# Importation of Fresh Fruit and Flowers of Summer Squash, Cucurbita pepo L., from Israel

into the Continental United States

A Qualitative, Pathway

- I nitiated Risk Analysis

July 13 , 200 9

Rev. 00 3

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 27606Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 ii 

## Executive S ummary

In t his 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 r isks associated with three po ssible 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 co mmodity. For these pests we assessed the Consequences of Introduction and

the Likelihood of Introduction. The se were combined in to overall Pest Risk Potentials for each

pest , which estimate risk in the absence of mitigation.

The four quarantine pests we i dentified 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: No ctuidae) 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) o r 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 Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 iii 

## Table of Contents

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... ii

I. Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 1

2. Risk Assessment

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 3

2.1. Initia ting 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

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 35Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 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 (PER AL) 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 i nto 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,

includin g 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 spe cies, 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 „ sum mer squash ‟ more precise ly 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 s ubsp. 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 economi cally 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 in cludes 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 Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 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)

F or post

- harvest practices, Israeli law requires Plant Protection and Inspection Services to en sure that all fresh fruit, vegetables, and cut flowers are free of pests and meet exist ing 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 re moval 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 refrig erated 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, i n 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 wipingPest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 3 

## 2 . Risk Assessment

2.1

. Initiating Event

The USDA developed this risk asse ssment 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 po tential 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

. Asses sment 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 pest

initiated risk assessm ent 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 s earch 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, 200 7). 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 th e 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. P revious decisions A search of the USDA Biolog ical 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 ( My iopardalis ) 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 Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 4 Although Carpomya pardalina and Baris garnulipennis were reported above as pest s of cucurbits, we did not include the m in the pest categorization, because they have not been

recorded on Cucurbita pepo.

F rom 1985 to 2006

, C. pardalina was intercepted 18 times in passenger ba ggage from Israel (PestID, 200 8), but o nly four were on Cucurbita sp. The most frequently recorded hosts for C. pardalina in t he literature are Citrullus lanatus (watermelon), Cucumis melo (melon)

, and

Cucumis sativus (cucumber) fruit (Avidov and Harpaz, 1 969; CABI, 2006; White and Elson

Harris, 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 wate rmelon, 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. P est interceptions are summarized below.

P est s have been intercepted 36 times at U.S. p orts

- 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 i nformation on the geographic distribution of these pests, plant parts attacked, quarantine status with respect to the United States, and relevant references on

distribution an d biology. From this list, we selected quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway for further analyses. Many of the pests listed we re not further analyzed because they are widely established in the United States, they are associated with plant parts oth er 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 i ntercepted at U.S. p orts

- of

- entry on Cucurbita spp. from Israel

. Pest Plant p art
i nfested Locatio n 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 4Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 5 Pest Plant p art
i nfested Locatio n of Interception

(No.) Host Interceptions (no.)
Fruit (1) Leaf (2) Stem (1) Per mit 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 Is rael.

Pest Geographic

d istribution 1 Host Plant Part

Attacked Quaran

tine Pest Follow pathway

F ruit F lowers

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 (C ABI, 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., 200 7) 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

Septor ia apiicola Speg. (= S

. apii Chester) IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007) Leaf, Root,

Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2006) No Yes 2 Yes 2

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 atta ched to summer squash fruit or flowers.Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 6 Pest Geographic

d istribution 1 Host Plant Part

Attacked Quaran

tine Pest Follow pathway

F ruit F lowers
Dothideomycetes: Pleosporales

Alternaria alternata (Fr.:Fr.)

Keissl. (= A

. tenuis Nees) IL & US (CABI, 200 6) C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007;

Manaaki

Whenua,

2001

- 2007) Fruit (CABI,

2006; Manaaki

Whenua, 2001

- 2007), & Leaf (Vakalounakis, 1990) No Yes No

Alternaria brassicae (Berk.) Sacc. IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(Manaaki

Whenua,

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 No 3 No 3

Didymella bryoniae (Auersw.) Rehm [Anamorph = Phoma

cucurbitacearum (Fr. e x Fr.) Sacc.] IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007) Fruit, Leaf,

Seed, & Stem (Farr et al., 2007) No Yes Yes 2

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 Yes 2 Yes 2

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 "record s are undoubtedly

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



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 7 Pest Geographic

d istribution 1 Host Plant Part

Attacked Quaran

tine Pest Follow pathway

F ruit F lowers

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 Yes 2 Yes

Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid. [Anamorph =
Rhizocto nia 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 Yes 2 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 Yes 2 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) N o Yes 2 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 & Sh ishkoff (= 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.: F r.] 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 Y es YesPest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 8 Pest Geographic

d istribution 1 Host Plant Part

Attacked Quaran

tine Pest Follow pathway

F ruit F lowers
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 Yes 2

Phytophthora capsici Leonian IL & US (CABI, 200 6) C. pepo

(CABI, 2006) Flower, Fruit,

Leaf, Root, Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2006) No Yes Yes 2

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 Yes 2

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 Yes 2

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 Yes 2

Pythium oligandrum Drechsler IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo (Fa rr

et al., 2007) Root (CABI,

2007) No No No

Pythium ultimum Trow IL (Ali

Shtayeh and Saleh, 1999) & US (CABI, 2007) C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007) Fruit, Root (Ali

Shtayeh 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 oxy sporum Schlechtendahl IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(CABI, 2006) Fruit, Leaf,

Root, Seed, & Stem (Farr et al., 2007) No Yes Yes 2

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, Le af,

Root, Seed, & Stem (Farr et al., 2007) No Yes Yes 2Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 9 Pest Geographic

d istribution 1 Host Plant Part

Attacked Quaran

tine Pest Follow pathway

F ruit F lowers
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 Yes 2

Gib berella 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 e t al., 2007) No Yes 2 Yes 2

Gibberella zea (Schwein.:Fr.) Petch [Anamorph = Fusarium graminearum Schwabe] IL (Farr et al., 2007) & US ((CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(Manaaki

Whenua,

2001

- 2007) Flower, Leaf,

Root, Seed, & Stem (Farr et al., 2007) No Yes 2 Yes

Myrothe cium 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 Ye s 2 Yes 2

Nectria inventa Pethybr. [Anamorph = Verticillium

tenerum (Pers.:Fr.) Link] IL (Ali

Shtayeh and
Jamous, 2000) & US (Farr et al., 2007) C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007) Root & Stem

(Farr et al., 2007) No Yes 2 Yes 2

Saccharomycetes: Incertae sedis

Colletotrichum coccodes (Wallr.) Hughes IL & US (CABI, 2006) Cucurbita

spp. (CABI, 2006) Fruit, Root &

Stem (CABI, 2006) No Yes Yes 2

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 NoPest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 10 Pest Geographic

d istribution 1 Host Plant Part

Attacked Quaran

tine Pest Follow pathway

F ruit F lowers
Saccharomycetes: Phyllachorales
Plectosphaerella cucumerina (Lindf.) W. Gams [Anamorph = Plectosporium tabacinum (J.F.H. Beyma) M.E. Palm, W. Gams & Nirenberg ] IL (Ali

Sht ayeh and
Jamous, 2000) & US (Farr et al., 2007) C. pepo (Farr

et al., 2007) Stem (Farr et

al., 2007) No Yes 2 Yes 2

Zygomycetes: Mucorales Rhizopus stolonifer (Ehrenb.:Fr.)

Vuill. IL (Zahavi et al., 2000) & US (Farr et al., 2007) C. pepo

(Manaaki

Whenua,

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) F ruit, Seed, &

Stem (CABI, 2006) No Yes Yes 2

Ralstonia ( Burkholderia )

solanacearum (Smith)

Yabuuchi et al. IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(Manaaki

Whenua,

2001

- 2007) Fruit, Flower,

Root, & Stem (CABI, 2006) No 4 Yes Yes

Enterobacteriales

Erwinia c arotovora subsp.

carotovora (Jones) Bergey et

al. IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(Manaaki

Whenua,

2001

- 2007) Leaf, Root, &

Stem (CABI, 2006) No Yes 2 Yes 2

Pseudomonadales Pseudomonas syringae van Hall IL & US (CABI, 2006) Cucurbita

spp. (CABI,

200 6) 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 Yes 2

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 Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 11 Pest Geographic

d istribution 1 Host Plant Part

Attacked Quaran

tine Pest Follow pathway

F ruit F lowers

Rhizobiales

Rhizobium radiobacter (Beijerinck & van Delden) Young et al. IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(CABI, 2006) Fruit, Root &

Stem (CABI, 2006) No Yes 2 Yes 2

Viruses

Bromoviridae

Alfalfa mosaic virus IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(Brunt et al.,

1996 onwards) Fruit, Flower,

Leaf, Root, Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2 006) No Yes 5 Yes 5

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 Yes 5 Yes 5

Bunyaviridae Tomato spotted wilt virus IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pep o

(CABI, 2006) Fruit, Flower,

Leaf, Root, Seed, & Stem (Brunt et al., 1996 onwards) No Yes 6 Yes 6

Closteroviridae Cucurbit yellow stunting disorder

virus IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(CABI, 2006) Leaf (CABI,

2006) No No 7 No 7

Comoviridae Squash mosaic virus IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(CABI, 2006) Fruit, Flower,

Leaf, Root, Seed, & Stem (Brunt et al., 1996 onwards) No Yes 5 Yes 5

Geminiviridae Beet curly top virus IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(Brunt et al.,

1996 onwards) Lea f (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., 19 96 onwards; CABI, 20 06), 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 introduce d 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 Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 12 Pest Geographic

d istribution 1 Host Plant Part

Attacked Quaran

tine Pest Follow pathway

F ruit F lowers Squash leaf curl virus IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(CABI, 2006) Fruit, Flower,

Leaf, & Stem (CABI, 2006) No No 7 No 7

Incertae sedis Cucumber green mottle mosaic

virus IL (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(CABI, 2006) Fruit, Leaf, &

Root (CABI, 2006) Yes No 8 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 No 7 No 7

Papaya ringspot virus IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(Brunt et al.,

1996 onwards) Fruit, Flower,

Leaf, Root, & Stem (CABI, 2006) No No 6 Yes 6

Turnip mosaic virus IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(CABI, 2006) Frui t, Flower,

Leaf, Root, & Stem (CABI, 2006) No No 6 Yes 6

Watermelon mosaic virus IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(CABI, 2006) Fruit, Flower,

Leaf, & Stem (CABI, 2006) No No 6 Yes 6

Zucchini yellow mosaic virus IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(CABI, 2006) Fruit, Fl ower,

Leaf, Root, Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2006) No Yes 5 Yes 5

Phytoplasma
Mollicutes: Acholeplasmatales Aster yellows phytoplasma IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(CABI, 2006) Flower

, Fruit,

Leaf, Root, & Stem (CABI, 2006) No No 10 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 er roneous listing based on old literature. C ucurbita 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 t ypically feed on leaves (Borror et al., 1 989), 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 Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 13 Pest Geographic

d istribution 1 Host Plant Part

Attacked Quaran

tine Pest Follow pathway

F ruit F lowers

NEMATO DES
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

Caswell

Chen, 2007) Root (UCD,

2007) No No No

Meloidogynidae
Meloidogyne hapla Chitwood IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(Ferris and

Caswell

Chen, 20 07) Root (CABI,

2006) No No No

Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & White) Chitwood IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(Ferris and

Caswell

Chen, 2007) Root (CABI,

2006) No No No

Meloidogyne javanica (Treub)

Chitwood IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(Ferris and

Caswell

Chen, 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 Yes 2 Yes 2

Trichodoridae

Parat richodorus minor (Colbran) Siddiqi IL (Schilt and Cohen, 1975) & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(Ferris and

Caswell

Chen, 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 Yes 2Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 14 Pest Geographic

d istribution 1 Host Plant Part

Attacked Quaran

tine Pest Follow pathway

F ruit F lowers

Aca ri: 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., 19 98) 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,

20 02) 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 No 11 No 1 2

Coleoptera: Coccinelidae Henosepilachna elaterii (Rossi) IL (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(Avidov and Harpaz, 1969) Fruit & Leaf

(CABI, 2006) Yes No 12 No

11 Adult Aulacophora foveicollis feed on cucurbit leaves, flowers, and occasionally the surfac e 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 squ ash 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, w e 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 Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 15 Pest Geographic

d istribution 1 Host Plant Part

Attacked Quaran

tine Pest Follow pathway

F ruit F lowers
Diptera: Agromyzidae
Chromatomyia horticola Goureau IL (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(Dempewolf, 2004) Leaf (CABI,

2006) Yes No No

Li riomyza 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) Yes 13 No No

Liriomyza sativae Blanchard IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(CA BI, 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 an d 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 No 14 No

Diptera: Tephritidae
Ceratitis capitat a ( 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 o r 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 flie s 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 fo llow 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 suppo rts 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 Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 16 Pest Geographic

d istribution 1 Host Plant Part

Attacked Quaran

tine Pest Follow pathway

F ruit F lowers 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 No 16 Yes

Aphis gossypii Glover IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(CABI, 2006) Fruit, Flower,

Leaf, & Stem (CABI, 2006) No No 1 6 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 No 16 No

Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(CABI, 2006) Fruit, Flower,

Leaf, & Stem (CABI, 2006) No No 1 6 Y es

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 W estwood 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 Ap hids are soft

- bodied insects (Borror et al., 1 989) that are un likely 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 Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 17 Pest Geographic

d istribution 1 Host Plant Part

Attacked Quaran

tine Pest Follow pathway

F ruit F lowers 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

Har paz, 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

(Willia ms 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 (Bouch é) 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 (Signor et) 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: LygaeidaePest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 18 Pest Geographic

d istribution 1 Host Plant Part

Attacked Quaran

tine Pest Follow pathway

F ruit F lowers Oxycarenus hyalinipennis (Costa) IL (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

( PestID,

2008 ) Flower ( PestID,

2008 ) Yes No No 17

Hemiptera: Pentatomidae

Nezara viridula (Linnaeus) IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(Mossler and Nesheim, 2003) Fruit, Flower,

Leaf, Se ed, & Stem (CABI, 2006) No No 12 No 12

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 No 18 No

Planococcus citri (Risso) IL & US (C ABI, 2006) C. pepo

(Williams and Watson, 1988) Fruit, Flower,

Leaf, Root, & Stem (CABI, 2006) No No 1 9 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) N o No 1 9 Yes

Hymemoptera: Formicidae
Crematogaster sp. IL ( 

### PestID,

2008 ) C. pepo

( 

### PestID,

2008 ) Fruit ( 

### PestID,

2008 ) Yes 19 No 20 No 20

Lepidoptera: Noctuidae Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel) IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(CABI, 2006) Fruit, Lea f, &

Stem (CABI, 2006) No No 20 No

17 For multiple reasons, we thin k Oxycarenus hyalinipennis is un likely to follow the pathway o n 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 hitchhik ing. They are not adequate evidence that C. pepo is a host of this insect. Furthermore, O. hyalinipennis reproduce s 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 det ected during post

- harvest inspection s
, 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 no t 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 docu ment may or may not be quarantine pests. They we re 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 regi on 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 b ecause 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 Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 19 Pest Geographic

d istribution 1 Host Plant Part

Attacked Quaran

tine Pest Follow pathway

F ruit F lowers
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 ( Pes tID,

2008 ) & Leaf (CABI, 2006) Yes No No 21

Chrysodeixis ( Plusia ) chalcites (Esper) IL (Avidov and Harpaz, 1969) C. pepo

(Avidov and Harpaz, 1969) Fruit & Leaf

(CABI, 2006) Yes No 12 No

Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) IL (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

( PestID,

2008 ) Fr uit, Flower,&

Leaf (CABI, 2006) Yes Yes Yes

Helicoverpa sp. IL ( PestID,

2008 ) C. pepo

( PestID,

2008 ) Fruit, Flower,

Leaf, & Stem ( PestID, 2008 ) Yes 19 No 19 No 19

Spodoptera exigua (Hübner) IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(OEPP/EPPO , 2004) Fruit, Flower, &

Lea f (CABI, 2006) No No 20 No 20

Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval) IL (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(CABI, 2006) Fruit & Leaf

(CABI, 2006) Yes No 20 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 Har paz, 1969) C. pepo

(Opatowski, 2007) Leaf

(Opatowski, 2007) Yes No No

21 For multiple reasons, we do not expect that Autographa gamma (Lepidoptera: Noct uidae) 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 bein g 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

s pread 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 Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 20 Pest Geographic

d istribution 1 Host Plant Part

Attacked Quaran

tine Pest Follow pathway

F ruit F lowers

Dociostaurus maroccanus (Thunberg) IL (CABI, 2006) Cucurbita

spp. (CABI, 2006) Leaf & Stem

(CABI, 2006) Yes No No

Thysanoptera: Thripidae

Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergand e) IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(CABI, 2006) Fruit, Flower, &

Leaf (CABI, 2006) No No 1 9 Yes

Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood IL & US (FL & HI) (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(Ciomperlik and Seal, 2004) Fruit, Flower, &

Leaf (CABI, 2006) [Yes] 22 No 1 9 Yes

Thrips tabaci Lin deman IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(Avidov and Harpaz, 1969) Fruit, Flower,

Leaf, & Stem (CABI, 2006) No No 1 9 Yes



### Table 4. Quarantine p ests likely to follow the pathway and f urther 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 quaran tine 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 fo llow 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 armig era , 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 sum mer 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 incomplete ly 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 Cu curbita 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 extreme ly 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 r isk 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 whi ch 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 t he 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 RiskPest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 22 Elements to produce a Cumulative Risk Rating for each pest analyzed (P PQ, 2000). Our Consequences of Introduction values are summarize d below (Table 5)

.

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

Risk Element 1: Climate

- Host Interaction Ceratitis capitata is widely distributed in Africa, the Medite rranean, 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

contine ntal 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, Cucurbit aceae, 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 infest ed 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 dome stic 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
T hreatened or E ndangered (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 Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 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 Z iziphus celata (FL). Because it is a major pest of numerous crops (above), if introduced into the United States i t
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 cou ld 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 Cucu rbitaceae (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 questionabl e (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 (Flet cher, 1989a). D

. ciliatus can complete multiple generations in a year (Fletcher, 1989a). A dult 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

quara ntine pest by EPPO (EPPO, 2007). High (3)

Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact

Dacus ciliatus could attack plants listed as T hreatened or E ndangered in 50 CFR §17.12 (e.g., Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis ). Because of its economic effects (ab ove), i t 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 Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 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 o f 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.,

Helianth us 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 usitatissi mum ), Malvaceae (e.g., Abelmoschus

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

, Hordeum vulgare

, Pennisetum glaucum

, Sorghum bicolor

, Triticum i spp

. , and Zea mays ), Pinaceae (e.g., Pinus spp. ), Rosaceae (e.g., Prunus spp. ), Rutaceae (e.g., Citru s 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 d istances 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 sp end 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 li sts 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

schweini tzii , 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 Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 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 (NR CS, 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) (Anacardiacea e), 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, a nd 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 tra nsported 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 reduc e crop quality and yield (CABI, 2006; CABI/EPPO, 2007). Large S

. dorsalis populations reduce chili pepper yields by 25

- 55 percent (CABI, 2006). T his thrips is typically controlled with chemicals (CABI, 2006; CABI/EPPO, 2007)

, which would lower th e 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

. dor salis 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 Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 26 Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood ( Thysanoptera: Thripidae) Risk ratings
Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact Scirtothrips dorsalis could at tack plants listed as T hreatened or E ndangered 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 pe st management programs for economically important thrips (CIPM, 2007). Medium (2)

Table 5. Risk r ating s for Consequences of Introduction

. We gave ratings of High to all pests for „Economic Impact.‟

Pest Climate

- host

interaction Host range Dispersal
pote ntial 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)

Scirtot hrips 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 estimate d the Likelihood of Introduction from the quantity of the commodity expected to be imported annually an d 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 Ri sk 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 quanti ty 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 standa rd 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

eleme nt.
2.6.2. Survive Post

- H

arvest 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 bag s , 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

. ciliatusPest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 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. T herefore , we rated t hese fruit flies High.

The thrips S

. dorsalis can infest the inside of fl owers. The se 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 H igh.

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 therefo re 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 temper atures 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 period s of low temperature during shipping (Landshut, 2007). For these reasons, we assigned High risk ratings to all the arthropods for their ability to s urvive shipment.

2.6.4. Not Detected at Port

- of

- E ntry 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

- of

en try, but minute external feeding arthropods may go unnoticed. T herefore , we assigned Medium risk ratings to t he 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 veget able 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 (Luc ier 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 State s, 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 suit able for pest survival. Ratings for this

sub

- element we re therefore based on the area of the United States where each pest could

establish.

We estimate d that D

. ciliatus could establish in U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 10 and 11 and assigns a Low risk ratin g to this pest because zones 10 and 11 represent a very small portionPest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 28 (about 1 percent) o f the United States (PERAL, 2008). We also estimate d that C

. capitata and S

. dorsalis could establish in U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 8

- 11 and assign ed a Medium risk rat ings to these pests because zones 8

- 11 represent about one fourth of the United States (PERAL, 2008). Finally, we estimate d that H

. armigera could establish in Plant Hardiness Zones 5

- 11 and assign ed a High risk rating to this pest because these zones repr esent 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 survi ve. 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, trans it

, 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 a nd 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

pe sts of concern during at least a portion of the time when the commodity is shipped. Furthermore, a

ll of the pests of concern can disperse aeriall y , 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 r ating s for Likelihood of Introduction

. We gave ratings of High to all pests for „Quantity Imported Annually,‟ „Survive Shipmen t,‟ and „Contact with Host Material.‟

Pest Survive post

harvest

treatment Not detected

at port

- of

entry 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

- 18Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 29 2.7

. Conclusion

We summarize the Pest Risk Potentials below (Table 7) , wh ich 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 phy tosanitary 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 Consequ ences 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 discuss es their efficacy

.

In the risk assessment section of this document, the authors identified the following quarantine pests as having High unmitigated P est R isk P otential:
Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) following the fruit pathway

Dacus ciliatus Loew (Diptera: Teph ritidae) following the fruit pathway Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) following the fruit and flower pathway s

. 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 b e 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 Isra el 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 byPest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 30 APHIS ; clearly defined harvest and packing proce dures ; 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 p est

- free places of production can prov ide 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 a rea pest

- free, based on negative survey results (Barclay and Hargrove, 2005; Venette et al., 2002).

An a rea 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 depar tment 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 inspec ted 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 s eason 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 prog rams 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 amm onia 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, 199 2).

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 populati ons (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 Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 31 Thrips are extremely small, so monitoring requires a hand l ens. 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 r eason, 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 Lepidoptera n 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 re flective 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 cove r 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 agains t Lepidoptera n 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 so aps 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 fail s (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 Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 32 Is raeli 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 c ut 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 Agric ultural Practices (EurepGAP) (Greenleaf, 2007; Krudo, 2007). They may wash the flowers because Annex 1.2 of the EurepGAP General Regulations

defines fruit s or vegetable s 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 Vegetabl es 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 marke ts. 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 phyto sanitary 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, ph ytosanitary 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

Ralst onia 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 produ ct 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 Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 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 T reatments

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 damag e 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 hitchhi kers 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 Lepidoptera n species does not pupate in the fruit or flowers of its hosts.

Helico verpa 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

- E ntry

3.4.1. Tem

perature and moisture Properly setting t hese levels in the shipping container m ay 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 a n 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 Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 34 3.5

. Conclusion

Below we summar ize 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 go vernment 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 r isk m itigation o ptions for s ummer s quash ( Cucurbita pepo ) f lowers and

f ruit 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

- harves t 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 , Contribut o rs, and Reviewers

Authors Ignacio Baez, Entomologist, (primary contact) a 

### Keith Colpetz er, Entomologist a



### Contributors Leah Millar, Entomologist a



### Reviewers Tara Holtz, Ecologist a

a 

### USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ

- CPHST

- PERALPest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 July 13 , 2009 35 

## 5 . Literature Cited

Ali

- Shtayeh, M. S., and R. M. F. Jamous. 2000. Keratinophilic fungi and related dermatophytes in polluted so il 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

eff icacy 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 pest

free status, with special reference to tsetse (Diptera: Glossinidae). Bulletin of

Entomolo gical 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 Identif ication 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 A ustralia, 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.ui daho.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. 2 006. 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.

CAB I/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. Academi c 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 Sci rtothrips 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 Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 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/ind ex.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. Genera l 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 Depar tment 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 Califor nia. 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 C rop 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 f lies, 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 a nd 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, ht tp://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 Fe deral Noxious Weed Act. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin No. 1719. 313

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



### Rev. 00 3 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 Biol ogy, 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, System atic 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 Fusari um 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. 200 7. 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 D epartment 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, Rale igh, 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). Maanaki

Whenua Landcare Research. Last accessed November 15, 2007, http://nzfungi.landcareresearch.co.nz/html/mycology.asp?ID=.Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 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. Org anic 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 S tate 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 Ce ntre 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 Da ta 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 Prot ection 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 S hipments 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 Epidemiol ogy 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 Q uarantine, 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 Ins pection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp.Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 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 S ervice, 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 P lant 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. 196 0 . The life

- history of the melon weevil, Baris granulipennis (Tourn.), in Israel. Bulletin of Entomological Re search 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/ScaleI nsectsHome/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 gene s 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 rea ction

restriction 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), Sci rtothrips 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) i n 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: revi sion of Pyraloidea in "Keys to some frequently intercepted lepidopterousPest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 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 Institutio n, 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. Weem s, 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 Califo rnia 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 acce ssed 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 a nd 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 (Di ptera: 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: Typhloc ibidae) 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 Isra el: 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, Wallin gford, 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 Insec ts 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/t emplates/story/story.php?storyId=5455396.Pest Risk Assessment for Summer Squash Fruit and Fl owers from Israel



### Rev. 00 3 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. Kap lunov, 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.