United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection 

Service

Importation of Fresh Fruit of Chinese Sand 

Pear, Pyrus pyrifolia, from China, including 

the Special Administrative Regions of Hong 

Kong and Macau, into the Entire

United States, Including all Territories

A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessment

July 2, 2009

Rev. 05

Agency Contact: 

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine

1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300

Raleigh, NC 27606
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 ii

Executive Summary

We assessed the risks associated with the importation of fresh fruit of Chinese sand pear, Pyrus 

pyrifolia (Burm. f.) Nakai from all regions of China, including the Special Administrative 

Regions of Hong Kong and Macau and henceforth will be designated as China into the entire 

United States (including all territories), which henceforth will be designated as the United States. 

By searching available information sources, we identified sixteen pests of quarantine 

significance of Chinese sand pear that exist in China and could be introduced into the United 

States in shipments of the commodity. We estimated Consequences of Introduction for these 

pests by assessing five elements for the biology and ecology of the pests: climate/host 

interaction, host range, dispersal potential, economic impact, and environmental impact. We 

rated each pest for Likelihood of Introduction by considering both the quantity of the commodity 

imported annually and the potential for pest introduction and establishment. The two values were 

summed to estimate an overall Pest Risk Potential, which is an estimation of risk in the absence 

of mitigation measures.

The following quarantine-significant pests were likely to follow the pathway (i.e., accompany

shipments of pear):

Arthropods Acrobasis pyrivorella (Matsumura) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

Amphitetranychus viennensis (Zacher) (Acari: Tetranychidae)

Aphanostigma iaksuiense (Kishida) (Hemiptera: Phylloxeridae)

Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Calepitrimerus neimongolensis Kuang and Geng (Acari: Eriophyidae)

Carposina sasakii Matsumura (Lepidoptera: Carposinidae)

Ceroplastes japonicus Green (Hemiptera: Coccidae)

Ceroplastes rubens Maskell (Hemiptera: Coccidae)

Conogethes punctiferalis (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

Grapholita inopinata (Heinrich) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

Phenacoccus pergandei Cockerell (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Planococcus kraunhiae (Kuwana) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

FungiaAlternaria gaisen Nagano (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales)

Guignardia pyricola (Nose) W. Yamam. (Ascomycetes: Dothideales)

Monilinia fructigena Honey in Whetzel (Ascomycetes: Helotiales)

Venturia nashicola Tanaka and Yamamoto (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales)

Both Aphanostigma iaksuiense and Acrobasis pyrivorella had Pest Risk Potentials of Medium, 

while all other pests were rated High. Port-of-entry inspection, as a sole mitigation measure, is 

insufficient to safeguard U.S. agriculture from these pests, and additional phytosanitary measures 

are considered necessary to reduce risk.

 

a

Fungal taxonomy provided for A. gaisen and other fungi associated with Pyrus pyrifolia may differ from previous 

risk assessments. Fungal taxonomy in this RA is reported according to Farr, et al. 2006 or Index Fungorum, 2007. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 iii

Table of Contents

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

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

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

2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action....................................................................................... 2

2.2. Assessment of Weed Potential of Chinese sand pear, Pyrus pyrifolia ............................... 2

2.3. Previous Risk Assessments, Current Status, and Pest Interceptions................................... 2

2.4. Pest Categorization–Identification of Quarantine Pests and Quarantine Pests Likely to 

Follow the Pathway.................................................................................................................... 6

2.5. Consequences of Introduction—Economic/Environmental Importance .......................... 26

2.6. Likelihood of Introduction—Quantity Imported and Pest Opportunity ........................... 42

2.7. Conclusion—Pest Risk Potential and Pests Requiring Phytosanitary Measures.............. 45

3. Literature Cited ...................................................................................................................... 46

4. Appendices............................................................................................................................... 59

Appendix A. Risk Mitigation Options..................................................................................... 59

Appendix B. Justification for removing fruit fly cold treatment and trapping requirements for 

Shandong Province .................................................................................................................. 73
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 1

1. Introduction

This risk assessment was prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Center for 

Plant Health Science and Technology (CPHST) to examine plant pest risks associated with 

importation into the United States, including all territories, of fresh fruit of Chinese sand pear, 

Pyrus pyrifolia (Burm. f.) Nakai (also known as Chinese, Japanese, nashi, or oriental pear), from

all regions of China. Estimates of risk, based on scientific evidence, are expressed in terms of high, 

Medium, or low. The risk assessment is “pathway-initiated” in that it is based on the potential 

pest risks associated with the commodity as it enters the United States.

International plant protection organizations, such as the North American Plant Protection 

Organization (NAPPO) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) of the United 

Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), provide standards for conducting pest risk 

analyses (IPPC, 2004; 2006; NAPPO, 2004). The methods used to initiate, conduct, and report 

this plant pest risk assessment, as well as the biological and phytosanitary terms, are based on 

IPPC standards.

Pest risk assessment is one component of an overall pest risk analysis. IPPC standards describe 

three stages in pest risk analysis. This document satisfies the requirements of IPPC Stages 1 

(initiation) and 2 (risk assessment). Details of the methodology and rating criteria can be found 

in the template document, Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 

(PPQ, 2000).

IPPC (2006) defines ‘pest risk assessment’ (for quarantine pests) as “Evaluation of the 

probability of the introduction and spread of a pest and of the associated potential economic 

consequences.” ‘Quarantine pest' is defined as “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” (IPPC, 2006). Thus, pest risk assessments should consider both the

consequences and likelihood of introduction of quarantine pests. Both issues are addressed in this 

document.

China leads the world in pear production. China’s pear crop exceeded 8.8 million tonnes in the 

period July 2001-June 2002, accounting for about 63 percent of total world production (FAS, 

2002). Pear exports from China were almost 194,000 tonnes, with Russia and Southeast Asia 

comprising the major markets. P. bretschneideri Rehd. (white or Ya pear), grown mainly in the 

northern part of the country (provinces of Hebei, Shandong, and Liaoning), accounts for 60

percent of pear production in China; P. pyrifolia (originating in the Chang Jiang [Yangtze] River 

valley), Pyrus sp. nr. communis L. (fragrant pear; produced in the northwestern part of the 

country, Korla region of Xinjiang Province), P. ussuriensis Maxim. (fragrant pear; produced in 

the northeastern part of the country), and P. communis L. (European pear; in limited production) 

make up the remainder (Li, 1999).
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 2

2. Risk Assessment

2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action

This risk assessment is developed in response to a request by the Chinese government for USDA 

authorization to permit imports of Chinese sand pear into the United States. Entry of this 

commodity into the United States presents the risk of introduction of exotic plant pests. Title 7, 

Part 319, Section 56 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR §319.56) provides 

regulatory authority for the importation of fruits and vegetables from foreign countries into the 

United States.

2.2. Assessment of Weed Potential of Chinese sand pear, Pyrus pyrifolia

This step examines the potential of the commodity to become a weed after it enters the United 

States (Table 1). If the assessment indicates significant weed potential, then a “pest-initiated” 

risk assessment is conducted.

Table 1. Assessment of the weed potential of Chinese sand pear.

Commodity: Chinese sand pear (Pyrus pyrifolia) (Rosaceae).

Phase 1: Chinese sand pear is naturalized in at least four states: Maryland, Virginia, West 

Virginia, and Illinois (USDA, 2002). Pears of various species are grown commercially in

nine additional states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Michigan, New York, Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, Utah, and Washington (NASS, 2002).

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) or World Weeds: Natural Histories

and Distribution (Holm et al., 1997)

No Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds; Exotic 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)

No Is there any literature reference indicating weed potential, e.g., AGRICOLA, 

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

“weed.”

Phase 3: The literature gives no indication of the weed potential of Pyrus pyrifolia. A pestinitiated risk assessment for the species is not necessary.

2.3. Previous Risk Assessments, Current Status, and Pest Interceptions

2.3.1. Decision History for Pyrus pyrifolia from East Asia

1990 - Permit entry of P. pyrifolia from Korea (Chollanam-do, Naju-gun) in accordance with 

PPQ-approved work plan and safeguards.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 3

1988 - Deny entry of Pyrus spp. from China. No acceptable treatment for Dacus dorsalis (= 

Bactrocera dorsalis), D. occipitalis (= B. occipitalis) and Physalospora pericola.

1986 - Permit entry of P. pyrifolia from Korea into Hawaii. Inspection and treatment if 

warranted by pest findings.

1986 - Permit entry of P. pyrifolia from Japan into Hawaii (conditions: no transshipping to the 

continental United States; inspection and treatment, if warranted by pest findings; no 

preclearance because of absence of pear or apple industry in Hawaii)

1982 - Deny entry of P. pyrifolia from Japan. (Carposina niponensis, Tetranychus viennensis, 

Dacus spp. (Bactrocera spp.) and Guignardia piricola).

1974 - Deny entry of P. pyrifolia from China. Diversity of economic insects which are in China 

and are not known to be in Hawaii or the continental United States (entomology findings; 

Anthonomus pomorum L., Carposina niponensis Walsingham, Dichocrocis punctiferalis

Guenee, Grapholitha molesta Busck, Rhynchites heroes Roel., Urochela luteovaria

Distant, Tetranychus viennensis Zacher, and Dacus dorsalis Hendel (= Bactrocera 

dorsalis (Hendel); pathology findings: Guignardia piricola (Nose); Gymnosporangium 

confusum Plowr.; and Monilinia fructigena (Aherh. and Ruhl.))

1971 - Permit entry of P. pyrifolia from Japan into Alaska. No transshipment permitted from 

Alaska to the conterminous 48 states.

Currently, entry of Chinese sand pears is not authorized by 7 CFR §319.56. Pest interceptions on

Pyrus spp. from China (including Hong Kong) are summarized below (Table 2).

Table 2. Numbers of interceptions of pests at U.S. ports-of-entry on Pyrus spp. from China over the 

period 1995 to May 28, 2009 (PestID, 2009). Interception reports for P. pyrifolia, the focus of this RA,

are in highlighted rows with the printing in bold font.

Pest Inspected Host Where 

Intercepted

Material 

For

Count

Abiotic sp.* Pyrus sp. Baggage Consumption 1

Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Allograpta exotica Wiedemann (Syrphidae)* Pyrus sp. Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Alternaria sp. (Hyphomycetes) P. bretschneideri Baggage Consumption 1

General Cargo Consumption 1

Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Stores Consumption 1

Pyrus communis Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Pyrus pyrifolia General Cargo Consumption 1

Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Stores Consumption 1

Pyrus sp. Baggage Consumption 1

General Cargo Consumption 1

Non-Entry 1

Holds Consumption 1

Mail Consumption 1

Miscellaneous Consumption 1
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 4

Pest Inspected Host Where 

Intercepted

Material 

For

Count

Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Quarters Consumption 1

Stores Consumption 1

Non-Entry 1

Alternaria sp. (Hyphomycetes)* P. bretschneideri Baggage Consumption 1

General Cargo Consumption 1

Miscellaneous Non-Entry 1

Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Quarters Non-Entry 1

Pyrus communis Baggage Consumption 1

Permit Cargo Propagation 1

Pyrus pyrifolia Baggage Consumption 1

Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Pyrus sp. Baggage Consumption 1

General Cargo Consumption 1

Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Stores Consumption 1

Pyrus ussuriensis Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Ascidae, species of* Pyrus sp. Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Ascomycete sp. Pyrus sp. Stores Non-Entry 1

Astigmata, species of* Pyrus sp. Baggage Consumption 1

Autographa californica (Speyer) (Noctuidae)* Pyrus sp. Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Cadra cautella (Walker) (Pyralidae)* Pyrus sp. Baggage Consumption 1

Carposinidae, species of Pyrus sp. Baggage Consumption 1

Cladosporium sp. (Hyphomycetes)* Pyrus pyrifolia Baggage Consumption 1

Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz) Penz & 

Sacc. (Coelomycetes)*

Pyrus sp. Baggage Consumption 1

Colletotrichum sp. (Coelomycetes) Pyrus pyrifolia Baggage Consumption 1

Pyrus sp. Quarters Non-Entry 1

Crambidae, species of Pyrus sp. Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Diaspidiotus perniciosus (Comstock) 

(Diaspididae)*

P. bretschneideri General Cargo Consumption 1

Drosophilidae, species of* Pyrus sp. Baggage Consumption 1

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley 

(Pseudococcidae)

Pyrus communis Baggage Consumption 1

Elsinoe piri (Wor.) Jenkins (Elsinoaceae) Pyrus pyrifolia Baggage Consumption 1

Fabaceae, species of* Pyrus calleryana Permit Cargo Propagation 1

Halyomorpha halys Stal (Pentatomidae)* P. bretschneideri Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Pyrus sp. General Cargo Consumption 1

Hemiptera, species of Pyrus communis Baggage Consumption 1

Heteroptera, species of Pyrus sp. Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Homoptera, species of Pyrus sp. Baggage Consumption 1

Hyperomyzus lactucae (Linnaeus) (Aphididae)* Pyrus sp. Permit Cargo Consumption 1
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 5

Pest Inspected Host Where 

Intercepted

Material 

For

Count

Injury sp.* P. bretschneideri Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Insecta, species of Pyrus calleryana Permit Cargo Propagation 1

Laemophloeidae, species of* Pyrus calleryana Permit Cargo Propagation 1

Lepidoptera, species of Pyrus sp. Baggage Consumption 1

Lygaeus sp. (Lygaeidae) Pyrus sp. Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Pseudococcidae) Pyrus sp. Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Magnoliophyta, sp.* Pyrus calleryana Permit Cargo Propagation 1

Mesostigmata, species of* Pyrus sp. Permit Cargo Consumption 1

No Identifiable Acarina Found* Pyrus communis Permit Cargo Consumption 1

No Identifiable Insecta Found* P. bretschneideri Permit Cargo Consumption 1

No Identifiable Pathogen Found* Pyrus pyrifolia General Cargo Consumption 1

Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Pyrus sp. General Cargo Consumption 1

Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Stores Non-Entry 1

No Pathogen Found* P. bretschneideri Baggage Consumption 1

Pyrus sp. Baggage Consumption 1

General Cargo Consumption 1

Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Oryza sp. (Poaceae)* Pyrus ussuriensis Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Ostrinia sp. (Crambidae) Pyrus pyrifolia Quarters Non-Entry 1

Paracoccus interceptus Lit. (Pseudococcidae) Pyrus sp. Baggage Consumption 1

Parlatoria citri Mckenzie (Diaspididae) Pyrus communis Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Phoridae, species of* Pyrus communis Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Pseudococcidae) Pyrus sp. Baggage Consumption 1

Pseudaulacaspis sp. (Diaspididae) Pyrus pyrifolia Baggage Consumption 1

Pseudococcidae, species of Pyrus communis Stores Non-Entry 1

Pyrus pyrifolia Baggage Consumption 1

Stores Non-Entry 1

Pyrus sp. Baggage Consumption 1

Pseudococcus comstocki (Kuwana) 

(Pseudococcidae)*

Pyrus pyrifolia Baggage Consumption 1

Stores Non-Entry 1

Pyrus sp. Baggage Consumption 1

Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi Gimpel & Miller 

(Pseudococcidae)*

Pyrus sp. Stores Non-Entry 1

Pseudococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) Pyrus sp. Baggage Consumption 1

Pyralidae, species of Pyrus sp. Baggage Consumption 1

Rhus sp. (Anacardiaceae)* Pyrus calleryana Permit Cargo Propagation 1

Rhynchites sp. (Curculionidae) Pyrus calleryana Permit Cargo Propagation 1

Secondary Fungi* Pyrus pyrifolia Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Pyrus sp. General Cargo Consumption 1
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 6

Pest Inspected Host Where 

Intercepted

Material 

For

Count

Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Sorghum bicolor (Linnaeus) Moench (Poaceae)* P. bretschneideri Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Pyrus sp. Permit Cargo Propagation 1

Spilomelinae, species of (Crambidae) Pyrus sp. Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Tetranychus viennensis Zacher (Tetranychidae) Pyrus communis Baggage Consumption 1

Tortricidae, species of Pyrus communis Baggage Consumption 1

Pyrus pyrifolia General Cargo Consumption 1

Tropidothorax leucopterus (Goeze) (Lygaeidae) P. bretschneideri Permit Cargo Consumption 1

Venturia pirina Aderh. (Venturiaceae)* Pyrus communis Baggage Consumption 1

Pyrus pyrifolia Baggage Consumption 1

Pyrus sp. Baggage Propagation 1

* Non-reportable pest

2.4. Pest Categorization–Identification of Quarantine Pests and Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow 

the Pathway

Common pests associated with Chinese sand pear that occur in China are listed in Table 3. This list 

includes information on the presence or absence of these pests in the United States, the affected plant 

part(s), the quarantine status of the pest with respect to the United States, an indication of the pest-host 

association, and pertinent references for pest distribution and biology.

Table 3. Pests in China associated with Chinese sand pear, Pyrus pyrifolia2

Pest Geographic

distribution3

Plant part

affected4

Quarantine pest5Follow 

pathway

References

ARTHROPODS

Acari: Eriophyidae

Calepitrimerus baileyi Keifer (= 

Phyllocoptes aphrastus Keifer)

CN, US F, L No Yes Baker et al., 1996; 

Geng et al., 1999

Calepitrimerus neimongolensis

Kuang and Geng

CN F, L Yes Yes Geng et al., 1999

Epitrimerus pyri (Nalepa) CN, US F, L No Yes CABI, 2005; Hong and 

Zhang, 1996

 

2

Synonyms: P. serotina Rehder, Ficus pyrifolia Burm. f.

3 Distribution: AS = American Samoa, CN = China (including the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and 

Macau), GU = Guam, HI = Hawaii, PR = Puerto Rico, US = continental United States, VI = U.S. Virgin Islands

4

Plant Parts: F = Fruit, I = Inflorescence, L = Leaf, R = Root, S = Stem, Sd = Seed, W = Wood, B = Bark, Br = Branch. 

Note: * = More information needed.

5 Organisms listed at the level of genus, although regarded as quarantine pests because of their uncertain identity, are not 

considered for further analysis as their identity is not defined clearly enough to ensure that the risk assessment is 

performed on a distinct organism (IPPC, 2004).
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 7

Pest Geographic

distribution3

Plant part

affected4

Quarantine pest5Follow 

pathway

References

Acari: Tetranychidae

Amphitetranychus viennensis

(Zacher) (= Tetranychus 

viennensis Zacher)

CN L, F Yes Yes Anonymous, 2003; 

CABI, 2005; Jeppson et 

al, 1975

Bryobia praetiosa Koch CN, HI, US L No No Bolland et al., 1998; 

Sandhu and Sohi, 1986

Bryobia rubrioculus (Scheuten) CN, US L, S No No Bolland et al., 1998; 

Jeppson et al., 1975

Eotetranychus sexmaculatus (Riley) CN, US L No No Denmark, 1964; Soma 

et al., 2002; Tna, 1986

Eutetranychus orientalis (Klein) CN L Yes No Bolland et al., 1998; 

Jeppson et al., 1975

Oligonychus biharensis (Hirst) AS, CN, HI L Yes No Bolland et al., 1998; 

Jeppson et al., 1975

Panonychus citri (McGregor) CN, HI, US L No No CABI, 2005; 

Kishimoto, 2002

Panonychus ulmi (Koch) CN, US L No No CABI, 2005; 

Kishimoto, 2002

Tetranychus kanzawai Kishida CN, US L No No Bolland et al., 1998; 

CABI, 2005; 

Kishimoto, 2002

Tetranychus truncatus Ehara CN, GU L Yes No Bolland et al., 1998; 

CABI, 2005

Tetranychus urticae Koch CN, HI, PR, 

US

L No No Bolland et al., 1998; 

CABI, 2005; 

Kishimoto, 2002

Coleoptera: Bruchidae

Bruchus pisorum (L.) CN, US I No No CABI, 2005; Hua, 

2002; Korea Forest 

Service, 2004c

Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) CN Sd No6 No7 CABI, 2007; Hua, 

2002; Korea Forest 

Service, 2004c

Coleoptera: Buprestidae

Scintillatrix djingischani

(Obenberger)

CN Br8 Yes No Hua, 2002; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Scintillatrix pretiosa (Mannerheim) CN Br8 Yes No Hua, 2002; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Chrysobothris succedanea Saunders CN Br9 Yes No Hua, 2002; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

 

6 Nonreportable/nonactionable pest (PestID, 2006) because it is a storage pest (NIS, 2007)

7 This beetle is a storage pest of seed (CABI, 2005)

8 Based on the biology of Scintillatrix dives (Hellrigl, 1984)

9 Based on the biology of Chrysobothris femorata (Solomon, 1995)
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 8

Pest Geographic

distribution3

Plant part

affected4

Quarantine pest5Follow 

pathway

References

Coleoptera: Cerambycidae10

Anoplophora chinensis (Forster) (= 

A. malasiaca (Thomson))

CN, HI, US L, R, S Yes No CABI, 2005; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Apriona germari (Hope) CN F, S Yes No11 Hua, 2002; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Bacchisa fortunei (Thomson) CN S Yes No She et al., 2005

Batocera lineolata Chevrolat CN Br Yes No11 Hua, 2002; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Mesosa myops (Dalman) CN Br Yes No11 Hua, 2002; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Nupserha marginella (Bates) CN Br Yes No11 Hua, 2002; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Oberea inclusa Pascoe CN Br Yes No11 Hua, 2002; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Oberea japonica (Thunberg) CN S, L Yes No Gressitt, 1951; Takashi, 

2006; Hua, 2002

Oberea nigriventris Bates CN S, L12 Yes No Hua, 2002; CABI, 2007

Purpuricenus lituratus Ganglbauer CN S, L Yes No Hua, 2002; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Purpuricenus temminckii (GuerinMeneville)CN Br Yes No11 Hua, 2002; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Trichoferus campestris (Faldermann) CN Br Yes No11 Hua, 2002; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae

Basilepta fulvipes (Motschulsky) CN L, R Yes No Hua, 2002; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Cassida versicolor (Boheman) CN L

13 Yes No Chûjô and Kimoto, 

1961; CABI, 2007

Cleoporus variabilis (Baly) CN L

14 Yes No Hua, 2002; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Cryptocephalus amiculus Baly CN R, S15 Yes No Hua, 2002; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c; 

CABI, 2007

Lypesthes ater (Motschulsky) CN L

14 Yes No Hua, 2002; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

 

10 Beetles in the family Cerambycidae lay their eggs under bark, and the larvae bore into the wood of the host plant (Gordh 

and Headrick, 2001).

11 Because of the size and mobility of adults, this pest is not expected to stay on the commodity through harvest and standard 

handling and processing.

12 Based on biology Oberea japonica

13 Based on the biology of Calopepla leayana (Latreille, 1807) (= Cassida leayana Olivier), since the needed information 

was unavailable for C. versicolor.

14 We found no information about this genus, but the family is generally known to be leaf-feeding.

15 Based on the biology of Acalymma vittatum (Fabricius) (= Cryptocephalus americanus Gmelin).
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 9

Pest Geographic

distribution3

Plant part

affected4

Quarantine pest5Follow 

pathway

References

Paropsides duodecimpustulata

(Gebler)

CN L

16 Yes No Chûjô and Kimoto, 

1961; Hua, 2002

Coleoptera: Curculionidae

Anthonomus pomorum L. CN L, I Yes No CABI, 2009; Molenda 

and Pitera, 2008

Rhynchites foveipennis Fairmaire CN L, I, F17 Yes No18 Hua, 2002; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c; 

INRA, 1998

Rhynchites heros Roelofs CN F, L Yes No18 Hua, 2002; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c; 

INRA, 1998

Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae

Cetonia pilifera (Motschulsky) CN No data 

available 19

Yes No19 Hua, 2002; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Glycyphana fulvistemma

Motschulsky

CN F Yes No19 Hua, 2002; PestID, 

2009

Protaetia (= Potosia) brevitarsis

(Lewis)

CN No data 

available 19

Yes No19 Anonymous, 2007; 

Hua, 2002; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Diptera: Cecidomyiidae

Contarinia pyrivora (Riley) CN 

(Shandong)

F, I, L Yes No20 Dong et al., 1997; Li 

and Qing, 1997

Diptera: Tephritidae

Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) CN, GU, HI F Yes Yes CABI, 2005; Mann, 

1997

Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae

Aleurocanthus spiniferus

(Quaintance)

CN, GU, HI L Yes No CABI, 2005

Hemiptera: Aphididae

Aphis gossypii Glover AS, CN, GU, 

HI, PR, US

I, L, S No No CABI, 2005; Kuo et al., 

2001

Aphis pomi DeGeer CN, US I, L No No CABI, 2005; Kuo et al., 

2001

Aphis rumicis L. CN, US L No No Hua, 2000; Jensen et 

al., 1999; Sandhu and 

Sohi, 1986

 

16 Based on the biology of Paropsides soriculata (Yan, 1994)

17 Based on the biology of Rhynchites auratus and R. bacchus (INRA, 1998). 

18 Damage to the fruit following oviposition results in premature fruit fall (Muramatsu, 1925; Katsumata, 1934; Tseng and

Ho, 1937; Hanson, 1963). Pest is unlikely to be present in mature fruit at harvest.

19 Many scarabs feed on plant materials such as grasses, foliage, fruits, and flowers, and some are serious pests of various 

agricultural crops (Borrer et al., 1989). It is assumed that only the adults attack the fruit, as the literature does not mention 

scarab larvae feeding on fruit. Because of its size, biology and/or mobility, this pest is unlikely to stay on the commodity 

through harvest, standard handling and processing.

20 Eggs are laid in unopened flower buds; larvae develop in fruitlets and cause premature fruit drop (RHS, 2002). The pest 

will not be present in mature, harvested fruit.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 10

Pest Geographic

distribution3

Plant part

affected4

Quarantine pest5Follow 

pathway

References

Aphis spiraecola Patch (= A. 

citricola van der Goot)

CN, HI, PR, 

US, VI

I, L No No CABI, 2005; Kuo et al., 

2001

Aulacorthum magnoliae (Essig and 

Kuwana)

CN L Yes No Blackman and Eastop, 

2000

Aulacorthum solani (Kaltenbach) CN, HI, PR, 

US

L No No CABI, 2005; Hua, 

2000; Jensen et al., 

1999; Korea Forest 

Service, 2004c

Brachycaudus helichrysi

(Kaltenbach)

CN, US F, I, L No Yes Blackman and Eastop, 

1994; CABI, 2005

Eriosoma lanigerum (Hausmann) CN, HI, US R, S No No CABI, 2005; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Hyalopterus pruni (Geoffroy) CN, GU, US L No No CABI, 2005; Hua, 

2000; Jensen et al., 

1999; Korea Forest 

Service, 2004c

Longicaudus trirhodus (Walker) CN, US S, L No No Hua, 2000; Jensen et 

al., 1999; Korea Forest 

Service, 2004c; Bruun, 

2006

Melanaphis siphonella (Essig and 

Kuwana)

CN L Yes No Blackman and Eastop, 

1994; Zhang et al., 

2001; Karczewska, 

1976

Myzus persicae (Sulzer) CN, HI, PR, 

US

L No No Blackman and Eastop, 

1994; CABI, 2005

Nippolachnus piri Matsumura CN L Yes No Blackman and Eastop, 

1994

Ovatus crataegarius (Walker) CN, HI, US L No No Blackman and Eastop,

1994; Hua, 2000; 

Jensen et al., 1999; 

Nishida, 2002

Phorodon humuli (Schrank) CN, US L No No CABI, 2005; Hua, 

2000; Korea Forest 

Service, 2004c

Prociphilus kuwanai Monzen CN L Yes No Hua, 2000; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Prociphilus oriens Mordvilko CN L Yes No Blackman and Eastop, 

1994

Rhopalosiphum nymphaeae (L.) CN, HI, PR, 

US

F, L, S No Yes Blackman and Eastop, 

1994; Hua, 2000; 

Jensen et al., 1999

Rhopalosiphum padi (L.) CN, HI, PR, 

US

L No No CABI, 2005; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 11

Pest Geographic

distribution3

Plant part

affected4

Quarantine pest5Follow 

pathway

References

Rhopalosiphum rufiabdominale

(Sasaki)

CN, GU, HI, 

PR, US

L, S No No Blackman and Eastop, 

1994; CABI, 2005; 

Jensen et al., 1999

Sappaphis piri Matsumura CN L Yes No Blackman and Eastop, 

1994

Schizaphis piricola (Matsumura) CN L Yes No Blackman and Eastop, 

1994

Toxoptera citricidus (Kirkaldy) CN, HI, PR, 

US, VI

L No No Blackman and Eastop, 

2000; CABI, 2005

Toxoptera odinae (van der Goot) CN L Yes No Blackman and Eastop, 

1994; Hua, 2000

Hemiptera: Cercopidae

Aphrophora costalis Matsumura CN S

21 Yes No22 Hua, 2000; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c; 

CABI, 2007

Eoscartopsis assimilis (Uhler) CN S

22 Yes No22 Hua, 2000; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Hemiptera: Cicadellidae

Arboridia apicalis (Nawa) CN L Yes No Hua, 2000; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c, 

Miyazaki, 1991

Bothrogonia japonica Ishihara CN No data 

available 23

Yes No22 Korea Forest Service, 

2004c

Cicadella viridis (L.) CN L

24 Yes No22 Hua, 2000; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c; 

CABI, 2007

Empoasca vitis (Goethe) CN L Yes No CABI, 2005; Hua, 

2000; Korea Forest 

Service, 2004c

Ledra auditura Walker CN No data 

available 23

Yes No22 Hua, 2000; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Penthimia nitida Lethierry CN No data 

available 23

Yes No22 Hua, 2000; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Stroggylocephalus agrestis (Fallén) CN, US No data 

available

23

No No22 Hua, 2000; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c; 

Van Duzee, 1917

Hemiptera: Cicadidae

Cryptotympana atrata (F.) CN R

25 Yes No She et al., 2005

 

21 Based on the biology of Philaenus spumarius Linnaeus (= Aphrophora spumaria (L.).

22 Because of its size and mobility, this pest is unlikely to stay on the commodity through harvest and standard handling and 

processing.

23 We found no information at the species or genus levels, but this family of insects is known for feeding on vegetative 

portions of plants.

24 Based on the biology of Cofana spectra (Distant) (= Cicadella spectra (Dist.).

25 Based on the biology of Cryptotympana dubia.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 12

Pest Geographic

distribution3

Plant part

affected4

Quarantine pest5Follow 

pathway

References

Cryptotympana dubia (Haupt) CN R Yes No Hua, 2000; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Graptopsaltria nigrofuscata

(Motschulsky)

CN R Yes No Hua, 2000; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Meimuna mongolica (Distant) CN R

26 Yes No22 Hua, 2000; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Platypleura kaempferi (F.) CN R Yes No22 Hua, 2000; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Hemiptera: Cixiidae

Cixius nervosus (L.) CN No data 

available

Yes No22 Hua, 2000; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Hemiptera: Coccidae

Ceroplastes ceriferus (F.) CN, GU, HI, 

PR, US, VI

L No No Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Korea Forest Service, 

2004c

Ceroplastes japonicus Green CN F, L, S Yes Yes CABI, 2005; 

Konstantinova and 

Gura, 1986

Ceroplastes pseudoceriferus Green CN L, S Yes No Ali, 1978; Ben-Dov et 

al., 2006

Ceroplastes rubens Maskell CN, GU, HI, 

PR, US

F, L, S Yes Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

CABI, 2005

Coccus hesperidum L. AS, CN, HI, 

PR, US, VI

L, S No No Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Korea Forest Service, 

2004c; CABI, 2005

Eulecanium cerasorum (Cockerell) 

(= Lecanium cerasorum Cockerell)

CN (Shanxi 

(=Shansi)), 

US

L No N Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Korea Forest Service, 

2004c

Eulecanium kunoense (Kuwana) (= 

Lecanium kunoensis Kuwana)

CN, US L, S No No Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Korea Forest Service, 

2004c

Parthenolecanium glandi (Kuwana) 

(= Lecanium glandi Kuwana)

CN L, S, Br27 Yes No Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Korea Forest Service, 

2004c; CABI, 2007

Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner) AS, CN, GU, 

HI, US, VI

L, F No Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Korea Forest Service, 

2004c; Biosecurity 

Australia, 2002

Saissetia oleae (Olivier) CN, HI, PR, 

US, VI

L, S No No Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

CABI, 2005

Hemiptera: Diaspididae

Andaspis hawaiiensis (Maskell) CN, HI, US S No No Ben-Dov et al., 2006

 

26 We found no information about this species or genus, but this family is known for feeding on roots of plants.

27 Based on the biology of Parthenolecanium corni and P. persicae (CABI, 2007) 
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 13

Pest Geographic

distribution3

Plant part

affected4

Quarantine pest5Follow 

pathway

References

Aulacaspis rosae (Bouché) CN, US L, S No No Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Watson, 2005

Diaspidiotus perniciosus (Comstock) 

(= Comstockaspis perniciosa

[Comstock])

CN, HI, US F, L, S No Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Korea Forest Service, 

2004c

Hemiberlesia lataniae (Signoret) CN, HI, PR, 

US, VI

F, L No Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Korea Forest Service, 

2004c

Lepidosaphes conchiformis (Gmelin) 

(= Lepidosaphes conchiformioides

Borchsenius)

CN, PR, US L No No Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Korea Forest Service, 

2004c

Lepidosaphes kuwacola Kuwana CN L, S, F28 Yes Yes29 Ben-Dov et al., 2006, 

CABI, 2007

Lepidosaphes tubulorum Ferris CN, GU L, S, F28 Yes Yes29 Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Korea Forest Service, 

2004c, CABI, 2007

Lepidosaphes ulmi (L.) CN, US F, L, S No Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

CABI, 2005

Lepidosaphes ussuriensis

(Borchsenius)

CN L, S Yes No Anonymous, 2005; 

Ben-Dov et al., 2006

Lopholeucaspis japonica (Cockerell) CN, US L, S No No Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

CABI, 2005

Parlatoria oleae (Colvée) CN 

(Xinjiang), 

US

F, L, S No Yes CABI, 2007; Pinhassi 

et al., 1996

Parlatoria pergandii Comstock CN, HI, PR, 

US

F, L, S No Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Korea Forest Service, 

2004c; Watson, 2005

Parlatoria proteus (Curtis) CN, HI, PR 

US

F, L, S No Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Watson, 2005

Parlatoria theae Cockerell CN, US S No No Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Watson, 2005

Pseudaonidia duplex (Cockerell) CN, HI, US Br, F, L No Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Korea Forest Service, 

2004c; Dekle, 1964

Pseudaulacaspis sp. CN F Yes Yes PestID, 2009

Pseudaulacaspis pentagona

(Targioni Tozzetti)

CN, GU, HI, 

PR, US, VI

S No No Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

CABI, 2005

Quadraspidiotus perniciosus

(Comstock)

CN, US L, S No No Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Sandhu and Sohi, 1986

Hemiptera: Eriococcidae

Asiacornococcus kaki (Kuwana) CN F Yes No30 PestID, 2009

 

28 Based on the biology of Lepidosaphes beckii, L. gloverii and L. ulmi (CABI, 2007).

29 The armored scales Lepidosaphes kuwacola and L. tubulorum were not analyzed because although they may enter on 

commercial fruit for consumption, they are not expected to establish via this pathway (Miller, 1985; PERAL, 2007).
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 14

Pest Geographic

distribution3

Plant part

affected4

Quarantine pest5Follow 

pathway

References

Hemiptera: Flatidae

Geisha distinctissima (Walker) CN L Yes No Hua, 2000; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Hemiptera: Margarodidae

Drosicha corpulenta (Kuwana) CN S Yes No Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Korea Forest Service, 

2004c

Icerya purchasi Maskell CN, GU, HI, 

PR, US

L, S No No Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Korea Forest Service, 

2004c

Hemiptera: Phylloxeridae

Aphanostigma iaksuiense (Kishida) 

(= Cinacium iaksuiense Kishida)

CN F Yes Yes Blackman and Eastop, 

1994; Chen and Wang, 

2001; Kishida, 1924

Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae

Dysmicoccus wistariae (Green) CN, US L No No Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Kosztarab, 1996

Phenacoccus aceris (Signoret) CN, US L, S No No Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Korea Forest Service, 

2004c

Phenacoccus pergandei Cockerell CN L, S, F, Br, 

I

31

Yes Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Korea Forest Service, 

2004c

Planococcus citri (Risso) CN, HI, PR, 

US

F, L, S No Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

CABI, 2005; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Planococcus kraunhiae (Kuwana) CN, HI, US

(CA32)

F, L, S33 Yes Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2006; 

Korea Forest Service, 

2004c, Ferris, 1918, 

Smith and Armitage, 

1931.

Pseudococcus calceolariae (Maskell) CN, US F, I, L, R, 

S

No Yes CABI, 2005; Charles, 

1993

Pseudococcus comstocki (Kuwana) CN, US F, L, S No Yes CABI, 2005; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c; 

PestID, 2009

 

30 After extensive checking of the scientific literature, this one interception of this pest on Pyrus pyrifolia is the only source 

of association between Asiacornococcus kaki and P. pyrifolia (PestID, 2009), Thus this host association is highly 

questionable.

31 Based on the biology of Phenacoccus manihoti. 

32 Ferris identified P. kraunhiae in California in 1919, but later stated that could have been P. citri. He stated that in 1943 a 

population, believed to be P. kraunhiae, was found on wisteria in Ojai, California, but that confirmation was needed by

comparing the specimens with Japanese specimens (Ferris, 1950). The isolated population of P. kraunhiae in California 

disappeared after a biological control program (Smith and Armitage, 1931). Planococus kraunhiae has not been reported in 

the United States since the report of the population in 1943.

33 Based on the biology of Planococcur citri.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 15

Pest Geographic

distribution3

Plant part

affected4

Quarantine pest5Follow 

pathway

References

Pseudococcus longispinus Targioni 

Tozzetti

CN, HI, PR, 

US

F, L, S No Yes CABI, 2005; Charles, 

1993

Hemiptera: Psyllidae

Cacopsylla chinensis (Yang and Li) CN I, L Yes No Liu et al., 2007; Yang 

et al., 2004

Cacopsylla pyri (L.) (= Psylla pyri

[L.])

CN F, L, S Yes No34 CABI, 2005; 

Milenkovic et al., 1998; 

Wille, 1950

Cacopsylla pyricola (Förster) (= 

Psylla pyricola Förster)

CN, US L No No CABI, 2005; Yue, 2001

Cacopsylla pyrisuga (Förster) (= 

Psylla pyrisuga Förster)

CN L Yes No CABI, 2005; Hua, 

2000; Korea Forest 

Service, 2004c

Cacopsylla qianli (Yang and Li) (= 

Psylla qianli Yang and Li)

CN L Yes No Chou and Fang, 1994; 

COA, 2008; Li and 

Yang, 1984; Yang et 

al., 2004

Heteroptera: Pentatomidae

Aelia acuminata (L.) CN F Yes No35 Hua, 2000; PestID, 

2009

Glaucias subpunctatus (Walker) CN F Yes No36 Hua, 2000; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Halyomorpha halys (Stål) CN, US L No No Hua, 2000; Hoebeke 

and Carter, 2003; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Homalogonia obtusa (Walker) CN L, F Yes No37 Hua, 2000; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Nezara antennata Scott CN F, L Yes No22 Korea Forest Service, 

2004c; Li et al., 2001

Nezara viridula (L.) AS, CN, GU, 

HI, PR, US, 

VI

F, L, S No No22 CABI, 2005; Hua, 

2000; Korea Forest 

Service, 2004c

Plautia stali Scott CN, HI F, L Yes No22 Hua, 2000; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c; 

Nishida, 2002

Heteroptera: Tingidae

 

34 Causes premature fruit drop (Wille, 1950).

35 Host range appears to be restricted to grasses (Poaceae), including the genera Festuca, Poa, Agrostis, Dactylis, Lolium, 

Bromus, Triticum, and Oryza (Hua, 2000; Panizzi et al., 2000), Juniperus chinensis (Cupressaceae), and Medicago

(Fabaceae) (Hua, 2000). The single record of this species on Pyrus pyrifolia (PestID, 2006) is an anomaly.

36 This species feeds upon fruit (Moriya, Shiga, & Mabuchi, 1987); however, because of its size and mobility, this pest is 

unlikely to stay on the commodity through harvest and standard handling and processing.

37 Homalogonia obtusa feeds upon leaves and fruit (Funayama, 2002). But because of its size and mobility, this pest is 

unlikely to stay on the commodity through harvest and standard handling and processing.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 16

Pest Geographic

distribution3

Plant part

affected4

Quarantine pest5Follow 

pathway

References

Stephanitis nashi Esaki and Takeya CN F, L Yes No38 GATC, 2004; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004b; 

PestID, 2009

Heteroptera: Urostylidae

Urostylis westwoodi Scott CN No data 

available

Yes No22 Hua, 2000; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c

Hymenoptera: Argidae

Arge sp. nr. fuscipes (Fallén) CN L Yes No Hoffmann, 1936

Hymenoptera: Cephidae

Janus piri Okamoto and Muramatsu CN S Yes No Liu, 2001

Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae

Caliroa cerasi L. CN, US L No No CABI, 2005; van 

Epenhuijsen and 

Carpenter, 1990

Lepidoptera: Arctiidae

Spilarctia (= Diacrisia) obliqua

(Walker)

CN L Yes No Sandhu and Sohi, 1986; 

Zhang, 1994

Lepidoptera: Carposinidae

Carposina sasakii Matsumura (= C.

niponensis Walsingham)

CN F, Sd Yes Yes CABI, 2005; PestID, 

2009

Lepidoptera: Cossidae

Holcocerus vicarius (Walker) CN S Yes No She et al., 2005

Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae

Metzneria sp. CN S Yes No Chang and Lin, 1939

Lepidoptera: Geometridae39

Ascotis selenaria (Denis and 

Schiffermüller)

CN L Yes No Hua, 2005; Robinson et 

al., 2001, 2007

Biston robustus Butler CN L Yes No Hua, 2005; Robinson et 

al., 2007

Cystidia couaggaria (Guenée) CN L Yes No Hua, 2005; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004a; 

Robinson et al., 2007

Hypomecis (= Boarmia) roboraria

(Denis and Schiffermüller)

CN L Yes No Hua, 2005; Massee, 

1944; Robinson et al., 

2007

Inurois fletcheri Inoue CN L Yes No HFRI, 2007; Hua, 

2005; Robinson et al., 

2007

Phigalia sinuosaria Leech CN L Yes No Chang and Lin, 1939; 

Hua, 2005

 

38 Pest is a leaf-feeder (e.g., GATC, 2004; Korea Forest Service, 2004). The single port interception on sand pear fruit 

(PestID, 2006) is not sufficient evidence of a true host association.

39 Larvae in the family Geometridae typically feed in “exposed habitat,” and the pupae occur in soil or leaf litter (Gordh and 

Headrick, 2001).
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 17

Pest Geographic

distribution3

Plant part

affected4

Quarantine pest5Follow 

pathway

References

Phthonosema tendinosaria (Bremer) CN No data 

available38

Yes No22 Hua, 2005; Robinson et 

al., 2007

Selenia sordidaria Leech CN No data 

available38

Yes No22 Hua, 2005; Robinson et 

al., 2007

Selenia tetralunaria (Hufnagel) CN No data 

available38

Yes No22 Hua, 2005; Robinson et 

al., 2007

Zethenia albonotaria (Bremer) CN L Yes No Hua, 2005; Qin et al., 

1997; Robinson et al., 

2007

Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae

Acrocercops astaurota Meyrick CN S Yes No Hua, 2005; Robinson et 

al., 2007

Spulerina astaurota (Meyrick) CN S, B Yes No Hua, 2005; Harukawa 

and Kumashiro, 1930; 

Robinson et al., 2007

Lepidoptera: Limacodidae

Parasa hilarata (Staudinger) CN L Yes No Hua, 2005; Mevzos, 

1935

Parasa lepida (Cramer) CN L Yes No CABI, 2005; Sandhu 

and Sohi, 1980

Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae

Euproctis fraterna (Moore) CN L Yes No Hua, 2005; Sandhu and 

Sohi, 1980

Sphrageidus similis Fuessly (= 

Euproctis similis [Fuessly], 

Porthesia similis [Fuessly])

CN F

40 Yes No40 CABI, 2005; Hua, 

2005; PestID, 2009

Lepidoptera: Pieridae

Aporia crataegi (L.) CN L Yes No Savela, 2007

Lepidoptera: Pyralidae

Acrobasis pyrivorella (Matsumura) 

(= Numonia pirivorella

[Matsumura])

CN F, I Yes Yes CABI, 2005; 

CABI/EPPO, 1997a

Conogethes punctiferalis (Guenée)

(= Dichocrocis punctiferalis)

CN, HI F Yes Yes CABI, 2005; Lee et al., 

2000; Nishida, 2002; 

Sandhu and Sohi, 1980

Ostrinia sp. CN F Yes Yes PestID, 2009

Lepidoptera: Saturniidae

Eriogyna pyretorum (Westwood) CN L Yes No Robinson et al., 2007; 

TPBG, 2007

Lepidoptera: Sphingidae

Marumba gaschkewitschii (Bremer 

and Grey)

CN Br Yes No Pittaway and Kitching, 

2007

 

40 This species has only been intercepted twice with pear (PestID, 2006). We found no other evidence of a host association 

between S. similis and sand pears, so this was likely a misidentification of the pest.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 18

Pest Geographic

distribution3

Plant part

affected4

Quarantine pest5Follow 

pathway

References

Lepidoptera: Tortricidae

Archips breviplicanus Walsingham CN F, L Yes No41 Hitomi, 1935; Hua, 

2005; Robinson et al., 

2007

Archips crataegana (Hübner) CN L Yes No Hua, 2005; Meijerman 

and Ulenberg, 2000; 

Robinson et al., 2007

Archips fuscocupreanus Walsingham CN F, I, L Yes No42 CABI, 2005; Hua, 

2005; Robinson et al., 

2007

Archips ingentana (Christoph) CN F

43 Yes No41 Hua, 2005; Robinson et 

al., 2007

Archips xylosteana (L.) CN L Yes No Hua, 2005; Meijerman 

and Ulenberg, 2000; 

Robinson et al., 2007

Cydia pomonella L. CN, US F No Yes CABI, 2005; Latorre et 

al., 1998

Grapholita inopinata (Heinrich) CN F, Sd Yes Yes CABI, 2005

Grapholita (= Cydia) molesta

(Busck)

CN, US F No Yes CABI, 2005; Lee et al., 

2000; Robinson et al., 

2007

Pandemis dumetana (Treitschke) CN L Yes No Hua, 2005; Meijerman 

and Ulenberg, 2000; 

Robinson et al., 2007

Pandemis heparana (Denis and 

Schiffermüller)

CN F, L Yes No44 Hua, 2005; Meijerman 

and Ulenberg, 2000; 

Robinson et al., 2007

Spilonota ocellana (Denis and 

Schiffermüller)

CN, US F, L No No45 CABI, 2004; Chang 

and Lin, 1939; Hua, 

2005

Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae

Illiberis pruni Dyar CN F, L Yes No46 Chang and Lin, 1939; 

Hua, 2005

Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae

Holochlora japonica Brunner von 

Wattenwyl

CN, HI No data 

available

Yes No

22 Hua, 2000; Korea 

Forest Service, 2004c; 

Nishida, 2002

 

41 Larvae may feed on the surface of fruit (Hitomi, 1935), but are unlikely to remain with fruit through harvest and 

processing.

42 Larvae may graze on the surface of fruit (CABI, 2005), but are unlikely to remain with fruit through harvest and 

processing.

43 Based on the biology of Archips breviplicanus, A.crataegana, A.fuscocupreanus, and A. xylosteana.

44 Larvae may feed on the surface of fruit (Meijerman and Ulenberg, 2000), but are unlikely to remain with fruit through 

harvest and processing.

45 Superficial fruit feeding: unlikely to remain with fruit through harvest and processing.

46 The larvae primarily leaf-feed but may also feed on young fruit (Chang and Lin, 1939).
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 19

Pest Geographic

distribution3

Plant part

affected4

Quarantine pest5Follow 

pathway

References

Tegra novaehollandiae De Haan CN S Yes No She et al., 2005

PLANT PATHOGENS

Viroids

Apple scar skin (Pospiviroidae) CN, US F, L, R, S, 

Sd

No Yes CABI, 2005; Jones and 

Aldwinckle, 1990

Apple scar skin -Pear fruit crinkle 

variant (Pospiviroidae) 

CN 

(Shamloul, et 

al., 2004)

F, L, R, S, 

Sd

Yes Yes47 CABI, 2006; Shamloul 

et al., 2004

Apple scar skin- Pear rusty skin 

viroid variant (Pospiviroidae)

CN 

(Shamloul, et 

al., 2004)

F, L, R, S, 

Sd

Yes Yes47 CABI, 2006; Shamloul 

et al., 2004

Pear blister canker (Pospiviroidae) CN, US F, L, S No Yes Shamloul et al., 2004; 

Wang et al., 2005

Viruses

Apple chlorotic leaf spot virus (Pear 

ring pattern) (Flexiviridae)

CN, US All parts No Yes Brunt et al., 1996; 

CABI, 2005

Apple stem grooving virus (Pear 

stem grooving) (Flexiviridae)

CN, US F, L, S No Yes Brunt et al., 1996; 

CABI, 2005

Apple stem pitting virus (Pear 

necrotic spot, Pear vein yellows) 

(= pear necrotic spot) 

(Flexiviridae)

CN, US All parts No Yes Brunt et al., 1996; 

CABI, 2005; Hou et al., 

2005

Bacteria

Erwinia carotovora subsp. 

carotovora (Jones) Bergey et al. 

(Enterobacteriales)

CN, AS, HI, 

PR, US

F No Yes CABI, 2005; Hseu et 

al., 2001

Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae

van Hall (Pseudomonadales)

CN, PR, US I, L, S No No CABI, 2005; Latorre, 

1998

Fungi 48

Alternaria sp. (Dothideomycetes) CN F Yes Yes Multiple PestID, 2009s

Alternaria alternata (Fries) Keissler 

(Ascomycetes: Pleosporales)

CN, HI, PR, 

US, VI

F, I, L No Yes Farr et al., 2006; Jones 

and Aldwinckle, 1990

Alternaria gaisen Nagano (= A. 

kikuchiana S. Tanaka) 

(Ascomycetes: Pleosporales)

CN F, I, L Yes Yes CABI/EPPO, 1997b; 

Farr et al., 2006; Jones 

and Aldwinckle, 1990 

 

47 The fruit and seeds may contain the viroid but the disease is not seed-transmitted (CABI, 2006): “While the viroid [apple 

scar skin viroid (not specifically this variant)] has been detected in apple and pear seed samples, it has not been shown to 

be seed-transmitted (Hadidi et al., 1991; Howell et al., 1998; Koganezawa et al., 2003). Similarly, we found no evidence of 

seed-transmission in oriental pear (Hurtt and Podleckis, 1995).” Apple scar skin viroid and its variants are spread by 

budding and grafting of propagative material (CABI, 2006). Consequently, the pathogen is unlikely to be introduced by 

infected fruit. For this reason, we will not analyze these viroids. 

48 Fungal taxonomy and nomenclature sources for these entries are Farr, et al., 2006 (SMML) and Index Fungorum, 2007. 

Taxonomic treatment of several species may differ from earlier RAs for similar commodities or exporting countries, 

reflecting new techniques employed to differentiate fungal species. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 20

Pest Geographic

distribution3

Plant part

affected4

Quarantine pest5Follow 

pathway

References

Armillaria tabescens (Scop.) Dennis, 

Orton and Hora (= Armillariella

tabescens (Scop.) Singer) 

(Basidiomycetes: Agaricales)

CN, US R No No Farr et al., 2006

Aureobasidium pullulans (de Bary) 

Arnaud (= Dematium pullulans de 

Bary and Löwenthal) 

(Ascomycetes: Dothideales) 

CN, HI, US F, I No Yes Farr et al., 2006; Kirk, 

2004a; Spotts and 

Cervantes, 2002

Botryosphaeria obtusa (Schwein.) 

Shoem. (= Physalospora obtusa

(Schwein.) Cooke (Ascomycetes:

Dothideales)

CN, HI, US F, L, S No Yes Farr et al., 2006; Jones 

and Aldwinckle, 1990

Botryosphaeria rhodina (Berk. and 

M.A. Curtis) Arx (= Physalospora 

rhodina Cooke,) (Ascomycetes:

Dothideales)

CN, HI, PR, 

US

F, S No Yes Farr et al., 2006; Kirk, 

2004b

Botryotinia fuckeliana (de Bary) 

Whetzel (Anamorph: Botrytis 

cinerea Pers.: Fr.) (Ascomycetes: 

Helotiales)

CN, HI, PR, 

US, VI

F, I, L, S No Yes Farr et al., 2006

Capnophaeum fuliginoides (Rehm) 

W. Yamam. (= Capnodium 

fuliginodes Rehm) (Ascomycetes: 

Capnodiales)

CN S Yes No Farr et al., 2006; 

Saccardo, 1882; Index 

Fungorum, 2007

Chondrostereum purpureum

(Pers.:Fr.) Pouzar 

(Basidiomycetes: Polyporales)

CN, US S No No Farr et al., 2006

Colletotrichum acutatum J.H. 

Simmonds (Ascomycetes: 

Phyllachorales)

CN, US F No Yes Farr et al., 2006

Coniothyrium piricola Potebnia 

(Ascomycetes: Pleosporales)

CN L Yes No Farr et al., 2006; Index 

Fungorum, 2007; 

Rodionova, 1973 

Diaporthe eres Nitschke (anamorph: 

Phomopsis oblonga (Desm.) 

Traverso) (Ascomycetes: 

Diaporthales)

CN, US S, F, L, I No Yes CABI, 2005; Farr et al., 

2006

Diplocarpon mespili (Sorauer) B. 

Sutton (anamorph: 

Entomosporium maculatum Lév., 

E. mespili [DC.] Sacc.) 

(Ascomycetes: Helotiales)

CN, HI, US F, L No Yes Farr et al., 2006

Glomerella cingulata (Stonem.) 

Spauld. and Schrenk (anamorph: 

Colletotrichum gloeosporioides

(Penz.) Penz. and Sacc. in Penz. 

(Ascomycetes: Incertae sedis)

CN, AS, GU, 

HI, PR, US

F No Yes Farr et al., 2006; Kirk, 

2004c
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 21

Pest Geographic

distribution3

Plant part

affected4

Quarantine pest5Follow 

pathway

References

Guignardia pyricola (Nose) W. 

Yamamoto (= Physalospora 

pyricola Nose; Botryosphaeria 

berengeriana f. sp. piricola (Nose) 

Kogan. & Sakuma; Anamorph: 

Fusicoccum sp.) (Ascomycetes: 

Dothideales)

CN, AS S, L, F Yes Yes CABI, 2005; Farr et al., 

2006; She et al., 2005

Gymnosporangium asiaticum

Miyabe ex G. Yamada (= G. 

haraeanum Syd. and P. Syd) 

(Urediniomycetes: Uredinales)

CN, US L, S No No CABI, 2005; Farr et al., 

2006

Gymnosporangium clavariiforme

(Wulfen) DC. (Urediniomycetes: 

Uredinales)

CN, US L, S No No CABI, 2005; Farr et al., 

2006

Hendersonia piricola Sacc. 

(Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) 

CN L Yes No Farr et al., 2006; 

Saccardo, 1884

Leucostoma persoonii (Nitschke) 

Hohn. (anamorph: Cytospora 

leucostoma Sacc.) (Ascomycetes: 

Diaporthales)

CN, US S No No Farr et al., 2006

Macrosporium pirorum Cooke 

(Ascomycetes: Pleosporales)

CN, US L No No Farr et al., 2006; 

Saccardo, 1886; Index 

Fungorum, 2007

Monilinia fructicola (G. Winter) 

Honey (Ascomycetes: Helotiales)

CN, US F, I, S No Yes Farr et al., 2006, 2007; 

Jones and Aldwinckle, 

1990

Monilinia fructigena Honey in 

Whetzel (anamorph: Monilia 

fructigena Pers.:Fr.) 

(Ascomycetes: Helotiales)

CN, US49 F Yes Yes Farr et al., 2006; Jones 

and Aldwinckle, 1990

Mycosphaerella pyri (Auersw.) 

Boerema (= M. sentina (Fr.) 

Schröt.) (Ascomycetes: 

Mycosphaerellales) (anamorph: 

Septoria piricola Desm.) 

(Ascomycetes: Mycosphaerellales)

CN, US F, L No Yes CABI, 2005; Farr et al., 

2006; Tu, 1933

Nectria cinnabarina (Tode:Fr.) Fr. 

(Ascomycetes: Hypocreales)

CN, HI, US S No No Farr et al., 2006

Nectria pseudotrichia Berk. and 

M.A. Curtis (= Thyronectria 

pseudotrichia [Berk. and M.A. 

Curtis] Seeler) (Ascomycetes: 

Hypocreales)

CN, HI, PR, 

US, VI

S No No Becker, 2003; Farr et 

al., 2006

 

49 False record for Florida; detection in Maryland no longer present (CABI, 2007).
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 22

Pest Geographic

distribution3

Plant part

affected4

Quarantine pest5Follow 

pathway

References

Neonectria ditissima (Tul. and C. 

Tul.) Samuels and Rossman (= 

Nectria galligena Bres.) 

(Ascomycetes: Hypocreales)

CN, US F, S No Yes Farr et al., 2006

Ochropsora ariae (Fuckel) Ramsb. 

(Urediniomycetes: Uredinales)

CN L Yes No Farr et al., 2006

Oidium sp. (Ascomycetes: 

Erysiphales)

CN F, I, L Yes Yes Farr et al., 2006; Jones 

and Aldwinckle, 1990

Ovulariopsis sp. (Ascomycetes) CN L Yes No Farr et al., 2006

Penicillium aurantiogriseum Dierckx 

(= P. cyclopium Westling) 

(Ascomycetes: Eurotiales)

CN, US F No Yes Farr et al., 2006

Penicillium expansum Link 

(Ascomycetes: Eurotiales)

CN, US F No Yes Sharma, 1990a

Pestalotia breviseta Sacc. 

(Coelomycetes: Melanconiales)

CN, HI, US F, L No Yes Farr et al., 2006

Phaeodothis winteri (Niessl) Aptroot 

(= Didymosphaeria winteri Niessl) 

(Ascomycetes: Pleosporales)

CN, HI, US S No No Farr et al., 2006; Kirk, 

2004e; Saccardo, 1882

Phellinus noxius (Corner) G. Cunn. 

(= Fomes noxius Corner) 

(Basidiomycetes: 

Hymenochaetales)

CN, AS, PR S Yes No CABI, 2005; Farr et al., 

2006

Phlyctema vagabunda Desm (= 

Gloeosporium album Osterw.) 

(Ascomycetes: Helotiales)

CN, US F No Yes Farr et al., 2006

Phoma pomorum var. pomorum

Thüm. (= P. pomorum Thüm., 

Coniothyrium pyrinum (Sacc.) J. 

Sheld., Phyllosticta pyrina Sacc., 

P. pirina Sacc.) (Ascomycetes: 

Pleosporales)

CN, US F, L No Yes Farr et al., 2006; Jones 

and Aldwinckle, 1990

Phomopsis fukushii S. Tanaka and 

Endo (Ascomycetes: Diaporthales)

CN S Yes No Farr et al., 2006; 

Petrak, 1938

Phyllactinia guttata (Wallr.) Lév. (= 

P. corylea (Pers.) P. Karst., P. 

suffulta (Rebent.) Sacc.) 

(Ascomycetes: Erysiphales)

CN, US L No No Farr et al., 2006; CABI, 

2005

Phyllactinia mali (Duby) U. Braun 

(= P. pyri (Castagne) Homma) 

(Ascomycetes: Erysiphales)

CN, US L No No Heluta and Minter, 

1998; Kirk, 2004d

Phyllactinia pyri-serotinae Sawada 

(Ascomycetes: Erysiphales)

CN L Yes No Farr et al., 2006; 

Petrak, 1939; Watson, 

1971

Phyllosticta sp. (Ascomycetes: 

Dothideales)

CN F, L Yes Yes Farr et al., 2006
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 23

Pest Geographic

distribution3

Plant part

affected4

Quarantine pest5Follow 

pathway

References

Phytophthora cactorum (Lebert and 

Cohn) J. Schröt. (Oomycetes: 

Pythiales)

CN, HI, PR, 

US

R, S No No Farr et al., 2006

Phytophthora cryptogea Pethybr. and 

Laff. (Oomycetes: Pythiales)

CN, HI, US R, S No No CABI, 2005; Farr et al.,

2006; Nichols et al., 

1964

Podosphaera leucotricha (Ellis and 

Everh.) Salmon (anamorph: 

Oidium farinosum Cooke) 

(Ascomycetes: Erysiphales)

CN, US F, I, L, S No Yes CABI, 2005; Farr et al.,

2006

Pseudocercospora mali (Ellis and 

Everh.) Deighton (= Cercospora 

mali Ellis and Everh.) 

(Ascomycetes: Mycosphaerellales)

CN, US L No No Farr et al., 2006

Pseudocercospora piricola (Sawada) 

J.M. Yen (= Cercospora piricola

Sawada) (Ascomycetes: 

Mycosphaerellales)

CN L Yes No Farr et al., 2006; Kirk, 

2004f; Watson, 1971

Rhizopus stolonifer (Ehrenb.:Fr.) 

Vuill. (= R. nigricans Ehrenb.) 

(Zygomycetes: Mucorales)

CN, HI, PR, 

US, VI

F No Yes Farr et al., 2006; Lin et 

al., 2002

Rhytidhysteron rufulum (Spreng.:Fr.) 

Speg. (= Tryblidiella fusca (Ellis 

and Everh.) Rehm, T. rufula

(Spreng.:Fr.) Sacc.) (Ascomycetes: 

Patellariales)

CN, GU, HI, 

PR, US

S No No Farr et al., 2006

Rosellinia necatrix Prill. 

(Ascomycetes: Xylariales)

CN, US R No No Farr et al., 2006

Schizothyrium pomi (Mont. and Fr.) 

Arx (= Leptothyrium pomi (Mont. 

and Fr.) Sacc.) (Ascomycetes: 

Microthyriales) 

CN, PR, US, 

VI

F No Yes Farr et al., 2006

Septobasidium tanakae (Miyabe) 

Boedijn and B.A. Steinm. 

(Urediniomycetes: 

Septobasidiales)

CN S Yes No CASI, 1994; Farr et al., 

2006; McRitchie, 1991

Taphrina bullata (Berk. and Broome) 

Tul. (Taphrinomycetes: 

Taphrinales)

CN, US L No No Farr et al., 2006

Trichothecium roseum (Pers.:Fr.) 

Link (= Cephalothecium roseum

Corda) (Ascomycetes: Incertae 

sedis)

CN, HI, US F, L, S No Yes Farr et al., 2006
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 24

Pest Geographic

distribution3

Plant part

affected4

Quarantine pest5Follow 

pathway

References

Valsa ambiens subsp. ambiens

(Pers.:Fr.) Fr. (anamorph: 

Cytospora carphosperma Sacc., C. 

leucosperma (Pers.:Fr.) Fr.) 

(Ascomycetes: Diaporthales)

CN, US S No No Farr et al., 2006

Venturia inaequalis (Cooke) G. 

Winter (anamorph: Fusicladium 

pomi (Fr.: Fr.) Lind (Ascomycetes: 

Pleosporales) 

CN, US F No Yes Farr et al., 2006

Venturia nashicola S. Tanaka and S. 

Yamamoto50

(anamorph: Fusicladium nashicola

K. Schub. and U. Braun) 

(Ascomycetes: Pleosporales)

CN F, L, S Yes Yes CMI, 1965; Farr et al., 

2006; Ishiiand Yanase, 

2000; Le Cam, et al., 

2001

Venturia pyrina Aderhold (= V. 

pirina Aderh., anamorph: 

Fusicladium pyrorum (Lib.) 

Fuckel, F. pyrinum (Lib.) Fuckel) 

(Ascomycetes: Pleosporales)

CN, US F, L, S No Yes Farr et al., 2006; Jones 

and Aldwinckle, 1990

Verticillium dahliae Kleb. 

(Ascomycetes: Hypocreales)

CN, US Whole 

plant

No No Farr et al., 2006; CABI, 

2005

Nematodes

Xiphinema hunaniense Wang and 

Wu (Xiphinematidae)

CN R

51 Yes No Chen et al., 2004b; Xu 

et al., 1995

Xiphinema insigne Loos 

(Xiphinematidae)

CN R

52 Yes No Chen et al., 2004a; Xu 

et al., 1995

 

50 Due to the complexity and uncertainty of the taxonomy of V. nashicola, we considered it to be a quarantine pest, different 

from V. pirina (alternate spelling: V. pyrina). Distinguishing V. nashicola from V. pirina based on morphological 

characteristics remains problematic, although “morphological differences and physiological specialization were reported 

between these two species by different authors” (Le Cam, et al. 2001). “Based on nucleotide sequence of rDNA, V. 

nashicola is [closely related] to V. pirina and both are genetically distinct from the Venturia spp. found on other fruit 

trees” (Le Cam, et al. 2001). Ishii and Yanase (2000) concluded that V. nashicola was distinct from V. pirina, 

demonstrating host specificity and sexual barrier. 

51 Isolated from the rhizosphere of Pyrus pyrifolia (Chen et al., 2004b), and presumably associated with roots.

52 Isolated from the rhizosphere of Pyrus pyrifolia (Chen et al., 2004b), and presumably associated with roots.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 25

Quarantine pests that reasonably can be expected to follow the pathway (i.e., be included in 

shipments of Chinese sand pear fruit) are subjected to steps 5-7 (PPQ, 2000) in the following 

sections of this risk assessment. We listed these pests below (Table 4). Pests listed at the level of 

genus or higher were not considered for further analysis for lack of evidence that these 

organisms posed risks. Other organisms on the pest list (Table 3), but not chosen for further 

scrutiny, were excluded for a variety of reasons: they are well established and widespread in the 

United States; they are associated mainly with plant parts other than the commodity; they are

associated with the commodity, but are unlikely to remain with the commodity during 

processing; or they have been intercepted on rare occasions, as biological contaminants, by U.S. 

agricultural officers during inspections of the commodity and are unlikely to be found frequently

with commercial shipments. However, risk is a dynamic concept since pest distributions are fluid 

and pest mitigations evolve. As information on new hazards or new mitigations is identified, the 

findings of this assessment may be updated.

The armored scales (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) Lepidosaphes kuwacola and L. tubulorum were not 

analyzed, because although armored scales may enter on commercial fruit for consumption, they

are not expected to establish via this pathway (Miller, 1985; PERAL, 2007). PERAL concluded 

that even if high quantities of imported fruit are infested with armored scale species, armored 

scales pose a very low risk to establish via a commercial fruit pathway (applies to commercial 

fruit shipped without leaves, stems, or contaminants). This is explained by the poor motility of 

armored scales to new host plants from fruits for consumption. The following characteristics of 

armored scales contribute to their poor dispersal capabilities: 

 Legs and wings are absent in females and in feeding immature forms; only short-lived 

males possess wings, and they do not feed and tend to mate with nearby females.

 Self-dispersal of armored scales occurs by immature forms, or “crawlers.” They are the 

most vulnerable life stage, survival of which decreases with long distance wind dispersal. 

Crawlers passively disperse by wind from one plant to another for only about 24 hours. 

After crawlers start feeding, they do not disperse further because they soon lose their legs 

and are anchored firmly to the host by their mouthparts.

 Dispersal from fruit discarded in the environment is considered very unlikely because of

low wind speeds at ground level, and low survival rate of crawlers, either on the ground, 

on decaying fruit, or on fruit peels. Crawlers are highly unlikely to walk away from their 

natal host because they cannot move rapidly over bare soil or rough surfaces.

Table 4. Quarantine Pests Selected for Further Analysis.

Type Pest Taxonomy

Arthropods Acrobasis pyrivorella Lepidoptera: Pyralidae

Amphitetranychus viennensis Acari: Tetranychidae

Aphanostigma iaksuiense Hemiptera: Phylloxeridae

Bactrocera dorsalis Diptera: Tephritidae

Calepitrimerus neimongolensis Acari: Eriophyidae

Carposina sasakii Lepidoptera: Carposinidae

Ceroplastes japonicus Hemiptera: Coccidae

Ceroplastes rubens Hemiptera: Coccidae
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 26

Type Pest Taxonomy

Conogethes punctiferalis Lepidoptera: Pyralidae

Grapholita inopinata Lepidoptera: Tortricidae

Guignardia pyricola Ascomycetes: Dothideales

Phenacoccus pergandei Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae

Planococcus kraunhiae Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae

Fungi Alternaria gaisen Ascomycetes: Pleosporales

Monilinia fructigena Discomycetes: Helotiales

Venturia nashicola Ascomycetes: Pleosporales

2.5. Consequences of Introduction—Economic/Environmental Importance

We rated the consequences of introduction using five risk elements: Climate-Host Interaction, 

Host Range, Dispersal Potential, Economic Impact, and Environmental Impact. These elements 

reflect the biology, host ranges and climatic/geographic distributions of the pests. For each risk 

element, we assigned pests a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points) or High (3 points)

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

Our Consequences of Introduction ratings for each pest are summarized below (Table 5).

Acrobasis pyrivorella (Matsumura) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Acrobasis pyrivorella, or pear fruit moth, is indigenous to the temperate zone of 

eastern Asia, where it is widely distributed (CABI, 2007). In China, it has primarily

been reported from temperate provinces, perhaps in the Guangdong province. The 

moth is known to occur in Taiwan, which ranges from subtropical to tropical 

conditions. Given these broad climatic tolerances, this species could survive in most 

of the United States (Plant Hardiness Zones 3-10).

High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

This moth apparently is restricted to hosts in the genus Pyrus (CABI, 2007).

Low (1)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Female pear fruit moths may deposit as many as 120 eggs near new flower buds

(CABI, 2007). Larvae penetrate and feed within buds and fruits. There may be two 

generations in warmer regions. Natural spread of the moth occurs only over short 

distances; the main means of long-distance spread is through infested nursery stock.

Infested fruit also may carry the pest, although its presence in fruit is said to be 

conspicuous (fruits are normally retarded in growth and turn black with a shriveled

appearance) (CABI, 2007). No interceptions for A. pyrivorella have been reported 

(CABI, 2007).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Pear fruit moth is said to present a risk to all pear-growing regions (CABI, 2007). 

In the far eastern parts of Russia, the moth is rated as the most serious pest of 

cultivated pears, with losses as high as 90 percent of crops. It also is considered to 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 27

Acrobasis pyrivorella (Matsumura) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Risk ratings

be of economic importance in Japan.

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Because of its restricted host range, pear fruit moth is not expected to pose a 

significant threat to Endangered or Threatened plants. No species of Pyrus currently

is listed in Title 50, Part 17, Section 12 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (50 

CFR §17.12). However, because pears are cultivated commercially throughout the 

United States (in at least nine states; NASS, 2002), introduction of this pest likely

would stimulate the initiation of biological or chemical control programs.

Medium (2)

Alternaria gaisen Nagano (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

The native distribution of A. gaisen, black spot of Japanese pear, extends from the 

temperate zone to the tropics of East Asia, in China, Japan, and Korea (CABI, 

2004; EPPO, 1997b). It also has been reported to have restricted distribution in 

France and Italy in Europe, introduced in 1991 (CABI, 2005). The host range for 

this pathogen is narrow (below). P. pyrifolia can be cultivated in U.S. plant 

hardiness zones 5-8 (Evans, 2003). Based on reported host climate requirements 

and areas where the pathogen is currently established, this species could establish in 

at least four plant hardiness zones (5-8) in the United States, so we rated it High.

High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

Black spot of Japanese pear is restricted to P. pyrifolia (CABI, 2007).

Low (1)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Under warm, moist conditions masses of conidia of black spot of Japanese pear 

form on leaf debris (EPPO, 1997b), indicating a high reproductive rate, which is 

typical for related species of Alternaria. Conidia (spores) are disseminated by wind 

and rain (CABI, 2007; EPPO, 1997b). The fungus overwinters on infected buds, 

leaves, and shoots, and in wounds on pear trees as a saprophyte (Jones and 

Aldwinckle, 1990), and survives in a resting state in soil (EPPO, 1997b); disease 

incidence increases rapidly during rainy periods in the spring and early summer 

(Jones and Aldwinckle, 1990). Fruits, or infected planting material with leaves 

transported in trade can spread the pathogen long distances (EPPO, 1997b).

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Severe infestations cause premature leaf and fruit drop (Jones and Aldwinckle, 

1990). The disease is particularly serious in the Nijisseiki pear, which is the most 

common cultivar of P. pyrifolia in the United States (BES, 1995). Infection may kill 

young shoots (CABI, 2007). Apart from the use of fungicides (CABI, 2007), 

control consists of bagging young fruits to protect them from infection (Jones and 

Aldwinckle, 1990), which increases costs of production. As this pest is little known 

outside of East Asia, its wide establishment in the United States could cause the loss 

of domestic and foreign markets. However, the only host has extremely limited 

commercial production in the United States.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Because of its restricted host range, black spot of Japanese pear is not expected to 

Medium (2)
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 28

Alternaria gaisen Nagano (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) Risk ratings

pose a significant threat to plants listed as Endangered or Threatened. No species of 

Pyrus currently is listed in 50 CFR §17.12. However, because pears are cultivated 

commercially in the United States, introduction of this pest could stimulate the 

initiation of biological or chemical control programs.

Amphitetranychus viennensis (Zacher) (Acari: Tetranychidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Amphitetranychus viennensis has been reported from Austria, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, 

China (numerous Chinese provinces), Georgia (Republic), Germany, Hungary, 

Iran, Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu), Korea (DPR), Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russia 

(Central Russia and Russian Far East), Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Turkey, Ukraine, 

United Kingdom, Uzbekistan (CABI, 2007). These countries represent hardiness 

zone ranges of 5–10 (High).

High

(3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

Amphitetranychus viennensis has a wide host range including, Rosaceae: Crataegus

spp., Cydonia oblonga, , Fragaria, Malus spp., Prunus spp., Pyrus spp.;

Malvaceae: Gossypium; Moraceae: Ficus carica; Fabaceae: Arachis hypogaea;

Fagaceae: Quercus mongolica subsp. mongolica; Betulaceae: Corylus avellana;

Tiliaceae: Tilia spp.

High

(3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

The most frequent means of natural dispersal by A. viennensis is by crawling from 

one part of a plant to another. Longer distance movement takes place when a mite is 

carried by the wind while attached to a line of web (CABI, 2007). Tetranychus spp. 

mites can also be transported long distances through human travel and trade. Of the 

2,800 reported mite interceptions by U.S. port officers, nearly 15% were on fruit in 

commercial shipments (PestID, 2009). The lifetime egg production potential of 

this species can be up to 29 eggs (Skorupska, 1999), and in China, A. viennensis

has been reported to produce from 6 to 10 generations per year (Wei and Ding, 

2007).

Medium

(2)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Amphitetranychus viennensis is a leading pest in apple and plum orchards in the 

Gutian area of Fujian province (Ding, 2006; Wei and Ding, 2007). Additionally, 

it is also a major pest of other fruit trees such as sweet cherry, sour cherry, peach 

and sand pear, while it is considered to be a minor pest of cotton (CABI, 2007).

In China, infestations of A. viennensis in apple orchards resulted in production 

loss up to almost 79% (CABI, 2007). If established in the United States, A. 

viennensis could be expected to increase commodity production costs.

International trade restrictions could result from establishment in the United 

States, since A. viennensis is a quarantine pest for Canada as well as for the

United States (EPPO, 2007). Likewise, its establishment in portions of the United 

States could lead to internal quarantines.

High

(3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

The host plants for A viennensis are mostly commercially produced, which would 

Medium

(2)
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 29

Amphitetranychus viennensis (Zacher) (Acari: Tetranychidae) Risk ratings

probably be treated, in the event of an infestation by A. viennensis; however, wild 

hosts may not receive such treatment. The major environmental concern is the 

potential for adverse impact on the endangered species of Prunus geniculata and

Quercus hinckleyi by A. viennensis.

Aphanostigma iaksuiense (Kishida) (Hemiptera: Phylloxeridae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Aphanostigma iaksuiense is restricted to East Asia (China, Japan, Korea) 

(Blackman and Eastop, 2000; Hua, 2000). In China, it occurs as far north as 

Liaoning Province (Hua, 2000). Based on this geographic range, we estimate the 

species could establish in the United States in Zones 4-11, which include the ranges 

of its host plants (NRCS, 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

This species has been recorded on Pyrus pyrifolia and P. communis (Blackman and

Eastop, 1994; Tai et al., 2004).

Low (1)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Nine generations per year of A. iaksuiense have been recorded in Sichuan Province, 

China (Fang, 1980). Maximal fecundity in the closely related species, A. piri

(Cholodkowsky and Mokrzecky), was 153 eggs per female under laboratory

conditions (Avidov and Harpaz, 1969). If the biology of A. iaksuiense is similar, its 

capacity for increase could be high. Adults are very small in size (Blackman and

Eastop, 2000), and alate forms may be unknown (Kishida, 1924), suggesting a 

limited potential for natural, long-distance dispersal. Also the species’ restricted 

distribution in East Asia and a complete lack of interception records at U.S. ports 

(PestID, 2006) suggest that it is not dispersed widely by human agency. Risk is 

estimated to be Medium.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Aphanostigma iaksuiense is a significant pest of pear in China (Fang, 1980) and 

Japan (Kishida, 1924). Chen and Wang (2001) reported fruit infestation rates of 14-

50 percent, resulting in yield losses of about 1-9 percent. Insecticidal applications,

fruit bagging, and mechanical methods, such as bark scraping (to destroy

overwintering eggs), are employed for control (Yoon and Lee, 1974; Chen and

Wang, 2001), increasing production costs. As it is a quarantine pest for Chile (PRF, 

2007), its introduction could result in a loss export markets for U.S. pears. Risk 

attending the potential economic impact of this species is estimated to be High.

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

This pest is unlikely to pose a threat to native plants in the United States. No species 

of Pyrus is listed in 50 CFR §17.12. However, as it is a significant pest of pear, its 

introduction could initiate chemical or biological control programs. The pest is 

subject to chemical control in pear production in China (Fang, 1980; Chen and

Wang, 2001) and Korea (Yoon and Lee, 1974). The influence of insect predators on 

A. iaksuiense population dynamics has been evaluated, providing a potential 

opportunity for the use of natural enemies in an integrated pest management 

Medium (2)
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 30

Aphanostigma iaksuiense (Kishida) (Hemiptera: Phylloxeridae) Risk ratings

program (Tai et al., 2004). Risk is estimated to be Medium.

Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Except for adventive populations in Guam and Hawaii, B. dorsalis is restricted to 

subtropical and tropical Asia (White and Elson-Harris, 1992). We estimate it could 

establish in the continental United States in Plant Hardiness Zones 9-11 and in U.S. 

territories.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

This species is extremely polyphagous. Recorded hosts include Coffea sp. 

(Rubiaceae), Ficus sp. (Moraceae), Prunus spp. (Rosaceae), Eugenia uniflora

(Myrtaceae), Mangifera spp. (Anacardiaceae), Citrus spp. (Rutaceae), Areca 

catechu (Arecaceae), Chrysophyllum cainito (Sapotaceae), Cucumis spp. 

(Cucurbitaceae), Dimocarpus longan (Sapindaceae), Diospyros kaki (Ebenaceae), 

Flacourtia indica (Flacourtiaceae), Punica granatum (Punicaceae), Ziziphus spp. 

(Rhamnaceae), Annona spp. (Annonaceae), Averrhoa carambola (Oxalidaceae), 

Carica papaya (Caricaceae), Malpighia glabra (Malpighiaceae), Muntingia 

calabura (Elaeocarpaceae), Persea americana (Lauraceae), Terminalia catappa

(Combretaceae), Musa x paradisiaca (Musaceae) (CABI, 2007); Passiflora 

mollisima (Passifloraceae), Juglans hindsii (Juglandaceae), Quassia simarouba

(Simaroubaceae), Solanum seaforthianum (Solanaceae), and Clausena lansium

(Rutaceae) (White and Elson-Harris, 1992).

High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Females deposit 3-30 eggs per host fruit; total fecundity per female may exceed 

1000 eggs (Fletcher, 1989a). There are several generations per year. Adults can fly

up to 65 km (Fletcher, 1989b) and infested fruit may be transported long distances, 

which disperses flies to previously uninfested areas (CABI, 2007). Like other 

dacine tephritids, B. dorsalis exhibits High reproductive and dispersal potentials.

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Economic losses resulting from attack by this pest are of three kinds (Harris, 1989): 

1) downgrading of quality caused by oviposition “stings,” which spoil the 

appearance of fruits, including those unfavorable for larval survival; 2) fruit 

spoilage caused by larval tunneling and the entry of organisms of decay; and 3) 

indirect damage in the form of lost markets resulting from the imposition of 

quarantine restrictions. In Hawaii, annual losses in major fruit crops caused by B. 

dorsalis may exceed 13 percent, or $3 million (Culliney, 2002).

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Phytophagous B. dorsalis is a threat to plants listed as Threatened or Endangered in 

50 CFR §17.12, and occurring in southern areas of the United States (e.g., Prunus 

geniculata, Ziziphus celata). Its entry and establishment would likely initiate 

chemical or biological control programs, as has occurred in Hawaii.

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 31

Calepitrimerus neimongolensis Kuang and Geng (Acari: Eriophyidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Calepitrimerus neimongolensis has only been reported from Nei Mongol, China

(Hong and Zhang, 1996). That region encompasses Plant Hardiness Zones 2-5,

which include the ranges of its host plants in the United States (NRCS, 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

This species has been recorded on Pyrus pyrifolia, P. bretschneideri, and Malus 

pumila (Rosaceae) (Hong and Zhang, 1996; Geng et al., 1999; Wang, 2000).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

We found no information on the reproductive or dispersal potentials of C. 

neimongolensis. Fecundity in eriophyoid mites has been reported to range from 50 

in Phytoptus emarginatae (K.) to 79 for Aculus fockeui (Nalepa and Trouessart) 

eggs per female, and several generations may occur annually (Jeppson et al., 1975).

If the biology of C. neimongolensis is similar, its biotic potential could be 

significant. Calepitrimerus spp. (e.g., C. vitis [Nalepa]) and other eriophyoids

disperse by wind, by animals such as insects and birds, and by human-aided 

movement (Jeppson et al., 1975; Duffner et al., 2001). Dissemination via human 

agency undoubtedly has contributed to the widespread distribution of some 

Calepitrimerus spp., such as C. vitis (CABI, 2005). Risk associated with the 

dispersal potential of C. neimongolensis is estimated to be High.

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Calepitrimerus neimongolensis is an orchard pest in Nei Mongol, causing “black 

scar disease” in Chinese sand pear (Geng et al., 1999). Feeding by the mite 

produces lesions and curling in leaves, and brown spots on fruit, resulting in yield 

losses and lower-value crops. We judged the risk stemming from the potential 

economic impact of C. neimongolensis to be Medium.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Calepitrimerus neimongolensis is not expected to pose a threat to native plants in 

the United States. No species of Pyrus or Malus is listed in 50 CFR §17.12.

However, as it is a significant pest of pear, its introduction could result in the 

initiation of chemical or biological control programs. The mite is subject to 

chemical control in pear production in China (Geng et al., 1999; Wang, 2000).

Predaceous mites of the family Phytoseiidae have been evaluated for their potential 

in the biological control of other Calepitrimerus spp. (e.g., Perez-Moreno and

Moraza, 1997). Risk is estimated to be Medium.

Medium (2)

Carposina sasakii Matsumura (Lepidoptera: Carposinidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

The distribution of C. sasakii, or peach fruit moth, is China (Anhui, Fujian, 

Guangdong, Hebei, Heilongjiang, Henan, Jiangsu, Jilin, Liaoning, Ningxia, 

Shaanxi, Shandong, Shanxi, Zhejiang); Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu) and North and 

South Korea, which corresponds to plant hardiness zones 1-11 (CABI, 2007). 

High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

Peach fruit moth occurs on a wide range of cultivated and wild fruits belonging to 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 32

Carposina sasakii Matsumura (Lepidoptera: Carposinidae) Risk ratings

Rosaceae as well as other families. Genera and species affected include Malus spp., 

Prunus spp., Pyrus spp., Ziziphus jujuba (Rhamnaceae), Phoenix dactylifera

(Arecaceae), and Cornus mas (Cornaceae) (CABI, 2007).

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Each female lays an average of about 100 eggs on fruit, usually near the calyx

(CABI, 2007). There is one complete and a second partial generation per year. 

Flight is limited. Long-distance dispersal is accomplished through the transport of 

fruit infested by larvae. However, the species is not known to have spread outside 

of East Asia (CABI, 2007). No interceptions for C. sasakii have been reported 

(PestID, 2009),

Medium (2)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Peach fruit moth is one of the most important pests of pome fruits in the Far East 

(CABI, 2007). Damage is caused by larvae boring into fruit. Several larvae can 

survive in each fruit, and larvae may move from one fruit to another, multiplying 

losses. In Russia, losses in pears have been reported to be as high as 100 percent, 

with damage to apples usually somewhat less (40-100 percent). This pest presents a 

risk to production of rosaceous tree fruits in most parts of the world; the 

introduction of peach fruit moth into other regions could have severe economic 

effects on fruit growing (CABI, 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Because of its polyphagous nature, peach fruit moth threatens native plants in the 

United States (e.g., Prunus geniculata, Ziziphus celata). It introduction likely would 

stimulate the initiation of chemical and biological control programs.

High (3)

Ceroplastes japonicus Green (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Ceroplastes japonicus, or Japanese wax scale, this species origin is temperate East 

Asia, in regions representing plant hardiness zones 6-9 (CABI, 2007). It has been 

introduced into several countries in Europe. Suitable conditions for its survival 

should exist throughout the United States.

High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

Japanese wax scale is polyphagous, attacking over 100 plant species in 40 genera in 

24 families, including many crop and ornamental plants (CABI, 2007). Primary 

hosts include Citrus spp. (Rutaceae), Prunus spp. (Rosaceae), Hedera helix

(Araliaceae), Ilex aquifolium (Aquifoliaceae), Laurus nobilis (Lauraceae), Camellia 

sinensis (Theaceae), Ziziphus jujuba (Rhamnaceae), Diospyros kaki (Ebenaceae), 

and Jasminum sp. (Oleaceae). Pyrus spp. are considered secondary hosts along with 

a multitude of other woody plants (CABI, 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Fecundity in this species, which is influenced by host plant, may exceed 1,000 eggs 

per female (CABI, 2007). One generation per year occurs throughout its range.

Reproduction may be parthenogenetic: males are unknown in some populations. 

Natural dispersal is accomplished mainly by first-instar “crawlers,” which may be 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 33

Ceroplastes japonicus Green (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Risk ratings

carried by wind or animals. All stages may be transported on infested plant 

materials in commerce.

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Japanese wax scale is a pest of ornamentals in Italy and Japan, and of fruit trees in 

China, the Republic of Georgia, and southern Russia (CABI, 2007). Heavy

infestations may cause chlorotic spotting and premature shedding of leaves, wilting 

and dieback of stems. In addition to direct feeding damage, the honeydew secreted 

forms a substrate for the growth of black sooty molds, which impair gas exchange 

and photosynthesis, and also reduce the market value of plants and produce.

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Because of its broad host range, Japanese wax scale can attack Threatened or 

Endangered plants, such as Prunus geniculata, and Ziziphus celata. Its introduction 

into the United States would likely initiate biological or chemical control programs.

High (3)

Ceroplastes rubens Maskell (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

The distribution of C. rubens, or red wax scale, extends from the warm temperate 

zones to the tropics. It is found in east and south Asia, Oceania (including 

Australia), eastern and southern parts of Africa, the West Indies, Hawaii, Florida, 

and parts of the Caribbean (CABI, 2007). We estimate it could survive in the 

continental United States in Plant Hardiness Zones 7-10 and in U.S. territories. One 

or more of its hosts occurs in these zones in the United States (NRCS, 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

Red wax scale has been recorded on many wild and cultivated hosts, including 

Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), Alpinia purpurata (Zingiberaceae), Annona sp. 

(Annonaceae), Artemisia sp. (Asteraceae), Artocarpus altilis (Moraceae), Camellia 

sinensis (Theaceae), Cinnamomum verum (Lauraceae), Citrus spp. (Rutaceae), 

Cocos nucifera (Arecaceae), Coffea sp. (Rubiaceae), Myristica fragrans

(Myristicaceae), Pinus spp. (Pinaceae), Prunus spp. (Rosaceae), Psidium guajava

(Myrtaceae) (CABI, 2007), Dimocarpus longan, and Litchi chinensis

(Sapindaceae) (Li-zhong, 2000; Ben-Dov, 2006).

High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Females may deposit over 1000 eggs, but mean fecundity is just below 300 (CABI, 

2007). There are two generations per year (CABI, 2007). As with other scales, red 

wax scale has only limited motility. The main means of long-distance dispersal is 

on infested plant materials (CABI, 2007): since 1985, red wax scale has been 

intercepted at U.S. ports-of-entry over 4,000 times on plants and other plant 

materials (PestID, 2009).

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Red wax scale is a pest of many crops (above). It is a major pest of citrus in 

Australia, China, Hawaii, Japan and Korea (CABI, 2007). Damage occurs 

directly through phloem feeding and indirectly by promoting sooty mold growth, 

which lowers the market value of fresh fruit and can reduce photosynthetic 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 34

Ceroplastes rubens Maskell (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Risk ratings

efficiency and subsequent growth (CABI, 2007). In addition, if red wax scale

becomes more widely established in the United States, there would likely be a loss 

of foreign or domestic markets.

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

The extreme polyphagy of this species increases the probability of it attacking 

plants in the United States listed as Threatened or Endangered. It attacks species of 

Euphorbia, Gardenia, Ilex, Lindera, and Rhus (CABI, 2007), which have 

congeners listed in 50 CFR §17.12, such as E. haeleeleana, E. telephioides, G. 

brighamii, G. mannii, I. cookii, I. sintenisii, L. melissifolia, and R. michauxii. As a 

pest of citrus, the wider establishment of this pest in the United States would likely

result in the initiation of chemical and/or biological control programs.

High (3)

Conogethes punctiferalis (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

The distribution of C. punctiferalis, or yellow peach moth, extends from warm 

temperate regions to the tropics of South and East Asia. The species also occurs 

in Australia and Papua New Guinea (CABI, 2007). We estimated it could 

establish in Plant Hardiness Zones 6-11 in the United States.

High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

This moth has a broad host range, including Carica papaya (Caricaceae), 

Macadamia integrifolia (Proteaceae), Morus alba (Moraceae), Prunus persica

(Rosaceae), Psidium guajava (Myrtaceae), Gossypium herbaceum (Malvaceae), 

Zea mays (Poaceae), Averrhoa carambola (Oxalidaceae), Nephelium lappaceum

(Sapindaceae), Helianthus annuus (Asteraceae), Curcuma longa (Zingiberaceae), 

Punica granatum (Punicaceae), Ricinus communis (Euphorbiaceae), Castanea 

mollissima (Fagaceae), Citrus nobilis (Rutaceae), Cryptomeria japonica

(Taxodiaceae), and Piper nigrum (Piperaceae) (CABI, 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Females lay an average of 20-30 eggs on fruits or on the ear silk and tassels of 

maize (CABI, 2007). Five generations per year occur (Wang and Cai, 1997). 

Larvae are internal feeders and can spread long distances in infested fruit.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Yellow peach moth is an important pest of peaches and apples in China, and 

infestations cause stunting, scorching, and falling of fruit (CABI, 2007). The moth’s 

excretions cover the fruit surface and have a high sugar content, which attracts other 

injurious insect pests and diseases. Feeding by yellow peach moth on tassels and 

maize ear silk reduces pollination in maize and sorghum. Stems bored into by the 

moth are more easily broken by wind and farming practices, resulting in decreased

yield. Yield losses were as high as 63 percent in castor bean (Kapadia, 1996) and 48

percent in plum (Wang and Cai, 1997). In China, insecticides and bagging fruit are 

two control measures employed. Introduction of this pest into the United States

likely would result in loss of foreign and domestic markets for fresh fruit.

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 35

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Because of its broad host range, yellow peach moth is expected to have direct, 

negative impacts on vulnerable native plants. For example, it attacks Quercus spp. 

(oaks) in Korea (Park et al., 1998), and thus may attack Q. hinckleyi, a Threatened 

tree in Texas (50 CFR §17.12). Introduction of this pest into the United States likely

would result in initiation of chemical or biological control programs.

High (3)

Grapholita inopinata (Heinrich) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

The geographic distribution of G. inopinata, Manchurian fruit moth, extends 

through several temperature regimes: Russian Federation (Eastern Siberia , 

Russian Far East), China (Guangdong, Heilongjiang, Henan, Jilin, Liaoning, 

Shandong), Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu) (CABI, 2007). Most of these regions are 

contiguous and represent the plant hardiness zones of 3-7, but Manchurian fruit 

moth is also in the Guangdong region of China, representing zones 9-11.

Consequently, we estimate it could survive throughout the United States.

High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

The host range of Manchurian fruit moth is restricted to Rosaceae (e.g., species of 

Malus, Pyrus, and Cydonia oblonga) (CABI, 2007).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Females are known to lay up to 145 eggs on the underside of leaves or on fruit 

(CABI, 2007). Larvae hatch in 6-7 days and tunnel into the fruit, feeding first under 

the skin and later boring through the core to feed on the seeds. Depending on 

latitude, there may be two generations per year. Apart from natural dispersal by 

adult flight, Manchurian fruit moth may be transported internationally as larvae in 

fresh fruit or with planting material carrying fruits. However, the species has never 

been intercepted on other continents (although trade from infested areas has been 

minimal; CABI, 2007). Containers and packing materials also are reported to be 

involved in long-distance transport (CABI, 2007).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Manchurian fruit moth is a significant pest of apple in Russia, damaging up to 100

percent of the crop in places (CABI, 2007). Its establishment in the United States

could cause loss of domestic or foreign markets.

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Because of its restricted host range, Manchurian fruit moth is less likely than some 

species to do environmental harm. However, several species of Rosaceae are listed 

in 50 CFR §17.12 as Threatened or Endangered, such as Prunus geniculata. Given 

that it can be reared artificially on species of Prunus Manchurian fruit moth could 

attack P. geniculata (CABI, 2007). The similar pest Cydia pomonella L. already

damages apples and other pome fruits in the United States, so the introduction of 

Manchurian fruit moth probably would not lead to any additional control programs

beyond those now employed for C. pomonella (CABI, 2007).

Medium (2)
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 36

Guignardia pyricola (Nose) W. Yamamoto (Ascomycetes: Dothideales) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host interaction

Guignardia pyricola occurs in China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and 

Taiwan (EPPO, 1997). Hosts reported for G. pyricola include temperate species 

which may be cultivated over a broad range of Plant Hardiness Zones (3 to 9) in 

the United States, see hosts below in Risk Element #2. This species could be 

established throughout much of the United States. Pyrus communis can be 

cultivated in Plant Hardiness Zones 4 to 8. Pyrus pyrifolia can be cultivated in 

Plant Hardiness Zones 5 to 7. Although apples (Malus domestica) can be grown 

from Zones 3 to 9, commercial apples are primarily cultivated in Plant Hardiness 

Zones 4 to 8 (Page and Olds, 2003; Westwood, 1993). Based on reported host 

climate requirements and areas where the pathogen is currently established, this 

species could establish in at least seven Plant Hardiness Zones in the United 

States so it is rated as High.

High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

Primary hosts are members of the Rosaceae, including pears (Pyrus pyrifolia, P. 

communis) and commercial apples (Malus domestica). Other hosts are 

Chaenomeles japonica and Malus micromalus (EPPO, 1997). G. pyricola attacks 

multiple species within a single plant family so it is rated as Medium. 

Medium (2)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Abundant conidia (spores) of G. pyricola are disseminated by wind and water 

from 10 to 20 meters by strong wind-driven rain. Ascospores are produced on 

withered branches, but are not reported to play a significant role in disease spread.

Shoots infected during April through August show symptoms in September 

through November and are the main source of primary inoculum the following 

year. In Japan, an increased occurrence of the disease on fruit is associated with 

the number of rainy days in May. The infection of young pear fruit requires five 

hours of surface wetness but older fruit need longer periods of time. Infected 

planting material transported in the nursery trade can spread the pathogen long 

distances. Fruit can be infected early in the season prior to mid July in Japan 

through stomata or lenticels. After that period, wounding of the fruit, including 

wounds resulting from insect activity, are required for infection of fruits. Leaves,

twigs, shoots, fruit and propagative plants of Malus spp. and Pyrus spp. can be 

infected but infectious spores are mainly produced on diseased branches and 

shoots. Spore production is most abundant on infected shoots that are up to two to 

three-years-old. The main risk of long distance dispersal of the pathogen is 

associated with propagative material with latently infected young shoots. Control 

measures focus on the removal and destruction of conidial inoculum by pruning 

out and destroying symptomatic branches, cutting away (shaving) warts from 

infected shoots, and disposal of infected fruits (EPPO, 1997).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Infection of P. pyrifolia by G. pyricola results in wart symptoms on the surfaces 

of trunks and branches. Infected twigs wither and exhibit symptoms of dieback.

Warts on trunks and branches damage the tree, reducing its growth and 

productivity. Symptoms on leaves and fruits are large contoured dark brown 

spots. Spots on leaves are of minor importance and do not affect yield. After 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 37

harvest, spots further develop on fruit of P. pyrifolia and cause a loss of fruit 

quality (EPPO, 1997). On apples, the fungus causes symptoms of rough bark and 

apple ring rot (EPPO, 1997; Jones and Aldwinkle, 1990). Fruit lesions begin as 

small circular, slightly sunken spots which may be surrounded by a red halo. As 

spot size increases on fruits, sunken lesions develop with alternating tan and 

brown rings in the decayed tissues. This fungus was listed as one of the 

economically important pests of apples and pears in Japan and causes branch 

dieback and fruit rot (Anonymous, 1984). It is primarily known to occur on P. 

pyrifolia, but the fungus has been recorded in Japan damaging European pears (P. 

communis) and apples (Malus spp.). The establishment of this pest in the United 

States could cause the loss of domestic and foreign markets and require the 

additional costs of fungicidal sprays to control the disease in orchards (Ce, 1999). 

Other costs may be incurred by the need for additional pruning as part of a control 

program (EPPO, 1997).

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

This pest is not reported to attack native plants federally listed as Threatened or 

Endangered or state-listed protected species. Botryosphaeria dothidea (Moug.: 

Fr.) Ces & de Not., a closely related fungal species which is morphologically

indistinguishable from G. pyricola, is established in the United States and causes 

a canker disease of numerous hosts. If G. pyricola is introduced into the United 

States, additional control measures are likely to include the need for additional 

fungicidal sprays. Beneficial microorganisms in pome fruit orchards could be 

reduced by the use of pesticides required to control this disease (Ce, 1999).

Medium (2)

Monilinia fructigena Honey in Whetzel (Discomycetes: Helotiales) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

M. fructigena occurs from northwestern Europe, south through the Mediterranean 

region, North Africa, and the Middle East, and eastward through Southern and 

Eastern Asia (CABI, 2007). Hosts reported for M. fructigena include temperate 

species which may be cultivated over a broad range of plant hardiness zones (5-9) 

in the United States, see hosts below in Risk Element #2. This species could 

become established throughout much of the United States.

High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

Primary hosts are members of Rosaceae, including Prunus spp., Pyrus spp., Malus

spp., and Cydonia oblonga (CABI, 2007) and minor hosts are; Amelanchier 

canadensis, Chaenomeles lagenaria, Sorbus spp., Cotoneaster, Crataegus, Rosa, 

Rubus, among others (CABI, 2005; Farr, et al., 2007). Other hosts outside the 

Rosaceae include Corylus avellana (Betulaceae), Ficus carica (Moraceae), 

Capsicum sp. (Solanaceae), Diospyros kaki (Ebenaceae), Vitis vinifera (Vitaceae), 

Berberis sp. (Berberidaceae), Cornus mas (Cornaceae), Vaccinium sp. (Ericaceae), 

and Psidium guajava (Myrtaceae).

High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Abundant conidia (spores) of M. fructigena are disseminated by wind or water 

(Jones and Aldwinckle, 1990). Aerial dispersal results in the spread of spores over a 

wide area, whereas water-splash disperses spores locally, mainly within the same 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 38

Monilinia fructigena Honey in Whetzel (Discomycetes: Helotiales) Risk ratings

tree or, between adjacent trees (CABI, 2007). At harvest, apparently healthy fruit 

can be contaminated with spores, may be latently or quiescently infected, then 

decay may develop during storage and marketing (CABI, 2007; Jones and 

Aldwinckle, 1990), allowing long-distance transport of the pest on infected fruit. 

“M. fructigena has been intercepted at ports of entry in Puerto Rico and throughout 

the USA, mostly on fruits imported from Europe (Cline, 2005).” 

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

The brown rot disease caused by M. fructigena rarely causes economic losses in 

apple or pear crops (Jones and Aldwinckle, 1990), but does in commercially grown 

Prunus spp. (Ogawa, et al. 1995). Losses reported in European apple orchards have 

ranged from 7 to 36 percent, with considerably less damage to stored fruits (0.2-1.5 

percent). Control measures other than sanitation for apple or pear usually are not 

warranted (Jones and Aldwinckle, 1990). But for Prunus, protective fungicide 

treatments, reducing sources of inoculum, control of insects which wound fruits and 

postharvest handling to minimize fungal development are all components of control 

programs. Fungicides typically used to control other pathogens of apple and pear 

are also effective against M. fructigena, so additional measures would not likely be 

needed. It is unclear if introduction of the pest would result in domestic or 

international quarantine measures, due to uncertainty regarding potential impacts on 

markets, this risk element is rated Medium.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

This pest could attack native plants Federally listed as Threatened or Endangered 

(e.g., Prunus geniculata, Berberis spp., Rhododendron chapmanii), as well as state 

listed protected species (e.g., 7 species of Amelanchier, 7 species of Cornus, among 

others) (NRCS, 2007). Some of the potential hosts, such as Amelanchier, Cornus, 

Sorbus, Crataegus, or Rubus species, provide substantial food resources for wildlife 

(Johnson, et al., 2005), so damage to native species by M. fructigena could have 

broader reaching environmental and habitat impacts. As related species (M. 

fructicola, M. laxa) established in the United States cause essentially the same 

disease in apple and pear, should M. fructigena be introduced into the United 

States additional control are unlikely to be needed.

High (3)

Phenacoccus pergandei Cockerell (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

The distribution of this pest is China (Shaanxi) (Dang and Wang, 2002), and 

Japan (Shizuoka: Yago, 1933), and Hokkaido (Kuwayama, 1936)), which 

corresponds to U.S. plant hardiness zones 5-8.

High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

The host range includes the following taxa: Japanese persimmon Diospyros kaki

L. (Ebenaceae) (Ueno, 1971), Malus (apple), Pyrus (pear) and Prunus (cherry)

(Rosaceae), Lonicera spp. (Caprifoliaceae), Hydrangea (Hydrangaceae)

(Kuwayama, 1936), Fatsia (Arialiaceae), Cericidiphyllum (Cercidiphyllaceae), 

Enkianthus (Ericaceae), Laurus (Lauraceae), Ficus (Moraceae), Eriobotrya

(Rosaceae), Taxus (Taxaceae), Celtis (Ulmaceae) and Zelkova (Ulmaceae) (BenHigh (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 39

Phenacoccus pergandei Cockerell (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings

Dov et al., 2006).

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

The pest has one generation per year, and each female produces from 500 to 1500 

eggs (CSTN, 2006). A more frequently reported congeneric species, P. manihoti, 

has a first instar crawler stage that may be dispersed by the wind (CABI, 2007). All 

life stages may be dispersed by humans on fresh fruit and other plant parts.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Heavy infestations of the congeneric species, P. manihoti, can severely stunt and 

defoliate the plant. That species causes yield losses of up to 84 percent (CABI, 

2007). Crops that were seriously damaged by another closely related mealybug, 

Maconellicoccus hirsutus, include cotton in Egypt (growth can be arrested), tree 

cotton in India (yield is reduced), the fiber crops Hibiscus sabdariffa var. 

altissima (roselle), H. cannabinus (mesta), and Boehemeria nivea in India and 

Bangladesh (roselle fiber yield reduced by 21 - 40 percent), and grapes in India 

(up to 90 percent of bunches destroyed or so heavily infested that they are unfit 

for consumption) (CABI, 2007).

Establishment of this pest in the United States could cause a loss of foreign or 

domestic markets and would likely stimulate chemical and/or biological control 

programs, which would lower the value of the commodity by increasing 

production costs.

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

If P. pergandei is introduced into the United States, it is likely to affect Prunus 

geniculata, a federally protected plant on the Threatened and Endangered species 

list. Should P. pergandei become widely established in the United States, 

conservation managers, farmers and horticulturalists would likely need to use 

chemical and/or biological control programs.

High (3)

Planococcus kraunhiae (Kuwana) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

The distribution of this pest is Philippines, Taiwan, China, Japan and South Korea 

This corresponds to U.S. plant hardiness zones 6-12 (Ben-Dov et al., 2006).

High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

The host range includes the following taxa: Actinidiaceae: Actinidia, Agavaceae: 

Agave Americana, Amaryllidaceae: Crinum asiaticum, Apocynaceae: Nerium

indicum, Aquifoliaceae: Ilex, Casuarinaceae: Casuarina stricta, Cucurbitaceae: 

Cucurbita moschata, Ebenaceae: Diospyros kaki, Ericaceae: Rhododandron

indicum, Euphorbiaceae: Codiaeum variegatum pictum, Mallotus japonicus, 

Gramineae: Digitaria sanguinalis, Leguminosae: Wisteria floribunda, 

Magnoliaceae: Magnolia grandiflora, Maraceae: Broussonetia kazinoki, 

Moraceae: Artocarpus lanceolata, Ficus carica, Morus alba, Musaceae: Musa

basjoo, Nandinaceae: Nandina domestica, Oleaceae: Olea chrysophylla , Palmae: 

Trachycarpus excelsus fortunei, Platanaceae: Platanus orientalis, Portulacaceae: 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 40

Planococcus kraunhiae (Kuwana) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings

Portulaca oleracea, Rosaceae: Cydonia sinensis, Pyrus ussuriensis, Rubiaceae: 

Coffea arabica, Gardenia jasminoides, Rutaceae: Citrus junos, Citrus nobilis, 

and Citrus paradisi (Ben-Dov et al., 2006).

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

The dispersal potential is based on P. citri. Egg production per female varies from 

150 to 500, depending on commodity and country. Planococcus citri may have 4 or 

5 generations per year in California, and 6 to 10 generations in Ghana (CABI,

2007). Additionally, P. kraunhiae can be transported internationally via commerce, 

so we rated it High.

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Three varieties of Pyrus pyrifolia, Poongsoo, Singo, and Haengsoo, were surveyed 

for insects in the Korean Republic during 1990-1991. Damage varied between 48 

and 51 percent and was greatest in the summer months from mid-July through midAugust. Planococcus kraunhiae accounted for 81 percent of the insects collected 

(Park and Hong, 1992). 

In the event that P. kraunhiae becomes established in the United States, 

eradication or control methodologies may have to be implemented, thus 

increasing the cost of the commodity. Additionally, internal quarantines could be 

established to localize and eradicate the mealybug. 

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

An infestation of P. kraunhiae would result in immediate control measures, since 

92 percent of the pear production in the United States occurs in three contiguous 

states (Washington, Oregon and California) (Ing, 2002). Secondly, five plant 

species in genera that serve as host plants for P. kraunhiae occur in the 

Threatened and Endangered Species List for the United States (Agave arizonica, 

Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis, Digitaria pauciflora, Portulaca 

sclerocarpa, Gardenia brighamii). 

High (3)

Venturia nashicola Tanaka and Yamamoto (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Venturia nashicola is reported from Japan, Korea, and China (Farr, et al., 2007). 

Reported hosts appear to be limited to Pyrus spp., particularly P. pyrifolia, P. 

ussuriensis (Farr, et al., 2007; Jones and Aldwinckle, 1990; Ishii and Yanase, 

2000). These can be cultivated in U.S. plant hardiness zones 3-8 (Evans, 2003; 

Michigan State University, 1999). Based on reported host climate requirements and 

areas where the pathogen is currently established, this species could establish in at 

least four plant hardiness zones in the United States.

High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

The host range of this species is restricted to Pyrus spp. (Farr, et al., 2007; Ishii and

Yanase, 2000).

Low (1)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Lesions on fruits, leaves or twigs can produce abundant conidia (spores), and 

ascospores (sexual spores) are also produced in great numbers on overwintering 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 41

Venturia nashicola Tanaka and Yamamoto (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) Risk ratings

infected leaves. Ascospores are released into the air, where they are blown to 

infect leaves and developing fruits. The infection process depends on wet 

conditions (Jones and Aldwinckle, 1990). Once infections are established,

continued cycles of infection can occur during a season as conidia are produced 

from infected tissues and may be windblown or splash-dispersed (Jones and 

Aldwinckle, 1990).

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

“Scab, caused by Venturia nashicola, is one of the most severe diseases of 

Japanese pear (Pyrus pyrifolia var. culta) and Chinese pear (P. ussuriensis).

Damage from this disease is serious because almost all commercially important 

cultivars are susceptible, resulting in high dependence of growers on fungicide 

use to control this disease (Faize et al., 2004).” The pathogen infects leaves, 

twigs and fruit, reducing yields by reducing photosynthetic area and causing 

spotting of fruit which also may become misshapen or develop post-harvest scab 

symptoms (Jones and Aldwinckle, 1990). This pathogen may impact both yield 

and quality. It is unclear if introduction of the pest would result in domestic or 

international quarantine measures, due to uncertainty regarding potential impacts on 

markets, this risk element is rated Medium.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Because of its restricted host range, V. nashicola is not expected to pose a 

significant threat to plants listed as Endangered or Threatened. No species of Pyrus

currently is listed in 50 CFR §17.12. “Scab [caused by V. nashicola] is an important 

disease of Japanese pear as disease-resistant cultivars are not commercially

available. It is common for growers to spray fungicides more than fifteen times a 

year to control the disease, especially on the most popular but highly scabsusceptible cv. Kosui (Ishii and Yanase, 2000).” Since pears are cultivated 

commercially in the United States, introduction of this pest could stimulate the 

initiation of biological or chemical control programs, which may impact the 

environment.

Medium (2)

Table 5. Risk ratings for Consequences of Introduction due to the importation of sand pear, Pyrus 

pyrifolia, from China.

Pest Risk Elements Cumulative 

Risk Ratinga

Climate/

Host 

Interaction

Host

range

Dispersal 

Potential

Economic 

impact

Environmental 

impact

Acrobasis pyrivorella High (3) Low (1) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) Medium (11)

Alternaria gaisen High (3) Low (1) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Medium (11)

Amphitetranychus 

viennensis

High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (13)

Aphanostigma iaksuiense High (3) Low (1) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) Medium (11)

Bactrocera dorsalis Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Calepitrimerus High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Medium (12)
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 42

Pest Risk Elements Cumulative 

Risk Ratinga

Climate/

Host 

Interaction

Host

range

Dispersal 

Potential

Economic 

impact

Environmental 

impact

neimongolensis

Carposina sasakii High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Ceroplastes japonicus High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15)

Ceroplastes rubens High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15)

Conogethes punctiferalis High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Grapholita inopinata High (3) Med (2) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) Medium (12)

Guignardia pyricola High (3) Med (2) Med (2) High (3) Low (2) Medium (12)

Monilinia fructigena High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (14)

Phenacoccus pergandei High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Planococcus kraunhiae High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15)

Venturia nashicola High (3) Low (1) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Medium (11)

a

Low is 5-8 points, Medium is 9-12 points and High is 13-15 points

2.6. Likelihood of Introduction—Quantity Imported and Pest Opportunity

Likelihood of introduction is a function of both the quantity of the commodity imported annually 

and pest opportunity, which consists of five criteria that consider the potential for pest survival 

along the pathway (PPQ, 2000) (Table 6).

2.6.1. Quantity imported annually

The rating for the quantity imported annually usually is based on the amount reported by the 

exporting country, and is converted into standard units of 40-foot-long shipping containers. As 

the quantity of Chinese sand pears to be exported to the United States from China currently is 

unknown, this risk factor defaults to High.

2.6.2. Survive postharvest treatment

Reportedly, until recently, only about one percent of harvested deciduous fruit (including apple 

and citrus, as well as pear) in China received postharvest treatments, such as cleaning, waxing, 

grading, and packing (Li, 1999).

Bactrocera dorsalis is an internal feeder likely to survive minimal postharvest treatment,

especially if the damage was not obvious.

External feeders, such as the scale insects, Ceroplastes japonicus and C. rubens, the phylloxerid,

Aphanostigma iaksuiense, and the mites, Amphitetranychus viennensis and Calepitrimerus

neimongolensis, are less likely to survive post-harvest treatments. Although, depending on their 

stage (nymph, adult) or instar, these diminutive insects might find shelter on fruit. For example, 

many scales prefer tight, protected areas, such as cracks and crevices (Kosztarab, 1996). Their 

cryptic behavior, small size (most scales are less than 5 mm long; Gullan and Kosztarab, 1997), 

water-repellent, waxy coverings, and firm attachment to the substrate could make them difficult 
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 43

to see or dislodge, especially if sheltered at the stem end of the fruit. We gave a rating of High 

for this element to B. dorsalis, and rated all other arthropods Medium.

The fungal pathogens A. gaisen, G. pyricola, M. fructigena, and V. nashicola infect fruit 

internally and may remain latent or quiescent. Thus, depending on the age of infection, and thus 

the severity of symptoms, they have a High probability of surviving minimal postharvest 

treatment.

2.6.3. Survive shipment

We think all of the arthropods have a High probability of surviving shipment on or in fruit, or in 

packing materials. Larvae of B. dorsalis, as internal pests, are particularly well situated to 

survive adverse environmental conditions during shipment. The other species are known to range

into temperate regions, which can experience cold winters. Insects respond to cold temperatures 

typically in one of two ways: freeze tolerance and freeze susceptibility (Chapman, 1998). The 

supercooling point (lethal temperature at which ice crystals begin to form within cells) for most 

freeze-tolerant insects ranges from about –5 to –10°C; many freeze-susceptible species have 

supercooling points below –20°C, and eggs generally have lower supercooling points than active 

stages. Pears are unlikely to be shipped at temperatures even approaching such cold, which 

would damage the fruit.

Depending upon the species, fungi may survive a range of temperatures from approximately -5° to 

45°C (Agrios, 1997). The fungi are highly likely to survive shipment. All of the pathogen species 

identified can overwinter in temperate climates suitable for Pyrus hosts (Jones and Aldwinckle, 

1990), and storage and shipment temperature recommended for Chinese sand pears is just near 

freezing 0 C (+ / - 1C) (Crisosto, et al., 2006), well above the mean annual minimum temperatures 

in pear growing areas.

2.6.4. Not detected at port-of-entry

As with assessing the risk of pear pests surviving post-harvest treatment, estimating the risk that 

these pests will not be detected at a port-of-entry involves consideration of pest size, mobility, and 

degree of concealment. Among the arthropods, again depending on the age of infestation, the 

internal feeders have a high probability of escaping detection at a port-of-entry, unless the fruit is 

cut open. Bactrocera dorsalis, in particular, might easily escape detection, as fruit fly-infested 

fruit commonly go unrecognized (White and Elson-Harris, 1992). Depending on the age of the 

infestation, the lepidopterous species might or might not be readily detected by the damage they 

produce in fruit. Heavy infestations of the Ceroplastes spp. should be readily detected. Adult 

female C. japonicus, in particular, are said to be conspicuous as they are covered by a thick layer 

of grey to pinkish-white, oily wax which contrasts in color with the host plant (CABI, 2007). 

Sparser populations of younger individuals, particularly if situated at the stem end of fruit or in 

packing materials, would be more difficult to discover. For the above reasons, we rated B. 

dorsalis High, and the other arthropods Medium.

Fruits would not show symptoms of latent fungal infections by any of the listed pathogens. If 

symptoms develop and pathogens sporulate during shipping, fruit and packing materials also 

could be contaminated with spores. Thus, we rated these fungi High risk for this element.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 44

2.6.5. Moved to suitable habitat

The PRA guidelines (PPQ, 2000) describes the rating of High as being greater than 10 percent

chance for an organism to be moved to a suitable habitat. Likewise a Medium rating describes 

the likelihood as being between 0.1 and 10 percent for an organism to be moved into a suitable 

habitat, which corresponds to plant hardiness zones 9 through 11 (9.9 percent of the land mass of 

the United States). A Low rating is given when the likelihood is less than 0.1 percent, which 

would be equivalent to the area of zone 11 within the United States. Using these new climatic

data, the following risk ratings were determined for the sub-element of moved to a suitable 

habitat.

Based on known geographic distributions, Bactrocera dorsalis probably would find climatic 

conditions suitable for its survival only in the southern and westernmost portions of the country. 

All of the other pests can likely establish permanent populations throughout much of the United 

States, with the possible exception of the more northern regions. We rated this factor High for all 

of the pests.

2.6.6. Contact with host material

This risk sub-element incorporates current demographic data and climatic data showing changes 

over the past ten years. We assumed here that Chinese sand pear consumption is fairly consistent 

amongst all racial and cultural groups within the United States, and that the commodity would be 

distributed simply based on overall population levels. The rating is based on population numbers 

within the climatic zones capable of supporting a pest species, combined with the availability of 

host material within these zones.

By itself, zone 11 contains 2.3 percent of the population and is too great to meet the criteria for a 

rating of Low. Thus, the rating of Medium can be comprised of zone 11 by itself or by a 

combination of zones 10 & 11. Zones 9, 8, 7 and 6 each contain over 10 percent of the 

population of the United States, so any plant pest that can become established in one or more of 

these hardiness zones will be rated High (PPQ, 2000).

We also considered additional factors. We rated the arthropods Grapholita inopinata, Acrobasis 

pyrivorella, Aphanostigma iaksuiense, Calepitrimerus neimongolensis Medium for their ability

to contact host material, due to their restricted host range. In contrast, we gave High ratings to 

Bactrocera dorsalis, C. sasakii and C. punctiferalis for this risk element, because of their

combination of broad host range and wide climatic suitability.

Even if hosts are available for colonization, biological attributes of some of the arthropods 

should reduce the likelihood of successful establishment in the United States. Specifically, the 

limited dispersal ability of mealybugs and the sessile nature of scale insects severely limits their 

chances of coming into contact with hosts (Miller, 1985; Gullan and Kosztarab, 1997). 

Successful establishment of these insects in a new environment depends on the likelihood of at 

least two necessary conditions occurring: close proximity of susceptible hosts and presence on 

the imported fruit of crawlers or other mobile forms to transfer to new hosts. Since these 

circumstances are highly unlikely to co-occur (Miller, 1985), we gave these particular pests a 

risk rating of Low for this element.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 45

We rated Alternaria gaisen Low for this element, because of limited production of its only host 

P. pyrifolia. We rated the other three pathogens, Medium risk, because of greater host ranges.

Table 6. Risk Rating for Likelihood of Introduction of quarantine plant pests via the importation of 

Chinese sand pear, Pyrus pyrifolia, from China. 

Pest Risk subelements Cumulative

risk ratinga

Quantity 

imported 

annually

Survive 

postharvest 

treatment

Survive 

shipment

Not detected 

at port of 

entry

Moved to 

suitable 

habitat

Contact 

with host 

material

Acrobasis pyrivorella High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (15)

Alternaria gaisen High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) Low (1) High (16)

Amphitetranychus 

viennensis

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

Aphanostigma 

iaksuiense

High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (15)

Bactrocera dorsalis High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (17)

Calepitrimerus 

neimongolensis

High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (15)

Carposina sasakii High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (16)

Ceroplastes japonicus High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Low (1) Med (14)

Ceroplastes rubens High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Low (1) Med (14)

Conogethes 

punctiferalis

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

Grapholita inopinata High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (15)

Guignardia pyricola High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (17)

Monilinia fructigena High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (17)

Phenacoccus 

pergandei

High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Low (1) Med (14)

Planococcus kraunhiae High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Low (1) Med (14)

Venturia nashicola High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (17)

a

Low is 6-9 points, Medium is 10-14 points, and High is 15-18 points

2.7. Conclusion—Pest Risk Potential and Pests Requiring Phytosanitary Measures

The summation of the values for the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of 

Introduction yields Pest Risk Potential values (PPQ, 2000) (Table 7). This is an estimate of the 

risks associated with this importation.

Pests with a Pest Risk Potential value of Low do not require mitigation measures, while a value 

within the Medium range indicates that specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary. The 

PPQ Guidelines state that a High Pest Risk Potential means that specific phytosanitary measures 

are strongly recommended, and that port-of-entry inspection is not considered sufficient to 

provide phytosanitary security. The choice of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate 

risks is undertaken as part of Risk Management, and is not addressed in this document.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 46

Table 7. Pest Risk Potentials.

Pest Consequences 

of Introduction

Likelihood of 

Introduction

Pest Risk Potentiala

Bactrocera dorsalis High (14) High (17) High (31)

Monilinia fructigena High (14) High (17) High (31)

Carposina sasakii High (14) High (16) High (30)

Conogethes punctiferalis High (14) High (16) High (30)

Amphitetranychus viennensis High (13) High (16) High (29)

Ceroplastes japonicus High (15) Medium (14) High (29)

Ceroplastes rubens High (15) Medium (14) High (29)

Guignardia pyricola Medium (12) High (17) High (29)

Planococcus kraunhiae High (15) Medium (14) High (29)

Phenacoccus pergandei High (14) Medium (14) High (28)

Venturia nashicola Medium (11) High (17) High (28)

Alternaria gaisen Medium (11) High (16) High (27)

Calepitrimerus neimongolensis Medium (12) High (15) High (27)

Grapholita inopinata Medium (12) High (15) High (27)

Acrobasis pyrivorella Medium (11) High (15) Medium (26)

Aphanostigma iaksuiense Medium (11) High (15) Medium (26)

a

Low: 11 - 18 points; Medium: 19 - 26 points; High: 27 - 33 points

3. Literature Cited

Agrios, G.N. 1997. Plant Pathology, 4th ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 635 pp.

Ali, M. 1978. A report on the wax scales, Ceroplastes pseudoceriferus Green and 

Chloropulvinaria polygonata (Ckll.) (Homoptera: Coccidae), on mango and their natural 

enemies. Bangladesh J. Zool. 6(1): 69-70. [CAB Abstracts]

Anonymous. 1984. Common Names of Economic Plant Diseases in Japan. Fruit Trees. Tokyo, 

Phytopathological Society of Japan.

Anonymous. 2003. Import of Asian (‘Shandong’) pear (Pyrus pyrifolia (Burm.) Nakai and P. 

ussuriensis var. viridis T. Lee) fruit from Shandong Province in the People’s Republic of 

China: A review under existing import conditions for Ya pear (P. bretschneideri Redh.) 

fruit from Hebei and Shandong Provinces. Pages 54 in Fisheries a. Forestry Department 

of Agriculture, ed. Biosecurity Australia.

Anonymous. 2005. Lepidosaphes ussuriensis. Pages 429-430 in Bulletin of the European and 

Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (OEPP/EPPO).

Anonymous. 2007. Check List of Family Cetoniidae of China. Yellowman Insects; 

http://www.yellowman.cn/fenlei/qiaochi/flower_beetle.htm [accessed February 2007].

Avidov, Z. and I. Harpaz. 1969. Plant Pests of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Univ. Press. 549 pp.

Bai, F. Y and Q. T. Chen. 1991. Fusarium species on some insects from China. Acta Mycologica 

Sinica. 10(2): 120-128.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 47

Baker, E.W., T. Kono, J.W. Amrine, Jr., M. Delfinado-Baker, and T.A. Stasny. 1996. Eriophyoid 

Mites of the United States. West Bloomfield, MI: Indira Publ. House. 394 pp.

Becker, W.F. 2003. Nectria pseudotrichia, como agente causal de cancro de ramos, ocorrendo 

em pereira japonesa no Brasil. Fitopatol Bras. 28(1): 107.

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

http://198.77.169.79/scalenet/scalenet.htm [accessed December 2008].

BES. 1995. Cooks’ Encyclopedia. Barron’s Educational Services, Inc.; 

http://allrecipes.iwon.com/encyc/terms/A/5161.asp [accessed December 2002].

Biosecurity Australia. 2002. Technical Market Access Submission: Export of Australian Tropical 

Fruits to USA (report submitted to USDA-APHIS July 31, 2002). Agriculture, Fisheries 

and Forestry - Australia, Canberra, Australia.

Blackman, R.L. and V.F. Eastop. 1994. Aphids on the World’s Trees: An Identification and 

Information Guide. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. 987 pp.

Blackman, R.L. and V.F. Eastop. 2000. Aphids on the World’s Crops: An Identification and 

Information Guide, 2nd ed. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. 466 pp.

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

Family (Acari: Tetranychidae). Leiden: Brill. 392 pp.

Borrer, D.J., C.A. Triplehorn, and N.F. Johnson. 1989. An Introduction to the Study of Insects 

6th Edition. Harcourt Brace College Publishers. pp.xiv + 875. 

Brunt, A.A., K. Crabtree, M.J. Dallwitz, A.J. Gibbs, L. Watson, and E.J. Zurcher (eds.). 1996. 

Plant Viruses Online: Descriptions and Lists from the VIDE Database. 20th ver.; 

http://image.fs.uidaho.edu/vide/ [accessed January 2007].

Bruun, H. H., 2006. Prospects for biocontrol of invasive Rosa rugosa. BioControl. 51:141–181.

BSM. 2002. Water Colours of Fungi by Konrad Schieferdecker. Botanische Staatssammlung 

München (BSM); http://141.84.65.132/BSMMycology/Collections/Icones/Schieferdecker/SchiefList.cfm [accessed December 2002].

CABI. 2005. Crop Protection Compendium. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International 

(CABI), Wallingford, UK.

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

(CABI), Wallingford, UK.

CABI. 2007. Crop Protection Compendium. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International 

(CABI), Wallingford, UK.

CABI. 2009. Crop Protection Compendium. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International 

(CABI), Wallingford, UK.

CABI/EPPO. 1997a. Data sheets on quarantine pests: Numonia pirivorella, pp. 407-410. In I.M. 

Smith, D.G. McNamara, P.R. Scott, and M. Holderness (eds.). Quarantine Pests for 

Europe, 2nd ed. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International (CABI) and the European and 

Mediterranean Plant Protecetion Organization (EPPO).

CABI/EPPO. 1997b. Data sheets on quarantine pests: Alternaria gaisen, pp. 639-643. In I.M. 

Smith, D.G. McNamara, P.R. Scott, and M. Holderness (eds.). Quarantine Pests for 

Europe, 2nd ed. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International (CABI) and the European and 

Mediterranean Plant Protecetion Organization (EPPO).

CASI (ed.). 1994. Harmful Pests of China Fruit Trees, 2nd ed. China Agriculture 

Science.Institute (CASI). Beijing: China Agriculture Press. 264 pp.

Ce, C. 1999. Advances in the research of apple ring rot. Acta Phytopathologica Sinica 29: 193-

198. [CAB Abstracts]
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 48

Chang, T.-P., and C.-S. Lin. 1939. Life histories of the important insect pests of the pear trees in 

Ting Hsien. Peking Nat. Hist. Bull. 13(3): 201-226. [CAB Abstracts Archive]

Chapman, R.F. 1998. The Insects: Structure and Function, 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. 

Press. 770 pp.

Charles, J.G. 1993. A survey of mealybugs and their natural enemies in horticultural crops in 

North Island, New Zealand, with implications for biological control. Biocontr. Sci. 

Technol. 3(4): 405-418. [CAB Abstracts]

Chen, D.-Y., H.-F. Ni, J.-H. Yen, Y.-H. Cheng, and T.-T. Tsay. 2004a. Variability within 

Xiphinema insigne populations in Taiwan. Plant Pathol. Bull. 13(2): 127-142. [CAB 

Abstracts]

Chen, D.-Y., H.-F. Ni, J.-H. Yen, Y.-H. Cheng, and T.-T. Tsay. 2004b. Identification and 

variation of Xiphinema hunaniense populations from Taiwan. Plant Pathol. Bull. 13(2): 

155-166. [CAB Abstracts]

Chen, Z. and S. Wang. 2001. The occurrence of Cinacium iaksuinse [sic] Kishida on the bagged 

pear fruit and it [sic] control. China Fruits 2001(3): 34-36. [CAB Abstracts]

Chou, L.Y. and S.J. Fang. 1994. New record of Psylla qianli (Homoptera: Psyllidae) from 

Taiwan. J. Agric. Res. China 43(4): 467-468.

Chûjô, M. and S. Kimoto. 1961. Systematic catalog of Japanese Chrysomelidae (Coleoptera). 

Pac. Insects 3(1): 117-202.

Cline, E. 2005. Monilinia fructigena. Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, 

USDA. Retrieved February 16, 2007, from http://nt.arsgrin.gov/sbmlweb/OnlineResources/FungiOnline.cfm

CMI. 1965. Commonwealth Mycological Institute (CMI). Index of Fungi 3(10): 313.

COA. 2008. Pear incidence and prevention of plant diseases and insect pests.

http://www.tdais.gov.tw/endi/elearning/%E6%9E%9C%E6%A8%B9/%E6%A2%A8/%E6%A2%A8%E7%97%85%E8

%9F%B2%E5%AE%B3%E4%B9%8B%E7%99%BC%E7%94%9F%E8%88%87%E9%

98%B2%E6%B2%BB.htm. Last accessed August 1, 2008.

Crisosto, C. H., Mitcham, E. J., and Kader, A. A. 2006. Asian pear – recommendations for 

maintaining postharvest quality. University of California – Davis.

http://postharvest.ucdavis.edu/Produce/ProduceFacts/Fruit/asianpear.shtml , Last 

accessed Feb 20, 2007.

CSTN. 2006. China Science and Technology Network (CSTN). Last accessed 2006-11-21, 

http://110.kj110.cn/index.asp?page=53.

Culliney, T.W. 2002. The aliens have landed: invasive species threaten Hawaii agriculture. 

Agric. Hawaii 3(1): 6-9.

Dang, X. D., and H. Z. Wang. 2002. Eleven new species of Encyrtidae (Hymenoptera) from 

Shaanxi Province, China (abstract). Entomotaxonomia 24(4):289-300.

Dekle, G. W. 1964. Camphor scale (Pseudaonidia duplex) (Homoptera: Coccidae). Florida 

Department of Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry, Entomology Circular 28. 2pp.

Denmark, H.A. 1964. Spider mites of Florida citrus. Fla. Dept. Agric. Div. Plant Ind. Entomol. 

Circ. No. 22.

Ding, X. 2006. The occurrence of two-spotted spider mite on plum trees and its control 

(abstract). China Fruits 1:40-41.

Dong, Q., G. Ni, F. Meng, Q. Guo, and D. Yang. 1997. Study on the biological characters of 

Contarinia pyrivora Riley and its control. China Fruits 1997(1): 13-15. [in Chinese]
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 49

Duffner, K., G. Schruft, and R. Guggenheim. 2001. Passive dispersal of the grape rust mite 

Calepitrimerus vitis Nalepa 1905 (Acari, Eriophyoidea) in vineyards. Anz. Schädlingsk. 

74(1): 1-6.

Epenhuijsen, C.W. van and A. Carpenter. 1990. Pear slug and apple leaf curling midge: 

observations on their biology and control in an organic orchard. Proc. 43rd New Zealand 

Weed Pest Contr. Conf.: 119-122. [CAB Abstracts]

EPPO. 1997. Botryosphaeria berengeriana f.sp. piricola. Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests. 

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO).

http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/fungi/Botryosphaeria_piricola/PHYOPI_ds.pdf. 

EPPO. 1997b, Alternaria gaisen, Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests. CAB International (CABI) 

and the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). 

http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/fungi/Alternaria_kikuchiana/ALTEKI_ds.pdf.

EPPO. 2007. Plant Quarantine Information Retrieval System (PQR). European and 

Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO).

Evans, E. 2003. Pyrus pryifolia. NCSU, Trees, Plant Fact Sheets, Consumer Horticulture. 

Accessible at http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/consumer/factsheets/treesnew/pyrus_pyrifolia.html, last accessed Feb 17, 2007.

Fang, T.L. 1980. A preliminary observation on Aphanostigma jakusuiense [sic] (Kishida). Acta 

Entomol. Sin. 23(4): 389-393. [CAB Abstracts]

Faize, M., L. Faize, N. Koike, M. Ishizaka, and H. Ishii. 2004. Acibenzolar-S-Methyl-induced 

resistance to Japanese pear scab is associated with potentiation of multiple defense 

responses. Phytopathology. 94:604-612.

Farr, D.F., A.Y. Rossman, M.E. Palm, and E.B. McCray. 2006. Fungal Databases. Systematic 

Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory Fungal Database, ARS, USDA; http://nt.arsgrin.gov/fungaldatabases/index.cfm [accessed January 2007].

FAS. 2002. Pear situation in selected northern hemisphere countries. FASonline Hort. and Trop. 

Prod. Div. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).

http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/circular/2002/02-11/Pear.htm [accessed January 2003].

Ferris, G.F. 1918. The California species of mealybug. Leland Stanford Junior University

Publications, University Series. Stanford University, California. Pp. 99.

Ferris, G.F. 1950. Atlas of the scale insects of North America. Vol. V. Stanford University Press.

Fletcher, B.S. 1989a. Life history strategies of tephritid fruit flies, pp. 195-208. In A.S. Robinson 

and G. Hooper (eds.). Fruit Flies: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. (World 

Crop Pests, Vol. 3B). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Fletcher, B.S. 1989b. Movements of tephritid fruit flies, pp. 209-219. In A.S. Robinson and G. 

Hooper (eds.). Fruit Flies: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. (World Crop 

Pests, Vol. 3B). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Funayama, K. 2002. Oviposition and development of Halyomorpha halys (Stal) and 

Homalogonia obtusa (Walker) (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) on apple trees. Japanese 

Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology. 46(1): 1-6.

Gao, R. H, M. F. Yang and W. X. Wu. 1992. Damage and control of the pear weevil [Rhynchites 

foveipennis] in Liangshan Prefecture [Sichuan, China] (citation only). Acta 

Phytophylacica Sinica. 19(4): 336-350.

GATC. 2004. Pear Tree Shield Insect Mode of Life. Gangneung-si Agricultural Technology

Center (GATC). 

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ko&u=http://www.gnagr.or.kr/html/menu
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 50

_07/data/b_apple/apple01-01-

01.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=7&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522Steph

anitis%2Bnashi%2522%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff.

Geng, J., J. Zhao, D. Li, Z. Lu, J. Zhou, and J. Cang. 1999. The occurrence of black scar disease 

and its control. China Fruits 1999(2): 7-9.

Gordh, G., and Headrick, D. H. 2001. A dictionary of entomology. CABI Publishing, New York, 

NY. pp.ix + 1032.

Gressitt, J.L. 1951. Longicorn beetles of China. Longicornia 2: 1-667.

Gullan, P.J. and M. Kosztarab. 1997. Adaptations in scale insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 42: 23-

50.

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

Weeds; Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act (unpublished). 335 pp.

Hadidi, A., A.J. Hansen, C.L. Parish, X. Yang. 1991. Scar skin and dapple apple viroids are 

seed-borne and persistent in infected apple trees. Res. Virol. 142: 289-296.

Hanson, H.C. 1963. Diseases and Pests of Economic Plants of Central and South China, Hong 

Kong and Taiwan (Formosa). Washington, D.C.: American Institute of Crop Ecology.

184 pp.

Harris, E.J. 1989. Hawaiian islands and North America, pp. 73-81. In A.S. Robinson and G. 

Hooper (eds.). Fruit Flies: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. (World Crop 

Pests, Vol. 3A). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Harukawa, C. and S. Kumashiro. 1930. On the pear-bark miner, Acrocercops astaurota Meyrick.

Ver. Ohara Inst. landw. Forsch. 4 (4-5) Kuraschiki: 475-494 pp. (Abstract).

Hellrigl, K. 1984. Studies on the bionomy of the Green Willow Metallic Wood Borer 

Scintillatrix dives Coleoptera Buprestidae and of the small willow clearwing Synanthedon 

formicaeformis Lepidoptera Aegeriidae. Zeitschrift fuer Angewandte Entomologie 97: 

5(499-506).

Heluta, V.P. and D.W. Minter. 1998. Phyllactinia mali. IMI Descriptions of Fungi and Bacteria 

Set 138: Number 1377. [CAB Abstracts]

HFRI. 2007. Noxious insect of trees and shrubs: ウスバフユシャク. Hokkaido Forestry

Research Institute (HFRI); 

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.hfri.bibai.hokkaido.jp/k

onchu/data/cho-ga/shakuga/0-

gaiyo/kaisetu.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%

2522Inurois%2Bfletcheri%2522%26start%3D20%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3

DN [accessed February 2007].

Hitomi, T. 1935. On Archips breviplicanus Walsingh. J. Plant Prot. 22(11): 856-860. [CAB 

Abstracts Archive]

Hoebeke, E.R. and M.E. Carter. 2003. Halyomorpha halys (Stål) (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae): a 

polyphagous plant pest from Asia newly detected in North America. Proc. Entomol. Soc. 

Wash. 105(1): 225-237. [CAB Abstracts]

Hoffmann, W.E. 1936. The bionomics of the rose sawfly, Arge victorina Kirby (Hymenoptera: 

Argidae), with notes on other injurious tenthredinoid larvae in Kwangtung. Lingnan Sci. 

J. 15(1): 101-112. [CAB Abstracts Archive]

Holm, L., J.V. Pancho, J.P. Herberger, and D.L. Plucknett. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World 

Weeds. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 391 pp.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 51

Holm, L., D.L. Plucknett, J.V. Pancho, and J.P. Herberger. 1977. The World’s Worst Weeds. 

Honolulu: Univ. of Hawaii Press. 609 pp,

Holm, L., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Pancho, and J. Herberger. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories 

and Distribution. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1129 pp.

Hong, X. and Z. Zhang. 1996. The Eriophyoid Mites of China: An Illustrated Catalog and 

Identification Keys (Acari: Prostigmata: Eriophyoidea) (Memoirs on Entomology, 

International 7). Gainesville, FL: Associated Publishers.

Hou, Y., N. Hong, X. Deng, H. Hu, and G. Wang. 2005. Investigation and detection of apple 

stem pitting virus in Pyrus pyrifolia by RT-PCR and TC-RT-PCR. J. Fruit Sci. 22(4): 

343-346. [CAB Abstracts]

Howell, W.E., L.J. Skrzeczkowski, G.I. Mink, A. Nunez, T. Wessels. 1998. Non-transmission of 

apple scar skin viroid and peach latent mosaic viroid through seed. Acta Hortic. 472: 635-

639.

Hseu, S.H., C.Y. Lin, Y.B. Huang, S.L. Fang, and P.J. Ann. 2001. Fruit rot of oriental pear 

caused by Erwinia carotovora subsp. carotovora and in vitro bactericide screening. Plant 

Protect. Bull. Taipei 43(2): 105-115. [CAB Abstracts]

Hua, L.-z. 2000. List of Chinese Insects. Vol. 1. Guangzhou: Zhongshan (Sun Yat-sen) Univ. 

Press.

Hua, L.-z. 2002. List of Chinese Insects. Vol. II. Guangzhou: Zhongshan (Sun Yat-sen) Univ. 

Press.

Hua, L.-z. 2005. List of Chinese Insects. Vol. III. Guangzhou: Sun Yat-sen Univ. Press.

Hurtt, S. S. and Podleckis, E. V. 1995. Apple scar skin viroid is not seed transmitted or 

transmitted at very low rate in oriental pear. Acta Horticulturae 386: 544-550.

Ing, G. 2002. Pear production and utilization in North America. Pages 61-65 in Proceedings of 

the Eighth International Symposium on Pear. International Society for Horticultural 

Science Ferrara, Bologna, Italy.

Index Fungorum. 2007. Accessed last on May 14, 2007 at www.indexfungorum.org. Custodians:

CABI Bioscience, CBS and Landcare Research .

INRA. 1998. Hypermédia en Protection des Plantes en Zoologie (HPPZ). L'Institut National de 

la Recherche Agronomique (INRA). http://www.inra.fr/internet/Produits/HYPPZ/. 

IPPC. 2004. Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests, including analysis of environmental risks and 

living modified organisms. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures 

Publication No. 11. Rome: Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, 

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

IPPC. 2006. Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. International Standards for Phytosanitary

Measures, Publication No. 5. Rome: Secretariat of the International Plant Protection 

Convention, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 

Ishii, H. and Yanase, H. 2000. Venturia nashicola, the scab fungus of Japanese and Chinese 

pears: a species distinct from V. pirina. Mycological Research 104(6): 755-759.

Jensen, A.S., G.L. Miller, and M.B. Stoetzel. 1999. Aphidoidea World Wide Web Page. USDA 

Systematic Entomology Laboratory; http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/aphid/aphid_db.html

[accessed February 2007].

Jeppson, L.R., H.H. Keifer, and E.W. Baker. 1975. Mites Injurious to Economic Plants. 

Berkeley: Univ. of California Press. 614 pp.

Johnson, R. J., Meyer, C. M., and Todd, K. W. 2005. Backyard wildlife: Planting for habitat.

University of Nebraska, Lincoln Extension. Accessible at
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 52

http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/live/g1571/build/g1571.pdf Last accessed Feb 20, 

2007. 

Jones, A.L. and H.S. Aldwinckle (eds.). 1990. Compendium of Apple and Pear Diseases. St. 

Paul, MN: APS Press. 100pp.

Kapadia, M.N. 1996. Estimation of losses due to pod borers in oilseed crops. J. Oilseeds Res. 

13(1): 139-140.

Karczewska, M. 1976. Studies on the development of the pear-grass aphid – Longiunquis 

pyrarius Pass. (Homoptera, Aphididae). Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne 46 (2): 319-341. 

(Abstract) 

Katsumata, K. 1934. Results of studies on Rhynchites heros Roelofs. Publ. Ishikawa Agric. Exp. 

Stn. 1934 (August): 45. [CAB Abstracts Archive]

Kirk, P. 2004a. Aureobasidium pullulans (de Bary) G. Arnaud. Index Fungorum. CABI 

Bioscience; http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/SynSpecies.asp?RecordID=429267

[accessed February 2007].

Kirk, P. 2004b. Botryosphaeria rhodina (Berk. and M.A. Curtis) Arx. Index Fungorum. CABI 

Bioscience; http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/SynSpecies.asp?RecordID=309886

[accessed February 2007].

Kirk, P. 2004c. Glomerella cingulata (Stoneman) Spauld. and H. Schrenk. Index Fungorum. 

CABI Bioscience;

http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/SynSpecies.asp?RecordID=245491 [accessed 

February 2007].

Kirk, P. 2004d. Phyllactinia mali (Duby) U. Braun. Index Fungorum. CABI Bioscience;

http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/SynSpecies.asp?RecordID=283619 [accessed 

February 2007].

Kirk, P. 2004e. Phaeodothis winteri (Niessl) Aptroot. Index Fungorum. CABI Bioscience;

http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/SynSpecies.asp?RecordID=413762 [accessed 

February 2007].

Kirk, P. 2004f. Pseudocercospora piricola (Sawada) J.M. Yen. Index Fungorum. CABI 

Bioscience; http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=111861

[accessed February 2007].

Kishida, K. 1924. A new aphid injurious to the pear in Japan. Zool. Mag. 36: 472-474. [CAB 

Abstracts Archive]

Kishimoto, H. 2002. Species composition and seasonal occurrence of spider mites (Acari: 

Tetranychidae) and their predators in Japanese pear orchards with different agrochemical 

spraying programs. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 37(4): 603-615.

Koganezawa, H., Yang, X., Zhu, S. F., Hashimoto, J., Hadidi, A. 2003. Apple scar skin viroid in 

apple. pp In: Hadidi, A., Flores, R., Randles, J. W., Semancik, J. S., eds. Viroids.

Australia: CSIRO Publishing, 137-141. 

Korea Forest Service. 2004a. Japanese apricot branch moth: Cystidia couaggaria (Guenée). Plant 

Picture Book. Nature;

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ko&u=http://www.nature.go.kr/insect/spe

cimen/results_list.jsp%3Ffamily_cd%3D%26size%3D10%26org_cd%3DFRIE%26order

_cd%3D%26insect_cd%3D%26start%3D415&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=10&ct=resul

t&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522Cystidia%2Bcouaggaria%2522%26start%3D10%26hl

%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN [accessed February 2007].
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 53

Korea Forest Service. 2004b. Pear tree shield insect: Stephanitis nashi nashi Esaki et Takeya. 

Plant Picture Book. Nature;

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ko&u=http://www.nature.go.kr/insect/ins

ectGuide/results/read.jsp%3Finsect_cd%3DZLCS0019&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=5

&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522Stephanitis%2Bnashi%2522%2BPyrus%26hl

%3Den%26safe%3Doff [accessed February 2007].

Korea Forest Service. 2004c. Pear tree. Plant Picture Book. Nature;

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ko&u=http://www.nature.go.kr/plant/plan

tGuide/results/view_detail.jsp%3Fname_id%3D12989%26returnUrl%3D&sa=X&oi=tra

nslate&resnum=4&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522Stephanitis%2Bnashi%252

2%2BPyrus%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG [accessed February 2007].

Kosztarab, M. 1996. Scale Insects of Northeastern North America: Identification, Biology, and 

Distribution. (Va. Mus. Nat. Hist. Spec. Publ. No. 3). Martinsville, VA: Virginia Museum 

of Natural History. 650 pp.

Kuo, M.H., L.H. Chiang, and W.C. Tu. 2001. Morphological identification of three different 

aphids, Aphis gossypii, A. citricola, and A. pomi (Homoptera: Aphididae) on pear. 

Formosan Entomol. 21(4): 309-320. [CAB Abstracts]

Kuwayama, S. 1936. Insect Pests of Apple in Hokkaido (abstract). Led hort Lect meet. March;

(4): 87-118.

Latorre, B.A. 1998. Phytosanitary status of pear in Chile with special reference to the 

phytopathological situation. Acta Horticulturae (475): 439-448. [CAB Abstracts]

Le Cam, B., Devaux, M., and Parisi, L. 2001. Specific polymerase chain reaction identification 

of Venturia nashicola using internally transcribed spacer region in the ribosomal DNA. 

Phytopathology 91:900-904. 

Lee, H.K., C.N. Woo, S.B. Namkoong, Y.S. Seo, J.H. La, Y.I. Kim, K.G. Kim, and B.K. Kim. 

2000. Quarantine pest occurrence in exporting pear fruits (Pyrus pyrifolia Nakai cv. 

Whangkeumbae) during cold storage. Kor. J. Hort. Sci. Technol. 18(1): 22-27. [CAB 

Abstracts]

Li, B. and M. Zhao. 2001. Relationship between leaf age of pear and its resistance to Venturia

nashicola. Acta Phytophyl. Sin. 28(4): 309-312. [in Chinese; English summary]

Li, G. and Z. Qing. 1997. The occurrence, regulation and control of pear midge. South China 

Fruits 26(6): 44. [in Chinese]

Li, S., K. Lin, L. Huang, and C. Sun. 1997. Identification of resistance to ring rot of pear fruit. J. 

Fruit Sci. 14(1): 42-43. [CAB Abstracts]

Li, Z.-L. 1999. Deciduous fruit production in China. In M.K. Papademetriou and E.M. Herath 

(eds.). Deciduous Fruit Production in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok: FAO Regional Off. 

for Asia and the Pacific; http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/AB985E/ab985e06.htm 

[accessed January 2003].

Li-zhong, H. 2000. List of Chinese Insects Vol. 1. Zhongshan (Sun Yat-sen) University Press, 

Guangzhou, China.

Lin, H., Y. Xi, S. Chen, X. Zhang, X. Peng, and W. Huang. 2002. Postharvest physiology, 

postharvest pathology and freshness-keeping technologies of pear fruit in South China. 

Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 18(4): 185-188. [CAB Abstracts]

Liu, H.-L., C.-C. Chen, and C.-P. Lin. 2007. Detection and identification of the phytoplasma 

associated with pear decline in Taiwan. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 117(3): 281-291.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 54

Liu, Y. 2001. Studies on developing law and controlling technology of Janus piri. J. Zhejiang 

For. Sci. Technol. 21(1): 47-48, 64. [in Chinese; English summary]

Mann, G.S. 1997. Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) incidence on sand pear in relation to other larval 

hosts adjoining the sand pear orchards in Punjab. J. Insect Sci. 10(1): 34-37. [CAB 

Abstracts]

Massee, A.M. 1944. Notes on some interesting insects observed in 1943. 31st Rept. East Mailing 

Res. Stn., pp. 58-65. [CAB Abstracts Archive]

Miyazaki, M. 1991. Studies on the biology and control of the grape leafhopper, Arboridia 

apicalis (Nawa) (abstract). Bulletin of the Shimane Agricultural Experiment Station 25: 

53-70.

McRitchie, J. J. 1991. The felt fungus Septobasidium. Plant Pathology Circular No. 346. Fla. 

Dept. Agric. and Consumer Serv., Division of Plant Industry,

Meijerman, L. and S.A. Ulenberg. 2000. Arthropods of Economic Importance: Eurasian 

Tortricidae. Amsterdam: Zoological Museum Amsterdam (University of Amsterdam); 

http://ip30.eti.uva.nl/bis/tortricidae.php?menuentry=inleiding [accessed February 2007].

Mevzos, N. 1935. Coehlidiidae (Limacodidae) injurious to fruit trees. Plant Prot (1) Leningrad: 

131-134 pp. (Abstract)

Michigan State University Extension. 1999. Pyrus ussuriensis--Ussurian Pear, Ornamental Plants 

plus Version 3.0 – 00001210. Michigan State University Extension.

http://web1.msue.msu.edu/imp/modzz/00001210.html , last accessed Feb 20, 2007.

Milenkovic, S., M. Nikolic, and S. Stamenkovic. 1998. Integrated concept for the control of pear 

psyllid, Psylla pyri L. Jugoslovensko Vocarstvo 32(1/2): 103-109. [CAB Abstracts]

Miller, D.R. 1985. Pest Risk Assessment of Armored Scales on Certain Fruit. Unpublished 

report. USDA Agric. Res. Serv.

Miyazaki, M. 1991. Studies on the biology and control of the grape leafhopper, Arboridia 

apicalis (Nawa). Bulletin of the Shimane Agricultural Experiment Station. 25: 53-70.

Molenda, E., and E. Pitera. 2008. Harmfulness of apple blossom weevil (Anthonomus pomorum

L.) on cultivars of Asian pear (Pyrus pyrifolia Nakai). / Szkodliwośc ́ kwieciaka 

jabkowca (Anthonomus pomorum L.) na odmianach uprawnych gruszy azjatyckiej (Pyrus 

pyrifolia Nakai) (abstract). Zeszyty Naukowe Instytutu Sadownictwa i Kwiaciarstwa w 

Skierniewicach:171-177.

Moriya, S., Shiga, M., and Mabuchi, M. 1987. Analysis of light-trap records in four major 

species of fruit-piercing stinkbugs with a special reference to body size variation in 

trapped adults of Plautia stali Scott (abstract). Bull. of the Fruit Tree Research Station, 

Series A 14:79-94

Muramatsu, S. 1925. Breeding studies on the life-histories of injurious insects. Korea Agric. 

Exp. Stn. Rept. 1925 (March): 1-42. [CAB Abstracts Archive]

NAPPO. 2004. Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (RSPM): NAPPO glossary of 

phytosanitary terms (No. 5). North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO), 

Ontario, Canada.

NASS. 2002. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts: 2001 Summary. USDA National Agriculture Statistics 

Service (NASS). Fr Nt 1-3 (02).

Nichols, C.W., S.M. Garnsey, R.L. Rackham, S.M. Gotan, and C.N. Mahannah. 1964. 

Pythiaceous fungi and plant-parasitic nematodes in California pear orchards. I. 

Occurrence and pathogenicity of pythiaceous fungi in orchard soils. Hilgardia 35(21): 

577-602. [CAB Abstracts]
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 55

NIS. 2007. Personal communication (Email, February 20, 2007) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ 

National Identification Services (NIS) to Leah Millar, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST Plant 

Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory

Nishida, G.M. (ed.). 2002. Hawaiian Terrestrial Arthropod Checklist, 4th ed. Honolulu: Bishop 

Museum Press.

NRCS. 2007. The PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), The National Plant Data Center. 

http://plants.usda.gov.

Ogawa, J.M., E.I. Zehr, G.W. Bird, D.F. Ritchie, K. Uriu, and J.K. Uyemoto. 1995. 

Compendium of Stone Fruit Diseases. St. Paul, MN: APS Press. 98 pp.

Page, S., and M. Olds. 2003. The Plant Book: An Encyclopedia of Worldwide Flora. Random 

House Australia Pty, Ltd. And Myna, Sing Choeng Printing Co., Ltd, Hong Kong, China.

Panizzi, A.R., J.E. McPherson, D.G. James, M. Javahery, and R.M. McPherson. 2000. Stink

bugs (Pentatomidae), pp. 421-474. In C.W. Schaefer and A.R. Panizzi (eds.). Heteroptera 

of Economic Importance. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Park, J. D., and K. H. Hong. 1992. Species, damage and population density of Pseudococcidae 

injuring pear fruits. Korean Journal of Applied Entomology 31(2):133-138.

Park, J.D., S.G. Lee, C.S. Kim, and B.K. Byun. 1998. Bionomics of the oak nut weevil, 

Mechoris ursulus (Roelofs) (Coleoptera: Attelabidae) and the insect pests of the acorn in 

Korea. FRI J. For. Sci. Seoul (57): 151-156.

Perez-Moreno, I. and M.L. Moraza. 1997. Study of Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten and its 

relationship with Calepitrimerus vitis (Nalepa) in Rioja vineyards. Bull. OIV 

70(801/802): 832-845. [CAB Abstracts]

PestID. 2009. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, 

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

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

Petrak, F. 1938. XI. Verzeichnis der neuen Arten, Varietäten, Formen, Namen und wichtigsten 

Synonyme der Pilze. Just’s Botanischer Jahresbericht 57(2): 592-631. [Petrak’s Lists No. 

4]

Petrak, F. 1939. XI. Verzeichnis der neuen Arten, Varietäten, Formen, Namen und wichtigsten 

Synonyme. Just’s Botanischer Jahresbericht 59(1): 449-514. [Petrak’s Lists No. 6]

Pinhassi, N., D. Nestel, and D. Rosen. 1996. Oviposition and emergence of olive scale 

(Homoptera: Diaspididae) crawlers: regional degree-day forecasting model. Environ. 

Entomol. 25(1): 1-6.

Pittaway, A.R. and I.J. Kitching. 2007. Marumba gaschkewitschii gaschkewitschii (Bremer and 

Grey, 1853). Sphingidae of the Eastern Palaearctic (including Siberia, the Russian Far 

East, Mongolia, China, Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula and Japan.). The Natural History

Museum, London; http://tpittaway.tripod.com/china/m_gas.htm.

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

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

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

PRF. 2007. Export Certification Project (EXCERPT) Database. Purdue Research Foundation

(PRF).

Qin, X.-R., T. Ando, M. Yamamoto, M. Yamashita, K. Kusano, and H. Abe. 1997. Resolution of 

pheromonal epoxydienes by chiral HPLC, stereochemistry of separated enantiomers, and 

their field evaluation. J. Chem. Ecol. 23(5): 1403-1417.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 56

Reed, C.F. 1977. Economically important foreign weeds. USDA Agric. Handbk. 498 pp.

RHS. 2002. Pear fruit gall midge – Contarinia pyrivora. Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) –

Advice; http://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profiles0602/pear_midge.asp

Robinson, G.S., P.R. Ackery, I.J. Kitching, G.W. Beccaloni, and L.M. Hernández. 2001. 

Hostplants of the Moth and Butterfly Caterpillars of the Oriental Region. London: The 

Natural History Museum. 744 pp.

Robinson, G.S., P.R. Ackery, I.J. Kitching, G.W. Beccaloni, and L.M. Hernández. 2007. HOSTS 

- a database of the hostplants of the world's Lepidoptera. London: The Natural History

Museum; http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/hostplants/ [accessed February 2007].

Rodionova, K.A. 1973. On the possibility of infecting leaves and fruits of apple and pear by a 

culture of Coniothyrium sp. Trudy Tsentr. N.I. Lab. Karantinu Rast. 1973(1): 145-146. 

[CAB Abstracts]

Saccardo, P.A. 1882. Sylloge Fungorum Omnium Hucusque Cognitorum. Vol. 1. Patavia.

Saccardo, P.A. 1884. Sylloge Fungorum Omnium Hucusque Cognitorum. Vol. 3. Patavia.

Saccardo, P.A. 1886. Sylloge Fungorum Omnium Hucusque Cognitorum. Vol. 4. Patavia.

Sandhu, G.S. and A.S. Sohi. 1980. New host records of Parasa lepida Cramer (Limacodidae: 

Lepidoptera). Sci. Cult. 46(2): 49-50. [CAB Abstracts]

Sandhu, G.S. and A.S. Sohi. 1986. Insects and other pests of sand pear and their control in the 

Punjab. Punjab Hort. J. 26(1-4): 46-55.

Savela, M. 2007. Aporia Hübner, [1819]. Lepidoptera and Some Other Life Forms Checklist; 

http://www.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/insecta/lepidoptera/ditrysia/papilionoidea/pieridae/pie

rinae/aporia/index.html#crataegi [accessed February 2007].

Shamloul, A.M., X. Yang, L. Han, and A. Hadidi. 2004. Characterization of a new variant of 

apple scar skin viroid associated with pear fruit crinkle disease. J. Plant Pathol. 86 (3): 

249-256.

Sharma, R.L. 1990a. Efficacy of pre-harvest fungicidal sprays in controlling post-harvest 

diseases of China pear. Plant Dis. Res. 5(1): 109-111. [CAB Abstracts]

She, D., F. Fu, F. Chen, C. Zhou, and G. Ma. 2005. The occurrence of diseases and pests on the 

trunk and branches of Yunhexueli pear cultivar and their control. South China Fruits 

34(4): 66-68. [CAB Abstracts]

Skorupska, A. 1999. Morphologico-anatomical structure of leaves and female fecundity of genus 

Tetranychus (Acarina, Tetranychidae) on selected scab-resistant apple varieties (abstract). 

Journal of Plant Protection Research 39(2):144-152.

Smith, H.S. 1931. Biological Control of mealybugs attacking citrus. California University 

Agriculture Monthly Bulletin. 9: 104-158.

Smith, H. S. and H. M. Armitage. 1931. Biological Control of mealybugs attacking citrus. 

California University Agriculture Monthly Bulletin. 104-158.

Solomon, J.D. 1995. Guide to insect borers of North American broadleaf trees and shrubs. Argic. 

Handbk. 706. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 735 p.

Soma, Y., I. Matsuoka, H. Naito, Y. Tsuchiya, T. Misumi, and F. Kawakami. 2002. 

Disinfestation of export Japanese pears “Nijisseiki” by phosphine fumigation. 2. Largescale fumigation of Japanese pears by phosphine from generator. Res. Bull. Plant Protect. 

Serv. Japan (38): 9-12. [CAB Abstracts]

Spotts, R.A. and L.A. Cervantes. 2002. Involvement of Aureobasidium pullulans and 

Rhodotorula glutinis in russet of d’Anjou pear fruit. Plant Dis. 86(6): 625-628.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 57

Tai, Y., Y. Fu, B. Yang, G. Chen, and M. Tao. 2004. Studies on the quantity dynamic of pear 

aphids and their natural enemy in Kunming region. Southw. China J. Agric. Sci. 17(3): 

337-339. [CAB Abstracts]

Takashi, S. 2006. Oberea japonica (Thunberg). Insects in Suzuoka; 

http://www2.wbs.ne.jp/~musi/xkokam30.htm [accessed February 2007].

TBG. 2007. Eriogyna pyretorum Westwood. Taipei Botanical Garden (TBG); 

http://tpbg.tfri.gov.tw/Default.aspx?tabid=730 [accessed February 2007].

Tna, D.J. 1986. Field experiments on the integrated control of citrus mites. Chin. J. Biol. Contr. 

2(4): 181. [CAB Abstracts]

Tseng, S. and C. Ho. 1937. Some insects injurious to pear-trees. Lingnan Sci. J. 16(2/3): 249-

259. [CAB Abstracts Archive]

Tu, C. 1933. Notes on diseases of economic plants in south China. Lingnan Sci. J. 11(4): 489-

504. [CAB Abstracts Archive]

Ueno, H. 1971. Studies on the scale insects that attack the Japanese persimmon Diospyros kaki 

L. II. Interrelationships between overwintered larvae of the Japanese wisteria cottony

mealybug, Planococcus kraunhiae Kuwana, and the elongate cottony scale, Phenacoccus 

pergandei Cockerell, in the orchard (abstract). Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology

and Zoology. 15(4): 211-214

Van Duzee, E.P. 1917. Catalogue of the Hemiptera of America North of Mexico Excepting the 

Aphididae, Coccidae and Aleurodidae. (University of California Publications in 

Entomology Vol. 2). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Wang, G., N. Hong, and A. Hadidi. 2005. Occurrence and research progress of fruit tree viroid 

diseases in China. J. Fruit Sci. 22(1): 51-54

Wang, Y. and R. Cai. 1997. The emergence and control of Dichocrocis punctiferalis Guen. for 

Younai plum variety. South China Fruits 26(3): 45. [in Chinese]

Wang, Z. 2000. The integrated control of the main pests of Pingguoli pear variety in Hetao 

district of the Inner Mongolia autonomous region. China Fruits 2000(3): 12-15. [CAB 

Abstracts]

Watson, A.J. 1971. Foreign bacterial and fungus diseases of food, forage, and fiber crops: an 

annotated list. USDA Agric. Handbk. 418 pp.

Watson, G.W. 2005. Arthropods of Economic Importance: Diaspididae. Amsterdam: Zoological 

Museum Amsterdam (University of Amsterdam); 

http://ip30.eti.uva.nl/bis/diaspididae.php?menuentry=inleiding [accessed February 2007].

Wei, X., and X. Ding. 2007. The occurrence regulation of two spotted red mite on plum trees and 

its control (abstract). South China Fruits 1:66-67.

Westwood, M. N. 1993. Temperate-Zone Pomology; Physiology and Culture. 3

rd Ed. Timber 

Press, Inc. 523 pp. 

White, I.M. and M.M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Fruit Flies of Economic Importance: Their 

Identification and Bionomics. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International. 221 pp.

Wille, H.P. 1950. Investigations on P. pyri and other pear psyllids in Valais. Promotionsarb. 

Eidg. Tech. Hochsch. Zurich. [CAB Abstracts Archive]

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

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

Xu, J., P. Fu, and H. Cheng. 1995. A taxonomic study of species of Xiphinema from seven 

provinces of China (Nematoda: Longidoridae). J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. 18(1): 37-42. 

[CAB Abstracts].
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 58

Yago, M. 1933. Changes in the Fauna of injurious Insects in the Pear Orchards (abstract). 

Journal of Plant Protection January(20):27-32.

Yan, S.Q. 1994. A study on the biological characteristics of Paropsis soriculata Swartz 

(abstract). Journal of Jilin Agricultural University. 16(3): 13-14.

Yang, M.-M., J.-H. Huang, and F. Li. 2004. A new record of Cacopsylla species (Hemiptera: 

Psyllidae) from pear orchards in Taiwan. Formosan Entomol. 24(3): 213-220.

Yoon, J.K. and D.K. Lee. 1974. Studies on pear phylloxera (Aphanostigma iakusuiense [sic] 

Kishida). I. On the control methods. Kor. J. Plant Protect. 13(4): 209-216. [CAB 

Abstracts]

Yue, Y. 2001. Experiment on the control of pear psyllid using different insecticides. China Fruits 

2001(1): 52-53. [CAB Abstracts]

Zhang, B.-C. (comp.). 1994. Index of Economically Important Lepidoptera. Wallingford, U.K.: 

CAB International. 599 pp.

Zhang, L., G. Qiao, and G. Zhang. 2001. Study on Chinese Melanaphis van der Goot 

(Homoptera: Aphididae) with descriptions of three new species. Proc. Entomol. Soc. 

Wash. 103(2): 325-333.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 59

4. Appendices

Appendix A. Risk Mitigation Options

Specific mitigations may be selected from a range of pre-harvest and post-harvest options (Table 

A1), and may include other safeguarding measures. Measures may be added or the strength of 

measures may be increased to compensate for uncertainty associated with evidence of a risk. At a 

minimum, for a measure to be considered for use in a systems approach, it must be: 1) clearly 

defined; 2) efficacious; 3) officially required (mandated); and 4) subject to monitoring and 

control by the responsible national plant protection organization (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #14). 

A systems approach to mitigate risks involved with Chinese sand pear imports from China might 

combine a variety of measures: 1) certification of pest-free areas, pest-free places of production, 

or areas of low pest prevalence for certain quarantine pests; 2) programs to control pests within 

orchards during growing season (e.g., mechanical, chemical, cultural); 3) pre-clearance oversight 

by APHIS officials; 4) packinghouse procedures to eliminate external pests (e.g., washing, 

brushing, inspection of fruit); 5) quarantine treatments to disinfest fruit of internal and external 

pests; 6) consignments inspected and certified to be free of quarantine pests; 7) fruit traceable to 

origin, packing facility, grower, and field; 8) consignments subject to sampling and inspection 

after arrival in the United States; and 9) limits on distribution and transit within the United 

States. 

A.1. Phytosanitary Measures Prior to Harvesting

A.1.1. Pest-free Areas and Pest-free Places of Production

Establishment of pest-free areas, pest-free places of production, and pest-free production sites, as 

well as areas of low pest prevalence, may be an effective alternative to post-harvest quarantine 

treatments or a component of a systems approach (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #14). Establishment and 

maintenance of such pest-free areas or production sites should comply with relevant ISPMs 

(IPPC, 2007: ISPM #s 4, 10, and 14) and NAPPO Standard 17 (NAPPO, 2004). Regular trapping 

and surveys of quarantine pests are needed to establish and maintain pest-free status.

A.1.2. Trappings and field surveys

Bactrocera dorsalis. Basic requirements for the trapping programs for establishing fruit fly pest 

free areas (PFA) could be found in NAPPO standard 17 (NAPPO, 2004). Specific trapping levels 

for B. dorsalis should be identified in the Workplan and are not discussed in this document. In

addition to trapping, exclusion of untreated host fruit imports into PFA is required. When 

captured flies are discovered in traps, Chinese sand pears should not be exported until the source 

of the infestation is delimited, trap density is increased, pesticide sprays are applied or other 

measures are undertaken to control B. dorsalis. We suggest a periodic APHIS review of the 

program and possibly a pre-clearance of shipments.

Fruit moths. Detection of Acrobasis pyrivorella, Carposina sasaki, Conogethes punctiferalis, 

and Grapholita inopinata at any time (growing or harvest seasons) could affect the permission of 

the Chinese sand pears to be exported. The surveys should be conducted by the Chinese Ministry

of Agriculture, should cover a specific area (as stated in the Work Plan), and should include 
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 60

randomly selected portions of each registered orchard and areas with wild or backyard host trees. 

Specifics for this survey could be similar to those approved for the importation of Fragrant and 

Ya pears from China into the United States as described in the latest Code of Federal Regulations 

(7 CFR § 319.56-2ee, 2006; 7 CFR § 319.56-2nn, 2006).

Adult C. sasakii, C. punctiferalis, and G. inopinata moths could be detected with pheromone 

traps since pheromones are available for these species (The Pherolist, 2004). Pheromones are 

available for three species of Acrobasis but not for A. pyrivorella. We found no data on whether 

or not A. pyrivorella could be monitored using the pheromones available for other Acrobasis

species.

If establishing a pest-free area status is not feasible, a pest-free place of production might be an 

option and is usually based on a higher level of official sampling, orchard cleanliness, and higher 

levels of verification samplings and inspections of lots at harvest as well as a phytosanitary

certification of production in a pest free place. 

Hemipterans. For Aphanostigma iaksuiense, Ceroplastes japonicus, Lepidosaphes kuwacola, L.

tubulorum, Phenacoccus pergandei, and Planococcus kraunhiae, effective IPM programs 

achieving low pest prevalence of the phylloxeran, the scale, and the lacebug in the field 

combined with inspection is a mitigation option. Freedom from these external pests could be 

verified by conducting an official survey or lot freedom based on inspection of a shipping lot. 

Plant Pathogens. Surveys for Alternaria gaisen, Guignardia pyricola, Monilinia fructigena, and 

Venturia nashicola should be conducted at bloom and fruitlet stages of the plant, as well as just 

prior to harvest. Flowers, pedicels, fruits, leaves, and twigs of Chinese sand pears should be 

inspected since all of these plant parts are able to harbor A. gaisen and M. fructigena. Guignardia 

pyricola and V. nashicola are not specifically associated with floral parts, but do infect leaves, 

fruits and stems of P. pyrifolia. 

Orchards should be inspected at, or shortly after, the bloom period (bloom survey). Pear flowers 

are collected and incubated to detect presence or estimate levels of latent infections by

quarantine pathogens (particularly M. fructigena, and A. gaisen). Conidia of A. gaisen may land 

on senescent flower parts, later leading to fruit infection (EPPO, 1997b). A. gaisen also invades 

young fruit and leaves through natural openings, appearing as small black specks, which 

depending upon conditions, may expand to destroy entire fruits, leaves or shoots (EPPO, 1997b).

Orchards that show infestations should be removed from shipping.

For the fungus V. nashicola, ascospores (from overwintering infected leaves) and conidia (from 

mycelia in bud scales) both play a role in infection of leaves and fruit and there can be multiple 

secondary cycles of infection during a season, not solely at bloom time (EPPO, 1997c). Fruitlet 

survey should be conducted when the fruit reaches the size of 2.5 cm in diameter. Pear fruitlets 

are collected and incubated to detect presence or levels of latent infection by quarantine 

pathogens. Infested orchards are removed from shipping. This survey and subsequent incubation 

should address plant pathogens (e.g. M. fructigena) and, at the same time, it could also be used to 

detect certain arthropods.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 61

A.1.3. Bagging fruit

Bagging can physically exclude some pests from contacting developing or mature fruit (e.g., 

Howard, 1986; Bessin and Hartman, 2004; Love, 2002) and is a common practice in some Asian 

countries. Usually, fruit is bagged with two-layered paper bags when it reaches a size of 2.5 cm 

in diameter. Early bagging reduces oviposition on fruit by arthropods and fruit infection by some 

plant pathogens. However, fruit bagging is not practiced in arid windy regions (e.g. Korla, area 

of China, where fragrant pears are produced) because bagged fruit could be blown from the tree 

due to the increased wind resistance. Microarthropods (mites and mealybugs) on Chinese sand 

pears could be problematic as they are able to crawl into the fruit bags despite the metal "twist 

ties" applied to the fruit stalk to secure the paper bags (Redlin, 2007).

A.1.4. Control Program

Mechanical, cultural, or chemical means (e.g., orchard sanitation, pre-harvest insecticidal, 

fungicidal, and herbicidal sprays) should be used routinely to control pests within the orchards to 

achieve pest-free areas or pests-free production sites. Sanitation and pesticide applications, as 

essential components of best management practices, are mainstays of commercial fruit 

production (e.g., Kirk et al., 2001).

Growers are expected to provide good cultural controls including records of pesticide application 

to reduce levels of pest populations. In the past, China has provided lists of compounds used in 

orchards; one of the fungicides used to control diseases is Bordeaux mixture. Orchards are 

expected to be periodically inspected by AQSIQ to verify that growers apply these good cultural 

practices.

Exportation could be limited to those cultivars that are resistant or have a reduced likelihood of 

arthropods or pathogens remaining in the pathway. For example, there are some pear cultivars 

that have a shallow calyx end which will make for more effective removal of micro-arthropods.

A.1.5. Orchard registration and certification by AQSIQ or Provincial Officials

Export of Chinese sand pears from China should be considered only from certified areas and 

from the orchards registered to participate in the export program. For example, fruit could be 

produced in designated export areas of one or two provinces in China (e.g., Hebei and 

Shandong), where there is already a pear export program in operation. The proof of the 

maintained certified status should be provided with the regularity agreed upon in the Operational 

Work Plan. Both countries should jointly create and agree to comply with such an Operational 

Work Plan. Certification programs permit tracing back of the commodity and exclusion of 

orchards with detections of quarantine pests in fruit lots.

A.1.5. Phytosanitary Certification Inspections

Fruit should be sampled and inspected periodically during the growing season and after harvest 

for quality control and as phytosanitary precautionary measures. Orchards should be surveyed 

periodically; at these times, a random sample of several fruit per tree should be inspected to 

detect for presence of quarantine pests. Results of surveys should be negative for quarantine 

pests. Production areas also should be subject to scheduled audits and periodic, unannounced 

inspections by certified inspectors from PPQ and AQSIQ. Such inspections usually insure that 
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 62

production areas meet stipulated requirements for the issuance of a phytosanitary certificate 

required for each consignment. 

A.2. Mitigation Options Post-harvest and Prior to Shipping

Removal of infected or infested plant material reduces the likelihood that quarantine organisms 

would be present with a shipment. Routine post-harvest and packing practices for Chinese sand 

pears to be exported to the United States should include the safeguards similar to those applied 

for fragrant and Ya variety pears imported from China (7 CFR § 319.56-2nn, 2006; 7 CFR § 

319.56-2ee, 2006).

Packing houses participating in the export program should be certified. Certification usually

guarantees certain commitment to the program such as no commingling of export fruit with that 

for domestic market, record keeping of temperatures, lot numbers, dates of harvest, etc. Mixtures 

of fruit from non-program orchards could introduce pests into the pathway, therefore, it is 

expected to have a dedicated packing house or a packing run for the exported fruit.

Cold storage and other facilities used in processing and storing fruits prior to potential export are 

also expected to be certified for the program and regularly monitored. Such certified facilitates 

usually maintain proper fruit handling procedures, appropriate lighting for visual inspection, etc.

The identity of pears should be maintained from field boxes or containers to the shipping boxes 

so that Chinese sand pears can be traced back to the orchard of origin if pests are found at the 

packinghouse or the port of first arrival in the United States. It is important to consider that only

commercial shipments should be eligible for export of Chinese sand pears since rates of 

infestation and infection would be expected to be much higher in non-certified orchards which 

are not part of the program.

If bagging of the fruit is a part of pest exclusion program, then fruit without intact fruit-growing 

bag should be rejected at a packing house. Torn or absent bags won’t effectively exclude pests. 

In the past, AQSIQ voluntary proposed using hand grading of the fruit as an additional 

safeguarding measure. It is known that in some cases wounding of fruit may be a factor 

contributing to development of post harvest diseases, such as Alternaria yaliinficiens on Ya pear.

Prior to being packed in boxes, each fruit must be cleaned of all leaves and other portions of 

plants, and stems are cut short to remove external pests. There is some circumstantial evidence 

that this procedure is effective in reduction of infections by Alternaria sp. on Ya pear. This could 

be true in the case of infestation of Chinese sand pears with A. gaisen. Most varieties of fruits 

can be cleaned by gently wiping the surface with a clean soft cotton cloth or gloves. It may be 

necessary to use a moist cloth if the dirt particles or surface stains are difficult to remove. The 

cloth should periodically be dipped in a solution of 150 ppm hypochlorous acid.

Before packing, fruit stems should be cut short. Before pears are packed and shipped, post 

harvest incubation of fruit could serve as a mitigation measure that allows detection of various 

diseases in pome fruits, including species of Alternaria. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 63

Visual inspection combined with culling of damaged or infested fruits should be used to detect 

pests on (or in) harvested fruit prior to packing. These procedures exclude many infested fruit 

from export. Excluded infested or damaged fruit should be examined in order to identify the taxa 

and levels of quarantine pests present in production orchards.

Another effective method of eliminating mobile surface arthropods is an air gun treatment prior 

to fruit packing. This physical treatment, air blasting of the calyx end of the fruit, removes 

mobile micro-arthropods (Redlin, 2007). Of important note, however, is that the calyx end of 

pome fruit, including pears, can be "complex", i.e., full of senescent flower parts and a "closed 

aspect", which provides good hiding places for microarthropods (Redlin, 2007). This type of 

calyx is often referred to as a “persistent calyx” (Figure 1). In contrast, some Chinese sand pears 

have a smooth calyx end, which is referred to as a “nonpersistent” or “deciduous calyx” (Figure 

2). Fruits with such a “deciduous calyx” are easier to clean with an air gun and are easier to 

inspect for microarthopods (Redlin, 2007). Consequently, limiting Chinese sand pear exports to 

Chinese sand pear cultivars with a deciduous calyx, along with use of air gun treatment, would 

improve the effective removal of microarthropods.

In some cases, before being packed in a box, each fruit is individually wrapped in soft tissue to 

protect it during transportation, as well as from spreading any latent infections to other fruits 

within the box. The same results could be obtained by using clear plastic box packaging with 

individual fixed number of compartments for each fruit. 

Figure 1. Calyx end of an Asian pear, Pyrus pyrifolia cultivar 'Shin Li'. (This fruit was grown in 

the United States). This pear has a “persistent calyx”. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 64

Figure 2. Calyx end of a bright yellow Pyrus pyrifolia cultivar (grown in the United States). This 

pear has a “nonpersistent” or “deciduous calyx”.

Inspection of fruit prior to shipment by AQSIQ and certification should occur at the same 

location, such as the packing house, for effective pest exclusion. Science-based sampling 

methods will detect the presence of quarantine pests and result in rejection of fruit lots and 

production orchards that do not meet program requirements. The issued phytosanitary certificate 

should state that the Chinese sand pears were grown in orchards in accordance with any 

conditions specified in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, specifically in 7CFR319.56, were 

inspected and found free from the quarantine pests identified in this risk assessment. 

Development of a pre-clearance program (e.g. as in Pyrus pyrifolia from Japan) is an excellent 

mitigation measure where much of the inspection occurs in the country of production. 

A.3. Mitigation Options during Shipping and at U.S. Ports of entry

A.3.1. Shipping procedures

The Chinese sand pears should be held in a cold storage facility while awaiting export isolated 

from any other fruit which are not part of the export program. Containers with packed fruit 

should be sealed and exported under refrigeration. Records should be available indicating 

whether or not the fruit were shipped under the proper temperatures. Prior to leaving the 

packinghouse, the container must be secured with a seal that will be broken when the truck or 

container is opened. Once sealed, the refrigerated container needs to remain unopened until it 

reaches the port of entry in the United States. Each shipment of Chinese sand pears should be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by AQSIQ stating that all of the conditions of 

the operational Work Plan have been met.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 65

A.3.2. Point-of-entry Sampling and Inspection

Upon arrival in the United States, consignments should be inspected at the port of entry, with 

particular attention given to paperwork, to ascertain that the chain of custody has remained. A 

random sample of fruit from each consignment might be inspected (depending on the Work Plan 

conditions) to detect a pest infestation rate of 10 percent or greater (PPQ, 2004) and to exclude 

latently infested fruit. 

A.3.3. Limits on Distribution and Transit within the United States

In some instances, the importation of commodities that might be harboring exotic pests is 

authorized for shipment only to certain locations (e.g., Alaska or North Atlantic ports) or during 

a specific season (usually the one with the coldest temperatures). These additional measures limit 

the risk of establishment for many exotic pests. The request for importation of Chinese sand 

pears into the United States does not specify any particular region or area of production,

therefore, it is presumed to be from any part of China. The anticipated harvest time could start in 

summer and go until fall, depending on the area of production. For example, harvest of fragrant 

and Ya pears for existing export program from Korla lasts approximately two weeks and can 

occur late August to mid September (Podleckis, 2003). Chinese sand pears are known to have 

extended storage life (up to 20 weeks) under appropriate refrigeration with a shelf life of 10-15 

days (Crisosto, 2007) and could be imported later in fall and through winter. During these 

months, the risk of introduction and establishment of exotic pests through most of the continental

United States will be minimized; however, in U.S. territories, establishment could occur. 

A.4. Quarantine treatments

A.4.1. Refrigeration and Fumigation

Specific cold treatment of Pyrus pyrifolia exists only for Bactrocera dorsalis. Cold treatment, 

schedule T107-J is effective against B. dorsalis in P. pyrifolia under the following conditions: 

33.8 oF for 15 days or 34.5 oF for 18 days (PPQ, 2007). However, cold treatment for P. pyrifolia

would not be necessary for fruit produced above the 35th parallel, since cold winters in these 

locations prevents B. dorsalis from becoming established, and thus infesting the fruit (Gould, 

2006; Hennessey, 2005).

There are other treatments approved by APHIS that are effective against the following pests but 

not proven to be specifically effective on P. pyrifolia.

Two alternative schedules for the Treatment T109-a-1 and T109-a-2 (Cold treatment followed by 

MB at NAP—tarpaulin or chamber) are approved by APHIS against Conogethes punctiferalis in 

apples (PPQ, 2007). This treatment is also effective in apples for Carposina niponensis, 

however, it is not know if it would be effective against C. sasakii. Data are needed to 

demonstrate efficacy of the treatment for the above mentioned pests in P. pyrifolia.

Effective and approved by APHIS treatment against different surface pests, including scale 

insects, aphids, bugs and surface feeding caterpillars on various commodities is T104-a-1 

(methyl bromide fumigation). However, there is a warning in the APHIS Treatment Manual 

against applying this treatment to pests on P. pyrifolia since methyl bromide will cause severe 

damage to fruit (PPQ, 2007).
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 66

A.4.2. Irradiation

Generic irradiation dose 400 Gy is approved by APHIS for all pests of the class Insecta, 

excluding adults and pupae of the order Lepidoptera (Treatments for Fruits and Vegetables, 

2006). This should be effective against surface feeding phyloxeran Aphanostigma iaksuiense, 

soft scale Ceroplastes japonicus and fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis. Internal feeders Carposina 

sasakii and Grapholita inopinata pupate outside of the fruit so the generic irradiation treatment 

should be effective against these pests. Lower irradiation doses are approved as being effective 

against most insects and could be used in a combination with other treatments to mitigate the rest 

of the pest complex. The dose of 150 Gy is approved by APHIS against Bactrocera dorsalis 

(PPQ, 2007). There are two moths species belonging to the same genus as Grapholita inopinata

for which the approved lower dose is 200 Gy (G. molesta and Cydia pomonella) (PPQ, 2007), 

however, no efficacy data are available for C. inopinata. The irradiation treatment may not be 

used against internal feeder Acrobasis pyrivorella which pupates within the fruit (CABI, 2005).

Larvae of internal feeder Conogethes punctiferalis could pupate on the surface of the fruit 

(FAO/IAEA, 2000) so the treatment without other mitigation will not be effective.

A.5. Program Monitoring and Feedback.

Inspection, treatment, or other mitigation measures performed in the field and packinghouse 

should be under the direct supervision of qualified APHIS and AQSIQ personnel, and in 

accordance with specified phytosanitary procedures. Such programs call for monitoring of all 

aspects of any required phytosanitary measures, in addition to identifying the shortcomings and 

opportunities for program modifications. Provisions should be made for the formal recognition 

of approved areas, sites, or producers, as well as the specification of conditions for revoking 

approvals or refusing certification for export to the United States. 

The Operational Work Plan should contain a provision for discussing the results of the program

at the end of the season. A program can be improved by timely feedback and the safeguarding 

mission of PPQ will be accomplished.

A.6. Conclusions

The number and diversity of pests that require mitigation make it unlikely that a single 

mitigation measure will be adequate to reduce risks of their introduction into the United States. 

For this reason, a combination of measures in a systems approach is most feasible. The system 

should include the following safeguards: monitoring of orchards and management programs to 

achieve and maintain area pest freedom; packinghouse inspection and post-harvest treatments; 

and maintenance of consignment security and traceability in transit.

In this document we do not purport to establish specific work plans or to evaluate the quality of a 

specific program or systems approach. We identify risks and provide information on known 

mitigation measures. The specific implementation of measures will be part of the Operational 

Work Plan.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 67

Table A1. Mitigation List: Importation of Fresh Fruit of Chinese sand pears, Pyrus pyrifolia,

from China into the entire United States.

Mitigation Effectiveness or difference Target a

Fruit produced in designated export 

areas, designated to be pest-free for 

the listed pests of concern, for 

example one or two provinces in 

China, e.g., Hebei and Shandong 

Provinces

We have a pear export 

program in operation in these 

two provinces. 

Establishment of Area 

freedom from pests 

would apply to all of the 

identified pests

Limit it to those cultivars that are 

resistant or reduce the likelihood of 

following the commercial fruit 

pathway for quarantine pests

There are several cultivars that 

have a shallow calyx end 

which will make for more 

effective removal of 

microarthropods. Several 

cultivars are reported as 

resistant to Alternaria gaisen 

(EPPO, 1997b), although none 

are completely immune to 

infection.

Arthropods which may

hide in calyx, Alternaria 

gaisen53

Not useful for V. 

nashicola 54, nor M. 

fructigena

Both countries jointly create and 

agree to comply with the 

Operational Work Plan

Arthropods 

Plant Pathogens

Orchard certification/registration, 

(maps, addresses, contacts, orchard 

numbers)

Allows trace back and 

exclusion of orchards if 

quarantine pests are detected 

in fruit lots

Arthropods

Plant Pathogens

Orchards jointly inspected at or 

shortly after bloom period 

(Bloom survey)

Pear flowers are collected and 

incubated to detect presence 

or level of latent infection by

quarantine pathogens. Infested 

orchards are removed from the 

export program.

Plant pathogens; 

particularly Monilinia 

fructigena;

Other survey methods 

may be recommended for 

other pathogens. 

Pesticides applied in orchard for 

pest control; China has provided 

lists of compounds used in orchards; 

one of these fungicides used to 

control diseases is Bordeaux 

mixture. Orchards are periodically

inspected by AQSIQ

Growers are expected to 

provide good cultural controls 

including records of pesticide 

application to reduce pest 

levels 

Arthropods

Plant Pathogens

Pathogens identified can 

be controlled readily with 

fungicides, but timing 

must be correct, and 

managed to prevent 

 

53 “Control of A. gaisen is through the use of resistant cultivars and fungicides. Modern cultivars of Pyrus pyrifolia 

reported to show resistance include Shinsei (Machida et al., 1984), Whangkeum Bae (Kim et al., 1985), 

Chuwhang Bae (Kim et al., 1986) and Shugyoko (Kozaki, 1987). Many cultivars have some degree of resistance, 

which is believed to be determined largely by one pair of genes, resistance being homozygous recessive (Kozaki, 

1974)” (EPPO, 1997).

54 “Damage from this disease is serious because almost all commercially important cultivars are susceptible (Ishii, et 

al., 1992), resulting in high dependence of growers on fungicide use to control this disease (Faize, et al., 2004).”
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 68

Mitigation Effectiveness or difference Target a

fungicide resistance.

Orchards inspected at the 2.5 cm 

diameter stage (fruitlet survey)

Pear fruitlets are collected and 

incubated to detect presence 

or level of latent infection by

quarantine pathogens.

Infested orchards are removed 

from export program.

Plant pathogens; 

particularly Monilinia 

fructigena, which may

demonstrate symptoms or 

colonize fruit early in 

development. It could 

also be used to detect 

some arthropods

Bagging with (two layered) paper 

fruit bags which can physically

exclude some quarantine pests from 

developing or mature fruit. 

Bagging can reduce 

macroarthropods and may 

reduce infection levels of 

some diseases; however, 

microarthropods, such as 

mites and mealybugs, may not 

be controlled by this method.

Timing would be 

essential in bagging 

treatments, to exclude 

pathogens, not trap them 

inside on the fruit. 

Early bagging of fruit Early bagging reduces 

oviposition on fruit by

macroarthropods and fruit 

infection by some plant 

pathogens

Macroarthropods

Plant Pathogens

Timing would be 

essential in bagging 

treatments, to exclude 

pathogens, not trap them 

inside on the fruit. 

Certify packing houses (and cold 

storage facilities) to be used in 

processing and storing these fruits 

prior to potential export; monitor the

packing house operations. 

Certification facilitates proper 

fruit handling procedures, 

appropriate lighting for visual 

inspection, minimizing 

damage to fruit to minimize 

post-harvest decay, etc.. 

Arthropods

Plant Pathogens

No commingling of fruit with 

domestic market

(Dedicated packing house or 

packing run)

Mixtures of fruit from nonprogram orchards could 

introduce pests into the 

pathway

Arthropods

Plant Pathogens

Fruit without intact fruit-growing 

bag at packing house is rejected 

Torn or absent bags won’t 

effectively exclude pests

Arthropods

Plant Pathogens

Hand grading (voluntary mitigation 

measure proposed by AQSIQ)

Wounding may be a factor in 

post harvest diseases such as 

Alternaria sp. on Ya pear 

Plant pathogens

Fruit stems cut short (voluntary

mitigation measure proposed by

AQSIQ)

Some circumstantial evidence 

indicates that this is effective 

in reduction of infection by

Alternaria sp. on Ya pear

Plant pathogens

Post harvest incubation required This procedure allows for the 

detection of various diseases 

Plant pathogens
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 69

Mitigation Effectiveness or difference Target a

in pome fruits including 

Alternaria spp.

Visual inspection Used to detect pests on or in 

fruit for export

Arthropods

Plant Pathogens, although 

some plant pathogens 

may evade detection, 

depending upon the 

timing of infection, 

latency, extent of 

symptoms. 

Culling of infested or infected fruit 

prior to shipment

Culling excludes many

infested fruit from export

Arthropods

Plant Pathogens, although 

some plant pathogens 

may evade detection, 

depending upon the 

timing of infection, 

latency, extent of 

symptoms. 

Inspect the sorted fruits for 

quarantine pests and examine culled 

fruits for information purpose.

Examination of infested fruit 

indicates the taxa and level of 

quarantine pests present in 

production orchards 

Arthropods

Plant Pathogens, although 

some plant pathogens 

may evade detection, 

depending upon the 

timing of infection, 

latency, extent of 

symptoms. 

Irradiation Lower irradiation doses are 

approved as being effective 

against most insects and could 

be used in a combination with 

other treatments to mitigate 

the rest of the pest complex.

Generic irradiation dose 

400 Gy is approved by

APHIS for all pests of the 

class Insecta, excluding 

adults and pupae of the 

order Lepidoptera.

Air gun treatment of calyx end of 

fruit

Physical treatment by air 

blasting of calyx end with an 

“air gun” effectively removes 

mobile microarthropods from 

fruit.

Some arthropods

(particularly mealybugs

and mites)

Phytosanitary Certificate issued 

stating that the pears were grown in 

orchards in accordance with the 

conditions in current regulations, 

were inspected and found free from 

quarantine pest arthropods and 

pathogens: black spot (caused by

Restates that the pests of 

quarantine concern are not 

present and the NPPO signs 

off on this statement.

Arthropods

Plant Pathogens
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 70

Mitigation Effectiveness or difference Target a

Alternaria gaisen), pear scab 

(caused by Venturia nashicola), 

Physalospora canker (caused by

Guignardia pyricola), and brown rot 

(Monilinia fructigena). Additional 

Declaration (AD)

Only commercial shipments are 

eligible for export

Rates of infestation and 

infection would be expected to 

be much higher in orchards 

which are not part of the 

program

Arthropods

Plant Pathogens

Inspection prior to shipment by

AQSIQ (sampling method 

described) 

Science-based sampling 

methods will detect the 

presence of quarantine pests 

and result in rejection of fruit 

lots and production orchards

Arthropods

Plant Pathogens

Inspect and certify fruits in the 

packing house

Both procedures should occur 

in the same location for 

effective pest exclusion

Arthropods

Plant Pathogens

(Preclearance program as in P. 

pyrifolia from Japan)

Much of the inspection occurs 

in the country of production

Arthropods

Plant Pathogens

Containers sealed and exported 

under refrigeration

Records will show whether or 

not the fruit were shipped 

under the proper temperatures 

Arthropods

Plant Pathogens

Cold treatment of fruit Specific cold treatment of 

Pyrus pyrifolia exists only for 

Bactrocera dorsalis. Cold 

treatment, schedule T107-J is 

effective against B. dorsalis in 

P. pyrifolia under the 

following conditions: 33.8 oF 

for 15 days or 34.5 oF for 18 

days (PPQ, 2007).

Bactrocera dorsalis

Fruit inspected at Port of Entry Excludes latently infested fruit Arthropods

Plant Pathogens

SITC survey of marketplace fruit 

within the U.S. 

Provides another measure of 

effectiveness of detecting 

latent pests that may have 

been missed at the Port of 

Entry

Arthropods

Plant Pathogens; more 

effective with latent plant 

pathogens. 

Feedback from both sides

at end of the season (lessons 

learned, what worked, what didn’t)

Program can be improved by

timely feedback and 

safeguarding mission is 

accomplished

Arthropods

Plant Pathogens
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 71

aMost of the quarantine pests likely to follow the pear fruit pathway fit into the following broad categories: 

1. Arthropods on fruit surface 

2. Internal arthropod borer (Note: Tephritidae will be a concern because China's request is for "All of China".)

3. Plant pathogens with latent infection, but which may express obvious symptoms (Example: Brown rot caused 

by Monilinia fructigena; black spot caused by Alternaria gaisen; pear scab caused by Venturia nashicola). (Note: 

In black spot disease, Pyrus pyrifolia fruit are infected while young and symptoms should be obvious by visual 

inspection at harvest. Although somewhat less obvious, scab and canker should also be readily detectable by 

visual inspection at various times during the growing season and at harvest.)

A.7. Literature cited

7 CFR § 319.56-2ee. 2006. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 7, vol. 5, Sec. 319.56-2ee. 

(Administrative instructions: Conditions governing the entry of Ya variety pears from 

China.)

7 CFR § 319.56-2nn. 2006. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 7, vol. 5, Sec. 319.56-2nn. 

(Administrative instructions: Conditions governing the entry of fragrant pears from 

China.)

Bessin, R., and J. Hartman. 2004. Bagging apples: alternative pest management for hobbyists. 

University of Kentucky College of Agriculture. Last accessed April 17, 2007, 

http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Entomology/entfacts/fruit/ef218.htm.

Cho, W.D., C.H. Kim, and S.C. Kim. 1986. Pathogen specialization, epidemiology and varietal 

resistance in white rot of apple. Korean Journal of Plant Protection 25: 63-70.

Crisosto, C.H. 2007. Asian Pear. <http://usna.usda.gov/hb66/031asianpear.pdf>. 

EPPO. 1997, Alternaria gaisen, Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests. CAB International (CABI) and 

the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). 

http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/fungi/Alternaria_kikuchiana/ALTEKI_ds.pdf.

Faize, M., L. Faize, M. Ishizaka, H. Ishii. 2004. Expression of potential defense responses of 

Asian and European pears to infection with Venturia nashicola. Physiological and 

Molecular Plant Pathology 64: 319-330. 

Gould, W. 2006. Justification for removing fruit fly cold treatment and trapping requirements for 

Shandong Province, China in conjunction with export of Ya Pears (Pest Free Zone for 

Bactrocera dorsalis). Pages 4 in PRIM-PHP and USDA-APHIS-PPQ, eds.

Hennessey, M. K. 2005. Likelihood of introduction into the United States of Oriental fruit fly

and other Bactrocera species in Ya and Fragrant pears and other host commodities from 

People’s Republic of China if APHIS-required OFF detection trapping and cold treatment 

mitigations are removed from production areas north of the 35th parallel in China. Pages 

9 in USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST-PERAL, ed.

Howard, F.W. 1986. Protection des goyaves contre la mouche Caraibe des fruits au moyen de 

filets. Fruits 41(10):621-624.

IPPC. 2007. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, 1 to 29 (2007 edition). Food 

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

Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 376 pp.

Ishii, H., H. Udagawa, S. Nishimoto, T. Tsuda, and H. Nakashima. 1992. Scab resistance in pear 

species and cultivars. Acta Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungarica 27: 293–298.

Kim, Y.S., W.C. Kim, K.H. Hong, J.B. Kim, V.J. Lee, S.B. Hong, J.H. Kim, Y.K. Kim, J.Y. 

Moon, K.Y. Kim, M.D. Cho, D.K. Lee, and D.M. Park. 1985. [A new midseason pear 

cultivar, Whangkeum Bae, with a high soluble solids content and attractive appearance].
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 72

Research Reports, Horticulture, Rural Development Administration, Korea Republic 27: 

103-106.

Kim, Y.S., K.H. Hong, J.B. Kim, M.S. Yiem, V.J. Lee, W.C. Kim, J.H. Kim, S.B. Hong, S.B. 

Kim, J.Y. Moon, K.Y. Kim, M.D. Cho, and D.K. Lee. 1986. [The new late season pear 

cultivar Chuwhang Bae]. Research Reports, Horticulture, Rural Development

Administration, Korea Republic 28: 57-61.

Kirk, K., R. Bessin, J. Hartman, J. O’Leary, and J. Strang. 2001. Total quality assurance: apple 

production: best management practices. Kentucky Coop. Ext. Serv. ID-137. 

Kozaki, I. 1987. [New summer crop cultivars registered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry

and Fisheries in 1986. I. Fruit trees, tea, and mulberry]. Japanese Journal of Breeding 37: 

103-108. 

Kozaki, I. 1974. Early screening for resistance to Alternaria in pear. Agriculture and Horticulture 

49: 1481-1486.

Love, K. 2002. Protective fruit wrapping. Last accessed April 17, 2007, 

http://www.hawaiifruit.net/bag_report.htm.

Machida, Y., I. Kajiura, Y. Sato, K. Kotobuki, I. Kozaki, K. Seike, K. Kanato. 1984. [The new 

Japanese pear variety Shinsei]. Bulletin, Fruit Tree Research Station, Japan, A (Yatabe) 

11: 9-13.

NAPPO. 2004. Guidelines for the establishment, maintenance and verification of fruit fly pest 

free areas in North America. NAPPO Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 

17. Ottawa: Secretariat of the North American Plant Protection Organization. 

Podleckis, E. 2003. Information Memo for the Record: Chinese fragrant pears memo. June 2, 

2003. 26 pp.

PPQ. 2004. Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) Handbook. United States 

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

and Quarantine (PPQ).

PPQ. 2007. Treatment Manual. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). 796 pp.

Redlin, S. 2007. Chinese Sand Pear Anatomy: Mitigation. Personal communication to K. R. 

Lakin on April 17, 2007, from Scott C. Redlin (Senior Risk Analyst/Plant Pathologist, 

USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory).

Archived in the PERAL library, Raleigh, NC.

The Pherolist. 2004. Pheromones of Lepidoptera. 

http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pheronet/index.html. Last accessed 14 Feb. 2007.

Treatments for Fruits and Vegetables. 2006. Federal Register: January 27, 2006 (Volume 71, 

Number 18) (Pp. 4451-4464) (FR Doc. 06-746). 
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 73

Appendix B. Justification for removing fruit fly cold treatment and trapping requirements 

for Shandong Province

Justification for removing fruit fly cold treatment and trapping requirements for Shandong 

Province, China in conjunction with export of Ya Pears (Pest Free Zone for Bactrocera dorsalis).

Walter Gould - Senior Risk Manager, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PRIM-PHP, 

USDA-APHIS-PPQ

Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) is found throughout Southeast Asia including southern China. 

(Koyama 1989, White and Elson-Harris 1992, Yang et al. 1994,). Bactrocera dorsalis is the only

fruit fly species identified in the Ya Pear PRA. (USDA 1997). Shandong province is in Northern 

part of China on the East coast. The nearest population of B. dorsalis occurs approximately 400 

away in Southern China. In Asia, Bactrocera dorsalis is not found north of the 35th parallel.

From EPPO (1997). Relation of Shandong province to distribution of Bactrocera dorsalis in 

China. Areas with circles have reports of B. dorsalis. Shandong is the shaded province north of 

35°.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 74

From Yang et al. (1994). Relation of Shandong province to distribution of Bactrocera dorsalis in 

China. The grey areas in southern China shows the distribution of B. dorsalis. Shandong is the 

shaded province north of 35°.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 75

From Koyama (1989). Relation of Shandong province to distribution of Bactrocera dorsalis in 

area off coast of China. Islands between dotted lines had populations of B. dorsalis which were 

subject to eradication. Shandong is the shaded province north of 35°.

Bactrocera dorsalis is a tropical fruit fly. No stage of B. dorsalis can survive temperatures below

freezing. Bactrocera larvae will not develop at temperatures below 13 C (EPPO 1997). Average 

temperatures in Shandong province in January are at or below freezing. The average January

monthly lows for Shandong province are -4 to -5 oC (Asia-Planet.net 2006).

China currently conducts fruit fly trapping in Shandong province as required by the work plan 

for export of Ya Pears to the United States (USDA 2005). Trapping data for three years, from 

2000 to 2002, shows that no fruit flies have been trapped (AQSIQ 2004). The trapping is 

conducted to determine if any fruit fly species are present using 4 different baits. A total of 943 

traps were used to survey a variety of areas including orchards, fruit markets, seaports, airports, 

etc.

Bactrocera dorsalis is the only pest that would require a cold treatment for Ya pears. The other 

arthropod pests listed in the PRA are mitigated through orchard inspection and fruit bagging

(USDA 2005). Therefore the cold treatment will no longer be required for exportation of Ya 

Pears from Shandong Province, China to the United States. Fruit fly trapping requirements will 

be removed from the workplan based the climate and location of Shandong Province and on 

trapping data showing no captures of any fruit fly species for three years.
Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 76

References

AQSIQ. 2004. Fruit Fly Trapping Data summary, General Administration of Quality

Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China (AQSIQ).

Asia-Planet.net. China travel tips: Weather: Shandong.

http://www.asia-planet.net/china/temperature1.htm Last accessed 21 April. 2006.

EPPO. 1997. Quarantine Pests for Europe, Second Edition. CAB International, Wallingford, 

Oxon, UK. 1425 pp.

Koyama, J. 1989. Chapter 2.4 South-East Asia and Japan. In Fruit Flies: Their biology, natural 

enemies and control. Vol 3A. Robinson and Hooper, eds. Elsevier Science Publishing 

Co., NY, NY. p 63 - 66.

USDA. 1997. Importation of Fragrant and Ya Pear Fruit from China into the United States. A 

Supplemental Pest Risk Assessment United States Department of Agriculture, Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Riverdale, MD.

USDA. April 18, 2005. Phytosanitary Workplan for the 2005-2006 Exportation of Ya Pears (P. 

bretschneideri Redh.) from China to the United States. United States Department of 

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

Quarantine, Riverdale, MD.

White, I.M., and M.M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Fruit flies of Economic Significance. CAB 

International, Wallingford, U.K. 601 pp.

Yang, P., J.R. Carey and R.V. Dowell. 1994. Tephritid fruit flies in China: historical background 

and current status. Pan-Pac. Entomol. 70: 159-167.