

active ( INKTO/PINKTO, 2002). Li ke its congener, I. seychellarum , we assum e that crawlers move locally within a host or can be transported by wind or other animals to more distant hosts (Hill, 1980). The most likely

means of long
- distance dispersal in I. aegyptiaca is on nursery plants in trade or resale. Accordingl y, it has spread to many of the tropical regions of the world. Since 1985, this pest has been intercepted 9 times at U.S. ports
- of
- entry on a variety of hosts ( PestID , 2007). High (3)

**Risk Element #4: E conomic Impact**  Because of its broad host range, I
. aegyptiaca could impact many economically important tropical tree species. It is a major pest of guava ( Psidium guajava ), citrus ( Citrus spp.), breadfruit (

Artocarpus altilis ), jackfruit ( Artocarpus heterophyllus ), mango ( Mangifera indica ), sapodilla ( Manilkara zapota ), and mora ( Morus alba ) (CABI, 2007). This species primarily attacks leaves, but can also infest stems and fruit ( PestID , 2007; CABI, 2007). Feeding b y large populations of the meal ybug severe ly deplet e sap, defoliat e , and desiccat e younger stems (Azab et al
. , 1968). On breadfruit, heav y infestations can kill mature trees, but typically reduce yi elds b y 50 percent (Waterhouse, 1991). Honeydew excretions produced by I. aegyptiaca support s ooty molds that can interfere with photosy nthesis (Azab et al
. , 1968). D espite these impacts, we do not expect this pest to have a high economic impact in the United States. Inits native range in Indo
- China, it is seldom a pest (Waterhouse, 1991). In other places ( e.g ., Australia), it is not regarded as a serious pest, presumably because natural enemies control it (CABI, 2007; Hill, 1983; Waterhouse, 1991). Icerya aegyptiaca onl y appears to become problematic when populations of its natural enemies perish ( e.g ., Pacific atolls; Waterhouse, 1991). Because several natural enemies of Icerya have already

been introduced into the United States to control I. purchasi , it seems unlikely

that establishment of I. aegyptiaca would have a major economic impact. Medium (2)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** It is unknown if establishment of I. aegyptiaca would reduce community biodiversity

or disrupt ecological processes in natural areas. As a highly poly phagous pest, I. aegyptiaca Medium (2)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 49 **Icerya aegyptiaca Risk**  **r ating**  **s** may affect F ederal Threatene d and Endangered (T&E) species that are congeners of current hosts. These include Euphorbia telephioides (FL), Hypericum cumulicola (FL), Justicia cooleyi (FL), Prunus geniculata (FL), and Ziziphus celata (FL) (USFWS, 2007). Because effective biocontrol ag ents such as Rodolia cardinalis and Cryptochaetum iceryae are already in the United States, to control populations of I
. purchasi (CABI, 2007; Waterhouse, 1991), it is unlikely that establishment of I. aegyptiaca would stimulate use of additional pesticides and biological control agents. We rated this risk element Medium because of the potential impact on T&E species. **Icerya seychellarum Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate**  **- Host Interaction**  Icerya seychellarum is distributed throughout southeast Asia, eastern and southern Africa, Australia, and Oceania (CABI, 2007). These regions roughly correspond to Plant Hardiness Zones 9
- 11 (Maxwell, 2007; Widrlechner, 1997). We e stimate I. seychellarum could survive in the continental United States in Zones 9
- 10. One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these zones in the United States ( NRCS , 2007). Medium (2)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Icerya seychellarum has a wide variety of hosts, especially

woody plants. The extensive host list includes, but is not limited to , the following families and genera: **Am aranthaceae**  (

Achyranthes ), **Anacardiaceae** ( Mangifera , Rhus , Semecarpus , Spondias ), **Annonaceae** ( Annona, Monod

ora ), **Apiaceae** (Schefflera ), **Apocynaceae** ( Alyxia , Plumeria ), **Araceae** ( Alocasia , Anthurium , Epipremnum , Monstera , Scindapsus , Xanthosoma ), **Arecaceae** ( Areca , Cocos , Elaeis , Livistona , Phoenix), **Aspleniaceae** ( Asplenium ), **Asteraceae** (Bidens, Gerbera , Lactuca , Zinnia ), **Bixaceae** ( Bixa ), **Bombacaceae** ( Ceiba ), **Boraginaceae** ( Cordia ), **Brassicaceae** ( Raphanus ), **Burseraceae** ( Canarium ), **Canellaceae** ( Cinnamomum ), **Caricaceae** ( Carica ), **Casuarinaceae** ( Casuarina ), **Celastraceae** ( Maytenus , Mystroxylon ), **Clusiaceae** ( Calophyllum , Garcinia, Mammea ), **Combretaceae** ( Lumnitzera , Terminalia ), **Convolvulaceae** ( Convolvulus , Ipomoea, Merremia ), **Cycadaceae** ( Cycas ), **Dioscoreaceae** (

Dioscorea ), **Dracaenaceae** ( Cordyline, Dracaena ), **Elaeocarpaceae** ( Elaeocarpus ), **Euphorbiaceae** ( Acalypha , Croton , Euphorbia, Excoecaria, Glochidion, Macaranga, Margaritaria, Phyllanthus ), **Fabaceae** ( Acacia , Albizia , Bauhinia , Caesalpinia , Cajanus , Cassia , Crotalaria , Derris , Dichrostachys , Erythrina , Gliricidia , Inocarpus , Mimosa , Phaseolus , Samanea, Vigna ), **Fagaceae** ( Quercus ), **Fl acourtiaceae**  ( Flacourtia , Hydnocarpus ), **Gesneriaceae** ( Cyrtandra ), **Goodeniaceae** (Scaevola ), **Heliconiaceae** (

Heliconia ), **Icacinaceae** ( Apodytes ), **Lamiaceae** ( Ocimum ), **Lauraceae** ( Cinnamomum , Litsea , Persea ), **Lecythidaceae** (Barringtonia ), **Loganiaceae** ( Fagraea ), **Lythraceae** (

Lagerstroemia , Pemphis, Sonneratia ), **Magnoliaceae** ( Magnolia ), **Malvaceae** ( Gossypium , Hibiscus, Thespesia ), **Meliaceae** ( Dysoxylum ), **Menispermaceae** ( Cocculus ), **Moraceae** ( Artocarpus , Broussonetia , Ficus , Morus , Streblus ), **Musaceae** (

Musa ) , **Myricaceae** (

Myrica ), **Myrtaceae** (

Eugenia , Feijoa , Psidium , Syzygium ), **Ochnaceae** ( Ochna ), **Oleaceae** ( Jasminum ), **Oleandraceae** ( Nephrolepis ), **Onagraceae** ( Ludwigia ), **Oxalidaceae** ( Averrhoa ), **Pandanaceae** ( Pandanus ), **Passifloraceae** ( Passiflora ), **Pinaceae** (

Pinus ), **Piperaceae** (Piper), High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 50 **Icerya seychellarum Risk**  **r ating**  **s Poaceae**  ( Cymbopogon , Saccharum ), **Po rtulacaceae**  ( Portulacaria ), **Proteaceae** ( Grevillea, Macadamia ), **Punicaceae** ( Punica ), **Rhamnaceae** (

Alphitonia, Scutia ), **Rhizophoraceae** (

Bruguiera , Ceriops, Rhizophora ), **Rosaceae** ( Crataegus , Eriobotrya , Fragaria , Malus , Prunus , Pyrus , Rosa , Rubus ), **Rubiaceae** ( Canthium , Coffea , Coprosma, Guettarda, Ixora, Polysphaeria, Tarenna ), **Rutaceae** ( Citrus , Poncirus ), **Sapindaceae** (

Allophylus , Dodonaea , Litchi), **Salvadoraceae** ( Azima ), **Sapotaceae** ( Chrysophyllum , Citharexylum , Sideroxylon , Manilkara ), **Solanaceae** ( Capsicum , Lycopersicon , Solanum ), **Taccaceae** ( Tacca ), **Theaceae** ( Camellia, Thea ), **Verbenaceae** ( Avicennia , Clerodendrum , Premna , Tectona ), **Vitaceae** ( Vitis ), **Zingiberaceae** ( Alpinia, Zingiber) (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007; CABI, 2007; Hill and Newberry, 1980; Newbery , 1980a). **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** Development of I. seychellarum usually takes three months (CABI, 2007). In Japan and South Africa, one generation per year occurs (CABI, 2007; INKTO/PI NKTO, 2002) . E lsewhere ( e.g., Aldabra Island) , breeding may be continuous and multiple generations occur per year (Hill and Newberry , 1980). Data on fecundity of this species is not available (CABI, 2007), but the closely related I. aegyptiaca produces 70
- 140 eggs and completes 2
- 3 generations per year in Northern Africa (Azab et al
. , 1968). Males are rare and are not necessary for reproduction (CABI, 2007). All life stages of I. seychellarum retain their legs, and consequently , are mobile to s ome degree (Hill and Newberry , 1980). The first instar is the most mobile (Hill, 1980). Icerya seychellarum crawlers can move locally within its host or be transported by wind or other animals to more distant hosts (Hill, 1980). Crawlers have been trapped over water, 3.5 km downwind from an infestation (Hill, 1980). The most likely means of long
- distance dispersal is on nursery

plants in trade or resale. Since 1985, this pest has been intercepted 52 times at U.S. ports on a variety of hosts ( PestID , 2007). High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Because of its broad host range, I
. seychellarum could impact many economically important tropical tree species. For example, I. seychellarum has killed trees in the Pacific Islands (CABI, 2007). Itis a pest of guava ( Psidium guajava ), citrus ( Citrus spp.), breadfruit (

Artocarpus altilis ), avocado ( Persea americana ), jackfruit ( Artocarpus heterophyllus ), various genera of palms, and rose ( Rosa spp.) (CABI, 2007). This species primaril y attacks leaves, twigs, and small branches (INKTO/PINKTO, 2002), but it can also be found on fruits, and flowers (PestID , 2007). Feeding decreases plant vigor, reducing L production by as much as 64 percent (Newbery , 1980b). Honeydew excreted b y the scale provides a growth medium for molds, reducing photosy nthesis (INKTO/PINKTO, 2002), and disfiguring fruit. The establishment of this pest in the United States could cause a loss of foreign or domestic markets. High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** It is unknown if establishment of I. seychellarum would reduce community biodiversity

or disrupt ecological processes in natural areas. Because heavy infestations of I. seychellarum can reduce L growth rates by 52 percent (Newbery, 1980b), widespread infestations of this pest might affect community productivity . F or example, f ollowing establishment on a small tropical island, populations of I. seychellarum increased to infestation levels, and cau sed the death of some trees and shrubs (Hill and Newberry, 1980). A few years later, High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 51 **Icerya seychellarum Risk**  **r ating**  **s** however , pest populations declined for no apparent reason (Hill and Newberry, 1980). As a highly poly phagous pest, I. seychellarum may affect federal Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species that are congeners of current hosts. These include Asplenium scolopendrium var. americanum (AL, MI, NY, TN), Crotalaria avonensis (FL), Euphorbia telephioides (FL), Prunus geniculata (FL), Quercus hinckleyi (TX), and Rhus michauxii (GA, NC, SC, VA) (USFWS, 2007). E stablishment of I. seychellarum in the continental United S tates would likely

result in chemical or biological control, as has happened elsewhere (I NKTO/PI NKTO, 2002; Negm et al
. , 2001) . These programs can have indirect impacts on the environment. Although one natural enemy of I. seychellarum is already present in the United S tates , Rodolia cardinalis , it is unknown how effective this enemy would be in the long run (CABI, 2007). **Maconellicoccus hirsutus Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate**  **- Host Interaction**  Maconellicoccus hirsutus is a tropical
- subtropical pest reported in Northern Africa, parts of sub
- Saharan Africa, the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, the Far East, the Caribbean, Central America, Australia , and Oceania (CABI, 2007). It currently has a limited distribution in the United States, occurring only in Hawaii, California (CABI, 2007), and Florida (Ho y et al
. , 2003). These regions roughl y match Plant Hardiness Zones 9

– 1 3. We estimate that M. hirsutus could establish in Zones 9

– 10 of the continental United S tates , where o ne or more of its potential hosts occurs (NRCS, 2007). Medium (2)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Maconellicoccus hirsutus is highly pol yphagous, although it shows some preference for hosts in the families Malvaceae, Fabaceae and Moraceae (CABI, 2007). It feed s on plants from dozens of plant families and genera, including: **Acanthaceae** ( Acanthus, Eranthemum, Pachystachys, Thunbergia ), **Aceraceae** (Saccharum ), **Am aryllidaceae**  ( Calostemma ), **Anacardiaceae** ( Mangifera , Schinus , Spondias ), **Annonaceae** ( Annona, Cananga ), **Apiaceae** (

Angelica , Aralia, Brassaia, Daucus, Eryngium, Schefflera, Sciadophyllum ), **Apocynaceae** ( Acokanthera , Allam anda , Carissa , Nerium, Tabernaemontana, Vinca ), **Araceae** ( Aglaonema , Alocasia , Anthurium , Colocasia , Dieffenbachia , Philodendron , Scindapsus , Syngonium , Xanthosoma ), **Arecaceae** ( Cocos , Phoenix), **Asteraceae** (Bidens , Chrysanthemum , Cosmos , Dahlia , Emilia, Gerb era, Helianthus , Lactuca , Mikania , Parthenium, Symedrella, Tithonia ), **Basellaceae** (

Basella ), **Begoniaceae** (

Begonia ), **Bignoniaceae** ( Bignonia , Crescentia , Jacaranda, Kigelia, Tabebuia, Tecoma ), **Bombacaceae** ( Ceiba ), **Boraginaceae** ( Cordia ), **Brassicaceae** (Brassica ), **Cactaceae** ( Opuntia, Pereskia ), **Caricaceae** ( Carica ), **Casuarinaceae** ( Casuarina ), **Chenopodiaceae** ( Beta , Chenopodium ), **Combretaceae** ( Quisqualis , Rhoeo , Terminalia ), **Convolvulaceae** ( Ipomoea ), **Crassulaceae** (

Kalanchoe), **Cucurbitaceae** ( Cucumis , Cucurbita ), **Cyperaceae** ( Cyperus ), **Dilleniaceae** ( Tetracera ), **Dioscoreaceae** ( Dioscorea ), **Ebenaceae** ( Diospyros ), **Elaeagnaceae** ( Elaeagnus ), **Ericaceae** (

Rhododendron ), **Euphorbiaceae** ( Acalypha , Codiaeum , Croton , Euphorbia , Hevea , Macaranga , Manihot , Ohyllanthus , Phyllanthus, Ricinus ), **Fa baceae**  ( Acacia , Albizia , Arachis , Bauhinia , Caesalpinia , Cajanus , Calliandra , Cassia , Ceratonia , Clitoria , Crotalaria , Delonix, Erythrina , High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 52 **Maconellicoccus hirsutus Risk**  **r ating**  **s** Gliricidia , Gliricidium , Glycine , Grewia , Inga , Leucaena , Medicago , Mimosa , Parkinsonia , Phaseolus , Poinciana , Robinia , Samanea , Senna , Sesbania , Tamarindus, Templetonia , Tephrosia, Vigna ), **Fagaceae** ( Pasania, Quercus ), **Flacourtiaceae** ( Flacourtis ), **Gesneriaceae** ( Chrysothemis ), **Heliconiaceae** ( Heliconia ), **Lamiaceae** ( Leonotis ), **Lauraceae** (Persea ), **Lecythidaceae** ( Courouptia ), **Liliaceae** ( Asparagus, Cordyline, Dracaena ), **Lythraceae** ( Lagerstroemia, Lawsonia ), **Malpighiaceae** ( Malpighia ), **Malvaceae** ( Abelmoschus , Abutilon , Althaea , Gossypium , Hibiscus , Holmskia , Malvaviscus, Paritium, Pavonia , Sida , Thespes ia , **Meliaceae** ( Azadirachta, Melia ), **Moraceae** (

Artocarpus , Ficus , Morus ), **Musaceae** ( Musa ), **Myrtaceae** ( Callistemon, Eugenia , Myrtus, Psidium, Syzygium ), **Myrtaceae** ( Psidium , Syzygium ), **Nyctaginaceae** (

Bougainvillea ), **Oleaceae** ( Jasminum ), **Orchidaceae** ( Dendrobium ), **Oxalidaceae** (

Averrhoa ), **Passifloraceae** ( Passiflora ), **Phytolaccaceae** ( Petiveria , Rivina ), **Piperaceae** (

Peperomia, Piper), **Plumbaginaceae** ( Plumbago ), **Poaceae** (Saccharum , Zea ), **Polygonaceae** ( Coccoloba ), **Polypodiaceae** ( Nephrolepis ), **Portulacaceae** (

Portulaca ), **Proteaceae** ( Grevillea ), **Punicaceae** ( Punica ), **Rhamnaceae** ( Colubrina , Ziziphus ), **Rosaceae** ( Crataegus, Cydonia, Eriobotrya , Malus, Prunus, Pyrus, Rosa ), **Rubiaceae** ( Adina , Coffea , Haldina , Hamelia , Ixora , Mussaenda ), **Rutaceae** (Aegle, Citrus, Murraya ), **Salicaceae** (Salix), **Sapindaceae** ( Blighia , Dodonaea, Melicocca ), **Sapotaceae** ( Manilkara ), **Scrophulariaceae** ( Russelia, Scoparia ), **Solanaceae** ( Capsicum , Cestrum , Datura , Lycopersicon, Solanum ), **Sterculiaceae** ( Theobroma ), **Tiliaceae** ( Corchorus , Grewia ), **Urticaceae** ( Boehmeria, Laportea ), **Verbenaceae** ( Clerodendrum , Duranta , Lantana, Petrea, Stachytarpheta, Tectona ), **Vitaceae** ( Cissus , Vitis ), **Zingiberaceae** ( Alpinia ) (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007; CABI, 2007). **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** Maconellic occus hirsutus reproduces via parthenogenesis or biparental mating (CABI, 2007). Each adult female lay s 150 - 600 eggs (CABI, 2007). O ne generation can complete its lifecycle in five weeks under warm conditions, giving multiple generations per year, up to 15 (CABI, 2007). This species moves l ocal ly while in the first instar (crawler) stage (CABI, 2007). Crawlers are very small and light, and are able to survive a day or so without feeding. They are unable to walk far , b ut are ideally suited for transport b y water, wind, and animal agents, including domestic animals and humans (Gullan and Kosztarab, 1997). Accidental introductions into new countries can occur via infested plant material (CABI, 2007). Since 1985, this pest ha s been intercepted on fruit 978 times at U.S. ports - of
- entry , 40 of which were on permit cargo ( PestID , 2007). High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Direct feeding on young growth by M. hirsutus causes severe stunting and distortion of plant parts , due to its toxic saliva (CABI, 2007; Hill, 1983). Production of honeydew promotes the growth of sooty mold , which reduces plant photosy nthesis and contaminates fruit (CABI, 2007). Itcan stop the growth of cotton in Egy pt, reduce yi eld of tree cotton in In dia, reduce fiber yield of roselle by 21

–40 percent in Bangladesh, and destroy or contaminate up to 90 percent of grapes in India (CABI, 2007). InGrenada, this pest causes an estimated $3.5 million in annual losses (CABI, 2007). This pest is already present in Florida and not under any apparent official control; it is Medium (2)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 53 **Maconellicoccus hirsutus Risk**  **r ating**  **s** unlikely that further spread and establishment of this pest in the continental United States would result in additional export restrictions. **Risk Elemen t #5: Environmental Impact**  If M. hirsutus is introduced into the continental United States (beyond Florida and California) it may

affect other Threatened and Endangered plants, particularly those taxa that found in Texas (

Helianthus paradoxus, Manihot walk erae, and Quercus hinckleyi) and the Carolinas ( e . g. , Helianthus schweinitzii) (USFWS, 2007). Continued spread of M. hirsutus in Florida and California, and its establishment in other states such as Texas, could result in additional control measures such as pesticides and biocontrol that could have indirect environmental impacts (Ho y et al
. , 2003). High (3)

**Nipaecoccus viridis Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate**  **- Host Interaction**  Nipaecoccus viridis is widespread in tropical and subtropical Asia, Africa, and in parts of Oceania (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007; CABI , 2007). These regions roughly correspond to Plant Hardiness Zones 9
- 12 (e.g., Widrlechner, 1997). Based on its distribution, we estimated that N. v iridis would only survive in the warmer, southern parts of the continental United S tates, or Zones 9 - 10. One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these regions ( NRCS , 2007). Medium (2)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Nipaecoccus viridis is polyphagous with hosts across a few dozen plant families and genera, including: **Acanthaceae** ( Acanthus, Hygrophila , Peristrophe, Sanchezia), **Agavaceae** (

Agave), **Anacardiaceae** ( Mangifera ), **Annonaceae** ( Annona ), **Apiaceae** ( Apium ), **Apocynaceae** (Beaumontia, Holarrhena, Landolphia, Nerium, Odontadenia, Plumeria, Trachelospermum ), **Araceae** ( Arum, Cocos ), **Arecaceae** ( Cocos, Phoenix), **Asteraceae** ( Chrysanthemum **,** Helianthus **,** Parthenium, Tagetes ), **Bignoniaceae** ( Jacaranda, Spathodea, Tabebuia, Tecoma ), **Bombacaceae** ( Adansonia, Ceiba ), **Cactaceae** ( Opuntia ), **Caricaceae** ( Carica ), **Casuarinaceae** ( Casuarina ), **Clusiaceae** ( Calophyllum ), **Cucurbitaceae** ( Cucumis, Luffa ), **Ebenaceae** ( Diospyros ), **Euphorbiaceae** (

Acalypha, Breynia, Emblica, Chamaesyce, Glochidion, Jatropha, Manihot, Phyllanthus ), **Fabaceae** ( Abrus, Acacia, Albizia, Arachis, Caesalpinia, Cajanus, Ceratonia, Cicer, Dalbergia, Desmodium, Erythrina, Glycine, Intsia, Leucaena, Phaseolus , Pithecellobium, Psophocarpus, Tamarindus, Tephrosia ), **Flacourtiaceae** (

Flacourtia ), **Geraniaceae** ( Pelargonium ), **Lamiaceae** ( Leucas, Ocimum, Salvia ), **Lauraceae** (Persea ), **Liliaceae** ( Asparagus ), **Malvaceae** ( Abelmoschus, Alcea, Gossypium, Hibiscus, Sida, Thespesia ), **Meliaceae** (Khaya, Melia, Swietenia ), **Moraceae** (

Artocarpus, Ficus, Morus, Streblus ), **Musaceae** ( Musa ), **Myrtaceae** (

Eugenia, Myrthus, Psidium ), **Oleaceae** ( Ligustrum, Nyctanthes ), **Oxalidaceae** (

Averrhoa ), **Poaceae** (

Bambusa, Cynodon ), **Po rtulacaceae**  ( Portulaca ), **Proteaceae** ( Grevillea, Macadamia ), **Punicaceae** ( Punica ), **Rhamnaceae** (Ziziphus ), **Rosaceae** (

Eriobotrya, Pyrus, Rosa ), **Rubiaceae** ( Coffea, Ixora ), **Rutaceae** ( Citrus, Feronia, Glycosmis, Murraya ), **Sapindaceae** ( Gelonium, Nephelium, Sapindus ), **Solanaceae** (

Datura, Solanum ), **Sterculiaceae** ( Melochia, Pterospermum ) , **Tamaricaceae** ( Tamarix ), **Theace ae**  ( Camellia ), **Tiliaceae** ( Corchorus ), **Verbenaceae** High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 54 **Nipaecoccus viridis Risk**  **r ating**  **s** ( Clerodendron, Tectona, Verbena, Vitex), **Vitaceae** (Serianthus, Vitis ) (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007; CABI, 2007; Keanzlin, 1913; van den Berg, 1995). **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** F ecundity ranges from 90 to 138 eggs per female, and up to three generations per year occur (CABI , 2007). Lo cal dispersal is accomplished by crawlers, which often settle in protected areas ( i. e. , under the sepals of fruitlets) , which predisposes them to dis semination on exported plants or plant products (CABI , 2007). High (3)
**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Nipaecoccus viridis attacks many crops that are important to the conterminous United Sates. This insect causes bulbous outgrowths on y oung twigs, which under heavy infestations stunt the growth of y oung trees (CABI, 2007). Heavy infestations on fruit lead to discoloration, disfiguration and fruit
- drop. Copious quantities of honey dew may contaminate fruit and other plant parts, which can serve as a medium for the growth of sooty molds (CABI , 2007). This mealy bug was responsible for losses of up to 5 percent in vineyards in I

ndia (CABI , 2007). Lo sses in citrus orchards

—for example, about 50 percent or more of the navel orange crop in South Africa

—are due primarily to fruit
- drop caused by large infestations (CABI , 2007). High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** This pest poses a potential threat to F ederal Threatened and Endangered plants. Within the continental United States, these include Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea (FL), C
. garberi (FL), C
. hooveri (CA), Helianthus paradoxus (NM, TX), H
. schweinitzii (NC, SC), Manihot walkerae (TX), Opuntia treleasei (CA), Verbena californica (CA), and Ziziphus celata (FL) (USFWS, 2007). Because of its potential economic impacts (above), t he establishment of N

. viridis in the continental United States is likely to stimulate chemical and/or biological control programs (CABI, 2007; NASS , 2007). High (3)

**Planococcus angkorensis**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  **Risk Element #1: Climate**  **- Host Interaction**  Planococcus angkorensis occurs in India, Indonesia, Cambodia, Malay sia, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, and China (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007). This broad region corresponds to Plant Hardiness Zones 9
- 11 (Widrlechner, 1997). Thus, w e estimate that P. angkorensis could survive in Zones 9 and 10 in the continental United States (USDA, 1990). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these zones (NRCS , 2007). Medium (2)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Planococcus angkorensis is poly phagous. Known hosts include: **Aceraceae** ( Acer) **Anacardiaceae** (

Rhus ), **Araceae** ( Colocasia ), **Buddlejaceae** ( Buddleja ), **Daphniphyllaceae** (

Daphniphyllum ), **Dioscoreaceae** ( Dioscorea ), **Euphorbiaceae** ( Codaeum , Euphorbia ), **Fabaceae** ( Pueraria ), **Loganiaceae** (Stryc hnos ), **Meliaceae** ( Lansium ), **Moraceae** (Ficus , Morus ), **Myrsinaceae** ( Myrsine ), **Myrtaceae** (

Eugenia , Psidium ), **Piperaceae** (

Piper), **Punicaceae** (

Punica ), **Rubiaceae** ( Coffea , Neonaucklea ), **Sapindaceae** (

Litchi), and **Ur ticaceae**  ( Boehmeria , Pipturus ) (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007). High (3)

**Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** We found very

little published information on this pest , including no information on High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 55 **Planococcus angkorensis**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  reproductive and dispersal potential. Therefore, w e assumed that the biology of P. angkorensis wa s similar to that of its congener P. minor . Thus, P. angkorensis probably is parthenogenetic, produces several hundred eggs per female, and has several generations per year , which gives it high reproductive potential. Its dispersal potential is probably also high , because scale insect crawlers are often transported over long distances on wind or animals (Greathead, 1990, 1997). Furthermore, scales can move great distances on infested commodities (e.g., P. minor, PestID , 2007; Sugimoto, 1994). **Risk Element #4: Economic Impact**  In our review , we did not find any information on the biological and economic impacts of this species. S ome mealybugs are important pests with significant economic impacts (e.g., P. minor ; Cox, 1989; Reddy et al
. , 1997), but Miller et al
. (2002) do not list P. angkorensis in their review of invasive mealy bugs that are a threat to the United States. De spite its exposure to a wide range of habitats and potential hosts (above) , P. angkorensis has not shown any

evidence to date of being an important economic pest. Although uncertain, we judged from this review that P. angkorensis is likely not an economically important pest. Medium (2)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** Based on the host range reported above, P. angkorensis may affect the following F ederal Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species that are congeners of current hosts: Euphorbia telephioides (FL) and Rhus michauxii (GA, NC, SC, VA) (USFWS, 2007). Because P. angkorensis is most likely not an economically important pest ( above ), its introduction to the United S tates will most likely not result in the initiation of control programs. Should it become economically

important, control measures already used on Planococcus citri in the United States (CABI , 2007) may likely be sufficient. Medium (2)

**Planococcus lilacinus Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate**  **- Host Interaction**  Planococcus lilacinus is reported throughout southern Asia (Andaman I slands, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, I ndia, I ndonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Ry

uky u Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Taiwan, Vietnam and Yemen), islands o f the South Pacific (Cocos I slands, I ndonesia, Northern Marianas, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea), Af

rica (Comoros, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Reunion, Rodriques I sland, and Sey chelles), Central America & the Caribbean (Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti), and northern South America (Colombia, Guy ana) (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007). Based on th is distribution, we think this species could establish in Plant Hardiness Zones 9
- 11 (Maxwell, 2007; Widrlechner, 1997). We estimate that P. lilacinus could surviv e in Zones 9 and 10 in the continental United States (USDA, 1990). One or more of its potenti al hosts occurs in these zones (NRCS , 2007). Medium (2)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Planococcus lilacinus is very poly phagous, having been recorded on hosts in many plant families and genera, including: **Anacardiaceae** ( Mangifera, Spondias ), **Agavaceae** ( Cordyline), **Annonaceae** ( Annona, Cananga, **Apiaceae** ( Apium ), **Apocynaceae** ( Carissa ), **Arecaceae** ( Cocos, Phoenix), **Asteraceae** ( Adenophyllum ), **Bombacaceae** ( Ceiba, Durio, Ochroma ) , **Boraginaceae** ( Cordia ) , **Brassicaceae** ( Brassica ), High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 56 **Planococcus lilacinus Risk**  **r ating**  **s Clusiaceae**  ( Garcinia ), **Combretacea e**  ( Quisqualis , Terminalia ), **Crypteroniaceae** ( Crypteronia ), **Cucurbitaceae** (Sechium ), **Dioscoreaceae** ( Dioscorea ), **Dipterocarpaceae** (

Dipterocarpus ), **Ebenaceae** (Diospyros ), **Ericaceae** ( Rhododendron ), **Euphorbiaceae** ( Antidesma, Bridelia, Codiaeum, Croton, Euphorbia, Macaranga, Mallotus, Trewia ), **Fabaceae** ( Acacia, Albizia, Arachis, Bauhinia, Cajanus, Crotalaria, Derris, Erythrina, Gliricidia, Hymenaea, Mucuna, Prosopis, Saraca, Schizolobium, Sesbania, Tamarindus, Tephrosia, Vigna ), **Iridaceae** ( Gladiolus ), **Lec ythidaceae**  ( Couroupita ), **Lythraceae** ( Lagerstroemia ), **Malpighiaceae** ( Malpighia ), **Meliaceae** (

Lansium ), **Mimosaceae** (Prosopis ), **Moraceae** ( Artocarpus, Castilloa, Ficus, Streblus ), **Moringaceae** ( Moringa ), **Myrtaceae** (

Eugenia, Psidium, Syzigium ), **Orchidaceae** ( Dendrobium , Vanda ), **Oxalidaceae** ( Averrhoa ), **Pandanaceae** ( Pandanus ), **Poaceae** (

Bambusa ), **Punicaceae** (Punica ), **Rhamnaceae** ( Alphitonia, Ziziphus ), **Rhizophoraceae** ( Rhizophora ), **Rubiaceae** ( Coffea, Gardenia, Neonauclea ), **Rutaceae** ( Citrus ), **Santalaceae** (Santalum ), **Sapindaceae** ( Aphania, Litchi, Nephelium ), **Sapotaceae** ( Manilkara ), **Sim aroubaceae**  ( Ailanthus ), **Solanaceae** ( Nicotiana, Solanum ), **Sterculiaceae** ( Heritiera, Theobroma ), **Verbenaceae** ( Callicarpa, Premna, Tectona ), **Vitaceae** ( Vitis ), and **Zingiberaceae** ( Elettaria ) (Ben
Dov et al
. , 2007; CABI, 2007; Krishnamoorthy and Mani, 1998; L oganathan and Suresh, 2001; Rostaman, 1997; Williams, 2004). **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** Fecundity per female on Brassica oleracea is 55
- 152 eggs (Loganathan and Suresh, 2001) , and it has t

wo or three generations per year ( IP M DANIDA , 2007). The complete life cycle of P
. lilacinus takes about 40 days in Java (CABI, 2007). This insect is capable of limited dispersal on its own. Like other scales, it can passively disperse by

wind (Gullan and Kosztarab, 1997). Long - distance dispersal can be accomplished via human
- assisted movement of infested plant materials. Since 1985, P. lilacinus has been intercepted 1,920 times on fruit at U.S. ports
- of
- entry on a va riety of plant species (PestID , 2007). High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Planococcus lilacinus is a major pest of tamarind and coffee in I ndia (Hill, 1983; Reddy et al
. , 1997), and damages a wide range of other economically important crops, including custard apple (

Annona reticulata ), coconut, citrus, grape, guava, and mango (CABI , 2007). Planococcus lilacinus feeds on Rs, stems, leaves, inflorescences, and fruits, stunting plant growth, covering foliage with sooty mold, and lowering the quality of fruit (CABI, 2007). It feeds at the base of fruit on citrus , causing premature fruit drop (Williams, 2004). On coffee, it feeds on the R s , making the leaves chlorotic and eventually causing defoliation (Williams, 2004). On cauliflower, severe infestations lead to stunted plant growth, withering, and reduced flower size (Loganathan and Suresh, 2001). Due to honey dew production, sooty

mold may develop on plant surfaces, reducing photosy nthesis and market value of fruit (Williams, 2004). In I ndia, chemical and biological control programs are necessary to control this pest on a variety of crops (CABI , 2007; Mani and Krishnamoorthy, 2000; Reddy et al
. , 1997). High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** As a highly

poly phagous pest, P. lilacinus may attack F ederal Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species that are congeners of current hosts, including Crotalaria avonensis (FL), Euphorbia telephioides (FL), Rhododendron chapmanii (FL), and Ziziphus celata (FL) High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 57 **Planococcus lilacinus Risk**  **r ating**  **s** (USFWS, 2007). Furthermore, because it threatens economically valuable crops such as avocado, citrus, and cucurbits (Miller et al
. , 2002), its introduction would likely stimulate chemical or biological control programs, bey ond those already

used . This is necessary

in India, for ex ample (CABI, 2007; Krishnamoorthy and Mani, 1998; Mani and Krishnamoorthy, 2000; Reddy et al
. , 1997). **Pseudococcus cryptus Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate**  **- Host Interaction**  Pseudococcus cryptus is primarily a subtropical to tropical species in several countries in southern Asia34 , Africa (Kenya, Mauritius, Tanzania), South America (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Paraguay), Central America (Costa Rica, El Salvador), the Caribbean (U.S. Virgin I sland s), and Oceania (American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Hawaii, Palau, Western Samoa) (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007) . It is also present in Japan and South Korea (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007). Other than the U.S. Virgin Islands, Hawaii, and American Samoa, it is not present in any other U.S. territory or protectorate. This distribution corresponds to Plant Hardiness Zones 8
- 13 (Maxwell, 2007; Widrlechner, 1997) , so w e estimate that it could survive in Zones 8 - 10 in the continental United States. One or more of it s potential hosts occurs in these zones (NRCS , 2007). Medium (2)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Pseudococcus cryptus is a poly phagous pest that has been recorded on hosts in more than 30 families, including but not limited to **Anacardiaceae** ( Mangifera ) , **Annonaceae** ( Annona ) , **A pocynaceae**  ( Plumeria ), **Araceae** (

Amorphophallus, Aglaonema ), **Arecaceae** (

Areca , Cocos , Cyrtostachys , Elaeis, Metroxylon, Phoenix), **Asclepiadaceae** ( Finlaysonia ), **Asteraceae** ( Dahlia ), **Bromeliaceae** (

Ananas ), **Clusiaceae** ( Calophyllum, Garcin ia ), **Dilleniaceae** (Dillenia, Tetracera ), **Euphorbiaceae** ( Croton , Hevea, Manihot), **Fabaceae** (

Bauhinia , Erythrina, Gliricidia, Glycine), **Flacourtiaceae** ( Ryparosa ), **Heliconiaceae** ( Heliconia ), **Lauraceae** ( Ocotea , Persea ), **Liliaceae** ( Crinum ), **Loganiaceae** ( Strychnos ), **Lythraceae** (Punica ), **Malvaceae** ( Hibiscus ), **Melastomataceae** (

Melastoma ), **Meliaceae** ( Lansium ), **Moraceae** (

Artocarpus ), **Moringaceae** (

Moringa ), **Musaceae** (

Musa ), **Myristicaceae** (

Myristica ), **Myrtaceae** ( Eugenia , Osbornia , Psidium ), **Oleaceae** ( Jasminum ), **Orchidaceae** ( Coelogyne, Dendrobium, Phalaenopsis, Raphioperdalum, Spathoglottis, Vanda ), **Pandanaceae** ( Pandanus ), **Passifloraceae** ( Passiflora ), **Piperaceae** ( Piper), **Poaceae** (

Bambusa ), **Rhizophoraceae** (

Rhizophora ), **Rubiaceae** ( Coffea , Gardenia , Ixora, Neonauclea ), **Rutaceae** ( Citrus ), **Selaginellaceae** (Selaginella ), **Verbenaceae** ( Avicennia ), and **Vitaceae** ( Vitis ), (Ben
- Dov et al
. , 2007; CABI, 2007; Santos, 1988). High (3)

**Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** Pseudococcus cryptus is a multivoltine species that can have up to six generations per y ear (Avidov and Harpaz, 1969). Females lay from 200 to 500 eggs, which then take 2
- 14 days to incubate. Although mealy bugs in general are somewhat limited in their dispersal ability, High (3)

34 Afghanistan, Andaman Islands , Bangladesh, Bhutan, British Indian Ocean Territory, Brunei, China (Hunan), India, Indonesia, Iran, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Nepal, Philippines, Singapore, Sri L anka, Taiwan, Thailand, and VietnamPest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 58 **Pseudococcus cryptus Risk**  **r ating**  **s** P. cr yptus can be transported long distances by wind (Gullan and Kosztarab, 1997) or in shipments of fruit and other plant material (PestID , 2007). For example, after P. cryptus was first detected in a citrus grove in I srael, it rapidly spread to over 9,000 acres in just three years (Avidov and Harpaz, 1969). Since 1985, P
. cryptus has been intercepted over 52 0 times on plant materials at U.S. ports
- of
- entry ; most of these interceptions were on fruit (PestID , 2007). **Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Pseudococcus cryptus is a significant pest of citrus (Franco et al
. , 2004; Hill, 1983; Kwon et al
. , 2002). Itis reported as a “serious pest” in Israel (Blumberg et al
. , 1999) and in Korea (Kwon et al
. , 2002). On citrus, P. cryptus can attack any part of the tree ( R to fruit), and produces enormous quantities of honeydew, on which sooty mold can form 5 - 8 mm thick layers (Avidov and Harpaz, 1969). InI srael, citrus infestations can be entirely covered by

sooty mold and waxen flakes , be coming so heavy that whole branches die, or leaves and fruit drop premature ly (Avidov and Harpaz, 1969). In south China, this species is considered onl y a minor pest, but it is widespread and similarly causes a large amount of sooty mold on the fruits an d leaves (Hill, 1983). Pseudococcus cryptus also attacks coconut palms (Williams and Watson, 1988). In I srael, biological and chemical controls have maintained populations below economically damaging densities (Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; Blumberg et al
. , 1999), but with increase d production costs. I ntroduction of P. cryptus into the United States could negatively affect international and domestic trade for a number of commodities, but particularly for citrus, which is a multi
-billion dollar industry in t he United States (

NASS , 2007). High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** It is unknown if establishment of P
. cryptus would reduce community biodiversity

or disrupt ecological processes in natural areas . It may affect one F ederal Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species that is a congener of a current host: Manihot walkerae (TX) (USFWS, 2007). Because P. cryptus represents a major threat to U.S. citrus (Miller et al
. , 2002), its establishment in the United S tates would initiate a variety of contro l measures (e.g., as in I srael; Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; Blumberg et al
. , 1999) that may have indirect environmental impacts. High (3)

**Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate**  **- Host Interaction**  Rhipiphorothriops cruentatus has been reported from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, the tropical/subtropical regions of China (including Taiwan), tropical/subtropical India, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Sri L anka, and Thailand (CABI, 2007). Based on this distribution we estimate that R. cruentatus could become established in Plant Hardiness Zone s 8 - 10 in the United States (USDA, 1990). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in this zone (NRCS, 2007). Medium (2)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** R. cruentatus has been reported on several hosts in several families including: **Anacardiaceae** (

Anacardium occidentale, Mangifera indica ), **Annonaceae** ( Annona squamosa ), **Combretaceae** ( Terminalia catappa ), **Myrtaceae** ( Psidium guajava, High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 59 **Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus Risk**  **r ating**  **s** Syzygium spp.), **Lythraceae** ( Punica granatum ), **Rosaceae** ( Rosa rugosa ), and **Vitaceae** ( Vitis vinifera ) (CABI, 2007). **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** Thrips generally

have high biotic potential. Sexual reproduction is normal in R. cruentatus , but parthenogenesis is apparently common in India (CABI, 2007). Thrips are weak fl ye rs, but their fringed wings enable them to remain airborn long enough to travel easily

between neighboring fields , and frequently over greater distances (Lewis, 1997). In international trade, R. cruentatus could be carried on plant materials , but interceptions of this pest at U.S. ports of entry have been relatively

rare (PestID , 2007). Additionally, the restricted distribution of this pest in Asia support s the idea that it has only moderate dispersal poten

tial. Medium (2)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** In India, R. cruentatus is one of the most important insect pests of grapevines (CABI, 2007) . Attacked leaves turn brown and fall prematurely , and the grape berries develop a corky surface. Also severely attacked in India are roses; again the leaves turn brown and fall prematurely . In Taiwan, wax apple and several other crops , including mango and guava , have been severely attacked , with resulting yi eld reductions and loss of market value (CABI, 2007). S ome thrips are vectors of plant pathogens but this species is not a known vector of any pathogen. Because R. cruentatus attacks grapes, which are a n economically

important export crop in the United States, its presence in the United States, even as a temporary

adventive population, could lead to severe export restrictions of host commodities to markets outside of this pest’s known distribution. High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** R. cruentatus is not known to attack any F ederal Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species or their congeners (USFWS, 2007). However, because R. cruentatus attacks grapes (above), its introduction to might initiate new control programs. Medium (2)

**Scirtothrips oligochaetus Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate**  **- Host Interaction**  Scirtothrips oligochaetus appears to be restricted geographically to India. Without more specific information, we assume it is found throughout the country , and estimate that S. oligochaetus could become established in Plant Hardiness Zones 9
- 10 in the United States (USDA, 1990). Medium (2)
**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Little is known about the host range of this pest. It probably attacks multiple genera in multiple families because it has been recorded on peanuts ( **Fabaceae:** Arachis hypogaea ) (CABI, 2007); cotton ( **Malvaceae:** Gossypium spp.) (Nair, 1975); and pomegranates ( **Lythraceae:** Punica granatum ) (Nair, 1975; Sheikh, 2006). High (3)
**Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** We found little information about the biology of this pest. Based on the biology of S. dorsalis, we assume that S. oligochaetus would have a high biotic potential. Medium (2)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 60 **Scirtothrips oligochaetus Risk**  **r ating**  **s** The potential o f Scirtothrips spp. for natural spread appears to be limited (EPPO, 1997). Additionally, this species is limited to I ndia, which indicates limited dispersal potential. **Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** V ery little information on this pest ex ists in the scientific literature. It does not appear to be a major pest any

where in India. It

reportedly

attacks peanuts and cotton, however, which are important commodities in the United States . Thus, its presence in the United States, even as a temporary adventive population, could lead to severe export restrictions of host commodities to markets outside of this pest’s known distribution. Medium (2)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** Compared to other thrips S. oligochaetus appears to have a very r estricted host range. This relative oligophagy

suggests that this species is not a significant threat to Federal Threatened or Endangered (T&E) plants in the United States and no T&E species (listed in 50 CFR §17.12) are congeners of reported hosts. Mediu m (2)

**Tenuipalpus granati Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate**  **- Host Interaction**  Tenuipalpus granati has been reported in Eygpt, Iran, Greece, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan (Jeppeson et al
. , 1975). Based on this distribution we estimate that T. granati could establish in Plant Hardiness Zones 7
- 10 in the United States (USDA, 1990). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in this zone ( NRCS , 2007). High (3) **Risk Element #2: Host Range** The host range of T. granati appears to be fairl y narrow: It is mainly a pest of grapevines ( **Vitaceae** : Vitis vinifera ) (CABI, 2007; Jeppeson et al
. , 1975), but has occasionall y been associated with pomegranates ( **Lythraceae** : Punica granatum ) (Jeppeson et. al, 1975). Medium (2) **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential**  Relatively

little is known about the biology of false spider mites. Compared to other pests and other mites in particular, false spider mites have medium biotic potential. Females may

live as long as two months, but they have much lower reproduc tive rates than spider mites, and fecundity rarel y reaches 50 offspring per female (Zhang, 2003). False spider mites are very slow moving mites. Their movement and dispersal has not been studied but long distance dispersal probabl y occurs passivel y through air currents or though the transportation of infected plants or other materials (Zhang, 2003). Medium (2)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** T. granati is reported to be an occasional pest in vineyards in Egy pt. It also infests leaves, small branches, and sometimes fruit of pomegranate trees. Itdoes not appear, however, to be a significant pest anywhere in the world. In California , grape and pomegranate producers already control for a variety of mi te pests (Carroll et al
. , 2006, U.C. IPM , 2007) . Therefore, establishment of this pest would not likely lead to significant increases in costs of production. The United States does not export a significant amount of pomegranates, but does export Low (1)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 61 **Tenuipalpus granati Risk**  **r ating**  **s** a large amount of fresh grapes to the following countries: Australia, Canada, China (including Hong Kong), Indonesia, India, Mexico, Malaysia, Philippines, Trinidad and Tobago, Taiwan, and the UK ( FAS , 2007). Onl y India is known to have this pest, therefor e its establishment in the grape producing regions of the United States may lead to loss or restriction of these important markets. **Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** Compared to other mites T. granati appears to have a very restricted host range. This relative oligophagy

suggests that this species does not constitute a significant threat to threatened or endangered plants in the United States and there are no Federally Threatened or Endangered species ( listed in 50 CFR §17.12) that are congeners of reported hosts. As mentioned above , some producers already control for a variety of mite pests (Carroll et al
. , 2006, U.C. IPM , 2007) , and therefore the establishment of this pest is unlikely

to lead to new ch emical and biological control programs. Low (1)

**Tenuipalpus punicae Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate**  **- Host Interaction**  Tenuipalpus punicae has been reported from Eygpt, Iran, Iraq, Spain (Jeppeson et al
. , 1975; CABI, 2007), and India (Dhooria and Bhullar, 2003; Prasad, 1971). Based on this distribution we estimate that T. granati could become established in Plant Hardiness Zones 9 - 10 in the United States (USDA, 1990). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in this zone (

NRCS , 2007) . Medium (2)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** T. punicae is only

known to attack pomegranate ( **Lythraceae** : Punica granatum ) (CABI, 2007; Jeppeson et al
. , 1975). Low (1) **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** Relatively

little is known about the biology of false spider mites. Compared to other pests and other mites in particular, false spider mites have medium biotic potential. Females may

live as long as two months, but they have much lower reproductive rates than spider mites, and fecundity rarel y reaches 50 offspring per female (Zhang, 2003). False spider mites are very slow moving mites. Their movement and dispersal has not been studied but long distance dispersal probabl y occurs passivel y through air curr ents or though the transportation of infected plants or other materials (Zhang, 2003). Medium (2)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** T. punicae infests leaves, small branches, and sometimes fruit of pomegranate trees , but i t does not appear to be a significant pest anywhere in the world. In California , pomegranate producers already control for a variety of mite pests (Carroll et al
. , 2006) , so the establishment of this pest would likely only minimal ly increase production costs . The United States do es not export a significant amount of pomegranates, but it does export a large amount of fresh grapes to the following countries: Australia, Canada, China (including Hong Kong), Indonesia, India, Mexico, Malay sia, Philippines, Trinidad and Tobago, Taiwan, and the UK. Only India is known to have this pest, Low (1)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 62 **Tenuipalpus punicae Risk**  **r ating**  **s** therefore its establishment in the grape producing regions of the United States may lead to loss or restriction of these important markets. **Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** Compared to other mites T. punicae appears to have a very restricted host range. This relative oligophagy

suggests that this species does not constitute a significant threat to threatened or endangered plants in the United States and there are no Federally Threatened or Endangered species (listed in 50 CFR §17.12) that are congeners of reported hosts. As mentioned above , some producers already control for a variety of mite pests (Carroll et al
. , 2006, U.C. IPM , 2007) , and therefor e the establishment of this pest is unlikely

to lead to new chemical and biological control programs. Low (1)

**Xanthomonas axonopodis pv.**  **punicae Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction**  D isease development of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae depends on humidity, temperature, and rainfall. The minimum average temperature for disease development is about 28 ° C. Rainfall seems to be required for disease development more than humidity , but the amount needed or timing of rainfall has not been quantified. Humidity of 50 to 60 percent seems to promote disease development. The hardiness zones that correspond to these conditions are approximately zones 10 and 11 which exist only in South Florida. Since the pathogen could survive in onl y two hardiness zones, the risk associated with climate/host interaction is low. Low (1)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range**  The only known host of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae is pomegranates , Punica granatum . For this reason, the risk associated with the pathogen is low. Low (1) **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** We found no information about the natural dispersal of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae . The association of the disease with rainfall may indicate that the patho gen is spread by rain splash. Depending on the amount of precipitation and the strength of the wind, splash es can dispers e materials from a meter to a kilometer . Although the reproduction rate of the pathogen is likely to be high, the amount of functional inoculum is likely to be much less

—in other words, even large numbers of bacteria yield many fewer infective bacteria . Thus, we think the probability of a bacterium infecting a tree or fruit is very

small. Overall, we thought the pathogen has Medium potential for both rapid reproduction and dispersal under the right circumstances. Medium (2)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact**  The primary

description of X. axonopodis pv. punicae infection states that it infects “all above ground parts of the plant, ” including a black spot on fruit , and lowers production by damaging fruit. To date , X. axonopodis pv. punicae is only present in I

ndia. If it w ere introduced into the United S tates , other countries may enact quarantine restrictions on U.S. pomegranates to prevent its entry . For these reasons, we rated this element as Medium. Medium (2)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact**  Since the only

known host of X

. axonopodis pv. punicae is pomegranates , it likely has little ability

to damage other species. Thus, the environmental impact is low. Low (1)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 63 **Table 6.** Summary

of risk ratings for Consequences of Introduction **Pest Risk elements**  **Cumulative Risk Rating**  **Climate/ host int**  **er**   ** action** **Host**

**range Dispersal** 

**potential Economic** 

**impact Envir.** 

**impact** Bactrocera carambolae Low (1) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (13) Bactrocera dorsalis Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14) Bactrocera zonata Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14) Ceroplastes rubens Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (13) Ceroplastes rusci Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (13) Conogethes punctiferalis High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15) Cryptoblabes gnidiella High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15) Deudorix epijarbas High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) High (13) Deudorix isocrates Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14) Dichocrocis megillalis Low (1) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) Med (11) Drosicha dalbergiae Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14 ) Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med High (13) Euzophera bigella Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14) Icerya aegyptiaca Low (1) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (11 ) Icerya seychellarum Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14) Maconellicoccus hirsutus Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (13) Nipaecoccus viridis Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (1 4 ) Planococcus angkorensis Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (12 ) Planococcus lilacinus Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14 ) Pseudococcus cryptus Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (14 ) Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) Med (12 ) Scirtothrips oligochaetus Med (2) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) Med (11) Tenuipalpus granati High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Low (1) Med (9) Tenuipalpus punicae Med (2) Low (1) Med (2) Low (1) Low (1) Low (7) Xanthomonas axono
podis pv . puniceae Low (1) Low (1) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Low (7)
**2.7. Likelihood of Introduction** Likelihood of introduction is a function of both the quantity of the commodity

imported annuall y and pest opportunity , which consists of five criteria that consider the potential for pest survival along the pathway

(USDA, 2000). The values determined for the Likelihood of Introduction for eac h pest are summarized in Table 7 .Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 64 2.7. 1. Quantity

of commodity

imported annuall y The rating for th is subelement is based on the amount reported b y the exporter, and is converted into standard units of 40
- foot
- long shipping containers . 35 In dia expects initially to ship ab out 1500 tons of pomegranates per ye ar to the United States , which equals about 50 shipping containers. Therefore, we ranked this element Medium (2) for all pests. 2.7. 2. Survive post
- harvest treatment Standard post - harvest treatments f or pomegranates inc lude culling , washing , and cold storage (Prat and Botti, 2002). Larvae of the fruit flies ( Bactrocera carambolae, B. dorsalis, B. zonata ), are internal feeders and are highl y likel y to surviv e these post - harvest treatments, especiall y if the damage is not obvious. S urface p uncture marks from entry of the female’s ovipositor may be visible but recognizing fruit fly
- infested fruit is difficult , especiall y if the flies enter through the deep caly x (White and Elson
- Harris, 1992) . We rated these pests as H igh ri sk to surviv e post harvest treatment s . A number of the pests are small external feeders , as follows: the scales Ceroplastes spp. , Drosicha dalbergiae, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes, Icerya spp. , Maconellicoccus hirsutus, Nipaecoccus viridis, Planococcus angkorensis, P. lilacinus, and Psedococcus cryptus; the thrips Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus, Scirtothrips
. oligochaetus; and the mites Tenuipalpus granati and T. punicae . These pests are less likely to survi ve post - harvest treatment s if they are on the surface of the fruit. However, the deep caly x of pomegranates offers con s iderable shelter for all stages of these arthropods. Such cry ptic behavior could protect them well from detection or removal. Therefore, we gave these pests a H igh risk rating for this subelement . Conogethes punctiferalis, Cryptoblabes gnidiella, the three Deudorix spp., Dichocrocis megillalis, and Euzophera bigella may be present as eggs, on or in the fruit (Hel y et al
. , 1982) or as larvae (Hel y et al
. , 1982; Whittle, 1984) . These pes ts also could survive treatment, particularl y if sheltered at the cal yxor stem ends. Fruit newly invaded by

larvae or that have larvae which entered b y the cal yx , might go undetected. The damage caused by larvae boring into fruit and the frass (excrement) they produce are likel y to be more evident than s ymptoms caused by fruit fl ies (above). Consequently , these moths are more likely to be detected and culled, and we gave them M edium ratings . Washing and culling could wash Xanthomonas bacteria off the surface of the fruit but would not affect population s liv ing just below the surface of the fruit. We gave a risk rating of High for this pathogen to survive post harvest treatment. 2.7. 3. Survive Shipment Insect survival at low temperatures is influenced by the duration of exposure ( Chapman, 1998 ). Low temperatures above freezing are not immediately fatal for most insects; some remain alive for considerable periods even at temperatures around 0°C. As temperatures drop, physiological adjustments , or acclim ation , may lengthen the tolerance of insects to chilling ( Salt, 1961 ). Pomegranates are typically shipped at 5oC (41oF) (McGregor, 1989). At this temperature, we expect that all but the most cold sensitive arthropods will survive. Consequently , we rated all
35 The conversión factor is 60,000 lbs (30 tons) per 40
- foot long refrigerated shipping container.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 65 arthropods High for this element , except Bactrocera carambolae, Dichocrocis megillalis, and Icerya aegyptiaca, which we rated M edium because of their cold sensitivity . The only research on the survivability of X. axonopodis pv. punicae observed that the bacteria survived at a 100 percent recovery rate from fruit and leaves after 120 day s at room temperature. This finding would suggest that survival of the bacteria is highly likel y b y almost any conveyance. Thus, the chance that bacteria would survive shipment is High . 2.7. 4. Not detected at a port of entry The likelihood of pests not be ing detected at a port
- of
- entry depends on pest size, mobility, and degree of concealment. If an infestation occurred relatively recently , internal feeders have a high probability

of escaping detection at a port
- of
- entry , unless fruit is cut open. Consequently , we rated all internal pests High for this risk element. By comparison, the external feeders (see list above) are much more likel y t o be detect ed b y visual inspection. They

may still, however, be concealed beneath the cal yx or in packing materials . They

may also be present in the egg stage . Thus , we rated these species M edium for this risk element. In general pathogens are less likely to be correctly identif

ied at the port level, especiall y if no fruiting body or unambiguous structure associated with the pathogen exists. Detection at port of entry for X. axonopodis pv. punicae is uncertain, and depend s upon the number and size of black spots on fruit. Thus, a severe infection could be obvious , while o thers could easily pass unobserved. Thus, for X. axonopodis pv. punicae we rated this element High . 2.7. 5. Imported or moved subsequently to an area with an environment suitable for survival Pomegranates from India are likel y to be sold in all 4 9 of the state s within the continental United States . We assume that demand for fruit is proportional to the size of the consumer population in potential markets and that any infestations would be distributed equall y am o ng consignments. Based on the latest census data (U . S . C ensus B ureau , 200 6 ) , 4.4 percent of the U.S. population resides within Plant Hardiness Z one 10 (PERAL, 2008) . Therefore, because the region encompassing zone 10 comprises only a small percentage of the likel y markets for Indian pomegranates , we gave Bactrocera carambolae, Dichocrocis megillalis, and Icerya aegyptiaca a L ow risk rating of being moved to habitat suitable for survival. The following pests can establish in Zone 8 and above: Bactrocera dorsalis, B. zonata, Ceroplastes spp. , Deudorix spp., Drosicha dalbergiae, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes, Euzophera bigella, Icerya seychellarum, Maconellicoccus hirsutus, Nipaecoccus viridis, Planococcus spp., Pseudococcus cryptus, Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus, Scirtothrips oligochaetus, and Tenuipalpus punicae . Those zones in the continental United States have 41.6 percent of the U.S. population (PERAL , 2008). Consequently , we gave these pests a Medium risk rating for this element. The remaining arthropods could surviv e in Zones 6
- 10 in the continental United States (above) . Th ese Z ones contain almost 87 percent of the U.S. population (PERAL , 2008) . Moreover, this region includes several of the most populous states ( e.g ., Illinois, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 66 to which a significant percentage of imports likely would be diverted. Thus, we gave risk ratings of High to these remaining athropods for this subelement . P omegranate is the onl y known host of X. axonopodis pv. punicae , and they are onl y grown commerci all y in C entral California , which is Z one s 8 - 9. Based on the existing data, the disease might survive in such a climate but its spread would be minimal. Inaddition, C entral California is geographicall y separated from the larger urban areas where the fruit will primarily be marketed. Given these factors , we gave a risk rating of Lo w to this pathogen . 2.7. 6. Come into contact with host material suitable for reproduction Even if the climate for a given pest is conducive for survival , suitable host material must be available in order for the pest to live and reproduce. Pests such as scales and mites have limited natural dispersal ability and tend to remain with or near their host plants . Thus, they are relativel y unlikely

to contact hosts because infested f ruit would have to be disposed in areas where the larvae could survive (e.g., parks, crop fields, gardens, orchards, roadsides ) . Pests in fruit that are disposed of in trash bins, compactors, or garbage disposals

—even if uneaten

— would not be able to surviv e, and thus pose no risk. Therefore, we rated these pests L ow for this risk sub element. P ests that have relativel y narrow host ranges, or those that feed onl y on tropical and subtropical species with restricted distributions in the continental United States, are also unlikely to contact suitable host material. Therefore, we rated the fruit fly Bactrocera carambolae and the moth Dichocrocis megillalis , Low for this sub element, even though they are highly mobile species. Bactrocera are also highly mobile (above), but its hosts are available throughout the continental United States . Therefore, we rated the risk that Bactrocera dorsalis and B. zonata could contact host material as H igh . Similarly , the moths anal yz ed are capable of long dis tance flight , and are not monophagic (above) . Therefore, we also gave High risk ratings to Conogethes punctiferalis, Cryptoblabes gnidiella, Deudorix spp., and Euzophera bigella . The whitefl y Aleurodicus disperses and the thrips also fl y, although not as well, and may be aided in dispersal b y wind and human activities ( above ) . In comparison to the fruit flies and moths, then, we gave these pests a M edium risk rating for this subelement . The pathogen must contact pomegranate in order to establish (above). P omegranate s are mainly grown in three counties in the Central Valley in California : Fresno, Kern, and Tulare. These counties have onl y 5 percent of California’s population, and less than 0.6 percent of the national population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Assuming again that demand will be proportional to population size, the probability that an infec ted pomegranate from India would end up in these counties in California is very sm all. In addition, the acreage of pomegranates in those counties is tiny compared to other crops, so any infected produce is much more likel y t o contact hosts other than pomegranate. For those reasons, we gave a risk rating of Low for this pathogen.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 67 **Tab le 7.**  Risk Rating s for Likelihood of Introduction . The risk rating for “Quantity imported annually” was Medium (2) for all pests. **Pest Risk elements**  **Cumulative Survive**  **p ost** **** **h arvest**  **t reatment**  **Survive**

**ship**   ** ment** **Not**

**d etected**  **at p**  **ort of e**  **ntry Moved** 

**to s**  **uitable h**  **abitat Contact** 

**with h**  **ost m**  **aterial r** **isk r**  **ating**
Bactrocera carambolae High (3) Med (2) High (3) Low (1) Low (1) Med (12) B. dorsalis High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16) B
. zonata High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16) Ceroplastes rubens High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13) C
. rusci High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13) Conogethes punctiferalis Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (16) Cryptoblabes gnidiella Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (16) Deudorix epijarbas Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (15) D
. isocrates Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (15) Dichocrocis megillalis Med (2) Med (2) High (3) Low (1) Low (1) Med (11) Drosicha dalbergiae High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13) Dysmicoccus neobrevipes High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13) Euzophera bigella Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (15) Icerya aegyptiaca High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Low (1) Med (11) I
. seychellarum High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13) Maconellicoccus hirsutus High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13) Nipaecoccus viridis High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13) Planococcus angkorensis High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13) P
. lilacinus High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13) Pseudococcus cryptus High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13) Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) Med (14) S cirtothrips oligochaetus High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) Med (14) Tenuipalpus granati High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Low (1) Med (14) T
. punicae High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13) Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae High (3) High (3) High (3) Low (1) Low (1) Med (13)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 68 

### 3 **. Conclusion**  We summ ed the values for the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of introduction to give Pest Risk Potentials (USDA, 2000) (Table 8). Th ese estimate the overall risk associated with the importation of pomegranates from India for pests that may be associated with the fruit. Pests with a Pest Risk Potential value of Low do not require specific mitigation measures, whereas a value within the Medium range indicates that specific phy tosanitary measures may

be necessary . The PPQ Guidelines state that a High Pest Risk Potential means that specific phy tosanitary measures are strongl y recommended, and that port
- of
- entry inspectio n is not considered sufficient to provide phy tosanitary security . The choice of appropriate measures to mitigate risk is undertaken as part of Risk Management and is not addressed in this document. **Table 8.** Pest Risk Potential s for pomegranate from Indi a **Pest Cumulative Risk Ratings**  **Pest Risk Potential**  **Consequences of Introduction**  **Likelihood of**

**Introduction** Conogethes punctiferalis High (15) High (16) High (31) Cryptoblabes gnidiella High (15) High (16) High (31) Bactrocera dorsalis High (14) High (16) High (30) Bactrocera zonata High (14) High (16) High (30) Deudorix isocrates High (14) High (15) High (29) Euzophera bigella High (14) High (15) High (29) Deudorix epijarbas High (13) High (15) High (28) Drosicha dalbergiae High (14) Medium (13) High (27) Icerya seychellarum High (14) Medium (13) High (27) Nipaecoccus viridis High (14) Medium (13) High (27) Planococcus lilacinus High (14) Medium (13) High (27) Pseudococcus cryptus High (14) Medium (13) High (27) Ceroplastes rubens High (13) Medium (13) Medium (26) Ceroplastes rusci High (13) Medium (13) Medium (26) Dysmicoccus neobrevipes High (13) Medium (13) Medium (26) Maconellicoccus hirsutus High (13) Medium (13) Medium (26) Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus Medium (12) Medium (14) Medium (26) Bactrocera carambolae High (13) Medium (12) Medium (25) Planococcus angkorensis Medium (12) Medium (13) Medium (25) Scirtothrips oligochaetus Medium (11) Medium (14) Medium (25) Tenuipalpus granati Medium (9) Medium (14) Medium (23) Dichocrocis megillalis Medium (11) Medium (11) Medium (22) Icerya aegyptiaca Medium (11) Medium (11) Medium (22) Tenuipalpus punicae Low (7) Medium (13) Medium (20) Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae Low (7) Medium (13) Medium (20)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 69 

### 4 **. References** 7 CFR § 360. 2007. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 360, (7 CFR §360
- Noxious Weed Regulations). United States Government. Aguiar
- Menezes, E. L., E. B. Menezes, P. C. R. Cassino, and M. A. Soares. 2002. Passion Fruit. Pages 361 - 390 in J. E. Pena, J. L . Sharp, and M. Wysoki, (eds.). Tropical Fruit Pests and Pollinators: Biology, Economic Importance, Natural Enemies and Control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, U.K. Ahn, S. B., D. J. Im, I. S. Kim, and W. S. Cho. 1989. Foliage
- feeding lepidopterous pests on apple trees in Suwon [Abstract]. Research Reports of the Rural Development Administration, Crop Protection 31(3):27
- 33. Aitken Soux, P. 1985. Some pests and diseases generall y encountered in coffee nurseries [Abstract]. Feuille d'Extension 53:5. Akinlosotu, T. A., L . E. N. Jackai, N. N. Ntonifor, A. T. Hassan, C. W. Agyakwa, J. A. Odebi yi , A. E. Akingbohungbe, and H. W. Rossel. 1993. Spiralling Whitefly , Alerodicus dispersus, in Nigeria. Plant Protection Bulletin 41(2):127
- 128. Ali, M. 1978. A report on the wax scales, Ceroplastes pseudoceriferus Green and Chloropulvinaria polygonata (Ckll.) (Homoptera: Coccidae) on mango and their natural enemies [Abstract]. Bangladesh Journal of Zoology 6(1) :69 - 70. Ali, S. M. 1968. Coccids (Coccoidea: Hemiptera: Insecta) affecting fruit plants in Bihar (India). Journal of the Bombay

Natural History

Society 65(1):120
- 137. Anjaneya Murthy, J. N., and A. Regupathy. 1989. Insecticidal control of fruit fly , Gitona sp., L caterpillar, Noorda blitealis Walk. and aphid, Aphis craccivora Koch on annual moringa. South Indian Horticulture 37(2):84
- 93. Anony mous. 1941. Short Notes and Exhibits. Indian Journal of Entomology . 3(2). Anony mous. 2007. Plant hardiness zones. BackyardGardener. Last accessed May 17, 2007, http://www.backyardgardener.com/zone/index.html . Arias, G. G., C. Font, and E. Miranda. 2002. Planococcus minor (Markell), vector del virus estriado del platano (BSV). Fitosanidad 6(2):47
- 48. Arkhangel'Skaya, A. 1931. New species of scale insects, Coccidae, from Central Asia [Abstract]. Plant Protection 7(1
- 3). Arnett Jr., R. H. 1997. American Insects: A Handbook of the Insects of America North of Mexico. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL, U.S.A. 850 pp. Arnett Jr., R . H. 2000. American Insects: A Handbook of the Insects of America North of Mexico, Second edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, U.S.A. 1003 pp. Arnett Jr., R. H., M. C. Thomas, P. E. Skelley , and J. H. Frank. 2002. American Beetles: Poly phaga: Scarabaeoidea through Curculionoidea. CRC Press L CC, Boca Raton, Florida. 861 pp. ARS. 2007. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN), Online Database. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Sy stematic Botany and Mycol ogy L aboratory . Last accessed June 25, 2007, http://www.ars
- grin.gov/cgi
- bin/npgs/html/paper.pl . Astruc, N., J. Marcos, L. Macquaire, T. Candresse, and V. Pallas. 1996. Studies on the diagnosis of hop stunt viroid in fruit trees: Identification of new host s and application of nucleic acid extraction procedure based on non
- organic solvents European Journal of Plant Pathology

102:837 - 846.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 70 Avidov, Z., and I. Harpaz. 1969. Plant Pests of I srael. Israel Universities Press, Jerusalem, I srael. 549 pp. Azab, A. K., M. F. S. Tawfik, and A. I. Ezz. 1968. Studies on Icerya aegyptiaca (Douglas) (Homoptera:Margarodidae). Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique d'Egy pte 52:155 - 178. Baker, C., T. C. Harrington, U. Krauss, and A. Alfenas. 2003. Genetic variability and host spe cialization in L atin America clade of Ceratocystis fimbriata . Phy topathology 93(10):1274
- 1284. Baker, E. W., T. Kono, J. W. Amrine Jr., M. Delfinado
- Baker, and T. A. Stasny . 1996. Eriophyoid Mites of the United States. Indira Publication House, West Bloomf ield, U.S.A. 394 pp. Ben - Dov, Y. 1993. A S ystematic Catalogue of the Soft Scale Insects of the World. Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville, Fl., U.S.A. 536 pp. Ben - Dov, Y. 1994. A s ys tematic catalogue of the mealy bugs of the world (Insecta: Homoptera: Coccoid ea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae): With data on geographical distrib ution, host plants, biology

and economic importance. Intercept Ltd, Andover. 686 pp. Ben - Dov, Y. 2005. The malvastrum meal ybug Ferrisia malvastra (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae): Dis tribution, host plants and pest status in I srael. Phy toparasitica 33(2):154
- 156. Ben - Dov, Y., and C. J. Hodgson (eds.). 1997. Soft scale insects: their biology , natural enemies and control (Vol. 7b). Elsevier, Amsterdam. Ben - Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A . P. Gibson. 2007. ScaleNet. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), S ys tematic Entomology Laboratory

(SEL). Last accessed August 13, 2007, http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm . Bhagat, R. C. 1982. On two new aphid parasitoids of genus Trioxys (Aphididae: Hy menoptera) from Kashmir, India [Abstract]. Entomon 7(3):321
- 324. Bhumannavar, B. S., and C. A. Viraktamath. 2001. L arval host specificity , adult feeding and oviposition preference of the fruit piercing moth, Othreis homaena Hubner (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on different Menispermaceae host plants. Journal of Entomological Research 25(3):165
- 181. Bier, V. M. 1999. Challenges to the acceptance of probabilistic risk anal ys is. Risk Analy sis 19(4):703
- 710. Biradar, A. P., S. B. Jagginavar, and N. D. Sunitha. 2005. Management of stem borer, Coelosterna scrabrator Fabr. (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in pomegranate. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences 1(1):16
- 17. Blackman, R. L., and V. F. Eastop. 2000. Aphids on the World's Crops: An I dentification and In formation Guide. Wiley, Chichester, United Kingdom. 466 pp. Blumberg, D., Y. Ben
- Dov, S. Gross, Y. Drishpoun, and Z. Mendel. 1999. Outbreaks and biological control of the citriculus meal ybug Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel in I srael in the past and present
- revaluation and current situation [Abstract]. Alon Hanotea 53(4):155
- 160. BMESD. 2003. Bohart Museum of Entomolo gy : Scale Insect Database. Bohart Museum of Entomology (BMESD) . http://bohart.ucdavis.edu/scale/ . Bolland, H. R., J. Gutierrez, and C. H. W. Flechtmann. 1998. World Catalogue of the Spider Mite Family

(Acari: Tetranychidae). Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands. 392 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 71 Borror, D. J., C. A. Triplehorn, and N. F. Johnson. 1989. An introduction to the study of insects (6th ed.). Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth, Texas, U.S.A. Bose, T. K., S. K. Mitra, and D. Sanyal. 2002. Fruits: Tropical and Subtropic al. New Sarada Press, Bidhan Sarani, Calcutta, India. Bruner, S. C., L .C. Scaramuzza and A.R. Otero. 1945. Catalogo de los Insectos que Atacan a las Plantas Economicas de Cuba. Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, Instituto de Zoologia, Habana, Cuba. 246 pp. Butani, D. K. 1978. Insect pests of tamarind and their control [Abstract]. Pesticides 12(11):34
- 41. Butani, D. K. 1993. Mango: Pest Problems. Periodical Expert Book Agency , Delhi, India. 290 pp. Butani, D. K., and S. Varma. 1976. Pests of vegetables and their control:
- brinjal. Pesticides 10(2):32
- 35, 38. Butani, D. K., and S. Verma. 1981. Insect pests of vegetables and their control
-- drumsticks. Pesticides 15(10):29
- 32. CABI. 2007. Crop Protection Compendium (Web Edition). CAB International. Last accessed J anuary, 2008, http://www.cabicompendium.org/cpc/home.asp . CABI/EPPO. 1997. Quarantine Pests for Europe: Data sheets on Quarantine Pests for the European Union and for the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (2nd ed.). CAB International (CABI) and the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), Cambridge, UK. 1425 pp. Cantelo, W., W., A. Manjikul, M. R. C. Tongyai, and P. Pholboon. 1965. A Host List of the Insects of Thailand. Thailand Department of Agriculture & Uni ted States Operations Mission to Thailand, Bangkok, Thailand. Carroll, D., B. Puget, B. Higbee, M. Quist, O. Magallenes, N. Smith, A. Gjerde, and K. Schneider. 2006. Pomegranate Pest Management in the San Joaquin Valley. L ast accessed January

2008, http://www.aaie.net/IPMinfo/PomegranatePestManagement_002.pdf . Carter, D. J. 1984. Pest Lepidoptera of Europe: With Special Reference to the British I sles. Dr W. Junk, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 431 pp. CFIA. 2007. Pests Regulated b y Canada. Plant Protection Regulations 29 (2a). Plant Health Division, Plant Products Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) , Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Chang, N. T. 1991. Important thrips species in Taiwan. Pages 40
- 56 in N. S. Talekar, (ed.). Thrips in Southeast Asi a (AVRDC Publ. No. 91
- 342). Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center, Tainan, Tiwan. Chapman, R. F. 1998. The Insects: Structure and Function, 4th ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Chen, Y., X. Chen, K. Li, L . Shi, and Z. Chen. 2004. Prefer ence of lac insect to host branch in foraging [Abstract]. Forest Research, Beijing 17(2):159
- 166. Chia, C. L ., and D. O. Evans. 1997. Avocado. University of Hawaii at Manoa. https://www.gpdd.info/references/1810_Chia_Evans_1997_Avocado_Horticultural_4786 .p df . Clausen, C. P. 1978. Tephritidae. Introduced Parasites and Predators of Arthropod Pests and Weeds: A world review. USDA Agricultural Handbook 480:320
- 335. Cognato, A. 2007. PEET - Xyleborini
- Online database. Last accessed August 9, 2007, http://xyleb orini.tamu.edu/db_intro.php .Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 72 Cohen, M. B., A. M. Romena, and F. Gould. 2000. Dispersal by larvae of the stem borers Scirpophaga incertulas (Lepidoptera: P yralidae) and Chilo suppressalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in plots of transplanted rice. Environmental Entomology 29(5):958
- 971. Coile, N. 2000. Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis . Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Department of Plant Industry . Last accessed February 19, 2004, http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/00
- mar- apr.htm . Common, I . F. B. 1990. Moths of Australia. E.J. Brill, Leiden. 535 pp. Common, I . F. B., and D. F. Waterhouse. 1972. Butterflies of Australia. Angus and Robertson Publishers, Sydney , Australia. 498 pp. Courneya, P. 2006. Quarantine status confirmation. Personal communication to L . Millar on October 12, 2006, from Paul Courneya (USDA, National I dentification Services). Cox, J. M. 1989. The mealy bug genus Planococcus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History 58(1):1
- 78. CRFG. 2007. Fruit facts. California Rare Fruit Growers (CRFG). Last accessed June 25, 2007, http://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/ . Culik, M. P., D. dos Santos Martins, and P. J. Gullan. 2006. First records of two mealy bug species in Brazil and new potential pests of papaya and coffee Journal of Insect Science 6(23). http://www.insectscience.org/about/ . DAFF. 2004. Longan and lychee fruit from the People’s Republic of China and Thailand: Final import risk analy sis report. Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Fisheri es, and Forestry

(DAFF), Canberra, Australia. Darekar, K. S., N. L. Mhase, and S. S. Shelke. 1989. Management of nematodes infesting pomegranate. International Nematology Netwrok Newsletter 6(3):15
- 17. Davis, R., C. H. W. Flechtmann, J. H. Boczek, and H. E . Barke. 1982. Catalogue of Eriophyi d Mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea). Warsaw Agricultural University Press, Warsaw, Poland. 254 pp. Dekle, G. W. 1976. Green scale, Coccus viridis (Green) (Homoptera: Coccidae). Florida Deparment of Agriculture and Consumer Ser vices, Division of Plant Industry , Entomology

Circular 165. Dekle, G. W. 2001. Red wax scale ( Ceroplastes rubens Maskell) Coccidae. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry . Last accessed November 16, 2007, http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/orn/scales/red_wax_scale.htm . Dekle, G. W., and L. C. Kuitert. 1975. Camellia mining scale, Duplaspidiotus claviger (Cockerell) (Diaspididae: Homoptera) [Abstract]. Entomology Circular, Division of Plant Industry , Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (152). del Rivero, J. M. 1991. A new pest of pomegranate: Tenuipalpus punicae Pritchard & Baker [Abstract]. Anales del Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agrarias, Proteccion Vegetal 1:167 - 176. DEWR. 2007. Australia faunal directory , online database. Australian Government, Department of Environment and Water Resources (DEWR). Last accessed March 23, 2007, http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/ abrs/online
- resources/fauna/afd/index.html . Dhooria, M. S. 2003. Econo mic status of phy tophagous/predaceous mites from different plants in Punjab. Journal of Insect Science (Ludhiana) 16(1/2):12
- 17. Dhooria, M. S., and M. B. Bhullar. 2003. Pest status of eriophyi d mites in Punjab. Insect Environment 9(3):103
- 105.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 73 Dodge, B. 1 936. Schizoparmae straminea and Nectriella versoniana are identical. Mycologia 28(1):95
- 98. Drew, R. A. I., G. H. S. Hooper, and M. A. Bateman. 1982. Economic Fruit Flies of the South Pacific Region, 2nd ed. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Bri sbane. Dubey , J. K., Nath Amith, and J. R. Thakur. 1993. Chemical control for pomegranate fruit borer(s), Virachola isocrates (Fabr.) and Deudorix epijarbas (Moore). Indian Forester 119(11):928
- 931. Edwards, R. A., and T. K. Davis. 1988. Kern County Crop Report - 1988. California Department of Food and Agriculture , and County of Kern . EPPO. 2000a. Plant Quarantine Reporter (PQR) Database, Version 3.10. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), Paris . http://www.eppo.org . EPPO. 2000b. Reporting Service 2000, No. 6 . European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), Paris. EPPO. 2004. Aleurodicus dispersus (Homoptera: Aley rodidae). European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. L ast accessed April 2007, http://www. gpdd.info/onlinerefs/2294_Aleurodicus_dispersus_9164.pdf . Evans, G. A. 2007. The whiteflies (Hemiptera: Aley rodidae) of the world and their host plants and natural enemies (v. January 16, 2007). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHI S), United States. 715 pp. Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and E. B. McCray . 2007. Fungal Databases, S ys temic Botany and M yc ology

Laboratory . ARS, USDA. Last accessed August 30, 2007, http://nt.ars
- grin.gov/fungaldata bases/ . FAS. 2007. U.S. trade statistics. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). http://www.fas.usda.gov/ustrade/ . Fay, H. A. C., and K. H. Halfpapp. 2006. Fruit maturity and soundness relevant to feeding choice by fruit
- piercing moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in citrus crops in northeast Australia [Abstract]. International Journal of Pest Management 52(4):317
- 324. Fletcher, B. S. 1989a. Life History S trategies of Tephritid Fruit Flies. Pages 195
- 208 in A. S. Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit Flies: Ther Biology , Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests, Vol. 3.B. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Fletcher, B. S. 1989b. Movements of tephritid fruit flies. P ages 209 - 219 in A. S. Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit Flies: The ir Biology , Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests, Vol. 3.B. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Fors yth, J. 1966. Agricultural Insects of Ghana. Ghana Universities Press, Accra, Ghana. 163 pp. Franco, J. C., P. Suma, E. B. d. Silva, D. Blumberg, and Z. Mendel. 2004. Management strategies of mealy

bug pests of citrus in Mediterranean countries. Phy toparasitica 32(5):507
- 522. Froeschner, R. C. 1998. Family Coreidae Leach, 1815: The coreid bugs. Pages 69 - 92 in T. J. Henry and R. C. Froeschner, (eds.). Catalog of the Heteroptera, or True Bugs. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. Gaffar, S. A. 1989. Chemical control of meal y bug, Drosicha dalbergiae (Stebbing) on almond in Kashmir. Indian Journ al of Plant Protection 17(1):31
- 34. Gallego, F., and R. Velez. 1992. Lista de insectos que afectan los principales cultivos, plantas forestales, animales domésticos y al hombre en Colombia. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Facultad de Ciencias. Departamento de Biología. Area de Entomología. Seccional Medellín., Medellín, Colombia.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 74 Gentry , J.W. 1965. Crop Insects of Northeast Africa
- Southwest Asia. Agriculture Handbook No. 273. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 210 pp. Graham, S. A., J. Hall, K. Sy tsma, and S.
- H. Shi. 2005. Phylogenetic anal ysis of the Lythraceae based on four gene regions and morphology . International Journal of Plant Sciences 166(6):995
- 1017. Greathead, D. J. 1990. Crawler behaviour and dispersal. Pages 305
- 308 in D . Rosen, (ed.). Armored Scale Insects: Their Biology , Natural Enemies and Control (Volume A). Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Greathead, D.J. 1997 . Crawler behaviour and dispersal. Pages 339 - 342 in Y. Ben - Dov and C.J. Hodgson, (eds.) Soft Scale Insec ts - Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control , World Crop Pests (Volume 7A). Elsevier Science, Amsterdam , The Netherlands. Gullan, P. J., D. A. Downie, and S. A. Steffan. 2003. A new species of the mealy bug genus Ferrisia Fullaway

(Hemiptera: Pseudococ cidae) from the United States. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 96(6):723
- 737. Gullan, P. J., and M. Kosztarab. 1997. Adaptations in scale insects. Annual Review of Entomology

42:23 - 50. Gunn, C. R., and C. A. Ritchie. 1988. I dentification 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. Halbert, S. E., and P. M. Choate. 2003. Asian woolly hackberry

aphid, Shivaphis ce lti Das (Insecta: Hemiptera: Aphididae) (EENY
- 288). University of Florida, IFAS, Gainseville, FL, U.S.A. 2 pp. Haleem, S. A. 1984. Studies on fruit quality of sweet orange as affected b y soft green scale and sooty mould [India]. South Indian Horticulture 3 2(5):267
- 269. Hamon, A. B., and G. J. Mason. 2001. Fig wax scale: Ceroplastes rusci (Linnaeus) (Insecta: Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae) Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry . Last accessed November 20, 2007, http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/orn/scales/fig_wax_scale.htm . Harrington, T., and C. J. Baker. 2004. Ceratocystis fimbriata . CABICrop Protection Compendium:17. Last accessed June, 20, 2007, Haseeb, M. 2007. Current status of insect pest problems in guava. A cta Horticulturae 735:453
- 467. Heckford, R. J. 2004. Anatrachyntis simplex (Walsingham, 1891) (Lepidoptera: Cosmopterigidae), an adventive species new to the British Isles and a larval description. Entomologist's Gazette 55(2):95
- 101. Hely , P. C., G. Pasfi eld, and J. G. Gellatley . 1982. Insect pests of fruit and vegetables in NSW. Inkata Press, Melbourne. 312 pp. Herbison
- Evans, D., and S. Crossley . 2002. Lepidoptera larvae of Australia. Don Herbison
Evans. http://www
- staff.mcs.uts.edu.au/~don/larvae/lyca/epijarb.html . Hill, D. S. 1983. Agricultural Insect Pests of the Tropics and their Control (2nd ed.). Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, U.S.A. 746 pp. Hill, D. S. 1987. Agricultural Insect Pests of Temperate Regions and their Control. Cambridge Univers ity

Press, New York, NY. 659 pp. Hill, D. S. 1994. Agricultural Entomology . Timber Press, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A. 635 pp. Hill, M. G. 1980. Wind dispersal of the coccid Icerya seychellarum (Margarodidae: Homoptera) on Aldabra Atoll. Journal of Animal Ecology 49(3):939
- 957.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 75 Hill, M. G., and D. M. Newberry . 1980. The distribution and abundance of the coccid Icerya seychellarum Westw. on Aldabra atoll. Ecological Entomology 5(2):115
- 122. Hodge s, G., G. B. Edwards, and W. Dixon. 2005. Chilli thrips Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood (Thy sanoptera: Thripidae) a new pest thrips for Florida. Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services. http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/ento/chillithrips.html . 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. Howard, F. W., R. Pemberton, G. S. Hodges, C. M. Mannion, D. McLean, and J. Wofford. 2004. Lobate lac scale. University of Florida. Last accessed May 7, 2007, http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/orn/scales/lobate_lac.htm . Hoy , M. A., A. Hamon, and R. Nguyen. 2003. Pi nk hibiscus mealy bug: Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Insecta: Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). University of Florida and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Last accessed July 18, 2005, http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/orn/mealy bug/mealy

bug.htm . Hussein, A.A., A.G. Abdel
- Rahman, and R.B. Ahmed. 1994. Effectiveness of fruit bagging on yi eld and fruit quality

of pomegranate (Punica granatum, L .). Annals of Agricultural S cience, 32 (2): 949 - 957 Hutson, J. C., and N. K. Jardine. 1923. Report on the work of the Entomological Division [Abstract]. Ceylon Department of Agriculture. IN KTO/PINKTO. 2002. Arthropods. Risk Analy sis Systems, Policy and Program Development, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 941 pp. IPM DANIDA. 2007. Integrated Pest Management. Thailand Department of Agriculture (IPM DANIDA). http://thailand.ipm
- info.org/ipmdanida/ipmdanida.htm . IPPC. 2007. International Standards For Phyt osanitary Measures, 1 to 29 (2007 edition). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy . 376 pp. Is aac, P. V. 1925. The South Andaman coconut slug
- cate rpillar ( Thosea unifascia , Wlk.) [Abstract]. Agricultural Journal of India 20(5): 373 - 379. Itioka, T., and T. Inoue. 1991. Settling
- site selection and survival of two scale insects, Ceroplastes rubens and C. ceriferus , on citrus trees. Researches on Population Ecology 33(1):69
- 85. Jadhav, L . D., D. S. Ajri, M. V. Kadam, and S. K. Dorge. 1976. L - footed plant bug on pomegranate in Maharashtra. Entomologists' Newsletter 6(10):57. Jagginavar, S. B., and L. K. Naik. 2002. Studies on nature of damage due to Xyleb orus perforans (Wollastan) on pomegranate [Abstract]. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 15(3):534
- 538. Jagginavar, S. B., and L. K. Naik. 2005. Management of shothole borer, Xyleborus perforans (Wollastan) (Coleoptera: Scoly tidae) in pomegranate. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research 39(2):133
- 137. 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.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 76 Jhala, R. C., T. M. Bharpoda, A. J. Chavda, and D. B. Sisodiya. 2003. Record of Leptoglossus australis (Fabricius) [Heteroptera: Coreidae] on bitter gourd in Gujarat. Insect Environment 9(4):177
- 178. Johnson, J. A., T. C. Harrington, and C. J. B. Engelbrecht. 2005. Phylogeny and taxonomy

of the North American clade of the Ceratocystis fimbriata complex. Mycologia 97(5):1067
- 1092. Johnson, W. T., and H. H. Lyon. 1991. Insects that Feed on Trees and Shrubs. Cornell University Press, Hong Kong. 560 pp. Joseph, K. V., and C. N. Oommen. 1961. Notes on some insect pests infesting dry tamarind fruits in Kerala State [Abstract]. Indian J. Ent. 22(pt. 3). Kapadia , M . N . 1996. Estimation of losses due to pod borers in oilseed crops. Journal of Oilseeds Research, 13(1):139
- 140. Kaplan, S. 1992. Expert information versus expert opinions: Another approach to the problem of eliciting/combining/using expert knowledge in PRA. Reliability Engineering and S ys tem Safety 35:61 - 72. Karabhantanal, S. S. 2005. Fruit borer in pomegranat e. The Hindu. Last accessed September 19, 2007, http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu . Karny, H. H. 1926. Studies on Indian Thys anoptera. Memoirs of the Department of Agriculture of India [Abstract] 9(6). Karuppuchamy, P., G. Balasubramanian, and P. C. S. Babu. 1998. The biology of pomegranate fruitborer, Deudorix isocrates . Madras Agricultural Journal 85(5/6):256
- 259. Keane, R. M., and M. J. Crawley . 2002. Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends in Ecology

& Evolution 17(4):164
- 170. Ke anzlin . 1913. The mealy bug plague in Dar es Salaam [Abstract]. Der Pflanzer, Dar es Salaam 9:493 - 507. Kessing, J. L . M., and R. F. L. Mau. 1993. Abgrallaspis cyanophylli (Signoret). University of Hawaii, Department of Entomology . Last accessed March 31, 2004, http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Ty pe/a_cyanop.htm . Kleijunus, J. T., B. Tkacz, H. Burdsall, G. DeNitto, A. Eglitis, D. Haugen, and W. Wallner. 2001. Pest Risk Assessment of the Importation into the United States of Unprocessed Eucalyptus Lo gs and Woodchips from South America. in U. F. Service, ed. United States Department of Agriculture. 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. Kosztarab, M. 1996. Scale Insects of Northeastern North America: Identification, Biology , and Distribution. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, Virginia, U.S.A. 650 pp. Koul, V., M. A. Masoodi, K. C. Bhagat, and O. K. Bhat. 2000. Biology , behaviour and biocontrol agents of Drosicha dalbergia (Green) infesting almonds in Kashmir. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 8(1):24
- 26. Krauth, S. 2002. Presence in the U.S.A. of Macrodactylus sp., Altica sp. and Anomala sp. Personal communication to O. Parfait (Archived at PERAL). Krishnamoorthy, A., and M. Mani. 1998. Biological control of oriental mealy bug, Planococcus lilacinus (Ckll.) on chow
- chow [Abstract]. Pages 207
- 209 in Anony mous, (ed.). Advances in IPM for Horticultural Crops. Proceedings of the First National Sy mposiumPest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 77 on Pest Management in Horticultural Crops: Environmental Implications and Thrusts (October 15
- 17, 1997), Bangalore, India. Kulkarni, R., J. R. Kadam, and U. N. Mote. 2003. Efficacy of Verticillium lecanii against meal y bugs on pomegranate. Journal of Applied Zoological Researches 14(1):59
- 60. Kumar, L. S. S. 1944. Flowering plants which attack economic crops. III. Loranthus. Indian Farming 5:460
- 462. Kumawat, K. C., and S. P. Singh. 2002. Evaluation of insecticides and acaricides against Oriental mite infesting pomegranate. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 10(1):137
- 139. Kwon, G., S. Lee, M. Han, H. Goh, G. M. Kwon, S. H. L ee, M. J. Han, and H. G. Goh. 2002. The genus Pseudococcus (Westwood) (Sternorrhyncha: Pseudococcidae) of Korea [Abstract]. Journal of Asia Pacific Entomology 5(2):145
- 154. Lakra, R. K., W. S. Kharub, and S. Zile. 1980. Pest management s ys tems for the mango meal y bug, Drosicha mangiferae Green - a pol yphagous pest of fruit trees in Haryana [Abstract]. Indian Journal of Entomology 42(2):153
- 165. Leonard, M. D., H . G. Walker, and L. Enari. 1971. Host plants of three pol yphagous and widel y distributed aphids in the Los Angeles State and County arboretum, Arcadia, California (Homoptera: Aphididae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 73(2):120
- 131. Lewis, T. 1997. Flight and Dispersal. Pages 740 in T. Lewis, (ed.). Thrips as crop pests. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Li, J., G. Liu, and R. Peng. 2004. Bionomics and control of the yellow tea thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis , infesting litchi. Entom ological Knowledge 41(2):172
- 173. Liogier, H. A., and L. F. Martorell. 2000. Flora of Puerto Rico and adjacent islands: a sy stematic sy nopsis (2nd ed.). Editorial de la Universidad the Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Loch, A. D., and M. P. Zalucki. 199 6. Spatial distribution of pink wax scale, Ceroplastes rubens Maskell (Hemiptera: Coccidae), on umbrella trees in south
- eastern Queensland: The pattern of outbreaks Australian Journal of Zoology 44(6):599
- 609. Lo ganathan, M., and S. Suresh. 2001. A record of mealy bug, Planococcus lilacinus (Cockrell) (Pseudococcidae : Hemiptera) on cauliflower [Abstract]. Insect Environment 7(1):11
- 12. LR. 2005. Ngā Tipu o Aotearoa
- New Zealand Plants. Landcare Research (LR). Last accessed June 25, 2007, http://nzflora.landcareresearch.co.nz/ . Mabberley , D. J. 1987. The plant
- book: A portable dictionary of the higher plants. Cambridge University

Press, New York, USA. 706 pp. Macfarlane, R. 2001. Aleurodicus dispersus The Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand Ltd. (ID 18714) 2001
- 07 - 09. Last accessed March 2007, http://ecoport.org/ep?Arthropod=18714 . Madhukar, J., and S. M. Reddy . 1988. Some new L spot diseases of pomegranate. Indian Journal of Mycology

and Plant Pathology

18(2):171
- 172. Ma es, J. M. 2004. Catalogo de Insectos y Artropodos Terrestres de Nicaragua. Museo Entomológico de León. Last accessed 10 September, http://www.insectariumvirtual.com/termitero/nicaragua.htm . Maggenti, A. 1981. General Nematology . Springer
- Verlag, New York. 196 pp. Maity , D. K., A. K. Sahoo, and S. K. Mandal. 1998. Evaluation of laboratory hosts for rearing and mass multiplication of Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Pseudococcidae: Hemiptera) [Abstract]. Environment and Ecology 16(3):530
- 532.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 78 Mani, M., M. S. Dine sh, and A. Krishnamoorthy. 2003. Establishment of Encarsia guadeloupae Viggiani on the spiralling whitefl y at Hyderabad. Insect Environment 9(1):34. Mani, M., C. Gopalakrishnan, and A. Krishnamoorthy . 2001. Natural incidence of Xanthopimpla sp. and Paecilo myces farinosus (Holms.) on pomegranate hairy caterpillar, Trabala vishnou (Lefevere). Insect Environment 6(4):161
- 162. Mani, M., and A. Krishnamoorthy . 2000. Biological suppression of mealybugs Planococcus citri (Risso) and Planococcus lilacinus (Ckll.) o n pomegranate in India [Abstract]. Indian Journal of Plant Protection 28(2):187
- 189. Mani, M., A. Krishnamoorthy , and C. Gopalakrishnan. 2005. Biological control of lepidopterous pests of horticultural crops in India
- A review. Agricultural Reviews 26(1): 39 - 49. Manjunatha, M., G. Mikunthan, and S. Shubha. 2003. Incidence of Archips micaceana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) on vanilla [Abstract]. Insect Environment 9(3):101
- 102. Marsh, J. C. S. 1960. Hong Kong Butterflies. The Shell Company of Hong Kong Ltd., Hong Kong, China. 113 pp. Martin
- Kessing, J. L ., and R. F. L . Mau. 1993. Crop Knowlege Master: Aleruodicus dispersus (Russell). in . University

of Hawaii, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (UH
- CTAHAR), Department of Entomology ; and Hawaii Department of Agriculture Extension Entomology , Honolulu, HI. Martin
- Kessing, J. L ., and R. F. L . Mau. 2007. Dysmicoccus neobrevipes (Beardsley). University of Hawaii. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/Kbase/crop/Ty pe/d_neobre.htm . Martinez, M. d. l. A. , and M. Suris. 1998. Biology of Planococcus minor Maskell (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) under laboratory conditions [Abstract]. Revista de Proteccion Vegetal 13(3):199
- 201. Masoodi, M. A., K. C. Bhagat, and V. K. Koul. 1988. Drosicha dalbergia Green (Coccidae: Homoptera)
- a new pest of almond in India. Annals of Biology (Ludhiana) 4(1
- 2):112. Mathur, R. S. 1979. The Coelomycetes of India. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Delhi, India. 460 pages pp. Maxwell, B. 2007. Brandt's palm and tropical/ subtropical tree page. Brandt Maxwell. L ast accessed May

1, 2007, http://www.geocities.com/westcornersville/ . McGregor, B. M. 1989. Tropical Products Transport Handbook. USDA Agricultural Handbook Number 668. McKenzie, H. L. 1967. Mealy bugs of California: With taxonomy, biology and control of North American species (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidea). University of California Press, Berkeley , California, U.S.A. 525 pp. Meena, T., S. Sangita, and C. L . Dinabandhoo. 2004. Phy tophagous mites associated with temperate and sub
- tropical fruit trees in Himachal Pradesh [Abstract]. Pest Management and Economic Zoology

12(1):83
- 87. Meeta, G., R. Sundararaj, and S. Murugesan. 1999. Host range and distribution of the babul whitefly Acaudaleyrodes rachipora (Singh) ( Aleyrodidae: Homoptera) in Indian arid zone. Recent advances in management of arid ecosy stem. Proceedings of a sy mposium held in India, March 1997:397
- 400. Millar, I . M. 1994. A Catalogue of the Aphids (Homoptera: Aphidoidea) of sub
- Saharan Africa. Agricultural Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa. 130 pp. Miller, D. 2005. Selected scale insect groups (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) in the southern region of the United States. Florida Entomologist 88(4):482
- 501.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 79 Miller, D. R. 1985. Pest risk assessment of armore d scales on certain fruit (USDA
- ARS Report submitted to USDA
- APHI S - PPQ). USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD. 35 pp. Miller, D. R., G. L . Miller, and G. W. Watson. 2002. Invasive species of meal ybugs (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) and their threat to U.S. agriculture. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 104(4):825
- 836. Miller, G. L ., and D. R. Miller. 2002. Dysmicoccus Ferris and similar genera (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae) of the gulf state region including a descrip tion of a new species and new United States records. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 104(4):968
- 979. Misra, A. K. 2004. Diseases of Fruits and Vegetables: Volume II . Diagnosis and Management in S. Naqvi, ed. Guava Diseases

— their S ymptoms, Causes and Management Springer Netherlands. Mohite, A. S., D. B. Tembhare, and S. P. Umarkar. 2004. Biology and behaviour of developing stages of fruit sucking moth, Othreis materna Linn. (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae). Journal of Entomological Research 28(1):37
- 45. Morgan, M. G., an d M. Henrion. 1990. Uncertainty . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 332 pp. Morton, J. F. 1987. Fruits of Warm Climates. Julia F. Morton, Miami, FL. Mote, U. N., and A. B. Tambe. 2000. Seasonal incidence of shot
- hole borer on pomegranate. Journal o f Maharashtra Agricultural Universities 25(1):34
- 36. Mound, L . A. 2007. Thys anoptera (Thrips) of the World

– a checklist. CSIRO Entomology . Last accessed September 6, 2007, http://www.ento.csiro.au/thy sanoptera/worldthrips.html . Mound, L . A., and S. H. Hal sey . 1978. Whitefly of the World: A Sy stematic Catalogue of the Aley rodidae (Homoptera) with Host Plant and Natural Enemy Data. British Museum and John Wiley

& Sons, Chichester. 340 pp. Murray , D. A. H. 1976. Insect pests on passion fruit. Queensland Agricultural Journal 102(2):145
- 151. Murugan, M., and A. Thirumurugan. 2001. Ecobehaviour of pomegranate fruit borer, Deudorix isocrates (Fab.) [Lycaenidae: Lepidoptera] under orchard ecos ys tem. Indian Journal of Plant Protection 29(1/2):121
- 126. Myers, R. L ., and J.J. Ewel. 1990. Ecos ys tems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. 765 pp. Nair, M. R. G. K. 1975. Insects and mites of crops in India. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, India. 404 pp. NAPPO. 2004. NAPPO regional st andards for phytosanitary measures: RSPM#5: NAPPO glossary of phy tosanitary terms. North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) , Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 9 pp. Narasimham, A. U. 1987. Scale insects and meal ybugs on coffee, tea and cardamom and their natural enemies. Journal of Coffee Research 17(1):7
- 13. NASS. 2007. National Agricultural Statistics Service data . United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). http://www.nass.usda.gov/index.asp . Nazeer Ahmad, J. 1942. On the biology of Euzophera punicaeella Moore in Baluchistan [Abstract]. Indian J. Ent. 4(pt. 1). Negm, M. F., S. M. Assem, and A. G. El
- Sisi. 2001. Comparison between some mineral oils and cidial for controlling mealy bug Icerya seychellarum (Wes twood) on mulberry trees b yPest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 80 using knapsack motor sprayer [Abstract]. Egy ptian Journal of Agricultural Research 79(2):453
- 461. Newbery , D. M. 1980a. Infestation of the coccid, Icerya seychellarum (Westw.), on the mangrove Avicennia marina (Forsk.) Vierh. on Aldabra Atoll, with special reference to tree age [Abstract]. Oecologia 45(3):325
- 330. Newbery , D. M. 1980b. Interactions between the coccid, Icerya seychellarum (Westw.), and its host tree species on Aldabra Atoll. 1. Euphorbia pyrifolia Lam [Abstract]. Oecologia 46(2):171
- 179. NHM. 2006. Hosts - a database of the world's Lepidopteran hostplants. Natural History Museum (NHM) . http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/research
- curation/projects/hostplants//index.dsml . 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/ . Ny vall, R. F., and A. Hu. 1997. L aboratory Evaluation of Indigenous North American Fungi for Biological Control of P urple L oosestrife1. BIOLOGI CALCONTROL 8:37

–42. Ooi, P. A. C., A. Winotai, and J. E. Pena. 2002. Pests of minor tropical fruits. Pages 315
- 330 in J. E. Pena, J. L . Sharp, and M. Wysoki, (eds.). Tropical Fruit Pests and Pollinators: Biology , Economic Import ance, Natural Enemies and Control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, U.K. Orr, R. L., S. D. Cohen, and R. L . Griffin. 1993. Generic non
- indigenous pest risk assessment process: "The generic process" (For estimating pest risk associated with the introduction of non - indigenous organisms.) USDA
- APHIS Policy and Program Development, MD. 40 pp. Page, S., and M. Olds (eds.). 2001. The Plant Book: The World of Plants in a Single Volume. My nah, Hong Kong. 1020 pp. Palmer, J. M., D. V. R. Reddy , J. A. Wightman, and G. V . R. Rao. 1990. New information on the thrips vectors of tomato spotted wilt virus in groundnut crops in India [Abstract]. International Arachis Newsletter (7):24
- 25. Park, J. D., I . J. Park, and K. P. Han. 1994. Investigation of insect pests and injury ch aracteristics of Stathmopoda auriferella (Walker) on kiwi fruit tree [Abstract]. Korean Journal of Applied Entomology

33(3):148
- 152. Parui, P. 1971. On a new host record of Taragama siva (Lef.) (Lepidoptera: L asiocampidae) from West Bengal [Abstract]. Journal of the Bombay Natural History

Society 68(3):845. Pasuki, A. 1975. Points needing correction [Abstract]. Entomologie et Phy topathologie Appliquees (38):Pe 86 En 24. Patel, G. A., and H. K. Patel. 1952. Control of termites as pests of fruit trees. P roc. zool. Soc. Bengal. 5:133
- 140. Patil, A. V., A. R. Karale, and T. K. Bose. 2002. Pomegranate. Pages 125
- 162 in T. K. Bose, S. K. Mitra, and D. Sanyal, (eds.). Fruits: Tropical and Subtropical (Volume II). Naya Udyog, Calcutta, India. Patyal, S. K., and A. Nath. 1993. Efficacy and persistence of monocrotophos and phosphamidon on wild pomegranate. Journal of Entomological Research 17(2):111
- 115. Paul, J., S. Saxena, and A. Varma. 1993. Ultrastructural studies of the termite ( Odontotermes obesus ) gut microflora and its celluloly tic properties . World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology

9:106 - 112.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 81 PERAL . 2007. Phy

tosanitary risks associated with armored scales in commercial shipments of fruit for consumption to the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology , Plant Epidemiology and Risk Anal ys is L aboratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC. 25 pp. PERAL . 2008. Plant Hardiness Zo nes of the United States: Area and Population Analy sis. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology , Plant Epidemiology

and Risk Analy s is Laboratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC. 6 pp. PestID. 2007. Pest Identification Database (PestID), version 1.2. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Last accessed January 2008, https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas /login.jsp. PPQ. 1997. Importation of pomegranate fruits, Punica granatum from Israel into the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Riverdale, MD, U.S.A. 19 pp. PPQ. 2007. Fresh fruits and vegetables import manual (July 19, 2007). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), U.S.A. 650 pp. Prasad, J., A. D. Pawar, and R. Pratap. 1987. Occurrence of anar butterfl y, Deudorix epijarbas Moore (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) on pomegranate, Punica granatum in Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Journal of Advanced Zoology 8(1):53
- 54. Prasad, V. 1971. A Catalogue of Mites of India. Indira Acarology Publ ishing House, Ludhiana, India. 320 pp. Prasad, V. G., and R. K. Singh. 1976. Prevalence and control of mango mealy bug Drosicha stebbingi (Green) in Bihar [Abstract]. Indian Journal of Entomology 38(3):214
- 224. Prat, L ., and C. Botti. 2002. El Granado ( Pun ica granatum L). Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile. Qu, B., J. Wang, Q. Dang, M. Liu, and Y. Wang. 1996. Scale insects occurring in ornamental trees and shrubs in Xianyang and their natural enemies [Abstract]. Journal of Northwest Forestry College 11(4 ):50
- 54. Qureshi, J. A., L . L. Buschman, J. E. Throne, and S. B. Ramaswam y. 2005. Adult dispersal of Ostrinia nubilalis Hubner (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) and its implications for resistance management in Bt
- maize. Journal of Applied Entomology 129(6):281
- 292 . Rahman, K. A. 1939. Important insect pests of the mango and how to combat them [Abstract]. Punjab Fruit Journal 3(11). Ramakrishna Ayyar, T. V. 1936. The important insect pests of the castor oil plant in S. India with suggestions for their control [Abstract]. Tropical Agriculturist 86(2). Randall, R. P. 2007. A Global Compendium of Weeds, Online Database. Department of Agriculture of Western Australia. Last accessed January 12, 2007, http://www.hear.org/gcw/ . Rao, V. G., and B.R.D. Yadav. 1991. Some hithe rto undescribed fungi infecting ornamentals. Cry ptog. Bot 2:188 - 191. Rawat, U. S., A. D. Pawar, and R. Chand. 1989. New record of meal y bug, Drosicha dalbergiae Green and its incidence on pomegranate in Himachal Pradesh [Abstract]. Journal of Insect Scienc e 2(1):66
- 67. Rawla, G. S. 1971. Cercospora granati sp. nov . on Punica . Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc 56:483
- 484.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 82 Raychaudhuri, D., D. N. Raychaudhuri, and T. K. Singh. 1981. Redescription of Shivaphis celti (oviparae) and Myzus varians (Homoptera: Aphididae) hitherto unknown from India [Abstract]. Science and Culture 47(5):171
- 172. Reddy , K. B., P. K. Bhat, and R. Naidu. 1997. Suppression of meal ybugs and green scale infesting coffee with natural enemies in Karnataka [Abstract]. Pest Management and Economic Zoology

5(2):119
- 121. Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically Important Foreign Weeds. Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture., U.S.A. 746 pp. Robbins, R. K., and G. B. Small Jr. 1981. Wind Dispersal of Panamani an Hairstreak Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) and its Evoluationary Significance. Biotropica 13(4):308
- 315. Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery , I. J. Kitching, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernández. 2001. Hostplants of the moth and butterfly caterpillars o f the Oriental Region. The Natural History Museum, London. 744 pp. Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery , I. J. Kitching, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernandez. 2007. HOSTS - A Database of the Hostplants of the World's Lepidoptera. The Natural History Museum. L ondo n, United Kingdom. Last accessed May 25, 2007, http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology /hostplants . Rostaman. 1997. Pests and diseases of sandalwood in Kabupaten Kupang [Abstract]. Duta Rimba 23(209/210):41
- 48. Roy , A., D. K. Ghosh, D. K. Ramachandran, P. Agarwel, J. Ahlwat, and D. R. Das. 2005. First record of a Hop Stunt Viroid variant on nagpur mandarin and Mosambi sweet ornage trees on rough lemon and Rangpur lime R stocks. Plant Pathology 54(4):571. Sahoo, A. K., A. B. Ghosh, S. K. Mandal, and D. K. Maiti. 1999. Study on the biology

of the mealy bug, Planococcus minor (Maskell) Pseudococcidae: Hemiptera. Journal of Interacademicia 3(1):41
- 48. Sakakibara, N., and J. Nishigaki. 1988. Seasonal abundance of chili thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis hood (Thy sanoptera:Thripi dae), in a kiwi fruit orchard [ abstract]. Bulletin of the Faculty of Agriculture, Shizuoka University 38:1 - 9. Salt, R. W. 1961. Principles of insect cold
- hardiness. Annual Review of Entomology 6:55 - 74. Sano, T., K. Ohshima, T. Hataya, I. Uyeda, E. Shikata, T. Chou, T. Meshi, and Y. Okada. 1986. A viroid resembling hop stunt viroid in grapevines from Europe, the United States, and Japan. Journal of General Virology 67:1673 - 1678. Santos, B. B. d. 1988. Arthropods associated with cultivated crops in the State of Parana. II. Coffee and manioc [Abstract]. Revista do Setor de Ciencias Agrarias 10(1
- 2):27
- 28. Savela, M. 2007. Lepidoptera and some other life forms. Last accessed August 14, 2007, http://www.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/intro.html . Sayed, A.A. 2000. Timi ng of enclosing date bunches in plastic bags as key factor affecting infestations of Virachola livia and Cadra spp. in New Valley Governorate, Egy

pt. Assiut Journal of Agricultural Sciences , 31 (5): 33 - 39 . Sen - Sarma, P. K. 1987. Insect pest problems in soc ial forestry plantations and their management. Indian Journal of Forestry 10(4):239
- 244. Sether, D. M., D. E. Ullman, and J. S. Hu. 1998. Transmission of pineapple meal ybug wilt
associated virus b y two species of meal ybug ( Dysmicoccus spp.) [Abstract]. Phy topathology

88(11):1224
- 1230. Sheikh, M. K. 2006. The Pomegranate. International Book Distributing, Co., Charbagh, India. 191 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 83 Shevale, B. S. 1994. Studies on control of pomegranate butterfly , Virachola isocrates Fabricius. Plant Protection Bulletin (Faridabad) 46(1):19
- 21. Shevale, B. S. 2003. Studies on life fecundity table of pomegranate butterfl y, Deudorix isocrates Fabricius. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 11(2):255
- 257. Shevale, B. S., and S. N. Kaulgud. 1998. Population dy namics of pests of pomegranate Punica granatum Linnaeus [Abstract]. Advances in IPM for horticultural crops. Proceedings of the First National S ymposium on Pest Management in Horticultural Crops: environmental implications and thrusts, Bangalore, India, 15
- 17 October 1997:47
- 51. Shi, W., C. Kerdelhue, and H. Ye. 2005. Population Genetics of the Oriental Fruit Fl y, Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae), in Yunnan (China) Based on Mitochondrial DNA Sequences. Environmental Entomology 34(4):977
- 983. Showers, W. B., R. L . Hellmich, M. E. Derrick
- Robinson, and W. H. Hendrix. 2001. Aggregation and dispersal behavior of marked and released European corn borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) adults. Environmental Entomology 30(700
- 710). Shukla, R. P., and P. L . Tandon. 1984. Use of insecticides for the control of Planococcus pacificus Cox, a mealy

bug on custard apple [Abstract]. Entomon 9(3):181
- 183. Silva, C. G., and J. R. P. Parra. 1982. Biology and injuriousness of Coccus viridis (Green, 1889) ( Homoptera - Coccidae) on coffee seedlings ( Coffea spp.). Anais da Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil 11(2):181
- 195. Singh, M. P. 1991. Observations on the pest complex of Balanites aegyptiaca (L) Delile in the arid zones of India. Entomon 16(3):249. Skinner, K ., L . Smith, and P. Rice. 2005. Noxious Weeds in the US and Canada, Online Database. University of Montana. Last accessed February 25, 2005, http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/Noxious_Weeds/ . Somasehara, Y. M. 1999. New record of Ceratocystis fimbriata causing wilt of pomegranate in India. Plant Disease 83(4):400. Srivastava, O. S., and A. C. Jain. 1973. Occurrence of Virachola isocrates Fabr. (Anar caterpillar) (Lepidoptera:Lycaenidae) on Emblica officinalis Gaertn. (Amla or Aonla) in Madhya Pradesh. Indian Journal of Entomology 35(4):352
- 353. Srivastava, R. P. 1997. Mango Insect Pest Management. International Book Distributing Co, Lucknow, India. 272 pp. Subramanian, S., and S. V. Krishnamurthy. 2002. Outbreak of hairy caterpillar Euproctis lunata Walker on Acacia trees. Insect Environment 8(3):112. Sugimoto, S. 1994. Scale insects intercepted on banana fruits from Mindanao Is., the Philippines (Coccoidea: Homoptera) [Abstract]. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service, Japan (30):115
- 121. Sundararaj, R., and S. Murugesan. 1996. Occurrence of Acaudaleyrodes rachipora (Singh) (Aley rodidae: Homoptera) as a pest of some important forest trees in Jodhpur (India). Indian Journal of Forestry 19(3):247
- 248. Susainathan, P. 1924. Fruit
- sucking moths o f South India [Abstract]. Pages 23
- 27 Proceedings of the 5th Entomological Meeting, Pusa, February 1923, Pusa. Swearingen, J. 2005. Alien plant invaders of natural areas. National Park Service. Last accessed May 2, 2005, http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/lis t/all.htm . T alhouk, A. M. 1969. Insects and Mites Injurious to Crops in Middle Eastern Countries. Verlag Paul Parey

/ Hamburg Und Berlin, Germany . 239 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 84 Tandon, P. L ., and G. K. Veeresh. 1988. Inter
- tree spatial distribution of Coccus viridis (Green) on m andarin. International Journal of Tropical Agriculture 6(3
- 4):270
- 275. Teggelli, R. G., N. M. S. Kumar, and V. I. Benagi. 2002. Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)
-- as a pomegranate fruit borer. Insect Environment 8(2):55. Thakur, J. N., A. D. Pawar, and U. S. Rawat. 1993. Observations on the post release impact of Trichogramma chilonis Ishii (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae), an egg parasitoid of anar butterfly

on fruit infestation in Kullu Valley (H.P). Plant Protection Bulletin (Faridabad) 45(1):54
- 55. Thakur , J. N., O. P. Verma, J. P. Singh, and A. D. Pawar. 1995. Incidence of Deudorix epijarbas Moore (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) and its parasitoids on pomegranate in Jammu Region. Journal of Biological Control 9(2):116
- 118. U . C . IP M. 2007. How to manage pests: Grape. University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program (U.C. IPM) . Last accessed January 2008, http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selectnewpest.grapes.html . Ulusoy , M. R., G. Vatansever, L. Erkılıc, and N. Uygun. 2003. Studies on Aleurothrixus floccosus (Maskell) (Homoptera, Aley rodidae) and its parasitoid, Cales noacki Howard (H ym enoptera, Aphelinidae) in the East Mediterranean region of Turkey . Journal of Pest Science 76:163
- 169. Upasana, R., and K. S. Verma. 2002. Perpetuation and spread of Xanthomonas axonpodis pv. punicae causing black spot of pomegranate. Plant Disease Research 17(1):46
- 50. U . S . C ensus B ureau . 200 6 . Section 1: Population. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2006 United States Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/06statab/pop.pdf . 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). http://www.usna. usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap.html . USDA. 1982. Pests not known to occur in the United States or of limited distribution, No. 21: Seychelles fluted scale Icerya seychellarum (Westwood). PestID PPQ, Hyattsville, MD. USDA. 1990. USDA plant hardiness zone map. US DA Agricultural Research Service. Last accessed June 2007, http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap.html . 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/ . USDA. 2007a. Decision history for pomegranate (Punica granatum ). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S.A. USDA. 2007b. U.S. National Collection of Aphididae Database. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Sy stematic Entomology L aboratory

L ast accessed May

30, 2007, http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/aphid/aphframe.htm . USEP. 2007. El granado ( Punica granatum ). Unidad de Seleccion y Propagacion para la Vent a de Material Fitogenetico (USEP), Facultad de Ciencias Agronomicas, Universidad de Chile. http://agronomia.uchile.cl/centros/USEP/Granado/granado.htm. USFWS. 2007. Threatened and endangered animals and pants. United State s Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS ). http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html#Species . van den Berg, M. A. 1995. Pests attacking macadamia in South Africa. Sixth Conference of the Australasian Council on Tree and Nut Crops Inc., Lismore, NSW, Australia. September 11 - 15, 1995.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 85 van den Berg, M. A., E. A. de Villiers, and P. H. Joubert. 2001. Pests and beneficial arthropods of tropical and non
- citrus subtropical crops in South Africa. Ad Dy namics, Nelspruit, South Africa. 525 pp. Vergara, C., and D. Castro. 2006. Pests associated to Punica gran atum in Chile: Preliminary pest list., Chile. 9 pp. Verma, N., A. K. Singh, L. Singh, S. Kulshreshtha, G. Raikhy, V. Hallan, R.Ram, and A. A. Zaidi. 2004. Occurence of Cucumber mosaic virus in Gerbera jamesonii in India. Plant Disease 88:1161. Verma, R. R. 1985. Preliminary observations on the biology of pomegranate butterfl y, Deudorix epijarbas Moore. Agricultural Science Digest Karnal 5(1):1
- 2. Verma, R. S., S. A. Ali, A. K. Badaya, S. S. Shaw, and O. P. Veda. 1995. Nature and extent of damage caused b y pomegranate butterfl y, Virachola isocrates Fabr. in Mosumbi Citrus sinensis [Abstract]. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika 10(1
- 2):40
- 42. Verma, S. K. 2006. Emerging insect pest problems of legumes in arid ecos ystem. Journal of Arid Legumes 3(1) :65 - 69. Vijay , K., M. A. Masoodi, K. C. Bhagat, and O. K. Bhat. 2000a. Biology , behaviour and biocontrol agents of Drosicha dalbergia (Green) infesting almonds in Kashmir. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 8(1):24
- 26. Vijay , K., M. A. Masoodi, K. C. Bhag at, and O. K. Bhat. 2000b. Biology , behaviour and biocontrol agents of Drosicha dalbergia (Green) infesting almonds in Kashmir [Abstract]. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 8(1):24
- 26. Viqar, S. N., S. Kamaluddin, A. S. Siddiqui, and K. A. B. S. Khan. 20 05. Amazing long tailed hindwings big moth, Actias selene (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) discovered from Pakistan [Abstract]. International Journal of Biology and Biotechnology

2(1):5
- 10. Vu, N. T., R. Eastwood, C. T. Nguyen, and L. V. Pham. 2006. The fig wax scale Ceroplastes rusci (Linnaeus) (Homoptera: Coccidae) in south
- east Vietnam: Pest status, life history and biocontrol trials with Eublemma amabilis Moore (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Entomological Research 36:196
- 201. Waite, G. K. 2002. Pests and pollinators of mango. Pages 103
- 129 in J. E. Pena, J. L . Sharp, and M. Wysoki, (eds.). Tropical Fruit Pests and Pollinators: Biology , Economic Importance, Natural Enemies and Control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, U.K. Waite, G. K., and J. S. Hwang. 2002. Pests of litchi and longan. Pages 331
- 359 in J. E. Pena, J. L . Sharp, and M. Wy soki, (eds.). Tropical Fruit Pests and Pollinators: Biology, Economic Importance, Natural Enemies and Control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, U.K. Walton, V. M., and K. L . Pringl e. 2004. A survey of meal ybugs and associated natural enemies in vineyards in the Western Cape Province, South Africa [Abstract]. South African Journal of Enology

and Viticulture 25(1):23
- 25. Waterhouse, D. F. 1991. Possibilities for the biological control of the breadfruit meal ybug, Icerya aegyptiaca , on Pacific atolls. Micronesica 3 (Suppl.):117
- 122. Weber, E. 2003. Invasive Plant Species of the World: A Reference Guide to Environmental Weeds. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. 548 pp. Weber, G. 1973. Bact erial and Fungal Diseases of Plants in the Tropics. Pages 432
- 434. University Florida press, Gainesville, Florida. Wen, H. C., and H. S. L ee. 1984. The main insect pests on passion fruit in Taiwan. Journal of Agricultural Research of China 33(1):81
- 87.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 86 Whi te, I . M., and M. M. Elson
- Harris. 1992. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: Their identification and binomics. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 601 pp. Whittle, K. 1984. Light
- brown apple moth: Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). in Pests Not Known to Occur in the United States or of Limited Distribution. No 50. USDA
- APHI S, PPQ. Widrlechner, M. P. 1997. Hardiness zones in China. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Ames, IA, U.S.A. Williams, D. J. 1986. Scale insects (Hom optera: Coccoidea) on coffee in Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 34(1
- 4):1
- 7. Williams, D. J. 1996. A sy noptic account of the meal ybug genus Ferrisia Fullaway (Hem., Pseudococcidae). Entomologist's Monthl y M agazine 132(3):1
- 10. Williams, D. J. 2004. Mealy bugs of Southern Asia. The Natural History Museum & Southdene SDN. BHD., Kuala Lumpur, Malay sia. 896 pp. Williams, D. J., and G. W. Watson. 1988. The scale insects of the tropical South Pacific region: Part 2 : The meal ybugs (Pseudococcidae). CAB International Institute of Entomology, London, UK. 259 pp. Wisam, O. and A. Mazen. 2002. Bionomics and control of pomegranate butterfl y Virachola ( Deudorix) livia (Klug) (Lepidoptera: Lycanidae) in Northern Jordan. Dirasat. Agricultural Sciences, 29 (1): 1 - 12 WSSA. 2006. Weed List. Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). Last accessed November 28, 2006, http://www.wssa.net/weednames/common.asp . Wy nter- Bl yth, M. A. 1957. Butterflies of the Indian Region. The Bombay Natural History Society , Bombay , India. 523 pp. Zaka
- ur - Rab, M. 1980. The cornelian, Deudorix epijarbas Moore (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) as a serious pest of pomegranate fruits in Kashmir. Journal of Entomological Research 4:233
- 235. Zhang, B. C. 1994. Index of economicall y important L epidoptera. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 599 pp. Zhang, Z. - Q. 2003. Mites of Greenhouses: Id entification, Biology and Control. CABIPublishing, Wallingford, UK. 244 pp. Zlotina, M., M.K. Hennessey , R. Sequeira, and T.W. Culli ney . 2007. Phy tosanitary Risks Associated with Armored Scales in Commercial Shipments of Fruit for Consumption to the United States . USDA APHI S Center for Plant Health Science and Technology , Raleigh, NC. 

### 5 **. Authors and Reviewers Authors:**  A. D. Neeley , Entomologist, PestID PPQ / CPHST
- PERAL A.L . Koop, Botanist, PestID PPQ / CPHST
- PERAL J. S. Rogers, Plant Pathologist, PestID PPQ / CPHST
- PERAL **Reviewer s**  **:** K.R. L akin, Entomologist , PestID PPQ / CPHST
- PERAL S.C. Redlin , Plant Pathologist, PestID P PQ / CPHST
- PERALPest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 87 

### Appendix: Risk Mitigation Options for Importation of Fresh Pomegranates **( Punica granatum**  **) Fruit from India into the Continental United States including Alask** **a 1**  **. Introduction** This section outlines possible phy tosanitary measures that should be considered in order to prevent the introduction of the q uarantine pests that likely associated with fresh pomegranate fruit from India . We identified the following pests with **Hi gh**  unmitigated pest risk potential: Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Conogethes punctiferalis (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Cryptoblabes gnidiella Millière (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Deudorix epijarbas (Moore) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) Deudorix isocrates Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) Drosicha dalbergiae (Green) (Hemiptera: Margarodidae) Euzophera bigella Zeller (Lepidoptera: P yr alidae) Icerya seychellarum Westwood (Hemiptera: Margarodidae) Nipaecoc cus viridis (Newstead) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Planococcus lilacinus (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) We identified the following pests with **M edium**  risk potential: Bactrocera carambolae ( Drew & Hancock) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Ceroplastes rubens (Maskell) (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Ceroplastes rusci (Linnaeus) (Hemiptera : Coccidae) Dichocrocis megillalis Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Icerya aegyptiaca (Douglas) (Hemiptera: Margarodidae) Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Planococcus angkorensis (Takahashi) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus Hood (Thy sanoptera: Thripidae) S cirtothrips oligochaetus Kary ny (Thys anoptera: Thripidae) Tenuipalpus granati Sayed (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) Tenuipalpus punicae Pritchard & Baker (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. Punicae (Hingorani & Singh) (Xanthomonads)Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 88 **2 .**  **Risk Mitigation Options**  Pest risk management is the decision
- making process of reduci ng the likelihood of introduction of a quarantine pest ( IPPC, 200 7: I SPM #s 2 and 11) . The appropriate level of protection for an importing country

can be achieved at times by the application of a single phy tosanitary measure, such as inspection or a quarantine treatment, or a combination of measures. If no single measure is likely to reduce pest risk to an acceptable level, then a combination of measures may be needed. The combination of specific phy tosanitary measures that provides overlapping or redundant safeguards is called a “s ys tems approach .” The Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. § 7701
- 7786, 2000) defines “ s ys tems a pproach” as “...a defined set of phyt osanitary procedures, at least two of which have an independent effect in mitigating pest risk associated with the movement of commodities. ” Similarly, the FAO Standard for Integrated Measures for Pest Risk Management (June 2002) proposed that a s ys tems a pproach be defined as, “ The integration of different pest risk management measures, at least two of which act independently , and which cumulatively achieve the desired level of phy tosanitary protection” ( IPPC, 200 7: I SPM #14) . Sy stems approaches vary in complexity ; however, all require the integration of two or more measures that act independently of each other, with the cumulative effect achieving the desired level of phyt osanitary

protection ( IP PC, 200 7: I SPM #14) . Specific mitigations may be selected from a range of pre
- harve st and post
- harvest options, and may include other safeguarding measures. Measures may be added or the strength of measures increased to compensate for uncertainty. At a minimum, for a measure to be considered for use in a s ys tems approach, it must be: 1) clearl y defined; 2) efficacious; 3) officially required (mandated); and 4) subject to monitoring and control by the responsible national plant protection organization (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #14) . Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) uses sy stems approaches for the importation of many commodities including Unshu oranges from Japan [ 7 CFR § 319.28 ] , tomatoes from Spain, France, Morocco, and Western Sahara [ 7 CFR § 319.56 28 ] , and peppers from Israel [ 7 CFR § 319.56 24 ] . These programs have been successful for many years. A sy stems approach to mitigate risks involved with pomegranate imports from In dia might combine a variety

of measures: 1) certification of pest free areas, pest free places of production, or areas of low pest prevalence for certain quarantin e pests; 2) programs to control pests within fields ( e.g ., mechanical, chemical, cultural) 3) preclearance oversight by USDA - APHIS officials 4) packinghouse procedures to eliminate external pests and pathogens ( e.g ., washing, brushing, inspection of fruit) 5) quarantine treatments to disinfest fruit of internal and external pests and pathogens 6) consignments inspected and certified to be free of quarantine pests and pathogens 7) fruit traceable to origin, packing facility , grower, and field 8) consignments subject to sampling and inspection after arrival in the United States 9) limits on distribution and transit within the United StatesPest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 89 2.1 . Phy tosanitary Measures Prior to Harvesting **2.1. 1**  **. Establishment of Pest** **- free Areas**  A pest free area (PFA) is defined as “ an area in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated b y scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officiall y maintained” (IPPC, 200 7: I SPM #s 4 and 5 ). As a sole mitigation measure, the establishment of pest free areas or pest free places of production may be completely

effective in satisfying an importing country ’s appropriate level of phy tosanitary protection (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #s 4 and 10) . This option has been successful in practice, eliminating the need for post
harvest commodity

treatments to achieve probit
- 9 - level security [e.g., TDOA, 2003]. Establishment and maintenance of pest free areas or production sites are to be in compliance with international standards [e.g., IPPC, 200 7: I SPM #s 4, 5, and 10 ; NAPPO, 2004]. These standards specify

the appropriate steps for establishment, maintenance, verification, changes in status, emergency action plan, reinstatement of status, documentation, and bilateral workplans for fruit fl y PFA. Trapping for all fruit flies ( Bactrocera carambolae, B. dorsalis, B. zonata ) should be conducted in production areas throughout the ye ar b y In dia’s Ministry of Agriculture, with appropri ate lures and traps. In addition, routine inspection and fruit sampling should be carried out in the PFA. The capture of a single fruit fly (of any species) within the pest free area should lead to an immediate emergency action and may

result in the cancel lation of export from the PFA. Pomegranates would not be exported until the source of the infestation is delimited, trap density is increased, pesticide sprays are applied or other measures are undertaken. Freedom from the Lepidopteran pests and the path ogens may be achieved through controlled and effective integrated pest management (IPM) programs. Area freedom should be verified by conducting an official survey s. P heromones and attractants are available to monitor Conogethes punctiferalis, Cryptoblabes gnidiella, and Euzophera bigella (El
- Sayed, 2008) ; work on the isolation and identification of the pheromone s ys tem of Deudorix isocrates is apparentl y currentl y being conducted (IICT, 2005). In addition, black
- light traps have been used successfull y to monitor other Lepidopterans (e.g., Cameron et al
. , 2002; Cherry and Wilson, 2005; Ngollo et al
. , 2000). **2.1. 2**  **. Establishment of Areas of Low Pest Prevalence**  According to the IPPC (200 7: I SPM # 22 ), an area of low pest prevalence may comprise all of a country , part of a country, or parts of several countries, in which a particular pest species occurs at low population densities and which is or are subject to effective surveillance and control or eradication measures (IP PC, 2007: I SPM #10 ). Procedures for the establishment and maintenance of areas of low pest prevalence are to comply with international standards [e.g., IPPC, 200 7: I SPM #22 ; NAPPO, 2003]. For example, elements of an operational plan for establishment and m aintenance of such areas might include a geographic description to delimit the area; specification of an upper limit to pest densities; means to document and verify all necessary procedures and maintain records; specification of phy tosanitary procedures (e .g., survey , pest control); and movement controls to prevent pest entry or re - entry

into the area. The international standards recommend that the exporting country consult with the importing country in the earl y stages of implementation to ensure that impo rting country requirements are met. In particular, target or threshold population densities defining an area of low pest prevalence are toPest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 90 be established in consultation with the importing country. Any protocol for establishing and maintaining a pest fre e area or area of low pest prevalence is also to include a pest
- reporting procedure and emergency action plan to address target pest detections in the pest free or low
- prevalence zones (IPPC, 200 7: I SPM #s 10 and 22 ; NAPPO, 2003, 2004). Combined with ins pection, effective IPM programs achieving low pest prevalence may be a possible mitigation option for the Lepidopteran, scales, thrips and mites but should be verified by conducting an official survey or lot freedom based on inspection of shipping lot. **2. 1.**  **3 .**  **Control Program** Cultural, chemical, biological, or mechanical controls (e.g., grove sanitation, biocontrol, pre
harvest application of pesticides/fungicides, traps, fruit bagging) may be used to suppress or eliminate pests from groves or prevent fruit infestation/infectio n. This is not a stand
- alone mitigation option, but should be used in combination with other measures as part of a s ys tems approach. **2.1. 4**  **. Phytosanitary Certification Inspections**  Sampling and inspection of pomegranate should occur periodicall y during th e growing season and after harvest for quality control and as phy

tosanitary precautionary

measures. Production areas also should be subject to scheduled audits and periodic, unannounced, inspections by certified inspectors from PPQ and India’s Ministry of Agriculture; these inspections would insure that production areas meet stipulated requirements for the issuance of a phyt osanitary certificate required for each consignment. This measure is useful for detecting pests present during the growing season that may be more difficult to detect post
- harvest. Detection methods need to be combined with other measures to ensure the absence of pests of concern. Statistical procedures are available to verify , to a specified confidence level, the pest free status of an area, given negative survey

or trapping results ( Barclay and Hargrove, 2005). Results of survey s must be negative for fruit fl y l arvae, Lepidopteran, and external pests. Each shipment of pomegranate is to be accompanied b y a phy tosanitary certificate of ins pection issued b y the NPPO of India. Additionally , production areas should be subject to periodic, unannounced inspections by certified inspectors from PPQ and India’s Ministry of Agriculture to ensure that they meet stipulated requirements. 2.2 . Mitigation Options Post
- harvest and Prior to Shipping **2.2. 1**  **. Post**  **- harvest Safeguards and Packinghouse Procedures**  According to a risk assessment produced b y the Government of India’s Ministry of Agriculture, pomegranates are processed at a packinghouse immediately after harvest. At the packinghouse, the fruits are cleaned and washed with potable water sanitized with sodium hyphochlorite (200 ppm) and then given a fungicidal treatment to protect against post
- harvest storage fungal rots. They then undergo sorting and grading. Pomegranates for export are packed in boxes; clean paper shredding is kept below, in between, and on top of fruit to prevent bruising during transport and are further safeguarded with plastic bubble wrap on the top, sides, and bottom o f the fruit. Further, they

state, “Packed product and packaging is to be protected from pestPest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 91 contamination during and after packing, after treatment, during storage and during movement between locations (e.g., packing house to cool storage/depot, to inspec tion point, to export point).” In the packinghouse, fruit should undergo mechanical brushing or other treatments to remove external pests. Immersion of the fruit in a water bath containing surfactant and, perhaps, a surface sterilant, such as chlorine bleach, could remove external pests . The liquid in the bath should be able to penetrate the residual floral material at the stem end, and contact and kill any arthropods that may

be concealed around the stem. Detergent - water solutions of about 1 ml/Lare effective in killing meal ybugs and o ther Coccoidea on plants ( Townsend, 1993 ) . Surfactants, such as common dishwashing detergent, may show a high degree of insecticidal activity with minimal likelihood of phytotoxicity . Additionally , leaves and stems should be removed from the fruit to eliminate pests associated with these plant parts, and to be consistent with U . S . regulations that imported fruit must be free of leaves and soil [ 7 CFR § 319.56 , 2003] . All fruit should be inspected prior to packing . A random sample of fruit per lot should b e inspected for external pests and cut to reveal internal pests; each sample is to be of a sufficient size in order to detect pest infestations . Because the deep cal yc es on pomegranates provide excellent shelter and hiding places for external pests, particular attention must be paid to them. Additionally , some fruit should be cut apart in order to detect internal infestations of fruit fly larvae and other internal feeders (CABI, 2006). During the grading process, any damaged, diseased, or infested fruit needs to be removed and separated from the commodity destined for export. It should be noted that visual inspection and culling are not considered to be appropriate risk management options by

themselves and must be used in combination with other measures. **2.2. 2**  **. Quarantine treatments**  There are currently

no specific quarantine treatments available for any of the above pests on pomegranate ( PPQ, 2008 ) . Approved pomegranate quarantine treatments (specificall y, cold treatment) exist only

for Ceratitis capita ta, C. rosa, and Anastrepha spp., although treatments do exists for Bactrocera spp., and Conogethes punctiferalis, as well as the external pests (the soft scales, meal ybugs, thrips, and mites) on other commodities. There are currently no treatments availab le for the following pests: Cryptoblabes gnidiella, Deudorix spp., Dichocrocis megillalis, or the pathogens. An approved treatment to c ontrol hitchhiker surface pests (including Ceroplastes rubens , Drosicha dalbergiae, Icerya spp. , Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus, Scirtothrips spp. , and Tenuipalpus spp.) on various commodities (but not currentl y including pomegranate), is T104 - a 1 **fumigation** with Methyl
- Bromide at NAP

—tarpaulin or chamber. An approved treatment to control meal ybugs (Pseudococcidae) on various commodities (but not currently including pomegranate ) is T104 - a - 2 **fumigation** with Methyl
- Bromide at NAP

—tarpaulin or chamber. This treatment would supersede T104 - a - 1 because higher temperatures must be used during the same duration of the treatment. Recently , APHI S published a final rule establishing “a minimum generic dose of 150 Gy for allPest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 92 fruit flies of the family

Tephritidae,” and “a minimum generic dose of 400 Gy for all plant pests of the class Insecta other than pupae and adults of the order L epidoptera” for “all regulated articles (i.e., fruits, vegetabl es, cut flowers, and foliage)” (Shea, 2006) . There are two exceptions to these generic doses: 1) “lower minimum doses for certain fruit flies,” and 2) “new approved minimum doses for 10 p lant p ests” (Shea, 2006) . If irradiation is used, measures are to be implemented to ensure the phy tosanitary security of the consignments after treatment to prevent re - infestation. Irradiation may not kill all internal insects; the endpoint of treatment may be i nactivation, sterilization , or preventing maturation of larvae. Therefore , the presence of live larvae in a treated consignment would not necessarily result in its rejection, provided appropriate safeguarding measures had been used (IPPC, 200 7: I SPM #18 ) . The probit
- 9 - level security afforded by

a quarantine treatment may be overwhelmed by

a large volume of infested fruit (Powell, 2003). For this reason, adoption of a particular quarantine treatment is to be in conjunction with efforts to maintain pest populations in production zones below specified densities, such as those that would satisfy the requirements for the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence (IPPC, 200 7: I SPM #22 ). Lastly , fruit may be damaged or quality of the fruit reduced as a result of some of these treatments (e.g. irradiation may damage some fruits). **2.2. 3**  **. Limits on distribution and transit within the United States**  In some instances, the importation of commodities that might be harboring exotic pests may be authorized for shipment to specific locations ( e.g ., Alaska or North Atlantic ports) or during a specific season (usuall y the one with the coldest temperatures). These additional measures limit the likelihood of establishment for many exotic pests. In India, pomegranates are harvested from December through March and July through September. The majority of the quarantine pests are limited to tropical or subtropical distributions and/or have host ranges restricted to tropical/subtropical crops; however , the pests Conogethes punctiferalis, Cryptoblabes gnidiella, Deudorix epijarbas are capable of establishing in at least Plant Hardiness Zones 6
- 10, which encompass the majority of the United States. Limiting the distribution of pomegranates shipped July through September would not likely increase the level of protection to U.S. Agriculture, since these months are warm throughout the United States. However, it is possible that limiting the distribution of pomegranates shipped December through March to the norther n states could provide some measure of protection and might be worth exploring. 2.3 . Oversight **2.3. 1**  **. Pre**  **- shipment programs**  Inspection, treatment, or other risk mitigation measures performed in the grove and packinghouse are to be under the direct supervision of qualified APHIS and In dian Ministry of Agriculture personnel, and in accordance with specified phy tosanitary procedures. Such programs require monitoring all aspects of the application of any required phy

tosanitary measures and also aim to identify shortcomings or opportunities for program modifications (IPPC, 200 7: I SPM #14 ) . Provision needs to be made for the formal recognition of approved areas, sites, or producers, as well as the specification of conditions for revoking approvals or refusing certification for export to the United States.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 93 **2.3. 2**  **. Point** **- of** 

**- entry sampling and inspection**  : If a preclearance program is not implemented, then inspection at port of entry is necessary . Upon arrival in the United States , consignments should be inspected, with particular attention given to paperwork and seals on vehicles, to ascertain that the chain of custody has remained intact. Each consignment should be inspected to detect a pest infestation/infection rate of 10 perce nt or greater. In the case of internal feeding insects such as fruit flies inspection should also include fruit cutting ( PPQ, 2008 ) . **2.3. 3**  **. Field Survey and Trapping**  : Survey procedures include visual inspection, fruit cutting, and trapping within and outside areas of production. Survey s are to be conducted at regular intervals during the growing season to determine the presence or absence of pests. Growers need to receive or be denied certification for export on the basis of survey or trapping results. **2.3. 4**  **. Shipments traceable to place of origin in India**  : A requirement that pomegranate be packed in containers with identification labels indicating the specific place of origin may be necessary to ensure traceability

to each production site. **3 . Conclu**  **sions** The number and diversity of pests potentially infesting pomegranate imports make it unlikely that a single risk mitigation measure will be suff icient to adequatel y reduce likelihood of their introduction into the United States. For this reason, a co mbination of measures may be feasible including: grove monitoring ; management programs to achieve and maintain area pest freedom or low pest prevalence ; packinghouse inspection and treatments ; quarantine treatments ; and maintenance of consignment security and traceability in transit. These o ptions for risk mitigation are summarized below (Table A1) . The specific implementation of measures, such as those that would be included in an operational workplan, is beyond the scope of this document. This document does not purport to establish specific work plans or to evaluate the quality of a specific program or s ys tems approach. It identifies risks and provides information regarding known mitigative measures. The specification and implementation of measures, as would be described in an operational work plan, is beyond the scope of this document. **Table A1.** Summary

of risk mitigation options for pomegranates from India into the continental United States , including Alaska **Measures Pests**  **Efficacy** Pest - free areas or areas of low pest prevalence All (including pathogen) When conducted in compliance with international standards (e.g., IPPC, 2007: I SPM #s 4 and 10 ; NAPPO, 2004) this method satisfies requirements for appropriate level of protection Suppression /Control program Most of the pests of concern could be at least partly managed, with a control program, whether Research required on effectiveness of methods proposed.Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 94 **Measures Pests**  **Efficacy** cultural, chemical, or mechanical means, but monitoring and inspection are needed to verify program effectiveness. Control must be u sed in combination with other measures. Phy tosanitary Certification Inspection and Monitoring All (including pathogen), but must be used in combination with other measures. A phy tosanitary certifi cate guides inspections in India and alerts U.S. inspectors to pests of concern with this commodity . Packinghouse procedures, including visual culling External pests and pathogens Research required on efficacy . Point
- of
- entry sampling and inspection inc luding fruit cuttings Most external pests; most internal pests when fruit is cut For cut fruit, sample size needs to be adequate to detect infestation Irradiation combined T105 - b with low pest prevalence Bactrocera spp. Approved b y APHIS to treat fruit flies in apricot, peach, nectarine, and plum fruit. Irradiation, generic dose 400 Gy , combined with low pest prevalence All arthropods pests (with the exception of Lepidopteran pupae and adults) Approved b y APHIS Irradi ation 150 Gy

for fruit flies combined with low prevalence of other pests plus inspection All arthropod pests (fruit flies with irradiation, and other arthropods through areas of low pest prevalence) Research required to demonstrate efficacy Methyl bromid e fumigation T104 - a - 1 combined with low pest prevalence Ceroplastes rubens, Drosicha dalbergiae, Icerya spp ., Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus, Scirtothrips spp ., and Tenuipalpus spp Approved b y APHIS on various commodities for hitchhiker surface pests, such as thrips, scale insects, and spider mites. Research required to demonstrate efficacy for internal feeders (e.g., fruit fly larvae ) . Methyl bromide fumigation T104 - a - 2 combined with low pest prevalence Pseudococcidae Approved b y APHIS to treat mealy bugs on various commodities. Research required to demonstrat e efficacy

for external feeders. Port - of
- entry sampling and inspection All (including pathogen), but must be used in combination with other measuresPest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Ver. 6 May 11, 2011 95 **4 . Litera**  **ture Cited** 7 CFR § 319.28. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319.28

– Unshu oranges from Japan). 7 CFR § 319.56 . U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319.56

– Notice of Quarantine). 7 CFR 319.56 - 24 . U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319.56
- 2u

– Conditions governing the entry of lettuce and peppers from Israel). 7 CFR 319.56 - 28 . U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319.56
- 2dd

– T omatoes from Spain, F rance, Morocco, and Western Sahara). 7 U.S.C. § 7701 - 7786. 2000. Plant Protection Act, Title 7 United States Code § 7701
- 7786. Barclay , H. J., and J. W. Hargrove. 2005. Probability models to facilitate a declaration of pest
free status, with special reference to tsetse (Diptera: Glossinidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 95(1):1
- 11. Cameron, P. J., G. P. Walker, G. M. Penny, and P. J. Wigley. 2002. Movement of potato tuberworm (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) within and between crops, and some comparisons with diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Environmental Entomology 3 1:65 - 75. Cherry , R., and A. Wilson. 2005. Flight activity of tropical sod webworms (Lepidoptera: Py ralidae). Florida Entomologist 88(1):101
- 103. El
- Sayed, A. M. 2008. The Perobase: Database of Ins ect Pheromones and Semiochemicals. Last accessed http://www.pherobase.net . IICT. 2005. Biennial Report (2003
- 2005_. Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (Buisness Management Division), Hyderabad. IPPC. 2007. International Standards For Phyt osanitary Mea sures, 1 to 29 (2007 edition). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy . 376 pp. NAPPO. 2003. Guidelines for the establishment, maintenance and verification of areas of low pest prevalence for insects. NAPPO Regional Standards for Phyt osanitary Measures No. 20. Ottawa: Secretariat of the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO). NAPPO. 2004. Guidelines for the establishment, maintenance and verification of fruit fly pest free areas in North America. NAPPO Regional Standards for Phy tosanitary Measures No. 17. Ottawa: Secretariat of the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) Ngollo, N. D., E. Groden, J. F. Dill, and D. T. Handley. 2000. Monitoring of the European corn borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in Central Maine. J. Econ. Entomol. 93(2):256
- 263. Powell, M. R. 2003. Modeling the response of the Mediterranean fruit fly (Dipt era: Tephritidae) to cold treatment. J. Econ. Entomol. 96(2):300
- 310 PPQ. 2008 . Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) Handbook. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). 19 6 pp. PPQ. 2008 . Treatment Manual. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). 782 pp. Shea, K. 2006. Treatments for Fruits and Vegetables. Rules and Regulations. Final Rule. Federal Register: January

27, 2006. (FR Doc. 06
- 746) 71(18):4451
- 4464. TDOA. 2003. Texas Rio Grande Valley Mexican Fruit Fl y, Anastrepha ludens , (Loew) [sic] Protocol

—2003/2004. Unpublished report. Texas Department of Agriculture (TDOA) . Town send, L. 1993. Houseplant insect control. Kentucky Coop. Ext. Serv. EntFact 405.