### 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 M acau,**  **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 27606Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 ii 

### Executive Summary
W e 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 shipm ents 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 b y 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 q

uarantine

- significant pests were likely to follow the pathway

( i.e

. , accompany shipments of pear) : Arthropods Acrobasis pyrivorella (Matsumura) (Lepidoptera: Py ralidae) 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: Py ralidae) Grapholita inopinata (Heinrich) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Ph enacoccus pergandei Cockerell (Hemiptera : Pseudococcidae) Planococcus kraunhiae (Kuwana) (Hemiptera : Pseudococcidae) Fungi **a** Alternaria gaisen Nagano (Ascomycet es: 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. Po rt

- of

- entry inspection, as a sole mitigation measure, is insufficient to safeguard U.S. agriculture from these pests, and additional phy tosanitary 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

–Id entification of Quarantine Pests and Quarantine Pests Likel y to Follow the Pathway

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 6 2.5. Consequences of Introduction

—Economic/Environmental Importance

.......................... 26 2.6. Likelihood of Introduction

—Quantity

Imported and Pest Oppo rtunity

........................... 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. Justific ation for removing fruit fly cold treatment and trapping requirements for Shandong Province

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

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 1 

### 1 **. Introduction**  This risk assessment was prepared b y the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspe ction 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 p ear , 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 S tates

. 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 anal ys es (IPPC, 2004; 2006; NAPPO, 2004) . The methods used to initiate, conduct, and report this plant pest risk asses sment , as well as the biological and phytosanitary terms, are based on IPPC standards

. Pest risk assessment is one component of an overall pest risk anal ys is. IP PC standards describe three stages in pest risk analysis. This document satisfies the requirements of IP PC 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 thereb y and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officiall y controlled” ( IPPC, 2006 ). Thus, pest risk assessments should consider both the consequences and likelihood of introduction of quarantine pests. Both is sues 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 Y a pear) , grown mainly in the northern part of the country (provinces of Hebei, Shandong, and Liaoning), accounts for 60 percent of p ear 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 p ear; 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**  **, Pyr** **us 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 w eed p otential of Chinese sand pear

. **Commodity:** Chinese sand pear ( Pyrus pyrifolia ) (Rosaceae). **Phase 1:** Chinese sand pear is naturalized in at least four s tates: Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and Illinois (USDA, 2002 ). Pears of various spe cies 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 W eeds (Holm et al ., 19 79) 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, AGRI S; search on “species nam e” combin ed with “weed. ” **Phase 3:** The literature give s no indication of the weed potential of Pyrus pyrifolia

. A pest

initiated risk assessment for the species is not necessary

.
**2. 3**  **. Previous Risk Assessments, Current Status, and Pest Interceptions 2.3.1.**  **Deci sion 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 b y pest findings. 198 6

- Permit entry

of P. pyrifolia from Jap an into Hawaii (conditions: no transshipping to the continental United States; inspection and treatment, if warranted b y pest findings; no preclearance because of absence of pear or apple industry in Hawaii) 1982

- Deny entry of P. pyrifolia from Japan. ( C arposina 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 S tates ( 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); Gym n osporangium confusum Plowr.; and Monilin ia 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 pear s 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 199 5 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**  **Wh ere**  **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 Consum ption 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 1Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 4 **Pest Inspected Host**  **Wh ere**  **Intercepted Material** 

**For Count**  Permit Cargo Consumption 1 Quarters Consumption 1 Stores Consumption 1

N on - 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 Co nsumption 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. (Coel omycetes) * 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) (Diaspidi dae) * 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 pyrifo lia Baggage Consumption 1 Fabaceae , species of

* Pyrus ca lleryana 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 1Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 5 **Pest Inspected Host**  **Wh ere**  **Intercepted Material** 

**For Count**  Inj ury sp. * P. bretschneideri Permit Cargo Consumption 1 Insecta , species of Pyrus ca lleryana Permit Cargo Propagation 1 Laemophloeidae , species of * Pyrus ca lleryana Permit Cargo Propagation 1 Lepidoptera , species of Pyrus sp. Baggage Consumption 1 Lygaeus sp. (Lygaeidae) Pyrus sp. P ermit Cargo Consumption 1 Maconellicoccus h irsutus (Green) (Pseudococcidae) Pyrus sp. Permit Cargo Consumption 1 Magnoliophyta , sp. * Pyrus ca lleryana 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 c itri Mckenzie (Diaspididae) Pyrus communis Permit Cargo Consumption 1 Phoridae , species of

* Pyrus communis Permit Cargo Consumption 1 Planococcus m inor (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 c omstocki (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 ca lleryana Permit Cargo Propagation 1 Rhynchites sp. (Curculionidae) Pyrus ca lleryana Permit Cargo Propagation 1 Secondary Fungi * Pyrus pyrifolia Permit Cargo Consumption 1 Pyrus sp. General Cargo Consumption 1Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 6 **Pest Inspected Host**  **Wh ere**  **Intercepted Material** 

**For Count** 
Permit Cargo Consumption 1 Sorghum b icolor (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 p irina 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**  Co mmon 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 pyrifolia 2 **Pest Geograp**  **hic d**  **istribution 3**  **Plant p art** 

**a ffected**  **4 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est 5**  **Follow**

**p athway**  **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 en sure 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 Geograp**  **hic d**  **istribution 3**  **Plant p art** 

**a ffected**  **4 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est 5**  **Follow**

**p athway**  **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 CAB I, 2005; Hua, 2002; Korea Forest Service, 2004c Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) CN Sd No 6 No 7 CABI, 2007; Hua, 2002; Korea Forest Service, 2004c **Coleoptera: Buprestidae**  Scintillatrix djingischani (Obenberger) CN Br 8 Yes No Hua, 2002; Korea Forest Servic e, 2004c Scintillatrix pretiosa (Mannerheim) CN Br 8 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 pe st of seed (CABI, 2005) 8 Based on the biology of Scinti llatrix 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 Geograp**  **hic d**  **istribution 3**  **Plant p art** 

**a ffected**  **4 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est 5**  **Follow**

**p athway**  **References Coleoptera:**  **Cerambycidae** 10 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 No 11 Hua, 2002; Korea Forest Service, 2004c Bacchisa fortunei (Thomson) CN S Yes No She et al ., 2005 Batocera lineolata Chevrolat CN B r Yes No 11 Hua, 2002; Korea Forest Service, 2004c Mesosa myops (Dalman) CN Br Yes No 11 Hua, 2002; Korea Forest Service, 2004c Nupserha marginella (Bates) CN Br Yes No 11 Hua, 2002; Korea Forest Service, 2004c Oberea inclusa Pascoe CN Br Yes No 11 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, L 12 Yes No Hua, 2002; CABI, 2007 Purpuricenus lituratus Ganglbauer CN S, L Yes No Hua, 2002; Korea Forest Service, 2004c Purpuricenus temminckii (Guerin

Meneville) CN Br Yes No 11 Hua, 2002; Korea Forest Service, 2004c Trichoferus campestris (Faldermann) CN Br Yes No 11 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, S 15 Yes No Hua, 2002; Korea Forest Service, 2004c; CABI, 2007 Lypesthes ater (Motschulsky) CN L 1 4 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, 2 001)

. 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 Olivi er), since the needed information wa s 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 Gmel in).Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 9 **Pest Geograp**  **hic d**  **istribution 3**  **Plant p art** 

**a ffected**  **4 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est 5**  **Follow**

**p athway**  **References** Paropsides duodecimpustulata (Gebler) CN L 16 Yes No Chûjô and Kimoto, 1961; Hua, 2002 **Coleoptera: Curcu**  **lionidae** Anthonomus pomorum L. CN L, I Yes No CABI, 2009 ; Molenda and Pitera, 2008 Rhynchites foveipennis Fairmaire CN L, I, F 17 Yes No 18 Hua, 2002; Korea Forest Service, 2004c; INRA, 1998 Rhynchites heros Roelofs CN F, L Yes No 1 8 Hua, 2002; Korea Forest Service, 2004c; INRA, 1998 **Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae**  Cetonia pilifera (Motschulsky) CN No data available 19 Yes No 19 Hua, 2002; Korea Forest Service, 2004c Glycyphana fulvistemma Motschulsky CN F Yes No 19 Hua, 2002; PestID, 2009 Protaetia (= Potosia ) brevitarsis (Lewis) CN No data available 19 Yes No 19 Anonymous, 2007; Hua, 2002; Korea Forest Service, 2004c **Diptera: Cecidomyiidae**  Contarinia pyrivora (Riley) CN (Shandong) F, I, L Yes No 20 Dong et al ., 1997; Li and Qing, 1997 **Diptera: Teph**  **ritidae** 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 N o 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). I t 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 proce ssing. 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 Geograp**  **hic d**  **istribution 3**  **Plant p art** 

**a ffected**  **4 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est 5**  **Follow**

**p athway**  **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, 2004cPest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 11 **Pest Geograp**  **hic d**  **istribution 3**  **Plant p art** 

**a ffected**  **4 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est 5**  **Follow**

**p athway**  **References** Rhopalosiphu m 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 Toxop tera 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 No 22 Hua, 2000; Korea Forest Service, 2004c; CABI, 2007 Eoscartopsis assimilis (Uhler) CN S 2 2 Yes No 22 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 No 22 Korea Forest Service, 2004c Cicadella viridis (L.) CN L 24 Yes No 22 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 No 22 Hua, 2000; Korea Forest Service, 2004c Penthimia nitida Lethierry CN No data available 23 Yes No 22 Hua, 2000; Korea Forest Service, 2004c Stroggylocephalus agrestis (Fallén) CN, US No data availabl e 23 No No 22 Hua, 2000; Korea Forest Service, 2004c; Van Duzee, 1917 **Hemiptera: Cicadidae**  Cryptotympana atrata (F.) CN R25 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 Geograp**  **hic d**  **istribution 3**  **Plant p art** 

**a ffected**  **4 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est 5**  **Follow**

**p athway**  **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 R26 Yes No 22 Hua, 2000; Korea Forest Service, 2004c Platypleura kaempferi (F.) CN R Yes No 22 Hua, 2000; Korea Forest Service, 2004c **Hemiptera: Cixiidae**  Cixi us nervosus (L.) CN No data available Yes No 22 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: Diaspidida**  **e** 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 o f 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 Geograp**  **hic d**  **istribution 3**  **Plant p art** 

**a ffected**  **4 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est 5**  **Follow**

**p athway**  **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, F 28 Yes Yes 29 Ben

- Dov et al ., 2006, CABI, 2007 Lepidosaphes tubulorum Ferris CN, GU L, S, F 2 8 Yes Yes 29 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 No 30 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 Geograp**  **hic d**  **istribution 3**  **Plant p art** 

**a ffected**  **4 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est 5**  **Follow**

**p athway**  **References Hemiptera:**  **Flatidae** Geisha distinctissima (Walker) CN L Yes No Hua, 2000; Korea Forest Service, 2004c **Hemiptera: Mar**  **garodidae** 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 iaksuiens e (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 (Signo ret) 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 (CA 32 ) F, L, S 33 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 Cali fornia in 1919, but later stated that could have been P. citri

. He state d 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 Geograp**  **hic d**  **istribution 3**  **Plant p art** 

**a ffected**  **4 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est 5**  **Follow**

**p athway**  **References** Pseudococcus longispinus Targioni Tozzetti CN, HI, PR, US F, L, S No Yes CABI, 2005; Charles, 1993 **Hemipter a:**  **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 No 34 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 No 35 Hua, 2000; PestID, 2009 Glaucias subpunctatus (Walker) CN F Yes No 36 Hua, 2000; Korea Forest Service, 2004c Halyomorpha hal

ys (Stål) CN, US L No No Hua, 2000; Hoebeke and Carter, 2003; Korea Forest Service, 2004c Homalogonia obtusa (Walker) CN L, F Yes No 37 Hua, 2000; Korea Forest Service, 2004c Nezara antennata Scott CN F, L Yes No 22 Korea Forest Service, 2004c; Li et al., 2001 Nezara viridula (L.) AS, CN, GU, HI , PR, US, VI F, L, S No No 22 CABI, 2005; Hua, 2000; Korea Forest Service, 2004c Plautia stali Scott CN, HI F, L Yes No 22 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 b ecause 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 Geograp**  **hic d**  **istribution 3**  **Plant p art** 

**a ffected**  **4 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est 5**  **Follow**

**p athway**  **References** Stephaniti

s nashi Esaki and Takeya CN F, L Yes No 38 GATC, 2004; Korea Forest Service, 2004b; PestID, 2009 **Heteroptera: Urostylidae** Urostylis westwoodi Scott CN No data available Yes No 22 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: Arct** **iidae** 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: Geometridae**  39 Ascotis selenaria (Denis and Schiffermüller) CN L Yes No Hua, 2005; Robinson et al., 2001, 2007 Biston ro bustus 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, 19 44; 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 (P estID, 2006 ) is not sufficient evidence of a true host a ssociation

. 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 Geograp**  **hic d**  **istribution 3**  **Plant p art** 

**a ffected**  **4 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est 5**  **Follow**

**p athway**  **References** Phthonosema tendinosaria (Bremer) CN No data available 38 Yes No 22 Hua, 2005; Robinson et al., 2007 Selenia sordidaria Leech CN No data available 38 Yes No 22 Hua, 2005; Robinson et al., 2007 Selenia tetralunaria (Hufnagel) CN No data available 38 Yes No 22 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 No 40 CABI, 2005; Hua, 2005; PestID, 2009 **Lepidoptera: Pieridae**  Aporia crataegi (L.) CN L Yes No Savela, 2007 **Lepidoptera: Pyralidae**  Acrob asis 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, 19 80 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 o f 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 Geograp**  **hic d**  **istribution 3**  **Plant p art** 

**a ffected**  **4 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est 5**  **Follow**

**p athway**  **References Lepidoptera:**  **Tortricidae** Archips breviplicanus Walsingham CN F, L Yes No 41 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 No 42 CABI, 2005; Hua, 2005; Robinson et al., 2007 Archips ingentana (Christoph) CN F 43 Yes No 4 1 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 (Treits chke) CN L Yes No Hua, 2005; Meijerman and Ulenberg, 2000; Robinson et al., 2007 Pandemis heparana (Denis and Schiffermüller) CN F, L Yes No 44 Hua, 2005; Meijerman and Ulenberg, 2000; Robinson et al., 2007 Spilonota ocellana (Denis and Schiffermüller) CN , US F, L No No 45 CABI, 2004; Chang and Lin, 1939; Hua, 2005 **Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae**  Illiberis pruni Dyar CN F, L Yes No 46 Chang and Lin, 1939; Hua, 2005 **Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae**  Holochlora japonica Brunner von Wattenwyl CN, HI No data available Yes N o 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 o n 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 yo ung fruit (Chang and Lin, 1939)

.Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 19 **Pest Geograp**  **hic d**  **istribution 3**  **Plant p art** 

**a ffected**  **4 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est 5**  **Follow**

**p athway**  **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 Yes 47 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 Yes 47 C ABI, 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, 2009 s 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 T he 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 be en 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 b udding 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., 200 6 (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 Geograp**  **hic d**  **istribution 3**  **Plant p art** 

**a ffected**  **4 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est 5**  **Follow**

**p athway**  **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, 2004 a; 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 ( Basidiomyce tes: 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 Fungo rum, 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, 2004cPest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 21 **Pest Geograp**  **hic d**  **istribution 3**  **Plant p art** 

**a ffected**  **4 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est 5**  **Follow**

**p athway**  **References** Guignardia pyricola (Nose) W. Yamamoto ( = Physalospora pyricola N ose; Botryosphaeria berengeriana f. sp. p iricola (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 clavariifo rme (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 (Ascomyc etes: 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, US 49 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; F arr et al., 2006

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

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 22 **Pest Geograp**  **hic d**  **istribution 3**  **Plant p art** 

**a ffected**  **4 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est 5**  **Follow**

**p athway**  **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, 200 5; 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 Sac c., 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., 2006Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 23 **Pest Geograp**  **hic d**  **istribution 3**  **Plant p art** 

**a ffected**  **4 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est 5**  **Follow**

**p athway**  **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 (E llis 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: Mycosphaerell ales) 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

. nig

ricans 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, U S, 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., 2006Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 24 **Pest Geograp**  **hic d**  **istribution 3**  **Plant p art** 

**a ffected**  **4 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est 5**  **Follow**

**p athway**  **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. Yamamoto 50 (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. pirin a 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 R51 Yes No Chen et al., 2004b; Xu et al., 1995 Xiphinema insigne Loos (Xiphinematidae) CN R52 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. nashico la 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 wa s distinct from V. pirina , demon strating 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 esta

blished 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 unlikel y to remain with the commodity during processing; or they

have been intercepted on rare occasions, as biological contaminants, by U.S. agricultural o fficers 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 anal yz ed , because although armored scales may enter on commercial fruit for consumption, they are not expected to establish via this pathway (Miller, 1985; PERAL , 2007). PERALconcluded 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 passivel y disperse b y wind from one plant to another for onl y about 24 hours. After crawlers start feeding, they do not disperse further because they soon lose their legs and are anchored firml y t o the host by their mouthparts.
 Dispersal from fruit discarded in the environment is considered very unlikely because of low wind speeds at ground level, and low survival rate of crawlers, either on the ground, on decaying fruit, or on fruit peels. Crawlers are highl y unlikely to walk away from their natal host because they

cannot move rapidl y over bare soil or rough surfac es.

**Table 4** . Quarantine Pests Selected for Further Analysis. **Type Pest**  **Taxonomy** Arthropods Acrobasis pyrivorella Lepidoptera: P yralidae

Amphitetranychus viennensis Acari: Tetranychidae Aphanostigma iaksuiense Hemiptera: Phylloxeridae Bactrocera dorsalis Diptera: Tephritidae Calepitrimerus neimongolensis Acari: Eriophyi dae Carposina sasakii Lepidoptera: Carposinidae Ceroplastes japonicus Hemiptera: Coccidae Ceroplastes rubens Hemiptera: CoccidaePest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 26 **Type Pest**  **Taxonomy**

Conogethes punctiferalis Lepidoptera : P yralidae Grapholita inopinata Lepidoptera: Tortricidae Guignardia pyricola Ascomycetes: Dothideales Phenacoccus pergandei Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae Planococcus kraunhiae Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae Fungi Alternaria gaisen Ascomycetes: Pleospo rales

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) (L**  **epidoptera: 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 (Pl ant 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 moth s may deposit as many

as 120 eggs near new fl ower 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 t he 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) (L**  **epidoptera: 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 ga isen**  **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). I

t also has been reported to have restricted distribution in France and I

taly in Europe, in

troduced 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 Eleme nt #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 ty pical 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 sa prophy te (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 l eaves 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). I nfection may

kill young shoots (CABI , 2007). Apart from the use of fungicides (CABI , 2007), control consists of bagging young fruits to protect them from inf ection (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 ga isen**  **Nagano (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales)**  **Risk ratings** pose a significant threat to plants listed as Endangered or Threa tened. 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.
**Amp hitetranychus 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), Germa ny, Hunga

ry, Iran, Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu), Korea (DPR), Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russia (Central Russia and Russian Far East), Spain, Swe den, Taiwan, Turkey, Uk raine, 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, , F r agaria, Malus spp. , Prunus spp., Pyrus spp.; Malvaceae: Gossypium ; Moraceae: Ficus carica ; Fabaceae: Arachis hypogaea ; Fagaceae: Quercus mongolica subsp. m ongolica ; 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 ( C ABI, 2007 ). In China, infestations of A. viennensis in apple orchards resulted in production loss up to almost 79% ( CABI, 2007 ). If establis hed 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 **Amp hitetranychus 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 El ement #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 Li aoning Province (Hua, 2000). Based on this geographic range, we estima te the species could establish in the United States in Zones 4

- 1 1 , 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 (P estID, 2006 ) suggest that it is not dispersed widely b y human agency. Risk is e stimated to be M edium. 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 y

ield losses of about 1

- 9 percent

. In secticidal 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 market s for U.S. pears. Risk attending the potential economic impact of t his species is estimated to be High. High (3)

**Risk Element #5: En vironmental 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 Le e, 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 M edium.

**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

poly phagous. Recorded hosts include Coffea sp. (Rubiaceae), Ficus sp. (Moraceae), Prunus spp. (Rosaceae), Eugenia uniflora (My rtaceae), Mangifera spp. (Anacardiaceae), Citrus spp. (R utaceae), 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 y ear. Adult s can fly up to 65 km (Fletcher, 1989b) and infested fruit may be transported long distance s, which disperses flies to previou sly 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 pe st 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 o f decay; and 3) indirect damage in the form of lost markets resulting from the imposition of quarantine restrictions. I

n 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**  Phy tophagous 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 ). It s 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 b een 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 eriophy oid 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 bio logy of C

. neimongolensis is similar, its biotic potential could be significant. Calepitrimerus spp. (e.g., C

. vitis [Nalepa]) and other eriophy oids 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 agenc y 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 b e High. High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Calepitrimerus neimongolensis is a n 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 M edium. 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 Phy toseiidae 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 M edium. 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 caly

x ( CABI , 2007 ). There is one complete and a second partial generation per year. F light 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 E ast 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 cause d by larvae boring into fruit. Several l arvae can survive in each fruit, and larvae may move from one fruit to another, multiply ing losses. I n 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 t ree fruits in most parts of the world ; the introduction of peach fruit moth into other regions could have severe e conomic effects on fruit growing ( CABI , 2007 ). High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** Because of its poly

phagous 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)**  **R isk**  **ratings Risk Element #1: Climate** 
**- Host Interaction**  Ceroplastes japonicus , or Japanese wax scale, t his species origin is temperate E ast 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 kak i (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)**  **R isk**  **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 honey dew secreted forms a substrate f

or the growth of black sooty mo lds, which impair gas exchange and photosy

nthesis , 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 I**  **nteraction** The distribution of C

. rubens , or red wax scale, extends from the warm temperate zones to the tropics. I

t is found in east and south Asia, Oceania (including Australia), eastern and southern parts of Africa, the West I ndies, 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 Elem ent #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 (My risticaceae), Pinus spp. (Pinaceae), Prunus spp. (Rosaceae), Psidium guajava (My rtaceae) (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) : s ince 1985, red wax scale has been intercepted at U.S. ports

- of

- entry over 4,000 times on plan

ts 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 photosy nthetic 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, i f red wax scale become s more widely

established in the Unite d States, there would likely be a loss of foreign or domestic markets

. **Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** The extreme poly

phagy 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

. michau xii . 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 E ast 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 (My rtaceae), Gossypium herbaceum (Malvaceae), Zea mays (Poaceae), Averrhoa carambola (Oxalidaceae), Nephelium lappaceum (Sapindaceae), Helianthus annuus (Asteraceae), Curcuma longa (Zingiberaceae), Punica granatum (Punicac eae), 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

- 3 0 eggs on fruits or on the ear silk and tassels of maize ( CABI , 2007 ). F ive 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 pe ach 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 attract s 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 f

arming practices, resulting in decrease d yi eld . 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. I ntroduction 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, ye llow 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)

**Grapholi ta**  **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 Eleme nt #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 le aves 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, t here may be two generation s per year. Apart from natural dispersal by adult flight, Manchurian fruit moth may be transported international ly as larvae in fresh fruit or with planting material carry ing fruits. However, the spec ies 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 u p to 100 percent of the crop in places ( CABI , 2007 ). It s 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 bey ond 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 ; W estwood, 1993). Based on reported host climate requirements and areas where the pathogen is currentl y established, this species could establish in at least seven Plant Hardiness Z ones in the United States so it is rated as High

. High (3)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Primary hosts are members of the Ros aceae, including pears ( Pyrus pyrifolia , P. communis ) and commercial apples ( Malus domestica ). Other hosts are Chaenomeles japonica and Malus m icromalus (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 b y strong wind

- driven rain. Ascospores are produced on withered branches, but are not reported to play a s ignificant role in disease spread. Shoots infected during April through August show sy mptoms in September through November and are the main source of primary inoculum the following ye ar. In Japan, an increased occurrence of the disease on fruit is associat ed 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 distance s. Fruit can be infected earl y 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, fr

uit 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

- ye ars - 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 destro ying s ymptomatic branches, cutting away (shaving) warts from infected shoots, and disposal of infected fruits (EPPO, 1997). Medium (2)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** In fection of P. pyrifolia by G. pyricola results in wart s ymptoms on the surfaces of trunks and branches. Infected twigs wither and exhibit sy mptoms of dieback. Warts on trunks and branches damage the tree, reducing its growth and productivity

. Sy

mptom s on leaves and fruits are large contoured dark brown spots. Spots on leaves are of minor importance and do not affect yield. Af ter 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 sy mptoms 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 b y 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 economicall y important pests of apple s and pears in Japan and causes branch dieback and fruit rot (Anony mous, 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 f ederall y 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 likel y 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 W**  **hetzel (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 As ia (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 vini fera (Vitaceae), Berberis sp. (Berberidaceae), Cornus mas (Cornaceae), Vaccinium sp. (Ericaceae), and Psidium guajava (My rtaceae). 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 W**  **hetzel (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 measure s 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 ty

pically 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 rela ted 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 unlikel y to be needed

. High (3)

**Phenacoccus perg andei**  **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. (C aprifoliaceae) , Hydrangea (H ydrangaceae) (Kuwayama, 193 6 ) , Fatsia (Arialiaceae), Cericidiphyllum (Cercidiphyl laceae), Enkianthus (Ericaceae), Laurus (Lauraceae), Ficus (Moraceae), Eriobotrya (Rosaceae), Taxus (Taxaceae), Celtis (Ulmaceae) and Zelkova (Ulmaceae) (Ben

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

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 39 **Phenacoccus perg andei**  **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 ( CS TN , 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 severe ly stunt and defoliate the plant. That species causes y ield losses of up to 84 percent (CABI, 2007). Crops that were seriously damaged by

another closel y related mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus, include cotton in Egy pt (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 (ros elle fiber yield reduced b y 21

- 40 percent), and grapes in India (up to 90 percent of bunches destro yed 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 federall y protected plant on the Threatened and Endangered species list. S hould P. pergandei become widel y established in the United States, conservation managers, farmers and horticulturalists would likely need to use chemical and/or biological control programs. High (3)

**Planococ cus 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 , Apocy naceae : Nerium indicum , Aquifoliaceae : Ilex , Casuarinaceae : Casuarina s tricta , 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 ori entalis, Portulacaceae : High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 40 **Planococ cus 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: Dispe rsal 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 mid

August. Planococcus kraunhiae accounted for 81 percent of the insects collected (Park and Hong, 1992). In the event that P. k

raunhiae 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 mealy bug. High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** An infestation of P. kraunhiae would result in immediate control measures, since 9 2 percent of the pear production in the United States occurs in three contiguous states (Washington, Oregon and California) ( Ing, 2002 )

. Secondl y, 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; I shii 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; I shii 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 ar e established , continued cycles of infection can occur during a season as conidia are produced from infected tissues and may be wind blown or splash

- dispersed (Jones and Aldwinckle, 1990). **Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** “Scab, caused b y 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 b y reducing photosy nthetic area and causing spotting of fruit which also may become misshapen or develop post

- har vest scab sy mptoms (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 mar kets, 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 cur rently 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 ye ar to control the disease, especially on the most popular but highly scab

susceptible 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 c ontrol programs, which may impact the environment. Medium (2)

**Table 5** . Risk rating s for Consequences of I ntroduction due to the importation of sand pear , Pyrus pyrifolia , from China

. **Pest Risk Elements**  **Cumulative Risk Rating**  **a Climate/**  **Host Interacti**  **on Host** 

**r ange**  **Dispersal**

**Potential Economic** 

**i mpact**  **Environ**
 

** mental** **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 Hi gh (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (1 3 ) 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 Rating**  **a Climate/**  **Host Interacti**  **on Host** 

**r ange**  **Dispersal**

**Potential Economic** 

**i mpact**  **Environ**
 

** mental** **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 (1 2 ) 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 Lo w 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 annuall y 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 i s based on the amount reported b y the exporting country , and is converted into standard units of 40

- foot

- long shipping containers. As the quantity

of Chinese sand pear s to be exported to the United States from China currentl y is unknown , this risk factor defaults to H igh. **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 likel y to survive minimal postharvest treatment , especiall y if the damage was not obvious

. External feeders, such as the scale insect s , Ceroplastes japonicus and C. rubens , the phyl loxerid, Aphanostigma iaksuiense , and the mites, Amphitetranychus viennensis and Calepitrimerus neimongolensis , are less likely to survive post

- harvest treatments. Although , depending on their stage (ny mph, 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 difficultPest 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 pathogen s 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 s ymptoms, they have a H igh probability of surviving minimal postharvest treatment. **2.6.3. Survive shipment**  We think all of the arthropods have a H igh probability of surviving shipment on or in fruit , or in packing materials. Larvae of B

. dorsalis , as internal pests, are particularl y 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 ty picall y 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 unlikel y 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 approximate ly

- 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 p ears 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 fl y- infested fruit commonly go unrecognized (White and Elson

- Harris, 1992). Depending on the age of the in festation, the lepidopterous species might or might not be readil y 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 b y 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, particularl y 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 b y any of the listed pathogens. If sy mptoms develop and pathogens sporulate during shipping, fruit and packing materials also could be contaminated with spores. Thus, we rated these fungi H igh 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 o f 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 w esternmost portions of the country

. A ll 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. Co**  **ntact with host material** This risk sub

- element incorporates current demographic data and climatic data showing changes over the past ten ye ars. W e assumed here that Chinese sand pear consumption is fairly consistent among st all racial and cultural groups within the United States, and that the commodity would be distribut ed 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. Specificall y, the limited dispersal ability

of meal ybugs and the sessile nature of scale insects severel y limit s their chances of coming into contact with hosts (Mill er, 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 crawl ers or other mobile forms to transfer to new hosts. Since these circumstances are highl y unlikely to co

- occur (Miller, 1985), we gave thes e particular pests a risk rating of L ow for this element.Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 45 We rated Alternaria gaisen Lo w 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 range s .
**Table 6**

. Risk Rating for Likelihood of Introduction of quarantine plant pests via the importation of Chinese sand pear, P

yrus pyrifolia , from China. **Pest Risk subelements**  **Cumulative risk rating**  **a 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 iak suiense 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) Carposin a 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 puncti feralis 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 fructi

gena 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 Lo w 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 C onsequences 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 strongl y recommended, and that port

- of

- entry inspection is not considered sufficient to provide phytosanitary

security . The choice of appropriate phy tosanitary 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 Po tential s . **Pest Consequences**  **of Introduction Likelihood of** 

**Introduction Pest Risk Potential**  **a**
Bactrocera dorsalis High (14) High (17) High (31) Monilinia fructigena High (14) High (17) High (31) Carposina sasakii High (14) High (16) High (30) Conogeth es 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 (1 7) 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 Lo w: 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] Anony mous. 1984. Common Names of Economic Plant Diseases in Japan. Fruit Trees. Tokyo, Phy topathological Society

of Japan. Anony mous. 2003. Import of Asian (‘S handong’) pear ( Pyrus pyrifolia (Burm.) Nakai and P. ussuriensis var. viridis T. L ee) 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. Anony mous. 2005. Lepidosaphes ussuriensis . Pages 429

- 430 in Bulletin of the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (OEPP/EPPO). Anony mous. 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. 19 69. Plant Pests of I srael. Jerusalem: I srael Univ. Press. 549 pp. Bai, F. Y and Q. T. Chen. 1991. Fusarium species on some insects from China. Acta M yc ologica 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

- APHI S 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 In formation Guide. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. 987 pp. Blackman, R.L. and V.F. Eastop. 2000. Aphids on the World’s Crops: An Identification and In formation 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 b y Konrad Schief erdecker. Botanische Staatssammlung München (BSM) ; http://141.84.65.132/BSM

Mycology

/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 Protecti on 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 P hy topathologica 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 Ins ects: Structure and Function, 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 770 pp. Charles, J.G. 1993. A survey of meal ybugs 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. Systemati c catalog of Japanese Chrysomelidae (Coleoptera). Pac. Insects 3(1): 117

- 202. Cline, E. 2005. Monilinia fructigena

. Systematic Mycology and Microbiology

L aboratory , ARS, USDA. Retrieved February 16, 2007, from http://nt.ars

grin.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/e

learning/%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. CS TN . 2006. China Science and Technology N etwork (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 Ency rtidae (Hy

menoptera) 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, Eriophyo idea) 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 b iology 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/trees

new/py rus_py rifolia.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. Faiz e, N. Koike, M. Is hizaka, and H. Is hii. 2004. Acibenzolar

- S

- Methyl

- induced resistance to Japanese pear scab is associated with potentiation of multiple defense responses. Phy

topathology

. 94:604

- 612. Farr, D.F., A.Y. Rossman, M.E. Palm, and E.B. McCray . 20 06. Fungal Databases. Systematic Mycology

and Microbiology

L aboratory

Fungal Database , ARS, USDA; http://nt.ars

grin.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 Serv ice (FAS). http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/circular/2002/02

- 11/Pear.htm [accessed January 2003]. Ferris, G. F. 1918. The California species of mealy bug. 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. 20 9

- 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 P hy tophylacica 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/menuPest 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 Ecol ogy . 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 Mey rick. 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 Bupres tidae 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 . IMIDescriptions 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

- gai yo/kaisetu.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/s earch%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. 200 3. Halyomorpha halys (Stål) (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae): a poly phagous plant pest from Asia newl y detected in North America. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 105(1): 225

- 237. [CAB Abstracts] Hoffmann, W.E. 1936. The bionomics of the rose sawfl y, Arge victorina Kirby (Hy menoptera: 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 Y ork: 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 Histori es 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 Id entification 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 cau sed b y 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. In g, G. 2002. Pear production and utilization in North America. Pages 61

- 65 in Proceedings of the Eighth International Sy mposium on Pear. International Society for Horticultural Science Ferrara, Bologna, Ital y. Index Fungorum. 2007. Accessed last on May 14, 2007 at www.indexfungorum.org

. Custodians: CABI Bioscience , CBS and Landcare Research

. INRA. 1998. Hy

permédia 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 Phy tosanitary Measures Publication No. 11. Rome: Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. IPPC. 2006. Glossary

of Phy tosanitary Terms. International Standards for Phy tosanitary 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 pear s: 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

L aboratory ; 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 atPest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 52 http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/live/g1571/build/g1571.pdf Las t 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. Is hikawa 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/Sy nSpecies.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/Sy nSpecies.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/Sy nSpecies.asp?RecordID=245491 [accessed February 2007]. Kirk, P. 2004d. Phyllactinia mali (Duby) U. Braun. Index Fungorum. CABI Bioscience; http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/Sy nSpecies.asp?RecordID=283619 [accessed February 2007]. Kirk, P. 2004e. Phaeodothis winteri (Niessl) Aptroot. Index Fungorum. CABI Bioscience; http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/Sy nSpecies.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%3Ffamil y_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 F orest 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%3DZL CS0019&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=5 &ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522Stephanitis%2Bnashi%2522%2BPy rus%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%2BP yrus%26hl%3Den%26s afe%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. Phyt osanitary status of pear in Chile with special reference to the phy topathological situation. Acta Horticulturae (475): 439

- 448. [CAB Abstracts] Le Cam, B., Devaux, M., and Parisi, L . 2001. Specific poly merase chain reaction identification of Venturia nashicola using internally transcribed spacer region in the ribosomal DNA. Phy topathology

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 Phy

tophyl. Sin. 28(4): 309

- 312. [in Chinese; English summary] Li, G. and Z. Qing. 1997. The o ccurrence, 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. Deci duous 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 phy siology , postharvest pathology

and freshness

- keeping technologi es 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 phy toplasma 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 Experim ent 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 grusz y azjatyckiej (Pyrus pyrifolia Nakai) (abstract). Zeszy ty Naukowe Insty

tutu 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 phy tosanitary terms (No. 5). North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO), Ontario, Canada. NASS. 2002. N oncitrus 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. Py thiaceous fungi and plant

-parasitic nematodes in California pear orchards. I

. Occurrence and pathogenicity of p ythiaceous 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 NI S. 2007. Personal communication (Email, February 20, 2007) from USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ National Identification Services (NI S) to Leah Mill ar, 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, N atural 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. Ko rean Journal of Applied Entomology 31(2):133

- 138. Park, J.D., S.G. Lee, C.S. Kim, and B.K. By un. 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 Databas e (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 Sy nony me 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 Sy nony me. 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 Butterfl y 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 Hi story 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 Conio thyrium 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. Sacc ardo, 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. In sects 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] . L epidoptera 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 meal ybugs attacking citrus. California University Agriculture Monthly

Bulletin. 9: 104

- 158. Smith, H. S. and H. M. Armitage. 1931. Biological Control of mealy bugs 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. Tsuchi ya , T. Misumi, and F. Kawakami. 2002. Disinfestation of export Japanese pears “Nijisseiki” by phosphine fumigation. 2. Large scale fumigation of Japanese pears b y phosphine from generator. Res. Bull. Plant Protect. Serv. Japan (38): 9

- 12. [CAB Abstracts] Spo tts, 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 aphi ds and their natural enemy in Kunming region. Southw. China J. Agric. Sci. 17(3): 337

- 339. [CAB Abstracts] Takashi, S. 2006. Oberea japonica (Thunberg). In sects in Suzuoka; http://www2.wbs.ne.jp/~mus i/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 mealy bug, 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 Californi a 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 emerg ence 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 reg ion. 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. El son - Harris. 1992. Fruit Flies of Economic Importance: Their Id entification and Bionomics. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International. 221 pp. Wille, H.P. 1950. Investigations on P

. pyri and other pear ps yl lids 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 pe ar 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. Exp eriment 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, f

or a measure to be considered for use in a systems approach, it must be: 1) clearl y defined; 2) efficacious; 3) officiall y required (mandated); and 4) subject to monitoring and control by

the responsible national plant pro tection organization (IPPC, 2007: IS PM #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, inspecti on 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 pe st

- 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: I SPM #14)

. Estab lishment and maintenance of such pest

- free areas or production sites should comply with relevant ISPMs (IPPC, 2007: I SPM #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 fl y 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 pear s 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 possibl y 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 pear s to be exported. The surveys should be conducted b y the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture, should cover a specific area (as stated in the Work Plan), and should includePest 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). A dult 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 p est

- free area status is not feasible, a p est

- 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 phy tosanitary certification of production in a pest free place. **Hemipterans**

. For Aphanostigma iaksuiense, Ceroplastes japonicus, Le pidosaphes kuwacola , L

. tubulorum , Phenacoccus pergandei , and Planococcus kraunhiae , e ffective IPM programs achieving low pest prevalence of the phyl loxeran, the scale, and the lacebug in the field combined with inspection is a mitigation option. Freedom f rom these external pests could be verified b y 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 pear s should be inspected since all of these plant parts are able to harbor A

. gaisen and M

. fructigena

. Gui

gnardia pyricola and V. nashicola are not specificall y associated with floral parts, but do infect leaves, fruits and stems of P. pyrifolia

. Orchards should be inspected at, or shortl y after, the bloom period (bloom survey). Pear flowers are collected and incubated to detect presence or estimate levels of latent infections by quarantine pathogens (particularl y 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 yo ung 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 shipp ing. 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 sole ly 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 orchard s 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 phys icall y exclude some pes ts 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. Usuall y, fruit is bagged with two

- layered paper bags when it reaches a size of 2.5 cm in diameter. Earl y 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 b lown from the tree due to the increased wind resistance. Microarthropod s (mites and meal ybugs) 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. Inthe 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 b y 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 cal yxend 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 pear s from China should be co nsidered 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 seas on and after harvest for quality

control and as phy

tosanitary precautionary

measures. Orchards should be surveyed periodicall y; at these times, a random sample of several fruit per tree should be inspected to detect for presence of quarantine pests. Result s 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 thatPest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 62 production areas meet s tipulated requirements for the issuance of a phy tosanitary 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 organi sms would be present with a shipment. Routine post

- harvest and packing practices for Chinese sand pear s 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 regularl y 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 pear s can be traced back to the orchard of origin if pests are found at the packinghouse or th e port of first arrival in the United States. Itis important to consider that only commercial shipments should be eligible for export of Chinese sand pear s 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, AQSI Q 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 A lternaria sp. on Ya pear. This could be true in the case of infestation of Chinese sand pear s with A. gaisen

. Most varieties of fruits can be cleaned b y gentl y 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 hy pochlorous acid

. B efore 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 effec tive method of eliminating mobile surface arthropods is an air gun treatment prior to fruit packing. This physical treatment , air blasting of the cal yxend of the fruit , removes mobile micro

- arthropods (Redlin, 2007)

. Of important note, however, is th at th e cal yxend 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 ty pe of cal yxis often referred to as a “persistent cal yx ” (Figure 1). In contrast , some Chinese sand pear s have a smooth cal yxend , which is referred to as a “nonpersistent” or “deciduous caly x” (Figure 2 )

. Fruit s with such a “deciduous cal yx ” are easier to clean with an air gun and are easier to inspect for microarthopods (Redlin, 2007)

. Consequently , l imiting Chinese sand pear exports to Chinese sand pear cultivars with a deciduous cal yx, along with use of air gun treatment, would improve the effective removal of microarthropods

. In some cases, before being pa cked 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.** Cal yxend of an Asian pear, Pyrus pyrifolia cultivar 'Shin Li'

. (This fruit was grown in the United States )

. This pear has a “persistent cal yx ”

.Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 64 **Figure 2**  **.** Cal yxend of a bright ye llow Pyrus pyrifolia cultivar (grown in the United States ). This pear has a “nonpersistent” or “deciduous cal yx ”

. Inspection of fruit prior to shipment by AQSIQ and certification should occur at the same location, such as the packing house, for effectiv e 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 p hy tosanitary c ertificate should state that the Chinese sand pear s were grown in orchards in accordance with any conditions specified in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, specificall y 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 p rocedures**  The Chinese sand pear s 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 re frigerated container needs to remain unopened until it reaches the port of entry in the United States. Each shipment of Chinese sand pear s should be accompanied b y a phy

tosanitary 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 Distribut** **ion 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 pear s 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 a pproximately

two weeks and can occur late August to mid September (Podleckis, 2003). Chinese sand pear s 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. Quara** **ntine 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 f or 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 35 th 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 b y 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 b y MB at NAP

—tarpaulin or chamber) are approved by APHIS ag ainst Conogethes punctiferalis in apples (PPQ , 2007)

. This treatment is also effective in apples fo r 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 (m ethyl bromide fumigation). However, there is a warning in the APHIS Treatment Manual against applying this treatment to pests on P. pyrifolia since methyl b romide 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

APHI S 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 phyl oxeran Aphanostigma iaksuiense , soft scale Ceroplastes japonicus and fruit fl y 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. Lo wer 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

APHI S against Bactrocera dorsalis (PPQ , 2007)

. There are two moths species belonging to the same genus as Gra pholita 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 APHI S and AQSIQ personnel, and in accordance with specified phy tosanitary procedures. Such programs call for m onitoring of all aspects of any required phy tosanitary 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 a s 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 timel y 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 s ys tem should include the following safeguards: monitoring of orchards and management programs to achieve and maintain area pest free dom; 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 s ys tems 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 A**  **1.** Mitigation List: Importation of Fresh Fruit of Chinese sand pear s, Pyrus pyrif olia , 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 cal yxend 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 cal yx , Alternaria gaisen 53 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; particularl y 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 b y 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 readil y with fungicides, but timing must be corre ct, and managed to prevent

53 “Co ntrol 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 homozygou s 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. In fested orchards are removed from export program

. Plant pathogens; particularl y Monilinia fructigena, which may demonstrate s ymptoms or colonize fruit earl y in development. It could also be used to detect some arthropods Bagging with (two layered) paper fruit bags which can phy sically 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 mealy

bugs, may

not be controlled by

this method

. Timing would be

essential in bagging treatments, to exclude pathogens, not trap them inside on the fruit.

Earl y bagging of fruit Earl y bagging reduces oviposition on fruit by macro arthropods 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 non

program 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 effectivel y exclude pests Arthropods Plant Pathogens Hand grading (voluntary

mitigation measure proposed b y 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) S ome 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 pathogensPest 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 sy mptoms. 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 sy mptoms. 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 Path ogens, although some plant pathogens may evade detection, depending upon the timing of infection, latency , extent of sy mptoms. 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 APHI S for all pests of the class Insecta, excluding adults and pupae of the order Lepidoptera. Air gun treatment of cal yx end of fruit Physical tre atment b y air blasting of cal yxend with an “air gun” effectivel y removes mobile microarthropods from fruit. Some arthropods (particularl y meal ybugs and mites )
Phy tosanitary 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 PathogensPest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 70 **Mitigation Effectiveness or difference**  **Target a**  Alternaria gaisen) , pear scab (caused b y 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 th e 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 PathogensPest 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 fr

uit 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 fructigen a ; 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 some what 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. I shizaka, H. I shii. 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

- APH IS

- PPQ, eds. Hennessey , M. K. 2005. Likelihood of introduc tion into the United States of O riental fruit fly and other Bactrocera species in Ya and Fragrant pears and other host commodities from People’s Republic of China if APHI S

- required OFF detection tra pping and cold treatment mitigations are removed from production areas n orth of the 35th parallel in China. Pages 9 in USDA

- APHI S

- 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. Ishi i, H., H. Udagawa, S. Nishimoto, T. Tsuda, and H. Nakashima. 1992. Scab resistance in pear species and cultivars. Acta Phy topathologica 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 2 7: 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’L eary , and J. Strang. 2001. Total quality a ssurance: apple production: best management practices. Kentucky Coop. Ext. Serv. ID

- 137. Kozaki, I . 1987. [New summer crop cultivar s 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. Earl y 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 Phy tosanitary Measures No. 17. Ottawa : Secretariat of the North American Plant Protection Organization. Podleckis, E. 2003. In formation Memo for the Record: Chinese fragrant pears memo. June 2, 2003. 26 pp. PPQ. 2004. Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) Handbook. United Stat es 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. 20 04. 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 Anal ys is and Operations, PRIM

- PHP, USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) is found throughout Southeast Asia including southern China. (Ko yama 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 35 th 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 Ko yam a (1989). Relation of Shandong province to distribution of Bactrocera dorsalis in area off c oast 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 fl y. 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 200 6). China currentl y 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 ye ars, from 2000 to 2002, shows that no fruit flies have been trapped (AQSIQ 2004). The trapping is conducted to determine if any fruit fl y 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 th e 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 fl y 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 ye ar s.Pest Risk Assessment for Sand Pears from China

Rev. 005 July 2, 2009 76 **References** AQSIQ. 2004. Fruit Fl y 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 Depar tment of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Riverdale, MD. USDA. April 18, 2005. Phy tosanitary Workplan for the 2005

- 2006 Exportation of Ya Pears ( P. bretschneideri Redh.) from China to the United Stat es. 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. 60 1 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.