222222222 

# Biological Assessment for Importation of Bromeliads in Approved Growing Media from Denmark, Belgium, and the
Netherlands

July 2009 United States Department of Agriculture

Marketing
and Regulatory Programs

Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service2 

## Table of Contents

Policy ................................................................................................................... 3

Proposed Action

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

Program A ssessment ......................................................................................... 6

Referenc es .......................................................................................................... 8

Appendix 1. Pest Risk Assessm ent ............................................................... 103 

## POLICY

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Departmental Regulation, Fish and Wildlife Policy No. 9500-4, dated August 22, 19 83, sets forth the purpose, policy, and responsibilities of USDA with respect to fi sh and wildlife. Agencies of the USDA will not fund or take any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or destroy any habitat nece ssary for their conservation.
The USDA will coordinate with th e Secretaries of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce in the administra tion of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and animal and plant quarantine laws.



## PROPOSED ACTION

The United States Department of Agricu lture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protect ion and Quarantine (PPQ) is proposing to amend the regulations for the importati on of plants and plant products (7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 319) to add bromeliads (Bromeliaceae) of the

genera Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia, Neoregelia, Tillandsia,
and Vriesea into the United States from Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands, to the list of plants that may be import ed in approved growin g media, subject to specified growing, inspection, and cer tification requirements. APHIS is requesting reinitiation of section 7 consu ltation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on the programmatic c onsultation on importation of plants established in APHIS-approved growing media. A programmatic consultation between FWS and APHIS on importation of plants in growing media was completed on September 1, 2004. Accordi ng to the FWS concurrence letter,
“reinitiation of section 7 consultation on the programmatic consultation may be triggered when the proposed rule for a ne w class of plant importation is being submitted to the Federal Register.”

Currently, bromeliads are imported from Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands (as well as some other European countries) into the United States as bare-root or unrooted cuttings. These plants are ente rable subject to in spection findings at designated ports of entry to the United Stat es, i.e., ports associat ed with facilities where propagative material can be examin ed (plant inspection stations). All bromeliad consignments must be accompanied by a USDA permit and a phytosanitary certificate issued by the pl ant protection service of the exporting country. This document certifies that th e plants have been inspected and found free of quarantine pests.

In Denmark, Belgium, and Netherlands, br omeliads are propagated and cultivated exclusively as greenhouse plants. Under these conditions, bromeliads are generally increased by seed lings (sexual or asexual) or tissue culture. The majority of production of the analyzed ge nera is done by only four businesses,
two in the Netherlands and two in Denmark. The market for bromeliads is4 dominated by the patented hybrids of Deroose Plants (propagated by in vitro methods) and Corn. Bak B.V. (primarily propagated by seed) (Samyn and Thomas, 1997).

Agricultural representatives from De nmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands requested that PPQ consider amending the regulations to add bromeliads (Bromeliaceae) of the genera Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia, Neoregelia, Tillandsia, and Vriesea into the United States from Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands in approve d growing media under the provisions of 7 CFR § 319.37–8(e). The following taxa es tablished in approved growing media are currently allowed entry to the United States: Alstroemeria, Ananas, Anthurium, Begonia, Gloxinia (= Sinningia ), Nidularium, Peperomia, Polypodiophyta (=Filicales), Rhododendron from Europe, Saintpaulia, Phalaenopsis from Taiwan, and Buxus sinica, Ehretia microphylla, Podocarpus macrophyllus, Sageretia thea

, Serissa foetida from China, and Schlumbergera spp. and Rhipsalidopsis spp. from Denmark and the Netherlands (7 CFR § 319.37–8(e)).

The proposed action would change 7 CFR part 319 and allow importation of bromeliads of the genera Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohe nbergia, Neoregelia, Tillandsia,
and Vriesea from Denmark, Belgium, and the Neth erlands, rooted in approved growing media, provided they are produced, handl ed, and imported in accordance with the requirements of 7 CFR § 319.37–8(e) and are ac companied at the time of importation by a phytosanitary certificat e issued by the plant protection se rvice of Denmark, Belgium, or the Netherlands declaring that thos e requirements have been met.

The proposed actions of propagating, r earing, shipping, and importing bromeliads from the genera Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia, Neoregelia, Tillandsia, and Vriesea in approved growing media in to the United States from Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands must meet the following requirements in 7 CFR § 319.37–8(e):

(1) Approved growing media includes baked expanded clay pellets, coal cinder, coir, cork, glass wool, organic and in organic fibers, peat, perlite, phenol formaldehyde, plastic particles, polyet hylene, polymer stabilized starch , polystyrene, polyurethane, rock wool , sphagnum moss, ureaformaldehyde, stockosorb superabsorbent polymer, vermic ulite, volcanic rock, or zeolite, or any combination of these media. Growing medi a must not have been previously used. (2) Articles imported under this paragr aph must be grown in compliance with a written agreement for enforcement of th is section signed by the plant protection service of the exporting count ry and PPQ, must be developed from mother stock that was inspected and found free from ev idence of disease and pests by a PPQ inspector or an inspector from the plant protection service of the exporting country no more than 60 days prior to th e time the article is established in the greenhouse (except for articles devel oped from seeds germinated in the greenhouse), and must be:5 (i) Grown in compliance with a wri tten agreement between the grower and the plant protection organization of the exporting country, in which the grower agrees to comply with the provisions of this section a nd to allow inspectors and representatives of the pl ant protection organization of the exporting country access to the growing facility as nece ssary to monitor compliance with the provisions of this section; (ii) Grown solely in a greenhouse in which sanitary procedures adequate to exclude plant pests and diseases ar e always employed, including cleaning and disinfection of floors, benches, and tool s, and the application of measures to protect against any injurious plant diseases, injurious inse ct pests, and other plant pests. The greenhouse must be free from sand and soil and must have screening with openings of not more than 0.6 mm on all vents and openings except entryways. All entryways must be e quipped with automatic closing doors; (iii) Rooted and grown in an active state of foliar growth for at least 4
consecutive months immediat ely prior to importation into the United States, in a greenhouse unit that is used solely for ar ticles grown in compliance with this paragraph; (iv) Grown from seeds germinated in the greenhouse unit; or descended from a mother plant that was grown for at least 9 months in the exporting country prior to importation of the descendent plan ts into the United States, provided that if the mother plant was imported into th e exporting country from another country,
it must be:
A. Grown for at least 12 mont hs in the exporting country (either Denmark, Belgium, or the Netherlands) pr ior to importation of the descendent plants into the United States, or B. Treated at the time of importa tion into the exporting country (either Denmark, Belgium, or the Netherlands) with a treatment prescribed for pests of that plant by the plant pr otection service of the expor ting country and then grown for at least 9 months in the exporting country prior to importation of the descendent plants into the United States; (v) Watered only with rainwater that has been boiled or pasteurized, with clean well water, or with potable (municipal) water; (vi) Rooted and grown in approve d growing media li sted in 7 CFR § 319.37–8(e)(1) on benches supported by legs a nd raised at least 46 cm above the floor; (vii) Stored and packaged only in areas free of sand, soil, earth, and plant pests; (viii) Inspected in the greenhouse an d found free from evidence of plant pests and diseases by a PPQ inspector or an inspector of the plant protection service of the exporting countr y, no more than 30 days pr ior to the date of export
to the United States.

Preshipment treatment measures (i.e., fu migation) are not included as a condition of entry for bromeliads in approved gr owing media from Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands because the pest ri sk assessment (USDA, APHIS, 2009) (Appendix 1) did not identify any quarantine pests which required treatments in6 order to ensure quarantine security beyond the mitigations listed in 7 CFR § 319.37–8(e).

For both the current importation of bare rooted bromeliads and the proposed importation of bromeliads of the genera Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia, Neoregelia, Tillandsia, and Vriesea in approved growing media from Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands, plants may be imported into the United States, including its possessions and trust territories. However, no bromeliads will be shipped directly to a location prior to passing through a PPQ plant inspection station where plants will be inspected at the port of entry. Once consignments are cleared through a plant inspection station, br omeliads could be distributed to any location in the United States, including its possessions and trust
territories.



## PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

APHIS conducted a pest risk assessment (USDA, APHIS, 2009) (Appendix 1) to examine the potential plant pest risk associated with the importation of bromeliads of the genera Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia, Neoregelia, Tillandsia, and Vriesea in approved growing media from Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands. The ri sk assessment prepared by APHIS to examine this proposed action followed version 5.02 of the PPQ Guidelines (USDA, APHIS, 2000) and characterizes ri sk in terms such as high, medium, or low, based on supporting evidence. In addition, the methods used to initiate, conduct, and report the risk assessments ar e consistent with guidelines provided by the North American Plant Protection Or ganization and the International Plant
Protection Convention admini stered by the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations.

Quarantine Pests that Follow the Pathw ay of Importation of Bromeliads in Approved Growing Media: In the risk assessment, onl y the quarantine pests that can reasonably be expected to follow the pathway (i.e., be included in commercial shipments of Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea spp. plants) were further an alyzed. Only one quarantine pest was identified, Fusarium oxysporum Schlechtend.:Fr. f. sp. aechmeae (Saut. & Gerlach) Gordon (Fungi Imperfecti: Hyphomycetes) (USDA, APHIS, 2009).

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae , is a hyphomycetous fungus that produces mycelia and phialides produced from single to complex conidiophores or aggregated into mycelia (sporodochia). On necrotic plant parts, phialides exude infectious asexual spores (conidia) whic h are aggregated into slimy masses. Conidia are dispersed for short distances when water is splashed onto infected plants. Water droplets containing spores land on adjacent plants and initiate
infection. The distance and di rection that spores are disseminated are related to the volume, direction, and intensity of wa ter that falls on the plant. Within a7 greenhouse, conidia may be dispersed in irrigation water (Agr ios, 1997; Pirone, 1978). For that reason, dispersal to nearby outdoor plants is li kely to be more limited than for fungi which can continuously and directly rele ase aerial spores (Agrios, 1997).

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae is pathogenic on a single plant genus,
Aechmea , within one plant family, Bromeliaceae (Farr et al., 2008). In the United States, Farr et al. (n.d.) reported Fusarium sp. on Aechmea spp. in Florida. Gordon (1965) stated that A. fasciata (Lindl.) Bak. A. bromeliifolia (Rudge) Bak.,
A. coerulescens (Reg.) Bak., A. pineliana (Brongn.) Bak., and A. tinctoria (Mart.)
Mez. are hosts of F. oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae . However, a more recent report (Samyn and Thomas, 1997) stated that only A. fasciata was a host of this pathogen and that other species of Aechmea and other taxa of Bromeliaceae were
resistant or non-hosts. This pathogen has only been re ported in greenhouses in Belgium (Gordon, 1965; Rattink, 1973; Sam yn and Wojdyla, 1994) and Germany (Farr et al., 2008; O' Donnell et al., 1998).

Weediness of Bromeliads: Tillandsia landbecki Phil. is listed as a weed of unknown importance in Chile (Holm et al., 1979). Tillandsia recurvata L. and T.
aeranthos (Loisel) L.B. Smith are weedy epiphytes of trees and bushes in Argentina. When present in large number s in host trees, these species compete, with their hosts, for light and release a growth inhibitor causing leaf abscission (Claver et al., 1983; Bartoli et al., 19 93). When epiphytic bromeliads are associated with a supporting host in poor health, the presen ce of epiphytes is typically coincidental, not cau sal (Schubert, 1990). However, T. recurvata is
native to the United States and does not meet the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) definition of a quarantine pest, and T. aeranthos is also likely already present in the United States (K aplan, 1999). Despite this, no reported distributions or evidence of harm (e .g., NRCS, 2009) were found, which likely indicates the plants have e ither not escaped, or had lit tle or no adverse impacts (USDA, APHIS, 2009). Only twice have any introduced ornamental Tillandsia spp. successfully naturalized world-wide (Pemberton and Liu, 2007). Likewise,
Tillandsia bandensis and Hohenbergia penduliflora could be problematic, but the evidence of harm is weak (Randall, 2002).

Impact of Proposed Action on Threatened and Endangered Species: APHIS has determined that the importati on of commercial shipments of Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea spp. plants from Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands will have no effect on federally-listed species or their habitats. There are no federally -listed species or candidates for listing in the plant family Bromeliaceae (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Threatened and Endangered Species System, http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/ last accessed July 7, 2009). There are no listed plant species that would be susceptible to F. oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae because it is pathogenic to only a single plant genus, Aechmea, in the Bromeliaceae. Within the United States and its territories, Aechmea species occur as native plants in8 Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. However, the pathogen is effectively removed from the pathway and effectivel y precluded from establishment in the United States by the mitigation measures already present in the applicable regulations (USD A, APHIS, 2009).



## REFERENCES

Agrios, G. N. 1997. Plant Pathology, 4th ed. Academic Press, New York.

Bartoli, C.G., J. Beltrano, L.V. Fernandez, and D.O. Caldiz. 1993. Control of the epiphytic weeds Tillandsia recurvata and Tillandsia aeranthos with different herbicides. Forest Ecology and Management 59: 289 294.

Claver, F.K., J.R. Alaniz, and D.O. Caldíz. 1983. Tillandsia spp. epiphytic weeds of trees
and bushes. Forest Ecolo gy and Management 6: 367 372.

Farr, D. F., A.Y. Rossman, M.E. Palm, and E.B. McCray. 2006. Fungal Databases. United States Department of Agriculture, Ag ricultural Research Service, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory. http ://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/. (Archived at PERAL)

Gordon, W. L. 1965. Pathogenic strains of Fusarium oxysporum . Canadian Journal of Botany 43: 1309-1318.

Holm, L. G., Pancho., J. V., Herberger, J. P. and D. L. Plucknett. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

NRCS. 2009. The PLANTS Database. United Stat es Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), The National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov. (A rchived at PERAL)

O'Donnell, K., E. Cigelnik, and H.I. Nirenberg. 1998. Molecular systematics and phylogeography of the Gibberella fujikuro i species complex. Mycologia 90: 465-493.

Pemberton, R., and H. Liu. 2007. Rare Naturalization of an Ornamental Tillandsia,
Tillandsia ionantha , in Southern Florida. Selbyana, The Journal of the Marie Selby Botanical Gardens, 28(2): 150-153.

Pirone, P.P. 1978. Diseases and Pests of Orna mental Plants, 5th ed. John Wiley and Sons,
New York.

Randall, R.P. 2002. A Global Compendium of W eeds. Missouri Botanical Garden Press, xxxii + 905 pp.9 Rattink, H. 1973. Fusarium infections in Aechmea fasciata . Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen, Rijk suniversiteit Gent. 38: 1417-1425

Samyn, G., and F. Thomas. 1997. Thirty years of bromeliad breedi ng at the Research Station of Ornamental Plant Growing (Melle, Belgium). Journal of the Bromeliad Society
47: 120-124.

Samyn, G. and A.T. Wojdyla. 1994. Different methods for artificial in vivo inoculation of young bromeliads with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmea in function of resistance breeding. Mede delingen van de Faculteit Landbouwkundge en Toegepaste Biologische Wetenschappen (Belgium) 59: 1047-1057.

Schubert, T.S. 1990. Epiphytic bromeliads on Florida trees. Plant Pathology Circular No. 333,Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry.

USDA, APHIS

─ see United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

United States Department of Agricultur e, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2009. Importation of Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia, Neoregelia, Tillandsia and Vriesea (Bromeliaceae) in Growing Media, into the United States from Belgium, Denmark, a nd the Netherlands. A Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessment, July 6, 2009. Rev. 004. 19 pp.1 Appendix 1. Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessment



## Importation of Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Gu zmania, Hohenbergia,

Neoregelia, Tillandsia and Vriesea (Bromeliaceae) in Growing Media, into the United States from Belgium, Denmark, and the
Netherlands

A Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment

July 6, 2009

Rev. 004

Agency contacts:

Gary L. Cave, Ph.D., Entomologist Scott C. Redlin, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Raleigh, North Carolina2 

## Executive Summary

In this pathway-initiated commodity risk analys is, we examine the risks associated with the proposed importation of Bromeliaceae in the genera Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia, Neoregelia, Tillandsia

, and Vriesea , in APHIS-approved growing media, from Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands into the United States. We followed the analytical methodology described in the USDA, APHIS, PP Q Guidelines, version 5.02, which describes how we examine pest biology in the context of the Consequences of In troduction and Likelihood of Introduction, and estimate Pest Risk Potential.

We found only one quarantine pest that can follow the pathway, Fusarium oxysporum Schlechtend.:Fr. f. sp. aechmeae (Saut. & Gerlach) Gordon (Fungi Imperfecti: Hyphomycetes), from Belgium. We gave this organism a Low Pest Risk Potential. All imported propagative materials, however, must meet the requirements specified in 7 CFR § 319.37.

We discuss pest risk mitigation options, and measures applied by the existing regulations on the importation of plants in APHI S-approved growing media (7 CF R § 319.37-8). We expect these mitigation measures to substantially reduce the likelihood of introduction of any quarantine pests that may be associated with these plants, and as such, the overall pest risk potential would be low because these pests are effectiv ely removed from the pathway.3 

### Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. ........ 2
List of Tables ................................................................................................................ ............... 4 List of Figures ............................................................................................................... ............... 4
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... ............... 5 1.1. Backg round .......................................................................... 5

1.2. Production Conditions ........................................................ 5

2. Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................ .......... 6 2.1. Initiating Even t: Proposed Action ...................................... 6

2.2. Assessment of Weed iness Potential of Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania,

Hohenbergia, Neoregelia, Tillandsia , and Vriesea . .................. 7

2.3. Pest Inte rceptions ............................................................... 7

2.4. Pest Cate gorizati on ............................................................. 7

2.5. Analysis of Qu arantine Pests ........................................... 12

2.6. Consequences of Introduc tion ......................................... 13

2.7. Likelihood of Introduc tion ................................................ 15

2.8. Conclusion: Pest Risk Pote ntial ....................................... 16

3. Risk Mitigation Options .................................................................................................... ..... 18 3.1. Approved Gr owing Me dia ................................................. 18

3.2. Systems A pproaches ........................................................ 18

3.3. Management of “Fusariose ” via Genetic Resistance ..... 20

4. Literature Cited ........................................................................................................... ........... 214 

## List of Tables

Table 1. Assessment of Weediness Potential of Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea ....................................................................................3

Table 2. Quarantine Pest Interceptions on Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea as permit cargo from Belgium, and the Netherlands,
1985-2008. .................................................................................................................. ........4

Table 3. Pests Associated With Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea from Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands ...................................5

Table 4. Quarantine Pests Associated With Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea from Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands ...............7

Table 5. Risk Ratings for the C onsequences of Introduction .......................................................10

Table 6. Risk Ratings for the Likelihood of Introduction .............................................................12

Table 7. Pest Risk Potential .................................................................................................. .........12



## List of Figures

Fig. 1. Plant Hardiness Zones potenti ally suitable for establishment by Fusarium oxysporum Schlechtend.:Fr. f. sp. aechmeae (Saut. & Gerlach) Gordon ...............................................95 

## 1. Introduction

1.1. Background

This pest risk analysis (PRA) was conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Pl ant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemio logy and Risk Analysis Laboratory (USDA, APHIS, PPQ, CPHST, PERAL) to examine the pl ant pest risks associated with the importation, into the United States, from Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands, of propagative nursery stock in the genera Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohe nbergia, Neoregelia, Tillandsia and Vriesea (Bromeliaceae), in APHIS-approved growing media.

Authority for APHIS to regulate plant pests/plan t products is derived fr om the Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786, 2000) and the Code of Federal Regulations, 7 CFR § 319.37 (2008). The risk assessment methodology and rati ng criteria and the use of biological and phytosanitary terms is consistent with internationa l guidelines, e.g

. , IPPC, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2008, and current Agency guidelines (PPQ, 2000).



### 1.2. Production Conditions

1.2.1. Asexually Propagated Plants
The Bromeliaceae family is composed of about 59 genera native to the Western Hemisphere, specifically tropical America (B ailey and Bailey, 1976). In Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands, these plants are propagated and cultivated exclusively as greenhouse plants. Under these conditions, Bromeliads are generally increased by seedlings (sexual or asexual) or tissue culture. The majority of production of the analyzed genera is done by four businesses, two in Netherlands and two in Belgium. The market for bromeliads is dominated by the patented hybrids of Deroose Plants (propagated by in vitro methods) and Corn.Bak B.V. (primarily propagated by seed) (Samyn and Thomas, 1997).



### 1.2.2. Bare Root Plants
For qualification to ship orname ntal plants/propagative plants to the United States, plant producers must adhere to the procedures listed in 7 CFR § 319.37 (2008). For bromeliads, plants are currently grown in APHIS-approved growing media and are subject to washing of the root system with clean, potable water, to remove gr owing media from the root system. Regulatory officials inspect above- and below- ground plant parts for the presence of plant pests. Plants that are washed free of media facilitate visual inspec tion and the removal of symptomatic plants from the pathway or rejection of infested plant lots.

European bromeliad growers state that the AP HIS requirement for washing of the roots is detrimental because it: 1) increases the number of pl ant losses, 2) limits the size of the plant to be exported to the United States as “ young plants ” (versus larger “ finished plants ” at or near the

“ flowering stage ” generating increased reve nue), and 3) results in temporary plant growth6 reductions. There is some concern regarding a perceived increase in pest risk because a combination of essentially pest free plants grow n in an APHIS-approved medium allows larger plants to be produced. The risk associated wi th container grown/esta blished plants is the possibility that the additional or larger plant parts, including leaves or roots, might create additional locations for pests to be hidden, or increase the difficulty of visual inspection.



### 1.2.3. Container Grown (Established) vs . Bare Root Plants (Susceptibility to Reduced Growth)
Container grown plants have established root systems because they are grown for a substantial period of time without root dist urbance. European bromeliad grow ers are concerned that reduced growth of bare root plants, caused by the desiccati on of root systems, lack of nutrients, damage caused by shaking out, or washing, ex tends the time required to produce “ finished ” or mature flowering plants. Consequently, such plants may exhibit stunted or poor growth, and reduced flowering. Shipping established plants in media mi nimizes or eliminates these growth reductions.



### 1.2.4. Movement of Plants
Because the European Union (EU) has a sing le market system with no border controls, commercial plant consignments can move from one country to another without phytosanitary
certificates. These certificates have been re placed by the ‘plant passport’ (e.g., DAFF, 2009; MRAE, 2003), which similarly certifies that certa in phytosanitary requirements have been met. Nurseries producing plants that require a plant pa ssport are subject to regi stration and inspection.

In addition to plant passport re quirements, plants and plant pr opagating material of certain genera which host significant ( quality) pests and diseases must be accompanied by a ‘suppliers document, which confirms that th e material being traded is subs tantially free of these organisms (e.g., DAFF, 2009; MRAE, 2003). The suppliers do cument will usually contain the same information as the plant passport.

In addition, plant passports can certify official co ntrol. To receive a plant passport, domestic consignments in the EU should be free from A2 quarantine pests, which ensure both suppression and containment (an A2 pest is a quarantine pest present in an area but not widely distributed there and being officially contro lled). The plant passport can also be used to certify that the A2 pest, if subject to other requirements, e.g. place of production freedom, has met those requirements. This requirement is also equiva lent to that of a phyt osanitary certificate. Supplementally, plant consignments recognized as hos ts of A2 quarantine pests cannot legally be moved without a plant passport, and non-compliance can be subject to enforcement and penalties as with a phytosanitary certificate.



## 2. Risk Assessment

2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action7 This commodity-based, pathway-initiated pest risk assessment was prepared in response to a request from the Governments of Belgium, De nmark, and the Netherlands to change current regulations to allow the importations of Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea (Bromeliaceae), established in seedling trays, in APHISapproved growing media, or as bare-root plants with small am ounts of APHIS-approved growing media attached to the roots. These plants are cu rrently permitted entry into the United States as bare-root plants under 7 CFR § 319.37 (2008).

There are special concerns associated with propa gative material established in growing media: the presence of pests or biol ogical contaminants may not be discernable by visual inspection, either pre-shipment or at the por t of entry, and this infeasibility of complete inspection increases the potential of the introduction of exotic organisms; the treatmen t(s) of the growing media may not be entirely efficacious; the continual hazard of pest infestation/re-infestation of clean plants. These potential risks of importing propagative materials in growi ng media have been addressed and mitigated in regulations outlined in 7 CFR § 319.37-8 (2008).



### 2.2. Assessment of Weediness Potential of Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia, Neoregelia, Tillandsia , and Vriesea

.

We determined the potential weed threat posed by Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia and Vriesea , or the existence of a previous characterization of these genera as weeds, below (Table 1). The results of this weed sc reening for these genera did not prompt a pest-in itiated risk assessment.



### 2.3. Pest Interceptions

We listed pests intercepted on the relevant species below (Table 2).



### 2.4. Pest Categorization

Below we list pests associated with the releva nt bromeliad species from Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands, whether or not they are quarantine pests, and refe rences (Table 3). Then, for quarantine pests, we list inform ation on distribution, host genus/ge nera, plant parts affected, the likelihood of following the pathway, and references (Table 4).

Table 1 . Assessment of Weed iness Potential of Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea from Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands.
Commodity: We considered Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia and Vriesea . The family Bromeliaceae contains about 46 genera of tropical and subtropical, terrestrial, xeromorphic pachycauls to stemless epiphytic herbs. Most are grown ornamentally in the home or greenho use, or outdoors in warm areas.

Phase 1: No species of Cryptanthus or Neoregelia have naturalized in the United States (NRCS, 2009). Other genera are present as follows:

• Aechmea is represented by two Puerto Rican species8 • Four species of Guzmania are in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Florida

• Hohenbergia has three Puerto Rican species

• Twenty Tillandsia species are in Puerto Rico, the Vi rgin Islands and several southern

states

• Vriesea is represented by three Puerto Rican species

Phase 2: Is the species listed in:

Yes Geographical Atlas of World Weeds (Holm et al., 1979)

No World's Worst Weeds (Holm et al., 1977) or World Weeds: Natural Histories
and
Distribution (Holm et al., 1997)

No 1982 Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds: Exotic
Weeds for Federal Noxious W eed Act (Gunn and Ritchie, 1982)

No Economically Important Foreign Weeds (Reed, 1977)

No Weed Science Society of America list (WSSA, 2006)

No Do any literature references indi cate weediness (e.g., AGRICOLA, CAB Abstracts, Biological Abstracts, AGRIS)

Phase 3: Tillandsia landbecki Phil. is listed as a weed of unknown importance in Chile (Holm et al., 1979). Tillandsia recurvata L. and T. aeranthos (Loisel) L.B. Smith are weedy epiphytes of trees and bushes in Argentina. When presen t in large numbers in host trees, these species compete, with their hosts, for light and release a growth inhi bitor causing leaf abscission (Claver et al., 1983; Bartoli et al., 1993). When epiphytic bromeliads are associated with a supporting host in poor health, the presence of ep iphytes is typically co incidental, not causal (Schubert, 1990). However, T. recurvata is native to the U. S. and does not meet the IPPC definition of a quarantine pest, and T. aeranthos is also likely alrea dy present in the United States (Kaplan, 1999). Despite th is, we found no reported distri butions or evidence of harm (e.g., NRCS, 2009), which likely indicates the plants have either not escaped, or had little or no adverse impacts. Only twice ha ve any introduced ornamental Tillandsia spp. successfully naturalized world-wide (Pembe rton and Liu, 2007). Likewise, Tillandsia bandensis and Hohenbergia penduliflora could be problematic, but the evid ence of harm is weak (Randall, 2002).

Conclusion : For all of the genera considered above, only a few species exhibited even minor weediness. A pest-initiated risk assessment is not necessary.

Table 2 . Quarantine Pest Interceptions on Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea as permit cargo (bare root plants) from Belgium (BE), and Netherlands (NL), 1985-2008 (PestID, 2008). a
Host Origin Pest Year Part Proximity b As For c Interceptions (no.)

Aechmea NL Bradybaena sp. (Bradybaenidae) 1987 Leaf On Plant P 1

NL Microsphaeropsis sp. (Coelomycetes) 1993 - On Leaf P 1

Guzmania BE Phoma sp. (Coelomycetes) 1996 Leaf On Plant P 1

BE Pyrenochaeta sp. (Coelomycetes) 1998 Leaf On Plant P 1

BE Sminthuridae 2000 - With Plant P 2

BE Sminthuridae 2001 - With Plant C 19 NL Bryocorinae (Miridae) 2000 - On Plant P 1

NL Insecta 1998 - On Cut
Flower C 1

NL Noctuidae 1994 - On Plant P 1

NL Orchidophilus aterrimus (Waterhouse) (Curculionidae) 2005 - With Plant P 1

NL Sminthuridae 1997 Leaf With Cutting P 1

NL Sminthuridae 2000 - With Plant P 4

NL Sminthuridae 2001 - With Plant P 1

NL Tortricidae 2001 - With Plant P 1

Tillandsia NL Arion sp. (Arionidae) 2007 Leaf On Leaf C 1 NL Cecidomyiidae 2007 Leaf On Leaf C 1

NL Haplothrips aculeatus (F.) (Phlaeothripidae) 2007 Leaf On Leaf C 1

NL Microsphaeropsis sp. (Coelomycetes) 1996 Leaf On Plant P 1

Vriesea BE Microsphaeropsis sp. (Coelomycetes) 1994 - On Plant P 1

BE Sminthuridae 2002 - With Cutting P 1

NL Pseudococcidae 1990 Leaf On Plant P 1

NL Agriotes lineatus (L.) (Elateridae) 1994 - With Plant P 1

NL Pyrenochaeta sp. (Coelomycetes) 1994 - On Leaf P 1

Total 27

a No pests were intercepted on Cryptanthus

, Hohenbergia , or Neoregelia , or on any plants from
Denmark.

b “On” means that the pest was intercepted on the plants; “With” means that the pest was intercepted as a hitchhiker associated with the crates, cartons or boxes co ntaining the bromeliads, not on the plants.

c C = Consumption, P = Propagation

Table 3 . Pests Associated With Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea from Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands.Pest Quarantine Pest Reference

INSECTA Coleoptera: Curculionidae Orchidophilus aterrimus (Waterhouse) Yes PestID, 2008

Coleoptera: Elateridae Agriotes lineatus (L.) Yes PestID, 2008

Collembola: Sminthuridae Sminthuridae sp. Yes PestID, 2008 Hemiptera: Aclerdidae10Pest Quarantine Pest Reference

Aclerda tillandsiae Howell No Ben-Dov et al., 2006 Hemiptera: Coccidae Coccus hesperidum L. No CIE, 1972; Ben-Dov et al., 2006

Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner) No Ben-Dov et al., 2006 Hemiptera: Diaspididae Chrysomphalus aonidum (L.) No CIE, 1988; Dekle, 1965; Nakahara, 1982 Diaspis boisduvalii Signoret No Ben-Dov et al., 2006 Diaspis bromeliae (Kerner) No Ben-Dov et al., 2006 Gymnaspis aechmeae Newstead No Ben-Dov et al., 2006
Mycetaspis personata (Comstock) No Ben-Dov et al., 2006 Parlatoria pergandii Comstock No Ben-Dov et al., 2006 Pinnaspis buxi (Bouché) No Ben-Dov et al., 2006 Hemiptera: Miridae Bryocorinae sp. Yes PestID, 2008 Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae
Nipaecoccus nipae (Maskell) No Ben-Dov et al., 2006 Pseudococcidae sp. Yes PestID, 2008

Pseudoccocus viburni (Signoret) No Ben-Dov et al., 2006

Rhizoecus cacticans (Hambleton) No Ben-Dov, et al., 2006; Williams and Granara de Willink, 1992 Lepidoptera: Noctuidae Noctuidae sp. Yes PestID, 2008 Lepidoptera: Tortricidae Tortricidae sp. Yes PestID, 2008

MOLLUSCA Bradybaenidae Bradybaena sp. Yes PestID, 2008

FUNGI Ascomycetes

Cochliobolus sativus (Ito & Kuribayashi) Drechs. ex Dastur [Loculoascomycetes: Dothideales] No Crepel et al., 2006

Fungi Imperfecti: Coelomycetes Microsphaeropsis sp. Yes PestID, 2008 Pyrenochaeta sp. Yes PestID, 2008 Fungi Imperfecti: Hyphomycetes Fusarium moniliforme J. Sheldon No Farr et al., (n.d.); Rattink, 1973
Fusarium oxysporum Schlectend.:

Fr. No Farr et al., (n.d.); Rattink, 197311Pest Quarantine Pest Reference

Fusarium oxysporum Schlechtend.:Fr. f. sp. aechmeae (Saut. & Gerl.) Gordon Yes Gordon, 1965; Rattink, 1973; Samyn and Wojdyla, 1994

Phoma sp. Yes PestID, 2008

Table 4 . Quarantine Pests Associated With Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea from Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands. Pest Geographic
Distribution Host Genera Plant
Parts
Affected Follow Pathway References

ARTHROPODS Coleoptera: Curculionidae Orchidophilus aterrimus (Waterhouse) Netherlands Guzmania Leaf Yes PestID, 2008

Coleoptera: Elateridae Agriotes lineatus (L.) Netherlands Vriesea Leaf Yes PestID, 2008

Collembola: Sminthuridae Sminthuridae sp. Belgium, Netherlands Guzmania

, Vriesea Leaf Yes PestID, 2008

Hemiptera: Miridae Bryocorinae sp. Netherlands Guzmania Leaf Yes PestID, 2008 Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae Pseudococcidae sp. Netherlands Tillandsia Leaf, Stem Yes PestID, 2008 Lepidoptera: Noctuidae Noctuidae sp. Netherlands Guzmania Leaf Yes PestID, 2008 Lepidoptera: Tortricidae Tortricidae sp. Netherlands Guzmania Leaf Yes PestID, 2008

MOLLUSCA Bradybaenidae Bradybaena sp. Netherlands Aechmea Leaf Yes PestID, 2008

FUNGI Fungi Imperfecti: Coelomycetes Microsphaeropsis sp. Belgium, Netherlands Aechmea

, Tillandsia

, Vriesea Leaf Yes PestID, 2008

Pyrenochaeta sp. Netherlands Vriesea Leaf Yes PestID, 2008 Fungi Imperfecti: Hyphomycetes
Fusarium oxysporum Schlechtend.:Fr. f. sp.
aechmeae (Saut. & Gerl.) Gordon Belgium Aechmea Leaf, root Yes Gordon, 1965; Rattink, 1973; Samyn and Wojdyla, 199412 Pest Geographic
Distribution Host Genera Plant
Parts
Affected Follow Pathway References

Phoma sp. Belgium Guzmania Leaf Yes PestID, 2008

Although the taxa in Table 4 are listed as quarantine pests, we di d not analyze all of them. This is based on a number of factors: First, incomplete identifications, which may be due to the state of the taxonomy or the condition or the stage of th e specimen submitted for identification. Second, these organisms are not associated, in the scientific literature, with Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea , and were intercepted, as biological contaminants during port-of-entry insp ections, and would not be expected to be found with every shipment (this contamination may o ccur sometime during the loading procedures).

Additionally, Aechmea spp

. and other Bromeliaceae are relativel y disease-resistant taxa, e.g., there are no species of Microsphaeropsis

, Pyrenochaeta , or Phoma recorded as pathogens from Aechmea, Tillandsia or any other Bromeliaceae in the sc ientific literature (Chase, 1987). Although several plant pathogenic sp ecies exist within the genera Microsphaeropsis

, Pyrenochaeta , and Phoma , many are opportunistic or saprophy tic fungi (Stevens, 1974), and we cannot assume that the fungi intercep ted on the plants were pathogenic.

The only quarantine pest that is scientifically associated with these bromeliads, is Fusarium

oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae (see above); this species is specific and exclusive only to Aechmea. Therefore, this is the only orga nism that will be analyzed.



### 2.5. Analysis of Quarantine Pests

The undesirable consequences that may occur fr om the introduction of quarantine pests are assessed within this section. For each quarantine pe st, the Pest Risk Potential is calculated by summing the values for the Consequences of Introduction and the Like lihood of Introduction.

The major sources of uncertainty present in this ri sk assessment are similar to those in other risk assessments. They include: the approach used to combine risk elements (Bier, 1999; Morgan and Henrion, 1990); the evaluation of risk by comparisons to lists of factors within the guidelines (Kaplan, 1992); the quality of the available biological in formation (Gallegos and Bonano, 1993); and the inherent, natural biol ogical variation within a populat ion of organisms (Morgan and Henrion, 1990). To address these uncertainties, the lis ts of factors were interpreted as illustrative and not exhaustive. This implies th at additional biological informati on, even if not explicitly part of the criteria, can be used when it informs a rating. For each Risk Element, pests are assigned a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points), or High (3 points) . We summed the values for Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood of Introduction to estimate Pest Risk Potential (Table 7). This estimates the risks associated with this commodity.13 

### 2.6. Consequences of Introduction

In this portion of the analysis, we consider negative outcomes that may occur when the quarantine pest identified associated with Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea , in growing media follows the importation pathway into the
United States.

We evaluated the potential conseq uences of introduction using five Risk Elements: Climate-Host Interaction, Host Range, Dispersal Potential, Economic Impact, and Environmental Impact. These reflect the biology, host range and climatic and geographic distribution of each pest, and are supported by biological information on the anal yzed pest. We summed the values for each element to find the overall rating for the Consequences of Introduction (Table 5).

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae
2.6.1. Climate/Host Interaction Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae has only been reported in greenhouses in Belgium (Gordon 1965; Rattink, 1973; Samyn and Wojdyl a, 1994) and Germany (Farr et al

. , 2008; O'Donnell et
al

. , 1998). Aechmea are native to Puerto Ri co and the Virgin Islands , these areas correspond only to U.S. Plant Hardiness Zone 11 (Fig. 1) (PER AL, 2008). Therefore, we gave a risk rating of
Low

.14 Fig. 1 . Plant Hardiness Zones potentially suitable for establishment by Fusarium oxysporum f.

sp. aechmeae

2.6.2. Host Range Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae is pathogenic only on Aechmea (Farr et al

. , 2008; Gordon, 1965). For example, Gordon (1965) stated that A. fasciata (Lindl.) Bak., A. bromeliifolia (Rudge) Bak., A. coerulescens (Reg.) Bak., A. pineliana (Brongn.) Bak., and A. tinctoria (Mart.) Mez. were hosts. However Samyn and Thomas (1997) stated that only A. fasciata was a host of this pathogen and that other species of Aechmea were resistant or non-hos ts. This very narrow host range warrants a Low rating for Host Range.

2.6.3. Dispersal Potential Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae, is a hyphomycetous fungus that produces mycelia and phialides from single to complex conidiophores or aggregated into mycelia, sporodochia. The phialides exude infectious ase xual spores, conidia, which are aggregated into slimy masses. Conidia are dispersed for short distances by wate r splash onto infected plants; the distance and direction being relative to the volume, direction and intens ity of the water. For that reason, dispersal, inside or outside the greenhouse, is likely to be more limited than for fungi which can continuously and directly release aerial spores (Agrios, 1997). For these reasons, we rated the Dispersal Potential for this fungus Low

.

2.6.4. Economic Impact15 Presence of leaf spots, leaf death, crown rot, a nd “fusariose” are noticeable disease symptoms which reduce the foliage quality, and therefore th e value of the potted plants. The disease is unlikely to affect yield or have market imp acts. Therefore, we ra ted Economic Impact as Low

.

2.6.5. Environmental Impact No species of Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and

Vriesea are Federally Listed as “Threatened and Endangered” (USFWS, 2008). Because F.

oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae is only pathogenic to Aechmea spp., its presence is unlikely to stimulate the need for additional chemical or biological control programs because current production systems already control Fusarium dise ases (Agrios, 1997; Pirone, 1978). Therefore, we gave a risk rating of Low

.

Table 5 . Risk Ratings for the Cons equences of Introduction

Pest Climate/
Host Host Range Dispersal
Potential Economic Impact Environ. Impact Cumulative risk rating a
Fusarium oxysporum f.

sp. aechmeae Low (1) Low (1) Low (1) Low (1) Low (1) Low (5)

a Low is 6-9 points; Medium is 10- 14 points and High is 15-18 points.



### 2.7. Likelihood of Introduction

We rated the Likelihood of Introduction for a pest based on six biological fa ctors for the pest’s interaction with the commodity. Th ese areas represent a series of independent events that must all take place before a pest outbreak occurs, as follows: the quantity of the material imported; surviving post-harvest treatment s; surviving normal shipping pr ocedures; the lik elihood of the pest not being detected at a port; the likelihood that the pest will be imported or moved into a suitable environment; and the likelihood that the pest will contact suit able hosts. The overall rating value for Likelihood of Introduction wa s the sum of these subelements (Table 6).

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae 2.7.1. Quantity Imported Annually The quantity of Aechmea spp. in growing media to be shipped from Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands is unknown. However, in fiscal year 2007, 406,622 bare-root plant units and 71,220
flasks of Aechmea were imported from Belgium and th e Netherlands (APHIS, 2008b). It is assumed that overall less than 10 containers/ year will enter the United States. For this reason,
we rated this element Low

.

2.7.2. Survive Postharvest Treatment Producers of plants in Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands, cull infected plants and adjacent plants during production. After plants are se lected, postharvest treat ments may include the application of fungicidal drenches of the growing medium or foliar sprays of plants. These are effective controls of plant diseases caused by Fusarium spp. (Chase, 1987; Vanluchene, 1974). Therefore, our risk rating is Low

.16 2.7.3. Survive Shipment Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae has never been intercepted on bare root Aechmea from Europe (PestID, 2008). Shipments of Aechmea spp. are likely to spend only a few hours or days in air or maritime transit to the U. S. (Cargo Systems, 2001; APHIS, 2008a). Direct air shipments are expected to be the fastest mode of transport. Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae, is highly likely to survive shipment because the host tissu e provides a food source and protected site for growth (Agrios, 1997). Therefor e, we rated this element High

.

2.7.4. Not Detected at Port of Entry Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae may escape detection at low population levels. Careful inspection can generally detect infected plants , however, because symptoms (above) are readily visible (Rattink, 1973; Samyn and Wojdyla, 1994). Because this pathogen can be eliminated based on symptoms we rated this as Low

.

2.7.5. Imported or Moved To An Area Suitable for Survival
Aechmea spp. will not grow well outdoors except in tropical or subtropical areas. Thus, the pathogen likely can only become established in gr eenhouses or in regions w ith tropical climates (Hawaii, Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands). Plants for planting that arrive in the United States are distributed according to market demand. Therefore, we rated this subelement Low

.

2.7.6. Contact with Host Material
Lack of suitable hosts restricts the opportunities for this pest to establish populati ons (in natural or greenhouse environments). Even though passive factors such as wind, wa ter, or animals may aid in the dispersal of stages of pathogens, the key element is the availability of suitable hosts to sustain a pest population. Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae, produces mycelia and phialides from single to complex conidiophores or aggregat ed into mycelia, sporodochia. The phialides exude infectious asexual spores, conidia, which are aggregated into slimy masses. Conidia are dispersed for short distances by water splash ont o infected plants; the distance and direction being relative to the volume, direction and intens ity of the water. For that reason, dispersal is likely to be more limited than for fungi which can continuously and directly release aerial spores (Agrios, 1997). We rated the pest Low for this subelement because (1) Aechmea spp. will be grown either in interiorscapes or outside only in tropical or subtropi cal regions, and (2) the pathogen has relatively limite d dispersal capabilities.



### 2.8. Conclusion: Pest Risk Potential

For the single pest analyzed, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae, the overall Pest Risk
Potential was Low (Table 7).Table 6 . Risk Ratings for the Likelihood of Introduction

. Pest Quantity imported Survive postharvest

treatment Surviveshipment Not detectedat port-ofentry Moved to
suitable
habitat Contact
host
material Cumulative risk rating a

Fusarium

oxysporum f. sp.
aechmeae Low (1) Low (1) High (3) Low (1) Low (1) Low (1) Low (8)

a Low, 6-9 points; Medium, 10- 14 points and High, 15-18 points18 Table 7 . Pest Risk Potential

a Low is 11-18 points; Medium is 19- 26 points; and High is 27-33 points

3. Risk Mitigation Options

There are special concerns associated with non-destructive inspect ions of propagative material established in gr owing media. For example, the presence of biological contaminants may not be discernable by visual inspection; and the efficacy of treatment(s) of the growing media may not be discernable. These risks of importing propagative materials in growing media have been addressed by the USDA and mitigated in regulations outlined in 7 CFR § 319.37-8 (2008).

3.1. Approved Growing Media

Growing media approved by APHIS in 7 CFR § 319.37-8 (2008) are baked expanded clay pellets, coal cinder, coir , cork, glass wool, organic and inorganic fibers, peat, perlite, phenol formaldehyde, plastic particles, polye thylene, polymer stabilized starch , polystyrene, polyurethane, rock wool, s phagnum moss, ureaformaldehyde, stockosorb superabsorbent polymer, vermiculite, volcanic rock, or zeolite, or any combination of these media. Growing media must not have been previously used.

The proposed importation of Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia, Neoregelia, Tillandsia

, and Vriesea plants in APHIS-approv ed growing media and under greenhouse growing conditions, if approved, will be managed by existing regulations (7 CFR § 319.37-8, 2008). The mitigation measur es described comprise a “Systems Approach” designed to establish and mainta in a pest-free production environment. The Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786, 2000) defines a “Systems Approach” as “...a defined set of phytosanitary procedures, at least tw o of which have an independent effect in mitigating pest risk as sociated with the movement of commodities.” The IPPC defines a Systems Approach as “The integration of differe nt risk management measures, at least two of wh ich act independently, and which cumulatively achieve the appropriate level of protecti on against regulated pests” (I PPC, 2008: ISPM #5). Pest risk management is one of three components (ana lysis, management, and communication) of the decision-making process of reducing th e risk of introduction of quarantine pests (IPPC, 2008: ISPM #11). These mitigations e ffectively remove the pests from the pathway prior to importation into the United States.

3.2. Systems Approaches Pest Consequences
of Introduction Likelihood of
Introduction Pest Risk Potential a

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae Low (5) Low (8) Low (13)19 Systems Approaches are established by an impor ting country as an al ternative to the use of single quarantine measures when a single phytosanitary measure is nonexistent, not feasible or undesirable. The combinations of specific mitigation measures that provide overlapping or sequential safeguards are dis tinctly different from single mitigation methodologies such as fumigation or inspection (Jang and Moffitt, 1994). Systems Approaches vary in complexity and are often tailored to specific commodity-pest-origin combinations (IPPC, 2008: ISPM #5). Options for specific measures may be selected from a range of pre-harvest and post-harvest measures, e

. g ., surveys, inspections, sanitation, chemical treatments, etc ; and include mitigation measures to compensate for uncertainty. PPQ uses systems approaches for the importation of many commodities (e.g., tomatoes from Spain, France, Moro cco, and Western Sahara; 7 CFR § 319.56-28, 2008). These programs have performed successfu lly for many years as evidenced by the very low numbers of interceptions over the years the programs have been active.

The three main categories of mitigation measures specifically required by 7 CFR § 319.37-8 (e) (2008) for propagative materials are: use of pe st-free propagative material, pest-exclusionary greenhouses and inspecti on. Ensuring pest-free propagative material requires monitoring and testing of mother st ock and descendant plants (Agrios, 1997; Jarvis, 1992; Kahn, 1977) and the use of pest-free mother stock plants.

The use of clean mother stock is an essent ial component of ornamental plant production (Agrios, 1997; Bodman et al., 1996; Jarv is, 1992; Jones and Benson, 2001; Metcalf and Metcalf, 1993; Mizell and Short, 1999). Th is practice excludes pests from being introduced into the plant production envi ronment (Jones and Benson, 2001; Kahn and Mathur, 1999; Metcalf and Metcalf, 1993).

Pest-exclusionary greenhouses employ treatments, good sanitation, e.g

., surface disinfection of tools and pl ant materials, (Agrios, 1997; Barry, 1996; Bessin, 2001; Jarvis, 1992; Jones and Benson, 2001; Kahn a nd Mathur, 1999); clean water sources (Bodman et al., 1996; Jarvis, 1992; Kahn and Mathur, 1999; Pirone, 1978; van der Plank, 1963); and use of approved growing media. Sa nitation is the general cleanliness and pathogen-free condition of the nursery operation, aimed at re ducing the overall inoculum level in the nursery (Jones and Benson, 2001) . Surface disinfection may be achieved with isopropyl alcohol, denatured ethyl alc ohol, sodium hypochlorite, and calcium hypochlorite. Surface disinfection of bare roots is achieved by dipping in a solution of n

alkyl ammonium chloride prior to propagation. These solutions are most effective if used within 30 minutes of preparation (Jones and Benson, 2001). Studi es on APHIS-approved growing media found that pathogens are not present (Santacr oce, 1991). Approved growing media is defined in 7 CFR 319.37-8(e)(1) and 319.37-8(f)(3)(iv) (2008). Improper nursery practices (the primary m eans by which pathogens are introduced and spread in the nursery according to Jones and Benson, 2001) are avoi ded by oversight and quality assurance required by USDA APHIS and captured in a bilateral workplan.

Pest management of ornamentals often in cludes chemical pest control (Osborne, et. al

., 2001). Chemical controls are supplemental and used in combination with other mitigation measures, such as pest exclusionary gree nhouses (Ghidiu and Roberts, 2003; Reinert,20 1981). Physical pest control measures are effective mitigations in greenhouses. Such measures include washing with a hose and water and spraying inert soap sprays for aphids; spraying with horticu ltural oils for mealybugs, scale insects, and whiteflies; and physical removal and destru ction for leafminers.

Well-water is the preferred source for irriga tion, since well water is generally pathogenfree, while pond water is a major source of wa ter mold pathogens. If water must be recirculated, a bromine treatment will eradi cate plant-pathogenic bacteria (Jones and Benson, 2001).

The United States import restri ctions barring soil carried w ith propagative horticultural plants effectively prevent the introduction of many mo llusks (Robinson, 2002). Screens and doors exclude the entry of flying or cr awling pests that cannot fit through screens (Bessin, 2001; Metcalf and Metcalf, 1993). The greenhouse enclosur e provides a physical barrier to plants’ exposu re to fungal spores that are rain splashed or windborne (Agrios, 1997; Barry, 1996; Pirone, 1978).

The mitigations detailed above emphasize the use of pest free sources of growing media and pest free commodity proper. There are then several mitigations aimed at ensuring that the pest free status is maintained throughout the production process and along the transportation pathway. A series of inspections are also incorporated to assure quality control and phytosanitary rigor.

While not specifically required under 7 CF R § 319.37-8(e) (2008), standard industry practices help to further ensure that the pe sts of concern do not follow the pathway. These
include sanitation and chemical treatments designed to reduce or eliminate insects (Bessin, 2001; Mizell and Short, 1998) and fungi (Jones and Benson, 2001), and in vitro or aseptic vegetative propagation (Hartman et al

. , 2002). Other cultural practices, such as proper lighting, nutrition, sanitation, temperat ure and watering, enhance plant vigor so that pests are less able to in fest or infect mother stock (Bodman et al., 1996; Jones and Benson, 2001; Kahn and Mathur, 1999).

Because of potential phytosanitary concerns , mitigating factors for the importation of Bromeliads from Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands must include those conditions specified in 7 CFR § 319.37- 8 (2008). Concomitantly, Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea must be artificially propagated and
cannot be collected from the wild in acco rdance with CITES regulations (CITES, 1998). The use of these mitigation measures is expected to substantially reduce the Likelihood of Introduction, and as such, the overall pest risk potential would be rated low because the known pests effectively are removed from the pathway.

3.3. Management of “Fusariose ” via Genetic Resistance

The incorporation of disease resistance is a major goal of plant br eeders (Agrios, 1997; Briggs and Knowles, 1967; Janick, 1986; Jarvis, 1992). Bromeliad breeders have introduced several cultivars within Bromeliaceae, e.g ., Guzmania , some of which possess21 disease resistance. The European Union offers attractive financial incentives for members of the agricultural industry to reduce pesticide use to obt ain better ecological ratings through standards and letter grades (Redlin, 2003). Research efforts in Belgium include
artificial inoculation for resistance breeding for this fungus taxon on Aechmea (Samyn and Wojdyla, 1994). Aechmea fasciata may be the most sensitive to infection by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. achmeae . In Belgium, breeding for resistance to “fusariose” disease” is targeted at the pathogens F. oxysporum and F. moniliforme (Samyn and Thomas, 1997). In the Netherlands, natural ge netic resistance combin ed with systemic fungicides is used to control diseases caused by F. oxysporum on A. fasciata (Vanluchene, 1974).

4. Literature Cited

7 CFR § 319.37. 2008. U.S. Code of Federal Re gulations, Title 7, Part 319.37 (7 CFR § 319.37 – Subpart—Nursery Stock, Plants, Root s, Bulbs, Seeds, and Other Plant Products). 7 CFR § 319.37-8. 2008. U.S. Code of Federa l Regulations, Title 7, Part 319.37-8 (7 CFR § 319.37-8 – Growing Media). 7 CFR § 319.56-28. 2008. U.S. Code of Federa l Regulations, Title 7, Part 319.56-28 (7 CFR § 319.56-28 – Tomatoes from certain countries). 7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786. 2000. Plant Protection Ac t, Title 7 United States Code § 7701-
7786. Agrios, G. N. 1997. Plant Pathology, 4 th ed. Academic Press, New York. APHIS. 2008a. Agricultural Quarantine Insp ection Monitoring (AQIM) Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Anim al and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aq as/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL) APHIS. 2008b. PPQ280 (Cargo Shipments) Data base. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant H ealth Inspection Service (APHIS). https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/l ogin.jsp. (Archived at PERAL) Bailey, L.H., and E.Z. Bailey. 1976. Hortus Third. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New
York. Barry, D. W. (ed.). 1996. Greenhouse Pesticid e Management. Section 10 – Management
of Greenhouse Diseases. http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/pestici d/publications/GreenH/gpm-1.htm. Bartoli, C.G., J. Beltrano, L.V. Fernandez, and D.O. Caldiz. 1993. Control of the epiphytic weeds Tillandsia recurvata and Tillandsia aeranthos with different
herbicides. Forest Ecolo gy and Management 59: 289-294. Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 2006. ScaleNet. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/s calenet.htm. (Archived at PERAL) Bessin, R. 2001. Controls for greenhouse orna mental insect pest s. Univ. Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. http://www.uky.edu/Agricultur e/Entomology/entfacts. Bier, V.M. 1999. Challenges to the acceptanc e of probabilistic risk analysis. Risk Analysis 19: 703-710.22 Bodman, K.; C. Carson, L. Forsberg, N. Gough, I. Hughes, R. Parker, M. Ramsey and M.
Waterhouse. 1996. Ornamental Plants. De partment of Primary Industries, Information Series QI 96001, Australia. Briggs, F.N., and P.F. Knowles. 1967. Introduction to Plant Breeding. Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York. Chase, A.R. 1987. Compendium of Ornament al Foliage Plant Diseases. American Phytopathological So ciety, St. Paul. Chase, A.R. 2001. Diseases of Cacti and Su cculents. Chase Research Gardens, Inc. http://www.hortworld.com/cacti.htm. CIE. 1972. Distribution Maps of Pests. Number 92. Coccus hesperidum L. Commonwealth Institute of Entomology (CIE) CIE. 1988. Distribution Maps of Pests. Number 4. Chrysomphalus aonidum (Linnaeus). Commonwealth Institute of Entomology (CIE)
CITES. 1998. Convention on Intern ational Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna. http://www.wcmc.org.uk/CITES/english/index.html. Claver, F.K., J.R. Alaniz, and D.O. Caldíz. 1983. Tillandsia spp. epiphytic weeds of trees
and bushes. Forest Ecolo gy and Management 6: 367-372. Crepel, C., S. Inghelbrecht, S. Baey en, and M. Maes. 2006. First report of Cochliobolus

sativus on Guzmania sp in Belgium. Plant Disease 90: 1361. DAFF. 2009. Guide to EC Plant Passport System . Horticulture and Plant Health Division, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF). Maynooth, Co. Kildare,
Ireland. http://www.agriculture.gov.i e/media/agricultu reie/farmingsectors/planthealth/Mo vementplantswithinEC(PlantPassportSystem).doc. Dekle, G.W. 1965. Florida Armored Scale Insects. Arthropods of Florida and Neighboring Land Areas, vol. 3, Division of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture, Gainesville. Farr, D. F., A.Y. Rossman, M.E. Palm, and E.B. McCray. 2006. Fungal Databases. United States Department of Agricultur e, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Mycology and Microb iology Laboratory. http://nt.arsgrin.gov/fungaldatabases/. (Archived at PERAL) Gallegos, D. P. and E. J. Bonano. 1993. Consider ation of uncertainty in the performance assessment of radioactive waste disposal from an international regulatory perspective. Reliability Engineer ing and Systems Safety, 42: 111-123. Gordon, W. L. 1965. Pathogenic strains of Fusarium oxysporum . Canadian Journal of Botany 43: 1309-1318. Ghidiu, G. M. and W. J. Roberts. 2003. Greenhouse Screening for Insect Control, Factsheet FS640. The State University of New Jersey, Rutgers Cooperative Extension. www.rce.rutgers.edu/pubs/pdfs/fs640.pdf. Gunn, C. R. and C. Ritchie. 1982. Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds; Exotic Weeds for Fede ral Noxious Weed Act. (unpublished). Hartmann, H. T., Kester, D. E., Davies, Jr., F. T, and R. L. Geneve. 2002. Hartmann and Kester's Plant Propagation Pr inciples and Practices, 7 th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River. Holm, L. G., Plucknett D. L., Pancho., J. V. and J. P. Herberger. 1977. The World’s Worst Weeds. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.23 Holm, L. G., Pancho., J. V., Herberger, J. P. and D. L. Plucknett. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Holm, L., Doll, J., Holm, E., Pancho, J. and J. Herberger. 1997. Wo rld Weeds: Natural
Histories and Distribution. J ohn Wiley and Sons, New York. IPPC. 2001. International Standards for Phytosan itary Measures. Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests, Publica tion. No. 11. FAO, Rome. IPPC. 2004. Pest Risk Analysis for Regulated Non-Quarantine Pests, Publication No. 21. FAO, Rome. IPPC. 2005. Pest Risk Analysis For Quar antine Pests, Includ ing Analysis Of Environmental Risks And Living Modified Organisms, Publication No. 11. FAO,

Rome.
IPPC. 2008. International Standards for P hytosanitary Measures. Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms, Public ation No. 5. Rome, Italy. Jang, E.B. and H.R. Moffitt. 1994. Systems appr oaches to achieving quarantine security,

in Sharp, J. L. and G. J. Hallman (eds.) . 1994. Quarantine Treatments For Pests of Food Pants. Westview Press, Boulder. Janick, J. 1986. Horticultural Science, 4 th ed. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York. Jarvis, W.R. 1992. Managing Diseases in Gr eenhouse Crops. American Phytopathology Society, St. Paul. Jones, R.K. and D.M. Benson. 2001. Diseas es of Woody Ornamentals and Trees in Nurseries. APS Press, St. Paul. Kahn, R.P. 1977. Plant quarantine: Principl es, methodology, and suggested approaches,

in : Hewitt, W. B. and L. Chiarappa (e ds.). Plant Health and Quarantine in
International Transfer of Genetic Resources. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Kahn, R.P. and S.B. Mathur. 1999. Containment F acilities and Safeguards. APS Press, St.
Paul. Kaplan, J. 1999. Herbicidal composition for the control of epiphytic weeds. United States
Patent 5981434. Kaplan, S. 1992. 'Expert information' versus 'e xpert opinions.' Another approach to the problem of eliciting/combining/using expert knowledge in PRA. Reliability and Engineering System Safety 35: 61-72. Metcalf, R.L. and R.A. Metcalf. 1993. Destruc tive and Useful Insects, Their Habits and Control, 5 th ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York. Mizell, R.F. and D.E. Short. 1999. Integrat ed pest management in the commercial ornamental nursery, 1999 Insect Manageme nt Guide. University of Florida, Florida Cooperative Extension Se rvice. http://e dis.ifas.ufl.edu. Morgan, M.G., and M. Henrion. 1990. Uncertain ty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press, New
York. MRAE. 2003. Guide To Marketing Requireme nts And Plant Passports. Plant Health Department Surveillance And Inspectorat e Unit, Ministry For Rural Affairs And The Environment (MRAE), Plant Bi otechnology Centre. Lija, Malta Nakahara, S. 1982. Checklist of the Armored Scale (Homoptera: Diaspididae) of the
Conterminous United States.24 NRCS. 2009. The PLANTS Database. United Stat es Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), The National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov. (A rchived at PERAL) O'Donnell, K., E. Cigelnik, and H.I. Nirenberg. 1998. Molecular systematics and phylogeography of the Gibberella fujikuroi species complex. Mycologia 90: 465-
493. Osborne, L.S., E.A. Buss, C.M. Mannion, and J.F. Price. 2001. Commercial Foliage and Woody Ornamental Arthropod Pest Mana gement. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, documen t ENY-311. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu. Pemberton, R., and H. Liu. 2007. Rare Naturalization of an Ornamental Tillandsia

, Tillandsia ionantha , in Southern Florida. Selbyana, The Journal of the Marie Selby Botanical Gardens, 28(2):150-153
PERAL. 2008. Plant Hardiness Zones of the United States: Area and Population Analysis. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemio logy and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC. 6 pp.
PestID. 2008. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/ aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL) Pirone, P.P. 1978. Diseases and Pests of Orna mental Plants, 5th ed. John Wiley and Sons,
New York. PPQ. 2000. Guidelines for pathway-initiated pest risk assessments (Version 5.02). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Riverdale, MD. 30 pp. Randall, R.P. 2002. A Global Compendium of Weeds. R. G. and F. J. Richardson,
Meredith. Rattink, H. 1973. Fusarium infections in Aechmea fasciata . Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen, Rijk suniversiteit Gent. 38: 1417-1425 Redlin, S.C. 2003. PPQ Trip Report for Travel related to Greenhouse Plants ( Schlumbergera and Bromeliads) in Approved Gr owing Media (Netherlands and Denmark). Reed, C.F. 1977. Economically important fo reign weeds: Potential Problems in the United States. USDA Agricultu ral Handbook 498, Washington, DC. Reinert, J.A. 1981. Evaluation of Miticides for Control of Paracalacarus podocarpi on Podocarpus . Journal of Economic Entomology 74: 85 - 87. Robinson, D. 2002. USDA, APHIS, Nationa l Malacology Specia list. 2002. E-mail communication with M. Hennessey, April 2, 2002. Samyn, G., and F. Thomas. 1997. Thirty years of bromeliad breedi ng at the Research Station of Ornamental Plant Growing (Mel le, Belgium). Journal of the Bromeliad Society 47: 120-124. Samyn, G. and A.T. Wojdyla. 1994. Different methods for artificial in vivo inoculation of young bromeliads with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmea in function of resistance breeding. Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwkundge en Toegepaste Biologische Wetens chappen (Belgium) 59: 1047-1057.25 Santacroce, N.G. 1991. An Evaluation of Pe sts Associated With Packaged Peat, Rockwool and Expanded Clay and Their Association With Media in Greenhouse Production. USDA, APHIS, PPQ, Riverdale MD. Schubert, T. S. 1990. Epiphytic bromeliads on Fl orida trees. Plant Pa thology Circular No. 333,Florida Department of Agriculture a nd Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry. Stevens, R.B. (ed.). 1974. Mycology Guid ebook. University of Washington Press,
Seattle. USFWS. 2008. Threatened and endangered spec ies system (TESS). United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). http:/ /ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSWebpage. (Archived at PERAL) van der Plank, J.E. 1963. Plant Diseases: Epid emics and Control. Academic Press, New
York. Vanluchene, T.F. 1974. Bestrijding van Fusarium oxysporum op Aechmea fasciata Bak. met systemische fungicide. Medel. Rijkssta. Sierplantenteelt 32:1-16 Williams, D.J. and C.M. Granara de W illink, 1992. Mealybugs of Central and South America. CAB International. Wallingford.