Importation of Fresh Pitaya Fruit, Hylocereus spp. and several 

other genera and species, from Central America into the 

Continental United States

A Multi-Genus, Regional, Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment 

February 11, 2011 

Ver. 5 

Agency Contact 

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Assessment Laboratory 

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 

Raleigh, NC 27606 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 ii

Executive Summary 

In this assessment we examined the risks associated with the importation of fresh pitaya fruit, 

Hylocereus spp., from Central America—Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, 

Costa Rica, and Panama—into the continental United States. From information on pests 

associated with pitaya in Central America we found the following quarantine pests that could be 

introduced into the continental United States via this pathway: 

Anastrepha ludens (Loew) Diptera: Tephritidae 

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) Diptera: Tephritidae 

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes (Beardsley) Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae 

Planococcus minor (Maskell) Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae 

We qualitatively analyzed the quarantine pests based on international standards and internal 

guidelines described in the PPQ Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 

5.02 (PPQ, 2000). We examined pest biology in the context of Consequences of Introduction and 

Likelihood of Introduction. We used these elements to determine the Pest Risk Potential, which was 

a High rating for all four pests. 

All of these pests pose phytosanitary risks to American agriculture. Port-of-entry inspections, as a 

sole mitigation measure, are insufficient to safeguard U.S. agriculture from the listed pests; 

additional phytosanitary measures are necessary to reduce risks to acceptable levels. Options for risk 

mitigation are included at the end of this document. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 iii

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... ii

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

2. Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 1

2.1. Initiating Event .................................................................................................................... 1

2.2. Assessment of the Weediness Potential of Pitaya ............................................................... 2

2.3. Decision History and Pest Interceptions .............................................................................. 3

2.4. Pests Associated with Pitaya in Central America ................................................................ 7

2.5. Quarantine Pests that are Likely to Follow the Pathway ................................................... 14

2.6. Consequences of Introduction ........................................................................................... 15

2.7. Likelihood of Introduction ................................................................................................. 21

3. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 22

4. Risk Mitigation Options ......................................................................................................... 23

5. Preparer and Reviewers ......................................................................................................... 24

6. Literature Cited ...................................................................................................................... 24
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 1

1. Introduction 

This pest risk assessment was prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to examine plant pest risks 

associated with the importation for consumption of fresh pitaya fruit from Central America into 

the Continental United States. This risk assessment examines the genus Hylocereus because the 

terms “pitaya” and “pitahaya” commonly refer to a number of taxonomically related genera and 

species (Jacobs, 1999; Mizrahi et al., 1997; Popenoe, 1939) that have strong phytosanitary 

resemblance (similar pests, similar production systems). This risk assessment considers the risks 

associated with “pitahaya”, “pitajaya”, “pitajuia”, “pitalla” or “pithaya” (Popenoe, 1939; see 

Section 2.2 for the complete listing with synonymies) and any hybrids among these plants (Mejia 

et al., 2002; Mizrahi and Nerd, 1999; Raveh et al., 1993; Tel-Zur et al., 2001; Tel-Zur et al., 

1999; Weiss et al., 1995). We assessed the plant pest risk for these crops. The term “pitaya” is 

used throughout this document to refer to all these botanically related cacti that produce edible 

fruit except for species of Opuntia. 

This pest risk assessment estimates risk using the qualitative terms “high”, “medium” and “low” 

rather than probabilities or frequencies. The details of the methodology and rating criteria are in 

the document: Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment: Guidelines for Qualitative Assessments, 

Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000). 

Regional and international plant protection organizations, such as the North American Plant 

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

provide guidance for conducting pest risk analyses (IPPC, 2004, 2007; NAPPO, 2004). The 

methods used to initiate, conduct, and report this assessment, as well as the use of biological and 

phytosanitary terms, are based on these standards. The IPPC standards describe three stages of 

pest risk analysis: Stage 1, Initiation: Stage 2, Risk Assessment; and Stage 3, Risk Management. 

This document satisfies the requirements of IPPC Stages 1 and 2, and provides mitigation 

options for Stage 3. 

2. Risk Assessment 

2.1. Initiating Event 

We did this commodity-based, pathway-initiated assessment based on a request to the USDA to 

authorize importations of fresh pitaya fruit from Central America, specifically Belize, El 

Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama, into the continental United 

States. This is a potential pathway for the introduction of plant pests on the fruit. Title 7 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations 319, Part 56 (7 CFR § 319.56) provides regulatory authority for the 

importation of fruits and vegetables from foreign sources into the United States. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 2

2.2. Assessment of the Weediness Potential of Pitaya 

If pitaya poses a risk as a weed pest, then a “pest-initiated” pest risk assessment is initiated. The 

cacti that produce pitaya fruit pose a risk of becoming weeds from abandoned plants, and APHIS 

believes the risk of weediness associated with consumption of the fruit appears low (Table 1). 

Introductions of the “Night-blooming Cereus,” H. undatus (Haw.) Britton & Rose, became 

naturalized stands in 10 parks/preserves in six counties in South Florida that were treated and are 

no longer a factor affecting the native plant community; H. undatus was reclassified from a 

Category II invasive species to the “to be watched” list (Burks, 2001). The naturalized stands in 

Florida grew from abandoned cultivation or discarded landscaping material (Burks, 2001). 

Introductions of this plant into Hawaii as an ornamental during the 1800's (Morton, 1987) did not 

lead to listing as a weed, and generally, it is not known to produce fruit in Hawaii (Neal, 1965). 

The seed are disseminated by birds (Barbeau, 1993). 

This same species (H. undatus) is naturalized in Vietnam and called “thanh long” (Mizrahi et al., 

1997). It is cultivated in many tropical and subtropical areas, and is considered an escape from 

cultivation in parts of Latin America (Kimnach, 1984). Australia permits four species of 

Hylocereus (H. guatemalensis, H. ocamponis, H. polyrhizus, and H. undatus) into all of the 

country, but bans other members of the genus, except for the State of Western Australia which 

restricts all members of the genus except for H. undatus cultivated as an ornamental (Randall, 

2001). 

Table 1. Assessment of the Weed Potential

Commodity: Fruit from Hylocereus species (Cactaceae) 

Phase 1: Species of Hylocereus are native in Central Mexico and parts of South America. The 

species of Hylocereus that produce pitaya fruit are: H. costaricensis (synonym = Cereus 

trigonus var. costaricensis), H. ocamponis (= C. ocamponis), H. polyrhizus (= C. polyrhizus and

H. lemairei), and H. undatus (Haw.) Britton & Rose (= C. triangularis, C. tricostatus, C. 

trigonus var. guatemalensis, C. undatus, H. guatemalensis, Cactus triangularis, and H. 

tricostatus). The members of this genus are not native to the United States, but H. undatus was 

introduced as a cultivated ornamental (Solomon, 2002). Native populations of other genera also 

known as pitaya are already present and are distributed within the United States (Acanthocereus 

tetragonus, Stenocereus thurberi) and Cereus hildmannianus (= Cactus peruvianus, = C. 

uruguayanus) is on the Hawaiian Noxious Weed and Seed list (NGRP, 2007). 

Phase 2: Is the species listed in: 

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

 No World’s Worst Weeds (Holm et al., 1977; Holm et al., 1997) 

 No Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds for Federal Noxious 

Weed Act (Gunn and Ritchie, 1982) 

 No Economically Important Foreign Weeds (Reed, 1977) 

 No Weed Science Society of America list (WSSA, 2007) 

 Yes Are there any references indicating weed potential? e.g., AGRICOLA, CAB, Biological 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 3

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

Phase 3: Some members of the various pitaya genera are listed and known as weeds, including 

H. undatus. Populations of this plant became weedy in Florida until eradicated (Burks, 2001). 

Discarded fruit are not known to cause problems as weeds, but abandoned plants become 

naturalized in suitable environments. There is evidence that seeds pass through the human 

digestive system intact (Nabhan, 1985), but the viability of such seed is unknown. If there is 

proper disposal of rejected fruit and edible fruit is consumed then the potential for these cacti to 

demonstrate weed behavior is low. 

2.3. Decision History and Pest Interceptions 

In 1997, the entry of Hylocereus undatus from Vietnam was denied because of the lack of an 

approved treatment for Bactrocera dorsalis and B. cucurbitae. In 1995, the entry of 

Acanthocereus from Nicaragua was denied because of Ceratits capitata. In 1992, the entry of 

Acanthocereus spp., Hylocereus spp., Lemaireocereus spp., and Selenicereus spp. from Belize 

was denied because of the lack of an approved treatment for Anastrepha spp., A. ludens, and C. 

capitata. In 1988, the entry of Hylocereus spp. from Colombia was denied because of the lack of 

an approved treatment for C. capitata. 

Pest interceptions listed under the name Hylocereus reflect only a portion of the total 

interceptions on imported “pitaya” fruit (PestID, 2007). Port officers were likely to ascribe the 

interception to the genus Acanthocereus based on a good faith reliance on the illustrated fruit 

guide in the manual for non-propagative material (USDA, 2005), which stated that fruit of H. 

undatus is Acanthocereus fruit. Also, the botanical nomenclature is unsettled, and there are many 

synonyms as summarized below (ARS, 2001; Solomon, 2002). 

The fruit of cacti that are referred to as “red pitaya” that are assessed in this document include: 

Acanthocereus occidentalis, A. tetragonus (= A. colombianus, A. floridanus, A. pentagonus, A. 

pitajaya, Cactus pentagonus, C. pitajaya, C. tetragonus, Cereus pentagonus, C. pitajaya), 

Cereus hildmannianus (= Cactus peruvianus, Cereus uruguayanus), Echinocereus 

conglomeratus (= C. conglomeratus), E. stramineus (= C. stramineus, E. enneacanthus var. 

straminues), Escontria chiotilla (= C. chiotilla), Hylocereus costaricensis (= C. trigonus var.

costaricensis), H. ocamponis (= C. ocamponis), H. polyrhizus (= C. polyrhizus, H. lemairei), H. 

undatus (= Cactus triangularis, Cereus triangularis, C. tricostatus, C. trigonus var. 

guatemalensis, C. undatus, H. guatemalensis, H. tricostatus), Myrtillocactus geometrizans (= C. 

geometrizans), Stenocereus griseus (= C. griseus), S. gummosus (= C. gummosus), S.,

queretaroensis (= C. queretaroensis), S. stellatus (= C. stellatus), S. thurberi (= C. thurberi,

Lemairocereus thurberi, Marshallocereus thurberi, Pachycereus thurberi) (ARS, 2001; 

Solomon, 2002). Fruit from naturalized or artificially propagated plants of these species may be 

exported in compliance with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of 

Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, 2002). 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 4

Table 2. Pests in or on pitaya hosts (Acanthocereus, Cereus, Echinocereus, Hylocereus, and

Stenocereus spp.) that have been intercepted worldwide (PestID, 2007). 

Pest 

Acutaspis albopicta (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae)

Aecidium sp. (Anamorphic rust)

Agrothrips sp. (Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae)

Aleyrodidae sp. (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae)

Alternaria sp. (Hyphomycetes)

Altica sp. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

Anastrepha sp. (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Anthribidae sp. (Coleoptera: Anthribidae) 

Aphis craccivora Koch (Hemiptera: Aphididae) 

Aphis gossypii Glover (Hemiptera: Aphididae) 

Aphididae sp. (Hemiptera: Aphididae) 

Asphondylia sp. (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae)

Bactrocera sp. (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Blapstinus sp. (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) 

Brachymyrmex sp. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 

Bulimulus guadalupensis (Bruguiere) (Mollusca: Bulimulidae) 

Cactophagus sp. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

Camarosprium sp. (Coelomycetes) 

Cardiocondyla sp. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 

Catenococcus sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) 

Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) 

Cercospora sp. (Hyphomycetes) 

Chrysomelidae sp. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

Cicadellidae sp. (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) 

Cladosporium sp. (Hyphomycetes)

Coccidae sp. (Hemiptera: Coccidae) 

Coccotrypes sp. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae)

Coccus sp. (Hemiptera: Coccidae)

Colaspis sp. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

Coleoptera sp. 

Colletotrichum sp. (Coelomycetes)

Conogethes sp. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae)

Conopomorpha sp. (Orthoptera: Gracillariidae)

Conotrachelus sp. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

Coreidae sp. (Hemiptera: Coreidae)

Conotrachelus sp. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

Cosmopterigidae sp. (Lepidoptera: Cosmopterigidae)

Crambidae sp. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 5

Pest 

Curculionidae sp. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) 

Diaspis echinocacti (Bouché) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae)

Dolichoderus bituberculatus (Mayr) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

Dolichoderus lutosus F. Smith (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

Drosophilidae (Diptera: Drosophilidae)

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Dysmicoccus sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Ecdytolopha sp. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

Ectomyelois ceratoniae (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

Ephestia elutella (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) 

Ephestia kuehniella (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) 

Eremberga sp. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) 

Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) 

Ferrisia sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) 

Fusarium sp. (Hyphomycetes) 

Gelechiidae sp. (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) 

Geometridae sp. (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

Gerstaeckeria sp. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) 

Gracillariidae sp. (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae) 

Gryllidae sp. (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) 

Hoplosphyrum sp. (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) 

Hymenoptera sp. 

Lasiodiplodia theobromae (Pat.) Griffon & Maubl. (Coelomycetes)

Lepidoptera sp. 

Leptosphaeria sp. (Leptosphaeriaceae)

Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) 

Margarodidae sp. (Hemiptera: Margarodidae) 

Marmara sp. (Orthoptera: Gracillariidae) 

Melanopleurus bistriangularis (Say) (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae) 

Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & White) Chitwood (Nemotoda: Meloidogynidae) 

Mitostylus setosus Sharp (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) 

Monomorium pharaonis (L.) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 

Monomorium sp. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 

Mycosphaerella sp. (Mycosphaerellaceae) 

Noctuidae sp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) 

Oecophoridae sp. (Lepidoptera: Oecophoridae) 

Ogdoecosta biannularis (Boheman) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

Olethreutinae sp. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

Opuntiaspis philococcus (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae)

Opuntiaspis sp. (Hemiptera: Diaspididae)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 6

Pest 

Ozamia sp. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

Paracoccus sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Paratrechina longicornis (Latreille) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

Penicillium sp. (Hyphomycetes) 

Periconia byssoides Pers. (Ascomycetes) 

Pestalotiopsis sp. (Coelomycetes)

Pheidole sp. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

Phoma sp. (Coelomycetes)

Phomopsis sp. (Coelomycetes)

Phycitinae sp. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) 

Phyllophaga sp. (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)

Physonota sp. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

Placoasterella sp. (Asterinaceae)

Planococcus citri (Risso) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) 

Planococcus lilacinus (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Planococcus sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Platynota sp. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi Gimpel & Miller (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Pseudococcus nakaharai Gimpel & Miller (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Pseudococcus odermatti Miller & Williams (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Pseudococcus viburni (Signoret) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Pseudococcus sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Pseudococcidae sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) 

Psocoptera sp. (Psocoptera)

Pulvinaria sp. (Hemiptera: Coccidae)

Puto mexicanus (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Puto sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Pyralidae sp. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) 

Pyraustinae sp. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae)

Sixeonotus scabrosus (Uhler) (Hemiptera: Miridae)

Spilococcus mamillariae Bouché (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Spodoptera dolichos (F.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

Spodoptera latifascia (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

Systena sp. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

Tarsonemus sp. (Acari: Tarsonemidae)

Technomyrmex sp. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 

Tephritidae sp. (Diptera: Tephritidae) 

Thripidae sp. (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 7

Pest 

Thyanta sp. (Coleoptera: Pentatomidae) 

Tineidae sp. (Lepidoptera: Tineidae) 

Tortricidae sp. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) 

Triorophus sp. (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) 

Vanduzea sp. (Hemiptera: Membracidae)

Vryburgia sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

2.4. Pests Associated with Pitaya in Central America 

We list below the pests associated with pitaya if populations of that pest also are reported in the 

countries of Central America (Table 3). This table should not be interpreted to infer that all pests 

known to affect pitaya in the world are listed. This list identifies: (1) the countries in Central 

America with reported distribution of the pest, (2) the presence or absence of these pests in the 

(continental) United States, (3) the plant part or parts generally affected, (4) the quarantine status 

of the pest with respect to the (continental) United States, (5) whether the pest is likely to follow 

the pathway to enter the (continental) United States on commercially exported eggplant fruit and 

(6) pertinent citations. Based on pest biology and distribution, many organisms are eliminated 

from further consideration as sources of phytosanitary risk on pitaya from Central America 

because they do not satisfy the definition of a quarantine pest. 

Table 3. Summary of pests associated with Hylocereus1 spp. (in any country) and related genera present 

in Central America (on any host). 

Pest2 Cent. America 

distribution3

United States 

distribution 

Reported on 

pitaya 

Plant part(s) 

association4

Quarantine pest Follow 

pathway

ARTHROPODA 

Acari: Tetranychidae 

Tetranychus 

desertorum Banks 

CR NI (Bolland 

et al., 1998) 

US (Bolland 

et al., 1998) 

Bolland et 

al., 1998 

n/a No n/a 

Coleoptera: Cantharidae 

Chauliognathus 

tricolor (LeConte) 

NI (Romero, 

1994) 

 Romero, 

1994 

I (Arnett, 2000; 

Romero, 1994) 

Yes No 

Coleoptera: Cerambycidae 

Stenygra histria 

(Serville) [= S. 

histrio] 

NI (Romero, 

1994) 

 Romero, 

1994 

S (Romero, 

1994) 

Yes No 

 

1

 Genera of “pitaya” searched throughout literature includes: Acanthocereus, Cereus, Echinocereus, Hylocereus, 

Pachycereus, and Stenocereus spp. 2

 Quarantine pests identified only to the order, family or generic levels are not analyzed further in this risk assessment. 

3

 AZ = Arizona, BZ = Belize, CR = Costa Rica, GT = Guatemala, HN = Honduras, NI = Nicaragua, PA = Panama, SV = El 

Salvador; US = United States, CA = California, FL = Florida, HI = Hawaii, MA = Massachusetts, NY = New York, PR = 

Puerto Rico, TX = Texas, VI = US Virgin Islands 

4

 F = Fruit, I = Inflorescence, L = Leaves, R = Roots; S = Stems; Sd = Seeds. In this PRA, “stem” refers to the vine-like, 

triangular, fleshy, jointed, branched stems, which may reach 20 ft (6.1 m) long. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 8

Pest2 Cent. America 

distribution3

United States 

distribution 

Reported on 

pitaya 

Plant part(s) 

association4

Quarantine pest Follow 

pathway

Trachyderes succintus 

(L.) 

NI (Romero, 

1994) 

 Romero, 

1994 

S (Romero, 

1994) 

Yes No 

Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae 

Calligrapha pantherina 

Stal. 

NI (Romero, 

1994) 

 Romero, 

1994 

I S (Romero, 

1994) 

Yes No 

Diabrotica balteata 

(Leconte) 

BZ CR GT HN 

NI PA SV 

(CABI, 2006) 

US (CABI, 

2006) 

Romero, 

1994 

n/a No n/a 

Coleoptera: Coccinellidae 

Cycloneda sanguinea 

L. 

NI (Romero, 

1994) 

US (CABI, 

2006) 

Romero, 

1994 

n/a No n/a 

Epilachna borealis (F.) 

[= E. tredecimnotata 

(Latreille) 

NI (Romero, 

1994) 

 Romero, 

1994 

n/a No5 n/a 

Coleoptera: Curculionidae 

Cactophagus fahraei 

(Gyllenhal) [=C. 

striatoforatus = C. 

fahraei 

striatoforatus = 

Metamasius fahraei 

striatoforatus] 

NI (Romero, 

1994) 

 Romero, 

1994 

S (Romero, 

1994) 

Yes No 

Geraeus sp. CR SV (PestID, 

2007) NI 

(Gonzalez, 

2006) 

US (Arnett, 

2002) 

MAGFOR, 

2004 

F (MAGFOR, 

2004) I S 

(Gonzalez, 2006) 

Yes Yes 

Pantomorus femoratus 

(Sharp) 

GT SV (PestID, 

2007) 

NI (Romero, 

1994) 

 Romero, 

1994 

I S (Romero, 

1994) 

Yes No 

Coleoptera: Scarabaediae 

Cotinis mutabilis 

(Gory) 

CR BZ GT HN 

NI (Maes, 

2004; Romero, 

1994) 

US (Arnett, 

2000) 

Maes, 2004; 

Romero, 

1994 

n/a No n/a 

Cyclocephala sp. BZ CR GT HN 

NI PA SV 

(PestID, 2007) 

 Castillo 

Martínez et 

al., 1996 

I F (Castillo 

Martínez et al., 

1996) 

Yes Yes 

Euphoria limatula 

(Janson) 

NI (Romero, 

1994) 

 Romero, 

1994 

I F6

 (Romero, 

1994) 

Yes No 

 

5

 Epilachna borealis is not considered a quarantine pest in the United States (PestID, 2007). 6

 Adults of the Scarab beetle Euphnoria limatula are large and mobile, making it unlikely that this pest would stay with fresh 

pitaya fruit through picking, processing, and shipping. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 9

Pest2 Cent. America 

distribution3

United States 

distribution 

Reported on 

pitaya 

Plant part(s) 

association4

Quarantine pest Follow 

pathway

Diptera: Drosophilidae 

Drosophila sp. GT (Heed & 

Mangan, 1986) 

US (Heed & 

Mangan, 

1986) 

Heed & 

Mangan, 

1986 

n/a No n/a 

Diptera: Otitidae 

Euxesta major (Van 

der Wulp) 

NI (Romero, 

1994) 

 Romero, 

1994 

I (Romero, 1994) Yes No 

Diptera: Tephritidae 

Anastrepha ludens 

(Loew) 

BZ CR GT HN 

NI SV (CABI, 

2006; 

Norrbom, 

2004) PA 

(Norrbom, 

2004) 

Norrbom, 

2004 

F (Norrbom, 

2004) 

Yes Yes 

Anastrepha sp. BZ CR GT HN 

NI PA SV 

(PestID, 2007) 

 PestID, 2007 F (PestID, 2007) Yes Yes 

Ceratitis capitata 

(Wiedemann) 

CR GT HN NI 

PA SV7 (Maes, 

2004) 

US (HI) 

(Maes, 2004) 

PestID, 

20078; Maes, 

2004 

F (CABI, 2006) Yes Yes 

Hemiptera: Aphididae 

Aphis gossypii Glover CR GT NI PA 

(CABI, 2006) 

HN SV (Smith 

& Cermeli, 

1979) 

US (CABI, 

2006; Smith 

& Cermeli, 

1979) 

PestID, 2007 n/a No n/a 

Hemiptera: Coreidae 

Leptoglossus zonatus 

(Dallas) [= 

Anisoscelis zonatus] 

NI (Barbeau, 

1990; Romero, 

1994) 

US (Buss et 

al., n.d.) 

Barbeau, 

1990; 

Romero, 

1994 

n/a No n/a 

Hemiptera: Diaspididae 

Acutaspis albopicta

(Cockerell) 

CR GT HN SV 

(PestID, 2007) 

 PestID, 2007 F (PestID, 2007) Yes9

 Yes 

Lopholeucaspis 

cockerelli (Grandpré 

& Charmoy) 

CR HN PA SV 

(CABI, 2006) 

US (CA FL 

MA NY) 

(CABI, 2006) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2006 

n/a No n/a 

Pseudischnaspis 

bowreyi (Cockerell) 

GT HN NI PA 

(Watson, 2005) 

US (FL NY) 

(Watson, 

2005) 

Watson, 

2005 

n/a No n/a 

 

7 While Maes (2004) reports Ceratitis capitata as established in Belize, CPC (CABI, 2006) lists the fruit fly as “eradicated” 

from the country and APHIS recognizes the entire country of Belize as pest-free of C. capitata (7 CFR § 319, 2009). 8

 Ceratitis capitata was intercepted in fruit of species of Cactaceae. 9

 While Acutaspis albopicta is a quarantine pest in the United States, no action is taken on this scale when it is intercepted on 

fruit or vegetables for consumptions (Cavey, 2007; Courneya, 2005). 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 10

Pest2 Cent. America 

distribution3

United States 

distribution 

Reported on 

pitaya 

Plant part(s) 

association4

Quarantine pest Follow 

pathway

Hemiptera: Lygaidae 

Lygaeus reclivatus 

(Say) 

NI (Romero, 

1994) 

 Romero, 

1994 

n/a No10 n/a 

Hemiptera: Pentatomidae 

Proxys punctulatus 

(Polisot) 

NI (Romero, 

1994) 

 Romero, 

1994 

n/a No11 n/a 

Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae 

Dysmicoccus 

neobrevipes 

(Beardsley) 

CR GT HN PA 

SV (Williams 

& Granara de 

Willink, 1992) 

US (PR VI) 

(Williams & 

Granara de 

Willink, 

1992) 

PestID, 2007 F (PestID, 2007) Yes Yes 

Ferrisia virgata 

(Cockerell) 

BZ CR GT HN 

NI PA (CABI, 

2006; Williams 

& Granara de 

Willink, 1992) 

US (CABI, 

2006) 

PestID, 2007 n/a No n/a 

Phenacoccus 

madeirensis Green 

CR GT PA 

(CABI, 2006; 

Williams & 

Granara de 

Willink, 1992) 

US (CABI, 

2006) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2006 

n/a No n/a 

Planococcus citri 

(Risso) 

CR GT HN SV 

(CABI, 2006; 

Williams & 

Granara de 

Willink, 1992) 

US (CABI, 

2006) 

PestID, 2007 n/a No n/a 

Planococcus minor 

(Maskell) 

CR GT HN 

(Williams & 

Granara de 

Willink, 1992) 

US (VI) 

(Williams & 

Granara de 

Willink, 

1992) 

PestID, 2007 F (PestID, 2007) Yes Yes 

Planococcus sp. CR GT HN NI 

PA SV (PestID, 

2007) 

 PestID, 2007 F (PestID, 2007) Yes Yes 

Pseudococcus 

jackbeardsleyi 

Gimpel & Miller 

BZ CR HN NI 

PA SV (CABI, 

2006) 

US (FL HI 

TX) (CABI, 

2006) 

PestID, 2007 n/a No n/a 

Pseudococcus virburni 

(Signoret) 

CR GT PA 

(CABI, 2006) 

US (CABI, 

2006) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2006 

n/a No n/a 

 

10 Lygaeus reclivatus is not considered a quarantine pest in the United States (PestID, 2007). 11 Proxys punctulatus is not considered a quarantine pest in the United States (PestID, 2007). 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 11

Pest2 Cent. America 

distribution3

United States 

distribution 

Reported on 

pitaya 

Plant part(s) 

association4

Quarantine pest Follow 

pathway

Hemiptera: Reduviidae 

Apiomerus sp. NI (Romero, 

1994) 

 Castillo 

Martínez et 

al., 1996; 

Romero, 

1994 

S (Castillo 

Martínez et al., 

1996; Romero, 

1994)

Yes No 

Hemiptera: Thyreocoridae 

Alkindus atratus 

Distant 

NI (Romero, 

1994) 

 Romero, 

1994 

I S (Romero, 

1994) 

Yes No 

Hymenoptera: Formicidae 

Atta cephalotes (L.) BZ CR GT HN 

NI PA SV 

(CABI, 2006; 

Hill, 1983; 

Romero, 1994) 

 Castillo 

Martínez et 

al., 1996; 

Romero, 

1994 

F S (Castillo 

Martínez et al., 

1996; Romero, 

1994) 

Yes No12

Atta sp. BZ CR GT HN 

NI PA SV 

(CABI, 2006) 

 Castillo 

Martínez et 

al., 1996 

F S (Castillo 

Martínez et al., 

1996) 

Yes No12

Solenopsis geminata 

Fabricius 

BZ CR GT HN 

NI PA (CABI, 

2006) 

US (CABI, 

2006) 

Castillo 

Martínez et 

al., 1996 

n/a No n/a 

Solenopsis sp. BZ CR GT HN 

NI PA (CABI, 

2006) 

US (CABI, 

2006) 

Castillo 

Martínez et 

al., 1996; 

Romero, 

1994 

F (CABI, 2006; 

Romero, 1994) 

S (Castillo 

Martínez et al., 

1996) 

Yes No12

Lepidoptera: Arctiidae 

Estigmene acraea 

Drury [= E. ocrea] 

CR GT HN NI 

SV (CABI, 

2006) 

Capinera, 

2001 

Castillo 

Martínez et 

al., 1996 

n/a No n/a 

Lepidoptera: Pyralidae 

Phycitinae sp. BZ CR GT HN 

NI PA SV 

(PestID, 2007) 

 PestID, 2007 F (PestID, 2007) Yes Yes 

Lepidoptera: Tortricidae 

Ecdytolopha sp. BZ GT HN PA 

SV (PestID, 

2007) 

 PestID, 2007 F (PestID, 2007) Yes Yes 

Platynota sp. BZ CR GT HN 

PA SV (PestID, 

2007) 

 PestID, 2007 F (PestID, 2007) Yes Yes 

 

12 Adult ants of Atta cephalotes, Atta sp., and Solenopsis sp. are large and mobile, and therefore are highly unlikely to stay 

with fresh pitaya fruit through picking, processing, and shipping. Also, while sterile insect stages (ant workers) can be 

transported in shipments, they cannot establish viable populations upon entry (Borror et al., 1989). 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 12

Pest2 Cent. America 

distribution3

United States 

distribution 

Reported on 

pitaya 

Plant part(s) 

association4

Quarantine pest Follow 

pathway

BACTERIA 

Erwinia carotovora (L. 

R. Jones) Holland 

(Enterobacteriaceae) 

BZ CR HN 

(CABI, 2006); 

NI (Castillo 

Martínez et al., 

1996) 

US (CABI, 

2006) 

Castillo 

Martínez et 

al., 1996 

n/a No n/a 

Erwinia chrysanthemi

(Burkh.) Young et 

al. 1978 (Enterobacteriaceae) 

CR GT HN PA 

(CABI, 2006) 

US (CABI, 

2006) 

Mitchell, 

1985 

n/a No n/a 

Xanthomonas 

campestris (Pammel) 

(Xanthomonadaceae) 

NI (Barbeau, 

1990) 

US (CABI, 

2006) 

Barbeau, 

1990 

n/a No n/a 

FUNGI and CHROMISTANS13

Botryotinia fuckeliana

(de Bary) Whetzel 

Anamorph: Botrytis 

cinerea Pers.:Fr. 

(Ascomycetes : 

Helotiales) 

GT HN NI PA 

SV (Farr et al., 

2007) CR (Farr 

et al., 2007; 

VillalobosCalderón and 

Cárdenas-Díaz, 

2002) 

US (Farr et 

al., 2007) 

Farr et al., 

2007 

n/a No n/a 

Dothiorella sp. 

= Dothiorela sp. 

(Ascomycetes : 

Dothideales) 

GT PA (PestID, 

2007); CR 

(VillalobosCalderón and 

Cárdenas-Díaz, 

2002) 

 Castillo 

Martínez et 

al., 1996 

S (Castillo 

Martínez et al., 

1996) 

Yes No 

Gibberella fujikuroi 

(Sawada) S. Ito

Anamorph: 

Fusarium 

moniliforme Sheldon 

(Ascomycetes: 

Hypocreales)

BZ CR GT HN 

NI PA SV 

(CABI, 2006) 

US (CABI, 

2006) 

Farr et al., 

2007 

n/a No n/a 

Fusarium oxysporum 

(Schlecht ex Fries) 

(Ascomycetes: 

Hypocreales) 

GT HN NI PA 

SV (Farr et al., 

2007); CR 

(Farr et al., 

2007, 

VillalobosCalderón and 

Cárdenas-Díaz, 

2002) 

US (CABI, 

2006; Farr et 

al., 2007) 

Farr et al., 

2007 

n/a No n/a 

 

13 Taxonomy according to Farr et al., 2007 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 13

Pest2 Cent. America 

distribution3

United States 

distribution 

Reported on 

pitaya 

Plant part(s) 

association4

Quarantine pest Follow 

pathway

Gloeosporium sp. 

(Ascomycetes: 

Helotiales) 

CR (VillalobosCalderón and 

Cárdenas-Díaz, 

2002) 

 VillalobosCalderón and 

CárdenasDíaz, 2002 

S (VillalobosCalderón and 

Cárdenas-Díaz, 

2002) 

Yes Yes 

Glomerella cingulata 

(Stoneman) 

Spaulding & 

Schrenk Anamorph: 

Colletotrichum 

gloeosporiodes Penz. 

& Sacc.] 

(Ascomycetes: 

Incertae sedis) 

BZ CR GT HN 

NI PA (CABI, 

2006) NI 

(Castillo 

Martínez et al., 

1996) 

US (CABI, 

2006) 

Castillo 

Martínez et 

al., 1996; 

Farr et al., 

2007 

n/a No n/a 

Lasiodiplodia 

theobromae (Pat.) 

Griffon & Maubl. = 

Botryodiplodia 

theobromae

(Ascomycetes: 

Dothideales) 

HN NI PA SV 

(CABI, 2006) 

CR (CABI, 

2006; 

VillalobosCalderón and 

Cárdenas-Díaz, 

2002) 

US (CABI, 

2006) 

PestID, 2007 n/a No n/a 

Pestalotiopsis sp. 

(Ascomycetes: 

Xylariales) 

CR(VillalobosCalderón and 

Cárdenas-Díaz, 

2002) 

 VillalobosCalderón and 

CárdenasDíaz, 2002 

S (VillalobosCalderón and 

Cárdenas-Díaz, 

2002) 

Yes Yes 

Phomopsis sp. 

(Ascomycetes) 

BZ CR GT HN 

NI PA SV 

(PestID, 2007) 

US (PR VI) 

(PestID, 

2007) 

PestID, 2007 F (PestID, 2007) Yes Yes 

Phytophthora cactorum 

(Lebert & Cohn) J. 

Schröt 

(Oomycetes: 

Pythiales) 

CR (VillalobosCalderón and 

Cárdenas-Díaz, 

2002); SV 

(CABI, 2006) 

US (Farr et 

al., 2007) 

VillalobosCalderón and 

CárdenasDíaz, 2002 

n/a No n/a 

Phytophthora 

palmivora var. 

palmivora (Butler) 

Butler (Oomycetes: 

Pythiales) 

GT, SV, HN, 

NI, CR, PA 

(Farr et al., 

2007) BZ 

(CABI, 2006) 

US (Farr et 

al., 2007)

Farr et al., 

2007 (Cereus 

pitajaya)

n/a No n/a 

Pichia sp. 

(Saccharomycetes: 

Saccharomycetales) 

PA (Farr et al., 

2007) 

US (Farr et 

al., 2007) 

Starmer et 

al., 1990 

F I S (Starmer et 

al., 1990) 

Yes Yes 

Pythium cactacearum 

Preti (Oomycetes : 

Pythiales) 

CR (VillalobosCalderón and 

Cárdenas-Díaz, 

2002) 

 VillalobosCalderón and 

CárdenasDíaz, 2002 

R (VillalobosCalderón and 

Cárdenas-Díaz, 

2002) 

Yes No 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 14

Pest2 Cent. America 

distribution3

United States 

distribution 

Reported on 

pitaya 

Plant part(s) 

association4

Quarantine pest Follow 

pathway

Pythium sp. 

(Oomycetes: 

Pythiales) 

CR GT HN NI 

PA SV (Farr et 

al., 2007) 

US (Farr et 

al., 2007) 

Farr et al., 

2007 

R S (Farr et al., 

2007) 

Yes No 

Rhizoctonia sp. 

(Basidiomycetes) 

BZ CR GT HN 

NI PA SV (Farr 

et al., 2007) 

US (Farr et 

al., 2007) 

Farr et al., 

2007 

R S (Farr et al., 

2007) 

Yes Yes 

Thanatephorus 

cucumeris (Frank) 

Donk Anamorph: 

Rhizoctonia solani

(Basidiomycetes: 

Ceratobasidiales) 

HN PA (CABI, 

2006) 

CR (CABI, 

2006; 

VillalobosCalderón and 

Cárdenas-Díaz, 

2002) 

US (CABI, 

2006; Farr et 

al., 2007) 

Farr et al., 

2007 

n/a No n/a 

Thielaviopsis basicola 

(Berk. & Broome) 

Ferraris 

(Ascomycetes: 

Microascales) 

CR (VillalobosCalderón and 

Cárdenas-Díaz, 

2002) 

US (Farr et 

al., 2007) 

VillalobosCalderón and 

CárdenasDíaz, 2002 

n/a No n/a 

NEMATODA 

Belonolaimidae 

Tylenchorhynchus 

martini (Cassidy 

1930) Golden 1971 

BZ CR SV 

(CABI, 2006) 

US (CABI, 

2006) 

Castaño et 

al., 1991 

n/a No n/a 

Hoplolaimidae 

Helicotylenchus 

dihystera (Cobb, 

1893) Sher, 1961 

CR GT PA SV 

(CABI, 2006) 

US (CABI, 

2006) 

Castaño et 

al., 1991 

n/a No n/a 

Rotylenchulus 

reniformis Linford & 

Oliveira

BZ CR HN PA 

(CABI, 2006) 

US (Coile & 

Dixon, 1999; 

CABI, 2006) 

Coile & 

Dixon, 1999 

n/a No n/a 

Heteroderidae 

Meloidogyne incognita 

(Kofoid & White, 

1919) Chitwood 

1949 

BZ CR GT HN 

NI PA SV 

(CABI, 2006) 

US (CABI, 

2006) 

Castaño et 

al., 1991; 

Mitchell, 

1985 

n/a No n/a 

2.5. Quarantine Pests that are Likely to Follow the Pathway 

We further analyzed the quarantine pests of Hylocereus spp. in Central America that are 

reasonably expected to follow the pathway on fruit (Table 4). 

Researchers have studied the host status of Ceratitis capitata and Anastrepha ludens on 

Hylocereus undatus. In one study, none of the pitaya fruits exposed to the two species of fruit 

flies was attacked; however, this study had small sample sizes leading to low confidence in the 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 15

results (Sponagel et al., 2001). A larger study was conducted by the Ministerio Agropecuario y 

Forestal (MAGFOR), which also found that under normal field conditions, fruit flies do not 

infect Hylocereus undatus (MAGFOR, 2004). This could be because the fruit fly population is 

not present at the same time fruit of red pitaya is peaking (MAGFOR, 2004). 

Hylocereus spp. was an artificial host for Anastrepha ludens (Norrbom, 2004). Ceratitis capitata 

is listed as a pest of Hylocereus sp., as well as other Cactaceae species including Opuntia, 

Acanthocereus, Selenicereus, Pereskia, and Echinocereus (Maes, 2004). Ceratitis capitata is 

listed as infesting Hylocereus undatus in the laboratory (Liquido et al., 1991; Thomas et al., 

2001). This evidence suggests that C. capitata can use Hylocereus as a host wherever they both 

occur, even if it is not a preferred host. 

Organisms identified to the genus, or higher taxonomic level, are not analyzed further, even 

though individual species within those taxonomic groups are potential pests that may or may not 

occur within the United States. The IPPC guidelines do not require risk assessment of pests 

identified only by genus name (IPPC, 2007). By necessity, pest risk assessments focus on those 

organisms for which adequate biological and taxonomic information is available. Often, there are 

many species within a genus, and it is not reasonable to assume that the biology of all organisms 

within a genus is identical. Lack of species identification may indicate the limits of the current 

taxonomic knowledge, the life stage or the quality of the specimen submitted for identification. 

The lack of identification at the species level does not rule out the possibility that a high risk 

quarantine pest was intercepted or that the intercepted pest was not a quarantine pest. By 

developing detailed assessments for known pests that inhabit a variety of niches on the parent 

commodity, for example, on the surface of, within the stem or fruit, on the flowers, etc., effective 

mitigation measures may be developed to eliminate the known pests, and any similar unknown 

ones that inhabit the same niches. Lack of biological information on any given insect or pathogen 

should not be equated with a low risk. 

Table 4. Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway and Selected for Further Analysis 

Pest Taxonomy 

Anastrepha ludens Diptera: Tephritidae

Ceratitis capitata Diptera: Tephritidae 

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae 

Planococcus minor Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae 

2.6. Consequences of Introduction 

Potential consequences of introduction are rated using five risk elements: 

1. Climate-Host Interaction 

2. Host Range 

3. Dispersal Potential 

4. Economic Impact 

5. Environmental Impact 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 16

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

For each risk element, pests are assigned a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points) or High (3 

points) (PPQ, 2000). A Cumulative Risk Rating is then calculated by summing all risk element 

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

below (Table 5). 

The major sources of uncertainty in this risk assessment are similar to those in other risk 

assessments: the use of a developing process (Orr et al., 1993; PPQ, 2000), the approach used to 

combine risk elements (Bier, 1999; Morgan & Henrion, 1990), and the evaluation of risk by 

comparisons to lists of factors within the guidelines (Orr et al., 1993). To address this last source 

of uncertainty, of factor lists were interpreted as illustrative and not exhaustive. Other 

traditionally recognized sources of uncertainty are the quality of the biological information 

(Gallegos & Bonano, 1993), which includes uncertainty whenever biological information is 

lacking on the regional flora and fauna. Inherent biological variation within a population of 

organisms also introduces uncertainty (Morgan and Henrion, 1990). 

Anastrepha ludens (Loew) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk ratings 

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction 

Originally native to Mexico, A. ludens, Mexfly, has been reported from southern 

Texas to Costa Rica (Foote et al., 1993). This is the only important Anastrepha 

species that ranges more into subtropical regions, occupying the more northern 

portion of the range of the genus and extending southward only at higher 

elevations (Weems, 1963). Mexfly can withstand freezing weather well (Weems, 

1963). We estimate it could establish in areas of the United States corresponding 

to Plant Hardiness Zones 8-10. 

Medium (2) 

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

Primary hosts of Mexfly are Citrus spp. (Rutaceae), Mangifera indica 

(Anacardiaceae), and Prunus persica (Rosaceae) (CABI, 2006). Other hosts 

include Annona spp. (Annonaceae), Carica papaya (Caricaceae), Coffea arabica 

(Rubiaceae), Cucurbita sp. (Cucurbitaceae), Inga spp. (Fabaceae), Mammea 

americana (Clusiaceae), Musa sp. (Musaceae), Opuntia sp. (Cactaceae), 

Passiflora edulis (Passifloraceae), Persea americana (Lauraceae), Pouteria 

sapota (Sapotaceae), and Psidium guajava (Myrtaceae) (Norrbom & Kim, 1988). 

High (3) 

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential 

Fecundity is reported to range between 40 and 1600 eggs per female (Liedo & 

Carey, 1996). There are four to eight generations per year (Aluja, 1993). A flight 

range of at least 36 km has been reported, and the regular appearance of adults in 

Texas at least 135 km from known breeding sites in Mexico suggests that the 

species is capable of considerably greater migration (Fletcher, 1989). As in other 

Anastrepha species, the major means of dispersal to previously uninfested areas 

is the transport of fruit, such as citrus and mango, and to a lesser extent peaches 

and guava, containing larvae (CABI, 2006). 

High (3) 

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact 

Because of its broad host range, including fruits of considerable economic 

importance, such as grapefruit and orange, Mexfly is the most economically 

High (3) 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 17

Anastrepha ludens (Loew) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk ratings 

important Anastrepha species in the United States (Foote et al., 1993). In an early 

study, potential production losses caused by this and three other fruit fly species 

were conservatively estimated to be 26.7 million boxes of citrus at a value of 

$70.1 million (1975 farm-level prices) (Andrew et al., 1977); losses at current 

price levels would be significantly higher. The fly is considered to be a key pest 

of guava (Gould & Raga, 2002). Quarantine treatments, such as hot water (Sharp 

et al., 1989) and irradiation (Hallman & Rene-Martinez, 2001), have been 

developed to disinfest fruit, potentially increasing production costs. Anastrepha 

ludens is a quarantine pest for Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, 

Turkey, China, and eastern and southern Africa (EPPO, 2003). Its permanent 

establishment in the United States could result in a loss of foreign markets for 

various commodities, such as citrus. 

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact 

This species poses a threat to native plants in the United States (e.g., Prunus 

geniculata, Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis, Opuntia treleasei). 

Its wider establishment likely would lead to the initiation of chemical or 

biological control programs, as has occurred in response to the introduction of 

other Anastrepha species (Clausen, 1978). 

High (3) 

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedmann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate—Host Interaction

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

Central America, and northern Australia (CABI, 2004). The distribution 

corresponds to the USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 8-10, where one or more of the 

potential hosts occur (USDA, 1990). 

Medium (2) 

Risk Element #2: Host Range

Ceratitis capitata is highly polyphagous; its pattern of host relationships vary 

from region to region, appearing to relate to the fruits available. Hosts are found 

in the following families: Anacardiaceae, Annonaceae, Apocyanaceae, 

Caricaceae, Clusiaceae , Combretaceae, Ebenaceae, Eleocarpaceae, 

Flacourtiaceae, Juglandaceae, Lauraceae, Malpighiaceae, Moraceae, Myrtaceae, 

Oxalidaceae, Passifloraceae, Proteaceae, Punicaceae, Rosaceae, Rubiaceae, 

Rutaceae, Santalaceae, Sapindaceae, Sapotaceae, Sapotaceae, Solanaceae, 

Sterculiaceae, and Vitaceae (White & Elson-Harris, 1992). 

High (3) 

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

There is evidence that adults of C. capitata can fly as far as 20 kilometers (CABI, 

2004), indicating that natural dispersal is an important means of spread for this 

fruit fly. Transport of infested fruits is the major means of movement and 

dispersal to previously uninfested areas (CABI, 2004). 

High (3) 

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Ceratitis capitata is a major pest in Mediterranean countries, and its native Africa 

(CABI, 2004). The species is of economic importance because of the damage it can 

inflict on crops, and because of its quarantine importance to trading partners. 

High (3) 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 18

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedmann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk ratings

Countries where the pest is not yet established may place bans on imports from 

countries where it is established (Mau & Kessing, 1992). Ceratitis capitata is of 

quarantine significance worldwide, especially for the Continental United States, 

where it has established and been eradicated on several occasions. 

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Introduction and establishment of C. capitata would stimulate chemical or 

biological control programs, particularly bait sprays. A highly polyphagous 

species, this fruit fly has the potential to attack plants listed as Threatened or 

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

Regulations: Prunus (P. geniculata), Eugenia (E. koolauensis), Argenmone (A. 

pleiacantha), Asimina (A. tetramera), Berberis (B. nevivii, B. pinnata, B. sonnei), 

Cucurbita (C. okeechobeensis), Echinocereus (E. chisoensis, E. reichenbachii, E. 

iridiflorus, E. fendleri, E. triglochidiatus), Euphorbia (E. haeleeleana, E. 

telephioides), Gardenia (G. brighamii, G. mannii), Hibiscus, Opuntia (O. treleasei), 

Santalum (S. freycinetianum), Solanum, Ochrosia (O. kilaueaensis), Ribes (R. 

echinellum), Scaevola (S. coriacea), Vicia (V. menziesii), and Ziziphus (Z. celata) 

(USFWS, 2006). The introduction of this pest would stimulate chemical or 

biological control programs. 

High (3) 

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley (Hemiptera: Pseudocoratingsgse) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction 

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes occurs throughout Central America, northern South 

America, the Caribbean, Indo-China, the Philippines, and Oceania (ARS-SEL, 

2005; CABI, 2004). Outside of greenhouse or other artificial situations, this species 

should be able to survive in the warmer, southern parts of the continental United 

States (Plant Hardiness Zones 9-10). 

Medium (2) 

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

This species is extremely catholic in its host plant preferences, which extend across 

at least 31 families. Hosts include Ananas comosus (Bromeliaceae), Malus pumila

(Rosaceae) (CABI, 2004); Colocasia esculenta (Araceae), Ficus sp. (Moraceae), 

Musa paradisiaca (Musaceae), Opuntia ficus-indica (Cactaceae), Pritchardia sp. 

(Arecaceae), Acacia koa and Samanea saman (Fabaceae), Helianthus annuus

(Asteraceae) (Nakahara, 1981); Agave sisalana (Agavaceae), Cucurbita maxima

(Cucurbitaceae), Zea mays (Poaceae), Heliconia latispatha (Heliconiaceae), Citrus

spp. (Rutaceae), and Lycopersicon esculentum (Solanaceae) (Ben-Dov et al., 2006). 

High (3) 

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential 

Ito (1938) reported females of the “gray form” of D. brevipes (considered by 

Beardsley (1959) to be D. neobrevipes) to produce an average of 347 progeny. 

Their life span averaged about 95 days, with several generations per year. The main 

dispersal stage of mealybugs is the first-instar crawler, which may be locally 

transported by wind or other animals. All life stages may be dispersed over longer 

distances through the movement of infested plant materials in commerce. 

High (3) 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 19

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley (Hemiptera: Pseudocoratingsgse) Risk ratings

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact 

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes attacks a number of valuable commercial crops, and is a 

particularly serious pest of pineapple, Ananas comosus. Like D. brevipes, it is a 

vector of the virus causing pineapple wilt disease (Rohrbach et al., 1988). Feeding 

by large mealybug populations may cause a loss of host plant vigor. Also, 

honeydew deposited on leaves and fruit by mealybugs serves as a medium for the 

growth of black sooty molds, which interfere with photosynthesis, and reduce the 

market value of the crop. Biological and chemical controls are often implemented to 

control these mealybugs (or the attending ants) that aid in their spread, and interfere 

with their biological control. Because many of the host plants attacked by D. 

neobrevipes are commercially or environmentally important to the states of Texas, 

Arizona, and California, introduction might cause the loss of international and 

domestic markets. 

High (3) 

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact 

The introduction of D. neobrevipes would likely result in the initiation of chemical 

or biological control programs, as has occurred in Hawaii. The species is 

polyphagous, and has the potential to infest plants listed as Threatened or 

Endangered in the continental United States (e.g., Opuntia treleasei, Cucurbita 

okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis). 

High (3) 

Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings 

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction 

The distribution of this species extends from South Asia, through parts of 

Southeast and East Asia and the Pacific, to Australia. It also is widespread in 

South and Central America and in the Caribbean (Ben-Dov et al., 2006), and has 

been reported from Mexico (Williams & Granara de Willink, 1992). It should be 

able to establish in areas of the southern United States, or Plant Hardiness Zones 

9-10. 

Medium (2) 

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

This species is extremely polyphagous, having been recorded on hosts in at least 

65 families (Ben-Dov et al., 2006). These include Colocasia esculenta (Araceae), 

Abutilon sp. and Hibiscus spp. (Malvaceae), Solanum spp. (Solanaceae), 

Theobroma cacao (Sterculiaceae), Citrus spp. (Rutaceae), Coffea spp. 

(Rubiaceae), Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), Musa spp. (Musaceae), Eugenia 

spp. and Psidium guajava (Myrtaceae), Vitis vinifera (Vitaceae), Ziziphus sp. 

(Rhamnaceae), Amaranthus sp. (Amaranthaceae), Annona spp. (Annonaceae), 

Helianthus sp. and Bidens pilosa (Asteraceae), Euphorbia spp. and Manihot 

esculenta (Euphorbiaceae), Persea americana (Lauraceae), Ipomoea spp. 

(Convolvulaceae), Brassica spp. (Brassicaceae), Cucurbita spp. (Cucurbitaceae), 

Zea mays (Poaceae), Arachis hypogaea (Fabaceae), Artocarpus spp. (Moraceae), 

Cocos nucifera (Arecaceae), Pandanus spp. (Pandanaceae), Pyrus pyrifolia 

(Rosaceae), and Asparagus plumosus (Liliaceae) (CABI, 2004; Ben-Dov et al., 

2006). 

High (3) 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 20

Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings 

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential 

Reported fecundity ranges from about 200 to over 500 eggs per female, 

depending on host plant (Maity et al., 1998; Martinez & Suris, 1998; Sahoo et al., 

1999); there may be as many as 10 generations per year. The insect is known to 

be transported long distances in shipments of fruit (Sugimoto, 1994). It has been 

intercepted at U.S. ports over 440 times on fruits in cargo from various countries 

(PestID, 2007). Planococcus minor thus exhibits high reproductive and dispersal 

potentials. 

High (3) 

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact 

Planococcus minor is an important pest of coffee in India (Reddy et al., 1997). 

Severe outbreaks (originally attributed to P. citri [Risso]) also have been reported 

on coffee and sugarcane in New Guinea (CABI, 2006). On guava, it is considered 

only a minor pest (Gould & Raga, 2002). Miller et al. (2002) consider the species 

to be a major threat to U.S. agriculture. Introduction of this mealybug into the 

United States could cause the loss of foreign markets for a number of 

commodities. The species is a quarantine pest for Korea (PRF, 2004). The weight 

of evidence suggests that risk associated with the economic impact of this pest is 

high. 

High (3) 

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact 

This species has the potential to attack Threatened or Endangered native plants in 

the United States (e.g., Amaranthus brownii, Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. 

okeechobeensis, Helianthus paradoxus, Solanum, Bidens, and Abutilon spp., 

Eugenia koolauensis, Euphorbia telephioides, Ziziphus celata, and Manihot 

walkerae). As it represents a potentially serious threat to economically valuable 

crops (e.g., avocado, citrus, cucurbits), its introduction likely would stimulate 

initiation of chemical or biological control programs. It has been the target of a 

biological control program in India (Reddy et al., 1997); other species of 

Planococcus have been targeted for biological control in the United States and 

elsewhere (Bartlett, 1978). 

High (3) 

Table 5. Risk ratings for Consequences of Introduction 

Pest Risk elements Cumulative 

risk ratings / 

Value 

Climate/ host 

interaction 

Host 

range 

Dispersal 

potential 

Economic 

impact 

Environmental 

impact 

Anastrepha ludens Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High 14 

Ceratitis capitata Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High 14 

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High 14 

Planococcus minor Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High 14 a

 Low = 5-8 points, Medium = 9-12 points, High = 13-15 points 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 21

2.7. Likelihood of Introduction 

In this part of the assessment we evaluate the potential arrival and establishment of species that 

may be associated with Hylocereus spp. from Central America. The assessment is based on six 

elements, where the qualitative rankings are high, medium, or low (PPQ, 2000). We summarized 

these ratings below (Table 6). 

2.7.1. Quantity of Commodity Imported Annually 

The likelihood that an exotic species will arrive in the United States is related to the volume of a 

commodity shipped to the United States. As the volume increases, the probability of introducing 

a species associated with Hylocereus spp. from Central America also increases. 

Nicaragua estimates exporting 1200 tons of fresh pitaya to the United States (MAGFOR, 2004). 

Assuming there are 20 metric tons per 40-foot long container, this converts to a volume of 

exports of 60 containers. This corresponds to a rating of Medium (PPQ, 2000) for this risk 

element because it is likely to represent the maximum volume that will enter from any of these 

countries on a yearly basis. This risk assessment assumes that any increases in production in 

subsequent years are offset by all exports not being destined for the United States, and that each 

country considered in this risk assessment will not export to the United States a substantially 

greater volume in any year. 

2.7.2. Survive Post harvest Treatment 

We rated all of the pests High for their ability to survive post-harvest treatment because postharvest treatments for this crop consist of brushing off thorns (Meija et al., 2002). This process is 

unlikely to detect any internally feeding fruit fly larvae, and young mealybug life stages are 

likely to avoid detection if they are present in the crevices associated with removed thorns. 

2.7.3. Survive Shipment 

We rated all of the pests High for this element because they are easily able to survive and 

potentially reproduce during relatively short shipment durations. The fruit flies are internal and 

protected within the fruit (Weems, 1981; Narayanan and Batra, 1960). Most life-stages of the 

mealybugs are firmly attached to the fruit and protected by a self-secreted waxy covering (Borror 

et al., 1989; Cox, 1989). 

2.7.4. Not Detected at the Port-of-Entry 

We rated the mealybugs Medium for this element because these quarantine pests generally are 

large enough to be seen by trained inspectors, there are color differences between the pests and 

the fruit, and first instar larvae are likely to be seen as they move. 

In contrast, the internal fruit fly larvae can only be detected by destructive sampling methods 

(Weems, 1981) which merits a High rating. 

2.7.5. Moved to an Area with an Environment Suitable for Survival 

All of the pests are suited to warm climates between U.S. Hardiness Zones 8 – 10. Because only 

the southern most portion of the United States has an equivalent climate all pests were rated 

Medium for this element. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 22

2.7.6. Contact Host Material Suitable for Reproduction 

Multiple fruit flies often infest one host; as a result, there is a potential for larvae to emerge as 

adults and find mates. The flight capacity of fruit flies is such that they would be likely to find 

hosts if the infested fruit was shipped to an area where hosts are prevalent. For these reasons, the 

fruit fly species are rated High. While all of the pests could be reasonably expected to find a 

suitable host given their wide host ranges, the limited mobility of D. neobrevipes and P. minor

decreases the likelihood that these pests will be able to move to a suitable host. The mealybugs 

are rated Medium for this element. 

Table 6. Summary for the Likelihood of Introducing Quarantine Pests Potentially Associated 

with Hylocereus spp. from Central America. 

Pest Quantity 

imported 

annually 

Survive 

postharvest 

treatment 

Survive 

shipment 

Not 

detected 

at portof-entry 

Moved to 

suitable 

habitat 

Contact 

with host 

material 

Cumulative 

risk ratingsa 

Anastrepha 

ludens 

Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16) 

Ceratitis 

capitata 

Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16) 

Dysmicoccus 

neobrevipes 

Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) Medium (14) 

Planococcus 

minor 

Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) Medium (14) 

a

 Low = 6-9, medium = 10-14, and high = 15-18. 

3. Conclusion 

All the organisms we analyzed had High Pest Risk Potentials (Table 7). Pests with Low Pest 

Risk Potentials typically do not require mitigation measures, while Medium risk pests may 

require specific phytosanitary measures. For all four pests above, port-of-entry inspection is 

insufficient to provide phytosanitary security, and the development of specific phytosanitary 

measures is recommended. 

Table 7. Summary of Pest Risk Potentials for the Quarantine Pests Potentially Associated with 

Hylocereus spp. from Central America. 

Pest Consequences of 

Introduction 

Likelihood of 

Introduction 

Pest Risk Potentials 

Anastrepha ludens High (14) High (16) High (30) 

Ceratitis capitata High (14) High (16) High (30) 

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes High (14) Medium (14) High (28) 

Planococcus minor High (14) Medium (14) High (28) 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 23

4. Risk Mitigation Options 

Options for risk mitigation of quarantine pests for Hylocereus spp. from Central America are 

summarized in the table below (Table 8). This document does not purport to establish specific 

work plans or to evaluate the quality of a specific program or systems approach. We identified 

risks and provided information regarding known mitigation measures. The specification and 

implementation of measures, as would be present in an operational work plan, is beyond the 

scope of this document. 

Table 8. Summary of risk mitigation options for Hylocereus spp. from Central America

Measures Pests Efficacy 

Pest-free areas or areas 

of low pest prevalence

All When conducted in compliance 

with international standards (e.g., 

IPPC, 2007; IPPC, 1999; 

NAPPO, 2004) this method 

satisfies requirements for 

appropriate level of protection 

Suppression / Control 

program 

Most of the pests of concern 

could be managed, at least in 

part, with a control program, 

whether cultural, chemical, or 

mechanical means, but the 

program should include 

monitoring and inspection to 

verify program effectiveness. 

Control must be used in 

combination with other 

measures. 

Research required on 

effectiveness of methods 

proposed. Research may be 

required on effectiveness of 

monitoring options. 

Phytosanitary 

Certification Inspection 

and Monitoring 

All, but must be used in 

combination with other 

measures. 

A phytosanitary certificate guides 

inspection efforts in Central 

American countries and alerts 

U.S. inspectors to pests of 

concern with this commodity. 

Packinghouse 

procedures, including 

visual culling 

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes 

Planococcus minor

Research required on efficacy. 

Point-of-entry sampling 

and inspection including 

fruit cuttings 

All For cut fruit, sample size should 

be adequate to detect infestation 

Irradiation, generic dose 

400 Gy, combined with 

low pest prevalence 

All pests Approved by APHIS. Research 

required demonstrating efficacy. 

Irradiation 150 Gy for 

fruit flies combined with 

low prevalence of other 

Anastrepha ludens 

Ceratitis capitata 

Approved by APHIS. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 24

Measures Pests Efficacy 

pests plus inspection 

Methyl bromide 

fumigation T101-d-3 

Ceratitis capitata Approved by APHIS to treat 

Ceratitis capitata on Opuntia and 

other cacti fruit such as pitahaya. 

Research required demonstrating 

efficacy for other pests.

Methyl bromide 

fumigation T101-e-3 

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes 

Planococcus minor 

Approved by APHIS to treat 

external feeders on Opuntia and 

other cacti fruit such as pitahaya. 

Research required demonstrating 

efficacy. 

Vapor heat treatment 

T106-e 

Ceratitis capitata Approved by APHIS to treat 

Anastrepha fraterculus and 

Ceratitis capitata on yellow 

pitaya (Selenicereus 

megalanthus). Research required 

to demonstrate efficacy on 

Hylocereus spp. and on A. ludens.

Port-of-entry sampling 

and inspection 

All, but should be used in 

combination with other 

measures 

5. Preparer and Reviewers 

Preparer: Reviewers: 

Christie Bertone, Entomologist Heather Hartzog, Plant Pathologist 

 Kenneth Lakin, Entomologist 

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory 

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology 

6. Literature Cited 

7 CFR § 319. 2009. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319.56-5, 

Conditions governing the movement of bananas from Hawaii). 

Aluja Schuneman, M. 1993. Manejo Integrado de la Mosca de la Fruta. México, D.F.: Editorial 

Trillas. 

Andrew, C. O., J. C. Cato, and F. J. Prochaska. 1977. Potential economic impact of a fruit fly 

infestation on the U.S. citrus industry. Proc. FL State Hort. Soc. 90: 29-32. 

Arnett, R. H., M. C. Thomas, P. E. Skelley, and J. H. Frank. 2002. American Beetles (Vol. 2): 

Polyphaga: Scarabaeoidea through Curculionidae. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 861 pp. 

Arnett, R. H., Jr. 2000. American insects, 2 ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., NY 1003 pp. 

Barbeau, G. 1990. La pitahaya rouge, un nouveau fruit exotique. Fruits. Vol. 45(2), p 141-147. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 25

Barbeau, G. 1993. Red pitaya, a new exotic fruit. Western Australian Nut Tree Crops Assn. 

(WANATCA) Yearbook 17: 74-80. 

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

predators of arthropod pests and weeds: a world review. USDA Agric. Handbk. 480. 

Beardsley, J.W. 1959. On the taxonomy of pineapple mealybugs in Hawaii, with a description of 

a previously unnamed species (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Proc. Hawaiian Entomol. 

Soc. 17(1): 29-37. 

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

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

Bier, V. M. 1999. Challenges to the acceptance of probabilistic risk analysis. Risk Analysis 19: 

703-710. 

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

Mite Family (Acari: Tetranychidae). Brill, Boston, 392 pp. 

Borror, D., C. Triplehorn, and N. Johnson. 1989. Introduction to the study of insects, 6ed. 

Saunders College Pub., 875 pp. 

Burks, K. 2001. Personal communication (on file with USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Subject: weediness 

of Hylocereus spp. and eradication in Florida). 

Buss, L.J., S.E., Halbert, and S.J. Johnson (n.d.). 2007. Leptoglossus zonatus – A new leaffooted 

bug in Florida (Hemiptera: Coreidae). Pest Alert: Florida Dept. of Ag. & Consumer 

Services, Division of Plant Industry. 

http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/ento/l.zonatus.html 

Capinera, J. L. 2001. Saltmarsh Caterpillar – Estigmene acrea (Drury). Featured Creatures, Dept. 

Ent. & Nemat., Div. Plant Ind., Univ. Florida. July 2001, revised November 2005. 

Available online: http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/veg/leaf/salmarsh_caterpillar.htm 

Castaño, S. P., A. Rincón, and F. Varón de Agudelo. 1991. Identificación de nematodos 

asociados con pitaya Acanthocereus pitahaya Jaq. Dugand. Revista ICA, Vol. 26, Enere 

– Junio 1991. p 91-101. 

Castillo Martínez, R., H. Cálix De Dios, and A. Rodríguez Canto. 1996. Guía técnica para el 

cultivo de pitahaya. Chetumal, Quintana Roo, México. 158 pp. 

Cavey, J. F. 2007. Email from Joseph F. Cavey to Marina A. Zlotina. Subject: RE: Actionable 

pests? 5 April 2007. On file with USDA-APHIS-PPQ. 

CITES. 2002. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora. http://www.cites.org (excepting from CITES the fruits of Cactaceae from 

naturalized or artificially propagated plants in footnote #4(d) ). 

Clausen, C. P. 1978. Tephritidae (Trypetidae, Trupaneidae), pp. 320-335. In C.P. Clausen (ed.). 

Introduced parasites and predators of arthropod pests and weeds: a world review. USDA 

Agric. Handbk. 480. 

Coile, N. C. and W. N. Dixon. 1999. TRI-OLOGY, Vol. 38, No. 2, MARCH-APRIL 1999. 

Available online: http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/99-mar-apr.htm 

Courneya, P. A. 2005. Email from Paul A. Courneya to Marina A. Zlotina. Subject: RE: 

Quarantine status Acutaspis albopicta. 3 January 2005. On file with USDA-APHIS-PPQ. 

Cox, J. M. 1989. Mealybug genus Planococcus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Bull. British 

Museum Nat. History, Entomol. 58(1): 1-78. 

CABI. 2004. Crop Protection Compendium. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International 

(CABI), Wallingford, UK. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 26

CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Compendium. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International 

(CABI), Wallingford, UK. 

EPPO. 2003. EPPO Plant Quarantine Information Retrieval System, Ver. 4.2. European & 

Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), Paris. 

Farr, D. F., A.Y. Rossman, M.E. Palm, and E.B. McCray. 2007. Fungal Databases. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Mycology and 

Microbiology Laboratory. http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/. (Archived at PERAL) 

Fletcher, B. S. 1989. Ecology; movements of tephritid fruit flies. In: World Crop Pests 3(B). 

Fruit flies; their biology, natural enemies and control. Robinson, S.S. and Hooper, G. 

(eds.) Elsevier, NL pp. 195-206. 

Foote, R.H., F.L. Blanc, and A.L. Norrbom. 1993. Handbook of the Fruit Flies (Diptera: 

Tephritidae) of America North of Mexico. Ithaca, NY: Comstock Publ. Assoc. 

Gallegos, D.P. and E.J. Bonano. 1993. Consideration of uncertainty in the performance 

assessment of radioactive waste disposal from an international regulatory perspective. 

Reliability Engineering and System Safety 42: 111-123. 

Gonzalez, M. 2006. Letter to APHIS in response to questions regarding Geraeus spp. Marco 

Gonzalez, IS FSN, Costa Rica. June 2006. 

Gould, W. P. and A. Raga. 2002. Pests of guava, pp. 295-313. In J.E. Peña, J.L. Sharp, and M. 

Wysoki (eds.). Tropical Fruit Pests and Pollinators: Biology, Economic Importance, 

Natural Enemies and Control. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International. 

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

Noxious Weeds (TCENW): Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act. 

Hallman, G.J. and L. Rene-Martinez. 2001. Ionizing irradiation quarantine treatment against 

Mexican fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) in citrus fruits. Postharv. Biol. Technol. 23(1): 

71-77. 

Heed, W. B. and R. L. Mangan. 1986. Community ecology of the Sonoran desert Drosophila. In: 

Ashburner, M., H. L. Carson, and J. N. Thompson Jr. (eds). Genetics and biology of 

Drosophila, Academic Press, United Kingdom, 3e: 311-345. 

Hill, D. S. 1983. Agricultural insect pests of the tropics and their control, 2ed. Cambridge Univ. 

Press, NY, 746 pp. 

Holm, L.G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger. 1977. World’s worst weeds. 

Univ. Hawaii Press, HI 608 pp. 

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

world’s weeds. John Wiley and Sons, NY 391 pp. 

Holm, L.G., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Pancho,.and J. Herberger. 1997. World weeds: natural histories 

and distribution. John Wiley and Sons, NY 1129 pp. 

IPPC. 1999. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Requirements for the 

establishment of pest free places of production and pest free production sites, No. 10. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International 

Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). Rome. 111 pp. 

IPPC. 2004. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Guidelines for Pest Risk 

Analysis, No. 11. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat 

of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). Rome. 138 pp. 

IPPC. 2007. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures. No. 2. Framework for pest risk 

analysis. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the 

International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome. 15 pp. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 27

Jacobs, D. 1999. Pitaya (Hylocereus undatus), a potential new crop for Australia. Australian 

New Crops Newsletter No. 11: 16.3. http:www.newcrops.uq.edu.au/newsletter. 

Kimnach, M. 1984. Hylocereus escuintlensis, a new species from Guatemala. Cactus Succulent 

J. 56 (4): 177-180. 

Liedo, P. and J.R. Carey. 1996. Demography of fruit flies and implications to action programs, 

pp. 299-308. In B.A. McPheron and G.J. Steck (eds.). Fruit Fly Pests: A World 

Assessment of their Biology and Management. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press. 

Liquido, N. J., L. A. Shinoda, and R. T. Cunningham. 1991. Host plants of the Mediterranean 

Fruit Fly (Diptera: Tephritidae): Annotated world review. MPPEAL 77: 1-52. 

Maes, Jean-Michel. 2004. Insectos asociados a algunos cultivos tropicales en el Atlantico de 

Nicaragua. Parte VIII. Nispero (Manikara achras, Sapotaceae). Rev. Nica. Ent., 64: 

Supplemento 1: 57 pp. 

MAGFOR. 2004. Field Study of Red Pitahaya Hylocereus undatus (Haw.) Britt & Rose as a 

Host for Fruit Flies (2003-2004). Ministerio Agropecuario y Forestal, Nicaragua. 10 pp. 

On file with USDA-APHIS-PPQ. 

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). 

Environ. Ecol. 16(3): 530-532. 

Martinez de los A. M. and M. Suris. 1998. Biology of Planococcus minor Maskell (Homoptera: 

Pseudococcidae) under laboratory conditions. Revta. Prot. Veg. 13(3): 199-201. [in 

Spanish; English summary] 

Mau, R. F. L. and J. L. M. Kessing. 1992. Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann). University of Hawaii, 

Manoa, Knowledge Master. 

http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/cryptobl.htm 

Mejia, M., H. Arango, and C. E. Miller. 2002. Importation of fresh yellow pitaya (Selenicereus 

megalanthus Haw.) from Colombia into the United States. USDA/APHIS/PPQ Pest Risk 

Analysis [Draft]. 

Miller, G. L. and D. R. Miller. 2002. Dysmicoccus Ferris and similar genera (Hemiptera: 

Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae) of the Gulf State Region including a description of a new 

species and new United States records. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 104(4): 968-979. 

Mitchell, J. K. 1985. Disorders of natural and commercially grown cacti: a literature review. 

Cactus & Succulent J. Vol 57. p 226-231. 

Mizrahi, Y. and A. Nerd. 1999. Climbing and columnar cacti: New arid land fruit crops. In: 

Perspectives on new crops and new uses (Janick, J., ed.) ASHS Press, VA pp. 358-366. 

Mizrahi, Y., A. Nerd, and P. S. Nobel. 1997. Cacti as crops. Hortic. Reviews. 18: 291-320. 

Morgan, M. G., and M. Henrion. 1990. Uncertainty. Cambridge Univ. Press, United Kingdom. 

pp.332. 

Morton, J. F. 1987. Strawberry pear. In: Fruits of warm climates. Creative Resource Systems, 

Inc., NC. http://hort.purdue.edu/NewCropCenter. 

Nabhan, G. P. 1985. Gathering the desert. Univ. Arizona Press, AZ 209 pp. 

Nakahara, S. 1981. The proper placements of the nearctic soft scale species assigned to the genus 

Lecanium Burmeister (Homoptera: Coccidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society 

of Washington 83(2):283-286. 

NAPPO. 2004. RSPM 17. Guidelines for the establishment, maintenance and verification of fruit 

fly pest free areas in North America. Ottawa, Canada. 13 pp. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 28

Narayanan, E. S. and H. N. Batra. 1960. Fruit flies and their control. Indian council Agric. 

Research, IN, 68pp. 

Neal, M. C. 1965. In gardens of Hawaii. Bishop Museum Press, HI 924 pp. 

NGRP. 2007. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). United States Department of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Genetic Resources Program 

(NGRP). http://www.ars-grin.gov. (Archived at PERAL) 

Norrbom, A. L. 2004. The Diptera Site. Systematic Entomology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. Dept. 

of Ent., NMNH, SI. 

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov:591/diptera/Tephritidae/TephIntro.html. 

Norrbom, A. L. and K. C. Kim. 1988. A list of reported host plants of the species of Anastrepha 

(Diptera: Tephritidae). USDA-APHIS- PPQ, pp. 81-52. 

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, 

Riverdale, MD, pp. 40. 

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

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. 

https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL) 

Popenoe, W. 1939. Manual of tropical and subtropical fruits. MacMillan Co., NY p. 451. 

PPQ. 2000. Guidelines for pathway-initiated pest risk assessments (Version 5.02). United States 

Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection 

and Quarantine (PPQ), Riverdale, MD. 30 pp. 

PRF. 2004. Export Certification Project (EXCERPT) Database. Purdue Research Foundation 

(PRF). 

Randall, R. P. 2001. Personal communication (on file with USDA-APHIS-PPQ, subject: 

weediness of Hylocereus spp. in Australia). 

Raveh, E., J. Weiss. A. Nerd, and Y. Mizrahi. 1993. Pitayas (genus Hylocereus): New fruit crop 

for the Negev Desert of Israel. http://hort.purdue.edu/NewCropCenter 

Reddy, K.B., P.K. Bhat, and R. Naidu. 1997. Suppression of mealybugs and green scale infesting 

coffee with natural enemies in Karnataka. Pest Manage. Econ. Zool. 5(2): 119-121. 

Reed, C. F. 1977. Ecologically important foreign weeds. Agric. Handbk. No. 498, US Gov’t. 

Printing Office 746 pp. 

Rohrbach, K. G., J. W. Beardsley, T. L. German, N. J. Reimer, and W. G. Sanford. 1988. 

Mealybug wilt, mealybugs, and ants on pineapple. Plant Disease 72(7): 558-565. 

Romero, A. 1994. Manejo fitosanitario de la pitahaya en Nicaragua Insectos, In: Encuentro 

Nacional de la Pitahaya (Memoria 23-25 Aug. 1994) Comite Organizador. Nicaragua pp. 

86-90. 

Sahoo, A. K., A. B. Ghosh, S. K. Mandal, and D. K. Maiti, D.K. 1999. Study on the biology of 

the mealybug, Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Pseudococcidae: Hemiptera). J. 

Interacademicia 3: 41-48 [Abstr]. 

Sharp, J. L., M. T. Ouye, S. J. Ingle, and W.G. Hart. 1989. Hot-water quarantine treatment for 

mangoes from Mexico infested with Mexican fruit fly and West Indian fruit fly (Diptera: 

Tephritidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 82(6): 1657-1662. 

Smith, C. F. and M. M. Cermeli. 1979. An annotated list of Aphididae (Homoptera) of the 

Caribbean Islands and South and Central America. North Carolina Agricultural Research 

Service, Tech. Bul. No. 259. 131 pp. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 29

Solomon, J. C. 2002. w3TROPICOS, Missouri Botanical Garden, 

<http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search species name> last accessed 10 Jan. 2002. 

Sponagel, K., L. Vasquez, and F. Diaz. 2001. Determination of the condition of pitahaya 

Hylocereus undatus (Haw) Britt & Rose as hosts of 2 species of fruit fly Ceratitis 

capitata Wiedemann and Anastrepha ludens Loew. Proceedings of the Interamerican 

Society for Tropical Horticulture. 43:87-89. 

Starmer, W. T., M. A. Lachance, H. J. Phaff, and W. B. Heed. 1990. The biogeography of yeasts 

associated with decaying cactus tissue in North America, the Caribbean, and Northern 

Venezuela. In: Hecht, M.K.; Wallace, B. and MacIntyre (eds). Evolutionary Biology. 

Plenum Publishing Corp., NY 24: 253-296. 

Sugimoto, S. 1994. Scale insects intercepted on banana fruits from Mindanao Is., the Philippines 

(Coccoidea: Homoptera). Res. Bull. Pl. Protect. Serv. Japan (30): 115-121. [in Japanese; 

English summary]. 

Tel-Zur, N., S. Abbo, D. Bar-Zvi, and Y. Mizrahi. 2001. Hybridization between species and 

genera of fruit-crop vine cacti of the genera Hylocereus and Selenicereus. Hortscience, 

36(3): 441. 

Tel-Zur, N., S. Abbo, D. Myslabodski, and Y. Mizrahi. 1999. Modified CTAB procedure for 

DNA isolation from epiphytic cacti of the genera Hylocereus and Selenicereus 

(Cactaceae). Plant Molec. Biol. Reporter 17: 249-254 [Abstr]. 

Thomas, M. C., J. B. Heppner, R. E. Woodruff, H. V. Weems, G. J. Steck and T. R. Fasulo. 

2001. Mediterranean Fruit Fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Insecta: Diptera: 

Tephritidae). DPI Entomology Circulars 4, 230, and 273. Florida Cooperative Extension 

Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Published 

July 2001, revised September 2001. Available online: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/IN371. 

USDA. 1990. Plant hardiness zone map. USDA-ARS, Misc. Pub. No. 1475, DC 

http://usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap, last accessed 23 June 2001. 

USDA. 2005. Plant import: Nonpropagative manual, USDA-APHIS-PPQ, MD, 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/treatment.pdf 

USFWS. 2006. Threatened and endangered species system (TESS). U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. <http://endangered.fws.gov/> last accessed December 2006. 

Villalobos- Calderón, J. L. and F. Cárdenas-Díaz. 2002. Lista de Enfermedades de los Cultivos 

Agrícolas de Costa Rica. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia Servicio Fitosanitario del 

Estado Diagnóstico Fitosanitario. San José, Costa Rica. 70pp. 

Watson, G.W. 2005. Arthropods of Economic Importance – Diaspididae of the World. Natural 

History Museum, London. http://ip30.eti.uva.nl/bis/diaspididae.php 

Weems, H. V., Jr. 1963. Mexican fruit fly (Anastrepha ludens [Loew]) (Diptera: Tephritidae). 

Fla. Dept. Agric. Div. Plant Ind. Entomol. Circ. 16. 

Weems, R. V. 1981. Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann). Entomol. Circ. No. 

230. FL Dept. Agric Consumer Serv. 12pp. 

Weiss, J., L. Scheinvar, and Y. Mizrahi. 1995. Selenicereus megalanthus (the yellow pitaya), a 

climbing cactus from Colombia and Peru. Cactus Succulent J., 67(5): 280-283. 

White, I. M. and M. M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Fruit flies of economic significance: Identification 

and bionomics. CAB Int’l., United Kingdom 601 pp. 

Williams, D. J. and M. C. Granara de Willink. 1992. Mealybugs of Central and South America. 

CAB Int’l., United Kingdom 635 pp. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America 

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 30

WSSA. 2007. Composite List of Weeds. Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). 

http://www.wssa.net/Weeds/ID/WeedNames/namesearch.php. (Archived at PERAL)