## Importation of Fresh Fruit and Flowers of Summer Squash, **Cucurbit a**  **pep o**  **L. ,**  **fro m**  **Israel into the Continental United States**  **A Qualitative,**  **Path w**  **ay -**  **Init i**  **ated Risk**  **Analysis**

**July 13,**  **2009 Rev.**  **003**

**Agency Contact:**  Plant Epide miology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Servi c e Plant Protection and Quarantine 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, North Carol ina 27606Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 ii 

### Executive **Summary** In this d o c um ent we assessed the ri s ks associated with the importation of fresh fruit and flowers of summ er s quash, Cucurbita pepo L ., for hum an consum ption from Is ra e l into the c o ntine ntal United States. W e assessed the risks associated with three possible i m port s cenarios: 1 ) fruit and flowers , 2 ) frui t only , an d 3 ) f lowers only
. Our search of print and electro nic reso u rces identified four quarantine pests that occur in Is rael and co ul d be introd uced into the United St at e s with ship m ents of the commodity
. For these pests we assessed the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction. These were co mb ined into o v erall Pest Risk Potentials for each pest, which esti m ate risk in the a b se n ce of mitigation. The four quarantine pests we identif i ed and asse s sed were as follows: **Quarantine Pests: Type**  **Path w**  **ay:** Ceratitis c a

pitata (W iede m ann) (Diptera : Tephritidae) Dacus ciliatus Loew (Diptera : Tephriti dae) Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: N octuidae) Scirto thri ps dorsalis Hoo d (Thysanoptera : Thripi dae) Fruit f ly Fruit f ly Moth Thrips Fruit

Fruit Fruit & F lower Flower Consequently , if both fruit and flowers are i m po rted , al l four pest s coul d follo w th e pathway
. If only fruit or flowers were i m ported, either two ( f

lowers) o r three (fruit) p e sts could follow the pathway
. These quarantine pests pose significant phy tosani t ary risks to U.S. agriculture. The authors of this risk an aly sis as s igned a High Pest Risk Pot e ntial to all four pests. A dditio n al phy tosanitary are strongl y recomm ended for pests with High Pes t Ris k Potentials.Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 iii 

### Table **of Contents**  **Executive S**  **u mmary**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ......................**  **ii I. Introduction**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ...............................**  **1 2.**  **Risk Assessment ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **....................... 3**  2.1. Initiating Event
................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 3 2.2. Assess m e nt o f th e Wee d Po tential of Summ er Squash
................................ ............. 3 2.3. Current Status, Previous Decis i ons , an d Pes t Interceptions
................................ ..... 3 2.4. Pest Categorization
................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4 2.5. Consequence s o f Introduction
................................ ................................ ................ 21 2.6. Likelihood of Introduction
................................ ................................ ...................... 26 2.7. Conclusion
................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 29 **3. Risk Mitigation Options**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ .......**  **29** 3.1. Manage m ent Prior to Harvest
................................ ................................ ................ 30 3.2. Manage m ent After Harvest and Before Shipping
................................ ................... 31 3.3. Quarantine Treatm e nts ................................ ................................ ........................... 33 3.4. Manage m ent During Shipping and at U.S. Ports
- of
- Entry
................................ ..... 33 3.5. Conclusion
................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 34 **4. Authors, Contributors, and Revie**  **w ers**  **................................ ................................**  **............... 34**  **5. Literature Cited**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ .....................**  **35**Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 1 

### I. **Introduction** The United States Departm ent o f A griculture (USDA) , An i mal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHI S), Plant Prote c t i on and Quarantine program (PPQ), Center for Plant Health Science and Technology (CPHST), Plant Epide mi o logy and Risk Analy sis Laboratory (PERAL) prepared this risk an al ys is o n behal f o f th e Is rael i Minis try of Agriculture and Rural Develop m ent. W e esti m ated the p lant pest risks a s sociated with the i m portation of fresh fruit and flowers of summ er squash, Cucurbita pepo L., for hum an consum ption from Is rael into the continental United States and assigned the qualitative ter m s High, Medium, or Low, in accordan ce with the template d o cument, Gui delines for Pathway- Initiated Pest Risk Assess m ents, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000). W e as s essed risks for three potential i m port scenarios: 1) fruit and f

lowers, 2) fruit only , and 3) flowers only. The m ethods used to initiate, conduct, and report plant pest risks associated with the importation of summ er s quash fruit and flowers from Is rael i nto the Unit e d States co n f orm to inte r

nation a l standards provided by the Int ernatio n al Plant Protection C onvention (IPPC) of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization ( FA O ) (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #s 2 and 11). Biological and phy tosanitary ter

m s confo r m to the definitio n s in International Standards for Phy tosanitary Measures: G lossary of P hyt osanitary Ter m s (IPPC, 2007: IS PM #5). Cucurbita p epo is a New W orld species that probably originated in central Mexico (CABI, 2006; Zitt e r et al., 1996). From there it spread north into the United States and eventually made its way to every continent (CABI , 2006 ; Zitte r e t al. , 1996)
. It i s “perhap s the m ost poly m orphic species with resp e ct to f

ruit c h ar act e ri s tic s ” (P aris et al., 2003), and the fruit is called by m an y nam es, including pumpkin, squash, and gourd (CABI, 2006; Zitter et al., 1996). T hese nam es have little m eaning, except to designate an intended use (Zitter e t al. , 1996)
. Fo r ex ample , th e term ‘pum pkin’ is correctl y applied to m ature fruit of four different Cucurbita species, if th e fruit is intended for use as fodder or pie filling (Zitter et al., 1996). Likewise, the term ‘squash’ is correctly applied to four different Cucurbita s p e c ies, if the f ruit is intend e d f

or hum an consum ption (Zitter et al., 1996). The term ‘summ er squash’ more precisel y refers to the imm ature f

r uit of C
. pepo (Zitter e t al. , 1996). Regardless of the variety of fruit shapes, size s , colors , an d comm o n n ames, m ost botanical authorities recognize three subspecies of C
. pepo . These include C
. pepo subsp. fratern a (Baile y ) Andres, which is regarded as the “wild ty pe” and only occurs in Mexico; C
. pepo subsp. texana (Scheele) Filvo; and C
. pepo subsp. pepo (Deck e r) (P aris e t al. , 2003)
. Both C
. pepo subsp. texana and C
. pepo subsp. pepo produce econo mically i m portant fruit that botanists and horticulturalists p lace in disti n ct c ultivar groups (Paris et al., 2003). Cucurbita pepo subsp. texana encompasses the acorn, crookneck, scall op, straight
- neck, and ovifera gourd groups, while C
. pep o subsp. pep o includes the cocozelle, pum pkin, vegetable m arrow, zucchini, and orange gourd groups (Paris et al., 2003). The m any cultivars and their di f f erent uses m ake C
. pepo a widely cultivated plant. FAO esti m ated th at world pro duction was 17.4 million m etric tons in 1999, with Asia, China, Europe, and A f rica being the top four producers (C AB I, 2006). The request for i m

portation of C. pepo from Israel into the United States did not specify which subspecies o r cultivars will b e i m ported (Opatow s k i , 2007); th erefore, in this pest risk anal y s is,Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 2 the USDA a ssum ed that any subspecies could be i m ported and assessed p est risks at the species level (i.e., C

. pepo ).

Photographs of f

e m ale summ er squash fruit and flowers on the left and m ale flowe r s on the right (Photos: www.kucinare.it, and D. Kindersley)
For post - harvest practices, Is raeli law requires P l ant Protection and Inspection Services to ensure that al l fres h fruit , vegetables , an d cut flow ers are free of pests and m eet existing quality standard s befor e the y ar e exporte d (MOAG , 20 0 7)
. W orkers ty picall y harvest, grade, and pack imm ature f

r uit vegetables, like summ er squash, and cut flowers by hand (Kader, 2002). This provides am

ple opportunities for v isua l inspectio n an d th e remov al o f lo w quality product. Workers in Is rael v isually inspect each summ er s quash flower for pests before grading for quality and packing the flower in its own plastic bag (Landshut, 2007). The flowers are packed in 1 kg boxes and stored in cool r e frigerated roo m s (Landshut, 2007). Summer squash fruit m ay be field
- packed or taken to a packinghouse. If the grower takes the fruit to a packinghouse, then the fruit is ty pically washed and waxed or oiled (Kader, 2002). Even field
- packed fruit m ay be imm ersed in clean water, spray washed, or wip e d with a m o is t clean cloth (Kader , 2002)
. O n the other hand, washing is not a standard post - har v est practice for cut flo w ers (Kader, 2002). The infor m ation provided by Is rael’s P lant Protection and In spection Ser v ices on post - harvest practices for summer squash flowers in Israel doe s no t includ e was h ing (Landshut, 2007). Consequently , in this risk analy sis we assum ed that Is raeli exporters would use, at a min i m um, the f ollowi ng post - h arv e st pra c tices fo r summ er s quash fruit and flowers:  Each fruit and flower is **visually in**  **sp ected**  **for p**  **ests** and **gr a**  **d ed**  **for quality**   Each fruit is **cleaned by**  **immersion in**  **w ater, s**  **p ray**  **w ashing,**  **and/or hand**  **w iping** Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 3 

### 2. **Ri s**  **k A**  **s sessment**  **2.1. Initiating Event**  The USDA developed this risk assess m ent in re s ponse to a request by the governm ent of Israel for authorization to i m

port fresh summer squash fruit and flowers for hum an consumption into the contine ntal United States. Entry o f this comm odity i nto th e conti n ent a l United States prese nts a potential pathway for the introduction of plant p e sts. Title 7, Part 319, Section 56 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR §319.56) provides regulat ory authority for the i m portation of fruits and vegetables from foreign sources. **2.2. Assessment**  **of the**  **Weed Potential of S**  **u mmer Squash**  This step e x amines the comm odity ’s potential to beco m e a weed after it enters the United States. The anal y s is did not in di cate that the commodity had significant weed potential, so a pest initiated risk assess m e nt was not conducted.
**Table 1.**  Assess m ent of the weed po t ential of summer squash. **Commodity:** S u mme r s q uas h ( Cu cu rbi t a pep o ) (Cucurbita ceae) **Ph ase**  **1:** Sum m er s qua s h is w i de l y c u l t iva ted i n t h e Uni ted S ta tes ( NRCS, 2007). **Ph ase**  **2:** Is th e s p ec ies l i s te d in:

No Geo g ra p hic a l Atl a s o f Wo r l d Wee ds (Hol m et a l ., 1991a) No World’

s Wo rst Wee d s (Hol m et a l ., 1991b) or World Weed s : N a tu ral H i s to r i es a n d Di s t r i b u t i o n ( H ol m et al., 1997) No I den t i fi c at i on of Di s sem i n u l es L i s ted i n th e Federal Nox i ous Weed Ac t (Gunn and R itc h i e, 1988) No Economic a l ly Im p ortan t For e i gn Wee ds (Reed, 1977) Yes Weed S ci en c e So ci e t y of Amer ic a Compo s i te L i st of Weeds (WSSA, 2007) No Does any l i tera tu re in di c a te weed po tent i al (e . g . , AGR I COLA, CAB, Biological A b stra c t s, AG RIS searc h o n “s p e ci e s name” comb in ed w it h “ w e ed ” ) **Ph ase**  **3:** Concl u sion: S u mmer s q uas h is w i dely c u l t iva te d i n t h e U n ite d Sta te s . O n l y Cu cu rbi ta pepo var. texan a , whi ch i s na t ive to th e Uni ted S ta tes, i s l i s ted as a weed i n any of th e above re f eren c es (WSSA, 2007). The weed po tent i al of su mmer s q ua s h is ther e for e n eg li gib le , an d a pe st - i ni t ia te d ris k a ss e ssm e n t is n ot n e ce s sary. **2.3. Current Status, Previous Decisions, and Pest Interce**  **p tions**  **2.3.1. Current status**  Currently , Title 7, Part 319, Sect i on 56 of the United States C ode o f Federa l Regulation s ( 7 CFR §319.56) does not per

mit the i m

portation of fresh summer squash fruit or f lowers for hum an consum ption f rom Is ra e l into the c o ntine ntal United States. **2.3.2. Previous decisio**  **n s**  A searc h o f th e USD A Biological Analysi s and T axono mic Support library revealed the following:  On 25 April 1960, the USDA approved the i m portation of Cucurbita fruit fro m Is rael pending the develop m ent of an accep table quarantine treatm ent for the Baluchi s tan m elon fly , Carpomya (

Myiopardalis ) p a rd

a lina (USDA , 2007).  O n 2 4 February 1988 , th e USD A di s a pprove d th e i m

portation of cucurbits from Israel because there was “no accept a b le treatm ent available for Myiopardalis pardalina and Baris granulipennis (USDA , 2007).”Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 4 Although Carpomya pardalina and Baris garnulipennis wer e reporte d abov e a s pest s of cucurbits, we did not include them in the p e st categorization, because they have not b een recor ded on Cucurbita pepo. From 1985 t o 2006, C. pardalina was intercepted 18 ti m es in passenger baggage from Is rael (PestID, 2008), but onl y four were on Cucurbita sp. The m ost frequentl y recorded hosts for C. pardalina in the lit e ratu

r e are Citrullus lanatus (water m elon), Cucumis melo (m elon), and Cucumis sativus (cucumber) fruit (Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; CABI, 2006; White and Elson
Harris, 1992). Further

m ore, Cucurbita maxim a , and not Cucurbita pepo , is recorded as a minor host (CABI, 2006)

. In Is rael, B
. granulipenni

s has been f

ound in cucum

bers, m e l ons of all varieti e s, and wild and cultivated w ater

m elon, both, other, and. It has nev e r been found in vegetable m arrow or squashes (Rivnay , 1960). Rivnay (1972) indicat e d that th e natural hos t plant o f B. granulipennis is Citrullus colocynthis and will go to C

. vulgaris , fruits of m elon and cucumber. **2.3.3. Pest interceptions**  **are summarized below.** Pests have been intercepted 36 ti m es at U.S. ports - of
- entry on Cucurbita spp. from Is rael, m ostly on Cucurbita spp. rather than C

. pep o . **2.4. Pest Categori** **z ation**  W e list b e l o w pests th a

t occur in Is ra el and are a s sociated with summer squash so m ewhere in the world (Table 3). W e included infor m ation on the geographi c distributio n o f these pests, plant parts attacked, quarantine status with respe c t to the United Stat es, and relevant references on distribution and biology
. From this list, we selected quarantine p e sts likel y to follow the pathway for further anal ys es. M any of the pests listed were not furth e r anal y zed b ecause they are wid e ly esta b lished in the United States, they are ass o ciated with plant parts other than the co mm odity , or they are as s ociated with the comm odity , but n o t lik e ly to r emain with the commodity during harvest and processing.
**Table 2.**  Pests intercepted at U.S. ports - of
- entry on Cucurbita spp. from Is rael. **Pe st**  **Pl a**  **n t**  **part infe**  **s ted**  **Locat i**  **o n**  **o f**  **I n**  **te rcepti**  **o n** 

**( N**  **o .)**  **Hos t**  **Inter c**  **epti o**  **n s**  **(no .)**  Anas t r epha s p. F ruit (1) B aggage (1) Cucurbita s p. 1 An t h o m y i i dae, s p . o f F ruit (1) B aggage (1) Cucurbita s p. 1 Aph i d i dae, s p. of F ruit (1) B aggage (1) Cucurbita s p. 1 Au to grapha gamma Flower (1) Permit Cargo (1) C . pepo 1 Bactrocera s p. F ruit (1) B aggage (1) Cucurbita s p. 1 Carpomya pa r d alin a F ruit (4) B aggage (4) Cucurbita s p. 4 Cerat i t is ca pi tat a F ruit (1) B aggage (1) Cucurbita s p. 1 Cur c u l i o n i dae, s p . o f F ruit (2) B aggage (2) C . pepo 1 Cucurbita s p. 1 Crematogaster sp. Fruit (1) Permit Cargo (1) C . pepo 1

Dac u s c i li a t u s F ruit (2) B aggage (2) C . pepo 1 Cucurbita s p. 1 Fran k l i ni e ll a sp. Fruit (1) Mail (1) Cucurbita s p. 1 Helicoverpa sp. Flower (9) General Cargo (1) C . pepo 4Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 5 **Pe st**  **Pl a**  **n t**  **part infe**  **s ted**  **Locat i**  **o n**  **o f**  **I n**  **te rcepti**  **o n** 

**( N**  **o .)**  **Hos t**  **Inter c**  **epti o**  **n s**  **(no .)**  Fru it ( 1) Leaf (2) Stem (1) Permit Cargo (12) Cucurbita s p. 9 Heliothi s sp. Flow er (1) Permit Cargo (1) Cucurbita s p. 1 Hetero p tera, s p . of Flo w er (1) Permit Cargo (1) Cucurbita s p. 1 Mi r i dae, s p. of F ruit (1) B aggage (1) Cucurbita s p. 1 Oxyca r in u s hy a l i ni p en n i s Flower (2) Permit Cargo (2) C . pepo 2 Phei d ol e sp. Leaf (1) Permit Cargo (1) Cucurbita s p. 1 Trogoderma granarium Seed (1) Baggage (1) Cucurbita s p. 1
**Table 3.**  Pests associated with summer squash, Cu curbita p e po , or Cucurbita spp . i n general , and present in I s rael. **Pest Geographic**  **distribution 1**  **Host Plant**  **Part Attacked**  **Quaran**  

** tine** **Pest Follow**  **pat h** **way**

**Fruit Flowers**  **FUNGI Agaricomycetes:**  **C erat**  **o basidiales**  Thanate p ho rus cucumeris (Frank) Donk [ Anamorph = Rhizoctonia s olani J.G. Kühn] **Agaricomycetes: Cort**  **i c**  **i ales**  Athelia ( Corticiu m ) rolfsii (Curzi) C.C. Tu & Ki m

br. [ Anamo rph

= Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc
. ] IL & US (CABI, 2006)

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

et al., 2007)

C. pepo (CABI, 2006) Fruit, Flower,

Leaf, Root, Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Fruit, Flower, Leaf, Root, Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2006) N o Ye s Yes

N o Ye s Yes
**Dothideomycetes: Botryosphaeriales**  Lasiodip lodia (Botryodiplo dia ) theobromae (Pat.) Griffon & Maubl. **Dothideomycetes: Capnodiales**  Cladospori u m cucumeri n um Ellis & Arthur Septoria a pi i cola Speg. (= S
. a

p ii Chester) IL & US (CABI, 2006)

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

et al., 2007)

C. pepo (CABI, 2006)
C. pepo (Farr et al., 2007) Fruit, Flower,

Leaf, Root, Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Fruit, Flower, Leaf, Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Leaf, Root, Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2006) N o Ye s Yes

N o Ye s Yes

N o Ye s 2 Yes 2

1 IL = I srae l a

n d US =Unite d St ates ; specifi c st ate s ar e liste d only wh e n the pes t h a s a limit e d d istrib uti on (FL=Flori da and HI =H awaii). 2 T h i s or g a

nis m may f

o llo w th e p athway on st e m s attac h e d to s umme r s qu a s h fr ui t o r flowers.Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 6 **Pest Geographic**  **Host Plant**  **Part Quaran**  **- Follow**  **pat h** **way distribution**  **1 Attacked**  **tine Pest**  **Fruit Flowers**  **Dothideomycetes: Pleos**  **p orales**  Alternaria alternata (Fr.:F r .) IL & US C. pepo (Farr Fruit (CABI, No Yes No Keissl
. ( = A
. tenuis Nees) (CABI, 2006) et al., 2007; 2006; Manaaki
Manaaki
- Whenua, 2 00 1
- Whenua, 2007), & Leaf 2001
- 20 0 7) (Vakalounakis,

1990) Alternaria brassicae (Berk .) Sacc. IL & US C. pepo Flower, Leaf, & No No Yes (CABI, 2006) (Manaaki
- Seed (CABI,

Whenua, 2006) 2001
- 20 0 7) Alternaria radicina Meier, IL & US C. pepo (Farr Flower, Leaf, No No 3 N o 3 Drechsl e r & E.D
. Eddy (CABI, 2006) et al., 2007) Root, Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Didymella bryoniae (Auersw.) IL & US C. pepo (Farr Fruit, Leaf, No Yes Yes 2 Re hm [ Anamorph = P

h oma (CABI, 2006) et al., 2007) Seed, & Stem cucurbitacearum (Fr. ex Fr.) (Farr et al., Sacc
. ] 2007) Leptosphaeru lina trifolii IL (Minz and C. pepo (Farr Leaf (Farr et al., No No No (Rostovzev) Petr. Solel, 19 5 9) et al., 2007) 2007) & U S (Farr et al., 20 0 7) Pleospora ta r

da Simmons IL (Dickens C. pepo (Farr Fruit, Leaf, No Yes No [ Anamorph = Stemphylium and Evans, et al., 2007) Root (Dickens botryosum Wallr
. ] 1973) & US and Evans, (Farr et al., 1973), & Seed 2007) (Farr et al., 2007) Pyrenochaeta terrestris (Hansen) IL & US C. pepo (Farr Root (CABI, No No No Gorenz Walker & Larson (CABI, 2006) et al., 2007) 2007) Ulocladium consortiale ( T hüm .) IL (Farr et C. pepo (Farr Lea f & St em No Yes 2 Yes 2 E.G. Simmons (= Stemphylium al., 20 0 7) & et al., 2007) (CABI, 2006) consortiale (Thüm .) J.W. US (CABI, Groves & Skolko) 2006) **Eurotiomycetes: Eurotiales**  Aspergillus flavus Link IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Flower, No Yes Yes (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Leaf, Root, Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2006)

3 W e d o not expec t A lte rnaria radi c ina to fol l ow the pathw ay on summer squ a sh frui t o r flow ers becaus e thi s fungu s is pri marily associate d with hos t s i n t he famil y Apiaceae ; CAB I (2006 ) s tate s that othe r ho s t "record s ar e undoubt e d ly mi s i denti f

i cation s ."Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 7 **Pest Geographic**  **distribution 1**  **Host Plant**  **Part Attacked**  **Quaran**  

** tine** **Pest Follow**  **pat h** **way**

**Fruit Flowers**  **Incertae sed**  **i s**  **: Incertae**  **s e**  **dis** Ampelomyces quisq u alis Ces. (= Cicinobolus c esatii de Bary) M acrophomina p haseolin a (Tassi) Goid. [Anamorph = Rhizoctonia b ataticola (Taubenh.) E
. J. Butler] **Leotiomyce t**  **es: Erysiph**  **a les**  Erysiphe betae (V aňha) W e ltzien ( = E
. polygo n i DC.) Erysiphe pisi DC.var. pisi (= E
. communis auct p.p.)
Golovinomyces cichorace a rum (DC.) V.P. Heluta Leveillula taurica (Lév.) G. Arnaud Podosp h aera fusca (Fr.) U. Braun & Shishkoff Podosp h aera macularis (Wallr.:Fr.) U. Braun & S. Takam (= Sphaerotheca h umuli (DC.) Burrill) Podosp h aera xanthii (Castagne) U. Braun & Shishkoff (= Sphaerotheca fuliginea auct. p.p.) **Leotiomyce t**  **es: Helotiales**  Botryotinia f

uckeliana (de Bary) Whetzel [Anamorph = Botrytis cinerea Pers.: Fr
. ] Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) deBary IL & US (CABI, 2006) IL & US (CABI, 2006)

IL & US (CABI, 2006) IL (Farr et al., 20 0 7) & US (CABI, 2006) IL & US (CABI, 2006) IL & US (CABI, 2006) IL (Vo ytyuk et al., 2007) & US (CABI, 2006) IL (Farr et al., 20 0 7) & US (CABI, 2006) IL & US (CABI, 2006)

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

et al., 2007) C. pepo (CABI, 2006)

C. pepo (Farr et al., 2007) C. pepo (Farr et al., 2007)

C. pepo (Farr et al., 2007) C. pepo (Farr et al., 2007) C. pepo (Farr et al., 2007)
C. pepo (Farr et al., 2007)
C. pepo (CABI, 2006)

C. pepo (CABI, 2006)
C. pepo (Farr et al., 2007) Flower, Leaf, &

Stem (CABI, 2006) Fruit, Flower, Leaf, Root, Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Flower, Leaf, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Fruit, Flower (Farr et al., 2007), Leaf, Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Flower, Leaf, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Fruit, Flower, Leaf, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Flower, Leaf, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Flower & Leaf (CABI, 2006) Fruit, Flower, Leaf, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Fruit, Flower, Leaf, Root, Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Fruit, Flower, Leaf, Root, Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2006) N o Yes 2 Yes

N o Ye s Yes

N o Yes 2 Yes
N o Ye s Yes

N o Yes 2 Yes
N o Ye s Yes
N o Yes 2 Yes

No No Yes

N o Ye s Yes

N o Ye s Yes

N o Ye s YesPes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 8 **Pest Geographic**  **Host Plant**  **Part Quaran**  **- Follow**  **pat h** **way distribution**  **1 Attacked**  **tine Pest**  **Fruit Flowers**  **Oomyce t**  **es: Peronosporales**  Phytopht h ora cactorum (Lebert & IL & US C. pepo (Farr Fruit, Flower, No Yes Yes 2 Cohn) J. Schröt. (CABI, 2006) et al., 2007) Leaf, Root, Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Phytopht h ora capsici Leonian IL & US C. pepo Flower, Fruit, No Yes Yes 2 (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Leaf, Root, Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Phytopht h ora citrophthora (R.H. IL & US C. pepo (Farr Flower, Fruit, No Yes Yes 2 S m . & E. S m . ) L e on i a

n (CABI, 2006) et al., 2007) Leaf, Root, Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Phytopht h ora nicotia n ae Breda de IL & US C. pepo (Farr Flower, Fruit, No Yes Yes 2 Haan (CABI, 2006) et al., 2007) Leaf, Root, Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Pseudopero n ospora cube ns is IL & US C. pepo Leaf (CABI, No No No (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) 2006) Rostovtzev **Oomyce t**  **es: Pythiales**  Pythium aphanidermatum IL & US C. pepo (Farr Fruit, Root, & No Yes Yes 2 (Edson) Fitzp . (CABI, 2006) et al., 2007) Stem (CABI, 2006) Pythium oli

gandrum Drechsler IL & US C. pepo (Farr Root (CABI, No No No

(CABI, 2006) et al., 2007) 2007) Pythium ultimum Trow IL (Ali
- C. pepo (Farr Fruit, Root (Ali
- No No No Shtay e h and et al., 2007) Shtay e h and Saleh, 1999) Saleh, 1999) & US (CABI, 2007) **Saccharomycetes: Sacc**  **h aromycetales**  Galactomyces geotrichum (E.E. IL (CABI, C. pepo (Farr Fruit (Farr et al., No Yes No Butler & L.J. Petersen) 2006) & US et al., 2007) 2007) Redhead & Malloch (Farr et al., [ Anamorph = Geotrichum 2007) candidum Link] **Saccharomycetes: Hypocreales**  Fusarium oxysporum IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Leaf, No Yes Yes 2 Schlechtendahl (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Root, Seed, & Stem (Farr et al., 20 0 7) Fusarium oxysporum f. sp niveum IL & US C. pepo (Farr Fruit, Leaf, No Yes Yes 2 (E.F. S m .) W .C. Sny der & H.N. (CABI, 2006) et al., 2007) Root, Seed, & Hansen Stem (Farr et al., 20 0 7)Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 9 **Pest Geographic**  **Host Plant**  **Part Quaran**  **- Follow**  **pat h** **way distribution**  **1 Attacked**  **tine Pest**  **Fruit Flowers**  Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. IL (Katan et C. pepo (Farr Fruit, Leaf, No Yes Yes 2 melonis W.C. Sny der & H.N. al., 19 9 4) & et al., 2007) Root, Seed, & Hansen US (Farr et Stem m (CABI, al., 20 0 7) 2006) Gibberella avenacea R.J. Cook IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Flower, No Yes Yes [ Anamorph = Fusarium (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Root, Seed, & avenaceum (Corda: Fr.) Sacc
. ] Stem (CABI, 2006) Gibberella intricans Wollenweb. IL & US C. pepo (Farr Leaf, Root & No No No [ Anamorph = Fusarium (Farr et al., et al., 2007) Seed (Farr et al., equiseti (Corda) Sacc
. ] 2007) 2007) Gibberella pulicaris (Fr.:Fr.) IL & US C. pepo (Farr Root & Stem No Yes 2 Yes 2 Sacc. [Anamorph = Fusarium (Farr et al., et al., 2007) (Farr et al., sambucinum Fucke l ] 2007) 2007) Gibberella zea (Schwein.:Fr.) IL (Farr et C. pepo Flower, Leaf, No Yes 2 Yes Petch [Anamorph = Fusarium al., 20 0 7) & (Manaaki
- Root, Seed, & graminearum Schwabe] US ((CABI, Whenua, Stem (Farr et 2006) 2001
- 20 0 7) al., 20 0 7) Myrothecium roridum Tode:Fr. IL & US C. pepo Leaf (Farr et al., No No No (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) 2007) Nectria hae m atococca IL & US C. pepo Root & Stem No Yes 2 Yes 2 (Wollenw.) Gerlach (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) [ Anamorph = Fusarium solani (Martius) Sac c . ] Nectria inve n ta Pethy

br. IL (Ali
- C. pepo (Farr Root & Stem No Yes 2 Yes 2 [ Anamorph = Verticillium Shtay e h and et al., 2007) (Farr et al., tenerum (Pers.:Fr.) Link] Jamous, 2007) 2000) & US (Farr et al., 2007) **Saccharomycetes: Incer**  **t ae**  **sedis** Colletotrichum coccodes (Wallr.) IL & US Cucurbita Fruit, Root & No Yes Yes 2 Hughes (CABI, 2006) spp. (CABI, Stem (CABI, 2006) 2006) Glomerella cingula t

a (Stone m .) IL & US C. pepo Fru it, Flower, No Yes Yes Spauld. & Schrenk [ Anamorph (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Leaf, Seed, &

= Colletotrichum Stem (CABI, gloeosporio id

es (Penz.) Penz. 2006) & Sacc
. ] **Saccharomycetes: Micr**  **o ascales**  Thievaliopsis basicola (Berk. & IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Root, & No Yes No Broome) Ferraris (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Seed (CABI, [ S ynano morph = Chalara 2006) elegans Nag Raj & W.B. Kendr.]Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 10 **Pest Geographic**  **Host Plant**  **Part Quaran**  **- Follow**  **pat h** **way distribution**  **1 Attacked**  **tine Pest**  **Fruit Flowers**  **Saccharomycetes: Phyllachorales**  Plectosphaerella cucumer i na IL (Ali
- C. pepo (Farr Stem (Farr et No Yes 2 Yes 2 (Lindf.) W. G ams [Anamorph = Shtay e h and et al., 2007) al., 20 0 7) Plectosporium tabacinum Jamous, (J.F.H. Be yma) M.E. Pal m , W. 2000) & US G am s & Ni r enber g ] (Farr et al., 2007) **Z ygo**  **m ycetes:**  **Mucorales** Rhizopus sto lonifer (Ehrenb.:Fr.) IL (Zahavi et C. pepo Fruit, Leaf, No Yes No Vuill. al., 20 0 0) & (Manaaki
- Root, & Seed US (Farr et Whenua, (Farr et al., al., 20 0 7) 2001
- 20 0 7) 2007) **BACTERIA Burkholder**  **i ales**  Acidovorax avena subsp. citrulli IL (Burdman C. pepo Fruit, Seed, & No Yes Yes 2 (Schaad et al
. ) Wille ms et al. et al., 2005) (CABI, 2006) Stem (CABI, & US (CABI, 2006) 2006) Ralstonia (

Burkholderi a ) IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Flower, N o 4 Yes Yes solanacearum ( S mith) (CABI, 2006) (Manaaki
- Root, & Stem Yabuuchi et al. Whenua, (CABI, 2006) 2001
- 20 0 7) **Enterobacte r** **iales** Erwinia carotovora subsp. IL & US C. pepo Leaf, Root, & No Yes 2 Yes 2 carotovora (Jones) Bergey et (CABI, 2006) (Manaaki
- Stem (CABI, al. Whenua, 2006) 2001
- 20 0 7) **Pseudomonadales** Pseudomonas syringae van Hall IL & US Cucurbita Fruit, Flower, No Yes Yes (CABI, 2006) spp. (CABI, Leaf, Root,

2006) Seed, & Stem

(CABI, 2006) Pseudomonas syringae pv. IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Leaf, No Yes Yes 2 lachrymans (S mith & Bryan) (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Seed, & Stem Young D y e & Wilkie (CABI, 2006) Pseudomonas syringae pv. IL & US Cucurbita Fruit, Flower, No Yes Yes syringae van Hall (CABI, 2006) spp. (CABI, Leaf, Root, 2006) & C. Seed, & Stem pepo (CABI, 2006) (Langston et al., 20 0 3)

4 R a lsto n i a s o la na cea ru m race 3 is n ot k nown to oc cur in I srael ( C ABI, 20 0 6 ).Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 11 **Pest Geographic**  **Host Plant**  **Part Quaran**  **- Follow**  **pat h** **way distribution**  **1 Attacked**  **tine Pest**  **Fruit Flowers**  **Rhi z**  **obiales** Rhizobium ra diobacter IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Root & No Yes 2 Yes 2 (Beijerinck & van Delden) (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Stem (CABI, Young et al. 2006) **Viruses Bro**  **m oviridae**  Alfalf a mo sa i c virus IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Flower, No Ye s 5 Yes 5 (CABI, 2006) (Brunt et al., Leaf, Root,

1996 Seed, & Stem onwards) (CABI, 2006) Cuc um ber mosaic virus IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Leaf No Yes 5 Yes 5 (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006 ) , Flower, Root, Seed, & Stem (Brunt et al., 1996 onwards ) **Bunyavirid a**  **e** Tomato spotted wilt virus IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Flower, No Ye s 6 Yes 6 (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Leaf, Root, Seed, & Stem (Brunt et al., 1996 onwards ) **Closterovir i**  **dae** Cucurbit y e llow stunting disorder IL & US C. pepo Leaf (CABI, No No 7 N o 7 virus (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) 2006) **Comoviridae** Squash mosa i c virus IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Flower, No Yes 5 Yes 5 (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Leaf, Root, Seed, & Stem (Brunt et al., 1996 onwards ) **Geminiviridae** Beet curly top virus IL & US C. pepo Leaf (CABI, No No No (CABI, 2006) (Brunt et al., 2006)

1996 onwards)

5 W e e xpec t th i s viru s to follo w th e pat hway o n i m

porte d summer squa sh frui t becaus e i t i s s eed
- born e (Brunt e t al. , 1996 o nwa rd s ; C AB I, 2 0 0 6 ) , and o n s umme r s qu a s h f lo we rs b ecause i t i s s pread by art hr o pod s th at are ass o ciate d with f lowe rs and cap a b l e of f li ght ( Br unt et a l ., 1 99 6 o nwa

rd s ). 6 W e do not expec t th i s v ir us t o f o ll ow the p at

hway o n i m

po rte d s umme r squ as h fr

ui t b ecause i t i s not see d
- b o rne and the f r ui t has n o fe at

ures in wh i c h the vec tors c oul d h i de a nd surv i ve h a

rvest a n d p rocess in g . C o nve r se ly , we th ink in fec t e d vec to rs c oul d b e i ntr o duc e d o n the f l ow ers (B r

unt et a l ., 19 96 onwar d s ). 7 W e do no t e xpec t thi s viru s t o foll o w th e pat hway o n i m

porte d summe r squas h fr

ui t an d flow ers becaus e i t i s trans mitt e d by a w h itefl y th at fee ds o n leav e s (CAB I , 2 0 06)
. T he wh itef l y i s n ot li kely t o attac k i m porte d flower s an d fr

ui t and s u bsequ ently s p rea d t

he v iru s t o h ealthy p lant s i n th e Unite d State s (Brunt et al., 1996 onwar ds )
.Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 12 **Pest Geographic**  **Host Plant**  **Part Quaran**  **- Follow**  **pat h** **way distribution**  **1 Attacked**  **tine Pest**  **Fruit Flowers**  Squash leaf curl virus IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Flower, No No 7 N o 7 (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Leaf, & Stem (CABI, 2006) **Incertae sed**  **i s**  Cuc um ber green mottle mosaic IL (CABI, C. pepo Fruit, Leaf, & Yes N o 8 No virus 2006) (CABI, 2006) Root (CABI, 2006) **Potyviridae** Bean y e llow mo saic virus IL & US C. pepo Flower, Leaf, No No No (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Seed, & St e m

9 (CABI, 2006 ) ,

Fruit, & Root (Brunt, 1 9 96) Cuc um ber vein y e llowing virus IL (CABI, C. pepo Fruit &Leaf Yes N o 7 N o 7 2006) (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Papay a ring spot vi r

us IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Flower, No No 6 Yes 6

(CABI, 2006) (Brunt et al., Leaf, Root, &

1996 Stem (CABI, onwards) 2006) Turnip mosa i c virus IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Flower, No No 6 Yes 6 (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Leaf, Root, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Wate rmelon mo saic virus IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Flower, No No 6 Yes 6 (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Leaf, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Zucchini y e l l ow mosaic vi rus IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Flower, No Yes 5 Yes 5 (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Leaf, Root, Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2006) **Phytoplasma Mollicutes:**  **Acholeplasmatales** Aster y e llows phyt oplasma IL & US C. pepo Flower, Fruit, No No 10 No (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Leaf, Root, & Stem (CABI, 2006)

8 W e do not e xp ect th i s v ir us t o f o ll ow the pat

hway bec ause resear c he r s h ave not re c ov ere d t h i s v ir us fr om natura ll y in fec t ed C . p e p o , an d many teste d v ari etie s resis t i n fecti on (CABI , 2 0 06). 9 T h i s ap p ear s t o be an err on e ous listi ng b ase d on o l d literat ure . C u c u r b it a p e po i s not susce p tib l e to b e an yell ow mo saic v ir us ( Br unt et a l
. 1 9 96 ). 10 Insec t vec tor s , pri marily l eafh opper s , spre ad phyto p l as ma s f r om p l ant t o p lant ( C ABI , 2 0 06 ). We d o n ot exp ect leafh op p ers , w

h ic h ty p ically fee d o n leave s (Borro r e t al. , 1989) , to attac k i m porte d sum

me r squa sh frui t an d flower s and s u bsequ ently s p rea d i m

porte d p hyt op las ma s t o h ealthy p lants
. F urth ermore, f ruit and f l o we rs infecte d with phyto p lasmas are of te n d e f o rme d ( C AB I, 2 0 06 ), s o t h e y w o ul d li kely b e c ull e d during h a rvest a n d p r ocess in g. H en c e, we d o n ot e xpect phyto p l as ma s to fo llo w t

he p athway on i m

porte d sum

mer squ a sh f

rui t or fl owers.Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 13 **Pest Geographic**  **Host Plant**  **Part Quaran**  **- Follow**  **pat h** **way distribution**  **1 Attacked**  **tine Pest**  **Fruit Flowers**  **NEMATODES Hoplolaimidae**  Helicotylenc h us dihystera (Cobb) IL & US C. pepo Root (CABI, No No No Sher (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) 2006) Rotylenchulus reniformis Linford IL & US C. pepo Root (CABI, No No No & Oliveira (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) 2006) **Longidoridae** Longid orus a fricanus Merny IL & US C. pepo Root (UCD, No No No

(UCD, 2007) (Ferris and 2007)

Cas w ell
Chen, 20 0 7) **Meloidogyn i**  **dae** Me loidogyne hapla C hitwo od IL & US C. pepo Root (CABI, No No No (CABI, 2006) (Ferris and 2006)

Cas w ell
Chen, 20 0 7) Me loidogyne incogni t

a (K o foid & IL & US C. pepo Root (CABI, No No No White) Chitwood (CABI, 2006) (Ferris and 2006) Cas w ell
Chen, 20 0 7) Me loidogyne javanica (Treub) IL & US C. pepo Root (CABI, No No No Chitwood (CABI, 2006) (Ferris and 2006) Cas w ell
Chen, 20 0 7) **Pratylenchidae** Pratylenchus brachyurus IL & US C. pepo Root& Stem No Yes 2 Yes 2 (Godfre y) Filipjev & (CABI, 2006) (Charchar (CABI, 2006) Schuurmans Stekhoven and Huang, 1981) **Trichodoridae** Paratrichod

o rus minor (Colbran) IL (Schilt and C. pepo Root (CABI, No No No Siddiqi Cohen, 1 9 75) (Ferris and 2006) & US (CABI, Cas w ell
2006) Chen, 20 0 7) **MITES Acari:**  **Tars o**  **nemidae** Polypha gota r sonemus latus IL C. pepo Fruit, Flower, No Yes Yes Banks (Weintraub, (OEPP/EPPO Leaf, & Stem 2007) & US , 20 0 4) (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) **Acari: Tenu**  **i palpidae**  Brevipalpus californicus ( B anks) IL & US Cucurbita Fruit, Leaf, & No Yes Yes 2 (CABI, 2006) spp. (CABI, Stem (CABI,

2006) 2006)Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 14 **Pest Geographic**  **Host Plant**  **Part Quaran**  **- Follow**  **pat h** **way distribution**  **1 Attacked**  **tine Pest**  **Fruit Flowers**  **Acari: Tetranychidae**  Bryobia prac tiosa (Koch) IL & US C. pepo Leaf, Flower No No No (Migeon and (Migeon and (Jeppson et al., Dorkeld, Dorkeld, 1975) 2006) 2006) Eutetranychus orientalis (Klein) IL (Bolland C. pepo Leaf (CABI, Yes No No et al., 1998) (Bolland et 2006)

al., 19 9 8) Panonychus c itri (McGre g o r) IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Leaf, & No Yes No (Bolland et (Bolland et Stem (CABI, al., 19 9 8; al., 19 9 8) 2006) CABI, 2006) Panonychus ulmi (Koch) IL & US C. pepo Leaf (CABI, No No No (Bolland et (Bolland et 2006) al., 19 9 8) al., 19 9 8) Tetranychus cinnabarin us IL & US C. pepo Leaf (CABI, No No No (Boisduval) (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) 2006) Tetranychus ludeni (Zacher) IL & US C. pepo Leaf (Reddy , No No No (Migeon and (Migeon and 2002) Dorkeld, Dorkeld, 2006) 2006) Tetranychus turkestani (Ugarov & IL & US Cucurbita Leaf (Hill, No No No Nikolskii) (Bolland et spp. (Bolland 1994) al., 19 9 8) et al., 1998) Tetranychus urticae Koch IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Flower, No Yes Yes (CABI, 2006) (Mossler and Leaf, & Stem

Neshe i m , (CABI, 2006) 2003) **INSECTS Coleoptera:**  **Chrysomeli d**  **ae** Aulacophora foveicollis Lucas IL (CABI, C. pepo Fruit, Flower, Yes N o 11 N o 12
**Coleoptera: Coccinelidae**  2006) (CABI, 2006) Leaf, Root, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Henosepilachna elaterii (Rossi) IL (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(Avidov and Harpaz, 1969) Fruit & Leaf

(CABI, 2006) Ye s N o 12 No

11 A dul t A u la cop ho r

a f o veic o lli s fee d o n cucurbi t leaves , f l o wers, and occas i onally the sur f ac e o f youn g frui t ( CAB I, 2006). Thei r l a rva e typically fee d o n cu curbi t root s but occas i onal ly bor e int o fruit lying o n dam p s o il , whi c h c ause s t

he frui t to rot (CAB I, 2 0 0 6 )
. We do not expect adult A
. f o veic o lli s t o f o ll ow the p at

hway o n i m

porte d s umme r s quas h fr

ui t and flowers bec a

u s e they are relati vely large ( i.e. , 6
- 8 mm i n le ngth), bri ghtl y c o lo r ed , and capab l e o f f li ght (C AB I, 20 0 6 ), wh ic h make s i t li kel y th at the a dult s woul d e ith e r leave the c o mmod ity or b e d etecte d by vis u a l i n s p ectio n. Similarly , we do not e xpect larval A
. foveic o lli s t o f o llo w the p athway o n fr

ui t b ecause at

tac ke d, ro tte n fr

ui t wo ul d li kel y be c ulled durin g h arv es t and pr o cessing.Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 15 **Pest Geographic**  **Host Plant**  **Part Quaran**  **- Follow**  **pat h** **way distribution**  **1 Attacked**  **tine Pest**  **Fruit Flowers**  **Diptera: Agromy** **z idae**  Chromatomyia horticola Goureau IL (CABI, C. pepo Leaf (CABI, Yes No No 2006) (De m

pewolf, 2006) 2004) Liriomyza bryoniae Kaltenbach IL (CABI, C. pepo Leaf (CABI, Yes No No 2006) (CABI, 2006) 2006) Liriomyza huidobrensis IL (CABI, C. pepo Leaf (CABI, Ye s 13 No No (Blanchard) 2006) (CABI, 2006) 2006) Liriomyza sativae Blanchard IL & US C. pepo Leaf (CABI, No No No (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) 2006) Liriomyza tri

f olii Burgess IL & US C. pepo Leaf (CABI, No No No

(CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) 2006) **Diptera: Antho**  **m yiidae**  Delia platura (Meigen) IL (Avidov C. pepo Root s & Seeds No No No and Harpaz, (Avidov and (CABI, 2006) 1969) & US Harpaz, (CABI, 2006) 1969) **Diptera: M**  **u scidae**  Atherigona or ientalis Schiner IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Leaf, No No 14 No (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Root, & Stem (CABI, 2006) **Diptera: Te**  **p hritidae**  Ceratitis capita ta (Wiedemann) IL (CABI, C. pepo Fruit (CABI, Yes Yes No 2006) (Liquido ,

2008) 15 2006) Dacus ciliatus Loew IL (CABI, C. pepo Fruit (CABI, Yes Yes No 2006) (CABI, 2006) 2006) **Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae**  Bemisia tab a ci (Gennadius) IL & US C. pepo Leaf (CABI, No No No (CABI, 2006) (Avidov and 2006)

Harpaz, 1969) Trialeurodes ricini (Misra) IL (CABI, C. pepo Leaf (CABI, Yes No No 2006) (CABI, 2006) 2006)

12 W e do not expec t lar ge o r h igh l y mob il e arthrop ods th at f e e d on the surfac e o f s umme r squ as h fr ui t or f l ower s to f

o llo w the pathway . T he s e o rg a

ni s m s are li ke ly t o e ith er l eave the c o mmod ity or be re moved by s t a nd a r d pos t- h a rvest prac ti ces. 13 Liri o myza h u id

o b re ns i s i s a qu a r a nti ne pest o f the Unite d S t at es bec a use gene ti c a

na ly ses h a

ve c o nf i rme d that f

lie s i d e nti f ie d by t hi s n ame and collecte d f

r om C ali fo rni a and Ha

w ai i are ac t

u ally a c ry

p ti c specie s th at shoul d be r e f er r e d to as L
. lange i F ric k (S c h ef

f er , 2 00 0; Sc h ef

f e r an d Le wis , 20 01; Sc h e ff er e t al

. , 2 00 1 ). 14 W e do not expec t At

h ergon a orie n t

a li s t o foll ow the p at

hway on i m

porte d s umme r s qu as h fr

ui t b ecause th i s fl y ty

p ically d e v e l o p s i n d a

ma g e d or ro tti ng p lant materi a l (CABI , 2 00 6 )
. S u c h fr ui t wo ul d li kely b e c ulle d during h a rv es t and p r ocess in g . 15 W e f o un d no p u

b li sh e d in f

o rmati on that s tr o n g l y su

pp ort s a h ost a s soc i ati on be twe e n s qua sh a nd Medfly . F o r e xam

ple, n o ne o f the MEDHOS T (Liquid o e t al. , 1 99 8) e ntrie s f or me df l y o n C

. pe po w ere bas e d on f

i e l d o r l a b data . We ba s e d the ass o ciati on her e o n unp ub lishe d rep ort s f ro m H awai i (L iquido, 2 0 08 ).Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 16 **Pest Geographic**  **Host Plant**  **Part Quaran**  **- Follow**  **pat h** **way distribution**  **1 Attacked**  **tine Pest**  **Fruit Flowers**  Trialeurodes vaporarioru m IL & US C. pepo Leaf (CABI, No No No (Westwood) (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) 2006) **Hemiptera: Aphididae**  Acyrthosiphon kondoi Shin ji IL & US Cucurbita Lea f & St em No No No (CABI, 2006) spp. (CABI, (CABI, 2006)

2006) Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) IL & US C. pepo Flower, Leaf, & No No Yes (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Stem (CABI, 2006) Aphis craccivora Koch IL & US C. pepo Flower, Leaf, & No No Yes (CABI, 2006) (Blac k

man Stem (CABI, and Eastop, 2006) 2000) Aphis fa b ae Sc opoli IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Flower, No No 16 Yes (CABI, 2006) (Blac k

man Leaf, & Stem and Eastop, (CABI, 2006) 2000) Aphis gossypii Glover IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Flower, No No 16 Yes (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Leaf, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Aphis spiraecola Patch IL & US Cucurbita Lea f & St em No No No (CABI, 2006) spp. (CABI, (CABI, 2006)

2006) Brachycaudus helichrysi IL (Avidov C. pepo Fruit & Leaf No No 16 No Kaltenbach and Harpaz, (Blac k man (CABI, 2006) 1969) & US and Eastop, (CABI, 2006) 2000) M acrosiphum euphorb i ae IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Flower, No No 16 Yes (Tho mas) (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Leaf, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Myzus p ersicae (Sulzer) IL & US C. pepo Flower & Stem No No Yes (CABI, 2006) (Avidov and (CABI, 2006)

Harpaz, 1969) Rhopa losip hu m rufiabdom inale IL & US C. pepo Root & Stem No No No (Sasaki) (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Smynthurod

e s betae Wes twood IL (CABI, C. pepo Root (Blackman No No No

2006) & US (Blac k

man and Eastop, (Jensen et al., and Eastop, 2000) 2007) 2000) **Hemiptera: Cicadellidae**  Asym m e trasca (Empoasc a ) IL (CABI, Cucurbita Leaf (Viggi ani Yes No No decedens (Paoli) 2006) spp. (CABI, et al., 1992) 2006)

16 A ph i ds a re s o ft
- b od i e d i ns e c t s ( Bo r ro r e t al. , 1989 ) that a

re unlikely t o surviv e standar d post - harves t pr actice s fo r co mme rc ia l s umme r squa s h f rui t ( K ade r , 2 0 0 2 ). H ence, we d o not e xpect aph i ds to f o llo w the pat

hway on f ruit
.Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 17 **Pest Geographic**  **Host Plant**  **Part Quaran**  **- Follow**  **pat h** **way distribution**  **1 Attacked**  **tine Pest**  **Fruit Flowers**  Empoasca decipiens Paoli IL (Avidov C. pepo Leaf (Avidov Yes No No and Harpaz, (Avidov and and Harpaz, 1969) Harpaz, 1969)

1969) Jacobiasca (Empoasc a ) lybica IL (Avidov C. pepo Leaf (Avidov Yes No No (Bergevin) and Harpaz, (Avidov and and Harpaz, 1969) Harpaz, 1969)

1969) **Hemiptera: Coccidae**  Coccus hesperidum (Linn a eus) IL & US Cucurbita Lea f & St em No No No (CABI, 2006) spp. (CABI, (CABI, 2006)

2006) Coccus long

u lus (Douglas) IL & US C. pepo Lea f & St em No No No

(Ben
- Dov et (Ben
- Dov et (Rung et al., al., 20 0 7) al., 20 0 7) 2007) Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner) IL & US C. pepo Lea f & St em No No No (CABI, 2006) (Williams (CABI, 2006)

and Watson, 1990) Saissetia coffeae (Walker) IL & US C. pepo Lea f & St em No No No (CABI, 2006) (Williams (Rung et al.,

and Watson, 2007) 1990) Saissetia ole a e (Olivier) IL & US C. pepo Lea f & St em No No No (Ben
- Dov et (Ben
- Dov et (Rung et al., al., 20 0 7) al., 20 0 7) 2007) **Hemiptera: Diaspididae**  Aonidiella a u rantii (Maskell) IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Leaf, & No Yes No (Ben
- Dov et (Ben
- Dov et Stem (CABI, al., 20 0 7) al., 20 0 7) 2006) Aonidiella orientalis (Ne w stead) IL & US Cucurbita Fruit, Leaf, & No Yes No (CABI, 2006) spp. (CABI, Stem (CABI,

2006) 2006) Aspidiotus nerii (Bouché) IL & US (Watson, Cucurbita

spp. (Watson, Fruit, Leaf &

Bark (Watson, No Yes No 2008) 2008) 2008) Chrysomphalus aon i dum IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Leaf & No Yes No (Linnaeus) (CABI, 2006) (Watson, Stem (Wats o n, 2008) 2008) Hemiberlesia cyanophylli (Signoret) IL & US (Watson, Cucurbita

spp. (Watson, Fruit, Leaf &

Stem (Wats o n, No Yes No 2008) 2008) 2008) Hemiberlesia latania (Signoret) IL & US (Watson, Cucurbita

spp. (Watson, Fruit, Leaf &

Stem (Wats o n, No Yes No 2008) 2008) 2008) **He m**  **iptera: Lygaeidae** Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 18 **Pest Geographic**  **distribution 1**  **Host Plant**  **Part Attacked**  **Quaran**  

** tine** **Pest Follow**  **pat h** **way**

**Fruit Flowers**  Oxyc a renus hyalinipennis ( C osta) IL (CABI, 2006) **Hemiptera: Pentatomidae**  Nezara viridula (Linnaeus) IL & US (CABI, 2006) **Hemiptera: Pseudococc**  **i dae**  Dysm icoccus brevipes (Cockerell) IL & US (Ben
- Dov et al., 20 0 7) Planococcus citri (Risso) IL & US (CABI, 2006)
Pseudococcus viburni (Green) IL & US (Ben
- Dov et al., 20 0 7) **Hymemoptera: Formici**  **d ae**  Crematogaster sp. IL ( PestID, 2008 ) **Lepidopter a**  **: Noctuidae**  Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel) IL & US (CABI, 2006) C. pepo

(PestID

, 2008) C. pepo (Mossler and Neshe i m , 2003) C. pepo (Ben
- Dov et al., 20 0 7) C. pepo (Williams and Watson, 1988) C. pepo (Ben
- Dov et al., 20 0 7)
C. pepo ( PestID, 2008 ) C. pepo (CABI, 2006) Flower (Pest ID ,

2008) Fruit, Flower, Leaf, Seed, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Fruit, Leaf, Root, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Fruit, Flower, Leaf, Root, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Fruit, Flower, Leaf, Root, & Stem (Ben
- Dov et al., 2007) Fruit ( PestID, 2008 ) Fruit, Leaf, & Stem (CABI, 2006) Ye s N o N o 17

No No 12 N o 12

No No 18 No
No No 19 Yes

No No 19 Yes

Ye s 19 N o 20 N o 20

No No 20 No

17 Fo r m ultip l e reaso n s , we th ink Oxycarenus hyalin i p enni s i s un li kel y t o foll ow the p at hway on f

l owers . Th e only evid en ce of C u c u rb ita plant s b e ing p o tentia l h ost s o f t h i s insec t spec i e s ar e two i nterception s ( in 22 + years ) at U
. S
. po rts - o f
- e ntry o n cut flower s o f C

u c u rb ita pe

po (PestID, 2008). Giv en t his and t he fact that O

. hya lin i

p enn i s i s a se e d feed er, no t a flower fe e der (Sweet, 2000), t hese i nterc eptions prob a

bly were r a

re cases of O

. h

ya lin ip enn i

s h itchh i ki n g . T h e y ar e n ot adequat e ev id en c e that C

. p ep o i s a h o s t of thi s i n sect . Furthermor e , O

. h yalin i p en n i s reproduce s pri marily o n plant s i n the o r d e r Mal v ale s (S late r an d Barano w s ki , 199 4; S weet , 2 000 ), whe r ea s C

. pe po i s a Cu curbitacea e i n t he orde r V i olales (N RC S, 20 0 7 ). H itchh i kin g in d i v idua l s of th i s i nsect w o ul d li ke l y be det ec t ed durin g p os t -harvest in spec ti on s , s i nce the dark
- c o lo r e d adult s a

n d nym phs ( P P Q, 2 0 0 2) wou l d be h i gh ly v i s ib l e on the light - c o lor ed C

. p e p o f l owers . F in ally , th is mob ile , exte rn al i nsect pest w oul d p ro bab ly l eave the c o m mod ity i f d i s tur

be d. 18 W e do not e xp ect thrips o r mea ly bu g s t o f o ll ow the pathway on i m

porte d sum

mer squa s h f

r ui t bec a use i t does n ot hav e any feat ur e s wh ere these o r gani s m s c o ul d h i de a n d surv i ve h a

rv est an d p r oces s i ng. 19 Pest s th at ar e not i d e ntifie d to the s p ecifi c l e v e l i n t h i s do cument may or may not be qu a ranti ne pes t s . T hey were n ot furth er analyzed eith er becau s e their risk is reasonably e nco m passed in the ana lysi s o f anoth er pest , o r we foun d no e v i d e n c e of o t

h e r p est s i n t

he tax o n b eing ass o ciate d with the c o mmod ity i n the re g io n e x ami n e d. I f p e st s i d e ntifie d to h igher taxa a

re i nte rc ep te d in t

he f uture, AP HIS may take ac ti on at t he p o rt - o f

- entry , an d a re eva luatio n of ri sk may occur . 20 W e do not expec t th i s p es t to f o llo w t he p athway o n i m

porte d s umme r s quas h f

r ui t o r f lo w e rs b ecause it s larv a e ty p ically f ee d at ni ght and spen d t

he da y b elo w ground ( C AB I, 200 6 )
. T he larv a e are th e ref o r e n ot likel y t o be ass o ciate d with the co mmod ity duri ng h a

rves t .Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 19 **Pest Geographic**  **Host Plant**  **Part Quaran**  **- Follow**  **pat h** **way distribution**  **1 Attacked**  **tine Pest**  **Fruit Flowers**  Agrotis segetum (Denis & IL (CABI, C. pepo Leaf, Root, & Yes No No Schiffe rm üller) 2006) (CABI, 2006) Stem (CABI, 2006) Autogra p ha gamma (Linnaeus) IL (CABI, C. pepo Flower (Pest ID , Yes No N o 21 2006) (PestID, 2008) & Leaf

2008; (CABI, 2006) Robinson et al., 20 0 8) Chrysodeixis (Plusia ) cha lcites IL (Avidov C. pepo Fruit & Leaf Yes N o 12 No (Esper) and Harpaz, (Avidov and (CABI, 2006) 1969) Harpaz,

1969) Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) IL (CABI, C. pepo Fruit, Flower , & Yes Yes Yes 2006) (PestID, Leaf (CABI,

2008) 2006) Helicoverpa sp. IL (PestID, 2008) C. pepo

(PestID

, 2008) Fruit, Flower,

Leaf, & Stem (PestID, 200 8 ) Yes 19 N o 19 N o 19 Spo d optera e x igua (Hübn er) IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Flower, & No No 20 N o 20

(CABI, 2006) Spo d optera li ttoralis (Boisduval) IL (CABI, 2006) Trichoplusia ni (Hübner) IL & US (CABI, 2006) (OEPP/EPPO

, 20 0 4) C. pepo (CABI, 2006) C. pepo (CABI, 2006) Leaf (CABI,

2006) Fruit & Leaf (CABI, 2006) Leaf (CABI, 2006) Ye s N o 20 No

No No No **Lepidopter a**  **: Pyralidae**  Apomyelois (Ectomyelois) ceratoniae (Zeller)
**Orthoptera: Acrididae**  Calliptamus palestinensis Bodenheimer IL & US (Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; Solis, 1986) IL (Avidov and Harpaz, 1969) Cucurbita

spp. (Solis, 1986)

C. pepo (Opatowski, 2007) Fruit (Botha et

al., 20 0 4)

Leaf (Opatowski, 2007) No Yes No

Yes No No

21 Fo r m ultip l e reaso n s , we d o not exp ec t th at Au togr a ph a g a m m a (Lep id op tera : N o ct ui d ae ) wo ul d be li kely t o f o ll ow the p athway o f C

uc u rb ita p ep o f

l ow ers. S i nce 1 9 8 5, larvae of A

. gamm a h a v e b ee n i ntercepte d 68 ti me s o n c ut f l ow er s at U. S
. p o rt s - o f

- e ntry ( Pes tI D, 2 0 08 ). T hese i nterception s mo s t likely repres ent exam ple s o f A

. gamm a be in g a h itchh i ker on cut f l ow ers, an d do n ot p ro v id e ad e quat e ev i d enc e that t h i s insec t specie s wo ul d regularly f o llo w t he p athway of c ut flower s o f a

ny particul a

r plant species
. T h i s reaso nin g i s b ase d on the f o llowing e v i d e n ce : 1 ) th es e i ntercep ti o n s we re spre ad out ov er a wid e v a riety o f pl a

nt g en era (30 diff

er ent g ener a), with each p l ant g e nus h a ving only 1 to 9 interc ep ti on s , and 2 ) A

. g

am ma larva e ar e l ea f fe e d er s , no t flowe r fe e d er s (CAB I , 2 0 0 6; PPQ , 2 00 2). F urt h e rmor e , t

h e h o s t stat

us of C u c u rb ita p e

p o i s qu esti on a

ble
. Base d o n an e xtensi ve searc h of the scie ntifi c literat ure , t he on l y e v i d enc e f

o un d of any p l ant s in the g e nus C

u c u rb ita b eing po te ntia l h o st s of t h i s insec t s p ecie s are : 1) o ne report o n C u c u rb it a p ep o f r om Sp ai n by Ro b i n s o n et a l
. (2 0 0 8) (b ut n o de tail s are p ro v i d e d on th e o ri g i nal s o ur ce ref er ence ) , a nd 2 ) s ince 1 98 5, agri cult ura l specialists at U .S. p orts - o f
- e ntry h a ve i nterc epted A

. ga mm a (two larva e ) on e ti me o n cut flower s o f C

. pe po (PestI D, 2 00 8 )
. T h e re f

o r e , i f C

. p e po i s a hos t , i t wo ul d see m t o be merely an i n c i d e nta l one th at i s rarely infes te d.Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 20 **Pest Geographic**  **Host Plant**  **Part Quaran**  **- Follow**  **pat h** **way distribution**  **1 Attacked**  **tine Pest**  **Fruit Flowers**  Dociostaurus maroccanus IL (CABI, Cucurbita Lea f & St em Yes No No (Thunberg) 2006) spp. (CABI, (CABI, 2006) 2006) **Thysanoptera: Thripidae**  Frankliniella occidentalis IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Flower, & No No 19 Yes (Pergande) (CABI, 2006) (CABI, 2006) Leaf (CABI, 2006) Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood IL & US (FL C. pepo Fruit, Flower, & [ Y e s] 22 N o 19 Yes & HI) (Ci o m

perlik Leaf (CABI, (CABI, 2006) and Seal, 2006)

2004) Thrips tabaci Linde man IL & US C. pepo Fruit, Flower, No No 19 Yes (CABI, 2006) (Avidov and Leaf, & Stem

Harpaz, (CABI, 2006) 1969)
**Table 4.**  Quarantin e pest s likel y t o follo w the pathway and further anal yz ed. **Pest Type**  **Plan t**  **part** Ceratitis c a

pitata (W iede m ann) (Diptera : Tephritidae) Fruit f ly Fruit Dacus ciliatus Loew (Diptera : Tephriti dae) Fruit f ly Fruit Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: N octuidae) Moth Fruit & F lower Scirto thri ps dorsalis Hood (Thy sanoptera: Thripidae) Thrips Flower

22 Th i s pest has a l i mite d d i s tribu tio n in th e Unite d S t at es a n d i s c o ns i d ered r ep o rt ab le/ ac ti on a b l e by AP HI S
.Above we list quarantine pests th at ar e likel y t o follo w th e p athway (i.e., acco m pany ship m ents of summ er s quash or summer squash flower) ( T a b le 4). W e anal yz ed these pests further using Steps 5
- 7 in PPQ (2000). Th e fru it f

l ies , C
. ca

p itata and D
. ciliatus , are li kely to f ollow th e p athway on squash f ruit because they lay eggs in fruit, and their lar v ae develop inside fr

ui t (CABI , 2006)
. USDA agric ultu re inspectors have i ntercepted both species on fresh Cucurbita fruit from Is rael (PestID, 2008). The m oth, Helicoverpa armigera , is likely to fo llow the pathway on squash flower, as evidenced b y interception s o f Helicoverpa sp. at U.S. ports - of
- entry on commercial Cucurbita p epo flowers from Israel (PestID, 2008). Helicoverp a armigera is also li ke ly to f ollow the pathway on summer squash fruit because it is an int ernal f ruit feeder (CABI, 2006) that USDA agric ultu re inspectors have intercepted in co mm ercial ship m ents of Cucurbita p epo fruit from other countries (PestID, 2008); these inspectors have also found a single inco m pletely identified Helic o verpa larvae in Cucurbita p epo fruit that was i m ported as gener al cargo from Israel (PestID, 2008). The thrips, S

cirto thri ps d orsalis , is likely to follow the pathway on summer squash flowers because it is a minute pest that infests Cucurbita pepo flowers (CABI, 2006; Cio m perlik and Seal , 2004). The ar m ored scale, Aulacaspi

s tuberculari

s Newstead (He miptera: Diaspididae) was not anal yz ed because although ar m ored scales m ay enter on co mm ercial fruit for consumption, they have an extre m el y low likelihood of establish i ng via this pathway (Mi l ler , 1985 ; PERAL , 2007). This applies to f

ruit with out leav es, ste m s or contaminants, and is true even if high quantities of i m ported f ruit are in f

est e d with ar

m ored sc a le s p ecies. This extre m ely low risk is explained by the poor ability of ar

m ored scales to disperse to new host plants from fruits for consumption. The following c h aracteristics of ar m o red scales contrib ute to their p oor disp e rs a l capa b ilitie s : • Legs and wings are absent in fe m ales and in feeding imm ature for m s; onl y short
- lived m ales possess wings, and they do not feed and tend to m ate with nearb y fe m ales.
• Self
- dispersal of ar

m ored scales occurs by immature for m s, or “crawler s ”. They are the m ost vulnerable life stage, survival of which decre a ses with long distance wind dispersal. Crawlers passively disperse by wind from one plant to an other for only about 24 hours. After crawlers start feeding, they do not disperse further beca u se they soon lose their legs and are anchored fir mly to the host by their m outhparts.
• Dispersal from fruit discarded in the environm e nt is considered very unlikely because of low wind speeds at ground level, and low survival rat e o f crawlers , eithe r o n th e ground , on decaying fr

uit, or on fr

uit peels. Crawlers are highly unli kel y to walk away from their n atal host because they cann o t m ove rapid l y over bare soil or rough surfaces. **2.5. Consequences of I**  **n troduction**  We esti m ate the Consequences of Introductio n usin g fiv e ris k e le m ents: cli m ate - host interaction, host range, dispersal potential, econo mic i m pact, and environm ental i m p a ct. W e assign a Low (1 point), M edium (2 point s ), or High (3 points) rati n g to each Risk Ele m ent and add the RiskPes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 22 Ele m ents to produce a C um ulative Risk Rat i ng f

or each pest anal yz ed ( P PQ, 2000). Our Consequences of Introduction values are summ arized below (Table 5).
**Ceratitis c a** 

**pitata (Wi**  **e demann)**  **(Diptera: Te**  **p h**  **ritida e**  **) Risk**  **r a** **tin g**  **s Risk El**  **e m**  **en t 1: Clim**  **a te**  **- H**  **o st In**  **te raction**  Ceratitis c a

pitata is widely distributed in Afri ca, the Mediterranean, South and Central America, west Asia, and western Australi a (CABI , 2006)
. Base d o n this distribution and the geographic range p redicte d b y Vera e t al
. (2002) , we esti m ate that C
. capitata coul d establis h i n U.S
. Hardines s Zone s 8
- 1 1 i n the continental United States (PERAL , 2008). One o r mo re o f it s p oten tial h ost s o c cu

r in t he s e zon e s (NRCS, 2007). **R i**  **s k**  **E l**  **e m**  **en t**  **2 : Ho**  **s t**  **Range** Ceratitis c a

pitata attac k s the fruit of plants in th e families Anacardiace a e, Arecaceae, Chry sobalan aceae, Cuc u rbitaceae, Ebanaceae, L oganiaceae, Malpighiaceae, Meliaceae, Moraceae, My rtaceae, Oleaceae, P odocarpaceae, Rosaceae, R

ubiaceae, Rutaceae, Sa

p o t aceae, Solanaceae, and Sterc uliaceae (CABI, 2006; Tho m as e t al. , 2007). **Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potenti a**  **l** A f e m a l e C
. capita ta can m ature and deposit up to 800 eggs during her li f e (Tho m as et al., 2007). The species can co m plete a generation in 14 to 30 day s depending on te m

perature (CABI, 2006; Tho m as et al., 2007), and adults can live up to tw o m onths (CABI, 2006), so we expect this fly to co m plete several overlapping generations in warm areas of the United States when host f ruit is available. A dult C
. capitata can fly up to 20 km during their life, and larvae can be transported over long distances in infested fruit (CABI, 2006). **Risk Element 4: Economic Impact** Ceratitis c a

pitata attacks m ore than 250 commercially produced fruit in the Mediterranean (Fi miani, 1989). Due to its w i de distribution, its ability to tolerate cooler cli m ates, and its wide host rang e , it is ranked first am ong economically i m portant fruit fl y species (Tho m as et al., 2005). The introduction of C
. capitata into Hawaii seriou s ly a ff

ected s m all f

ar m ers, as it attacks 72 comm ercial h osts there (Harris, 1989). In the Mediterranean, thi s pes t can infes t u p t o 10 0 percent of stone fruit (CABI, 2006). In addition to causing substantial yi eld loss, C
. capita ta lo w e rs crop values by requiring controls, and, as a recognized quarantine pest, outbreaks often cause a loss of foreign and do m estic m arkets (CABI, 2006). The European Plant P rotection Organization (EPPO) lists C
. capita ta as an A2 quarantine pest ( C ABI, 2006). **Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact** Ceratitis c a

pitata is extre m ely poly

phagous and could attack plants listed as Threatened or Endangered (T/E) in 50 CFR §17.12, particularl y congeners of curre nt hos t s. Ex a

m ple s o f potential T/E ho st p l a n t s in the continental United State s inc lude Argemone pleiacantha (NM), Asimina tetrame ra (FL), Berberis nevivii (CA) , B. pinnata (CA), Cucurbita okeech o beensis (FL) , Echinocereus chisoensis (TX) , E. reichenbachii (TX) , E iridiflorus (TX), E. fendleri (NM) , E. High (3)

High (3)

High (3)

High (3)

High (3)Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 23 **Ceratitis c a** 

**pitata (Wi**  **e demann)**  **(Diptera: Te**  **p h**  **ritida e**  **) Risk**  **r a** **tin g**  **s** triglo chid iatus (AZ), E. telephioides (FL), Opuntia treleasei (CA) , Prunus geniculata (FL) , Ribes echinellum ( F L, SC), and Ziziphus celata (FL). Because it is a m ajor pest of num e rous crops (above), if introduced into the United S tates it would undoubtedly sti m

ulate new che mical or biological control program s.
**Dacus cili** **a tus**  **Loew (Diptera: Tephritidae)**  **Risk r a** **tin g**  **s Risk El**  **e m**  **en t 1: Clim**  **a te**  **- H**  **o st In**  **te raction**  Dacus ciliatus occur s i n mos t o f sub
- Sah aran Africa, Egy pt, the Arabian Peninsula, the Middle East, and India (CABI, 2006; White and Elson
- Harris, 1992). Based on this distribution, we esti m ate that D
. ciliatus coul d establis h in Plant Hardi n ess Zones 1 0
- 11 in th e c ontinental United States (PERAL , 2008). On e or mo re o f it s p oten

tial h ost s o c cu

r in t he s e z ones (NRCS, 2007). **R i**  **s k**  **E l**  **e m**  **en t**  **2 : Ho**  **s t**  **Range** Dacus ciliatus attacks me m bers of the plant family Cucurbitaceae (e.g., Citrullus, Cucumi

s , Cucurbita , Lagenari a , Luff a , Momordic a , Sechiu m , and Trichosanthes ) (CABI, 2006). Reports of hosts in other p lant f amilies, s uch as the Fabaceae, Malvaceae, and Solan aceae ( White and Elson
- Harris, 199 2 ), are questionabl e (CABI , 2006). **Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potenti a**  **l** Researchers have not studied the fecundity of D
. ciliatus , but a closely related species with a co m

parable life hist o ry, D
. jarvisi , can m atur e an d deposi t u p to 600 eggs during its life (Fletcher, 1989a). D
. ciliatus can c o mplete m ultiple generations in a ye ar (Fletcher, 1989a). Adult flight and the transport of infested fruit are responsible for introducing this fly into new areas ( C ABI, 2006). Anecdotal evidence su g gests th at s om e me m be r s of this ge n

us, like D
. tryon i , can fl y up to 35km (Fletcher, 1989b). **Risk Element 4: Economic Impact** Dacus ciliatus larvae feed inside fr uit and can in d

uce fruit rot (Annecke an d Moran, 1982). If the fly is not controll e d, it can cause considerable yi eld losses (CABI , 2006)
. Th e require d control s woul d likely lower the value of affected commodities by increasing producti o n costs. Further m ore, establishm ent in the United St at e s is likely to cause a loss of m arkets, as D
. ciliatus is listed as a quarantine pest by EPPO (EPPO, 2007). **Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact** Dacus ciliatus could attack plants listed as T hreatene d o r Endangere d i n 5 0 CFR §17.1 2 (e.g. , Cucurbita o keechobee nsis ssp. okeechobeensi s ). Because of its econo mic effects (above), it would sti m ulat e new che mical or biological control program s if introduced into the United States. Medium (2)

Medium (2)

High (3)

High (3)

High (3)

**Helicoverpa armigera**  **(Hübner )**  **( L**  **epidoptera :**  **N octuidae)**  **Risk r a** **tin g**  **s Risk El**  **e m**  **en t 1: Clim**  **a te**  **- H**  **o st In**  **te raction**  Helicoverpa armigera occur s throughout Africa , Au stralia, C entral and S outh High (3)Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 24 **Helicoverpa armigera**  **(Hübner )**  **( L**  **epidoptera :**  **N octuidae)**  **Risk r a** **tin g**  **s** Asia, Euro p e, the Far East, the Middle East, and Oceania ( C ABI, 2006). Based on this distribution, we esti m ate that H
. armigera could establish in U.S. Plant Hardiness Z ones 5
- 11 ( P ERAL , 2008). One or mo re o f it s p oten tial ho st s o c cu

r in t he s e zones (NRCS, 2007). **R i**  **s k**  **E l**  **e m**  **en t**  **2 : Ho**  **s t**  **Range** Helicoverpa armigera is a poly phagous pest ( C ABI, 2006). It s m ajor hosts include m embers of the Anacardiaceae (e.g., M angifera in d

ic a ), Asteraceae (e.g., Helianthus annuus ), Brassicaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Fabaceae (e.g., Arachis hypogae a , Cajanus caja n , Cicer arietinu m , Glycin e max , Labla b purpureus , Phaseolus spp. , Pisum sativum , and Vigna unguiculata ), Li liaceae (e.g., Allium spp.), Li naceae (e.g., L inu m usitatissimum ), Malvaceae (e.g., Abelmoschus escule n tus an d Gossypi u m ), Poaceae (e.g., Avena sativa , Hordeu m vulgare , Pennisetum glaucum , Sorghu m bicolo r , Triticum i spp . , and Zea mays ), Pi n aceae (e.g., Pinus spp.), Rosaceae (e.g., Prunus spp.), Rutaceae (e
. g., Citrus spp.) , and Solanaceae (e.g., Capsicu m annuum , Lycopersico n esculentu m , Nicotia n a tabacu m , Solanum melongena , and S. tuberosu m ) (CABI, 2006). **Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potenti a**  **l** A f e m a l e H
. armigera can m ature and deposit up to 3,180 eggs during her life, and the species can complete m ultip le gen e ratio n s in a ye ar (CABI, 2006). Adult H
. armigera can migrate long distances, borne by wind (e.g., from southern Europe to the United Kingdo m), and hum ans inadvertently transport this species over long di stances in s hip m ents of infested commodities (CABI, 2006). **Risk Element 4: Economic Impact** Helicoverpa armigera causes serious crop losses throughout its range (C AB I, 2006). Various authors report 30
- 60 perce nt yi eld losses in cotton and 10
- 100 perce nt yi eld losses in p otato (CABI, 2006). In addition to yi eld los s es, H
. armigera can reduce crop values by requi rin g control s (CABI , 2006)
. For exam ple, in India, where H

. armigera routinely destroy s a portion of the pulse and cotton crops, far

m ers spend ab out $127 million annuall y on insecticides to protect these crops (CABI, 2006). Establishm ent of H
. armigera in th e United States is likely to cause a loss of m ar ke t s because the pest is not established in Canada, Mexico, or South Am erica, and EPPO lists H
. armigera a s an A2 quarantine pest (CABI, 2006). **Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact** Helicoverpa armigera could attack plants listed as threatened or endangered in 50 CFR § 17.12 (e.g., Allium munzi i , Amaranthus pumilus , Helianthus schweinitzi i , an d Prunus geniculata ). It would stimulate new chemical or biological control program s if introduced i nto th e United States because it causes considerable yi eld losses when it i s no t controlle d (CABI , 2006). High (3)

High (3)

High (3)

High (3)Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 25 **Scirtoth r** **ips dorsalis**  **Hoo d**  **(Thysanoptera :**  **Thr i** **pidae )**  **Ris k**  **ratings Risk El**  **e m**  **en t 1: Clim**  **a te**  **- H**  **o st In**  **te raction**  Scirto thri ps dorsalis is n ative to war m te m perate and tropical areas of Asia and Oceania, i n cluding parts of Australia, B anglades h , Brunei Darussalam , China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malay si a , Myanm ar, Pakistan, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, the Solo m on Is lands, Sri Lanka, and Thailand (CABI, 2006). It was i ntro d

uced into an d has esta

b lis he d i n Florida , Hawaii , Côt e d’Ivoire, South Africa, Is rael, and the Caribbean (CABI, 2006). Based on this distribution and the geographic range predicted by M e issner et al. (2005), we esti m ate that S
. dorsalis coul d establis h in U.S
. Plant H ardiness Z ones 8
- 11 ( P ERAL , 2008). One or mo re o f it s p oten

tial h ost s o c cu

r in t he s e zones (NRCS, 2007). **R i**  **s k**  **E l**  **e m**  **en t**  **2 : Ho**  **s t**  **Range** The literature contains records of S
. dorsalis on o ver 100 plants in forty fam ilies (CABI, 2006). Its m ajor hosts include Allium ce p a (onion) (Liliaceae), Anacardium occidentale (cashew nut) (Anacardiaceae), Arachi s hypogaea (groundnut) (Fabaceae), Camellia sin ensis (tea) (Theaceae), Capsicum frutescens (chilli) (Solanaceae), Citrus (Rutac ea e), Gossypi u m (cotton) (Malvaceae), Lycopersic o n escule n tu m (to m ato) (Solanaceae), Mangifera indica (m ango) (Anacardiaceae), Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco) ( S olanaceae), Ricinus co m m unis (cast o r bean) (Euphorbiaceae), and Vitis (grape) (Vitaceae) ( C ABI, 2006). **Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potenti a**  **l** A f e m a l e S
. dorsalis can m ature and deposit 40
- 68 eggs during her life, and she can co m plete her life cycle in as little as 15 day s (CABI, 2006). All this does not add up to a particularl y high reproductive rate for an ins e ct, but it does indicate that the bug will pro b ably co m plete multip le g e n erations each ye ar in areas where it can esta

b lis h ; researc h ers have docum ented 10
- 15 generations a ye ar in areas of China (Li et al., 2004). Scirtothrips dorsalis is capable of flight, but researchers have not quantified its flight potential
. Th e thrip s can , however , be inadvertentl y transported over long di stances in ship m ents of infested commodities, as evide n ced by interceptions at U
. S. ports - of
- entry (Pe s tI D , 2008) and by its introduction into F l orida , Hawaii , Côt e d’Ivo ire, S outh Africa, Israel, an d th e Caribbean (CABI , 2006). **Risk Element 4: Economic Impact** Scirto thri ps dorsalis is a pest of econo mic crops, such as citr u s, chili pep p ers, and cotton (CABI, 2006; CABI/EPPO, 2007 )
. Feeding by adults and larvae can cause leaf distortion, fruit scarring, and flower drop, which all reduce crop quality and yi eld (CABI, 2006; CABI/EPPO, 2007). Large S
. dorsalis populations reduce chili pepper yi elds by 25
- 55 percent (CABI, 2006). This thrips is ty

pically controlled with che mical s (CABI , 2006 ; CABI/EPPO , 2007), which would lower the value of affec t ed comm odities by increasing production costs. Finally , widespread establishm ent in the United States is expected to cause a loss of m arkets because the pest is not yet e stab lished in Canada , Mexico , or South Am erica, and EP P O lists S
. d o rsalis a s an A2 quarantin e pes t (EP P O, 2007). CABI (2006) states that S
. d o rsalis “ m

ust be considered a serious quarantine risk to other countrie s , includin g ...Europ e an d th e USA.” High (3)

High (3)

Medium (2)

High (3)Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 26 **Pest Climate**  **- h**  **o st**  **intera c**  **tion Host range**  **Dispersal potential**  **Environ.**

**impact Cumulative** 

**ri s**  **k rating**  **a** Ceratitis c a

pitata High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15) Dacus ciliatus Medium (2) Medium (2) H igh (3) High (3) High (13) Helicoverp a armigera High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15) Scirto thri ps dorsalis High (3) High (3) Medium (2) Medium (2) High (13) **Scirtoth r** **ips dorsalis**  **Hoo d**  **(Thysanoptera :**  **Thr i** **pidae )**  **Ris k**  **ratings Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact**  Scirto thri ps dorsalis co uld attack plants listed as Threatened or Endangered in 50 CFR §17.12 (e.g., Alliu m munzii ). W idespread distribut i on of this pest in the United St at e s is not lik el y to sti m ulat e new che mi cal or b iolo gical contro l program s because m ost U.S. crops have exi s ting pest m anage m ent program s for econo micall y i m

portant thrips (CIP M, 2007). Medium (2)

**Table 5.**  Risk ratings for Consequences of Introduct i on. W e gave ratings of High to all pests for ‘Econo mic Impact.’

a Lo w = 5
- 8; Medium = 9
- 12; High = 13
- 15
**2.6. Likeli**  **h ood of Introduction**  We esti m ated the Likelihood of Introduction from the quantity of the commodity expected to be i m ported annually and the probabilities that a pest would survive post - harvest treatment and ship m ent, enter the Unit e d States un detected, and arri v e in an area with a cli m ate and host plants capable of supporting reproduction (PPQ, 2000). W e summ arize below the Cum ulative Risk Ratings for the Likelihood of Introduction (Table 6). **2.6.1. Quantity Imported**  **Annually** For C

. pep o flowers, the governm ent of Israel reported that they intend to expor t hundred s o f 1 kg boxes each week throughout the ye ar (Landshut , 2007). This quantity is assigned a Low (1) risk rating, in accordan ce with the template doc um ent (PPQ, 2000) (i.e., ≈ 200 kg of product per week * 52 weeks per year ≈ 10,400 kg of product per ye ar/ 26,750 kg payload of a standard 40
- foot long shipping container ≈ 0. 3 standard shippin g container s per ye ar). The governm ent of Is ra e l did n o t provi de any in f or m ation on the qu antity of C

. pep o f ruit or f ruit with f l o w ers that could be exp orte d ; therefore, beca u se of uncertai nty , we rated all the pe s ts High (3) for this risk ele m ent. **2.6.2. Survive Post** 

**- Harvest Treatment**  As m entioned above, we assum ed that each flower and fruit w ould be vis ually inspected for pests, and graded for quality , that flowers would be packed separatel y in plastic bags, and that each fruit w ould be wa s hed. Arthropods that feed inside fruit and flowers m ay survive these post - har v est treatm ents. Because they are internal fruit feeders and because of the sm all size of their l arvae ( last instars range 7 to 9 mm in length) (PPQ, 2002; Tho m a s et al., 2007), the fruit flies C

. capitat a and D. ciliatusPes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 27 would be difficult to detect, e sp ecial l y i f in fe station o f t he fruit wa s not o f such g

r ea t age to make da mage obvi ou s . Therefore, we rated th ese fruit flies High. The thrips S. dorsalis can infest the inside of flowers. These can be inspected for pests m ore easily than the inside of fruits, but the s m all size (0.5
- 1.2 mm long) and light color of S. dorsalis adults (Seal and Klassen, 2005) m a y m ake it diff i cult to find in squash flowers. Thus, we rated S. dorsalis High. Because of its relativel y large size (larvae can gro w up to about 35 mm long) (NCIPM, 2008) and obvious sy

m pto m s ( bore holes and heaps of frass) (CABI, 2006), H. armigera would likely be easier to detect during post - harvest inspection and we therefore rated it Medium . **2.6.3. Survive Shipment**  The opti m

um te m perature for shipping summer squash fruit is between 10 and 12.5  ̊ C, but the opti m um t e mperature f

or shipping most cut flowers is 0  ̊ C (Kader, 2002). Storing agricultural commodities at low temperatures is detri m ent al to m any arthropods, but the low te m p eratu re must be m ai ntained for an extended period to ca u se significant m ortality
. F or exam ple, it takes nearl y two weeks or lo n ger to kill m ost f ruit f ly larvae when the te m

perature is at or n ear 0 oC (PPQ, 2007). Because I s rael inten d s to ship th e p roducts by air, th ey will not experie n ce extended periods of low te m perature during shipping (Landshut, 2007). F or these reasons, we assigned High risk ratings to all the arthropods for their ability to survive ship m ent. **2.6.4. Not Detected at**  **P**

**ort -**  **of -**  **Entry** The probability that a p e st is d e te c t e d at the p o rt - o f
- entry is a f

unction of its s ize and degree of conceal m ent. External feeders are m o re likely than internal f e eders to b e detected at th e port - of
entry , but minute external feedi ng arthropods m ay go unnoticed. Therefore, we assigned Medium risk ratings to the internal feeding arthropods and the minute external feeding arthropod. The moth H. armigera , because of its size and associated dam ag e , is m ore likel y than internal f eed er s and minute external feeders to be noticed. This organism is therefore assigned a Low risk rating f or its a b ility to esca

p e dete c tion at the po rt - o f
- e ntry. **2.6.5. Move** **d t** 

**o Suitabl**  **e Habitat**  Summ er squash is a popular fruit vegetable in th e United St ates, with the average American consuming about 4.5 lbs each ye ar ( Lucier and Jerardo, 2004). In fact, the d e m and for squash in the United S tates is so high that we import m ore of this commodity than any other country in the world (Lucier and Jerardo, 2004). Squash flo w ers consum ption in the United States has experienced a surge in popularity in the last few ye ars as haute cuisine (Fluech, 2008). The culinary consum

ption of squash flowers has b e c om e relativ el y common in the United States, thanks to the popularity of Mexican and Italian cooking ( W olf, 2006). Given the high de m and of squash and the increasing popularity o f squas h flower s with U.S
. consum ers, infested or infected fruit and fl o w ers are likely to arri v e in areas that are suita b le for pest s urvival. Ratings for this sub
- ele m ent were therefore based on the area of the United States where each pest co uld esta b lish. We esti m ated that D
. ciliatus could establish in U .S. Plant Hardiness Zones 10 and 11 and assigns a L o w risk rating to this p est because zo n es 10 and 11 repre s ent a very s m all portionPes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 28 **Pest Survive post**  ****

**harvest treatment**  **Not detect e**  **d**

**at port -**  **o f** 

**** **entry Moved to** 

**suitable habitat**  **Cumulative risk rating**  **a**
Ceratitis c a

pitata High (3) Medium (2) Medium (2) High (16) Dacus ciliatus High (3) Medium (2) Low (1) High (15) Helicoverp a armigera Medium (2) Low (1) High (3) High (15) Scirto thri ps dorsalis High (3) Medium (2) Medium (2) High (16) (about 1 percent) of the United States (PERAL, 2008). W e a lso esti m ated that C. ca p itata and S. dorsalis could establish in U.S. Plant Hardiness Z ones 8
- 11 and assigned a Medium risk ratings to these pests because z o nes 8
- 11 rep resent a bout one fourth of the United States (PERAL , 2008). Finall y, we estimated that H
. armigera coul d establis h i n Plant Hardines s Zone s 5
- 1 1 and assigned a H igh risk rati n g to this p est because these zones re p resent a very large p o rti o n (about 70 percent) of the Unit e d States (PERAL , 2008). **2.6.6. Contact with Host Material**  Even i f t he f inal destinati o n o f infeste d co mmoditi e s i s suita bl e for p e st su

r vival , suitabl e host s must b e avai l ab l e for t

h e p e st to su

rvive . Thi s sub
- e l ement consider s th e likeliho o d t ha t t he p e st sp ec i e s ca n come in to con tact with host ma

t er i al fo r reproduction
. The co mplet e host rang e o f the pest is considered
. Ac c ording to the IPP C sta nda rd for p e s t ri s k a

nal ys i s ( IPPC , 2007 : I S P M #11) , other f actor s t h a t may b e con s idere d i nc lude:  dispersal me cha

ni s m s , in cluding vectors to allow movemen t f rom t he p a thwa y to a suita

b le host  w hether th e im

porte d com

modity i s to b e sen

t to a f e w or many destination s in th e PRA area  prox imit

y o f entry, t

ransit , and de stina

tion poin t s to suita bl e host s  time o f ye a

r a t whi ch im

por t ta ke s pl ac e  intende d us e o f t

h e commodity ( e .g. , f

or plan ting , pro c ess i ng , o r con sumpti o n)  risk s f ro m by
-pro duct s a

nd waste Al l the ar t h ropo d p e st s o f conc er

n are very po l yp hagou s and at tack tempera

t e - z o ne or wi del y cultivate d plant s (

N RCS , 2007) t

ha t s houl d b e a

v aila b l e t h roughout t

he p e s t s ’ p oten

tial U .S
. ra

nge . Cucurbita p epo flowers are produced ye ar - round in Is rae l (L andshut , 2007)
. W e h av e no infor m ation on when exactly C

. pep o fruit are produced, so we a ssum ed that the fruit could be produced ye ar - round as well. W e assum ed as well that the flowers and fruit could be shipped to the United S tates throughout the ye ar. Consequently , suitable hosts should be available for all the pests of concern during at l e ast a p o rtion of the ti m e when the commodity is shipped. Fu rther more , al l o f th e pest s o f c o ncer n can disperse aerially , which increases their c h ances, co m pared to sess i le pe s t s , of f inding hosts and successful l y establishing in the Unite d S tates. There f o re , we rate d al l t

h e pest s High fo r their abilit y to ma ke c ontact wit

h host ma teri al
. **Table 6.**  Risk ratings for Likelihood of Introduction. W e gave ratings of High to all pests for ‘Quantity Imported Annually ,’ ‘Survive Ship m ent,’ and ‘Contact with Host Material.’

a Lo w = 6
- 9; Medium = 10
- 14; High = 15
- 18Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 29 **Pest Consequences of**  **Introducti o**  **n Likelihood of** 

**Introducti o**  **n Pest**  **Risk Potential a**  Ceratitis c a

pitata High (15) High (16) High (31) Dacus ciliatus High (13) High (15) High (28) Helicoverp a armigera High (15) High (15) High (30) Scirto thri ps dorsalis High (13) High (16) High (29) **2.7. Conclusion**  We summ arize th e Pest Risk Potentials below (Table 7), which esti m ate the risk associated with i m porting a commodity in the abse n c e of miti g ation. According to the template doc um ent, Guidelin es for Pathway

-Initiated Pes t Risk Ass ess ments, Version 5
. 02 (PPQ, 2000), port - of
- entry inspe c tion p rovides su ffi cient ph y to s anit ary sec u

rity fo r pest s assigne d Lo w Pest Risk Potentials, while specific phy

tosanitary m easures m ay be nec e ssary for Medium Pe s t Risk Pote ntials and are strongl y recomm ended for H i gh Pes t Ris k Potentials.
**Table 7.**  Pest Risk Pote nti a l.

a Lo w = 11
- 18; Medium = 19
- 26; High = 27
- 33 

### 3. **Risk Mitigation**  **Options** This se c tion outli n es po s sible risk mitig ation options (i. e . , phy tosanitary m easures) for the quarantine pests of concern and discusses their efficacy
. In the risk assess m ent section of this docum ent, the authors identi f ied the f ollowing quarantine p ests as h avi n g High unmitig ated Pest Risk Potential:  Ceratitis c a

pitata (W iede m ann) (Diptera : Tephriti dae) following the fruit pathway  Dacus ciliatus Loew (Diptera : Tephriti dae) f oll o wing the f

ruit p athway  Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: N octuidae) following the f ruit and flower pathways.  Scirto thri

ps dorsalis Hoo d (Thysanoptera : Thripidae ) followin g th e flowe r pathway The appropriate level of protection m ay be achieved through the application of a single phy tosanitary m easure, such as inspection or quarantine treatm ent, or a co m bination of m easures. If no single m easure is likely to red uce pest risk to an accep table le v el, th en a co m bination of m easures may be needed. The co m b ination of specific phy

tosanitary m easures that provides overlapping or redundant safeguards is called a “s y s te m s approach.” The strength of a m easure m ay be increased, or a dditio n al m easures m ay be added to c o m pensate f or unce rtai nty . A m easure intended for use in a sy stems approach must be clearl y defined, efficacious, m andated, and m onitored by the responsible national plant protectio n organizatio n (IPPC , 2007 ; IS P M #14). A sy ste m s a

pproach for summer squash and squash flower from Israel might co m bine a variety of m easures, inclu ding p est - free areas; pest - f ree places of productio n ; areas of low pest prevalence; cultural, c h e mical, or bi o logical control program s; pre - clearanc e oversight byPes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 30 APHI S; clearl y defined harvest and packing procedures; quarantine tr e atm ents; port - o f
- entry inspection; and li mits on commodity distribution and tran s it within th e United States. **3.1. Management Prior to Harvest**  **3.1.1. Treatments or**  **practices Pest**  **- free**  **areas** or **pest -**  **free places**  **o f**  **producti o**  **n** can provi de an accep table le v el of phy tosanitary protection (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #s 4 and 10). The establishm ent and m aintenance of these areas are described in I SPM #s 4 and 10 (I P PC, 2007). Statistical procedures are available to verify confidence in declaring an area pe s t - free, based on negative survey results ( B arclay and Hargrove, 2005; Venette e t al. , 2002). An **area of**  **low pest**  **prevalence** , which m ay enco m pass all or part of a country or countries where a pe s t occurs at a low level and is subject to surveillan c e , contro l, or eradication efforts, can provi de an accep table level of phy tosanitary protection when used as part of a sy ste m s approac h (IPPC , 2007 : IS P M # s 1 4 an d 22)
. Th e e s tablishm ent and m aintenance of areas of low pest prevalence are described in ISPM #22 (IP P C , 2007). **Phytosanit a**  **ry certificates**  m ay provide an acceptable level of protection when used as part of a sy ste m s approach. Each ship m ent of squash f l owers and/or fruits should be acco m panied by a phy tosanitary certificate issued b y Israel’ s departme nt o f agriculture. The certificate should contain additional declarations st ating the squash flowers and/or fruits were treated and/or grown in acc o rdance with an y p hy tosanitary m easures required by AP HI S. The crop m ay be sam pled and periodically inspe c ted during the growing season and aft er harve s t. In spection will ensure that production areas m eet stipulated require m ents for the issuan ce of a phy tosanitary certificate. This m easure is useful for detecting pests prese nt in the field during the growing season that m ay be m ore difficult to detect post - harvest; howeve r , it m ust be co m

bined with other m easures to ensure the absence of pests of concern. **Control programs**  can eli minate pests from fields or p r event commodity infestation. S uccessful control program s ty

pically include monitoring, cultural, biological, and che mical components (Dreistadt, 1994). The components of the control program m u st be clearl y defined for use in a sy ste m s approach (IPPC, 2007: IS PM #14). **3.1.2. Monitoring**  Traps baited with amm o nia or paraphero m ones are ty pically used to m o n itor fruit fl y populations ( White and Elson
- Harris, 1992). Lure ty pe deter mines the spacing between traps, and the traps should be emptied every few day s to prevent s p eci m en decay ( White and Elson
- Harris, 1992). Visual inspection of the crop and surrounding w e eds, especially during drought, is the m ost common m e thod for detecting lygaeid bugs (Capinera, 2001). Visual inspection, light traps, and phero m one traps are commonl y used to m onitor pest m oth populations (Dreistadt, 1994). Researchers have identified phero m ones for H
. armigera (CABI, 2006). In a ddition to m o nitoring, phero m ones can be used to disrupt communication and m ating (Capinera, 2001).Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 31 Thrips are extre m el y small, so m onitoring requires a hand lens. An y plant part that is stippled, flecked with pale dots, or distorted should be carefully examined (Dr e istadt, 1994). Dam age m ay persist long after the thrips popu latio n ha s bee n eradicate d o r controlled by natural forces (Dreistadt, 1994). For this reason, dam age alone should not sti m ulate additional control m easures (Drei s tadt, 1 994). In ad dition to ins p ecting dam a ge, thrips can be sam pled by beating foliage and branches (Dreistadt, 1994). Adult populations can also be m onit o red using ye llow or blue sticky traps; the color depends on the species of interest (Dreistadt an d Phillips , 2001). **3.1.3. Cultural controls**  Fe w cultural control s ar e availabl e fo r frui t flies. Michaels (2005) reco mm ends r e m o ving and destroying fruit with dimples or those leaking sap. These fruit m ay contain fruit fly eggs or larvae (Michaels, 2005). Caterpillars can be hand
- picked int o bucket s o f alcohol , whil e egg m asses can be scraped into buckets of s oap y water (Dreista d t, 1 994). Contro lling wee d s in and around crops m ay also reduce invasion, as these sites often serve as refugia and m ating areas for Lepidopteran pests (Capinera, 2001). Farm m anagers can reduce thrips populations by using a slow release fertilizer and regular watering (Drei s tadt and Phillips, 20 0 1). Overhead watering is beneficial because it removes dust particles that interfere with natural predators (Dreistadt, 1994). Managers should re m ove and destroy infested and dam aged plant parts, inc luding ol d flower s (Drei stadt and Phillips, 2001). Weed control and reflective m ulch can also red

uce the thrips population ( D reistadt and Phillips, 2001). **3.1.4. Chemica**  **l an**  **d Biological**  Fruit flies are ty

picall y controlled using cov e r or bait spray s (White and Elson
- Harris, 1992). Bait spray s have a few advantages over cover spray s ( White and Elson
- H arris, 1992). For exam ple, they have a lo w er i m

pact on existing natural e n e mies because they are not s p read throughout the environm ent ( White and Elson
- Harris, 1992). Insecticidal soaps and narrow - range oils are effective against Lepidopteran eggs (Dreistadt, 1994). Augm entative releases of commerciall y available natural ene mies can severel y reduce pest po pulations (Dreistadt, 1994). F arm m an a g e rs often need che micals to control H elic o verpa armigera ( C ABI, 2006). Insecticidal soaps and n arrow - ran g e oils are also effective a g ai nst thrips (D reista d t and Phillips, 2001). Augm entative releases of predaceous mites can se v erel y red uce thrips populations (Dreistadt, 1994). Farm m anagers may need a sy ste mic insecticide when all else fails (Dreistadt and Phillips, 2001). **3.2. Management After Harvest and Before Shipping**  Washing and re m oving obviously infected or in f ested m aterial red

u ces the likelihood of introd ucing quarantine o rganis m s into th e United States on imported c o mmodities.Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 32 Is raeli workers and ins p ectors look for pests in and on summer squash fruit and flo w ers prior to expor t (Landshut , 2007 ; MOAG , 2 0 07) , an d the y m ay wash them prior to export (EurepGAP, 2005; Kader, 2002). Washing is not a standard post - harvest practice for cut flowers (Kader, 2002), but large Is raeli exporters, like Car

m el
- Agrexco and GreenLeaf Lt d., m ay wash flowers that are intended for hum an consum

ption prior to export because the s e co m panies co m

pl y with the Euro
- Retailer Produce W o rking Group’s Good Agricultural Practices (EurepGAP) (Greenleaf, 2007; Krudo, 2007). They m ay wash the flowers because Annex 1.2 of the EurepGAP General Regulations defines fruits or vegetables as “products ori g inating from plants which are commonly designated as producing either ‘fruit’, ‘ve g etables’, ‘edible roots’, ‘bulbs’, ‘tubers’, ‘nuts’, ‘spices’ or ‘herbs’, for fresh, cooked or processed consum ption by hum ans” (Eurep GA P, 2007), and article 10.2.1 of the EurepGAP Control Points and Complia n ce Criteria for Fruit and Vegetables requires certified exporters to wash the final product in p o table water (EurepGAP, 2005). In addition to washing, EurepGAP (2005) def i nes a min i m

um set of criteria for growing, harvesting, and handling fresh produ c e that is destined for European m arkets. Exporters that m eet the mini m

um criteria pro v ide European marke t s with high quality prod u c e that i s saf

e from hum an pathogens and pesticide residues, while protecting the environm e nt and worker health. Mini m um EurepGAP require m ents that have s om e phy tosanitary value are listed below. 1. Tracea

b ility
- Certified p roduce is tra ceable from the consum er back to the far m and from the farm fo r

w ard to the consum er (EurepGAP 1.1). 2. Records
- C ertified farms m ust keep records fo r a mi ni m um o f tw o ye ar s (EurepGAP 2.1). This includes the nam e of an y product u s ed to treat a pest or disease and the product’s target (EurepGAP 3.4.1, 3.5.5, & 8.3), ju stification s fo r pesticid e applications (EurepGAP 8.1.1), which ty picall y include scouting records and action thresholds, phy tosanitary certificates for purchased p ropagative m aterials (EurepGAP 3.5.1), and pest m onitoring sy ste m s for in
- house propagative m aterials ( EurepGAP 3.5.4). 3. Ir rigation W ater - Although it is not required, EurepGAP recommends an annual risk assess m ent of microbial, che mical, and phy sical contaminants that m ay pollute irrigation water (EurepGAP 7.3.2 )
. If the risk assessor considers water - borne plant pathogens as contaminants, then the annual assess m ent cou l d prevent the spread of so m e diseases, like Ralstonia solanacearu m . 4. Crop Protection
- Certified far m s must appl y rec o gnized integrated pest m anage m ent (IPM) techniques (EurepGAP 8.1.2), and the person responsible for i m ple m enting the IPM sy stem must be technically quali f ied (EurepGAP 8.1.4). Further m ore, only a co m petent far m er or advisor can ch o ose the ap p ropri ate pro d uct to mitig ate a pe s t or diseas e outbreak (EurepGAP 8.2. 6 & 8.2.7). 5. Harvesting
- Certi f

ied farm s must clean and disinfect harvest ing containers, tools (i.e. scissors, knives, shears...), and m a chinery (EurepGAP 9.1.3 & 9.1.5). They m ust a lso cover field
- packed produce duri ng transport f ro m the f ield to storage f

a c iliti e s to p re vent accide ntal contaminati o n (EurepGAP 9.1.4). 6. Post
- Harvest Handling
- Certified exporters m ust wash the final product in potable water (EurepGAP 10.2.1). They m ust also imple m ent a pest m onitoring and control sy stem in produce handling and storage areas (EurepGAP 10.4.9). 7.Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 33 Is raeli exports m ay also co m ply with quality standards devel op e d by the S tandards In s titution of Is rael (e.g., Ecofresh), which are even mo re strict than the EurepGAP standards (Dun&BradstreetIsrael Ltd., 2007; Greenleaf , 2007 ; Krudo , 2007). **3.3. Quarantine**  **Treatments** Quarantine treatm ents provide p robit
- 9 security by killing 99.9968 percent or m ore of the quarantine organis m s. APHI S
- accepted quarantine treatm ents for pests o n summer squash fruit i n clude vap o r heat (i.e., T106
- b
- 6) for Ceratitis capita ta an d m e thyl bro mid e (i.e. , T101
- y- 2 ) fo r ex te rna l feeder s (PPQ, 2007). These treatm ents m ay d am age th e delicat e summe r squas h flowers. The PPQ (2007) Treatment Manual does not list a specific treatm ent for Dacus ciliatus , Helicoverpa armigera , o r Sci rtoth r i ps dorsalis on summer squash fruit or f lowers. The generic m ethyl bro mide treatment for hitchhikers on various commodities, including summer squash (i.e., T104
- a - 1), should, however, p rovide the appropriate level of phy tosanitary sec u

rity against the thrips, S

cirto thri ps d orsalis, and the surface f

eeding caterpillar, Helicoverp a armigera (PPQ, 2007). The min i mum g e neric dose of g amm a irradiat i on (i.e., 400 Gy) published as a final rule in the Federal Register on 27 January 2006 shou l d also provide the appropriate level of phy tosanitary security against all o f th e pest s expecte d t o follo w the pathway
. This generic dose of 400 Gy is approved for all plant pests of the class In secta other than pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera for all regulated articles (i.e., f ruits **,** vegetables **,** cut flowers, and foliage). Because of their s ize and m obility , any adults of the Lepidoptera species o f concern, Helic o verpa armigera , would likely not stay with the comm odity through standard post - harvest handling and processing. Also, this L epidopteran species does not pupate in the fruit or flowers of its hosts. Helicoverpa armigera pupates in the soil (CABI, 2006). The r efore, the generic dose irradiation should provide the appropriate l e vel of phy tosanitary security a g ainst this Lepidopteran pest. **3.4. Managemen**  **t Durin**  **g Shippin**  **g an**  **d a**  **t U.S**  **. Ports**  **- of**  **- Entry**  **3.4.1. Temperature**  **and moisture**  Properly setting these levels in the shipping cont ainer m ay reduce the risk of introducing certain quarantine p ests i nto th e United S t ates. For example, extended peri ods of storage near 0 oC can kill m ost fruit fly larvae (PPQ, 2007). The shipp ing conditio n s associated with summ e r squash fruit and flowers from I s rael are not expected to provide adequate quarantine security (see Surviv e Ship m e nt unde r th e Li kelihoo d o f Introduction). **3.4.2. Port** 

**- of**  **- entry**  **inspection** This m ay provide an acceptable level of protec tion against obvious or not so obvious pests when used as part of a sy ste m s approach. If a p r e - clearance program is not i m ple m ented, then inspection at port - of

- e ntry is necessary . Upon arrival in the United States, consignm ents should be inspe c te d , with parti c ular attention given to paperwork and sea l s on v ehicles, to ascertain that the chain of custody has re m ained intact. In the c a se of fruit flies, inspection should also include f ruit cutting.Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 34 **3.5. Conclusion** Below we summ arize options f or ri s k mitigation (Ta

b le 8 ). This se c tion o f the risk an aly sis d o es no t establis h a wor

k plan o r d escribe a pest m anage m ent program . It si m p ly provides info r

m ation regarding known pest m anage m ent strategies. A written agree m ent betw een the governm ent of Is ra e l and th e U.S. Departm ent of Agric ultur e, which is call e d a bil ate ral work plan, will de s crib e the details o f an y resulting i m portation program , inclu ding all applicable mitigations.
**Table 8.**  Summary of risk mitigati o n options f or summer squash ( Cucurbita pep o ) flowers and fruit from I s rael. **Measure( s**  **) Pests**  **Efficacy** Pest
- free areas or places of production Pre
- har v est contro l program Post
- har v est and packinghouse procedures All Provides appropriate level of protection All Research required to demonstrate efficacy All Unknown Shipping c o nditions All Not e ff ective Point
- o f
- e ntry sam

pling and inspection All Provides appropriate level of protection when used as part of a sy ste m s approach Irra di ation All Accepted AP HI S treatm ent Methyl bro mid e fumigatio n Helicoverp a armigera Scirto thri ps dorsalis Accepted AP HI S treatm ent Vapor heat Ceratitis c a pitata Accepted AP HI S treatm ent 

### 4. **Authors, Contributors,**  **and Revie** **w ers**  **Authors** Ignacio Baez, Ento m ologist, (pri m ary contact) a Keith Colp e tzer, E ntomologist a **Contributors** Leah Millar, Ento m ologist a **Revie w**  **ers** Tara Holtz, Ecologist a

a USDA
- APHI S
- PPQ
- CPHST
- PERALPes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 35 

### 5. **Literature Cited**  Ali
- Shtayeh , M
. S. , an d R
. M
. F
. Ja mous . 2000. Keratinophilic fungi and related der m atoph yt es in polluted soil and water habitats. Rev i sta Ib eroam ericana de Micología 17:51
- 59. Ali
- Shtayeh, M. S., and A. S. F. Saleh. 1999. Is olation of Pythiu m acanthicum , P. oligandru m , and P. periplocum from soil and evaluation of their myc oparasitic activity and biocontrol efficacy against selected phy topath o g enic Pyth i u m species. Mycopathologia 145:143
- 153. Annecke, D. P., and V. C. Moran. 1982. Insects and Mites of Cultivated Plants in S outh Africa. Butterwo rth s, Preto ria, S outh Africa. Avidov, Z., and I. Harpaz. 1969. Plant Pests of Is rae l
. Is rael University Pr e ss, Jerusale m , Israel. 549 pp. Barclay , H. J., and J. W
. Hargrove. 2 005. Probability m odels to facilitate a declaratio n o f pest f ree st atus, with spe c ial re f erence to tse ts e (Diptera : Glossinidae)
. Bulleti n of Ento m ological Research 95(1):1
- 11. Ben
- Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 2007. ScaleNet. Last accessed December 10, 2007, http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.ht m . Blackm an, R. L., and V. F. Eastop. 2000. Aphids on the W o rld ' s Crops: An Identification and In for m ation Guide. John W iley & Sons, Chichester, England. Bolland, H. R., J. Guiterrez, and C. H. W
. Flechtm ann. 1998. W orld Catalogue of the Spider Mite Family (Acari: Tetr anychida e ). Koninklij ke Brill, L e ide n , The Nethe r lands. Borror, D. J., C. A. Triplehorn, and N. F. Johnson. 1989. An Introduction to the Study of Insects (Sixth). Harcourt Brace College P ublishers , Ne w York , Ne w York
. 87 5 pp. Botha, J., D. Hardie, and H. Hoff m ann. 2004. Garden Note No. 21: Carob moth. Governm ent of Western Australia, Departm ent of Agriculture. Brunt, A. A., K. Crabtree, M. J. Dallwitz, A. J. Gibbs, L. W at son, and E. J. Zurcher. 1996 onwards. Plant Viruses Online: Descriptions and Lists from the VI DE Database. Last accessed Nove m

ber 5, 2007, htt

p ://i m age.fs.uidaho.edu/vide/. Burdm an, S., N. Kots, G. Kritz m an, and J. Kopelowitz. 2005. Molecular, physiological , and host
- rang e characterizatio n o f Acidovorax avenae subsp. citru lli isolates from water m elon and m elon in Is rael. Plant Disease 89(12):1339
- 1347. CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Co m p endium . Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International (CABI), W a llingford, UK
. CABI
. 2007
. Description s o f Fung i and Bacteria. CABI International. Last accessed Nov e m ber 16, 2007, http://www.cababstractsplus.org/DFB/index.asp. CABI/EPPO. 2007. Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests: S c irto th rips dors a li

s . CAB Internation a l. Last accessed Dece m

ber 17, 2007, http://www.eppo.org/ Q UARANT I N E/insects /Scirtothrips_dorsalis/S C IT DO_ds.pdf. Capinera, J. L. 2001. Handbook of Vegetable Pests. Acade mic Press, San Diego, Calif ornia. Charchar, J. M., and C. S. Huang. 1981. Circulo de hospedeiras de Pratylenchus brachyurus . II
- hortalicas. Fitopatologia Brasileira 6(1):67
- 72. Cio m perlik, M., and D. Seal. 2004. S urvey s of St. Lucia and S t. Vincent for Sci rtoth ri ps dorsalis Hood, January 14
- 23, 2004. Pest Detection, Diagnostics and Manage m ent Laboratory , APHI S , Edi nburg , TX , U.S.A
. 1 9 pp. CIPM. 2007. USDA Crop Profiles. National Scie n ce Foundation Center f or Integrated Pest Manage m ent. http://www.ip m centers.org/cropprofiles/CP_for m .cf m .Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 36 D e m pewolf, M. 2004. Arthropods of Econo mic Importance - Agro myz idae of the W o rld. Zoological Museum of the University of Am sterdam and the Expert Center for Taxono mic Id entification. http://ip30.eti.uva.nl/bis/agro myz idae.php ? m enuentry=inleiding. Dickens, J. S. W ., and S. G. Evans. 1973. A Stemphylium leaf blight of to m ato. Plant Pathology 22:70
- 72. Dreistadt, S. H. 1994. Pests of Landscape Trees and Shrubs: An Integrated Pest Manage m ent Guide. University of California, Davis, California. Dreista d t, S. H., and P. A. Phillips. 2001. Thrip s , Pest Notes No. 7429. Univer s ity of California, Davis, Cali f

ornia. Dun&BradstreetIsraelLtd. 2007. Car m el
- Agrexco . Las t accesse d Novembe r 30 , 2007, http://duns 1 00.dundb.co.il/200 7 /60 0 000764/index.asp. EcoPort Record. 2007. Ceratitis capitat a . Las t accesse d Decembe r 5 , 2007 , http://ecoport.org/. EPPO
. 2007
. EPP O A 1 an d A 2 list s o f pest s recommended for regulation as quarantine pests. European and Mediterranean Plant P rote c tion Organization (EPPO). Last accessed Dece m ber 14, 2007, htt

p ://arc h ives.eppo.o r g/EPPOStandards/PM1_GENERAL/p m 1
- 02(16)_A1A2_2007.pdf. EurepGAP. 2005. Control Points and Co m pliance Criteria, Fruit and Vegetables, Version 2.1
- Oct04. EurepGAP, Köln, Ger m an y. EurepGAP
. 2007
. General Regulations , Integrate d Farm Assurance I, Part I
- General In for m ation, Annex 1.2 EurepGap Product List, Version 3.0
- 1
- 2July07. EurepGAP, Köln, German y. Farr, D. F., A. Y. Ros s m an, M. E. Pal m , a nd E. B. McCray
. 2007. Fungal Databases. United States Departm ent of Agriculture, Sy ste m atic Botany and Mycology Laboratory
. L ast accessed Nove m

ber 5, 2007, http://nt.ars - grin.g o v/fungaldatabases/index
. cf m . Ferris, H., and E. P. Caswell
- Chen. 2007. NEM ABASE: Ne m atode
- Ho s t Association Database. University of California. Last accessed Nov e m ber 28, 2007, http://ucdnem a.ucdavis.edu:591/KNO WL/NEMBASE/FMPro?
- db=interact.f m&
- lay=MAI N DB&
- fo r

m at=search.htm &
- view. Fi miani, P. 1989. Chapter 2.1: Mediterranean region. Pages 39
- 41 in A
. S
. Robinso n an d G. Hooper, (eds.). W orld Crop Pests: Fruit Flies, Their Biology , Natural Ene mies and Control. Elsevier Science Publi shers , Am sterdam , Netherlands. Fletcher, B. S. 1989a. Li fe history strateg i es of tephritid fr u it flies. Pages 193
- 208 in A
. S. Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit flies, their biology , natural ene mies and control, World crop pests, Vol. 3 b. Elsevier, Am sterdam . Fletcher, B. S. 1989b. Move m ent of t ephritid fruit flies. Pages 209
- 219 in A
. S
. Robinso n an d G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit flies, their biology , n atural ene mies and control, W o rld crop pests, Vol. 3b. Elsevier, Am sterdam . Fluech, B. 2008. UF research helps tasty flowers e m erge as haute cuisine. University of Florida News. Last accessed Septe m ber 12, 2008, htt

p ://news.ufl.edu/2008/03/1 1 /gut
- flora/. GreenLeaf. 2007. Greenleaf Lt d. Last accessed N ove m ber 30, 2007, http://www.greenleaf.co.il/ p age.as p ?page_id= 2 & page_title=about. Gunn, C. R., and C. A. Ritchie. 1988. Id entif i cation of Disse minules Listed in the Federal Noxious W eed Act. U.S. Departm ent of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin No. 1719. 313 pp.Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 37 Harris, E. J. 1989. Chapter 2.6: Hawaiian islands and North Am erica. Pages 73
- 74 in A
. S. Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). W orld Crop Pests: Fruit Flies, Their Biology, Natural Ene mies and Control. E lsevier Science Publishers, Am sterdam, Netherlands. Hill, D. S. 1994. Agricultural Entomology
. Ti m b er Press, P o rtland, Oreg o n. Ho l m , L. , J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Pancho, and J. Herberger. 1997. World W ee d s: Natural Histories and Distribution. John Wiley & Sons , In c. , Ne w York , N e w York. Ho l m , L. G., J. V. Pancho, J. P. Herberger, and D. L. Plucknett. 1991a. A Geographical Atlas of World W eeds. Krieger Publishing C o m pany , Malabar, Florida. 391 pp. Ho l m , L. G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho, an d J
. P
. Herberger
. 1991b. The W orld ' s Worst Weeds
. Kriege r Publishing C o m pany , Malabar, Florida. IPPC. 2007. International Standards F or Phy tosanitary Measures, 1 to 29 (2007 edition). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nat i ons, Secret ari at of the Intern ation a l P lant Protection C onvention (IPP C ), Ro m e , Ital y. 376 pp. Jensen, A. S., G. L. Miller, and M. B
. Stoetze l
. 2007. U. S. National Collection of Aphididae. U. S. Departm e nt of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service, Sy ste m atic Ento m ology Laborat o ry . Last accessed Dece m ber 4, 2007, http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/aphid/aphid _db.html. Jeppson , L
. R. , H
. H
. Keifer , an d E
. W
. Baker. 1975. Mites injurious to econo mic plants. University of California Press, Be rkeley , California
. 61 4 + plate s pp. Kader, A. A. (ed.). 2002. Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops. University of California, Oakland, California. Katan, T., J. Katan, T. R. Gordon, and D. P o zniak. 1994. Phy siological races and vegetative co m patibility groups of Fusarium oxysporum f
. sp . melonis i n Is rael
. Phy topathology 84(2):153
- 157. Krudo, Y. 2007. SII, The Standards Institution o f Israel, and Agrexco. Last accessed Dece m ber 3 , 2007 , http://www.newsletter.iqnet
- certif i cation.co m

/ed1/art8co m

plete.htm . Landshut, E. 2007. Re: Cucurbita ste m s. P ersona l communicatio n t o Crai g Fedchoc k on Septe m ber 25, 2007, from Eldad Landshut. Langston, D. B., F. H. Sanders, J. H. Brock, R. D. Gitaitis, J. T. Flanders, and G. H. Beard. 2003. First Report of a field outbreak o f a bacterial lea f spot of cantaloupe and squash caused by Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae in Georgia. Plant Disease 87(5):600. Li, J. M., G. W
. Li u, and R. B. Peng. 2004. B i ono mics and control of the yellow tea thrips, Scirothrips dorsalis infesting litchi [abstract]. Ent om ological Knowledge 41(2):172
- 173. Liquido, N. J., P. G. Barr, and R. T. Cunningham. 1998. MEDHOST
- An encyclopedic bibliograph y of the host plants o f th e Mediterranean frui t fl y , Ceratitis c a pitata ( W ied e m ann). ARS
- 144 Version 1.0. United States Departm ent of Agriculture, Agricultural Research S ervice. Liquido, N.J. 2008. Host status of Med fl y on Cuc urbitae in Hawaii. Personal comm unication to B. P. Caton on June 16, 2008, from Dr. N. Li quid o (USDA
- APHIS
- PPQ , Honolulu , HI). Archive d at PERAL , Raleigh , NC. Lucier, G., and A. Jerardo. 2004. Vegetables and Melons Outlook. USDA Econo mic Research Service. Last accessed D ece m ber 6, 2007, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publ ications/vgs/Dec04/VGS306.p d f. Manaaki
- Whenua. 2001
- 2007. NZFUNGI
- N e w Zealand Fungi (and B acteria). Maanaki
Whenua Landcare Research. Last accessed November 15, 2007, http://nzfungi.landcareresearch.co.nz/html/mycol ogy .asp ? I D =.Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 38 Meissner, H., A. L e m ay , D. M. Borchert, B. N i etschke, A. Neeley , R. Magarey , M. Cio m perlik, C. Brodel, and T. Dobbs. 2005. Evaluation of possible pathw ay s of introduction for Scirto thri ps dorsalis Hoo d (Thysanoptera : Thripidae ) f rom the Caribbean into th e continental United States. USDA Plant Epi d e miology and Risk Analy sis Laboratory , Raleigh, NC. Michaels, F. 2005. Organic Fruit Fly Control. Gree n Harvest
. Las t accesse d February 15 , 2006, http://www.greenharvest.co m .a u/pestcontrol/fruit_fly

_info.html. Migeon, A., and F. Dorkeld. 2006. Spider Mites Web: a comprehensive database for the Tetran yc h i dae. L ' institut national de la r e cherc h e agrono mique (I NRA), France. La s t accessed April 18, 2008, http://www.mont pellier.inra.fr/CBGP/spmweb/index.php. Minz, G., and Z. Solel. 1959. New records of fie l d crop diseases in Israel. Plant Disease Reporter 43(9):1051. MOAG. 20 0 7. The State of Is rael, Ministry of Agriculture (MOAG) and Rural Develo p m ent, Plant Protection and In spection Ser v ices. Last accessed November 30, 2007, http://www.ppiseng. m oag.gov.il/PPI SENG/. Mossler, M. A., and O. N. Neshei m . 2003. F l orida Crop/Pest Manag e m ent Profile: Squash. University o f Florida, In stitute of Food and Agricultu ral Sciences, Flori d a Cooperative Extension S ervice. Last accessed Dece m ber 10, 2007, http://edis.ifas.ufl
. edu/PI 046. NCIPM. 2008. Am erican boll worm ( Helicoverpa armigera ). National Centre for Integrated Pest Manage m ent (NCIPM). Last accessed May 20, 2008, http://www.ncip m .org.in/helocoverpa.htm . NRCS
. 2007
. Th e PLANT S Database
. Unite d Stat es Departm ent of Agriculture, Natural Resources C onservation Service (NRCS), The Nation a l Plant Data C e nter. Last acces s ed Dece m ber 3, 2007, http://plants.usda
. gov. OEPP/EPPO. 2004. Cucurbits under protected culti v ation. B ulletin OEPP (Organisation Européenne et Méditerrané e nn e pour l a Protectio n de s Plantes)/EPP O (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization) B ulletin 34:91
- 100. Opatowski, D. 2007. Cucurbit flowers
- additional infor m ation from Israel. Personal communication to Fan
- L i Chou (PPQ) on November 14, 2007, from Dav i d Opatowski (PPI S). Paris, H. S., N. Yonash, V. Portnoy , N. M o zes - Daube, G. Tzuri, and N. Katzir. 2003. Assess m ent of genetic relationships in Cucurbita pepo (Cucurbitaceae ) using DNA m arkers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 106(6):971
- 978. PERAL
. 2007. Phy

tosanitary Risks Associated with Ar m o r ed Sca l es in Comm ercial Ship m ents of Fruit for Consum

ption to the United S t ates, Revision Ori ginal. United States Departm ent of Agriculture, Ani m al and Plant H e alth In spe c tion Service, Plant Prote c tion and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology , Plant Epide miology and Risk Anal ys is L aboratory (PE R AL), Raleigh, NC. 24 pp. PERAL
. 2008. Plant Hardiness Zones of the United States: Area and Population Anal ys is. United States Departm ent of Agriculture, Ani m al and Plant H ealth Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center f o r Plant Health Science and Technology , Plant Epide miology and Risk Analy sis L a boratory ( P ERAL), Raleigh, NC. 6 pp. PestID. 2008. Pest Id entification Databas e (PestID)
. Unite d State s Departm ent of Agriculture, An i m al and Plant Health Inspection Service, P lant Protecti o n and Quarantine. https://m okcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp.Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 39 PPQ. 2000. Guidelines for pathway
- initiated pest risk assess m ents (Version 5.02). United States Departm ent of Agriculture, Ani m al and Plant H e alth In spe c tion Ser v ice, Plant Protection an d Quarantin e (PPQ) , Riverdale , MD
. 3 0 pp. PPQ. 2002. Electronic F iles for Arthropods from Pes t s Not Known to Occur in the United States or of Li mited Distribution and Insects Not Known to Occur in the United States. United States Departm ent of Agriculture, Ani m al and Plant Health In spection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Policy and P rogram Dev e lop m ent, Risk Analy sis Sy ste m s. 941 pp. PPQ. 2007. Treatm ent Manual. United States D epartm ent of Agriculture, An i m al and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine ( P PQ). 804 pp. Reddy , G. V. P. 2002. Plant volatiles m ediate ori e ntation and plant preference by the predator Chrysoperla carnea Stephen s (Neuroptera : Chrysop idae). Biological Control 25(1):49
- 55. Reed, C. F. 1977. Econo mically Im portant Foreign W eeds. U.S. Departm ent of Agriculture, Agricultural Handboo k No
. 498
. 70 5 pp. Rivnay , E. 1960. The life
- history of the m elon wee v il, Baris granulipennis (Tourn.), in Is rael. Bulletin of Ento m ological Research 51(1):115
- 122. Rivnay , E. 1972. On irrigation
- Induced changes in insect populations in Is rael. Pages 349
- 364 in M. T. Farvar and J. P. Milton, (eds.). The Careless Technology
. The Natural History Press. The Natural History Press, G arden City , New York. Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery , I. J. Kitching, G. W
. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernández. 2008. HOSTS
- a database of the hostplants of the wo rld ' s Lepidoptera. Departm ent of Ento m ology , The Natural History Museum . Last accessed March 24, 200 8 , http://www.nhm .ac.uk/ento m ology /hostplants/. Rung, A., G. L. Venable, D. R. Miller, and R. J. Gill. 2007. S cale Insects: Id entification Tools for Species of Quaranti n e Significan ce. USDA. Last accessed Dece m ber 10, 2007, http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/ScaleKeys/ S caleInsectsHo m e/ ScaleInsectsH o m e .html. Scheffer, S. J. 2000. Molecular evide n ce of cry ptic species within the Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agro myz idae). Journal of Econo mic Ento m ology 93(4):1146
- 1151. Scheffer, S. J., and M. L. Lewis. 2001. Two nu c lear genes confirm mito c hondrial evidence of cryptic spe c ies within L iriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agrom yz idae). Annals of the Ento m ological Society of Am erica 94(5):648
- 653. Scheffer, S. J., A. W ijesekara, D. Visser, a n d R
. H
. Hallett
. 2001
. Pol y m e ras e chai n reaction
restriction fragm ent - length poly m orphism m ethod to distinguish Liriomyza huidobrensis fro m L. langei (Dip tera: Agro myz idae) applied to three rece nt leaf miner invasions. Journal of Econo mic Ento m ology 94(5):1177
- 1182. Schilt, H. G., and E. Cohn. 1975. Pathogenicity and populati o n increase of Paratrichodorus minor as influenced by so m e environm ental factors. Ne m atologica 21(1):71
- 80. Seal, D. R., and W
. Klassen. 2005. Chilli Thrips ( castor thrips, Assam thrips, yellow tea thrips, strawberry thrips), S

ci rtothrips do rs alis Hood, Provisional Manage m ent Guidelines (ENY
- 725). University o f Florida, In stitute of Food and Agricultu ral Sciences. Slater, J. A., and R. M. Baranowski. 1994. The occurrence of Oxycarenus hyalin ipen n is (Cost a) (He miptera: Lygaeidae) in the W est Indies and new Lygaeidae records for the Turks and Caicos Is lands of Providenciales and North Caicos. Florida Ento m ologist 77(4):495
- 497. Solis, M. A. 1986. Key to selected P yraloidea ( L epidoptera) larvae intercepted at U.S. ports of entry : revision of Py

raloidea in "Ke ys to so m e f r equently intercepted lepidopterousPes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 40 larvae" by Weis m an. Sy ste m atic Ento m ology Laboratory , Agricultural Research S ervice, U.S
. Departm e nt o f Agri culture , an d the Natio n a l Museum of Natural Hi s tory , S mithsonian In stitut ion , Washington , D.C. Sweet, M. H. 2000. Seed and Cinch Bugs (Lygaeoidea). Pages 143
- 264 in C. W
. Schaefer and A. R. Panizzi, (eds.). Heteroptera of Econ o mic Im p ortance. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Tho m as, M. C., J. B. H eppner, R. E. Woodruff, H. V. W e e ms, G. J. Steck, and T. R. Fasulo. 2007. Mediterranean fruit fly , Ceratitis ca p ita ta ( W ied e m ann) (Insecta: D iptera: Tephritidae). University of Florida. L ast accessed Dece m ber 13, 2007, http://edis.i f

as.ufl. e du/pdffiles/IN/IN37100.pdf. Tho m as, M. C., J. B. H eppner, R. E. Woodr uff, H. V. W e e ms, and G. J. Steck. 2005. Mediterranean fruit fly
. University of Florida. Last accessed July 20, 2007, http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/f ruit/ m editerranean_fruit_fly .htm . UCD
. 2007
. Longidorus africanus . University of California D av i s, Departm ent of N e m atology
. Last accessed Nov e m

ber 28, 2007, http://ucdnem a.ucdavis.edu/im age m ap/ne mm ap/ent156ht ml/ne m as/longidorusafricanus. USDA. 2007. Biological Analy sis and T axono m is Support Library
. USDA, APHI S, PPQ, CPHST, PERAL
. Last accessed No v e m ber 2, 2007, http://www.peral.org/bats/. Vakalounakis , D.J
. 1990
. Hos t rang e o f Alternaria altern a ta f
. sp . cucurbitae causin g lea f spo t of cucum ber. Plant Disease 74(3):227
- 230. Venette , R
. C. , R
. D
. M oon , an d W
. D
. Hutchi son. 2002. Strategies and statistics of sampling for rar e individuals
. Annual Rev i ew of Ento m ology 47:143
- 174. Vera, M.T., R. Rodriguez, D.F. Segura, J.L
. Cladera , an d R.W
. Sutherst
. 2002
. Potential geographical distrib ution of the Mediterranean fruit fly , Ce ratitis ca p itata (Dipte ra: Tephritidae), with e m

phasis on Argentina and Australia. Environm ental Ento m ology 31(6):1009
- 1022. Viggiani , G. , E
. Guerrieri , an d F
. Filella. 1992. Observations and data on Empoasca decedens Paoli and Zygin a flammigera (Fourcro y) (Ho m optera: Ty phlocibidae) infesting peach trees in Campania [Abstract ]
. Bollettino del Laboratorio di Ento m ologia Agraria Filippo Silvestri 49:127
- 160. Voy ty uk, S. O., V.P. He l uta, S.P. W asser, and E. Nevo. 2007. The genus Podosphaera Kunze (Asco myco t a, Ery siphales) in Israel: species composition, host range and distribution. Nov a Hedwigi a 85:277
- 298. Watson , G.W
. 2008
. D i aspidida e o f th e W o rld
. N atural History Museum. Last accessed March 13, 2008, http://ip30.eti.uva. nl/bis/diaspididae.php. Weintraub, P. 2007. Broad Mite in the Arav a, Israel. Last accessed December 10, 2007, http://www.agri.gov.il/gilat
- m o lcho/broadmite_english.html. White , I
. M. , an d M
. M
. Elson
- Harris
. 1992
. F r uit Flies of Econo mic Significance: Their Id entificati o n and Biono mics. CAB International, W alling f ord, United Kingdo m . W illiam s, D. J., and G. W. W atson. 1988. The Scale Insects of the Tropical South Pacific Region Part 2, The Meal ybugs (Pseudococcidae). CAB International , Oxon , Unite d Kingdom. W illiam s, D. J., and G. W. W atson. 1990. The Scale Insects of the Tropical South Pacific Region Part 3, The Soft Scales (Coccidae) and Other Fam ilies. CAB Inter n ational, Oxon, United Kingdo m . Wolf, B. 2006. Flower power at your table. N ational Public Radio. Last accesse d Septembe r 19, 2008 , http://www.npr.org/tem plat es/story/story.php ? storyId=5455396.Pes t Ris k Ass e ssm ent fo r Summe r Squ a s h Fru i t a nd Fl o wer s fro m Isra el

Rev
. 003 Jul y 13 , 2009 41 WSSA. 2007. Co m

posite Li st of W e eds W eed Science Society of Am erica. Last acce s sed Dece m ber 3, 2007, http://www.wssa
. net/W eeds/ID /W eedNam es/n am esearch.php. Zahavi, T., L. Cohen, B. W eiss, L. Schena, A. Daus, T. Kaplunov, J. Zutkhi, R. Ben
- Arie, and S. Drob y. 2000. Biological control of Botrytis , Asp e rgillus and Rhizopus rots on table and wine grapes in Is rael. Postharvest Biology and T echnology 20:115
- 124. Zitter, T. A., D. L. Hopki ns, and C. E. Tho mas (eds.). 1996. Co m pendium of Cucurbit Diseases. AP S Press , St
. Paul , Minnesota.