Importation of Fresh Fruit and Flowers of Summer Squash, 

Cucurbita pepo L., from Israel 

into the Continental United States

A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Risk Analysis

July 13, 2009

Rev. 003

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, North Carolina 27606
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 ii

Executive Summary

In this document we assessed the risks associated with the importation of fresh fruit and flowers 

of summer squash, Cucurbita pepo L., for human consumption from Israel into the continental 

United States. We assessed the risks associated with three possible import scenarios: 1) fruit and

flowers, 2) fruit only, and 3) flowers only. Our search of print and electronic resources identified 

four quarantine pests that occur in Israel and could be introduced into the United States with 

shipments of the commodity. For these pests we assessed the Consequences of Introduction and 

the Likelihood of Introduction. These were combined into overall Pest Risk Potentials for each 

pest, which estimate risk in the absence of mitigation.

The four quarantine pests we identified and assessed were as follows:

Quarantine Pests: Type Pathway:

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Fruit fly Fruit

Dacus ciliatus Loew (Diptera: Tephritidae) Fruit fly Fruit

Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Moth Fruit & Flower

Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) Thrips Flower

Consequently, if both fruit and flowers are imported, all four pests could follow the pathway. If 

only fruit or flowers were imported, either two (flowers) or three (fruit) pests could follow the 

pathway.

These quarantine pests pose significant phytosanitary risks to U.S. agriculture. The authors of 

this risk analysis assigned a High Pest Risk Potential to all four pests. Additional phytosanitary 

are strongly recommended for pests with High Pest Risk Potentials.
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 iii

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

2. Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 3

2.1. Initiating Event ...............................................................................................................3

2.2. Assessment of the Weed Potential of Summer Squash ..................................................3

2.3. Current Status, Previous Decisions, and Pest Interceptions ...........................................3

2.4. Pest Categorization .........................................................................................................4

2.5. Consequences of Introduction ......................................................................................21

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

2.7. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................29

3. Risk Mitigation Options......................................................................................................... 29

3.1. Management Prior to Harvest.......................................................................................30

3.2. Management After Harvest and Before Shipping.........................................................31

3.3. Quarantine Treatments..................................................................................................33

3.4. Management During Shipping and at U.S. Ports-of-Entry...........................................33

3.5. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................34

4. Authors, Contributors, and Reviewers................................................................................. 34

5. Literature Cited ...................................................................................................................... 35
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 1

I. Introduction

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

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

Science and Technology (CPHST), Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL) 

prepared this risk analysis on behalf of the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture and Rural 

Development. We estimated the plant pest risks associated with the importation of fresh fruit and 

flowers of summer squash, Cucurbita pepo L., for human consumption from Israel into the 

continental United States and assigned the qualitative terms High, Medium, or Low, in 

accordance with the template document, Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk 

Assessments, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000). We assessed risks for three potential import scenarios: 

1) fruit and flowers, 2) fruit only, and 3) flowers only.

The methods used to initiate, conduct, and report plant pest risks associated with the importation 

of summer squash fruit and flowers from Israel into the United States conform to international 

standards provided by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) of the United 

Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #s 2 and 11). Biological 

and phytosanitary terms conform to the definitions in International Standards for Phytosanitary 

Measures: Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #5).

Cucurbita pepo is a New World species that probably originated in central Mexico (CABI, 2006; 

Zitter et al., 1996). From there it spread north into the United States and eventually made its way 

to every continent (CABI, 2006; Zitter et al., 1996). It is “perhaps the most polymorphic species 

with respect to fruit characteristics” (Paris et al., 2003), and the fruit is called by many names, 

including pumpkin, squash, and gourd (CABI, 2006; Zitter et al., 1996). These names have little 

meaning, except to designate an intended use (Zitter et al., 1996). For example, the term 

„pumpkin‟ is correctly applied to mature fruit of four different Cucurbita species, if the fruit is 

intended for use as fodder or pie filling (Zitter et al., 1996). Likewise, the term „squash‟ is 

correctly applied to four different Cucurbita species, if the fruit is intended for human 

consumption (Zitter et al., 1996). The term „summer squash‟ more precisely refers to the 

immature fruit of C. pepo (Zitter et al., 1996).

Regardless of the variety of fruit shapes, sizes, colors, and common names, most botanical 

authorities recognize three subspecies of C. pepo. These include C. pepo subsp. fraterna (Bailey) 

Andres, which is regarded as the “wild type” and only occurs in Mexico; C. pepo subsp. texana

(Scheele) Filvo; and C. pepo subsp. pepo (Decker) (Paris et al., 2003). Both C. pepo subsp. 

texana and C. pepo subsp. pepo produce economically important fruit that botanists and 

horticulturalists place in distinct cultivar groups (Paris et al., 2003). Cucurbita pepo subsp. 

texana encompasses the acorn, crookneck, scallop, straight-neck, and ovifera gourd groups, 

while C. pepo subsp. pepo includes the cocozelle, pumpkin, vegetable marrow, zucchini, and 

orange gourd groups (Paris et al., 2003). The many cultivars and their different uses make C. 

pepo a widely cultivated plant. FAO estimated that world production was 17.4 million metric 

tons in 1999, with Asia, China, Europe, and Africa being the top four producers (CABI, 2006).

The request for importation of C. pepo from Israel into the United States did not specify which 

subspecies or cultivars will be imported (Opatowski, 2007); therefore, in this pest risk analysis, 
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 2

the USDA assumed that any subspecies could be imported and assessed pest risks at the species 

level (i.e., C. pepo).

Photographs of female summer squash fruit and flowers on the left and male flowers on the right 

(Photos: www.kucinare.it, and D. Kindersley)

For post-harvest practices, Israeli law requires Plant Protection and Inspection Services to ensure 

that all fresh fruit, vegetables, and cut flowers are free of pests and meet existing quality 

standards before they are exported (MOAG, 2007). Workers typically harvest, grade, and pack 

immature fruit vegetables, like summer squash, and cut flowers by hand (Kader, 2002). This 

provides ample opportunities for visual inspection and the removal of low quality product.

Workers in Israel visually inspect each summer squash flower for pests before grading for 

quality and packing the flower in its own plastic bag (Landshut, 2007). The flowers are packed in 

1 kg boxes and stored in cool refrigerated rooms (Landshut, 2007). Summer squash fruit may be 

field-packed or taken to a packinghouse. If the grower takes the fruit to a packinghouse, then the 

fruit is typically washed and waxed or oiled (Kader, 2002). Even field-packed fruit may be 

immersed in clean water, spray washed, or wiped with a moist clean cloth (Kader, 2002). On the 

other hand, washing is not a standard post-harvest practice for cut flowers (Kader, 2002). The 

information provided by Israel‟s Plant Protection and Inspection Services on post-harvest 

practices for summer squash flowers in Israel does not include washing (Landshut, 2007).

Consequently, in this risk analysis we assumed that Israeli exporters would use, at a minimum, 

the following post-harvest practices for summer squash fruit and flowers:

Each fruit and flower is visually inspected for pests and graded for quality

Each fruit is cleaned by immersion in water, spray washing, and/or hand wiping 
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 3

2. Risk Assessment

2.1. Initiating Event

The USDA developed this risk assessment in response to a request by the government of Israel 

for authorization to import fresh summer squash fruit and flowers for human consumption into 

the continental United States. Entry of this commodity into the continental United States presents 

a potential pathway for the introduction of plant pests. Title 7, Part 319, Section 56 of the United 

States Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR §319.56) provides regulatory authority for the 

importation of fruits and vegetables from foreign sources.

2.2. Assessment of the Weed Potential of Summer Squash

This step examines the commodity‟s potential to become a weed after it enters the United States.

The analysis did not indicate that the commodity had significant weed potential, so a pestinitiated risk assessment was not conducted.

Table 1. Assessment of the weed potential of summer squash.

Commodity: Summer squash (Cucurbita pepo) (Cucurbitaceae)

Phase 1: Summer squash is widely cultivated in the United States (NRCS, 2007).

Phase 2: Is the species listed in:

No Geographical Atlas of World Weeds (Holm et al., 1991a)

No World’s Worst Weeds (Holm et al., 1991b) or World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution (Holm et al., 1997)

No Identification of Disseminules Listed in the Federal Noxious Weed Act (Gunn and Ritchie, 1988)

No Economically Important Foreign Weeds (Reed, 1977)

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

No Does any literature indicate weed potential (e.g., AGRICOLA, CAB, Biological Abstracts, AGRIS search on “species 

name” combined with “weed”)

Phase 3: Conclusion: Summer squash is widely cultivated in the United States. Only Cucurbita pepo var. texana, which is native to 

the United States, is listed as a weed in any of the above references (WSSA, 2007). The weed potential of summer squash is 

therefore negligible, and a pest-initiated risk assessment is not necessary.

2.3. Current Status, Previous Decisions, and Pest Interceptions

2.3.1. Current status

Currently, Title 7, Part 319, Section 56 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR 

§319.56) does not permit the importation of fresh summer squash fruit or flowers for human 

consumption from Israel into the continental United States.

2.3.2. Previous decisions

A search of the USDA Biological Analysis and Taxonomic Support library revealed the 

following:

On 25 April 1960, the USDA approved the importation of Cucurbita fruit from Israel 

pending the development of an acceptable quarantine treatment for the Baluchistan melon 

fly, Carpomya (Myiopardalis) pardalina (USDA, 2007).

On 24 February 1988, the USDA disapproved the importation of cucurbits from Israel 

because there was “no acceptable treatment available for Myiopardalis pardalina and 

Baris granulipennis (USDA, 2007).”
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 4

Although Carpomya pardalina and Baris garnulipennis were reported above as pests of 

cucurbits, we did not include them in the pest categorization, because they have not been 

recorded on Cucurbita pepo.

From 1985 to 2006, C. pardalina was intercepted 18 times in passenger baggage from Israel 

(PestID, 2008), but only four were on Cucurbita sp. The most frequently recorded hosts for C.

pardalina in the literature are Citrullus lanatus (watermelon), Cucumis melo (melon), and 

Cucumis sativus (cucumber) fruit (Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; CABI, 2006; White and ElsonHarris, 1992). Furthermore, Cucurbita maxima, and not Cucurbita pepo, is recorded as a minor 

host (CABI, 2006). 

In Israel, B. granulipennis has been found in cucumbers, melons of all varieties, and wild and 

cultivated watermelon, both, other, and. It has never been found in vegetable marrow or squashes

(Rivnay, 1960). Rivnay (1972) indicated that the natural host plant of B. granulipennis is 

Citrullus colocynthis and will go to C. vulgaris, fruits of melon and cucumber.

2.3.3. Pest interceptions are summarized below.

Pests have been intercepted 36 times at U.S. ports-of-entry on Cucurbita spp. from Israel, mostly 

on Cucurbita spp. rather than C. pepo.

2.4. Pest Categorization

We list below pests that occur in Israel and are associated with summer squash somewhere in the 

world (Table 3). We included information on the geographic distribution of these pests, plant 

parts attacked, quarantine status with respect to the United States, and relevant references on 

distribution and biology. From this list, we selected quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway 

for further analyses. Many of the pests listed were not further analyzed because they are widely 

established in the United States, they are associated with plant parts other than the commodity, or 

they are associated with the commodity, but not likely to remain with the commodity during 

harvest and processing.

Table 2. Pests intercepted at U.S. ports-of-entry on Cucurbita spp. from Israel.

Pest Plant part 

infested

Location of Interception 

(No.)

Host Interceptions

(no.)

Anastrepha sp. Fruit (1) Baggage (1) Cucurbita sp. 1

Anthomyiidae, sp. of Fruit (1) Baggage (1) Cucurbita sp. 1

Aphididae, sp. of Fruit (1) Baggage (1) Cucurbita sp. 1

Autographa gamma Flower (1) Permit Cargo (1) C. pepo 1

Bactrocera sp. Fruit (1) Baggage (1) Cucurbita sp. 1

Carpomya pardalina Fruit (4) Baggage (4) Cucurbita sp. 4

Ceratitis capitata Fruit (1) Baggage (1) Cucurbita sp. 1

Curculionidae, sp. of Fruit (2) Baggage (2) C. pepo

Cucurbita sp.

1

1

Crematogaster sp. Fruit (1) Permit Cargo (1) C. pepo 1

Dacus ciliatus Fruit (2) Baggage (2) C. pepo

Cucurbita sp.

1

1

Frankliniella sp. Fruit (1) Mail (1) Cucurbita sp. 1

Helicoverpa sp. Flower (9) General Cargo (1) C. pepo 4
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 5

Pest Plant part 

infested

Location of Interception 

(No.)

Host Interceptions

(no.)

Fruit (1)

Leaf (2)

Stem (1)

Permit Cargo (12) Cucurbita sp. 9

Heliothis sp. Flower (1) Permit Cargo (1) Cucurbita sp. 1

Heteroptera, sp. of Flower (1) Permit Cargo (1) Cucurbita sp. 1

Miridae, sp. of Fruit (1) Baggage (1) Cucurbita sp. 1

Oxycarinus hyalinipennis Flower (2) Permit Cargo (2) C. pepo 2

Pheidole sp. Leaf (1) Permit Cargo (1) Cucurbita sp. 1

Trogoderma granarium Seed (1) Baggage (1) Cucurbita sp. 1

Table 3. Pests associated with summer squash, Cucurbita pepo, or Cucurbita spp. in general, and 

present in Israel.

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Host Plant Part 

Attacked

Quarantine PestFollow pathway

Fruit Flowers 

FUNGI

Agaricomycetes: Ceratobasidiales

Thanatephorus cucumeris (Frank) 

Donk [Anamorph = 

Rhizoctonia solani J.G. Kühn]

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Root, 

Seed, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes Yes

Agaricomycetes: Corticiales

Athelia (Corticium) rolfsii (Curzi) 

C.C. Tu & Kimbr. [Anamorph 

= Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc.]

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Root, 

Seed, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes Yes

Dothideomycetes: Botryosphaeriales

Lasiodiplodia (Botryodiplodia) 

theobromae (Pat.) Griffon & 

Maubl. 

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Root, 

Seed, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes Yes

Dothideomycetes: Capnodiales

Cladosporium cucumerinum Ellis 

& Arthur 

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Seed, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No Yes Yes

Septoria apiicola Speg. (= S. apii

Chester)

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Leaf, Root, 

Seed, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes2 Yes2

 

1

IL=Israel and US=United States; specific states are listed only when the pest has a limited distribution (FL=Florida and 

HI=Hawaii).

2 This organism may follow the pathway on stems attached to summer squash fruit or flowers.
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 6

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Host Plant Part 

Attacked

Quarantine PestFollow pathway

Fruit Flowers 

Dothideomycetes: Pleosporales

Alternaria alternata (Fr.:Fr.) 

Keissl. (= A. tenuis Nees)

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007; 

ManaakiWhenua, 

2001-2007)

Fruit (CABI, 

2006; ManaakiWhenua, 2001-

2007), & Leaf 

(Vakalounakis, 

1990)

No Yes No

Alternaria brassicae (Berk.) Sacc. IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(ManaakiWhenua, 

2001-2007)

Flower, Leaf, & 

Seed (CABI, 

2006)

No No Yes

Alternaria radicina Meier, 

Drechsler & E.D. Eddy 

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Flower, Leaf, 

Root, Seed, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No No3 No3

Didymella bryoniae (Auersw.) 

Rehm [Anamorph = Phoma 

cucurbitacearum (Fr. ex Fr.) 

Sacc.]

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Fruit, Leaf, 

Seed, & Stem 

(Farr et al., 

2007)

No Yes Yes2

Leptosphaerulina trifolii

(Rostovzev) Petr. 

IL (Minz and 

Solel, 1959) 

& US (Farr et 

al., 2007)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Leaf (Farr et al., 

2007)

No No No

Pleospora tarda Simmons 

[Anamorph = Stemphylium 

botryosum Wallr.]

IL (Dickens 

and Evans, 

1973) & US 

(Farr et al., 

2007)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Fruit, Leaf, 

Root (Dickens 

and Evans, 

1973), & Seed 

(Farr et al., 

2007)

No Yes No

Pyrenochaeta terrestris (Hansen) 

Gorenz Walker & Larson

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Root (CABI, 

2007)

No No No

Ulocladium consortiale (Thüm.) 

E.G. Simmons (= Stemphylium 

consortiale (Thüm.) J.W. 

Groves & Skolko)

IL (Farr et 

al., 2007) & 

US (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Leaf & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes2 Yes2

Eurotiomycetes: Eurotiales

Aspergillus flavus Link IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Root, 

Seed, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes Yes

 

3 We do not expect Alternaria radicina to follow the pathway on summer squash fruit or flowers because this fungus is 

primarily associated with hosts in the family Apiaceae; CABI (2006) states that other host "records are undoubtedly 

misidentifications."
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 7

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Host Plant Part 

Attacked

Quarantine PestFollow pathway

Fruit Flowers 

Incertae sedis: Incertae sedis

Ampelomyces quisqualis Ces. (= 

Cicinobolus cesatii de Bary)

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Flower, Leaf, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No Yes2 Yes

Macrophomina phaseolina

(Tassi) Goid. [Anamorph = 

Rhizoctonia bataticola

(Taubenh.) E.J. Butler]

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Root, 

Seed, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes Yes

Leotiomycetes: Erysiphales

Erysiphe betae (Vaňha) Weltzien 

(= E. polygoni DC.)

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Flower, Leaf, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No Yes2 Yes

Erysiphe pisi DC.var. pisi (= E. 

communis auct p.p.)

IL (Farr et 

al., 2007) & 

US (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Fruit, Flower 

(Farr et al., 

2007), Leaf, 

Seed, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes Yes

Golovinomyces cichoracearum

(DC.) V.P. Heluta

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Flower, Leaf, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No Yes2 Yes

Leveillula taurica (Lév.) G. 

Arnaud

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes Yes

Podosphaera fusca (Fr.) U. Braun 

& Shishkoff

IL (Voytyuk 

et al., 2007) 

& US (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Flower, Leaf, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No Yes2 Yes

Podosphaera macularis 

(Wallr.:Fr.) U. Braun & S. 

Takam (= Sphaerotheca humuli

(DC.) Burrill)

IL (Farr et 

al., 2007) & 

US (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Flower & Leaf 

(CABI, 2006)

No No Yes

Podosphaera xanthii (Castagne) 

U. Braun & Shishkoff (= 

Sphaerotheca fuliginea auct. 

p.p.)

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes Yes

Leotiomycetes: Helotiales

Botryotinia fuckeliana (de Bary) 

Whetzel [Anamorph = Botrytis 

cinerea Pers.: Fr.]

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Root, 

Seed, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes Yes

Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) 

deBary

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Root, 

Seed, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes Yes
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 8

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Host Plant Part 

Attacked

Quarantine PestFollow pathway

Fruit Flowers 

Oomycetes: Peronosporales

Phytophthora cactorum (Lebert & 

Cohn) J. Schröt.

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Root, 

Seed, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes Yes2

Phytophthora capsici Leonian IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Flower, Fruit, 

Leaf, Root, 

Seed, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes Yes2

Phytophthora citrophthora (R.H. 

Sm. & E. Sm.) Leonian

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Flower, Fruit, 

Leaf, Root, 

Seed, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes Yes2

Phytophthora nicotianae Breda de 

Haan

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Flower, Fruit, 

Leaf, Root, 

Seed, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes Yes2

Pseudoperonospora cubensis

(Berk. & M.A. Curtis) 

Rostovtzev

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Leaf (CABI, 

2006)

No No No

Oomycetes: Pythiales

Pythium aphanidermatum

(Edson) Fitzp.

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Fruit, Root, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No Yes Yes2

Pythium oligandrum Drechsler IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Root (CABI, 

2007)

No No No

Pythium ultimum Trow IL (AliShtayeh and 

Saleh, 1999) 

& US (CABI, 

2007)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Fruit, Root (AliShtayeh and 

Saleh, 1999)

No No No

Saccharomycetes: Saccharomycetales

Galactomyces geotrichum (E.E. 

Butler & L.J. Petersen) 

Redhead & Malloch 

[Anamorph = Geotrichum 

candidum Link]

IL (CABI, 

2006) & US 

(Farr et al., 

2007)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Fruit (Farr et al., 

2007)

No Yes No

Saccharomycetes: Hypocreales

Fusarium oxysporum

Schlechtendahl

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Leaf, 

Root, Seed, & 

Stem (Farr et 

al., 2007)

No Yes Yes2

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp niveum

(E.F. Sm.) W.C. Snyder & H.N. 

Hansen

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Fruit, Leaf, 

Root, Seed, & 

Stem (Farr et 

al., 2007)

No Yes Yes2
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 9

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Host Plant Part 

Attacked

Quarantine PestFollow pathway

Fruit Flowers 

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. 

melonis W.C. Snyder & H.N. 

Hansen

IL (Katan et 

al., 1994) & 

US (Farr et 

al., 2007)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Fruit, Leaf, 

Root, Seed, & 

Stem m (CABI, 

2006)

No Yes Yes2

Gibberella avenacea R.J. Cook 

[Anamorph = Fusarium 

avenaceum (Corda: Fr.) Sacc.]

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Flower, 

Root, Seed, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No Yes Yes

Gibberella intricans Wollenweb. 

[Anamorph = Fusarium 

equiseti (Corda) Sacc.]

IL & US 

(Farr et al., 

2007)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Leaf, Root & 

Seed (Farr et al., 

2007)

No No No

Gibberella pulicaris (Fr.:Fr.) 

Sacc. [Anamorph = Fusarium 

sambucinum Fuckel]

IL & US 

(Farr et al., 

2007)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Root & Stem 

(Farr et al., 

2007)

No Yes2 Yes2

Gibberella zea (Schwein.:Fr.) 

Petch [Anamorph = Fusarium 

graminearum Schwabe]

IL (Farr et 

al., 2007) & 

US ((CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo

(ManaakiWhenua, 

2001-2007)

Flower, Leaf, 

Root, Seed, & 

Stem (Farr et 

al., 2007)

No Yes2 Yes

Myrothecium roridum Tode:Fr. IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Leaf (Farr et al., 

2007)

No No No

Nectria haematococca

(Wollenw.) Gerlach 

[Anamorph = Fusarium solani

(Martius) Sacc.]

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Root & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes

2 Yes2

Nectria inventa Pethybr. 

[Anamorph = Verticillium 

tenerum (Pers.:Fr.) Link]

IL (AliShtayeh and 

Jamous, 

2000) & US 

(Farr et al., 

2007)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Root & Stem 

(Farr et al., 

2007)

No Yes2 Yes2

Saccharomycetes: Incertae sedis

Colletotrichum coccodes (Wallr.) 

Hughes

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

Cucurbita

spp. (CABI, 

2006)

Fruit, Root & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No Yes Yes2

Glomerella cingulata (Stonem.) 

Spauld. & Schrenk [Anamorph 

= Colletotrichum 

gloeosporioides (Penz.) Penz. 

& Sacc.]

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Seed, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No Yes Yes

Saccharomycetes: Microascales

Thievaliopsis basicola (Berk. & 

Broome) Ferraris 

[Synanomorph = Chalara 

elegans Nag Raj & W.B. 

Kendr.]

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Root, & 

Seed (CABI, 

2006)

No Yes No
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 10

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Host Plant Part 

Attacked

Quarantine PestFollow pathway

Fruit Flowers 

Saccharomycetes: Phyllachorales

Plectosphaerella cucumerina

(Lindf.) W. Gams [Anamorph = 

Plectosporium tabacinum

(J.F.H. Beyma) M.E. Palm, W. 

Gams & Nirenberg ]

IL (AliShtayeh and 

Jamous, 

2000) & US 

(Farr et al., 

2007)

C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007)

Stem (Farr et 

al., 2007)

No Yes2 Yes2

Zygomycetes: Mucorales

Rhizopus stolonifer (Ehrenb.:Fr.) 

Vuill.

IL (Zahavi et 

al., 2000) & 

US (Farr et 

al., 2007)

C. pepo

(ManaakiWhenua, 

2001-2007)

Fruit, Leaf, 

Root, & Seed 

(Farr et al., 

2007)

No Yes No

BACTERIA

Burkholderiales

Acidovorax avena subsp. citrulli

(Schaad et al.) Willems et al.

IL (Burdman

et al., 2005) 

& US (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Seed, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No Yes Yes2

Ralstonia (Burkholderia) 

solanacearum (Smith) 

Yabuuchi et al.

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(ManaakiWhenua, 

2001-2007)

Fruit, Flower, 

Root, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No4 Yes Yes

Enterobacteriales

Erwinia carotovora subsp. 

carotovora (Jones) Bergey et 

al.

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(ManaakiWhenua, 

2001-2007)

Leaf, Root, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No Yes2 Yes2

Pseudomonadales

Pseudomonas syringae van Hall IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

Cucurbita

spp. (CABI, 

2006)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Root, 

Seed, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes Yes

Pseudomonas syringae pv. 

lachrymans (Smith & Bryan) 

Young Dye & Wilkie

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Leaf, 

Seed, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes Yes2

Pseudomonas syringae pv. 

syringae van Hall

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

Cucurbita

spp. (CABI, 

2006) & C. 

pepo

(Langston et 

al., 2003)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Root, 

Seed, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes Yes

 

4 Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 is not known to occur in Israel (CABI, 2006).
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 11

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Host Plant Part 

Attacked

Quarantine PestFollow pathway

Fruit Flowers 

Rhizobiales

Rhizobium radiobacter

(Beijerinck & van Delden) 

Young et al.

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Root & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No Yes2 Yes2

Viruses

Bromoviridae

Alfalfa mosaic virus IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Brunt et al., 

1996 

onwards)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Root, 

Seed, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes5 Yes5

Cucumber mosaic virus IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Leaf 

(CABI, 2006), 

Flower, Root, 

Seed, & Stem 

(Brunt et al., 

1996 onwards)

No Yes5 Yes5

Bunyaviridae

Tomato spotted wilt virus IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Root, 

Seed, & Stem 

(Brunt et al., 

1996 onwards)

No Yes6 Yes6

Closteroviridae

Cucurbit yellow stunting disorder 

virus

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Leaf (CABI, 

2006)

No No7 No7

Comoviridae

Squash mosaic virus IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Root, 

Seed, & Stem 

(Brunt et al., 

1996 onwards)

No Yes5 Yes5

Geminiviridae

Beet curly top virus IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Brunt et al., 

1996 

onwards)

Leaf (CABI, 

2006)

No No No

 

5 We expect this virus to follow the pathway on imported summer squash fruit because it is seed-borne (Brunt et al., 1996 

onwards; CABI, 2006), and on summer squash flowers because it is spread by arthropods that are associated with flowers 

and capable of flight (Brunt et al., 1996 onwards).

6 We do not expect this virus to follow the pathway on imported summer squash fruit because it is not seed-borne and the 

fruit has no features in which the vectors could hide and survive harvest and processing. Conversely, we think infected 

vectors could be introduced on the flowers (Brunt et al., 1996 onwards).

7 We do not expect this virus to follow the pathway on imported summer squash fruit and flowers because it is transmitted by 

a whitefly that feeds on leaves (CABI, 2006). The whitefly is not likely to attack imported flowers and fruit and 

subsequently spread the virus to healthy plants in the United States (Brunt et al., 1996 onwards).
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 12

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Host Plant Part 

Attacked

Quarantine PestFollow pathway

Fruit Flowers 

Squash leaf curl virus IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No No7 No7

Incertae sedis

Cucumber green mottle mosaic 

virus

IL (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Leaf, & 

Root (CABI, 

2006)

Yes No8 No

Potyviridae

Bean yellow mosaic virus IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

9

Flower, Leaf, 

Seed, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006), 

Fruit, & Root 

(Brunt, 1996)

No No No

Cucumber vein yellowing virus IL (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit &Leaf 

(CABI, 2006)

Yes No7 No7

Papaya ringspot virus IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Brunt et al., 

1996 

onwards)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Root, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No No6 Yes6

Turnip mosaic virus IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Root, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No No6 Yes6

Watermelon mosaic virus IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No No6 Yes6

Zucchini yellow mosaic virus IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Root, 

Seed, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes5 Yes5

Phytoplasma

Mollicutes: Acholeplasmatales

Aster yellows phytoplasma IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Flower, Fruit, 

Leaf, Root, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No No10 No

 

8 We do not expect this virus to follow the pathway because researchers have not recovered this virus from naturally infected 

C. pepo, and many tested varieties resist infection (CABI, 2006).

9 This appears to be an erroneous listing based on old literature. Cucurbita pepo is not susceptible to bean yellow mosaic 

virus (Brunt et al. 1996).

10 Insect vectors, primarily leafhoppers, spread phytoplasmas from plant to plant (CABI, 2006). We do not expect 

leafhoppers, which typically feed on leaves (Borror et al., 1989), to attack imported summer squash fruit and flowers and 

subsequently spread imported phytoplasmas to healthy plants. Furthermore, fruit and flowers infected with phytoplasmas 

are often deformed (CABI, 2006), so they would likely be culled during harvest and processing. Hence, we do not expect 

phytoplasmas to follow the pathway on imported summer squash fruit or flowers.
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 13

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Host Plant Part 

Attacked

Quarantine PestFollow pathway

Fruit Flowers 

NEMATODES

Hoplolaimidae

Helicotylenchus dihystera (Cobb) 

Sher

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Root (CABI, 

2006)

No No No

Rotylenchulus reniformis Linford 

& Oliveira

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Root (CABI, 

2006)

No No No

Longidoridae

Longidorus africanus Merny IL & US 

(UCD, 2007)

C. pepo

(Ferris and 

CaswellChen, 2007)

Root (UCD, 

2007)

No No No

Meloidogynidae

Meloidogyne hapla Chitwood IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Ferris and 

CaswellChen, 2007)

Root (CABI, 

2006)

No No No

Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & 

White) Chitwood

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Ferris and 

CaswellChen, 2007)

Root (CABI, 

2006)

No No No

Meloidogyne javanica (Treub) 

Chitwood

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Ferris and 

CaswellChen, 2007)

Root (CABI, 

2006)

No No No

Pratylenchidae

Pratylenchus brachyurus

(Godfrey) Filipjev & 

Schuurmans Stekhoven

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Charchar 

and Huang, 

1981)

Root& Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes2 Yes2

Trichodoridae

Paratrichodorus minor (Colbran) 

Siddiqi

IL (Schilt and 

Cohen, 1975)

& US (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo

(Ferris and 

CaswellChen, 2007)

Root (CABI, 

2006)

No No No

MITES

Acari: Tarsonemidae

Polyphagotarsonemus latus

Banks

IL 

(Weintraub, 

2007) & US

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(OEPP/EPPO

, 2004)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes Yes

Acari: Tenuipalpidae

Brevipalpus californicus (Banks) IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

Cucurbita

spp. (CABI, 

2006)

Fruit, Leaf, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No Yes Yes2
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 14

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Host Plant Part 

Attacked

Quarantine PestFollow pathway

Fruit Flowers 

Acari: Tetranychidae

Bryobia practiosa (Koch) IL & US 

(Migeon and 

Dorkeld, 

2006)

C. pepo

(Migeon and 

Dorkeld, 

2006)

Leaf, Flower 

(Jeppson et al., 

1975)

No No No

Eutetranychus orientalis (Klein) IL (Bolland

et al., 1998)

C. pepo

(Bolland et 

al., 1998)

Leaf (CABI, 

2006)

Yes No No

Panonychus citri (McGregor) IL & US 

(Bolland et 

al., 1998; 

CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Bolland et 

al., 1998)

Fruit, Leaf, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No Yes No

Panonychus ulmi (Koch) IL & US 

(Bolland et 

al., 1998)

C. pepo

(Bolland et 

al., 1998)

Leaf (CABI, 

2006)

No No No

Tetranychus cinnabarinus

(Boisduval)

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Leaf (CABI, 

2006)

No No No

Tetranychus ludeni (Zacher) IL & US 

(Migeon and 

Dorkeld, 

2006)

C. pepo

(Migeon and 

Dorkeld, 

2006)

Leaf (Reddy, 

2002)

No No No

Tetranychus turkestani (Ugarov & 

Nikolskii)

IL & US 

(Bolland et 

al., 1998)

Cucurbita

spp. (Bolland

et al., 1998)

Leaf (Hill, 

1994)

No No No

Tetranychus urticae Koch IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Mossler and 

Nesheim, 

2003)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No Yes Yes

INSECTS

Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae

Aulacophora foveicollis Lucas IL (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Root, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

Yes No11 No12

Coleoptera: Coccinelidae

Henosepilachna elaterii (Rossi) IL (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo

(Avidov and 

Harpaz, 

1969)

Fruit & Leaf 

(CABI, 2006)

Yes No12 No

 

11 Adult Aulacophora foveicollis feed on cucurbit leaves, flowers, and occasionally the surface of young fruit (CABI, 2006).

Their larvae typically feed on cucurbit roots but occasionally bore into fruit lying on damp soil, which causes the fruit to 

rot (CABI, 2006). We do not expect adult A. foveicollis to follow the pathway on imported summer squash fruit and 

flowers because they are relatively large (i.e., 6-8 mm in length), brightly colored, and capable of flight (CABI, 2006), 

which makes it likely that the adults would either leave the commodity or be detected by visual inspection. Similarly, we 

do not expect larval A. foveicollis to follow the pathway on fruit because attacked, rotten fruit would likely be culled 

during harvest and processing.
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 15

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Host Plant Part 

Attacked

Quarantine PestFollow pathway

Fruit Flowers 

Diptera: Agromyzidae

Chromatomyia horticola Goureau IL (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo

(Dempewolf, 

2004)

Leaf (CABI, 

2006)

Yes No No

Liriomyza bryoniae Kaltenbach IL (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Leaf (CABI, 

2006)

Yes No No

Liriomyza huidobrensis

(Blanchard)

IL (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Leaf (CABI, 

2006)

Yes13 No No

Liriomyza sativae Blanchard IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Leaf (CABI, 

2006)

No No No

Liriomyza trifolii Burgess IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Leaf (CABI, 

2006)

No No No

Diptera: Anthomyiidae

Delia platura (Meigen) IL (Avidov 

and Harpaz, 

1969) & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Avidov and 

Harpaz, 

1969)

Roots & Seeds 

(CABI, 2006)

No No No

Diptera: Muscidae

Atherigona orientalis Schiner IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Leaf, 

Root, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No No14 No

Diptera: Tephritidae

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) IL (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo

(Liquido, 

2008)

15

Fruit (CABI, 

2006)

Yes Yes No

Dacus ciliatus Loew IL (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit (CABI, 

2006)

Yes Yes No

Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae

Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Avidov and 

Harpaz, 

1969)

Leaf (CABI, 

2006)

No No No

Trialeurodes ricini (Misra) IL (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Leaf (CABI, 

2006)

Yes No No

 

12 We do not expect large or highly mobile arthropods that feed on the surface of summer squash fruit or flowers to follow the 

pathway. These organisms are likely to either leave the commodity or be removed by standard post-harvest practices.

13 Liriomyza huidobrensis is a quarantine pest of the United States because genetic analyses have confirmed that flies 

identified by this name and collected from California and Hawaii are actually a cryptic species that should be referred to as

L. langei Frick (Scheffer, 2000; Scheffer and Lewis, 2001; Scheffer et al., 2001).

14 We do not expect Athergona orientalis to follow the pathway on imported summer squash fruit because this fly typically 

develops in damaged or rotting plant material (CABI, 2006). Such fruit would likely be culled during harvest and 

processing.

15 We found no published information that strongly supports a host association between squash and Medfly. For example, 

none of the MEDHOST (Liquido et al., 1998) entries for medfly on C. pepo were based on field or lab data. We based the 

association here on unpublished reports from Hawaii (Liquido, 2008). 
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 16

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Host Plant Part 

Attacked

Quarantine PestFollow pathway

Fruit Flowers 

Trialeurodes vaporariorum

(Westwood)

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Leaf (CABI, 

2006)

No No No

Hemiptera: Aphididae

Acyrthosiphon kondoi Shinji IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

Cucurbita

spp. (CABI, 

2006)

Leaf & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No No No

Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Flower, Leaf, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No No Yes

Aphis craccivora Koch IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Blackman 

and Eastop, 

2000)

Flower, Leaf, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No No Yes

Aphis fabae Scopoli IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Blackman 

and Eastop, 

2000)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No No16 Yes

Aphis gossypii Glover IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No No16 Yes

Aphis spiraecola Patch IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

Cucurbita

spp. (CABI, 

2006)

Leaf & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No No No

Brachycaudus helichrysi 

Kaltenbach

IL (Avidov 

and Harpaz, 

1969) & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Blackman 

and Eastop, 

2000)

Fruit & Leaf 

(CABI, 2006)

No No16 No

Macrosiphum euphorbiae

(Thomas)

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No No16 Yes

Myzus persicae (Sulzer) IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Avidov and 

Harpaz, 

1969)

Flower & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No No Yes

Rhopalosiphum rufiabdominale

(Sasaki)

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Root & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No No No

Smynthurodes betae Westwood IL (CABI, 

2006) & US 

(Jensen et al., 

2007)

C. pepo

(Blackman 

and Eastop, 

2000)

Root (Blackman 

and Eastop, 

2000)

No No No

Hemiptera: Cicadellidae

Asymmetrasca (Empoasca) 

decedens (Paoli)

IL (CABI, 

2006)

Cucurbita

spp. (CABI, 

2006)

Leaf (Viggiani

et al., 1992)

Yes No No

 

16 Aphids are soft-bodied insects (Borror et al., 1989) that are unlikely to survive standard post-harvest practices for 

commercial summer squash fruit (Kader, 2002). Hence, we do not expect aphids to follow the pathway on fruit.
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 17

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Host Plant Part 

Attacked

Quarantine PestFollow pathway

Fruit Flowers 

Empoasca decipiens Paoli IL (Avidov 

and Harpaz, 

1969)

C. pepo

(Avidov and 

Harpaz, 

1969)

Leaf (Avidov 

and Harpaz, 

1969)

Yes No No

Jacobiasca (Empoasca) lybica

(Bergevin)

IL (Avidov 

and Harpaz, 

1969)

C. pepo

(Avidov and 

Harpaz, 

1969)

Leaf (Avidov 

and Harpaz, 

1969)

Yes No No

Hemiptera: Coccidae

Coccus hesperidum (Linnaeus) IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

Cucurbita

spp. (CABI, 

2006)

Leaf & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No No No

Coccus longulus (Douglas) IL & US 

(Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

C. pepo

(Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

Leaf & Stem 

(Rung et al., 

2007)

No No No

Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner) IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Williams 

and Watson, 

1990)

Leaf & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No No No

Saissetia coffeae (Walker) IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Williams 

and Watson, 

1990)

Leaf & Stem 

(Rung et al., 

2007)

No No No

Saissetia oleae (Olivier) IL & US 

(Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

C. pepo

(Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

Leaf & Stem 

(Rung et al., 

2007)

No No No

Hemiptera: Diaspididae

Aonidiella aurantii (Maskell) IL & US 

(Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

C. pepo

(Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

Fruit, Leaf, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No Yes No

Aonidiella orientalis (Newstead) IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

Cucurbita

spp. (CABI, 

2006)

Fruit, Leaf, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No Yes No

Aspidiotus nerii (Bouché) IL & US 

(Watson, 

2008)

Cucurbita

spp. (Watson, 

2008) 

Fruit, Leaf & 

Bark (Watson, 

2008)

No Yes No

Chrysomphalus aonidum 

(Linnaeus)

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Watson, 

2008)

Fruit, Leaf & 

Stem (Watson, 

2008)

No Yes No

Hemiberlesia cyanophylli 

(Signoret)

IL & US 

(Watson, 

2008)

Cucurbita 

spp. (Watson, 

2008)

Fruit, Leaf & 

Stem (Watson, 

2008)

No Yes No

Hemiberlesia latania 

(Signoret)

IL & US 

(Watson, 

2008)

Cucurbita 

spp. (Watson, 

2008)

Fruit, Leaf & 

Stem (Watson, 

2008)

No Yes No

Hemiptera: Lygaeidae
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 18

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Host Plant Part 

Attacked

Quarantine PestFollow pathway

Fruit Flowers 

Oxycarenus hyalinipennis (Costa) IL (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo

(PestID, 

2008)

Flower (PestID, 

2008)

Yes No No17

Hemiptera: Pentatomidae

Nezara viridula (Linnaeus) IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Mossler and 

Nesheim, 

2003)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Seed, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No No12 No12

Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae

Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell) IL & US 

(Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

C. pepo

(Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

Fruit, Leaf, 

Root, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No No18 No

Planococcus citri (Risso) IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Williams 

and Watson, 

1988)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Root, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No No19 Yes

Pseudococcus viburni (Green) IL & US 

(Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

C. pepo

(Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, Root, & 

Stem (Ben-Dov

et al., 2007)

No No19 Yes

Hymemoptera: Formicidae

Crematogaster sp. IL (PestID, 

2008)

C. pepo

(PestID, 

2008)

Fruit (PestID, 

2008)

Yes19 No20 No20

Lepidoptera: Noctuidae

Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel) IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Leaf, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

No No20 No

 

17 For multiple reasons, we think Oxycarenus hyalinipennis is unlikely to follow the pathway on flowers. The only evidence 

of Cucurbita plants being potential hosts of this insect species are two interceptions (in 22+ years) at U.S. ports-of-entry 

on cut flowers of Cucurbita pepo (PestID, 2008). Given this and the fact that O. hyalinipennis is a seed feeder, not a 

flower feeder (Sweet, 2000), these interceptions probably were rare cases of O. hyalinipennis hitchhiking. They are not 

adequate evidence that C. pepo is a host of this insect. Furthermore, O. hyalinipennis reproduces primarily on plants in the 

order Malvales (Slater and Baranowski, 1994; Sweet, 2000), whereas C. pepo is a Cucurbitaceae in the order Violales

(NRCS, 2007). Hitchhiking individuals of this insect would likely be detected during post-harvest inspections, since the 

dark-colored adults and nymphs (PPQ, 2002) would be highly visible on the light-colored C. pepo flowers. Finally, this

mobile, external insect pest would probably leave the commodity if disturbed.

18 We do not expect thrips or mealybugs to follow the pathway on imported summer squash fruit because it does not have any 

features where these organisms could hide and survive harvest and processing.

19 Pests that are not identified to the specific level in this document may or may not be quarantine pests. They were not 

further analyzed either because their risk is reasonably encompassed in the analysis of another pest, or we found no 

evidence of other pests in the taxon being associated with the commodity in the region examined. If pests identified to 

higher taxa are intercepted in the future, APHIS may take action at the port-of-entry, and a reevaluation of risk may occur.

20 We do not expect this pest to follow the pathway on imported summer squash fruit or flowers because its larvae typically 

feed at night and spend the day below ground (CABI, 2006). The larvae are therefore not likely to be associated with the 

commodity during harvest.
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 19

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Host Plant Part 

Attacked

Quarantine PestFollow pathway

Fruit Flowers 

Agrotis segetum (Denis & 

Schiffermüller)

IL (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Leaf, Root, & 

Stem (CABI, 

2006)

Yes No No

Autographa gamma (Linnaeus) IL (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo

(PestID, 

2008; 

Robinson et 

al., 2008)

Flower (PestID, 

2008) & Leaf 

(CABI, 2006)

Yes No No21

Chrysodeixis (Plusia) chalcites

(Esper)

IL (Avidov 

and Harpaz, 

1969)

C. pepo

(Avidov and 

Harpaz, 

1969)

Fruit & Leaf 

(CABI, 2006)

Yes No12 No

Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) IL (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo

(PestID, 

2008)

Fruit, Flower,& 

Leaf (CABI, 

2006)

Yes Yes Yes

Helicoverpa sp. IL (PestID, 

2008)

C. pepo

(PestID, 

2008)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, & Stem 

(PestID, 2008)

Yes19 No19 No19

Spodoptera exigua (Hübner) IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(OEPP/EPPO

, 2004)

Fruit, Flower, & 

Leaf (CABI, 

2006)

No No20 No20

Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval) IL (CABI, 

2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit & Leaf 

(CABI, 2006)

Yes No20 No

Trichoplusia ni (Hübner) IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Leaf (CABI, 

2006)

No No No

Lepidoptera: Pyralidae

Apomyelois (Ectomyelois) 

ceratoniae (Zeller)

IL & US 

(Avidov and 

Harpaz, 

1969; Solis, 

1986)

Cucurbita 

spp. (Solis, 

1986)

Fruit (Botha et 

al., 2004)

No Yes No

Orthoptera: Acrididae

Calliptamus palestinensis

Bodenheimer

IL (Avidov 

and Harpaz, 

1969)

C. pepo

(Opatowski, 

2007)

Leaf 

(Opatowski, 

2007)

Yes No No

 

21 For multiple reasons, we do not expect that Autographa gamma (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) would be likely to follow the 

pathway of Cucurbita pepo flowers. Since 1985, larvae of A. gamma have been intercepted 68 times on cut flowers at 

U.S. ports-of-entry (PestID, 2008). These interceptions most likely represent examples of A. gamma being a hitchhiker on 

cut flowers, and do not provide adequate evidence that this insect species would regularly follow the pathway of cut 

flowers of any particular plant species. This reasoning is based on the following evidence: 1) these interceptions were 

spread out over a wide variety of plant genera (30 different genera), with each plant genus having only 1 to 9 interceptions, 

and 2) A. gamma larvae are leaf feeders, not flower feeders (CABI, 2006; PPQ, 2002). Furthermore, the host status of 

Cucurbita pepo is questionable. Based on an extensive search of the scientific literature, the only evidence found of any 

plants in the genus Cucurbita being potential hosts of this insect species are: 1) one report on Cucurbita pepo from Spain 

by Robinson et al. (2008) (but no details are provided on the original source reference), and 2) since 1985, agricultural 

specialists at U.S. ports-of-entry have intercepted A. gamma (two larvae) one time on cut flowers of C. pepo (PestID, 

2008). Therefore, if C. pepo is a host, it would seem to be merely an incidental one that is rarely infested.
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 20

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Host Plant Part 

Attacked

Quarantine PestFollow pathway

Fruit Flowers 

Dociostaurus maroccanus

(Thunberg)

IL (CABI, 

2006)

Cucurbita

spp. (CABI, 

2006)

Leaf & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

Yes No No

Thysanoptera: Thripidae

Frankliniella occidentalis

(Pergande)

IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(CABI, 2006)

Fruit, Flower, & 

Leaf (CABI, 

2006)

No No19 Yes

Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood IL & US (FL 

& HI) 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Ciomperlik 

and Seal, 

2004)

Fruit, Flower, & 

Leaf (CABI, 

2006)

[Yes]22 No19 Yes

Thrips tabaci Lindeman IL & US 

(CABI, 2006)

C. pepo

(Avidov and 

Harpaz, 

1969)

Fruit, Flower, 

Leaf, & Stem 

(CABI, 2006)

No No19 Yes

Table 4. Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway and further analyzed.

Pest Type Plant part

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Fruit fly Fruit

Dacus ciliatus Loew (Diptera: Tephritidae) Fruit fly Fruit

Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Moth Fruit & Flower

Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) Thrips Flower

 

22 This pest has a limited distribution in the United States and is considered reportable/actionable by APHIS.
Above we list quarantine pests that are likely to follow the pathway (i.e., accompany shipments 

of summer squash or summer squash flower) (Table 4). We analyzed these pests further using 

Steps 5-7 in PPQ (2000).

The fruit flies, C. capitata and D. ciliatus, are likely to follow the pathway on squash fruit

because they lay eggs in fruit, and their larvae develop inside fruit (CABI, 2006). USDA 

agriculture inspectors have intercepted both species on fresh Cucurbita fruit from Israel (PestID, 

2008).

The moth, Helicoverpa armigera, is likely to follow the pathway on squash flower, as evidenced 

by interceptions of Helicoverpa sp. at U.S. ports-of-entry on commercial Cucurbita pepo flowers 

from Israel (PestID, 2008). Helicoverpa armigera is also likely to follow the pathway on summer 

squash fruit because it is an internal fruit feeder (CABI, 2006) that USDA agriculture inspectors 

have intercepted in commercial shipments of Cucurbita pepo fruit from other countries (PestID, 

2008); these inspectors have also found a single incompletely identified Helicoverpa larvae in 

Cucurbita pepo fruit that was imported as general cargo from Israel (PestID, 2008).

The thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis, is likely to follow the pathway on summer squash flowers 

because it is a minute pest that infests Cucurbita pepo flowers (CABI, 2006; Ciomperlik and 

Seal, 2004).

The armored scale, Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) was not 

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

have an extremely low likelihood of establishing via this pathway (Miller, 1985; PERAL, 2007). 

This applies to fruit without leaves, stems or contaminants, and is true even if high quantities of 

imported fruit are infested with armored scale species. This extremely low risk is explained by 

the poor ability of armored scales to disperse to new host plants from fruits for consumption. The 

following characteristics of armored scales contribute to their poor dispersal capabilities: 

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

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

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

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

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

start feeding, they do not disperse further because they soon lose their legs and are anchored 

firmly to the host by their mouthparts.

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

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

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

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

2.5. Consequences of Introduction

We estimate the Consequences of Introduction using five risk elements: climate-host interaction, 

host range, dispersal potential, economic impact, and environmental impact. We assign a Low (1 

point), Medium (2 points), or High (3 points) rating to each Risk Element and add the Risk 
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 22

Elements to produce a Cumulative Risk Rating for each pest analyzed (PPQ, 2000). Our 

Consequences of Introduction values are summarized below (Table 5).

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

Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction

Ceratitis capitata is widely distributed in Africa, the Mediterranean, South and 

Central America, west Asia, and western Australia (CABI, 2006). Based on this 

distribution and the geographic range predicted by Vera et al. (2002), we

estimate that C. capitata could establish in U.S. Hardiness Zones 8-11 in the 

continental United States (PERAL, 2008). One or more of its potential hosts occur 

in these zones (NRCS, 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element 2: Host Range

Ceratitis capitata attacks the fruit of plants in the families Anacardiaceae, 

Arecaceae, Chrysobalanaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Ebanaceae, Loganiaceae, 

Malpighiaceae, Meliaceae, Moraceae, Myrtaceae, Oleaceae, Podocarpaceae, 

Rosaceae, Rubiaceae, Rutaceae, Sapotaceae, Solanaceae, and Sterculiaceae 

(CABI, 2006; Thomas et al., 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential

A female C. capitata can mature and deposit up to 800 eggs during her life 

(Thomas et al., 2007). The species can complete a generation in 14 to 30 days 

depending on temperature (CABI, 2006; Thomas et al., 2007), and adults can 

live up to two months (CABI, 2006), so we expect this fly to complete several 

overlapping generations in warm areas of the United States when host fruit is 

available. Adult C. capitata can fly up to 20 km during their life, and larvae can 

be transported over long distances in infested fruit (CABI, 2006).

High (3)

Risk Element 4: Economic Impact

Ceratitis capitata attacks more than 250 commercially produced fruit in the 

Mediterranean (Fimiani, 1989). Due to its wide distribution, its ability to tolerate 

cooler climates, and its wide host range, it is ranked first among economically 

important fruit fly species (Thomas et al., 2005). The introduction of C. capitata

into Hawaii seriously affected small farmers, as it attacks 72 commercial hosts 

there (Harris, 1989). In the Mediterranean, this pest can infest up to 100 percent

of stone fruit (CABI, 2006). In addition to causing substantial yield loss, C. 

capitata lowers crop values by requiring controls, and, as a recognized 

quarantine pest, outbreaks often cause a loss of foreign and domestic markets 

(CABI, 2006). The European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) lists C.

capitata as an A2 quarantine pest (CABI, 2006).

High (3)

Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact

Ceratitis capitata is extremely polyphagous and could attack plants listed as 

Threatened or Endangered (T/E) in 50 CFR §17.12, particularly congeners of 

current hosts. Examples of potential T/E host plants in the continental United 

States include Argemone pleiacantha (NM), Asimina tetramera (FL), Berberis 

nevivii (CA), B. pinnata (CA), Cucurbita okeechobeensis (FL), Echinocereus 

chisoensis (TX), E. reichenbachii (TX), E iridiflorus (TX), E. fendleri (NM), E. 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 23

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

triglochidiatus (AZ), E. telephioides (FL), Opuntia treleasei (CA), Prunus 

geniculata (FL), Ribes echinellum (FL, SC), and Ziziphus celata (FL). Because it 

is a major pest of numerous crops (above), if introduced into the United States it 

would undoubtedly stimulate new chemical or biological control programs.

Dacus ciliatus Loew (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction

Dacus ciliatus occurs in most of sub-Saharan Africa, Egypt, the Arabian 

Peninsula, the Middle East, and India (CABI, 2006; White and Elson-Harris, 

1992). Based on this distribution, we estimate that D. ciliatus could establish in 

Plant Hardiness Zones 10-11 in the continental United States (PERAL, 2008).

One or more of its potential hosts occur in these zones (NRCS, 2007).

Medium (2)

Risk Element 2: Host Range

Dacus ciliatus attacks members of the plant family Cucurbitaceae (e.g., 

Citrullus, Cucumis, Cucurbita, Lagenaria, Luffa, Momordica, Sechium, and 

Trichosanthes) (CABI, 2006). Reports of hosts in other plant families, such as 

the Fabaceae, Malvaceae, and Solanaceae (White and Elson-Harris, 1992), are 

questionable (CABI, 2006).

Medium (2)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential

Researchers have not studied the fecundity of D. ciliatus, but a closely related 

species with a comparable life history, D. jarvisi, can mature and deposit up to 

600 eggs during its life (Fletcher, 1989a). D. ciliatus can complete multiple 

generations in a year (Fletcher, 1989a). Adult flight and the transport of infested 

fruit are responsible for introducing this fly into new areas (CABI, 2006).

Anecdotal evidence suggests that some members of this genus, like D. tryoni, 

can fly up to 35km (Fletcher, 1989b).

High (3)

Risk Element 4: Economic Impact

Dacus ciliatus larvae feed inside fruit and can induce fruit rot (Annecke and 

Moran, 1982). If the fly is not controlled, it can cause considerable yield losses 

(CABI, 2006). The required controls would likely lower the value of affected 

commodities by increasing production costs. Furthermore, establishment in the 

United States is likely to cause a loss of markets, as D. ciliatus is listed as a 

quarantine pest by EPPO (EPPO, 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact

Dacus ciliatus could attack plants listed as Threatened or Endangered in 50 CFR 

§17.12 (e.g., Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis). Because of its 

economic effects (above), it would stimulate new chemical or biological control 

programs if introduced into the United States.

High (3)

Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction

Helicoverpa armigera occurs throughout Africa, Australia, Central and South 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 24

Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Risk ratings

Asia, Europe, the Far East, the Middle East, and Oceania (CABI, 2006). Based 

on this distribution, we estimate that H. armigera could establish in U.S. Plant 

Hardiness Zones 5-11 (PERAL, 2008). One or more of its potential hosts occur in 

these zones (NRCS, 2007).

Risk Element 2: Host Range

Helicoverpa armigera is a polyphagous pest (CABI, 2006). Its major hosts 

include members of the Anacardiaceae (e.g., Mangifera indica), Asteraceae (e.g., 

Helianthus annuus), Brassicaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Fabaceae (e.g., Arachis 

hypogaea, Cajanus cajan, Cicer arietinum, Glycine max, Lablab purpureus, 

Phaseolus spp., Pisum sativum, and Vigna unguiculata), Liliaceae (e.g., Allium

spp.), Linaceae (e.g., Linum usitatissimum), Malvaceae (e.g., Abelmoschus 

esculentus and Gossypium), Poaceae (e.g., Avena sativa, Hordeum vulgare, 

Pennisetum glaucum, Sorghum bicolor, Triticumi spp., and Zea mays), Pinaceae 

(e.g., Pinus spp.), Rosaceae (e.g., Prunus spp.), Rutaceae (e.g., Citrus spp.), and 

Solanaceae (e.g., Capsicum annuum, Lycopersicon esculentum, Nicotiana 

tabacum, Solanum melongena, and S. tuberosum) (CABI, 2006).

High (3)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential

A female H. armigera can mature and deposit up to 3,180 eggs during her life, 

and the species can complete multiple generations in a year (CABI, 2006). Adult 

H. armigera can migrate long distances, borne by wind (e.g., from southern 

Europe to the United Kingdom), and humans inadvertently transport this species 

over long distances in shipments of infested commodities (CABI, 2006).

High (3)

Risk Element 4: Economic Impact

Helicoverpa armigera causes serious crop losses throughout its range (CABI, 

2006). Various authors report 30-60 percent yield losses in cotton and 10-100

percent yield losses in potato (CABI, 2006). In addition to yield losses, H. 

armigera can reduce crop values by requiring controls (CABI, 2006). For 

example, in India, where H. armigera routinely destroys a portion of the pulse 

and cotton crops, farmers spend about $127 million annually on insecticides to 

protect these crops (CABI, 2006). Establishment of H. armigera in the United 

States is likely to cause a loss of markets because the pest is not established in 

Canada, Mexico, or South America, and EPPO lists H. armigera as an A2 

quarantine pest (CABI, 2006).

High (3)

Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact

Helicoverpa armigera could attack plants listed as threatened or endangered in 

50 CFR §17.12 (e.g., Allium munzii, Amaranthus pumilus, Helianthus 

schweinitzii, and Prunus geniculata). It would stimulate new chemical or 

biological control programs if introduced into the United States because it causes 

considerable yield losses when it is not controlled (CABI, 2006).

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 25

Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction

Scirtothrips dorsalis is native to warm temperate and tropical areas of Asia and 

Oceania, including parts of Australia, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, China, 

India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, the Philippines, 

Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, and Thailand (CABI, 2006).

It was introduced into and has established in Florida, Hawaii, Côte d‟Ivoire, 

South Africa, Israel, and the Caribbean (CABI, 2006). Based on this distribution 

and the geographic range predicted by Meissner et al. (2005), we estimate that S. 

dorsalis could establish in U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 8-11 (PERAL, 2008). One 

or more of its potential hosts occur in these zones (NRCS, 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element 2: Host Range

The literature contains records of S. dorsalis on over 100 plants in forty families 

(CABI, 2006). Its major hosts include Allium cepa (onion) (Liliaceae), 

Anacardium occidentale (cashew nut) (Anacardiaceae), Arachis hypogaea

(groundnut) (Fabaceae), Camellia sinensis (tea) (Theaceae), Capsicum frutescens

(chilli) (Solanaceae), Citrus (Rutaceae), Gossypium (cotton) (Malvaceae), 

Lycopersicon esculentum (tomato) (Solanaceae), Mangifera indica (mango) 

(Anacardiaceae), Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco) (Solanaceae), Ricinus communis

(castor bean) (Euphorbiaceae), and Vitis (grape) (Vitaceae) (CABI, 2006).

High (3)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential

A female S. dorsalis can mature and deposit 40-68 eggs during her life, and she 

can complete her life cycle in as little as 15 days (CABI, 2006). All this does not 

add up to a particularly high reproductive rate for an insect, but it does indicate 

that the bug will probably complete multiple generations each year in areas 

where it can establish; researchers have documented 10-15 generations a year in 

areas of China (Li et al., 2004). Scirtothrips dorsalis is capable of flight, but 

researchers have not quantified its flight potential. The thrips can, however, be 

inadvertently transported over long distances in shipments of infested 

commodities, as evidenced by interceptions at U.S. ports-of-entry (PestID, 2008) 

and by its introduction into Florida, Hawaii, Côte d‟Ivoire, South Africa, Israel, 

and the Caribbean (CABI, 2006).

Medium (2)

Risk Element 4: Economic Impact

Scirtothrips dorsalis is a pest of economic crops, such as citrus, chili peppers, 

and cotton (CABI, 2006; CABI/EPPO, 2007). Feeding by adults and larvae can 

cause leaf distortion, fruit scarring, and flower drop, which all reduce crop 

quality and yield (CABI, 2006; CABI/EPPO, 2007). Large S. dorsalis

populations reduce chili pepper yields by 25-55 percent (CABI, 2006). This 

thrips is typically controlled with chemicals (CABI, 2006; CABI/EPPO, 2007), 

which would lower the value of affected commodities by increasing production 

costs. Finally, widespread establishment in the United States is expected to cause 

a loss of markets because the pest is not yet established in Canada, Mexico, or 

South America, and EPPO lists S. dorsalis as an A2 quarantine pest (EPPO, 

2007). CABI (2006) states that S. dorsalis “must be considered a serious 

quarantine risk to other countries, including ...Europe and the USA.”

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 26

Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact

Scirtothrips dorsalis could attack plants listed as Threatened or Endangered in 50 

CFR §17.12 (e.g., Allium munzii). Widespread distribution of this pest in the 

United States is not likely to stimulate new chemical or biological control 

programs because most U.S. crops have existing pest management programs for 

economically important thrips (CIPM, 2007).

Medium (2)

Table 5. Risk ratings for Consequences of Introduction. We gave ratings of High to all pests for 

„Economic Impact.‟

Pest Climate-host 

interaction

Host range Dispersal 

potential

Environ. 

impact

Cumulative 

risk rating a

Ceratitis capitata High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15)

Dacus ciliatus Medium (2) Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (13)

Helicoverpa armigera High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15)

Scirtothrips dorsalis High (3) High (3) Medium (2) Medium (2) High (13)

a

Low = 5-8; Medium = 9-12; High = 13-15

2.6. Likelihood of Introduction

We estimated the Likelihood of Introduction from the quantity of the commodity expected to be 

imported annually and the probabilities that a pest would survive post-harvest treatment and 

shipment, enter the United States undetected, and arrive in an area with a climate and host plants 

capable of supporting reproduction (PPQ, 2000). We summarize below the Cumulative Risk 

Ratings for the Likelihood of Introduction (Table 6).

2.6.1. Quantity Imported Annually

For C. pepo flowers, the government of Israel reported that they intend to export hundreds of 1 

kg boxes each week throughout the year (Landshut, 2007). This quantity is assigned a Low (1) 

risk rating, in accordance with the template document (PPQ, 2000) (i.e., ≈ 200 kg of product per 

week * 52 weeks per year ≈ 10,400 kg of product per year/ 26,750 kg payload of a standard 40-

foot long shipping container ≈ 0.3 standard shipping containers per year). The government of 

Israel did not provide any information on the quantity of C. pepo fruit or fruit with flowers that 

could be exported; therefore, because of uncertainty, we rated all the pests High (3) for this risk 

element.

2.6.2. Survive Post-Harvest Treatment

As mentioned above, we assumed that each flower and fruit would be visually inspected for 

pests, and graded for quality, that flowers would be packed separately in plastic bags, and that 

each fruit would be washed.

Arthropods that feed inside fruit and flowers may survive these post-harvest treatments. Because 

they are internal fruit feeders and because of the small size of their larvae (last instars range 7 to 

9 mm in length) (PPQ, 2002; Thomas et al., 2007), the fruit flies C. capitata and D. ciliatus 
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 27

would be difficult to detect, especially if infestation of the fruit was not of such great age to make 

damage obvious. Therefore, we rated these fruit flies High.

The thrips S. dorsalis can infest the inside of flowers. These can be inspected for pests more 

easily than the inside of fruits, but the small size (0.5-1.2 mm long) and light color of S. dorsalis

adults (Seal and Klassen, 2005) may make it difficult to find in squash flowers. Thus, we rated S.

dorsalis High.

Because of its relatively large size (larvae can grow up to about 35 mm long) (NCIPM, 2008) 

and obvious symptoms (bore holes and heaps of frass) (CABI, 2006), H. armigera would likely 

be easier to detect during post-harvest inspection and we therefore rated it Medium.

2.6.3. Survive Shipment

The optimum temperature for shipping summer squash fruit is between 10 and 12.5  ̊C, but the 

optimum temperature for shipping most cut flowers is 0  ̊C (Kader, 2002). Storing agricultural 

commodities at low temperatures is detrimental to many arthropods, but the low temperature 

must be maintained for an extended period to cause significant mortality. For example, it takes 

nearly two weeks or longer to kill most fruit fly larvae when the temperature is at or near 0 oC 

(PPQ, 2007). Because Israel intends to ship the products by air, they will not experience 

extended periods of low temperature during shipping (Landshut, 2007). For these reasons, we

assigned High risk ratings to all the arthropods for their ability to survive shipment.

2.6.4. Not Detected at Port-of-Entry

The probability that a pest is detected at the port-of-entry is a function of its size and degree of 

concealment. External feeders are more likely than internal feeders to be detected at the port-ofentry, but minute external feeding arthropods may go unnoticed. Therefore, we assigned Medium 

risk ratings to the internal feeding arthropods and the minute external feeding arthropod. The 

moth H. armigera, because of its size and associated damage, is more likely than internal feeders 

and minute external feeders to be noticed. This organism is therefore assigned a Low risk rating 

for its ability to escape detection at the port-of-entry.

2.6.5. Moved to Suitable Habitat

Summer squash is a popular fruit vegetable in the United States, with the average American 

consuming about 4.5 lbs each year (Lucier and Jerardo, 2004). In fact, the demand for squash in 

the United States is so high that we import more of this commodity than any other country in the 

world (Lucier and Jerardo, 2004). Squash flowers consumption in the United States has 

experienced a surge in popularity in the last few years as haute cuisine (Fluech, 2008). The 

culinary consumption of squash flowers has become relatively common in the United States, 

thanks to the popularity of Mexican and Italian cooking (Wolf, 2006). Given the high demand of 

squash and the increasing popularity of squash flowers with U.S. consumers, infested or infected 

fruit and flowers are likely to arrive in areas that are suitable for pest survival. Ratings for this 

sub-element were therefore based on the area of the United States where each pest could

establish.

We estimated that D. ciliatus could establish in U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 10 and 11 and 

assigns a Low risk rating to this pest because zones 10 and 11 represent a very small portion 
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 28

(about 1 percent) of the United States (PERAL, 2008). We also estimated that C. capitata and S.

dorsalis could establish in U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 8-11 and assigned a Medium risk ratings 

to these pests because zones 8-11 represent about one fourth of the United States (PERAL, 

2008). Finally, we estimated that H. armigera could establish in Plant Hardiness Zones 5-11 and 

assigned a High risk rating to this pest because these zones represent a very large portion (about 

70 percent) of the United States (PERAL, 2008).

2.6.6. Contact with Host Material

Even if the final destination of infested commodities is suitable for pest survival, suitable hosts must 

be available for the pest to survive. This sub-element considers the likelihood that the pest species 

can come into contact with host material for reproduction. The complete host range of the pest is 

considered. According to the IPPC standard for pest risk analysis (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #11), other 

factors that may be considered include:

dispersal mechanisms, including vectors to allow movement from the pathway to a suitable 

host

whether the imported commodity is to be sent to a few or many destinations in the PRA 

area

proximity of entry, transit, and destination points to suitable hosts

time of year at which import takes place

intended use of the commodity (e.g., for planting, processing, or consumption)

risks from by-products and waste

All the arthropod pests of concern are very polyphagous and attack temperate-zone or widely 

cultivated plants (NRCS, 2007) that should be available throughout the pests‟ potential U.S. range.

Cucurbita pepo flowers are produced year-round in Israel (Landshut, 2007). We have no

information on when exactly C. pepo fruit are produced, so we assumed that the fruit could be 

produced year-round as well. We assumed as well that the flowers and fruit could be shipped to 

the United States throughout the year. Consequently, suitable hosts should be available for all the 

pests of concern during at least a portion of the time when the commodity is shipped.

Furthermore, all of the pests of concern can disperse aerially, which increases their chances, 

compared to sessile pests, of finding hosts and successfully establishing in the United States.

Therefore, we rated all the pests High for their ability to make contact with host material. 

Table 6. Risk ratings for Likelihood of Introduction. We gave ratings of High to all pests for 

„Quantity Imported Annually,‟ „Survive Shipment,‟ and „Contact with Host Material.‟

Pest Survive postharvest 

treatment

Not detected 

at port-ofentry

Moved to 

suitable 

habitat

Cumulative risk rating a

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

Dacus ciliatus High (3) Medium (2) Low (1) High (15)

Helicoverpa armigera Medium (2) Low (1) High (3) High (15)

Scirtothrips dorsalis High (3) Medium (2) Medium (2) High (16)

a

Low = 6-9; Medium = 10-14; High = 15-18
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 29

2.7. Conclusion

We summarize the Pest Risk Potentials below (Table 7), which estimate the risk associated with 

importing a commodity in the absence of mitigation. According to the template document, 

Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000), port-of-entry 

inspection provides sufficient phytosanitary security for pests assigned Low Pest Risk Potentials, 

while specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary for Medium Pest Risk Potentials and are 

strongly recommended for High Pest Risk Potentials.

Table 7. Pest Risk Potential.

Pest Consequences of 

Introduction

Likelihood of 

Introduction

Pest Risk Potential a

Ceratitis capitata High (15) High (16) High (31)

Dacus ciliatus High (13) High (15) High (28)

Helicoverpa armigera High (15) High (15) High (30)

Scirtothrips dorsalis High (13) High (16) High (29)

a

Low = 11-18; Medium = 19-26; High = 27-33

3. Risk Mitigation Options

This section outlines possible risk mitigation options (i.e., phytosanitary measures) for the 

quarantine pests of concern and discusses their efficacy.

In the risk assessment section of this document, the authors identified the following 

quarantine pests as having High unmitigated Pest Risk Potential: 

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) following the fruit pathway

Dacus ciliatus Loew (Diptera: Tephritidae) following the fruit pathway

Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) following the fruit and flower 

pathways.

Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) following the flower pathway

The appropriate level of protection may be achieved through the application of a single 

phytosanitary measure, such as inspection or quarantine treatment, or a combination of measures.

If no single measure is likely to reduce pest risk to an acceptable level, then a combination of 

measures may be needed. The combination of specific phytosanitary measures that provides 

overlapping or redundant safeguards is called a “systems approach.” The strength of a measure 

may be increased, or additional measures may be added to compensate for uncertainty. A 

measure intended for use in a systems approach must be clearly defined, efficacious, mandated, 

and monitored by the responsible national plant protection organization (IPPC, 2007; ISPM #14).

A systems approach for summer squash and squash flower from Israel might combine a variety 

of measures, including pest-free areas; pest-free places of production; areas of low pest 

prevalence; cultural, chemical, or biological control programs; pre-clearance oversight by 
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 30

APHIS; clearly defined harvest and packing procedures; quarantine treatments; port-of-entry 

inspection; and limits on commodity distribution and transit within the United States.

3.1. Management Prior to Harvest

3.1.1. Treatments or practices

Pest-free areas or pest-free places of production can provide an acceptable level of 

phytosanitary protection (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #s 4 and 10). The establishment and maintenance of 

these areas are described in ISPM #s 4 and 10 (IPPC, 2007). Statistical procedures are available 

to verify confidence in declaring an area pest-free, based on negative survey results (Barclay and 

Hargrove, 2005; Venette et al., 2002).

An area of low pest prevalence, which may encompass all or part of a country or countries 

where a pest occurs at a low level and is subject to surveillance, control, or eradication efforts, 

can provide an acceptable level of phytosanitary protection when used as part of a systems 

approach (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #s 14 and 22). The establishment and maintenance of areas of low 

pest prevalence are described in ISPM #22 (IPPC, 2007).

Phytosanitary certificates may provide an acceptable level of protection when used as part of a 

systems approach. Each shipment of squash flowers and/or fruits should be accompanied by a 

phytosanitary certificate issued by Israel‟s department of agriculture. The certificate should 

contain additional declarations stating the squash flowers and/or fruits were treated and/or grown 

in accordance with any phytosanitary measures required by APHIS. The crop may be sampled 

and periodically inspected during the growing season and after harvest. Inspection will ensure 

that production areas meet stipulated requirements for the issuance of a phytosanitary certificate. 

This measure is useful for detecting pests present in the field during the growing season that may 

be more difficult to detect post-harvest; however, it must be combined with other measures to 

ensure the absence of pests of concern.

Control programs can eliminate pests from fields or prevent commodity infestation. Successful 

control programs typically include monitoring, cultural, biological, and chemical components 

(Dreistadt, 1994). The components of the control program must be clearly defined for use in a 

systems approach (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #14).

3.1.2. Monitoring

Traps baited with ammonia or parapheromones are typically used to monitor fruit fly populations 

(White and Elson-Harris, 1992). Lure type determines the spacing between traps, and the traps 

should be emptied every few days to prevent specimen decay (White and Elson-Harris, 1992).

Visual inspection of the crop and surrounding weeds, especially during drought, is the most 

common method for detecting lygaeid bugs (Capinera, 2001).

Visual inspection, light traps, and pheromone traps are commonly used to monitor pest moth 

populations (Dreistadt, 1994). Researchers have identified pheromones for H. armigera (CABI, 

2006). In addition to monitoring, pheromones can be used to disrupt communication and mating 

(Capinera, 2001).
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 31

Thrips are extremely small, so monitoring requires a hand lens. Any plant part that is stippled, 

flecked with pale dots, or distorted should be carefully examined (Dreistadt, 1994). Damage may 

persist long after the thrips population has been eradicated or controlled by natural forces 

(Dreistadt, 1994). For this reason, damage alone should not stimulate additional control measures 

(Dreistadt, 1994). In addition to inspecting damage, thrips can be sampled by beating foliage and 

branches (Dreistadt, 1994). Adult populations can also be monitored using yellow or blue sticky 

traps; the color depends on the species of interest (Dreistadt and Phillips, 2001).

3.1.3. Cultural controls

Few cultural controls are available for fruit flies. Michaels (2005) recommends removing and 

destroying fruit with dimples or those leaking sap. These fruit may contain fruit fly eggs or 

larvae (Michaels, 2005).

Caterpillars can be hand-picked into buckets of alcohol, while egg masses can be scraped into 

buckets of soapy water (Dreistadt, 1994). Controlling weeds in and around crops may also

reduce invasion, as these sites often serve as refugia and mating areas for Lepidopteran pests 

(Capinera, 2001).

Farm managers can reduce thrips populations by using a slow release fertilizer and regular 

watering (Dreistadt and Phillips, 2001). Overhead watering is beneficial because it removes dust 

particles that interfere with natural predators (Dreistadt, 1994). Managers should remove and 

destroy infested and damaged plant parts, including old flowers (Dreistadt and Phillips, 2001).

Weed control and reflective mulch can also reduce the thrips population (Dreistadt and Phillips, 

2001).

3.1.4. Chemical and Biological

Fruit flies are typically controlled using cover or bait sprays (White and Elson-Harris, 1992).

Bait sprays have a few advantages over cover sprays (White and Elson-Harris, 1992). For 

example, they have a lower impact on existing natural enemies because they are not spread 

throughout the environment (White and Elson-Harris, 1992).

Insecticidal soaps and narrow-range oils are effective against Lepidopteran eggs (Dreistadt, 

1994). Augmentative releases of commercially available natural enemies can severely reduce 

pest populations (Dreistadt, 1994). Farm managers often need chemicals to control Helicoverpa 

armigera (CABI, 2006).

Insecticidal soaps and narrow-range oils are also effective against thrips (Dreistadt and Phillips, 

2001). Augmentative releases of predaceous mites can severely reduce thrips populations 

(Dreistadt, 1994). Farm managers may need a systemic insecticide when all else fails (Dreistadt 

and Phillips, 2001).

3.2. Management After Harvest and Before Shipping

Washing and removing obviously infected or infested material reduces the likelihood of 

introducing quarantine organisms into the United States on imported commodities.
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 32

Israeli workers and inspectors look for pests in and on summer squash fruit and flowers prior to 

export (Landshut, 2007; MOAG, 2007), and they may wash them prior to export (EurepGAP, 

2005; Kader, 2002).

Washing is not a standard post-harvest practice for cut flowers (Kader, 2002), but large Israeli 

exporters, like Carmel-Agrexco and GreenLeaf Ltd., may wash flowers that are intended for 

human consumption prior to export because these companies comply with the Euro-Retailer 

Produce Working Group‟s Good Agricultural Practices (EurepGAP) (Greenleaf, 2007; Krudo, 

2007). They may wash the flowers because Annex 1.2 of the EurepGAP General Regulations

defines fruits or vegetables as “products originating from plants which are commonly designated 

as producing either „fruit‟, „vegetables‟, „edible roots‟, „bulbs‟, „tubers‟, „nuts‟, „spices‟ or 

„herbs‟, for fresh, cooked or processed consumption by humans” (EurepGAP, 2007), and article 

10.2.1 of the EurepGAP Control Points and Compliance Criteria for Fruit and Vegetables

requires certified exporters to wash the final product in potable water (EurepGAP, 2005).

In addition to washing, EurepGAP (2005) defines a minimum set of criteria for growing, 

harvesting, and handling fresh produce that is destined for European markets. Exporters that 

meet the minimum criteria provide European markets with high quality produce that is safe from 

human pathogens and pesticide residues, while protecting the environment and worker health.

Minimum EurepGAP requirements that have some phytosanitary value are listed below.

1. Traceability - Certified produce is traceable from the consumer back to the farm and from 

the farm forward to the consumer (EurepGAP 1.1).

2. Records - Certified farms must keep records for a minimum of two years (EurepGAP 

2.1). This includes the name of any product used to treat a pest or disease and the 

product‟s target (EurepGAP 3.4.1, 3.5.5, & 8.3), justifications for pesticide applications 

(EurepGAP 8.1.1), which typically include scouting records and action thresholds, 

phytosanitary certificates for purchased propagative materials (EurepGAP 3.5.1), and 

pest monitoring systems for in-house propagative materials (EurepGAP 3.5.4).

3. Irrigation Water - Although it is not required, EurepGAP recommends an annual risk 

assessment of microbial, chemical, and physical contaminants that may pollute irrigation 

water (EurepGAP 7.3.2). If the risk assessor considers water-borne plant pathogens as 

contaminants, then the annual assessment could prevent the spread of some diseases, like 

Ralstonia solanacearum.

4. Crop Protection - Certified farms must apply recognized integrated pest management 

(IPM) techniques (EurepGAP 8.1.2), and the person responsible for implementing the 

IPM system must be technically qualified (EurepGAP 8.1.4). Furthermore, only a 

competent farmer or advisor can choose the appropriate product to mitigate a pest or 

disease outbreak (EurepGAP 8.2.6 & 8.2.7).

5. Harvesting - Certified farms must clean and disinfect harvesting containers, tools (i.e. 

scissors, knives, shears...), and machinery (EurepGAP 9.1.3 & 9.1.5). They must also 

cover field-packed produce during transport from the field to storage facilities to prevent 

accidental contamination (EurepGAP 9.1.4).

6. Post-Harvest Handling - Certified exporters must wash the final product in potable water 

(EurepGAP 10.2.1). They must also implement a pest monitoring and control system in 

produce handling and storage areas (EurepGAP 10.4.9).

7.
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 33

Israeli exports may also comply with quality standards developed by the Standards Institution of 

Israel (e.g., Ecofresh), which are even more strict than the EurepGAP standards 

(Dun&BradstreetIsraelLtd., 2007; Greenleaf, 2007; Krudo, 2007).

3.3. Quarantine Treatments 

Quarantine treatments provide probit-9 security by killing 99.9968 percent or more of the 

quarantine organisms.

APHIS-accepted quarantine treatments for pests on summer squash fruit include vapor heat (i.e., 

T106-b-6) for Ceratitis capitata and methyl bromide (i.e., T101-y-2) for external feeders (PPQ, 

2007). These treatments may damage the delicate summer squash flowers.

The PPQ (2007) Treatment Manual does not list a specific treatment for Dacus ciliatus, 

Helicoverpa armigera, or Scirtothrips dorsalis on summer squash fruit or flowers. The generic 

methyl bromide treatment for hitchhikers on various commodities, including summer squash 

(i.e., T104-a-1), should, however, provide the appropriate level of phytosanitary security against 

the thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis, and the surface feeding caterpillar, Helicoverpa armigera (PPQ, 

2007). The minimum generic dose of gamma irradiation (i.e., 400 Gy) published as a final rule in 

the Federal Register on 27 January 2006 should also provide the appropriate level of 

phytosanitary security against all of the pests expected to follow the pathway. This generic dose 

of 400 Gy is approved for all plant pests of the class Insecta other than pupae and adults of the 

order Lepidoptera for all regulated articles (i.e., fruits, vegetables, cut flowers, and foliage).

Because of their size and mobility, any adults of the Lepidoptera species of concern, Helicoverpa 

armigera, would likely not stay with the commodity through standard post-harvest handling and 

processing. Also, this Lepidopteran species does not pupate in the fruit or flowers of its hosts. 

Helicoverpa armigera pupates in the soil (CABI, 2006). Therefore, the generic dose irradiation 

should provide the appropriate level of phytosanitary security against this Lepidopteran pest.

3.4. Management During Shipping and at U.S. Ports-of-Entry

3.4.1. Temperature and moisture 

Properly setting these levels in the shipping container may reduce the risk of introducing certain 

quarantine pests into the United States. For example, extended periods of storage near 0 oC can 

kill most fruit fly larvae (PPQ, 2007). The shipping conditions associated with summer squash 

fruit and flowers from Israel are not expected to provide adequate quarantine security (see 

Survive Shipment under the Likelihood of Introduction).

3.4.2. Port-of-entry inspection 

This may provide an acceptable level of protection against obvious or not so obvious pests when 

used as part of a systems approach. If a pre-clearance program is not implemented, then 

inspection at port-of-entry is necessary. Upon arrival in the United States, consignments should 

be inspected, with particular attention given to paperwork and seals on vehicles, to ascertain that 

the chain of custody has remained intact. In the case of fruit flies, inspection should also include 

fruit cutting.
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 34

3.5. Conclusion

Below we summarize options for risk mitigation (Table 8). This section of the risk analysis does 

not establish a work plan or describe a pest management program. It simply provides information 

regarding known pest management strategies. A written agreement between the government of 

Israel and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is called a bilateral work plan, will describe 

the details of any resulting importation program, including all applicable mitigations.

Table 8. Summary of risk mitigation options for summer squash (Cucurbita pepo) flowers and 

fruit from Israel.

Measure(s) Pests Efficacy

Pest-free areas or places of 

production 

All Provides appropriate level of 

protection

Pre-harvest control 

program

All Research required to demonstrate 

efficacy

Post-harvest and 

packinghouse procedures

All Unknown

Shipping conditions All Not effective

Point-of-entry sampling 

and inspection

All Provides appropriate level of 

protection when used as part of a 

systems approach

Irradiation All Accepted APHIS treatment

Methyl bromide fumigation Helicoverpa armigera

Scirtothrips dorsalis

Accepted APHIS treatment

Vapor heat Ceratitis capitata Accepted APHIS treatment

4. Authors, Contributors, and Reviewers

Authors

Ignacio Baez, Entomologist, (primary contact) a

Keith Colpetzer, Entomologist a

Contributors

Leah Millar, Entomologist a

Reviewers

Tara Holtz, Ecologist a

a USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST-PERAL
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 35

5. Literature Cited

Ali-Shtayeh, M. S., and R. M. F. Jamous. 2000. Keratinophilic fungi and related dermatophytes 

in polluted soil and water habitats. Revista Iberoamericana de Micología 17:51-59.

Ali-Shtayeh, M. S., and A. S. F. Saleh. 1999. Isolation of Pythium acanthicum, P. oligandrum, 

and P. periplocum from soil and evaluation of their mycoparasitic activity and biocontrol 

efficacy against selected phytopathogenic Pythium species. Mycopathologia 145:143-

153.

Annecke, D. P., and V. C. Moran. 1982. Insects and Mites of Cultivated Plants in South Africa. 

Butterworths, Pretoria, South Africa.

Avidov, Z., and I. Harpaz. 1969. Plant Pests of Israel. Israel University Press, Jerusalem, Israel. 

549 pp.

Barclay, H. J., and J. W. Hargrove. 2005. Probability models to facilitate a declaration of pestfree status, with special reference to tsetse (Diptera: Glossinidae). Bulletin of 

Entomological Research 95(1):1-11.

Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 2007. ScaleNet. Last accessed December 10, 

2007, http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm.

Blackman, R. L., and V. F. Eastop. 2000. Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and 

Information Guide. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England.

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

Mite Family (Acari: Tetranychidae). Koninklijke Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Borror, D. J., C. A. Triplehorn, and N. F. Johnson. 1989. An Introduction to the Study of Insects 

(Sixth). Harcourt Brace College Publishers, New York, New York. 875 pp.

Botha, J., D. Hardie, and H. Hoffmann. 2004. Garden Note No. 21: Carob moth. Government of 

Western Australia, Department of Agriculture.

Brunt, A. A., K. Crabtree, M. J. Dallwitz, A. J. Gibbs, L. Watson, and E. J. Zurcher. 1996 

onwards. Plant Viruses Online: Descriptions and Lists from the VIDE Database. Last 

accessed November 5, 2007, http://image.fs.uidaho.edu/vide/.

Burdman, S., N. Kots, G. Kritzman, and J. Kopelowitz. 2005. Molecular, physiological, and 

host-range characterization of Acidovorax avenae subsp. citrulli isolates from 

watermelon and melon in Israel. Plant Disease 89(12):1339-1347.

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

(CABI), Wallingford, UK.

CABI. 2007. Descriptions of Fungi and Bacteria. CABI International. Last accessed November 

16, 2007, http://www.cababstractsplus.org/DFB/index.asp.

CABI/EPPO. 2007. Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests: Scirtothrips dorsalis. CAB International. 

Last accessed December 17, 2007, 

http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/insects/Scirtothrips_dorsalis/SCITDO_ds.pdf.

Capinera, J. L. 2001. Handbook of Vegetable Pests. Academic Press, San Diego, California.

Charchar, J. M., and C. S. Huang. 1981. Circulo de hospedeiras de Pratylenchus brachyurus. II -

hortalicas. Fitopatologia Brasileira 6(1):67-72.

Ciomperlik, M., and D. Seal. 2004. Surveys of St. Lucia and St. Vincent for Scirtothrips dorsalis

Hood, January 14-23, 2004. Pest Detection, Diagnostics and Management Laboratory, 

APHIS, Edinburg, TX, U.S.A. 19 pp.

CIPM. 2007. USDA Crop Profiles. National Science Foundation Center for Integrated Pest 

Management. http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/CP_form.cfm.
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 36

Dempewolf, M. 2004. Arthropods of Economic Importance - Agromyzidae of the World. 

Zoological Museum of the University of Amsterdam and the Expert Center for 

Taxonomic Identification.

http://ip30.eti.uva.nl/bis/agromyzidae.php?menuentry=inleiding.

Dickens, J. S. W., and S. G. Evans. 1973. A Stemphylium leaf blight of tomato. Plant Pathology 

22:70-72.

Dreistadt, S. H. 1994. Pests of Landscape Trees and Shrubs: An Integrated Pest Management 

Guide. University of California, Davis, California.

Dreistadt, S. H., and P. A. Phillips. 2001. Thrips, Pest Notes No. 7429. University of California, 

Davis, California.

Dun&BradstreetIsraelLtd. 2007. Carmel-Agrexco. Last accessed November 30, 2007, 

http://duns100.dundb.co.il/2007/600000764/index.asp.

EcoPort Record. 2007. Ceratitis capitata. Last accessed December 5, 2007, http://ecoport.org/.

EPPO. 2007. EPPO A1 and A2 lists of pests recommended for regulation as quarantine pests. 

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). Last accessed 

December 14, 2007, http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOStandards/PM1_GENERAL/pm1-

02(16)_A1A2_2007.pdf.

EurepGAP. 2005. Control Points and Compliance Criteria, Fruit and Vegetables, Version 2.1-

Oct04. EurepGAP, Köln, Germany.

EurepGAP. 2007. General Regulations, Integrated Farm Assurance I, Part I - General 

Information, Annex 1.2 EurepGap Product List, Version 3.0-1-2July07. EurepGAP, 

Köln, Germany.

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

States Department of Agriculture, Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory. Last 

accessed November 5, 2007, http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/index.cfm.

Ferris, H., and E. P. Caswell-Chen. 2007. NEMABASE: Nematode-Host Association Database. 

University of California. Last accessed November 28, 2007, 

http://ucdnema.ucdavis.edu:591/KNOWL/NEMBASE/FMPro?-db=interact.fm&-

lay=MAINDB&-format=search.htm&-view.

Fimiani, P. 1989. Chapter 2.1: Mediterranean region. Pages 39-41 in A. S. Robinson and G. 

Hooper, (eds.). World Crop Pests: Fruit Flies, Their Biology, Natural Enemies and 

Control. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Fletcher, B. S. 1989a. Life history strategies of tephritid fruit flies. Pages 193-208 in A. S. 

Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit flies, their biology, natural enemies and control, 

World crop pests, Vol. 3b. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Fletcher, B. S. 1989b. Movement of tephritid fruit flies. Pages 209-219 in A. S. Robinson and G. 

Hooper, (eds.). Fruit flies, their biology, natural enemies and control, World crop pests, 

Vol. 3b. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Fluech, B. 2008. UF research helps tasty flowers emerge as haute cuisine. University of Florida

News. Last accessed September 12, 2008, http://news.ufl.edu/2008/03/11/gut-flora/.

GreenLeaf. 2007. Greenleaf Ltd. Last accessed November 30, 2007, 

http://www.greenleaf.co.il/page.asp?page_id=2&page_title=about.

Gunn, C. R., and C. A. Ritchie. 1988. Identification of Disseminules Listed in the Federal 

Noxious Weed Act. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin No. 1719. 313 

pp.
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 37

Harris, E. J. 1989. Chapter 2.6: Hawaiian islands and North America. Pages 73-74 in A. S. 

Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). World Crop Pests: Fruit Flies, Their Biology, Natural 

Enemies and Control. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Hill, D. S. 1994. Agricultural Entomology. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.

Holm, L., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Pancho, and J. Herberger. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories 

and Distribution. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York.

Holm, L. G., J. V. Pancho, J. P. Herberger, and D. L. Plucknett. 1991a. A Geographical Atlas of 

World Weeds. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida. 391 pp.

Holm, L. G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger. 1991b. The World's Worst 

Weeds. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida.

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.

Jensen, A. S., G. L. Miller, and M. B. Stoetzel. 2007. U. S. National Collection of Aphididae. U. 

S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service, Systematic Entomology 

Laboratory. Last accessed December 4, 2007, 

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/aphid/aphid_db.html.

Jeppson, L. R., H. H. Keifer, and E. W. Baker. 1975. Mites injurious to economic plants. 

University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 614 + plates pp.

Kader, A. A. (ed.). 2002. Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops. University of 

California, Oakland, California.

Katan, T., J. Katan, T. R. Gordon, and D. Pozniak. 1994. Physiological races and vegetative 

compatibility groups of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. melonis in Israel. Phytopathology 

84(2):153-157.

Krudo, Y. 2007. SII, The Standards Institution of Israel, and Agrexco. Last accessed December 

3, 2007, http://www.newsletter.iqnet-certification.com/ed1/art8complete.htm.

Landshut, E. 2007. Re: Cucurbita stems. Personal communication to Craig Fedchock on 

September 25, 2007, from Eldad Landshut.

Langston, D. B., F. H. Sanders, J. H. Brock, R. D. Gitaitis, J. T. Flanders, and G. H. Beard. 2003. 

First Report of a field outbreak of a bacterial leaf spot of cantaloupe and squash caused 

by Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae in Georgia. Plant Disease 87(5):600.

Li, J. M., G. W. Liu, and R. B. Peng. 2004. Bionomics and control of the yellow tea thrips, 

Scirothrips dorsalis infesting litchi [abstract]. Entomological Knowledge 41(2):172-173.

Liquido, N. J., P. G. Barr, and R. T. Cunningham. 1998. MEDHOST - An encyclopedic 

bibliography of the host plants of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata

(Wiedemann). ARS-144 Version 1.0. United States Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service.

Liquido, N.J. 2008. Host status of Med fly on Cucurbitae in Hawaii. Personal communication to 

B. P. Caton on June 16, 2008, from Dr. N. Liquido (USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Honolulu, HI). 

Archived at PERAL, Raleigh, NC.

Lucier, G., and A. Jerardo. 2004. Vegetables and Melons Outlook. USDA Economic Research 

Service. Last accessed December 6, 2007, 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/vgs/Dec04/VGS306.pdf.

Manaaki-Whenua. 2001-2007. NZFUNGI - New Zealand Fungi (and Bacteria). MaanakiWhenua Landcare Research. Last accessed November 15, 2007, 

http://nzfungi.landcareresearch.co.nz/html/mycology.asp?ID=.
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 38

Meissner, H., A. Lemay, D. M. Borchert, B. Nietschke, A. Neeley, R. Magarey, M. Ciomperlik, 

C. Brodel, and T. Dobbs. 2005. Evaluation of possible pathways of introduction for 

Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) from the Caribbean into the 

continental United States. USDA Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, 

Raleigh, NC.

Michaels, F. 2005. Organic Fruit Fly Control. Green Harvest. Last accessed February 15, 2006, 

http://www.greenharvest.com.au/pestcontrol/fruit_fly_info.html.

Migeon, A., and F. Dorkeld. 2006. Spider Mites Web: a comprehensive database for the 

Tetranychidae. L'institut national de la recherche agronomique (INRA), France. Last 

accessed April 18, 2008, http://www.montpellier.inra.fr/CBGP/spmweb/index.php.

Minz, G., and Z. Solel. 1959. New records of field crop diseases in Israel. Plant Disease Reporter 

43(9):1051.

MOAG. 2007. The State of Israel, Ministry of Agriculture (MOAG) and Rural Development, 

Plant Protection and Inspection Services. Last accessed November 30, 2007, 

http://www.ppiseng.moag.gov.il/PPISENG/.

Mossler, M. A., and O. N. Nesheim. 2003. Florida Crop/Pest Management Profile: Squash. 

University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Florida Cooperative 

Extension Service. Last accessed December 10, 2007, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/PI046.

NCIPM. 2008. American boll worm (Helicoverpa armigera). National Centre for Integrated Pest 

Management (NCIPM). Last accessed May 20, 2008, 

http://www.ncipm.org.in/helocoverpa.htm.

NRCS. 2007. The PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), The National Plant Data Center. Last accessed 

December 3, 2007, http://plants.usda.gov.

OEPP/EPPO. 2004. Cucurbits under protected cultivation. Bulletin OEPP (Organisation 

Européenne et Méditerranéenne pour la Protection des Plantes)/EPPO (European and 

Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization) Bulletin 34:91-100.

Opatowski, D. 2007. Cucurbit flowers - additional information from Israel. Personal 

communication to Fan-Li Chou (PPQ) on November 14, 2007, from David Opatowski 

(PPIS).

Paris, H. S., N. Yonash, V. Portnoy, N. Mozes-Daube, G. Tzuri, and N. Katzir. 2003. 

Assessment of genetic relationships in Cucurbita pepo (Cucurbitaceae) using DNA 

markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 106(6):971-978.

PERAL. 2007. Phytosanitary Risks Associated with Armored Scales in Commercial Shipments 

of Fruit for Consumption to the United States, Revision Original. United States 

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

and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology 

and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC. 24 pp.

PERAL. 2008. Plant Hardiness Zones of the United States: Area and Population Analysis. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant 

Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC. 6 pp.

PestID. 2008. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, 

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

https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp.
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 39

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.

PPQ. 2002. Electronic Files for Arthropods from Pests Not Known to Occur in the United States 

or of Limited Distribution and Insects Not Known to Occur in the United States. United 

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

Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Policy and Program Development, Risk Analysis 

Systems. 941 pp.

PPQ. 2007. Treatment Manual. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). 804 pp.

Reddy, G. V. P. 2002. Plant volatiles mediate orientation and plant preference by the predator 

Chrysoperla carnea Stephens (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Biological Control 25(1):49-

55.

Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically Important Foreign Weeds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Handbook No. 498. 705 pp.

Rivnay, E. 1960. The life-history of the melon weevil, Baris granulipennis (Tourn.), in Israel. 

Bulletin of Entomological Research 51(1):115-122.

Rivnay, E. 1972. On irrigation - Induced changes in insect populations in Israel. Pages 349-364 

in M. T. Farvar and J. P. Milton, (eds.). The Careless Technology. The Natural History 

Press. The Natural History Press, Garden City, New York.

Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitching, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernández. 2008. 

HOSTS - a database of the hostplants of the world's Lepidoptera. Department of 

Entomology, The Natural History Museum. Last accessed March 24, 2008, 

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/hostplants/.

Rung, A., G. L. Venable, D. R. Miller, and R. J. Gill. 2007. Scale Insects: Identification Tools 

for Species of Quarantine Significance. USDA. Last accessed December 10, 2007, 

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/ScaleKeys/ScaleInsectsHome/ScaleInsectsHome.html.

Scheffer, S. J. 2000. Molecular evidence of cryptic species within the Liriomyza huidobrensis

(Diptera: Agromyzidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 93(4):1146-1151.

Scheffer, S. J., and M. L. Lewis. 2001. Two nuclear genes confirm mitochondrial evidence of 

cryptic species within Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Annals of the 

Entomological Society of America 94(5):648-653.

Scheffer, S. J., A. Wijesekara, D. Visser, and R. H. Hallett. 2001. Polymerase chain reactionrestriction fragment-length polymorphism method to distinguish Liriomyza huidobrensis

from L. langei (Diptera: Agromyzidae) applied to three recent leafminer invasions. 

Journal of Economic Entomology 94(5):1177-1182.

Schilt, H. G., and E. Cohn. 1975. Pathogenicity and population increase of Paratrichodorus 

minor as influenced by some environmental factors. Nematologica 21(1):71-80.

Seal, D. R., and W. Klassen. 2005. Chilli Thrips (castor thrips, Assam thrips, yellow tea thrips, 

strawberry thrips), Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood, Provisional Management Guidelines 

(ENY-725). University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.

Slater, J. A., and R. M. Baranowski. 1994. The occurrence of Oxycarenus hyalinipennis (Costa) 

(Hemiptera: Lygaeidae) in the West Indies and new Lygaeidae records for the Turks and 

Caicos Islands of Providenciales and North Caicos. Florida Entomologist 77(4):495-497.

Solis, M. A. 1986. Key to selected Pyraloidea (Lepidoptera) larvae intercepted at U.S. ports of 

entry: revision of Pyraloidea in "Keys to some frequently intercepted lepidopterous 
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 40

larvae" by Weisman. Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the National Museum of Natural History, 

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Sweet, M. H. 2000. Seed and Cinch Bugs (Lygaeoidea). Pages 143-264 in C. W. Schaefer and A. 

R. Panizzi, (eds.). Heteroptera of Economic Importance. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

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

2007. Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Insecta: Diptera: 

Tephritidae). University of Florida. Last accessed December 13, 2007, 

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/IN/IN37100.pdf.

Thomas, M. C., J. B. Heppner, R. E. Woodruff, H. V. Weems, and G. J. Steck. 2005. 

Mediterranean fruit fly. University of Florida. Last accessed July 20, 2007, 

http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/fruit/mediterranean_fruit_fly.htm.

UCD. 2007. Longidorus africanus. University of California Davis, Department of Nematology. 

Last accessed November 28, 2007, 

http://ucdnema.ucdavis.edu/imagemap/nemmap/ent156html/nemas/longidorusafricanus.

USDA. 2007. Biological Analysis and Taxonomis Support Library. USDA, APHIS, PPQ, 

CPHST, PERAL. Last accessed November 2, 2007, http://www.peral.org/bats/.

Vakalounakis, D.J. 1990. Host range of Alternaria alternata f. sp. cucurbitae causing leaf spot of 

cucumber. Plant Disease 74(3):227-230.

Venette, R. C., R. D. Moon, and W. D. Hutchison. 2002. Strategies and statistics of sampling for 

rare individuals. Annual Review of Entomology 47:143-174.

Vera, M.T., R. Rodriguez, D.F. Segura, J.L. Cladera, and R.W. Sutherst. 2002. Potential 

geographical distribution of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: 

Tephritidae), with emphasis on Argentina and Australia. Environmental Entomology 

31(6):1009-1022.

Viggiani, G., E. Guerrieri, and F. Filella. 1992. Observations and data on Empoasca decedens

Paoli and Zygina flammigera (Fourcroy) (Homoptera: Typhlocibidae) infesting peach 

trees in Campania [Abstract]. Bollettino del Laboratorio di Entomologia Agraria Filippo 

Silvestri 49:127-160.

Voytyuk, S. O., V.P. Heluta, S.P. Wasser, and E. Nevo. 2007. The genus Podosphaera Kunze 

(Ascomycota, Erysiphales) in Israel: species composition, host range and distribution. 

Nova Hedwigia 85:277-298.

Watson, G.W. 2008. Diaspididae of the World. Natural History Museum. Last accessed March 

13, 2008, http://ip30.eti.uva.nl/bis/diaspididae.php.

Weintraub, P. 2007. Broad Mite in the Arava, Israel. Last accessed December 10, 2007, 

http://www.agri.gov.il/gilat-molcho/broadmite_english.html.

White, I. M., and M. M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: Their 

Identification and Bionomics. CAB International, Wallingford, United Kingdom.

Williams, D. J., and G. W. Watson. 1988. The Scale Insects of the Tropical South Pacific Region 

Part 2, The Mealybugs (Pseudococcidae). CAB International, Oxon, United Kingdom.

Williams, D. J., and G. W. Watson. 1990. The Scale Insects of the Tropical South Pacific Region 

Part 3, The Soft Scales (Coccidae) and Other Families. CAB International, Oxon, United 

Kingdom.

Wolf, B. 2006. Flower power at your table. National Public Radio. Last accessed September 19, 

2008, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5455396.
Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Flowers from Israel

Rev. 003 July 13, 2009 41

WSSA. 2007. Composite List of Weeds Weed Science Society of America. Last accessed 

December 3, 2007, http://www.wssa.net/Weeds/ID/WeedNames/namesearch.php.

Zahavi, T., L. Cohen, B. Weiss, L. Schena, A. Daus, T. Kaplunov, J. Zutkhi, R. Ben-Arie, and S. 

Droby. 2000. Biological control of Botrytis, Aspergillus and Rhizopus rots on table and 

wine grapes in Israel. Postharvest Biology and Technology 20:115-124.

Zitter, T. A., D. L. Hopkins, and C. E. Thomas (eds.). 1996. Compendium of Cucurbit Diseases. 

APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota.