## Importation of Fresh Pitaya Fruit, Hylocereus spp. and several other genera and species, from Central America into the Continental United States

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

February 11, 2011

Ver. 5

Agency Contact

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Assessment Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 ii 

### Executive Summary

In this assessment we examined the risks associ ated with the importation of fresh pitaya fruit, Hylocereus spp., from Central America—Guatemala, Be lize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama—into the continenta l United States. From information on pests associated with pitaya in Central America we found the follo wing quarantine pests that could be introduced into the continental United States via this pathway:

Anastrepha ludens (Loew) Diptera: Tephritidae Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) Diptera: Tephritidae Dysmicoccus neobrevipes (Beardsley) Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae Planococcus minor (Maskell) Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae

We qualitatively analyzed the quarantine pests based on international standards and internal guidelines described in the PPQ Gu idelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000). We examined pest biology in the contex t of Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood of Introduction. We used these elements to determine the Pest Risk Potential, which was

a High rating for all four pests.

All of these pests pose phytosanita ry risks to American agriculture. Port-of-entry inspections, as a sole mitigation measure, are insufficient to safeguard U.S. agriculture from th e listed pests; additional phytosanitary me asures are necessary to reduce risks to acceptable levels. Options for risk mitigation are included at the end of this document.Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 iii 

### Table of Contents

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

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

2. Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................ ............ 1 2.1. Initiating Event ......................................................................................................... ........... 1 2.2. Assessment of the Weedine ss Potential of Pitaya ............................................................... 2 2.3. Decision History and Pest Interceptions .............................................................................. 3 2.4. Pests Associated with Pita ya in Central America ................................................................ 7 2.5. Quarantine Pests that are Li kely to Follow the Pathway ................................................... 14 2.6. Consequences of Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 5 2.7. Likelihood of Introduction ............................................................................................... .. 21

3. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. .............. 22 4. Risk Mitigation Options .................................................................................................... ..... 23 5. Preparer and Reviewers ..................................................................................................... .... 24

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

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 1 

### 1. Introduction

This pest risk assessment was prepared by th e Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States De partment of Agriculture (USDA) to examine plant pest risks associated with the importation for consumption of fresh pitaya fruit from Central America into the Continental United States. This risk assessment examines the genus Hylocereus because the terms “pitaya” and “pitahaya” co mmonly refer to a number of taxonomically related genera and species (Jacobs, 1999; Mizrahi et al., 1997; Popenoe, 1939) that have strong phytosanitary resemblance (similar pests, similar production syst ems). This risk assessment considers the risks associated with “pitahaya”, “pitajaya”, “pit ajuia”, “pitalla” or “pithaya” (Popenoe, 1939; see Section 2.2 for the complete listing with synonym ies) and any hybrids among these plants (Mejia et al., 2002; Mizrahi and Nerd, 1999; Raveh et al., 1993; Tel-Zur et al., 2001; Tel-Zur et al., 1999; Weiss et al., 1995). We assessed the plant pe st risk for these crops. The term “pitaya” is used throughout this document to refer to all these botanically related cacti that produce edible fruit except for species of Opuntia

. This pest risk assessment estimates risk using the qualitative terms “high”, “medium” and “low” rather than probabilities or frequencies. The de tails of the methodology and rating criteria are in the document: Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment: Guidelines for Qualitative Assessments, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000).

Regional and international plant protection organizations, such as the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), provide guidance for conduc ting pest risk analyses (IPPC, 2004, 2007; NAPPO, 2004). The methods used to initiate, conduct, and report this assessment, as well as the use of biological and phytosanitary terms, are based on these standards. The IPPC standards describe three stages of pest risk analysis: Stage 1, Initiation: Stage 2, Risk Assessment; and Stage 3, Risk Management. This document satisfies the requirements of IPPC Stages 1 and 2, and provides mitigation options for Stage 3.



### 2. Risk Assessment

2.1. Initiating Event

We did this commodity-based, pathway-initiate d assessment based on a request to the USDA to authorize importations of fresh pitaya fruit fr om Central America, specifically Belize, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Ri ca, and Panama, into the continental United States. This is a potential path way for the introduction of plant pests on the fruit. Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations 319, Part 56 (7 CF R § 319.56) provides regulatory authority for the importation of fruits and vegetables from foreign sources into the United States.Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 2 2.2. Assessment of the Weedin ess Potential of Pitaya

If pitaya poses a risk as a weed pest, then a “p est-initiated” pest risk assessment is initiated. The cacti that produce pitaya fruit pose a risk of becoming weeds from abandoned plants, and APHIS believes the risk of weediness as sociated with consumption of th e fruit appears low (Table 1).

Introductions of the “Night-blooming Cereus,” H. undatus (Haw.) Britton & Rose, became naturalized stands in 10 parks/pres erves in six counties in South Fl orida that were treated and are no longer a factor affecting the native plant community; H. undatus was reclassified from a Category II invasive species to the “to be watched” list (Burks, 2001). The naturalized stands in Florida grew from abandoned cultivation or discarded landscaping material (Burks, 2001). Introductions of this plant into Hawaii as an ornamental during the 1800's (Morton, 1987) did not lead to listing as a weed, and generally, it is not known to pr oduce fruit in Hawaii (Neal, 1965). The seed are disseminated by birds (Barbeau, 1993).

This same species ( H. undatus ) is naturalized in Vietnam and ca lled “thanh long” (Mizrahi et al., 1997). It is cultivated in many tropical and subtropi cal areas, and is considered an escape from cultivation in parts of Latin America (Kimn ach, 1984). Australia perm its four species of Hylocereus ( H. guatemalensis

, H. ocamponis
, H. polyrhizus , and H. undatus ) into all of the country, but bans other members of the genus, ex cept for the State of Western Australia which restricts all members of the genus except for H. undatus cultivated as an ornamental (Randall, 2001).

Table 1. Assessment of the Weed Potential

Commodity: Fruit from Hylocereus species (Cactaceae)

Phase 1: Species of Hylocereus are native in Central Mexico a nd parts of South America. The species of Hylocereus that produce pita ya fruit are: H. costaricensis (synonym = Cereus trigonus var. costaricensis ), H. ocamponis (= C. ocamponis ), H. polyrhizus (= C. polyrhizus and H. lemairei ), and H. undatus (Haw.) Britton & Rose (= C. triangularis, C. tricostatus, C. trigonus var. guatemalensis

, C. undatus

, H. guatemalensis

, Cactus triangularis , and H. tricostatus ). The members of this genus are not native to the United States, but H. undatus was introduced as a cultivated ornamental (Solom on, 2002). Native populations of other genera also known as pitaya are already present and ar e distributed within the United States ( Acanthocereus tetragonus , Stenocereus thurberi ) and Cereus hildmannianus (= Cactus peruvianus, = C.
uruguayanus ) is on the Hawaiian Noxious Weed and Seed list (NGRP, 2007).

Phase 2: Is the species listed in: No Geographical Atlas of World Weeds (Holm et al., 1979) No World’s Worst Weeds (Holm et al., 1977; Holm et al., 1997) No Report of the Technical Committee to Eval uate Noxious Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act (Gunn and Ritchie, 1982) No Economically Important Foreign Weeds (Reed, 1977) No Weed Science Society of America list (WSSA, 2007) Yes Are there any references i ndicating weed potential? e.g

., AGRICOLA, CAB, BiologicalPest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 3 Abstracts, AGRIS; search on “species name” combined with “weed”

Phase 3: Some members of the various pitaya gene ra are listed and known as weeds, including H. undatus . Populations of this plant became weedy in Florida until eradicated (Burks, 2001). Discarded fruit are not known to cause problem s as weeds, but aba ndoned plants become naturalized in suitable environments. There is evidence that seed s pass through the human digestive system intact (Nabhan, 1985), but the vi ability of such seed is unknown. If there is proper disposal of rejected fruit and edible frui t is consumed then the potential for these cacti to demonstrate weed behavior is low.

2.3. Decision History and Pest Interceptions

In 1997, the entry of Hylocereus undatus from Vietnam was denied because of the lack of an approved treatment for Bactrocera dorsalis and B

. cucurbitae . In 1995, the entry of Acanthocereus from Nicaragua was denied because of Ceratits capitata . In 1992, the entry of Acanthocereus spp., Hylocereus spp., Lemaireocereus spp., and Selenicereus spp. from Belize was denied because of the lack of an approved treatment for Anastrepha spp., A. ludens , and C. capitata . In 1988, the entry of Hylocereus spp. from Colombia was denied because of the lack of an approved treatment for C

. capitata

. Pest interceptions li sted under the name Hylocereus reflect only a portion of the total interceptions on imported “pitaya” fruit (PestID, 2007). Port officer s were likely to ascribe the interception to the genus Acanthocereus based on a good faith relian ce on the illustrated fruit guide in the manual for non-propagative materi al (USDA, 2005), which stated that fruit of H. undatus is Acanthocereus fruit. Also, the botanical nomenclature is unsettled, and there are many synonyms as summarized below (ARS, 2001; Solomon, 2002).

The fruit of cacti that are referred to as “red p itaya” that are assessed in this document include: Acanthocereus occidentalis

, A

. tetragonus (= A

. colombianus

, A

. floridanus

, A

. pentagonus , A

. pitajaya
, Cactus pentagonus , C

. pitajaya
, C

. tetragonus , Cereus pentagonus , C

. pitajaya ), Cereus hildmannianus (= Cactus peruvianus

, Cereus uruguayanus ), Echinocereus conglomeratus (= C

. conglomeratus ), E. stramineus (= C

. stramineus
, E

. enneacanthus var. straminues ), Escontria chiotilla (= C

. chiotilla ), Hylocereus costaricensis (= C

. trigonus var. costaricensis ), H

. ocamponis (= C

. ocamponis ), H

. polyrhizus (= C

. polyrhizus

, H

. lemairei ), H

. undatus (= Cactus triangularis

, Cereus triangularis

, C

. tricostatus
, C

. trigonus var. guatemalensis

, C

. undatus

, H

. guatemalensis

, H

. tricostatus ), Myrtillocactus geometrizans (= C

. geometrizans ), Stenocereus griseus (= C

. griseus ), S

. gummosus (= C

. gummosus ), S., queretaroensis (= C. queretaroensis ), S

. stellatus (= C

. stellatus ), S

. thurberi (= C

. thurberi

, Lemairocereus thurberi

, Marshallocereus thurberi

, Pachycereus thurberi ) (ARS, 2001; Solomon, 2002). Fruit from naturalized or artificia lly propagated plants of these species may be exported in compliance with the Convention on In ternational Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, 2002).Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 4 Table 2. Pests in or on pitaya hosts ( Acanthocereus, Cereus, Echinocereus, Hylocereus, and Stenocereus spp.) that have been inter cepted worldwide (PestID, 2007). Pest Acutaspis albopicta (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) Aecidium sp. (Anamorphic rust) Agrothrips sp. (Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae) Aleyrodidae sp. (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) Alternaria sp. (Hyphomycetes) Altica sp. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Anastrepha sp. (Diptera: Tephritidae) Anthribidae sp. (Cole optera: Anthribidae) Aphis craccivora Koch (Hemiptera: Aphididae) Aphis gossypii Glover (Hemiptera: Aphididae) Aphididae sp. (Hemiptera: Aphididae) Asphondylia sp. (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae)
Bactrocera sp. (Diptera: Tephritidae) Blapstinus sp. (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) Brachymyrmex sp. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Bulimulus guadalupensis (Bruguiere) (Mollusca: Bulimulidae) Cactophagus sp. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Camarosprium sp. (Coelomycetes) Cardiocondyla sp. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Catenococcus sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) Cercospora sp. (Hyphomycetes) Chrysomelidae sp. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Cicadellidae sp. (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) Cladosporium sp. (Hyphomycetes) Coccidae sp. (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Coccotrypes sp. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) Coccus sp. (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Colaspis sp. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Coleoptera sp. Colletotrichum sp. (Coelomycetes) Conogethes sp. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Conopomorpha sp. (Orthoptera: Gracillariidae) Conotrachelus sp. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Coreidae sp. (Hemiptera: Coreidae) Conotrachelus sp. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Cosmopterigidae sp. (Lepidoptera: Cosmopterigidae) Crambidae sp. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae)Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 5 Pest Curculionidae sp. (Cole optera: Curculionidae) Diaspis echinocacti (Bouché) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) Dolichoderus bituberculatus (Mayr) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Dolichoderus lutosus F. Smith (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Drosophilidae (Diptera: Drosophilidae) Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Dysmicoccus sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Ecdytolopha sp. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Ectomyelois ceratoniae (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Ephestia elutella (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Ephestia kuehniella (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Eremberga sp. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)
Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell) (Hemipte ra: Pseudococcidae)
Ferrisia sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)
Fusarium sp. (Hyphomycetes) Gelechiidae sp. (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) Geometridae sp. (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) Gerstaeckeria sp. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Gracillariidae sp. (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae) Gryllidae sp. (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) Hoplosphyrum sp. (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) Hymenoptera sp. Lasiodiplodia theobromae (Pat.) Griffon & Maubl. (Coelomycetes) Lepidoptera sp. Leptosphaeria sp. (Leptosphaeriaceae) Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Margarodidae sp. (Hemiptera: Margarodidae)
Marmara sp. (Orthoptera: Gracillariidae) Melanopleurus bistriangularis (Say) (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae) Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & White) Chitwood (N emotoda: Meloidogynidae) Mitostylus setosus Sharp (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Monomorium pharaonis (L.) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)
Monomorium sp. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Mycosphaerella sp. (Mycosphaerellaceae) Noctuidae sp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Oecophoridae sp. (Lepidoptera: Oecophoridae) Ogdoecosta biannularis (Boheman) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Olethreutinae sp. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Opuntiaspis philococcus (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) Opuntiaspis sp

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

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 6 Pest Ozamia sp. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)
Paracoccus sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Paratrechina longicornis (Latreille) (Hyme noptera: Formicidae) Penicillium sp. (Hyphomycetes) Periconia byssoides Pers. (Ascomycetes) Pestalotiopsis sp. (Coelomycetes) Pheidole sp. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Phoma sp. (Coelomycetes) Phomopsis sp. (Coelomycetes) Phycitinae sp. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Phyllophaga sp. (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) Physonota sp. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Placoasterella sp. (Asterinaceae) Planococcus citri (Risso) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Planococcus lilacinus (Cockerell) (Hemip tera: Pseudococcidae) Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Planococcus sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Platynota sp. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi Gimpel & Miller (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Pseudococcus nakaharai Gimpel & Miller (Hem iptera: Pseudococcidae) Pseudococcus odermatti Miller & Williams (Hem iptera: Pseudococcidae) Pseudococcus viburni (Signoret) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Pseudococcus sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Pseudococcidae sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Psocoptera sp. (Psocoptera) Pulvinaria sp. (Hemiptera: Coccidae)
Puto mexicanus (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)
Puto sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Pyralidae sp. (Lepi doptera: Pyralidae) Pyraustinae sp. (Lepi doptera: Crambidae) Sixeonotus scabrosus (Uhler) (Hemiptera: Miridae) Spilococcus mamillariae Bouché (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Spodoptera dolichos (F.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Spodoptera latifascia (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Systena sp. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)
Tarsonemus sp. (Acari: Tarsonemidae) Technomyrmex sp. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Tephritidae sp. (Diptera: Tephritidae) Thripidae sp. (Thysa noptera: Thripidae)Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 7 Pest Thyanta sp. (Coleoptera: Pentatomidae) Tineidae sp. (Lepidoptera: Tineidae) Tortricidae sp. (Lepi doptera: Tortricidae) Triorophus sp. (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) Vanduzea sp. (Hemiptera: Membracidae) Vryburgia sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

2.4. Pests Associated with Pitaya in Central America

We list below the pests associated with pitaya if populations of that pest also are reported in the countries of Central America (Table 3). This table should not be inte rpreted to infer that all pests known to affect pitaya in the wo rld are listed. This lis t identifies: (1) the countries in Central America with reported distribution of the pest, (2) the presence or absence of these pests in the (continental) United States, (3) the plant part or parts generally a ffected, (4) the quarantine status of the pest with respect to the (c ontinental) United States, (5) whet her the pest is likely to follow the pathway to enter the (continental) United Stat es on commercially exported eggplant fruit and (6) pertinent citations. Based on pest biology an d distribution, many orga nisms are eliminated from further consideration as sources of phytos anitary risk on pitaya from Central America because they do not satisfy the definition of a quarantine pest.

Table 3 . Summary of pests associated with Hylocereus 1 spp. (in any country) and related genera present in Central America (on any host). Pest 2 Cent. America distribution 3 United States distribution Reported on pitaya Plant part(s) association 4 Quarantine pest Follow pathway ARTHROPODA Acari: Tetranychidae Tetranychus desertorum Banks CR NI (Bolland et al

. , 1998) US (Bolland et al

. , 1998) Bolland et al

. , 1998 n/a No n/a

Coleoptera: Cantharidae Chauliognathus tricolor (LeConte) NI (Romero, 1994) Romero, 1994 I (Arnett, 2000; Romero, 1994) Yes No

Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Stenygra histria (Serville) [= S. histrio ] NI (Romero, 1994) Romero, 1994 S (Romero, 1994) Yes No

1 Genera of “pitaya” searched throughout literature includes: Acanthocereus

, Cereus

, Echinocereus

, Hylocereus

, Pachycereus

, and Stenocereus spp. 2 Quarantine pests identified only to the order, family or generi c levels are not analyzed further in this risk assessment. 3 AZ = Arizona, BZ = Belize, CR = Cost a Rica, GT = Guatemala, HN = Honduras, NI = Nicaragua, PA = Panama, SV = El Salvador; US = United States, CA = Calif ornia, FL = Florida, HI = Hawaii, MA = Massachusetts, NY = New York, PR = Puerto Rico, TX = Texas, VI = US Virgin Islands
4 F = Fruit, I = Inflorescence, L = Leaves, R = Roots; S = Stems; Sd = Seeds. In this PRA, “stem” refers to the vine-like, triangular, fleshy, jointed, branched stem s, which may reach 20 ft (6.1 m) long.Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 8 Pest 2 Cent. America distribution 3 United States distribution Reported on pitaya Plant part(s) association 4 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Trachyderes succintus (L.) NI (Romero, 1994) Romero, 1994 S (Romero, 1994) Yes No

Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae Calligrapha pantherina Stal. NI (Romero, 1994) Romero, 1994 I S (Romero, 1994) Yes No

Diabrotica balteata (Leconte) BZ CR GT HN NI PA SV (CABI, 2006) US (CABI, 2006) Romero, 1994 n/a No n/a

Coleoptera: Coccinellidae Cycloneda sanguinea L. NI (Romero, 1994) US (CABI, 2006) Romero, 1994 n/a No n/a

Epilachna borealis (F.) [= E. tredecimnotata (Latreille) NI (Romero, 1994) Romero, 1994 n/a No 5 n/a

Coleoptera: Curculionidae Cactophagus fahraei (Gyllenhal) [= C. striatoforatus = C. fahraei striatoforatus = Metamasius fahraei striatoforatus ] NI (Romero, 1994) Romero, 1994 S (Romero, 1994) Yes No

Geraeus sp. CR SV (PestID, 2007) NI (Gonzalez, 2006) US (Arnett, 2002) MAGFOR, 2004 F (MAGFOR, 2004) I S (Gonzalez, 2006) Yes Yes

Pantomorus femoratus (Sharp) GT SV (PestID, 2007) NI (Romero, 1994) Romero, 1994 I S (Romero, 1994) Yes No

Coleoptera: Scarabaediae Cotinis mutabilis (Gory) CR BZ GT HN NI (Maes, 2004; Romero, 1994) US (Arnett, 2000) Maes, 2004; Romero, 1994 n/a No n/a

Cyclocephala sp. BZ CR GT HN NI PA SV (PestID, 2007) Castillo Martínez et al

. , 1996 I F (Castillo Martínez et al

. , 1996) Yes Yes

Euphoria limatula (Janson) NI (Romero, 1994) Romero, 1994 I F 6 (Romero, 1994) Yes No

5 Epilachna borealis is not considered a quarantine pest in the United States (PestID, 2007).
6 Adults of the Scarab beetle Euphnoria limatula are large and mobile, making it unlikely that this pest would stay with fresh pitaya fruit through picking, processing, and shipping.Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 9 Pest 2 Cent. America distribution 3 United States distribution Reported on pitaya Plant part(s) association 4 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Diptera: Drosophilidae Drosophila sp. GT (Heed & Mangan, 1986) US (Heed & Mangan, 1986) Heed & Mangan, 1986 n/a No n/a

Diptera: Otitidae Euxesta major (Van der Wulp) NI (Romero, 1994) Romero, 1994 I (Romero, 1994) Yes No

Diptera: Tephritidae Anastrepha ludens (Loew) BZ CR GT HN NI SV (CABI, 2006; Norrbom, 2004) PA (Norrbom, 2004) Norrbom, 2004 F (Norrbom, 2004) Yes Yes

Anastrepha sp. BZ CR GT HN NI PA SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 2007 F (PestID, 2007) Yes Yes

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) CR GT HN NI PA SV 7 (Maes, 2004) US (HI) (Maes, 2004) PestID, 2007 8 ; Maes, 2004 F (CABI, 2006) Yes Yes

Hemiptera: Aphididae Aphis gossypii Glover CR GT NI PA (CABI, 2006) HN SV (Smith & Cermeli, 1979) US (CABI, 2006; Smith & Cermeli, 1979) PestID, 2007 n/a No n/a

Hemiptera: Coreidae Leptoglossus zonatus (Dallas) [= Anisoscelis zonatus ] NI (Barbeau, 1990; Romero, 1994) US (Buss et al

. , n.d.) Barbeau, 1990; Romero, 1994 n/a No n/a

Hemiptera: Diaspididae Acutaspis albopicta (Cockerell) CR GT HN SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 2007 F (PestID, 2007) Yes 9 Yes

Lopholeucaspis cockerelli (Grandpré & Charmoy) CR HN PA SV (CABI, 2006) US (CA FL MA NY) (CABI, 2006) Ben-Dov et al., 2006 n/a No n/a

Pseudischnaspis bowreyi (Cockerell) GT HN NI PA (Watson, 2005) US (FL NY) (Watson, 2005) Watson, 2005 n/a No n/a

7 While Maes (2004) reports Ceratitis capitata as established in Belize, CPC (CABI, 20 06) lists the fruit fly as “eradicated” from the country and APHIS recognizes the entire country of Belize as pest-free of C. capitata (7 CFR § 319, 2009).
8 Ceratitis capitata was intercepted in fruit of species of Cactaceae.
9 While Acutaspis albopicta is a quarantine pest in the United States, no action is taken on this scale when it is intercepted on fruit or vegetables for consumptions (Cavey, 2007; Courneya, 2005).Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 10 Pest 2 Cent. America distribution 3 United States distribution Reported on pitaya Plant part(s) association 4 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Hemiptera: Lygaidae Lygaeus reclivatus (Say) NI (Romero, 1994) Romero, 1994 n/a No 10 n/a

Hemiptera: Pentatomidae Proxys punctulatus (Polisot) NI (Romero, 1994) Romero, 1994 n/a No 11 n/a

Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae Dysmicoccus neobrevipes (Beardsley) CR GT HN PA SV (Williams & Granara de Willink, 1992) US (PR VI) (Williams & Granara de Willink, 1992) PestID, 2007 F (PestID, 2007) Yes Yes

Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell) BZ CR GT HN NI PA (CABI, 2006; Williams & Granara de Willink, 1992) US (CABI, 2006) PestID, 2007 n/a No n/a

Phenacoccus madeirensis Green CR GT PA (CABI, 2006; Williams & Granara de Willink, 1992) US (CABI, 2006) Ben-Dov et al., 2006 n/a No n/a

Planococcus citri (Risso) CR GT HN SV (CABI, 2006; Williams & Granara de Willink, 1992) US (CABI, 2006) PestID, 2007 n/a No n/a

Planococcus minor (Maskell) CR GT HN (Williams & Granara de Willink, 1992) US (VI) (Williams & Granara de Willink, 1992) PestID, 2007 F (PestID, 2007) Yes Yes

Planococcus sp. CR GT HN NI PA SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 2007 F (PestID, 2007) Yes Yes

Pseudococcus

jackbeardsleyi Gimpel & Miller BZ CR HN NI PA SV (CABI, 2006) US (FL HI TX) (CABI, 2006) PestID, 2007 n/a No n/a

Pseudococcus virburni (Signoret) CR GT PA (CABI, 2006) US (CABI, 2006) Ben-Dov et al., 2006 n/a No n/a

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

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 11 Pest 2 Cent. America distribution 3 United States distribution Reported on pitaya Plant part(s) association 4 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Hemiptera: Reduviidae Apiomerus sp. NI (Romero, 1994) Castillo Martínez et al

. , 1996; Romero, 1994 S (Castillo Martínez et al

. , 1996; Romero, 1994) Yes No

Hemiptera: Thyreocoridae Alkindus atratus Distant NI (Romero, 1994) Romero, 1994 I S (Romero, 1994) Yes No

Hymenoptera: Formicidae Atta cephalotes (L.) BZ CR GT HN NI PA SV (CABI, 2006; Hill, 1983; Romero, 1994) Castillo Martínez et al

. , 1996; Romero, 1994 F S (Castillo Martínez et al

. , 1996; Romero, 1994) Yes No 12

Atta sp. BZ CR GT HN NI PA SV (CABI, 2006) Castillo Martínez et al

. , 1996 F S (Castillo Martínez et al

. , 1996) Yes No 12

Solenopsis geminata Fabricius BZ CR GT HN NI PA (CABI, 2006) US (CABI, 2006) Castillo Martínez et al

. , 1996 n/a No n/a

Solenopsis sp. BZ CR GT HN NI PA (CABI, 2006) US (CABI, 2006) Castillo Martínez et al

. , 1996; Romero, 1994 F (CABI, 2006; Romero, 1994) S (Castillo Martínez et al

. , 1996) Yes No 12

Lepidoptera: Arctiidae Estigmene acraea Drury [= E. ocrea ] CR GT HN NI SV (CABI, 2006) Capinera, 2001 Castillo Martínez et al

. , 1996 n/a No n/a

Lepidoptera: Pyralidae Phycitinae sp. BZ CR GT HN NI PA SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 2007 F (PestID, 2007) Yes Yes

Lepidoptera: Tortricidae Ecdytolopha sp. BZ GT HN PA SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 2007 F (PestID, 2007) Yes Yes

Platynota sp. BZ CR GT HN PA SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 2007 F (PestID, 2007) Yes Yes

12 Adult ants of Atta cephalotes, Atta sp., and Solenopsis sp. are large and mobile, and theref ore are highly unlikely to stay with fresh pitaya fruit through picking, processing, and shipping. Also, while sterile insect stages (ant workers) can be transported in shipments, they cannot establish viable populations upon entry (Borror et al., 1989).Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 12 Pest 2 Cent. America distribution 3 United States distribution Reported on pitaya Plant part(s) association 4 Quarantine pest Follow pathway BACTERIA
Erwinia carotovora (L. R. Jones) Holland(Enterobacteriaceae) BZ CR HN (CABI, 2006); NI (Castillo Martínez et al

. , 1996) US (CABI, 2006) Castillo Martínez et al

. , 1996 n/a No n/a

Erwinia chrysanthemi (Burkh.) Young etal. 1978 (Enterobacteriaceae) CR GT HN PA (CABI, 2006) US (CABI, 2006) Mitchell, 1985 n/a No n/a

Xanthomonas campestris (Pammel)(Xanthomonadaceae) NI (Barbeau, 1990) US (CABI, 2006) Barbeau, 1990 n/a No n/a

FUNGI and CHROMISTANS 13 Botryotinia fuckeliana (de Bary) Whetzel Anamorph: Botrytis cinerea Pers.:Fr. (Ascomycetes : Helotiales) GT HN NI PA SV (Farr et al., 2007) CR (Farr et al., 2007;VillalobosCalderón and Cárdenas-Díaz, 2002) US (Farr et al., 2007) Farr et al., 2007 n/a No n/a

Dothiorella sp.

= Dothiorela sp. (Ascomycetes : Dothideales) GT PA (PestID, 2007); CR(VillalobosCalderón and Cárdenas-Díaz, 2002) Castillo Martínez et al

. , 1996 S (Castillo Martínez et al

. , 1996) Yes No

Gibberella fujikuroi (Sawada) S. Ito Anamorph: Fusarium moniliforme Sheldon (Ascomycetes: Hypocreales) BZ CR GT HN NI PA SV (CABI, 2006) US (CABI, 2006) Farr et al., 2007 n/a No n/a

Fusarium oxysporum (Schlecht ex Fries) (Ascomycetes: Hypocreales) GT HN NI PA SV (Farr et al., 2007); CR (Farr et al., 2007,VillalobosCalderón and Cárdenas-Díaz, 2002) US (CABI, 2006; Farr et al., 2007) Farr et al., 2007 n/a No n/a

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

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 13 Pest 2 Cent. America distribution 3 United States distribution Reported on pitaya Plant part(s) association 4 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Gloeosporium sp. (Ascomycetes: Helotiales) CR (VillalobosCalderón and Cárdenas-Díaz, 2002) VillalobosCalderón andCárdenasDíaz, 2002 S (VillalobosCalderón and Cárdenas-Díaz, 2002) Yes Yes

Glomerella cingulata (Stoneman) Spaulding & Schrenk Anamorph: Colletotrichum gloeosporiodes Penz. & Sacc.] (Ascomycetes: Incertae sedis ) BZ CR GT HN NI PA (CABI, 2006) NI (Castillo Martínez et al

. , 1996) US (CABI, 2006) Castillo Martínez et al

. , 1996; Farr et al., 2007 n/a No n/a

Lasiodiplodia theobromae (Pat.) Griffon & Maubl. = Botryodiplodia theobromae (Ascomycetes: Dothideales) HN NI PA SV (CABI, 2006) CR (CABI, 2006;VillalobosCalderón and Cárdenas-Díaz, 2002) US (CABI, 2006) PestID, 2007 n/a No n/a

Pestalotiopsis sp. (Ascomycetes: Xylariales) CR(VillalobosCalderón and Cárdenas-Díaz, 2002) VillalobosCalderón andCárdenasDíaz, 2002 S (VillalobosCalderón and Cárdenas-Díaz, 2002) Yes Yes

Phomopsis sp. (Ascomycetes) BZ CR GT HN NI PA SV (PestID, 2007) US (PR VI) (PestID, 2007) PestID, 2007 F (PestID, 2007) Yes Yes

Phytophthora cactorum (Lebert & Cohn) J. Schröt (Oomycetes: Pythiales) CR (VillalobosCalderón and Cárdenas-Díaz, 2002); SV (CABI, 2006) US (Farr et al., 2007) VillalobosCalderón andCárdenasDíaz, 2002 n/a No n/a

Phytophthora

palmivora var. palmivora (Butler) Butler (Oomycetes: Pythiales) GT, SV, HN, NI, CR, PA (Farr et al., 2007) BZ (CABI, 2006) US (Farr et al., 2007) Farr et al., 2007 ( Cereus pitajaya ) n/a No n/a

Pichia sp. (Saccharomycetes: Saccharomycetales) PA (Farr et al., 2007) US (Farr et al., 2007) Starmer et al

. , 1990 F I S (Starmer et al

. , 1990) Yes Yes

Pythium cactacearum Preti (Oomycetes : Pythiales) CR (VillalobosCalderón and Cárdenas-Díaz, 2002) VillalobosCalderón andCárdenasDíaz, 2002 R (VillalobosCalderón and Cárdenas-Díaz, 2002) Yes NoPest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 14 Pest 2 Cent. America distribution 3 United States distribution Reported on pitaya Plant part(s) association 4 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Pythium sp. (Oomycetes: Pythiales) CR GT HN NI PA SV (Farr et al., 2007) US (Farr et al., 2007) Farr et al., 2007 R S (Farr et al., 2007) Yes No

Rhizoctonia sp. (Basidiomycetes) BZ CR GT HN NI PA SV (Farr et al., 2007) US (Farr et al., 2007) Farr et al., 2007 R S (Farr et al., 2007) Yes Yes

Thanatephorus cucumeris (Frank) Donk Anamorph: Rhizoctonia solani (Basidiomycetes: Ceratobasidiales) HN PA (CABI, 2006) CR (CABI, 2006;VillalobosCalderón and Cárdenas-Díaz, 2002) US (CABI, 2006; Farr et al., 2007) Farr et al., 2007 n/a No n/a

Thielaviopsis basicola (Berk. & Broome) Ferraris (Ascomycetes: Microascales) CR (VillalobosCalderón and Cárdenas-Díaz, 2002) US (Farr et al., 2007) VillalobosCalderón andCárdenasDíaz, 2002 n/a No n/a

NEMATODA Belonolaimidae Tylenchorhynchus martini (Cassidy 1930) Golden 1971 BZ CR SV (CABI, 2006) US (CABI, 2006) Castaño et al

. , 1991 n/a No n/a

Hoplolaimidae Helicotylenchus dihystera (Cobb, 1893) Sher, 1961 CR GT PA SV (CABI, 2006) US (CABI, 2006) Castaño et al

. , 1991 n/a No n/a

Rotylenchulus reniformis Linford & Oliveira BZ CR HN PA (CABI, 2006) US (Coile & Dixon, 1999; CABI, 2006) Coile & Dixon, 1999 n/a No n/a

Heteroderidae Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & White, 1919) Chitwood 1949 BZ CR GT HN NI PA SV (CABI, 2006) US (CABI, 2006) Castaño et al

. , 1991; Mitchell, 1985 n/a No n/a

2.5. Quarantine Pests that are Likely to Follow the Pathway

We further analyzed the quarantine pests of Hylocereus spp. in Central America that are reasonably expected to follow th e pathway on fruit (Table 4).

Researchers have studied the host status of Ceratitis capitata and Anastrepha ludens on Hylocereus undatus. In one study, none of the pitaya fruits exposed to the two species of fruit flies was attacked; however, this study had small sample sizes leading to low confidence in thePest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 15 results (Sponagel et al

. , 2001). A larger study was conducted by the Ministerio Agropecuario y Forestal (MAGFOR), which also found that und er normal field conditions, fruit flies do not infect Hylocereus undatus (MAGFOR, 2004). This could be because the fruit fly population is not present at the same time fruit of red pitaya is peaking (MAGFOR, 2004).

Hylocereus spp. was an artificial host for Anastrepha ludens (Norrbom, 2004). Ceratitis capitata is listed as a pest of Hylocereus sp., as well as other Cactaceae species including Opuntia, Acanthocereus, Selenicereus, Pereskia, and Echinocereus (Maes, 2004). Ceratitis capitata is listed as infesting Hylocereus undatus in the laboratory (Liquido et al

. , 1991; Thomas et al

. , 2001). This evidence suggests that C. capitata can use Hylocereus as a host wherever they both occur, even if it is not a preferred host.

Organisms identified to the genus, or higher taxon omic level, are not analyzed further, even though individual species within those taxonomic gr oups are potential pests that may or may not occur within the United States. The IPPC guidelines do not requi re risk assessment of pests identified only by genus name (IPPC, 2007). By n ecessity, pest risk assessments focus on those organisms for which adequate biol ogical and taxonomic information is available. Often, there are many species within a genus, and it is not reasonable to assume th at the biology of all organisms within a genus is identical. Lack of species id entification may indicate the limits of the current taxonomic knowledge, the life stage or the quality of the specimen submitted for identification. The lack of identification at th e species level does not rule out the possibility that a high risk quarantine pest was intercepted or that the in tercepted pest was not a quarantine pest. By developing detailed assessments for known pests th at inhabit a variety of niches on the parent commodity, for example, on the surfa ce of, within the stem or fruit, on the flowers, etc., effective mitigation measures may be developed to eliminate the known pests, and any similar unknown ones that inhabit the same niches. Lack of biol ogical information on any given insect or pathogen should not be equated with a low risk.

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

Pest Taxonomy Anastrepha ludens Diptera: Tephritidae Ceratitis capitata Diptera: Tephritidae Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae Planococcus minor Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae

2.6. Consequences of Introduction

Potential consequences of introduction are rated using five risk elements: 1. Climate-Host Interaction 2. Host Range 3. Dispersal Potential 4. Economic Impact 5. Environmental ImpactPest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 16 These elements reflect the biology, host ranges a nd climatic/geographic distributions of the pests. For each risk element, pests are a ssigned a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points) or High (3 points) (PPQ, 2000). A Cumulative Risk Rating is then calculated by su mming all risk element values. The values determined fo r the Consequences of Introductio n for each pest are summarized below (Table 5).

The major sources of uncertainty in this risk assessment are similar to those in other risk assessments: the use of a developing process (Orr et al

. , 1993; PPQ, 2000), the approach used to combine risk elements (Bier, 1999; Morgan & Henrion, 1990), and the evaluation of risk by comparisons to lists of factors within the guidelines (Orr et al

. , 1993). To address this last source of uncertainty, of factor list s were interpreted as illustra tive and not exhaustive. Other traditionally recognized sources of uncertainty are the quality of the bi ological information (Gallegos & Bonano, 1993), which includes uncertain ty whenever biological information is lacking on the regional flora a nd fauna. Inherent bi ological variation within a population of organisms also introduces uncerta inty (Morgan and Henrion, 1990).

Anastrepha ludens (Loew) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk ratings Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction Originally native to Mexico, A

. ludens , Mexfly, has been reported from southern Texas to Costa Rica (Foote et al., 1993). This is the only important Anastrepha species that ranges more into subtropi cal regions, occupying the more northern portion of the range of the genus a nd extending southwar d only at higher elevations (Weems, 1963). Mexfly can withstand fr eezing weather well (Weems, 1963). We estimate it could establish in areas of the United States corresponding to Plant Hardiness Zones 8-10. Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range Primary hosts of Mexfly are Citrus spp. (Rutaceae), Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), and Prunus persica (Rosaceae) (CABI, 2006). Other hosts include Annona spp. (Annonaceae), Carica papaya (Caricaceae), Coffea arabica (Rubiaceae), Cucurbita sp. (Cucurbitaceae), Inga spp. (Fabaceae), Mammea americana (Clusiaceae), Musa sp. (Musaceae), Opuntia sp. (Cactaceae), Passiflora edulis (Passifloraceae), Persea americana (Lauraceae), Pouteria sapota (Sapotaceae), and Psidium guajava (Myrtaceae) (Norrbom & Kim, 1988). High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Fecundity is reported to range between 40 and 1600 eggs per female (Liedo & Carey, 1996). There are four to eight gene rations per year (A luja, 1993). A flight range of at least 36 km has been reported, and the regular appearance of adults in Texas at least 135 km from known breedi ng sites in Mexico suggests that the species is capable of considerably greater migration (Fletcher, 1989). As in other Anastrepha species, the major means of dispersa l to previously uninfested areas is the transport of fruit, su ch as citrus and mango, and to a lesser extent peaches and guava, containing larvae (CABI, 2006). High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Because of its broad host range, including fruits of considerable economic importance, such as grapefruit and orange, Mexfly is the most economically High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 17 Anastrepha ludens (Loew) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk ratings important Anastrepha species in the United States (F oote et al., 1993). In an early study, potential production losses caused by this and three other fruit fly species were conservatively estimated to be 26.7 million boxes of citrus at a value of $70.1 million (1975 farm-level prices) (Andr ew et al., 1977); losses at current price levels would be signif icantly higher. The fly is considered to be a key pest of guava (Gould & Raga, 2002). Quarantine treatments, such as hot water (Sharp et al., 1989) and irradiation (Hallman & Rene-Martinez, 2001), have been developed to disinfest fruit, potenti ally increasing production costs. Anastrepha ludens is a quarantine pest for Argentin a, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Turkey, China, and eastern and southe rn Africa (EPPO, 2003). Its permanent establishment in the United States could result in a loss of foreign markets for various commodities, such as citrus. Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact This species poses a threat to nativ e plants in the United States (e.g., Prunus geniculata

, Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis

, Opuntia treleasei ). Its wider establishment likely would l ead to the initiation of chemical or biological control programs, as has occu rred in response to the introduction of other Anastrepha species (Clausen, 1978). High (3)

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedmann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk ratings Risk Element #1: Climate—Host Interaction Ceratitis capitata is found in Africa, southern Europe, west Asia, South and Central America, and northern Aust ralia (CABI, 2004). The distribution corresponds to the USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 8-10, where one or more of the potential hosts occur (USDA, 1990). Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range Ceratitis capitata is highly polyphagous; its pattern of host relationships vary from region to region, appearing to relate to the fruits available. Hosts are found in the following families: Anacardiaceae, Annonaceae, Apocyanaceae, Caricaceae, Clusiaceae , Combret aceae, Ebenaceae, Eleocarpaceae, Flacourtiaceae, Juglandaceae, Lauraceae, Malpighiaceae, Moraceae, Myrtaceae, Oxalidaceae, Passifloraceae, Proteaceae, Punicaceae, Rosaceae, Rubiaceae, Rutaceae, Santalaceae, Sapindaceae, Sapotaceae, Sapotaceae, Solanaceae, Sterculiaceae, and Vitaceae (White & Elson-Harris, 1992). High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential There is evidence that adults of C. capitata can fly as far as 20 kilometers (CABI, 2004), indicating that natural dispersal is an important means of spread for this fruit fly. Transport of infested fruits is the major means of movement and dispersal to previously unin fested areas (CABI, 2004). High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Ceratitis capitata is a major pest in Mediterranean countries, and its native Africa (CABI, 2004). The species is of economic importance be cause of the damage it can inflict on crops, and because of its qua rantine importance to trading partners. High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 18 Ceratitis capitata (Wiedmann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk ratings Countries where the pest is not yet esta blished may place bans on imports from countries where it is estab lished (Mau & Ke ssing, 1992). Ceratitis capitata is of quarantine significance worldwide, especial ly for the Continental United States, where it has established and been eradicated on several occasions. Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact Introduction and establishment of C. capitata would stimulate chemical or biological control programs, particular ly bait sprays. A highly polyphagous species, this fruit fly has the potential to attack plants listed as Threatened or Endangered in Title 50, Part 17, Section 12 of the Unit ed States Code of Federal Regulations: Prunus ( P. geniculata ), Eugenia ( E. koolauensis ), Argenmone ( A. pleiacantha ), Asimina ( A. tetramera ), Berberis ( B. nevivii
, B. pinnata
, B. sonnei ), Cucurbita ( C. okeechobeensis ), Echinocereus ( E. chisoensis

, E. reichenbachii

, E. iridiflorus

, E. fendleri

, E. triglochidiatus ), Euphorbia ( E. haeleeleana

, E. telephioides ), Gardenia ( G. brighamii

, G. mannii ), Hibiscus, Opuntia ( O. treleasei ), Santalum ( S. freycinetianum ), Solanum, Ochrosia ( O. kilaueaensis ), Ribes ( R. echinellum ), Scaevola ( S. coriacea ), Vicia ( V. menziesii ), and Ziziphus ( Z. celata ) (USFWS, 2006). The introduc tion of this pest would stimulate chemical or biological control programs. High (3)

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley (Hemiptera: Pseudocoratingsgse) Risk ratings Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction Dysmicoccus neobrevipes occurs throughout Centra l America, northern South America, the Caribbean, Indo-China, the Philippines, and Oceania (ARS-SEL, 2005; CABI, 2004). Outside of greenhouse or other artificial situations, this species should be able to survive in the warmer, southern part s of the continental United States (Plant Hardiness Zones 9-10). Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range This species is extremely catho lic in its host pl ant preferences, wh ich extend across at least 31 famili es. Hosts include Ananas comosus (Bromeliaceae), Malus pumila (Rosaceae) (CABI, 2004); Colocasia esculenta (Araceae), Ficus sp. (Moraceae), Musa paradisiaca (Musaceae), Opuntia ficus-indica (Cactaceae), Pritchardia sp. (Arecaceae), Acacia koa and Samanea saman (Fabaceae), Helianthus annuus (Asteraceae) (Nakahara, 1981); Agave sisalana (Agavaceae), Cucurbita maxima (Cucurbitaceae), Zea mays (Poaceae), Heliconia latispatha (Heliconiaceae), Citrus spp. (Rutaceae), and Lycopersicon esculentum (Solanaceae) (Ben-Dov et al., 2006). High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Ito (1938) reported females of the “gray form” of D

. brevipes (considered by Beardsley (1959) to be D

. neobrevipes ) to produce an average of 347 progeny. Their life span averaged ab out 95 days, with several ge nerations per year. The main dispersal stage of mealybugs is the first-instar craw ler, which may be locally transported by wind or other animals. All life stages may be di spersed over longer distances through the movement of in fested plant materials in commerce. High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 19 Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley (Hemiptera: Pseudocoratingsgse) Risk ratings Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Dysmicoccus neobrevipes attacks a number of valuable commercial crops, and is a particularly serious pest of pineapple, Ananas comosus . Like D

. brevipes , it is a vector of the virus causing pineapple wilt disease (Rohrbach et al., 1988). Feeding by large mealybug populations may caus e a loss of host plant vigor. Also, honeydew deposited on leaves and fruit by mealybugs serves as a medium for the growth of black sooty mold s, which interfere with ph otosynthesis, and reduce the market value of the crop. Biological and ch emical controls are often implemented to control these mealybugs (or the attending ants ) that aid in their spread, and interfere with their biological control. Because many of the host plants attacked by D

. neobrevipes are commercially or environmentally important to the st ates of Texas, Arizona, and California, in troduction might cause the loss of international and domestic markets. High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact The introduction of D

. neobrevipes would likely result in the initiation of chemical or biological control programs, as ha s occurred in Hawaii. The species is polyphagous, and has the potential to infe st plants listed as Threatened or Endangered in the contin ental United States (e.g

. , Opuntia treleasei

, Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis ). High (3)

Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction The distribution of this species exte nds from South Asia, through parts of Southeast and East Asia and the Pacific, to Australia. It also is widespread in South and Central America and in the Caribbean (Ben-Dov et al., 2006), and has been reported from Mexico (Williams & Granara de Willink, 1992). It should be able to establish in areas of the southern United States, or Plant Hardiness Zones 9-10. Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range This species is extremely polyphagous, havi ng been recorded on hosts in at least 65 families (Ben-Dov et al., 2006). These include Colocasia esculenta (Araceae), Abutilon sp. and Hibiscus spp. (Malvaceae), Solanum spp. (Solanaceae), Theobroma cacao (Sterculiaceae), Citrus spp. (Rutaceae), Coffea spp. (Rubiaceae), Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), Musa spp. (Musaceae), Eugenia spp. and Psidium guajava (Myrtaceae), Vitis vinifera (Vitaceae), Ziziphus sp. (Rhamnaceae), Amaranthus sp. (Amaranthaceae), Annona spp. (Annonaceae), Helianthus sp. and Bidens pilosa (Asteraceae), Euphorbia spp. and Manihot esculenta (Euphorbiaceae), Persea americana (Lauraceae), Ipomoea spp. (Convolvulaceae), Brassica spp. (Brassicaceae), Cucurbita spp. (Cucurbitaceae), Zea mays (Poaceae), Arachis hypogaea (Fabaceae), Artocarpus spp. (Moraceae), Cocos nucifera (Arecaceae), Pandanus spp. (Pandanaceae), Pyrus pyrifolia (Rosaceae), and Asparagus plumosus (Liliaceae) (CABI, 2004; Ben-Dov et al., 2006). High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 20 Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Reported fecundity ranges from abou t 200 to over 500 eggs per female, depending on host plant (Maity et al., 1998; Martinez & Suris, 1998; Sahoo et al., 1999); there may be as many as 10 generati ons per year. The insect is known to be transported long distances in shipment s of fruit (Sugimoto, 1994). It has been intercepted at U.S. ports over 440 times on fruits in cargo fro m various countries (PestID, 2007). Planococcus minor thus exhibits high repr oductive and dispersal potentials. High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Planococcus minor is an important pest of coff ee in India (Reddy et al., 1997). Severe outbreaks (originally attributed to P

. citri [Risso]) also have been reported on coffee and sugarcane in New Guinea (C ABI, 2006). On guava, it is considered only a minor pest (Gould & Raga, 2002). Mill er et al. (2002) c onsider the species to be a major threat to U.S. agricultu re. Introduction of th is mealybug into the United States could cause the loss of foreign markets for a number of commodities. The species is a quarantine pest for Korea (PRF, 2004). The weight of evidence suggests that risk associated w ith the economic impact of this pest is high. High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact This species has the potential to attack Threatened or Endangered native plants in the United States (e.g., Amaranthus brownii

, Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis

, Helianthus paradoxus

, Solanum

, Bidens , and Abutilon spp., Eugenia koolauensis

, Euphorbia telephioides

, Ziziphus celata , and Manihot walkerae ). As it represents a potentially seri ous threat to economically valuable crops (e.g., avocado, citrus, cucurbits), its introduction likely would stimulate initiation of chemical or biological contro l programs. It has been the target of a biological control program in India (Reddy et al., 1997); other species of Planococcus have been targeted for biological control in the United States and elsewhere (Bartlett, 1978). High (3)

Table 5 . Risk ratings for Consequences of Introduction Pest Risk elements Cumulative risk ratings / Value Climate/ host interaction Host
range Dispersal potential Economic impact Environmental impact Anastrepha ludens Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High 14 Ceratitis capitata Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High 14 Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High 14 Planococcus minor Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High 14

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

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 21 2.7. Likelihood of Introduction

In this part of the assessment we evaluate the potential arrival and establishment of species that may be associated with Hylocereus spp. from Central America. The assessment is based on six elements, where the qualitative ra nkings are high, medium, or low (PPQ, 2000). We summarized these ratings below (Table 6).

2.7.1. Quantity of Commodity Imported Annually The likelihood that an exotic species will arrive in the United States is related to the volume of a commodity shipped to the United States. As the volume increases, the proba bility of introducing a species associated with Hylocereus spp. from Central America also increases.

Nicaragua estimates exporting 1200 tons of fresh pitaya to the United States (MAGFOR, 2004). Assuming there are 20 metric tons per 40-foot lo ng container, this converts to a volume of exports of 60 containers. This corresponds to a rating of Medium (PPQ, 2000) for this risk element because it is likely to represent the ma ximum volume that will enter from any of these countries on a yearly basis. This risk assessm ent assumes that any increases in production in subsequent years are offset by a ll exports not being destined for the United States, and that each country considered in this risk assessment w ill not export to the United States a substantially greater volume in any year.

2.7.2. Survive Post harvest Treatment We rated all of the pests High for their ability to survive post-harvest treatment because postharvest treatments for this crop cons ist of brushing off thorns (Meija et al., 2002). This process is unlikely to detect any internally feeding fr uit fly larvae, and young mealybug life stages are likely to avoid detection if they are present in the crevices associated with removed thorns.

2.7.3. Survive Shipment We rated all of the pests High for this element because they are easily able to survive and potentially reproduce during relativ ely short shipment durations. Th e fruit flies are internal and protected within the fruit (Weems, 1981; Naraya nan and Batra, 1960). Most life-stages of the mealybugs are firmly attached to the fruit and protected by a self-secre ted waxy covering (Borror et al., 1989; Cox, 1989).

2.7.4. Not Detected at the Port-of-Entry We rated the mealybugs Medium for this element because these quarantine pests generally are large enough to be seen by traine d inspectors, there ar e color differences between the pests and the fruit, and first instar larvae are likely to be seen as they move.

In contrast, the internal fruit fly larvae can only be detected by destructive sampling methods (Weems, 1981) which merits a High rating.

2.7.5. Moved to an Area with an Envi ronment Suitable for Survival All of the pests are suited to warm climates between U.S. Hardiness Zones 8 – 10. Because only the southern most portion of the United States has an equivalent climate all pests were rated Medium for this element.Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 22 2.7.6. Contact Host Material Suitable for Reproduction Multiple fruit flies often infest one host; as a resu lt, there is a potential for larvae to emerge as adults and find mates. The flight capacity of fruit flies is such that they would be likely to find hosts if the infested fruit was shipped to an ar ea where hosts are prevalent. For these reasons, the fruit fly species are rated High . While all of the pests could be reasonably expected to find a suitable host given their wide host ranges, the limited mobility of D. neobrevipes and P. minor decreases the likelihood that these pests will be able to move to a suitable host. The mealybugs are rated Medium for this element.

Table 6. Summary for the Likelihood of Introducing Quarantine Pests Potentially Associated with Hylocereus spp. from Central America. Pest Quantity imported annually Survivepostharvest treatment Survive shipment Not detectedat portof-entry Moved to suitable habitat Contact with host material Cumulative risk ratings a

Anastrepha ludens Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16)

Ceratitis capitata Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16)

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

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

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



### 3. Conclusion

All the organisms we analyzed had High Pest Risk Potentials (Table 7). Pests with Low Pest Risk Potentials typically do not require mitig ation measures, while Medium risk pests may require specific phytosanitary measures. For all four pests above, port-of-entry inspection is insufficient to provide phytosan itary security, and the developm ent of specific phytosanitary measures is recommended.

Table 7. Summary of Pest Risk Potentials for the Quarantine Pests Potentially Associated with Hylocereus spp. from Central America. Pest Consequences of Introduction Likelihood of Introduction Pest Risk Potentials

Anastrepha ludens High (14) High (16) High (30) Ceratitis capitata High (14) High (16) High (30) Dysmicoccus neobrevipes High (14) Medium (14) High (28) Planococcus minor High (14) Medium (14) High (28)Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 23 

### 4. Risk Mitigation Options

Options for risk mitigation of quarantine pests for Hylocereus spp. from Central America are summarized in the table below (Table 8). This document does not purport to establish specific work plans or to evaluate the quality of a specific program or systems approach. We identified risks and provided information regarding know n mitigation measures. The specification and implementation of measures, as would be presen t in an operational work plan, is beyond the scope of this document.

Table 8. Summary of risk mitigation options for Hylocereus spp. from Central America Measures Pests Efficacy Pest-free areas or areas of low pest prevalence All When conducted in compliance with international standards (e.g., IPPC, 2007; IPPC, 1999; NAPPO, 2004) this method satisfies requirements for appropriate level of protection Suppression / Control
program Most of the pests of concern could be managed, at least in part, with a control program, whether cultural, chemical, or mechanical means, but the program should include monitoring and inspection to verify program effectiveness. Control must be used in combination with other

measures. Research required on effectiveness of methods proposed. Research may be required on effectiveness of monitoring options.

Phytosanitary Certification Inspection and Monitoring All, but must be used in combination with other

measures. A phytosanitary certificate guides inspection efforts in Central American countries and alerts U.S. inspectors to pests of concern with this commodity. Packinghouse procedures, including visual culling Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Planococcus minor Research required on efficacy.

Point-of-entry sampling and inspection including fruit cuttings All For cut fruit, sample size should be adequate to detect infestation

Irradiation, generic dose 400 Gy, combined with low pest prevalence All pests Approved by APHIS. Research required demonstrating efficacy.

Irradiation 150 Gy for fruit flies combined with low prevalence of other Anastrepha ludens Ceratitis capitata Approved by APHIS.Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 24 Measures Pests Efficacy pests plus inspection Methyl bromide fumigation T101-d-3 Ceratitis capitata Approved by APHIS to treat Ceratitis capitata on Opuntia and other cacti fruit such as pitahaya. Research required demonstrating efficacy for other pests. Methyl bromide fumigation T101-e-3 Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Planococcus minor Approved by APHIS to treat external feeders on Opuntia and other cacti fruit such as pitahaya. Research required demonstrating efficacy. Vapor heat treatment T106-e Ceratitis capitata Approved by APHIS to treat Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata on yellow pitaya ( Selenicereus megalanthus ). Research required to demonstrate efficacy on Hylocereus spp. and on A. ludens. Port-of-entry sampling and inspection All, but should be used in combination with other

measures



### 5. Preparer and Reviewers

Preparer: Reviewers: Christie Bertone, Entomologist Heather Hartzog, Plant Pathologist Kenneth Lakin, Entomologist

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology



### 6. Literature Cited

7 CFR § 319. 2009. U.S. Code of Federal Regu lations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319.56-5, Conditions governing the movement of bananas from Hawaii). Aluja Schuneman, M. 1993. Manejo Integrado de la Mosca de la Fruta. México, D.F.: Editorial Trillas. Andrew, C. O., J. C. Cato, and F. J. Prochask a. 1977. Potential economic impact of a fruit fly infestation on the U.S. citrus industry . Proc. FL State Hort. Soc. 90: 29-32. Arnett, R. H., M. C. Thomas, P. E. Skelley, and J. H. Frank. 2002. American Beetles (Vol. 2): Polyphaga: Scarabaeoidea through Curculioni dae. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 861 pp. Arnett, R. H., Jr. 2000. American insects, 2 ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., NY 1003 pp. Barbeau, G. 1990. La pitahaya rouge, un nouveau fr uit exotique. Fruits. Vol. 45(2), p 141-147.Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 25 Barbeau, G. 1993. Red pitaya, a new exotic fru it. Western Australian Nut Tree Crops Assn. (WANATCA) Yearbook 17: 74-80. Bartlett, B.R. 1978. Pseudococcidae, pp. 137-170. In C.P. Clausen (ed.). Introduced parasites and predators of arthropod pests and weeds: a world review. USDA Agric. Handbk. 480. Beardsley, J.W. 1959. On the taxonomy of pineappl e mealybugs in Hawaii, with a description of a previously unnamed species (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Proc. Hawaiian Entomol. Soc. 17(1): 29-37. Ben-Dov, Y., D.R. Miller, and G.A.P. Gibson. 2006. ScaleNet. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/s calenet.htm. (Archived at PERAL) Bier, V. M. 1999. Challenges to the acceptance of probabilistic risk analysis. Risk Analysis 19: 703-710. Bolland, H. R., J. Gutierrez, and C. H. W. Fl echtmann. 1998. World Catalogue of the Spider Mite Family (Acari: Tetranychidae). Brill, Boston, 392 pp. Borror, D., C. Triplehorn, and N. Johnson. 1989. Introduction to the stud y of insects, 6ed. Saunders College Pub., 875 pp. Burks, K. 2001. Personal communication (on file with USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Subject: weediness of Hylocereus spp. and eradication in Florida). Buss, L.J., S.E., Halbert, and S.J. Johnson (n.d.). 2007. Leptoglossus zonatus – A new leaffooted bug in Florida (Hemiptera: Coreidae). Pest Alert: Florida Dept. of Ag. & Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry. http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/ento/l.zonatus.html Capinera, J. L. 2001. Saltmarsh Caterpillar – Estigmene acrea (Drury). Featured Creatures, Dept. Ent. & Nemat., Div. Plant Ind., Univ. Florida. July 2001, revised November 2005. Available online: http://creatures.ifas.uf l.edu/veg/leaf/salmarsh_caterpillar.htm Castaño, S. P., A. Rincón, and F. Varón de Agudelo. 1991. Identificación de nematodos asociados con pitaya Acanthocereus pitahaya Jaq. Dugand. Revista ICA, Vol. 26, Enere – Junio 1991. p 91-101. Castillo Martínez, R., H. Cálix De Dios, and A. Rodríguez Canto. 1996. Guía técnica para el cultivo de pitahaya. Chetumal, Quintana Roo, México. 158 pp. Cavey, J. F. 2007. Email from Joseph F. Cavey to Marina A. Zlotina. Subject: RE: Actionable pests? 5 April 2007. On file with USDA-APHIS-PPQ. CITES. 2002. Convention on Interna tional Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. http://www.cites.org (excepting from CITES the fruits of Cactaceae from naturalized or artificially propaga ted plants in f ootnote #4(d) ). Clausen, C. P. 1978. Tephritidae (Try petidae, Trupaneidae), pp. 320-335. In C.P. Clausen (ed.). Introduced parasites and predators of arthr opod pests and weeds: a world review. USDA Agric. Handbk. 480. Coile, N. C. and W. N. Dixon. 1999. TRI-O LOGY, Vol. 38, No. 2, MARCH-APRIL 1999. Available online: http://www.doacs.sta te.fl.us/pi/enpp/99-mar-apr.htm Courneya, P. A. 2005. Email from Paul A. Cour neya to Marina A. Zlotina. Subject: RE: Quarantine status Acutaspis albopicta . 3 January 2005. On file with USDA-APHIS-PPQ. Cox, J. M. 1989. Mealybug genus Planococcus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Bull. British Museum Nat. History, Entomol. 58(1): 1-78. CABI. 2004. Crop Protection Comp endium. Commonwealth Agricult ural Bureau International (CABI), Wallingford, UK.Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 26 CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Comp endium. Commonwealth Agricult ural Bureau International (CABI), Wallingford, UK. EPPO. 2003. EPPO Plant Quarantine Informa tion Retrieval System, Ver. 4.2. European & Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), Paris. Farr, D. F., A.Y. Rossman, M.E. Palm, and E.B. McCray. 2007. Fungal Databases. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Servi ce, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory. http://nt.ars-gri n.gov/fungaldatabases/. (Archived at PERAL) Fletcher, B. S. 1989. Ecology; movements of tephritid fruit flies. In: World Crop Pests 3(B). Fruit flies; their biology, natural enemies and control. Robinson, S.S. and Hooper, G. (eds.) Elsevier, NL pp. 195-206. Foote, R.H., F.L. Blanc, and A.L. Norr bom. 1993. Handbook of the Fr uit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of America North of Mexic o. Ithaca, NY: Comstock Publ. Assoc. Gallegos, D.P. and E.J. Bonano. 1993. Considera tion of uncertainty in the performance assessment of radioactive waste disposal from an international regulatory perspective. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 42: 111-123. Gonzalez, M. 2006. Letter to APHIS in response to questions regarding Geraeus spp. Marco Gonzalez, IS FSN, Costa Rica. June 2006. Gould, W. P. and A. Raga. 2002. Pests of guava, pp. 295-313. In J.E. Peña, J.L. Sharp, and M. Wysoki (eds.). Tropical Fruit Pests and Pollinators: Biology, Economic Importance, Natural Enemies and Control. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International. Gunn, C. R., and C. A. Ritchie. 1982. 1982 Repor t of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds (TCENW): Exotic Weed s for Federal Noxi ous Weed Act. Hallman, G.J. and L. Rene-Martinez. 2001. Ionizi ng irradiation quarantin e treatment against Mexican fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) in ci trus fruits. Posthar v. Biol. Technol. 23(1): 71-77. Heed, W. B. and R. L. Mangan. 1986. Comm unity ecology of the Sonoran desert Drosophila

. In : Ashburner, M., H. L. Carson, and J. N. Th ompson Jr. (eds). Ge netics and biology of Drosophila , Academic Press, Unit ed Kingdom, 3e: 311-345. Hill, D. S. 1983. Agricultural insect pests of th e tropics and their control, 2ed. Cambridge Univ. Press, NY, 746 pp. Holm, L.G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho, a nd J. P. Herberger. 1977. World’s worst weeds. Univ. Hawaii Press, HI 608 pp. Holm, L.G., J. V. Pancho, J. P. Herberger, a nd D. L. Plucknett. 1979. Geographical atlas of the world’s weeds. John Wiley and Sons, NY 391 pp. Holm, L.G., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Pancho,.and J. Herberger. 1997. World w eeds: natural histories and distribution. John Wiley and Sons, NY 1129 pp. IPPC. 1999. International Standards for Phyt osanitary Measures, Requirements for the establishment of pest free places of pr oduction and pest free production sites, No. 10. Food and Agriculture Organization of the Unite d Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Conven tion (IPPC). Rome. 111 pp. IPPC. 2004. International Standards for Phytosan itary Measures, Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis, No. 11. Food and Agriculture Organi zation of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Pl ant Protection Conventi on (IPPC). Rome. 138 pp. IPPC. 2007. International Standards for Phytosanit ary Measures. No. 2. Framework for pest risk analysis. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome. 15 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 27 Jacobs, D. 1999. Pitaya ( Hylocereus undatus ), a potential new crop for Australia. Australian New Crops Newsletter No. 11: 16.3. http :www.newcrops.uq.edu.au/newsletter. Kimnach, M. 1984. Hylocereus escuintlensis, a new species from Guatemala. Cactus Succulent J. 56 (4): 177-180. Liedo, P. and J.R. Carey. 1996. Demography of fruit flies and implications to action programs, pp. 299-308. In B.A. McPheron and G.J. Steck (e ds.). Fruit Fly Pests: A World Assessment of their Biology and Management. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press. Liquido, N. J., L. A. Shinoda, and R. T. Cunni ngham. 1991. Host plants of the Mediterranean Fruit Fly (Diptera: Tephr itidae): Annotated world review. MPPEAL 77: 1-52. Maes, Jean-Michel. 2004. Insectos asociados a al gunos cultivos tropicales en el Atlantico de Nicaragua. Parte VIII. Nispero ( Manikara achras, Sapotaceae). Rev. Nica. Ent., 64: Supplemento 1: 57 pp. MAGFOR. 2004. Field Study of Red Pitahaya Hylocereus undatus (Haw.) Britt & Rose as a Host for Fruit Flies (2003-2004). Ministerio Agropecuario y Forestal, Nicaragua. 10 pp. On file with USDA-APHIS-PPQ. Maity, D. K., A. K. Sahoo, and S. K. Mandal. 1998. Evaluation of labor atory hosts for rearing and mass multiplication of Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Pseudococcidae: Hemiptera). Environ. Ecol. 16(3): 530-532. Martinez de los A. M. and M. Suris. 1998. Biology of Planococcus minor Maskell (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) under laboratory conditions . Revta. Prot. Veg. 13(3): 199-201. [in Spanish; English summary] Mau, R. F. L. and J. L. M. Kessing. 1992. Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann). University of Hawaii, Manoa, Knowledge Master. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/ kbase/crop/Type/cryptobl.htm Mejia, M., H. Arango, and C. E. Miller. 2002. Importation of fresh yellow pitaya ( Selenicereus megalanthus Haw.) from Colombia into the Unite d States. USDA/APHI S/PPQ Pest Risk Analysis [Draft]. Miller, G. L. and D. R. Miller. 2002. Dysmicoccus Ferris and similar genera (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae) of the Gulf Stat e Region including a de scription of a new species and new United States records. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 104(4): 968-979. Mitchell, J. K. 1985. Disorders of natural and commercially grown cacti: a literature review. Cactus & Succulent J. Vol 57. p 226-231. Mizrahi, Y. and A. Nerd. 1999. Climbing and co lumnar cacti: New arid land fruit crops. In : Perspectives on new crops and new uses (J anick, J., ed.) ASHS Press, VA pp. 358-366. Mizrahi, Y., A. Nerd, and P. S. Nobel. 1997. Cacti as crops. Hortic. Reviews. 18: 291-320. Morgan, M. G., and M. Henrion. 1990. Uncertain ty. Cambridge Univ. Press, United Kingdom. pp.332. Morton, J. F. 1987. Strawberry pear. In : Fruits of warm climates. Creative Resource Systems, Inc., NC. http://hort.purdue.edu/NewCropCenter. Nabhan, G. P. 1985. Gathering the dese rt. Univ. Arizona Press, AZ 209 pp. Nakahara, S. 1981. The proper placements of the nearc tic soft scale species assigned to the genus Lecanium Burmeister (Homoptera: Coccidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 83(2):283-286. NAPPO. 2004. RSPM 17. Guidelines for the establis hment, maintenance and verification of fruit fly pest free areas in North America. Ottawa, Canada. 13 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 28 Narayanan, E. S. and H. N. Batra. 1960. Fruit fl ies and their control. Indian council Agric. Research, IN, 68pp. Neal, M. C. 1965. In gardens of Hawaii. Bishop Museum Press, HI 924 pp. NGRP. 2007. Germplasm Resources Information Ne twork (GRIN). United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Serv ice, National Genetic Resources Program (NGRP). http://www.ars-gri n.gov. (Archived at PERAL) Norrbom, A. L. 2004. The Diptera Site. Systema tic Entomology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. Dept. of Ent., NMNH, SI. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov:591/dipt era/Tephritidae/TephIntro.html. Norrbom, A. L. and K. C. Kim. 1988. A list of reported host plants of the species of Anastrepha (Diptera: Tephritidae). USDA-APHIS- PPQ, pp. 81-52. Orr, R.L., S.D. Cohen., and R.L. Griffin. 1993. Generic non-indigenous pest risk assessment process: "The generic process" (For estimating pest risk a ssociated with the introduction of non-indigenous organisms). USDA-APHIS, Policy and Program Development, Riverdale, MD, pp. 40. PestID. 2007. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/l ogin.jsp. (Archived at PERAL) Popenoe, W. 1939. Manual of tropical and subt ropical fruits. MacMillan Co., NY p. 451. PPQ. 2000. Guidelines for pathway-initiated pest ri sk assessments (Version 5.02). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Riverdale, MD. 30 pp. PRF. 2004. Export Certification Project (EXCER PT) Database. Purdue Research Foundation (PRF). Randall, R. P. 2001. Personal communication (on file with USDA-APHIS-PPQ, subject: weediness of Hylocereus spp. in Australia). Raveh, E., J. Weiss. A. Nerd, and Y. Mizrahi. 1993. Pitayas (genus Hylocereus ): New fruit crop for the Negev Desert of Israel. h ttp://hort.purdue.edu/NewCropCenter Reddy, K.B., P.K. Bhat, and R. Naidu. 1997. Suppre ssion of mealybugs and green scale infesting coffee with natural enemies in Karnataka. Pest Manage. Econ. Zool. 5(2): 119-121. Reed, C. F. 1977. Ecologically important fore ign weeds. Agric. Handbk. No. 498, US Gov’t. Printing Office 746 pp. Rohrbach, K. G., J. W. Beardsley, T. L. Ge rman, N. J. Reimer, and W. G. Sanford. 1988. Mealybug wilt, mealybugs, and ants on pineapple. Plant Disease 72(7): 558-565. Romero, A. 1994. Manejo fitosanitario de la pitahaya en Nicaragua Insectos, In : Encuentro Nacional de la Pitahaya (Memoria 23-25 A ug. 1994) Comite Organi zador. Nicaragua pp. 86-90. Sahoo, A. K., A. B. Ghosh, S. K. Mandal, and D. K. Maiti, D.K. 1999. Study on the biology of the mealybug, Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Pseudococcidae: Hemiptera). J. Interacademicia 3: 41-48 [Abstr]. Sharp, J. L., M. T. Ouye, S. J. Ingle, and W.G. Hart. 1989. Hot-water quarantine treatment for mangoes from Mexico infested with Mexican fr uit fly and West Indian fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 82(6): 1657-1662. Smith, C. F. and M. M. Cermeli. 1979. An annot ated list of Aphidid ae (Homoptera) of the Caribbean Islands and South and Central Ameri ca. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, Tech. Bul. No. 259. 131 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 29 Solomon, J. C. 2002. w3TROPICOS, Missouri Botanical Garden, <http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search species name> last accessed 10 Jan. 2002. Sponagel, K., L. Vasquez, and F. Diaz. 2001. Determination of the condition of pitahaya Hylocereus undatus (Haw) Britt & Rose as hosts of 2 species of fruit fly Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann and Anastrepha ludens Loew. Proceedings of the Interamerican Society for Tropical Ho rticulture. 43:87-89. Starmer, W. T., M. A. Lachance, H. J. Phaff, and W. B. Heed. 1990. The biogeography of yeasts associated with decaying cactus tissue in North America, the Caribbean, and Northern Venezuela. In : Hecht, M.K.; Wallace, B. and MacI ntyre (eds). Evolutionary Biology. Plenum Publishing Corp., NY 24: 253-296. Sugimoto, S. 1994. Scale insects intercepted on ba nana fruits from Mindanao Is., the Philippines (Coccoidea: Homoptera). Res. Bull. Pl. Prot ect. Serv. Japan (30): 115-121. [in Japanese; English summary]. Tel-Zur, N., S. Abbo, D. Bar-Zvi, and Y. Mi zrahi. 2001. Hybridization between species and genera of fruit-crop vine cacti of the genera Hylocereus and Selenicereus . Hortscience, 36(3): 441. Tel-Zur, N., S. Abbo, D. Myslabodski, and Y. Mizrahi. 1999. Modified CTAB procedure for DNA isolation from epiphytic cacti of the genera Hylocereus and Selenicereus (Cactaceae). Plant Molec. Biol. Reporter 17: 249-254 [Abstr]. Thomas, M. C., J. B. Heppner, R. E. Woodruff, H. V. Weems, G. J. Steck and T. R. Fasulo. 2001. Mediterranean Fruit Fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Insecta: Diptera: Tephritidae). DPI Entomology Circulars 4, 230, and 273. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sc iences, University of Florida. Published July 2001, revised September 2001. Available online: http://edis. ifas.ufl.edu/IN371. USDA. 1990. Plant hardiness zone map. USDA-ARS, Misc. Pub. No. 1475, DC http://usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap, last accessed 23 June 2001. USDA. 2005. Plant import: Nonpropagativ e manual, USDA-APHIS-PPQ, MD, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plant s/manuals/ports/downloads/treatment.pdf USFWS. 2006. Threatened and endangered specie s system (TESS). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. <http://endangered.fws.gov/> last accessed December 2006. Villalobos- Calderón, J. L. and F. Cárdenas-Dí az. 2002. Lista de Enfermedades de los Cultivos Agrícolas de Costa Rica. Ministerio de Agricu ltura y Ganaderia Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado Diagnóstico Fitosanitario. San José, Costa Rica. 70pp. Watson, G.W. 2005. Arthropods of Economic Importa nce – Diaspididae of the World. Natural History Museum, London. http://ip3 0.eti.uva.nl/bis/diaspididae.php Weems, H. V., Jr. 1963. Mexican fruit fly ( Anastrepha ludens [Loew]) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Fla. Dept. Agric. Div. Plan t Ind. Entomol. Circ. 16. Weems, R. V. 1981. Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann). Entomol. Circ. No. 230. FL Dept. Agric Consumer Serv. 12pp. Weiss, J., L. Scheinvar, and Y. Mizrahi. 1995. Selenicereus megalanthus (the yellow pitaya), a climbing cactus from Colombia and Peru. Cactus Succulent J., 67(5): 280-283. White, I. M. and M. M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Frui t flies of economic signi ficance: Identification and bionomics. CAB Int’l., United Kingdom 601 pp. Williams, D. J. and M. C. Granara de Willink. 1992. Mealybugs of Central and South America. CAB Int’l., United Kingdom 635 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Pitaya from Central America

Ver. 5 February 11, 2011 30 WSSA. 2007. Composite List of Weeds. W eed Science Society of America (WSSA). http://www.wssa.net/Weeds/ID/WeedNames/namesearch.php. (Archived at PERAL)