USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Response to Petitions to Reclassify Light Brown Apple Moth and Announcement of Shift in 

Approach to Responding to the Light Brown Apple Moth Infestation in California

January 2010

In March 2007, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) confirmed the presence of the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM), 

Epiphyas postvittana, in Alameda County, California. LBAM is native to Australia and has 

become established in New Zealand, Hawaii, and the United Kingdom.

In response to the LBAM detection in California, APHIS established a New Pest Advisory 

Group (NPAG) composed of an international panel of scientific experts. The Agency requested 

that the group provide a preliminary science-based assessment of the significance of the LBAM 

detection in the continental United States to help inform Federal and State regulatory decision 

making about the pest. The NPAG experts evaluated the biology and epidemiology of LBAM, 

as well as the feasibility, reliability, and practicality of potential mitigation approaches. APHIS 

officials carefully considered the assessments provided by the group during the development of 

its regulatory framework and response strategies. As a result of this process, APHIS determined 

that LBAM is a quarantine pest that poses a considerable risk to American agriculture, 

horticulture, U.S. producers’ access to foreign markets, and certain natural ecosystems as well. 

Based on the NPAG findings and discussions with California state and county agricultural 

officials, the National Plant Board, and California and national agricultural producers, APHIS 

coordinated efforts with the California Department of Agriculture (CDFA) to implement a 

regulatory framework to prevent further spread of LBAM. As a result, quarantines were 

established in eight San Francisco Bay area counties under the authorities provided to APHIS 

under the Plant Protection Act. 

APHIS subsequently established a Technical Working Group (TWG) composed of scientists and 

regulatory personnel to assess potential mitigations for LBAM and to evaluate program response 

strategies, with the goal of providing the greatest level of protection to uninfested areas of 

California, the remaining continental United States, and our trading partners. The LBAM 

response strategy that was implemented by APHIS and CDFA was based upon scientific 

assessments by the TWG and by a similar group of scientists concurrently convened by CDFA. 

CDFA launched an eradication program that centered on the aerial release of an insect 

pheromone intended to disrupt LBAM mating throughout infested areas. However, in the spring 

of 2008, a State Court ruling in response to lawsuits brought by several activist groups required 

CDFA to curtail pheromone applications. 

When aerial pheromone applications were stopped, CDFA focused their revised response 

program on (1) eradicating LBAM using ground-based pheromone treatments and (2) reducing 

the risk of long-distance spread of LBAM, while facilitating the movement of agricultural 

commodities through inspection and treatment of LBAM-host crops shipped out of the regulated 

areas. Additionally, APHIS and CDFA evaluated sterile insect technique and potential 

biological control agents as additional methods for reducing LBAM population levels. 
In September 2008 and February 2009, respectively, the Secretary of Agriculture was petitioned 

by three public citizens and by representatives of the Pesticide Action Network North America to 

reclassify LBAM as a nonactionable/nonreportable pest status. APHIS considered the positions 

articulated in the two petitions; we reviewed the science and economic implications of such a 

shift in policy based upon experience with LBAM in California and discussions with the States 

and foreign trading partners. We concluded that the regulatory status of LBAM was warranted 

and that LBAM should remain as an actionable quarantine pest. 

APHIS subsequently submitted its analysis/findings to the National Academy of Sciences, 

National Research Council (NRC) for an independent third-party review. The NRC 

acknowledged that APHIS had “met the minimum standard within its broad regulatory powers to 

declare that the moth is of potential economic importance and is actionable.” NRC also 

indicated that APHIS could have done a better job in providing the scientific justification 

addressing the question of reclassification, and suggested that the Agency would be well-served 

to address questions that were not directly related to the question of reclassification but that were 

included in the petition. 

In drafting the response to the petitions and related appendices, APHIS took NRC’s comments 

into consideration and provided more scientific detail and additional information to address the 

concerns of NRC. Information on genetic analyses of LBAM was redacted since they are not yet 

available in a refereed journal. We have further articulated the assessment of the potential impact 

of LBAM that we believe justifies the regulatory classification. In line with the NRC’s 

recommendation, we have also provided additional information on the LBAM response program 

in general. 

At this time, LBAM will remain a quarantine pest. However, given the increases in LBAM 

population densities and the extent of contiguous spread of LBAM that has occurred over the 

past two years. APHIS has concluded that eradication is no longer feasible in California. Hence, 

the LBAM program has shifted its goal from eradication to management/control. We will 

continue to pursue a multi-layered response strategy for LBAM that includes mating disruption, 

pesticide application, SIT, biological control, continued survey, and regulatory controls on the 

movement of agricultural commodities out of the quarantine area. APHIS will maintain a 

regulatory program to prevent long-distance spread of LBAM through the enforcement of 

phytosanitary measures to ensure that other States and our international trading partners are 

protected. Further, we will continue to work with affected industries, farmers, and stakeholders 

to suppress populations to the fullest extent and, where possible, to eradicate outlying small and 

discrete infestations.

APHIS’ revised draft response to the petitions requesting reclassification of LBAM, along with a 

series of associated questions and answers, will be posted to the APHIS LBAM Web site, 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/lba_moth/index.shtml. On March 15, 

2010, APHIS published a notice of availability in the Federal Register announcing the 

availability of the revised draft response and informing the public and all interested parties of 

their opportunity to formally provide comments and feedback during a 60-day comment period. 

The link to submit comments on the draft response may be found at www.regulations.gov. 
Following the 60-day comment period, APHIS will review and consider all comments. APHIS’ 

final response to the petitions will be made available to the public on the Agency’s Web site. 
 

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection 

Service

Plant Protection and 

Quarantine

January 14, 2010

APHIS Draft Response to Petitions for the 

Reclassification of Light Brown Apple 

Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a 

Non-Quarantine Pest

Revision 2

Male and female adult light brown apple moths Epiphyas postvittana

Photo used with the permission of HortResearch, New Zealand

Agency Contact:

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

United States Department of Agriculture

1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300

Raleigh, NC 27606
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

1

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................. 2

I. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3

II. LBAM AS AN INVASIVE SPECIES.............................................................................................. 4

III. IMPORTANT ECONOMIC FACTORS CONSIDERED IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS TO 

REGULATE LBAM........................................................................................................................ 8

IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION ............................................................................... 10

Nursery Products, Flowers, and Foliage ............................................................................... 12

Organic Crops....................................................................................................................... 15

SPREAD POTENTIAL ................................................................................................................... 16

TRADE ....................................................................................................................................... 17

CROP DAMAGE .......................................................................................................................... 20

ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE ....................................................................................................... 21

ADDITIONAL COSTS TO FARMERS PRODUCING NURSERY STOCK, CUT FLOWER, AND FOLIAGE 24

IV. SUMMARY............................................................................................................................. 25

V. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................... 25

VI. LITERATURE CITED............................................................................................................... 26

VII. LITERATURE CONSULTED .................................................................................................... 31

VIII. APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 69

APPENDIX 1: EXPLANATION OF KEY REGULATORY TERMINOLOGY ........................................... 69

APPENDIX 2: LBAM DEGREE DAY MODEL VALIDATION MAP.................................................. 70

APPENDIX 3: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP MEMBERS ............................................................. 71
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

2

Executive Summary

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

has developed this response to petitions submitted on September 12, 2008 and February 4, 2009 to 

the USDA Secretary of Agriculture, requesting the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM), Epiphyas 

postvittana (Walker) be reclassified from an actionable to a non-actionable pest and lessen its federal 

regulatory status.

APHIS considered the petitions’ requests to reclassify LBAM. To this end, we outlined the key 

criteria that APHIS uses to determine a pest’s regulatory status in accordance with the standard

established by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and the authorities of the USDA. 

The discussion herein addresses petition elements relevant to our criteria, the nature of invasive 

species generally, and LBAM specifically. 

The petitions also question APHIS’ ability to eradicate LBAM; the appropriateness of technologies 

used to support an eradication program; the potential impacts of these technologies on the 

environment and to human health and safety; and effectiveness of the communication strategies used 

to inform the public about the LBAM program. APHIS recognizes the importance of all of these 

issues; however, for the sake of clarity, we have focused the discussion in this response to the central 

purpose of the petitions which was to request the reclassification of LBAM. Questions raised by the 

petitions regarding regulatory and other actions are different discussions that are addressed separately 

by APHIS in a frequently asked questions format available on the APHIS web site. 

APHIS’ analysis of LBAM’s regulatory status was based on available scientific, expert, and 

empirical evidence. APHIS worked with State and county agriculture officials, industry 

representatives, and academicians to ascertain the potential impact of this pest in California and 

throughout the continental United States. The study concluded that LBAM is an invasive pest of 

economic importance because it poses a significant threat to America’s agriculture and natural 

resources. Its findings indicate that LBAM should be classified as a regulated pest because it meets 

the internationally established criteria for a quarantine pest. Following consideration of public 

comments received in the Federal Register, APHIS will consider comments and finalize the petition 

response.

Key findings of the analysis include: 1) significant potential crop production and market losses, 

ranging from $0.5 to $1.0 billion across 33 States that have a climate and hosts predicted to be 

suitable for LBAM establishment and survival; 2) potential impacts associated with threatened and 

endangered species that are LBAM hosts as well as negative impacts linked to potential increases in 

pesticide use; 3) phytosanitary trade barriers and restrictions for US commodities that are hosts of 

LBAM among U.S. trading partners (as high $9 billion annually); and 4) increased costs due to 

restrictions on the interstate and intrastate movement of nursery plants.

Next Steps: APHIS acknowledges concerns of the petitioners and has carefully analyzed the factors 

brought to the attention of the Secretary. A step in the process was that APHIS commissioned the 

National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council (NRC) to provide a third-party technical 

and scientific review of the petition response. This draft document follows that review and reflects 

adjustments made by APHIS in response to comments from NRC. 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

3

I. Background 

The first detection in the continental United States of the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM), 

Epiphyas postvittana (Walker), was in California (Berkeley area) in 2006 (Brown, 2007), 

although the specimens collected were not determined to species at the time. Presence of the 

moth in the State was confirmed in March 2007 (Varela et al., 2008). As of April 22, 2009, the 

moth had been found in 17 California counties, but its current distribution is limited to 16

counties as a result of current control activities (USDA-CDFA, 2010; NAPIS, 2009b; USDAAPHIS, 2009a). The introduction of LBAM into California has resulted in the imposition of 

interstate quarantines on several California counties (USDA, 2007), as well as interior California 

quarantines (CDFA, 2009), restricting the domestic movement of various commodities known to 

be E. postvittana hosts. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) classifies the moth as a quarantine pest that requires phytosanitary measures 

(designating it as an “actionable pest”) when detected in imported commodities. Actions taken to 

contain or eradicate the pest in response to its introduction constitute an official control program. 

Such a program is required in order for the United States to take action and prevent LBAM from 

entering the US when associated with imported products. The implementation of an official 

control program and maintaining the regulatory status protects America’s farmers who export 

crops (nursery plants, flowers, fruits and vegetables) from embargoes imposed by trading 

partners due to concerns that they will harbor LBAM and therefore serve as a pathway for the

introduction of LBAM to their countries (see Appendix 1 for an explanation of key regulatory 

terms). Several States have expressed similar concern regarding the presence of LBAM in 

California and thus the implementation of an official control program maintains markets.

A petition was submitted on September 12, 2008, to then-Secretary of Agriculture Edward 

Schafer to formally request the reclassification of LBAM from an actionable to a non-actionable 

pest. Another petition submitted to Secretary Tom Vilsack on February 4, 2009, includes the 

same request. Both petitions assert that LBAM is a minor pest similar to other superficial leaf 

rollers and that “post 2000 data and experience show that LBAM should be handled as a crop 

quality issue, not as a quarantine pest” (Harder et al., 2008; PANNA, 2009).

Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. §7701 et seq.), APHIS is charged with protecting the 

plant resources of the United States against the introduction and spread of harmful exotic plant 

pests. In this capacity, the Agency is responsible for taking specific actions to exclude, eradicate, 

or control such pests. APHIS has historically considered LBAM to be a quarantine pest for the 

United States. LBAM is specifically addressed in Federal import regulations for fruits and 

vegetables (7 CFR 319.56-13, 2008 and 7 CFR 319.56-20, 2008) and requires quarantine action 

when detected in imported products.

The criteria used by APHIS to determine the regulatory status of pests are consistent with U.S. 

obligations under the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) (IPPC, 2006). The IPPC 

defines a quarantine pest as:
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

4

- a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not 

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

controlled. (Article II)

Multiple, independent multi-pest surveys in the United States had not detected LBAM until it 

was found in California in July 2006 and confirmed in February 2007. LBAM is therefore 

considered by APHIS to be newly introduced. The current distribution of the pest in the 

continental United States covers approximately 1% of the area in which it could potentially 

become established (based on the area proportion of counties infested and predicted to be at risk 

from Fowler et al., 2009). As an invasive pest of considerable economic importance (e.g., 

Buchanan, 1977; Bailey et al., 1996; Bailey, 1997; Lo & Murrell, 2000; Sutherst, 2000), LBAM 

meets the defining criteria for designation as a quarantine pest under the IPPC if maintained 

under official control in a program designed for containment or eradication (IPPC, 2006. 

Supplement No. 1 to ISPM No. 5). 

APHIS assembled a technical working group containing representatives from federal, state, 

universities, and industry (Appendix 3). Additionally APHIS worked closely with State and 

County agricultural officials; the California Invasive Species Council, a broad-based group of 

agriculturally-related organizations formed to address the issue of invasive pests; academic 

researchers from the University of California (UC) at Riverside and UC Davis; as well as 

international organizations such as HortResearch.

This report considers the positions of the petitioners and addresses concerns regarding the basis 

of APHIS’ position on the regulatory status of LBAM as a quarantine pest. The report includes a 

bibliography of the references cited and also a listing of references consulted by APHIS in 

preparing this analysis and in the decision-making process that led to regulatory actions for 

LBAM. This report will be posted on the APHIS website for comment and thereafter, APHIS 

will review its position on the regulatory status of LBAM.

II. LBAM as an Invasive Species

LBAM is indigenous to Australia, and has long been established in New Zealand, New 

Caledonia, Hawaii, and the United Kingdom (Whittle, 1984). In Hawaii, LBAM has been 

reported from a number of locations and hosts at elevations above 1394 ft. since the early 1900s 

(e.g., 1912 from Lihue, Kauai, on cassia), apparently without causing documented damage to 

agricultural crops and forest vegetation (Kumashiro, 2007), except on protea “sugarbushes” 

(Fukada, 2008; see also Zimmerman, 1978). The isolation of the pest to higher altitudes has 

putatively prevented it from becoming a pest in agricultural crops in Hawaii. 

LBAM’s status as an economic pest of fruit crops and managed forest plantation trees is well 

documented (e.g., Hassan, 1977; Hely et al., 1982; Kay, 1991; Wearing et al., 1991). Thus, as 

“an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm 

...” (Clinton, 1999, p. 6183), the moth clearly fits the definition. Further, LBAM exhibits the 

qualities of an invasive species in California and in many locations throughout the world. 

LBAM has shown a tendency to surmount geographical and environmental barriers (e.g., 

oceans), establish itself, and then expand its population in size and range in new habitats, all 

hallmarks of invasive species (Ehrlich, 1986; Mack et al., 2000; Richardson et al., 2000). 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

5

Observations of the species’ dynamics in Europe are illustrative. Long restricted to southwestern 

England (Baker, 1968), in recent times, LBAM has undergone a rapid range expansion in the 

U.K. (Porter, 2001), and has since been detected in Ireland (Bond, 1998). Recent reports from 

the U.K. indicate that LBAM populations were causing significant crop damage warranting 

additional control measures by farmers that specifically targeted LBAM (Fountain & Cross, 

2007).

Although natural dispersal of LBAM is limited, with most individual LBAM tending to move no 

greater than 100 m (Suckling et al., 1994), LBAM has been introduced into new regions by 

human activity, a pattern shared by most successful invaders (e.g., Baker, 1986; Ehrlich, 1986; 

Mack et al., 2000; Ruiz et al., 2000; Mack & Lonsdale, 2001; Naylor et al., 2001; Reichard & 

White, 2001; Fuller, 2003; Kraus, 2003). For example, LBAM is believed to have been 

introduced into England with apples imported from New Zealand (Carter, 1984). Introduction of 

the moth into Ireland via passenger ferry from Wales is suspected (Bond, 1998). It is also 

thought to have been introduced accidentally into New Zealand (Wearing et al., 1991).

Invasion of new regions by LBAM has apparently been associated with LBAM encountering 

new plant species and cultivars and feeding, reproducing, and in some instances damaging them 

which raise concern about the extent of LBAM’s host range. In Australia, the moth is believed 

to have originally utilized native evergreens, such as acacias (Clark, 1970). Its present host range 

has become much broader, and includes a wide variety of cultivated fruit, vegetable, and fodder 

crops, ornamentals, and broad-leaf weeds (Danthanarayana, 1975). Recent surveys in California 

have resulted in the addition of new species to its known host list (USDA, 2008a). Similar 

behavior of insects that in some scenarios were considered relatively innocuous species restricted 

to insignificant impact on minor hosts have become major pests when introduced to new regions 

with plant species not previously encountered by the insects (e.g., Tabashnik, 1983; Burke et al., 

1986). 

The petitions to reclassify the pest, submitted by Harder et al. (2008) and by PANNA (2009) 

contend that the moth is, at worst, a pest of minor economic significance. However, the evidence 

regarding its known host range, and its apparent capacity to attack a wide range of plant species 

as its geographic range expands, suggest that LBAM is capable of inflicting considerable 

economic harm to U.S. farmers. LBAM has a demonstrated ability to establish and spread 

outside of its native range. Like other invasive plant insect pests, LBAM are r-strategists, with 

high reproductive capacity, small body size, adaptability, short generation time, and ability to 

disperse offspring widely; these characteristics, and its polyphagous nature, lend to its invasive 

capability.

In assessing the potential of LBAM to impact farms throughout the United States, APHIS used 

the North Carolina State University (NCSU) -APHIS Plant Pest Forecasting System 

(NAPPFAST) (Magarey et al. 2007) to model LBAM’s potential establishment range as a pest in 

the United States. NAPPFAST is an internet-based climate mapping system (www.nappfast.org). 

NAPPFAST has been used to model a large number of exotic pests including plant pathogens 

(Magarey et al. 2007) and Scirtothrips dorsalis (Nietschke et al. 2006). In addition, NAPPFAST 

has been used to create pest risk maps for the top 50 pest targets for national surveillance 

(www.nappfast.org). NAPPFAST model predictions of potential generation numbers have been 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

6

validated with reports from the literature for 21 exotic arthropod pests. The North American 

climate database for NAPPFAST draws from nearly 2,000 weather stations with 30 years of 

historical daily weather data for each station. The NAPPFAST databases are linked to a generic 

day-degree template which was used to create the model. After a model has been saved, 

NAPPFAST can create probability or average history maps based on the most recent 10 years 

(e.g., 1999 to 2008). Station data are interpolated to a 10 km2 resolution using a 3-D multivariate 

linear regression (Splitt and Horrel, 1998). 

Borchert’s (2007) degree-day (DD) model, which was generated using parameters from 

Danthanarayana (1975), was used to identify U.S. areas where LBAM would likely become 

established based on climatic conditions (Fowler et al., 2009). Using this model, APHIS 

considered geographic regions where LBAM could complete at least three generations (≥ 2,221 

DD at a base temperature of 7.5°C and maximum temperature of 32oC) to be at risk for 

establishment. APHIS selected three generations as the requirement for establishment based on 

LBAM’s behavior in Australia where the moth completes three to four generations and is an 

agricultural pest (Borchert, 2007; CABI, 2006; Danthanarayana, 1975; Wearing et al., 1991). 

This degree-day model exhibited good validation with regard to predicted LBAM generations in 

areas where it is known to occur in Australia and other parts of the world (Appendix 2).

The research of Gutierrez et al. (unpublished) was cited by the petitioners. Those research 

findings suggested that areas where the minimum air temperature was ≤ -16°C for at least one 

day during the year were too cold for LBAM and would prevent its establishment. Although not 

accepted by a refereed journal, the APHIS study used this information (as a lethal cold 

temperature) in modeling the potential distribution of LBAM in the United States. To date, 

information is not available on upper limit temperatures that would impact LBAM survival. 

However, LBAM is known to occur in inland semi-arid irrigation districts in Australia such as 

Mildura where high summer temperatures are common. High summer temperatures can reduce 

but do not completely eliminate LBAM populations from completing the third and fourth 

generations (Madge and Stirrat 2001). 

We subtracted the lethal cold 10-year frequency of climate suitability output from the threegeneration 10-year frequency of climate suitability output. The resulting map estimates areas 

where LBAM could complete three-generations taking into account non-lethal cold temperatures 

(Figure 1). Our analysis indicates that LBAM should survive in a significant portion of the 

United States where it is capable of becoming a serious pest and threaten farm production, 

horticultural producers and gardeners. 

Models for predicting the potential distribution of exotic pests can be subdivided into deductive 

or inductive modeling approaches (Baker, 2002). Deductive approaches have appeal because the 

information used to develop the forecast is completely independent of observed occurrences of 

the invasive alien species (Venette et al. 2009). Thus, presence and absence information can be 

used to rigorously validate the model. Inductive models for exotic species must also deal with 

extrapolation issues, projecting potential distribution for novel environments well beyond 

locations used for model development. However, deductive approaches may predict a much

broader geographic range than will actually be observed if other limiting factors are ignored or 

unknown, or if density-dependent factors are significant. Most important, for regulatory decision 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

7

making, deductive approaches are unlikely to predict a smaller geographic range than will be 

observed. 

The NAPPFAST model is one of a few deductive modeling tools available. Another common 

modeling tool which was identified in the NRC review is CLIMEX (Sutherst et al. 2007). In 

contrast to NAPPFAST, CLIMEX has a large number of parameters which increase the 

complexity of model development. Trial and error are needed to fit these parameters and it is 

often not clear as to which parameter needs modification (Baker, 2002). Conversely, the 

advantage of the NAPPFAST modeling approach is that it has few parameters, each with a clear 

biological definition. There is a need to validate and compare pest risk models (Venette et al. 

2009). Although there have been extensive model comparisons and validations for niche 

modeling systems for native species, there have been few such studies for exotic pests. A 

comparison of multiple modeling approaches for Phytophthora ramorum found good general 

agreement between the different modeling systems examined (Magarey, 2005). 

Figure 1: Predicted establishment map for LBAM based on the frequency of climate suitability 

during a 10-yr period. Establishment was defined as the number of years between 1999-2008 

with climatic conditions favoring completion of ≥ three generations by LBAM per year and with 

non-lethal minimum daily temperatures of > -16°C.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

8

The petitioners also contend that LBAM should be reclassified because it is not recently 

introduced to California. They state that “Experts in entomology and invasive species suggest 

that LBAM has likely been present in California for decades with no notable damage resulting.”

APHIS and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) have made repeated 

requests to entomologists in California to substantiate this claim by providing APHIS with data 

in support of this claim; however, no data have been provided that would substantiate this 

position. In contrast, APHIS has determined that it is unlikely that LBAM has been present in 

California for decades given routine surveys performed at ports of entry and nurseries by the 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and 

CDFA to intercept LBAM and to prevent its introduction. Further, results of the survey by the 

Cooperative Agriculture Pest Survey (CAPS) conducted in 2005 indicated that there were no 

detections of LBAM in the area of California that is presently infested with LBAM (NAPIS, 

2009a). Finally, program trapping and routine multi-pest surveys conducted by industry in the 

currently infested areas were never here-to-fore detected/reported whereas since the initial 

detection in California average trap catches have steadily increased from 0.1 moth/trap/month in 

June 2007 to 0.2 moth/trap in April 2008 to 0.4 moth/trap in April 2009 (APHIS, 2009a).

III. Important Economic Factors Considered in the Decision-Making Process to Regulate 

LBAM

The burden of mitigating the impacts of an invasive pest falls heavily on the exporting region in 

the form of higher pest management and administrative costs to comply with phytosanitary 

requirements for commodities in trade (Hoddle et al., 2003). In the United States, APHIS works 

in conjunction with States to identify and contain invasive species harmful to any segment of the 

agricultural sector and to natural resources in order to protect the integrity of “at-risk” industries 

and resources. These measures indirectly protect consumers and producers from unexpected 

shifts in quality, price, and supply and may also preserve the environment. 

LBAM is presently considered a quarantine pest because it does not occur in the United States 

except in limited areas where it is being contained and targeted with official control. Not all 

invasive pests are considered to be quarantine pests, and for quarantine pests, not all are 

considered to be actionable. There are several reasons for this, including in particular the 

economic importance of the pest, the degree of pest distribution, and the potential for regulatory 

actions to diminish the impact or slow/stop the spread of the pest. A key reason for classifying 

LBAM as a reportable/actionable pest is the potential economic impact associated with the 

detection and spread of the pest to all areas in the United States where it could become 

established or where it might be introduced seasonally (Figure 1 and Table 1). Without 

mitigation, LBAM can spread to other regions of the United States from the existing quarantine 

areas in California. 

As for any invasive species, damage or impact on ecosystems is dependent upon a number of 

variables, e.g. niche breadth, reproductive rate, and competitive ability (Simberloff, 1981, 1989; 

Vitousek, 1986; Crooks, 2002). LBAM is predicted to have moderate to significant impacts on 

agricultural, horticultural, and, in certain instances, it may adversely impact naturally occurring 

host species including threatened or endangered plant species (Fowler et al., 2009). Thus, in 

addition to agricultural crops, LBAM has a host range that includes trees and ornamental species, 

giving it the potential to also cause damage to certain ecosystems and to urban and suburban 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

9

communities. Current regulations for LBAM are designed to curb these potential economic and 

environmental impacts to agricultural and natural resources by isolating and preventing the 

spread of the pest beyond the counties currently quarantined. The response programs for LBAM 

were established to fortify regulations designed to mitigate pest spread associated with interstate 

and international trade. 

The goal of the presentation of economic data and analysis for LBAM is to determine whether 

the potential costs of the pest are expected to produce economically unacceptable impact. This 

would include both impacts on domestic values and trade values of commodity hosts. This 

analysis is not intended to provide exact estimates of the economic impact of LBAM’s costs, but 

to provide decision makers with some perspective with regard to the pest’s potential to cause

economically unacceptable impacts.

California and Hawaii, along with 32 other states, are major producers of LBAM host 

commodities. Potential hosts in the existing quarantine area in California and the entire state of 

Hawaii include nursery products, flowers, foliage, grapes, almonds, strawberries, oranges, 

tomatoes, lemons, avocadoes, and several others. If LBAM were to be reclassified, the spread of 

LBAM in California to neighboring counties, and subsequently to other States would likely have 

broad economic implications for host commodities in terms of trade embargos and higher 

production costs. The integrity of these industries would be compromised without sufficient 

regulations to demonstrate to trading partners that regulatory efforts minimize LBAM’s impacts.

Table 1: Percent of counties at risk of LBAM establishment by State, as determined by 

Geographic Information System analysis of county locations and the climate match area for 

LBAM establishment

Percent of Counties at Risk from LBAM 

Western States:

California, Arizona 100

Washington 44

Oregon 61

Nevada 65

Utah 17

New Mexico 85

Colorado 3

Central & Southern States:

Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, 

Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama,

Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, 

North Carolina, Virginia, Delaware

100

Maryland 96

West Virginia 93

Kansas 59

Missouri 64

Ohio 55

Indiana 63

Illinois 62

Eastern States:

New Jersey 95

Pennsylvania 49
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

10

New York 19

Connecticut 25

Source: Fowler et al., 2009 “Economic Analysis: Risk to US Apple, Grape, Orange, and Pear Production from 

Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)”, PPQ-CPHST-PERAL, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/lba_moth/downloads/lbameconomicanalysis.pdf

The current regulatory framework and response program is outlined in the Federal Domestic 

Quarantine Order DA-2008-17 that was designed to prevent the further spread of LBAM from 

infested to non-infested areas (USDA, 2008b). The regulations established restrictions on the 

interstate movement of a list of regulated articles in areas where LBAM infestations are known 

to exist. As of January 13, 2010, 16 counties in California and all counties in Hawaii are under 

the Federal Order. 

Impacts on Agricultural Production 

Geier and Briese (1980) classified LBAM as an “intermediate pest” with respect to its economic 

status, one that is neither consistently endemic nor characterized by sporadic population 

eruptions and not generally injurious, but capable of causing damaging infestations in intensive, 

high-value crops. While the petitioners maintain that LBAM does not cause significant damage 

under production systems that are not heavily dependent upon insecticide inputs (particularly 

organophosphates); it is apparent that LBAM has been a serious pest of various fruit crops in 

Australia and New Zealand. According to early reports (e.g., Ward, 1931; Fletcher, 1933; 

Nicholls, 1934; Evans, 1937b; Dumbleton, 1940), LBAM was considered particularly damaging 

to pome fruit crops in Tasmania. Evans (1936) reported that apple orchards in the state were 

occasionally “severely attacked.” The moth also severely damaged stored fruit (Evans, 1937a). 

Its significance as a pest of pome fruit, particularly apple, is said to rank second only to that of 

the codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.). Damage to fruit in some crops may reach as high as 

85% during severe outbreaks (Danthanarayana, 1975). While many of these reports would 

appear dated, they are highly relevant to the issue at hand and they are highly significant because 

these losses preceded the use of organophosphates; organophosphates came into popular use in

the 1940s (Ware, 1978). The economic impact of the pest in four fruit crops in Australia (apple, 

pear, grape, and orange), in terms of lost production and control costs, is estimated to exceed 

A$21 million annually (Sutherst, 2000). In vineyards, a single larva, feeding on developing fruit, 

can destroy the equivalent of 30 g of mature grapes (Bailey, 1997). The loss and scarring of 

berries render bunches unsuitable for the fresh fruit market and reduce yields in crops grown for 

dried fruit; feeding injury to berries contributes to fungal attack, resulting in further loss of yield 

(Buchanan, 1977). Losses amounting to A$2000 per ha have been reported in some vineyards 

(Bailey et al., 1996). In Australia, the moth is a defoliator of plantations of Eucalyptus globulus

Labill. (Collett & McBeath, 2007) which is a tree of value that is used as windbreaks and sight 

and sound barriers in California (Burns & Honkala, 1990).

Eighty-two percent of the counties in the 33 contiguous States are considered at risk from LBAM 

establishment and spread based on the reported biology of the pest (Fowler et al., 2009). State 

Agriculture Officials, through the National Plant Board, have requested that APHIS provide 

federal protection against LBAM. The value of sales of potential LBAM hosts among these atrisk states in calendar year 2007 totaled $69.4 billion representing 52% of the reported total 

value of sales (US Census Bureau, 2007). Table 2 provides the crop categories and respective 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

11

farm operation sales for the at-risk LBAM host commodity groups largely composed of 

individual LBAM host commodities. As of August 2007, only 25 commodities are listed as 

being exempt from the conditions required in the LBAM Federal Domestic Quarantine Order for 

interstate movement of regulated articles (APHIS, 2007a, b). The exemption is applicable only 

to commodities that are produced using routine production, harvesting, and packaging practices

that mitigate the pest. Table 2 provides the crop categories and respective sales for the at-risk 

LBAM hosts.

Table 2: 2007 U.S. Agricultural Census farm operation sales adjusted by risk for LBAM by 

commodity groups (billion dollars).

Number of States at risk from LBAM 33 states

Total Counties in States (33 States) 2,376 total counties

Number of Counties at risk from LBAM in 33 States 1,950 LBAM risk counties

Row Crops (Oilseeds, Dried Beans and Peas) $29.039

Fruit and Tree Nuts $15.709

Vegetables Fresh Cut Herbs $11.076

Floriculture, (ornamental plant excluding woody 

stems, cut flowers, foliage)

$4.371

Nursery stock, (ornamental plants and trees with 

woody stems)

$5.305

Alfalfa Hay $3.268

Forest Products, (excluding Christmas trees) $0.235

Agri-Tourism & Recreational Services $0.447

Total $69.449

Source: 2007 U.S. Agricultural Census 

This analysis utilizes (Fowler et al., 2009) the high and low ranges for the most likely crop value 

losses (grapes, apples, pears and oranges) and applies these to the LBAM host crop U.S. Census 

commodity categories in each LBAM risk area state. The purpose of this effort was to give some 

perspective of the range of crop values at risk should LBAM expand its range to its ecological 

limits. For the purposes of this analysis, it was considered unnecessary to address uncertainties as 

to demand and supply changes and their impact on crop sales losses. As more data are collected 

from the LBAM quarantine area, a more in-depth economic impact analysis could be developed 

to include additional information on host commodity price changes and producer costs over 

multiple crop years. 

An initial estimate of the potential economic impact from LBAM was made for all hosts using 

the most likely high- and low-range proportional crop value loss estimates (Fowler et al, 2009) 

ranging from 0.023 to 0.010 from the uniform spread and establishment of LBAM in all the 

States at risk. The resulting national production loss in the LBAM risk areas is estimated to range 

between $0.694 to $1.597 billion dollars in value annually. California would experience the 

largest annual production loss among the 33 states ranging between $219 and $503 million in 

value. California’s LBAM risk area alone could be judged as being a minimal justifiable 

geographic distribution and host range that would represent the lowest range of expected annual 

economic impact in the near term because of LBAM’s existing presence.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

12

California is a leading producer of several singular commodities known to host LBAM. 

According to Table 3, at least 35 of the top 70 crops produced on California farms are known 

hosts to LBAM and are of significant economic importance both domestically and internationally

(USDA-NASS, 2007). Table 3 reports the leading host crops in California along with their State 

ranking and value in thousands of dollars. California farms are major producers of the five 

highest-value fruit and tree nut crops (grapes, almonds, apples, oranges, and strawberries) in the 

United States.

 

Grapes are the second-largest commodity in California with a value of more than $3.7 billion in 

2006. California grape production accounts for 99% of all grapes produced in the United States. 

While the largest proportion of California grape production is utilized on the processed market 

for wine, juice, dried, and canned products, fresh grape utilization does account for roughly 13% 

of total production (USDA-ERS, 2007). The five leading counties for grape production are 

Fresno (15.2% of production), Kern (13.3% of production), Napa (12.7% of production), 

Sonoma (11.6% of production), and Tulare (9.4% of production) (USDA-NASS California Field 

Office, 2007). Sonoma and Napa counties are currently quarantined due to the presence of 

LBAM. More notably, Fresno, Kern, and Tulare counties not only represented approximately 

80% of all table grape production in 2005 (USDA-ERS, 2007), but also share a border with 

counties currently under quarantine for LBAM.

Almonds, a potential LBAM host, are the fifth-largest commodity in California with a value of 

more than $2.5 billion in 2006. The leading counties in the production of almonds are Fresno 

(19.6% of production), Kern (19.6% of production), Stanislaus (19.6% of production), Merced 

(19.6% of production), and Madera (19.6% of production). These counties represent threequarters of almond production and also share a border with counties known to host LBAM.

Strawberries are the seventh-largest commodity in California with a value of more than $1.3 

billion in 2006. Monterey, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz produced 50.1% of California 

strawberries in 2006. Ventura and Orange counties are also major producers of strawberries and 

are located near quarantined counties.

California is also a major producer of fresh oranges. In 2006, total orange production was valued 

at nearly $1.1 billion in counties that neighbor areas under quarantine (Table 3). Even apple 

production, valued at nearly $114 million in 2006, can be found in the San Joaquin Valley near 

counties quarantined for LBAM.

A leading pathway for the spread of LBAM may be through the movement of nursery products 

and flowers and foliage (Whittle, 1984; Takahashi, 2002). This would include all floriculture and 

nursery stock plants, including shrubs, trees, and grasses for outdoor and indoor use. Table 4 

provides the 2007 floriculture and nursery stock sales adjusted according to those counties at risk 

for LBAM by State.

Nursery Products, Flowers, and Foliage 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

13

Table 3: Reported California state ranking and value of top LBAM host commodities, 2006.

COMMODITY State Ranking Value ($1,000)

Grapes, All 2 3,706,859 

Nursery Products 3 3,095,717 

Almonds 5 2,522,886 

Lettuce (exempt host, APHIS, 2007 a-b) 6 1,813,261 

Strawberries 7 1,340,101 

Oranges 8 1,055,666 

Hay, Alfalfa 9 1,038,935 

Flowers and Foliage 11 792,807 

Broccoli (exempt host APHIS, 2007 a-b) 16 545,689 

Peaches, All 19 482,042 

Tomatoes, Fresh Market (exempt host APHIS, 2007 a-b) 21 428,807 

Lemons 23 356,040 

Avocados 24 341,492 

Celery (exempt host APHIS, 2007 a-b)) 25 323,928 

Nectarines 27 272,880 

Plums, Fresh 28 265,729 

Bell Peppers (exempt host APHIS, 2007 a-b) 30 226,598 

Cherries 31 221,405 

Raspberries 34 188,685 

Spinach (exempt host APHIS, 2007 a-b) 35 186,779 

Misc Salad Greens (exempt host APHIS, 2007 a-b) 36 183,871 

Cauliflower (exempt host APHIS, 2007 a-b) 38 173,251 

Cantaloupe 40 162,026 

Tangerines 43 124,928 

Apples 46 113,933 

Pears 48 95,305 

Asparagus (exempt host APHIS, 2007 a-b) 49 93,657 

Sweet Corn 50 84,779 

Artichokes (exempt host APHIS, 2007 a-b) 51 84,661 

Cabbage (exempt host APHIS, 2007 a-b) 53 76,601 

Beans, Dry 54 75,175 

Grapefruit 55 66,825 

Apricots 66 34,489 

Green Peas 68 24,647 

TOTAL VALUE OF HOST CROPS

Total Value Excluding Exempt Host Crops:

$ 20,600,454 

$ 16,463,351

Other exempt hosts ((exempt host APHIS, 2007 a-b): Brussel sprouts, Kale, Bok choy, Kohlrabi, Mustard, Collards, 

Parsley, Squash, Pumpkin, Carrot, Radish, Potato, Beet, Olive, and Walnut.

Source: California Field Office, “Summary of County Agricultural Commissioners’ Reports 2005-2006” (USDANASS California Field Office, 2007).
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

14

Table 4: 2007 U.S. Agricultural Census sales adjusted by risk for LBAM for floriculture 1 and

nursery stock 2 (in billions of dollars).

LBAM risk states Floriculture Nursery Stock Total

California 1.222 1.682 2.904

Florida 0.909 0.844 1.753

Texas 0.326 0.292 0.618

Oregon 0.097 0.507 0.604

North Carolina 0.260 0.252 0.512

New Jersey 0.187 0.176 0.363

Arizona 0.071 0.199 0.270

Tennessee 0.075 0.177 0.252

Washington 0.062 0.103 0.165

Illinois 0.116 0.101 0.217

Virginia 0.115 0.097 0.212

Other States (AL, GA, MD, SC, OH, LA, 

PA, CT, IN, KY, NY, MS, MO, KS, NM, 

DL, CO)

0.931 0.875 1.806

Census Disclosure Policy (NV, UT, OK, AR, 

WV)

No report No report No report

Total 4.371 5.305 9.676 1 Floriculture crops includes ornamental plants without woody stems, including annual and perennial bedding and 

garden plants, cut flowers, cut cultivated greens, potted flowering plants, indoor foliage plants, and unfinished 

propagative material. 

2

Nursery stock includes finished ornamental plants and trees with woody stems, including broadleaf evergreens, 

coniferous evergreens, deciduous shade trees, deciduous flowering trees, deciduous shrubs and other ornamentals, 

fruit and nut plants intended for outdoor and landscape use, cut and live Christmas trees, and propagation material or 

lining-out stock. Also includes ornamental vines, and turfgrass sod and other groundcovers. Crops are sold as 

“balled in burlap,” bare root, or container grown.

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census Quick Stats, http://151.121.3.59/.

Eleven of the 33 contiguous states that have counties at risk from the establishment and spread of 

LBAM reported floriculture and nursery stock sales in the 2007 Agricultural Census greater than 

$200 million. Among these 11 states, Oregon and Florida had the highest portion of their 2007 

gross domestic product derived from sales of floriculture and nursery stock, over one-third and 

nearly one-quarter of one percent, respectively (U.S. Department of Commerce - BEA, 2009). 

The production of nursery products is California’s third-largest commodity market, valued at 

nearly $3.1 billion in 2006 (USDA, 2006). Many farms produce nursery stock for 

interstate/international markets. Flowers and foliage ranked as the eleventh-largest commodity 

market in the State with a value of nearly $793 million produced. The combined 13 quarantined 

counties, as evidenced in Table 5, represented approximately one-quarter of all nursery stock, cut 

flowers, and foliage production in the State during 2006. Monterey County produced 8.7% of 

nursery products in the State making it second only to San Diego County for production of 

nursery products. Although San Diego produces 51% of flowers and foliage in the State, Santa 

Barbara and Monterey Counties produce a combined 20.2% and rank second and third,

respectively. 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

15

Table 5: 2006 Value of nursery, flower, and foliage production in California counties (LBAM 

quarantined as of June 1, 2009)

COUNTY Value ($1,000)

Monterey $339,225 

Santa Barbara 178,616 

San Mateo 136,021 

Santa Clara 94,087 

Santa Cruz 80,143 

Solano 47,856 

San Benito 33,428 

Sonoma 27,167 

Alameda 20,451 

Contra Costa 18,497 

Napa 3,557 

San Francisco 627 

Marin 445 

TOTAL $980,120 

Source: USDA, NASS, California Field Office, County Agricultural Commissioners’ Data 2006.

APHIS is concerned about forthcoming impacts on organic farms and gardens. Significant 

economic impacts are anticipated to become common should populations of LBAM continue to 

increase. In 2009, two organic caneberry fields in Santa Cruz County, California were found to 

be heavily infested with LBAM. The moth population increased rapidly. Organic-certified pest 

management practices were insufficient to control LBAM. Over $1 million in losses were 

incurred by the growers.

The economic impact of reclassification of LBAM would be particularly burdensome to 

producers of organically grown host commodities located within areas known to be infested with 

LBAM. Without federal regulations, LBAM population densities will increase as eradication or 

control efforts are lessened. Furthermore, LBAM spread will continue unabated until all organic 

production areas become infested. Individual States will establish quarantines or strict 

requirements for movement of LBAM host commodities into their States. The cost of alternative 

treatments for organic farm production to meet these requirements on a State-by-State basis 

would be especially excessive leading to a rise in the price of organic goods that may not 

compete on market price. Sales of organic host crops grown in California were estimated at more 

than $420 million in 2005 (University of California, 2007). Table 6 reports the sales of 

organically grown crops by type and region. While the largest producing areas are located in the 

Central Coast and the San Joaquin Valley, the South Coast and Sacramento Valley regions are 

also large producers of organic crops and border most counties quarantined for LBAM. 

Organically grown hosts of LBAM are potentially at risk of field damage if the pest cannot be 

controlled with a compound or agent that meets the organic labeling requirement. Based on the 

climate match analysis, approximately two-thirds of organic products are grown on farms in 

susceptible counties in California. This translates to an at-risk value of about $276 million 

(University of California, 2007). Furthermore, the increased use of insecticides targeting LBAM 

Organic Crops
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

16

in agricultural settings and urban areas may threaten the integrity of organic production systems 

and gardens, respectively. 

Table 6: California sales of organic crops by type and region, 2005

Figure 2: Regional depiction of the value of LBAM host commodities based on 2007 data. 

(USDA-NASS California Field Office, 2007)

Spread Potential

The spread of LBAM in California from four counties in March 2007 to 12 counties in 

December 2008 highlights the underlying economic relevance of the current LBAM regulations. 

The invasive potential of LBAM, illustrated by the history of its range expansion (e.g., Common, 

1990; Bond, 1998; Porter, 2001), argues for maintaining its current regulatory status in 

California. APHIS and CDFA have monitored LBAM populations in California since 2007 and 

Region Field Fruit & Nut Nursery, Greenhouse Vegetable Total

Crops Crops & Floriculture Crops

Dollars

Bay Area /1 1,268,254 1,564,865 251,136 1,871,361 4,955,616

Cascade-Sierra 5,407,044 1,215,911 7,651 828,413 7,459,019

Central Coast/2 852,395 30,656,241 3,353,677 114,896,227 149,758,540

North Coast/3 897,138 16,680,669 971,740 5,307,130 23,856,677

Sacramento Valley/4 12,453,321 14,820,705 924,572 14,184,721 42,383,319

San Joaquin Valley 2,164,098 62,069,962 448,763 44,412,776 109,095,599

South Coast 1,160,953 27,032,945 372,312 26,751,148 55,317,358

Southeast Interior 346,406 12,770,965 - 12,551,518 25,668,889

Total Sales 24,549,609 166,812,263 8,071,675 220,803,294 420,236,841 1/ Infested counties in Bay Area - Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo 2/ Infested counties Central Coast - Monterey,San Benito, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz

3/ Infested counties in North Coast - Napa, Sonoma

4/ Infested counties in Sacramento Valley - Solano

" - " Data not reported to protect confidentiality

Source: "Statistical Review of California's Organic Agriculture 2000-2005", Agricultural Issues Center, University of California, May 2007

$0.0 

$5.0 

$10.0 

$15.0 

$20.0 

$25.0 

Quarantined 

Areas, 13 

counties

Central Valley Counties

Other Counties

QUARANTINE TIMELINE FOR LBAM IN CALIFORNIA 

$14.5

$20.8

$4.7

Billions
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

17

have documented the continual expansion of LBAM within regulated areas and into new areas in 

California (CDFA website). As illustrated in Figure 2, the current value of production of host 

commodities in quarantined counties is roughly $4.7 billion. If LBAM was reclassified, its 

eventual spread to Central Valley counties would adversely impact farm production with an 

estimated value of $14.5 billion. When all counties in California producing susceptible 

commodities are included (Imperial, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, 

and San Luis Obispo) an industry valued at approximately $20.8 billion becomes subject to the 

adverse economic effects associated with LBAM infestation (USDA-NASS California Field 

Office, 2007).

Trade

The greatest economic threat posed by LBAM is losses associated with trade restrictions on host 

plants and commodities in both international and interstate trade. 

LBAM is a quarantine pest for several countries that are important trading partners for the 

United States, including Canada, Chile, Ecuador, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Peru, South 

Africa, Taiwan, and Thailand (Baker, 2005; EPPO, 2007; PRF, 2008). After detection of the 

moth in California, the government of Canada outlined new regulatory controls restricting the 

importation into Canada of fresh fruits and vegetables and cut flowers from 13 counties in 

California (CFIA, 2008). Similar restrictions have been imposed by Mexico, and may be adopted 

soon by other countries, such as China (Varela et al., 2008).

A significant portion of the economic impact is estimated by considering the annual value of 

U.S. exports from the 33 States at risk for LBAM establishment and the existing phytosanitary 

restrictions for LBAM among U.S. trading partners, which is currently at least 11 countries. The 

2005-2007 average value of exports of host commodities from at-risk States to countries that 

regulate for LBAM was $9 billion (Table 7). A data extract was made for each of the three 

Harmonized Scheduled (HS) chapters for the 33 LBAM at-risk states. This provides the 

maximum magnitude of export trade value at risk for the three-year period (US Bureau of the 

Census: Foreign Trade Division USA Trade Online, 2009). Canada, Mexico, and Chile have 

LBAM regulations that require specific treatment or additional declarations (AD) for the 

importation of LBAM host materials.

State plant regulatory officials in 22 of the 50 states and Puerto Rico indicated that they would 

consider taking state regulatory action if LBAM were reclassified from actionable to nonactionable by USDA. Only 10 state regulatory officials responded that they would take no 

regulatory action for LBAM should it be deregulated because they are not located in geographic 

regions where LBAM would become established (APHIS, 2009b).

The majority of the products exported to Canada and Mexico from New Zealand and Australia,

where LBAM is endemic, require an import permit to ship. The import permit would have the 

import requirements (which could include specifications of a treatment and/or Additional 

Declarations for the pests of concern) for each commodity listed on the permit. A permit would 

probably be the first new requirement for LBAM host material exported to Canada and Mexico, 

if LBAM was deregulated in California (Wells, 2009) and would impose additional regulatory 

and treatment requirements on farmers to complete the permit process. 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

18

APHIS plans to continue to refine the analysis using trade scenarios as additional data are 

acquired. This initial analysis provides some perspective as to the range of values among 

geographically diverse trading partners having phytosanitary concerns for LBAM. 

Table 7: Value of exports from LBAM at-risk states of selected commodities by HS-Codes*, to 

countries that currently regulate for LBAM, avg. 2005-2007

HS 06 -

Live Trees

And Plants

HS 07-Vegetables HS 08-Fruits & 

Nuts Total

Percent of

Total U.S. 

Exports From 

States with 

LBAM Risk

Country

------------------ Export value ($ billion) ----------------

Canada 0.161 1.277 2.016 3.454 74.1%

Mexico 0.026 0.157 0.390 0.573 81.2%

Korean Republic 0.001 0.011 0.211 0.223 96.9%

Thailand 0.000 0.001 0.032 0.033 97.0%

Chile 0.000 0.002 0.011 0.013 86.6%

South Africa 0.000 0.002 0.009 0.011 91.6%

Peru 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.005 55.5%

Ecuador 0.001 0.001 0.007 0.009 100%

India 0.000 0.032 0.188 0.220 94.1%

Japan 0.008 0.121 0.588 0.717 81.8%

Taiwan 0.000 0.033 0.169 0.202 86.3%

Value of U.S. Exports

To 11 Countries 0.317 2.085 6.645 9.047 90.5%

U.S. Exports to the World 0.384 2.711 6.894 9.989

Share of 11 Countries in U.S. 

World Exports 82% 77% 96% 90%

Note: the total values for all products under the two-digit HS chapter include the aggregate trade 

value. Source: US Bureau of the Census: Foreign Trade Division USA Trade Online. * HS refers to Harmonized Schedule 

Codes used by U.S. Customs to classify similar imported products for tariff purposes.

Separate analysis of export trade values specific to California for selected LBAM host crops 

considered in Fowler et al. (2009) is provided in Table 8. These commodities include fresh 

oranges (HS080510), fresh grapes (HS080610), fresh apples (HS080810), and fresh pears 

(HS080820). These values are associated with the same 11 partner countries, as shown in Table 

7, that have LBAM phytosanitary import trade concerns. Maximum pest spread in California 

accompanied by phytosanitary trade restrictions by major trading partners for U.S. fresh apples, 

grapes, pears, oranges, and nursery stock could bring up to one-half billion dollars in potential 

negative economic impact. The aggregate values of California’s export trade for each of the four 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

19

LBAM at-risk fresh fruits is over half of the entire U.S. export value to the 11 countries. Should 

LBAM spread or become established in California’s agricultural areas, increased risk may 

prompt trading partners to restrict the flow of LBAM host commodities. Any interruption in 

trade flows to these export markets is likely to result in negative impact. 

Table 8: Value of California LBAM at-risk select fresh fruit exports, to countries that currently 

regulate for LBAM, avg. 2005-2007

Fresh Apples

HS 080810

Fresh Grapes

HS080610

Fresh Oranges

HS080510

Fresh Pears

HS080820

Total

Value

Country

------------------ Export value ($ millions) ----------------

Canada 8.376 197.922 82.739 8.320 297.357

Mexico 18.603 33.176 4.864 10.044 66.687

Korean Republic 0.029 5.435 81.208 0.000 86.672

Thailand 0.187 10.404 0.172 0.000 10.763

Chile 0.000 0.171 0.110 0.043 0.324

South Africa 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.012

Peru 0.097 0.031 0.016 0.040 0.184

Ecuador 0.143 2.234 0.114 0.038 2.529

India 1.857 4.824 0.179 0.044 6.904

Japan 0.059 6.103 46.038 0.015 52.215

Taiwan 2.517 20.761 3.633 0.031 26.942

Value of U.S. Exports

To 11 Countries 31.688 281.073 219.073 18.575 550.589

Share 11 Country Total 

of U.S. World Exports 54.32% 54.21% 69.54% 86.28%

Figure 3 highlights the value of exports to Canada, Mexico, and Chile of specific commodities 

produced in California that are also susceptible to LBAM. Canada and Mexico are the leading 

importers of California agricultural products. These two countries also place restrictions on 

imports of LBAM host commodities. Trade restrictions between these two countries and the 

United States would likely serve as a guide for other countries producing host commodities. 

Although exports to Chile from California represent less than 1% of the value depicted in Figure 

2, it is important to note that Chile places a strict prohibition on LBAM host articles. 

The largest and third largest importers of California table grapes are Canada and Mexico, 

respectively. Under specified conditions, host articles may enter Canada (B.C.) and Mexico from 

regulated areas. Grapes from a production site with a positive find are prohibited. These 

restrictions lead to higher costs for producers, and in cases of positive finds, loss of market 

access. Considering the magnitude of the value of host commodity export trade from states at 

risk of LBAM introduction ($9 billion), economic impact may include significant job and 

business losses, particularly in states that experience high and expansive infestations. Currently, 

major table grape-producing counties are not infested; however, if LBAM spread to other host 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

20

crop areas, exports to Canada (B.C.) and Mexico would be prohibited unless post-harvest 

treatments were applied or the production site met the requirement of International Standard for 

Phytosanitary Measures No. 10 (IPPC, 2006) for a pest-free place of production, including a 

buffer zone. The requirement of a buffer zone would be problematic for growers to implement 

given the horticultural landscape and wide host distribution in the production areas. Additionally, 

while methyl bromide is approved as a fumigant for surface pests, efficacy data specifically for 

LBAM does not currently exist for its application on grapes. 

Figure 3: Value of California exports to Canada, Mexico, and Chile, 2007. Source: Global Trade 

Atlas State Export Data.

Crop Damage

The key reason for instituting quarantine regulations is first and foremost to prevent the crop 

damage that a new pest could cause in areas previously not known to be affected. Predicting the 

potential damage of LBAM in the United States is the subject of much controversy. The 

petitioners have suggested that LBAM is a quarantine pest in New Zealand and Australia 

primarily because of the restrictions imposed by U.S. import regulations, and because heavy use 

of organophosphate pesticides in early years was implemented (to comply with the U.S. 

requirements) which resulted in the elimination of natural enemies that would have limited 

LBAM damage. The petitions contend that naturally occurring Trichogramma or other beneficial 

insects and organisms can limit damage caused by LBAM to one percent or less of crops 

(petition submitted by Harder et al. (2008)). The literature also suggests that natural control can 

be sporadic, and incapable of preventing economic losses (Nicholls, 1934; Lloyd et al., 1970; 

Collyer & van Geldermalsen, 1975; Buchanan, 1977). The implication that a pest is considered 

minor because of a small percentage loss is misleading. For a pest with as broad a host range as 

LBAM, the economic losses would be considered significant when damages are summed 

across the numerous susceptible crops. An assumed proportion of crop damage of 0.010 to 0.023 

249.7

131.9

223.7

193.6

75.4

2.1

34.3

70.9

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

Grapes Almonds Lettuce Strawberries Oranges Flowers and

Foliage

Broccoli Peaches

$ Millions 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

21

(Fowler et al., 2009) applied to the aggregate estimated LBAM 2007 commodity safeguarding 

market value derived from data in the 2007 U.S. Agricultural Census would mean that American 

farmers would experience losses that would amount to a $0.694 to $1.597 billion in crop damage

losses per year of the major host crops produced in the 33 LBAM at-risk states. This amount is 

assumed to be a range within the most likely representative lower and upper bounds that would 

depend on the availability and effectiveness of LBAM’s natural enemies to thrive in areas with 

suitable climate and hosts. This does not include impacts on other States that may be subject to 

seasonal infestations. 

Based on recent experience in Tasmania, the costs of pesticides on a major LBAM host crop 

such as grapes is anticipated to cost the farmer $7 to $10.50 per acre (2009 US$) excluding 

application costs (Lo and Murrell, 2000). For example, in the current LBAM quarantine area in 

California the estimated annual pesticide cost applied to the 2007 agricultural census grapebearing acreage in the 10 counties would in aggregate range from over $850,000 to $1.275 

million. If LBAM were to spread to grape-bearing acreage in all other 33 at-risk states and 

insecticides were used on 10 percent of the acreage, the pesticide costs could range from over 

$670,000 to over $1 million annually. 

In 2007, APHIS conducted a geospatial analysis of areas at risk in the United States based on 

climate and hosts (Fowler et al., 2009). The study focused on four major host commodities that 

included apple, grape, pear, and orange. The result showed that 58% to 100% of the four crops 

would be at risk for LBAM (apple 58%, grape 97%, orange 100%, pear 73%). Fowler et al. 

(2009) estimated the mean total annual crop value loss if LBAM were introduced into the at-risk 

areas to be $104 million. The 5th and 95th percentile values were: $77 million and $132 million, i.e. 

95 percent of the time total crop value loss exceeded $76 million. It should be noted that this 

estimate would likely be much higher were it to consider more hosts. Crop damages could be 

reduced by pre-harvest treatments but these would add to the cost of production.

Environmental Damage

Silviculture

Of the eight species of Tortricidae causing moderate-to-severe damage to Monterey pine (Pinus

radiata D. Don) in Australia, LBAM is the most common (Kay, 1991). Neumann & Marks 

(1976, p. 89) deemed LBAM an important defoliator “sometimes associated with significant 

damage to seedlings and trees of...conifers” in New South Wales, South Australia, and Victoria. 

They reported larvae to damage needles and terminal buds of P. radiata in nurseries and young 

plantations. The moth also is among the most important tortricid pests of conifers in New 

Zealand, and also is found on plantation eucalyptus there (Kay, 1991). In New Zealand, LBAM 

is found on P. radiata and other Pinus spp., Douglas fir, and Picea spp. (Nuttall, 1983). Larvae 

use the stems and apical buds of the leading shoots of conifers as winter-feeding and refuge sites. 

The bud is destroyed and the apical few centimeters of the leader hollowed out; damage results 

in a malformed stem or multiple leaders (Kay, 1991). On pines, larvae web needles together to 

form tubular shelters; feeding damages needles, flowers, and green cones (Nuttall, 1983).

Brockerhoff et al. (2002) found LBAM to be about as abundant in P. radiata plantation forests as 

it was in fruit orchards. 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

22

Insecticide Pollution

Buchanan (1977) reported that parasitoids caused about 30% mortality in larvae and pupae of 

LBAM in both the overwintering and spring generations in Australian vineyards. However, this 

was insufficient to prevent the pest from causing economic damage. Natural enemies also were 

reported not to provide satisfactory control of the moth in Tasmanian apple orchards in the 

absence of insecticidal applications (Lloyd et al., 1970). The petition submitted by Harder et al. 

(2008) suggested that LBAM infestation, and the damage they cause, resulted from the overuse 

of insecticides killing off natural enemies, which would tend to keep populations of the pest in 

check. However, LBAM was known to be a troublesome pest in Australia before the advent of 

modern synthetic insecticides in horticulture, and capable of causing severe crop losses (Geier & 

Briese, 1981). Production of high-quality pome fruits is possible only with application of a full 

schedule of preventive insecticidal sprays (MacQuillan, 1976; Terauds, 1977). Spread of LBAM 

throughout the United States thus could lead to an increase in the use of insectides to control the 

pest on America’s farms and residential areas.

Potential Threats to Native Plant Species

As indicated by the number of its disparate host plants, which includes species in numerous 

families (Whittle, 1984; Brown et al., 2008; USDA, 2008a), USDA is concerned about the 

potential to impact ecosystems under certain conditions due to LBAM’s wide host range. The 

moth’s introduction into the continental United States puts at risk not only economically 

important crops and nursery stock, but also populations of native American plant taxa 

determined by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service to be in danger of 

extinction (50 CFR §17.12, 2005). At least 70 of these species, subspecies, or varieties were 

identified as potential or actual hosts of LBAM (Table 8), based on the moth’s known host range. 

The list includes 26 species, subspecies, or varieties, on which the moth has been recorded since 

its introduction into California, and which therefore are under increased threat of extinction.

Table 9: Threatened or endangered plant species1 in the United States potentially at risk of 

attack by LBAM

Species Status Distribution2 LBAM Host Reference

Adiantum vivesii Endangered PR USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Amaranthus pumilus Threatened DE, MA, MD, NC, NJ, 

NY, RI, SC, VA

USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Arctostaphylos confertiflora3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a)

Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp.

crassifolia3

Endangered CA USDA (2008a)

Arctostaphylos hookeri var.

ravenii3

Endangered CA USDA (2008a)

Arctostaphylos morroensis3 Threatened CA USDA (2008a)

Arctostaphylos myrtifolia3 Threatened CA USDA (2008a)

Arctostaphylos pallida3 Threatened CA USDA (2008a)

Baccharis vanessae3 Threatened CA Brown et al. (2008); USDA 

(2008a); Whittle (1984)

Berberis nevinii3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a)

Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis Endangered CA USDA (2008a)

Betula uber Threatened VA USDA (2008a)

Ceanothus ferrisae3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Ceanothus ophiochilus3 Threatened CA USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Ceanothus roderickii3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a)
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

23

Cirsium fontinale var.

obispoense3

Endangered CA USDA (2008a)

Cirsium hydrophilum var.

hydrophilum3

Endangered CA USDA (2008a)

Cirsium loncholepis3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a)

Cirsium pitcher Threatened IL, IN, MI, WI USDA (2008a)

Cirsium vinaceum Threatened NM USDA (2008a)

Clematis morefieldii Endangered AL USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Clematis socialis Endangered AL USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp.

Okeechobeensis

Endangered FL USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Cupressus abramsiana3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a)

Cupressus goveniana ssp.

goveniana3

Threatened CA USDA (2008a)

Eugenia haematocarpa Endangered PR USDA (2008a)

Eugenia woodburyana Endangered PR USDA (2008a)

Euphorbia telephioides Threatened FL USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Helianthus paradoxus Threatened NM, TX USDA (2008a)

Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered NC, SC USDA (2008a)

Hypericum cumulicola Endangered FL USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Ilex cookie Endangered PR USDA (2008a)

Ilex sintenisii Endangered PR USDA (2008a)

Iris lacustris Threatened MI, WI USDA (2008a)

Juglans jamaicensis Endangered PR USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Lilium occidentale3 Endangered CA, OR USDA (2008a)

Lilium pardalinum ssp.

pitkinense3

Endangered CA USDA (2008a)

Lotus dendroideus ssp. traskiae Endangered CA USDA (2008a)

Lupinus aridorum Endangered FL USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Lupinus nipomensis3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii Threatened OR, WA USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Lupinus tidestromii3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Opuntia treleasei Endangered CA USDA (2008a)

Penstemon haydenii Endangered NE USDA (2008a)

Penstemon penlandii Endangered CO USDA (2008a)

Phlox hirsuta3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a)

Phlox nivalis ssp. Texensis Endangered TX USDA (2008a)

Polygala lewtonii Endangered FL USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Polygala smallii Endangered FL USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Polygonum hickmanii3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Primula maguirei Threatened UT USDA (2008a)

Prunus geniculata Endangered FL Brown et al. (2008); USDA 

(2008a); Whittle (1984)

Pteris lidgatei Endangered PR USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Quercus hinckleyi Threatened TX USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Ranunculus acriformis var.

Aestivalis

Endangered UT USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Rhododendron chapmanii Endangered FL Meijerman & Ulenberg (2000); 

USDA (2008a)

Ribes echinellum Threatened FL, SC Brown et al. (2008); USDA 

(2008a); Whittle (1984)

Senecio franciscanus Threatened AZ USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Senecio layneae Threatened CA USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Solanum drymophilum Endangered PR USDA (2008a); Whittle (1984)

Solidago albopilosa Threatened KY USDA (2008a)

Solidago houghtonii Threatened MI USDA (2008a)
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

24

Solidago shortii Endangered KY USDA (2008a)

Solidago spithamaea Threatened NC, TN USDA (2008a)

Spiraea virginiana Threatened GA, KY, NC, OH, PA, 

TN, VA, WV

USDA (2008a)

Trifolium amoenum3 Endangered CA Brown et al. (2008); USDA 

(2008a); Whittle (1984)

Trifolium stoloniferum Endangered AR, IL, IN, KS, KY, 

MO, OH, WV

Brown et al. (2008); USDA 

(2008a); Whittle (1984)

Trifolium trichocalyx3 Endangered CA Brown et al. (2008); USDA 

(2008a); Whittle (1984)

Verbena californica3 Threatened CA USDA (2008a) 1

Listed in 50 CFR §17.12

2

Distribution: AL = Alabama, AR = Arkansas, AZ = Arizona, CA = California, CO = Colorado, DE = Delaware, FL 

= Florida, GA = Georgia, IL = Illinois, IN = Indiana, KS = Kansas, KY = Kentucky, MA = Massachusetts, MD = 

Maryland, MI = Michigan, MO = Missouri, NC = North Carolina, NE = Nebraska, NJ = New Jersey, NM = New 

Mexico, NY = New York, OH = Ohio, OR = Oregon, PA = Pennsylvania, PR = Puerto Rico, RI = Rhode Island, 

SC = South Carolina, TN = Tennessee, TX = Texas, UT = Utah, VA = Virginia, WA = Washington, WI = 

Wisconsin, WV = West Virginia 3

Listed in USDA (2008a) as a confirmed host.

Additional Costs to Farmers Producing Nursery Stock, Cut Flower, and Foliage 

A likely pathway for LBAM to spread from California to uninfested areas is through the nursery 

trade. This risk is reflected in the import requirements of Canada, Mexico, and Chile for U.S. 

nursery products, which are more stringent than for fresh fruits and vegetables. Based on one 

industry estimate, approximately 50% of the volume of nursery products and cut flowers and 

foliage produced in California are destined for markets outside the State (O’Brien, 2004). Should 

LBAM be allowed to spread unchecked, the implications for U.S. trade (export and interstate) of 

nursery products and cut flowers would be additional restrictions ranging from certification for

pest freedom, to quarantine treatment, to prohibition. 

In order to maintain interstate commerce, nursery stock, cut flowers, and greenery produced in 

quarantined areas must be inspected and found free of the pest as a condition for movement. The 

California Nursery Growers Commission/ Nursery Growers Association estimated that the 

procedures to meet compliance could increase producer costs by $2,250 to $4,570 per acre 

annually (O’Brien, 2009). These additional costs above current non-LBAM pest management

costs are associated with the use of chemical applications, pheromone twist ties, and monitoring

of premises.

Due to the impracticality of segregating intrastate and interstate markets, it is likely that all 

nursery products grown in LBAM quarantine areas would need to be treated in the event that

LBAM were deregulated in the federal domestic quarantine regulations. According to the 2007 

Census of Agriculture, 436,511 acres of nursery and floriculture crops in the 33 LBAM at-risk 

states were grown in open areas as opposed to under glass or other protection. The nursery and 

floriculture crops included in this category are vegetable and flower seed crops, and sod 

harvested, etc. grown in the open. Floriculture crops are defined as bedding/garden plants, cut 

flowers and cut florist greens, foliage plants, and potted flowering plants. Based upon this 

estimate, under deregulation the additional cost to producers with open-air production could 

range between $982 million and $1.9 billion annually.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

25

IV. Summary

If LBAM were to be reclassified as a non-actionable pest, APHIS estimates that the lowest range 

of annual sales losses from LBAM damages would be $694 million (a 1% loss). Under official 

control, the amount of avoided losses in annual sales compares with the federal funding available 

in the LBAM emergency response effort of almost $100 million (USDA, 2008c News Release) 

over a two-year period, indicating a potential, positive benefit-to-cost ratio of at least 6.9 to 1. 

This does not include potential environmental losses due to factors such as increased pesticide 

use and other costs associated with widespread establishment of the pest. Additionally, 

deregulation of LBAM domestically is likely to trigger increased restrictions for LBAM by 

trading partners, which are expected to have a much greater impact on American farms if LBAM 

were allowed to spread beyond the current containment area.

V. Conclusion

APHIS considered the positions articulated in the two petitions received by the Secretary of 

Agriculture that requested a change in the regulatory status of LBAM from an actionable 

quarantine pest to non-quarantine pest. In reviewing the science, economics, and situational 

awareness surrounding such a shift in policy which was based upon experience with LBAM in 

California and discussions with the States and foreign trading partners, APHIS determined that 

the regulatory status of LBAM should remain as an actionable quarantine pest. APHIS 

subsequently subjected its analysis/findings to the National Academy of Sciences, National 

Research Council (NRC) for an independent third party review. Aside from acknowledging that 

APHIS had the regulatory authority to take such action, NRC determined that through a review 

of a draft response to the petition that APHIS had provided sufficient evidence to lead NRC to 

conclude that this decision was justified. NRC went on to elaborate that APHIS could have done 

a better job in providing the scientific justification addressing the question of reclassification and 

that APHIS would be well-served to address questions that were not directly related to the 

question of reclassification but that were included in the petition. In drafting this document and 

related appendices, APHIS considered those comments and therefore articulated the science in 

more detail and provided additional information to address the concerns of NRC. Herein we 

have enhanced our knowledge of the situation that we believe justifies the regulatory 

classification of LBAM and we have provided additional information on the LBAM response 

program in general. Of significant note is a shift in the goals of the LBAM program from 

eradication to management/control; this means that LBAM will remain a quarantine pest, but that 

given the increases in LBAM population densities and the extent of contiguous spread of LBAM 

observed over the past two years, coupled with a lack of area-wide management tools (aerial 

application), eradication is no longer feasible in California. Thus, APHIS will maintain a 

regulatory program to prevent long-distance spread of LBAM through the enforcement of 

treatments and inspection of exports to assure that trading partners and other States are protected. 

Further, APHIS will continue to work with the CDFA and affected industries, farmers and 

stakeholders to suppress populations to the fullest extent possible.

We are sharing our position publically via Federal Register Notification to ensure that all 

interested parties have an opportunity to review this document and for the purpose of providing 

them with an opportunity to provide comments to APHIS during a 60-day comment period. 

Thereafter, APHIS will review all comments and will finalize this document. It will be posted 

on APHIS’ website thereafter for public display. 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

26

VI. Literature Cited 

[N.B. This section includes all references cited in the document. A much larger number of references were 

consulted but not cited above because they were redundant or did not otherwise provide additional information; that 

more complete list of all articles consulted is presented in the “Literature Consulted” section which follows.]

7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786. 2000. Plant Protection Act, Title 7 United States Code § 7701-7786.

7 CFR § 319.56-13. 2008. Code of Federal Regulations. Agriculture. Title 7 Part 319 (7 CFR § 

319.56-13 Fruits and vegetables allowed importation subject to specified conditions). 

Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, 

Washington, DC, USA.

7 CFR § 319.56-20. 2008. Code of Federal Regulations. Agriculture. Title 7 Part 319 (7 CFR § 

319.56-20 Apples and pears from Australia (including Tasmania) and New Zealand). 

Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, 

Washington, DC, USA.

50 CFR § 17.12. 2005. Code of Federal Regulations. Wildlife and Fisheries. Title 50 Part 17 (50 

CFR § 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants). Office of the Federal Register, National 

Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC, USA.

Bailey, P. 1997. Lightbrown apple moth control options for the 1997/8 season. Australian & 

New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 12(3): 267-268, 270.

Bailey, P., G. Baker, and G. Caon. 1996. Field efficacy and persistence of Bacillus thuringiensis

var. kurstaki against Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in relation 

to larval behaviour on grapevine leaves. Australian Journal of Entomology 35(4): 297-

302.

Baker, C.R.B. 1968. Notes on Epiphyas (= Austrotortrix) postvittana (Walker), (Lep. 

Tortricidae). Entomologist’s Gazette 19(3): 167-172.

Baker, G. 2005. Lightbrown apple moth. Government of South Australia Primary Industries and 

Resources SA Fact Sheet No. 07/04.

Baker, H.G. 1986. Patterns of plant invasion in North America, pp. 44-57. In H.A. Mooney and 

J.A. Drake (eds.). Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. New 

York: Springer-Verlag.

Bond, K.G.M. 1998. Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lep.: Tortricidae) new to Ireland. 

Entomologist’s Record 110(9/10): 250.

Brockerhoff, E.G., H. Jactel, A.C. Leckie, and D.M. Suckling. 2002. Species composition and 

abundance of leafrollers in a Canterbury pine plantation. New Zealand Plant Protection 

55: 85-89.

Brown, J.W. 2007. Discovery of light brown apple moth in North America. Torts 8(2): 2.

Brown, J.W., G. Robinson, and J.A. Powell. 2008. Food Plant Database of the Leafrollers of the 

World (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) (Version 1.0.0); 

http://www.tortricidae.com/foodplants.asp.

Buchanan, G.A. 1977. The seasonal abundance and control of light brown apple moth, Epiphyas 

postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), on grapevines in Victoria. Australian 

Journal of Agricultural Research 28(1): 125-132.

Burke, H.R., W.E. Clark, J.R. Cate, and P.A. Fryxell. 1986. Origin and dispersal of the boll 

weevil. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 32(4): 228-238.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

27

Burns, R.M. and B.H. Honkala (tech. coords.). 1990. Silvics of North America. Vol. 2. 

Hardwoods. USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 654.

Bush, G.L. 1969. Sympatric host race formation and speciation in frugivorous flies of the genus 

Rhagoletis (Diptera, Tephritidae) Evolution 23(2): 237-251.

Carter, D.J. 1984. Pest Lepidoptera of Europe with Special Reference to the British Isles. 

Dordrecht, Netherlands: Dr W. Junk Publishers.

CDFA. 2009. Plant Quarantine Manual: Light Brown Apple Moth. State Interior Quarantine No. 

3434. California Department of Food and Agriculture.

CFIA. 2008. Plant Protection (Phytosanitary) Import Requirements to Prevent the Entry of 

Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (light brown apple moth). Plant Protection Policy 

Directive No. D-07-03 (3rd Revision). Ottawa: Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Plant 

Products Directorate, Plant Health Division.

Clark, L.R. 1970. Analysis of pest situations through the life systems approach, pp. 45-58. In

R.L. Rabb and F.E. Guthrie (eds.). Concepts of Pest Management. Raleigh: North 

Carolina State University.

Clinton, W.J. 1999. Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999: invasive species. Federal 

Register 64(25): 6183-6186.

Collett, N.G. and J. McBeath. 2007. Managing insect pests in Eucalyptus globulus (Labill.) 

plantations in Victoria using insecticide tablets at establishment. Australian Forestry 

70(1): 53-60.

Collyer, E. and M. van Geldermalsen. 1975. Integrated control of apple pests in New Zealand. 1. 

Outline of experiment and general results. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 2(1): 101-

134.

Common, I. F. B. 1990. Moths of Australia. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, Australia. 

535 pp.

Crooks, J.A. 2002. Characterizing ecosystem-level consequences of biological invasions: the role 

of ecosystem engineers. Oikos 97(2): 153-166.

Danthanarayana, W. 1975. The bionomics, distribution and host range of the light brown apple 

moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) (Tortricidae). Australian Journal of Zoology 23(3): 

419-437.

Dumbleton, L.J. 1940. Tortrix postvittana Walk. and its parasites in Australia. New Zealand 

Journal of Science and Technology A 21(6): 322-336.

Ehrlich, P.R. 1986. Which animal will invade?, pp. 79-95. In H.A. Mooney and J.A. Drake 

(eds.). Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. New York: 

Springer-Verlag.

EPPO. 2007. EPPO Plant Quarantine Information Retrieval System (PQR), Ver. 4.6. Paris: 

European & Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization.

Evans, J.W. 1936. The overwintering of the larvae of Tortrix postvittana Walk, in apple 

orchards. Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science 2(4): 169-170. [CAB 

Abstracts Archive] 

Evans, J.W. 1937a. The light-brown apple moth (Tortrix postvittana Walker). Tasmanian Journal 

of Agriculture 8(3 Suppl.): 1-18. [CAB Abstracts Archive] 

Evans, J.W. 1937b. The light-brown apple moth (Tortrix postvittana, Walk). Tasmanian Journal 

of Agriculture 8(3): 125-128.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

28

Fletcher, T.B. 1933. An Australian tortricid (Tortrix postvittana, Walker) in England. 

Entomologist’s Record and Journal of Variation 45(12): 165-166. [CAB Abstracts 

Archive] 

Fountain, M. T., and J. V. Cross. 2007. The light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana 

(Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in UK pome and stone fruit orchards. Bulletin 

OILB/SROP 30(4):51-60.

Fowler, G., Garrett, L., Neeley, A., Magarey, R., Borchert, D., Spears, B. 2009. Economic 

analysis: risk to U.S. apple, grape, orange and pear production from the light brown apple 

moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Rev. 03 050809). United States Department of 

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

Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and 

Risk Analysis Laboratory, Raleigh, NC. 29 pp. 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/lba_moth/downloads/lbamecono

micanalysis.pdf

Fukada, M. 2008. Reports and Hosts of Epiphyas postvittana (Walker), Light Brown Apple 

Moth (LBAM), in Hawaii. July 2008 personal communication. Hawaii Department of 

Agriculture, Maui, HI.

Fuller, P. 2003. Freshwater aquatic vertebrate introductions in the United States: patterns and 

pathways, pp. 123-151. In G.M. Ruiz and J.T. Carlton (eds.). Invasive Species: Vectors 

and Management Strategies. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Geier, P.W. and D.T. Briese. 1980. The light-brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker): 

4. Studies on population dynamics and injuriousness to apples in the Australian Capital 

Territory. Australian Journal of Ecology 5(1): 63-93.

Geier, P.W. and D.T. Briese. 1981. The light-brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker): 

a native leafroller fostered by European settlement, pp. 131-155. In R.L. Kitching and 

R.E. Jones (eds.). The Ecology of Pests: Some Australian Case Histories. Melbourne: 

CSIRO.

Harder, D., K. Kimes, R. Upton, and L. Casper. 2008. Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) 

Eradication Program: Formal Petition to Reclassify LBAM As a Non-actionable Pest. 

Submission to the California Department of Agriculture (CDFA) and United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA). Soquel, CA: Citizens For Health.

Hassan, E. 1977. Major Insect and Mite Pest of Australian Crops. Gatton, Qld.: Ento Press.

Hely, P.C., G. Pasfield, and J.G. Gellatley. 1982. Insect Pests of Fruit and Vegetables in NSW. 

Melbourne: Inkata Press.

Hoddle, M. S., K. M. Jetter, and J. Morse. 2003. Introduction and Establishment of Exotic Insect 

and Mite Pests of Avocados in California, Changes in Sanitary and Phytosanitary 

Policies, and Their Economic and Social Impact. Pages 185-202 in D. A. Summer, (ed.). 

Exotic Pests and Diseases Biology and Economics for Biosecurity. Iowa Press. 

IPPC. 2006. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, 1 to 29 (2006 edition). Food 

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

Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy.

Kay, M.K. 1991. Australian and New Zealand species in forestry, pp. 765-773. In L.P.S. van der 

Geest and H.H. Evenhuis (eds.). Tortricid Pests: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and 

Control (World Crop Pests, Vol. 5). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

29

Kraus, F. 2003. Invasion pathways for terrestrial vertebrates, pp. 68-92. In G.M. Ruiz and J.T. 

Carlton (eds.). Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies. Washington, D.C.: 

Island Press.

Kumashiro, B. 2007. Personal communication "Distribution of Hosts of Epiphyas postvittana 

(Walker), Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM), in Hawaii", Update No. 4, July 2, 2007. 

Hawaii Dept. of Agriculturue, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Lloyd, N.C., E.L. Jones, D.S. Morris, W.J. Webster, W.B. Harris, H.F. Lower, N.M. Hudson, 

and P.W. Geier. 1970. Managing apple pests: a new perspective. Journal of the Australian 

Institute of Agricultural Science 36(4): 251-258. [CAB Abstracts Archive] 

Lo, P.L., V.C. Murrell. 2000. Time of Leafroller Infestation and Effect on Yield in Grapes. 

Horticultural Insects, New Zealand Plant Protection 53:173-178. 

Mack, R.N. and W.M. Lonsdale. 2001. Humans as global plant dispersers: getting more than we 

bargained for. BioScience 51(2): 95-102.

Mack, R.N., D. Simberloff, W.M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout, and F.A. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic 

invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological 

Applications 10(3): 689-710.

MacQuillan, M.J. 1976. Insecticides for control of light brown apple moth and codling moth in 

Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 16: 

135-139.

Meijerman, L. and S.A. Ulenberg. 2000. “Epiphyas postvittana.” Arthropods of Economic 

Importance: Eurasian Tortricidae. Amsterdam: Zoological Museum Amsterdam 

(University of Amsterdam). Retrieved January 2009, from 

http://ip30.eti.uva.nl/bis/tortricidae.php?selected=beschrijving&menuentry=soorten&id=

197.

NAPIS. 2009a. Historical negative trap data for Light Brown Apple Moth. Purdue University, 

Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, National Agriculture Pest 

Information System (NAPIS). Last accessed May 2009, http://napis.ceris.purdue.edu/.

NAPIS. 2009b. Map of light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana: Pest Tracker. National 

Agricultural Pest Information System. 

http://pest.ceris.purdue.edu/searchmap.php?selectName=ITBUBPA

Naylor, R.L., S.L. Williams, and D.R. Strong. 2001. Aquaculture—a gateway for exotic species. 

Science 294: 1655-1656.

Neumann, F.G. and G.C. Marks. 1976. A synopsis of important pests and diseases in Australian 

forests and forest nurseries. Australian Forestry 39(2): 83-102.

Nicholls, H.M. 1934. The light brown apple moth. Tasmanian Journal of Agriculture 5(2): 68-72. 

[CAB Abstracts Archive] We have the entire paper in pdf.

Nuttall, M.J. 1983. Planotortrix excessana (Walker), Planotortrix notophaea (Turner), Epiphyas 

postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): greenheaded leafroller, blacklegged 

leafroller, light brown apple moth. Forest and Timber Insects in New Zealand No. 58.

O'Brien, T. 2004. The Associated Press State and Local Wire, March 27, 2004, Saturday, BC 

cycle Spread of sudden oak death prompts inspections of Calif. nurseries. Byline: By 

Michael R. Blood, Associated Press Writer. Section: State and Regional. Dateline: Los 

Angeles.

O'Brien, T. 2009. Nursery Association estimate of cost of procedures to meet compliance with 

LBAM phytosanitary requirements as a condition for movement. Personal 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

30

communication to Trang Vo on 07/29/2008, from Email T. O'Brien, National Advocate 

for California Nursery Growers Commission/Nursery Growers Association. 

PANNA. 2009. LBAM Reclassification Petition. Personal communication to T. Vilsack on 

February 4, 2009, from Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA). Archived at 

the PERAL library, Raleigh, NC.

Porter, J. 2001. Range expansion in the light brown apple-moth Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.). 

Atropos (14): 42-46.

PRF. 2008. Export Certification Project (EXCERPT) Database. Purdue Research Foundation.

Reichard, S.E. and P. White. 2001. Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in 

the United States. BioScience 51(2): 103-113.

Richardson, D.M., P. Pyšek, M. Rejmánek, M.G. Barbour, F.D. Panetta, and C.J. West. 2000. 

Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Diversity and 

Distributions 6(2): 93-107.

Rubinoff, D. and J.A. Powell. 2009. Moth surveys conducted in California 1961-2008 

[Unpublished manuscript], 13 pp.

Ruiz, G.M., T.K. Rawlings, F.C. Dobbs, L.A. Drake, T. Mullady, A. Huq, and R.R. Colwell. 

2000. Global spread of microorganisms by ships. Nature 408: 49-50.

Simberloff, D. 1981. Community effects of introduced species, pp. 53-81. In M.H. Nitecki (ed.). 

Biotic Crises in Ecological and Evolutionary Time. New York: Academic Press.

Simberloff, D. 1989. Which insect introductions succeed and which fail?, pp. 61-75. In J.A. 

Drake, H.A. Mooney, F. di Castri, R.H. Groves, F.J. Kruger, M. Rejmánek, and M. 

Williamson (eds.). Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective. Chichester, U.K.: John 

Wiley & Sons.

Suckling, D.M., J.F. Brunner, G.M. Burnip, and J.T.S. Walker. 1994. Dispersal of Epiphyas 

postvittana (Walker) and Planotortrix octo Dugdale (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) at a 

Canterbury, New Zealand orchard. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural 

Science 22(3): 225-234.

Sutherst, R.W. 2000. Pests and pest management – impact of climate change. RIRDC 

Publication No. 00/16. Barton, A.C.T. Australia: Rural Industries Research and 

Development Corporation.

Tabashnik, B.E. 1983. Host range evolution: the shift from native legume hosts to alfalfa by the 

butterfly, Colias philodice eriphyle. Evolution 37(1): 150-162.

Takahashi, G. 2002. Notes on the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) 

intercepted at import plant quarantine of Narita Airport in Japan. Research Bulletin of the 

Plant Protection Service Japan 38: 99-103.

Terauds, A. 1977. Two methods of assessing damage to apples caused by light brown apple 

moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 

16(4): 367-369.

University of California. 2007. Statistical Review of California's Organic Agriculture, 2000-

2005. Agricultural Issues Center, University of California, May 2007. 

APHIS. 2009a. LBAM confirmations: 2007 to April, 22, 2009. United States Department of 

Agriculture. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Data courtesy of Roxanne 

Broadway. APHIS-PPQ.

APHIS. 2009b. Survey of State Plant Regulatory Officers Positions on Light Brown Apple 

Moth; survey initiated December 19, 2008 with results complied January, 2009. Internal 

APHIS document, Emergency and Domestic Programs, Riverdale, MD. 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

31

USDA. 2007. Federal Domestic Quarantine Order: Epiphyas postvittana (Light Brown Apple 

Moth) (LBAM) No. DA-2007-42.

USDA. 2008a. Treatment Program for Light Brown Apple Moth in California: Environmental 

Assessment. United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service.

USDA. 2008b. Federal Domestic Quarantine Order, DA-2008-17. 

http://www.aphis.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/lba_moth/downloads/federalorder4-

28-08.pdf

USDA. 2008c. "Conner Announces Nearly $75 Million in Additional Funding For Light Brown 

Apple Moth Eradication". USDA News Release, January 24, 2008.

USDA-CDFA. 2009. Weekly situation report: Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM). May 21, 

2009. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Heath 

Inspection Service, and California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). 5 pp.

USDA-ERS. 2007. March, FTS-326, Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook. United States Department of 

Agriculture Economic Research Service.

USDA-NASS California Field Office. 2007. Summary of County Agricultural Commissioners' 

Reports 2005-2006.

U.S. Department of Commerce-BEA. 2009. Bureau of Economic Accounts, 

http://www.bea.gov/regional/gsp/

Varela, L.G., M.W. Johnson, L. Strand, C.A. Wilen, and C. Pickel. 2008. Light brown apple 

moth’s arrival in California worries commodity groups. California Agriculture 62(2): 57-

61.

Vitousek, P.M. 1986. Biological invasions and ecosystem properties: can species make a 

difference, pp. 163-176. In H.A. Mooney and J.A. Drake (eds.). Ecology of Biological 

Invasions of North America and Hawaii. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Ward, F.E. 1931. Notes on insect pests. Annual Report, Agricultural Department, Tasmania, pp. 

41-44. [CAB Abstracts Archive] 

Ware, G. W. 1978. The Pesticide Book. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.

Wearing, C.H., W.P. Thomas, J.S. Dugdale, and W. Danthanarayana. 1991. Tortricid pests of 

pome and stone fruits, Australian and New Zealand species, pp. 453-472. In L.P.S. van 

der Geest and H.H. Evenhuis (eds.). Tortricid Pests: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and 

Control (World Crop Pests, Vol. 5). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

Wells, Terence. 2009. Import permit regulation for LBAM host material exported to Canada and 

Mexico if California were deregulated for LBAM. Personal communication to Trang Vo 

on 01/14/2009, from Terence Wells, Export Specialist, Plant Protection and QuarantineAnimal Plant Health Inspection Service.

Whittle, K. 1984. Light-brown apple moth: Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). Pests Not Known to 

Occur in the United States or of Limited Distribution No. 50. APHIS, PPQ.

Zimmerman, E. C. 1978. Insects of Hawaii, Volume 9, Microlepidoptera, Part 1. University of 

Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii, 881 pp

VII. Literature Consulted

Albrecht, C. 2007. Updated list of nursery hosts for light brown apple moth in California. 

Personal communication to J. Floyd on June 21, 2007, from Email sent from Courtney 

Albrecht to Joel Floyd.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

32

Alexandra, J. (no date). Controlling codling moth using ecological principles and innovative 

technology (granulosis virus): The case for efficiency, substitution and design. Alexandra 

and Associates, Eltham, Victoria, Australia. 7 pp

Allen, A. A. 1990. A note on two Tortricinae (Lep.) at Charlton, S.E. London. Entomologist's 

Record 102(1-2):9-10.

Anderson, D. T., and E. C. Wood. 1968. The Morphological Basis of Embryonic Movements in 

the Light Brown Apple Moth Epiphyas-Postvittana Lepidoptera Tortricidae. Australian 

Journal of Zoology 16(5):763-793.

Anon. 2006. Grape Omnivorous Leafroller. UC Davis. Last accessed 7/2/08, 

Anon. 2007a. Recommendations of the Technical Working Group for the Light Brown Apple 

Moth Infestation in California, San Jose. 5 pp.

Anon. 2007b. Recommendations of the Technical Working Group for the Light Brown Apple 

Moth Program, San Diego. 5 pp.

Anonymous. 2007a. Not a new pest? American/Western Fruit Grower 127(8):12.

Anonymous, 2007b. Lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). (n.d.). Insects and 

mites of stonefruit. HortNET: BugKEY.

Retrieved June 28, 2007, from http://www.hortnet.co.nz/key/stone/info/lba-info.htm

Aquino, T., D. Harder, K. Kimes, J. Rosendale, and R. Upton. 2008. LBAM Implications for 

California Agriculture. Blue Bamboo, University of Califomia, Greensward Nurseries, 

Horticulture Consultant, Citizens For Health. 12 pp.

Armstrong, K. F., C. M. Cameron, E. R. Frampton, and D. M. Suckling. 1997. Aliens at the 

border and cadavers in the field: a molecular technique for species identification. Pages 

316-321 Proceedings of the 50th New Zealand Plant Protection Conference: Genetics. 

New Zealand Plant Protection Society, Rotorua, New Zealand.

Armstrong, K. F., and D. M. Suckling. 1988. Investigations into the Biochemical Basis of 

Azinphosmethyl Resistance in the Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana 

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 32(1):62-73.

Armstrong, K. F., and D. M. Suckling. 1990. Correlation of Azinphosmethyl Resistance with 

Detoxication Enzyme Activity in the Light Brown Apple Moth Epiphyas postvittana 

(Lepidoptrea: Tortricidae). Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 36(3):281-289.

Auclair, A. N. D., Fowler, G., Hennessey, M.K., Hogue, A.T., Keena, M., Lance, D.R., 

McDowell, R.M., Oryang, D.O.,Sawyer, A.J. . 2005. Assessment of the risk of 

introduction of Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in municipal solid 

waste from the quarantine area of New York City to landfills outside of the quarantine 

area: a pathway analysis of the risk of spread and establishment. Journal of Economic 

Entomology 98(1):47-60.

Bailey, P. 1997. Lightbrown apple moth control options for the 1997-8 season. Australian & 

New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 12(3):267-270.

Bailey, P., G. Baker, and G. Caon. 1996. Field efficacy and persistence of Bacillus thuringiensis 

var. kurstaki against Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in relation 

to larval behaviour on grapevine leaves. Australian Journal of Entomology 35:297-302. 

Last accessed July 5, 2007, http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1440-

6055.1996.tb01407.x?cookieSet=1.

Bailey, P., A. Catsipordas, G. Baker, and B. Lynn. 1995. Traps in monitoring lightbrown apple 

moth. The Australian Grapegrower and Winemaker:130-132.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

33

Bailey, P. T., K. L. Ferguson, R. McMahon, and T. J. Wicks. 1997. Transmission of Botrytis 

cinerea by lightbrownapple moth larvae on grapes. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine 

Research 3:90-94.

Bailey, P. T., G. O. Furness, and J. G. Charlea. 1994. Overview. Pages 45-46 in P. Nicholas, P. 

A. Magarey, and M. F. Wachtel, (eds.). Diseases and Pests. Winetitles, Adelaide, 

Australia.

Baker, C. R. B. 1968. Notes on Epiphyas (= Austrotortrix) postvittana (Walker), (Lep. 

Tortricidae). Entomologist’s Gazette 19(3):167-172.

Baker, G. 2005. Light Brown Apple Moth Fact Sheet. Government of South Australia, Primary 

Industries and Resources SA (PIRSA) (No. 07/04):1-6.

Baker, G. J., P. T. Bailey, and J. G. CHarles. 1994. Lightbrown apple moth. Pages 47-50 in P. 

Nicholas, P. A. Magarey, and M. F. Wachtel, (eds.). Diseases and Pests. Winetitles, 

Adelaide, Australia.

Baker, R. T., and H. B. Dick. 1981. Leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in a strawberry crop in 

Horowhenua: abundance and control. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 

9:377-381.

Barclay, H. J. 1987. Models of sterile insect releases for populations under attack by parasitoids. 

Ecological Modeling 36:155-159.

Bari, M. A., W. E. Chaney, and E. T. Natwick. 2007. Artichoke Plume Moth. UC IPM. Last 

accessed 11/9/2007, http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r6300111.html.

Bari, M. A., and F. V. Sances. 1999. Crop Profile for Artichokes in California: General 

Production Information. Alliance for Alernative Agriculture; USDA. Last accessed 

11/9/2007, http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/caartichokes.html.

Barnett, R. J. 1991. Epiphyas postvittana Walk. (Lep.: Tortricidae) and Anomoia purmunda 

(Harris) (Dipt. Tephritidae) in Bristol. Entomologist's Record 103(1-2):42-43.

Barrass, I., and D. Brown. 1993. Integrated control and cost reduction in pear orchards of the 

Goulburn Valley, Australia. Acta Horticulturae 347:307-313.

Bartell, R. J. 1985. Pheromone-mediated behaviour of male lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas 

postvittana, correlated with adaptation of pheromone receptors. Physiological 

Entomology 10(2):121-126.

Bartell, R. J., and L. A. Lawrence. 1973. Reduction in Responsiveness of Males of Epiphyas 

postvittana (Lepidoptera) to Sex Pheromone Following Previous Brief Pheromonal 

Exposure. J. Insect Physiol. 19(4):845-855.

Bartell, R. J., and L. A. Lawrence. 1976. Reduction in Sexual Responsiveness of Male Lightbrown Apple Moth Following Previous Brief Pheromonal Exposure is Concentration 

Dependent. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 15(2):236.

Bartell, R. J., and L. A. Lawrence. 1977a. Reduction in responsiveness of male apple moths, 

Epiphyas postvittana, to sex pheromone following pulsed pheromonal exposure. 

Physiological Entomology 2(1):1-6.

Bartell, R. J., and L. A. Lawrence. 1977b. Reduction in responsiveness of male light-brown 

apple moths, Epiphyas postvittana, to sex pheromone following pulsed pre-exposure to 

pheromone components. Physiological Entomology 2:89-95.

Bartell, R. J., and H. H. Shorey. 1969a. A Quantitative Bioassay for the Sex Pheromone of 

Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera) and Factors Limiting Male Responsiveness. J. Insect 

Physiol. 15(1):33-40.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

34

Bartell, R. J., and H. H. Shorey. 1969b. Pheromone Concentrations Required to Elicit Successive 

Steps in the Mating Sequence of Males of the Light-Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas 

postvittana. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 62(5):1206-1207.

Bates, V. I. 1993. Broadening the range of pest management tools- Integrated Pest Management 

in the apple and pear industry. Plant Protection Quarterly 8(4):141-143.

Beckett, S. J., and D. E. Evans. 1997. The effect of thermal acclimation on immature mortality in 

the Queensland fruit fly Bactrocera tryoni and the light brown apple moth Epiphyas 

postvittana at a lethal temperature. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 82(1):45-51.

Begum, M. 2004. Habitat manipulation to enhance biological control of lightbrown apple moth 

(Epiphyas postvittana), The University of Sydney.

Begum, M., G. M. Gurr, S. D. Wratten, P. Hedberg, and H. I. Nicol. 2004a. The influence of 

groundcover plant species on Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and its 

parasitoid Trichogramma carverae (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Pages 15-21 in 

XXII International Congress of Entomology, Brisbane.

Begum, M., G. M. Gurr, S. D. Wratten, P. R. Hedberg, and H. I. Nicol. 2006. Using selective 

food plants to maximize biological control of vineyard pests. Journal of Applied Ecology 

43(3):547-554.

Begum, M., G. M. Gurr, S. D. Wratten, and H. I. Nicol. 2004b. Flower color affects tri-trophiclevel biocontrol interactions. Biological Control 30:584-590.

Bell, V. A., R. J. Brightwell, and P. J. Lester. 2006. Increasing vineyard floral resources may not 

enhance localised biological control of the leafroller Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: 

Tortricidae) by Dolichogenidea spp. (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) parasitoids. Biocontrol 

Science and Technology 16(10):1031-1042.

Bellas, T. E., and R. J. Bartell. 1983. Dose-response relationship for two components of the sex 

pheromone of lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). 

Journal of Chemical Ecology, Vol. 9, No. 6, 1983 9(6):715-725.

Bellas, T. E., R. J. Bartell, and A. Hill. 1983. Identification of two components of the sex 

pheromone of the moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera, Tortricidae). Journal of 

Chemical Ecology 9(4):503-512.

Bennett, D. M., and A. A. Hoffmann. 1998. Effects of Size and Fluctuating Asymmetry on Field 

Fitness of the Parasitoid Trichogramma carverae (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). 

The Journal of Animal Ecology 67(4):580-591.

Bennett, F. D., and S. M. Crellin. 2003. Xanthandrus comtus (Harris) (Dip.: Syrphidae) new to 

the isle of man and with new prey records. Entomologist's Record and Journal of 

Variation 115(3):105-108.

Bernard, M., P. A. Horne, D. Papacek, M. A. Jacometti, S. D. Wratten, K. J. Evans, K. S. 

Herbert, K. S. Powell, A. Rakimov, R. Weppler, T. Kourmouzis, and A. L. Yem. 2007. 

Guidelines for environmentally sustainable winegrape production in Australia: IPM 

adoption self-assessment guide for growers. The Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower 

& Winemaker (www.winebiz.com.au). 24-35 pp.

Berndt, L. A., and S. D. Wratten. 2005. Effects of alyssum flowers on the longevity, fecundity, 

and sex ration of the leafroller parasitoid Dolichogenidea tasmanica. Biological Control 

32(1):65-69.

Berndt, L. A., S. D. Wratten, and P. G. Hassan. 2002. Effects of buckweat flowers on leafroller 

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) parasitoids in a New Zealand vineyard. Agricultural and Forest 

Entomology 4:39-45.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

35

Berry, J. A. 1997. Meterorus pulchricornis (Wesmael) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Euphorinae), 

a new record for New Zealand. New Zealand Entomologist 20:45-48.

Berry, J. A. 1998. The bethyline species (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae: Bethylinae) imported into 

New Zealand for biological control of pest leafrollers. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 

25:329-333.

Birtles, D. B., B. C. Waddell, and J. H. Maindonald. 1991. High Temperature Disinfestation of 

Nectarines: Lightbrown Apple Moth Larvae. Pages 61-65 Forty Fourth New Zealnd 

Weed and Pest Control Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc.

Bogenschütz, H. 1991. Eurasian Species in Forestry. Pages 673-709 in L. P. S. van Der Geest 

and H. H. Evenhuis, (eds.). Tortricid Pests Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. 

Elseivier, Amsterdam.

Bond, K. G. M. 1998. Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lep.: Tortricidae) new to Ireland. 

Entomologist's Record 110(9-10):250.

Bonizzoni, M., L. Zheng, C. R. Guglielmino, D. S. Haymer, G. Gasperi, L. M. Gomulski, and A. 

R. Malacrida. 2001. Microsatellite analysis of medfly bioinfestations in California. 

Molecular Ecology 10:2515-2524.

Bower, C. C. 1980. An Evaluatoin of the Potential of Diflubenzuron for Integrated Pest Control 

in Apples. General and Applied Entomology 12:41-48.

Brader, L. 1977. Resistance in Mites and Insects Affecting Orchard Crops. Pages 353-376 in D. 

L. Watson and a. W. a. Brown, (eds.). Pesticide Management and Insecticide Resistance.

Bradley, J. D. 1990. Lepidoptera new to Buckingham Palace Garden in 1989. Entomologist's 

Record and Journal of Variation 102(5-6):118-119.

Bradley, S. J. 1973. Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). pp 126-127 in British Tortricid Moths. The 

Ray Society, London.

Bradley, S. J., J. T. S. Walker, C. H. Wearing, P. W. Shaw, and A. J. Hodson. 1998. The use of 

pheromone traps for leafroller action thresholds in pipfruit.Proceedings of the 51st New 

Zealand Plant Protection Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society, Rotorua, 

New Zealand.

Braybrook, D. 2001. Managing lightbrown apple moth without broad-spectrum insecticides. The 

Australian Grapegrower and Winemaker 453:15-17.

Brennan, P. 2008. Medflies wiped out in California. The Orange County Register. Last accessed 

August 15, 2008, www.ocregister.com/articles/state-orange-county-2125102-flypopulations.

Briese, D. T., H. A. Mende, T. D. C. Grace, and P. W. Geier. 1980. Resistance to a Nuclear 

Polyhedrosis Virus in the Light-Brown Apple Moth Epiphya postvittana (Lepidoptera: 

Tortricidae). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 36(2):211-215.

Brockerhoff, E. G., H. Jactel, A. C. Leckie, and D. M. Suckling. 2002. Species composition and 

abundance of leafrollers in a canterbury pine plantation. New Zealand Plant Protection 

55:85-89.

Brockerhoff, E. G., and D. M. Suckling. 1999. Development of an Attracticide Against Light 

Brown Apple Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 92(4):853-859.

Brown, D. J., and A. L. Il'ichev. 2000. The potential for the removal of organo-phosphate 

insecticides from stone-fruit production in the Goulburn valley, Australia. Pages 85-91

Proceedings of the 1st Conference on International Fruit Production.

Brown, J. W. 2007. Discovery of light brown apple moth in North America. Torts 8(2):2.

Browne, F. G. 1968. Pests and Diseases of Forest Plantation Trees. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

36

Buchanan, G. A. 1977. The seasonal abundance and control of light brown apple moth, Epiphyas 

postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) on grapevines in Victoria. Australian 

Journal of Agricultural Research 28:125-132.

Buchanan, G. A., S. C. Stirrat, and D. G. Madge. 1991. Integrated control of light brown apple 

moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker), in vineyards. Wine Industry Journal 6:220-222.

Burnip, G. M., and D. M. Suckling. 1997. Evaluation of legumes for development of leafrollerfree orchard understoreys. Pages 420-424 Proceedings of the 50th NZ Plant Protection 

Conference. The New Zealand Plant Protection Society (Incorporated).

Burnip, G. M., and D. M. Suckling. 2001. Leafroller larval and adult phenology at two 

Canterbury, New Zealand, organic apple orchards. New Zealand Journal of Crop and 

Horticultural Science, 2001, Vol. 29: 15-22 29:15-22.

CABI. 2006. Epiphyas postvittana. Last accessed November 20, 2007, 

www.cabicompendium.org/cpc.

CACSA. 2007. California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association Praise 

Forethought of Legislators [Press Release]. Fresno, California. California Agricultural 

Commissioners and Sealers Association. Last accessed January 14, 2010, 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/PDEP/lbam/pdfs/CACASAPressReleaseBrownAppleMoth

070322.pdf

Cameron, R. J., P. J. Alma, and I. A. Hood. 1978. The Pathology of Douglas Fir. New Zealand 

Forest Service Forest Reserach Institute F R I Symposium (15):126-134.

Caprio, M. A., and D. M. Suckling. 1995. Mating disruption reduces the risk of resistance 

development to transgenic apple orchards: simulations of the lightbrown apple moth. 

Pages 52-58The Forty Eighth New Zealand Plant Protection Conference.

Caprio, M. A., and D. M. Suckling. 1997. Resistance management in the 21st century: An 

entomologist's point of view. Pages 207-315 50th New Zealand Plant Protection 

Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society, Rotorua, New Zealand.

Caprio, M. A., and D. M. Suckling. 2000. Simulating the impact of cross resistance between Bt 

toxins in transformed clover and apples in New Zealand. J. Econ. Entomol. 93(2):173-

179.

Caradoc-Davies, K. M. B., S. Graves, D. R. O’Reilly, O. P. Evans, and V. K. Ward. 2001. 

Identification and in vivo characterization of the Epiphyas postvittana 

Nucleopolyhedrovirus Ecdysteroid UDP-Glucosyltransferase. Virus Genes 22(3):255-

264.

Carey, G. P., and J. F. Longworth. 1992. Comparative Studies on Some Baculoviruses (6). DSIR 

(Department of Scientific and Industrial Research) Plant Protection Report No. 6. 1-36 

pp.

Carey, J. R. 1996. The future of the Mediterranean fruit fly Ceratitis capitata Invasion of 

California: A predictive framework. Biological Conservation 78:35-50.

Carey, J. R. 2008. Invasion biology of the light brown apple moth. Testimony to the Assembly 

California Legislature, Committee on Agriculture, State Capital, Sacramento, California. 

3 pp.

Carey, J. R., F. G. Zalom, and B. D. Hammock. 2008. Concerns with the eradication program 

against the light brown apple moth in California. Personal communication to E. Schafer 

on May 28, 2008, from J. Carey (University of California), F. G. Zalom (University of 

California), B. D. Hammock (University of California).

Carpenter, G. 2009. Re: NAPIS LBAM map. Personal communication to G. Fowler on from 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

37

Carter, D. J. 1984. Pest Lepidoptera of Europe with Special Reference to the British Isles. Dr W. 

Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Carver, M. 1978. A new Subgenus and Species of Trichogramma Westwood (Hymenoptera: 

Chalcidoidea) from Australia. J. Aust. Ent. Soc. 17(1):109-112.

CDFA. 2005. CDFA Procedural and Training Manual, Section III: Inspection Procedures and 

Policies. California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). 5 pp.

CDFA. 2007a. Aerial release of light brown apple moth pheromone scheduled in effort to

eradicate infestation in northern Monterey county. California Department of Food and 

Agriculture (CDFA).

CDFA. 2007b. Light brown apple moth eradication program: Key questions and issues. 

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). 13 pp.

CDFA. 2007a. 3434. Light Brown Apple Moth. Pages 419.411-419-424 California Department 

of Food and Agriculture Plant Quarantine Manual.

CDFA. 2007b. Canadian Phytosanitary Certification Requirements for Light Brown Apple Moth 

Listed Host Material (Plants for Planting, Cut Flowers, Fresh Fruits and Vegetables for 

Consumption) (No. 21-2007). Phytosanitary Advisory. California Department of Food 

and Agriculture. Last accessed January 14, 2010, 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pdep/lbam/pdfs/PSA21_2007.pdf.

CDFA. 2007c. CDFA Sets Interim Regulatory Action for Light Brown Apple Moth Infestation 

in East Bay: Rules to halt spread of pest to stay in place until quarantine is set [News 

Release #07-028]. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Last 

accessed January 14, 2010, 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/Press_Releases/Press_Release.asp?PRnum=07-028.

CDFA. 2007d. Light Brown Apple Moth Detected in East Bay: Detections in Alameda and 

Contra Costa counties [News Release #07-024]. Sacramento, CA. California Department 

of Food and Agriculture Last accessed January 14, 2010, 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/Press_Releases/Press_Release.asp?PRnum=07-024.

CDFA. 2007e. Light Brown Apple Moth Detected in Napa: Single moth trapped in residential 

area; expanded trapping is underway [News Release #07-044]. Sacramento, CA. 

California Department of Food and Agriculture. Last accessed January 14, 2010, 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/Press_Releases/Press_Release.asp?PRnum=07-044.

CDFA. 2007f. Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM): Have you seen this Pest? California 

Department of Food & Agriculture. Last accessed June 28, 2007, 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pdep/LBAM_brochure.pdf .

CDFA. 2007g. Light Brown Apple Moth Pest Profile. California Department of Food and 

Agriculture. Last accessed January 14, 2010, 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/PDEP/target_pest_disease_profiles/LBAM_PestProfile.ht

ml.

CDFA. 2007h. Light Brown Apple Moth Quarantine Covers at Least 182 Square Miles in Five 

California Counties: Recent detections in Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties 

will add new areas for regulations [News Release #07-040]. California Department of 

Food and Agriculture. Last accessed January 14, 2010, 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/Press_Releases/Press_Release.asp?PRnum=07-040.

CDFA. 2007i. Light Brown Apple Moth Treatments Scheduled for Napa: Organic compound Bt 

to be utilized [News Release #07-049]. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Food 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

38

and Agriculture. Last accessed January 14, 2010, 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/Press_Releases/Press_Release.asp?PRnum=07-049.

CDFA. 2007j. Light Brown Apple Moth Treatments Scheduled for Oakley: Organic compound 

Bt to be utilized [News Release #07-050]. Sacramento, CA. California Department of 

Food and Agriculture. Last accessed January 14, 2010, 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/Press_Releases/Press_Release.asp?PRnum=07-050

CDFA. 2007k. New Restrictions on the Shipment of Hosts of Light Brown Apple Moth to 

Mexico (No. 12-2007). Phytosanitary Advisory. California Department of Food and 

Agriculture. Last accessed June 28, 2007, 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pdep/PSA12_2007.pdf.

CDFA. 2007l. San Francisco, Marin County Join List of Communities Infested with Light 

Brown Apple Moth [News Release #07-029]. Sacramento, CA. California Department of 

Food and Agriculture Last accessed January 14, 2010, 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/Press_Releases/Press_Release.asp?PRnum=07-029.

CDFA. 2007m. Santa Clara County Infested with Light Brown Apple Moth: Detections in Palo 

Alto, Los Altos [News Release #07-033]. Sacramento, CA. California Department of 

Food and Agriculture. Last accessed January 14, 2010, 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/Press_Releases/Press_Release.asp?PRnum=07-033.

CDFA. 2007n. State Interior Quarantine Regulation for Light Brown Apple Moth. Plant 

Quarantine Manual. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Plant Health and 

Pest Prevention Services, Pest Exclusion Branch. Last accessed January 14, 2010, 

http://pi.cdfa.ca.gov/pqm/manual/htm/419.htm 

CDFA. 2007o. Summary of light brown apple moth Federal domestic quarantine order 

requirements (No. 13-2007). Phytosanitary advisory. California Department of Food and 

Agriculture. Last accessed January 14, 2010, 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/PDEP/lbam/pdfs/PSA12_2007.pdf

CEIR. 1957. Insects not known to occur in the United States: Light brown apple moth 

(Austrotortrix postvittana (Wlk.)). United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 

Research Service, CEIR 7(10):187.

CFIA. 2007a. Canadian Food Inspection Agency Introduces New Regulatory Controls to Prevent 

the Introduction of Light Brown Apple Moth [News Release]. Ottawa, Ontario. Canadian 

Food Inspection Agency. Last accessed January 14, 2010, 

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/newcom/2007/20070615ce.shtml 

CFIA. 2007b. Plant Protection (Phytosanitary) Import Requirements to Prevent the Entry of 

Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (light brown apple moth) (D-07-03). 1-14. Ottawa, 

Ontario. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Plant Products Directorate, Plant Health 

Division. Last accessed January 14, 2010, 

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/protect/dir/d-07-03e.pdf 

CFIA. 2007c. Questions and Answers: Regulatory Controls to Prevent the Entry of Light Brown 

Apple Moth (LBAM). Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Last accessed January 14, 

2010, http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/pestrava/lbampbpp/queste.shtml 

Chalmers-Hunt, J. M. 1975. Note on the Larva of Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) in Cornwall, 

England. Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation 87(2):58.

Chambers, D. L. 2008. Testimony to Senate Environmental Quality Committee, re: Bill Number 

SCR 87 - "Relative to the Light Brown Apple Moth:. 2 pp.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

39

Charles, J. G., J. T. S. Walker, and V. White. 1996. Leafroller phenology and parasitism in 

Hawkes Bay, New Zealand, canefruit gardens. New Zealand Journal of Crop and 

Horticultural Science, 1996, Vol. 24: 123—131 24:123-131.

Charles, J. G., V. White, and M. A. Cornwell. 1987. Leafroller (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) 

damage to buds of raspberry canes in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of 

Experimental Agriculture 15:491-496.

Chervin, C. 1999. Evaluation of a non-chemical disinfestation treatment on quality of pome fruit 

and mortality of lepidopterous pests. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 

39(3):335-344.

Chervin, C., P. Franz, S. Kulkarni, S. Whitemore, and G. McGregor. 2000. A Method to Screen 

Pome Fruit for Resistance to Skin-chewing Insects and to Analyze Feeding Trends. 

Hortscience 35(4):673-676.

Chervin, C., S. Kulkarni, S. Kreidl, F. Birrell, and D. Glenn. 1997. A high temperature/low 

oxygen pulse improves cold storage disinfestation. Postharvest Biology and Technology 

10(3):239-245.

Chong, M. 1961. Hawaiian insect notes. Co-operative Economic Insect Report 7:80.

Christeller, J. T., N. P. Markwick, J. Poulton, and M. O'Callaghan. 2006. Binding of an 

insecticidal transgene procut to soil: Biological activity of soil-bound avidin and the 

effects of time and microbial activity. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 38(8):2043-2052.

CISRO. 2004. Australian Insect Common Names: Epiphyas postvittana. Commonwealth 

Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Entomology. Last accessed 

June 28, 2007, http://www.ento.csiro.au/aicn/name_s/b_1541.htm 

Clancy, T. 1997. Integration is a Nasty Word for Vine Pests. Wine Industry Journal 12(1):67-69.

Clare, G., D. M. Suckling, S. J. Bradley, J. T. S. Walker, P. W. Shaw, J. M. Daly, G. F. 

McLaren, and C. H. Wearing. 2000. Pheromone trap colour determines catch of nontarget insects. New Zealand Plant Protection 53:216-220.

Clearwater, J. R. 2008. Analysis of current proposals for the eradication of the light brown apple 

moth from California and the definition of a suitable product with which to attempt this 

eradication. Clearwater Research and Consulting, Auckland, New Zealand. 8 pp.

Clout, M. N., and C. R. Veitch. 2002. Turning the tide of biological invasion: the potential for 

eradicating invasive species. Pages 1-3 in C. R. Veitch and M. N. Clout, (eds.). Turning 

the Tide: The Eradication of Invasive Species. International Union for Conservation of 

Nature and Natural Resources, Species Survival Commission No. 27, Gland, Switzerland 

and Cambridge, UK.

Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling techniques 3rd edition. Wiley, New York. 428 pp.

Collett, N. G., and J. McBeath. 2007. Managing insect pests in Eucalyptus globulus (Labill.) 

plantations in Victoria using insecticide tablets at establishment. Australian Forestry 

70(1):53-60.

Collyer, E., and M. V. Geldermalsen. 1975. Integrated control of apple pests in New-Zealand 

part 1. Outline of experiment and general results. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 

2(1):101-134.

Colunga-Garcia, M. 2007. Human-mediated Pathways for Invasive Species in Metropolitan 

Areas: The Light Brown Apple Moth Case Study. Presentation at APHIS Pest Risk 

Mapping Workshop. June 5-7, Fort Collins, Colorado, 2007. 

http://www.nappfast.org/ASPRM%20web/presentations/Colunga.pdf
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

40

Cordingley, C. L., and W. Danthanarayana. 1976. The Lepidopterous Fauna of Capeweed 

(Arctotheca Calendula) in Victoria with keys for Larval Indentification. J. Aust. ent. Soc. 

15(1):19-34.

Cowley, J. M., K. D. Chadfield, and R. T. Baker. 1992. Evaluation of dry heat as a postharvest 

disinfestation treatment for persimmons. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural 

Science 20(2):209-215.

Cross, J. V. 1996. A pheromone trap survey of tortricid moths (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in apple 

orchards in England subject to different insecticide management. The Entomologist 

115(3):168-180.

Danthanarayana, W. 1975a. The Bionomics, Distribution and Host Range of the Light Brown 

Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) (Tortricidae). Australian Journal of Zoology 

23(3):419-437.

Danthanarayana, W. 1975b. Factors Detemining Variation in Fecundity of the Light Brown 

Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Tortricidae). Australian Journal of Zoology 

23(3):439-451.

Danthanarayana, W. 1976a. Diel and Lunar Flight Periodicites in the Light Brown Apple Moth, 

Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Tortricidae) and their Possible Adaptive Significance. 

Australian Journal of Zoology 24(1):65-73.

Danthanarayana, W. 1976b. Environmentally cued size variation in the light-brown apple moth, 

Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) (Tortricidae), and its adaptive value in dispersal. Oecologia 

26:121-132.

Danthanarayana, W. 1976c. Flight thresholds and seasonal variations in flight activity of the 

Light-Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) (Tortricidae), in Victoria, 

Australia. Oecologia 23:271-282.

Danthanarayana, W. 1980a. Occurrence of Trichogramma funiculatum, an egg parasitoid of the 

light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana. Ent. exp. & appl 28:287-294.

Danthanarayana, W. 1980b. Parasitism of the Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana 

(Walker), by its Larval Ectoparasite, Goniozus jacintae Farrugia (Hymenoptera: 

Bethylidae), in Natural Populations in Victoria. Australian Journal of Zoology 28(5-

6):685-692.

Danthanarayana, W. 1983. Population ecology of the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas 

postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). The Journal of Animal Ecology 52(1):1-33.

Danthanarayana, W., and S. Dashper. 1986. Response of some night-flying insects to polarized 

light. Pages 120-127 in W. Danthanarayana, (ed.). Insect Flight: Dispersal & Migration. 

Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Danthanarayana, W., D. Farrugia, and I. D. Gauld. 1977. Studies on the biology and systematic 

position of a new species of ichneumonid parasitising the light brown apple moth, 

Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Torricidae), in Australia. Bulletin of 

Entomological Research 67(4):607-618.

Danthanarayana, W., and H. Gu. 1991. Multiple mating and its effect on the reproductive success 

of femal Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Ecological Entomology 

16(2):169-176.

Danthanarayana, W., and H. Gu. 1992. Influence of Environmental Conditions on Flight 

Duration of Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Australian Journal 

of Zoology 40(5):477-484.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

41

Danthanarayana, W., H. Gu, and S. Ashley. 1995. Population growth potential of Epiphyas 

postvittana, the lightbrown apple moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in relation to diet, 

temperature and climate. Australian Journal of Zoology 43(4):381-394.

Danthanarayana, W., J. G. Hamilton, and S. P. Khoul. 1982. Low-Desity Larval Crowding in the 

Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana and its Ecological Significance. 

Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 31(4):353-358.

de Castro Oliveira, J. V., J. L. C. Wolff, A. Garcia-Maruniak, B. M. Ribeiro, M. E. B. de Castro, 

M. L. de Souza, F. Moscardi, J. E. Maruniak, and P. M. de Andrade Zanotto. 2006. 

Genome of the most widely used viral biopesticide: Anticarsia gemmatalis multiple 

nucleopolyhedrovirus. Journal of General Virology 87(Part 11):3233-3250.

Dentener, P. R., S. M. Alexander, P. J. Lester, R. J. Petry, J. H. Maindonald, and R. M. 

McDonald. 1996. Hot air treatment for disinfestation of lightbrown apple moth and 

longtailed mealy bug on persimmons. Postharvest Biology and Technology 8(2):143-152.

Dentener, P. R., K. V. Bennett, L. E. Hoy, S. E. Lewthwaite, P. J. Lester, J. H. Maindonald, and 

P. G. Connolly. 1997. Postharvest disinfestation of lightbrown apple moth and longtailed 

mealybug on persimmons using heat and cold. Postharvest Biology and Technology 

12(3):255-264.

Dentener, P. R., S. E. Lewthwaite, K. V. Bennett, J. H. Maindonald, and P. G. Connolly. 2000. 

Effect of temperature and treatment conditions on the mortality of Epiphyas postvittana 

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) exposed to ethanol. J. Econ. Entomol. 93(2):519-525.

Dentener, P. R., S. M. Peetz, and D. B. Birtles. 1992. Modified atmospheres for the postharvest 

disinfestation of the New Zealand persimmons. New Zealand Journal of Crop and 

Horticultural Science 20(2):203-208.

Direccion de Estadisticas de la Provincia. 2005. Presentacion de Censo Citricola 2005 a traves 

del GIS. Secretaria de Estado de Planeamiento, Estación Experimental Agroindustrial 

'Obispo Colombres', Asociacion Tucumana del Citrus, Gobierno de Tucuman. 18 pp.

Drake, J. M. 2004. Allee effects and the risk of biological invasions. Risk Analysis 24(4):795-

802.

Dumbleton, L. J. 1940. Tortrix postvittana Walk. and its parasites in Australia. New Zealand 

Journal of Science and Technology A 21(6):322-336.

Dunkle, R. L. 2007a. Federal Domestic Quarantine Order for Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM), 

Epiphyas postvittana; Interstate Movement Restrictions (DA-2007-18). United States 

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

and Quarantine. Last accessed June 28, 2007, 

http://www.nationalplantboard.org/docs/spro_lbam_2007_05_02.pdf 

Dunkle, R. L. 2007b. Light brown apple moth in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California 

(DA-2007-11). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. 2 pp.

Durrance, B. 2008. Moth #3 appears, just as CDFA calls off twist tie program. Sonoma Valley 

Sun. Last accessed http://sonomasun.thmm.com/?p=4150.

El-Sayed, A. M. 2007a. Application of semiochemicals to control Epiphyas postvittana, the 

Lightbrown apple moth. The Pherobase. Last accessed January 14, 2010, 

http://www.pherobase.com/database/control/control-detail-Epiphyas-postvittana.php 

El-Sayed, A. M. 2007b. Semiochemicals of Epiphyas postvittana, the Lightbrown apple moth. 

The Pherobase. Last accessed January 14, 2010, 

http://www.pherobase.com/database/species/species-Epiphyas-postvittana.php 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

42

ESRI. 2008. ArcGIS 9.3. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California.

Etienne, J., G. Delvare, and H. P. Aberlenc. 1992. Contribution a la connaissance de 

l'arthropodofaune associee aux cultures de Casamance (Senegal). Bollettino di Zoologia 

Agraria e di Bachicoltura 24(2):159-193.

EUNIS. 2007. European Nature Information System (EUNIS): Epiphyas postvittana. European 

Environment Agency. Last accessed June 28, 2007, http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/speciesfactsheet.jsp?idSpecies=304898&idSpeciesLink=304898 

Europaea, F. 2007. Epiphyas postvittana. Last accessed June 28, 2007, 

http://www.faunaeur.org/full_results.php?id=292858.

Evans, J. W. 1937a. The light-brown apple moth (Tortrix postvittana Walker). Tasmanian 

Journal of Agriculture 8(3 Suppl.):1-18.

Evans, J. W. 1937b. The light-brown apple moth (Totrix postvittana, Walk.) The Tasmanian 

Journal of Agriculture 8(3):125-128.

Farrugia, D. 1981. Three new Australian species of Goniozus Foerster (Hymenoptera: 

Bethylidae), and G. antipodum Westwood redescribed. Bulletin of Entomological 

Reserach 71(2):317-322.

Fedchock, C. 2007. Response from APHIS-PPQ to SENASICA regarding light brown apple 

moth. Personal communication to J. Trujillo on May 10, 2007, from C. Fedchock 

(APHIS-PPQ-PIM).

Ferguson, K. L., T. J. Wicks, and P. Bailey. 1996. Lightbrown apple moth increases the 

incidence of Botrytis rots in maturing grapes. The Australian Grapegrower and 

Winemaker (Annual Technical Issue):59-60.

Field, R. P. 1976. Integrated Pest Control in Victorian Peach Orchards: The Role of 

Typhlodromus occidentalis Nesbitt (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Australian Journal of 

Zoology 24(4):565-572.

Follas, G., R. Welsh, S. Bland, and T. M. Patterson. 1994. Lufenuron- an insect growth inhibitor 

for the control of leafrollers in apples and kiwifruit. Pages 341-345Forty Seventh New 

Zealand Plant Protection Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc., 

Waitangi Hotel, New Zealand.

Formstone, B. 1993. Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) (Lep.: Tortricidae) in Denbighshire, North 

Wales. Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation 105(3-4):91.

Foster, S. P. 1993. Neural Inactivation of Sex Pheromone Production in Mated Lightbrown 

Apple Moths, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). J. Insect Physiol. 39(3):267-273.

Foster, S. P. 2000. Periodicity of Sex Pheromone Biosynthesis, Re;ease and Degradation in the 

Lightbrown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). Archives of Insect 

Biochemistry and Physiology 43(3):125-136.

Foster, S. P. 2001. Fatty acyl pheromone analogue-containing lipids and their roles in sex 

pheromone biosynthesis in the lightbrown apple moth, Epipyhas postvittana (Walker). 

Journal of Insect Physiology 47(4-5):433-443.

Foster, S. P., and R. H. Ayers. 1995. Effect of a vertical object on the sex pheromone-mediated 

flight and landing behaviors of the male lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana 

(Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of lnsect Behavior 8(4):465-484.

Foster, S. P., and R. H. Ayers. 1996. Multiple mating and its effects in the lightbrown apple 

moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). Journal of Insect Physiology 42(7):657-667.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

43

Foster, S. P., R. H. Ayers, and S. J. Muggleston. 1995a. Trapping and sex pheromone-mediated 

flight and landing behaviour of male Ctenopseustis obliquana. Entomologia 

Experimentalis et Applicata 74(2):125-135.

Foster, S. P., and D. R. Greenwood. 1997. Change in Reductase Activity is Responsible for 

Senescent Decline in Sex Pheromone Titre in the Lightbrown Apple Moth, Epiphyas 

postvittana (Walker). J. Insect Physiol. 43(12):1093-1100.

Foster, S. P., and M. O. Harris. 1992. Factors influencing the landing of male Epiphyas 

postvittana (Walker) exhibiting pheromone-mediated flight (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). 

Journal of lnsect Behavior 5(6):699-720.

Foster, S. P., and A. J. Howard. 1998. Influence of stimuli from Camellia japonica on 

ovipositional behavior of generalist herbivore Epiphyas postvittana. Journal of Chemical 

Ecology 24(7):1251-1275.

Foster, S. P., and A. J. Howard. 1999a. Adult female and neonate larval plant preferences of the 

generalist herbivore, Epiphyas postvittana. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 

92:53-62.

Foster, S. P., and A. J. Howard. 1999b. The effects of mating, age at mating, and plant stimuli, 

on the lifetime fecundity and fertility of the generalist herbivore Epiphyas postvittana. 

Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 91:287-295.

Foster, S. P., and A. J. Howard. 1999c. The effects of source dosage, flight altitude, wind speed,

and ground pattern on the sex pheromone-mediated flight maneuvers of male lightbrown 

apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). New Zealand Journal of Zoology 26:97-104.

Foster, S. P., A. J. Howard, and R. H. Ayers. 1995b. Age-related changes in reproductive 

characters of four species of tortricid moths. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 22:271-

280.

Foster, S. P., A. J. Howard, and M. O. Harris. 1997. The influence of tactile and other nonchemical factors on the ovipositional responses of the generalist herbivore Epiphyas 

postvittana. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 83:147-159.

Foster, S. P., and S. J. Muggleston. 1993. Effect of design of a sex-pheromone-baited delta trap 

on behavior and catch of male Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). Journal of Chemical 

Ecology 19(11).

Foster, S. P., S. J. Muggleston, and R. D. Ball. 1991. Behavioral responses of male Epiphyas 

postvittana (Walker) to sex pheromone-baited delta trap in a wind tunnel. Journal of 

Chemical Ecology 17(7):1449-1468.

Foster, S. P., and W. L. Roelofs. 1990. Biosynthesis of a monoene and a conjugated diene sex 

pheromone component of the lightbrown apple moth by Δ11 desaturation. Experientia 

46:269-273.

Foster, S. P., and W. L. Roelofs. 1994. Regulation of Pheromone Production in Virgin and 

Mated Females of Two Tortricid Moths. Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology 

25(4):271-285.

Fountain, M. T., and J. V. Cross. 2007. The light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana 

(Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in UK pome and stone fruit orchards. Bulletin 

OILB/SROP 30(4):51-60.

Fowler, G., L. Fowler, L. Garrett, and E. M. Jones. 2007a. Light Brown Apple Moth Watsonville 

Project Trip Report August 6-10, 2007. 29 pp.

Fowler, G., L. Garrett, A. Neeley, D. Borchert, and B. Spears. 2007b. Economic analysis: Risk to 

U.S. apple, grape, orange, and pear production from the light brown apple moth, 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

44

Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health 

Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, Raleigh, 

North Carolina. 24 pp.

Fowler, G., Garrett, L., Neeley, A., Magarey, R., Borchert, D., Spears, B. 2009. Economic 

analysis: risk to U.S. apple, grape, orange and pear production from the light brown apple 

moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). Pages 28 in. APHIS-PPQ-CPHST-PERAL

Fowler, S. R., M. V. Jaspers, M. Walter, and A. Stewart. 1999. Suppression of Overwintering 

Botrytis cinerea Inoculum on Grape Rachii Using Antagonistic Fungi. Pages 141-

147Fifty Second New Zealand Plant Protection Conference. New Zealand Plant 

Protection Society Inc.

Frank, S. D., S. D. Wratten, H. S. Sandhu, and P. M. Shrewsbury. 2007. Video analysis to 

determine how habitat strata affects predator diversity and predation of Epiphyas 

postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in a vineyard. Biological Control 41(2007):230-

236.

Fullaway, D. T. 1913. Report of the entomologist. Pages 155 USDA Experiment Station Record. 

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Garrett, L. 1998. Thanks and FYI on Australian Naval Orange 1998 Shipment to United States 

with LBAM. Personal communication to on from 

Geier, P. W. 1981. The light-brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker); 6. Practical 

evaluation of the life system concept. Australian Journal of Ecology 6(43-57).

Geier, P. W., and D. T. Briese. 1979. The light-brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana 

(Walker). 3. Differences in susceptibility to a nuclear polyhedrosis virus. Australian 

Journal of Ecology 4(2):187-194.

Geier, P. W., and D. T. Briese. 1980a. The light-brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana 

(Walker): 4. Studies on population dynamics and injuriousness to apples in Australian 

Capital Territory. Australian Journal of Ecology 5:63-93.

Geier, P. W., and D. T. Briese. 1980b. The light-brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana 

(Walker): 5. Variability of demographic characteristics in field populations of 

southeastern Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology (1980) 5, 135-142 5:135-142.

Geier, P. W., and D. T. Briese. 1981. The light-brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana 

(Walker): a native leafroller fostered by European settlement. Pages 131-135 in R. 

Kitching and R. Jones, (eds.). The Ecology of Pests. CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia.

Geier, P. W., D. T. Briese, and T. Lewis. 1978. The light-brown apple moth, Epiphyas 

postvittana (walker), 2. Uneven sex ratios and a condition contributing to them in the 

field. Australian Journal of Ecology 3(4):467-488.

Geier, P. W., L. R. Clark, and D. T. Briese. 1983. Principles for the control of arthropod pests 1. 

Elements and functions involved in pest control. Protection Ecology 5(1):1-96.

Geier, P. W., and L. T. Oswald. 1977. The light-brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana 

(Walker). 1. Effects associated with contaminations by a nuclear polyhedrosis virus on 

the demographic performance of a laboratory strain. Australian Journal of Ecology 

2(1):9-29.

Geier, P. W., and B. P. Springett. 1976. Population characteristics of Australian leafrollers 

(Epiphyas spp., Lepidoptera) infesting orchards. Austral Ecology 1(3):129-144.

Gleave, A. P., R. J. Hedges, A. H. Broadwell, and P. J. Wigley. 1992. Cloning and nucleotide 

sequence of an insecticidal crystal protein gene from Bacillus thuringiensis DSIR732 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

45

active against three species of leafroller (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). New Zealand Journal 

of Crop and Horticultural Science 20(1):27-36.

Gleave, A. P., R. Williams, and R. J. Hedges. 1993. Screening by Polymerase Chain Reaction of 

Bacillus thuringiensis Serotypes for the Presence of cryV-Like Insecticidal Protein Genes 

and Characterization of a cryV Gene Cloned from B. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki. 

Applied and Environmental Microbiology 59(5):1683-1687.

Glenn, D. 2000. 3.2 The future is integrated pest management. Pages 15-18 in K. Group, (ed.). 

Organic Farming in Australia. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, 

Australia.

Glenn, D. C., M. J. Hercus, and A. A. Hoffmann. 1997. Characterizing Trichogramma 

(Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) Species for Biocontrol of Light Brown Apple Moth 

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Grapevines in Australia. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 

90(2):128-137.

Glenn, D. C., and A. A. Hoffmann. 1997. Developing a commercially viable system for 

biological control of light brown apple moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in grapes using 

endemic Trichogramma (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Journal of Economic 

Entomology 90(2):370-382.

Goldman, P., E. Nicholson, S. Davis, and M. Meuter. 2007a. Lawsuit Challenges EPA on Deadly 

Pesticide: Pesticide poisons farm workers, drifts onto rural schoolyards and homes. 

Personal communication to L. F. a. L. J. Garrett on July 31, 2007, from Letter sent to 

Larry Fowler and Lynn J. Garrett.

Goldman, P., J. Osborne-Klein, K. L. Boyles, S. Davis, V. Ruiz, A. Colangelo, M. Meuter, and J. 

Gettleman. 2007b. United Farm Workers, AFL-CIO, Sea Mar Community Health Center, 

Pineros y Campesinos Unidos Del Noroeste, Beyond Pesticides, Frente Indigena de 

Organizaciones Binacionales, Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO, Teamsters 

Local 890, Martha Rodrigues and Silvina Canez, Plaintiffs, vs. Administrator, U.S. 

Environmental Protectio Agency, Defendant. Civ. No. Complaint for Declaratory and 

Injunctive Relief. Personal communication to U. S. E. P. Agency on July 30, 2007, from 

GPDD. 2007a. Epiphyas postvittana. APHIS. Last accessed 8/10/2007 7:55:47 AM, 

https://www.gpdd.info/display.cfm?view=report&pest_id=348.

GPDD. 2007b. Pest ID 348 Epiphyas postvittana. Last accessed 

Greaves, A. J., A. R. Tomkins, C. P. Malcolm, M. P. Upsdell, C. Thomson, and D. J. Wilson. 

1992. Distribution and decay of phosmet residues in the canopy of "T-bar" trellised 

kiwifruit. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 20(3):313-318.

Green, O. R. 1984. New Zealand host and locality records for an introduced tortricid parasite, 

Trigonospila brevifacies (Diptera: Tachinidae). New Zealand Entomologist 8(69-71).

Groenendaal, H. 2006. Introduction to quantitative analysis. Vose Consulting, Princeton, New 

Jersey.

Gu, H. 1991. Electrophoretic variation at flight-related enzyme loci and its possible association 

with flight capacity in Epiphyas postvittana. Biochemical Genetics 29(7/8):345-354.

Gu, H., and W. Danthanarayana. 1990a. Age-related flight and reproductive performance of the 

light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana. Entomol. exp. appl. 54: 109-115, 1990. 

54:109-115.

Gu, H., and W. Danthanarayana. 1990b. The role of availability of food and water to the adult 

Epiphyas postvittana, the light brown apple moth, in its reproductive performance. 

Entomol Exp. Appl 54:101-108.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

46

Gu, H., and W. Danthanarayana. 1992a. Influence of Larval Rearing Conditions on the Body 

Size and Flight Capacity of Epiphyas postvittana Moths. Aust. J. Zool. 40(6):573-581.

Gu, H., and W. Danthanarayana. 1992b. Quantitative genetic analysis of dispersal in Epiphyas 

postvittana. I. Genetic variation in flight capacity. Heredity 68(1):53-60.

Gu, H., and W. Danthanarayana. 1992c. Quantitative genetic analysis of dispersal in Epiphyas 

postvittana. II. Genetic covariations between flight capacity and life-history traits. 

Heredity 68(1):61-69.

Gu, H., and W. Danthanarayana. 2000. Variations in life history traits and flight capacity among 

populations of the light brown apple moth Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: 

Tortricidae). Austral Ecology 25(6):571-579.

Gu, H., and W. Danthanarayana. 2000a. Genetic variation in the life-history traits of Epiphyas 

postvittana: population structure and local adaptation. Austral Ecology 25:394-401.

Gurr, G. M., W. G. Thwaite, and H. I. Nicol. 1999. Field evaluation of the effects of the insect 

growth regulator tebufenozide on entomophagous arthropods and pests of apples. 

Australian Journal of Entomology 38(2):135-140.

Gurr, G. M., S. D. Wratten, P. Kehrli, and S. Scarratt. 2005. Cultural manipulations to enhance 

biological control in Australia and New Zealand: progress and prospects. Second 

International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods, Davos, Switzerland. 

September 12-16, 2005.

Gutierrez, A. P. M., N.J. and Ponti, L. . unpublished. Climatic limits of the light brown apple 

moth in Arizona-California and comments on its eradication.27.

Halstead, A. J. 2005. Epiphyas pstvittana (Walker) (Lep.: Tortricidae) damaging apricot fruits in 

Tyne and Wear. Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation 117(Part 2):48.

Hancock, E. F. 1989. Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) (Lep.: Tortricidae) in Wales. Entomologist's 

Record and Journal of Variation 101(11-12):277.

Handson, P. D. 1984. Lead and Arsenic Levels in Wines Produced from Vineyards where Lead 

Arsenate Sprays are Used for Caterpillar Control. Journal of the Science of Food and 

Agriculture 35(2):235-238.

Harder, D., and J. Rosendale. 2008. Integrated pest management practices for the light brown 

apple moth in New Zealand: implications for California. The Arboretum, University of 

California at Santa Cruz.

Harris, A. C. 1994a. Ancistrocerus gazella (Hymenoptera: Vespoidea: Eumenidae): a potentially 

useful biological control agent for leafrollers Planotortrix octo, P. excessana, 

Ctenopseustis obliquana, C. herana, and Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) 

in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 22:235-238.

Harris, A. C. 1994b. Biology of Ancistrocerus gazella (Hymenoptera: Vespoidea: Eumenidae) in 

New Zealand. New Zealand Entomologist 17(0):29-36.

Harris, M. O., S. R. Foster, T. Bittar, K. Ekanayake, K. Looij, and A. Howard. 1995. Visual 

behaviour of neonate larvae of the light brown apple moth. Entomologia Experimentalis 

et Applicata 77:323-334.

Harris, M. O., F. Mafile'o, and S. Dhana. 1997. Behavioral responses of lightbrown apple moth 

neonate larvae on diets containing Bacillus thuringiensis formulations or endotoxins. 

Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 84(3):207-219.

Harris, M. O., N. P. Markwick, and M. Sandanayake. 2006. Is Resistance to Bacillus 

thuringiensis Endotoxin Cry1Ac Associated with a Change in the Behavior of Light 

Brown Apple Moth Larvae (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)? J. Econ. Entomol. 99(2):508-518.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

47

Harris, M. O., M. Sandanayake, and S. P. Foster. 1999. Chemical stimuli from apple influence 

the behavior of neonate caterpillars of the generalist herbivore, Epiphyas postvittana. 

Journal of Chemical Ecology, Vol. 25, No. 8, 1999 25(8):1717-1738.

Hastings, A., K. Cuddington, K. F. Davies, C. J. Dugaw, S. Elmendorf, A. Freestone, S. 

Harrison, M. Holland, J. Lambrinos, and U. Malvadkar. 2005. The spatial spread of 

invasions: new developments in theory and evidence. Ecology Letters 8(1):91-101.

HDOA. 2007a. USDA places quarantine on Hawaii plant exports. Hawaii Department of 

Agriculture (HDOA). Last accessed August 7, 2008, http://hawaii.gov/hdoa/news/2007-

news-releases/news-release-nr07-09-may-2-2007.

HDOA. 2007b. E-news from the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Hawaii Department of 

Agriculture. Last accessed August 7, 2008, http://hawaii.gov/hdoa/meetings_reports/enews/hdoa-e-news-june-5-2007.

Hely, P. C., G. Pasfield, and J. G. Gellatley. 1982. Insect Pests of Fruit and Vegetables in NSW. 

Inkata Press, Melbourne.

Herbison-Evans, D., and S. Crossley. 2007. Australian Caterpillars: Epiphyas postvittana 

(Walker, 1863).

Hide, R. P., and D. M. Suckling. 1988. Decision analysis of insecticide resistance in light-brown 

apple moth. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 16(3):219-224.

Hodge, S., M. Barron, and S. D. Wratten. 2000. Induced defences in kawakawa (Macropiper 

excelsum): do caterpillars avoid previous leaf damage? New Zealand Journal of Ecology 

24(1):91-95.

Hoffmann, A. A., R. E. Woods, E. Collins, K. Wallin, A. White, and J. A. Mckenzie. 2005. Wing 

shape versus asymmetry as an indicator of changing environmental conditions in insects. 

Australian Journal of Entomology 44(Part 3):233-243.

HortNET. 2007. Lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). (n.d.). Insects and 

mites of stonefruit. HortNET. Last accessed June 28, 2007, 

http://www.hortnet.co.nz/key/stone/info/lba-info.htm.

Hoy, L. E., and D. C. Whiting. 1998a. Cold Storage to Control Temperate Insect Pests on New 

Zealand Apples - An Overview [Abstract]. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 464:523.

Hoy, L. E., and D. C. Whiting. 1998b. Mortality responses of three leafroller (Lepidoptera: 

Tortricidae) species on kiwifruit to a high-temperature controlled atmosphere treatment. 

New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 26(1):11-15.

Hudson, N. M., and A. Terauds. 1969. Investigations on the control of the Light Brown Apple 

Moth Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) in Tasmania 1965-1966 season. Tasmanian Journal of 

Agriculture 40(2):163-166.

Hyink, O., R. A. Dellow, M. J. Olsen, K. M. B. Caradoc-Davies, K. Drake, E. A. Herniou, J. S. 

Cory, D. R. O'Reilly, and V. K. Ward. 2002. Whole genome analysis of the Epiphyas 

postvittana nucleopolyhedrovirus. Journal of General Virology 83(4):957-971.

Hyink, O., S. Graves, F. M. Fairbairn, and V. K. Ward. 1998. Mapping and polyhedrin gene 

analysis of the Epiphyas postvittana nucleopolyhedrovirus genome. Journal of General 

Virology 79:2853-2862.

IIE. 1991. Distribution Maps of Pests: Epiphyas postvittana (Series A, Map No. 82). 

International Institute of Entomology. London: CAB International.

Ikeda, M., M. Shikata, N. Shirata, S. Chaeychomsri, and M. Kobayashi. 2006. Gene organization 

and complete sequence of the Hyphantria cunea nucleopolyhedrovirus genome. Journal 

of General Virology 87(Part 9):2549-2562.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

48

Il'ichev, A. L., and S. P. Flett. 1999. Major pest and disease problems in stone fruit production in 

Northern Victoria, Australia. Integrated Plant Production in Stone Fruit 22(11):131-135.

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, Italy. 15 pp.

Irvin, N. A., S. L. Scarratt, S. D. Wratten, C. M. Frampton, R. B. Chapman, and J. M. Tylianakis. 

2006. The effects of floral understoreys on parasitism of leafrollers (Lepidoptera: 

Tortricidae) on apples in New Zealand. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 8:25-34.

Jackson, R. V. 1996. Lepidoptera breeding records from Alphitonia species (Rhamnaceae) at 

Paluma, North Queensland. Australian Entomologist 23(2):75-76.

Jamieson, L. E., X. Meier, K. J. Smith, S. E. Lewthwaite, and P. R. Dentener. 2003. Effect of 

ethanol vapor treatments on lightbrown apple moth larval mortality and ‘Braeburn’ apple 

fruit characterization. Postharvest Biology and Technology 28(3):391-403.

Jehle, J. A., G. W. Blissard, B. C. Bonning, J. S. Cory, E. A. Herniou, G. F. Rohrmann, D. A. 

Theilmann, S. M. Thiem, and J. M. Vlak. 2006. On the classification and nomenclautre of 

baculoviruses: A proposal for revision. Arch Virol 151(7):1257-1266.

Johnson, M. W., C. Pickel, L. L. Strand, L. G. Varela, C. A. Wilen, M. P. Bolda, M. L. Flint, W. 

K. F. Lam, and F. G. Zalom. 2007. Light brown apple moth in California: quarantine, 

management, and potential impacts. University of California Statewide IPM Program: 

Light Brown Apple Moth, July 17, 2007:21. Last accessed July 17, 2007, 

http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PDF/PUBS/lbam070717.pdf.

Jones, E. M. 2007. LBAM Economic Assessment Information. Personal communication to B. M. 

Spears and L. Fowler on 7/09/2007, from 

Jones, V. M., and B. C. Waddell. 1996. Hot water treatment of lightbrown apple moth eggs on 

apples and nectarines. Pages 71-74 Forty Ninth New Zealand Plant Protection 

Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc., Quality Hotel Rutherford, 

Nelson, New Zealand.

Jones, V. M., B. C. Waddell, and J. H. Maindonald. 1995. Comparative Mortality Responses of 

Three Tortricid (Lepidoptera) Species to Hot Water. J. Econ. Entomol. 88(5):1356-1360.

Karg, G., and D. M. Suckling. 1997. Polyethylene Dispensers Generate Large-Scale Temporal 

Fluctuations in Pheromone Concentration. Environ. Entomol. 26(4):896-905.

Karg, G., D. M. Suckling, and S. J. Bradley. 1994. Absorption and release of pheromone of 

Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) by apple leaves. Journal of Chemical 

Ecology 20(8):1825-1841.

Karg, G., D. M. Suckling, and S. J. Bradley. 1997. Defining Interaction between 

Electroantennogram Responses of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) to 

Pheromone and Other Volatiles. J. Insect Physiol. 43(2):179-187.

Karunaratne, C., G. A. Moore, R. Jones, and R. Ryan. 1997. Phosphine and its effect on some 

common insects in cut flowers. Postharvest Biology and Technology 10(3):255-262.

Kay, J. 2008a. Experts question plan to spray to fight moths San Francisco Chronicle (appeard 

on page A-1). Last accessed http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/06/MN69VD309.DTL.

Kay, J. 2008b. Experts question plan to spray to fight moths. in San Francisco Chronicle, San 

Francisco.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

49

Kay, M. K. 1991. Australian and New Zealand species in forestry. Pages 765-773 in L. P. S. Van 

der Geest and H. H. Evenhuis, (eds.). Tortricid pests, their biology, natural enemies and 

control. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

KCAPS. 2005. Light Brown Apple Moth. (2005). Kentucky Cooperative Agricultural Pest 

Survey (CAPS). Last accessed July 2, 2007, 

http://www.uky.edu/Ag/CAPS/currentsurvey/lbam05.htm 

Kimber, I. 2007. UK Moths: Your guide to the moths of Great Britain and Ireland, Light Brown 

Apple Moth. UK Moths. Last accessed June 28, 2007, 

http://ukmoths.org.uk/show.php?bf=998.

Klots, A. B. 1970. Lepidoptera. Pages p. 13-18, 115-130 in S. L. Tuxen, (ed.). Taxonomist's 

glossary of genitalia in insects, Munksgaard, Copenhagen.

Knight, J. S., A. H. Broadwell, W. N. Grant, and C. B. Shoemaker. 2004. A Strategy for 

Shuffling Numerous Bacillus thuringiensis Crystal Protein Domains. J. Econ. Entomol. 

97(6):1805-1813.

Knighten, C., and L. Hawkins. 2007a. USDA Confirms Light Brown Apple Moth in California 

[News Release]. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. Last accessed July 2, 2007, 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pdep/USDAReleaseApplemoth_ppq.pdf 

Knighten, C., and L. Hawkins. 2007b. USDA Issues Federal Order to Halt Spread of Light 

Brown Apple Moth [News Release]. Washington, DC. United States Department of 

Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Last accessed 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2007/05/lbam.shtml 

Lance, D. R. 2007. Requesting TWG Input. Personal communication to H. Wright on August 20, 

2007, from D. R. Lance (APHIS). Archived at the PERAL library, Raleigh, NC.

Lance, D. R. 2007a. LBAM program activity update. Personal communication to M. W. 

Johnson, T. C. Ring, D. McInnis, E. Brockerhoff, K. Bloem, M. Suckling, and B. Woods 

on August 9, 2007, from D. R. Lance (APHIS). Archived at the PERAL library, Raleigh, 

NC.

Langmaid, J. R., and M. R. Young. 1999. Microlepidoptera review of 1997. Entomologist's 

Record and Journal of Variation 111(3):105-119.

Lavandero, B. I., S. D. Wratten, R. K. Didham, and G. M. Gurr. 2006. Increasing floral diversity 

for selective enhancement of biological control agents: A double-edged sward? Basic and 

Applied Ecology 7(3):236-243.

Lawrence, L. A., and R. J. Bartell. 1972. The effect of age on calling behaviour of virgin females 

of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera) and on their pheromone content and ovarian 

development. Ent. Exp. & Appl 15:455-464.

Lay-Yee, M., D. C. Whiting, and K. J. Rose. 1997. Response of 'Royal Gala' and 'Granny Smith' 

apples to high-temperature controlled atmosphere treatments for control of Epiphyas 

postvittana and Nysius huttoni. Postharvest Biology and Technology 12:127-136.

Lester, P. J., P. R. Dentener, R. J. Petry, and S. M. Alexander. 1995. Hot-water immersion for 

disinfestation of lightbrown apple moth (Epiphyas postvittana) and longtailed mealy bug 

(Pseudococcus longispinus) on persimmons. Postharvest Biology and Technology 

6(3/4):349-356.

Lester, P. J., and D. R. Greenwood. 1997. Pretreatment Induced Thermotolerance in Lightbrown 

Apple Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and Associated Inductin of Heat Shock Protein 

Synthesis. J. Econ. Entomol. 90(1):199-204.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

50

Lew, S. 2004. Spiders of California. Last accessed September 11, 2008, 

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~stevelew/soc.

Lewthwaite, S. E., P. R. Dentener, and P. G. Connolly. 1999. Mortality of Epiphyas postvittana 

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) after exposure to sodium bicarbonate at elevated temperatures 

or combined with emulsifiers. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 

27:83-90.

Liebhold, A. M., and P. C. Tobin. 2007. Population Ecology of Insect Invasions and Their 

Management*. Annual Review of Entomology 53:387-408.

Lightfield, J. 1995. Movement of Litchi (Litchi chinensis) Fruits from Hawaii into other Regions 

of the United States. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA, Riverdale, MD.

Liu, W., H. Jiao, N. C. Murray, M. O'Connor, and W. L. Roelofs. 2002. Gene characterized for 

membrane desaturase that produces (E)-11 isomers of mono- and diunsaturated fatty 

acids. Pages 620-624 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United 

States of America.

Llewellyn, R. (no date). Using Trichogramma wasps for the biological control of lightbrown 

apple moth (Epiphyas postvittana). Bugs for Bugs and Bio Resources Pty Ltd., 

Mundubbera, Queensland, Australia. 4 pp.

Lo, P. L. 2004. Leafroller insecticide resistance management strategy. Pages 71-77 in N. A. 

Martin, R. M. Beresford, and K. C. Harrington, (eds.). Pesticide Resistance: Prevention 

and Management Strategies 2005. New Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc., Hastings, 

New Zealand.

Lo, P. L. 2005. Pesticide resistance: prevention and management strategies 2005. in N. A. 

Martin, R. M. Beresford, and K. C. Harrington, ed. eds. Leafroller insecticide resistance 

management strategy. The New Zealand Plant Protection Society Incorporated, The 

Secretary - Sonja Reid, c/- Pipfruit NZ, PO Box 11094, Hastings, New Zealand. Email: 

secretary@nzpps.org.

Lo, P. L., V. F. Bohm, J. T. S. Walker, and D. W. Manktelow. 1995. Monitoring pests of peaches 

in Hawke's Bay to reduce insecticide applications. Pages 107-110 Proceedings of the 47th 

New Zealand Plant Protection Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society.

Lo, P. L., and V. C. Murrell. 2000. Time of leafroller infestation and effect on yield in grapes. 

New Zealand Plant Protection 53:173-178.

Lo, P. L., D. M. Suckling, S. J. Bradley, J. T. S. Walker, P. W. Shaw, and G. M. Burnip. 2000. 

Factors affecting feeding site preferences of lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana 

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), on apple trees in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Crop 

and Horticultural Science 28:235-243.

Lo, P. L., and J. T. S. Walker. 2006. Monitoring Leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in 

Vineyards. New Zealand Plant Protection 59:317-322.

Loch, A. 2007. Prime facts (511): Grapevine pests and their management. NSW Department of 

Primary Industries. 4 pp.

Longworth, J. F., and P. Singh. 1980. A Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus of the Light Brown Apple 

Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 

35(1):84-87.

Loveys, B. R., S. D. Tyerman, and B. R. Loveys. 2001. Transfer of photosynthate and naturally 

occurring insecticidal compounds from host plants to the root hemiparasite Santalum 

acuminatum (Santalaceae). Aust. J. Bot. 49(1):9-16.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

51

Lynberg, M., and D. Dilworth. 2008. Complaints of adverse reactions to aerial spraying in 

Monterey and Santa Cruz counties. Helping Our Peninsula's Environment; California 

Alliance to Stop the Spray; Coalition for Sustainable Action; Pesticide Watch Education 

Fund, California. 10 pp.

MacCollom, G. B., and E. M. Reed. 1971. A Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus of the Light Brown 

Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 18(3):337-343.

Macdonald, J. A. 1994. Development of an integrated pest management program for blueberries 

grown on the North Coast of NSW. HRDC Project No FR136:1-29.

MacLellan, C. R. 1973. Natural enemies of the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana, in 

the Australian capital territory. Canadian Entomologist 105:681-700.

MacQuillan, M. J. 1976. Insecticides for control of light brown apple moth and codling moth in 

Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 

16(78):135-139.

Madge, D. 2007. Invertebrate pest management. Pages 10-01 to 10-27 in D. Madge, (ed.). 

Organic viticulture: An Australian manual. Australian Government, Grape and Wine 

Reseach and Development Corporation, Department of Primary Industries, Irymple, 

Victoria, Australia.

Madge, D. G., and S. C. Stirrat. 1991. Development of a day-degree model to predict generation 

events for lightbrown apple moth Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: 

Tortricidae) on grapevines in Australia. Plant Protection Quarterly 6(1):39-42.

Magarey, P. A., P. R. Nicholas, and M. F. Wachtel. 1994. Control of the diseases of grapes in 

Australia and New Zealand. Wine Industry Journal 9(3):197-206.

Magarey, R. D., G. A. Fowler, D. M. Borchert, T. B. Sutton, M. Colunga-Garcia, and J. A. 

Simpson., 2007. NAPPFAST an internet tool for the weather-based modeling of plant 

pathogens. Plant Disease 91: 336-345.

Magarey, R.D. et al. 2005. Informal Comparative Review of Phytophthora ramorum models. 

http://nature.berkeley.edu/comtf/pdf/P.%20ramorum%20v7%20griffin.pdf

Maguire, T., P. Harrison, O. Hyink, J. Kalamakoff, and V. K. Ward. 2000. The inhibitors of 

apoptosis of Epiphyas postvittana nucleopolyhedrovirus. Journal of General Virology 

81:2803-2811.

Maheswaran, G., L. Pridmore, P. Franz, and M. A. Anderson. 2007. A proteinase inhibitor from 

Nicotiana alata inhibits the normal development of light-brown apple moth, Epiphyas 

postvittana in transgenic apple plants. Plant Cell Rep 26:773-782.

Mansfield, S., D. J. Kriticos, K. J. B. Potter, and M. C. Watson. 2005. Parasitism of Gum Leaf 

Skeletoniser (Uraba Lugens) in New Zealand. New Zealand Plant Protection 58(191-

196).

Markwick, N. P., J. T. Christeller, L. C. Dochterty, and C. M. Lilley. 2001. Insecticidal activity 

of avidin and streptavidin against four species of pest Lepidoptera. Entomologia 

Experimentalis et Applicata 98:59-66.

Markwick, N. P., L. C. Docherty, M. M. Phung, M. T. Lester, C. Murray, J.-L. Yao, D. S. Mitra, 

D. Cohen, L. L. Beuning, S. Kutty-Amma, and J. T. Christeller. 2003. Transgenic 

tobacco and apple plants expressing biotin-binding proteins are resistant to two 

cosmopolitan insect pests, potato tuber moth and lightbrown apple moth, respectively. 

Transgenic Research 12:671-681.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

52

Markwick, N. P., S. Graves, F. M. Fairbairn, L. C. Docherty, J. Poulton, and V. K. Ward. 2002. 

Infectivity of Epiphyas postvittana nucleopolyhedrovirus for New Zealand leafrollers. 

Biological Control 25(2):207-214.

Markwick, N. P., W. A. Laing, J. T. Christeller, J. Z. Mchenry, and M. R. Newton. 1998a. 

Overprodcution of Digestive Enzymes Compensates for Inhibitory Effects of Protease 

and Alpha-Amylase Inhibitors Fed to Three Species of Leafrollers (Lepidoptera: 

Tortricidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 91(6):1265-1276.

Markwick, N. P., W. A. Laing, J. T. Christeller, S. J. Reid, and M. R. Newton. 1996. AlphaAmylase Activities in Larval Midgut Extracts from Four Species of Lepidoptera 

(Tortricidae and Gelechiidae): Response to pH and to Inhibitors from Wheat, Barley, 

Kidney Bean, and Streptomyces. J. Econ. Entomol. 89(1):39-45.

Markwick, N. P., D. C. Whiting, and C. M. Lilley. 1998b. Quarantine implications of exposing 

Epiphyas postivittana (Walker)(Lep., Torticidae) larvae to sub-lethal high-temperature 

controlled atmosphere treatments. Journal of Applied Entomology 122(9):613-616.

Mckenna, C. E., P. S. Stevens, and D. Steven. 1995. A New Bacillus Thuringiensis Product for 

use on Kiwifruit. Pages 135-138 Forty Eighth New Zealand Plant Protection Conference. 

New Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc., Angus Inn, Hastings, New Zealand.

McLaren, G. F., and J. A. Fraser. 1992. Leafroller and codling moth flights in Central Otago. 

The Orchardist: Pest Control 65:21.

McLaren, G. F., and J. A. Fraser. 1994. Current research on the control of pests and diseases of 

organic stonefruit Hort Research. Last accessed 

http://www.hortnet.co.nz/publications/proceedings/ifoam/ifoam29.htm.

Mclaren, G. F., and J. A. Fraser. 1998. Mating disruption for the control of leafrollers on 

apricots. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 26(4):259-268.

McLaren, G. F., and D. M. Suckling. 1993. Pheromone trapping of orchard lepidopterous pests 

in Central Otago, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 

21:25-31.

McLennan, W. 1995. Value of agricultural commodities produced Australia 1993 – 94. Pages 26 

in. Australian Bureau of Statistics.

McManus, M. T., W. A. Laing, L. M. Watson, N. P. Markwick, C. R. Voisey, and D. W. R. 

White. 2005. Expression of the soybean (Kunitz) trypsin inhibitor in leaves of white 

clover (Trifolium repens L.). Plant Science (Oxford) 168(5):1211-1220.

McPhail, J. 1990. Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) (Lep.: Tortricidae) in Leicestershire, England 

UK. Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation 102(3-4):73.

MDAR. 2007. Massachusetts Introduced Pests Outreach Project: Light Brown Apple Moth. 

Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources, University of Massachusetts 

Extension Agriculture and Landscape Program. Last accessed July 2, 2007, 

http://www.massnrc.org/pests/pestFAQsheets/lightbrownapplemoth.htm.

Meijerman, L., and S. A. Ulenberg. 2007. Eurasian Tortricidae: Epiphyas postvittana. 

Zoological Museum, University of Amsterdam. Last accessed July 5, 2007, 

http://nlbif.eti.uva.nl/bis/tortricidae.php?selected=beschrijving&menuentry=soorten&id=

197.

Mills, N. 2008. Biological control of light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana, in California. 

University of California, Berkeley. Last accessed March 20, 2008, 

http://nature.berkeley.edu/millslab/lbam.html.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

53

Mitcham, E. J., T. Lee, A. Martin, M. Zhou, and A. A. Kader. 2007. Potential of CA for 

postharvest arthropod control in fresh horticultural perishables: an update of summary 

tables compiled by Ke and Kader, 1992a. Last accessed January 14, 2010 

http://postharvest.ucdavis.edu/Ipm/ca2001-insect/ca2001/I_SUMB.pdf

Mo, J. 2002. Light Brown Apple Moth in Citrus. State of New South Wales, Department of 

Primary Industries. Last accessed July 20, 2005, http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/reader/citlbam.htm.

Mo, J. 2004. Light brown apple moth development calculator. New South Wales Department of 

Primary Industries. Last accessed July 3, 2008, www.agric.nsw.gov.au/reader/citlbamcalc,htm.

Mo, J. 2006. Light brown apple moth in citrus (No. 216). Primefacts, 1-4. Primefacts 216(July 2, 

2007):1-4. Last accessed March 27, 2008, 

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/76206/Light-brown-apple-mothin-citrus-Primefact-216-final.pdf.

Mo, J., M. Glover, S. Munro, and G. A. C. Beattie. 2006a. Development of Epiphyas postvittana 

(lepidoptera: tortricidae) on leaves and fruit of orange trees. J. Econ. Entomol 

99(4):1321-1326.

Mo, J., M. Glover, S. Munro, and G. A. C. Beattie. 2006b. Evaluation of mating disruption for 

control of Lightbrown Apple Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in citrus. J. Econ. Entomol 

99(2):421-426.

Moore, K. M. 1963. Observations on some Australian forest insects. 15. Some mortality factors 

of Phoracantha semipunctata (F.)(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Proc. Linn. Soc. New 

South Wales 88:221-229.

Moore, K. M. 1972. Observations on some Australian forest insects 26. Some insects attacking 

three important tree species. Australian Zoologist 17:30-39.

Muggleston, S. J., and S. P. Foster. 1989. Sustained-flight tunnel responses of male lightbrown 

apple moth to synthetic sex pheromone. Physiological Entomology 14(4):443-449.

Munro, V. M. W. 1998a. A record of the releases and recoveries of the Australian parasitoids 

Xanthopimpla rhopaloceros Krieger (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) and Trigonospila 

brevifacies Hardy (Diptera: Tachinidae) introduced into New Zealand for leafroller 

control. New Zealand Entomologist 21(0):81-91.

Munro, V. M. W. 1998b. A retrospective analysis of the establishment and dispersal of the 

introduced Australian parasitoids Xanthopimpla rhopaloceros (Krieger) (Hymenoptera: 

Ichneumonidae) and Trigonospila brevifacies (Hardy) (Diptera: Tachinidae) within New 

Zealand. Biocontrol Science and Technology ( 1998) 8, 559 ±571 8:559-571.

Munro, V. M. W., and I. M. Henderson. 2002. Nontarget effect of entomophagous biocontrol: 

shared parasitism between native lepidopteran parasitoids and the biocontrol agent 

Trigonospila brevifacies (Diptera: Tachinidae) in forest habitats. Environ. Entomol. 

31(2):388-396.

Myers, J. H. 2003. Eradication: Is It Economically, Financially, Environmentally, and 

Realistically Possible? Pages 1-7. CRC Press LLC.

Myers, J. H., A. Savoie, and E. Randen. 1998. Eradication and pest management. Annual Review 

of Entomology 43(1):471-491.

Nair, N. G. 1985. Fungi Associated with Bunch Rot of Grapes in the Hunter Valley. Aust. J. 

Agric. Res. 36:435-442.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

54

Nair, N. G., R. W. Emmett, and F. E. Parker. 1998. Some factors predisposing grape berries to 

infection by Botrytis cinerea. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 16:257-

263.

NAPIS. 2009. Map of light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana: Pest Tracker. in. National 

Agricultural Pest Information System.

NAPPFAST. 2009. North Carolina State University Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Pest Forecasting System.

NAPPO-PAS. 2007a. Light Brown Apple Moth in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, 

California - United States. North American Plant Protection Organization, Phytosanitary 

Alert System. Last accessed July 2, 2007, 

http://www.pestalert.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprID=260 

NAPPO-PAS. 2007b. Update on Quarantine Areas for Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM), 

Epiphyas postvittana - United States. North American Plant Protection Organization, 

Phytosanitary Alert System. Last accessed July 2, 2007, 

http://www.pestalert.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprID=263&keyword=Epiphyas%20postvittana.

NASDA. 2008. New Zealand light brown apple moth expert distances self, colleagues from 

Harder/Rosendale paper on light brown apple moth. National Association of State 

Departments of Agriculture. Last accessed April 2, 2008, 

http://www.nasda.org/cms/7197/9060/16202/16207.aspx.

NCDACS. 2007. New Pest Alert: Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). 

North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Plant Industry 

Division, Plant Protection Section. Last accessed July 2, 2007, 

http://www.ncagr.com/plantind/plant/entomol/LBAM.htm.

Neumann, F. G. 1978. Insect populations in eucalypt and pine forests in north-eastern Victoria. 

Australian Forest Research 8:13-24.

Neumann, F. G., and G. C. Marks. 1976. A synopsis of important pests and diseases in 

Australian forests and forest nurseries. Australian Forestry (Australia); Journal of the 

Institute of Foresters of Australia 39(2):83-102.

Newcomb, R. D., T. M. Sirey, M. Jordan, S. D. J. Marshall, C. Turner, and D. R. Greenwood. 

2003. Functional genomics of genes involved in odorant reception from the tortricid 

moth, Epiphyas postvittana. Journal of Insect Science (Tucson) 2(36 Cited January 6, 

2003):12.

Newcomb, R. D., T. M. Sirey, M. Rassam, and D. R. Greenwood. 2002. Pheromone binding 

proteins of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) are encoded at a single locus. 

Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 32(11):1543-1554.

Newman, I. C., J. T. S. Walker, and D. J. Rogers. 2004. Mortality of the Leafroller Parasitoid 

Dolichogenidea tasmanica (Hym: Braconidae) Exposed to Orchard Pesticide Residues. 

New Zealand Plant Protection 57:8-12.

Nicholas, A. H., W. G. Thwaite, and R. N. Spooner-Hart. 1999. Arthropod abundance in an 

Australian apple orchard under mating disruption and supplementary insecticide 

treatments for codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Australian 

Journal of Entomology 38(1):23-29.

Nicholls, H. M. 1934. The light brown apple moth. Tasmanian Journal of Agriculture 5(2):68-72.

Nielsen, and Common. 1991. The Insects of Australia: A textbook for Students and Research 

Workers. 2, 872-874. Ithaca, New York. . Pages 872-874 (Second). Cornell University 

Press, Ithaca, New York.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

55

Nietshcke, B., Borchert, D.M., Magarey, R.D., and Ciomperlik, M.A. 2008. Climatological 

potential for Scirtothrips dorsalis (Thysanoptera:thripidae) establishment in the United 

States. Florida Entomologist. 91:79-86.

Novotny, V., Y. Basset, S. E. Miller, G. D. Weiblen, B. Bremer, L. Cizek, and P. Drozd. 2002. 

Low host specificity of herbivorous insects in a tropical forest. Nature 416(6883):841-

844.

Noyes, J. S. 2007. Universal Chalcidoidea Database: Epiphyas postvittana. Natural History 

Museum, London. Last accessed June 28, 2007, http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/researchcuration/projects/chalcidoids/namedHost.dsml?searchPageURL=indexNamedHost.dsml

&HOSTFAMILY=&HOSGENUSqtype=equals&HOSGENUS=Epiphyas&HOSSPECIE

Sqtype=equals&HOSSPECIES=postvittana.

Nuttall, M. J. 1983. Planotortrix excessana (Walker), Planotortrix notophaea (Turner), Epiphyas 

postvittana (Walker). Forest and Timber Insects in New Zealand No. 58.

NZAC. 1996-2003. Biological Control: Arthropod Targets New Zealand Australian Connections, 

Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research. Last accessed June 5, 2003, 

http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/biodiversity/invertebratesprog/nzac/arthropo

ds.asp.

NZFFA. 2008. Greenheaded leafroller, blacklegged leafroller, light brown apple moth. New 

Zealand Farm Forestry Association. Last accessed 

http://www.nzffa.org.nz/pests/Pests/Planotortrix/Planotortrix_Ent58.html.

NZMAF. 2005. Comments by the Government of New Zealand on Biosecurity Australia's 

revised draft import risk analysis report for apples from New Zealand. New Zealand 

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (NZMAF). 51-57 pp.

Oag, D. 2001. 3. Grape Production in Australia. Pages 4-18 in M. K. Papademetriou and F. J. 

Dent, (eds.). Grape Production in The Asia-Pacific Region. Food and Agriculture 

Organization of The United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and The Pacific 

(ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/003/x6897e/x6897e00.pdf), Bangkok, Thailand.

ODA. 2007. Pest alert: light brown apple moth Oregon Department of Agriculture, Plant 

Division. Last accessed July 2, 2007, 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/docs/pdf/ippm_lbam_flyer07.pdf.

Ohmart, C. 2007. Light Brown Apple Moth - Our Latest Invasive Pest. Wines and Vines 

89(9):52-54.

Ohmart, C. P., L. G. Stewart, and J. R. Thomas. 1983. Phytophagous insect communities in the 

canopies of three Eucalyptus forest types in south-eastern Australia. Austral Ecology 

8(4):395-403.

Olson, D. M., E. Dinerstein, E. D. Wikramanayake, N. D. Burgess, G. V. N. Powell, and E. C. 

Underwood. 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth. 

Bioscience 51(11):933-938.

Palisade. 2002. A concise summary of @Risk probability distribution functions, Newfield, N.Y.

Palisade. 2002a. @Risk 4.52 Professional, Newfield, N.Y.

PANNA. 2009. LBAM Reclassification Petition. Personal communication to T. Vilsack on 

February 4, 2009, from Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA). Archived at 

the PERAL library, Raleigh, NC.

Paull, C., and A. D. Austin. 2006. The hymenopteran parasitoids of light brown apple moth, 

Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Australia. Australian Journal 

of Entomology (2006) 45, 142–156 45:142-156.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

56

PBC. 2007. Pacific Biocontrol Corporation Isomate LBAM Plus Label. Biocontrol.

Pickett, J. A., L. J. Wadhams, and C. M. Woodcock. 1997. Developing sustainable pest control 

from chemical ecology. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 64(2):149-156.

Pickles, T. 2000. Unusual food plant for Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lep.: Tortricidae). 

Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation 112(1):40-41.

Porter, J. 2001. Range expansion in the light brown apple-moth Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.). 

Atropos (14):42-46.

Prokopy, R. J. 2003. Two decades of bottom-up, ecologically based pest management in a small 

commercial apple orchard in Massachusetts. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 

94(3):299-309.

Quarles, W. 2008. Light brown apple moth—crisis of trust. IPM Practitioner 30(3/4):1-6.

Ramsden, M., J. McDonald, and F. R. Wylie. 2002. Forest pests in the South Pacific region: A 

review of the major causal agents of tree disorders. Development of Forest Health 

Surveillance Systems for South Pacific Countries and Australia. ACIAR Project 

FST/2001/045.

Rapley, P. 1999. Light Brown Apple Moth. Horticulture Research and Development 

Corporation, Gordon, NSW, Australia. 1-39 pp.

Read, J., E. Gras, G. D. Sanson, F. Clissold, and C. Brunt. 2003. Does chemical defence decline 

more in developing leaves that become strong and tough at maturity? Australian Journal 

of Botany 51(5):489-496.

Roberston, J. L., K. F. Armstrong, D. M. Suckling, and H. K. Preisler. 1990. Effects of Host 

Plants on the Toxicity of Azinphosmethyl to Susceptible and Resistant Light Brown 

Apple Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 83(6):2124-2129.

Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, Kitching, I. J., G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernández. 2007. 

HOSTS - a Database of the World's Lepidopteran Hostplants: Epiphyas postvittana. 

London: Natural History Museum. Last accessed June 28, 2007, 

http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/researchcuration/projects/hostplants/list.dsml?searchPageURL=index.dsml&Familyqtype=starts+

with&Family=&PFamilyqtype=starts+with&PFamily=&Genusqtype=starts+with&Genus

=Epiphyas&PGenusqtype=starts+with&PGenus=&Speciesqtype=starts+with&Species=p

ostvittana&PSpeciesqtype=starts+with&PSpecies=&Country=&sort=Family.

Rogers, D. J., J. T. S. Walker, I. C. Moen, F. Weibel, P. L. Lo, and L. M. Cole. 2003. 

Understorey influence on leafroller populations in Hawke’s Bay organic apple orchards. 

Pages 168-17356th Conference Proceedings of The New Zealand Plant Protection 

Society Incorporated.

Rohitha, B. H., R. A. Hill, N. B. Perry, A. K. Karl, S. D. Lorimer, and J. T. Taylor. 1995. FreezeDried Artificial Diet-Based Technique for Screening Plant Extracts Against Epiphyas 

postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 88(6):1566-1569.

Roltsch, W. 2008a. Biological Control of the Light Brown Apple Moth (Augmentation using egg 

parasitoids) [Power Point]. LBAM Environmental Advisory Task Force Meeting 

(February 21, 2008). 1-13 pp.

Roltsch, W. 2008b. Biological Control of the Light Brown Apple Moth [Power Point]. LBAM 

Environmental Advisory Task Force Meeting (May 5, 2008). 1-13 pp.

Rosendale, J. 2007. Epiphyas postvittana Fact finding tour to the Monterey Bay Area
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

57

Personal communication to L. F. a. L. J.Garrett on August 13, 2007, from Letter from Jeff 

Rosendale, Rosendale Nursery, Sierra Azul Nursery & Gardens, Soquel Nursery Growers 

to Larry Fowler and Lynn J. Garrett, APHIS-CPHST, Raleigh, NC.

Rumbo-Csiro, E. R. 1981. Study of single sensillum responses to pheromone in the light-brown 

apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana, using an averaging technique. Physiological 

Entomology 6(1):87-98.

Rumbo, E. R. 1983. Differences between single cell responses to different components of the sex 

pheromone in males of the lightbrown apple moth (Epiphyas postvittana). Physiological 

Entomology 8(2):195-201.

Rumbo, E. R. 1984. A comparison between electroantennograms and receptor potentials in the 

light brown apple moth Epiphyas postvittana. Chemical Senses 8(3):263.

Rumbo, E. R. 1988. Cross- and Self-adaptation of Electroantennogram Responses in the 

Lightbrown Apple Moth (Epiphyas postvittana). J. Insect Physiol. 34(2):117-123.

Rumbo, E. R. 1993. Interactions between male moths of the lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas 

postvittana (Walker) (Lep.: Tort.), landing on synthetic sex pheromone sources in a windtunnel. Physiological Entomology 18(1):79-86.

Rumbo, E. R., S. M. Deacon, and L. P. Regan. 1993. Spatial discrimination between sources of 

pheromone and an inhibitor by the light-brown apple moth Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) 

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology 19(5):953-962.

Rumbo, E. R., D. M. Suckling, and G. Karg. 1995. Measurement of Airborne Pheromone 

Concentratins Using Electroantennograms: Interactions Between Environmental Volatiles 

and Pheromone. J. Insect Physiol. 41(6):465-471.

Rundle, B. J., and A. A. Hoffmann. 2003. Overwintering of Trichogramma funiculatum Carver 

(Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) under semi-natural conditions. Environ. Entomol. 

32(2):290-298.

Russell, G. B., W. S. Bowers, V. Keesing, H. M. Niemeyer, T. Sevenet, S. Vasanthaverni, and S. 

D. Wratten. 2000. Patterns of bioactivity and herbivory on Nothofagus species from 

Chile and New Zealand. Journal of Chemical Ecology 26(1):41-56.

Russell, G. B., P. Singh, and P. G. Fenemore. 1976. Insect-control Chemicals from Plants III. 

Toxic Lignans from Libocedrus bidwillii. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 29:99-103.

SAIN. 2008. Invasive plant pests definitions and criteria. Southern Appalachian Information 

Node (SAIN). Last accessed June 4, 2008, 

www.sain.utk.edu/invasives/inv_plant_pest_def.shtml.

Sale, P. R., D. Sawden, and D. Steven. 1985. Trials with Bacillus Thuringiensis on Kiwifruit 

1982-1984. Pages 162-164 Thirty Eighth New Zealand Weed and Pest Control 

Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc.

SARDI. 2007. Apricot Pests and Diseases: Light Brown Apple Moth. Government of South 

Australia, South Australian Research and Development Institute. Last accessed July 2, 

2007, 

http://www.sardi.sa.gov.au/pages/hort/hort_crops/apricots/light_brown_apple_moth.htm:

sectID=1122&tempID=1.

Sax, D. F., and S. D. Gaines. 2008. Species invasions and extinction: The future of native 

biodiversity on islands. Colloquium of the National Academy of Sciences.

Schwalbe, C. P., and V. C. Mastro. 1988. Multispecific Trapping Techniques for Exotic-Pest 

Detection. Agricultural, Ecosystems and Environment 21(1-2):43-51.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

58

Sexton, S. 2000. Isomate LBAM Plus: A New Weapon for Integrated Management of 

Lightbrown Apple Moth in Apples and Grapes Biocontrol Ltd. Last accessed July 20, 

2005, http://www.biocontrol.com.au/pdfs/IsomateLBAMTechnotes.pdf.

Sexton, S. 2001. Management of Lightbrown Apple Moth in Apple and Pear Orchards. 

BioControl. Last accessed June 5, 2003, 

http://www.biocontrol.com.au/articles/manageLBAM.html.

Sharov, A. A. 2004. Bioeconomics of managing the spread of exotic pest species with barrier 

zones. Risk Analysis 24(4):879-892.

Sharov, A. A., A. M. Liebhold, and E. A. Roberts. 1998. Optimizing the use of barrier zones to 

slow the spread of gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) in North America. Forest 

Entomology 91(1):165-174.

Shaw, M. R. 1981. Some Parasites (Hymenoptera) of Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) 

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Cornwall. Entomologist's Gazette 32(1):36-38.

Shaw, P. W., V. M. Cruickshank, and D. M. Suckling. 1994. Geographic changes in leafroller 

species composition in Nelson orchards. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 1994, Vol. 21: 

289-294 21:289-294.

Simberloff, D. 2002. Why not eradication. Managing for Healthy Ecosystems (DJ Rapport, WL 

Lasley, DE Ralston, NO Nielsen, CO Qualset and AB Damania, eds.):541-548.

Simberloff, D. 2003. Why not eradication? Pages 541-548 in D. J. Rapport, W. L. Lasley, D. E. 

Ralston, N. O. Nielsen, C. O. Qualset, and A. B. Damania, (eds.). Managing for Healthy 

Ecosystems CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida.

Simpson, R. M., E. P. J. Burgess, and N. P. Markwick. 1997. Bacillus thuringiensis DeltaEndotoxin Binding Sites in Two Lepidoptera, Wiseana spp. and Epiphyas postvittana. 

Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 70(2):136-142.

Simpson, R. M., and R. D. Newcomb. 2000. Binding of Bacillus thuringiensis delta-endotoxins 

Cry1Ac and Cry1Ba to a 120-kDa aminopeptidase-N of Epiphyas postvittana purified 

from both brush border membrane vesicles and baculovirus-infected Sf9 cells. Insect 

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 30(11):1069-1078.

Sin, F. Y. T., D. M. Suckling, and J. W. Marshall. 1995. Differentiation of the endemic New 

Zealand greenheaded and brownheaded leafroller moths by restriction fragment length 

variation in the ribosomal gene complex. Molecular Ecology 4(2):253-256.

Singh, G., L. E. Rippon, W. S. Gilbert, and B. L. Wild. 1976. Inorganic bromide residue in 

bananas, bell capsicums (sweet peppers), cherries and apples following fumigation with 

ethylene dibromide and methyl bromide. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 

and Animal Husbandry 16(82):780-784.

Singh, P. 1974a. A chemically defined medium for rearing Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: 

Tortricidae). New Zealand Journal of Zoology 1(2):241-243.

Singh, P. 1974b. Aseptic rearing of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) on a meridic 

diet. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 1(1):111-117.

Singh, P., and J. S. Dugdale. 1979. Morphogenetic and physiological effects of a juvenile 

hormone analogue on the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: 

Tortricidae). New Zealand Journal of Zoology 6(2):381-388.

Singh, P., G. B. Russell, Y. Hayashi, R. T. Gallagher, and S. Fredericksen. 1979. The 

Insecticidal Activity of Some Norditerpene Dilactones. Entomologia Experimentalis et 

Applicata 25(2):121-127.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

59

Smith, M., P. Cole, and S. Kreidl. 1995. Improving efficacy of the biological insecticide, 

Bacillus thuringiensis, for control of lightbrown apple moth. The Australian Grapegrower 

and Winemaker:71-74.

Southwood, T. R. E. 1977. Habitat, the templet for ecological strategies? The Journal of Animal 

Ecology:337-365.

Southwood, T. R. E., and H. N. Comins. 1976. A synoptic population model. The Journal of 

Animal Ecology:949-965.

Spalding, A. 1994. Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lep.: Tortricidae) in Cornwall. 

Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation 106(7-8):129-132.

Spears, B. M. 2007a. LBAM host plants. Personal communication to J. W. Smith, G. Fowler, 

and L. Fowler on 6/27/2007, from 

Spears, B. M. 2007b. Our compiled host list. Personal communication to J. W. Smith, L. Fowler, 

and G. Fowler on 6/22/2007, from 

Splitt M. E., and J. Horel, 1998: Use of multivariate linear regression for meteorological data 

analysis and quality assessment in complex terrain. Preprints, 10th Symp. on 

Meteorological Observations and Instrumentation, Phoenix, AZ, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 

359–362.

Statzner, B., A. G. Hildrew, and V. H. Resh. 2001. Species traits and environmental constraints: 

entomological research and the history of ecological theory. Annual Review of 

Entomology 46(1):291-316.

Stevens. 1995. Host preferences of Trichogrammatoidea bactrae fumata (Hymenoptera: 

Trichogrammatidae) an egg parasitoid of leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). 

Entomophaga 40(3/4):379-385.

Stevens, P. S., and D. Steven. 1994. An Insect Growth Regulator for Controlling Leafrollers on 

Kiwifruit. Pages 310-313 Forty Seventh New Zealand Plant Protection Conference. New 

Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc., Waitangi Hotel, New Zealand.

Suckling, D. M. 1984. The minimum effective level concept of pesticide deposits: an evaluation. 

Pages 59-63Thirty Seventh New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference. New 

Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc.

Suckling, D. M. 1985. The Persistence of Azinphos-methyl against Epiphyas postvittana Walker 

(Lep.: Tortricidae) in New-Zealand. Agronomie (Paris) 5(10):893-898.

Suckling, D. M. 1993. Sex Pheromones: Are They Delivering to Expectations? Pages 62-65 in S. 

Corey, D. Dall, and W. Milne, (eds.). Pest Control and Sustainable Agriculture. CSIRO, 

Canberra, Australia.

Suckling, D. M. 1996a. Leafroller Insecticide Resistance Management Strategy Pages p. 168-171 

Pesticide Resistance: Prevention and Management.

Suckling, D. M. 1996b. Status of Insecticide and Miticide Resistance in New Zealand. Pages 49-

58 Pesticide resistance: Prevention and management.

Suckling, D. M., and N. P. D. Angerilli. 1996. Point Source Distribution Affects Pheromone 

Spike Frequency and Communication Disruption of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: 

Tortricidae). Environ. Entomol. 25(1):101-108.

Suckling, D. M., K. F. Armstrong, and J. G. I. Khoo. 1990d. Selection with Azinphosmethyl 

Influences Glutathione S-Transferase Activity in the Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas 

postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 38(1):9-

17.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

60

Suckling, D. M., and E. G. Brockerhoff. 1999. Control of Light Brown Apple Moth 

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Using an Attracticide. J. Econ. Entomol. 92(2):367-372.

Suckling, D. M., J. F. Brunner, G. M. Burnip, and J. T. S. Walker. 1994a. Dispersal of Epiphyas 

postvittana (Walker) and Planotortrix octo Dugdale (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) at a 

Canterbury, New Zealand orchard. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural 

Science 22:225-234.

Suckling, D. M., G. M. Burnip, J. R. Clearwater, P. W. Shaw, G. F. McLaren, and D. Thomson. 

1994c. Mating disruption for caterpillar control in organic pipfruit orchards in New 

Zealand. The Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand Ltd. Last 

accessed June 28, 2007, 

http://www.hortnet.co.nz/publications/proceedings/ifoam/ifoam55.htm 

Suckling, D. M., G. M. Burnip, A. R. Gibb, J. M. Daly, and K. F. Armstrong. 2001. Plant and 

host effects on the leafroller parasitoid Dolichogenidia tasmanica. Entomologia 

Experimentalis et Applicata 100:253-260.

Suckling, D. M., G. M. Burnip, J. Hackett, and J. C. Daly. 2006. Frass sampling and baiting 

indicate European earwig (Forficula auricularia) foraging in orchards. J. Appl. Entomol. 

130(5):263-267.

Suckling, D. M., G. M. Burnip, J. T. S. Walker, P. W. Shaw, G. F. McLaren, C. R. Howard, P. 

Lo, V. White, and J. Fraser. 1998. Abundance of leafrollers and their parasitoids on 

selected host plants in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural 

Science 26:193-203.

Suckling, D. M., R. B. Chapman, and D. R. Penman. 1984a. Insecticide Resistance in the Light 

Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): Larval 

Response to Azinphosmethyl. J. Econ. Entomol. 77(3):579-582.

Suckling, D. M., R. B. Chapman, and D. R. Penman. 1986. Toxicity of insecticides to Epiphyas 

postvittana (Walker) and Planotortrix excessana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). 

New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 14(1):89-95.

Suckling, D. M., and J. R. Clearwater. 1990. Small Scale Trials of Mating Disruption of 

Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Environ. Entomol. 19(6):1702-1709.

Suckling, D. M., J. M. Daly, X. Chen, and G. Karg. 2007. Field electroantennogram and trap 

assessments of aerosol pheromone dispensers for disrupting mating in Epiphyas 

postvittana. Pest Management Science 63(2):202-209.

Suckling, D. M., and C. Ioriatti. 1996. Behavioral responses of leafroller larvae to apple leaves 

and fruit. Entmologia Expertmentalis et Applicata 81:97-103.

Suckling, D. M., Karg, G., S. Green, and A. R. Gibb. 1999. The effect of atmospheric 

pheromone concentrations on behavior of lightbrown apple moth in an apple orchard. 

Journal of Chemical Ecology 25(9):2011-2024.

Suckling, D. M., and G. Karg. 1997. Mating Disruption of the Lightbrown Apple Moth: Portable 

Electroantennogram Equipment and Other Aspects. Pages 411-420 in R. T. Carde and A. 

K. Minks, (eds.). Insect Pheromone Research: New Directions. Chapman & Hall, New 

York, NY.

Suckling, D. M., and G. Karg. 2007. The role of foliage in mating disruption in apple orchards 4. 

Last accessed http://phero.net/iobc/montpellier/suckling.html.

Suckling, D. M., G. Karg, and S. J. Bradley. 1996a. Apple foliage enhances mating disruption of 

light-brown apple moth. Journal of Chemical Ecology 22(2):326-341.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

61

Suckling, D. M., G. Karg, S. J. Bradley, and C. R. Howard. 1994b. Field Electroantennogram 

and Behavioral Responses of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Under Low 

Pheromone and Inhibitor Concentrations. J. Econ. Entomol. 87(6):1477-1487.

Suckling, D. M., G. Karg, A. R. Gibb, and S. J. Bradley. 1996. Electroantennogram and 

oviposition responses of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) to plant 

volatiles. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 24:323-333.

Suckling, D. M., and J. G. I. Khoo. 1990. Cross-resistance in the lightbrown apple moth 

Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). New Zealand Journal of Crop and 

Horticultural Science 18(4):173-180.

Suckling, D. M., and J. G. I. Khoo. 1993. Cline in Frequency of Azinphosmethyl Resistance in 

Light Brown Apple Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 86(5):1308-1316.

Suckling, D. M., J. G. I. Khoo, and D. J. Rogers. 1989. Dynamics of Azinphosmethyl Resistance 

in Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 82(4):1003-1010.

Suckling, D. M., N. P. Markwick, P. J. Wigley, C. Frater, C. N. Chilcott, and J. H. Maindonald. 

1996b. Response to Purified Cry IB Protein in Lab-wild Type Corsses of Lightbrown 

Apple Moth. Pages 64-70Forty Ninth New Zealand Plant Protection Conference. New 

Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc., Quality Hotel Rutherford, Nelson, New Zealand.

Suckling, D. M., D. J. Rogers, and P. W. Shaw. 1990a. Disruption of Lightbrown Apple Moth 

Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Trapping in Nelson, New 

Zealand. Aust. J. Zool. 38(4):363-374.

Suckling, D. M., D. J. Rogers, P. W. Shaw, C. H. Wearing, D. R. Penman, and R. B. Chapman. 

1987. Monitoring Azinphosmethyl Resistance in the Light Brown Apple Moth 

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in New Zealand. J. Econ. Entomol. 80(4):733-738.

Suckling, D. M., and P. W. Shaw. 1992. Conditions that Favor Mating Disruption of Epiphyas 

postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Environ. Entomol. 2(5):949-956.

Suckling, D. M., and P. W. Shaw. 1995. Large-scale trials of mating disruption of lightbrown 

apple moth in Nelson, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural 

Science 23(2):127-137.

Suckling, D. M., P. W. Shaw, and B. Brown. 1993. Efficacy of Carbaryl, Bacillus thuringiensis 

and Pyrethrum Against Lightbrown Apple Moth Larvae on Apples. Pages 141-145Forty 

Sixth New Zealand Plant Protection Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society 

Inc., Rotorua, New Zealand.

Suckling, D. M., P. W. Shaw, J. G. I. Khoo, and V. Cruickshank. 1990c. Resistance management 

of lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) by mating 

disruption. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 18:89-98.

Suckling, D. M., J. T. S. Walker, and P. W. Shaw. 1990b. Reducing insecticide use in pipfruit: 

Nelson demonstration trials. Pages 306-310Forty Third New Zealand Weed and Pest 

Control Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc.

Suckling, D. M., J. T. S. Walker, P. W. Shaw, and V. White. 1988. Spray less for leafroller 

control. The Orchardist of New Zealand:21-24.

Suckling, D. M., C. H. Wearing, W. P. Thomas, D. R. Penman, and R. B. Chapman. 1984b. 

Insecticide resistance in the lightbrown apple moth: a case for resistance management. 

Pages 248-252 37th N.Z. Weed and Pest Control Conference.

Sutherland, P. W., M. O. Harris, and N. P. Markwick. 2003. Effects of Starvation and the 

Bacillus thuringiensis Endotoxin Cry1Ac on the Midgut Cells, Feeding Behavior, and 

Growth of Lightbrown Apple Moth Larvae. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 96(3):250-264.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

62

Sutherst, R. W. 2000. Pests and Pest Management–Impact of Climate Change. Rural Industries 

Research and Development Corporation. Publication No. 00/16, Project No. CSE-76A.

Sutherst, R. W., W. Danthanarayana, and B. Collyer. 1997. Report of the first light brown apple 

moth modelling workshop. Pages 17. CSIRO Entomology, University of New England 

(Division of Zoology), Knoxfield.

Sutherst, R. W., Maywald, G. F., and Kriticos, D. J. 2007. CLIMEX Version 3: User's Guide. 

Http:www.Hearne.com.au: Hearne Scientific Software Pty Ltd; 2007. 131pp.

Tabatabai, S., C. Chervin, A. Hamilton, and A. Hoffmann. 2000. Sensitivity of pupae of 

lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera:Tortricidae), to 

combinations of abiotic stresses. Australian Journal of Entomology 39:78-82.

Takahashi, G. 2002. Notes on the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) 

intercepted at import plant quarantine of Narita Airport in Japan. Research Bulletin of the 

Plant Protection Service, Japan 38:99-103.

Taverner, P., P. Bailey , M. Hodgkinson, and G. A. C. Beattie. 1999. Post-harvest disinfestation 

of lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana Walker (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), with 

an alkane. Pesticide Science 55:1159-1156.

Taverner, P. D. 2001. Why growers need help to control LBAM. South Australian Research and 

Development Institute Packer Newsletter (63):2.

Taverner, P. D., P. T. Bailey, and R. T. Roush. 2002. Evidence for oil-induced oxidative stress to 

larvae of the lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana Walker (Lepidoptera: 

Tortricidae). Pest Management Science 58(4):329-334.

Taverner, P. D., R. V. Gunning, P. Kolesik, P. T. Bailey, A. B. Inceoglu, B. Hammock, and R. T. 

Roush. 2001. Evidence for Direct Neural Toxicity of a "Light" Oil on the Peripheral 

Nerves of Lightbrown Apple Moth. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 69(3):153-

165.

Terauds, A. 1969. Investigations on the control of the Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas 

postvittana (Walk.) in Tasmania in 1966-1967 and 1967-1968. Tasmanian Journal of 

Agriculture 40(4):335-339.

Terauds, A. 1977. Two methods of assessing damage to apples caused by light brown apple 

moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). J. Aust. Ent. Soc. 16:367-369.

Terauds, A., J. E. Ireson, P. E. L. Rapley, and J. B. O'Loughlin. 1978. Post-harvest disinfestation 

of apples of the light-brown apple moth Epiphyas postvittana. Australian Journal of 

Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 18(91):313-317.

Thomas, W. P. 1968. An Artificial Diet for Rearing the Light Brown Apple Moth Epiphyas 

postvittana (Walk.) (lepidoptera: Tortricidae). New Zealand Entomologist 4(1):31-32.

Thomas, W. P. 1975a. Additional Notes on Leaf Rollers. Orchardist of New Zealand 48:354-

355.

Thomas, W. P. 1975b. Lightbrown apple moth, Life Cycle Chart. in. Department of Scientific 

and Industrial Research, Auckland, New Zealand.

Thomas, W. P. 1989. Epiphyas postvittana (Walker), lightbrown apple moth (Lepidoptera: 

Tortricidae). Pages 187-195 in P. J. Cameron, R. L. Hill, J. Bain, and W. P. Thomas, 

(eds.). A review of biological control of invertebrate pests and weeds in New Zealand 

1874 to 1987. Technical Communication No. 10. Wallingford, United Kingdom: DSIR 

Entomology Division.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

63

Thomas, W. P. 1998. Lightbrown Apple Moth Life Cycle. The Horticulture and Food Research 

Institute of New Zealand Ltd. Last accessed June 28, 2007, 

http://www.hortnet.co.nz/publications/hortfacts/hf401003.htm.

Thomas, W. P., and G. M. Burnip. 1994. Pests and associated beneficials recorded in a 

Canterbury pipfruit orchard during the transition to "Bio-Gro" certification. Last accessed 

http://www.hortnet.co.nz/publications/proceedings/ifoam/ifoam61.htm.

Thomas, W. P., and P. W. Shaw. 1982. An attempt to control the light brown apple moth, 

Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) by male removal. Pages 71-78 in 

R. A. Galbreath, (ed.). Insect pheromones and their application, Auckland, New Zealand.

Thomson, C., A. R. Tomkins, and D. J. Wilson. 1993. Activity of Oils Against Lightbrown 

Apple Moth (Epiphyas postvittana) Larvae. Pages 67-70Forty Sixth New Zealand Plant 

Protection Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society.

Thomson, L. J., D. C. Glenn, and A. A. Hoffmann. 2000. Effects of sulfur on Trichogramma egg 

parasitoids in vineyards: measuring toxic effects and establishing release windows. 

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40(8):1165-1171.

Thomson, L. J., and A. A. Hoffmann. 2002. Laboratory fecundity as predictor of field success in 

Trichogramma carverae (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). J. Econ. Entomol 

95(5):912-917.

Thomson, L. J., and A. A. Hoffmann. 2006. Field validation of laboratory-derived IOBC toxicity 

ratings for natural enemies in commercial vineyards. Biological Control 39(3):507-515.

Thomson, L. J., D. J. Sharley, and A. A. Hoffmann. 2007. Beneficial organisms as bioindicators 

for environmental sustainability in the grape industry in Australia. Australian Journal of 

Experimental Agriculture 47(4):404-411.

Thwaite, W. G. 1976. Effect of reduced dosage of azinophos-methyl on control of codling moth, 

Cydia pomonella (L.), and light-brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.), in an 

apple orchard. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie 80:94-102.

Thwaite, W. G. 1978. Light-Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) (Lepidoptera: 

Tortricidae): FLight Records for Eight Seasons at Bathurst, N.S.W. General and Applied 

Entomology 10:39-44.

Thwaite, W. G. 1997. Australia's Progress in Apple IPM A review of integrated pest 

management in Australian Apple Orchards. Pages 1-34 in Technical Bulletin NSW 

Agriculture. NSW Agriculture Communication Unit, Research Liaison Officer (Scientific 

Publications), Orange, Australia.

Tomkins, A. R., D. R. Penman, and R. B. Chapman. 1987. Use of traps for monitoring adult 

leafrollers in apple orchards. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 15(1):91-

95.

Tomkins, A. R., D. R. Penman, and R. B. Chapman. 1989. Effect of temperature and host plant 

on development of three species of leafrollers (lepidoptera: Tortricidae). New Zealand 

Entomologist 12:48-55.

Tomkins, A. R., D. R. Penman, and R. B. Chapman. 1991. Leafroller oviposition on larval host 

plants. New Zealand Entomologist 14:37-41.

Tomkins, A. R., and C. Thomson. 1992. Ovicidal activity of oils against lightbrown apple moth 

(Epiphyas postvittana) on kiwifruit leaves. Pages 167-170.

Turner, C. T., M. W. Davy, R. M. MacDiarmid, K. M. Plummer, N. P. Birch, and R. D. 

Newcomb. 2006. RNA interference in the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

64

(Walker) induced by double-stranded RNA feeding. Insect Molecular Biology 15(3):383-

391.

TWG. 2007a. Recommendations of the Technical Working Group for the Light Brown Apple 

Moth Infestation in California (June 8, 2007). Light Brown Apple Moth Technical 

Working Group (TWG). 5 pp.

TWG. 2007b. Recommendations of the Technical Working Group for the Light Brown Apple 

Moth Program (January 25, 2007). Technical Working Group (TWG) for the Light 

Brown Apple Moth. 5 pp.

UC-IPM. 2006. How to manage pests. UC Pest Management Guidelines: Grape Omnivorous 

Leafroller. University of California, Integrated Pest Management Online (UC-IMP). Last 

accessed August 2, 2008, http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r302300311.html.

Upton, R. 2008a. Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) Eradication Program: Post-Spray Effects on 

Animals and Pets. Citizens For Health, Soquel. 22 pp.

Upton, R. 2008b. Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM): Die-off of seabirds after aerial spraying of 

Checkmate LBAM-F pesticide solution in Santa Cruz, CA. Citizens For Health. 11 pp.

Upton, R., D. Harder, and T. Dadant. 2008. Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) Eradication 

Program: Potential Effects on Pollinators and Implications for California Agriculture. 

Citizens For Health and University of California. 19 pp.

APHIS. 1984. Pests Not Known to Occur in the United States or of Limited Distribution 

(PNKTO), No. 50: Light-brown Apple Moth. Pages 12 in. United States Department of 

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

Quarantine, Hyattsville, MD.

APHIS. 1993. Fact Sheet for Exotic Pest Detection Survey Recommendations: Light Brown 

Apple Moth. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Cooperative Agricultural Pest 

Survey. Last accessed June 28, 2007, 

http://www.ceris.purdue.edu/napis/pests/misc/fexotic.txt 

APHIS. 2007a. LBAM situation report November 3, 2007. in. United States Department of 

Agriculture. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

APHIS. 2007b. Light brown apple moth. Last accessed 

APHIS. 2007c. Risk Management Document: Importation of Sweet Cherries, Prunus avium, 

from Australia into the 50 States of the United States, including the District of Columbia. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

Plant Health Programs, Commodity Imports Analyses and Operations. 7 pp.

APHIS. 2007a-b. Federal domestic quarantine order: Epiphyas postvittana (Light Brown Apple 

Moth) (LBAM) DA-2007-42. in. United States Department of Agriculture. Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service.

APHIS. 2007b. Federal Domestic Quarantine Order: Epiphyas postvittana (Light Brown Apple 

Moth) DA-2007-18.

APHIS. 2007c. Light brown apple moth. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service. Last accessed August 13, 2007, 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/lba_moth/index.shtml 

APHIS. 2007d. Northern and Southern Regions of Light Brown Apple Moth Quarantine for 

Canada United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service. Last accessed July 2, 2007, 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

65

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/lba_moth/downloads/canadaquar

antinemap.pdf.

APHIS. 2008. Answers to a portion of questions Congressman Sam Farr (D-Carmel) provided 

USDA officials during hearing in early 2008. Received June 11, 2008. Personal 

communication to S. Farr on June 11, 2008, from APHIS, through "The Online Office of 

Congressman Farr". Archived at the PERAL library, Raleigh, NC.

APHIS. 2009. LBAM confirmations: 2007 to April, 22, 2009. in. United States Department of 

Agriculture. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Data courtesy of Roxanne 

Broadway.

USDA-NASS. 2000. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 1999 Summary: Released July, 2000. in. 

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Agricultural Statistics Board. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture.

USDA-NASS. 2000a. Citrus Fruits 2000 Summary: Released September, 2000. in. National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Agricultural Statistics Board. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture.

USDA-NASS. 2002. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2001 Summary: Released July, 2002. in. 

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Agricultural Statistics Board. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture.

USDA-NASS. 2002a. Citrus Fruits 2002 Summary: Released September, 2002. in. National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Agricultural Statistics Board. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture.

USDA-NASS. 2004. Citrus Fruits 2004 Summary: Released September, 2004. in. National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Agricultural Statistics Board. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture.

USDA-NASS. 2005. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2004 Summary: Released July, 2005. in. 

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Agricultural Statistics Board. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture.

USDA-NASS. 2006. Citrus Fruits 2006 Summary: Released September, 2006. in. National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Agricultural Statistics Board. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture.

USDA-NASS. 2007. 2007 Census of agriculture United States Department of Agriculture. 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Last accessed 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Desktop_Applicatio

n/index.asp.

USDA-NASS. 2008. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2007 Summary: Released July, 2008. National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). in. National Agricultural Statistics Service 

(NASS). Agricultural Statistics Board. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

USDA-NASS. 2008a. Citrus Fruits 2008 Summary: Released September 25, 2008. in. National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Agricultural Statistics Board. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture.

USDA. 2007. Northern and southern regions of light brown apple moth quarantine for Canada. 

in.

Valentine, B. J., G. M. Gurr, and W. G. Thwaite. 1996. Efficacy of the insect growth regulators 

tebufenozide and fenoxycarb for lepidopteran pest control in apples, and their 

compatibility with biological control for integrated pest management. Australian Journal 

of Experimental Agriculture 36(4):501-506.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

66

van den Broek, W. 1975. The effect of temperature on damage to stored apples by the lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker), and the effect of cold storage on its 

viability. J. Aust. Ent. Soc. 14:1-5.

Varela, L. G., M. W. Johnson, L. Strand, C. A. Wilen, and C. Pickel. 2008. Light brown apple 

moth’s arrival in California worries commodity groups. California Agriculture 62(2):57-

61. Last accessed March 27, 2008, 

http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3202&context=anrcs/californiaag

riculture.

Venette, R. C., E. E. Davis, M. DaCosta, H. Holly, and M. Larson. 2003. Mini risk assessment 

Light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) [Lepidoptera: Tortricidae].38. 

Last accessed July 5, 2007, 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/pest_detection/downloads/pra/ep

ostvittanapra.pdf.

Venette, R.C. et al. (2010). Pest risk maps for invasive alien species: a roadmap for improvement. 

Bioscience in press. 

VitiNotes. 2006. Options for effective management of Lightbrown Apple moth. Cooperative 

Research Centre for Viticulture. Last accessed www.crcv.com.au.

Vose, D. 2000. Risk analysis: a quantitative guide. 2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, New 

York. 418 pp.

Waddell, B. C., P. R. Dentener, and T. A. Batchelor. 1990. Time-Mortality Response of 

Leafrollers Exposed to Commercial Controlled Atmosphere Coolstorage. Pages 328-

333Forty Third New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference. New Zealand Plant 

Protection Society Inc.

Walker, J. 1990. Pests and Diseases. Pages p. 35-51 in A. White, D. Cranwell, B. Drewiit, C. 

Hale, N. Lallu, K. Marsh, and J. Walker, (eds.). Nashi: Asian Pear in New Zealand. Dsir 

Publishing Wellington, New Zealand.

Walker, J., G. T. Baynon, and V. White. 1991. Insect Control on Apples with RH-5992 A Novel 

Insect Growth Regulator. Pages 66-69Forty Forth New Zealand Weed and Plant Control 

Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc.

Walters, M. L., R. Sequeira, R. T. Staten, and O. El-Lissy. 2008. Eradication - Strategies and 

Tactics [Power Point]. 2 pp.

Wearing, C. 1998a. Cross-Resistance between Azinphos-Methyl and Tebufenozide in the 

Greenheaded Leafroller, Planotortrix octo. Pesticide Science 54:203-211.

Wearing, C. H. 1975. Problems of Pest Assessment in Horticulture, particularly Orchards. New 

Zealand Entomologist 6(1):17-21.

Wearing, C. H. 1998b. Bioassays for measuring ovipositional and larval preferences of 

leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) for different cultivars of apple. New Zealand 

Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 26(4):269-278.

Wearing, C. H., and K. Colhoun. 1999. Bioassays for measuring the resistance of different apple 

cultivars to the development of leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). New Zealand 

Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 27(2):91-99.

Wearing, C. H., K. Colhoun, B. Attfield, R. R. Marshall, and G. F. McLAREN. 2003. Screening 

for resistance in apple cultivars to lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana, and 

greenheaded leafroller, Planotortrix octo, and its relationship to field damage. 

Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 109:39-53.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

67

Wearing, C. H., W. P. Thomas, J. S. Dugdale, and W. Danthanarayana. 1991. Tortricid Pests of 

Pome and Stone Fruits, Australian and New Zealand Species. Pages 453-472 in L. P. S. 

Van Der Geest and H. H. Evenhuis, (eds.). Tortricid Pests: Their Biology, Natural 

Enemies and Control Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Wearing, C. H., J. T. S. Walker, W. P. Thomas, J. R. Clearwater, D. M. Suckling, J. G. Charles, 

P. W. Shawo, V. White, and G. M. Burnip. 1994. Pest control for organic production in 

New Zealand Hort Research. Last accessed 

http://www.hortnet.co.nz/publications/proceedings/ifoam/ifoam69.htm.

Weinzierl, R., T. Henn, P. Koehler, and C. Tucker. 2008. Insect Attractants and Traps. UF IFAS. 

Last accessed 7/30/08, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu / in080.

Werner, A. 2008. CBS 5 Investigates: Is apple moth really a risk? Last accessed September 11, 

2008, www.cbs5.com/investigates/apple.moth.spraying.2.700753.html.

White, M. J. 2000. Some moths new to Monmouthshire. Entomologist's Record and Journal of 

Variation 112(1):41-42.

Whiting, D., and L. Hoy. 1997a. Mortality response of lightbrown apple moth to a controlled 

atmosphere cold storage treatment for apricots Pages 431-435. New Zealand Plant 

Protection Society (Inc,).

Whiting, D. C., S. P. Foster, and J. H. Maindonald. 1991. Effects of Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, 

and Temperature on the Mortality Responses of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: 

Tortricidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 84(5):1544-1549.

Whiting, D. C., S. P. Foster, J. Van Den Heuvel, and J. H. Maindonald. 1992a. Comparative 

Mortality Responses of Four Tortricid (Lepidoptera) Species to a Low OxygenControlled Atmosphere. J. Econ. Entomol. 85(6):2305-2309.

Whiting, D. C., and L. E. Hoy. 1997b. Mortality response of lightbrown apple moth to a 

controlled atmosphere cold storage treatment for apricots. Pages 431-435 Proceedings of 

the 50th New Zealand Plant Protection Conference: Horticultural Pest Management. New 

Zealand Plant Protection Society, Rotorua, New Zealand.

Whiting, D. C., and L. E. Hoy. 1998. Effect of Temperature Establishment Time on the Mortality 

of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Larvae Exposed to a HightTemperature Controlled Atmosphere. J. Econ. Entomol. 91(1):287-292.

Whiting, D. C., L. E. Hoy, J. H. Maindonald, P. G. Connolly, and R. M. McDonald. 1998. HighPressure Washing Treatmetns to Remove Obscure Mealybug (Homoptera: 

Pseudococcidae) and Lightbrown Apple Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) from Harvested 

Apples. J. Econ. Entomol. 91(6):1458-1463.

Whiting, D. C., L. E. Jamieson, and P. G. Connolly 1999. Effect of Sublethal Tebufenozide 

Application on the Mortality Responses of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: 

Tortricidae) Larvae Exposed to a High-Temperature Controlled Atmosphere. J. Econ. 

Entomol. 92(2):445-452.

Whiting, D. C., L. E. Jamieson, and P. G. Connolly. 2000. Pre- and postharvest effects of 

lufenuron on Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 

93(3):673-679.

Whiting, D. C., G. M. O'Connor, and J. H. Maindonald. 1997. Density and Time Effects on 

Distribution and Survival of Lightbrown Apple Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Larvae 

on Granny Smith Apples. Environ. Entomol. 26(2):277-284.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

68

Whiting, D. C., G. M. O'Connor, J. Van Den Heuvel, and J. H. Maindonald. 1995. Comparative 

Mortalities of Six Tortricid (Lepidoptera) Species to Two High-Temperature Controlled 

Atmospheres and Air. J. Econ. Entomol. 88(5):1365-1370.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

69

VIII. Appendices

Appendix 1 - Explanation of key regulatory terminology

A regulated pest is a pest for which phytosanitary measures are applied under some regulatory 

authority. Phytosanitary measures in this context are regulatory requirements including regulations 

and programmatic actions designed to prevent the introduction or spread of a pest. When this 

concept is applied in international trade, a pest is eligible for the application of phytosanitary 

measures if it meets the defining criteria of the IPPC for a quarantine pest; that is to say that the pest 

is of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or 

present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled.

Phytosanitary measures are applied by the U.S. and other countries at ports of entry to exclude 

quarantine pests. When quarantine pests are detected at the border, APHIS may take quarantine 

action depending on the risk associated with the import in question. For example, exotic armored 

scales found on imported fruit may be technically classified as quarantine pests but action at the 

border may not be justified because of the very low probability that their movement via this pathway 

will result in introduction (defined as entry and establishment). On the other hand, the same scales 

found on imported plants would probably require quarantine action such as a treatment. APHIS

further distinguishes pests as actionable and reportable, where the former requires action when 

found and the latter is simply noted for tracking and information collection purposes. LBAM has 

long been considered by APHIS to be an actionable quarantine pest.

In the event quarantine pests such as LBAM are found present inside the U.S., the quarantine action 

APHIS may take is to establish a regulated area and place the pest under official control with the 

objective of either eradication or containment of the pest. By implementing an official control 

program, APHIS is able to argue against the application of phytosanitary measures by trading 

partners who may place restrictions on U.S. exports coming from outside the regulated area. In the 

absence of an official control program, exports from the entire U.S. are likely to be restricted. 

Not all pests fit easily into the categories discussed above. There are a range of situations where the 

regulatory status of the organism in question cannot be clearly determined. For example, it may not 

be possible to identify a pest specimen to the taxonomic level required to determine its status, or the 

organism may have never been encountered previously, or its taxonomy may be changing or under 

debate. Under such circumstances, APHIS makes a determination regarding whether the organism 

has the potential to be quarantine significant. This only means that the regulatory status of the 

organism is not solidly established, but the evidence available to APHIS at the time indicates it is 

reasonably probable that quarantine action would be required. 

APHIS generally uses IPPC terminology in its regulations and programs (see ISPM No. 5, Glossary 

of Phytosanitary Terms (IPPC, 2006)). One reason for this is that APHIS authorities and activities 

fall within the international framework of the World Trade Organization Agreement on the 

Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement) which identifies the IPPC 

as the international standard setting organization for phytosanitary measures. Other terminology may 

be used by other agencies and authorities. Terms associated with invasive species can be particularly 

confusing in a phytosanitary context because of ambiguities and the overlap of concepts. As a rule, 

APHIS considers invasiveness to be one aspect of the risk associated with a pest and a key element 

of risk analysis. As a result, the concept of invasiveness is integral to the concept of pest risk which 

also includes other factors including the probability and the magnitude of the impact of introduction 

or spread of a pest. 
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

70

Appendix 2: LBAM Degree Day Model Validation Map 

Based on average climatology from 1999 to 2008. Black numbers = generations at 

validation points and red numbers = generations in countries or country areas, e.g. 

northern New Zealand.
DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of 

Light Brown Apple Moth [Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non-Quarantine Pest

71

Appendix 3: Technical Working Group Members

Dr. Victor Mastro, USDA-APHIS-Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Cape Code, MA 

Dr. Kenneth Bloem, USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Raleigh, NC 

Dr. Eckehard Brockerhoff, Ensis, Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand 

Dr. Ring Carde, University of California, Riverside, CA 

Dr. Marshall Johnson, University of California, Riverside, CA 

Dr. David Lance, USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Cape Code, MA 

Dr. Donald McInnis, USDA-ARS (Ret.), Honolulu, HI 

Dr. Bob Staten, USDA-APHIS-PPQ (Ret.), Phoenix, AZ 

Dr. David Suckling, HortResearch, Lincoln, Canterbury, New Zealand 

William Woods, Department of Agriculture and Food, Perth, Western Australia