Importation of Fresh Fruit of Pomegranate, 

Punica granatum L., from India

into the Continental United States

A Qualitative, Pathway-initiated Pest Risk Assessment

August 17, 2010

Revision 04

Agency Contact:

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal Plant Health Inspection Services

Plant Protection and Quarantine

1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300

Raleigh, NC 27606
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 ii

Executive Summary

India has requested approval to export fresh pomegranate fruit, Punica granatum L., into the 

continental United States, including Alaska. Because this commodity has not been imported from 

India before, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) conducted a pathway-initiated risk assessment to determine the 

unmitigated risks associated with importing fresh pomegranate fruit from India. APHIS analysts 

first prepared a list of pests in India that are known to be associated with Punica granatum. We 

compiled the pest list from standard sources, including documents submitted by India, records of 

intercepted pests, and scientific literature. We determined which quarantine pests were likely to 

follow the pomegranate pathway, and qualitatively analyzed them to determine the unmitigated 

risk each poses to the United States. We identified the following pests with High pest risk 

potential: 

Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Conogethes punctiferalis (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae)

Cryptoblabes gnidiella Millière (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

Deudorix epijarbas (Moore) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)

Deudorix isocrates Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)

Drosicha dalbergiae (Green) (Hemiptera: Margarodidae)

Euzophera bigella Zeller (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

Icerya seychellarum Westwood (Hemiptera: Margarodidae)

Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Planococcus lilacinus (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

We identified the following pests with Medium risk potential: 

Bactrocera carambolae (Drew & Hancock) (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Ceroplastes rubens (Maskell) (Hemiptera: Coccidae)

Ceroplastes rusci (Linnaeus) (Hemiptera : Coccidae)

Dichocrocis megillalis Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Icerya aegyptiaca (Douglas) (Hemiptera: Margarodidae)

Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Planococcus angkorensis (Takahashi) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus Hood (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) 

Scirtothrips oligochaetus Karyny (Thysanoptera: Thripidae)

Tenuipalpus granati Sayed (Acari: Tenuipalpidae)

Tenuipalpus punicae Pritchard & Baker (Acari: Tenuipalpidae)

Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. Punicae (Hingorani & Singh) (Xanthomonads)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 iii

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

2.2. Assessment of Weed Potential........................................................................................... 2

2.3. Previous Risk Assessment, Current Status, Pest Interceptions and Decision History

Potential .................................................................................................................................... 3

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

Follow the Pathway................................................................................................................... 4

2.5. Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway.............................................................. 29

2.6. Consequences of Introduction.......................................................................................... 31

2.7. Likelihood of Introduction............................................................................................... 64

3. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................69

4. References.................................................................................................................................70

5. Authors and Reviewers............................................................................................................88

Appendix: Risk Mitigation Options for Importation of Fresh Pomegranates (Punica 

granatum) Fruit from India into the Continental United States including Alaska..........89

1. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 89

2. Risk Mitigation Options...................................................................................................... 90

3. Conclusions......................................................................................................................... 95

4. Literature Cited ................................................................................................................... 97
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 1

1. Introduction 

This pest risk assessment was written and reviewed by staff at the Pest Epidemiology and Risk 

Analysis Laboratory (PERAL) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). We

examined the unmitigated risks associated with the importation of fresh pomegranate fruit, 

Punica granatum L., into the continental United States from India.

This document is a qualitative risk assessment, and we expressed risk in terms of “high,”

“medium,” and “low,” rather than in numerical terms (e.g., probabilities or frequencies). The 

details of the methodology and rating criteria can be found in Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk 

Assessments: Guidelines for Qualitative Assessments, Version 5.02 (USDA, 2000)

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

Organization (NAPPO) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) provide 

standards for conducting pest risk analyses. The methods used to initiate, conduct, and report this 

assessment, as well as the use of biological and phytosanitary terms are based on these standards 

(IPPC, 2007: ISPM #s 2, 4, and 11; NAPPO, 2004). The IPPC standards describe three stages of 

pest risk analysis: Stage 1, Initiation; Stage 2, Risk Assessment; and Stage 3, Risk Management.

This document satisfies the requirements of Stages 1 and 2, and provides mitigation options for 

Stage 3.

Pomegranate is a small tree or shrub that is 20-30 feet high (Morton, 1987). The fruit are 

approximately 6-12 cm in diameter. It has a thick, leathery rind that protect 5-6 compartments 

filled with tightly packed sacks filled with a red or white fleshy fruit, called arils, surrounding a 

2-3 cm oblong, hard seed (Morton, 1987). Seeds are typically about 52 percent of the total 

weight of a pomegranate (Morton, 1987). Insect pests are frequently found under the sepals 

surrounding the area where the stem joins the fruit. Diseases are usually not visible unless they

directly affect the rind, because the thick rind prevents observation of internal damage.

Pomegranate fruit are harvested by hand and the peduncle is removed to avoid fruit damage 

(USEP, 2007).

Pomegranates are produced in India November through June. India expects to initially ship 

approximately 1500 tons of pomegranates per year to the United States. Shipments will be made

primarily by sea in 4 kg corrugated open tray boxes. Temperature will be maintained at 5 to 7 

degrees Celcius (India market access request). Other than minimal post-harvest cleaning and 

culling, we assumed for the purposes of this risk assessment, that pomegranate fruit from India 

would not undergo any special post-harvest treatment or cleaning.

Strategies for pest management of pomegranates in India include cultural controls such as field 

sanitation and the removal of weeds that may serve as an alternate host for many pests; 

mechanical controls such as the hand removal of caterpillars and other pests, traps for monitoring 

of Lepidopteran pests, and physical barriers; biological control agents including predators and 

pathogens; and chemical controls (India market access request).
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 2

2. Risk Assessment 

2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action

India requested export of fresh pomegranates to the continental United States. Entry of this 

commodity into the United States presents a potential pathway for the introduction of plant pests.

Title 7, Part 319, Section 56 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR §319.56) 

grants regulatory authority to the United States Department of Agriculture for the importation of 

fruits and vegetables from foreign sources. Importation of fruits and vegetables is regulated 

because plant pests have the potential to follow the pathway into the United States and become 

established pests that impact U.S. agricultural and natural resources.

2.2. Assessment of Weed Potential

We assessed the potential of pomegranates to become weeds after they enter the United States 

(Table 1). A formal weed risk assessment was not conducted because the baseline assessments 

did not indicate that the commodity had a significant weed potential above existing levels.

Table 1. The Weed Potential of Pomegranate

Scientific name: Punica granatum L. (Lythraceae) (Graham et al., 2005)

Common Names: Pomegranate, grenadier, Granatapfelbaum, Granatapfelstrauch, zakuro, 

romanzeiro, romã, romã-de-flor-dobrada, romeira, romeira-da-granada, granado, mangrano

(ARS, 2007).

Synonyms: None (ARS, 2007).

Phase 1: Distribution in the United States: P. granatum is native to western Asia 

(Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russian 

Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Pakistan) (ARS, 2007). It is under 

cultivation in the United States, at least in California and Arizona (CRFG, 2007), 

and has escaped or naturalized in AL, CA, FL, LA, NC, UT (NRCS, 2007). This 

species is hardy to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 7-11 (Page and Olds, 2001).

Phase 2: Invasive / Weed Status: Listing as weed

No 7 CFR § 360, 2007; Gunn and Ritchie, 1988; Holm et al., 1997; Holm et al., 1979; 

Holm et al., 1977; Reed, 1977; Skinner et al., 2005; Weber, 2003; WSSA, 2006

Yes Alien plant invaders of natural areas (Swearingen, 2005).

Yes A Global Compendium of Weeds (Randall, 2007).

Yes Other: (Liogier and Martorell, 2000; LR, 2005; NRCS, 2007).

Phase 3: Summary and Conclusions: Punica granatum is a warm temperate species that 

has escaped from cultivation in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and 

Puerto Rico (Liogier and Martorell, 2000; Randall, 2007; Swearingen, 2005); 

however, the literature does not indicate that it is invasive (i.e., with selfsustaining populations that are expanding, spreading, and causing environmental 

harm). Because P. granatum is widely distributed in the continental United States 

and not under official control, it does not meet the IPPC definition of a quarantine 

pest (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #5). Thus, this pest risk assessment continues.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 3

2.3. Previous Risk Assessment, Current Status, Pest Interceptions and Decision History 

Potential

2.3.1. Decision History and Current Status

Several countries have requested permission to export pomegranates to the United States 

(USDA, 2007a). Most of these were approved, but Iran, Italy, and Greece were denied for 

various reasons (Table 2).

Table 2. Prior decisions by the United States about requests to import Punica granatum.

Year Country Decision Reasons / Conditions

1924 Mexico Approved From fruit fly-free areas of Mexico only; with 

inspection and a phytosanitary certificate. 

1925 Italy Denied Several major pests may be associated with 

pomegranate

1925 Greece Approved Inspection; T107(a) treatment mandatory for fruit fly.

1969 Argentina Approved Entry into or through California

1971 Haiti Approved North Atlantic & Pacific ports; cold treatment

1987 Greece Approved Inspection and treatment

1988 Turkey Approved Inspection; T107(a) treatment mandatory for fruit fly.

1988 Iran Denied No acceptable treatment for two species of fruit fly.

1988 Colombia Approved Inspection and treatment (T107-c) for Anastrepha 

fraterculus & A. ludens.

1990 Mexico Approved Inspection and treatment if necessary

1997 Israel Approved Treat for Medfly

2.3.2. Previous Risk Assessments

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) conducted a pest risk assessment on P.

granatum once before: “Importation of Pomegranate Fruits, Punica granatum from Israel into 

the United States” (PPQ, 1997). This risk assessment found that Ceratitis capitata, Deudorix 

isocrates, and Planococcus lilacinus posed a high risk to the United States, while Sphaceloma 

punicae and Cryptoblabes gnidiella posed a medium risk.

2.3.3. Current Import Status

According to Plant Protection and Quarantine’s Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Import Manual (PPQ, 

2007), pomegranates are currently enterable from Argentina, Colombia, Greece, Haiti, and Israel

after irradiation (T105-d) or cold treatment (T107-a-1, T107-a, or T107-c). Pomegranates are 

enterable from Mexico from fruit fly free areas. 

2.3.4. United States Pest Interceptions

APHIS-PPQ records all interceptions of pests and pathogens on commodities entering the United 

States (PestID, 2007). The database includes interceptions since 1985 on permit cargo, general 

cargo, mail, passenger baggage, ships’ quarters, stores and holds, and other locations. We 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 4

searched this database for pests and pathogens intercepted on pomegranate fruit from the world.

Over 99 percent of the interceptions were on baggage and cargo, with the vast majority of 

interceptions on passenger baggage (6927, vs. 37 in cargo). Of the 345 taxa that have been 

intercepted, 26 have been intercepted 20 times or more (Table 3).

Table 3. Pest taxa most frequently intercepted on Punica granatum at U.S. Ports of Entry, from 

1985 to 2007.

Pest Baggage Cargo

Sphaceloma punicae Bitanc. & Jenkins (Coelomycetes) 4175 4

Pseudococcidae, species of 452 5

Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Milliere) (Pyralidae) 311 2

Anastrepha sp. (Tephritidae) 246 1

Ectomyelois ceratoniae (Zeller) (Pyralidae) 114 2

Cryptoblabes sp. (Pyralidae) 89 1

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Tephritidae) 84

Planococcus citri (Risso) (Pseudococcidae) 65

Oxycarenus hyalinipennis (Costa) (Oxycarenidae) 60

Planococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 59 1

Pseudocercospora punicae (Henn.) Deighton (Hyphomycetes) 57

Pseudococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 54 2

Tortricidae, species of 50 1

Pyralidae, species of 44 2

Phycitinae, species of (Pyralidae) 39

Planococcus ficus (Signoret) (Pseudococcidae) 39

Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Green) (Diaspididae) 35

Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Pseudococcidae) 32

Lycaenidae, species of 29

Olethreutinae, species of (Tortricidae) 27

Tephritidae, species of 24

Ectomyelois sp. (Pyralidae) 22 1

Crematogaster sp. (Formicidae) 21

Cryptophlebia sp. (Tortricidae) 21 2

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

Follow the Pathway 

We developed a list of pests potentially associated with pomegranate in India (Table 4). The list 

identifies: (1) the presence or absence of the pests in the United States; (2) the references 

supporting an association between the pest and the host; (3) the plant organs where the pest can 

be found; (4) the U.S. quarantine status of the pests; and (5) the likelihood the pest would follow 

the pathway into the continental United States through commercial shipments of pomegranate.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 5

A quarantine pest is defined as “a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered 

thereby, but not yet present, or present, but not widely distributed and being officially 

controlled” (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #5). A pest is likely to follow the pathway on pomegranate fruit 

if the pest is present in India, if the pest is associated with the fruit at the time of harvest, and if 

the pest remains with the fruit in viable form during harvesting, packing, and shipping 

procedures. The possibility that a quarantine pest following the pathway could establish and 

spread throughout the United States depends on the presence of appropriate climatic and 

ecological conditions, including protected areas (such as greenhouses), where the presence of 

primary or alternative hosts and vectors are influential.

Table 4. Pests associated with pomegranate, Punica granatum, anywhere in the world and present in 

India

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Arthropods

Acari: Acaridae

Tyrophagus putrescentiae

(Schrank)

IN, U.S. (CABI, 

2007)

PestID, 2007 N/A No N/A

Acari: Eriophyidae

Eriophyes granati

(Canestrini & 

Massalongo) 

Syn: Aceria granati

IN (Prasad, 

1971); U.S. (CA, 

FL) (Baker et al., 

1996)

Davis et al., 1982; 

Dhooria and 

Bhullar, 2003

L (Baker et al., 

1996; Jeppson et 

al., 1975)

No No

Acari: Tenuipalpidae

Brevipalpus phoenicis

Geijskes 

Syn: B. papayensis

IN (Prasad, 

1971); U.S. (FL) 

(CABI, 2007)

Maes, 2004 N/A No N/A

Tenuipalpus granati 

Sayed

IN (Meena et al., 

2004)

Jeppson et al., 

1975

St, L, F (Jeppson

et al., 1975)

Yes Yes

Tenuipalpus punicae

Pritchard & Baker

IN (Prasad, 

1971)

Dhooria, 2003; 

Jeppson et al., 

1975

St, L, F (del 

Rivero, 1991; 

Jeppson et al., 

1975)

Yes Yes

 

1

Plant parts: Bk = Bark, F = fruit, I = inflorescence, L = leaf, Sh = Shoot, St = Stem, R = root, Tr = Trunk

2 N/A= Not Applicable. Even if non-quarantine pests are able to follow the pathway, phytosanitary measures against these 

pests would not be justified considering the pest already occurs in the United States. Therefore, information on plant part 

association and whether the pest is “likely to follow the pathway” is not needed for non-quarantine pests.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 6

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Acari: Tetranychidae

Eutetranychus orientalis

(Klein) 

Syn: E. monodi; E.

sudanicus; E. anneckei 

Anychus orientalis; A.

ricini

IN (Bolland et 

al., 1998)

Bolland et al., 

1998; Kumawat 

and Singh, 2002

L (Hill, 1983) Yes No

Oligonychus coffeae

Nietner 

Syn: Acarus coffeae; 

Paratetranychus 

bioculatus

IN, U.S. 

(Bolland et al., 

1998)

Bolland et al., 

1998

N/A No N/A

Oligonychus mangiferus

(Rahman & Sapra)

IN (Bolland et 

al., 1998)

Bolland et al., 

1998

L (Jeppson et al., 

1975; Waite, 

2002)

Yes No

Oligonychus punicae

(Hirst) 

Syn: Paratetranychus 

punicae

IN, U.S. 

(Bolland et al., 

1998)

Bolland et al., 

1998; Jeppson et 

al., 1975 

N/A No N/A

Tetranychus kanzawai

Kishida

IN (Bolland et 

al., 1998); U.S. 

(Bolland et al., 

1998)

Bolland et al., 

1998 

N/A No N/A

Tetranychus urticae Koch 

Syn: T. aduncus, T. 

arabicus, T. 

cinnabarinus, T. ricinus, 

T. telarius

IN, U.S.

(Bolland et al., 

1998)

Bolland et al., 

1998

N/A No N/A

Coleoptera: Cerambycidae

Celosterna spinator 

Fabricius

IN (Sheikh, 

2006)

Sheikh, 2006 St, Tr (Sheikh, 

2006)

Yes No

Cerosterna scabrator 

Fabr.

IN (Biradar et 

al., 2005)

Biradar et al., 

2005

St (Biradar et al., 

2005)

Yes No

Olenecamptus bilobus F. IN (Hill, 1983) Hill, 1983; Patil et 

al., 2002

Tr, St (Hill, 1983; 

Patil et al., 2002)

Yes No

Coleoptera: Curculionidae

Hypera postica

(Gyllenhal) 

Syn: H. brunnipennis

IN, U.S. (CABI, 

2007)

PestID, 2007 N/A No N/A

Myllocerus discolor 

Boheman

IN (Srivastava, 

1997)

Srivastava, 1997 Sh, L, I

(Srivastava, 1997)

Yes No
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 7

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Myllocerus lactivirens 

Marshall

IN (Sheikh, 

2006)

Sheikh, 2006 R, L (Sheikh, 

2006)

Yes No

Myllocerus maculosus 

(Pesbrocher)

IN (Butani and 

Verma, 1981)

Nair, 1975 L (Nair, 1975) Yes No

Myllocerus sp. IN (Hill, 1983) Hill, 1983 L (Hill, 1983) Yes3 No

Myllocerus 

undecimpustulatus 

Desbrocher

IN (Sheikh, 

2006)

Sheikh, 2006 R, L (Sheikh, 

2006)

Yes No

Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae

Sitophilus oryzae

(Linneaus)

IN (CABI, 

2007); U.S. 

(Arnett Jr., 1997)

PestID, 2007 N/A No N/A

Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae

Anomala dimidiata Hope IN (Sheikh, 

2006)

Sheikh, 2006 R, L (Sheikh, 

2006)

Yes No

Anomala sp. IN (Hill, 1983)4

; 

U.S. (Arnett Jr.

et al., 2002; 

Krauth, 2002)

Hill, 1983 N/A No N/A

Holotrichia insularis

Brenske

IN (Butani and 

Verma, 1981)

Nair, 1975 L (Butani and 

Verma, 1981; 

Nair, 1975)

Yes No

Hoplasoma sexmaculata 

Hope

IN (Sheikh, 

2006)

Sheikh, 2006 R, L (Sheikh, 

2006)

Yes No

Mimastra cyanura Hope IN (Sheikh, 

2006)

Sheikh, 2006 R, L (Sheikh, 

2006)

Yes No

Coleoptera: Scolytidae

Euwallacea fornicatus

Syn: Xyleborus 

fornicatus

IN, U.S. (CA, 

FL) (CABI, 

2007)

CABI, 2007; Mote 

and Tambe, 2000

St (CABI, 2007) [Yes]5 No

Xyleborus dispar Fabricius IN, U.S.

(Cognato, 2007)

Cognato, 2007 N/A No N/A

 

3 The only species of Myllocerus in the United States is M. hilleri. Because M. hilleri does not appear to occur in India, the 

Myllocerus sp. taxon that attacks pomegranate in India is most likely a different species from that in the U.S. Thus this 

taxon is a quarantine pest. 

4 At least 33 species of Anomala occur in the United States (Arnett Jr., 1997). It is unknown if this particular taxon on 

pomegranate occurs in the United States.

5 This pest has a limited distribution in the United States and is considered a quarantine pest (Courneya, 2006).
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 8

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Xyleborus perforans

(Wollaston) 

Syn: X. kraatzi

IN (Jagginavar 

and Naik, 2005)

Jagginavar and 

Naik, 2002, 2005)

St (Wood) (CABI, 

2007); R

(Jagginavar and 

Naik, 2002)

Yes No

Diptera: Cecidomyiidae

Aphidoletes aphidimyza

(Rondani)

IN, U.S. (CABI, 

2007)

PestID, 2007 N/A6 No N/A

Diptera: Tephritidae

Bactrocera carambolae IN (CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007 F (Waite, 2002) Yes Yes

Bactrocera dorsalis

(Hendel) 

Syn: Dacus dorsalis

IN (Srivastava, 

1997)

CABI, 2007; 

Sheikh, 2006; 

PestID, 2007

F (CABI, 2007) Yes Yes

Bactrocera zonata 

Syn: Dacus zonatus

IN (CABI, 2007; 

Srivastava, 1997)

CABI, 2007; 

Sheikh, 2006

F (Waite, 2002) Yes Yes

Dacus sp.7

IN (Hill, 1983) Hill, 1983 F (Hill, 1983) Yes Yes

Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae

Acaudaleyrodes rachipora 

(Singh)

Syn: A. citri

IN (Evans, 2007) CABI, 2007; 

Meeta et al, 1999

L (Sundararaj and 

Murugesan, 1996; 

Verma, 2006)

Yes No

Aleurocanthus woglumi

Ashby 

Syn: Aleurodes woglumi

IN (CABI, 2007) 

U.S. (AZ, CA, 

FL, MS, TX) 

(Evans, 2007)

Hill, 1983; Mound 

and Halsey, 1978

L (Mound and 

Halsey, 1978)

[Yes]5 No

Aleurodicus dispersus 

Russell

IN (Evans, 

2007); U.S. (FL) 

(CABI, 2007)

Mani et al., 2003 L, F (CABI, 

2007); L (Mani et 

al, 2003)

[Yes]5 No8

Aleurothrixus floccosus 

(Maskell)

IN (CABI, 

2007); U.S. (CA 

FL LA TX) 

(Evans, 2007)

Ulusoy et al., 2003 N/A No N/A

Dialeurodes citri 

(Ashmead)

IN, U.S.(CABI, 

2007)

CABI, 2007; 

Mound and 

Halsey, 1978

N/A No N/A

 

6 This species is not a true plant pest, because it feeds on aphids and other species (CABI, 2007).

7

In 1989, R.A.I. Drew revised the Dacinae of Australasian and Oceanian regions and placed most Dacus into the genus 

Bactrocera. Post 1989, references to Dacus spp. would be species that are highly unlikely to attack pomegranate.

References to Dacus spp. before 1989 would include all of the species that are now placed in the genus Bactrocera (many

of which might attack pomegranate). 

8

primarily a foliage pest and that fruit for consumption is unlikely to be a good pathway for movement into the United States
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 9

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Siphoninus phillyreae

(Haliday) 

Syn: S. finitimus, S.

granati

IN, U.S. (CA) 

(CABI, 2007)

CABI, 2007; 

Klein Koch and 

Waterhouse, 2000; 

Mound and 

Halsey, 1978

Sh (Sheikh, 

2006); L (CABI, 

2007)

[Yes]5 No

Trialeurodes 

vaporariorum

Westwood

IN, U.S. (CABI, 

2007)

Vergara and 

Castro, 2006

N/A No N/A

Hemiptera: Aphididae

Aphis craccivora Koch IN (Anjaneya 

Murthy and 

Regupathy, 

1989); U.S. 

(CABI, 2007)

Blackman and 

Eastop, 2000

N/A No N/A

Aphis fabae Scopoli 

Syn: A. rumicis

IN, U.S.(CABI, 

2007

Blackman and 

Eastop, 2000

N/A No N/A

Aphis gossypii Glover IN, U.S. (CABI, 

2007)

Blackman and 

Eastop, 2000; 

CABI, 2007

N/A No N/A

Aphis punicae Passerini IN (Hill, 1983) Blackman and 

Eastop, 2000; 

Millar, 1994

L (Hill, 1987) Yes No

Aphis spiraecola Patch 

Syn: A. citricola

IN, U.S. (CABI, 

2007)

Blackman and 

Eastop, 2000; 

Maes, 2004

N/A No N/A

Aulacorthum 

circumflexum

Kaltenbach 

Syn: Neomyzus 

circumflexus 

IN (CABI, 

2007); U.S. 

(USDA, 2007b)

Blackman and 

Eastop, 2000

N/A No N/A

Brachycaudus helichrysi

Kaltenbach

IN, U.S. (CABI, 

2007)

Blackman and 

Eastop, 2000

N/A No N/A

Myzus ornatus Laing IN (Blackman 

and Eastop, 

2000); U.S. 

(Leonard et al., 

1971)

Blackman and 

Eastop, 2000

N/A No N/A

Myzus persicae Sulzer 

Syn: Aphis persicae

IN, U.S. (CABI, 

2007)

Blackman and 

Eastop, 2000; 

CABI, 2007

N/A No N/A
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 10

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Shivaphis celti Das 

(Aphididae) 

IN (Bhagat, 

1982; 

Raychaudhuri et 

al., 1981); U.S. 

(FL & GA) 

(Halbert and 

Choate, 2003)

PestID, 2007 N/A No N/A

Toxoptera aurantii Boyer 

de Fonscolombe

IN, U.S. (CABI, 

2007)

Blackman and 

Eastop, 2000

N/A No N/A

Hemiptera: Coccidae

Ceroplastes floridensis

Comstock 

Syn: Cerostegia 

floridensis; 

Paracerostegia 

floridensis

IN (CABI, 

2007); U.S. 

(Ben-Dov et al., 

2007)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007; CABI, 2007

N/A No N/A

Ceroplastes 

pseudoceriferus Green

IN (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

Sh, L (Ali, 1978) Yes No

Ceroplastes rubens

Maskell

IN, U.S. (FL) 

(Ben-Dov et al., 

2007)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

St, L, F (CABI, 

2007)

[Yes]5 Yes9

Ceroplastes rusci 

(Linnaeus)

IN (Butani, 

1993); US (FL) 

(Ben-Dov et al., 

2007)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

St, L, F (CABI, 

2007)

[Yes]5 Yes

Coccus hesperidum

Linnaeus

IN (Butani, 

1993); U.S. 

(CABI, 2007)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

N/A No N/A

Parasaissetia nigra

Nietner 

Syn: Lecanium 

signatum; Saissetia 

nigra; S. perseae

IN (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007); U.S. 

(CABI, 2007)

Shevale and 

Kaulgud, 1998

N/A No N/A

Parthenolecanium corni 

(Bouché)

IN, U.S. (BenDov et al., 2007)Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

N/A No N/A

Parthenolecanium 

persicae (Fabricius) 

Syn: Coccus elongatus

IN, U.S. (BenDov et al., 2007)CABI, 2007 N/A No N/A

 

9 This pest has been intercepted 4527 times, 22 of which were on fruit (PestID, 2007).
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 11

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Pulvinaria psidii Maskell 

Syn: Chloropulvinaria 

psidii 

IN, U.S. (BenDov et al., 2007)Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

N/A No N/A

Saissetia coffeae Walker 

Syn: S. hemisphaerica

(Targioni)

IN; U.S. (CABI, 

2007)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

N/A No N/A

Saissetia miranda 

(Cockerell & Parrott in 

Cockerell)

IN, U.S. (BenDov et al., 2007)Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

N/A No N/A

Saissetia oleae (Olivier)

Syn: Coccus oleae

IN, U.S. (BenDov et al., 2007)Ben-Dov et al., 

2007; CABI, 2007

N/A No N/A

Hemiptera: Coreidae

Leptoglossus gonagra

Fabricius 

Syn: L. australis; 

Theognis gonagra

IN (CABI, 2007; 

Jhala et al., 

2003); U.S. 

(Froeschner, 

1998)

DEWR, 2007; 

Jhala et al., 2003; 

Maes, 2004 

N/A No N/A

Leptoglossus 

membranaceus

(Fabricius)

IN (Jadhav et al., 

1976)

Patil et al., 2002 F (Patil et al., 

2002)19

Yes No10

Hemiptera: Diaspididae

Abgrallaspis cyanophylli

(Signoret)

IN (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007); U.S. 

(BMESD, 2003; 

Kessing and 

Mau, 1993)

Maes, 2004 N/A No N/A

Andaspis hawaiiensis 

(Maskell) 

Syn: Lepidosaphes 

hawaiiensis

IN (Sheikh, 

2006); U.S. (FL) 

(Ben-Dov et al., 

2007)

Sheikh, 2006 N/A No N/A

Andaspis leucophleae Rao 

in Rao & Ferris

IN (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

St epidermis 

(Ben-Dov et al., 

2007); L (Sheikh, 

2006)11

Yes No

Aonidiella aurantii

Maskell

IN, U.S. (BenDov et al., 2007)Maes, 2004 N/A No N/A

 

10 Because coreids in general are large and nymphs are gregarious (Borror et al., 1989), these pests should be readily seen 

during harvest and culling, and eliminated from the pathway. Furthermore, Leptoglossus membranaceus can cause 

pomegranate fruit to drop prematurely (Patil et al., 2002), making it unlikely that this pest will follow the pathway on fruit.

11 Due to limited information available on this taxon, we based the plant part association on the congener A. hawaiiensis, 

which also attacks pomegranate.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 12

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Aonidiella orientalis

(Newstead) 

Syn: Aspidiotus 

orientalis

IN (CABI, 

2007); U.S. 

(Ben-Dov et al., 

2007)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007 

N/A No N/A

Aspidiotus destructor

Signoret 

Syn: A. transparens; A. 

watanabei; 

Temnaspidiotus 

destructor

IN; U.S. (CABI, 

2007)

Bruner et al., 1945 N/A No N/A

Aspidiotus nerii Bouche 

Syn: A. unipectinatus, A.

hederae

IN (Butani, 

1993); U.S. 

(Ben-Dov et al., 

2007; CABI, 

2007)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007; Hill, 1987

N/A No N/A

Chrysomphalus aonidum

Linnaeus 

Syn: C. ficus, Aonidiella 

ficorum, Aspidiotus 

aonidum

IN (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007); U.S. 

(Ben-Dov et al., 

2007; CABI, 

2007)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

N/A No N/A

Diaspidiotus perniciosus 

(Comstock) Cockerell; 

Danzig. 

Syn: Quadraspidiotus 

pernicious (Comstock)

IN, U.S.(BenDov et al., 2007; 

CABI, 2007)

Vergara and 

Castro, 2006

N/A No N/A

Duplaspidiotus tesseratus

(de Charmoy)

IN (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007); U.S. 

(FL) (Dekle and 

Kuitert, 1975)

Sheikh, 2006 N/A No N/A

Hemaspidoproctus 

cinereus (Green) 

Syn: Aspidoproctus 

cinerea

IN (Sheikh, 

2006)

Nair, 1975; 

Sheikh, 2006

L (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 13

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Hemiberlesia lataniae

Signoret 

Syn: Aspidiotus lataniae,

Diaspidiotus lataniae, 

Euaspidiotus lataniae

IN (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007); U.S. 

(Ben-Dov et al., 

2007; CABI, 

2007)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

N/A No N/A

Hemiberlesia punicae 

(Signoret)12

IN (Sheikh, 

2006)

Sheikh, 2006 L (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No

Hemiberlesia rapax 

(Comstock)

IN (Butani, 

1993); U.S. 

(Ben-Dov et al., 

2007)

Johnson and Lyon, 

1991

N/A No N/A

Lepidosaphes ulmi

(Linnaeus)

IN, U.S. (BenDov et al., 2007)Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

N/A No N/A

Lindingaspis greeni (Brain 

& Kelly)

IN (Sheikh, 

2006)

Sheikh, 2006 L (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No

Lindingaspis rossi 

(Maskell) 

Syn: Aspidiotus rossi, 

Chrysomphalus rossi 

IN (Hill, 1983; 

Sheikh, 2006); 

U.S. (CA) (BenDov et al., 2007)

Hill, 1983 N/A No N/A

Parlatoria oleae (Colvée) IN (Hill, 1983; 

Sheikh, 2006); 

U.S. (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

N/A No N/A

Pinnaspis buxi (Bouche) IN, U.S. (BenDov et al., 2007) Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

N/A No N/A

Pinnaspis strachani

Cooley 

Syn: P. gossypii; P. 

marchali; P. temporaria

IN, (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007); U.S. 

(Ben-Dov et al., 

2007; CABI, 

2007)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

N/A No N/A

Pinnaspis theae (Maskell) 

Syn: Hemichionaspis

theae

IN (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

Sheikh, 2006 L (Ben-Dov et al., 

2007; Sheikh, 

2006)

Yes No

Pseudaonidia 

trilobitiformis Green 

Syn: Aspidiotus 

trilobitiformis

IN (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007); 

U.S.FL (BenDov et al., 2007; 

Coile, 2000)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

L (Gallego and 

Velez, 1992; Hill, 

1983); F PestID, 

2007)

[Yes]5 Yes

 

12 This pest name does not appear anywhere else in the literature, including ScaleNet (Ben-Dov et al., 2007), abstracting 

databases (e.g., Cab Abstracts, Agricola), Google, or other texts of pests in India (Butani, 1993; Nair, 1975; Srivastava, 

1997). Thus, this pest was likely a misidentification of H. rapax or another diaspid scale. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 14

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Selenaspidus articulatus

Morgan 

IN (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007); U.S. 

(CA & FL) 

(Ben-Dov et al., 

2007; CABI, 

2007)

Maes, 2004 N/A No N/A

Howardia biclavis

(Comstock) 

IN (Ben-Dov and 

Hodgson, 1997); 

U.S. (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

N/A No N/A

Hemiptera: Kerridae

Kerria lacca (Kerr) IN (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

St (Chen et al., 

2004)

Yes No

Hemiptera: Margarodidae

Drosicha dalbergiae IN (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

CABI, 2007 R (Masoodi et al., 

1988); Twigs 

(Vijay et al., 

2000a); F (Rawat

et al., 1989)

Yes Yes

Drosicha mangiferae 

(Stebbing)

IN (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

Hill, 1983; 

Srivastava, 1997

Sh, L, I

(Srivastava, 1997)

Yes No

Icerya aegyptiaca 

(Douglas)

IN (CABI, 2007) Ben Dov et al, 

2007; CABI, 2007

St, L, F (CABI, 

2007)

Yes Yes

Icerya purchasi Maskell IN; U.S. (CABI, 

2007)

CABI, 2007; 

Johnson and Lyon, 

1991

N/A No N/A

Icerya seychellarum

Westwood 

Syn: Dorthesia 

seychellarum; I. okadae

IN (CABI, 2007) Ben-Dov et al., 

2007; CABI, 2007

St, L (CABI, 

2007); I (USDA, 

1982); F (USDA, 

1982; PestID, 

2007)

Yes Yes

Hemiptera: Pentatomidae

Jurtina indica D. IN (Nair, 1975) Nair, 1975 F (Nair, 1975) Yes No13

Halyomorpha picus 

Fabricius

IN (Nair, 1975) Nair, 1975 F (Nair, 1975) Yes No12

Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae

Dysmicoccus brevipes 

(Cockerell)

IN, U.S. (BenDov et al., 2007)PestID, 2007 N/A No N/A

 

13 Pentatomids are medium-sized insects, sometimos gregarious, that should be readily seen and elminated from the pathway 

during harvest and post-harvest. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 15

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes 

Beardsley

IN (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

R, St, L, I, F 

(PestID, 2007)

Yes Yes

Ferrisia malvastra

(McDaniel) 

Syn: F. consobrina

IN (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007); US

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

F (Shevale, 1994); 

[St, and L (CABI, 

2007)]14

No Yes

Ferrisia virgata 

(Cockerell) 

Syn: Pseudococcus 

virgatus

IN (Hill, 1983); 

U.S. (CABI, 

2007)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007; Hill, 1983

N/A No N/A

Maconellicoccus hirsutus

Greene 

Syn: Paracoccus 

pasaniae; M. perforatus; 

M. pasaniae

IN, U.S. (CA, 

FL) (CABI, 

2007)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

St, L, I, F (CABI, 

2007)

[Yes]5 Yes

Nipaecoccus viridis

(Newstead) 

IN (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

Kulkarni et al., 

2003; Shevale, 

1994

R, St, L, F (BenDov et al., 2007); 

F (Shevale, 1994)

Yes Yes

Planococcus angkorensis

(Takahashi) 

Syn: P. dorsospinus

Ezzat & Mcconnell

IN (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

[L (Hill, 1983), I

(Williams and 

Watson, 1988), 

and F (Murray, 

1976; PestID, 

2007)]15

Yes Yes

Planococcus citri Risso IN, U.S. (BenDov et al., 2007)Ben-Dov et al., 

2007; Klein Koch 

and Waterhouse, 

2000

N/A No N/A

Planococcus ficus 

(Signoret)

IN, U.S. (BenDov et al., 2007)Ben-Dov et al., 

2007; CABI, 2007

N/A No N/A

 

14 Ferrisia malvastra attacks host fruit (Shevale, 1994), but we assumed that it could also attack stems and leaves, like its 

congener F. virgata, with which it is often confused (CABI, 2007). 

15 Due to limited information on this pest, we assumed its association with host plant organs was similar to other Planococcus

included in this pest list.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 16

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Planococcus lilacinus 

(Cockerell) 

Syn: Pseudococcus 

crotonis

IN (CABI, 2007) Ben-Dov et al., 

2007; Hill, 1983

L (Hill, 1983), F

(Nair, 1975)

Yes Yes

Planococcus minor

Maskell 

Syn: P. pacificus

IN (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007)

PestID, 200716 L (AguiarMenezes et al., 

2002; PestID, 

2007); I

(Williams and 

Watson, 1988); F

(PestID, 2007)

Yes No17

Pseudococcus cryptus

Hempel 

Syn: P. citriculus

IN (Ben-Dov, 

1994)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

F (Williams and 

Watson, 1988); L

(Avidov and 

Harpaz, 1969); R

(Ben-Dov et al., 

2007); Sh (BenDov et al., 2007; 

Williams and 

Watson, 1988)

Yes Yes

Pseudococcus longispinus

(Targioni Tozzetti) 

Syn: P. adonidum

IN (CABI, 

2007); U.S. 

(McKenzie, 

1967)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007

N/A No N/A

Isoptera: Termitidae

Odontotermes obesus 

(Rambur)

IN (Sheikh, 

2006)

Sheikh, 2006 Bk (Paul et al., 

1993)

Yes No

Trinervitermes biformis 

(Wasmann)

IN (Patel and 

Patel, 1952)

Patel and Patel, 

1952

R (Butani and 

Varma, 1976)

No Yes

Lepidoptera: Arctiidae

Creatonotus gangis

(Linnaeus)

IN (Sheikh, 

2006)

Robinson et al., 

2001; Sheikh, 

2006

L (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No

Lepidoptera: Cosmopterigidae

Anatrachyntis simplex

Walsingham 

Syn: Pyroderces simplex

IN (Heckford, 

2004; Robinson

et al., 2007)

Heckford, 2004; 

Robinson et al., 

2001

F (Heckford, 

2004)

Yes No18

 

16 All interceptions on passenger baggage; no other evidence of host association could be found in the scientific literature. 

17 Given the only weak evidence for host association (e.g., interceptions on passenger baggage), we conclude that 

pomegranate fruit for consumption is unlikely to be a good pathway for movement into the United States.

18 Anatrachyntis simplex is unlikely to follow the pathway on fresh, commercial quality pomegranate fruit because it feeds on 

already damaged or rotten plant tissue (Heckford, 2004).
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 17

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Lepidoptera: Cossidae

Zeuzera coffeae Neitn. IN (Hill, 1983) Hill, 1983; 

Robinson et al., 

2007

St (Hill, 1983; 

Sheikh, 2006)

Yes No

Lepidoptera: Crambidae

Conogethes punctiferalis 

(Guenée) 

Syn: Dichocrocis 

punctiferalis (CABI, 

2007)

IN (CABI, 2007; 

Hill, 1983)

CABI, 2007; Hill, 

1983

L (Ramakrishna 

Ayyar, 1936); St

(CABI, 2007), 

and F (CABI, 

2007; Hill, 1983)

Yes Yes

Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae

Phthorimaea operculella

(Zeller) 

IN, U.S. (CABI, 

2007)

USDA, 2007a N/A No N/A

Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae

Streblote siva (Lef.) IN (Robinson et 

al., 2007)

Robinson et al., 

2007

L (Parui, 1971) Yes No

Suana concolor (Walker) IN (Robinson et 

al., 2007)

Robinson et al., 

2001; Robinson et 

al., 2007

L (Hutson and 

Jardine, 1923)

Yes No

Trabala vishnou 

(Lefevere)

IN (Mani et al., 

2001)

Mani et al., 2001; 

Robinson et al., 

2001

L (Hill, 1987) Yes No

Lepidoptera: Limacodidae

Latoia lepida (Cram.) IN (Hill, 1983) Hill, 1983 L (Hill, 1987) Yes No

Parasa lepida Cramer IN (CABI, 2007) Robinson et al., 

2007

L (Nair, 1975; 

Robinson et al., 

2001)

Yes No

Thosea sinensis IN (Robinson et 

al., 2007)

CABI, 2007; 

Robinson et al., 

2007

L (Nair, 1975) Yes No

Thosea unifascia IN (Robinson et 

al., 2007)

Robinson et al., 

2007

L (Isaac, 1925; 

Robinson et al., 

2001)

Yes No
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 18

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae

Deudorix epijarbas

(Moore) 

IN (Hill, 1983) CABI, 2007; Hill, 

1983

F (Hill, 1983) Yes Yes

Deudorix isocrates 

Fabricius 

Syn: Virachola isocrates

IN (CABI, 2007; 

Hill, 1983)

Morton, 1987; 

Patil et al., 2002

I, F (Morton, 

1987), F (Patil et 

al., 2002)

Yes Yes19

Iraota timoleon Stoll IN (Savela, 

2007)

Savela, 2007 St, L, I Yes No

Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae

Euproctis flava (Bremer) IN (Sheikh, 

2006)

Sheikh, 2006 L (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No

Euproctis fraterna

(Moore)

IN (Robinson et 

al., 2007; 

Sheikh, 2006)

Sheikh, 2006 L (Cantelo et al., 

1965; Robinson et 

al., 2001)

Yes No

Euproctis lunata Walker IN (Subramanian 

and 

Krishnamurthy, 

2002)

Sheikh, 2006 L (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No

Euproctis scintillans 

Walker 

Syn: Porthesia 

scintillans, Somena 

scintillans

IN (Robinson et 

al., 2007; 

Sheikh, 2006)

Sheikh, 2006 L, I (Robinson et 

al., 2001)

Yes No

Euproctis sp. IN (Hill, 1983) Hill, 1983 L (Hill, 1987) Yes No

Euproctis subflava Bremer IN (Robinson et 

al., 2007)

Robinson et al., 

2007 

L (Ahn et al., 

1989; Robinson et 

al., 2001)

Yes No

Lymantria ampla (Walker) IN (Srivastava, 

1997)

Srivastava, 1997 L (Srivastava, 

1997)

Yes No

Lymantria beatrix Stoll IN (Robinson et 

al., 2007)

Robinson et al., 

2001; Robinson et 

al., 2007

L (Srivastava, 

1997)

Yes No

Olene mendosa Hubner 

Syn: Dasychira mendosa

IN (Robinson et 

al., 2007)

Cantelo et al., 

1965; Robinson et 

al., 2001

L (Cantelo et al., 

1965

Yes No

Lepidoptera: Metarbelidae

Indarbela dea Swinhoe IN (CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007 St, Bk (CABI, 

2007)

Yes No

 

19 Deudorix isocrates is one of the most important and destructive pests of pomegranate in India (Nair, 1975). It is an internal 

pest. This pest may only sometimes be noticed during harvest and post-harvest processing (due to entry holes and excreta) 

(Patil et al., 2002), particularly if it enters the fruit from the calyx end. This pest pupates inside of the fruit (Nair, 1975).
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 19

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Indarbela quadrinotata

(Walker, 1856)

IN (NHM, 2006) Patil et al., 2002; 

Robinson et al., 

2001

Bk (Sen-Sarma, 

1987); 

Yes No

Indarbela sp. IN (Hill, 1983) Hill, 1983 Bk (Hill, 1983) Yes No

Indarbela tetraonis 

(Moore)

IN (Butani and 

Verma, 1981; 

NHM, 2006)

Patil et al., 2002; 

Robinson et al., 

2001

St, Bk (Butani 

and Verma, 1981)

Yes No

Lepidoptera: Noctuidae

Achaea janata (L.) IN (CABI, 2007) Robinson et al., 

2001

L, F (Hill, 1994; 

Robinson et al., 

2001; Sheikh, 

2006)

Yes No20

Arcyophora dentula

(Lederer)

IN (Sheikh, 

2006)

Sheikh, 2006 L (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No

Dysgonia algira

(Linnaeus)

IN (Robinson et 

al., 2007)

CABI, 2007; 

Robinson et al., 

2007

L (Robinson et 

al., 2007)

Yes No

Ercheia diversipennis 

Walker

IN (Robinson et 

al., 2001; 

Robinson et al., 

2007)

Robinson et al., 

2007

F (Robinson et al., 

2001; 

Susainathan, 

1924)

Yes No21

Eudocima fullonia Clerck 

Syn: Ophideres fullonia; 

O. fullonica; Othreis 

fullonia; O. fullonica

IN (Hill, 1983) CABI, 2007 L (CABI, 2007); 

F (CABI, 2007; 

Forsyth, 1966; 

Hill, 1983)

Yes No22

Eudocima homaena 

Hubner 

Syn: Othreis homaena

IN (CABI, 2007; 

Robinson et al., 

2007)

Bhumannavar and 

Viraktamath, 

2001; CABI, 

2007; Robinson et 

al., 2007 

F (Bhumannavar 

and Viraktamath, 

2001)

Yes No23

Eudocima materna 

Linnaeus 

Syn: Othreis materna

IN (CABI, 2007; 

Robinson et al., 

2007)

CABI, 2007; 

Robinson et al., 

2007

L (Mohite et al., 

2004); F (Fay and 

Halfpapp, 2006; 

Forsyth, 1966; 

Zhang, 1994)

Yes No24

 

20 Adults of A. janata feed on the fruit of pomegranate, while larvae feed on the leaves (Sheikh, 2006). Thus, A. janata is not 

expected to follow the pathway because adults are relatively large and mobile. 

21 Because only adults feed on fruit (Susainathan, 1924), this pest is not expected to follow the pathway on fresh 

pomegranates.

22 Only adults are associated with fruit (CABI, 2007; Hill, 1983) and consequently are not expected to follow the pathway. 

23 Because only adults are associated with fruit (Bhumannavar and Viraktamath, 2001), this pest is not expected to follow the 

pathway.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 20

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Helicoverpa armigera

(Hübner) 

Syn: Heliothis armigera

IN (Teggelli et 

al., 2002)

Teggelli et al., 

2002

Sh, L, I (CABI, 

2007); F (Teggelli

et al., 2002; 

CABI, 2007)

Yes No25

Ophiusa tirhaca Cramer IN (Robinson et 

al., 2007)

Robinson et al., 

2007

L (Robinson et 

al., 2001)

Yes No

Lepidoptera: Nolidae

Arcyophora dentula Led. IN (Anonymous, 

1941)

Robinson et al., 

2001; Robinson et 

al., 2007)

L (Anonymous, 

1941)

Yes No

Lepidoptera: Oecophoridae

Stathmopoda auriferella

Walker

IN (Robinson et 

al., 2007)

Robinson et al., 

2007

F (Park et al., 

1994)

Yes No26

Lepidoptera: Psychidae

Acanthopsyche cana

Hampson

IN (Robinson et 

al., 2007)

Robinson et al., 

2007

L (Robinson et 

al., 2007)

Yes No

Acanthopsyche sp.

27 IN (Robinson et 

al., 2001; 

Sheikh, 2006)

Sheikh, 2006 L (Sheikh, 2006) Yes No

Eumeta crameri 

Westwood

IN (Hill, 1983; 

Robinson et al., 

2007)

Hill, 1983; Patil et 

al., 2002

Bk (Robinson et 

al., 2001); L (Hill, 

1983; Patil et al., 

2002; Robinson et 

al., 2001)

Yes No

Pteroma sp. IN (Nair, 1975) Nair, 1975 L (Nair, 1975) Yes No

Lepidoptera: Pyralidae

Apomyelois ceratoniae

Zellar 

Syn: Ectomyelois 

ceratoniae

IN (Singh, 

1991); U.S. 

(Robinson et al., 

2007)

CABI, 2007; Patil

et al., 2002; 

Robinson et al., 

2007

N/A No N/A

Cadra cautella (Walker) 

Syn: Ephestia cautella

IN (CABI, 

2007); U.S. 

(Arnett Jr., 2000)

Carter, 1984; 

Robinson et al., 

2007

N/A No N/A

 

24 Because only the adult life form is associated with fruits (Fay and Halfpapp, 2006), this moth is not expected to follow the 

pathway.

25 On pomegranate, H. armigera inserts its head and anterior parts into the fruit (Teggelli et al., 2002). Therefore, this pest 

should be readily noticed and eliminated from the pathway during harvest and post-harvest processing.

26 Stathmopoda auriferilla, like many members of the family Oecophoridae, generally only feeds on decaying plant material. 

It appears to only be associated with rotten fruit of pomegranate (Robinson et al., 2001) and would not be associated with 

fresh fruit. 

27 Sheikh (2006) reports that the bag worm “Acantho psyche” attacks pomegranate in India. We considered the extra space to 

be a typographical error and that the true name was Acanthopsyche, which is a genus of bagworms.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 21

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Cryptoblabes gnidiella

Millière 

Syn: Albinia casazzar; 

A. gnidiella; Ephestia 

gnidiella

IN (CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007; 

Robinson et al., 

2007

St, L, F (CABI, 

2007); F (Carter, 

1984)

Yes Yes28

Dichocrocis megillalis 

Walker

IN (CABI, 2007) Robinson et al., 

2007

F (Cantelo et al., 

1965; Robinson et 

al., 2001)

Yes Yes29

Ephestia elutella Hubner IN (Robinson et 

al., 2007); U.S. 

(NC) (CABI, 

2007)

Robinson et al., 

2007

N/A No N/A

Euzophera bigella Zeller 

Syn: E. punicaeella 

(Pasuki, 1975)

IN (Robinson et 

al., 2007)

Robinson et al., 

2007

L, F (Nazeer 

Ahmad, 1942; 

Robinson et al., 

2001); F

(Robinson et al., 

2001)

Yes Yes30

Paralipsa gularis (Zeller) 

Syn: Aphomia gularis

IN (Butani, 

1978; Joseph and 

Oommen, 1961; 

Robinson et al., 

2001); U.S. 

(Arnett Jr., 1997)

Robinson et al., 

2007

N/A No N/A

Plodia interpunctella

(Hubner)

IN, U.S. (CABI, 

2007)

Robinson et al., 

2007

N/A No N/A

Pyralis farinalis Linnaeus IN (Robinson et 

al., 2007); U.S. 

(Arnett Jr., 2000)

Robinson et al., 

2007

N/A No N/A

Lepidoptera: Saturniidae

Actias selene Hubner IN (NHM, 2006) Robinson et al., 

2001

L (Robinson et 

al., 2001; Viqar et 

al., 2005)

Yes No

Attacus atlas Linnaeus IN (Robinson et 

al., 2007)

Robinson et al., 

2001

L (CABI, 2007; 

Robinson et al.,

2001)

Yes No

 

28 An internal feeder of fruit and stems (CABI, 2007)

29 This species bores into fruit (Robinson et al., 2001). 

30 This species sometimes enters the fruit from the flower/calyx end, making it very difficult to be noticed (Nazeer Ahmad, 

1942). Furthermore, it pupates in the fruit (Nazeer Ahmad, 1942).
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 22

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Lepidoptera: Tortricidae

Archips micaceana 

Walker

IN (Manjunatha

et al., 2003)

Robinson et al., 

2001

L (Manjunatha et 

al., 2003; 

Robinson et al., 

2001)

Yes No

Cydia pomonella Linnaeus IN, U.S. (CABI, 

2007)

Robinson et al., 

2007

N/A No N/A

Thysanoptera: Thripidae

Megalurothrips distalis

(Karny)

IN (CABI, 2007; 

Robinson et al., 

2001)

CABI, 2007 L, I, F (CABI, 

2007)

Yes No31

Retithrips syriacus 

(Mayet)

IN (Hill, 1983; 

Sheikh, 2006); 

U.S. (FL) 

(CABI, 2007)

Hill, 1983 L (Hill, 1987; 

Sheikh, 2006)

[Yes]5 No

Rhipiphorothrips 

cruentatus (grapevine 

thrips)

IN (Sheikh, 

2006)

CABI, 2007; 

Sheikh, 2006

L (Sheikh, 2006); 

L, F (CABI, 

2007)

Yes Yes

Scirtothrips oligochaetus 

Karyny

Syn: Anaphothrips 

oligochaetus Karyny

IN (Karny, 1926; 

Sheikh, 2006)

Sheikh, 2006 L (Palmer et al., 

1990); I (Sheikh, 

2006); F (Nair, 

1975)

Yes Yes

Thrips subnudula Karny

Syn: Ramaswamiahiella 

subnudula (Mound, 

2007)

IN (Karny, 1926; 

Sheikh, 2006)

Sheikh, 2006 L (Morton, 1987); 

I (Sheikh, 2006)

Yes No

WEEDS

Loranthaceae

Loranthus spp. IN (Kumar, 

1944)

Kumar, 1944 St (Mabberley, 

1987)

Yes No

PATHOGENS

Alternaria alternate (Fr.) 

Kiesl. 

(Dothideomycetes, 

Pleosporales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007); U.S. 

(CABI, 2007)

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A

 

31 Although CABI (2007) lists M. distalis as a “minor” host of pomegranate, we found no other reference to substantiate this. 

Megalurothrips distalis appears to be mainly a pest of legumes, and only occasionally attacks fruit trees such as pome and 

stone fruit trees. Furthermore, M. distalis generally feeds on the flowers and leaves. These factors led us to conclude that 

this pest is unlikely to be in the pathway. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 23

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Aspergillus flavus Link 

Teleomorph: Emericella

(Eurotiomycetes, 

Eurotiales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007); U.S. 

(CABI, 2007)

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A

Aspergillus nidulans

(Eidam) G. Winter 

Teleomorph: Emericella

(Eurotiomycetes, 

Eurotiales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007); U.S. (Farr

et al., 2007)

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A

Aspergillus niger Tiegh

Teleomroph: Emericella

(Eurotiomycetes, 

Eurotiales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007); U.S. 

(CABI, 2007)

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A

Aspergillus niveus

Blochwitz Teleomorph: 

Emericella

(Eurotiomycetes, 

Eurotiales)

IN (Sheikh, 

2006); U.S. 

(Schering, 1990 )

Sheikh, 2006 N/A No N/A

Aspergillus versicolor

(Vuill.) Tirabosch

Teleomorph: Emericella

(Eurotiomycetes, 

Eurotiales)

IN (Sheikh, 

2006), U.S. (Farr

et al., 2007)

Sheikh, 2006 N/A No N/A

Beltraniella humicola P. 

Rama Rao Anamorph: 

Leiosphaerella

(Sordariomycetes, 

Xylariales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007)

Farr et al., 2007 L (Farr et al., 

2007)

Yes No 

Botryodiplodia 

theobromae Pat 

(Incertae sedis) 

Lasiodiplodia 

theobromae (Pat.) 

Griffon & Maubl. Fungi 

Imperfecti: 

Coelomycetes

IN (Farr et al., 

2007); U.S. 

(CABI, 2007)

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 24

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Botryotinia fuckeliina (de 

Bary) Whetzel 

Syn: Ascomycetes: 

Helotiales Anamorph: 

Botrytis fuckeliana

cinerea Pers.: Fr. 

(Leotiomycetes, 

Helotiales)

IN; U.S. (CABI, 

2007)

CABI, 2007 N/A No N/A

Ceratocystis fimbriata

Ellis & Halst. 

Ceratocystidaceae

(Sardariomycetes, 

Microascales)

Anamorph: Chalara sp.

IN (Farr et al., 

2007); U.S. 

(CABI, 2007)

Farr et al., 2007 St, F, L, wood 

(Harrington, 2004 

#11)

Yes32 No33

Cercospora granati Rawla 

Syn: 

Pseudocercosporella 

granati (Rawla)

Teleomorph; 

Mycosphaerella

(Dothideomycetes, 

Capnodiales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007)

Farr et al., 2007 L (Rawla, 1971) Yes No

 

32 Ceratocystis fimbriata causes a highly destructive wilt on pomegranate (Somasehara, 1999). The taxonomy of C. fimbriata

is very complex (Harrington and Baker, 2004). Its host range is very broad and recent research indicates that C. fimbriata

may contain more than one species (Baker et al., 2003). We found no indication of which genotype(s) of C. fimbriata

causes pomegranate wilt. Ceratocystis fimbriata is already present in the United States, where it infects Populus, Platanus, 

and Ipomea sp (Harrington and Baker, 2004). However, molecular evidence indicates that the North American clade of C. 

fimbrata is genetically distinct from the clades in Latin America and Asia (Baker et al., 2003; Harrington and Baker, 2004; 

Johnson et al., 2005). In addition, pomegranate is cultivated in the same county and even same field as infected almonds in 

California (Harrington, 2004) and the pomegranate has not become infected (Edwards and Davis, 1988). That may mean 

that C. fimbriata in North America differs from the other clades. Thus, an infective strain of C. fimbriata could still be 

introduced from abroad. Based on similar reasoning, a U.S. Forest Service risk analysis of Eucalyptus wood chips and 

untreated logs imported from South America rated C. fimbriata as High risk, and requiring some form of management or 

risk mediation (Kleijunus et al., 2001). 

33 We found no evidence that C. fimbriata is present in pomegranate fruit. C. fimbriata is typically a pathogen of wood or 

fiberous fruit, such as cacao (Harrington, 2004). Additionally, C. fimbriata causes a wilt of the bush and there has has been 

no description of a fruit rot (Huang et al, 2003). Based on the lack of observations of fruit rot and the description of the 

disease as a wilt rather than a fruit rot, it seems that fruit is not infected by the fungus and makes a poor pathway. If 

additional observations contradict this, a reanalysis can be done. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 25

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Cercospora punicae Henn. 

Syn: Pseudocercospora 

punicae (Henn.) 

Deighton Teleomorph: 

Mycosphaerella 

lythracearum F. A. Wolf

(Dothideomycetes, 

Capnodiales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007); U.S. (Farr

et al., 2007)

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A

Cladosporium oxysporum

Berk. & M. A. Curtis 

Fungi Imperfecti: 

Hyphomycetes

IN (Sheikh, 

2006); U.S. (Farr

et al., 2007)

Sheikh, 2006 N/A No N/A

Cochliobolus lunatus R.R. 

Nelson & Haasis 

Ascomycetes: 

Dothideales Anamorph: 

Pleosporaceae

Curvularia lunata

(Wakk.) Boedijn

(Dothideomycetes, 

Pleosporales)

IN (CABI, 

2007); U.S. (Farr

et al., 2007)

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A

Coleophoma empetri

(Rostr.) Petr. 

Fungi Imperfecti: 

Coelomycetes

IN (Sheikh, 

2006); U.S. (Farr

et al., 2007)

Sheikh, 2006 N/A No N/A

Colletotrichum 

gloeosporioides (Penz.) 

Penz. & Sacc. in Penz. 

Fungi Imperfecti: 

Coelomycetes

IN (Sheikh, 

2006); U.S. (Farr

et al., 2007)

Sheikh, 2006 N/A No N/A

Coniella granati (Sacc.) 

Petr. & Syd. Anamorph: 

Schizoparme 

(Sordariomycetes, 

Diaporthales)

IN (CABI, 

2007); U.S. (Farr

et al., 2007)

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No34 N/A

Coniothyrium sp.

Anamorph: 

Leptosphaeria

(Dothideomycetes, 

Pleosporales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007)

Farr et al., 2007 L, St (Farr et al., 

2007)

Yes No

 

34 Coniella granati is described alternately as a saprophyte (PestID, 2007) and as a pathogen (Weber, 1973). Consequently,

we included it on the pest list, but its presence in the United States prevents its designation as a quarantine pest.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 26

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Curvularia pallescens

Boedijn

(Dothideomycetes, 

Pleosporales)

Teleomorph: 

Cochliobolus pallescens

(Tsuda & Ueyama) 

Sivan.

IN, U.S.(Farr et 

al., 2007) 

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A

Discosia punicae

Schreem. & M. Reddy

(Sordariomycetes,

Xylariales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007)

Farr et al., 2007 L (Madhukar and 

Reddy, 1988)

Yes No

Fusarium equiseti (Corda) 

Sacc. Fungi Imperfecti: 

Hyphomycetes

IN (Sheikh, 

2006); U.S. (Farr

et al., 2007)

Sheikh, 2006 N/A No N/A

Fusarium fusarioides 

(Gonz. Frag. & Cif.) C. 

Booth Teliomorph: 

Gibberalla

(Sordariomycetes, 

Hypocreales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007); U.S. (Farr

et al., 2007) 

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A

Gloeosporium sp.

(Leotiomycetes, 

Helotiales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007)

Farr et al., 2007 L (Farr et al., 

2007)

Yes No

Leptosphaeria punicae 

A.K. Kar & Maity 

Teleomorph: 

(Dothideomycetes, 

Pleosporales)

Leptosphaeriaceae 

Loculoascomycetes: 

Dothideales

IN (Farr et al., 

2007)

Farr et al., 2007 R, L Yes No

Nigrospora oryzae (Berk. 

& Broome) Petch

(Sordariomycetes 

Incertae sedis) 

IN (Farr et al., 

2007); U.S. (Farr

et al., 2007)

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A

Oidium sp. IN (Farr et al., 

2007)

Farr et al., 2007 L, F (Farr et al., 

2007)

Yes Yes

Penicillium chrysogenum

Thom Fungi Imperfecti: 

Hyphomycetes

IN (Sheikh, 

2006), U.S. (Farr

et al., 2007)

Sheikh, 2006 N/A No N/A
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 27

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Penicillium expansum 

Link Teleomorph: 

Eupenicillium(Eurotiom

ycetes, Eurotiales) 

IN (Farr et al., 

2007), U.S. 

(CABI, 2007)

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A

Penicillium sp.

Teleomorph: 

Eupenicillium

(Eurotiomycetes, 

Eurotiales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007)

Farr et al., 2007 F (Farr et al., 

2007)

Yes Yes

Pestalotia jodhpurensis 

Bilgrami & Purohit

Teleomorph: Broomella

(Sordariomycetes, 

Xylariales)

IN (Farr et al.,

2007)

Farr et al., 2007 L (Misra, 2004) Yes No

Pestalotiopsis versicolor 

(Speg.) Steyaert

Teleomorph: 

Pestalosphaeria

(Sordariomycetes, 

Xylariales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007)

Farr et al., 2007 L (Madhukar and 

Reddy, 1988)

Yes No

Phaeoramularia legrellei 

V.G. Rao & B.R.D. 

Yadav 

(Dothideomycetes, 

Capnodiales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007)

Farr et al., 2007 L (Rao and 

Yadav, 1991)

Yes No

Phoma sp. IN (Farr et al., 

2007)

Farr et al., 2007 N/A Yes Yes

Phomopsis aucubicola 

(Brunaud) Grove 

Syn: Phoma lirelliformis 

Sacc. var. aucubicola 

Brunaud Teleomorph: 

Diaporthe 

(Sordariomycetes, 

Diaporthales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007), 

U.S.( Nyvall and 

Hu, 1997)

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A

Phomopsis sp. IN (Farr et al., 

2007)

Farr et al., 2007 Twigs (Farr et al., 

2007)

Yes No

Phomopsis versoniana 

Sacc. Teleomorph: 

Diaporthe

(Sordariomycetes, 

Diaporthales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007); U.S. 

(Dodge, 1936)

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 28

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Phyllosticta sp. IN (Farr et al., 

2007)

Farr et al., 2007 L (Farr et al., 

2007)

Yes No

Rhizopus arrhizus A. 

Fisch A. Fischer

Syn: Rhizopus oryzae

Went & Prins. Geerl.

Prinsen Geerligs 

(Zygomycetes, 

Mucorales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007); U.S. (Farr

et al., 2007)

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A

Rhizopus stolonifer

(Ehrenb.) Vuill. 

(Ehrenb.: Fr.) Vuill.

(Zygomycetes, 

Mucorales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007); U.S. (Farr

et al., 2007)

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A

Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc.

Syn: Teleomorph: 

Athelia rolfsii (Curzi) 

C.C. Tu & Kimbrough

(Agaricomycetes, 

Agaricales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007); U.S. (Farr

et al., 2007)

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A

Setosphaeria rostrata K. J. 

Leonard

(Dothideomycetes, 

Pleosporales)

IN (Bose et al., 

2002); U.S. (Farr

et al., 2007) 

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A

Sphaceloma punicae 

Bitanc. & 

JenkinsTeleomorph 

Elsinöe 

(Dothideomycetes, 

Myriangiales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007); U.S. (Farr

et al., 2007)

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A

Sphaeropsis punicae

Unknown taxonomy

IN (Farr et al., 

2007)

Farr et al., 2007 L (Mathur, 1979) Yes No

Spicaria sp. Unknown 

taxonomy

IN (Farr et al., 

2007)

Farr et al., 2007 N/A Yes Yes

Syncephalastrum 

racemosum Cohn ex. J. 

Schrot. Zygomycetes: 

Mucorales

IN (Sheikh, 

2006); U.S. (Farr

et al., 2007)

Sheikh, 2006 N/A No N/A
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 29

Pest Distribution Host Association Plant parts

affected1

QStatus Follows 

pathway2

Chromistidae

Phytophthora nicotianae

Breda de Haan

(Oomycetes, 

Peronosporales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007); U.S. (Farr

et al., 2007)

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A

Phytophthora palmivora 

var. palmivora (E .J. 

Butler) E.J. Butler

(Oomycetes, 

Peronosporales)

IN (Farr et al., 

2007); U.S. (Farr

et al., 2007)

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A

BACTERIA

Xanthomonas axonopodis 

pv. Punicae (Hingorani 

& Singh 1959) 

Xanthomonads

IN (Upasana and 

Verma, 2002)

Upasana and 

Verma, 2002

L, F, St (Upasana 

and Verma, 2002)

Yes Yes

NEMATODES

Heliocotylenchus 

pseudorobustus

IN (CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007 R (CABI, 2007) Yes No

Heliocotylenchus spp.

(Steiner) Golden 

(Hoplolaiminae)

(Hoplolaiminae)

IN (Darekar et 

al., 1989)

Darekar et al., 

1989

R (Darekar et al., 

1989)

Yes No

Meloidogyne incognita

Kofoid & White

(Heteroderidae)

IN (Darekar et 

al., 1989); U.S. 

(Maggenti, 1981)

Darekar et al., 

1989

R (Darekar et al., 

1989)

No No

Xiphinema insigne Loos

(Longidoridae)

IN (Darekar et 

al., 1989)

Darekar et al., 

1989

R (Darekar et al., 

1989)

Yes No

VIROIDS

Hop Stunt Viroid

Pospiviroidae

IN (Roy et al., 

2005); U.S. 

(Sano et al., 

1986)

Astruc et al., 1996 N/A No N/A

VIRUSES 

Cucumber mosaic virus

Bromoviridae

IN (Verma et al., 

2004); U.S. 

(CABI, 2007)

Verma et al., 2004 N/A No N/A

2.5. Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway 

Most of the pests identified in Table 4 are found in the conterminous United States, so are not 

quarantine pests. Furthermore, not all of the quarantine pests identified are likely to follow the 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 30

pathway of fresh pomegranate fruit. Quarantine pests not expected to follow the pathway were 

not considered for further analysis. Should any of these pests be intercepted in shipments of the 

commodity, however, quarantine action may be taken and additional risk analyses may be done.

The quarantine pests that were considered likely to follow the pathway are listed below (Table 5).

The armored scale, Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) was not analyzed 

because although armored scales may enter on commercial fruit for consumption, they are not 

expected to establish via this pathway (Miller, 1985; Zlotina et al., 2007). In a recent review, 

Zlotina and Hennessey (2007) concluded that even if high quantities of imported fruit are 

infested with armored scale species, there is a very low risk that an armored scale would 

establish along a commercial fruit pathway35. This low risk is explained by the poor ability of 

armored scales to disperse to new host plants from fruits for consumption (Zlotina et al., 2007).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and are anchored firmly to the host by their mouthparts.

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

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

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

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

Table 5. Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway on fresh pomegranate fruit from India.

Group: Family Pest name(s)

Acari: Eriophyidae Tenuipalpus granati, T. punicae

Diptera: Tephritidae Bactrocera carambolae, B. dorsalis, B. zonata

Hemiptera: Coccidae Ceroplastes rubens, C. rusci

Hemiptera: Margarodidae Drosicha dalbergiae, Icerya aegyptiaca, I. seychellarum

Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae Dysmicoccus neobrevipes, Maconellicoccus hirsutus, 

Nipaecoccus viridis, Planococcus angkorensis, P. lilacinus, 

Pseudococcus cryptus

Lepidoptera: Crambidae Conogethes punctiferalis 

Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae Deudorix epijarbas, D. isocrates

Lepidoptera: Pyralidae Cryptoblabes gnidiella, Dichocrocis megillalis, Euzophera 

bigella

Thysanoptera: Thripidae Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus, Scirtothrips oligochaetus

Bacteria Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae

 

35 Their conclusions apply to commercial fruit shipped without leaves, stems, or contaminants. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 31

2.6. Consequences of Introduction

The undesirable consequences that may occur from the introduction of quarantine pests are 

assessed in this section. For each quarantine pest, the potential consequences of introduction 

were rated in five areas called “Risk Elements.” The Risk Elements include: Climate/Host 

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

Risk Elements reflect the biology, host range and climatic/geographic distribution of each pest 

and are supported by biological information on each of the analyzed pests summarized in this 

section. For each risk element, pests were assigned a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points) 

or High (3 points). The ratings were determined using the criteria in the Risk Assessment 

Guidelines, Version 5.02 (USDA, 2000). A cumulative risk value was then calculated by

summing the ratings. The following scale was used to interpret this total: 5-8 points = low risk, 

9-12 points = medium risk, and 13-15 points = high risk. The ratings are summarized in Table 6. 

The major sources of uncertainty present in this risk assessment are similar to those in other risk 

assessments. They include the use of a developing or evolving process (Orr et al., 1993; USDA, 

2000), the approach used to combine risk elements (Bier, 1999; Morgan and Henrion, 1990), and 

the evaluation of risk by comparisons to lists of factors within the guidelines (Kaplan, 1992; Orr

et al., 1993). To address this last source of uncertainty, the lists of factors were interpreted as 

illustrative and not exhaustive. This implies that additional biological information, even if not 

explicitly part of the criteria, can be used when it is relevant to a rating. Other sources of 

uncertainty are the quality of the biological information and the amount of information available 

on the regional flora and fauna. Inherent biological variation within a population of organisms 

introduces uncertainty as well (Morgan and Henrion, 1990).

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

Risk Element #1: Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction 

Bactrocera carambolae is found in Brunei Darussalam, tropical India, Indonesia, 

Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. It also has restricted distributions in Brazil, French 

Guiana, and Suriname. It was apparently eradicated from Guyana (CABI, 2007). Based 

on this distribution we estimate that B. carambolae could only become established in the 

areas of the United States corresponding to Plant Hardiness Zone 10 (USDA, 1990). One 

or more of its potential hosts occurs in this zone (NRCS, 2007).

Low (1)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

This pest attacks many species in multiple families including: Anacardiaceae

(Anacardium occidentale, Mangifera spp., Spondias purpurea), Annonaceae (Annona 

spp., Rollinia pulchrinervis), Apocynaceae (Thevetia peruviana), Arecaceae (Arenga 

spp.), Caricaceae (Carica papaya), Clusiaceae (Garcinia mangostana), Combretaceae

(Terminalia catappa), Lauraceae (Persea americana), Moraceae (Artocarpus spp),

Myrtaceae (Eugenia uniflora, Psidium spp., Syzygium spp.), Oxalidaceae (Averrhoa 

spp.), Punicaceae (Punica granatum), Rhamnaceae (Ziziphus spp.), Rhizophoraceae 

(Rhizophora spp.), Rutaceae (Citrofortunella mitis, Citrus spp, Fortunella margarita),

Sapotaceae (Chrysophyllum cainito, Mimusops elengi, Pouteria campechiana),

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 32

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

Solanaceae (Capsicum annuum, Solanum lycopersicum) (CABI, 2007).

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Tephritid fruit flies have a relatively high biotic potential. For example, in laboratory 

studies, the fecundity of female B. tryoni and B. dorsalis fruit flies was over 1000 eggs 

(Fletcher, 1989a). 

Like other Bactrocera, B. carambolae disperses readily by flight (Hely et al., 1982); 

many Bactrocera species can fly 50-100 km (Fletcher, 1989b). Bactrocera fruit flies can 

also disperse via infested plant materials, such as fruits and flowers (Fletcher, 1989b;

CABI, 2007). For example, since 1985, species of Bactrocera have been intercepted at 

U.S. ports of entry over 12,000 times, in a variety of commodities (PestID, 2007). 

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

B. carambolae attacks several economically important crops, including avocado, tomato, 

pepper and Citrus spp., and would likely be a major pest on these crops in the United 

States (Drew et al., 1982; White and Elson-Harris, 1992). Up to 100 percent of 

unprotected crops may be damaged (CABI, 2007).

The introduction of B. carambolae in the continental United States would likely stimulate 

eradication or control programs, similar to those that have been implemented in the past 

for other Tephritid fruit flies (CABI, 2007; Clausen, 1978). Additionally, its presence in 

the United States, even as a temporary adventive population, could lead to severe export 

restrictions of host commodities to markets outside of this pest’s known distribution 

(Drew et al., 1982).

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

B. carambolae may have direct impacts on Federal listed endangered species such as 

Ziziphus celata (in Florida), which is closely related to other hosts known to be attacked 

by B. carambolae (USFWS, 2007).

Because it represents a potential threat to the Citrus and other crop industries, the 

establishment of B. dorsalis in the United States would likely initiate eradication or 

chemical/biological control programs, similar to those that have occurred in Hawaii and 

California, and Florida for other Tephritid fruit flies (CABI, 2007; Clausen, 1978).

High (3)

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

Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction 

Bactrocera dorsalis is found in Bhutan, southern China, northern India, Myanmar, 

northern Thailand, Guam, and the Hawaiian Islands (White and Elson-Harris, 1992). 

Based on this distribution we estimate that B. dorsalis could become established in the 

areas of the United States corresponding to Plant Hardiness Zone 9-10 (USDA, 1990). 

One or more of its potential hosts occurs in this zone (NRCS, 2007).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

B. dorsalis attacks multiple species in multiple families including the following:

Anacardiaceae (Anacardium occidentale, Mangifera foetida, Spondias purpurea, 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 33

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

Mangifera indica), Annonaceae (Annona spp.), Arecaceae (Areca catechu), 

Caricaceae (Carica papaya), Combretaceae (Terminalia catappa), Cucurbitaceae

(Cucumis melo, Cucumis sativus, Momordica charantia), Ebenaceae (Diospyros kaki), 

Flacourtiaceae (Flacourtia indica), Lauraceae (Persea americana), Malpighiaceae

(Malpighia glabra), Moraceae (Artocarpus spp., Ficus racemosa), Musaceae (Musa), 

Myrtaceae (Syzygium spp., Psidium guajava), Oxalidaceae (Averrhoa carambola), 

Punicaceae (Punica granatum), Rhamnaceae (Ziziphus spp.), Rosaceae (Prunus spp., 

Malus pumila, Pyrus communis), Rubiaceae (Coffea Arabica), Rutaceae (Aegle 

marmelos, Citrus spp.), Sapindaceae (Dimocarpus longan, Nephelium lappaceum, 

Litchi chinensis), Sapotaceae (Chrysophyllum cainito, Mimusops elengi, Manilkara 

zapota), Solanaceae (Capsicum annuum), and Tiliaceae (Muntingia calabura) (CABI, 

2007; White and Elson-Harris, 1992).

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Tephritid fruit flies have a relatively high biotic potential. Depending on climate, B. 

dorsalis may have five or more overlapping generations per year (Shi et al., 2005). In 

laboratory studies, the fecundity of female B. tryoni and B. dorsalis fruit flies was 

estimated to be over 1000 eggs (Fletcher, 1989a). 

Many Bactrocera species can fly 50-100 km (Fletcher, 1989b), and B. dorsalis also 

disperses readily by flight (Hely et al., 1982). Additionally, Bactrocera can be dispersed 

by infested plant materials, such as fruits and flowers (Fletcher, 1989b; CABI, 2007).

For example, since 1985, Bactrocera species have been intercepted at U.S. ports of 

entry in a variety of commodities over 12,000 times (PestID, 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Bactrocera dorsalis has been reported on several economically important crops 

including apple, peach, pear, strawberry, and Citrus spp., and could be a major pest on 

these crops in the United States (Drew et al., 1982; White and Elson-Harris, 1992). It

may damage up to 100 percent of unprotected crops (CABI, 2007).

The introduction of B. dorsalis in the continental United States would likely stimulate 

eradication or control programs, as has been done in the recent past for other Tephritid 

fruit flies (CABI, 2007; Clausen, 1978). Its presence in the United States, even as a 

temporary adventive population, could lead to severe export restrictions of host 

commodities to markets outside of this pest’s known distribution (Drew et al., 1982).

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Bactrocera dorsalis may directly affect Federal listed endangered species such as 

Prunus geniculata and Ziziphus celata (in Florida), which are closely related to other 

hosts known to be attacked by B. dorsalis (USFWS, 2007).

Because it threatens Citrus, stone fruit, and other crop industries, the establishment of B. 

dorsalis in the United States could trigger the initiation of eradication or chemical and 

biological control programs, similar to those that have occurred in Hawaii, Florida and 

California (CABI, 2007; Clausen, 1978).

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 34

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

Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction 

Bactrocera zonata is found in India, Indonesia (Sumatra), Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand, 

and Vietnam (White and Elson-Harris, 1992). Based on this distribution we estimate that 

B. zonata could become established in United States Plant Hardiness Zones 9-10 

(USDA, 1990). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in this zone (NRCS, 2007).

Medium

(2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

Bactrocera zonata attacks multiple species in multiple families including: Annonaceae

(Annona spp.), Arecaceae (Phoenix dactylifera), Caricaceae (Carica papaya), 

Combretaceae (Terminalia catappa), Cucurbitaceae (Cucumis melo, Citrullus lanatus, 

Momordica spp.), Lythraceae (Punica granatum), Malvaceae (Abelmoschus 

esculentus, Grewia asiatica), Moraceae (Ficus spp.), Myrtaceae (Syzygium spp., 

Psidium guajava), Rosaceae (Cydonia oblonga, Malus spp., Prunus spp.), Rhamnaceae

(Ziziphus spp.), Rutaceae (Aegle marmelos, Citrus spp.), Solanaceae (Solanum 

melongena, Solanum lycopersicum) (CABI, 2007; White and Elson-Harris, 1992). 

High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

The reproductive potential, active dispersal potential, and the potential for being 

dispersed on infested plant materials for B. zonata is no different from B. dorsalis

above.

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Bactrocera zonata has been reported on several economically important crops including 

stonefruit, Citrus spp. and Solanum spp. and could be a major pest on these crops in the 

United States (Drew et al., 1982; White and Elson-Harris, 1992).

The introduction of B. zonata in the continental United States would likely stimulate 

eradication or control programs, similar to those that have been implemented in the past 

for other Tephritid fruit flies (CABI, 2007; Clausen, 1978). Its presence in the United 

States, even as a temporary adventive population, could lead to severe export restrictions 

of host commodities to markets outside of this pest’s known distribution (Drew et al., 

1982).

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

This risk element is the same for B. zonata as it was for B. dorsalis above.

High (3)

Ceroplastes rubens Maskell (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction

Ceroplastes rubens is distributed from warm temperate zones to the tropics. It is found in 

east and south Asia, Oceania (including Australia), eastern and southern parts of Africa, 

and sporadically through the Caribbean (CABI, 2007; Dekle, 2001). In the United States, it 

occurs in Florida and Hawaii. This corresponds to Plant Hardiness Zones 8-12 

(Anonymous, 2007; Maxwell, 2007), or Zones 8-10 in the continental United States. One 

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

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

Ceroplastes rubens is highly polyphagous, attacking numerous host families and genera, 

including: Acanthaceae (Strobilanthes), Aceraceae (Acer), Amaranthaceae (Celosia),

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 35

Ceroplastes rubens Maskell (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Risk ratings

Anacardiaceae (Anacardium, Mangifera, Rhus, Schinus), Annonaceae (Annona),

Apocynaceae (Allamanda, Alyxia, Melodinus, Nerium, Plumeria, Thevetia)

Aquifoliaceae (Ilex), Araceae (Aglaonema, Anthurium, Dieffenbachia, Epipremnum,

Philodendron, Syngonium, Monstera, Zantedeschia), Araliaceae (Aralia, Brassaia,

Dizygotheca, Fatsia, Hedera, Meryta, Polyscias, Schefflera), Arecaceae (Cocos),

Aspleniaceae (Asplenium), Asteraceae (Artemisia, Chrysanthemum, Fitchia, Gerbera,

Helianthus), Barringtoniaceae (Barringtonia), Berberidaceae (Nandina),

Bischofiaceae (Bischofia), Bixaceae (Bixa), Blechnaceae (Blechnum), Buxaceae 

(Buxus), Campanulaceae (Siphonodon), Caprifoliaceae (Viburnum), Celastraceae 

(Celastrus, Elaeodendron, Euonymus), Cephalotaxaceae (Cephalotaxus), Clusiaceae 

(Calophyllum, Garcinia, Montrouziera), Cunoniaceae (Weinmannia), Cycadaceae 

(Cycas), Davalliaceae (Arthropteris, Davallia), Dicksoniaceae (Cibotium), Ebenaceae 

(Diospyros), Elaeocarpaceae (Elaeocarpus), Ericaceae (Rhododendron),

Euphorbiaceae (Euphorbia), Fabaceae (Acacia, Cytisus, Dioclea, Inocarpus,

Palaquium, Spartium), Gleicheniaceae (Dicranopteris, Gleichenia), Heliconiaceae 

(Heliconia), Hernandiaceae (Hernandia), Hypoxidaceae (Molineria), Lauraceae 

(Cinnamomum, Cryptocarya, Laurus, Lindera, Machilus, Persea), Lomariopsidaceae 

(Elaphoglossum), Loranthaceae (Loranthus), Magnoliaceae (Illicium, Magnolia),

Malvaceae (Hibiscus), Melastomataceae (Astronidium), Monimiaceae (Wilkiea),

Moraceae (Artocarpus, Cudrania, Ficus, Morus), Musaceae (Musa), Myristicaceae 

(Myristica), Myrsinaceae (Ardisia, Myrsine, Rapanea), Myrtaceae (Agonis,

Callistemon, Eucalyptus, Eugenia, Feijoa, Melaleuca, Metrosideros, Pimenta, Psidium,

Rhodomyrtus, Syzygium), Nyctaginaceae (Bougainvillea), Oleaceae (Ligustrum, Olea),

Oleandraceae, Nephrolepis), Orchidaceae (Grammatophyllum, Stanhopea), Pinaceae 

(Pinus), Piperaceae (Peperomia Macropiper, Piper), Pittosporaceae (Pittosporum),

Poaceae (Tristania), Polygonaceae (Coccoloba), Polypodiaceae (Belvisia,

Phymatodes, Platycerium, Polypodium), Pteridaceae (Acrostichum), Punicaceae 

(Punica), Rhizophoraceae (Rhizophora), Rosaceae (Chaenomeles, Eriobotrya, Malus,

Photinia, Prunus, Pyrus, Spiraea), Rubiaceae (Coffea, Gardenia, Gouldia, Ixora,

Paederia, Psychotria, Randia, Straussia), Rutaceae (Citrus, Eremocitrus, Evodia,

Flindersia, Pelea, Poncirus), Santalaceae (Exocarpos), Sapindaceae (Cupaniopsis,

Dimocarpus, Euphoria, Litchi, Nephelium), Sapotaceae (Calocarpum, Pouteria),

Schisandraceae (Kadsura), Sinopteridaceae (Aspidotis, Pellaea), Stilaginaceae 

(Antidesma), Symplocaceae (Symplocos), Tamaricaceae (Tamarix), Taxaceae 

(Podocarpus), Theaceae (Camellia, Cleyera, Eurya, Ternstroemia), Thymelaeaceae 

(Daphne), Ulmaceae (Celtis), Verbenaceae (Premna), Zingiberaceae (Alpinia,

Zingiber) (Ben-Dov et al., 2007).

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

With a mean fecundity of approximately 300 eggs per female and two generations per year 

(CABI, 2007), C. rubens has high reproductive potential. In Australian studies 

approximately 50 percent of the hatchings were lost (CABI, 2003). Soft scales 

(Coccoidea) in general (Greathead, 1997) and C. rubens in particular (Itioka and Inoue, 

1991; Loch and Zalucki, 1996), have a limited ability for natural dispersal, their potential 

may nevertheless be high due to transport of infested plant material (CABI, 2007). This is 

indicated by the fact that it has been introduced to many different parts of the world

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 36

Ceroplastes rubens Maskell (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Risk ratings

outside its native Africa and India (CABI, 2007; EPPO, 2004). Since 1985, C. rubens

has been intercepted at U.S. ports-of-entry over 4,700 times on plants and other plant 

materials (PestID, 2007).

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Ceroplastes rubens is a pest of citrus, coffee, tea, cinnamon, mango, avocado, and litchi. It 

damages its hosts by piercing and sucking plant tissues (leaves, shoots, and fruit) (CABI, 

2007). Under severe infestations, leaves and fruit will prematurely drop resulting in yield 

loss (van den Berg et al., 2001). Ceroplastes rubens also indirectly damages plant tissues 

by producing honeydew, which promotes the growth of sooty mold. Sooty mold reduces 

photosynthetic rates and reduces the market value of fruit (van den Berg et al., 2001). 

Ceroplastes rubens has a limited distribution in Florida but is not currently under any 

apparent official control; further introductions and spread are unlikely to result in the 

loss of additional foreign markets for domestically produced commodities.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

It is unknown if establishment of C. rubens in natural areas would reduce community

biodiversity or disrupt ecological processes; at least one other scale insect has shown the 

potential to be particularly invasive and damaging in natural areas (Howard et al., 2004).

Because of its broad host range, C. rubens is likely to harm numerous federally

Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species in the United States, particularly congeners 

of current hosts. Additional T&E species it may impact, beyond those already present in 

Florida, include Asplenium scolopendrium var. americanum (AL, MI, NY, TN), 

Helianthus paradoxus (NM, TX), H. schweinitzii (NC, SC), Rhus michauxii (GA, NC, 

SC, VA), Spiraea virginiana (GA, KY, NC, OH, PA, TN, VA, WV) (USFWS, 2007). 

Because C. rubens is a major pest of citrus (van den Berg et al., 2001), its wider 

establishment in the United States, particularly California, may result in the initiation of 

chemical and/or biological control programs as it has in other places where this pest has 

invaded (CABI, 2007).

High (3)

Ceroplastes rusci Maskell (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction

Ceroplastes rusci is present in many countries of Africa, the Middle East, southern 

Europe, and the Caribbean; parts of Asia (Indonesia, India); and parts of South America 

(Argentina, Brazil, Guyana, and Uruguay) (CABI, 2007). In 1994, it was discovered in 

Florida; it is currently present in Broward, Dade, Manatee, Palm Beach, Pasco, and 

Pinellas counties (Hamon and Mason, 2001). Based on its distribution, we estimate it 

could survive in Plant Hardiness Zones 8-10 in the continental United States (USDA, 

1990). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these Zones (NRCS, 2007).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

Ceroplastes rusci is highly polyphagous, with host plants belonging to 45 genera in 42 

different plant families (CABI, 2007) including Annonaceae (Annona, Annona 

cherimola, Annona muricata, Annona reticulata, Annona squamosa), Rutaceae (Citrus, 

Citrus aurantium, Citrus limon, Citrus x paradise), Moraceae (Ficus carica, Ficus, 

Morus), Actinidiaceae (Actinidia chinensis), Rosaceae (Crataegus, Cydonia, Mespilus 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 37

Ceroplastes rusci Maskell (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Risk ratings

germanica, Prunus, Pyrus communis), Euphorbiaceae (Euphorbia longana), 

Malvaceae (Gossypium), Araliaceae (Hedera helix), Aquifoliaceae (Ilex aquifolium), 

Convolvulaceae (Ipomoea batatas), Juncaceae (Juncus), Sapindaceae (Litchi 

chinensis, Nephelium lappaceum), Anacardiaceae (Mangifera indica, Pistacia), 

Musaceae (Musa), Myrtaceae (Myrtus communis, Psidium guajava), Lauraceae

(Persea americana), Piperaceae (Piper nigrum), Platanaceae (Platanus), Salicaceae

(Populus), Liliaceae (Ruscus), Vitaceae (Vitis vinifera), and Apocynaceae (Nerium 

oleander) (CABI, 2007).

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

The biotic potential of C. rusci is relatively high, with one or two generations per year, 

depending on the climate (Ben-Dov, 1993; CABI, 2007). Females usually lay between 

800 and 1500 eggs (CABI, 2007). 

Soft scales (Coccoidea) in general (Greathead, 1990), and C. rusci in particular, have 

limited natural mobility (Hamon and Mason, 2001; Vu et al., 2006). Adult males can fly, 

but females can only crawl to suitable feeding sites as first instar nymphs (“crawlers”) 

(CABI, 2007). Dispersal of the crawlers can be aided by wind and other animals (CABI, 

2007; Gullan and Kosztarab, 1997). Scale insects, in general, can be transferred by wind 

a distance of a few meters up to several km from the original plant (Gullan and 

Kosztarab, 1997). 

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Attacks by C. rusci weaken and kill leaves and shoots; its excreted honeydew provides a 

medium for the development of a sooty fungal film, which impairs photosynthesis. 

Ceroplastes rusci frequently injures crops and ornamental plants, particularly when 

introduced into new areas lacking natural enemies (CABI, 2007). It is a pest of 

cultivated citrus and figs (Hamon and Mason, 2001), and while it is usually only a minor 

pest of citrus, it can sometimes be serious (Ben-Dov, 1993). Infrequent major local 

outbreaks in citrus have been reported in Italy and Greece, but have been controlled by 

the application of oils (Hamon and Mason, 2001). In addition, C. rusci attacks other 

economically important U.S. crops, such as cotton, sweet potato, banana, Prunus 

species, and grapes (CABI, 2007). In Florida, it is a pest of ornamental plants in the 

genus Ixora, but is found infrequently on other host plants (Hamon and Mason, 2001). 

Ceroplastes rusci has a limited distribution in Florida but is apparently not under official 

control; further introductions and spread are unlikely to result in the loss of additional 

foreign markets for domestically produced commodities.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

As a polyphagous species, C. rusci can attack species listed as Threatened or 

Endangered (50 CFR §17.12) and present in the continental United States (outside 

Florida, where it already occurs) that are climatically suitable for this scale species, 

including Allium munzii, Brodiaea filifolia, B. pallida, Callirhoe scabriuscula, 

Calochortus tiburonensis, Calystegia stebbinsii, Cercocarpus traskiae, Chlorogalum 

purpureum, and Eremalche kernensis (USFWS, 2007). These plants occur in plant 

families containing host genera for C. rusci; as preference tests with these plants and C. 

rusci are unknown, we assume C. rusci could use one or more of these plants as hosts. 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 38

Ceroplastes rusci Maskell (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Risk ratings

Considering it is an important economic pest, biological or chemical control may be 

implemented if introduced into the United States.

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

Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction 

Conogethes punctiferalis is found in Australia (Northern Territory, Queensland, 

northern New South Wales) India; China (Anhui, Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Hebei, 

Henan, Hubei, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Liaoning, Shaanxi, Shandong, Shanxi, Sichuan, 

Xizhang (Tibet), Yunnan, Zhejiang); Japan; and Indonesia (CABI, 2007; Common, 

1990). Based on this, we estimate that C. punctiferalis could become established in Plant 

Hardiness Zones 5-10 (USDA, 1990). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these 

zones (NRCS, 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

Conogethes rubens attacks multiple species in multiple families including:

Anacardiaceae (Magniera spp.); Bixaceae (Bixa orellana); Bombacaceae (Ceiba 

pentandra, Durio zibethinus); Burseraceae (Garuga pinnata); Compositae (Helianthus 

annuus); Euphorbiaceae (Endospermum diadenum, Mallotus philippensis, Ricinus 

spp.); Fagaceae (Castanea sativa); Gramineae (Andropogon sorghum, Sorghum spp., 

Zea mays); Lecythidaceae (Planchonia careya); Loranthaceae (Dendropthoe 

glabrescens); Malvaceae (Gossypium spp.); Moraceae (Ficus carica, Morus spp.); 

Myrtaceae (Psidium spp.); Pinaceae (Abies spp., Cedrus deodara, Pinus spp.); 

Proteaceae (Macadamia spp.); Rosaceae (Eriobotrya japonica, Malus pumila, Prunus 

persica, Pyrus communis); Rubiaceae (Mitragyna diversifolia, Morinda citrifolia, 

Nauclea orientalis); Rutaceae (Citrus spp.); Sapindaceae (Dimocarpus longan, 

Lepisanthes rubiginosa, Nephelium spp.); Sterculiaceae (Theobroma cacao); 

Verbenaceae (Tectona grandis); Zingiberaceae (Alpinia spp., Curcuma spp.) 

(Robinson et al., 2001.)

High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Conogethes punctiferalis has high biotic potential, with up to five generations per year 

(CABI, 2007).. Females lay 20-30 eggs on the surface of fruits. Eggs hatch 5-8 days 

after oviposition. The hatching rate may be 100 percent.

Like other species of Crambidae, C. punctiferalis is presumed to be capable of long 

distance flight (Showers et al., 2001), although like other Crambidae we assume it 

would not disperse out of favorable habitats (Cohen et al., 2000; Qureshi et al., 2005).

Additionally, C. puncterferalis can be dispersed by infested plant materials, such as 

fruits and seeds. Since 1985, species of Conogethes have been intercepted at U.S. ports 

in a variety of commodities, including Prunus, over 700 times (PestID, 2007). 

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Conogethes punctiferalis is one of the most important insect pests on peaches in 

southern China, and an important pest on apples in northern China. Infestations cause

stunting, scorching and falling of fruit. Conogethes punctiferalis excretions, which cover 

the fruit surface and have a high sugar content, attract other insect pests and diseases 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 39

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

which damage fruit (CABI, 2007). In Andhra Pradesh, India, it is a major pest of castor. 

In Gujarat, India, Kapadia (1996) estimated the percentage weight loss of damaged 

seeds of castor was 63 percent. In maize and sorghum, pollination is reduced because of 

damage from C. punctiferalis feeding on tassels and maize ear silk. Stems bored by C. 

punctiferalis are easily broken by the wind and farming practices, resulting in a decrease 

in yield. Over 5 percent maize loss was caused by C. punctiferalis and Ostrinia 

furnacalis in Zhejiang, China (CABI, 2007).

C. punctiferalis is listed as a regulated/quarantine pest by the European Plant Protection 

Organization (EPPO) and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) (CFIA, 2007; 

EPPO, 2000b). Its presence in the United States, even as a temporary adventive 

population, could lead to severe export restrictions of host commodities to these and 

other markets outside of this pest’s known distribution.

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Conogethes punctiferalis could damage Federally listed threatened and endangered 

species, such as Prunus genuclata (FL). This species is closely related to other hosts 

known to be attacked by C. punctiferalis (USFWS, 2007). Because it represents a 

potential threat to the Citrus, stone fruit, and other important crop industries, the 

establishment of C. punctiferalis in the United States could trigger the initiation of 

eradication or chemical/biological control programs, similar to those that have occurred 

elsewhere (CABI, 2007).

High (3)

Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction 

This is a cosmopolitan species in warm climates, unable to survive winters in cooler 

temperate areas (CABI, 2007). It is distributed south of Western Europe (France, 

Austria), the Middle East (Turkey, Israel), South Asia, Northern Africa, Uruguay, and 

New Zealand (CABI, 2007). Establishment is possible in Plant Hardiness Zones 7-11 

(USDA, 1990).

High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

Cryptoblabes gnidiella is polyphagous, and often encountered on commercial crops 

(CABI, 2007). Hosts include citrus (Citrus spp.), avocado (Persea americana), grapes 

(Vitis spp.), pomegranate (Punica granatum), rice (Oryza sativa), cotton (Gossypium

spp.), garlic (Allium sativum), beans (Phaseolus spp.), coffee (Coffea spp.), maize (Zea 

mays), mango (Mangifera indica), and sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) (CABI, 

2007).

High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

About 100 eggs per female are laid on the fruit or foliage and hatch in 4-7 days. There 

are three or four generations per year in Southern Europe and up to five in North Africa 

(CABI, 2007). Larvae are internal feeders of fruits or stems (CABI, 2007), therefore, 

their dispersal is possible with the commodities and plant material. Like other Pyralids, 

adults are capable of flight and may disperse long distances. 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 40

Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Cryptoblabes gnidiella is an important pest of citrus (Citrus spp.), grapes (Vitis spp.) 

and pomegranates (Punica granatum) in the Mediterranean (CABI, 2007). It is most 

noted as a pest of avocado (Persea americana) in Israel, of azolla (Azolla sp.), sorghum 

(Sorghum spp.) and rice (Oryza sativa) in India, and sporadically of corn (Zea mays) or 

other crops in any warm part of the world (CABI, 2007). The losses caused by this pest 

have not been quantified. 

Because C. gnidiella affects some important export crops (including citrus, cotton, 

beans, grapes, etc.) its presence in the United States, even as a temporary adventive 

population, could lead to severe export restrictions of host commodities to markets 

outside of this pest’s known distribution.

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Chemical and biological control are likely to be implemented after introduction of this 

pest. For example, synthetic pyrethroids as well as biological control agents such as 

Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki are useful against this pest (CABI, 2007). As a 

polyphagous insect, it is potentially capable of attacking Endangered and Threatened 

species from the genus Allium (USFWS, 2007).

High (3)

Deudorix epijarbas (Moore) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction

Deudorix epijarbas is found in several countries in southeast Asia and Oceania, including: 

China (Guangdong, Hainan, Hong Kong), Fiji, India (Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & 

Kashmir, Uttar, Uttaranchal), Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, 

Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Australia (Queensland), New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and 

Samoa (CABI, 2007; Common and Waterhouse, 1972; DAFF, 2004; Marsh, 1960; 

Waite and Hwang, 2002; Zaka-ur-Rab, 1980). Based on this distribution we estimate 

that D. epijarbas could establish in Plant Hardiness Zones 7-10 (USDA, 1990). Several 

hosts and potential hosts of D. epijarbas are present in these zones (NRCS, 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

Deudorix epijarba attacks multiple species in multiple families including: Arecaceae 

(Caryota), Celastraceae (Salacia), Connaraceae (Connarus), Elaeocarpaceae 

(Elaeocarpus), Proteaceae (Macadamia), Punicaceae (Punica), Sapindaceae 

(Dimocarpus, Harpullia, Litchi, Nephelium, Pometia, Sapindus, Sarcopteryx) (CABI, 

2007; Common and Waterhouse, 1972; Herbison-Evans and Crossley, 2002; Savela, 

2007; Waite and Hwang, 2002). 

High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Very little is known about the biology of this pest. One report indicates that females can 

lay up to four eggs inside the calyx cup of pomegranate fruit (Zaka-ur-Rab, 1980). As a 

congener of D. isocrates, we expect that D. epijarbas females can lay several dozen 

eggs during their lifetime (Karuppuchamy et al., 1998). Because this pest, has 3-4 

generations per year (Verma, 1985), we consider that its reproductive potential is high.

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 41

Deudorix epijarbas (Moore) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) Risk ratings

Lycaenidae are strong, rapid fliers (Borror et al., 1989), and in some cases, dispersal 

may be aided by wind (Robbins and Small Jr., 1981). Deudorix spp. can also be 

artificially spread in infested fruit (Waite and Hwang, 2002; Wynter-Blyth, 1957).

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Deudorix epijarbas is a serious pest of pomegranates (Zaka-ur-Rab, 1980). Larvae bore 

into fruit, feeding on the seeds and their arils (Verma, 1985; Zaka-ur-Rab, 1980). The 

accumulation of opportunistic fungi on the resulting wounds causes the fruit to rot 

(Zaka-ur-Rab, 1980). In the Jammu region of India, D. epijarbas caused immature 

pomegranate fruit to drop and damaged an average of 25 percent of the fruit that 

remained on the tree (Thakur et al., 1995). In the Himachal Pradesh region, pomegranate 

infestation varied from 8 to 96 percent during the active months of May to October 

(Prasad et al., 1987). Similar levels of damage occurred elsewhere in India (e.g., Zakaur-Rab, 1980). In addition, D. epijarbas infestations indirectly impact when growers use 

chemical and biological control programs (e.g., Dubey et al., 1993; Mani et al., 2005).

Consequently, this pest poses a significant economic threat to producers of 

pomegranates and other large-seeded fruit, particularly in arid regions. 

With the exception of macadamia nuts, the United States is not a major producer or 

exporter of any commodities known to be hosts of this pest. Production of macadamia 

nuts in the United States occurs almost exclusively in Hawaii. Thus, the establishment 

of this pest in the conterminous United States is unlikely would lead to a loss of foreign 

markets or increased trade restrictions. 

Medium (2)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Compared to other pests, D. epijarbas has a restricted host range and feeds on few 

plants found in the United States. This relative oligophagy suggests that this species 

does not constitute a significant threat to threatened or endangered plants in the United 

States; no Federal Threatened or Endangered species are congeners of reported hosts

(USFWS, 2007). The introduction of Deudorix epijarbas into the United States may

lead to the initiation of chemical or biological control programs, which could have 

indirect environmental impacts.

Medium (2)

Deudorix isocrates (Fabricius) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction

Deudorix isocrates has been reported from Bangladesh and India, below 8000 feet 

elevation (CABI, 2007; Wynter-Blyth, 1957). We estimate that D. isocrates could 

become established in Plant Hardiness Zones 8-10 (USDA, 1990), where several hosts 

and potential hosts of D. isocrates are present (NRCS, 2007).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

D. isocrates attacks multiple species in multiple families including: Anacardiaceae 

(Mangifera); Euphorbiaceae (Emblica); Fabaceae (Tamarindus); Loganiaceae 

(Strychnos); Myrtaceae (Psidium); Punicaceae (Punica); Rhamnaceae (Ziziphus); 

Rosaceae (Eriobotrya, Malus, Prunus, Pyrus); Rubiaceae (Gardenia, Randia); 

Rutaceae (Citrus); Sapindaceae (Litchi); and Sapotaceae (Sapota) (CABI, 2007; 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 42

Deudorix isocrates (Fabricius) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) Risk ratings

Srivastava, 1997; Wynter-Blyth, 1957).

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Deudorix isocrates has a relatively high biotic potential, producing up to four 

generations per year on pomegranate in India (Karuppuchamy et al., 1998). Depending 

on climate and host conditions, females can lay 6-46 eggs with a mean generation time 

of 45 days. Females lay eggs singly or in groups of 2 to 7 eggs, on the flowers, fruit, 

leaves, stem, and stalk (Karabhantanal, 2005; Karuppuchamy et al., 1998; Srivastava, 

1997). Populations can increase by a factor of 1.5 each week, and double every 11 days 

(Shevale, 2003).

Deudorix isocrates is also assumed to have a moderate to high dispersal potential.

Lycaenidae are strong, rapid fliers (Borror et al., 1989; Wynter-Blyth, 1957), and 

dispersal may sometimes be aided by wind (Robbins and Small Jr., 1981). Deudorix 

spp. can also spread in infested fruit (Waite and Hwang, 2002; Wynter-Blyth, 1957).

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Deudorix isocrates is a serious pest of some fruits, especially pomegranate, guava, and 

aonla (Haseeb, 2007; Srivastava and Jain, 1973; Wynter-Blyth, 1957). It is unknown 

how serious it is on citrus. Larvae bore into fruit, feeding on the flesh and seeds. This 

reduces crop yield (Haseeb, 2007) and also attracts bacteria and fungi whose growth 

produces a bad smell in the fruit, making it unmarketable (Karabhantanal, 2005). Larval 

feeding deforms and weakens fruit, promotes decay, and leads to fruit drop (Haseeb, 

2007). In Tamil Nadu, India, D. isocrates damaged 38.5 percent of the pomegranate 

fruit at harvest (Murugan and Thirumurugan, 2001). On aonla in Madhya Pradesh, India, 

D. isocrates damaged more than 70 percent of the fruit (Srivastava and Jain, 1973). On 

guava in Uttar Pradesh, D. isocrates attacked 2.5-23 percent of the crops, resulting in 5-

35 percent yield loss (Haseeb, 2007). Finally, on orange in India, it damaged 4.5 percent 

of the fruit (Verma et al., 1995).

Establishment of D. isocrates in the United States could lead to a loss of foreign and 

domestic markets in countries that regulate this pest. One important U.S. export that 

could be affected is citrus.

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Deudorix isocrates may directly impact Federal listed endangered species such as 

Prunus geniculata (FL) and Ziziphus celata (FL), which are closely related to other 

hosts known to be attacked by D. isocrates (USFWS, 2007).

Because it represents a potential threat to the Citrus, stone fruit, and other crop 

industries, the establishment of D. isocrates in the United States could trigger the 

initiation of eradication or chemical/biological control programs, similar to those that 

have occurred in Hawaii and California, and Florida for other Tephritid fruit flies 

(CABI, 2007; Clausen, 1978).

High (3)

Dichocrocis megillalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Risk ratings
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 43

Dichocrocis megillalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction

Dichocrocis megillalis is in several countries in tropical Asia, including Malaysia, West 

Malaysia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and India (CABI, 2007; Robinson et al., 

2007). Consequently, we estimate that it could only establish in Plant Hardiness Zone 10

in the United States (USDA, 1990). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in this zone 

(NRCS, 2007).

Low (1)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

Dichocrocis megillalis attacks species in several different families including:

Lauraceae (Litsea castanea); Lythraceae (Punica granatum); Solanaceae (Solanum 

melongena); Verbenaceae (Tectona grandis); and Rubiaceae (Uncaria gambier) 

(CABI, 2007; Robinson et al., 2007). 

High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

We found very little information on the biology of this species. In general, Pyralid 

moths have a medium to high reproductive potential. We presumed that D. megillalis is

capable of long distance flight (Showers et al., 2001), although like other Pyralidae we 

assume it would tend not to disperse out of favorable habitats (Cohen et al., 2000; 

Qureshi et al., 2005). Larvae are internal feeders of fruits or stems (Robinson et al., 

2001) and may be able to disperse long distances inside infested commodities.

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Due to the lack of information about this pest, its potential economic impact is very

uncertain. Some pyralid moths have caused severe economic damage on certain crops. This 

species seems to have a narrow host range, and is not known to attack any major U.S. 

export crop. Based on its current geographical distribution, very few areas of the United 

Sates would be suitable for its establishment.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Dichocrocis megillalis has a restricted host range, which indicates that this species 

likely is not a significant threat to threatened or endangered plants in the United States.

No Federal Threatened or Endangered species are congeners of reported hosts (USFWS, 

2007). Still, introduction of this pest into pomegranate- or date-producing areas of the 

United States could initiate chemical or biological control programs.

Medium (2)

Drosicha dalbergiae (Green) (Hemiptera: Margarodidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction

Drosicha dalbergiae has only been reported from India and Taiwan (Ben-Dov et al., 

2007). In India, it occurs in the states of Jammu & Kashmir, and Himachal Pradesh 

where almonds and pomegranates are grown (Gaffar, 1989; Rawat et al., 1989). Based 

on this, we estimate that this pest could only become established in Plant Hardiness 

Zones 8-10 of the United States (USDA, 1990). One or more of its potential hosts 

occurs in these Zones (NRCS, 2007).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

We found little information about D. dalbergiae. Currently, only a few hosts are known: 

Anacardiaceae (Mangifera); Caricaceae (Carica); Bromeliaceae (Ananas), Fabaceae

(Dalbergia), Junglandaceae (Junglans), Myrtaceae (Psidium, Syzygium), Punicaceae

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 44

Drosicha dalbergiae (Green) (Hemiptera: Margarodidae) Risk ratings

(Punica), Rosaceae (Malus, Prunus), Rutaceae (Citrus), Sapindaceae (Litchi), and 

Sapotaceae (Achras, Manilkara) (Ali, 1968; Ben-Dov et al., 2007; Butani, 1993; CABI, 

2007; Masoodi et al., 1988). 

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Aside from one report of the biology of D. dalbergiae on almonds (Koul et al., 2000), we 

found no information on the reproductive and dispersal potential of D. dalbergiae. Gravid 

females lay approximately 100-150 eggs in a cluster; occasionally, they may produce 2-3 

egg clusters (Koul et al., 2000). After eclosing, the first instar nymphs feed on their host’s 

Rs, and then overwinter in the soil. Once their host becomes phenologically active in the 

spring, nymphs emerge, continue feeding, and complete their development (Koul et al., 

2000). Other Drosicha species feed on their hosts, lay eggs in the soil, overwinter in the 

soil, and return to their hosts when conditions become favorable again (Arkhangel'Skaya, 

1931; Prasad and Singh, 1976; Rahman, 1939). Because it apparently produces only one 

generation per year, we estimate D. dalbergiae’s reproductive potential to be medium.

Drosicha dalbergiae is somewhat mobile; all life stages are able to move within their host, 

and between their host and the soil. However, because the first instars emerge 

underground, feed underground or near the surface where they will not be exposed to high 

winds, we do not expect them to readily undergo long-distance dispersal by wind. Its 

restricted global distribution indicates this species probably has a relatively limited 

dispersal potential. 

Medium (2)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

We found little information about the economic impact of D. dalbergiae. It attacked 25 

percent of pomegranate fruit (Rawat et al., 1989). On almonds, it reduces nut yield and 

quality (Koul et al., 2000). Because of its impact, researchers are trying to identify suitable 

pesticides to control this pest (Gaffar, 1989).

In general, Drosicha species attack Rs, stems, shoots, leaves, and fruit of hosts (Masoodi

et al., 1988; Rawat et al., 1989; Vijay et al., 2000b). Drosicha corpulenta causes serious 

damage in China (Qu et al., 1996), and D. mangiferae causes considerable damage to 

several economically important fruit trees, including mangoes (Lakra et al., 1980; Prasad 

and Singh, 1976). Establishment of D. dalbergiae in the United States may result in a loss 

of some foreign and domestic markets, or at the very least, in trade restrictions.

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Because we know so little about D. dalbergiae, including its host range, we do not know 

which federally Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species it may harm. Based on its 

currently known host range, it may affect one T&E species in Florida, Prunus geniculata

(FL) (USFWS, 2007). Because the genus Drosicha does not occur in the United States

(Arnett Jr., 2000), its introduction may necessitate the use of pesticides to control it, as 

elsewhere (Gaffar, 1989; Patyal and Nath, 1993). Because of its potential impact on 

Prunus geniculata and the uncertainty described above, we gave a risk rating of High.

High (3)

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 45

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes occurs throughout Central America, northern South America, 

the Caribbean, Indo-China, the Philippines, and Oceania (Ben-Dov et al., 2007). Within 

the United States, it occurs in Florida, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and Hawaii 

(Miller, 2005; Miller and Miller, 2002). These regions roughly correspond to Plant 

Hardiness Zones 9-10 (Maxwell, 2007; Widrlechner, 1997). Thus, outside of greenhouse 

or other artificial situations, this species should be able to survive in the warmer, 

southern United States. One or more hosts of D. neobrevipes are present in these zones 

(NRCS, 2007).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

Host species of D. neobrevipes include the following plant families and genera:

Agavaceae (Agave, Polianthes, Yucca), Anacardiaceae (Mangifera), Annonaceae 

(Annona), Apocynaceae (Plumeria), Araceae (Aglaonema, Colocasia, Philodendron, 

Araliaceae (Nothopanax), Arecaceae (Chrysalidocarpus, Cocos), Asteraceae 

(Helianthus), Balsaminaceae (Impatiens), Barringtoniaceae (Barringtonia), 

Bignoniaceae (Crescentia, Millingtonia, Spathodea), Boraginaceae (Cordia, 

Messerschmidia, Tournefortia, Bromeliaceae (Ananas), Brassicaceae (Brassica), 

Cactaceae (Opuntia), Clusiaceae (Garcinia), Cucurbitaceae (Cucurbita), 

Euphorbiaceae (Codiaeum), Heliconiaceae (Heliconia), Fabaceae (Acacia, Albizia, 

Arachis, Cajanus, Machaerium, Phaseolus, Piscidia, Samanea, Tamarindus, Vigna), 

Lauraceae (Persea), Liliaceae (Allium), Malvaceae (Gossypium, Thespesia), 

Meliaceae (Lansium), Moraceae (Artocarpus, Ficus), Musaceae (Musa), Myrtaceae 

(Psidium, Syzygium), Orchidaceae (Brassavola), Pandanaceae (Pandanus), Pinaceae 

(Pinus), Poaceae (Zea), Polygonaceae (Coccoloba), Punicaceae (Punica), Rubiaceae 

(Coffea, Guettarda, Mussaenda), Rutaceae (Citrus), Sapindaceae (Nephelium), 

Sapotaceae (Manilkara), Solanaceae (Lycopersicon, Solanum), Sterculiaceae 

(Theobroma), Urticaceae (Pipturus), Verbenaceae (Clerodendrum, Tectona), 

Zingiberaceae (Alpinia) (Ben-Dov et al., 2007; Chia and Evans, 1997).

High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

The life span of D. neobrevipes ranges from 59 to 117 days, averaging 90 days (MartinKessing and Mau, 2007). This mealybug is ovoviviparous, meaning the eggs hatch 

within the female; females produce about 350 larvae over 30 days, but some produce up 

to 1000 larvae (Martin-Kessing and Mau, 2007). There are three instars for females, and 

four for males. The total larval period for females varies from 26 to 52 days, averaging 

35 days; the larval period for males lasts from 22 to 53 days. The primary dispersal 

stage is the larval stage. Dysmicoccus neobrevipes can be dispersed by wind (MartinKessing and Mau, 2007). Long distance dispersal is accomplished via the movement of 

infested plant materials. Since 1985, inspectors at U.S. ports-of-entry have intercepted 

D. neobrevipes 3,100 times on fruit, 100 of which were in permit cargo (PestID, 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes attacks numerous commercial crops, such as pineapple, citrus, 

banana, coffee, and coconut (Williams, 2004). It is one of the most economically

important mealybug pests in Hawaii because it vectors mealybug wilt on pineapples 

(Sether et al., 1998). This is the most serious type of damage, and is the principal cause 

of crop failure in Hawaii (Martin-Kessing and Mau, 2007). Feeding by mealybugs may 

Medium (2)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 46

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings

cause a loss of host plant vigor or die-back of plant organs (Martin-Kessing and Mau, 

2007; Williams, 2004). Consequently, any country that grows pineapples would most 

likely consider D. neobrevipes to be a quarantine pest. Our literature review showed that 

D. neobrevipes is primarily known for damaging pineapples and may not be an 

economically important pest of other fruits and vegetables.

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

It is unknown if establishment of D. neobrevipes would reduce community biodiversity or 

disrupt ecological processes in natural areas. Pest interception data suggest that Pinus may

be host for this pest (p. 206; Williams, 2004). If Pinus is indeed a good host for this pest, 

then D. neobrevipes may have a significant environmental impact in the continental United 

States because pine trees are an important component of many plant communities, 

particularly in the southeast (Myers, 1990). Dysmicoccus neobrevipes may affect several 

Federal Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species (ouside of Floirda and Hawaii, where it 

is already present) that are congeners of current hosts, including: Allium munzii (CA), 

Helianthus paradoxus (NM, TX), H. schweinitzii (NC, SC), and Opuntia treleasei (CA) 

(USFWS, 2007). Because this pest only seems to be economically important on pineapple, 

the wider establishment of this species in the continental United States would not likely

stimulate the initiation of chemical or biological control programs or increase the use of 

chemical pesticides already in place to control other scale species.

Medium (2)

Euzophera bigella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction 

Euzophera bigella is currently distributed throughout the Mediterranean, Europe from 

UK to Republic of Georgia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, and Central Asia (Zhang, 

1994). Based on this distribution we estimate that E. bigella could only establish in 

Plant Hardiness Zones 8-10 in the United States (USDA, 1990). One or more of its hosts 

occurs in this zone (NRCS, 2007).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Climate/Host Interaction

Euzophera bigella has been reported on several different species in several different 

families. Reported hosts include: Juglandaceae (Juglans regia), Lythraceae (Punica 

granatum), Rosaceae (Malus, Osteomeles, Prunus), Vitaceae (Vitis) (Robinson et al., 

2001; Robinson et al., 2007)

High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

We found little information on the biology of this species. Pyralid moths generally have 

a medium to high reproductive potential and a high dispersal potential. We presume that

E. bigella, like other Pyralidae, is capable of long distance flight (Showers et al., 2001), 

but would tend not to disperse out of favorable habitats (Cohen et al., 2000; Qureshi et 

al., 2005). Larvae are internal feeders of fruits or stems (Nazeer Ahmad, 1942) and 

therefore may disperse via commodities and plant material.

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Due to the lack of information about this pest, its potential economic impact is very

uncertain. Euzophera bigella attacks several important U.S.crops, including the major 

export crops, peaches, apples, and grapes. Some pyralid moths have caused severe 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 47

Euzophera bigella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Risk ratings

economic damage on certain crops. Establishment of this pest in the United States may

result in a loss of some foreign and domestic markets, or at the very least, in trade 

restrictions.

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Euzophera bigella may have direct impacts on Federal listed endangered species such as 

Prunus geniculata (in Florida), which is closely related to other hosts known to be 

attacked by B. zonata (USFWS, 2007). 

Because it is a potential threat to grapes, stone fruit, and other crop industries, the 

establishment of E. bigella in the United States could initiate eradication or 

chemical/biological control programs, similar to those that have occurred for other 

moths in California.

High (3)

Icerya aegyptiaca (Douglass) (Hemiptera: Margarodidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction

Icerya aegyptiaca is distributed in western and eastern Africa, tropical Asia, Australia, 

and numerous South Pacific islands (CABI, 2007). These regions roughly correspond to 

Plant Hardiness Zones 10-11 (Maxwell, 2007; Widrlechner, 1997). We estimate I. 

aegyptiaca could only survive in the continental United States in Zone 10. One or more of 

its potential hosts occurs in these zones (NRCS, 2007).

Low (1)

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

Icerya aegyptiaca has a wide variety of hosts, especially woody plants. The host list 

includes, but is not limited to, the following families and genera: Acanthaceae 

(Asystasia, Barleria, Barleria, Eranthemum36, Justicia, Pseuderanthemum, Sanchezia, 

Strobilanthes, Thunbergia), Alangiaceae (Alangium), Amaranthaceae (Bragantia),

Anacardiaceae (Mangifera, Schinus), Annonaceae (Annona, Polyalthia),

Apocynaceae (Carissa, Holarrhena, Nerium, Ochrosia), Araceae (Colocasia, 

Cyrtosperma, Monstera), Arecaceae (Caryota, Cocos, Hyophorbe, Latania, Phoenix, 

Rhapis), Aristolochiaceae (Aristolochia), Asclepiadaceae (Cryptostegia), Asteraceae 

(Aster, Bidens, Pluchea, Synedrella, Vernonia), Blechnaceae (Blechnum),

Bombacaceae (Ceiba, Cullenia), Boraginaceae (Cordia), Caricaceae (Carica),

Casuarinaceae (Casuarina), Clusiaceae (Calophyllum, Hypericum), Convolvulaceae

(Ipomoea), Cupressaceae (Thuja), Cyatheaceae (Cyathea), Euphorbiaceae (Acalypha,

Aleurites, Codiaeum, Croton, Drypetes, Euphorbia, Glochidion, Jatropha, Macaranga, 

Vemicia), Fabaceae (Acacia, Alhagi, Caesalpinia, Cajanus, Cassia, Dalbergia, Genista,

Indigofera, Jacaranda, Parkinsonia, Pithecolobium, Poinciana, Vigna), Flacourtiaceae

(Oncoba), Flagellariaceae (Flagellaria), Goodeniaceae (Scaevola), Lamiaceae 

(Coleus, Lavandula, Leucas, Ocimum, Rosmarinus), Lauraceae (Cinnamomum, Laurus, 

Persea), Liliaceae (Asparagus), Lythraceae (Heimia, Lawsonia, Nesaea, Pemphis),

Malpighiaceae (Malpighia), Malvaceae (Hibiscus), Meliaceae (Melia),

High (3)

 

36 Current name of the genus Daedalacanthus
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 48

Icerya aegyptiaca (Douglass) (Hemiptera: Margarodidae) Risk ratings

Melostomataceae (Memecylon), Montiniaceae (Montinia), Moraceae (Artocarpus,

Ficus, Morus), Musaceae (Musa), Myrtaceae (Eugenia, Myrtus, Psidium, Syzygium),

Oleaceae (Jasminum), Onagraceae (Ludwigia), Pandanaceae (Pandanus), Piperaceae

(Piper) Pittosporaceae (Pittosporum), Plumbaginaceae (Plumbago), Poaceae (Zea), 

Polemoniaceae (Pterospermum), Punicaceae (Punica), Rhamnaceae (Rhamnus, 

Ziziphus), Rosaceae (Eriobotrya, Malus, Osteomeles, Prunus, Pyrus, Raphiolepis,

Rosa), Rubiaceae (Coffea, Psychotria, Rubia), Rutaceae (Boninia, Citrus, Glycosmis),

Salicaceae (Salix), Sapindaceae (Dodonaea), Sapotaceae (Achras, Manilkara, 

Pouteria, Sapota, Sideroxylon), Solanaceae (Capsicum, Lycopersicon, Solanum),

Theaceae (Camellia, Thea), Tiliaceae (Corchorus), Ulmaceae (Trema), Verbenaceae 

(Carypoteris, Lantana, Petrea, Tectona), Vitaceae (Vitis) (Azab et al., 1968; Ben-Dov

et al., 2007; CABI, 2007).

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Icerya aegyptiaca has high reproductive potential. Females are parthenogenetic and 

produce from 70 to 143 eggs per female (Azab et al., 1968; CABI, 2007; Waterhouse, 

1991). With an average life cycle of 105 days, there are two to three generations per 

year (Azab et al., 1968). Very little information is available on the dispersal potential of 

I. aegyptiaca. One source indicates that nymphs are very active (INKTO/PINKTO, 

2002). Like its congener, I. seychellarum, we assume that crawlers move locally within 

a host or can be transported by wind or other animals to more distant hosts (Hill, 1980).

The most likely means of long-distance dispersal in I. aegyptiaca is on nursery plants in 

trade or resale. Accordingly, it has spread to many of the tropical regions of the world. 

Since 1985, this pest has been intercepted 9 times at U.S. ports-of-entry on a variety of 

hosts (PestID, 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Because of its broad host range, I. aegyptiaca could impact many economically

important tropical tree species. It is a major pest of guava (Psidium guajava), citrus 

(Citrus spp.), breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis), jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus), 

mango (Mangifera indica), sapodilla (Manilkara zapota), and mora (Morus alba) 

(CABI, 2007). This species primarily attacks leaves, but can also infest stems and fruit 

(PestID, 2007; CABI, 2007). Feeding by large populations of the mealybug severely

deplete sap, defoliate, and desiccate younger stems (Azab et al., 1968). On breadfruit, 

heavy infestations can kill mature trees, but typically reduce yields by 50 percent 

(Waterhouse, 1991). Honeydew excretions produced by I. aegyptiaca support sooty

molds that can interfere with photosynthesis (Azab et al., 1968).

Despite these impacts, we do not expect this pest to have a high economic impact in the 

United States. In its native range in Indo-China, it is seldom a pest (Waterhouse, 1991).

In other places (e.g., Australia), it is not regarded as a serious pest, presumably because 

natural enemies control it (CABI, 2007; Hill, 1983; Waterhouse, 1991). Icerya 

aegyptiaca only appears to become problematic when populations of its natural enemies 

perish (e.g., Pacific atolls; Waterhouse, 1991). Because several natural enemies of 

Icerya have already been introduced into the United States to control I. purchasi, it 

seems unlikely that establishment of I. aegyptiaca would have a major economic impact.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact Medium (2)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 49

Icerya aegyptiaca (Douglass) (Hemiptera: Margarodidae) Risk ratings

It is unknown if establishment of I. aegyptiaca would reduce community biodiversity or 

disrupt ecological processes in natural areas. As a highly polyphagous pest, I. aegyptiaca 

may affect Federal Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species that are congeners of 

current hosts. These include Euphorbia telephioides (FL), Hypericum cumulicola (FL), 

Justicia cooleyi (FL), Prunus geniculata (FL), and Ziziphus celata (FL) (USFWS, 2007). 

Because effective biocontrol agents such as Rodolia cardinalis and Cryptochaetum 

iceryae are already in the United States, to control populations of I. purchasi (CABI, 

2007; Waterhouse, 1991), it is unlikely that establishment of I. aegyptiaca would 

stimulate use of additional pesticides and biological control agents. We rated this risk 

element Medium because of the potential impact on T&E species.

Icerya seychellarum (Westwood) (Hemiptera: Margarodidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Icerya seychellarum is distributed throughout southeast Asia, eastern and southern 

Africa, Australia, and Oceania (CABI, 2007). These regions roughly correspond to Plant 

Hardiness Zones 9-11 (Maxwell, 2007; Widrlechner, 1997). We estimate I. seychellarum

could survive in the continental United States in Zones 9-10. One or more of its potential 

hosts occurs in these zones in the United States (NRCS, 2007).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

Icerya seychellarum has a wide variety of hosts, especially woody plants. The extensive 

host list includes, but is not limited to, the following families and genera:

Amaranthaceae (Achyranthes), Anacardiaceae (Mangifera, Rhus, Semecarpus, 

Spondias), Annonaceae (Annona, Monodora), Apiaceae (Schefflera), Apocynaceae

(Alyxia, Plumeria), Araceae (Alocasia, Anthurium, Epipremnum, Monstera, Scindapsus, 

Xanthosoma), Arecaceae (Areca, Cocos, Elaeis, Livistona, Phoenix), Aspleniaceae

(Asplenium), Asteraceae (Bidens, Gerbera, Lactuca, Zinnia), Bixaceae (Bixa), 

Bombacaceae (Ceiba), Boraginaceae (Cordia), Brassicaceae (Raphanus), 

Burseraceae (Canarium), Canellaceae (Cinnamomum), Caricaceae (Carica), 

Casuarinaceae (Casuarina), Celastraceae (Maytenus, Mystroxylon), Clusiaceae

(Calophyllum, Garcinia, Mammea), Combretaceae (Lumnitzera, Terminalia), 

Convolvulaceae (Convolvulus, Ipomoea, Merremia), Cycadaceae (Cycas), 

Dioscoreaceae (Dioscorea), Dracaenaceae (Cordyline, Dracaena), Elaeocarpaceae

(Elaeocarpus), Euphorbiaceae (Acalypha, Croton, Euphorbia, Excoecaria, Glochidion, 

Macaranga, Margaritaria, Phyllanthus), Fabaceae (Acacia, Albizia, Bauhinia, 

Caesalpinia, Cajanus, Cassia, Crotalaria, Derris, Dichrostachys, Erythrina, Gliricidia, 

Inocarpus, Mimosa, Phaseolus, Samanea, Vigna), Fagaceae (Quercus), Flacourtiaceae

(Flacourtia, Hydnocarpus), Gesneriaceae (Cyrtandra), Goodeniaceae (Scaevola), 

Heliconiaceae (Heliconia), Icacinaceae (Apodytes), Lamiaceae (Ocimum), Lauraceae

(Cinnamomum, Litsea, Persea), Lecythidaceae (Barringtonia), Loganiaceae

(Fagraea), Lythraceae (Lagerstroemia, Pemphis, Sonneratia), Magnoliaceae

(Magnolia), Malvaceae (Gossypium, Hibiscus, Thespesia), Meliaceae (Dysoxylum), 

Menispermaceae (Cocculus), Moraceae (Artocarpus, Broussonetia, Ficus, Morus, 

Streblus), Musaceae (Musa), Myricaceae (Myrica), Myrtaceae (Eugenia, Feijoa, 

Psidium, Syzygium), Ochnaceae (Ochna), Oleaceae (Jasminum), Oleandraceae

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 50

Icerya seychellarum (Westwood) (Hemiptera: Margarodidae) Risk ratings

(Nephrolepis), Onagraceae (Ludwigia), Oxalidaceae (Averrhoa), Pandanaceae

(Pandanus), Passifloraceae (Passiflora), Pinaceae (Pinus), Piperaceae (Piper), 

Poaceae (Cymbopogon, Saccharum), Portulacaceae (Portulacaria), Proteaceae

(Grevillea, Macadamia), Punicaceae (Punica), Rhamnaceae (Alphitonia, Scutia), 

Rhizophoraceae (Bruguiera, Ceriops, Rhizophora), Rosaceae (Crataegus, Eriobotrya, 

Fragaria, Malus, Prunus, Pyrus, Rosa, Rubus), Rubiaceae (Canthium, Coffea, 

Coprosma, Guettarda, Ixora, Polysphaeria, Tarenna), Rutaceae (Citrus, Poncirus), 

Sapindaceae (Allophylus, Dodonaea, Litchi), Salvadoraceae (Azima), Sapotaceae

(Chrysophyllum, Citharexylum, Sideroxylon, Manilkara), Solanaceae (Capsicum, 

Lycopersicon, Solanum), Taccaceae (Tacca), Theaceae (Camellia, Thea), Verbenaceae

(Avicennia, Clerodendrum, Premna, Tectona), Vitaceae (Vitis), Zingiberaceae

(Alpinia, Zingiber) (Ben-Dov et al., 2007; CABI, 2007; Hill and Newberry, 1980; 

Newbery, 1980a).

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Development of I. seychellarum usually takes three months (CABI, 2007). In Japan and 

South Africa, one generation per year occurs (CABI, 2007; INKTO/PINKTO, 2002). 

Elsewhere (e.g., Aldabra Island), breeding may be continuous and multiple generations 

occur per year (Hill and Newberry, 1980). Data on fecundity of this species is not 

available (CABI, 2007), but the closely related I. aegyptiaca produces 70-140 eggs and 

completes 2-3 generations per year in Northern Africa (Azab et al., 1968). Males are 

rare and are not necessary for reproduction (CABI, 2007). All life stages of I. 

seychellarum retain their legs, and consequently, are mobile to some degree (Hill and 

Newberry, 1980). The first instar is the most mobile (Hill, 1980). Icerya seychellarum

crawlers can move locally within its host or be transported by wind or other animals to 

more distant hosts (Hill, 1980). Crawlers have been trapped over water, 3.5 km 

downwind from an infestation (Hill, 1980). The most likely means of long-distance 

dispersal is on nursery plants in trade or resale. Since 1985, this pest has been 

intercepted 52 times at U.S. ports on a variety of hosts (PestID, 2007). 

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Because of its broad host range, I. seychellarum could impact many economically

important tropical tree species. For example, I. seychellarum has killed trees in the 

Pacific Islands (CABI, 2007). It is a pest of guava (Psidium guajava), citrus (Citrus

spp.), breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis), avocado (Persea americana), jackfruit (Artocarpus 

heterophyllus), various genera of palms, and rose (Rosa spp.) (CABI, 2007). This 

species primarily attacks leaves, twigs, and small branches (INKTO/PINKTO, 2002), 

but it can also be found on fruits, and flowers (PestID, 2007). Feeding decreases plant 

vigor, reducing L production by as much as 64 percent (Newbery, 1980b). Honeydew 

excreted by the scale provides a growth medium for molds, reducing photosynthesis 

(INKTO/PINKTO, 2002), and disfiguring fruit. The establishment of this pest in the 

United States could cause a loss of foreign or domestic markets.

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

It is unknown if establishment of I. seychellarum would reduce community biodiversity or 

disrupt ecological processes in natural areas. Because heavy infestations of I. seychellarum

can reduce L growth rates by 52 percent (Newbery, 1980b), widespread infestations of this 

pest might affect community productivity. For example, following establishment on a 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 51

Icerya seychellarum (Westwood) (Hemiptera: Margarodidae) Risk ratings

small tropical island, populations of I. seychellarum increased to infestation levels, and 

caused the death of some trees and shrubs (Hill and Newberry, 1980). A few years later, 

however, pest populations declined for no apparent reason (Hill and Newberry, 1980). As a 

highly polyphagous pest, I. seychellarum may affect federal Threatened and Endangered 

(T&E) species that are congeners of current hosts. These include Asplenium scolopendrium

var. americanum (AL, MI, NY, TN), Crotalaria avonensis (FL), Euphorbia telephioides

(FL), Prunus geniculata (FL), Quercus hinckleyi (TX), and Rhus michauxii (GA, NC, SC, 

VA) (USFWS, 2007). Establishment of I. seychellarum in the continental United States

would likely result in chemical or biological control, as has happened elsewhere

(INKTO/PINKTO, 2002; Negm et al., 2001). These programs can have indirect impacts on 

the environment. Although one natural enemy of I. seychellarum is already present in the 

United States, Rodolia cardinalis, it is unknown how effective this enemy would be in 

the long run (CABI, 2007).

Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Hemiptera-Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Maconellicoccus hirsutus is a tropical-subtropical pest reported in Northern Africa, parts 

of sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, the Far East, the 

Caribbean, Central America, Australia, and Oceania (CABI, 2007). It currently has a 

limited distribution in the United States, occurring only in Hawaii, California (CABI, 

2007), and Florida (Hoy et al., 2003). These regions roughly match Plant Hardiness 

Zones 9–13. We estimate that M. hirsutus could establish in Zones 9–10 of the 

continental United States, where one or more of its potential hosts occurs (NRCS, 2007).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

Maconellicoccus hirsutus is highly polyphagous, although it shows some preference for 

hosts in the families Malvaceae, Fabaceae and Moraceae (CABI, 2007). It feeds on 

plants from dozens of plant families and genera, including: Acanthaceae (Acanthus, 

Eranthemum, Pachystachys, Thunbergia), Aceraceae (Saccharum), Amaryllidaceae

(Calostemma), Anacardiaceae (Mangifera, Schinus, Spondias), Annonaceae (Annona, 

Cananga), Apiaceae (Angelica, Aralia, Brassaia, Daucus, Eryngium, Schefflera, 

Sciadophyllum), Apocynaceae (Acokanthera, Allamanda, Carissa, Nerium, 

Tabernaemontana, Vinca), Araceae (Aglaonema, Alocasia, Anthurium, Colocasia,

Dieffenbachia, Philodendron, Scindapsus, Syngonium, Xanthosoma), Arecaceae

(Cocos, Phoenix), Asteraceae (Bidens, Chrysanthemum, Cosmos, Dahlia, Emilia, 

Gerbera, Helianthus, Lactuca, Mikania, Parthenium, Symedrella, Tithonia), 

Basellaceae (Basella), Begoniaceae (Begonia), Bignoniaceae (Bignonia, Crescentia, 

Jacaranda, Kigelia, Tabebuia, Tecoma), Bombacaceae (Ceiba), Boraginaceae

(Cordia), Brassicaceae (Brassica), Cactaceae (Opuntia, Pereskia), Caricaceae

(Carica), Casuarinaceae (Casuarina), Chenopodiaceae (Beta, Chenopodium), 

Combretaceae (Quisqualis, Rhoeo, Terminalia), Convolvulaceae (Ipomoea), 

Crassulaceae (Kalanchoe), Cucurbitaceae (Cucumis, Cucurbita), Cyperaceae

(Cyperus), Dilleniaceae (Tetracera), Dioscoreaceae (Dioscorea), Ebenaceae

(Diospyros), Elaeagnaceae (Elaeagnus), Ericaceae (Rhododendron), Euphorbiaceae

(Acalypha, Codiaeum, Croton, Euphorbia, Hevea, Macaranga, Manihot, Ohyllanthus, 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 52

Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Hemiptera-Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings

Phyllanthus, Ricinus), Fabaceae (Acacia, Albizia, Arachis, Bauhinia, Caesalpinia, 

Cajanus, Calliandra, Cassia, Ceratonia, Clitoria, Crotalaria, Delonix, Erythrina, 

Gliricidia, Gliricidium, Glycine, Grewia, Inga, Leucaena, Medicago, Mimosa, 

Parkinsonia, Phaseolus, Poinciana, Robinia, Samanea, Senna, Sesbania, Tamarindus, 

Templetonia, Tephrosia, Vigna), Fagaceae (Pasania, Quercus), Flacourtiaceae

(Flacourtis), Gesneriaceae (Chrysothemis), Heliconiaceae (Heliconia), Lamiaceae

(Leonotis), Lauraceae (Persea), Lecythidaceae (Courouptia), Liliaceae (Asparagus, 

Cordyline, Dracaena), Lythraceae (Lagerstroemia, Lawsonia), Malpighiaceae

(Malpighia), Malvaceae (Abelmoschus, Abutilon, Althaea, Gossypium, Hibiscus, 

Holmskia, Malvaviscus, Paritium, Pavonia, Sida, Thespesia, Meliaceae (Azadirachta, 

Melia), Moraceae (Artocarpus, Ficus, Morus), Musaceae (Musa), Myrtaceae

(Callistemon, Eugenia, Myrtus, Psidium, Syzygium), Myrtaceae (Psidium, Syzygium), 

Nyctaginaceae (Bougainvillea), Oleaceae (Jasminum), Orchidaceae (Dendrobium), 

Oxalidaceae (Averrhoa), Passifloraceae (Passiflora), Phytolaccaceae (Petiveria, 

Rivina), Piperaceae (Peperomia, Piper), Plumbaginaceae (Plumbago), Poaceae

(Saccharum, Zea), Polygonaceae (Coccoloba), Polypodiaceae (Nephrolepis), 

Portulacaceae (Portulaca), Proteaceae (Grevillea), Punicaceae (Punica), 

Rhamnaceae (Colubrina, Ziziphus), Rosaceae (Crataegus, Cydonia, Eriobotrya, 

Malus, Prunus, Pyrus, Rosa), Rubiaceae (Adina, Coffea, Haldina, Hamelia, Ixora, 

Mussaenda), Rutaceae (Aegle, Citrus, Murraya), Salicaceae (Salix), Sapindaceae

(Blighia, Dodonaea, Melicocca), Sapotaceae (Manilkara), Scrophulariaceae (Russelia, 

Scoparia), Solanaceae (Capsicum, Cestrum, Datura, Lycopersicon, Solanum), 

Sterculiaceae (Theobroma), Tiliaceae (Corchorus, Grewia), Urticaceae (Boehmeria, 

Laportea), Verbenaceae (Clerodendrum, Duranta, Lantana, Petrea, Stachytarpheta, 

Tectona), Vitaceae (Cissus, Vitis), Zingiberaceae (Alpinia) (Ben-Dov et al., 2007; 

CABI, 2007).

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Maconellicoccus hirsutus reproduces via parthenogenesis or biparental mating (CABI, 

2007). Each adult female lays 150-600 eggs (CABI, 2007). One generation can 

complete its lifecycle in five weeks under warm conditions, giving multiple generations 

per year, up to 15 (CABI, 2007). This species moves locally while in the first instar 

(crawler) stage (CABI, 2007). Crawlers are very small and light, and are able to survive 

a day or so without feeding. They are unable to walk far, but are ideally suited for 

transport by water, wind, and animal agents, including domestic animals and humans 

(Gullan and Kosztarab, 1997). Accidental introductions into new countries can occur via 

infested plant material (CABI, 2007). Since 1985, this pest has been intercepted on fruit

978 times at U.S. ports-of-entry, 40 of which were on permit cargo (PestID, 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Direct feeding on young growth by M. hirsutus causes severe stunting and distortion of 

plant parts, due to its toxic saliva (CABI, 2007; Hill, 1983). Production of honeydew 

promotes the growth of sooty mold, which reduces plant photosynthesis and 

contaminates fruit (CABI, 2007). It can stop the growth of cotton in Egypt, reduce yield 

of tree cotton in India, reduce fiber yield of roselle by 21–40 percent in Bangladesh, and 

destroy or contaminate up to 90 percent of grapes in India (CABI, 2007). In Grenada, 

this pest causes an estimated $3.5 million in annual losses (CABI, 2007).

Medium (2)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 53

Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Hemiptera-Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings

This pest is already present in Florida and not under any apparent official control; it is 

unlikely that further spread and establishment of this pest in the continental United 

States would result in additional export restrictions.

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

If M. hirsutus is introduced into the continental United States (beyond Florida and 

California) it may affect other Threatened and Endangered plants, particularly those taxa 

that found in Texas (Helianthus paradoxus, Manihot walkerae, and Quercus hinckleyi) 

and the Carolinas (e.g., Helianthus schweinitzii) (USFWS, 2007). Continued spread of 

M. hirsutus in Florida and California, and its establishment in other states such as Texas, 

could result in additional control measures such as pesticides and biocontrol that could 

have indirect environmental impacts (Hoy et al., 2003).

High (3)

Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Nipaecoccus viridis is widespread in tropical and subtropical Asia, Africa, and in parts of 

Oceania (Ben-Dov et al., 2007; CABI, 2007). These regions roughly correspond to Plant 

Hardiness Zones 9-12 (e.g., Widrlechner, 1997). Based on its distribution, we estimated 

that N. viridis would only survive in the warmer, southern parts of the continental 

United States, or Zones 9-10. One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these regions 

(NRCS, 2007).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

Nipaecoccus viridis is polyphagous with hosts across a few dozen plant families and 

genera, including: Acanthaceae (Acanthus, Hygrophila, Peristrophe, Sanchezia),

Agavaceae (Agave), Anacardiaceae (Mangifera), Annonaceae (Annona), Apiaceae

(Apium), Apocynaceae (Beaumontia, Holarrhena, Landolphia, Nerium, Odontadenia, 

Plumeria, Trachelospermum), Araceae (Arum, Cocos), Arecaceae (Cocos, Phoenix), 

Asteraceae (Chrysanthemum, Helianthus, Parthenium, Tagetes), Bignoniaceae

(Jacaranda, Spathodea, Tabebuia, Tecoma), Bombacaceae (Adansonia, Ceiba),

Cactaceae (Opuntia), Caricaceae (Carica), Casuarinaceae (Casuarina), Clusiaceae

(Calophyllum), Cucurbitaceae (Cucumis, Luffa), Ebenaceae (Diospyros),

Euphorbiaceae (Acalypha, Breynia, Emblica, Chamaesyce, Glochidion, Jatropha, 

Manihot, Phyllanthus), Fabaceae (Abrus, Acacia, Albizia, Arachis, Caesalpinia,

Cajanus, Ceratonia, Cicer, Dalbergia, Desmodium, Erythrina, Glycine, Intsia,

Leucaena, Phaseolus, Pithecellobium, Psophocarpus, Tamarindus, Tephrosia), 

Flacourtiaceae (Flacourtia), Geraniaceae (Pelargonium), Lamiaceae (Leucas, 

Ocimum, Salvia), Lauraceae (Persea), Liliaceae (Asparagus), Malvaceae

(Abelmoschus, Alcea, Gossypium, Hibiscus, Sida, Thespesia), Meliaceae (Khaya, Melia, 

Swietenia), Moraceae (Artocarpus, Ficus, Morus, Streblus), Musaceae (Musa),

Myrtaceae (Eugenia, Myrthus, Psidium), Oleaceae (Ligustrum, Nyctanthes), 

Oxalidaceae (Averrhoa), Poaceae (Bambusa, Cynodon), Portulacaceae (Portulaca),

Proteaceae (Grevillea, Macadamia), Punicaceae (Punica), Rhamnaceae (Ziziphus), 

Rosaceae (Eriobotrya, Pyrus, Rosa), Rubiaceae (Coffea, Ixora), Rutaceae (Citrus, 

Feronia, Glycosmis, Murraya), Sapindaceae (Gelonium, Nephelium, Sapindus),

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 54

Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings

Solanaceae (Datura, Solanum), Sterculiaceae (Melochia, Pterospermum), 

Tamaricaceae (Tamarix), Theaceae (Camellia), Tiliaceae (Corchorus), Verbenaceae

(Clerodendron, Tectona, Verbena, Vitex), Vitaceae (Serianthus, Vitis) (Ben-Dov et al., 

2007; CABI, 2007; Keanzlin, 1913; van den Berg, 1995).

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Fecundity ranges from 90 to 138 eggs per female, and up to three generations per year 

occur (CABI, 2007). Local dispersal is accomplished by crawlers, which often settle in 

protected areas (i.e., under the sepals of fruitlets), which predisposes them to dissemination 

on exported plants or plant products (CABI, 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Nipaecoccus viridis attacks many crops that are important to the conterminous United 

Sates. This insect causes bulbous outgrowths on young twigs, which under heavy 

infestations stunt the growth of young trees (CABI, 2007). Heavy infestations on fruit lead 

to discoloration, disfiguration and fruit-drop. Copious quantities of honeydew may

contaminate fruit and other plant parts, which can serve as a medium for the growth of 

sooty molds (CABI, 2007). This mealybug was responsible for losses of up to 5 percent in 

vineyards in India (CABI, 2007). Losses in citrus orchards—for example, about 50 percent 

or more of the navel orange crop in South Africa—are due primarily to fruit-drop caused 

by large infestations (CABI, 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

This pest poses a potential threat to Federal Threatened and Endangered plants. Within the 

continental United States, these include Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea (FL), C.

garberi (FL), C. hooveri (CA), Helianthus paradoxus (NM, TX), H. schweinitzii (NC, 

SC), Manihot walkerae (TX), Opuntia treleasei (CA), Verbena californica (CA), and 

Ziziphus celata (FL) (USFWS, 2007). Because of its potential economic impacts (above), 

the establishment of N. viridis in the continental United States is likely to stimulate 

chemical and/or biological control programs (CABI, 2007; NASS, 2007).

High (3)

Planococcus angkorensis (Takahashi) (Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Planococcus angkorensis occurs in India, Indonesia, Cambodia, Malaysia, Philippines, 

Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, and China (Ben-Dov et al., 2007). This broad region 

corresponds to Plant Hardiness Zones 9-11 (Widrlechner, 1997). Thus, we estimate that 

P. angkorensis could survive in Zones 9 and 10 in the continental United States (USDA, 

1990). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these zones (NRCS, 2007).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

Planococcus angkorensis is polyphagous. Known hosts include: Aceraceae (Acer)

Anacardiaceae (Rhus), Araceae (Colocasia), Buddlejaceae (Buddleja),

Daphniphyllaceae (Daphniphyllum), Dioscoreaceae (Dioscorea), Euphorbiaceae

(Codaeum, Euphorbia), Fabaceae (Pueraria), Loganiaceae (Strychnos), Meliaceae

(Lansium), Moraceae (Ficus, Morus), Myrsinaceae (Myrsine), Myrtaceae (Eugenia,

Psidium), Piperaceae (Piper), Punicaceae (Punica), Rubiaceae (Coffea, Neonaucklea),

Sapindaceae (Litchi), and Urticaceae (Boehmeria, Pipturus) (Ben-Dov et al., 2007).

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 55

Planococcus angkorensis (Takahashi) (Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

We found very little published information on this pest, including no information on 

reproductive and dispersal potential. Therefore, we assumed that the biology of P. 

angkorensis was similar to that of its congener P. minor . Thus, P. angkorensis probably is 

parthenogenetic, produces several hundred eggs per female, and has several generations 

per year, which gives it high reproductive potential. Its dispersal potential is probably also

high, because scale insect crawlers are often transported over long distances on wind or 

animals (Greathead, 1990, 1997). Furthermore, scales can move great distances on infested 

commodities (e.g., P. minor, PestID, 2007; Sugimoto, 1994).

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

In our review, we did not find any information on the biological and economic impacts of 

this species. Some mealybugs are important pests with significant economic impacts (e.g., 

P. minor; Cox, 1989; Reddy et al., 1997), but Miller et al. (2002) do not list P. angkorensis

in their review of invasive mealybugs that are a threat to the United States. Despite its 

exposure to a wide range of habitats and potential hosts (above), P. angkorensis has not 

shown any evidence to date of being an important economic pest. Although uncertain, we 

judged from this review that P. angkorensis is likely not an economically important pest.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Based on the host range reported above, P. angkorensis may affect the following Federal 

Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species that are congeners of current hosts: Euphorbia 

telephioides (FL) and Rhus michauxii (GA, NC, SC, VA) (USFWS, 2007). Because P. 

angkorensis is most likely not an economically important pest (above), its introduction to 

the United States will most likely not result in the initiation of control programs. Should it 

become economically important, control measures already used on Planococcus citri in the 

United States (CABI, 2007) may likely be sufficient.

Medium (2)

Planococcus lilacinus (Cock) (Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Planococcus lilacinus is reported throughout southern Asia (Andaman Islands, 

Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, 

Maldives, Myanmar, Ryukyu Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Taiwan, Vietnam and Yemen), 

islands of the South Pacific (Cocos Islands, Indonesia, Northern Marianas, the Philippines, 

Papua New Guinea), Africa (Comoros, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, 

Reunion, Rodriques Island, and Seychelles), Central America & the Caribbean (Dominican 

Republic, El Salvador, Haiti), and northern South America (Colombia, Guyana) (Ben-Dov

et al., 2007). Based on this distribution, we think this species could establish in Plant 

Hardiness Zones 9-11 (Maxwell, 2007; Widrlechner, 1997). We estimate that P. 

lilacinus could survive in Zones 9 and 10 in the continental United States (USDA, 

1990). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these zones (NRCS, 2007). 

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

Planococcus lilacinus is very polyphagous, having been recorded on hosts in many plant 

families and genera, including: Anacardiaceae (Mangifera, Spondias), Agavaceae 

(Cordyline), Annonaceae (Annona, Cananga, Apiaceae (Apium), Apocynaceae 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 56

Planococcus lilacinus (Cock) (Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings

(Carissa), Arecaceae (Cocos, Phoenix), Asteraceae (Adenophyllum), Bombacaceae 

(Ceiba, Durio, Ochroma), Boraginaceae (Cordia), Brassicaceae (Brassica), 

Clusiaceae (Garcinia), Combretaceae (Quisqualis, Terminalia), Crypteroniaceae 

(Crypteronia), Cucurbitaceae (Sechium), Dioscoreaceae (Dioscorea), 

Dipterocarpaceae (Dipterocarpus), Ebenaceae (Diospyros), Ericaceae 

(Rhododendron), Euphorbiaceae (Antidesma, Bridelia, Codiaeum, Croton, Euphorbia, 

Macaranga, Mallotus, Trewia), Fabaceae (Acacia, Albizia, Arachis, Bauhinia, Cajanus, 

Crotalaria, Derris, Erythrina, Gliricidia, Hymenaea, Mucuna, Prosopis, Saraca, 

Schizolobium, Sesbania, Tamarindus, Tephrosia, Vigna), Iridaceae (Gladiolus), 

Lecythidaceae (Couroupita), Lythraceae (Lagerstroemia), Malpighiaceae 

(Malpighia), Meliaceae (Lansium), Mimosaceae (Prosopis), Moraceae (Artocarpus, 

Castilloa, Ficus, Streblus), Moringaceae (Moringa), Myrtaceae (Eugenia, Psidium, 

Syzigium), Orchidaceae (Dendrobium, Vanda), Oxalidaceae (Averrhoa), Pandanaceae 

(Pandanus), Poaceae (Bambusa), Punicaceae (Punica), Rhamnaceae (Alphitonia, 

Ziziphus), Rhizophoraceae (Rhizophora), Rubiaceae (Coffea, Gardenia, Neonauclea), 

Rutaceae (Citrus), Santalaceae (Santalum), Sapindaceae (Aphania, Litchi, 

Nephelium), Sapotaceae (Manilkara), Simaroubaceae (Ailanthus), Solanaceae 

(Nicotiana, Solanum), Sterculiaceae (Heritiera, Theobroma), Verbenaceae 

(Callicarpa, Premna, Tectona), Vitaceae (Vitis), and Zingiberaceae (Elettaria) (BenDov et al., 2007; CABI, 2007; Krishnamoorthy and Mani, 1998; Loganathan and 

Suresh, 2001; Rostaman, 1997; Williams, 2004).

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Fecundity per female on Brassica oleracea is 55-152 eggs (Loganathan and Suresh, 2001), 

and it has two or three generations per year (IPM DANIDA, 2007). The complete life 

cycle of P. lilacinus takes about 40 days in Java (CABI, 2007). This insect is capable of 

limited dispersal on its own. Like other scales, it can passively disperse by wind (Gullan 

and Kosztarab, 1997). Long-distance dispersal can be accomplished via human-assisted 

movement of infested plant materials. Since 1985, P. lilacinus has been intercepted 1,920 

times on fruit at U.S. ports-of-entry on a variety of plant species (PestID, 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Planococcus lilacinus is a major pest of tamarind and coffee in India (Hill, 1983; Reddy et 

al., 1997), and damages a wide range of other economically important crops, including 

custard apple (Annona reticulata), coconut, citrus, grape, guava, and mango (CABI, 2007).

Planococcus lilacinus feeds on Rs, stems, leaves, inflorescences, and fruits, stunting plant 

growth, covering foliage with sooty mold, and lowering the quality of fruit (CABI, 2007).

It feeds at the base of fruit on citrus, causing premature fruit drop (Williams, 2004). On 

coffee, it feeds on the Rs, making the leaves chlorotic and eventually causing defoliation 

(Williams, 2004). On cauliflower, severe infestations lead to stunted plant growth, 

withering, and reduced flower size (Loganathan and Suresh, 2001). Due to honeydew 

production, sooty mold may develop on plant surfaces, reducing photosynthesis and market 

value of fruit (Williams, 2004). In India, chemical and biological control programs are 

necessary to control this pest on a variety of crops (CABI, 2007; Mani and 

Krishnamoorthy, 2000; Reddy et al., 1997).

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

As a highly polyphagous pest, P. lilacinus may attack Federal Threatened and Endangered 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 57

Planococcus lilacinus (Cock) (Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings

(T&E) species that are congeners of current hosts, including Crotalaria avonensis (FL), 

Euphorbia telephioides (FL), Rhododendron chapmanii (FL), and Ziziphus celata (FL) 

(USFWS, 2007). Furthermore, because it threatens economically valuable crops such as 

avocado, citrus, and cucurbits (Miller et al., 2002), its introduction would likely stimulate 

chemical or biological control programs, beyond those already used. This is necessary in 

India, for example (CABI, 2007; Krishnamoorthy and Mani, 1998; Mani and 

Krishnamoorthy, 2000; Reddy et al., 1997).

Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel (Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Pseudococcus cryptus is primarily a subtropical to tropical species in several countries in 

southern Asia37, Africa (Kenya, Mauritius, Tanzania), South America (Argentina, Brazil, 

Colombia, Paraguay), Central America (Costa Rica, El Salvador), the Caribbean (U.S. 

Virgin Islands), and Oceania (American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Hawaii, 

Palau, Western Samoa) (Ben-Dov et al., 2007). It is also present in Japan and South 

Korea (Ben-Dov et al., 2007). Other than the U.S. Virgin Islands, Hawaii, and American 

Samoa, it is not present in any other U.S. territory or protectorate. This distribution

corresponds to Plant Hardiness Zones 8-13 (Maxwell, 2007; Widrlechner, 1997), so we 

estimate that it could survive in Zones 8-10 in the continental United States. One or 

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

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

Pseudococcus cryptus is a polyphagous pest that has been recorded on hosts in more than 

30 families, including but not limited to Anacardiaceae (Mangifera), Annonaceae 

(Annona), Apocynaceae (Plumeria), Araceae (Amorphophallus, Aglaonema), 

Arecaceae (Areca, Cocos, Cyrtostachys, Elaeis, Metroxylon, Phoenix), Asclepiadaceae

(Finlaysonia), Asteraceae (Dahlia), Bromeliaceae (Ananas), Clusiaceae (Calophyllum, 

Garcinia), Dilleniaceae (Dillenia, Tetracera), Euphorbiaceae (Croton, Hevea, 

Manihot), Fabaceae (Bauhinia, Erythrina, Gliricidia, Glycine), Flacourtiaceae

(Ryparosa), Heliconiaceae (Heliconia), Lauraceae (Ocotea, Persea), Liliaceae

(Crinum), Loganiaceae (Strychnos), Lythraceae (Punica), Malvaceae (Hibiscus), 

Melastomataceae (Melastoma), Meliaceae (Lansium), Moraceae (Artocarpus), 

Moringaceae (Moringa), Musaceae (Musa), Myristicaceae (Myristica), Myrtaceae

(Eugenia, Osbornia, Psidium), Oleaceae (Jasminum), Orchidaceae (Coelogyne, 

Dendrobium, Phalaenopsis, Raphioperdalum, Spathoglottis, Vanda), Pandanaceae

(Pandanus), Passifloraceae (Passiflora), Piperaceae (Piper), Poaceae (Bambusa), 

Rhizophoraceae (Rhizophora), Rubiaceae (Coffea, Gardenia, Ixora, Neonauclea),

Rutaceae (Citrus), Selaginellaceae (Selaginella), Verbenaceae (Avicennia), and 

Vitaceae (Vitis), (Ben-Dov et al., 2007; CABI, 2007; Santos, 1988).

High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Pseudococcus cryptus is a multivoltine species that can have up to six generations per year 

High (3)

 

37 Afghanistan, Andaman Islands, Bangladesh, Bhutan, British Indian Ocean Territory, Brunei, China (Hunan), India, 

Indonesia, Iran, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Nepal, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, and 

Vietnam 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 58

Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel (Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings

(Avidov and Harpaz, 1969). Females lay from 200 to 500 eggs, which then take 2-14 days 

to incubate. Although mealybugs in general are somewhat limited in their dispersal ability, 

P. cryptus can be transported long distances by wind (Gullan and Kosztarab, 1997) or in 

shipments of fruit and other plant material (PestID, 2007). For example, after P. cryptus

was first detected in a citrus grove in Israel, it rapidly spread to over 9,000 acres in just 

three years (Avidov and Harpaz, 1969). Since 1985, P. cryptus has been intercepted over 

520 times on plant materials at U.S. ports-of-entry; most of these interceptions were on 

fruit (PestID, 2007).

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Pseudococcus cryptus is a significant pest of citrus (Franco et al., 2004; Hill, 1983; Kwon

et al., 2002). It is reported as a “serious pest” in Israel (Blumberg et al., 1999) and in 

Korea (Kwon et al., 2002). On citrus, P. cryptus can attack any part of the tree (R to 

fruit), and produces enormous quantities of honeydew, on which sooty mold can form 5-

8 mm thick layers (Avidov and Harpaz, 1969). In Israel, citrus infestations can be 

entirely covered by sooty mold and waxen flakes, becoming so heavy that whole 

branches die, or leaves and fruit drop prematurely (Avidov and Harpaz, 1969). In south 

China, this species is considered only a minor pest, but it is widespread and similarly

causes a large amount of sooty mold on the fruits and leaves (Hill, 1983). Pseudococcus 

cryptus also attacks coconut palms (Williams and Watson, 1988). In Israel, biological 

and chemical controls have maintained populations below economically damaging 

densities (Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; Blumberg et al., 1999), but with increased production 

costs. Introduction of P. cryptus into the United States could negatively affect international 

and domestic trade for a number of commodities, but particularly for citrus, which is a 

multi-billion dollar industry in the United States (NASS, 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

It is unknown if establishment of P. cryptus would reduce community biodiversity or 

disrupt ecological processes in natural areas. It may affect one Federal Threatened and 

Endangered (T&E) species that is a congener of a current host: Manihot walkerae (TX) 

(USFWS, 2007). Because P. cryptus represents a major threat to U.S. citrus (Miller et al., 

2002), its establishment in the United States would initiate a variety of control measures 

(e.g., as in Israel; Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; Blumberg et al., 1999) that may have indirect 

environmental impacts.

High (3)

Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Rhipiphorothriops cruentatus has been reported from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, the 

tropical/subtropical regions of China (including Taiwan), tropical/subtropical India, 

Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Thailand (CABI, 2007). Based on this 

distribution we estimate that R. cruentatus could become established in Plant Hardiness 

Zones 8-10 in the United States (USDA, 1990). One or more of its potential hosts occurs 

in this zone (NRCS, 2007).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

R. cruentatus has been reported on several hosts in several families including: 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 59

Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) Risk ratings

Anacardiaceae (Anacardium occidentale, Mangifera indica), Annonaceae (Annona 

squamosa ), Combretaceae (Terminalia catappa), Myrtaceae (Psidium guajava, 

Syzygium spp.), Lythraceae (Punica granatum), Rosaceae (Rosa rugosa), and Vitaceae

(Vitis vinifera) (CABI, 2007).

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Thrips generally have high biotic potential. Sexual reproduction is normal in R. 

cruentatus, but parthenogenesis is apparently common in India (CABI, 2007). 

Thrips are weak flyers, but their fringed wings enable them to remain airborn long 

enough to travel easily between neighboring fields, and frequently over greater distances 

(Lewis, 1997). In international trade, R. cruentatus could be carried on plant materials, but

interceptions of this pest at U.S. ports of entry have been relatively rare (PestID, 2007).

Additionally, the restricted distribution of this pest in Asia supports the idea that it has only

moderate dispersal potential. 

Medium (2)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

In India, R. cruentatus is one of the most important insect pests of grapevines (CABI, 

2007). Attacked leaves turn brown and fall prematurely, and the grape berries develop a 

corky surface. Also severely attacked in India are roses; again the leaves turn brown and 

fall prematurely. In Taiwan, wax apple and several other crops, including mango and 

guava, have been severely attacked, with resulting yield reductions and loss of market 

value (CABI, 2007). Some thrips are vectors of plant pathogens but this species is not a 

known vector of any pathogen. Because R. cruentatus attacks grapes, which are an 

economically important export crop in the United States, its presence in the United States, 

even as a temporary adventive population, could lead to severe export restrictions of 

host commodities to markets outside of this pest’s known distribution. 

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

R. cruentatus is not known to attack any Federal Threatened and Endangered (T&E) 

species or their congeners (USFWS, 2007). However, because R. cruentatus attacks 

grapes (above), its introduction to might initiate new control programs.

Medium (2)

Scirtothrips oligochaetus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Scirtothrips oligochaetus appears to be restricted geographically to India. Without more 

specific information, we assume it is found throughout the country, and estimate that S. 

oligochaetus could become established in Plant Hardiness Zones 9-10 in the United 

States (USDA, 1990).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

Little is known about the host range of this pest. It probably attacks multiple genera in 

multiple families because it has been recorded on peanuts (Fabaceae: Arachis 

hypogaea) (CABI, 2007); cotton (Malvaceae: Gossypium spp.) (Nair, 1975); and 

pomegranates (Lythraceae: Punica granatum) (Nair, 1975; Sheikh, 2006).

High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

We found little information about the biology of this pest. Based on the biology of S. 

Medium (2)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 60

Scirtothrips oligochaetus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) Risk ratings

dorsalis, we assume that S. oligochaetus would have a high biotic potential. 

The potential of Scirtothrips spp. for natural spread appears to be limited (EPPO, 1997). 

Additionally, this species is limited to India, which indicates limited dispersal potential.

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Very little information on this pest exists in the scientific literature. It does not appear to be 

a major pest anywhere in India. It reportedly attacks peanuts and cotton, however, which 

are important commodities in the United States. Thus, its presence in the United States, 

even as a temporary adventive population, could lead to severe export restrictions of 

host commodities to markets outside of this pest’s known distribution.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Compared to other thrips S. oligochaetus appears to have a very restricted host range. 

This relative oligophagy suggests that this species is not a significant threat to Federal 

Threatened or Endangered (T&E) plants in the United States and no T&E species (listed 

in 50 CFR §17.12) are congeners of reported hosts. 

Medium (2)

Tenuipalpus granati (Acari: Eriophyidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Tenuipalpus granati has been reported in Eygpt, Iran, Greece, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and 

Azerbaijan (Jeppeson et al., 1975). Based on this distribution we estimate that T. granati 

could establish in Plant Hardiness Zones 7-10 in the United States (USDA, 1990). One 

or more of its potential hosts occurs in this zone (NRCS, 2007).

High

(3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

The host range of T. granati appears to be fairly narrow: It is mainly a pest of 

grapevines (Vitaceae: Vitis vinifera) (CABI, 2007; Jeppeson et al., 1975), but has 

occasionally been associated with pomegranates (Lythraceae: Punica granatum)

(Jeppeson et. al, 1975).

Medium 

(2)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Relatively little is known about the biology of false spider mites. Compared to other 

pests and other mites in particular, false spider mites have medium biotic potential. 

Females may live as long as two months, but they have much lower reproductive rates 

than spider mites, and fecundity rarely reaches 50 offspring per female (Zhang, 2003).

False spider mites are very slow moving mites. Their movement and dispersal has not 

been studied but long distance dispersal probably occurs passively through air currents 

or though the transportation of infected plants or other materials (Zhang, 2003). 

Medium (2)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

T. granati is reported to be an occasional pest in vineyards in Egypt. It also infests 

leaves, small branches, and sometimes fruit of pomegranate trees. It does not appear, 

however, to be a significant pest anywhere in the world. In California, grape and 

pomegranate producers already control for a variety of mite pests (Carroll et al., 2006, 

U.C. IPM, 2007). Therefore, establishment of this pest would not likely lead to 

significant increases in costs of production. 

Low

(1)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 61

Tenuipalpus granati (Acari: Eriophyidae) Risk ratings

The United States does not export a significant amount of pomegranates, but does export 

a large amount of fresh grapes to the following countries: Australia, Canada, China 

(including Hong Kong), Indonesia, India, Mexico, Malaysia, Philippines, Trinidad and 

Tobago, Taiwan, and the UK (FAS, 2007). Only India is known to have this pest, 

therefore its establishment in the grape producing regions of the United States may lead 

to loss or restriction of these important markets. 

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Compared to other mites T. granati appears to have a very restricted host range. This 

relative oligophagy suggests that this species does not constitute a significant threat to 

threatened or endangered plants in the United States and there are no Federally

Threatened or Endangered species (listed in 50 CFR §17.12) that are congeners of 

reported hosts. As mentioned above, some producers already control for a variety of 

mite pests (Carroll et al., 2006, U.C. IPM, 2007), and therefore the establishment of this

pest is unlikely to lead to new chemical and biological control programs.

Low

(1)

Tenuipalpus punicae (Acari: Eriophyidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Tenuipalpus punicae has been reported from Eygpt, Iran, Iraq, Spain (Jeppeson et al., 

1975; CABI, 2007), and India (Dhooria and Bhullar, 2003; Prasad, 1971). Based on this 

distribution we estimate that T. granati could become established in Plant Hardiness 

Zones 9-10 in the United States (USDA, 1990). One or more of its potential hosts occurs 

in this zone (NRCS, 2007).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

T. punicae is only known to attack pomegranate (Lythraceae: Punica granatum) 

(CABI, 2007; Jeppeson et al., 1975).

Low (1)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Relatively little is known about the biology of false spider mites. Compared to other 

pests and other mites in particular, false spider mites have medium biotic potential. 

Females may live as long as two months, but they have much lower reproductive rates 

than spider mites, and fecundity rarely reaches 50 offspring per female (Zhang, 2003). 

False spider mites are very slow moving mites. Their movement and dispersal has not 

been studied but long distance dispersal probably occurs passively through air currents 

or though the transportation of infected plants or other materials (Zhang, 2003).

Medium (2)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

T. punicae infests leaves, small branches, and sometimes fruit of pomegranate trees, but 

it does not appear to be a significant pest anywhere in the world. In California,

pomegranate producers already control for a variety of mite pests (Carroll et al., 2006), 

so the establishment of this pest would likely only minimally increase production costs.

The United States does not export a significant amount of pomegranates, but it does 

export a large amount of fresh grapes to the following countries: Australia, Canada, 

Low (1)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 62

Tenuipalpus punicae (Acari: Eriophyidae) Risk ratings

China (including Hong Kong), Indonesia, India, Mexico, Malaysia, Philippines, 

Trinidad and Tobago, Taiwan, and the UK. Only India is known to have this pest, 

therefore its establishment in the grape producing regions of the United States may lead 

to loss or restriction of these important markets. 

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Compared to other mites T. punicae appears to have a very restricted host range. This 

relative oligophagy suggests that this species does not constitute a significant threat to 

threatened or endangered plants in the United States and there are no Federally

Threatened or Endangered species (listed in 50 CFR §17.12) that are congeners of 

reported hosts. As mentioned above, some producers already control for a variety of 

mite pests (Carroll et al., 2006, U.C. IPM, 2007), and therefore the establishment of this 

pest is unlikely to lead to new chemical and biological control programs.

Low (1)

Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction 

Disease development of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae depends on humidity, 

temperature, and rainfall. The minimum average temperature for disease development is 

about 28°C. (Kumar et al, 2009) Rainfall seems to be required for disease development 

more than humidity, but the amount needed or timing of rainfall has not been quantified.

Humidity of 50 to 60 percent seems to promote disease development (Kumar et al, 

2009). The hardiness zones that correspond to these conditions are approximately zones 

10 and 11 which exist only in South Florida(USDA, 1990).. Since the pathogen could 

survive in only two hardiness zones, the risk associated with climate/host interaction is 

low.

Low (1)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

The only known host of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae is pomegranates, Punica 

granatum(Kumar et al 2009). For this reason, the risk associated with the pathogen is 

low.

Low (1)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

We found no information about the natural dispersal of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv.

punicae. The association of the disease with rainfall may indicate that the pathogen is 

spread by rain splash (Kumar et al, 2009). Depending on the amount of precipitation and 

the strength of the wind, splashes can disperse materials from a meter to a kilometer. 

Although the reproduction rate of the pathogen is likely to be high, the amount of 

functional inoculum is likely to be much less—in other words, even large numbers of 

bacteria yield many fewer infective bacteria. Thus, we think the probability of a 

bacterium infecting a tree or fruit is very small. Overall, we thought the pathogen has 

Medium potential for both rapid reproduction and dispersal under the right 

circumstances.

Medium (2)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

The primary description of X. axonopodis pv. punicae infection states that it infects “all 

above ground parts of the plant,” including a black spot on fruit, and lowers production by

damaging fruit (Kumar et al, 2009). To date, X. axonopodis pv. punicae is only present in 

Medium (2)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 63

Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae Risk ratings

India (Kumar et al, 2009). If it were introduced into the United States, other countries may

enact quarantine restrictions on U.S. pomegranates to prevent its entry. For these reasons, 

we rated this element as Medium.

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Since the only known host of X. axonopodis pv. punicae is pomegranates (Kumar et al, 

2009), it likely has little ability to damage other species. Thus, the environmental 

impact is low.

Low (1)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 64

Table 6. Summary of risk ratings for Consequences of Introduction

Pest Risk elements Cumulative 

Climate/ Risk Rating

host interaction

Host 

range

Dispersal 

potential

Economic 

impact

Envir. 

impact

Bactrocera carambolae Low (1) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (13)

Bactrocera dorsalis Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Bactrocera zonata Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Ceroplastes rubens Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (13)

Ceroplastes rusci Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (13)

Conogethes punctiferalis High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15)

Cryptoblabes gnidiella High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15)

Deudorix epijarbas High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) High (13)

Deudorix isocrates Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Dichocrocis megillalis Low (1) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) Med (11)

Drosicha dalbergiae Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Dysmicoccus 

neobrevipes 

Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med High (13)

Euzophera bigella Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Icerya aegyptiaca Low (1) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (11)

Icerya seychellarum Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Maconellicoccus hirsutus Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (13)

Nipaecoccus viridis Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Planococcus angkorensis Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (12)

Planococcus lilacinus Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Pseudococcus cryptus Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Rhipiphorothrips 

cruentatus

Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) Med (12)

Scirtothrips oligochaetus Med (2) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) Med (11)

Tenuipalpus granati High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Low (1) Med (9)

Tenuipalpus punicae Med (2) Low (1) Med (2) Low (1) Low (1) Low (7)

Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. puniceaeLow (1) Low (1) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Low (7)

2.7. Likelihood of Introduction

Likelihood of introduction is a function of both the quantity of the commodity imported annually 

and pest opportunity, which consists of five criteria that consider the potential for pest survival 

along the pathway (USDA, 2000). The values determined for the Likelihood of Introduction for 

each pest are summarized in Table 7.

2.7.1. Quantity of commodity imported annually
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 65

The rating for this subelement is based on the amount reported by the exporter, and is converted 

into standard units of 40-foot-long shipping containers.

38 India expects initially to ship about 

1500 tons of pomegranates per year to the United States, which equals about 50 shipping 

containers. Therefore, we ranked this element Medium (2) for all pests.

2.7.2. Survive post-harvest treatment

Standard post-harvest treatments for pomegranates include culling, washing, and cold storage 

(Prat and Botti, 2002). Larvae of the fruit flies (Bactrocera carambolae, B. dorsalis, B. zonata), 

are internal feeders and are highly likely to survive these post-harvest treatments, especially if 

the damage is not obvious. Surface puncture marks from entry of the female’s ovipositor may be 

visible but recognizing fruit fly-infested fruit is difficult, especially if the flies enter through the 

deep calyx (White and Elson-Harris, 1992). We rated these pests as High risk to survive postharvest treatments. 

A number of the pests are small external feeders, as follows: the scales Ceroplastes spp., 

Drosicha dalbergiae, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes, Icerya spp., Maconellicoccus hirsutus, 

Nipaecoccus viridis, Planococcus angkorensis, P. lilacinus, and Psedococcus cryptus; the thrips 

Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus, Scirtothrips. oligochaetus; and the mites Tenuipalpus granati and T. 

punicae. These pests are less likely to survive post-harvest treatments if they are on the surface 

of the fruit. However, the deep calyx of pomegranates offers considerable shelter for all stages of 

these arthropods. Such cryptic behavior could protect them well from detection or removal.

Therefore, we gave these pests a High risk rating for this subelement.

Conogethes punctiferalis, Cryptoblabes gnidiella, the three Deudorix spp., Dichocrocis 

megillalis, and Euzophera bigella may be present as eggs, on or in the fruit (Hely et al., 1982) or 

as larvae (Hely et al., 1982; Whittle, 1984). These pests also could survive treatment, particularly 

if sheltered at the calyx or stem ends. Fruit newly invaded by larvae or that have larvae which 

entered by the calyx, might go undetected. The damage caused by larvae boring into fruit and the 

frass (excrement) they produce are likely to be more evident than symptoms caused by fruit flies 

(above). Consequently, these moths are more likely to be detected and culled, and we gave them 

Medium ratings. 

Washing and culling could wash Xanthomonas bacteria off the surface of the fruit but would not 

affect populations living just below the surface of the fruit. We gave a risk rating of High for this 

pathogen to survive post harvest treatment. 

2.7.3. Survive Shipment

Insect survival at low temperatures is influenced by the duration of exposure (Chapman, 1998). 

Low temperatures above freezing are not immediately fatal for most insects; some remain alive 

for considerable periods even at temperatures around 0°C. As temperatures drop, physiological 

adjustments, or acclimation, may lengthen the tolerance of insects to chilling (Salt, 1961). 

Pomegranates are typically shipped at 5oC (41oF) (McGregor, 1989). At this temperature, we 

expect that all but the most cold sensitive arthropods will survive. Consequently, we rated all 

 

38 The conversión factor is 60,000 lbs (30 tons) per 40-foot long refrigerated shipping container. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 66

arthropods High for this element, except Bactrocera carambolae, Dichocrocis megillalis, and 

Icerya aegyptiaca, which we rated Medium because of their cold sensitivity.

The only research on the survivability of X. axonopodis pv. punicae observed that the bacteria 

survived at a 100 percent recovery rate from fruit and leaves after 120 days at room temperature

(Upasana and Verma, 2002). This finding would suggest that survival of the bacteria is highly 

likely by almost any conveyance. Thus, the chance that bacteria would survive shipment is High.

2.7.4. Not detected at a port of entry

The likelihood of pests not being detected at a port-of-entry depends on pest size, mobility, and 

degree of concealment. If an infestation occurred relatively recently, internal feeders have a high 

probability of escaping detection at a port-of-entry, unless fruit is cut open. Consequently, we 

rated all internal pests High for this risk element.

By comparison, the external feeders (see list above) are much more likely to be detected by 

visual inspection. They may still, however, be concealed beneath the calyx or in packing 

materials. They may also be present in the egg stage. Thus, we rated these species Medium for 

this risk element.

In general pathogens are less likely to be correctly identified at the port level, especially if no 

fruiting body or unambiguous structure associated with the pathogen exists. Detection at port of 

entry for X. axonopodis pv. punicae is uncertain, and depends upon the number and size of black 

spots on fruit(Upasana and Verma, 2002). Thus, a severe infection could be obvious, while 

others could easily pass unobserved. Thus, for X. axonopodis pv. punicae we rated this element

High.

2.7.5. Imported or moved subsequently to an area with an environment suitable for 

survival

Pomegranates from India are likely to be sold in all 49 of the states within the continental United 

States. We assume that demand for fruit is proportional to the size of the consumer population in 

potential markets and that any infestations would be distributed equally among consignments. 

Based on the latest census data (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006), 4.4 percent of the U.S. population 

resides within Plant Hardiness Zone 10 (PERAL, 2008). Therefore, because the region 

encompassing zone 10 comprises only a small percentage of the likely markets for Indian 

pomegranates, we gave Bactrocera carambolae, Dichocrocis megillalis, and Icerya aegyptiaca a 

Low risk rating of being moved to habitat suitable for survival. 

The following pests can establish in Zone 8 and above: Bactrocera dorsalis, B. zonata, 

Ceroplastes spp., Deudorix spp., Drosicha dalbergiae, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes, Euzophera 

bigella, Icerya seychellarum, Maconellicoccus hirsutus, Nipaecoccus viridis, Planococcus spp.,

Pseudococcus cryptus, Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus, Scirtothrips oligochaetus, and Tenuipalpus 

punicae. Those zones in the continental United States have 41.6 percent of the U.S. population 

(PERAL, 2008). Consequently, we gave these pests a Medium risk rating for this element. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 67

The remaining arthropods could survive in Zones 6-10 in the continental United States (above). 

These Zones contain almost 87 percent of the U.S. population (PERAL, 2008). Moreover, this 

region includes several of the most populous states (e.g., Illinois, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania) 

to which a significant percentage of imports likely would be diverted. Thus, we gave risk ratings 

of High to these remaining athropods for this subelement.

Pomegranate is the only known host of X. axonopodis pv. punicae, and they are only grown 

commercially in Central California, which is Zones 8-9. Based on the existing data, the disease 

might survive in such a climate but its spread would be minimal. In addition, Central California 

is geographically separated from the larger urban areas where the fruit will primarily be 

marketed. Given these factors, we gave a risk rating of Low to this pathogen. 

2.7.6. Come into contact with host material suitable for reproduction

Even if the climate for a given pest is conducive for survival, suitable host material must be 

available in order for the pest to live and reproduce.

Pests such as scales and mites have limited natural dispersal ability and tend to remain with or 

near their host plants. Thus, they are relatively unlikely to contact hosts because infested fruit 

would have to be disposed in areas where the larvae could survive (e.g., parks, crop fields, 

gardens, orchards, roadsides). Pests in fruit that are disposed of in trash bins, compactors, or 

garbage disposals—even if uneaten—would not be able to survive, and thus pose no risk.

Therefore, we rated these pests Low for this risk subelement. 

Pests that have relatively narrow host ranges, or those that feed only on tropical and subtropical 

species with restricted distributions in the continental United States, are also unlikely to contact 

suitable host material. Therefore, we rated the fruit fly Bactrocera carambolae and the moth 

Dichocrocis megillalis, Low for this subelement, even though they are highly mobile species.

Bactrocera are also highly mobile (above), but its hosts are available throughout the continental 

United States. Therefore, we rated the risk that Bactrocera dorsalis and B. zonata could contact 

host material as High. Similarly, the moths analyzed are capable of long distance flight, and are 

not monophagic (above). Therefore, we also gave High risk ratings to Conogethes punctiferalis, 

Cryptoblabes gnidiella, Deudorix spp., and Euzophera bigella. 

The whitefly Aleurodicus disperses and the thrips also fly, although not as well, and may be 

aided in dispersal by wind and human activities (above). In comparison to the fruit flies and 

moths, then, we gave these pests a Medium risk rating for this subelement.

The pathogen must contact pomegranate in order to establish (above). Pomegranates are mainly

grown in three counties in the Central Valley in California: Fresno, Kern, and Tulare. These 

counties have only 5 percent of California’s population, and less than 0.6 percent of the national 

population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Assuming again that demand will be proportional to 

population size, the probability that an infected pomegranate from India would end up in these 

counties in California is very small. In addition, the acreage of pomegranates in those counties is 

tiny compared to other crops, so any infected produce is much more likely to contact hosts other 

than pomegranate. For those reasons, we gave a risk rating of Low for this pathogen.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 68

Table 7. Risk Ratings for Likelihood of Introduction. The risk rating for “Quantity imported 

annually” was Medium (2) for all pests.

Pest Risk elements Cumulative

Survive 

postharvest 

treatment

Survive

shipment

Not 

detected 

at port of 

entry

Moved 

to 

suitable 

habitat

Contact 

with host 

material

risk rating

Bactrocera carambolae High (3) Med (2) High (3) Low (1) Low (1) Med (12)

B. dorsalis High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16)

B. zonata High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16)

Ceroplastes rubens High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13)

C. rusci High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13)

Conogethes 

punctiferalis

Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (16)

Cryptoblabes gnidiella Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (16)

Deudorix epijarbas Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (15)

D. isocrates Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (15)

Dichocrocis megillalis Med (2) Med (2) High (3) Low (1) Low (1) Med (11)

Drosicha dalbergiae High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13)

Dysmicoccus 

neobrevipes

High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13)

Euzophera bigella Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (15)

Icerya aegyptiaca High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Low (1) Med (11)

I. seychellarum High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13)

Maconellicoccus 

hirsutus

High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13)

Nipaecoccus viridis High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13)

Planococcus 

angkorensis

High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13)

P. lilacinus High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13)

Pseudococcus cryptus High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13)

Rhipiphorothrips 

cruentatus 

High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) Med (14)

Scirtothrips

oligochaetus 

High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) Med (14)

Tenuipalpus granati High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Low (1) Med (14)

T. punicae High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13)

Xanthomonas 

axonopodis pv.

punicae

High (3) High (3) High (3) Low (1) Low (1) Med (13)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 69

3. Conclusion

We summed the values for the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of introduction 

to give Pest Risk Potentials (USDA, 2000) (Table 8). These estimate the overall risk associated 

with the importation of pomegranates from India for pests that may be associated with the fruit.

Pests with a Pest Risk Potential value of Low do not require specific mitigation measures, 

whereas a value within the Medium range indicates that specific phytosanitary measures may be 

necessary. The PPQ Guidelines state that a High Pest Risk Potential means that specific 

phytosanitary measures are strongly recommended, and that port-of-entry inspection is not 

considered sufficient to provide phytosanitary security. The choice of appropriate measures to 

mitigate risk is undertaken as part of Risk Management and is not addressed in this document. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 70

Table 8. Pest Risk Potentials for pomegranate from India

Pest Cumulative Risk Ratings Pest Risk

Consequences of Potential

Introduction

Likelihood of

Introduction

Conogethes punctiferalis High (15) High (16) High (31)

Cryptoblabes gnidiella High (15) High (16) High (31)

Bactrocera dorsalis High (14) High (16) High (30)

Bactrocera zonata High (14) High (16) High (30)

Deudorix isocrates High (14) High (15) High (29)

Euzophera bigella High (14) High (15) High (29)

Deudorix epijarbas High (13) High (15) High (28)

Drosicha dalbergiae High (14) Medium (13) High (27)

Icerya seychellarum High (14) Medium (13) High (27)

Nipaecoccus viridis High (14) Medium (13) High (27)

Planococcus lilacinus High (14) Medium (13) High (27)

Pseudococcus cryptus High (14) Medium (13) High (27)

Ceroplastes rubens High (13) Medium (13) Medium (26)

Ceroplastes rusci High (13) Medium (13) Medium (26)

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes High (13) Medium (13) Medium (26)

Maconellicoccus hirsutus High (13) Medium (13) Medium (26)

Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus Medium (12) Medium (14) Medium (26)

Bactrocera carambolae High (13) Medium (12) Medium (25)

Planococcus angkorensis Medium (12) Medium (13) Medium (25)

Scirtothrips oligochaetus Medium (11) Medium (14) Medium (25)

Tenuipalpus granati Medium (9) Medium (14) Medium (23)

Dichocrocis megillalis Medium (11) Medium (11) Medium (22)

Icerya aegyptiaca Medium (11) Medium (11) Medium (22)

Tenuipalpus punicae Low (7) Medium (13) Medium (20)

Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae Low (7) Medium (13) Medium (20)

4. References

7 CFR § 360. 2007. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 360, (7 CFR §360 - Noxious 

Weed Regulations). United States Government.

Aguiar-Menezes, E. L., E. B. Menezes, P. C. R. Cassino, and M. A. Soares. 2002. Passion Fruit. 

Pages 361-390 in J. E. Pena, J. L. Sharp, and M. Wysoki, (eds.). Tropical Fruit Pests and 

Pollinators: Biology, Economic Importance, Natural Enemies and Control. CABI 

Publishing, Wallingford, U.K.

Ahn, S. B., D. J. Im, I. S. Kim, and W. S. Cho. 1989. Foliage-feeding lepidopterous pests on 

apple trees in Suwon [Abstract]. Research Reports of the Rural Development 

Administration, Crop Protection 31(3):27-33.

Aitken Soux, P. 1985. Some pests and diseases generally encountered in coffee nurseries 

[Abstract]. Feuille d'Extension 53:5.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 71

Akinlosotu, T. A., L. E. N. Jackai, N. N. Ntonifor, A. T. Hassan, C. W. Agyakwa, J. A. Odebiyi, 

A. E. Akingbohungbe, and H. W. Rossel. 1993. Spiralling Whitefly, Alerodicus dispersus, 

in Nigeria. Plant Protection Bulletin 41(2):127-128.

Ali, M. 1978. A report on the wax scales, Ceroplastes pseudoceriferus Green and 

Chloropulvinaria polygonata (Ckll.) (Homoptera: Coccidae) on mango and their natural 

enemies [Abstract]. Bangladesh Journal of Zoology 6(1):69-70.

Ali, S. M. 1968. Coccids (Coccoidea: Hemiptera: Insecta) affecting fruit plants in Bihar (India). 

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 65(1):120-137.

Anjaneya Murthy, J. N., and A. Regupathy. 1989. Insecticidal control of fruit fly, Gitona sp., L

caterpillar, Noorda blitealis Walk. and aphid, Aphis craccivora Koch on annual moringa. 

South Indian Horticulture 37(2):84-93.

Anonymous. 1941. Short Notes and Exhibits. Indian Journal of Entomology. 3(2).

Anonymous. 2007. Plant hardiness zones. BackyardGardener. Last accessed May 17, 2007, 

http://www.backyardgardener.com/zone/index.html.

Arias, G. G., C. Font, and E. Miranda. 2002. Planococcus minor (Markell), vector del virus 

estriado del platano (BSV). Fitosanidad 6(2):47-48.

Arkhangel'Skaya, A. 1931. New species of scale insects, Coccidae, from Central Asia [Abstract]. 

Plant Protection 7(1-3).

Arnett Jr., R. H. 1997. American Insects: A Handbook of the Insects of America North of 

Mexico. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL, U.S.A. 850 pp.

Arnett Jr., R. H. 2000. American Insects: A Handbook of the Insects of America North of 

Mexico, Second edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, U.S.A. 1003 pp.

Arnett Jr., R. H., M. C. Thomas, P. E. Skelley, and J. H. Frank. 2002. American Beetles: 

Polyphaga: Scarabaeoidea through Curculionoidea. CRC Press LCC, Boca Raton, Florida. 

861 pp.

ARS. 2007. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN), Online Database. United 

States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), 

Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory. Last accessed June 25, 2007, 

http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/paper.pl.

Astruc, N., J. Marcos, L. Macquaire, T. Candresse, and V. Pallas. 1996. Studies on the diagnosis 

of hop stunt viroid in fruit trees: Identification of new hosts and application of nucleic 

acid extraction procedure based on non-organic solvents European Journal of Plant 

Pathology 102:837-846.

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

549 pp.

Azab, A. K., M. F. S. Tawfik, and A. I. Ezz. 1968. Studies on Icerya aegyptiaca (Douglas) 

(Homoptera:Margarodidae). Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique d'Egypte 52:155-178.

Baker, C., T. C. Harrington, U. Krauss, and A. Alfenas. 2003. Genetic variability and host 

specialization in Latin America clade of Ceratocystis fimbriata. Phytopathology

93(10):1274-1284.

Baker, E. W., T. Kono, J. W. Amrine Jr., M. Delfinado-Baker, and T. A. Stasny. 1996. 

Eriophyoid Mites of the United States. Indira Publication House, West Bloomfield, 

U.S.A. 394 pp.

Ben-Dov, Y. 1993. A Systematic Catalogue of the Soft Scale Insects of the World. Sandhill 

Crane Press, Gainesville, Fl., U.S.A. 536 pp.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 72

Ben-Dov, Y. 1994. A systematic catalogue of the mealybugs of the world (Insecta: Homoptera: 

Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae): With data on geographical distribution, host 

plants, biology and economic importance. Intercept Ltd, Andover. 686 pp.

Ben-Dov, Y. 2005. The malvastrum mealybug Ferrisia malvastra (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: 

Pseudococcidae): Distribution, host plants and pest status in Israel. Phytoparasitica 

33(2):154-156.

Ben-Dov, Y., and C. J. Hodgson (eds.). 1997. Soft scale insects: their biology, natural enemies 

and control (Vol. 7b). Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 2007. ScaleNet. United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Systematic Entomology

Laboratory (SEL). Last accessed August 13, 2007, 

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

Bhagat, R. C. 1982. On two new aphid parasitoids of genus Trioxys (Aphididae: Hymenoptera) 

from Kashmir, India [Abstract]. Entomon 7(3):321-324.

Bhumannavar, B. S., and C. A. Viraktamath. 2001. Larval host specificity, adult feeding and 

oviposition preference of the fruit piercing moth, Othreis homaena Hubner (Lepidoptera: 

Noctuidae) on different Menispermaceae host plants. Journal of Entomological Research 

25(3):165-181.

Bier, V. M. 1999. Challenges to the acceptance of probabilistic risk analysis. Risk Analysis 

19(4):703-710.

Biradar, A. P., S. B. Jagginavar, and N. D. Sunitha. 2005. Management of stem borer, 

Coelosterna scrabrator Fabr. (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in pomegranate. International 

Journal of Agricultural Sciences 1(1):16-17.

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

Information Guide. Wiley, Chichester, United Kingdom. 466 pp.

Blumberg, D., Y. Ben-Dov, S. Gross, Y. Drishpoun, and Z. Mendel. 1999. Outbreaks and 

biological control of the citriculus mealybug Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel in Israel in 

the past and present - revaluation and current situation [Abstract]. Alon Hanotea 

53(4):155-160.

BMESD. 2003. Bohart Museum of Entomology: Scale Insect Database. Bohart Museum of 

Entomology (BMESD). http://bohart.ucdavis.edu/scale/.

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

Mite Family (Acari: Tetranychidae). Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands. 392 pp.

Borror, D. J., C. A. Triplehorn, and N. F. Johnson. 1989. An introduction to the study of insects 

(6th ed.). Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth, Texas, U.S.A.

Bose, T. K., S. K. Mitra, and D. Sanyal. 2002. Fruits: Tropical and Subtropical. New Sarada 

Press, Bidhan Sarani, Calcutta, India.

Bruner, S. C., L.C. Scaramuzza and A.R. Otero. 1945. Catalogo de los Insectos que Atacan a las 

Plantas Economicas de Cuba. Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, Instituto de Zoologia, 

Habana, Cuba. 246 pp.

Butani, D. K. 1978. Insect pests of tamarind and their control [Abstract]. Pesticides 12(11):34-41.

Butani, D. K. 1993. Mango: Pest Problems. Periodical Expert Book Agency, Delhi, India. 290 pp.

Butani, D. K., and S. Varma. 1976. Pests of vegetables and their control: - brinjal. Pesticides 

10(2):32-35, 38.

Butani, D. K., and S. Verma. 1981. Insect pests of vegetables and their control -- drumsticks. 

Pesticides 15(10):29-32.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 73

CABI. 2007. Crop Protection Compendium (Web Edition). CAB International. Last accessed 

January, 2008, http://www.cabicompendium.org/cpc/home.asp.

CABI/EPPO. 1997. Quarantine Pests for Europe: Data sheets on Quarantine Pests for the 

European Union and for the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization 

(2nd ed.). CAB International (CABI) and the European and Mediterranean Plant 

Protection Organization (EPPO), Cambridge, UK. 1425 pp.

Cantelo, W., W., A. Manjikul, M. R. C. Tongyai, and P. Pholboon. 1965. A Host List of the 

Insects of Thailand. Thailand Department of Agriculture & United States Operations 

Mission to Thailand, Bangkok, Thailand.

Carroll, D., B. Puget, B. Higbee, M. Quist, O. Magallenes, N. Smith, A. Gjerde, and K. 

Schneider. 2006. Pomegranate Pest Management in the San Joaquin Valley. Last 

accessed January 2008, 

http://www.aaie.net/IPMinfo/PomegranatePestManagement_002.pdf.

Carter, D. J. 1984. Pest Lepidoptera of Europe: With Special Reference to the British Isles. Dr W. 

Junk, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 431 pp.

CFIA. 2007. Pests Regulated by Canada. Plant Protection Regulations 29 (2a). Plant Health 

Division, Plant Products Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Ottawa,

Ontario, Canada.

Chang, N. T. 1991. Important thrips species in Taiwan. Pages 40-56 in N. S. Talekar, (ed.). 

Thrips in Southeast Asia (AVRDC Publ. No. 91-342). Asian Vegetable Research and 

Development Center, Tainan, Tiwan.

Chapman, R. F. 1998. The Insects: Structure and Function, 4th ed. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge.

Chen, Y., X. Chen, K. Li, L. Shi, and Z. Chen. 2004. Preference of lac insect to host branch in 

foraging [Abstract]. Forest Research, Beijing 17(2):159-166.

Chia, C. L., and D. O. Evans. 1997. Avocado. University of Hawaii at Manoa. 

https://www.gpdd.info/references/1810_Chia_Evans_1997_Avocado_Horticultural_4786

.pdf.

Clausen, C. P. 1978. Tephritidae. Introduced Parasites and Predators of Arthropod Pests and 

Weeds: A world review. USDA Agricultural Handbook 480:320-335.

Cognato, A. 2007. PEET - Xyleborini - Online database. Last accessed August 9, 2007, 

http://xyleborini.tamu.edu/db_intro.php.

Cohen, M. B., A. M. Romena, and F. Gould. 2000. Dispersal by larvae of the stem borers 

Scirpophaga incertulas (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and Chilo suppressalis (Lepidoptera: 

Crambidae) in plots of transplanted rice. Environmental Entomology 29(5):958-971.

Coile, N. 2000. Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services, Department of Plant Industry. Last accessed February 19, 2004, 

http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/00-mar-apr.htm.

Common, I. F. B. 1990. Moths of Australia. E.J. Brill, Leiden. 535 pp.

Common, I. F. B., and D. F. Waterhouse. 1972. Butterflies of Australia. Angus and Robertson 

Publishers, Sydney, Australia. 498 pp.

Courneya, P. 2006. Quarantine status confirmation. Personal communication to L. Millar on 

October 12, 2006, from Paul Courneya (USDA, National Identification Services).

Cox, J. M. 1989. The mealybug genus Planococcus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Bulletin of 

the British Museum of Natural History 58(1):1-78.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 74

CRFG. 2007. Fruit facts. California Rare Fruit Growers (CRFG). Last accessed June 25, 2007, 

http://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/.

Culik, M. P., D. dos Santos Martins, and P. J. Gullan. 2006. First records of two mealybug 

species in Brazil and new potential pests of papaya and coffee Journal of Insect Science 

6(23). http://www.insectscience.org/about/.

DAFF. 2004. Longan and lychee fruit from the People’s Republic of China and Thailand: Final 

import risk analysis report. Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, 

and Forestry (DAFF), Canberra, Australia.

Darekar, K. S., N. L. Mhase, and S. S. Shelke. 1989. Management of nematodes infesting 

pomegranate. International Nematology Netwrok Newsletter 6(3):15-17.

Davis, R., C. H. W. Flechtmann, J. H. Boczek, and H. E. Barke. 1982. Catalogue of Eriophyid 

Mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea). Warsaw Agricultural University Press, Warsaw, Poland. 

254 pp.

Dekle, G. W. 1976. Green scale, Coccus viridis (Green) (Homoptera: Coccidae). Florida 

Deparment of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, 

Entomology Circular 165.

Dekle, G. W. 2001. Red wax scale (Ceroplastes rubens Maskell) Coccidae. Florida Department 

of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry. Last accessed 

November 16, 2007, http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/orn/scales/red_wax_scale.htm.

Dekle, G. W., and L. C. Kuitert. 1975. Camellia mining scale, Duplaspidiotus claviger

(Cockerell) (Diaspididae: Homoptera) [Abstract]. Entomology Circular, Division of Plant 

Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (152).

del Rivero, J. M. 1991. A new pest of pomegranate: Tenuipalpus punicae Pritchard & Baker 

[Abstract]. Anales del Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agrarias, Proteccion Vegetal 

1:167-176.

DEWR. 2007. Australia faunal directory, online database. Australian Government, Department 

of Environment and Water Resources (DEWR). Last accessed March 23, 2007, 

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/fauna/afd/index.html.

Dhooria, M. S. 2003. Economic status of phytophagous/predaceous mites from different plants in 

Punjab. Journal of Insect Science (Ludhiana) 16(1/2):12-17.

Dhooria, M. S., and M. B. Bhullar. 2003. Pest status of eriophyid mites in Punjab. Insect 

Environment 9(3):103-105.

Dodge, B. 1936. Schizoparmae straminea and Nectriella versoniana are identical. Mycologia 

28(1):95-98.

Drew, R. A. I., G. H. S. Hooper, and M. A. Bateman. 1982. Economic Fruit Flies of the South 

Pacific Region, 2nd ed. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane.

Dubey, J. K., Nath Amith, and J. R. Thakur. 1993. Chemical control for pomegranate fruit 

borer(s), Virachola isocrates (Fabr.) and Deudorix epijarbas (Moore). Indian Forester 

119(11):928-931.

Edwards, R. A., and T. K. Davis. 1988. Kern County Crop Report-1988. California Department 

of Food and Agriculture, and County of Kern.

EPPO. 2000a. Plant Quarantine Reporter (PQR) Database, Version 3.10. European and 

Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), Paris. http://www.eppo.org.

EPPO. 2000b. Reporting Service 2000, No. 6. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection 

Organization (EPPO), Paris.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 75

EPPO. 2004. Aleurodicus dispersus (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). European and Mediterranean 

Plant Protection Organization. Last accessed April 2007, 

http://www.gpdd.info/onlinerefs/2294_Aleurodicus_dispersus_9164.pdf.

Evans, G. A. 2007. The whiteflies (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) of the world and their host plants 

and natural enemies (v. January 16, 2007). United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), United States. 715 pp.

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

Botany and Mycology Laboratory. ARS, USDA. Last accessed August 30, 2007, 

http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/.

FAS. 2007. U.S. trade statistics. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural 

Service (FAS). http://www.fas.usda.gov/ustrade/.

Fay, H. A. C., and K. H. Halfpapp. 2006. Fruit maturity and soundness relevant to feeding choice 

by fruit-piercing moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in citrus crops in northeast Australia

[Abstract]. International Journal of Pest Management 52(4):317-324.

Fletcher, B. S. 1989a. Life History Strategies of Tephritid Fruit Flies. Pages 195-208 in A. S. 

Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit Flies: Ther Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. 

World Crop Pests, Vol. 3.B. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

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

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

Pests, Vol. 3.B. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Forsyth, J. 1966. Agricultural Insects of Ghana. Ghana Universities Press, Accra, Ghana. 163 pp.

Franco, J. C., P. Suma, E. B. d. Silva, D. Blumberg, and Z. Mendel. 2004. Management 

strategies of mealybug pests of citrus in Mediterranean countries. Phytoparasitica 

32(5):507-522.

Froeschner, R. C. 1998. Family Coreidae Leach, 1815: The coreid bugs. Pages 69-92 in T. J. 

Henry and R. C. Froeschner, (eds.). Catalog of the Heteroptera, or True Bugs. St. Lucie 

Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

Gaffar, S. A. 1989. Chemical control of mealy bug, Drosicha dalbergiae (Stebbing) on almond 

in Kashmir. Indian Journal of Plant Protection 17(1):31-34.

Gallego, F., and R. Velez. 1992. Lista de insectos que afectan los principales cultivos, plantas 

forestales, animales domésticos y al hombre en Colombia. Universidad Nacional de 

Colombia. Facultad de Ciencias. Departamento de Biología. Area de Entomología.

Seccional Medellín., Medellín, Colombia.

Gentry, J.W. 1965. Crop Insects of Northeast Africa-Southwest Asia. Agriculture Handbook No. 

273. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 210 pp.

Graham, S. A., J. Hall, K. Sytsma, and S.-H. Shi. 2005. Phylogenetic analysis of the Lythraceae 

based on four gene regions and morphology. International Journal of Plant Sciences 

166(6):995-1017.

Greathead, D. J. 1990. Crawler behaviour and dispersal. Pages 305-308 in D. Rosen, (ed.). 

Armored Scale Insects: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control (Volume A). 

Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Greathead, D.J. 1997. Crawler behaviour and dispersal. Pages 339-342 in Y. Ben-Dov and C.J. 

Hodgson, (eds.) Soft Scale Insects - Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control, World 

Crop Pests (Volume 7A). Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 76

Gullan, P. J., D. A. Downie, and S. A. Steffan. 2003. A new species of the mealybug genus 

Ferrisia Fullaway (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) from the United States. Annals of the 

Entomological Society of America 96(6):723-737.

Gullan, P. J., and M. Kosztarab. 1997. Adaptations in scale insects. Annual Review of 

Entomology 42:23-50.

Gunn, C. R., and C. A. Ritchie. 1988. Identification of disseminules listed in the Federal Noxious 

Weed Act (Technical Bulletin Number 1719.). United States Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service, U.S.A. 313 pp.

Halbert, S. E., and P. M. Choate. 2003. Asian woolly hackberry aphid, Shivaphis celti Das 

(Insecta: Hemiptera: Aphididae) (EENY-288). University of Florida, IFAS, Gainseville, 

FL, U.S.A. 2 pp.

Haleem, S. A. 1984. Studies on fruit quality of sweet orange as affected by soft green scale and 

sooty mould [India]. South Indian Horticulture 32(5):267-269.

Hamon, A. B., and G. J. Mason. 2001. Fig wax scale: Ceroplastes rusci (Linnaeus) (Insecta: 

Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae) Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services, Division of Plant Industry. Last accessed November 20, 2007, 

http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/orn/scales/fig_wax_scale.htm.

Harrington, T., and C. J. Baker. 2004. Ceratocystis fimbriata. CABI Crop Protection 

Compendium:17. Last accessed June, 20, 2007, 

Haseeb, M. 2007. Current status of insect pest problems in guava. Acta Horticulturae 735:453-

467.

Heckford, R. J. 2004. Anatrachyntis simplex (Walsingham, 1891) (Lepidoptera: 

Cosmopterigidae), an adventive species new to the British Isles and a larval description. 

Entomologist's Gazette 55(2):95-101.

Hely, P. C., G. Pasfield, and J. G. Gellatley. 1982. Insect pests of fruit and vegetables in NSW. 

Inkata Press, Melbourne. 312 pp.

Herbison-Evans, D., and S. Crossley. 2002. Lepidoptera larvae of Australia. Don HerbisonEvans. http://www-staff.mcs.uts.edu.au/~don/larvae/lyca/epijarb.html.

Hill, D. S. 1983. Agricultural Insect Pests of the Tropics and their Control (2nd ed.). Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, U.S.A. 746 pp.

Hill, D. S. 1987. Agricultural Insect Pests of Temperate Regions and their Control. Cambridge 

University Press, New York, NY. 659 pp.

Hill, D. S. 1994. Agricultural Entomology. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A. 635 pp.

Hill, M. G. 1980. Wind dispersal of the coccid Icerya seychellarum (Margarodidae: Homoptera) 

on Aldabra Atoll. Journal of Animal Ecology 49(3):939-957.

Hill, M. G., and D. M. Newberry. 1980. The distribution and abundance of the coccid Icerya 

seychellarum Westw. on Aldabra atoll. Ecological Entomology 5(2):115-122.

Hodges, G., G. B. Edwards, and W. Dixon. 2005. Chilli thrips Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood 

(Thysanoptera: Thripidae) a new pest thrips for Florida. Florida Department of 

Agriculture & Consumer Services. 

http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/ento/chillithrips.html.

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

and Distribution. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 1129 pp.

Holm, L. G., J. V. Pancho, J. P. Herberger, and D. L. Plucknett. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of 

World Weeds. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, U.S.A. 391 pp.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 77

Holm, L. G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: 

Distribution and Biology. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, U.S.A. 69 pp.

Howard, F. W., R. Pemberton, G. S. Hodges, C. M. Mannion, D. McLean, and J. Wofford. 2004. 

Lobate lac scale. University of Florida. Last accessed May 7, 2007, 

http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/orn/scales/lobate_lac.htm.

Hoy, M. A., A. Hamon, and R. Nguyen. 2003. Pink hibiscus mealybug: Maconellicoccus 

hirsutus (Green) (Insecta: Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). University of Florida and the 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Last accessed July 18, 2005, 

http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/orn/mealybug/mealybug.htm.

Hussein, A.A., A.G. Abdel-Rahman, and R.B. Ahmed. 1994. Effectiveness of fruit bagging on 

yield and fruit quality of pomegranate (Punica granatum, L.). Annals of Agricultural 

Science, 32 (2): 949-957

Hutson, J. C., and N. K. Jardine. 1923. Report on the work of the Entomological Division 

[Abstract]. Ceylon Department of Agriculture.

INKTO/PINKTO. 2002. Arthropods. Risk Analysis Systems, Policy and Program Development, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 941 pp.

IPM DANIDA. 2007. Integrated Pest Management. Thailand Department of Agriculture (IPM 

DANIDA). http://thailand.ipm-info.org/ipmdanida/ipmdanida.htm.

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.

Isaac, P. V. 1925. The South Andaman coconut slug-caterpillar (Thosea unifascia, Wlk.) 

[Abstract]. Agricultural Journal of India 20(5): 373-379.

Itioka, T., and T. Inoue. 1991. Settling-site selection and survival of two scale insects, 

Ceroplastes rubens and C. ceriferus, on citrus trees. Researches on Population Ecology

33(1):69-85.

Jadhav, L. D., D. S. Ajri, M. V. Kadam, and S. K. Dorge. 1976. L-footed plant bug on 

pomegranate in Maharashtra. Entomologists' Newsletter 6(10):57.

Jagginavar, S. B., and L. K. Naik. 2002. Studies on nature of damage due to Xyleborus perforans

(Wollastan) on pomegranate [Abstract]. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 

15(3):534-538.

Jagginavar, S. B., and L. K. Naik. 2005. Management of shothole borer, Xyleborus perforans

(Wollastan) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in pomegranate. Indian Journal of Agricultural 

Research 39(2):133-137.

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

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A. 614 pp.

Jhala, R. C., T. M. Bharpoda, A. J. Chavda, and D. B. Sisodiya. 2003. Record of Leptoglossus 

australis (Fabricius) [Heteroptera: Coreidae] on bitter gourd in Gujarat. Insect 

Environment 9(4):177-178.

Johnson, J. A., T. C. Harrington, and C. J. B. Engelbrecht. 2005. Phylogeny and taxonomy of the 

North American clade of the Ceratocystis fimbriata complex. Mycologia 97(5):1067-

1092.

Johnson, W. T., and H. H. Lyon. 1991. Insects that Feed on Trees and Shrubs. Cornell University

Press, Hong Kong. 560 pp.

Joseph, K. V., and C. N. Oommen. 1961. Notes on some insect pests infesting dry tamarind fruits 

in Kerala State [Abstract]. Indian J. Ent. 22(pt. 3).
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 78

Kapadia, M.N. 1996. Estimation of losses due to pod borers in oilseed crops. Journal of Oilseeds 

Research, 13(1):139-140.

Kaplan, S. 1992. Expert information versus expert opinions: Another approach to the problem of 

eliciting/combining/using expert knowledge in PRA. Reliability Engineering and System 

Safety 35:61-72.

Karabhantanal, S. S. 2005. Fruit borer in pomegranate. The Hindu. Last accessed September 19, 

2007, http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu.

Karny, H. H. 1926. Studies on Indian Thysanoptera. Memoirs of the Department of Agriculture 

of India [Abstract] 9(6).

Karuppuchamy, P., G. Balasubramanian, and P. C. S. Babu. 1998. The biology of pomegranate 

fruitborer, Deudorix isocrates. Madras Agricultural Journal 85(5/6):256-259.

Keane, R. M., and M. J. Crawley. 2002. Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. 

Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17(4):164-170.

Keanzlin. 1913. The mealy bug plague in Dar es Salaam [Abstract]. Der Pflanzer, Dar es Salaam 

9:493-507.

Kessing, J. L. M., and R. F. L. Mau. 1993. Abgrallaspis cyanophylli (Signoret). University of 

Hawaii, Department of Entomology. Last accessed March 31, 2004, 

http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/a_cyanop.htm.

Kleijunus, J. T., B. Tkacz, H. Burdsall, G. DeNitto, A. Eglitis, D. Haugen, and W. Wallner. 2001. 

Pest Risk Assessment of the Importation into the United States of Unprocessed 

Eucalyptus Logs and Woodchips from South America. in U. F. Service, ed. United States 

Department of Agriculture.

Klein Koch, C., and D. F. Waterhouse. 2000. The distribution and importance of arthropods 

associated with agriculture and forestry in Chile (Distribucion e importancia de los 

artropodos asociados a la agricultura y silvicultura en Chile). Australian Centre for 

International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Canberra, Australia. 234 pp.

Kosztarab, M. 1996. Scale Insects of Northeastern North America: Identification, Biology, and 

Distribution. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, Virginia, U.S.A. 650 pp.

Koul, V., M. A. Masoodi, K. C. Bhagat, and O. K. Bhat. 2000. Biology, behaviour and 

biocontrol agents of Drosicha dalbergia (Green) infesting almonds in Kashmir. Annals of 

Plant Protection Sciences 8(1):24-26.

Krauth, S. 2002. Presence in the U.S.A. of Macrodactylus sp., Altica sp. and Anomala sp. 

Personal communication to O. Parfait (Archived at PERAL).

Krishnamoorthy, A., and M. Mani. 1998. Biological control of oriental mealybug, Planococcus 

lilacinus (Ckll.) on chow-chow [Abstract]. Pages 207-209 in Anonymous, (ed.). 

Advances in IPM for Horticultural Crops. Proceedings of the First National Symposium 

on Pest Management in Horticultural Crops: Environmental Implications and Thrusts 

(October 15-17, 1997), Bangalore, India.

Kulkarni, R., J. R. Kadam, and U. N. Mote. 2003. Efficacy of Verticillium lecanii against mealy 

bugs on pomegranate. Journal of Applied Zoological Researches 14(1):59-60.

Kumar, L. S. S. 1944. Flowering plants which attack economic crops. III. Loranthus. Indian 

Farming 5:460-462.

Kumar, R., M. Jahagirdar, S. Yenjerappa, and H. Patil. 2009a. Epidemiology and management of 

bacterial blight of pomegranate caused by Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae. Acta 

Horticultura 818:291-296
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 79

Kumawat, K. C., and S. P. Singh. 2002. Evaluation of insecticides and acaricides against 

Oriental mite infesting pomegranate. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 10(1):137-139.

Kwon, G., S. Lee, M. Han, H. Goh, G. M. Kwon, S. H. Lee, M. J. Han, and H. G. Goh. 2002. 

The genus Pseudococcus (Westwood) (Sternorrhyncha: Pseudococcidae) of Korea 

[Abstract]. Journal of Asia Pacific Entomology 5(2):145-154.

Lakra, R. K., W. S. Kharub, and S. Zile. 1980. Pest management systems for the mango mealy 

bug, Drosicha mangiferae Green - a polyphagous pest of fruit trees in Haryana [Abstract]. 

Indian Journal of Entomology 42(2):153-165.

Leonard, M. D., H. G. Walker, and L. Enari. 1971. Host plants of three polyphagous and widely 

distributed aphids in the Los Angeles State and County arboretum, Arcadia, California 

(Homoptera: Aphididae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 

73(2):120-131.

Lewis, T. 1997. Flight and Dispersal. Pages 740 in T. Lewis, (ed.). Thrips as crop pests. CAB 

International, Wallingford, UK.

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

dorsalis, infesting litchi. Entomological Knowledge 41(2):172-173.

Liogier, H. A., and L. F. Martorell. 2000. Flora of Puerto Rico and adjacent islands: a systematic 

synopsis (2nd ed.). Editorial de la Universidad the Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Loch, A. D., and M. P. Zalucki. 1996. Spatial distribution of pink wax scale, Ceroplastes rubens

Maskell (Hemiptera: Coccidae), on umbrella trees in south-eastern Queensland: The 

pattern of outbreaks Australian Journal of Zoology 44(6):599-609.

Loganathan, M., and S. Suresh. 2001. A record of mealybug, Planococcus lilacinus (Cockrell) 

(Pseudococcidae : Hemiptera) on cauliflower [Abstract]. Insect Environment 7(1):11-12.

LR. 2005. Ngā Tipu o Aotearoa - New Zealand Plants. Landcare Research (LR). Last accessed 

June 25, 2007, http://nzflora.landcareresearch.co.nz/.

Mabberley, D. J. 1987. The plant-book: A portable dictionary of the higher plants. Cambridge 

University Press, New York, USA. 706 pp.

Macfarlane, R. 2001. Aleurodicus dispersus The Horticulture and Food Research Institute of 

New Zealand Ltd. (ID 18714) 2001-07-09. Last accessed March 2007, 

http://ecoport.org/ep?Arthropod=18714.

Madhukar, J., and S. M. Reddy. 1988. Some new L spot diseases of pomegranate. Indian Journal 

of Mycology and Plant Pathology 18(2):171-172.

Maes, J. M. 2004. Catalogo de Insectos y Artropodos Terrestres de Nicaragua. Museo 

Entomológico de León. Last accessed 10 September, 

http://www.insectariumvirtual.com/termitero/nicaragua.htm.

Maggenti, A. 1981. General Nematology. Springer-Verlag, New York. 196 pp.

Maity, D. K., A. K. Sahoo, and S. K. Mandal. 1998. Evaluation of laboratory hosts for rearing 

and mass multiplication of Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Pseudococcidae: Hemiptera) 

[Abstract]. Environment and Ecology 16(3):530-532.

Mani, M., M. S. Dinesh, and A. Krishnamoorthy. 2003. Establishment of Encarsia guadeloupae

Viggiani on the spiralling whitefly at Hyderabad. Insect Environment 9(1):34.

Mani, M., C. Gopalakrishnan, and A. Krishnamoorthy. 2001. Natural incidence of Xanthopimpla

sp. and Paecilomyces farinosus (Holms.) on pomegranate hairy caterpillar, Trabala 

vishnou (Lefevere). Insect Environment 6(4):161-162.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 80

Mani, M., and A. Krishnamoorthy. 2000. Biological suppression of mealybugs Planococcus citri

(Risso) and Planococcus lilacinus (Ckll.) on pomegranate in India [Abstract]. Indian 

Journal of Plant Protection 28(2):187-189.

Mani, M., A. Krishnamoorthy, and C. Gopalakrishnan. 2005. Biological control of lepidopterous 

pests of horticultural crops in India - A review. Agricultural Reviews 26(1):39-49.

Manjunatha, M., G. Mikunthan, and S. Shubha. 2003. Incidence of Archips micaceana (Walker) 

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) on vanilla [Abstract]. Insect Environment 9(3):101-102.

Marsh, J. C. S. 1960. Hong Kong Butterflies. The Shell Company of Hong Kong Ltd., Hong 

Kong, China. 113 pp.

Martin-Kessing, J. L., and R. F. L. Mau. 1993. Crop Knowlege Master: Aleruodicus dispersus 

(Russell). in. University of Hawaii, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human 

Resources (UH-CTAHAR), Department of Entomology; and Hawaii Department of 

Agriculture Extension Entomology, Honolulu, HI.

Martin-Kessing, J. L., and R. F. L. Mau. 2007. Dysmicoccus neobrevipes (Beardsley). University

of Hawaii. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/Kbase/crop/Type/d_neobre.htm.

Martinez, M. d. l. A., and M. Suris. 1998. Biology of Planococcus minor Maskell (Homoptera: 

Pseudococcidae) under laboratory conditions [Abstract]. Revista de Proteccion Vegetal 

13(3):199-201.

Masoodi, M. A., K. C. Bhagat, and V. K. Koul. 1988. Drosicha dalbergia Green (Coccidae: 

Homoptera) - a new pest of almond in India. Annals of Biology (Ludhiana) 4(1-2):112.

Mathur, R. S. 1979. The Coelomycetes of India. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Delhi, India. 

460 pages pp.

Maxwell, B. 2007. Brandt's palm and tropical/subtropical tree page. Brandt Maxwell. Last 

accessed May 1, 2007, http://www.geocities.com/westcornersville/.

McGregor, B. M. 1989. Tropical Products Transport Handbook. USDA Agricultural Handbook 

Number 668.

McKenzie, H. L. 1967. Mealybugs of California: With taxonomy, biology and control of North 

American species (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidea). University of California 

Press, Berkeley, California, U.S.A. 525 pp.

Meena, T., S. Sangita, and C. L. Dinabandhoo. 2004. Phytophagous mites associated with 

temperate and sub-tropical fruit trees in Himachal Pradesh [Abstract]. Pest Management 

and Economic Zoology 12(1):83-87.

Meeta, G., R. Sundararaj, and S. Murugesan. 1999. Host range and distribution of the babul 

whitefly Acaudaleyrodes rachipora (Singh) (Aleyrodidae: Homoptera) in Indian arid 

zone. Recent advances in management of arid ecosystem. Proceedings of a symposium 

held in India, March 1997:397-400.

Millar, I. M. 1994. A Catalogue of the Aphids (Homoptera: Aphidoidea) of sub-Saharan Africa. 

Agricultural Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa. 130 pp.

Miller, D. 2005. Selected scale insect groups (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) in the southern region of 

the United States. Florida Entomologist 88(4):482-501.

Miller, D. R. 1985. Pest risk assessment of armored scales on certain fruit (USDA-ARS Report 

submitted to USDA-APHIS-PPQ). USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD. 

35 pp.

Miller, D. R., G. L. Miller, and G. W. Watson. 2002. Invasive species of mealybugs (Hemiptera: 

Pseudococcidae) and their threat to U.S. agriculture. Proceedings of the Entomological 

Society of Washington 104(4):825-836.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 81

Miller, G. L., and D. R. Miller. 2002. Dysmicoccus Ferris and similar genera (Hemiptera: 

Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae) of the gulf state region including a description of a new 

species and new United States records. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 104(4):968-979.

Misra, A. K. 2004. Diseases of Fruits and Vegetables: Volume II. Diagnosis and Management in

S. Naqvi, ed. Guava Diseases — their Symptoms, Causes and Management Springer 

Netherlands.

Mohite, A. S., D. B. Tembhare, and S. P. Umarkar. 2004. Biology and behaviour of developing 

stages of fruit sucking moth, Othreis materna Linn. (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae). Journal of 

Entomological Research 28(1):37-45.

Morgan, M. G., and M. Henrion. 1990. Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

UK. 332 pp.

Morton, J. F. 1987. Fruits of Warm Climates. Julia F. Morton, Miami, FL.

Mote, U. N., and A. B. Tambe. 2000. Seasonal incidence of shot-hole borer on pomegranate. 

Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities 25(1):34-36.

Mound, L. A. 2007. Thysanoptera (Thrips) of the World – a checklist. CSIRO Entomology. Last 

accessed September 6, 2007, http://www.ento.csiro.au/thysanoptera/worldthrips.html.

Mound, L. A., and S. H. Halsey. 1978. Whitefly of the World: A Systematic Catalogue of the 

Aleyrodidae (Homoptera) with Host Plant and Natural Enemy Data. British Museum and 

John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. 340 pp.

Murray, D. A. H. 1976. Insect pests on passion fruit. Queensland Agricultural Journal 

102(2):145-151.

Murugan, M., and A. Thirumurugan. 2001. Ecobehaviour of pomegranate fruit borer, Deudorix 

isocrates (Fab.) [Lycaenidae: Lepidoptera] under orchard ecosystem. Indian Journal of 

Plant Protection 29(1/2):121-126.

Myers, R. L., and J.J. Ewel. 1990. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, 

Orlando. 765 pp.

Nair, M. R. G. K. 1975. Insects and mites of crops in India. Indian Council of Agricultural 

Research, New Delhi, India. 404 pp.

NAPPO. 2004. NAPPO regional standards for phytosanitary measures: RSPM#5: NAPPO 

glossary of phytosanitary terms. North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO), 

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 9 pp.

Narasimham, A. U. 1987. Scale insects and mealybugs on coffee, tea and cardamom and their 

natural enemies. Journal of Coffee Research 17(1):7-13.

NASS. 2007. National Agricultural Statistics Service data. United States Department of 

Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/index.asp.

Nazeer Ahmad, J. 1942. On the biology of Euzophera punicaeella Moore in Baluchistan 

[Abstract]. Indian J. Ent. 4(pt. 1).

Negm, M. F., S. M. Assem, and A. G. El-Sisi. 2001. Comparison between some mineral oils and 

cidial for controlling mealybug Icerya seychellarum (Westwood) on mulberry trees by 

using knapsack motor sprayer [Abstract]. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research 

79(2):453-461.

Newbery, D. M. 1980a. Infestation of the coccid, Icerya seychellarum (Westw.), on the 

mangrove Avicennia marina (Forsk.) Vierh. on Aldabra Atoll, with special reference to 

tree age [Abstract]. Oecologia 45(3):325-330.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 82

Newbery, D. M. 1980b. Interactions between the coccid, Icerya seychellarum (Westw.), and its 

host tree species on Aldabra Atoll. 1. Euphorbia pyrifolia Lam [Abstract]. Oecologia 

46(2):171-179.

NHM. 2006. Hosts - a database of the world's Lepidopteran hostplants. Natural History Museum

(NHM). http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/research-curation/projects/hostplants//index.dsml.

NRCS. 2007. The PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), National Plant Data Center. 

http://plants.usda.gov/cgi_bin/.

Nyvall, R. F., and A. Hu. 1997. Laboratory Evaluation of Indigenous North American Fungi for 

Biological Control of Purple Loosestrife1. BIOLOGICAL CONTROL 8:37–42.

Ooi, P. A. C., A. Winotai, and J. E. Pena. 2002. Pests of minor tropical fruits. Pages 315-330 in J.

E. Pena, J. L. Sharp, and M. Wysoki, (eds.). Tropical Fruit Pests and Pollinators: Biology, 

Economic Importance, Natural Enemies and Control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, 

U.K.

Orr, R. L., S. D. Cohen, and R. L. Griffin. 1993. Generic non-indigenous pest risk assessment 

process: "The generic process" (For estimating pest risk associated with the introduction 

of non-indigenous organisms.) USDA-APHIS Policy and Program Development, MD. 40 

pp.

Page, S., and M. Olds (eds.). 2001. The Plant Book: The World of Plants in a Single Volume. 

Mynah, Hong Kong. 1020 pp.

Palmer, J. M., D. V. R. Reddy, J. A. Wightman, and G. V. R. Rao. 1990. New information on the 

thrips vectors of tomato spotted wilt virus in groundnut crops in India [Abstract]. 

International Arachis Newsletter (7):24-25.

Park, J. D., I. J. Park, and K. P. Han. 1994. Investigation of insect pests and injury characteristics 

of Stathmopoda auriferella (Walker) on kiwi fruit tree [Abstract]. Korean Journal of 

Applied Entomology 33(3):148-152.

Parui, P. 1971. On a new host record of Taragama siva (Lef.) (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae) 

from West Bengal [Abstract]. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 68(3):845.

Pasuki, A. 1975. Points needing correction [Abstract]. Entomologie et Phytopathologie 

Appliquees (38):Pe 86 En 24.

Patel, G. A., and H. K. Patel. 1952. Control of termites as pests of fruit trees. Proc. zool. Soc. 

Bengal. 5:133-140.

Patil, A. V., A. R. Karale, and T. K. Bose. 2002. Pomegranate. Pages 125-162 in T. K. Bose, S. 

K. Mitra, and D. Sanyal, (eds.). Fruits: Tropical and Subtropical (Volume II). Naya 

Udyog, Calcutta, India.

Patyal, S. K., and A. Nath. 1993. Efficacy and persistence of monocrotophos and phosphamidon

on wild pomegranate. Journal of Entomological Research 17(2):111-115.

Paul, J., S. Saxena, and A. Varma. 1993. Ultrastructural studies of the termite (Odontotermes 

obesus) gut microflora and its cellulolytic properties. World Journal of Microbiology and 

Biotechnology 9:106-112.

PERAL. 2007. Phytosanitary risks associated with armored scales in commercial shipments of 

fruit for consumption to the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for 

Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory

(PERAL), Raleigh, NC. 25 pp.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 83

PERAL. 2008. Plant Hardiness Zones of the United States: Area and Population Analysis. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant 

Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC. 6 pp.

PestID. 2007. Pest Identification Database (PestID), version 1.2. United States Department of 

Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Last accessed January 2008, 

https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp.

PPQ. 1997. Importation of pomegranate fruits, Punica granatum from Israel into the United 

States. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Riverdale, MD, U.S.A. 19 pp.

PPQ. 2007. Fresh fruits and vegetables import manual (July 19, 2007). United States Department 

of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and 

Quarantine (PPQ), U.S.A. 650 pp.

Prasad, J., A. D. Pawar, and R. Pratap. 1987. Occurrence of anar butterfly, Deudorix epijarbas

Moore (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) on pomegranate, Punica granatum in Solan, Himachal 

Pradesh. Journal of Advanced Zoology 8(1):53-54.

Prasad, V. 1971. A Catalogue of Mites of India. Indira Acarology Publishing House, Ludhiana, 

India. 320 pp.

Prasad, V. G., and R. K. Singh. 1976. Prevalence and control of mango mealy bug Drosicha 

stebbingi (Green) in Bihar [Abstract]. Indian Journal of Entomology 38(3):214-224.

Prat, L., and C. Botti. 2002. El Granado (Punica granatum L). Universidad de Chile, Santiago, 

Chile.

Qu, B., J. Wang, Q. Dang, M. Liu, and Y. Wang. 1996. Scale insects occurring in ornamental 

trees and shrubs in Xianyang and their natural enemies [Abstract]. Journal of Northwest 

Forestry College 11(4):50-54.

Qureshi, J. A., L. L. Buschman, J. E. Throne, and S. B. Ramaswamy. 2005. Adult dispersal of 

Ostrinia nubilalis Hubner (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) and its implications for resistance 

management in Bt-maize. Journal of Applied Entomology 129(6):281-292.

Rahman, K. A. 1939. Important insect pests of the mango and how to combat them [Abstract]. 

Punjab Fruit Journal 3(11).

Ramakrishna Ayyar, T. V. 1936. The important insect pests of the castor oil plant in S. India 

with suggestions for their control [Abstract]. Tropical Agriculturist 86(2).

Randall, R. P. 2007. A Global Compendium of Weeds, Online Database. Department of 

Agriculture of Western Australia. Last accessed January 12, 2007, 

http://www.hear.org/gcw/.

Rao, V. G., and B.R.D. Yadav. 1991. Some hitherto undescribed fungi infecting ornamentals. 

Cryptog. Bot 2:188-191.

Rawat, U. S., A. D. Pawar, and R. Chand. 1989. New record of mealy bug, Drosicha dalbergiae

Green and its incidence on pomegranate in Himachal Pradesh [Abstract]. Journal of 

Insect Science 2(1):66-67.

Rawla, G. S. 1971. Cercospora granati sp. nov. on Punica. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc 56:483-484.

Raychaudhuri, D., D. N. Raychaudhuri, and T. K. Singh. 1981. Redescription of Shivaphis celti 

(oviparae) and Myzus varians (Homoptera: Aphididae) hitherto unknown from India 

[Abstract]. Science and Culture 47(5):171-172.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 84

Reddy, K. B., P. K. Bhat, and R. Naidu. 1997. Suppression of mealybugs and green scale 

infesting coffee with natural enemies in Karnataka [Abstract]. Pest Management and 

Economic Zoology 5(2):119-121.

Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically Important Foreign Weeds. Agricultural Research Service, 

United States Department of Agriculture., U.S.A. 746 pp.

Robbins, R. K., and G. B. Small Jr. 1981. Wind Dispersal of Panamanian Hairstreak Butterflies 

(Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) and its Evoluationary Significance. Biotropica 13(4):308-315.

Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitching, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernández. 2001. 

Hostplants of the moth and butterfly caterpillars of the Oriental Region. The Natural 

History Museum, London. 744 pp.

Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitching, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernandez. 2007. 

HOSTS - A Database of the Hostplants of the World's Lepidoptera. The Natural History

Museum. London, United Kingdom. Last accessed May 25, 2007, 

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/hostplants.

Rostaman. 1997. Pests and diseases of sandalwood in Kabupaten Kupang [Abstract]. Duta 

Rimba 23(209/210):41-48.

Roy, A., D. K. Ghosh, D. K. Ramachandran, P. Agarwel, J. Ahlwat, and D. R. Das. 2005. First 

record of a Hop Stunt Viroid variant on nagpur mandarin and Mosambi sweet ornage 

trees on rough lemon and Rangpur lime Rstocks. Plant Pathology 54(4):571.

Sahoo, A. K., A. B. Ghosh, S. K. Mandal, and D. K. Maiti. 1999. Study on the biology of the 

mealybug, Planococcus minor (Maskell) Pseudococcidae: Hemiptera. Journal of 

Interacademicia 3(1):41-48.

Sakakibara, N., and J. Nishigaki. 1988. Seasonal abundance of chili thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis 

hood (Thysanoptera:Thripidae), in a kiwi fruit orchard [abstract]. Bulletin of the Faculty 

of Agriculture, Shizuoka University 38:1-9.

Salt, R. W. 1961. Principles of insect cold-hardiness. Annual Review of Entomology 6:55-74.

Sano, T., K. Ohshima, T. Hataya, I. Uyeda, E. Shikata, T. Chou, T. Meshi, and Y. Okada. 1986. 

A viroid resembling hop stunt viroid in grapevines from Europe, the United States, and 

Japan. Journal of General Virology 67:1673-1678.

Santos, B. B. d. 1988. Arthropods associated with cultivated crops in the State of Parana. II. 

Coffee and manioc [Abstract]. Revista do Setor de Ciencias Agrarias 10(1-2):27-28.

Savela, M. 2007. Lepidoptera and some other life forms. Last accessed August 14, 2007, 

http://www.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/intro.html.

Sayed, A.A. 2000. Timing of enclosing date bunches in plastic bags as key factor affecting 

infestations of Virachola livia and Cadra spp. in New Valley Governorate, Egypt. Assiut 

Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 31 (5): 33-39.

Sen-Sarma, P. K. 1987. Insect pest problems in social forestry plantations and their management. 

Indian Journal of Forestry 10(4):239-244.

Sether, D. M., D. E. Ullman, and J. S. Hu. 1998. Transmission of pineapple mealybug wiltassociated virus by two species of mealybug (Dysmicoccus spp.) [Abstract]. 

Phytopathology 88(11):1224-1230.

Sheikh, M. K. 2006. The Pomegranate. International Book Distributing, Co., Charbagh, India. 

191 pp.

Shevale, B. S. 1994. Studies on control of pomegranate butterfly, Virachola isocrates Fabricius. 

Plant Protection Bulletin (Faridabad) 46(1):19-21.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 85

Shevale, B. S. 2003. Studies on life fecundity table of pomegranate butterfly, Deudorix isocrates

Fabricius. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 11(2):255-257.

Shevale, B. S., and S. N. Kaulgud. 1998. Population dynamics of pests of pomegranate Punica 

granatum Linnaeus [Abstract]. Advances in IPM for horticultural crops. Proceedings of 

the First National Symposium on Pest Management in Horticultural Crops: 

environmental implications and thrusts, Bangalore, India, 15-17 October 1997:47-51.

Shi, W., C. Kerdelhue, and H. Ye. 2005. Population Genetics of the Oriental Fruit Fly, 

Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae), in Yunnan (China) Based on Mitochondrial 

DNA Sequences. Environmental Entomology 34(4):977-983.

Showers, W. B., R. L. Hellmich, M. E. Derrick-Robinson, and W. H. Hendrix. 2001. 

Aggregation and dispersal behavior of marked and released European corn borer 

(Lepidoptera: Crambidae) adults. Environmental Entomology 30(700-710).

Shukla, R. P., and P. L. Tandon. 1984. Use of insecticides for the control of Planococcus 

pacificus Cox, a mealy bug on custard apple [Abstract]. Entomon 9(3):181-183.

Silva, C. G., and J. R. P. Parra. 1982. Biology and injuriousness of Coccus viridis (Green, 1889) 

(Homoptera-Coccidae) on coffee seedlings (Coffea spp.). Anais da Sociedade 

Entomologica do Brasil 11(2):181-195.

Singh, M. P. 1991. Observations on the pest complex of Balanites aegyptiaca (L) Delile in the 

arid zones of India. Entomon 16(3):249.

Skinner, K., L. Smith, and P. Rice. 2005. Noxious Weeds in the US and Canada, Online 

Database. University of Montana. Last accessed February 25, 2005, 

http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/Noxious_Weeds/.

Somasehara, Y. M. 1999. New record of Ceratocystis fimbriata causing wilt of pomegranate in 

India. Plant Disease 83(4):400.

Srivastava, O. S., and A. C. Jain. 1973. Occurrence of Virachola isocrates Fabr. (Anar caterpillar) 

(Lepidoptera:Lycaenidae) on Emblica officinalis Gaertn. (Amla or Aonla) in Madhya 

Pradesh. Indian Journal of Entomology 35(4):352-353.

Srivastava, R. P. 1997. Mango Insect Pest Management. International Book Distributing Co, 

Lucknow, India. 272 pp.

Subramanian, S., and S. V. Krishnamurthy. 2002. Outbreak of hairy caterpillar Euproctis lunata

Walker on Acacia trees. Insect Environment 8(3):112.

Sugimoto, S. 1994. Scale insects intercepted on banana fruits from Mindanao Is., the Philippines 

(Coccoidea: Homoptera) [Abstract]. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service, 

Japan (30):115-121.

Sundararaj, R., and S. Murugesan. 1996. Occurrence of Acaudaleyrodes rachipora (Singh) 

(Aleyrodidae: Homoptera) as a pest of some important forest trees in Jodhpur (India). 

Indian Journal of Forestry 19(3):247-248.

Susainathan, P. 1924. Fruit-sucking moths of South India [Abstract]. Pages 23-27 Proceedings of 

the 5th Entomological Meeting, Pusa, February 1923, Pusa.

Swearingen, J. 2005. Alien plant invaders of natural areas. National Park Service. Last accessed 

May 2, 2005, http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/list/all.htm.

Talhouk, A. M. 1969. Insects and Mites Injurious to Crops in Middle Eastern Countries. Verlag 

Paul Parey/ Hamburg Und Berlin, Germany. 239 pp.

Tandon, P. L., and G. K. Veeresh. 1988. Inter-tree spatial distribution of Coccus viridis (Green) 

on mandarin. International Journal of Tropical Agriculture 6(3-4):270-275.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 86

Teggelli, R. G., N. M. S. Kumar, and V. I. Benagi. 2002. Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) -- as a 

pomegranate fruit borer. Insect Environment 8(2):55.

Thakur, J. N., A. D. Pawar, and U. S. Rawat. 1993. Observations on the post release impact of 

Trichogramma chilonis Ishii (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae), an egg parasitoid of 

anar butterfly on fruit infestation in Kullu Valley (H.P). Plant Protection Bulletin 

(Faridabad) 45(1):54-55.

Thakur, J. N., O. P. Verma, J. P. Singh, and A. D. Pawar. 1995. Incidence of Deudorix epijarbas

Moore (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) and its parasitoids on pomegranate in Jammu Region. 

Journal of Biological Control 9(2):116-118.

U.C. IPM. 2007. How to manage pests: Grape. University of California, Agriculture and Natural 

Resources, Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program (U.C. IPM). Last accessed 

January 2008, http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selectnewpest.grapes.html.

Ulusoy, M. R., G. Vatansever, L. Erkılıc, and N. Uygun. 2003. Studies on Aleurothrixus 

floccosus (Maskell) (Homoptera, Aleyrodidae) and its parasitoid, Cales noacki Howard 

(Hymenoptera, Aphelinidae) in the East Mediterranean region of Turkey. Journal of Pest 

Science 76:163-169.

Upasana, R., and K. S. Verma. 2002. Perpetuation and spread of Xanthomonas axonpodis pv. 

punicae causing black spot of pomegranate. Plant Disease Research 17(1):46-50.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. Section 1: Population. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2006 

United States Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/06statab/pop.pdf.

USDA-NA. 2003. The 2003 US National Arboretum "web version" of the USDA Plant 

Hardiness Zone Map. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National 

Arboretum (NA). http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap.html.

USDA. 1982. Pests not known to occur in the United States or of limited distribution, No. 21: 

Seychelles fluted scale Icerya seychellarum (Westwood). PestID PPQ, Hyattsville, MD.

USDA. 1990. USDA plant hardiness zone map. USDA Agricultural Research Service. Last 

accessed June 2007, http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap.html.

USDA. 2000. Guidelines for pathway-initiated pest risk assessments (v. 5.02). Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Last accessed 

November 18, 2004, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/.

USDA. 2007a. Decision history for pomegranate (Punica granatum). United States Department 

of Agriculture (USDA), U.S.A.

USDA. 2007b. U.S. National Collection of Aphididae Database. United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Systematic Entomology Laboratory Last accessed May 30, 2007, 

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/aphid/aphframe.htm.

USEP. 2007. El granado (Punica granatum). Unidad de Seleccion y Propagacion para la Venta 

de Material Fitogenetico (USEP), Facultad de Ciencias Agronomicas, Universidad de 

Chile. http://agronomia.uchile.cl/centros/USEP/Granado/granado.htm.

USFWS. 2007. Threatened and endangered animals and pants. United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS). http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html#Species.

van den Berg, M. A. 1995. Pests attacking macadamia in South Africa. Sixth Conference of the 

Australasian Council on Tree and Nut Crops Inc., Lismore, NSW, Australia. September 

11-15, 1995.

van den Berg, M. A., E. A. de Villiers, and P. H. Joubert. 2001. Pests and beneficial arthropods 

of tropical and non-citrus subtropical crops in South Africa. Ad Dynamics, Nelspruit, 

South Africa. 525 pp.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 87

Vergara, C., and D. Castro. 2006. Pests associated to Punica granatum in Chile: Preliminary pest 

list., Chile. 9 pp.

Verma, N., A. K. Singh, L. Singh, S. Kulshreshtha, G. Raikhy, V. Hallan, R.Ram, and A. A. 

Zaidi. 2004. Occurence of Cucumber mosaic virus in Gerbera jamesonii in India. Plant 

Disease 88:1161.

Verma, R. R. 1985. Preliminary observations on the biology of pomegranate butterfly, Deudorix 

epijarbas Moore. Agricultural Science Digest Karnal 5(1):1-2.

Verma, R. S., S. A. Ali, A. K. Badaya, S. S. Shaw, and O. P. Veda. 1995. Nature and extent of 

damage caused by pomegranate butterfly, Virachola isocrates Fabr. in Mosumbi Citrus 

sinensis [Abstract]. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika 10(1-2):40-42.

Verma, S. K. 2006. Emerging insect pest problems of legumes in arid ecosystem. Journal of Arid 

Legumes 3(1):65-69.

Vijay, K., M. A. Masoodi, K. C. Bhagat, and O. K. Bhat. 2000a. Biology, behaviour and 

biocontrol agents of Drosicha dalbergia (Green) infesting almonds in Kashmir. Annals of 

Plant Protection Sciences 8(1):24-26.

Vijay, K., M. A. Masoodi, K. C. Bhagat, and O. K. Bhat. 2000b. Biology, behaviour and 

biocontrol agents of Drosicha dalbergia (Green) infesting almonds in Kashmir [Abstract]. 

Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 8(1):24-26.

Viqar, S. N., S. Kamaluddin, A. S. Siddiqui, and K. A. B. S. Khan. 2005. Amazing long tailed 

hindwings big moth, Actias selene (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) discovered from 

Pakistan [Abstract]. International Journal of Biology and Biotechnology 2(1):5-10.

Vu, N. T., R. Eastwood, C. T. Nguyen, and L. V. Pham. 2006. The fig wax scale Ceroplastes 

rusci (Linnaeus) (Homoptera: Coccidae) in south-east Vietnam: Pest status, life history

and biocontrol trials with Eublemma amabilis Moore (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). 

Entomological Research 36:196-201.

Waite, G. K. 2002. Pests and pollinators of mango. Pages 103-129 in J. E. Pena, J. L. Sharp, and 

M. Wysoki, (eds.). Tropical Fruit Pests and Pollinators: Biology, Economic Importance, 

Natural Enemies and Control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, U.K.

Waite, G. K., and J. S. Hwang. 2002. Pests of litchi and longan. Pages 331-359 in J. E. Pena, J. L. 

Sharp, and M. Wysoki, (eds.). Tropical Fruit Pests and Pollinators: Biology, Economic 

Importance, Natural Enemies and Control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, U.K.

Walton, V. M., and K. L. Pringle. 2004. A survey of mealybugs and associated natural enemies 

in vineyards in the Western Cape Province, South Africa [Abstract]. South African 

Journal of Enology and Viticulture 25(1):23-25.

Waterhouse, D. F. 1991. Possibilities for the biological control of the breadfruit mealybug, 

Icerya aegyptiaca, on Pacific atolls. Micronesica 3 (Suppl.):117-122.

Weber, E. 2003. Invasive Plant Species of the World: A Reference Guide to Environmental 

Weeds. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. 548 pp.

Weber, G. 1973. Bacterial and Fungal Diseases of Plants in the Tropics. Pages 432-434. 

University Florida press, Gainesville, Florida.

Wen, H. C., and H. S. Lee. 1984. The main insect pests on passion fruit in Taiwan. Journal of 

Agricultural Research of China 33(1):81-87.

White, I. M., and M. M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: Their 

identification and binomics. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 601 pp.

Whittle, K. 1984. Light-brown apple moth: Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). in Pests Not Known 

to Occur in the United States or of Limited Distribution. No 50. USDA-APHIS, PPQ.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 88

Widrlechner, M. P. 1997. Hardiness zones in China. United States Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service, Ames, IA, U.S.A.

Williams, D. J. 1986. Scale insects (Homoptera: Coccoidea) on coffee in Papua New Guinea. 

Papua New Guinea Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 34(1-4):1-7.

Williams, D. J. 1996. A synoptic account of the mealybug genus Ferrisia Fullaway (Hem., 

Pseudococcidae). Entomologist's Monthly Magazine 132(3):1-10.

Williams, D. J. 2004. Mealybugs of Southern Asia. The Natural History Museum & Southdene 

SDN. BHD., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 896 pp.

Williams, D. J., and G. W. Watson. 1988. The scale insects of the tropical South Pacific region:

Part 2: The mealybugs (Pseudococcidae). CAB International Institute of Entomology, 

London, UK. 259 pp.

Wisam, O. and A. Mazen. 2002. Bionomics and control of pomegranate butterfly Virachola 

(Deudorix) livia (Klug) (Lepidoptera: Lycanidae) in Northern Jordan. Dirasat. 

Agricultural Sciences, 29 (1): 1-12

WSSA. 2006. Weed List. Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). Last accessed November 

28, 2006, http://www.wssa.net/weednames/common.asp.

Wynter-Blyth, M. A. 1957. Butterflies of the Indian Region. The Bombay Natural History

Society, Bombay, India. 523 pp.

Zaka-ur-Rab, M. 1980. The cornelian, Deudorix epijarbas Moore (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) as a 

serious pest of pomegranate fruits in Kashmir. Journal of Entomological Research 4:233-

235.

Zhang, B. C. 1994. Index of economically important Lepidoptera. CAB International, 

Wallingford, UK. 599 pp.

Zhang, Z.-Q. 2003. Mites of Greenhouses: Identification, Biology and Control. CABI Publishing, 

Wallingford, UK. 244 pp.

Zlotina, M., M.K. Hennessey, R. Sequeira, and T.W. Culliney. 2007. Phytosanitary Risks 

Associated with Armored Scales in Commercial Shipments of Fruit for Consumption to 

the United States. USDA APHIS Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, 

Raleigh, NC. 

5. Authors and Reviewers

Authors:

A.D. Neeley, Entomologist, PestID PPQ / CPHST-PERAL

A.L. Koop, Botanist, PestID PPQ / CPHST-PERAL

J. S. Rogers, Plant Pathologist, PestID PPQ / CPHST-PERAL

Reviewers:

K.R. Lakin, Entomologist, PestID PPQ / CPHST-PERAL

S.C. Redlin, Plant Pathologist, PestID PPQ / CPHST-PERAL
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 89

Appendix: Risk Mitigation Options for Importation of Fresh Pomegranates 

(Punica granatum) Fruit from India into the Continental United States

including Alaska

1. Introduction

This section outlines possible phytosanitary measures that should be considered in order to 

prevent the introduction of the quarantine pests that likely associated with fresh pomegranate 

fruit from India.

We identified the following pests with High unmitigated pest risk potential: 

Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Conogethes punctiferalis (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae)

Cryptoblabes gnidiella Millière (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

Deudorix epijarbas (Moore) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)

Deudorix isocrates Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)

Drosicha dalbergiae (Green) (Hemiptera: Margarodidae)

Euzophera bigella Zeller (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

Icerya seychellarum Westwood (Hemiptera: Margarodidae)

Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Planococcus lilacinus (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

We identified the following pests with Medium risk potential: 

Bactrocera carambolae (Drew & Hancock) (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Ceroplastes rubens (Maskell) (Hemiptera: Coccidae)

Ceroplastes rusci (Linnaeus) (Hemiptera : Coccidae)

Dichocrocis megillalis Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Icerya aegyptiaca (Douglas) (Hemiptera: Margarodidae)

Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Planococcus angkorensis (Takahashi) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus Hood (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) 

Scirtothrips oligochaetus Karyny (Thysanoptera: Thripidae)

Tenuipalpus granati Sayed (Acari: Tenuipalpidae)

Tenuipalpus punicae Pritchard & Baker (Acari: Tenuipalpidae)

Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. Punicae (Hingorani & Singh) (Xanthomonads)
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 90

2. Risk Mitigation Options

Pest risk management is the decision-making process of reducing the likelihood of introduction 

of a quarantine pest (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #s 2 and 11). The appropriate level of protection for an 

importing country can be achieved at times by the application of a single phytosanitary measure, 

such as inspection or a quarantine treatment, or a combination of measures. If no single measure 

is likely to reduce pest risk to an acceptable level, then a combination of measures may be 

needed. The combination of specific phytosanitary measures that provides overlapping or 

redundant safeguards is called a “systems approach.” The Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. § 7701-

7786, 2000) defines “systems approach” as “...a defined set of phytosanitary procedures, at least 

two of which have an independent effect in mitigating pest risk associated with the movement of 

commodities.” Similarly, the FAO Standard for Integrated Measures for Pest Risk Management 

(June 2002) proposed that a systems approach be defined as, “The integration of different pest 

risk management measures, at least two of which act independently, and which cumulatively

achieve the desired level of phytosanitary protection” (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #14). 

Systems approaches vary in complexity; however, all require the integration of two or more 

measures that act independently of each other, with the cumulative effect achieving the desired 

level of phytosanitary protection (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #14). Specific mitigations may be selected 

from a range of pre-harvest and post-harvest options, and may include other safeguarding 

measures. Measures may be added or the strength of measures increased to compensate for 

uncertainty. At a minimum, for a measure to be considered for use in a systems approach, it must 

be: 1) clearly defined; 2) efficacious; 3) officially required (mandated); and 4) subject to 

monitoring and control by the responsible national plant protection organization (IPPC, 2007: 

ISPM #14). Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) uses systems approaches for the importation 

of many commodities including Unshu oranges from Japan [7 CFR § 319.28], tomatoes from 

Spain, France, Morocco, and Western Sahara [7 CFR § 319.56 28], and peppers from Israel [7 

CFR § 319.56 24]. These programs have been successful for many years.

A systems approach to mitigate risks involved with pomegranate imports from India might 

combine a variety of measures: 

1) certification of pest free areas, pest free places of production, or areas of low pest 

prevalence for certain quarantine pests;

2) programs to control pests within fields (e.g., mechanical, chemical, cultural)

3) preclearance oversight by USDA-APHIS officials

4) packinghouse procedures to eliminate external pests and pathogens (e.g., washing, 

brushing, inspection of fruit)

5) quarantine treatments to disinfest fruit of internal and external pests and pathogens

6) consignments inspected and certified to be free of quarantine pests and pathogens

7) fruit traceable to origin, packing facility, grower, and field

8) consignments subject to sampling and inspection after arrival in the United States

9) limits on distribution and transit within the United States
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 91

2.1. Phytosanitary Measures Prior to Harvesting

2.1.1. Establishment of Pest-free Areas

A pest free area (PFA) is defined as “an area in which a specific pest does not occur as 

demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being 

officially maintained” (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #s 4 and 5). As a sole mitigation measure, the 

establishment of pest free areas or pest free places of production may be completely effective in 

satisfying an importing country’s appropriate level of phytosanitary protection (IPPC, 2007: 

ISPM #s 4 and 10). This option has been successful in practice, eliminating the need for postharvest commodity treatments to achieve probit-9-level security [e.g., TDOA, 2003]. 

Establishment and maintenance of pest free areas or production sites are to be in compliance 

with international standards [e.g., IPPC, 2007: ISPM #s 4, 5, and 10; NAPPO, 2004].

These standards specify the appropriate steps for establishment, maintenance, verification, 

changes in status, emergency action plan, reinstatement of status, documentation, and bilateral 

workplans for fruit fly PFA. Trapping for all fruit flies (Bactrocera carambolae, B. dorsalis, B. 

zonata) should be conducted in production areas throughout the year by India’s Ministry of 

Agriculture, with appropriate lures and traps. In addition, routine inspection and fruit sampling 

should be carried out in the PFA. The capture of a single fruit fly (of any species) within the pest 

free area should lead to an immediate emergency action and may result in the cancellation of 

export from the PFA. Pomegranates would not be exported until the source of the infestation is 

delimited, trap density is increased, pesticide sprays are applied or other measures are undertaken.

Freedom from the Lepidopteran pests and the pathogens may be achieved through controlled and 

effective integrated pest management (IPM) programs. Area freedom should be verified by 

conducting an official surveys. Pheromones and attractants are available to monitor Conogethes 

punctiferalis, Cryptoblabes gnidiella, and Euzophera bigella (El-Sayed, 2008); work on the 

isolation and identification of the pheromone system of Deudorix isocrates is apparently 

currently being conducted (IICT, 2005). In addition, black-light traps have been used 

successfully to monitor other Lepidopterans (e.g., Cameron et al., 2002; Cherry and Wilson, 

2005; Ngollo et al., 2000).

2.1.2. Establishment of Areas of Low Pest Prevalence

According to the IPPC (2007: ISPM # 22), an area of low pest prevalence may comprise all of a 

country, part of a country, or parts of several countries, in which a particular pest species occurs

at low population densities and which is or are subject to effective surveillance and control or 

eradication measures (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #10). Procedures for the establishment and 

maintenance of areas of low pest prevalence are to comply with international standards [e.g., 

IPPC, 2007: ISPM #22; NAPPO, 2003]. For example, elements of an operational plan for 

establishment and maintenance of such areas might include a geographic description to delimit 

the area; specification of an upper limit to pest densities; means to document and verify all 

necessary procedures and maintain records; specification of phytosanitary procedures (e.g., 

survey, pest control); and movement controls to prevent pest entry or re-entry into the area. The 

international standards recommend that the exporting country consult with the importing country

in the early stages of implementation to ensure that importing country requirements are met. In 

particular, target or threshold population densities defining an area of low pest prevalence are to 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 92

be established in consultation with the importing country. 

Any protocol for establishing and maintaining a pest free area or area of low pest prevalence is 

also to include a pest-reporting procedure and emergency action plan to address target pest 

detections in the pest free or low-prevalence zones (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #s 10 and 22; NAPPO, 

2003, 2004).

Combined with inspection, effective IPM programs achieving low pest prevalence may be a 

possible mitigation option for the Lepidopteran, scales, thrips and mites but should be verified by

conducting an official survey or lot freedom based on inspection of shipping lot.

2.1.3. Control Program

Cultural, chemical, biological, or mechanical controls (e.g., grove sanitation, biocontrol, preharvest application of pesticides/fungicides, traps, fruit bagging) may be used to suppress or 

eliminate pests from groves or prevent fruit infestation/infection. This is not a stand-alone 

mitigation option, but should be used in combination with other measures as part of a systems 

approach. 

2.1.4. Phytosanitary Certification Inspections

Sampling and inspection of pomegranate should occur periodically during the growing season 

and after harvest for quality control and as phytosanitary precautionary measures. Production 

areas also should be subject to scheduled audits and periodic, unannounced, inspections by

certified inspectors from PPQ and India’s Ministry of Agriculture; these inspections would 

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

certificate required for each consignment. This measure is useful for detecting pests present 

during the growing season that may be more difficult to detect post-harvest. Detection methods 

need to be combined with other measures to ensure the absence of pests of concern. Statistical 

procedures are available to verify, to a specified confidence level, the pest free status of an area, 

given negative survey or trapping results (Barclay and Hargrove, 2005). Results of surveys must 

be negative for fruit fly larvae, Lepidopteran, and external pests. Each shipment of pomegranate 

is to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate of inspection issued by the NPPO of India. 

Additionally, production areas should be subject to periodic, unannounced inspections by

certified inspectors from PPQ and India’s Ministry of Agriculture to ensure that they meet 

stipulated requirements.

2.2. Mitigation Options Post-harvest and Prior to Shipping

2.2.1. Post-harvest Safeguards and Packinghouse Procedures

According to a risk assessment produced by the Government of India’s Ministry of Agriculture, 

pomegranates are processed at a packinghouse immediately after harvest. At the packinghouse, 

the fruits are cleaned and washed with potable water sanitized with sodium hyphochlorite (200 

ppm) and then given a fungicidal treatment to protect against post-harvest storage fungal rots. 

They then undergo sorting and grading. Pomegranates for export are packed in boxes; clean 

paper shredding is kept below, in between, and on top of fruit to prevent bruising during 

transport and are further safeguarded with plastic bubble wrap on the top, sides, and bottom of 

the fruit. Further, they state, “Packed product and packaging is to be protected from pest
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 93

contamination during and after packing, after treatment, during storage and during movement 

between locations (e.g., packing house to cool storage/depot, to inspection point, to export 

point).”

In the packinghouse, fruit should undergo mechanical brushing or other treatments to remove 

external pests. Immersion of the fruit in a water bath containing surfactant and, perhaps, a 

surface sterilant, such as chlorine bleach, could remove external pests. The liquid in the bath 

should be able to penetrate the residual floral material at the stem end, and contact and kill any 

arthropods that may be concealed around the stem. Detergent-water solutions of about 1 ml/L are 

effective in killing mealybugs and other Coccoidea on plants (Townsend, 1993). Surfactants, 

such as common dishwashing detergent, may show a high degree of insecticidal activity with 

minimal likelihood of phytotoxicity. Additionally, leaves and stems should be removed from the 

fruit to eliminate pests associated with these plant parts, and to be consistent with U.S.

regulations that imported fruit must be free of leaves and soil [7 CFR § 319.56, 2003].

All fruit should be inspected prior to packing. A random sample of fruit per lot should be 

inspected for external pests and cut to reveal internal pests; each sample is to be of a sufficient 

size in order to detect pest infestations. Because the deep calyces on pomegranates provide 

excellent shelter and hiding places for external pests, particular attention must be paid to them.

Additionally, some fruit should be cut apart in order to detect internal infestations of fruit fly

larvae and other internal feeders (CABI, 2006).

During the grading process, any damaged, diseased, or infested fruit needs to be removed and 

separated from the commodity destined for export.

It should be noted that visual inspection and culling are not considered to be appropriate risk 

management options by themselves and must be used in combination with other measures. 

2.2.2. Quarantine treatments

There are currently no specific quarantine treatments available for any of the above pests on

pomegranate (PPQ, 2008). Approved pomegranate quarantine treatments (specifically, cold 

treatment) exist only for Ceratitis capitata, C. rosa, and Anastrepha spp., although treatments do 

exists for Bactrocera spp., and Conogethes punctiferalis, as well as the external pests (the soft 

scales, mealybugs, thrips, and mites) on other commodities. There are currently no treatments 

available for the following pests: Cryptoblabes gnidiella, Deudorix spp., Dichocrocis megillalis, 

or the pathogens. 

An approved treatment to control hitchhiker surface pests (including Ceroplastes rubens, 

Drosicha dalbergiae, Icerya spp., Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus, Scirtothrips spp., and 

Tenuipalpus spp.) on various commodities (but not currently including pomegranate), is T104-a1 fumigation with Methyl-Bromide at NAP—tarpaulin or chamber. An approved treatment to 

control mealybugs (Pseudococcidae) on various commodities (but not currently including

pomegranate) is T104-a-2 fumigation with Methyl-Bromide at NAP—tarpaulin or chamber.

This treatment would supersede T104-a-1 because higher temperatures must be used during the 

same duration of the treatment.

Recently, APHIS published a final rule establishing “a minimum generic dose of 150 Gy for all 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 94

fruit flies of the family Tephritidae,” and “a minimum generic dose of 400 Gy 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)” (Shea, 2006). There are two exceptions 

to these generic doses: 1) “lower minimum doses for certain fruit flies,” and 2) “new approved 

minimum doses for 10 plant pests” (Shea, 2006). If irradiation is used, measures are to be 

implemented to ensure the phytosanitary security of the consignments after treatment to prevent 

re-infestation. Irradiation may not kill all internal insects; the endpoint of treatment may be 

inactivation, sterilization, or preventing maturation of larvae. Therefore, the presence of live 

larvae in a treated consignment would not necessarily result in its rejection, provided appropriate 

safeguarding measures had been used (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #18).

The probit-9-level security afforded by a quarantine treatment may be overwhelmed by a large 

volume of infested fruit (Powell, 2003). For this reason, adoption of a particular quarantine 

treatment is to be in conjunction with efforts to maintain pest populations in production zones 

below specified densities, such as those that would satisfy the requirements for the establishment 

of areas of low pest prevalence (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #22). Lastly, fruit may be damaged or quality

of the fruit reduced as a result of some of these treatments (e.g. irradiation may damage some 

fruits). 

2.2.3. Limits on distribution and transit within the United States

In some instances, the importation of commodities that might be harboring exotic pests may be

authorized for shipment to specific locations (e.g., Alaska or North Atlantic ports) or during a 

specific season (usually the one with the coldest temperatures). These additional measures limit 

the likelihood of establishment for many exotic pests. In India, pomegranates are harvested from

December through March and July through September. The majority of the quarantine pests are 

limited to tropical or subtropical distributions and/or have host ranges restricted to 

tropical/subtropical crops; however, the pests Conogethes punctiferalis, Cryptoblabes gnidiella, 

Deudorix epijarbas are capable of establishing in at least Plant Hardiness Zones 6-10, which 

encompass the majority of the United States. Limiting the distribution of pomegranates shipped 

July through September would not likely increase the level of protection to U.S. Agriculture, 

since these months are warm throughout the United States. However, it is possible that limiting 

the distribution of pomegranates shipped December through March to the northern states could 

provide some measure of protection and might be worth exploring.

2.3. Oversight

2.3.1. Pre-shipment programs

Inspection, treatment, or other risk mitigation measures performed in the grove and 

packinghouse are to be under the direct supervision of qualified APHIS and Indian Ministry of 

Agriculture personnel, and in accordance with specified phytosanitary procedures. Such 

programs require monitoring all aspects of the application of any required phytosanitary

measures and also aim to identify shortcomings or opportunities for program modifications 

(IPPC, 2007: ISPM #14). Provision needs to be made for the formal recognition of approved 

areas, sites, or producers, as well as the specification of conditions for revoking approvals or 

refusing certification for export to the United States.
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 95

2.3.2. Point-of-entry sampling and inspection: If a preclearance 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. Each consignment should be inspected to 

detect a pest infestation/infection rate of 10 percent or greater. In the case of internal feeding 

insects such as fruit flies inspection should also include fruit cutting (PPQ, 2008).

2.3.3. Field Survey and Trapping: Survey procedures include visual inspection, fruit cutting, 

and trapping within and outside areas of production. Surveys are to be conducted at regular 

intervals during the growing season to determine the presence or absence of pests. Growers need 

to receive or be denied certification for export on the basis of survey or trapping results.

2.3.4. Shipments traceable to place of origin in India: A requirement that pomegranate be

packed in containers with identification labels indicating the specific place of origin may be

necessary to ensure traceability to each production site. 

3. Conclusions

The number and diversity of pests potentially infesting pomegranate imports make it unlikely

that a single risk mitigation measure will be sufficient to adequately reduce likelihood of their 

introduction into the United States. For this reason, a combination of measures may be feasible

including: grove monitoring; management programs to achieve and maintain area pest freedom 

or low pest prevalence; packinghouse inspection and treatments; quarantine treatments; and 

maintenance of consignment security and traceability in transit. These options for risk mitigation 

are summarized below (Table A1).

The specific implementation of measures, such as those that would be included in an operational 

workplan, is beyond the scope of this document. This document does not purport to establish 

specific work plans or to evaluate the quality of a specific program or systems approach. It

identifies risks and provides information regarding known mitigative measures. The specification 

and implementation of measures, as would be described in an operational work plan, is beyond 

the scope of this document.

Table A1. Summary of risk mitigation options for pomegranates from India into the continental 

United States, including Alaska 

Measures Pests Efficacy

Pest-free areas or areas 

of low pest prevalence

All (including pathogen) When conducted in compliance 

with international standards (e.g., 

IPPC, 2007: ISPM #s 4 and 10; 

NAPPO, 2004) this method 

satisfies requirements for 

appropriate level of protection

Suppression /Control 

program

Most of the pests of concern 

could be at least partly managed, 

with a control program, whether 

Research required on 

effectiveness of methods 

proposed. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 96

Measures Pests Efficacy

cultural, chemical, or mechanical 

means, but monitoring and 

inspection are needed to verify

program effectiveness. Control 

must be used in combination with 

other measures.

Phytosanitary

Certification Inspection 

and Monitoring

All (including pathogen), but 

must be used in combination with 

other measures.

A phytosanitary certificate guides 

inspections in India and alerts 

U.S. inspectors to pests of 

concern with this commodity.

Packinghouse 

procedures, including 

visual culling

External pests and pathogens Research required on efficacy.

Point-of-entry sampling 

and inspection including 

fruit cuttings

Most external pests; most internal 

pests when fruit is cut

For cut fruit, sample size needs to 

be adequate to detect infestation

Irradiation combined 

T105-b with low pest 

prevalence 

Bactrocera spp. Approved by APHIS to treat fruit 

flies in apricot, peach, nectarine, 

and plum fruit. 

Irradiation, generic dose 

400 Gy, combined with 

low pest prevalence

All arthropods pests (with the 

exception of Lepidopteran pupae 

and adults)

Approved by APHIS

Irradiation 150 Gy for 

fruit flies combined with 

low prevalence of other 

pests plus inspection

All arthropod pests (fruit flies 

with irradiation, and other 

arthropods through areas of low 

pest prevalence) 

Research required to demonstrate 

efficacy

Methyl bromide 

fumigation T104-a-1

combined with low pest 

prevalence

Ceroplastes rubens, Drosicha 

dalbergiae, Icerya spp., 

Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus, 

Scirtothrips spp., and Tenuipalpus 

spp

Approved by APHIS on various 

commodities for hitchhiker 

surface pests, such as thrips, 

scale insects, and spider mites.

Research required to demonstrate 

efficacy for internal feeders (e.g., 

fruit fly larvae).

Methyl bromide 

fumigation T104-a-2

combined with low pest 

prevalence

Pseudococcidae Approved by APHIS to treat 

mealybugs on various 

commodities. Research required 

to demonstrate efficacy for 

external feeders.

Port-of-entry sampling 

and inspection

All (including pathogen), but 

must be used in combination with 

other measures
Pest Risk Assessment for Pomegranate from India

Rev. 04 August 17, 2010 97

4. Literature Cited

7 CFR § 319.28. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319.28 – Unshu 

oranges from Japan).

7 CFR § 319.56. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319.56 – Notice 

of Quarantine).

7 CFR 319.56-24. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319.56-2u –

Conditions governing the entry of lettuce and peppers from Israel). 

7 CFR 319.56-28. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319.56-2dd –

Tomatoes from Spain, France, Morocco, and Western Sahara).

7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786. 2000. Plant Protection Act, Title 7 United States Code § 7701-7786.

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

95(1):1-11.

Cameron, P. J., G. P. Walker, G. M. Penny, and P. J. Wigley. 2002. Movement of potato 

tuberworm (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) within and between crops, and some comparisons 

with diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Environmental Entomology 31:65-75.

Cherry, R., and A. Wilson. 2005. Flight activity of tropical sod webworms (Lepidoptera: 

Pyralidae). Florida Entomologist 88(1):101-103.

El-Sayed, A. M. 2008. The Perobase: Database of Insect Pheromones and Semiochemicals. Last 

accessed http://www.pherobase.net.

IICT. 2005. Biennial Report (2003-2005_. Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (Buisness 

Management Division), Hyderabad.

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.

NAPPO. 2003. Guidelines for the establishment, maintenance and verification of areas of low 

pest prevalence for insects. NAPPO Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 

20. Ottawa: Secretariat of the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO).

NAPPO. 2004. Guidelines for the establishment, maintenance and verification of fruit fly pest 

free areas in North America. NAPPO Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 

17. Ottawa: Secretariat of the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO)

Ngollo, N. D., E. Groden, J. F. Dill, and D. T. Handley. 2000. Monitoring of the European corn 

borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in Central Maine. J. Econ. Entomol. 93(2):256-263.

Powell, M. R. 2003. Modeling the response of the Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) 

to cold treatment. J. Econ. Entomol. 96(2):300-310 

PPQ. 2008. Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) Handbook. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection 

and Quarantine (PPQ). 196 pp.

PPQ. 2008. Treatment Manual. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). 782 pp.

Shea, K. 2006. Treatments for Fruits and Vegetables. Rules and Regulations. Final Rule. Federal 

Register: January 27, 2006. (FR Doc. 06-746) 71(18):4451-4464.

TDOA. 2003. Texas Rio Grande Valley Mexican Fruit Fly, Anastrepha ludens, (Loew) [sic] 

Protocol—2003/2004. Unpublished report. Texas Department of Agriculture (TDOA). 

Townsend, L. 1993. Houseplant insect control. Kentucky Coop. Ext. Serv. EntFact 405.